Bitcoin climbs to $10k - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-06-22/bitcoin-climbs-to-10-000-as-memories-of-the-crypto-bubble-fade <comment><USER2> I lament the recurring fact that "the price" dictates more than anything else when and even if a news article appears in a mainstream news medium like Bloomberg.

There is soo much technical development in bitcoin that is _way more_ news- worthy than what the market happens to be doing today

<comment><USER3> What else is there? Bitcoin is an investment, so this is important in the same way that the price of gold climbing like this would be important.

<comment><USER4> Bitcoin is meant to be a way of completing payments, not an investment. The use as an investment goes against its primary purpose.

<comment><USER5> You must be pretty behind the times. Most shops have stopped accepting bitcoin because of volatility and high transaction fees. Bitcoin thrives as virtual gold precisely because those two downsides make it useless as a currency.

<comment><USER6> That's the primary reason the Bitcoin Core / Bitcoin Cash split 2 years ago now was a difference in opinion about whether or not usage as a payment method mattered. Now you have two competing camps one is pushing the Bitcoin as egold and high fees while the other is pushing Bitcoin as a means of exchange with low fees.

The volatility was solved by the payment processors. In any case the big payment processors support both now. The higher than credit card fees though did kill the use of Bitcoin Core as a payment method in ordinary transactions.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The central banks of the Eurozone, Switzerland, Sweden, and Japan have set negative short-term interest rates, and in the U.S., the president has threatened to demote the chairman of the central bank if he does not cut interest rates. This may explain increased interest in alternative currencies.

<comment><USER8> And yet there is no inflation. So the currency debasement yielding to hyperinflation argument which has been running since 2008 remains without any evidence.

<comment><USER9> There is inflation, it shows itself in asset prices. You are also skipping a step, the currency debasement and resulting loss of global reserve status leads to hyperinflation.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> Joe-Z I'm still not sure what to think about cryptocurrency[0]. I just don't get the price fluctuations. They seem to be random and not based on any relevant real- world event. Granted, they list the announcement of Libra as a reason in the article, but how would that be good for Bitcoin?

[0]and that's coming from someone who owned several bitcoins a few years back but stupidly used them for buying stuff. It's not as bad as the guy who ordered a pizza for I think 1 million bucks, but still I'd rather have the money now...

<comment><USER10> The people gaming the system to increase its "value" have slowly brought the price up - and they will keep working together (indirectly and directly) to convince/manipulate/trick consumers into buying into this global, decentralized Ponzi-Pyramid scheme to further their wealth through unreasonably redistributing wealth towards earlier adopters - while increasing the "army of HODLers" who now have vested interested in pushing these crypto-"currencies." Everyone who's lost money to the earlier adopters are heavily incentivized to talk positively and promote them so they can attempt to at minimum break even from their losses - which is the main mechanism as to why these are so dangerous for society, the incentive and alignment of working together - to adopt something that has shown little to no value to society; blockchain is a separate conversation as to its value for society. The "killer app" that no one seems to have been able to create for society yet seems to actually be that its structure allows for a Pyramid-Ponzi scheme - and the people selling the shovels during this modern gold rush seem to be the ones best capitalizing on the hype and frenzy.

<comment><USER11> Are you against any asset where visionaries got in early? VCs and wealthy investors reap the vast majority of rewards when companies like Uber go public, and let the retail investors hold the bag. I don't see much of a moral difference.

<comment><USER12> Uber is a company that provides a highly useful service. Bitcoin is just a decentralized long con.

<comment><USER11> You can make an argument against the asset itself and it's utility. But parent was arguing that the fact early adopters captured a majority of the gains makes Bitcoin evil doesn't make sense to me. I'm happy that crypto nerds won this time over the usual suspects of VCs, family funds, etc.

<comment><USER10> What value has Bitcoin et al brought anyone other than earning them "profit" because they were earlier in the Pyramid-Ponzi scheme - or at a low point before price went up and sold before the bubble(s) popped?

<comment><USER13> Ok, I'm not a huge fan of the crypto craze, but ignoring providing a solution to the problem of trust in decentralized networks and implementing a working payment network on top of that is just a blatant ignorance.

The solution is massively unelegant and unlikely to be worth so much long-term as markets are predicting now, but it definitely does provide some tangible value and it's pretty stupid to imply otherwise.

<comment><USER10> Simply asking for what value has Bitcoin et al provided isn't the same as a statement that states it doesn't cover some areas of value, however pros existing doesn't necessarily negate the cons - doesn't mean there's a net benefit to them existing. Ignoring that a solution for 'trust in decentralized networks' can't be solved in other ways, like normal real-life trust networks, where people make a decision of who they trust for this vs. having "blind trust" is in fact blatant ignorance.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Bitcoin is a very good store of wealth when compared to, say, gold. If I was in a country like Turkey or China I would be moving my wealth into it any way I could. The government inflates their currencies and locks or seizes bank accounts. When you want to escape the dictator, you can memorize 24 words and take your wealth with you over the border. Very hard to keep your gold safe from guards.

Ignoring all of the other uses of Bitcoin, the "digital gold" argument is the strongest IMO.

<comment><USER4> How is it better than gold? The primary goal with a store of wealth is price stability, and gold is way more stable than BTC. BTC is certainly better than many fiats but it's still highly unstable. Most people who are buying it are buying it as an investment, not a store of wealth.

<comment><USER14> I think the commenter is suggesting that sometimes the mobility of your store of wealth is more important than volatility. Hard to argue that gold is easy to move or store. People from the US and Western Europe are prone to forget how volatile the political and economic situation is for most of Earth's population.

<comment><USER4> People who use gold as a money store don't buy physical gold, though. They buy insured, gold backed securities which are held in a stable location, usually the United Kingdom. The account that holds those securities is protected by a password, just like Bitcoin

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> The second half of that headline is a loaded statement that does not belong in proper journalism.

<comment><USER16> At least, the authors gave away their bias from the get-go.

<comment><USER17> Journalists do not only report the news, nor should they limit themselves to that. They also explain, classify and arrange the news, and put them into a broader context. This is the more interesting, the more difficult and more valuable part of their job.

Sure, you don't want to read this viewpoint. Great! There are thousands of cryptocurrency web sites with "proper" news and commentary for you to read.

This article is for people like me.

<comment><USER15> Once you provide interpretation, you are picking and choosing. That's an easy vehicle for manipulation of public opinion, and is exactly why so many people lament the current state of journalism (not that the past was any brighter).

<comment><USER17> People lament the current state of journalism, because they feel "their journalists" aren't reputable, but the reputable ones aren't "their journalists".

There are journalists all across the political spectrum, from the extreme left to the extreme right. But everybody wants to see his opinion enshrined as "mainstream" by the New York Times or the Washington Post.

On the one hand, they place enormous value in those papers and their reputation, but on the other hand these papers only sell worthless manipulation. Something doesn't compute here.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> But why would Libra increase rather than decrease interest in Bitcoin? Is there any actual rationale?

<comment><USER19> No, but I always find funny that geeks are so excited about the technology behind bitcoin but at the same time remain largely clueless about what currencies are, why so they exist, what is the role of a central bank, how currency adoption works, etc.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Has broken $11k right now.

<comment><USER9> It will pass $25,000 before the halvening in May 2020.

Increased equipment cost, same electricity cost but half the rewards = a large value shift.

<comment><USER21> Why 25? What makes you throw this exact number? Wild guess?

<comment><USER22> 25,000 if we are talking about significant digits is not very precise. Also, I interpret the 5 to mean between 20 and 30k.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> This won't affect the price of GPU cards heavily right? Since most of the mining is done by specialized ASIC boxes now?

<comment><USER24> Bitcoin rising in value tends to pull up many altcoins along with it, including GPU mineable ones like Ethereum, Monero and Grin.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Demand for bitcoin comes from ransoms. Entire cities are being extorted so this affects the price.</comment>


Ask HN: How can you stand to live in San Francisco given the crime? - <AUTHOR> http://www.crimemapping.com/map.aspx?ll=-13628682.729867542,4547316.444930093&z=13&mc=ve_roads&cc=HO,RO,SX,WE&db=1/25/2012&de=3/01/2012 <comment><USER2> I moved to SF from NYC, and NYC was _way_ safer by comparison. I used to work for the NYC Dept. of Correction crunching the numbers on arrests and inmates and I can tell you this is the biggest difference between the two cities:

NYC -- There's a cop standing on nearly every corner in most of Manhattan, and actually standing, giving directions to tourists and being friendly but professional. If there's a big crime in an area they show up, on foot, and patrol like a damn army to say, "That ain't gonna happen again, try it." In the words of one very sketchy NYC taxi driver, "You can't do anything in this fucking town with all the goddamn cops around!" In NYC the police presence is direct, visible, and makes them feel like part of the community.

SF -- Not a cop in sight, even in cars. They never patrol on foot. Even in places like Union Square and Haight Ashbury you rarely see them. They might show up for an event but they don't do shit but stand there and maybe harass a homeless guy or two. I walk all over this city at all hours of the day and night, and even seeing a cop car is a surprise. Usually they only show up after something major has happened. They do show up quickly, but they are not present and do not feel like part of the community.

