Freemium - Shmeemium (or why micro-billing is better) - <AUTHOR> http://lmframework.com/blog/2009/06/freemium/

<comment><USER2> In implying the penny gap can be eliminated, this article fails to account for mental transaction costs. No matter how simple a microbilling service is, there is still a mental transaction cost for deciding whether to pay or not. If my time is worth $20/hour (US average wage), and it takes me 3 seconds to read your microbilling screen and understand what you are charging, it has already cost me a penny. 3 seconds is enough time for the average reader to read 5 words. I would estimate you have about a minute to explain your service and charge for it, if you want the customer to spend a quarter on something that is worth fifty cents (or more) to them. (See <http://szabo.best.vwh.net/micropayments.html> or <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micropayment#Theory.2Fcriticism> for more background on mental transaction costs.)

If the price of your freemium service is artificially high, then you are doing it wrong. The freemium model is for services where the price of supporting free users is less than the price of other ways of informing your paying customers that you exist. (Including cases where free users contribute value.)

The best way to structure the freemium model is such that you only charge for things that are natural scarcities, not things that can be freely replicated. For example, charging for support (human time to solve your problem) is better than charging for features. (Existing features aren't scarce, it costs nothing to roll them out to all users. Implementing new features is scarce.)

<comment><USER3> _In implying the penny gap can be eliminated, this article fails to account for mental transaction costs._

Seriously. Clay Shirky explained this 9 years ago: [http://www.openp2p.com/pub/a/p2p/2000/12/19/micropayments.ht...](http://www.openp2p.com/pub/a/p2p/2000/12/19/micropayments.html)

I can't believe someone is writing this in 2009. There's so much wrong with it I don't even know where to begin, but this paragraph stuck me as particularly wrong:

"Fair enough. But here's one thing freemium fans can't deny: in their model, a tiny minority of paid users subsidizes the service for everybody. It is this simple fact that makes the freemium model self-defeating, because, for the numbers to work, the price of the paid service must be set artificially high."

That's just pure mental confusion and abuse of language by the author.

Try this thought experiment: github launched as a micropayment service. It would already be dead. How do you calculate the "fair" price of something that doesn't exist?

<comment><AUTHOR> Shirky was talking about micropayments for content in that article. An endless stream of little decisions. I agree with him.

However, as I pointed out in a comment above. The one-off mental transaction cost for agreeing to be micro-billed for a continuous service is less than that required to sign-up for a premium version of a service.

As to my supposed abuse of language, I don't understand what you mean.

<comment><USER3> _As to my supposed abuse of language, I don't understand what you mean._

Correct me if I'm misunderstanding you on this part: If your claim is that the paying users of github are subsidizing the free users, that's simply not true and is a misuse of the word subsidize.

Calling a price "artificially high" on the other hand is meaningless. The correct price is the price that create the most value. There's no such thing as an artificially high price in an open marketplace. Or, more specifically, it's impossible for the producer of a good or service to set a price that is artificially high.

<comment><USER2> _There's no such thing as an artificially high price in an open marketplace. Or, more specifically, it's impossible for the producer of a good or service to set a price that is artificially high._

That's not true. The real world is not the same as an idealized economic model. It is quite possible for a business to set an artificially high price, at least in the short term. In a competitive market, it results in the business getting less revenue, and quite possibly going out of business, but that is not instantaneous. If the price is merely sub-optimal, but not outrageous, it is quite possible that the overcharging business will make enough money to stay around for years.

Even John Maynard Keynes commented on those trying to profit by shorting irrational bubbles, "Markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent." -- if you're a company benefiting from the current irrationality, that means you can stay around until the market returns to rationality. (For example, see Citibank, Lehman brothers, etc....)

This is without even accounting for the fact that these services are usually not pure commodity markets. They are in monopolistic competition (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopolistic_competition>), sometimes with only very distant substitutes, giving closer to monopoly control over their market.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> One aspect of freemium models that you are giving seriously short shrift to is that they often have an element of value exchange to them. Additional users free or pro, make the service as a whole more valuable, if the cost of subsidizing a freegan is less than the value they contribute, it's a perfectly rational exchange. This is why craigslist, flickr and myspace were able to sustain that model, the marginal cost of an additional user is usually much less than the utility they provide to the rest of the users.

And that isn't even considering the value of peer production, from mutual support to people building tools within the ecosystem that is hosting them. In your spreadsheet example, the use who posts a widely used rent/own evaluation worksheet is still charged when she uses the site, even though you should be compensating her for the value she adds to the site.

While I like the idea of microbilling, I think it's somewhat orthogonal to freemium models.

<comment><AUTHOR> Good point. But not every web service benefits from the network effect. The spreadsheet example was not chosen at random. As long as you can save you spreadsheet in a common format, would you really choose a service with a higher user base over one that offered much better functionality but with fewer users?

There is space for both models. But for web _applications_ I think microbilling has significant advantages

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I don't understand the logic flow of this article. First it seems to place to place freemium & micro billing in opposition. I don't see why.

Then it goes on to describe all sorts of problems that might affect a freemium model. They can be annoying. There's a race to the bottom. There's the penny gap. paid subsidises free. All true. None universally applicable. Certainly none universally deal breakers.

To pick on the last one I could give this analogy that applies to many kinds of freemium businesses. Whenever you buy your brand of toothpaste (that you have been buying for 20 years) you are _subsidising_ advertising to new markets in countries you don't care abut. In other cases even that analogy doesn't hold because free customers do not raise costs.

When finally getting back to microbilling, the solution appears to be some sort of universal easy micro billing service & a cultural shift away from subscriptions towards pay-as-you-go. Fine. Good. Works for iphone apps & mobile phone trivia, why not web apps?

What relevance does this have for business models that rely on freemium? None. No such service exists at this point. The fact that the proposed solution is a universal one, points to the fact that WebApp companies shouldn't roll their own.

I agree that micro billing is a good idea. I don't see what it has to do with freemium.

</comment><comment><USER6> I can see the potential for micro-billing in B2B services, but I'm quite certain micro-billing will never be successful in the consumer market. The problem as I see it is that most potential customers will see micro-billing as the very embodiment of "nickle and dimed to death". Which is not very surprising. Usage based billing is seldom ever popular with consumers, who have historically chosen flat-fee options in overwhelming numbers whenever given the choice.

</comment><comment><USER7> Actually, the ads often help to keep the price of freemium not as high as was mentioned in the article.

Also the Micro-Payments are good for sellers because the customer have less control over what he is consuming, because it's a pain in the %$# check every time how is your consume.

So having less control over your consume the pop up comes faster :D

</comment><comment><USER8> i don't necessarily disagree, there just needs to be a powerful, useful, efficient, central microbilling service before it actually catches on.

i also don't necessarily agree with the assumption that the paid versions are artificially higher. the point of the free version is for the ads to more or less cover the costs.

<comment><AUTHOR> The cost of the paid versions are artificially high wrt to the additional benefit they provide and to what they would cost if all the users paid up.

As web apps become more prevalent, people will be less willing to giving up their acreage to ads.

Agree that microbilling needs critical mass before catching on.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> He just "assumes" the step of a clearinghouse for payment information exists and stores the users payment information. Unfortunately, nothing of the sort exists, and would be quite a big hurdle to get over.

</comment><comment><USER10> Isn't the model this article describes exactly what Amazon does with AWS?

<comment><USER3> _Isn't the model this article describes exactly what Amazon does with AWS?_

Metered usage is not the same thing as micropayments. I may have skimmed the OP too quickly, but if metered usage was the proposal then the title is misleading. The use case for metered billing is rapid scaling in the face of unpredictable usage patterns.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Excellent article. Freemium is much better for both consumers and producers:

Consumers avoid annoying ads, and they get something they don't mind paying for (one reason being that it costs so little).

Producers just win all around. :)

<comment><AUTHOR> I hope you meant 'micro-billing is much better'....

<comment><USER11> To a certain extent, yes, I did. Thanks.</comment></comment></comment>


Dirty tricks 6502 programmers use - <AUTHOR> https://nurpax.github.io/posts/2019-08-18-dirty-tricks-6502-programmers-use.html <comment><USER3> Not to belittle the article, because it's definitely interesting. But as an ex-BBC 6502 programmer, my nitpick here would be that the title should really be named "Dirty tricks C64 6502 programmers use".

On the beeb we had our own set of tricks specific to the memory layout and ROM of our beloved beige and black machines.

<comment><USER4> _title should really be named "Dirty tricks C64 6502 programmers use"._

In that case, probably _Dirty Tricks 6510 Programmers Use_ would be even better.

<comment><USER5> While that may be technically correct, the programmer-visibile difference between the MOS 6502 and the MOS 6510 is totally incidental in this case - <USER2> 6510 has a a built in 6/8-pin IO port (partially used for bank switching the ROMs in the C64). Unless you touch the IO ports, they should behave identically, down to the cycle timings of instructions and the same behavior of undocumented opcodes.

