iOS 7 Tech Talks - <AUTHOR> https://developer.apple.com/tech-talks/

<comment><USER2> Best part: "We'll be posting videos of the sessions shortly after the last event"

<comment><USER3> what do you mean "best part"?

<comment><USER4> Probably that a couple of orders of magnitude more people will get to see them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This seems like a great supplement for folks couldn't get to go to WWDC because it was sold out.... WWDC on Tour basically....

<comment><USER6> As I've already gone to WWDC, would there be any benefit to going?

<comment><USER7> As someone who wasn't able to get tickets from network issues, please don't. :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I went to one of these in Toronto a few years back and it was great.

Pity there isn't a web track like they had back then.

<comment><USER9> I went to the one in the Netherlands in november 2008. At the time, one half of the workshops were about making web apps for iPhoneOS and the other half was about developing for the then recently launched App Store. It was a great experience because there were a lot of Apple employees to ask technical questions.

<comment><USER10> That series was also pretty long, and went to a lot more cities.

<comment><USER9> I'm not sure what your point is, but the one I went to was pretty intimate (<200 third party developers but dozens of developers employed by Apple) which made it a unique experience for me, vs WWDC. I'd love to go to another Apple event with that ratio 3rd party devs to Apple devs.

I'd definitely like for Apple to include the Netherlands again. Since the one I took part in, they haven't included it in their World Tours. I might go to Berlin, but it's not exactly close to where I live and I'd risk Apple sending German speaking devs.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Well, I applied for mine. Is it free? Seems like it. That's a pretty cool move from Apple (yeah yeah, of course it's in their benefit, but still).

<comment><USER12> Usually is free, I was lucky enough to get a spot at one last year. Really great event other than a few scheduling snags. The access to the Apple employees is probably the biggest perk!

</comment></comment><comment> bulte-rs Just signed up for the Berlin event; would be my first time at an Apple event so I'm keeping my fingers crossed.

For people who have attended a previous event: How long before the actual events did you get your invite?

</comment><comment><USER13> I just applied to the SF one. It would be great if I could get into one of these. It would be my first in person Apple event.

</comment><comment><USER14> São Paulo session last time in iOS 5 was great and really crowded. Too bad we're out this time :(

</comment><comment><USER15> Is it just me or do those icons look like they were drawn by a 5-year-old with a crayon?

<comment><USER16> I wouldn't go that far, but they are bad. I think it will take some time for Apple's designers to adjust to the new style. Or maybe this was so far down the designer food chain that it got plopped onto the desk of an over-worked and under qualified graphic intern.

<comment><USER17> Can you clarify what's bad about them?

<comment><USER18> I don't think they're that bad, but they're inconsistent.

Part of the whole thing about going flat is to rid yourself of unnecessary decor. This also means moving away from extreme levels of detail in favor of big, bold symbology - whittle down to the basic symbol and use that.

I think they've done this well for NYC and SF - large swathes of color, immediately recognizable symbology, and large undetailed shapes that are still recognizable.

Ditto Japan, though that one sort of derived itself.

Berlin, London, and Shanghai are weird though. Berlin and Shanghai especially - highly detailed silhouettes on what is otherwise a very spartan backdrop. Seems incongruous, especially when paired with the first two icons in the set.

<comment><USER13> Inconsistently consistent with the rest of iOS 7 though... :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Signed up! Fingers crossed...

</comment><comment><USER3> nice, just signed up. last time I attended was in Rome.</comment>


Free hi-res graphics for your 404 page. 5 new illustrations every 5 days - <AUTHOR> http://404repo.com

<comment><USER2> sweet!</comment>


Libraries – The Open Source Discovery Service - <AUTHOR> https://libraries.io

<comment><USER2> is there any ranking? which library to choose?</comment>


VCs & Starter Stock - Why & How to Ask for "F Shares" - <AUTHOR> http://blog.eladgil.com/2010/03/vcs-starter-stock-why-how-to-ask-for-f.html

<comment><USER2> I'm in favor of letting founders cash out partially as the company grows. We did, and it worked well for everyone. But I should point out that asking for FF shares spooks a lot of investors, and VCs in particular.

<comment><USER3> It's kind of disheartening that an investor wouldn't recognize that having a huge gap between their utility function and the founder's utility function is a bad thing.

<comment><USER4> I assume you read Less Wrong? The median founder and VC probably never think about the concept of the personal utility function.

<comment><USER3> Nope, haven't read it. Can you give me a thumbs up/down on it?

I picked up the utility concept from my financial background.

<comment><USER4> Oh, Less Wrong is awesome. It's a group blog running on a rather cool hack of the Reddit source code. The founder and most prolific and frequently upvoted blogger is Eliezer Yudkowsky. My favorite single piece by him is probably That Alien Message: <http://lesswrong.com/lw/qk/that_alien_message/>

If you want to read more of Eliezer's writing, his book will come out eventually, but until then it is organized here. <http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Sequences>

His sci-fi novella, Three World's Collide is great sci-fi and serves as a not too hard to read introduction to the general values of Less Wrong. <http://lesswrong.com/lw/y4/three_worlds_collide_08/>

The kinds of posts that make it to the front page of Less Wrong now are often esoteric and boring. Most of the value in the site is in the archives. Note though, that the comments on Less Wrong are interesting because the level of discourse is _ridiculously high_. You cannot say things that are wrong; someone will downmod you and call you out on it. It's really hard to comment on Less Wrong. Learning how to keep up with the discourse and be able to reply to comments without getting downmodded feels like it has made me a lot smarter.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This writer seems to be implying that the otherwise founders are living on savings (dwindling bank account). Wouldn't founders of companies at the stage were they can sell these shares be earning a good salary already?

<comment><AUTHOR> Fair point. The issue is more that life events happen (you have kids, need to buy a house etc.) and may not have the capital to do it...

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Any investor who would be against letting a founder draw because he wants the founder to remain "hungry" is a manipulative asshole. I hope these don't exist in the post-Google era.

<comment><USER7> Hope is not a strategy, unfortunately.

The counter-argument to 'hungry' is to stress that hungry entrepreneurs generally want to take smaller acquisition offers than their VCs - and if the VCs block a life-changing deal for the entrepreneur, they'll be stuck with an angry and demotivated executive team.

Certain VCs are quite receptive to this argument. One of our own investors often complains that one of their investments exited too early, and that they should've just given the founder(s) a million each so they could buy a house.</comment></comment>


Game Graphics During the 8-bit Computer Era - <AUTHOR> http://www.siggraph.org/publications/newsletter/v32n2/contributions/collins.html <comment><USER2> > I would now consider Quake II to be the best of the current crop.

God, doesn't anybody have _taste_? Not that I'm not guilty of popping wood at the arrival of OpenGL in PC gaming, but come on people. Quake II's actual content is uninspired at best.

</comment><comment><USER3> Glaring omission:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRS-80_Color_Computer>

<comment><USER2> I learned to program in BASIC on a Tandy 1000SX and an m100. That thing was great for long trips to grandma's.

I still remember my very first attempt. I tried typing lines from a BASIC book into a DOS prompt, which obviously frustrated my tiny being to no end. My dad showed me how to start gwbasic, and I've been on this ride ever since.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> From the article: Jupiter Ace, RAM: 3K, Resolution: 512x368

That'll be tight. 23552 pixels in 24576 kilobits of RAM.

From the article: VIC-20, RAM: 5K, Resolution: no hires mode

That's wrong. You can get VIC20 to do 128 _128 in two colours or 64_ 128 in four colours. There was a type-it-in listing from Commodore to draw a circle in VIC20 hi-res.

<comment><USER5> > Jupiter Ace, RAM: 3K, Resolution: 512x368

> That'll be tight. 23552 pixels in 24576 kilobits of RAM.

From <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jupiter_ACE> :

 _"While it had only one video mode, text only, which displayed 24 rows of 32 columns of characters in black and white, it was possible to display graphics, by redefining the 8×8 pixel bitmap of any of the 128 characters."_

Edit: Hmm... that's still only half the resolution mentioned in the article...

<comment><USER4> That would give a maximum arbitrary resolution of 8192 pixels in two colours. Not so good.

Anyhow, why didn't these fellows get sued for producing hardware so similar to Sinclair?:

The Jupiter ACE was a British home computer of the 1980s, marketed by a company named Jupiter Cantab and named after the early British computer, the ACE. The company was formed by Richard Altwasser and Steven Vickers, who had been on the design team for the Sinclair ZX Spectrum. ... The Jupiter ACE somewhat resembled a ZX81 in a white case, with black rubber keys like the Spectrum. ... The font of the character set was identical to that of the Spectrum ... the editor was like the Sinclair editor rather than the original Forth editor. ... Several words were borrowed from Sinclair BASIC. -- <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jupiter_ACE>

<comment><USER5> > That would give a maximum arbitrary resolution of 8192 pixels in two > colours. Not so good.

Not if you could change the character-images between horizontal "scanlines". (Technically, 1 character-line isn't a scanline as far as the display is concerned, but it's a pretty close analogy).</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Go That Way, Really Fast - <AUTHOR> http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2010/09/go-that-way-really-fast.html <comment><USER2> The first meetings about Chrome were held in 2006.

The entire project is based on Apple's WebKit, which was a cross-platform, arguably best-of-breed browser toolkit on the day they started.

Lars Bak, the architect of V8, has been working on language technologies since the early 90s, including Smalltalk.

A key Chrome team member, Ben Goodger, had already been working on browsers since the Netscape era, and was an early participant in Firefox.

