Why to Move to a Startup Hub - <AUTHOR> http://www.paulgraham.com/startuphubs.html <comment><USER2> Paul, here is another point to backup your premise: one of the best ways to meet potential investors/acquirers is to go to the same social events that they do. If you live in the same place as them, even if you aren't going to a startup-oriented social event, you still have a good chance of running into them and striking up a conversation.

Case in point -- my cousin wants to make movies. So he decided to move to LA and get a job as a bartender. He went to bartending school and then got a job at a bar that is frequented by producers and other movie industry folk. One day he served a drink to a producer, mentioned to the guy that he wanted to make movies, and is now working on a couple of movie deals. That could have never happened even if he continued to live in his native Orange County, only 40 miles away.

<comment><USER3> A startup simultaneously creates several products for different markets:

1) It creates software for users to use. 2) It creates a company that owns the rights to certain software and accompanying intellectual property 3) It creates a community of users 4) It creates a team that has proven that it can create and ship a software product.

#1 is not geographically limited. You don't have to be in Silicon Valley to write software. Anyone in Duluth, MN can create software and load it on a server for users all over the world to use or purchase.

The market for numbers 2, 3 and 4 are geographically limited, however:

#2 and #4) The highest concentration of software companies in the world is in Silicon Valley. This in generally your market for #2 and #4. Your chances of interaction with someone interested in buying your IP are much higher in SV than in Duluth. Your chances of finding someone interested in paying top dollar to acquire a proven group of developers increases exponentially in SV.

#3) Many companies are interested in purchasing large communities of users. These tend to be located in large urban areas, however. If I'm Chief Acquisitions Officer (CAO) for BigMediaCo, and I'm interested in acquiring a startup that has a big community of users, it's not going to hurt if that company is based in Silicon Valley. It adds to the CAO's prestige if he has to travel to silicon valley to acquire a startup.

But, ask yourself this question: How would that CAO feel about traveling to Duluth to talk about the acquisition?

Also, the value of a network increases exponentially with the number of users in the network. In SV, it's hard to _avoid_ networking with entrepreneurs and people in the software industry. It's really not that large, and after you've been here for any length of time, there are no more than 2-4 degrees of separation between you and everybody else in the Valley, including people who want to fund you or acquire you.

Case in point: I've been here for 1 year, and I know for a fact that there are 3 degrees of separation between myself, Guy Kawasaki and Woz, and 2 degrees of separation between 3 different VC's and me. That would probably never happen in Duluth.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> So how valuable is it to move to a strange city where you don't know anyone versus staying in the less optimal city where you actually have friends and connections? It's great that Silicon Valley and Boston have this bubbling startup culture, but if you didn't graduate from school there it seems less likely you'd be able to tap into that resource.

<comment><USER5> That is a good point. Off the top of my head, at 25 you should move, while at 35 connections might be enough to compensate for the difference between, say, Boston and SV.

<comment><USER6> I'm 37. I have set up businesses in London, Houston, Chicago, NYC, Edinburgh and (soon) Sydney. You can hook into a city in just a couple of months, being from elsewhere sometimes helps in creating interest, and the people who will be of most use to you in a start-up are likely to be very open to new people if they've got the skills, drive and charisma needed to succeed. Just my 2c.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This essay really strikes a chord with me. In fact, I followed Paul's advice about three weeks ago when I left Charlotte, NC to move to Sunnyvale, CA in hopes of starting a start-up (or at least working at one). In non-hub cities, I would hear all the time about how I needed 10-15 years of experience to start my own company; maybe 1 out of 20 people would take me seriously. (To tell the truth, most people would assume I was starting some sort of manufacturing-like company. They would ask me where I was going to find the capital for such a huge investment). That sort of negative energy can weigh on anyone, and I knew I had to get to a place where I felt more accepted for this ambition.

On that topic, now that I have left my job (for the move), I would really like to get involved at a start-up out here. I loved working my tail off while I was at college and hated (barely) working at work for the past year. I really want to get back into nose to the grindstone working to build something cool. Anybody have a good idea how to get the ball rolling. I am teaching myself a few extra programming languages, but I feel like I need to get with the right people to get things off the ground.

Anyway, great essay Paul. Sometimes I wonder if the start-up companies will revolutionize "work" in a way that factories and unions changed the landscape of America during the 19th and 20th centuries. Are we that far away from a start-up being the norm? I suppose not everyone could work at a start-up, how could a start-up expand to a larger corporation if everyone is working at a start-up? But, I could see the mentality switch such that students work for/start a start-up for 2-3 years after college, if it succeeds, great, if not, they go work for a larger company or go to grad school. Either way, it sure would be nice to live in a society where everyone "takes their shot" before settling in to a nice, steady, safe career.

<comment><USER8> :)

<http://news.ycombinator.com/jobs>

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> _"if you have a good investor who has committed to fund you if you stay where you are, you should probably stay. Finding investors is hard. You generally shouldn't pass up a definite funding offer to move."_

What if you have definite funding from someone who wants you to move?

PG used a similar argument style in Hackers & Painters to show that some languages are better and Lisp is the best. Reduce it, then refine it. "Rural areas are clearly very bad"=="basic is clearly very bad", then "SF is the best"=="Lisp is the best".

It's funny because we're in Boston using Python, the roughly #2 spots in cities and languages.

</comment><comment><USER9> "And just as Jews are ex officio allowed to tell Jewish jokes..."

I don't think "ex officio" is really appropriate here (although I'm sure we all knew what you meant), since being Jewish isn't strictly speaking an _office_ which is held. Perhaps _ex genesis_ ("by right of birth") or _ex sanguinis_ ("by right of blood") would be more appropriate?

<comment><USER10> Hmmm... this depends on how long you lived in England. I was born in the UK too, but I moved to SF when I was 10 months old. The rest of my family was all born in the US - mom, dad, older sister, younger brother. And I sound like I'm from California, not from England.

I may have a UK passport, but I don't think I'd be allowed to pass off any jokes about England as self-deprecating humor (excuse me - humour).

This reminds me of the convert on Seinfeld who starts making Jewish jokes, but then keeps on making Catholic jokes as well.

Preist: "And this offends you as a Jewish person?" Seinfeld: "This offends me as a comedian."

<comment><USER11> I'm Irish. I don't know how entitled I am to make jokes about the English, but I am eager to.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> > And yet whatever argument you use to prove that startups don't need to move > from London to Silicon Valley could equally well be used to prove startups > don't need to move from smaller towns to London.

Well, what if it isn't the raw number that makes a city a startup hub, but having a certain minimum amount of startups? That argument would then account for small towns not being as startup-friendly as London, but London (or Boston or New York) being an equal to Silicon Valley. Maybe the startup friendliness of a town looks more like a logarithmic graph than a linear one.

<comment><USER13> PG's point about non-Silicon Valley VCs not knowing their stuff as well is a good one, but your point helps bolster the other side of the argument.

New York may be underrated as a startup hub, for the reason you cite. According to Wikipedia, "though it is not often thought of as a 'College Town', there are about 594,000 university students in New York City, the highest number of any city in the United States." Similarly, there's a lot of startup activity in New York, but it's not considered a startup hub because there's so much else going on in the city. Silicon Valley doesn't have anything else going on, so startups and the tech industry dominate its image.

<comment><USER14> not sure about that, but i can say that new york is an ugly city, and i'm happy it's not a technology hub

<comment><USER13> There are definitely people out there who cannot stand New York for a minute. These are the people who associate it much more with the city of _Taxi Driver_ and _Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles_ than the one of _Annie Hall_.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> It may just be me, but it seems that many Europeans are more nationalistic than Americans when it comes to certain things. Not in a negative sense, but as if more of a cultural thing. It does not surprise me that PG speech about startup hubs might have offended many in the audience, even though the offense was obviously not intended.

If the situation were reversed and PG came from the UK to give that talk in SV, I dont think many would have been offended on terms of national pride. I suspect many startup entrepreneurs from SV would not hesitate moving to a different city in another country if it greatly increased their prospects of success. I for one do not have a problem moving somewhere else, and I consider myself to be at least somewhat of a patriotic American.

Again, not meaning any offense to European citizens in general, just sharing my observation.

</comment><comment><USER16> I won't try to disagree with the advantages mentioned about Silicon Valley. However, I think there are equally important reasons to live in the UK or in Europe: namely, the quality of life, the way the cities are designed, the public transportation, the people's attitudes. I am an American who prefers Europe and I hope to move over there one day. Silicon Valley is a wasteland. Try riding your bike somewhere. Try strolling around the town center (there isn't one.) If you are going to actually get rich, then it may be worth it to live in Silicon Valley. But if you end up being simply middle class, then quality of life should be considered.

I lived in Fremont for a couple of years, and I can't tell you how much I hated it. Urban sprawl. Nothing to do.

<comment><USER10> I agree with you that much of silicon valley is depressing. This is actually a really serious problem for valley companies, because employees don't get to know each other as well, and everyone scatters off to various suburbs after work.

My wife worked for a startup in SF next to a cool bar and a cool coffee shop. When you left work, a couple of your friends/coworkers would often be in that bar or coffeeshop. So you'd stop in, and start chatting. Often, you'd chat about work, and come up with new ideas. They might get excited enough to go back into work to hash it out a bit more - at least they'd have something they were charged up about.

At the time, I was working for Sun Micro in Fremont, a spiritually crushing place. On occasion, we'd all agree to get together for drinks at the W nearby. But it took planning, arranging, getting into your car, driving over there... not at all spontaneous. And so we didn't get to know each other as well, and didn't have any fun.

That said - your post is missing one really important thing: San Francisco and Berkeley have a vibe that is _very_ conducive to creativity, and even parts of (admittedly suburban) Palo Alto aren't so bad. This is why I drove a horrendous hour and fifteen minutes to work every day. It's also why I finally got so fed up with the commute that I faced a choice: quit sun, or move to Fremont. I quit.

