All-electric trainer aircraft, cheaper than Cessna - <AUTHOR> http://www.techinsider.io/electric-aircraft-sunflyer-2016-5 <comment><USER2> The big problem with the small planes is not the engine and fuel (still can't beat AVGAS in term of efficiency), but price; any part that exists in the automotive industry gets a 3 time price increase if it is used in aviation, 5 times if it is certified. A 1.4 liter 4 cylinder engine with 100 HP, that would be maybe 15-2000$ in a car, is ... 17.000$ for a small plane. A mobile radio for aviation starts from $300, a fixed one from $1500. That makes me believe the simple to maintain electric engine will have a 10 times price increase when used in an aircraft, just because they can and also because of all the crazy litigation system in US where 50% of the price of a new plane is put aside to pay for future litigations. In Europe we have huge taxes, so the price is even higher.

<comment><USER3> The FAA's Part 23 rewrite should help this. Just this month Dynon managed to get their D10A EFIS STC'd even though it isn't TSOd. Basically we will be allowed to put avionics designed for the experimental/homebuilt market into certified aircraft, resulting in a huge cost saving.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Does anyone have more specifics about the actual capabilities of the prototype? I'm skeptical they're able to get 3 hours of flight time out of a battery pack without sacrificing just about all the weight capacity for things like... a pilot. It's great to see that companies are actively working on electric-powered flight, though, especially in the small aircraft space where it has high potential.

Also a small beef with the article - it makes it seem like there just aren't enough pilots to fly commercial planes, which simply isn't true. There are plenty of pilots, they just don't want to work for the terrible pay and life- destroying hours most carriers are offering, while at the same time often having to cover their own massive training costs. Some more info on the situation: [http://time.com/4257940/pilot- shortage/](http://time.com/4257940/pilot-shortage/)

<comment><USER5> Agreed, very little real information here. Nothing about range, top speed, weight, etc.

A big part of training is doing "touch and goes" to practice approaches, landing, and taking off (the most dangerous phases of flight) which I would think would tax the battery a lot more than just cruising around for three hours.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> As someone who really would love to get into general aviation but finds the fuel costs off-putting, I'd love for this to be successful. Isn't the big problem with electric planes supposed to be the energy density per kg? Wikipedia is showing 46MJ/kg for jet fuel, vs only ~1MJ/kg for lithium batteries [1]. Is this a lesser concern than I've been led to believe, is there recent development that improves lithium batteries by at least an order of magnitude in this property, or are they using some different battery technology entirely? I'm disappointed that there's no mention of the battery tech.

<comment><USER2> Cessna takes about 8 gallons per hour to fly; if you want to fly at 3 gallons per hour then go for any Rotax 912ULS plane, most are LSA but you can upgrade the license to PPL adn the flight time on LSA (cheap) is considered for PPL. In the end a Comko Ikarus C42 has similar performance with a Cessna 152 and a Pipistrel Virus SW is lighter and much faster (+30%) than the 152 for less than half the fuel consumption.

<comment><USER7> You can't buy a modern Pipistrel for th price of a 1975 Cessna. A huge % of the light 2 and 4 seat aircraft out there in the c172 and smaller sizes are 25+ years old.

<comment><USER2> You are right, but that does not make it right to compare a new electric plane's cost, flying performance and energy efficiency/consumption with a 1975 Cessna except if you have a time machine to send the electric plane back in 1975.

<comment><USER7> Except that 1975 Cessna is much, much more likely to be what a small flight school/rental operator/FBO company can afford to buy. $35,000 and ongoing maintenance vs $175,000+.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> My concern about training on an aircraft of this fashion is that you get no exposure to controls such as carb heat, fuel mixture, etc.

I wonder if a distinction will be made (in the not so far future) between getting rated on a combustion plane vs. electric? Much like you get rated for high-performance or twin engines today.

<comment><USER9> Serious question from someone who knows very little about planes. Do they seriously still have new carbuereuted planes? I can understand if it's a Cessna from the 50's, 60's, 70's, but I'm surprised they haven't been converted to EFI just from an efficiency and reliability stand point. Does that have to do with all the certification required for aircraft? (ie, if you change the engine, the aircraft has to go through another inspection by the FAA or whomever?)

<comment><USER10> The problem in general aviation is the cost. As the article mentions, even a simple Cessna purchased new costs as much as a house. The result is that there are a LOT of planes flying that date back to the 1940s, 50s and 60s.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Very interesting. But sadly the article mentions the same old line: not enough airline pilots. The truth is that the airlines are not willing to pay for airline pilots. That's how capitalism works. You want workers? You pay workers. Simple as that.

</comment><comment><USER11> What about this one: [http://www.pipistrel.si/news/wattsup-the-new-2seat- electric-...](http://www.pipistrel.si/news/wattsup-the-new-2seat-electric- trainer-took-its-maiden-fligh)

Not an expert - don't know if they can be compared and the article lacks any actual specs to compare by, but the pipistrel's electric plane seems to be much cheaper.

"Pipistrel expects to bring the final product to the market in 2015 with a target price below 100,000 EUR."

<comment><USER2> 50% of the cost of a plane sold in USA is put aside as reserves for litigations; that doubles the actual cost of the plane, so the Pipistrel that is sold in Europe for 100,000 EUR may be $220,000 in USA. The Cessna 172 is 300k; a modern Pipistrel with better flying capabilities is 100K (there are a couple of 2015 Pipistrel planes on my base airport). Cessna does not sell lots of 172's, but neither Pipistrel does not sell in USA at 100k. The aviation in USA is mostly based on cheap old 1950-1970 planes, the cost for new is astronomical.

<comment><USER12> Are you sure about this? I'm not in the market, and don't know the details, but it looks like Pipistrel USA is advertising "Ready to Fly" prices (denominated in Euros) that are much less than you say.

For example, the Sinus shows a base price of 78500 EUR, and the Alpha Trainer Electro Experimental shows 110000 EUR: [http://www.pipistrel-usa.com/price- list/RTF-price.html](http://www.pipistrel-usa.com/price-list/RTF-price.html)

Is there some large undisclosed fee that is added to this? Or do the "add ons" actually required to have a flyable plane?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> It seems like an obvious feature would be to have solar cells on the upper wing surfaces... I guess the energy payout isn't sufficient for the area?

<comment><USER14> That _might_ be sufficient to power half of the avionics (i.e., maybe 0.01% of the power consumption. )

<comment><USER9> I can't say anything to the power efficiency of solar cells, but I can see how they could be useful for when you're not flying. "Free" energy for when you're ready to fly if you don't fly the plan daily, but instead just fly on the weekends or such. In the middle of nowhere without fuel or electric hookup? Wait a few days and at leas the plane will have energy to fly out of there. I'm not saying that will be the case, but an interesting aspect of solar panels on wings.

<comment><USER15> You'd be much better off to simply have a few panels on a rack that you put out next to the plane. Being forced to haul around the extra weight of the panels on the top of the wings would be counterproductive, and if you really wanted the panels with you one day, you could pack them up and take them with you.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I wonder how long the batteries will last for? Not the flying time, I mean instead their useful lifetime. It might become extremely expensive if you have to replace the batteries every year or so...

<comment><USER13> Then again, newer technologies resulting in better energy-per-unit-weight could drive battery replacement sooner, anyway.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> I know every one is talking about the energy density of gas, but wouldn't there reduction in moving parts in the engine offset? How does a Tesla compare to an average cat?

<comment><USER18> A Tesla's motor saves 200 lbs over a 4 cylinder engine but the battery pack adds 1000lbs over a 12 gallon fuel tank which would allow you to drive that 4 cylinder car twice as far.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> I was on a little Cessna Caravan twice this weekend, and both times was struck by how much less the torque on them is than a Tesla...

<comment><USER20> Early PT6-114s (the turboprop engine on the early 208s) have a takeoff torque limit of 1658ft-lbs. Later PT6-114As (the current engine on the 208s) has a takeoff torque limit of 1865ft-lbs.

The Tesla P85D has less than half of that.

The Caravan has much less initial acceleration than a Tesla, but far more torque.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> my next question is: When will we have these small planes with true autopilots, which would allow a true novice to fly them?

And surely people are working on them, but you don't hear about that as much as you do automobiles. Anyone know anything about this?

<comment><USER21> Probably not in the foreseeable future; the market just isn't there, and in large part- the technology isn't either.

For one thing, the technology for truly automatic or nearly-automatic landing (takeoff might be simpler) requires a lot of equipment at the airport, which the vast majority of airports a hobby pilot would fly from will never install. Since takeoff and landing are by far the most difficult and dangerous parts of the flight, this pretty much automatically precludes the possibility of an untrained pilot.

Add to that, the stance in aviation is that the pilot must be capable of taking control of the aircraft if there is any problem with the automation. I don't know the statistics, but presumably the sensors and automation by itself are not reliable enough to function completely autonomously and without supervision 100% of the time. And if you're gonna have a hobby pilot that is perfectly capable of flying the plane manually, full automation is just a massive waste of money.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> _An electric powerplant with effectively one moving part should also have dramatically lower mantenence cost than a traditional, gasoline-powered engine of more than 1,000 components_

I see this sort of statement made about electric cars also, and I think it's really not true. Modern internal combustion engines are very reliable, and need very little maintenance. Yes they need oil changes every so often, and I guess that's "dramatically" more in a divide-by-zero kind of way, but realistically it's not going to make a huge difference in the operational expense of a GA aircraft. Also not addressed in this piece, how long do the batteries last and what does it cost to replace them?

<comment><USER22> GA engines require a teardown inspection on a pretty regular basis. Not only that, but the liability tail for GA emphasizes the use of older designs.

