Entrepreneur porn is a dangerous fantasy - <AUTHOR> https://www.techinasia.com/disconnect-entrepreneur-porn-dangerous-fantasy-talking-success-rates <comment><USER2> > _1\. It's almost never rags to riches_

This is the point that has really started to become clear to me in recent years, and not just for startups but for artists, authors, athletes, and all the other dream jobs we idolize: so many of these people are either (1) not really making that much money or (2) already had a trust-fund or come from a wealthy background so they can spend all of their time writing, painting, or engineering. Most authors make below the poverty line [1], and Facebook's success was the outlier, not the norm.

I did the start-up thing in my 20s for about 3-4 years (in the 1990s). My income was about the same as my salary would later be when I went to work for another company, but my stress-levels dropped significantly when I started working for someone else. The constant uncertainty was gone, I was watching my savings grow instead of decline, and I _do_ regret not going for that stability sooner.

I see a similarity between tech-kids in their 20s chasing start-up dreams and the poor kids from my old neighborhood chasing hoop-dreams. The tech-kids have better options to fall back on, but the chances of becoming that rockstar million/billionaire CEO/professional athlete are about the same.

[1] [http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/sep/15/income-for- us-a...](http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/sep/15/income-for-us-authors- falls-below-federal-poverty-line-survey)

<comment><USER3> The odds of a smart middle class entrepreneur making a successful business are actually way better than making it to the NBA or NFL. To say these are equal odds is misleading.

<comment><USER4> A successful middleclass business does not equal billions or necessarily even millions, so I fail to see how the gp's comparison is off? What he is saying is that you are as likely to be the next Bill Gates as you are to be the next Michael Jordan, not that you are just as likely to be the next Bob Smith who runs a 40-people tech consultancy shop.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> "Money won't make you happy"

I disagree with this. I've been running my own company for a little over 5 years. Not having to worry about my rent and being able to live a comfortable lifestyle has made me really happy.

If I made $100 million and didn't ever have to worry about money again, I definitely would be happier. It's the peace of mind that I'm working toward.

But, the money isn't the main thing that makes me happy. The development challenges and systems that I build to run my company is what I really enjoy. The money is just a nice side-effect.

I agree with the rest of the article. I had an ex-business partner that got his idea of a startup from the stories he sees online. Everything we did had to 'change the world', regardless of the business model or practicality.

I had many hours of discussions about this and had to continually convince him we needed some sort of business model. His response was always: "We will get funding"...with no users, traffic, business model, or a decent MVP.

At some point I finally convinced him and as soon as it got down to the hard work, and he didn't see immediate results, he got discouraged. He thought that somehow if we just built something, we would have thousands of users in a couple of weeks.

I realized that even if whatever we worked on succeeded, he probably wouldn't be a good fit in the next stage of the company and I would be spending more and more of my time fighting these ideas. I had to end the partnership and he ended up getting a job.

Not everyone should own a business.

<comment><USER6> _Money won't make you happy_

I have always hated this saying because it's worthless without the context of who is getting the money.

I grew up poor - money definitely made us happy because we could afford to move out of my aunt or my grandmother's house.

Everyone loves to cite the study that "above $75,000/year money doesn't make you happier" \- without realizing that it's simply saying that there are diminishing returns above that point (standard economic marginal utility concept), not that overall happiness goes down.

The reality is that more money gives you _different_ problems, not _more_ problems and in fact opens up a world of opportunities that can keep generations beyond you above that $75,000/year mark.

Money is about what it _enables_ and that is where happiness comes from. As a wise man once said:

 _" Money can't buy happiness [but it can buy] a WaveRunner. Have you ever seen a sad person on a WaveRunner?"_

<comment><USER7> > _without realizing that it 's simply saying that there are diminishing > returns above that point_

But I thought _everyone_ got that point. It's not as if people thought every additional dollar brought them misery. People who quote this understand that you don't _need_ this additional money, and that the effort/sacrifices to get it are not worth it.

<comment><USER6> >and that the effort/sacrifices to get it are not worth it.

Not quite. Marginal utility means the _increase_ in benefit from an extra unit of some value, is some percentage less than 100% of the benefit gained from the previous unit.

Stated mathematically, its a logistic function.

<comment><USER7> Again, you're stating things people already know (maybe not in terms of marginal utility, but they do). You say you grew up poor, but the money you needed in order to be happy weren't millions or billions. It was a lot less. Beyond this, more money doesn't mean happiness, which is what people mean when they say it... but you already knew this, didn't you?

If the return in happiness/peace of mind you get beyond $75K (or whatever number) is close to nil, those all-nighters and cheap noodle lunches are simply not worth it by definition. Unless you _enjoy_ living like that, of course, but the implication is that most startup founders don't, it's just stuff they do because they see the gold pot at the end.

<comment><USER6> _Again, you 're stating things people already know_

I don't think that's true. I think a lot of people want to find a way to think that billionaires are worse off than someone making 75,000/year. They cite that study and incorrectly come to the conclusion that more money past 75,000 means increasing unhappiness under the "mo money mo problems" doctrine. People in this thread doing that in fact.

Your broader point though is uncontroversial that for the vast majority, working an extra hour per day for 100k more a year wouldn't be worth it.

I argue that's because the vast majority of people wouldn't know what to do with ungodly amounts of money, likely because they don't have ambitions that would require it, and thus see it as superfluous or as you state not worth the effort.

Most people, just want to play with their kids, take a vacation and zone out on netflix. That certainly doesn't take billions.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I was under HN influence when I started my solo product. I had designed it as bootstrapped: There is an opportunity, I fulfill it, then I don't go after the x1000 scaling. It worked at the end of year 1, and we're 2.5 years later, and I'm happy, not millionaire, but I have my own work schedule.

There are several kinds of startups. The article mentions huge ones. Or you can start a consultancy, very classic business, low risk. Or you can bootstrap[1]. Use the one that fits your profile.

Other than that, I approve the cautionary tale of the article.

[1] [http://37signals.com/bootstrapped](http://37signals.com/bootstrapped)

<comment><USER9> > Or you can start a consultancy, very classic business, low risk.

Low risk? Consultancy/freelance businesses are very high risk. Easy to start, very difficult to maintain.

<comment><USER10> I can't imagine a lot of businesses that come with lower risk attached than consulting:

You don't need equity. Profit margins are high. Depending on your particular expertise your services will be in demand for years to come (anything software-related). If you do it right you can work for several clients at the same time. At least you can always have a full sales pipeline so losing a contract won't be an end-of-the-world event for you.

Growing a consulting business beyond yourself, not selling your time but results, those are more of a problem but risk? Not really. At least not when compared to other businesses.

<comment><USER11> I would love to see your consulting model. You speak as if keeping a full sales pipeline while making multiple clients happy is a simple thing.

I'll agree that a single person consultancy is 0 risk. I can accept a job offer tomorrow and stop accepting new clients.

But growing your consultancy is just as risky as any other business, if not more so. You don't have a wide range of low paying clients, like a SaaS model. You have a few high paying clients. Any one of them leaving (or not paying) directly affects you and your employees.

I live in Washington DC, so I see this constantly. A large government contractor loses a re-bid on a contract, and they fire the team that was working on it. Fire them!

Not speaking for anyone else, but having to fire people every time a contract goes away sounds risky to me.

<comment><USER12> Firing people is risky for the person potentially being fired, not for the owners of the firm. Growing and shrinking over time is part and parcel of running a consultancy. That's why you see it all the time, and I'll bet if you look closer at the ownership during layoffs you'll find that they very rarely miss a paycheck and usually escape unharmed.

The fact that it's an unpleasant reality doesn't make it any more risky than e.g. having to pay taxes.

<comment><USER11> I agree with what you're saying, and this is probably why I don't hold a management position anywhere.

This also mirrors my experience with startups. I've been lied to about money many times to get me to keep working. The only things the owners care about is how they look to investors.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> To me, the worst part of the fantasy is that we then consider the people that actually do make it to the "money shot" as if they were management geniuses, instead of lottery winners.

Mostly the success has more to do with luck, timing and personal connections than the individual technical merits of the management team, but that is never what you read afterwards. And so you end up with all sorts of ridiculous management, methodology or market segmentation advice that bears little to no chance of ever working again. The same lottery ticket may win again, but it is highly improbable.

<comment><USER14> In terms of building a fortune 500 company, yes a lot of luck is involved. For mid-sized businesses there are guys who do it over and over again.

<comment><USER15> In most cases, the reward for building a mid-sized business is not much greater than working your way up the food chain at a large business. It just becomes a question of whether you value independence or not.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I may become an entrepreneur some day, but I will have to have climbed the social ladder to the upper class before I even attempt it.

Being middle class in the US in a second-tier city is just totally freaking awesome. The corporate job I have now is night-and-day better than the lifestyle I had in my twenties. Breaking through to the next level is so far down the list of my current priorities that it could never happen and I'd be totally fine with it.

What else do I do with my time? Learn to make music. Date. Cultivate good habits. Plan trips abroad. Have dinner with friends. Eat right and lose weight. Actually get better at programming instead of just scrambling to Get Shit Done. Read. Try out hobbies like Rubik's cube. Sit at the coffee shop on weekends and chat with random people. Go to the bar in the evenings and cultivate a social life. Work on myself and become a better person.

You want me to throw that all away for a vague promise of more money, sometime in the future? I already have, right now, vastly more options for improving my life right now.

