If you see a UI walkthrough, they blew it - <AUTHOR> http://blog.maxrudberg.com/post/38958984259/if-you-see-a-ui-walkthrough-they-blew-it <comment><USER2> This is utter nonsense. Spend even a small amount of time with someone who works outside of the computer hardware/software industry and observe how and _why_ they use a smart phone or computer. UI walkthroughs are not only necessary, but desired. They act as the equivalent of standing next to someone and "showing" them how something works. As the OP correctly notes there is a very heavy reliance on mimicry for most learning.

Visual cues are nice, and even desired, but gentle introductions outlining how to get started are as well.

<comment><USER3> One of irks I have with "slight visual cues and subtle animations" is that they assume all users will give the same amount of attention and have the same reasoning process as the designer does. They then call the design "obvious", as if that is an objective quality---but even a short conversation (or usability study) with a sample of their users will tell them it's anything but.

<comment><USER4> Nothing wrong with being bold and trying new ideas but obvious is only really qualifiable via user testing. It's simple thing to do to see if your product is actually usable.

My method is to get 3 random craigslist people and pay them $50 bucks to play with the app for an hour. Record them struggling and have them talk through their thoughts and how they use your app. You will learn more from that experience than anything else.

<comment><USER5> Rather than going through Craigslist, at my last startup we used <http://www.usertesting.com/> \- $39 bucks and the user testing video is all yours. Pretty decent.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> This is wrong. How the hell did we learn "pinch to zoom" on the iPhone/iPad was a thing? We were shown!

Lots and lots of demos to re-enforce the action and get users accustom to a thing is fine if that experience doesn't frustrate the user and they can get up to speed using the app quickly.

If you are choosing neat new ways of communicating and changing the way the user interacts with the app for the sake of being neat, that is fail. If you violate the users expectations without a damn good reason, that is fail.

A fail is Windows 8 and having users try and figure out how to launch a new application. It takes a keyboard shortcut to open the metro desktop to launch another app. This is not obvious and nor is it reinforced very well. [http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows-8/new-keyboard- sh...](http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows-8/new-keyboard- shortcuts#1TC=t1)

<comment><USER6> >>This is wrong. How the hell did we learn "pinch to zoom" on the iPhone/iPad was a thing? We were shown!

I'm not so sure about that. My grandmother, who certainly had not seen an iPad or iPhone in action before (she's 85, doesn't speak English and doesn't watch TV), figured it out within one minute of using my iPad for the first time yesterday.

If you think about the pinching movement, the distance between your thumb and index finger correlates to the size of the object. Increase that distance and the object grows in size (i.e. you zoom in). And vice versa. This is what I'd like to call "hyper-intuitive" and is the kind of thing people can figure out without being trained on it.

<comment><USER7> To continue using the iPhone as an example, I realized that after two years, my Dad never realized that double clicking brings up the app switcher. I agree that it is better if you don't need a walkthrough, but I wouldn't say that you "blew it" if your app needs one. If a 30 second tutorial let's the user do very powerful and intuitive things, things that may save the user time over the long run, than maybe it is okay.

<comment><USER6> Not really. The app switcher is not the only way to switch apps. In fact, it is the more difficult of the two. It makes you click the home button twice, then tap the app you want once - versus click the home button once, and then the app you want once. Three clicks/taps versus two. As such, it is not a huge deal at all that it is not intuitive.

Same thing with double-tap to zoom. Not terribly intuitive, but that's not a big deal because there's a "hyper-intuitive" way to zoom. Double-tap becomes necessary only in very specific situations where only the hand holding the phone is free - which is not very common.

<comment><USER8> On the other hand, the double tap brings up the four most recently used applications, which, for my usage patterns at least, are more likely to be what I'm looking for than the apps on my home screen.

<comment><USER9> Most people put their most used apps in the home screen, so that's a tie.

<comment><USER10> I am not convinced most people organize their apps at all, or even know how to.

<comment><USER11> Anecdotal evidence: My father once saw me open the app switcher to force quit an app that was behaving badly. He thought it was easier, so he now checks it every single time he wants to switch an app. If it's not on the first row, he goes to the home screen and searches for it, which can take him up to a few minutes. He doesn't organise his apps in any way, and isn't interested in starting, even though he knows how to move them around.

He just likes the app switcher better.

But he never would have discovered it if not for him coincidentally paying attention when I pulled it up once.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> What a load of broad sweeping nonsense. UI walkthroughs are perfectly valid for many apps. A lot of interesting software these days (read: disruptive) is introducing new concepts for accomplishing old tasks. Walkthroughs accomplish a lot more than just making up for bad design.

</comment><comment><USER13> There's a lot of posts here against this article. If you do metrics on tutorials, tons of people skip. Even if you don't allow skip, a lot of people are just going to plow through ignoring a lot. Heck, lots of people leave the app entirely and never come back. I've seen this in my own games.

Tutorials just aren't very fun. That's why games so often have to sort of build the tutorial into the gameplay somehow, make it more piecemeal and interactive. Which is what the article is getting at. So you can think of it more as "don't make crappy boring tutorials" like popups and step by step screenshots.

User studies with web sites have show users search pages/sites just enough to find something that sounds vaguely like their current goal. They don't analyze the entire thing and read every link and then make a decision. Showing a bunch of images and a next button is sort of forcing them to do that, but it won't stick and they won't like it.

</comment><comment><USER14> Overly confident, generalizing headlines are pretty good for capturing attention. But it does poorly at making your point.

Your reader's mindset is contentious from the get-go, and they're going to want to prove you wrong if statement is controversial. It doesn't bode well for your point if you can't convincingly back it up.

The true point in this article is that visual cues within UIs are great and nice. It's a huge victory when you can educate your user naturally (see: the popular Super Mario Bros example), but it just doesn't apply to everything. Not everything is innate; some new things need to be taught. How do we learn most things? We observe someone doing the same thing.

</comment><comment><USER15> "Just tapping on the camera icon makes the screen jump, briefly revealing the camera UI behind the lock screen. This combined with the ridges above and below the camera tells the user to slide the lock screen up."

So THAT's how you use the camera when the screen is locked! I couldn't figure out why the screen would just bounce so I always ended up unlocking the phone to get to the camera.

<comment><USER16> Don't worry, it's not a really good 'hint'. I've seen people take the hint as shake the phone to reveal camera, instead of touch + hold + slide up.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Extravagant headline. UI cues are the same thing as a walkthrough. They're a channel for the designer to tell the user how to interact with something--a communicative affordance. The only difference is that they're not listed as bullet points.

We have to learn how to ride a bike and type on a computer. The user doesn't know how to do everything, nor do they have the intuitive reasoning to pick up and use something completely new and alien. While we should make them feel smart, there's room to teach them and make them feel enlightened with this new system. Contextually, a UI walkthrough may or may not be a good idea.

</comment><comment><USER18> If you have to be taught how to drive a car, they blew it.

<comment><USER19> Car is a much narrower use case than app.

<comment><USER20> Could you explain this statement? Do you mean that more people drive cars than use a particular app, or do you mean the opposite? Something else entirely?

<comment><USER19> I mean the core UI for all cars serves the same purpose: to make the car move. The functionality of the car (lame dash apps notwithstanding) is also confined to a very simple use case.

App functionality and theoretical purpose is by contrast infinite. Therefore it's easier to pass judgement on car designers when they do crazy inscrutable interfaces because it's generally a solved problem, whereas with apps there are many more valid reasons to try something new.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I enjoy Clear as an interface which I find productive and rewarding.

I see the need to 'learn' Clear is more akin to the desire to learn keyboard and terminal shortcuts. The desire for increased ongoing productivity offsets the additional onboarding burden.

<comment><USER22> You're right - people get confused between a UI's learnability vs it's usability. Just because you need to ramp up on something initially doesn't mean it's hard to use over time.

