As Japan's population shrinks, bears and boars roam among schools and shrines - <AUTHOR> http://www.latimes.com/world/asia/la-fg-japan-population-snap-story.html <comment><USER2> Perhaps this is what will happen across the world in 200 years time? People in advanced economies seem less keen to have lots of children, perhaps vast tracts of the earth will be abandoned to wildlife?

I actually hope so, I wonder if culture will change and adapt and eventually find a new equilibrium, but at a much lower population. Perhaps people will enjoy reliving the experiences of people from "the crush". Perhaps they will struggle to understand the science of the artifacts that surround them and progress will effectively end - after all 10 billion people can go a lot faster than 100 million. There are no facts about the future.

<comment><USER3> Not in 200 years.

What we're seeing now is a _partial_ die-off.

Eventually, evolution will re-assert itself. The sub-populations who, for whatever reason, continue to grow in population will come to dominate the numbers, after the non-breeding groups die off.

E.g. in America, fertility is passing below replacement rates - on average. But the Amish population still doubles every 20 years. In 200 years, there will be hundreds of millions of Amish.

We could be looking at a world of Amish, Quiverfulls, poor tribalistic Africans, religious Muslims, and orthodox Jews. There will be very few left- liberals, the childfree movement will be gone (like the Shakers already are). Gays and other queer people may breed out of the gene pool if their modern freedom reduces the fertility of their genes.

Modernity may very well be self-defeating, because the future belongs to those who show up.

<comment><USER4> My biggest concern is the direct correlation to the reproductive rates and lower education in virtually every culture. More than specific concerns about particular religions or ethnic origins, I fear for a world where the uneducated rules.

<comment><USER5> Then you should have lots of kids! And encourage your intelligent friends to do the same.

<comment><USER6> Well, it's not as if you can just choose to have kids.

<comment><USER5> True in the technical sense that a person cannot just unilaterally decide to have children _RIGHT NOW_. But most people, over the course of their life, have the opportunity to have children. In the developed world, a huge portion of these people decide to have 0 or 1 child.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I think these two paragraphs nicely frame theme of the problem: <i>Politicians, he added, have propagated the myth that foreigners commit crimes at a higher rate than Japanese and have suggested that more immigrants could make the country vulnerable to terrorism. Labor unions have also put up a fight.

"Look at nurses, they believe their income will be cut if we let in Filipinos and Indonesians," said Katsuyuki Yakushiji, a sociologist at Toyo University in Tokyo. "They also say that these people can't speak Japanese well and that could be risky. Yet, at the same time, they complain about severe overwork and say we need to add nurses."</i>

On one hand a defiance, even in the face of Armageddon. On the other it reflects worldwide general negativity, in this case xenophobia under the guise of overzealous job protection, as noone is worried that there will be more nurses per se, just as long as they are not... the "other kind"

<comment><USER8> Wanting your culture to not drift is expected. It's built into humans to prefer people like ourselves.

It's also expected that people don't want their wages depressed by imported labor.

A democratic government enforcing the above ideals (if supported by a majority of citizens) is expected. That's why Japan is exploring automation instead of immigration for its workforce.

EDIT: @krapp (HN is throttling my posting ability)

Japan is overhauling immigration, but only as a last resort:

[https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2015-12-07/immigrati...](https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2015-12-07/immigration- is-a-tough-one-for-japan-to-swallow)

<comment><USER9> > Wanting your culture to not drift is expected. It's built into humans to > prefer people like ourselves.

Or look at America, the world's biggest melting pot. Just because Japan has a preference for their own ethnicity (like most other countries around the world, India, China, most of Europe, etc.) doesn't mean they aren't wrong and IMO not on the wrong side of history. People I know here in the US have no issue having real friends, people they hang out with and regard as equals, who are ethnically Asian, Indian, African. In other countries, this simply wouldn't happen.

<comment><USER10> America is the world's biggest melting pot relatively speaking. Most American's social circles look like themselves. Also I suspect there is a gap between the number of people who have no issue with having a diverse group of friends and those who actually do.

 _Drawing on techniques from social network analysis, PRRI's 2013 American Values Survey asked respondents to identify as many as seven people with whom they had discussed important matters in the six months prior to the survey. The results reveal just how segregated white social circles are.

Overall, the social networks of whites are a remarkable 91 percent white. White American social networks are only one percent black, one percent Hispanic, one percent Asian or Pacific Islander, one percent mixed race, and one percent other race. In fact, fully three-quarters (75 percent) of whites have entirely white social networks without any minority presence. This level of social-network racial homogeneity among whites is significantly higher than among black Americans (65 percent) or Hispanic Americans (46 percent)._

Links:

[http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/08/self- seg...](http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/08/self-segregation- why-its-hard-for-whites-to-understand-ferguson/378928/)

[http://cdn.theatlantic.com/assets/media/img/posts/2014/08/cr...](http://cdn.theatlantic.com/assets/media/img/posts/2014/08/cropped/79324c442.jpg)

[http://www.prri.org/research/2013-american-values- survey/](http://www.prri.org/research/2013-american-values-survey/)

<comment><USER11> Isn't that exactly what you'd expect statistically? That the majority members would mostly have circles representing the majority? In fact, its more telling that minorities have social circles that _don 't_ include many of the majority. Because that is a whole lot more self-selected - it can't be random. That black Americans' social circles have 65-percent minority membership is several standard deviations outside what could be normal.

<comment><USER12> The 2010 census shows the US as 64% non-Hispanic white. It's just as impossible for their social groups to be 91% white by random chance as it is for blacks' social groups to be 65% black.

You can explain the whites who have no connection to any nonwhite by saying that nonwhites tend to be concentrated in particular areas such as Louisiana or New York City, but that makes the nonwhites look significantly _more_ integrated compared to the whites.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> While reading this article, it occurred to me that Japan is at worst slowly committing suicide, and at best "failing to thrive."

Why?

And what happens when the majority of the country all but de-populates? Will China invade? Will the US be asked to open military bases?

<comment><USER14> Where is the 'will China invade' come from?

Historically it always has been reverse.

<comment><USER13> A depopulated Japan could easily be an undefended Japan. China is right now working to expand its sphere of territory and influence. They make islands in the ocean where none were before.

This scenario is possible if two things happen: weak Japanese self-defense from depopulation, and a successful closing of US bases by either Japanese citizens who resent their presence, or US isolationism.

<comment><USER15> Its interesting that the current PM wants to revise their constitution to remove limits on Japan's military. [http://www.wsj.com/articles/japanese- voters-to-render-a-verd...](http://www.wsj.com/articles/japanese-voters-to- render-a-verdict-on-abenomics-national-security-policy-1468111220)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Pictures of bears or boars roaming schools or shrines would have been a great addition to this article.

</comment><comment><USER17> Good! Now if only the most populous countries would do the same then everyone would be richer. Thanks to automation, we no longer need the next generation to be larger than the last. Most existential challenges for humanity in the 21st century stem from the population explosion of the last 150 years.

</comment><comment><USER18> I keep reading about the decline of the Japanese population, and I wonder: what are the major causes of people not producing enough kids? Is it that there's not enough bonking going on? Stress from work? Long hours at the office? I mean, sex is one of the most fun activities nature has given us, for free. Why aren't enough Japanese having sex? Is it something in the culture? The comics, maybe?

This is a serious question. I often wonder why something that worked for millions of years, is suddenly not working.

<comment><USER19> Many reasons. Women don't want to marry because they don't want to stay at home and raise kids and take care of in-laws. Men don't want to marry because they don't want to have to support a family and give up control of the finance to the women. Work consists of 8 hour shifts and mandatory overtime up to 3 hour or more. Which means the culture is not spontaneous and everything gets planned well in advance. Guys are friends with only guys, girls only girls(mostly) so not much chance to meet and spend time with the other sex. Starting salary is low and advances with age. In your 20s you make about 20k a year in your 30s 30k.

<comment><USER19> Sorry for format, on phone at work and new to the site. I will try and post something better when I can get on my computer.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Really interesting graph comparing children per woman and life expectancy over the past ~200 years: [http://graphs.gapminder.org/world/#$majorMode=chart$is;shi=t...](http://graphs.gapminder.org/world/#$majorMode=chart$is;shi=t;ly=2003;lb=f;il=t;fs=11;al=30;stl=t;st=t;nsl=t;se=t$wst;tts=C$ts;sp=10;ti=1800$zpv;v=0$inc_x;mmid=XCOORDS;iid=phAwcNAVuyj2tPLxKvvnNPA;by=ind$inc_y;mmid=YCOORDS;iid=phAwcNAVuyj0TAlJeCEzcGQ;by=ind$inc_s;uniValue=8.21;iid=phAwcNAVuyj0XOoBL_n5tAQ;by=ind$inc_c;uniValue=255;gid=CATID0;iid=thlR4hyNMEnaVyV_uxRzjfQ;by=grp$map_x;scale=lin;dataMin=12;dataMax=83$map_y;scale=lin;dataMin=0.855;dataMax=8.7$map_s;sma=49;smi=2.65$cd;bd=0$inds=)

</comment><comment><USER21> It'll be interesting to see if this leads to a debt crisis in the future, as Japan's population shrinks and the per-capita debt burden increases. It'd be very tricky to deal with as social spending for the elderly increases at the same time.

</comment><comment><USER22> This is why the religious groups that keep women in their place at home, breeding, will rule the world.

<comment><USER23> There are quite a few things wrong with this post.

Firstly, what is the "This" in "This is why"? "Non-religious groups of people will just die off"? "Religious zealots are taking over Japan as non-religious inhabitants dwindle"? None of this is sane.