<comment><USER5> Presumably electric motors would require the same, then, in an aviation application?

<comment><USER15> The teardown and inspection of an electric motor is trivial compared to that of an internal combustion engine. Generally speaking, you'd undo a few fasteners, pop off a cover, and check/clean the rotor/windings. 15 minutes tops - heck, you could do it before every flight and it'd still be cheaper than paying for the 100-hour maintenance on a GA plane.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Introduction to Computational Thinking with the Julia Programming Language - open-source-ux https://computationalthinking.mit.edu/Fall20/ <comment><AUTHOR> Used to work at a startup a few tables over from these guys at the Harvard I-Lab a few years ago in college. Such an incredibly sharp and kind group of people who also hilariously would have casual conversations about "finding critical intel CPU microcode bugs" one time so severe that Intel flew out an engineer to peer with them on the issue!

</comment><comment><USER2> > By: grant sanderson

I know instantly this one is going to be incredible

<comment><USER3> As a long time follower of Grant Sanderson[0], I concur. His works are awesome.

[0] - [https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCYO_jab_esuFRV4b17AJtAw](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCYO_jab_esuFRV4b17AJtAw)

Edit : Added link

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This is wonderful:

> MIT 18.S191 / Fall 2020

> This is an introductory course on Computational Thinking. We use the Julia > programming language to approach real-world problems in varied areas > applying data analysis and computational and mathematical modeling.

> In this class you will learn computer science, software, algorithms, > applications, and mathematics as an integrated whole.

Topics include:

\- Image analysis

\- Particle dynamics and ray tracing

\- Epidemic propagation

\- Climate modeling

\---

Looks like HTML entities are getting double-encoded in the code blocks:

[https://computationalthinking.mit.edu/Fall20/installation/#s...](https://computationalthinking.mit.edu/Fall20/installation/#step_3_install_pluto)

</comment><comment><USER5> I consider many of these ideas have been well exploited by Wolfram Mathematica since 1988. The idea of computational thinking has been there since then. It's unfair not to give a historical review of these ideas in the beginning of the lecture.</comment>


Ask HN: Ideas on how to monetize Firefox or Chrome Extensions? - <AUTHOR>

I'm looking to build out some ideas I have for FF and/or Chrome extensions. I'm looking for way to eventually build a business around these and I was wondering if there were any of you that knew of ways to monetize (reoccurring monthly payments, single purchase, or freemium is what I'm mostly looking at, though I'm open to others). I'm currently clueless on how to bill or set up "pro" versions of extensions.
Any links to where I could research more would also be of help. Also, any general advice about this space would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks! <comment><USER2> This is 100% dependent on the type of extension you're building out. Without knowing more about the nature of the extension, it is extremely difficult to recommend a proper monetization model. Who are the target audience? Is there a built-in model you can leverage? Too many unknowns to recommend anything valid. It's like asking how to monetize a website. General advice won't help much...</comment>


Ads replace vacant storefronts - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/12/business/media/12adco.html?hp

<comment><USER2> There used to be an incredibly disturbing full-store video billboard in midtown Manhattan. It looked like the windows and glass doors of an ordinary - if somewhat close to the sidewalk - office, except the perspective was skewed (which it had to be, existing on a flat video screen and all). I don't recall what it was advertising.

I've been seeing a lot more of these plastered-over storefronts lately. It feels sort of like living inside a big plastic product that hasn't been unwrapped yet.

</comment><comment><USER3> Why pay to have a storefront in a busy location, when you can get all the marketing benefits for only 10-15% of the price?

You can then eat 8-10 times as much ramen (think: eat daily, not weekly) as you work from the room above your garage.

</comment><comment><USER4> First thing I did was try to see if I could get one. But it looks like the $500/month deal was a one-off. But I'd do that in a heartbeat.

</comment><comment><USER5> Perhaps they also need to consider discount office space for fledgling hacker business...</comment>


Ask News.yc: Should there be a lower karma bound for Ask News.YC? - <AUTHOR>

Maybe it's just me being my curmudgeonly self, but I find most submissions that aren't a URL annoying. Not all, certainly, but most. And they seem to be far more repetitive than the links. How many times have you seen:
"How will the [recession/downturn/rising price of sopapillas in Tijuana] affect startups?"
or
"Ask YC: Feedback on my startup" (which now probably translates to "Michael Arrington please look at me!")
or
"Why do no Y Combinator companies ever have a business model?"
or
"What can we do about all of the idiots who are going to start coming here and turn this place into Reddit?"
Does anyone else get annoyed by this? If so, Perhaps a minimum karma rating for non-url submissions would fix it? <comment><USER2> The answers to "feedback for my startup" question was something I found really useful as a founder of a non-YC startup. I had no ulterior motives to having Arrington look at it, since it is very much alpha.

<comment><USER3> Furthermore, I think it's a "neighborly" thing to do.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I agree in a way; the Ask YC News threads can be repetitive and annoying.

But, some of the best contributions, from the view point of myself, have been Ask YC News posts. When an individual challenges me to critically think about a topic, I generally learn a lot - it is where I gain the most benefit from this website (forced thinking). So in a way the Ask YC News posts are an annoying aspect about this website, and in another way they are the best thing about this website. I would hate to think that an individual would be censored simply because they are not an experienced member of this community, especially when their insight is particularly valuable.

</comment><comment><USER5> I agree that some questions are repeat but I think opposit of what you say. I can get to the link posts from anywhere else and not all of them are of heigh quality or intersting. some I find to be useless topics.

But what I like about the ask yc is that it's from people that I have something in common with. Sure some may be boring or repeat but I don't mind to test and give feedback on someone's start-up not because it's something I like to do but because thats how I can give back to this community.

you may one day have a realy boring question posted here too. that may be of nobody's interest and boring but I am sure you still get good answer.

</comment><comment><USER6> Oddly, I always click on the "Ask YC" threads first. Not sure why. Now you got me thinking about it. Probably because I spend so much time alone, these threads give me more of the "I am not alone" feeling. Maybe for the same reason I prefer the radio to pre-recorded music.

</comment><comment><USER7> A solution to this is a personalized homepage and classification of stories. You could do it yourself with Greasemonkey if you really wanted to. Eventually I expect this functionality to be incorporated into news.arc.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Also, perhaps it's my own vanity, but I love to check my own comments and the responses to them (rather than the general feed) and would love it if clicking the number next to my name at top right took me there.

<comment><USER8> That's what the "threads" link does.

<comment><AUTHOR> Ha, how did I never see that?</comment></comment></comment>


Too cool to play: the gamification backlash - <AUTHOR> http://www.microtask.com/blog/2011/04/too-cool-to-play-the-gamification-backlash/

<comment><USER2> > Good games, they say, are like art: engaging players deeply and emotionally > (not sure how Grand Theft Auto fits in here).

A lot of people have had very emotional reactions to Grand Theft Auto...

At the risk of oversimplifying something I'm not an expert on, I think games fall into two general types: the kind you win by being very good at one skill, and the kind you win by balancing several skills.

The first kind isn't that interesting in the long run because either you're no good at it so you stop playing because you always lose, or you're really good at it so you stop playing because you're better than the game is.

If you want to gamify something, make it a game that requires balance. Maybe every time you check in somewhere, you raise your potential score for that place by one point. When you check in with a large group, your permanent score gets increased by your potential score times the number of people who checked in with you, so, you get a lot of points by going to a place a lot _and_ bringing your friends there.

<comment><USER3> I wouldn't say that games rely on skill too much. Games are meant to be won regardless of skill. They are meant to provide challenges, but never roadblocks. This possibly excludes arcade style games.

Also, managing my bank account requires a serious amount of computer skills already, so maybe we don't need to artificially enhance that. Any action that would trigger my XBox to display some "achievement", would trigger a barrage of swearwords if it occurred while I was trying get work done. Without rewards, there is no need for artificial challenges.

<comment><USER4> _I wouldn't say that games rely on skill too much. Games are meant to be won regardless of skill._

Try Starcraft. Seat time alone won't carry you very far in that game.

<comment><USER3> That is true. What I meant was single player games. Multiplayer games are of course competitive by nature and very much skill-dependent. Then again, I would not want to call my banks website _MMO_. Facebook though, maybe.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I find it very ironic that this is posted on a news site where people award points to stories to rank them higher and earn karma while doing it. =)</comment>


Don't Let a Security Breach Kill Your Million Dollar Idea - <AUTHOR> http://www.linkedin.com/today/post/article/20140404073832-113597752-startups-don-t-let-a-security-breach-kill-your-million-dollar-idea?trk=object-title

<comment><USER2> These are some good steps to follow for securing your startup.</comment>


The AI Revolution: Our Immortality or Extinction - <AUTHOR> http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/01/artificial-intelligence-revolution-2.html

<comment><AUTHOR> I think that in the various scenarios the author depicts, there are too many "then a miracle occurs" steps [0]. For example, for an ASI to develop, a reasonably intelligent AGI is required first. But even getting to an AGI which is as intelligent as your average human, is very, very hard, and it doesn't just spring to life from an advanced ANI on a fast processor.

The second step is even harder: Let's assume an AGI with an IQ of 100 exists, then it's supposed to recursively improve itself within a short time. Well, so far, humans have failed to improve themselves, and they had

1) a lot more time, think decades of neural research,

2) a lot more resources, especially lots of humans working on the problem, exchanging ideas and knowledge,

3) most of which are a lot more intelligent than an IQ of 100.

So yeah, AGI -> ASI won't happen within hours, days, or even years. Maybe decades, if not longer.