But hey, would you rather live in SF and be an hour from the valley, or in Munich and be a trans atlantic flight away? One poster called SF a "second rate new york" in a previous thread (obviously not getting it). San Francisco is not a big city like New York, so don't go looking for Manhattan. Look for a small (surprisingly small to some, considering how many comparisons to NY I hear) but very entertaining city with a terrific vibe and a ton of technical and creative people to hang with.

<comment><USER16> >>>Fremont, a spiritually crushing place.

I remember trying to make the more than 1 hour drive from there to SF, and then back again... just to spend a few hours in a the nice city. Yes, I'd rather live in Munich.

This is a huge topic and it affects the entire USA. Our whole country is stupid automobile sprawl. "The greatest mis-allocation of resources in the history of mankind."

<comment><USER10> I agree, a lot of the US is pretty awful. I'm not sure that this is specific to the US, though - I think it's specific to places that were largely built after WWII. The outskirts of european cities are generally pretty soulless, too. But since most of the European cities were built before the automobile, they've avoided this truly depressing problem. I really doubt it has all that much to do with Europeans being particularly marvelous people - after all, San Franciscans like to credit themselves with how pretty their city is (and there is some credit due - my dad remembers signing the petition to preserve the trolley cars when he was a kid), but it was too full to build anything else much after the 50s - so I know I didn't have a damn thing to do with it. (Ok, there is the factor that some people value the physical environment so much that they'll shell out 1Mil+ to live in a small 2br house, so some self- selection may be going on here...)

Hang out in the outer suburbs of Paris some time, and you'll see what I mean - not a big improvement over the outskirts of SF or LA (actually, don't - vacation time in the US is precious, and you definitely don't want to waste it on that).

<comment><USER16> I concur.

There are two possible future outcomes I can think of.

1\. We have an oil crisis, and cities return to the way they used to be, over the course of time.

2\. Alternative energies gracefully take the place of oil, there is no crisis, and things continue as they have been.

Oddly, the crisis outcome is more appealing.

<comment><USER17> In the "good old days", a smaller fraction of the population lived in major metro centers than does now.

<comment><USER16> If you go back far enough, there were no cities at all. Nevertheless, I think there is a wonderful "city" concept in many old towns around the world, and especially in Europe. If you move to Silicon Valley, and you spend some significant fraction of your life there, then your day to day quality of life is seriously affected by this. This discussion thread may be getting "off topic", although it is about an article telling entrepreneurs from all around the world to come to Silicon Valley if they possibly can. I am warning them. It's not a paradise (in my opinion.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I know some people were asking of other cities.

I have folks over here in Portland that I visit, usually I'm in LA or SV sometimes. It's a dramatic shock the types of friends you make, even if you try.

For example, if you're in Portland and try coder or Linux groups, the forums are dead a lot, the Meetup groups are the same way. Ask around successful people about who they know. Your network will be limited.

It all adds up in differences.....

The advantage is that you can get the feel of people who aren't bent on startup -> domination, which is probably the majority of your customers.

Think of it like the art of personal maturing by living for a few years in a different country. Gives you major perspective and altitude.

</comment><comment><USER19> It takes guts to tell Boston VCs that they just don't know startups the way SV VCs do. Way to call it like you see it.

</comment><comment><USER20> As a serial CEO I moved my latest venture from NY to Silicon Valley when I took it over. My reasons were access to talent and access to capital. Our target customer is Wall St but I felt it was lower risk to be far from the customer than far from the talent pool to build the technology. Finally, there are too many fun things to do in Manhattan - and not that many fun things to do at night in Foster City; this helps startups focus.

</comment><comment><USER21> I was just reading this article and immediately saw a nice parallel. Take a look at "The Secrets of Intangible Wealth" - <http://reason.com/news/show/122854.html>. It's about a World Bank study of the effect of intangible capital on productivity. One conclusion that can be drawn from the study is that pure application of financial capital in itself does not result in productivity - in other words, it's not just where the money is. It seems pretty clear that startup hubs have a significant amount of intangible capital related to startups. For economic development in general, according to the study, natural and financial capital are actually _dwarfed_ by intangible capital: "In the U.S., according to the World Bank study, natural capital is $15,000 per person, produced capital is $80,000 and intangible capital is $418,000." It would be great if there were a study on startup-related development so we had solid data, but it would not be surprising to me if the effect of startup-related intangible capital in startup hubs was indeed significant.

<comment><USER22> Now just a damn minute. If the article you linked to is correct, then the World Bank is playing a devious game of sleight of hand: They got the idea that the US must have "intangible wealth" because of the fact that the domestic resources and domestic production don't account for all the wealth. The sleight of hand is in the fact that they never consider the fact that the USA's rich classes operate in dozens of countries. The US imports most of its natural resources, and it even imports a large portion of the finished goods. All of these imports benefit American investors. About the only thing they export are the costs: Those who aren't part of the rich class have to constantly worry about their jobs going to China, India, Jakarta, and Indonesia, where labor is cheaper.

All "intangible" means in this case is "Oops, we missed it!"

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> A culture of social egalitarianism (as opposed to the material kind) seems important to encouraging and developing new ideas. Here's Tom Wolfe on the culture of the places the founders of Silicon Valley came from:

"Back East, engineers, no matter how gifted, ranked below doctors, lawyers, Army colonels, Navy captains, business executives, and professors of English, history, biology, chemistry, and physics. This piece of European snobbery never reached Grinnell, however, nor did it turn up in many of the thousands of small towns in the Midwest and the Far West. An extremely bright student, the one possessing the quality known as genius, was infinitely more likely to go into engineering in Iowa, Illinois, Michigan, or Wisconsin than anywhere Back East."

That's from this: <http://members.forbes.com/asap/1997/0825/102.html> . It's great.

</comment><comment><USER24> If I could, I would move my start up to SV in a flash. Its not just the VCs there but also the angels, where else can you find engineers who are worth 7 figures and can comfortably work for free or even invest themselves?

But this is an almost exclusively US club if you currently have a start up. It takes years to get a visa and go that route unless you already have, I believe over $1.5 million funding, which somewhat defeats the purpose of the move which would be to raise money primarily.

So if you have a start up in London and are not a US citizen and do not already have millions in funding you simply cannot move to Silicon Valley.

So if you are not a US citizen get a job there for the visa (not at all easy, remember all of this years allotment of visas disappeared on the first day) and work on your start up on the side or get the funding and go.

<comment><USER25> or take a holiday there and aggressively pitch.. Also there is no funding minimum for instance for a US E2 visa.. but as the article suggests to me, the ycombinator startup fund might not be enough..

Also consider the following, the std. angel investment is $12k from ycombinator. That gives you 3 months, which is also about the minimum amount of time you can arrive on tourist visa.

Can you take that to get up and running and then move to silicon valley? If your idea is promising then you seem to be ok.. It doesn't seem that reality gets in the way here, either by immigration policy or the details of a ycombinator investment.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> After having spent 7 years in BayArea and still struggling to get a US green card I gave up and moved to Waterloo Canada. I saw hundreds of my ideas going stale because according to immigration law I _had_ to work with similar job profile and always getting paid. I could not even fund myself and work fulltime on my ideas.

I am surprised that the locational freedom that internet offers (I have hired people in India and elsewhere whom I may never meet) has not been embraced by investor community as much as I would have imagined. Hopefully that will change in future.

</comment><comment><USER27> If it's a mistake to start your startup anywhere but SV, given the choice, then why does YC do its summer program in Boston? This is not rhetoric, but a serious question.

<comment><USER5> Seed-stage startups are so mobile that it doesn't matter too much where YC itself takes place, so long as they get to demo to investors in the biggest markets.

Also, though SV has the most investors, Boston probably has the highest volume of hackers flowing out of its universities.

Robert is a professor at MIT and is not moving in the immediate future.

But I would want to have one foot in Cambridge even if it weren't for Robert. Cambridge is smarter than SV. The smart world and the startup world are adjacent, but not identical. We'd rather be half in the smart world and half in the startup world than just in the startup world all the time.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Ah, looks like I saw this one coming :) <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=62976>

</comment><comment><USER29> I have always enjoyed reading your essays, Paul. I don't necessarily always agree, but I'm not the one who has made such a success of it :-)

The two claims that "I'm British by birth. And just as Jews are ex officio allowed to tell Jewish jokes, I don't feel like I have to bother being diplomatic with a British audience." are so offensive that I initially thought that you must be joking, but on re-reading, I don't think that you were.

The Jewish claim is just pure racism; the British claim is slightly more subtle, in that it contains a hidden suggestion that IT in the UK is a de- facto joke.

I am not usually terribly sensitive about such things; I'm not Jewish, I am British, and whilst I could write an essay about what is wrong with the UK IT industry today (and not much about what it excels at), I do not concur that the state of the UK is one which (in most circumstances, though not yours, of course, Brother Paul) would necessitate diplomatic skills to discuss.

I am interested to read of your experiences. Ones prejudices are best kept to oneself.

</comment><comment><USER30> Getting a Visa is next to impossible.

Now imagine if your name is Mohammed (not that mine is)

</comment><comment><USER31> All other things being equal, is Silicon Valley the best place in the galaxy to start and build a software or web services business? Hell yes. Will lots of startups that are started and built in Atlanta and Munich and London and Austin nonetheless be successful? Hell yes - but they should demo to investors in Silicon Valley.

</comment><comment><USER32> Well, as a French, I'm not really willing to move to Silicon Valley: 1) dealing with immigration people in US Airports as a foreigner is a enormous risk by itself. The probability of a bad event is low, but the stake is very very high if it occurs : you have no law to protect yourself in the international zone, and international conventions are notoriously ignored in certain countries. 2) is fleeing your country a really great thing at all if your life is not at stake ? 3) is going where everybody goes to do what everybody does really smart ? Is being mainstream smart ?

