Why professors, pundits, and policy wonks misunderstand the world - <AUTHOR> http://thesmartset.com/intellectuals-are-freaks/ <comment><USER2> Glad to see someone acknowledging the myopic view of most intellectuals.

During my time in academia (PhD), I'll admit now I had very little idea of what life was like for the majority of people.

Since then I've been living among many working class and poverty-level folks. Average household income in my neighborhood is <$22K (U.S.). As a result, my thinking has changed to unions are overall good ideas, UBI is foolish, and ramping up education investment is pretty minimal in its returns. Creating real neighborhood community (work, education, family, etc) is the best solution... it's just really hard to do!

<comment><USER3> > ramping up education investment is pretty minimal in its returns. Creating > real neighborhood community (work, education, family, etc) is the best > solution

I'm confused about your stance on education. At first blush you seem to be diminishing it's impact while promoting it. Care to elaborate?

<comment><USER4> If by education GP means higher education then I can possibly add something:

IIRC there already seems to be a shortage of craftsmen (carpenters, welders, plumbers etc) and a surplus of people with various higher educations.

<comment><USER5> a shortage that's not reflected in the wages for skilled jobs (outside of powerful unions)

<comment><USER4> In some places it has been.

Man I sometimes wished I had a valid mechanicans or electricians certification during the oil boom here ;-)

<comment><USER5> and now you wouldn't have a job.

in the uk, the plumbers/electricians are lucky to make £20/hr.

<comment><USER6> In the UK, plumbers and electricians can make more than developers do.

It depends where they work - London and the SE pay a lot better than the run down cities in the North - and how good their network is.

I used to know someone with a well-paid City job who retrained as a plumber. He earns almost as much as he did and is considerably less stressed. The only downside is occasional snobbery.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> >For generations, populists of various kinds have argued that intellectuals are unworldly individuals out of touch with the experiences and values of most of their fellow citizens. While anti-intellectual populists have often been wrong about the gold standard or the single tax or other issues, by and large they have been right about intellectuals.

So... intellectuals were right about the issues that they were focused on, but somehow populists are right that they are out of touch? Those seem contradictory to me, if they are problematically out of touch, then why were their ideas still correct? Who cares? At worst these seem like separate qualities, clearly being out of touch didn't make them wrong about the actual issues directly.

<comment><USER8> Those were two cherry-picked examples of things intelligentsia got right. It was not a claim that they get everything or almost everything right.

I generally share the author's opinions about intellectuals as a category, and the gold standard was, in my opinion, a particularly good choice of an example that intellectuals get right where the common man is often quite wrong. The same concrete connection to the real world that so often leads the common man to be more correct about some very simple things that the intelligentsia misleads them here, because money is not a very concrete thing. It can seem like it is, because you've got this "cash" and this "gold" and it all seems very concrete, but the true driver of the economy, how people subjectively measure value, is very abstract.

But intellectuals can also say some blitheringly idiotic things, like promoting the glorious Five Year Plans when anybody who has ever had to make real plans for the future knows that you generally encounter important divergences in the first _week_ of implementation, or that battle plans never survive contact with the enemy, etc. I also do _not_ endorse economics in general; it is true that "the gold standard" is not good, but economic's track record of telling us what _is_ good is bad.

Intellectual pursuits can be a very powerful and noble thing, but when it fails to correctly ground itself in reality it can become a very powerful and evil thing. I have great respect for intellectuals who admit error and craft new theories or ideas in response to failure and great, great contempt for the majority of those who fancy themselves intellectuals who instead cling to words and theory far, far beyond what is justified when evidence of error confronts them. (Yes, one can't drop a theory the instant one slight deviation is seen, but there are theories still alive today in the intellectual world that should have died decades, and in some particularly sad cases, centuries ago.)

<comment><USER9> It's impossible to take you seriously when you use Stalin's Five Year Plans as evidence that "Intellectuals" are negative. That's a flawed argument on so many levels:

1) It's ridiculous to conflate modern science and Stalin. It's worse than ridiculous.

2) Even if you can somehow convince yourself that it's reasonable to treat Stalin and modern scientists as a homogenous pool, Stalin's actions worked out quite well for Stalin. Which was pretty obviously his goal.

3) Your core argument is 'some systematic approaches to understanding have failed; so we should give up'. That's defeatist nonsense.

4) Your secondary argument is the intellectuals are actually good (and you pretend to respect them), but some aren't, therefore intellectuals are bad. That's not even an argument.

Please down vote me if you are an extremist ideologue.

<comment><USER10> Take a breath.

<comment><USER9> It just sucks that the HN mods think it's fine for dishonest ideological warriors like Jerf to casually conflate modern academia and Stalin, just because he did so without using profanity.

It's such an intense and personal attack; and it's so wildly dishonest... It completely eliminates all possibility of a useful conversation in a single sentence. It's poo.

<comment><USER10> I think you're taking something personally that isn't at all intended that way, and I think that's making it difficult for you to appreciate the nuance in the statement to which you've responded. I understand why and I don't blame you for it, but I hope you're able to take a step back from the passion of the moment and reconsider; on the one hand, I think there's useful insight here, and on the other, I know it's not pleasant to feel yourself put so thoroughly on the defensive that you have to respond this aggressively, and I'm sorry to see anyone go through that, especially when it may not actually be necessary.

'jerf didn't say that academia is evil because Stalin, but rather that intellectualism which becomes too far divorced from reality can be an extremely dangerous force; he cited Soviet central economic planning as an extreme example of the sort of danger to which he refers.

I don't think it is controversial to say that Soviet economic policies were derived primarily from a political theory which was developed by people whom it's accurate to describe as "intellectuals", in the demonymic usage we seem to be taking as conventional in this thread. I also don't think it's controversial to say that these policies produced widespread, severe privation among the population on whom they were tried.

And I don't think it is accurate, or fair, to say that 'jerf meant this example as a general indictment of modern academia. Nothing in his comment seems to me to suggest anything of the sort. But I can see how, if I were myself an academic and an "intellectual", I might take some of what he did say as a very direct attack on my identity and sense of self-worth, and respond to that rather than to the arguments actually being made.

I hope I'm not coming across as patronizing here. I'm really not trying to be. It's just that, as a tradesman, I don't really have a dog in this fight, and as someone who's worked among academics in the past, I've had the opportunity to develop some insight into some patterns of thought which people who work in that paradigm might share. Among those, I think, is a general feeling of being constantly under attack by a populace which is both ignorant of what science and academia actually do, on the one hand, and on the other deliberately misinformed by a variety of demagogues for their own political benefit.

It wouldn't surprise me to see someone, who is accustomed to what I'd almost call this siege mentality, to react aggressively to anything which looked even a little like a critical analysis of the value of academia or intellectualism as a whole. It's very natural to respond in such fashion to an attack on one's livelihood. But I don't think what is going on here really is such an attack, and maybe the conversation we could all have about what 'jerf is saying would be more interesting and mutually satisfactory than the one we currently seem to be having.

Either that, or I'm completely wrong about what's going on and I've totally misread the entire situation. I don't think that's the case, but how can I be sure?

<comment><USER11> > he cited Soviet central economic planning as an extreme example of the sort > of danger to which he refers.

Any intellectualism that's divorced from reality and impervious to critique and verification does not deserve to be called intellectualism. It's ideology. There's nothing preventing you from making 5 year plans, as long as you adjust them continuously enough. The word to best describe the Soviet "intellectuals" you mentioned would be "ideologue". A less polite way would be "a sold-out who sells credibility to a government that pays for it".

<comment><USER8> "Any intellectualism that's divorced from reality and impervious to critique and verification does not deserve to be called intellectualism."

True, but that's a definitional debate. I would be happy to see the huge pile of ideology today masquerading as academia correctly renamed, but before that can happen it seems a lot of people (in the general sense, not targeting this statement at any individual) must be introduced to the idea that there _are_ a lot of things currently labeled "academic" that are just ideology.

It's hard because you have to separate it on a case-by-case basis. I'm broadly unimpressed by most of what is called sociology _but_ Jonathon Haidt particularly impresses me, for instance. I'm sure there are others who would impress me if I took the time to learn. But the field as a whole seem to have a gestalt consensus that strikes me as quite resistant to falsification.

