How to be like Steve Ballmer - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@drb/how-to-be-like-steve-ballmer-cf4c9803d74c#.xfttmyket <comment><USER3> Let me add some color to the speculation here, I worked under Ballmer for sometime leading a product.

Ballmer was a math genius, he was also a spreadsheet whiz and knew as much as a CFO did at anytime. His memory was that of a thousand elephants, and could recite forecasts, actuals and numbers for multiple years in one go.

Microsoft played in the enterprise space, and Ballmer was a marketing genius when it came to enterprise positioning. I credit him with driving the attach revenue concept within the enterprise. Companies that bought Windows, bought office, bought Exchange server, bough maintenance and more.

Even more, he was a relationship marketing genius. He had a photographic memory and remembered names of people he would meet once and recall entire conversations after months/years. And this was globally, he took the company global in a very aggressive way.

He rewarded people, both Bill and Steve weren't stingy about doling out stock - unlike Jobs. This kept a strong talent pool of A players at Microsoft.

He had a strong penchant for the enterprise and where he started faltering was when the Internet started maturing and consumer experiences started converging with the enterprise.

Nevertheless, this man took Microsoft from $15B to $70B in revenue and you can't belittle that.

<comment><USER4> So your saying it might take more than just sticking my tongue out and saluting in the next conversation I have?

<comment><USER5> Yeah, and not to mention screaming out DEVELOPERS! DEVELOPERS! DEVELOPERS!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Something rarely mentioned: Ballmer could've been a first-rate mathematician. He graduated magna cum laude with an AB in math, and beat Bill Gates on the Putnam exam, finishing well within the top 100 contestants that year.

<comment><USER7> This is something that puzzles me. I've met many people like him who I know objectively speak are highly intelligent. But still on many levels they just come across as really stupid. Like they believe in completely wacky ideas or conspiracy theories or make obviously faulty reasoning.

I really have trouble understanding why people can be so smart and stupid and the same time.

<comment><USER8> Intelligence and nuttery/crackpottery are two separate things. In fact, intelligence can even enable nuttery because an intelligent nut is better at rationalizing his own nuttery than an unintelligent nut. Someone can be literally a world-class brain surgeon and still believe that the pyramids were constructed to store grain, for instance.

<comment><USER9> > a world-class brain surgeon can believe that the pyramids were constructed > to store grain

Carson is a world-class surgeon trying to convince whatever subset of the Republicans (a) can decide the outcome of the primary and (b) aren't already secured by Trump.

He probably says whatever nonsense he thinks will please rednecks with a 90 IQ and an sinking feeling that "their" country and its core values are being pulled from under their feet.

And I can understand if he's a hard time empathising with people who think that >6k years ago, when pyramids where built, the Earth didn't even exist.

TL;DR: I think/hope he's failing at understanding plebeians, not Life. It might be wishful thinking because I don't want to live in a world where someone could be both so smart and so dumb.

<comment><USER10> The problem is that you assume people who feel their country and its core values are being pulled are necessarily 90 IQ rednecks. There are _a lot_ of intelligent socially conservative people. One who can't admit that is brainwashed.

<comment><USER9> > you assume [conservative] people are necessarily 90 IQ rednecks.

I don't; I assume that the "90 IQ redneck" subset of conservative voters are the ones worth trying to seduce, according to GOP candidates. Because that's whom their political speeches and positions seem targeted towards.

I guess that's because there are many of them, and until recently they've been easier to influence. I must admit there's a bit of shadenfreude in seeing Trump out-rednecking the GOP elite at the game they invented for themselves.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Ballmer was the "business guy" at the startup that created the greatest ever amount of money for its founders and employees by holding off an IPO and raising a minimal amount of outside investment. The amount of equity he and Gates retained allowed Microsoft to take a long term rather than a quarter by quarter Wall Street driven approach for about twenty years following the IPO.

If Microsoft is currently undergoing a renaissance, it may be because Ballmer got the supertanker turned onto the right heading. Unlike the much beloved Sun, Microsoft is still around and its works are trending toward the right side of history while Sun's legacy is increasingly sliding into the pale of Oracle.

<comment><USER12> Ballmer was incredibly successful for the majority of his career but by the time I arrived at Microsoft (2011), I really think his hubris and attitude had a deleterious effect on Microsoft employees.

His style of thinking about competitor's and their innovations trickled down to all levels of the company; people anywhere in the company displayed the same dismissiveness of almost anything Google or Apple or others did. Working at Microsoft is weird and feels like your in some special universe where other technology doesn't exist; socializing with Microsoft engineers (of any age and almost in any environments) and realizing they all had their blinders on was really disheartening.

Things may be really different now, I don't know, but Steve was right to leave when he left.

<comment><USER13> Huge bummer to hear that. Was the exact opposite of that for my 1996-2000 tenure. Many decks used UNIX, many PMs used Macs--it was encouraged so you'd know the competition, whom they respected.

<comment><USER12> Really interesting. It was nothing like that while I was there. Being caught with an iPhone just felt so awkward.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> "Here's somebody who'll wear their mediocrity with such energy, with such boundless enthusiasm and unbridled passion, that nobody else even tries to compete. You're not Steve Jobs. You're mediocre, like me. You're reading shabby online articles about how to be like somebody else. Do you think Steve Jobs did that?"

A+ Be all the Balmer u can be. Balmer forever and ever.

<comment><USER15> No, this is dumb. Balmer was never mediocre.

<comment><USER16> What other term do you use to describe his failure to see modern smartphones coming, even after Apple waved one under his nose?

That said, while I've often been critical of Ballmer, I've been reconsidering my attitude towards him now that I've seen the aggressively-invasive direction in which Satya Nadella is taking Windows. Under Ballmer's leadership, Windows 7 never popped up unsolicited ads for Metro on the toolbar, much less ads _that I couldn 't turn off._

<comment><USER17> By that measure Dr. Chris Barnard is mediocre, for supposedly performing ~50 heart transplants on dogs. Similarly Nelson Mandela would qualify for his role in founding and leading a militant wing of the ANC. One fact, error, moment or even period do not a mediocre person make.

<comment><USER16> Well, this thread got irrelevant in a hurry.

<comment><USER18> Since your initial complaint was the start of the irrelevancy, this is mighty disingenuous of you

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> fun read but i'm not convinced about the advice. I'm sure Balmer is a smart guy and lucked out by joining MS as #30 (is it really so unlucky to be #30 at MS?). He was also outspoken, loud, and perhaps had some leadership qualities lacked by other nerds at that moment. And now it's easy to pick him apart and "be more like Balmer" but I doubt mirroring his annoying personality will get you far.

 _Next time you give a presentation, repeat the same key word or phrase at least 5 times. Preferably 10._

i think Balmer succeeded despite this behavior, not because of it.

 _When you sense a gap that's closing push yourself in with full energy. Love the party, get into it, then make it your own_

the "make it your own" is almost like saying "tell a funny touching story that everyone will love".

 _Imagine you are — or be — the tallest person in the room. (Create situations where you're standing and they're sitting?)_

this reminds me of the NLP craze back in the day, i.e. micro behaviors that are subconsciously making you more attractive / easy to relate to / superior etc. Dubious at best.

 __ __* not to dismiss micro behaviors completely. There are numerous TED talks about body language that present convincing evidence that it works. I think they are especially applicable if you 're the kind of person that tries to occupy least space and remain un-seen in meetings. For an average person I just think this is a minor tweak, not the big change standing between you and tres commas club.

<comment><USER20> >micro behaviors that are subconsciously making you more attractive / easy to relate to / superior etc. Dubious at best.

Have a look at primate domination behavior. It's a big subject of study for zoologists/ethologists. Displays of dominance are a real thing, even if NLP sold it as pop psychology.

<comment><USER21> Don't conflate NLP with pop psychology. _Willpower_ or _The Marshmallow Effect_ or even _Thinking, Fast and Slow_ are pop psychology. NLP is overt psuedoscience that has never had any basis in fact.

<comment><USER22> Funny anecdote about NLP: I accidentally took a NLP class because it had Programming in the name, and for some reason I didn't bother to read the description. First lecture, second slide in the lecturer presented the quote: "We only use 10% of our brain, imagine what we could do if we used 100% of it" ~ Albert Einstein. And continued to claim that we could use more of our brain by using NLP or something like that.

Never dropped a class so hard in my life.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> i was prepared to snark. i don't like steve ballmer, i don't want to be like him. i don't like what he stands for. i can't think of one positive thing about the guy, other than perhaps his loyalty. but this article has a bunch of interesting insights nonetheless, delivered in a funny way.

<comment><USER24> Another positive thing about him was that he was a genius, or at least incredibly smart. He scored in the top 100 in the Putnam while at Harvard.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Despite his public perception, he's incredibly intelligent. He has an IQ of 150.

His strategy of being a fast follower worked great for Microsoft when it had crappy competitors - it was ill equipped to deal with good ones like Apple and Google.

<comment><USER26> IQ of 148 here (not that I put much stock in it). Ballmer is an idiot. What he lacks in idiocy, he more than makes up for with... lack of leadership, lack of charisma, lack of ethics, and just raw lack of coolness period.

Anyway, that's what I thought BEFORE I read the article. This article is actually pretty awesome! And points out some good things about the guy. I like him a little more now. Nice work, Medium!

One thing I would note is that sticking with 1 company for a long period of time is not necessarily great. You (and the companies you switch among) can learn a TON from each other if you move around a bit. There's even studies that show this (your value to a company is largely exhausted after 2 years).

