In Fierce Competition, Google Finds Novel Ways to Feed Hiring Machine - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/28/technology/28recruit.html?_r=1&ref=technology&oref=slogin <comment><USER2> I wonder what they're all working on.

"Google is now adding about 500 workers each month"

Hmm...500 people. By my calculus, 500 people should be able to implement about 100 business concepts every 1-3 years. That seems off somehow, but...well, they can't all be system admins, can they?

Take a look at google labs: <http://labs.google.com/>

How many of those things make money? Some of them seem to be a part of a long- term Orwellian strategy:

<http://webaccelerator.google.com/>

...but I don't really see the revenue stream. What are they doing with all of those people except mocking up start-up environments and hoping for the occasional big hit? Wouldn't it be cheaper to just let the free market work, and buy other people's companies as needed?

<comment><USER3> " Orwellian strategy"

Grow up

<comment><USER2> I am grown up. Thanks. If you read the spec for web accelerator, you will see that it will allow google to know exactly what you are looking at at all times. This fits the definition of the word "Orwellian" as I used it.

Man, I can't wait for the day when google stops being untouchable.

<comment><USER3> Does a grown up person assume that a search engine will shortly become a Totalitarian Overlord because their computers receive which sites you visit?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> "being part of Google could be a lot of fun"

I'm tired to read this sentence again and again. The Google culture from the outside is disturbing.

</comment><comment> schoudha</comment>


Sound effect attenuation in video games? - <AUTHOR>

Dear HN,
Can anyone please give me pointers or references on the following question?
In video games today, if a player is distant from a noise source, how is the noise reduced? At what point is the source not played?
I am trying to understand how distance based priotization and culling of game objects should work.
The motivation for my question is far away game objects (such as big explosions) that should still not be culled because they are so loud as to be heard even at great distance.
Many Thanks <comment><USER2> The intensity of a sound in an ideal gas is proportional to 1/r^2, where r is the distance between the sound source and the sound receiver (in a game, the player). Specifically, I2 = I1 * (r1 / r2)^2. You can use L = 10 log_10 (I2/I1) dB to determine acoustic intensity levels in decibels. Long story short, if you want to cull sound sources, you need to do it based on both distance (well, squared distance, which is thankfully less expensive to calculate) and sound volume.

Even that is an oversimplification: in reality, attenuation varies with every material surrounding the sound source, because it's actually the result of the pressure wave being scattered and absorbed.

I'm sure GameDev.net must have some reference articles on this…

<comment><AUTHOR> Many Thanks. What is meant by r1 and r2?

(Checked out gamedev already, couldn't find anything. The norm for culling seems to be visibility not audio.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Have a look at the OpenAL specification, section 3.4.

[http://connect.creativelabs.com/openal/Documentation/OpenAL%...](http://connect.creativelabs.com/openal/Documentation/OpenAL%201.1%20Specification.htm)

<comment><AUTHOR> Many Thanks.

If I understand the OpenAL spec right, there are alternative attenuation models, inverse square as well as exponential decay.

Do you have any pointers where I can find under which circumstances which model is valid? I can't see anything on the spec or the IASIG PDF.

<comment><USER3> Exponential is the most "correct", but often it doesn't actually sound good in a game, so people will opt for inverse distance or even linear. Basically, it comes down to experimentation in your particular environment and deciding which model "sounds" best.

<comment><AUTHOR> Many Thanks</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Programmer Competency Matrix - <AUTHOR> https://sijinjoseph.com/programmer-competency-matrix/ <comment><USER2> Just accumulating knowledge says nothing about what programmers actually can _do_ on the workplace.

this is a better matrix: [https://science.raphael.poss.name/programming- levels.html](https://science.raphael.poss.name/programming-levels.html)

</comment><comment><USER3> I'd say Fibonacci heaps are not worth learning for programmers.

I think augmenting datastructures should be added somewhere there.

> About people with high tc rating

In Theory, yes,that would ne great. But in practice high gaps in compétence are not good for team moral.

\- Just like in highschool, people feel threatened and don't like looking stupid. So They overcompensate.( Nuclear plant problèmes). In Germany,This made worse by a culture of never admitting that one doesn't understand. ( especially in Theory heavy stuff).

\- object-oriented vs problem-oriented leads to communication problems.

\- Compétitive programmers are not ( usually / on average) the most socially competent people. Which hurts team atmosphere.

\- it's not worth the hassle: to ne honest most of what we do ils Boring CRUD. The programmer gets bored and the improvements are not worth the social cost.

</comment><comment><USER4> " is able to understand the relevance of the levels of this matrix."

If you agree with me you are the elite! :)

<comment><USER5> The author isn't talking about content of the matrix here, rather they mean only level names: 2^n, n^2, n, log(n). Sufficient knowledge of alogirthms would make a person understand the relevance of those names (the big O notation).

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I wonder to what extent the author is describing themself in the right column...</comment>


Bitcoin can push global warming above 2 C in a couple decades - <AUTHOR> https://phys.org/news/2018-10-bitcoin-global-couple-decades.html?fbclid=IwAR38ZYJs34BVybWmia0sWSVqjse05OmObNiSW9_aKOAKk0BUKIB3WJ-vINQ <comment><USER2> Actual source since this is almost impossible to find from the link above:

[https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-018-0321-8](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-018-0321-8)

[https://github.com/moracamilo/Bitcoin/](https://github.com/moracamilo/Bitcoin/)

Edit: The study seems to have a major flaw in that it ignores the effect of the block subsidy in its calculations: Though it mentions the block reward halvenings, it ignores them in the CO2e calculations. They basically calculate the CO2e emissions per transaction in 2017, then multiply that by a predicted number of transactions that will be made in future years [1]. Currently, transaction fees only account for 1-2% of the miner reward - (in 2017 on average 17% of profit was the fees, in 2018 6% and in the past 6 months only 1.5% [2] )

The study makes predictions in a very long term (15+ years) - but they ignore that what is currently 95+% of the reward (and thus 95% of the energy used) automatically halves every four years. This ratio will forcibly change over time - in 20 years bitcoin is either dead or fees will account for almost all of the reward - which means you have to divide the predicted emissions in the paper by at least 5.

In the long term the amount of energy one BTC transaction burns is pretty much the same as the fee paid for that transaction times the cheapest electricity in the world.

[1] "The CO2e emissions of projected Bitcoin usage were estimated using the CO2e emissions for Bitcoin transactions in 2017 as a reference. We randomly sampled blocks mined in 2017 until their total number of transactions were equal to the projected number of transactions, then we added the CO2e emissions from computing such randomly selected blocks. The approach was repeated 1,000 times."

[2]: [https://gist.github.com/phiresky/a6755c650b3bbb340c4d641f89f...](https://gist.github.com/phiresky/a6755c650b3bbb340c4d641f89f01b42)

</comment><comment><USER3> Assuming we don't find better ways to generate electricity. This ignores that a lot of mining power is concentrated in China hooked up to cheap renewable sources like hydro-electric power. If we can generate electricity without emissions and run miners off that (wind, nuclear, solar, hydro-electric...) then there is no need for Bitcoin to warm the planet at all.

</comment><comment><USER4> "should it follow the rate of adoption of other broadly adopted technologies"

Rather than, should it follow a realistically low rate of adoption.

</comment><comment><USER5> Satoshi is really just a consortium of electricity companies?

</comment><comment><USER6> That garbage ponzi scheme really should just be banned.</comment>


Ask HN: Best books / lectures / lessons on game theory? - <AUTHOR>

I'd like to better understand the practical implications of game theory, particularly as they relate to investing decisions and market psychology.  Any suggestions? <comment> a-fstr Check out <http://academicearth.org/courses/game-theory>.

It's real Yale course on Game Theory over at Academic Earth

</comment><comment><USER2> Essentials of Game Theory (Kevin Leyton-Brown, Yoav Shoham) is a good introduction to the mathematics -- enough to scare me away from going any deeper and made me appreciate why people get Nobel prizes in this field.

</comment><comment><USER3> If you have a practical application in mind (or something other than an urge to show off mathematical prowess), I'd recommend Bruce Bueno de Mesquita's new book, The Predictioneer's Game.

</comment><comment><USER4> The leading introductory book is A. Dixit and S. Skeath, Games of Strategy, Norton, 2nd edition. It's a very good, easy read.</comment>


Google gifts: free airline wifi for the holidays - <AUTHOR> http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2010/11/08/google-gifts-free-airline-wifi-for-the-holidays/

<comment><USER2> Shameless plug: AirTran and Virgin have wifi available on every flight, but Delta does not. So, find out which flights to book on Delta @ <http://www.haswifi.com>

<comment><USER3> Kayak also has information on this if you're looking up a flight from there. You can also use "has wi-fi" as filter.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> The economics of in-flight wifi assume that no more than a handfull of passengers are using the system, otherwise connectivity just gets jammed. By charging, you create the scarcity that makes such a system viable.

By offering it free, you potentially make it available to no-one as suddenly everyone who has a laptop (prob most people flying in/out of SFO for example) is going to want to get on.

If I was taking a cross-country flight this holiday, I'd rather the system stayed for $$ so that I knew that I had a chance to get access to a usable system rather than turn up for my flight expecting connectivity and end up bored and disappointed because I can't get any bandwidth.

</comment><comment><USER5> This is not good timing for them.

[http://gizmodo.com/5679794/all-these-terrorist-scares-are- pu...](http://gizmodo.com/5679794/all-these-terrorist-scares-are-putting- in+flight-wi+fi-at-risk)

<comment><USER6> _"Or if a passenger could use a cellphone to transmit to the hold of the aeroplane he is in, he could become a very effective suicide bomber."_

Don't tell them what Bluetooth is...