But I know that this is not taking the easiest path nor is it doing _everything_ I can do to reach success, since I would raise my success probability by simply moving to Bay Area.

</comment><comment><USER33> Hm, is it just me or, is this the first of Paul's essay that contained little/no new content? I've definitely heard most of these points before...

Nobody likes moving, so this is an issue that people are going to grumble about no matter how sound the advice is, or how often it is repeated.

<comment><USER5> Some of it seemed new to me. The reductio argument is new; the list of reasons _not_ to move is new; the proposal for a startup founder visa is new; the comparison of SV and Boston investors is new, and particularly the simple explanation of the latter's conservatism; the point that startup hubs are markets is new, and in fact only occurred to me for the first time in the middle of writing this.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> There's another element about SV that other places don't have. People. Talent that is able to walk across the street and go to something that's better suited for them. Talent so that you can end up with the right team.

Also, leverage.

A $20 mil fund in Boston acts differently than a $20 in the Valley. But take the Valley mentality, double the fund size to $40 mil, and while the approach will still very, the dollar size of investment all of the sudden becomes very similar. Funds in the Valley are bigger, they have more cash to invest, and have a much higher risk tolerance than their counterparts on the East Coast

<http://www.j-lp.com/blog/2007/10/move-to-silicon-valley.html>

</comment><comment><USER35> Hi Mr. Graham,

I have translated this essay to Traditional Chinese version at here: <http://mclee.foolme.net/2007/11/blog-post_21.html>

In case if you feel that is inappropriate, please let me know. :)

</comment><comment><USER36> The dynamic you describe is "winner takes all". Expertise attracts expertise, and face-to-face encounters are essential. In finance it's been like that since 1300. Fernand Braudel, in his lovely little book "La Dynamique du Capitalisme" argues that this is also the reason there has always been at any time exactly one financial centre in the world where all the big deals are done.

He lists:

Venice 1380 -- 1500 Antwerp 1500 -- 1555 Genoa 1555 -- 1621 Amsterdam 1621 -- 1780 London 1780 -- 1929 New York 1929 -- present

(For the future see <http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200507/fallows>).

Maarten van Emden.

</comment><comment><USER37> So suppose one were to move to the valley out of the blue. How long would it take to feel the effect (ie be socially connected or whatever it takes)? What are the monthly costs of living there?

</comment><comment><USER38> My input from the Portugal: [http://lists.paradigma.pt/pipermail/tce/2007-October/000128....](http://lists.paradigma.pt/pipermail/tce/2007-October/000128.html)

</comment><comment><USER39> There are many factors to consider in evaluating the value of a move. Depending on the nature of your startup, it may be more or less valuable to make the move to the Valley.

Here's a few factors that seem relevant to that evaluation.

1\. Access to capital

If your company has large upfront capital requirements, then being in a setting with VC's who aren't afraid to take a risk has obvious benefits. However, a lot of web 2.0 startups have relatively low starting costs. You can self-finance the development and launch of a product which attracts a rapidly growing userbase. The main cost isn't even monetary, its opportunity cost. With this done, attracting VC interest is a lot easier, regardless of where you are.

2\. Access to talent

Naively, the Bay Area has a lot more talent than other locations and this makes it a better place to do a startup. Problem is, the competition for talent is a lot tougher. If you're a startup in a place with relatively few startups, you have a real shot at attracting the top programmers locally, because you're the only game in town. In the Bay Area you're competing against Google, Facebook and all the rest.

I'm in Waterloo, Canada, and this is evident locally. Waterloo has a terrific undergrad CS program - supposedly, its Microsoft's number one recruiting School - and lots of really talented developers. But there are relatively few Web 2.0 companies in town, which means that startups have (if they're willing to work at it) access to an amazingly talented pool of potential employees, and a real shot at hiring those people.

I don't think one even needs a top CS school locally. My background is as a theoretical physicist, and my observation is that at least in theoretical physics the quality of the top students is pretty much the same everywhere. I'd be surprised if there was much difference in CS. There will be more extraordinary programmers in the MIT CS program, but they will still be there at Podunk State University, and if you're careful and aim high, you'll have a real shot at getting those people onboard.

3\. Culture

I don't mean art and a nice orchestra. I mean access to a "can-do" culture, full of sharp people who are plugged in, full of the latest news, insightful (and original!) analysis, and can act as role models, mentors, advisors, and so on. Really sharp criticism and suggestions are worth their weight in gold.

This is something where the Startup Hubs have a major advantage. It also seems to me perhaps the biggest advantage of the YC program - the dinners and other events. In places that are less of a Hub it seems to me that you need to consciously build a really wide network of people who can act in that role for you. This requires work anywhere, but it is a lot harder in somewhere without a startup culture than it is in the Valley.

4\. Access to other companies

For some startups it's really important to have access to other companies for partnerships, distribution and so on. For others it's much less important. Obviously, in the former situation being in a Hub has a major benefit, while in the latter situation it is less so.

<comment><USER40> > There will be more extraordinary programmers in the MIT CS program, but they > will still be there at Podunk State University, and if you're careful and > aim high, you'll have a real shot at getting those people onboard.

I don't think this is the case. I went to another Canadian university (Queen's), and in my opinion there were perhaps 2 or 3 first-rate programmers in the _entire_ undergraduate program. I'd expect there to be 10x or more that number in a typical Waterloo class. Depressing, perhaps, but true in my experience. There's a strong clustering effect: the best programmers want to be wherever the other best programmers are.

It's interesting that a similar effect doesn't apply in theoretical physics...

<comment><USER39> I don't know much about Queens (I just moved to Canada), so I'm not sure if this is the kind of comparison I had in mind. I was thinking of the comparison between a top regional University, where there may be 1-3 (typically) students graduating each year who could become theoretical physicists, while at MIT there will be dozens. Would you say Queens is a top regional University in Canada?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> I know that you're using the term "west-coast VC" to mean valley VCs, but it's probably important to emphasize that the valley is unique, even on the west coast of the US.

From what I can tell, VCs in Seattle are approximately as conservative as those in Boston. In this part of the country, it almost seems like your "fundability" is tied to your reputation as an ex-Microsoft employee....

</comment><comment><USER42> I'm a cofounder of a startup in the Los Angeles area (YellowBot in Burbank, CA). I believe that although your location has an impact on how well or how fast your company can make it, the people behind it has an even greater impact. The quality of people you choose is a much larger factor than your geographic location.

</comment><comment> monk-e-boy So true!

Coming from Cornwall (a rural part of the UK) I can't tell you how much we spend sending sales people to the cities for face-to-face meetings.

I liked the bit about VCs from Silicon Valley Vs Boston. I see London VCs, Parisian VCs, German VCs don't even get a sniff. Most amusing, and so very true. I think that may be more evidence for the argument.

monk.e.boy

</comment><comment><USER43> Paul comes off rather rude by not commenting on the contents of the rebuttal. Have you only been able to hear the first couple of sentences because you were in a rush, or could you tell the rest of the talk by the opening and didn't bother? It doesn't become very clear to me.

</comment><comment><USER25> dudes! why you ask if you have to move to silicon valley?? That is such the wrong question! The reason is because they invest in people that say, hey, you know what, I'm going to put webcams on my head and broadcast it to the world!! I mean, if that works so will any other "conventional" silly idea... just make something that didn't work so well in version 1.0 and make it social or 2.0ize it.

Justin.tv is the youtube of the future.. Name one VC outside of Silicon Valley that would have invested in that? When I first heard about it I thought.. man that'll never work... I was so wrong! It's a webcam, on his head, that simple.

Imagine being a VC and getting this biz plan:

1) put webcam on head and broadbast to world. 2) ??? 3) profit!

I guarantee you that nobody probably knew (even the VC) how the hell they would make money at it..

</comment><comment><USER44> SV would be the ideal. I've lived there, loved it, and found a huge melting pot of talent. But tech has to be grown everywhere - there are VC's everywhere, angels everywhere, talent everywhere. It still takes the right people with the right progression of ideas...anywhere. ..alex.

</comment><comment><USER45> Rite Paul. I agree with you on every aspects. I just have some doubt. I operate in India and run my own startup with two other co-founders. We also tried to pitch to the silicon valley but found a lot of issues and we found it not worth enough. What will say in regards of the same.

</comment><comment><USER46> I'm willing to bet NY VCs are not as conservative as Boston VCs, yet NY is no Silicon Valley. Like they say "It is what it is" , the evidence is there to show that SV favors startups, if any one wants to do their startup in Newcastle-upon-Tyne , they are welcome to try.

</comment><comment><USER47> What's your opinion about basing your start-up where the bulk of your customers are? For example, if you're gearing your product for use by the public sector, shouldn't you be based in the Virginia technology hub that supports Washington DC?

</comment><comment><USER48> So how is Portland as far as starting a startup. I wanted to move to the valley, but it is somehow to damn expensive and I honestly do not like noddles, I am already skinny enough, SO how is portland?

</comment><comment><USER49> I agree. You'll have to go where the funding is. Silicon valley is where the action is. If you are serious, you must be there.

This does not mean others will not be successful. But you are fighting the odds, really.

</comment><comment><USER50> Paul,

Great essay as always :)

"Seeming like they will fund you one day is the way investors say No."

We learned this the hard way - by expending our energy and enthusiasm on an investor who really was saying no. Hope the new startups remember this.

Praki

</comment><comment><USER51> I think College towns with a progressive culture but with few companies to absorb the graduating students are best for startups, eg: Ann Arbor

<comment><USER5> That's like saying you should plant a tree where few others are growing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> An interesting analysis would be to reduce this to actual numbers: what is the increase in likelihood that you'll be funded in SF vs. Boston?

<comment><USER8> How can that reduction occur without normalizing for the quality of the team and idea?

How can you quantify quality of people and potential of an idea?

