Braid, Super Meat Boy, and Lone Survivor Added to Humble Indie Bundle V - <AUTHOR> http://www.humblebundle.com/?additions <comment><USER2> For those that have already bought: if you follow the link they emailed you, you can download the additional games.

</comment><comment><USER3> Not to be ungrateful, but any chance that we'll get soundtracks with these as well?

The addition of FLAC soundtracks was great..and for anyone who hasn't checked it out the Superbrothers: Sword & Sworcery EP soundtrack is _amazing_, as is Bastion's.

<comment><USER4> I've been listening to the Bastion soundtrack on repeat for the last week :-). I feel like it very much fits in the style of Firefly, but maybe that's just me.

<comment><USER5> The lyrical tracks are my favorite. Just fantastic music.

<comment><USER6> Especially Setting Sail, Coming Home (End Theme). Wonderful soundtrack.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Not implying that they don't deserve it (they absolutely do), but I'm blown away by how lucrative this is for the developers. With some reasonable assumptions, it looks like the original 5 developers have already made $300,000 each.

Quite a payday for games that have already been released for a while. I think (from my rough calculations) that's about what Braid made on its opening weekend.

<comment><USER8> I was just thinking how _not_ lucrative it is. When it's all said and done a 500k check for "free" down the road ain't bad, but it's not terribly impressive either when you consider these games truly are the best of the best. It's even less valuable if much time was required to port to Linux as is often the case.

Gamers have shown that they are willing to pay a whole entire dollar per game for some of the absolute best indie games released in recent years. I find that far more depressing than encouraging.

There's a reasonable argument to be made that the devaluation created by Humble Bundle and perhaps Steam sales cause more harm than good in the long run. Of course there's a reasonable argument they do more good than harm as well. It's interesting to consider but impossible to prove either way.

<comment><USER9> >Gamers have shown that they are willing to pay a whole entire dollar per game for some of the absolute best indie games released in recent years.

That assumes that people don't already own some of the games, and that they actually want all eight of the games. For instance, I already own Braid, Limbo and Psychonauts (and paid $10+ for each of them), so when the bundle came out I paid my $10 for Bastion and Sword and Sorcery (and I was only really interested in Bastion). Of the additions announced today, I already own Braid and SMB.

I think it's a lucrative week for the devs, but I think a bigger issue is that when you offer games so cheaply you significantly reduce your potential purchasing base for the future when you essentially give it away. That being said, I've seen plenty of stats which show game sales slow to a crawl very quickly unless you push it up with significant sales - it's not like 'work' software where a big sale can significantly decrease your perceived value (imagine if Adobe sold it's Creative Suite for 75% off once a year - no one would ever purchase at full price again!). Gamers are an impatient bunch and are prepared to pay full price for something they're really excited for.

You have to try and find out whether the increased volume generates more volume than it potentially removes in lost future sales, and I tend to think that it does - especially for games like Bastion which had a huge marketing effort when they were on Xbox Live Arcade which would have given them a lot of full-price exposure.

<comment><USER10> > ... you significantly reduce your potential purchasing base for the future > ...

It isn't quite that bad. You do get a whole bunch of money and customers at once. Is it better to have one dollar today from a customer than getting 5 dollars in several months time, from the same customer and have to spend all those intervening months doing marketing and other things to try and get the customer? Consider the price a discount for not having to spend the effort to get the customers.

You also get more certainty over your future. eg if you get a cheque today for $500k then you know how much you can spend making your next game. Getting the usual daily dribbles instead makes it far harder to plan for the future.

And of course you can add your game to multiple indie bundles over time so you do get multiple bites at the cherry so to speak.

<comment><USER9> Oh yes, of course. Like I said, these games are all several years old and have, I think mostly run their course in terms of full price sales, so I don't think these bundles significantly affect these game's future sales, and getting exposure to lots of people opens up opportunities for sales of sequels/future games.

Still, it'd be worth doing the maths on - if your game is still selling well, putting it in a bundle would be foolish.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I hope they show up in the ubuntu software center. They are pain to find (after installation) using the .deb files.

<comment><USER12> Considering I still haven't seen Psychonauts in the software center, I am prepared to be patient for these new games.

<comment><USER13> I believe Psychonauts is being delayed due to its massive size. I would not be surprised if there are technical hurdles for packaging it that need to be overcome for the Ubuntu team. We've actually received some support messages that certain file systems cannot actually contain a 4.5 GB file, which is a new one to me!

These new games, on the other hand, should be finished tonight.

<comment><USER11> Super meat boy was already there but cost some 6 dollars or something. Ubuntu software center seems like an alpha.

I am glad you guys integrated with this because I want the software center to be a successful product but are you as frustrated by it as the users are?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I've added the previous games to my Steam account, can I add these new ones which have just been added also? I'm not home to actually try this yet but it would be awesome to have these new games managed by Steam also. Since I purchased this bundle previously I'm wondering if that is possible.

<comment><USER15> Yep... if you follow the link you received previously, there's a new Steam key available for the added games.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I'm not even interested in these games but I went ahead and ordered a bundle for $8.50 just because I'm a huge fan of pay-what-you-want concepts and the Humble Bundle execution of this concept is awesome.

<comment><USER17> If you haven't played them, do yourself a favour and try them, they are all very good games and well worth their original prices.

<comment><USER18> I don't consider myself a huge wuss but I'm still only about half way through Amnesia -- make sure you play late at night with the lights off and good headphones on.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Alright chums. My home laptop can't have linux on it and be online. How do I buy this, and make it look like I paid for it on linux?

<comment><USER20> After you buy the bundle it lets you choose how to classify your purchase.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Why is this on the front page of HN?

<comment><USER22> Three possible explanations:

1) An example of an unusual pay-what-you-want business strategy that is EXTREMELY successful

2) An example of a successful start-up (Humble Bundle Inc.)

3) Cheap, "independent" games

<comment><USER21> That's what I think as well but this is the _fifth_ Humble Bundle and it's not even the official announcement, simply an addition to the original deal. I'm just a bit surprised this is of interest to so many HNers.

<comment><USER23> The Humble Bundles are the only reliable source of high-quality Linux- compatible games that I'm aware of, so I expect them to continue to get a fair bit of attention.

Though I voted this submission up because of its informational value. I saw it before I got an email about the update.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Any love for those of us who already bought this? I don't want to pay twice, especially considering the only other game I want that I don't already have is Super Meat Boy.

<comment><USER25> I just checked my download page, and the new additions are showing up even though I bought several days ago.

According to the front page, the new ones are for people that paid more than the average. If you have bastion but not the new three, then perhaps they were based on the average when added to the bundle. That's likely gone up, so if you paid less than the current average but more than the average when you paid you might not have gotten them.

<comment><USER26> You get the new games if you paid more than the average when you originally purchased. I paid $7, which was a bit more the average when I originally bought the bundle (day 1), and the new games show up in my account.

<comment><USER27> No. You get them if you paid any amount before they were added. I had payed well below average (buying foreign currency is currently very hard in my country) and I got the games added.

Also, from a recent interview with the guys from the bundle[1]:

 _RPS: Is there any temptation to have it be so you only get the extra games if you up your payment to above the average?

Richard Esguerra: No, I don't think so. That's not been discussed as an option, but it has been communicated internally that that would be gross. It feels like a bait and switch, you get penalised for buying earlier. That doesn't make any sense for customers. If there's anything that we're super- rabid about, it's about gamers – it's about the gamers' experience, about how awesome the experience of participating in a bundle is. Getting to pay what you want, getting to choose where the money goes. We want all that to be as awesome as possible, so we really try to avoid experiences where people will feel like, "Oh, why did I buy this when I did."_

[1][http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/06/07/humble-bundle- v-a...](http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/06/07/humble-bundle-v-added- braid-meat-boy-lone-survivor/#more-111053)</comment></comment></comment></comment>


What It's Really Like to Work at Google - <AUTHOR> http://www.lockergnome.com/social/2012/01/16/what-its-really-like-to-work-at-google/ <comment><USER4> I can tell that this was written by an outsider, because it focuses on the perks and rehashes several cliches that have made their way into the popular media but aren't all that accurate.

Most Googlers will tell you that the best thing about working there is having the ability to work on really hard problems, with really smart coworkers, and lots of resources at your disposal. I remember asking my interviewer whether I could use things like Google's index if I had a cool 20% idea, and he was like "Sure. That's encouraged. Oftentimes I'll just grab 4000 or so machines and run a MapReduce to test out some hypothesis." My phone screener, when I asked him what it was like to work there, said "It's a place where really smart people go to be average," which has turned out to be both true and honestly one of the best things that I've gained from working there.

A lot of the observations in the article fall out of this, but in ways that are less sound-bitey. Google doesn't enforce set working hours - you can get in as late as you want (the latest I've been in is around 4:15 PM, but that was because I had a DMV appointment, the latest from just not waking up was about 2:00), stay as late as you want (my latest was about 1:00 AM, though I worked from home until 6:00 AM last Thursday), duck out during the day if you're meeting a friend or have a date or need to pick a sick kid up from school, or work from home as necessary. You also don't have a set workload: you do as much work as you think is appropriate and then go home.

The thing is - you are surrounded by incredibly intelligent & fiercely hard- working people. Many of them were used to being top-dog at whatever institution they came from before - hell, many _were_ top dog (we have a lot of ex-startup-founders; there's a good chance that you're working with someone that's founded a company or originated a successful open-source project). And that can be a big adjustment, and the types of folks that Google typically hire usually react to not being on top by working harder. It's up to you to set limits on the amount of time you're willing to spend working, and most new hires at Google are used to being limited by "the amount of work my boss/professor/thesis advisor throws at me", not by the number of hours in the day.