[0] [http://star.psy.ohio- state.edu/coglab/Pictures/miracle.gif](http://star.psy.ohio- state.edu/coglab/Pictures/miracle.gif)

<comment><USER2> I hope you're right! But I think it's important to prepare for the worst case scenario. Even if we had 200 IQ humans working at max cognitive capacity, people still need to sleep, eat, poop. There are all sorts of limitations we have as biological creatures- the bandwidth of our communication is limited (this exchange takes us precious minutes, for example). It's difficult to imagine things happening at breakneck speed, but it's not impossible. And I think we should be prepared for that... We definitely don't want to underestimate it and go "oops, we thought it would take decades"! WThis seems to me like the most important thing in the world right now- or one of the most important things- that we should all be talking about. We may only get one shot at this...

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> "There are no hard problems, only problems that are hard to a certain level of intelligence. Move the smallest bit upwards [in level of intelligence], and some problems will suddenly move from 'impossible' to 'obvious.' Move a substantial degree upwards, and all of them will become obvious."

I think the utterer of this quotation needs to study up on computational complexity theory.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm not sure if you're joking, but I don't think Eliezer Yudkowsky intended his quote to be taken quite so literally. He was most likely talking about diseases and world hunger, not about 3SAT.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Much like XKCD, Tim Urban's graphics really seem to hammer the point home with a minimal of fuss.</comment>


Just pay me. - <AUTHOR> http://blog.samuellevy.com/index.php?p=post&id=21 <comment><USER2> Late fees are critical. In some businesses the accounting department will manage debt by paying off vendors in the order of who charges the most interest. If you don't have a late fee, you get shuffled to the bottom of the pile and stay there. Accountants are generally hardwired to avoid penalties, so if they see there are penalties they'll pay before the penalty period (provided they have the money).

However I have found that if your late fee is high, they will simply pay the invoice and "forget" the late fee. And then you're left squabbling over the late fee, which is quite annoying.

Also note that I disagree with OP's interest scheme - in my case its a flat 1-2%. For a freelancer you don't want to tip the scales into lawyer-worthy disputes...

<comment><USER3> A late fee is a tool to encourage payment, if they ignore it and pay even just the invoice amount earlier than they otherwise would have you could say it has done its job.

As long as they pay the invoice, most people at that point will waive the late fee (providing it's not a very large sum of money as would be the case with the suggested 10% per week). I know I've done this in the past when a client has called me up after weeks of nagging and apologised for the late payment and the lack of a fee.

<comment><USER4> In addition, the late fee can come as a shock to the reluctant payer and spur an email expressing said shock. This is a great time to offer a waiver of the late fee if they pay by 5.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I've found that I get dramatically better clients by requiring 50% payment up- front, and then invoicing weekly. People who balk at the 50% terms are likely to be problem customers, and are best avoided anyway. The weekly invoicing helps new clients understand how much software costs, and prevents sticker shock weeks after the project has begun. Once I have an established relationship with a client that I trust, I'm happy to relax the terms for everyone's benefit.

<comment><USER6> Thirds is a good one for short projects involving a handover and signoff; 1/3rd to start, 1/3rd on handover and 1/3rd on signoff.

<comment><USER7> That's worked for me going on 10 years now.

I also agree with the OP that you get better clients as well.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This won't work in practice. There are laws in place to prevent sky-high compounding interest rates, late fees, etc.

I would suggest that you simply take 50%, or some other large portion of the project, up front. Then, as you near a milestone, ask for another piece of it.

Billing at the end in one large chunk and then charging enormous rates just means you're not de-risking on the on set, and you're screwing a customer relationship.

Also, industry norms are NET 30, and some customers may even operate, and push, on NET 90 terms.

<comment><USER9> The reality is that almost no matter what you do, getting invoices paid is a hurdle and a pain. This isn't necessarily the clients being assholes or being cheap or being broke. It's just a law of nature.

It's not just invoices either. If you need clients to give you feedback, provide copywriting or do any other homework it can take too long. You'll walk out of a meeting. They will promise it by Friday. 3 months and 12 reminders later and you get it.

<comment><USER8> Agree. OP should work on better account receivable practices instead of pretending to be a loan shark.

<comment><USER10> Or you might go so far as say OP should work on knowing how to pick better customers, which would make his A/R life even easier.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I bill hourly, and now _only_ do prepaid work. Shameless promotion, but invoice issues are the reason I wrote Planscope ( <https://twitter.com/brennandunn/statuses/226414132566585344>). The more I can drill into client's heads that time == money, the less likely I am to get into invoice troubles.

I haven't had ANY issues since I made it clear that I'm selling my time and not a certain product, and that clients can see their current budget usage at any time. My current 6 month contract pays me in advance for 80 hours, and when he's about 20 hours from needing to fill up the tank again, I invoice him.

Over the last few years, I've spent WAY too much time chasing after money. I'm tired of it.

<comment><USER12> Have you had any clients not work with you because of the full up front payment requirement? Though I guess that would be a good indicator for problems in the future. I am thinking of switching to this for one of my current clients.

<comment><USER11> I've only had issues with one client, who is a national non-profit with procurement, etc.

The risk for the client is that you'll flake out. If you have a track record of being reliable (When I'm subbing out work, reliability and professionalism > technical capacity in most cases) then there's really no reason you shouldn't be getting prepaid work.

You're the one at risk. You risk losing the time spent working, which is non- renewable.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Break payments up into up front and milestones. Ditch any clients who are bad about payments. Worst case you are out the payment for one milestone, but you bought the business intelligence on who is a bad client to work for. I had to leave an Android startup that was at the top of the Market rankings, and getting tons of traffic due to that no matter what they did, due to issues like this and I am much better off for it.

Noom/Worksmart Labs would often "forget" to pay me some months, or "accidentally" pay me too little other months. They messed up paying my gym benefit for months once and I took over, then they argued for 10 emails and a a meeting when I asked them to contribute any amount at all. They'd frequently agree to do things like update the address I was paid at which I needed for immigration paperwork, then never do it because they wouldn't pay their accountant either. It was just hell working for them, and switching to other companies has been great. I actually get to focus on work instead of spending all my time seeing how the company is going to try to cheat me next and dealing with it.

</comment><comment><USER14> In my experience the main thing you should do is make sure that your contract is absolutely clear on the fact that you own all work until it is paid for in full.

If you get into paying late / non-paying scenarios, the main thing you want is leverage and in most cases this is the strongest leverage you're likely to be able to gain.

<comment><USER15> If you have a contract, you're already well ahead of the game. Most contracts will include all of this sort of stuff for you, and all you have to do with non-payers is wave a threatening legal letter at them.

If there's no contract, the best that you can do is a cash leash (when they go over $x overdue, work stops) and set it low enough that you can cut them loose without losing your house.

My take on dealing with "Squirrel" clients here: <http://teh.oarsum.com/posts/you_are_all_squirrels.html>

<comment><USER16> Obligatory: Just because it's not written down doesn't mean you have a contract. Oral, implied contracts are still legally contracts.

If it's written down and signed, it's much easier to know what everyone has agreed to, so that is _much_ better.

<comment><USER15> That's right, but it would increase your cost of litigation substantially, since you'll have a much longer court case trying to prove that.

It's not something that you really want to rely on.

edit: Just an addendum - most of the deadbeat weasel clients know that verbal contracts don't carry a lot of weight, so the _threat_ of being able to sue is really the important part. (Ideally you refuse the deadbeats upfront, but it's hard to tell sometimes)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> This is known as the "Blockbuster Video" model for treating customers for being late. How did that model work out for them?

Dude, these are your CUSTOMERS. Yes, don't be a doormat and YES it sucks waiting 3 months for a check when you expect it in two weeks. But sending 10% a week interest notices for being as little as 1 day late is going to backfire on you. No matter how great you are.

And what will potential customers think of blog posts like these...

<comment><USER18> >This is known as the "Blockbuster Video" model for treating customers for being late. How did that model work out for them?

It worked fine until their industry (renting videos and DVDs) dwindled to nothing. Blockbuster's demise had nothing to do with late fees.

<comment><USER19> Really? Besides the selection, I think Netflix's keep-it-as-long-as-you-want policy was a big reason it took off.

<comment><USER20> They're also charging your credit card each month. There's no notion of late fees because you're paying all the time.

<comment><USER19> True, but that's ok.

The real boon to the netflix model is that it doesn't make you consider individual decisions financially. Once you're on the service, deciding to see something, or keep it longer, or whatever, doesn't have financial implications, so you don't even think about it.

<comment><USER20> _Once you're on the service, deciding to see something, or keep it longer, or whatever, doesn't have financial implications, so you don't even think about it._

Well, it does, though maybe people don't think about it. It's the "health club membership" model. Pay for stuff you don't use.

Just like people figure out they never go to the gym, at some point though some people (such as myself) realize, hey I'm paying each month for Netflix but I don't bother getting new movies (or get anything I really care for), so why not cancel and go for the a la carte Redbox.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I'm not a lawyer, but in my contract my attorney specified an interest rate of 1.5% per month for overdue invoices. That at first seemed absurdly low to me - I wasn't dealing with thousands of receivables. This was probably my only client, and that percentage rate was unacceptably painless for a defaulting client.

However, he said that there's a legal limit (in the US?) for interest rates you can apply to an invoice. Does anyone know the validity of this?

<comment><USER21> The legal concept in called usury, and it varies by state. New York prohibits interest in excess of 30%.

States where credit cards are issued from have no usury -- Delaware, South Dakota, Utah, etc. States where you see retail payday lenders, "title loans", etc generally have high usury rates.

