We are a startup, how should we provide support to our customers? - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/jnardiello/status/1040879576308690945 <comment><AUTHOR> My biggest problem with Slack is: how do we make it fit with tickets and the normal workflow? Also, if you don't reply real-time to customers you actually frustrate them.</comment>


Dark matter may be older than the Big Bang - <AUTHOR> https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/08/190807190816.htm <comment><USER2> > _the study shows that dark matter may have been produced before the Big Bang > during an era known as the cosmic inflation when space was expanding very > rapidly_

Er what? I thought inflation was after the Big Bang, eg [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology)#/media/F...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_\(cosmology\)#/media/File:History_of_the_Universe.svg)

I wonder if they mean the cosmic microwave background, rather than the big bang...

</comment><comment><USER3> I still think this simple explanation is more intriguing than any exotic fever dream particle.

[http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/hydrogen/index.html](http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/hydrogen/index.html)

<comment><USER4> Given that that was from 2000, what's the current thinking? It feels like the sort of thing that 20 years advance in detection and modelling could easily prove / disprove.

<comment><USER5> Just one of the first links in a Google search: [https://www.journals.elsevier.com/molecular- astrophysics/hig...](https://www.journals.elsevier.com/molecular- astrophysics/highlighted-articles/how-hydrogen-in-space-is-made) It looks like some people is studding H2, so it is false that (now) everyone is ignoring H2. I think they don't think that H2 is so abundant that it explain most/all the dark matter.</comment></comment></comment>


What If Sociologists Had as Much Influence as Economists? - <AUTHOR> https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/03/17/upshot/what-if-sociologists-had-as-much-influence-as-economists.html <comment><USER2> Dupe:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13902049](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13902049)

</comment><comment><USER3> Perish the thought.</comment>


Are You in It for the Long Haul? - <AUTHOR> http://recode.net/2015/07/21/are-you-in-it-for-the-long-haul/

<comment><USER2> This reminds me of "6 God" by Drake[1].

[1] [http://genius.com/4243846](http://genius.com/4243846)</comment>


"What the Fuck is Going On?" A musician's take on MySpace - <AUTHOR> http://thesoundofhumanlives.blogspot.com/2009/11/what-fuck-is-going-on.html

<comment><USER2> I think ad based services have a very fundamental problem: Their users are not their customers.

It isn't always a problem, but when the crunch comes, users lose and advertising clients win. Eventually the service provider loses as well because users move on and advertising clients follow them.

I don't know if the conclusion is that ad based services just don't work, or if it's just about striking the right balance between the diverging interests of users and ad clients.

I suspect it depends on the type of service. I would not want to rely professionally on an ad based service. I want to be the customer, not just some means to get customers.

</comment><comment><USER3> Made this comment on the blog too:

Please don't take this personally, but you're not thinking clearly about this. Allow me to explain:

First, it's important to realize that value is created through partnership. Basically, the net value of the two products when coupled can be greater than the sum of the two individually. For this reason, you shouldn't imply that profits from your partner imply that those profits subtracted from your profits -- it's quite likely you have both made more together than either of you would have made without the other.

Consider a Mall. The mall operator can charge more for rent in the mall than it could for an equivalent store in isolation because there is value of bringing consumers together. The store owners make more money as a result of partnering with each other and a portion of those profits goes back to the partner because the two have collectively decided that it is a better strategy than for the mall owner to charge an entrance fee to visitors.

Second, it's incorrect to compare the success of any one band or even a sample of bands to the success of myspace, google, etc. Rather you have to compare the success of the two industries collectively. As users become exposed to a greater variety of music and musicians, they will become more selective in their tastes. So some bands who are truly exceptional will be vaulted to success by this plethora of users and their use of social tools to communicate with each other. And more mediocre bands who used to be able to eek out a modest living will no longer because users find more awesome bands than they used to (and have a fixed amount of attention to give).

The fact is, there have never before been so many awesome bands heard by so many people and it has never been _easier_ to get into the business than it is right now. So while it seems that you're band might not be one of the best in the world that succeeded, you need to realize that you at least got the same shot as everyone else and a better chance at success than you would have had 20 years ago.

<comment><AUTHOR> Businesses pay rent at a mall, and in turn they get to decorate the place how they want (presumably, not with ads for other stores inside).

It's still an interesting problem, and the mall analogy is a good one. Would bands pay if there were listeners? I think so, BUT would it just become a place for big bands on big labels to show off how expensive of a graphic designer they can hire, because the mall just keeps raising the rent? I don't know

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I have a bit of experience here, as I run a website builder app for bands.

I launched Bandzoogle.com in 2003, around the same time that MySpace came out. I thought we were dead; they were offering all the stuff we did (a guestbook, music player, photo gallery) for FREE. How could we compete with that?

We decided to focus on being a "premium" service, and kept adding stuff that bands wanted. To my surprise MySpace actually helped our business. Bands would sign up because they wanted something more than "just a myspace page", or "without all those ads". We're the SmugMug to their Photobucket. It worked for us, we have 10 employees and have been profitable since 2004.

That said, social networks like MySpace are still necessary for bands. Potential fans will stumble across an artist's profile page, often from links from other bands they are playing a gig with. The goal is to hook them, then get them over to the artist's .COM site. There, they own the fan list, and can present a much more compelling experience than on a profile page alone. It is a bit more work to have to maintain profiles everywhere, but companies like ArtistData, Reverbnation, and my own (Bandzoogle) are making this a lot simpler.

</comment><comment><USER5> Interesting

Could you have a site just for music that also helps bands get their music into Itunes Store, Amazon etc, and then makes revenue from referral links to those stores. So on the bands site, the only advertising are links allowing people to buy that band's music from iTunes or Amazon

<comment><USER6> I've been tossing around the idea of something like this. I don't know if it would be able to compete with something like last.fm, but I think allowing bands to quickly throw up a profile (with the possibility of styling to their liking), then taking a percentage of whatever is sold through the site wouldn't be a bad idea. Bands get exposure and a place to communicate with fans. Fans can discover new artists without the amount of ads MySpace has. Everyone wins.

<comment><USER5> That's pretty much exactly what I was thinking, with the addition of helping bands get their music into the various online stores.

So yeah, give it a shot. Sounds like there's a market there if done well

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Artists.grooveshark.com - we work very hard to get new artists heard and our analytics solution helps show where you have the most users listening to your songs so you can tour in the most effective places.

</comment><comment><USER8> What a whiner. MySpace was an ugly hybrid of a social network and a music site. I'm glad that it's gone. Just because he hates social networks doesn't make MySpace excusable.

TheSixtyOne? Lala? Bandcamp? All more elegant and more precise tools than MySpace ever was.

<comment><AUTHOR> Well, myspace had traction and users.

<comment><USER8> I get your point, but I disagree with you. Users doesn't matter unless those users are seeing you. If you're a band, using MySpace to attract users doesn't work well; I can imagine a clever band using Facebook much more effectively than they'd ever use MySpace, because Facebook's designed for virality.

If I'm a band, I want two things: I want an easy way to distribute music, and I want networking. My point was that MySpace offered a bastardized version of each. Facebook offers networking better than anything else; if I'm looking for follower count and nothing else, Facebook's got everything beat. Its music system isn't terrible, but it's much easier to use Bandcamp to attract users. That means that you've got everything you need, unless you're deluded into thinking that people will randomly stumble upon you online and that Facebook doesn't work well for that; in that case, The Sixty One is the perfect solution. So it takes a little set-up, but you end up with a much stronger solution than you had with MySpace.

<comment><USER9> I just checked out The Sixty One and it looks great, but _it did not exist_ when the the Myspace band rush started.

Edit-- The Sixty One is amazing. What a beautiful UI, it works likes a charm. I am gonna join and recommend the hell out of it.

Edit,Edit-- It let me sign up without stopping the song I was playing or losing track of the songs I had already listened to. Very pro, this is how you do it right.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> It's all up for grabs, imho.

<comment><USER11> You mean you think someone could take significant users away from Facebook? It's hard to see how Facebook can lose out, this generation at least. People seem to like using the internet that way, and all their friends are there.

Maybe the next generation, who grows up watching their parents using Facebook, will think of it as boring and passe, and there will be room for someone else. What happened when people starting _liking_ Japanese cars, and American cars just started to seem big and ugly and crappy.

Unless Facebook screws it all up (still could happen I guess).

<comment><USER12> We have to define what we mean here, this isn't a Gen X or Gen Y or whatever shit issue. This is likely a 10 year cycle going on.

I remember catching the blurred end of chatrooms, where AOL and Yahoo had untold numbers of chatrooms. These seemed to die off rather fast when MSN and AIM messengers appeared on the scene, although I believe I had ICQ when it was still in its first version, which puts a good 8 years between the founding of ICQ and the founding of Facebook, and I'd say roughly a 10 year gap between the popularity of IM and fully formed social networking sites like Facebook.

