Man Accused of Making Millions of Robocalls Faces Biggest-Ever FCC Fine - happy-go-lucky http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/06/22/533970545/man-accused-of-making-millions-of-robocalls-faces-biggest-ever-fcc-fine <comment><AUTHOR> If you "overwhelm an emergency paging service", I feel like it should become a criminal matter beyond just wire fraud.

</comment><comment><USER2> Good.

I was getting a couple of calls a day from this campaign for a while. It was pretty easy to recognize -- but it was still pretty annoying. Multiply that by a few million, and the amount of time wasted must be immense.

<comment><USER3> I have a very long email thread of voicemail transcripts from this. Very annoying.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Will they be able to pay $120M? And will there be also personal sanctions for the individuals responsible for this?

<comment><USER5> The most recent information visible in search about this guy's company shows he was making a little over $20,000/year. A recent traffic related arrest of someone with the same name as his in the same area where he is reported to live shows a residence in a cheap beach condo high rise in a low cost part of southern Florida.

All that misery he put out into the world and he probably only made around $20K/yr (probably from mentally vulnerable/disabled populations). Have any of you ever actually purchased a cruise vacation from a robo-caller that spammed you in the middle of the night?

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Please ELI5: What is the tech behind this? How is he able to do this?

<comment><USER7> I really hope that the investigation gets to the tech and allows the phone companies to actually shut this stuff down. I get calls every day from robocallers on my cell phone. Every now and then I get a real person on the line and can usually get them to swear at me when I give them a hard time for trying to scam people. Part of me feels bad because they probably don't know any better, but seriously? How can you not know? How many pissed off people do they talk to everyday because of this... Deceitful practices like this are exhausting and the politicians seem to not care at all.

<comment><USER8> There's not really any special sauce in the tech. I scanned the FCC Order and didn't see a reference to a particular autodialer, but there are dozens to choose from.

If his service was purely playing an automated IVR message and the live call center he hot-transferred to was someone else, I could see him making a custom solution to cut costs. But it'd be fairly easy to make that volume of calls via most enterprise level autodialers without raising any eyebrows as long as there were enough agent licenses to support it.

Most autodialers bake in regulatory compliance functionality and warnings, but the laws that apply are so specific to an individual user that those features can be disabled or overridden and they leave it up to the client to understand what laws their calling must adhere to.

For example, the guy in question would have been legally fine to spam 100mm calls in three months if they had been business landlines, as the federal law they're leveraging for their fine only applies "to emergency phone lines, wireless phones, or residential telephone lines"[1]

[1]In the first paragraph of the order: [http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2017...](http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2017/db0622/DA-17-593A1.pdf)</comment></comment></comment>


Ivan Turgenev Was Distrusted by the Left and the Right - <AUTHOR> https://www.neh.gov/article/ivan-turgenev-was-distrusted-left-and-right <comment><USER2> "Our successors!" repeated Nikolai Petrovich, with a dejected smile. He had been sitting on thorns, all through the argument, and had done nothing but glance stealthily, with a sore heart, at Arkady. "Do you know what I was reminded of, brother? I once had a dispute with our poor mother; she stormed, and wouldn't listen to me. At last I said to her, 'Of course, you can't understand me; we belong,' I said, 'to two different generations.' She was dreadfully offended, while I thought, 'There's no help for it. It's a bitter pill, but she has to swallow it.' You see, now, our turn has come, and our successors can say to us, 'You are not of our generation; swallow your pill.'"

This is great and really resonates. I've often thought the current strife manifests from an inevitable transition of power from the extremely powerful, rich and reluctant baby boom generation to the next millennial generation.

</comment><comment><USER3> "These restless youths found another mirror of their attitudes in Bazarov, the young hero of Turgenev's novel Fathers and Sons (1862). Turgenev (a 'man of the forties') had intended him as a monstrous caricature of the nihilists, whom he regarded as narrowly materialist, morally slippery and artistically philistine, although later he would pretend otherwise. There was a striking resemblance between Bazarov and the student idol Pisarev. Yet such was the gulf of misunderstanding between the fathers and sons of real life that the young radicals took his faults as virtues and acclaimed Bazarov as their ideal man." \- A People's Tragedy: The Russian Revolution: 1891-1924

This is probably the reason why it was distrusted by the Left and the Right. The right disliked the message his characters such as Bazarov presented, the left disliked the message his characters like Pavel Petrovich presented.</comment>


Show HN: A great way to make videos for driving customer engagement with brands - <AUTHOR> https://www.vimily.com

<comment><AUTHOR> Hey HN, I am the webdev for Vimily and I would love some feedback for our new site. Ill be here to answer any questions you might have.

Thanks!</comment>


Dallas startup PureDiscovery has raised over $2MM - <AUTHOR> http://launchdfw.com/startup-profiles/purediscovery/ <comment><USER2> What kind of unit is MM? Million money?

<comment><AUTHOR> here's a good answer for you [http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20061007233502AA...](http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20061007233502AAjw7W8)</comment></comment>


Embedded Development: ARM and Embedded Processor - <AUTHOR> http://dev.emcelettronica.com/embedded-development-arm-and-embedded-processor <comment><AUTHOR> I heard once one guy telling one of his friends : "I'd give my right arm to know what's inside this portable device." He didn't know he was already holding an Arm in his hands.... since ARM designs the technology that lies at the heart of advanced digital products, from wireless, networking and consumer entertainment solutions to imaging, automotive, security and storage devices. Learn more about this embedded processor.</comment>


Ask HN: What are the best dev shops in New York? - <AUTHOR> We are looking for development shops that have experience with the latest web development technologies, and ideally have experience in healthcare. <comment><USER2> Hi Shawn, check out Rose Digital or shoot me an email at firstname.lastname@example.com Have done work for Zoetis but usually focused on building revenue generating web and mobile products for F500 cos.

</comment><comment><USER3> I have been working with a dev at thoughtbot in NYC, and the results have been fantastic.

</comment><comment><USER4> email@example.com. NYC based. Hardcore tech experts

</comment><comment><USER5> What is the average rate for a senior dev in NYC?

</comment><comment><USER6> Shoot me an email, firstname.lastname@example.com :)

<comment><USER7> I mean no offense, but:

a) You are in Dublin, and not New York.

b) I'm curious as to your qualifications for "the best". While age isn't a determinant, you're only 17/18 years old, still in highschool, and list yourself as working since the age of 13. Founding companies at 15 (whose domain names are parked or empty), and your 'awards' are the equivalent of regional science fairs.

Are you sure you want to be so enthusiastic?

<comment><USER6> We have guys in NYC, but I appreciate the background check! :)

<comment><USER7> Who is this 'we'?

I was just going by what's on your website curran.pw, since that's what you posted here, and continually post in the SEEKING WORK section as a solo developer.

The website clearly states:

> Hi! I'm Shane Curran. I'm a security consultant and full stack developer.

Then it goes on to give the same resume as your Linkedin.

So I'm confused if you have a company that you're associated with... you should link to them.

\----

Also, I'll point out there are lots of problems with hiring minors for dev work.

For instance, legally speaking, I can't even _talk_ about any of my companies projects with you.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Programming fonts: proportional vs monospaced - <AUTHOR> http://nickgravgaard.com/elastictabstops/news/programming-fonts/ <comment><USER2> I understand why proportional fonts are better looking, but there is no way in hell I would use anything but monospaced fonts for programming. I often have a set of values assigned across several lines - I want those values to line up perfectly, or it will drive me nuts. When I press the up or down arrow, I want to know exactly where my cursor will end up.</comment>


Professors allow students to pick their own grade - <AUTHOR> https://www.thecollegefix.com/post/47730/ <comment><USER2> Interesting. The article itself does not add much insight from the professor (Dr. Melissa González) since she didn't respond to requests for comments, so it is based on a research paper she cited and an email she sent to potential students.

If you're interested in these type of experiments, you should read some of the books by behavioral economics professor Dr. Dan Ariely. He has several talks online as well. I'm partial to his first book on this topic, _Predictably Irrational_ , but he has several other books exploring human behavior.</comment>


Steve Jobs Yacht makes its debut - <AUTHOR> http://thenextweb.com/apple/2012/10/28/steve-jobs-and-philippe-starcks-minimalist-high-tech-yacht-makes-its-debut/

<comment><AUTHOR> [http://www.onemorething.nl/2012/10/jacht-steve-jobs-te- water...](http://www.onemorething.nl/2012/10/jacht-steve-jobs-te-water- gelaten-in-aalsmeer/) extra photos , dutch text</comment>


Web Development Frameworks: Silicon Valley vs Europe - <AUTHOR> http://blog.jobsbcn.com/index.php/2015/07/14/web-development-frameworks-silicon-valley-vs-europe/

<comment><USER2> missing a lot of good frameworks here. From the comparison list I've only touched Django once. Where is Backbone, Express/Koa, Flask, Play Framework or even AngularJS, Ember.js ?

