College Grads Taking Low-Wage Jobs Displace Less Educated - <AUTHOR> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-03-06/college-grads-taking-low-wage-jobs-displace-less-educated.html <comment><USER2> I have a manufacturing company (started in 2004), and since 2008 the number of overqualified applicants has been huge. I have hired mechanical engineers as personal assistants, a person with a bachelors of mathematics as a nanny, and hired another mechanical engineer away from Pizza Hut to do CAD work (which does not require a degree, a 2 year community program is fine).

We get unsolicited applications all the time, and the variety of education and backgrounds is large. Who would you hire though? The person with several DUI convictions who just got out of jail, or the engineering graduate who hasn't been able to find work in their field for 2 years? I have had both apply for a low-level warehouse job, at the same time.

It is a tough job market out there.

<comment><USER3> If I may ask, if you have two comparatively skilled/driven/smart workers for the same job, would you choose the one with the college degree?

I do think there are a lot of people where college is not a value-add to their skillset, yet it seems like going to college solely for that edge is neccessary

<comment><USER4> > If I may ask, if you have two comparatively skilled/driven/smart workers for > the same job, would you choose the one with the college degree?

Because you have no idea whether they are comparably skilled/driven/smart, especially for relatively entry-level positions, and you can't afford to spend too much time digging to figure it out. You do know that at least one had it together enough to apply for/get into/graduate from college.

<comment><USER2> That is my wife's argument. She says that a college degree means that you were smart enough to get a college degree.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Or, people who needlessly went to college take jobs they would be doing anyway.

<comment><USER6> Do you sincerely think History is a complete waste of time, a useless human endeavor?

You see... It would be great if people had better history/sociology knowledge, I don't know about you, but I don't want to live in a technocratic dystopia. The fact that these fields are seem as "useless" is a terrible thing.

<comment><USER7> Why do you need to go to university to to improve your knowledge of history or sociology?

A degree in history or sociology is seen as useless because it mostly is outside academia. The people who are good in the field will most likely end up on the academic track, and those who aren't will most likely end up in low paying jobs having wasted several years and tens of thousands of dollars.

The problem isn't history or sociology degrees, it is people thinking that a degree is a ticket to a good job.

<comment><USER8> But the guy in the article wants to be a High School teacher. It's not like the guy wants to be some historian at some institution. And a college degree is probably something you really want if you want to become a High School teacher.

Is it wrong for him to think that he needs a college degree in order to teach high school? What are his chances of teaching high school WITHOUT a degree?

<comment><USER9> I think that having college educated historians as high school history teachers is a terrible waste of resources.

<comment><USER10> Oh, well, good news then, if you actually examine the curriculum requirement for being a history teacher and compare it to getting a degree in straight-up history, you'll see that the teacher is not required to take anywhere near as much, and the teacher will not take the really hard history courses that grade in terms of reams of essay writing.

Some teachers take the initiative to double-major of their own free will (respect!), but it is certainly not _required_. When I was in school I casually assumed that my teachers knew a great deal more about the subjects than what they were teaching; when I got to University and had the opportunity to look at their curricula requirements I learned that was not true, at least not in general.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> To get a low-wage job I had to lie on my resume. Retail stores won't hire you if you put down you have a CS degree and a few years programming experience. They want long-term desperate people. I was desperate but it looked too much like I would bail first chance I get.

Why would I want a shitty job? Well I needed money and I never break the 1st and 2nd rule of my club: [http://www.indiedeveloperclub.com](http://www.indiedeveloperclub.com)

<comment><USER12> Looks like you might get flagged for spam, but that's a cool idea!

<comment><USER11> Yeah I think I double-posted while in anti-procrastination mode.

I don't want to spam, but I want some people to join my club.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> The key takeaway from this article should be that 1980's-style resume and application bombing doesn't work, nearly as well as it used to. The market moved on and became more advanced. Using 1980's skillsets and techniques will yield the same disappointing results that using 1980's technology does.

My favorite part is where the journalist points out that those that are better educated earn more. Ceteris paribus, one would think it would be obvious that a better product / tool / employee would be worth more.

<comment><USER14> Ceteris paribus == "all other things being equal"

<comment><USER15> That econ course is paying off for all of us I see :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> As a random data point, at the salon where my wife has her hair cut, about half the stylists have college degrees. Plus their training to cut hair. I'd never heard of that before, but I guess it has become a fallback job that pays reasonably well.

</comment><comment><USER17> Does this apply to CS majors? (I'm about to start college this fall)

Edit:

\- I'll be studying in the US.

\- I'm already a (somewhat) experienced developer.

\- I'm interested in CS theory (but not that great at math, atm.)

<comment><USER18> No, if you can programme, there are oodles of highly paid jobs in tech

<comment><USER15> Correct for the most part. With some exceptions.

I've seen a bright kid from Italy act very despondent. He was convinced there was no way to have a decent career in his country. I gave him a pep talk but it did make me wonder:

\- are we in a temporary bubble of high salaries?

\- how long-lived is the technical career? I see people get progressively despondent in their 40s and 50s. Unlike other fields, I don't think we treat our elders with respect.

\- tech is notoriously inward looking (a toll on the mind). we also have ridiculously sedentary jobs (a toll on the body)

I am so addicted/madly in love with computers that I can't see myself doing anything else. But I am practical about stuff like housing costs and retirement. I see a very real possibility that the economics of tech will turn around and salaries will take a hit. Already, I've hit a salary wall (around 130K), which doesn't take you that far in expensive parts of the world. My MBA friends seem to be doing a bit better now - what is worrying me is that they get better/get paid better with age. Lets see how long I last ...

Btw, under 35 here.

<comment><USER12> > are we in a temporary bubble of high salaries?

There's no guarantee. I worry about the same thing.

> I don't think we treat our elders with respect

This is why software is an extremely immature discipline.

* We don't want to use discipline because it hurts our 'flow' (JS semicolon debacle)

* We don't learn from the past ("coupling's not real!")

* We don't respect our elders...unless, of course, you're famous (e.g. Carmack)

I love building things, but the sentiment (at least on HN) is disgustingly populist at times. It's like the whole industry tries to make itself mediocre.

<comment><USER19> nothing succeeds like mediocrity

<comment><USER12> Good insight. Mediocrity asks so little of people that they never become defensive.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> The job market is pretty horrible for those with no experience - I spent 2 years looking for a job before getting fed up and started teaching myself programming in an effort to make myself an attractive entry-level hire, and I possess a masters.

<comment><USER21> It all depends on what you're doing. I have no degree and started out manning the phones in a level 1 position on a help desk.

Almost anyone was able to get a job doing it. I was competent so I excelled and moved up fast. After getting 3 promotions in 18 months it was reasonably easy to get a better job elsewhere.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> The example in the article are not very good. Obvisouly a deegre with low demand and a poor job market is not going to result in a good job. Jobs in health care and STEM are in huge demand in the US, history majors not so much

</comment><comment><USER23> An open question: What's the impact of a minimum wage in a situation like this? Does it discourage the college educated from leaving the McDonalds job "because it pays the same as that ad agency job anyways"?

<comment><USER2> I think that a person with a passion for advertising/marketing would much rather work in their chosen field than serving food.

<comment><USER23> It's a pay cut (sometimes unpaid internships are required) and the pay cut is getting worse. But really this is really decision making on the margin. If someone is already willing to work at minimum wage for a job they're overqualified for, what's it mean when you mandate a raise for them? (And to the people who are adequately qualified, but not overqualified)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> The key for people taking low-wage low-skill jobs after college (I've been one - valet/data entry) is to always do something related to what you really want to do, even if you have to do it for free.</comment>


On Startups and Starcraft 2's Diamond League - <AUTHOR> http://blog.leasely.com/promoted-on-startups-and-getting-into-starcra

<comment><USER2> Some really interesting concepts in there about Starcraft strategy, but... startups and gaming? Sure I played some games here and there before at work in a startup, and others did as well, but I'd think people would be more interested in getting their work done and spending time with their families. That is the real "diamond league".

</comment><comment><USER3> I think I learned more about playing RTS's than I did start ups, but I can see the (stretched) analogies. Basically: Move fast, get good intel, always be thinking ahead.</comment>


Send files to Dropbox through email with Context.IO - <AUTHOR> http://code.google.com/p/contextbox/

<comment><AUTHOR> More of a proof of concept than anything, but wanted to share.

I'm thinking of using this nifty script to power a website where users can create a unique email address and connect it to their Dropbox... anyone knows how to dynamically create IMAP mailboxes? :)

If anyone wants to do anything with this, knock yourselves out!</comment>


Umberto Eco: "Macintosh Is Catholic and MS-DOS Is Protestant" - <AUTHOR> http://pcuf.fi/~pjt/pink/catholic-mac.html <comment><USER2> I would say Macintosh is atheist and MS-DOS is agnostic.

</comment><comment><USER3> Context: pre-OSX when Mac OS had no GUI.

</comment><comment><USER4> If Mac is Catholic then Linux is pagan.

</comment><comment><USER5> mac is too expensive to be catholic. Unless you get it from caritas.</comment>


Meet the bttn – the simplest Internet user interface in the world - <AUTHOR> http://bt.tn/

<comment><USER2> is this a joke?</comment>


Docopt, a command line interface description language - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/docopt

<comment><AUTHOR> There is more information about the project here : [http://docopt.org/](http://docopt.org/)</comment>


How many frames per second can the human eye really see? - <AUTHOR> http://www.pcgamer.com/how-many-frames-per-second-can-the-human-eye-really-see/ <comment><USER2> I've noticed that on monitors at 120hz and 240hz, full motion video starts to look strange. Not just high resolution animated graphics renderings, but also legacy recordings of live action pre-dating HD standards.