I bet between 2015-2020 there will likely be a new upheaval in the social networking area, likely due to a major change in the way we access the internet. Just how growing internet usage made usenet and chatrooms impractical due to connectivity issues. Usenet users typically either only knew people who were online or didn't know anybody online. Chatroom users might have only known a handful of people with an internet connection, which made it easy enough to coordinate meeting up online. This died when people knew 50+ people who were online, and ICQ, AIM and MSN with contact lists made it easy to organise. Now virtually everybody you know is online, and a site like Facebook allows you access to all of them.

The revolution now is likely to be access to the internet, things will revolutionise when people spend a large proportion of their time online with full unrestricted (IE no office firewall) and portable internet access (a la iPhone and Blackberry).

<comment><USER9> I agree with you totally, there is a cycle and walled garden social networking is the current phase and will fade into the background. Not go away mind you, because nothing ever really does,it just changes.

I think that personal websites will surge and be augmented with social networking modules that adhere to some sort of standard. Something like encrypted RSS linking private content for your 'friends' and public content for the rest of the people.

I think the popularity of social networking over the current definition of personal webpage is driven by three things, ease of use, the ability to define public/private content and cost.

There are plenty of niches in such a model, pure self owned/hosted (Wordpress/Joomla/Drupal etc with plugins), advertising supported we make it easy for you (Tripod, Geocities), free(Blogger, Livejournal), subscription (pay to ditch ads), and even old guys interconnecting with the new (a fancy Facebook Connect).

Benefits that I look forward to are my ability to control my interface and not have it change on _someone elses_ whim, complete ownership of my personally generated content and an end to the serial monogamy of having to move to the new-new thing when the old-new thing inevitably dies.

<comment><USER9> Hmmm, thinking here. It's basically distributed Friendfeed which already seems to have all the functionality I'm describing.Except you can host your own stuff and adhere to a common API.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I want to know why there isn't a dedicated site to "follow bands", know when they are playing in my neighborhood, and share with friends bands and songs we both like.

<comment><USER14> Last.fm does that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Perhaps, someone could write a Facebook app especially for hosting and serving self-made music??? Something like a Fan Pages on steroids???</comment>


Apple Reports Fourth Quarter Results - <AUTHOR> http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2013/10/28Apple-Reports-Fourth-Quarter-Results.html

<comment><USER3> No way to hide this:

       2013: Revenue $37.5B, Profit $7.5B (20%)
       2012: Revenue $36.0B, Profit $8.2B (22%)

Loss of 2% net profit year over year. Just under a 5% drop per share on a diluted basis. So its becoming less profitable to be Apple which speaks to the margin pressure they are under from credible Android phones and tablets. I don't think the market expected that (or maybe they did, GOOG is trading over $1000 these days)

<comment><USER4> Let's remember that everyone was anticipating the iPhone 5s for all but 10 days of the third quarter, which naturally slowed iPhone 5 sales. Then Apple almost instantly ran into supply constraints after its release. Because of these two factors, these results aren't that meaningful. 4th quarter results will give a far more meaningful picture of iOS's place in the current market.

<comment><USER3> However Apple's product release schedule being as rigorous as it is tends to make quarters more comparable. Perhaps a better indication here is the drop from 40% gross margins to 37% gross margins. That comes right out of the business.

Generally lower revenues but same margins is a sign so constraints in the supply chain. Higher revenue but lower profits is a sign of margin erosion. Lower revenue and lower profits and lower margins is perhaps one of the most alarming situation.

It is good to push back on folks who thought he tablet was just a fad? You know the ones who said "There isn't a 'tablet' market so much as their is an 'iPad' market." Well those folks have been shown to be mistaken.

I don't own any Apple stock (well I might in my blind 401k but I wouldn't know if I did :-) I've been tempted to pick some up after it dropped from the 700's into the 400's. But the thing that I keep wondering about is their ability to execute in a contested market by a competent opponent. This coming quarter will be an interesting one for everyone I expect.

<comment><USER5> Chuck,

If you really think that Apple will drop like that, you should short it.

<comment><USER3> I wouldn't short a stock for a single down quarter.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Apple deferred nearly a billion dollars in revenue due to the switch to free software. [http://techcrunch.com/2013/10/28/apple-says-future- versions-...](http://techcrunch.com/2013/10/28/apple-says-future-versions-of- os-x-will-be-free-notes-900m-increase-in-costs-from-free-software/)

<comment><USER7> For a moment there I thought Apple was switching to FSF-endorsed free software and I was very confused. The cost of OS X is built into the hardware so it's not like future versions will be free as in freedom or free of cost.

<comment><USER6> Right. Free as in free-with-purchase.

<comment><USER8> Or free as in free OS X upgrade for anybody who bought a Mac in the last few years...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Interesting that iPad sales were flat year over year. I would have thought it would have contracted without new iPads launched.

Also the big increase in iPhone sales year over year jives with what Asymco has posted about Android peaking. The easy growth from feature phones being replaced by low-end Android devices is over.

<comment><USER10> I have a lot of Apple devices, and I am sure there are others out there like me who are stick using an original iPad 2. Those devices have not really needed an upgrade unless you wanted to move to the mini. My device is almost at its end, I have dropped it a bunch of times and the battery is struggling to last a 10 hour day at work (I dont use it a lot during the day, only really in meetings and on the run).

There is probably a big fleet of iPad 2 users out there who are almost ready to upgrade when their device dies. I think Apple have done right by the consumer by making iOS 7 work on the iPad 2... they could have chased profits and limited iOS 7 to only the newer iPads...

<comment> shock-value IMO the retina screen is a big reason to upgrade from the 2 (and is the reason I waited for the 3rd gen model). I pretty much use my iPad exclusively for reading text of some format--web pages, text-based services like Facebook and Reddit, books, etc. (with the occasional YouTube or Netflix video thrown in)--and having that extra clarity as compared to the first two versions is crucial for me.

It's now that I don't really feel any compelling reason to upgrade -- even with iOS7 the interface is plenty fast enough, and I don't use it for games so any increases in performance wouldn't really matter to me.

<comment><USER10> Yeah I forgot that the retina was the big selling point. For me I didn't mind the screen the way it was - the battery life is great since the screen is average.

So for people like you who have moved to the iPad 3 (or whatever its stupid name was) - you have another year or two before needing a replacement...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Damn net profit of 7.5billion is now lower than samsung's 8.13billion.

<comment><USER12> Keep in mind that Apple doesn't make aircraft carriers or nuclear power plants.

<comment><USER13> Samsung Electronics is only a subsidiary of Samsung Group which makes all those things. Samsung Electronics profits were $9.6 but that includes TVs and their semiconductor division. The actual mobile division had $6.3 in profits (about 20% growth from same time last year).

<comment><USER9> Samsung's profits are up mainly because of chips which makes sense when they're manufacturing Apple's chips (and Apple's iPhone sales are up significantly). Samsung's growth in high-end phone sales is slowing down.

[http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-24/samsung-profit- surg...](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-24/samsung-profit-surges-as- cheaper-handsets-team-with-chips.html)

<comment><USER13> No the $6.3B is from the mobile division alone. Their chip sales also saw profits of about $1.9B which is double than same time last year, but the phone sales are still their #1 business.

<comment><USER9> Yes I know, my comment doesn't dispute that. Phones are the biggest piece, but increasingly that's coming from low-end phones, the growth in high-end phones is slipping.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I wonder what percentage of HN is invested in apple, compared to the rest of investing community. I wonder what sort of biases, deeper understanding of technology, and/or hype trains cause that difference to arise. And above all, I wonder if Apple can finally solve 5S supply problems and deliver a hit Christmas quarter.

</comment><comment><USER15> CNBC's summary explains the negative reaction to the earnings:

 _Apple posted better than expected earnings and revenue for its fourth- quarter on Monday, but shares still took a hit in after-hours trading._

 _The tech giant posted $8.26 a share on $37.5 billion in revenue. The street estimated the company would post $7.96 a share on revenue of $36.93 billion. But investors were disappointed with guidance for gross margins._

 _During the current quarter, the company expects gross margins of 36.5 percent to 37.5 percent, which missed forecasts of 37.9 percent._

[http://www.cnbc.com/id/101149511](http://www.cnbc.com/id/101149511)

</comment><comment><USER16> I think a lot of this is expected no? The mobile market is maturing, and they are making less profitable versions of their products. Its interesting to see how investors react to Microsoft and Apple who are both hugely profitable, and then some start ups(ahem, twitter, pinterest, snapchat) with no proven business model get huge valuations. I know that investors are trying to predict the market, but the second a hugely profitable company seems unfashionable(for lack of a better word) any slight variation in performance is panned in the press and the stock gets sold off.

</comment><comment><USER17> Sounds like the iPhone 5C slight of hand didn't work[1]. It makes sense to me, its last-years-model with cheaper materials. There's no reason it should be more popular than last-years-model usually are, except for the extra marketing which in this case didn't seem to help much.

