Destroy the soil and we all starve - <AUTHOR> http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/25/treating-soil-like-dirt-fatal-mistake-human-life <comment><USER2> In the United States articles have been bemoaning the loss of our topsoil since the 1930s. They seem to follow a template. We need our soil; we'll die without it. Then explaining the rate we're losing it at; how much we have left, finishing with dire warnings.

My parents were farmers. We haven't depended on topsoil to fill our collective larder since those 1930s. We add nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, and various minor minerals.

Nitrogen made from and by the petroleum industry. We use it to grow corn, a heavy feeder, turn that corn into a gasoline additive and pretend it's green. Phosphates are dug from the ground a few miles from where I live by giant drag lines. We use petrochemicals to compensate for massive mono-cropping and now we have gene-splicing. The soil? It's just a grow medium for petro-food.

Anyone who still pretends our modern cornucopia is the fruit of the soil is being willfully ignorant.

<comment><USER3> I believe that erosion is a bigger issue than loss of nutrients.

For example, Iowa has lost an estimated 10 inches of topsoil in the last 150 years. There are only six inches left. Dust-covered bedrock does not make good farmland.

<comment><USER2> I am definitely not a fan of our current system, but your post illustrates the problem. Under that topsoil is meters of subsoil before the bedrock. The current agri-corps can continue to play the chemistry set game with our food for another century or more if we let them. The rise of "Roundup Ready" crops is helping to eradicate the monarch butterfly. Multiple articles about the plight of the honeybee have been posted to HN. These are externalities to their profits unless and until we change that.

<comment><USER4> > The rise of "Roundup Ready" crops is helping to eradicate the monarch > butterfly.

This is true, but it's significantly less direct than the news stories have indicated. The issue is that Roundup is being used to eliminate milkweed, which are essential for monarch butterflies. It's not Roundup or Roundup Ready crops that are harming monarch butterflies, but what they're being used to eliminate.

<comment><USER5> I'm all for correcting oversimplified news stories, but I don't understand why you call this "significantly less direct". As far as I can see, it's exactly one step less direct, i.e. as close as you can get without killing them directly. As you say, milkweed is essential for them. It's literally the only plant this species lays its eggs upon.

<comment><USER4> It's significantly less direct because Roundup has no effect on the Monarch butterflies. The issue is the way it's being used by farmers. If it were not being used to eliminate milkweed, there would be no effect whatsoever on the butterfly populations. We would have the same problem with absolutely any other herbicide.

<comment><USER6> Or if milkweed were replanted in other areas still within the Monarchs' path but not mixed in with the crops. Many towns have butterfly gardens, but something on a larger scale would work too.

<comment><USER4> I wonder what kind of scale you would need to make this work? I'd be curious to see numbers on it, and whether or not it's feasible; definitely a great option if so!

<comment><USER5> In any case, it doesn't hurt to try and grow some milkweed in one's own yard, which many of us in my area do.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Probably one of the most boring and most important problems in the world. Not enough is being done to address these issues, mostly because it would threaten huge commercial farms.

I suspect that the number of farmers is going to grow very substantially in the next 20-50 years as people recognize that you can't steward 1000 acres all by yourself.

The practical limit of how many people an acre of land can support is driven almost entirely by how many people are working it. There's the upper limit on inbound sunlight of course, but that's a pretty high limit relative to what industrial agribusiness is doing these days.

<comment><USER8> I don't understand your comment.

>The practical limit of how many people an acre of land can support is driven almost entirely by how many people are working it.

Does that not imply that loss of soil will not result in starvation, just the need for more farmers?

Do you agree or disagree with, "Destroy the soil and we all starve"?

<comment><USER7> I totally agree with the statement.

If you can have 2x as many people work on a piece of land and get 2x the production from it (relative to industrial agribusiness) that's very interesting.

That means that the limit for how much food we can get is due to the number of farmers, not the amount of acres. And the idea that we could ruin 20-30% of the farmland in the world and still recover is very encouraging, because you can make up for that kind of loss by simply increasing the number of farmers and production would go up more than enough to make up for it.