You need to be careful, because application of the law varies by state. For example, if someone is able to sue you under New York law, a judge can void the _entire debt_. Also, serving members of the military can have their interest obligation limited to 6% in many circumstances.

Generally speaking, a late fee should be an incentive for prompt payment, not a punitive measure. I would refuse to sign off on any contract with a vendor that such a capricious and draconian late payment policy. If minor delays in payment are a huge problem, deal with the issue up front and collect an upfront payment before commencing work. Sneaking in some excessive (and legally dubious) penalty is not good business.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Speaking from experience, Net 10 is totally unrealistic, unless you're working for one of those contracting, body shops...in which case, you're really just an employee of the body shop. Also, ProTip: the bigger the company, like say fortune 500, if you're truly freelancing/building your own business, hired directly, it's very common to get paid Net 90 (quarterly).

Edit: I should add, that if you're doing freelance for a small/start-up- ish/mom-and-pop company, it might be beneficial to get some form of retainer to do some work if you can negotiate that. Or, just stay away from this type of work all together if you can, as this is where I found most billing issues/collections in the past.

<comment><USER22> I'd also add, that I probably wouldn't hire a freelancer with a blog article like this on their site. It shows a lot of immaturity, lack of business acumen, and experience. Maybe things are different in Australia?

<comment><USER14> That was my immediate response - that 10% per week screams petulant and immature.

Yes, people paying late is bad, but it's also part of dealing with many large organisations. In cases I've seen the accounting department don't care what the local manager might have negotiated or even what the contract says, they'll pay when their (the accounting department) policy says they'll pay. They know that most people aren't going to risk their relationship with the company by charging interest or take legal action over what are relatively small amounts (next to the legal fees).

<comment><USER10> >> That was my immediate response - that 10% per week screams petulant and immature.

Totally agree that it screams of inexperience, and it's obvious that person lives hand-to-mouth. I pay my bills on time, and I would never hire that guy.

I always tell people starting contracting that they need about 3 months of "salary" in the bank, and a main portion of that is for cash flow coverage - in other words, the time it takes to collect on an invoice.

Having that 3 month float in the bank prevents you from taking every gig that comes your way. If, say, you're charging $100 an hour, don't take on customers who aren't used to paying that type of rate. The local business owner who is paying his staff minimum wage has little appreciation for the work you do. Chances are extremely good that he/she's going to nickel and dime you at every turn.

I've never not been paid for any contract work and haven't been negatively impacted by slow accounting (payment) policies because I always make sure I have enough of a float that allows me to choose my customers very carefully and not worry about the occasional late payment. I invoice net 30 and on longer projects, have a simple condition that I will stop work when an invoice is 60 days overdue.

If you really want to encourage early payment, then implement something like a 2/10 net 30, which is a 2% discount if the invoice is paid within 10 days.

<comment><USER23> > and it's obvious that person lives hand-to-mouth

Or maybe he just has better things to do than hounding clients to comply with net 30 or net 90 terms?

I think the disinclination to contract would be mutual in your cases. And that's just fine.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> There are lots of ways to ensure you are paid on time, being wholly unreasonable is not one of them. The key is to ensure that the invoice doesn't go overdue. Outline the consequences of late payment (work stoppage, no code delivery, no handover) at the beginning of the relationship, and work on terms that both sides are happy with. Tie payments to solid deliverables and send reminders. Bring hardcopy invoices to signoff meetings; if they don't pay it there and then, reschedule the signoff.

As an aside, I don't think your abusive penalty would be enforceable (in the UK anyway).

I would never agree to your terms.

<comment><USER25> If they were in the initial contract, I think it can still hold:

"You can calculate the interest payable on overdue bills by taking the relevant reference rate and adding 8 per cent.

Alternatively, you can set a contractual rate that may be higher or lower than the statutory rate. If you set a contractual rate, the statutory rate no longer applies"

[http://www.businesslink.gov.uk/bdotg/action/detail?itemId=10...](http://www.businesslink.gov.uk/bdotg/action/detail?itemId=1073792170&type=RESOURCES)

<comment><USER24> Interesting. The ability to charge a late fee is guaranteed by the Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998 which sets the statutory rate. Even though you could set significantly higher rates in your contract, the client might have remedy under the Unfair Contract Terms Act, where the supplier would have to show that the late fee is reasonable in relation to the damages sustained by late payment. Late payment is a breach of contract, so late fees have to be in line with the actual damages caused by that breach.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Rather than going after late fees, I've found find it quite effective to offer ongoing clients a modest discount if they pay invoices quickly. For example, if our normal terms on a contract were 30 days, we might offer a client a couple of percent off if they paid within a week of the invoice date. This way, clients are at liberty to wait the full period if they want to, but it will cost them a little more for the privilege.

That seems to be enough incentive for a lot of places to pay early, particularly smaller businesses who aren't on some fixed schedule run by a central accounts department. That in turn reduces the risk to my company, because typically we've only worked a little over a month before the corresponding payment reaches the bank, rather than having two full months of revenue at risk if anything unfortunate happens to the client.

Obviously this is all agreed up-front and terms are always negotiable, and for some larger companies this sort of scheme doesn't help because you're often looking at a longer payment window anyway. In that case, the basic rule is that the longer the window they want, the more the basic rate goes up and the bigger the up-front deposit before we start work.

<comment><USER10> Agreed, it's always better to offer an incentive for being good than a punishment for being bad.

<comment><USER27> Interestingly enough, that's not always true, at least for teachers. Recent paper:

[http://papers.nber.org/papers/w18237?utm_campaign=ntw&ut...](http://papers.nber.org/papers/w18237?utm_campaign=ntw&utm_medium=email&utm_source=ntw)

"Domestic attempts to use financial incentives for teachers to increase student achievement have been ineffective. In this paper, we demonstrate that exploiting the power of loss aversion—teachers are paid in advance and asked to give back the money if their students do not improve sufficiently—increases math test scores between 0.201 (0.076) and 0.398 (0.129) standard deviations. This is equivalent to increasing teacher quality by more than one standard deviation. A second treatment arm, identical to the loss aversion treatment but implemented in the standard fashion, yields smaller and statistically insignificant results. This suggests it is loss aversion, rather than other features of the design or population sampled, that leads to the stark differences between our findings and past research."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> I have definitely had my share of clients that have been slow to pay, and am very thankful for having had the majority of my clients pay well and on time. However, I have had the occasional client that just doesn't want to pay, and I definitely know the feelings of helplessness and anger that drive the creation of this sort of policy.

My question about this method is more about practicality than anything else. Has the OP actually tried to enforce this? It's hard for me to imagine presenting an invoice for 150% of the original and not have the client fly off the handle and make things much worse.

<comment><USER9> Yeah, I woud definitely like to see an update on this.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Mike Monteiro already did it better: <http://vimeo.com/22053820>

edit: He also covers a lot more ground in terms of negotiating, having a contract, etc. Well worth the 38:40 to watch.

edit2: There's also a book - Design is a Job - which goes into even more detail. I have it, it's pretty good.

<comment><USER29> I don't have the book but I agree about the video. Well worth watching.

<comment><USER30> In that vein, check out zencash.com. It automates all the backend payables stuff that Monteiro advocates.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Now that I think about it, I've noticed one peculiar thing. The more popular my blog is and the more general exposure I get in the tech community around here, the less problems I have with clients not wanting to pay or delaying payment.

Interesting how that works.

That said, I have never been able to collect payment upfront because I don't have a personal business and do things as an individual (there's some bureaucratic crap that prevents upfront payments for normal authorship contracts in Slovenia). And I have never not gotten paid completely, it can just sometimes take a few months longer than I would like.

That that said, circling back to my main marketing vehicle - the blog - building that has helped me be very picky about the clients I work with, which lets me avoid a lot of the problems.

</comment><comment><USER32> Based on the most lazy of research sessions, I'd probably just sell the debt to a debt collector, and accept the minor cost which appears to be around 10%, rather than go though all the time wasting grief of doing it myself. One, programming time is worth a lot more than debt chasing time. Two, the emotional side some people feel when chasing debt can impact on the programming (whatever), and personal time. I don't work or function that well when I am all annoyed about something. Better to have the 90% and move swiftly on. Let some one else who job it is deal with it.

I suppose, it a personal decision, depending on what we are prepared to do and accept. Some people may be quite happy to chill out and wait, some need the money asap.

<comment><USER33> I guess it depends on a lot of factors, but the collections agencies I've worked with take a _lot_ more than 10%. But you pay nothing if they are unable to collect. So if you were ready to give up on a client and write off the debt anyway, there's little to lose.

At my old company, we hired a stern-voiced hourly contractor to call clients with outstanding debts. She much more than paid for herself. Some invoices she couldn't collect on we sent to an agency, but honestly at that point they were quite old and the agency had a pretty low success rate.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> What happens if the author of the post is late delivering his work?

I'd like to see his full contract.

If anybody knows of "really good" rather than just "reasonable" contracts for programming contract work (perhaps involving retention of copyright/similar if client doesn't pay in a timely fashion), I'd love to see them. Please link.

<comment><USER35> If he is late on delivering, I'm sure he would be in close communication with the client on the adjusted delivery date. This isn't the case for late payments.

<comment> a-priori He also wouldn't be sending a final invoice until the work is complete, I assume.

<comment><USER10> Unless they invoice at fixed time periods, like bi-weekly or monthly.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> I recently had a non-paying web hosting customer. 3 Months without payment for multiple sites. Finally after numerous warnings I replaced her sites with a 'this account has been suspended' notice.

Received payment that day.

Kill switches work wonders.

<comment><USER37> That's not exactly a kill switch. If you're hosting the web site then of course you can deactivate it if they don't pay.