[http://www.valuewalk.com/2013/10/apple-inc-earnings- iphone-5...](http://www.valuewalk.com/2013/10/apple-inc-earnings- iphone-5c-activations/)

</comment><comment><USER18> As someone who has to buy Apple devices for work, I'm hoping they get some pressure to drop their prices, especially on MBPros. My next one will probably cost a bomb since the new ones don't let you stick in third party ram - <USER2> the SSD is replacable (with considerable effort)

<comment><USER19> Is replacing the SSD more effort now? It took maybe 10 minutes on my 2009 MBP to replace the stock HDD with an SSD & yank the optical drive for a second hdd.

<comment><USER8> Yes: take a look at the iFixit teardown, and the following Q&A on their site: [http://www.ifixit.com/Answers/View/147466/Can+I+upgrade+flas...](http://www.ifixit.com/Answers/View/147466/Can+I+upgrade+flash+SSD+for+new+MacBook+Pro+13+later)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I thought the history of Apples profit margins were interesting. What happened in Q3 2010 when it was last this low?

[http://ycharts.com/companies/AAPL/gross_profit_margin](http://ycharts.com/companies/AAPL/gross_profit_margin)

</comment><comment><USER21> Next quarter should be very interesting. New iMacs are out, new iPads, and of course the new Mac Pro. So out of all quarters which tend to be Apple's weakest?

Perhaps getting more predictable in releases softens earnings in certain quarters?

</comment><comment><USER22> Markets are hammering AAPL. Down $15 (about 3%) after-hours.

[https://www.google.com/finance?q=aapl](https://www.google.com/finance?q=aapl)

<comment><USER23> Is -3% really a "hammering"? I did 5 seconds of research and found Apple has closed with a >=2% loss 3x since July 25th.

Sept 16

Sept 10

Sept 20

EDIT "5 second" was to emphasize I could be wrong, not to be a dick.

<comment><USER24> +/-3% is a common benchmark for the market's definition of "big swing". There's nothing really formal about it, and it's a more accurate measure when applied to the market as a whole rather than individual stocks. For a company like AAPL which is famous for not providing a lot of detailed information to investors, it might not be a big swing. For a different company, say P&G, it might be a huge swing.

<comment><USER25> Actually, there is a formal measurement of a stocks volitiliy called it's beta.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_(finance)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_\(finance\))

<comment><USER24> Beta is one of many measures of volatility. Since it's a normalized correlation between the stock's rate of return and that of the market, it only really has meaning in the context of a stock's performance over a long time or in relation to the market as a whole. A stock's performance post-earnings is about as market-independent as you can get, however.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Well, that spaceship costs a lot.

</comment><comment><USER27> Shares trading down 3% in AH.

<comment><USER28> Shares trading up 1% in AH.</comment></comment>


How Paying for College Is Changing Middle-Class Life - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/30/opinion/sunday/college-tuition.html <comment><USER2> I am also curious to know if this is a problem isolated to the United States or if the middle-class in other countries are experiencing similar challenges. Relatedly, I wonder if more American parents are sending their kids abroad to obtain their college degrees at considerably less cost.</comment>


How augmented reality will put people back to work - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@amitt/how-augmented-reality-will-put-people-back-to-work-31f8bff10d53 <comment><USER2> You know what else delivers just in time information? Websites.

The idea that putting a glorified 3d video instruction manual in front of an untrained person is going to be magnitudes better than simply having them trained by someone else is laughable. Moreover, if the job is so easy to do, and instructions have been specified so well already, a robot will be better at the job.

People hem and haw and struggle to find benefit in AR, because they want AR to fit into their own paradigms of business timelines and profitability. They can't find them, because effective AR at scale doesn't exist, won't exist for a while - too long for said business timelines.

Moreover, the idea of having people guided through menial low-skill jobs by parasitical machines they carry around telling them want to do next and controlling what they see is pretty much the definition of a dystopian nightmare.</comment>


On Mathematical Diseases - <AUTHOR> http://rjlipton.wordpress.com/2009/11/04/on-mathematical-diseases/ <comment><USER2> Also see here for a follow-up article:

[http://rjlipton.wordpress.com/2009/11/12/more-on- mathematica...](http://rjlipton.wordpress.com/2009/11/12/more-on-mathematical- diseases/)</comment>


Technology ventures: From Idea to Enterprise - <AUTHOR> https://www.amazon.com/Technology-Ventures-Enterprise-Thomas-Byers/dp/0073523429 <comment><AUTHOR> This is one of the best books to know-how of starting an enterprise.</comment>


Pattern Recognition and Machine Learning [pdf] - <AUTHOR> https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/uploads/prod/2006/01/Bishop-Pattern-Recognition-and-Machine-Learning-2006.pdf <comment><USER2> Classic must-read book IMO. I know that a ton of beginners want to jump straight into Deep Learning when they say they want to learn ML - don't do that.

Start with the fundamentals; this book will cover all your needs, before delving into more specialized topics (like DL).</comment>


ELF Binaries on Linux: Executable and Linkable Format - <AUTHOR> https://linux-audit.com/elf-binaries-on-linux-understanding-and-analysis/ <comment><USER2> He is just missing the new witchcraft compiler wcc, which can unlink exes into shared libs, load those libs into your exe and inspect any function or variable. And then link it back into an exe. [https://github.com/endrazine/wcc](https://github.com/endrazine/wcc)

</comment><comment><USER3> I wrote an ELF parser in 100lines of C a few years ago. I was especially interested in ELF extensions for ARM. [http://infocenter.arm.com/help/topic/com.arm.doc.ihi0044f/IH...](http://infocenter.arm.com/help/topic/com.arm.doc.ihi0044f/IHI0044F_aaelf.pdf)

The exercise helped me more than what i could have achieved by reading any number of docs. (Thanks to my Team Lead for suggesting i try this.)

The annotated version(~500lines with inline comments now) is up on github at [https://github.com/TheCodeArtist/elf- parser](https://github.com/TheCodeArtist/elf-parser)

IIRC, its a few minutes away from becoming a disassembler if anyone wants to try...

</comment><comment><USER4> I kind of wonder why there's no plain text executable format (for the header stuff). Performance hardly should be a problem.

<comment><USER5> > Performance hardly should be a problem.

Now.

Try to open any exe file and first thing you will see is MZ and "This program cannot be run in DOS mode"

executable formats are as old as PCs

<comment><USER6> The history of computing goes back well beyond PCs. And at their introduction, they were just amateur playgrounds. And yes, executable formats were made for slower machines with less resources.</comment></comment></comment>


CircleCI and Semaphore now supported by Coveralls.io - coverage stats and badges - <AUTHOR> http://blog.coveralls.io/2013/03/06/Circle-and-Semaphore/

<comment><USER2> Nice, I've been seeing those badges around</comment>


How to choose your path - <AUTHOR> http://davidolesch.github.com/2012/12/05/how-to-choose-your-path/

<comment><AUTHOR> tl;dr: Your mom was right. You should do a job you love. Here is a little more about why and how.</comment>


A California Dream - <AUTHOR> https://mentalfloss.atavist.com/a-california-dream <comment><USER2> Separatist communities often fail. I don't think that is an inevitability, but one needs to understand the pitfalls.

One of them is caused by geographic separation. Without either proximity or regular public transit to a nearby population center, you lose your ability to market the community to potential new members. Like Apple, or Tesla, in order to break into an entrenched market you need visibility in high foot traffic locations. Regular festivals that draw crowds, retreats, etc, can help.

The other big one is unity of vision. Many of these communities lay down very specific rules in their bylaws. But humans tend to go through cycles in their ability to stomach group strictures, no matter how noble their intentions. Without an outlet on the property for counterculture, residents are pushed out every time you go through one of these cycles. Often these strictures come from a central personality. See Arcosanti and Paulo Soleri's refusal to entertain young anarchists vision for the place.

I would also say many of these communities fail because they don't separate enough from mainstream governance concepts. Many require you to make a big financial investment up front, or use a democratic governance model. Neither of those should be necessary in the age of microfinance and cryptogovernance, but we're only human, and it's hard for us to give up old habits.

And lastly, poor generational diversity is huge. Most of these communities die of old age, with a few geriatrics keeping the dream alive while their secular children live as close as they can, but outside the "community". You must have immigrants in every single age bracket throughout the life of the collective. As soon as you miss a generation you make it exponentially harder to recruit for the following one.

I would be interested to see a city concept based on freedom. Big enough for good separation between activity centers, and designed to support bifurcation of governance as much as unity. "What if we didn't have to agree?" would be the motto. Not "should you be allowed to do that?" but "if one were to do that, where would the best place for it be?"

<comment><USER3> > Not "should you be allowed to do that?"

Can people be allowed to own guns ? Can ISPs be allowed to provide differential bandwidth ? Can people be allowed to hold men only screening of Wonder Woman ? Can people be allowed to hold draw a muhammad event ?

Everyone has their own exception to freedom.