<comment><USER5> _"It's a place where really smart people go to be average,"_

That really might be OK and might work if you are unmarried, without kids and living alone.

As you grow up to take more responsibilities. It definitely makes more career and financial sense to..

Be best among the average than to be average among the best.

<comment><USER6> It's makes financial sense to get someone to pay you your market value. Google knows how to give people good raises without them having to float themselves on the open market and threaten to leave. The process is transparent and well- documented.

Speaking from experience, Google's offer was lower than what I had in mind. But I couldn't find anyone else that would pay me more. That means I'm probably making the right amount of money. And the good news is, I know what I need to do to ensure that I get good raises. That's something that's never been clear to me at any other company; it was all "you did really well this year! thanks!" and then "oh sorry, no money for raises or bonuses". Google does not do that. It's the first place I've worked where I've thought, "wow, I won't have to quit in two years".

Also, you're not competing against other people, so being average is fine. To get promoted, you have to be good at your job and continually do good work. That's it. You don't have to be Guido to get promoted.

<comment><USER5> Firstly I'm from India, our salary structure differs from you in many ways.

Nice perspective. I definitely agree that Google is probably paying best among all.

My point was, If I can be the best guy in a team of average everyday software engineers. It makes my appraisals, appreciations and growth far more easy. At the same time if I'm average despite my best efforts and then it makes things a little difficult for me.

One more question to you. Unless there is a next 'Google' aren't you worried that you are already in the highest paying company(Forgive my ignorance If Im wrong, or there are companies are that pay more than Google in the US) and moving onto something else may not get you a better hike than what you have now?

<comment><USER6> _My point was, If I can be the best guy in a team of average everyday software engineers. It makes my appraisals, appreciations and growth far more easy. At the same time if I'm average despite my best efforts and then it makes things a little difficult for me._

I don't think this is true; you'll be working on projects that are appropriate for your level, and improvements you make to these projects are what your promotions will be based on. If you're new to programming, your first task might be to rewrite library X to use library Y. If you're a PhD, you might be asked to make Google's indexing 10% more efficient. If you do a good job at the tasks you choose, then you get promoted. You don't have to be the smartest to be well-paid. Google needs average people as much as it needs geniuses.

 _One more question to you. Unless there is a next 'Google' aren't you worried that you are already in the highest paying company and moving onto something else may not get you a better hike than what you have now?_

I'm not worried about this. Google has a career path that will last me for as long as I want to be at Google. If someone offered massively more money, I might leave. If Google is paying me market salary, then I don't want to leave. It's the best job I've ever had.

<comment><USER5> Frankly it looks like dream work environment to every nerd.

Someday I would like to work at a place like that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> When I was younger, I would have considered the Google environment to be perfect. A utopia for software engineers - especially if you have to be in the suburbs like Mountain View. The size would never have worked for me, but seeing something similar implemented at a startup level would have been my dream.

Now on my fourth startup, I feel it's unhealthy for the employees and the company. Having everyone's life revolve around a corporate culture is stifling. Employees lose perspective and balance. They lose touch with people who are not like them. Monoculture develops; groupthink flourishes.

It is a dangerous thing to be completely dependent on a company for basic necessities or for your friends. It makes it hard to leave everything you knew behind. It makes people defensive when any criticism of the company is raised since it attacks their way of life.

While a comfortable work environment is important, I reject the idea that employees should be encouraged, even passively, to stay at work all the time. I think employees should have a life outside of work involving people who aren't at the company and don't work in tech.

<comment><USER8> Even if I could make it past the interview stage, I would never want to work at Google.

No matter how nice the work environment is it still feels like they are prettying up a cage. They make it feel like you can come and go and blur the line between life and work..but you are still just an employee. You can't build a company on the side while working at Google (without their blessing or cut) and you are still told what to do.

<comment><USER9> Google also owns on all software their employees produce on their own time. That type of cult mentality would be the most troubling thing for me to deal with.

<comment><USER4> Not precisely. They're bound by the same California (or whatever the local jurisdiction) laws that everyone else is. The laws state that the employer has no claim to any IP developed by the employee "on their own time, without use of company resources, and not along the lines of business of the company".

The problem is that third clause - since Google operates in so many businesses, there is a potential conflict of interest with virtually anything you might want to do. Google's policy is no different from any other employer's. It's just that if you work at a financial software company and want to develop a social network, you are not competing with your employer. If you work at Facebook and want to develop a trading platform, you are not competing with your employer (yet; who knows what they got planned?). If you work at Google and try to develop either of those, you are competing with official Google products (Google+ and Google Finance, respectively).

There's a procedure in place to clarify whether any IP developed on your own time conflicts with current or present lines of Google's business. I don't know the exact numbers, but IIRC they release about 70% of proposals back to their owners. You can, of course, just take your chances and develop the software anyway; lack of an official release does not mean Google owns your software, it just means Google _might_ own your software, and that's up to a court of law to decide. But who wants to fight Google's legal department? And most VCs or acquirers won't go near you if there's any legal uncertainty surrounding your startup.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> FWIW, this doesn't especially match my experience at Google. (I was an engineer there for four years, ending about a year and a half ago. I doubt things have changed drastically since then.)

Most of the descriptions about the environment and perks are accurate, though the article may somewhat exaggerate the extent to which people participate. However, I never felt pressure to devote my life to the company, and certainly there was no direct connection between hours worked and compensation.

Long term, the biggest personal variables in Google compensation are promotions and stock grants. The biggest determinant of those, in turn (luck and politics aside) is a perception that you're doing important/great work. Burning the midnight oil is not necessarily going to help with that, and it's certainly not the only way to get there.

Maybe the culture is different in other parts of the company. But I don't think it could be that different... there's a deliberate process for bringing people together from different parts of the organization to make decisions on promotions.

</comment><comment><USER11> Disclaimer: I'm no expert only having worked here for little more than a year (true veterans can speak to Google culture far better than I) but I'll add my perspective.

None of this rings false although there's not really that much substance to the piece and certainly nothing new.

I will add two things:

1\. You get as much out of it as you put in; and

2\. As an employee you are empowered.

(2) can be a little hard to explain. Basically the rules (apart from a few like keeping confidences and not doing anything criminal) are really guidelines. A lot of effort is made to accommodate outliers. Let's face it, there are some engineers who are quite brilliant but have a lot of, well, idiosyncrasies.

Also if you need to work early, late or need new hardware or whatever you use your discretion because if you ask for something you'll probably get it but the culture of being "Googley" includes not getting or doing things just because you can. Use your judgement.

Oh in New York it's a little different. Commutes can be a lot smaller (I'm a 5 minute walk from work) so there's not as much of an issue with crazy hours because the travel time, being a fixed cost, may jot encourage you to make the most of it, as it were.

<comment><USER12> Sounds like a great place to work. I got out of web dev for companies in San Francisco around the time I saw a client bill and realized they were charging 5-6x my hourly for my work to clients. Still, what you do for a company like Google would be a lot harder to quantify (or explain to a client), and it's probably a lot more personally gratifying.

I'm probably an asshole to say this, but I'm reasonably sure I could've gotten a job with Google in 2001-2; and at that point I didn't want to work in that kind of office. I went back to LA and drove a taxi for a year and a half, and wrote a novel, to clear my head.

The thing that makes me flinch about it is the competitive nature of the job, even if your job _shouldn't_ have to be competitive. The open offices, the personal time, all of these things make you run _faster_ rather than being allowed to slow down and think. And if you get to thinking about who you're running for...who knows? As insulated as you are from the clients -- which is great -- you also almost never get to see the direct result of your own work. So what emerges is this endless Senior Year of High School, where everyone's waiting to be recommended or get their acceptance letters, while partially slacking off while looking like they're on their best behavior. I'm not sure that's a way I'd be willing to spend my life.

I make about 1/5th what you do, probably, for about the same level of work and commitment to my own startup. But I don't envy your job.

<comment><USER13> >I went back to LA and drove a taxi for a year and a half, and wrote a novel, to clear my head.

How did that work out for you? Was it a good use of your time? Given how things worked out, do you think you would make the same choice again?

>The open offices, the personal time, all of these things make you run faster rather than being allowed to slow down and think. And if you get to thinking about who you're running for...who knows?

I've noticed the same thing. It's not just offices that make it difficult to close down and think, the entire world seems to pull us forward. Every moment pulls you to the next, there's always something to be anticipated and worked towards. How much time is spent thinking about what needs to be done for the day, what email to respond to first, whether to eat pork or chicken for dinner, what to listen to, etc., and not just living in actual present. Even our senses serve as stimuli to motivate us to act. Given how strongly and persistently these forces act to divert our awareness from the present, I think there is a lot to be gained by attempting to understand why this is so.

<comment><USER12> >How did that work out for you? Was it a good use of your time?

Well, I wrote this novel, right, about the 2004 presidential election; where I posited that Bush declares a fake terrorist attack, and DHS uses it as a reason to start herding liberals into concentration camps, and only this rock band on tour somehow escapes it, and they end up going and blowing up Bush and Cheney.

