Cafeteria workers at Facebook struggle to make ends meet - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jul/24/facebook-cafeteria-workers-wages-zuckerberg-challenges <comment><USER6> > A spokeswoman for Facebook said none of the company's contingent or contract > workers have access to facilities such as clinics, gyms, or bring-your- > child-to-work days

One thing I liked about AirBnB was their entire staff including cafeteria workers and security guards were full-time employees who ate the same food, had access to the same facilities and events, and went through the first week 'bootcamp' alongside developers, HR, and upper management.

That doesn't solve the wage gap, but it does make a huge difference in developing empathy to see people you've had common experiences with at all levels of the organization.

<comment><USER7> See also senior and older FB engineers being discouraged from participating in perks and events intended for younger and junior employees because FB can multitask at sucking.

<comment><USER8> > See also senior and older FB engineers being discouraged from participating > in perks and events intended for younger and junior employees because FB can > multitask at sucking.

Can you elaborate? I don't recall ever seeing anything of the sort while I worked there.

<comment><USER7> There are all sorts of wonderful shop classes and related perks at FB. Older and senior talent in my experience is discouraged from attending these classes. Maybe they weren't always that way or maybe someone smacked them with a clue bat over that behavior, don't know...

<comment><USER9> "shop classes"? like... woodworking?

<comment><USER10> ...and silkscreening - [https://www.facebook.com/analoglab/](https://www.facebook.com/analoglab/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Everybody here is focusing on real estate. (because young wealthy programmers and older poorer workers have a shared interest in cheap real estate) But I'm really interested in how HN feels about this section:

 _"I felt more secure at my other job. You didn't have people looking down at you," Nicole said. Now she works at cafeterias with names like "Epic" and "Living the Dream", and the distance between the two classes of Facebook workers can feel immense.

"They look at us like we're lower, like we don't matter," said Nicole of the Facebook employees. "We don't live the dream. The techies are living the dream. It's for them."

The smaller indignities are numerous. At the end of every shift, Nicole watches large amounts of leftover food go into the compost – food that she's not allowed to take home. Cafeteria workers only enter Facebook's medical clinics if they've been selected for a mandatory drug test. Facebook recently held a "Bring your kids to work" day, but cafeteria workers' children were not allowed.

A spokeswoman for Facebook said that none of the company's contingent or contract workers have access to facilities such as clinics, gyms, or bring your kid to work days, but that other policies were a matter between the contractor and the workers._

<comment><USER12> That's how capitalism and meritocracy work unfortunately.

<comment><USER13> Nope.

There are many forms of capitalism...

Humanistic capitalism: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanistic_capitalism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanistic_capitalism)

Anarcho-capitalism: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho- capitalism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism)

Democratic capitalism: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_capitalism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_capitalism)

Eco-capitalism: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eco- capitalism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eco-capitalism)

Inclusive capitalism: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inclusive_capitalism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inclusive_capitalism)

Neo-capitalism: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo- Capitalism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Capitalism)

...just to name a few.

<comment><USER14> Then there's, you know, "capitalism in actual practice".

Which is what the Dude above was referring to.

<comment><USER15> As long as we don't confuse what we have right now (corrupt cronyism, corporatism, blatant vertical monopolies, blatant government-backed monopsonies, etc.) with an actual free market.

<comment><USER14> Yep, it's best not to confuse reality with pipe dreams, generally.

<comment><USER15> I'm not sure what way that sarcasm is cutting. I'll say the "design the problem away" impulse is partly what causes corporatism and monopolies. For example, regulatory capture in which the regulated industries more or less control the regulators.

So I'll say the regulate-the-problem-away impulse is a pipe dream in the long run.

<comment><USER14> _So I 'll say the regulate-the-problem-away impulse is a pipe dream in the long run._

I'll call it "the lesser of nightmares".

Being as we've seen where "just let property owners do whatever they want" has lead us to in the past.

<comment><USER16> Where's that?

<comment><USER14> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnstown_Flood](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnstown_Flood)

<comment><USER16> And so now we have strict liability law.

Considering that, I don't believe this case, really justifies your (apparent) paranoia against the free market.