<comment><USER27> If there is one unequivocal truth I have learned about social interactions, it's that nobody wants to know what your IQ is.

<comment><USER26> I would agree. I said it in direct response to someone pointing out his IQ of 150. I was making a point... Or would you say that it's OK to talk about someone ELSE'S IQ?

I also suspect that people would rather not know your phallus size or six+ figure income. All these things are left to discover as a side effect of normal interactions ;)

<comment><USER27> > All these things are left to discover as a side effect of normal > interactions ;)

Haha. Bingo.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Dude has passion. Worked at Microsoft for a few years, and even though I didn't agree with many of his decisions...he does what he loves, and loves it so much, that it passes on to others as well. We need more of that everywhere, in every aspect of life, not just business.

</comment><comment><USER29> Ballmer was there since the earliest days of Microsoft. Only a fool would somehow think he just came along for the ride.

Gates chose to give him a large slice of equity because he saw that he wanted something that Ballmer had and as far as I can tell that worked out extremely well.

I won't argue that Steve Ballmer was the technical creative genius that Microsoft needed but to suggest that in some way he stumbled in and rode the gravy train, well I don't buy that.

The new generation probably have little concept of how absolutely and totally Microsoft dominated the computer industry, in a way that _no company_ does now (nope, not even Apple dominates today anything like the way Microsoft dominated in the 80's and 90's). It was Microsoft's world in a very real way. There were two men behind that complete domination - Steve Ballmer and Bill Gates. The cynical (and there are many) might say "well it's Ballmer that lost that domination", but I wonder if such ongoing utter domination was even possible in the greatly expanded industry post WWW, regardless of who the leader was.

Steve Ballmer is more than worthy of admiration, if you were smart you'd try to learn from him rather than portraying him as a buffoon sidekick to Bill Gates. To evaluate him in this way just displays ignorance.

I think Gates brought on Ballmer as the business partner he needed, not the business partner he started with (Paul Allen). I'm not knocking Paul Allen but Bill Gates felt he needed Ballmer as his partner and as far as I could tell Ballmer and Gates were a powerful team, not Dean Martin and Jerry Lewis.

And when compared with Steve Jobs, it's worth remembering that Steve Ballmer and Bill Gates comprehensively beat, pounded and dominated Steve Jobs' Apple until "Steve's return". Apple was on the brink of going out of business when Steve returned and stayed in business because Gates and Ballmer provided Apple with $150M to stay in business - a wise move at the time because Microsoft was in trouble with the justice department and needed to ensure that there were companies still in existence that could even vaguely be argued to be valid competitors to Microsoft.

Many, many entrepreneurs tried and failed to get the better of Gates and Ballmer until eventually a perception formed that you were an idiot if you tried to compete with them. VC's wouldn't invest in anything that was even seen as _potentially_ an area that Microsoft might be interested in being involved with. Ballmer is one of the most formidable and, in his time, feared businessmen ever.

Ballmer is one of the greatest business people of all time even if he doesn't have the romantic and charismatic story of Jobs or Gates.

Respect is due.

<comment><USER30> Good point, I agree that Gates must have saw something, but what precisely did he see see? I don't see Ballmer as some sort of marketing or technical genius (or even close). I'm having a hard time imagining what he offers.

<comment><USER31> Developers, developers, developers, developers, developers. Developers! Developers! Developers! DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> 'SteveB went on the road to see the top weeklies, industry analysts and business press this week to give our systems strategy. The meetings included demos of Windows 3.1 (pen and multimedia included), Windows NT, OS/2 2.0 including a performance comparison to Windows and a "bad app" that corrupted other applications and crashed the system. It was a very valuable trip and needs to be repeated by other MS executives throughout the next month so we hit all the publications and analysts.'

'The demos of OS/2 were excellent. Crashing the system had the intended effect – to FUD OS/2 2.0. People paid attention to this demo and were often surprised to our favor. Steve positioned it as -- OS/2 is not "bad" but that from a performance and "robustness" standpoint, it is NOT better than Windows'.

[http://iowa.gotthefacts.org/011107/PX_0860.pdf](http://iowa.gotthefacts.org/011107/PX_0860.pdf)

"I have written a PM app that hangs the system (sometimes quite graphically)."

[http://iowa.gotthefacts.org/011107/PX_0797.pdf](http://iowa.gotthefacts.org/011107/PX_0797.pdf)

<comment><USER33> Informative and interesting. I like how the emails are straight to the point.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> You know, in the same vein... Salieri was a pretty decent composer. He got some fame and recognition. Maybe it's not so bad to be a Salieri and not Mozart, because he's still a hell of a lot better than most.

<comment><USER35> He'll always be known for being an also-ran, but most of us won't even get that far.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> The photo of Gates and Ballmer is from this article, online here:

[http://www.forbes.com/sites/georgeanders/2014/09/30/long- ago...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/georgeanders/2014/09/30/long-ago-twist- yielded-ballmer-a-fortune-in-microsoft-stock/)

</comment><comment><USER37> The one thing Ballmer did right was double down when he saw a huge, once in a lifetime opportunity.

Warren Buffet and Charlie Munger say that without their top 20 performing stocks, they'd be also-rans. Which really goes to show that when you find a great opportunity in life, you should go at it as hard as you can.

</comment><comment><USER38> So Ballmer is the ultimate PHB?

This is a great way to build a career, but if you look at his track record at Microsoft, I'm not sure Ballmer is the guy we want to be emulating. He was hard-headed, amazingly risk-averse when it came to Microsoft's core platforms, and was not a great manager (he was unable to control a lot of the culture problems that plagued Microsoft in the early 2000s).

It's fine to make bold moves that fail, but Ballmer's failed moves weren't really all that bold. They were big, but not incredibly bold, and were often doubling down on a failing business inside Microsoft.

<comment><USER10> People usually don't get credit for what didn't happen, but in the case of CEOs, they deserve it. There are so many choices that _could 've_ been made, and would've been made by a worse exec, that would've destroyed MS. It takes effort to maintain the status quo in a competitive world.

Microsoft might not have been as hip as Apple or Google, but they became and remained the most significant software company in the world for _decades_. They're _still_ the number one desktop OS by a huge margin. Compare Steve Ballmer to Carly Fiorina, Jonathan Schwartz or Stephen Elop and tell me he wasn't a good CEO.

I also think Ballmer deserves credit for .NET. "Developers developers developers" has been MS's saving grace as OS X emerged, and Nadella is essentially banking the company on .NET-as-a-platform via Azure. It's entirely possible that we'd all be using Solaris on SPARC workstations by now if .NET hadn't existed.

<comment><USER39> Ballmer also served during the toughest time in Microsoft's history. He took the reigns right before the final ruling in a massive antitrust lawsuit that literally almost broke the company apart[0]. The DOJ continued to have oversight over Microsoft until _2012_ [1]. I'm sure Microsoft would have loved to make much bolder decisions during that decade (particularly when it comes to hardware), but they were hardly in a position to do so legally[2].

A lot of the good things Microsoft has (deservedly) received praise for recently under Nadella were started under Ballmer's tenure. Yes, he is not personally responsible for everything that goes on at the company, but it's important to keep that in mind.

[0] While the decision was reversed on appeal, Microsoft was literally ordered by the courts to split itself into separate companies: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp.#Judgment)

[1] [http://arstechnica.com/information- technology/2011/04/depart...](http://arstechnica.com/information- technology/2011/04/department-of-justices-long-oversight-of-microsoft-to-end/)

[2] Incidentally, the Surface, which now appears to be Microsoft's attempt to clean up the wild west that OEMs have created, was announced right at the end of the DOJ's oversight. I cannot believe that this is a coincidence.

<comment><USER40> Your comment and the parent comment hits close to home.

The anti trust investigation killed Microsoft's mojo. They never under estimated any one in the past. They were paranoid and always responded to "potential threats" with crappy solution but they responded nonetheless.

In my opinion, Google and the iPhone owe their dominance to time granted them by the anti trust suit.

The same tactics that got Microsoft in trouble is being used my Google and Apple today.

Google services is bundled in Android. There is no alternative browser in chrome OS by design. The default browser can't be changed in IOS(not sure if that's still the case).

It's difficult to take risks when everything you do is under a microscope.

<comment><USER41> You can install Firefox on Android, and it has proper integration. But the rest of Google Play Services, yeah I see your point.

<comment><USER39> > You can install Firefox on Android, and it has proper integration.

You can (and I do, because it's the only way to block ads without root on Android).

But that was literally the same claim that was made against Microsoft - <USER2> you could install alternative browsers, you couldn't really uninstall IE. And as parts of IE were factored into separate components for reuse by other applications, the concern was that IE was being turned into part of the operating system.

(The difference is that Android's market share, while still dominant, is still not as high as Windows's was back in the 90s[0]. Ditto for iOS, which has a minority market share. But in terms of the software vs. OS components, it's almost exactly the same.)

[0] or even as high as the Windows marketshare is today, for that matter.

<comment><USER42> It's not the same claim. The claim against Microsoft was that browser and OS dominance had killed competition ("cutting off the oxygen supply" of other browser makers) and was literally distorting the industry.

Browser dominance on its own was not the problem. The problem was that Microsoft's strategy was deliberately anti-competitive and monopolistic, and the browser was one symptom of that - not just because it gave MS massive market share, but because it created a technological chokepoint which limited the commercial potential of everyone working in the PC and Internet industries.

Remember, MS spent a lot of time and money promoting site/browser technologies like ActiveX that only really worked on Windows PCs, and seem to have been an attempt to look out everyone else.