There really are no miracles in software. People used to talk about "Netscape time" or marvel at how Google seemed to come out of nowhere. But even in those cases you can see how prior to those projects becoming household words, they had a long gestation period, during which time they were protected from competition. Netscape included a lot of people from the earlier NCSA Mosaic effort. Google was an academic project that, as an economic entity, grew up in the sheltering shadow of Yahoo.

I'm not saying these people didn't work hard, or aren't brilliant, or don't deserve their success. It's just that whenever you see someone moving much faster than is normally considered possible, don't assume that it's _only_ due to skill. It's far more likely that they had some history of working on the problem, for far longer than you think.

<comment><USER3> How do I upvote this comment 5 more times? :)

<comment><USER4> Only if HN were to give members a fixed number of upvotes per original posting -- or per day, hour, week, etc. -- and let the members dispense those upvotes as they see fit. See <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumulative_voting#Use>.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> _Google went from nothing, no web browser at all, to best-of-breed in under two years_

That's obviously wrong. The Chrome beta was over two years ago, and you can bet V8 didn't just appear overnight. Chrome is older than its 1.0. Not to mention that it's based on WebKit, which has been in development for a decade (if you start from KHTML).

<comment><USER6> Why not also throw in libc as well and say it's been over multiple decades?

<comment><USER5> Yes, why not. My point is that Chrome has no clear cut "starting date". It's the culmination of multiple teams over multiple time periods.

To compare its progress with IE's over the last two years is a little dishonest, as many of the things that IE is doing _now_ were implemented in WebKit before Chrome's release. It's essentially writing off a huge stretch of time in Chrome's code's history.

<comment><USER7> Microsoft is also quite welcome to use webkit. In fact most everyone would be much happier if they did.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> > Yes, Apple has indisputably better taste -- and an impeccably controlled > experience. But at their current rate of progress, they'll be playing second > or third fiddle to Google in the mobile space inside a few years. It's > inevitable.

I'm not sure whether the second sentence is supposed to actually contradict the first here, or if it's just a separate, orthogonal assertion (perhaps about technical quality or features)—but if Atwood is really trying to imply that you can iterate toward "tastefulness", that's simply ignorant.

There is a reason that the term "design" exists as a separate and unique idea from "implementation." By looking at your entire problem space top-down, you can see the "shape" of the space, and so head straight toward the _global_ minima. Plopping down in one place and running really fast will just get you to the top of the nearest hill, not the tallest mountain. Google is great at hill-climbing, but I've never seen them start on a hill, realize they were stuck, climb down, and find a mountain. (Instead, Google's successful projects either _start_ at the base of the tallest mountain—Pagerank, Gmail, Chrome, etc.—or are acquired from someone else who has already done the design stage for them—Maps, Groups, etc. It doesn't seem like Android is in either of these categories.)

<comment><USER9> I am not even sure what the second sentence means. Google no longer produces phones. Was it about OS? Then how do you compare order of the fiddles? By market share? Makes little sense. By revenue? Makes no sense in this case. By customer satisfaction? iOS progress it tightly coupled with hardware: iPhones, iPad, iPod touch. Android progress is handicapped by carriers — how do they push updates to handsets.

</comment></comment><comment> brown9-2 Is Jeff actually using the version numbers of Chrome as evidence of how fast they move?

They release often yes but the Chrome team recently announced they'll be bumping the major version number for _every_ release now. The version number isn't that significant, its arbitrary.

<comment><USER10> It seems that they're racing to get to 9 for "version parity" with Internet Explorer.

And really, as you mentioned the whole version number is utterly meaningless. In contrast some open source projects have evolved and changed incredibly over many years and still sit at a sub-1.0 version number. Anyone who would call that slow would be adding superficial analysis noise.

<comment><USER11> That may be true. But this is a good example of something that means one thing to programmers, and another to customers. _We_ know version numbers are meaningless, but I'm guessing most people would put down software version 0.3, because it doesn't sound good. Come to think of it, I would also prefer a version 10 over a version 0.6, even if consciously it makes no sense.

Just another reason webapps are better. No version numbers to keep track of! :)

<comment><USER12> As another example, Minecraft (recently mentioned on HN) is currently on version 1.1.0 despite still being in its Alpha.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> The problem with this attitude:

> _So if something gets in our way while doing that, well, we're not gonna > fight you._ We'll just turn. And keep going forward, really fast. Which is > why those clones better move quick if they want to keep up with.

Is that you can gloss over really valuable opportunities because you perceive them as being hard.

Startups get so hung up on releasing features ("we deploy thrice a day!!") for the sake of features, that they forget to ask if they're valuable (and to whom.)

Going for "low hanging fruit" of features works insanely well, but I think eventually you need to stretch your arms else you'll start using the wrong metrics for your company (eg: version numbers as opposed to engagement.)

I see startups all the time not want to compete with better funded / larger companies / better branded companies and shift to do something else, for reasons that can only be explained as lack of confidence / fear of failing at it. a) product markets are rarely winner takes all (Stack Exchange platform is not a winner take all service), b) winners don't win forever (eg: eBay?), c) if someone is that entrenched and you're terrified of attacking them - no one else will dare, so they won't expect it.

Failing (iterating) fast is a great attitude, but only when you change for the right reason. My concern with always changing away from barriers is that eventually you end up with a really dumb proposition, and when you question why it's because you iterated so fast without stopping and thinking "is this good?"

</comment><comment><USER14> It's OK to iterate fast if there are few/no dependencies on the platform and the cost of upgrading is low. e.g. the high-end 3D gaming market is essentially dead as a business because consumers eventually got wiser about today's top-of-the-line 3D card becoming commodity chips 6 months down the road.

</comment><comment><USER15> Misleading abridged title.

The second sentence of the original advice was, "If something gets in your way, turn." Removing it from the title turns good advice into wrong advice.

Something will _always_ get in your way, no matter how fast you go. So the faster you go the more important Sentence 2 becomes.

Like your race car, when your business doesn't have a steering wheel, things can't turn out well.

</comment><comment><USER16> Even though Atwood refers to version numbers as (false) indicators of progress, he has an important point: the earlier you release, the sooner you'll be able to make crucial corrections.

If your product managers are clairvoyant you do not need short release cycles. The PMs just tell the developers what kind of features the market will value in, say, three years. The development team is then able to concentrate on building a feature-rich and consistent product without the pressure of producing something quickly and then testing it on the market.

In any other case, you probably benefit from releasing several major versions within a couple of years.

</comment><comment><USER17> Seems like decent enough advice, but I can't help feel that there are going to be plenty of examples of when this fails. Anyone got any?

<comment><USER18> boo.com.

(Edit: for those too young to remember: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boo.com>)

<comment><USER19> I don't remember exactly how Boo.com went up and down, but wasn't the site extremely delayed? Atwood seems to talk about release early, release often (go fast, turn) and Boo.com, in my memory, did just the opposite.

<comment><USER18> That depends on what you mean by "delayed". :)

They built the site in an incredibly short time span but they got started too late and it had way too many features to cram in to such a short development time of course leading to plenty of bugs at release time.

The entire company didn't exist for much longer than a year so they almost didn't even have time to be delayed before they were gone. :)

From Wikipedia: "Boo.com's Swedish founders famously spent their way through £125 million ($188 million) in just six months."

Aaah, 1999. Those were the days. :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> The whole post went off track, and fast, when Jeff had to trollishly add in the Android bit near the end--

"The Google Android project is another example. Android _doesn't have to be better_ than the iPhone (and _it most definitely isn't_ ; it's been _mediocre at best_ until recent versions). They just need to be faster at improving. Google is pushing out Froyos and Gingerbreads and Honeycombs with incredible, breakneck speed. Yes, _Apple has indisputably better taste_ \-- and _an impeccably controlled experience_."

Jeff's judgment on Android versus iPhone is utterly and absolutely irrelevant, and strongly diminishes his post.

Of course the entire post was utterly vacuous (really, top of HN? "Evolve" is now a comment of such insight that it teaches HN something?), so the Android troll was just par for the course.</comment>


Facebook Co-Founder Chris Hughes Is Buying 'The New Republic' - <AUTHOR> http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/03/09/148247430/facebook-co-founder-chris-hughes-is-buying-the-new-republic <comment><USER2> I wonder if this means TNR will move away from neoconservative foreign policy. Historically, TNR has supported the United State's involvement in various Middle East conflicts and routinely advocates for war with Iran.

</comment><comment><USER3> I am a bit surprised by the negative comments in this thread. I have had the opportunity to work with Chris and he is incredibly humble and smart. Obviously he is taking a big risk with this venture but if nothing else the way he conducts himself makes me want to cheer for him and wish him best of luck in this new venture.

<comment><USER4> I don't think the issue is with Chris at all. It's with what he's buying and trying to do.

There's a track record in publishing, where new money has an itch they want to scratch in old media. The last decade, this has happened in magazines and newspapers a few prominent times. Someone gets rich, they decide they want to be a publisher, and they follow their heart in regards to high quality journalism, and spout all sorts of great sounding bytes on how important x y z is.

The new money rarely realizes just how hard it is to stay afloat in the world of magazines and newspapers.

Then reality hits, and the crushing difficulty of running a magazine becomes apparent. Unfortunately, what's most likely to happen is Chris will take at least a moderate financial loss on the purchase. And he may very well not mind, that's understood.

<comment><USER5> If you know all this, do you really doubt someone like C.H. didn't think of it?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> To me, this seems really smart. I may be wrong, and I may be nuts. But there definitely seems to be a dearth of in-depth analysis in the world of journalism and media. Everything is short-form, sound-bite, of-the-moment, disposable information these days -- the sort of thing Twitter really nails, but for which traditional journalism is not well suited.

