Ask HN: What's it like to live in San Francisco? - <AUTHOR> How are the people and what's the current attitude like? <comment><USER2> I lived there for 3 years and left a year ago. I lived in Nob Hill, Mission, Noe, and Castro.

When I was first there, I felt a strong disgust towards tech. People protesting shuttles, hateful graffiti, news articles about it. Tech workers were moving in troves and driving up rent and people getting displaced. I felt like part of the problem.

Market Street is a mix of insanely wealthy and insanely poor people. Other cities around California send their homeless people to SF, so there are thousands of them and SF can't support them all. It's not uncommon to see shouting, needles, and human feces. Every time I walked down that street I felt awful I couldn't do something to help.

Meanwhile, you step inside a tech office, and you'll see luxurious decor, free lunch, Macbook Pros, and many people making top 1% income for their age. The contrast is staggering.

People I've met in tech vary from the most passionate about work I've ever met, to just there to make a great living and enjoy the nature/weather. Nothing wrong with either lifestyle. San Francisco is a beautiful little hilly city with plenty to do nearby.

It did feel like a hard place to have non-liberal values, but I think people just mean well and are passionate about improvement.

Everything is expensive. Coffee is $4-6 plus tax and tip. Groceries are double where I'm from (Seattle suburbs). Rent is crazy. Office space is crazy.

Hope that helps!

<comment><USER3> +1 I'd just add one thing, would you pay $1 million for a studio in the middle of all that? You could live right next to your office and enjoy everything (mentioned above) that the city has to offer while writting code all day. Sounds like a healthy and dreamy life.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> There are many different neighborhoods with pretty different feels, but generally speaking I would say this:

The city is dirty, there are many homeless people, public infrastructure is not great (bad roads, questionable public transit), and it is the most expensive rent in the world. Culturally, it is much less "gay" and "hippie" nowadays, and almost entirely "tech," at least in my own experiences. If you're a software engineer, there are plenty of jobs and you will never have issue finding work. The pay, in general, is excellent. If you're NOT a software engineer, I'm not sure.

<comment><USER5> > If you're a software engineer, there are plenty of jobs and you will never > have issue finding work.

Even over 40? I am genuinely curious.

<comment><USER6> I am kind of worried about this myself. On the other hand, everyone I know over 40 in tech is making enough money to retire in less than a decade assuming some decent personal finance skills. It could be survivorship bias, but I think you're fine. Even if you have trouble getting hired in 5 years, you'll have a million+ in the bank to fall back on and retrain in something else.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> From 2005-2010 the city had a very positive vibe: we're the most European city in America, we love good food, we have a balance of artists and people who support the arts. Now it's overcrowded, overvalued and overcapitalized. Rather than being welcomed, you will be resented and perceived as pushing other people out. Oakland has a more friendly and creative feel these days, if you can deal with the pervasive criminal element and left-wing monoculture. Plan to make your money and get out.

<comment><USER8> > we're the most European city in America

New York?

<comment><USER9> As a European who has been a few times to both NY and SF, SF seems a lot more European to me. But couldn't tell you why exactly. I guess SF is more relaxed in many ways and NY is way too intense (which I love, but it's not something one finds in Europe).

<comment><USER8> I don't know, I find SF very Californian - people are enthusiastic about everything, even if they aren't being genuine.

NY feels more real - as in London, Berlin or Paris, someone will tell you if something's shit. NY also obviously has a comparable arts scene. Apparently there's a SF Fashion Week but it's sure isn't in international calendars. People from NY seem to have travelled more than people from SF too.

Maybe SF is more like, say, one of the Spanish cities in terms of being relaxed?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I interned there in 2012. My roommate and I got super lucky his family friend hooked us up with $1200/month for a condo at the top of Lombard St in Russian Hill. So my experience is slightly biased since I miraculously avoided the ludicrous rent. I don't know what we would have done had we not secured that place.

In general, I really liked it. My favorite part was feeling like I was living in the future, since every new app launches in SF first. For example, back then Uber was quite new and I used it for the first time there. My least favorite part was the monoculture of tech (that's not even considering the political monoculture). While there are a lot of interesting non-tech people in SF, you have to go out of your way to meet them. Otherwise the default is to be surrounded 24/7 by clones of yourself.

I interned in SF, Seattle and Houston. After school I lived in NYC for a year. Now I'm in the UK, but if I had to choose between those cities I would pick New York every time.

New York has plenty of problems but a monoculture is not one of them; it's still fairly homogenous, but far less than SF simply because the NYC economy is more diversified. In SF, tech is the dominant and basically only industry. In NYC, tech is one of many industries in a city dominated by finance and law.

Put another way, of all my friends in college, 100% of them living in SF are in tech. But many of them live in NYC, and of those people, only some are in tech and the rest are in finance/law/school (nyc has top schools in the city proper unlike SF). I much prefer living near friends in other fields, because the last thing I want to talk about when I get home from work is work.

</comment><comment><USER11> Coming from Northern Europe, I still find SF a place it would be hard to leave. If you're in tech, there is no better place to be, in terms of learning, career progression and the overall interest. Think about any technology you're interest in, and you're probably a coffee shop away to talk people who work on it or lead the work. In Europe, I'd often feel how lacking and not interesting the environment is in many ways. People don't have much experience and don't often have high ambitions (since there isn't many good examples).

Salaries and equity options are probably higher than anywhere, and its more likely here that those options actually turns something in worthwhile. While rents are expensive, it can be still potentially financially better.

Restaurants, places to go, nature and travel is pretty great overall, there is lot to do.

The quality of living is not really on the same level as in Europe. Lot of the city is quite dirty, not all of it though. If you have a family, its likely to be much more costly in everything. Houses are expensive, and probably there isn't anything to fix that in the near future. I think the protesting against tech has somewhat subdued, you don't really hear about it.

Overall, after living here for a while, you get jaded about all the startup stuff. Its not what you need to do all the time, but it can be still quite interesting to see and hear everyone around you to try new ideas.

People are leaving, but not really seeing that the area is slowing down. There are more great companies now than there was 10 years ago.

Sometimes, I think about moving back to Europe or somewhere else, and don't really feel excited about the job prospects or the overall work environment. It would be hard to find anything remotely similar roles that I've been able to do here.

<comment><USER12> As Northern European with ambitions to move to a US tech hub one day, I am interested in knowing a bit of your background. Did you go to school in the US? How did you acquire your visa? Were you sponsored by an employer or did you go through the lottery? etc.

<comment><USER11> Our company got accepted YC which made us to move here during YC and then just stayed. I had visited the Bay Area few times in previous here.

The YC didn't really help or matter much for the visas, it just meant that we had a reason to be here, and our company in US that could sponsor us our visas. As a company owner, you cannot really do H1B easily, so we (2 Finnish founders) applied for O1 visa. We both had some previous projects and background, including the startup, that we could use to make our case for the O1. For O1 you need public evidence: press articles, conference talks, mentoring, lectures etc to prove that you have specific expertise in some category. I actually didn't even graduate, it didn't matter. A year ago, I upgraded my status to green card.

I would recommend signing up for the green card lottery each year, since its pretty easy and good probability to get one in the Nordics. Secondly, I would just visit here couple times, try to get know people and how things work. Then you can start building your "resume". Resume here often means actual visible projects you built, interests etc. European schools or companies doesn't matter much in interviewing for jobs. What matters is your skills, how you can show them and how well you can sell them.

One route is also taking a job in a company that has office in Europe, and then after a year, try to ask for a transfer to US HQ.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> The place is geographically incredible, great climate, beautiful scenery, lots to do and many diverse activities are a relatively short drive away.

Having said that, living there can be kind of awful. It's become quite a monoculture of tech people, which brings with it the same gender imbalance you find in the tech workplace. It's very expensive, dirty, poorly maintained, not the safest city and it's not uncommon to have your vehicle windows smashed or otherwise broken into.