<comment><AUTHOR> Author here.

You are right, we missed those, most likely because we were focussing on MVC Frameworks.

Anyway, a quick search in our startup jobs database shows that in Barcelona there are 8 open positions for Ember.js, 4 for Backbone, 1 for flask, and none for Play Framework.

AngularJS was not added to the list because it's a platform, not a framework.

<comment><USER2> thanks for the quick reply :)</comment></comment></comment>


Face Aging using Conditional GANs with Keras implementation - <AUTHOR> https://iq.opengenus.org/face-aging-cgan-keras/ <comment><USER2> All goes over my head, but very cool paper on preserving identity in face aging.

Many of us have used these trendy face aging apps. While fun and silly, they all run into the problem of creating an unrecognizable different person as the end product. Even worse, when you compare it with your friends', the aged faces all sort of look the same.

This paper explains how to fix that issue.

</comment><comment><USER3> Please change the title of this post. It has nothing to do with FaceApp.</comment>


Ask HN: Blog/publication databases? - <AUTHOR>

Inspired a little by https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6482993:<p>Are there any current sources, datasets, or companies that catalog active blogs/publications?  (ie. I search for 'beer' and get a list of blogs, magazines, etc. dedicated to beer?) <comment><USER2> Technorati does this:

[http://technorati.com/search?return=sites&authority=all&q=be...](http://technorati.com/search?return=sites&authority=all&q=beer&x=0&y=0)

It only catalogs blogs, as far as I know.</comment>


Split cycle: most efficient combustion engine to date - <AUTHOR> http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-01-split-cycle-efficient-traditional-combustion.html

<comment><AUTHOR> Claims:

Engine running at the speed of a diesel, but the torque of a gasoline engine. Power output 70% higher. Ability to store compressed air in a form regenerative braking.

I'm not sure if the compressed air tank actually stores the air/fuel mixture or just the air after combustion.</comment>


So you've found yourself in an Orwellian nightmare  What's the next step? - <AUTHOR> Seriously guys, where do we start <comment><USER2> Scott Adams said it best [1]:

The ideal arrangement for a new government – and one that requires no change to the Constitution – would feature a President Trump running weekly televised meetings (yes, like The Apprentice) to decide the big issues. And sitting in every meeting should be Bernie Sanders and Michael Bloomberg, supported by their experts, arguing their cases.

[1] [http://blog.dilbert.com/post/138023808851/the-second- america...](http://blog.dilbert.com/post/138023808851/the-second-american- revolution-what-then)

<comment><USER3> I can't fathom the disconnect between the "creative leader" Trump described by people like Scott Adams, and the "petty vindicative egomaniac" Trump that manifests in his own speech (and in descriptions given by most of those who have worked with him over the decades).

Is there any evidence that the first Trump exists? Or is it just a hopeful projection of Adams's own dreams of creative destruction?

<comment><USER2> I don't think evidence would help at this point. The only solace I have is thinking that a petty, vindictive person won't be able to unravel decades of positive strides in the global arena. Either way, we are now left to the whims of a 'hopefully' unknown person.

Warning - Rationalization ahead: I would like to think that the reason for a lot of the petty jabs were to dominate the echo chamber for his own benefit. Is it possible to think that he is an ego-maniacal self serving sociopath? Absolutely.

But, is it also possible to believe that he used the system against itself to further his candidacy and tap into a deep seated anger within the population? Probably.

And do we really think he wants to watch the world burn? Doubtful.</comment></comment></comment>


Mathematical genius is fragile - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@fjmubeen/mathematical-genius-is-fragile-society-needs-to-stop-destroying-it-5fdf3f08336e#.es3gqj3h2 <comment><USER2> The author lost me at "Mathematical genius resides within every one of us — most people just don't know it yet."

The movie Ratatouille captured the sentiment much better, "a great chef can be anyone". Which is not the same as "anyone can be a great chef". It seems the author is mixing up those two.

I fully agree that gender, background, schooling, etc is not the key determination of genius. However, saying anyone could be a genius is disingenuous.

<comment><USER3> Math is a high IQ game. Anyone who tells you otherwise is kidding themselves.

<comment><USER4> Since mathematical skills (broadly defined) are a component of IQ, this is dangerously close to "Basketball is a getting the ball in the hoop game. Anyone who tells you otherwise is kidding themselves." True, but less informative than you might think...

(This is not to comment on the underlying question of whether everyone has the potential to be a great mathematician, just a particular type of reasoning).

<comment><USER5> It would be more like "Basketball is about being in very good physical shape", which makes more sense.

IQ (or more precisely the g factor) correlates not only with math but also with language skills and music[1].

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_\(psychometrics\))

<comment><USER4> I very clearly said component and "close to", so I don't think what I said merits a correction.

<comment><USER5> Then why would the g factor also apply to animals as stated on the Wikipedia page? You don't see that many doing mathematics.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> His last point about poverty destroying genius was what really struck me. I remember reading that 71% of the world's population lives on less than $10 a day. That doesn't seem to be enough to get a decent education and contribute meaningfully to any field. This means that the world is working at 30% capacity. Our species only gets innovations from the 30% of inventors, entrepreneurs, politicians, scientists who were born in circumstances that allow them to contribute. How many more Srinivasa Ramanujans are there scattered throughout the world who simply didn't run into an obscure textbook or write to all the worlds top mathematicians. What would our species be like if we were working at closer to 100% capacity in terms of scientific innovations and discoveries.

<comment><USER7> I would mention that statistics like "$10/day" don't necessary capture the average living conditions of people.

$10/day may yield a room over your head, a dull but acceptable meal and a somewhat austere routine in one place (whatever third world nation) but may yield a chaotic struggle for survival in another area (the USA).

Which is not to say that poverty isn't eating a lot of people but rather that guarantees of food, cloth and shelter can be more useful metrics than median income in various places (world median income is rising but does that mean an increase people's ability to realize their geniuses, visions, passions etc?).

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> The author backs up his assertion that mathematical genius is fragile by ... listing a bunch of people whose genius was apparently rather robust.

</comment><comment><USER9> The thing about first example is that the speed of brain development in child and adulthood geniality/iq/whatever are only loosely related. It is perfectly possible for a child to be bad in math in first few grades and good later on. It did not had to be test, it is perfectly possible for him to be slower at that age or him having lower attention span. (That assumes school systems that wont give up on such child as bad early on.)

The situation of women now is a lot better then it was in 19 century. There is some bias and unequal expectation toward gender, but nowhere near as was at the time. While all the kids now know what is supposed to be girly toy/profession and what is boyish, there is no particular stigma facing working females nor female mathematicians. The 'it could easily play out like that now' is far from being accurate.

I don't think you are helping equality when you compare stigma of being women who knows stuff with unequal representation of genders now. One, you are lowering her achievement and strength of will which had to be huge. I would say she was anything but fragile. Two, you are not doing service to women now - our situation is not the same as situation hundreds years ago and talking about it as it would helps no one.

<comment><USER10> It is better for women now than it was before, but it is still far from perfect.

Just look at the turn over rate and exit rate of women in these fields.

Even the women who objectively "make it" are being driven out of the industry in droves.

<comment><USER11> Driven out by who? A mass group of secret conspirators?

<comment><USER12> Women report being driven out by men hitting on them and sexually harassing them.

<comment><USER8> Many women are not attracted to work in fields populated 90% by males. I believe this to be a more subtle problem that you suggest; you might eliminate all sexual harassment and it would still be the case.

EDIT: not calling anyone a liar.

<comment><USER12> What I am saying, is that the two biggest complaints that women who _have_ worked in this industry have stated to me, are being hit on, and being harassed. Not as a single incident, but as a pattern. The only argument you could make against this is that I'm lying, and women haven't actually said these things to me.

<comment><USER13> > The only argument you could make against this is that I'm lying

First, that's lacking in civility, you've been here long enough to know that tone isn't appropriate.

Now then. The fact that your experience is not statistically significant isn't a possible counter argument? In order for you to be right, you would need evidence not only that most female mathematicians were harassed, but that they left the field because of if. If you have exit interview data for a random sample of former mathematicians, there are a lot of people here who would probably love to talk to you.

This is an especially unfortunate stance given that this is an article about math.

