Minimalism conceals the messy realities of society - <AUTHOR> https://newrepublic.com/article/156800/hollow-politics-minimalism <comment><USER2> Two ideas which often I encounter together yet I have grown to find incompatible are self reliance and minimalism. If you wish to become more self reliant i.e. more able to handle for yourself rather than through another's labor the impositions you create in the world, you will find yourself needing to masters, access and eventual own many more tools and material.

My father, a man capable of building or repairing almost anything to his need lives with a shop entirely full of junk. And frequently the scrap iron or 2x4 I have mocked him for retaining has come to the rescue and helped us avoid the 60 mile trip from his home into town.

The reality is, if you wish to combine self reliance and minimalism, you essentially must embrace a life of poverty.

<comment><USER3> If your possessions all have practical utility, you are already a hardcore minimalist.

No one should begrudge you a well-stocked and well-used workshop. That's not what the minimalist message is supposed to be about. It's the stuff accumulated carelessly, just because you could. Decorative doo-dads, outfits worn once, toys from kids long since grown, furniture retained out of a sense of duty. The suburban middle-class lifestyle I grew up in has a tendency to accumulate a monotonically increasing volume of possessions without much thought. My grandparents have more square footage than my entire apartment dedicated to the storage of useless, meaningless crap. It is, in fact, a necessary and useful message for many people to be more deliberate about what you choose to buy and retain. If the only things you can think to cut are tools, you are not one of those people.

<comment><USER4> _> If your possessions all have practical utility, you are already a hardcore minimalist._

The problem is that "practical utility" isn't always obvious. I have boxes and boxes of components and other oddments that collectively form a useful library, but I have no way of predicting which specific oddments will be useful in future. Any given item is currently useless, but might become extremely useful at some indeterminable point in the future. There's a very fine line between a prepper and a hoarder.

<comment><USER5> This is why Marie Kondo's approach is personal and about getting in touch with your feelings. No one is going to deny you your collection. One of my pet peeves is when someone is trying to help you get rid of "stuff you don't use," and they pick up an object and say, "When's the last time you used this? I've never seen you use this." You're allowed to have things you don't use very often, if they are the sort of things you want to have around. Yet, this permission doesn't necessarily prevent getting rid of tons of stuff.

One thing I've noticed is that if I can't find something, its utility is basically zero. If I forget I have it, even more so. Also, things cluttering up a room (visually and in terms of physical space) feel like clutter. So, ideally a collection would be organized enough (which could mean stuff is just piled in boxes, but I'm sufficiently familiar with the boxes), and stored in a suitable place.

I think there's a lot of power in encouraging people to get rid of stuff that they actually would be happier if they got rid of, by helping them make their own authentic determination.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I just want to say I don't like this article at all.

It makes minimalism seem like a rigid ideology specifically for white males who command poor people to build and craft expensive housing and objects for them (and many of those objects are in the shape of penises?)

A whole lot of discussion on random art and murder from one of the people who made that style of art.

I thought this was going to be about minimalism, which to me is:

Q: What is minimalist living?

A: It's simply getting rid of things you do not use or need, leaving an uncluttered, simple environment and an uncluttered, simple life. It's living without an obsession with material things or an obsession with doing everything and doing too much. It's using simple tools, having a simple wardrobe, carrying little and living lightly.

It's basically being more content with less which ties in nicely with financial independence. Instead I got lectured to for not being a woman of colour who renounces my privilege and whitewashing of things in an art history that I don't care for.

<comment><USER7> My advice is to just stop identifying as a minimalist, and find a better word to describe your identity. The thing is, the article is describing a group of people who self-identify as "minimalist", but you, along with ten other groups that are nothing like you OR the minimalists in the article OR each other, all identify as "minimalist". It's just not a word with any coherent meaning. The result is that every time anyone talks about minimalism, there's some criticism leveled against minimalism, and then everyone's argument is "that's not minimalism, THIS is minimalism". It's an endless circle of semantic arguments.

I at one time described myself as minimalist, but now I would describe myself as an anticonsumerist. It's not a perfect term either, but I haven't gotten in any stupid arguments about it.

<comment><USER8> Joyist is the new minimalist.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> In Design minimalism should not be confused with simplicity. Which is actually more about being super functional and direct about what you are trying to achieve. John Maeda's book 10 laws of simplicity define it well. In striving for simplicity you run the risk of oversimplification. So an important element in such a process is always identifying the complexity that you can't ignore. Simplicity requires a lot of hard thinking that goes un-noticed in the final product or artistic object because its's been reduced (in a positive sense!) to the essential elements to perform it's function.

I guess minimalism tries to catch the cool of the real hard work of simplicity by trying to copy simplicity as if it is simply an aesthetic but in the end it turns up empty.

</comment><comment><USER10> > "The ultimate minimalist is a hermit, a recluse, or a monk," he says. "And > to me, that's not gonna change the world."

chinese historical/wuxia dramas often heavily feature taoist/buddhist "grandmasters", who typically have (near-)superhuman abilities (from years of meditation on enlightenment, presumably). yet they're reluctant to use those abilities because they also strive for detachment from the world and its base human emotions (for some reason that's required to reach immortality).

the tension is often between allowing destiny to unfold without interference and staying on the path to enlightenment, or defying fate and risking heaven's wrath. there are adverse consequences either way and it's a test of character which way one chooses.

<comment><USER11> Nicely written! I mean your comment on that point.

In Taoism, they say - accept the flow and about Yin-Yang philosophy.

> "And to me that's not gonna change the world"

This is a mystery. I'm from India, and I've read few Vedic texts where it says, all these elements we've accumulated and grown with, by elements I mean Father, Mother, Son, Wife, Mine, Not Mine are just aggregated and don't assign much significance.

This is to our rational minds seems really absurd! Hence it is a mystery that would unfold when you start delve into it deeply.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> As someone who identified as a minimalist until a while back, I'd argue that the primary lesson I've learned from it is not necessary to thrive for the minimal possible amount of items, but to _keep track_ of the things you own. I do for example have a list of all my personal belongings and update that list _before_ I ever buy something; this way you get the same benefit of "feeling in control" without having any detrimental effects on your quality of life/self-reliance.

<comment><USER13> I've wanted to create a list of my belongings, with maybe a few other metrics like category, rough value, happiness factor, etc. How detailed did you go, and did you use it as a survey tool to initially figure out what you don't need?

<comment><USER12> I don't even categorize what I own; my list is a simple .txt with newlines between "categories", but I don't even name the latter anymore. I've done a lot more (cost, categories etc.) but nowadays I just ... keep it minimal ;)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Minimalism is luxury. You know you could replace whatever you just threw out (which in turn is a way to declutter; mentally allocating money for a pair of pants to potentially replace the 3 pairs you're never wearing helps getting rid of those). You know you could go back to your parents after "selling everything and backpacking around the world). Instagram-minimalism additionally requires replacing and color-matching a lot of perfectly fine furniture, electronics and toys.

Another messy reality of society is overproduction, manifesting in that box or drawer with extra HDMI cables and USB thumb drives and USB-to-PS2 connectors, and throwing some of that crap out feels good :)

<comment><USER15> > Minimalism is luxury. You know you could replace whatever you just threw out

No it's no, you grossly misunderstand the fundamentals of minimalism.

It's make do with whatever you have, and to be content with less, including less money, less possessions, less prestige and less of everything. It's accepting the degradation of social status.

"Going back to parents after selling everything and travelling around the world" is not a message of minimalism. Selling your mansion, forgoing your salary and title, travelling around the world in a brief suitcase with not a penny to your name even after you come back from travelling and be contented with living from day-to-day in a one bedroom flat, _that's_ minimalism.

<comment><USER16> > _that's_ minimalism

I must have missed it, who is in charge of the definition of minimalism?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> My ideal brand of minimalism isn't arbitrary removal of items, but pragmatism, organisation and cleanliness.

You will be surprised how similar it feels to have your tools well organised, versus removing them all together.

I think it comes down to our brains attempting to forecast and predict everything we do. So when your workspace is messy, your brain can't look very far ahead, it doesn't know where everything is so it can't accurately forecast the situation. It gets flustered and you work slower. When you're organised, your brain can subconsciously connect all the dots and suddenly everything feels easier and more simple.

</comment><comment><USER18> This article is an interesting book report on Longing for Less. The majority of the article is "Chayka says..."

Lacking any original insight, the author wedges in an unsupported claim about minimalism requiring privilege. Now, I'm not saying it does or doesn't. There are several good responses here to support the idea. But the article itself does a really poor job of supporting the thesis.

Indeed, it seems more like neo-liberal buffet. It pokes at everything from the phallic shape of light-bulb (which couldn't the just as easily be uterine) to the affluent readers of Dwell. I'm surprised a swipe at Goop didn't get shoe- horned in.

I am as ready to damn the man as anyone, but this article is a cash grab. Bleh.

