Ask HN: Any programmers with long arms? - <AUTHOR> Responding to an old thread by @tboyd47 on May 1, 2017: Yes, I have long arms and most desk/keyboard setups don't work for me because my elbows are nearly at my hips.  In regards to armrests, I recieved an ergonomic assessment through my employer and found out that it's better not to have them at all. I've solved the issue of "parallel arms" by making sure that I have a sliding keyboard tray mounted under my desk that nearly sits my lap. I've also gotten a standing desk, and but have to move my keyboard into the lower tray when I transition to sitting. Anyone else out there with "long arm" issues? <comment><USER2> Wow, I can't believe you took the time to reply to a question of mine from _two years ago_!

Ultimately I ended up with the same solution. The keyboard tray under the desk made a huge difference. You have to sit as if you're riding on horseback to really make that work.

<comment><USER3> > You have to sit as if you're riding on horseback to really make that work

Well then, we have JUST the thing for you here in Japan, a rodeo dieting machine!

[https://www.amazon.co.jp/gp/product/B073QGLP1F/](https://www.amazon.co.jp/gp/product/B073QGLP1F/)

<comment><USER2> That looks funny, but really you'll want something like this drafting stool:

[https://images.globalindustrial.com/images/275x275/NOS_B1691...](https://images.globalindustrial.com/images/275x275/NOS_B1691-CS.jpg)

Notice the height and the circular foot bar around the base. Hooking your feet underneath the seat pushes your center of gravity under your trunk, allowing you to sit in a balanced, relaxed posture with a straight back at the edge of your seat (important to prevent your legs from falling asleep).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I got a desk where the table surface is about 24 inches off the ground. I thought I'd have to build one, but found an electronic standing desk that would go low enough. I keep the table as near to my knees height as possible. The desk can raise if wanted for standing. I also remove arm rests or, with my current chair, flip them up.

Edit: oh, also I use the classic Microsoft ergonomic keyboard.

</comment><comment><USER5> I have slightly long arms and I ended up with similar solutions. Now instead of a tray I just lower my desk to almost touch my legs. These days I don't use armrests although at IBM they gave me an ergonomic chair and I pivoted the armrests outward and lowered them so that only my elbows rested on them; this looked strange but it was comfortable.

<comment><AUTHOR> I envy that you have a desk that can go lower!

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> If you also have long legs, have you tried raising both your chair and your monitor so you're sitting higher relative to the desk? (I'm short, so I have the not quite opposite problem of desks being too high when sitting with the chair low enough for feet to be flat on the floor. The solution was a sit- stand desk with a very low minimum height.)

<comment><AUTHOR> I don't have particularly long legs. I usually need a higher chair to have the correct desk height, and then also need a foot rest, lol.

<comment><USER6> yup, then you don't have long arms, it's just that most desks are too high for computer work unless you're super tall. Can you get a lower desk?

<comment><AUTHOR> Proportionately they are -- my wingspan is a little longer than my height (my physical therpapist calls this my "ape index", ha!). If you look at the typical ergnomic desk setup (like this one: [https://airawear.com/wp- content/uploads/2016/12/1-desk-heigh...](https://airawear.com/wp- content/uploads/2016/12/1-desk-height-v2.png)) my desk would basically have to be in my lap to be elbow height, which is why I need the hanging keyboard tray. I would love a lower desk, or one that lowers! But not possible right now...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Try a split keyboard. For me the problem is that my arms come in at a high angle horizontally to meet at the keyboard, and my wrists try to correct. Split the keyboard and you no longer have that constraint.

<comment><AUTHOR> That's actually a good call! I just inherited something that's not quite a split keyboard -- it's one of those "ergonomic" keyboards from a colleague who left, and it basically forces my elbows out so that I can still keep my traps relaxed & wrists straight, even when my keyboard is higher than I would typically have it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Look into Marfans related and CTDs.

My elbows nearly reach my hips and I cannot use chairs with arms or desks that are "normal" height.