<comment><USER17> _> I may become an entrepreneur some day, but I will have to have climbed the social ladder to the upper class before I even attempt it._

it sounds like you've been blessed with the temperament to not actually want either of these things.

you probably don't want to buy expensive stuff or exhibit control over other people or be written about either. that's also a blessing.

none of this stuff 'just happens, someday, maybe'. people who are driven by these urges are totally different than you. they wake up with the uncontrollable urge to do these things. when they see/think about something they want they are consumed by some kind of positive or negative emotion. you obviously don't experience any of this stuff because you're a normal person, but don't let yourself believe that you 'might do it someday', because you probably won't.

<comment><USER16> I am interested in expensive stuff and in leadership. I have to moderate my ambitions to those I can realistically try out. Two years ago I bought 3 custom suits for $3000. These days I'm happy browsing clearance racks and got a nice three-piece for under $150, a pair of secondhand Italian leather shoes for $14. I'm better dressed now than I was then because I have more variety to choose from.

Instead of begging for more responsibility at my job, I cultivate community relationships and put together deals. I'm currently doing a website for a musician friend of mine. I took my side of the fee and gave it back to him in exchange for a guitar.

I scratch most of the personal development itches that an entrepreneur seems to be after, and have a lot more fun (to me) doing it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Can confirm. Tried startup. Worked hard. Ran out of money. Ended up homeless. It sucked.

<comment><USER19> Same here.

Also would add a compounding series of negative results including depression, being almost shadow-banned from the business due to lack of optimism (no joke), then alcohol problems etc

I'd take a bet there are many many others on HN that can attest to this outcome, but lurk due to shame or emotional pain. Losing everything because of misjudgment is not an easy thing to admit to publicly, especially in a community so warped with the cult of survivor bias

<comment><USER20> I've worked for two failed early startups. Gained a lot of knowledge in a short period of time, wore a lot of hats, did work I was passionate about, but also stressed out about making the right decisions or the company could shut down (the final decisions were made by the management, but I had influence over their decisions), extremely long hours, no social life, rapidly deteriorating health, screwed up my finances, etc.

But I'm a few years away from it now, and I don't mind admitting it. The startups failed for reasons outside of me for the most part (although it feels a little funny knowing you're at least partially responsible for a company losing two million dollars), and I don't regret having that experience.

If anything, working for a corporation again and working on stuff I'm not too passionate about makes me itch for going back to a small company again, but I still need the stability to get my finances back in order and start losing the weight I put on during that time, plus I have a social life now, which is hard to give all that up for someone else's 'grand vision'.

As for misjudgment, from my experience, a lot of the "bad decisions" made in those startups actually made sense at the time and with the information available at the time of the decision. It was only with the benefit of hindsight and perspective that you can see why ultimately they were bad decisions.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I'd add that the industry really does not celebrate nor embrace failure the way that we're told it does. For those of us without the cushion of prior success or financial runway, repeating attempts to "get back on the horse" is an embarrassing exercise in futility.

With a failed enterprise, you lower your value in the eyes of many gatekeepers and peers, especially those who never tried running their own business.

But after repeatedly attempting to jumpstart businesses without capital, and subsequent failures, eventually you are more or less cast as foolish.

And god forbid you start to become pragmatic or slightly cynical in the world of tech startups! Because the moment your idealistic optimism comes into question, your "cultural fit" is permanently deemed negative. And bonus catch-22, having led startups also puts "cultural fit" into question for big cos as well.

Basically the personality changes that result from repeated business failure can begin to taint and poison your business relationships, and that can follow you around forever like a little dark cloud you just can't shake.

Psychological stamina is something nobody tells you about needing as a prerequisite for being an entrepreneur, but most of us don't learn that lesson until it's far too late...

</comment><comment><USER21> Glad to see this piece posted on HN. I realize now when I first came to HN I felt somewhat 'ashamed' that I was not working towards being the 'next unicorn'. It took some time for me to realize that there are many more avenues that suit me and ultimately will be more fulfilling.

<comment><USER22> > when I first came to HN I felt somewhat 'ashamed' that I was not working > towards being the 'next unicorn'

HN was created as an interactive advertisement for YC (and startups in general), and it's important to understand that before getting sucked in.

<comment><USER23> this bias is something that has been creeping up more and more; if another unbiased forum for hackers-entrepreneurs does emerge I'd love to hear from it. I'm finding myself back on slashdot often these days, which has less of these ("unicorn x" for "<insert ill-defined market that will mushroom here>) story- press releases. Or polemic-y time wasting topics that have nothing to do with hacking.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I remember a slew of articles mid 2015 that raised the criticism that founders came from privileged backgrounds. The article also mentioned "the cult of the entrepreneur" and the idolization of these characters.

I am born and raised in SV and yet I frankly do not understand the fetishization of entrepreneurs and the idea that this line of work is somehow holier than any other. Isn't that the root of the problem, rather than the privilege of the founders? After all, Wall Street is littered with nepotism and privileged family backgrounds, yet that isn't seen as much of an issue but rather just business as usual.

(perhaps the industry attempts to gain good will for its own gain through this portrayal, and this is the price they pay for this deceit though)

<comment><USER25> There's a narrative we're told about entrepreneurs that we're not told about Wall St. One of the founding values of America is that anyone with innovative entrepreneurial drive can start their own business and build wealth from nothing. It's what brought so many immigrants to this country, and is even taught to us in school as being the backbone of capitalism.

Most people in America have never actually met a successful entrepreneur. The shop keep down the street is usually under water with loans, and the big successes are corporations headquartered far away, the founders living in expensive seclusion. Heck, in my case it wasn't until I arrived in the Bay Area in my early 20's before I actually met someone who ran a successful business in person.

The successful entrepreneur is this key person in our social mythology, and stays very much a myth to most people. Their success gets spun into compelling stories that give a lot of hope to those who want a way out of poor circumstances. And in an effort to spin stories that sell, journalists (and PR people) often omit key facts, to match the "Self-Made Man" narrative that the people want to hear.

So, learning that yes it indeed is mostly myth and that no, not everyone can get a shot at being "Self-Made" \- is pulling the curtains back on a long standing cultural deceit. The truth that success is mostly limited to a tiny subset of the population based on mixed factors like wealth, education, location, social values, generational cohort, parental upbringing etc, is a bitter pill to swallow.

Eager, but disadvantaged, entrepreneurs have been entering the tech market with this key information being withheld, aiming their sights on holding out for mega VC rounds when they should have been focused on earning a living. This leads to painful failures that could have been prevented. Had these founders been given the right narrative to begin with, they might have been better aligned to scale of business success that's reasonably within their grasp. That's the issue here

<comment><USER26> Yes, I mostly agree with your point. I have been reading a lot of biographies of successful entrepreneurs lately and have discovered that quite a lot of spinning and outright fabrication occurs in how their backgrounds are presented.

Like right now I am reading Elon Musk's biography. It's said he had a "tough" upbringing. Yet he had access to a "Commodore VIC-20" in apartheid-era South Africa and further was able to easily immigrate to Canada and later America in search of further opportunities because he was a Canadian citizen via his mother.

<comment><USER25> Elon Musk's dad was an engineer, and his mother was a model. Even if assuming he wasn't crazy wealthy, he was at least partially exposed to engineering, and brushed with educated people from an early age.

Not to mention, from Wikipedia _" In 1995, Musk and his brother, Kimbal, started Zip2, a web software company, with US$28,000 of their father's (Errol Musk) money."_

I adjusted for inflation, that was $44k in today's dollars - quite a substantial amount of money to be gifted from a parent. Plus in 1995 the very idea that the web not only existed but had investment potential was still limited to tech geeks.

So at a time when I literally spent 2 full years furiously arguing to my own dad about why he should simply allow me to hook up my modem using the household phone line, somewhere else in the world is Elon Musk - smart, exceedingly well educated, born in a year with a small generational cohort, along with his also ambitious brother - cashing a generous $28k check from his engineer dad to build, at the exact perfect time in history, a website business in a space that has been duplicated literally thousands of times since, and later sells it for $307 Million. How many people even have the opportunity to nail a combo like that?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> > If their startup fails, they can go back to their corporate job

A major challenge of a start-up founder is managing their own psychology. This much easier to do when you are/were upper-middle class and gives those founders a significant advantage.

</comment><comment><USER28> The worst part is that I don't know if I will be viewing inspiring entrepreneurship stories, or pornography involving entrepreneurs

<comment><USER29> "Why not both?"

<comment><USER30> Entrepreneurship Illustrated: Swimsuit Edition

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Actually, moving to Thailand and sipping mojitos doesn't cost as much as living on your parents' couch in NYC.

As that joke goes, the businessman sees the native sitting under a banana tree and asks why he doesn't work, so he can make a lot of money, retire and sit under a banana tree.

The natural pleasures in life don't cost that much, with today's technology and productivity. And they will continue to become more affordable.

The goal of a startup is to organize people and resources to change the world for the better!

</comment><comment><USER32> In France, the fantasy is civil servant porn... At least this promotes entrepeneurship.

<comment><USER33> can you elaborate on that?

<comment><USER32> When I was at university (a few years ago but not that long ago), the majority of the other students only had one idea in mind, becoming a civil servant, doing 9 to 5, job for life, no pressure, lots of holidays and free time to do other things, and early retirement (I am not even kidding, 20yo students looking forward to retirement).

Working hard, creating jobs, professional success clearly wasn't on the list.

I'd rather be in a society that glorifies entrepreneurship.

<comment><USER34> The people I know that have fallen in to the "entrepreneurship porn" trap all focus on the "no pressure, free time to other things, early retirement" based on the millions they'll earn. No one who's really fallen hard ("we're gonna be the next Facebook") is heading in that direction because they're interested in "creating jobs". And... they may say "working hard" but often the real hard stuff comes up... they fold anyway.

