Jack Dorsey's 28.3% Square ownership gives him 75% control. - <AUTHOR> Hi all, HN newbie here :). I was invited as a YC finalist back in April for our business which revolves around measuring shareholder control. Some of you told me you thought the community would find the link interesting, so I'm happy to oblige:
http://www.rotarygallop.com/2/post/2012/06/ownership-and-control-at-square.html
While the headline is Control at Square, I hope as fellow entrepreneur's you'll takeaway a few more broad points:
-Unless it is zero or greater than 50% , your percentage ownership reveals exactly nothing about your control.
-Sophisticated entrepreneurs and venture capitalists know this much, which is why they often advise letting control take care of itself. What they don't know is that the story doesn't end there. (Almost no one knows this including activist's investors I've worked with who take over companies for a living.)
-Control is not soft and fuzzy. It is definable, measurable, and manageable. Just like all the other metrics that drive your business, you can measure it, make decisions and move on.
Talk to me in the comments! <comment><USER2> When I read this headline, I interpreted it to mean Jack owns 28.3% of the shares, but that his class of shares has greater voting rights, and so he has 75% of the votes (a majority - similar to Zuckerberg).

However, that's not what the author means by "control". He means the chance that a shareholder vote goes Jack's way, under the very large assumption that every other shareholder votes independently at random.

That doesn't seem a very meaningful statistic, especially if there are other groups of shareholders with shared interests (for example VCs may be more likely to have goals in common, and would be likely to vote their shares on a big issue together.)

<comment><AUTHOR> Sorry for the confusion, terminology around this issue can be VERY confusing. The word control in particular is nearly always abused.

Control is itself an objective number without assumptions beyond a shareholder-list / Cap-table. Control is literally the percent of all possible outcomes in which the result of the vote/election is decided by the shareholder's vote.

In the link you will find a second graph, in which I give the chances of winning a shareholder vote. Here there is an assumption that each shareholder is as likely to vote one way as another. There is no doubt it is a softer number, but I report it because people can understand what it means much faster than control.

Now these issues of psychology and feelings about particular issues can be accounted for, as you can imagine its necessary when working on the activist situations we cut our teeth on, but there we generally have public statements about which way particular shareholders plan to vote, or how they feel. When looking at a founders long term control, its best to leave out these issue. Less good information is better than more so-so information.

If you want to know a about founders ability to do something specific that would polarize shareholders around common interests, such as sell the company at a price that is personally rewarding, but not great for the investors, that calculation can be done. I just think it should be thought of separately from a founders general control.

Sorry for the length and hope this helps!

<comment><USER3> _terminology around this issue can be VERY confusing_

You are not making it any simpler by redefining "control" in this theoretical way. You are making some very naive assumptions about independence: you'd be much better off treating the investors as a single voting bloc, which is what the usual sense of "control" assumes - and if there are multiple founders you should assume that serial investors are very sophisticated at splitting them.

A good followup would be to go out and actually measure the distribution of voting outcomes rather than making a strong claim based on the most tractable assumptions you can find.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> This usage of the word 'control' in this article seems very different from how it is typically used in the tech industry, even misleading.

Normally when we're talking about a minority shareholder having control, it is as a result of multiple share types with different voting rights (as in Facebook, Google, News Corp, etc.).

The assumptions also should be really clearly labelled, to also avoid misleading people. "there is an assumption that each shareholder is as likely to vote one way as another" is a huge assumption that is essentially based on zero information, whereas information is typically available for a particular company. It's worse than the assumptions behind options pricing models using Gaussian (so-called 'normal') distributions, imho.

</comment><comment><USER5> It would be great if there were a link to a primer on control and how it differs from ownership and how it is calculated.

<comment><USER6> Generally, it's simply a sliding scale of voting vs non voting stock. AKA each share of class A get's 10 votes, Class B get's 1 vote, and Class C get's 0 votes. Which is equivalent to A is 10 voting shares, B is 1 voting share 9 non voting share, and C is 10 non voting shares.

Note, none voting shares get the same percentage of the profits. And often there are conditions that transform A shares into B shares upon sale etc.

<comment><USER2> That doesn't appear to be the meaning of "control" that OP is using.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I would need to see a more solid argument that control could come own to the odds of winning a vote. My hunch is that "the odds" would become mostly irrelevant when it came to a contentious topic.

</comment><comment><USER8> I was CIO for PIRC.co.uk for some years and this is a fascinating topic, and I wish I had more time for this.

I assume you are using Banzhaf Indexes (If I spelt that right!) to determine the "swing vote" power.

I have long thought there is potential for individual investors in say pension funds to be allowed to vote their 'beneficial' (#) holding their way - so the controversial measures start to become more democratic. One day I will persuade a pension fund to try this, but that might just play havoc with your analysis :-)

Out of interest, how much of say the Dow have shareholders that hold 'disproportionate' power ? _ say 10% more influence than their vote count would suggest?

Good luck !

(#) I don't think the term I mean exists.

edit: * -> # to avoid italics

<comment><AUTHOR> Just went over to PIRC, very cool! I'd love to have a short chat some time. I'm interested in the UK market because a very high percentage of the ownership in public companies is known. Nothing like tiny error bars :P

That's an interesting idea with the pension funds. It might cause a hiccup in the analysis bybincreasing the percentage of unknown stockholders, Proxy Solicitor would love it since the retail campaigns are highly profitable.

I've been tossing around the idea of partnering with a website like moxyvote that has retail investors following these issues. I think it would be interesting to let them indicate their intended vote then calculate their collective power. I think it would be motivating and increase turnout.

In answer to you question about the Dow I have not run them as a set, but I've never worked on a company yet that didn't have at least one shareholder that met that criteria.

Email me at email@example.com if you'd like to chat.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Control is obviously closely linked to share ownership, in the sense that where ownership is over a certain threshold you will be able to exercise a much greater degree of control than below that threshold. For example, the 51/49% split, but also, in the UK, where you have power of veto over major decisions requiring a special resolution with 25% or more.

However, I would be interested here to understand how two people with different shareholdings are able to exercise equivalent levels of control (again on the assumption that each share attracts one vote).

This assumes that control is being assessed on a pure basis without taking into consideration the psychology at play between different shareholders.

<comment><USER2> Consider the case of a company with 3 shareholders.

      A has 49%
      B has 49%
      C has 2%

When an important vote comes up, C's vote is just as important as A or B.

<comment><AUTHOR> Bingo! I call this the Crazy Uncle Charlie example:).

One tiny correction: when any vote, important or otherwise, comes up C's vote is just as important as A or B.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Thank you everyone for the Up votes and the conversation! We reached six or seven on HN on the same say Seth Godin sent out a blog post mentioning how unlikely it is to reach the front page of HN. That was a treat!

I'd love to keep it going, but its late here (I'm traveling in Holland at the moment). So I think what I'll do is work on a post to try to address the most common questions and get back tomorrow.

As a HN newbie I would appreciate advice on whether it is better to post this in the comments, or start a new post.

</comment><comment><USER10> So control is unrelated to ownership; does this change the mechanics of companies based on their type? (C or S corps, LLC... etc) For instance, I thought ownership in an LLC reflected control as well.

So if votes count with equal weight, then letting other people in to the "ownership" of a company could be disastrous to the founders. A third, less knowledgeable but opinionated, party in the voting could totally destabilize the company if it threw its weight around.

This seems counter-intuitive.

<comment><AUTHOR> It is counter initiative! I done lots of these analyses and I've learned to just run the numbers, because intuition is often wrong ( though you can usually understand it in retrospect )

On control and ownership, if you tell me one shareholders percentage ownership, I still know nothing about thier control(unless they own more than 50%). So in this sense, a single shareholder's ownership is undelated to thier control. Now if you tell me all the shareholders ownership, then we know about control.

Your right control over an LLC works generally the same way as C Corp. This measure works regardless of corporate structure. We've even used it to measure control on a board of directors. The things that require accounting for are how the voting system works. For example is the criteria to win a vote 50% or 66%. Is it 50% of all shares, or of shares that bother to vote?

<comment><USER10> I almost understand what you mean, but my intuition keeps tripping me up.

Say there's an LLC with 3 owners: 70%, 20%, and 10%. All members get 1 vote (unless I'm missing something). So how does the ownership relate to their control? What's implied by basic math is that 3 votes equals roughly 33% control each, assuming all votes are in (and for/against). But what you showed in your article appears to disprove that.

You've gotten enough of my attention for me to subscribe to your blog, though.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you! That is great to hear!

Ah the three person system! You can really understand a lot of this by digging into it, so you are thinking along the right track! If you like we can have a chat by phone. Otherwise I think I can answer a lot of your questions and others by writing a post on the three person example, so you could wait for that too.

But a brief answer: 1) Whether each gets one vote depends on the LLC. It should outlined in the operating agreement. (Our company is considering adopting a voting system that actually equalizes ownership and control, a surprisingly hard thing to engineer! but once you've decided on it you can just amend the operating agreement.) 2) Lets say that is true, each of the three people gets one vote. Then you are right that they each have equal power, but if memory serves it actually amounts to 50%, not 33%. (un-intuitive right!)Meaning each person has a deciding/swing vote in half of the 8 possible outcomes.

<comment><USER10> I think I'll wait on the article for now. But I may ask for a phone call later out of personal curiosity.

<comment><AUTHOR> Sounds good. I was over optimistic promising today, though. Look for it next week. I'll post a comment hear when its up.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> This article and discussion makes me think that you either have control or you don't?

</comment><comment><USER12> Interesting. I'm meeting McKelvey tomorrow, so this whets my excitement.