<comment><USER13> Completely agree. A few paragraphs in, I felt dread because it was going to be yet another rehash of minimalist history with with very little original thought. It's too scared to say things directly. I think if it started with the last 2 or so paragraphs, it could offer something unique or challenging.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Minimalism's an odd thing. I find it really depends on context. Minimalistic story telling in a video game or some such thing, is awesome, the same thing in a book, not so great and in movies can be hit or miss.

From a ui design standpoint, I can't stand minimalism most of the time. The lack of immediately apparent information and context can be infuriating. Whereas a minimalistic design in some kind of manual tool would tend to make things more straightforward and easy.

Minimalistic music can be great for setting atmosphere under certain contexts, but wouldn't be great for a dance party.

Minimalism is a tool that should be applied.to situations where 'having less is more'. Otherwise it just detracts from whatever you're trying to do and should be used sparingly.

<comment><USER20> Minimalistic dance music (MDM) sounds like exactly what I'm missing in my life. I mean I have a bit already, but sometimes it gets to poppy. Just gotta tug on the right notes, ignore the rest.

Mix it up, but only when you need to. Don't overthink it, yet spend the time needed to make it juuuust right.

As Mark Twain famously said:

"I didn't have time to write a short letter, so I wrote a long one instead."

P.S. `less` is literally `more` on most UNIX systems.

<comment><USER21> Minimal techno had a big moment in EDM circles in the '00s as the bombastic productions of the '90s started to be seen as cheesy and overcooked.

See for example: [https://youtu.be/daSid6Lh9Vs](https://youtu.be/daSid6Lh9Vs)

<comment><USER20> I'm personally more of a fan of things like OG DJ Distance for minimalism.

this track hits me where it feels: [https://youtu.be/3AT8szyLD0k](https://youtu.be/3AT8szyLD0k)

Turns out, two "movements" (repeated?), and little bit of variation is enough to dance to, and generally make for a pretty good song.

<comment><USER21> Just saw this again - I listened to that track and really enjoyed it! I typically go for softer, more melodic stuff, but there is still a teenage metalhead in me that really digs this.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> In general I can appreciate the general tenets of minimalism.

It may be just my own pessimism but it's seems to becoming a movement that requires you to get rid of things and buy new "minimalist" items to replace them.

<comment><USER23> True to a degree and dependent on the person. Personally I'm making it a long term goal so I'm only changing things as the time comes. For example both my computer and laptop were super old and finally my laptop gave out so I sold my desktop and just invested in a laptop that could do the job of both. My tv was also old and didn't have an app store or anything a modern smart tv would have seemed I didn't have a proper monitor for my computer only one of those squares ones you'll likely find at your town's library so I invested in a new monitor which I could also use to replace my tv. There's still a lot I want to do such as go through my clothes and kitchen equipment but I anticipate I'll be changing jobs and moving soon so I'll not making any changes there until I know what I'll be doing and where I'll be living.

There's also many degrees to minimalism. My objective is being able to fit everything I own in a studio apartment without clutter. Others have the goal of being able to fully everything in an 80L backpack. Others just want to go into their basement without tripping over storage.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> "Are you a minimalist? Do you take pride in a reductive life? Minimalists are actually extreme hoarders: they hoard space, and they're just as odd as those people with seven rooms filled with newspapers, dead cats and margarine tubs" ― Douglas Coupland, Bit Rot

</comment><comment><USER5> KonMari has nothing to do with visual brand, it's about living authentically free of things you don't like.

It's like the life philosophy of not spending time around friends who don't spark joy in you. And then someone comes along and says, "I see, it's about spending less time around people, in order to look cool!" No, that's just your shallow, ego-based take on it. "Not mine, that's totally what people are doing. I can tell they think they're cooler than me, going on about how much they enjoy their 'me' time... It's just another fad, of course."

<comment><USER25> There is merit in the criticism, especially when the "founder" now has a shop to sell items...

[https://shop.konmari.com/](https://shop.konmari.com/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> And Maximalism papers over the messy realities of society. There is no conceptual framework that can see all of nature, they highlight aspects of it.

<comment><USER25> Agreed, not buying what the article is selling, which is trying to connect a modern fad, its namesake art period, and political discussions on capitalism and socialism and society at large.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> > Minimalism is tiny houses, floor-to-ceiling glass condos

I always see this criticism and don't understand it. I've been going on ever since I was a 10 year old kid in the 90s (well before "minimalism" was trendy) about how one day I wanted a tiny, well-designed house with giant floor-to- ceiling glass windows. I think it's natural to enjoy sunlight, so I'm not sure what the article is suggesting—that people should want tiny windows again?

<comment><USER28> I don't even see how those two things are even the same. They're both minimalism in name only. A tiny house and a glass condo are both fueled by completely different motivations and the ends are also totally different. As you noted, one could intentionally incorporate large glass windows into a tiny house for totally valid reasons, but the article is comparing the generality of a tiny house with condos that wealthy people buy for aesthetics, but they just aren't comparable.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> The online minimalism movement seems like a fool's game touted by the affluent who have quick and ready access to any needed resources.

I think that some people, like Colin Wright, have the right idea with their brand of minimalism, but too many others have co-opted it and put their own rules on it.

I like the idea, but I own a house, and a yard, and appliances. And I maintain all of them. So, in the garage, I keep good-sized stashes of scrap lumber, random pieces of plastic and metal, screws, bolts, washers, grommets, and tools. I have fixed or MacGuyvered countless things with these random parts.

And at some point, I jumped off that minimalism train and jumped onto my own train: practicalism (lowercase p, because I have to maintain some pretension).

practicalism (tm): Own only what is practical -- and maybe just a little more.

</comment><comment><USER30> As a political science student, I am compelled to point the allure of minimalism to the Greco-Athenian ideal of being self-sustaining (to a fair degree). The lack of material possession suggests, to others, that one is complete and satisfied in their seemingly ideal state.

</comment><comment><USER28> Everyone here is commenting on minimalism as a lifestyle, but the article seems to be referring to aesthetic minimalism. The two are not necessarily the same.

Also, for people to conclude that minimalism in the lifestyle sense isn't working in some way is pretty bizarre. What exactly is the answer, then? _Just giving in to the human impulses of hoarding and consumerism?_ Whether or not that's the alternative, this conclusion that minimalism as a lifestyle doesn't seem justified in any way. It seems more like a case of "this thing has been trending for the last few years, therefore we have to now point out how bad it is for the sake of it".

<comment><USER31> When you're brought up in a consumerist lifestyle and taught again and again that consumerism is good and that you should aspire to consume more and produce more so you can consume even more, it can be hard to break the habit.

Buying a bigger TV than your neighbor gives you a dopamine boost, you feel like you've achieved something, you're moving up in life. It's addictive.

And the industry wants us to consume. The plastic industry pumped recycling initiatives to make it seem like plastic could be harmlessly recycled. They want us to think we can use as much plastic as we like, they don't want us to reduce our use of plastic.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> Coming to the US from Europe, I find it striking how much more "Stuff" a typical household contains. I am still struggling to understand why and even after a number of years, it is jarring when I return. I think it is a mixture of greater disposable income, lower prices, peer pressure ("look at my new toy"), extra storage space, ease of shopping (easier to drive and park), and a slightly different set of decisions about what is important.

Back home, I would have a keener awareness of the opportunity cost, including "where am I going to put this". My family back home seems more homey as with fewer possessions their homes feel more harmonious.

Of course I am sampling large distributions...

</comment><comment><USER33> The author of the book referenced in this article, Kyle Chayka, was on my podcast recently [https://www.lumi.com/wellmade/110-kyle- chayka](https://www.lumi.com/wellmade/110-kyle-chayka)

I like that the book doesn't attach itself to any one definition of minimalism, but instead tries to explore all its definitions, what ties them together, and why we keep coming back to these ideas.

I would consider myself a lifelong minimalist, but this book challenged my notions about minimalism in many ways. It's a good read!

</comment><comment><USER34> There's another way of looking at this, which is minimalism as symptom rather than cause.

Most millenials, even the upper-middle class ones, see a future with less material prospects than their parents had. I do not believe that minimalism is fundamentally a cultural phenomenon driven by the wealthy, but by the impoverished.

You can say that Marie Kondo and Bauhaus have some subterranean aesthetic connection, but I think Marie Kondo and the 40 year old guy living alone in his "tiny home," watching Netflix, have a much deeper cultural connection.

<comment><USER35> Disagree. The people Kondo et al are popular with are successful urban- dwellers who could easily afford the suburban lifestyle of their parents if they wanted it. But they've seen that that lifestyle does not bring happiness: hours spent sitting in a car so that they can work all day to afford said fancy car and a huge house they barely live in full of stuff they barely use.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> Interesting to read these comments here.

I consider myself a (not-so-hardcore) minimalist, even since before this hip KonMari... "thing" that suddenly "made" a lot of people into minimalists. Yeah, for sure it did.