<comment><USER8> I suppose you could look at a number of successful companies, where they started out, and where they eventually got funding.

I'm pretty sure you'll see lots of companies starting outside SV, moving to SV to get funding, and then succeeding.

These numbers would be interesting.

<comment><USER53> Unfortunately, there's a confounding variable: people know SV is a good place to start a startup (even if they aren't as sure as pg), so more startup starters will start up there, anyway.

<comment><USER8> Those that moved to SV compared to those that didn't is still an interesting metric.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> The main reason to move to a startup hub is that you have much more chances to succeed if you burned all the briges after you.

</comment><comment><USER55> Google actually doesn't have better search results than Yahoo. They just do a better job monetizing each search.

</comment><comment><USER56> A very well written essay. <http://www.renexcel.com>

</comment><comment><USER57> Would there be value in encouraging startups to move to Boston to eventually create another, rival hub?

<comment><USER58> It's not the start ups, but the investing circles that make the hub. Start ups can move pretty freely, but angels and VC's appear to be more set in one location. If you can convince gutsy angels to move from San Fran to Boston, or get Boston angels to be more bold with their investments, then Boston has a chance. Otherwise, it's not worth it for innovative start ups to stay in Boston.

</comment></comment><comment><USER59> paul, there seem to be two ways to measure the 'hubness' of cities: volume (ie. overall number of startups), and density (startups per-capita, or perhaps startups as a percentage of the economy). There may be other measures. Which do you think are the important ones?

</comment><comment><USER60> surely it makes sense,however,it all depends,different models should suit sepecific circumstances,

<http://blog.sina.com.cn/FrankieCHN> I hope I can make kind friends in this hub,haha^^

</comment><comment><USER60> surely it makes sense,however,it all depends,different models should suit sepecific circumstances,

<http://blog.sina.com.cn/FrankieCHN> I hope I can make kind friends in this hub,haha^^

</comment><comment><USER61> I can't help but wonder if

Silicon Valley > Boston

a triumph of Berkeley-Stanford over MIT-Harvard?

</comment><comment><USER62> What is the closest to Sillicon Valley there's in Europe?

<comment><USER25> Sunnyvale.

</comment></comment><comment><USER63> great thinking...on a different note -just would like to know PG's perspective on kelly felix a.k.a. rich jerk and likes !!

</comment><comment><USER64> The readers may be interested in "Regional Advantage: Culture and Competition in Silicon Valley and Route 128" by AnnaLee Saxenian, a professor at Berkeley:

[http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0674753402/ref=cm_cr_pr_pro...](http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0674753402/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top)

The book was written in 1994, one year before the Netscape IPO, but even 13 years ago, the author concluded that Silicon Valley offered enormous advantages over Massachusetts for entrepreneurship. Two points in particular are worth noting:

1\. Professor Saxenian paid particular attention to the (back then) highly successful minicomputer companies: Digital Equipment, Data General, Prime Computer, Wang. All of them were vertically integrated companies that attempted to do everything themselves -- R&D, product design, manufacturing, sales, and after-market service. The SV companies were more likely to focus on their core competencies and then network with other companies to provide the missing pieces.

2\. Employment laws make a significant difference. Under California law, a non-compete contained in an employment agreement is void as a matter of public policy. In the employment content, California courts simply do not enforce them, and thus companies do not even bother to ask for a non-compete in California. Under Massachusetts law, a court of equity will consider enforcing a non-compete agreement if it is reasonable in terms of scope, duration and geography. I say "consider enforcing" because to a large extent, it depends on which judge decides the case; some judges are more sympathetic to the employer seeking to enforce such an agreement while others are more sympathetic to the employee who needs to earn a salary.

The upshot of this is that in California, labor is extremely mobile. People quit their jobs on Monday and start a new company or work for a new company on Tuesday, and there is nothing the former employer can do in terms of enforcing a non-compete clause. (I am ignoring intellectual property issues that may protect the former company.) Because the new employer know that California courts will not enforce non-compete agreements, it is willing to hire employees that would not be hired in Massachusetts, and investors are willing to fund start-ups that would not be funded in Massachusetts.

In Massachusetts, due to the legal uncertainty and the possibility that a non- compete will be enforced, lots of employees are not hired, lots of start-ups are not started, and lots of start-ups are not funded, that would be in California.

Simply put, Massachusetts could increase its competitive advantage (or more accurately, decrease its competitive advantage) by changing its law concerning non-competes.

One issue that Saxenian and Paul do not address is the quality of the business laws and its court system. Ceteris paribus, a state where business laws make sense and where the courts enforce contracts and handle business disputes quickly and fairly will have an advantage over other states.

The "gold standard" is Delaware. The Delaware Corporations code, for example, is clear, well written and is in almost cases unambiguous. The Delaware Chancery Court (a court of equity that hears all business disputes) is respect through the world for its smart judges who show no favorites, enforce reasonable agreements, and decide cases quickly. Their supreme court (Delaware is small enough so that all appeals go directly to the state supreme court) is equally well regarded. To some extent, companies outside Delaware can opt-in to the Delaware legal system by incorporating in Delaware, giving Delaware jurisdiction to corporate governance issues, for example.

Neither Massachusetts nor California can compare to Delaware. In comparing Massachusetts and California, I believe Massachusetts has the advantage. At the Superior Court level, at least in Middlesex and Suffolk counties (the only two counties with which I am familiar), the judges are very well regarded. Massachusetts has a ton of law schools who produce an excess number of lawyers who do not want to practice law. So when a judgeship opens up, a lot of very good, well educated lawyers apply, and the committee has its pick of the litter. At the appellate level, the judges are also well regarded.

A recent development in Suffolk county has been the establishment of a court -- called the Business Litigation Session ("BLS") -- whose sole mandate is to adjudicate business disputes. Like federal court, the BLS handles the entire case from the time it is filed to trial. Allan Van Gestel is the judge appointed to the BLS. He is highly experienced in business disputes and is very well respected by lawyers who litigate business disputes. So far, none of the other counties have create a BLS, even though everyone agrees the BLS has been quite successful.

In California, the court system is less well regarded. The caliber of the trial judges is very uneven. Appeals in California are often unpredictable -- California is such a large state that different appellate divisions in the state simply disagree with each other, and thus there is not the predictability there is in Massachusetts. And the California Supreme Court does not step in enough to decide the disagreements among the appellate divisions, again because California is such a large state that there are simply too many appeals to the California Supreme Court, a small fraction of which are accepted for review.

James Mitchell firstname.lastname@example.com</comment>


Disruptions: Let Silicon Valley Eat … Ramen Noodles? - <AUTHOR> http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/16/disruptions-let-silicon-valley-eat-ramen-noodles/ Silicon Valley would like the world to think it doesn't care about money. But these start-ups aren't nonprofit organizations. <comment><USER2> If you aren't into money enough to watch your runway, though, you'll end up like: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4526915></comment>


Microsoft forbids class actions in new Windows 8 licence - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.technet.com/b/microsoft_on_the_issues/archive/2012/05/25/consumer-product-and-service-agreement-updates.aspx

<comment><USER2> You can't sign away your rights. No matter what they put in their shitty license, you can still pursue whatever kind of lawsuit you want. It's still up to the judge whether or not to go forward with it, but just because a license says something doesn't make it legally valid at all. It's smart for Microsoft to put a clause like that in there because there are judges that might take it into consideration, but by no means is this a get-out-of-class-action-lawsuit- free card.

Oh, by the way, by readying this comment you (the reader) hereby agree to give me $1,000 within 30 days. (See? I can make pointless claims of agreement too)

My point is that legal-sounding words claiming agreement don't necessarily mean anything. What's important is if they stand up in court. I'm no lawyer, but I rather doubt that clause would get them very far. Legal documents are about covering all your bases, not creating magical tomes of inherent power.

</comment><comment><USER3> This seems to have become a trend in all of Microsoft's products lately. Is this even legal?

<comment><USER4> It isn't just Microsoft.

Game and software companies have been doing this for a little while now. I think Sony may have done it first such TOS change to get a bunch of publicity.

As far as being legal or not, I am not sure it has been officially tested yet. However, I think it certainly seems like dirty pool.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Don't buy Microsoft products. Period.</comment>


How the US CRISPR patent probe will play out - <AUTHOR> http://www.nature.com/news/how-the-us-crispr-patent-probe-will-play-out-1.19519?WT.mc_id=SFB_NNEWS_1508_RHBox <comment><USER2> It is a shame that this will reduce the adoption of such a useful medical breakthrough. There should be exceptions for things that greatly affect the public good.</comment>


WoSign and letsencrypt.cn - <AUTHOR> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/mozilla.dev.security.policy/E13eT13wMBQ <comment><USER2> For those of you who don't read beyond the subject line, here's the meat:

> It seams that wosign has registered the domains letsencrypt.cn and > letsencrypt.com.cn in 2014 after the public announce of Let's Encrypt.

And here's the whois record:

        $ whois letsencrypt.cn
        Domain Name: letsencrypt.cn
        ROID: 20141120s10001s72911711-cn
        Domain Status: clientTransferProhibited
        Registrant ID: k35-n2041486_00
        Registrant: 深圳市沃通电子商务服务有限公司
        Registrant Contact Email: firstname.lastname@example.com
        Sponsoring Registrar: 厦门三五互联科技股份有限公司
        Name Server: ns3.dns-diy.com
        Name Server: ns4.dns-diy.com
        Registration Time: 2014-11-20 09:57:27
        Expiration Time: 2017-11-20 09:57:27
        DNSSEC: unsigned

Unless they registered those domains to "reserve" them for LetsEncrypt ( _haha right?_ ), this is pretty blatantly deceptive, or at least they planned to be. Then again not exactly the worst thing they've done in the world of SSL.

<comment><USER3> > Unless they registered those domains to "reserve" them for LetsEncrypt (haha > right?)