In this case, the real C64 specific tricks are not 6510 specific, but depending on the specific initialization done by the C64 ROM and calling C64 ROM routines.

<comment><USER6> A real "dirty trick" is reading the actual RAM in memory locations 0 and 1 on the 6510 (and not the I/O port values).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> _> Entries were posted as Twitter replies and DMs, containing only the PRG byte-length and an MD5 hash of the PRG file._

This is clever. So basically rather than getting bogged down reviewing submissions you just pick a winner and then validate post-hoc! (because when you win the hash of your code has to match the one you submitted)

<comment><USER8> I wonder if you could brute force a particular solution with that information.

<comment><USER9> I would say no. 34 bytes is 256^32=7588550360256754183279148073529370729071901715047420004889892225542594864082845696 combinations, and even if you could easily narrow it down to only valid programs you would still need to simulate it, which is way slower than computing a hash.

<comment><USER8> Only a fraction of those would be reasonable programs, and you can test almost all of them immediately by computing a MD5 hash.

<comment><USER10> 34 bytes is equivalent to bruteforcing a 272-bit key. It's already _physically impossible_ to do that for a 256-bit key even if you ignore everything other than incrementing the key counter itself:

[https://pthree.org/2016/06/19/the-physics-of-brute- force/](https://pthree.org/2016/06/19/the-physics-of-brute-force/)

<comment><USER8> But as I said, you're not brute forcing the entire key space because you likely have an idea of at least some of the bits.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> What, if any, modern products still use the 6502?

EDIT: That's not a dig against the 6502. I still fondly remember leaning BASIC in my C64 and wish now I had ventured into Assembly with it. By today's standards it seems to have a simpler and more approachable instruction set so I'm wondering if there aren't products I could hack on to learn Assembly with it. Or maybe I should just break out my old Commie.

<comment><USER12> I'm unsure but I think 6502's are available as cores for semi and full custom IC's. Where the the processor core and memory is fully laidout. Bonus runs with a GHZ clock which gives you the ability to twiddle bits like mad.

So outside of retro computing you won't see a 6502 IC in the wild. But they likely are buried deep in nondescript IC's

<comment><USER13> [http://www.6502.org/commercial](http://www.6502.org/commercial) lists some of these.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Thanks!

6502 is still my favorite architecture, even though I've done assembly language programming (professionally!) on many platforms in the past 35 years.

<comment><USER15> Why is it your favorite?

<comment><USER16> I'm not the OP, but I always liked its simplicity. There's just enough space to do something interesting without getting bogged down in too much complexity.

<comment><USER14> I think it's because it was my first. And it is simple. Yes there are many addressing modes (like zero-page, and "absolute indirect", and "indexed indirect") but there's only 56 instructions and you can learn it in one afternoon.

And doing something useful with 56 instructions, 8-bits at a time, is like solving a puzzle.

<comment><USER17> _8-bits at a time_

It's a detail that doesn't always come up in these threads but it's worth remembering how belligerently 8-bit a 6502 is. Not only are there next to no general-purpose registers but they're 8 bit and there are no pretend-two- registers-are-one-16-bit-register instructions at all. You can't put an address in a register. Compared to even other popular 8 bit CPUs of the time, that's a bit metal.

<comment><USER18> It is. There is always 6809 for a bit more civilized fun, IMHO.

<comment><USER19> Personally I preferred the 6800 family (6800, 6802, 6805) over the 6502, but the 6809 always felt a little too far.

<comment><USER20> The 6809 is an amazing little processor, you can run multi-tasking and relocatable code on it with relative ease. And with some bank switching magic you can even do that with appreciable amounts of RAM for each task. It is also one of the few instruction sets that is very predictable, if you know some base formats then you can 'compose' instructions and they usually exist as a valid opcode.

<comment><USER21> "UniFLEX is a Unix-like operating system ... for the Motorola 6809":

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

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> My first 6502 program was self-modifying; I wrote it just before reading the book chapter on using registers for indexing relative to a base address. That book was _Programming the 6502_ by Rodney Zaks.

I have some 1986-dated 6502 assembly code of mine in hard copy (on dot matrix paper with the "holes" intact). I'm going to scan it one day and post.

<comment><USER5> A lot more 6502 code was self modifying than necessary - I know a lot of people (myself included) did not pick up zero-page indexed indirect/indirect indexed address modes and instead kept using absolute x/y indexed and modified the absolute part for larger loops. A large part of the reason why I didn't learn about it until fairly late was that I mostly saw absolute x/y indexing in the code I looked at to learn. It's interesting how many bad habits you'd see in code like that, given e.g. the C64 ROMs were extensively dissected and documented and published, and they used zero page all over the place.

<comment><USER18> Raises hand. Yeah, me too.

When I first got zero page, I thought it looked like up to 128 address registers, with only a couple cycle penalty.

But, like you, a lot of code self modified the easier a solute indexed address mode instructions.

And it was right there, easy to see.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Sorta related, some 6502-based demos:

[https://hackaday.com/2018/12/05/apple-ii-megademo-is- countin...](https://hackaday.com/2018/12/05/apple-ii-megademo-is-countin- cycles-and-takin-names/)

Apple II, but in the comments are links to a C64 demo, a IIGS demo, and a ZX spectrum demo (which is Z80, not 6502, but same era).

</comment><comment><USER24> There can be a significant trade-off on size vs speed, the more tricks you do to shave down bytes usually adds to the complexity of the iterations.

So assembly programmers may go for the more kludgy looking code as the execution far outpaces the optimized byte count version. Ive heard of such things in video timing and game loops.

<comment><USER25> This really depends on the specific architecture and the application. In some cases, you will want to optimize mostly for size, so that your hotspots fit entirely into I-cache. Modern CPUs spend most of their time waiting for data (or instructions) to become available, so often computations are essentially free.

<comment><USER26> the average IPC over a variety of loads is, IIRC, estimated to be ~1. So no, most modern cpu do not spend most of their time waiting for data.</comment></comment></comment>


Samsung: 'we are not interested in buying RIM' Consumers: 'Neither are we' - <AUTHOR> http://www.theverge.com/2012/1/17/2714743/samsung-buying-rim-rumor

<comment><USER2> I wonder why Samsung has become the go to company for takeover rumors. First HP and now RIM. Besides, while Samsung could have benifited from buying webOS, I don't think that RIM really has any assets Samsung would want(aside from the mobile keyboard design).

</comment><comment><USER3> I had to vote the story up because of the submission title!</comment>


Everything I Am Afraid Might Happen If I Ask New Acquaintances to Get Coffee - <AUTHOR> http://www.newyorker.com/humor/daily-shouts/everything-i-am-afraid-might-happen-if-i-ask-new-acquaintances-to-get-coffee <comment><USER3> Hit 30, realised I had probably done as much in my chosen field as I was likely to.

Got sad, considered changing careers and slowly started getting more frantic about seizing my Big Chance. In the process I discovered I'm unspeakably awkward and horrible at networking. Developed a dislike for great networkers being Machiavellian shits.

Didn't get my Big Chance.

Turned 35, had long since stopped counting birthdays, and then one day realised that imperceptibly something had changed.

I wasn't sad anymore. At least not noticably sadder than anybody else if I took the time to look. I'd come to terms with my crippling imposter syndrome, and was free of the quixotic trappings of my equally crippling Dunning Kruger. Read Jon Robson's psychopath test and decided I probably wasn't a sociopath either - I was just a bloke in his mid 30s.

Realised I should stop self diagnosing psychological conditions via the internet.

I have a great family, a good job, I wake up every morning and genuinely look forwards to spending my day doing what I do. I still harbour secret dreams of world domination, but they exist withing a framework of reassuringly tedious goals, like making sure I have enough clean pants and socks for the week.

Learned to work the washing machine. Still don't like inviting people to go for a coffee.

<comment><USER4> > " Developed a dislike for great networkers being Machiavellian shits."

I'm a bad networker, as a software engineer you rarely have the incentive to improve. I've never had to look for a job... I just say yes when a good email comes in. Recently though I realized that I can only go so far the way I've been going. I've become noncontent with waiting for the right email to come in. So I started working on changing myself.

I think the first part of networking is to start before you need the benefits from it. The second is to be more concerned with what you can give rather than what you can get (it's just like Christmas!) and finally... and this sounds really basic. You actually have to go out and do things, and you actually have to talk to people (very hard to do if you're an introvert like myself).

<comment><USER5> > " I've never had to look for a job... I just say yes when a good email comes > in."

This, is what gets me. It's stuff like this that makes me feel like the longer I stay in software the further detached from the general reality I will become. I love software, but I hate how much it drives me away from the rest of society.

<comment><USER6> >> " I've never had to look for a job... I just say yes when a good email comes in."