As everything, this is a journey, yada-yada. However, what I think is worth pointing out is that different cultural settings would adapt "minimalism" (whatever that exactly is) differently. Living in an European city, I absolutely don't need to have a car. Having this mindset in Texas would be absolutely impractical.

My journey in this led me to just asses myself and introspect; consider if certain objects would make me happy, my life easier, do I really need it, can I rather borrow it, etc. The thing what I used to call minimalism became to me just "common sense" \- although apparently is not common at all (thinking of people renting storage spaces etc...)

But what really, really helped me (also mentally) is the reduced distraction that objects, services, etc caused me; I see other people handling this complex world much better than I, but I made peace with the fact that the current level of complexity of our world is not comprehensible, form an evolutionary perspective, to the human (or maybe just my) brain :-)

Anyhow, this article was painfully boring, however, the HN comments are worth to read!

</comment><comment><USER37> Minimalsim is only true when you are substanitaly reducing consumption, essentially where your live is not iterating around money but around lending, helping each other without money by helping back etc. Lets and barter systems might help. Once you arrive at that point you will suddenly feel the society fighting against you.

Society accepted minimalsims is a kind of minimalsim where your net consumption remains where it is now.

</comment><comment><USER7> The problem with minimalism is that the word doesn't have a comprehensible definition, so any time you get into a discussion about minimalism, the entire discussion ends up being an argument over the definition of the word. The only winning move is not to play.

At one point I might have called myself a minimalist, but these days I'd call myself more of an anticonsumerist or something along those lines.

<comment><USER38> Anticonsumerist is actually a great word. I might adopt it. Much more succint.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> In terms of art, paintings used to be like windows into a world. Then, with modernists, paintings became less about make a picture (something the new technology of photography could do better anyway), and more about the object itself — paint on a canvas, hung on a wall. When art critics were talking about the "flatness" of a painting, that's what they meant. The "flatter" the painting, the truer it was to itself — just a canvas covered in paint. Eventually becoming so flat that you've got a white canvas in a white gallery. Sculpture followed a similar trajectory.

In terms of Marie Kondo and decluttering, or Zen — I'd say there's a difference between minimal and essential. One is an aesthetic exercise, the other is a goal of finding that point where it's "just right", no more, no less.

</comment><comment><USER40> True minimalism is functional systems thinking, e.g. planning a capsule wardrobe to save the time deciding on what to put on, while still being able to look different each day. You could combine it with shopping for different materials, like whool shirts insteaf of cotton to extend the time between washing (whool doesn't absorb bacteria/odors like cotton).

The minimalism then basically goes unoticed to the outside world, it doesn't "punish" you socially while maximizing your own time and reducing the cognitive load.

You could ditch your gym subscription and get into calisthenics/bodyweight training instead, or prepare your meals in advance. There's a lot of stuff you can do that sums up. Making those trade offs is kinda fun..

</comment><comment><USER38> Rubbish drivel. It's a trend nowadays for people to write longform articles purporting to lay bare some great truths but really are just an excuse for the author to regurgitate some recent things they read. It _really_ rubs me the wrong way.

First of all, the unnecessary mention of "mostly white male". I'm So. Bloody. Tired of this trope being injected into every article at every opportunity. I get it. Life unfair. Move on. It's like how every NYT comment section will mention Trump within the first two comments. Give it a rest already!

Then, the vague-at-best connections between minimal art and Minimalism as a response to the excesses of Boomers. It's really not that complicated. Grow up in a house of hoarders, and you're well on your way to embracing minimalism.

Lastly, this whole "Your bedroom might be cleaner, but the world stays bad". Yeah! Minimalism doesn't promise world peace! It's just a way to make your own life more manageable and sane!

Just because a piece is longform doesn't mean it's good. Reading this article was a terrible waste of my time.

</comment><comment><USER41> As a minimalist, if you're stressing out about whether you own too many things, you're missing the point entirely. Does that bring you right to the same place as a maximalist- do I have enough?/do I have too much?

</comment><comment><USER42> The article is a very provincial US take. It makes no acknowledgement of Scandinavian or Eastern (see 'ma' in Japanese) conceptions of minimalism in lifestyle and aesthetics. Africa and India are likewise excluded.

That's very convenient if you are going to weave a narrative of privilege in a US-centric context, and I think that was the writer's aim.

</comment><comment><USER43> In college, everything I owned could fit into a ridiculously small car.

After school, measured my minimalism by counting the things I owned. As long as over half of them had been given to me, I was doing good.

Living with other people for awhile, find myself sometimes fantasizing about if I could get my life down to two steamer trunks.

</comment><comment><USER44> Minimalism is good for a work-place, as it helps you focus; for example clearing a room of all things except a desk, will reduce distractions and cognitive load by constantly seeing clutter... everything in moderation though...

</comment><comment><USER45> As COVID-19 hits, people understand Taleb's idea about critical importance of multiple redundancies. These are clearly incompatible with minimalism. To be alive is more important than to be a minimalist in the end.

<comment><USER28> I don't see how that's the case. If multiple redundancies are a necessity, then having them doesn't go against the minimalist lifestyle. Minimalism doesn't mean that you stick to only have one of everything, although it _can_ mean that to an individual minimalist depending on their goals, perhaps such as traveling light. There's no definition of minimalism that says you should have an insufficient supply of anything.

<comment><USER45> Here's a real life example. Suppose, you are a true minimalist and all you have is a backpack with 35 items. You used to make all your money blogging about travel. Your income is now ZERO. What do you do? Now, compare that to a different person who, let's say, has a garage. With lots an lots of tools that he or she can do to create something useful. Or a boat that he or she can live on, catch fish, etc. Now having those items is quite beneficial. Please understand that I am all for minimalism from the consumer point of view, but having lived in a lot of poor countries and can say that US-based minimalist driving force is DEBT. People simply can't afford to buy housing and they are crushed by student debts or debts of other kinds. So they adapt to a certain life style. Which is fine and dandy, but on the other hand instead of going after the root of the problem, you are totally avoiding it on a country-wide scale.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> An article about minimalism with too many words

</comment><comment><USER47> Deep, but subtle link between the psychology of minimalism and libertarianism.

</comment><comment><USER48> Bad article, clearly written by someone with left wing views.

Minimalism can help you lead a more focused life. Of course it's relevant for people who have accumulated a lot, but even poor people can hoard things.

> I caught one mention of "inequality." Instead of digging into systemic > problems like poverty or exploring ideas of wealth redistribution, the film > frames having less as an individual, moral choice with no political strings > or implications. Not everything has to do with politics.

> In fact, the alleged blankness of Minimalism can serve as a facade that > conceals a disturbing reality. An incident that Chayka doesn't discuss in > his book demonstrates this in an extreme way. What? How this one incident is > relevant in the minimalist movement?

<comment><USER49> The author is yet another member of pronoun-twitter who blames everything on capitalism and white men, not leaving their privileged New York late- capitalist bubble to realise all these things still exist in non-white, non- capitalist spaces and always will.</comment></comment>


Managing Difficult Decisions in Medicine with the 40-70 Rule - <AUTHOR> http://paulsufka.com/difficult-decisions/ <comment><USER2> It's interesting that they bring up Colin Powell in this, particularly because the big 'flaw' with this type of advice is lies in something that Donald Rumsfeld is infamous for saying - his so called 'known knowns' (or conversely, unknown unknown) phrase.

You're ability to even judge that you have 40 to 70 percent of the information required isn't even a given. In particular, especially with something like medicine, where there is time pressure, bizarre individual circumstances, confounding issues, it can make it difficult to really compress your current state of knowledge into a single value representing percentage of 'known' information.

That said, hilariously if you look at the reproduced slide in the bottom, the blog post and the slide actually say different things.

Colin Powell says to act when you have between a 40 to 70 percent chance of being right given your current state of knowledge/information. The slide says acts when you have 40 to 70 percent of the necessary information.

</comment><comment><USER3> The article is copy-pasting what seems to be a widely spread misquote of Colin Powell. What I think is the actual quote seems less controversial than the "What defines 40% of the information?" issue that is being debated here.

> Part I: "Use the formula P=40 to 70, in which P stands for the probability > of success and the numbers indicate the percentage of information acquired." > Part II: "Once the information is in the 40 to 70 range, go with your gut."

So, Powell was actually talking about confidence in success, not percentage of information. Confidence is explicitly an estimate, whereas "percentage of information" is clearly unknowable in the situations being discussed.

The original collection of Powell quotes that included this one is a lot more interesting and valuable than this particular article, IMHO. [http://govleaders.org/powell.htm](http://govleaders.org/powell.htm)

</comment><comment><USER4> This is not always a good approach. It can only be used as a rule of thumb. Here is a counterexample:

I had to go to the hospital because of extreme pain. The doctors were pretty sure that I have some kind of auto immune disease which could have been treated with immunsuppressive drugs. They artificially delayed the treatment. If they had started the treatment immediately I would have felt better sooner but also some symptoms which only manifest itself after a certain amount of time would have never been seen. So for a long time we only had a imprecise diagnosis. It would have been enough to treat it but it would have also hidden many symptoms which were needed for a more precise diagnosis.