<comment><USER7> What about FRS/GMRS or even 2m HTs (ham radio)? Last time I checked they weren't banned.

Oh, but you do need permission from the pilot to use them...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I wonder if Gogo inflight can also fall victim to Firesheep? If I recall, it uses no security other than a authentication webpage.

<comment><USER9> Why do they even need an authentication webpage for free wifi? Other than maybe to accept terms of service..

But my point is, what's on there worth protecting?

<comment><USER10> It's not normally free so an authentication page is usually required, but for this I'd imagine that Google would like to get their name in there for people who take advantage.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> More information here: <http://www.freeholidaywifi.com>

</comment><comment><USER12> They offered free airport wifi last holidays - i specifically took notice if their branding because it was such a handy offer.</comment>


Show HN: CC/Fwd any email with a URL to get an email of extracted main text - <AUTHOR> http://fetchtext.herokuapp.com/

<comment><USER2> I decided to try this out. It's now been over 5 minutes, and I'm starting to wonder if it's hand-driven or, with my more cynical hat on, simply a novel way to harvest email addresses.

If the former, fair enough, since it will provide a genuine service while assessing whether or not it's worth coding up properly and creating a business. Classic technique for assessing whether an idea has value.

If the latter, a hat tip for the inventiveness, although I'd be a little disappointed.

We'll see.

<comment><USER3> I don't think it's hand-driven. I quickly glanced over its source code and it seems to use "unfluff" to extract body content.

<comment><USER2> I still haven't had a reply ...

<comment><USER4> Did you make sure to put your own e-mail in the "to" field? The first time I used it, I CC'ed the right address and sent it to somebody but neglected to include my own e-mail.

<comment><USER2> I forwarded it - given that, where would I be supposed to put my email? The email comes from me - shouldn't the reply be sent to me?

I don't understand what rules they are using for where to send the reply. I'll go have another look.

 _Edit: Just checked - I think I followed their instructions. There was an incoming email with a link, so I forwarded it to them. Surely that should work. What should I do instead?_

<comment><AUTHOR> Hey Colin, please see my response to the other comment. I went and added more sophisticated error handling so that should fix it. Thanks again for trying it out!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER2> I've forwarded an email to the service and got nothing in reply. What am I doing wrong? What should I have for

      > To:
      > From:
      > CC:
      > Reply-To:

There's obviously something I'm not understanding, and with neither FAQ nor contact email for support, this is extremely frustrating.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hey Colin, author here. Seems like you expertly found one of the edge cases. I went in and added more sophisticated error handling so hopefully it should work. I'll also add an email for support.

Thanks for trying it out! Mind sharing with me the link you used in the email?

<comment><USER2>
      > Seems like you expertly found one of the edge cases.

Ah. You're not the first people I've done that to. Glad to be of service.

      > I went in and added more sophisticated error handling
      > so hopefully it should work.

Useful.

      > I'll also add an email for support.

Cool - thanks.

      > Mind sharing with me the link you used in the email?

Probably this one:

[http://www.solipsys.co.uk/new/ColinsBlog.html?RecentChanges](http://www.solipsys.co.uk/new/ColinsBlog.html?RecentChanges)

I'll try it again shortly - currently in the middle of something else.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I never knew ^a ^c ^p was so difficult. So, now I get to share data not only with the recipient, but with a third party too!

</comment><comment><USER3> Nice work! Looks promising! Can you share how many people are using it?

<comment><AUTHOR> It's been a few hours since i put this up and the logs show over 20 emails have been sent.</comment></comment>


Why Exxon Mobil won't produce more [oil] - <AUTHOR> http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/mar2008/db20080319_269345.htm?campaign_id=rss_daily Linkin Park, "Hands Held High"
Like they understand you in the back of the jet When you can't put gas in your tank
These fuckers are laughing their way to the bank and cashing the check Asking you to have compassion and have some respect <comment><USER2> Disclosure: I work in the oil industry and have worked for ExxonMobil in the past.

ExxonMobil may be the world's largest publicly traded oil company, but it is nowhere near the largest oil producer, nor does it have the the largest reserves. These honours go to the state-owned oil companies eg. saudi aramco, PDVSA (venezuela), NIOC (iran), CNPC (china), kuwait petroleum, etc. To give an example, in 2004, saudi aramco had proven oil reserves of 261 billion barrels, iran, iraq had around 130 billion each. Meanwhile exxon had 22 billion. Even the state-owned comapnies in nigeria, qatar and libya have more proven reserves than exxon.

My take on this: the rhetoric seems to be about return on capital, and betting on high future oil prices. But I strongly suspect the real reason for ExxonMobil not producing more oil (and the story alluded to this) is that there haven't been any major new fields discovered to grow beyond replacing their existing depleted fields. Also, the large new discoveries have typically been deepwater, which is difficult and expensive with current technology.

In my experience with Exxon, they are astute managers when it comes to their investments, but ultimately they are an oil company. Unlike most of the other big oil players (BP, Shell, Chevron, Total), Exxon has openly said that it is in the oil and gas business only and won't diversify to alternative energy sources (eg. BP has started tagging their brand Beyond Petroluem with investments in ethanol and other renewables). So I certainly don't think they are holding off on projects simply to leverage higher prices in future.

<comment><AUTHOR> My friend's dad is Exxon Mobil manager for the Balkans.

My dad has worked in oil & natural gas industry for 28 years, including a long standing working relationship with Exxon Mobil.

While what you are saying sounds nice ("So I certainly don't think they are holding off on projects simply to leverage higher prices in future.") ...

I know for a fact it is certainly not true. Some people wouldn't touch the company with a ten-foot pole, including relatives of country managers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> HHhmm lets see.

There are x barrels of oil left on earth, Exxon gets most of them. Would it rather sell them at $50/barrel or $100/barrel.

Whatever else they say about production, there's always this.

<comment><USER4> They'd rather sell for $200/barrel. Their plan to hold volume production flat is a good a reason as any to break up the company for the benefit of consumers. I wouldn't let them near 'green' energy development either as their interests aren't served by viable alternatives to oil.

<comment><USER5> This is silly. First of all, ExxonMobil doesn't control "most" of the oil reserves; they have only a very small fraction. And if the US federal government forcibly broke the company into several pieces (like Bell Telephone) the resulting smaller companies would still have no greater incentive to increase production.

<comment><USER3> I meant it as a critique of OPEC in general. They will control production to get the most money per barrel because when its gone, its gone. Exxon is the largest publicly traded energy company in the world (from tfa). They do better when prices stay high. While they may not be the biggest player in the whole oil game, they do play a significant role in oil's path to the end consumer. Lets just say they have a lot more to gain form $200/barrel oil than from $50/barrel oil and leave it at that.

<comment><USER5> Huh? ExxonMobil is not a member of OPEC. What are you proposing they do differently?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> What I don't understand is how they always escape investigations into price- gouging. It happened also with the first Iraqi-American war (Bush 41). Sen Al D'Amato (sp?) was supposed to lead an investigation into why the companies have record profits in stressful times.

They always claim it's "volume"; their percentage profits are reasonable, but they sell a lot. Last year I don't think that held--I believe (but am not certain) that usage fell because the prices were so high.

But that may just be civilian usage--perhaps total usage increased. I'd love to see info on that, because I am skeptical and in this election year we may have a shot at changing things.

<comment><USER5> How do you define price-gouging? Are you suggesting that oil companies should voluntarily sell their products at a price lower than what their customers are willing to pay? What are stressful times? Times are always stressful for someone, somewhere. What are unreasonable profits? Do you think the government should arbitrarily limit total net profit for any particular company? Or perhaps they should limit profit margins or return on capital? And any profit limits that apply to oil companies should also apply to software companies, right? You can find consumption statistics here. <http://www.eia.doe.gov/>

<comment><USER6> In certain situations where an anticompetitive monopoly exists, the government does and should regulate. Take, for example, the birth of cable tv in the US. The cable companies were granted monopoly in regions because otherwise it was senseless to commit the funds to build the infrastructure necessary to develop the industry. In this case, the trade-off is; yes, you get a monopoly but we're going to regulate the prices.

Same with utilities (water, sewer, electric,...).

Many times, however, the regulation is a farce (the regulators and the regulated are all friends). In some cases, the government steps in to see what the shenanigans are.

Usually the defending companies argue that their increased margin is needed for "future investment costs," or something. Sometimes the regulators agree, sometimes not.

So, yes, in certain cases where a few tightly-knit companies are committed to control essential resources, they are "forced" to sell at "reasonable" prices.

Interesting that you bring up software companies. In the 1992 presidential election, the deciding issue to me was the building of the internet. Bush (41) wanted to let the private companies do it all a la cable, sewer, etc. Clinton said, no, it was to be a vital infrastructure to our country and the government should build it (a la our interstate highway system).

I voted for Clinton.

<comment><USER5> I don't know why you're bringing up monopolies. ExxonMobil is not a monopoly. They have minimal pricing power. The only petroleum organization that is anything remotely like a monopoly is OPEC. US presidents have some influence over certain OPEC member countries, but in general it isn't subject to US antitrust laws. Attempting to regulate the prices they charge is tilting at windmills.

<comment><USER6> There seems to be little competition among US oil companies in prices at the US pump. You seem like you know quite a bit about this--much more than I do-- why don't they fight for market share at the pump? The station owners can't do it without help from the "mother" company--their margins are too slim (at least on petrol). It doesn't seem like normal market forces are at play here. I would ordinarily expect one company to drop their margins to try to make more profit on volume.

Do you have any idea why we don't see this? Perhaps there is a brand-loyalty factor that makes it pointless to try.

