Unmasking the Men Behind Zero Hedge - <AUTHOR> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-29/unmasking-the-men-behind-zero-hedge-wall-street-s-renegade-blog <comment><USER2> I think ZH is a great site, and I read it daily, BUT if you don't take it with a truckload of salt then it will be hazardous to your wealth. Seriously, if you had been in the ZH bear trade since 2009, then you missed out on the greatest stock market rally in a generation. I know, because I missed the first half of said rally as a ZH reader until I realized that the constant drumbeat of negative news from that site was distorting my judgement.

Here is what ZH is good for: they have stuff before anyone else, because they'll print almost anything. For instance, after San Bernardino those guys had details way before other outlets, because they're willing to go to press with just "some guy overheard this on the police scanner and tweeted it".

So when you read ZH you see stuff first, but you place a big mental asterisk by it until their scoop trickles up the media food chain and starts to get confirmed as real reporters do actual work on it.

I like seeing stuff first, before everyone else gets it, hence my continued regular reading of ZH (again, I keep a 40lb bag of Morton Salt by my desk with the ZH logo on it, though).

<comment><USER3> I lost about $100k in 2009 buying into the ZH-gloom and doom mentality, unfortunately. Everything they said made sense, but it just wasn't how the world works.

<comment><USER4> In a 2009 bear's defense it was unprecedented Government intervention that lit the fuse under the markets and led us here. I remember reaching a point myself where I realized that policy was driving the markets more than any other factor and quit actively trading completely. You can be right but if the Feds take the other side of your trade you will be bragging about it to your fellow corpses in the graveyard.

<comment><USER2> Yep. At the time, I was reminded of a quote from The Iliad, which I can't find anymore. It was something to the effect of, when the gods come down to earth to meddle in the affairs of mortals, the only ones who win are the ones whose side they take.

<comment><USER5>
      We everlasting gods . . . Ah what chilling blows
      we suffer—thanks to our own conflicting wills—
      whenever we show these mortal men some kindness.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> maze-le I stopped reading this site some years ago. It had, and probably still has some interesting opinins and analysis. Most content is pretty far fetched / sensationalist, but if you have your grain of salt, this is not a problem, since most media outlets do this in one form or another.

About 2 years ago the tenor of the publications shifted from libertarian to more and more reactionary (bordering on proto-fascist). When I skip the articles nowdays, I think that the authors have no problem with authoritarianism, as long as taxes are reduced and social welfare is gutted (it is obviously not stated as such, but most opinion-pieces speak for themself).

I don't know what could have caused that shift, but I think you can generate more traffic and hence more profit, Lokey view on this explains a lot.

<comment><USER6> >I think that the authors have no problem with authoritarianism

Like any conspiracy site, it's going to attract people who share a view of the world in which everything must be orchestrated, controlled - a reason for all things. Randomness has no place in the mind of a conspiracy theorist. The order provided by conspiracies comfort the conspiracy theorist: paradoxically making the world feel safer, more ordered while simultaneously believing that evil people have devoted their lives to ruining yours.

If you think about it, such a psychology is naturally authoritarian-leaning. Such a mind yearns for stability, order and control.

<comment><USER7> What's sad is no matter how often people like you are proven wrong you'll just keep on repeating the same bullshit.

I recall HN saying gold market manipulation was conspiracy theory, ZH was right HN commenters were wrong.

There's a long list but when it comes to finance HN commenters are typically poorly educated.

<comment><USER7> Typical childish behavior, down vote criticism, ignore the facts.

<comment><USER8> Rule #1 do not complain about down-votes, if you mind too much about them you will get gun-shy or putting filter. I have enough down votes but it still stings a bit, once past the initial sting, you will realize that people are politically and ideologically vested, irrespective of left or right, they will piss on your parade if you shake their world view and honestly, I may be one of them.

Say what you want to say respectfully and do not worry about votes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> ZH's response: [http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-04-29/full-story- behind-b...](http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-04-29/full-story-behind- bloombergs-attempt-unmask-zero-hedge)

<comment><USER10> Important context to see both sides, certainly a questionable liability they knew about, I guess he worked so hard they felt it was a risk worth taking, which brings their judgement into question.

The fact that all this drama is being publicly aired and used as a weapon does not put Zero Hedge in a good light, it's almost like Bloomberg baited them into this defensive posture.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> If no one has been to the site before here it is: [http://www.zerohedge.com/](http://www.zerohedge.com/)

Believe it or not it has a huge following in the finance world due to it often being one of the first ones to break or provide color on important stories.

It's not uncommon at all to see a row of traders with tweet deck open allocating a single column to Zero hedge, they are just that prolific with their output.

The downside of the site is that they tend to have a very big bearish slant though. No one has ever accused them of being neutral.

I hope they continue to run the site. I find it provides a fair bit of value to me.

<comment><USER12> > first ones to break or provide color on important stories.

No question about the color, but do you have an example for those "break on important stories".

<comment><USER13> I can't speak to the "important" in that claim, but the folks at ZH have friends and connections in the world of finance from whom they can get leaked communications and reports.

For example, this post on Trump's nomination chances [1] draws heavily upon charts produced by Goldman Sachs, presumably for their clients only.

[1] [http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-03-20/can-trump-win- gener...](http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-03-20/can-trump-win-general- election-goldman-answers-all-your-election-questions)

 _Edited to add_ : I also know this because a friend of mine had their report leaked and written about on ZH, leading to a bit of a storm in a teacup at their workplace.

<comment><USER12> That is also not an break on an important story. Just some analysis again.

But yes, those leaked reports on ZH are interesting. Problem is they also publish lots of stuff from disputable sources. At the end you don't know what to take serious on this website, which results in an entropy of about zero.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Zerohedge is one of the most remarkable web sites today. I started reading it after 2009 and today it's (along with HN) my daily read.

For me as a Westerner there are few places where I can read non-mainstream opinions on things like the war in Syria, the oil price and currency wars, the daily SNAFU in the financial worldlike Negative Interest Rate Policy (NIRP).

To be sure, the headlines are often sensationalist but the content often exceeds whatever analysis you can get to read from mainstream media (= the big online newspapers in the US, and Europe).

Here is Zerohedge's response to the above article: [http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-04-29/full-story- behind-b...](http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-04-29/full-story-behind- bloombergs-attempt-unmask-zero-hedge)

<comment><USER12> That is astonishing. If you remove the usual conspiracy theories and the right wing populism crap there is not much more left than you can read on bloomberg or any other financial news site.

<comment><USER15> That's completely untrue. Zero Hedge breaks news before a lot of outlets and writes on a lot of market events that other sources will not touch. I'm not disagreeing that you need to have a filter when reading but they absolutely do provide value.

<comment><USER12> > breaks news before a lot of outlets

Any examples?

<comment><USER16> All their coverage of hft when nobody was talking about it

<comment><USER17> The usual coverage of HFT on ZH is like this:

Gold price spikes down, it's the HFT slamming it because they work for the Central Banks. Gold price spikes up, it's because investors are concerned about the market.

Stocks spike up, it's the HFT again. Stocks spike down - investors start seeing that the whole market is a scam.

So the HFT trade only in the "wrong" direction according to ZH. They sell gold and buy stocks. Never the other way around. I'm exaggerating, but only a bit, there were a few articles which blamed HFT for "right" moves (gold up, stocks down).

<comment><USER16> I meant around the time of the flash crash and in them making hft more mainstream

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I have a love hate relationship with Zerohedge.

On the one hand, they can produce some really amazing and compelling content, whether its their own analysis or an analysis of an article from somewhere else on the web. A recent article of memory: [http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-01-17/what-just- happened-...](http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-01-17/what-just-happened- oil).

But over the years the site's tone has changed. While they are still dedicated to financial news and insights, they post a lot of survivalist non-sense and it feels more like a far Right wing blog now, advocating you to buy gold in one article that sits below another highlighting proof that the gold market is fixed. I can support a position of reporting on everything and anything, but these inconsistencies and the fact that there is a dearth of articles with viewpoints and analysis from the Left has led me to question their true motives now. They'll also censor you for trying to bring this up in their comments section. A few years ago my account was banned after I called them out for putting up an article stating how some Goldman report was BS, while simultaneously they had up a blog post that used stats from a different Goldman report.

I still visit the site everyday. They still occasionally break some headline stories and you still find some really great articles. But generally it's become an insufferable website.

<comment><USER19> That aritcle actually has an interesting follow up.

[http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-01-21/something- blowing-o...](http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-01-21/something-blowing-oil)

Basically... they were right! (You can cite this as an example of quality reporting or as an example of cherry-picking research...)

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> A for profit news editorial site based on sensationalism. Why is anyone surprised? That's "news" today. Just turn on the television in the US. I haven't been able to watch CNN since the mid-90's.

<comment><USER19> The value in ZH is that their sensationalism is pretty much the reverse of most other mainstream media. "Anti-establishment" as they say.

<comment><USER20> That's fair, I haven't read it.

<comment><USER21> You should. You should also take it for what it is, infotainment. I find reading an extreme viewpoint can be very informative after the alternative extreme is considered and skeptical comparisons are made. Finding the biases becomes easier, determining who is being more disingenuous is still tough. I must also be able to recognize & account for my bias/interest in the topic, as well.