If all SF did was make cops _walk_ a beat and arrest people for every petty crime (like NYC did) they could drastically improve things. After that, making sure _every_ street was well lit with good street lamps would help even more. Hell I'd willingly pay more taxes if it was agreed that the SFPD motorpool budget was cut in half and officers were forced to walk.

<comment><USER3> > If all SF did was make cops walk a beat and arrest people for every petty > crime (like NYC did) they could drastically improve things. After that, > making sure every street was well lit with good street lamps would help even > more. Hell I'd willingly pay more taxes if it was agreed that the SFPD > motorpool budget was cut in half and officers were forced to walk.

Hopefully we won't have to elect a Rudy Guiliani or a Frank Rizzo to make that happen.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> 1) Almost everywhere is safe during the day.

2) At night most issues happen in certain areas where you can take steps to minimize your risk.

3) Most crime doesn't cause permanent damage. Getting mugged sucks, but physical things can be replaced.

4) It's a risk/reward proposition. If it's worth it to you to live in the city then you deal with it. If it's not worth it to you then there are plenty of safe suburbs.

<comment><USER5> I'm interning in SF this summer. Any tips where the "certain areas" to avoid are?

<comment><USER6> You'll know them immediately, and getting back out is easy once your spidey sense tingles. Mostly, stay out of the Tenderloin.

<comment><USER7> I stayed at a hostel in the Tenderloin when I was in town for a conference last year. Walked to/from Moscone with my $2k MBP in a Timbuk2 bag every day. Never had any trouble, not even when I was walking back at 1AM and fairly intoxicated.

Am I just a lucky idiot?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> San Francisco is somewhere in the middle of the pack for US Cities by rate of violent crime. It has about half the number of violent crimes per capita of Philadelphia, for example.

As a side node, San Jose has shockingly little crime. It had the sixth least violent crime per capita of US cities in 2010, at about half the rate of San Francisco.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_cities_by_crime_r...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_cities_by_crime_rate#2010_Data)

I always take stats like crime with a grain of salt, though, as everyone in the community has an incentive to juice them. Crimes have a tendency to get "lost" or downgraded in the stats, and that happens at different rates in different places.

</comment><comment><USER8> As a former crime reporter, I just have to chime in and say that not all crime statistics are created equal. For example, when I was building a crime map for my region, some large departments provided no data, which made their areas look rather safe in comparison.

There is no universal standard for granularity. Or even classification (even if jurisdictions are within the same state).

This is less of a problem if you are only focusing on SF as I think there is only one jurisdiction there (SF police), but something to keep in mind when trying to make comparisons with SF to anywhere else in the Bay Area.

Also, in any urban area, extremely violent crime is most heavily centered on drug-related incidents (a drug dealer collecting, for example). Not all (or even most) of these crimes happen across a random distribution of the population.

<comment> brown9-2 Wait, you would make crime maps that showed areas that didn't report crime as having no crime? That seems like a pretty dishonest map.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Lock your bike up! And the tires! Avoid drunks. You'll survive.

Moving here from Boston, I was actually pretty taken aback by the amount of property crime. More than anything, it was the way that people here think "Oh, that's just how things are here. Your stuff gets stolen."

Californians are too mellow for their own good!

<comment><USER10> It's the only city where leaving your car windows down is safer than leaving them up.

:)

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> "In the long run we are all dead." --John Maynard Keynes

Second what dkasper said, but I would add that I _love_ the culture of San Francisco. There is so much energy, so much excitement, such a mixture of people pushing their limits, doing exciting things, and _doing them damn well_. To live in the city is to be in the center of it.

I actually worked at Stanford (until recently, when work took me away from California), thirty miles south, and I loved San Francisco too much _not_ to live there.

</comment><comment><USER12> Ah, yes. Crime mapping. As an LA resident, I've lost quite a bit of time playing around with the crime mapper at the LA Times website, poking around places I used to live, checking out demographics, average amount of education, income, etc. and it would be safe to say that LA is significantly more dangerous than SF, at least going by the numbers.

So, what keeps me from bolting for the cozy countryside? Well, it's tempting to hit you with the one-word answer "Work." which is certainly compelling, but obviously there are alternatives in the age of telecommuting to living in the risky city.

The best I can come up with is that I'm alright here. I might be better somewhere else, but I'm ok with LA. I have friends, family, and fond memories here, and those mean a lot to me. I'm no romantic, and I would up and leave if opportunity in SF, Austin, NYC, or Mumbai called, but this is where I am right now, and it's not bad.

Try not to get caught up in the crime maps. You know very little about what lead to the unfortunate incidents represented by those ominous buttons. Control what you can, keep your eyes open, and, should you ever find yourself in a precarious position, don't be a hero.

<comment><USER10> West LA / Santa Monica, which is similar in size and population to SF, is significantly safer than San Francisco. I've lived for extended periods in both locations.

For example, you don't have to take all the change out of your ashtrays and hide your phone charger/other electronics every time you park your car on the street, or see drug deals going on in broad daylight, walk past brothels on your way to get coffee, or see drunk people get into extremely violent fights at night outside the bars. Frequent murders occur in the city.

Anyway, my point is that SF is _really_ unsafe when it comes to property crime and vice. Like, to the point that it's really obvious that the police just aren't enforcing laws at ALL in most neighborhoods. For what it's worth, I lived in one of the nicest neighborhoods, Pacific Heights (Fillmore & California), and saw most of that stuff within 2-3 blocks from my front door. Japantown and Divisadero were where most of it happened, but my friends' cars got broken into EVERY time they parked on the street near my place.

<comment><USER12> Oh, no doubt. LA is a big place, and some bits are clearly nicer than others, but I guess I was just trying to point out that crime can happen anywhere for any number of reasons. You're more likely to get robbed in South LA than in Santa Monica, absolutely, but you can stay reasonably safe in both places by just doing a few simple things, like keeping valuables, especially smartphones out of sight at all times, walking with a bit of purpose, and making sure to straight up avoid places at certain hours.

Interesting line about SFPD though. I wasn't aware they were so inept.

<comment><USER10> I agree - East LA, South LA, all are not nearly as safe as West LA. My main point is that West LA, as a whole (and by that, I mean you never have to leave it), is safer than SF, which is more akin to taking the different east/west/south LA's and packing them all together into one peninsula.

In other words the bad parts are impossible to avoid.

Having said that, the restaurant food in SF is better on average (LA = driving to eat good food) and of course there's more/better/bigger tech companies/activity in the bay.

:)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> This map doesn't show any information about population density. It's impossible to judge risk without normalizing for that. It's certainly possible to get scared from the shear number of incidents, but it's not a rational fear.

</comment><comment><USER14> Hey, an Argentinean here... You REALLY don't know what insecurity is...

</comment><comment><USER15> As someone who used to live in SF and now lives in Baltimore, this question strikes me as pretty funny.

</comment><comment><USER16> I live in Lower Haight and recently joined our neighborhood block on NextDoor.com [1]

A lot of my neighbors have been posting about recent break-ins. There has been a good number of break-ins recently and people are chiming in with historical stories from the last 2 years.

Overall its nice to be in the loop. I am surprised to hear about so much burglary in Lower Haight.

On Tuesday evening my motorcycle, parked in front of my house, was vandalized. Over the last 2 years I've had to replace my spark plugs 4 times. I come out in the morning and they are either gone or half missing. Apparently you can tie the porcelain part to some wire and swing it against glass and it breaks the glass more efficiently (?). Last year my girlfriends scooter, also parked in front of our house, was vandalized.

There doesn't seem to be much rhyme or reason. Its messed up.

[1] <https://haighthayes.nextdoor.com>

</comment><comment><USER17> I am an SF native - and I am about to take a very large project which will move me from SF to Dallas. I am worried more about Dallas than SF.

I have never experienced any crime in SF, aside from my bike pump being stolen when I forgot to take it off my bike which was locked at bart.

I live at the top of Noe Valley/Castro area and its quiet and fantastic.

If you don't put yourself into stupid situations, you'll not see crime.

I don't go out to shitty bars in the mission at night, I don't spend time in the tenderloin either.

But the tenderloin is surrounded by amazing areas, like union square.

Tranny valley (polk street) has some colorful characters which you'll see if you go bar hopping or to SF Grubsteak after a late night of drinking.

Overall - I find SF to be one of the safest, most wonderful cities in the world.

</comment><comment><USER18> All cities have crime. Many areas of San Francisco are very safe, many areas are not. If you avoid going to unsafe areas, particularly at night, you'll be fine. San Francisco is once of the most dense cities in the US, looking at a map might isn't the best way to determine if a city is unsafe in general. Check out stats like these:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_cities_by_crime_r...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_cities_by_crime_rate)

Also, there are many cities in the Bay Area. Oakland has a high crime rate, but other areas have very little crime.

</comment><comment><USER19> Because the good out weighs the bad... how does anyone live in the suburbs assuming this was a loaded question.

Crime is everywhere, you can stick your head in the sand and pretend it doesn't exist or you can enjoy your life. I lived in a containment zone in SF where the cops intentionally pushed criminal activity towards a 2 block radius. It was trade off to live in a prime location. SF is dirtier than it is dangerous if you're smart about it. What got annoying fast was the amount of dog poop on the side walk(s). The end.

</comment><comment><USER20> Because it's the 9th safest city in the US in its size category >500K.