Would I take it back? Fuck no. But pretty soon after I finished it I had hundreds of hits from DHS, DoD, bases in Iraq, etc., and white unmarked Crown Vics were driving by my bungalow in the middle of the night. After they broke in and stole our laptops and papers and the LAPD couldn't figure out why they didn't take my money or my shotgun, we lived at Motel 6 for a month and fled to Argentina. Tried to stay out of the US since then. Spent a year in Australia, a year or two in southeast asia, and then Europe. Started a Bitcoin casino in my free time. Gave myself to drinking, smoking, drugs, snails and foie gras.

I would never, ever take back my decision to drive a taxi in LA, or write that book. It was the most eye-opening experience of my life. When I went to San Fran after high school in '97, I had $1800 in savings and moved into the Hotel Nazareth, Jones & Geary, where the hookers next door and the crackheads on the street screaming kept me up all night. There was no phone. I walked to the Hilton every day in my fucking only suit, and used the payphones to call every single ad agency and design firm in the city. Went for an interview with Bear Magazine, which was terrifying (they offered me $33k, more than I make now, ironically) -- twelve giant hairy guys turning around to welcome you while you try to be interested in whether they're using Quark or Pagemaker. Took a job for $22k to spare my psychiatry bill, working for a bunch of douchebags doing web bubbgle 1.0 on Green Street.

Anyway, would I change in my time under the russian mob driving for bell cab? No way in hell. It was an exploration of the soul. I learned things about the human condition, the human soul, that can only be put into a novel, where no one believes them.

<comment><USER14> That's a fascinating story.

 _But pretty soon after I finished it I had hundreds of hits from DHS, DoD, bases in Iraq, etc., and white unmarked Crown Vics were driving by my bungalow in the middle of the night_

I'm surprised that writing a fictional novel can get you that kind of treatment. Do you think that it was perceived as a plan to be carried out?

 _It was the most eye-opening experience of my life._

In what way? And what are you doing now?

<comment><USER12> The book's still online. It's a farce. It was never meant to be taken seriously. No one in their right mind would consider it a legitimate threat. Although that didn't stop DHS from considering it one. I wrote it based on a few kids I knew in a band who didn't give a crap about politics, and what would happen to them if Bush got re-elected and declared a state of emergency while they were all high and on tour. I wrote it in a about three weeks.

It's called American Apocalypse. <http://www.joshstrike.com/amap/> In some weird way I think it's kind of a precursor to Cory Doctro's novel Little Brother, which I love; he swears he never read mine; and AA was written a pretty critical 4-5 years earlier. But there are still some striking similarities.

Now...I'm basically a freelance coder like everyone else. Lived overseas for the last seven years. Write, play music, travel to countries where it's cheap; live in a suitcase; drink and smoke a lot. American Apocalypse was the last novel I wrote. There were five others. There wasn't much point. Better to just stfu and make web, like a friend of mine says.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Speaking as a fairly recent Google hire: No, this is not what it's really like to work at Google.

I considered writing more, but really, what else is there to say? Working at Google is not defined by the presence of cafeterias, alcoholism is not a way of life, and overwork is no more prevalent than any other Silicon Valley company I've worked at.

<comment><USER16> Seconded.

<comment><USER17> Thirded.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> It doesn't seem to me that the father of the 18-month old son is trading the chance to spend time with his offspring for cold hard work, but rather trading it for salsa dancing classes, a couple of pints at the bar with his friends, and whatever else fancies him out of the thousands of distractions on campus.

I've heard all too many stories of people "working" insane hours at Google only to find out that they're merely _working_ normal hours and spending the rest of their time _living_ at Google. And it's great to have the option to do that.

(Disclaimer: I've been working/living at Google for 2.5 months now.)

<comment><USER19> During my time there I remember on guy who was at the office a lot, at dinner time his family would come to Google and eat dinner with him at Charlie's. Sometimes on weekends they would eat lunch with him too.

Just before I left, Google started trying to enforce the 1 guest a month 'rule' where you had to sign in with both who you were visiting, and whether or not you were going to eat a meal. If you were, your guest badge would say 'guest (meal)'. I guess the idea was that one could algorithmically filter out folks who were abusing the option. The security guys would hassle the folks who didn't have '(meal)' on their guest badges.

I saw a _lot_ of people who were visiting "Larry Page, guest (meal)" and I thought that was pretty funny. I also noticed that this guy who used to spend time with his family at meal times now didn't. I felt badly for him. I could not decide if he had been abusing Google before by abusing his 'guest' privilege or if Google was abusing him now by not allowing him this option for some family time. A little of both I guess.

<comment><USER4> He does have the option of going home for dinner, just like at any other company. Most of my teammates with families do that.

<comment><USER6> I haven't noticed any limit on guests at Google NYC, either. I was never under the impression that Google didn't want you to have guests.

(I did read something suggesting that you should feel bad for eating more than $3 worth of microkitchen stuff per day. I don't think I hit the $3 threshold, but if I did, I wouldn't feel bad.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I've been at Google two years, in the Cambridge office. I work pretty long hours, but part of that is because work is my hobby. I'd be working on the ext4 file system whether Google paid me or not. It's something that I'm passionate about it. Heck, even if I won a lottery and had a $20 million dollar windfall, I'd probably still be working there, because it's incredibly fun working with lots of smart people, and I'm at a place where I can definitely and directly see how my work is making a difference.

So people who talk about it as being a velvet cage have gotten it all wrong. It's a cage, if you want to call it a cage, that I've chosen of my own free will; it's how I've wanted to spend my time even before I joined Google. Google has simply removed obstacles from allowing me to work on my passion as much as I like; in general, I think it's fair to say that Google wants to find people who are smart and passionate at what they do; those for whom their work is a joy, and not just something they do so they can put bread on the table.

As far as promotions are concerned, the criteria at least for software engineers is pretty simple: it's a matter of demonstrating that you are already working at your new level, in terms of technical expertise, scope of your work, and impact to the company. As far as I'm concerned, that's the way it should be at any company where good engineers would want to hang their hat.

</comment><comment><USER21> I work there. Its been four and a lot years. I don't work in mountain view, though.

working hours: I average 40h a week. Which is what all the studies say is optimal. The key perk here is picking your hours. If I'm feeling hungover, I work less. If I'm on a roll, I work more. If I have to wait at home for half a day to let in my landlord or something, thats fine. As long as work get done, no one cares. no one clock-watches. I do think there is a correlation between working hard and getting promoted, but its not that strong a correlation - <USER2> last promotion came at the end of working 40h weeks... I can't imagine people feeling like they have to leave because they aren't putting in stupid hours.

boozing: there is a certain amount of company paid for drink. there is a certain amount of people bringing in booze. However, the line has been drawn about having a drink and then working. And really, on the scale of drinking, google is kinda lame. At tgif I think the most I've managed is a couple of beers.

Another twist on the "smart people" thing: its not about everyone being smart, its about no one being stupid. I don't have to spend tons of my time explaining stuff to people. I don't have any co-workers where it would be faster to do their work for them.

grades etc: I do run into people who name drop uni or test results or whatever, but most of the time, no one cares. I work with people who studied a subject completely different to computers at uni. I work with people who never bothered with uni. I do think there a bits of the company where going to mit over random uni still matters, but I don't work with those bits.

My big dislike is that its a big company - there is lots of existing code and systems, some of which is showing its age, its hard to change company policy on the big issues, you do feel like one in X cogs, and there is a lot of internal bikeshedding.

</comment><comment><USER22> This sounds very much like how it is to work at DESY and CERN. However, at CERN and even more so at DESY, the general environs are not _that_ pleasant. CERN can be pretty sweet, although many of the buildings don't have aircon and the furniture and computers can be outdated. DESY is worse and just tore up its soccer pitch a couple of years ago to build on top of it.

The canteens at CERN are pretty good, but the canteen at DESY is dire. However, there seems to be the same easy-going, yet intensely competitive dominated-by-young-clever-people vibe at Google as I've seen at these labs. I wonder if they took any inspiration from particle physics labs when they designed their offices?

<comment><USER23> """but the canteen at DESY is dire""" mmmm... restaurant 3? :)

I've been working at CERN and I think is not comparable. Your salary doesn't depend on the hours you spend on the project, AFAIK there are no bonuses. Also some buildings (like 33) close at 7 during weekdays and if you want a coffee, a snack or to take a shower you need to ask for special permision to enter. You're not encouraged to do extra hours(although I did...a lot)

<comment><USER22> I actually worked on the St Genis side and ate at resto 3 a lot...I agree it's bad, but it's still much, much better than the DESY canteen. There are no words...when I lived in Hamburg, I used to eat PausenBrot from the vending machines rather than visit the canteen. And CERN's resto 2 in the summer is lovely, I think! I always put on weight at CERN.

CERN staff members may not be encouraged to do extra hours, but all students and post-docs (and a lot of faculty!) that I know must work 60+ hours a week. (Do you know anyone in physics that works 35-40 hours a week?) Partly because they like the job and partly because the competition is so fierce. At DESY, we worked 10am-10pm most days and people were on their computers at home. You're right that your compensation does not depend upon hours worked, but a lot of the time your reputation and the number of publications do - <USER3> reputation and publications, you don't get your next grant.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> > The software engineer I spoke with...

One is not a valid sample. Other than a single persons perspective, everything else is speculation.

Disclaimer: I work for Google.

</comment><comment><USER25> This is article is very light on evidence, citing one engineer the author spoke with.

Having worked there I'd say the article is unfairly one-sided. There are plenty of Googlers who maintain a normal work-life balance.