<comment><USER11> It's very hard to falsify something when you can't run experiments and the number of samples is very limited and the subject of your study changes all the time. Even something supposedly more grounded like Economics suffers from both humans that are not perfectly rational and from "theories" that are nothing more than propaganda (think Mises)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> This article is saying smart people don't understand how the world works because most of the world's people are average intelligence. This sentiment is completely ridiculous, yet I'm sure a lot of people believe it because it makes them feel superior. Pundits and professors are often wrong, but it isn't because they are highly educated. I still trust the opinion of a professor rather than someone working at Pizza Hut.

<comment><USER13> > _This article is saying smart people don 't understand how the world works > because most of the world's people are average intelligence._

Not at all. It says highly educated people are out of touch with the realities of life of average folks because these categories have very different ranges of first-hand experience.

<comment><USER12> Why do you think they have different ranges of first-hand experiences? It is undeniable that by any objective measure professors are smarter (in the sense of being better able to tackle intellectual problems) than the average population. Do you honestly think someone working at Burger King has a better understanding of the world than a professor? I urge you to actually have a conversation with such a person.

<comment><USER14> Well, that would depend on what you mean by "the world." Professors have first hand knowledge of a very particular set of social practices and institutions. These tend to be very _important_ practices and institutions, but they are only directly experienced by a small group of people. Someone working at Burger King will typically have participated in a quite different set of practices and institutions. And there are a lot more of these people. Therefore the Burger King employee's experience with these practices and institutions yields first hand experience that is directly applicable to the lives of many more other people than the professor's.

I do think it is a mistake to leap from this conclusion to the much broader one that Burger King employees understand "the world" better. Not only does that claim not mean much of anything, it also discounts the fact that the institutions and practices to which a professor is exposed may be more powerful, despite having fewer participants. But I think GP's similar and more specific claim, that "highly educated people are out of touch with the realities of life of average folks," is very plausible.

<comment><USER15> But if what the professor is theorizing about is, say, labor conditions for the less-educated and less-well-off worker, then the Burger King worker knows in a way that the professor doesn't, no matter how many statistics the professor looks at.

<comment><USER10> "Something something anecdote something plural something data," someone invariably said, having not yet realized that most people live anecdotal lives in an anecdotal world.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> What a confusing article and discussion! I have a vague feeling we are witnessing a very significant breakdown of something, but I'm not sure what it is. So I'll just post some random thoughts

\- The idea of educating intelligenzia by having them work on the fields for a year sounds a bit too much like the cultural revolution of China in the 1960's. It was bad.

\- It seems very silly to me to question the value of education. Learning about earlier mistakes is a great way to avoid repeating those mistakes. Learning is good.

\- If education is only available for those with a lot of wealth, it certainly brings about both an alienating effect and a lot of bitterness. That's too bad. I'm from a country with free universities and government subsidized students' loans. I think it's a good system, couldn't have afforded any university education without it, being from a poor family.

\- In the discussion an idea seems to loom that a less informed opinion is evened out by the fact that more people share it. This I can not abide, although it is the basic idea of democracy. I always thought democracy is mostly a safety measure against tyrants and a pretty ineffective mode of government in its weakest. An enlightened democracy is much better than a populist one. Both are better than a non-democracy, at least most of the time.

\- The difference between an enlightened democracy and a populist democracy is evident in its leaders. John Stuart Mill was an enlightened democrat for one. The bad ones can be spotted out by their spitefulness.

\- Too bad some populists riding on the tide of anti-intellectualism have managed to turn democracies into tyrannies. Sometimes ships capsize.

</comment><comment><USER17> Very American-centric (but then this is by someone who helped found the "New America Foundation"); for instance outside the US Academia is mostly supported by governments, not gifts. Intellectuals all over can still have their heads up their asses, but that's not particularly new. The figure of the out-of- touch intellectual was common in the 19th century (e.g. Peter in War and Peace).

Many professors do realize that their lives are quite different from those of most folks, but they're not often found in American elite institutions, so they don't show up on CNN.

<comment><USER10> > outside the US Academia is mostly supported by governments, not gifts

Inside the US, too. Many of our academic institutions were _founded_ on the strength of such gifts, but that's hardly where their money comes from today.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> The isolation of academia from reality is so large that you almost have to say it is deliberate.

In particular, when it comes the issues of the humanities that revolve around "how should you live your life?"; a professor who is tenured has nothing to say to people subject to the "flexible economy" other than to implant false conciousness.

<comment><USER19> The isolation of the intellectual and the pundit is larger than the question of the university.

Human civilization has been based on increasing specialization and that specialization has been both an adaptation and a marker of the ruling elite - the first specialists were essentially priests, which makes it clear specialization has always a signal[1] of power even if said specialization involved some efforts find truthful representations of the world.

The scientific method, which to some extent verifies specialized knowledge and beliefs, is much younger than specialization and it's much harder to apply to knowledge about how human - both because human society is hard to do repeatable experiments on and because it can offend the existing specialized beliefs that order society - religion, political beliefs, morality, etc.

[1]Broadly, a display signifying various evolutionary or social traits. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signalling_theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signalling_theory)

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> "The fact that we members of the intellectual professions are quite atypical of the societies in which we live tends to distort our judgment..." << Someone care to explain to me how being atypical distorts my judgement? This piece is not very substanative beyond enumerating how PPPs are different, it then merely says "they don't understand because of their difference." That seems rather like ad hominem.

<comment><USER21> I see nothing wrong with it. I am very sure I don't understand the situation of poor working people. It has nothing to do with my IQ but with the fact that I don't live there live, never have.

What makes you think you know about other people's lives if you don't live among and with and as them? Just reading a few essays now and then? You would not accept that view if a committed layperson tried to give advice to physicists (referring to yesterdays thread that pointed to [https://aeon.co/ideas/what-i-learned-as-a-hired- consultant-f...](https://aeon.co/ideas/what-i-learned-as-a-hired-consultant- for-autodidact-physicists)) but instead insist they'd have to study physics and not just read a few papers. Thinking the issues of the "working class" are different because "how difficult can it be" doesn't seem consistent or right to me.

<comment><USER20> I'm not claiming that I know anything about other people's lives. In fact I might go so far as to say that when it comes to understanding the world as a whole trying to do so by enumerating the personal experiences of all the members of the human race might not be the best way to do it. Our brains create the world for us, they tell us things and give us imperatives that even the smartest of us often don't realize. Most importantly the lie to us, all of us. Reality is not a matter of experience, when an intellectual makes a statement from his experience he is just as likely to be wrong as anyone else. What tends to set some intellectuals apart is that the occasionally apply data to a situation. I will grant you that because they do this on occasion they are far (infinitely some might argue) more likely to think that explantations that actually come from their limited (fallible) experience come from data.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Couldn't I just as easily state "the french-fry cook doesn't know anything about the life of a philosopher"?

Everybody's view of the world is limited by their own experiences. Does that mean everybody therefore misunderstands the world?

<comment><USER23> Yes, you certainly could state that. I think the point is that the french fry cook is much less likely to have an outsized influence on public policy compared to the philosopher/professor/pundit.

<comment><USER24> And, in particular, there are many, many more french fry cooks than philosophers.

So the french fry cook understands the perspective of a larger proportion of people in the world than the philosopher does.

Or so the argument goes. I'd disagree -- a large part of academic education, the humanities, is about learning to understand the perspectives of others. I'd say the philosopher understands the french fry cook's perspective better than vice versa, and that the philosopher is better positioned to misunderstand /less/ across all walks of life (though misunderstanding is inevitable) than most everyone else.

For intellectuals trained exclusively in STEM/social science who sprint from the humanities as quickly as humanly possible, yes the critique is spot on.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> To put it in perspective, a recent research study[1] conducted by a team of elite PhD economics researchers discovered the astonishing fact that people who face a sudden unexpected financial crisis (such as medical bills, car breakdown, job loss) are surprisingly less likely to become homeless if they can pay their rent/mortgage, while those who cannot pay for their home are more likely to become homeless.