>This, is what gets me. It's stuff like this that makes me feel like the longer I stay in software [...]

I can assure you that this is not the general job hunting scenario for software people. This may be the case for a particular engineer, or small class of highly-sought-after engineers, in a couple of very short-lived time periods of frothy hiring. The vast majority of us still have to get out there and pound the pavement like everyone else, and it's not overnight.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Ah, the twenties.

How's the saying go?

"In your twenties you worry what people think of you, in your thirties you stop caring, in your forties you realize no one spends any time thinking about you anyway."

<comment><USER8> Any of you folks in your 30's and 40's have any advice on how to fast track this process a bit?

<comment><USER9> Get married and have some kids. You will stop caring about what others think pretty quickly.

<comment><USER10> Yah, my first kid, I was so sleep deprived, all I could think all day long was "God I want to take a nap", then it got worse..

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> squeaky-clean I know this is article is humor, but it's also pretty spot-on for me (maybe a lot of us here). Most of my friends don't seem to understand the extents to which I overthink everything.

"Just ask. The worst that can happen is they say 'No', and by not asking, you're already giving yourself a no."

I get this advice a lot and particularly hate it. Getting a "No" is not the worst that can happen. A meteor hitting the earth is the worst that can happen (or maybe snakes, or crossfit). Worst that's actually happened to me? You go up to say something to someone, stutter a few times, throw up in your mouth a little, and then run away.

<comment><USER11> Having done a lot of coffees I'd say "yes" is overlooked as a possible worst thing that could happen.

<comment><USER12> This. Exactly this.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Don't solve for people's feelings. If you have good intentions and are useful to others, they will be attracted to you.

Sometimes you will offend or annoy people. These negative experiences are growth opportunities. Apologize. Learn a social lesson. Next time you won't make the same mistake.

<comment><USER14> Agree except for the apologizing part. Especially if you're the kind of person that over-thinks things, like me.

There are two situations that I can think of where apologizing is appropriate and appreciated:

1\. You _did_ something bad, rather than just saying something. Like puking on a friend's couch. Go out of your way to make amends.

2\. Immediately after you said something and realized how insensitive or offensive it was. Conversation moves fast, if it hasn't already moved on briefly retract and apologize, then let others talk for a while.

I tend to fixate on things I've said in the past that I regret. I have a rotating roster of my "most awkward moments" that my brain likes to randomly replay for me without prompting. In the past I used to go out of my way to find a way to apologize for these moments. Almost always the encounter was awkward enough to give me something new to fixate on. Most of the time they don't even remember the conversation in question.

Don't take yourself too seriously. There's a certain amount of hubris in assuming that something you said in passing deeply affected anybody else. Forgive yourself and let these small fixations go and others will too, probably much faster than you do.

<comment><USER15> I replay awkward (or bad) moments occasionally, too. You can actually break that habit, though. When you catch yourself remembering them, just make the effort to blank your mind. "Don't think about cheese" and all that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> This made me want to reflect on my own list and realized that it's morphed somewhat over the years from:

\- What if I invite them to coffee and I think they're super awesome and they think I'm an idiot

To:

\- What if I invite them to coffee and that 15 minutes turns into 4 hours and I still want to hang out more because they're awesome (which they will be, because frankly I find everyone fascinating); except now I have this disquieting sense of guilt because none of the other projects I have scheduled to complete in this time are getting completed... or started, or thought about.

\- What if I don't invite them to coffee and they are or have some information to share that (combined with my own experience) is the key to my entire existence... or perhaps the future of humanity.

Maybe I let my mind get away with me sometimes...

Sometimes coffee is just a way to blow off 15 minutes with some amusing banter because sometimes it's better to step away from the computer than it is to keep bashing your head against it.

<comment><USER17> You seem wise...I'll ask for advice!

How do I, as a 27 year-old Grad student invite women for coffee without them feeling it might be a 'trick-date', or having them not get comfortable?

Really, I want it to be a date _less_ than you do, but how do I convince you that?

<comment><USER18> I don't think he was necessarily implying it'd be date-like - I've had those "4 hour conversations resulting with the key to my existence" type conversations with the sex I'm not romantically interested in, from small coffee "dates."

To quote Always Sunny, it's all about the implication. I start with a question unrelated to the coffee "Jane, how are things going at Salesforce? I've been considering a move lately, mind if I get you a coffee and pick your brain a bit?" You can initialize the convo at that point and then either fluidly move the conversation elsewhere if desired, or, you know, not. Anyway, that's how I do it: transparent objective.

<comment><USER16> LOL I didn't mean to imply that they only come from romantically driven situations. Of course we've all had them at some point or another whether it be with someone we are attracted to or not. But the point is, right at the beginning there's nothing been invested yet. The risk isn't anywhere near as great as we hype it up to be in our own mind. We didn't know this person an hour, a day or a week ago, they had no bearing on our life prior to that, yet we drum it up to be this huge event in our mind that realistically, even if we get shot out of the sky in a flaming wreck, is it _really_ that big a deal... after all, they had zero consequence in our life such a tiny piece of our life ago, what's the difference if they go back to being such a tiny piece of our life 10 minutes from now?...

The converse is also true though, there's a much greater risk for _not_ taking the leap given a). the amount invested (lack of it) so far and b). the real risk of them saying no (I mean if they say no, then what?). What if this person is the key that unlocks the meaning of life for me and I don't take this leap? Admittedly they're probably not but weighing these risks against each other, it would appear more foolish _not_ to ask than to ask. If you don't ask, or you ask and they say no, you're exactly at the same position you are now (except your ego is a little bruised, but that'll recover). If you don't ask, you'll spare your ego potential embarrassment but you'll always be stuck where you are.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> The crossfit line reminds me of this joke:

Crossfit is just like fightclub if the first two rules were the opposite.

</comment><comment><USER20> Long time lurker on this site and think I finally have something worth conributing. As someone who has struggled with social anxiety, a big ommission from that list is "their reaction will provide emprical proof that _insert negative self perception_ isn't just in my head*.

At which point the hypothetical doomsday scenario extends beyond just the immediate scenario. For whatever reason age does help though. Part of me wonders if modern marketing plays a minor role. The younger you are, the more advertising pushes the need to 'fit in' or impress peers as the primary appeal of a product.

<comment><USER21> Welcome to commenting! I'm sure you have much worth contributing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> I asked a girl to coffee once and she ran off. She literally sprinted away. I had to append my list of worst outcomes.

<comment><USER15> I asked a girl out, once, and she said yes, then I never heard from her or saw her again. I can't read people worth a damn, so that basically taught me to stop trying.

<comment><USER23> That's the wrong lesson to take from it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> This is really for my fellow single male programmers.

I think programmers tend to identify with being socially awkward as we spend our time focusing on analytical problems usually by ourselves or with similar individuals which emphasizes our brain's wiring to be that way even more so over time, then the less traveled wiring weakens over time (social wiring, your developer buddies don't count).

The crux is we are all social creatures and need to feel accepted by the opposite sex. If we fall short, we will spin ad infinitum worrying about it. Its a deep rooted need within us and cannot be rationalized away, similar to rationalizing you are full when you haven't eaten for a long time. You must take action. Blame Darwin if you must but do something about it.

Because a lot of programmers like me are social pansies when it comes to taking risks, you can try this approach first. Do real weights and wind sprints and eat right to promote testosterone as looking like a dude attracts women. Running long distances way too often will make you a look like a unic twig, lower your testosterone levels, and rob you of muscle. I can't stress enough how the right eating habits and exercise will change everything, most likely within 90 days you'll see a huge difference like night and day, looking lean and mean. Your personality will also have changed, being more confident and bold with the added bonus of girls looking your way. You will become more attractive to females in other words, prepping you for the next step.

Now you are ready to take the issue head on and expose yourself to as many social situations as possible, forcing your social wiring to strengthen, but with the caveat of not giving a shit of individual outcomes, thinking of it more like the sheer act of doing this long enough will cause things to move in the right direction. To truly not give a shit is freeing and what's odd about that is people (especially women) seem to like you much more when you are worry free and have a natural comfort about yourself. Women truly are like buses where the next one will come along simply because there are so many fucking people in the world. Break some eggs and get out there.

<comment><USER25> > The crux is we are all social creatures and need to feel accepted by the > opposite sex.

Yeah, no.

> If we fall short, we will spin ad infinitum worrying about it.

Nope.

> Its a deep rooted need within us and cannot be rationalized away, similar to > rationalizing you are full when you haven't eaten for a long time.

Lol. No.