Plus a new feature can get lost or ignored by people already familiar with an existing interface, so it needs it's own little mini walkthrough just so it'll get noticed. Here's an example of Facebook's mini popups focused on a single new feature:

<http://cl.ly/image/3a3c1z2f0j21>

I've built wizards of various kinds over the years and I call them "training wheels". The trick is to make it so they can start pedaling on their own relatively quickly, rather than using it as a catch-all where you dump every possible use case.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> I can see lots of other people disagree with the OP, I thought I'd chime in too:

Self-evident interfaces (i.e. lots of affordances, very little tutorial needed to get started) can be good for people who just want to pick up an app and understand it.

BUT, there are also people who want to interact with something in the fastest, most efficient way possible. If a novel new UI can shave even milliseconds off of common repeated tasks, a 60 second tutorial is definitely worth it.

</comment><comment><USER24> The problem is not that some apps use their own UI paradigm to achieve a minimal UI. The problem is the kind of apps that do so.

If an alarm clock (second example in the OP) requires me to remember weird gestures something is wrong. An alarm clock does not lack visual screen space and the main purpose of the alarm clock is to set the time and then close it. It doesn't have to look good or save space to show something else.

For a browser or a book reader it's different, there i want to fill the whole screen with content as reading is the main purpose of using that app. If i have to tripple sweep, double tap or whatever to get to the menu i don't care.

</comment><comment><USER25> The authors website has a rather unusual button [ Gui work | blog ]. I thought Gui was selected, but it's actually blog. If I would've used an iphone I would've seen things differently. The point is that some things are intuitive only if you're familiar with the system in the first place.

</comment><comment><USER26> The very first iPhone commercials featured usage walkthroughs[1]... seems they've done OK to me.

[1] <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lZMr-ZfoE4>

<comment><USER27> None of tbe apps featured in that commercial have walkthroughs.

<comment><USER28> The argument is that the commercials themselves are walkthroughs. How many people would have learnt about double tap zoom without them?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Good article, though I think you should differentiate between types of 'walkthroughs.' I think the point is that you want the users to start using the application as quickly as possible without being hindered by a walkthrough. On the other hand it is important to teach users to use your application... and constraining yourself to commonly used functionality is dangerous. I find that it works very well to 'show' users by helping them do tasks right away (a walkthrough) instead of 'telling' them how to use the application and then leaving them to remember it (also a walkthrough).

</comment><comment><USER30> Products fall into multiple categories based on patterns of usage and intended audience.

Some products are daily/heavy use products which should optimize for the expert user. These products need to be designed such that, once the user has an understanding of how to navigate and understand the product's functionality, they can perform regular actions with ease.

Examples: A Todo list, a weather app, or an app for sports scores and the news on a mobile phone. A POS (Point of Sale) system where the operator has some sufficient time for training [Keep in mind that POS systems are designed for fast transactions to keep lines short and moving smoothly].

\--

Other products are used many times by different users, infrequently. These interfaces need to be designed such that they're intuitive, require as little handholding as possible, and should offer 80% of the benefit for 20% of the effort. Additionally, that 20% of the effort should be possible by almost all of the people who enter into the experience.

Examples: a photo kiosk at the local drugstore, a fast food ordering counter with an iPad or self-checkout system at a grocery store.

What does this have to do with UI walkthroughs? Because the first class of products are not designed to be _intuitive_ on first usage, they need scaffolds (extreme way of conveying this is a "crutch") for the user to understand their operating protocol. Once the user understands how the system works, then they will be able to use the product quickly and effectively on a repeated basis.

</comment><comment><USER31> There are lots of downsides to walkthroughs.

They lack context.

They make things seem more complicated than they are.

They're often skipped.

People forget.

Folks think the screenshots are the app and try to interact with them (seriously!)

So basically, they're not a dependable way to teach stuff. On the other hand, they can definitely be helpful for quickly laying out an app's value proposition and, in some cases, can provide an important layer of instruction.

Apps like Clear purposely sacrifice discoverability for minimalism and fun. In some cases, progressive disclosure and visual cues might change the nature of the app and a walkthrough may be helpful. But Phill Ryu himself admitted that the walkthrough was a band-aid and I think we would all do well to think about how we can do better in the future.

The point is, I think there is a ton of room for innovation in the space of teaching UIs but we should keep all the chips on the table. Experiment, do user testing, but don't categorically exclude options from the table.

</comment><comment><USER32> I haven't read this article but I find the title highly objectionable. There is a recent distressing trend in UI design that providing the user with options always makes the UI harder to use. This means taking control away from users and giving it to best case devs who may not have thought of everything worst case suits with corporate agendas etc. Computers are supposed to make peoples lives easier not pidgeon-hole them into cookie-cutter lives. Sure the ideal UI doesn't require instructions but UI design is hard and I'm tired of seeing shortcuts. If you need instructions once in a while that's fine. People take college courses in how to use excel. They can read a five paragraph description of your UI. And if it tells them about features that they were hoping to see that you didn't omit to dumb down your UI for them then they might even like it better.

<comment><USER32> Ok, I've read it now and maybe this isn't so bad but I do think walk-throughs have their place. In general I think UI design needs to be more thoroughly explored as a field.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Hmm…not really sure how I feel about this article.

It's using existing gestures and having them carry out different functions that is unique to the app.

It's like keyboard shortcuts - every program's usage will be different minus a few key ones. Or video games, some buttons do what you expect but some will depend on what the game's design is. Of course there will be some tour or tutorial - how else are we supposed to learn about them?

Double tapping the Home Button on iPhone < How did we learn about this? Double tap? There's no visual queue on the hardware that we can double tap. Did Apple fail?

I kinda get what the author is trying to say but he also kind of miss the point of walkthroughs and tour completely.

</comment><comment><USER33> I respectfully disagree. Nothing wrong with a simple design that deviates from the "standard" behavior. Most UI metaphors including the standards require some learning. Even the desktop icons need explanation to the users initially. Most users are ok with training if the UI is simple enough to pick up.

For example, this app has non-standard UI but has very simple UI that the users can pick up quickly. [https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.mhillsyste...](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.mhillsystem.dailybadge)

Clear and Rise are perfect examples of simple UI that can be explained and picked up quickly.

</comment><comment><USER34> We're literally betting our business on Max being wrong here (www.kera.io). We believe the opposite, that the best way to learn something is to sit down and have someone show you. Perhaps in the narrowly defined 'mobile app' space where your app does 1 single thing (ie: take pictures) you can have obvious design but check out something like Siebel (<http://www.selectorweb.com/images/siebel1.gif>) or any sufficiently complex software and you realize there are huge opportunities for UI walkthroughs.

</comment><comment><USER35> Part of the issue is we are dealing with such a wide audience that this opinion is valid for some and not for others.

With an app like Clear, I have 0 trouble using it and love the minimalist approach and simple interactions. I have no trouble using the app or remembering which gestures do what. Some older than me, and likely most all younger than me would feel the same way (if they use or were to use the app).

When you are analyzing it, it is easy to point out things wrong with it, but when you use it, it just feels so right.

+1 for real life user testing

</comment><comment><USER36> Depends heavily on what you're letting people do, and how long they're going to spend doing it. Games tend to have smaller numbers of "verbs", and longer engagement times - for a superb example of progressive teaching, play through the Portal developer explanation (available after you finish the game).

It's much, much harder to do this with an application where you can't boil the functionality down to a small set of verbs - line of business apps are the usual terrible example of this.

</comment><comment><USER37> "Mystery Meat Navigation" is a very good description of what makes Windows 8 a frustrating first time experience, is the synopsis of all the complaints about it, and is why Windows 8 is going to be a slow sell for the first 6-12 months.