Especially if you have a chronic disease you want a very precise diagnosis because you will be treated for the rest of your life. If the treatment is not as effective as it could be you will have problems in the long run.

So they gave me very strong pain killers and let me rot for 2 weeks or so. Then the treatment began and it took another 3.5 months once I was released from the hospital.

I am happy that I now have a better near optimal diagnosis.

</comment><comment><USER5> Where do the '40' and '70' come from? Who's defining what the final amount of available information is, and judging what the current percentage is? How do you even know at the time?

I mean, it would be one thing to create some kind of simulation and discover that this was actually something statistically meaningful. But there aren't exactly any citations here..

<comment><USER6> It's really just pseudo-scientific hand-waving to make people feel better about decisions that they make.

As you noted, if this was something more than that there would be simulations, citations, examples, or really anything, other than feel good puffery.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Without any data behind this, it's just one more wacky theory of management that is being promoted without skepticism.

It's a bit like "brainstorming", the strategy of idea generation that has an appealing narrative, but doesn't result in greater creativity when measured objectively.

</comment><comment><USER8> I have to admit it's not what I guessed it was. From the title I thought it would be something like "under age 40, treat aggressively, over age 70, just take away their pain."

</comment><comment><USER9> Of course a decision can't be made with 0% information, and waiting for 100% information in unnecessary. But how would one arrive at the range of 40-70%? For a decision about risky surgery I would hope that the amount of known information is much closer to 90%.

"40-70 rule" seems like a banal remark once you realize different decisions require different amounts of information

<comment><USER8> If the surgery is truly risky, it may be impossible to know even 70% of the information. Risky surgery tends to be rare, and the people who need it tend to have more than just one problem, which compounds the number of variables that can affect the outcome.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: How do I legally build a remote dev team? - <AUTHOR> I'm a developer and I have a small American business. I see all of these posts about building remote teams distributed across the world and I think "yes, perfect!", but somehow I've been completely unable to find anyone covering the legality of doing this in detail. For example, I want to be on this list under "Worldwide":
https://github.com/jessicard/remote-jobs
Ideally I want someone that essentially works for us full-time and understands all of our core infra, can maintain it, etc. like an employee would. There seem to be tons of remote-only job postings in this vein.
But I don't understand how it's legal - aren't these people being treated as employees, which come with an impossible amount of risk / international law / messiness attached?
Is there perhaps a whitelisted set of countries that have extremely simple employee / contractor rules?
My worst nightmare is ending up in court for accidentally crossing some line that I didn't understand. I just want to hire someone and start building an awesome remote team! <comment><USER3> I run a large contract developer team that's globally distributed. The short answer is that US law permits hiring international contractors who are not subject to US jurisdiction provided they file a W8-BEN executed by that contractor certifying their tax exempt status. These contractors are responsible for paying taxes under their own countries' laws as part of a mutual tax treaty with the US.

Feel free to email me with questions. If you'd rather just hire one of our remote developers and not deal with the paperwork yourself, that's another option. We manage contracts with clients as a US company to insulate them from needing to set up 1-1 relationships with devs.

<comment><USER4> what kind of money do you pay them? might be interested in joining.

<comment><USER3> Shoot me an email (see profile). Happy to share details. Most come from emerging economies rather than Western Europe, but not all.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I currently work remotely for a NY based company, from South America.

AFAIK, what makes it possible is that we are hired as freelancers/consultants/contractors under what I understand is a pretty standard "Work for Hire" contract.

For the tax side of things, the company needs remote workers to sign a W-8BEN form (W-9 if the remote worker is a US citizen abroad), which states that the worker takes care by himself of taxes in his own Country.

Hope that helps.

<comment><USER6> Pretty much this. I also have been hiring remote (outside US) for a US business and we do a contract with them signing a W-8BEN form. I did a lot of research and this is what my CPA recommended.

So technically/legally they are not your employees in the same way they will be if they were working inside the United States. In fact, my CPA calls them on our tax forms as "overseas contractors".

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Being a remote employee (not contractor) for a couple of companies, both of them established some sort of address in the state. There are "HR" companies that handle group benefits, payroll, etc. which will have an in-state address (usually some lawyer's office who is a registered agent for them). There are likely companies like this that operate internationally, or you could look for that kind of firm in those countries.

</comment><comment><USER8> I own a small technology consultancy practice in the US & Peru. We regularly pick up projects in the US and have them developed overseas. In our case, business wise, project owners deal with us and we deal with the developers. That way they enjoy the benefit of working with a US corporation (Local, insured, easily reachable)

ps. If the reason you want a overseas developer is price, I should mention that the demand for _good_ developers is quite competitive. A really good developer overseas, (Who does pays his local taxes and fiscal obligations) is not going to be much cheaper than one in the US. (but at least they are available!)

</comment><comment><USER9> I have applied for a couple for remote jobs recently (I am based in Spain). When I asked they said that I would basically be employed as a freelancer - <USER2> I would need to sort out my own taxes and things.

</comment><comment><USER10> I am working on a company for this problem. You're right in that you should be weary of contractor designation as this can lead to legal liability, often in countries you wouldn't expect. You don't want to setup entities and banking and such in every country just to employ one or two people.

If anyone's interested, including OP, would love to talk and learn more about what you're looking for and how my solution can help.

</comment><comment><USER11> Often aren't employee in the legal way that you mean it...but are "hired" as contractor.

</comment><comment><USER12> One thing to consider is time zones ie. You're awake, employee is asleep. Not necessarily a bad thing just keep in mind.

<comment><USER13> Not necessarily. Most of South America is very close or in the same timezone as the East Coast of the U.S.

There is a time difference with the West Coast though.

I currently work for a Dallas-based company and I work the same hours as their employees, from Uruguay.

I'm not in the same case as the OP asked, I'm a full employee of a local subsidiary, but I've worked under a contract and filled a W8-BEN.

<comment><USER12> I see. I work with clients from Germany, Australia, and the Philippines. I have the time zone problem. But if it's relatively autonomous where they say "Do this" and you do it then no problem. But if real-time communication is a thing then it might be problematic still it's not too bad. I'm based in central United States. 9AM for me is 4PM in Germany for example.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Are you not afraid of them stealing your code / intellectual property?

<comment><USER15> The linux kernel has so much more intellectual property to steal than your web app/phone app/sql queries. If your code is that valuable someone will buy your company. Everything out can be recreated. What can't be recreated is getting there first... Do yourself a favor, get there first, and fight to be first... All that myspace/friendster code isn't worth much if you don't get there first...and keep at it.

<comment><USER16> I've heard a story about SV startup (onsite) employees stealing their startup's code base and launching their own company with it. It turned out to be more successful than the original one, which eventually tanked. The owners tried going to court, but they didn't have enough proof to get a search warrant (or whatever the proper legal term is here) for their fraudulent competition.

BTW this also shows that having on-site employees is not a protection against frauds/thieves...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I want to get hired in your team. I am from Canada. Let's build up something at panbhatt @ gmail com. Plus transfer of money from US to Canada is too easy

</comment><comment><USER18> Open a subsidiary in a country with no-nonsence tax law, (i.e. Singapore.) Bill/pay from it.</comment>


How Is the Economy Doing? It May Depend on Your Party, and $1 - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/03/upshot/how-is-the-economy-doing-politics-may-decide-your-answer.html <comment><AUTHOR> Note: I've submitted this article not because of the specific topic of the economy or politics, but rather because of its implications on reasoning.

Key quote from the article: "When survey respondents were offered a small cash reward — a dollar or two — for producing a correct answer about the unemployment rate and other economic conditions, they were more likely to be accurate and less likely to produce an answer that fit their partisan biases."

This suggests that people have a more accurate underlying understanding/model, but that they ignore it in favor of their professed beliefs. [http://lesswrong.com/lw/i4/belief_in_belief/](http://lesswrong.com/lw/i4/belief_in_belief/)

I say this having previously exhibited such behavior myself (both on this particular topic and on others). I know that I've stopped doing so on the topics for which I've become aware of doing it, but I wouldn't find it particularly surprising if I still did this on other things and didn't realize it.</comment>


Open Corp Dev: An Idea Too Bold For Facebook Or Dropbox - <AUTHOR> http://blog.kirigin.com/open-corp-dev <comment><USER2> Am I the only person who thinks that being on the buying side of this is a losing proposition?

How many of those people at $1mm per head will make it through your technical interviews and fit in well enough with your culture? How long do they have to work for you before they split?

It seems like you'd have to put together some pretty draconian terms attached to a deal like this and I don't think that would be fair for anyone involved.

<comment><AUTHOR> These issues are present for every acquisition. Having a minimum price doesn't make them go away. Often the price is much, much more.