It's hard to argue that iOS or Android are anywhere close to doing the same. Both may be walled gardens, and both have toxic effects. But they're not de facto standards setters, and they can't use their influence to kill competing products at equivalent scale. (They can and have killed or assimilated smaller products - but that's plain unethical behaviour, not clear evidence of monopoly. Taking steps to crush Twitter, WhatsApp, or Facebook would probably count as monopolistic. Killing SmallAppCo is just shady; sad, but true.)

If it was found that Apple and Google were colluding, _that_ would be a serious problem - just as both had problems when it was proved they'd made secret agreements about employee mobility and salary negotiations.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> > Go to the mirror and practice these faces.

Great piece. This article is worth a click for that lead image alone. I really wonder what the context was for such an expression.

</comment><comment><USER44> IIRC, Ballmer at one point went double or nothing, margining his stock to double his position. That explains half of his stake right there.

That's when he was worth $100 or $200 million, not long after the IPO.

Jim Treybig of Tandem Computers did something similar when he lost half his stock in a divorce.

</comment><comment><USER45> I would have passed this article anywhere else if not for Hacker News. This is a great insight and great way to work on your personality.

</comment><comment><USER46> It all comes down to sales being easier to measure than other parts like development. Something like "doubling revenue" can be reasonably objectively measured. Trying to do the same thing for a developer is way too hard: double X? halve X? where X is lines of code, bugs, hours of attendance, appraisal scores, or other measurements don't remotely cut it, and are easy to game. (Revenue can also be gamed to some degree, but people/companies parting with cash is a higher hurdle.)

That let him make a measurable deal with Gates & Allen. A new developer as employee #30 doesn't have anything comparable.

</comment><comment><USER47> I thought the article was serious until I reached the "Steve Ballmer mission pack". Author can't be serious.

<comment><USER48> It's serious, but not literal.

<comment><AUTHOR> Perfect summary of what I hoped to achieve. Thanks for reading. And defending!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> The Charlie Rose interview is a pretty decent insight into the man. Certainly shuts up the armchair quaterbacks here with 20:20 hindsight calling him an idiot for certain career moves.

Sauce: [http://www.charlierose.com/watch/60463433](http://www.charlierose.com/watch/60463433)

</comment><comment><USER50> :P

Am I doing this right?

</comment><comment><USER44> Anyhow -- Steve had all the personality at the Windows 1.0 launch. Well, Steve and John Dvorak. Mike Maples and Jon Shirley, however, seemed like bigger deals in the company than Steve a while each.

Steve is basically a great salesman. He's both a huge extrovert and a great listener. He's delusional enough to completely believe, yet well smarter than other similarly delusional people. I presume he has all the sales process mechanics mastered too, but I don't actually know that for a fact.

</comment><comment><USER51> This just shows that terminal net worth is not that important.

</comment><comment><USER52> from wikipedia: In 2007, Ballmer said "There's no chance that the iPhone is going to get any significant market share. No chance."[55]

<comment><USER53> And in a funny sort of way he was kind of right :) [http://www.forbes.com/sites/dougolenick/2015/05/27/apple- ios...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/dougolenick/2015/05/27/apple-ios-and- google-android-smartphone-market-share-flattening-idc/)

Android: 79% versus iOS: 14%

</comment></comment><comment><USER54> Did Ballmer ever do any programming?

If not, why?

Did he just have no curiosity or interest?

Sounds like he had far more capacity for maths than Jobs.

</comment><comment><USER55> My personal opinion of Ballmer is that he was/is brilliant but he failed to prioritise in the right areas during the mid 2000s. He did well with investing in Azure and cloud tech but he was an idiot for letting Sinofsky run Windows into the ground with Windows 8.

</comment><comment><USER56> So introvert vs extrovert?

</comment><comment><USER57> You forgot "do a line of coke before giving a presentation"

</comment><comment><USER58> > i was prepared to snark

I don't know why but this just got me laughing so hard. I'm thinking about one of those infomercials. "They laughed at me when I sat at the piano... but when I started to play!"

It's like the Hacker News slogan or manifesto or something. HACKER NEWS: WE'RE PREPARED TO SNARK.

<comment><USER59> > _It 's like the Hacker News slogan or manifesto or something_

I know you mean this in good humor but I have to protest. Snark is an invasive species, and part of keeping it under control is not to forget that or identify with it.

We detached this comment from [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10671199](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10671199) and marked it off-topic.

<comment><USER60> You can't stop us from snarking, Dang.

<comment><USER59> Oh believe me I know. But it's more about what kind of community the community wants to be—and I do think that can shift over time. Indeed we've seen it do so.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER61> [https://xkcd.com/323/](https://xkcd.com/323/)

<comment><USER62> No, please.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Awesome article.

</comment><comment><USER63> Why?

</comment><comment><USER64> its a shame this is a joke.

you really could learn better from ballmer than from jobs imo.

i'd much rather be successful for the like ballmer than jobs. cult following is creepy, and recieving kudos even when you do nothing makes it easy to lose perspective.

jobs was great at what he did, but massively overrated thanks to the excellent work of the apple marketting guys. those guys are absolutely amazing at what they do. its a shame they don't get more credit.

<comment><USER65> How is Jobs overrated because of Apple's marketing team? He was the CEO; it was his marketing team. Even if you want to argue that it was already great when he got (back) there, it's still to his credit that he built the company around making such good use of it. If you want to blame CEOs for everything that goes wrong with a company, you pretty much have to give them credit for everything that goes right, too. Normally I don't think CEOs are nearly that important either way, but in this case it's fair to give Jobs a lot of the credit, precisely because Apple's brand marketing was so effective and the company positioned itself and its products around that brand as well as it did.

That's exactly what Microsoft, and especially Ballmer, never did. As the author points out, maybe Steve Jobs crashing your party would make the other guests feel less cool, but the reality is that a lot of people want to be hangers-on and aren't sufficiently introspective to feel uncool about it. The completion of the analogy is that Jobs got a lot of your guests to pay him $300 for the privilege of following him to crash the next party, while Ballmer brought $20 worth of bad vodka, then robbed your apartment while you were passed out. They both made money without creating much value; the difference is at whose expense they did so.

<comment><USER64> i shouldn't have said it maybe.

you are right that he deserves some credit, it just always irks me that the cult follower types seem to think he was single handedly responsible for all of the success of apple.

like most CEOs he set a direction, and it was the people underneath him that took the company there under his guidance, but without that direction nothing would have happened. (or something else would have happened)</comment></comment></comment>


Getting a Job Abroad - <AUTHOR>

So I am a fourth year CS major in a 5 year program with mandatory coops/internships. I've already done a 6 month coop at Oracle doing mostly web dev, with a little bit of back end work in java. And I really want to get an internship abroad but I have no idea how to go about this and my school's advisers have been less than helpful. Any advice or tips on ways to start my search or companies to look into? I have passable German ability but am not too picky on location. I was looking into places like London, New Zealand and Australia as well. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks <comment><USER2> It might be worth writing a letter/email to some different companies in different countries explaining your situation and what you want to do aslong with your cv and experience.

It also might be worth getting a decent website setup and writing some blog posts telling people what you want to do.

Depending what language you use it might be a good idea to check out the local user group for that city and ask a few members if they know of any good companies who are hiring etc.

Also depending where you are originally. For instance it might help if you are from Europe you might not need a visa for any other European countries.</comment>


Ask HN: Implementing referral codes for iPhone app. - <AUTHOR>

I am thinking of setting up a referral/affiliate program for my iPhone app. The idea is to give out referral codes to affiliates, and then ask each user to enter an optional referral code, log the code in a Flurry event, and then compensate the affiliate based on Flurry analytics. The problem is that I have to give limited access to my Flurry account to each affiliate so that he can verify how many users installed the app using his referral code.<p>Has someone else solved this problem in a better way? To my knowledge there is no support for this from Apple in iTunes Connect. Thanks. <comment><USER2> Clever. I'm a product guy at Flurry, so here's my thoughts:

1) You could ask us for more granular access permissions - but that's probably not likely to happen soon, because the roadmap's pretty packed.

2) You could just ask your affiliates to trust you and give them the numbers directly - that's actually how most affiliate networks work, with the affiliates are completely reliant on the network's reporting.

3) You could use Pinch Media's analytics, which has an API that lets you access the number of unique users that completed an action, and then build a dashboard for your affiliates that calls the Pinch API. (Fine by us, since we merged with Pinch Media.) That said, two caveats: the Pinch product aggregates data slower than the Flurry product, and we're merging the Pinch product into Flurry product. Since Pinch and Flurry handle events differently, you might end up reimplementing the API calls post-merger.

4) You could start by just sending out stats to your affiliates manually, and later build your own dashboard for them using Flurry's not-yet-built API. We're committed to releasing an API for Flurry, since Pinch already has an API and we're making sure the merged product has the superset of Pinch and Flurry features. I don't have timing for you yet, though.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, this helps.</comment></comment>


Hottest IT skills for 2010 - <AUTHOR> http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/345529/6_hottest_skills_for_2010?taxonomyId=10&pageNumber=1

<comment><USER2> Tom Silver, senior vice president for North America at Dice Holdings Inc is quoted in the article:

"Demand is growing for people who know specialized programming languages like Ruby on Rails and AJAX"

So clearly clueful recruitment is not a skill in demand.

<comment><USER3> Having spoke with the press, I give him a lot of latitude on that one.

There are lots of explanations that come to my mind before I'd assume he's clueless.

<comment><USER4> Right. People don't realize it, but quotes are not "quotes", because most people do not naturally speak in flawlessly edited quotable soundbites.