Back on topic: I know corruption can exist in any institution and lobbyists with the biggest bag of donations tend to win the laws that make their spurious practices 'legal', but I'm quite satisfied the majority of ZH's predictions haven't come to fruition. There is no solace in large-scale failure of any systems. One thing is for sure, when one does happen, you can bet a large number of ZH commentors will invoke "I told you so!".

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I think whether you like the site or not depends mostly on if you think there was a fundamental recovery after 2008 or just an asset bubble generated by extremely easy monetary policy around the world.

Only time will tell who's "right" in the end!

</comment><comment><USER6> ZH is the infowars of the financial world.

<comment><USER22> Hear hear.

This site has long been a bewildering mishmash of doomsaying and cassandra- like apocalyptic predictions - but the other shoe has simply never dropped. During the days when the financial crisis was hot and fresh this brand of naysaying seemed really insightful and prescient - but, in retrospect, it was just something of a firehose of "short the system."

That a lot of analysts read it doesn't make it credible. A lot of politicos read infowars too - it doesn't mean it isn't mostly hyped up garbage.

Far too many of their headlines are too sensationalist and make too many testable claims and predictions - they are chicken little, and the sky simply hasn't fallen.

<comment><USER6> yep, the crisis made asshats like Peter Schiff seem like smart guys. Lots of doomdayers created awesome careers because the world legitimately did appear to be falling apart. The irony is, if anyone had listened to the ZH's and the Schiffs of the world, it actually would've fallen apart.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> The huge pro Russia bias just became unbearable after a while. Whatever Putin does is consider awesome, whatever Obama does is considered bad. China coverage seemed somewhat more balanced.

</comment><comment><USER24> Well...this just succeeded in adding more readership to ZH. Their "anti- article" to the Bloomberg piece is fascinating reading.

</comment><comment><USER25> They published an answer to the article. [http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-04-29/full-story- behind-b...](http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-04-29/full-story-behind- bloombergs-attempt-unmask-zero-hedge)

</comment><comment><USER26> With some reluctance, I follow ZH on Twitter. Like other sites like Russian Times, Haretz, Al Jazera, it is good to be skeptical, but it is also good to break out of the hold that mainstream media has. In the USA, the "news" is so bad that I honestly believe that I get more information from random reading, just a few minutes a day, of sources from many countries on the web than the network "news."

I travel a fair amount, and it seems like people in other countries don't have an obsession with "news" that so many of my acquaintances in the USA have. I think that one hour a week is about the maximum amount of time anyone should spend on the news - better to spend the time engaging in business, family and friend time, write a book, volunteer with a charity, community involvement, etc.

</comment><comment><USER27> You mean the "the sky is falling so sell everything and buy gold" blog?

Might be good entertainment for wannabe daytraders and inexperienced retails, but they're almost always wrong about things...

</comment><comment><USER28> I love the potential conflict of interest statement in the article: "Bloomberg LP competes with Zero Hedge in providing financial news and information."

<comment><USER29> The Bloomberg journo who put that in was either chuckling or clenching their teeth, or both.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> It's funny that one of the largest flag theory sites, sovereign man, refers to zerohedge almost exclusively for political and financial theories. I thought they were actually run by the same person(s) for a time.

When I came across zerohedge about 2 years ago, it looked like they were bearish all the time, and right less than half the time. I think people see what's right and don't pay attention to when it's wrong.

</comment><comment><USER31> Was an interesting site in the beginning, but got stupider and stupider. My guess based on this article is that it's a 419-style strategy; stupid people don't use adblockers as much.

</comment><comment><USER32> Avid ZH reader since before it had its own domain -- this list is incomplete. There are several bloggers who have posted links to their work under the name durden.

</comment><comment><USER33> Used to have really ground breaking investigatve journalism in obscure market structure stuff. Went sensational click bait.

</comment><comment><USER34> I stopped reading the site several years back. It has too much of a end of the world doom and gloom view. Yes it does provide a different view against what you see in the mainstream news. You tend to get sucked into this worldview it presents, and you end up getting very little done on your side projects.

</comment><comment><USER8> Here is ZH's article about the unmasking

[http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-04-29/full-story- behind-b...](http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-04-29/full-story-behind- bloombergs-attempt-unmask-zero-hedge)

</comment><comment><USER35> [http://www.zerohedge.com/print/502779](http://www.zerohedge.com/print/502779) is the best from ZH

</comment><comment><USER36> >> "Bloomberg LP competes with Zero Hedge in providing financial news and information."

Translation: "Yes, we're attacking the competition."

_____

Reply-To-Comments-Below:

All editors make choices, and to me, this was the wrong choice.

All this does in validate ZeroHedge is a threat and makes Bloomberg look like a wannabe thug.

Beyond that, appears ZeroHedge made something of this disclaimer too: [http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-04-29/full-story- behind-b...](http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-04-29/full-story-behind- bloombergs-attempt-unmask-zero-hedge)

<comment><USER37> anything wrong with that?

<comment><USER38> Well, it's fair to take issue with the idea that ZH provides any information whatsoever, but I get the feeling that that's not what the parent commenter is upset about.

<comment><USER36> Creative you are, and you're right, idea that Bloomberg would feel they're a competitor to ZH is a joke.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> Like many here, I've read ZeroHedge for a few years. I loosely agree with the analysis that the tone has become "conspiratorial," but this argument fails to disambiguate between a "conspiratorial" tone and the _intentionally provocative rhetoric_ of the ZeroHedge authors. They KNOW their content falls under all those labels so derisively ascribed to it, because that is their intention.

My reading of the [conspiratorial|far-fetched|proto-facist] content on ZeroHedge is that it's not meant to be literal, but a veneer of SHOCK VALUE that serves two purposes. First, it gets readership due to classic clickbait psychology. Second, its mere existence demonstrably proves ZeroHedge is an "alternative" media site undiluted by editorial filters. This distinguishes it from every mainstream media publication, and that alone makes it worth reading (provided you can find _some_ signal worth your time).

The shock value signals to astute readers that ZeroHedge is not a traditional site, and that yes, you SHOULD take everything they say with a grain of salt. But the logical jump from "you should take it with a grain of salt" to "you should ignore it" misses the simple fact that its writers INTEND for the content to be provocative. They WANT you to take it with a grain of salt.

Taking things "with a grain of salt" is GOOD for you. It means you are THINKING CRITICALLY. People should be taking _everything_ with a grain of salt. What alarms me most about ZeroHedge is not its content, but the attempted ostracizing of that content by other publications, as if the shock value justifies ignoring it all together. Incidentally, this is the same smear tactic that mainstream media sites are applying to Donald Trump: he says <thing> we find offensive, therefore <every other thing> he says must be invalid. If we applied this logic to all information, there would be no difference of opinion in the world.

To paraphrase Christopher Hitchens, the person yelling "fire" might be the one worth listening to, and we should always question our own beliefs and fear consensus. To quote him directly, they [0] were "the ones shouting fire when there really was a fire in a very crowded theatre indeed... [W]ho's going to decide?" [1] [2]

[0] "They" were the socialist party of philadelphia, who opposed the draft of WWI, "on the grounds that military conscription constituted involuntary servitude, which is prohibited by the Thirteenth Amendment.": [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States)

[1] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3Hg-Y7MugU](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3Hg-Y7MugU) (thanks to HN commenter in another thread for linking to this today)

[2] [http://documents.ariadacapo.net/borrowed/2006_11_christopher...](http://documents.ariadacapo.net/borrowed/2006_11_christopher_hitchens/christopher_hitchens_2006_11_talk_transcript.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER40> 15 posts a day of as much as 1500 words? That's kind of... prodigious.

</comment><comment><USER41> > (Bloomberg LP competes with Zero Hedge in providing financial news and > information.)

Does anyone else feel this is particularly generous?

ZeroHedge is borderline conspiracy theorist nonsense surrounded by occasionally correct financial analysis with a level of accuracy on par with a dart board.

<comment><USER42> The point isn't to be generous, it is to disclose to readers possible conflicts of interest.

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> ZH may be early and there may be some separation of the wheat from the chaff that one must do, but their general bearish theme resonates as true based on the data.

The BLS numbers _are_ phony. They monkey around with the denominator, so drop- outs from the workforce are not counted. They also count one person losing a good full-time job but gaining multiple part-time jobs as a net positive. Never mind those numbers---all you need to know is that the adult labor force participation rate is at its lowest in about 4 decades.[0] The ratio of average income to home prices is about twice that of the 50s/60s (over 3.3) Also, if unemployment were measured as it was decades earlier, the unemployment number would be much higher. Outside of tech, where tons of money has flowed thanks to the Fed's helicopter money and investors seeking higher returns (as interest rates are ~0), the economy has been doing lousy. Yet all we're told via mainstream sources is that the Fed and Obama saved the day and shutup about it already!

As others have noted, this expansion is long-in-the-tooth, at least by historical standards. Companies' inventories are up, which also signals an economic slowdown in the works. After QE1, QE2, QE3, and bond buying totaling $4 trillion (!) of expansion of the monetary supply, we've had a paltry sub-3% GDP growth (0.5% in the first quarter of this year!). A former Fed board member admitted recently that they "front-loaded" the recovery; indeed, it should be noted that this "recovery" is almost a direct result of the Fed's actions regarding monetary expansion. This also explains the fantastic increase in asset values (classic cars, houses, art, stocks, etc.)