Which is exactly what WoSign say they did in that same comment thread after noticing that LetsEncrypt didn't register the Chinese domain names themselves.

They also offer to transfer them to LetsEncrypt at no cost.

<comment><USER4> Then I'm sure they have a copy of the email they sent to Let's Encrypt the day they registered it, letting know they were just doing them a favor...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> For anyone who doesn't know the backstory on this already: WoSign (and, after WoSign quietly acquired it, StartCom) were distrusted by Mozilla for mismanagement ranging from backdating certificate to bypass crypto requirements to accidentally mis-issuing certificates.

It is unlikely that WoSign or any CA run by WoSign will ever fully compatible with browsers in the future.

<comment><USER6> Startcom's certs still show as ok in Firefox for me. Any idea when this kicks in?

<comment><USER7> Existing certs (those with a notBefore date before Oct 21 [0]) are still trusted by Firefox. New certificates are not.

(WoSign could theoretically backdate the notBefore date on new certs to make them look like existing certs, but Mozilla have said that if they catch WoSign doing this they'll distrust their root totally.)

Other browsers are taking similar measures, but I'm not sure on the details.

[0]: [https://blog.mozilla.org/security/2016/10/24/distrusting- new...](https://blog.mozilla.org/security/2016/10/24/distrusting-new-wosign- and-startcom-certificates/)

<comment><USER8> Apple are trusting certs WoSign published to Certifitcate transparency server before September [0] and StartCom certs with an notbefore dates of December [1]

[0] [https://groups.google.com/forum/m/#!topic/mozilla.dev.securi...](https://groups.google.com/forum/m/#!topic/mozilla.dev.security.policy/lWJ1zdUJPLI)

[1] [https://groups.google.com/forum/m/#!topic/mozilla.dev.securi...](https://groups.google.com/forum/m/#!topic/mozilla.dev.security.policy/EqkAdP4nQ_s)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Business as usual in the dirty cert industry

[https://letsencrypt.org/2016/06/23/defending-our- brand.html](https://letsencrypt.org/2016/06/23/defending-our-brand.html)

</comment><comment><USER10> fyi, it looks like this may be overblown. Richard Wang, the person who registered the .cn domains, posted this in the thread:

\</comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>---

I wish everyone can talk about this case friendly and equally.

It is very common that everyone can register any domain based on the first come and first service rule.

We know Let's Encrypt is released after the public announcement, but two day later, its .cn domain is still not registered, I think maybe it is caused by the strict registration rule in China, so I registered it for protection that not registered by Cornbug.

We don't use those domains for any WoSign's services that we provide similar service: [https://pki.click/index_En.htm](https://pki.click/index_En.htm) (SSL Wizard, StartEncrypt)

Now, if Mozilla or Let's Encrypt contact me officially and request to transfer the two domains to them, no any problem, we can transfer to them for FREE!

But please notice that this arrangement is for friendship, not for others ......

Best Regards,

Richard

<comment><USER11> If he registered the domains to 'protect' them he should have contacted LE immediately afterwards to arrange the transfer. Not wait until the world finds out. It's easy to use that form of reasoning ("I only did it for protection") after others find out. But is such a person trustworthy? I have my doubts.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> This could develop further. Reminds me of TOM Skype: Chinese users are redirected from skype.com to the chinese-characteristics website skype.tom.com which serves a censorship-enabled version of skype, see [https://en.greatfire.org/blog/2013/nov/tom-skype-dead- long-l...](https://en.greatfire.org/blog/2013/nov/tom-skype-dead-long-live- microsoft-surveillance)

<comment><USER13> Well this is a collaboration b/t Skype and TOM.com. Skype has to do it b/c they don't have license to operate in China. My skype account was registered in China and I have to prove I'm not in China anymore to remove the association..

<comment><USER14> Skype chooses to do it. They could also simply choose not to cooperate, and be blocked.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> The Twit network has some very detailed podcasts about Wosign's sliminess:

[https://twit.tv/search/wosign](https://twit.tv/search/wosign)

This is a CA death penalty situation as far as I'm concerned.

<comment><USER16> +1 wrt to the twit conversations. Leo & Steve Gibson on Security Now have regularly spoken about wosign, and it's the primary reason why my antenna immediately perked up when I saw the headline.

As a general note, the content on the TWiT network is superb. I love the great ethics conversations that are had on TWiG (This Week in Google). I've loved listening to the "coming out of the wilderness" progression of Mary Jo Foley & Paul Thurrott with regards to Microsoft on Windows Weekly. And Security Now is my guilty educational pleasure, as its greatly expanded my knowledge of security issues and topics, which have served me well over the past few years.

<comment><USER15> Steve Gibson will go into levels of detail that amaze me. The podcast on Rowhammer is a perfect example - down to the minute details of how VMs store memory pages...

Its also can be a great sleep aid.

<comment><USER17> Crap, I am not even familiar with that episode, and SN is the longest running on TWiT. Link? Is 498 or 576?

[https://twit.tv/shows/security- now/episodes/498](https://twit.tv/shows/security-now/episodes/498)

[https://twit.tv/shows/security- now/episodes/576](https://twit.tv/shows/security-now/episodes/576)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> A similar name may be enough to fool everyday users, but I don't think they're going to trick Mozilla and Google into trusting then.

<comment><USER19> Why would that matter? They can set up a similar service and use the wosign ca and Mozilla/google wouldn't know anything is amiss

<comment><USER20> Previous discussion: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12582534](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12582534)

tl;dr - WoSign/StartCom are no longer trusted as a CA (at least by Firefox)

<comment><USER21> However, previously issued certs are still trusted. For instance, Firefox doesn't complain about this site's WoSign cert: [https://www.checkmyping.com/](https://www.checkmyping.com/)

<comment><USER22> Existing certs are still trusted.

Mozilla stated that they will not distrust certs issued with notBefore till December, so theoretically this cert is good for as long as it's still valid, only after that they need to worry.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> It's really difficult to understand _why_ anyone would want to do this. Unless they were working with Let's Encrypt directly I really don't see how this could ever be acceptable.

Why would anyone do such an obviously bad thing and slap their company information in the whois?

<comment><USER24> Because they thought they could get away with it - just like all of the other stuff they've done. And they did get away with it for a while.

<comment><USER23> What's the motivation though? It doesn't seem like they've really ever used the domain. Right now this all just seems utterly pointless and stupid on their part, but I guess that's really nothing new.

<comment><USER25> To me, the most obvious motivation for registering the domain would be to basically make a domain squat. Redirect anyone visiting "letsencrypt.cn" to their own, similarly named (and now defunct as far as I know) service "StartEncrypt" [1]. Like any other domain squat, it would probably allow them to profit to some degree from the buzz Let's Encrypt was generating.

[1] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11903513](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11903513)

<comment> vertex-four Except that they weren't doing that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> As a frequent user of the Chinternet, a .cn counterpart of a famous project is an alarm sign of non-affiliated copy of the original project or simply just someone wants to build a Chinese version (still not affiliated) community for that project.

After all these dramas with .cn, a wary user should reject .cn on the first sight. Too sad for Chinese/Non-technical users, as they have no choice. There's nothing can be done about the situation.

</comment><comment><USER27> Do we have to run certbot every few months to update the certs? Can we set up a cron to do it? Thoughts welcome.

<comment><USER28> Yes - you can add it to a cronjob, as well as add a `--renew-hook` option that tells it to do something post renewal, such as restart your webserver.

See [https://certbot.eff.org/docs/using.html#renewing- certificate...](https://certbot.eff.org/docs/using.html#renewing-certificates)

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Has Richard Wang left WoSign as CEO or not?

<comment><USER14> During last-chance negotiations with Mozilla, they claimed he was stepping down immediately. However, Mozilla moved against them anyway, so presumably they immediately went back on that pledge once it became clear that it wasn't helping. Apart from the time of the negotiations, there haven't been any other claims that he had stepped down as far as I know.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> I don't see how it's a security problem. Just because the domains are similar doesn't mean browsers will accidentally start trusting the CA.

<comment><USER31> This is how these sort of attacks have always worked. Get something that's just close enough so that it passes the glance attack. If someone doesn't notice anything in the first few seconds, you've done half your work right there.

<comment><USER30> What is going to happen in a quick glance? Including a CA in a browser is an extremely long and drawn out processing involving third party audits and many other things costing hundreds of thousands of dollars. There is zero chance that no one along that whole process will notice that the TLD is actually .cn .

<comment><USER14> Obviously, but that's not the concern. The concern is that someone would visit letsencrypt.cn and end up getting a certificate from a provider that is not Let's Encrypt without really understanding that. Imagine a busy, non-SSL- expert user who just hears "Let's Encrypt is good, you should use it".

Since the domains aren't being used, we can't say what the intention was, but it's being judged as part of a pattern of behavior by Wosign.

<comment><USER30> Ok, but that's not really a security problem. You don't give out your private key when getting a certificate.

<comment><USER14> Actually many customers let the CA generate the private key and copy it onto their servers, but that's not the point.