(In truth, they went in-depth in calculating percentages and timelines and cost-benefits, etc. That summary trivializes their work.) But the basics of this discovery made by this elite team of academic researchers is something that every single working-class person in the country, even high school dropouts, knows as a simple basic fact of everyday daily life.

The idea that you would need to educate and train several people for many years, to the level of being professors at top colleges, then assemble a team and give them a grant to do a study to discover such a common part of daily life seems a bit ridiculous to non-academics.

[1] [http://science.sciencemag.org/content/353/6300/694](http://science.sciencemag.org/content/353/6300/694)

</comment><comment><USER26> Just because we have Brexit, Trump and the rise of populists everywhere doesnt mean that pundits have suddenly strayed. Pundits have since the time of Socrates been out of touch with society. What i see as the failure of today's pundits is lack of rigor, perseverance and their tendency to lazily put their eggs in questionable baskets (e.g. universal income). O tempora, o mores, this is the world of 140-character-worshippers and high h-indexes.

</comment><comment><USER27> Here's a cached link to the text from this article if anyone is having problem with the link above:

[http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://thesmartset.com/intellectuals- are-freaks/&num=1&strip=1&vwsrc=0)

</comment><comment><USER5> witness the hysteria about brexit among academics and london based commentators who have no idea about the reality of life in britain

</comment><comment><USER28> Even though I have a Master's of Science in Computer Science, I also spent a few years of my youth (more than they suggest in this article) working as a groundskeeping for several apartment buildings across town. Mowing, weeding, edging, planting, etc.

On the flip side, my father had a PhD in Physics and taught at the local university. I believe I probably did better than most when it came to genes and funding, but I graduated high school with people who got up and milked the cows before coming into school and I know their lifestyle as well as my own.

I think this article itself is out-of-touch.

</comment><comment><USER29> An easier explanation: variation.

Systems can be tremendously complex. There are countless unknown and unknowable variables in play. Moreover, the interactions between those variables can also be unknown and unknowable.

The intellectual world (academia) is based upon professors and schools who can teach the "right way" of doing things and thinking. That's how PHDs work--you have to come up with a "new" idea to get your PHD. As you can see, it creates a conflict of interest.

It would be much better if academia taught simple principles, variability, and how to think.

</comment><comment><USER30> pg's essays are a nice antidote to some of this nonsense.

One that stood out for me was the idea of cities that concentrate intellectuals, which was studied much more deeply by pg in "Cities and Ambition".

<comment><USER13> I don't think this article contradicts anything that PG says. These are just different facets of the broad reality out there. What PG says applies pretty well to the elite group who create startups and push technology forward. This article highlights the discrepancy in first-hand experience between elites and average folks.

Both are valid.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> This is, frankly, crap. It both ignores the diversity of experience that people that are _not_ "professors, pundits, and policy wonks" have, and implicitly dismisses the idea that an understanding of the world can be gained by systematic study of the world (what academics actually engage in) that is superior to what is gained by isolated, unsystematic, experience with some small slice of it that happens to be at a lower socioeconomic status.

Its essentially a radical rejection of the _idea_ of study and transmissible, shareable knowledge of the world.

<comment><USER32> I don't disagree, but maybe part of what's trying to be communicated here is that systematic study of the world is not what's happening at times.

When I say this I think of the anecdote in the article about how "intellectuals" prescribe more education as a panacea for social reform instead of the ideas offered by the author. This as a possible case of their own biases precluding a systematic approach.

As I write this, the "frankly crap" part comes to mind again. There's not much substantive here, just a bunch of opinions.

<comment><USER31> > I don't disagree, but maybe part of what's trying to be communicated here is > that systematic study of the world is not what's happening at times.

If that was the problem the piece hoped to address (and it certainly _is_ a problem in, e.g., media punditry -- though I'd argue that's not because of any general problem with "academics" but with the process by which media pundits get selected), one would expect that it would say so, and that the solution would be some better scrutiny to assure prescriptions come from systematic study, not a solution unconnected to the problem like suggesting that "every professor, opinion journalist, and foundation expert, as a condition of career advancement, had to spend a year or two working in a shopping mall, hotel, hospital, or warehouse."

EDIT: Additionally, if this was the issue, you'd expect that the author would actually support the argument with evidence from systematic study supporting the nature and source of the problem and the utility of the recommended solution.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> I was having trouble loading the page, so here's a cached version I used: [http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:l3RsdPT...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:l3RsdPTwvKUJ:thesmartset.com/intellectuals- are-freaks/&num=1&strip=1&vwsrc=0)

</comment><comment><USER34> Interesting, but without any real suggestion of why being statistically rarer than the average somehow makes people blind to broader realities. It's just slipped in there, around the middle that intellectuals, "...tend to be both biased and unaware of their own bias." Well sure, everyone is, that's not a helpful or insightful statement, it's just an incredibly safe bet.

<comment><USER15> But intellectuals are supposed to be above that. They're supposed to be objective, or at least able to honestly see their bias. And they're failing at that.

By the way, if I understand correctly, this was the death blow to logical positivism. Michael Polanyi pointed out that logical positivism required objective observers, and all we had were human beings, who were never really objective.

<comment><USER34> > _But intellectuals are supposed to be above that. They 're supposed to be > objective, or at least able to honestly see their bias. And they're failing > at that._

Really, no, absolutely not. The bias is assumed, that's why double-blind is the gold standard too. I'd argue that at its best, intellectualism is all about building a deeper awareness of our limitations and foibles, while developing systems to compensate for them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> This link is in first position, was submitted 20 minutes ago and has 14 points, yet the host is unreachable. I'm interested in knowing if people actually read the article or upvoted the title?

<comment><USER36> It would book interesting if HN tracked which upvotes come from people who actually clicked the link. Maybe that would be too intrusive or brittle to implement, but the data could be interesting and might improve the ranking algorithm.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Anyone else getting this error message?

Error establishing a database connection</comment>


Today's Most Valuable Tech Companies Are Time Machines - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/s/no-mercy-no-malice/time-machines-species-failure-8d059c438065 <comment><AUTHOR> Any company that creates more than $10 billion in shareholder value does one of two things: extend time (more time, saving time) or enhance time.</comment>


We Can't Find One Leftist Mark Zuckerberg Invited to Dinner - <AUTHOR> https://theintercept.com/2019/10/25/mark-zuckerberg-facebook-dinners/ <comment><USER2> Facebook employees overwhelmingly back democrats ([https://www.ft.com/content/2fa73048-db90-11e8-9f04-38d397e66...](https://www.ft.com/content/2fa73048-db90-11e8-9f04-38d397e6661c)). So if Zuck wants to know people accross the spectrum, he already has many democrats in his company, but he needs to make a conscious effort to meet republicans.

EDIT: The replies here focus on the supposed difference between democrats and leftists. If leftists really are such a tiny, radical group, that in his life in the bay area and his work on facebook, Zuckerberg doesn't come accross any of them, then it still makes a lot of sense for him to focus on meeting republicans, which are half the country, rather then leftists.

<comment><USER3> The article is focused on leftists, who are very much left of most democrats. When I worked at google I didn't know many leftists there.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: How do you deal with piracy? - <AUTHOR> Hi, I'm selling a software and cracks are given in forums on the internet. The thing is, theses users don't come to my product page for getting updates for example, so I think it's a loss for me because I can't reach them and talk to them. I feel like I won't ever be able to convert them to paying customers.
I'm wondering what I can do about it. Could I add a "I cracked your software, is it wrong ?" in the FAQ and try to not show it if I detect the software is not cracked ?
What if I distribute the pirated version myself ? Wouldn't that look weird to paying customers ?
Should I add an infinitely renewable 15 days trial instead of a limited features trial ?
Do you know of projects that went open source / free software and how they handled it ?
Thanks !
PS : I didn't say Piracy was bad in itself. I spent my childhood pirating stuff and now my livelihood is selling software.. I have faith that some of my pirate users can become my clients one day or another and I would like to take care of this issue myself rather than letting people going to underground forums and download virus. <comment><USER2> A while back a friend of mine told me he installed a 'clean my Mac' application, thought it was decent and went looking for a crack. So the story went - the top link was one to their own website with full instructions on how to crack the app - something like - www.appname.com/how-to-crack-appname/, or whatever.