Old NTSC and PAL recordings, and even Black and White TV shows like I Love Lucy or Leave It To Beaver, take on this interpolated, ultra-modern slick feeling of remastered image post-processing.

I can't tell what's going on, but I see it when I view certain monitors, at friends houses, in department stores and at some fast food restaurants that provide a TV in the dining room.

Re-runs of TV shows that I've watched hundreds of times on CRTs and first generation flat-screen monitors, have a certain quality and leave a distinctive impression, that a subset of recent monitors augment, contaminate and tamper with.

I can't tell what's going but I know it when I see it. I suspect that there may be some software inbetween the transcoder circuit and the final illuminated raster that attempts to reduce flicker, and provides virtual frames automatically tweened when low frame counts are encountered.

Few people agree with me, or notice a difference, but it's there, man.

It's there.

<comment><USER3> It's the "soap opera" effect caused by interpolation and it is another anti- feature in TVs these days. Bluerghh

<comment><USER2> Oh thank god other people can see this.

Sometimes I feel like I'm noticing fnords.

<comment><USER4> No and you can simply turn off.

Soap operas were filmed on usually on cheaper cameras that were designed for live capture like studio camera which operate at a higher frame rate.

All TVs these days have some sort of "smooth motion" mode it used to be for sports but now it's tacked on everything and makes things annoying.

A 240hz or w/e screen doesn't do anything to video a player with motion interpolation does.

Basically we're used to much slower motion in films when you get full 30 or even 60fps video it looks weird but you get used to it.

Soon most things will come at 60fps and old video will start looking weird.

<comment><USER3> Film's subjective fps is actually higher than 24 fps because of motion blur.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Eyes don't see in frames per second, they see in light intensity over time. That is why you can see lighting strike and why the image persists in your vision for a few seconds after.

<comment><USER6> the question is not what fps does the human eye see at (nonsensical question). but, "At what threshold does the human eye no longer notice an increase in frame rate"

<comment><USER7> That question also doesn't make sense in any realistic scenarios, because it's entirely dependent on how much motion is involved and whether you're rendering simulated motion blur. Significant inter-frame difference is what you notice.</comment></comment></comment>


Skydiver Aims to Jump from 120,000 Feet, Break the Sound Barrier - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/03/skydiver-aims-to-jump-from-120000-feet-break-the-sound-barrier/

<comment><USER2> There's good (technical) info in the threads on basejumper.com about this attempt.</comment>


Show HN: De Jong Attractor visualization - <AUTHOR> http://cjlarose.com/de-jong/

<comment><AUTHOR> Written in Clojurescript using Om (React) and THREE.js. Code at [https://github.com/cjlarose/de-jong](https://github.com/cjlarose/de-jong)

<comment><USER2> Very cool!

Nice UI touches too, e.g. maintaining js/history and show/hide editors. I notice the app state is captured in the URL which lets you save a favorite shape. Neat.

What does the throttling do? And what happens without it?

I'd enjoy reading someday about how you developed this (w/ annotated source) and your experiences using core.async, Om, figwheel, etc.

Thanks for sharing it!

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah, so the application state is captured in the URL with throttling. The behavior isn't too different from Underscore/Lodash's throttle function ([https://lodash.com/docs#throttle](https://lodash.com/docs#throttle)). Basically, you can click and drag the range sliders to update the visualization pretty rapidly. If I updated the URL with windows.history.pushState every time the state changed for a single keyframe, it would overload the history and be a pain to hit the "back" button. So instead, I throttle calls to pushState so it fires no more than every 500ms.

I think it might be too to do a write-up. I definitely learned a lot doing it!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Pretty awesome. Any specific reason for picking the de Jong attractor (other than the fact that it's pretty)? I usually see Lorenz attractors in tech demos so I'm curious :)

<comment><AUTHOR> I first found out about the de Jong attractor from a talk recently at the Clojure West conference. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLlbEZt-3j0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLlbEZt-3j0). I found a few videos around where people were animating between different plots of the attractor, but nothing interactive.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> The website is completely black in Chrome 43.0.2357.65 (64-bit) on Ubuntu.

<comment><AUTHOR> Uh oh. I don't have a VM up and ready, but I'll check it out when I do. Thanks for letting me know!</comment></comment>


Physically Based Rendering Comes to WebGL - <AUTHOR> http://blog.playcanvas.com/physically-based-rendering-comes-to-webgl/

<comment><USER2> Sweet! Beautiful work.

PS. [https://Clara.io](https://Clara.io) also has support for physically-based rendering in WebGL, just use the "Physical" material. :)

<comment><USER3> Nice! Is there are any nice demo with CubeMaps?

<comment><USER2> It isn't yet officially released so I am not yet showing off the demos. But you can try it yourself, just create a new scene and add a Physical material to an object. From a technical perspective, it is an implementation of GGX, Schlick, Anisotropy/Anisotropy Rotation, Translucent SSS, and Clear Coat.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> This is the first time I've seen playcanvas. It's a very impressive platform so far. A pretty good potential competitor with unity in the future?

<comment><USER2> PlayCanvas is very nice! And nice people as well.

It is hard to compete with Unity with the same efficiency on all the non-web platforms platforms supported by Unity when it has to run in a browser/JavaScript. But for web-based games PlayCanvas beats out Unity clearly.

<comment><USER5> > But for web-based games PlayCanvas beats out Unity clearly.

For the moment at least, if you discount the Unity plugin approach.

Unity 5, the coming version, features a (plugin-less) WebGL-export (and I believe the Unity 5 beta already supports it):

[https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/03/18/mozilla-and- unity-b...](https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/03/18/mozilla-and-unity-bring- unity-game-engine-to-webgl/)

<comment><USER6> The Unity WebGL export is great news. It is pushing forward the platform.

However, the reality is that they are desktop only, at least for the foreseeable future. The Emscripten Webplayer generates a significant blob of Javascript which doesn't work well on mobile.

Raw Javascript engine's like PlayCanvas are ~500Kb compared to ~10MB for Unity in Javascript.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Did anyone else think of the book when they read the title?

[http://www.pbrt.org/](http://www.pbrt.org/)

<comment><USER2> That is where this originated, at least in part. :)

BTW one of the best references is this: [http://blog.selfshadow.com/publications/s2013-shading- course...](http://blog.selfshadow.com/publications/s2013-shading-course/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Worked in Firefox with a recent iMac, but slow in fullscreen.

So I opened it in chrome and it hangs my iMac. I do graphics programming and use 3D a lot, and it is the first time my machine hangs.

<comment><USER9> Runs fullscreen in Chrome on my iMac just fine. Framerate isn't so hot though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> It worked really well for me, and I hope to see some more demos!

</comment><comment><USER11> also [https://labs.sketchfab.com/siggraph2014/](https://labs.sketchfab.com/siggraph2014/)

<comment><USER3> Weird, but sketchfab demo is really slow here.

<comment><USER2> It seems broken right now. I think this was a special purpose demo. It did work back when it was released.</comment></comment></comment>


Facebook denies building eye-tracking tech despite holding patents - <AUTHOR> https://mashable.com/2018/06/13/facebook-track-eye-movement/#7NMgY03Jxmq2 <comment><USER2> > "Like many companies, we apply for a wide variety of patents to protect our > intellectual property. Right now we're not building technology to identify > people with eye-tracking cameras,"

Must be nice to apply for patents for intellectual property you aren't creating...

Though if it's related to Oculus it's likely not a big deal, assuming it stays there.</comment>


Feedback for photo sharing and critique website - <AUTHOR> http://www.photoshares.xyz <comment><USER2> If you want feedback on your project or startup, then you are much better off doing a "Show HN" post so it is listed under "show" in the main top menu. The rules for doing a "Show HN" post are here:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/showhn.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/showhn.html)

If we're lucky, a moderator will notice and change the title of this submission for you (i.e. turning it into a "Show HN" post).

The first thing I noticed when reading your site is this:

>" _There are also multiple premium features users can access after upgrading their account (a one-time fee of $10 Canadian dollars)_ "

A one-time fee does not seem reasonable or viable for a business. For the long term sustainability of your startup, use an annual fee.

Also, I did not see links to either your privacy policy or your terms of use. At least some people will be concerned about copyright issues on their photos, and how/where/when your site is able to use or promote them.

</comment><comment><USER3> How does your product solve this problem better than Flickr, DeviantArt, or even Instagram? Do you plan to monetize through advertising?</comment>


Show HN: Introducing Glitch Playground (beta) - ahmed-taj https://dev.to/ahmedtaj/introducing-glitch-playground--69k <comment> ahmed-taj This project is NOT affiliated with, funded, or in any way associated with [https://glitch.com](https://glitch.com)

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Is this related to glitch.com?

<comment> ahmed-taj No it's not. Does it sound so?</comment></comment>


Silver Needle in the Skype - <AUTHOR> http://www.secdev.org/conf/skype_BHEU06.handout.pdf

<comment><USER2> This is insanity. They're giving away the software, but have put incredible amounts of engineering into making sure nobody can know how it works. The parts where they make money have little to nothing to do with this.