<comment><USER5> Gas stations constantly fight for market share. Brand loyalty doesn't count for much when purchasing a commodity. Consider the area near the intersection of El Camino Real and Grant Rd. in Mountain View, CA.

[http://www.sanjosegasprices.com/map_gas_prices.aspx?z=11&...](http://www.sanjosegasprices.com/map_gas_prices.aspx?z=11&lat=37.379688&long=-122.073799)

Prices per gallon of 87-octane gasoline in that small area range from $3.559 for "generic" to $3.649 for the branded product. If there was any brand loyalty then they would be able to charge more than a 2.5% premium.

Above the local station level, gasoline prices are largely driven by crude oil prices and refining capacity. Crude oil is a fungible commodity and prices are set at a variety of markets around the world in a way that can't be directly controlled by any government.

Refining capacity in the US is constrained and not really growing. There is little financial incentive to spend billions on a new refinery, plus no one wants to live near a refinery (NIMBY).

I would actually like to see much higher gasoline prices via something like a carbon tax. That would provide the revenue necessary to temporarily subsidize development of alternative energy sources. As a side effect it would also tend to reduce oil company profits. But unfortunately a carbon tax is probably not politically feasible in the US right now, plus there would serious implementation problems.

<comment><USER6> As I mentioned, the gas stations don't have the margin to fight. Those guys get killed in price wars. Chevron has to fight Exxon-Mobile has to fight Shell --and that doesn't seem to happen.

So you are claiming that we don't see this fight because everyone has all the market-share their refining capacity can handle? Perhaps you're right.

The problem I have with the carbon tax is that it heavily taxes those who can least afford it: people who have to live in cheap areas and commute to expensive areas for jobs.

<comment><USER5> Due to the invisible hand of the market, the oil majors are constantly fighting each other. If they were colluding instead of fighting then profit margins would be even higher than they are. But at current prices, customers are buying all the gasoline and diesel available so there is no pressure to cut prices.

The impact on poor people who live in suburban and rural areas is one of the problems with a carbon tax. But unfortunately in the long run those people are screwed anyway. Fossil fuels can't stay cheap forever, tax or no tax. Probably some of the tax revenues would have to go to subsidizing them through buying back inefficient vehicles, additional mass transit, housing vouchers near urban areas, etc.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Digital Immigrants and Digital Natives - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.msdn.com/davidmcg/archive/2008/07/13/digital-immigrants-suffer-internet-induced-attention-deficit-disorder.aspx

<comment><USER2> Articles like this completely miss the point that the so-called "digital immigrants" built everything that the "digital natives" take for granted. Chatting to friends on MySpace vs inventing TCP from scratch - tell me which generation is the more digital...</comment>


Save the USPS - <AUTHOR> https://2pml.com/2020/08/10/usps/ <comment><USER2> The article admirably covers 10% of why the USPS needs to be saved and studiously omits the most important 90%. You cannot reasonably talk about the USPS right now without talking about the implications for the sanctity of the upcoming election. (Which means we pretty much can't talk about it on HN, because we'd need to broach the subject of acting in bad faith.)

<comment><USER3> True. You also cannot reasonably talk about saving the USPS without talking about who it needs saving _from_.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Amazon builds out its own private delivery network to service their densest customer areas, while leveraging the USPS — which is legally mandated to deliver to every US address — to service their rural customers.

This strategy starves USPS of package revenue for profitable routes while inundating them with packages to unprofitable addresses.

If USPS needs to raise money, they can start by charging Amazon a surcharge to defend against this type of arbitrage.

<comment><USER5> Solution is either to discriminate against individual shippers (can't imagine how _that_ might be abused!), or to charge based on destination / cost of route.

The answer is just so elusive!

<comment><USER6> Or we make sure the USPS is funded regardless of profitability.

<comment><USER5> or that! the policy for decades. I'm continuing with the thread's premise that USPS needs to break even at minimum on its activities.

<comment><USER6> That is a silly premise. :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I'm all for the USPS. It's my favorite parcel carrier.

Yes, Save The USPS! But how? Voting? Electorialism is too slow to meet urgent demands. There's nothing I or any of my friends can do to save the USPS.

The article mentions "The USPS' financial woes have three main causes, one acute and two chronic." The acute woe is COVID-19.. fine, that was unexpected. But the other two financial woes are chronic. After decades of both Republican and Democratic administrations and legislatures, the chronic issues still exist. So, it seems like we need other solutions to "Save The USPS."

<comment><USER8> Maybe at least you could vote against the administration trying to deliberately kneecap it?

<comment><USER7> Have the opposing candidates even promised to do anything about it?

These are chronic issues that not even an Obama administration along with a majority in Congress did anything to cure these issues. What makes you think either party will do anything to prevent its demise?

<comment><USER9> I think the choice is between one party who is actively seeking the demise and one party who, probably, at least won't do that...

<comment><USER10> Its not the good guys vs the bad guys here. Both parties are inundated with corrupt actors.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> My stepdad works at one of the largest USPS sorting facilities.

When he came in to work today 2 multi million dollar sorting machines were padlocked.

He was told by the facility manager that they are selling them for scrap.

1 of the machines is very new and in the past when they replaced machines they sold them to postal services in other countries. They've never scrapped them.

He is certain removing these machines (they are enormous machines) will drastically reduce their capacity.

<comment><USER12> This article makes little sense and so do most of these personal "my dad used to work for USPS" anecdotes in the thread.

The problems at USPS have little to do with anything mentioned and everything to do with well established facts:

\- USPS is mandated to prefund employee healthcare and pensions for 75 years in advance

\- USPS cannot add a fuel surcharge to pricing (as FedEx and UPS can) to maintain profit levels

\- USPS is required to provide service to people and businesses in remote areas even when it may be highly unprofitable

\- USPS is governed by Congress and the Postal Rate Commission (PRC), which restricts potential avenues for expansion into other products and limits competition with other companies (such as UPS and FedEx). Congress has been influenced by competitors to get the USPS to abandon new products such as online payment systems, phone cards, money transfers, postal meter cartridges, etc

\- USPS is required to invest exclusively in government bonds while private companies can invest in a wide variety of securities to improve profitability

\- USPS is forbidden by law to lower prices to get more business

The quality of commenting has really fallen at HN. It's starting to feel like a raging boomers Facebook wall filled with conjecture, gossip and conspiracy theories. Let's stick to the facts please.

SOURCES: [https://cms-colorado.com/its-time-to-allow-the-usps-to- compe...](https://cms-colorado.com/its-time-to-allow-the-usps-to-compete- fairly/)

[https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2013/03/04/how-the- po...](https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2013/03/04/how-the-postal- service-is-being-gutted.aspx)

<comment><USER13> > Congress has been influenced by competitors to get the USPS to abandon new > products such as online payment systems,

What does that have to do with the USPS's mandate to deliver mail?

All of your points are presented as facts. Can you explain how they have anything to do with the current discussion about keeping the USPS's capability to deliver mail and ballots ?

<comment><USER14> >> Congress has been influenced by competitors to get the USPS to abandon new products such as online payment systems,

> What does that have to do with the USPS's mandate to deliver mail?

Postal money orders are _already_ a thing: [https://www.usps.com/shop/money- orders.htm](https://www.usps.com/shop/money-orders.htm).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I've been hearing a lot about the difficulties that seem to be attacking the USPS recently and it definitely worries me. I was kinda hoping this article would have some concrete steps to take on how to actually help the USPS as an individual. Would the actions potentially be the same as usual with political things? Call your congressperson and try to make it apparent it's important?

</comment><comment><USER16> USA infrastructure has been suffering for the last 20 years.

Now infrastructure has been politicized.

What is next, closing interstates?

<comment><USER17> We're already past that: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Lee_lane_closure_scandal](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Lee_lane_closure_scandal)

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> The quiet part has been said out loud by the president. The motivations have been made clear here and the speculation about why this is happening should in theory end there.

> "They need that money in order to have the post office work so it can take > all of these millions and millions of ballots," Trump said in an interview > with Fox Business's Maria Bartiromo. "If they don't get those two items, > that means you can't have universal mail-in voting because they're not > equipped to have it." [1]

Discussions around USPS funding or better alternatives are well and good, but from these words of the very top of the executive branch that's not why USPS is being sabotaged here, today.

I see an awful lot of motivated reasoning in this discussion. I hope those people can look at this more critically and save their desire to abolish the USPS for a more appropriate time, done in a more appropriate manner.

[1] [https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/aug/13/donald- trump...](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/aug/13/donald-trump-usps- post-office-election-funding)

<comment><USER10> Perhaps its you who need to save your mail in voting experiment for a more appropriate time where the public hasn't been fear mongered by the media during a particularly bad flu season. Let's not be so reactionary.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Wow, I don't know if I've ever seen a thread where half the comments are grayed out.

</comment><comment><USER20> For those wondering why the USPS cannot turn a profit, Jon Oliver does an excellent job of explaining: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IoL8g0W9gAQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IoL8g0W9gAQ)

<comment><USER21> Jon Oliver is a very partisan comedian and therefore cannot be trusted. And when I say 'him' I refer to the very politicized team of writers and their network.

<comment><USER22> At least he provides the references to the info that he presents. I assume that you did your research and the vast majority of the information he presented was verifiably false. Can you please share your findings with us ?

<comment><USER23> Watch literally any episode of Jon Oliver on something you've _glanced_ at the Wikipedia article for, and his partisan bias is grossly apparent.

Guy you're replying to didn't really make an argument, no, but it's worth ridiculing someone for posting Jon Oliver, because it is a thing to be ridiculed. That's about as bad a linking to a Bill O'Reilly op-ed as far as I'm concerned.