<comment><USER2> I'm not advocating for unbridled freedom, that's a paradox. What I said was there needs to be _equal_ care given to supporting disagreement as there is for agreement. Similar to the way we have different political structures for states rights and federal rights in the U.S.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> This reminds me of another similar type of failed settlement around the same time: Rio Grande Estates in central New Mexico.

New York Times story about it: [http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/06/realestate/high-hopes- and-...](http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/06/realestate/high-hopes-and- worthless-land.html)

OpenStreetMap showing the area (mostly from US Census TIGER): [http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/34.5005/-106.6235](http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/34.5005/-106.6235)

An advertisement of the property: [http://books.google.com/books?id=RlUEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA89-IA2&lp...](http://books.google.com/books?id=RlUEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA89-IA2&lpg=PA89-IA2&dq=life+magazine+rio+grande+estates&source=bl&ots=4S4zzkjr0a&sig=hXR2di9qYyDrCyHcT__9-Ai2h4k&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Qh9iULCBOaariALk-4GwDg&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=true)

<comment><USER5> Rio Communities was a project by the Horizon Land Corporation which left similar failed projects throughout the Southwest and has since often been accused of running an outright scam.

In the meantime, Rio Rancho is a functioning suburb to the NW of Albuquerque but was originally planned to be much, much larger than it is today and has a road grid stretching far into the distance, not all of which is even in the modern city limits.

At the same time, huge new developments are currently underway in the Albuquerque area (Mesa Del Sol, Santolina), suggesting that this boom and bust cycle may continue today.

I have some info and photos about both California City and the Rio Communities on my website: [https://jbcrawford.us/travelogue/mojave2016](https://jbcrawford.us/travelogue/mojave2016) [https://jbcrawford.us/travelogue/nmfailed](https://jbcrawford.us/travelogue/nmfailed)

<comment><USER6> Rio Rancho is now a functioning suburb, but it was originally a scam as well, along with Paradise hills and another i don't recall. Rio Rancho is, amusingly, what they're selling in Glengarry Glen Ross[1]

[1] [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0104348/synopsis](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0104348/synopsis)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I am working on something that, well, somewhat resembles what Mendelsohn did with California city.

You can read a bit more about it here [shameless plug, but I feel it's relevant]: [https://medium.com/the-naked-founder/crypto- city-5d48a33a9f4...](https://medium.com/the-naked-founder/crypto- city-5d48a33a9f40)

<comment><USER8> While I think your business plan needs a lot of work, I am very sympathetic to your goals and inspiration. I have often thought that the California hills would benefit from "borgo" style development.

<comment><USER7> Of course it does :)

Would you be so kind to provide more specific feedback, or doubts/suggestions? Either here, or email me (simone dot brunozzi at gmail...). Thanks.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Driving through California, one gets used to the name "City" being thrown about for quite modest settlements: King City, Kettleman City, Amador City, and the like. I've seen the name California City on the drive across the Mojave from the Bay Area to Las Vegas, and figured it was another such ambitiously-named hamlet. Little did I suspect it was an invisible megalopolis!

</comment><comment><USER10> Southern Florida has several cities like this. A few have been somewhat successful:

[https://email@example.com,-82.1857099,31160m/d...](https://email@example.com,-82.1857099,31160m/data=!3m1!1e3) [https://email@example.com,-81.9789861,24756m/d...](https://firstname.lastname@example.com,-81.9789861,24756m/data=!3m1!1e3)

Others, not so much:

[https://firstname.lastname@example.com,-81.6442622,17018m/d...](https://email@example.com,-81.6442622,17018m/data=!3m1!1e3)

There's also this curious region which started as a land scam but ended up becoming a somewhat lawless area now ruled by a hunting club:

[https://firstname.lastname@example.com,-81.3102668,7540m/da...](https://firstname.lastname@example.com,-81.3102668,7540m/data=!3m1!1e3)

The place is dangerous and violent but remote, and authorities keep their distance. It feels strange to think that a place like this exists an hours drive from Disney World.

<comment><USER11> Can you talk more about the lawless hunting club-ruled area? Or provide a name for more research - it's hard to tell exactly which feature is being pointed to on the map you linked.

<comment><USER10> It's called River Ranch Acres and on the map it's the area south of Highway 60/Hesperides Rd and east of Highway 630 E with the dirt roads throughout. The Triple Canopy Ranch to the west mostly surrounded by a canal (moat?) is not part of it. I believe there is a book titled "Redneck Riviera" written by a man who inherits some land there and attempts to take possession of it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Apparently Lyft runs their end-to-end tests in California City. Roads positioned just like those in a real city, but without people who would actually need to use the service.

</comment><comment><USER13> Have been there for the off-roading on Thanksgiving. Can confirm the # of people is insane. The abandoned grid is pretty nice when you're trying to meet up with other people in dune buggies and dirt bikes... meet at the corner of x and y - and it works.

<comment><USER14> Yep. I started my skydiving career in California City. We used to skydive into Central Park every 4th of July before the fireworks show. It was an amazing place to learn to skydive, because if you happened to land out (happens a lot with newer jumpers), there were never obstacles - and there was always a road nearby where someone could come to pick you up. Heck, at one point a friend of mine landed so far off the dropzone that the pilot simply touched the plane down on the dirt road, picked him up, and flew him back to the airport.

(We also could use the grid to visually eyeball distance from up top).

The dropzone had been around since the 1960s, when there was a decent amount of activity at the airport (including airshows, balloon rides, pilot training, etc). Like most things in Cal City, it closed ~10 years ago, which did away with another item that lured outsiders into the area. Now, it's pretty much only the off-roading that brings people in.

Definitely a surreal place (but one that is unique and quirky...& has some great memories).

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Salton City is briefly mentioned in the article. It and the Salton Sea are quite interesting places to visit and are certainly worth checking out. Parts of it are incredibly creepy, parts quite beautiful in a barren and lonely sense.

<comment><USER16> If you can make it during daylight, I also recommend checking out East Jesus in Slab city at the south end of the Salton Sea. It's wacky awesome weird place, the you can (safely) ask the folks at East Jesus for tips on safely checking out more of Slab City (not that there's that much more).

<comment><USER17> Bombay Beach can be an eye-opener.

<comment><USER15> And a place one should be careful/vigilant.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Tom Scott toured this place: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gO3LUhFwx6k](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gO3LUhFwx6k)

</comment><comment><USER19> _She explained that most people in Cal City, as locals call it, work at the correctional center outside town, the borax mine nearby, or a Hyundai-KIA proving ground for testing cars._

I had a class in Economic Geography. Cities grow where there are resources to support them. Most major cities, like New York, San Francisco and L.A., sprout up and boom due to natural ports that can be easily developed. A river meets the ocean or there is some sort of bay or quirk of the coastline. It takes little or nothing to start using it as a port. Traffic begets development.

This is why where we lay infrastructure like highways and rail lines can be such a heated debate. When cars began, the world had dirt and cobblestone streets. This was not sufficient. Proper roads developed.

During The Great Depression, people fled the Dust Bowl and arrived in California to start over. The route they traveled became the famed Route 66. The exodus birthed small towns along the way.

When interstates became the new norm, the towns along Route 66 mostly died. The traffic was diverted from roads that ran through the middle of town to roads that went around the town.

I quoted the snippet above because there is a borax mine -- a natural resource that fosters job creation -- and a correctional center. Prisons tend to be built in the middle of nowhere. No one wants to live near them. They do attract some development because they provide jobs. These are often federal or state government jobs. They can pay well, be secure and come with good benefits. They are worth putting up with some inconvenience.

Lots of good federal and state jobs involve some degree of burden. Military jobs, jobs at nuclear plants and so on can be a burden for the person who holds the job. When I was a military wife, military spouses had something like a 30% unemployment rate compared to about 6% or so for the general population. Locals don't want to hire military spouses because they know you are going to move again when the military member gets assigned elsewhere.

But the other reason unemployment is so high for military members is because it is a job with excellent benefits. The entire family has access to good medical care, most of it outright free. You just show your ID card to access it.

Military benefits have eroded in recent decades. They are making more of an effort to charge the insurance of employed spouses and a lot of small things have gone away. But it is still a situation where it is possible to make the traditional nuclear family with one breadwinner and one homemaker work. Money will be tight, but lack of savings is not a problem. If you stay in 20 years or more, you will get a retirement check for life and continue to get access to medical benefits and other benefits.

Wow, I seem to be rambling. My point is that sprawling cities don't just randomly pop up. They start with geographic resources, usually including waterways because water is critical for life and waterways provide transportation options. Once established, they may have an accumulation of intellectual capital, material capital, etc that grows them further.

Hershey, PA was laid out from scratch. But it was laid out from scratch by the Hershey company. It was a company town. They built their new factory there and built housing for their employees. It was naturally seeded in this way and had no problem attracting other businesses to serve the population. It is technically an unincorporated community, but (according to Wikipedia) it has more than 14k residents and has amenities like a local library.