There's probably a place for both forms of information in our world. (And it'd be nice to see the long-form media not trying to bastardize themselves to compete with short-form; that's always seemed like a losing game to me). And, frankly, a bimodal world containing short-form, timely content on one end, and long-form, thoughtful analysis on the other, would be a nice change of pace from the muddy middle of clickbait, content farms, quasi-spam, and endless recombinations thereof.

Now, say what you will about the _New Republic_ as the particular choice. I think that's a lot more debatable. But the business idea is intriguing.

<comment><USER7> I feel like magazines trying to be what you describe is not a new idea. Perhaps best adapted to the web is The Atlantic, but I also read The American and Miller-McCune, and think they'd fall under your description as well. I'm sure there are countless others, too. What's going to set apart The New Republic?

<comment><USER6> _Are_ they failing, though? Seems to me like they're doing just fine.[1] And that's an anomaly in the magazine industry.

My hypothesis is that the magazines that are failing are the ones who fall into the muddy middle-ground between short-form and long-form. They can't compete with the internet on timeliness, and they can't compete with long-form magazines and journals on substance.

It's also interesting to note that the magazine articles most frequently linked on social media, or even here, seem to come from long-form mags. Of course, monetizing that quality is a challenge in its own right, and presumably you'd need a plan to achieve it before buying a magazine.

[1]I may be wrong here, and if so, I'm happy to stand corrected.

<comment><USER6> EDIT: Sorry, I realize I misread the word "fall" in your post and saw "fail."

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This was a good interview this morning. I was in the car thinking that I needed to look up who this guy is and how he had money at 28 to buy a long- standing magazine. During the interview he cited how browsers(websites) are a big distraction in obtaining and fully consuming the ideas behind a piece of news -- I get no value from what my friends post on facebook.

</comment><comment><USER4> New money learns how to lose money in an old way.

<comment><USER9> I think people who lose money in media are actually getting what they want: manufactured consent.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Was somewhat amused by this paragraph;

'He sees The New Republic as a place "of liberal values. And by that I mean values that embrace the core American ideals of freedom, equality and an American responsibility to make the world a better place."'

There are strong echoes of Citizen Kane. I wonder how long his 'Declaration of Principles' will last.

</comment><comment><USER11> I dislike Facebook and the New Republic for the same reasons: they're both run by apparent sociopaths and each claims a mantle of semi-divinity. I know that Hughes isn't involved in the day to day at FB, but he influenced it into being the swamp that it is now.

If he had a sense of decency, he'd at least get rid of Peretz.

<comment><USER12> Peretz seems to be gradually removing himself as he winds down his career, but this is a strange statement to make - I suspect it was only his leadership that made the magazine's editorial slant distinctive from other publications and therefore worth paying attention to. Without him, you might as well roll TNR into Mother Jones or The Nation and call it a day.

<comment><USER11> I have to question the judgement of anyone that would give credence to a man that said:

"But, frankly, Muslim life is cheap, most notably to Muslims. And among those Muslims led by the Imam Rauf there is hardly one who has raised a fuss about the routine and random bloodshed that defines their brotherhood. So, yes, I wonder whether I need honor these people and pretend that they are worthy of the privileges of the First Amendment which I have in my gut the sense that they will abuse."

<comment><USER12> I have to question the judgement of anyone that thinks you can pick some random quote from somewhere and then use it to discount an individual's entire body of work spanning decades.

Peretz is a secular Zionist and passionate advocate for Israel's right to defend itself who at the same time strongly opposes Israeli settlements in Judea and Samaria.

This combination of views is increasingly rare and that's a real shame, because without prominent people advocating them, defending Israel and defending the settlers are going to reflexively come together as a package.

<comment><USER11> It's not "some random quote". It's part of a larger pattern of extreme racism that Peretz has exhibited over the years.

One can defend Israel without resorting to barbarism. Peretz appears to have a difficult time doing so.

My overall point is if Mr. Hughes wants to engender good vibes about his new purchase, perhaps he should get rid of its biggest bad vibe generator.

<comment><USER12> You might be right - perhaps I've just missed this. I won't claim to have read every single thing Peretz has written.

But are you sure the 'bad vibes' around Peretz are due solely to his racism? I figured he'd run TNR into the ground, and I knew he was disliked, but I figured it was solely because the audience for left-wing domestic policy + right-wing foreign policy has been steadily evaporating. I suspected most of his audience had picked a 'side' and jumped for The Nation or something like Commentary, depending on their preferences.

In any case, I have to admit I don't see TNR's reason for being post-Peretz. It'll be interesting to see what Hughes does with it.

<comment><USER11> > But are you sure the 'bad vibes' around Peretz are due solely to his racism?

I'm unsure. But it certainly can't help. Peretz was condemned by Harvard's undergrads back in 2010.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Exede: The satellite broadband service you've been waiting for? - <AUTHOR> http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-18438_7-57361444-82/exede-the-satellite-broadband-service-youve-been-waiting-for/ <comment><USER2> Nothing about latency in there or on their website as far as I could find. Having used satellite for a while before switching to a microwave relay system, I can say it's not the bandwidth that's the issue, it's the latency. 800 ms ping times make for an exceptionally poor browsing experience, and SSH and rdesktop are nearly impossible. It's possible their approach is using LEO sats instead of geosync orbits, but in that case they'd need a lot more birds to get consistent coverage, and doesn't match up with their only supporting the US coasts currently.</comment>


RFC 2119: Key Words for Use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels - <AUTHOR> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2119

<comment><AUTHOR> Was digging through the RFC for HOTP and came across this. Thought it was very interesting that there are actual definitions for these terms, or that they (the definitions) were apparently needed in the first place.</comment>


Twitter Drops MySQL For Cassandra - <AUTHOR> http://www.informationweek.com/news/software/open_source/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=223100894 <comment><USER2> I tried to explain to the reporter why Cassandra's data model (particularly that it supports an arbitrary number of columns per row) makes it support denormalization better than traditional rdbmses, and somehow that got turned into "cassandra supports an arbitrary number of rows."

This and a few other poor explanations make me wince reading this. So I don't particularly recommend this article, although I've seen worse. :)

TFA does at least link the original interview w/ Ryan King of Twitter ([http://nosql.mypopescu.com/post/407159447/cassandra- twitter-...](http://nosql.mypopescu.com/post/407159447/cassandra-twitter-an- interview-with-ryan-king)) which is much better for people at HN level.

My own article at [http://www.rackspacecloud.com/blog/2010/02/25/should-you- swi...](http://www.rackspacecloud.com/blog/2010/02/25/should-you-switch-to- nosql-too/), although high level, also has some useful links for those who want to drill down for more details.

<comment><USER3> I wish Ryan King had said _why_ the other DBs named were rejected. That could be useful info.

<comment><USER4> Sites similar to twitter are worried about Read/Writes and up time rather than concurrency and locking mechanisms. All flavors of NOSQL databases are best suited for this. Sites like amazon.com, or any transaction processing site can't think of using NOSQL. tl:dr; NOSQL is good until transaction processing & concurrency comes in to picture.

<comment><USER5> Scalaris (<http://code.google.com/p/scalaris/>) is consistent and has transactions.

As an aside, three sentences doesn't really warrant a "tl;dr".

<comment><USER6> Not being snarky here but how can anyone seriously consider Scalaris for any data that's even remotely important?

[http://code.google.com/p/scalaris/wiki/FAQ#Is_the_store_pers...](http://code.google.com/p/scalaris/wiki/FAQ#Is_the_store_persisted_on_disk)?

<comment><USER5> It certainly limits it from being useful if you don't have dollars to throw at high-end infrastructure, but it's not quite as terrible as it sounds. Effectively all it means is that you can't cold start it. How big a problem this is depends like anything else on the application in question.

<comment><USER6> As I write this comment I just _know_ that in 5 years I will look at it and chuckle at myself but... it boggles my mind to consider a pure-RAM system that relies on at least one copy of the dataset being available _forever_ in some system's "memory grid".

[http://highscalability.com/are-cloud-based-memory- architectu...](http://highscalability.com/are-cloud-based-memory- architectures-next-big-thing)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> As Jonathan has pointed out, the article has lots of inaccuracies, but it also has a very good explanation of the NoSQL Faustian pact: "Cassandra doesn't do joins... doesn't guarantee referential integrity, where the user knows the data being used reflects the latest updates... can't process transactions, with a guarantee that the transaction will either be completed or discarded, the way relational systems do" because it focuses on "more immediate goals than the pristine data handling rules of relational systems."

As the expression goes: at the poker table, if you don't know who the sucker is, it's you. Guess who's responsible for those fuddy-duddy, old-fashioned things like querying your data, or making sure that you've written data, or that your database isn't corrupted... it's you.

If you're Twitter, and you're fail-whaling every day, then maybe the work required to make this trade-off work makes sense. But I can't help but feel there's got to be a better way.

<comment><USER8> I won't defend Cassandra's design choices here, but I will say that the relational model is only about joins and normal forms. The other things you mention happen to be built into all modern relational databases but are orthogonal concepts.

A distributed hash table can be built with transactions, isolation, and so forth. Such a system would offer a different set of trade-offs that might satisfy a different set of users.

<comment><USER7> Completely agree with you on the theoretical level; it's a (lazy) shorthand to contrast the typical NoSQL trade-offs with the ACID model that most relational databases employ.

In practice though, I think if you introduce (multi-'row') ACID into any of today's NoSQL database, you'd just end up with a bad traditional database (a 'relational' database without a strong theoretical grounding, without the ability to do joins and without a powerful query language.) This whole NoSQL movement feels like a re-run of the evolution of the relational database - those that don't know their history are doomed to repeat it.