<comment><AUTHOR> Great! I'd love to hear what reaction you get!

<comment><USER12> I'm there to listen! One of the few times thus far in my life where I'll be in a room with a combined attendee net worth probably exceeding $ 1 Billion USD. And, to think that I'm decreasing that value when factoring in student loans. . .

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> This is flat-out wrong. You are not talking about "control", which has specific meanings in corporate and tax law. You are talking about "likelihood of control" or some other concept that is somewhat related to control but is not "control" in the meaning as it is used by everyone else.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm not a lawyer, but I have been consulted by law firms employed by major activist investors litigating fortune 500 companies.

The short of it is, if your worried about actually controlling a company this is the control you need and I would suggest talking to me. If you are going to court, I would suggest talking to a lawyer (who may well want to talk to me :P).</comment></comment>


The Libertarian Futurism of a Silicon Valley Billionaire (2011) - <AUTHOR> http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2011/11/28/no-death-no-taxes

<comment><USER2> I'd say he's in good company along with Aubrey de Grey, Google, Cynthia Kenyon, Craig Ventor, Genentech, Apple and a few others... and with most of the rest of the human race of course.

[http://humanlongevity.com](http://humanlongevity.com)

[http://calicolabs.com](http://calicolabs.com)

[http://genopharmix.com](http://genopharmix.com)

[http://sens.org](http://sens.org)

[http://thebuckinstitute.com](http://thebuckinstitute.com)

"What controls aging? Biochemist Cynthia Kenyon [now with Google's Calico effort] has found a simple genetic mutation that can double the lifespan of a simple worm, C. elegans. The lessons from that discovery, and others, are pointing to how we might one day significantly extend youthful human life." — TED.com [VIDEO]: [http://www.ted.com/talks/cynthia_kenyon_experiments_that_hin...](http://www.ted.com/talks/cynthia_kenyon_experiments_that_hint_of_longer_lives)

"Google Launches New Company, Calico, to Extend the Human Life Span" - [http://goo.gl/2LgUKd](http://goo.gl/2LgUKd)

"The Race To Extend The Human Lifespan Is Heating Up: Google & Craig Venter Leading the Pack" \- [http://goo.gl/xrHWgv](http://goo.gl/xrHWgv) "For too many of our friends and family, life has been cut short or the quality of their life is too often lacking. Arthur Levinson is one of the crazy ones who thinks it doesn't have to be this way. There is no one better suited to lead this mission and I am excited to see the results." - Apple CEO Tim Cook

"Ten years ago, we thought aging was probably the result of a slow decay, a sort of rusting. But Professor Kenyon has shown that it's ... controlled by genes. That opens the possibility of slowing it down with drugs." — Jeff Holly, Bristol University

<comment><USER3> _most of the rest of the human race of course._

Most of the human race? Isn't there a meme that said pursuing immortality is folly?

That being said, I am in support of giving humans the opportunity to become immortal even though that implies we have to give up making babies.

<comment><USER4> Not necessarily. People would still be killed by accidents, acts of war, etc.

As long as each person contributed only one set of genes on average to the next generation (i.e., two children if each one was with one other partner, one child for full clones) the population would stabilize eventually. At a much higher level, yes, but it wouldn't grow without bound.

I think I read somewhere (but can't source at the moment) that if you got rid of diseases and old age, the average lifespan would be about 400 or so. That's considerably higher, but not true immortality.

All bets are off if we get computer brain backups and those are legally and philosophically accepted as being the "same person".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> "Thiel expressed concern that the company would attract people with a nonprofit attitude, who felt that "it's not about making money, we're doing something good, so we don't have to work as hard."

Turns out, people in non profits work harder. Doing something good has more value than money, as you long as you're paid enough to get by.

<comment><USER6> Is there anything to back this up? In my experience comparing startups to non- profits, people working for non-profits don't tend to get much done and have a phenomenal number of meetings.

<comment><USER7> I've had a similar experience; I've worked and volunteered with several nonprofit organizations, and I've worked for several for-profit companies (not startups), and the nonprofits were dazzlingly inefficient by comparison. The executives in the nonprofits were pretty driven and at least somewhat visionary, but average nonprofit employee seemed less competent than the average for-profit employee to me.

Dug around to see if I could find studies about this--most seemed to be about the beneficial effects (if any) of profit-sharing. The closest I came was this survey of hospital workers ([http://www.gallup.com/poll/7042/ForProfit-vs- NotforProfit-Tw...](http://www.gallup.com/poll/7042/ForProfit-vs-NotforProfit- Two-Paths-Same-Outcome.aspx)). Very roughly, it suggests that for-profit employees may be slightly more committed to doing quality work if the difference found in the survey is actually significant. Besides that, work at not-for-profits seems to be significantly more humane based on the responses. Unfortunately it's only about hospital employees and doesn't specify the sample size or the methodology.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> bra-ket ..it's probably "How many digits does the number 125^100 have?" instead of 125100

</comment><comment><USER2> Blade Runner quotes are quite fitting: [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0083658/quotes](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0083658/quotes)</comment>


Windows 10 is falling behind macOS, and it is frustrating - <AUTHOR> https://www.onmsft.com/editorial/point-windows-10-is-falling-behind-macos-and-it-is-absolutely-frustrating <comment><USER2> Cuz they're busy showing edge in everyone's face instead of offering easy to use firewall options for all the trackcrap out there xD</comment>


Reasons to consider a cartogram - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@joshuatauberer/how-that-map-you-saw-on-538-under-represents-minorities-by-half-and-other-reasons-to-consider-a-4a98f89cbbb1 <comment><AUTHOR> I shortened the headline because, well, it didn't fit...and also, I think "silences minorities" is a little strong. If the 538 map [1] in question aimed to argue something along the lines of, "Why do minorities have so much voting power when they represent so little of the country?"...then sure. But sometimes a standard choropleth is used when geopolitical boundaries and distinctions are important. I'm not sure that they're particularly important for "The Facebook Primary"...on the other hand, in the context of presidential elections, geopolitical boundaries are generally more relevant to the reader...because of the way presidents are decided via electoral college rather than popular vote.

That said, I absolutely agree that awareness and practice of cartograms is needed, as there are plenty of times when such geopolitical-agnostic granularity is needed. But it's not just a tradeoff in difficulty in production and design...cartograms are more abstract to the viewer, and the more geopolitical data that you fuzz over, the more you might as well just make a labeled bar chart...which also is an underused format these days, because very few people will want to decorate their articles and essays with bar charts when maps are just as easy to make.

[1] [http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/facebook- primary/](http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/facebook-primary/)

<comment><USER2> I think labeled bar charts are worse than maps and cartograms for conveying coarser grained information.

Bar charts beyond a single row are hard to compare because they use height rather than colour and they don't say anything about the location (e.g. I don't really know where wyoming is).

They also don't say anything about population size, which is what this article is about. You could do some height + colour thing to get the same effect, but then you're just building a crappy cartogram.

<comment><AUTHOR> > _You could do some height + colour thing to get the same effect, but then > you 're just building a crappy cartogram._

Yeah, that's what I meant. The spectrum for a cartogram has total geographical fidelity on one end, to total abstraction on the other. The latter would basically be a bar chart in which the geographical data has been basically ignored.

On the more abstract side, the Guardian did a radial chart for U.S. gay rights...the positions around the circle corresponded roughly to regions, i.e. "Northeast" is the top-right of the circle. Of course, it has all the problems inherent to radial charts...but it's a nice example of something that _could_ be a bar chart (a horizontal array of blocks) that attempted to include some geo-positioning data, even at a very general level:

[http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/may/10/data- vi...](http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/may/10/data- visualisation-us-gay-rights)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> > Maps of political sentiment give more space to the political right. Although > Obama took just over 50% of the vote in the 2012 election, his voters > account for only 38% of the space on a typical election map — making it look > like his opponent should have won.

I don't recall encountering sour grapes from even the least educated Republicans over the amount of the map colored red. Most people are aware of population density. And they always show the total votes bar chart next to the map.

> why [do] we keep drawing maps of land when it's the people we're interested > in

Well, because America has states and electoral votes, so we really _are_ kind of interested in land when talking about elections.

<comment><USER4> So would you object to a map like this[1] because Alaska and Hawaii are not geographically to scale with the other states? (Or in the correct geographic position for that matter)

Clearly distorting those 2 states does not distort the information the map conveys. So too with the other 48.

>...they always show the total votes bar chart next to the map...

I'm afraid not. Indeed the map I cited does not. Anyone glancing at it could fairly likely think Red won when in fact Blue won by very large margin. Actually it's hard to imagine a more confusing graphic.

[1][https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/44/Electora...](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/44/ElectoralCollege2012.svg)

<comment><USER3> The full Wikipedia article you conveniently snipped the map from does in fact show the popular vote in a bar chart:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_ele...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012)

My point is the claim that these maps are being used to trick people, is exaggerated. Why? Because it's rare that the popular vote tally is not shown, and most people are aware of population density.

I think that having as many different views as possible on the data is a great thing, and the maps in this article are excellent. However, because of the Electoral College, the standard map is not useless, and in fact shows you something no other map can - where a state is located along with how it voted in the election, projection distortions notwithstanding.

<comment><USER4> >most people are aware of population density

Half of Americans can not find New York on a map. Half can not find Mississippi. Most believe Alaska is more populous than any New England state etc.

>...they always show the total votes bar chart next to the map...

That image is used in at least 4000 places on the web[1]. Very few include the the vote bar you claim is always there. Even MIT omits it [2]

>I don't recall encountering sour grapes from even the least educated Republicans over the amount of the map colored red

And I have encountered quite a bit. Seems the people we happen to bump into at random are different.