<comment><USER14> It isn't paranoia when the entire history of the "free market" demonstrates that... (not all, but a far to high proportion of) these entities pretty much will screw over everyone and everything they can, in exchange an extra buck or too -- unless very rigorously constrained from doing otherwise.

Or that is to say, "regulated".

<comment><USER16> THAT'S why there are so few issues in the heavily government controlled sectors of the economy, like health care, public education and drug policy. /s

<comment><USER14> There's plenty of issues, of course.

Which again, is why I referred to it as the "lesser of nightmares".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> The real story here is how the political conditions of the SFBA have prevented growth of the housing supply. The sad reality is that housing here is now a zero sum game, and any broad based increase in wages would pretty quickly be captured by landlords. The real solution to this issue is not higher wages, but targeted efforts to decrease the cost of living through building a ton of of "missing middle" housing like 4-plexes near office space in the sea of land populated by single family home zoning as well as renters protections (rent control and eviction protection) ADUs ("accessory dwelling unit": stand alone units in peoples garages or back yards) and likely some for of social housing subsidy for the worst off among us.

<comment><USER11> Why is the real estate market "the real story"? Seems like the real story is that facebook ought to pay its cafeteria workers more.

<comment><USER18> Don't be so susceptible.

The literal story is about food workers who can't afford to raise a family in Palo Alto. The intended message seems to be that Facebook should pay food workers more than $20/hr.

I think it's acceptable for people to ponder outside of that claim.

<comment><USER11> I think people are pondering outside of that claim because young programmers in Palo Alto also want cheap real estate so there's a shared interest. But things this article brings up that are more uncomfortable for the members of this board to think about like paying service workers more or pondering this:

 _"They look at us like we're lower, like we don't matter," said Nicole of the Facebook employees. "We don't live the dream. The techies are living the dream. It's for them."

The smaller indignities are numerous. At the end of every shift, Nicole watches large amounts of leftover food go into the compost – food that she's not allowed to take home. Cafeteria workers only enter Facebook's medical clinics if they've been selected for a mandatory drug test. Facebook recently held a "Bring your kids to work" day, but cafeteria workers' children were not allowed._

are going to go untalked about. And what's the problem with saying that Facebook should pay it's workers more than $20/hr? If it's not enough to live on, that's kind of all there is to it isn't there?

<comment><USER19> At some point we have to recognize that service workers _must_ be paid a living wage, or be automated. We cannot, morally or economically, have an entire class of worker that we utterly depend on that lives permanently below the poverty line and we just step on them because "they didn't work hard in school" or whichever narrative you prefer to go with for why people who don't have a degree do work that is essential to our civilization.

The reality is that the fair market isn't perfect, and even jobs that are low on the totem pole but essential _must be compensated_ in such a way where people don't need to work 60 hour weeks to barely afford a shithole home and car.

<comment><USER20> > or be automated

That's an extreme opposite from living wage.

<comment><USER19> Well if you follow the popular theories, this means better jobs are created elsewhere and improve life etc. etc. Historically this is true, this time is a lot different, in general it's just a different discussion I didn't feel like broaching in this thread.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> "Back in the day, [the wage] would have been a great number," said Victor, "but because of Facebook moving in, everything is so expensive. I have to get payday loans sometimes. We barely make it."

They make a combined (rounded) $75,000/year. The real tragedy is that you can't afford to make it in the Bay Area on $75k/yr.

I don't think that's something you can blame solely on Facebook.

<comment><USER22> Where is their $75k/year going? I totally get that the bay is ridiculously expensive, but they're living in his parents' garage. Are his parents charging him that much rent? I'd think someone living in their parents' garage and earning $75k would be doing pretty well in terms of money. (Setting aside the fact that living with your family in a 2-car garage would definitely suck.)

<comment><USER23> Maybe the parents also rent the house. At 29/26 the parents could easily be 49/46 and still working.

Also, mind that poverty has a role in poor economic decisions (payday loans being one of them).

[https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/11/your- br...](https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/11/your-brain-on- poverty-why-poor-people-seem-to-make-bad-decisions/281780/)

(edit: added some extra info)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> > They earn too much to qualify for state healthcare, but not enough to afford > the health insurance offered by their employer. They frequently struggle to > find enough money for basics like food and clothes for their children. > Victor recently borrowed money from his mother to hold a birthday party for > one of his daughters, and from a friend to pay for a dentist appointment.