<comment><USER2> > I think if you introduce (multi-'row') ACID into any of today's NoSQL > database, you'd just end up with a bad traditional database

Strongly disagree, although there is truth to the converse (adding sharding to a traditional database yields a bad nosql implementation :).

There's a sketch of how Google added multirow transactions to bigtable for app engine (via a layer above bigtable called megastore): [http://perspectives.mvdirona.com/2008/07/10/GoogleMegastore....](http://perspectives.mvdirona.com/2008/07/10/GoogleMegastore.aspx)

The key idea is that "a per-entity-group transaction log is used. One of the rows that stores the entity group is the entity group's root. The log is stored with the root, which is replicated like all rows in Big Table."

This is basically a version of the approach advocated by Pat Helland in his paper on "Life Beyond Distributed Transactions" -- <http://www.cidrdb.org/cidr2007/papers/cidr07p15.pdf> \-- namely, that the most sane approach to distributed transactions is to redefine the problem, and restrict transactions to be within "entities" that fit on a single machine. Which, as App Engine demonstrates, turns out to be enough to do an awful lot.

<comment><USER7> Interesting links - thanks. There's definitely a continuum here - the full ACID model at one end; key-value stores at the other. It looks like Google is moving in the right direction - adding more ACID - which certainly plays to my personal bias :-)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> >in what's becoming a not-uncommon move.

Or as Orwell put it: "A not unblack dog was chasing a not unsmall rabbit across a not ungreen field."

<comment><USER10> Litotes: my favorite figure of speech.

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

<comment><USER11> Mine too.

And when combined with a thinly veiled insult, gives the wonderful "back- handed compliment"

"He's not as unintelligent as he looks" "She's not the liar she might have been given her poor upbringing"

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I'm a fan of the NoSql movement and have been exploring Cassandra as an option for data storage.

I had a conversation with an engineer who works at a pretty well-known company here in SV and their sys admins are dropping Cassandra and pushing all the engineers back to MySql. I don't know the whole story but it seemed to be implied that open-sourced Cassandra had issues and supposedly Facebook had a much different version they were using.

Of course this is all second hand, so I tried to search on the experiences of other people using Cassandra (with decent volume). Unfortunately most of the threads I found had people just like me, at the exploratory stage. Or they hadn't been live with it for long.

If there were any pitfalls or hairy parts with maintain Cassandra, that would be good to know. Also, examples of clients who have decent load and have been using it for a while.

<comment><USER2> > their sys admins are dropping Cassandra and pushing all the engineers back > to MySql

I'm curious what you are thinking of, because I have better picture of companies using Cassandra than most. :)

I do know of one company that fits your description, where some of the mysql DBAs were very anti-cassandra because, frankly, it's not mysql and that's what they were used to. But that has been resolved (the most vocal DBA left) and the Cassandra migration is continuing.

> If there were any pitfalls or hairy parts with maintain Cassandra, that > would be good to know

Other than the obvious (it's not a relational database), we've documented the main limitations here: <http://wiki.apache.org/cassandra/CassandraLimitations>

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I'm curious why a lot of people / companies seem to be picking up Cassandra lately. I'm not one to peg one "NoSQL" software system against another, but I've been using HBase for a few months (albeit on a rather limited cluster) and feel that it fits great especially with its compatibility with Hadoop. We use Hadoop + Map/Reduce extensively at Grooveshark. Does anyone have experience in using both systems and can offer a candid account of both?

<comment><USER14> I have no experience with either, but here's a recent blog entry about moving from HBase to Cassandra:

[http://ria101.wordpress.com/2010/02/24/hbase-vs-cassandra- wh...](http://ria101.wordpress.com/2010/02/24/hbase-vs-cassandra-why-we- moved/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> More accurate title: Twitter migrates parts of it's system away from MySQL to other data stores including Cassandra.

</comment><comment><USER16> So what kind of performance can you get from Cassandra? How big can the values be? I was thinking of using it as a backend for a mail system.

<comment><USER2> > So what kind of performance can you get from Cassandra?

~10k ops/second per quad-core node. Scales roughly linearly w/ node and core counts. ("Roughly" means, obviously there is network overhead as you move from single node to multiple, that kind of thing.)

> How big can the values be?

2 GB, although you probably don't want to max that out.

Cassandra is mostly used for smaller pieces of data, although I do know at least one person using it as an S3 replacement by chunking files into 64MB chunks; each file is one row consisting of columns that each contain one such chunk.

> I was thinking of using it as a backend for a mail system.

It should work fine for that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Whoever does a thorough comparison of a number of these new "nosql" systems, including features and some benchmarks, will have him or herself an extremely popular article.

<comment><USER2> One I wrote: [http://www.rackspacecloud.com/blog/2009/11/09/nosql- ecosyste...](http://www.rackspacecloud.com/blog/2009/11/09/nosql-ecosystem/)

Another, that goes into even more detail (imo, too much for one article, but a good article all the same): [http://www.vineetgupta.com/2010/01/nosql- databases-part-1-la...](http://www.vineetgupta.com/2010/01/nosql-databases- part-1-landscape.html)

Benchmarking systems w/ very different data models is difficult to impossible, which is why you don't see that in this kind of survey piece. You're best off by picking one segment and focusing on that. Yahoo did that with the ColumnFamily stores (cassandra, hbase, and one they wrote internally) here: <http://www.brianfrankcooper.net/pubs/ycsb-v4.pdf> (note that Cassandra 0.5 results are on page 16 and 17, not inline w/ the rest)

<comment><USER17> Maybe one way to do it would be to pick a problem, or several problems, and implement solutions in each one.

Hrm, maybe it's a book more than an article, although I don't think I'd buy it, given that it'd be out of date so soon.

The point being, as a casual observer of these things, I don't yet have a good feel at all for which ones might be good for what.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> informationLastweek

<comment><USER19> Not everyone is plugged into the "scene" RSSes. Publications purpose is to discover trends in news signals, and distill that into a coherent format supported by argument.

<comment><USER18> fair point, I cheerfully withdraw my comment.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> about...fracking...time</comment>


Recent Discussion on Unfairness in FLOSS Economics - <AUTHOR> https://www.harihareswara.net/sumana/2016/01/26/0 <comment><USER2> Referenced Essay, _How I Stumbled on the Internet 's Biggest Blind Spot_:

[https://medium.com/@nayafia/how-i-stumbled-upon-the- internet...](https://medium.com/@nayafia/how-i-stumbled-upon-the-internet-s- biggest-blind-spot-b9aa23618c58#.rvkhtamho)

</comment><comment><USER3> From [https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/comp.sys.mac.announce/...](https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/comp.sys.mac.announce/vTmp- bIZGLs/M5I9Ia2YhGkJ) :

"Our previous policy of distributing system software via user groups and electronic bulletin boards reached only a small percentage of our customer base while _often discouraging traditional software resellers from stocking and promoting_ new releases of system software."

I wonder why?

</comment><comment><USER4> 'Unfairness' is an incorrect term and brings to mind whining.

It is inefficient.

It is sub-optimal, for the progress of humanity, that good, motivated developers have to spend most of their time (or frankly, any time) on capitalist nonsense.

Work on a supermarket checkout, feed a few people, make a few pounds.

Fix a big in the linux kernel, millions will use it, you get zero.

Totally and utterly bonkers.</comment>


Big Money Starts to Dump Stocks That Pose Climate Risks - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-08-07/big-money-starts-to-dump-stocks-that-pose-climate-risks <comment><USER3> Last year I switched from MSCI World Index to MSCI World Custom ESG* Index. With passive investment you want as much companies as possible in your basket so excluding companies is not something to take lightly. But both these indices perform the same so for me it was an easy choice.

* Environment Sustainable Governance. 58 out of 1660 companies are excluded, mainly in tobacco, guns and UN global impact.

<comment><USER4> Does this actually make a diffence, from game-theoretical perspective? It seems to me that if substantial amount of investors start to bias in a certain direction, it will only create an opportunity for active investors to earn money by betting in the other direction, and these active investors will "fix" the "bad" price. Maybe it's not a coincidence those indices perform as well as the rest of the market, as you observed?

These active investors don't even have to realize their strategy is based on going against nice guys -- they might be led purely by statistical performance.

I'm not trying to be needlessly cynical. I like effective altruism for example. I'm just not sure stock market is a good battleground for ethics.

<comment><USER5> It depends if the people are betting that climate change is real and these companies will start to be treated differently are correct. Could be another 4 years before changes happen...

<comment><USER4> I agree. If a smart investor notices that a company business model stops working the moment governments pass legislation introducing carbon markets, it's a good investment strategy to short the stock. But notice that it's the government that is doing the heavy lifting here, investors are just diligently passing the shock from the future so resources are not wasted.

If there is a climate catastrophe going to happen, but no government is going to punish companies responsible, it won't make sense to try to do that for yourself -- in the same way bad corporations are freeriding on climate, bad investors are freeriding on your efforts to punish such corporations.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> If you read this carefully it isn't that these financiers have grown a conscience, it's that public protest and the possibility of government policy changes have made it risky to hold these securities.

These analysts wouldn't have a rigorous analysis that made sense in financial terms without the force of public pressure. These companies are just machines that respond to stimuli and have no thought of consequences.

<comment><USER7> There may also be risk in future liability. Tobacco took a hit because they knew of risks but they continued to sell their products without warning customers. I have heard there is similar evidence for oil companies that knew of global warming long ago but have yet to warn their customers.

<comment><USER8> Indeed -- Exxon has known about climate change since at least 1977.

[https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew- about-...](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about- climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This is something which has been trending up for the past 5 to 10 years, and gaining more momentum. Large European fund managers (e.g. pension plans) have been at the forefront of responsible investing and it is developing quickly amongst their peers in North America.