The Fed _is_ a private cartel. It is the third central bank in the history of the U.S., and was created so the banks would no longer be forced to compete with each other. It is not independent of politics (far from it)---for example, Yellen knows she should raise interest rates, but knows that the Democrats will be thrown out of office if she does before 2016 (see the minuscule 25 basis-point increase that caused huge market turmoil late last year), and a Republican would throw her out the day he was sworn in. Even if you don't believe the "conspiracy", the fact of the matter is that central planning is disastrous, and it is especially disastrous when it comes to the price of currency (i.e., interest rates), as that affects everything else in an advanced economy (especially long-term capital investments).

ZH has done a good job keeping us apprised of these developments. They operate under the assumption that the current fiat currently standard cannot survive, and they are right. Of course the timing is virtually impossible, but I (like them) predict a bad recession in the next year or two. Over the longer term, the system will inevitably collapse.

[0] [https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2015/07/02/percentage-w...](https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2015/07/02/percentage- workers-labor-pool-falls-year-low/zfLQrKjCyhra95v8PJxWcI/story.html)</comment>


Basic Income Could Be the Moonshot of Our Generation - <AUTHOR> http://www.slush.org/news/insight/basic-income-moonshot-generation/ <comment><USER2> The real reason to oppose Basic Income isn't based on moralizing about social programs, but that what it promises is the _exact opposite_ of the net effect it will have!

I too want a world where people are not on a treadmill that forces them into wage slavery. But the first step is recognizing that the primary driver of modern individuals' needing to work is the payment of rent on assets that are becoming ever-less feasible to purchase outright.

This is the direct result of the past few decades of extreme inflationary monetary policy. In a time of such technological process, prices should be steadily _dropping_ at an unprecedented rate. But instead, the Fed actually has an explicit policy of forcing them to rise, with the _actual professed goal_ to keep everybody working full time!!

Since new money is created by loaning against specific assets, the newly created money just ends up bidding up the book-prices of consumer-desired assets, closing the CPI feedback loop when the rent (interest) has finally risen enough to take up consumer surplus.

Basic income is thus just an extension of this ongoing policy that naively _adds to_ this inflationary treadmill - giving everyone in SF $1k/mo will result in housing rent going up by roughly $1k/mo.

The real solution we need is the _exact opposite_ \- a return to sane monetary policy where individuals are able to _save_ and able to reasonably _purchase_ assets like houses. The ability to save and build wealth gives people stability (not worrying about being out of work for a few months) and thus economic bargaining power to demand higher real wages and fewer working hours. _This_ is the equilibrium mechanic that will constructively respond to the need for ever-less work, finally letting wider society see the gains from increased productivity.

<comment><USER3> How does one save if they don't make money in the first place? There are plenty of affordable places that you can buy a house at near minimum wage, but when that minimum wage job goes away there's nothing left.

In my experience, people don't have very much bargaining power even if they are financially stable, own a home and have savings when a force such as globalized trade comes through town - there is no bargaining power big enough to avoid shutting down a plant or a business, or moving it across state or country lines.

People need income before being able to save, before being able to purchase assets regardless of their price. Whats more likely is that a factory that previously paid 400 people $10 an hour would rather pay 20 people $30 an hour, and that 380 people have no negotiating power.

<comment><USER2> > _There are plenty of affordable places that you can buy a house at near > minimum wage, but when that minimum wage job goes away there 's nothing > left._

So this aspect is orthogonal to what I addressed in my original comment, hence my example of "$1k/mo to everyone in SF" \- ruling out someone still getting $1k/mo after leaving SF. Economic feedback most immediately applies to in- demand housing markets where one can't simply cheaply acquire their own land and put up their own structure. But these type of concentrated areas _are_ where the bulk of our economic activity is now occurring.

The flip side of this is that if BI were at a national level, there would be a demand to move to rural areas where land was cheap, to reduce the largest rent. But since, as you point out, the economic opportunities are quite limited there such areas would be entirely reliant on BI. This would further cement the divide between urban "rat racers" and rural poverty, making it harder for those involuntarily caught in the latter to leave.

> _Whats more likely is that a factory that previously paid 400 people $10 an > hour would rather pay 20 people $30 an hour, and that 380 people have no > negotiating power_

BI won't restore those 380 people's negotiating power. Since their labor isn't demanded, they will effectively become wards of the state. With the economics I'm talking about, the 20 (40hr) people that are still employed gain bargaining power as they build liquid wealth. Rather than spending their entire life working, _they_ demand _fewer_ hours per week which actually restores demand for the other 380.

This seems less convincing in the context of your extreme example (before all 400 could work 2 hours/week, other factors will start to matter), but the point is that this is the trend that should have already been happening for the prior decade instead of overleveraging encouraging sink-or-swim overworking.

I'm actually not categorically ruling out the idea of BI. It's just that current calls for it completely ignore any feedback due to our official economic policy, and are actually just a continuation of the broken policy that has largely put us in this situation to begin with.

<comment><USER3> > The flip side of this is that if BI were at a national level, there would be > a demand to move to rural areas where land was cheap, to reduce the largest > rent. But since, as you point out, the economic opportunities are quite > limited there such areas would be entirely reliant on BI. This would further > cement the divide between urban "rat racers" and rural poverty, making it > harder for those involuntarily caught in the latter to leave.

I'm not so sure myself - if you have nothing but time to pursue whatever it is that you want to do, would people not spend a lot of that time working on hobbies and interests? The amount of time that potentially highly productive people spend performing and just mentally/physically recovering from menial/dead-end work could be put to much better use. There's no reason with the internet today that that person couldn't become a rocket scientist despite living in a cheap area.

Escaping the trap of these cheap rural areas is only difficult for economic reasons - its harder to save money when almost every bit of the low paying job goes to rent - you are spending your time spinning your wheels instead of experimenting, educating yourself or others.

> This seems less convincing in the context of your extreme example (before > all 400 could work 2 hours/week, other factors will start to matter), but > the point is that this is the trend that should have already been happening > for the prior decade instead of overleveraging encouraging sink-or-swim > overworking.

> I'm actually not categorically ruling out the idea of BI. It's just that > current calls for it completely ignore any feedback due to our official > economic policy, and are actually just a continuation of the broken policy > that has largely put us in this situation to begin with.

Asset inflation would surely happen in some areas, but we'd at least establish a basic floor. Everything could become higher priced, but it would allow for more fluidity and risk taking, and much more focus on education and learning. I feel like it'd be worthwhile to continue to experiment.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I see lots of good arguments for a basic income, and I'm somewhat convinced that it could do much good, but these questions keep bothering me:

1\. What percent of the population will just take their guaranteed income and do drugs/play video games/party all day, instead of being ambitious?

2\. What will be the cultural effects of a large segment of the population living a life devoid of duty and consequences?

3\. Will we allow these overgrown children to vote? And what would they possibly vote for except a bigger basic income and more freebies? And if you did restrict the franchise, then what incentive will the franchised class have to rule for the benefit of the disenfranchised?

4\. Won't this new underclass reproduce much more rapidly than the productive class? Again, what are the social consequences of this?

5\. How do you reconcile a basic income with open immigration, which we seem to be moving towards? A basic income in the US would probably be greater than the yearly income of most _working_ people in the world.

<comment><USER5> > 5\. How do you reconcile a basic income with open immigration, which we seem > to be moving towards? A basic income in the US would probably be greater > than the yearly income of most working people in the world.

Surely only citizens would get basic income? If an immigrant wants it, they'll have to become a naturalized citizen which takes enough effort that they probably deserve it.

<comment><USER4> That would make it impossible for immigrants to house and feed themselves, with the market adapted for everyone making a basic income.

<comment><USER5> Ideally this wouldn't happen, but with our current amount of regulation you are probably right that it would happen.

In any case, legal immigrants sound okay to me. Obviously illegal immigrants aren't going to get it.

<comment><USER6> If everybody doesn't get it (the BI) you just create a new indentured class. Illegal immigrants don't get here without the cooperation of some citizens. Its an industry. Which will flourish as the gap between laborers and citizens widens (with a BI)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Isn't this "helicopter money" but regardless if it is or not, why is it considered a bad thing?

</comment><comment><USER8> Seems like over the very last few weeks, a new trendy word popped:'moonshot'.</comment>


Can You Tell The Difference Between A Men's Magazine And A Rapist? - <AUTHOR> http://jezebel.com/5866602/can-you-tell-the-difference-between-a-mens-magazine-and-a-rapist

<comment><USER2> "Men's" magazines are one of the things that sadly make me feel ashamed of being part of the cisgender male demographic.</comment>


Ask HN: What kinds of mind does HN attract? - <AUTHOR> I know some people who are really hooked on to HN. There are others who did check out HN, but soon lost interest and never came back.<p>Both of the above groups contain programmers and people with other skills as well. <comment><USER2> People who are intellectually curious about a range of topics, who don't immediately trust existing authorities/common knowledge about said topics and the types who are willing to experiment with new things, building themselves if necessary.

In other words, the traditional 'hacker' mindset associated with the site's title.</comment>


Dockerizing a Ruby on Rails Application - <AUTHOR> https://semaphoreci.com/community/tutorials/dockerizing-a-ruby-on-rails-application <comment><USER2> There are a couple weird things in here:

        COPY drkiq/Gemfile Gemfile
        WORKDIR /opt/app/drkiq
        RUN bundle install

This appears to be leaving out copying Gemfile.lock so you have no real idea what versions of dependencies are being installed here. This is not safe. Also it's installing a bunch of dependencies that are not needed in production, a better bundle command would be something like: `RUN bundle install --no-cache --jobs 4 --without development test`

        RUN rails webpacker:install
        RUN rails assets:precompile

Why is `rails webpacker:install` being run here? This is very odd. As a general tip, I would also not compile assets as part of the docker build, but rather externally then only copy over the `public` directory afterward. This removes any need for `node` or any related development tools/packages in the production image.