There has to be a reason to move there. This is why these sorts of schemes so consistently fail. There is no real raison d'etre.

<comment><USER20> > Wow, I seem to be rambling.

Funny, I was just noting how much I enjoy the way you explain things.

> Locals don't want to hire military spouses because they know you are going > to move again when the military member gets assigned elsewhere.

I'm curious - how would they know?

<comment><USER19> If you are housed on base, your address can be a dead giveaway. If you are an American living in a foreign country with an American base, the odds are good that you are a military spouse. If it is a small town near a base, newcomers tend to be military dependents. They want to sell to you, but they don't want to hire you.

They sometimes just frame it as "We are looking for people who will stay with the company long term." and ask a question concerning how long you hope to stay with the company. If you are honest and tell them that you expect to move again within 3 years, sorry, we don't want you.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> The developer of this community was the same one that dreamed up Salton Sea [1] community.

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

</comment><comment><USER22> In 100 years, when electricity is essentially free, desalination plants dot the coast, and California's population nears 100 million people, this place will be a boom town.

<comment><USER23> Energy will probably never be "essentially free" even if solar photovoltaics end up being very cheap and require zero maintenance because it still requires land which is scarce. Also, as energy gets cheaper, each person will consume more of it and we'll create products that consume more of it. So $0.0001 per kWh might sound "essentially free" to us, but it will not be in the high- energy-usage consumption of the future.

<comment><USER11> Do you have any ideas about how American consumers could end up using significantly more(~100x) energy than they do now?

I'm guessing people 100 years ago didn't suspect that we would use as much as we do now, because they probably didn't see either the mere possibility, or widespread adoption of whole house climate control, electric water heaters, induction ovens, electric dryers, electric cars, so it isn't very surprising to me that nothing is immediately popping into my head, but I'm curious if anyone has any thoughts on this matter.

<comment><USER24> Some idle speculation: * Self driving cars kill walking and urban development, make things even more suburban by removing one of the major current downsides of car travel * Further migration out of colder northern climates to increasingly hot southern areas leads to more and more air conditioning usage * Instead of batched shopping trips once a week, or even postal-service-level delivery aggregation, everything is delivered on-demand at a one-off energy expense * Similarly, maybe some sort of robotic daily clothes and dishes cleaning instead of only doing it when there's a full load? * Active temperature-regulating clothing? Now I feel like I'm reaching more and more :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Looks like a decent location for a large scale solar farm?

<comment><USER26> I don't think California is exactly short on places to build solar farms...

<comment><USER27> Pretty much 90% of southern California should be a solar farm :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> The three biggest silicon valley firms should buy up all the land, buy new campuses and house for all the workers.

Would reduce strain on bay area and its only a few hours south so good connectivity.

<comment><USER29> Yeah, because who doesn't want to live in the desert, right?</comment></comment>


Equatorie of the Planetis (1393) - <AUTHOR> http://cudl.lib.cam.ac.uk/view/MS-PETERHOUSE-00075-00001/1

<comment><AUTHOR> More descriptive information is at [http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/heavens- above](http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/heavens-above)</comment>


ProtoHack is happening again in SF on August 23 - <AUTHOR> http://protohack.org/san-francisco-august-23-2014/

<comment><AUTHOR> nice</comment>


Climate Model Predicts West Antarctic Ice Sheet Could Melt Rapidly - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/31/science/global-warming-antarctica-ice-sheet-sea-level-rise.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=second-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0 <comment><USER2> Comments moved to [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11392005](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11392005).</comment>


Ask HN: Why do human babies cry? - <AUTHOR> I haven't observed babies of other animals cry. Like pups and cubs and kittens.<p>Why human babies? <comment><USER2> I read some articles on this a while ago and the answer is quite interesting. Other animals do cry, but crying with tears is learned behavior. It all boils down to getting attention for the purpose of getting fed.

[http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/08/health/a-darwinian-look- at...](http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/08/health/a-darwinian-look-at-a-wailing- baby.html?_r=0) [http://www.froes.dds.nl/Tears.htm](http://www.froes.dds.nl/Tears.htm)</comment>


Marijuana Delivery Startups Are Ready. The U.S. Government Is Not - <AUTHOR> https://www.yahoo.com/tech/marijuana-delivery-startups-are-ready-the-u-s-91285399474.html

<comment><USER2> More states are going to have to legalize before the fed gov will get on board.

Like our other wars, the War On (Some) Drugs causes the govt to spend a lot of money on contractors and equipment, has enriched local police departments through civil forfeiture, and feeds the for-profit prison industry.

There is an enormous amount of money and power with vested interest in keeping cannabis illegal and elected officials listen to campaign contributors until they fear that the voters might actually vote them out of office.

It will be interesting to watch it play out in the next couple of years, especially after the next congressional and presidential elections.

</comment><comment><USER3> Washington State put the Liquor Control Board in charge of the MJ policy. Mismanagement by the best of them. But the two delivery services in Seattle operating in the Grey zone are still going strong. Hooray free market!</comment>


Twitter apologizes for blocked China accounts ahead of Tiananmen anniversary - <AUTHOR> https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-twitter-idUSKCN1T30C7 <comment><USER2> Apologize to whom? Twitter's official account apologized to senator rubio only, not to those chinese users.</comment>


Whale with harness could be Russian weapon, say Norwegian experts - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/apr/29/whale-with-harness-could-be-russian-weapon-say-norwegian-experts <comment><USER2> Have you seen the harness ? [0]

You might be able to strap a gps or a camera on it, but a weapon ?! What's up with all the articles "russia/china bad" popping up recently ?

> In 1980s Soviet Russia, a programme saw dolphins recruited for military > training

Yeah, just like any nation with enough defence budget. Dolphins/sea lions [1], dogs, rats [2], &c. are used all the time.

[0] [https://www.sciencealert.com/mysterious-whale-wearing- strang...](https://www.sciencealert.com/mysterious-whale-wearing-strange- harness-suspected-of-being-russian-operative)

[1] [https://www.businessinsider.com/5-animals-that-serve-in- the-...](https://www.businessinsider.com/5-animals-that-serve-in-the-us- military-2015-7?IR=T)

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

<comment><USER3> Well, Russia recently invaded a European country, assassinated several people in the U.K., got caught using spies to infiltrate U.S. political parties, hacked the emails of a U.S. presidential candidate while meeting secretly with her opponent (who may or may not be massively in the Russian government's debt), and resumed air attack drills on NATO countries. So, a lot of English- speaking people see Russia as the "bad guy" right now.

<comment><USER4> I'd stopped consuming so much cable news, it can rot your brain. And why did you edit out "China's human rights may be even worse" from your comment? That's certainly something that is up for debate.

"English-speaking people"? What's that?

Russia does bad things. China does bad things. The EU does bad things. We do bad things. What's strange is the sudden hysteria and relentless propaganda directed towards china and russia in particular. It's not like Russia and China were saints before.

<comment> saiya-jin We in Europe have a very personal stake in this. The chance of China ever invading us is minuscule bordering to none, the same can't be said for Russia.

They've already done it in the past numerous times - I know damn well since I come from former Czechoslovakia. I have no kind word for a russians due to this, my parents and their whole generation have pretty horrible stories to tell and effects of their meddling and bloody direct invasion in 1968 are still felt these days. And they've done it recently (and still doing it while LOLing like nothing is happening) with Ukraine.

You don't need to consume cable news at all, I've stopped some 15 years ago. This is plain old history.

<comment><USER5> > They've already done it in the past numerous times - I know damn well since > I come from former Czechoslovakia.

Czechoslovakia was a part of the Soviet Bloc, wasn't it? During the time of Cold War? With Soviet Union being, in effect the ruling center of the bloc and considering the rest of the Soviet countries its sphere of influence? I mean, it doesn't justify what Soviet Union did then, but what happened to Czechoslovakia couldn't have happened to France, or Sweden, or the UK.

Things are completely different now. Yes, even now, with the militaristic rhetoric on both sides rising to the Cold War-era level. There is no Soviet bloc. Russia is reduced in its ambitions to the level of a minor regional power.

As for Ukraine, it has the misfortune of sharing a border and a lot of common history with Russia; so much so that Russia still considers it its sphere of interest. With Western Europe things are completely different. Russia may have squabbles with Ukraine or perhaps even with Baltic states (unlikely, because they are members of NATO), but to conclude from that that other European countries are under the risk of Russian invasion is to misrepresent reality, I believe.

<comment> saiya-jin > Czechoslovakia was a part of the Soviet Bloc, wasn't it?

Nope, we were a sovereign country, with socialistic/communistic government, but completely standalone. Same for Poland, Hungary, Romania etc.

<comment><USER5> Oh, it certainly wasn't part of the Soviet Union, if that's what you are referring to, but wasn't it part of some political configuration that made it possible for the Soviet Union to treat it as a satellite state and as a battleground of communist ideology against western democracy? Wikipedia, in the article on Soviet-Czechoslovakian relations[0], states that: "After February 1948 Czechoslovakia was firmly set into the Soviet sphere of influence."