There's also significant tension from the gentrification when I was last there ~6 months ago, depending on the neighborhood. If you're visibly a part of that gentrification force (e.g. a white male yuppy with a backpack), don't be surprised if some drunk mexican in the mission starts a fight with you for no apparent reason. This happened to me on two separate occasions, completely unprovoked, and I didn't even spend that much time in the mission.

<comment><USER14> I had the same experience in the Mission my first time there.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> SF used to be a very diverse and culturally interesting city. That city has died. It's become a monoculture around tech to a fault.

Other cities with highly successful and growing tech scenes (like NYC) have a much more diverse economy that, IMO, keeps things far more dynamic and interesting. NYC for example has finance, law, diplomacy, tv/film, theatre, music, fashion, and many other big industries that have a strong presence.

SF and the region is just becoming tech tech tech at the expense of everything else. Its one time greatest strength is rapidly becoming its greatest weakness.

</comment><comment><USER16> The wealth inequality is acute, visible and disturbing.

<comment><USER17> Is it more visible than London, for example? I know people talk about it a lot but you see some extreme wealth inequality in many big cities.

(Just genuinely curious, it's not a trick question)

<comment><USER18> I live in London, visited LA (not SF but kind of similar?)

The wealth inequality was massively more visible in LA. Far more homeless people. Neighbourhoods were either rich or poor, there wasn't any mixing. OFC London has similar problems, you're going to see more luxury cars than homeless people in Chelsea and vise versa in Brixton, but LA felt like it had gone a lot further. The projects in LA are also far more run down than council estates in London, at least from outward appearances. Agree with what the other comment says too: there isn't really much of a middle ground, it all felt like everyone either has a six figure trust fund or is almost homeless.

I've been saying this in various places for a while, but the predominant difference between the UK and the US is the size. Since it's a much bigger country and they have more space, everything is spread out far more. In London I live in a mainly working class (stabby) neighbourhood, but I walk ten minutes and I'm surrounded by houses all worth £1m+. Same thing in every flat I've had in London. In American cities you walk ten minutes and you're still on the same street. It leads to huge buildups of either run down or expensive neighbourhoods which keep themselves very, very isolated from each other and it shows. SF is a bit more walkable from what I've heard but the general problem is still there.

<comment><USER19> Another difference between the UK and the USA besides size is wealth of the country; see: [https://www.greanvillepost.com/2011/08/12/generation- fcked-h...](https://www.greanvillepost.com/2011/08/12/generation-fcked-how- britain-is-eating-its-young/) "British children have the most miserable upbringing in the developed world. Is it a coincidence that the US and Britain are now the two developed nations with the most savage and cynical capitalism and deepest class fissures? ... "The reason our children's lives are the worst among economically advanced countries is because we are a poor version of the USA," he said. "So the USA comes second from bottom and we follow behind. The age of neo-liberalism, even with the human face that New Labour has given it, cannot stem the tide of the social recession capitalism creates.""

As I suggest here: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vK- M_e0JoY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vK-M_e0JoY) alternatives include some culturally appropriate mix of:

* improved subsistence through developing and distributing better tools and know-how for off-grid living like solar panels, 3D printers, mobile microhouses, composting toilets, and gardening robots

* expand the gift economy for both physical and digital goods

* soften capitalism's exchange-based social harshness with a basic income

* better democratic planning to insure public infrastructure to meet everyone's needs (e.g. convert prisons to artist dorms; ensure free food and water is available eveywhere; better automated clean public bathrooms; expanded libraries and health services)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> The current attitude is tech and homelessness and everything in between.

All the artist and musicians have moved to Oakland instead of living in the mission.

Its a sunny 70 degrees year round, except for in the summer its foggy by the ocean everyday.

Unemployment rate is extremely low (2.2%), but the rent is extremely high.

If you thinking of moving here, just do it. Everyone here is from somewhere else and came to chase a dream that they feel that SF can fulfill. And its true, dreams do come true in SF if you work hard enough towards your goals. But thats true with anywhere. Just in SF, if you don't have your ish together, you'll be homeless and booted out real quick. At least you got to have time in SF though.

<comment><USER21>
      Its a sunny 70 degrees year round

No, it isn't. In fact, it's May and it hasn't been over 61 in over 2 days. And it's not usually sunny except September-November.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Could you ask a more general question please?

Oh, what the heck, I'll give you a general answer, you may get some benefit from it.

San Francisco, i.e. The City (NOT Frisco), never changes once you're in a neighborhood, everyone is different, some people are friendly, some not, just like any large city.

The time I spent there was fantastic, walking to the store, great neighborhood restaurants, friendly shop owners, amazing art and always interesting graffiti.

The Castro is still fun to walk through if you're not a homophobe and one of the best kept secret hard to find restaurants is there, Orphan Andy's, real comfort food 24 hours a day.

The public transportation is totally adequate and one can get around town without too many transfers.

Despite the hills, it's a very walk-able town, I walked all over the place, it was nice seeing all the different neighborhoods on foot.

Like any location, you get out of it what you put in.

I hear it's way expensive to live there now, even my sister who lived there for 40 years sold her Bernal Heights house and moved North to Santa Rosa.

<comment><USER23> That's right.

\- Right: San Francisco, SF or "The City".

\- Wrong: "Frisco", "San Fran", "415".

If you want to act "friscan" people get pretty upset very fast.

<comment><USER24> I seem to remember "Frisco" being used in Western novels I read as a kid, though.

<comment><USER25> Probably can find a copy of [https://www.amazon.com/Dont-Call-Frisco-Herb- Caen/dp/B002IAO...](https://www.amazon.com/Dont-Call-Frisco-Herb- Caen/dp/B002IAO010) at your local library, worth a read?

<comment><USER24> Thanks, will check it out.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I went on holiday there for one week, an as a person from Western Europe, the manifestation of wealth inequality was abhorrent sometimes. So many homeless people that are not taken care of, generally dirty, expensive public transit that not really good on top of it, obsession with tech and just generally a bit too stiff.

Mission district was fun, though.

</comment><comment><USER3> To answer your question without complaining too much about SF I'd say that people are either new to SF (haven't experienced the real deal described by everyone here), or holding onto something that used to be a dream a few years back, like a great position at a hot startup waiting for it to go public or a 1 bd apartment bought at $700k a few years back versus +$1 million today. Really not about the city by the Bay anymore.. So, as you may guess the attitude in 2018 here is extremely materialistic, which sounds weird when you think about hippies right? :) either my home equity or my stocks.

People who want to become entrepreneurs these days would rather stop by to create some connections and operate from a remote location. Last but not least, tourists on a weekend trip to SF from all around the World. They want to see the bridge and jump on a boat to Alcatraz

</comment><comment><USER27> I used to live there between '98 to '02, so my view is outdated. It's interesting to read current outlooks. I'm not American. Back then I found the city to be very European and very accepting. I was part of a fairly large music scene there so although I was in tech, the crowd I hang with was more music people. There was a LOT of tech back then and it was expensive. I remember if you wanted to rent a flat, you'd be there early morning with 20 other people willing to outbid you for the rent. Lots of homeless people, though I don't remember it being dirty. Great food. 4 seasons in a day but generally pleasant weather. Some streets were wind tunnels (Van Ness in particular). Best Burritos in the Galaxy (Mission/24th El Faralito hot damn). Beautiful city. I left a piece of my heart there (but it grew back).

<comment><USER28> Reading all of these replies is making me nostalgic for my youth in California.

I spent a lot of time in Santa Cruz between '95 and '98 and used to head to SF pretty regularly. As a young art student before any real involvement in tech, I loved the vibe of the city. Great food and bars, welcoming people. Nice climate.

At the time I did notice lots of homeless people but they didn't seem that threatening. Out of all the places I've visited, it's one of the few places where I would consider moving to, out of the UK.

<comment><USER27> Someone once told me the reason for all the homelessness is a mental institution closing during the Reagan era in the 80s and many patients were just left out in the streets. I've never found them intimidating as well. They were 'just there'.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Not in SF but I lived in East Bay for past two years. Since good tech meetups were mostly happening around Mission I'd be in SF downtown once or twice a week. One night I missed last BART and had to spend my rest of the night until 4am in a 711 near 2nd St which changed my view towards homeless people in SF. I wonder why they're not welcomed by the job market. One guy said the city, SF is beta testing ground for Silicon Valley. Overall I loved being part of the city. But as others here have commented recently Oakland seems more happening.