I mentioned Instagram: $1B for 13 people and a product that makes no money (yet). You don't think the most recent 1000 employees at Facebook are wishing they joined a small startup instead?

Dealing with this is non-trivial, I'm not trying to dismiss it. I'm just saying the idea and this problem aren't as causal as you're implying.

<comment><USER3> Except that if those 1000 employees joined a small startup, odds are that 920 of them would not even make it to the stage of acqui-hire

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah, I think often the best choice is to join the larger company. But we're talking about perceptions, which are not the same as reality

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> "People don't start companies looking for an acquihire. An acquihire is a failure case, and as a founder, you are motivated to avoid it. It is just so much easier to take a job."

It might be easier to just "take a job" (debatable) but it is probably not as lucrative. As an engineer, your choice is:

1\. Get aqua-hired for $1MM right away (well, maybe after a few years of working in the start-up) plus whatever your new salary will be vs.

2\. Slowly earn that $1MM spread over the course of 10 years or so as a regular employee.

I know which one I'd rather do.

Why not just skip all pretenses of "doing the startup" and "developing the product" and go right for the aqui-hire. Get a well-gelled team together (demonstrate the well-gelled-ness with a demo of some sort) and then shop the whole team around to a big company looking to acquire talent. If they're willing to pay $1MM a head for a team working on a start-up and then shut the start-up's project down, why wouldn't they simply pay $1MM a head for the team?

<comment><AUTHOR> Getting a team is hard! And if you've found one, you _are_ worth more than a regular hide.

Demonstrating skill through building a product is also hard, and also helps build value.

I think of the math like this: are the next 1000 engineers at Facebook worth 1% of their market cap? Yes, the math works.

<comment><USER5> I think more fundamentally the prevalence of aqui-hires proves that software management isn't working.

In the kind of world where the government can't get the federal Obamacare exchange working, and people pretend that Waterfall is a competitor to Agile while really, the most common alternative is no process at all. Most companies are highly effective at demotivating software developers, and if you get hired through the usual process you'll start out on the bottom of the pyramid and behind the 8 ball.

If it costs them $1M+ to hire you there's just a chance they'll behave as if your time is worthwhile.

<comment><AUTHOR> > If it costs them $1M+ to hire you there's just a chance they'll behave as if > your time is worthwhile.

I like your last sentence.

There is another side here too: companies often overestimate their ability to manage acquisitions. A price floor means that those more likely to be poor integrations will be filtered out.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I seriously can't see any upside to the acquirer. I don't believe "corp dev" teams' mission is to acquire "deal flow" by having _failing_ startups pitch them as a source of million dollar engineers. Even if it was, I don't think there are any failing startups too ignorant to talk to Facebook and Dropbox without being incentivised by a marketing gimmick. Acquihires are not a seller's market. Other potential acquisitions that consider themselves to have a potentially viable business model, defensible IP or some strategic value aren't going to be in the least bit interested in being acquired by you just because you have a "minimum price", but they _might negotiate a lot harder when you do bid for them_ because "1.5x the minimum" just doesn't sound as attractive as 15 million dollars. And the VCs, who know that some of their portfolio's founders will cash out at $1million-per-engineer and some will earn nothing due to liquidation preferences, will just think you don't understand.

The only behaviours I can see it encouraging are perverse ones, like failing companies that have had enough introductory meetings to anticipate an aqui- hire offer hiring a couple of extra engineers to bump the minimum sale price.

<comment><AUTHOR> > too ignorant to talk to Facebook and Dropbox

Many people I talk to have no idea how to start that conversation.

Another layer of your consideration for upside of the acquirer: what happens if one company does this and another doesn't? It's a lot like the seed funding changes that happened over the last few years, forcing later stage VCs to change.

Also, more transparency isn't perverse. The basic action here is positive, and you're talking about theoretical side effects. If your theories are right, then pull back.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> As someone who is thinking about shopping his company around: YES YES YES

There is no transparency in this market, and advice is especially lacking for those that have no VCs.

<comment><AUTHOR> VCs are actually really important players here. They are so well connected and have worked on so many transactions, that they really help. I wonder how they would fit into an open marketplace.

Another side is that talking to a VC about selling is a serious conversation. It can affect things like likelihood of follow on funding, so opening one door can close another.

<comment><USER8> _They are so well connected_

That VCs are thought of as a group of people who are well-connected, presumably to other well-connected people, does it make logical sense to think of them as a cartel?

<comment><USER9> No, because VCs don't team up with each other to try to restrict competition. That's the definition of a cartel. In fact, they regularly compete with each other by offering better deal terms (valuation, liquidation preference), or by bringing more to the table (counsel, networks, services).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> This is great. The current process of acqui-hires today is really broken and manual. It has every sign of an "industry" where software haven't arrived yet. Corp dev is often about connections and asking who is involved that know someone at a potential acquirer. API's replaced business development at it's core. I think corp dev should be next on the list

</comment><comment><USER11> Exitround is a marketplace for startups to discreetly explore acquisition opportunities. Having a private, anonymous marketplace is a huge opportunity for both the startups, and the acquiring company.

<comment><AUTHOR> I hear they are looking to sell, j/k

I'm excited about Exitround!</comment></comment>


Boeing is making a long-term play for hypersonic travel - <AUTHOR> https://quartzy.qz.com/1316990/boeing-is-developing-hypersonic-technology-to-change-air-travel/ <comment><USER3> I wonder if this is a defensive strategy as much as anything, what with the suborbital leisure/transport market apparently heating up. 20-30 years away is far enough that Boeing could use this venture to investigate broad concepts/supporting technologies thereby building up a war chest of promising capabilities, whilst still remanining sufficiently uncommitted to pivot rapidly should a potential competitor race ahead. One example might be Boeing's investment in Reaction Engines SABRE tech, which whilst speculative could prove to be a critically strategic piece of IP.

[https://www.reactionengines.co.uk/reaction-engines- secures-2...](https://www.reactionengines.co.uk/reaction-engines- secures-26-5m-investment-from-new-industrial-and-financial-investors/)

</comment><comment><USER4> Can anyone tell me what is more expensive about hypersonic jet travel?

Fuel costs, I would imagine, are higher- wind resistance is a function of speed squared after all. But where else does the higher price come from? Are the jets just that much more expensive to build? If so, why?

<comment><USER5> Fuel costs are a lot higher. Concorde used four times as much fuel per passanger as a 747. Plane costs are higher—you need exotic materials and building techniques in the aircraft and engines to deal with the high temperatures. But what really gets you is the economics of building niche products. Even if the long run incremental cost diffefence isn't that much (say double), only a tiny fraction of people will be willing to pay the premium. That means you might amortize your fixed development costs, which will be much higher of that of a conventional jet, over 1/100 as many planes. 1,500 747s were ever built, but just 20 concordes. The 787 cost $32 billion to develop. Amortizing that over just dozens instead of hundreds or thousands causes per-unit costs to explode.

<comment><USER6> To add to this, many of the most popular airports with business travellers (LHR, JFK, HKG) have restricted capacity. They'd have to use the same number of slots for a small supersonic plane as for a widebody flying that route otherwise. That can significantly increase cost per seat.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> So if this pans out, along with the supersonic passenger jet being developed by Boom, and maybe even SpaceX plans to use the BFR for super-fast long haul flights, what are the implications for the economics of conventional passenger jets? Right now they make a large fraction of their money from business class, but these new vehicles will take a fair chunk of that away. Doesn't this inevitably mean significantly higher economy class fares to keep the conventional planes viable?

<comment><USER8> Southwest has no first class. All seats are the same. They do just fine and prices are low. They are probably the most profitable airline of all time in the US. That most airlines focus on first class/business class as their money maker means they really don't care much about the rest of the plane. Splitting business from economy might make both better? Who knows until it happens.

<comment><USER7> Neither do a lot of other low cost regional carriers, but supersonics are mainly aimed at long haul international business.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> The plane flies at 3800 mph. Assuming they eventually get approval to fly supersonic over land, NYC to Tokyo or Shanghai should also be doable in about 3 hours?

</comment><comment><USER10> It had better not be too long term because SpaceX has committed (the CEO, not Musk) to having 1.5 hour, door to door, travel between any two points on earth (with on of their space ports) within 10 years. All for the price of a first class ticket.

<comment><USER11> It would be interesting to learn how they are going to solve the problems of relatively high apogee orbits. For example, what's going to be done with space junk? If they are going to seriously compete with current airline industry, there are many flights and there are many objects to cross orbits with. Or what about levels of radiation in the middle of ballistic trajectory?

Another question is of reliability at landing - Zarya spacecraft design was shelved in ~1985 because powered landing alone was deemed to risky - <USER2> that's for relatively infrequent government flights, not for passenger industry.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I hope they will run on renewable energy ...

<comment><USER13> Can one make a jet engine fueled by pure hydrogen?

<comment><USER11> Project Suntan comes to mind - [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_CL-400_Suntan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_CL-400_Suntan) .