>My point is the claim that these maps are being used to trick people, is exaggerated

Claiming that it is intentionally tricking people would be exaggerated. Claiming that it is incidental misleading people is spot on.

>the standard map is not useless

It is not completely useless. But is so nearly so that it clearly should not be the default means of presenting the information to the public.

[1][http://tineye.com/search/cdf0747ebb6fe87c0cc0f1dc1f21a35502b...](http://tineye.com/search/cdf0747ebb6fe87c0cc0f1dc1f21a35502b6007f/) [2][http://news.mit.edu/2012/presidential-election- conference-10...](http://news.mit.edu/2012/presidential-election- conference-1023)

<comment><USER3> I don't necessarily disagree with you.

Burning karma here but, imo, if someone can't find New York on a map they probably shouldn't even be allowed to vote for the President.

<comment><USER4> Quit possibly. But pushing the hypothetical further: simply depriving ignorant people of the vote, aside from possible justice issues, would certainly result in social instability. (not to mention the undoubtable drag on the economy that ignorance represents)

Better would be to see to it that everyone knows where New York is. And better still that everyone were indeed well informed enough not to be deluded by the map style we're talking about.

Given, unfortunately, that we do live in a world with a fair level of ignorance, we should probably take that into account when presenting information. Certainly there are cynical people who are all too aware of how to do so for negative ends. Or, as I think in this case, designers quickly putting together a pretty graphic for TV simply by following a graphic formula that isn't remotely the best.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Does anyone have any nice examples, other than the UK parliamentary seats map? It's widely used in the UK, but it's also perhaps the only decent cartogram I've seen.

Edit: Here's a reasonable one for the USA: [https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5a/Cartogra...](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5a/Cartogram-2008_Electoral_Vote.png)

And an interactive version of the UK one: [http://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng- interactive/2015/may/...](http://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng- interactive/2015/may/07/live-uk-election-results-in-full)

<comment><USER6> Hey. I'm the author of the article.

If folks want to toss links to good examples of cartograms in replies here, I'll add them to the article!

<comment><USER7> Why would you choose the 538 map to pick on when it's one of the few maps of this kind that actually allows you to zoom in on each area? That's as good a solution to the problem you're referring to as cartograms are. If not better.

Maps will always have inherent demographic bias, that's just how it is. And, sure, anyone who makes maps should be always looking for good solutions to these issues. But a smug Medium article proposing the use of cartograms, as if that's a new idea, doesn't help anyone. Except perhaps you, the author, if you're looking for some kind of attention or recognition.

<comment><USER6> > Why would you choose the 538 map to pick on

It was a convenient example. And I hadn't noticed the interactivity before writing the article. That said, I don't think the zoom function makes it much better.

If you think it's OK to routinely portray America as being only rural white America, and if you're not interested in knowing in a quantified way how different a map is from reality, then we live in different worlds. As I said at the top of the article, the point wasn't _that_ there is a bias (because that's no surprise to anyone) but to find out how large that bias is.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This is a thesis without any supporting arguments.

tl;dr the thesis is _Maps could be a reason policymakers don't focus on minority issues_

The American system of government is based on a bicameral system. That is, half of the legislative function (making new laws) is handled by a representation of the _people_ , the other half by a representation of the _land area_.

This is by design. It is not a bug. The system is not a true democracy and while paying attention to minorities is important in any republic, it is not the only consideration. The reason land mass was called out was because the states establish and form the U.S., but I guess if you had to do it over again you could assign power to people with lots of money. The point being a legislative body representative of the existing system (and responsible for the architecture, not just the performance of government) was desired.

But none of that was in there. Neither was there much proof that maps cause harm to minorities. Both of these things should have been addressed for the essay to be worth much, sadly. Nice graphs though.

</comment><comment><USER9> While I agree that cartograms beat standard maps for showing people-centric data, picking on FiveThirtyEight (which has done so much to de-obfuscate the American political system) seems a little silly.

> Maps could be a reason policymakers don't focus on minority issues.

Well it could, but other factors (such racism as gerrymandering) play a definitive role in influencing policymakers and the constituents they answer to.

<comment><USER10> The other thing that goes unmentioned here is that congress works on both a representation by population (house of representatives) and a representation by state irrespective of population (Senate). In the case of issues the senate has a say in, every state has an equal say regardless of population so in that case it wouldn't be appropriate to size a visual by population.</comment></comment>


Hello. i need to find a learning program i found on hackernews - <AUTHOR>

Hey guys i need to find a learning program i forgot to bookmark here on hackernews. It's called ankira something or anchira. It's a small program that let's you learn by giving you a small task to do, on your particular subject, thank you very much for your time <comment><USER2> Anki is the one you are probably thinking about. There are others that do the same kinds of things. These include Mnemosyne ("<http://www.mnemosyne- proj.org/>), and SuperMemo ("<http://www.supermemo.com/>).

For a longer list and an explanation of the science behind the software, go to Wikipedia and search for "spaced repetition".

</comment><comment><USER3> Anki? <http://ankisrs.net/>

<comment><AUTHOR> thank you so much, it was driving me crazy. Have a really nice day:)</comment></comment>


Disruptions: It is rude to send a "Thank You" e-mail. - <AUTHOR> http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/etiquette-redefined-in-the-digital-age/ Some people are so rude. Really, who sends an e-mail or text message that just says "Thank you"? <comment><USER2> Apologies, but I'm shocked by the self-centered, entitled crap I see here; most if not all of those annecdotes speak to the self-important, self-absorbed nature of modern society.

(Side note: this isn't just my opinion - there's a decent amount of research on the growth of narcissism in modern scotiety. Look at the work of Dr. Jean Twenge, for example)

A small example:

>My father learned this lesson last year after leaving me a dozen voice mail messages, none of which I listened to.

If you enable voicemail and allow people to leave you messages, it's on you to listen to them. Social interactions are no different than product or software design - don't include an affordance for a feature that you don't want the user to use or, worse, will result in guaranteed failure to accomplish the desired task. The fault _isn't_ the caller's.

<comment><USER3> Another indication of Mr. Bilton's self-centeredness and entitlement is that he posts tons of articles from his own NY Times blog (and nothing else) to HN, assuming that we all want to read it:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/submitted?id=nickbilton>

Other than those posts, his total contribution to HN was one comment made over a year ago. It's a bit ironic that someone who can't even be bothered to listen to his father's voicemails would assume that a community that he apparently doesn't consider himself a part of will want to read everything he has to say.

<comment><USER4> Not as bad as some people, but still:

(<http://imgur.com/OxrsFTP>)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I can't tell if this article is supposed to be sarcastic or tongue-in-cheek. I actually think it's part of a worrying pattern from nytimes to be idiotically controversial, perhaps to increase readership and link shares.

Anyway, I'll assume it's serious. A great piece of advice I heard a long time ago: if you constantly feel you're in a rush or don't have enough time for small tasks, you're probably not actually busy, you're mentally disorganized. Simplify the way you perceive the world and properly prioritize things. I feel like that advice applies well to this article. A superfluous e-mail is not a big deal.

</comment><comment><USER6> _My mother realized this long ago. Now we communicate mostly through Twitter._

My first impression was that this is just sad but I guess that different people (and cultures) have different expectations when it comes to communication.

With that said, the author is living inside a bubble created by his environment and his expectations. Saying that everyone should conform to his way of communicating is rude. Saying "thank you" to someone (through whatever communication channel you find most appropriate) is generally not rude.

</comment><comment><USER7> Are people getting so many 2-word "thank you" emails a day to show this article has a valid point? Don't get me wrong, sending merely "thank you" as a reply-all to a 200-person recipient list is one of the biggest email sins. But as a unicast, it serves the purpose of acknowledging receipt. If it was worth sending, it was worth knowing it was received, understood, and appreciated.

<comment><USER8> I think you're missing the point. Sending a thank-you note to a 200-person list is a waste of time and rude to those who don't send such notes at every occasion. If you need acknowledgement than what's better than knowing that other person has read your email? (the default behavior of Facebook messages by the way). It is however another matter if the person who read your email decide to not reply back.

I think this article makes a lot of sense.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Maybe this is why the people I interview almost never send us thank you notes. Here I thought it was just a general decline in etiquette, but they're really just being respectful of our time!

Seriously though, I'm curious how many people send thank you emails (or even cards) after an interview. I was always taught that it was extremely rude not to do this, but I'd say as a conservative estimate, we get thank you e-mails after less than 1 of every 10 interviews.

<comment><USER2> Interesting.

I'm recently out of graduate school and I've been interviewing for full-time positions recently. I send a thank you email 8-24 hours after every interview, with very few exceptions.

In contrast, I've been surprised/disappointed by the general vibe I've gotten in the interview process with a number of employers, large and small. Put most simply, there's little respect shown for candidates' time or situation. (This has been echoed through watching other classmates' experiences as well, so it's not just me being a low-value candidate)

The specifics vary, but it always clearly a one sided interaction and little effort is put in to relations with potential employees _except_ for the most high-profile, rock star candidates.

To me, that seems to be a serious failing - I appreciate the mindset that says you should treat employees with the same mindset that guides your interactions with customers - especially in high-talent or high customer contact industries where employee satisfaction translates quickly into real business value.

So, I guess my point is that I feel the job search process reveals more about society in general when viewed from both sides.

Still, I will always send the thank you notes. I figure the place I want to work is one that appreciates the small gestures as well as the big ones...

<comment><USER3> _"Put most simply, there's little respect shown for candidates' time or situation."_

And the same companies that treat job seekers rudely will probably complain about how hard it is to find qualified employees these days.