I've stopped paying for skype service because of the features they force me to have on. One of my "final straw" bugs has been opened since 2007. And it's trivial. How much anti-reverse engineering work has gone in since then?

I'm sure I'd pay them again if I could actually do my own build of a skype client with some of the behaviors I don't like modified.

<comment><USER3> one of the nice things about skype is that it always works. Have a firewall? Skype will find a way through it. If it were completely reverse engineered, it might be easier to filters its traffic. they say they can DOS skype on a network but at what cost?

<comment><USER2> I don't agree that exploiting firewall bugs justifies so much effort in keeping me from understanding what's running on my computer vs. just making it better.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I have lots of shit installed on my computers (no really, shit - not stuff). I don't have problems with, like some people have, Silverlight or whatever people refuse to install for whatever reasons. But one thing I don't have installed is skype. Skype, for some reason, just scares me and doesn't feel right. I can't explain it. I had it installed on one of my laptops while I was travelling heavily and it felt like computer was bogged down by it, even though it had almost nothing installed on it. Call me paranoid - and I never am.

<comment><USER5> Summary: irrational fear of Skype.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> So, why did Skype go to all this trouble? It seems that their main asset is the brand and ownership of the user database. So, why would it matter to them if alternative clients were built? It's not as if SIP-based services were not an alternative.

Perhaps Skype went to all this trouble to achieve network effects? If it was easy to block Skype traffic, maybe it would not have become the "standard" it is today. The it-just-works feature was likely most critical to success, and that might only have been achieved through obfuscation.

So, I get the network-level obfuscation, but I don't see a case for code obfuscation. Why should Skype care if it owns the client? It's not like they're pushing ads upon their users or otherwise marketing too heavily.

</comment><comment><USER7> It would be interesting to see what a comparison of the obfuscation techniques of Continuum, Kazaa, and Skype would look like.

</comment><comment><USER8> Excellent analysis, must have been quite an exciting project to hack skype into bits to understand the countermeasures.

</comment><comment><USER9> This looks like a brief fast forward through the Vanilla Skype presentations by the same authors. If you want to know even more of the terrible details, the slide PDFs are linked from the bottom of the "Skype protocol" page on Wikipedia:

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skype_protocol

</comment><comment><USER3> very interesting but also (very) old news.</comment>


Reddit's Advice On Cheap Marketing - <AUTHOR> http://static.scribd.com/docs/3vqs035nom704.swf <comment><USER2> We need a service to seed social sites with users and contributions.

This could be done by paying people or perhaps just agreeing to seed each other's startups.

<comment><USER3> Interesting... I lean more to the latter, I am usually happy to seed, as you put it, other startups I find useful, but not necessarily meeting my needs.

I think posting your startup on news.yc allows it to be given a closer look since the community here is much tighter than most sites. I'm much more willing to graze past the usual .5 second judgment of any site posted here.

<comment><USER2> In terms of seeding for my site, if let's say 100 people added just one resource and just one sticky for that resource, then I think the site would look much better.

This is something that can be done in less than 15 minutes.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> The best is if you take your seed money from a guy whose rich enough to fund you, but poor enough that he spends all day submitting stories from fake accounts to make sure he doesn't lose his investment. :-)

</comment><comment><USER5> So reddit faked their early users... even though they had pg's readers. A new social site must get really creative if they consider faking users not ethical (as I do).

<comment><USER6> I can't help being curious; aren't there algorithms that itentify the likelihood of a sample of text being from a given writer based differences in writing style. If so we have plenty of writing guaranteed to be from Alexis and maybe we could identify which accounts were his.

<comment><USER7> We didn't have commenting back then, so these were all link submissions. We basically stopped using these accounts after that first month or so -- once we started getting traffic.

For us, there didn't appear to be a major ethical dilemma. We used these accounts simply so that new users would see a front page of links instead of a blank website (or one with only submissions from 'kn0thing' and 'spez'). For a site like reddit, it seemed to be a key part of showing new users how the site worked. Once we got traffic (from places like YC and PG) we stopped needing these accounts and thus stopped using them.

<comment><USER5> Without writing comments it is probably Ok for me as well. Voting is still somewhat about faking other people's opinions, but there is obviously a large grey area here.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Need a yardstick for progress... - <AUTHOR>

After a year of learning Ruby/Rails now, without any prior knowledge of OOP or any sort of programming, how can you tell if you've progressed sufficiently? My self-opinion sways from satisfied to depression about how little I actually know. What is a good way to tell? <comment><USER2> What can you build, and how quickly can you build it? Probably the 2 best questions to measure yourself by.

</comment><comment><USER3> Can you produce something similar to what you've done, but new, with little to no referring to references?

Are you producing cooler things today than yesterday, according to some definition of cool?

Are you still discovering new things about Ruby/Rails (insert any technology here)?

Do you understand my questions? :-)

<comment><AUTHOR> 1\. Not as quickly as I'd want, but for the most part, yes. 2\. Definitely. 3\. Absolutely.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Do you feel like you're missing out? - <AUTHOR> It seems like with all this amazing stuff going on in the world (surging web 2.0 valuations, people becoming instantly rich & famous in tech, booming stocks & home prices, new discoveries in physics, twitter debates, viral content and insta-fame) does it ever feel like you're missing out, like there is a big party going and you're watching from the sidelines. <comment><USER3> I've been there. It took me a while to figure out that the media manufactures stories to get eyeballs. Do some digging and you'll find a different story. Once you know the translation key, it is much less envious.

\- Overnight success => Decade of work

\- Owner is worth an estimated $100 million => Owner is saving for a couch (Kevin Rose said this after his cover story in a magazine)

\- Innovative idea => Ripped off a competitor and had better marketing

\- Hard work and sacrifice => Lied/cheated/stole to get where they are

<comment><USER4> > _Hard work and sacrifice = > Lied/cheated/stole to get where they are_

I wouldn't be so cynic. I think real life is simply not good news material.

 _" Tonight, the groundbreaking story of the developer who worked for 3 years on banking software, 4 years on insurance databases and a staggering 2 years on android apps! He's now ready to start his own company... or is he? Sitting on a chair and typing code has never been so exciting!"_

<comment><USER3> Certainly some people do succeed through hard work alone, but corruption absolutely plays a large part at the top end of the spectrum. Youtube was mostly pirated content before they were bought, Zuckerburg stole the idea for FB and cheated his partner, Uber guys have done every dirty trick in the book...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Dude, do you realize there are areas on earth where inhouse toilet and running potable water are luxuries?

Besides,studies have shown that a) Financial income above a specific fairly low and professionally attainable threshold does not bring any more happiness (70k a year or so) b) most happiness peoples experience per achievements are due to achieved intrinsic goals (art, science, learning to play the piano, whatever, becoming ceo if that is what gets ones socks rolling)

If this sort of "I'm missing out" thing is on the forefront of your mind I would call it non-beneficial mental noise. Quit twitter, find a hobby - or get seriously interested on some practical problem that is approachable by you and most of all - is intrinsically interesting to you!

Lots of stuff works using principles and systems that are old - some tens of years, some root back a thousands of years.

The function of media is to grab your attention using hooks that are subliminally, compulsively interesting. Ignore that second by second crap and dig in to the root causes of problems. Most things are pretty well researched already and you can get pretty far by developing a learning path of your own.

And if you don't want to - that's ok too! It's your life - live it the best way you can.

What is common with most of these Elon Musks and what ever you got - <USER2> lived their life and what they achieved was due to a unique combination of all the genetics and life circumstances that brought them where they went. You can't replicate those circumstances, but what you can do and should do, is live your life.

<comment><USER6> I dont think that 70k threshold is actually necessarily true. At least according to:[https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&ei=bMxgVaux...](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&ei=bMxgVauxMMXooASev4D4CQ&url=http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/danielgilbert/files/if- money-doesnt-make-you- happy.nov-12-20101.pdf&ved=0CB0QFjAA&usg=AFQjCNE1-_vxt3q9uzPPn7JCHo8_JJQcDg&sig2=uQJjVCrbRBxJBRUjfLy3GA)

<comment><USER5> Ok, I oversimplified and am not a specialist anyway :) basically, as I as a layman to current psychological research understand it, 70k gets you to a point where most common financial stressors of an everyday western life can be dealt with withou too much difficulty. Above that should bring you to a place where you have more financial freedom to explore your intrinsic motivations and desires. One can travel and hire personal guides and trainers, etc. Sure, if one absolutely needs to do helicopter bungee jumping above the amazon rainforest to fullfill ones dearest intrinsic drives then yeah, 70k might not cut it :). Otoh if marathon running suffices then that has near zero cost.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> "Life will break you. Nobody can protect you from that, and living alone won't either, for solitude will also break you with its yearning. You have to love. You have to feel. It is the reason you are here on earth. You are here to risk your heart. You are here to be swallowed up. And when it happens that you are broken, or betrayed, or left, or hurt, or death brushes near, let yourself sit by an apple tree and listen to the apples falling all around you in heaps, wasting their sweetness. Tell yourself you tasted as many as you could."

― Louise Erdrich, The Painted Drum LP

</comment><comment><USER8> A couple of days ago my seven year old asked how internet videos are made. This morning, to answer him, we made a 57-frame stop-motion movie of two Lego minifigures building a wall, only to have it blown up by a Bob-omb three times taller then them. No, I'm not missing out.

...