After 3-5 hours, Windows 8 is surprisingly decent, but the first hour is a super frustrating adventure of swiping and gesturing with the hope you can get back to the home screen.

</comment><comment><USER38> Ah, jeez, no, they didn't.

They might've invented a superior interface paradigm that doesn't fit into an existing model. While it could be discovered by poking and taping, it might be faster and less frustrating to have it explained explicitly.

</comment><comment><USER39> Another school of thought says always aim towards making an unique UI.

If it wasn't for Clear's gorgeous UI. I probably would've never heard of it before. People like fresh ideas, fresh UI too.

</comment><comment><USER40> completely agree!

If you need to teach people how to use your product you failed at UX. And the time spend on walkthroughs and quick tips would have been better spend on rethinking the whole interaction model.

That being said, it doesn't mean your product is going to fail just because your UI sucks! Sometimes the problem a product is solving is so big that users don't care how clunky it is to use...great examples: Banking, Cars and most Email clients for example.

</comment><comment><USER41> I disagree. I think a good UI is one I can remember and understand after a little instruction (like with Clear).

</comment><comment><USER42> The UI on your blog is wrong. The toggle switch to "GUI Work" is a touch gesture, not one relative to web.

</comment><comment><USER43> The article's right, and in fact, I thought it was common sense. Like, interface design 101. In the end, a graphical interface is just an intuitive way to use the application's functions. If using the interface is enough of a task that you need a tutorial to use that, it kind of defeats the point of intuitive access. Just let me use your application and get the interface out of the way.

Then I came to the comments and everyone was complaining. I didn't know people liked hand-holding so much.

</comment><comment><USER44> Games that were clearly 'blown' by this standard: Bike Race Tiny Wings Angry Birds (1, 2, 3, 2000, space, Christmas, festivus, Halloween, whatever else they make...) Jetpack Joyride Tank Hero Temple Run Cube Runner NinJump

I never realized how many apps on my iPhone was such shit :(. FML.</comment>


Pretty pictures don't make an app – how Wunderlist mistakes GFX for UX. - <AUTHOR> http://www.liron.de/blog/?p=814

<comment><USER2> This. Also, why does Sparrow or Twitter/Mac insist on inventing new widgets and putting buttons in the title bar and stuff. It really annoys me.

<comment><USER3> Apple themselves started moving the toolbar into the menubar (e.g. iTunes, Mac App Store).

IMHO the "left category bar" of Sparrow and Twitter for Mac are pretty useful, given that (a) screens are much more wide than high, and stacking everything in horizontal bars is a waste of space (b) they move "categories" from horizontal tabs to vertical, thus making the Y direction for 3-or-more finger gestures meaningful and intuitive.

<comment><USER2> iTunes is an abomination anyway, but the buttons at least look like buttons. Not so with sparrow, they are just darkish inset shapes. (Much like the Mac App Store, which, even though it's made by Apple, should not be used as an example for good UI, ever. IMO.)

Nothing against the left category bar, but why not use a standard widget? Think Mail or iTunes. Also, selecting an item from a vertical list on the left and changing content horizontally on the right feels strange to me.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> This isn't an excuse, but I know that they use Titanium to make the application portable between all the platforms they support. I think some of bad UX experience on OSX is because of that.</comment>


Amazon debuts first original series 'Alpha House' - <AUTHOR> http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57612565-93/amazon-debuts-first-original-series-alpha-house/ <comment><USER2> > Now, the first three episodes of "Alpha House" are up for all customers to > watch without charge. Remaining episodes will become available weekly, every > Friday, only for Amazon Prime customers.

meh.</comment>


Bring back emotions in writing letters - <AUTHOR> At a time when we can immediately get everything we want, we can instantly connect with whom we want, and keep in touch with her all the time, even when she is far away from us... We deprived ourselves of the emotion and the longing to receive a letter from a loved one or a close friend and from the romance to share our most intimate thoughts with her … And then looking forward to receive her answer. Write a letter to a special person and show that you care for her. And we will discreetly deliver it to her.<p>Go visit http://letterz.voidmail.com <comment><USER2> I don't understand what you're offering. "She" who? How will using this service bring back emotions?

Can you break it down a little please and walk me through the process? I don't quite new trust a website without a FAQ, About, or little bio about the people using it.

</comment><comment><USER3> letterz.voidmail.com took too long to respond.</comment>


Declarative vs. imperative style in Python - <AUTHOR> http://www.saltycrane.com/blog/2010/02/declarative-vs-imperative-style-python/ <comment><USER2> Now I don't like neither example. The second one isn't declarative. Python actually has preferred, declarative way to write this kind of code — just use generators.

How much more clearer is this code:

      def some_func(someList):
        for elem in someList:
          # do something with elem
          yield elem

<comment><USER3> Isn't the "generative" approach a bit more limited? It works if all you want to do is iterate through the result once, but if you want to do anything more than that with it you'll need a list. No?

<comment><USER2> It depends on the situation, I guess. You can "cache" specific results inside generator object/function and still return generator. If your result is something one can iterate over you should return generator. If you then need list you can just convert your generator into one. If your list is actually some kind of data structure than perhaps a more object-oriented approach is suitable? Python is not functional language after all. But if all you need is to iterate more than once over generator you can just cache it as a list and reuse if needed.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I'm not sure what the article is trying to prove.. The imperative version is short and clean while the functional one is so much more hard to read. However, does it mean that functional style is bad? Some of those functional snippets could have been highly simplified.

<comment><USER5> Simplified how?

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Wouldn't it be more intuitive to do the following in example 2?

      def post_process(data):
        newdict = data.copy()
        Str = 'df_use_percent'
        if Str in newdict:
            newdict[Str] = newdict[Str].rstrip('%')
        return newdict

<comment><USER7> yes.

(also, newdict = dict(data) seems more natural to me since the same idiom can be used for copying lists, which don't have a copy method).

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I don't think the declarative examples are examples of declarative style. They are both a mix of imperative and functional, with the 'declarative' examples having inner functions.

</comment><comment><USER4> I also think using declarative isn't judicious for these exemples.

</comment><comment><USER9> i think the right hand style (whatever it is) is more self-documenting.

</comment><comment><USER10> Python is unreadable.</comment>


Dear founders: Children are not a distraction, they are motivation - <AUTHOR> http://zaman.io/dear-founders-children-are-not-a-distraction-they-are-motivation/ <comment><USER2> It's astounding that we have come so far that this needs to be defended. Throughout history, civilizations which held the nuclear family as their most important asset have absolutely dominated the world. This is due to simple evolutionary forces, which for K-selected species, favor fewer offspring which have much longer weaning periods. As a result, parents who invested more in providing their offspring with education and sustenance did substantially better as a society than their competitors.

It is quite ironic that the vast wealth accumulated by the western world, which was built upon the nuclear family as its foundation, has now allowed the next generation such freedom that they can dally as singles for significant portions of their lives. That being said, singles are very productive in short bursts, but these are unstable and fuelled by emotional insecurity which, as mentioned in the article, inevitably lead to burnout.

Society will inevitably return to its nuclear family origins, as the fun loving singles will not provide offspring in quality and quantity to compete with these traditional families.

Moral of the story: don't be so quick to condemn the old ways of family life. They have survived for millenia, and will continue to do so long after we're gone.

<comment><USER3> > It is quite ironic that the vast wealth accumulated by the western world, > which was built upon the nuclear family as its foundation, has now allowed > the next generation such freedom that they can dally as singles for > significant portion of their lives.

Freedom? More like not being able to afford the expenses of having a family.

I'm 36 and make above the average income for a person in Los Angeles, but I can't afford a house and can't fathom trying to raise a family on my income. It would basically be a choice between having children or having a retirement. If this is freedom, I hope I don't get any more liberated than I already am.

<comment><USER4> How did this rule come about, that you need to own a house before you can have a child?