Edit: I make no claims one way or the other, I'm only talking about statistical validity.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I find it hard to accept the "you must be 7ft tall to play basketball" story about why people become good at something.

My own view is more something like what bodybuilders say. Some people find it harder to grow than others, but everyone can do it. And people who put effort into it will definitely be separable from people who don't, regardless of endowment.

Now as for who gets to be written into history books, there's a fair bit of randomness about that. A hard working person can well find that the only phd advisor who will take them wants them to work on some dead end. Or you may work on something hot, but other people will know it's hot, too, and they may well beat you to publication. Doesn't make you any dumber, but your name will not be enshrined in that theorem.

There's also a necessary confluence of factors that depends very much on your parents, specifically whether they figure out how to manage your development. Look at the current first-in-most-people's-minds genius, Terence Tao. Not only did his parents figure out that he was good at math, they somehow got him the right guidance. I'm guessing very few parents, even quite well educated ones, would know what to do if a guy like that turned up in their house. There's also the sheer randomness of whether you'll end up doing things that encourage the kid. Most parents, myself included, have very little idea of how to get a kid to do what's good for them. You laugh, unless you are a parent.

<comment><USER15> Isn't a part of a person's endowment their ability to work hard and put in effort where it's required, when it's required? The 7ft tall thing is an example of an easy to see factor, which some people have, and some don't. In reality, as you say, there are unlimited factors going into a person's greatness (or lack-of).

By the way, there was a study where, given the same weight lifting program, a couple people gained tons of muscle, most gained some, some gained none, and a few even lost muscle. Not everyone can gain appreciable muscle, and not everyone can get good at math (although most can, and the average person underestimates their ability to do so).

<comment><USER16> >Isn't a part of a person's endowment their ability to work hard and put in effort where it's required, when it's required?

No this is largely a malleable set of traits.

Good teachers can frequently change them in whole populations of students.

<comment><USER15> Good nutrition can frequently change the height of whole populations. Yet, we say height is part of a person's endowment. One might say potential is largely determined at birth, but how that potential unfolds is determined over the course of an organism's life.

<comment><USER16> Yes but in even the most developed countries, nutrition isn't an issue but sufficiently good educational environments aren't.

We're still barely tapping into people's potential, but people still act form arguments on the assumption that we are.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> There are other examples of mathematical late bloomers. Check out [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Smale](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Smale)

He almost got kicked out of graduate school. Later went on to win the Fields Medal.

<comment><USER18> I read somewhere that hes incredibly smart, but very lazy. Just because he didnt do too well ealier on dosent mean he's not a genius. Most people no matter how much they work, still won't achieve 1/100th of what he did.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> With common core, math is mostly now word problems, which makes them as much reading comprehension as abstract mathematical problems. This is going to be especially brutal for boys, who typically trail girls in reading skills early on.

I expect in a decade the current 2-1 female-male ratio in higher education is going to reach such crisis levels that even our media will be unable to ignore it, as they do currently.

<comment><USER20> It will be shocking if there's a 2:1 female:male ratio at the bleeding edge of math anytime in the next century, even if word problems are required at lower levels. As for the rest of the fields, I suspect the media as currently constituted to celebrate rather than lament, when they can no longer ignore the situation entirely.

[EDIT:] 'HeavenBanned's sibling comment should be restored; it's a good point that is seldom made about math.

<comment><USER21> At the (not-BE) college college where I teach, the math majors who are female significantly outnumber those who are male. We don't have any program or special selection. We just find that the students who succeed at math are female, in the great majority.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I'd just like to note that math in early years is taught as rote memorization problems and doing things over and over again like memorization. Contrast this with higher level math which is highly creative...

<comment><USER23> This is my exact problem. For my whole life i was afraid of math, after i (i had to took it, it was not my choice) took real Analysis class and watched Francis Su Real Analysis videos, I realized i like math more than CS (and cs was my only love in my entire life.). Right now i am starting abstract Algebra and i have plan to took probability and number theory after that.

I am literally in love with math. It does feelit is the only reason i was born in the first place. I sometimes think i have to change my career to math.

And something i am really feel is brain plasticity. It may not have proven.But i can feel in my self, as much as i go deeper into math, i do realize it makes more sense, i can feel its effect on my day to day life, the way i think, the more effective way I Analysis circumstances.

<comment><USER22> Haha, that's great, good job :)

Side note: Su's real analysis videos are great aren't they?

<comment><USER23> They are excellent, literally.

I start to love math after I understand math, and he was the one showed me how to understand math. Every one of those proofs was enjoyable, more than anything i have ever done.

P.S. if he was accessible for me , I would go to every class he goes, every office hour he has. I would just stick to the guy until I can find my way in mathematics.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I think these sort of anecdotes about genius mathematicians are rather disheartening. For many students, math is a struggle, even with the advantages of a good education. Hearing about how such-and-such a person derived the whole of number theory from an old Sesame Street book they found in the trash just makes me feel dumb in comparison.

If anything, the examples given suggest that mathematical geniuses will find a way to contribute whatever the obstacles in their way. But what about the majority of students who are turned off the subject because they don't have the same drive and natural ability? What's fragile isn't the abilities of savants, but the belief of the average person that math is something they can do, rather than the preserve of the super-intelligent.

</comment><comment><USER25> >Tests can serve a profoundly useful purpose in providing feedback and diagnosing students' learning needs. But as blunt labels for students' abilities, they can be devastating.

This is so spot on. I've recently started taking college math courses for the first time, and I'm astounded by how little actual "teaching" goes on in these classes. My entire term grade for Precalculus was determined by 5 tests of 8 questions each, and the class consisted of a professor reading from a text book for an hour a week with zero feedback or help. I think experiences like this lead to a lot of people becoming completely frustrated and feeling worthless at math, while also outwardly validating that feeling with an unfair poor grade.

</comment><comment><USER26> Very similar to what I wrote years ago: [https://deconstructinggenius.wordpress.com](https://deconstructinggenius.wordpress.com)

</comment><comment><USER27> Fallacious first paragraph. Not everyone has the potential to become a genius en math, or any other discipline for that matter.

<comment><USER28> I think it's a bit pointless to get hung up on that wording. It seem to me that his point is more that people are often so bad at spotting genius that we may as well assume everyone is a genius.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> To the author of the article—you have a very tiny typo, garderning instead of gardening.

</comment><comment><USER12> This can be, and IMO ought to be, generalized to "People have a lot of potential, and society needs to stop being a lottery".

</comment><comment><USER30> > _Mathematical genius is fragile; society needs to stop destroying it_

... but there are too many men in this field. Just love this marxist logic.

<comment><USER31> s/too many men/not enough women/

Suddenly it makes perfect sense. Why on earth do you choose to frame it the first way? Getting more women into math by having male mathematicians be less shitty people doesn't decrease the total number of mathematicians.

<comment><USER30> Do you know any 'shitty mathematician' in person, or is it just another stereotype?

<comment><USER32> > Do you know any 'shitty mathematician' in person

I certainly do.

<comment><USER30> That talk to individuals, do not blame entire field or entire gender.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


YouTeam is a marketplace for offshore developer talent - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2018/05/23/youteam/ <comment><USER2> That's cool that they connect companies with dev agencies through their developers directly but it's not clear how YouTeam can guarantee the outsourced work will be of high quality. Who will be responsible for delivering the project, an agency or an individual developer?

</comment><comment><USER3> TechCrunch, right on time!</comment>


Download bots are a well-known secret of the iOS eco-system - <AUTHOR> http://www.insidemobileapps.com/2012/02/14/download-bots-were-the-well-known-secret-of-the-app-ecosystem

<comment><USER2> Part of this is Apple's fault. In general, Apple needs to look at some alternative ways to get apps in front of iOS user's eyes.

AppStore has been mostly untouched over its lifetime. I frequently scan the "Featured" category and "Top 25", but I rarely go deeper. The curation could be much broader and touch individual interests, but right now, it doesn't.

I would ask this to iOS developers: what would you like to see AppStore changed so that you might get additional exposure for your software?

<comment><USER3> I don't think it's Apple's job to get apps in front of iOS users. The app developer(s) should have a marketing strategy of some sort. Obviously that strategy depends on budget, but if you're hoping you're featured, or fraudulently using bots to increase downloads, you're likely doomed from the beginning.

I think there's room for a third party solution. A website where you can rank apps you like, and it recommends other ones you might like could work. There's lots of potential options for app discovery businesses, I just don't see how Apple can get into it at the level a good third party solution could.

<comment><USER4> In the context of general marketing you are right, but in the context of Apples walled garden (app store) not only is that their job, it is their reason for existing.