<comment><USER3> not really... you can specify a specific version of a gem in the Gemfile.

gem 'byebug', '1.1.0'

<comment><USER2> That doesn't help with transitive dependencies.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Is anyone currently using this setup (Rails w Docker) in production?

I've been using Rails for years, I haven't yet experienced much pain by way of language/library versioning (etc). Python is a different story...

<comment><USER5> Yes, we do it at Basecamp for all of our legacy apps (and our newest one, HEY), and we've ran Basecamp 2 in production via Kubernetes (we no longer do it, but we did it for a lengthy period of time).

<comment><USER6> I'm curious to know more about why you left Kubernetes. Performance?

<comment><USER5> Nothing Kubernetes-related, it was provider-related. We hurriedly moved Basecamp 2 back on-prem after a string of outages caused by our cloud provider at the time. There are a bunch of blog posts on Signal v Noise from early 2019 that talk about it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Any suggestions on how to do zero-downtime deploys with a Rails app running on Docker?

I guess an obvious one is to use two running images, pull incoming requests from one of them, take it down, update, bring it up, start traffic flow again. Repeat for the other.

But is there any other method?

<comment><USER8> You don't need to take your old app down or update during your cutover. Your new app will be a new docker image, so just run an instance ahead of time.

When it comes to deploy, just repoint your load balancer/proxy.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I've seen a lot of tutorials about getting a rails app to run with docker, but this one is more complete than most. There is some good stuff here.

</comment><comment><USER10> Tbh I'm very shocked by how many people have never used docker with Rails. Am I missing something?

<comment><USER11> Maybe because of running Rails on Heroku is simpler than with Docker.</comment></comment>


Held for hours at secret Chicago black site - <AUTHOR> http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/feb/26/chicago-police-homan-square-vic-suter

<comment><AUTHOR> Related articles are at the bottom of the page:

[http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/feb/26/police- black-...](http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/feb/26/police-black-site- chicago-washington-politicians-human-rights)

[http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/feb/26/police- black-...](http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/feb/26/police-black-site- chicago-washington-politicians-human-rights)

[http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/feb/24/chicago- polic...](http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/feb/24/chicago-police- detain-americans-black-site)

[http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/feb/24/chicago- homan...](http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/feb/24/chicago-homan-square- black-site)

</comment><comment><USER2> Some perspective: [http://www.wbez.org/news/chicago-polices-so-called-black- sit...](http://www.wbez.org/news/chicago-polices-so-called-black-site- mischaracterized-111629)</comment>


Ask HN: How much to pay for tax return if we have no revenue? - <AUTHOR>

Hi everyone,<p>We were newly formed in Nov 2013 (Deleware C corp), and currently have no revenue and only have food expenses. How much should we expect to pay a CPA to handle the 2013 tax return filing, anyone or service recommended? <comment><USER2> Somewhere between 500-1000 is my gut sense. It may depend a bit on where you're located.

<comment><USER3> Seconded if there isn't any complexity, e.g., depreciation of equipment.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> How much you pay a tax accountant doesn't depend on your income or revenue, it depends only on the complexity of your tax situation. In principle, you might have lost a million dollars, but you pay a tax accountant to protect you from losing a million more to what is euphemistically called a bad IRS experience.

<comment><AUTHOR> I guess I mean that how much do Start pay tax account when they are fresh start with almost no tax complexity?

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> For my online business, I pay the accountant about $100 or $150 to handle everything, I can't remember the exact number. I just hand them a paper with my total income, a list of business related deductions, talk for 15 min if they have any questions, or I have any questions, and then I pick everything up a few days later and pay the amount owing online.</comment>


Ask HN: Which password manager do you use and Why? - <AUTHOR> I rarely use any password manager but recently, with a lot of concerns in security, I decided to join one. However, the options out there are just huge. So I want to consult all of you here on HN: which password manager(s) you use and why you use it ( them ). <comment><USER2> Enpass. Cross-platform, good mobile support, can be used by my less techie family.

[https://www.enpass.io/](https://www.enpass.io/)</comment>


Cracking the Male Code of Office Behavior - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/06/jobs/06pre.html

<comment><USER2> > _I enter into conversations with unsuspecting men sitting next to me on > airplanes, on the subway and in coffee shops and give them a chance to share > their innermost thoughts anonymously._

This sounds like a wildlife researcher entering protected habitats to observe a rare species under natural conditions. It also betrays the underlying assumption that men and women are two completely different species that live in completely separate worlds. Throughout the article that assumption is never challenged.

> _The male brain has the enviable ability to essentially switch off emotions > when desired — in part because it's hard for a man to think clearly in the > face of emotion._

Big news: everybody does that, no matter what gender they are. It's called compartmentalization, without it people would not be able to function. Emotional reactions and analysis are pushed off to a future point in time whenever more pressing concerns are at hand. That's a basic mental triage technique and everybody can do it. There are also many people who _never_ do it, and in my experience there was no significant gender difference to that behavior.

> _When men see a worker taking criticism personally, seeming to push too hard > for his or her ideas, or having a personality conflict, they automatically > view that worker as less business-savvy and less experienced, or as someone > who operates on emotion, not logic._

Paragraphs like this make excellent statements for people who like evolutionary psychology, but they're simply not rooted in fact. In my experience, most "Type A" personalities who do like to dish out harsh personal criticism like it's a bodily function simply cannot take the same when it is directed at them. Likewise, the perception of business-savvyness is probably always linked to the perception of sameness: successful businesspeople attribute superior skills to people whom they perceive as similar to their own personality. And again, I observed no significant difference between sexes here. Regarding the unspoken assumption of public displays of male toughness: I've seen tough jock-types sitting under their desks crying just because someone had looked at them funny.

> _The science is clear, for example, that although the female brain isn't > designed to compartmentalize personal feelings the same way a man's brain > does, a woman can — if she chooses — force a calm demeanor when she is > starting to feel defensive._

That's a lie. This statement has nothing to do with science.

All in all this article is a standard set of misleading statements, "obvious" assumptions and outright lies. It's designed to be popular on the net while providing less than no value for readers interested in team dynamics.

<comment><USER3> _> The science is clear, for example, that although the female brain isn't designed to compartmentalize personal feelings the same way a man's brain does, a woman can — if she chooses — force a calm demeanor when she is starting to feel defensive.

That's a lie. This statement has nothing to do with science._

Can you point in the direction of something that proves or disproves that statement? I've witnessed a lot of anecdotal evidence that women don't do as well at compartmentalization as men. I didn't make much of it until I also read a book that points it out ("Viva La Diferencia" by Pilar Sordo) as one of the differences between typical male and typical female behavior.

All in all, it seems that the typical behavioral patterns are different enough between males and females, so I'm interested in evidence both for and against it. Your categorical statement makes it look like you can produce some of that evidence.

<comment><USER2> > _I've witnessed a lot of anecdotal evidence that women don't do as well at > compartmentalization as men. I didn't make much of it until I also read a > book that points it out ("Viva La Diferencia" by Pilar Sordo) as one of the > differences between typical male and typical female behavior._

Like I said, that's a _very_ popular opinion and it sells a lot of books. It's also something of a self-fulfilling prophecy.

> _The science is clear, for example, that although the female brain isn't > designed to compartmentalize personal feelings the same way a man's brain > does_

You ask me to prove my assertion that this is not based science, and of course I can mostly point to the fact that the supposed science the article is talking about was itself not cited anywhere. So I have to prove a negative, but the article gets a pass with disguising a blanket statement as science just because it resonates better with popular world views?

There is no actual biological or medical evidence supporting the article's claims. Pop psychology studies of this matter are hampered by the simple fact that they're unable to distinguish cultural from biological mechanisms. Evolutionary psychology is also considered a pseudoscience because it's based on starting with equating popular assumptions to self-evident truths and then going out to find evidence to support these arbitrary claims, while ignoring everything else.

<comment><USER3> _> I've witnessed a lot of anecdotal evidence that women don't do as well at compartmentalization as men. I didn't make much of it until I also read a book that points it out ("Viva La Diferencia" by Pilar Sordo) as one of the differences between typical male and typical female behavior.

Like I said, that's a _very_ popular opinion and it sells a lot of books._

I agree that it's popular. What I'm trying to find out is how much of it is just an opinion and how much is proven. There certainly seems to be a behavioral pattern out there.

 _It's also somewhat of a self-fulfilling prophecy._

What do you mean by "somewhat of a self-fulfilling prophecy"?

 _You ask me to prove my assertion that this is not based science, and of course I can mostly point to the fact that the supposed science the article is talking about was itself not cited anywhere. So I have to prove a negative, but the article gets a pass with disguising a blanket statement as science just because it resonates better with your world view?_

No, not really. It seems I wasn't clear enough with my question. I wasn't asking you to prove your "assertion that this is not based science". When you said "That is a lie", I saw what seemed to be categorical denial of the claim that men and women have different capacity for compartmentalization and I was intrigued enough by your vehemence to ask you to point me to what made you so sure.