</comment><comment><USER30> In NYC, certainly seems like there is a fresh influx of former SF residents. Many around crypto / fintech as all large banks are here.

Refrain I often hear is that "street culture" is dead in SF. Tech workers just stay in and order Seamless and tinker on their respective inventions all night long. Although nowhere what it was at peak in 80s and 90s. NYC nightlife is still popping ;)

I'd also be interested to hear about life in the Peninsula. Hills above Palo Alto, San Mateo, even South SF. Family and friends seem to love it despite chilly nights in the summer...

</comment><comment><USER23> It can be very attractive in the beginning, but in the long term:

\- Prices are high (rent, groceries, services, you name it).

\- Transport: public transport is meh, driving/parking sucks, non-recreational cycling experience is mediocre and unsafe.

Unless you make enough money (after expenses) it is not worth it.

</comment><comment><USER31> I found that the tech "scene" barely existed, as such. People who work in tech there are super siloed - they go to work, they work too much, they go home. People don't really go to meetups and user groups like they do in other cities.

</comment><comment><USER32> Background:

Born in Russia, grew up in NC, live in SF currently, moving to NYC next week. Incredibly excited to leave SF, to say the least.

The good:

Innovation and energy everywhere. You can feel it in the air, especially since every billboard in SoMa is a tech startup.

I've met some of the smartest people in my life here, and have been really lucky to work on some exciting projects.

Neighborhoods are VERY divided and have their own feel, almost like separate cities.

Decent amount of high quality restaurants.

Availability to high paying jobs

The bad:

HBO's Silicon Valley no longer becomes funny, it's just a documentary at this point.

The homeless - they're everywhere and feel empowered to be aggressive on a scale I've never seen. I live in Nob Hill, and have been in a few altercations (though very much not the case when I was in the Marina).

Dating pool for a hetero male is meh at best. Most bars are filled with 75-90% guys, with few exceptions in the Marina.

Tech is everywhere - at first this was a good thing, but now it's unbearable.

Everyone seems to be incredibly sensitive and emotionally charged.

Weather isn't as good as SoCal, and is pretty "eh" majority of the time.

Expensive af.

TLDR:

Amazing career opportunity for young/mid-20's for a few years. You'll meet great people, work on exciting stuff, and raise your income level. Leave after a few years.

Feel free to ask more

</comment><comment><USER33> The weather is the one thing I don't like. Its never hot here. Its rarely even very warm. Winter is cool as expected, but 2/3 of summer is windy and foggy.

Everything else is probably exactly what you think it is.

</comment><comment><USER34> Compared to where? I will give you a very different answer if you are comparing to Austin vs Bangkok

</comment><comment><USER35> I'm interested to know about three other things: rent cost, safety and public transport.

<comment><USER31> rent is the worst in america

I know several people who have had laptops and cellphones stolen out of their hands while they were at a cafe

the public transport is basically fine, crowded.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> I lived there 2014-2017 in the Inner Richmond + Outer Sunset. Rent was ~$1.5k/room, getting to Financial District took about 40 minutes on express bus (2BX) or Muni metro (L).

A lot of internal US migrants find SF really eye-opening: the wider variety of food & culture, the reasonable public transit, the influence of the strong cultures (LGBT+, black, hispanic, asian, hippie) that have thrived in the city. It really is very European for a NA city. SF has lots of great places to see, in the city & around the Bay Area and North California. The Presidio & Golden Gate Park are fantastic close natural escapes from urbanity.

Coming from Europe, I was shocked by the horrible transport (tiny Muni buses with 5 steps to get in), the crime (petty and serious, like scavanging recyclables from restaurant waste into the back of a pickup outside my window at 2am or shootings on Market St), the weird flavour combinations in mid-scale lunch places (I'm calling you out, Golden West), the extremely visible wealth inequality + the "I'm alright, Jack" attitudes, the unimaginable mental health crisis in the homeless population, dealing with private health insurance, taxes and immigration, finding out co-workers on insane salaries were almost destitute from paying off student loans, and the ridiculous housing situation, in the city and in East Bay (people forced out of SF by gentrification and now being forced out of Oakland, Alameda is the deepest white-flight suburb). Oh, and paying more than $10/month for a phone plan.

Coming from Australia, I found the cost-of-living was reasonable (food & rent) and the coffee was terrible, awful. I gave up on the Russian roulette of $5 barista/espresso burnt coffee + boiled milk, and stuck with filter/drip, which was consistently not great and not expensive. There are a few places you can reliably get a good cappuccino for $3-4…

A lot of the comments here focus on the anti-tech sentiment & monoculture of tech: they're relaying their experience of not being a part of the community, as being a overpaid 20-year-old in their first job out of college hasn't prepared them for inviting neighbours over for coffee. The "other US cities transport their homeless to SF" trope is indicative of this attitude: it's not _my_ fault there's so many homeless here, _other_ people are making the decisions that inconvenience my day-to-day, nothing I can do to change their behaviour, so I don't need to do anything to improve it.

Weather was fine, summers were cool (cold at night) & foggy, spring and '''fall''' warm and sunny. Earthquakes were fine, you have to have some supplies and at least know about what to expect when the big one hits. Traffic is normal I guess? Kind of bad when the 49ers/Warriors/Giants have a home game and you want to go across the Bay Bridge.

I left becuase I got fed up with feeling like part of the problem & not having any say in elections + not waiting to raise an American family (eventually). I miss the amazing library system, 24-hour donut places, and the strangly serene driving culture.

</comment><comment><USER36> 2 words. Soul sucking. Damn pricey. Crazy housing. Elitist liberals. Tech mecca. 49er women. Lambos & hobos. Decent weather. Fin^2

<comment><USER37> What are 49er women?

<comment><USER8> [https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=49er](https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=49er)</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Why does evil succeed so well in our world? - <AUTHOR>

I asked this questions a while back "Ask HN: Why is it easier to make money by being evil?" (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4609433).
I gave an two examples.  One of internet companies keeping track of their users and selling the data to the highest bidder.  The other is how it's easier to make money selling Orwellian central management software vs employee empowerment software.
It seems like it is much easier to succeed by doing evil things instead of doing good. Why is this? <comment><USER2> During The Great Depression, farms were having their equipment repossessed for non-payment. The John Deere Tractor Company decided to do no such thing. They told people "At some point, the weather will improve and you will need your tractor. Pay us when you can." Supposedly, for decades afterwards, if a tractor salesman for a different company saw a John Deere on a farm, there was no point in stopping.

John Deere is still going strong. I imagine a lot of their competitors went under during The Great Depression. It was impossible to sell the repossessed tractors since no one had any money.

I am feeling pretty bitter (about my personal situation) and feeling like, yes, evil wins. But I am not convinced the objective evidence really bears that out.

<comment><USER3> The cynic businessman way to look at this is that John Deere knew repossessing a tractor was pointless, because there would be no one to resell it to. It would better to forebear the loan for later repayment and gain the goodwill.

<comment><USER2> My oldest son is basically a sociopath. He once tried to tell me a good thing he did was not really good because he did it for bad reasons. I assured him there were no thought police and the only important part was that he had, in fact, done the right thing.

I honest to god do not care what motivated their decision. I am a bleeding heart idealist, or at least perceived as such. Yet, I think "doing right" is a pragmatic thing, not some abstract ideal measured by some supposed god in some supposed spiritual realm.

(But have an upvote. Good comment.)

<comment><USER3> Our minds are made to feel good doing the right thing, because it brings social benefits, and hence evolutionary benefits. But logically we know when to choose otherwise. So I don't think your son is a sociopath.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Why are your examples "evil"?

Your first one might mean gmail serves me ads for chicken wings (which I want) instead of diapers (which I don't). Is that evil?