I've also known some successful entrepreneurs who aren't afraid of working hard, but even then, professional curiosity, a bug to 'build' and other factors were at play. No one's stated goals were _ever_ "I want to create jobs". The goal is the business. Couple friends of mine run small businesses pulling in a few million/year. Each would be just as happy if they could do it with 5 employees vs 40 employees - "creating jobs" was not their goal - "solving a need in the market" was.

<comment><USER32> Yeah but be your own boss is often at the top of the list for entrepreneur porn. It's not just the money, also the lifestyle.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> The most dangerous part of Entrepreneur Porn, especially of the TechCrunch flavor, is the idea funding equates to success. Funding won't fix an unsustainable business model, it will just enable you to waste more time.

<comment><USER35> > the idea funding equates to success

This never made sense to me. I've always viewed funding as a last resort.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> I knew I was an entrepreneur when I realized I would starve to death, suffer great pain and be a social outcast rather than simply work for someone else.

</comment><comment><USER37> For some reason, even when I hear "there are plenty of good businesses that aren't startups and it's ok," those businesses still seem like second class citizens.

It's easy to forget that "taking money to grow fast" often means "Try this really risky strategy in a winner take all market where you will most likely die."

</comment><comment><USER38> _2\. You don't need to be Facebook_

This should be number one - or even just the whole article.

Any startup, or a career in general, should not be an end unto itself, but a vehicle to A) fulfill your basic needs and B) get you what you want. While I believe entrepreneurship is often the best way to get both of these, shooting to be the next Facebook is unnecessary. You could keep that corporate job, build your credit, and then buy a McDonald's or a gas station or an apartment building. There's no reason to make a dent in the universe if all you want to do is put your kids through college and travel abroad once a year.

9 out of 10 startups fail. While these odds are better than many other paths to wealth (being born rich, winning the lottery, becoming a rockstar/movie star/pro athlete), you're still likely to fail. If wealth is what you want, you need to ask yourself why you want to be wealthy. If it's because you want nice things or want to travel or even because you want to feed starving people, there's a path to get there that has much better odds than building extreme wealth.

<comment><USER39> >You could keep that corporate job, build your credit, and then buy a McDonald's or a gas station or an apartment building. There's no reason to make a dent in the universe if all you want to do is put your kids through college and travel abroad once a year.

This phrasing I think minimizes the positive impact you can have with those endeavors. Displacing temperamental landlords with professional landlords makes the world a better place, and I've found having property be their only source of income ratchets up the stakes so much that many landlords explode over nothing (I've had a landlord threaten to evict an entire house of unrelated tenants because someone -- unbeknownst to her, her son in the middle of normal maintenance -- had made a very slight mess in the kitchen).

More important than "you don't have to be Facebook" (as if everyone who tried could be even if they "had to") is: with proper diligence and care, running a business well DOES make a dent in the universe, with very few exceptions. It makes the lives of yours customers (and vendors, hopefully) better in ways that are tangible and appreciated.

<comment><USER38> _This phrasing I think minimizes the positive impact you can have with those endeavors._

This is well put. It's almost as if I'm saying you don't need to make a dent in the universe if you want to make a dent in the universe.

Ultimately I'm saying there's no need to build a massive company for the side effects - material wealth, political influence, financial independence. Don't spend all of your time and energy working on something for its side effects.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> People need to work in industries they enjoy, but, yes, everyone should have a good understanding of the labor market (salaries, demand). Re-location should be an option too. Lower salaries in a low-cost region might work out.

</comment><comment><USER41> "Money doesn't make you happy. I now have $50 million but I was just as happy when I had $48 million."

\- Arnold Schwarzenegger</comment>


Here's Who Suffers For Sergey Brin's Stand On Principles - <AUTHOR> http://www.businessinsider.com/meet-the-casualties-in-googles-war-on-china-2010-1

<comment><USER2> Here's who suffers for Abe Lincoln's stand on principles:

It's great that he wants to end the institution of slavery and all, but it isn't so clear cut as it sounds.

Heres who loses:

\- poor farmers who can barely afford to work the fields with free labor

\- slave ship owners

\- a select few tribes on africa's west coast

\- anyone who likes cheap cotton or tobacco

NOTE: I am aware that my response is a bit over-the-top, I'm using absurdity to point out the problem I see with the argument, not saying that businessinsider.com is endorsing slavery.

</comment><comment><USER3> The fact that the employees in China would lose their jobs was the first thought/concern I had when this story broke. But, the world is not a fair place.</comment>


Never Too Late To Learn An Instrument - <AUTHOR> http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=98754560 <comment><USER2> The article seems to imply that adults will find learning an instrument extremely difficult and will likely never become really proficient -- but suggests they should just lower their expectations and go ahead and try anyway, because the experience will be enriching. Is that really "not too late"?

As an adult trying to learn to play the piano, this is all rather depressing.

<comment><USER3> As someone who has taught music to adults, I can corroborate:

There is definitely a change in the brain that happens if you are heavily exposed to playing an instrument or otherwise making music at and before 11 to 12 years of age. Adults who do not have this are handicapped like they are missing some sort of sense. The difference is like the difference between an immigrant's adopted language and that same language as spoken by their children.

The former can work really, really hard and speak quite fluently and have the grammar and most of the accent tamed as to speak very elegantly and understandably, but they almost never get rid of the last vestiges of that accent.

If you want your children to truly learn music, then hang out with and have fun with people who do music effortlessly and for the sheer fun of it. This means that you go to jam sessions at private houses. Anything that remotely smells like a performance won't work the same way. Expose them to music done purely for the fun of it.

If you want to learn music as an adult, you have to learn how to hear again. The immigrant in the first example can think he's speaking perfectly, even though native speakers clearly hear that he is not. You have to learn how to hear again. You have to become directly aware sound stimulus, unfiltered through the higher-level notions you've developed about it. Then you have to correlate that with what happens when you manipulate your instrument. Keep doing that for 3 to 5 years.

I should add that, while I was _exposed_ to music at an early age, I didn't really take joy in it until I discovered Irish Traditional music at the age of 19. I knew back then, that it would be impossible for me to accomplish much. I just thought if I could learn just this one tune. Then I learned a second tune. Then I went through a period of time when I was feverishly listening to tapes of myself and comparing what I heard myself play to recordings of masters for 8 hours a day sometimes. Eventually, I got good enough to teach at a school for Irish Music in the US and even qualified to compete at the Fleadh Cheoil na hÉireann, which is basically the world competition.

My journey was two decades. The sooner you start, the more time you have to enjoy fluency!

<comment><USER2> Hey, there's an inspirational story there. Thanks!

I think your personal experience holds true in a lot of domains: start with something small you can wrap your head around, and then expand outward from there.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I started taking violin lessons with my (then) 5-year-old daughter. We've been going once a week for two years now (I'm 37), and it's a lot of fun, precisely because I had no previous experience with musical instruments, and so I had no expectations for myself. Additionally, it's a nice excuse to spend some time with your kid.

<comment><USER5> That is very inspiring and yes, it does seem like a great way to connect with your kids and at the same time teaching them the value of hard work (when I was little, I remember thinking my parents just knew everything, with little thought to how hard they worked to gain that knowledge).

On a separate note, are you any good? Are you better than your 5 year old?

<comment><USER4> Heh heh... well... I find we go back and forth, although I would imagine there would be some inflection point at which she'll start rapidly getting better than me.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I watched GroundHog Day in my mid-30s and was inspired to learn the piano. Stop laughing at the back. The fact is that you don't have to be good to enjoy yourself.

My Dad started learning in his mid 70s.

<comment><USER7> Why would anyone laugh at that? Groundhog Day is an _awesome_ movie.

<comment><USER8> If you like Groundhog Day that much, you should check out the novel it was loosely inspired by, The Strange Life of Ivan Osokin by P.D. Ouspensky. Ouspensky isn't known as a novelist (he became a guru type) but up until the end where it gets a bit doctrinal, I thought it was a thoroughly delightful book. It's also a psychological tour de force, but I don't want to spoil the story by explaining why.

<comment><USER8> Oops: apparently not inspired by but, let's say, resonant with. See the (rather pretentious) blurb by Harold Ramis on the back of the book:

[http://books.google.com/books?id=d15Nk9MmAMcC&pg=PT1&...](http://books.google.com/books?id=d15Nk9MmAMcC&pg=PT1&lpg=PT1&dq=groundhog+osokin&source=bl&ots=SwrHBGRZ2W&sig=VAqlVK2PVDUuhaNioz1TjJXJIQc&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I've been learning guitar for the last few years, never having had much musical training as a kid. I fiddle around with it most evenings, just trying to play stuff I like, not taking it too seriously, and I've gotten good enough to enjoy it. I'll never be as good as [insert guitar hero here]. So what? Most nights, my place has the best free live music within miles.

</comment><comment><USER10> "Hawkins says fear of failure is a big issue for his adult students: "We don't want to be seen as incompetent or struggling with a task, because we are so competent in so many areas of our life. We do so many things well, so to start with something we don't do well is a real challenge.""

</comment><comment><USER11> This together with The Economist article on music: [http://www.economist.com/printedition/displayStory.cfm?Story...](http://www.economist.com/printedition/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=12795510)

Is definitely tempting me to pick up a guitar again, that I have not played since I was 12.

Anyone know if you can play quietly with an amp?

<comment><USER12> What I did in college was to run the guitar through a digital effects board and then into my cheapo computer speakers (which could be set to reasonable volume levels) or into headphones. Sound quality isn't as great, of course, but the digital stuff doesn't really care how loud you play and sounds about the same at all volume levels. You could get some pretty decent tones out of the higher-end effects boards, too.

If you want sweet tube amp sound, you're basically out of luck. That's caused by the power tubes and speakers distorting ( _not_ the pre-amp tubes), so you've gotta crank them up to 11.