The article didn't "get a pass" because it never even entered into my side of discussion at all.

<comment><USER2> > _What I'm trying to find out is how much of it is just an opinion and how > much is proven._

There is no significant difference in functional brain structure or organization to suggest these differences are hard-wired. In fact, most of the brain is still considered a black box and basic research is still occupied with finding out how the basic building blocks interact. Sadly, that leaves people who's job it is to examine learned behavior with a lot of room to assert biological predisposition in an attempt to make their (often amateurish) statistical findings more substantial. They get away with it, too, mainly because their opinions are so popular, and their popularity growths with the number of studies appearing in mainstream press in support of the majority world view.

> _There certainly seems to be a behavioral pattern out there._

There are many different behavioral patterns out there and what you get to experience depends largely on the country, cultures and subcultures you are embedded in. I'm not denying that behaviors exist, I'm just speaking out against abusing science to falsely attribute underlying biological causes to behavior that is very likely more learned than innate.

> _What do you mean by "somewhat of a self-fulfilling prophecy"?_

I mean the traditional view of gender behavior (which has recently once again become the modern view) is not only imprinting people with a specific bias but also causes humans to behave accordingly. It thus becomes a self-sustaining system, because the more people believe it to be true, the more they behave accordingly, and the more they gather evidence in support of the underlying values. It's a cycle, and confirmation bias does the rest of the work.

> _When you said "That is a lie", I saw what seemed to be categorical denial > of the claim that men and women have different capacity for > compartmentalization and I was intrigued enough by your vehemence to ask you > to point me to what made you so sure._

Ah, OK, I misunderstood you there. The statement made in the article is not supported by hard science, as far as I know. This is what prompted me to claim the implication that gender behavior is rooted in well-documented scientific observations and models is indeed a lie. Of course, there are many behavioral studies carefully designed show ...pretty much anything you could ever want. But that's not the equivalent of hard science. That's statistics with an agenda.

Interestingly enough, there was a popular meme in mainstream media about scientific results "wearing off", i.e. becoming less true over time. The results in question used to document this alleged property of the universe were mostly - wait for it - pop psychology studies with agendas behind them. It's telling that these people would rather assume intelligent malice exerted by the universe than admitting their studies were bogus to begin with. These studies are mostly human behavior studies that basically equate popular opinions with universal truths, and then those researchers are shocked, shocked! to find out their results don't hold up over time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> "I was shocked to discover that most men view negative emotion as a signal that logic has ceased."

Yes, that's pretty spot on, for me at least. (I'm male)

At times I know I can be overly blunt and appear insensitive - in the vast majority of cases I'm not trying to make a value judgement, just calling it how I see it. Thus, getting an emotional response back is somewhat shocking - to exaggerate for effect:

        A: "Two plus Two is Four"
        B: "OMG really!?!  You're a horrible person for thinking that!"
        A: "Um, I'm confused... what's wrong with you?"

I wonder where this puts me on the aspergers spectrum...

<comment><USER5> I notice emotional attachment at work from both genders.

Those that create subjective work, like designers and musicians, often latch onto their solutions with an emotional vigor. It's as if they view their work as some part of themselves.

<comment><USER6> _It's as if they view their work as some part of themselves._

If you're a good artistic / creative person with that sort of mind, it pretty much is.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> "The expectation that people shut down personal feelings at work has become one of men's subconscious, "unwritten rules." When men see a worker taking criticism personally, seeming to push too hard for his or her ideas, or having a personality conflict, they automatically view that worker as less business- savvy and less experienced, or as someone who operates on emotion, not logic."

These rules aren't subconscious, are they? I was quite explicitly told that letting personality issues get in the way of business is bad for business (meaning _everyone_ in the business) and that, for the sake of everyone around me, I should get over myself and work with other people. And it seems that someone pushing too hard for their own ideas has ego issues and would also be bad for the business as a whole.

Learning to not take criticism personally is a great life skill that everyone should have!

</comment><comment><USER8> Interesting article, but I don't understand this: "The male brain has the enviable ability to essentially switch off emotions when desired--in part because it's hard for a man to think clearly in the face of emotion."

"For a man"? Wouldn't it be hard for, you know, anyone, man or woman, to think clearly if they're over-emotional at the moment?

<comment><USER9> Many women believe that their ability to "think" while emotional is what makes them the stronger sex. Of course, if you talk to them later when they are no longer emotional, they will admit they weren't thinking clearly.

The same is true for men of course. While most of us refrain from emotions at work, any man who's had a fight with his wife knows he's been just as irrational when the emotions run high.

The important take away: emotions aren't valuable at work.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I like that there is supposed to be a contrast between these:

> The expectation that people shut down personal feelings at work has become > one of men's subconscious, "unwritten rules." When men see a worker taking > criticism personally, seeming to push too hard for his or her ideas, or > having a personality conflict, they automatically view that worker as less > business-savvy and less experienced, or as someone who operates on emotion, > not logic. (I was shocked to discover that most men view negative emotion as > a signal that logic has ceased.)

and this:

> So when we raise our hand in a meeting and ask directly, "Bob, why did you > choose that pricing?" we are just asking for information. Bob, on the other > hand, may be angrily thinking, "I can't believe she is challenging my > judgment in front of my team."

How come when women take criticism personally and respond emotionally and men don't get it (as in example 1) it's a problem, but when women are blunt about their questions and men respond emotionally (as in example 2) it's not the exact same problem? Looks like a double standard that plays on the "women are emotional, men are not" myth to me.

</comment><comment><USER11> The article is several paragraphs of sensational hypotheses with no supporting evidence.

<comment><USER7> It's a NYT article, not a science journal article. The author claims to have spent several years studying this, and presumably the NYT checked out her credentials beforehand. Her book and email address are at the bottom of the article, if you want to know more.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I don't know if I buy into everything in the article, but she is right that women and men have different behaviors and that it helps to have some understanding of the differences.

One example that comes to mind is that some women will actually cry at work. For males that aren't used it, this can be a major WTF moment and they'll take it as a major sign of instability or irrationality. In fact, it is just a coping mechanism and it does not have the same meaning or weight as it would for a man to cry.

In other words, if a woman cries at work, the equivalent behavior for man would be an aggressive retort or a temporary withdrawl from the situation. For women, this might seem like the man is a being a jerk-- but, like crying, it is coping mechanism.

</comment><comment><USER13> "The science is clear, for example, that although the female brain isn't designed to compartmentalize personal feelings the same way a man's brain does, a woman can--if she chooses--force a calm demeanor when she is starting to feel defensive."

Is that clearly science?

</comment><comment><USER14> I get a registration required form.

<comment><USER15> If you want to bypass that, always search for the title of the article via Google and then click on it from there.

[http://www.google.com/search?q=Cracking+the+Male+Code+of+Off...](http://www.google.com/search?q=Cracking+the+Male+Code+of+Office+Behavior)</comment></comment>


Poland moves to exempt young workers from income tax - <AUTHOR> https://www.france24.com/en/20190705-poland-moves-exempt-young-workers-income-tax <comment><USER2> Imagine the young person who turns 27 the day this law in effective!

</comment><comment><USER3> I bet we'll see income taxes in Poland trend sharply downward in the long term. When the government starts taking ~1/5th of your income after about a decade of not doing so you tend to not take giving the government a cut for granted.

<comment><USER4> Maybe Juncker complained that the incoming workforce could use a bit more post-graduation experience. This way EU will be getting people that don't need on-job training.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Wonder what the number of personal bankruptcies at 27 will be...

</comment><comment><USER6> Also Poland is the European country with the largest number of young people. Heavily catholic. Could be a significant move.</comment>


Startup School London 2014 - <AUTHOR>

Anybody received their invite yet? Feel free to post and arrange meetups. <comment><USER2> Can someone tell me, approximately, how much will I need to spend once I arrive in London? I'm really clueless about it. I'd like to go but I'm extremely thin on budget and I'm not even sure if I was accepted (I received nothing, but I think that even if I wasn't accepted, they'd let me know by email).

I see that a 3-day InterRail ticket to England is €147, and I have no clue if it's acceptable for my budget, it all depends on how much I'm going to need in London.

Feel free to get in touch by email if you think you can give me some info, or post here so others will know. I haven't ever traveled abroad alone and am 17 so I guess it's acceptable to feel a little lost. And I'm just keeping my fingers crossed to be accepted :)

I probably didn't leave enough info here, so feel free to ask on clarification. Any help would be appreciated.

<comment><USER3> Hi I am in a similar situation :)

We are lucky this is in London because you can take RyanAir from any city to London for about 20€. There is no other city that you can fly to for this cheap! For sleeping I'm planning to spend 2 nights in a youth hostel for 30€/night. If anyone has any ideas for tech-related things to do the day after in London let me know.

<comment><AUTHOR> Don't bother with a youth hostel, go on AirBnB and find yourself a nice room.

<comment><USER3> As much as I would like to support the YC startup AirBnB, with a quick search on hostels.com I found a bed for €13/night. A similar bed on AirBnB costs €20/night. I'm not sure what price I can achieve if I find a private room that allows me to split the price with others.

<comment><USER4> If you haven't made an account yet I could refer you to airbnb and you'll get a $25 credit. [http://airbnb.ca/c/aalshurafa](http://airbnb.ca/c/aalshurafa)

<comment><USER3> Thanks for the referral. The $25 credit only applies (to me or you) when I book something with over a $75 base rate. So you won't get it today but next time I go on vacation for longer you will get it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Can someone confirm that invites have been sent? I didn't receive an email at all and I would like to know if I was accepted.