Oh, you mean all that _sturm und drang_ about entrepeneurship? Meh. This is a wonderful time to be alive. Make sure you enjoy it. Doesn't have to be family, there's a lot of other options. There's more ways to succeed in life than selling a unicorn.

(After years of reading this site... I have more or less a 9-to-5 job at a matured now-public startup, and few regrets. Oh, there's a few things I might have done differently, but if HN has taught me anything, it's that I'm _not_ an entrepeneur. That's fine. So's what you're doing. It's OK.)

<comment><USER9> On the stop-motion video with your kid - that's totally awesome!!

I'd love to do something like that with my daughter. What software did you use to put it together?

<comment><USER8> Plain ol' FFMPEG can take images and turn them into videos. I did have to buy a tripod, but, I've wanted one several times now in the past couple of years so this finally tipped me over.

(Amusingly, if you haven't bought one in a while, they all come with "smartphone adapators" now, at least at the consumer level. 21st century ho!)

I used this command line:

        ~/bin/ffmpeg -r 3 -start_number $X -i %03d.jpg -vcodec mpeg4 \
            -qscale:v 3 -s 1920x1080 ${MOVIE}.mp4

"-r 3": 3 frames per second. "-start_number $X -i %03d.jpg": Use JPEGS named like "123.jpg". Nominally the %03d.jpg is supposed to be a printf-style template, but I had trouble with anything but straight numbers like that (possibly my camera's naming convention confused it). I used emacs' wdired mode to bulk rename the files. "-start_number $X" is helpful so you can just grab photos off the camera's photo list without having to renumber them. "-s 1920x1080" tones down the resolution since the vast bulk of cameras take way- more-than-HD resolution, and I didn't bother with trying to fiddle with setting it down in the camera, because 32GB SD mini cards are cheap now.

I'll say this to anyone thinking of trying it out: Once I had a little stubby tripod I could put on the kitchen table, it was really quite a fantastically easy project. Stop-motion is, of course, an _incredibly_ labor intensive style of animation... for _professional_ results. For 3 fps, grabbing some children's toys that were probably just on the floor, and moving just one or two things per frame, you can be taking a shot every 10 seconds or so, quite easily. My kids were 7 & 4 and, quite frankly, probably both below average on their patience (for various reasons), and we actually made 4 videos today. It's had a much better bang/buck for the kids than I expected.

And it's yet another place where Legos _really_ shine, by the way.

<comment><USER9> Thanks for the detailed response!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment.

<comment><USER11> This is great. Is it a quote from somewhere?

<comment><USER10> It's a quote by Ralph Waldo Emerson :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> No. Not really. Not even slightly.

I really don't enjoy the thought of being famous, and especially not the ephemeral famous-on-the-internet variety. I especially hate the end results of how twitter gets used, and turn a blind eye to nearly everything that happens on that website. It's something of an abomination watching silly people cram their already dumbed-down thoughts into something even dumber than its natural incarnation.

Web 2.0 is really more of a 2004 idea (as with viral content which is even older) but I understand what you're driving at. Especially since some of the technology involved isn't all that new either, which points to the fact that the purchases are more often a form of conflict resolution between competing companies, than genuine success. Large companies purchasing smaller companies before they can become threatening.

There might be much physics-related publicity, but not too many drastic shifts in our understanding of the world that surrounds us. We still don't have any moon bases or martian colonies, and so maybe certain special bosons are the the seat of mass, enslaving us all to gravity, but until that discovery actually pays off, big deal.

Stocks are imaginary financial instruments, and publicly traded stocks are even more imaginary. Some people have a lot of imagination, I suppose. From what my friends tell me, owning a home is worse than owning a car. When your car breaks down, you have to walk home. But when your home breaks down, you're either cold, or wet, or both, and there's no place to sleep. At least, when you rent, there's someone else to blame.

</comment><comment><USER13> 99% of the stuff mentioned doesn't last. Why not read a book instead of surfing twitter or viral content. Why not buy a diversified portfolio instead of speculating on stocks and real estate. Why not build a lasting lifestyle business rather than an over diluted non sensical on demand startup. Just my 2 cents, your milage and views may vary. Btw, physics discoveries are super cool :D

</comment><comment><USER4> Absolutely yes. It's difficult to focus on your own career when everyone else is on the spotlight. It's been one year since I started grokking the entrepreneur culture: I've never felt more empowered; I've never felt more miserable.

On top of that, the average Joe can't appreciate long-term efforts and is quick to dismiss you as a loser. We worship the _overnight successes_ and underappreciate everything else.

Magicians want you to believe in mind-reading. Media want you to believe you're missing out. Both of them know that keeping the boring secrets preserves the mystery and wonder. George Carlin said it best: _" It's all bullshit folks, and it's bad for ya!"_

</comment><comment><USER14> There's no one becoming _instantly_ rich & famous in anything. Behind every overnight success is years of grinding it out getting better at whatever it is that you do. I don't care if you are talking about startups or rap music. It only ever looks like an overnight success because the 5 or 8 years of grinding it out before aren't exciting to talk about. Even people that make it rich quickly on 1 particular startup probably had a bunch of things going before they ever did that 1 startup.

What does that mean for you?

Are you growing every day? You can work hard without growing. Growing is learning, pushing yourself, meeting new people, exposing yourself to new things. If you are doing that on a continuous basis, you will find your way into the "party".

</comment><comment> vezzy-fnord Well, personally I don't consider "Twitter debates", "viral content" or what I think is implied with "insta-fame" to be all that amazing or noteworthy at all. Those are all ephemera by definition that may or may not end up obscure historical footnotes one day.

Other things you described amount to the business cycle. There's a lot of interesting to stuff to be learned studying economics and finance, but the particular results and spotlights of a given boom-bust aren't necessarily all that notable. Do you recall the aftermath of the depression from 1920-1921 in the United States? Likely not, and it barely registers in the public consciousness regardless.

Finally, only one actually amazing thing - new discoveries in physics. Too bad you don't see all the behind-the-scenes academic debate, infighting, spurious results, grunt work that underpins the eventual eureka moment. And don't forget just how many "eureka moments" aren't really that at all, but inflated expectations from poor scientific reporting. How many people do you think realize that "statistical significance" is pretty mundane in comparison to our everyday understanding of "significance"?

</comment><comment><USER15> The things you listed are mostly crap and don't matter.

Find the niche you're really interested in, and intensely follow and get involved with that. It's much more fulfilling than being kept up-to-date with the latest "someone made this controversial remark on twitter" scandal or the IPO of some startup you've never heard of until now.

There's just too much stuff in the world, and you can't know and follow everything in detail. I read a pretty wide variety of news, out of interest, but I have my core areas in which I work which are the real things I'm passionate about.

(also: "Web 2.0" isn't a thing)

</comment><comment><USER16> There is one thing you have to remember: this is not a competition.

You don't have to play the game. Do things at your pace. A lot of things you read about the successes is not entirely true. It is very common for the media to exaggerate the sexy parts. Every start up story is a revolutionary until you see them throw in the towel a few month later.

Do things at your own pace, as long as you do something.

</comment><comment><USER17> What you are seeing is a different form of the facebook highlight reel. There was a study that correlated Facebook use with higher rates of depression or something along those lines. The rationale for this was that you are comparing the 100% of your day to day activities with the cream of the crop activities that your friends were posting about(and possibly fabricating)

Not every day is a highlight reel.

</comment><comment><USER18> In the late 70s, as a teen ager, I was disappointed that I was just a little too young to have participated in the computing boom. I got to program big iron, but all the cool stuff had already been done: early computer vision algorithms, hard drives, semiconductors, the "ultimate" papers (i.e. scheme), the ARPAnet, bitmapped display etc. I loved programming but wondered if really there was anything exciting ahead or if it would now be just more of the same.

My model was of how physics had had an astounding boom from about the 1880s-1940s (roughly Maxwell->semiconductor), and then it just got hard for a small number of people to make big changes.

Of course that was foolish: computing is still roughly where mechanical engineering was in the late 1800s: lots of lore, much disastrous failure, but a marvelous cambrian explosion of experimentation and development of theory.

</comment><comment><USER19> I don't feel like I'm missing out, but I do often lament the lack of time[1]. It is an interesting observation though of feeling on the outside of an amazing time. Do you feel like you are not able to 'join' the party? And if so what is holding you back?

[1] Spending it reading HN not withstanding :-)

<comment><USER20> Not the OP, but for me it's a conscious decision not to join the party, and it's totally related to your [1].

I run a small consulting company doing primarily hardware and embedded software. I've got a lab set up in my basement with almost all of the gear that I need to do that successfully (spectrum analyzer, oscilloscope, and logic analyzer being the big 3 that I use pretty often). I do well enough at it that I don't really worry about money; I won't be retiring at 35, but I'm doing well enough that I don't think much about my chequing account balance.

There's the occasional crunch time, but for the most part I work hard for clients a few hours a day and spend the rest of the day learning & experimenting[1], reading, taking the dogs for a walk, doing yard work, etc. When I'm working on the software part of the work, we've got a family cabin a few hours away that has excellent 4G coverage. My partner and I will pack up the dogs and head down there for a few days in the middle of the week if it looks like it's going to be nice weather. She too has a job where working remote is often an option, so we'll get up, make some bacon & eggs with pancakes, take the dogs for a walk around "town", and then come back and do a few hours of work from maybe 11-3.

When I was working full-time+ in startup land, I definitely felt time poor. Sure, I sometimes miss being at the party, but I feel way less stressed now and happier with my life.