<comment><AUTHOR> Interesting...! I have some "hints" of some of these symptoms (including fatigue), but believe I still fall within the normal range. I'm 5'5", and I think my wingspan is slightly over 5'6". Thanks for the awareness.</comment></comment>


When Did Americans Stop Marrying Cousins? Ask the World's Largest Family Tree - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/01/science/cousins-marriage-family-tree.html <comment><USER2> The Economist had a special report on marriage a few months back with a bit on cousin marriage around the world. They had an interesting conclusion.

> Two academics, Bilal Barakat and Stuart Gietel-Basten, point out that when > women usually have five surviving children, a woman can expect to have 25 > male cousins. When the average number of children falls to two, that same > woman will have just three male cousins, some or all of whom might be > younger than she is, and thus ineligible as marriage partners. The marriage > squeeze will be even tighter in cultures that insist, for example, that a > woman marry not any old cousin but her father's brother's son. Eventually, > cousin marriage will be crushed not by medics but by mathematics

[https://www.economist.com/news/special- report/21731490-pract...](https://www.economist.com/news/special- report/21731490-practice-cousin-marriage-doomed-consanguineous-marriages-are- declining)

<comment><USER3> Interesting! I'd never thought of cousin availability as a factor.

But....is it actually possible to average much over 2 children for very long? I mean, that's a population boom.

<comment><USER4> Definitely yes. Pretty much the case throughout most human history. Somewhat countered by the high rate of infant/children death though.

<comment><USER5> But not much more than 2 children surviving through marriage age. That would mean a total population explosion in less than a century. Definitely wasn't ever the norm: population used to be more or less constant through mid-XVIII century.

<comment><USER6> Side comment, but using Roman numerals to indicate century is completely bizarre to me.

<comment><USER7> It seems to be a thing in various continental European regions. I'm most familiar with seeing it done in French. From Wikipedia:

>Capital or small capital Roman numerals are widely used in Romance languages to denote centuries, e.g. the French xviiie siècle[26] and the Spanish siglo XVIII mean "18th century". Slavic languages in and adjacent to Russia similarly favour Roman numerals (XVIII век). On the other hand, in Slavic languages in Central Europe, like most Germanic languages, one writes "18." (with a period) before the local word for "century".

<comment><USER4> And the famous Mexican beer Dos Equis gets its name because it was created in 1897 and was celebrating the soon to be 20th century (XX, Dos Equis in Spanish).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> My grandpa married his second cousin, it was already frowned upon in 1935 but not unheard of. One improvement factor was transportation - the bicycle was invented not much before, and it was expensive. But a bike or a train ticket allowed you to know people beyond the rural village you lived. It's been even said that the inventor of the bicycle was the 2nd greatest feminist, because he improved the availability of suitable grooms, nobody needed to marry the violent moron next plantation anymore.

<comment><USER9> Queen Elizabeth married her first cousin from one side and second from the other. Not frowned upon in certain circles...

<comment><USER10> Royalty is literally defined by marrying into your own family — essentially all royal families in Europe are a single large family with varying degrees of chin and haemophilia :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> There's a much bigger and longer story than this. Roughly speaking, it's my understanding that the catholic church suppressed this in Europe from roughly 1000 years ago, essentially as a way to counter alternative power centres.

Here's a famous article about Iraq, where this did not happen:

[http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/cousin- marri...](http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/cousin-marriage- conundrum/)

Here's a discussion of a recent paper:

[http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2018/01/mar...](http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2018/01/marrying- cousin-bad-democracy.html)

<comment><USER12> I think that someone could write a very reasonable sounding evolutionary psychology article about why the guiding hand of natural selection intervened and stopped cousin marriage due to higher rates of genetic abnormalities. However, in this case they'd be wrong in that the Catholic Church intervened directly and conciously and put a stop to cousin marriage.

Finding out that a phenomenon is not due to evolutionary psychology requires careful historical research and that's hard work. Making up evolutionary psychology ideas though takes no time and can make for a great clickbait article.

<comment><USER11> It seems clear evolution has uniformly negative opinions of brother-sister couples.

But cousins are more interesting, because the biological downside of having some ill (or just thick) grandkids must be balanced against the upside of having a tight clan, without divided allegiances, to fight off other clans.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> A friend reported going to the wedding of German first cousins who married. The groom opened his speech with, "just in case you're still wondering, yes it's legal".