> Lose weight, eat right, get fit, etc etc etc

I lost 120 lb's and got down to 10% body fat when I was in my early 20's (300 to 180) having been extremely fat my whole life up to that point. I was still a nervous wreck with severe self confidence issues. I did it for women like OP says to above. Please don't make the same mistake I did. Do it for yourself. Do it for your own health. If you do it for such shallow reasons like the OP is saying, you won't keep it off. It takes work and it takes time. Also, you don't need to be fit with a 6 pack to talk to/pick up/ask out women. All you need is self confidence, and thats not something you can get by lifting weights. Anybody who tells you different is naive and a fool (and probably more insecure than you). The best piece of advice I ever got when it comes to confidence: Know yourself, appreciate yourself, love yourself - if you can't do any of those things how do you expect someone else to.

<comment><USER24> Ok. I accept your individual experience. I would then tell you that what I've written may not be for every single heterosexual male in every conceivable case as the permutations of gene combinations are quite daunting and its possible to have so many varied outcomes that are atypical.

The working out thing isn't about hubris or for women. Its for you. What happens when you change your body's chemistry makeup to promote testosterone, rather than lots of fat having the effect of creating estrogen and lowering T and your outlook in life... the methods to increase T change your personality so you are more of a risk taker and are better able to have that boldness to talk to women and take action in general in life, while also being more attractive, if that was your problem in the first place. You may be horribly shy etc but at least you are more embolden to take action than being out of shape, creating estrogen and logically, you will have less reason to have lower self confidence. Its a good place to start to become more social as your physicality is primed for it.

It is not shallow to promote an optimized version of yourself and I would talk about more areas of finance and giving as well but that is outside of the subject. Taking care of yourself is something that you will regret if you don't.

I'm very past even worrying about women now, I only worry about one and have 3 young sons. However, my strategy worked so well with such dramatic results that I felt the need to share that experience. Maybe the writing style should be more IMO-style, "careful to not offend everyone", but again, I'm still doing the lifestyle health thing and will do it till I die. I have plenty of boldness to go around, now focusing that energy on attacking the business world.

<comment><USER26> I have tried your strategy with 0 change in results. Success in this matter is determined by many more factors than just being in above average shape and your trying to present it otherwise is disingenuous at best and harmful at worst.

<comment><USER24> Disingenuous is insulting. It isn't something you try. Its something you live. Also the what you eat is actually most important, much more so over working out but working out just makes you look nice too. There are precursors that definitely put us in the right position for social acceptance. Go ahead and list the ones that have worked for you. If none have worked, I am sorry about that. Also, I'm not selling anything, just noting what worked for me. My advice is free and without agenda. Its completely free if you fuck off as well with your insulting bullshit.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> My insecurities all run in the opposite direction. What if someone invites me to coffee? Do I tell them I really don't like coffee? Do I tell them that I really don't want to spend $4+ for a sugar-laden caramel frappe machia- whatever and that I'd rather just get a diet coke from the vending machine? Should I be "that guy" and get a hot chocolate that turns out to be a squirt of chocolate sauce in milk, and feel let down? Should i get a donut and nothing to drink?

Once we're sitting down and talking, I'm fine. I just don't know how to deal with my little "non-conforming weirdnesses" with others.

<comment><USER16> Or don't even justify it, just get there and pick whatever you feel like or don't. When they're like "er, why didn't you get coffee?" say "Meh, I wasn't into it, I just came because I was enjoying the conversation and quite like hanging out with you"

Being real always trumps being fake - even if that real looks like what you call "weird". Weird is the new normal... mostly because there _is no normal_. _Everyone_ 's weird; if they're not, you just don't know them well enough yet. I'd rather hang with 2 weird real people than 10 "normal" fake people - <USER2> don't even care if they don't like $4 coffees... because I don't even drink coffee.

<comment><USER27> Yeah, you're right. I just hate explaining myself to people all the time, I guess. It shouldn't bother me, but it does.

<comment><USER16> The feeling you need to explain yourself comes from where? I don't need an answer to that. But look within yourself, figure out why you feel you need to explain yourself. Did you feel unheard as a kid and now you need to justify your thoughts and needs? You're an adult now. You make the rules and boundaries surrounding your own life (within the confines of the law) with no other justification than _I am_.

You don't drink coffee... millions of people don't. I don't eat peanuts, I'm not allergic to them, I just don't like peanuts. When there's peanuts, I don't eat them. No justification required.

Not that I'm trying to project what I think you should do, but I will tell you, when you stop feeling like you need to justify everything (I went through this too), suddenly life feels a little easier... and life's pain in the ass enough without getting in your own way.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> 17\. They will sue me for (sexual) harassment at work

<comment><USER29> That, plus a host of possible related problems, is actually a real concern; there are enough women in the world that you can invite for coffee that you don't have to pick them from among coworkers. Indeed, don't do that.

<comment><USER30> Because love should be compartmentalized, and falling in love (or even love at first sight) with a coworker should be shunned, right?

This kind of thinking would have killed millions of succesful marriages and/or long term relationships. Not to mention tons of steamy short term relationships.

Besides, after a certain age, that there are "enough women in the world" doesn't say much. After university, the place people most tend to socialize and meet other people is work -- in fact there was an article about this very fact this week on HN.

<comment><USER29> Every decision you've ever made has "killed" countless unknown alternative futures involving people that, as a result, you don't even know exist.

<comment><USER30> Which is beside the point, since it doesn't mean all "alternative future killing decisions" are equal.

Besides, people are actually (in this universe and at the present) in love, getting married etc with other people in their workplace, and you are telling those people not to do it, thus constraining with arbitrary dictums their present experience, not some future universe one.

And if my argument about "most people after thirties socialize more at their work than any other place" is true, this advice also severely limits their options.

And for what?

<comment><USER29> And for what? To prevent those situations in which things go wrong, unlike in the successful anecdotes.

For example, people are actually (in this universe and in the present) in love with someone who is ... hooked up with someone else who also works in the same office. They have that rubbed in their face every weekday, starting at 9 a.m., until either they, or those other two, change jobs. While you can't prevent disappointment in this area of life, you can prevent having it be a _work situation_. In fact, work can be a place where you can get such things out of your mind by concentrating on something else.

<comment><USER30> > _And for what? To prevent those situations in which things go wrong, unlike > in the successful anecdotes._

Might as well not do anything in that department then, because all affairs can go wrong (and almost half of marriages do).

> _They have that rubbed in their face every weekday, starting at 9 a.m., > until either they, or those other two, change jobs. While you can 't prevent > disappointment in this area of life, you can prevent having it be a work > situation. In fact, work can be a place where you can get such things out of > your mind by concentrating on something else._

And you can prevent it by magically making yourself not to be in love anymore with a coworker? Or by making yourself to avoid even thinking about liking someone you work with in the first place?

<comment><USER29> > _Or by making yourself to avoid even thinking about liking someone you work > with in the first place?_

Good grief, what are you going to do if you're married, yet still in daily contact with attractive coworkers? "Hi Honey, I'm home; oh I couldn't conjure up the 'magic' required to stop myself from falling in love with Sue at work today. Sorry!"

One trick is to find at three things (or more; as many as you can) that turn you off about anyone who might even remotely be a target of your affections. You will be surprised how easy it is.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> For people with social anxiety, this is true to the point of being not funny. This is almost exactly the kind of stuff I always worry about, although I'm usually a bit more negative about it.

(If I slip up and they accidentally see through me, see what a socially inept and boring person I am, they'll hate me forever and also they'll tell everyone in the world about their boring experiences with me, and no one will ever like me anymore.)

<comment><USER32> I share your pain with this. The insecurity that comes with social anxiety can be crippling.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> Just ask about the damn coffee and quit stressing thinking your decision will set in motion events that will change society.

Save the stress for the relatives and in-laws, those will kill you.

<comment><USER17> For the second part, I'd add: people from your country.

If there's a gathering of less than 20 people from my country, I love everyone. 20-50 and I start hyperventilating. More than 50, and I make and execute elaborate plans to get out at any costs.

<comment><USER29> Travellers often don't like gatherings of people from their own country. I overheard this on a train, in Japanese from a conversation between two girls ... "minna nihonjin da kara, ikitakunai". (Everyone will be Japanese there, so I don't want to go.)

<comment><USER34> I go on vacation to get away from all these boneheaded idiots, not to meet even more of them!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> "The coffee will be bitter/weak/mediocre/disappointing."

Closely followed by:

"I'll be branded a coffee snob for criticising the coffee."

Who am I trying to kid, I clearly am a coffee snob.

<comment><USER36> Forget the coffee, it's just an excuse.

The best outcome might even be for your coffee to wind up cold and untouched- maybe you just had a riveting conversation.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> The main source of this anxiety comes from the flaw in the phrasing, "There are plenty of fish in the sea."

That simply is not true. People are so unique and diverse that while there are other members of the opposite sex out there, to find someone truly compatible is rare, hence why divorce rates are so high. For me, the anxiety comes when I have found someone who I know is extremely compatible but am afraid I won't attract them.