[1] The learning & experimenting often involves noodling with a new piece of software or hardware. It's often still screen time, but it's at my own pace and on my own terms. And over and over, it's turned out to be relevant to potential consulting gigs with a 1-3 month turnaround. Learn some new piece of tech, talk about it to friends, and tada! there's someone who's willing to pay me to use whatever weird niche thing I picked up to solve a problem for them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Every day. But then I look at my children, remember the work I've done that I'm most proud of and stuff like that and I shrug it off.

Sure, I would love to be more socially engaged in my surroundings, but whenever I'm in doubt about my life I reevaluate my priorities and usually discover that I'm pretty happy where I'm at. It's my life and I get to define the optimum, and so far viral content, insta-fame and richness hasn't gotten close to the top.

Caveat: I'm not famous, haven't founded a start-up or famous for my twitter debates. But it works for me.

<comment><USER22> "And now that you don't have to be perfect, you can be good" \- Anonymous

<comment><USER23> (John Steinbeck, East of Eden, right?)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I found myself getting into the same old dull routine, purely out of habit.

So I wrote a 5 year plan.

It forced me to think through what I wanted to accomplish in the next five years, and what made me happy.

Every five years or so, I revisit it.

Having goals in mind helps.

</comment><comment><USER25> I personally feel that jumping on the bandwagon will only crash and burn you unless you genuinely believe that you have an idea or believe in a cause that would make real difference to the world.

It may seem like everything has already been done but remember that back in 1898, Charles Holland Duell, who was appointed as the United States Commissioner of Patents famously said "Everything that can be invented has been invented."

Start from the grassroot level. Start by looking around you, think of how we can contribute to education and make better citizens of tomorrow by empowering our children with technology, be able to assist farmers with advanced data analysis that would enable them maximise their cultivation, predictive analytics in policing and bring down cost of law enforcement, there are plenty of ideas that are worth billions of dollars. There is no point in being another Uber of some on demand service valued at a billion pound. Be another google, another apple, microsoft or IBM. The foundation of all these companies were built on creating a legacy, to revolutionise the way we think and percieve life and to make a difference in our existence.

Have a short term goal of 2 years to find what you want to do and chase it with singe-minded determination. You are not late. Good Luck!

</comment><comment><USER26> Imagine tons of winning lottery players getting together in one spot. It would look like the only way to get ahead is to win the lottery if you're looking from the outside in.

Mix in a few thousand lottery winner wannabes and the analogy is complete.

My advice: just ignore it, survivor bias is a thing that is very hard to quantify without having all the numbers and for every lottery winner there are large numbers of also-rans that did not make it.

The media magnifying this effect certainly does not help.

</comment><comment><USER27> Whenever I start to feel this way, it's a good time to read some David Foster Wallace:

 _" In the day-to-day trenches of adult life, there is actually no such thing as atheism. There is no such thing as not worshipping. Everybody worships. The only choice we get is what to worship. And an outstanding reason for choosing some sort of God or spiritual-type thing to worship — be it J.C. or Allah, be it Yahweh or the Wiccan mother-goddess or the Four Noble Truths or some infrangible set of ethical principles — is that pretty much anything else you worship will eat you alive. If you worship money and things — if they are where you tap real meaning in life — then you will never have enough. Never feel you have enough. It's the truth. Worship your own body and beauty and sexual allure and you will always feel ugly, and when time and age start showing, you will die a million deaths before they finally plant you. On one level, we all know this stuff already — it's been codified as myths, proverbs, clichés, bromides, epigrams, parables: the skeleton of every great story. The trick is keeping the truth up-front in daily consciousness. Worship power — you will feel weak and afraid, and you will need ever more power over others to keep the fear at bay. Worship your intellect, being seen as smart — you will end up feeling stupid, a fraud, always on the verge of being found out. And so on.

Look, the insidious thing about these forms of worship is not that they're evil or sinful; it is that they are unconscious. They are default-settings. They're the kind of worship you just gradually slip into, day after day, getting more and more selective about what you see and how you measure value without ever being fully aware that that's what you're doing. And the world will not discourage you from operating on your default-settings, because the world of men and money and power hums along quite nicely on the fuel of fear and contempt and frustration and craving and the worship of self. Our own present culture has harnessed these forces in ways that have yielded extraordinary wealth and comfort and personal freedom. The freedom to be lords of our own tiny skull-sized kingdoms, alone at the center of all creation. This kind of freedom has much to recommend it. But of course there are all different kinds of freedom, and the kind that is most precious you will not hear much talked about in the great outside world of winning and achieving and displaying. The really important kind of freedom involves attention, and awareness, and discipline, and effort, and being able truly to care about other people and to sacrifice for them, over and over, in myriad petty little unsexy ways, every day. That is real freedom. The alternative is unconsciousness, the default-setting, the "rat race" — the constant gnawing sense of having had and lost some infinite thing."_

<comment><USER28> Ten years old as of yesterday. Rewards re-reading for sure.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Uhhh... why would I feel like I'm missing out on an overinflated asset bubble driven by cheap money in the hands of people who live in bubbles?

</comment><comment><USER30> You define what is important for yourself.

OP, it sounds like you're choosing to accept other people's versions of reality instead of focusing on what you can do (and add) by sticking to your own values and doing the best you can at what you choose to do.

Nothing that the media reports on will ``matter" in 10 minutes, anyway. Conversely, your family, kids, dog, open source project, whatever, will still be around.

</comment><comment><USER31> Not at all! Realize that your have a finite amount of time, each day, each week, your entire life. You _are_ going to miss out on some things, and that's okay! Ensure you're prioritizing the things in you're life that are important to you, and be realistic about what's important, and where you want to spend your time and energy.

</comment><comment><USER32> I think that a lot of people are missing out. I also feel like a lot of genuinely exciting projects get drowned out by the noise created by well- funded mediocre projects.

There is a problem in society now whereby successful (sometimes well- deserving) people are helping their friends too much. I have seen really poor quality projects (with 0 growth) keep receiving funding year after year because the CEO was friends with the investor.

The marketing noise created by these mediocre projects prevents a lot of quality projects from reaching the awareness of consumers.

I often wish that all newly minted tech millionaires would just keep their money to themselves and go on a perpetual holiday to the Bahamas instead of using their money to pollute the market with poor quality projects/companies.

Funding isn't necessarily evil though, funding the wrong project is (even though it is unintentional).

</comment><comment><USER33> The missing out sindrome is normal. It's part of growing, and I believe everyone will sooner or later experience in some areas of life.

But this shouldn't fake reality. Dig deeper into the stories of the many rich people and you'll discover passion, devotion, late night work, single men and women, solitude, failure.

Many "overnight" success were planned with lots of work. Don't be fooled. :)

Responding to your question: Yes, I feel like I am missing out a lot. Living in italy I feel like I'm many steps behind the internet world. I'm trying to improve, but there's this voice in my head that keeps telling me that all of this is not important, that our human goal is not competition, is helping the world with our work. Every day that passes reinforce this thought, and I hope one day it will also shut down my fear of missing out forever.

</comment><comment><USER34> Yes I feel that a lot of times.But what I am trying to make myself understand: -What you said,there are a _lot_ of of amazing stuff going.The mind prefers vacillating compared to singular focus.So if you are trying to get into any one of them,where do I jump into? -The more you get intimidated by all that good stuff going on the more chances that you are going to not focus on a singular thing which could (just maybe) be the place where you become one of those famous ones. -Internet fame is as volatile as it could get.Take Flappy Bird for example. Dong Nguyen was one of those insta-fames .That lasted for a week?

Back to the age old cliche(or atleast a form of it that i remember). ~Do not chase success.Chase your goal and success(fame,debates and all those) will follow .

I know how lame it sounds.But ask any of those people sitting up there.It works.

</comment><comment><USER35> I used to, then I happened upon Dual Cores - Unplug. Just hit me like a ton of bricks. You are missing out, just define what's important to you.

[http://open.spotify.com/track/6KUlm8u1OrdZyFf8m74QhR](http://open.spotify.com/track/6KUlm8u1OrdZyFf8m74QhR)

</comment><comment><USER36> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear_of_missing_out](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear_of_missing_out)

A few random thoughts: \- A story is in the news strictly because it's out of the ordinary. \- Related to number one, it's best not to compare your life to to the news. Essentially, you're comparing the day to day with the highlights of someone else's life. You don't have the full picture. \- One of the best things to do is something Tim Ferris recommended, avoid all news for a week, and focus on your life. \- Always remember there is another side to the story. \- In the end, you are the judge of how fulfilling your life is.

</comment><comment><USER37> A little bit. But then I notice that almost everyone announcing anything interesting has been working hard at that project for years.

So I put my head down and get back to work, so that I too may make an interesting announcement in the not-too-distant future.

</comment><comment><USER38> Well, why are you missing out? There's plenty of opportunity for these things in Silicon Valley, San Francisco, Seattle, etc. Is this a question about how to pick the right company, or where to live, or what kind of work to focus on?

</comment><comment><USER39> Yes – every day. By most metrics, my startup is going great, but it's taken years of all-nighters, working weekends, and skipped vacations. I love what I'm doing, but I'm also cognizant of all the friends, relationships, family- time, and other experiences I'm not investing my time in as much as I should.

Whether things work out or not, I'll always wonder what the counterfactual was, all the unknown-unknowns I chose to miss out on.