No, they were not the British royal family.

And apparently it was quite an uncomfortable moment.

I relate the story as something which would have been quite normal once, whilst legal now, is fairly taboo. I'm not sure why, although obviously feel and appreciate the taboo.

<comment><USER14> > _I 'm not sure why_

Taboo because we discovered heredity. Legal because this isn't prevalent enough to merit national attention.

<comment><USER15> No, we've understood heredity for a very long time, and sex between siblings or between parents and children has always been a taboo. Cousin marriage, however, is not particularly harmful ([https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/animals-and- us/201210/t...](https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/animals-and- us/201210/the-problem-incest)).

The real reason we stopped marrying cousins is:

1\. We started to live in large cities instead of on farms and ranches. ([https://www.census.gov/population/censusdata/table-4.pdf](https://www.census.gov/population/censusdata/table-4.pdf))

2\. We could reasonably travel more than 10 miles from home in a day.

In other words, we used to marry cousins because it was too difficult to find better prospects.

<comment><USER16> "The real reason we stopped marrying cousins is:..."

Perhaps in the majority groups in the West. Certain communities in the UK still widely practice cousin marriage and suffer hugely in genetic abnormalities. They are not constrained by transport, it is a cultural thing that has not yet been updated.

<comment><USER17> [http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england- leeds-23183102](http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leeds-23183102)

[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1392217/Muslim- outra...](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1392217/Muslim-outrage- professor-Steve-Jones-warns-inbreeding-risks.html)

It's noteworthy that it's simultaneously socially unacceptable to criticize Pakistanis for their preference for first cousin marriages, despite the undeniable harm caused by it, and yet it's also socially unacceptable for whites to have the much less incestuous preference for just marrying other whites, despite the absence of harm:

[http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/201...](http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/04/okcupid_and_race_is_it_racist_to_date_only_people_of_your_own_race.html)

<comment><USER18> The first article you link to is a BBC news article that says exactly what you claim it is socially unacceptable to say. In the second article, the only people getting outraged are those who've been referred to as "inbred". You can hardly expect them to take kindly to that description.

<comment><USER17> [https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/591577/British- Pakistanis-...](https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/591577/British- Pakistanis-13-times-more-disabled-children)

> Baroness Flather said because of 'inbreeding', members of the ethnic group > are 13 TIMES more likely than the rest of the UK population to have disabled > children.

> The Pakistan-born peer has called on the Government to take steps against > the issue of unions between close relatives in Muslim communities, which she > called an "outdated, un-British custom".

...

> She also accused Britain of a "cowardly reluctance to tackle damaging social > practices within certain ethnic minorities".

> In what has been described as a brave attempt to break a taboo she said > _there was a fear of "accusations of racial prejudice" which has made the > issue "unsayable"._

> She added: "That is certainly what happened over the disgraceful sex- > grooming scandal in Rotherham, in which the civic authorities, including the > police and social services, tried to cover up the systematic abuse of more > than 1,400 vulnerable girls by predatory gangs of Pakistani heritage men."

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> While isolated instances of first cousin marriage aren't especially harmful, contrary to what some comments here suggest, if done across successive generations, these unions can produce a catastrophic unmasking of harmful recessive alleles, and the nations with the highest rates of consanguineous marriages also often have the highest rates of birth defects (see p. 22): [https://www.marchofdimes.org/materials/global-report-on- birt...](https://www.marchofdimes.org/materials/global-report-on-birth- defects-the-hidden-toll-of-dying-and-disabled-children-full-report.pdf)

However, while the dangers of inbreeding depression are common knowledge, it's worth pointing out that outbreeding depression exists as well. Where lies the ideal balance between these two extremes? Surprisingly, it appears to be marriages between third or fourth cousins, if you use fecundity as a proxy for general offspring health: [https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080207140855.h...](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080207140855.htm)

A third or fourth cousin is a person with whom you share first cousin grandparents or great grandparents--essentially a distant relative, or simply put, someone of your own "race," which is quite at odds with the "hybrid vigor" claims often made to tout interracial marriage. Apparently just marrying any old white person (if you're white) gives you all the hybrid vigor your offspring need.