On the page was complete and detailed instructions on how to crack it yourself using a hex editor or decompiler (or whatever!). Except, he said as you read down, the way the author explained it really highlighted how much effort he put into making it, and at the bottom copy saying something like "we hope this was useful and avoids you using a crack which might damage your machine, we also hope you realise the effort that goes into making software and will consider paying just $xx dollars which goes towards feeding my family and making more software".

Friend was so impressed he just got out his card and bought it.

TL;DR - They embraced the piracy / understood those that won't pay never will, those that may can be persuaded, so made something educational and thoughtful out of it.

Hope you figure it out!

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes I might do that in the future, I have to be the first google result of "MyProduct Crack" ;)

But if the official author of the plugin gives it for free it sends a weird message to paying customers, no ?

<comment><USER2> From an SEO standpoint I don't think it would be too hard to rank for that :-)

I guess the whole point was not to give it for free, but to make someone realise that they could get it for free with X hours work and learning. But most people are too lazy - those determined to steal will do it anyway, and those that can be converted to pay you've given yourself a platform to get them to understand why they should.

<comment><AUTHOR> Well one "advantage" of having an official crack web page is to give the software cracked without virus.

<comment><USER2> Well if it's the top link, it's also one more (or even the first) chance to say "please buy this" before they look for a crack elsewhere.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> My company deals with piracy in the following technical way, and it works well enough for potential buyers to stay buyers.

I release software binaries often, say every two weeks, and the software self- updates with permission from the user. The main application software is free, while the plugins (the real meat of the software) are purchased individually. When the application updates, the plugins also update. I use the semantic versioning, so releases look like 67.0, 67.1, 68.0, etc. Since the barrier to upgrade the application is virtual nothing (free, click of a button), almost everyone updates. If you're a paid customer, your plugins will also be updated, but if you aren't, now none of your plugins work. If you want to release your set of plugins to the world, pirates will have to match the versions of those plugins to the versions of their application, and if there are other plugins in the internet, they will also have to match. This requires lots of coordination from pirates, which has not happened yet. If an individual begins regularly releasing updated versions of the software, I can simply ban their user account which was used to purchase the plugins.

I imagine this can't work for your purposes since you have a single, standalone, polished application, but hopefully this could help others.

<comment><USER4> > If you want to release your set of plugins to the world, pirates will have > to match the versions of those plugins to the versions of their application, > and if there are other plugins in the internet, they will also have to > match.

Are you relying on constantly making breaking changes to the plugin API for this to work? Otherwise, it may just be the case that pirates haven't figured out that they need to disable the version checking-part of your app. It sounds a bit like security through obscurity, unless I'm missing something.

<comment><USER3> Yes, it's a large application that is constantly being improved, so there are always at least some changes between versions that break ABI compatibility. Even a simple change of the application that only requires a recompilation of the plugins would break ABI. Pirates would have to modify inconceivable amounts of binary code to match a 67.0 plugin to a 68.0 application or vise versa.

<comment><USER5> > Pirates would have to modify _impractical_ amounts of binary code

FTFY

<comment><USER6> Just looked up FTFY. I am pleased it doesn't mean what I thought it did.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> First - if they wouldn't have paid anyway, you haven't "lost" anything (you've actually _gained_ something)

Second, your pricing must be turning off those who _would_ [possibly] pay, but opt for the cracked edition due to cost

Third, focus on support: you can download, install, and run OpenNMS, for example, totally 100% for free. But if you want support beyond the mailing list, you pay for it.

<comment><USER8> A note on your second comment, that is a possible consideration, but remember that some people will simply never buy software, so there will always be someone that cracks it. Many people either have fundamentally different opinions on whether or not software should cost money or they're too poor to be able to afford it when they can get it free.

<comment><USER9> _> ... or they're too poor to be able to afford it when they can get it free._

For that situation, consider adding an FAQ or a page on your website encouraging people to email you and ask for a free or discounted copy if they really can't afford it.

Don't make it too easy - you'll get a few whose entire request is "give me free copy" and threaten you when you don't. Don't help people who threaten you or don't show you respect.

But if you get someone who gives a short story about their current situation and either asks for a discount ("I want to at least pay what I can afford") or suggests they'll pay you back (or Pay It Forward) when they're back on their feet - those are the people you want to help. Bonus points if they include how your software will help make their life better.

Do keep in mind that some of those people will have high support demands, so factor that into your software pricing. You'll need your paying customers to subsidize the support cost.

If you try this, you'll find that some people aren't genuine. They'll say price is the reason they pirate, but if you offer them a free copy, they'll complain you didn't offer the free copy in the exact way that they desire (and "want to know what you're gonna do about it"). Ignore those people, they will never be satisfied. Literally ignore - if you engage them you'll make yourself angry & sad and it will ruin your productivity.

Above all, focus on your actual customers. Focus on the 1% of people who love what you make and are happy to support you.

<comment><USER10> I can't find it now, but I once read a blog post from a developer of some paid product who would give a free copy to anyone who asked, as long as they used the word "please" somewhere in their email. It was amazing how many timewasters this simple heuristic weeded out.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> How you address this depends greatly on your software and who it's marketed towards. Piracy can be a hint that you haven't come up with the best business strategy for that market.

Often what's best is to meet the market where it is--would you rather have more people using and aware of your software or only small amount of people people that know about your software and pay for it? The answer in many scenarios is to have more people using it regardless of whether they pay you because they can convert others into future sales and grow your market.

Software and its markets vary greatly, so it's hard to give a strategy that works for all software, but I've seen one model be fairly successful over time: basically using a subset of users to subsidize the rest of users. Find out who's deriving the most value from your product and get them to pay you, rather than trying to scrape an equal amount from everyone. This can be done many different ways, but are most commonly done with feature gating or providing external services. The idea is that if your software is more available, more people have the opportunity of deriving value from it and ultimately end up paying you.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the answer. I have a lot to think about !

<comment><USER12> Some people just have no money. I pirated tonnes of software as a kid because I couldn't afford any of it.

One thing I've seen that generated a lot of good will in me was a company that said "if you can't afford a license, email us". Depending on the margins you have and the software you make, that could work for you as a way to communicate with your users.

<comment><USER13> > _... as a kid because I couldn 't afford any of it._

Same here. I started learning how to crack software as a teenager (early 90s) because I was running a BBS and wanted to offer door games but I didn't have the money to pay for them.

I did, however, have plenty of free time, which I used to teach myself some assembly, how to use SoftICE (for DOS), and how to write "patchers" in Turbo Pascal and, later, C.

Now, I use Linux on my (primary) workstation and laptops so it's all free software (with a few exceptions; i.e. VMware Workstation). I also have a MacBook Pro (that I rarely use) with lots of commercial software on it and it has all been bought and paid for myself. (Today, I have more spare money and less free time!)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> The Coast Guard is your ally, along with the Navy. Talk to your insurance company; they have lots of experience (or else you picked the wrong one.)

Oh, are you equating copyright violation with major theft, murder and associated felonies so heinous that there is actually a separate body of international law to address it? Please don't do that.

Unless you are already a market leader, copyright violation is largely equivalent to an unpaid, unauthorized marketing issue. Your problem is to convert those non-paying users into paying users.

Policy:

1\. Make it so inconvenient to use your software without paying for it that they decide to pay you. This is the "stick" option: you hit them with a stick until they either go away or pay.

2\. Make it so easy and useful to pay for your software that they decide to pay you. This is the "carrot" option: you dangle something good in front of them until they willingly walk towards it.

Every method falls into one of those two policy groups. Think about which policy you want to use before you start making changes.

If you decide to make your software open source, you are likely to stop making money at it by selling it. However, you can still make money by consulting -- you are the world's foremost expert on this software, after all.

<comment><USER15> > _Oh, are you equating copyright violation with major theft, murder and > associated felonies so heinous that there is actually a separate body of > international law to address it? Please don 't do that._

The term "software pirate" was invented _by_ software pirates.

<comment><USER16> That does not matter, still conveys the negative things the grandparent doesn't want to have conveyed.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Game Dev Tycoon had a nice anti piracy measure. They themselves uploaded a cracked version of the game. In the end you went bankrupt as game developer, because people pirated your games. So the game was broken for those that did not buy it. Also it kindly asked you to just buy the game.