I think he was talking about delivering a finished software product to be run on their hardware, but that has a backdoor that allows you to access and deactivate it remotely.

<comment><USER38> I am curious how this would work legally. Once you have delivered the product, is killing it remotely equivalent to maliciously breaking in and destroying property?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> That seems overly adversarial. 10% per week is punitive; not representing any real cost.

What you should do is charge enough up-front (as a fraction of the invoice or a flat number) and bill frequently enough that a client stringing you along for a bill doesn't really hurt you.

You should also have a few clients going at once so that a few weeks late doesn't mean a few weeks of lost work, because at the first sign of a late payment you switch to other clients.

And for your regular clients, especially ones that have trouble paying quickly (perhaps due to corporate policies), ask for a retainer so you can keep their projects at a high priority without sticking your neck out.

Professionalism and respect go in both directions. Even large companies don't necessarily have a team of people dedicated to paying your bills instantaneously. If it's a good relationship and they value the project and you make it known that prompt payment is necessary to meet the schedule, they will pay promptly. If not, then no amount of punitive late fees will change that.

</comment><comment><USER40> A couple of things:

With your system the longer the client doesn't pay the invoice the less likely he is to pay at all. Why is this a good system?

Are you going to write a blog post regarding your opinion on kill switches? I would be interested to read that :)

Why is your CSS in the head of each page rather than a separate file?

You rolled your own blogging platform because you think wordpress, drupal or joomla are over the top. Your website is using drupal, wouldnt it be less effort to just use a drupal blogging module rather than have a separate system?

</comment><comment><USER41> I disagree with this post. The author is setting himself up for a bad reputation. Those unhappy customers that pay exorbitant fees will make it their business to tell others to avoid using the author.

Late-paying customers are just part of business.

</comment><comment><USER42> _> Some people think that building a "kill-switch" into their code is a way to ensure prompt payment (I don't; I think it's a horrible idea, but subject matter for another blog, at another time)._

Such practices are flat-out illegal in some jurisdictions.

<comment><USER16> oh? How so? Surely you have no right to use software/work if you haven't paid for it?

<comment><USER42> There are some jurisdictions that protect software that's running in production. In the case of industrial control software, there can be serious safety considerations to shutting down software. I know this from a previous job with a vendor that constantly had licensing disputes with industrial customers.

I may not be remembering this correctly, but I think Canada is one such jurisdiction.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> I'm sympathetic to the idea that requiring prompt payment for work done is a reasonable thing. But ten days doesn't work in (most of) the real world.

For many people in a position of hiring contractors to do work, there are times when an invoice can sit in an inbox -- physical or otherwise -- for more time than that before even being opened, much less acted upon via a process that often involves multiple other people.

Most companies I've experienced would respond to a demand for a 50% late fee by paying the exactly the original amount, exactly 30 days after invoice, and simply never work with you again.

<comment><USER44> He says right on top that thats negotiable _upfront_. I usually have net 15 and am pretty strict on that. That means, I will call on that day and ask for the invoice to be paid. I also make it clear to clients that prolonged non- payment outside of terms will lead to a raise on the negotiation. I also make clear that if they cannot pay for whatever reason, they can just call and talk about things. The reason why the default number is low is pretty easy: clients will only go up from there.

I personally find the punishment extremely hard. 10% per week is definitely unreasonable. It would basically put that person on my "don't recommend that colleague"-list.

About companies not paying late fees: unless the contract is really beefy to start with, its also a quick way to ensure that good freelancers won't work with you again. Word goes around. I've seen more that one seemingly "big" company struggle with not having any business partners to turn to any more.

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> This can't be legal in many places. Also, you'll come across as not very professional when trying to charge 150% interest on a month late invoice. Will seem like a scam to many. Surprised this made it to the front page. Imagine it was BofA forcing these terms on a mortgage for a family.

</comment><comment><USER46> I definitely ran into clients like this more than few times when I did freelance development.

I even once had a small restaurant owner ask for $750 back (after work had been performed) because his refrigerator broke and he needed money for repairs.

The types of clients who won't pay are generally not worth working with, and it takes time/experience to spot them before signing to work with them.

"Just pay me" is one of the reasons we're starting matchist (matchist.com): no more problem clients for quality developers.

</comment><comment><USER47> Just out of curiosity, why does the author think that "kill switches" are a bad idea? Comcast will cut my internet connection if I don't pay the bill, so will other utilities...

<comment><USER21> Would you trust someone who put a time-bomb in your business system?

That stuff is immature and unnecessary. You handle non-payment issue through the courts, not with vigilante justice. Have a lawyer draw up your contracts, and don't transfer ownership of the intellectual property until payment is made. If they don't pay, sue them for using _your_ property.

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> Although this might fly with some SMBs, this is not how multinational companies work.

In a typical multinational company there is an annual DPO (Days Payables Outstanding) goal, that shall be achieved no matter what. So unless a vendor has monopoly or has unique product/service, such approach will not fly [unless all such vendors have the same terms].

So if all software developers are using 30 days or 60 days terms, 10 days will not fly.

Until then, I would recommend a more constructive approach - use factoring. Don't know the cost in US, but certainly less than 10%. Increase your price by the factoring charge. Note that this might require you to update your contract and include right to re-assignment [check with legal person].

</comment><comment><USER49> When our clients didn't pay us, we stopped all work on that project until we had their money in our bank account. That's really the best incentive: send out invoices once a month, and stop work on whoever doesn't pay you. People don't want to see all that money they paid go down the toilet. Getting 10-20% up front eradicates situations where people who don't want to send you the last payment for a finished project.

There's also nothing wrong with actually paying them a visit and politely demanding your money (only if they're in town of course). This can make you seem a bit more like you actually exist and you're not some piece of paper asking for money.

<comment><USER50> This is really the most professional solution in my opinion. Once payment is past due, then all work stops. If you have been consulting for a while, you can easily change gears and focus on something else.

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> Great article. I think the one hook in here for me was: _This is about being a professional, and being treated as a professional._

One of the big things that has helped me is to include a clause in my contract that says "I'll deliver code when final payment is received." This mitigates a lot of trouble and usually helps to secure payment a lot quicker. The only caveat on this is that for client's whom I've developed a relationship with, I tend to ship code before final payment with a net fifteen window on the invoice.

</comment><comment><USER52> 10 day payment terms is not compatible with my experience of freelancing for small & medium sized businesses. With corporate or government clients that amount is just not even realistic at all. 30 days is fairly standard. 45 or even 90 days is not unrealistic for larger contracts.

I also think that 10% per week late fee - though I certainly understand and sympathize with a freelancers grief - it gives me a somewhat unprofessional impression of a freelancer who is either not financially stable or just vindictive. When I hire somebody I like to feel that they will be around next month. A more friendly approach with long-term benefit is to just stop working with clients who don't pay on time.

To make your life more stable as a freelancer I can say from experience that you want to obtain repeat clients as soon as possible - clients who want you to work on either retainer, or at least agree to some minimum amount of hours per month. Over time get rid of clients that don't pay on time or are problematic in other ways. Once you get past that point freelancing can be a really enjoyable and profitable to earn a living. Until you get there, though, you can tend to spend a decent amount of time haggling and arguing about money with your clients.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Well. This has generated quite a conversation (both here, and on the blog post). I suppose I better clear the air, a clean up a few misconceptions. The following is pretty much a cross-post from the comments there:

1\. The default terms are exactly that. Default terms. They will be discussed with clients before a project starts, and we will negotiate terms that suit us both. Think of it like asking for all the brown M&Ms being removed from a rockstar's rider. If a client is unwilling to discuss terms with me or unwilling to negotiate for their project, then either the project will proceed with these terms, or I may refuse the project entirely.

2\. The actual wording allows me to implement the penalty at my discretion. I've had a couple of late payers, and often just the mention of the penalty will prompt them to pay. I'm not trying to destroy client relationships here - I just want to get paid.

3\. A penalty for late payment isn't the only protection; that would just be stupid. Aside from contracts, I am very willing to refuse working for clients who I don't trust to pay on time.

4\. This isn't something that I will just spring on a client at the invoicing stage. Yes, it's copy on my invoices, but that's there to remind clients of the agreement.

5\. Negotiation is important. I realise that this is a re-hash of point 1, but it bares saying twice. I have contracts with different clients where different terms are enforced. The point is that these are default terms, which are there to protect me and my business. They are my starting point for negotiation. So long as you don't come at me offering "I promise to pay you on time" as a point to negotiate with (you can't negotiate with promises that you should be keeping anyway), then we'll figure out better terms for both of us.

<comment><USER53> So how much of your actual income is covered by contracts that fall under your "default terms"? And what part is covered by individual contracts?

<comment><AUTHOR> In the time I've been working freelance (admittedly, not particularly long), I've had only one client who didn't want to negotiate a better contract, and that's because the work was "emergency" work (things on their site were broken, and they needed someone to step in and fix them so their business could continue). I made them aware of the conditions, and they accepted them.

Everyone else (who I've actually done work for since I implemented this) has wanted to negotiate a better contract. I've turned down people who refused to look at the contract, because I feel that they're probably not going to pay sufficient attention to the project, and I would have to fight them to get payment.

This isn't about trying to make big bucks on late fees - after a certain amount of time, I would write it off as a bad debt (as such) and hand it on to a collection agency, or call in the lawyers.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> In my humble opinion, I think most these comments miss the root problem which is getting paid for the work. I know I am not supposed to plug own companies, but since we have been dealing with this very issue at the platform and process level, I will chime in with what we know. We decided that the way to go was pre-payment - ie work only begins when funds are in hand. The next questions is how to break down the chunk of work to make it easy for a project owner to pay and yet meaningful enough to the developer. We settled on a week's worth of time. Ie a developer in GroupTalent can submit a "sprint" of a week's duration working as many hours a developer would like to work in that week (most settle around 20-30hrs).