There're also some products available that cut the power ratings on standard amplifiers. When I was into this stuff around 1998, your options were basically limited to YellowJackets (which let you substitute 18W EL84 tubes for EL34 amplifiers, like 50W and 100W Marshalls) and the PowerSink, which was an induction coil that would bleed off excess power as heat before it reached the speaker. Both of these would only cut the noise level from "will blow your eardrums out" to "will annoy the neighbors", and so weren't really suitable for apartments or dorms. Since then, I've heard that a bunch of manufacturers have wised up that there's a huge market in low-power tube amps, and it looks like you may be able to find 1-5W tube amps out there now.

<comment><USER13> There are definitely many more low-power tube amps available now. There are some really neat ones in the 1.5 watt config. Even still, I think there is room in the market for more.

If you already have a larger tube amp for gigs and are obsessive about the tube tone, I'd recommend searching for "power scaling" and "amp attenuator." You'd be very surprised with the sounds you can achieve at decent volumes. You can buy amps with power scaling built in or you can retrofit the circuit. Attenuators vary in quality, but they are easy to use external devices. I'm addicted to tube amps...and I used to like playing in my office in downtown Chicago to blow off steam. I often used a 30 watt amp with an Air Brake (attenuator) and I never got into any trouble because of the noise. I was able to use the same amp to play a gig in Grant Park on a Saturday and then to play in my 10 X 12' office on Monday.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I learned the cello for one year when I was 7 (ah, free music schools in the USSR, one thing I do miss about that country...) I've had a renewed interest in learning it since one of my favorite bands is Apocalyptica. But for now, I don't have the time or money for private music lessons.

<comment><USER15> just buy a second hand cello. You'll be surprised how much you remember, and while you may have lost the rapid learning ability you have at 7, you might find you now associate practising more with fun than homework :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> At 27 (not that old I know) I'm often on the road for work. I played sax for years as a kid but I haven't picked one up in at least 12 years.

Recently I taught myself blues harp (harmonica) because it's something I can slip in my bag. With the help of web sites and gritting my teeth I'm getting pretty good. I'm now learning the accordion as well and plan to start on the trumpet some time in 2009.

I love music and there is something wonderful about being able to make it your own again. I would really recommend picking and instrument up whatever you age. The harmonica was a great introduction for me because it's cheap, easy and my wife could put up with me playing it.

</comment><comment><USER17> I've always wanted to play the bassoon but it seemed too expensive an instrument to purchase so until last year I had not played a single note. That really bugged me until finally I accepted that I didn't need to buy one, I could just rent from the local music store. It's a puzzle of an instrument - your thumbs control ~12 keys - but half the fun was figuring some of those nuances out by trial and error.</comment>


Why is it so difficult to make people change their minds? - <AUTHOR> https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/327341.php#1 <comment><USER2> Seems like "opinion hysteresis" is probably an evolutionarily important heuristic.

<comment><USER3> Perhaps it is an "anti-brain hacking" mechanism essentially where not being swayable at the wrong moment kept them collectively from getting killed in band vs band conflicts? Which is sadly is more "prevent it from getting hacked again thing".

Also past evolutionary importance of course doesn't tell us much about the how relevant it is in the here and now. Smallpox resistance for example doesn't mean anything after we eradicated the illness after centuries of effort.</comment></comment>


HTML5 compatibility on mobile and tablet browsers - <AUTHOR> http://mobilehtml5.org/

<comment><USER2> The Firefox column is based on Firefox 12. The current version (Firefox 14) adds support for the FullScreen API, and Firefox 15 beta has support for remote debugging. getUserMedia is also coming soon.

(Disclosure: I'm a mobile Firefox developer.)

<comment><USER3> You are my hero. ;-)

Couldn't live without Firefox (Beta) on Android. Admittedly it has some annoying bugs, but nothing I'd return to another browser for.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I appreciate getting support information out there but don't take "supported" to mean "always works as expected". The primary example here is position fixed support which is _extremely_ broken in Android 3.1-4.0 on orientation change.

<comment><USER5> I agree - lists like these don't really have value if you're doing serious mobile web development. A few more examples of broken and inconsistent implementations:

• Viewport - this meta tag isn't supported on HTC phones, so your slick CSS media queries will expose a terrible UI in some cases.

• Websockets - the specification was changed after vendors implemented it, so you have to support multiple authentication schemes on the server side.

• Video - every vendor has their own take on how the controls should look, and certain vendors (I'm looking at you, iOS) disable or override the w3c default specification, so you have to sniff user agents to make a decent custom control. That's not to mention the difficulty of supporting all the various formats.

What adds to the pain is that the browser vendors don't always do a great job of keeping their APIs current, so you have to play the trial-and-error game to tease out the reasons you're having trouble - a game that is exceptionally difficult when the problem only occurs on the mobile device itself.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> WebSQL should not be used under any circumstances. Instead use IndexedDB with this shim: <http://nparashuram.com/IndexedDBShim/>

Also, Chrome support for IndexedDB should have an asterisks as it implements an outdated version of the spec.

<comment><USER7> "Don't use WebSQL, use IndexedDB. It doesn't work correctly in Chrome."

Don't get me wrong, I know what you're saying and why. Just the juxtaposition of the two statements is noteworthy.

<comment><USER6> You can shim WebKit to use onupgradeneeded, [https://github.com/matthewp/multientry- shim/blob/master/upgr...](https://github.com/matthewp/multientry- shim/blob/master/upgradeneeded.js)

There are still a few other things that it won't do (multiEntry, Blob storage to name a couple).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The logo and share icons don't move with the horizontal scrollbar. Ouch.

Edit: The colouring of the column headers messes with my eyes. They ignore the white and focus on the gray.

Edit 2: position: fixed is hardly HTML5, even if it's something quite a few mobile browsers didn't support in the past.

</comment><comment><USER9> Always using feature detection isn't feasible, some features can't be detected.

<https://github.com/Modernizr/Modernizr/wiki/Undetectables>

</comment><comment><USER10> Interesting information but whatever they were trying to do with the HTML5 logo ruins the experience.

</comment><comment><USER11> is there a similar list for regular desktop browsers, i.e. non-mobile ?

<comment><USER11> Found one - <http://caniuse.com/></comment></comment>


Ask HN: What is the best blog design you have seen? - <AUTHOR> I have a personal blog and a privacy/security blog where I post zero-day exploits. They have been on Blogger and I am looking to switch to self hosting, most likely as static HTML.
Need some inspiration.
What great blogs have you seen? Or what great parts have you seen? <comment><USER2> May I recommend the static site generator I wrote? [0] It comes with 12 different styles. Certainly not the best blog design, but they are easy to modify. My tumblelog [1] is made using this static site generator. If you have any questions feel free to ask.

[0] [https://github.com/john-bokma/tumblelog](https://github.com/john- bokma/tumblelog)

[1] [https://plurrrr.com/](https://plurrrr.com/)</comment>


The militarization of sports - <AUTHOR> http://www.wbur.org/onlyagame/2018/07/20/military-sports-astore-francona <comment><USER2> Great article. As most of us know, the last words to the national anthem are "Play Ball!" ;-)</comment>


International experience: Erasmus or after graduate? - <AUTHOR> Hi guys, actually I am at the first year of the Master degree in Computer Science in Italy. After the university, I would like to work outside my country. Therefore I think I will need a good English to be desirable in the jobs market. At present, I study english books, the course holds in english, therefore I have an acceptable level of reading and listening but, as you probably noticed, I haven't got a good speaking and writing. So, the big question in my mind is this: should I go on Erasmus for 6/9 months in UK or northern Europe country? Or should I stay in Italy, graduate, take a good certification and then look for a job from Italy? My fears are two: I will go in a foreign country but I won't learn a proper english and I'll learn bad habits that will be hard to unlearn next. Or I'll stay in Italy, I'll learn a "academic" english (and I'll gain a certification) but I will not have opportunities to find a job from Italy because I will not have connections in a foreign country. <comment><USER2> Your English is good enough that I understood your question. With use, it will probably improve over the many years of your career. I guess the answer comes down to whether studying English is more attractive than getting a job right now.

Good luck.

<comment><AUTHOR> However I have to study now. When I'll graduate, how hard will be to get a job from my country in a foreign one, if I have a certification for English? Are recruiters interested in foreign graduates or is it just a waste of money for them?

<comment><USER2> The way to know how hard it will be to find a job is to start applying for jobs. I'd recommend applying directly to the companies and markets in which you are interested. You will get good feedback [even no response is better than a false positive] relatively quickly. Using a recruiter is adopting a dependency. It may be useful later, but if it prevents starting to look for jobs right now, then it is not very useful in the short term.

I would caution against imagining what recruiters and companies will value for an arbitrary position. A customer facing position may favor English more than a head down programming one. Anyway, good recruiters want what the company paying them says they want. The reason companies pay them is for their judgement in evaluating the _strengths_ and _weaknesses_ and articulating those in terms of an actual position.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Any decent laptop in 12 inch or less class this days? - <AUTHOR> Hi guys,
I'm looking for a second laptop that I can carry around everyday. Previously I used Sony 8 incher, but its battery is about to kick the bucket.
Any suggestion on a machine with bearable screen and real battery life in 6+ hours?
The few non-atom based machines were either ultrathin class laptops with microscopic batteries, or chromebooks without expandable storage. <comment><USER2> Surface Pro 4 - You'll get 6-8 hours of battery if you optimize some settings, and it's 12". I have no issues being productive on the type cover (I'm sure it can't be worse than a keyboard on an 8" laptop).