Also even once land is "ruined" it's still not ruined forever. It just takes some years of rest and rehabilitation before it is fertile again. You can grow peanuts to fix nitrogen. You can plant grass and graze cattle on it for several years to fix large amounts of biomass into the land and kickstart the process of renewal.

Medieval farmers knew about this and they had a "two field" system where they farmed one field and left the other fallow. Eventually they figured out that 50% rest wasn't strictly necessary and went to the three field system where a field got 33% rest. Right now most farmland gets 0% rest which is part of the problem.

Lets suppose that there are diminishing returns to adding farmers. Eventually you run into the limits of sunlight of course. But if most farmland is only 10% efficient and lets say that quadrupling the number of farmers per acre only triples production. By teaching people to be farmers and to manage their land very jealously we could have well over half the fields in recovery all the time and still have enough food.

<comment><USER6> > That means that the limit for how much food we can get is due to the number > of farmers, not the amount of acres

I think a pretty serious limit would be that most plants need space, you can only fit a limited number of a crop in an acre and after a certain (fairly low) point having more farmers would not help anything.

<comment><USER7> Agreed, but industrial agribusiness is predicated on huge automation and the idea that one farmer can farm hundred or thousands of acres. That's an efficient use of labor, but not of acres. We might be getting to the point that land is more valuable than labor and thus it makes sense to spend more human effort per acre than in the past.

Here are people in LA that grow a huge amount of food in their backyard, 1/10 of an acre: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCmTJkZy0rM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCmTJkZy0rM)

Here's a guy in Canada that makes a legit living urban farming 1/3 of an acre: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TnCIlq0KPw0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TnCIlq0KPw0)

There are tons of additional examples on youtube of other people doing very similar things.

The point, though, is that it's very intensive on a labor per acre basis. You can't do this kind of farming with big tractors over thousands of acres with just a few people, you need several people per acre for it to work. But it does work!

Yes there is a limit eventually, but the point isn't as low as you think.

<comment><USER6> The LA example is interesting, I'd be interested in seeing a more detailed breakdown of what exactly they grew because pounds of food aren't exactly fungible (a pound of lettuce has 77 calories, a pound of potatoes has ~350).

From some back of the napkin math, it seems that current farming techniques yield about 50,000 pounds of potatoes per acre, so on the 1/10 acre scale in terms of vegetable matter they outpace the LA farm (though this will vary by crop. It might make more sense to compare calories per acre).

I think you have a point, it's certainly worth looking into whether the gains from more labor-intensive farming are greater than the cost of labor when adopted en masse.

<comment><USER7> It might also make sense to look at it from a gallons of fuel per acre too. Even if you only break even in terms of production, if you can eliminate the reliance on diesel and all the compromises that must be made there might be substantial wins nonetheless.

For example as farming gets more labor intensive you can do things like cut steps into a hill to stop erosion or to till and plant always perpendicular to the slope of the hill so that there aren't any easy channels for runoff to head downhill.

I've read that in the US there are 9 calories of fuel in every 1 calorie of food delivered to the table. In other places around the world, it's more like 1 calorie of fuel to every 1 calorie of food.

In other words, many places are turning fuel directly into food on a 1:1 basis. It takes us 9 times as much fuel to make food, which is pretty friggin awful.

If you don't mind that he's an outspoken, right-wing, traditional Christian kinda guy Joel Salatin has some very interesting ideas about getting a lot of use out of land with very, very little fuel and not much feed input. Here's one video but there are tons more in the sidebar: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13i1ZUovj6Y](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13i1ZUovj6Y)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I think this point is moot.

Degradation of soil - or specifically - the ability of topsoil to retain enough nutrients to support agriculture - is not the primary problem we are facing today.

The key issues are -

#1 Reclamation of fertile land for housing the burgeoning population is the largest reason for declining food production - which in turn leads to the increasing use of chemical fertilizers for enhanced yield from the same or reduced available land.