It probably sounded like:

Interviewer: So what, uh, do you see as the big, you know, trends in the coming year? In the industry?

Interviewee: Well, I think, you know, there's something of a t-trend towards specialization.

Interviewer: You mean in programming lang--

Interviewee: Exactly. Languages, specialized techniques, you know, Rails, AJAX, all that jazz.

<comment><USER3> Exactly. And even when the person does manage to speak in a perfect soundbite, they're often talking to somebody who isn't an expert, and it might well get screwed up during transcription, writing or editing.

The first time I talked to a reporter, the reporter swapped my descriptions of opportunities and threats, so I looked like I had absolutely no understanding of the market at all. After that, I started taking "quotes" with a much larger grain of salt.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> It's so refreshing and simplifying to look at what people need - what is actually useful and helpful to them - rather than what is technically "cool" at the moment.

</comment><comment><USER6> Anyone else notice that their "6 hottest skills" cover nearly everything?

</comment><comment><USER7> No sysadmins or DBAs to implement and operate all these new systems? Seems a bit strange and undermines the rest of the article.

</comment><comment><USER8> "He also needs developers with open-source expertise -- a rare talent, he says" - Shane Kilgore

Surely OSS developers aren't particularly rare beasts. But perhaps they don't want to talk to him. That and the bit about AJAX the programming language make me think these folks are barking up the wrong trees.

<comment><USER7> It is pretty rare. If you hire someone with, I dunno, 5 years experience in industry X (where I mean an actual industry, not "the web industry") the chances that they were using what most people would understand as open source are pretty low. I mean, using bash as your shell or emacs or whatever doesn't count - no-one gets paid for their amazing shell and text editing skills...

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Is it just me or is Performance Tuning distinctly missing from this list?

</comment><comment><USER10> It kind of scary that tech support is #2... I still have nightmares.

<comment><USER11> As someone who does tech support for a living, I'm thrilled that it's #2. This is a job I enjoy doing and that, I believe, serves a useful purpose. Pity too many companies that supply tech support believe it's best done for pennies on the dollar somewhere else (on the basis that it's a "cost center"). The value of a company backing its products with knowledgeable, helpful staff, especially when it's accessible to the small-to-medium business market, is incredibly high.

I also like doing help desk work, so maybe I'm just crazy.

<comment><USER12> Crazy in a good way! Thank god for people like you!

Like many people here I've done my dues in tech support and I know what you mean about the difference between genuinely trying to help and train people, and providing minimal "cost centre" level support. Maybe I would like the first kind. Never seen it though.</comment></comment></comment>


The rise and fall of Limux - <AUTHOR> https://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/737818/3e293b6b20f8de9a/ <comment><USER4> The problem is Office. It is actually a problem of two sides.

1) Libre/OpenOffice was never satisfactory. It is ugly and crashes. Tried many times using it since 1999 and it gets worse and worse. Pity, because StarOffice was a perfectly usable alternative back then.

2) Office-like products are addictive in corporate environment. People love to make ramsom-note style documents and presentations. An old typewritten document seems way more professional in direct comparison... People add so many 'hairs' in documents that not even Office365 can open them anymore, so you have to resort to native MS-Office. And sometimes it must even be the Windows version, because the Mac version does things a little differently and messes up a really complicated document. (The second last version for Mac consistently broke when review mode and table changes were mixed, and I worked in an environment where review mode was extensively employed.)

Any migration away from Windows would have to tackle these problems before even the operating system. The rest of the desktop UI is ok in Linux - <USER2> use mostly the browser anyway. Google Docs is an option - no documents more complicated than GDocs can handle should be allowed.

I actually preferred the documents were all generated, either by software, or at least using markup like HTML or LaTeX, that are diff'able. But I know this is impossible to impose on the layman.

<comment><USER5> >Google Docs is an option - no documents more complicated than GDocs can handle should be allowed.

At least in my experience the GDocs is rapidly eating Office. Deployment is cheaper and easier. All you need to do is send a link and someone can edit your document. It works everywhere.

<comment><USER6> It also runs on Google's servers, which makes it unacceptable for many use cases.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This has (some) echoes of the rise and fall of the use of Linux at Central Scotland Police: [https://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/08/11/ms_lochs_down_polic...](https://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/08/11/ms_lochs_down_police/)

I worked with one of the architects of that (many moons ago). He was a fervent believer in OSS and its use in the enterprise. From what I could glean, they struggled with user interface issues - end users didn't like having to relearn how to use their very-similar-but-not-quite-the-same-word-processor software. As soon as he left (and it was never clear which came first) they decided to return to the Microsoft fold.

edit: better article link

<comment><USER8> _From what I could glean, they struggled with user interface issues - <USER3> users didn 't like having to relearn how to use their very-similar-but-not- quite-the-same-word-processor software. _

I find this very interesting. We are all familiar with less tech-savvy users that are only comfortable what they know.

However, Google Docs is a fierce competitor of Microsoft Office. Android/iOS replaced Windows for a lot of regular users. Chrome crushed the competition, including Internet Explorer.

Why are these examples different? Is it because these alternatives did not try to emulate Microsoft's products and hence didn't cause the impression that 'it's almost the same, but glitchy'. Or was the experience of these products so much better than Microsoft's counterparts?

What lesson could the FLOSS world learn here?

<comment><USER9> I have sort of an underlying philosophical theory that open-source projects that start out as attempts to clone a popular commercial package will ultimately fail. The reasoning goes like this: even if you achieve a good clone, the commercial project will move along and you will not be able to keep up. Your desire to catch a user-base that is resistant to change will actually encourage you to not keep up, as at first this looks like a kind of success, but then a few years down the road you will realize that you are terrible behind.

As an example, look at LibreOffice. It is widely marketed by OSS enthusiasts as "just like Office" and "just as good as Office," but it struggled to meet feature parity while remaining stable early on. Then, MS transitioned Office to the Ribbon UI. This was absolutely hated by a fairly large group of users, and it became a marketing point, at least in my circles, for LibreOffice that it had not made such a transition. This pulled in more users and looked like a success story. Years later, though, Office users have adapted to the Ribbon UI and discovered its advantages, and when you compare Office to LibreOffice, LibreOffice seems hopelessly out of date.

I think KDE is another example of this phenomenon as it was commonly seen as the best way to transition from Windows. But as a project it seriously struggled to retain interest after Microsoft continued to evolve their desktop environment in big ways, and now that I think they've successfully divorced themselves from any "clone of Windows" objectives they're still not really able to make up for the lost steam.

For just a last example, I would point to The GIMP, which has successfully navigated the transition from "a kind of clone of Photoshop" to "a kind of clone of a very old version of Photoshop."

<comment><USER10> I wholeheartedly agree with all of that except GIMP. The UI in GIMP is horrendous and the only reason it's successful IMO is because the gap it fills is that of an expensive and confusing product that is niche to a lot of people who need some of the functionality but don't use it for their job.

I use it quite often (and loathe the interface) but I'll never pay for photoshop because I don't need the pro tool and after 10+ years of GIMP I don't want to shake up.

<comment><USER11> To me it's exactly the opposite. I am glad that KDE remained to be a _usable_ desktop, and did not follow the Win 8 GUI disaster.

I also appreciate that LibreOffice sticks to the classical menu system and doesn't overload the desktop window with a multiple of icons where most of them are barely used.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> There is a lot of hyperbole, idealism and straight out lies around this story, from both sides unfortunately.

All idealism aside, it is important to acknowledge that there were (always will be?) issues with documents made in MS Office sent by e.g. other departments or by citizens. After all, the workers are supposed to handle applications and such.

The departments were promised free Linux based software solutions made from scratch to cover their workflows. This has actually nothing to do with Linux itself, but it seems that software never fulfilled the requirements.

It appears that Microsoft spent quite some time and money to convince the decision bodys and the workers that none of this problems would have happened with MS Windows. All idealism aside, if you are going to partially stick to handling MS Office documents, there is no way Linux will be satisfactory.

<comment><USER13> Can you give some examples of straight out lies from the Linux camp?

<comment><USER14> everything will be cheaper and better

(not neccearily from any officially involved, but you could hear it from the advocates on many forums and can still hear it. The german Heise forum for example is very bad for this, unfortunately)

<comment><USER12> Sigh

<strikethrough> You're statement is the kind of thing I was stabbing at with my critique: a hidden (shallow) argument, that going with LiMux is worse than going with MS, and it would have been wiser and cheaper to stick with MS in the first place?

Why can't such a thing (arguably a complex matter) be discussed in a mature way, without unfounded arguments that are just re-iterated anecdotal wisdom, and mostly stabs at the other guys? This is not a we vs. them thing! And you should stop believing everything you're being told by the guys in your group. </strikethrough>

I was taking this the wrong way. Nevertheless, we should stop arguing with the idealists and their idealistic, unfounded arguments, basically taking the discussion down to a unsolvable level. Let's discuss objective (measurable or at least verifyable) arguments instead.

<comment><USER14> "Let's discuss objective (measurable or at least verifyable) arguments instead."

Agreed. And I think, if this would have done from the beginning, especially from the linux crowd, then maybe they would still have Limux or are on their way of having a stable variant, yet. I mean with all that money, it definitely should have been possible to adjust LibreOffice in the needed way by now.

But so there were wrong expectations and then disappointment.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> If somebody does not want a software system, or in some cases, wants to sabotage it, this is not a technical problem. No technical solution will fix it.

It might be fixable, but not with a software update.