 _"To me, that seems to be a serious failing - I appreciate the mindset that says you should treat employees with the same mindset that guides your interactions with customers..."_

A lot of big tech companies aren't known for their wonderful customer service either.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Rude: "Thank you", vocal communication, simple requests for information

Perfectly acceptable (?): futzing with electronics when dining with others, talking loudly into the ether regardless of setting, sending passive- aggressive links to Google

Manners aren't passé, simply underappreciated in some quarters. In others they can make all the difference.

</comment><comment><USER11> This article is a result of what happens when you have no idea what to write about but you need to get something out quickly + when you want to sound sophisticated and socially progressive.

</comment><comment><USER12> Fwiw, I'm in the habit of sending thank you emails but I always change the subject from:

 _Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit_

to

 _Re: Lorem ipsum dolor sit -- Thanks!_

(On disqusish comment systems, I often upvote a reply to suggest I saw it rather than reply once more.)

</comment><comment><USER13> Another haxor wannabe (regardless of his age) using tech as an excuse to be rude. Kinda like programmers and their endless complaint about documentation :)

</comment><comment><USER14> This is self-centered and egotistical to a fault. So a thank email is too hard to deal with, but I'm expected to read him whine about them?</comment>


Clojure's Webframework "Noir" hits 1.2.0 - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/ibdknox/noir/blob/master/history.md

<comment><USER2> I use Noir for a few things, and it's been great so far.

You can write Clojure on the front-end as well with Pinot, which is a ClojureScript framework created by the author of Noir (ibdknox).

Noir isn't very large, so it's easy to read through the source if you're not sure how something works.

<comment><USER3> > Noir isn't very large

None of the main clojure web libs are very large, so this applies to all of them :)

<comment><AUTHOR> Nothing in Clojure is large by, say, C standards ;)

<comment><USER4> Well, compared to (older) Unix C standards, it's definitely closer to the Java (i.e. large) side. Compared to things like Win32 or gobject-like C abominations, I'd agree…

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Noir newbie here, was really happy with how easy it was to deploy to Heroku. Heroku's tutorial isn't tailored for Noir but this article made it very straight forward: [http://thecomputersarewinning.com/post/clojure-heroku- noir-m...](http://thecomputersarewinning.com/post/clojure-heroku-noir-mongo)

</comment><comment><USER6> Noir is awesome. I've been hacking on some small web apps and web services and Noir is just a pleasure to work with.

</comment><comment><USER7> Thanks for all the work! I'm using Noir right now for a few things, and I love it.

</comment><comment><USER8> I spent over an hour playing with Noir this afternoon and blogged about it. Not Noir specific, but I like the way stack traces are handled: any error generating a web page shows a tidy and useful stack trace. The linked article of running on Heroku with Noir and MongoDB was also fun to work through. Nice stuff.

<comment><AUTHOR> That actually _is_ noir specific. I wrote a bunch of stuff to display them like that and make them useable. :)

<comment><USER8> Cool!

It would be great if your stack trace cleaned up code made it back into Clojure.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> What is generally accepted as the most popular clojure web framework? I'm new to clojure, and functional languages in general, so I'm actually starting with working through SICP before I look into a framework, but I'm curious.

tl;dr What is the equivalent of rails in the clojure community?

<comment><USER3> There is no one framework (in fact, most of clj's web ecosystem is not frameworks) that is far and away more popular than the others.

At the heart of everything is Ring[1]. Ring is roughly equivalent to WSGI or Rack. However, if you use Django in python you basicly dont ever have to know about WSGI. In Clojure you do want to know about Ring. Thankfully Ring is very simple; its a spec describing request maps and response maps. In addition provides common adapters for various JVM web servers (In the general ring ecosystem there is support for Jetty, Netty (via Aleph/Lamina), Google App Engine (via appengine magic), Servlets, Mongrel2) and middlewares.

There are three sets of libraries on top of ring that are commonly used to build sites:

## Moustache

Probably the closest to raw ring of the three, moustache provides a sophisticated url routing API. Of the three I'm mentioning here it is probably the least suitable for clojure beginners, however it is my personal favorite.

## Compojure

This was the most popular [noir is apparently on par] and oldest (it predates ring but was rewritten ontop of it in the 0.4.0 release). The best analogy here is apparently sinatra for ruby.

## Noir

Noir is the most recent addition and is higher level than Moustache or Compojure. In fact, Noir is built on Compojure. I havent had any real experience with Noir myself but it is probably the easiest entry point into web programming in clj.

Compojure and Noir both use Hiccup for HTML generation, and Moustache uses Enlive. Enlive is extremely powerful; even if you choose hiccup I would encourage you to take a good look at enlive anyway, the two solutions dont need to be mutually exclusive.

      [1] Ring: http://github.com/mmcgrana/ring/

<comment><USER3> It would be remiss to not point out that noir probably has the strongest set of documentation (both api and tutorial styles) of the main three libs.</comment></comment></comment>


Lecture 15: How to Manage - <AUTHOR> http://startupclass.samaltman.com/courses/lec15/ <comment><USER2> I actually liked the fact that this lecture had just 1 lesson to teach, where Ben Horowitz used the entire time to reinforce the one point. I particularly enjoyed his historical reference to Touissaint L'Ouverture.

Best quote and lesson I picked up: "When you're making a critical decision, you have to understand how it's going to be interpreted from all points of view. Not just your point of view, not just the person you're talking to, but the people that aren't in the room. Everybody else."

For anyone interested in reviewing the top quotes I picked up (or if you can't wait until the transcript), you can find 21 Quotes from Ben Horowitz's lecture today here: [https://medium.com/how-to-start-a-startup/21-quotes-from- ben...](https://medium.com/how-to-start-a-startup/21-quotes-from-ben-horowitz- on-how-to-manage-de44b5dd3015)

</comment><comment><USER3> Most important takeaway for me was: In any discussion, it's not only critical to consider your perspective or that of the person you're directly dealing with, you must consider everyone else who's not in the room and their reactions/motivations.

Relevant far beyond the scope of startups

<comment><USER4> I considered what would be the opposite effect if you always considered others perspective. Wouldn't this affect the way you make decisions when you're required to put your foot down? Or is not a situation that often happens?

<comment><USER5> I take it to mean make sure you apply empathy in decisions, particularly hard ones. The ability to "put your foot down" is an independent skill and in many cases made easier if you take time to understand the perspectives and motivations of those who didn't have an initial voice in the conversation that led to the decision.

Ben has a good section in his recent book where he talks about firing executives. His suggested strategy involves a mix of exactly this, empathy, swift actions, and putting your foot down.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> In the situation of the 10 year vest, he pays attention to the feelings of unfairness that other employees pay attention to, but ignores the feelings of fairness that other employees will also pay attention to (hey, that guy left and didn't get screwed over by our stupid 90 day exercise policy).

Notably, the direction he argues for is primarily beneficial to the founders/CEOs, the position he's been in, as it reduces dilution by getting stock back into the option pool (and then not having to expand the option pool) from employees when they quit.

RSUs? A 10 year option? Someone needs to find a better way.

<comment><USER7> Why not a mix of 90 day and 10 year options?

Finding the right balance might be hard, but you want to achieve the balance between having the feeling that if you leave or are fired you are not totally screwed over, but at the same time not feeling like you are total handcuffed to a job and company you hate. I am just picking numbers out of the air but you could structure it so that 25% is 10 years and 75% is 90 days.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> This is one of the best videos of the series. Rich with details. The Toussaint breakdown at the end was also great. I wasn't previously familiar with that story, so can't speak to its accuracy but it did a great job in driving the lecture's lessons home. The advice on reassuring people and pausing is great as well.

</comment><comment><USER9> Great talk, however probably the #1 thing that is most frustrating about the startup ecosystem is the idea that management principles are an afterthought - this despite the fact that they are among the top reasons why companies fail. Ben's talk really reinforces two things that always stand out to me about the SV ecosystem:

1\. Management abilities aren't valued in founders

2\. It's almost 100% a finance game

To the first point, if you go back and listen to the first day, Sam talks about how young/inexperienced founders are probably the best at identifying new opportunities, and it would follow then that they are the best founders. This is in direct contrast to the idea of being good at hard management tasks like the ones that Ben brings up here. Also in contrast to the talk that PG gave in the same series about waiting to be a founder and his discussions about founders who are over 30. This is reinforced by the idea that a lot of Angel/VC money seems to be going to young, inexperienced founders who have a little traction.

Which leads me to think that, in actuality the funding sources do care about management, they just don't think it matters at the outset because they plan on bringing in "real" management at some point along the way. This is reinforced both by just looking at the history of high growth companies and in something one of my advisers sent me from Kaufmann and it was the Valuation worksheet [1]. you'll notice that a key determinant of valuation is: "founder willing to step aside if necessary for a new CEO." With anything but yes basically ending a deal.

To further the point, Ben's great walk-through of Sam's equity/vesting blog post really reinforces the notion that to get value out of this whole startup thing as anything _but_ and investor you really have to be lucky and savvy, and really hope that your investors have your best interest in mind. To me that is the kind of "dirty secret," which isn't so much of a secret anymore, of Silicon Valley. When someone mentioned during the video making more "incentive to stay" with a company, this is exactly the kind of talk I expect from the Gordon Gecko types, not the Wozniak-esque communal tech focused, make great things founder. While I doubt the person shouting that intended for it to come across quite as nihilistic, the unintended truth came out. Baking in equity incentives that promote retention are probably not good for employees in a competitive market, and thus not good for morale and "culture" in the long run, especially given the average shelf life of a startup.

