news.YC/active - <AUTHOR> http://news.ycombinator.com/active <comment><USER2> Excellent. To me, the real value (or potential value) of this site lays in the discussions centering around the links, rather than the links themselves, so I'll probably be using this as the default view from now on.

Might be an idea to make this view contribute 25% to the ranking of the main view as well? Quite a few decent discussions with few votes have popped up, so it might be a good idea.

<comment><USER3> '... To me, the real value (or potential value) of this site lays in the discussions centering around the links, rather than the links themselves, ...'

yes exactly. but alas it never seems to happen. the links are really just points of interest that attract good ideas, comments or insight. This was the heart of slashdot, perlmonks et., al.

I don't trawl sites for links, I trawl them for the "insight, opinions and ideas on the links".

<comment><USER2> On the positive side though, I do believe it will only take a few tweaks to the site (for instance adding active discussions to the weighting that determines the front page order) and maybe 30-40 regular contributers to get the critical mass for discussions going. I've noticed regular contributors such as Alex3917, python_kiss, rms and danielha (and of course pg) are constantly making valuable comments, just a few more guys like them and I think we'll be set.

<comment><USER3> _'... On the positive side though ...'_

I'm not being negative, just accepting the reality of the situation. You can't change human nature.

The system will always be playing catch-up using algorythms against people who want to _hack_ with the system. I'm not saying this is a problem now but it might pay to think what happens the first time 'news.yc' gets slashdotted & overrun with the /. goths, vandels & huns.

It pays to think how can the software be written to enforce the culture? 'Artifacts of initial design' will have effects on future user interaction? [0]

_'... I do believe it will only take a few tweaks to the site (for instance adding active discussions to the weighting that determines the front page order) and maybe 30-40 regular contributers to get the critical mass for discussions going. ...'_

They have already started :)

_'... I've noticed regular contributors such as Alex3917, python_kiss, rms and danielha (and of course pg) are constantly making valuable comments, just a few more guys like them and I think we'll be set. ...'_

No. It was an interesting listen to Joshua Schacter at Startup school [1] talking about the energy required to counter the noise. But this a positive story The best thing aside from the comments to come out of YCNews may be the tools, algorythms developed, created to _manage_ the sig to noise problems that will occur.

__Reference __

[0] Joshua Schacter, _'Startup School talk'_

<http://notelab.infogami.com/startupschool2006>

[Accessed Thursday, 22 March 2007]

[1] Joshua Schacter, _'YC VC presentation, APR 2006'_

<http://wiki.ycombinator.com/presentations/apr06/Joshua_Schacter.mp3>

[Accessed Thursday, 22 March 2007]

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I've been using this page pretty often for the last couple days and it's worked well. Will we see a link on the the main page soon, Paul?

<comment><USER5> Maybe, but there may be better ways of showing the same info.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> hey, can we add this to the top nav bar so I don't have to bookmark it separately?

and maybe show on the listing page how long ago the last comment was?</comment>


Crystal_api – fast and easy REST api for Postgresql written in Crystal - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/akwiatkowski/crystal_api <comment><AUTHOR> This is my work in progres. I wanted to create full REST api to check if it's possible. I haven't though it can be as fast.

2-4* times faster than a Postgrest [https://github.com/begriffs/postgrest](https://github.com/begriffs/postgrest) 20* times faster than Rails (*for GET index)

Now it's refactored as shard so it should be much easier to use it.

<comment><USER2> This would make a good "Show HN".

[https://news.ycombinator.com/showhn.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/showhn.html)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, I haven't knew about it. I'll put some more features and post link to article comparing performance.

My friend helped me with benchmark, but I'm who is writing article. [https://github.com/bartekupartek/benchmark](https://github.com/bartekupartek/benchmark)</comment></comment></comment>


337 whales dead in Chile in one of history's biggest beachings - <AUTHOR> http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/dec/01/chile-337-whales-beached-stranding <comment><USER2> I actually see this as a positive as it means the whale numbers are making a great comeback now that (most) nations have stopped hunting them. Here in Australia the humpback whale is back from 200 to 26,000 just on the east coast alone [1].

1\. [http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-27/humpback-whale- populat...](http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-27/humpback-whale-population- shows-no-sign-of-slowing-down/6728660)

<comment><USER3> Isn't the problem with such interventions that returning a species to previous population levels can great an imbalance? What predates this species; are the predators able to keep the levels down such that this species doesn't boom and wipe out its food source?

Any sudden dramatic changes in population seem like causes for ecological concern.

<comment><USER4> > What predates this species?

Not much. This is pretty common, large animals are often at the top of the food chain

[http://www.whateats.com/what-eats-a-whale](http://www.whateats.com/what-eats- a-whale)

[http://www.whalefacts.org/do-blue-whales-have- predators/](http://www.whalefacts.org/do-blue-whales-have-predators/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is so sad. I'm surprised the team were able to rule out human intervention as whale beachings have been linked to military sonar exercises [1].

A human analogy I've read is to imagine if an alien spacecraft descended into our atmosphere and played noises all day so loud that our ears bled. The trauma would be so bad we might not have another choice but to end the suffering.

[1] [http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/jul/03/whales- fl...](http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/jul/03/whales-flee- military-sonar-strandings)

<comment><USER6> Certainly in the UK and, in my experience, around the world, military exercised are programmed, confined to specific areas and certain emitters such as sonar are carefully logged.

That said, we know little about how currents and water bodies move so I'm sure these researchers have something more concrete.

<comment><USER7> You should check out "War of the Whales" if you are interested in the interaction between whales and naval training exercises.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This kind of claim should require more documentation before publication.

Not that I don't believe it's possible, but you'd think pictures would be readily available by now, and a more precise location. I can see holding back right after the discovery, but six months later?

Also would have loved to know when the mass beaching took place. Lots of tectonic activity in that area. Someone else mentioned sonar...would have liked to see if the event could be cross-referenced with military exercises.

Hope this story is further vetted and explored.