They might want to look into not being married. A single mother with three children would qualify for quite a few benefits. The lower income (single parent) would also qualify her for Medicaid. Separately, the husband could continue to work and pool his income with her, though not on paper.

It's pretty sad that the combination of the tax code, income based benefit eligibility, and a high local cost of living make something like " _Divorce for the sake of the children_ " a real option.

<comment><USER25> _They might want to look into not being married._

Wow. Just wow. For some people, marriage is more than a financial arrangement.

They'd also save a bundle by not having kids. Maybe they should sell one of them, it would help pay for the others?

<comment><USER26> > Wow. Just wow. For some people, marriage is more than a financial > arrangement.

Marriage in the legal sense and marriage in the religious/personal/emotional commitment sense are not the same thing. I don't think you're necessarily _always_ wrong, but I also don't see why you think it's so universal that people should load a specific legal status with so much emotional weight and be unable to separate it from the actual commitment, in the context of meaningfulness.

If I have a religious ceremony during which I get married to someone, I would consider myself married even if I didn't file the papers at the courthouse. The latter is just paperwork. I can't say I relate to the notion that a relationship between two people doesn't have meaning until you get the government to approve it.

<comment><USER27> It sounds like you've never been married. It's not a matter of getting the government to approve, it's a matter of getting other people to recognize it. If you have a common-law marriage but it's not documented then if your spouse falls ill and taken to hospital you might be denied visitation rights, for example.

I suggest you read some court filings/legal articles on the gay marriage cases from a few years ago to get an understanding of why people sued to have the right to get legally married, over and above just having an emotional commitment.

<comment><USER26> It sounds like you haven't read the thread you're commenting on. Those issues (visitation rights etc) are explicitly stated in the GP comment, and the comment was speculating that it may be worth the trade-off. The comment _I_ was responding to was talking entirely about legal marriage _meaning_ more to its participants.

I suggest you read the threads you're participating in before smugly assuming that someone else is the one who doesn't know what they're talking about.

<comment><USER27> I'd read it, and I stand by my original comment. Your understanding of this seems to be abstract rather than concrete and I'm suggesting reading material you could examine to concretize your understanding. I don't know why you're being so rude about it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> They make decent money -- good money even. This is really an article about the high housing costs in the Bay Area. I don't see any other real message here.

All of the people who oppose residential development near work sites are to blame. Period.

<comment><USER29> Sorry for having to be "that guy" but they're living in Menlo Park for crying out loud! I'd love to live in Menlo Park too, but I can't afford it, so instead I live 2 hours away and commute to work like everyone else. In the Bay Area, living close to work is pretty much a luxury for the rich.

<comment><USER30> Sorry, you commute two hours EACH WAY EVERY DAY? Nothing is worth that. I'd expect serious money for putting up with that, and at that point, you could just afford to live closer.

<comment><USER29> Nobody pays you more based on how long your commute is.

It's a tradeoff lost of people make. 1. Live in a garage, 2. Long commute, or 3. Live in an area with fewer job prospects?

<comment><USER31> ___Nobody pays you more based on how long your commute is._ __

Somebody has never negotiated a salary... The answer is yes, a lot more, you just go "This commute is unbearable and I won't move to your stupid neighborhood so if you want me, pay me 20k more" (not a joke, I did that, for a 45 mins commute).

Just think about all the stuff you've missed out by being so closed minded and not saying it, many people will pay you more if you complain about your commute, that's a fact.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> This is a problem with zoning in the area. Paying these workers more money would enable them to move out of a garage, but the amount of housing would stay the same, causing prices to rise until someone else is forced _into_ a garage. Unfortunately, local governments in the south Bay area are controlled by people who want to maximize the price of their houses, injury to the poor and middle class be damned.

<comment><USER33> We really need some regional or state-driven action to drive down housing prices in critical areas. It'd be pretty straightforward - make a "Zoning Authority" tax and levy it on counties, cities, and neighborhoods that do not meet a development target. Want to be an obstructionist NIMBY? I'm fine with that if we're charging you $10k/yr for the privilege.