<http://www.morganquitno.com/cit05pop.htm>

</comment><comment><USER21> That does seem high. Here's downtown L.A. which seems pleasant in comparison: <http://bit.ly/zdnbyn>

<comment><USER22> Hey, Skid Row is crime free!

Obviously this is not actually the case.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> According to this website, New York, NY doesn't have any crime.

<comment><USER21> Hmm their crime data must not be easily accessible...

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Easy: live out where I live in the Inner Richmond.

<comment><USER25> How bad is the commute to SF?

<comment><USER26> Inner Richmond is a neighborhood in SF. Confusingly, there is also a Richmond city in the East Bay, but you would not want to live there if you are commuting to SF (or in general, really).

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richmond_District,_San_Francis...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richmond_District,_San_Francisco)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> 1- SF is a city with diverse neighborhoods; there are some that are quite safe, and others where you'd be well-advised to watch your back. The crime may appear dense on that map, but in reality, it's not like a stick-up happens every time you set foot outdoors.

2- San Francisco is not the same as the Bay Area. As someone who lives in So Cal, you may possibly think that I live in "San Francisco," whereas I actually live in the East Bay. The Bay Area is a huge, fairly dense populated area. Palo Alto, Berkeley, San Jose, Oakland, Fremont, San Mateo, Marin County—they're all in the Bay Area, but none are "San Francisco".

<comment><USER28> And the graphics on the map tend to make you think that these were all serious crimes. The "gun" symbol actually means "weapon" not "gun" which could mean a guy threatening someone with a baseball bat. "Robbery" would include low level stuff like shoplifting. Also it's worth remembering that lots of crime is low- life vs low-life (aka settling of accounts) and not much of a risk to the average person.

<comment><USER29> If you click on the icons they give you more detail as the the nature of each crime. Most of the ski-masks seem to be "STRONGARM ROB." which implies a mugging to my mind. The gun symbol means weapon, and most of them seem to be knives.</comment></comment></comment>


YouPy – YouTube for Jupyter Notebooks - <AUTHOR> View the Jupyter Notebooks of folks working at Google or OpenAI <comment>----
Today I was searching for a tool like this, and I couldn't find anyone. But I think it would be super cool if we could access the raw code and raw results of top scientists, and see how they work. And also be able to share my code and experiments. But not the super clean final paper, the raw stuff.
It seems super interesting, and we can learn a lot about the actual PROCESS of someone doing good research, not only from the OUTPUT (papers).
So what do you think? Would you like to access the Jupyter Notebooks of folks working at Google or OpenAI for example? Do you think it would be useful?
Feel free to coment and discuss :)
Marc </comment><comment><USER2> Some questions I would have before using the platform would be:

\- Does it ensure that the Notebooks posted are reproducible? (i.e. can uploaders use private modules and thus make their analysis non-reproducible)

\- Does it handle privacy well? I currently work within the Analytics org of what some would consider a large company, and user-privacy is incredibly important to us. Would this only be used to post 'public' dataset analyses?

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the insights! I guess for question 1) there could be different strategies.

The simplest one would consist of only hosting HTML versions of the notebooks so that viewers can only _view_. This maybe would be sufficient.

The tricky one would be to be able to run code online, but it would require infrastructure.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Do you mean a live stream of researchers JupyterNotebooks/ JupyterLab?

Is this a thing for normal developers? I suppose there is a YouTube of everything.

Really how does YouTube manage all of this video?

<comment><AUTHOR> Not a livestream, but a place to host Jupyter Notebooks. The analogy with youtube was because youtube is the place to "upload your video and distribute it to the world". This would be the place to "upload your Jupyter Notebooks and distribute them" to the world.

<comment><USER4> If the code is on GitHub, you can just use [http://nbviewer.jupyter.org/](http://nbviewer.jupyter.org/)

Is there any additional functionality you'd include in YouPy?</comment></comment></comment>


My programmer is a dick...  - <AUTHOR> I don't know how to approach this situation so I'll detail my situation. We started a startup conceptually since 1 year ago, went full force in developing in May, and are now about to get clients/ship product.
My partner and I are former web designers/developers who can't do web application programming but can sell ice to an eskimo and have great marketing/business networking experience. We put both of our life savings to get front-end development done (are main product is a dashboard tool). Our other (kinda founder) who has been with us since the beginning does the back-end programming, without him it would've been hard. We are paying him about $25/hr below his market pay, but he went to college with me so he is helping with discount. The backend shouldn't be more than about 150 hours of true programming (not including research time).
Here is the situation. The programmer is a dick. He has a house and baby so we try to cut slack, but he keeps on missing deadlines. He has almost no communication skills when we want to meet and work, he doesn't show passion like a founder. We wanted him to come on board as a full equity stake founder, but we've learned to him this is just a project and that's it. We haven't had that come to Jesus talk yet, but we're afraid it may leave us in a bad spot. He's the only one familiar with the backend. It's causing us to lose clients and not gain momentum, not including how our advisors/investors are eyeing us.
Please any advice will help. We would love to find a new programmer founder, but how do we make the next steps in a crucial time like raising funding? Also please note as just a key employee we were going to give him 3-5% equity in the company. <comment><USER3> > Our other (kinda founder) who has been with us since the beginning does the > back-end programming, without him it would've been hard. We are paying him > about $25/hr below his market pay, but he went to college with me so he is > helping with discount. The backend shouldn't be more than about 150 hours of > true programming (not including research time). > > Here is the situation. > The programmer is a dick. He has a house and baby so we try to cut slack, > but he keeps on missing deadlines. He has almost no communication skills > when we want to meet and work, he doesn't show passion like a founder.

I count six red flags. You're paying below market rate; your programmer is a college friend who probably agreed to take the job as a favor; you've given a time estimate which is probably wrong; you excluded "research time" from the time estimate when you clearly shouldn't have; and you show obvious disrespect and no gratitude.

And you wonder why you aren't getting his best work?

<comment><AUTHOR> Why assume my time estimate is wrong? I asked him for the estimate of hours. He doesn't include "research" time, I told him I'd pay for that time - <USER2> doesn't think it should be counted. In previous projects we've worked on, he has always underbilled we wanted to make sure that didn't happen this time.

I managed our frontend dev team and I personally estimated their hours (since I've managed software teams before) and got only 10-20 hours over.

I disrespect him because he started disrespecting me. Why assume the non-tech founder is always the bad guy?

One email for instance - "We have our life savings in this. This one feature update has taken over three weeks, please give us an ETA. Can another developer assist?" Answer: "Guilt doesn't work... I won't be able to see this until Friday. Sure another dev can take a whack at it, I'll add him to repo" (Email sent last Tuesday).

<comment><USER4> "I disrespect him because he started disrespecting me."

That is very immature.

"Why assume the non-tech founder is always the bad guy?"

Because in most cases this is true. And when you write a post titled "My programmer is a dick..." what do you think people are going to assume?

You demonstrate a lack of maturity and understanding of how to successfully engage with others. You came here asking for advice, don't be so defensive.

<comment><AUTHOR> I debated responding to you. But I will, because I'm trying to truly resolve this situation with my dev.

I don't know the first thing about you and I won't assume. I'm asking for comments on what to do next. Sorry if I called a "person" a dick, and sorry if that person happened to be a fellow "programmer".

Would you have replied to this post had I posted "I'm having difficulty with my programmer meeting deadlines"

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> > _"Also please note as just a key employee we were going to give him 3-5% > equity in the company."_

A key employee who is putting $50,000+/year into your company is getting 3-5%?

Are you really worth $1million to $1.5 million after a year and will you be worth twice that next year...just so he breaks even (assuming he is only working 2000 hours a year)?

Sorry, but if you are losing clients then you and your cofounder aren't selling coal in Newcastle, and the fact that the programmer isn't welcome in the office and is being blamed for all the problems raises a question about who is actually a dick.

<comment><AUTHOR> A key employee as in he is putting about 1-5 hours of coding per week but we needed a good backend dev and he was the best I knew. He's a college friend and I don't know how best to deal with the situation of him not communicating.

I came to ask this question on HN because I wanted devs opinions, I know non- tech founders get bad reps here - and I understand if you want to attach that bias to me.

I put my life savings into this project, I didn't ask for favors. He makes us feel uncomfortable in our office, and cancels everytime I ask him to come in. We only work on Saturday/weeknights, because I have to have a job to pay for this startup endeavor.

I don't assume we are worth $1 million or anything. I don't mean to take a defense stance, but I thought giving a portion of the founders equity made sense since he was taking a pay cut from normal hours. If he would've worked for free (like we are) he would've got founder's equity, but we still need a frontend dev which we had to pay for because he frankly said "I can do it, but I don't want to".

<comment><USER5> An hourly gig which requires one to five hours a week is Chinese water torture - just enough to be a pain in the ass, not enough to make any real money.

And considering it's being done at less than market rate - all it really amounts to is 1-5 hours of being pissed off on the cheap.

Seriously, with that little work, how often do you really need to meet face to face?

And while I understand the economics of moonlighting for a startup, it's a two way street and an unwillingness to take time off from your day job for a meeting over lunch suggests some lack of commitment on your part - i.e. you aren't willing to burn a few hours of leave from your day job, but are willing to ask the programmer to invest more time at below market rate around your convenience.