Simply put there are 3 dimensions which corporates have to consider:

1\. Their contribution to greenhouse gas emissions and other environmental pollutants. 2\. Their own exposure to physical climate risk (can they quantify it?) 3\. Their compliance to reporting standards and regulations regarding climate change and other environmental issues.

Large investors increasingly want to know (a) how they contribute to climate change via their investments and (b) their risk exposure to climate change risk, via the businesses they are invested in.

Corporations have to realize that their large, institutional, investors are way beyond debating climate change and are taking action. Like it or not.

<comment><USER10> > _Corporations have to realize that their large, institutional, investors are > way beyond debating climate change and are taking action. Like it or not._

I'll preface this by stating that I'm no subscriber to "corporations only care about profits" school, but:

Do you think this matters to the corporations all that much? You can't "dump" stocks without someone else buying the shares from you. Are these institutional investors going to take a huge hit in the name of climate change? Are the shareholders willing to sacrifice a chunk of their retirement for this cause? I'm skeptical. Where are the alternative investments? The world is awash in capital, with a huge chunk of bonds now paying negative interest rates.

The big risk is government regulation, but we haven't seen a whole lot yet.

<comment><USER11> > "You can't dump stocks without someone else buying the shares from you."

At what price?

That's the impact of moves like this: 1) lowering stock prices for existing companies and 2) allocating money/increasing prices for climate-friendlier companies. It could mean the difference between, say, a large oil company getting $1 billion from a European fund and a battery technology company getting that billion.

<comment><USER10> > _At what price?_

My point exactly. I know that executive pay is most often tied to share price, but who do you think really suffers more: the CEO who gets a slightly smaller bonus, or the fund that has to dump shares for whatever it can get?

Look at the example in the article. The fund dumped $300MM of Exxon shares in June, share price mostly unaffected.

> _It could mean the difference between, say, a large oil company getting $1 > billion from a European fund and a battery technology company getting that > billion._

But unless the company is issuing new shares, it doesn't receive any of the money. It's a transaction between old/new shareholders.

I can see the drive to be able to market your investment fund as climate friendly to attract more AUM, but it's unclear to me it makes financial sense as the investor (at least generally).

<comment><USER11> You're not wrong. I'm interpreting it more from the asset manager's perspective than the company's. You're correct in that they are making a conscious choice to maybe forgo a profit on oil in order to bet on something more speculative. That's just the thesis they are going with and may adversely effect performance.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Unsustainability is unsustainability. At the scale of climate change it's no longer "we'll prosper at the cost of others", it's "we'll prosper in the short term at the cost of everyone - including ourselves - in the long-term". Finance people are apparently better than executives at thinking long-term (or maybe just have more incentives to care about the long-term, whereas CEOs can generate some quick growth and then peace-out).

</comment><comment><USER13> This is great! I applaud this effort. Let everyone back their beliefs and principles with their own money.

<comment><USER14> I doubt it's about backing beliefs and principles with money. It's probably more about admitting increased risks of losing money as a result of public shaming campaigns (sometimes reasonable, sometimes not) by vocal minority.

And of course, the corporate PR disguises such dumping stocks as a virtue.

<comment><USER9> I dont quite agree. While this is certainly a secondary factor, which a portfolio manager will worry about (i.e. a stock tanking due to bad press or negative ESG ranking), investment committees which develop responsible investing policies are guided by guenuine principles. It's a multi-dimensional problem and the challenge is of course that these dimensions sometimes counter each-other and result in feedback loops. The is what makes a market, however, the sheer size of large institutional (and sovereign) investment funds will, in the long run, run over marginal players in terms of impact.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> in 2007 USA there were a half-dozen "major" frameworks for reporting risk and establishing a profile of a company; many professional papers and presentations. This sort of business-press cheer leading is necessary but insufficient.

<comment><USER9> Yes that's true. And of course the banks have seen the ESG market as an opportunity to make a quick buck, and continue to generate report upon report. Also, many data vendors out there inventing all sorts of ESG metrics, many of which are of dubious significance. It's a net positive though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Ethical considerations aside, one of the other drivers of this is the origin of some of the money involved here. Most of the largest sovereign wealth funds globally are the result of money generated by resource extraction: Norway, Abu Dhabi, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia (directly and via Aramco), Qatar, etc. For these names, holding stocks that pose a climate risk is buying oil with oil dollars. Without intentional divestment of oil, coal, and other climate names, they are essentially levered long. Excluding these from their holdings is just prudent investment.

</comment><comment><USER17> This has been going on for a few years. The Rockefellers sold theirs in 2014. They tried to make it seem like it was environmentally motivated but really, it was all about the money. [1]

[1][https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/rockefellers-to-sell-oil- as...](https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/rockefellers-to-sell-oil-assets-as- part-of-50b-global-warming-fight-1.2773771)

</comment><comment><USER18> Ideally, in time without policy changes or major government intervention, fossil fuels or business practices that willingly pollute and damage the environment will become uncompetitive and too expensive to make money.

If only we can find a way to bankrupt the palm oil farmers and loggers who are cutting down the Amazon Rain Forest...

</comment><comment><USER19> Bloomberg used to me a good publication now its tied to hip to its founder's ideology. Him being a politician with Presidential aspirations, Bloomberg has taken a turn for worse. Divestment is not going to "clean-up" the environment. Its a tool of "do something" or virtue signaling crowd. Unfortunately, Mr. Bloomberg has a fortune to make investments in hard-science and safer power generation -- but it won't provide bang for the buck for his Political ambitions.

All we are getting from this disinvestment crowd is corporate green-washing as if we do not have enough of it.

<comment><USER20> One of the hallmarks of a collapsing society is that "everything becomes a political statement". The newspaper you read is a political choice, as does the sneakers you wear, and where you eat for lunch.

<comment><USER21> > _One of the hallmarks of a collapsing society is that "everything becomes a > political statement"_

What is this based on?

Athenian democracy and Roman republicanism each thrived in hyper-political cultures. The early America was heavily political.

Politicisation of culture doesn't mean rise or decline. It means there big decisions need to be made. Big decisions need big buy-in.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> It might be as an indirect result of climate risks, but the main reason is because they fear government regulation.

</comment><comment><USER23> Sorry guys, for me this is a solid advice to increase my positions in oil, coal and nuclear ETFs. Especially if their prices drop a little.

Not that I don't care about the environment, I just don't believe that economy works "by design". We don't have better energy sources, and while this lasts, these will be profitable and expensive.

<comment><USER9> That's a totally legit position - the hope is that incumbents in these sectors will adapt and work to clean-up their operations. I don't think any investor, no matter how large, is aiming to kill these types of companies - <USER2> institute positive change. Having said all this, positive returns should come first.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> about time</comment>


Show HN: Domalio – One platform to track all your domains. - <AUTHOR> https://domalio.com <comment><AUTHOR> Hi everyone

I am delighted to share my new project Domalio with you guys.

Problem : Whether you are a maker, a developer, or an entrepreneur, it can be a nightmare trying to keep track of all your domains especially if they are registered through different companies. I know from personal experience. I started with a spreadsheet but found that I was wasting loads of time sorting this out. Hence, I created Domalio to help you keep track of all your domain names in one place.

Current Domalio features:

\- Get a unified view of all your domains from any registrar in one place.

\- Automatically retrieve relevant domain-related data like registrar, creation date, expiry date, status and more.

\- Get notified on change of status of a domain name.

\- Log the prices at which you bought your domains and compare the registration/renewal/transfer prices from multiple registrars to get the best deal every time.

\- Better organize your domains by grouping them into different categories (personal, business, etc). You can also filter domain names based on specific criteria.

\- Comes with a dark theme to help relieve eye strain, and make your eyes feel at ease during night.

\- Export domain portfolio to CSV

Please let me know if you have any feedback/suggestions. Thanks a lot</comment>


Economics Commentary: Washington Could Use Less Keynes and More Hayek - <AUTHOR> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123371237124446245.html

<comment><USER2> There are clearly cases where the government _can_ spend money better than the self-interested individual, namely on public goods. If the stimulus package were restricted to say, building useful infrastructure, energy research, and basic medical research, would all the followers of the Austrian school really say that it's a criminal waste?

I keep seeing criticisms of the silly part of Keynes like burying money in mineshafts, without any criticism of the more rational point that expenditures have to start somewhere.

I work with a company that among other things makes printers. They've had a lot of layoffs recently, mostly because of the forecasted downturn in demand. There's a downturn because other businesses aren't going to be buying printers, because they have their own economic problems. If the "malinvestment" in various industries was corrected with better investments elsewhere, there's a good chance that the new industries would also need printing, but right now, the company is laying people off. Their suppliers in turn will have to lay people off. I suppose that they will need fewer people cleaning the building, who in turn will need less child care, who in turn... and none of this is really malinvestment. (Very technically, for the moment it is, since it's bad to invest in most industries in a downturn, but printing in general is still useful.) It's just lots of people losing their jobs.

How do all the Austrians want to get things going again?

<comment><AUTHOR> I can't speak for the Austrians -- all this stuff is beyond me. I follow along with the home game but I see parts in all camps that make sense.

Having said that, you know we already have this huge pool of money we can spend without borrowing anything. It's all the money people have made in various investments and savings over the years but don't want to cash out because of the capital gains tax. Why not eliminate that for three years or so? Wouldn't you see hundreds of billions of dollars come out of investments and go into buying new things? (Perhaps more investments, perhaps tangible goods) The upside of that is that the money will be going where people think the most value is -- that's the same places that are going to thrive over time. Now is the perfect time. I doubt folks are going to invest heavily in the stock market when it's tanking. Instead they'll go for houses, collectibles, other items of value. This is where your floor is anyway. So you're stimulating the pieces of the economy that have the most traction.