It's a trust problem because of the pattern of this particular CA. Whether you call that a security problem or not is semantics. If not for the existing pattern of behavior, people would be a little more willing to look charitably on this as an honest mistake or trying to help, but given the history the assumption of good faith has been considerably weakened.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Terms of Conditions, EULA, Privacy Policy, etc.  What to do? - <AUTHOR>

Hey guys,
My friends and I are hoping to launch an app soon, but we haven't even incorporated yet.  We will eventually.
We're only going to be in beta for a couple of months, does it make sense to have things like a Privacy Policy, Terms of Conditions, etc, on the site?  If we should have them, do we need them written up by a proper lawyer?  What are your experiences?
We're just playing around, but if user engagement is good, we seriously want to try to run with this.  We've already got some companies on board for trial use during our alpha stage, which starts next week.  But we have no clue if it makes sense right now to invest in a proper lawyer to write up proper Terms of Conditions, Privacy Policy, etc. <comment><USER2> Automattic (the company behind WordPress) has their Privacy Policy and Terms of Service under a creative commons specifically for this reason:

<http://automattic.com/privacy/>

<http://en.wordpress.com/tos/>

<comment><USER3> Be extremely careful about using WordPress's terms of service; there's a real danger, IMO, that they could self-destruct. I posted an analysis a while back at [http://www.ontechnologylaw.com/2010/05/using-wordpress- coms-...](http://www.ontechnologylaw.com/2010/05/using-wordpress-coms-terms- of-service-for-your-own-web-site-might-strip-away-much-of-your-legal- protection/)

<comment><AUTHOR> Well, that would certainly suck, and I'd trust a quality lawyer and law professor more than other folks. What would you recommend as an alternative? Just investing in the services of a real lawyer? Trying to write up the darn thing ourselves in a simplified manner with bullet points? Fact is, we still don't even know what we'd do with this service long-term, so hard to envision what the Terms of Service should be, huh? :) We only know our short-term goals right now.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I don't know the legalities necessary, but I'd say if you're going to be storing or collecting any sort of user data a privacy policy is a must.</comment>


Computational Thinking Benefits Society (2014) - <AUTHOR> http://socialissues.cs.toronto.edu/index.html%3Fp=279.html <comment><USER2> Thinking is already computation. Computational is redundant.

We just need to incorporate what we've begun to understand through computer science into our own common sense.

This is the correct approach, except, it is the only approach and is and will happen anyway. It happened as we better understood objectivity and subjectivity, as we understood mathematics and logic, and as we understood science and factuality. With computers, it's abstractions and execution of languages, expressions of logic, etc. The beauty of it is it's more relevant to how we compute, so it's like understanding how we understand. And that's the field of AI.

Give kids a computer and things to build, and they will naturally learn from the experience. No need to bring up the term thinking, or science, or even computers. We think, we learn, we understand. Saying we need to somehow do these things is redundant. Encouraging more open source open hardware computers in classrooms is what we need to be doing.

<comment><USER3> There's a very important distinction between computation your brain can do, and computation you can describe in words and communicate to other brains that then do operations that follow the same rules. With the former, the only way to verify, reproduce, or modify the thinking is to go to the brain that had that thought and think it again. With the latter, you can look at the verbal descriptions and can largely ignore which brain is thinking the thoughts.

That's the fundamental distinction. It's not that the thinking is more or less computational. It's that the thinking can be put down in words as a computation without great loss in fidelity.

<comment><USER2> > and computation you can describe in words and communicate to other brains

But we think in words. Thinking and speaking come from the same place, and when we are thinking, most of it is us talking to ourselves. It's our inner dialog. It's "communicating to other brains", where "other" is "our". The only difference really is who it's directed to, whether we've voiced it or wrote it down, and whether we self-censored some of it in the process.

<comment><USER3> We use words to describe our thoughts. This is different than "thinking in words" in subtle, yet important ways. There are ways of "just knowing", much like you "just know" that three times four is twelve, or where to put your hand to catch a thrown ball. Probably the most salient example is Eugene Gendlin's "focusing". You can likely also access many of these through various meditation disciplines.

There may also be a lot of personal variation in things. I know that I am very much not on the "verbal thinking" side of brain design space - to the point where thinking of things to say distracted my visual processing and made me practically incapable of doing eye contact in conversations.

<comment><USER2> Yes, to be more precise, the expression would be "we articulate our thoughts with words". Words are not equal to our thoughts, but they are the product, and the interface, and used to represent, and treated as if they are it. So we share our thoughts with words, not with "focusing" or "knowing". And we do this even with ourselves. Notes to self are in words. We may start with something else, but to be able to express whatever that "was" or "is" is where words come in.

But why words are important here is also because we are talking about computation. To reason, we need something to hold on to and reason with. We need to be able to move things around and then feed back into our minds or minds of others. This is the computation. And computation is done with abstractions. Words are all abstractions. And abstractions are constructed from experience. And that is how they all connect, and why words, even though they may just be words, can be asserted as true or not true. But the truth value of a statement can only be known by computation. Truth is the result of computation which requires abstraction.

We could make the distinction between intentional computation and computation done under the hood. Our brain does a lot of prep work before we even see anything. But for the most part, when we say "thinking" it is safe to say we are referring to the deliberate kind (or maybe not, and that is where we aren't quite meeting eye to eye). The deliberate kind will conclude with words to be shared and be computable.

<comment><USER3> Aside: from the sorts of internal experiences you seem to pay attention to, I'd be extraordinarily surprised if you enjoy or are any good at dancing.

>Notes to self are in words.

I've planned things without ever using words, even to myself. I've done things with only nonverbal thought driving my behavior. I have specific non-verbal handles for these thoughts, although obviously they are hard to communicate verbally. You don't need to be able to express them if you're capable of, you know, just doing it.

>To reason, we need something to hold on to and reason with.

You can do this with visualizations, as well as other abstract non-verbal structures. I can rotate shapes in my head, or non-verbally figure out a mathematical proof and then go back and fill in the verbal steps.

<comment><USER2> "Non-verbal thought" is fine, but that's not the opposite of what I mean by "thinking".

> I have specific non-verbal handles for these thoughts,

Right. But you have handles. Just assume by "words" I mean handles, and we're talking the same language. You may not like my choice of words, but the reason is that as long as we have handles, words are easy to come by. In fact, they're just convenient labels. "I don't label" is no substitute for "I don't think". But "I have nothing to label" is. By "non-verbal" you're not saying you have nothing to label. You just don't bother with names.

> just doing it.

Right. But that's intended also to mean "without thinking about it" and that's exactly how I was using the word "thinking".

I'm assuming you're considering the computation of dancing as a counterpoint to my statements regarding words, but if we are to go that route, I would consider the language dancers use. Different "moves" are clearly abstracted and used to convey various emotions and inferences. At this point we have the language of the dance. And most styles have a dictionary of moves. They then practice so that those moves become second nature, so that they can just do it, without thinking about it. But I would posit that the thinking is done during practice, so that it's all baked into the output which would be the performance.

I'm not good at dancing. You're right about that. (I do enjoy it though)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> "Abstraction gives us the power to scale and deal with complexity".

Until things are abstracted to the point where the human brain has literally no ability to understand what is actually going on. Other interesting parallels to this post in this talk:

[https://www.ted.com/talks/kevin_slavin_how_algorithms_shape_...](https://www.ted.com/talks/kevin_slavin_how_algorithms_shape_our_world?language=en)

</comment><comment><USER5> I never imagined how much focus and fascination society would place on computer science when I chose it as my major over a decade ago. There were under 5 CS majors in my graduating class of hundreds of students. This has me wondering about the future. What will be the next big thing with which we will see articles claiming

"Soandso is the first president to do X"[0]?

or "...X will be a fundamental skill—just like reading, writing, and arithmetic..."[1]

Are there any so-called fundamental skills left for us to discover?

[0]: [https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2014/12/10/president- obama-f...](https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2014/12/10/president-obama-first- president-write-line-code)

[1]: [http://socialissues.cs.toronto.edu/index.html%3Fp=279.html](http://socialissues.cs.toronto.edu/index.html%3Fp=279.html)

<comment><USER6> It's probably time for us to rediscover logic as a fundamental skill. But that's a prerequisite or corequisite to computational thinking.

<comment><USER7> Yes! Propositional logic and conditional/indirect proof strategies should be taught before any kinds of "proofs" are taught to students (I'm looking at you, trigonometry).

<comment><USER6> Right. It's briefly introduced in geometry (or used to be) in the typical US high school curriculum, but not thoroughly and not as a distinct concept from geometry. It deserves its own sequence of material, and it should be applied to multiple areas so students can see the value of it more easily.

When the only application is geometry, and they hate geometry, they won't care about the "tool" being used.

<comment><USER8> Aristotelian logic can and should be taught at the elementary school level. Bring back the Socratic method while we're at it! And Euclid's Elements! The Greeks contributed well to education.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> It would benefit society if people understood that people are not computers.

There are so many processes for humans that are based on assumptions that humans have large and perfect memory, that there is no cognitive overhead in task switching, and that humans can repeat the same task exactly over and over. On the other hand, I also see foolish people who try to automate processes designed for humans with computers, for example, manual entry of data into database.

<comment><USER6> Computers are any thing that computes. People are quite capable of computing. To restrict the concept to machines (and only certain classes) makes it difficult to talk about the fundamentals and models of computation.

<comment><USER9> See - that's exactly what I point out in my other comment. It's perfectly logical (or rational) to think of humans as computers, yet doing so in practice is a terrible idea. You're basically advocating a certain model because it is simple, disregarding that it is a bad model of reality. It's one of the reasons why so much of economics really sucks.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> (Tiny thin grey sans-serif font!? What the point? Why bother writing an article, why not just use lorem ipsum!? Do you hate my eyes?)

I think they're making a very important point, although the definition they give of "computational thinking" is woeful.

<comment><USER11> Try this bookmarklet: [https://www.readability.com/bookmarklets](https://www.readability.com/bookmarklets) It will allow you to read almost anything in the web.

Also you can use the "Article mode" of your favorite browser (like Firefox). But, I don't know why, it doesn't always appear.

<comment><USER10> Cheers! I usually hit just F12 and turn off the offending CSS rules.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Finding a place in San Francisco for 1 month during the summer? - <AUTHOR>

Any tips? I've only moved to America recently, and would love to rent a place in the city for a month over the summer. Not really sure where to look - currently checking airbnb and padmapper. <comment><USER2> I've been looking for something from start May till end July. We'll be spending an equal amount of time between Downtown and in the Valley.

I've just landed a private place from someone who is going away for a break over summer. Avoid any of the "rental agents" on Airbnb or craigslist. They charge through the roof.