#2 The % of population engaged in agriculture as compared to pure consumers of agricultural produce. This is perhaps what msandford meant. The net number of agricultural workers 'producers' is rapidly declining due to higher yield 'jobs' off farm. This impacts output/acre significantly.

However the ceiling for human resource in farming is pretty low. Perhaps we need to look at a metric like Man month/unit of produce.

The need of the hour is to change the basic value chain. Consumers have no stake in (and dont care about) the production or the land itself.

Farmers are being marginalized by increasing land prices/roi on selling farmland for other purposes.

Landowners/Bulk Consumers are driven by volumes - not necessarily by sustainability. This is like strip mining.

Perhaps a new platform is required to realign the value chain. The above is particularly true for India - which will also be one of the hardest hit - earliest.

<comment><USER10> > The % of population engaged in agriculture as compared to pure consumers of > agricultural produce. This is perhaps what msandford meant. The net number > of agricultural workers 'producers' is rapidly declining due to higher yield > 'jobs' off farm. This impacts output/acre significantly.

That has not been the case. Yields have improved in lock-step with the decrease of farmers. This is largely due to improvements in farming equipment, better hybrids, transgenic traits and other technological improvements.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> If you're interested in a closer look at the topic, you could do worse than looking at the work of Wes Jackson and his Land Institute:

[http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/03/a-c...](http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/03/a-conversation- with-wes-jackson-president-of-the-land-institute/72927/)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2fqNxyqubQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2fqNxyqubQ)

[http://landinstitute.org/](http://landinstitute.org/)

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

</comment><comment><USER12> Although erosion is a problem driving an overall loss of naturally occurring plant available nutrition, most growers mitigate this loss with the addition of nutrient rich materials (chemical fertilizers, Poultry Litter, Organic Material, nutrient packages, etc). With these additions growers can ensure a nutritious enough soil for production. The real issue is the loss of the ecology found within that soil through erosion and chemical intensive production practices. If you think about it, soil is basically a plants stomach. It is constantly cycling nutrition to and from a plant accessible form mainly through microbial mediation. Just like your digestive system, soils contain critical populations of Beneficial Microorganisms which are a requirement for crop production. As an additional tool along with Nutrient inputs, growers are introducing Beneficial Microorganisms into their production programs. As a result Growers see a more balanced level of plant accessible nutrition and a more efficient utilization of those Nutrient inputs thus driving an overall increase in the ecological fitness and production of their crops. I personally think we should place the highest value on soil, water --- heck all of our Natural Resources but it is an interesting time as we pick up the pieces left by our agricultural production systems looking towards an ever increasing population.

(disclaimer: I am not a grower but the current iteration of my career is working for a Biotech which has developed teams of Beneficial Microbes for Agricultural and Environmental Applications).

</comment><comment><USER13> One word - Electrolytes.

<comment><USER14> That gave me a hearty chuckle! Thanks.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> "orgy of soil destruction" "allow contractors to rip their fields to shreds for the sake of a quick profit" "This is what topples civilisations" "macho commitment to destructive short-termism"

Sensationalist garbage. No farmer willingly treats their land like that, and I'd wager that even the average farmer knows more about soil science and biogeochemistry than Monbiot does. But they don't get sinecures to write clickbait garbage for biased rags.

<comment><USER11> > No farmer willingly treats their land like that

People absolutely will exploit, consume, and even destroy resources they own if they think it will give them sufficient local advantage. Why would land be an exception?

> the average farmer knows more about soil science and biogeochemistry than > Monbiot does

There are farmers whose scientific grasp seems sound and position has a lot in common with Monbiot.

Google "Wes Jackson", or just look elsewhere on this page where I've posted some links.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I don't exactly believe that the world has sustainability problems or is unable to support 10b people.

It is possible, if the Western world stops shipping our surplus foodstuff to Africa and ruining the local farms by giving food away for free.