<comment><USER2> Nothing here. Still waiting.

<comment><USER4> Still waiting too.

<comment><USER5> ditto.

It might be nice if someone who did get one could confirm that they have indeed been sent...?

<comment><USER6> Nothing so far. I think the moment they're sent there will be an item on the front page.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Still waiting. Fingers crossed. Although it's still only 5:20 if it's being managed from the west coast.

<comment><USER3> I used some google-fu and found that they left the RSVP page open from a different year and it can be found here: [http://news.ycombinator.com/susrsvp](http://news.ycombinator.com/susrsvp)

It seems to be a way to find if you are in early. However I got a message that I was not accepted, let's hope that was a mistake on that link!

<comment><USER7> Yeah that could very much be a "record not found" error in disguise.</comment></comment></comment>


Apple, Not Amazon, Is the Largest Online Retail Force - <AUTHOR> https://www.forbes.com/sites/danrunkevicius/2020/08/17/apple-not-amazon-is-the-largest-online-retail-force/#37c285b564cb <comment><USER2> _"Last year, the App Store's apps (used on the iPhone) earned a staggering $519 billion in sales

[…]

Apple tacks on an "Apple tax" of 15-30% to every penny its third-party apps earn from Apple customers in the app"_

I find it hard to reconcile those two numbers. Apple's net income is about $60 billion ([https://www.apple.com/newsroom/pdfs/Q4%20FY19%20Consolidated...](https://www.apple.com/newsroom/pdfs/Q4%20FY19%20Consolidated%20Financial%20Statements.pdf)). The hardware they sell has high margins, so it should bring in part of that $60 billion.

The statements above seem to say they also get at least 15% of $519 billion, or $78 billion from their 'tax'.

If so, why isn't net revenue a lot higher?

What do I overlook?

(Aside: Apple's percentage is 15 or 30% of sale price, isn't it? That would make the percentage they add 18 or 43%)

</comment><comment><USER3> No. Purely digital goods & services (apps, video, games, etc.) are not "retail".

Retail means "physical stuff".</comment>


Country OS – The best way to manage your country in the 21st century - <AUTHOR> https://countryos.com/ <comment><USER2> This reminds me of Chile's attempt to distribute and automate their economy (back in 1970) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Cybersyn](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Cybersyn)

</comment><comment><USER3> Starting country is so hard. CountryOS got a chance to disrupt incumbents and make the best country ever.

</comment><comment><USER4> does this include a mass surveillance suite?

</comment><comment><USER5> I really hope this is an April 1st joke

<comment><USER6> I hope the opposite. While it is presented as a country management tool, what really is the difference between a country and a charity? Both have people working at different levels, both need to balance an "economy" of income and expenditure, both need to manage elections and such and such.

Shame it's an April fools joke.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> When did a fingerprint become a symbol for security?

</comment><comment><USER8> I gotta say I am a bit disappointed that I can't login with facebook.

</comment><comment><USER9> Hah, A/B testing laws, that's terrifying and amazing. Nice.

</comment><comment><USER10> Estonia strikes again!

</comment><comment><USER11> best april joke i ever see.

</comment><comment><USER12> Awesome!

</comment><comment><USER13> Great job!

</comment><comment><USER14> this is totally awesome

</comment><comment><USER15> amazing!</comment>


Swedish prosecutor: "Assange must come to Sweden but we won't say why" - <AUTHOR> http://www.friatider.se/swedish-prosecutor-assange-must-come-to-sweden-but-we-wont-say-why

<comment><AUTHOR> Also read the transcript of a discussion with the prosecutor: [http://www.friatider.se/swedish-prosecutor-assange-must- come...](http://www.friatider.se/swedish-prosecutor-assange-must-come-to- sweden-but-we-wont-say-why#comment-626569266) Very evasive.

</comment><comment><USER2> I find this strange as it has been explained a lot of times that the reason they will not question him on the UK is because he not only may be arrested after the questioning, but he may need to do more questioning after one round is done. Basically, they need him in Sweden because anything can happens in the questioning. Also, although it has been done in the past (the questioning not in Sweden soil), it wasn't done to the accused but to people related with the case.

Also, did he really said that or are those quotations mark artistic license?

</comment><comment><USER3> Using a nazi website as a source, really? The Assange fanclub has really gone downhill

</comment><comment><USER4> Well, this implies that Swedish prosecutors should travel around the world questioning suspects currently abroad. How silly.

<comment> muuh-gnu You, on the other hand, imply that countries around the world somehow have to send random people to Sweden, for no other reason than to save the Swedish prosecutors the effort of traveling there to ask questions. How silly.</comment></comment>


Tikv: Distributed key value store powered by Rust - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/pingcap/tikv <comment><USER2> I know the authors of this project also read Hacker News, so it probably is better if we wait till them to state their motives. But I suppose I could give a brief first, since most of the confusing comments are due to language barriers(sorry if you don't know enough Chinese, you might not have read enough about this project).

This is actually affiliated to [https://github.com/pingcap/tidb](https://github.com/pingcap/tidb), which is another implementation of Google Spanner/F1, similar to CockroachDB. So think TiKV as spanner, and TiDB as F1.

They actually started out using Go. And the reason they are changing to Rust is not trying to be a Rust cool kid, but due to real constraints: Go's GC introduces too much of latency time (and no, Go 1.6 is not enough despite being better), they are also not satisfied with cgo's costs. That's why they are changing to Rust. Note that according to their words, they still love Go better, and TiDB is also happily using Go. But for TiKV's case, Rust is perfect.

Disclaimer: I'm not working on TiKV or TiDB, I'm just a fan of their work(they are also the founders behind Codis: [https://github.com/CodisLabs/codis](https://github.com/CodisLabs/codis), tho not working on that anymore). I'm happy to list references on where I got all the information in case anyone are interested but they are all in Chinese, which I think might not be that polite since not everyone here reads Chinese.

<comment><USER3> This looks like it could be a drop in replacement for FoundationDB but I don't see enough documentation on the guarantees they give or limitations. Any more information? Maybe even translated from Chinese?

<comment><USER2> Unfortunately I don't see much material written in English at the moment.

To your technical question, I'm not that familiar with FoundationDB to comment, but I can tell the author's intent is building an open source solution for Spanner/F1. So I'd say TiKV/TiDB is really a drop-in replacement for Spanner/F1, not FoundationDB.

So in that case, I think the guarantees they want to meet include at least distributed transactions on a KV store(Spanner), and zero downtime SQL schema changes(F1).

<comment><USER3> FoundationDB was a drop-in replacement for spanner as well. Can't wait to see more docs.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I think everyone could benefit from extracting that raft implementation to a crate. I'll see if I can get started on that.

<comment><USER5> I think hoverbear has a raft crate: [https://github.com/Hoverbear/raft- rs](https://github.com/Hoverbear/raft-rs)

<comment><USER6> Yes, I was just wondering why they didn't use that? I reviewed that raft implementation. Looks decent and uses mio for non-blocking io, which was quite clean (I'm jealous).

<comment><USER7> Most raft implementation don't implement dynamic reconfiguration or snapshots/compaction. AFAICT hoverbear implements neither, and Tikv implements at least snapshots.

<comment><USER6> You're right. And thanks for the pointer on this implementing snapshots.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Distributed KV store based on rocksdb. Isn't that just reinventing the wheel? Is the fact that it is written in Rust that important?

<comment><USER9> It looks like a parallel implementation of TiDB, which they had built in Go. I would assume that avoiding garbage collection and reducing heap usage were valid motivations for the project. But it doesn't really have enough information on the repo to tell what their motivations are.

<comment><USER10> Not quite. TiDB can use it as a data layer, as an alternative to Rocks, Bolt, etc. Different part of the system

<comment><USER11> So when the Readme says "Distributed KV Database", I'm imagining that it refers maybe to being able to be used by TiDB which provides the distributed logic, while TiKV concentrates on a compatible interface to TiDB and local non-distributed storage?

<comment><USER10> Right. It should be roughly equivalent to InnoDB/MyISAM alternatives in Mysql (I believe)?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I could not find a description of the algorithm used for distributed transaction. I can only assume it's similar to CockroachDB but looking at the code I see a lot of reference to "LOCK" in the protocol buffer definition which mean they might be using something else.

Anybody know where I can find more documentation ?

<comment><USER13> Says they are using Raft: [https://raft.github.io/](https://raft.github.io/)

<comment><USER14> Raft is a replication protocol which is responsible for the consistency of multiple copies of the same data but it isn't applicable when the data is sharded.

<comment><USER15> You can use raft as to synchronizing other data structures. If this a KV store then that's as easy as key level locks / ownership / placement.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> From the README:

> Thanks rust-clippy. We do love the great project.

This just made my day. :-)

</comment><comment><USER17> I appreciate the sentiment, but this project is very difficult to understand what's connected to what. That's not a good sign for a database

<comment><USER9> The first PR was merged ~3 months ago, I'm not surprised that they don't have more info in the README.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Can someone ELI5 what a distributed key value store is useful for? Is it like a DHT for torrents?

</comment><comment><USER19> With "inspired by" meaning the very same thing as in the opening credits of a Hollywood movie...