BTW, unless one person retains a controlling interest, if you are going to provide equity, 3-5% will give a third person equal control of the company to the two founders.

<comment><AUTHOR> Just wanted to say brudgers, thank you so much for the "Chinese water torture" analogy. It made a ton of sense and I'll be meeting with my programmers to get things realigned from an expectation and compensation standpoint.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> This is pathetic...

"...can sell ice to an eskimo..."

But can't sell a programmer, and college friend, on the idea of not being a "dick" to them? Sounds like the two founders have zero skill but do have HUGE egos.

They're paying him $25/hour below market rate, he's got a house and family, they have yet to provide him with any equity in the company after he's worked 100 hours on the project, they refer to him as a "kinda founder" and they're getting a special discount because they're college chums.

Are you sure the programmer is the one being the dick?

<comment><USER6> Actually one of the things I discovered while working with someone close/relative. Firstly they assume that you sort of come for a cheap price and won't have qualms or complains working for peanuts.

Secondly they assume you are some sort easy punchbag to offload all their anger in case something goes wrong for which you aren't even remotely responsible. Somehow its assumed since you are close to them you won't mind taking all that.

Part of what really pisses me off is, they feel its OK to make profit out of your work. But consider it some sort of a selfish action from your end when you expect to get paid for the work you do. I don't mind doing extra work for free sometimes. But when that sort of becomes a norm and you are expected to be the sacrificial goat for their profit, you must just politely call it quits.

These days you can earn a lot of money working for yourself. No point in doing donkey work for others profit while you are eating grass yourself.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Take 2 weeks off, learn it yourself. It is not _that_ hard! Not sure why people put this shit on the pedestal so much.

Anyway, lean it yourself, put it out there, make some money, hire at market rate. If you cannot do that then you are in the wrong business.

You make an extremely weak CEO by being this reliant on a dev.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah, that's a good point. Time to brush up on my coding skills. Do you think you can sell and code in a startup and be great at both?

<comment><USER7> Fuck yes. It actually makes you even better as both, a programmer and a sales person.

Makes you a better salesperson becuase you know your product knowledge goes much through the roof, you know what is and isn't possible, and you can estimate how long things take to build and what it would cost to build them. (You are actually useful).

Makes you a btter coder because it is you who is married to the customer, so nothing is lost in translation.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Better to do the right thing, than the wrong thing 'righter'.

If he isn't meeting your needs, you should let him go. But keep this in mind: He took a $25 an hour pay cut to be with you guys, and from what it sounds like, has no equity in the company. How motivated would you be?

<comment><AUTHOR> We want him to join us in an incubator/accelerator but we're not sure about his passion or drive. Should we continue to bare with him so that after an accelerator we go our separate ways?

Yes, you have a point in how motivated would I be in his shoes... so then how much equity is fair for getting paid to work but transitioning to founder? My partner and I have not taken any salary/pay (even from paying clients), we actually put more of our money in to bootstrap. Every ounce of additional cash I have goes there, and the sense of urgency from him isn't addressed.

Or is it too late already? I'd love for him to be a founder, but I don't want to hand over equity to a person who is going to make it uncomfortable to work with in the office. We actually prefer him to work from his home office (as does he) so we don't have to be around from him.

Then he'll do random things like switch from us buying him lunch, to buying us lunch - then we're like WTF?

I feel like I'm venting - I'm sorry. I'm just at the point that I would like to see the startup move to the next step...

Thank you for your response!

<comment><USER9> Is he really an asshole to you guys personally, or are you calling him an asshole because he is missing deadlines? I've worked with a bunch of asshole programmers, they all usually have a god complex and think they are the best in the field regardless of what happens.

It's hard for a programmer to stay motivated in the long run when things pop in his head like "I get paid $25/hr less than I could get somewhere else, shit this company may not even survive."

It's not too late, but honestly you need to step up and be a boss. You can't let your employee continue to act this way for multiple reasons. First, if this isn't/wasn't his normal work ethic, something has changed. You need to act like a leader and just ask him. If you really want him to be a founder, and he needs something that isn't asking for the world than give it to him! It sounds like you owe a lot of your projects current state to him. If he's worked like this all along, and you haven't said anything than that is your problem and you need to deal with it. A poor employee like that can bring a company down if you just like it sit and fester.

As far as he's the "only one that knows the backend", any programmer that's proficient in the language of your application can get in there and get to work. It may take a little bit of time to get used to your current programmers style and quirks, but it shouldn't be an issue.

It really boils down to the fact you need to sit him down and talk to him. Be up front and honest, voice your concerns. If there are troubles in his life, he'll let you know and you can work with him. If you get attitude and apathy from him than figure out IF you can even make him happy. If so, try. If you can't than it really sounds like you need to find another programmer. Not every programmer has the passion of a founder, especially if there is a family at home that isn't being taken care of as much as they could be.

Good luck with your situation. I hope you get it resolved cleanly.

\- Brandon

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks Brandon, I'd love for him to just be a bit more social and give us updates. I'd like for him to be a partner and turn this around.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> It is really simple.

> We are paying him about $25/hr below his market pay.

You get what you pay for.

> he went to college with me so he is helping with discount

That's a very poor excuse for not paying a market rate. _You_ got a better end of a deal and you are complaining. How about you look at the whole situation from his end and evaluate who comes out as a dick?

</comment><comment><USER11> A lot of my friends will commonly pass me freelance gigs. Sometimes though a friend is close enough I will cut them some slack on my hourly rate though it is usually all or nothing. Either I charge full price or I donate my time.

My advice is to sit down and ask what he wants. Does he want out of the project? More money? Does he feel disrespected?

I'm a developer. I miss deadlines because either I underestimated the time required or something else beyond my control came up. If the code is turning out harder than required then figure out what piece of it is the problem.

The fact that you are losing clients and not gaining momentum is something you have to eat. It sucks but part of it is just getting over this hump.

<comment><AUTHOR> jtchang, thanks. I appreciate your comment and honesty on why deadlines can be missed. It was also on me not defining expectations and he may feel we'll just profit off his work and pay him peanuts. I really want him as an equal founder and would love for him to want it as bad as us.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> I love all the opinions and please, hearing from devs and founders alike is amazing. I'd like to some comments that I didn't detail:

1) Total hours dev worked so far: 100, hours likely left 50-100. 2) Partner and I invested $30k so far 3) We have experience in software team management so we had a pretty good idea of what we needed from a backend dev for phase 1. 4) He is not full-time or even part-time, more like contractual basis as per his convenience. 5) We always ask for his input/suggestions, but doesn't really show it. 6) We work on Saturdays/weeknights, because my partner and I have to get money to put into the startup (and pay our devs). 7) Not expecting free work or sympathy, just expecting fair work at a fair price. 8) Dev has stated that once we get funding he'll be "more into the project" 9) Everyone has vesting options, so he'll still get something if we part ways.

I know non-tech founders get bad reps on HN and I understand each dev likely has a horror story that has developed a bias that we ask for too much in return for too little - I can't change that about HN.

I'm merely asking for two questions: 1) What would you do in my shoes? 2) How do you add another key employee/founder if we transition? As in, you've put all this time it's hard to gives the keys to the castle to a newcomer.

<comment><USER12> _I've asked only 1-5 hours per week from this individual._

You asked for minimal effort; you're getting minimal effort. He probably is putting in at least that much effort, its just a really, really slow pace.

 _Dev has stated that once we get funding he'll be "more into the project"_

Well, yeah. You only asked for 5 hrs a week, and hes working at a discount because you're friends. You're basically screaming you're not serious about this project and that you think it has no future. You haven't given him any reason to invest at all in this project. When funding comes in, it will show him that there is something serious worth getting involved in.

 _I feel the only way I can tell he is working is that the Github repo is updated._

Hes not communicating as much as you'd like? Then why don't you start initiating the communication? You don't have to hammer him about status reports, but bring him in the loop on your discussions, then you'll know what hes doing, and will help show him you're serious about your startup too. If you are doing that already, then start hammering him for status updates.

 _What would you do in my shoes?_

Commit to bringing him on for more hours, or hire another programmer. Either in addition to him, or to replace him, but if you want your project to go anywhere you should be putting at least a 40hr week into your backend.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> You need to get organized immediately, new programmers or not. How I organize any messy/late project I've inherited successfully.

Again, 6-10 project's I've inherited from incompetent/sociopath devs and made into lifelong customers who I like working with. This works.

He needs some structure and routine and this will provide enough of it. He needs some consequence that while they're might not be another option besides him, there is a track record for him to keep and maintain. Don't threaten, ask him what he gets mixed up about a deadline being a deadline and how he can adjust his estimates.

1) Register for the free version of fogbugz

2) Put in each issue (one issue per case number/email)

3) Rank them from 1 (raging fire) to 7 (dont forget.. one day). Each ranking number is kind of how many weeks you need it in (realistically), or in how many weeks it will be completed. Ideally nothing should ever be a Priority 1 or 2. :)

4) Have individual discussions on each case, in each case, via email. This is the knowledge transfer from him into a central system should you add/change developers.

5) when you have enough information on each, rank where each is at. Analysis (what to do), Design (how to do it), Plan (who will do it when), Implement, Test, Launch, Support (bugs/wty)

6) If you can do #5 you can track everything anturally. Only communicate in Fogbugz. if it's not there, you can say everything needs to be touched on regularly.