Again, I am not arguing from any ethical perspective; I am not saying that the USSR had the right to do what it did; I am merely saying that a bit disingenuous to suggest that Western European countries, including modern-day Czech Republic or Poland, are under any risk of Russian invasion. Ukraine might be; but even that doesn't seem all that likely.

[0] - [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czechoslovakia%E2%80%93Soviet_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czechoslovakia%E2%80%93Soviet_Union_relations)

<comment><USER6> > I am merely saying that a bit disingenuous to suggest that...countries...are > under any risk of Russian invasion. Ukraine might be; but even that doesn't > seem all that likely.

The risk of Russia invading the Ukraine is 100%, because _it already happened._ The Russians even annexed part of it, to worldwide condemnation.

<comment><USER5> > The risk of Russia invading the Ukraine is 100%, because it already > happened. The Russians even annexed part of it, to worldwide condemnation.

Oh, I meant in the future. The risk of lightning striking the same house, as it were. Admitting a historically conflicted piece of territory whose population at the time is reported to have been overwhelmingly pro-russian and to have felt slighted by the anti-russian revolutionary government, and which even went through the perfunctory motions of a referendum to add some semblance of legitimacy to the process, is a fairly confusing case, for which, of course, Russia has its own exculpatory narrative. I was thinking of something more clear-cut. A declaration of war, an open military confrontation, that sort of thing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Related, military dolphins, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_dolphin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_dolphin)

</comment><comment><USER8> I used to scuba dive a lot in the kelp beds off of Point Loma, San Diego in the early 90's. One day while floating on the top of the water with my buddy after a dive, a military boat drives by really fast. All the sudden, I'm lifted and spun around by a huge push of water. Scared me silly, I will never forget it. After a moment, I realized it was a couple of trained dolphins following the boat and messing with me. My buddy couldn't stop laughing at me.

</comment><comment> shaki-dora This is the sort of totally obvious prisoner's dilemma that just a tiny bit of international cooperation could easily avoid, if only Russia (and now the US) had not gone down the road of pseudo-macho brutalism in politics.

With the beluga cat now out of the bag, any maritime conflict will be liable to justify the wholesale slaughter of large marine mammals, just as 60 years of preservation efforts have been showing some good results, and incidentally proving that international cooperation actually can work.

On the plus side, nothing was gained. Whales as a weapons, or reconnaissance, platform may have worked as a tactical surprise. But it is useless once it's known. Killing all the whales in the Atlantic is a day's worth of fun for bored sailors.

Instead, everyone could have just played солитер all day in the safe knowledge that they are doing the best work of their life.

</comment><comment><USER9> Wikipedia page about trained animals for military: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_animal](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_animal)

While there are some efforts to keep mammals away from wars specially when it comes to sea creatures. But sadly no one cares about dogs and horses that are being used and trained.

</comment><comment><USER10> The comments here are getting border line conspiracy theory crazy, its honestly sad to see that people think the invasion of another country was justified (Ukraine) and 'mass media' lied about it all.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> The removal of the harness: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYXOPZfuOow](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYXOPZfuOow)

<comment><USER11> That video does not show the removal of the harness.

<comment><USER6> > That video does not show the removal of the harness.

This article includes that video and also pics of the removed harness. Apparently the buckle is marked with the brand "Equipment St. (logo) Petersburg."

[https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/27716/did-this- beluga-...](https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/27716/did-this-beluga-whale- escape-from-a-russian-navy-training-program)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Video of Russian Navy Seals (source by RupTly)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-unYZ6ltfI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-unYZ6ltfI)

</comment><comment><USER13> Or it could be a loose piece of harness floating around the sea that the whale got trapped in.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zebra_(medicine)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zebra_\(medicine\))

<comment><USER14> Then it got trapped in it pretty damn neatly, with one part behind the fun and one on its "neck". It's like my dog getting randomly tangled in its chest harness with the legs in the right position.

<comment><USER15> How many whale-sized harnesses are just floating around in the sea anyway?

<comment><USER6> > How many whale-sized harnesses are just floating around in the sea anyway?

Quite a lot actually. RT was just showing a documentary about the undersea harness plants of Sweden. Apparently they are naturally made of nylon and float up from from the sea floor and attach to Beluga wales to spread their seeds throughout the sea. Absolutely nothing to do with Russia. /s

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Oh noes... not more Russiagate conspiracy theories. Chris Hedges and Aaron Mate were just on with an American RT host Rick Sanchez talking about the reasons for this sort of theme. I also think it feeds into rising nationalism that (inevitably?) lead to things like civil war and world wars.

[https://youtu.be/b1wlheHxuLY](https://youtu.be/b1wlheHxuLY)

<comment><USER17> Don't forget that Russia Today is part of a deliberate effort to feed that rising nationalism in Western countries. Undermining international collaboration is the foundation of Putin's long-term geopolitical game.</comment></comment>


Biggest time wasters in programmer work - <AUTHOR> http://webcoderblog.com/2009/06/21/biggest-time-wasters-in-programmer-work/ <comment><USER2> Why is the post filled with grammatical errors ( very obvious ones ) and spelling mistakes ?!

The errors take away the seriousness of the content of the blogpost

<comment><USER3> Maybe the person learned English as a second language. English is not easy to learn, and it's no sin to screw up a few things. Focus on whether or not you agree with what the person wrote.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: How much logic do you impose on your life and the world? - <AUTHOR>

I have tried to view the world in an orderly fashion. I try to break down my life and people's actions in a logical sense. The troubling part is I seem let down by people. Am I too judgmental?
I don't have friends. I've grown accustomed to being on forums. I've grown disenchanted with most. Hacker News is the only one I like to read and participate in because it doesn't have as many trolls or rude people, and has a system I like. Am I too naive to think I can find genuine people on forums? The internet seems like a hell-hole sometimes, infested with the worst of humanity.
My loneliness is due to my disapproval of how people treat each other. I find so many people to be inconsiderate and I would rather surround myself with positive people, yet I can't seem to find any. Since I was a child, I spent my time going through phases, hoping from groups to groups; I guess trying to "find" myself, as many try to do. I get along best with people that are into computers and are introverts. But due to their nature, we become friendless. I'd love to talk to people about my other interests, such as music or literature, but most, especially on an internet forum, seem so hostile and unlike me. So much that I interpret these people as being as such in real life, as well, and so I've pretty much become a recluse, only going to work, reading, listening to music, and writing. Sometimes I think I am dehumanizing rational thought, if that even makes sense. Sometimes I think it's just the city I live in. Some people have said I am too much of a reductionist and others insult me by saying I only read Fast Company. Yes, that last part is funny, but how do I become a better person?
How logically do you try to live your life? Is it irrational to live a life based on the best data? Does it become a burden to oneself or to others when dealing in human interaction?
I feel being a third culture kid had a negative effect on me, too.
I appreciate your feedback. <comment><USER2> You just need a good friend. Go out, grab a beer and have fun. You are not a computer (read machine) that can function using logic or a set of instructions. Just be yourself. Do what your instincts tell you to do. Say yes when life offers opportunity to do something new, feel something new every day every moment. You can't live your life by thinking how you should. You live by just living.

It is not impossible to lead a life based on logic or practicality but it is better to live a life full of surprises and new experience that are not based on some calculations or prerecorded data. Take it in as it comes. Because however you try to map it out you are going to face uncertainty in your life. Things will get messy even if you had planned it all out, done your homework. It doesn't work that way. So just accept that life is unpredictable and it's for the best. Life's a discovery. Make it. :)</comment>


Critics say WeWork is an overvalued real-estate play - <AUTHOR> https://www.wsj.com/articles/wework-a-20-billion-startup-fueled-by-silicon-valley-pixie-dust-1508424483 <comment><USER2> I worked in a wework Office for about a year. At first I thought the environment was great, I loved the free beer and the community. However, once we moved out, I realized how much more productive we were in our own office. We had

\- more space

\- less noise, in terms of sound and visually (you see everybody passing by through the glass and have to force yourself not to look at them. For a while we had some posters up, but we had to remove them since wework's company policy doesn't like that)

\- less distractions: in the end, the community was nice, but it didn't help us that much, since it was quite random, there were _a lot_ events, almost every day, the place was always busy

\- climate service: we had so many issues with heating/cooling, either it was too hot or too cold, it never got really fixed

\- cost: their meeting room system is a total rip-off, even though basic rents are okish, the meeting rooms were a real cost sucker, in many months we'd pay almost as much for meeting rooms as the basic rent

We liked the culture and the spirit, but we're much happier in our own space now, we don't pay for meeting rooms and we can meet our relevant community whenever we want, distractions went down, productivity up.

<comment><USER3> Of course self-leased speace is generally (way) better - _if_ you can _find_ it (at the capacity you need _right now_ ) and hire people to run it for you. WeWork's entire model relies on the fact that, while not it's not the swankest, most productivity-enhancing working spaces you've ever been in (far from it) -- it is available pretty much _on tap_ , in at least some capacity, in key cities.