Not every member of the opposite sex makes me feel the same way certain ones do. Saying there are plenty of fish in the sea is like saying there are plenty of baseballs to hit in batting practice. While true, it elides the fact that it's only real at bats that matter. Once you strike out, you're stuck waiting for your next at bat which may never come.

</comment><comment><USER38> Having any of these things happen to you would be great, even the bad stuff. Action is better than nothing.

</comment><comment><USER10> Nah, the worse part is sitting at home, alone, kicking yourself for not asking her out.

</comment><comment><USER39> Once got a coffee a day with someone new for six months; it was fun, but then again, really didn't have any expectations.

<comment><USER40> Whoa... how did you find so many people to get coffee with?

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> > They'll think I invited them to coffee because I have a crush on them.

This is so true. I'm an aromantic lesbian, so even though I'm attracted to women, I have no desire to date anyone. But I'm worried people won't know that I'm aromantic and will think I'm hitting on them when I just want to hang out and maybe become friends.

A few years ago, I pretty much botched any chance I had to be friends with one of my female coworkers, who was a really cool person I'd have liked to hang out with more. Unfortunately, I was afraid to talk to her, ask her to hang out after work, etc., because I was _terrified_ she'd think I have a crush on her and was hitting on her. It doesn't help that I'm transgender and I knew her before my transition, so I was always afraid she'd think of me as just being another guy trying to get into her pants. Oh, and it didn't help that I was jealous of her, because she looks pretty much exactly how I want to look but will never be able to (dysphoria is a powerful thing).

As such, I was terribly awkward around her, and every time I wanted to hang out with her or anything, I either decided against it or was so nervous and awkward that anyone around me could tell.

I'm a little better at it now, thankfully.

And, yes, I'm the kind of awkward person who over-analyzes every conversation I've ever had with anyone.

<comment><USER36> _Unfortunately, I was afraid to talk to her, ask her to hang out after work, etc., because I was terrified she 'd think I have a crush on her and was hitting on her._

The funny thing is sometimes, for me, this has turned into a self-fulfilling prophecy, and suddenly I'm into them.

It's modulated by how furiously I worry about it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> Get married, have kids, have them move off. Now you're just not going to have any of these hangups or concerns. I'm fine asking anyone to coffee.

</comment><comment><USER43> Amusing article.

Isn't this anxiety? Couldn't this apply to any situation that is anxiety inducing?

I suspect it's all originating from the same irrational feelings.

</comment><comment><USER44> You forgot about meeting a lion in the street (Proverbs 26:13).

</comment><comment><USER45> How about the other consequence: getting addicted to coffee? I am already hooked on some degree of sugar and cellphone use.

</comment><comment><USER46> Everyone knows that "Daily Shouts" is The New Yorker's humor column, right?

<comment><USER47> Actually, "Shouts and Murmurs" is the The New Yorker magazine's humor column. The "Daily Shouts" is the daily Internet-only version of 'Shouts and Murmurs.'

And thus ends another smug, elitist, pedantic, humorless and certainly unnecessary HN correction. You're welcome.

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> Clearly the author is too nervous, likely from drinking too much coffee.

</comment><comment><USER49> I don't understand why this article is so long.

It can be boiled down to "I am afraid of rejection, and I don't want to put myself out there."

Rejections suck. We've all been there, and nobody else out there is responsible for your mental well being.

Why are you afraid of a simple "no" or a response out of an obligation? Maybe the person you're asking out to coffee is a Mormon or has high blood pressure and can't drink caffeine, or he/she doesn't like the taste.

You miss 100% of the shots you don't take. I know that I personally regret everytime I wanted to ask somebody out or even ask for a raise at work, but didn't, cause "that would be weird".

<comment><USER41> Because social anxiety isn't rational. It is, unfortunately, something that a good many people (myself included) suffer from.

<comment><USER49> Use of pronouns is very important. She uses the pronoun "they" a lot, as though everything that happens to her is inflicted on her.

Instead if she said "I suffer from social anxiety, and I'm working on it" it'd be a much better article.

It's all about the interior vs exterior locus of control.

<comment><USER50> >as though everything that happens to her is inflicted on her.

Yes, because the things you fear as a result of social anxiety _are_ inflicted on you. They are not things you can control, that's what makes them scary.

<comment><USER49> Thank you for making my point for me.

Things do happen to you, things you can't control. You can however control your reaction.

You are choosing to be scared, or not enter therapy, or talk to somebody about that.

Maybe you don't have enough money to talk to a therapist, or you have other things on your plate, or your social anxiety isn't a huge problem, something you can deal with.

The onus is still on YOU to deal with your anxiety, not on the world to treat you with kid gloves. Internal rather than external locus of control.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Wow, the article reads like a Seinfeld episode, full of neurotic self- absorption. Almost every sentence includes either "me" or "I". If you over- dramatize going to get coffee with someone, making it all about you and your feelings, I'd hate to see how you handle signing a mortgage or picking a career to commit to.

<comment><USER51> to be fair, in this scenario, Me or I has a 50% stake in how things go down.

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> Our biological OS is built to worry about every one of these things.

Our bodies are still Windows 98.

</comment><comment><USER53> 17\. Being stuck with the nagging question afterwards: Was that a date?

</comment><comment><USER54> Snakes?!! Velociraptors!!!!

</comment><comment><USER55> Another cliche quote to add to all this: "Your own worst enemy is...yourself".

</comment><comment><USER56> Awesome read.

</comment><comment><USER57> could use a (2015) in the title

<comment><USER58> Absolutely! The reference to "snakes" was _so_ dated.

</comment></comment><comment><USER59> Must be a US English <-> British English thing, but I thought this was about asking a new acquaintance to buy some coffee for me.

"Everything I am afraid might happen if I asked a new acquaintance to meet for coffee."

<comment> et-al It's definitely a colloquial US thing. We say "let's get coffee/beers/lunch sometime" almost everyday, especially when parting as a "see you later". Whether we actually follow up with those invitations here in San Francisco is a completely other story.

<comment><USER50> Yeah, but that's "let _us_ get coffee" which is normal. The unusual language being highlighted here is "ask to get coffee" without specifying "together" or "with them". Without that, I parse "get coffee" as an instruction, thus meaning asking them to go and buy some coffee for you.

<comment> et-al I agree with you that it's awkward; however, "get coffee" is now a colloquial term, which is why most people probably didn't read it the grammatically correct way.

But yes, depending on how one reads, the title takes on a totally different meaning. I usually have this trouble.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER60> Creating fictional outcomes is pretty common (it is for me), but this game has definitely helped overcome that: [https://is.gd/GAbuN6](https://is.gd/GAbuN6)

<comment><USER40> Whoa, this is amazing. Thanks for sharing!

<comment><USER61> Indeed! Saved to check out more closely later.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER62> Accept the consequences</comment>


The Man Who Called the Financial Crisis—70 Years Early - <AUTHOR> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704405704575596382345085258.html

<comment><USER2> I don't think the financial crisis would have occurred, at least not to the degree it has, without the problematic credit ratings of the toxic securities -- from major ratings agencies like Moody's, Fitch, and S&P.

This from the article catches my eye:

 _The seeds of today's problem were planted long ago, and its forgotten history holds important lessons. In 1936, as part of reforms under the new Banking Act, the U.S. government mandated that federally regulated banks could no longer hold securities that weren't rated investment-grade by at least two ratings firms._

I believe that could be re-worded like this, and essentially mean the same thing:

 _In 1936, as part of reforms under the new Banking Act, the U.S. government mandated that federally regulated banks could no longer hold securities that weren't rated investment-grade by at least two [kindergarten kids with crayons]._

Why are rating agencies, who appear to be unaccountable to anyone, given such a key role in banking law? This law appears to be in place to protect the stability of banks, but what happens if the rating measurement system is flawed? I was listening to comments made by Warren Buffet post crisis on the rating agencies. His position, to summarize, appeared to be, well, the agencies may not be perfect, but the market has need of their services, so we essentially need to have them. I'm not so sure this is the wisest course, at least not without some form of accountability added in. If individual investors can do their own research on investments, then banks can too. As the article points out:

 _The record was so unreliable that it would be "still more responsible," Mr. Palyi growled, to "stop the publication of ratings altogether."_

An interesting read along with this article is another one entitled _Bad Credit: How S &P, Moody's and Fitch Helped Cause the Housing Bubble_.

[http://www.bnet.com/blog/financial-business/bad-credit- how-s...](http://www.bnet.com/blog/financial-business/bad-credit-how-s-p- moody-8217s-and-fitch-helped-cause-the-housing-bubble/5062)

An excerpt:

 _If large financial firms masterminded the scam, stuffing junk mortgages into securities, CDOs and other instruments, the credit agencies were their able shills, rubber-stamping whatever paper came their way with an investment-grade rating.