</comment><comment><USER26> It's strange how this article praises what appears to be a lifestyle that's utterly devoted to and centered a corporation as a good thing. The guy spends his day doing Google things (some work, some merely provided by Google), goes home and sees his family for a couple hours, does a few more Google things, then goes to bed.

Surely our lives should involve more than that.

<comment><USER27> Perhaps the guy feels his work is important and derives personal satisfaction from it. That might make him happier in the long run and a better husband and father.

<comment><USER9> Or maybe this guy has become convinced that devoting his most productive years to help a corporation earn more profit is more rewarding than building a business where he owns 100% of his work.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> The sentiment I have is that of the 30 year old. When I was 19 and working as a hardware and software designer at a start up, my boss found out that I had come in on a Saturday and worked all day. I thought it was cool and awesome to design hardware, and then write the firmware for it.

He was #5 out of 120 employees with 20+ years of experience. He took me to the side and said, one day, you will have a family. Working on the weekend and long hours should not be something you strive for. He worked 9 to 5, and so did the rest of the team.

I'm 33 now and have a 2 month old. I work 9 to 5 Mon to Friday. No more, no less. His was the best advice ever given by a manager of mine. Only took me 14 years to "get it" :)

</comment><comment><USER29> Wow, was the Jonestown reference really necessary? That was a low-class move to pull at the end.

</comment><comment><USER30> Another googler here. I don't see people over working. My boss, who I totally respect as a programmer, leaves at 5pm every day. So did my previous boss. Both have families. Both work hard the entire time they are at Google. Both go home at a reasonable hour.

I'd say the same of pretty much all my teammates. The place is nearly empty by 7pm but none of them were slacking during the day.

I also agree with another googler's post here. Google, more than any other company I've worked with, tries to make sure nothing gets in your way. Need another monitor, hard drive, more ram, higher desk, cable, mouse, keyboard. They just give it to you asap. Need another machine, ask your boss. I've never been denied, machine shows up asap.

Compare this to my previous job where our build server was out of space and it took 6 EFFING MONTHS FOR THEM TO A APPROVE A $100 hard drive! WTF!!!

The perks are nice and also help you get more done in less time so you can go have your life. Not having to drive to a gym = 10-20 minutes of your life back. Being able to see a doctor on campus if you want means 20-40 minutes of your life back. Eating lunch on campus also probably means, on average, 30 mins a day of your life back although you are welcome to take a long lunch. I'd say at least twice a week some of my coworkers and I walk to a different building for lunch for the walk.

Other perks include a gazillion talks. (<http://www.youtube.com/user/GoogleTechTalks/videos>). That's obviously not the entire list but I've personally not worked at a company before where I could go attend anything other than team meetings.

I've worked far more hours at every previous job. Usually because of bad management. I'm not trying to say Google is perfect but most of the people trying to find issues seem to be grasping at straws and making stuff up.

</comment><comment><USER31> The experience of people I know at Google seems to vary incredibly based on direct supervisor (like any company) and the specific project you're doing. There are people I know who have gotten stuck on high-revenue but to-them uninteresting teams, couldn't easily shift to other parts of google, so they left.

If you could get the right team (and had a cool direct supervisor, or had enough status to force this), it seems like a pretty awesome place to work. If you want to have a huge impact, working for a company like Google or Facebook, in the right capacity, pretty much guarantees it. Not having to worry if checks will clear, if kitchens will be stocked, etc. is a nice benefit on top of that.

(If I could get the job of "make Android the most secure mobile OS, using some of the stuff from ChromeOS, and utterly crush all other mobile platforms in the Enterprise, I'd be really tempted; or the same thing for an EC2-killer from Google, also built around security.)

</comment><comment><USER32> Google still and probably will always appeal to me as a team I'd join to solve hard problems. Even if they invent some of those problems themselves. I'm all for seeing your family but I think you can strike a balance. Google can put in a single room several great thinkers and engineers where 100 years from now people will look back and marvel.

</comment><comment><USER33> It's one thing to say there's no set hours, it's another thing entirely to be in a place where you're surrounded by workaholics and your performance is measured on what you produce -- think about it: if you don't burn yourself at both ends, you'll be on the low end of productivity.

</comment><comment><USER34> The article suggests (ok, it does more than suggest) that one receives promotions at Google based on how hard one works or how many hours one puts in. Is that really the case? Shouldn't it be based on how effectively you work, i.e. your contribution to the company?

<comment><USER6> Of course. Is there any real job where you get promoted regardless of the quality of your work? (I guess postal clerks get promoted every 10 years or whatever. But you know what I mean.)

Google is like every company I've ever worked for, except that instead of the promise of promotions, people actually do get promoted.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> One very positive thing about Google is that it is like the Jupiter of the software solar system, sweeping up many of the most self absorbed, "look at me" people in the industry. That's not meant to be derogatory or a sweeping statement (some people relish in their self absorption), but it's nice that many of these people are in one spot.</comment>


Is DropBox Decrypt something we need to worry about? - <AUTHOR>

Aside from probably being a good idea to look at a local alternative which I saw mentioned on here to day or yesterday, I am curious, is this something we need to be concerned about?
http://www.magnetforensics.com/decrypting-the-dropbox-filecache-dbx-file-new-free-tool/
I was looking to find out what the files were, why they are so large, do they need to be backed up, etc. And then, ran into a way to decrypt them.
Suggestions and opinions? <comment><USER2> That isn't a security issue.

If you have access to the encrypted DropBox cache you likely also have access to the raw files themselves (via both DropBox and the File System) and also have the meta data stored elsewhere (e.g. filesystem, backups, restore points, et al).

The fact that DropBox even encrypts that is "cute." The fact they encrypt it using the LSASS makes it almost worth while (almost). But realistically there are very few scenarios outside of computer forensics where this kind of thing is useful to someone.

The reason it is useful to them is: They may not have a warrant for your DropBox (but do have your computer in their possession). The files are deleted locally but on DropBox, so they can leverage the cache to get a warrant for DropBox.

As a note tons of other stuff caches meta data within unencrypted SQLite databases such as Skype, Chrome, Firefox, Thunderbird, et al. It isn't a security issue there either as your user is meant to have access to this (just as with DropBox).

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the reply. One of my main issues is just knowing what the files are and what they can be used for against me potentially.

They are in ~ in a dir that is a .dir so hidden from 90% ( guessing ) of most casual DB users. If someone were to delete their home files, by putting them in the trash, they may think they deleted their DropBox data too, but they would be wrong.

It was that scenario I was concerted about, or at least, wanted to know more about so I could be sure to delete those files and know it is safe to do so, and won't harm the files stored in my DropBox on other machines, or in a recovery procedure.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> If you're concerned about this sort of thing (which I think we all should be) you can use something like boxcryptor.

</comment><comment><USER4> Decryption helps.</comment>


The questions no one ever asks about the mythical Apple HDTV - <AUTHOR> http://www.tuaw.com/2014/05/12/the-questions-no-one-ever-asks-about-the-mythical-apple-hdtv/

<comment><USER2> The end of the article maybe got it right : what if the apple tv really was just the Apple Tv ? The one already being sold. Jobs was quoted as saying that he finally found the solution to TV. What if it meant to completely separate any kind of intelligence from the big heavy screen to move it aside in a small easy to replace box ?

That would be funny. People gossiping about a product without realizing it's already on sale :)

</comment><comment><USER3> The analysts and tech media pundits always bring up a possible watch or TV as apple's next blockbuster, game changing product. But making TVs by itself doesn't sound like a good business decision to me. It would be hard to maintain healthy margins if they have to fragment their hardware production to cover something as costly as making next generation, HD televisions.

I guess the only real upside of an Apple TV (for Apple), is that its in their most critical interest to be in every media and communication interaction of one's day to day life. If Apple makes your phone, your computer, your tablet, your car's software, your music player AND your TV, they will pretty much have a figurative monopoly over your attention and an endless spectrum to sell you things via iTunes. Given that, tighter margins might be somewhat of a trade off for more presence in the life of an Apple user/Apple using family.

</comment><comment><USER4> I've written similar things myself in the past[0].

The bit missed by the article is the complexity of supporting global broadcasts so I think an AppleTV would be IP (and HDMI) only.

I'm sure the UI would be great but you don't use the UI much on a TV, you out what you want on and then you watch.

I argued that the best reason to enter the TV market would be to hurt Samsung rather than to make big profits.

Of course, mobile phone pundits got the iPhone wrong so it is possible that I'm completely wrong.

[0] [http://blog.jtl.me.uk/apple-tv-the-market- challenges](http://blog.jtl.me.uk/apple-tv-the-market-challenges)

<comment><USER5> TV that doesn't pick up broadcast TV = huge market failure.

It's not _that_ hard, you only need a couple of different options ( [https://www.dvb.org/news/worldwide](https://www.dvb.org/news/worldwide) ) which could be implemented on a daughterboard PCB as wireless often is.

<comment><USER4> It is harder than you think and it isn't a hardware issue. It is software but annoying finicky differences. DVB has a huge range of options and different settings/modes/behaviours are mandated in different markets. Even in Europe there are the DtG requirements in the UK (Ireland has similar requirements), Nordig that covers Scandanavia but even within that there are particular certification requirements for RiksTV in Norway. Italy has particular requirements including MHP support. CI (common interface) support is mandatory on European TVs. UI affecting details too such as the quantity and validity of EPG data, whether channel reordering is allowed (actually channel numbering is something that there are many different ways to broadcast).