<comment><USER5> It's very easy to fall into the notion that you need to have ALL of your ducks in a row before having (planned) children. My wife and I called it "the tyranny of the ducks" and eventually learned to push back a bit. In our case, it was not freaking out over putting a car seat in the back of a small 2-door car instead of a big 4-door car.

<comment><USER6> Of all the ducks, I think the number of doors on the car isn't that high on the priority list :P

However, ensuring that you can still afford to pay all the bills for months --or years, preferably-- on end in the event that your source of income disappears... that seems to be the most important of the ducks. Whether it's a home you own or six months' mortgage/rent is just details.

<comment><USER5> _Of all the ducks, I think the number of doors on the car isn 't that high on the priority list :P_

Have you ever tried to put an infant car seat in the back of a 1994 Mazda MX-6 coupe? It might change your priority list.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Couldn't agree more. I've often been asked by other founders whether running a startup w/kids is possible. It's hard, but not for the reasons most people without kids would think.

I moved interstate for 3 months to take part in an accelerator, and had to drag my son and pregnant wife with me. That was hard (mostly on them!)

When I was pitching for investment in the US (we're Aussies) and missed my sons 2nd birthday, it nearly broke me in two.

When I went to the US to participate in 500 Startups, 6 weeks after my wife had given birth to our daughter. That was incredibly hard...for everybody.

12 months ago when I didn't take a paycheck for a month, knowing I was failing my family, that was the hardest.

Right now I'm in Sydney, away from my wife and kids, I will miss my Son's karate grading... and I feel like a terrible father for doing so.

But here's the thing. All these things are hard, and I do them because they have to be done. Not because "it might be fun" or "just to see what happens", but because these things will lead us to success.

The bar for what constitutes a worthwhile activity is raised so much higher when you have a family to support. You learn to be more critical on evaluating opportunities, and you only jump when you need to jump. It doesn't cripple you, it forces you to focus on things that move the dial.

<comment><USER8> > The bar for what constitutes a worthwhile activity is raised so much higher > when you have a family to support.

That should be sentence #1.

<comment><USER9> Yep! I was away for 2 times 2 1/2 months from my wife and kids in 6 month period. I was constantly evaluating if this was still worth it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Why do we need this to be a hard line? Putting "having kids kills startups" on one side and "parents are the best founders" on the other seems to be at best an oversimplification and at worst outright detrimental to both groups. I'm pretty sure most everybody here knows somebody who got motivated after having kids (or any other major life event), as well as somebody who became less motivated in their own career after such an event.

I get that putting everybody into cute little boxes with solid walls separating them from the other groups makes things easier on our brains, but we'd probably be a lot better off if we tried to imagine others complexly, because that's the reality.

<comment><USER11> Well, because right now as it stands _the default_ is to be hostile to people with kids. And frankly, if our business culture _needs_ to exploit childless 20 year olds then we're building a toxic, unsustainable environment.

<comment><USER12> Yeah, but here's the other side of the coin: I've worked with parents (and shared a boss) who always dumped shitwork off onto the people w/o kids. Last second travel to customers, late nights, bugs that trigger support SLA requirements, emergency fixes, etc. And then, amazingly enough, proceed to whine that they don't get the same raises or promotions.

I agree our work environment is hostile to people's personal lives, but when parents use their kids as an excuse to get out of doing their share, instead of advocating for better work life balance for everyone, the reaction of the childless should be completely unsurprising.

<comment><USER10> Are you really going to make the case that people with children are more likely to dump work on people without children? _Really?_

Do you have any sort of actual evidence to support this? (Actual evidence, not anecdotal stories about how somebody with a kid made you do more work on a project once)

<comment><USER13> Can't speak for the previous poster, but my company has a strict policy - people with children get first consideration for time off. When there is inclement weather, they're the first sent home to take care of their children. When there is extra work to be done, the person with children is the first to be exempt from overtime.

So at my company there is a very strict policy about this, and it gets followed to a T.

<comment><USER14> Are you okay with this policy?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Totally relate. My two year old son actually __prevents __me from burning out. Everyday, when I get home, my wife says "your turn!" and I transform into Daddy. We play soccer, we play music, we play, I bathe him, I feed him, I tuck him in.

Code? What cod... wait, right, I'm a developer. Gosh, that problem I'm stuck at is really diffic... Wait, I got it! I know what way to go now and try to solve that.

Thanks, son!

<comment><USER16> Great comment that should be obvious but is often "forgotten." Tunnel vision will lead you to tunnels and not vast, mighty oceans.

<comment><USER9> Yep. Forced breaks can be annoying, but to reach the "water" you sometimes have to wait for the tide.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Children aren't the issue - partners are.

Yes, you'll be inspired to provide for your family being in start-up mode. It probably will push you harder than if you weren't nested. But, convetionally, your partner will encourage you to engage in much more stable financial endeavours (ie, anything but start-ups).

As they should too. Why? Because, let's face it; most people's ideas are pretty shitty. That's not a secret around here ... so let's put that out there. As we know, even if you do have a super great idea, there is so much luck required to break through.

I don't mean to sound grinchy on a Ycombinator forum, but let's just address the reality here. The times we live in is where The Social Network has become like a founding myth of a 21st century goldrush. People are over educated and bored with job-jobs, so wishful thinking pushes them into developing their genius apps and half-baked Facebook killers.

I don't want to discourage people from being creative and innovative, but I think all of this has to be considered in this discussion of raising a family and doing something extremely financially risky like a startup.

<comment><USER18> > Children aren't the issue - partners are.

It depends on your specific situation. Kids will generally make you more risk averse, but working partners will make you less risk averse. The founder at the startup where I worked (who had three kids at the time), was able to bootstrap because his wife's job was enough to pay the mortgage and health insurance.

I personally feel a lot more empowered to make risky career moves because my wife could support the family by herself if need be.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> I've posted this before but it seems relevant here to highlight the prejudice that people with families will sometimes face.

Ripped directly from a rejection letter I received:

"I think instead of making a more detailed offer, I should consider certain facts.

For starters, you have a family and that'll be the driving force behind all your decisions. Secondly, you will not be able to be here in the program with me. Ideally, I want someone who could be here though not necessary. More importantly, it's the family situation I consider. I've worked developers before with family and the company died largely because of that. I don't want to say that'll happen but I worry.

This other candidate is like me. No responsibilities except {COMPANY NAME}. That makes life less complicated. Based on this - nothing to do with skills - it's best that him and I work together. "

The program was one of the startup accelerators (not YC). He was right that my family would have been the driving force behind all my decisions. He was wrong in thinking that's a bad thing. I can't imagine a bigger motivator than my family. When you have kids, failure just isn't an option.

<comment><USER20> > When you have kids, failure just isn't an option.

Then it seems that startups are a pretty bad choice for parents, given their inherent riskiness?

<comment><USER21> Only if you assume you're going to fail. No entrepreneur goes into it thinking it's not going to work out. The difference is that a parent doesn't say "things look rough...fuck it, I'll sleep on a friends couch for a couple of weeks, go to some networking events and start something different". We're in for the long haul.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Yeah, I thought the joy over kids is sometimes just a self-delusion or a way of resolve cognitive dissonance (as a lot of time is 'lost'). Obviously I can't prove what I'm saying, but 1) it's an infinite source of happiness and joy 2) my wife can actually work much more efficiently since she takes care of her, as somehow she's not that distracted in her (less) 'free time'.

<comment><USER23> Don't forget #3: careerism's benefits are vastly overstated in culture because that's what Western society fixates on. Reading LinkedIn's 'influencer' articles makes me want to vomit: yet another treatise on why I'm not working hard enough to get the precious corner office or that promotion. (Who writes this crap?)