Secondly, modern religious interpretations do not dictate that women must stay at home and pump out babies. That bigoted stereotype is rooted in a warped view of some religions' beliefs about the role of sex in society. The stereotype is also rooted in extremist interpretations of some religions, but those extremist interpretations are not representative of what is going on in Japan[0]. Perpetuating this bigoted stereotype isn't helping any argument.

Thirdly, just because people are born into a highly devout religious family does not mean they stay religious. I submit myself as an example of a person born into a religious family but turned agnostic.

[0]Edit: It is also not fair to take the extremist minority interpretation from anywhere and apply it broadly everywhere, not just Japan. Hopefully it is self-evident why without me having to bring up other ugly examples.

<comment><USER24>
       modern religious interpretations
       do not dictate that

I'm not sure you understand what Animats means.

He's not making a normative statement that religions _should_ place women in this/that/the other role. He's making a factual statement: those social groups that do demand that women's role is primarily in reproduction _will_ outbreed everybody. This is an undeniable and empirically observable fact, whether you turned agnostic or not.

It's playing out already in the kindergardens and primary schools in my hometown already: most children are Muslims, with burka wearing mothers. Yet less than 1/3, probably less than 1/4 of the population is Muslim, the rest is white, highly educated yuppies, GLBTQ whatever ... who all have 0 children.

<comment><USER23> > He's making a factual statement: those social groups that do demand that > women's role is primarily in reproduction will outbreed everybody.

That's not even close to what I read when I saw:

> will rule the world

That seems extremely normative to me.

In fact, I honestly fail to see any facts presented in the _one sentence_ I responded to.

There are a lot of debatable nuanced points between the factual statement of having more kids and the conclusion of ruling the world. There are no connecting-the-dots arguments in the post I responded to. If Animats wanted to mean the fact you bring up, she/he would have just said the fact. But that is not what happened. Taking the simplest interpretation of Animats's one entirely-normative sentence, it is an extreme opinion that expresses a large contempt/disdain for organized religion.

I really hope you examine your post, and evaluate how and why you took Animats' opinion and managed to somehow extract a fact from it. And that's whether I turned agnostic or not.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Paddle - The world's easiest marketplace for digital content - <AUTHOR> http://Paddle.com

<comment><USER2> Had no idea this had been submitted, we're working on some interesting things right now and had to put up something temporary on the domain. We'll have lots more to show soon.

Looks like someone got a little eager and prematurely shared this.

firstname.lastname@example.com for any questions.</comment>


Genetic system performs logic operations and stores data in DNA - <AUTHOR> http://www.nature.com/news/how-to-turn-living-cells-into-computers-1.12406 <comment><USER2> It'd be thrilling to watch if evolution invents cryptographically signed DNA to prevent malicious viruses, plasmids and what not from using cell's reproduction machinery.

<comment><USER3> I was confused by your comment for a moment. Then I realized that you probably don't know that there already exist natural viruses which hijack bacteria by injecting their own DNA.

Wherever you find bacteria, you also find these bacteriophages. They co-evolve with their host in a never-ending arms race of defenses and counters. No asymmetric crypto though :-)

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacteriophage>

<comment><USER4> And way up there on the creepy/cool scale there are viruses that incorporate themselves into the DNA that is passed from generation to generation:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endogenous_retrovirus>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> DNA as storage, and now DNA as logic gates. But is there any benefit for using DNA for anything non biology related?

For instance, one would think works for using atoms themselves as storage would yield a far superior logical/physical size ratio.

<comment><USER6> I don't know if this will ever be possible, I hope it will be:

You engineer some harmless bacteria to start glowing if it encounters cancerous cell. You take pill with such bacteria, then you look at your poop. If it glows - you go to doctor. If no - you take such pill half a year later. Most cancers can be cured if detected so early.

<comment><USER7> <http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101006/full/467650a.html>

"For now, most members of the do-it-yourself, or DIY, biology community are hobbyists, rigging up cheap equipment and tackling projects that — although not exactly pushing the boundaries of molecular biology — are creative proof of the hacker principle. Meredith Patterson, a computer programmer based in San Francisco, California, whom some call the 'doyenne of DIYbio', made glow- in-the-dark yogurt by engineering the bacteria within to produce a fluorescent protein. Others hope to learn more about themselves: a group called DIYgenomics has banded together to analyse their genomes, and even conduct and participate in small clinical trials. For those who aspire to change the world, improving biofuel development is a popular draw. And several groups are focused on making standard instruments — such as PCR machines, which amplify segments of DNA — cheaper and easier to use outside the confines of a laboratory, ultimately promising to make DIYbio more accessible."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> wow... doesn't even run CoD... #ignore</comment>


Lionsgate is making its films available on Steam - <AUTHOR> http://www.gadgette.com/2016/04/26/lionsgate-is-making-its-films-available-on-steam/ <comment><USER2> The sad state of things is that, although the technology evolved to our current 21st century level, the legislation didn't follow suit.

Here is the 11 titles available for international markets (like Brazil, for instance):

        Blue Mountain State: The Rise of Thadland
        Deck the Halls
        Leprechaun
        Leprechaun 2
        Leprechaun 3
        Leprechaun 4 movie collection
        Leprechaun 4: Lost in Space
        Natural Born Pranksters
        Return of the Living Dead 3
        Russkies
        Two Family House

Excellent selection if you are the #1 fan of the Leprechaun series, not so much otherwise.

<comment><USER3> I see what you mean, but let's not criticize them for at least trying.

These companies are behemoths that take a long time to move and adapt. At least they're trying, and hopefully the selection will improve over time. Nobody is perfect on their first try.

<comment><USER2> My opinion, based on what is apparent by the quality of the offer, is that this not a serious attempt of providing service to the international audience.

It appears that these few titles were made available to the international markets only as a way to give strength to the PR claim.

The press release title is "Lionsgate launches films on Steam's global digital distribution platform" [1] and, although the blockbusters are prominently mentioned by name (like Hunger Games, Twilight, Divergent & Saw Franchises), nowhere in its text it is mentioned that, apart from those 11 token titles, these are available only to U.S. customers.

The press release forwards any inquire about availability or pricing to another site [2] but that doesn't mention this limitation either, simply displaying the available titles and prices.

As said, in my opinion they are not trying, the apparent reason they made these 11 titles available was to be able to announce "Available to Steam Customers" instead of "Available to U.S. Steam Customers"

[1] [http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/lionsgate- launches-f...](http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/lionsgate-launches- films-on-steams-global-digital-distribution-platform-300256508.html)

[2] [http://store.steampowered.com/sale/lionsgate](http://store.steampowered.com/sale/lionsgate)

<comment><USER4> This is a toe in the water, to test the temperature.

I'm sure that it must be crazy annoying to read those titles, and then see Leprechaun 4 (4! in space! it was awful) as one of the only options.

But movie licensing is about as organized and simple as anything else in hollywood.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> > according to Lionsgate's President of Worldwide Television & Digital > Distribution, Jim Packer, it's just part of the company's "commitment to > remain at the cutting edge of innovation in delivering content to online > audiences around the world."

He says that, but renting a Lionsgate movie through Steam for 48 hours costs about half as much as a 1-month Netflix membership? I kind of don't think this was a particularly game-changing move on Steam's or Lionsgate's behalf.

<comment><USER6> Netflix doesn't carry all movies, and rarely streams recent big budget ones. Typical rental of a recent (or obscure) release from the convenience of wherever you happen to be is typically about $5, the price you're complaining of.

Nice to see a major studio delivering their goods practically direct to viewers. About time! The licensing wars are irritating.

<comment><USER5> That's also a perspective I hadn't considered, but it doesn't explicitly say anywhere that they'll publish newer releases right away, and then there's the localization thing where UK gets a grand total of 11 movies. That's still in stark contrast to Mr. Packer's statement, which promised _"commitment to remain at the cutting edge of innovation in delivering content to online audiences around the world."_

<comment><USER7> > and then there's the localization thing where UK gets a grand total of 11 > movies

My, my, the irony is jarring. The UK has localization problems? Then the rest of the world is screwed :p

<comment><USER8> Localization doesn't just refer to translation but more importantly to distribution rights. Even the publisher can't give away distribution rights in regions where they previously already promised exclusivity.

This is the anachronism that results in paradoxical situations like being able to only offer Lord of the Rings part 1 and 3 but not part 2 because some obscure TV channel has the exclusive rights in your country for the next five years.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> The steam video player is terrible though!

<comment><USER10> I wish I could upvote this twice. It's a load of hot garbage.

<comment><USER11> How is it bad? I've never had a problem with it.

<comment><USER12> The buffering tends to be pretty bad for me, not very aggressive or just bad. The initial loading takes a little long, especially considering I'm on fiber at work right now. This 1080p video isn't buffering very quickly. Switching stream quality takes a bit long, even switching down to 360p.

At home Steam struggles on game trailers, usually after going fullscreen for some reason; if I don't go fullscreen it can be okay.

<comment><USER9> >At home Steam struggles on game trailers, usually after going fullscreen for some reason; if I don't go fullscreen it can be okay.

Yes! When I go full screen I get terrible tearing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> The other day my gf and I tried to rent a movie on xbox. It didn't work out so well, it had the cover and all the sequels but not the original version.

I got frustrated and illegally streamed the movies instead.

</comment><comment><USER14> I think the purpose of this is likely in regards to VR.