Or how about creating an income-tax-free zone for businesses with under 50 employees for five years? It's well known that businesses that size which are growing (think startups, except it might be a startup doing house-cleaning) are the driving force of the economy. Why not inject more capital into those businesses, allowing them to take their money-making machine -- their business -- and step on the gas?

Public expenditures on shovel-ready projects are the ideal, that is if you don't want to let the people spend their own money but would rather spend it for them on things that are "good for them". Practically speaking, however, seems like these public spending measures get burdened with political payoffs. This is natural since the body making the appropriations, Congress, is a political body, not a bunch of economists sitting around trying to see where the best public spending should go.

We may be able to drop money out of helicopters, like Bernake once said, but then again Keynesian theory has to have a limit. It's not a panacea, right?

<comment><USER2> I feel like the anti-tax advocates tend to compare apples and oranges. "Let's look at the real world with politicians, vs. an idealized world that is tax- free," and lo! the idealized tax-free world is better. In real life, cutting taxes means all kinds of things. For instance, low taxes means more corporate profits, and in many corporations, rational behavior for the people at the top is to take that profit as salary and bonuses. Real corporations aren't supernatural investment machines. They're just groups of people. If the people at the top can't manipulate their own salaries, or their interests are aligned with the long term interests of the company, then you might get good outcomes, but in general you have the same guarantee that you do with the government - none.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm sorry. I don't follow you here.

 _They're just groups of people. If the people at the top can't manipulate their own salaries, or their interests are aligned with the long term interests of the company, then you might get good outcomes_

So, assuming for a moment that no taxes just affects corporations, if corporate executives can't manipulate their salaries that's good, because why? Because the extra money would go to shareholders instead of just one schmuck?

How much money do you think the average CEO of a company with less than 50 employees makes? I'll give you a hint: these guys aren't riding around in $50 Million jets. And at that level, for every buck you pull out of the biz for your salary, that's one less dollar to fund the money machine. A lot of the startup essays and books talk about that, it's basic startup economics. When young and growing, take as little away from the business as possible.

If I have 100,000 CEOs with an average extra $5K to spend next year, doesn't that stimulate the economy? And that's assuming they took the money out. In reality, for those companies to be where they are, most all of any extra money is going towards growth: jobs, products, marketing, media, etc. Let's not forget that for them to have any extra corporate money at all, _they have to have earned it_. It's not like it appears by magic. That means they already know how to make money given the right resources. It's their money really, not ours. Why not let the engine run a little faster? Wouldn't that create more jobs in more diverse industries? Jobs that were based on sound, proven business models? What kind of job is based on a one-time government expenditure? Sounds like a job where it goes away once the money runs out. The other guy, the guy that got the job at the growing company, he's hooked into an already-increasing slot that's proven to work during a recession: it only gets better with time.

<comment><USER2> Sorry, I wasn't responding directly to your specific suggestion. I agree that a tax stimulus to small companies is at least somewhat more likely to be useful than a stimulus to large companies. A _general_ tax cut, the kind that's more likely to be politically successful, would certainly channel a lot of money into large corporations as well as small corporations.

It's not PC to say this on HN, but I think that startups are also a mixed bag. Exit events are probably as bad for the economy as bonuses at large companies. If you would assume that a company is worth the expected present discounted value of all future earnings, I bet many companies are bought for much more than their value, and the money is then used with the same lack of efficiency as huge bonuses at a big corporation.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Microsoft Sold 8 Million Kinects In 60 Days - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2011/01/27/microsoft-sold-8-million-kinects-in-60-days/ <comment><USER2> The problem now is that the rest of Microsoft needs to pry the Kinect from the Entertainment division. The device has _incredible_ potential, but the Entertainment division won't care about anything that doesn't sell Xboxes.</comment>


Show HN: Open beta for ServiceBot, start a side-hustle in under 5 minutes - <AUTHOR> https://servicebot.io <comment><AUTHOR> Hey HN,

I'm a founder of ServiceBot - if you didn't know ServiceBot is an open-source project you can find the code here:

[https://github.com/service-bot/servicebot](https://github.com/service- bot/servicebot)

Let me know if you have any questions/feedback about the project.

Thanks!

</comment><comment><USER2> The term "side-hustle" annoys me. I am not sure why.</comment>


Ask HN: Solo founders, what do you struggle with the most? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> I just quit my job to start a company. #1 problem is sales.

Seriously, I knew marketing would be important, and sales would be important when I started this thing... but I really didn't realize that when I quit, what I actually was doing was making a job change from "really pretty good engineer to full time sales guy".

I'm trying to do b2b software, which has a much different buying process. It's been quite a learning process, I've had to learn how to prospect, how to cold call (cold calling is frightening if you're an introverted engineer!!) how to actually drill into peoples pain points, how to avoid objection handling, how to find the decision makers. It's not easy.

As a senior engineer, i'd never had partner up with a junior sales guy, but for some reason I thought learning it myself was a good idea.

<comment><USER3> Are there any resources you've found helpful to get better at sales?

<comment><USER2> I'm not an expert :D

but what seems to be working for me, taking a lot of notes, looking back at failures for where I can learn. I try to do research on the prospect before I call. I think honestly trying to help the customer (and not just sell your solution) is important too.

There's no replacement for practice... but in terms of books. "Spin Selling" by Neil Rackham was pretty good, and Dale Carnegies "How to win friends and Influence people" is a staple everyone should read.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Saying no to customers. I finally figured out that being more militant about per-customer customization was better in the long run. We have A, B, and C now. If none of them work for you, then here's a list of my competitors that can do bespoke work for you.

Of course, that's only good advice for specific situations. In my case, I'm small, not interested in rapid growth, and am focused on being low risk. I won't be rich anytime soon, but this approach keeps the hours down, and still maintains enough revenue to live like I want to.

<comment><USER5> Aren't you leaving money on the table?

Depending on how expensive your service is, bespoke could be a nice "extra."

<comment><USER4> In my case, yes, I'm leaving money on the table. The bespoke work isn't compatible with the "Solo founders" bit.

I could take on debt, hire, and do it. There's money there. Because of the customization though, the margins are lower. Exactly how much lower, I don't really know.

I'm not currently willing to take the risk.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I actually love being a solo founder.

I've worked with friends and strangers as co-founders. Even if you set the bar for a successful collaboration suuuuuuper low, you're going to be surprised by how many people will just flat out trip over it.

If I need help with something, as a solo founder, I pay a professional to come in and take care of it. They either do a good job or they don't. If they do, I call them again for the next job. If they don't, I make sure that I pay their invoice as soon as I receive it and move on to the next person.

Co-founders are way more complicated.

Most people who haven't started/grown a project before only have a vague sense about what starting a company means. Most can't seem to get beyond the fantasy of "not having a boss" while others may prioritize their own short-term gains over the _potential_ long-term payoffs for the group/company if the opportunity presents itself.

As a solo founder I'm committed and I have a vested interest in the success of my company. If I have co-founders they may or may not be as invested as me or our incentives may not be perfectly aligned. Massive issues.

If you have the perfect friends to start a company with that's great! Do that! If you don't, don't stress out too much about being solo or try to turn someone into a co-founder that you shouldn't.

Just get your thing working.

<comment><USER7> Hi there, I need some advice please. How do you find professionals? I am not very good at front-end design, so would much rather hire someone on contract, but I am not sure how to go about finding someone reliable, who will do a decent job.

<comment><USER6> I usually ask someone who does what I need done really well (someone that I know I can't afford) for a reference: "J, who's the best most reliable person that I can afford?"

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> A lot of people are saying sales, but the meta problem as a solo founder is if you're not working nothing is happening. Even just one other person lets one of you do sales, and the product keeps getting built.

<comment><USER9> This is an underrated comment -- it's a silent stressor. Need to take the day off for personal reasons? Company grinds to an absolute halt. Therefore, any moment you're not working becomes a stressful period of - "I should be working".

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Isolation: It's hard not being around others from a social perspective. When you have no coworkers to vent to, celebrate with, or collaborate with, you get higher highs and lower lows since everything is internal.

Accountability: You're the boss and the employee, it can be really difficult to force your 'boss' self to do things your 'employee' self doesn't want to do (eg support, sales, refactoring, etc)

Sales: This has already been mentioned, but the hardest part for me is that you need to be pretty passionate about it to be successful.

Problem Solving: Sometimes you just cant "get" something, and talking through the problem aloud to someone can give you new ideas/solutions you hadn't even considered. You don't know what you don't know.

<comment><USER11> > and talking through the problem aloud to someone can give you new > ideas/solutions you hadn't even considered

I have found that you can also do this by talking out loud _as if_ you were talking to someone. You won't get the other person's perspective but for some reason your brain becomes more critical of its own thoughts

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Definitely marketing. Even though my product is targeted at people just like me - software engineers, start ups, dev ops, etc.... I still have no idea how to reach those people, how to market to them, how to promote my product.

<comment><USER4> Sounds like there's a start up idea in there somewhere for a controlled, non- sleazy, affiliate marketing service. Some way to connect tech-heavy/marketing- light founders with freelance people that can sell.

<comment><USER2> There's a million of them, the problem is I usually can't afford them :(

<comment><USER4> The ones I'm familiar with have issues with:

\- control/visibility: being able to select who does the selling, seeing their track record first, ability to stop misleading ads, etc

\- niche expertise: Lots of people can sell consumer oriented widgets. Harder to find a service that can sell to a specific niche (small retail businesses, developers, etc)

\- a straightforward interface. Something maybe like toptal.com, but for salespeople.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Invoicing. I sell a product that customers use on many of their own projects, and each project of theirs means one invoice for me. I can solve some of this with automation, and I _will_ get around to doing this, but it will remain hard to keep on top of even then because the nature of the thing I'm selling relies on the customer to validate that the tally is correct before I send the invoice.