As I get older I get wiser, and I'm not so stupidly entertained by the occasional trinkets thrown to me by my career. Everything works better when it's in it's proper place -- balanced. It took several years of imbalance, lots of misplaced ambition, and a severe burnout to realize this. I don't expect that I would have figured it out until I experienced it firsthand.

It's just a job. It doesn't define you, and you don't _have_ to make a difference to be a worthwhile person.

<comment><USER24> Also one of the benefits of being a programmer is that "working smarter, not harder" is really a thing. If you're blessed with the curiosity and tenacity that being a programmer requires, then reflecting and improving your craft can make outsize returns far more than simply grinding yourself down to a nubbin (which for some jobs in some places is the only way to survive).

<comment><USER23> Exactly. I put a lot of time and thinking into music because it gives the developer side of me time to breathe, think, and ruminate on the hammock to arrive at better insights.

I think a lot of this "always on" crap that people want to think they have to do stems from insecurity. Definitely do side projects/open source/other things as you want to, but it's not required in any form. The result is substantially better when you do it because you really want to, not because you're trying to level up your resume.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> My take: I got two kids, one's not yet 1.5 years old, the other one is a month old.

It's hard. I have tremendous respect for my wife, because - she's the one spending the most time with the kids. That said: I do work from home and this DOES influence my ability to work.

I wouldn't want to miss them. They are great. I agree with the OP that they help you in some ways (keeping a schedule, logistics, making sure that you're not slacking off during the day and getting into a frenzy mode at night).

But they have a ( _cough_ ) cost. I'm looking left and right for a job that would make me happier. I usually don't even dare to send an application (because hey, could I actually take it? I mean.. probation time etc. even if they'd take me in) and if I do I usually know that I won't risk it either.

The big risk is not productivity. That can be avoided and a decent structure (support in your family, a good understanding with your SO) solves most of the standard "But aren't kids dragging you down?" issues.

But flexibility is truly lost, unless you have lots of savings or your SO earns enough money (BZZZZT). At this point in time I'm absolutely certain that I'll never start a company of my own (okay, okay, let's be honest: The kids are not to blame for most of the issues: I don't even have a decent idea. I'm saying: I wouldn't, even with the perfect pitch) and I'm even reasonably sure that I'll stick with my current company for a loooong time.

For safety, family. I just cannot experiment anymore.

<comment><USER26> i am just about to change my career, i have 3 kids under 4. it is a huge risk, but the potential reward is also huge. why am i doing it? well the pay off would be a much better life for my family than is currently possible. i am giving up promotion and stability for a sideways move and retraining. the fact i have kids is what is driving me to experiment rather than seek safety.

<comment><USER27> This isn't a problem that good savings can't solve. If it's too hard to come up with savings, the cost of having a family of three is probably too high.

I'm not denigrating families of three, I'm criticizing the way current costs and benefits of Western governments make it too expensive for responsible people to have decent-sized families.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> The real factor is whether or not your spouse takes care of the children completely. Or if you have your parents at home taking care of the kids.

Because from my own experience, taking care of a newborn with the two spouses both working demanding jobs is extremely, extremely hard. It's just about the hardest thing I've ever done, and my wife agrees. We are both exhausted every day, weekends are even harder than the weekdays, and time to ourselves is the most precious commodity we have and the thing we have the least of.

If you can't have your parents take care of the kid during the day, or if you can't afford a nanny, then the issues related to day care compound the situation a great deal.

If one of the spouses agrees to completely take care of the kid, it makes it a lot easier to spend the extra energy, because it gives you the flexibility required to do things that startups need. The thing that is the most limiting is time and schedule flexibility, and energy. Without that flexibility, the ability to go beyond what is expected is extremely hard, in my own experience.

</comment><comment><USER24> What having a daughter (almost 5) taught me is how to time box. To some extent you can hack it with pomodoro technique or other mental tricks, but there's nothing like a hard out to keep efficiency at the front of mind. I do now in 8 hours what I used to do in 12 because I figured I had all night.

</comment><comment><USER29> People with no kids, please don't listen to anyone telling you how a great source of motivation these adorable little prats are. I've personally been fucked in so many unimaginable since my kid was born. Really think about it hard before committing to such madness.

</comment><comment><USER30> Awesome. A great professor said the best grad students were the married ones because they knew how to manage time. I believe the same is true for founders with kids.

</comment><comment> guard-of-terra It seems to a childless me that today society forces you to spend unrealistic amount of time on children.

Looking after them, hauling them around, catering to their needs. If you don't do that you are suspicious and may even become a criminal: How dare you leave your 10yo kid alone and let her use internets unsupervised?

I'm not sure I want that. It wasn't like that when I was a kid, I came from school on foot, boiled some food, made homework while parents were busy making money, even helped them with that a bit. Now it's supposed to be one way street.

If society want everybody to have children they should whoa whoa take it easy.

<comment><USER31> Even if you hadn't pointed out that you didn't have children, the rest of your comment made it plain.

Society doesn't force you to spend an "unrealistic amount of time on children", if anything, it's the opposite, forcing you to spend too much time away from them.

There's nothing wrong with making sure your children are independent and can do things on their own, and by the age of 10 I'd expect them to be capable of quite a bit of independence. However, even at that age, they're still aggregating _enormous_ of new information about the world, daily. You should around to help guide them, teach them, or just be a sounding board for them to bounce ideas off of.

You seem to be confusing normal child rearing with the "helicopter parent" meme.

You should especially re-read your own sentence: "Looking after them, hauling them around, catering to their needs. If you don't do that you are suspicious and may even become a criminal"

 _catering to their needs_. Well I certainly hope if you have children you'd be willing to meet their needs!

<comment><USER32> Children actually have quite basic needs. Helicopter over protective parents are meme but also a reality as well. One of my friends spent 2k on a stroller.. another has 4 strollers.. another bought a 35k car because his current 4 year old Civic was not comfortable enough for his one kid (he has no savings)

Children require you to feed, them have roof over their head, have clothing and teach them stuff by example. They do not require you to follow them around 24/7 making sure they don't get hurt or come into contact with outside world.

When we had our kid I was really afraid that somehow I will turn into one of those crazy friends I have. It did not happen.. keeping wife from going there is taking some effort though.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Totally agree with the Op. I work hard for my kids. Its not about me anymore. Its about a better life for our family now.

<comment><USER34> And this is a horrifying thought for a 20-something with no kids and what they perceive as limitless freedom, opportunity, and immortality.

Having a family and shifting into an "it's not about me anymore" frame of mind probably sounds worse than death to them. I know it would have at one point in my life.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> Absolutely. My (2) kids definitely require my attention and devotion, but in terms of "getting me focused on the important stuff," they are miracle workers.

Having a supportive spouse is an amazing boon, too, and one that should not be overlooked in this discussion.

</comment><comment><USER36> The thing that strikes me about arguments like these is that they are fundamentally one sided. Without even getting into the walking confirmation bias of using your self as an example, the author sets this up so that a simple proportion of people who will just flat out disagree.

When it really comes down to it starting something is really about the passion to do it. If you want to succeed the thing you want to succeed at needs to be an idea that you can't get out of your head. So that when you are playing with your kids or managing your bowling league your subconscious brain continues to work away at the idea of moving your business forward.

I have known people who tried to start businesses with kids and succeeded I have also known people who start businesses with kids and fail miserably.

In the end it is because having kids or not having kids is going to have nothing to do with your success or failure. Being dedicated and inspired to succeed will.

Maybe you get your inspiration from your kids as the OP does, or maybe you just really want to see the world with another web framework. Either way, if you truly want it to happen then you will make a version of it work.

</comment><comment><USER37> I have several kids. I spend a lot of time with them, regularly, and this is non-negotiable, according to the personal philosophies I hold. It's also more enjoyable than time spent doing really anything else. Ostensibly, I have less time for coding or other activities involved with building a business.