As far as I am personally aware, Steam is now the only mainstream video rental platform with first-party support for Virtual Reality. (To exclude Google Cardboard further, "all-in virtual reality" where you don't leave VR)

<comment><USER15> Netflix: [http://www.polygon.com/2015/9/24/9394383/gear-vr-netflix- han...](http://www.polygon.com/2015/9/24/9394383/gear-vr-netflix-hands-on)

YouTube: [http://lifehacker.com/you-can-now-watch-any-youtube-video- in...](http://lifehacker.com/you-can-now-watch-any-youtube-video-in-google- cardboard-1740947161)

Hulu: [http://www.hulu.com/labs/huluvr](http://www.hulu.com/labs/huluvr)

<comment><USER14> So my criteria was very specific so I'm proud to say I'm still "not wrong" :p

Netflix and Hulu are not renting services - though I'm excited to learn they have full VR theater support!

YouTube's cardboard stuff I don't think allows you to browse for videos to select, you select them and then launch it into VR mode. Cardboard is still rough around the edges that way - though with some of the hints of Android N enabling a VR mode I'm excited. I'm also not sure whether or not the YouTube app allows you to watch your rentals (you might only be able to do this in Google Play Movies)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> TLDR;

100 films on rental (rather than purchase with digital locker) for US customers only.

</comment><comment><USER17> Not sure how I feel about this. I guess that's cool and all, but I'd rather have Steam be focused on just games. Can't see myself ever really wanting to do this. I was never really a huge fan the (non-game) software section on Steam either though, so I dunno.

</comment><comment><USER18> Can't wait to see the future of how this pans out. Would be amazing to have steam movie sales!

</comment><comment><USER19> What's interesting about this is that positions Steam more directly against XBox and Playstation stores (which we don't generally consider as VOD portals, but I suspect makes up the majority of their direct revenue).

</comment><comment><USER20> Questions:

Does it really work on all Linux clients as the article claims?

Does this mean Lionsgate will distribute a Half Life movie? Or the more likely outcome, that the Half Life franchise is now completely hopeless?

Why only rentals?

</comment><comment><USER21> What DRM, if any, does this use?

Does Steam provide a viewer app, or is each movie packaged as a viewer application to fit the game distribution model?</comment>


Vera Rubin has died - <AUTHOR> https://carnegiescience.edu/news/vera-rubin-who-confirmed-%E2%80%9Cdark-matter%E2%80%9D-dies <comment><USER2> It's probably worth noting that the strongest proof of dark matter are observations of the bullet galaxy, which Vera Rubin was not involved with as far as I can tell. Some kinds of MOND (which tries to avoid the need for dark matter to explain the current state of the universe) purports to be able to explain Rubin's observations, although they cannot yet explain the bullet galaxy.

I mention this because "confirmed" is a strong word for something that we still have very little direct evidence for, other than observing the proper motion of galaxies. That's pretty strong evidence, but it'd be really cool to be able to detect the stuff directly.

<comment><USER3> +1 for clarification. The LUX experiment in South Dakota has been unable to find the evidence of Dark Matter.

[1] [https://www.wired.com/2015/12/dark-matter-still-super- hard-t...](https://www.wired.com/2015/12/dark-matter-still-super-hard-to- find/)

<comment><USER4> Ground based experiments are testing particular models of dark matter. We know it (or some modification of gravity) exists due to its gravitational effects. Direct detection could potentially rule out the modified gravity explanation, and tell us more about what it is, but it appears disfavoured anyway (due to bullet cluster et.al.).

The only models of modified gravity I know that are more than ad hoc modifications of individual equations, and are actually complete theories, introduce new fields anyway (e.g. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tensor%E2%80%93vector%E2%80%93...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tensor%E2%80%93vector%E2%80%93scalar_gravity)).

Additional matter appears to be an unavoidable consequence of her discovery. What remains open is the type of matter.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I was very surprised to hear this story carried on my local nightly news here in Philadelphia. Seems she was a Philadelphia native at one point.

<comment><USER6> I am having difficulty reconciling "native" and "at one point". Do you mean she was born in Philadelphia?

<comment><USER7> This comment is why I love hacker news. Pendantic, yet informative.

<comment><USER8> Don't mean to be pedantic, but do you mean pedantic?

<comment><USER6> Pedanception!</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Wash Your Clothes: Elephants Can Smell You a Mile Away - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/27/science/27obelep.html?ex=1354165200&en=17d2f1a100fc20d6&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all

<comment><USER2> when I spent some time with the Maasai, I learned that even a Lion learns to fear the bright red cloth, because it often means death ...

</comment><comment><USER3> The title sounds like a metaphor.

</comment><comment><USER4> I "smell" an opportunity...

..actually I don't.</comment>


YC Demo Day Session 1 - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2014/08/19/yc-demo-day-session-1-gingko-bioworks-bikanta-checkr-walksource-cleartax-and-more/ <comment><USER4> >> Backpack is a company that arbitrages the cost of goods in different countries by using international travelers as a distribution network

I don't understand this one - with a world focused on security and import taxes, how does this work out?

<comment><USER5> I love how you can start a smuggling organization (from the description, it's just that, this is not even legal gray area bullshit, it's legally black) and call it a "disruptive startup" these days in Silicon Valley AND get funded by YC, I mean, what the actual fuck?

No kidding it's a $16 billion market in China alone, that's why people risk on getting EXECUTED to be in the smuggling business.

Edit: this is from their site, they call themselves the "only peer-to-peer platform that gives you access to the global market."

I actually bursted out laughing when I read it, I should start a money laundering service and call it the "only secure platform that unlocks the full potential of your earnings"

<comment><USER6> I remember reading one PG's essays a while ago that concluded

1\. YC should fund riskier startups

2\. Many good ideas sound bad at first.

Funding a criminal smuggling operation seems to fit both criteria.

Free idea for the next batch (or pivot!): often non-US citizens will be willing to work for lower wages in difficult jobs than US citizens. Why not match them up with people who are _already_ driving across the US border, who can help get them in the country?

Here's the link: [http://paulgraham.com/swan.html](http://paulgraham.com/swan.html)

<comment><USER5> Many great ideas do sound bad at first, but that's not remotely the same as "all bad sounding ideas are great ideas in disguise".

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> YC is getting involved in some serious tech and markets. Long gone are the days of web apps. Deep insight, experience, and skill in today's heavyweight industries are what matter now. Really happy to see this change and very impressed with the first portion of this batch.

<comment><USER8> What does YC bring to tech heavy startups except connections to funding ? because most of the risk there is technology risk , not market risk, and YC is no tech expert at those subjects.

<comment><USER9> There is plenty of technology risk _and_ market risk in hard-tech companies. A business with R&D cycles, long lead times, and heavy capex requirements is going to face a substantial amount of both types of risk.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I loved it when they started including non-profits, and I'm loving that they're including biotech/medical now. They (Gingko/Glowing Plant/Bikanta) sound insane and very risky, which is exactly the ideas the best incubator in the world should be funding.

Casual observation, none of the above describe themselves as "X for Y".

<comment><AUTHOR> Honest question: Is $120k really that big of a risk when you're already giving away money for free to non-profits?

<comment><USER10> It isn't, but the abundance of funding cash everywhere hasn't really translated into more insane (technically) ideas being funded lately, YC or elsewhere. At least that's been my impression, and it feels like YC is changing that with their recent batches.

<comment><USER8> I don't know. Could it be that rich angels are already investing small amounts of money into crazy tech startups ,but nobody hears about that ?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> \- If there is a lot of risk involved in carrying stuff through backpack , does it offer a certain insurance policy for the travelers ? What if the product gets seized by customs ? or you are levied a large unexpected fine ? The service doesnt seem to offer any advice on these at all.

<comment><USER12> A few things can happen. You can be charged the appropriate tax, which can be on-the-spot hundreds or thousands of dollars. This is not a fine, this is just the tax you are required to pay to enter the country with those items. This is generally the outcome when you have eg, a new laptop plus your old laptop.

You can also be fined, arrested and imprisoned for smuggling. This is what you can expect if you have 4 laptops and 3 iphones in addition to your own and you didn't declare anything to customs.

Foreigners have a higher chance of talking their way out of it as long as there's some plausible reason why you have so much "personal stuff".

Chances are fantastic you'll go to prison if they find you work for a smuggling ring, like if your photo is on backpackbang.com as one of their mules.

<comment><USER11> Reading all of the other comments ; this sounds pretty illegal right - <USER2> would YC back the start up in that case ?

<comment><USER12> If you don't travel a lot you probably just don't know. I've filled two passports. I've technically smuggled lots of stuff for myself including a computer I specifically flew to Chicago from Costa Rica to buy as it was cheaper.

Edit: actually if you don't have yourself/friends/family in poor countries so you're aware of the local prices you could be completely unaware of this stuff and the tax/legal obligations for importing them.

<comment><USER11> Fair enough, I do realize this is possible ! ( especially when you are flying to developing countries ). But you hinge on your luck to not get caught ( and depending on your 'navigation skills' \- you can get out of the scenario ).

I m only curious to know about the "legalities" involved ; I m pretty sure this would have been addressed in the pitch. I was only looking for an answer that said : Here are the countries and Here is a list of things you can carry to those destinations without breaking any law.

Or if this fell into the "break first, fix later" philosophy of other shared economy startups as well.

<comment><USER12> By the way this is what a legal version looks like:

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

I buy something on amazon, they send it to AeroCasilla's warehouse in Miami, AeroCasilla bring it to Costa Rica and their customs and text me when I can pick it up.

<comment><USER11> I suppose you pay additional shipping to AeroCasilla ( for shipping from Miami to Costa Rica ) & also pay additional customs at the port of Entry ?