Regardless of what you read, what you feel like you're missing out on, know everything comes with a sacrifice. My only advice would be to think carefully about what you choose to invest your time in.

</comment><comment><USER40> Keep in mind that the noise ratio is high, particularly in strong bull markets. Not all that glitters is gold.

If you no longer want to watch from the sidelines, you can follow this simple formula:

1). Build something great. 2). Tell people about it.

Also, read less tech press.

</comment><comment><USER41> I used to feel like that when I was younger. Now many years later I haven't accomplished the goals I set years back, but I feel happy. I spend my days working on interesting problems and feel I'm learning so much all the time.

I'd say the key is concentrating on what you're doing that makes you happy. If coding is your passion and you're coding 50 hours a week now, you'd probably do the same if you were rich and famous. Or maybe you wouldn't have so much time for coding with everything else coming your way.

</comment><comment><USER42> I feel like I'm missing out from just the regular life that most people on HN seem to have. I work as a baker at a food chain, I make less than $20,000 a year, and I don't have a college degree. Hell, I don't even have a smartphone because I still can't afford one. And yet, here I am trying to stay in the know as I self-study to maybe become a programmer one day. But I certainly feel like I'm looking from the outside in, not really a part of the world that is embodied in this site.

</comment><comment><USER43> > people becoming instantly rich & famous in tech

Outliers, like lottery winners and "beating the house" Vegas. It happens, but very infrequently.

</comment><comment><USER44> Its all about hustle. I have a friend raking in millions a month now. He started with nothing, took no vacation for 5 years, but now he is enjoying the fruits of his labor. I have been on the sidelines for too long, missed out on the dotcom and the web 2.0 I am working on something now. I think trying to start something is still better odds than winning the powerball lottery.

</comment><comment><USER45> I'm socially isolated so I miss a bit of that interaction with other people stuff.

But, other than that, no, I don't feel like I'm missing out. I made some decidedly sub-optimal choices when I was younger and they continue to have an impact.

I tend to focus a lot on making my child's life better - more fun, more safe (without over-coddling protection), more exciting, more supported, etc etc.

</comment><comment><USER46> Oh, I thought this was going to be a "do you feel like you're missing out on life?" post.

No, I don't feel like I'm missing out on what you're talking about. But there's probably a party in your neighborhood a few houses down that you _are_ missing out on.

</comment><comment><USER47> Short answer - yes.

I'm not entirely convinced that there is anything to miss out on, but if there was, I'm certain that I'm missing it.

I attribute this to geography - I live 2,842 miles from the Valley and don't go to a feeder school for the Valley - the cultural gap is too great.

</comment><comment><USER48> For every person that "makes it", there are probably a million or two who do not.

Find your passion, do the best you can, learn, improve your skills and you might get lucky one day or just live a good life. Money is nice but its not everything.

</comment><comment><USER49> What if OP genuinely is missing out on something? I have followed this discussion, and a vast many people are equating 'Fear of Missing Out' with a 'Freedom of Missing Out'. The argument that the internet has made spatial disadvantage obsolete because (apparently) we can now call anybody, any-time, from anywhere is a myth. The thoughts of cold calling influential people in Silicon Valley to discuss a new coding project frankly terrifies me. I would much rather afford to bump into them casually and spark up a conversation the natural way. i.e: Over coffee, or by way of bumping into them randomly on the street. So many great things start that way, and I dare suggest the Googles and the Amazons were born naturally like that as they are insiders clubs.

There are many countries where the Internet is disagreeable and molasses slow compared to Silicon Valley, and also a vast many people who can not even afford a keyboard to type on, never mind having several Herman Miller chairs in the office with exposed brick walls with fixies hanging on them. I know a few friends who are making their office like that just to replicate Silicon Valley, but that is like wearing an olympic medal for a few minutes just to see what it is like winning the race, but without having to run it. Maybe OP wants that, if not for the part where spatial disadvantage disallows it, or for the part where simply not having access to capital disallows it. Fair enough, research suggests we are not in another bubble, but those studies did not factor in how cheap it is to start things now, and how much leverage we have. Product Hunt is a perfect example of how far we have come in terms of leverage. It is basically free now to 'start something' or commit to a cause.

I think OP is referring to the amount of shoestring businesses / bootstrappers that are sprouting from the woodwork because of pure opportunism and nothing else. Perhaps they do believe in their idea and are causing parties to happen. Perhaps they are stuck in a hype machine. The internet is, after all, the perfect hype machine. Social media (especially Twitter) has allowed ideas to become a dime a dozen but with no real traction behind them. Ideas are allowed to sprout but quickly become ephemera. Ideas usually stick around much longer when they are on Apache servers however; but that doesn't qualify those ideas any further - it just appears that way, and seems like the webmaster is on to something because money was thrown at the idea, but the webmaster is not following up on the idea. You still see sites that were setup 10 years ago that are only online because they are monetized by Adsense. It seems 'Founders' have become the new 1998 webmasters.

</comment><comment><USER50> No

</comment><comment><USER51> Yes

</comment><comment><USER52> _people becoming instantly rich & famous in tech_

Those guys are lottery winners, seriously. Now I am not saying they didn't work their asses off too, but for every one of them there are 100 or 1000 or 10000 people who were just as smart and worked just as hard and their companies went up in a puff of smoke anyway. Wishing you were them is pointless because they are not them either.

</comment><comment> guard-of-terra I miss out more about people relocating to live in Thailand, finding some source of income to support them, than about valuations and business success.

Physics is in crisis, the world becomes angrier and less capable, I don't see bright future ahead anyway.

</comment><comment><USER53> I felt that way during the first tech bubble. I was 17 in 2000, and it seemed like Exciting Things were happening far away, and here I was as a senior in high school in the middle of Pennsylvania.

Now that I'm older, I don't feel that way, because I know how the sausage is made and what the territory looks like. The people becoming "instantly rich and famous" are either (a) rich kids whose parents are laundering the family connections and wealth through VC or acqui-hire, or (b) deserving hard-working people whose "overnight" success took 10 years (we're just noticing them now, so it seems "instant", but there was a decade or more of hard work and sacrifice behind it) or (c) statistical outliers who can be likened to lottery winners.

I've looked into the soul of Silicon Valley and there is no there there. Don't get me wrong: there are individual companies and people doing great work and advancing the state of humanity, but the intersection between Real Technology and the celebrity personalities that dominate Silicon Valley is almost the empty set.

Most of the easy money is going to investors, upper management, and talentless celebrity hacks. People doing real work have a shot at some of the hard money, but it's not guaranteed that there will be any reward. (That's why it's called "hard money".)

As for "a big party going", well... there are a few things to keep in mind. From the ground, you might see "a cloud" as a concrete thing, but inside that cloud is just fog, and from the point of view of a water droplet there is just a semi-formless mist of other droplets. Things look different from outside than inside. Most people "in the party" are miserable about not being part of a more exclusive inner party. There's a certain fractal self-similarity to material striving that keeps at a constant level of misery (if they're inclined that way) no matter how far they rise.

Most likely, you were never invited to "the party" and you'll never get in, because it will have dissipated by the time you'd be eligible. The $5M/person acqui-hires (which, by the way, deliver 3 orders of magnitude less than that figure to the rank-and-file engineers actually building the shit) are favors to the well-connected parents of the founders, and the people making new discoveries in physics (or, in truth, doing just about anything that actually matters) are just as far away from the party crowd as you are.

If you're trying to get into the "startup scene" in 2015, my advice is, don't. Climbing the ladder this late is pointless because if you're not already most of the way up it, it'll dissipate before you've ascended. Focus on gaining lasting knowledge. Take the hard CS courses that pre-startup kids avoid because the workload interferes with "investor networking" events (that won't be fruitful, if you're doing real work, anyway). I'm not saying that you should dismiss CS or technology or programming or hard work (on the contrary, I'd say the opposite) but I think that you have no chance of getting into _this_ bubble world (and who knows when the next one will rise? I can't predict that) if you're coming into it this late.

What you're seeing is like Vegas at night. From 20 miles out, it's a glamorous and almost magical city in the desert, brilliant and alluring at all hours. Then you get there and it's seedy and pushy and unpleasant. Then morning comes, the whole world goes to sleep, and now you're alone in this hot, sun- ravaged ghost town.

What you envy is not real. At least, not for people like you and me. Making things is real, but you don't need to be in "the scene" to do that.</comment>


Did the LHC find the Higgs boson? - <AUTHOR> http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=3643

<comment><USER2> While the rumor was slightly interesting, the commentary was very interesting! It gives (with give and take :) ) a modest window into how folks at this level and in this discipline interact. A pleasant change from the more or less constant 'Apple this...' and 'SEOs that...'

<comment><USER3> _A pleasant change from the more or less constant 'Apple this...' and 'SEOs that...'_

That hasn't ever been the case in academic CS as far as I can see. In fact, in my experience academic CS looks pretty much the same as academic physics. The closest approximation in the CS community for this event was probably that P=?NP "paper" that Lipton posted a little while ago.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Answer: probably not.</comment>


Subcompact Publishing - <AUTHOR> http://craigmod.com/journal/subcompact_publishing/#fn-ref-subcompact-11

<comment><AUTHOR> > Certain kinds of pagination increase the complexity of an application by > orders of magnitude. The engineering efforts required to produce beautiful, > simple, indigenous, consistent — and fast — pagination are simply too high > to belong in the subcompact space.