</comment><comment><USER19> I have some doubt that the generations are that cleanly separated when doing genealogy. The if nothing else the youngest and oldest children of a couple can be 20+ years apart. The same person could easily show up as someones great grandparent (3) and their great great grandparent (4).

<comment><USER20> In high school I sometimes hung out with a friend and his uncle. The uncle was two years younger than us.

<comment><USER21> I have an aunt that's two weeks younger than I. Another aunt from that same mother is only six or seven years older than I. The fact that my Mom got started young with me is a contributing factor.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> TL;DR:

It wasn't until after 1875 that partners started to become less and less related.

<comment><USER23> Reminds me of something I read about that in the 1970's.

Mostly people married someone born 10 miles from them. Suddenly steam ships and railroads came.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> It was the invention of the automobile that made it possible to stop marrying cousins.</comment>


Ask HN: What do you think this recession means for Finance Dev/Quant roles? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> It will depend entirely upon your employer and their relative proximity to a critical portion of financial infrastructure. An entire large financial firm can go completely belly up if you remember Lehman Brothers from just a decade ago. If you work in banking where the bank in question provides significant financial infrastructure you will probably be just fine if you remember AIG from the same period.</comment>


President Obama Proposes Reforms To Surveillance Programs - <AUTHOR> http://npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/08/09/210539942/live-blog-president-obamas-press-conference <comment><USER2> Too little, too late.

It's not just whether or not the President believes the programs are being abused _now_ , it should be about whether or not they are ripe for abuse now or in the future (which they clearly are).

</comment><comment><USER3> I think it was Judge Judy who said it.

If a person has lied to you once, you can be sure that the person will be capable of lying to you again.

</comment><comment><USER4> Just like when I see a CEO start taking away the free soda, I believe he saw this coming. With the amount of money, people, and secrecy put into these programs, eventual scandal was the only possible outcome. Now he has enough political capitol to change things, for better or worse.

I expect to be down voted for my opinion, but what are fake internet points worth if you don't spend them on something you believe in.

</comment><comment><USER5> Despite the disappointment that a lot of us felt over the accomplishments of Obama throughout his presidency, he really had plenty of chance to get out in front of this one. However, what we got instead was the perfect illustration of just how much of a politician's politican he really is, and how nothing that comes out of his mouth reflect anything other than whichever way the wind happens to be blowing today. I'm sorry Obama, but your greatest legacy will be nothing more than the illustration of just how impotent democracy is in the media age.

</comment><comment><USER6> These actually sound like good measures. I'm not convinced they will be sufficient, however; in particular, many of Americans (myself included) are now highly skeptical that the government will actually be following its own rules instead of abusive, secret reinterpretations thereof. These reforms coupled with something that addresses _that_ , I might accept (but don't hold me to that...).

</comment><comment><USER7> Goodness, that's hard to read. I don't think much of 'live blogging.'

The wSJ also has a report on this: [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142412788732452250457900...](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324522504579002653564348842.html) As I've predicted before, even the mention of reform was met with swift condemnation from both junior and senior Republicans.

As a matter of pure _realpolitik_ , I don't expect any significant progress on reform before fall of 2014, when the US has finished withdrawing military forces from Afghanistan. As C-in-C, the President has to pay as much attention to the safety of troops in the field as to the (often inchoate) concerns of the domestic electorate.

</comment><comment><USER8> What a sham. "Oversight and transparency" is not good enough. The government kicks you in the teeth and then lies about it, now they promise next time not to lie about it. Anyone else feel underwhelmed?

Oversight and transparency are a big pile of nothing if all it means in practice is that government officials engaged in unjustifiable surveillance have to work in pairs to "oversee" each other. The government should not be engaged in mass surveillance. How about you identify a specific suspect and get a warrant, Mr. President.

> "America is not interested in spying on ordinary people," Obama said.

"America" is not interested in spying on ordinary people, the trouble is the NSA seems quite keen on it.

> Obama said his administration and the NSA is only interested in preventing > another terror attack.

> "We do not have an interest in doing anything other than that," Obama said.

For example, no interest in providing exculpatory evidence to those they falsely accused. That seems fair, right?