That was a proud start for the USA hydrogen engine technology...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Boeing will never pay for this by themselves. It's an attempt to get $$$ from Uncle Sugar, just like the SST ferment back in the 1970s.

<comment><USER15> What's wrong with that? Most new technologies come about in that way anyway.

You wouldn't be on the internet today otherwise.

<comment><USER14> I dispute that most new technologies come about in that way. More often, government jumps on bandwagons that have already started in the private sector, if the government gets involved at all. And often, when the government goes first, there's a damned good reason the private sector avoided it.

The SST example is a good one. Back then, aircraft makers would only go ahead if it was a government program, because they knew the commercial case was deeply flawed. There was all sort of gnashing of teeth about money grubbing luddites in congress when funding was cut, but it turned out to have been the right thing to do.

<comment><USER16> Radical new technologies are generally based on scientific understanding that is the product of many decades of government-funded research.

Also many new technologies were first developed by the military, such as the internet, the jet engine, sonar, nuclear power, the computer, and space rockets.

Alas, the Republicans, who have an economic philosophy similar to yours, have been slashing government support of science, and so we can expect to fall behind the Chinese in it in the coming decades.

<comment><USER14> There's actually not good evidence that public funding of research has a positive economic impact (private R&D is another matter).

[https://lemire.me/blog/2013/02/26/does-academic-research- cau...](https://lemire.me/blog/2013/02/26/does-academic-research-cause- economic-growth/)</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Y Combinator Applicant Video Collection - <AUTHOR> http://wikitorrents.org/wiki/ycombinator_applicants

<comment><USER2> It was really an eye-opening experience to go through a big list of these videos. Thank you to everyone who has participated. It definitely gives me a new perspective. I once thought it inconsiderate that YC didn't even click the demo link in my application, but now it's obvious that it's a necessary evil in sifting through so much of this.

One thing that stood out to me was how late all the videos were in the application process. About 75% of the videos were submitted within 48 hours of the deadline. It seems that submitting just a week earlier than the deadline would gain a huge advantage in terms of how much time the YC folks are able to commit to your application.

If I had to sift through this many videos in a short amount of time, I wouldn't even finish most of them. Whereas, if I received a video for the first time in a few days, I'd probably watch the whole thing regardless, and even try out the demo.

<comment><AUTHOR> Did you submit a video with your application? If so, where is it? :-)

<comment><USER2> I didn't apply this time around, for several reasons which aren't really important. Otherwise, I'd have definitely included it... you know, to show others how it's done.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> This began in the node.js chatroom last night. But it just proves my own ycombinator application was a good idea (WikiTorrents): a website where you can list downloadable videos that you can get on other websites.

<comment><USER3> So why haven't you started building it?

<comment><AUTHOR> Umm... the link _IS_ WikiTorrents.org . I've been working on this project for a year. Check it out: <http://wikitorrents.org/wiki/ycombinator_applicants>

<comment><USER4> Just a heads up, I'm getting a 403.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hmm... we have a somewhat zealous firewall tool on our servers, but I modified it.

Try again and let me know. Thanks!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I'm in no way intending to be rude, but the standard set in those videos isn't at all as high as I would have expected.

Even without post-production editing, surely there should at least be adequate lighting conditions and camera alignment.

I think clearing breaking the pitch into parts would be a good idea also. Such as an intro, about the founders, about the problem, about revenue, etc.

I would make specific comments per video but that wouldn't be a nice thing to do.

Just my 2c guys, good luck to you all!

<comment><AUTHOR> The worst video I was with really choppy webcam video and it also had a several second delay between the audio and the video. I mean, if you can't even operate the webcam, why bother labeling yourself a "hacker" and applying for start-up funding?

Second worst I saw was some stoned guy going on about how much he hated seeing "all the genitalia" on chatroulette. Seriously. This was a real video.

The best two I personally saw were a video of several founders for a question and answer site and a new-age guy with an idea for personal metaphysical space. Both videos were very engaging given their short length.

<comment><USER6> Hahahaha.

Stoned guy here. You just need to chill out and recognize the problem of the penis... man. It's giving the internet bad karma.

Seriously, I was a little tired, but I was not stoned. Could I have made an awesome polished video? Sure. But they said talk spontaneously as I would to a friend, and I took their instructions literally.

Any feedback on the concept?

<comment><AUTHOR> oh man, you kick ass! thanks for being a good sport about it.

For those just joining us, here's the video: <http://livejake.posterous.com/application-video>

My recommendation would have been to seem more enthusiastic and professional. The idea seemed kind of, umm, unique. But if you had presented it more professionally and with serious facts and data, I think it would have made a better impression Also, maybe some ideas about who you will market the idea and how it could make money. You could've offered specifics about maybe marketing it to parents somehow. Or connecting your idea to some sort of succesful product that involves internet safety.

<comment><USER6> Yeah, you're right about being enthusiastic and professional. Thanks for the feedback.

As for stats and data, I tend to buy Chris Dixon's argument that narratives are more important than numbers: [http://cdixon.org/2010/04/03/size-markets- using-narratives-n...](http://cdixon.org/2010/04/03/size-markets-using- narratives-not-numbers/) Nevertheless, some statistics are useful.

I included additional details about potential users and what not in my application.

An example use-case, which I didn't get into in the video, is an entrepreneurial designers and developers event.

Here's how it works: 1) Designers and developers RSVP in advance for an online event that takes place at a set date and time.

2) Upon joining the event, each designer is presented with a list of developers in the event with basic bio info from their LinkedIn profile. Each designer can then check off who they want to chat with in the event. The same happens for developers.

3) Once the event starts, they are placed in a series of one-on-one chat with a designer (or developer) that they've previously indicated that they're interested in meeting. During the chats, each participant can view the other participants LinkedIn profile. These chats last for a set time, say three minutes, like speed dating. In the event, participants meet a lot of people that they're interested in meeting in short one-on-one chats. That's the general idea.

There are a lot of flaws with this concept. And I've actually started working on a different idea shortly after I submitted my Ycombinator app, but I still think this idea has some limited potential.

<comment><AUTHOR> Do you have a working site or a demo or something to show off? If so, let me know.

<comment><USER6> What I submitted was this: rapidintro.com:8000 You need two people to really demo it. Oauth with LinkedIn and then you video chat. The video chat is still buggy. We didn't finish the event system. This is the first ChatRoulette configuration written in Erlang.

The reason the design looks like it was designed by Slovakian college student for $50 is, well, because it was designed by a Slovakian college student for $50.

As I said before, we are now working on a different application and we should be completing that shortly. I'm considering releasing this application, with some design tweaks, as is to Hacker News and other entrepreneurial communities and seeing what happens.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I'm surprised at how poorly planned and filmed most of these videos are.

Is that the point? Is it supposed to be so rough? (Note: I've never applied to YC or looked at the application)

<comment><AUTHOR> Here's the official instructions for making a video: <http://ycombinator.com/video.html>

The instructions say: The video should contain nothing except the founders talking. No screenshots or postproduction wizardry please; we don't want this to turn into a video making contest. If you're going to spend time making something cool, put it into your demo/product.

However, I agree with you. I think people should strive to make a good first impression.

Beyond the bad quality of some of the videos, I was surprised how many people submitted videos saying words to the effect of "I have another co-founder but he couldn't be here for this video." If I were watching those and heard that, I'd automatically reject the applicant. If you can't even get your alleged co- founder together for a simple one minute video then things are obviously already falling apart.

<comment><USER8> "If you can't even get your alleged co-founder together for a simple one minute video then things are obviously already falling apart."

I've actually heard of people applying a few hours before the deadline. So if they are geographically distant from one another, they just use webcams.

<comment><USER9> I was on my honeymoon in Hawaii and we didn't put together the application until after I got married, so we used two webcams and spliced 'em together...

<comment><AUTHOR> My comment wasn't about videos of co-founders spliced together.

My comment was about people that just basically said, in so many words, "I have a co-founder but he refused to show up even for a one-minute video."

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Very cool! Nice idea - customizable lists, context but not content.

{ ouch - hard to watch myself }

<comment><AUTHOR> The wiki has its benefits, the best being that I can revert to previous versions if somebody messes up a page edit or does graffiti on a page.

The wiki is not very granular, though. Nor is it easy to edit. The current setup is going an overhaul and being replaced with a "much better" version that I'm still testing. I hope to have it implemented publicly within a month.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Interesting that most people haven't put a nice shirt/ suit jacket on. I know it probably has little impact but it gives a good initial impression.</comment>


U.S. Department of Health and Human Services – Breach Portal - <AUTHOR> https://ocrportal.hhs.gov/ocr/breach/breach_report.jsf <comment><USER2> This will probably seem very pedantic but aren't " _Unauthorized Access /Disclosure_" and " _Hacking /IT Incident_" pretty much the same things?