The more content they can get under your nose that you like, the more content you buy, the more the app devs make, the more Apple makes and the more desired the iOS store becomes.

This is why Netflix and Amazon spend millions on their reccomendation engines; same idea here.

I think you probably knew this though. I am only solidying the point that inside any app stores environment, it is the job of the owner of the store to markwt the content effectively. Outside the store, anyone can do anything they want.

<comment><USER5> The comparison to Netflix and Amazon is apt. Every time I go to those sites, I'm overwhelmed with stuff that I'd love to read or watch. There's just no time for it all. The app store is the opposite. A lot of times I'd like to play a new game, but I can't find anything that seems interesting. It feels like a desert, just tons of apps and games that other people want, but nothing for me.

<comment><USER4> I absolutely agree; whatever algorithm (or lack of) that Apple uses is a far cry from the detail-oriented work they do on most other things.

Not only do my Genius recommendations rarely change, the hit rate of things I _actually_ want to play that is recommended to me is something like 4%.

Google seems a bit better at this, but Apple is _awful_ at this... like "Dear god just acquire some company that is recommending toothbrushes and adapt their algorithm" bad.

At least from a user perspective.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The article states that the Android Market is much fairer. But from my experience bots are very much alive on the Android market.

A competing app was released within one week of mine late last October. I managed 1000 downloads in a week, he managed 10,000 in far less than that. His Google +1s also went to 381 almost immediately. His current # of Google +1s more than two months later: 389.

<comment><USER7> Bots don't exist on Android, but incent PPI does. It doesn't matter about the # of installs he gets because Android takes into account uninstall rates as well as your app ratings.

If he's ranked higher than you, he's most likely hitting the factors better than you.

<comment><USER6> Why are you sure that bots do not exist on Android? The article did not deny their existence.

As for that "more holistic" approach, Bots don't usually uninstall apps that they've downloaded. They just get re-instantiated (and possibly reused to further help pad results).

Also if PPI was used, a _lot_ of cash was blown to get 10k downloads and 381 Google +1s sandwiched into a manner of hours. That means the developer either has an inside track or lots of cash to blow and no thought to ever seeing a return.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Is there any evidence for the bots theory besides the fact that some services provide a large increase in downloads without a corresponding large increase in app use? The article is pretty long, but that's the only piece of actual evidence I could find in it, as opposed to a whole bunch of hearsay and speculation.

Seems to me that bumping downloads but not usage could just as easy happen with pushy ads targeting users with a healthy "ooh shiny" instinct, especially for free (or freemium) apps, so this really does not seem convincing to me.

<comment><USER9> It's not really hearsay. The top CEO quoted runs a company, Fiksu, that does user acquisition on behalf of Groupon, Gilt, Vh1, etc. Most large developers know about bots because they've used or tried them.

They will say this off the record to reporters, but never on the record because they don't want to be banned by Apple.

Also, Apple issued a warning to developers about using these services last week.

Also: @Alexlin, who everyone is beating on in the comments, ran a user acquisition, marketing company for apps called G6Pay and runs his own mobile gaming company, which is part of YC. He actually knows his stuff about how to get to the top of the charts.

<comment><USER8> The Fiksu claim still seems to be based entirely on downloads which don't correspond to use. They _think_ it's bots, but they don't actually know, all they know is they got a lot of downloads from something that didn't use the app afterwards.

For Alexlin, well, I'd be interested in knowing how he knows this too.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I personally don't understand why "bot farms" are that "scummy" or unfair. It was possibly the best way for the average indie developer to stand out without a large wallet (to buy banners). This rash of a problem is even more aggravated ever since incent PPI was banned.

Because of this, the era of rapidly acquiring users at scale on iOS is coming to an end. In it's place, developers will be forced to revert back to traditional ad buys in the form of banner ad networks with ridiculously "black 'box" targeting options.

I don't know if this is a bad thing since developers will spend more time figuring out their LTVs through each respective acquisition channel, but you sure as hell better be able to throw a few thousand dollars here and there and expect it to never back out.

All in all, Apple's app store policy should just read, "If you've solved discoverability on our app store, we're banning your method."

<comment><USER10> _I personally don't understand why "bot farms" are that "scummy" or unfair._

They fraudulently make the claim "lots of people like this". User's believe a "most downloaded" means other people like them have made a decision and picked this little grain of wheat from the chaff.

Bot farming is fundamentally lying to your potential customers to the detriment of applications that should be on the list.

<comment><USER7> And marketing as a concept isn't?

Why aren't people rallying against Tapjoy when they're incentivizing people to download apps in exchange for virtual currency? As long as you pay $20-30k, you have enough downloads to breach the top 25.

Or take banner ads. Zynga has the ability to throw $100k IOs at random ad networks and their new apps are instantly in the Top 25 shortly after launch. Does this reflect popularity/quality or is it just a competition between who has the biggest wallet?

If Apple changed it's app store algorithm to function like the Android app store (that takes uninstall rates/ratings into account), this wouldn't be a problem.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: What equipment measures mold, dust, tree, grass and ragweed levels? - <AUTHOR> I ask because I'd like to monitor these in my office and inside my home.<p>I use the WebMD Allergy app and I assume gets its data from a government tracking or who knows where but I've read where as the environmental impact of climate change grows, so will allergies. <comment><USER2> Mechanical collection followed by manual inspection, often through a microscope. This being HN, "a prime candidate for disruption via cloud-based deep learning methods." ;)

Mold testing is hard to research because there are no standards. As [http://www.ianrpubs.unl.edu/pages/publicationD.jsp?publicati...](http://www.ianrpubs.unl.edu/pages/publicationD.jsp?publicationId=920) comments, "[http://www.ianrpubs.unl.edu/pages/publicationD.jsp?publicati...](http://www.ianrpubs.unl.edu/pages/publicationD.jsp?publicationId=920")

[http://home.howstuffworks.com/home-improvement/household- saf...](http://home.howstuffworks.com/home-improvement/household- safety/tips/how-to-test-for-toxic-mold4.htm) goes on to say that "Consumer Reports conducted an evaluation of home mold testing kits in 2006, and none of the four kits they looked at received a recommendation. The problems ranged from the kits having no expiration dates, potentially compromising the results, to being difficult to use"

One solution seems to be to lead the mold spores land on a Petri dish, incubate the dish, and inspect to see what grows. The non-professional solution is to use one's nose to check if anything smells moldy.

Pollen count is also done by manual inspection, in this case by inspection of the pollen grains. See [http://www.wral.com/weather/blogpost/1389497/](http://www.wral.com/weather/blogpost/1389497/) . At [http://www.aaaai.org/global/nab-pollen-counts/counting- stati...](http://www.aaaai.org/global/nab-pollen-counts/counting- stations/start-a-station.aspx) you can see how people get certified to be a pollen counter: "A counter will receive a pollen slide with instruction sheet. The slide and completed score sheet is returned to the NAB and graded. Pollen certification will be given if the pollen grains have been counted correctly."

It then goes on with mold counter: "A counter will receive a mold slide with instruction sheet. The slide and completed score sheet is returned to the NAB and graded. Mold certification will be given if the spores have been counted correctly."

<comment><USER3> Are spectroscopic methods possible, or are the particles too heterogeneous?

<comment><USER4> Maybe checking the scattering pattern would work (scattering phase function), there are already detectors for that. I don't know whether there is a database of patterns already available, but it could be possible. The corresponding field would be aerosol physics.

<comment><USER5> I wonder if flow cytometry would work? Have a venturi on mild suction, designed to flow a jacket layer around the perimeter, and a laser to detect forward and side scatter. That gives you size and complexity. That plus location, time, wind, and season could probably give you a very useful signal. If not in the home, certainly if the data was sent to central system, a la weather stations.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> You can measure gross particulate levels with indication of sizing using something like this:

[https://www.sparkfun.com/products/9689](https://www.sparkfun.com/products/9689)

This would give you some indication of what's floating around. Further analysis like what dalke mentioned would be necessary to figure out exactly what the particulate makeup is.

 _edit_ \- The sharp sensor does not give an indication of sizing.

</comment><comment><USER7> This is the source of the often reported allergen counts in the Chicagoland area:

[http://www.gottliebhospital.org/allergycount](http://www.gottliebhospital.org/allergycount)

I don't have time right now to dig further, myself, but I know people who know Dr. Leija and this leaves me with the impression he is a... "good egg", I guess I'll say.

Meteorologist Tom Skilling is probably the most frequent reporter of Dr. Leija's / Gottlieb's values. He has an "Ask Tom" feature; this is the type of question he might enjoy digging into and reporting.