Remember all those outright shitholes many companies used to work in (in their bootstrap phases) at least? Or this whole "borrowing office space from a friend, until..." thing? Or, until not too long ago, literally using _coffeeshops_ or restaurants as meeting rooms? WeWork seems to have succeeded in making _that_ culture pretty much go away, at least.

<comment><USER4> exactly. Finding less than a 5 year lease in Manhattan is extremely challenging in my experience.

<comment><USER5> They will almost always allow you to sublease though, which is its own horrible time sink to find a replacement tenant.

<comment><USER4> sure, I've subleased a bunch. my experience with that is that two kinds of companies generally sublease: places that are growing and will eventually want the space you're occupying for themselves, or places that aren't doing well and will eventually fold. I've subleased from both :).

it's for sure a good option if you want a very short term thing, but it's a tough spot when you probably want > 1 year but 5 is a stretch.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Many people, including the author, skip the more interesting point in favor of the lazy critique:

WeWork is not being valued by its investors as an office rental company. It's made the case that it is a business services marketplace, selling vendors' insurance and HR and legal and servers to as large as swath of the small business sector as it can grab with its fancy offices. It wants to own the app store for enterprise services.

It hasn't fulfilled that promise yet, not even close, but it's not an unreasonable proposition. Is it possible to capture a big, fragmented market with kitschy decor? Will the services marketplace be as fruitful as it thinks? These would be interesting questions to explore.

<comment><USER7> Not sure why people are negative about the core idea of WeWork.

You get free beer, free coffee, bathrooms, an office, meeting rooms, phone booths with doors that close that you can also go work in whenever you want to be isolated, you can be there 24 hours a day, you have a keycard that works at all hours, and best of all, you're surrounded by startups and companies doing the same things as you. Meaning you can chat up your neighbors and meet some interesting people. Chance encounters like that are rare at a traditional office. People also throw events on the upper floors all the time, which gets you free lunch at a minimum.

The above experience costs $2,200/mo to get you an office with plenty of room for four people.

I don't know. I hope they never go out of business. It's the best environment I've ever been in.

Did I mention you're surrounded by empty rooms with doors that close? I mean hello, you get a door! It closes!

When you have the option to go work someplace with a door that shuts, it removes all the stress of not having it, even if you never actually use it.

<comment><USER8> In a lot of markets, WeWork is a great deal. We just moved from Chicago West Loop WeWork to our first real office; we got what I think is a pretty amazing deal on our new office and it is still very difficult to beat the package WeWork puts together.

But that's not the critique being leveled at WeWork here; the critique is, WeWork can't in the long run be profitable at these rates. In a lot of their spaces --- maybe all of them? --- they're overstaffed. They're premium- everything (I wanted the couches from the first floor at WeWork West Loop and asked where they got them; they were custom-designed!). Free beer on every floor (this turns out not to be a win, but it's still part of their cost basis). Most importantly: they site these things in marquee locations that they have to be paying a mint to lease.

I'm happy to take full advantage of the largesse of Investor Storytime Economics, but unless you're Amazon, the music has to stop playing at some point. WeWork is not Amazon.

<comment><USER9> Beer aside, every WeWork I've ever been in seems to have dozens of fridges stocked to the brim with rancid milk. It's weird that they have custom furniture but can't even get their shit together on the most basic issues.

<comment><USER10> THANK YOU. At first I was very confused as to why there were so many half-full milk jars in the fridge but it soon made sense. I don't think this is WeWork's "fault" in that Ronnybrook milk only seems to last about two hours after opening, but they should really buy another brand.

<comment><USER9> It's not just the opened ones. Every time I go into a WeWork I usually end up opening several things of milk to see if there are any that haven't gone bad, and there almost never are. It's like they're turning off the refrigerators at night or something.

It's literally been a problem for several years. The company even acknowledged the problem on Twitter at one point, but didn't bother fixing it.[1] It shouldn't be that complicated to provide non-rancid milk for the coffee. Even in my home fridge milk lasts two weeks after being opened, and that's several degrees warmer than it would be if milk were the only thing being stored in it.

[1] [https://twitter.com/i/web/status/840264145467518978](https://twitter.com/i/web/status/840264145467518978)

<comment><USER11> A bit of deflection on part of the company too. "it sounds like this is an ongoing issue for __you __"

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> "Boston Properties Inc., the country's largest publicly traded office landlord, owns five times the square footage that WeWork manages and has a market capitalization of $19 billion." This seems to me to be a pretty big warning sign that the company is overvalued.

<comment><USER13> Comparing WeWork to traditional office landlord is like comparing Starbucks to Dunkin' Donut. Please don't go to Starbucks because its coffee is better or cheaper (it's neither), but as a lifestyle choice. Similarly, people don't go to WeWork because they need a desk.

<comment><USER14> I went to WeWork just because I needed a few month-to-month desks quickly. WeWork has excellent execution but I don't think of them as a lifestyle or luxury brand. If someone else can provide me the same ballpark product for 20% less then I would likely switch. There's a lot of room for competitors to move into the market.

<comment><USER15> It's called working from home, and it's a lot more than 20% less.

<comment><USER16> Not if you regularly have clients come around for meetings or colleagues for a chat. WeWork provides a good enough atmosphere to work and socialise with work related people (it's not just the desk you're paying for).

<comment> lloyd-christmas Half my business comes from other companies in the wework network. I also regularly contract out work to people in the network.

<comment><USER15> So you're saying you've built a business 50% dependent on someone else's business. That's fragile.

<comment><USER17> You think the entire B2B business model is fragile?

Only consumer-facing companies are resilient enough for you?

<comment><USER18> Relying on a single client/company for 50% of your revenue puts you in an extremely fragile position. Very common reason for failure in B2B companies - relying on a single big fish which will make or break the company.

<comment> lloyd-christmas But that isn't what I said. I said I get 50% of my clients from the network, not that I need the network to get 50% of my clients. They are drastically different things. It's client acquisition cost. Why pay to go apple picking when I have an orchard in my back yard?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> WeWork needs to go prove itself by surviving the next downturn. I believe most of WeWork's customers are other startups who valuations are fueled by large rounds of VC investment. This capital tends to dry out during a downturn, however WeWork will still be saddled with long term leases during this period. I wonder what their strategy is to ride out a period of low capital raise for startups.

<comment><USER20> This will indeed be very interesting to watch out for. Speaking from experience, WeWork has a high turnover rate — VC-money-hungry startups line the hallways, coming and going accordingly. I don't think the established, boutique firms and agencies constitute a large enough chunk of their business to support them in a recession.

Their rent is just too high to capture the frugal companies who'll be the survivors of a poor market; lowering prices might save them, but I don't know how well their model accounts for this.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> The main difference is not amenities or marketing but the fact that a large percentage of WeWork's customers (my company included) are paying rent with VC money. Up to 90% of their customers will go out of business. Not a super stable customer base.

<comment><USER22> The companies will keep coming and going. As long as there is a steady stream of startups being funded in SV, WeWork should do fine. In fact, they make it much easier for the startups to bootstrap and focus on their business problem, rather than worrying about the logistics.

<comment> lloyd-christmas Ready to have your mind blown? _SV is not the only place where businesses exist._ WeWork has 14 locations in the SF area and 44 locations in NYC. I work in one in NYC, and I bet only a handful of the businesses in the building are VC funded. They'll do just fine because tech isn't their only source of income.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> No asset valuation bubble driven by years of cheap money and privately held closed books, folks! This time it's different...

If you've lived in the area or industry more than 10 years, you know how this story ends, especially regionally where real estate commercial and otherwise is in a cojoined overvaluation.

EDIT: next in my browse list, today...

[https://techcrunch.com/2017/10/18/blue-apron-is-laying- off-6...](https://techcrunch.com/2017/10/18/blue-apron-is-laying-off-6-of-its- staff/)

[https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/10/stock...](https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/10/stockton_ubi_basic_income/543036/)

etc...

When tech crashes, the soft recovery is going to a lot uglier to a lot more people...

</comment><comment><USER24> WeWork's achilles heel IMO is that they disincentivize non-VC funded companies from staying for more than a year due to their 70% first-year rent discount. We at Habitat are moving out of the WeWork Philly office after just a year because of this. It's just too expensive to stay.

</comment><comment><USER25> What are people looking for in a coworking space? What does your space provide you beyond a desk, Wi-Fi, and coffee?

Whenever I've researched spaces nearby, I've treated proximity, price, and hours as the three biggest selling points for a small business, work-from-home type like myself. But I guess that's only a small segment of the overall market.

I guess if you're a bigger business maybe you'd get comfortable with a brand name - WeWork in SF should be roughly similar to WeWork in NYC, and they already have your credit card on file.