</comment><comment><USER3> Best is if you know someone in San Francisco. Where are you located currently? It can be hard to find short term rentals in San Francisco unless they are horrid corporate housing apartments (stay away from any Trinity managed properties).

</comment><comment><USER4> <http://sfbayarea.craigslist.org/sub/></comment>


Coronavirus Outbreak Stats – Data from John Hopkins University, Updated Daily - <AUTHOR> https://charts.mongodb.com/charts-coronavirus-dashboard-yamfx/public/dashboards/4b328ffa-ba5d-435e-af11-b39fc974e47a <comment><USER2> Really wish there was a simple table of the countries. That circle chart is horrific and zooming into the map is almost equally bad.</comment>


No One Is Prepared for Hagfish Slime - <AUTHOR> https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/01/hagfish-slime/581002/ <comment><USER2> Crazy quote: "Their skin is actually more efficient at absorbing nutrients than their own intestines.".

What bizarre animals

</comment><comment><USER3> The title is clickbaity, but the article is a nice introduction to one weird animal.

<comment><USER4> The Prius photo is enough to justify the title.

<comment><USER5> I remember when it happened, it was quite horrific: [https://www.opb.org/news/article/eels-truck-highway- oregon-s...](https://www.opb.org/news/article/eels-truck-highway-oregon- slime-101/)</comment></comment></comment>


Japan university awards first-ever ninja studies degree - <AUTHOR> https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2020/06/27/national/japan-university-first-ninja-studies-degree/ <comment><USER2> This is not to say that others have not completed 忍術 studies.

But, how would you gather metrics on a covert study program?</comment>


Ask HN: Is shorting a competitor stock legal before launch? - <AUTHOR> So let's say you're launching a product that you feel rivals an incumbent and may cause their stock to dip in the following months.<p>Is shorting their stock trading on insider information? <comment><USER2> Please note, IANAL, YMMV, etc, etc.

If you (or your spuose, family member, friend, gym buddy, whatever) work or worked for the competitor, it could be insider knowledge. I think that's not your problem.

If your product could be construed as being an attempt to lower the stock price of your competitor, and not a good faith attempt to compete, then I think you'd be committing fraud.

Consider ... your product launches, your competitor's stock falls, you make money on your short bets, your product then fails.

Can you _prove_ in court that your product's failure wasn't just an attempt to make money off your shorts?

Again, I'm not lawyer: talk to a real one.

</comment><comment><USER3> To save people some time, since your asking about law, is it safe to assume you are located in the US and subject to the SEC?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes

<comment><USER3> Rudimentary research done by yours truly, not a lawyer, indicates that it is potentially legal but not necessarily a smart move to make.

Regarding the legality, I believe it would be difficult to argue that your knowledge would be considered "material" to investors - given that there is no guarantee that your product is going to even affect an established competitor, let alone eat their stock price. Your confidence doesn't translate to empircal evidence of non-public material knowledge.

Regarding the financial side, just keep in mind that it takes a long time for investors to move on something like this. Months, likely. It will take time for your product to gain traction, then it has to hit the eyes of the competitor, then it has to hit the eyes of the investors of that competitor, then it has to be convincing enough for that investor to change their established position. If you're really confident, and have money to spend, it appears to be an option for you.

However, the biggest sentiment I found was: "Talk to a lawyer, not people on the internet when your company and/or financial life is on the line".

Because you shouldn't put your money on the line based what I, or other internet-goers say.</comment></comment></comment>


What a Century of Research Reveals About Gifted Kids - <AUTHOR> https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/finding-the-next-einstein/201701/what-century-research-reveals-about-gifted-kids <comment><AUTHOR> The thread-opening link here is a blog post by an active researcher on the topic. The blog post links to a recent paper from the Review of Educational Research[1] by a more senior researcher with more details. I have met both of these researchers at professional conferences.

[1] [https://s3.amazonaws.com/vu-my/wp- content/uploads/sites/826/...](https://s3.amazonaws.com/vu-my/wp- content/uploads/sites/826/2013/02/03094405/Article-RER-Lubinski-2016-F-1.pdf)</comment>


Security expert: All Occupiers' phones were logged - <AUTHOR> http://www.salon.com/2013/06/06/security_expert_all_occupiers_phones_were_logged/

<comment><USER2> This is amusing because occupy uses open processes (no secrets). These scare tactics should be used against the black bloc, but they grok security culture. So this is just babble from yet another security speculator.</comment>


Ask HN: Best first steps for a reformatted Dell laptop? - <AUTHOR>

I have a dell studio xps 1640 and just reformatted it. I've had the computer for about 5 years and the hope was that a factory setting restore (I think this is interchangeable with "reformat" but feel free to correct me) would speed it up a bit. Of course, all the Dell gunk is back. In addition to getting rid of that, what are some other first steps/installs people take to get an older computer a little more up to snuff (speed, reliability)? Do you have any favorite guides you recommend? <comment><USER2> I am working on someones' older Dell D620, the thing doesn't seem to like Windows 7 - at all... Something bogs it down bad over time (and according to google results, to a lot of other folk too)

Just put LUbuntu on it to see the difference; night to day.

Even if you decide to go with Windows, wouldn't hurt to set up a dual boot and see what's available in open source platforms.

</comment><comment><USER3> 3rded for putting Linux on it. gjvc recommended Debian, and I'll second that. Because Ubuntu is based on Debian and touted as 'user friendly', there's an inference that Debian is not user friendly which is not true. It just works.

</comment><comment><USER4> debian

<comment><AUTHOR> Based on the knowledge demonstrated in the question, I don't think I want to try out debian for fear that it's going to be more trouble learning than I would value it at. Definitely going to look into it more though, thanks.

<comment><USER4> you misunderestimate what you'll get out of it</comment></comment></comment>


Why are citizens more interested in marriage laws than divorce laws? - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2013/10/03/why-are-citizens-more-interested-in-marriage-laws-than-divorce-laws/ <comment><USER2> Ask any married person you know if they read the marriage contract before signing it.

</comment><comment><USER3> Because marrying well makes divorce unnecessary?</comment>


ConferenceCall.biz – A never-ending conference call - <AUTHOR> http://conferencecall.biz/ <comment><USER2> Actually I like it. It's a bit like a nightmare.</comment>


Vancouver HN April Meetup - <AUTHOR> http://doodle.com/6y7hevquc63b6mc8

<comment><USER2> How big a scene is Vancouver for HN-type people? I'm thinking of basing my next startup either there or in Seattle, and presence of HN readers would be a positive factor for either.

<comment><USER3> +1 for coming to Vancouver. My perspective is maybe skewed: two different YC companies (Snipshot, Auctomatic) have sublet office space from us, so we've been more surrounded by the YC/HN culture than most. But I would say that we at least have critical mass here, and it's a very nice place to be.

<comment><USER2> What area of town would be best for a 1-5 person startup office? I'm sort of torn between actual office space and just getting a really nice house or loft for live/work combo for the team.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> we should have a Montreal one too!! who is up for it?</comment>


I Put Words on This Webpage So You Have to Listen to Me Now - <AUTHOR> https://christine.website/blog/experimental-rilkef-2018-11-30 <comment><USER2> This thingy is so "queer" that has IMHO a strange appeal, it is funny in a somehow "serious" way.

I can recognize the pattern behind so many pointless articles/blog posts about programming tools or languages.</comment>


What Started The Downfall of Digg - <AUTHOR> http://www.shoemoney.com/2007/12/18/what-started-the-downfall-of-digg/ <comment><USER2> This particular article is rather poorly written, but if its title has a ? appended it makes a fun discussion topic.

My take is that Digg's downfall (if it happens :-) was sealed long ago by Kevin Rose's personality. One only has to watch Diggnation with their stupid drinking antics and Beavis and Butthead humor to know that the audience Digg was courting was pretty low brow.

Then, suddenly, Digg tried to extend outside tech news and be a general purpose new site. Big mistake since low brow doesn't mix with Science, World News, etc.

The only positive thing I can say for Digg is that at least the comments there aren't as bad as on YouTube.

Or maybe I'm just bitter because I got banned from Digg and publicly branded a 'spammer' by a Digg employee.

<comment><USER3> I think the "why do social sites decline" thing has been pretty thoroughly examined, but they all seem to trend downwards.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> The fact that one is submitting a story to an entire community means that users will resort to submitting stories that are either very sensationalistic or are 'funny', to appeal to the widest audience. And that's where I think Digg's flaw is. They put too much emphasis on 'making the front page', so users then adopt the motivation of submitting the most ridiculous garbage to get on the front page. On Diggnation, frequent front pagers became celebrities, and being a frequent front pager was a status symbol. Unlike here, where we're not concerned about making it in the top 10, but rather that we submit quality stuff. It really is all about the niche.

<comment><USER5> _users will resort to submitting stories that are either very sensationalistic or are 'funny', to appeal to the widest audience_

If you replace the word 'users' with the words 'TV news' you also have a true statement.

It's a general problem with all things consumed in mass. The lowest common denominator is pretty low.

<comment><USER6> Perhaps we should strive for the greatest common divisor?

<comment><USER5> Don't we elect the greatest common divisor every four years or so?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Its interesting how they come up with $300 million valuation.

This is the second post I've seen where they value each user at $77 Dlls, which is exorbitant based on click through monetization, simply look at a how much Google is really willing to pay for an actual user having Google as their home page and monetizing their searches, which is likely more profitable to them than content.

I'll give you the Firefox/Google Toolbar signup with numbers, via AdSense they pay out from $1 dollar to .10 cents for each user you sign-up for Firefox with the Google Toolbar -- the range depends on the country the user is in, with $1 dollar going to north america and .10 cents to the lower bracket countries, those which I assume have less advertisers.