<comment><USER8> Correct me if I'm wrong but if the procedure is counting spores under the microscope, couldn't a computer vision system be trained with machine learning techniques to count an air sample under the microscope too?

<comment><USER2> See [http://xkcd.com/1425/](http://xkcd.com/1425/) , or my second sentence at [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9818893](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9818893) . ;)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> In theory Birdi will be offering this as part of their smoke-and-everything- else-detector, but they haven't released anything yet so it's not something you can order today: [http://getbirdi.com/](http://getbirdi.com/)

"Birdi helps you track the health of your home. Whether it's dust, VOCs, temperature & humidity or how stale the air is. Even external dangers such as pollution, pollen and particulates, Birdi is there to help you breathe a little easier."

<comment><USER10> On their indiegogo page the estimated delivery date is October 2014, but their latest blog post says October _2015_.

I'm guessing the actual date is never.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> As someone that has allergic rhinitis, dyshydrotic excema and allergic asthma, I would welcome a scanner that could tell me which allergens are present in my home and on my skin.

</comment><comment><USER12> There's this: [http://www.producthunt.com/tech/awair-2](http://www.producthunt.com/tech/awair-2)

</comment><comment><USER13> pretty sure Sensirion could build you a solution out of off the shelf IP.

[http://www.sensirion.com/](http://www.sensirion.com/)

you're welcome.</comment>


Vulnerability Detection in Minutes-Here's Our Architecture Inspired by Sherlock - <AUTHOR> https://blog.appknox.com/architecture-behind-appknox-inspired-by-sherlock/

<comment><USER2> Really impressive. Curious to know why are you using RabbitMQ and redis? You can use redis as a queue cluster with celery. Any specific reason?

<comment><USER3> Yes we could have gone with either one. It would have worked for having both.

RabbitMQ is very reliable (At the cost of performance). It persists the data on disk. Even if the RabbitMQ server goes down, we can attach the disk onto a new instance ant it would restore to the previous state. We needed this for task queues. They should work no matter what.

Redis is much more performant (at the cost of reliability). Because, by default, everything happens in-memory. Without additional settings for persistence (Which will bring down performance), if the Redis instance goes down, then all data is lost. We needed the performance for quickest delivery of notifications. milli-seconds matter.

Plus, now we can scale tasks and notifications independent of each other.

<comment><USER2> Ok, I understand that.

Have you tried RabbitMQ in `RAM mode`. If yes then I wonder what is the performance ratio against radis?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Really impressive architecture, but, doesn't building the whole thing in Node, makes it more compatible for non-blocking calls?

<comment><USER3> It will certainly be non-blocking. But the primary libraries that we use to scan the apps is written in python. And we love python. So we went to python.</comment></comment>


Differences between San Francisco and London (2014) - <AUTHOR> http://pulkitagrawal.tumblr.com/post/73939864016/sfvslondon <comment><USER4> My view of San Francisco culture as an outsider is actually quite negative now. For years I thought it was a culture very in line with my own, but after years of watching and interacting remotely with people from that scene my mind has changed.

I now feel it's largely dominated by arrogance. Everyone wants to "change the world" but what they really want is fame and fortune. A San Francisco startup is hilariously not practical. The article cites working hard and living frugally, but startup culture is the opposite. It's ludicrous extremes like having pingpong tables and games and coffee baristas at work. This is not living "frugally."

Worse though, is the idea that everyone is a temporarily embarrassed Steve Jobs who is good at everything, even the things they are completely ignorant of. The disdain for areas they have no expertise in is astonishing.

Meanwhile, the engine fuelling all this, the VCs, have their own agenda, namely themselves. They feed the culture because it benefits them. Most will fail, most people are not Steve Jobs. But the VCs just need one or two successes to make it worth it. It's in their interest to have every possible upcoming company under their thumb. The VCs message is always clear: you won't make it without them. You won't make it without being in Silicon Valley. It's impossible.

It's all very off putting and not at all like the glittering fake picture that the SV culture likes to paint.

<comment><USER5> >It's ludicrous extremes like having pingpong tables and games and coffee baristas at work. This is not living "frugally."

If a pingpong table and games are a major expense in your company, you're already dead. A barista is wasteful, unless he/she is serving coffee to hundreds of employees that would otherwise waste company time by leaving the office for a coffee break.

As an engineer, I avoid companies like the plague that refuse basic niceties in the name of saving money. It's a major indicator that it's going to be a miserable environment and you will have to fight tooth-and-nail for every piece of equipment and (even worse) raises/promotions.

<comment><USER6> Hmm, I work for Google now, and they are the first company I have worked for with either baristas[1] or ping-pong tables. These are definitely luxurious perks and not "basic niceties".

But Google is not a frugal startup. It's a giant company offering a big complicated benefits package.

[1] Free ones that is. Not counting big plants with cafes that charge market prices and seem to break even.

<comment><USER5> >These are definitely luxurious perks and not "basic niceties".

I don't think you realize how little these items cost when divided out amongst the number of employees. In particular when you consider the alternative of them leaving the Google campus for a half hour for a coffee break.

If you think catered lunches and the like are purely perks, then you drank the Kool-Aid. There is a reason they don't want you bringing free food/snacks home - it's because when you consume it in the office they are getting a benefit out of it as well.

> and they are the first company I have worked for with either baristas

It's not because Google is that much nicer. It's just because they realized early on the return on investment these things provide. This stuff is pretty much par for the course for newer tech companies in the bay.

<comment><USER7> I work at Google as well and actually they give us plastic plates to be able to bring dinner home. Some colleagues of mine use this perk to bring their baby food so that they don't have to cook at home.

There's a catch though: the dinner is served at 18:15

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I grew up in the San Francisco area, and I know a lot of people who are a much closer match to what the article describes as London-type people: they work for large, established companies for a regular paycheck, they have been here a long time, they are embedded in local professional networks, etc. Some of them even have to wear suits to work! I guess the author never heard of the established, large companies in the semiconductor and software industries that supply the majority of jobs here, not to mention health care, finance, etc. It's not all startups.

This is the funniest part of the article:

> San Francisco is 6 hours away from the US East Coast and even further from > Europe and Asia. This leaves it a little isolated and less connected to > other parts of the world. A noticeable consequence of this is that people > seem to be less aware of, interested in and knowledgeable about world > affairs.

The proportion of foreign-born people is higher in the San Francisco area than anywhere else in the United States with the possible exception of New York City. The San Francisco area is far more international than the author gives it credit for. By the way, we are closer to Asia both geographically and culturally than the East Coast is.

This article does nothing but repeat stereotypes, and it contains no original ideas.

<comment><USER9> I've never lived in SF or Europe, but as an American who's lived in the suburbs of DC and now NYC, it seems to me that Americans in general are less internationally conscious than Europeans. Most Europeans I know speak 3+ languages, have studied and lived abroad, and have traveled extensively. Americans in my experience tend to be more insular and less cultured. And it makes sense because Europe has so many different countries clustered together, traveling between them is cheap and easy, and they get 4+ weeks vacation.

<comment><USER10> Exactly. I'm Canadian, and although my friends travel pretty regularly to the US/Mexico and sometimes Europe, I was amazed living in London how often my coworkers would be in other countries. Despite being near the US border, I rarely see people do weekend trips to the states, but it happens all the time between european countries it seems. Maybe flight prices have an impact, but europe just seems completely different culturally with regards to multiculturalism and leisure travel.

<comment><USER11> I don't know if it's true, but the common belief here in Europe is that interstate/intercontinental flights are cheaper in the USA. Flying from Prague to Milano costs around $100 with a low-cost airline, if you wait for a good deal.

<comment><USER12> From London, if you're flexible with the destination, it's easy enough to choose the $50 return deal.

This month, there are flights to France for £5 each way.

[https://www.ryanair.com/gb/en/cheap-flights/?from=STN&out- fr...](https://www.ryanair.com/gb/en/cheap-flights/?from=STN&out-from- date=2017-03-20&out-to-date=2018-03-20&budget=20)

<comment><USER11> I know, but the median price is probably higher than this, because London is a huge international hub and a connection with both the east and the west. France is also very close to London.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Like others are saying (and actually the article also mentions), it's a very subjective view. I've also lived in both cities and had quite different experiences. To me, SF/bay area felt more like a rat race and my friends had a better work/social balance in London (note that I didn't work in finance). And while it might look like in SF are "working on causes they relate to." To me it feels more like people in SF find they have to be on some sort of mission. Just having a job you like isn't good enough. You need to change the world.

</comment><comment><USER14> London is far too diverse for this comparison to make sense. It has ten times the population of San Francisco. If you think London is a particular way, it is probably because the bit of London you are in is that way.