Don't get me wrong, Apple could do this if they wanted to but it is the sort of hard gruntwork boring, almost pointless tweaking to globalise products that I think they wouldn't do. They would just give you a TV that could access sufficient IP services to be valuable rather than dilute the experience by handling broadcast.

Many people already do not connect their TV to a broadcast signal, especially in the US but in many other areas where STB based pay TV is common. It might not be as much of a showstopper as you think and if anyone can get away with it Apple can.

<comment><USER6> Then again, Apple had the same problem with the iPhone. They managed to solve it by lanching in a few countries first and working tightly with selected mobile operators.

I agree that it's hard, but they've shown the willingness to do hard and boring things before and take their time, launching in markets when they're ready (look at how long it took them to launch on Verizon).

However, the cable and sattelite providers also have a huge interest in pushing their own set-top boxes loaded with their streaming services etc. So I think the real issue isn't just software, it's politics and contract negotiations.

I don't think Apple is going to be happy with a situation where customer spend 90% of their time pushing buttons on a non-Apple remote control. So they probably won't be relying on set-top boxes unless they think they have such a compelling story on the content side that most people won't bother with the set-top box.

<comment><USER4> I mostly agree with you. It isn't impossible but I still don't think that they will as they know the profit on the table isn't all that large.

TVs aren't as bad as phones were when the iPhone launched. Browsers were rubbish, data cost pounds per Megabyte and screens were small. The iPhone was disruptive. An Apple TV which did not come with enough content available to ignore broadcast/STBs would be competitive at the high end but not disruptive. And the vast bulk of the market is low end (well under $1000). I could be wrong but I don't see the room for Apple blockbuster in that market.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Apple hasn't had trouble selling 27"/30" Displays and iMacs before, if they can handle those, they can handle a HDTV display. An Apple TV Set just needs two things:

1\. Input ZERO for Airplay. When you airplay a video from your phone/iPad, the TV turns on automatically and starts playing the video without you having to find the crappy TV and receiver remotes and switching to the right input.

2\. The ability to upgrade easily by just plugging in a new $99 puck whenever you want to take advantage of a new service that requires more processing speed.

<comment><USER8> These features aren't going to produce Apple margins in the TV space.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I'm pretty sure if we ever see the Apple TV, it will be an entirely different UX than what we have become accustomed to. Just like you don't compare your smart "phone" with a classic "phone", you probably won't compare your Apple TV with a classic TV. They will be the same only in name and form factor, but the experience and functionality will be much different.

<comment><USER10> Please can we stop referring to "experiences" when we are talking about operating a gadget? I can't see how the "experience" will differ much anyway. You sit in front of a TV and watch it. The only bit that Apple are likely to change is the navigation, which is interacting with the interface for a few seconds before watching the show you want.

<comment><USER11> It seems to me that it's exactly 'experience' of a gadget that has become more and more important, now that non-geeks are using them en masse. And more and more companies are finally realizing that.

Before, the 'consumer' didn't care that his computer was a beige box that required cryptic text commands to work. Now, in large part because Apple (among others) has focused on the 'experience', my grandma is using computers (a tablet, for now).

Before, I had friends ask me how important feature x was when buying an 'mp3 player', and advertisements focused on megapixels and memory and whatnot. Now, people expect their music player to be designed for ease of use, ease of syncing, and pleasant to the senses. I don't remember the last time anyone asked me about megapixels.

The 'only bit' Apple did with the iPhone, I'd say, was to change the way you interact with the device. Most individual components in themselves were subpar compared to other devices on the market, and I'm not event sure if the touchscreen was particularly innovative. And yet, it not only made Apple a ton of money, it literally changed in a short time how people relate to 'computers'.

Honestly, if I take a step back, I'm still amazed at how a company that focuses mainly on 'experiences' has played a crucial role in transforming society's relation to technology in such a short time. I still recall a time, not long before the iPhone, where I was self-conscious about using a PDA with a calendar and whatnot, because that was such a nerdy thing to do.

Even if you don't care that much about 'experiences' (I myself don't, to a degree, what with using the command-line whenever I can), it's difficult to argue that it's not important.

<comment><USER10> Its like recruitment consultants. They never have an job, they have an "opportunity".

Technically it is correct but we don't need to overemphasize everything.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> You know which product is overdue for apple-style innovation ?

The macbook air.

<comment><USER13> And the thunderbolt display dangit. $999 is too damn high.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> This assumes that all a TV needs is picture quality. But a TV could & should show dynamic content by knowing the difference between me and my roommate.

Or what about enabling augmented experiences with my phone?

There's plenty of room for innovation outside of just a quality picture.

</comment><comment><USER8> I think the Apple TV will be elliptical and so instead of sometimes having black bars when fitting content's resolution you'll always have four (active) parabolic edges (of varying size) that can display various info -- time/channel/chapter/url/subtitles/your friends' faces/etc.

The main reason for making an oval tv will of course be the novelty and design patent protection.

<comment><USER5> Like the [http://keracolor.blogspot.co.uk/](http://keracolor.blogspot.co.uk/) ? (1968)

<comment><USER8> I imagine we'll see a lot of this in 2021 from Samsung apologists when the trial gets underway.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: How do you decide what is going to be your next side project? - <AUTHOR> Beside on researching on the internet and asking to your friends and family their opinion. Is there any other strategy, trick, magic, ... for you to go for a specific idea? <comment><USER2> I will make something useful for myself.

</comment><comment><USER3> Something you think could make a million bucks. That will give you motivation to finish!</comment>


Here's how Russian hackers could actually tip an American election - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2016/08/30/could-hackers-tip-an-american-election-you-bet/ <comment><USER2> When Trump was down in the polls and said the voting machines were vulnerable - mocked by the media.

Now he's up in the polls, Russia is about to hack the election.

Putin put a lot of money the Clinton's way. HRC is saying cyber attacks will be responding to by military force. Then the media runs stories about Russian interference an the election.

HRC and the DNC are the true fearmongers in this race.</comment>


Show HN: Stretchbit – your personal health coach - <AUTHOR> https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.nolimit.stretchbit&referrer=utm_source%3Dycombinator <comment><USER2> Would probably be useful if this could be viewed on a desktop, is that in the pipeline? IMO apps have a much higher hurdle for first checking out whether they're actually useful or not.

<comment><AUTHOR> We had a deskop version, which was harder for users to adopt. We might need to return it.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Stretchbit is a personal health coach for people working long hours on a computer. You can now have access to a combination of easy to follow exercises and a professional health coach. Make your day fun and active, while building healthy habits! Try it, it's easy! [http://stretchbit.com/](http://stretchbit.com/)

<comment><USER3> Just tried to sign up and I can't paste in a password into the input. This means I can't use a password manager :) So I didn't sign up.

<comment><USER4> I haven't checked it out (iPhone user) but I'm curious. Why does an app that reminds you to stretch need a user account?

<comment><AUTHOR> One more thing to note here -> Stretchbit's features do not include reminders only. The app provides you with a set of several stretching exercises targeted towards a particular body area (hands, wrists, legs, glutes, eyes, etc.).

Then, it guides you throughout the full stretching workout which takes anywhere between 2-5 minutes.

This week we released 6 professional stretching programs as well - for good posture, flexible lower-back, joint health in the office, toning exercises, etc.

I hope this gave a little bit more clarity on what the app looks like :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> That looks awesome! Unfortunately there is zero chance I'll use an app for this, especially if I'm at home on my computer.

Why would I switch up to a smaller screen and the worse experience you get on a phone?

</comment><comment><USER6> I suffer a lot of neck and shoulder pain, my girlfriend too. We changed the bed and the pillows and it remains. I just downloaded the app to give it a try. So far, so good.

<comment><AUTHOR> For the shoulder pain - here are some insights on the topic:

1\. If you have previously suffered from any shoulder injury or ailment, it is good to regularly perform a few simple range-of-motion exercises to keep your shoulder muscles and tendons properly stretched and flexible. This will avoid recurrence or a frozen shoulder.

2\. Drink a few glasses of warm lemon water daily to prevent mineral deposits in the joints that can cause pain in your shoulder (and other body parts).

3\. Cold compresses are great for alleviating shoulder pain.

4\. Hot compresses also help treat shoulder pain, inflammation, and swelling.

5\. Massage is another good way to reduce shoulder pain :D

6\. Vitamin D is important for cartilage and muscle functioning. Lack of vitamin D in the body can cause general muscle pain and muscle cramps.

7\. Ginger contains antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties that help reduce pain and inflammation of any kind, including shoulder pain. Ginger tea is great IMO :D

8\. Do not forget to stretch with Stretchbit daily. Healthy habits will help you get rid of the problem

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Tried the app. The program for good posture was nice. Would try the other ones as well. Are there any other features planned for the app?

<comment><AUTHOR> Also, in the Knowledge feature we are planning to add articles, how-to's, guides, etc. on stretching, physiotherapy, and why #movementismedicine. Would you be interested if we feature professionals from around the world? They can be yogis, flexibility profs, stretching profs, etc.</comment></comment>


9 million hits/day with 120 megs RAM - <AUTHOR> http://tumbledry.org/2011/08/31/9_million_hits_day_with_120 <comment><USER2> Blogs really don't need a PHP, Rails, or anything backend. It's static content.

Here's how I think blogging should work:

1\. Visit a web app where you create your blog post, add pictures, use your rich text editor, that sort of thing.