As Sen. Ted Kaufman, D-Del., said this morning in a congressional hearing on the role of the rating agencies, "The big thing that was missing was the referees on the field."

Or more accurately, the referees were paid off.

The ratings agencies business model is based on a flagrant conflict of interest — they're paid by the firms whose credit they evaluate. That makes them vulnerable to pressure from investment banks and securities issuers, which naturally want a bullet-proof rating in order to attract investors._

<comment><USER3> I can see two possible reasons for why the rating agencies were given such a key role. 1\. Once the rating agencies give their stamp of approval then no one has to be held accountable for bad decisions. 2\. People _want to believe_ that it's possible to predict the future, and rating agencies are just a modern equivalent of fortune tellers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> His remarks about home ownership are astute - it is depressing how rarely politicians consider the 2nd order effects of their decisions.

"Mr. Palyi warned in 1938 that a push toward universal home ownership would "make the population fixed to the ground" by "overburdening them with housing costs." That, he foresaw, would limit the mobility of American workers—helping explain why unemployment is so stubbornly high today."

</comment><comment><USER5> One thing that the article notes is that it's not a good idea to trust gatekeepers, no matter who they are.

They could be government bureaucrats, politicians, or corporations. They're all humans and that they are all corruptible.

It doesn't matter how long your regulatory rules run. If people can abuse, get around, bribes, they will.

For example, people can limits a lot of bank runs by simply switching away from factional reserve banking. That would vastly increase the fundamental soundness of banks. However, people decides to wrap it around with government insurance instead.

The ideal system is a one that can be run by devils, not angels. That depends on the right amount of rules, the proper rules, the proper incentives, and so on.

What people end up though, is to make lot of well intentioned laws without considering the consequences in detail. They think decrees will make the problem goes away. They often done, and the problem often become worse. Then they make new rules to fix problems with the old rules. It's a pervasive cycle.

That's not surprising, given that the system relies on people electing officials to office. There's not going to be enough time in the day for the population to become an informed expert in everything that governs our lives.

<comment><USER6> > It doesn't matter how long your regulatory rules run. If people can abuse, > get around, bribes, they will.

You're assuming that "the rules" would produce good outcomes if only we could get people to obey. That's not likely.

Since the rules are produced by a political process, that assumption seems suspect.

Even if it's true, you're assuming that rules makers can get it right, which is highly unlikely.

Regulation is systemic risk.

<comment><USER5> If you read the rest of my comment, you realize that I do not think that all regulations will produce good outcome if it is followed.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> There are enough opinions in the world to prove anything, but none of them will be paid any credence until they are fulfilled. (Jot this down, because in a decade, or two, it might prove to be correct.)

</comment><comment><USER8> Marx called it in 1867. This is how capitalism works.

<comment><USER9> Marx implicated just about every major feature of capitalism as part of its impending demise, so whenever capitalism superficially looks not as good as it used to be, there's probably some Marx quote about it. He called so many things, it's the broken clock principle in effect.

<comment><USER8> Actually Marx never asserted that capitalism would collapse, just that it was naturally a boom-bust cycle with a general trend toward ever-bigger busts.

<comment><USER10> Marx's problem wasn't that his every criticism was wrong. His problem is that his proposed solution was orders of magnitude worse than what he was criticizing.

<comment><USER8> It makes a funny quip, sure, but there is really no way to tell at this point. Certainly most modern communists acknowledge that the totalitarian and undemocratic efforts in the USSR, China and elsewhere were misguided, to put it kindly.

<comment><USER6> Ah yes, no true Scotsman....

But, how do they acknowledge that "misguided"? The ones that I've run into will only go so far as "the excesses were caused by the US" and even then they weren't happy admitting to "excesses".

<comment><USER8> Sounds like you hang out with the wrong kind of communists? I think anarcho- syndicalism is gaining ground.

<comment><USER6> > I think anarcho-syndicalism is gaining ground.

One flavor of anarcho-syndicalism can exist without any acknowledgement of govt, let alone changes. (No law stops you from sharing.)

What favors are you talking about?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> <http://www.barefootsworld.net/prophesy.html>

Thomas Jefferson -- The Debate Over The Recharter Of The Bank Bill, (1809)

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies . . . If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] . . . will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered . . . The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs." --

<comment><USER12> That quote is a forgery.

<http://www.snopes.com/quotes/jefferson/banks.asp>

Turns out "inflation" and "deflation" weren't used during Jefferson's lifetime:

<http://www.bartleby.com/73/1204.html></comment></comment>


GitHub Package Registry Launch - <AUTHOR> https://live-stream.github.com/ <comment><USER2> Obviously posting pre-launch. This could really streamline package deployment. Looking forward to the launch.</comment>


Ask HN: I'm meeting with a potential investor. What questions should I ask him? - <AUTHOR>

My cousin, with whom I work on one of my startups, has been talking to a potential investor. I have yet to talk to, or meet, the investor, but the kinds of things my cousin has told me about him and the types of questions the investor has been asking lead me to believe that he might not really be qualified beyond just having a lot of money. I tried to find information about him online, but was unable to do so. I already see this as a red flag. I might be meeting with him today, finally, and was wondering what types of questions I should ask to properly vet him.<p>Here are some questions that I think might be helpful.<p>* What is your experience with investing in internet startups?<p>* In what other companies have you invested and have they been successful?<p>* Beyond monetary assistance, what else can you offer?<p>* What do you consider a successful "exit" for your investment?<p>* How hands-on would you want to be?<p>* How well do you understand our market? <comment><USER2> I would ask him for a list of his previous investments so you can contact them and ask them how he was to work with.

That's the most telling aspect, everything else can be a lie... but find out how the people that have actually worked with him feel.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks. This sounds like really good advice.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> "... lead me to believe that he might not really be qualified beyond just having a lot of money."

I would LOVE it if I could find an investor like this! Apparently you're looking for a partner to help work in the business and not just an investor. That's fine, but some entrepreneurs do better when the investor ONLY provides working capital -- and stays away from the business otherwise.

<comment><AUTHOR> Well, yes, I'm sure that is the case for some people. This, however, is my first startup and I don't really have the experience necessary to do everything on my own. I am worried that he will want to meddle and not have the experience or expertise to help in any meaningful way and would most likely cause problems.</comment></comment>


You're Not That Busy - <AUTHOR> http://blog.kera.io/post/32522100218/youre-not-that-busy

<comment><USER2> Slightly off-topic, but kudos on having a large banner leading from your blog back to your flagship product. Too often I read an interesting post from someone I've never heard of and have to click on obscure "home" links or even chop off the URL.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, yeah HN has taught us well, I'm pretty sure I read a great blog post on that exact topic.</comment></comment>


MLScrape: ML-powered e-commerce scraper API on RapidAPI - <AUTHOR> https://mlscrape.com/?ref=hn <comment><AUTHOR> MLScrape is an API that allows you to scrape data from a wide variety of product pages, without having to maintain your own web scraper. It's now available on RapidAPI and comes with a free trial.

The API currently scrapes the following data (more will be coming soon):

Name Price Image URL Specification Identifiers: SKU, UPC/EAN, ISBN</comment>


Jumpers and the Software-Defined Localhost - <AUTHOR> http://coreos.com/blog/jumpers-and-the-software-defined-localhost/ <comment><USER2> This is an interesting idea. It might be useful to have a high level architecture diagram to illustrate what is happening between the containers.

A couple issues:

1\. Using localhost seems like a bad idea (I have the expectation that traffic is local to the instance if using localhost). 2. Managing more then a couple instances of this will be unmaintainable if done manually. There will need to be some controller logic happening.

Maybe I am missing something, but why not add a second dedicated virtual ethernet adapter where all your containers can talk (works across containers and across servers)? This is traditionally how you would handle something like this. We have dedicated nonroutable reserved address space configured to handle all this internal datacenter traffic.

<comment><USER3> That certainly seems preferable, but I guess "localhost" has the advantage of always being there (which is what you want for a service discovery bootstrap mechanism)

I believe Docker is guaranteed to have the docker0 interface[1] available, but perhaps the proposed mechanism doesn't want to tie itself to Docker so tightly?

[1] [http://docs.docker.io/en/latest/use/networking/](http://docs.docker.io/en/latest/use/networking/)

<comment><USER4> Actually, Docker doesn't always have docker0; you can configure it to use a different bridge.

On my setup, for instance, I use br0 and share the same bridge for containers and VMs.

<comment><USER3> Yeah, ok - Docker _defaults_ to having docker0. I guess this conversation kinda encapsulates the problem..

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> It is an interesting proposal.

It starts to fall over when you have, for example a MySQL slave that needs to connect to a MySQL master. But now the listening slave on 3306 is trying to connect to localhost:3306.

I would strongly recommend that the CoreOS team reach out to ARIN (the IANA operator) to get a special use /24 assigned for these "magic addresses" and not hijack 127.0.0.0/8.