<comment><USER22> Dismissing facts based on the accompanying commentary is fundamentally flawed. You may not agree on the commentary part of a journalistic piece but you cannot dismiss their stories a priori. Same applies for Fox News.

<comment><USER23> The fact that he chose to share Jon Oliver instead of Jon Oliver's sources indicates to me that he has not read those sources.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Amazon needs to pause all USPS usage in the weeks leading up to the election, and we need to organize to eliminate all but essential load on them ourselves.

</comment><comment><USER25> The article appeals to the USPS's historic role connecting rural communities and employing African Americans at a time when many business would not. Fine. But we don't live in the past, we live in the present. I don't want to keep the USPS around because of the social impact it had a century ago.

The article also talks about the USPS's role supporting e-commerce businesses. I don't buy it. E-commerce businesses use a number of other delivery services, and I don't buy the idea that they would fold if the USPS went away. The USPS is just one of many options for them. The majority of the stuff I buy online is delivered by UPS and FedEx, and Amazon drivers.

There is substantial demand for delivery services, so much so that multiple for-profit companies including UPS and FedEx are able to survive without government help. If the USPS is having trouble thriving in that environment, it must be doing something wrong.

I'd like to see an argument for saving the USPS that does not depend on nostalgia.

<comment><USER26> > Why is it that multiple delivery companies are able to survive on their own > in the free market, yet the USPS cannot?

USPS operates with many government mandates that don't apply to private companies.

Some of the financial woes are actually inflicted by the government. For example, the government mandated that the USPS pre-fund retiree health benefits well into the future, in a way that no rational private company would ever consider. This alone has contributed significantly to their cash flow problems:

They even provide a convenient chart of how their profit/loss looks without the pre-funding requirement, at least up through 2010: [https://about.usps.com/who-we-are/financials/annual- reports/...](https://about.usps.com/who-we-are/financials/annual- reports/fy2010/ar2010_4_002.htm)

<comment><USER25> > USPS operates with many government mandates that don't apply to private > companies.

Then let's remove those mandates before asking the taxpayers to pump more money into a failing system. The system won't magically fix itself. If we allow it to continue to demand more and more money, there won't be any incentive to fix the underlying problems.

We could have a very similar conversation about the pension obligations of Ford or General Motors, but I doubt people would be as enthusiastic about bailing them out as they are about the USPS.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Can we please calm some of these wild theories about election sabatoge please? It seems unbelievably unlikely to me that there is not a more obvious reason why mail sorting machines are being removed.

Just some thoughts that seem much more realistic than crippling the post office to steal an election:

1) Bulk pre sort mail is down due to reduced marketing budgets during covid.

2) Paper bill volume is down due to adoption of online payments.

And also: why save the USPS? It's current form seems completely and totally broken to me. The VAST majority of what I get is bulk pre sort literal garbage. We've got thousands of trucks driving around every day delivering trash into peoples homes. Why?

We need a postal system (obviously) but that doesn't mean that this specific iteration of the postal system is the right one. We are a bunch of hackers. How would you improve the postal system if you had the power to do it?

<comment><USER28> A great "hack" to improve the postal system: Fully fund it. It's been death by a thousand cuts for decades now.

<comment><USER27> What would fully funding it mean to you? Does that mean subsidizing junk mail?

<comment><USER28> The USPS relies on sending junk mail because it's treated like a business and not a service. We spend billions on investment in infrastructure like roads / bridges / power, yet those are never treated like a failing business.

The solution is simple, fully fund the USPS then stop relying on marketing mail income and focus on delivering packages and letters like it's the 21st century. Have the most cutting edge routing equipment / IT staff for package tracking ever.

<comment><USER27> Okay! Does that mean that the employees can still negotiate their wages, or should they go on the GS schedule?

And who determines if it's junk mail or not?

<comment><USER28> As someone who was on the GS for the better part of a decade, it leaves a lot to be desired. IFAIK the USPS uses banded GS which allows some wiggle room. Fully funding would allow the USPS to attract more logistics talent as well.

As far as junk mail, just stop providing marketing mail contracts. Any sufficiently large mailing campaign needs approval and it's fairly easy to create guidelines prohibiting marketing material.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Hi all, for what it's worth, I tried to steer clear of politics of this topic to focus solely on its importance to eCommerce (though they are inextricably linked).

We will need a robust eCommerce infrastructure in the coming years and that will require servicing areas in the U.S. that will never be profitable to do so for a private company.

The topic is politicized quite a bit and I thought that it was important to explain why it has been over the centuries. That shouldn't deter us from its importance to our retail infrastructure. The suggestion is that we tolerate USPS losses so that we can continue to build strong and sustainable commerce businesses. Amazon doesn't exist without the services that USPS provided the company in its formative years.

<comment><USER2> The idea that we can have a reasonable debate over such matters right now is ludicrous.

It is not acceptable to dispense with essential voting infrastructure. Full stop.

<comment><USER30> Why can't we vote in person and for the infirm, they can use the existing absentee process? If a person can take to the streets in protest or shop at a grocery store, certainly a polling place could be de-risked?

<comment><USER31> > Why can't we vote in person

Right now? Pandemic.

In general? Because in-person voting is desirable only if your goal is voter suppression and people voting party lines only with minimal investigation of the individuals on the ballot.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Are we still worried about hackable voting machines?

</comment><comment><USER33> We can save the USPS by deregulating first class mail, let them raise prices as needed, and negotiate with private shippers. It has been allowed to basically waste away since the 90s and it would take a massive infusion of cash, and significant overhaul of its culture, not to mention many years, before it will be sustainable again.

</comment><comment><USER34> How can I properly get up to speed with the USPS, it's problems and who's involved with causing them?

<comment><USER35> The USPS: [https://about.usps.com/who-we-are/postal-history/pmg- frankli...](https://about.usps.com/who-we-are/postal-history/pmg-franklin.pdf)

Its problems: [https://ips-dc.org/how-congress-manufactured-a-postal- crisis...](https://ips-dc.org/how-congress-manufactured-a-postal-crisis-and- how-to-fix-it/) (when the Republican Party held the White House, Senate, and House simultaneously)

Who's involved with causing them: [https://www.theguardian.com/us- news/2020/aug/13/donald-trump...](https://www.theguardian.com/us- news/2020/aug/13/donald-trump-usps-post-office-election-funding)

<comment><USER34> Thank you. Perhaps this will lead me down the trail that explains why the Postmaster General is apparently the second-highest paid U.S. govt official after the President.

<comment><USER36> Hm? Most public college presidents/chancellors are paid better than the postmaster, let alone all of the NCAA football and basketball coaches...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Not enjoying these comments. Does this thread really belong on this site?

<comment><USER38> You could just not read them. Look at the comments, if you find them useless, just move on instead of talking about whether or not this should be "allowed" because you don't like what some people are saying.

<comment><USER37> I like that approach to "not sweat the small stuff", but if the community doesn't speak up about the quality of the discussions, they will inevitably degrade. I really enjoy the intelligent conversations that this site has but recently I've noticed a lot more confrontation rather than civilized debate.

Anyway, I think this thread was eventually removed from the main feed.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> Please excuse my potential ignorance here, as I fear that I may not have a complete picture of the issue at hand.

Was it not confirmed yesterday that the USPS is being purposefully sabotaged by the current administration? Or was it facing problems previously, and the current administration decided to use the existing problems to its benefit? Is it not well within the federal government's power to simply increase funding, or does the USPS function like any other business?

I am not trying to spark a political debate here, I am genuinely curious.

<comment><USER40> Yes. Republicans have long ago turned the USPS into a political football in the culture wars. And they want to sabotage mail-in votes this time, that's a new twist.

<comment><USER41> That's quite the conspiracy theory. Republicans are generally against mail-in ballots because they are subject to all sorts of interference. Some elections come down to a few hundred votes. As for USPS being a political football...it's a government service.

<comment><USER42> It's not a conspiracy. Fox news has been running content for years characterizing USPS as a mismanaged business that needs to be privatized.

<comment><USER41> Have they? Did one of their contributors have that opinion? Is that a crime? I'm guessing youve never met a libertarian.

That's a huge stretch from using the USPS to rig an election. Both sides are accusing the other of trying to take advantage of the sudden surge in interest in mail-in voting.

edit reply: you can't on the one hand argue that mail is a reliable way to run an election and on the other argue that a politician is trying to use it for their advantage. Not giving up, he didn't say he was using it. He said the Democrats would use it. Either way, these arguments underscore just how hackable and exploitable mail in voting is.

<comment><USER43> _That 's a huge stretch from using the USPS to rig an election._

He admitted it on TV. Give it up.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> Every person quoting Trump wanting you hamstring USPS to make it harder to vote by mail is getting downvoted.

</comment><comment><USER45> Why are we saving the one of the largest distributors of physical waste?

<comment><USER45> "The amount of fuel used to transport the catalogs and credit card offers US citizens don't ask for is gargantuan—in 2010, postal service vehicles used 146 million gasoline gallon equivalents, at a cost of $1 billion.

And the amount of mail sent overall is down from about 212 billion pieces per year in 2005 to just over 155 billion in 2014. This number is even including parcels, which have gone up in proportion to paper mail. While the rise of online shopping has seen the number of delivered packages shoot up, those are capable of being delivered by UPS or FedEx in significantly populated parts of the country."

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> Do we really need a USPS anymore? Or at least, a USPS in its current form?

No more mail carriers, no more paper letters.

Packages handled by the private sector.

And digitized mailboxes for every person.

Something like: email@example.com?

Why aren't we doing this already? Are any countries doing this?