</comment><comment><USER20> I'm pretty much sure this software wouldn't get a lot of attention if it was not built in rust. Darn I need to build something in rust and get some attention!

<comment><USER21> Sure, trends come in trends—in programming as in other things. But please don't post comments that put down other people's work.

If you think other stories should get attention on HN, please submit some.

<comment><USER20> It's a joke man. Why would I put down someone I don't even know!

<comment><USER21> > _Why would I put down someone I don 't even know_

I share your question, yet it seems to be what most internet forums are for.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Pipistrel Velis Electro: first fully electric aeroplane to be type certified - <AUTHOR> https://www.pipistrel-aircraft.com/pipistrel-obtains-first-ever-type-certificate-in-the-world-for-an-electric-aeroplane-from-easa/ <comment><AUTHOR> See also a video from a couple of years ago covering some details of the aircraft and in-flight experience: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16124271](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16124271)</comment>


Ask HN: How often do companies help relocate? - <AUTHOR>

I'm in a position right now where I'm living in a small town in Idaho (pop. is roughly 60k) and I am doing consulting work and making enough money to pay my bills, take care of my wife, etc. But my ultimate goal is to move to one of the big tech hubs such as San Francisco.
So I'm curious if anyone has been in a position such as myself, applied for a job with a startup or big company, and had them help you relocate?
What I'm doing now isn't something I want to do forever. I am a back-end developer (PHP/Laravel) with quite a bit of front-end experience, I've developed web applications entirely by myself, built servers, etc. I guess some consider that a full-stack developer? Anyways, working at home and by myself (most of the time) is getting old, I want to work with an amazing team in a cool office space and build something amazing. <comment><USER2> I've actually moved twice and the company shouldered the cost (once from NY to LA, then LA to SF). Some startups and most big companies will relocate, and will also adjust your salary to meet the market value of the area you move to. Also, geographies that don't have as many devs will tend to be open to relocation (Denver, Austin, Seattle, etc.) The startup I work at (whitetruffle) just moved our full time NY developer to SF. He has been remote for about a year now with us working from home, and wanted to be in SF with the rest of the team. A lot of companies who are also hiring using whitetruffle (as it is a recruiting platform) have marked their jobs as "relocate OK" or "remote OK" and our candidates have moved from LA to SF, DC to SF, UK to LA, UK to NY, etc. It's great to be able to work face to face sometimes, so I hope you can find something you like soon like I did!

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for replying! Thats good to know that it happens more than I thought.

I actually signed up at whitetruffle and thats what got me thinking about it. I saw that some of the jobs had "Remote OK".

I will definitely keep looking around for a job that will fit my skills.

Thanks again!</comment></comment>


How I think about spending millions to grow a SaaS business - <AUTHOR> https://www.tiny.cloud/blog/saas-spending-millions-to-grow-a-business <comment><AUTHOR> Thought this was a really cool article I happened on to.

Was actually looking for an html editor for Asp.net MVC but thought that this article was way more interesting than the product.</comment>


Coming into Jackson Hole, economists are grappling with a major issue - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/LHSummers/status/1164490326549118976 <comment><USER2> That's pretty vague.

Does "assuring adequate demand" mean encouraging people to spend?

(If so, it seems like there are two ways to do it: governments can give money to people who will spend it, or they can spend it themselves.)

re: "Obviously fiscal policy needs to be a major focus, especially given what low or negative interest rates mean for the sustainability of deficits." \- does this mean: governments, it's okay to spend more money?

re: "But the level of demand is also influenced by structural policies: e.g. pay-as-you-go social security, higher retirement ages, improved social insurance, support for private infrastructure investment, redistribution from the high-saving rich to the liquidity-constrained poor." \- is he saying there should be more or less of these things?

<comment><USER3> The crux of the problem is that central banks have been trying to encourage "aggregate demand" by lowering interest rates to incentivizing people and businesses to borrow (and spend) money. Now we're at the point where many of our institutions and most of our population is drowning in debt and our interest rates are already close to zero.

It seems pretty obvious that massive wealth accumulation by the upper millionith of society precludes any solution. The only way to increase "aggregate demand" is if the people have money to spend. Real wages have been stagnant or falling for ~15 years and debt levels are at record highs. Cost of living increases (healthcare, food, education, housing, insurance) rise greatly each year, outpacing both stagnant wages and official inflation numbers.

We're playing a game of monopoly where a couple of people already own every property and have them all stacked with houses and hotels. The rest of the players are trying to circle the board and collect their $200 from passing go and praying to god they don't land on a property that will bankrupt them completely before they make it around the board again. This economic system is not sustainable.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> So far central banks have managed to achieve almost every goal they set for themselves. Lowering interest rates caused inflation in house prices. QE caused inflation in the stock market. The economists working there aren't stupid, they have every right to pat themselves on the back. Consumer price inflation wasn't really a goal. Their monetary expansion program never involved any consumers. Therefore expecting consumer inflation is very unreasonable.

</comment><comment><USER5> Larry Summers is giving an entire economics lecture on Twitter.</comment>


Creating a sidebar for your GitHub wiki - <AUTHOR> https://help.github.com/articles/creating-a-sidebar/ <comment><AUTHOR> I first saw this here today - [https://github.com/firehol/netdata/wiki/You- should-install-Q...](https://github.com/firehol/netdata/wiki/You-should- install-QoS-on-all-your-servers) and found it very useful, especially for people using GitHub wiki pages to store documentation.</comment>


Steve Wozniak On Apple Security, Employee Termination, and Gray Powell  - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/04/steve-wozniak-on-apple-security-employee-termination-and-gray-powell/ <comment><USER2> This is both absurd and sad at the same time. Also, it shows how little (or not at all) Woz has influence at Apple.

</comment><comment><USER3> Choice quote:

> I did describe this to Steve Jobs the night of the iPad introduction and he > said "so it's no big deal.

If Steven Jobs does not think that firing someone is 'a big deal' then he's a really lousy employer. Firing someone, especially when it is over an issue like this is always a big deal, even if only to the person fired, and you can't just make light of it like that.

<comment><USER4> I believe he's referring to Woz being shown the device being "no big deal", not firing the guy. Of course, this leads to the question of why the guy was still fired... though it's quite possible/likely the firing didn't cross Jobs' desk.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> The Michael Corleone analogy goes far. Apple uses the organized crime / drug dealer method of security: if you do something they don't like they terminate you (pun intended) to scare everyone else into complying.

</comment><comment><USER6> I suppose it refers to this tweet and picture: <http://twitter.com/stevewoz/status/11524252866>

The interesting thing is that this wasn't talked about that much. I remember thinking it was funny that Steve Wozniak would get a 3G on the launch of the wifi-only iPad but didn't think more about it: all versions of the iPad had been presented long before so it was nothing new, just funny that Woz would get an unreleased product on that day.

So, if the engineer did get fired over this, I would have to go with the "culture of fear". Or at least, in this case, it seems that Apple stuck to its policies instead of figuring out the damage done. (which was none)

</comment><comment><USER7> Perhaps he was a job-hopper.

</comment><comment><USER8> wasn't this exact post on gizmodo this morning? edit: oh it appears to be syndicated from them, sorry I wasn't aware of any deal between them

</comment><comment><USER9> cf. <http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2010/04/steve-jobs-porn/></comment>


Ask HN: Should I go full time in my main job? - <AUTHOR> For the past three years I've been working part time (0 hour contract) as a developer while completing my studies. Now that I'm graduating, I have a choice between going full-time or continuing with the current style of contract.
I've been loving the freedom that the 0-hour gives me - and the boost in productivity compared to the 8-hour day - and the possibilities in improving myself in the spared hours. However, considering our current projects, I would still probably keep putting in about 6h/day.
There are benefits in full time as well. If I were to take it, I would gain access to paid holidays (meaning Christmas, Easter etc. I do get actual holidays the same as everyone else) and sick-days, as well as maybe improved guarantees and rights. The company argues that it would be easier to manage the bureaucracy as well as estimate the times for each project.
If anyone has had any experience in a similar choice, or has any opinions either way, it would be most appreciated. <comment><USER2> Random advice from the internet:

Get a full time job and build your professional network and learn from more experienced people and gain experience within a business. Doing what you are doing now is not growing. And since you will be doing _less_ than you are doing now because you will not be in school, it might even be the opposite of growing.

Keep in mind, zero hour contracts have a low net present value. 6/hrs per day should be discounted by the probability that the contract is gone in two months...perhaps without warning and perhaps without final payment.

      And companies that contract with students often
      replace graduating students with current students
      because their practice is Using Student Contractors.

Finally, it makes sense to look at employment opportunities beyond your partner in the current contract. That may vastly increase your professional network, opportunities to learn, and your diversity of business experience.

Good luck.

<comment><USER3> I think 'full time job' is overrated and I've only had one for about 6 weeks since university. On the other hand I have worked some sort of freelancing and startups for 30 years often putting lots of hours and doing what we'd now called 'networking'! And a lot of 'diversity of business experience' too. And I've considered myself to be fireable on a days' notice almost all of that time.

<comment><USER2> My advice is worth, at best, half what I charged.

Thirty years ago, freelancing probably involved more face to face interaction than it does today just because how 300 baud shaped the world of 1987...it was well into the 1990's before the turn-on-your-modem-and-even-or-odd-parity phone conversation became less necessary.

Thirty years ago working on open source projects (an alternative to full time employment proposed in the question) probably meant being part of a small cutting edge community working on something important. Today, the median open source project is one one person repository on Github.