(I also have the opposite problem when the customers actually pay, because they often batch many invoices together into one payment, which makes reconciliation surprisingly difficult. I wrote a little script in Python to make that easier - sort of along the lines of "Given this total, which of these invoices could potentially satisfy it?" \- but it's still frustrating.)

If the business continues to grow, I anticipate hiring someone to take care of this aspect for me in its entirety, because it's demonstrably a poor usage of my time, and I derive zero pleasure from it.

<comment><USER14> Why not hire a remote "secretary" to take care of this for you?

<comment><USER13> Yes, I've sort of half-heartedly considered this, without really exploring the idea very fully. Can you - or anyone else - recommend such a service? All they would really need to do is reach out to customers to check tallies on their projects and to see if they're finished, and then to generate invoices for said projects if they are. I guess this really isn't a difficult task!

<comment><USER15> My company recently signed up with Intelligent Office to handle our phones. It's been over a month now and we are really pleased with their service. They are pretty flexible on what they will/can handle. I believe they are franchised and we are using the Boise, ID franchise which is the next town over from us. It's always the same three girls that answer the phones for us and they do a great job of sounding like they are right in our office. They even joined one of our Slack channels so they can check in on who is available and such for incoming calls. When I went to meet them before signing up they told me they also handle customer returns for a high end mobile phone case company out of California, so I have no doubt you could train them on your invoicing process.

Edit: Adding URL! [https://www.intelligentoffice.com](https://www.intelligentoffice.com)

<comment><USER13> Thanks for the suggestion, I'll check them out (and thanks for the other responses too)!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> As someone building a highly technical distributed platform, I have found that the amount of time put into engineering prevents me from dedicating large sums of time to marketing and other efforts.

Typical run of the mill "hackathon" style startups that can be built in a week or two will have different issues.

</comment><comment><USER17> Keeping up with demand, though automation is helping a lot.

Time wasters - people who want endless meetings and never commit. Having Tech partners is helping with this a lot though

<comment><USER18> "People who want endless meetings and never commit"

This is definitely a big issue being solo. Funny thing is that most of these folks who want endless demos and meetings are the ones whose signup rate is lower in my experience.

<comment><USER17> Yeah agreed - from what I've found if somebody isn't willing to commit after 2 meetings, then it's not gonna happen. I always leave the door open and keep things positive though, sometimes they come back :)

<comment><USER18> exactly right. 2 times is my ceiling as well. I actually have a guy who still emails us after 2 years asking if we have added any "new features". But he wouldn't just sign up and try it out, lol. But you are right. Always be polite and leave the door open for anyone. Unless they are rude to you. Those types, I tell them to f' off (not literally though).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Support & email. It's hard for me to switch modes between writing code and answering email. My solution is to do just one or the other for a day at time to avoid too much loss in efficiency for either.

<comment><USER20> I write code on weekends and after-hours. I've found that in order to build trust with clients and stay on top of new opportunities, I need to be responsive to emails. Product development is a little slower, but since I coded the entire platform, it takes relatively little time to roll out updates. As for work/life balance, I work from home with my wife and daughters and regularly take off an hour here or there. Not for everyone, but this works for me.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> my biggest problem with being a solo founder is being able to bounce ideas off others. Obviously I talk to my friends and family, but it's a different ball game because they're not really immersed in this as I am, so the advice is usually too generic. I need someone to keep me honest and bat ideas around back and forth with who have full context and passion.

my project is here:

[https://madsportslab.com](https://madsportslab.com)

</comment><comment><USER22> I think many of these problems are general start-up problems. I've tried to start several companies as a solo founder and the unique challenge to going it alone that I've found is dealing with the ups and downs. When you have another partner you get some natural balance. Someone to pump you up when things aren't going well and someone to set realistic expectations when you think nothing could go wrong.

</comment><comment><USER23> I will quit my job in a few days.

There are two opportunities I am pursuing. One is to be a CTO in a nascent startup foundry; I would be co-founding, in a way, but there is one main person leading the initiative and therefore it wouldn't be a "solo founder" type of thing. It might happen. I am not going to talk about this one now.

The second opportunity/idea, however, is something I would do by myself for now, as a solo founder. It is about solving the problems that current cities have, by eventually being able to build a new city in a better way. Yes: taking a piece of land, and building a new city there, from scratch. Hopefully not too far away from existing hospitals, airports, schools, but far away enough that there is a lot of room to build new stuff. I would like this place to be sustainable, affordable, and a great place to live.

Every time I say this, I realize how nearly impossible this sounds. I have read a ton, wrote a ton, studied a ton, and spoke to several people, some of which could be good co-founding candidates, but none of which has shown interest in joining me as a founder.

I feel that the problem is evident, and I see a few serious "struggles" for me right now:

1) I am alone. Nobody to share the burden with. Being a solo founder, being alone feels harder, because you regularly have "down" moments and nobody is there to cheer you up.

2) The task feels unsurmountable. I fully realize how difficult it is to "eventually" build a new city; there are so many barriers, so many delays, so many friction points.

It still feels unsormountable, despite there seem to be a huge market for a radical new way to "interpret" city living, both for existing cities, and for new ones. There's going to be 60 million more "citizens" in the US in the coming decades, which means "demand" for new places to live (either in existing cities, or new ones) is strong. Worldwide that number is 1.5B more people living in cities by 2030 (or 2035?).

3) I am working on an idea that has is massively capital intensive - and I am not a billionaire. Convincing people to invest in this is going to be insanely hard.

4) Last, but not least, personal life is not too easy at the moment; I have no really hard issue to handle, but I am not the happiest guy on Earth either.

I could go on forever, but... I feel this is enough color to give you an idea.

<comment><USER24> Just to encourage you, starting a new city that survives shouldn't seem impossible because it has literally been done successfully tens of thousands of times: every town on the map is a working example to prove it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> I'm not a solo founder now, but I have been twice before. Unless you're really good at getting into a network of people who are entrepreneurial, it's tough to get good constructive debate around a feature or even your project in general. Cofounders bring the luxury of debate so that hopefully you waste less time.

</comment><comment><USER26> We have a huge problem with invoicing. We have this problem right now for like 2 years and it struggles us to scale. We sell services. We have about 40 of them and with every customer we sign agreement with different pricing on same services, due to B2B nature. We have some recurring services and some additional depending on usage. It is hard to write invoices every month for us, because we can't find right billing solution.

We are looking for something like this: Then we sign agreement with customer, we create template/profile with prices and services on billing system. Then we provide services, we just add/register quantity to that template/profile. At the end of month system writes invoice with recurring service and added additional not recurring services to invoice. It means one invoice for recurring and not recurring services.

<comment><USER27> [https://stripe.com/subscriptions](https://stripe.com/subscriptions)

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Allocating time between sales activities and product development to optimize growth and retention.

I've brought on some part-time help for the sales end, but ultimately the difficult factors to balance are:

      - My desire to grow as quickly as possible.
      - I'd like to retain all of my clients.
      - I want to have a very high client satisfaction.

We have had a few complaints/suggestions from our user base, and like all of you we have had some feature requests. These need to be addressed, but it's also a solid MVP and very sellable. Determining whether and how to invest my time in product vs growth is an ongoing challenge.

</comment><comment><USER18> Other than the usual stuff people already mentioned, one of my issues has been the ability to switch off. I know that the idea of doing your own thing is to give you control over how you spend your time but boy I was wrong (being a solo founder).

Sure, you can automate the hell out of things. But when that email from a client comes (which it will), you have to decide what to do.

Honestly, being solo is great only if you intend to build a business that is almost 100% automated but I am realizing there is no such thing.

Of course, I would not give this up for anything else because I love being in charge of my own stuff but that also means I have to always be switched on.

</comment><comment><USER29> Once you have sales and moderate growth you may lose the courage to continue growing and improving the company. Every decision has downside risk and the effort required keeps growing with each milestone. Without a co-founder or investors for motivation, it is easy to spend your time working like a low- level employee instead of a leader.

Knowing your goals and then spending time every day on the highest value, highest impact tasks is _the_ job of a founder. This sentiment is captured in Brian Tracy's audiobook "Eat that Frog" which I highly recommend.

</comment><comment><USER30> Taxes are by far the biggest problem. It is so hard to set aside 33% of every dollar taken in and send it off to the IRS every quarter. Every month you must decide between paying the mortgage or paying the IRS. Once you fall behind penalties and interest just pile up. Eventually there are liens on your house so you cannot even refinance. The more you make the more you owe.

<comment><USER15> Correct me if I'm wrong, but you only pay taxes on profits right? Hopefully you are maximizing the amount of your mortgage that you can write off assuming you work out of your home.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Fear of vulnerability, my term for perfectionism. While external things like marketing and invoicing can be a challenge, the biggest challenge is, and always will be, your view of yourself and the world. This is were success and failure ultimately come from.

</comment><comment><USER32> Everything - since you have to cut corners and can't be involved %100 into each and every single task, you have to work extremely fast in order to make it look like it's moving slow. And of course you can't go faster than slow.

</comment><comment><USER33> I can't say that I struggle with something because I'm a _solo_ founder. Just regular company lifecycle challenges. Year ago it was product/market fit. Now it's marketing.

<comment><USER34> Any tips on how did you find product/market fit? EasyMorph looks like a really nice product!

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> its ironic that most of the problems are related with too much demand, my biggest problem has always been customers, I have never started something where my problems were too much customers, I guess I have to get better at picking what to do

</comment><comment><USER36> Marketing. Having a fresh look from outside. Not knowing anything except how to build the product.