</comment><comment><USER9> If they're going to actually reform the surveillance programs they're going to have to declassify ALL of them first. otherwise this is just a propagandic, empty gesture.

</comment><comment><USER10> _Even without the leaks, [Obama] added, the U.S. government would have made the reforms he was proposing,_

Pull the other one, Mr. President.

<comment><USER11> He is making a fool of himself.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Pure PR move. He will lose next elections anyway.

</comment><comment><USER13> Snowden cannot be guilty of treason AND the program needs reform. Obama needs to choose one.

</comment><comment><USER14> I, too, propose reforms to surveillance programs. My proposal will have about as much impact as his.

</comment><comment><USER15> As I listened to him speak today I realized that he may not understand the technology the NSA is using or how it could be surreptitiously abused. No man can be an expert in everything and his background as a law professor probably didn't include the necessary study. So he relies on the experts in his circle who are telling him what he is repeating to us; that no Americans are being spied on. Of course he believes all his people are honest and have the highest integrity so why shouldn't he believe them? It's not the first time and not the last the a President has been duped by his own people.

</comment><comment><USER16> The cryptographic announcement to president Obama's announcement is snake oil.

OK, snake oil is probably not recognizable as such for a politician …

<comment><USER16> Sorry for the typo, 'announcement' should of course be 'equivalent'.

It would be interesting to see whether the down vote resulted from English language nazis or Obama fanboys … ;)

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> The reason Obama Administration is pissed at Snowden is not because he leaked so-called "secrets", but because he exposed the "man behind the curtain". That is to say: Obama is no different than any mainstream Republican would have been.

I voted for Obama twice; and in 2008, when the race against McCain was tight, I spent many weekends in Reno and Northern NV, campaigning, pounding the pavement, going door-to-door in the heat.

And I will be cancelling my Democratic membership. I urge all of you to do so too (Democrat or Republican). It is clear that neither of the two parties are interested in our rights. Democrats like Feinstein and Pelosi are war mongers; and Republicans are merely a shadow of their so-called ideals. Republicans are also to blame, because they go out of their way to push for such things. Look at the Republican braying after Benghazi; they will take even the slightest setback to go after Democrats as weak on terror. And the Democrats are more than happy to oblige by bringing in a police state.

Please: the only way to bring about change is to _stop_ voting for either party, and to actively campaign against them. We are lucky: we have 15 months to go before the next election. Let's get some third-party candidates in the House!

<comment><USER18> For reference, the BEST solution to the two-party system is RANGE VOTING: [http://rangevoting.org/](http://rangevoting.org/) Don't waste your time trying to do anything against the two parties until we get that in place.

<comment><USER19> So don't do anything to unseat the two major parties until the two major parties pass a constitutional amendment making unseating them possible?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> >I don't think Mr. Snowden is a patriot," Obama said, adding that Snowden had legal means to bring his concerns to light.

Such as voicing his concerns to a superior, getting his clearance revoked just because, and then ranting in a blog, just to have his accusations denied with weasel words by the administration? [EDIT] Or just dismissed in a press conference as paranoia from a lunatic?

>Even without the leaks, he added, the U.S. government would have made the reforms he was proposing, except it would have done so without sacrificing national security.

How did Snowden sacrifice national security?

<comment><USER21> Snowden improved national security by informing the American public about the activities of its most dangerous enemy.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> "Obama added that he was directing the Justice Department to make public the legal rational for the bulk collection of Americans' electronic data."

This would never have happened without Snowden, It's absurd to claim he is not a whistleblower. I have lost so much respect for this president in the last few months.

<comment><USER2> Exactly. The utter lack of commitment to principle (i.e.: defend whistleblowers) is absolutely disheartening. It's made worse by the mental gymnastics to claim that Snowden is not a whistleblower.

Hope and change? Where and when do we get those?

<comment><USER23> [http://treeofmamre.wordpress.com/2013/06/12/obamas-new- sloga...](http://treeofmamre.wordpress.com/2013/06/12/obamas-new-slogan-yes- we-scan/yes_we_scan/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> > "I don't think Mr. Snowden is a patriot," Obama said, adding that Snowden > had legal means to bring his concerns to light.