However, having children has increased my motivation and productivity. It's as if limiting available time increases the quantity of available focus. I am also significantly more disciplined than I was as a childless bachelor. I taught myself to code after having my first child.

A tip for new parents: if you can, get up early rather than staying up late to work on your personal projects. This has two advantages: 1) your best effort will be given to your own projects; and 2) you won't be looking forward to getting away from your family to do work after hours.

I'm not making the argument that any person will be more productive with kids. Just retelling my experience.

</comment><comment><USER38> What do wages say about the relative productivity of people with and without kids? So far as I know people with kids tend to earn more. I once read about a study, finding that among unskilled single women in a neighborhood in Chicago, those with kids tended to have higher wage jobs.

Some anecdata: I had a very comfortable engineering job when my first kid was born, but it was pretty much dead-end in terms of salary. I re-evaluated my career, and applied for a higher paying job that is widely regarded as being difficult, boring, political, and stressful.

All of the applicants, and from what I can tell, virtually all of the people who hold those crappy but higher paying jobs, have kids. I asked a bachelor why he didn't apply for the job, and he said: "Are you kidding me, I want to enjoy my evenings and weekends, and I have no reason to make more money."

</comment><comment><USER39> Leonardo Da Vinci would disagree. In a letter to his brother he answered him to the news of the birth of his nephew, that he had created himself a great distraction.

<comment><USER40> > My most beloved brother,

> This is sent merely to inform you that a short time ago I received a letter > from you from which I learnt that you have had an heir, which circumstance I > understand has afforded you a great deal of pleasure. Now in so far as I had > judged you to be possessed of prudence I am now entirely convinced that I am > as far removed from having an accurate judgment as you are from prudence; > seeing that you have been congratulating yourself in having created a > watchful enemy, who will strive with all his energies after liberty, which > can only come into being at your death.

[http://archive.org/stream/notebooksofleona027479mbp/notebook...](http://archive.org/stream/notebooksofleona027479mbp/notebooksofleona027479mbp_djvu.txt)

Harsh stuff.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> I'm the founder of a moderately sucessful infosec startup, and my child was born at the same time. It was hard for everybody. Lets face it, startups take much more time than a regular job, and we don't have any of the state-given benefits.

One important rule that I have is minimize the time away from home. I have to travel a lot and I've found that for kids, time perception is different than for adults. A week seems short time for a 35 year old, but it's an eternity for a toddler. For that reason I try to stay away from home only the necessary time and not a single hour more. Thats a limitation that I try to balance offering experience and profesionality.

And also, I always try to come back with a lot of gifts :)

</comment><comment><USER42> > I know this because I used to be that person, until I met my wife who showed > me there's more to life than getting drunk every weekend.

There's an overpowering tendency to solve for a perfect "steady state" solution to optimizing one's behavior. You see this tendency in nutrition, psychology, everywhere in relation to biological things.

It's dead wrong.

Sometimes "cycling" between states is the optimal approach, not steady-state do one thing, eat one thing, etc. Variety can help you more consistently reach your goals. Forcing yourself to totally unwind can allow you to focus more intensely for much longer without burning out. I quite dislike this myth that you have to be boring to be successful.

<comment><AUTHOR> Agreed, maybe I didn't express it right, I don't perceive myself as boring in any way, drinking got replaced by skydiving haha :)

<comment><USER42> Nice. That'll do it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> Actually, whether children are a distraction or a motivation varies from one person to the other. There is no right answer that covers everybody.

Children would be a distraction to me right now. I know myself better than anybody else knows me, and I'm the only one that can rationally judge this _for me_.

Over the prior 15 years, I couldn't have lived the way I chose to, or made the business/life decisions I did, while being responsible, if I had had children. That included being so strapped I could barely feed myself, much less children. It would have been wildly ignorant to have had a child at that point.

</comment><comment><USER44> If you do a startup while having a family, you are either desperate (can't get a decent job) or truly motivated by your idea (in the way true believers are and don't get a job by choice).

<comment><USER37> A false dichotomy. Plenty of people with both families and decent jobs choose to start successful, sustainable, and profitable businesses each year. Some of these people are "true believers" in their ideas, and some have other motivators, like potential profits. Not all startups are an all-or-nothing proposition. Nor should they be.

<comment><USER45> Pretty much _all_ new businesses, no matter if they're tech startups or corner stores, have 80+% chance of failing within their first year. You don't get to choose to start a profitable business - you can put your best effort to try and make it so, but even that is just a gamble.

If your family can afford the income hit during a failed company without the kids suffering - that's great. But if it can't, but you simply believe that it _will_ be successful - then that's just lying to them and yourself.

<comment><USER37> You are right that people don't choose to start profitable businesses. They aim for profitability. Perhaps I should have written "...choose to start businesses, a few of which will become successful, sustainable, and profitable." But this does not change the fact that the original comment by kashkhan is logically flawed. Starting a business with a family is not necessarily an act of desperation or true belief; it's often a part-time endeavor, completed in addition to familial and work duties with the hope of becoming something more. That one must quit one's day job and dedicate 90-hour-plus weeks to properly do a startup is a myth propagated by venture capitalists who want quick returns on their investments.

<comment><USER44> The intent of startups in the Hacker News context is not mere profitability. I can start selling fruit from a bike part time on the side and make a profit but I don't think many here will count that as a startup.

The intent of startups is to make it big. To make it big, 100% effort is a requirement. I am not discounting people who can do 200% (two jobs) but if you want to do a fulltime job plus a startup plus give time to your family, and do all three adequately, you'd have to be superman who needs no sleep. For the rest of us mortals with families that we want to live with and not merely exist with, two full time jobs, one of which is a startup is not possible. We might do it transitionally, but not more than a few months.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> Founders are, more often than not and perhaps even as-written, passionate people. People who have drive, focus, and a vision. For some people, their drive comes from their families. For others, it doesn't. All I am seeing in this thread is parents speaking up about how their children are their drive. That's really cool, but to also turn around and state that people without families walk an inevitable path to burnout is ridiculous to me. This thread is little more than an echo chamber.

</comment><comment><USER18> I don't know if I buy the pitch in the article 100%, but it makes some good points.

I did find one quote in the article particularly interesting: "Immediately one of the more prominent HN members pointed out that I'm somehow at a disatvantage since there's a version of me out there without being burdened by having to support a family and thus has a bigger chance of success."

I would say that all else being equal, you are more likely to be successful in launching a startup if you don't have kids. That said, everything is rarely equal. I don't know too many people in my age group who devote themselves 100% to work. Even if they're a miserable person with no hobbies, they at the very least spend a lot of time trying to find relationships. If they don't, it has a really negative effect on their emotional state. They spend a lot more time with friends to get all the necessary social interaction. In other words, unless you're extremely introverted, having a family isn't purely a cost on your time--it satisfies certain emotional and social needs that would otherwise take time to meet.

</comment><comment><USER47> My, at times perceived, 'neglecting' of past jobs in favor of being available for my wife and son is the very reason my wage has tripled and I'm now doing the work I love. Getting let go from two jobs were the best things to happen to my career AND my dreams of starting a start-up. If it wasn't for the focus that having a family to provide for, and build a future for, I personally would not have the ambition to take the risks and work and push myself like I have. I wouldn't be a programmer and I wouldn't still have the vision of the company and future I intend to create.

Children are startups. They are practices for startups. They entail commitment, chaos, emotional chaos, growth and faith and all that effort and sweat and tears and you don't have a clue as to how they are going to turn out until many many years and tears into the project. And even then it's still a guess as to where things will go.

And, at the end of the day, every innovator and humanity builder was a kid. Even if my startup doesn't go where I hope it will, I've got eggs in more than one basket. :)

</comment><comment><USER48> Anecdote != data, and speaking as someone in his early 40s, who's single and childless, you do grow out of that "drunk every weekend" phase fairly quickly. Or at least, it's 'quickly' from where I'm standing. It gets increasingly rarer from your late 20s onwards, whether you have children or not.