</comment><comment><USER18> Don't worry about users who crack or pirate software. This is not the target demographic you will have much luck with turning into paying customers. Fixate on your actually software. If kids in third world countries are your primary users its time to build something new. That's a signal you don't want to ignore.

<comment><AUTHOR> My paying customers are professional in the industry I work on. Most of my pirates might very well be "amateurs" in the sense that they don't make money with theirs activity and I'm fine with it.

I just think it's too bad for me theses people go somewhere else to download my product and talk about it. There must be something I could do

<comment><USER19> Some professional software has student or hobby licenses. Finding the right set of limitations and price is an interesting balance though.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Best article I read on this subject is "Piracy and the four currencies" [0]. It's an objective way of looking at why people are pirating your software in the first place, and by understanding why you can make adjustments to persuade future users to download via the proper channels instead.

[0] [http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/LarsDoucet/20120222/91144/Pir...](http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/LarsDoucet/20120222/91144/Piracy_and_the_four_currencies.php)

</comment><comment><USER21> Before you do anything, have a look at the numbers.

I sell a Mac app, which performs periodic update checks, so I can estimate how many users I have. The update checks also contain info about whether the product is licensed, and whether the code signature is valid. I assume that copies of the app that say they are licensed but don't have a valid code signature are cracked.

Here are my numbers from July:

13301 trial users

4934 paid users

367 pirates

If I look at these numbers, I don't see why I should bother doing anything about pirates. Any effort spent on convincing pirates to pay is better spent on convincing trial users!

(PS: the update check can be disabled, and I don't know how many people disable it, so the above numbers are rough estimates at best. Also, invalid code signatures might be caused by things other than piracy eg. software bugs)

</comment><comment><USER22> Old methods (90s): \- turn to the law (DCMA) \- prevent people from modifying code

New methods: \- change to a SaaS model \- change the backend to an API, users order API key \- ping home from your software code or every keystroke like in Windows. \- free product, offer training + ads

<comment><USER23> This is why there were no new software startups of any significance launched between 1995 (when web browsers made piracy trivial) and 2006 (when Salesforce.com launched the first modern SaaS business).

<comment><USER23> To the downvoter(s): I'm genuinely curious, can you name any significant software companies that launched during that era? I've not done an exhaustive search, but I've looked for them and have had a much harder time finding software companies with launch dates of 1996-2005 than <1995 or >2006 (the successful launch count in that window obviously wasn't zero but I'm pretty sure it's down significantly from the before and after eras).

<comment><USER24> > _To the downvoter(s): I 'm genuinely curious, can you name any significant > software companies that launched during that era? I've not done an > exhaustive search, but I've looked for them and have had a much harder time > finding software companies with launch dates of 1996-2005_

Have you heard of Google or Facebook's origins? They were both in that window and pretty significant. Valve, LinkedIn and Netflix have also done okay...

<comment><USER23> Thanks these are great names to fold into the mix Google, Netflix, and LinkedIn are great tech companies but their presence on the list actually supports the idea that traditional software companies had a hard time launching during that window as two of them are server-based subscription products and the third is a server-based advertising product. Valve's a bit more complicated, largely because GabeN is a genius, but I think it's fair to say that their pivot from game company business model to server-based distribution company further backs up the argument that 1995 marks the end of the old school boxed-software/downloadable-software business model.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I understand that you only have in mind the best of the people who use the infested cracks, but my suggestion is to let it be.

If you give the crack yourself, as suggested by another reader, the buyers of your software might feel cheated.

Now if you insist on trying to help the users who cannot afford your software, then do what MS did in the 90's. Allow 123-4567890 to be entered as a product key and leak that to the crack websites :)

PS: my teen self says thank you MS

</comment><comment><USER26> > My paying customers are professional in the industry I work on. Most of my > pirates might very well be "amateurs" in the sense that they don't make > money with theirs activity and I'm fine with it.

> theses users don't come to my product page for getting updates for example, > so I think it's a loss for me because I can't reach them and talk to them. I > feel like I won't ever be able to convert them to paying customers.

It sounds like you'd like to have these customers as actual customers and if it's your thesis that those who pirate the software aren't professional consider licensing.

1\. Have a low-cost, or "pay what you want" license model, for non-comercial use.

2\. Have a free-for-students license. Only for education use.

3\. Offer upgrade pricing spiffs to convert from the free/low tier to the pro- tier.

4\. Consider a subscription approach. I would never pay the full price for Photoshop/Lightroom, but the Adobe Creative Cloud for Photographers is $9.99 a month, which is the right price for my needs.

<comment><AUTHOR> I like the free for non commercial use solution, like SmartGit.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> If your software is useful, and if you're a small company / one man show, I will pay for it, even if I barely have any money, or if I have lots of money. But the key for me is not having a really useless and stupid and intrusive anti-piracy mechanism, as that usually makes me go away from that software. Example of that are games like Kerbal Space Program that are useful, fun, and have no anti-piracy mechanism. I paid for it. And the other example is pretty much any huge game like GTA V, that I bought my brother as a gift but it often stops working and has to be reinstalled because it detects some tampering or something like that, it's from Steam BTW.

I'd also recommend that you DON'T offload processing to a server, as that will prevent people with spotty Internet (like me) or those in special circumstances / behind firewalls from using it properly, and also has data security issues.

<comment><AUTHOR> Would a warning about piracy in the FAQ be too much for you as a paying customer ?

<comment><USER28> It's not that that would be too much, but if I wasn't planning on pirating, I wouldn't read it, and if I was planning on pirating, I wouldn't read it. The pirates know the risks.

Personally I really like the idea above of a slightly feature restricted, free for non commercial use version. This had the benefit of people getting used to it at home, then potentially bringing it to the workplace (where they can pay for it)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> >The thing is, theses users don't come to my product page for getting updates for example, so I think it's a loss for me because I can't reach them and talk to them.

You assume that they would buy in in the first place. I would not spend a penny on 95% stuff I pirated. Most of the stuff was a one time thing, like game was too boring (I would request a refund), game had too high requrements, so I couldn't even start an episode, music was not interesting after literally one song from whole discography etc.

> in the FAQ and try to not show it if I detect the software is not cracked ?

Things have FAQ? I've never seen them.

>What if I distribute the pirated version myself

I remember this coll guy [https://www.reddit.com/r/pcmasterrace/comments/2mjxde/develo...](https://www.reddit.com/r/pcmasterrace/comments/2mjxde/developers_of_the_war_of_mine_give_out_their_game/)

>I have faith that some of my pirate users can become my clients one day

I've pirated more than 1k of PC games, my steam account has 97 tites right now, and there is also GOG.

Try to make your stuff easy to reach, steam, gog, [https://itch.io/app](https://itch.io/app), try to build hype around your game, it's easy now no reddit in /r/gaming show some cool/funny scene from the game, make announcement on /r/linux_gaming that game is available from first day, etc.

<comment><AUTHOR>
      You assume that they would buy in in the first place

No I didn't say that and I don't believe it. What I believe is that I would prefer thoses pirates to come to the official website to know about the product features and update, being able to comment it and ask for advices and get the feeling that someone is working behind it etc.. Everything is lost when people go to private forums and ask the new update to the software cracking team

I'm not selling a game but a very useful productivity tool. But yeah I'll try to build 'hype' anyway thanks :)

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for all your answers !

I'm definitely going to do soon the "How to Crack MyProduct Without Virus !" page and I'll think about changing the trial and the features it gives.

A good long term solution would be to develop a SaaS business around the product and if I find a way to mix that business model with open source that would be even better (my product could be faster being GPL).

</comment><comment> ju-st A piece of software I sell is so complicated to set up/configure and missing any documentation so you have no chance to successfully use it without my guidance and support.

The configuration is a one-time thing, the daily use is simple, so this is no problem for usability. And the software is a niche application with very few potential and real customers.

</comment><comment><USER30> The simplest solution I'm aware of is Software as a Service.

I run a few SaaS products and make a fairly good living. People can use my software as much as they like, provided they pay, and provided it's running on one of my machines.