<comment><USER26> Another thing is lease flexibility as well as multiple locations. Our company has different teams at multiple WeWork locations. We have to travel to different locations sometime, and be able to just walk 24/7 into WeWork space which mostly located in the city with good public transport is very convenient. Conference room, mail handling, coffee, beer and other things help too.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> A little off topic, but I think it'd be cool if you could pay someone (a hotel chain? Airbnb?) a monthly 'rent' to live in any of their locations. The locations are guaranteed to have highspeed internet and some easy standardized way to move between them.

This would be really cool for remote work since you could live everywhere and nowhere without having the overhead of having to do all the planning yourself.

<comment><USER28> WeWork actually has this, believe it or not.

[https://www.welive.com/](https://www.welive.com/)

<comment><USER29> For some reason, this strikes me as creepy. Like joining some sort of corporate cult, where you get to live inside an office 24/7.

<comment><USER30> It's alive!!!

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QuoKNZjr8_U](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QuoKNZjr8_U)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Selling $100M of shares sums up the entire story. No matter how WeWork will end, the founder has done his exit + salary in all the years. The last investor will be the one to pay the bills - probably the public via an IPO.

</comment><comment><USER32> The advantage of the WeWork system is the convenience of quickly getting office space on a monthly-basis without dealing with internet for as well for example. What I have noticed that they do not cater to remote workers small start ups any longer, instead they are renting out whole floors to fortune 500 companies. I agree with others, the meeting room system is a rip-off, which is why no one is using it and people are simply squatting in those rooms.

Overall it works for me after 2 years in three different locations, there are certainly a few issues: \- cooling (Miami) is either way too cold or not working at all and often comes with deafening noise \- their employees are often not trained well enough, presumably due to rapid expansion \- coffee is absolutely awful (maybe acceptable for American standards) \- annoying tech bros sponsored by their parents \- events that are geared towards the above (beer pong, really?) \- getting spammed by people who think networking means sending everyone unsolicited messages offering their services \- noise from people who apparently don't have to work and aggregate in the hallways instead

</comment><comment><USER33> I think WeWork is great. But I think commutes are a time suck. How about the new trend of Officeless (TM) companies, connecting entirely online, working asynchronously and taking breaks to go to the beach and socialize with friends instead of random people.

Your talent pool can suddenly come from all over the world, and costs cheaper while making employees happier.

<comment><USER34> Only really works if all of your friends work in the same environment though right

<comment><USER33> They can work in other fields.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> This article lays out a company thats a parody of every stereotype known to man.

Jesus.

</comment><comment><USER35> > _A decade ago, Mr. Neumann was a small-time entrepreneur in his 20s living > with his sister, a model, in her Tribeca apartment. Mr. Neumann, who was > raised on a kibbutz in Israel, was struggling with his first startup > idea—women's shoes with collapsible heels—which failed to take off. His next > venture was baby clothes with knee pads called Krawlers._

Who didn't see this coming?

</comment><comment><USER36> Trump's recent attempt to torpedo obamacare by allowing multi-company group plans seems like an opportunity here.

WeWork should offer a group plan to tenants. It creates lockin, and most tenants are young+healthy, so this would be a great deal all around (cheap premiums, low barrier to entry for older workers).

</comment><comment><USER35> Paywall:

[http://archive.is/Fb1D4](http://archive.is/Fb1D4)

</comment><comment><USER37> Paywall . . .

<comment><USER38> Can access via social media (just do a search on twitter for the article) or via the Read Across The Aisle app/Chrome extension, which is free and includes a free pass to the WSJ (disclosure: I am the founder).

<comment><USER39> I did that and am trying to access via Twitter but just hit the same paywall.

<comment><USER40> Could be a browser cache thing. Try accessing from Twitter in incognito.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: How does one fund a cryptocurrency non-profit startup? - <AUTHOR> If we skip the ICOs and Presales and all that, how else can a crypto startup be funded ? <comment><USER2> Bootstrapping.

<comment><AUTHOR> As in put in my savings into the biz and work on the side?

<comment><USER2> Yes.</comment></comment></comment>


Fire quickly and compassionately - <AUTHOR> http://www.defmacro.org/2013/07/10/firing.html <comment><USER2> Don't hire people just to test them out then throw them away.

Some people have responsibilities if your going to fire someone quickly then you have just turned their life upside down now that they can't pay for rent, food, and other bills.

<comment><USER3> I couldn't agree with your sentiment more. A great antidote to having to fire quickly, is to be better at hiring effectively (a task much easier said than done). Most of us at startups, being driven by younger people that have not had the chance to develop managerial experience, are very very bad at hiring and seeing indicators of what will make a potential employee a "good fit" (and by "good fit", I mean someone that can drive business goals, not the rampant issue I have seen of startups passing on an otherwise good candidate because they aren't a good "culture fit". Good business hiring shouldn't be a high school popularity contest).

We could all leave a lot less damage in our wake by investing some time into learning how to quickly identify good candidates.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I've managed many developers and I only ever once had to fire one, and it wasn't fast process at all because you first need to prove that they have violated a specific and clearly documented standard by which the whole team is held to, otherwise you just invited a wrongful termination suit into your workplace. People are not virtual servers, you can't just tear them down and launch replacements as needed. The key is hire carefully and mentor as needed.

<comment><USER5> Where are you located?

Many programmers on this site are in "at will" states like California and Texas. Meaning that you can be fired at any time for no particular reason.

The only time that wrongful termination comes into it is if there is evidence that you had a reason, and that reason is unlawful.

<comment><USER6> > Many programmers on this site are in "at will" states like California and > Texas. Meaning that you can be fired at any time for no particular reason

I just happened to be talking to our inhouse council and brought this up.

he believes you are incorrect. There is a legal distinction between a layoff and a firing, where layoff is defined as not for cause and firing is for cause.

At will permits layoffs as you state.

However firings, even in at will states, can still get you into alot of trouble if you don't have paperwork to show that you layed out a performance improvement plan and documented all cases of the behaviour that go the employee fired.

<comment><USER5> See [http://business.ca.gov/StartaBusiness/AdministeringEmployees...](http://business.ca.gov/StartaBusiness/AdministeringEmployees/EqualEmploymentOpportunityLaws/AtWillEmployment.aspx) for confirmation of what I said, in the way that I said it.

Your inhouse council is also correct. Should it come to a lawsuit, it is supposed to be decided in the way that I described. However there is a world of difference between winning the lawsuit, and not having one. The stronger the case that you have made to the ex-employee, the less likely it is that they will find a lawyer who is willing to represent them in a lawsuit.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Did the author mean "fire quickly" in the sense that he should determine quickly whether a person is a good fit, or did he mean when you make the decision you should do so with some expediency? It seemed like the former, but the conclusion didn't seem to follow the premise.

Additionally, it seemed like his business was set up to avoid friction and is going to be fairly homogenous in terms of the composition of its people. I think a lot of employees would be petrified about pointing out poor direction for fear of being voted out.

Sometimes you need a little bit of friction to make the better decisions.

<comment><AUTHOR> Author here.

I meant get the person out of the job that doesn't fit them well quickly, which involves making the decision and following through.

As for people being afraid of speaking out, that's never been a problem here. The rule is simple -- get all the arguments out in the open, but once the decision is made, everyone has to be on board. It's ok (and desirable) to have a lot of friction in the first part of the process, but is detrimental to have friction in the second part (after the decision has been made).

EDIT: also, it's extremely helpful to periodically re-evaluate things, and and debate flaws in direction. The trick is to keep it constructive (as opposed to having one person not play ball and derail development). Getting this process running smoothly is very difficult and requires a lot of trust, but once it works, it works phenomenally well.

<comment><USER8> Slight pivot to your point, but when actually firing, it should also be quick and compassionate. That is, I have seen managers who can't bring themselves to say "you are fired", instead waffling around the subject. It is much better to be direct and to the point, but compassionate. Don't leave the employee guessing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> at-fates-hands I also would put some of the burden on the employee. If you're not doing your due diligence to find out about the company before you join them, you might be just as responsible for not "being a good fit".

I've double clutched on several companies after turning up negative reviews on the company, or knowing someone who worked with said manager. In all three cases, I was right to stay away and was glad I did more research on the company I was about to join.

</comment><comment><USER5> In [http://www.amazon.com/First-Break-All-The- Rules/dp/074351011...](http://www.amazon.com/First-Break-All-The- Rules/dp/0743510119) something like this is said. A manager who had been identified as being excellent said, "I've never waited too long for the right hire, or fired the wrong one too fast."

</comment><comment><USER9> Interesting. How does RethinkDB implement compassionate firing (as in the Quora link at the end, where he could stay on the payroll for months while looking for a new job)?

I imagine it's easy for a programmer (who passed your entrance requirements) to find a decent job in a few days; not sure about others.

</comment><comment><USER10> The body of law in HR matters is completely missing from the post. I'd argue: No post is complete without it, because the mistakes can be so costly (both in lost time/focus with lawyers as well as money.)</comment>