<comment><USER6> You'd actually setup it all up as you would if everything was on your localhost or dev environment. Meaning you'd need your master on 3306, slave1 on 3307, slave2 on 3308, etc. You'd still need to setup a configuration for each of these services, pointing to one another, but the configuration would be fixed.

<comment><USER5> That seems sloppy when you could just stick to standard port assignments and use special use addresses. If you'd like help getting special use addresses, I'd be happy to help where I can.

At the minimum, hijack 255.255.255.255 instead.

<comment><USER6> OK. We'd love to get your help getting a special use address: firstname.lastname@example.com

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> This is some pretty interesting stuff. I've been working on something similar in my spare time. The cost of running everything through a proxy can be mitigated by having the proxy do other smart things like load balancing and/or autoscaling.

</comment><comment><USER7> "localhost" seems like a really bad name for this when in reality, the socket is anything but local. Instead of "localhost:3306" how about something like "docker:3306"?

<comment> X-Istence nslookup docker 127.0.0.1

localhost is but a name, which happens to be tied to ::1 or 127.0.0.1. I agree though that it should be outside of the default 127.0.0.1 instance, instead it can be anywhere on the 127.0.1.x network for example.

Or even better use an IPv6 ULA prefix instead.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> How different is this to Docker link containers[1] for service discovery?

It seems to me like this is a network layer proposal, while link containers are more about name based discovery at the Docker layer.

[1] [http://docs.docker.io/en/latest/use/working_with_links_names...](http://docs.docker.io/en/latest/use/working_with_links_names/)

<comment><USER8> Docker links are only valid on a single machine. This proposal operates at the cluster level and allows for much higher availability for the services.

edit: I'm wrong.

<comment><USER9> That's incorrect. Everything which makes this proposal suitable for clustering also works for links with the ambassador pattern. The difference is in how the local discovery is implemented (retrieve a local IP address and port vs. hardcoded loopback IP and port).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> This is a great step forward.

But, I am still hoping for a local OpenFlow compatible software switch, that can exploit network namespaces as a local optimization. That way you can leave your cluster's networking setup, from network edge to docker container, to a centralized controller.

<comment><USER3> But OpenFlow (or SDN more broadly) doesn't really help with the service discovery layer does it?</comment></comment>


Beauty is in the Eye of the Promoter - <AUTHOR> http://www.themarknews.com/articles/636-beauty-is-in-the-eye-of-the-promoter

<comment><USER2> Partially true. After a while, you get it. One of the reasons if you are making art outside of big places a big schools, it is often marginalized work is that the theoretical issues you are tyring to work have been worked out. I just put up an artwork here. You have no idea how scary it is to not know if it will fail because I go to a smaller art program. I have to afterawrds sumbit it to the like of Rhizome and they can hate me...</comment>


All the Talks from 12 Business of Software Conferences - <AUTHOR> http://businessofsoftware.org/2016/07/all-talks-from-business-of-software-conferences-in-one-place-saas-software-talks/?utm_source=HNews&utm_medium=&utm_campaign=all-talks-in-one-place-email <comment><USER2> These videos are outstandingly useful.</comment>


Former high-flying VC Michael Rothenberg now faces criminal charges - <AUTHOR> https://www.businessinsider.com/former-high-flying-vc-rothenberg-faces-federal-criminal-charges-2020-6 <comment><USER2> More surprising is the total lack of diligence and oversight from investors who gave him millions of dollars.</comment>


How Blizzard turned a costly failure into the highly anticipated 'Overwatch' - <AUTHOR> http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-1227-cutting-edge-overwatch-20151227-story.html <comment><USER2> I truly hope they make a "Warcraft IV", with custom games and everything like in Warcraft III.

Although I wonder what is next, besides Overwatch, since it seems like they are trying to expand the amount of games and genres lately.</comment>


One Map Shows How Many People Police Have Killed So Far This Year in Every State - <AUTHOR> http://mic.com/articles/124114/one-map-shows-how-many-people-police-have-killed-so-far-this-year-in-every-state <comment><USER2> Is the map adjusted to show the relative scale to account for population differences between each state?

That would be far more informative and revealing than just raw counts.

<comment><USER3> This map was designed to cause outrage, not to inform.

<comment><USER4> People should get outraged when presented with outrageous information.

Still, this would probably be more appropriate for HN if it showed interesting statistical information like police violence per capita, violence against minorities normalized by population, etc., and presented it with a flashy interactive javascript chart library.

<comment><USER5> It's easy to make information outrageous if you're willing to be misleading with it.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


UK Judge says Galaxy Tab 'not as cool' as iPad, awards Samsung win in suit - <AUTHOR> http://www.engadget.com/2012/07/09/uk-judge-says-galaxy-tab-not-as-cool-as-ipad-awards-samsung-w/

<comment><USER2> This article is very misleading. Here is the actual full statement, courtesy of [http://www.pocket-lint.com/news/46416/samsung-statement- appl...](http://www.pocket-lint.com/news/46416/samsung-statement-apple-court- ruling-britain) :

"In a ruling on July 9, 2012, the High Court of England & Wales sided with Samsung that the designs of the Galaxy Tab series of products are 'different' from an Apple tablet design, and do not infringe Apple's Registered Community Design No. 181607-0001. Samsung products subject to this trial were the Galaxy Tab 10.1, the Galaxy Tab 8.9, and the Galaxy Tab 7.7.

"Samsung had requested this voluntary trial in September 2011, in order to oppose Apple's ongoing efforts to reduce consumer choice and innovation in the tablet market through their excessive legal claims and arguments. Apple has insisted that the three Samsung tablet products infringe several features of Apple's design right, such as 'slightly rounded corners,' 'a flat transparent surface without any ornamentation,' and 'a thin profile.'

"However, the High Court dismissed Apple's arguments by referring to approximately 50 examples of prior art, or designs that were previously created or patented, from before 2004. These include the Knight Ridder (1994), the Ozolin (2004), and HP's TC1000 (2003). The court found numerous Apple design features to lack originality, and numerous identical design features to have been visible in a wide range of earlier tablet designs from before 2004.

"Equally important, the court also found distinct differences between the Samsung and Apple tablet designs, which the court claimed were apparent to the naked eye. For instance, the court cited noticeable differences in the front surface design and in the thinness of the side profile. The court found the most vivid differences in the rear surface design, a part of tablets that allows designers a high degree of freedom for creativity, as there are no display panels, buttons, or any technical functions. Samsung was recognised by the court for having leveraged such conditions of the rear surface to clearly differentiate its tablet products through 'visible detailing.'

"Samsung welcomes today's ruling by the High Court, which affirms Samsung's commitment to protect its own intellectual property rights while respecting those of other companies. Samsung believes Apple's excessive legal claims based on such a generic design right can harm not only the industry's innovation as a whole, but also unduly limit consumer choice."

<comment><USER3> That was a really poorly written article, even by Engadget standards.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> The full judgement is here: [http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgment...](http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/samsung- apple.pdf)

The word "cool" appears twice, and the quotes from the Engadget article are there (albeit selected from a long document).

Kind of strange to read a British High Court judge commenting on coolness in industrial design.

<comment><USER5> And we all know that what an ageing judge thinks is cool must be right on the bleeding edge of hip-ness :)

<comment><USER6> I'm not sure age matters as much as we might think it does. Steve jobs was no young man when Apple came back from near oblivion, and he was very active in determining what was "cool".

<comment><USER7> I'm not sure having someone invested in determining 'cool' is valid in any way or if it even has any meaning or should be given any importance.

But seems you attribute a value to that, so subjectivly that will work for you and it will provide a self rewarding feeling of belonging. Look at it in a broader way and we are back to square one, each person gets to pick what the person wants and likes, no matter how influenceable one is. It's just that. Lets not group this judge, Jobs and the Fonz for reinforcement conditioning.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> is this just an ingenious way of preventing an appeal by Apple? They probably don't want to see headlines like "Apple claims Galaxy Tab 'just as cool' as iPad"

</comment><comment><USER9> This decision is limited to registered design right and so has limited effect. However, it is the right decison and is well reasoned notwithstanding the judge's reference to the respective coolness of each of the products.

I am surprised that Apple's lawyers advised them to pursue the claim considering the prior art and the basic nature of the designs. Having only just looked at Apple's registered design on the OHIM website, it is a little laughable (resembling a dinner tray on first impressions).

<https://www.dropbox.com/s/zhto46p2jphrq27/apple.bmp>

</comment><comment><USER10> Funny enough this suggest that the judge understands the subtleties of design better than the tech-heads at Engadget, who like so many others regularly claim competing products match the design quality of Apple products.