<comment><USER7> Did you read the article? The article seems to demonstrate that the scientist behind the publication wants to wait to discuss the details of the stranding until the paper is released: "She declined to disclose the conclusions, which will be published by a scientific journal later this year."

<comment><USER9> Ugh. Scientific journals are for archiving information, not embargoing news.

<comment><USER7> The fact that you failed to even give lip service to peer review is strange maybe speaks to your understanding of professional science.

<comment><USER10> The fact that you think that's why people wait speaks to your naive view of how academia works.

The only reason they are waiting and not releasing on a preprint like arxiv is because the journal wants to force all citations through them and will reject the paper if they see an early release. It's disgusting.

<comment><USER11> Not really, the fact that it's not published is that they're afraid someone else will read it do the research again, submit it somewhere else, and get it published faster, at which point reviewers for $Journal_With_Actual_Impact_Factor will simply state "doesn't this replicate the recent findings? Rejected"

Which is why rosalind sat on her crystallographies, hoping to figure it out herself. And why the Wellcome Trust requires academics publish all data within 6 months of collection in such ironclad language that even Elvisier has to honor it: [https://www.elsevier.com/about/open-science/open- access/agre...](https://www.elsevier.com/about/open-science/open- access/agreements/elsevier-agreement-with-the-wellcome-trust)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> So, serious question. Why can't Japan use these whales for their research instead of killing more?

<comment><USER13> "research"

Also. This is sad effin news. And that's your response?

<comment><USER12> yes, air quotes are implicit, but the Japanese who do this research probably believe whole heartedly in its necessity – it's worth having empathy for others, even if we disagree with their motivations.

This is very sad news, indeed. Are you a vegetarian? That may seem out of order, but, if you're eating meat, you're slaughtering animals as well, so, just food for thought... food :)

<comment><USER14> They probably don't wholeheartedly believe in its necessity. But the money's good.

[http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/14/opinion/the-big-lie- behind...](http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/14/opinion/the-big-lie-behind- japanese-whaling.html)

<comment><USER12> Thanks. That's really helpful. So basically Japan uses whaling under the guise of research to leverage their ability to access fisheries that they might otherwise be restricted from.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I'm not refuting their claims that this isn't caused by humans, but I'm curious as to how they are able to prove that.

<comment><USER7> Red tide?

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> One day we're going to find out there are whale apocalyptic cults.

</comment><comment><USER17> The scientist seems to be withholding information until her paper gets published. That seems wrong to me.

<comment><USER18> Yes, those damn peer reviews are so annoying. I recommend using journals that don't bother to verify anything.

\- Ranjit Chandra ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranjit_Chandra](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranjit_Chandra))

<comment><USER19> It's cool; we can let a small, overworked group of people who may or may not actually be very knowledgeable in that subject peer review it first. Might as well keep the data private forever too because reproducing the work might show something different.

<comment><USER19> I was up too late and grumpy, but the peer review process (while necessary) does prevent good papers from being published in a reasonable time frame. And acceptance is closer to random than you might expect.

Here's a review of the NIPs acceptance process.

[http://blog.mrtz.org/2014/12/15/the-nips- experiment.html](http://blog.mrtz.org/2014/12/15/the-nips-experiment.html)

Stuff like arXiv is in theory very good for the actual process of science, but so is having free, accessible journals and those don't necessarily exist in every field.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Near Antarctica? Any chance of fluctuation of tide sizes due to global warming?

<comment><USER21> Hum, this is a good point. We need more info about blubber thickness and sex of the death whales. Is a very interesting problem.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Pings from submarines.</comment>


Ask HN: How to set up get-shit-done app? - <AUTHOR>

I'm a designer, and not too familiar with the command line.
I'd like to setup the get-shit-done (https://github.com/leftnode/get-shit-done) program on my mac. But I don't know what this means: "After cloning this repository, put it in your $PATH and ensure it is executable."
I'd be grateful if one of you could outline the steps... <comment><USER2> Put it in your home folder (~/[your name]), and then go to Terminal.app, type "chmod a+rx [file name]" without quotes, and then type "./[file name]". Fill in whatever you call the main file.

<comment><AUTHOR> Cool. It works. The only thing is, when I type "sudo ./get-shit-done work" I get this error: sh: /etc/init.d/networking: No such file or directory

Why? Solution?

<comment><USER3> I believe it should work nonetheless.

To help you I've rewritten it and you should be able to use it on Mac.

<https://github.com/yogsototh/get-shit-done>

Happy working! Do not hesitate to ask me if something goes wrong.</comment></comment></comment>


Search-based compiler code generation - <AUTHOR> http://jamey.thesharps.us/2017/06/search-based-compiler-code-generation.html <comment><USER2> I'd compare this to Unison [1,2] where they combine register allocation and instruction scheduling into a single phase using combinatorial optimization. Usually you have to choose one before the other.

[1] [http://llvm.org/devmtg/2017-03//assets/slides/register_alloc...](http://llvm.org/devmtg/2017-03//assets/slides/register_allocation_and_instruction_scheduling_in_unison.pdf)

[2] [https://www.sics.se/~rcas/publications/CastanedaCarlssonEa_C...](https://www.sics.se/~rcas/publications/CastanedaCarlssonEa_CC_2016.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER3> > So a practical implementation needs good heuristics for value-ordering

If I understand correctly, this would require some correlation between disparate forms of optimization. I would fear that the each optimization would alter/rewrite insns significantly enough that there may not be enough correlation to build those search shortcuts. Too many guess-and-check-cost across all permutations might still be expensive.

Along the same lines of determining which combination of optimizations yields the best overall, I wonder if one could train a NN to do it. Maybe there's some work in the area, I don't keep up with research. But in general I would imagine that with a large enough trained set, the NN could say a spill in case X on arch Y is likely better than a re-eval. But then you get into non- determinism which scares devs. Just a thought.

</comment><comment><USER4> I am not sure there is an optimal solution to this problem, since there are many conflicting optimization criteria, and optimizations sometimes work against each other. In particular, common subexpression elimination reduces code size and redundancy, but can increase register pressure and even make worse schedules.