7) Hook fogbugz up to your source code manager so each case can have the commits of each file tied to it an you start building a history of what's happening.

If you need help figuring it out I might be able to lend you a hand off-line.

</comment><comment><USER14> OK sounds like hell, but your programmer is probably not a dick, he's probably got other stuff on his mind and I don't just mean the family.

As founders you're no doubt driven people, it's what it takes, but you can't expect everyone to share your vision, or be able to give up their time or commit their future for something they didn't invent - even if it starts to take off - simply because it isn't their idea no matter what the incentives.

That said, perhaps what you are looking for is someone who fires on all pistons, and surely you can spot that in the recruitment process. The twinkle in their eye, the energy, whatever it is there'll be a clue.

Also have you tried breaking down the tasks into smaller tasks, maybe the sheer size of the project has overwhelmed him. That way you get to keep a good handle on progress and can easily switch to someone else if things go wrong.

Talking of which, you'll be surprised how many good programmers can pick up the ball and run with it, so don't feel tied to this one guy just because he has all the knowledge.

<comment><AUTHOR> "The twinkle in their eye" I think that is exactly right and I can't expect him to share the vision.

I feel the only way I can tell he is working is that the Github repo is updated. He's an amazing programmer and back in college we were good friends (maybe associates), he has a tendency to have "short" responses which we understand.

I think I am looking for a "firing on all pistons" type of programmer.

<comment><USER14> I think if it's this easy to find critical points about him, then you ought to ask yourself why you should be continuing.

You might be able to end the relationship now, and stay as friends, rather than prolong it and fall out.

Always a good policy I find.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I personally hate developing when I don't have much control over the project or when I don't see any return. Maybe you should see if he is happy with how the project is going. Does he agree with the decisions being made so far?

Don't be too controlling over his work either. Ask him what he thinks he needs to be working on and let him do it, let him come up with the solutions to problems. I hate it when I am told, 'work on this', then when I finish it I'm told, 'no make it more like this'. Most the time I know more about what is needed so just let me do my job. If you have a suggestion fine but make sure it's just a suggestion.

If you can't resolve the issue you should probably find another programmer. Try to find one who is passionate and really wants to work with you on this project. You're just going to be wasting your money and time otherwise.

</comment><comment><USER16> Some possible reasons a developer might think of it as a project and not as a founder:

1\. Not enough equity, or there is a promise of equity but no sense of commitment

2\. No voice. Feedback and suggestions ignored

3\. Possibly unreasonable expectations from management. How do you know it should only take 150 hours? See item 2.

4\. Developer might not have confidence in management

Or, it's possible that the developer really is the wrong person for your startup. I would suggest some introspection before the "Come to Jesus" meeting. Maybe you can turn this around. Give the dev a chance to speak his/her mind and be open to what they have to say. Make your expectations clear, set a short term goal (x, y and z need to be done by Friday) that you both can agree on. If that milestone is met, great. If not, you have your answer and can move on knowing you did your part in good faith.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> There are tons of posts on HN - I used "dick" just to grab attention and get responses. Did not mean any disrespect by it either. Last time I posted a thread that said something mild in title I got no responses.

I'm not referring to ALL programmers as dicks, I've just practically had it with him and he used to be a friend.

The most insightful opinion was that low hours per week = low motivation.

I'm being as honest and candid as possible. Sure there is emotion in this, this is our startup. I didn't have the money to bring him on full time and I don't think he would've worked for free either (or contribute funds needed for frontend dev).

<comment><USER17> > I used "dick" just to grab attention and get responses.

I am sure you know now but that was a bad move lol!.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Have you tried looking for another programmer? You can teach a lot of things in life but not passion and personality. If he lacks both of those fundamental traits (not skills), you should probably look for someone else.

Right now I wouldn't have a come to Jesus talk with your programmer, instead accept who he is. He is not going to change so make plans with that in mind. You can probably still launch and do what you need just look for someone else in the mean time.

<comment><AUTHOR> alexwolfe, thank you. I don't want to leave him behind if we get funded, but i do need that passion and more compatible personality. Would you keep him on or hire back later?

I'm also worried if the system would fall apart? Can another developer relatively easy step in and learn the code...

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> If you want more commitment, you need to show more money/equity. Simples

Everything is relative. Food tastes better when it is cheaper. Work is more fun when you get paid more.

</comment><comment><USER20> >The backend shouldn't be more than about 150 hours of true programming...

Someone who can't program knows how many hours it takes.

I can't wait for opportunity to do half the work and get 3-5%, where do I sigh up?

<comment><AUTHOR> I wrote the title so I could get programmers to help me understand. I used to program years ago and I respect programmers and understand they are the lifeblood to any project.

I've asked only 1-5 hours per week from this individual. I've managed our frontend dev from an outsourced team in Poland and based on my same "can't program knows how many hours it takes" effectively hit the deadline/hours budget with only about 10-20 hours over.

It's not half the work. At the end of the day I have to sell it. In order to put more features and offer more we need to sell it. We need clients, programmers don't care about that. Which I understand, why should they it's not their job.

I wanted to offer equal equity the same as my partner and I, but due to personality differences I don't believe we can. My partner and I invested $30k into the startup including paying him on a contractual basis, how do you give someone equal equity after this?

<comment><USER21> With that low a rate of engagement, depending upon the topic material I'd be concerned with the amount of time it will take even a very competent developer to refresh their memory and get back "into the zone" on this particular product.

Sometimes, it's easier to have _more_ work, simply because you can stay focused on it long enough to get more done and/or to think about it more thoroughly/deeply.

It's just one item, but perhaps take a look at whether you could adjust your development cycle for this fellow to accomodate more useful, efficient sustained bursts.

(Again, I don't know what the specific work in question is. The pertinence of my comment is therefore unclear.)

P.S. Your use of the word "dick" indicates that you are already emotionally engaged in this topic. Beware. No one's Mister Spock, but if you're letting your emotions lead, you may be heading for a mess. Also, if I were the developer and saw your use of the word "dick", our relationship would be over.

In short, you seem to be dragging some of your own baggage and/or faults into this.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Judging from this post I'm expecting a similar one titled "My co- founders/managers are dicks..." that links to this thread.</comment>


Due to a conflict in southern Europe, the clockradio is six minutes behind - <AUTHOR> https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=nl&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=nl&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dvhn.nl%2Fdrenthe%2FDoor-een-conflict-in-Zuid-Europa-loopt-de-wekkerradio-in-Oosterhesselen-zes-minuten-achter-22968843.html&edit-text=&act=url <comment><USER2> It's very strange that they don't say which countries are causing the problem.

Also, probably adjusting the clock will fix the time, at least for a few days. The clock will get a small delay each day but it will not magically guess that the wrong frequency was enabled for a long time.</comment>


Google halts political ads in Singapore as election looms: documents - <AUTHOR> https://www.reuters.com/article/us-google-singapore-election/google-halts-political-ads-in-singapore-as-election-looms-documents-idUSKBN1Y80JM <comment><USER2> In these comments, and in the press at large, we have another great display of "damned if you do, damned if you don't".

It is constantly argued that Facebook, Google, etc. must stop political ads in America, because allowing ads benefits the party currently in power.

But now all the comments argue that Google must not stop political ads in Singapore, because forbidding ads benefits the party currently in power.

I have not the slightest doubt that the same amount of outrage would occur if Google had taken the exact opposite action: for literally any action you can construct a narrative for why it benefits the "wrong" people. It feels like some people won't be happy until Google is literally appointing the politicians they like.

<comment><USER3> > "damned if you do, damned if you don't"

It's a false dilemma. There's a lesser evil of the two, that the west chose 300 years ago - free speech. We are now just rediscovering that wheel the hard way.

<comment><USER4> Effective uncontrolled free speech is basically mind control, which KGB understood ages ago. CIA probably did, too, but the countries they wanted to influence in that way were either allies (not that it matters that much) or didn't have free speech.

<comment><USER3> yeah but effective controlled speech is worse

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I'm curious about the outcome of this prelude to the US elections and whether problems will crop up.

It seems banning political ads on its properties will have a disproportionate effect on small parties and favor incumbents.

<comment><USER6> It could have the opposite affect too though, since google ads are essentially a bidding war, so if you have lots of money you could theoretically just out bid all your opponents (then it's down to who has more money).

<comment><USER7> This is exactly what happens. Since a larger company can just bury a message by having better ad targeting, spend more on the big demos, overload and bid up keywords and generally squeeze any smaller message out.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Does anybody have numbers for how much revenue companies like Facebook, Google, and Twitter even earn from political ads? At this point it is hard for me to imagine that revenue is worth the public backlash, regardless of my opinion on whether that backlash is justified.

<comment><USER9> It's not about revenue, it's about being indispensable to politicians and using that as leverage to prevent regulatory actions.

<comment><USER10> Not really, for instance Facebook is constantly arguing that they want to be regulated in the domain of political ads.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Maybe time is of the essence.

Someone should split the Twitter/Facebook difference and allow political ads _until 90 days prior to the election_. Information should spread freely but people should have the time to parse it too. If Boris' Brexit Bus (with misinformation about the consequences of Brexit for the NHS) had been allowed to hang around but banned near polling time, there would be time to fact check it or even think about it calmly.