<comment><USER34> There is a regional authority which tries to force communities to match new office space with new housing in the same city. And there's state action on the way to force local areas to approve dense developments near transit hubs like Caltrain. Obviously this isn't doing enough today, but there is action happening.

<comment><USER33> Which politicians are behind this, and where can I learn more? I wish to write them a letter stating my approval and donate to their political efforts.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Serious question, politics aside. How many jobs have been prior filled by teenagers or recent college graduates, that are no longer being filled by those groups for whatever reason? Is every single type of profession required to support a family of 4?

Edit: 5, per the photo on the article

<comment><USER36> It's education inflation.

a college degree is the new highschool diploma. Even with a 4 year degree in a "real" field of study (business/stem/finance/whatever) it's becoming more and more difficult to land entry level jobs. If you pay 30/60/90k for said degree, you are going to feel entitled (rightfully or not) to working in a position that's not for the "uneducated". These positions still need to be filled though, because they are generally the jobs that make day-to-day life happen. Nobody wants to flip burgers but they still want to be able to eat one at lunch.

I'm of the opinion that yes, even minimum wage jobs should be able to get the bare minimum expenses of an average family covered (housing/food/medicine), let alone two incomes making more than minimum wage.

<comment><USER37> We wouldn't need 4 year degrees if we hadn't dumbed down public school. We wouldn't need 4 year degrees if employers were allowed to give potential employees an IQ test. Want to become an electrician? You aren't allowed to take an unpaid internship, so what do you have to do instead? Now you have to _pay_ the electrician to teach you in a classroom setting, putting you in massive debt.

>I'm of the opinion that yes, even minimum wage jobs should be able to get the bare minimum expenses of an average family covered (housing/food/medicine), let alone two incomes making more than minimum wage.

Do you support us immediately ceasing trade with China and Mexico? Or is it only a problem when you can actually see the people that can't afford to live a lifestyle similar to yours?

<comment><USER38> An electrician union here advertises apprenticeships with (decent for entry level) hourly pay, benefits and no debt upon completion.

It's several years to complete, but the 8000 hours of work experience is then sufficient to get a license to work independently.

<comment><USER37> What's really important is that we design the system so that incumbent wealth can maintain their position by controlling the market through government regulation (licensing).

<comment><USER38> That's a great defense of your misstatement about what it takes to become an electrician.

Of course regulation often goes wrong. I'm pretty sure that isn't a reason to do away with it altogether, it is merely a reason to find ways to do it better.

<comment><USER37> I didn't make a misstatement. Both cases have the same problem. The government has stepped in and made it more difficult for you to enter the market. In one case, you have to pay an electrician to take a class because the government won't let you learn for free. In the other case the government has made it even worse because you now have to perform labor at sub-market wages for 4 years before you're allowed to do work that you likely could've performed on your own after just a few weeks.

<comment><USER38> There's a difference between the requirements for licensing being excessive and "massive debt".

<comment><USER37> In both cases the government regulation is making you an indentured servant to incumbent wealth. In one case you're a slave to financiers and the education incumbents and in the other case you're a slave to the labor union who doesn't want you coming in and undercutting them. I'm not interested in debating which one is worse, they're both very similar problems. And neither is necessary.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> They have been priced out of their own neighborhood and that is really unfortunate. Theoretically they should move to a place with a cheaper cost of living. People move all the time for wages and cost of living; I would guess its the number one reason people move. They don't work for Facebook they work for a contractor; I would say they need to find a better job or a less expensive place to live (cost of living).

<comment><USER40> _Theoretically they should move to a place with a cheaper cost of living._

Theoretically the entire company could do that.

<comment><USER41> I mean, they slowly are... Seattle is booming. Google, Facebook, et al. are all massively expanding their presence.

Admittedly, the COL is going up rapidly there too, but at least there's a huge amount of construction happening.

I wish the large tech companies would experiment with more remote-only teams, it would be great to eliminate the commute and live anywhere I want.

<comment><USER42> When things go bad, the satellite offices get shut down first. That is a reason for employees to stay in the area.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> Bay Area has a unique challenge in this regard. All jobs (pretty much) pay more than what would have one qualify for benefits but not enough to actually pay for even the basics - healthcare, housing and food. The only solution for those who are not already locked into a rent controlled place and can't afford the sky high rent is to move out. Politicians, NIMBYs everybody blocks or opposes every proposed solution for one reason or the other. It's a stalemate. It needs a big big political push out of this. Only someone who has a lot of political capital can get it done - not just money.