As for the second, banks are under Orwellian central management - every penny is recorded going in and coming out. Is that evil, or is that good for everyone who holds a deposit? What's employee empowerment software exactly, anyway?

<comment><USER5> When I read the ASK HN headline, I immediately thought of stealing. Petty theft, that is. To make stealing a career, I imagine it would take a lot of work if you don't want to be caught - probably just as much as a legitimate job.

I've seen things that would be pretty easy to steal and net a criminal something equivalent to a good year's salary, but criminals are generally stupid and blow their ill-gotten gains on stupid things, meaning they then have to steal again to maintain their lifestyle.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> It is demonstrably not the case that it is easier to make money through evil than good, at least historically; the world we live in now is quite nice compared to the past, and that's the result of selfish people following incentives. If incentives were aligned with evil, we would expect to live in an evil world, and we do not.

There _is_ evil around every corner for sure, but it is outweighed by the good. Sure there are incentives for scummy business practices that add a bit of evil on the margin, but do you really think most companies are a net negative? That that marginal evil isn't outweighed by the vast good and wealth that is created as well?

The question you should have asked is "Why do i _think_ incentives align with evil?", and the answer is "Because you take the good for granted and thereby fail to notice it."

We're on the _Internet_. Show me some evil that outweighs the awesomeness of _that_.

</comment><comment><USER7> "The love of money is the root of all evil"

It might be more of a case of motivation. Sociopaths don't care what others think so they'll go for it, the consequences be damned. On the other hand, nice people, who are the majority, will only go as far as their conscience allows them. So in business terms "they choke". Of course, the tendencies of greed and ego are in collusion.

To give just one example, bankers gave housing loans even to people who couldn't afford them. Then they foreclosed on those homes. A "nice" banker would have said "Sorry, you can't afford that house. How about a more modest one." The result the nice banker would miss out on the business. The borrower going with the one that made the bigger home attainable.

<comment><USER8> _To give just one example, bankers gave housing loans even to people who couldn 't afford them. Then they foreclosed on those homes. A "nice" banker would have said "Sorry, you can't afford that house._

The counter point to this is that it was (political) public policy that spurred the bankers to lend to 'sub-prime- credits. The policy that led to the housing bubble was a pernicious trade, basically politicians bribing the bankers (for votes) with allures of money, and bribing the lower-middle classes (for votes) with allures of new credit. In the political sense, it was a bout power and social position, not money (although they are undoubtedly interlinked). This special interest legacy was then followed by similar moves (same motives) in to promote the lending to students (promises of easy credit) and promote the expansion of Academia (promises of larger budgets), again for political gain. Similarly, the repeal of Glass-stegall (under the Deomocrats with Clinton) and the foistering of the Universal banking model on Congress (through both its own actions and the WTO treaty), in another nod to secure the support of the Banks (with promises of greater CEO pay) and the lower middle classes (continued expansion of easy credit).

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Ethics (good or bad) are not enough alone to make a particular action viable. Usually you need a community of people who are prepared to believe that a particular action is "good". At that point social pressure is enough to push people down a path regardless of the actual benefits or costs. This can be hugely beneficial (charitable donation) or very very bad. I don't think you can get the good without the bad. A lot of good human behavior would be lost of people only acted on logic.

</comment><comment><USER10> I reprint a letter I just received (inscribed on human skin) for your edification:

Dear Humans

I hereby reclaim the word "evil". It seems to have worked for "queer" by those San Francisco guys, so I am trying it for evil.

As The Lord of Lies I have put in plenty of effort over the centuries, encouraging wars, rape and torture. it takes quite a lot of effort to persuade someone to hang a pregnant woman extra high and then to slice open her belly to let the foetus dangle too - but I think you will agree that that's pretty evil. The march of technology has helped (guns guns guns!) but real evil still takes the personal touch.

so imagine my horror when people call scummy business practises "evil". I mean ohhh that guy is aggregating my click throughs to sell more toasters. Where is the soul-destroying fear in that? I mean I used to call retargeting what happened when you make a mother choose which child to have shot. now it's _marketing_

No thank you. you keep your evil empire and your "don't be evil" slogans. I will summon up the deepest devils from the pit and head to Syria, where I can show you all what words like evil really mean. Pleasant dreams.

yours

Belezebub

</comment><comment><USER11> Desperation in the common man to keep himself and his children afloat creates opportunities for the wicked man because a desperate man cannot afford to have social vigilance.

</comment><comment><USER12> 'evil' follows the incentive structures wherever they lead, and profits a great deal from it. That would be my best guess.

</comment><comment><USER13> If you look at the economy from a global point of view, you can see the money is constantly flowing between good an evil. It's the ying and the yang. You can choose to see the good or the evil but they're both there always seeking an unreachable equilibrium, like the waves in the ocean.

Some people out there are doing "evil" right now keep you safe warm and cozy.

</comment><comment><USER14> Is making money success?

</comment><comment><USER15> Evil and good are relative, one can't exist or be defined without the other. Universe destroys and creates at the same time, neither of them is good or bad.

</comment><comment><USER16> If you believe it, then so be it.

</comment><comment><USER17> Because good is dumb.

</comment><comment><USER18> This guy Marx wrote a bit about it...</comment>


Show HN: Webgl globe of Earth millions of years ago - <AUTHOR> http://dinosaurpictures.org/ancient-earth/

<comment><USER2> Pretty cool. (fyi: arrow keys navigation skips randomly skips chapters)</comment>


LinkedIn acquires CardMunch, now making it free for everyone to use - <AUTHOR> http://cardmunch.posterous.com/big-news-from-cardmunch

<comment><USER2> The bright side: LinkedIn have the budget/experience to create Android/Blackberry versions.

The down side: LinkedIn's current blackberry app is _really_ terrible, I'm sure anyone who's used it will agree with me on that. (Certainly the appstore reviews do.) Can't speak to their Android/iPhone apps... are they any good?

<comment><USER3> I almost never use the LinkedIn iPhone app. The functionality is so limited that I'm almost always better off using the browser.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Huge congrats to CardMunch!

It's always nice to see LinkedIn make an acquisition like this as they are quite rare for their company. It's too bad because LinkedIn could definitely use the infusion of some more entrepreneurial talent and it would give startups another good exit path. The last few times LinkedIn has raised money, they have cited future acquisitions as one of the main reasons, but CardMuch is the first one I've heard about in a long time.

</comment><comment><USER5> After Googling, it doesn't appear that there is a Android app of CardMunch. Or am I mistaken?

<comment><USER6> Just iPhone right now, I've been bugging them for an Android app for a month or two now :).

Congrats guys: go CMU alums!

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> What does CardMunch do that Google Goggles doesn't? So far, Google Goggles has been quite good at scanning business cards for me and adding them to my contacts.

<comment><USER8> More accurate due to using humans (Mechanical Turk) rather than OCR. Allows even some handscribbled notes to be transcribed.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Yeah baby! Mazeltov Bowei, Sid, Sudeep, and Manu!

</comment><comment><USER9> So how do they make money?

<comment><USER10> My bet would be that they just tie it into LinkedIn so it becomes a way for people to make connections on LinkedIn easier - this leads to more usage and revenue for LinkedIn.

They used to charge but it is free now.</comment></comment>


The two suspects, brothers Cherif and Said Kouachi, have been killed - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30752239

<comment><USER2> It's unfortunate. These men wanted to die as martyrs and now unfortunately can't be brought to justice.

Though I am concerned by a report I heard this morning that France knew that the older brother had been to Yemen for weapons training recently. You'd think they'd keep an eye on him.</comment>


7 Cups Of Tea (YC S13) Connects People Who Need Emotional Support With Listeners - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2013/08/05/y-combinator-startup-7-cups-of-tea-connects-people-in-need-of-emotional-support-with-trained-listeners/ <comment><USER2> 7 Cups of Tea founder here. I wanted to share a little back story with you on this. I'm an entrepreneur and have had my own fair share of challenges both in business and in regular life. My wife is a therapist. I'm incredibly fortunate to have her support. It occurred to me that it'd be great if people could have someone to talk with when they are struggling or going through a hard time. We built 7 Cups of Tea to solve that problem.