<comment><USER16> Yes, but at one point we need to ask why people don't want linux. Apple MACOS & IOS, android, even windows 8 and 10 did introduce radical new changes, it was a bumpy road, but at the end people did start using it. It is a technical problem, Linux on desktop is just worst than both windows and MACOS; Both in term of software available (can we stop pretending that libreoffice is even remotely comparable to MS office...), basic drivers and OS services (wifi etc...) and UI design

<comment><USER17> To a certain extent, I think the lack of applications, driver compatibility, and "familiarity" are excuses trotted out by Linux Desktop evangelists.

Don't get me wrong, they definitely are a problem, but they'd be solved problems if people actually wanted to work with a Linux Desktop. The thing is, people don't.

I grew up in the 90s, and I was even a Linux and OSS evangelist during my stupid teenager years. I really wanted to make a Linux Desktop work. I still do want a viable OSS desktop. But what I found was that the community built up around Linux, and the Linux Desktop in particular, seems intent on making things suck as much as possible. I can hypothesize a wide variety of reasons why, and I suspect anyone who's spent a significant amount of time working with OSS communities can as well, but the upshot is that pretty much nothing they do is conducive to producing a good product. What's worse is that they largely refuse to recognize any problems they might actually have, technical or otherwise, preferring instead to believe they are a perfect beacon of The Way Things Should Be, that everyone else is doing it wrong, and blaming Windows's dominance for their failures.

<comment><USER18> I think you're sincere, but your post sounds like a pretty good troll. Lightly attacks a wide group of people while not being overly aggressive and doesn't actually make any concrete point (like point out those problems) so it's easy for others to read in it their own opinions and defend it.

[http://www.urban75.com/Mag/troll.html](http://www.urban75.com/Mag/troll.html)

<comment><USER19> Not op but to bring this into concrete terms the multiple incompatible UI toolkits, and especially the GTK rewrites couldn't have helped.

I remember first starting out trying to decide if I should use KDE or GTK. And this choice would affect how well your apps worked in ways that are totally non obvious if you aren't a UI programmer.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Maybe they would have had better luck if they didn't create their own distro? That seems like a lot of unnecessary overhead, unless it's just marketing for "Ubuntu + preselected set of packages"

> Along the way, it was reported that 20% of the users of Limux were not happy > or satisfied with it

I would guess you could survey users of any computer/OS combination and get that response. That means 80% of users are happy (or at least, not unhappy) which is phenomenally good, really.

</comment><comment><USER21> There are so many great answers here, but ...

As technical folks, we tend to forget that its all about politics and the hidden under-belly of politics is money, lots of it. MS and their consultant partners have a massive vested interest in keeping organisations subservient to their vision of IT. Limux and open source are certainly in the public's better interests, but that runs contrary to the plutocrats' interests. Guess who wins?

</comment><comment><USER22> > "Do we sometimes harm these migrations by volunteering?" Migrations to free > software are generally

> driven by individuals, either inside a public administration or by a parent > for a school. Those

> individuals start bringing free software in and do lots of work (for free) > to make it all work.

> Problems arise and there is no budget to bring in others to help out; people > burn out and then

> everything fails. Instead of coming to the conclusion that not having a > budget led to free software

> failing, the organizations often decide to "get a budget and do it right". > He thought it might make

> more sense to try to get the budget for the free-software project, instead > of volunteering.

When reading I thought this was a rather insightful passage. I've noticed this at varying levels by helping others out (family) or by watching others put in overtime for small fixes: if you don't set a budget, then free == charity == not as good as the free market could do in most people's eyes. Does anyone have any additional anecdotes or data into how this happens? I get that people attribute cost to value, even if the two aren't related at all, but I wonder how this affects institutions at a higher level.

</comment><comment><USER23> >Limux will be replaced with Microsoft clients. It doesn't make sense, he said, because the city already had a strategy to move away from desktops to "bring your own device" and other desktop alternatives.

There are no desktop alternatives at work. You BYOD for checking email not doing work.

And phones and tablets are much more proprietary than desktops.

</comment><comment><USER24> I'd be curious to read a similar story about how GendBuntu [1] is doing. They migrated 70,000 workstations, compared with 15,000 for LiMux.

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

</comment><comment><USER25> Without improving Linux on the desktop[1], implementations like Limux are bound to take this route.

[1] [http://itvision.altervista.org/why.linux.is.not.ready.for.th...](http://itvision.altervista.org/why.linux.is.not.ready.for.the.desktop.current.html)

<comment><USER26> There is a LOT that can be done to improve desktop linux, but I think in this case, at least according to the article, the difficulties were largely political, not technical.

<comment><USER17> In the general case, though, I think the biggest problem is that the community that uses and works on the Linux Desktop doesn't actually want it to improve.

If you're an open source developer, for instance, why would you work to improve or maintain software X when you can create an alternative that does things slightly differently? That looks a lot more impressive on a resume. And I'd swear many Linux Desktop users wish it was even more complicated and fragile either because they love troubleshooting or just so they can virtue signal that they're leet. I mean, why else would /r/unixporn exist?

<comment><USER27> I think this is largely an issue with X rather than users wanting to show off, I think wayland (while not perfect) can really help with developing easy to use desktop enviroments.

Also not everybody who uses "complicated" setups care about "leetness", personally I use i3 (and alot of mods, customizations) because nothing compares to the ease of use + functionality for me.

I personally want more linux desktop adoption, Ive switched my parents over, trying to convert my brother.

<comment><USER17> I suspect you'd have been better off switching them to ChromeOS. Most people do not need a desktop in 2017. There was only a brief window in the late 90s and early aughties when "most" people did, but that was only because of the internet. We have better consumer-oriented devices for that now. Desktops are for people who do work, hobbyists, developers, and the kind of gamer who is basically the hotrod-guy of the computing world. If someone actually wants to make the Linux Desktop a good desktop OS, they'll have to stop trying to make things "easy" for the strawman of the "average" user and instead make something for those people.

<comment><USER8> While I largely agree with your observation, the problem with ChromeOS is that not everybody wants to ship their behavioral data in real-time to Google. So, there is is still a place for a basic Linux-based family desktop that just runs a privacy-friendly browser.

<comment><USER17> That's not a desktop, it's a kiosk. Linux is actually fine for these kinds of single-tasking embedded use-cases.

But seriously, who does that? I don't know anyone who primarily uses a desktop computer just to browse the web. That's what tablets and phones are for. ChromeOS is just one of those with a bigger screen and a keyboard, which is why it is perfect for them.

"Family desktop" was only a thing in the brief period between the internet becoming popular with consumers and the first iPhone. Outside of that period, multi-user desktops (or microcomputers, if you recall the 80s) are an extreme edge case.

<comment><USER28> Don't forget about the educational market. ChromeOS is very popular in schools _because_ of how locked down it is, and computer labs in schools are one of the few environments where multi-user desktops thrive.

<comment><USER29> Just in US schools though.

I hardly seen any Chromebook on sale, or being used in coffee shops, around European countries.

In Germany when they are on sale, they happen to be a single unit, discounted multiple times until it somehow disappears from the shop.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> it wasn't just a technical issue [https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/rise-fall- limux-my-perspectiv...](https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/rise-fall-limux-my- perspective-joachim-bauernberger/)

</comment><comment><USER31> You can pry my Linux desktop out of my cold dead hands. I've been using it for almost 10 years now, and I couldn't imagine having to deal with windows telemetry and terrible performance, or apples outrageous prices. Yes it takes longer to set up but my desktop setup fits me like a glove. I always feel slightly handicapped when I have to use windows at work.

There is one thing that would make me switch, and that's apples IME methods for Chinese characters, which are a lot more sophisticated than the Linux offerings.

<comment><USER32> "windows [...] terrible performance"

Uhh... what? The only significant performance difference is in graphics & media, which is where Windows handily bests Linux. What performance are you talking about?

<comment><USER33> It depends. The thing with Windows is that you have exactly one way to use it, and if your computer is old and it's specs aren't good enough, too bad.

Linux, on the other hand, can be run with Gnome 3, or with lxqt, or with i3. You can even run a desktop Linux on a raspberry pi.

So maybe Windows 10 beats Gnome 3 (although I don't know if it's true, I don't have Windows), but it definitely can't beat "Linux"

<comment><USER32> > So maybe Windows 10 beats Gnome 3 (although I don't know if it's true, I > don't have Windows), but it definitely can't beat "Linux"

This gets back to the question of what performance are you even talking about. It sounds like you're talking about the performance of random apps here rather than of the OS or any of its fundamentals.

No matter what DE you run, though, you're not fixing Linux's graphics problems, so Windows will always beat Linux on that front until the driver & compositor situation radically improves. Wayland simply can't compete with WDDM today, and for some god unknown reason you still get X11 on many distros by default anyway.

Running on a raspberry pi isn't some monumental achievement, either. The Pi has rather quite a lot of power. Windows IoT core runs just fine on it, which despite the name still has a graphics stack and all of that (more "windows lite" rather than "iot core")

<comment><USER31> Windows 10 must be amazing then, because from win2k to win7 I've dual booted and always found Linux to be much faster and smoother for everything. "Random apps" forms the bulk of what we do with operating systems. windows being more performant on some level is all very well and interesting, but I don't care because it's sluggish when I browse the internet, watch videos or use IDEs.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> > "Do we suck at the desktop?"

Yes. Absolutely. UI design doesn't work in the OSS "bazaar model". It needs a pope who is generally regarded as infallible, and deferred to even when not. Alternatively, a rather strict set of rules like Apple's HIIG might work, possibly created and enforced in a process like Wikipedia's.