My personal preference is to merge the housing, zoning and public transportation authorities of all cities and municipalities in the bay area into Metro wide organizations that plan for the whole area instead of just a city/town.But this is the antithesis of local governance and a really hard pill to swallow. Until then cities like SF and Oakland will bear the brunt of this crisis while cities like Palo Alto try to ban even two story constructions.

<comment><USER44> Agree with this view. Only the state can force that type of cooperation. MN did a variation of this in the early 70's to stop Twin Cities municipalities from competing against each other with tax breaks in order to attract companies. The result has been the only metro region that works together for the benefit of the region, not individual towns.

[https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/the- mir...](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/the-miracle-of- minneapolis/384975/)

"No other large American city has adopted a plan like Minneapolis's to sprinkle business taxes across a region in order to keep the poorest areas from falling too far behind."

"In the 1960s, local districts and towns in the Twin Cities region offered competing tax breaks to lure in new businesses, diminishing their revenues and depleting their social services in an effort to steal jobs from elsewhere within the area. In 1971, the region came up with an ingenious plan that would help halt this race to the bottom, and also address widening inequality. The Minnesota state legislature passed a law requiring all of the region's local governments—in Minneapolis and St. Paul and throughout their ring of suburbs—to contribute almost half of the growth in their commercial tax revenues to a regional pool, from which the money would be distributed to tax- poor areas. Today, business taxes are used to enrich some of the region's poorest communities.

Never before had such a plan—known as "fiscal equalization"—been tried at the metropolitan level. "In a typical U.S. metro, the disparities between the poor and rich areas are dramatic, because well-off suburbs don't share the wealth they build," says Bruce Katz, the director of the Metropolitan Policy Program at the Brookings Institution. But for generations now, the Twin Cities' downtown area, inner-ring neighborhoods, and tony suburbs have shared in the metro's commercial success. By spreading the wealth to its poorest neighborhoods, the metro area provides more-equal services in low-income places, and keeps quality of life high just about everywhere."

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> > _" Working at a Facebook cafeteria is an enviable job in many ways. Nicole > earns $19.85 an hour as a shift lead, while Victor makes $17.85 – well above > the $15 per hour minimum for contractors that Facebook established in > 2015."_

Assuming they work 40-hour-weeks, for 49 weeks every year, they make a combined family income of $74k/year. I've volunteered with low-income families in SF. I've seen families just as big as theirs, getting by in San Francisco, with half their salary. The way they are demanding attention, and comparing themselves with others in far worse situations, makes them sound really petty.

I've personally met people who are truly struggling in horrendous ways. If Mark Zuckerberg wants to use his personal time to help those at the very bottom, good for him. Someone making ~$18/hour really has no business chiding him for doing so.

<comment><USER15> > I've seen families just as big as theirs, getting by in San Francisco, with > half their salary.

It's hard for me to judge individual budgets out of context. Some people are in financial holes in various ways: healthcare debt, personal debt, usurious lones, bad credit, bad investment choices, support payments, victims of investment fraud, etc. Sometimes we can say it's their fault, but it's not fair to assume it is.

It's also worth pointing out that "getting by" in the short term does not mean living a net-wealth-building lifestyle in the long term.

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> A few things. They aren't Facebook employees, as some people might infer when reading the headline. They're working for the cafeteria contractor - <USER2> Facility Services.

They are making $2 and $4/hour _more_ than the $15/hour minimum wage people are fighting for. Obviously $15 isn't enough and neither is more than $15.

>> Earlier in their relationship, the couple both earned about $12 per hour as managers at Chipotle and were able to afford their own apartment.

What changed? Having the 3 kids? Did they move to a different area? $12/hr isn't going to get you an apartment in most of CA.

<comment><USER47> _> They aren't Facebook employees, as some people might infer when reading the headline. They're working for the cafeteria contractor - Flagship Facility Services._

Not saying you're doing this, but this is very regularly used as a dodge to erase the responsibility of very large companies (and smaller too, of course) to ensure that the people working for their contractors to be treated fairly and equitably, too.