We have a long way to go, but the initial signs are promising. I'd love your feedback on how we can make it better. Thanks!

<comment><USER3> Very interesting business. Quick question - is there any meaning behind the name? Why 7?

<comment><USER2> Thank you. Yes, the name comes from a famous Chinese poem titled "7 Cups of Tea" The basic idea is that each cup of tea brings a greater level of healing. Also, I just liked the name because it suggests meeting with a friend several times and having a conversation.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Having personally gone through some very difficult times, this is one of the startups that I'm most excited about for the very simple reason that I believe it has the potential to help millions of people in a very direct and personal way. I've already started referring family members to the service.

<comment><USER5> It's wonderful to see the problem of depression being targeted in a new and interesting way, but I'm very scared for the chance of this being exploited in 4chan-style raids. They've trolled everything from cancer community forums to lgbt support forums to whatever else you can think of.

Are listeners first going to be vetted? Is there going to be some push in associating listeners with their Facebook accounts, to have them authenticated as the good folks. Any comments in general about making it resilient to these types of attacks?

<comment><USER2> Clicks want to send me an email to further discuss? info at 7 cups of tea dot com.

<comment><USER6> Please understand me. No desire to sound negative. No wishes for anything but the best. I am just curious as to what your business model will be for this?

<comment><USER7> If you look at the screenshots, listeners can charge a fee. So far it appears to be all free, but eventually I'm sure they'll have a few professionals (psychiatrists, etc) on there who you can pay to talk to.

The startup will obviously make a commission on that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> From last October: Supposedly phone-based therapy works as well as in-person for people with mild symptoms, and _better_ for more-severe.

[http://www.choosehelp.com/news/emotional-health/study- phone-...](http://www.choosehelp.com/news/emotional-health/study-phone-based- cognitive-behavioral-therapy-works-as-well-as-in-person-therapy)

And from last week: Ditto for online.

[http://www.examiner.com/article/internet-therapy-works- just-...](http://www.examiner.com/article/internet-therapy-works-just-as-well- as-conventional-psychotherapy-says-new-study)

I don't know if the latter is a result of your own PR effort or great luck. Either way, congrats! :)

<comment><USER2> Thanks for posting these links. Nope, not a result of our PR efforts : ). I think we'll see a lot more research support for online treatments.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Wow, very cool. I was actually just thinking about this exact idea last night. A close friend of mine is going through a very rough time and I spent a few hours on the phone with him.

Mental health resources just aren't working for him, and I don't think he has a lot of positive role models in his life whom he can turn to. And we live in a time where many of the traditional institutions tasked with steering a young person into adulthood (religion, education, family, etc.) are broken or dysfunctional themselves.

This is definitely one startup that I would really like to see succeed. Good luck...

<comment><USER2> Thank you. That comment means a lot to me. Good on you for taking the time to support your friend. Truth is we all hit hard times in life and often we just need a little extra support to get through.

Also, as you indicated, a lot of the old institutions just are not there to provide as much support. I also always think of the role neighbors used to play. I still have friendly conversation with my neighbors, but I would feel really uncomfortable leaning on them for support.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Some of the "listeners" might be surprised to find out that they can be located easily with google image search. I just did that for one person and found their full name because they used the same exact picture elsewhere.

I guess the question (not reading any of the sign up materials) is is there an implied expectation of privacy on the part of listeners (I see with the people needing support there is an explicit statement of confidentiality) and should they be notified of ways that people can find out who they are?

Edit: And things to do (picture and name wise) to prevent that from happening?

<comment><USER11> I'm having trouble thinking of even a hollywood movie plot where that info could be exploited. Other than where the listeners are actually 4chan trolls on a raid, in which case the pics are probably fake/stolen anyway.

<comment><USER12> You can't think of how a person with a mental illness could exploit the name and address of a caregiver?

<comment><USER13> "Speakers" or whatever you want to call them, but also others. Just a brief glance showed that lots of the listeners posted personal info about what they have gone through. Not sure if I would want the whole wide web to know about my personal mental history.

<comment><USER7> > Not sure if I would want the whole wide web to know about my personal mental > history.

Wrong. You're absolutely sure that you don't want that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Am I sensing a trend in more recent YC batches to select teams that want to help people rather than find a market? Watsi, True Link, now this.

I mean, both are about building something people want, but they are definitely different points of view of this goal. One is about what people are willing to pay for, other is about what people could benefit from.

I most wholeheartedly welcome this trend (if it is in fact a conscious one). Myself, I work very close to this new field of "social ventures/social business/impact investment", the latest labels of a model that combine, at once, social impact and profit. No judgmental ideology, just using market forces to improve people's lives. Specially people with some kind of vulnerability (in general, poor people, but as seen here, not restricted to).

Muhamad Yunus (Nobel peace laureate) is the most famous champion of this way of changing the world, but he sure put some very rigid limitations on how to manage the profit, which I think are too demanding and not particularly effective. But it is a good way to think different about creating new business: [http://www.muhammadyunus.org/index.php/social- business/socia...](http://www.muhammadyunus.org/index.php/social- business/social-business)

For an approach that I think is more effective, here are some good places to learn:

[http://www.nextbillion.net/](http://www.nextbillion.net/)

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

[http://www.thegiin.org/cgi- bin/iowa/home/index.html](http://www.thegiin.org/cgi-bin/iowa/home/index.html)

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

<comment><USER2> My sense is that YC and the partners have always been about making peoples lives better. It might just be that entrepreneurs applying for YC are beginning to realize that YC can be a great avenue to accomplish a lot of good and also create a real business.

<comment><USER14> Maybe that. After a boom of entrepreneurs with ideas to impact their own world or their own pocket, I see more "cause-driven" entrepreneurs starting up.

Congratulations for your work, I hope you achieve great success!

<comment><USER2> Thanks!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I volunteered at a hotline, answering phones for a year. Due to the nature and potential consequences of the work, we were trained pretty thoroughly over the course of 3 months before talking to any real callers. During my conversations, I realized that many callers were lonely with no one else to connect with, and that many had varying degrees of mental health issues. It was one of the most challenging and rewarding experiences I have gone through.

Your callers are probably a different profile than the ones that called our hotline, but I would be very cautious about giving out identifiable details in the answerers' profiles. Also, knowing how difficult my volunteering work was, I'd like to know more about the training process for your answerers.

<comment><USER16> Somewhat off topic, but would you mind sharing a little about what volunteering for a hotline was like? I'm considering entering a training program to volunteer for one in my area, but am not sure I am prepared for this.

<comment><USER17> I'm not the OP, but I've worked for Samaritans ([http://www.samaritans.org/](http://www.samaritans.org/)) in the UK. I'd be happy to discuss by email at email@example.com if that's useful to you.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> It will be interesting to see stats on how long listeners last. Compassion fatigue is very common in fields where people work directly with those in unfortunate circumstances (homeless, dying, drug addiction, etc.) I wonder if systems such as this will burn people out faster or allow them to help more people faster. Cool idea.

<comment><USER2> This is a good point. We have a hypothesis that there is a care surplus (like Shirky's idea of a cognitive surplus) where there are lots of people that want to give back, but they can only give back on their own terms (i.e., when they are available and want to). We are very careful to not pressure folks into doing too much. Long-term this has to be sustainable. We are developing a strong listener community and that is helping people feel a real sense of pride in what they do and like they are a part of something larger.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> > I agree with this statement: "I am over 18 and I am not homicidal, suicidal > or abusing anyone."

I can see how it might be legally required to add this disclaimer, but I would at least direct them to somewhere else that can help them.

<comment><USER2> Excellent point. Thank you.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> This is a great idea. It might work very well with seniors. Seniors sometimes ( or lot of times) get very lonely and need someone who can listen to them or talk to them.