</comment><comment><USER30> Not a particular advocate for either side of this, however, I did want to point out the cool I story of US Mail pilots. A good portion of modern air navigation comes from that legacy. Elrey Jeppesen was an airmail pilot for Boeing in the 1930s, and during his routes, he began taking detailed notes and that later become the business of Jeppesen —- one of the most important aviation charting companies on the planet. And, coming full-circle, Boeing bought Jeppesen in the year 2000 and a year or so ago, Jeppesen bought ForeFlight.

The legacy of the postal service is extraordinary, especially in aviation. Town names on water towers for example, that was for the mail pilots. Light beacons (that later became radio beacons,) were also a result of the mail pilots. Jeppesen (along with Jimmy Doolittle) was a pioneer of Instrument Flight Rules.

That being said, UPSP filling my mailbox with "to current resident" junk or pounds of unsolicited newsprint each week isn't something I am sympathetic towards. I am ok paying $5 to mail a letter — I do it so infrequently as to make such an expense trivial. For poor people that still have to do things by post, it would be easy to provide a postal allowance tied to receipt of other government benefits (if you get food stamps, you also get actual stamps for example.) And the package side of USPS — they are profitable. But it doesn't make a lot of sense to have 6 day per week letter service. If the argument is that USPS is subsidizing Amazon, I might argue they are subsidizing all of the junk mail senders as well. They shouldn't be subsidizing anyone. The world isn't going to stop turning with 5 day a week mail service and three day a week service to very rural areas. If a letter just has to get there quickly, normal mail isn't the optimal way to do it anyway. It wasn't until 1863 that mail was delivered daily so there is some historical precedence for less than daily service.

Reducing service days, charging correct rates that reflect cost, and improving efficiencies in both labor and processes would make the USPS both solvent while still being relevant.

</comment><comment><USER23> Unless they offer a better service than private industry, they will be a money sink. Throwing more money at them doesn't fix that (surprising, I know). Waxing poetic about "The ground we stand on" and bringing up race for some confusing reason (???) will do nothing to change that.

<comment><USER47> But they do provide a better service than private industry. They deliver to everyone. In rural areas even UPS and FedEx hand off deliveries to USPS.

Turns out operating in high density areas that turn a good profit _and_ low density areas that don't is difficult. It's why UPS and FedEx don't do it. But it's what USPS was set up to do.

<comment><USER23> Why don't they just charge more to deliver to those areas?

If I live on a mountain top why should I expect people to haul shit to me for free? Why would you expect them to be charged the same as someone who lives on the corner of Main and State?

<comment><USER48> The USPS is not allowed to decide what postal rates are. And the commission that is allowed to decide is prohibited by Congress from charging different rates for different destinations.

<comment><USER23> Yes, this is why I come to Hacker News. That bastion of independent and unique thought. To have wikipedia copy-pasted at me.

It is obvious that I am making a prescriptive argument. I am under no illusions that they are able to enact these policies tomorrow. Their hands are tied by regulations.

You know what might make those regulations go away? Making them hurt a little bit. If it becomes clear that USPS cannot exist as an institution in its current form without being a perpetual sinkhole in which to dump taxpayer dollars directly, then they will have no choice but to adapt or die.

...Or I guess we could just keep throwing money at them and hope they get better because they super duper double pinky swear promised this time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> The author does not remotely address why, if USPS is so 'important' \- that they cannot turn a profit, or break even.

How about we establish regulations, and then privatise USPS and encourage other vendors?

If states made minimal requirements for coverage (i.e. if you deliver in Chicago, you have to deliver everywhere in Illinois) and other types of regs, there no real reason that Verizon can be private but USPS cannot be.

<comment><USER40> Do roads turn a profit? They're pretty important.

What about the military?

<comment><USER49> Because both roads and the military are unsuitable for privatisation.

Roads represent a key problem with access, and of course, he military requires a level of commitment and responsibility far beyond what would be appropriate in the private market.

Mail delivery does not have such structural limitations as you can see literally from the existence of UPS and Fedex.

The question remains:

1) Why is USPS consistently bankrupt? 2) If we didn't have the USPS today, would the government create one?

<comment><USER40> > Why is USPS consistently bankrupt

Republican many years ago passed a law that forced the USPS to allocate budget for many many decades of pension payments in advance, something no one else is forced to do. It was a deliberate act of sabotage by Republicans in the Bush years.

<comment><USER50> Republicans and Democrats passed that law unanimously</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


I've decided to dive in mobile dev. Which iOS book/s sites should I read? - <AUTHOR>

I am a VERY novice programmer (some light Rails sites), although I feel that I can learn anything. What's the best way for me to learn how to develop mobile apps on iOS? Which resources would you recommend? <comment><USER2> I recommend checking out Stanfords CS193p courses. Here's a link to their videos in iTunes. You'll need to search around to find the documents for homework. The lectures help a lot in understanding Objective-C. [http://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/cs193p-student-final- proj...](http://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/cs193p-student-final- projects/id395605774?i=90218598)

Also become familiar with Apple's iOS Dev Center. If you're going to do iOS development than you will need to know your way around this site. <http://developer.apple.com/devcenter/ios/index.action>

Finally the Head First series of books are really good especially if you feel like you are a novice. They have a book for iPhone and iPad development. <http://www.headfirstlabs.com/books/hfiphonedev/>

</comment><comment><USER3> Live free or pay the apple tax, <http://developer.android.com/index.html></comment>


The Long Strange Trip to Java (1996) - <AUTHOR> http://www.blinkenlights.com/classiccmp/javaorigin.html <comment><USER2> Past: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4970986](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4970986)

</comment><comment><USER3> Starwave postscript - [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starwave](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starwave)

<comment><USER4> And of course the author postscript - [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Naughton](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Naughton)

Naughton went on to pioneer a new legal defense and I vaguely remember he had his sentence shortened post-9/11 so he could aid our cyberdefenses against the terrorists or some such thing.</comment></comment>


Unofficial Hacker News Meetup Portland, OR - <AUTHOR> https://www.meetup.com/Hacker-News-PDX/ <comment><AUTHOR> Inspired by other similar meetups:

\- [https://www.meetup.com/HackerNewsSeattleMeetup/](https://www.meetup.com/HackerNewsSeattleMeetup/)

\- [https://www.meetup.com/hackernewsdc/](https://www.meetup.com/hackernewsdc/)

If anyone's in town, I hope to see you there!</comment>


What do you think of my site's design? - <AUTHOR> http://heyfever.rocks/

<comment><AUTHOR> The code is up at:

[https://github.com/fallenby/heyfever](https://github.com/fallenby/heyfever)

if anyone is interested.

</comment><comment><USER2> nice, transition color could be grey or so... white take complete emphasis to background... also strains eyes

<comment><AUTHOR> I see what you mean. I'll poke about and look for a less-bright color :). Thank you!</comment></comment>


Price-bots can collude against consumers - <AUTHOR> http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21721648-trustbusters-might-have-fight-algorithms-algorithms-price-bots-can-collude <comment><AUTHOR> The research paper cited:

"Two Artificial Neural Networks Meet in an Online Hub and Change the Future (Of Competition, Market Dynamics and Society)" [https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2949434](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2949434)</comment>


Ask HN: Mathematics-related Museums? - <AUTHOR> Any interesting museums, exhibits, tours or destinations for mathematicians?
National Museum of Mathematics @ NYC http://momath.org/
Greece <comment><USER2> The Heinz NixDorf museum in Paderborn, Germany. It's mostly computer science and engineering but it has a numerical background

The collection is amazing, from prehistoric cuneiform tablets over Renaissance mechanical computers, Enigma, vacuum tube compuers to modern machines - it is arranged in chronological order. Some of the items have replicas that you can actually touch and operate (e.g. brass multiplication machines from the 18th century).

</comment><comment><USER3> The Boston Museum of science has a A terrific children's exhibit on math as well as nice more adult oriented math exhibit (sponsored by Mathematica as I recall).

<comment><USER4> No, no -- "Mathematica: A World of Numbers ... and Beyond" has nothing to do with "Mathematica" the software -- the name coincidence is just because both use the Latin word for "Mathematics".

It is a version of the IBM-funded 1961 exhibition that has been shown in various museums such as the California and Chicago museums of science and industry. Its main claim to fame is that it was designed by Charles and Ray Eames (yes, of "Mad Men" era recliner fame, but more relevantly they also did the famous "Powers of Ten" film). It is a somewhat dated exhibit (I doubt a section on famous mathematicians would be titled "Men of Mathematics" today), but still has some interesting pieces, and the Eames influence means it is practically a piece of art in itself.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> The National Cryptologic Museum has something to do with mathematics.

[https://www.nsa.gov/about/cryptologic- heritage/museum/](https://www.nsa.gov/about/cryptologic-heritage/museum/)

</comment><comment><USER6> Gießen, Germany has the Mathematikum ([http://www.mathematikum.de/en.html](http://www.mathematikum.de/en.html)). Its exhibits are probably aimed more at children, but I still enjoyed it.

<comment><USER7> I was just about to post exactly that for fun. How small the world is...

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> There's also the National Curvebank at CSULA [0].

[0] [http://curvebank.calstatela.edu/home/home.htm](http://curvebank.calstatela.edu/home/home.htm)</comment>


How today's billionaires plan to improve the world - <AUTHOR> https://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21736517-should-be-cause-celebration-or-concern-mega-rich-have-ambitious-plans-improve <comment><USER2> This is very concerning. Ultimately, money provides such global power now that it has effectively escaped sovereign jurisdiction. There are barriers on where national power ends, but effectively none on where money can move or what it can do (comparatively). This article could have had the headline "How Today's Mega Powerful Plan To Improve The World". This relates to the idea of putting Central Banks outside the scope of most legislatures, it was supposed to insulate them from "greedy democracies", but instead it created something worse.