Contractors-as-plausible-deniability is a bad, bad scene.

<comment><USER48> What is "fairly and equitably"? If I choose to live in the most expensive metro area in the country, have ten kids, and then kill my wife so there's no one else to help support them, is it my employer's fault I'm struggling? At what point do people's situations stop being other people's fault?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> Almost 80k/year in salary leaves a family stuck in a garage over there? That's absurd

<comment><USER50> Only if you need to live in the most expensive housing market in the nation.

<comment><USER51> Right. Raising their pay wouldn't even help. Oh, it would help _them_ but whatever place they manage to move into with their improved cash flow would displace someone else. Then those displaced people would have a sob story until they get their pay raised, and displace someone...

The real problem is the lack of housing for the number of people that want to live there.

A few good skyscraper high density developments would fix it better than pay increases.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> >Nicole watches large amounts of leftover food go into the compost – food she's not allowed to take home

Why is she not allowed to take it home? It would be free for whoever her employer is, it would help her and her family.

Also I really dislike wasting food.

<comment><USER53> One of the reasons for disallowing employees from taking home food is that they will lose their motivation to sell food if they get to keep the unsold food after business hours. I wouldn't be surprised if some of the deli employees hide expensive food from customers and take it home after work because it's "unsold".

My cousin worked at Walmart during Black Friday sales and he has told me that his coworkers hide popular sale items in the back-shelf for themselves to buy it when they are off the clock.

</comment></comment><comment><USER54> Facebook didn't make the area expensive. No tech company did. Those local businesses, and the chains alike, have made it expensive. So much blame gets put on the tech companies, but the tech companies aren't raising the prices, they are just paying people better, and the local businesses abuse that to the fullest extent. There is no NEED to charge $6 for a gallon of milk, when milk from those same cows is sold for $2 50 miles away... thats not a SV valley tech company problem, its a SV valley retailer problem, and the blame needs to shift that way...

[edited because splellings]

<comment><USER55> > _Facebook didn 't make the area expensive. No tech company did. Those local > businesses, and the chains alike, have made it expensive. So much blame gets > put on the tech companies, but the tech companies aren't raising the prices, > they are just paying people better, and the local businesses abuse that to > the fullest extent. There is no NEED to charge $6 for a gallon of milk, when > milk from those same cows is sold for $2 50 miles away... thats not a SV > valley tech company problem, its a SV valley retailer problem, and the blame > needs to shift that way..._

You're attacking a false target. Buying food in the bay area isn't expensive. Rent and housing is expensive. There's a great Costco in mountain view that charges the same prices as Costco most other places. Similar for other grocery options.

When I lived there last year, our food bills were comparable to living in Pittsburgh. Our rent on a 3br/1ba house, not renovated since 1956, with a portable dishwasher in the garage... was 50% more than my mortgage is in Pittsburgh for a decent size house in a lovely little neighborhood 3/4 of a mile from my work. It was rather shocking.

It's a combination of high salaries and crappy housing policy leading to an explosion in property costs.

<comment><USER56> > _Buying food in the bay area isn 't expensive._

Yeah, I found that to be pretty much true. Of course there are plenty more options (organic/natural/raw) if you WANT to spend more, but no intrinsic cost increase.

But there are a lot of marginal cost increases in the Bay vs other places. Car insurance is more expensive. Gas is more expensive. Simple one-offs (like oil changes) are more expensive. You're more likely to eat out because of the brutal commute times. Etc.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER57> What I get from this article is that these people should be salaried employees, not contractors.

Sure it's not as cheap for Facebook, but folding them into a system that already exists is probably more cost efficient for society itself than having them fend for themselves in the money-pit of a private marketplace.

</comment><comment><USER58> They could move to Texas. The price for that garage is probably more than the total cost of a 3000sqft house in north Fort Worth. The Toyota headquarters just moved from CA to TX and those guys are buying large houses in expensive areas of town in cash.

I have known many people who have left CA for exactly this reason. I am sure CA is great when you are young and single, but once reality kicks in CA becomes very expensive.

<comment><USER59>
      The family of five have lived in this cramped space next
      to Victor's parents' house for three years.

It sounds like the garage belongs to his parents. Which implies they don't own it (so no equity to free up in order to buy a place in Texas), and they may well pay a very low (or no) rent.