</comment><comment><USER37> Reaching niche users in a cost-effective way.

<comment><USER38> The secret is specialization.

One beginner mistake I did was positioning myself as a generalist. I reluctantly started to accept the advice of positioning myself as a specialist a couple years ago and now I want to go back in time and punch the former me in the face. It really works: it is easier to find work and I get better clients.

Last year was my best income ever despite the crisis in Brazil.

Reading list:

1) Breaking the Time Barrier (free ebook) [https://www.freshbooks.com/ebooks/breaking-the-time- barrier](https://www.freshbooks.com/ebooks/breaking-the-time-barrier)

2) The Single Founder Handbook (not free but worth it) [http://www.singlefounderhandbook.com/](http://www.singlefounderhandbook.com/)

3) The Win Without Pitching Manifesto (read for free online) [http://www.winwithoutpitching.com/the- manifesto/](http://www.winwithoutpitching.com/the-manifesto/)

<comment><USER37> Thanks for recommendations. Are your clients consumers or businesses though?

<comment><USER38> Businesses.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> Marketing.

</comment><comment><USER40> Hearing other solo founders complain.

If you work in technology and are lucky enough to find yourself in a position where you can actually start a company you are on permanent vacation compared to most of the world.</comment>


Why you should start a company in… New York  - <AUTHOR> http://www.fastcompany.com/blog/maccabee-montandon/upswing/why-you-should-start-company-new-york

<comment><USER2> Let's see. If I have a job in NYC and I work on my startup on the side, then when I try to leave my job once my startup is making progress I discover that my employer owns everything I did for my startup and I'm out in the cold.

Do the same thing in California and state law makes the startup I've been working on in my time with my money, mine.

To me this simple fact gives California a _huge_ advantage in maintaining a startup culture.

<comment><USER3> Funny, I've been sure to add / ensure that there were clauses in my employment contracts that prevent this sort of thing from happening. In fact, I'm about to start a flex-time contract position that will allow me to work on toy/potentially-interesting projects on my own time, that I will own. In NYC.

YMMV...

(I guess my point is: do you have more than anecdotal evidence to back this up? I don't, but you don't seem to either - I'm not aware of anything in NYS law that requires all that you do while employed at a company, even when not done on employer dime/equipment/time/space, to be owned by said employer)

<comment><USER2> I have more than anecdotal evidence, but it isn't in an online form.

Detailed discussions with a good lawyer about NY state law is that there are three classes of employee. Those are contractors, hourly, and professional. If you are not working by the project and don't have to track your time on a clock, then you are a professional employee. By default any work done by a professional employee which relates to that employee's job function belongs to the employer. (If a programmer writes a novel, the novel is probably his. But a program written is probably not his.) It is standard and customary for employers to add clauses to contracts reiterating that principle. This makes their case even stronger.

And yes, I've been personally caught on the wrong side of this. And yes, I personally know other people in an unrelated incident whose startup folded in exactly this manner.

OTOH if your contract has clauses protecting you then you are likely protected from this. However the common default is otherwise.

By contrast in California state law work done on your own time with your own equipment which does not use your employer's intellectual property is never a work for hire. This right cannot be signed away. The result is that your startup on the side is always legally protected.

And yes. This is among the reasons that I now live in California, and not NY.

<comment><USER4> There are so many ways I see to bypass this (pseudo)problem starting with (techno)logical and ending with legal solutions, I don't see how it matters at all.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> _"... So now we have the best of both worlds. We can back first-time entrepreneurs and have mentors and role models for them and we have those role models in their second, third, and fourth startups and that's the magic--that creates a sustainable startup economy that Silicon Valley has had for four decades now. We're three or four years into our second decade and I think it's going to be a great period for New York. ..."_

I read the article half way, looked at some of the phrases and guessed <http://www.avc.com> / Fred Wilson who's been pushing NY as a Startup alternative for a number of years now. Will this idea crumble when finance recovers?

<comment><USER5> I for one plan to open a startup in NYC.

Why? B/c there are no girls in silicon valley. If you are in your 20s, or early 30s, you are probably wasting your best dating years away.

I like to work hard/play hard and NYC seems the perfect place to do it. In SV, you work hard/get more bored. You are surrounded by boring suburbs. SF is fun for a while, but good luck finding dateable girls. (If you are into hipster chicks, it is perfect). Eventually work hard without corresponding fun becomes tedious, and people burn off, and move on.

NYC seems to have a better balance. When people leave NYC, (or Manhattan), they seem to settle for the cheaper boroughs, or New Jersey / RI. When people leave SF/SV, they just move away.

Fred Wilson should start emphasizing this more in his posts. He doesn't realize how bad the 'dating' situation is here, and just be in a city where you meet lots of well educated girls, is a huge perk for many single 20s-30something engineers.

Ps. I have been talking with some friends also, that are in the same boat. Our plan is to actually have at least an office there. Seriously. I guess it is just like rock bands, where people join them "to get the chicks", so will be my next startup. "To get the chicks". Life is too short. :D

<comment><USER6> I feel like the quality of women in California is better than in NYC. Granted I'm in NJ, so our quality is even lower.

Who knows, maybe it's just a case of the grass being greener on the other side...but I feel like an 8 here, is only a 4-5 in California.

<comment><USER7> Maybe in So Cal, but in my short experience the Bay Area fell far short of my expectations. Especially compared to NYC, which imo has the most varied beautiful women in the country. I've been all over, but when I visited nyc for the first time I saw a hot chic of a different flavor, every ten steps. Not sure about Jersey, only been to EWR.

Contrast this with SF. I was there a couple days staying at the CLIFT a few months ago.I was sitting in my room and I decided to go out and see what the SF women were like. I went down to the bar and was presently suprised to see that it was packed... _with men_. I mean there might have been 2 girls for 50 guys.

<comment><USER8> I wouldn't judge any city by what I find in a hotel bar.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Definitely don't have a startup in Miami. All the sun, beach, and girls will rob you of your motivation to work. Who wants to spend 18 hours at office when you've got 12 hours of blazing sunlight. You'll blow all your money on liquor and clubs while staying in a decent sized apartment. You'll stroll into work around noonish after doing a yoga session... on the beach. And you'll meet all types of beautiful women who don't speak english. Definitely DO NOT GO TO MIAMI.

/s</comment>


Thoughts on React and Vue - <AUTHOR> Honestly they are both phenomenal tech stacks.  My current thoughts are that Vue is less opinionated and has a lighter transpilation pipeline, but doesn't have anything that can match React Native.  What are your thoughts? <comment> crooked-v I prefer React because JSX has a one-to-one translation to JS code. It makes reasoning through edge cases and interactions with builtins much easier than with template language-based stuff.

<comment><AUTHOR> A good point. I like templates because they seem to require less transpilation, which makes the process of development easier overall. Thanks for the reply.</comment></comment>


What Caused the Blogosphere to Grow Up? - <AUTHOR> http://siliconangle.net/ver2/2009/12/01/what-caused-the-blogosphere-to-grow-up/

<comment><AUTHOR> I sort of wasted my night last night reading old archived posts put up around the time Kathy Sierra quit blogging, and try to draw some conclusions on the differences in blogging style from 2007 to 2009.</comment>


HTC No More Amongst Top 5 Phone Makers Worldwide - <AUTHOR> http://gadgetizor.com/htc-top-no-more/10653/

<comment><USER2> What's with the stupid sharing popup on that site? It's right over the list of phone makers, and there's no way of closing it.</comment>


Ask HN: How to handle small collections? - <AUTHOR>

Does anyone have any good idea of how to handle small collections? We have a $700+ invoice which is now several months late, and they have no intention of paying, apparently.
Taking them to small claims court would not be cost-effective, plus they're in a different state, etc.
Does anyone have experience with "reasonable" collection agencies for this kind of very infrequent collections? Or a better way entirely? <comment><USER2> A client of mine does this and then posts to social networks. Amazing how a little public shaming gets you back in line...

[http://www.ridingmagazine.com/riding_onlinemag/rm_badstandin...](http://www.ridingmagazine.com/riding_onlinemag/rm_badstanding.htm)

</comment><comment><USER3> My grandfather had great luck with official sounding, strongly worded, legal type letters. Unfortunately I can't provide you with any of the wording, but you should first google for this type of letter and find examples to get the general feel. Then do a little more research to see if the letter can be tweaked to reflect the laws of their state.

The best case scenario is that you have a lawyer friend who coud write and send this for you, but if you don't, it will have to originate from you.

Please avoid all threats or any actions which could scare off future customers. $700 isn't that much in the grand scheme of things.

There was a thread on here a while back where folks debated the merits of outright defacing a deadbeat customer's site with porn, etc. versus introducing a slight (deniable) bug, versus doing nothing. I think the most professional thing to do would be nothing (other than the letter I mentioned above) if you aren't willing/able to take them to small claims court.

<comment><USER4> Make a letterhead with a bunch of last names on the top "Jackson, Firth, & John" and send the letter. Don't write that it is LLP or office of law or anything as that can be misrepresenting, but just make them think that it could be real...</comment></comment>


Show HN: Painland – Helping entrepreneurs to have problems worth solving - <AUTHOR> https://www.pain.land/ <comment><AUTHOR> Hi there, I've recently launched Painland, a community and marketplace where lean entrepreneurs find problems, firsthand insights, and inspiration to start or improve their business.

Would it be helpful for you? If yes, why? Any suggestions is really appreciated.

PS For those who are interested: \- Users 635 \- Published Problems 76 \- Comments 88 \- Metoos 518

Best, M</comment>