<comment><USER2> This is an excellent point. We definitely plan to work with seniors. My grandmother is 82. I try to call her 1x a week just to touch base. She looks forward to the calls from me and my sister, but we get pretty busy and forget from time to time. I think it'd be awesome if a listener on 7 Cups could just chat her up a couple times a week for 15 minutes each time. It'd mean the world to her. I think we have a real opportunity to work with nursing homes and assisted care facilities on a solution for them.

Also, one interesting anecdote that I discovered when talking with experts that work with the elderly. They said that often times elderly people will complain about telemarketers, but they'll answer the phone because they are lonely. They'll then end up buying things they don't really want just because they were able to connect with another person.

I also wonder if we can find a way for elderly volunteers to sign up as listeners. They've been through a lot and could help a lot of younger people going through similar struggles. If anyone has any recommendations or contacts at senior organizations, then it'd be great if you could share them with me. Thanks!

<comment><USER12> I would bet that you'd have more success signing up elderly people to be listeners (giving them something worthwhile to do when they have limited mobility and their family members are busy with work/school) than to tell them to call your helpline as customer because their grandkids don't call them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Having experience both in peer-support groups and as a trained mental health practitioner, I can see some perils and some promise in this idea and am interested in watching it evolve.

If anyone else is reading that wants to build something similar, I would love a marketplace for online therapists with solid reviews, bio statements/therapeutic orientation statements, clear pricing/insurance information, etc.

<comment><USER22> If you are interested in marketplaces for online therapy, have a look at Ingenio[1], which has been in this space for a while. Ingenio was acquired in 2007 by AT&T [2], supposedly for its patent portfolio, but it continues to operate.

[1] [http://www.ingenio.com/](http://www.ingenio.com/) [2] [http://techcrunch.com/2007/11/19/att-acquires-ingenio-and- th...](http://techcrunch.com/2007/11/19/att-acquires-ingenio-and-their-pay- per-call-network/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Thank you. I need exactly this. Stupid question, but I can't quickly find the answer on your website (you may want to add this to your FAQs): Does it cost anything?

<comment><USER24> > Listeners can currently elect to charge a fee and if they do, the site takes > a commission

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Seems like a service to provide medical care without a license. I wish we had people working on ways to streamline licensing and efficient uses of licensed resources, and fewer end-runs around the safety protections that licensing provides. (See also: AirBnB, Rover, Lyft, Sidecar, ....)

<comment><USER25> But we'll miss out on all the future lols:

        Welcome to 7CupsOfTea! Connecting you to a specialist now...
        You are connected to Listener "Twogirlssevencups"
        <needshelp56> Hi, thanks for listening....I feel like my life is in shambles...
        <needshelp56> i just...I just need someone to talk to...
        <Twogirlssevencups> lol kil urself

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> The website comes off as shady, insinuating that the service is an equivalent or valid alternative to therapy with a professional therapist. The way the 'listeners' are referred to as trained many times (which amounts to an online course, which could mean anything- how rigorous is this course? Are any would- be listeners turned away due to their performance during the course? Does the course last longer than an hour?), and especially the sentence "While many of our Active Listeners happen to be licensed professional counselors and therapists".

It would be more honest to portray the service as an online hotline.

<comment><USER2> I understand your perspective. We are not trying to portray listeners as licensed mental health professionals. We use the word trained to suggest that active listening is different from the normal kind of listening that most of us experience in our regular lives. ie, active listening is different from having a normal conversation. People normally don't use summarizing, paraphrasing and empathy regularly. Also, pointing to the licensed people on the site is not meant to equate active listeners with mental health professionals, but to simply highlight that there are a good number of licensed mental health professionals on the site.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> "Founded by clinical psychologist Glen Moriarty".

What a fantastic name for the founder of a company providing moral support to those in trouble.

</comment><comment><USER27> I found the "browse a listener" page confusing and hard to filter. One, the multi-column patchwork effect is visually messy and hard to parse. I don't know how to fix it but perhaps a single stack of page-width rectangles?

Second, many of the listeners are "Unavailable" \-- there should be a way to filter it to only the available ones. If a client wants to speak to a particular person, it would be helpful to know they were unavailable, but for a general browse, those entries are not helpful. (Just that many more people who don't want to talk to me, <sniff>...)

Third, I couldn't see how the category filters (Addiction, etc) changed much if anything. Is it that most listeners are ready to handle all those topics?

Fourth, the browse feature could benefit from a keyword search to cover those categories you haven't thought of as filters -- e.g. I'd like to know how many, if any, listeners call themselves "atheist" or "liberal".

<comment><USER2> Thank you for the feedback. We have the messages tool available so you can message a listener to set up a time to connect if they are currently unavailable.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> I think this is a great idea. I want to offer some design feedback and advice. This is just my opinion, but I hope it can be of help in some way.

-The testimonial scroll is a little awkward and hard on the eyes as it moves. My suggestion would be to have a fade in/fade out, or a much quicker animation

-There is quite a lot going on in the navigation bar (many different options + sub-options). My suggestion would be to narrow it down significantly to maybe 3 - 4 of the most important menu items.

-I think the "satisfaction guaranteed" thing can go. There can probably be some better messaging or use of real estate here to establish trust.

-I think there could probably be a better way to present the large image with text on top on the home screen (for example, see airbnb.com or screenleap.com). Visual design thing so it's kind of subjective.

Otherwise, really strong work. If you'd like more design help see my contact info in my profile.

</comment><comment><USER29> I had a breakdown in my late 20's. The only thing that helped me was Time. Stay away from Anyone who takes your Money away from you. Yes--many Psychiatrists, and Psychologists have been conditioned into believing they are helping you. They will take your last cent. My condition was extreme daily anxiety, which morphed into depression; because my life fell apart. Things will get better with Time. For some reason, the brain heals slowly. I'm just commenting on Depression and Anxiety. This is just my experience; you might have better results.

<comment><USER30> Time? Is this some service I am unaware of, or are you simply saying "take some time to heal"

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> I think this is a great use of technology that can change the lives of its users forever. You can't get more disruptive then this.

I really hope it succeeds as I've become really worried about the number of suicidal posts I've seen on HackerNews lately. I've noticed on 3 separate occasions in the last month alone posts from severely depressed hackers usually titled something along the lines of 'want to give up'.

While I think its great that hackers can come together to support each other, I'm guessing most of us are not trained psychologists.

<comment><USER2> I think the support on this community is actually a huge strength. People in general really try to help people when they post about feeling depressed or suicidal. It is always great to read an update post several months later when the person is through it and doing better. Our site can further help by taking things a step further.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> Good to see this. Not a new idea but not seen anybody execute well on this, yet. Have looked for and used a similar tool in the past, to refer friends to, and act as a listener. paul is correct but might be underestimating your TAM! I'm concerned that you might spread yourself across too "segments". Do you have plans, or enough insight yet, to concentrate on beachhead?

</comment><comment><USER33> Damn, I'm not in the States. I'd love to sign up to this and help people looking to reach out. Hopefully they scale.

<comment><USER2> We will! Thanks :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> Wow. That's an absolutely fantastic idea, in fact probably one of the most interesting ideas for a YC company I've seen for a while.

There's a lot of risks involved, but if they do it properly and take the security risks, and system abuse risks seriously from the outset it could be a really useful tool in getting people help.

</comment><comment><USER35> There is a science fiction story where there exists a network of anonymous listening "terminals" \- supposedly anonymous for both listener and speaker (in the end not so much for the latter). Anybody here remember a title that describes that scenario?

</comment><comment><USER36> I've clicked the link out of curiosity. Ended up chatting with one of the listeners for 2 hours... Well, actually almost all the chatting was done by me, listener was...listening. :) Man, it feels good to spill it out! Great service, thank you!

<comment><USER2> Glad you tried it out and experienced a sense of relief! That is exactly what we are aiming for!

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> Mental health is too much of a niche market. We need people to focus on the real problems faced by everyday people, such as: Which unlicensed taxi service will get me from SOMA to the Mission the fastest? </snark>

</comment><comment><USER38> My only criticism here is the name, as it's implicitly suggesting that it's a good idea for people with anxiety issues to drink a lot of tea. (When in fact caffeine generally makes anxiety/depression worse.)