<comment><USER3> No. Unauthorized access or disclosure can happen when someone with legitimate access to the system gets access to more data than they should see. For example, a patient logs on to the system to view their own record and sees records for other patients. Logs would show this, and this would have to be disclosed.

Deliberate penetration of the system, or purposeful exfiltration of the data, are very different occurences.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Favorite places online to satisfy intellectual curiosity? - <AUTHOR> What are your favorite places online to learn new things and get inspired in an intellectual sense? <comment><USER2> Youtube - no joke, there is an absurd amount of amazing content on youtube. Yeah, there's also all the shitty pop music, cat videos, etc., but you can ignore that. You can find videos of great talks from amazing conferences, from NIPS to Strange Loop, C3, All Things Open, etc., etc. And there are videos of classes on all sorts of subjects, from schools including Stanford, Berkeley, MIT, IIT, etc. And then you get stuff like 3blue1brown, numberphile, etc. Seriously, I could spend all day on Youtube just soaking up knowledge.

jmlr.org - in addition to the journal articles themselves, the site hosts a huge trove of conference proceedings from conferences like ICML, COLT, NIPS, etc. [http://proceedings.mlr.press/index.html](http://proceedings.mlr.press/index.html)

ijcai.org - all of the past proceedings from the International Joint Conference on AI events is online, going back to the very first one in 1969. [https://www.ijcai.org/past_proceedings](https://www.ijcai.org/past_proceedings)

dspace.mit.edu - houses (among other things) an archive of the "AI Series" papers, which includes classics from folks like John McCarthy and Marvin Minsky, etc.

[https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/5460/browse](https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/5460/browse)

<comment><USER3> +1 to the semi-surprising amount of conference talks that make it onto YouTube. I have dozens of great ones bookmarked in Python alone.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I found this site [1] after I bought the book "What do you believe is true even though you cannot prove it?" and that led me to [2] but I can't remember how. [1] [https://www.edge.org](https://www.edge.org) [2] [https://aeon.co/](https://aeon.co/)

</comment><comment><USER5> Wikipedia's "Random Article" button is pretty fun:

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

Eventually you'll find something interesting and can random walk deeper.

I often mash it a bit at the bus stop.

</comment><comment><USER6> There are some really good podcasts out there.

I like Fine Homebuilding, Gastropod, Conversations with Tyler.

Podcasts aren't a great way to get into the details - but they can provoke new thoughts and give you a lay of the land. It's a good way to start.

<comment><USER7> I like the following CBC podcasts:

Quirks and Quarks (science) [https://www.cbc.ca/radio/podcasts/science-and- tech/quirks-qu...](https://www.cbc.ca/radio/podcasts/science-and-tech/quirks- quarks/)

Ideas ("contemporary thought") [https://www.cbc.ca/radio/podcasts/documentaries/the-best- of-...](https://www.cbc.ca/radio/podcasts/documentaries/the-best-of-ideas/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> [http://www.aldaily.com/](http://www.aldaily.com/) is a great source for cultural, historical, art, and philosophical musings.

</comment><comment><USER9> Medium.com and stumbleupon.com

</comment><comment><USER10> Aeon & Quartz</comment>


What's new in Bitbucket - <AUTHOR> https://bitbucket.org/whats-new

<comment><AUTHOR> Given the obvious push of features in GitHub appearing here I thought I'd like to give the Atlassian guys some recognition as well. I feel there's a general perception of Bitbucket as a lesser product (which I've had as well), but I do think they're catching up to GH (specifically, Markdown support in the wiki and on-site-merging have closed the gap of missing features for me).

<comment><AUTHOR> What I missed off this comment, was to ask aside from the community being there, what features do you feel you need to use GitHub for over Bitbucket?

Also, I realise this post may seem like an Atlassian promo - I assure you it's not, I'm just interested in VCS web apps.</comment></comment>


Wag, the 'Uber for Dog-Walking,' Is Drawing Uber-Like Scrutiny - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-16/wag-the-uber-for-dog-walking-is-drawing-uber-like-scrutiny <comment><USER2> Here's why I'd never invest in the Uber for dog walkers: Once someone finds a walker they like, they'll just do a deal with them. Dog walking isn't like needing a ride. Usually when you need a ride, you need it now, and you don't care who provides it.

With dog walking, it's usually at a scheduled time each day, and you care a lot about who is providing the service.

Dog walking is not a good candidate for the Uber model.

<comment><USER3> Dog boarding, on the other hand, is pretty irregular. So rather than Uber I think the correct analogy should be AirBnB.

<comment><USER4> Yep; it's a way better case for a coordination website. That site is Rover, which to my knowledge is doing just fine. (Wikipedia suggests they cleared $30 million in revenue last year.) They offer dog-walking too, but are probably a bit safer because the boarding offer is a good incentive to just stick around and use one site for everything.

(Rover also provides insurance on each deal, a very un-Uber approach that's actually more protective than most low-tech arrangements.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> It's been a mixed bag with Wag. The app quality is not great, buggy and major usability issues...but also the walk report card warms my heart.

I was worried about trusting my dog to strangers but it wasn't too bad with Wag. Overall most of the people were decent but I'd occasionally get some really bad walkers who wouldn't fill out the report card, or walk the dog for 90 minutes instead of 30. My partner and I decided doggie daycare was the better bet. About $35 a day to have our dog just hanging out with other pups is worth it...especially when the quality of walker is so variable with services like Wag.

<comment><USER6> My dog got abused at doggy daycare. Paid to play, but instead locked in a cage all day, and multiple shock collars put on his neck to try and get his barking to stop (not approved by me).

So not sure this really applies to wag vs not.. but double and triple check the references of your doggy daycare..

<comment><USER4> Jesus. I've always been a bit paranoid about this; at the moment I'm sticking to my vet's dogcare program, which seems more reliable.

This would be a nontrivial concern for me with Wag. Uber rides have plenty at risk also, but at least I'm present for those. (And in one case, I have in fact gotten out early for safety's sake.) Coordination services are that much less convincing when the buyer and seller aren't both present.

<comment><USER6> Ya exactly.. with Uber it's just yourself for risk.

Wag is one stop closer to "I trust you with something import to me, don't break it". I guess the ultimate test would be "uber for babysitting".. some stranger stops by and picks up your kid and takes them to the park.

Where you value your pets varies a lot by culture. But I value them much closer to my children than myself.. which would make Wag a nogo for me.

Edit - Not to make you paranoid, but my event happened at my vet. Turns out my vet abused 100s of dogs. No criminal charges. She is under review to MAYBE have something happen to her license. Or maybe have some additional oversight. After abusing and killing many animals.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Random idea, but here (Italy) it is common enough for hunters to have dogs fitted with a GPS locator when they go in the woods hunting, those are often costly, but there are simpler/cheaper versions intended for use where there is good coverage of cellular networks.

I wonder why - since this service is so innovating/high tech - they don't simply provide their pet walkers with a number of such devices, I believe they cost (at end-user level) in the 50-80 Euro range, maybe 100 for more professional versions.

<comment><USER8> We tried the Whistle 3 for our do. It only wants to update every 10 minutes unless you're in "track mode" at which point is every 60 seconds. A dog can cover a lot of ground in that time; so it's OK if the dog just wandered out of your yard; but not useful if he's taken off after a deer (particularly because our local park has marginal cell service).

The ones hunters use are only about a 2.5 second delay.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I've used Rover a couple times. Don't ever use Rover. But if you do, be sure to vet the person as you would a random craigslist ad offering to walk your dog. They do no screening, and any qualifications that appear cannot be trusted.

My dog survived with a handful of punctures after being attacked by an off- leash dog at a park. The rover walker neglected to inform me, even when asked if anything happened.

You want your dog walker watching your dog, not their phone to tap a button every time your dog pees. Hire a professional.

</comment><comment><USER10> I wouldn't trust most Lyft/Uber drivers with my dog. That is a entirely different level of trust.

<comment><USER11> In fairness, becoming a Wag Walker has more vetting (pun present on original page and likely intended) and requires taking exams.

[https://wagwalking.com/dog-walker](https://wagwalking.com/dog-walker)

<comment><USER12> I'm unsure if I should laugh or cry that more vetting goes into a dog walker than an Uber driver.

<comment><USER13> Well... I can demand that the driver pull over and let me out if they turn out to be some kind of reckless bozo. Or worst comes to worst, call the police. A dog has no such option.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> This business model will fail horribly. Unlike Uber where you provide rides from random people at random locations each time. Dog sitting/walking is a pretty consistent endeavor. Walkers/Sitters will just build up a clientele of about 5-10 consistent dog owners and go to them directly. They bypass the app, removing the fees that they otherwise would have to pay to the company.

</comment><comment><USER3> I use Rover quite a bit. I have some "usual suspects" for dog walking / dog sitting but they're not always available.

<comment><USER15> Richard Nixon trusted Checkers with the wrong dog walkers, and look where it got him.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_(film)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_\(film\))

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Any 'X but for Y' company deserves scrutiny

<comment><USER17> Can't we just build a "X for Y"-framework that allows Y-people to do their work more efficiently while profits are distributed fairly?