I've repeatedly cringed when watching some eager young guy set his grandfather up with Linux. It may have improved now, but having once seen a 75-year old type commands into a terminal as dictated over the phone to install flash has thoroughly ruined any instinct to proselytize I may have had.</comment>


14 years of distributed prime number calculations lost with no backups - <AUTHOR> http://www.free-dc.org/forum/showthread.php?52383-Server-down <comment><USER2> Description of Seventeen or Bust: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeen_or_Bust](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeen_or_Bust)

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> And fwiw this seems like a beautiful project with noble aims (I stumbled across it after reading about large RSA numbers the other night). Any way anyone may be able to help these guys I'm sure would be much appreciated.</comment>


A Cure for Blindness - <AUTHOR> https://2040infolawblog.com/2019/05/19/a-cure-for-blindness/ <comment><AUTHOR> This title is meaningless. The blog is a useful discussion around the ability to refuse GDPR / DPA Subject Access Requests if the person making the request doesn't have a genuine concern for their data and is just trying to waste your time.</comment>


The Problem with "Modern Monetary Theory" Is That It's True - <AUTHOR> https://www.forbes.com/sites/nathanlewis/2019/02/21/the-problem-with-modern-monetary-theory-is-that-its-true/#4e92523456fb <comment><USER2> Asking "can modern monetary theory work" is sort of like asking "can I recreationally use heroin and not get addicted". The answer to both of these questions is yes, in _theory_ both are possible. But look at the realities of these situations.

Historically governments that _primarily_ paid for services by printing money (as opposed to taxes) have rarely, if ever, done so responsibly. In theory it's possible but MMT lacks the economic pushback caused by taxes. Traditionally, when government spending is too high people and businesses complain and the government sees the economy suffering. In MMT, the costs of government spending are essentially hidden. Or in another perspective, the cost of government spending comes in the form of inflation. To the everyday person, government spending is free because they don't see how much of their paycheck is being sent to the government. They only see the cost of government spending once their savings are wipes out by inflation.

 _Could_ the government maintain restraint and not spend much money? In theory yes, but in practice I am very confident politicians would give in to the temptation to try and carry out utopian policies that are insanely expensive. Just look at what proponents of MMT are promising: a government job for everyone that wants one, free University education, and more. I trust politicians not to abuse MMT as much as I would trust myself to use heroin responsibly, which is to say not at all.

<comment><USER3> The article argues that it's an even more unstable proposition: you must not only safely use the heroin, you must convince others to invest in your business while you do so publicly!

Even if you know in your heart of hearts you will spend responsibly, you must find others to extend the same trust.

<comment><USER4> Do note however, that powerful nations often do such convincing with the barrel of a gun.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> [http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com/2019/03/examining-mmt- mod...](http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com/2019/03/examining-mmt-model-in- detail.html)

Noah Smith talks about how MMT is a pretty slippery concept to pin down.

<comment><USER6> Krugman has similar stuff to say [https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/25/opinion/running-on-mmt- wo...](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/25/opinion/running-on-mmt-wonkish.html)

</comment></comment><comment> munk-a I think this article is very misleading and would've been more clear if it had started from the angle that currencies are constantly accumulating trust and confidence - where that trust can be spent to reduce the debt of the issuer.

This article seemed to fall victim to the clickbait temptation in making the premise of the article "Modern Monetary Theory is somewhat accurate" in favor of just hyperbolic-ly stating that it's true.

In actuality currencies are a sort of stock issued as part of the value of an economy, if that economy does better or worse then the value of that currency does better or worse - it is much more resistant to change since it is far more liquid (imagine that apple said, you will always be able to exchange stocks for a new iPhone at this rate which is pretty steady but will adjust slightly over time). In this analogy printing more money is equivalent to the act of the company issuing more stock (and not equivalent to the act of an owner selling some of their stock) everyone's proportional stake in the company will go down, but as long as you don't issue too quickly then people won't mind, if a company does start over-issuing stock then that stock becomes diluted _and_ rational actors further devalue the stock by jumping ship and trying to convert their partial ownership into a currency they have greater faith in.

<comment><USER3> What the article alludes to is that while the demand to spend money is relatively liquid because it is linked to the whole economy, the demand to hold it, loan it, or commit to prices over time are a speculative bet on how it will be issued. And because it is speculative, it can move disproportionate to the economic size of the actions involved.

Right now the speculators' trust is rooted in the apparent independence of Fed from Treasury. If the US were to seek trust to self-manage from Treasury alone, how would it earn or argue for that trust from the community of speculators?

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Interested parties should really watch this short talk by Richard Wolff: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGZ7nJCzlW4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGZ7nJCzlW4) If you are really impatient (really, spare five minutes and watch it in full) skip to 4:20 for his conclusions. Wolff is a Professor Emeritus of Economy in Massachusetts. No wonder MMT is shunned by so called "legitimate" economists!

</comment><comment><USER8> I've said it before and I'll say it again: Modern Monetary Theory is kind of just giving a name and theoretical application to something that is essentially contemporary, defacto monetary practice.

</comment><comment><USER9> I really liked this article, but I also notice that I seem to be suffering from a severe case of the Gell-Mann amnesia effect[1]. Not sure if it's related.

1\. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gell- Mann_amnesia_effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gell-Mann_amnesia_effect)

</comment><comment><USER10> The problem with this article's accounting of the Fed, is that it's missing 4.5T in quantitative easing assets that were injected into banks, in crisis, outside the conventional theory of Fed management.

[https://www.thebalance.com/what-is-quantitative-easing- defin...](https://www.thebalance.com/what-is-quantitative-easing-definition- and-explanation-3305881)

The other contribution is that fractional reserve lending itself also creates inflationary currency. There is some 22T (IIRC) of private loans. I think the real objection to applying MMT more fundamentally is fear that allowing public programs to focus on good return on investment expenditures without worrying as much about cashflow against direct tax receipts, it takes out "capacity" for private lending to select it's desired investments.

<comment><USER11> Well, fractional reserve lending isn't a useful model for how money is created in the modern economy - bank loans are just a matter of adding an amount to the borrower's account balance and are constrained solely by the bank's judgement of the risk of a default and to a lesser extent reserve requirements imposed by law. The amount of money that is deposited in a bank has no effect on its ability to loan money.

I'm also not impressed by th6 author's claims about the FED not being audited, which is a trope common amongst a particular subset of the right that to the point it's practically a dog whistle for conspiratorial anti-tax and government types.

<comment><USER10> The point is that "just adding an amount" to the balance, creates money, temporarily if the lone is repaid, but potentially inflationary as long as the loan is open, and the money is spent and circulating.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> The problem with this article, is that as a supply sider, the author has no compassion for the lower classes, who are hurting the most through these policies. It should be no surprise that the divergence between labor productivity and real compensation began diverging immediately after the collapse of bretton woods (and the concomitant widening of the gap between the rich and poor); after all, inflation is basically the means by which the government steals from the poor to give to the rich, in a compounding fashion (slow though the time constant may be)

<comment><USER13> wait what... The poor have debt, inflation eases debt burdens. I would agree that the mechanism the fed uses to control inflation (interest rate which acts more or less as a proxy for housing prices/mortgages), does end up gouging the poor through the housing market, but this is only because the government allows real estate monopolists/speculators to harvest land rent since we don't have a land value tax.

<comment><USER14> > the government allows real estate monopolists/speculators to harvest land > rent since we don't have a land value tax.

Huh? I write a check for many thousands of dollars every six months, based on the assessed value of my home and land.

We absolutely have "land value" tax in the USA, it's just collected by the states in most cases.

<comment><USER13> Property taxes are not land value taxes, and there's a difference between a halfway land value tax and a full on land value tax where 100% of the natural rent of land is collected (that is, all the external value generated by the surrounding community is harvested by the government instead of rent seekers).

It helps to know how (to simplify) a land value tax is assessed. The gov buys random property, demolishes the building, then sells that property on the open market and uses those data points to calculate a gradient. Then an arbitrarily high tax is imposed on the calculated value (e.g. 100%). It (in the long run) doesn't matter how high the tax is as long as it is high enough to capture all land rent, given current market assessed land values, since the price of land will simply adjust to the higher tax (a 400% tax could easily be levied). When such a tax is levied, no one will buy land except those that have a use for it, that is no land speculation/monopoly can occur. If you have more questions I would recommend asking e.g. the georgism subreddit.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> No, banks are not stuffed with reserves because they learned a lesson from 2008 and are being cautions like "before 1970". It's because the Fed has been furiously swapping assets with the banks, buying their MBS's for example. This is a balance sheet exercise which the Fed hopes prevents recession. It hasn't worked very well and that's why the MMT's feel vindicated now that everyone's talking about how ineffective central banks have been since the recession.

</comment><comment><USER16> Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks - Genesis block of Bitcoin

</comment><comment><USER17> Never have I seen so much middle brow dismissal from a bunch of people who understand so little about a topic. Sad.</comment>


Evolving Neural Networks for a Flatland Agent - <AUTHOR> http://veierland.net/blog/evolving-neural-networks-for-a-flatland-agent/ <comment><USER2> If you wait until the simulation is complete, a buton thay says "random" appear just below the map and you can see how one of the pacmans (the champion?) performs in the map.