It always irks me when people, especially professional critics and reviewers, call it a matter of taste just because they can't spot the difference. It isn't. Personal preference is a matter of taste, but the difference in design quality between Samsung (or HTC, or Dell, etc) and Apple is objectively observable. Just like there is a clear difference between a TV set designed by Samsung and one by Bang & Olufsen or Loewe.

(Which is exactly why I believe Apple should stop suing second rate look- alikes. If people want to buy Samsung they were never potential Apple clients in the first place, and if Apple wants that market too they should just build products for it.)

<comment><USER11> I won't dive in to argue with you, because clearly that's been done before. I'll just point out that you made that "objectively observable" point without any actual, y'know, evidence. That, by definition, makes your argument one of taste, not facts. Please (please!) stop.

<comment><USER12> As an objective fact Apples rate of tablet defects is well below Samsung's.

<comment><USER13> Asus' rate of laptop defects is well below apple. Does that mean they're objectively better designed? This is just more apple fanboyism masquerading as an appeal to rationality, rebuke was perfectly justified.

<comment><USER12> IMO, Asus laptops are better designed than Apple's laptop's so I don't disagree with that line of thinking. However, when you take an iPad apart they are much better designed internally than most of their competitors. Probably because most of those laptops where rushed imitations. The Nexus 7 could be the tipping point, but it's also 200$ which makes direct comparisons harder.

Anyway, prior to the iPhone Samsung was my faverate cellphone manufacture and they made some great monitors, so IMO just give them time and they will start making great tablets.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


"Microaggressions", "Trigger Warnings", and the New Meaning of "Trauma" - <AUTHOR> http://chrishernandezauthor.com/2015/01/02/microaggressions-trigger-warnings-and-the-new-meaning-of-trauma/ <comment><USER2> One thing about trauma is that different people are affected differently. When my wife was preparing to deploy for Iraq, the Army training included a simulation of an overturned vehicle. Beforehand people were asked if they had been in an overturned car accident before. This can be traumatizing to some, and could be excused if wanted. She had been in such an accident, but wasn't traumatized by it and with through the simulator.

So just because the author of this piece can deal with trauma doesn't mean that all people could deal with trauma the same way.

But I don't see the direct connection from microagressions as being a form of trauma. Eg, from [http://www.extension.umn.edu/family/cyfc/our- programs/erevie...](http://www.extension.umn.edu/family/cyfc/our- programs/ereview/docs/cmhereviewOct10.pdf) :

> Wing Sue and his colleagues identify three types of microaggressions

> 1\. A microinsult is characterized by communications that convey rudeness > and insensitivity and demean a person's racial heritage or identity (for > example, eye rolling during a discussion about an individual's racial > identity).

> 2\. Microinvalidations are communications that exclude, negate or nullify > the psychological thoughts, feelings, or experiential reality of a person of > color. An example is a white person stating to a person of color that they > "don't see color", which denies that person's racial and ethnic experiences. > Another example is a non-Native person asking someone of AIAN culture > whether or not he or she is a "real Indian". This demands an explanation > that few others are required to deliver.

> 3\. A microassault is an explicit racial derogation characterized primarily > by a verbal or nonverbal attack meant to hurt the intended victim. This can > happen through name-calling, avoidant behavior, or purposeful discriminatory > actions. Microassaults against AIAN people also appear in the form of > advertisements that depict white models in Native clothing, associations > between AIAN people and aggressive sports teams, and messages that connect > AIAN people with alcohol use. Microassaults are typically more conscious and > deliberate than other forms of microaggression.

Even though that quote is from a document that connects microagressions to historical trauma, it says that microagressions are a form of violence, not trauma.

Giving someone a papercut is a form of violence. Do it enough times and it can lead to trauma, but a papercut isn't in and of itself particularly traumatic.

To give an example from an entirely different context - a book from 1970 concerning Swedish culture, especially as it applies to Americans of Swedish descent:

> Being taught from childhood to observe the rule of modesty, yes, self- > effacement, a Swede is deprived of initiative and confidence from the start. > And this lack has made its mark on most Swedes of earlier generations. It > can be traced to Americans of Swedish descent up to this time. They will > know the phrase, det är ingenting ["that is nothing"], which reflects the > concept that praise must be minimized. However lovely she thinks her dress > is, a Swedish woman of an earlier vintage would invariably reply to a > compliment: "Åh, den här gamla trasan!" (Oh, this old rag), or something > equally disparaging.

Being told once that an idea of yours is nothing? Survivable. Being told that from a baby? That changes your life. And not really in a good way.

I get the feeling that the feelings behind this essay are more akin to Bob Newhart's character in [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-Tej0297wk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-Tej0297wk) . Or quoting GFK_of_xmaspast, "what an asshole."

<comment><USER3> > So just because the author of this piece can deal with trauma doesn't mean > that all people could deal with trauma the same way.

There are standard treatments for post-traumatic stress disorder, and all of them are focused on strengthening the individual's ability to cope with symptoms. Altering their environment to avoid the occurrence of symptoms is not a valid treatment. In fact, its considered a symptom of PTSD (and several other mental health issues) which has its own specific treatment called exposure therapy. This treatment exposes the patient to what triggers anxiety and stress in a controlled fashion.

You, and many trauma activists, take a different view of the mental health profession on the nature and treatment of trauma that seems to reflect political and social goals of the movement rather than the well-being of the victims. As much as I agree with those goals, I have ethical problems with exploiting victims of trauma for political ends.

<comment><USER2> Let's suppose everyone at work calls me a peon. "Hey peon, get this for me." "Hey peon, make me some coffee." "Hey peon, sudo make me a sandwich." Hey peon, get rid of these compiler warnings." People replace my door tag with "Peon Dalke". People sneak in and change my screen saver to "Peon's machine". And so on.

Assume also that I don't particularly like being called peon, but the entire office thinks it's funny, and funny when I protest.

Should I get treatment to be able to better handle being called peon? Or should I change the workplace culture, perhaps by getting the owner involved, so people stop calling me names? Or should I quit? (The only way it could be POST-traumatic is for the so-called trauma to stop.)

It sounds like you're suggesting that it's due to my inability to handle name- calling, and I should seek mental health treatment to accept being called names all the time.

If so, you have an odd view on life.

Otherwise, I don't know what you're talking about.

<comment><USER4> There's a danger in humorlessness in that it often insinuates itself into one's identity through piousness and victimhood. Fear of a blow can weaken and damage us far more than the blow itself.

Now, mental health treatment doesn't have to mean clinical care. Sometimes it's being encouraged to get more familiar with your coworkers, or just helping them get to know you better. Teasing is often just that, trying to include a person or express comfort with them, and when someone reacts badly or isn't honest about things, blowing up or bottling up, those are usually indications of poor expression or self control, which could be more serious and compromising issues.

So yes, if the person is unable to bring themself to confront their peers, clearly relay their wishes, and broker an understanding, they may need some help (ie- treatment) to realize that they can, should, and how. Mental health, like physical health, is something we have to work at to maintain and improve our entire lives. Saying all of our thoughts and emotions are reasonable and perfect by default because why else would they be any other way is about as sensible as the idea that morbid obesity is healthy and natural because why else would our bodies be able to be that way other than by design?

We have choices, we have volition, but do we have the motivation?

<comment><USER2> "Humorlessness"? Are you one of those people who think that the targets of harassment have to just laugh it off?

Have you read about Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services?

> On several occasions, Oncale was forcibly subjected to sex-related, > humiliating actions against him by Lyons, Pippen and Johnson in the presence > of the rest of the crew. Pippen and Lyons also physically assulted Oncale in > a sexual manner, and Lyons threatened him with rape.

> Oncale's complaints to supervisory personnel produced no remedial action; in > fact, the company's Safety Compliance Clerk, Valent Hohen, told Oncale that > Lyons and Pippen "picked [on] him all the time too," and called him a name > suggesting homosexuality.

The original court decision held there was no EEOC violation here, as all participants were heterosexual males.

Was that humorlessness on Oncale's part? Surely no. At least, I don't find multiple and serious rape threats against me. Do you?

Should Oncale have worked harder to become more familiar with his coworkers? Was Oncale at fault for "poor expression or self control", which somehow justified this behavior? Surely no. Should Oncale have instead worked more on maintaining his personal mental health?

Going back to my scenario, "I" confronted my peers but nothing changed.

I curiously note that you seem to blame the victim, and require the victim of unwanted "humor" to be inordinately capable of people management. Why aren't the peers in my situation the ones who need mental health treatment?

Why do you think Oncale deserved being 'teased' with threats of rape?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The nice thing about straw men is they're so easy to knock down.</comment>


Scientists claim body scanners at U.S. airports may be dangerous - <AUTHOR> http://www.nationalpost.com/news/Naked+scanners+airports+dangerous+scientists/3819955/story.html

<comment><USER2> Just added that to the list: "Forms of radiation relentlessly bombarding my genitalia" just below cell phone and above macbook pro.</comment>