</comment><comment><USER12> Can you imagine a Russian search engine having 90%+ market share in the U.S., making decisions on whether or not political ads should be allowed on it's US properties?

This is Google, an American company with clear political bent, indulging in election interference in a foreign country. Just defer to local laws Google, you are NOT a neutral third party, and definitely NOT local.

<comment><USER13> They are defering to local laws. The laws say you can't advertise unless you conform to these requirements; google hasn't set up there systems to conform to those requirements so they can't publish political ads.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> >The office administrating Singapore's new fake news law, called the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA)

Anyone else get the sense that these new laws and policies get "beta tested" in other countries first?

</comment><comment><USER15> I have been to SG but know nothing of their politics.

The skeptic in me wonders if a party that was likely to come to power that Google did or did not agree with if that would change wether and when they decided to ban political ads.

</comment><comment><USER16> One thing people need to understand is that halting political ads to all political parties is not political neutral, it is siding with the establishment, the party in power.

<comment><USER17> Wouldn't it be the opposite? Theoretically doesn't the party in power usually have access to more resources (whether directly or indirectly through connections etc) than the opposing party? And therefore would imply that the party in power would be able to out-perform in both quantity and quality in ads generally speaking than opposing parties?

I'm just trying to understand how it actually helps the party in power by not allowing ads to run. Because I see the opposite situation. Honestly it seems to me both situations the sitting party has the most power, but simply due to the fact that they're the party in power.

<comment><USER16> The reason is simple. The establishment has nothing to gain but everything to lose.

Let's say the maximum reach/exposure to voters is 100% in their country. The political establishment of many decades already have this number close to 100%, but the opposition may only have 5%. You see, the opposition has potential to gain a lot from ads, but not the establishment.

Also in a rich society like Singapore, grassroots can make huge contribution to the opposition party if their voice get heard and spread. But the establishment does not need this.

<comment><USER17> So if the opposition only has 5% support, while the establishment has close to 95% support (for the sake of the example).

I'd argue the opposing party 5% support would likely have a matching resource pool of their size. Meaning the establishment might run 95% of all ads as ads supporting the establishment and only 5% of ads would support the opposing party. So I struggle to see how that would help the opposing party?

Obviously, it isn't that cut and dry, but America is a good example actually. Because they have 2 major parties and several third parties. But those third parties never make any meaningful growth even after running ads because they only represent >5% of the available political parties.

<comment><USER16> By running ads, the opposition can gain more support, but the establishment can't. How is this hard to understand?

<comment><USER17> Yeah I'm saying that doesn't make any sense and is untrue.

So agree to disagree then.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Generally think political ads on these platforms is an overblown issue, but one that it would be smart for these companies to nip in the bud.

Most people still get their news through traditional channels, I genuinely feel that a lot of the ink spilled by media companies on tech is a backlash to the loss of ad revenue. That being said the scrutiny is required.

</comment><comment><USER19> The party in power only allows political ads on the TV station they control for a few weeks before the election. This makes me think that they are trying to control alternate routes of information as well.

</comment><comment><USER20> People are forgetting something. We know Google is far left and wishes to impose their leftist agenda on the world at large [0].

All of their shenanigans including censorship of search, censorship on Youtube, and now this, would make this agenda and intent abundantly clear, even if they weren't exposed on tape admitting to it.

This particular action may be aimed towards Singapore, but I am 100% confident that this is a test run for a similar action in the United States.

[0]: [https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/09/12/leaked-video- googl...](https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/09/12/leaked-video-google- leaderships-dismayed-reaction-to-trump-election/)</comment>


Does the brain like ebooks? - <AUTHOR> http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/14/does-the-brain-like-e-books/

<comment><USER2> Quoted author Maryanne Wolf seems to be saying something that is at least partly contrary to what is said in the new book Reading in the Brain

[http://www.amazon.com/Reading-Brain-Science-Evolution- Invent...](http://www.amazon.com/Reading-Brain-Science-Evolution- Invention/dp/0670021105)

by Stanislas Dehaene. He is very up to date on the best research on reading acquisition in children and adult reading performance in countries around the world with different writing systems, and he has some very interesting suggestions in his book about how an electronic device for screen reading could actually SPEED UP human reading with optimal, brain-research-informed design, by presenting the words of the text in rapid succession (up to the word size limit enforced by eye fixation and focusing ability).

Stanislas Dehaene has great comments in his book about the right way to teach reading to children and, as one reviewer notes, "Reading in the Brain isn't just about reading. It comes nearer than anything I have encountered to explaining how humans think, and does so with a simple elegance that can be grasped by scientists and nonscientists alike."

</comment><comment><USER3> What I want is a high resolution tablet ebook. That is, so I can take digital notes using the stylus.

Then I'll take the leap, but for now. Ebooks won't replace paper for in-depth study.

<comment><USER4> Tablet PC + Adobe Reader?

<comment><USER3> I really like the way the "ink lcd" technology looks.

The platform has a way to go, and I'm just going to wait until I see the added functionality.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I bought an ebook reader app for my android phone and I love it. Now when I am stuck in line I reach for my current ebook rather than the web browser. I like reading at night w/o any lights on. Being able to carry around a library is also huge since it is on my phone and that pretty much goes everywhere. Many times I have my tech books split between home and work.

I think the best is yet to come. I have been using 'zap reader' to get through blog reading sessions. The idea of keeping your focus fixed and scrolling the text past the fixed point at 300-400 words per minute is so powerful. I can't believe that this idea hasn't caught on more. I am sure that ebook readers will start to support this kind of reading.

<comment><USER6> I already read around 300-400 words per minute most of the time, with a maximum speed of around 1000 words per minute. The barrier here is comprehension, not the speed with which we can read words on the screen. Plus, when I'm reading words normally, it's easier for me to adjust my reading rate when I miss a word or need to think more about a particular part of the text before going on. I just don't see the appeal of scrolling text past a fixed point at "high" speed.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> it seems they're talking about reading books on the internet, on the PC as opposed to what the title implies: dedicated ebook reading devices.

<comment><AUTHOR> There isn't really any major difference IMHO. The panelists discuss learning from a screen versus learning from a book. I got interested in the article and posted it here trying to find out if there is a difference in the way the brain takes in or absorbs information when it is presented electronically versus on paper? Does the reading experience change, from retention to comprehension, depending on the medium? Personally I have been through a few ebooks lately and have noticed that I am not absorbing the material at the same rate than a book.

<comment><USER8> Oh there is a lot of difference, in terms of body position. It's just not as much fun/comfortable to read a book at a desktop while sitting in a chair etc as opposed to laying on the couch with a tablet. Do not underestimate the power of a comfortable body position.

<comment><USER9> "Do not underestimate the power of a comfortable body position."

OK, but what about the tablet affords for more comfy positioning that you can't achieve with a paper book?

<comment><USER10> For the Kindle (and others, I presume), you don't need to keep moving to flip pages, which allows me to lay on one side in bed and read comfortably.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Give HN: Interested in Free a Google Analytics crash course? - <AUTHOR> I'm wondering if anyone here would be interested in a free Google Analytics crash course aimed towards startup founders.
The goal would be to create an hour or two of videos explaining the features and reports I use on a daily basis. I could also host office hours to answer questions and cover more advanced topics.
Let me know if you'd be interested and if there's anything in particular you'd like me to cover.
If there's enough interest I'll go ahead and create the content in the next few weekends.
Thanks! <comment><USER2> That's sounds great. Google had also just launched a short course to improve your Analytics skills: [http://analytics.blogspot.com/2013/10/analytics- academy.html](http://analytics.blogspot.com/2013/10/analytics-academy.html)

</comment><comment><USER3> Yes, I am in. I would like to know A/B testing and tracking the campaigns etc.

Thanks.

<comment><AUTHOR> Ok, I'll make sure to cover this. Do you use any A/B test tool in particular? If so, which one?

Also, what's your Twitter handle? I'll ping you once the videos are done :)

<comment><USER3> Thanks. I just replied to your email.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Would love to learn more about campaign tracking and best practices for utm_values - e.g. Do you break out social or roll it up for utm_medium

<comment><AUTHOR> Great, will definitely cover this!

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> This would be very beneficial and of great value to me and my team. A/B testing is something I would also love to learn more about.

</comment><comment><USER6> Just went to a great debate in SMW 'Data versus Creativity'. Looking forward to the analytics course!

</comment><comment><USER7> Would be! Don't know much about it to be honest, but it's always good to know more :p

<comment><AUTHOR> Glad to hear that! Definitely let me know if there's anything specific you'd like me to cover.

Also, assuming this goes through, I'll announce it on HN. If you want me to ping you directly pls send me your Twitter handle or email. You can post it here or email me at [username]@gmail.com.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> This is a great idea. Hope you get to do it soon :)

</comment><comment><USER9> Yes, I would be interested.

<comment><AUTHOR> Awesome!