So long as they never get their hands on a copy of the thing, there's nothing for them to copy.

</comment><comment><USER31> The term "piracy" would describe a lot better "the act of developing/releasing malware/ransomware" \- at least, it would involve the notion of "attacking".

Maybe the time has come to slowly shift the meaning...

</comment><comment><USER32> I think that most of the "pirates" would never buy your software. It's in my opinion a misconception to think that the users would buy the product if they couldn't work with the non licensed copy. The reason for that can be multifaceted. Some a lazy to search for free alternatives, others have no money or the software isn't worthy enough for them. I wouldn't try to convince them or putting many efforts into preventing copying. I would of course do some hints into the software to show them where to buy the full package. See it as the not beloved but some way effective marketing ;)

</comment><comment><USER33> Pricing and packaging consideration perhaps. Todays E-stuffs were just so E (no physical thingy). How bout making people agreed that buying your software are not only benefit you but maybe also benefit a cause, support a movement etc. Also gives them anything interesting rather than just the product. Maybe gives em plush dolls or gadget too as bonus rather than just e-mail containing serial numbers.

Example: Piracy gives me access to all features. Paying it gives me a cute bunny doll mascot from the vendor :D

</comment><comment><USER34> Could you 'watermark' the program for each user (although that wouldn't be trivial), and mention noticeably that the software is watermarked.

Not sure if that would really dissuade anyone leaking/cracking it though, but it may possibly help determine potentially where the leak/crack came from.

There are probably many reasons why watermarking isn't worthwhile though, as you'd then need to have an 'online' system for generating new versions, rather than simply hosting a single file.

<comment><AUTHOR> Good idea for an unlimited trial but it's for videos, so watermarking would be a performance sink.

<comment><USER35> I don't think GP meant watermarking the video, only software binary itself.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I avoid dangerous Somalian shipping lanes.

If you mean the co-opted meaning of the word that the RIAA/MPAA managed to acclimate Americans to a few generations ago, I'd use either a SAAS model or a subscription/membership model where customers get more and more value over time instead of just a one-off product.

</comment><comment><USER36> I just don't care about the cracked versions. Some people don't have spare money to buy our apps, some don't want to spend their money on apps at all. It's up to them. Maybe one day they'll be able to support the development.

</comment><comment><USER37> Can you track the country in which the users are pirating your software from? If say 90% of the people pirating your software are in countries that don't have access to credit cards, then it'll be impossible to convert them to paid users

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes and also in cheaper country my product might be too expensive. I'm going to look where people are from in the underground forums and think about it, thanks.

<comment><USER38> In the games industry it's common to have different prices for different regions, with lower prices for countries with less wealth and/or rampant piracy.

For example Steam is selling Hellblade for 30 USD in the US, but only 17 USD in Brazil or 12 USD in Russia. Perhaps you could emulate that model?

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm selling on a marketplace that don't allow that.

Btw I have a friend buying really cheap games from cheaper european countries :D

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> Many people I know have always pirated software and TV and said once there was a reasonable way to get it legally they would pay for it. I haven't seen this be the case. I don't think you can convert pirates.

It is possible however to convert legal users to pirates by having systems that annoy people who have legally purchased. I don't know how you strike the balance.

I hate the entitlement of people who pirate stuff, if it's not legally available in your area that's a shame but it doesn't give you a right to it.

<comment><USER40> Speaking as a prolific pirate, I currently pay for Spotify because it's just so convenient. I currently pay for HBO Now because I don't want to wait an extra hour to watch Game of Thrones.

I pay for games on Steam, but I still pirate most major creative software like Adobe, Windows Office, or DAWs and their plugins...I just have absolutely zero incentive to do otherwise.

And before anyone guilt trips me on morality, please stop to carefully think through why you believe sharing digital files is stealing but borrowing a book from a library or buying a used video game or movie is not. None of those things give ANY proceeds to the authors or creators, either, and the authors have no choice in that matter either. Yet society deems that arbitrarily acceptable.

<comment><AUTHOR>
       but I still pirate most major creative software

But do you make money out of this activity ?

       Yet society deems that arbitrarily acceptable

Well it feels like society is OK with pirated content, no ? I only know 1 person in my environment that attacks me about it.

<comment><USER40> I do not make any money off of it, no. And now that I think about it I actually did buy a used license for Word, which doesn't give any money to Microsoft, but which is again arbitrarily considered moral.

As for society being ok, yes and no. Nobody attacks me about it but I know plennnnnty of people who will refuse to budge on the idea that it's immoral and wrong.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> We use a service called link busters. They send DMCA to all sites having links to (fake ?) cracked versions of our software...

</comment><comment><USER42> My app has an info infinitely renewable trial but many still use the cracked version.

<comment><AUTHOR> That's weird

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> Piracy is a huge issue, one way around it, although too late for you now, is to only sell an online hosted version of your software, they can't crack what they don't have access too.

Have you got a forum to engage your customers with directly? Most times (and this is a huge generalisation) but these consumers aren't 'evil', they just either have no money or don't know any better.

If you can engage with them and get them to like you it'll make them more disinclined to pirate you, you could also give away a 'lite' version, there's no need to pirate your software if they get it for free, then concentrate on adding more features to the regular priced one for them to upgrade too eventually.

There's no real technical solution to piracy, it's always going to be a human issue so needs to be looked at from that perspective.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the answer ! I like the lite idea,

       although too late for you now, is to only sell an online hosted version of your software,
       they can't crack what they don't have access too

I've thought about it and it's an excellent solution because I could link the software to a website with a subscription based business model. And my software could be better with internet / community feature inside it ! But it's for mid term not for now (I have to recode everything and develop a new product..)

       Have you got a forum to engage your
       customers with directly?

I'm going to sign up in the private forums and engage with them. I hope I won't be banned from the forum !

<comment><USER44> Isn't there a key feature of your software that you could change to make it online only ?

Not checking the serial or user, this can be (and mostly is) suppressed by a crack.

But an important proprietary function that can't be to easily emulate by a crack and your software can't fully work without. Nowadays there is no more internet access limitations for stuff like that (that's why SaaS is booming for years).

And this could be the first step to your full online version.

<comment><AUTHOR> I could make the UI online and ship the app with a Chromium browser :D

<comment><USER44> Well, why not :-) ?

I've already done software like that. Still don't know what's yours, but in our case, it was for kiosks and access points. All the UI was online (so if the client ask for UI change, it's automatically updated on every kiosks or access points), and the hardware related code was on the C# software installed (using a scanner, a barcode reader, printing stuff, etc...)

Of course it's pretty specific, but as we have to create a key for every licence, you can't have two running at the same time, so no crack.

We had bad experience, as a guy to which we sold a licence of the first version of our soft (some nearly 20 years ago), where we just checked if the serial was ok, installed it on multiple places and we found out totally randomly, 2 or 3 years later !

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> But piracy is good right? Death to DRM!

If someone doesn't want to pay they should be able to get the content for free, then they can decide if you deserve to be paid.

\---

That content above seems to be very popular sentiment on HN and other techy places. I don't understand that since all you hurt are people like the author of this post.

The tech community needs to get its act together and decide to support intellectual property rights because as tech people that's all we have.

And don't think this only applies to proprietary software. MIT, GPL, Apache, etc are all __licenses __and are all capable of just as much abuse as your traditional EULA.

<comment><USER46> > But piracy is good right? Death to DRM! > That content above seems to be > very popular sentiment on HN and other techy places. I don't understand that > since all you hurt are people like the author of this post.

You can't begin to understand it, if you don't understand the 'sentiment' you describe in the first place.

Nobody is saying that it is OK to steal someone's work and not pay them for it. The argument against DRM is usually that:

1\. I shouldn't, as a paying customer, be required to purchase multiple times just to consume on a different platform, this increases piracy.

2\. You shouldn't charge prices that your customers can't afford to pay, increases piracy.

3\. DRM punishes paying customers while pirates get a better (unrestricted) version anyway, so where's the incentive to not pirate?

...and many more.