<comment><USER15> The population of San Francisco proper is only ~800k but the population of the Bay Area as a whole is about 7 million people, which is only slightly less than Greater London's 8 million.

<comment><USER16> Why is this relevant? The Bay area is not San Francisco. The post is comparing London with San Francisco. San Francisco is tiny compared to London in both area and population.

<comment><USER17> One of you is talking about SF the city. The other about SF the political entity.

<comment><USER16> San Francisco the political entity what is that? At any rate the blog post isn't about politics at all.

San Francisco is a city and the "Bay Area" is a region. In London people from both Chiswick and Hackney which are quite far away from each other both say they are from London. Someone from Sonoma and someone from Santa Clara don't say they're from San Francisco.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> harry-wood Funny how it ends with _" my very individual perspective (I worked in London as a management consultant whereas in SF I worked with a startup)"_ ...which was entirely obvious throughout the whole piece.

</comment><comment><USER18> Looks more of a "This is the bus/train route I used to take and these are types of folks, places I saw." Very simplistic view of both cities.

<comment><USER19> Curious, but what else would you have it be? A detailed, scientific comparison of jobs, club memberships, languages spoken, schools attended...Academic to the point of tedious?

I thought the whole point of a blog was personal experience? This is what the author saw and therefore, this is what he can express with honesty.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Here's a comment of a surprised San Francisco traveler that sums up the city for me: "I was rather surprised that there were so many homeless people. You'd think the supposed tech center of the world would be...you know...civilized and able to protect the weakest members of society better."

<comment><USER21> SF is by far the dirtiest first world city I've ever been in - <USER2> fouler than the outskirts of Naples, as uncollected garbage is less rank than SF's human faeces.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> I hear a lot of complaints about SF being too tech-centric and monocultural. This is only true if you segregate yourself from the SF natives and the vibrant, diverse community that's existed before the tech booms and busts of the past two decades.

It's easy to feel like it's just a tech bubble -- there's not much interaction outside of it. But if you make an effort to step outside the tech-centric environment, it can be extremely rewarding.

<comment><USER23> Who has time for that? Seems everyone in tech is burning the midnight oil to get the next MVP out, and have forgotten that life outside of work exists.

Many companies also encourage navel gazing by providing "free" lunches, team outings, tech-meetups, company happy hours and parties, and other ways of remaining pretty much in the company and tech social scene.

If you're young and somehow didn't buy in to the many enticements to work every waking moment, you might have time to socialize with people outside of tech (if you were interested enough to do so, and actually made an effort to move out of your comfort zone).

If you're older, you are likely to want to spend your few precious hours outside of work with your family, and maybe if you're very lucky, with a few friends, who are probably also in the tech field.

Also, don't forget that many people in tech are famously introverted and socially phobic. Getting them to socialize at all, much less go out of their comfort zone and meet people unlike them is a challenge.

<comment><USER24> There are many bubble-dwellers in SF, but that doesn't make SF a purely bubble society.

To those who think so, consider this: how many Chinatown natives or longtime residents have you met for so much as an hour ( _total_ ) of meaningful conversation?

How many Bayview natives?

North Beach?

How many South Bay natives?

Oakland?

etc.

The bubble myopia can _become_ one's universe if that person doesn't choose to pop out of the bubble now and then. So to speak.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I was in the Bay area during the first bubble, so that's my basis for my comments. An anthropologist I knew described the Bay area as a place where 'adolescents go to retire', which made a bunch of sense. A sense of the 60s was still around, with the general wackiness and Folsom Street Fair and the alt-cultures around. The tech scene was merely the latest incarnation of the gold-rush mentality.

But now, given everything I have read about the Bay these days, I don't think I'd want to live there. Apparently all the artists have left, Burning Man is a corporate event soon to be shut down permanently (given what I've heard about the cops), money, money, money... too much wanna be zillionaires all hoping to best buds with Zuckerberg someday. IT culture is not what is was 'back in the day'. And get off my lawn!

And I have lived in London for seven years, more than I did in SF. I greatly prefer London. Good public transport, it feels like a place you can live, it's a real city, not a bunch of suburbs (but now the rents... well, being used to SF rents when I moved, it was similar).

My take on the article is the guy projects a lot onto the two cities. The tech scene has all these romantic associations with it and good lord, I am getting tired of hearing about them. At the end of the day, it just a job for most people and few startups actually matter (Uber matters because they are screwing up so much). "Changing the world" only equals working on social problems like establishing UBI, not running the world's largest BBS so your grandma can read fake news that is written in Romania or feeding the ADD of adolescents who like to take pictures of their food. As for financial, that will always matter until capitalism crashes.

</comment><comment><USER26> How can one compare UK and US and say the later has better social mobility? Ever heard of NHS (1) or council housing? Have you compared tuition fees on both countries?

While I mostly understand the different atmosphere on both places, and even agree with some of the points, I have to say the author had to be pretty immersed in a very particular bubble to have come to this conclusion - <USER3> does not seem to fit reality as all.

(1) Yes, NHS has its problems, but US simply does not have anything like it.

</comment><comment><USER27> I was born in London, I've lived and worked in London, I've returned many times since to visit family and friends. I recognise the life choices and cultural norms presented here as only a small fraction of my experience of modern day Londoners.

I don't know SFO but I suspect the author has a similarly narrow perspective there.

</comment><comment><USER28> San Francisco's climate is way better. But looks like theare are more programming jobs in London ( ~ 250 ) vs San Francisco ( ~ 140 ) [https://jobsquery.it/jobs;page=1;tags=;sortBy=PUBLISHED_AT_D...](https://jobsquery.it/jobs;page=1;tags=;sortBy=PUBLISHED_AT_DESC;query=;location=London%2C%20UK)

VS

[https://jobsquery.it/jobs;page=1;tags=;sortBy=PUBLISHED_AT_D...](https://jobsquery.it/jobs;page=1;tags=;sortBy=PUBLISHED_AT_DESC;query=;location=San%20Francisco)

<comment><USER29> London also has more than 10 times the population of SF...

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> As a foreigner I have lived in London for more than a decade and have friends and families living in SF. One interesting I found is although both London and SF have large number of foreigners/immigrants, in London not one group of immigrants have dominant majority and deep roots in the city. Immigrants usually live scattered around the boroughs, this I think makes London more diverse than many US cities. Because new comers will have to interact with people of other background and try to fit the culture of where they are living.

</comment><comment><USER31> This article is 2 years old and it shows. Comparing post-brexit London to San Francisco falls flat very quickly. Living in London is not living in Europe.

<comment><USER32> "Living in London is not living in Europe"

Could you explain that sentence? Please.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> _" San Francisco contains a large number of start-ups with small teams where employees feel like they can have greater impact. Many people found their own businesses to pursue their passions or are part of larger teams working on causes they relate to. This leads to a culture of creating impact on others and of doing something that's has wider benefit than to just oneself."_

This is more startup and corporate hype than reality. Many startups pretend to set out to change the world to get funding, try to motivate their employees, and get good PR. The media is often eager to be fooled and jump on any bandwagon if there's a story in it, but people who've been in the industry a while and aren't wet behind the ears have heard such hype repeatedly, and it gets really old after a while, and is not very convincing.

Most people, whether in SF or anywhere else in the world, work because they get paid. Sure, it's nice to work on what you love, but relatively few people achieve that dream in the long run. Much more common is burnout and disillusionment, not just in tech but in many other careers as well. It often looks rosy and beautiful when you're fresh out of college, but gets less rosy with each passing year, unless you happen to win the startup lottery and have fuck-you money to really work on whatever you want whenver you want, or not, as the mood strikes you. Otherwise, it's mostly work, not play, and certainly not saving the world.

<comment><USER33> There are also an alarmingly large number of Trustafarians in San Francisco who are playing at 'being in a start up' rather than admitting they are just dossing about on a trust fund...

<comment><USER8> Do you have any evidence to support this assertion, or are you just making baseless insults?

<comment><USER33> I've lived in the bay area for 25 years, I'm in the tech world and I've been around the block a few times...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> I have lived in both for years. IMHO this is a shallow comparison indeed. Not to be relied upon.

</comment><comment><USER35> I lived in London for almost 3 decades; this is exactly why I moved to San Francisco

</comment><comment><USER36> Luckily the comments are much better than this biased piece of blog post. Lived in both places. Loved only one. Won't tell you which one.

</comment><comment><USER37> This is almost the exact opposite view of the London I see.