<comment><USER60> Didn't notice that- if that's the case this story is pretty different than what I'd initially thought.

80K/year with no or a trivial amount of rent is a pretty good setup. There are tens of millions of people in the US who have it worse.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER61> They're living in their parents garage. With the single biggest cost of living(housing) removed, I'm curious how they can't afford life at 80k/yr. Besides for housing, cost of living does not need to be particularly higher in SV than elsewhere.

Either that, or the parents are charging them market rate to live in the garage, which is probably illegal anyway...

<comment><USER62> How do you figure that "besides for housing, cost of living does not need to be particularly higher in SV than elsewhere"? While housing is undeniably the most wildly out-of-control expense in Silicon Valley, the rest of the essentials of life ain't cheap either.

<comment><USER61> What other essentials of life? A car and car insurance are within bounds of normalcy. Food at grocery stores is in line with the rest of California and farm raised food can be dirt cheap. Good public schools are readily available. Healthcare costs are the same as anywhere else in the USA.

What other essentially things besides housing are inflated in SV? Yes, you can go out and buy $20 bean sprout sandwiches, but that isn't exactly a necessity.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER63> Someone else was downvoted for saying so, but Zuckerberg is running for president, which is exactly why he need not look at his own employees. Votes in California are almost a sure bet for D nominee, if he becomes one. It is voters in the swing states that politicians actually have to care about. It is them who have to be understood and pandered to because they have political power.

</comment><comment><USER64> If you're interested in trying to improve the conditions of those who serve you at your workplace, consider attending a meeting of the Tech Workers Coalition.

Free beer!

[https://techworkerscoalition.org](https://techworkerscoalition.org)

</comment><comment><USER65> But he is on a journey to connect the world, since that is the greatest challenge of his generation

</comment><comment><USER66> The big problem seems to be the lack of affordable housing in the area - <USER3> I was looking for 1br apartments, none of them were under $2700 a month (plus 300+ for car parking), and they were all brand new luxury rooms.

<comment><USER67> When I hear stuff like this I'm flabbergasted. I live and work in downtown Manhattan, and it's much more affordable to get housing [1] or parking [2] than what online commenters describe about the bay area -- contrary to what stereotypes would have you believe.

If the world's richest, densest, most economically productive city is outperforming you on affordability, you're doing something really wrong.

Get out of the bay area and come to NYC. You can live well here on $20 an hour (if it's fulltime with health benefits and you have no dependents), and amazingly on a developer salary. You can live in a small place walking distance to work, or in a huge place a comfy train ride away, or something in between, all for substantially less than in the bay area.

All the big tech companies are here and a lot of startups have come from here -- and we actually have other industries too, helpful if you have a spouse that doesn't work in tech -- or if you change careers someday -- or if you just enjoy having friends who don't all do the same thing you do and offer different perspectives. It's just a much bigger place.

Computer tech had its day in the california sun, but I honestly believe NYC will ultimately capture the US based computer tech industry, the same way it has captured many industries in the past -- by outperforming all other US cities at things that matter for employees and employers.

__

[1] I pay $1850 for a 1 bedroom near Houston St. It is still easy to find similar and slightly cheaper deals. You can pay much less if you trade away space or the luxury of being able to walk to work. For an example of trading away for price alone, a friend of mine recently easily found and leased a room (in a 3br share) for $650, a 30 min subway or bike away from downtown manhattan.

[2] I had a car for a while for purely stupid fun impractical reasons (don't anymore, for practical reasons) and paid almost nothing for parking by parking it on the street, which is easy once you learn the tricks. Paid maybe $65 or $130 a month for the occasional ticket. But parking is unnecessary anyway since car ownership is unnecessary due to excellent transit (and walkability/bikeability) -- and if you really needed a car once in a while, you're surely in walking distance of a zipcar or one of its several competitors.

</comment></comment><comment><USER68> One way to minimize the cost of living impact is to set up satellite offices. Set up a campus in Texas or Oklahoma. It's not like people would not take jobs there. I'm sure some globe trotters would not, but most jobs don't need the globe trotter kind of mentality.

<comment><USER69> Janitors, bus drivers, food service workers and security can't work from a "satellite office". This is about more than engineers.