2\. Click the "Publish" button, which generates static HTML and runs any other processing like tag generation or pngcrush.

3\. Your static HTML gets pushed out to some server that does the hosting for you. It could even be one of those really cheap shared hosting providers.

If you really want comments, let someone like Disqus or Intense Debate handle it. Pretty much any dynamic feature you need can be outsourced.

<comment><USER3> That's pretty much how MovableType used to work.

Fun fact: it was terrible. Most bloggers I know hated it.

Wordpress is a bucket of poop too, but it has the quality that when you press 'publish', the site is updated in seconds, not minutes.

(I believe MT has changed since then).

<comment><USER4> It's how Greymatter and a few other systems used to work as well. The main problem was determining which pages should be updated, which usually resulted in the entire blog being rebuilt. This took several minutes if you had a few years of archives, and if anything went wrong part-way through the process you had to start it all again.

<comment><USER3> I've ruminated in the past about a better blogging system based on updating on-disk caches based on POST and not GET. I think everybody who watches Wordpress trip over and burst into flames when you so much as _breathe_ on it has.

The main problem to solve is inter-page dependency. The rest is not that hard /famouswords.

<comment><USER4> You can get too carried away with scalability though. I run half a dozen WordPress blogs, plus some static sites and email for multiple domains (with AV and spam filtering) within 500MB of RAM. I don't need to implement any caching because I already have sufficient resources.

<comment> mkr-hn Get this: <http://wordpress.org/extend/plugins/w3-total-cache/>

It's called a caching plugin, but it also compresses and minifies stuff. Any site can benefit from loading faster. You can turn it on and let it go. It has sane defaults.

<comment><USER5> Thanks for the info, after hearing people praise wordpress as the holy grail of blogging, I found it to be very very slow. Hopefully this plugin will help

<comment><USER6> WordPress is usually praised for usability, not performance. To make WordPress faster and more efficient, you need a caching plugin like W3 Total Cache. It caches your pages in static files, caches queries and results in memcache, and rewrites css, images, and js to CDN paths if you have a provider. In front of this, I would have Varnish cache as much as possible in memory, for even faster access. W3 Total cache can even invalidate your Varnish cache when pages are updated.

<comment><USER7> Cannot give Varnish enough praise, it can tubo charge even the most expensive / slowest loading pages and uses minimal resources.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I guess my age is catching up with me-- my gut reaction on seeing the headline was: _120MB? That's a lot of RAM-- who has that? Oh, wait..._

<comment><USER9> Indeed! I read it as:

 _9 million hits/day with 120 gigs RAM_

Especially because of the scalability discussion around it. Only later in the article it dawned on me that he is using a cheap cloud instance.

<comment><USER10> LOL... me too... I was thinking... who _couldn't_ hit 9M hits a day with 120 gigs of RAM... just load everything in memory and walk away! 120 MB is certainly more impressive.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Cross posting this from a comment I made on reddit: This is something I've actually worked extensively on solving and it's not quite as easy as this article claims it to be. In fact, there are quite a few too many draw backs to this method to any site that isn't largely static or updated very rarely.

* Whenever anything is updated the entire cache is invalidated and each item needs to be fetched again. This means you'll have some page loads being slow and others being fast. If you have a very dynamic website you will hardly ever even see a cached version.

* You can't cache things forever, primarily because when anything is updated the entire version namespace is invalidated. This means that if you have a site that isn't updated at all in a long time then the cache is still invalidated by the TTL and has to be updated. Of course, if you decide to cache forever and the version namespace is incremented then...

* You never know when your cache is full. Since the method of updating the cache isn't to invalidate keys but rather to just fill it with new keys, you will have a lot of stale data. This data will eventually have to get evicted from the cache. This means you don't reliably know when you need to upgrade your cache memory.

All that said. Version namespacing your cache is better than not caching at all and it's usually also better than having a lot of stale data as active keys. If you want to do proper cache invalidation in case you have a highly dynamic site then it's still possible, but it requires a lot more work, there's a reason for this famous quote: <http://martinfowler.com/bliki/TwoHardThings.html>

</comment><comment><USER12> This underscores how ridiculously overspecced modern servers are due to the bloat of a lot of modern software.

<comment><USER3> Virtual machines change the economics of hosting _for the host_. A given VM has a lower administrative overhead per customer than shared hosting does. This will eventually drive out shared hosting, IMO -- except for single- application purposes.

<comment><USER13> "for the host" is key, really. the customer has to do a lot more work on a VPS than on a shared host, so I think shared hosting isn't going away.

Now, I agree with you that the shared hosting market will continue to move more towards constraining the user to a particular language within that shared hosting environment, as that allows the host to provide better service, but this has been true for a while. For the last 10+ years, if a shared-hosting provider allowed you to run an arbitrary binary, it only allowed you to do so as a second-class citizen, behind several layers of setuid wrappers and other (usually slow) security. Back in the day, if you wanted to run at reasonable speed on a shared host, you'd write in php, and use the supplied MySQL database, which conceptually isn't that different from what many of the language specific cloud providers do today.

The interesting thing is that this means shared hosting, usually with a well- supported but language constrained environment, is actually becoming the premium hosting option. VPSs, formerly the high-end option, are now the cheap stuff. Which makes sense; as a provider, sure, the VPS costs me more ram, but I can get an 8GiB reg. ecc ddr3 ram module for under a hundred bucks now. Ram is cheap. what costs me money is the support, and it is a lot easier to rent out unsupported VPSs than it is to rent out unsupported shared hosting.

If anything, with this new 'premium' image and advances in billing customs, I think we are seen a renascence in 'premium' shared hosting services.

<comment><USER14> > The interesting thing is that this means shared hosting, usually with a > well-supported but language constrained environment, is actually becoming > the premium hosting option. VPSs, formerly the high-end option, are now the > cheap stuff.

Exactly this. I have been using shared hosting for around $100/yr, which was cheap 3 years ago when private servers were double or triple that. But recently I bought a VPS for _$15/year_. Sure, I have to do my own admin, but I'm fine with that. If the cost for the shared hosting doesn't come down, I'm going to have to move everything to my VPS.

<comment><USER13> $15/year? is it an OpenVZ (advanced chroot jail) VPS?

That's an interesting counterpoint to this discussion; advanced chroot jail hosts are still cheaper than Xen hosts, and OpenVZ (the common advanced chroot jail software on linux) is in between shared hosting and full virtualization with regards to how many resources are shared and how much host sysadmin effort is required.

With OpenVZ, all users share a kernel and share swap and pagecache; you can fit more OpenVZ guests on a particular bit of hardware than Xen guests, and generally speaking, more host sysadmin involvement is required when running an OpenVZ vs. a xen or kvm host.

The interesting part of the xen/OpenVZ dichotomy is that it goes the other direction; so far the market price for OpenVZ guests is much lower than the market price for Xen guests; OpenVZ mostly occupies the very low end of the VPS market.

<comment><USER14> > $15/year? is it an OpenVZ (advanced chroot jail) VPS?

As far as I can tell (from the kernel name), it is OpenVZ. I only discovered that last night, coincidentally.

It is tiny, only 256MB, bursting to 512MB, of RAM. But at that price it is fine for my needs; I even get my own static IP address (the full cost of the VPS is cheaper than just adding a static IP address on my shared site!).

I was reading up on OpenVZ vs Xen or KVM last night, and I take on board your comments above. The virtual server market seems to be transitioning right now, with pricing yet to settle down within a common range like they were a few years ago.

<comment><USER13> yeah, at $15/year, you are getting quite a steal, OpenVZ or not. for a 256M xen VPS I charge $76.80. Heck. even if your provider is being heavy on the swap (my understanding is that OpenVZ 'RAM' numbers include swap, while under Xen, I give you ram, and you can add swap if you like, so when directly comparing OpenVZ and Xen guests, you should compare a xen guest with less ram to an OpenVZ guest with more.) and you are only getting 128M of actual ram I'm charging you $57.60 for that, and you haven't said, but if they are following industry norms they are giving you more disk than I am, and I primarily compete on price; I'm fairly low-end. Did you get a special? or is that the sort of thing you can order every day?

<comment><USER14> It was a special, but one that they offer regularly, in the sense that every so often they offer say 1,000 of them until the offer is filled up. Then it is closed off until the next round.

Disk space is 10GB and traffic is 500GB.

I found the vendor on www.lowendbox.com .

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> The key points:

        1. Use caching.
        2. Use Nginx.
        3. Use PHP-FPM.

<comment><USER15> I think people are too quick to throw out Apache + mod_php. It remains the defacto deployment environment for most open source PHP apps, which means that it is the best understood and best supported. For example, if you deploy using Apache, you don't have to worry about converting .htaccess rules that wordpress and some caching plugins create into an Nginx equivalent.

People bitch a lot about the memory consumption of apache, but it's often overstated. They add up the resident set for each individual apache process and come up with a huge number, missing the fact that a significant amount is actually shared between processes.

Apache's memory consumption problems have more to do with how it handles clients. Each client ties up a worker process for the entire duration of a request, or beyond if keepalives are enabled (as they should be). That means that the memory overhead of the PHP interpreter is locked up doing nothing after the page is generated while it's being fed to the client. Even worse, that overhead is incurred while transmitting a static file.

I use nginx as a reverse proxy to Apache. It lets me deploy PHP apps easily and efficiently. Apache returns the dynamic and static requests as quickly as it can and moves on to the next request. Nginx buffers the result from apache and efficiently manages returning the data to all the clients. I used to have Nginx serve the static files directly, which is more efficient, but added complexity to my config. I chose simplicity.