[https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/surface/devices/surface- pro-...](https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/surface/devices/surface- pro-4/overview)</comment>


Intel is updating the microcode license to remove questionable restrictions - <AUTHOR> https://01.org/mcu-path-license-2018 <comment><AUTHOR> Imad Sousou - "We have simplified the Intel license to make it easier to distribute CPU microcode updates and posted the new version here: [http://bit.ly/2w9RjtM](http://bit.ly/2w9RjtM) . As an active member of the open source community, we continue to welcome all feedback and thank the community. #IAmIntel"

[https://twitter.com/imadsousou/status/1032680311753072640](https://twitter.com/imadsousou/status/1032680311753072640)</comment>


The Gang of Retirees Behind the Hatton Garden Heist - <AUTHOR> http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2016/03/biggest-jewel-heist-in-british-history <comment><USER2> Their age is unimportant. They made the same mistakes that all criminals make when they can't keep their mouths shut. Socialising together is stupid.

My father worked in Scotland Yard. He once told me that their are villians and professionals. They never catch the professionals. They always catch the villians through loose talk.

The hardest thing isn't the theft, it's the fencing of the goods, and then hiding the proceeds from the taxman. You can't just start driving around in a Bentley and buying houses.

These guys were always going to get caught however old they were.

</comment><comment><USER3> I'd like to believe there is a secret rag tag bunch of 60-70 year old, retired Engineers out there working on some cool tech.

If we have 60-70 year old's running for president, moving the markets on wall st and robbing diamonds there just have to be a few greybeards dying of cancer working on perpetual motion or something. I mean this is the generation that built the first rockets and computers with fucking slide rules. I am sure a few lurk around here. What are you busybodies upto?

<comment><USER4> 60+ become candidates because of accumulated wealth, accumulated critical mass of professional and political connections, and a bit of end-of-life ego.

As for what old STEM people do, my father started to learn C++ at 66, learned Python at 68, modified and invented variations of heat pipes for energy efficient home cooling, designed and built a home-brew control system (before weenie arduino stuff), mastered the art of the perfect grilled pork burrito, and learned to play jazz clarinet. Really miss that cranky old geezer. RIP, Dad.

<comment><USER5> Hey, thanks for sharing that. RIP indeed.

P.S. Can you (pretty please) pass on the secret for the burrito?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Is anybody else really, really tired of the focus on their age? I feel like every British media outlet has been churning out the same low-hanging fruit for months now: "Old school gangsters" going after "one last job". I vaguely remember the actual 6 o'clock BBC news making some gag about zimmer frames or hip replacements. Two of them were in their forties for one thing...

I sincerely hope that when I'm of a certain vintage the only remark on any of my achievements* won't be "check out how OLD he is".

*Hesitant to call a robbery an achievement, but in a sense it is.

<comment><USER7> The rumour is that it was masterminded by a well-known career criminal who was subsequently murdered in his garden by a hit man - possibly because the point of the raid was to find some incriminating evidence that was being kept in the vault, and the gold and shiny stuff was a useful bonus.

[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3484924/Was- Goldfing...](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3484924/Was-Goldfinger- murder-linked-Hatton-Garden-raid-Police-say-conman-killed-connection-major- organised-crime.html)

This is the Daily Mail, so credibility isn't guaranteed - but still an interesting angle.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I sincerely hope the story gets turned into a quirky British comedy movie. It's the perfect fit.

<comment><USER9> I bet Michael Caine is already on the phone to his agent.

<comment><USER10> "You're only supposed to blow the bloody doors off!"

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> If they'd been under 30 they'd have been easier to catch as they'd have put selfies of themselves in the vault all over instagram.</comment>


Chrome will let you pause, rewind, and control any video - <AUTHOR> https://bgr.com/2019/07/08/google-chrome-video-global-playback-controls-available-in-canary/ <comment><AUTHOR> I am worried though about WebRTC! And also what about skipping ads on YouTube? :)</comment>


Big Data - Why the rise of machines isn't all it's cracked up to be. - <AUTHOR> http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/05/09/think_again_big_data <comment><USER2> The points in the article are important to consider (sampling bias etc etc) but they apply to ALL attempts to analyze data for patterns.

For me the utility of big data is simple - more samples. Even if the effect is small you can find it and have more faith (word used on purposed :}) it is not noise that has escaped your significance test.

The dataset may be biased. That part requires wisdom to know and honesty to say what the limitations of the analysis are, but it is by no means restricted to "big data".

But the article as a rant against buzzwords is something I can get behind.</comment>


Bank of America is raising its minimum wage for employees to $20 - <AUTHOR> https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/09/bank-of-america-is-raising-its-minimum-wage-for-employees-to-20-an-hour.html <comment><USER2> > The move is also a sign of increasing wage inflation for thriving companies.

This phrasing doesn't sit well with me. If the company is thriving, as it is, then why would you term a wage increase as "inflation"? The wages aren't tied to "shareholder value" or other metrics the BoD discusses before setting executive compensation.

Also, the article should be retitled to "BoA raising minimum wage to $17", or "plans to raise wages to $20 by 2021". Makes it sound like fait accompli otherwise, which it certainly is not.

<comment><USER3> > why would you term a wage increase as "inflation"?

Prices rising for the same product (the same labour) is 'inflation'. That's just the definition of the word.

<comment><USER4> How does increased productivity factor into that term? Seems it's not a like for like comparison if productivity is increasing YoY.

<comment><USER5> For employees who are paid by the piece (paid in proportion to how much they produce) inflation with consist of paying more per piece.

But these employees are paid by the hour. Regardless of how productive they are, they are getting paid to fix salary per hour of work. I think productivity does not factor in at all.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I'm sure there's going to be some legitimate criticisms (they don't have many low paid workers; they're only doing this to win favor with the democrats; he still makes too much money; etc) but I don't really care.

It's a good thing to do. They didn't have to do it. They did it. I'll judge people on their actions first, intentions second.

<comment><USER7> The concerns you list don't stop this from being a good thing, I agree. My bigger concern is what BoAs rate of low-wage direct employees versus contractors looks like, and _will_ look like in the future. The overall trend seems to be that contracted service work is paid somewhat worse than direct, but also faces no benefits, high firing rates, and far nastier working conditions. I don't have numbers on BoA, and I doubt they'll publicize them. But my concern is that moves like this (without a corresponding guarantee for contractors) create an incentive to offload ever more work into conditions that might be even worse than the current state of affairs.

I don't want to undersell this, though. I doubt bank tellers will become contract labor anytime soon, and this will actually represent a significant raise for them.

<comment><USER8> I wonder of 'trickle down economics' works when the money is injected more closely to where it's supposed to trickle from?

While I don't think Bank of America has a large percentage of skill workers compared to knowledge workers I think this sends a very forward thinking message.

The debt waters are rising for both consumer and corporate and I assume we'll see a correction soon that once again hits middle class and lower class folks _almost_ ready to make a mobility play.

$20/hr during the coming lean times could be just enough to keep some folks from losing too much ground.

I'm just guessing at the rationale but it does kind of make me want to switch banks in support. Next few years could get rough for +60% of the US population.

<comment><USER9> >>I wonder of 'trickle down economics' works when the money is injected more closely to where it's supposed to trickle from?

That's specifically not trickle-down economics. That's just a economics. If you give more money to people, you're just giving more money to people.

The whole point of a trickle-down is that if you give large sums of money to already rich and powerful individuals, typically in the form of tax breaks or subsidies, then they will invest that money in sectors that create jobs which allows the wealth to trickle-down to the people you're positing to help.

I'm not here trying to talk about the merits of either, just pointing out that this is an entirely different style of economics.

<comment><USER8> I'm not sure I follow. A very big company that benefits from many subsidies and government assurances used those profits gained to improve the lives of it's workers. It very literally _trickled down_ from benefits given to the top.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Ctrl+F "contractor"

"0 Results"

This move is basically meaningless if it doesn't extend to the temp agencies and businesses BoA buys labor from and contracts with to provide basic services (custodial, POS systems support, etc.). Sure the gesture is nice but it's hollow. Modern BigCos don't hire for low skill, low wage positions unless it's part of their core business. They contract all that out, either they get bodies from temp agencies or they get the entire service provided by a 3rd party.

<comment><USER11> To pile on, they have been steadily employing less people due to technology: [https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/17/bank-of-america-ceo-brian- mo...](https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/17/bank-of-america-ceo-brian-moynihan-on- cutting-100000-jobs.html)

<comment><USER12> As they should. That is the point of technology.

<comment><USER11> Unless they are reducing employee counts in favor of hiring contractors, then trying to score political points about a hot-button issue like minimum wage.

<comment><USER13> Well then it's not because of technology is it?

<comment><USER11> Might be a bit of both TBH. It's rarely that cut and dry.

The point here is calling out empty PR, but I'm not going to misrepresent an article without proof. I just have suspicions.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> It's hard to divorce this seemingly good news from the reality that this is probably enabled by the fact the companies like BoA don't hire low-wage workers anymore [0].

[0]: [https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/03/upshot/to-understand- risi...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/03/upshot/to-understand-rising- inequality-consider-the-janitors-at-two-top-companies-then-and-now.html)

<comment><USER15> This is a good point and a good article. If Bank of America like many other companies outsources a lot of its lower-paid positions, and these new standards won't apply to the outsourced jobs, then a higher minimum wage that mostly applies to people that were already being paid that much anyway won't do too much.

I wonder if they're going to do something like my employer, and mandate minimum wage and benefits for all of their contractors as well? [https://www.forbes.com/sites/rakeenmabud/2019/04/09/googles-...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/rakeenmabud/2019/04/09/googles- new-benefits-policy-and-the-role-of-worker-advocacy/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> To me as someone who is in no way expert on automation or an economist but someone who knows how profit oriented big business is, especially banks, I have a question: this looks to me like they expect so much automation happening in the future that they can afford the move? Isn't that case with McDonald's too, where they can have self-serving locations in near future, so no problem with raising minimum hourly rates?