<comment><USER12> Yes that's it exactly. They bill for shipping + their service, and pass on the fees customs charge for the items.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I can't figure out the reason why some of these companies got selected into YC. I can see why Bikanta, Helion Energy, Ginkgo Bioworks, BitAccess, and ProductHunt might get in. However, some other companies look like run of the mill startup.

I use non-YC companies on [https://news.ycombinator.com/show](https://news.ycombinator.com/show), ProductHunt, and AngelList for comparison. In comparison the quality signal of recent YC companies (the ones not mentioned above and some others) is not that high* compared to Non YC companies. I looked at the profile of the founders, their twitter and github pages and most importantly the product; nothing stands out so much.

*I am not saying the YC companies are bad, I am just saying they seem to be of the same quality as what is out there. I would expect recent YC companies to have a higher quality signal than what is out there.

<comment><USER14> It's important to keep in mind YC was judging these companies based on their long term goals, whereas we can only judge them based on their version 1.0.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I am the only who is thinking that we most be near the end of a cycle when the business ideas become more and more blantly illegal? I mean: Backpack - <USER3> evasion. Unwind Me - the world's oldest profession.

Here are two new ideas for the next round at ycombinator:

Wind me up - natural herbs and mushrooms for expanding your mind brought to you in an anonymous brown package at the confort of your home. Not sure where you are? Don't worry - our iPhone app is location aware.

Smackpack - having trouble with your neighbours? We send two guys to talk with them about the noise they made last night or collect any debt they may have incurred. Use our welldesigned iPhone app with in-app purchases and referral programmes.

<comment><USER16> You named two out of the dozens of companies funded as your examples. Of the two you named you are assuming unwind.me is a cover for sexual services. Have any proof of this? No, you don't. It's quite disrespectful to people in that profession to assume doing their job will turn into offering sexual services. Come on.

And what about tax evasion? You still pay taxes on the items that are bought. The point is getting access to items not normally available in other countries for international shipping. Again, any proof of tax evasion? I don't think so.

Take your negative comments to Reddit or 4chan where you can mindlessly share mindless opinions with no merit. This isn't the place for that. If you want to have a productive discussion, offer some proof to back up your wild claims.

<comment><USER15> Are you sure you are not the one who is negative?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> TicketLabs will have an uphill battle against TicketMaster, but man do I hope they succeed.

<comment><USER11> How is Ticketmaster Evil in the first place ? Do they pocket a lot of commission ?

<comment><USER17> I can't speak to their overhead, but the fees certainly seem excessive and in some cases insulting (e.g. at-home ticket printing convenience fees).

They have also been criticized, sued, and investigated for anti-trust practices. In fairness, I don't think any of these challenges have been successful (though some have been settled and the terms are not public).

<comment><USER11> Hmm .. Fair enough ! I do recollect paying more for being able to print at home (or) to get it on the mobile app. But what's evil on the side of the musicians . Do they get swindled like this too ?

<comment><USER17> My (very limited) understanding of the lawsuits brought by musicians is that it stems from a desire (by the artist) to keep ticket prices low. TicketMaster has exclusive contracts with many venues, preventing artists from selling tickets directly to fans or through other ticketing services.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I'd be interested in trying out MTailor if they had an Android client and will ship to England. Is an Android client in the works?

<comment><USER19> Yep - an Android app is in the works (probably 3-4 months out). We're happy to ship to England.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Just ordered my glowing plant seeds today, really excited to see how it turns out.

</comment><comment><USER21> whoa, backpack is classic airb&b/uber-style YC: compelling demand + scary pushback.

For bonus fireworks, do it for textbooks.

</comment><comment><USER22> isnt theorem and greentoe very similar?

<comment><USER23> It certainly looks that way. Perhaps YC is trying to hedge their "name-your- price" bets by accepting two businesses with this pricing model?</comment></comment>


Why we think giant pterosaurs could fly (2018) - <AUTHOR> http://markwitton-com.blogspot.com/2018/05/why-we-think-giant-pterosaurs-could-fly.html <comment><USER2> This is an exceptionally kickass piece of popular science writing. Chock full of interesting facts that (AFAICT) preserve scientific objectivity and skepticism without getting too technical for a lay audience to follow.

Also:

> Mike has presented calculations that these giants would have sufficient on- > board energy resources to travel the planet, their speed and flight range > being sufficient to ignore most geographical barriers.

This made me, sitting at my computer in 2019, a little bit scared of pterosaurs. The thing can come from the other side of the world and gobble you up like a snack.

<comment><USER3> There are plenty of birds that travel between southern Africa and Europe every year. Sure, they take breaks unlike the Pterosaur would've, but still, it's not _that_ special.

<comment><USER4> They're not as big as a flying giraffe with a gigantic beak, though.

<comment><USER5> There was a stork that migrated to Europe with an African spear lodged through it. That's something.

Actually, many of them: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pfeilstorch](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pfeilstorch)

<comment><USER6> ..and this was how we learned about migration? That's such an absurd way to discover it

<comment><USER7> This was accidental, but I think tagging individual birds to make them identifiable by humans is still the primary way we learn about migration. The alternative of continuously tracking individual birds wasn't possible until late 20th century and I think still is fairly expensive.

<comment><USER6> Sure, it's just a comical predecessor to tagging

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I tend to think atmospheric pressure was higher then:

[https://gdesilvestri.wordpress.com/2015/10/13/was-the- atmosp...](https://gdesilvestri.wordpress.com/2015/10/13/was-the-atmospheric- pressure-different-at-the-time-of-dinosaurs-o-levenspiel-a-small-tribute/)

<comment><USER9> Here's another article discussing various theories about past earth's atmosphere:

[http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/archive/ci/30/i12/html/12learn...](http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/archive/ci/30/i12/html/12learn.html)

<comment><USER10> Actually a newer "version" by the same chemist who's text was just copy pasted by that Ing. (i.e. Engineer) guy (who names that copy-pasting "A small Tribute")

That (the newer one, from your link) was published by: "Chemical innovation 30 (12), 50-55, 2000"

Compare with the peer reviewed, not confirming "many times higher pressure" claim:

[http://science.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/101](http://science.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/101)

"We show from the analysis of nitrogen and argon isotopes in fluid inclusions trapped in 3.0- to 3.5-billion-year-old hydrothermal quartz that the partial pressure of N2 of the Archean atmosphere was lower than 1.1 bar, possibly as low as 0.5 bar, and had a nitrogen isotopic composition comparable to the present-day one. These results imply that dinitrogen did not play a significant role in the thermal budget of the ancient Earth and that the Archean partial pressure of CO2 was probably lower than 0.7 bar."

There is sure possibility that the pressure changed through the times, but not alk "proofs" are real proofs.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> As a bonus, the article explains why we never got birds that big: birds depend on their feet for help launching, where the extra leg musculature competes with wings in the weight budget. The heavy muscles needed for azhdarchid launch are also flight muscle.

</comment><comment><USER12> Be sure to watch the quad launch video on how they believe pterosaurs actually took off: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALziqtuLxBQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALziqtuLxBQ)

<comment><USER13> Seems like a pretty poor model. Note that at the second it leaves the ground the wings aren't in a position to generate lift. Yet somehow it floats away. The wings need a down stroke to generate lift at close to zero ground speed.

I don't doubt the quad launch, just that animation of it.

<comment><USER14> Like the article says, they jump, then flap, which is also what birds and bats do.

<comment><USER15> Except birds jump with wings in position to flap. The quad launch would require moving wings into position which not only takes time, but also counteracts by providing drag.

I trust the simulations mentioned in the article take this into account, but the grandparent is right that this is not it all obvious from the video. In fact the video shows very leven flight motion while the wings are brought up, which absolutely would not be the case.

<comment><USER11> You did notice that the video just shows the bones, right? Flight surfaces and muscles will cost you extra.

The key bit is right at the end, showing launch in real time. There is no descent for lack of lift because there is no time for it to happen in. While the animal is still rising from the jump, the wings swing out and take up the load, in a fractional second.

It would be terrifying to have it happen toward you, even as it swept over.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> If you're looking for more details, check out _On the Size and Flight Diversity of Giant Pterosaurs, the Use of Birds as Pterosaur Analogues and Comments on Pterosaur Flightlessness_ : [https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0013982)

</comment><comment><USER16> i knew they were big, but oh man I didnt know they were that big, amazing

</comment><comment><USER17> "Predicted giant flight velocities exceeded 90 kph and, in that 90 second flapping burst, giant azhdarchids would cover several kilometres - plenty of distance to seek areas of uplift such as deflected winds or thermals."

I have a small issue with this statement. 90kph for 90 seconds is only enough for a bit more than 2km of flight and probably even less since accelerating to this speed would take not be almost instantaneous either.

<comment><USER18> "Several" may have been an exaggeration, but their quadrapedal launch makes it look like they accelerated very quickly, unlike what we naturally envision when thinking of birds.

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

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Perhaps ptersaurs could also use their long necks and big heads to start their center of gravity higher before launch?

Dropping a mass (head/neck) from higher up while launching keeps the center of gravity about the same requiring much less effort for the critical "get off the ground" phase.

Perhaps the article addressed this; I'm only halfway through.

<comment><USER5> Pelicans, which have always reminded me of pterosaurs, seem to do this slightly when they launch.