We use node splitting in the TurboFan compiler, but only do limited splitting during the scheduling phase when it detects that the placement of a node that has multiple uses would produce partially redundant code. Splitting these nodes allows them to be scheduled independently (essentially, moved down the schedule, avoiding placing them on paths where they would be redundant), but of course duplicates code.

In TurboFan, register allocation happens after instruction selection, which happens after scheduling. Instruction selection depends on the schedule, since it generally does not want to combine instructions across basic block boundaries because applying a selection tile across basic blocks might pull computations (even if they are just micro-ops) into a loop.

Rematerialization is yet another optimization that works against CSE. Instead of spilling, the register allocator recomputes a value. This undoes CSE much, much later, only when the register assignment is partially known.

IMO closing that whole optimization loop is just prohibitively expensive (in compile time).

On the other hand, measuring tiny differences in code quality seems to be no longer possible on modern processors due to all the runtime nondeterminism (turbo boost, cache state, reorder buffer state, interrupts, core migration), so how would we validate optimizations like this with such a small impact?

<comment><USER2> The point that the Unison people make is that it is useful for inspiring and evaluating heuristics which certainly makes sense in an AOT context but then decidely not in a JIT context.

How do you validate these optimizations? Dunno, I'd recommend looking at Agner Fog's benchmark tools. But torturing the optimizer to make a test suite number go down will _eventually_ end in tears.</comment></comment>


Dear Bernie. I'm Sorry I Am the Problem with America - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@robmay/dear-bernie-i-m-sorry-i-am-the-problem-with-america-40d03eee071f#.xuize5col <comment><USER2> I don't want to take anything away from entrepreneurs, but one thing that you need to accept when you get rich is this: the price of being rich is that no one gives a shit about your problems anymore. I'm sorry but it's true. It doesn't matter how hard you worked, and whether you had to perform self surgery to cut out your own spleen and sell it, once you are rich no one is going to care about your problems.

The fact is that Bernie Sanders is not targeting you as an individual, he's just using the rich as a symbol, and frankly, he's right. The wealth gap is not good for society, it's not good for the rich because it causes instability, and instability is bad for the existing power structure. Instead of taking it personally, recognize that A) your personal story is not necessarily indicative of any greater societal truth, and B) if you are rich you already have advantages that outweigh any tax penalty you may pay, so if taxes are a problem just focus on making more money instead of attempting to justify your own wealth (not because it's unjustified, but because no one gives a shit).

If you want to argue that higher taxes are bad because the government doesn't know what it's doing then I'm all for that, but it's a mistake for reach people to make a personal appeal—it's not anyone else's job to validate your worthiness; be humble, acknowledge your own luck, and then you may find that even as a rich person people will still listen to your opinion.

</comment><comment><USER3> I pick the second perspective:

Bernie Sanders want to take a large part of my wealth through increase taxes. I earned that money through hard work and sacrifices. The people asking for handouts should work hard and sacrifice like I did.

vs.

There are people in this country who've worked equally as hard or harder than I have and have 1/10th my wealth and privilege. What are conditions in our system that make it so unfair and how can we even the playing field for them?

</comment><comment><USER4> America needs to work for everyone. If you are motivated and smart and able bodied then you can probably make things work, and that is a great thing. Those who are disengaged, not all that smart, and or disabled also need to get by somehow.

Possibly the best analogy is to literacy. Getting our society to 90%+ literacy is extremely expensive and dominates public accounts in most US jurisdictions, but it is worth that investment many times over.

So also transitioning from work being the only recognized value to humanity itself being enough is going to be extremely expensive, but it will be worth it. Perhaps most important to remember is that those in need will not horde their gifts, but immediately circulate them in order to keep going, so the humiliating confiscation of taxation will result in swarms of new potential customers thus energizing enterpreneurship.

</comment><comment><USER5> Sadly this did not get more debate or comments.

I'm not in his position, and it provides some insight, and yes it can be even compelling.

My "against" points would be that:

      -There is people working as hard as you do to keep afloat.
      -I'm totally positive on the adequate taxes for the rich.

While you cover your base, you don't cover for example why if banks knew mortgage industry were going to go broke they pushed for it. It doesn't cover how wall street were saved by devaluating US dollar and it doesn't cover all the people who were in charge and knew what were going on and how we don't know still who they are or why they are not in jail.

            They were playing with US economy.

You don't cover how IP protects medicines by preventing others from competing.

You don't cover how all big IT players foul around the game evading millions in taxes.

I'm not against you, I'm against you dropping oil in the sea, destroying china environment because it was cheaper to build there, not pay taxes and when environment is dead you can take all back to your alps house.

When I see those images of the future, with beautiful buildings with trees or underwater cities... I wonder if those are rich cities and everything else has been destroyed?

</comment><comment><USER6> > But when I hear Bernie speak, I feel like I'm the problem with America. I'm > one of those millionaires he mentions who should pay more taxes. I'm the bad > guy.

While I empathize, this seems like an emotional problem on his end, instead of an issue with the actual message.

Given that there is no quote mentioned anywhere, I have to wonder if it mattered what was said, or if the issue is what he sees the man as representing.

</comment><comment><USER7> Even if you agree with his points, the humble brag style is off putting.

</comment><comment><USER8> TL;DR: The world is unfair, but anyone could work tirelessly for 15 years to overcome that, which makes it fair in the end.

Although I think the subtext is more like:

I created 100 jobs at some personal cost, so I'm off the hook for whatever unfairness I might be perpetuating in other ways.

</comment><comment><USER9> whats with all the open letters lately? mostly all on medium too...

<comment><USER10> Ironically I found this title on Medium...

A self-righteous open letter to people who write self-righteous open letters to people who write self-righteous open letters

[http://bit.ly/1Rk2XWg](http://bit.ly/1Rk2XWg)</comment></comment>


Google Analytics Tos limits you to 5 million pageviews per month - <AUTHOR> http://www.google.com/analytics/tos.html

<comment><USER2> FEES AND SERVICES . Subject to Section 15 herein, the Service is provided without charge to You for up to 5 million pageviews per month per account, and if You have an active Adwords campaign in good standing, the Service is provided without charge to You without a pageview limitation.