Edit: Just so this isn't completely negative, I think the startup world really has the ability to have a big impact on management trends worldwide. We have seen this to a degree with the "rise of the developer," however generally speaking things are about the same structurally for employees even if the term sheets are more founder friendly than the 2000s. What thought leaders should be pushing in my opinion is the idea of flat organizations like Morning Star [2], and to a lesser extent Valve. The real revolution in management is having as little as possible and I don't hear that coming from the SV VC/Angels, yet we hear alot about board seats, equity/vesting etc...

[1]Page 16: [http://www.angelcapitalassociation.org/data/Documents/Resour...](http://www.angelcapitalassociation.org/data/Documents/Resources/AngelCapitalEducation/ACEF_- _Valuing_Pre-revenue_Companies.pdf)

[2][https://hbr.org/2011/12/first-lets-fire-all-the- managers/ar/...](https://hbr.org/2011/12/first-lets-fire-all-the- managers/ar/1)

<comment><USER10> I don't actually get the impression that #2 is true. Rather, I think people believe that _product_ is all-important, and both finance and management take a back seat to that. At this year's startup school, both Ron Conway and Jim Goetz (Sequoia) drove home the point that the #1 concern of entrepreneurs should be a maniacal focus on product, and it's okay to blow off investors if necessary to achieve it (often, they even like it).

I think that your other points would follow if you assume that there are two primary ways for a venture capitalist to invest in a startup that's achieved product/market fit:

1\. Get in before they have product/market fit, spread your bets across many small startups, double-down on your winners, and replace the founders with professional management once the company has taken off. This is much of the current seed investing climate, and the valuation worksheet you saw.

2\. Wait until they have product/market fit, but differentiate yourself from other VCs by providing non-financial resources needed for a novice entrepreneur to become an effective CEO. This is the a16z/Sequoia approach. They try to keep a founder as CEO (because they often have knowledge of the market and organization that would be very hard to replicate), but supplement it with generous advice and the VC's own networks.

<comment><USER9> I should clarify point 2 then. I don't mean that for founders it is a finance game, I mean that the idea of a community of high-growth, venture backed "Startups" which Y-Combinator and the various VCs sit at the seat of - is 100% finance driven. In other words, their goal is returns, not "changing the world" or doing anything different than the nihilists [1] on Wall Street. Investors like a company blowing them off to get traction because it is basically no risk for the investor, and helps them track their progress so they can come in later for a massive round.

I point this out because there is such a strong ethos around SV as being this kind of "Anti Wall-street" which I think is reinforced because founders/employees genuinely to want to make impactful stuff. The founders here and elsewhere in the startup world constantly talk about "making a difference," "changing the world" etc. So whereas the junior analysts and salesmen on Wall Street all know and acknowledge that making shitloads of money is the primary goal, I have a hunch that the VC's and LPs in SV (and elsewhere in the startup world) are using the naivety of high producing young, enthusiastic people to make a killing. This is why the archetype of the SV founder is someone who is personally low risk (single, young), is expected to work an insane amount to get growth going, tapping into growing markets and has already validated the market.

That is not to say that founders & finance are de-facto in conflict across the board, and it is also not to say there is some kind of conspiracy between Ron and Jim to juice labor, but I do think that founders are largely seen as a commodity to the finance class in the startup world. My guess is that they VCs are threading the needle really carefully with giving out information about how to get more "founder friendly" terms because founders are too smart to get screwed.

[1] [http://exiledonline.com/confessions-of-a-wall-st-nihilist- fo...](http://exiledonline.com/confessions-of-a-wall-st-nihilist-forget-about- goldman-sachs-our-entire-economy-is-built-on-fraud/)

<comment><USER10> Ah, I see. I misunderstood you.

I think that there is some element of truth to that, for _some_ people. Remember that VC is first and foremost a financial profession: they have a fiduciary duty to their LPs to get the highest returns possible. They invest in a different asset class, but they are money managers responsible for allocating capital to the teams most likely to make good use of it.

I also think that there are some founders who are clearly in it for the money as well. Probably moreso of late, with the gold rush mentality these last couple years.

I'd disagree that this is everyone. I think that there are still a large number of founders around who genuinely want to change the world. Many of them are not seeking venture capital, or if they are, they are getting turned down. But I also think that among this population, _VCs_ are seen as the commodity, a resource to be used when their startup has proven itself and needs to scale. Sam Altman used to say many things to this effect, back when he was on the entrepreneur side of the table.

One of the most illuminating quotes was something I read in Dale Carnegie, to the effect of "The guy you're holding a conversation with probably thinks himself superior to you. Let him. You have nothing to lose and everything to gain from maintaining this illusion." It made it clear that there's nothing wrong with different people having different perspectives on who's got the higher status in the relationship, or, more cynically, on who's using whom. In fact, the world runs on this status ambiguity - nobody would ever do a deal in which they think they are going to get screwed, so the only reason we have any commerce at all is for both parties to believe they are the ones getting the better end of the deal. We wouldn't be able to function without Lake Wobegone. (There's another interesting psychological finding where the only people with a realistic self-image are clinically depressed; apparently, if you _lack_ this inflated sense of self-worth, it really does make you unable to function.)

<comment><USER9> _" The guy you're holding a conversation with probably thinks himself superior to you. Let him. You have nothing to lose and everything to gain from maintaining this illusion."_

I would agree if there was some equality between who is getting shafted. SV is replete with examples of founders or employees getting screwed over and burned up by contract clauses or other financial shell games.

<comment><USER11> As an outsider -- isn't SV also full of failed investments and the like? Perhaps not deliberate screwing over - but I thought the figure was something like 2 in 10 actually making a ROI.

(Perhaps it comes down to the old tale of the pig and chicken making breakfast. The chicken can always make more eggs.... The pig not so much)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> On vested shares: (1) A company needs to be upfront with this and explain the risks (2) If a company was upfront, then maybe a potential employee starts asking for more equity or more salary, which leads to more dilution because the company has to issue more equity or raise more capital. I don't think, and I hope that, Ben doesn't think that a company should trick their employees with this.

So maybe the ultimate solution is to give a 10 year option for 75% of their shares and 25% must be vested within 90 days. This gives some additional incentive for those that stick around without totally screwing someone who bled for you.

<comment><USER13> From my point of view, these vesting schemes all seem to assume the employee is a dishonest actor and to place a huge discount against the fact that the employee is risking much more than a typical big-corp employee, for a much smaller chance at a very thin sliver of what amounts to a lottery-ticket- probability acquisition/IPO.

A more equitable scheme would require a company to provide cash compensation "back pay"/"bonus" that brings the employee's compensation up to his would- have-been-market rate if the company terminates the relationship prior to the initial vesting. This protects the company and the employee: the company's shares are safe and the employee has a slight cushion in the form of a lump sum payment if he's cliffed.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> The suggestion about instantiating a formal performance review sounds exactly to the point. The point is not to rank everyone on a gaussian curve but to maintain an understanding between the employee and the management of how much value the management percieves the employee has generated. This is a benefit to both parties!

Above 10 peoples, things get really to a point where everything is not obvious to everyone else and you need some formal documentation platform so everyone agrees on the quantity and the quality of the job.

Offtopic, but: The reference to Touissaint L'Overture was a fascinating detail. I had to buy a book on him from Amazon.

</comment><comment><USER15> What an amazing talk. My brain seems to sum up this whole series as: be an awesome person and then run a startup naturally.

</comment><comment><USER16> I love the phrase "Kimchi problem". The deeper you bury it, the hotter it gets.

</comment><comment><USER17> Several people have mentioned the important of considering multiple POVs before making a decision, but it seems to me the hard question is how to do that? It's truly hard to "put yourself in other's shoes". And I suspect this is one of the main hard things young people have trouble with. How do you learn to do that (I know I have to, I just can't imagine the scenario until someone else told me)?

<comment><USER10> Putting yourself in others' shoes gets easier with experience and practice. Particularly experiences where you must do it to get what you want. There's a reason why people low on a power hierarchy often score higher in measures of empathy than people who have always been high up.

If you want to develop this skill, put yourself at the mercy of other people, and then _don 't give up_ or shy away when their decisions don't go your way. Instead, assume good faith and ask them why they made that decision. If there's information that would change their mind, provide it, but if there isn't - you've learned something important about the world.

Romantic relationships are great for this - you can't _make_ someone like you, you just have to be likable. So are employment situations with a tough but fair boss. Stay away from yes-men, and resist the temptation to do things yourself.

Another big clue you can use is that whenever you catch yourself saying "This is stupid" or "I can't believe he's making that mistake" \- stop, and brainstorm potential reasons why it might not be a mistake. I see a number of HN commenters with impassioned opinions about how dumb, corrupt, or greedy other people are. (I am occasionally one of them...nobody's perfect. :-)) If you want to practice empathy: stop, and look at the discussion. Why do the participants believe what they do? Usually you can get clues about their background from past comments. Usually, with practice, you can get clues by looking at the experience of _other_ people with similar opinions. If you start from the premise that most people are basically rational and want to do good in the world, then the reason they might disagree is because they are each speaking from their own experience, and what looks rational depends upon the input data (in the form of life experience) that you have available to you.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> How often do startups actually claw back equity?

The handful of stock plans I've seen only interrupt vesting when the employee maintains the absence of any interruption or termination of service as an employee. Do companies take the legal position that a demotion is an "interruption"? Or are there other status termination clauses that are more strict in wide use?

I would not be surprised if the frequency of such stricter clauses inversely correlates with startup quality. At a good startup, you're trying to hire great people away from a lot of other amazing options. You need to foster trust that you're going to support them. And that means making an organizational commitment to them as a person, not just a title. I'm not sure why other employees wouldn't understand that.