</comment><comment><USER38> A country is not made of land; a country is made of its people;

</comment><comment><USER39> some opinion like the east and the west

</comment><comment><USER40> > Many of the wealthy in San Francisco are newly rich, directly from their own > work in building a business. Many of these businesses are public or run > professionally and so there is less space for heirs and, with the continuing > fast pace of technological change, plenty of space for new entrants - > meritocracy, not connections are key.

Uhh not sure what SF you're living in

</comment><comment><USER41> what a vapid predictable piece of self aggrandization.

<comment><USER42> how so</comment></comment>


But what is a Fourier series? From heat flow to circle drawings - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6sGWTCMz2k <comment><AUTHOR> There's something deep here with respect to the underlying noumenal nature of the Universe, waves, and information in general...

Note to Future Self: Revisit in the future...</comment>


Dropbox Leases Giant New SF Office, Plans To Grow To 400+ Employees - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2011/07/27/dropbox-leases-giant-new-sf-office-plans-to-grow-to-400-employees/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Techcrunch+%28TechCrunch%29

<comment><USER2> Maybe I'm just an ignorant not-involved-in-a-startup person, but what is Dropbox doing with these 400+ employees?

To me Dropbox seems like it's a pretty simply and mature product feature-wise. Have they announced that they're expanding into other products? I just hope they won't bloat Dropbox the way that some of these one-main-feature softwares were inflated in the past (ICQ, etc).

edit: I guess what got me thinking about this is that I'm reading the book by Google employee #59, and Google had a working search engine and they were building their own hardware with less than 100 employees. Just not sure what Dropbox can do with 400+ since their product is a lot simpler and they're not dealing with datacenters, though maybe it makes sense if these people are mostly doing marketing and sales.

<comment><USER3> Any organization at scale just needs a lot of people to deal with keeping the wheels on the bus. There are Computer Science problems that need to be solved every day to keep the site running, a team to handle billing problems, fraudulent payments, a sales team to go after corporate customers, now you have so many people in the office that you need inhouse HR... oh look, now you need a recruiter to start keeping all these candidates coming in the door... now you need accountants to make sure that all of these people get paid on time...

<comment><USER4> > _There are Computer Science problems that need to be solved every day to > keep the site running_

This part is beyond awesome.

<comment><USER3> From an engineering manager that helped scale Facebook: [http://www.quora.com/LikeALittle-startup/Why-do-you-need- gol...](http://www.quora.com/LikeALittle-startup/Why-do-you-need-gold- medalist-programmers-in-your-team-to-build-something-like- LikeALittle/answer/Yishan-Wong)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I know that they have taken some heat for security issues of late, but, frankly, I love this company and their product and I am happy to see them doing well.

The magic of Dropbox is that it strikes just the right balance between simplicity and power.

When my mother deleted a book that she had been writing for almost a year (and its backup), I was able to show her how to retrieve deleted documents from Dropbox. It was incredible.

Arthur C. Clarke once said that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Well Dropbox is magic to most of the people that I have introduced it to.

I know that there are other solutions out there that do similar things to what they do, but I have never really been able to find one that just clicks with so many people regardless of technical ability.

<comment><USER6> It's unfortunate when most are so mesmerized by great but incomplete magic that the magic creators are unwilling to conjure something even more magical to include safety like client-side encryption.

Reworded for the downvotes: Don't punish users because most may not even be aware of the lack of security in Dropbox by not using client-side encryption. If it's too difficult to explain, then it's time to go back and address your implementation of the product. Security through simple ignorance of a known deficiency is just disappointing. Maybe it only affects 1 out of 10 users who trust the safety of their stored password lists or similar documents, but businesses hopefully are more demanding.

And just a note...I do like Dropbox and use it everyday(for non-sensitive files).

<comment><USER3> Client-side encryption severely worsens the economics of Dropbox, and not everyone needs it. If you want that you're perfectly entitled to go build your own competitor, which will have higher costs.

<comment><USER6> It's already been built such as Spideroak and Wuala. Dropbox could capture more of the market and even concerned businesses if they make this even as much as a simple configurable option. If the data deduplication costs higher because of client-side encryption, then charge me the commodity price of storage for that option. Not everyone needs it but some do...

<comment><USER7> How do you propose they pay for the development? I personally doubt they will suddenly have businesses with deep pockets knocking on their door with fistfuls of money.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> In related news, Dropbox employees were surprised to find that the new building's locks could be opened with any key and that despite the landlord's Terms of Service, janitors and other building staff _can_ in fact open and view private containers and documents belonging to employees.

<comment><USER9> That's a great point, Dropbox totally had a security bug that one time.

<comment><USER10> In my estimation, if their system was decently designed, instead of granting anyone access to everything, nobody should have been granted access to anything if there is an authentication problem. Can you possibly imagine a worse system than they currently use (that still attempts to provide security)?

<comment><USER11> How do you know what they "currently used"? Do you really think their authentication really defaults to "yes" still?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I find it humorous that (otherwise highly intelligent, and well informed) members of HN are asking "What do they need all these people for" - DropBox is getting a rumored $5B valuation - which implies, no, requires they start to ramp up both their revenue and, eventually, profit.

That's going to require either (A) a LOT more customers, or (B) More profitable Customers.

(A) is just going to be a huge headache in terms of legal issues, support issues, infrastructure, etc...

(B) is going to require an entirely new model of sales - SEs, RFP writers, Marketing, Salespeople, Finance people working in many markets, channels, etc...

Regardless - 400 employees for a $5 Billion company is on the absolute low end of where they will be if they actually justify that (rumored) valuation.

The challenge comes when you start charging for these services and/or take on the corporate customers - if you run it ala CraigsList - you let the community police itself, and just hire a core infrastructure team, call it a day. Companies that start actively marketing their product, pick up an enormous number of bodies, and, of course, the finance/hr/it/management/executive teams required to support those bodies.

<comment><USER13>
      I find it humorous that (otherwise highly intelligent, and
      well informed) members of HN are asking "What do they need
      all these people for"

I'm one of those who asked that question. The way I become better informed is to acknowledge my ignorance, then ask questions in the hopes of reducing it.

You make some good points.

I would feel better about your answer if you didn't seem so condescending though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> To all those wondering about 400+ new hires, you can view and vote on the proposed featureset at dropbox.com/votebox.

Some popular requests:

\- sync folders outside of the _My/Dropbox_ folder

\- read/write permissions for shared files/folders

\- remote destroy/purge if laptop is stolen

\- streaming audio/video

\- windows mobile support

\- reseller/branding program

\- internationalization

... and much more.

<comment><USER15> This is just some speculation as to why I think Dropbox is going to be something awesome (it's good right now, but not awesome). I'm not really in any position to make these suggestions (or expect them to be followed), so I'm going to more than likely sound crazy.

I don't really know what the vision behind Dropbox is, but (in my own opinion) it should be the place where people's personal files are stored. From there, people build cross-platform apps making it more useful. They are already doing this, but they need to take the "next step", which is probably what they want to do with their incoming 400 employees.

Generally, people store all their files on their home computer, and to solve the problem of "I can't access my files on the go" people started using laptops as their primary computer. That's not really a good solution because then you have to carry a computer around. Smartphones and tablets are sort of solving this, but they bring the same overall issue of "My stuff on here is different from my stuff on there". What Dropbox could do is host people's actual "computers", where computer is defined as software, files, and settings. So when you load up your smartphone or you friends smartphone you can access the smartphone version of your computer, and the tablet version of your computer on tablets, and the desktop version of your computer on desktops.

It wouldn't feel like you're using "your laptop" or "your friends tablet" or "your iPhone" because the only difference between any kind of computer is whose signed in right now. Dropbox is in a favorable position to do this, but so is Apple, Google, and Microsoft.

It's a pretty crazy (and unlikely) notion, but how else will Dropbox grow?

<comment><USER16> It definitely seems to be the direction things are converging, but what you are talking about is much more than file storage, it's a full scale cutting edge multi-platform cloud OS. While it is definitely conceivable, if you look at how far the various _single_ -platform client-based OSes still have to go, it sheds some light on how monumentally complex the task truly is. Especially considering that these OSes have companies many, many times larger and more experienced than dropbox backing them.

File storage is certainly a critical piece of the puzzle and I could see them making some major inroads towards standardizing the cloud, but I think the full breadth of your vision is still pretty far off. Fun to speculate on though for sure.

<comment><USER17> Those large single-platform client-based OSes have not produced a cloud OS because it would be too radical of a change for their current business model.

Some company with the explicit goal of developing a cloud based OS could do it today if they wanted to. Monetizing it might be a different question though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Hiring based on plan compared to need. Does all of this crazy funding raise anyone else's hackles? Maybe it's just that I'm not in Silicon Valley or SF.