With this model Google ensures that each time a user opens Firefox and makes a search they will exposed to their ads, even considering a huge premium on the signup, its a long-way from actually paying $1 dollar for every user to $77 dollars.

If Google's 'user value' is any indicator, then at this rate Digg would be worth something around $3,896,103, assuming the user count is accurate, all users are located in North America and they don't apply some type of discount rate for not being able to make Digg a user's default home page.

</comment><comment><USER8> Digg is hardly worth $300 Million. $11M Tops.

</comment><comment><USER9> Digg, like reddit now, suffered from a bout of tyranny of the masses. Hard to come back from there.

</comment><comment><USER10> I'm not convinced Digg has experienced any sort of downfall yet.</comment>


The cost of next-day delivery - <AUTHOR> https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/carolineodonovan/amazon-next-day-delivery-deaths <comment><USER2> > the Seattle-based giant dictates almost every aspect of that operation, down > to what drivers wear, what vans they use, what routes they follow, and how > many packages they must deliver each day.

This really isn't true in my experience. I've seen plenty of Amazon packages delivered by people in Uhaul vans, minivans, etc not wearing Amazon apparel.

<comment><USER3> Same. I've seen them starting to use Amazon branded vans more often now, but occasionally still get deliveries from people in jeans and a tshirt driving an old sedan.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> If you get any group of people to run 5 million errands a week by car, won't some of them get into accidents, and do stupid things? How do Amazon's drivers compare to baseline expectations?

</comment><comment><USER5> TLDR:

1) Amazon offers fast package delivery.

2) To meet customer delivery expectations, Amazon hires contract delivery vans that are expected to deliver packages on schedule.

3) Sometimes, these vans get into car accidents that kill people.

4) When sued for wrongful death, Amazon denies responsibility for car accident fatalities involving the delivery company they contract with.

is there anything new / interesting here that I'm missing?

<comment><USER6> No. Nothing else.

I understand that "Faster, better, cheaper" is a mantra for businesses like this, but there's a limit - you can only get so close. The public has forced business to do this. Perhaps businesses should push back just a little...

<comment><USER7> When you choose a later delivery option does Amazon actually treat the package differently and their people better? I'm not convinced that the order doesn't just sit in their system until ship date where it is blended in with all the other orders for same day delivery.

<comment><USER8> >When you choose a later delivery option does Amazon actually treat the package differently and their people better?

No.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Sounds like a job for robots.

<comment><USER10> No need, they have biorobots

<comment><USER9> Bio robots are better off doing higher level, fulfilling, mental work instead of dangerous grunt work.

<comment><USER8> Bio robots are cheaper to procure, maintain and repurpose, and easier to replace when damaged than actual robots in most cases, making them preferable for menial and dangerous grunt work.

Also there aren't enough "higher level, fulfilling, mental work" jobs to go around, and there will be even fewer once those begin to be automated as well.

<comment><USER10> Plus, if Amazon unleashed a fleet of robots, every accident would be scrutinized by press and possibly by authorities. With bio robots they can literally cause carnage and no one cares.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> After reading this article, I'm happy to report that Capitalism is alive and well everybody!

<comment><USER12> This isn't capitalism. This is a bug in capitalism which regulation _needs_ to fix right now.

<comment><USER11> Is the bug you're referring to coercing people of a lower caste into overworking for next to nothing? Or escaping blame from what shell companies are doing at your orders?

Sarcasm aside, both of these things have been an issue for centuries. And while I'm not anti-regulation by any stretch, I think we've found that regulation doesn't work too well when the company(ies) being regulated have more money than god. We need a new weapon.

<comment><USER12> Both of these.

It's a fact that capitalism is the only economic system that's not ended in bloodshed. Having an underclass is a horrible outcome, it's just more desirable than the alternative. We need to figure out how to fix the bugs, not toss out the foundation of civilisation.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


I wanna freckin fly, Jetpacks coming soon - <AUTHOR> http://www.martinjetpack.com/

<comment><USER2> Maybe its because jetpack sounds like backpack, but this is nothing one person could possibly 'pack'. It needs a big van for transportation. To me a better description is 'micro helicopter' (ucopter ?), 'macrodrone' or something.

And the video never shows the jetpack actually flying...</comment>


Show HN: A simple infinite world in WebGL - <AUTHOR> https://erkaman.github.io/wireframe-world/www/demo.html <comment><AUTHOR> In this demo, I implemented an infinitely continuing, vaporwave-like world in WebGL. If you can't run it for some reason, a recorded gif of the demo can be found here: [https://github.com/Erkaman/wireframe- world](https://github.com/Erkaman/wireframe-world).

As for the implementation, it is not very difficult stuff; I divide up the world into chunks(just like in Minecraft), and as the camera traverses the world, the chunks that become out of range are thrown away and are no longer rendered. And in the far away horizon I keep adding new chunks, to give the illusion that the world is infinite.

So it is not very complicated stuff; the source code is only ~450LOC, which can be found here: [https://github.com/Erkaman/wireframe-world/blob/gh- pages/wir...](https://github.com/Erkaman/wireframe-world/blob/gh- pages/wireframe_world.js). It is relatively well-commented, so it should be easy to understand, I hope.

<comment><USER2> The .js file is over 10,000 lines of code. How did it get so bloated from your 450 lines of code?

<comment><USER3> Node

<comment><USER4> While the tooling uses Node, the bloat comes from the bundle which includes canvas-fit, regl, and gl-mat4.

<comment><USER5> Since when do libraries used in your code classify as 'bloat'?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This is really cool! I think it might look a bit cleaner if you changed the filtering on your shader to be nearest, instead of linear.

I posted this previously but I didn't want to distract from your submission, so I made my own submission to a similar thing I created: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12183383](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12183383)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the tip!

<comment><USER6> I think the code for regl for filtering is here: tex: regl.texture({ min: 'linear mipmap linear', mag: 'linear', wrap: 'repeat', data: makeWireframeTexture() }),

So the change would be to use 'linear' or 'nearest'. It's actually the mipmaps that are making things look blurry. Basically, the graphics card is scaling down the image and scaling it back up, which makes it blurry.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Very nice. This reminded me of the flight simulator easter egg in old versions of MS Excel.

Does anyone have some good resources on getting started with WebGL or graphics programming in general? I know the libraries (like Three.JS) but I wouldn't know where to start or how to use them. I see Three.JS being used in fancy websites all the time now and would like to stay up to date.

<comment><USER8> for those who've never had the pleasure: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6nY0QkG9nQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6nY0QkG9nQ)

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I made a similar demo: [http://dlubarov.github.io/webgl-infinite-terrain- demo/](http://dlubarov.github.io/webgl-infinite-terrain-demo/)

Source code: [https://github.com/dlubarov/webgl-infinite-terrain- demo](https://github.com/dlubarov/webgl-infinite-terrain-demo)

It's also Perlin noise, but with multiple layers and finer granularity, so it appears more detailed. You can control the camera with WASD and the mouse.

</comment><comment><USER10> Reminds me [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thirteenth_Floor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thirteenth_Floor)

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah, that kind of thing was exactly what I was trying to achieve in this demo.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Anyone remember that old Excel easter egg?

Your cool little project reminds me of this: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6nY0QkG9nQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6nY0QkG9nQ)

</comment><comment><USER12> There seems to be some missing triangles after a while (10-20 sec.) on Chrome on OSX

Are these caused by some z-buffer issues caused by increasingly large coordinates?

<comment><USER13> It does looks like float32 errors from moving the camera too far in a scene.

Seen it before while trying to create an infinite city in WebGL. I ended up creating a world offset for each sector, and every time the camera's position was more than a sector length, reposition the camera in the scene and adjust the sector offsets. May not be the best solution, but it was quick and worked.

<comment><USER14> You can use fixed-point math to avoid this, but it doesn't get all the cool language support.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> The 10k LOC behind this kind of belie the 'simple' adjective in the title. I guess this is simple if you are familiar with WebGL? Anyways, very cool stuff!

</comment><comment><USER16> This guy's source is terse and clean. I like it.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you. I spent lots of time cleaning it up and writing comments, so I appreciate that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> I only get a blank page and the following in the console:

demo.js:10655 Uncaught SyntaxError: Unexpected token {

Tested on Chromium 48.0.2564.116, available under Fedora.

</comment><comment><USER18> For anyone using Safari, if you're seeing a blank page, try Safari Technology Preview. It works there.

</comment><comment><USER19> Crikey. I have never heard of 'vaporwave' and it's been around for 5 years and has a Wikipedia page. God I feel old sometimes.

Can someone tell me if Dubstep has jumped the shark yet? Does anyone even still say 'jumped the shark'?

/me shuffles off to play The Dead Kennedys on his 8-track...

</comment><comment><USER20> the best part of this was it created illusion of moving forward. Nice one. Adding a sound to this can help more.

</comment><comment><USER21> Oh, my dear, what are you doing to me! +1

</comment><comment><USER22> Looks like a Perturbator cover.

</comment><comment><USER23> I'll just leave this here [https://i.ytimg.com/vi/KEkrWRHCDQU/maxresdefault.jpg](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/KEkrWRHCDQU/maxresdefault.jpg)</comment>


Children struggle to hold pencils due to too much tech, doctors say - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/feb/25/children-struggle-to-hold-pencils-due-to-too-much-tech-doctors-say <comment><USER2> Just asked my fiance who works at a after school program for K-5th graders. She says that although she's not sure if these kids use more technology, the only correlation she notices is that kids who can hold a pencil/pen properly will write more then kids who just grip the pencil/pen (implying that their holding it incorrectly).

</comment><comment><USER3> Interesting article, but is there any research to back up this claim? I didn't see any sources referenced in the article. While I don't doubt there is a link between a more sedentary modern childhood and a variety of other issues, jumping to "blame the iPad" seems a bit thin.

</comment><comment><USER4> How is holding pencils that much different than say holding chopsticks?</comment>