We should instead help rebuild the agricultural industry so that Africa can finally feed itself.

<comment><USER16> Feeding people is, sad to say, among the least of our problems. One that, incidentally, we are lousy at already with 7 billion people in the world and a big fraction hungry or food-insecure. It's not just a matter of waste or inefficiencies either. We're approaching resource limits. But yes, we could feed 10B people on rice and beans, for a time, and give everyone sufficient calories, for a time. There's still the little issues like global warming, poisoning of air and water, die-off of other species, and so on. Yes, population WILL peak sometime in the next 100 years, and growth is slowing, but we are already billions past what we can sustain now much less provide everyone with a decent standard of living, and adding billions more at a frightening rate.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Aquaponics is a great solution to the problem of lack of farmable soil and water shortages. It uses only 10% of the water for the same yield. It also grows faster, is more nutrient rich, and can be done pretty much anywhere you can store water.

</comment><comment><USER18> Can someone explain to me where all of the eroded topsoil goes? It doesn't just blow away. It goes somewhere. Conservation of matter, right?

If it ends up as sludge in a lake or river, can't we dredge and get it back?

Yes, I know that would be expensive. Just askin'

<comment><USER19> Simple answer, everywhere.

Ever look up at the sunset and see the deep red colors in the atmosphere. That's the light reflecting off the dust. Some of it lands here, other lands there, and much of it lands in the ocean since it covers most of the surface of the Earth.

Yes, a lot does go into the rivers (or at least used to), but there it is intermixed with all kinds of other materials, many of them dangerous for human health.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> the fact that important topics like these appear on tech sites like this one is incredibly positive. a good question is: what can the tech industry and culture actually do about it? lots, and way more than it is doing, is one opinion.

</comment><comment><USER21> What an awful, incoherent article. I had to read almost to the end to learn that the basic problem was too much ploughing. I don't have time to get fully pre-educated on every environmental problem I am supposed to be angry about; maybe if Monbiot and other advocates put a little bit effort into explaining the issue of soil erosion they'd attract more support for their position.

<comment><USER10> You lasted longer than I did. It only took me a few paragraphs to realize Monbiot has never actually talked to a farmer.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> War, plague, or famine. Which would you prefer?</comment>


Ask HN: How do you convince people to work for you as a non-exciting startup? - <AUTHOR> Most great companies attract people because they have a great mission which is marketed well. Say you have a great commercial startup idea but not a great marketable vision (Think of a B2B software that'd help people with xyz), how do you convince good people to join you? You can't say - "This is the greatest thing the world has ever seen". Is it only money then? <comment><USER2> Sell the developer on the chance to use the latest technology.

Sell the developer on the chance for career growth as the company grows.

Sell the developer on the fast paced environment without all the meetings and bureaucracy of larger companies.

Sell the developer on the chance to work broadly across many projects and not be stuck doing the same specialism all the time.

Sell the developer on being a big fish in a small pond and not just another numbered resource.

Your selling the culture and environment.

<comment><USER3> Having had an unsexy startup, all of the above helped to attract good talent. As developers ourselves, we were attracted to an environment like the one you describe and so we created a company that we would want to work in. We had no turnover for several years as a result.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Even if it's a mundane problem, if your product solves a valuable need for an underserved market you shouldn't have problems making a market rate hire. There are plenty of people who would be happy to work on a good opportunity while enjoying the freedoms of a small company. Substance is more attractive than marketable hype any day.

</comment><comment><USER5> Just pay more. Developers care a lot less than you think about what it is they're building. I mean sure, we'd all like to build something cool. But not if it means leaving money on the table.

</comment><comment><USER6> If you can't sell the vision to a prospective employee you'll fail to sell to clients. Not being a dick to you, just I have seen this before. Doesn't make you bad just a good gut/reality check to help you adjust as needed.

The pitch is very similar between the two. You are selling the employee on the same base values you sell a client on.