Update: Perhaps it is just the signaling of going from 65 to 400 that bothers me. I like Dropbox's service and agree they are doing well. Is the mention of 400 employees meant to be a signal for future investors, those interested in working there or perhaps other competitors? A change from 65 to 400 employees is not a single hop but requires quite a bit to fall into place according to plan.

<comment><USER18> I don't know if this is all that crazy. Ambitious, yes, but it's tempered compared to the '90s. Dropbox is doing very well and wants to try and do very, very well.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Would someone break down for me what Dropbox needs all those people for?

Is Dropbox starting some big new project that can't be handled by the current number of employees?

</comment><comment><USER19> Why does Dropbox need 400 employees!? Really high headcounts are _the_ guaranteed path to eventual mediocrity. Why do almost no companies see this and prevent it?

<comment><USER20> My guess is they're moving towards the high end corporate market, which is where the really big bucks are. And to break into that market you need a sales and support team on an entirely different scale than what you need for the consumer market.

<comment><USER21> I hope that you are right. Where I work our IT department has banned the use of Dropbox because in theory it would allow sensitive data outside of the organisation. However, they've not been able to provide any kind of alternative. My team could in theory do this but the politics we'd need to wade through would be horrendous. If Dropbox were to offer a way to run their service entirely inside your own firewall (with support) then I am sure that my company (and many others) would happily pay huge amounts of money for it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> If you look at iCloud and Ubuntu One, both of those services have Dropbox- esque file storage as one of their features, but they also store and sync things like contacts, settings, and other pieces of data. Dropbox may be planning on doing something like that, with the added advantage that they aren't binding their stuff to a specific OS or platform.

</comment><comment><USER23> Dropbox has some rather tough competition ahead of them from Amazon, Google and Microsoft at the least - they know they'll need to be rather sturdy to stay the leading provider of convenient cloud storage for consumers. Best of luck!

</comment><comment><USER24> Dropbox is one of the few services I use that I would be seriously upset if I couldn't use again.

</comment><comment><USER25> Great to hear. I'm glad to know Dropbox is here to stay.

Just remember to keep the service simple. Don't fall into the feature pit!

<comment><USER26> In other words, keep 250 of those 400 employees idle!

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> how many of those 400 are going to be engineer hires?

</comment><comment><USER28> Anybody still using Dropbox needs a head check. They've made too many mistakes that showcase a broken undercarriage. Dropbox is the epitomy of succesful failures in my book. only the unknowing masses will stick with them for lack of understanding.</comment>


GitHub Action CLI-tool to script updates of them on many repositories - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/inextensodigital/actions/tree/master/github-workflow <comment><USER2> I found this title hard to parse. Could I suggest "CLI tool for managing Github Action workflows"?

<comment><USER3> Not just hard to parse but actually somewhat misleading, I thought first it was official Github cli tool similar to hub.</comment></comment>


Google Custom Search Engine for Hacker News & Reddit Programming - <AUTHOR> http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=018342486690831005521:1iq2wypqs7c

<comment><USER2> There's also a command line search and web service which searches only Hacker News. See <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=184707> <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=182374> <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=183706>

There's also www.searchyc.com and <http://y.soho.lt/>

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I created this for myself (it took maybe two minutes to make). It limits your search results to Hacker News and Reddit's Programming section. The results were skewed in favor of Reddit, so I added "Hacker News" as a hint keyword, which creates a more balanced search result distribution.

It is probably not as complete as the dedicated Hacker News search someone else created, but it does span two sites, which is helpful (to me anyway).

<comment><USER2> Nice. Could you also do a Hacker News only search?

<comment><USER3> You can do this by adding the tem site:news.ycombinator.com to a regular Google (or Yahoo) search.

Yahoo claims to have about 600k indexed pages from this domain, Google about 166k.

<comment><USER2> There's about 186,000 posts and about 7,000 non-lurking users. So, Google is incomplete and Yahoo is doing something odd. Alternatively, both figures maybe the result of approximate counting artifacts and both could have complete and current indexes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> nice. very useful.</comment>


How Washington Abetted the Bank Job - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/04/opinion/04koniak.html

<comment><USER2> The article reiterates the authors' position that "products having no economic purpose except to achieve questionable accounting, tax or regulatory goals; or that raise serious concerns that customers will use them to issue materially misleading financial statements ... should, at a minimum, be labeled presumptively prohibited."

Instead, I think the solution to the problem is to stop relying on financial accounting and instead disclose the actual transaction terms on a disaggregated basis. Accounting principles require the use of judgements by people (accountants, regulators, bankers, controllers) whose judgements have proven to be unreliable at best. The filters that these parties represent should should be removed and we should be allowed sufficient information to make our own judgements.

By disclosing the actual details of a complex transaction on a timely basis, truly independent outsiders would be able to judge and report on the aggregate book, built from a line-by-line analysis. I like call this Real Transparency.

This analysis has become technically feasible in recent years, thanks to faster CPUs, and the cost of distributing this information has dropped dramatically, thanks to cheaper storage and faster networks. Mandating this type of disclosure would be one of the really useful things the government could do. The current proposed reforms simply give more power to the regulators who permitted Enron, Madoff and Lehman.

Complexity is not the real enemy of truth. It is people gaming a system with built-in opacity. Increase the transparency and there won't be any games left to play.

</comment><comment><USER3> FTA:

      Congress needs to recognize that "regulatory capture," in
      which an agency becomes a pawn of the industry it is
      supposed to oversee, is real.*

I'm sure Congress does recognize that. Congress-critters experience "regulatory capture" on a regular basis as a personally enriching development.

<comment><USER4> yeah, all the pawns in Congress know exactly how they're pwned and by whom and whose asses they must kiss

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Politics is the Mind-Killer

<http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Politics_is_the_Mind-Killer>

</comment><comment><USER4> oh, I'm sure they were just "fostering innovation"

</comment><comment><USER6> The fact that no one went to jail or even got fired for total malfeasance suggests that both regulation and internal oversight are grossly inadequate.

Face it, the tag team of government + corporation is going to keep robbing us, until we do something about it (move money out of US, work in shadow market, vote out incumbants, etc)

<comment><USER5> You are right that the government and corporations are going to keep robbing us, but there isn't much we can do about it. Look at the recent case of multi- time convicted Pfizer: the laws mandated a corporate death penalty, but a 4th level shell company was penalized anyways, with explicit acknowledgment by the government of the facts of the matter. [http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/04/02/pfizer.bextra/index.htm...](http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/04/02/pfizer.bextra/index.html?hpt=Sbin)

If we can't hold Pfizer accountable for it's crimes, which have actually directly resulted in the deaths of many people both in a direct and statistical sense, there is no way we can hold the government and Wall Street executives accountable.

Unfortunately, we do not have a superior political system. I think at this point that corporations and their inseparable ties with government are going to be here until the Singularity.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Does the word engineer matter? - <AUTHOR>

Hey HN :) I am a student from Portugal currently taking an IT degree.
This is almost exactly the same as Computer Engineering but its a bit more pratical and the main diference is the lack of 2 math courses and one physics course. I just want to ask if i should change to the Computer Engineering degree, if that would make a diference in the future in the job market.<p>Thanks! <comment><USER2> In the US, it is quite common for just anyone to call themselves a "Software Engineer". This gives one an air of respectability over "Computer Programmer". There is no particular qualification required to call oneself a "Software Engineer" though it would help to read a book like "Learn Java in 21 Days".

My understanding is that in Canada, it is a civil offense to denote yourself as an engineer of any sort unless you have a license. For that reason when I was employed by an industrial control systems firms, none of the computer programmers were called engineers, they were called computer programmers. Our engineers were all the Canadian equivalent of america's Professional Engineers.

I call myself a Software Engineer because I regard my work as being of the required caliber. My degree is in physics and my software expertise is largely self-taught.

</comment><comment><USER3> Engineering programs in North America must be accredited by either ABET (USA) or APEG (Canada) in order to use the term engineering in the degree. After this you must pass tests from these organizations to legally use the word engineer in your job title.

So in North America they would see it as a difference. Often there are agreements between ABET or APEG and other countries the local engineering association (Portugal in your case).

I think for getting a first job and maximizing your salary with your first job, it would matter. As time goes on and you gain experience, it will matter less, especially for Computer Engineering.

</comment><comment><USER4> I don't know about the Portuguese job market, but in Silicon Valley, I think it would make a difference. (At least at a first glance; you could probably explain it away to an individual -- but the problem would be getting to the point where you would have the opportunity to talk to them.)

If you're not highly adverse to math and physics, I would make the switch.</comment>