Video I took the other week of one: [https://serio.com.au/images/projects/eyre-peninsula- videos/S...](https://serio.com.au/images/projects/eyre-peninsula- videos/SERIO-20190301-0266.mp4)

<comment><USER20> It's very different actually - the pelican, as every other bird, uses its hind legs to push off, while the pterosaurs (and some bats) push off with their forelegs - and the latter ones are very powerful and can be re-used for flight, unlike the powerful hindlegs of large birds which are just dead weight when they're airborne.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> " _The second source of frustration is that, away from technical literature, discussions of giant pterosaur flight frequently suffer from major cases of Dunning-Kruger effect, especially when parties have knowledge of planes. I 've experienced this a lot in my career, and not just in the wilds of social media: many of my TV and film consultancy jobs have required defending basic tenets of pterosaur anatomy - even their basic, there-for-all-to-see proportions preserved in articulated fossils - to folks who just can't or won't believe what the fossils show. Having a casual understanding of engine- driven man-made flying machines does not equate to knowing all there is about everything that has ever flown, but you would not know this from some conversations._"

It's nice to know that humanity is the same everywhere.

As for me, I'm more curious about their heads. For an animal the size of a giraffe, they're feckin' huge. What's up with that?

</comment><comment><USER22> Reading through this, it reminds me of pointless arguing of whether superman can beat goku. There's a lot of logic and maths, from both sides, yet in the end it would be impossible to know the answer.

<comment><USER20> Logic and maths don't work for Superman and Goku. Logic and maths do work for giant pterosaurs though. That's a big difference.</comment></comment>


The Microsoft Surface Killer Feature:  It's open. - <AUTHOR> Just got a chance to view the presentation here:
http://cdn-smooth.ms-studiosmedia.com/news/mp4_mq/06182012_Surface_750k.mp4
This could be a very telling probe into what consumers want.  There is not disputing the fact that the Windows ecosystem dwarfs anything else out there.  If I heard the numbers correctly, more Windows computers are shipped in a single year than the entire installed based of Macs.  Not a put-down, just a fact.
As an iOS software and hardware developer one of the things that I continue to clash with is the nearly despotic hold Apple has on, well, everything.  Developing hardware for any iOS device can be a very expensive and painful experience.  For example, you can't develop a universal serial cable.  Yes, there's a serial port on that connector but Apple will not let you use it without a decryption chip and you only get authorization to make a cable for a specific app.  To think that in 2012 you can't get unencumbered API access to a serial and a USB port is just, well, unreal.
Microsoft Surface is, by definition, open.  I will be able to run any and all Windows software on this device the minute it becomes available.  That, again, dwarfs the Mac/iOS ecosystem.  I will be able to run Solidworks on a tablet.  How cool is that?
It'll be interesting to see how consumers react to this reality.  I have a feeling that, if pricing is right, adoption will be swift.
Of course, we'll continue to work with and produce products for the iOS landscape, but it'd sure be very interesting to have an open option out there where you could experiment and offer things that Apple simply will not let you approach.  It's about creativity, not technology.
EDIT: Apple is, of course, entitled to rule their own ecosystem as they wish.  No issues there.  Their toys.  Their rules.  Not complaining.  Just presenting facts. <comment><AUTHOR> Here's a another one: Multi-user!

Finally, a tablet where you can setup users with different privileges. You can setup accounts for the kids so they can play their games and not have access to anything they should not be able to touch. You can setup an account for house guests or for those occasions when you know you might be handing the device to someone who, as an example, should not be able to log into your Facebook or eBay account automatically.

Multi-user is also great for business applications. Take medical applications where the nurses have access to what they need and nothing more via user-level controls.

I think these guys are going in the right direction.

Where is the Surface "mini"?

</comment><comment><USER2> It still has the largest installed base, but Android is already shipping about as many devices as Windows one every year, and it's growing much faster than Windows devices. There are estimates for 5 billion smartphones in a few years. So there is a lot of room for growth for Android.

My point is that Windows won't have the largest ecosystem for long. Plus, it's not the "most exciting" ecosystem right now to developers. Most developers will develop for iOS first for years to come, and also Android. It remains to be seen how they will embrace Metro.

<comment><USER3> Microsoft IS the most exciting ecosystem for developers (at least to those who tried .NET or WinRT). It's such a better platform to develop for than, let's say, iOS.

<comment><USER4> No, iOS is a much better platform to develop for than, say, .NET.

My unsupported assertion of personal preference is equally valid.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The expensive Surface is open. The cheaper one isn't.

<comment><AUTHOR> And, why is that a problem?

<comment><USER6> That contradicts your original point?

<comment><AUTHOR> No it doesn't. There will be a Windows Surface offering that is 100% Windows 8 Intel-based. That is what my entire post is about. You are choosing to focus on the other unit. I devoted 0% of my post to that other offering.

The fact that MS if offering a version of Surface that will not run standard Windows programs is of no consequence. There will be lots of valid use cases for that device. What is important here is that MS if offering consumers something very valuable: A choice.

<comment><USER4> > You are choosing to focus on the other unit. I devoted 0% of my post to that > other offering.

Or,min other words, you're choosing to ignore the other unit, where the consumer isn't offered a choice

<comment><USER6> Which the consumer will buy, believing that all Windows 8s are the same.

<comment><USER4> Yeah, that's a problem I don't have a clear idea of how they'll handle. And since the x86 one will likely run whatever legacy windows apps you want, I see a lot of pissed off people who feel like MS is cheating them somehow.*

I'm perfectly willing to be wrong, though.

*When the cheap model won't do that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I was actually expecting Microsoft to launch gesture control in their tablet .....

May be some day in near future.... I am sure very soon, they will integrate kinect and windows, and then ..... well everything changes ...

and rightly said ... iPad is a toy and for kids ... Surface is a gadget and for the grown ups ...

</comment><comment><USER8> Actually, it appears that Windows is actually on track to move down into second place in OS market share behind Android, and into third place next year behind Android and iOS. [http://www.asymco.com/2012/06/19/the-evolution-of- the-comput...](http://www.asymco.com/2012/06/19/the-evolution-of-the- computing-value-chain/)

I'm actually torn about the Windows platform on this form factor. Solidworks on a Surface - or Core IMPACT (scary!) sounds really cool. The installed base really is awesome. On the other hand, Blackhole, Zeus, TDSS, and everything else will also run on day one (or day zero) - and they'll run on the cheap version or the expensive one.

</comment><comment><USER9> Great point. Another great feature is USB. My investment in various USB devices isn't obsoleted.

</comment><comment><USER10> One feature that many will overlook is that it also has mouse support built in. Using Citrix or similar apps on an iPad is a waste of time because there's absolutely no support for anything other than the touch screen.</comment>


Guide to Equity Compensation - <AUTHOR> https://www.holloway.com/g/equity-compensation <comment><USER2> Startup ISOs are totally broken, and VCs and founders would rather write 30 page treatises on all their complexities (of course, glossing over the 99 ways to screw employees), than actually try to improve them.

A small percentage of people got rich off options a handful of times a long times ago, and since then countless people have been screwed.

Public RSUs for stock you can sell immediately on the open market are fantastic.

Common ISOs are toilet paper. At a _minimum_ you should get a 10 year exercise window, and if the CEO tries to say that would make it so early employees can hurt cap tables for future rounds, he's basically saying he doesn't consider your equity grant to be real equity as it deserves to be clawed back for the sin of not wanting to stick around for the 15 years it takes startups to IPO these days.

These exact same people will try to convince you that their ISOs are a valid subsitute to liquid RSUs, THEN say that they don't deserve to be "preferred" instead of "common" because the VCs put in actual money (hint: so did you if you turned down a public company to work at the startup. Biggest difference is only that you're way less diversified).

Am I ranting? Of course, but if VCs and founders are going to continually "educate" engineers on their equity offers, engineers need to stand up and inform each other of the pitfalls. I know countless people, myself included, who have been screwed by ISOs. You can actually lose money because the 30 day window forces you to pay strike price + taxes on gains, then you find out that the CEO sold the company at a bargain so liquidation preference kicked in and he just took a huge retention bonus instead.

The way out of this mess is not Github treatises on how to evaluate your equities. The way out is for engineers to continually tell founders/VCs that they will pick public companies instead of startups until ISOs get fixed. If ISOs screwed over VCs instead of engineers, they would have gone to DC and gotten this fixed 10 years ago. At an absolute minimum you shouldn't have to pay a dime in taxes until you've actually realized some money in your checkings account. VCs/founders don't care because they don't have to care because engineers are still too gullible and accept these bogus deals.

<comment><USER3> VCs and startup founders are shooting themselves in the foot. It makes very little financial sense to work at a startup vs FAANG these days.

<comment><USER4> Yeah exactly. Early in my career, I loved working at startups, and aside from compensation would prefer to do so again, but the opportunity cost now is way too high. The one advantage I see at a startup is that if you pick one with a decent engineering culture, you can learn a lot more than most FAANG roles (although you'll probably learn more at the best FAANG roles than at good startup roles? Unclear.)

<comment><USER5> I think startups are a bit of a crapshoot even in this regard. You'll learn a lot at a good one, but could potentially learn a lot of bad habits at a bad one.

<comment><USER6> > I think startups are a bit of a crapshoot even in this regard. You'll learn > a lot at a good one, but could potentially learn a lot of bad habits at a > bad one.

I've seen far more shit habits from habitual startup employees than those who come from Big N. The people who come from big public companies are almost always better at best practices and writing code than startup employees. I don't believe working at startups really gives you good sense for architecture, scalability, readability, or a variety of aspects of programming. It's almost all about getting that short term dollar to get to the next stage of funding. So, raw first time implementation speed gets prioritized over all other aspects. I don't find many startups have very strong technical voices either. CTOs frequently being product people in disguise, etc. That's my experience...

<comment><USER7> That is all true but you'll get one thing working at a startup that you don't get at a big company. A sense of legitimate urgency. I've worked at both and at a big company things are glacially slow and engineers love to build big "enterprise" solutions to tiny problems that don't need it.