I don't see the problem. If I had 5 million pageviews per month I guess I could afford to have an active AdWords campaign without much problems.

</comment><comment><USER3> If you exceed 5 million pageviews, they don't cut you off, they just compile your statistics once per day instead of multiple times throughout the day.</comment>


What Happens When a Freelancer Does Work for a Client Without a Contract - <AUTHOR> http://blog.kunvay.com/what-happens-when-a-freelancer-does-graphic-design-work-for-a-client-without-a-contract-marks-copyright-case-study/ <comment><USER2> I'm just going to echo what everyone else is saying: Contract. Contract. Contract.

A contract isn't some scary legal document full of cryptic legalese. It's a clear description of what services will be provided and what the compensation will be. And on what schedule everything will happen. With details about what happens if things go south.

Most client problems are not as cut-and-dry as "he took all of my work and is laughing at me and lighting cigars with $100 bills while he refuses to pay me for absolutely no reason." Most disputes are based on misunderstandings of some sort. They think feature X was in-scope. You disagree and want to bill them additionally for it. They are withholding pay because they don't consider the project completed. You do. And such. Having to threaten a client will waste a ton of your time and sour relationships -- clients you have disputes with can still be good clients. This is why you write down everyone's expectations at the start.

Most clients aren't evil. They want good relationships with the people who work for them. But disagreements arise. Contracts give everyone a neutral document to refer to and say "look, this is what we agreed upon when we started."

Use contracts.

<comment><USER3> "Use contracts."

First, to state the obvious which anyone who has been around for some time will tell you a contract is only good if the dollar amount is enough to get a lawyer involved as far as filing and pursuing any legal action. Otherwise good luck with trying to convert a contract into actual dollars because you are right.

Anyway, for the purpose of what you are saying it doesn't have to be a "formal" contract but merely an email trail will suffice to make your point and get the other party (if honorable) to pay. In the past I've even used notes of verbal conversations which I've repeated back the sequence of events to the satisfaction of the other side. (Once again totally depends on who the other side is and their motives.)

Now if they are not honorable, don't have the money, or just want to play games, then if you have enough at stake to hire an attorney a formal contract is a benefit (but not essential since the "trier of fact" as well as the other side will weigh their chance of settling vs. fighting). Consequently, yes, documentation is key but it's more a balance of power rather than the formality of the document).

Unfortunately the article completely ignores the practical aspects of going after someone who owes you money despite what any contract says. As if the law is enough to make the right thing happen. It's not.

<comment><USER4> Contracts are such a basic fact of business life, universally understood by good-faith vendors and customers, that recalcitrance about signing one should be taken as a "run don't walk" signal. By working without a contract, you doubly imperil yourself: you lose significant legal protections, and also select a client base that is particularly likely to cause you problems down the road.

Matasano has many clients we've maintained since the formation of the company in 2005, and many more where our counterparts in those companies are friends. The idea of doing business with any of them sans contract is unthinkable. It just doesn't happen.

Working without a contract is unprofessional. Don't do it.

<comment><USER3> A few points. I'm not stating you are wrong but simply would like anyone reading to see that in business, the way I see it, it's art and not science. "Don't do it" sounds more like science to me. Business to me is art.

1) The dollar amount of the dealings greatly matters as well as the product or service being sold (and who it is being sold to and past history [1]). Matasano is a "real" grown up company. I would imagine the dollar amounts of the charges for what you do are not trivial or small in any way. "not freelance". And what you do has liability consequences as well if you screw up. And you have deep pockets to go after and a liability policy with pockets. [2] A contract of course is called for. Our accounting firm (been dealing with for many years) was just bought out by BDO. They sent a contract or rather a letter of understanding "whatever" that absolves them from any and all liability no matter what. This is after many many years of dealing with the firm they acquired. The legacy firm sent the same letter. Totally ignored it and never sent it back year after year. (Almost as a dare "ok we'll replace you!". They didn't take it personally at all. And if they did who cares?

2) Title of article appears to be targeted toward freelancers. Hence my comments. I'm not directing my thoughts toward Boeing (or Matasano). In other businesses I've dealt with freelancers (non computer, graphics basically) for many years. They do work you pay them. They give a quotation for the work and tell you if you exceed any limits and that it will cost more.

3) Using contracts puts friction in the process and gives people (on certain things, once again, smaller things) a chance to back out and think and delay. So to me there is a certain balance of risk that a freelancer takes (relative to the situation) vs. losing the sale that has to be weighed. Each situation is different. What's the up vs. the downside?

4) Unprofessional is relative to who you are and what you are selling of course. There are many business relationships that are done on a handshake in certain industries. I've been involved in many of them.

5) If you do (for whatever reason) use a contract and the other side doesn't want to sign it I agree that can be a red flag. In general. Once again, depending on the dollar amount. I had a domain broker come to me with a buyer for a domain name that I owned and they sent me a 10 page contract. I said "I'm not reading and reviewing that if you have a buyer I will pay you commission". They said "ok sounds good". And the deal was done and I have the money in the bank. Otoh I sold a domain to a very well known attorney (someone I knew that is well known in the business and everyone loves and even went to the same college) and I waited like 3 months to get the money. Go know.

I will end with a funny story. When I sold my first company a long time ago I asked both the accountant and the lawyer for an estimate of the legal and accounting charges. They both shot me numbers verbally over the phone. After the deal was done I got the bill and it was 2 to 3 times as high as the quote. So I said "you quoted $x what's the story?". They said "oh it was more work". I said "well you should have told me that, how would I know?". The accountant stayed with the quote and is the firm I've referenced above that I am still with to this day. The lawyer thanked me (he had just gone out on his own and left a big firm and had no clue about smaller clients or billing or people using their own money) and told me I had taught him a valuable lesson [3]. He then bought some computer gear from me (to give you an idea of how long ago this was it was a $4500 laser printer). Just to show you that he really was cool with it.