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Weirdly, I'd be a lot more careful when selecting a dog walker than a person that has me in a (potentially) locked car.

</comment><comment><USER15> Uber for Dog-Walking??! Good lord, what a horrible image. I sure hope they're not sexually harassing dogs!</comment>


A peek inside Google Labs - <AUTHOR> http://www.americanwaymag.com/google-labs-search-engine-algorithms <comment><USER2> American Way? The in-flight magazine? The source is funny in and of itself.

</comment><comment><USER3> Loving the post. Read it on my flight back to Chicago yesterday morning. The author did their research (even went as far as to grab a quote from Danny Sullivan).</comment>


The quiet revolution in precision temperature sensing - <AUTHOR> https://eengenious.com/the-quiet-revolution-in-precision-temperature-sensing/ <comment><USER2> This reference design – a body temperature monitor as a bio patch – is significant not only for the semiconductor temperature sensor, but also for its energy harvesting feature and packaging which allows continuous body temperature measurement. [https://goo.gl/vWrVJq](https://goo.gl/vWrVJq)</comment>


How to stop procrastinating - <AUTHOR> http://machineslikeus.com/news/how-stop-procrastinating <comment><USER2> I believe this is the back-bone of the GTD philosophy. Figuring out exactly what your next action™ is can help you get started on it sooner.

<comment><USER3> Exactly. GTD gives a system of organisation, and says that each item on your "To Do" list must specifically be a concrete "Next Action". It's interesting to see this being supported(ish) by research.

It works for me.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> > merely thinking about the task in more _concrete, specific terms_ makes it > feel like it should be completed sooner and thus reducing procrastination

It doesn't say how they drew that conclusion from the evidence, but it seems a bit of a leap to me.

I think it's because a specific concrete task has less unknown in it, and therefore is easier to do; easier to estimate how long it will take; easier to judge your performance; and easier to know when you have completed the task - for these reasons, it is less scary.</comment>


Researchers who hack the Mac OS - <AUTHOR> http://news.cnet.com/8301-27080_3-10318972-245.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-5

<comment><USER2> So, edw519, what do you think?</comment>


Gates Foundation to help libraries be better free 'net cafes - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20081218-gates-foundation-to-help-libraries-be-better-free-net-cafes.html

<comment><AUTHOR> I love working in the library. It makes for a nice change of venue where I don't feel compelled to buy stuff.</comment>


Recreating Lamborghini V10 engine sound with beer can - <AUTHOR> http://www.autoblog.com/2012/12/06/guy-puts-crazy-effort-into-recreating-lamborghini-v10-engine-sou/ <comment><USER2> Completely off topic, but rather than watch the video on autoblog.com I followed the link direct to youtube, but I got distracted by the "mom's reaction to 1250whp twin turbo" on the right hand side "Related Videos" section, Just a quick peek right, can't hurt!

But then I got curious about this video poster, RobertHimler, and looked at some of his other his videos, and them stumbled across his Australian girlfriend Amy Sangster, and her success in foreign exchange trading, and his 17 lamborghinis, and they're both 22 years old and retired from the rat race and HOLY SHIT BALLS THESE PEOPLE HAVE AMAZING LIFESTYLEZ YO

And he is an amazing web developer who has created 8 different sites and a photo app that rivals flickr and instagram, and he's been programming since he was 8 years old, and a self-made multi-bazillionaire

And now he's selling an e-book on the internet how you too can have the amazing lifestyle and own crazy expensive sports cars and attractive partners, and it just stinks of some sort of super scam, but wow, what a story, and it kept me entertained to do back ground hunting on the two of them for 15 minutes, and it was an unexpected trip, so thanks.

It's an engaging white collar 411 scam (without the murder). How do people actually fall for this stuff?

<comment><USER3> You wouldn't be the first person being skeptical of this whole thing:

[http://www.ripoffreport.com/robert-himler/internet- fraud/rob...](http://www.ripoffreport.com/robert-himler/internet-fraud/robert- himler-far-from-it-raz-7be14.htm)

[http://vecinuca.wordpress.com/2012/07/20/robert-himler- and-a...](http://vecinuca.wordpress.com/2012/07/20/robert-himler-and-amy- sangster-a-love-story-of-two-scammers/)

[http://vecinuca.wordpress.com/2012/07/22/robert-himler- and-a...](http://vecinuca.wordpress.com/2012/07/22/robert-himler-and-amy- sangster-part-two-25/)

Now I don't know about either of them until you mentioned your post but all I know is that <https://www.google.com/search?q=drew+houston+scam> or <https://www.google.com/search?q=alexis+ohanian+scam> do not return nearly as many dedicated blog posts as <https://www.google.com/search?q=robert+himler+scam> or <https://www.google.com/search?q=amy+sangster+scam>

A couple more clicks and I came across <https://twitter.com/socialmediatwip> defending <http://amysangsterscam.com/> and promoting <http://forex- ultrasonic-robot.blogspot.com/>

<comment><USER2> yeah, I discovered all those links, + some more regarding their forex company, and a couple of other partners in crime who'se names I won't mention.

I particular enjoyed the ripoffreport one, where a random internet dude got on and defended Mr Himler with huge walls of text including bold and italic formatting. They seemed to take a lot of care for someone who had no connection at all! Colour me skeptical!

It made for a great Friday afternoon of reading, all that was missing was a beer in hand, but I have since taken care of that missing beer problem.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Sounds like that gearbox is a little slow, throw a little long, on the upshift. Might need to get that checked.

</comment><comment><USER5> If I were 8 again, I'd totally waste days on it, organize races with friends and stuff. Very cool!

</comment><comment><USER6> What can I say. I could not do it.

Edit holy shit getting the hang of it.

<comment><USER7> Thank you for the most epic comment of HN.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> This video is cool, but it always reminds me of how big engines _used_ to sound. Maybe it's the pushrods or something, but they used to be made to sound so much less... _neutered_.

It can be tough to find the right audio clips, but here's one that isn't bad.

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PL49A82E62F8CF2750&v=N...](http://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PL49A82E62F8CF2750&v=N2KzC6r9kVM&feature=player_detailpage#t=44s)

<comment><USER9> Engines still have pushrods, so I don't think that is it. :)

Comes down to a couple reasons - 1) the increased pollution reduction technologies (i.e the catalytic converter and muffler) used, which in the video you linked to doesn't have any of those and is just straight headers and 2) the timing of those older motors is mechanical and set to be optimal when the motor is at a peak (or near peak) performance.

<comment><USER10> > _the timing of those older motors is mechanical and set to be optimal when > the motor is at a peak (or near peak) performance._

Not true with mechanical variable valve phasing/timing/shifting systems, famed (and defamed) as VTEC for Honda, but available in other alternative forms (and often recently and in milder forms probably due to Honda and Toyota patents gradually expiring), like Toyota: VVT-i (famous as VVT in AE86's 4A-GE engine), Suzuki: VVT (e.g on Swift Sport M16A engine), Ford: VCT...

Or it can be completely electronic thanks to direct injection gasoline engines, like Fiat MultiAir.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Very impressive and bice background on the science.

I'd love to see him do the same with a nitro funny car... I saw one for the first time last month and it's impossible to convey the shear power that you can feel.

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzOEz0Y3Lcc>

</comment><comment><USER12> Does australia have talent? definitely some sort of talent for making car sounds- this guy was on our national tv; <http://youtu.be/RSDUcKw-GOk>

</comment><comment><USER13> More models and without the beer can: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKb572Yo2aM>

</comment><comment><USER14> But we will lose these powerful car sounds with electric cars :(. Which is bad for the peoples who love these sounds, but will make the cities more quiet. They trying to fake it but it's not the same: <http://vimeo.com/39818209>

<comment><USER15> You like the sound because you use it to predict the power/speed of the car. I'm sure you will latch on to another indicator for powerful electric cars, so no need to worry, bro.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> That is the best thing I have seen all day.

</comment><comment><USER17> Holy cow. I wish I could make this sound when driving my 2001 Honda.

</comment><comment><USER18> I'm sure this guys neighbors love him.</comment>


WhatsApp permanently bans participants of group chats with "illegal" names - <AUTHOR> https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=es&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2Fchile%2Fcomments%2Fd28fc0%2Fsuspensi%25C3%25B3n_de_whatsapp%2F <comment><AUTHOR> One more case in the comments:

[https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=&sl=es&tl=en&u=htt...](https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=&sl=es&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2Fchile%2Fcomments%2Fd28fc0%2Fsuspensi%25C3%25B3n_de_whatsapp%2Feztj8et%2F)

<comment><USER2> Google translate link not working for me, looks like reddit doesn't like something.

Someone changed the group name of 14 people to child porn as a joke and the people were banned.

<comment><USER3> Any kind of automated moderation like this is bound to be abused</comment></comment></comment>