The ATMs nowadays do so much on their own. I was taken by surprise when last time I had 5 of my checks scanned and deposited cash into my checkings by a <big bank name here> ATM recently. No human interaction what-so-ever. So I can withdraw money using ATM, I can add money using ATM, and I can cash/deposit checks using ATM. Isn't that like 99% of what their 90% customers do? Isn't that the case that in 5-10 years they will need one person on premises to handle the remaining cases? So then that person can be making 20usd/hr, why not? If they're replacing 4-5 other workers, this is savings anyway.

Of course this won't touch things like mortgages or auto-loans. For now that is...

right?

<comment><USER17> The only thing that's really new in the last 10 years (or more) though is depositing through mobile apps. I've been doing that with ATMs for a very long time.

I maybe go into a bank branch once every couple of years for some reason or another. I'm always a bit floored by just how much prime retail real estate bank branches consume in a typical city. I guess it's a form of advertising. (Of course, the same thing is true of mobile phone stores.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> I work for Bank of America Merrill Lynch (BAML) in London; I've been here 18 months as a contractor, and I'm switching to perm. Why? Because BAML is hands down the most pleasant, civilized and supportive investment bank environment I've encountered in 22 years in trading systems development with Chase Manhattan, JP Morgan, Deutsche, CIBC and Barclays. Work life balance, and "bring your whole self to work" are not just slogans here.

</comment><comment><USER19> Of all the service sector jobs, bank tellers being underpaid is the most ridiculous. If you are a bartender, I expect you to understand drinks. If you are a musician, I expect you to listen to music. If you work in a bank, I hope you have some financial stability!

<comment><USER20> Aren't bank teller wages determined by the market? I don't see how they are underpaid if their salaries are market driven.

Edit: Strange. Getting some down votes. Is it because bank teller wages are not market driven or is it pointing out that fact is discouraged on this site.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> This is nice, but it's important to realize this headline is not really about minimum wage. The debate about minimum wage, of course, is about how wages should be set by law, not about how much companies choose to pay their employees.

<comment><USER22> That debate is simple, though. They shouldn't be set by law, because it removes jobs from the market and disproportionately punishes businesses that rely on low-skill employment. Why is McDonalds morally responsible for rectifying the problem of poverty, but SpaceX and Microsoft are relatively unaffected? And we already know that minimum wage laws simply accelerate us towards the threshold where employees priced out versus automated alternatives. There are also entire industries that could become economically unviable despite the fact that the employer and employee had previously agreed to the terms of the employment arrangement.

UBI or infrastructure spending are much more sensible solutions to what is a much broader problem.

<comment><USER23> The corollary is why should the state (ie tax payers) subsidize Baristas and Fast food workers.

Nurses Doctors etc there is an obvious moral incentive.

<comment><USER24> You mean like the state through pension funds invest in VC funds that subsidize money losing companies who can then pay high salaries to white collar workers?

If companies that can't be profitable and pay a wage thst you think they deserve shouldn't exist is kind of a dangerous thing to say on a site supported by a VC company....

<comment><USER23> Realy was thinking about the tax credits system in the UK ie benefits paid to low paid workers.

And to be blunt if I was a LP / Shareholder in a fund/company ran by PG I absolutely would expect hi to invest in companies that will be profitable and not rely on government subvention to be profitable.

I am a small shareholder in PE investment companies both UK, USA and elsewhere.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> This will also attract more people to want to work for BoA, right now their average teller salary is $13/hr so this is probably an amazing improvement.

[https://www.glassdoor.ca/Salaries/new-york-city-teller- salar...](https://www.glassdoor.ca/Salaries/new-york-city-teller-salary- SRCH_IL.0,13_IM615_KO14,20.htm)

</comment><comment><USER26> I'm curious what percentage of their workforce was below this rate to begin with? I'm assuming the jobs that would be most affected by this are contracted out and won't be affect after all.

<comment><USER27> Bank tellers start out at about the same as some retail/fast food workers.

In the past, to make $20/hr you had to be a 'personal banker' where you had to push products like checking accounts, loans, and retirement accounts on your customers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Good for their employees...

Also I quit using Bank of America years ago because they were more interested in making money off of me via fees than providing any sort of service.

<comment><USER29> What are you using now? I'd like to move off of them but have no exit strategy.

<comment><USER28> I moved to ING which was absorbed by CapitalOne. I've had very few problems with CapitalOne. There are no branches near me so I occasionally have to ask friends to write me a check if I have some cash I need to deposit.

I half-heartedly looked for a credit union to join, but every one I found seemed to be for groups of employees I'm not a member of.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Whenever I think about Bank of America, I remember this: [https://abcnews.go.com/Business/bank-america-florida- foreclo...](https://abcnews.go.com/Business/bank-america-florida-foreclosed- angry-homeowner-bofa/story?id=13775638)

"On June 3, Nyerges, two sheriff's deputies and a moving truck showed up at the local BofA branch. The deputies informed the manager that he could either pay the Nyerges' legal fees— $2,500—or the movers would start taking away the bank's furniture and cash"

Priceless justice!

</comment><comment><USER31> This is great news.

Now let's just make sure they don't replace employees with lower-paid contractors. I'm always suspicious when these minimum wage hikes don't talk about contractors.

</comment><comment><USER32> Wow, $20 is good pay for a teller. Nice to be working for BofA with that going on.

Second thought: Wages are rising, jobs are plentiful. But what happens when the roaring economy changes? Will BofA stay the course?

</comment><comment><USER33> They've probably outsourced most of their cleaning and cafeteria services, so not sure if that is inclusive. Otherwise it's not really surprising to see salaries in that range.

</comment><comment><USER34> >by 2021

</comment><comment><USER35> Because unemployment is low and skilled labor is expensive. No other reason.

<comment><USER9> I mean off the top of my head: More and more states are passing $15+ minimum wage laws and they'll need to compete, because saying you pay people more without context (like how many people will be laid off or converted to contractors) can be good PR, because you realized you were already paying all of these people approximately that rate so you can just streamline your hiring negotiations and save money.

There's plenty of reasonable possibilities here.

<comment><USER35> Pols increase the minimum wage after business signals it has to pay that wage anyway. That way the pols can pretend they do something

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Years ago, somehow they managed to deduct someones else's check from my account.

I would never ever do business with Bank of America because of the criminal home seizures during the great recession.

</comment><comment><USER36> I imagine there's a parallel plan to drastically reduce the total number of their lowest pay tier workers. With contractors and more automation.

</comment><comment><USER37> This thread is plagued by a rather insidious idea that has bubbled up in recent history: the idea of "human capital" in terms of the "greater good".

Sentiments like "people shouldn't be doing jobs that can be automated" or "machines should do the work instead, we need _more useful_ jobs for those people" stink of the ideas that 1) people must serve some societal purpose, 2) that they are not fit to decide their own purpose, and 3) they are not fit to determine what has value _to them_.

These values are actually now embedded in U.S.A. policies and major non- profits, like "No Child Left Behind", and the Gates Foundation, or "School to Work". (A tangent: we aren't enabling people to _learn_ and to _think_ , we are teaching them to follow directions. Curiosity seems to be a waning capability of many kids and we seem to be slipping towards a Soviet style of teaching in public schools - which discourages self-generated thought and questions.)

I'm not bringing this up because I'm a Luddite. I rather like the idea of automating things, actually. I don't think our current, popular, justifications are healthy.

Rather, on an interpersonal level, I think some of the justifications in this thread are codependent, controlling, and uncaring.

<comment><USER38> Consider an alternative angle - Companies, as rational actors, will eliminate automatable positions. Unless you're suggesting some sort of deliberate intervention to save these jobs, they're gone.

The next question is how do we assist those displaced by automation. There are multiple proposals including UBI and its ilk, but the most palatable bipartisan idea is to find them new jobs.

The idea of finding 'better' jobs with more agency, etc. is not immensely new - it draws from organization research on employee fulfillment and productivity.

Overall, no one is saying that any specifically displaced individual needs to take up <new job> in some sort of imagined totalitarian state - they're perfectly free to choose a new job from the market. The only question is one of skills and motivation.

<comment><USER33> I'd suggest people learn how to do plumbing and electrical work. It's not work that can be easily automated, and plumbers are often charging more than lawyers.

The fact is, there is a _LOT_ of room for people to work and grow. The _typical_ factory job is significantly waning, and will continue to do so. Local service oriented jobs are far less likely to be outsourced at all. "Dirty jobs" in particular tend to pay well, and are pretty damned safe from outsourcing.

The bigger issues are more societal and likely to worsen with roughly 2/3 of those in higher education being women, and over 70% of women unwilling to date/marry those of a lower social/education status, even with matching income.

The highest satisfactions in life, generally speaking, come from earned work:income and family engagement.

<comment><USER39> >The bigger issues are more societal and likely to worsen with roughly 2/3 of those in higher education being women, and over 70% of women unwilling to date/marry those of a lower social/education status, even with matching income.

Depends on your perspective. As a single man with his life together in his early 30's I'm finding life good. Is this societies problem or a problem for these women?

<comment><USER33> As society is dependent on a growing youth to support senior care, it depends on your POV.

Because you specifically are doing well, doesn't mean society is. Directly, the women in particular are not harmed, but statistically less happy. Changing perspectives on a broader level would help a lot in any case.

<comment><USER39> Growth cannot continue forever. At some stage we will need to stabilise or reduce the population. I'm expecting that I'll be working until close to 70 and I think others should prepare for the same. If you're hoping for 35 years of retirement then you should have a lot of money put aside.