So it wasn't lack of a contract as much as lack of communication possibly that sunk them. And of course had they billed as the work was going on as opposed to all at the end they would have put me on notice despite the original quote (which by the way was stated like a firm quote..)

[1] Which of course is tricky because people and companies change their spots.

[2] As opposed to Dave, out of his house, living from hand to mouth. Nobody is taking "Dave" to court if he screws up.

[3] So in other words he wasn't used to anything but a larger company using someone else's money not an entrepreneur spending his own money.

<comment><USER5> Yes this is the business world exactly as I've experienced it. Specifically, #2-4. Handshake deals are great for people who are generally sane and trying to pick up momentum. People advise you lock everything down 100% but they don't realize what a time/energy drain it is on both parties.

A quote sets up a reasonable negotiating point and then any deviation from that can be discussed. The client eats it or the worker eats it. You win some you lose some -- at least things are moving.

<comment><USER3> I'll tell you an interesting thing that I learned in a past business where we were given many rush jobs.

Let's see how you view this.

a) Client comes with a rush job and asks you to quote the job and you do. You give them a price.

b) Same clients comes to you and says "just get the job done and bill me whatever it is. I need to get this done."

My question to you (or anyone else) is "under which situation did we end up making more money, "a" or "b" usually"?

<comment><USER5> Hmmm my gut says A. When you give a quote it sets up a reasonable expectation and even if you go over-budget clients usually understand if you don't deviate by too much.

With B you have to pull the trigger on it all-at-once so I feel like it leaves you more inclined to bring the price down to avoid sticker shock.

"A" probably has a better "return customer" conversion rate too, no? Because they weren't on as much of an emotional-financial roller-coaster, it was just the execution of a process understood by both parties. So I'd guess with A you have a better shot both at short term money and future endeavors.

How did it work out really?

<comment><USER3> You are correct it is "a".

Reason was simple.

Customer was under duress and needed to get a job done. You stated a price and they accepted that price. That agreement was important.

With "b" \- "whatever it costs is ok!" they could come back and say "Wow I didn't know it would be _that much_ ". So even though most people would go for "b" my experience was "a" was better.

Of course now if I wanted to argue the other side I could say if you really were trying to jack up the price than "b" might be better. Why? Because you are jacking up the price so if the customer say "I didn't know it would be so much!" you have some flexibility to throw them a bone and lower the price and make them happy.

My attorney on bills typically puts in all the hours he spends as "time spent, time billed" giving you some idea that you are actually saving money. As if he is cutting you a break.

"and future endeavors"

Right because you managed expectations successfully. Same reason perhaps paying $35 for parking is not the same as getting a $35 parking ticket.

<comment><USER5> Heh right on I actually thought of that flexibility / throw them a bone bit after I already posted. I think that's the abstract bit, is that these things need to be negotiated in real-time for it to make any sense. If you find you're doing too much work or it's something that requires a lot of specialized knowledge, you need to get that level of pay while having it make sense to the client. I know some people try to whine that this amorphous rate idea is sketchy but then I hear stories about freelancers & small web ventures trying to do psychotic shit like quoting 2k/month for "site maintenace" or getting a 5k contract for "SEO". I deliver MUCH better quality of service to my clients than these "professionals" who are trying to set up bunk service contracts as sources of recurring income. The reality is you need to have your client's trust. I do the best work I can & if I feel I deserve extra for a job and can justify it, by all means I say so and negotiate it. And I do something similar to your lawyer in that I don't bill for email/communications unless we have time blocked for a longer meeting, so it's hard for the client to ever feel as if they've overpaid. 15 minutes on the phone every day or so on the job I let slide. Then I log most of my hours by task. What I want is to deliver them value so they can succeed and give me more work. Most clients can appreciate that.

Man I like your attitude larrys. Business really is an art, & I think my role model is kindof like "Better Call Saul" but without the illegal activities. He starts off as a sketchy, unlikable guy but then you notice that his clients are always satisfied and they are all well-paid. :D

It seems much easier to reach that type of relationship by doing some high- velocity business rather than dragging the process down &, as you said, letting everyone dwell too much on $$ signs.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Just throwing this out there since I know the common wisdom is to "have a contract, duh".

I have a few clients who basically put me on a retainer, then I send them a bill. If you give an hourly rate + an estimate clients seem to be cool, provided they are actual businessses. The only clients I've ever had issues with are individuals (usually artists since I freelance electronic media) and that stems from budget / rampant psychotic narcissism. But with businesses, I state my rate I estimate hours & then I bill them.

I'm sure there is a more secure way of handling this with contracts but if a company I work remotely for ever stiffs me on a bill: 1\. They better be closing up shop the next day or I'm gonna come after them hard. 2\. They lose access to the skills I offer them. 3\. I probably have accounts/services in their name that they can't alter/operate without my help, so they're really just shooting themselves in the foot & will likely come to realize this rather quickly.

Anyway worst case scenario I lose 1 payment (maybe it was 1-3 grand?). Maybe it's scary to think that a 3k payment might disappear but the reality is, after discussing with them they'll probably just hand it over anyway or you can settle in between. Even if I one day lose a thousand dollars (which I highly doubt) I can look back and smile knowing I never had to deal with a ton of legalese.

The reality of it is that businesses can't just stiff you on a bill if they agreed to pay for your services, and if you have nice clients who are trying to build a business they have no reason to hurt you if you do good work for them. But I understand not everyone has the luxury of sane clients. I certainly didn't back when I was dealing 1-on-1 with artists.

<comment><USER6>
        > The reality of it is that businesses can't just stiff
        > you on a bill if they agreed to pay for your services

That _feels_ like it should be true, but it's not. I'm not just speaking about software; a large portion of my family is in construction, and I'm shocked at how often client businesses think they can get away with just not paying them.

Perhaps it actually is better in the software world, where clients (hopefully) know they are going to need you in the future.