<comment><USER21> Since you're going to provide nothing but anecdote after condescending with != data, I'll provide mine. As someone in his late 40s, the majority of my age and social group who are "single and childless" are poor impulse control horny drunks. Love every one of them, but it is what it is. The second most numerous are gay, many of whom are now becoming not-single as laws change. Most of the remainder are sociopaths. But anecdote != data so feel free to pretend my reality doesn't exist.

<comment><USER48> Next time you accuse someone of being condescending, perhaps don't do it yourself in response. Lead by example rather than respond in the same kind that you deride.

<comment><USER21> So you being condescending is fine, but me returning the favor is worthy of a snotty, feigned hi-brow response. You're a hypocrite, as well as condescending.

<comment><USER48> Well, yes. If you're going to ping someone for a misdeed, don't turn around and do it yourself. That's what being a hypocrite is. Ironic that first you ping be for being condescending, and then when it's pointed out that you're doing the same, you then hypocritically accuse me of being a hypocrite. Ironic also that you ping me for not being able to take criticism, but you've got to lash out if you're criticised yourself.

And, frankly, screw the anti-intellectualism that considers that remark of mine a 'high-brow' response.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> "think of the children" works for a reason

<comment><USER50> Hitler used it to great effect... was actually one of his primary tools.

<comment> vezzy-fnord Hitler also ate food.

Children's interests is a very tired and aggravating rhetorical tool, certainly, but putting a _reductio ad Hitlerum_ into everything isn't doing anything but showing your lack of imagination or your ideological stubbornness.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> Kids are magical motivators and when you have one you become a much more aware person of others needs. I think this helps in every aspect of life.

Most of the product shippers I know have kids, you also have to put up with less single person life troubles at work (you think hearing about people's kids is annoying...).

When you have a kid the focus is immediately off yourself and on the work to make that kid smile as much as possible and have a happy life. I have also found that married programmers seem to stick around longer and are less flaky because they have to be.

People that think kids are a distraction probably don't have them.

</comment><comment><USER52> It really depends on what ones priorities are. If someone is really in the middle of starting up or even immensely enjoying the current work that she ends up spending most of the time in office, why the hell would you want kids?

Raising decent kids requires proper planning and you need time to observe them and change those plans accordingly if required. Only when you have decided to chill down on work and consider yourself ready for another interesting venture should you go ahead and have kids. Think about your priorities, period.

</comment><comment><USER53> This can go many ways. I would say on average a startup is unhealthy for someone with kids but if you're a highly organized and motivated person it isn't that difficult.

</comment><comment><USER54> Each child you have is one more reason to 'make it'. They are the main motivation of my work. Without them I don't know how motivated I would be to succeed.

</comment><comment><USER55> I think there's a lot of money to be made adopting the Y-Combinator model but betting on startups with those with families.

</comment><comment><USER56> Elon Musk has 5 sons (!). It that doesn't prove that children being a distraction is a fallacy, what will?

<comment><USER57> He got rich before having any children.

<comment><USER34> And he still does a lot of work now.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER58> children also counteract the narcissism and lack of perspective that plagues the get-rich-quick any way you can startup world.

</comment><comment><USER21> Even if some dudebro can't understand how positive having a kid is for your life, they do understand when I tell them about coming home, looking at your child, and saying to yourself "I can not fail, that is why, and I will do everything in my power not to". Having something to motivate you that way is universal.</comment>


Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to Trojan everything - <AUTHOR> https://wikileaks.org/ciav7p1/cms/page_2621683.html <comment><AUTHOR> Welcome to the list (if you opened the link w/o VPN/Tor) :)</comment>


Dutch teenager, who was raped as a child, is euthanized at her request - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/06/05/an-anguished-dutch-teenager-who-was-raped-child-is-euthanized-her-request/ <comment><USER2> Fake news

[https://twitter.com/NaomiOhReally/status/1136189899672084480](https://twitter.com/NaomiOhReally/status/1136189899672084480)

<comment><USER3> So she died of starvation after the doctors agreed to stop force feeding her?

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Headline has been changed to: "An anguished Dutch teenager, who was raped as a child, dies after euthanasia request." They've also tacked a 'clarification' to the bottom of the article: "An earlier version of this story reported that Pothoven's death came via euthanasia. It is unclear whether doctors assisted her in death, though she earlier requested their help."

Sloppy work by the Washington Post.

<comment><USER5> It's not at all unclear. They did not. She requested euthanasia, was denied, attempted suicide on several occasions, was hospitalized, was forcibly put in a mental hospital, and finally decided to stop eating and drinking. Again.

The doctors decided there was no point in persisting, and there are also rules against forcible treatment. So instead of letting her suffer as she died, they provided painkillers. Not enough to kill her, mind.

It's a terrible tragic story, but everyone involved (except perhaps the girl) seems to have made the best choice they had.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Seems awfully young to be able to make such a decision. Imagine if she had decided not to go through with it, and 5-10 years later realized that there is happiness in life and she had essentially dodged a bullet.

This also makes me wonder if she had essentially a mental illness, triggered by the abuse and depression, and that this could have been treated (at least to some degree).

<comment><USER7> She was suffering from mental illness and was seeking help, but to no avail. Maybe it's a failing in the Dutch healthcare system with lack in extreme cases like hers which drove her to this decision. There is a detailed interview (Dutch) here: [https://www.ad.nl/binnenland/noa-is-16-maar-klaar-met-het- le...](https://www.ad.nl/binnenland/noa-is-16-maar-klaar-met-het- leven~a18cf901/)

From the sources I've gathered she was not assisted with suicide, but nobody intervened (eg: forced feeding) with here attempt to starve to death.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I'm upvoting this story, but only to highlight the inconsiderate reporting in the media of such an emotionally charged and delicate case.

Please read the comments instead of the article.

</comment><comment><USER9> > Clarification: An earlier version of this story reported that Pothoven's > death came via euthanasia. It is unclear whether doctors assisted her in > death, though she earlier requested their help.

<comment><USER5> It's not at all unclear. They did not.

She requested euthanasia, was denied, attempted suicide on several occasions, was hospitalized, was forcibly put in a mental hospital, and finally decided to stop eating and drinking. Again.

The doctors decided there was no point in persisting, and there are also rules against forcible treatment. So instead of letting her suffer as she died, they provided painkillers. Not enough to kill her, mind.

It's a terrible tragic story, but everyone involved (except perhaps the girl) seems to have made the best choice they had.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> washingtonpost.com is going in my hosts file.

<comment><USER5> They took this one directly from Fox. I saw it on Reddit yesterday.</comment></comment>


Google marketing head Wael Ghonim apprehended in Egypt - <AUTHOR> http://money.cnn.com/2011/01/31/technology/google_executive_missing_egypt/

<comment><USER2> Wael's friends have repeatedly said that he in fact was not apprehended. They asked that this story please stop running because it was "hurting the rescue efforts." Apparently there are photos and video of the man who was arrested and they claim the photos are not him.</comment>


Kira - A language that compiles to PHP - <AUTHOR> http://www.mathgladiator.com/projects/kira/ <comment><USER2> I like the idea of a something-not-evil to PHP compiler, but I don't think this looks like the kind of language I had in mind. I can't help but think this is the malformed offspring of breeding ML with C#.

</comment><comment><USER3> It seems like there could be some performance benefits in pre-compiling or "pre-parsing" PHP. For instance, the compiler could copy specific functions or classes from an include file and save them right into the script where they're actually used -- therefore eliminating the performance hit of managing include files at runtime.