I tried to change "foodEaten - 2 * poisonEaten" to "foodEaten - 10 * poisonEaten" but then the pacman walks a little and then it starts to go in a "circle"(square) up>left>down>right>[repeat]. It get's too cautious :(.</comment>


E2 Visa for Startup Founders 101 - <AUTHOR> http://www.expresslaneventures.com/post/46253612238/e2-visa-for-startup-founders-101 <comment><USER2> I had to apply for an EB5 visa, and since I was opening an office in non-TEA city, Austin, I have to put over 1 million + expenses for it. I'm still in the process of making enough to enter here and open a company, but its hard for people from India. India is not a treaty nation so tech-founders from here have an extremely hard time entering here to start a business.

<comment><USER3> It's not that hard actually, there are many hacks possible with the current immigration system. I am a tech founder from India, been in US 10 years and funded by a top tier valley VC. My green card application has been in progress forever...So I simply created a LLC and transferred my H1 visa to that. Super low-cost solution, better/cheaper than getting a green card or E2 or any of these funky visas. And this isn't just a fluke, a number of people in a similar situation have applied this hack successfully....

<comment><USER4> Good info!! Thanks

Do you have a blog / another way to reach you?

<comment><USER3> email@example.com

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Great write-up. Highly appreciated. I hope getting visas for tech founders will get easier going forward. Until then it's invaluable to be able to talk to and read from people who've done it before.

Thanks a ton for taking your time to share this.

</comment><comment><USER6> Interesting. I think this will go very well for the US.

As an aside, Australians have access to a H1B alternative, the E-3. The terms are generous and the quota has never been filled in any year. So if you want to be an employee of the US startup, tech firm etc, that's one to investigate.

<comment><USER7> >I think this will go very well for the US.

FYI this visa has existed for over 60 years.

<comment><USER6> I was under the impression it (the E2) was new.

Oh well.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Thank you for your feedback!

I was dealing with Matthew Schulz at Baker & McKenzie in Palo Alto (<http://www.bakermckenzie.com/MattSchulz/>) and it worked out pretty well.

<comment><USER8> Thanks a lot! Could you perhaps explain this a bit more in detail:

"The investment has to be made by the people applying for the visa."

Let's say that we're a 2 year old company in a treaty country (EU) with ~$400k in the bank, founders have ~50% of the company. Not having a US company yet. Would this situation require some tweaks before applying for a E2 visa?

Also:

"Your employees can also move to the US under this visa."

Under which circumstances can the (EU) employees transfer? The same time frame as the E2 holder? Would it be sufficient for only one of the two founders to get the E2 visa and let the other move as an employee?

<comment><AUTHOR> In this case you could do a so-called flip bringing your assets from the EU to the US (contributing cash and assets).

A drawback is everything depends on the main E2 visa holders - as long as this person holds the visa others can follow; if this person does not hold the visa any more, all attached immigration permits are gone as well (e.g. if the company goes out of business you can't stay in the US and look for a job).

<comment><USER8> Great, thanks. Do you know of a more formal way of expressing this "flip"? (Don't get any good Google hits).

<comment><USER9> It generally is referred to a scrip for scrip rollover (terms may vary based on your country of jurisdiction).

You're essentially swapping your ownership in the foreign company for the equivalent ownership in a US company, and the US company becomes the sole shareholder of the foreign company.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Considering all the annoyance around the startup visa (myself included), this actually seems like a pretty sweet deal.

Are there any negatives that people might miss? Would love if someone could field a few questions...

Can you travel in and out of the US as often as you want while on this visa?

What would be the standard criteria for having the visa renewal approved? Would they need to see revenue growth? Would a stable stream of revenue be sufficient?

Can you start other companies while on this visa?

Can you invest in other companies on this visa?

If you have existing employees from non-treaty countries, can they come?

While on the visa, can you hire new employees from your home country and get them visas?

<comment><USER4> The only BIG Negative is : The investment has to be made by the people applying for the visa.

<comment><USER8> What does this mean? That Hans (in this case) needs to be investing his personal assets in order to get a E2?

<comment><USER4> No investor money will do as long as you have > 50%. But it's only a valid option if you have already started your company in your home country and have had some funding and incorporated your company in the US.

If you move to the US and get funding from a US VC / Angle then I think it gets tricky because it says : At least 50% of the investors must be nationals of the treaty country.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Brazil, Russia, India and China are excluded from this visa program which means more than half of world population is out.

<comment><USER11> EB5 is the equivalent for those countries as I understand it (I'm not an immigration attorney though).

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I had one of these visas, and Hans has done a great job of describing the entire process. If anyone from the UK is looking to get an E2, email me and I can put you in touch with a great immigration lawyer in London.

<comment><USER13> I'm curious, approximately how much money are we talking in legal (and other) fees?

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Thanks for sharing this, any recommendations for a great immigration lawyer?

<comment><USER11> I'm biased, but I think Ting Ni is great (she's in Mountain View if you're in Silicon Valley, but I think remote is fine too). Usually very responsive on email as well: firstname.lastname@example.com. <http://tingnilaw.com/profile.html>

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Useful post. How was your pitch, particularly the question: How do you make money with Moosify?

<comment><AUTHOR> Three major revenue streams - Premium (In-App purchases), Affiliate & Ads.

In the interview at the Consulate we've been really talking about details here I guess especially because we're a quite young startup.

<comment><USER16> But the money that you showed in the bank was from investments, right? In that case, you have Austrian investors. If the investors were from US, the E2 visa would be still possible? What I mean is: if I came to US and close a deal with an investor, I'm still eligible to get this kind of visa.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, the money has to be on your account.

From what I remember 50% of the investors have to be nationals of the treaty country (not sure if this applies to the investment as well).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Very good post. Still, I hope we'll be more and more able to just build our startups in the EU.

<comment><AUTHOR> Things are happening ... see <http://europa.eu/rapid/press- release_IP-13-262_en.htm></comment></comment>


Uber employees warned journalist that executives would spy on her - <AUTHOR> http://www.theverge.com/2014/11/18/7243081/uber-employees-warned-journalist-that-executives-would-spy-on-her

<comment><AUTHOR> the original article from San Francisco magazine here: [http://www.modernluxury.com/san-francisco/story/uber- employe...](http://www.modernluxury.com/san-francisco/story/uber-employees- warned-san-francisco-magazine-writer-executives-might-snoop-her)</comment>


Ask HN: How to "seed" new social network with non-users. - <AUTHOR>

Currently developing a site which allows users to sign up, invite friends etc. My network's redeeming factor is that it allows active users to manually add people within their network to their list of "contacts" even if they aren't yet registered.
This action will automatically creates a wiki-like profile for non-active users until they sign up. Only then will that profile become dynamic, actively allowing friend requests and message activity.
My dilemma? Even if well built, an empty social networking application is not a social networking site at all. So, let's say I have a school network of 4,000 people. What is a good, legal method of placing these people (photos and all) into the directory before they become active users? <comment><USER2> At one point I ran a social network around cars. Basically people would upload pics of their ride and attach all the gear that went into the car. I personally didn't own a car or know much about them, so what to do?

I ended up going in person to a bunch of meetup groups in the SF area with a Polaroid and digital camera. I'd ask dudes if they minded if I took pictures of their cars for my website. I'd take a bunch with the digital camera and then take one with the polaroid. I'd then write down a user/pass on the back of it along with the site's URL. Then I'd go home that night and build separate profiles for each car.

We got hundreds of user profiles this way. After a couple months we had a decent little community. Enough to scare our largest competitor into making an offer on the site.

When it comes to social networks, it's often much easier to market outside of your terminal.

<comment><AUTHOR> Brilliant! Only difference is that I need each profile, actively used or not, to represent a specific individual. Any ideas?

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> To the best of my knowledge, there's no way to do this. Which is good, because I'd be very annoyed if you added me without explicit consent.

Also, there are _few_ general social networks, and there are good reasons for that.

<comment><AUTHOR> Wrong. There is always a way to do something right. FB added a few thousand Harvard students into one directory. Were they wrong?

I know. I'm asking only because I think I have a better site, a better business model and passion for connecting people. I can do this better.

<comment><USER3> I seem to recall that what Facebook did violated at least (the university's?) copyright, but IANAL (nor even a resident of the US). Either way, I would likely have complained about their actions/asked for my data to be removed/filed a DMCA takedown if I were in Harvard at the time, and would recommend that you not look to Facebook's early days as an example to emulate.

I understand that you have the best of intentions, though, and wish you good luck. Just leave me out of it.

<comment><AUTHOR> Of course, I understand. At least you get my mission.

Thanks for your opinion. I'll find a way to do this right.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I would hate you and your site if you put my photos and info in there without my consent..

<comment><AUTHOR> Of course, I understand your hate for this concept - I would hate me too if I was doing this in the name of spam.

I'm not. I'm simply searching for a way to indicate that a user is in my contact list before they've actually signed up and added data their profile. Maybe "seeding" is the wrong term.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> It's common for bar and club owners to hire models to hang out in newly opened establishments to attract people. I'd do something similar.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for your input but I'm not into trying to spoof people into using my product with dollars. I really just want to build a social product that is worth using (more than FB).

Or, Maybe I can get popular students to actively use my network. Who knows?

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> The usual strategy is to make it very exclusive, but let it be known that it exists. Exclusivity is a powerful motivator. Start with one group of very interesting and highly motivated people and move outwards.

<comment><AUTHOR> This is true. Uncertainty lies in discovering a large, highly motivated group of interesting people. Any ideas?

<comment><USER6> You said high school? Who likes to gossip most...

<comment><AUTHOR> Excellent point! Thanks...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Before i can lend an opnion i would like to know what is the aim of this site.Are you creating another facebook or what? And why would people want to use your site ,whats in it for them?

<comment><AUTHOR> A wise man, you are. Not another Facebook!