Anyway, good for you that you can find clients that know they need to pay you; but not all businesses have figured that out.

<comment><USER5> Hmm I'm sorry to hear that. :-/

But if they brought a civil suit they would win easily, no? That's what I really meant by that line. My father is a lawyer & every time I bring up something like that to him he laughs. "Of course they have to pay, it's just too much trouble sometimes. Usually just the threat of legal action is good enough."

Maybe it's not so simple but that's a shame.

<comment><USER6> Oh, yeah, they eventually get paid. It's just shocking how many people try to not pay them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Question for other freelancers: how do you handle changes in a spec?

I've been nervous about this lately because I'm doing freelance work and the contract outlined a spec that we've now deviated from greatly. I'm not incredibly worried because we do bi-weekly billing but do you regularly ask clients to revise contracts if the spec changes?

And when you begin a contract, what level of specificity in a spec is a good idea? Obviously some level of specificity is a must, but an overly detailed contract leaves you in the position I described above where the contract does not actually describe the work in progress.

<comment><USER4> There are two different functional components of a contract; the "terms" and the "statement of work" (SOW). They're often combined in a single "standard contractor agreement" with a fill-in-the-blanks "SOW exhibit", but just as often you have a distinct master agreement with terms and a SOW for each project.

The SOW is responsible for laying out what work you're going to do. If a changing spec is a project risk, a typical consultant response to that would be to build some of the spec language into the SOW, so that if the spec changes in a way that materially harms your ability to complete the project, you have recourse with the client.

The typical best case scenario for spec slips on projects is a client that extends the contract to account for them, and a somewhat rigorous SOW is a good tool for making that happen.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> If you're a freelancer of any type, you should _always_ work under a contract. This talk (about 40 minutes) sums up why: [http://vimeo.com/22053820](http://vimeo.com/22053820).

<comment><AUTHOR> I _LOVE_ that video! He's right on point. Here's our take on the subject: [http://kunvay.wistia.com/medias/4272c23ee2](http://kunvay.wistia.com/medias/4272c23ee2)

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> In short you can, and will, get fucked by your client. Never do work without a contract. I would have thought it were common sense but I have seen far too many people owed thousands from clients they did work for who then gave them the finger. Most people/small companies don't have the money or don't want to spend the money on getting the money as it will end up costing them more so they just put it down to "that is the price you pay". Well that is a fucking stupid attitude and you are a fool for doing the work without a contract. Watch [http://vimeo.com/22053820](http://vimeo.com/22053820).

</comment><comment><USER10> I outsource work on eLance, and this made me investigate. For anyone else wondering, eLance's terms state that any IP for a project belongs to the employer after payment is made:

[https://www.elance.com/q/sites/default/files/page_pdf/legal/...](https://www.elance.com/q/sites/default/files/page_pdf/legal/independent- contractor-services-agreement-13.pdf)

[https://www.elance.com/q/blog/elance-protection-dead- bolting...](https://www.elance.com/q/blog/elance-protection-dead-bolting-door- your-intellectual-property)

<comment><USER11> Just so you know, it's Elance – no weird Apple iSpelling. :)

<comment><USER12> You mean aPple, right? :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment> w0rd-driven I'm no lawyer but wouldn't email communication at the very least be used as evidence, if not an "informal contract". The scope of the work had to be defined somewhere. Obviously this falls apart if this was all done via verbal communication but its always a good idea to have this in some form you can store for safe keeping. Even recorded phone conversations count.

A purposeful contract makes sense in every situation but if you have clear documentation without one, you should be pretty well off when a problem arises.

The notion of hourly work is something I try to divorce from my thoughts. Yes I do base what I do on some hourly metric but the complexity has to matter to some degree. Generally more complex = way more hours but that's not always the case. Most of my problems in this area come from uncovering a hornets nest when something just seems simple enough on the surface.

I like to think of it this way. Office is still $x per seat. I may have figured out 98% of a domain but I should charge the last customer the work it took to get to that point from customer #1. I may have to do much less work if I've done my job right but there's no telling exactly what of that they'll want to unravel in the process. Unlike Office I don't have a bankroll for r&d I can charge a premium for to recoup my losses over clients. Clients need to assume that just because they want what someone else has its never what they paid - the hours it takes to just tweak it for them.

</comment><comment><USER13> I may be misunderstanding something here. To paraphrase, the argument this article opens with is "we didn't agree that you were working for me, so I don't have to pay you" along with "because we didn't have an agreement which protects your ownership of your work, I can do whatever I want with it." I thought the law (shop law?) defaults to an independent contractor owning his or her own work in most (every?) states? Even if the law defaults to a work- for-hire agreement (where the client owns the work outright) for independent contractors, how could the client reasonably argue that he/she somehow doesn't need to compensate the contractor (essentially saying "Me? You weren't working for me!"), while simultaneously arguing that somehow the client has any/all rights to the work?

I'd hope that anyone in this kind of situation would think through this kind of logic, short circuit to "okay, I'm dealing with a ripe asshole here" and take the same action which they would toward anyone else outright stealing from them.

Edit:

Regarding contract/no contract, experienced/knowledgeable clients will _require_ a contract when dealing with an independent contractor, even if for no other purpose than to protect their ability to make use of the output of said contractor's work.

</comment><comment><USER14> Recently, I've been using contracts that do not transfer copyright. We grant them unlimited license to our copyrighted content. We also signed an NDA, preventing us from relicensing the codebase to a competitor. We haven't done anything to take advantage of keeping the copyright yet, but I like keeping the rights for ourselves. I imagine of anything it would make it easy for is to open source code that doesn't tie in directly to the product.

<comment><USER13> I'd love to hear more details about this. Is this something you came up with yourself, or did you write it with an IP attorney? Would you be willing to share your template agreement somewhere? Has this been a tough sell to any of your clients? Does your agreement include language which either defines what's proprietary or specifies how to define what's proprietary and therefore subject to the NDA?