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Interested

</comment><comment><USER11> count me in!</comment>


HN Melb/Aust meetup moved to Cho Gao... but it's on now - <AUTHOR>

It's happening now, come join us!
The new location is:
Cho Gao
211 Level 3 Melbourne Central
Date: Sunday, 21 February 2010
Time: 15:00 - 18:00 <comment><AUTHOR> URL for more info: <http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=272449838595></comment>


Ask HN: Is it OK to charge people for my product? - <AUTHOR>

I have this cool idea, however it would be a stand alone peice of software. I'm worried that if I were to sell it as is, or offer it's use as a service on a website, that developers would balk at this. These days developers are very altruistic, producing amazing free software like rails, django, mongodb, linux, git, etc.<p>It seems that these days the primary way for startups to make money from tools for developers is to force them to use storage/bandwidth/cpu on the startup's servers, which isn't always necessary. I was curious as to HNs position on selling stand-alone software, particularly if it isn't GUI heavy. <comment><USER2> It is unambiguously OK to charge money to people who find value in what you produce. Many, many billions of dollars will be made this year selling software. I don't have a stat off the top of my heads for developer tools, but they're also a _huge_ market.

There very well might be some folk on HN (or off of it) who will never pay for your software. That's OK. There are more fish in the sea. In particular, many of them work at companies which happily pay money to solve business problems.

Note that "solves business problems" is much much more likely to make money than "cool idea."

GUIs are not a pre-requisite to making money with software. It all depends on who that software is used by and what it does. There exists a particular company which sells 20 line shell scripts for several thousand dollars. The shell scripts control the operation of equipment worth six figures where miscalibration is a Really Big Deal (TM).

<comment><AUTHOR> It is targeted at solving business problems, however it would leverage opensource software. I look at github and I am very grateful for what those developers provide.

But it makes one wonder, why would they give this away for free if they could make money? I agree with the altruism and desire to give for the good of other developers, but i feel like you could do that and make a small profit.

<comment><USER2> There are a _lot_ of people making money leveraging OSS. Github is one example. There is absolutely nothing wrong with making money on OSS. There is nothing wrong with writing for-money software on top of OSS (assuming you follow the license terms).

There are a variety of reasons why people might give code away for free even though they could sell it. The most common one is that "they" are megacorporation selling something other than code, and that investments in the OSS are of strategic value to them even if they're non-rivalrous (i.e. we don't need to be the only people using this for this to be worthwhile). Selling software is also _a whole lot of work_ relative to writing software, as you're probably going to discover in short order.

<comment><AUTHOR> | Selling software is also a whole lot of work relative to writing software, as you're probably going to discover in short order.

I absolutely agree with this statement. I'm curious, looking at the relative difficulties of selling software vs. selling service (i.e. bandwidth/cpu/storage + features) if I would be better investing my efforts in the latter.

I know it's the bandwagon argument, but I can think of a lot of cool startups offering tools. I can't think of any offering tools offline.

<comment><USER2> You're making a distinction which is sort of artificial.

You're selling pain relief. It isn't terribly important whether the pain relief comes in a blue bottle or a red bottle. Your primary challenges are not going to be the bottle. They're going to be a) finding people in pain, b) communicating that you have something which provides pain relief, and c) convincing them to buy it.

There are many, many reasons to prefer being in the business of selling red bottles versus selling blue bottles, but that is a discussion for another day. (For one thing, it is vastly harder to steal red bottles.)

<comment><AUTHOR> Agreed, red bottles it is then :). I know the two have very different business implications, I was just curious what HNs position on the differences were. Thanks.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Value, value, value, value. Provide something of true value and your main problem will be how much to charge, not if you should charge.

If you're looking for more concrete answers, please tell us what kind of solution you're working on.

</comment><comment><USER4> yes it is.

Rails, django, git, etc. were all developed to build something that makes money. 37Signals was building Basecamp when rails was created. Django was for news websites.

Rails isn't why Basecamp makes money. It was just a useful thing that happened to come out of the development of Basecamp.

Build your product. Charge for it. If you happen to build something cool while working on your product and it is NOT core to your business idea, give it away.

<comment><USER5> That's one way people make money with FLOSS. They use the FLOSS code to promote their business. That's why they give it away for free.</comment></comment>


Meteorite crash in Russia: explosions in Chelyabinsk [video] - <AUTHOR> http://english.ruvr.ru/2013_02_15/Meteorite-crash-in-Russia-explosions-in-Chelyabinsk/

<comment><USER2> There is a much better video where you can see it skipping across the atmosphere before plunging in like a rock across a lake.

And the four minute delay of the boom from the atmosphere to the surface is super scary considering how much energy it had.

There's another video with it head-on and that must be what being hit by an icbm looks like, at least for the first millisecond.

Try some of the videos here: [http://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/18kado/ufo_meteorite...](http://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/18kado/ufo_meteorite_plane_or_rocket_explodes_in_the_sky/)

<comment><USER3> > what being hit by an icbm looks like

Here's what a MIRV attack looks like (with dummy warheads):

[http://www.osborneink.com/wp- content/uploads/2012/02/MIRV.pn...](http://www.osborneink.com/wp- content/uploads/2012/02/MIRV.png)

With a meteor, the energy is all kinetic. With an ICBM, the kinetic energy is incidental to the delivery method. The payload energy is all nuclear.

<comment><USER4> Why are the trajectories straight?

<comment><USER3> That's what struck me about the MIRV test photo the first time I saw it.

Of course, the apparent straight lines are really just the far ends of very flat parabolic curves. Unlike meteors, MIRV warheads are designed to make it to the ground (or the intended airburst location) undamaged and with a 50% probability of coming down within 100m of the target. Once released, the warheads have no maneuvering capability and follow ballistic trajectories, minimally distorted by the rapidly thickening atmosphere.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_independently_targetab...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_independently_targetable_reentry_vehicle)

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-V6MZlyCqE> (Animated depiction of MIRV flight)

<comment><USER4> Thank you for those links. The things are coming in damn fast.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


An outsider's flawed view of Silicon Valley - <AUTHOR> http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/02/15/an-outsiders-flawed-view-of-silicon-valley/

<comment><USER2> Oy, the echo chamber!

This tempest in a teapot started when the New York Times wrote a rather comical article on how Seattle is the new silicon valley:

<http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/08/technology/08nation.html>

The entrepreneur blogger at the Seattle PI picked this up, and started a debate:

[http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/venture/archives/131378.a...](http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/venture/archives/131378.asp)

In response to this debate, Kelman wrote a long post enumerating the ways that he thought Seattle was better than the valley:

[http://blog.redfin.com/blog/2008/02/the_next_silicon_valley....](http://blog.redfin.com/blog/2008/02/the_next_silicon_valley.html)

And now, we have this.

</comment><comment><USER3> That's exactly what I imagine SV looking like.</comment>


HN: Looking for Android Developer - <AUTHOR>

We are looking for a freelancer now.
Later on we may switch to salary, but anyway you'll be able to work remotely.
Cinarra is a mobile internet technology startup. We're looking for highly talented, motivated, and startup-minded professionals able to work in a highly distributed virtual team at a very fast pace.
You solve problems when you sleep, debug while taking a shower, and code in your head while having breakfast? You may just be our type of guy!
Requirements:
html5, css3, javascript, jquery, mobile, mac os, android, ios, maps, git, java, C#, C++, rest, xml, json, postgresql, multi-threading, memory management, caching
Responsibilities:
Design, documentation, implementation, delivery. Analysis and programming of mobile applications. Code reviews and code analysis.
Interested? Please send a message to email@example.com with a link to your portfolio (github, blog, twitter, design/code samples). <comment><USER2> Kitchen sink too?</comment>


Breaking Pills - <AUTHOR> https://blog.plover.com/math/breaking-pills.html <comment><USER2> > _I hate the term "dynamic programming". It sounds so cool, but then you find > out that all it means is "I memoized the results in a table". Ho hum._

The Wikipedia section on the history of the term[1] is quite amusing. Basically, the guy who invented the idea picked the name that was most likely to get his research grant applications approved.

[1]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_programming#History](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_programming#History)

<comment><USER3> If you majored in CS at university, you probably suffered through a lot of it. It sinks in after awhile and is rather useful.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Let c_{n,m} be the expectation value of the number of remaining half pills starting from n whole pills and m half pills. Then we get the following recursion:

c_{n,m}=n/(n+m) c_{n-1,m+1} + m/(n+m) c_{n,m-1}

Boundary condition: c_{0,m} = m

After some experimenting I got the following closed form solution: c_{n,m}=H_n+m/(n+1) where H_n=sum_{i=1}^n 1/i (nth harmonic number). This can be shown by induction. We want to know what happens if we start from n whole pills and 0 half pills: c_{n,0} = H_n. Indeed, they are the harmonic numbers.

<comment><USER5> A slightly more intuitive argument.

If you have a half pill and k - 1 whole pills remaining, then because we stop once all the whole pills are broken, then thinking about the order in which the pills will get picked next/again, by symmetry the probability that the half pill will remain at the end (i.e. be the last one to get picked next/again) is 1 / k.

If p_k is the k'th last pill broken (so p_n is the first pill), then because at the point p_k is broken there are k - 1 whole pills remaining we get

E[N] = sum_k (probability p_k has half a pill remaining at the end) = sum_k (1 / k)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Interesting.

Standupmaths on YouTube recently produced a video called the "frog problem", which also reduces to the harmonic numbers. I believe it's for kind of the same reasons, though it's harder to see quite why.