As for women, this is their own choosing. If you want to "have fun" with the most attractive men (looks, status, wealth) you can from 18 to 28 before you look for a partner then you shouldn't be surprised when the men who will settle down with you don't live up to the standards you're used to. There is only so many of these men and they're happy to oblige fun but commitment isn't so easy. There was a post yesterday showing how many young men are completely missing out on sexual interaction.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> The cynic in me says this:

Great press for BoA perfectly timed where automation will completely remove the need for these low level jobs within 5-10 years.

<comment><USER41> Most likely. The only people keeping bank branches alive are boomers/older Gen X.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: what's on your Christmas list? - <AUTHOR> Season's greetings,
I'm stumped when friends and family ask if I have a wish-list for presents. I don't know about others, but I'm hard to buy for (mp3s and ebooks have killed the traditional, non sock, options), vouchers are the safe bet, but leave the giver feeling like they're handing over a small amount of cash with no personal meaning.
So, what do you all do, and what are the HN equivalent of Buzz Lightyear dolls of 2010? <comment><USER3> I had a cherry '79 Yamaha SG2000 on my list; but it occurred to me that there are plenty of people who for whom that $1500 would go a lot further than it would providing the fifth (admittedly nice) instrument to hang on my wall. So I'm taking part in a local charity that collects wish lists from the indigent/desperately poor and I'm going to put that $1500 into making their Christmas' less shitty.

The stuff on the lists, by the way, will break your heart. Used shoes (size 11)?

 _EDIT_ : Just to torture myself:

[http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=23055...](http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=230556612914&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT#ht_1138wt_1141)

<comment><USER4> Good on you. I can't really justify paying that much for something I don't deserve, since I don't think I'm that good yet.

How about this one, though? :( [http://cgi.ebay.com/Vintage-Ibanez-Artist- Guitar-1978-2622-S...](http://cgi.ebay.com/Vintage-Ibanez-Artist- Guitar-1978-2622-Steve-Miller-/300500164154?pt=Guitar&hash=item45f7349e3a)

<comment><USER3> I have and adore a pre-lawsuit Artist. It's a fantastic instrument.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I'm not sure there's anything on my holiday list, as in, anything I would like to receive from others. I've never been very good at receiving gifts, and there's little anyone could provide for me in terms of material 'things' that I actually want to own. Don't get me wrong - there's material things I _want_ \- but no one in my gift-giving circle is able to afford _those_ things :)

I do typically get a few gift cards for restaurants from family members - these are nice because it lets me and my wife have a nice meal out. That's a key right there - the gift is providing me a nice experience, not a 'thing' to house and maintain.

What I've started to do - as a bit offputting as it seemed at first - <USER2> sending pics of my gift-card meals to the giver. It's a way to let them know we did actually use the gift, and that we had a good time. It gets around the giver feeling like they just handed over cash with no personal meaning. For other sorts of gift-cards, I will send an email or phone call thanking them and letting them know what I selected.

As 'impersonal' as this may be, it's the best balance I've come up with.

Side note: The emails and pics feel strangely a bit like old-fashioned 'thank you' notes that my folks tried to get me to write as a kid after birthdays. I _hated_ that experience, and when I didn't do it I felt like I was a bad kid.

Between getting older and getting computerized, I'm _much_ more willing to follow up with email. I don't mind the process of thank you notes, but I _hate_ writing by hand, even as a kid.

In my time, we had no real options (well, typewriter I guess) so I was forced in to writing by hand, which I was (and still am) _horrible_ at. I can't write more than a few lines before my hand aches and the writing is illegible (even to me).

tl;dr: I wish I'd had email as a kid _and_ been mature enough to use it to keep in touch with well-meaning family members.

</comment><comment><USER6> What's wrong with socks? Seriously, socks are a great present - I always need some.

Failing that, t-shirts. Cotton whites are fine although I send along a few links to some 'funny' shirts I'd wear for those who want to get me something a little less generic.

<comment><USER7> I have socks on my list. Smartwool. After trying merino wool socks I'll never go back to cotton.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> * A kinect sensor so that I can have some fun coding hacks for it.

* Possibly an e-reader, although I still can't decide between the Nook and the Kindle right now.

* Hopefully not too many gift cards to specific stores, since I never seem to use them. I know I'll inevitably receive some.

* Almost anything from ThinkGeek, like these Miracle Berry Fruit Tablets that I want to try: <http://www.thinkgeek.com/caffeine/wacky-edibles/ab3f/>

<comment><USER9> I've had both the Miracle Berries whole, and the tablets. The tablets are less strange tasting, but they're not quite as potent or effective as whole berries. Both will last for about 30 to 40 minutes.

They're fun though, I suggest getting a group of friends who are interested and setting up a buffet for everyone to sample from (single ingredient or simple foods work best, and try various beverages too).

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Christmas gifts are dumb. If I wanted something in gift price range I would have bought it for myself already. I'm not living paycheck to paycheck.

If you're really stumped, maybe think of something you don't like to shop for (clothes, bowls&plates, a lamp, laundry detergent? boring household stuff) and ask for that and let them pick what type.

<comment><USER11> "Christmas gifts are dumb. If I wanted something in gift price range I would have bought it for myself already. I'm not living paycheck to paycheck."

This is not the reason why people get each other gifts.

<comment><USER10> Yeah, but it is the reason it's dumb.

The reason some X is dumb rarely has to do directly with the reason proponents of X say X is great, but rather with something they don't think about.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I've started asking for non-tangible gifts recently. Things like piano lessons, sailing lessons, rock climbing gym membership, Flickr Pro subscription, etc.

<comment><USER5> That's a great idea. Gifts such as those will give you experiences and the basis for more experiences over a lifetime. Physical gifts can sometimes do that, but not as often.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> A good introductory classic Greek (Attic) textbook.

A nice, small tube amp.

I'm unlikely to get either since I haven't made these wishes known to anyone who's going to be buying me anything. In any case, they're both the sort of thing you're better off buying for yourself.

<comment><USER14> Maybe there is something in Google Books you can use:

[http://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks:1,bkv:f&tbo=p&q...](http://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks:1,bkv:f&tbo=p&q=attic+greek&num=10)

(query is for "attic greek" restricted to "full text available".)

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> A WakeMate. Here's hoping they ship before Christmas...

</comment><comment><USER16> I have waaay too much "stuff", so I usually strongly discourage anyone from buying me anything. Trying to give things away instead. Anything that can fit on a hard drive is OK though.

<comment><USER17> Ditto. I actually asked my parents if they could help me get rid of some stuff as a Christmas gift. I did ask for one book though: <http://www.cookingforgeeks.com/> Since it's formatting heavy, I'd rather have a hardcopy of it.

<comment><USER16> That sounds cool. I usually just dig <http://www.cookingforengineers.com> !

<comment><USER17> Yep, I love that blog. The new entry on Sous Vide makes me want to give that a try.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I'm trying to convince my girlfriend to purchase <http://ardrone.parrot.com/parrot-ar-drone/usa/> for me

<comment><USER8> I've seen that before, but I found it disappointing that they limit the height to 10 ft above the ground. It also seems like it may have some problems flying in wind judging by their instructions for outdoor flight: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7K0O0YJnFo>

<comment><USER19>
      > I found it disappointing that they limit the height to 10
      > ft above the ground.

Time to hack it? Afaik, it has an ultrasonic range finder that it uses to maintain a safe distance to the ground (this could be tested by launching it from the top of a roof and observing its behavior). After that it's just a matter of finding the right pin and giving the onboard controller the right PWM signal. :)

Of course the radio might be too weak for any sort of serious teleoperation.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Is anyone else just kinda over Christmas by now? I dont see why we have to have a specific date to give someone a gift, or spend time with our family or enjoy a nice meal. Then again, everone calls me scrooge this time of year.

PS: I made this site a few years back: <http://whychristmasisbullshit.com/>

<comment><USER21> People call you scrooge because you are just like scrooge... seriously, you made a website because you don't like getting off of work, getting gifts, and spending time with family?

<comment><USER9> Those 3 things aren't really listed on his site, just some of the negative behaviors around them. If you'd care to refute the things listed, you'd have a point.

The prevalence of gift giving using consumer credit is just dumb, moreso when it's crappy gift cards that don't mean anything. Only spending time with family during Christmas doesn't feel genuine, and the arbitrariness of getting time off for the holidays is irksome to anyone who is aware of how fabricated the holiday is. Call me scrooge too if you like, but I agree with most of the stuff listed.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Bugatti Veyron

<comment><USER23> Here you are :)

[http://mrdoob.github.com/three.js/examples/materials_cars.ht...](http://mrdoob.github.com/three.js/examples/materials_cars.html)

(needs WebGL capable browser like Chrome 9 dev channel or Firefox 4)

<comment><USER24> Interesting reversal: I have a Daytona 675 and wanted a CGI model of it for CFD testing on cheap ways to reduce drag. But the only CGI model I could find online was over $100; far more than I'd expect to save in gasoline costs over the life of the bike.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I'm hoping for an EcoSphere - kind of like Sea Monkeys for grownups, or maybe it's just like a tiny aquarium that never needs feeding, just indirect light and making sure it doesn't get too warm.