> Even without the leaks, he added, the U.S. government would have made the > reforms he was proposing, except it would have done so without sacrificing > national security.

Complete and utter bullshit.

<comment><USER25> What's funny is that I think he's right in the first case and wrong in the second.

I don't seriously believe that _these_ reforms would have been proposed without external pressure, and Snowden provided that pressure in a forum unlike Drake, who had done the right thing.

With that said I don't think Snowden is a "patriot". He may be anti- surveillance, which may extend benefit to the American people, but his actions are not consistent with someone who is focused more-or-less solely on benefit to the American people, but rather someone who is opposed to government in general and the NSA in particular.

For instance, leaking details of Chinese hacking does not help the American people. It hurts the NSA and makes the American government look bad, but it doesn't help the American people. Likewise with all the drama about asylum with regard to Russia. He put Obama in the position of being forced to cancel a summit with Putin to avoid looking politically weak at home.

But Russia and the U.S. have real issues they need to work together on, which will have an impact on the world at large. That drama didn't help the American people either (and we'll see what happens with the crisis in Syria as well). But it did help make the American government look bad, along with Snowden personally.

<comment><USER24> > For instance, leaking details of Chinese hacking does not help the American > people. It hurts the NSA and makes the American government look bad, but it > doesn't help the American people.

Assuming that this is true, the net effect of Snowden's leaks (including revealing the extent to which we live in a surveillance state) is _way_ in the positive.

> Likewise with all the drama about asylum with regard to Russia. He put Obama > in the position of being forced to cancel a summit with Putin to avoid > looking politically weak at home.

Well, a) he can't just avoid seeking asylum because it is inconvenient for the figurehead of the state pursuing him (what?), and b) the "drama" is a product of the United State's sensationalist news.

<comment><USER25> > Assuming that this is true, the net effect of Snowden's leaks (including > revealing the extent to which we live in a surveillance state) is way in the > positive.

Perhaps, but only by the same logic under which supply-side and 'trickle-down' economics is expected to succeed.

> a) he can't just avoid seeking asylum because it is inconvenient for the > figurehead of the state pursuing him (what?)

Sure he could. Many "patriots" did things at risk to their liberty because they believed it was the right thing for their country.

He _chooses not to_ because asylum is better for him personally. That's certainly his choice to make, but it's not the 'patriotic' choice.

> b) the "drama" is a product of the United State's sensationalist news.

When did the Guardian become a U.S. news outlet?

<comment><USER26> You make no sense. He couldn't be seeking asylum over the risk to his liberty if he hadn't done something at risk to his liberty.

<comment><USER25> Nations don't approve asylum based _only_ on risk to liberty of a person.

For instance, let's say that HN decided President Obama is guilty of treason to the American people, and actually convince Congress to impeach him. Under your idea the President would be able to flee to Russia due to the threat to his liberty, and Russia would be obligated to accept him due to the threat to his liberty. _That_ is what makes no sense.

<comment><USER26> I'll admit that you managed to make even less sense there than in your previous comment, which is impressive.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Don't monetize to cover costs - <AUTHOR> http://blog.aisleten.com/2010/02/25/dont-monetize-to-cover-costs/ <comment><USER2> It's a good essay, and while I totally agree with "don't just slap adsense on there," for some people monetization _is_ the hobby, or at least part of it, and even if it isn't there's nothing inherently wrong with putting up ads.

Being prescriptive and saying "don't try to cover your costs" is a little like saying "don't click coupons" or "don't shop at sales" if you're buying stuff you like but don't need. To go back to your baseball analogy, sure, you won't put ads on your jersey, but you very well might agree to store the bats and helmets at your place in exchange for the team waiving your fee. Why is it wrong for people to take a generally accepted method and save a few bucks if they want?

<comment><AUTHOR> A good point. In my experience, if you're going to do anything more than AdSense, it will require a decent time and effort investment. Building the infrastructure to allow people to give you money is surprisingly difficult. If you're only trying to get a couple bucks a month, then the ROI may be worthwhile for learning, but horrible otherwise.

Browsing and clipping coupons takes maybe 20 minutes. If you can get a monetization scheme set up for your site in that time, then it's totally a great idea. I'd kill for something that could be monetized that fast.