Now, as to whether there's a benefit to learning an entirely new language in order to do this, I'm not so sure. Why not extend (and simplify) PHP while still using PHP syntax and grammar, the way jQuery does for JavaScript?

<comment><USER4> > Now, as to whether there's a benefit to learning an entirely new language in > order to do this, I'm not so sure. Why not extend (and simplify) PHP while > still using PHP syntax and grammar, the way jQuery does for JavaScript?

jQuery can do this because, despite its quirks, JavaScript is actually a well designed programming language. It has goodies like closures, anonymous functions, and first class functions, so it is fairly extensible. PHP is just a glorified template language with wrappers to C functions.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> While it's novel that it's compiling to PHP, you're still at the mercy of PHP as a language and what it has to offer. For instance, PHP lacks a true closure so if Kira want's one it'll have to build out a full system...

C++ : C => Kira : PHP

<comment><USER6> Joel Spolsky's language Wasabi compiles down to VBScript and PHP and JavaScript.

<http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2006/09/01b.html>

Features of Wasabi:

 _closures, active records, lambdas, embedded SQL a la LINQ_

 _Wasabi is 100% backwards-compatible with VBScript but includes obvious improvements._

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I can't imagine wanting to convert another language to PHP, except for JavaScript maybe but that's not exactly useful. Now converting PHP to a different, more-useful language? that would be something :)

<comment><USER8> Perhaps I misunderstand you, but isn't the opposite true?

Presumably you would target PHP with the compiler for the same reason many people target C: it's a fairly universal language, supported on many platforms. A Ruby => PHP compiler would be very interesting because it would allow you to write Ruby code (fun!) on any system that runs PHP (many!). A PHP => Ruby compiler would be of questionable use because it would allow you to write PHP code (yuck!) on any system that runs Ruby (not so many!).

<comment><USER7> Perhaps. However, my goal would be to take a large project already written in a nasty, buggy language and translate it to something fun to maintain and modify and easy/reliable to run.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Kira doesn't look like fun to program in, but the idea of translating to PHP is interesting.</comment>


Show HN: A marketing agency for tech companies - <AUTHOR> https://www.copywritech.net/ <comment><AUTHOR> Hi everyone!

I recently launched a digital marketing agency that will only work with companies in the technology space (a few industries).

Our main point of difference is that we hire marketers, content writers AND engineers so we can really go in-depth on various topics, not just scratch the surface like most marketing writers with no technical background do.

What do you think? Is this point of difference solid enough?</comment>


Ask HN: How can we differentiate our app from Flipboard, Pulse, Reeder etc.? - <AUTHOR>

Disclaimer: this is my guest account
We are designing an iPad app focused on subscribing, displaying and sharing news/blogs content. Since there are already some decent similar apps out in the market, how can we differentiate ours from others in terms of features (..apart from good UI, UX and execution)? We would love to hear from current iPad users: what are some of the problems that you are facing with apps such as Flipboard and Pulse? What more you would like to see that's currently missing from the existing apps?
Thanks in advance! <comment><USER2> The biggest problem that I have with RSS readers in general (not just on the iPad) is that they so aggressively separate content from presentation. Design has value, and RSS readers strip the design of a site entirely. In your app, if you could display a cached version of the web page that the RSS feed points to instead of the plain contents of the feed itself, you'd provide a richer experience than your competitors.

The second biggest problem I have with RSS feeds is that some providers only include summary information in the feed and require users to click through to the website to view the full content. By caching the actual web page, your users would be able to get around this restriction.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for your reply. With regards to your first comment, do you mean caching the entire webpage including its style, pictures (what about ads?) etc. and displaying them in a 4:3 format? I believe Byline, Reeder and a few others already does that.

On a side note, isn't one of the reasons people use RSS readers is because of their preference for contents over design?</comment></comment>


How to Muddy Your Tracks on the Internet - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/03/technology/personaltech/how-to-muddy-your-tracks-on-the-internet.html?ref=technology

<comment><USER2>
      Another shrouding tactic is to use the search engine
      DuckDuckGo, which distinguishes itself with a "We do not
      track or bubble you!" policy.

I'm glad to see DuckDuckGo get some positive publicity!

<comment><AUTHOR> isnt duckduckgo just awesome with their duckduckhack approach.</comment></comment>


How News of Michael Jackson's Death Traveled Across the Web - <AUTHOR> http://www.seomoz.org/blog/a-bad-day-for-search-engines-how-news-of-michael-jacksons-death-traveled-across-the-web

<comment><USER2> _It is 3 hours and 17 minutes during which consumers may choose to go somewhere other than Google to get the information they want._

I don't think it's a big deal that the autocompletion is not updated in realtime... someone looking for info on the case will just type "michael jackson death" and find it anyway. The rest of the article was interesting.

<comment><USER3> Yeah, the real-time web cheerleading at the end of the article was really off- base.

 _someone looking for info on the case will just type "michael jackson death" and find it anyway_

Exactly; the real question is how long it took for the news to appear in the main Google index -- at what point would googling for "michael jackson heart attach" produce useful results? I would guess very quickly after the TMZ update.

<comment><USER4> Not really. When I got texted the rumor, google/yahoo/bing produced nothing while twitter had 4034 more results to show me within a few seconds of searching.

<comment><USER3> Sure, when you checked it didn't have anything. The question is how long that state persisted.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I think that real time data is most definitely very interesting, and an area ripe for exploitation at the moment. However, I don't feel that in the majority of cases for people searching on google or any other search engine that it matters a great deal. Real time search and search in general only overlap so much. Good article otherwise.

</comment><comment><USER6> the timeline is neat, assuming it is true.

i wish it wasn't framed by the seo part. i'd be interested in a more general and "trustworthy" (i feel weird saying that.. ?!!?) report.

<comment><USER7> (Disclaimer: I wrote this post)

What made you feel it was untrustworthy? I have a huge amount of respect for the Hacker News community (been reading this site everyday for over a year), and I would really appreciate the opportunity to be given constructive criticism.

<comment><USER6> Danny, thanks for replying so fast. Makes conversing much easier :-)

I certainly didn't mean to cast negative light on the post. I sent a link to my friends at work with the text: "Seems like a well intentioned best effort, but there are surprisingly little links to source or archive material."

I could just be a lazy jerk who doesn't want to get blamed if one piece of information happens to be wrong. Probably I should have just said "work in progress", as you did.

I did greatly appreciate the note at the bottom of the post about work-in- progress and pooling-knowledge. The honest are typically interested in openness and collaboration.

The reason why I felt like a disclaimer was necessary in my comment and to my friends was that I personally hadn't verified the claims you had made, and it wasn't obvious to me that the information was correct. I would expect to see a note on methodology: were you cycling through refreshes of different web pages? or noting "last change" dates in webpages? Are there internetarchive.com (or equivalent) perma-links that should exactly when stories occured? The wikipedia timeline highlighting is totally obvious (and easy); I'd simply like to see that kind of thing for more of the "facts". Where did the information come from. If you state it I'll believe you and feel pretty confident in the information (would probably verify later if wanted to publish an academic paper or something, but otherwise good 'nuf for random intuition :-)

Maybe I'm just paranoid in general when it comes to news.

That said, your timeline really is the bomb. It's super interesting, and I appreciate the work you did :-)

<comment><USER7> Thank you for the honest feedback and no offense taken :-)

I will be sure to make it a priority to include sources and methodology in future posts. I didn't include these in the first place because I got the impression that the audience I primarily write for (the community at SEOmoz) doesn't worry about this as much and would rather get to the "meat" of the information. If you read the comments on the post, no one even mentions sources or methodology.

That said, I am always looking for ways to make my posts better and I think acting on your advice will make my work appear more credible and professional. Thank you for your time and feedback!

<comment><USER8> x17online.com were the first to report he was rushed to UCLA but even they acknowledge that it was TMZ who broke the story that he was dead.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>