Not trying to be critical of Ben here, he obviously knows way more and has seen much more than me.

<comment><USER19> Although I have no first hand or even second hand experience here, there are somewhat widely reported stories of companies saying "accept this demotion as well as a reduction in your stock options, or be fired," to which there's obviously some incentive for an employee to voluntarily accept the reduction.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> While I found the talk very interesting and there were many insightful gems, I think the major point made by Ben was how little individuals matter in the end. For all Toussaint Louverture charisma and talent he died in prison in France [1] - as for Haiti it is almost as far from Toussaint vision as it is possible it to be.

[1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toussaint_Louverture](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toussaint_Louverture)

</comment><comment><USER20> i really do think the central theme is the most important single thing for managers running startups to learn. (probably managers running lots of other things too.)

<comment><USER21> Any reason that the transcript is always delayed til the next day?

<comment><USER22> Transcription takes effort and isn't instantaneous.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Notes: [http://jonalmeida.com/posts/2014/11/11/htsas- lec15/](http://jonalmeida.com/posts/2014/11/11/htsas-lec15/)

It's worth mentioning that Ben's slides are the best I've seen so far. They've very close to what he talks about with the right amount of detail.

I also really liked the Touissaint L'Overture example.

</comment><comment><USER23> I like find like it like hard like to kind listen kind to kind it like since like I like noticed like how like many like times kind of he says kind of a certain like word.

</comment><comment><USER24> Like this was kinda nice and like, I kinda liked it.</comment>


The Clean Energy Revolution: Fighting Climate Change with Innovation - <AUTHOR> https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2016-04-18/clean-energy-revolution?linkId=23669250 <comment><USER2> i feel that we did not do very much with the problem we as humans are faceing with a new energy for our vehicles if we the world put or minds together then we will only be able to fix this problem with our ozone and carbon monoxide and dioxide and i think we could have done better with the solar energy problems not fast enough not cheaper just if we worked together money wouldent be a problem</comment>


ooma on sale today - <AUTHOR> http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/08/09/ooma-goes-on-sale-a-month-early/

<comment><USER2> If Ooma wins this battle, does that mean I never have to watch/hear that annoying Vonage commercial ever again? Quick Ooma, come to Canada, let's fight this battle together!!

</comment><comment><USER3> Its going to be pretty interesting to see if anyone can turn a profit on a $400 phone.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> anyone care? i don't think i do. at least not today.</comment>


How Sequoia Venture Capital Will Pop the Bubble of Web 2.0 - Mahalo or MFAhollow? - <AUTHOR> http://www.stuntdubl.com/2007/05/31/mfahalo/ <comment><USER2> "There is no google killer - there will be one google - at this point, we can only hope to contain them - the barrier to entry is far to high. How hard is it for them to snag and change the best ideas, or worst case, buy them out? Pick a narrow niche, and hope for a buyout, or an area where they're weak, and get entrenched before they smell ya comin'."

Hm. I believe people said that about a certain company up in Redmond (I don't really think mahalo is that useful, but this is classic loser talk).

</comment><comment><USER3> Angry and mostly incoherent.</comment>


Your code follows your data model. Fight the monolith with your database - <AUTHOR> http://blog.biokoda.com/post/140439136890/your-code-follows-your-data-model-fight-the <comment><USER2> Isn't this article confusing a data model with an implementation detail?

Your code _does_ follow your data model, for sure.

But what this article seems to be talking about is using a particular product to partition a database. Completely legit approach -- but that isn't code following your data model.</comment>


The Eternal Mainframe (2013) - <AUTHOR> http://www.winestockwebdesign.com/Essays/Eternal_Mainframe.html <comment><USER2> It's not paying by the hour that was the problem, it was the huge capex and million dollar service contracts that made people want freedom. In that sense, cloud is the opposite of mainframe: instead of, "Here, spend a million dollars and get locked into a service contract," it's, "Here, spend $0 up front and just pay for usage, then leave whenever you want."

<comment><USER3> > _It 's not paying by the hour that was the problem, it was the huge capex > and million dollar service contracts that made people want freedom. In that > sense, cloud is the opposite of mainframe:_

Actually, it was identical according to you description. Today, there is the decision of on-prem vs of remote computing, which was the same decision then.

> _instead of, "Here, spend a million dollars and get locked into a service > contract," it's, "Here, spend $0 up front and just pay for usage, then leave > whenever you want."_

The huge capex and million dollar service contracts still exist today, for example. There have been articles posted here on HN about companies that moved to the cloud for savings, grew their business, and eventually left their cloud provider due to high costs.

<comment><USER2> > Actually, it was identical according to you description. Today, there is the > decision of on-prem vs of remote computing, which was the same decision > then.

No, it wasn't the same decision. With cloud I can use as much or as little cloud resources as I'd like, and I only pay for what I use. Back in the day, remote computing was not like that.

> The huge capex and million dollar service contracts still exist today, for > example.

Right, that's exactly what I was saying. Cloud offers an alternative to huge capex, which is the biggest drawback of mainframes, not counting the fact mainframes are difficult to second-source.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I think the writers of Borg at Google thought the same thing.

BCL is just one part that's clearly inspired OS/360 et al. (look at JCL).

</comment><comment><USER5> >Those who continue to do significant work offline will become the exception; meaning they will be an electoral minority. With so much effort being put into web apps, they may even be seen as eccentrics; meaning there may not be much sympathy for their needs in the halls of power

Already happened, unfortunately. Google's ecosystem, is tuned to constantly nudge you towards the cloud. My pet peeve is their "discontinuing" of Picasa (offline photo manager/editor/viewer) and removing the download links from their websites, and peddling Google Photos (cloud service) as a "replacement". It also takes mental effort to prevent photos from going to the cloud when you get a new phone.

</comment><comment><USER6> > This is why "free" and open source software (FOSS) will not help us. A > software license touches on the software, not on the human relationships > which the software mediates. It is those relationships that lock us into > positions where Zuckerberg's foot is on our necks.

I have never heard such a succinct reason why Stallman's crusade against proprietary software will not work. I will remember this.

<comment><USER7> Succinct but wrong.

Here's Stallman in 2010:

[https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server- really-s...](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really- serve.en.html)</comment></comment>


Finances for Recent CS Ph.D.s Headed to Academia - <AUTHOR> https://da-data.blogspot.com/2016/12/finances-for-recent-cs-phds-headed-to.html <comment><USER2> Thanks for the write-up! I'm a 1.5 years from graduating with my CS PhD, and have not considered investing at all, mainly because I have no idea what to do/how to do it.

<comment><AUTHOR> Very welcome - hope the next 1.5 years are great!</comment></comment>


What's the best way to post tweets exceeding 140 chars in iOS? - <AUTHOR>

What's the best way to post tweets exceeding 140 characters in iOS? I've seen recently this > LiberTweet.com that does the job both in Chrome and Android - but no iOS. <comment><USER2> How about "don't"? Either work within the limitations of the system, or use a different system that doesn't have the limitation.

Long ago clients like Tweetie (before Twitter bought it) supported a service called "TweetLonger" that cut down the tweet and added a link to the longer version on their site - it just annoyed most users. Crowbaring more characters in to a tweet either by breaking it up across several tweets or worse yet posting a link to what you've said on a different site is a horrible and distracting usability failure.

<comment><AUTHOR> Well I totally agree. Just for the thing I shared [LiberTweet] they seem not to trunc it down if you have the Chrome extension or Android app installed, but show the whole tweet. Hence my question !

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I recall there was a service like the one you posted for iOS, but only for jailbroken iPhones. But now that Cydia is dead ... :)</comment>


Ask HN: Hacker News effect - maximum page requests per second? - <AUTHOR>

I'm creating a website and I want to stress test it to be confident that it will survive the "Hacker News Effect" when it goes public.<p>What is the maximum number of web page requests per second the server should be able to handle?<p>(Oh and I'm thinking of using JMeter to perform the stress testing and Munin to view real-time graphs of server performance. Are there any better alternatives?) <comment><AUTHOR> Seems Patrick McKenzie has some useful info on this topic: [http://www.quora.com/Hacker-News/How-many-requests-per- secon...](http://www.quora.com/Hacker-News/How-many-requests-per-second-do- you-get-being-on-Hacker-News)

Short version: You might get around 20 _visitors_ per second</comment>


Windows 8 Store : User Experience Preview - <AUTHOR> http://browserfame.com/379/windows-8-store-user-experience-preview <comment><USER2> The article this takes its information and screenshots from: [http://blogs.msdn.com/b/windowsstore/archive/2012/01/20/desi...](http://blogs.msdn.com/b/windowsstore/archive/2012/01/20/designing- the-windows-store-user-experience.aspx)

</comment><comment><USER3> I really hate the large solid color squares everywhere in Win8. And the flat buttons. I don't know, just a feeling. Maybe I need a texture, a shading or gradient. But that solid colors make me feel like being in front of win 3.1 again =) Well, maybe not that much, but still..