Show why the client wins and how your solution will address the pain. Highlight the challenges because even in mundane problems there are always challenges. Engineers sometimes fail to see the challenges of why a problem would be fun to tackle so that is the one area you have to help highlight.

I do agree that the less interesting and challenging the problem then you do have to compensate in other ways to attract talent. But also be honest you don't always need high end engineers to solve simple problems. So hire what you need and don't fall victim to hiring the wrong type of person for the type of work you need done.

</comment><comment><USER7> Let everyone architect but only after they've completed some challenging but reasonable tasks. For example:

\- passes multiple choice test about how current code works

\- has a professional knowledge of the language they are using (part 2 of the test)

\- has read and done a book report on 2-3 design-pattern/architecture books.

Once you do all that you go in the queue. New developers have precedence over seasoned developers. When a new project comes up the developer who gets that greenfield is the first developer in that queue who hasn't had a chance to architect yet.

The main idea is that good developers don't want to be assembly line workers and yet a total lack of autonomy seems to be the norm for (I think) most software developers. So the ability to make technical decisions is a real benefit IMO.

Some other things that might be advantages:

\- you now have a team of experts. Good job.

\- you can avoid senior devs possessing all of the knowledge of the companies software (because only that select few got to design anything) and then not having an incentive to improve.

\- Creating a genuine interest in new code (because you want to see how the new guy did it).

"Everyone is an architect" should be your tag line.

<comment><USER8> Although this may attract developers initially which is the original question, this seems like an ineffective strategy for a business. In _The Mythical Man Month_ , the author argues that one of the most important things in software architecture is conceptual integrity. Having many different architects cycle through seems like a great way to end up with too many different ideas in your systems and a poor conceptual integrity.

Maybe this could work for a short time at a startup, but I'd be curious to know your thoughts in response.

<comment><USER7> That's a good point. I left out a concept of constraints. For example, it has to be written in the same language as our other applications. But if it's not different enough from an existing application just copy the existing application and don't call it a greenfield.

Or let someone burn their turn by copying the existing application but making minor tweaks and changes. That could work just as well.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> You've no doubt heard the story of the two brick layers.* One sees himself as "building a wall." The other sees himself as "building a cathedral."

You should hash it out with someone and figure out how to explain why it matters. No one thinks Burger King is "solving world hunger" but the reality is that ubiquitous cheap eateries are, in fact, part of why there is no widespread, devastating starvation in the US.

I really like a couple of scenes from _The Devil Wears Prada " when Andy is given a big picture overview of why both fashion generally and this fashion magazine in particular matter.

[https://vimeo.com/354919615](https://vimeo.com/354919615)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yj8mHwvFxMc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yj8mHwvFxMc)

You need to work on your visioning statement or elevator speech or similar. If you are providing a service and doing it well, it's possible to get excited about it. You may need a little help with figuring out how to communicate it, but it can be done.

If it's also "boring" insofar as being reliable, steady and well-paid work, there are lots of people who will see that as a huge draw. Not everyone ascribes to the philosophy that "It's better to burn out than to fade away." Some people like a lack of drama in their lives.

_ First reference I could readily find (and slightly different from the version I remember): [https://betterlifecoachingblog.com/2012/03/30/the-two- brickl...](https://betterlifecoachingblog.com/2012/03/30/the-two-bricklayers- a-story-about-our-mindsets/)

</comment><comment><USER10> Besides what others people have mentioned - flexibility, growth, and learning. Do people have autonomy? Is there sane work life balance? Good engineering practices (including good code review and reasonable prioritizing of technical debt)? Good overall company dynamic and practices (sane, including clients not overly dictating internal company operations, internal teams working well together, collaborative / non-competitive people who are trying to accomplish some shared goals)? Stability (high-value customers, lots of them, and/or lots of money raised)? Little politics? Unique technical issues (huge scale, real time, etc)? Are people heard / is their feedback taken into account?

</comment><comment><USER11> Those who claim that their product is the greatest thing since sliced bread (which ironically itself wasn't the "greatest thing since sliced bread" at first) sometimes might be delusional or even just lying.