At a functioning startup if you overbuild you die. Everybody working at one knows this so people are much more pragmatic.

At a large company, your over engineered crap is lost in the noise.

<comment><USER6> > That is all true but you'll get one thing working at a startup that you > don't get at a big company. A sense of legitimate urgency. I've worked at > both and at a big company things are glacially slow and engineers love to > build big "enterprise" solutions to tiny problems that don't need it.

The "sense of legitimate urgency" is a bunch of bullshit. It's just as made up as it is at any other company. I've worked at startups from seed stage to unicorn and a lot of the real urgent things aren't things that engineering needs to do - it's other shit and usually has to do with partnering with someone. And that usually isn't an engineering problem. Engineering is rarely the blocker for things being rolled out. It's usually that product can't determine what the right product is - business can't get the partners they need - etc.

At a small company - your overengineered crap becomes the institutional bullshit that holds the rest of engineering back for years because no one can replace it because there's no time for refactoring. At least at a big company you can throw away those solutions that don't work for people. At a small company - it becomes the shit that holds you back from doing things efficiently _for years_.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I worked for a startup founder and personally watched him screw advisers out of stock agreements using different tactics, from technicalities in the agreements to outright not honoring the agreements when he knew it was disadvantageous for them to pursue him legally. He gloated about it and would speak very highly of all the ways he could manipulate situations.

In the end, I left and the startup went under, and I told him directly that I didn't trust him (to his surprise). The lesson that I learned was that I'd be a fool to take equity in a startup, given all the ways I could be screwed, and my lack of resources to pursue any legal recourse. Cash only, from now on.

<comment><USER9> I think this is the wrong lesson and people are generally too extreme when valuing this.

Are there risks with ISOs? Yes.

Should you value them 1:1 with cash? Probably not.

Should you value them at $0? Probably not.

People should make decisions based on the company, what they're doing, and how much they trust the board/founders.

It'd be a mistake to categorically dismiss equity since that's the best way to leverage your human capital into wealth.

It's also a mistake to think that equity is valued exactly at what the company is advertising it as when trying to hire you.

There's some risk, but engineers should consider their options.

<comment><USER10> I think the first thing someone should consider when looking at jobs is their risk tolerance.

If you don't have two parents who are alive and healthy and own their home mortgage-free, you probably have a low risk tolerance. Go work at a FAANG; ISOs have an effective value of $0 to you.

If your grandpa can afford to give you $10000 to start a startup, or if you can always move into your parents' basement when you become broke, then I would think about a startup. You can tolerate owing hundreds of thousands in taxes in the worst case, and the higher expected value (and higher personal growth, in the early years) is worthwhile.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Basically everyone knows by now, being an employee at an early stage startup is a suckers bet. You're literally working to make someone else rich. Just go work for FAANG, or highest cash comp, and jam that money into tech stocks.

<comment><USER12> This is often true from a raw compensation point of view, but it isn't as if the jobs are fungible.

Nothing wrong with deciding a startup is best for you, so long as you are going into eyes open and don't believe some nonsense like "the options will make up for the salary difference".

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> This piece is bullshit

"RSUs are often considered less preferable to grantees since they remove control over when you owe tax."

Who the fuck cares when you pay tax? A small % of people will have enough value to worry about that. The vast majority of people tho have a bigger worry: the stock is worth less than what they pay to exercise, because when you leave your company you have to exercise em or lose em.

Dual trigger RSUs solve that. I don't have to pay a freakin' dime whether I stay or leave. I keep my vested RSUs and ride off into the sunset and if they someday become worth something, the company just withholds some shares to pay the tax. Again no up front cash when I leave the company and no large tax bill.

AND I get to keep the whole value of the share. For ISO you only get delta between exercise price and strike price. If my RSUs are $5 or $15 apiece who cares, it's all risk-free gravy / upside. If I have ISOs I'm worrying about strike price and whether it's worth it to exercise.

I don't know who in their right mind would want ISOs over RSUs.

</comment><comment><USER14> I have had a number of successful exits but the bottom line is that you're (probably) not getting nearly enough options to offset the risk.

Pasted from a comment I made in an earlier thread:

80% of startups fail and 20% succeed in some fashion. Which means if you normally make $50,000 and take a $5,000 paycut (no rsu) to work there you will lose $20,000 over the 4 year vesting period. 80% of the time when the startup goes bust you make 0 on equity and still lost money due to the paycut. For a total of 8x20 or $160,000 loss.

The two times you are successful you make 2xEquity.

This means your equity has to be at least worth $80,000 each time you succeed.... just to break even.

Factoring in the risk of your equity being 0 you should be getting a LOT more equity.

It's very similar to calculating expected value in poker.

<comment><USER15> Doing EV calculation with personal finances is also tricky, because you don't get repeated trials. In poker, assuming you have an appropriate bankroll, you should be able to make risky but positive-EV bets hundreds of times, such that you will realize that EV. For job choices, you're not going to get more than a few cracks at it. You really need to be more concerned with risk of ruin, especially when the ratios are greater.

The difference between FAANG and early-stage startups can easily be a 50% pay cut, with at least 5 years until liquidation. If you have a 50% chance of that bet paying off, then maybe it's okay - you can do this twice a decade, and you're reasonably likely to end up at least even over a career. If you have a 5% chance of the bet paying off, even if the rewards are large enough to make the EV even or positive, that's an insane amount of risk to take unless you're already financially independent, because over a career you're not likely to win even once.

This is one of the fundamental power imbalances between labor and capital: Capital can diversify. To go back to the poker analogy, VCs are playing cash games - they can take 100 bets of which they expect only 2 to pan out. Employees are in a short-stack tournament - even if you make the highest-EV play, if you're going to lose most of the time, you shouldn't be going all-in.

<comment><USER14> I really like the cash game vs. short stack tournament analogy.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> So many of my friends have been screwed over by the technical nuances of equity compensation.

Started Compound ([https://withcompound.com](https://withcompound.com)) to solve this problem (we generate personalized analyses to help you understand your equity – tax implications, potential value, etc).

If you have any questions/feedback, email me: firstname.lastname@example.com.

<comment><USER17> Just out of curiosity, how does compound make money?

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> ISO + early exercise + 83(b) election + QSBS treatment is a massive win as an employee. Very favorable tax treatment, but you have to early exercise, when the strike price is equal to the FMV. If it were me, and I believed in the company, I would value the equity highly, but make sure I negotiated a signing bonus or similar that allowed me to early exercise. The 90 day window doesn't matter in that situation, although I will grant you that everyone's financial situation is different, and that having to pay for the stock at all is a drawback. You also have to trust that the founders are going to have your back and not screw you. This is a judgment and personality call.

Context: sold my company a month ago, all employees with options that had early exercised got full acceleration, and even unexercised optionholders were paid out as if they had exercised and been fully accelerated (though did not get similarly preferable tax treatment, obviously). Treating the employees properly (and well) was a massive part of the negotiation.

</comment><comment><USER19> I think the biggest gap that this guide and every one I've seen like it that they undersell the positive value for employees of the Restricted Stock Award (RSA). RSAs can be significantly better than ISOs in many situations.

There is no _actual_ reason why companies can only offer RSAs to founders and super early employees. The taxes get trickier once the strike price gets high enough, but employees should have the choice to maximize their equity value!

From the very beginning of founding my company and still 5 years later, we offer our employees the choice to take their stock as RSAs, options, or a combination of the two. We also teach a mandatory "Stock 101" course every quarter for new employees that is a 1.5hr version of this guide. Too many employees' (engineers in particular in my experience), don't actually understand how their equity compensation works and I think it's the responsibility of the company to educate them -- both for their current role and possible future job offers.

<comment><USER20> Can you offer any details on the tax consequences of offering ISOs versus restricted stock? While there has been a ton of discussion of tax consequences for employees, the corporate incentives are less clear and yet understanding them is probably key for progress here.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> So the tl;dr is:

1\. Startups take longer to IPO, if they ever (objectively true);

2\. Liquidation preferences for VCs and preferred stock for founders may make a certain amount of sense (other comments have addressed this) but given (1), this is generally a horrible deal for employees.

3\. Any employee should outright refuse to join a startup where the agreement has any kind of clawback or any exercise period less than 10 years after the termination of employment. If you're worried about diversity of ownership then put in a right of first refusal into the contract. That's fair.

4\. E(TC) for a moderately qualified SWE at Big Tech is >$350k. Given all the above if E(TC) at the startup really needs to be at least twice that (hint: it isn't).

5\. For every story of a Google chef becoming a millionaire there's 10 stories of a Mark Pincus type who threatens to fire employees if they don't surrender some of their (unvested) options.

<comment><USER22> #2 is wrong. Founders don't get preferred stock. The link even says so:

"Typically, investors get preferred stock, and founders and employees get common stock (or stock options)."

<comment><USER23> Right, it's more that founders get sweetheart deals in acquisitions / funding rounds.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> The playbook for Equity compensation has changed dramatically in the last 20 years in drastic favor of the founders.

During the dotcom days, the number of shares that were given out was very generous. I know secretaries that made enough from IPOs in the late 90s that they could retire and buy a vineyard. Meanwhile I was a relatively early employee at a YC startup that had a successful exit. The founders made 8 figures and I made about 80k over 4 years. I would have made 10x more at a FANG with a regular comp package.

</comment><comment><USER25> The prevalent advice here is don't invest in individual stocks, even though in general you have a ton of information on a public company from financials to track record of key players to good market and product info. With startups it's suddenly OK to invest often half of your potential money into a stock surrogate with none of the above. There are many reasons to join a startup striking it rich from equity is def not a good one.