I am personally exploring a new twist in this process with the ability to force customer requirements into user stories and let developers charge for implementing a number of these stories in the same prepayment model.

hope this helps

</comment><comment><USER55> If you are in a position to dictate this NET 10 or late fees conditions, then by all means, go for it. Work has to be paid. This can work well in markets where it works in your advantage. The only problems is that in many markets on can't enforce such rules, because there are many providers to the same service driving price and terms down.

</comment><comment><USER56> I assume you're doing "work for hire", which implies that your copyright is assigned to the client in consideration for your wages. In your agreement, you could explicitly specifiy, absent payment in full, the copyright remains with you. (This is may be the case anyway.) That is, they don't own it without paying for it.

</comment><comment><USER57> I would never work with anyone who even proposes such terms. Not because I don't want to pay on time (we always do) but because those terms are unprofessional, to put it mildly. If you want to be treated like a pro, act like one.

Update: Having looked at your resumé, I probably wouldn't work with you anyway.

</comment><comment><USER58> When I was freelance I was lucky enough to get paid on time. Every time. I attribute it to the communication I had with the client. I would speak or email the client everyday I was working on their project. When it came time to invoice them I would simply send out an email.

Communicate often. It helps.

</comment><comment><USER59> I freelance and bill my clients and get paid Net 30. The issue of late or non payment is not that easy to resolve just by slapping late fees etc. It really depends on many factors including your clients ability to pay on time (sometimes they depend on payment from someone else to pay them before they pay you), how big they are etc etc. My current client was late by about a week on my last payment and his reason was "my bank screwed up". I think either you go through a detailed contract listing every possible screw-up that could happen but most likely, late payments will happen here and there.

</comment><comment><USER60> The basic problem is a power imbalance, and its result is that _they_ tell _you_ how they pay. So any proposed solution built on the idea of _you_ telling _them_ how to pay seems very much in danger of failing for exactly the same reason that there is a problem in the first place.

(Perhaps the main avenue to a solution is in freelancers acting collectively somehow -- thereby becoming more powerful. If clients risk being unable to find service-providers because those clients have been blacklisted, they would more strongly feel the value in paying-up.)

</comment><comment><USER61> I whole-heartedly agree with the terms, if not quite the tone. I've had to chase companies that had the cash to waste visibly for late payment. I've had to chase companies that wanted to change terms after there was acquisition interest. In both cases, I had to waste time chasing them down and I feel that the usual "net 30" scheme was to blame. The companies see the 30 days as a way to procrastinate after the purchase and the opportunity for a situation change to make things weird creeps in.

</comment><comment><USER62> >10% per week, every week, starting from the first day that the invoice is overdue.

I'm pretty sure that's much much more than the maximum rate permitted by law.

</comment><comment><USER30> Dude, stop with the late fees and go check out www.zencash.com. It was built exactly for this purpose. Get a better receivables plan. ZC connects to your invoicing app and will send reminders on your behalf, or if you're really done with that customer, send the bill to collections.

It's not worth the stress, trust me, I've been there. Full disclosure: I just joined the team as DoP.

</comment><comment><USER63> LOL love the doormat remark. It's so true. I think your payment system markup makes a lot of sense. People often do not fully appreciate that a lot of us do freelance for needed extra money, so their withholding of payment is actually pretty problematic for many of us. As long as your markup policy is written into the contract, I think your process is brilliant.

</comment><comment><USER64> Check the Mike Monteiro linked in another comment. Professionals use lawyers, not amateur contract terms, to get paid.

<comment><USER30> 'zactly.

</comment></comment><comment><USER65> Gotta ask - how often does it come to this for you and do you actually manage to collect these penalties?

</comment><comment><USER66> The way that most businesses and professionals outside the tech industry actually deal with this is quite simple, and quite uniform. Two percent (or thereabout) discount for immediate cash payment.

For example, 2/10 net 30 means 2% discount if paid within 10 days, otherwise full amount due in 30.

</comment><comment><USER67> That could work - I'd be tempted to put a limit on it though - a 10% penalty (or whatever) immediately upon overdue, and a cutoff point where you simply send them to a collection agency.

Of course, in the end, you put what the law allows and your clients will accept....

</comment><comment><USER68> When I contracted, my rule was to never lend the client more than 10 days pay. My clients didn't seem to have a problem with that - even a big multinational.

If your clients can't get their act together in 10 days offered to work on retainer.

</comment><comment><USER69> Similar (but more entertaining): Fuck You, Pay Me <http://vimeo.com/22053820>

</comment><comment><USER70> 10% a week interest is forbidden, by law, in my country.

</comment><comment><USER71> you should probably stop free-lancing.</comment>


Top Five Reasons You're Wrong About Needing a Large Backlog - <AUTHOR> http://tiny-giant-books.com/blog/top-five-reasons-youre-wrong-about-needing-a-large-backlog/ <comment><AUTHOR> Author here. Happy to take any questions or clarify any vagueness in the text. It's a common problem that people tend to have a lot of baggage around.</comment>


Ask HN: Will there be native web assembly Mobile APIs? - <AUTHOR> Will there be native web assembly Mobile APIs?<p>Let's say I like new language X that compiles to LLVM or native code. Will it get mobile dev capabilities for free from WASM, or should I target a more established language stack for doing mobile dev like Java. <comment><USER2> WebAssembly is a low-level runtime currently targeting the existing web platform. There are no plans to add wasm-specific web platform APIs [0]. You will not gain existing capabilities other than those already exposed to mobile websites. Non-web embeddings will be possible [1], but are not currently being developed.

[0]: [https://github.com/WebAssembly/design/blob/master/Web.md#web...](https://github.com/WebAssembly/design/blob/master/Web.md#web- embedding) [1]: [https://github.com/WebAssembly/design/blob/master/NonWeb.md](https://github.com/WebAssembly/design/blob/master/NonWeb.md)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the information.</comment></comment>


Insider Thoughts on Flashpoint, Georgia Tech's Startup Accelerator - <AUTHOR> http://blog.kischuk.com/2012/03/14/insider-thoughts-on-flashpoint-georgia-techs-startup-accelerator/

<comment><USER2> Flashpoint's homepage: <http://flashpoint.gatech.edu/>

I applied for the first cohort last year, but didn't make the first cut (I do remember the application being almost a carbon copy of YC's). I was disappointed at the lack of hustle demonstrated toward applicants who didn't make the cut—despite having my email address, they never sent me anything about the demo days or the like, and my repeated inquiries concerning applications for the next cohort went unanswered.

Nevertheless, thanks for this review. I'm glad you enjoyed the program, and good luck with Badgy!

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm not sure this is much different from any other accelerator. I've heard that this experience is pretty similar for TechStars or YC rejections. That said, you could easily contend that as a less established accelerator, they should seem more hungry, but this also runs into the conundrum that as a less established accelerator, they have fewer resources to do this. Even during the program, communication could be a bit haphazard.

It's probably a good suggestion to challenge previous applicants to reapply if they believe they have made significant progress. TechStars did just do this.

Thanks! Hope to catch you around ATL.

<comment><USER2> Coincidentally enough, I just got an email from a Flashpoint contact asking about the startup I applied with last year, and encouraging me to apply again.

<comment><AUTHOR> Interesting. I do think they have their PR team more engaged right now since it's prime application season.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Microsoft plans 400% price increase for Windows 8 - <AUTHOR> http://thenextweb.com/microsoft/2013/01/18/citing-momentum-microsoft-plans-500-price-increase-for-windows-8/

<comment><USER2> Pitching the retail price of Windows 8 at the same price you can buy a very effective Chromebook has got to be good for one of the two businesses.</comment>


Why haven't China's cities learned from America's mistakes? - <AUTHOR> http://www.theguardian.com/cities/2014/aug/20/why-havent-chinas-cities-learned-from-americas-mistakes <comment><USER2> The short, glib answer is "The same reason teenagers don't learn from their elders' mistakes".

The longer answer is a combination of:

\- poor people want what rich people have. And if they can't afford the substance (private country estate), they'll still get the style (McMansion). They particularly want last generation's rich people's things, as this generation's rich people's things are have not gained widespread popularity.

\- suburban sprawl has low up-front costs with real costs coming in decades later, as North American suburbs are starting to experience today

\- suburbs offer a very seductive lifestyle proposition - the space and privacy of the country and the convenience of city life. In my experience they fail to deliver, offering the traffic and neighbours of the city, without the convenience of dense, walkable neighbourhoods, proximity to downtown and quick transit.

\- more privacy and space _are_ quite nice.

<comment><USER3> >\- suburban sprawl has low up-front costs with real costs coming in decades later, as North American suburbs are starting to experience today

Would you mind elaborating more on this? More specifically about the cost the North American suburbs are starting to experience.

thanks

<comment><USER2> I am talking primarily about property tax rates, though as siblings have said, there are other effects, like worse health and lifestyle outcomes which are a bit harder to quantify.

As the article mentions, suburban municipalities made money primarily by selling land, however the price almost never accounted for the true, high cost of servicing low-density communities. This is usually made much worse by developer lobbying. Eventually the land runs out and the municipality has to either stop growing and start raising property taxes to make up for lost sales, or start densifying to keep growth going, neither of which are popular with people who though were getting a certain deal. For a lot of suburbs densifying is not even an option (no one wants to go there), so sometimes they spiral downwards.