Notice how none of these endorse piracy as a good thing, merely point out that these factors lead to it.</comment></comment>


37signals launch Highrise for iPhone - <AUTHOR> http://37signals.com/svn/posts/2234-launch-highrise-for-iphone

<comment><USER2> I'm surprised they're giving it away for free. I realize the real money is in Highrise monthly subscriptions, but I'd think -- just like the jobs board, books, etc. -- this is a by-product they could make a little extra on the side with.

<comment><AUTHOR> They probably just want as many people as possible to use it and rave about their service. The income they're passing up wouldn't be huge, compared to the ongoing monthly fee. Any significant price would stop people using it.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Having written an iPhone app for a complex web service recently, it's fascinating to read about other's thought processes when knowing what to include and what to leave out. Hopefully they'll post the promised design notes soon.

It is very interesting that they included a game to play for the initial download, though.

<comment><USER3> Address Books take a surprisingly long time to download.</comment></comment>


Complete SEO fail by Google for Google Plus - <AUTHOR> http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=google+plus

<comment><USER2> Meh. Just evidence that they're not gaming their results. Give it a few days.</comment>


How to behave at your first day of work - <AUTHOR> http://calacanis.com/2015/01/13/how-to-behave-at-work-a-primer-for-your-first-day-on-the-job/

<comment><USER2> very useful article....</comment>


Show HN: Double Gems – Like MoviePass for Mobile Games - <AUTHOR> https://www.doublegems.com <comment><AUTHOR> Hey, I'ma long time lurker here at hacker new. But, I've finally created something to share with everyone!

I've been a hobbyist game dev since I was 10, and I've watched the evolution of mobile games very closely. I realized that a major problem in today's mobile game market is that 70% of revenue comes from less than 1% of your player base. If you're big, this isn't a big deal, because you can just scale up your marketing, casting a wider net to capture the "whales", so to speak. But, for the rest of us, advertising really can be cost prohibitive, at small scales it can be really hard to see any return on investment. I wanted to create a service that would be really valuable and useful to "whales", and by doing so, create a way to identify and market directly to the "whales". This service is DoubleGems.com. Here is what it's all about: "DoubleGems.com is a subscription service that rewards players for making in-app purchases. For every $10 players spend in game, DoubleGems rewards a $10 Google Play gift card to make future in-app purchases. Spend $10 get $20 worth of stuff." DoubleGems.com should be win/win for everyone: The "whales" get more in-game stuff, and the devs get a great way to contact the "high-value" players.

Let me know what you think. As a game dev, would you market with us? As a player, would you sign up (it's free right now)?</comment>


Dangerous Skyscrapers Channel Wind and Sun, Topple Pedestrians and Start Fires - <AUTHOR> http://99percentinvisible.org/article/dangerous-skyscrapers-channel-wind-sun-topple-pedestrians-start-fires/ <comment><USER3> Stephen avenue in Calgary has some structures that were built to prevent wind gusts between buildings[1]. The street has a lot of foot traffic and that area became windy after the two skyscrapers on either side were constructed. Not sure about the cost to the city, but they're interesting to look at and they seem to achieve their goal.

[1] [https://firstname.lastname@example.com,-114.0704853,3a,75y,7...](https://firstname.lastname@example.com,-114.0704853,3a,75y,72.01h,104.94t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sFrzPaV8XiAi_NIMsxxL1qQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en)

<comment><USER4> That's fascinating. I've always wished my city had things like these. Trees would be nice, but they grow slowly and just when they start being big enough to thrive, look good and be useful, some official decides they're dangerous or happen to be exactly on top of a new roadway. So I guess a cold dead mechanical tree is the best we could get.

<comment><USER5> I wonder if this may be because of the weather, but why can't you grow vines on the metal trees to make it "green"? Or some sort of wall hugging vegetation. I mean, sure its not the same as a tree, but at least it might look nicer.

<comment><USER6> My guess is that the vanes on the top do something to disrupt the wind and stop it from reaching street level at such high speeds. The vines growing between the vanes could prevent this effect from happening.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Las Vegas condo/hotel Vdara, one of the highrises in the City Center development, was designed by the same architect as the Walkie Talkie -- Rafael Viñoly -- and exhibits the same solar convergence phenomenon; affectionately called the 'Vdara Death Ray' [1][2][3].

In a 2013 interview with the Guardian [4], he claims there was not much he could do about the Vdara, as the customer specifically wanted an arc-shaped building; in fact the the City Center development has several sweeping arc forms, like in the neighboring Aria -- but the concavity of the Aria's highrises aren't oriented south to converge the midday sun [5], whereas the Vdara aims them right at the pool deck [2].

For both Vdara and the Walkie Talkie, he claims to have been aware of the phenomenon going into the design but lacked the ability to correctly calculate the impact. Further, if claims are true, for the Walkie Talkie he said: "(...) the original design of the building had featured horizontal sun louvres on its south-facing facade, but these are believed to have been removed during cost- cutting as the project developed." [4]

[1] [https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/vdara-visitor-death- ray-s...](https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/vdara-visitor-death-ray-scorched- hair/) [2] [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1315978/Las-Vegas- ho...](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1315978/Las-Vegas-hotel-death- ray-leaves-guests-severe-burns.html) [3] [http://www.businessinsider.com/the- vdara-death-ray-hotel-is-...](http://www.businessinsider.com/the-vdara-death- ray-hotel-is-still-burning-people-in-las-vegas-2016-6) [4] [https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2013/sep/06/walkie-...](https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2013/sep/06/walkie- talkie-architect-predicted-reflection-sun-rays) [5] [http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/36.10834/-115.17640](http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/36.10834/-115.17640)

<comment><USER8> > lacked the ability to correctly calculate the impact

And didn't bother to get the ability either.

<comment><USER9> If you design a building that is literally a threat to public safety, and then you design a second building that poses the exact same threat, you should lose all professional licensure. If you do any work in that field again, you should be charged with criminal negligence or something similar.

<comment><USER10> "The developers have blamed the problem on "the current elevation of the sun in the sky," a position Viñoly seems inclined to share."

Like that was a surprise.

<comment><USER9> I just googled him. He's super famous. So he probably has that Frank Lloyd Wright thing going for him, where his buildings have glaring flaws but they are let off the hook because their work is so acclaimed.

On the topic of FLW, I've visited a number of his houses. One of my friends growing up lived in a Wright house. I've visited Wright's personal house, Taliesen. In my opinion, Wright is not really an architect.

I consider Wright more of a sculptor or an artist. His designs are terribly impractical, and are not versatile in the least. Additionally, he didn't account for the limitations of the materials he was using to build his structures. So his buildings tend to require a lot of repairs, and many have structural problems, leaks, as well as general safety issues.

Wright wasn't the least bit apologetic about any of these things, and it seems like Viñoly shares the same overwhelming egotism.

On a somewhat hilarious note, when I went to visit Taliesin, there were several rooms which I thought were poorly designed, but had an element that I considered a saving grace. In literally every single instance, it was something his wife had added/altered after his death.

So, point being, I think that when you allow an egotistical architect to design something without any sort of editorial limitation, you probably end up with a worse product overall.

<comment><USER11> > I just googled him. He's super famous. So he probably has that Frank Lloyd > Wright thing going for him, where his buildings have glaring flaws but they > are let off the hook because their work is so acclaimed.

Architecture as a discipline has a real problem with this. Far too little attention is given to usability and the prosaic question of how a building turns out in practice; there's far too much back-slapping about "vision".

<comment><USER12> I remember reading back in 2004 a suggestion that MIT should force its architecture students to study in the building designed for the CS students and let the CS students have the nice architects' building. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_and_Maria_Stata_Center](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_and_Maria_Stata_Center) vs [https://foursquare.com/v/mit-building-7-rogers- building/4ab9...](https://foursquare.com/v/mit-building-7-rogers- building/4ab97b54f964a520917f20e3/photos) (Amusingly MIT sued Frank Gehry over the building later due to flaws, but it's been settled.)

<comment><USER13> Yeah, that Stata Center building is such a joke. It makes me mad, and I haven't even set foot in the building. Such a waste of resources and yet another example of what happens when you try to push form over function.

<comment><USER9> I'd say they've successfully deconstructed what it means to be a building though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I always thought it would be interesting to set up a slightly convex mylar sheet at the base of the Vdara. Perhaps innocently as a 'shade' under the extra sun. The results of which would be an extended Schmidt-Cassegrain type mirror arrangement that would deliver somewhere around 10x the solar insolation into the unfortunate condo at the focal point of the sheet.