Maybe I just need to get used to it...</comment>


Boeing looking at changes to keep heat or fire from spreading - <AUTHOR> http://www.cnbc.com/id/100423387

<comment><USER2> Could Elon Musk actually help Boeing solve this? From a past article, it seemed that he had Tesla use a completely different strategy than Boeing. Tesla's was to use many small cells, and Boeing uses a few huge cells. Is there really anything Tesla's engineers could say to Boeing besides "re- manufacture all of your cells to use this new architecture?"</comment>


LifeLock Agrees to Pay $100M Fine in Settlement with FTC - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/blogs/bits/2015/12/17/lifelock-agrees-to-pay-100-million-fine-in-settlement-with-f-t-c <comment><AUTHOR> My bad. Go here instead: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10759510](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10759510)

</comment><comment><USER2> Page doesn't exist anymore.</comment>


Defining a tech startup career trajectory (Spotify, 2016) - <AUTHOR> https://labs.spotify.com/2016/02/15/spotify-technology-career-steps/ <comment><AUTHOR> I find this quite interesting, as most tech companies in the Bay Area are more of a "jungle gym" structure than a "ladder". Here they've done a good job of defining what a career in this environment looks like, setting expectations and benchmarks for career growth.</comment>


Show HN: Search your codebase with code blocks instead of text - <AUTHOR> https://demo.sourcescape.io/builder <comment><AUTHOR> Hey there HN,

I'm Jieren, and I'm building this app here.

I submitted this two months ago and I wanted to share again as there's been some significant progress. Instead of a fairly janky interface where you're clicking and dragging things around, now it's just a text editor where you type in code and you get search results that mirror this code.

All this is driving towards a vision of a "no-code" [0] builder for static analysis and making static analysis as easy as code search.

Looking forward to your feedback!

jieren at sourcescape.io @jierenchen

[0] Extreme air-quotes because you're literally searching with code blocks</comment>


Ask HN: Why haven't you learned to code yet? - <AUTHOR> In this age and time, coding is as close as we'd ever get to being gods. I mean we literally create something from nothing. Not to mention that the world becomes your oyster. I'm 20 years old and been making 60k a year for the past couple of years freelancing on the side of college. While my friends fear for their future it's as bright as it could be for me, and i'm already receiving offers all around the world to work. But if you're neither interested in power nor money then you'll be able to find and share knowledge once you start coding. You literally can never stop learning.
The usual excuses are "i'm too old", "i don't have enough time", "i'm not talented"... Well you're never too old to learn something new, and as for time at first you only need an hour a day to get into coding, i don't recommend throwing yourself into it, at first just start slow. And trust me its true that some people are talented in coding, but the people that make it are the ones that love it and work at it everyday until they master it.
Now comes the part "What should i learn?" Well it really depends on you, coding has multiple domains, but i always divide it into 3 big categories Software development, Web development and mobile development. All of them are good domains, and you can start in anyone of them and then specialize. For example if you choose web development you can either continue as a frontend, backend or a fullstack developer...
Learn to code. It will change your life for the better. <comment><USER2> Learn to cook instead. You will be happier, healthier, richer, and more attractive, whichever gender you are, or prefer.

</comment><comment><USER3> See: [http://blog.codinghorror.com/please-dont-learn-to- code/](http://blog.codinghorror.com/please-dont-learn-to-code/)

</comment><comment><USER4> You are quite naive to think every human being in the world must learn how to code in order to earn income.

<comment><USER5> I don't see where he says or even implies that? He's talking to typical HN users, it seems to me?

<comment><USER6> The original post is puzzling because, the typical HN user is already able to code, or at least have some awareness or familiarity with it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I am bad at managing my time after work. My current job leaves me drained at the end of the day so then I chase after escapes (like gaming or Netflix).

I have a good grasp on HTML/CSS and a bit of PHP and JS, but everything else (despite taking a few C++ classes years ago) feels almost like a brick wall.

I've tried reading up on Swift and some other languages and it just hasn't clicked for me again yet.

I plan on trying and trying, because I would really like to go into either programming or web dev instead of doing support like I am now. It would pay more, be less frustrating, quieter, and more satisfying.

Maybe I'll get there eventually. Trying a few new things online (ebooks/etc regarding Python and other languages). I think it's just not a focused-enough effort from me yet.

TL;DR - I want to learn but I am standing in my own way and still working on that

<comment><USER7> It might be that you are spreading your efforts out across too many languages. My suggestion would be to try focusing in on one until you feel like you've gained some traction. Good luck.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> _The usual excuses are "i'm too old", "i don't have enough time", "i'm not talented"... _

I find this post incredibly insulting. Some people have real problems interfering with their goals. This wasn't a sincere question. It's just godawful, in so many ways.

Seeing this just makes me really angry.

</comment><comment><USER9> What is your definition of learning to code?

</comment><comment><USER10> I have learned to code. Just not very well.

That's sorta what happens when you don't follow things to completion. I have a "working knowledge" of C/C++/Java/Python/HTML/CSS/Javascript/jQuery/Bash/Powershell. The problem is I use very few of them daily within my job, and hence the only thing I'd consider myself truly "fluent" in is Bash, with C being a distant second on the level of "I can read it pretty well but I don't actually have to write it".

Hence, whatever else I scrape together in my free time is usually just examples taken from books or e-learning courses, but very few practical examples or projects to reinforce what I've learned.

</comment><comment> vezzy-fnord _I mean we literally create something from nothing._

Uh... no, you do not. You might want to consider taking your own advice.

 _i always divide it into 3 big categories Software development, Web development and mobile development_

I'm going to stress my latter statement even more.

</comment><comment><USER11> My answer will be, I am not interested. Actually, I am decent in front-end coding, but I don't code for living anymore. Instead, I design UX and UI. Why? Because it is more interesting and rewarding for me. If I have a choice to code or design, I choose design.

</comment><comment><USER12> Hey. A not-so-humble-brag right here on HN!

Learning to code won't get you 60k a year.

</comment><comment><USER13> I have not learned because I do not know how or what to learn.

<comment><USER14> There are quite a few other responses in this thread now that show that the OP came across, to say the least, quite intimidatingly, and the wording of the post dramatically oversimplified the complexity of other peoples' lives, and the myriad of factors that would govern such a decision. So, don't feel bad.

That said, you've responded, and your response is valid even if the OP could have been worded a little better. Thus, I reply. :P

What kinds of things in computing interest you? What do you spend most of your time doing? What specific aspects of technology that you['ve] interact[ed] with irritate you the most?

<comment><USER13> To give some background: I started college as 'undecided' and rode the undecided train to 2 years of literature and philosophy classes which I enjoyed greatly, then I took a programming class (it counted as a math requirement) and it just made sense. I took a few more classes and wanted to get a CS degree but tuition being what it is and me having almost all my Liberal-Arts credits to grad this year that would be a terrible decision for my current economic status.

Now, to answer your questions. If I recall correctly I had a nice introduction to the Java Programming language, saw a few beginner data structures, and did some regular student assignments.

I would not be able to answer what kind of computing interests me clearly. I would have to dwell deeply into some aspect before I decide I have a lasting interest in it.

Most of my time nowadays is spent playing around with different distros and trying to make sense of the linux landscape. Java was OK. These days I played around with HTML,CSS, Javascript but they didn't really fulfill me as much as working only with code so I've been slowly trying to read more C code and I'm making my way through the C Programming Language, a few pages every night at full-concentration mode. The Linux From Scratch project captured my attention a few days ago but I'm still on the fence about how productive that would be, although the idea of seeing how the sausage is made is really exciting to me.

Things I find irritating: \-- cluttered UI \-- cumbersome/complicated code (I love www.suckless.org and most of the things they do. Because my thoughts when it comes to code and programming are pretty much the same as theirs. I use way too many of their tools (surf, st, etc).

I'm not sure if I'm learning what I should be learning. Ultimately this is a just a hobby to give me peace of mind when dealing with computers. I tend to get side-tracked very easily and doubt my abilities too much. I realized that when I've been trying to teach myself things I tend to read and re-read the basics endlessly because I'm not sure when is the time to move on to more complicated things. I've read the first 10 pages of kernighan and ritchie at least 200 times, I shit you not.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Could you not?

</comment><comment><USER16> I love your attitude, I'm sure you'll do great but please, don't be so judgmental. Programming is not for everyone, people get older and as they grow older their capacity to absorb knowledge diminishes.</comment>


Richard Feynman: Actively Irresponsible - <AUTHOR> https://lizcormack.wordpress.com/2012/04/23/richard-feynman-actively-irresponsible/ <comment><USER2> I just finished re-reading "Surely you're joking Mr. Feynman". It's a remarkable book and for me as a student, Richard Feynman is a great inspiration to learn and hack on new things everyday.

</comment><comment><USER3> I first discovered him on a PBS Nova episode many many years ago. I did not know of him. Nova just showed a one-hour lecture of his without any commentary. I was blown away.</comment>


Age and High-Growth Entrepreneurship - barry-cotter https://www.nber.org/papers/w24489 <comment> barry-cotter > Many observers, and many investors, believe that young people are especially > likely to produce the most successful new firms. We use administrative data > at the U.S. Census Bureau to study the ages of founders of growth-oriented > start-ups in the past decade. Our primary finding is that successful > entrepreneurs are middle-aged, not young. _The mean founder age for the 1 in > 1,000 fastest growing new ventures is 45.0. The findings are broadly similar > when considering high-technology sectors, entrepreneurial hubs, and > successful firm exits._ Prior experience in the specific industry predicts > much greater rates of entrepreneurial success. These findings strongly > reject common hypotheses that emphasize youth as a key trait of successful > entrepreneurs.

<comment><AUTHOR> What possible relationships exist between this phenomenon of successful people being middle-aged and not young and the common meme that asserts that life is short?</comment></comment>


How SSH port became 22 - <AUTHOR> https://www.ssh.com/ssh/port <comment><USER2> While the copies of the original emails are mildly interesting, it looks like the answer is just "Because I asked for port 22 and got it".