Calgary makes a good example. Prior to 2010 it had the image of "redneck sprawlville", but it elected an urbane, muslim, gay-welcoming mayor. One of his major issues was tax savings via ending public subsidies for suburbs. Turns out when you did the math, each mcmansion received a hefty public subsidy because the cost of servicing that house exceeded what developers paid the city. Similar patters can be seen throughout North America.

<comment><USER4> All these things come down to that everyone should give up most of the things they want, and listen to "what's best".

I've yet to see someone make the point that there are solutions, such as using electric self-driving cars as public transport, will work. Assuming of course, the price can be made low enough.

Maybe I'm a horrible human being, but I have a family, and I want space (incl. a garden), NOT living in a big city, and a car. I do not think this is too much to ask. Solutions (and politics) should focus on how to make that possible, not on how to prevent it.

<comment><USER5> It's not too much to ask, but there are better and worse ways of getting it. My mom and I live in similar sized houses on similar sized plots of land.

I live in a suburb that is constructed like a small town. The streets are a grid, and there is a "main street" that puts the essentials within walking distance of many of the houses--groceries, restaurants, hardware, even elementary and middle schools--and a few smaller shop areas sprinkled on a few other blocks.

My mom lives in a suburb that was constructed by a suburban developer in the 1970s. The streets are all curved and hierarchical (i.e. connect like branches on a tree), and all the shopping is concentrated in a big strip mall at a major intersection.

The result is that the traffic is far worse for my mom. Everything requires driving, and the street layout extends travel times, while concentrating all drivers into a smaller and smaller set of roads. They also have a worse time in winter. They are totally dependent on plows when it snows; whereas in my neighborhood most folks can walk to a store if they need something.

Edit to add: I can't prove it, but my subjective perception is that average health is lower in my mom's neighborhood, with more fat people. There's no reason to walk besides exercise (i.e. walking in circles just to walk). In my neighborhood it is often more convenient to walk, so people do it a lot more.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I think what this signals is not that there is something particularly backwards about China.

Chinese suburban sprawl shows that no matter the style of governance or how markets deal with housing, it seems like people converge on the same poor urban planning practices.

Or, you could interpret the similar mistakes as proof that real estate in America is dealt with in a way that's far from free. Texas, the heart of the mainstream right, is where much of the sprawl is. In the greatest irony, the strongly-left economist Paul Krugman is saying Texas has economically positive liberal housing laws.[1]

Does the liberalization of housing law lead to sprawl? How could a place with top down bureaucracy like China produce the same outcome as right Texas with left-approved policy?

It's all a big mess. Nobody has figured out modern living in an efficient way, I think. I don't think Paul Krugman, Rick Perry, San Francisco housing reform activists, San Francisco status-quo activists, AirBnb, etc. have the answers.

The natural experiment in China shows radically different laws and market practices still lead to problems. No one has figured out an optimal idea for land ownership and housing.

[1] [http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/25/opinion/paul-krugman- wrong...](http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/25/opinion/paul-krugman-wrong-way- nation.html?_r=0)

<comment><USER7> If you look at Japan, which generally has much looser zoning practices, it's managed to do much, much, better. It has sprawl and excess road construction too, but the sprawl is much more transit-oriented, and Japan has generally done a far better job avoiding the worst stupidities of U.S. post-war development.

I'm sure there are many interacting reason for this, e.g. Japan's poverty in the decades after the war meant that cars weren't even a possibility for most people, and the sheer population of cities like Tokyo meant that mass car usage wouldn't be remotely practical even if everybody _could_ afford a car.

But surely China has many huge cities as well, and the average citizen still isn't very rich...

My guess is that in Japan, developers just followed the money and did what's practical, and that meant building transit and transit-oriented housing. In China, on the other hand, with its strong centralized control, developers are probably more likely to be influenced by what the fat cats in the party hierarchy want—which is more roads for their Mercedes, and more "western-like" development which they associate with wealth and privilege—even if that isn't so sensible according to the situation on the ground (and isn't so good for the average citizen, or for the future)...

<comment><USER8> It may also be because in Japan space is very constrained, while China is a huge country with a lot available space - just like US.

<comment><USER7> I don't think space is really such a factor at the scale of a single city in many cases. Although China has a lot more land should it choose to build new cities or whatever, what matters more for existing cities is land in close proximity to them (to the point where transportation becomes the limiting factor).

Tokyo, for instance, has plenty of relatively empty space around it even today; it isn't severely geographically constrained in the same way that Hong Kong or Manhattan are.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I live in Hangzhou and they are already addressing these problems. For example, there is a network of public bike stations. To use a bike, you make a 200 yuan deposit on a public transportation card. The first hour bike rental is free. After that it starts at 1 yuan for the second hour and goes up from there. The card also works for buses (a ride costs 2-4 yuan) using your available balance. After riding a bus, the free bike period is increased to 90 minutes. It's usually easy to find a bike and they are continuing to build new stations making it even more convenient.

Cars are a problem because of the amount of traffic around the city center. To address that, the goverment mandated that private cars could only drive in the city once a week during weekday rush hour. New drivers can only get a license if they pay a hefty tax or win a lottery (only about 2% who enter win). These restrictions don't apply to electric vehicles. There is also a network of public electric cars that can be rented for personal use. They are about the size of Smart cars.

The article points at the suburban sprawl starting to spread around cities like Shanghai. But what it doesn't mention is that most of these homes are super expensive or so far away as to require a lifestyle which most Chinese couldn't afford. Those who could afford these houses are likely to also be able to afford an even better lifestyle overseas. The middle-class can scarcely afford to buy a small apartment in China's top-tier cities. So I'm not too worried about Western-style sprawl taking over all of China.

<comment><USER10> > I live in Hangzhou and they are already addressing these problems. For > example, there is a network of public bike stations.

Do people use these in your experience? I've noticed them pop up all over Germany and then Taiwan too, but I found it hard to spot anyone but tourists riding public bikes. I always wonder if these are simply prestige projects to impress green-minded citizens (like myself).

<comment><USER11> In the Netherlands, most train stations have a bike station like that, and it seems to be quite a success. 4 years ago, seeing someone on such an "OV-fiets" (public transit bike) was an oddity, now it's very common. Doing the last mile by bike beats buses and trams big time, IMO. No waiting, no sitting next to sweaty people, no thinking, planning - just go.

It probably helps that biking is already a strong element of Dutch culture, but if I'm not mistaken the Chinese bike a lot too so I guess it could work just as well.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I don't think saying China didn't see and learn from the failing aspects of American city planning is fair or useful, especially when it comes to road planning. The Chinese and American culture on road use is completely different: (power/gas) scooters and (regular) bikes are extremely popular in Beijing, and Chinese drivers are generally much more aggressive. Because of this, most road users, including bikers, are capable of driving defensively against other road users. Most bikers/scooter-ers are already comfortable with weaving between cars on their commute. Would a segregated lane make commuting on smaller vehicles safer? Undoubtedly. Would it be necessary to incentivize biking over driving larger vehicles? Probably not.

This, along with other problems, like an exponentially expanding middle class population that can suddenly afford vehicles, is only one of the many different challenges most western governments have not experienced, which China currently faces. It may be unfair to quickly jump to conclusions and simply say the Chinese have not learned from the history of urban planning by western countries, when there are very few references from which the Chinese government can draw on, for the unique problems that they are facing.

TL;DR: Chinese urban centers have problems that cities in Western countries have not faced.

<comment><USER13> Gas scooters are illegal within the 5th ring road, the police just haven't cracked down recently so many people are getting daring again (it's a cycle).

Beijing bikes don't go very fast, probably because the lanes are all choked by cars, though it was like this in the late 90s also when Beijing still had segregated bike lanes.

Chinese urban planners are just uneducated people who got their jobs via guanxi, especially in a corrupt city like Beijing (Shanghai, Guangzhou are much better, of course).

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I've heard about failed city planning a lot, and I wonder is there a good example somewhere? like a booming city with more than 5 million population that have "good" city plan? which city is best in this regard?

<comment><USER15> > I've heard about failed city planning a lot, and I wonder is there a good > example somewhere?

Cities with functional public transport and walkable neighborhoods: Tokyo, Seoul, London, New York City, Paris, Berlin.

Maybe also Madrid and Singapore, but I don't know much about them. Edit: Maybe Osaka and Nagoya, too (I don't know much about them either).

All these have over 5 million population.

<comment><USER8> Paris is a bad example of functional public transport. You have intramuros Paris, which is walkable and have good transportation (metro), and you can add maybe the "petite couronne", but it's much too small to accommodate the population that revolves around the Greater Paris.

As soon as you get go outside, you have suburbs with no life and poor transportation. RER and SNCF trains are late when they're not in strike (1).

As a result, everyone wants to live in Paris or very close, so the prices of housing are very high. And even if you can afford an appartement, it's very hard to actually sign a lease because there are so many potential tenants wanting to rent it.

Add to that the fact that there are very few tall buildings in Paris because they want to keep it some kind of museum city stuck in the 19th century with Haussmanian buildings, the housing problem is not going to fix itself.

(1) In Paris suburbs, most child care provider refuse kids whose both parents use the RER. Because they will have no control on the time they'll be back to pick up their kids. Not exactly what we call "functional public transport".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> A very simplistic and skewed article. As per its usual modus operandi, China is pursuing all options simultaneously. Which means that in addition to building hideous sprawling automotive-dependent suburbs, they're building the largest and most sophisticated urban and regional rail system in the world, and pursuing initiatives such as the Chengdu car-free city ([http://weburbanist.com/2013/02/11/car-free-city-china- builds...](http://weburbanist.com/2013/02/11/car-free-city-china-builds-dense- metropolis-from-scratch/)) which are vastly more progressive than anything the rest of the world has attempted.