<comment><USER14> Here's an excerpt (condensed):

"Work Product" shall mean all design and applications... excluding the "Elements". Developer assigns to Client all right, title and interest in and to the Work Product. "Elements" shall mean Developer's algorithms, libraries, scripts, user interface and experience designs, architecture, objects, graphic files, [etc.]. The Elements shall remain the sole and exclusive property of Developer; provided that, subject to/upon full and final payment for the Services, Developer grants to Client a royalty-free, nonexclusive, irrevocable, perpetual, worldwide, subliceseable license in and to the Elements to use in connection with the Application.

So we do give up copyright for the application as a whole "Work Product", but retain the copyright for individual components "Elements".

The client is not in a technical space, and quite frankly doesn't know much about software development. We may be pulling a fast one here that other clients would refuse. In any case, it hasn't caused any problems in our working relationship and everyone's happy.

<comment><USER15> If I were a client, a big concern I would have with this license is what happens if one of my competitors rips off my product that is using the licensed software, and I want to bring a copyright infringement lawsuit against them.

Generally, a licensee cannot sue for infringement of something they only have a nonexclusive license for. There is some discussion of this here: [http://www.copyrightcodex.com/enforcement- toc/22-plaintiffs#...](http://www.copyrightcodex.com/enforcement- toc/22-plaintiffs#Non-Exclusive_Licensee_Can_Not_Sue)

Even if my product contains copyrighted material in addition to your material, and I either own the copyrights on or have an exclusive license on that material and so do have standing to sue over it, the presence of your material would complicate things. The defense is going to argue that if they did copy my product, they only copied the parts that I do not have standing to sue over.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> You have a contract. You just don't know the terms.

You might be able to guess them with sufficient knowledge of the law of your jurisdiction. In the US (other than Louisiana [1]), you'd need to know at least State and possibly Federal contract law, common law, and a bunch of court cases.

[1] Louisiana based its law on French and Spanish law, which derive from Roman law. The other 49 states base their law on English common law.

</comment><comment><USER16> I can see a client canceling a deal without paying after you have done work due to not having a contract. To actually use the work you produced and weasel out of paying with a "ha ha I tricked you into working for free" is really malicious. I would say that client would probably never have paid anyway. However you may force them to reveal their hand by signing a contract. They will probably try to find some other loophole, but at least you have some documentation that helps you to take legal action.

I have had client drag their feet on the contract and the down payment, but rush me to start. My feeling is that if you can't get a check when they are desperate for you to start, then it certainly will be difficult getting one after the work is complete.

The more eager you are for the gig, you may be more willing to agree to things. But definitely it's a always a good idea to be patient and make sure both sides agree to the terms before you invest your labor.

</comment><comment><USER17> It works like this:

Companies have limited liability in the USA. They are subject to full market discipline. The owners of the companies are not.

And thus ... business between companies should take precautions such as getting paid a retainer, at milestones, etc. and assume that some payments will not be coming.

Meanwhile people (e.g. employees) can rely on the government to put heavy pressure on employers to pay them. I am in favor of more direct guarantees of basic living standards -- i.e. a basic income -- such as some European countries are doing. That way even the employer-employee relationship can be less regulated.

</comment><comment><USER18> For a Business:

* Its a Financial Risk in terms of Commitment to deliver for what is paid for.

 _You Don 't know if the person is really spending the hours he spent.

_ There is nothing that can save your system, your business, because the business is your life, "Not Necessarily" his.

* Time and Commitment are absent in unwritten understandings.

For a Contractor/Freelancer:

* Its a Financial Risk with respect to the commitment to be paid for deliverable.

* You get only the advance, no matter how complicated the solution you have provided.

* Requirements may change any time, you don't know what you are working and there is no line between success and a failure.

</comment><comment><USER19> As enjoyable as freelancing can be, the headache of contracts on one end, and trying to get paid on the other, really put a damper on the "lifestyle." This looks like a great asset.

</comment><comment><USER20> Is there any value in a sample or boilerplate contracts?

I've asked some people in the past and they seem very guarded about sharing theirs and always try to refer me to a lawyer. Good advice and I realize that lawyers should save you money in the long run, but for on-the-side small time consulting is there a base template that would get people through their first few gigs?

</comment><comment><USER21> If you don't use a contract you're asking for trouble. Be like James Bond in The World Is Not Enough- don't hesitate in jumping into bed with Elektra King (the client), but don't overlook the possibility that she's been brainwashed by an evil sociopathic genius.

</comment><comment><USER3> "Federal courts now routinely accept an individual's electronic "click" or "tap" within an electronic transfer of copyright document as a valid "electronic signature" fulfilling the signature requirements of the Copyright Act of 1976."

See things like this are dangerous. To the uninformed the above looks so simple. "Federal courts now accept" (and the rest of this article) totally ignore the cost and practicality of bringing any legal action. And guess what? The other side, when they are trying to screw you, is aware of that and will use it against you.

Back in the late 90's we had the opposite thing happen. Paid $6500 +- for a freelancer (related to a well know internet celebrity at the time) to write some software (total cost maybe 20k iirc.) Time dragged on and on and they were not able to deliver.

You know what? We just walked away from the money. What to do? Sue someone in another state over $6500?

</comment><comment><USER22> While #1 is getting a contract, in "Mark's" case, he has a claim for Unjust Enrichment.

If you have a client that uses work you did, even if you have no contract, you can still sue for damages under Unjust Enrichment laws in the US.

<comment><USER19> There's theory (taught at Yale Law), and then there's practice. While you may be theoretically correct, on a practical level, the lack of a contract makes getting paid much more difficult. Unfortunately, I can't bill the client for the time or stress of the legal case, and winning is never a certainty. Consider that the client is much larger, and may have lawyers on staff full- time.

<comment><USER23> I'm guessing most freelance work is for pretty small amounts. Unless you are talking about a claim in excess of $10,000, it's not going to be worth pursuing, you will owe your lawyer more than that very quickly. If it's a local client you might have some luck in small claims court where you typically represent yourself.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Seems very helpful for someone who ends up in a messy situation without a contract. But please, don't even allow this to happen. Use a contract!