</comment><comment><USER26> Selling private shares / options on the secondary market is near impossible if the company isn't on something like SecondMarket. Right of First Refusal, Co- sale Agreements, and the challenges of sharing information with a 3rd party make this difficult. That said, has anyone succeeded and written about their experience?

<comment><USER27> If company is valuable enough smart investors will flock around the shareholders who even have very minor ownership. I was sceptical at first but then saw it happening with a profitable company I was following. I thought people were stuck with their shares, but since the company was profitable it attracted investors looking for better returns than public stocks.

<comment><USER12> People show up when the risk gets low enough.

<comment><USER28> De-risking is something a company will go through progressively.

      1. An idea? Risky.
      2. + funding? Less risky.
      3. + proof of concept? More less risky.
      4. + an MVP? Less risky still.
      5. + paying customers and metrics? Less risky again.

<comment><USER12> Right. And when there is a bunch of illiquid stock around but the risk has reduced enough people will sniff around for (or create) a secondary market. Usually well past your #5 though.

If the risk is too high they are all happy to let you carry it for a while.

<comment><USER28> If the risk is low then the rewards will be low as well. I think the problem that VCs face in seed is the deluge of pitches. In A rounds, things have settled down.

<comment><USER12> We are specifically talking about secondary markets, though. They only really happen I think when the risk is fairly low but people are illiquid, or occasionally when the hype is insane.

This is a separate thing from the natural evolution of risk over startup life. That happens to every one. Viable secondary markets letting you take some money out early don't happen in most cases.

<comment><USER28> Yes, you're right and I wasn't following that. I haven't had experience with secondary markets. I had to wait a few years for an IPO and then there's the lockup.

<comment><USER27> > Yes, you're right and I wasn't following that. I haven't had experience with > secondary markets. I had to wait a few years for an IPO and then there's the > lockup.

If the company is valuable and you want cash out fast, then you can just send messages directly to investors, if you have any contacts. There are always some investors looking for that kind of deals. However it has to be significant value, like 100k +. And naturally the price will suck, if IPO is in the horizin it makes almost always sense to wait.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> It should be known about a thing called clawbacks. If you don't read the contract they could write something where that if at anytime you exercise they reserve the right to buy back what you exercised.

A FinTech company I worked for use to do this. To my surprise even the finance guys were in the dark are about the whole thing... nobody bothered to read the contract. The company is called Neptune Financial and basically every employee who works their is screwed in terms of equity compensation.

<comment><USER30> One of our potential investors pressed this very hard: "if they don't stick it out, why should they get paid?" and so on.

We rejected them and went with someone sane. but I was shocked. this was coming from an upper-tier VC firm.

One thing I am happy about is we never took bad money. Our series A firm was fantastic.

<comment><USER29> I'm ok with that reasoning if you do something like a vesting period with a cliff at IPO. Make it clear tot he employee that the deal is... the employee only gets something if they stick it out. The thing with clawbacks is it's 100% deception. The 1 year cliff and vesting are all deliberate lies and manipulation.

<comment><USER30> I would not be OK with this policy even if it was spelled out, doubly so because it was a prospective series C investor that wanted it added to the existing (retroactively) and future options agreement. People often convince themselves that startups will IPO or whatever because that's a pre-requisite for joining one.

People don't always make great decisions. Part of being a good person is accepting that caveat emptor is not an ethos that people should embrace.

I talked with an engineer - most excellent - who was employee 1 at a startup that, at one point, became worth close to a billion dollars. He did not early exercise because they flubbed their 409a evaluation and his share would have been a $100k+ commitment at the time, and he'd just come out of two startups back to back that had failed after he'd EE'd and gone to zero.

At year 6, he was absolutely almost ready to gnaw his own leg off, but he stuck it out to the IPO. He was absolutely miserable, he wanted to go. They would not convert his shares to NSOs and he could not afford the multi-million dollar tax bill he'd receive if he ee'd then. Good thing, though. It was grueling but he got through it and they did IPO.

And then they crashed to essentially zero before the lockup expired and he got essentially nothing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Best advice would be: don't do this yourself. Hire a lawyer, have them redline your stock compensation agreement. Cost depends on complexity, but regardless of complexity it's insignificant in comparison to getting screwed by e.g. vested stock repurchase rights, or not being able to exercise vested stock if you're fired (which you likely will be, if the situation calls for screwing you out of your vested shares, particularly if you stand to get a lot of them). I paid less than $500 for the review. Initial version of the agreement pretty much guaranteed I'd be screwed under all sorts of circumstances: from leaving on my own, to getting fired for (possibly made up!) cause, to company getting acquired.

If the prospective employer does not agree to the redlined version, walk away. The founders and their lawyers will tell you it's what everyone else signs, but don't believe that for a minute: founders and investors themselves have different agreements, and "everybody else" are idiots if they sign something as important as this without a legal review.

Remember, once that startup is worth something, that's when the knives come out. And come out they will if your agreement is not 100% ironclad, which is not something you can do yourself.

<comment><USER22> This is bad advice for the vast majority of startup employees (basically anyone who is not an executive, and even most executives) because companies (rightfully so) will not accept redlined stock agreements for individual employees. In which case the employee will have paid a lawyer a bunch of money for for nothing in a way that is entirely foreseeable.

Deciding that working at a startup (with the comp structures that come with that) isn't right for you? Totally fine. Startups aren't for everyone.

But don't go waste money on a lawyer who's work will 100% for sure just get thrown in the garbage.

TBH any lawyer who even takes this work is either bad (because they don't realize the work is a waste) or a scammer (because they know and don't care).

<comment><USER32> Even if most startups won't accept a redlined contract it's a still important to understand how much your compensated and what the terms are, and $500 doesn't seem like an unreasonable amount for that.

Hacker news is filled with stories of individuals who worked very hard for very long to make a company successful and their compensation was far less than they understood when they signed their contract.

See Toptal for an example.

<comment><USER22> I agree!

Asking a lawyer to read a contract and explain it to you: totally worth it.

I will actually clarify even further and say that redlines on employment contracts are definitely possible. It's really just for equity agreements where you aren't going to make any headway.

<comment><USER32> Oh ok I misunderstood you, that makes sense.

Yeah, my understanding is the same as yours that equity agreements are the hardest items to negotiate. So hard it's probably impossible unless you would make a strategic impact on the organization.(like you're an executive or one of the top 20 nlp experts in the world)

No founder wants to explain to a potential investor how their equity agreements work and then have to continue with "except Joe"

<comment><USER31> >> "except Joe"

Very easy to avoid this: just don't put abusive clauses in there that Joe's lawyer will inevitably redline, and don't count on him signing it without checking with a lawyer.

<comment><USER32> The point is that by the time your lawyer is redlining the contract it's too late and too painful to change.

So your options as a potential employee (for 99% of cases) are ask for something else to offset the onerous terms like more equity, vacation, or salary or find another company.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> There should be a federal law prohibiting issuing any type of equity compensation (including options) without also routinely reporting relevant details (ownership %, FMV, dilution, preferences, etc) to holders. The single biggest problem with options is that the cap table is completely opaque to employees and the founder is incentivized to operate as a lying sack of shit redlining the reality distortion field.

</comment><comment><USER34> As always, the best time to join a startup is when it's raised several rounds and you are at least a staff engineer. You'll get a million or more over a four year vest and much higher chances of IPO which if it's good, it may 2-10x your stock.*

Unless your Uber and than a lot of those folks got fucked. Shrug.

<comment><USER35> Agreed on later stage; disagree on need to be that high level. High growth companies are actually better for lower leveled engineers as they can grow faster.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> Is there any way to confirm that the IRS received my 83(b) and processed it correctly?

<comment><USER22> Send them two copies as well as self addresses stamped envelope and a letter requesting them to date stamp one copy and send it back to you. They will do so.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> Josh here (one of the authors). Do also feel free to read the latest version of this at [https://www.holloway.com/g/equity- compensation](https://www.holloway.com/g/equity-compensation)

It's the same source as what you can find on GitHub but at Holloway we're working to make long-form docs like this easier to read on the web. PRs or feedback here on the Holloway reader welcome. :)

</comment><comment><USER38> This couldn't have been posted at a better time for me. I've been talking with some people more in the know on this and was advised by someone to ask for a revenue share in addition to my equity. This person felt the equity offering was low and I should protect myself with a revenue share. Does anyone have resources or additional insight on rev share agreements?

</comment><comment><USER39> Equity compensation is like your bonus. The chance you are getting it is low so shouldn't be taken into account. Maybe I have burned too many times by discretionary bonuses :)

<comment><USER40> This definitely differs but many companies give out annual bonuses to pretty much everyone.

<comment><USER39> My experience they always come up with a reason not give you a bonus. Hence I never consider it to get it.

So when a company says we can't offer X but you get 10% bonus each year so you make your old salary Y. I will just pass because I will end up taking a pay cut

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> Regarding private companies' RSUs, anyone here has heard of a company eligible for and opted-in 83(i) elections? (Which lets the employee defer tax for up to 5 years)

</comment><comment><USER42> I wish there was a canadian version of this.

<comment><USER12> Canadian isn't much different really in practice, but there isn't an 83(b) equivalent iirc. The specific tax detail vary, but from 30,000 feet it looks pretty similar.

Overall it's pretty comparable to the non-SV US. There is less VC & PE money floating around (generally investment is more conservative). Common stock options or grants are going to be a gamble for the same reasons as in the US.