[http://www.amazon.com/EcoSphere-Small- Sphere-4-inches/dp/B00...](http://www.amazon.com/EcoSphere-Small- Sphere-4-inches/dp/B000068ZIC?&camp=212361&linkCode=wsw&tag=g03de-20&creative=380801)

</comment><comment><USER26> I just updated my Amazon wish list at my mom's request! <http://amzn.com/w/1WO5IE7YF9N7H>

<comment><USER27> Errr... really? This? [http://www.amazon.com/Pacific-Play-Tents-Hide- Tunnel/dp/B000...](http://www.amazon.com/Pacific-Play-Tents-Hide- Tunnel/dp/B00000IUX7/ref=wl_it_dp_v?ie=UTF8&coliid=I2236UV55LU5IW&colid=1WO5IE7YF9N7H)

<comment><USER26> No idea. There's some old, old stuff on there. I just want the rotovap. Someone buy me a rotovap? Thanks!

(I have two kids, for what it's worth.)

<comment><USER27> What's the difference between the 10k rotovap and the 2k one? It seems like pound for pound (of dry ice that is) the 2k one might be better for smaller volumes... unless you're trying to simulate martian polar ice caps in your back garden...

FWIW I want one of these: [http://www.amazon.co.uk/Nauticalia-Copper-Pot- Still/dp/B0049...](http://www.amazon.co.uk/Nauticalia-Copper-Pot- Still/dp/B00491YMPU/)

I'm trying to convince the wife that a 'purely ornamental' (due to UK legislation) still used in a 'demonstrative manner' should fit in a small two bedroom starter house. Somehow the fact that I don't want to cook meth in the house after seeing breaking bad seems to count against me with her...

<comment><USER26> Where's the $2k rotovap? The $10k looks like an R-210, which is the one I keep seeing in demos.

<comment><USER14> I think he means the $3k one, it's listed as a "related product" on the page of the $10k one:

[http://www.amazon.com/Cole-Parmer-Rotary-Evaporator- System-V...](http://www.amazon.com/Cole-Parmer-Rotary-Evaporator-System- Vertical/dp/B003NV4W02)

Looks like smaller "bath capacity" and smaller temperature range (5C-90C)

<comment><USER26> It looks like this guy don't apply vacuum pressure (the Q&A on their site suggests that you can plug it into a separate vacuum pump). That's pretty key, since the reason to own these things is vacuum distillation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> I work on a 30-45 min work / 20-30 minute break schedule. It really helps me to prevent burnout, but I need something to do every 45 minutes for 20-30 minutes, so I'm asking for an xbox.

Nice headphones are always in high demand, as are a plethora of interesting books.

What about something useful to your job? A new keyboard? How about a new bag to carry your laptop?

I recently bought a DSLR and I'm also asking for a new lens.....

</comment><comment><USER29> Time to continue working on my startup. More runway.

</comment><comment><USER30> Some more spare time. Please.

Failing that, a ton of books -- my Amazon wishlist is pretty up to date (if anyone's interested: <http://amzn.com/w/OW6V76NBR5HF>);

An iPhone 4, which I'm avoiding buying for myself since I have a perfectly awesome Nexus One, but which I wouldn't mind being given;

And a Garmin, for the upcoming London Marathon.

</comment><comment><USER31> Anything related to the production and consumption of coffee and tea. Mugs and the like fit nicely in the gift price range, allow the giver to express themselves a bit, and are easy to collect and enjoy. Really, who doesn't love an awesome mug?

Then there's my _other_ Christmas list, the one with the SSD featured prominently on it… ;)

</comment><comment><USER32> A suit (my current black one is wearing out), a new desktop computer (the old one was in storage for a few years and died), and a few specific hardcover books.

Realistically, I'm going to end up buying the first two for myself, but will probably get the books from my parents and a few friends to whom I send my Amazon list.

</comment><comment><USER33> I'm not a Christmas person. I don't want people spending hard earned money on me unless it's something I really want, otherwise I think it's a waste of money. I am fine with cards or trinkets. My dad is getting me a plane ticket to fly home, that works.

</comment><comment><USER34> A friend of mine has a very nice wishlist:

If you want to buy me a xmas present, donate to Tor, Wikileaks, Wikipedia, Caring for Cambodia, Unicef, ffii.org... It will make me happier than gifts.

There are people starving, our privacy is dying, world is changing, help it move the right way.

</comment><comment><USER35> most of my family is trying to be more minimal, so we stopped giving each other gifts years ago unless it was something important (baby, etc), or something they needed but was easier for someone else to find.

What I'd value personally: high quality outdoor clothing. I'd be happy if it was just a merino wool pair of socks. I'm tired of buying cheap jackets and want to finally invest in a good layering system for wintertime outdoor fun.

I like books/music, and things that get me out of the house.

What I hate: Best Buy gift certificates. I usually end up donating these to someone else.

<comment><USER36> I discovered Browning brand wool socks at Fleet Farm (in Wisconsin; I'm not sure about where else they have stores) a couple of years ago. So far, they've been quite comfortable and durable, for me. Two years ago, they struck me as quite inexpensive, although I don't recall the price -- they might have been on sale. This summer, $6.99 a pair.

The ones from two years ago are still going strong, despite my walking around a lot in socks, at home.

Edit: Although the particular line I purchased are not the very heavy, thick socks that one may sometimes want for outdoor wear.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> I've always been interested in robotics, but I've never actually built one, so an Arduino, servos, and some sensors are at the top of my list. I really want to build an autonomous quadcopter.

<comment><USER38> if interested you can have my arduino if you cover shipping. been sitting in my closet for a year and never really got the chance to use it. email in my profile. cheers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> I want some Terry Pratchett books, as well as books/chapters by Knuth.

</comment><comment><USER40> * Books (politics, philosophy, scifi, fantasy, etc...)

* Clothing (socks, plain tshirts, a nice pair of jeans, a coat?)

* No more gadgets, I have enough of that.

* A toaster (mine broke recently and I loves me some burned bread!)

</comment><comment><USER41> I'll take anything on my Citizun profile

<http://citizun.com/profile/ryan-glasgow>

Funding for my startup works too.

</comment><comment><USER42> I don't really ask for stuff but I have bought myself Rugby World Cup tickets and I plan to go Skydiving in January.

</comment><comment><USER43> I don't have any specific suggestions, but thinkgeek.com is a good place to shop for our kind.

</comment><comment><USER44> For the first time ever I'm asking for presents: Kindle, Arduino.

</comment><comment><USER45> Uncrate.com is a good source for finding covetous material goods.

</comment><comment><USER46> I want to win a big spider which is bigger than me

</comment><comment><USER4> Secret santa anyone?

</comment><comment><USER47> Mathematica 8

</comment><comment><USER48> Makerbot :)

</comment><comment><USER38> funding for my startup

</comment><comment><USER49> 1) tooth whitening- brightsmile or whatever the best in-house solution is (I _hate_ applying the disgusting gel)

2) anything from here: [http://www.amazon.com/registry/wishlist/3CLNZ1QEZAO6S/ref=cm...](http://www.amazon.com/registry/wishlist/3CLNZ1QEZAO6S/ref=cm_wl_sortbar_o_p_page_1?_encoding=UTF8&page=1) (the first page of the list especially)

3) a new timing belt for my Camry</comment>


Microsoft's challenge: 90 days to beat Google - <AUTHOR> http://www.mercurynews.com/search/ci_14242473

<comment><USER2> Good to hear there's someone throwing down at least _some_ competition.

I hope Microsoft finds/makes lots more small awesome groups to throw some money at.

</comment><comment><USER3> Interesting read. But the negative side it was 90 days to achieve an October 21st launch of a product Google duplicated by December 7th. So 90 days to have an advantage over Google for not even 50 days. Though it is an laudable accomplishment to be ahead instead of catching up.

</comment><comment><USER4> Ironically I had just finished publishing a blog post (<http://jeffmould.blogspot.com>) on why I don't think Bing is quite there yet. Their engine appears to have a bug somewhere that doesn't index sites unless you have numerous backlinks to your site. While some may not consider this a bug, it makes it difficult for the little players (myself being one) to be included in a real time search engine. Google on the other hand had indexed my blog post within 30 minutes of me posting it.

<comment><USER5> Not saying that Bing is all that great, but it might have made a difference that you are also posting on a Google owned website.

<comment><USER4> Understand that, but my other blog (<http://www.jeffmould.com>) has not been indexed either. Ironically, the Program Manager for Bing's Webmaster Central acknowledges there is an issue ina thread he created on their forums. He is working with site owners to get their sites in the Bing engine. From what I understand from reading his responses and looking at other threads is that Bing only naturally indexes sites that have numerous backlinks already in place. The mystery is exactly how many backlinks they are looking for before indexing the site.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> To be honest, I don't understand the market behind real time search. If you are searching for something that is in the now, you'd probably want to go directly to the link and would be less likely to click an ad - far less likely than normal search, I'd think.

I also think the big hole in search is recent relevancy. Some topics are temporal, and getting results that have been time vetted, as Google does, often means the information is obsolete. For example, I just searched "CakePHP vs CodeIgniter". The first result was published in March, 2007. That's ancient!

So if the search engines can get temporal searches improved, I would be much more impressed than I am with real time search.

<comment><USER7> I used to agree with your thoughts on real-time search, but check out <http://thoora.com>, and it might change your mind.

They are able to grab the streams and create it into something more akin to a real-time news site, rather than just random tweets.

<comment><USER6> Thoora is impressive. I'd never seen it before. But I still have to wonder about the business side of operations, i.e., where the revenue comes from.

<comment><USER7> Thoora's model (if i've understood it correctly) is to license their tech to other news sites rather than become a source themselves. I believe that the feedback from publishers was that they could use this service to get an edge on where they should be focusing their resources, so I think there are multiple revenue streams.

They're canadian, and us canadians don't often get the word out as well as US companies, which might be why you are not familiar with them. The tech is pretty amazing though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This article is just a bit too gushingly complimentary. PR Hit for Wagg-Ed, right?</comment>