All of this is the culmination of the migration of the State from governments to Financiers. A replacement of democratic justice with "market justice".

NOTE: I still like Elon Musk. But he's the exception, and it could be argued that NASA would have done all of this already if their budget hadn't been frozen for the last 50 years. FYI the budget in 1967 for NASA was, even BEFORE being adjusted to inflation, greater than it was today. Astounding.

<comment><USER3> Money is not the same thing as power, although power usually makes money abundant. Billionaires have in many ways much less power than even a relatively minor government official or regulator.

Zuckerberg learned this the hard way when he spaffed $100 million on New York schools and ended up with zero measurable difference in outcomes.

[https://finance.yahoo.com/news/mark- zuckerbergs-100-million-...](https://finance.yahoo.com/news/mark- zuckerbergs-100-million-donation-155608055.html)

$100 million down the drain, largely because - guess what - the politics of Newark were totally unaffected by all this money. Zuck wanted a new teachers contract that linked pay to performance to be a part of the reform, and $50m of the $100m was devoted to achieving this outcome. It was meant to be used for teacher bonuses and so on. But only the state legislature could make real change there, and they didn't. Instead the contract was renegotiated with seniority protections intact because the union refused to budge on it, and the local government rolled over. The district also spent huge sums of money on "consultants" making $1000/day - $20m of it went down that rabbit hole.

In the end Zuck discovered that you can't solve political problems with money, no matter how much you throw around. Trump beat Clinton despite spending 50% as much, even though Obama had been warning after Citizens United that it represented a "serious harm to democracy". People tend to over-estimate the impact money can have on society.

<comment><USER4> Kind of surprising that the teachers won that one, but good on them. Performance-related pay in education is an absolute minefield, because it's not widget-making or even something as rigourously scientifically subject to assessment as software development(+). Outcomes in education are hugely susceptible to wider social conditions such as whether the parents can afford to feed the kids breakfast.

If a system isn't _really_ carefully designed, it ends up creating incentives to dump the hardest to teach kids somewhere.

(+) sarcasm - everyone claims that 10x developers exist, and they might be right, but there's no reliable scheme for identifying performance.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Our society have failed if we need to wait for people accumulate a lot of riches no matter the consequences so that eventually they may decide, once they had had and done everything they want, to invest it back in a cause they deem worthy.

</comment><comment><USER6> From the article: "The billionaires' most useful function, then, is not to bring about change themselves, but to explore and test new models and methods for others to emulate. Using their access to policymakers, they encourage the adoption of the ideas that work."

I think it's hard to argue against this; it's something that governments don't often do well. We need risk-takers who can try out new new approaches, get things done cheaply, and commit to a plan over the course of multiple election cycles.

Space launch is a case in point. I just read a book about solar power satellites [1], that went through the history of advanced launch programs in the U.S. Nothing ever got done because every few years, the new set of elected officials decided they wanted a different plan.

So all the ideas for new plans finally were abandoned, and now we've settled on an extremely risk-averse approach: the SLS, a disposable rocket using technology from the Space Shuttle. Politicians like it because it keeps the big contractors happy and puts jobs in a lot of districts, but it can't hope to expand access to space in the way the BFR is likely to do, because it will cost several billion dollars per launch [2].

If we don't like depending on billionaires, then we'd better figure out how to make daring and creative governments. Until we do, I'm glad there are people willing and able to spend their own money on fixing the problems that governments aren't fixing. I don't understand the view that only our governments should try to make the world better.

[1] [https://www.amazon.com/Case-Space-Solar-Power- ebook/dp/B00HN...](https://www.amazon.com/Case-Space-Solar-Power- ebook/dp/B00HNZ0Z96)

[2] [http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2330/1](http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2330/1)

</comment><comment><USER7> The Economist has a novel approach: look at what's actually happening.

"The would-be world-changers are applying innovative and evidence-based approaches in clinics and classrooms, where elected politicians are often too timid to risk failure, captured by entrenched interests or unwilling to spend public money on experimentation."

</comment><comment><USER8> Well I guess any individual or organization has capacity for good or evil in them. But, in mankind history so far, the large organizations responsible for most evil in the world were religious and governmental.

Corporations and the ultra rich are pretty new arrivals in the picture and I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. Especially since their track of record during the last century is net positive (much more good things coming out of them than bad).

And especially considering the "new" way they made their money, through adding value instead of the old way through being born into is, stealing and pillaging...

<comment><USER9> Net positive how? How do you measure that, when you take into account oil companies and banks for example?

<comment><USER10> Banks are a net positive. Without them we have no modern economy. Occasionally the economy destabalizes as part of a cycle, but it (historically) restabalizes. The media pays an outsized lens to the corruption of Big Banks, but without their basic activity many modern quality of life improvements would be infeasible.

<comment><USER11> The question here is can't we have banks that fulfill their basic functionality without the corrupting and destabilizing effects of the big banks?

I'm not convinced that we can't have the former without the latter. But that would mean limiting the latter and there is not much political will to do so.

<comment><USER10> _> The question here is can't we have banks that fulfill their basic functionality without the corrupting and destabilizing effects of the big banks?_

Implicit in this question is the idea that the destabilizing effects are actually a large amount of the banking activity. I would argue they are not, we just hear about that far more often because it's bad news, and bad news is more interesting. The rote, mundane functionality of all banks, including the big ones, is mostly under the radar and (in my opinion) vastly underappreciated with respect to banks' occasional tendency to throw the system out of whack. In particular, I would posit that the latter is more a manifestation of common economic activity than it is to a centralized and consolidated banking infrastructure. Or, more succinctly, that economic activity at the modern scale does not sustain itself without these banks working more or less as they do now.

There are certainly improvements to be made, for sure. But I personally discount the possibility that those improvements would radically reshape banking infrastructure or significantly reduce the volatility cycle we encounter every decade or two.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> >Mr Musk has gone further still. Rather than using his business wealth to support philanthropy in an unrelated area, he runs two giant companies, Tesla (a clean-energy firm that sells electric cars) and SpaceX (which builds the Falcon rockets), that further his ambitious goals directly.

Well, by launching many rockets burning hundreds of tons of kerosene each, SpaceX kinda offsets Tesla's clean energy efforts.

<comment><USER13> Well by getting the human race closer to colonizing other rocks floating in space, it kinda offsets SpaceX burning hundreds of tons of kerosene for each rocket.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Ultra riches are the new nobility. People that are not bounded by the rules the rest of us must abide to. Some pf them do good things with their power, and some of them do bad things. The main issue, for me, is that we don't get to choose or control. They are like old time's Kings and queens.

</comment><comment><USER15> For me personally, whats very concerning is that we are in 2018, prolly a few years away from having flying cars and whatnot.

And yet its much easier to find a cellphone than it is to find food and water. There are literally people still dying of starvation and yet there is something to be done about it.

We've evolved into buying more and more stuff, improving our everyday life by little bits such as upgrading from iphone 7 to 8, while there are still people out there that don't have something to put in their stomach, don't have the means to basic healthcare and don't have a roof over their head for when its cold and raining.

If you so want to improve the world, start off the basics and then move on.

</comment><comment><USER16> The roaring 2020's

</comment><comment><USER17> By taking away the resources from the population and giving in return some charity campaigns and campaigns improving their personal image? (it's hard getting to the top by being nice, generous, and caring).

<comment><USER18> Yes, such evil people, "taking resources from the population" by offering goods and services that people want to buy at prices they want to pay.

<comment><USER17> > by offering goods and services that people want to buy at prices they want > to pay.

Exclusively on certain markets - large, developed, and rich enough. While on other markets taking advantage of cheap labor and loose employee protection... and while paying the taxes in none of these markets... you forgot to add.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Cached: [https://archive.is/BYAdr](https://archive.is/BYAdr)

Note: The print title of this article was "The billionaires and the Falcon Heavy". Probably more appropriate given the actual content.

Spoiler: Article contains lightweight, anti-tech snobbery...

</comment><comment><USER20> Unlike most people, I am not against mega rich in general, or asume, that they are all evil. But what just came to my mind with this sentence:

".. and Henry Ford ruthlessly made fortunes and then established foundations to enlighten the masses and ensure world peace long after their death. "

... is how it is meant regarding Ford. Enlightening the masses about the jews evil conspiracy and ensuring world peace by helping nazi domination?

<comment><USER5> That's how people end up seeing the victors. No matter what they do.

Take Bill Gates. 20 years ago he was evil incarnate, his company caught in lying, cheating, corrupting. Now his PR team made sure he is regarded as one of the good ones. For the last few years, you saw post in HN, reddit, imgurs, all singing the goodness of his heart. And then comments followed.

No matter how many article you had decades ago stating all the wrong MS did, it's all water under the bridge. No ones remember. Clean slate.

Now people are even saying that Bush Jr. was "not so bad".

In 10 years, people will say Trump was ok.

<comment><USER6> Partly Bill's PR team. Mostly the fact that he's committed most of his billions to helping the poor and healing the sick.

<comment><USER21> Yeah how many of those billions are part of that economy that is actually causing the harm (wars, famine, poverty, etc) that they are then proud to "fight"? c'mon how can people believe in such narrative? like the new one with Elon Musk... it is impossible even to try criticize them. Their hypocrisy is too smart and too well organized to be fought.

<comment><USER22> Comments like these are ineffective because you aren't providing any evidence or arguments to justify your beliefs. You're just asserting that you're right and everyone else is wrong. Why should anyone believe you?

<comment><USER5> We have 20 years of reporting about the mischief of Microsoft. What more do you need ?