That might make a good article: How to monetize in less than 1 hour. I'd definitely read it if someone were to write that up.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I think that people use "covering (negligible) costs" as a euphemism for trying to businessify their side-project. Covering these low costs would be the first, modest goal in trying to convert the project to a business anyway. If they instead told their friends or web-colleagues that they're trying to grow their web-trinket into a viable business, they'd probably be criticized and made fun of and ultimately talked out of the idea. So instead they talk about "covering costs," and it's pretty much a low-investment, no-risk way of experimenting with making something a business.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah, I can see your point. Covering costs is definitely a milestone that I look toward when monetizing, but only as a first step on the climb toward profitability.

<comment><USER3> Likewise, I don't disagree with your point that some things should remain non- monetized side-projects.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I agree with the general sentiment (don't deface your hobbyist site with ads until you want to seriously monetize it) but I disagree with his solution. He basically advocates "just suck it up -- $100 / month is not that much."

To many people that is a ton of money. A better solution would be to

a) switch to something like Google App Engine which will not charge you a dime until you are serving millions of pages a month.

b) ask a buddy to let you put the site on one of their under utilized servers (this is what I do for my startup, even though we run through terabytes of bandwidth per month)

c) ask a company to sponsor you. Many companies have a plethora of unused servers and would be happy to donate some of that to someone in need.

d) ask the community for donations. I bet you could scrounge up enough to cover hosting, especially if the community realizes that the alternative is ads.

If all of that fails, then go ahead and fallback on adsense - at least you tried.

<comment><AUTHOR> I've updated the post to include your ideas, except for the App Engine one. My only disagreement with it is that it only applies to Python and Java, right?

Anyways, thanks for sharing your ideas.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> "The only reason to monetize a web project is if you intend to make serious money."

Err, or maybe you just want to break even. If user's find what you're doing interesting or useful, they'll put up with an advertisement or two.

</comment><comment><USER6> I have a bunch of sites, and I don't think that the world is owed them on my dime. If they get free content, they'll have to learn to cope with a small ad at the side of the page.

<comment><USER7> And the guys who really care have an ad-blocker anyway.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> The author here is responding to my comment in another thread:

      http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1146091

I was asking how I could approach making money with my group's hobby MUD, at least to cover server costs, and I had various concerns about how that would affect our team of volunteers as well as our players.

I think the response is reasonable, but I also agree with other comments here that said that the "covering server costs" is the first milestone towards hauling in some more serious money. If we can get at least that far, indicating that the Dark Mists community has interest in supporting its growth, we can then look into some expansion.

For example, we are in need of interested developers who are not about to run off with the source code to host their own MUD or use for their characters' and friends' characters' benefits, as has happened to us in the past on several occasions. A little legal support would be nice.

I recognize that the trust factor is its own ballgame and indicative of the management as well as the community. Every online project has to figure out how to handle these kinds of issues. I am not sure if it is harder with the project being an RPG, since you have to keep a large number of secrets in order to allow your Explorer player enjoy the game.

<comment><AUTHOR> I was unaware you had a larger goal than covering costs. If you want more, then it's a different ballgame. Just don't be afraid to own up to your goal of making money. It's OK to have a hobby that makes no money, and likewise, it's OK to have a project that you want to monetize.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Even with very moderate traffic, if your website has the right audience you can use Google Adsense to cover your hosting costs quite easily, without ruining the experience. I have a _single page_ web site (driven by a Rails service) where I am able to cover all of my hosting costs, across several providers, because AdSense returns a $3 CPM for me.

Could I afford to keep the site up without it? Yes. But why? Having AdSense on the site takes zero incremental work after the initial setup.

</comment><comment><USER10> You could find alternative ways to cover your hosting costs. I'm covering all hosting for <http://wasitup.com> with referrals (245 pending at the moment) I've gotten for people signing up to Linode after I wrote this performance comparison of VPS providers: <http://journal.uggedal.com/vps-performance- comparison>

<comment><AUTHOR> That makes perfect sense for wasitup (which I use and like, by the way). Good idea.</comment></comment>