</comment><comment><USER25> I generally just tell people that if they do the right thing and pay up, I will do the right thing and let them live. Also see: OpenROV.

</comment><comment><USER26> Great article. Must read for anyone using freelancers to outsource work.</comment>


Show HN: Open source extension to donate to charity when you procrastinate - <AUTHOR> http://zachschnell.com/donate/ <comment><AUTHOR> Hi HN,

I link to my blogpost with an overview of the extension, but it's available here [https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/ejlaogipbpicpboiog...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/ejlaogipbpicpboioglpoiblobhdaokj) and the source code is at [https://github.com/zchr/donate- extension](https://github.com/zchr/donate-extension). It's very much an MVP, but I'd love any and all feedback!</comment>


Your D-Link router may have a backdoor - <AUTHOR> http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/10/13/your-d-link-wireless-router-may-have-a-backdoor/ <comment><USER2> When this originally hit HN last night, I didn't get paranoid.

You see, if you read the backwards name, you'd realize it was some programmer who did it, not the NSA.

Stop being paranoid, guys. It was just an idiot who got this through code review.

</comment><comment><USER3> This is kind of big if true, DI-524 and DI-604 were commonly used a few a years ago, hope Linksys' don't provide this backdoor

<comment><USER2> Linksys is owned by Cisco, who are well-known for their incredible spinelessness and ability to give into the US Government's requests. Their backdoors are intentional.

<comment><USER4> Linksys is no longer owned by Cisco:

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

> The Linksys company was founded in 1988. It is currently owned by Belkin, > who bought it from Cisco Systems, its owners from March 2003 to March 2013</comment></comment></comment>


Website Layouts - <AUTHOR> http://designshack.co.uk/articles/layouts/10-rock-solid-website-layout-examples

<comment><USER2> This is a great list. I've seen variations on all of these, and it's worth looking through if you're interested in design.

As these are rather trendy, modern layouts favored by designers right at this moment, though, I wouldn't really call them 'rock solid'. Let's see which ones are still popular in three years.

</comment><comment><USER3> Awesome! I'm a coder and my design skills are close to none. I was having a hard time visualizing what I want my future site to look like and I really like how the site shows you a blank theoretical layout with black boxes, and then a real life example of the final result. This will definetly be very helpful.

</comment><comment><USER4> It seems that the title should be "10 Rock Solid Landing Page Layouts," because most of these really have room for much content.

<comment><USER5> Read the HN FAQ. That title is against the rules.

<comment><USER6> I think baddox was referring to the title of the blog post, which is "10 Rock Solid Website Layout Examples." The HN FAQ and / or rules don't apply to people's blogs. ;)

<comment><USER7> .. or "Website Landing Page Layouts"

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The site showcases some nice designs - but am I the only one that is a little bit bothered by the fact that the majority of the example screenshots are sites of web or graphic designers? It gives the impression that the web design universe is pretty self-contained and occupied with itself.

I don't mean to be negative, the post does provide useful analysis of the designs. I would just love to see more examples of sites that provide actual functionality and/or information to users, instead of sites that are easy on the eyes and showcase design skills.

</comment><comment><USER9> Nice list - I like how it shows the basic silhouette with a real world example. Now I just wish I could click "download" under each one and get an HTML5 template pre-coded with the layout.

<comment><USER10> They're all very simple grids, which is the beauty of it. You could put them together in a couple minutes with something like 960gs or Blueprint.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> If you're interested in further layout research, <http://www.thegridsystem.org/> is a gold mine for that.</comment>


Amygdala MKI is a robot in the form of a human-like limb - <AUTHOR> http://marcodonnarumma.com/works/amygdala/ <comment><USER2> Seems rather heavy on thesis and light on execution. The footage in the video doesn't do much to demonstrate that the robot learns or adapts; it mostly appears to writhe around and recoil when it encounters resistance. Futher iteration on the concept might prove interesting.</comment>


Should Twitter Extend the 140 Character Limit? - <AUTHOR> http://www.awdp.org/articles/334/Tweeting-for-Business---Should-Twitter-Extend-the-140-Character-Limit? <comment><USER2> Twitter without a short character limit would become something else entirely. "Microblogging" has "micro" in the name for a reason. Without the 140-character limit, it would just become "blogging", and plenty of services exist for that. Microblogging offers an interesting niche, which tends to get used for short messages that often include a URL.

Given that eliminating the limit entirely seems like the wrong answer, I also don't think it makes sense to extend the 140 character limit to something marginally longer; that just seems like pointless churn that would break the expectations of various tools that interact with Twitter and other microblogging services.

</comment><comment><USER3> The maximum length should be 160 characters, not 140. When SMS was developed, research was done to show that 160 characters provided enough space to communicate most short messages [1]. Less characters were shown to be too tight. Unfortunately, Twitter, built on top of SMS, had to clip 20 characters for the username.

Of course, that's just for short text messages. Maybe embedding in hyperlinks, pictures, music, and video doesn't need the same constraints.

[1] [http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2009/05/invented-...](http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2009/05/invented- text-messaging.html)

</comment><comment><USER4> As Mark Twain once said: "I apologize about the length of this letter, I didn't have time to write a short one"

Extending the limit would just make people sloppy.

</comment><comment><USER5> I think it should have a maximum length for the links in tweet, but not count them in length of tweet.

*Maximum length for the links so that users don't abuse it.

<comment><USER6> There is not even a decent link shortener in twitter.com

<comment><USER2> What makes t.co non-decent?

<comment><AUTHOR> I think what he meant, is twitter does not have an embedded link shorterner on the site but only if content is submitted via external links. Like HootSuite when submitting to FB or Twitter you can shorten a link while submitting the content. That would be a very welcomed feature for twitter in the long run.

<comment><USER2> Ah, I see. Yeah, I agree; I'd like to see t.co better integrated into the normal web UI, not just the link-sharing interface (twitter.com/share?url=...).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> nope</comment>