A PHP opcode cache, like APC, is also a big win, because it cuts the overhead of parsing and loading the PHP source files. I'm not convinced of the value of other caching for most uses. CPU time usually isn't the scarce resource, RAM is. The DB and filesystem cache are already trying to keep needed data in RAM. Adding more caching layers generally means more copies of the same data in different forms, which means less of the underlying data fits in RAM.

<comment><USER16> So true. Apache + mod_php is very reasonable choice. Anyone who advocates using FastCGI instead of mod_php to "save memory" just doesn't understand what the actual memory footprint of Apache + mod_php really is, and how adjust the number of Apache processes.

In fact FastCGI _still_ ties up an Apache process for the duration of the request: Apache hands the PHP request off to a FastCGI worker, then waits for that PHP worker to send back the output, so the Apache process is still blocked waiting on PHP in either scenario.

Also the overhead of Apache serving static content is miniscule compared to the amount of work a PHP does per dynamic request, unless the static content is very large, like large media files.

<comment><USER17> It's not just about steady state memory footprint. It's about the whole stack, how apache and mod_php and mysql (if you use it) interact.

Excessive traffic means a spike in simultaneously served connections, which means a spike in apache threads (assuming worker MPM, iirc there's 1 process per 25 threads by default). With the mod_php model, the per-thread php memory usage can be very expensive when you have dozens or hundreds of apache threads serving requests. A spike in running php instances leads to a spike in mysql connections for a typical web app. If you haven't tuned mysql carefully, which most typical environments have not, mysql memory usage will also skyrocket.

Then for the coup de grace you get stupid apps which think it's perfectly fine to issue long-running queries occasionally (occasionally meaning something like .1% to a few percent of page loads). When that happens, if you're using myisam tables which were the default with mysql < 5.5 (and which therefore dominate deployments, even if "everyone knows" you're supposed to be using innodb), then those infrequent long-running queries block the mysql thread queue, leading to an often catastrophically severe mysql thread backlog. Since php threads are issuing those queries, the apache+mod_php threads stack up as well, and they do not use trivial amounts of memory.

The result is that you have to severely over-engineer the machine with excess memory if you want to survive large traffic spikes. If you don't, you can easily hit swap which will kill your site temporarily, or worse, run out of swap too and have the oomkiller kill something... either your webserver or mysql.

The benefit to fastcgi is it takes the memory allocation of php out of apache's hands, so every new apache thread is more limited in how much bloat it adds to the system. With a limited pool of fastcgi processes, you can also limit the number of db connections which further improves the worst-case memory usage scenario.

The advantage of in-apache-process php is that it serves php faster when there are few parallel requests, but it's on the order of single-digit milliseconds difference (the extra overhead of sending requests through a fastcgi socket), which is dwarfed by network rtt times even if none of the above pathologies rear their heads.

The apache+mod_php model is to do php processing for all active connections in parallel. The fastcgi model is to do php processing for at most x connections where x is the php fastcgi pool size, leaving all other requests to wait for an open slot. It may intuitively seem like the fastcgi model is going to be slower because some requests have to wait for a fastcgi process to become free, but if you think about average php request time it's going to be better for high parallelism, because the limiting factors are cpu and i/o. The apache model ends up using ridiculous amounts of resources just so no php request has to wait to begin getting processed by php. The high contention particularly for i/o created by apache and mysql when they have large numbers of threads is what makes the fastcgi model superior.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I'd like to know how much the Joyent Smartmachine contributed to this. They make some bold claims on their website, and really do seem like a great alternative to EC2 (disk IO that doesn't suck!) if they deliver. Anyone have any experience?

</comment><comment><USER19> Some interesting techniques in here (e.g. Faking Dynamic Features Using Inline Caching), but otherwise it seems easy to scale to this level when the majority of page content can be cached.

</comment><comment><USER20> The difference between Apache and Nginx is that out of the box, Nginx is built for speed. Both are capable of thousands of requests per second, but Nginx arguably does it better with its event-based architecture (opposed to Apache being process based). The config syntax is also refreshingly simple, so converting .htaccess rules couldn't be easier.

We were recently paying a small fortune for hosting one of our websites. It was bumping up against memory limits even after a serious code rework and aggressive caching. Instead of upgrading we decided to test a new config using Nginx.

Now we run three sites, one fairly popular, on a 512Mb Linode with Nginx, APC, FPM, Varnish and a CDN, and it can take an amazing amount of load. Varnish needs memory, but without Varnish we could run this setup on a box a fraction of the size.

This plan costs $19/month! I still can't believe we're paying so little.

Instead of focussing just on the server though, and like the TumbleDry article somewhat suggests, HTTP cache is probably the best place to start in terms of performance. Varnish, CDNs, etc all rely on intelligent HTTP caching. And if you do it right, you don't need to worry (too often) about cache invalidation.

What I'm really looking forward to is making use of ESI in Symfony2 and Varnish. That will mean setting different cache headers for portions of pages, which will further reduce the need to manually invalidate cache.

For now though, I'm loving Nginx + FPM + APC.

</comment><comment><USER21> I agree that this should be the standard, not an exception.

<comment> g-garron I've been once on /., two times on Digg and all times my server crashed. I've improved it a lot since then, using different techniques. But never been hit by one of those again :(

New self hosted blogs can't get the load of peak times, because new bloggers start a WordPress blog, install on it a lot of plugins and never think about performance. I think most of us have made that mistake some time.

<comment><USER22> Sure. But it's not a mistake; it's a correct choice given current expectations.

What I don't understand is why the various CMS's don't offer automatic on-the- fly reconfiguration. It's 2011. We should be able to have the best of both worlds:

\--when load is light, your blog software hits the database 42 times with every page loaded, no problem

\-- when site load shifts from 1 page per hour to ten pages per second, the CMS should automatically, with no user intervention, say "oh shit" (perhaps audibly in the server room) and then automatically generate a static front page, and static article pages for whatever pages are being linked to, turn off the bells, turn off the whistles, email and tweet at the server administrator, etc. The CMS should cheerfully weather a storm all by itself. And when the load dies down, the static page should revert to a dynamic, 42-queries-on-the-database page, again without any intervention from the server administrator.

Does this exist anywhere, out of the box?

<comment><USER21> I don't know, but I do know that my architectural approach is to get any web app I write to only hit the database ONCE per page view. Ten calls is a lot for me. I've seen some that hit the DB 100 times on each view and I was able to reduce all 100 down to a single call.

<comment><USER23> I heard one specific Joomla site used 800 queries to render the front page. A dev needs natural talent to reach that point, I guess.

<comment><USER24> I worked on a site once that loaded at an okay rate for the live site, but the staging server would take about 15 minutes (seriously) to load once every other hour or so. I thought this was strange, same code and all, so I looked into it.

There was a loop on the page that instantiated objects with an id, the number of ids dependent on the results of a previous query. What did that object instantiation do under the hood? It performed a query to fetch state. I calculated that 5000 queries were being run, and it only cropped up every once and a while (and seemingly 'never' on the live site) because queries were automatically cached for a set amount of time.

I was new on the project, and in what is probably poor form, went around the whole office, letting my horror be fully known. People just shrugged though.

edit: I forgot to add, modifying it to only perform one query was trivial.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> It's not apparent if the 9 million+ daily hits number is taking into account that peak hours will be higher than off hours. It would take 100 reqs/sec if the traffic is even throughout the day, but 375 reqs/sec if 15% of the day's traffic is in the peak hour.

<comment><USER25> Yea, I see several diffrent numbers being tossed about but:

 _This caching (I'm using APC right now) got my page load times down to about 170 microseconds for most pages, and 400 microseconds_

400 microseconds ~= 2,500hits/sec; 170 microseconds ~= 5,880hits/sec; Both of which seem reasonable for a simple PHP site using a single core CPU @ 1+Ghz.

</comment></comment><comment> g-garron As a lot of you have said: Static content is the key to success. You can name it:

\- Movable type

\- Drupal + boost

\- Wordpress + SuperCache

\- Jekyll or other static website generators

Better if Nginx is serving those static files, LAMP can be behind creating the static files.

I used that way with Drupal+boost for a lot of time and worked.

</comment><comment><USER26> The title says "120 megs of RAM", but I wonder if that's at all comparable to a real machine with 120 MB. I imagine that the "120 MB" VM is running on a beefy host with tens (or hundreds) of gigabytes of RAM shared between the guest VMs and also used for disk cache. It seems likely that accessing a guest's virtual disk would actually hit the host's disk cache a lot of the time (especially when that guest has been busy recently); that would improve the speed of disk access for that VM enough that it could make up for the lack of memory for disk cache within the guest.

This is purely speculation, but I would be interested to see if there is any actual research to back it up.

I suppose if the guest in this instance is not swapping very often, then this is fairly irrelevant, but the article didn't mention anything about swap.

</comment><comment><USER27> Very nicely done. Using JS to give personalized experiences seems to be the way to go. I suppose you could generate a JSON list of id,date pairs to reduce page bloat, if it matters.

[Edit: This is 100 qps. It's a lot for a blog, but is not an unreasonable load by any means.]

</comment><comment><USER28> He could just say "tl;dr\n<machine specs>\n<I use static pages>".

</comment><comment><USER29> For static, high-traffic, small-size content, doesn't it make sense to load a minimal OS entirely to RAM and serve it from there? Has anybody tried this? (I guess this rules out VPSes...)