<comment><USER3> IMHO the interesting thing about the emails is it provides insight into his process of asking for it. He had done all of the other work ahead of time and even provided the draft protocol spec in his email. He also was willing to accept a different port number assignment, but gently suggested just continuing what they had been using during local testing. Had he asked in a very terse manner or not done as much legwork up front, then conceivably he might not have received a port assignment at all.

<comment><USER4> These personas are the biggest difference I find between great and decent engineers. Great engineers do their homework or due diligence first.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Around this time the method to get a DNS name was basically the same. Send an email with some reasoning to the right person and the name was yours. I remember being amazed that was the case. I also got a SSL cert issued around 1995-6 and the process then was email followed by faxing (or paper mail) proof (in the form of bank account, DUNS numbers and state-level incorporation records) documentation confirming you were who you say you were. I dont believe money even changed hands then.

<comment><USER6> I vividly recall getting a visit (around '96) from Mark Shuttleworth (of Canonical fame). He had founded Thawte Consulting, I think the first competitor of Verisign, who were the only company that sold SSL certificates at the time. He was traveling Europe to visit ISPs trying to woo them into using his service for SSL certificates. He had to spend some time explaining what certificates actually are, because I only had a vague idea (I founded one of the first ISPs in the Netherlands but nobody used SSL at the time). He was much cheaper than Verisign, by automating the process on his site so it was an easy sell.

<comment><USER7> Wow, I can't believe I didn't know Mark Shuttleworth founded Thawte. I always knew him as the Ubuntu guy, but never knew where he earned his millions.

> Shuttleworth founded Thawte Consulting in 1995, a currently running company > which specialized in digital certificates and Internet security. In December > 1999, Thawte was acquired by VeriSign, earning Shuttleworth R3.5 billion > (about US$575 (equivalent to $844.70 in 2017) million).

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

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The article only briefly mentions port >= 1024 for non-root, but it's probably important to note that it is desirable to have the default port be < 1024\. That way, you can be sure you are connecting to an sshd operated by the remote system's root user (and not, say, a random student's unix user account running a spoof sshd).

Obviously this matters more for multi-user systems, but even today it's nice to know that the sshd listen port on the remote end can't be hijacked by a random wordpress exploit kit (unless that kit also privesc's to root)

<comment><USER9> Bubkes. A middlebox can transparently rewrite incoming packets' port numbers from 22 to 2200, and backwards.

<comment><USER8> Absolutely.

But in a classic UNIX network, middleboxes aren't a part of the threat model.

Unprivileged UNIX user accounts binding on TCP ports were and are. So, ports below 1024 were reserved for the root account and that was a decent protection at the time against enterprising users trying to race system daemons in binding listening sockets.

See for example [https://www.w3.org/Daemon/User/Installation/PrivilegedPorts....](https://www.w3.org/Daemon/User/Installation/PrivilegedPorts.html)

And even today, it still protects against an exploit kit running as "www-data" or "nobody" springboarded from a wordpress exploit.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> It became port 22 because we don't use srv records and we wonder why we have an IPv4 crisis when there's like only 3 ports of 64k used on any server: 443,80,22.

<comment><USER11> IPv4 crisis has pretty much nothing to do with ports.

<comment><USER12> Eh, with srv records and port forwarding one IP can easily serve 20,000+sites.

<comment><USER11> It's hardly in dispute but it doesn't really detract from how limited IPv4 addressing is. There's only about 3.7 billion addresses available for the entire world.

This is in contrast to IPv6, where in the worst case, each organization would have a /64 and the entire world would have approximately a quintilian networks (2^(64-4), subtracting the /4 that the entire Internet is currently restricted to), each of which can support 18 quintilian hosts.. And that's worst case, even residential ISPs frequently give out /56s.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> > The number should preferably be in the range 1-255 so that it can be used in > the WKS field in name servers.

Can't find any reference to WKS as a 'field' or record type. Any greybeards want to elaborate?

<comment><USER14> Good old RFC 1035 is your friend

Section 3.4.2

<comment><USER15> [https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1035#section-3.4.2](https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1035#section-3.4.2)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Nice read. Helped me take a moment to reflect how wonderful of a tool ssh is. Simple to use, yet powerful. Thanks Tatu!!

</comment><comment><USER17> Previous discussion (with some of the same comments): [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14178091](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14178091)

</comment><comment><USER18> I always thought it was because it was one less than telnet's port 23.

<comment><USER19> That sounds like an interesting way to remember it, but isn't necessarily the reason why.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> tl;dr - port 22 is between 21 (FTP) and 23 (telnet) and Tatu thought it would give the service clout to have 22. IANA approved his email request and it was registered.

<comment><USER21> The body text of the article is only 1273 words. It takes all of a minute to read it.

At which point did the bar for tl:dr become so low?

<comment><USER22> When it started to take 1273 words to say one sentence of information to attract readers.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> cup-of-tea So why did FTP have 21 and telnet have 23?

<comment><USER23> FTP has port 21 and port 20.

<comment><USER24> FTP's use of two ports is unusual. Port 21 is used for the control channel and port 20 for data transfer. Its original design goes back to 1971 and predated TCP/IP by quite a bit.

In the original design ("passive" mode wasn't added till later), the client connects to a server on port 21 and then when it wants to transfer a file, opens a local port and the server connects back to the client from port 20. Also, FTP supported server-to-server transfers, where the client connected to a pair of servers and then initiated a transfer between them[0].

[0] [https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc765](https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc765) Figure 2.

<comment><USER23> Looking in /etc/services, it seems that most early protocols used odd numbers on the server side (echo, finger, chargen, qotd, etc)

I wonder if the standard was originally

Client -> Server -- send to an odd port Server -> Client -- send to an even port

By the time RFCs reached 4 figures, that (if it did exist) had gone -- gopher was assigned to port 70 for example.

<comment><USER24> It's apparently due to hysterical raisins. The NCP host-host protocol was simplex and required a pair of sockets. The convention for the return socket was to connect to a "port" one less than the receiving port. At least I think. See the connection establishment process described starting on page 7 of [https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc33](https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc33)

<comment><USER23> Thanks, something I hadn't encountered:

"On January 1, 1983, known as flag day, NCP was officially rendered obsolete when the ARPANET changed its core networking protocols from NCP to the more flexible and powerful TCP/IP protocol suite, marking the start of the modern Internet."

I was 13 months old then, and (After conversations at tonight's summer party) I'm apparently "old". Sigh.

> hysterical raisins

Took a while to realise you went for "historical reasons". But then see summer party (and tomorrow's P45)....

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I've run it on port 443 (https port) which makes it possible for me to get through to it from inside many corporate firewalls.

</comment><comment><USER26> Why is it still port "22" and not port "ssh"?

It seems a bit silly to be using numbers in this day and age.

<comment><USER27> Are you proposing a ipv8? Put it in the queue, we will get to it about 50 years after IPv6 is implemented.

<comment><USER28> No ipv8 needed. The current recommended best practice in RFC6335 is to request just a service name and to only request a port number when absolutely necessary.

The port a protocol is currently using on a particular server can be discovered by using DNS-SD to return the appropriate DNS SRV record.</comment></comment></comment>


Quora is off - <AUTHOR> https://www.quora.com/?share=1 <comment><USER2> And what is that supposed to mean, "Quora is off?"

<comment><USER3> It's down.</comment></comment>


Better than Instagram?  You decide? - <AUTHOR> https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.mobilecloudlabs.cameraforfacebook&referrer=hn

<comment><USER2> Wow this is good and fast!</comment>


Using Docker-in-Docker for your CI or testing environment? Think twice - <AUTHOR> https://jpetazzo.github.io/2015/09/03/do-not-use-docker-in-docker-for-ci/ <comment><USER2> Isn't that like running your tests as root though? I have had too many experiences with people backdoor modifying Jenkins.

</comment><comment><USER3> "The Docker daemon was explicitly designed to have exclusive access to /var/lib/docker. Nothing else should touch, poke, or tickle any of the Docker files hidden there."

Distributed filesystems constantly comes up as the answer to this across many Docker nodes wanting to find hacks to multiplex images easier across docker nodes.

Does this answer particular to NFS from Jérôme in 07/14 still ring true? Here is a better answer: "Yes, you can put the images and containers on NFS; but if you want to share that NFS storage with other Docker Engines, there are some restrictions."

Here are the caveats: \- only one engine may pull images (otherwise, you can have conflicts); \- other engines have to be restarted to "see" new images; \- when you restart an engine, it will detect the containers executed by others. [https://groups.google.com/d/msg/docker- dev/02R6VUX7BXU/JUDfU...](https://groups.google.com/d/msg/docker- dev/02R6VUX7BXU/JUDfU2LIOqkJ)

</comment><comment><USER4> Definitely the preferred approach - it's worth noting, though, that you might provide access to the docker daemon over other transports as well.

Regarding the question of bind-mounting docker, it's worth knowing that there are still static binaries available at [https://docs.docker.com/engine/installation/binaries/#get- th...](https://docs.docker.com/engine/installation/binaries/#get-the-linux- binary).

In the process of building a bamboo-agent container for image CI at the minute, the static binaries have come in very handy.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I wonder if mapping [-v $(which docker):/bin/docker] is working after docker binary became dynamically linked binary

<comment><USER5> I had some problems with apparmor. It is not pretty, but you still avoid the corruption problems.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> this kind of command doesn't work for me (with docker 1.9 installed through rpm):

docker run -v /var/run/docker.sock:/var/run/docker.sock \ -v $(which docker):/bin/docker \ -ti ubuntu

used libraries are not found when i'm trying to launch the container:

docker: error while loading shared libraries: libdevmapper.so.1.02: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory

Do i have to create another volumes to add librairies ?</comment>