Now, Tex offers an engine that does three of these five things. I don't know what "indigenous" means, and I wonder about what the "fast" requirement boils down to.</comment>


Reflexive is acquired by Amazon.com - <AUTHOR> http://www.reflexive.com/index.php?PAGE=Blog&BID=169 <comment><USER2> I don't know who Reflexive are, but that's one of the ugliest modern websites I've ever seen.</comment>


Woz on Dancing with the Stars - <AUTHOR> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoiGJMZjs0o&feature=bz301 Glad he's exploring his horizons I guess. I thought you guys may like this. <comment><USER2> Still, it's an amazing achievement considering he is a geek approaching 60. Hope I'll be just as sprightly when I get to that age.

</comment><comment><USER3> I don't understand how the scoring works. Was everyone invited back for the next week? Or there were some people that were judged lower than Woz?

Clearly he has having a good time.

<comment><USER4> This week was the premier. No one got booted on the premier episode. Next week, someone goes home.

(I'm a bit embarrassed to have the answer. Was at some friends' home, and they wanted to watch the show. I actually enjoyed it quite a bit. And I hope Steve stays on for a while and helps deliver the implicit message that "geeks" can be fun and good company.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> This would be much more awesome is Woz was grooving while riding around on his segway.

</comment><comment><USER6> -facepalms-</comment>


Artificial intelligence is going to supercharge surveillance - <AUTHOR> https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/23/16907238/artificial-intelligence-surveillance-cameras-security <comment><USER2> In other news: Technology will be used.</comment>


How we raised a $1.1M seed round without customers, revenue or even a product. - <AUTHOR> http://john-sheehan.com/post/58453831272/how-runscope-raised-a-1-1m-seed-round-without <comment><USER2> I raised a $1.1M seed round a few years ago without customers, revenue, or product. This is not unusual for a seed stage. What many entrepreneurs miss is the lens through which investments are made at each stage. That lens evolves over time.

Roughly:

(Seed) They are investing in your potential.

(A) They are investing in your market's potential.

(B) They are investing in your execution potential.

At the seed stage it is often not obvious that the market exists or that you can find it, nor is it obvious that you can execute a product once you establish the existence of a good market. Instead, they are making a guess on that later stuff and investing in your ability to take the company far enough that things like market and execution become clearer.

</comment><comment><USER3> Congratulations to the author and he does do a good job of negating the horse I'm about to beat to death, within the article itself.

Unfortunately, most people will just read the title of the post; which I wish the author would have spoken more about how awesome their domain knowledge is (or whatever factor he felt really led to their funding) as _most_ can't just walk up with just a story and land this type of money.

The catch-22 about the title is that it gives people hope, when they should not have any hope, if they think they can replicate his funding story easily.

<comment><AUTHOR> That was kind of the point though, there is no funding story that's repeatable. Maybe didn't emphasize that enough.

<comment><USER3> I appreciate the reply! I guess my only _sad face_ was bc I used to run a tech accelerator and I have seen how pervasive the title of your post actually is. That is, people just think that with an idea and a team then the money will come pouring in.

I think it would be good to have a follow on post with something that spoke to a) what key domain knowledge gave you a leg up b) what terms you got that let the investors feeling confident you would deliver without a product at the moment c) something that is repeatable to other founders.

To me, and I may be misguided, but it read more like a lottery-ticket funding rather than the hard work that and network that you had which shows your grind!

Just my two cents! Great read and congratulations again!

<comment><AUTHOR> > people just think that with an idea and a team then the money will come > pouring in.

If anyone thinks this, email me and I'll tell how much it's not the case. It was really hard. We got rejected A LOT. Like most companies. That said (and going back to the point I didn't make very well), every company is different. Don't let one person's experiences box you in.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> The primary problem with these "how we raised..." posts is that the authors rarely acknowledge that raising money with or without _x_ , _y_ and _z_ is in most cases largely a function of the current market and economic environment and less a function of their "story" or fundraising wizardry. In other words, if you have an idea, decent track record, the financial markets are not depressed and capital is cheap, you can probably find somebody who will cut you a check.

Unfortunately, during down cycles, you don't see many "how we failed to raise money even though we had x, y and z" blog posts, even though plenty of those stories exist.

<comment><AUTHOR> Fair point. Someone still has to put all the pieces together at the right time though.

<comment><USER4> Sure. Don't get me wrong: not everybody can raise money from professional investors, even when market conditions are working in favor of founders.

But all the attention that gets focused on fundraising (instead of building a successful, self-sustaining business) is akin to focusing on putting on one's shoes instead of actually running and completing the marathon.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is akin to a new hire getting excited about a compensation package of salary + 100,000 shares. 100,000 shares, out of how many outstanding? 1 million shares? 10 billion shares? He raised $1.1M, but at what valuation? After reading the article, I was left wondering if the valuation was low. The team has not proven that they have reached product/market fit or found a scalable marketing channel which makes this a risky bet for investors.

<comment><AUTHOR> I can't discuss the terms obviously. All I can say is that we felt they were very fair.

<comment><USER5> I didn't expect you to discuss the terms, but the amount raised doesn't really mean anything given there's no context.

<comment><USER6> It doesn't mean nothing. There's a range of equity that will be given away during any round. I don't know how high the variance is but it's probably less than 30% and more than 10%.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> All these posts about raising large amounts of money make me wish for follow- up posts about how the money will be, or was, spent. Without customers, revenue, or product, how do you figure out how much you need?

</comment><comment><USER8> This post doesn't really say much at all. I think he is leaving out a lot of information.

<comment><AUTHOR> What would you like to know?

<comment><USER8> I think a lot of people never really know the true reasons why something happens. I find it hard to believe these were only three reasons. Did you ask the investors why they invested and this is what they said or is it your own feeling? Plus you don't really go into details on the points so I didn't really learn anything or find it useful.

<comment><AUTHOR> The investors told us it was attractive for the three reasons I listed: team, market, and plan of attack.

Edit: I left out more specifics for length reasons. May do a follow up post on more of the details.

<comment><USER6> I'd love to know more about the plan, and the milestones you set for yourself. Without a product in market, how did you come up with feasible numbers to reach for?

Here are a bunch more questions just as fodder:

How much did you have to adapt your pitch based on the investor? Did you have multiple pitches, geared to things you knew about an investor going in? Or did you do more of your adaptation on the fly, based on the reaction of the investor?

How many nos did you get before a yes?

Where would you say you wasted the most time, and you would not pitch that type of angel, or not pursue that kind of introduction, etc, next time?

Thanks for the post, and looking forward to your follow up(s)!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Good story? This sounds like a business plan with numbers replaced by envolving words. But a plan nevertheless.

Mentors may say what they want about how founders should hustle to find a business model and have traction to prove you found, but at the end of the day, all a investor wants is to believe on a plan (or story).

</comment><comment><USER10> Besides the fact that the author is clearly an 'API-go-to-guy' (ex-Twilio, ex- IFTTT so I'm sure he knows his stuff!) I wonder if this is also because of the ecosystem which is OK with betting on the confidence of the founder.

Good stuff!

<comment><AUTHOR> Definitely. I don't think we could have done this outside SF. It's a very friendly environment for dev tools/API companies right now.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Neat. I love [http://requestb.in/](http://requestb.in/) which you guys recently acquired? Can you share more about plans if any for that service? Thanks!

<comment><AUTHOR> No immediate plans other than making sure it's up and running reliably. The 'Request Captures' feature of Runscope does essentially the same thing with some other niceties added. That's where we hope people end up.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Worthwhile story and I've always thought that entering a space that already exists is a better bet than trying to create a market.

Selling to developers can be tough because they aren't shy about telling you what details you left out that is just obvious and necessary according to _them_.

Do you envision the "product" initially being willingly customized when a well-paying customer comes along or do you feel it's already viable for a wide variety of needs?

What differentiates you from say apiary.io ?

</comment><comment><USER13> I like how Grace Hopper is making a bug report. Nice touch.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> > How many apps can you imagine not talking to a remote web service in the > future?

Since server based structures make it very easy for intel agencies to gain mass access via one contact point, I'd actually suppose the answer to the question above will increment faster than thought in the post Snowdon era.

</comment><comment><USER15> Like someone else mentioned earlier, can you please elaborate on how you ended up with 1.1M as the appropriate amount to raise?

How do you estimate how much you should raise without any revenue or customers?

</comment><comment><USER16> How big did you estimate / project the market / potential revenue for your company to be?

</comment><comment><USER17> WTF, I wish Ben would print up some money and give them to me. I'll only ask for 500k.</comment>


Some functions may have negative complexity and I'm worried for my crypto - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@maiavictor/some-functions-may-have-negative-complexity-im-worried-for-my-crypto-c53f6e7343d3 <comment><USER2> Is this just a very smart optimizer that can reduce

      tot=x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x

to

      x2=x+x
      x4=x2+x2
      x8=x4+x4
      tot=x+x2+x4+x8

or I am missing something?

Note that the first code is O(N=15) and the second one is O(log(N)=4).</comment>


Ask HN: Can someone teach me tensors? - <AUTHOR> I have undergraduate engineering background. I am looking to pick up tensors so that I can delve into GR. Any good resource suggestions? Or better still anyone free to give some lessons on Skype? Will appreciate it. <comment><AUTHOR> Found 2 good lecture notes by t'Hooft & Sean Carroll which talk about tensors in relationship with GR [http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~gadda001/goodtheorist/gr.htm...](http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~gadda001/goodtheorist/gr.html)</comment>


When having fun on Twitter went awry for Brent - <AUTHOR> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/disability-45901125 <comment><USER2> In the end, they're optimistic that Twitter can be a positive and fun experience, but I don't share that optimism.