My network specifically scratches a personal itch by allowing extensive "profiling" of people in my social network. FB is focused on allowing self expression through an aging set of rigid channels (Wall, Games, Notes etc.).

My network will be based initially on letting you add to a user's profile with wiki-like ease. For instance, you'll be able to add private margin notes that only show for you on Friend A's profile. That's just the beginning.

Why people will use my site? Not sure, yet. More important is building a site I want to use! Hence my desire to add "passive" user profiles. This way, I can visualize my entire social network whether they exist online or not.

<comment><USER7> I still dont understand exactly what you are trying to ''sell'' but i understand that you might be trying to protect your idea with some vagueness. In view of the above i can say the following. 1. Use facebook connect and allow users to post their activities on their wall (not automatically though because you'll be banned) 2\. Target 2 schools close to each other and ensure scholars in those schools use whatever it is you ''selling'' 3.Get inside info on the popular kids in that school and pay them to use your app for a month or 2.

<comment><AUTHOR> Right. You'll appreciate that I'm working on an entirely different model for generating income. Something about the way personal data gets crawled in the name of targeted advertising annoys me and you, I'm sure.

Won't be using #1 since I don't see FB as the solid rock is seems to be. Orkut tanked. Myspace died. FB is mortal, too.

I like #2 & #3. First, I must decide which schools to launch at and why. How am I to decide which locations are best for solid, explosive growth?

Another problem: Should I target HS students who are likely newer to FB or University students who have been on FB for years and have many friends?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I'd suggest e-mailing students from the school network as a marketing strategy, providing them with a Facebook Connect link, and hoping they'll be interested enough to sign up.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for your input but that "marketing strategy" lacks a certain amount of clear execution that I'll be needing to rapidly gain solid market share. Why sit around "hoping" for signups when I can guarantee registrations?

<comment><USER8> What I'm saying is all opinion, of course -- not tested. But my gut reaction is that giving students ownership over sign-up (as long as the process is very simple) is less obtrusive than having automatic profiles. Anyhow, the real test is what would draw them to revisit the network. Informing them that a profile exists might draw them to the site, but tests nothing about how valuable the site would truly be.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> You may want to consider a service like ProComments: <http://www.procomments.com>

<comment><AUTHOR> Its interesting but my network is a closed network. Besides, why would I build a product that needs "fake" users.

My aim is not to build a network that seems active but to build something active users will benefit from immediately.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I've had people search for my email address on facebook, which I have an account for but really don't use. I've also recently gotten an email indicating someone was looking for my email on Twitter. I considered signing up for it but couldn't get the info I needed to feel comfortable with it so never finished the process, even though I was flattered that this person was interested in following what I am up to. Maybe you could do a notification email like Twitter sends when someone searches and you don't yet have an account but with a better explanation of it all so the invitee feels more motivated/comfortable? IE try Twitter's approach but try to improve on their model.

<comment><AUTHOR> Got it. This gets really close. Someone searches for you - you get a clean, well organized email request. Beautiful!

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Don't.

<comment><AUTHOR> I understand your dislike but this is NOT about mis-using personal data to inflate my network. Think about this: What's the good of having a social networking application without a complete social network??

Its simple: I desire a solid option for creating "passive" profiles so that the early majority of users can see the not-yet-active late majority. See the vision?

<comment><USER12> It makes perfect sense, but there's a problem with this approach. The information in the passive profiles will be nothing new to most users, who already have their friends' contact info and an idea of what they all look like. So a pre-populated social network like the one you're talking about would be much closer to a phone-directory than anything truly "social."

And I know that passive profiles are supposed to be there as a crutch for early adopters, but it doesn't seem to add much in the way of value or positive UX. If anything, having the site start as a directory might just perpetuate its use as one.

<comment><AUTHOR> Ok, but what are you suggesting? An empty network with each user having maybe 5-10 friends within the first 24 hours? Won't last.

Bottom line is this: If "Johnny" can't find something on that cute brunette from Arts 101, We're toast. Get it?

I'm not trying to make full profiles for inactive users. I'm simply searching for a method to allow "Johnny" to find "Katy" within seconds of joining my social network. He clicks "add", she gets an email message. Done.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Meow Wolf's Magic Kingdom - <AUTHOR> https://story.californiasunday.com/meow-wolf <comment><USER2> I lived in Santa Fe when Meow Wolf started becoming an mass attraction. It is, without a doubt, the most fun I've had at an art venue. The story and experience is so thoughtfully and creatively presented, that you feel like you're in some kind of warped interactive Disney space exhibit. There's endless little touches and Knick-knacks to keep you saying "oh wow, what _is_ this exactly?"

Concerts are held there too, which can be incredibly wild. I saw an underground rap show there once. At the end of the show, the rapper encouraged a mosh-pit, ripped off his shirt, dumped an entire jar of honey on himself, then jumped into the crowd to join the mosh, which absolutely erupted.

The Meow Wolf team uses many microcontrollers, arduinos, RPis, etc. to control various lights, doors, action/reaction events. On the second floor of the "House", there's an office computer setup with a version of Ubuntu, which is delightful every time I see it. I haven't found any videos online that successfully conveys the beauty of this place.

Santa Fe is largely white, Spanish and Mexican, with a heavy emphasis on artistic attractions for seasonal tourists. It also features a large older population, and lacks very many fun and affordable things for young people to do. Albuquerque is a fairly undesirable City, and although the Sandia mountains and northern New Mexico are very beautiful and peaceful, there's still a lack in activity. On the other hand, the desert EDM rave scene is alive and well.

I highly recommend both Meow Wolf and Santa Fe, for someone traveling through.

<comment><USER3> "It is, without a doubt, the most fun I've had at an art venue." Same! I so so wish I could have experienced it as a kid.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Meow Wolf reminds me a lot of City Museum in St. Louis, they are a living work of art. I stand by City Museum being the coolest thing in STL and would highly recommend it to anyone.

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

<comment><USER2> City Museum is indeed very cool, and you might be right about it being one of the coolest things in STL. However, that might also be it's biggest problem.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> i guess _I 'll_ take up the mantle of 'that guy'.

I disliked meow wolf. not the installation per se, but the crowd. any joy of discovery was robbed by the constant stream of tourists moving through it. I don't know how one can enjoy the art and wonder in there when there is a mob of children waiting for you to move out of the way.

clearly people do though, so i guess I'm just a grump.

<comment><USER6> I haven't been to meow wolf in particular, but that's a problem with museums in general, especially the ones that attract a lot of children -- science and natural history ones -- you often can't stand in one place long enough to read the captions or use the interactive exhibits. But I don't know what can really be done about that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> This sounds _really_ fascinating, and I'd love to go visit sometime. I sincerely wish them the best of luck.

I do have a pair of downer thoughts, though. The first is that I wonder how much repeat business they can do (yes, dreamcompiler comments that he's visited half a dozen times). Maybe if they figured out how to update it over time? But that might be tricky, with a relatively small physical plant.

Also, this seems like the sort of business which is _very_ sensitive to the overall economic outlook. This article seems like the sort of thing we'd read in 2028 and think 'man, 2018 was awesome, but we had no idea what was about to happen.' But then, the first Portlandia aired seven years ago, and … the dream of the 90s is _still_ alive in Portland.

<comment><USER8> I've gone back at least ten times. The story element took that long to piece together between repeat visits and online discussion. Also, they've managed to pull some exceptional music performances that normally would have never come here, which has made it worth going repeatedly.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I live south of Albuquerque, NM and have taken my family to Santa Fe several times with the sole intent of going to Meow Wolf. I've enjoyed the experience each time. If you are anywhere near the area its definitely worth the price of admission.

</comment><comment><USER10> I love meow wolf. I hope they have huge success in Denver and I hope Austin gets an installation too. Spotify has some of the soundtracks and musician cd's available to listen online - great way to put your mind back into the magic.

</comment><comment><USER11> I had a blast at Meow Wolf. This short video sums it up for me. [https://instagram.com/p/BfmE-lVHHV-/](https://instagram.com/p/BfmE-lVHHV-/)

</comment><comment><USER12> Meow Wolf is quite a thing in New Mexico. I've been there half a dozen times and I always find some new room or closet full of wonder that I missed before.

</comment><comment><USER13> Meow Wolf in combination with George RR Martin's theater (cafe, bar, writing space, purveyor of miniatures and other goods) has made me seriously consider going to Santa Fe for a few weeks as a sabbatical... just a lovely town.

</comment><comment><USER14> Went there when I was in Santa Fe. Great experience.</comment>


Why I'm Happy Netflix Raised Its Prices - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2011/08/why_im_happy_netflix_raised_it.html

<comment><USER2> ". Today we have Netflix available on 10 devices in our home. My wife can be watching a World War II documentary on her iPhone, while I watch a DVD. And at the same the kids watch Toy Story 3 on the computer, all for no incremental charge. "

I'll have to test this.

You can't watch a movie on two pc's with the same account at the same time.

Does this not apply to phones and pc's or other devices?</comment>


Create on-line portfolio from Dropbox files - <AUTHOR> http://www.triangly.com

<comment><AUTHOR> Triangly will use Dropbox API to build on-line portfolio from graphic files located on your Dropbox/Applications/Triangly folder. Each user will have custom domain (e.g. joe.triangly.com) with a few customisation options, like main color, name and contact details. On our website you can see the small preview of final look of the portfolio. We plan to invite first users within 2-3 weeks.

</comment><comment><USER2> If you want to get peoples email addresses you're going to need to add more info about the service.</comment>