I'd take an honest product that provably helps people over a mere pipe dream any day. That's not to say that a visionary product doesn't have appeal or can't be truly world-changing but chances are that you'll make a far greater impact in changing the world by taking small, incremental steps.

</comment><comment><USER12> As a small company you can offer flexibility, growth, and learning along with a competitive pay.

Flexibility - Work remotely, set your own hours etc. We care about output/productivity & not how or when you work.

Growth - Make sure there's always a next level/challenge/goal/increased pay etc.

Learning - In small companies folks can (and should) wear different hats & get to learn about sales, business, marketing etc. on the job.

I'd look at SO Developer survey & focus on things that matter to people apart from company vision & pay.

</comment><comment><USER13> You don't. It works only after you get enough funding to afford them. Initially you just stay focused on getting simple things done. And done well. That attracts better people through your satisfied customers and investors.

</comment><comment><USER14> Treat them better than average? Maybe 4 day workweeks or unlimited paid time off. Maybe even treat them as friends.

<comment><USER15> Companies should never advertise unlimited time off. This is a myth. There's always a limit, and what this does is just impose extra stress when trying to guess what it is.

<comment><USER14> Yeah, it depends on the maturity of the team and requires a lot of trust. Obviously, you can't take off half the year.

4 day workweeks mean about 52 extra days off, and yet not everyone wants a 3 day weekend. I'd enjoy some 3 day weekends, but too much will be stressful when dealing with the bottomless amount of things to do at a startup.

You can straight up say every year has 66 day PTO, but that means that people will feel guilty about not using it. But maybe this approach is the best.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> > Is it only money then?

It's always only money. Most developers do not care much about the product they are building.

<comment><USER17> Hmm, I'm not sure that's universally true or even true for a majority. Though I might just be in a bubble.

I care deeply about what a job would be asking me to build and I will absolutely leave money on the table if the product is immoral (for example gambling, ad tech, software for ICE, most arms manufacturers, most energy companies).

Work is unfortunately about 33% of your time on earth and it matters what you do with it, some people are mercenary and only care about money and that's their lookout but your statement reads as a consensus when I don't think it is. If it was no one would work for charities or public schools or public healthcare bodies.

In answer to the OP as long as the work isn't actively harmful then it's about quality of Life (and yes, money). No silly 40 hour plus weeks, etc.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Why are you doing it if you're not excited about it? Why are you excited about it if not the "vision?" Sometimes just the money is good enough. (And being realistic about this is way better than claiming to save the world with your b2b widget.)

</comment><comment><USER19> Two ideas:

\- Hire remotely including from outside of the US

\- Hire older people.</comment>


I Got Fired For Tweeting - <AUTHOR> http://www.theawl.com/2013/07/millennial-fired-for-tweet?fb_action_ids=10152076555144196&fb_action_types=og.recommends <comment><USER2> This guy isn't just a little in the wrong he's a lot in the wrong.

For a moment, lets assume its okay to insult a customer in the wrong on behalf of your employer. If that was the case this guy would still be wrong -- because a tip is an optional thing.

<comment><USER3> A, the Steve Buscemi argument.

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-qV9wVGb38](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-qV9wVGb38)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> A tip is for service, not for cooking your food. You don't tip the cooks, you tip the people providing excellent service. Except at a food truck, there aren't servers.