Why do we even have to, yet again, bring the burden of the proof to fight a PR orchestrated with millions of dollar ?

It's an impossible to win fight to tell the sky is blue to people if the minute they don't look at it anymore, they doubt it and ask for proof.

<comment><USER22> Microsoft's anti-competitive business practices caused wars, famine, and poverty in Africa? That's news to me. So yeah, you do have the burden of proof if you're going to defend statements to that effect.

Also, it's not safe to assume that everyone has read the same things you've read, and knows the same things you do. You have to be prepared to present your evidence during every conversation. Those are table stakes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> .

<comment><USER24> Can you please provide a valid reason that it is no longer credible?

I am a long time Economist reader. The publication is consistent in quality and its viewpoints. You don't have to agree with its views, but it does not lack credibility.</comment></comment>


Marketing Posters and Flyers on the Cloud - <AUTHOR> http://www.posterini.com

<comment><AUTHOR> Travel back in time with startup Vid: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXmPW8rUMAk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXmPW8rUMAk)</comment>


Ask HN: Not getting anywhere in my major, make the switch to Computer Science? - <AUTHOR>

Hey everyone, I'm in a situation right now that I feel is just disappointing for me. I'm currently majoring in Bioengineering and while I thought it was going to be interesting to me I discovered that my real interest lies in Computer Science (algorithms, hardware and software interaction,and the mathematics behind programming all the way down to the circuit board). I just don't have any interest in my current major but I'm concerned that by being a Junior in college I've missed many chances to have made the switch earlier. I want to learn and make my life meaningful and I don't think that's going to happen with Bioengineering. I feel I would have a better background in Computer Science and branch out, if I wanted to, in Machine Learning and actually solve problems with the knowledge that I have gained in my undergraduate career. I just feel that there is something waiting for me out there and I just need to make the jump to get out of this depression that I'm in. So much of the world revolves around code and that is something I find deeply interesting after having been exposed to it by some undergraduate teaching assistants who have a background in Computer Engineering and Computer Science.
Anyone have any general advice for me?
Oh and if the financial situation concerns you, I'm lucky that New York State has supported me with grants that I'm not paying anything to go to college (except for the summer class that I took a while back) so money is not a big concern on my end. <comment><USER2> The school I attended had Bioengineering which was more ag-bio engineering. It is something I'm looking at learning more about specifically the gene/biology coding aspects.

My $.02 is that you are in a good position to learn computer programming as it applies to sensors (ag/biology) and to learn how to process/mine/filter large data sets.

I'd talk with a professor or two in your major and see how many computer science classes you can substitute along with seeing what you can learn on your own.

<comment><AUTHOR> I've learned a decent amount about sensors and just started to get into neural networks, specifically the Probabilistic Neural Network for binary classification problems. Can you point me in the right direction for internships with what you are doing?

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Though it's not often discussed much today, one of the uses of a college education is figuring out what you are interested in...and what you are not interested in.

Sure some people know what they want to do when they are juniors in high school, but many people experience a lot of intellectual growth during the next four years it takes to reach junior class at university, and in some cases it would be a tragedy if their values and interests had not changed.

</comment><comment><USER4> You're definitely not "too late" to make the switch, as long as you're ok with staying in school a few more years. I would say definitely jump over to CS, get to know some professors and their research interests. College can be invaluable for making those connections and experiencing cutting-edge research. source: I'm currently a cs undergrad doing some awesome machine learning research :)</comment>


Beyond L2 Loss – How We Experiment with Loss Functions - <AUTHOR> https://eng.lyft.com/beyond-l2-loss-how-we-experiment-with-loss-functions-at-lyft-51f9303f5d2d <comment><USER2> Really interesting article! This is a great example of scientific strategy and thought being used in an applied setting. I also like the effort to make the different choices interpretable.

Loss functions are an often overlooked area of machine learning and tend to be taken for granted.

Too many times I have seen others (and been guilty of the same) just arbitrarily choose torch.nn.NLLLoss/TensorFlow equivalent or some other loss function that's the flavour of the day for the task.

</comment><comment><USER3> One could get deeper theoretical insights into the different loss functions by thinking of them as different priors over the parameters you're fitting (e.g., Gaussian prior is L2, Laplace prior is L1).

I wonder how these other losses you're looking at such as Patton losses could be interpreted as what prior distributions?

<comment><USER4> In Bayesian inference this isn't actually as helpful as you make it sound. In some special applications there have been physically motived (even _discovered_ ) prior distributions, like Weibull, Gumbel or Rayleigh distributions.

But almost never do you start from freedom for arbitrary loss functions and work backwards to what prior they would imply. That's mathematical curiosity that doesn't connect to understanding of the problem domain.

More usually you will put simple, known form priors on the quantities you need to model, and then abstract the parameters of those priors into hyperprior distributions, and just keep doing this process until the parameters you end with are so abstracted from how they influence the inference that it will be perfectly valid to assume uninformative priors at that stage.

You would only adjust the functional form of your intermediate, parameterized priors if doing this and carrying out model fitting ended up with very poor model fit or poor posterior predictive checking, in which case it would be the aspect of poor model fit that informs you about problem structure and leads to a revised prior, not the other way around.

Even when there is poor model fit, changing from simple priors / uninformative hyperpriors won't be a first reaction. You might try data cleaning, transformation of variables, dimensionality reduction, collecting more data, changing the core likelihood function of the model, and many more things before having good enough reason to think that manipulating prior distributions is going to be important for the solution.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Where do you find your designers? - <AUTHOR>

We're looking for a designer to do our main website Our startup is still in development process, so we want to find a freelancer who is discrete and will sign an NDA, but most of all we want someone very talented who can create a stunning design!<p>Where do you guys go for designers? <comment><USER2> I had many bad experiences with sites like Elance. And I don't have designers around me. This is why I'm working on qwikast.com which aims to solve that problem ;-)

<comment><AUTHOR> Sounds awesome!

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I think Dribbble is a popular place to find designers.</comment>


Google WiFi review: A hassle-free router comes at a price - <AUTHOR> https://www.engadget.com/2016/12/06/google-wifi-review/ <comment><USER2> Considering that most components of the Google ecosystem also serve as data collectors for the mother ship, this article would be greatly improved if he clarified with Google what information (if any) this thing sends back to HQ.</comment>


Beyond the Internet, Innovation Struggles - <AUTHOR> http://www.wsj.com/articles/beyond-the-internet-innovation-struggles-1439401576?

<comment><AUTHOR> Mirror of article text, for those who can't get past the paywall: [https://www.notehub.org/2015/8/20/beyond-the-internet- innova...](https://www.notehub.org/2015/8/20/beyond-the-internet-innovation- struggles)</comment>


The Data Sleuths of San José - <AUTHOR> http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/05/27/the-data-sleuths-of-san-jose-costa-rica-corruption/?utm_content=buffer245aa&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer <comment><USER2> Lol at the close button on the annoying promo overlay. "× Closing this window will expire your one-time offer"</comment>


Official Angular 2 Style Guide Released - <AUTHOR> https://angular.io/styleguide <comment><USER2> Nice. Glad to see they're finally hosting John Papa's styleguide. It will be much easier for newcomers to find it.</comment>


The Illusion of Intelligence - <AUTHOR> http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/the_illusion_of_intelligence/

<comment><USER2> Starts out funny, but gets painful when the author starts trying to defend his claim.

The article as a whole never defines what "human intelligence" is -- which enables the author to use the "no true Scotsman fallacy" whenever a counterexample is brought up (see the comments).

> "science knows that we make decisions before the rational parts of our > brains activate"

How true is this? Always? Sometimes? Who did this study? What were the controls?

> math skills are real, for example. But a computer can do math.

Doesn't cover all math skills -- just the easy ones. Using math != creating math. Could a computer create, say, set theory or proof theory?

> Language skills are real too, but a computer can understand words and > sentence structure.

Again, the example doesn't cover all human language skills -- just the easy ones.

Maybe the biggest problem is the implicit assumption the author makes that everything that humans do depends on human intelligence. If you make that assumption, and it turns out to be false -- if humans do lots of things that don't require human intelligence -- then, obviously, it's very easy to cherry- pick examples of things humans do that don't require human intelligence. But that doesn't have anything to do with whether human intelligence exists or not, or whether we can duplicate it with computers.

</comment><comment><USER3> I've long held this belief, although I have not phrased it with such enjoyable humor.

When I heard people say things similar to " 'they' say that in 20 years, computers will be smarter than people - do you think that's true?" I reply with "they're already 'smarter', and artificial intelligence already exists".

I follow up with the assertion that when AI is, if it's not _already_ , a fully developed reality it won't take the form we're expecting, much in the same way that "artificial flight" did not take the form of humans flying like birds.

<comment><USER4> I still think that when claiming computers are 'smarter' than people, you are side-stepping the fundamental problem with which this article revolves around, and that is the problem of properly defining 'intelligence'. Can computers write a classic novel? Can computers compose a masterpiece? Can computers perform in a ballet? Sure, they can replicate automated tasks and calculate much faster than humans, but that does not make them inherently smarter, especially when you consider that humans created computers, not the other way around.

<comment><USER3> Yes, I absolutely agree with you! In _they 're already 'smarter'_, I had smarter in single quotes - which I imagined myself saying with finger-air quotes. Computers are "smarter" than us in a _very narrowly_ defined way only. As you pointed out, properly defining intelligence is very difficult.</comment></comment></comment>


What does hearing loss sound like? (using Web Audio API) - <AUTHOR> http://tonal.goodhertz.co/hearing-loss/ <comment><USER2> A few years back I went totally deaf in my right ear. It was pretty harrowing, but turned out to be a virus, and my hearing returned in about a week.