<comment><USER39> I think it varies from person to person. At least for me, coffee helps to concentrate better, and as a result I work more effectively and am less distracted by depressing thoughts, therefore at least temporarily reducing depression.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> I have a friend that was /very/ recently diagnosed with type 2 bipolar disorder. She really needs people to speak with, and I'm excited to pass this along to her. Kudos, team!

<comment><USER2> Thanks! We actually just formalized a partnership with the International Bipolar Foundation.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> Interesting, and similar to [https://spillnow.com/](https://spillnow.com/), which I think is targeted more towards college students.

</comment><comment><USER42> This sounds a little bit similar to The Samaritans, a charitable organisation in the UK.

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

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> These guys came out of Start Norfolk( www.facebook.com/startnorfolk ). Love what they are doing! Great founder and team, serious solution to a huge problem area.

</comment><comment><USER43> I'm curious, what qualifications are required to become a listener? Do you have to be a mental health professional? Do you have to live in the United States?

</comment><comment><USER44> A number of startups sound exciting, but this may be the first one I would also describe as heartwarming. I really hope you go far.

<comment><USER2> I appreciate that. Thank you!

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> Very excited to hear from companies in the Southeast VA region - and TC- covered, YC companies, no less!

</comment><comment><USER46> I would be happy to be a listener, but I'm based in Scandinavia. Do you have any use for me?

<comment><USER2> Jonas, thank you for your interest. Please stay tuned.</comment></comment>


The U.S. Military's Campaign Against Media Freedom - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/15/opinion/sunday/chelsea-manning-the-us-militarys-campaign-against-media-freedom.html?_r=0 <comment><USER2> Is it any surprise that newspaper war stories are usually one-sided and glib, considering they are written by journalists who:

a. have "established relations with the military",

b. are rated by military contractors as likely to produce "favourable" coverage

c. are subject to revocation of access AND blacklisting for "controversial reporting"

A system that is designed to promote the army's point of view and penalize those that deviate from it will end up producing exactly that.

The problem, and the solution, lies in the rules of embedding:

> _A Pentagon spokesman said, "Embeds are a privilege, not a right."_

> _If a reporter's embed status is terminated, typically she or he is > blacklisted. This program of limiting press access was challenged in court > in 2013 by a freelance reporter, Wayne Anderson, who claimed to have > followed his agreement but to have been terminated after publishing adverse > reports about the conflict in Afghanistan. The ruling on his case upheld the > military's position that there was no constitutionally protected right to be > an embedded journalist._

As long as embeds are considered a "privilege" to be doled out (or rescinded) by the army based on it's own publicity objectives, it's impossible to expect neutral journalism from such a system.

<comment><USER3> If you're "embedded" you're a guest; not only is it bad manners to bite the hand that feeds you, it's also fundamentally against human nature. Embedded journalists will almost always side with who they're embedded within.

Independent journalism can only be produced by truly independent journalists: journalists who don't depend on the people they're reporting on for their very survival.

Is this possible? Maybe, but we sure haven't seen much of it.

Hoping that traditional embedding will produce true journalism is wishful thinking.

Or maybe the other side should offer to embed western journalists within them; that could prove to be fascinating. As a reader, I would be very interested in what the so-called "bad guys" think, what their motivations are, what goals they're pursuing, how they're fighting, etc.

<comment><USER4> Interesting idea, but you'd have to be batshit insane to embed yourself with any military force fighting the United States military.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I was the public affairs chief for Regimental Combat Team 6 (USMC), with a "territory" covering half of Al Anbar Province including Fallujah & Ramadi in 2007. I met scores of journalists and had high level visibility into the Marines' handling of journalists in Iraq.

The first thing I want to say is that Manning is describing the Army's approach to journalism coverage. It is quite different from the Marines' approach, which as far as I could tell (and from my vantage point I was in a good position to have a clear understanding) was extremely open. I do not recall any cases of "blacklisting" or otherwise limiting access of journalists to events, leaders or units in our area of operations (AO). I did hear stories about how the Army was handling it and it was, in typical Army fashion, being handled very poorly. I realize this might sound like glib "Semper Fi" jingoism but you'll have to trust me there was a real difference. (BTW the Marine Corps isn't guiltless, I'm sure, but during my time I was pretty proud of our commitment to openness.)

Second, about the tally of reporters. In 2010 the coverage had wound almost completely down because frankly the American people had lost interest. Even in 2007 the number of embed requests we received declined when "peace broke out" during the Anbar "awakening". There's no reason to think that the reason the official count of embeds never rose above 12 (if that's true) because of official limitations. Instead I think it's pretty reasonable to think that is because most embeds would have been quite boring at the time, relatively speaking. It was much easier to sit inside the Green Zone in Baghdad and report from there.

I don't really have a punchy conclusion to put here. Basically, don't believe everything is black or white in this matter. Like everything it was/is a complicated system with a lot of moving parts, and to clump it all into some homogenous bucket is basically give up on actually understanding.

</comment><comment><USER6> The problem extends much further than Iraq and affects all journalism. For example, the most widely read report from the New York Times on the Russia- Ukraine conflict was completely false. ([http://www.globalresearch.ca/new- york-times-propaganda-photo...](http://www.globalresearch.ca/new-york-times- propaganda-photos-on-ukraine-exposed/5378942))

That being said, the NYT is still much more neutral in its reporting than the kremlin-funded Russia Today, which is little more than a propaganda machine, including it's US arm.

I've spent the last few years trying to create a Wikipedia-like system where anyone can curate and fact-check the first hand sources coming out of an event. There is incredible content coming from the people on the ground who, despite having their own opinions, are not blatantly funded by someone who is trying to twist the story to meet their narrative. It seems to be working well so far with hardcore news junkies using it (the group similar to the Wikipedia editors), but we'll have to see in a couple days at the public launch.

<comment><USER7> Your point lacks credibility because the one link you cite is nothing but a Kremlin mouthpiece. Ie it's painfully blatant & appears to be written by RT staffers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I hope Americans can elect a president that will pardon Manning and Snowden in day _one_ of presidency. If a presidential candidate can at least promise to do that, then we'd have a pretty good sense that he or she is going to be a pretty good president regarding government transparency, media freedom, basic rights, and so on.

At the very least the question of pardoning them should be asked in a live televised debate, to see how the candidates stand. If none of them are willing to commit to that, then there's a very high chance US will _continue_ on the dark path is currently on.

<comment><USER9> Even if said President _wanted_ to do it, I doubt that the military-industrial complex would let him/her. They would burn a lot of political bridges, and possibly end up unable to accomplish anything else of significance during their Presidency.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> The American mainstream media is severely dysfunctional. Cable "news" networks are biased outlets for each political party to deliver their message. Even more-traditional network news outlets like NBC News have sacrificed the appearance of a separation of the reporters from the politicians they're supposed to report on by hiring family members of recent and current political figures. On NBC's current payroll are Jenna Bush Hager, and Chelsea Clinton. On CNN's payroll is Chris Cuomo - brother to the Governor of New York.

It seems that above all else, mainstream news craves access. Hiring the presidential daughters provides a network like NBC access to those presidential families in a way other networks may not have. Attending the annual White House Correspondents dinner provides reporters access to celebrities and a night out of dining and drinking with the people they're supposed to hold to account for their actions. And being complicit with the military's approach towards how a war should be reported ensures they retain their access to the war "story" \- be it factual or massaged.

Recall the story from the NYTimes about the military analysts that networks always put on-air whenever a military story is being covered? If not, it's worth a read: [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/us/20generals.html?pagewan...](http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/us/20generals.html?pagewanted=all)

Real reporting is hard. And when media organizations elect to go along with how a story is presented rather than providing raw, unbiased accounts of things, it does an injustice to the public. And it's made even more difficult when an administration chooses to take an aggressive stance towards journalists regarding how they source and report their stories.

It's never been easier to be a reporter and disseminate information to millions. I can only hope that the public seizes that opportunity and fixes the ways that news is currently broken.

<comment><USER11> Soon most people will get their news online, not from TV. The audience for TV keeps getting older and the market share for digital news keeps growing.