<comment><USER7> This is the video: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLTyX4zL2Fc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLTyX4zL2Fc)

I think the similarity is that you start with a pool that you deplete with a random action.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> In real life, smaller particles tend to sink to the bottom of a container. So you're more likely to grab a whole pill as time goes by.

<comment><USER9> Bingo. I read the code to be sure there wasn't a factor to model this. The answer should depend on the relative probability of choosing a whole pill or a half pill. The code assumes equal odds, with no state dependence on the remaining ratio.

I was startled by the formula, though. It's the same as the Gilbert-Shannon- Reeds model for card shuffling, where the probability of a card falling from each packet scales to the number of cards left in each packet. (I wrote the "seven shuffles" paper with Persi Diaconis.)

<comment><USER10> > The code assumes equal odds

This is stated explicitly in the problem: _Each day you select a pill at random_

<comment><USER9> Clearly stating that the model is unrealistic doesn't make the model realistic.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I find a great way to find the rule for a numeric sequence when only having a few examples is to plug it into to OEIS:

[https://oeis.org/search?q=0%2C1%2C3%2C11&language=english&go...](https://oeis.org/search?q=0%2C1%2C3%2C11&language=english&go=Search)

[https://oeis.org/wiki/Rational_sequences](https://oeis.org/wiki/Rational_sequences)

OEIS tells us that E(n) is the harmonic numbers.

<comment><USER12> I played with this exact pill bottle problem as Mark last year but had a different interest. It turns out the triangular numbers pop out of the same problem. Thanks, OEIS.

[https://github.com/mnp/pill-bottle](https://github.com/mnp/pill-bottle)

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> > I hate the term "dynamic programming". It sounds so cool, but then you find > out that all it means is "I memoized the results in a table". Ho hum.

Wrong. Plenty of memoized functions aren't "dynamic programming" and it's not always obvious whether or how a given problem can be decomposed as recursive sub-problems. Not "ho hum" at all.

</comment><comment><USER14> I love to see a rather esoteric math problem that applies to daily life.

God knows quite a number of us split pills.

<comment><USER15> If you combine those split pills with a bottle of full ones as per the article, you are not a programmer whose code I think I would enjoy!

<comment><USER14> I do. It works fine. Sometimes you don't have to split a pill, sometimes you do :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I know another problem with the same solution. Imagine a ferry with n cars that drive on land onto a narrow road that prevents passing, and each car has a unique random preferred speed > 0\. The cars start driving and starts clumping together in groups. The expected number of groups is the harmonic series up to n.

<comment><USER17> If anyone is interested in a proof, I think this works:

The slowest car will with probability 1 be the first car in its own clump. The second slowest car will be the first car in a clump if it is in front of the slowest car. This happens with a probability of 1/2\. The third slowest car will form a clump without the second and first slowest cars if it is in front of both of them, which will happen with probability 1/3\. The fastest car will only form its own clump if it's the first car, which will happen with probability 1/n.

So the total number of clumps will be 1 + 1/2 + 1/3 + ... + 1/n

<comment><USER4> It's a very nice proof. Note that this implicitly relies on a great trick used in probability theory, namely that E(X_1 + X_2 + ... + X_n) = E(X_1) + E(X_2) + ... + E(X_n), even if the random variables are not independent. In this specific case X_i = "the number of clumps where the ith slowest car is in front of" which is either 0 or 1.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I love the internet. I posted this question 20 years ago. Got an answer right away. And even more interesting answers today. Thanks!

[https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!searchin/alt.math.re...](https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!searchin/alt.math.recreational/joel.berman/alt.math.recreational/Tc- lFx_K84E/hOrvr82hrS8J)

</comment><comment><USER19> I thought this was going to be a gritty memoir of MJD struggling with addiction, and I feel bamboozled.

<comment><USER20> Sorry, I never have been good at titles. I think the addiction-struggling post, if it existed, would just be sad and boring.

But if you hang around you'll probably start to hear about the gradual disintegration of my body as I begin my slide into old age and eventually death. So you have that to look forward to at least!

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Does anyone else find the use of E(N) to be the expected value of a random value that is not denoted N to be confusing?

MJD, this would be better written E_N(H) where H is an RV giving the number of half pills, right?

<comment><USER22> I'd probably write it as E(H_N), but then that would be awkward when the solution turns out to involve the harmonic numbers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> After the addendum that the solution is harmonic numbers, it would be interesting to see an analytical solution.

</comment><comment><USER24> this reminds me of a system to eat M&M candies. Take two M&M and place between fingers, squash. One will break, one will crack. Eat the cracked one. Winner moves on to next round. Repeat until bag is empty. Send final winner back to Mars company for breeding purposes.

<comment><USER25> This probably isn't the earliest source of that, but it's from 2007-08-30 and a good plain text copy of it: [https://www.craigslist.org/about/best/tpa/409930561.html](https://www.craigslist.org/about/best/tpa/409930561.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Very interesting</comment>


Craigslist claims of eBay's anticompetitive "fraud" still in court - <AUTHOR> http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=%2Fc%2Fa%2F2011%2F02%2F03%2FBUOL1HIH0S.DTL

<comment><AUTHOR> What this is about:

Some years ago, eBay bought a large minority stake in Craigslist from a disgruntled shareholder. With this, they got a board seat, and access to all sorts of Craigslist confidential data. While eBay was supposed to restrict access to this stuff to the small group which was set up to manage the Craigslist holding, they seem to have spread it all over, and particularly with the team trying to set up a Craigslist competitor, Kijiji.

State of play in _this_ lawsuit (brief, oversimplified version):

eBay: "The agreements clearly allowed us to compete with Craigslist. So they have no cause for complaint, and we move that the case be dismissed."

Craigslist: "Say what? They said we could compete, but they also said you couldn't share our confidential data and plans with the group that was doing it."

The judge: "Yeah. Say what? Motion denied."</comment>


Show HN: Expressa – build REST apis without code - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/thomas4019/expressa <comment><USER2> This is great!

One point I would like some clarity on is the migration process. Assuming I use this for a production application, how do I maintain changes of my model schemas, and how are these migrations applied? Can I rollback?

I think a solid story on these would make a library like this extremely attractive. (One of the reasons Rails enjoys developer mindshare is it's amazing migrations workflow).

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for bringing this up. Currently there's no migration process. Like Mongo, Expressa only ensures validity of new data, but doesn't change old data so it's up to the application to handle that.

This is definitely something I would like to eventually support though so that renaming fields and other data changes are easy.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> One of the main features is that it provides an admin interface which lets you modify your data as well as your collection schema. I got tired of Django, keystone and other CMS that require defining schema in code and have found this to be a good solution for my projects.

</comment><comment> blackout-314 very cute :D thanks for share</comment>


Google calls 'time' on the Pixel laptop - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2017/02/28/google-calls-time-on-the-pixel-laptop/ <comment><USER3> Yet another google product bites the dust. The first thing anyone buying a Google product or developing against a Google API should ask themselves - <USER2> it be there in another year ?

<comment><USER4> It's weird, isn't it?

They seem to be going from pillar to post, ditching products that may not set the world alight, but were surely never going to. Neither can they be dragging Google under. Meanwhile they're acquiring a reputation that will make it so much harder to launch new products.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> They ought to buy Canonical and build a laptop with a full fledged operating system. Then I won't have to keep choosing between installing linux on crappy Windows machines or buying expensive macs.

<comment><USER6> Isnt the "Macs are expensive" meme getting old? The prices are actually very competitive and I'm not talking about vs upgrading the ram in your system 76 laptop.

<comment><USER7> No it will continue to be used until the price is closer to the price of similar spec windows laptops. Where I live at the moment its anywhere from 2x to 1.5x the exact same components in a shell not made by apple

<comment><USER8> I'd love to buy a competitive device that's 1/2-2/3 the price of a MacBook, but I've never seen one at that price point. The models that come up in these threads usually lack a quality screen, long battery life, durable construction, or good support for Linux / unix user land tools or some combination thereof. Linux subsystem for windows may be starting to address the last point, but I haven't had the chance to use it yet.

<comment><USER9> The closest competitors, like the XPS series and the Surface Book, are nearly as much as a Mac or more. The closest XPS 13 to the bottom touchbar 13" MBP costs $150 _more_. Microsoft sells $2,000+ Surface Books with only 8GB of RAM.

<comment><USER10> Am I doing this wrong? Looks like the XPS 13 with similar spec is $1,220 [1] vs. $1,800 [2] for the Macbook Touchbar?

[1] [https://smile.amazon.com/dp/B01LQTXED8](https://smile.amazon.com/dp/B01LQTXED8)

[2] [http://www.apple.com/shop/buy-mac/macbook- pro](http://www.apple.com/shop/buy-mac/macbook-pro)

<comment><USER9> I went to Dell.com: [http://www.dell.com/en- us/shop/productdetails/xps-13-9360-la...](http://www.dell.com/en- us/shop/productdetails/xps-13-9360-laptop/dncwt5122hv2).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I wonder how long the 2nd gen will be supported now? they already dropped the first...

</comment><comment><USER12> From the title I was genuinely wondering if this was about a novel system time usage, or if they were killing the whole thing. Kind of a strange phrasing.

</comment><comment><USER13> Google outpriced themselves with super cheap Chromebooks on the tail end as well.</comment>