<comment><USER3> I agree, this article is basically a long list of unfortunate and terrible things.

If you can't even keep the happy achievements of a guy with downs from descending into an angry internet mob, then there really isn't much hope for a positive future for twitter, is there?

<comment><USER4> That's because the article is focused on the negatives, not the positives. There are negative people everywhere, in life. You have bad waitresses and good waitresses, people that cut you off in traffic and people that let you in. It's part of being alive.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> > "Do you want a medal?" one woman quipped.

> "Do you mean a man rather than a child Brent? It comes across as a man > rather than a woman and I'm sure you don't believe that women can't choose > their clothes and hair!" the academic tweeted.

As difficult as it must be to live with Down's Syndrome, I feel so much more pity towards the kind of people who gets pleasure criticizing the mentally disabled on the internet.

<comment><USER6> But did the first one deserve to be "hounded" and harassed until she left twitter? Those people are just as bad IMO.

> But some of Brent's followers hounded the woman, even after she deleted the > tweet. Jacqui tried to rein it in and said she would deal with any "bother" > on the account, but eventually the woman was forced off Twitter.

The mother DM'd the woman and she apologized immediately. Lynch mob internet justice can be equally destructive as some thoughtless likely uninformed (that he had down syndrome) tweet.

<comment><USER7> Even if her Tweet was uninformed, it's still not a nice thing to say. One of the big problems with social media is that people have very different standards about what they will say on the internet vs. real life. It wouldn't have happened if she hadn't decided to be a jerk to someone she didn't know.

<comment><USER8> People are sarcastic in real life too. "Want a medal?" is usually harmless.

<comment><USER9> Would you drop a sarcastic comment into someone else's conversation in a public space?

The main lesson here, as always, is don't tweet... it's a context-less shitshow.

<comment><USER10> I've seen it done. Sometimes justified sometimes not, but in no case was either party relentlessly hounded after the immediate incident.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Wonderful article. More power to Jacqui and Brent. I'm seriously impressed with the position they take here on various matters. She's a minister and she seems to walk the walk more than most I've known. That heartens me. I've known a few people like that and they are always wonderfully life giving to be acquainted with.

I live with a serious disability and I have raised two special needs sons. They are adults and still live with me. Neither has ever had a job, though they nursed me back to health after doctors essentially wrote me off for dead.

So I have some firsthand experience with the challenges involved in trying to talk about life with a disability or a special needs relative. It's challenging in all situations.

I don't know that it is really worse on the internet. It certainly gets magnified by the fact that you can be talking at so very many more people than you are likely to be dealing with in meat space. But I am generally more open online than in person about the special needs in the family. I find it vastly worse to deal with the crap in person.

In most cases, ignorant, appalling remarks on the internet won't materially harm me in the same way and to the same degree that ignorance and prejudice IRL can rapidly become a huge problem. There are ways in which I do feel materially harmed by such on the internet, but it's just vastly more problematic in a very immediate way to have people in meat space putting their ignorance in my way.

</comment><comment><USER12> When I read something like this my first instinct is always to do a root- cause-analysis (5 why's) like I would with a software problem. I recommend trying it.

What went wrong?

\- An innocent person has heard hurtful things about himself on twitter

\- Why? (Is it Twitter is too negative? Or Twitter exposes you to greater range/quantity of remarks? Or because his mom made an account for him? ) All good questions, let's go with the first one

\- Why is twitter negative? (Is it just a convenient place to expose the negativity people always feel? Is it just a certain subset of bad users who enjoy creating drama for kicks? Or does the environment lead to escalating miscommunication/conflict?)

\- Why does the environment lead to escalating miscommunication/conflict? (Because you might not recognize if a tweet is by somebody with down syndrome when an online medium? Because it's easy to misunderstand somebody if you judge them on isolated remarks? Because a lot of discussion is on emotional topics which leads to impulsive tweets? Because it's easier to get angry at a remark than a person?)

...

</comment><comment><USER13> For me, the more shocking discovery in that article is that there are actually organisations that consider genetic screening for Down's Syndrome to be eugenic discrimination.

Although people with Down's syndrome have a high likelihood of passing on Down's syndrome if they do have children, inherited cases are extremely rare.

</comment><comment><USER14> What I found most interesting in this article is the awareness that because of early testing, Down's Syndrome is going to be less common. That's a really heavy question for society to consider: this is a genuine issue of technology having serious implications.

Ironically, the article ends with "often, disabled people find that whatever they do becomes political to others".

</comment><comment><USER15> Twitter has changed so much since the beginning. It used to be a "smaller" community of people who posted content or brain-thoughts in good faith. Over time it's gotten so incredibly edgy and hostile in almost every type of content whether it be technology, sports, or some other thing.

Tragedy of the commons.

</comment><comment><USER16> Twitter is the worst platform ever. It brings out the absolute worst in people, rewarding for shock.

<comment><USER17> Unfortunately, I have seen worse. I guess we can be thankful that *chan boards never became mainstream.

<comment><USER18> chan boards would've died had they become mainstream. I'm glad that never happened, many of those communities are worth preserving.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I can't help but wonder what the hell did the family expect in this case.

The internet is not full of assholes... Life is full of assholes, and the internet lets us all express ourselves anonymously. That's all there is to it

<comment><USER19> I think it's more nuanced than that. How about: we are all assholes sometimes, the internet (and Twitter in particular) makes it harder to keep those reactions in check.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Stories like these tend to convince me that the total balance of having social networks in the world is utterly negative. They are the equivalent of leverage in options trading for human interactions and communications.</comment>


Show HN: McLaren College – an online bootcamp for Indians with no up-front fees - <AUTHOR> https://mclarencollege.in/ <comment><AUTHOR> I'm the founder of McLaren College. You can think of it as kind of like "Lambda School for India" \- the goal is to train people to earn an income from computer programming in return for a share of their income. Happy to answer any questions :)</comment>


Remembering David Unaipon: the man on the Australian fifty dollar note - <AUTHOR> http://www.sbs.com.au/nitv/article/2016/09/28/remembering-david-unaipon-man-fifty-dollar-note <comment><USER2> I wish I had spent more time looking up the people on the Australian and NZ notes. They're certainty more interesting than the US's dead presidents.</comment>


Face Recognition Comes to Picasa Web Albums  - <AUTHOR> http://www.labnol.org/software/face-recognition-in-picasa-web-albums/4373/

<comment><USER2> I spent a couple hours this weekend trying to find some software to go through the 1000s of photos on my desktop and do face detection / recognition. I didn't find anything useful. Riya seems cool, but there is no way I am going to upload all my pictures. Picasa web albums requires all the pics online, too. But, it looks like I might just have to wait a little bit longer and I can upgrade my version of Windows Live Photo (which is actually a really slick piece of software) and get what I am hoping for: [http://www.labnol.org/software/windows-live-photo-gallery- fa...](http://www.labnol.org/software/windows-live-photo-gallery-facial- recognition/3966/)</comment>


A Game created by a 17 year old programmer - <AUTHOR> https://tristangoossens.itch.io/snake-go <comment><AUTHOR> Check out his github page

[https://github.com/tristangoossens/snake- go](https://github.com/tristangoossens/snake-go)</comment>


UTF-9 and UTF-18 - <AUTHOR> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UTF-9_and_UTF-18 <comment><USER2> China actually has researched into one of the RFC jokes [http://slashdot.org/story/04/07/03/1324219/china-deploys- ipv...](http://slashdot.org/story/04/07/03/1324219/china-deploys-ipv9-network)

<comment><USER3> Some more detail on China's ipv9 [http://www.circleid.com/posts/explaining_chinas_ipv9/](http://www.circleid.com/posts/explaining_chinas_ipv9/)

<comment><USER4> It's interesting to read the April Fool's RFC1606, which was written a little over 20 years ago, and see references to light switches and lightbulbs with IP addresses.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> One would hope UTF-7 was also a joke, alas it is not. I had to implement support for it once. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UTF-7](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UTF-7)

<comment><USER6> The worst thing about UTF-7 is that it has multiple valid representations of the same string.

I'm convinced that the primary use of UTF-7 is hiding malicious input as different characters [1], as a possible exploit against systems that support UTF-7 for no reason.

[1] [http://nedbatchelder.com/blog/200704/xss_with_utf7.html](http://nedbatchelder.com/blog/200704/xss_with_utf7.html)

<comment><USER7> This is correct, and is why (afaik) most modern browsers no longer support it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I originally thought that UTF-9 would be perfect for Iain M Banks's Marain language [1].

Damn that continuation bit!

[1]: [http://trevor-hopkins.com/banks/a-few-notes-on- marain.html](http://trevor-hopkins.com/banks/a-few-notes-on-marain.html)

</comment><comment><USER9> I was hoping to read about a text format with a parity bit!

<comment><USER10> That would be a bit of an overkill now, 1 parity bit for every 8 bits of information? Also, text is a representation format, not a transfer/storage format, so I reckon it's not really the job of the character encoding to do error detection.

Yes, I know, I'm taking this way too seriously. :)

<comment><USER11> Actually, with 13 bits you could do in-character single bit error correction.</comment></comment></comment>