<comment><USER12> There was a panel at a summit in Colorado where someone was talking about their plans for fact based journalism on a new Al Jazeera America, and someone from MSNBC or one of the other cable networks was there.

It was a really wrenching exchange as the existing cable mogul defended the status quo, saying something like, "We'd love to have sophisticated news consumers tune in, but those people have complex lives and interests, they don't watch news every night, they just read it quickly online then go to things like the ballet. We run the market experiment with sober, deep, fact- based news every night against PBS. It doesn't win."

It's helpful to realize that even when Fox is top of the ratings, the viewers it has as a percentage of the American population are exceedingly tiny.

In a Gallup poll in 2013, TV still leads, in surveys. But surveys overstate things, because people want to look like they actually consume news. [http://www.gallup.com/poll/163412/americans-main-source- news...](http://www.gallup.com/poll/163412/americans-main-source-news.aspx)

On a strong weekday, Fox is looking at maybe 2 million viewers for the entire day: [http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2014/06/10/cable-news- ratin...](http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2014/06/10/cable-news-ratings-for- monday-june-9-2014/272054/) (ie, under a percent of the US population).

It's easy to credit TV news with a larger cultural impact than it actually has.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Tl;dr

Iraq never had more than 12 embedded journalists covering 100,000 troops, and they had to be nice or get removed.

Democracy needs transparency and journalism is one of the best means of ensuring this - and it was totally strangled in Iraq so that abuses by Pro-US Iraq groups got no criticism in US - and this leads to no criticism of our military and administration. This fails to be healthy.

<comment><USER14> The piece is just shy of 1200 words. Is a tldr really needed? Would that his analysis was longer.... Back to Hedges' books.

<comment><USER15> > his

Her. Why are people _still_ misgendering Chelsea Manning?

<comment><USER14> You're absolutely right about that, and I apologize. It was pure sloppiness on my part. I meant no disrespect towards or commentary on Manning.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Since I seem to be the only one awake I will comment on Chelsea's op-ed. She raises the really important point of journalists needing to be able to be able to report on what is actually going on for the American public to be able to make an informed decision. What I wonder is how we (by we I mean the greater tech community) can do to make this happen?

<comment><USER14> This is the question I hoped would bubble out of this post (as opposed to the question 'why are we seeing politics on HN'). Part of the answer would be to build tools such as SecureDrop/ StrongBox:

[http://www.newyorker.com/strongbox/](http://www.newyorker.com/strongbox/) [https://pressfreedomfoundation.org/securedrop](https://pressfreedomfoundation.org/securedrop)

And Redphone and the various things Moxie works on: [https://whispersystems.org/](https://whispersystems.org/)

But that only makes communications and authenticity possible. Access -- as in embedding problem Manning describes -- and censorship or selection bias will still be a problem. Those seem more like policy issues than technology problems. Along those lines, possibly Sunlight Foundation ([http://sunlightfoundation.com/](http://sunlightfoundation.com/)) and of course, supporting the EFF ([https://www.eff.org/](https://www.eff.org/)).

Those are my thoughts, but I second your question and hope others have input.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> The Vice documentary 'This Is What Winning Looks Like' has some great reporting on Afghanistan.

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ja5Q75hf6QI](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ja5Q75hf6QI)

<comment><USER18> "The documentary follows U.S. Marines as they train Afghan security forces, showing their ineptitude, drug abuse, sexual misconduct, and corruption as well as the reduced role of US Marines due to the troop withdrawal."

A reddit discussion on looking at the documentary critically.

[http://www.reddit.com/r/Documentaries/comments/25vm20/this_i...](http://www.reddit.com/r/Documentaries/comments/25vm20/this_is_what_winning_looks_like_2013_the/chlc80w)

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I am glad to hear from Chelsea. Does anyone's know how she is fairing?

<comment><USER19> As a transgender person in prison... Probably, not too great.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> The same can be said about 99% of journalism about government at every level, including local government and policing. There is much too little skepticism.

This is why citizen journalism, as rough as it often is, is successful, and why data-based journalism like fiverthirtyeight is the future of professional journalism.

</comment><comment><USER11> Rather easy to take potshots, now that Iraq is falling apart. If this outcome was so obvious why wait until now to write an op-ed?

The pre-war coverage had some problems but I thought the reporting about the war, on the whole, was pretty decent. I read a lot about torture and about the lack of press freedom in Iraq.

<comment><USER19> > Rather easy to take potshots, now that Iraq is falling apart. If this > outcome was so obvious why wait until now to write an op-ed?

It's outcome was known and obvious from the get go. You kill the dictator that repress another extremist. What did you think it was going to happen? No retaliation.

America's 'Wars' from Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, War on Terror (and War on Drugs) have all been, very, very, very bad. I can't think of a military campaign that accomplished their goals, unless said goals were to cause as much shit as possible and get paid shit ton for doing so.

[http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175854/tomgram%3A_engelhardt...](http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175854/tomgram%3A_engelhardt,_a_record_of_unparalleled_failure/)

<comment><USER11> My point is that it's tough to say "I told you so" after the fact.

<comment><USER19> There were many analytic saying it will end like this (I don't have links at the moment).

If you think about it, it makes perfect sense. Dethroning Saddam just led to a power vacuum that installed whatever he was suppressing for the duration of his reign.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Twitter acquires Fluther - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2010/12/21/fluther-twitter/

<comment><AUTHOR> Do people agree with the TechCrunch analysis that there's going to be a Twitter QA site?

I don't really see Twitter having separate sections, but it does seem natural that questions in your stream could be handled better.</comment>


Never Read the Manual. - <AUTHOR> http://www.diaryofanappdeveloper.com/post/18691420746/never-read-the-manual

<comment><USER2> I include a game manual anyway, in addition to a future seamless tutorial/game. I know time is a limited resource, but in my case, game development is on a timescale of decades, not a few years.

If it's going to be in development for a few decade, or even longer, I am going to give players every possible resource on how to play my game. It will be youtube, in game tutorial, in game manual, question and answers, etc.

Otherwise, I agree with the idea on allocating resource to an interactive tutorial.

<comment><USER3> Any examples of games that have been in developed over decades (indie, own or retail)? Can't think of any other than Duke...

<comment><USER2> Dwarf Fortress is about ten years old. Battle for Wesnoth is in development for 9 years. BZFlag is in development since 1992. Freeciv is in development since 1996.

The only game that in that particular list that is still in major continuous development is Dwarf Fortress. Everybody else is a completed game that is still improvement.

Duke doesn't really count, since their development is not really cumulative.

Commercial development tend to develop really intensely for several months to a short few years and make all their money in a few months. The're short term motivated and they will never develop their game beyond that. Yet, they took the equivalent of several decade of development time and never seems to goes beyond 40 hours gameplay.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> One of my pet peeves is returning to a game later. So many of them have "tutorials" or similar initial levels showing you how to play the game. You come back a month or two later and have forgotten the finer details and there is no quick summary to jog your memory. You often have to throw away current progress in order to start from the tutorial again, and the tutorial is tedious because you have already played it.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Haha. Sorry Taze. Thanks for reminding me.

</comment><comment><USER5> whatshisname? How dare you insult Om Nom by forgetting his true name!</comment>


(FreeCodeCamp) Let's Build 5 Dapps on Ethereum – Full Tutorial for Beginners - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wMKq7HvbKw <comment><AUTHOR> Covers:

\- Solidity smart contract with Remix

\- Tests with Truffle

\- Frontend with Vanilla Js + Webpack

\- Deployment to public testnet (Ropsten) and Mainnet

\- BONUS: some dad jokes at the beginning!

Created by EatTheBlocks ([https://eattheblocks.com](https://eattheblocks.com))</comment>


ERPNext – Open-Source ERP Software - <AUTHOR> https://erpnext.com <comment><USER2> I'm curious how does this compare to Odoo?

<comment><USER3> Seems only the creator/owner promotes it here; I am, as well, wondering how it compares from an objective partner.</comment></comment>