I've also done a lot of freelancing and consulting over the past 25 years. I'd be better at it if I was better at networking because that's much of what consulting is and it suits personalities that are inclined to enjoy networking or feel its importance more than personalities that are not so inclined. It might have been useful to me had someone pointed that out when I was young...though might not have listened.

Anyway, some people consider a zero hour contract with maybe six hours of work per day to be perfect. After 25 years consulting/freelancing/contracting I prefer a big retainer check that has cleared the bank. YMMV.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I'd say do whatever you are comfortable with. If you enjoy your current setup, why change it unless you have to ?</comment>


How the U.K. Prosecuted a Student on Terrorism Charges for Downloading a Book - <AUTHOR> https://theintercept.com/2017/10/28/josh-walker-anarchist-cookbook-terrorism-act-uk/ <comment><USER2> If you don't read the article and think the Intercept is being hyperbolic as they normally are. Rest assured the title is exactly what happened. Walker was charged under terrorism laws not for planning, conspiring, nor performing acts of terrorism. The prosecutor made the argument that possessing the book was an act of terrorism. A book he downloaded from the school library. Also equally available on the Amazon and downloadable from internet since the dawn of the WWW.

<comment><USER3> _If you don't read the article and think the Intercept is being hyperbolic as they normally are. Rest assured the title is exactly what happened._

.. with the minor addition that he was initially arrested upon returning from helping a militia in the Middle East.

<comment><USER4> Though an anti ISIL militia backed by the US, other western nations and Russia.

'The YPG is regarded as the "most effective" force in fighting ISIL in Syria' according to Wikipedia. I dare say Erdogan hates the YPG which is probably why the Brits have to be a bit half hearted in their backing. Got to think of the arms exports after all [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/22/uk-arms- sales-...](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/22/uk-arms-sales-turkey- rights-abuse)

<comment><USER3> That's what I suspect was the reason for the unusual charge.

The powers that be are under pressure to show they're doing "something" about people who come back from fighting in the Middle East but since this wasn't for a terrorist organization, there was no obvious charge. I'd argue it _was_ right for them to search his belongings given the circumstances, but then they decided to try and pin it all on owning the cookbook as that's all they really had.

Not that I think this was the _right_ call for them, but I can see how it might happen, and also why the millions of others who've downloaded the cookbook out of curiosity have not ended up in court.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Well at least he got off free.

>Walker was accused of violating the Terrorism Act because he possessed information "likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism."

What a dumb law. I guess they could prosecute you for reading Wikipedia on that basis.

More concise write up here: [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england- bristol-41751193](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-41751193)

The "possessed information" by the way was The Anarchist Cookbook, available from £24 from Amazon.co.uk [https://www.amazon.co.uk/Anarchist-Cookbook- William-Powell/d...](https://www.amazon.co.uk/Anarchist-Cookbook-William- Powell/dp/1607964813)

<comment><USER5> > The Anarchist Cookbook

I remember this being passed around between kids in the computer science lab on a floppy disk when I was about 13.

<comment><USER6> I vaguely remember something similar going on at my school way back when, though that might have been The Hacker's Handbook. Probably still enough to freak out the authorities these days, yet remarkably, I'm not aware that any of my class went on to become evil masterminds with secret underground lairs.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This stood out for me:

>> It was an issue of "personal responsibility," he said, and it was the government's view that possessing the book was unlawful, because it could be useful to terrorists.

The prosecution claimed it's about personal responsibility while trying to enforce a law that seems to deny people are entitled or able to exercise such a thing.

</comment><comment><USER8> > Last summer, Walker traveled from London to Syria, where he joined the > Kurdish-led YPG militia in its fight against the so-called Islamic State

What a fucking stupid title.

<comment><USER9> How so? The prosecution had nothing to do with syria. That helped his case.

<comment><USER8> The arrest had everything to do with his travel to Syria.

<comment><USER10> What you're arrested for and what you're prosecuted for are really two totally separate issues. Arresting someone who fought in Syria is pretty reasonable. Finding out that they fought for the Western-backed "good guys" is a great reason to drop the charges, which they did.

Charging him for owning a book is what they did too.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> There is a creeping fascism in the western world.

The so-called 'wars' on drugs and terrorism are used as excuses to remove personal freedoms. Governments take more powers unto themselves. The state security apparatus is allowed to spy on everyone. There is a presumption of guilt and citizens have to justify every trivial activity. The previous outlandish fictions of 'Thought Crime' and 'Pre-Crime' become facts of life in the police state.

Cultural Marxism also restricts freedom of speech, based on a combination of PC attitudes and juvenile hypersensitivity, which cannot tolerate the freedom to offend. The Enlightenment ideals of free speech and liberal open-minded rationality, are hounded into a Dark Age of gagged anti-scientific silence by the social justice Thought Police.

Huge debts have been accumulated by social democracies, which are in a spiral of decline induced by people voting for big govt, cushy public-sector jobs, bloated welfare and high taxes. Debts lead to artificially low interest rates to support banks, and QE to monetize govt debt. The corrupt cronies closest to the spigot of new money accumulate wealth (Cantillon Effect). Elites and insiders are bribed with bonuses and asset-price inflation. Voters are bribed with welfare and public sector jobs, many with anti-meritocratic barriers to firing and fantasy pension promises.

These 'wars' and debts combine to justify restrictions on economic freedom. AML and KYC regulations restrict access to financial services and impose de facto capital controls. The governments are broke and they are looking for any source of revenue. The War on Cash restricts economic freedoms. Large denomination notes are withdrawn. There are limits on cash withdrawals, cash deposits and cash purchases. Money is trapped in govt controlled accounts, so it can be taxed, bailed-in and seized at will. In the US, civil asset forfeiture is simply daylight robbery by the state.

Neoconservative war-mongering and the bloated military-industrial-complex consume vast resources and destabilize every corner of the world. Democracy is subverted in favor of corrupt autocrats and interventions are justified by false flag operations. Military hardware finds its way into domestic law enforcement. Monitoring and surveillance from the battlefield migrates to our cities and skies.

The fascism has arrived and it is all around us.

<comment><AUTHOR> Cultural Marxism isn't real. It's a Neo-Nazi conspiracy theory popularized by a right-wing terrorist. If fascism actually has arrived, you played a part in it. Your views on economic and social policies do too but propertarians like you don't understand fascism and reduce it to authoritarianism.

<comment><USER12> Thanks! Countless idiotic commentators who've been led astray. If only you had spoken up earlier we would have seen the truth. What a relief.

<comment><AUTHOR> Your snark doesn't make my comment less true.

<comment><USER13> His snark also does not make your comment true in the first place.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Play framework 2.0 vs 1.x - johnx123-up https://groups.google.com/group/play-framework/browse_thread/thread/ae3b1e61a4d55fc6/626fc494cc34a1b6?#626fc494cc34a1b6

<comment><AUTHOR> Play 2 is probably slower than Play 1 in development mode at present. This may change in the future, but you only need it to be fast enough to reload the page without waiting, so there's no reason to run ab against it. If you run it in production mode, then I believe Play 2 is astoundingly fast.

</comment><comment><USER2> I had so many problems due to bytecode enhancement throwing raging ClassCastExceptions that I'll not even try version 2.

From now, my new projects are in JEE6.

<comment><USER3> Play 2 is not using that "magic" anymore, so you won't hit that problem (which, on the other hand, wasn't 'too' common).

Give it a try. It's worth it, honestly.</comment></comment>


GetJar's Ilja Laurs on choosing the right business model for your app - <AUTHOR> http://www.xconomy.com/san-francisco/2011/04/15/choosing-the-right-business-model-for-your-app/

<comment><USER2> Great perspective and nicely laid out by an exec who knows what he is talking about.</comment>


Node.js getting better in Windows Azure - <AUTHOR> http://codebetter.com/glennblock/2012/06/07/windowsazure-just-got-a-lot-friendlier-to-node-js-developers/

<comment><USER2> Cheers to the Azure team for putting support behind Node.js. I've always felt that the myriad of amazing tools for *nix devs have left Windows devs light- years behind. Even if you don't like Node.js, this bodes well for Windows as development platform beyond .NET.

<comment><USER3> I gotta say, I'm pretty impressed with how Microsoft go in for supporting all these relatively new technologies on their own stack. Considering what they've done in the past.

<comment><USER4> It's easy to forget that MS is made up of real people too--people who go home and boot up a Mac and code in Ruby in their spare time. Genuine change is happening at MS from the inside. MS knows it can't afford to lose the mindshare battle in the youth.</comment></comment></comment>


Don't Use "MVP" as an Excuse to Write Bad Software - <AUTHOR> http://thepracticaldev.com/@ben/dont-use-mvp-as-an-excuse-to-write-bad-software <comment><USER2> I've got a decent amount of respect for anyone who gets off their arse and writes; it's not nothing.

That said; this article presents a narrow view which can be misleading.

Technical debt and "bad code" are entirely different, and conflating the two is a mistake.

You can argue that technical debt is "bad"... and for developers who spend a lot of time with high-certainty areas of software I'd absolutely agree. But, at the other end of the spectrum you'd be more wrong than right.

The value of technical debt is in delivering early in order to learn more about the business you're trying to be. It's hard to overstate how valuable that is, because while you can put a cash value on the hours of work done you can't put a cash value on missing your window.</comment>