Portland is a great city by American standards, but its public transit mode- share for all trips in the metropolitan region still hovers around 4% -- with an additional ~2% coming from cycles -- making Portland ~94% dependent on private cars. (Note: you'll see statistics claiming a much higher mode share for Portland; this is done by excluding the other municipalities which account for >70% of the population in the metropolitan region, as well as by excluding the >60% of trips that are non-commuting trips). China is already doing _much_ better than that, so it would be a shame if Portland were its target.

</comment><comment><USER17> Interesting subject. If the question is "to sprawl or not to sprawl" (that is, urban sprawl), like most truly serious questions, there's no good solution.

I live in Oregon, where we have strict urban grown boundaries. Here in Portland, light rail has been developing since the 1970's and still expanding. Bicycling is pushed by city leaders. "In-fill" housing is going up in most every part of town.

Utopia? Not everyone thinks so. Sure "urban sprawl" is mostly avoided, and farmland is preserved. But road traffic is a nightmare, and the toll of increasing population density is palpable.

Now there's talk of the undesirable effects of "vertical sprawl", a reaction to the ever-increasing height of new condo buildings and the like. There's a growing murmur of objection to the "canyon-like" landscape that many feel has a negative impact on urban quality of life.

So here we are again, there are always trade-offs, which is less corrosive, suburban or vertical sprawl? Maybe it just goes to show, we can overdo any good thing.

<comment><USER18> I think the key here would be to limit both – no buildings higher than ~6 stories (~30m) and a limit on urban boundaries, either enforced by land planning or economics.

Standard mansion blocks of six stories still have a much higher population density than suburban sprawling single-family homes while avoiding some/all of the issues with too high a population density – two-lane roads are usually quite sufficient and the sun does reach the ground from time to time.

See e.g. Berlin and Munich for (IMHO) decent examples of this.

<comment><USER19> I'm all for less sprawl but artificial limits like the ones you're describe would IMO only needlessly accelerate gentrification. For instance, it's very difficult to get a spot at a daycare in Munich, not because there isn't space in the system but because the city can't afford to hire staff that can afford to live in Munich.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> The main problem I have here in the UK is that I live in a suburban area but have excellent train, bus, tram, road links into our nearest city and several other local cities.

Every job I've expressed an interest in recently has an office outside of the main centre, normally near a major road junction. This makes the office inaccessible by public transport and much easier to get to by car. These are IT jobs in different industry sectors: retail, defence, finance, utilities etc.

I suppose this is due to the price of land and availability of office space out of town. There is no incentive for most of these companies to be in a city centre.

This is the major reason I'm likely to continue to drive to work. At the right time of day it takes 20 mins to drive, proabably over 1.5 hours by public transport - a mixture of train, bus, walk and much more expensive. How dissappointing!

Of course this isn't an issue in London, I'm talking about provincial towns and cities.

</comment><comment><USER21> There's one aspect where China has well and truly learned from America's mistakes: public transport. Every Chinese city of any importance has a metro system that's shiny new and heavily used. In 1993, the Shanghai Metro did not exist; today it's the world's longest, and by some measures the busiest.

[http://www.urbanrail.net/as/asia.htm](http://www.urbanrail.net/as/asia.htm) [http://www.urbanrail.net/as/cn/shan/shanghai.htm](http://www.urbanrail.net/as/cn/shan/shanghai.htm)

<comment><USER13> But if you live in the suburbs and are just a car-less diaosi, you have your parents get up at 4am just to reserve a place for you in the bus line so you can make it to work by 8am (this is actually true for many places in Beijing, and some places in SH).

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> To quote poet Carl Sandberg - "The fog comes on little cat feet. It sits looking over harbor and city on silent haunches and then moves on." The problem is that screwing up the environment can happen so slowly that by the time you start to realize how bad it is to may be too late.

</comment><comment><USER23> I think it's because of Hollywood. They see the American TV shows and movies, and (slasher films aside) they show a happy suburban existence. And don't show hour-long commutes, the high cost of car ownership, etc.</comment>


Statement on Cybersecurity: Someone may have profited from SEC database hack - <AUTHOR> https://www.sec.gov/news/public-statement/statement-clayton-2017-09-20 <comment><AUTHOR> _" Notwithstanding our efforts to protect our systems and manage cybersecurity risk, in certain cases cyber threat actors have managed to access or misuse our systems. In August 2017, the Commission learned that an incident previously detected in 2016 may have provided the basis for illicit gain through trading. Specifically, a software vulnerability in the test filing component of our EDGAR system, which was patched promptly after discovery, was exploited and resulted in access to nonpublic information."_</comment>


How to Build a Simple landing page with Node.JS & Hapi.JS on Nodejitsu - <AUTHOR> http://blog.frozenridge.co/simple-fast-dynamic-landing-page-in-node-js-and-hapi-js/

<comment><USER2> For those who want a landing page with email "Signup" form, but without running an app server to do it, consider a static web site on AWS S3 + Mailchimp (see [http://kb.mailchimp.com/article/how-can-i-add-my-signup- form...](http://kb.mailchimp.com/article/how-can-i-add-my-signup-form-on-my- website/)).</comment>


Ask HN: Why I can't find my site in Google? - <AUTHOR> I have recently launched a new web app https://www.wisaw.com<p>Google search console tells me that at least 88 pages were crawled and indexed. However, when I'm searching for any of these pages by keywords that appear in content -- non of these pages come up in search results. At first I thought to myself -- be patient. However, it's been going on for more than 3 month. What am I doing wrong? <comment><USER2> To debug the process, you can start with searching Google for your own site. The syntax is: "$searchQuery site:wisaw.com", for eg: "wisaw site:wisaw.com"

I got only 4 results with that search. So those 4 pages are definitely indexed. You can check with different search queries for the rest of the pages.

I observe that it's a photo only website. It's hard to get them ranked better than sites with content. Search engines are smarter now, so adding title, description, keywords, etc does not ensure it ranks better for those keywords. It used to work, but not anymore. Search crawler check for actual content and relevance.

Since its "an anonymous photo" app, you'll have to rely high on word of mouth/social/referral traffic instead of organic sources.

</comment><comment><USER3> I could not find a robots.txt file on your site, also does your site have a sitemap?

Consider adding: [https://codelabs.developers.google.com/codelabs/structured-d...](https://codelabs.developers.google.com/codelabs/structured- data/index.html#0)</comment>


Con artists are fleecing Uber drivers - <AUTHOR> https://www.cnet.com/news/con-artists-are-fleecing-uber-drivers/ <comment><USER2> So if I get a phone call asking for my account info, password, AND 2-factor code, I should decline? What a shocker...

Of course I feel for these people, but how is this any different than any of the thousands of other scams that follow nearly the same script??

</comment><comment><USER3> tl;dr - Don't give your password out to people that ask for it, otherwise people can do things with your account that you don't want them to do.

There is no novel technical vulnerability... Just another case of people being convinced to give up their passwords over the phone.</comment>


TiDB: A Raft-based HTAP Database [pdf] - <AUTHOR> http://www.vldb.org/pvldb/vol13/p3072-huang.pdf <comment><AUTHOR> Here's more reference: [https://pingcap.com/blog/how-tidb-htap-makes-truly- hybrid-wo...](https://pingcap.com/blog/how-tidb-htap-makes-truly-hybrid- workloads-possible) This post introduces the design details of the HTAP architecture of TiDB, including the real-time updatable columnar engine, the multi-Raft replication strategy, and smart selection.

<comment><USER2> These hybrid databases are really exciting. I also really like how mature pingcap is from a technical perspective. On the benchmarking page this paragraph really stood out.

> If you don't have reproducible, fair benchmarking, you can be blinded by > your own hubris. Our contributors and maintainers depend on benchmarks to > ensure that as we strive to improve TiDB, we don't negatively impact its > performance. To us, not having benchmarks is like not having logging or > metrics.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> One important limitation is that TiDB only offers snapshot isolation, not serializability.

<comment><USER4> Is serializability desirable in a distributed database?

<comment><USER3> It's just as desirable as with a simple database since it avoids certain anomalies (write skew). For many operations it's strong enough, but it adds the risk that you run into problematic anomalies you did not anticipate.

> In a write skew anomaly, two transactions (T1 and T2) concurrently read an > overlapping data set (e.g. values V1 and V2), concurrently make disjoint > updates (e.g. T1 updates V1, T2 updates V2), and finally concurrently > commit, neither having seen the update performed by the other. Were the > system serializable, such an anomaly would be impossible, as either T1 or T2 > would have to occur "first", and be visible to the other. In contrast, > snapshot isolation permits write skew anomalies.

FoundationDB has a workaround, but I don't know how well that works in practice.

> In TiDB, you can use SELECT … FOR UPDATE statement to avoid write skew > anomaly. In this case, TiDB will use locks to serialize writes together with > MVCC to gain some of the performance gains and still support the stronger > "serializability" level of isolation.

Serializability is more expensive of course, since the database needs to track what was read and not only what was modified. It is possible to achieve this in a distributed database, FoundationDB is one example that supports it.

[https://tikv.org/deep-dive/distributed- transaction/isolation...](https://tikv.org/deep-dive/distributed- transaction/isolation-level/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I got the TiDB coffee mug, it looks better than the MongoDB mug

<comment><USER6> Tandem (who sold high-availability via redundant hardware) coffee mugs had two handles. What are some other companies whose mugs reflected their value proposition?</comment></comment>