As part of the follow up, I had a full hearing exam. The audiologist found my hearing was normal for my age, but went on to explain that everyone's hearing degrades as they age. At my age, she said, the situation that has the most pronounced impact is in moderately noisy environments like restaurants or coffee shops during conversation. The background frequencies drown out the frequencies of the human voice and my aging hears have a more difficult time separating the voice from the background noise.

Anecdotally, Mrs. Mar notes that in general, I speak more loudly than I did as a younger man.

Alas....</comment>


How Adobe's Photoshop Was Born - <AUTHOR> http://siliconuser.com/?q=node/10 <comment><USER2> _'... I am not a hunter, never fired a gun, but I'm told that if you want to shoot a duck, you have to shoot where the duck is going to be ...'_

Good to read in conjunction with FAW, Ch 21, Charles Geschke, P290 where Geschke explains how Adobe didn't have a product for photographic manipulation & by licensing the Knolls product beat the market.</comment>


Smart Tool to check multiple hosts states over SSH - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/melezhik/sparrow-plugins/tree/master/ssh-bulk-check <comment><USER2> Whats smart about this? Its less flexible than ansible, requires BASH and hardcoded passwords?</comment>


Sheep logic – We think we are wolves but we are sheep - <AUTHOR> http://epsilontheory.com/sheep-logic/ <comment><USER2> As the old saying goes, "Sheep are freer than human beings because they get to think whatever they want, just as long as the stay with the herd." [Whereas we have to herd even with our thoughts.]</comment>


Show HN: Get Voice / Text feedback from your mobile apps - <AUTHOR> http://konotor.s3.amazonaws.com/index.html

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi folks. Konotor is the result of seeing the kind of difference low friction feedback can make to help engage with your users to gain valuable insight on what your users like or don't like in your product. We were encouraged by the engagement we saw in our own product, and hence decided to offer the solution to other app developers.

We'd love to know what you think. If you'd like to use the service just drop your email on our site. Thank you.</comment>


Expand your mind using constraints. Cooking with 7-11 and Cadbury Mini Eggs. - <AUTHOR> http://blog.inklingmarkets.com/2010/02/expand-your-mind-using-constraints.html <comment><USER2> I'm just kind of wondering what the OP found at 7-11 to put the mole ON. It was unidentifiable from the picture. Also, I was sure they would have gone with some sort of salsa instead of spaghetti sauce. When they were saying "What has tomatoes and garlic and onions and liquid already in it?" I was like, oh, he's going to use sals... WHAT? No, not spaghetti sauce!

<comment><USER3> Good question :) Well that is one of those things that we just stock up on at the grocery store: chicken breasts. I was originally going to see if I could ONLY cook with stuff from 7-11 but that proved impossible for me when I want to include meat. Since 7-11 only carries things like bacon. Which is yummy nonetheless.

So I expanded my rules to be like "if I'm at a grocery store by chance and stock up on some staples" then those can be used. I just want to get away from the habit of getting a recipe and writing out the list of stuff I need then having to hope we find the time in the next couple days to actually buy that list. This way, we use what we have more often.

And yep, might have used salsa if I had some. But we had pasta sauce on hand already.

<comment><USER2> I imagine the hardest stuff to work around will be fresh produce as it just has a short shelf life. I rarely follow recipes exactly myself although I haven't gone this far out there yet. I usually look at a few recipes to get a general idea of ratios and ingredients and then come up with a blend that sounds most appealing to me. I haven't gone this far out there yet though. I'm not even sure what all is available at most 7-11s and Walgreens other than snacks - although I have been noticing that 7-11 seems to be trying to carry some produce. Any other unusual combinations you're thinking of trying?

<comment><USER3> Yeah, the produce thing is a problem. 7-11 by me has been carrying things though like fruit, so more recipes I'm making explore stuff with apples and oranges. I've also been exploring what I can do with fruit snack cups that have peaches and stuff in them. I found a recipe for a mango chutney, I didn't have mango :) but I had a peach snack cup from 7-11, turned out great.

7-11 has been carrying avocados and potatoes every now and then. And I hear walgreens started to have onions sometimes.

One of the most fun cooking experience we've had was when my wife was signed up for Freshpicks <http://www.freshpicks.com/cms/>. So she would get pretty random assortments of fresh vegetables and we would figure out what to make with them or try and screw them into some recipe that called for something else. I'm thinking of signing us up for that again because it plays well into this habit of making stuff with what you already have without planning.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Let me just say from experience, never put a Hersey's bar in a pot of pork and beans. I did this in 1991 and I still have the taste in my mouth.

</comment><comment><USER5> This reminds me a bit of Andy Tanenbaum's cookbook, which contains a breathtakingly bad lasagna recipe consisting of noodles and beef topped with ketchup:

<http://www.cs.vu.nl/~ast/home/how_to_prep.ps>

I first read this more than 10 years ago and still get a little shiver of revulsion every time I think about it.

<comment><USER6> Ketchup on noodles was big in Sweden.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I end up doing this by cooking vegan (I eat anything but my roomates don't). The constraint of not being able to use any animal products while cooking forces me to think creatively about taste and ingredients.</comment>


Ask HN: How to get started with start-ups? - <AUTHOR>

I'm a computer science grad currently working on a government contract, but I want to get into the world of start-ups.
Should I try and start my own? What if I don't have any ideas?
Should I join an existing start-up? How do I find one that's looking?
How did you get started with start-ups? <comment><USER2> I would recommend you a simple three-fold approach:

1\. Think of an existing Web application that you like a lot

2\. Think of a feature it's either missing or something that can be simplified in the app

3\. Build a stripped-down version of the app in your spare time as a side project. Launch, gather feedback & analytics, improve, repeat.

This approach will solve your concern with finding the idea and executing it with limited resources.

</comment><comment><USER3> Build something/anything and put it on the web. It almost doesn't matter what. Aim for something where you can build a kind of working version in a week or two. Do NOT launch into 6 months of development before making it public as your initial ideas will almost inevitably be wrong.

If you get no users, why? Fix that and repeat. If you get unhappy users, why? Fix that and repeat. If you realize the initial idea is incurably broken throw it away in favour of something better.

You may have no ideas but once you start you'll suddenly have lots.

</comment><comment><USER4> Start small.

Build something you`re passionate about, and go through all the phases: market research > product outline > dev/design > test > release > marketing

See what works, what doesn`t and most important have fun building it.

Small projects like: <http://umbrellatoday.com/> or <http://bouldr.net> are the best thing to start off with, gain experience and network the hell out the local tech/biz community.

Good luck and have fun!

</comment><comment><USER5> One option you have is to look at portfolio companies for the major VC's to see if they are looking for developers and are tackling problems that are interesting to you. Some examples:

<http://jobs.sequoiacap.com/> <http://www.usvp.com/> <http://jobs.kpcb.com/>

This would get your foot in the door of the "world of start-ups" without taking the plunge of doing your own thing.

</comment><comment><USER6> The answer depends on if you know what you want to do. If there's an idea you're passionate about, go ahead and build it.

If you don't have an idea or need help building it (design, programming, business) - go work for a funded startup that pays market rate, learn as much as you can, save up some cash, network like crazy and leave when you're ready to start on your own, but make sure not to burn any bridges.

</comment><comment><USER7> You can join my startup! Flixa.tv. Indie film online distribution startup. Click on my name for email. I'm looking for a technical cofounder.</comment>


One-Click Website Deployment to AWS - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/echelon-solutions/aws-cloudformation-website <comment><AUTHOR> Hello Hacker News!

Here's an AWS (Amazon Web Services) configuration that deploys all the infrastructure you need to have a website running in the cloud.

Takes care of creating an:

\- "AWS S3 Bucket" to store your site assets (html/css/etc)

\- "Route53 Hosted Zone" to manage your DNS

\- "CloudFront Distribution" to make sure your site is served latency-free across time zones and continets</comment>


Second Life: Europeans Outnumber Americans 3 to 1 - <AUTHOR> http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/05/05/second-life-europeans-outnumber-americans-3-to-1/ <comment><USER2> In an interesting coincidence, Europeans outnumber Americans approximately 2.4 : 1 (730 mil to 300 mil), so maybe there exists a simple explanation for this phenomenon...

<comment><USER3> You probably took that number from Wikipedia, where Russia (100m) and Turkey (80m) and many other unrelated countries count as Europe too. The exact number for today's EU is 486m.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Paul, you have theories about everything, how about this one? :)

There was an interesting article about why jazz is more popular in Eurpoe and Japan than in the U.S. Accoring to the author, it was something to do with abstract thinking: if music is a language, then jazz is the most abstract part of it - no feelings, no relation to real-world notions, just pure musical math. (I'd say also baroque music is as abstract as jazz.)

SecondLife in a way is about abstract thinking, too.

<comment><AUTHOR> It seems to me the most likely explanation is that Europeans care more about liking highbrow things. Most people who like jazz are also rather proud that they like it.

I suspect you'd also find more Europeans than Americans are fans of Beuys, or Lacan, or _Finnegan's Wake_ , or other such things that might have been created as controls in experiments to measure pretentiousness.

<comment><USER4> I'm not sure if that explains Japan, though.

I think cultural values play a part, but I think it has more to do with the way early musical education typically works in those countries.

<comment><USER3> In my other reply to you I tried to explain that it's not only about musical education, but abstract thinking in general.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> pg beat me to it!!

What does this mean? My thoughts:

1\. European users are relatively more jobless (this post <http://news.ycombinator.com/comments?id=18996> further validates the claim)

2\. European users have fewer options for gratification on the Internet

3\. The long tail of second life members as a whole, in particular is skewed in favor of the European long tail. Its either longer or fatter.</comment>