It would be irresponsible to say the least, and have terrible optics, but it appeals to my darker side.

</comment><comment><USER15> I used to cycle past the Walkie Talkie building on my daily commute - <USER2> draughts were so strong that on windy days it almost took me off my bike. And I have actually seen it knock people over.

The worst thing about it though has to be the Skygarden at the top. It was built on some public space, so as part of the agreement, the builders had to include some 'public' space at the top. Unlike most public spaces I've been to however, you have to book in advance, are not allowed in groups over a certain size and have to go through full airport-style security. That's fitting however because when you're up there, the space has all the charm of an airport terminal. And, due to the way the girders are aligned, there's not even much of a view. Which is a stunning achievement really.

The best feature has to be the fancy restaurant which takes up most of 'public' space. It's at the top of one of the taller buildings in London, right in the middle of the City and _you can 't see out_.

</comment><comment><USER10> A popular 1960s mistake was the open-column lobby floor, where the entrance level is smaller than the building above it. The air hitting the building is forced through the open area of the entrance level. This worked out OK in Brasilia, where a breeze was welcome, but it was terrible in cold, windy locations.

Embarrassingly, MIT's Green Building was built like that.

<comment><USER16> Allegedly (back when I was an undergraduate in the 1980s) the calder sculpture outside was designed to deflect the wind to stop this problem. A great story, though I never found out if it was true or not.

<comment><USER10> Wikipedia says no. It's too far from the building, and too small.

The Grande Arche de la Défense just outside Paris has similar problems, and glass panels rise out of the ground during high winds to shield pedestrians.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I live next to a skyscraper (about 100m tall/330 feet - just barely meets the definition of skyscraper) that channels the wind past itself through this narrow chokepoint.

Anyone who rides their bike through the area during even moderate winds is blown off, and when heavy winds pick up the place is truly awesome.

I've gone there, covered in poofy jackets so I bounce when I land, and just let myself get blown away. It's tremendously fun. There's a large concrete gap where buses/trams go, maybe the width of a road (maybe 24 feet?) and the wind has picked me up on one side and set me down on another. (Occasionally requires jumping in the air first.) But if I want to get back home? I've got to wait hours, or walk in a large detour around the building.

<comment><USER18> Care to share where that is? (Asking for a friend.)

<comment><USER17> Hahahaha I'd rather not share my exact location publicly on HN as I live quite close to the building. But if anyone would like to know, my email is in my profile, and I'll be happy to explain how to get to the building with public transit, other things to do in the area, and how to get inside it if you'd like.

(The building is in the Netherlands.)

If you (or anyone else) wants to try this for yourself, simply find a place where wind is channeled through a small-ish opening. Small in this context just means "smaller than the walls around it" so even a house-sized opening can work. Searching Twitter/Google for complaints about wind or getting knocked down by the wind can help.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Software engineering often gets criticized as being so error prone compared to "real" engineering. These buildings demonstrate, that when you combine marketing, egos, a desire for novelty, and ignorance of constraints you can get massive disasters, just like with software.

</comment><comment><USER20> I think it would be cool to use some of these things deliberately. If you can design the building to generate 80mph winds, why not put a turbine in their path? If the building is going to focus the sun into a "death ray", point it at a Stirling engine.

<comment><USER21> This sort of exists already, quite common. Roof turbine vents: [https://www.google.com/search?q=roof+turbine+vent&source=lnm...](https://www.google.com/search?q=roof+turbine+vent&source=lnms&tbm=isch)

<comment><USER22> Aren't those specifically used for ventilation though? I think comment you're replying to was thinking turbines to generate power

<comment><USER21> Maybe... he wasn't specific. I was thinking bigger as that wind energy could be used for things other than electricity generation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> My favorite one of these in the John Hancock Tower in Boston which had to have its entire facade replaced and was known as the Plywood Palace while the work was underway: [http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/article/2014/07/29/plywoo...](http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/article/2014/07/29/plywood- palace-photograph-1974/).

Even to this day the winds around the base of the JHT can be obscenely high. I used to walk past it often from Back Bay station to my apartment down Stuart St. and the block it occupies when it lightly rains or snows it feels like a Hurricane vs the blocks immediately before and after it.

</comment><comment><USER24> Bridgewater Place in Leeds (UK) has had at least one death caused by the wind tunnel effect now and regularly has to have road closures around it when it gets gusty (though living in the UK, at least bad weather isn't often a problem /s)

edit: should have read the article before commenting, would you believe this is one of the first examples. Apologies for what turns out to be an entirely unnecessary comment.

</comment><comment><USER25> There is a building in Dallas called Museum Tower that has a reflective glare that effectively destroyed a popular piece at a near by museum.

<comment><AUTHOR> This sounds fascinating, do you remember when this happened?

<comment><USER26> 2012 This article has some good details on the story and a lot of drama around the project at the beginning [https://www.dmagazine.com/publications/d-magazine/2012/may/m...](https://www.dmagazine.com/publications/d-magazine/2012/may/museum- tower-the-towering-inferno/) It still hasn't been resolved. [https://www.dallasnews.com/arts/museums/2016/09/25/fights- fa...](https://www.dallasnews.com/arts/museums/2016/09/25/fights-fantasy- fixes-fbi-museum-tower-nasher-still-odds-glare-five-years)

<comment><USER27> > It still hasn't been resolved

.. and now we know why. It's politically impossible. If anyone else owned the building it would be fixed or the owners sued.

> "The Dallas Police & Fire Pension System, which had earlier made a small > investment in the Museum Tower project, announced that it would jump in with > both feet and finance the entire thing, all $200 million of it"

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> The plaza and cathedral of Strasbourg (which you can see at the very beginning of one of the Sherlock Holmes movies starring R. Downey Jr.) has been engineered to channel wind around the cathedral, instilling a devilish, chilling feel and making the cathedral stand out as a safe haven.

</comment><comment><USER29> > Non-reflective film has since been added, but not before the building earned > a new nicknames like "Walkie-Scorchie"

You can always count on the Brits for coming up with great names for things.

<comment><USER30> Now being built, the "can of ham":

[https://architizer-prod.imgix.net/media/1422058020643Can- of-...](https://architizer-prod.imgix.net/media/1422058020643Can-of-Ham.jpg)

[http://media.gizmodo.co.uk/wp- content/uploads/2015/01/Contri...](http://media.gizmodo.co.uk/wp- content/uploads/2015/01/ContriversialBuildings-CanofHam.jpg)

<comment><USER31> So are Brits good a coming up with nicknames, or are they simply more apt to build enormous buildings that look like common household items?

<comment><USER32> In order to get permission to build a large building in central London, it's necessary to have a distinctive, unique design. The city does not want to look like America.

Hence, the Gherkin, Cheesegrater, Can of Ham, Walkie Talkie, Shard, Helter- skelter.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Another wonderful side effect of the vast concentration of capital! Who cares about the peons outside as long as the CEO gets to be in the tallest building?

</comment><comment><USER34> Are there any times of day where the light coverges on a point in space above the street? Could a bird flying through this space catch fire?

</comment><comment><USER35> The fun bit about this is that some may get the same effect at home from their windows. I know my SW facing windows will reflect little X shapes onto the back lawn and when you cross one they are noticeably hot. it is almost useful in winter

So what I am saying is that while some sky scrapers/etc can cause issues its the design/surface of all window surfaces that cause issues. it just is a matter of scale

</comment><comment><USER36> Doesn't need to be a skyscraper. Similar focus problems with the Disney Hall in Los Angeles:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walt_Disney_Concert_Hall#Refle...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walt_Disney_Concert_Hall#Reflection_problems)

</comment><comment><USER37> The "Grande Arche" in Paris has some glass protection wall to minimize channel winds. Still a very windy place.

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

</comment><comment><USER38> Come on.

If you have to talk about the cliche skyscraper that cooks eggs everyone knows about, it's not really a story, it's more news, a one off (OK there was also one in Las Vegas)

The wind thing is interesting perhaps. Is that an actual engineering issue?</comment>