Note: This is a variation of a previous comment I made, but a variation nonetheless. Sorry to belabor the point.

</comment><comment><USER29> Naive question: suppose that you serve a low-throughput site, say with a total of 3MB of data (probably text files). What's the simplest way to ensure that those 3MB of content (very little compared to 120MB) live always in RAM? By this I mean not giving the server a choice =).

<comment><USER30> <https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/RAM_disk>

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> discovered blitz.io will keep me and my servers busy this weekend

<comment><USER32> Kinda expensive :(

<comment><USER33> I use <http://loadimpact.com/>

The free version can give you an idea of how your server will handle a small spike, and the other versions are per day so if you only need to test once or so a week as you finish a sprint then it wouldn't be a horrible cost.

<comment><USER34> It's odd that they let you just test any website without proving its yours (by e.g. putting special file in the root or something). Can't unauthorized testing be considered a DoS attack?

<comment><USER35> I can only speak for <http://blitz.io>. We generate an account-specific UUID which becomes a URL that you need to make available on your app (adding a route in ruby/node.js or uploading a txt file). Before each load test we check that _your_ UUID is available on the app. Even if your UUID is leaked, this is not a problem, since it's unique to your account. Unless of course, your Google/Facebook account gets compromised. We currently, do not support password logins. It's either OAuth/FB Connect or SSO through our partners.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> That's about 100requests/sec, which isn't particularly amazing.

<comment><USER23> On average that means 1.2 Mb memory available/request, which isn't particularly boring either.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> One thing to point out, based on my experience, is that you need about 10x _or more_ peak throughput to handle a given average throughput. Spikes kill you.

</comment><comment><USER38> Wonder how much faster it would be if PHP was taken out of the mix (looks like he's just just serving static pages anyway).

<comment><USER39> But he is using the APC cache, which is part of PHP, so I'm not sure he could pull that off? PHP-FPM is the fastest way he could be using that interpreter anyhow, as it maintains a persistent bank of PHP instances in-memory, with nginx acting as a proxy to it via a Unix socket.

<comment><USER34> You wouldn't need APC if you weren't running PHP...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> Quick Question. Would using Nginx as a front-end to Node improve performance in the same way it has done for serving PHP?

<comment><USER41> Putting any proxy cache in front of your app will help. You can 'simulate' static caching of dynamic content. You will have to take a look at your headers however as most caches obey upstream caching headers to spec tightly.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> By inlining the comments, he's reducing cpu time by...transferring extra data across the network?

</comment><comment><USER43> love it. gives me faith that the archaic machines i have serving can still hold their own!

</comment><comment><USER44> There was some post about a happy Win/IIS/CF guy - he definitely should read this.. ^_^

</comment><comment><USER45> hits/day and megs ram are orthogonal.

</comment><comment><USER46> I have to say I haven't tried that myself nor have I looked at the prices so my question is: All the fun of having your own server aside, why wouldn't I rather just run a site like that on something like amazon ec2 and stop worrying about hits and load even if it is just a personal blog?

</comment><comment><USER47> I'm not too sure I'd go with a load testing company that can't even keep their own website up.

<http://blitz.io/>

> Internal Server Error

<comment> mkr-hn It's always exactly the time when you need your service to be up the most that it goes down. What matters is how they respond to it.

<comment><USER35> thanks for the vote of confidence, will write up what happened soon.

<comment><USER35> Here's the blog on what we are learning as we scale: [http://blog.mudynamics.com/2011/09/01/blitz-io-path- finding-...](http://blog.mudynamics.com/2011/09/01/blitz-io-path-finding-with- couchdb/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> how about just using a CDN service. There is no need to play around anymore.

</comment><comment><USER39> Very impressive, it's amazing how the "LAMP" stack continues to evolve.

<comment><USER49> Looks more like a LNMP stack.

<comment><USER39> I'm using PHP-FPM myself and it is fantastic, major increase in performance when compared to mod_php. I still have not let go of Apache2 yet, but nginx is calling to me due to it's non-blocking design...

<comment><USER49> It's pretty painless beyond understanding it. Plus curbs most DDoS issues lately.

<comment><USER50> Not to mention that the folks in #nginx on freenode are really very helpful.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Is Docker to blame for recent security breaches? - <AUTHOR> I'm assuming a lot here, but I believe many recent data breaches are due to some company leaving their servers wide open. I'm assuming a lot here, but its reasonable that most deployments today are containerized, and if not Kubernetes, they're usually docker.
Are most developers aware that "ufw default deny incoming" does not work unless using host networking, or unless we modify the docker daemon or IP tables directly?
Also, with the simplicity of ufw, do folks take the time to learn how to work with ip tables? I was bitten by this twice when hosting small dev stuff like mongodb, redis and nfs - often accessed in trusted networks without authentication - where after locking down ufw I'd get a notice from the cloud provider (DO, Hetzner) a few days later telling me which port I had open. After debugging and ending up here (https://github.com/docker/for-linux/issues/690). First time I made a mental note. Second time I finally wrote it down. Its really not obvious.
If you host on your own infrastructure, or AWS, I don't think you get a notice, so docker-compose up can be really dangerous.
I guess I would like your comments on whether this is a probable cause of many breaches and whether there is some responsibility (technical, not legal) on docker to properly document this behavior and probably fix. <comment><USER2> Docker security is a joke but people still using this tool cause it's the most popular kid on the block and made by Google, the company that most Americans are faithfully blind trust no matter what s@!&# they launch.

<comment><AUTHOR> Docker is made by Docker, not Google. I'm really looking for some insight here, not a rant. Cheers!</comment></comment>


China's brightest children are being recruited to develop AI 'killer bots' - <AUTHOR> https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/2172141/chinas-brightest-children-are-being-recruited-develop-ai-killer# <comment><USER2> When I visit China I am intrigued - and a bit shocked - by the amount of military propaganda that is on TV. A good deal of the evening news is related to their military and even a good amount of other programming. The stories highlight the rapidly growing military machine - from stealth fighters to aircraft carriers.

The Chinese people are being conditioned to support and encourage their military prowess and might to an extent even greater than the Americans.

I suspect that their long term vision and unrelenting discipline will result in China being the world's premier military force in a decade from now.

</comment><comment><USER3> We will need those emp guns they had on the Nebuchadnezzar hovercraft.</comment>


Show HN: Morning Reader 3 – Curated technology and blockchain news - <AUTHOR> https://morningreader.com <comment><AUTHOR> Hi there! We've just launched Morning Reader 3, a simple, stress-free way to keep up with technology and blockchain news. Would love to hear your feedback! Thanks.</comment>


Did an Acid Trip Change Your Life? Scientists Want to Know About It - <AUTHOR> https://futurism.com/hallucinagenic-drugs-study/ <comment><USER2> maybe its something to do with the rather messed up state of my mind (autism&ADD) but despite having significant experience with psychedelics i have never had a "spiritual" or "meaningful"</comment>


Ask HN: As a freelancer, should I incorporate into an LLC, S-corp or C-corp? - <AUTHOR>

Hi everyone. I am a foreign student currently residing in Germany. I happen to have a US bank account and wanted your advice/opinion on whether I should incorporate (in the US) into an LLC, S-corp or C-corp for freelance work. Much obliged for your feedback. Cheers! <comment><USER2> You really should get a lawyer; even if you pay for just an hour of they're time, to help you make this decision. Each of the options you listed have different rules and regulations, taxes to be paid, what you can write off and not, etc...

"generally", LLC should be fine for a freelancer, and technically, you can do it without that. Goto your bank and tell them you want to setup a DBA (doing business as) - then it'll be Hauget doing business as Hauget Development Co. (for example)

Personally, (for freelance), I became an employee (W2, no more 1099)of a friend's slightly related business and all my freelance business goes through him. He takes a cut, paying business taxes, medicaid, etc... taxes come out of my freelance paycheck as any normal employee would, and I don't have to worry about the accounting stuff at the end of the year.

<comment><AUTHOR> The friend option is super smart. Will def. consider doing something like this and consulting a lawyer. Much obliged for the input!

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Definitely not a C. All of an S corp's income filters to the shareholders (you) at tax time. This is far, far simpler than the C-corp rules which your org won't be large enough to benefit from.

S-corps require an annual filing and a small annual fee: $65 here in NC.

That said, I'm not sure what your tax responsibilities would even _be_ as a foreigner. @lsiunuex is correct, unless your income is above ~$50k, there's absolutely no advantage to undertaking this headache -- and certainly not merely for freelance income.

<comment><AUTHOR> Was mostly asking because of the uniqueness of the tax situation. As a foreign student in Germany I'm not allowed to freelance within Germany so I might as well setup in the US as a foreigner. Will do more research on S-corp as I know a few artists who freelance with it. Thx!

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Are you going to incorporate in the US or Germany or somewhere else?

<comment><AUTHOR> Incorporating in the US

<comment><USER4> Given the the three possible locations for tax liability [US, Germany, Country of Citizenship], I would recommend speaking with an attorney. That said, a C-corp is almost certainly not the right vehicle for a free-lancer.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> +1 to definitely not C Corp.</comment>


Huawei is selling off its undersea cable business - <AUTHOR> https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/3/18650220/huawei-undersea-cable-business-sale-trump-ban-smartphone-production <comment><USER2> Huawei's Ace in the Hole: Undersea Cables 214 points 6 days ago

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20031539](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20031539)</comment>