<comment><USER5> Agreed. I've been rather irritated lately by the proliferation of tip jars _everywhere_. Essentially anywhere there's a cash till there's a tip jar, now. It instantly invokes the relevant social norm, so I always feel bad not tipping, but then what precisely made someone deserve a tip because they handed me a bagel from behind the counter?</comment></comment>


Boston's Android Dev Group - <AUTHOR> http://bostinnovation.com/2011/01/06/bostons-android-dev-group/

<comment><USER2> The URL for the actual group is: <http://bostonandroid.org/>

<comment><AUTHOR> thanks hexis</comment></comment>


Visual Studio for GameDev: New Partnerships with Unity, Unreal Engine and Cocos2d - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.msdn.com/b/somasegar/archive/2015/04/17/visual-studio-for-game-development-new-partnerships-with-unity-unreal-engine-and-cocos2d.aspx

<comment><USER2> I have been waiting for this announcement!</comment>


Secret Atari DRAM Resale Operation Revealed by FBI (2013) - <AUTHOR> http://www.atariarchives.org/atarileaks/ <comment><USER2> From the AtariAge article:

        If you're looking for the point that Atari
        died, it would be the acquisition of Federated

I was a software engineer at Atari then. We were all pretty mystified about why Jack wanted to buy a retailer. (Jack also tried to turn engineers into salespeople for a while, having us "adopt" stores and try to sell computers there. That did not go well).

I have the feeling that Jack, Sam and Gary Tramiel really only understood the art of the slightly crooked deal; that's how they saw the business world. Secondarily, they understood computer hardware, because a lot of that world involved striking deals with suppliers, and that was the level they were happy working in.

The world of software was largely opaque to them, and they never really invested much in it, and never understood how to run long-term and larger scale projects. Ultimately that marginalized them and they lost to competition (Windows / Mac) that _did_ understand software.

</comment><comment><USER3> Seems like a better link might be [http://atariage.com/forums/topic/207245-secret-atari-dram- re...](http://atariage.com/forums/topic/207245-secret-atari-dram-resale- operation-revealed-by-fbi/#entry2672346) because the blog post refers to it as the post containing a full explanation.

</comment><comment><USER4> tl;dr holy moly! In late '80s US government prevented Japan exporting cheap DRAM into US (free trade anyone?). DRAM prices went through roof. Atari covered holes in its own finances by reselling DRAM to major manufacturers (SUN etc). The DRAM they resold was "smuggled" in outside the official agreements. The sites owner has this from FOI requests.

This seems plenty plausible - and is one of many many reasons the WTO was a good idea.

But boy, Atari smuggled DRAM ... Weird

<comment><USER5> This was already illegal in pre-WTO times; The European Economic Community filed a complaint under GATT rules (and won).

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Here's the executive summary provided by the FBI to the Attorney General's office:

May 15, 1989

FBI SA and US Customs Agents advised Assistant US Attorney that source information and investigation had determined that Atari Corporation was importing 256K DRAMS into the US in false packing containers, and without proper import documents in violation of US import laws and contrary to import agreements between the US and the Japanese Ministry of Industry and Trade. Atari purchases large quantities of DRAMS from Japanese manufacturers for use in their Taiwanese manufacturing plants. Purchasing in Taiwan allows Atari to obtain the DRAMS at a greatly reduced price. There are strict import quotes on the DRAMS, because of Japanese flooding of the market in years previously but there are no import duties. By shipping the DRAMS in the U.S., Atari can thereby increase the price by approximately four times their purchase price. The original manufacturers, whether Fujitsu or Mitsubishi would not be allowed to import this quantity at this price into the U.S., because this practice stifles U.S. manufacturers.

Investigation determined that Atari was importing large quantities, 150,000 or more a wekk into the U.S. since May,1988. None were declared through U.S. Customs, and it appears telexes and telephones were used to order specific quantities in furtherance of this scheme.

Based on the above, Assistant US Attorney stated he would consider prosecution of this matter under the Wire Fraud Statutes or 1001 Falsification of Import Documents.

SOURCE: FBI Case 87A-SF-40454, Pages 42-43

</comment><comment><USER7> This reminds me a bit of a reddit user who as a teenager knew of the coming ban of DRAM so he/she bought piles of them much cheaper before the ban.

And I think he said they had to desolder them from the boards. Then sold it for a very large amount of money.

I forget who the user is maybe that's a good thing!