Tax wise, you capital rates rather than normal (i.e. 50% treated as regular income). You may get a gain/loss relative to FMV in year you exercise, same as US.

Most of the advice carries over directly, mutatis mutandis.

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> What's a typical equity compensation for a mid level contributor in a post series A company ? Val ~ 30mm

<comment><USER44> Given nothing more to go on, maybe 5 to 10bp.

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> Is there a guide like this for founders? Or late coming cofounders, early c-levels?

</comment><comment><USER46> How about LLCs? Any guide?

</comment><comment><USER47> Another good resource: [https://www.holloway.com/g/equity- compensation](https://www.holloway.com/g/equity-compensation)

<comment><USER48> It's the same data, built by the same person (jlevy).

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> This is the old version of The Holloway Guide to Equity Compensation which you can read here for free: [https://www.holloway.com/g/equity- compensation](https://www.holloway.com/g/equity-compensation)

<comment><USER50> Thanks! We've switched to that from [https://github.com/jlevy/og-equity- compensation](https://github.com/jlevy/og-equity-compensation) above.</comment></comment>


The Don Stewart Method: write code every day, release a project every week - <AUTHOR> http://www.shimweasel.com/2011/05/08/the-stewart-method-how-not-to-suck

<comment><USER2> "Another flaw in the human character is that everybody wants to build and nobody wants to do maintenance." Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. quote

<comment><USER3> I love maintenance. But that's because I'm usually called in to build what should have been built in the first place.

So perhaps it's better to say that I like to make things work. And to me, working implies maintenance over time. Which itself implies that maintenance is possible and viable.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> disagree with releasing a project every week. what makes a project worth using is continued maintenance, thorough tests, comprehensiveness, and battle-tested API; not just a few snippets of code you uploaded somewhere on a sunday.

<comment><USER5> Co-incidentally, a few months back I took up this vow. My stats were bad. I completed 2 small projects every month instead of 1 per week. But still the motivation levels were higher to do something better the in next schedule.

IMO, the size of the project being small is the key.

Building bigger stuff may sound nice, but not everyone can spend time on something for too long. It's not time as in hours or days. But time as in motivation. For me long development times, without releasing prototypes would be de-motivating. I love to show it off to people and hear them call it "cool" or atleast "good idea, but not usable". So then when you have a prototype in a week, you can make your next project as working towards v1.0 of the previous week's project.

Disclaimer: The site is down, so I haven't read the post. I read the title and the comments were interesting, which pushed me to post my experience.

<comment><USER6> Could you tell us more about your projects (to whatever level of detail you're comfortable)? I'm interested in exactly what scope you were able to pull off, and if any of them turned out profitable.

<comment><USER5> Thanks for asking. I have no problems talking about them.

All the opensource stuff listed here <http://akash.im/code> since Jan-2011, were according to the 1-per-week rule and none of them commercial. The arduino ruby gem was a little bit popular. When there's only 1 project in the month, you can assume that I've been working as a remote intern or have been doing my last freelance work :)

You can see that I clearly did not keep up with the 1-per-week expected results. Like I said, it was 2 per month in the end, but I still practice it. Along with it, since last month, I also make sure I read one-interesting- paper-a-month (was the Amazon Dynamo paper last month).

Yet to work on something this month. This month, it'll mostly be a scheme interpreter (R7RS-small spec draft#1) and a light-weight key-value store for fun and then (possibly) get a job as a remote full-timer at some startup (remote jobs are tough to get I guess).

Besides, what opensource stuff do you write? (just interested in stuff and trying to make friends to collaborate).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> cached version - [http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://www.shimweasel.com/2011/05/08/the- stewart-method-how-not-to-suck)

<comment><USER8> Somewhat related, Don's site: <http://donsbot.wordpress.com/>

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> _code every day_ : writers say "write every day"

 _reduce scope_ : similar to "release early, release often", "iterate", it's always valuable to consider what is important and what is important (how can you tell? that a feature exists is more important than some quality of that existence: being easy-to-use, fast, efficient, correct for all cases, flexible, general, reliable - all those things you care about!), how can you perfect something before you know what's wrong with it? (e.g. maybe you misunderstood the problem).

I think releasing often is harder for commercial projects (who would pay for something incomplete? maybe they will if there's promise in the project, and they are _really_ concerned about a problem it can solve: _the value of code comes from user situations, not the code_ ). I should try this. What's the worse that can happen? Nothing (i.e. it's ignored).

</comment><comment><USER10> This attitude is why so many open-source projects are shit. That said, the habit of shipping often is a good one to have. But I think it's important to follow through and deliver something of quality every time you ship.

<comment><USER11> In no way is Don Stewart responsible for anything being shit.

<comment><USER10> I totally agree. My point is that misunderstood and/or misused this attitude can lead to trouble.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> In the beginning validation is more important than maintenance. A one-week project is kind of the equivalent of a developed Lean landing page; it's just there to see if the idea will begin to stick.

</comment><comment><USER13> author here. so, this was an object lesson in not running every single one of your services on a single ec2 micro instance. sorry about that.

<comment><USER14> Don't know anything about typo, but an alternative to throwing more hardware at it could be to optimize your site.

My story (redis/mongodb) peaked at the same time as yours, and my linode 1024 ($40/m), which also houses about 7 different projects, didn't go past 5% cpu usage.

Going with Disqus lets you outsource the only dynamic part of your blog post. This lets you set a long cache header, or at least to serve it from cached memory. Even if you don't outsource your comments, I bet caching the page for 2-3 minutes in memory would solve most of your problems.

Also, cache headers on your other assets wouldn't hurt. Nor would moving away from Apache. Sounds like a good weekend project :)

<comment><USER13> turns out i had typo configured to serve everything through rails, as well as having 10 instances running. not a happy combination.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> my way: write code everyday, and write at least one test case every week, and release as needed.

release every week, problem: users are unable to learn and adjust, specially humans, and of course the others' codes.

</comment><comment><USER16> The site appears to be down hard :(.

What types of projects are you talking about releasing every week? I can't imagine that they're terrible complex, are they?

</comment><comment><USER17> The only problem with building too many things is you will not have the time to give every project a chance to succeed.

<comment><USER18> I disagree. Having more released projects increases the chances that at least _one_ of them will succeed, or at least start to show some promise.

Though, it probably depends on the kinds of projects. And assuming, of course, that the quality is decent enough for a first iteration.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> I think a better variation of this method is to break down your big projects into 1 week iterations for new features. It will feel like new projects each week, you'll be adding value to a product rather than starting fresh each week.

When you're not just hacking and instead trying to profit and run a business, you need to be constantly improving and iterating.</comment>


How police used a traffic stop to take $91,800 from an innocent man - <AUTHOR> https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/12/1/16686014/phillip-parhamovich-civil-forfeiture <comment><USER2> The best way to avoid civil asset forfeiture in a traffic stop is to just not ever answer any nosy questions the officer may ask.

When pulled over, never answer questions. You don't have to.

If the police officer asks you to remain once they've written the ticket, ask if you're being detained or if you're free to go. Once they've written the ticket, the stop is over, but aggressive police will try to fool people into thinking the stop is not over. The longer they can keep you there, the more pressure they can apply.

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

<comment><USER3> Not only should you not answer questions at a traffic stop, you should never talk to the police under any circumstances.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE)

<comment><USER4> This might be a contentious question, but how did it come to this in US (likely not the only country suffering from problems with law enforcers), i.e best course of action would be to not talk to the police? I imagine if I were in say, Japan, I wouldn't have to worry about cops having it out for me (especially if I'm innocent).

<comment><USER5> The reason you don't talk to cops in the US or Canada (and some other countries, I assume) is by law your refusal isn't taken as an indication of guilt. So _you have nothing to gain_ and everything to lose.

Police interrogations aren't like normal conversations. Even if you're innocent, if you misspeak it goes on the record the way you said it. Think about how many times you've been in a normal conversation and had to go back and clarify something you just said. Your friends are going to give you the benefit of the doubt; a prosecutor can use that kind of thing to make it look like you're changing your story.

There are countries in which your refusal to answer questions can be a factor in determining your guilt at a later trial, so you _have_ to answer questions. But that's not a good thing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> He needs an indisputable paper trail showing that the money was his. That's a lot of cash and there's little reason to keep all of your legitimate fiat savings in cash like that.

<comment><USER7> I'm not sure of how to read your post, but you seem to be implying that the burden is on him to prove that the money is his, when he wasn't doing anything illegal by carrying it, and nobody has alleged otherwise.

<comment><USER6> He already said it wasn't his and that he didn't know how it was hidden in his car. Whether under duress or not, the authorities aren't giving the money back as a result.

Such proof is now needed.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> TLDR;

>Parhamovich said the money was a friend's.

</comment><comment><USER9> No one should carry that much in cash ever.

<comment><USER10> That's their decision to make.

And why not? It's _their_ money.

<comment><USER11> There was a lottery winner somewhere who casually carried a few hundred thousand with him in his pickup truck. Parked it in front of a strip club. It got stolen, thieves got his truck and money. May have recovered some, but lots of people thought it was foolish to do so. Even if that's anyone's right.

It's just an anecdote, and not trying to sway one way or the other.

<comment><USER3> That lottery winner was worth tens of millions, pretty sure he didn't miss it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12>
      Parhamovich said he prefers having his cash with him on hand
      in case opportunities present themselves to buy, for example, new instruments.

Civil forfeiture is shady as hell, but his reasoning for regularly carrying that much cash is flimsier than a chromebook.

<comment><USER3> He can state any legal reason he chooses. It gives the police no right to take it from him.</comment></comment>