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Trivia: when the DRAM shortage was ending during 1989, 1Mbit DRAM prices fell first. This is partly because Toshiba etc. started converting fabs from 256Kbit to 1Mbit DRAM back in mid-1987 but the demand for 256Kbit DRAM was still increasing (Samsung was able to increase their market share in DRAM due to this). Back then, 1Mbit DRAM yields was much lower than in 1989.

</comment><comment><USER5> The backdrop (and reason) for this smuggling operation was the 1986 US.-Japan semiconductor trade agreement. A fascinating read can be found here (pdf):

[http://www.nber.org/chapters/c8717.pdf](http://www.nber.org/chapters/c8717.pdf)

<comment><USER8> Intel decided to exit DRAM business in 1984 closing 8 fabs, two years later ram prices skyrocketed.

[http://highered.mheducation.com/sites/dl/free/0073122653/280...](http://highered.mheducation.com/sites/dl/free/0073122653/280053/Case_1_1_IntelDRAM.doc)

interview with Intels GM of memory at the time: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWJrsM4DxDU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWJrsM4DxDU)

<comment><AUTHOR> I think Intel ended up partnering with Micron and Samsung and selling their DRAM under their own name in the end.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask YC: Hacking my TomTom to play video,mp3s etc - <AUTHOR>

This is kind of random, and doesn't have anything to do with a startup or anything, but i'm thinking of doing the above and posting the results (somewhere).<p>so, who here has hacked their own gadgets,iphones,xbox etc? Any tips, suggestions? Bonus points for cool tips on the linux kernal (which tomtom is based on) <comment><USER2> <http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/belinuxsys/></comment>


Ask YC: What do you use for penetration testing? - <AUTHOR>

Hi there. We were approached by a 'security company' for penetration testing one of our PHP applications.  Just wondering what you use for testing server and applications? <comment><USER2> Before thinking seriously about doing a penetration test think about the following:

\- Have you coded against malicious input? \- Does your code intentionally stop the various types of cross-site scripting? \- Have you done a code audit to check that this is the case?

I'm probably skipping over a bunch of other things you can do to make a site more secure, but you may want to consider the above before talking about penetration testing.

Getting broken into by a penetration tester means that your site is in some way insecure. Not getting broken into doesn't mean that your site is secure - there could be a vulnerability that the pen company didn't know about.

I would suggest maybe following some of the blog thought about computer security (I follow Bruce Schneier, Coding Horror has some good posts occasionally, ymmv).

That and pen tests by a company cost money.

</comment><comment><USER3> If I had anything to seriously test, I'd probably start with: <http://w3af.sourceforge.net/></comment>


Show HN: Js2flowchart – tool to convert any JavaScript code into beautiful SVG flowchart - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/Bogdan-Lyashenko/js-code-to-svg-flowchart <comment><AUTHOR> Hey guys! I am working on a tool for generating SVG flowcharts based on JS code, the idea is to automate code visualization as much as possible. You pass a code string as input and receive a complete SVG string as output. There are also some cool features like style themes, scheme transformation etc. I was hoping the community can test it out and give some feedback. Thank you in advance.</comment>


Show HN: Origin – A typewriter styled, minimalistic writing app for Mac - <AUTHOR> https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/origin/id1219259459?ls=1&mt=12 <comment><USER2> Looks like it does exactly what it says. Mind writing a bit about the app, reasons for making it, development process, pricing model?

<comment><AUTHOR> Sure. Added the description. As far as development goes, this was kind of a personal challenge after reading all the documentation on NSTextView and its layout system. And as for the pricing model, the free version limits you to 250 words per document. And you can remove the 250 words per document limit via an inApp purchase.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Origin is an app for writers & content creators. Its strictly a write only app, no editing allowed. Its designed to work exactly like a typewriter to improve focus, & avoid getting stuck / overthink on mistakes. Its main purpose is to get you from an idea to the rough draft as fast as possible.

<comment><USER3> You can "edit" in typewriter. When you press backspace it will cross the previous character.

<comment><AUTHOR> It's based on the old school typewriters. :)</comment></comment></comment>