<comment><USER70> Yes, but a lot of the big tech companies like Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Google and Microsoft want people to work at their head office location rather than opening up satellite offices across the world. I understand how it simplifies logistics and communication, but it's not without its own problems.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER71> There is no Photo OP for Mark if he is working within his own company walls to genuinely try to help his 'own'. T'sall 'bout managin' perception.

</comment><comment><USER72> It is terrible that he can't live in Menlo Park on 75K. On the other hand the reason he lives in a garage is because he and is family are living with his parents, most likely to save money and avoid the horrendous commute most of his coworkers probably face.

On yet a third hand I can't feel all that bad for this guy since he someday stands to inherit a house worth millions of dollars

<comment><USER40> You had to pull out a third hand, but I'm glad you were able to figure out a reason not to feel bad for them. That was close.

<comment><USER72> haha, yeah. It's petty but I'm well into adulthood, have what I would have considered an excellent income (had you asked me as a teen) and rent what I would have considered (had you shown me as a teen) kind of dump because my job is here. So yeah I have a bit less sympathy for the people who complain about their income while ignoring the fact that they have a large financial asset which is only ridiculously valuable because of the same things that make it too expensive to live around here.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER73> As many have pointed out, the main issue here is the Bay Area's cost of living - especially housing. What they're earning is higher than a lot of people in the food service industry, but still isn't enough to afford a decent house or apartment here in the bay area. It's not like Facebook can start paying them 30$ per hour or issue them stock.. some types of jobs just don't scale in terms of salary and it's just unfortunate that homes in the bay area are overpriced.

Something just needs to be done regarding affordable housing here. Otherwise people not doing tech will just slowly get priced out from neighborhoods and will have to deal with living 2 hours away in cheaper areas

</comment><comment><USER74> I'm not saying Zuckerberg couldn't do more to include his cafeteria workers but let's face it, even doubling the pay rates of the workers at the bottom of the pile won't solve their problems because they lie elsewhere - with the free-for-all property and rental markets which have been tearing communities apart across the globe for decades. Nowhere is the brutal reality of capitalism and its failings more evident than in the property market. Property and finance are founded on the principle of getting something for nothing but someone has to pay - you, who have only your labour to sell.

<comment><USER75> Brutal, but honest. Finance and property are where concentrated wealth really show their ugly side. Without regulation, or with the wrong regulation, this cannot spell good news for average joe worker.

</comment></comment><comment><USER76> In the end, the article reads as an advertisement for the union they're joining. That's probably the general purpose of the article anyway.

That said, it does drive home the overall point that "inequality" is a very complicated issue, and for all the good PR that Facebook and Zuckerberg have, they're just as guilty, inasmuch as there is any real guilt to assign.

Facebook certainly has the money, and if they do indeed care about wealth inequality, they would do well to start at their own doorstep. So this worker is a contractor. So what? Very convenient; result still stands.

</comment><comment><USER77> >They look at us like we're lower, like we don't matter

:\ Please stop doing this. You know who you are.

<comment><USER15> Management often contracts out food service, security, and janitorial work. This means they do not qualify for perks that are described in the article. It also means they don't qualify for company picnics, etc.

Good managers will often do retreats, mixers, happy hours, etc. to encourage sales and accounts staff to mix with the engineers. I've never seen the same concern about how white collar workers get along with blue collar ones.

I understand all the above reasoning. I'm just saying it's not just a problem in personal interactions.

</comment></comment><comment><USER78> The low income limit in the Santa Clara County is 75K for a family of 4. Which should trigger a lot of program eligibility, especially for housing through HUD. I would guess that availability of Section 8/HUD subsidized housing is a critical factor with regards to this county though. Most section 8 properties seem to be on long waiting list.

The exceptional property values would most likely limit the participation of developers in any of the Section 8 lending or construction programs.

Only mentioning this because there are programs in place to support families in this scenario, but local governance and investor behavior can directly negate the effectiveness and availability of these programs.

[https://www.wetakesection8.com/search/CA/palo- alto/](https://www.wetakesection8.com/search/CA/palo-alto/) [http://section-8-housing-income- limits.credio.com/l/227/San-...](http://section-8-housing-income- limits.credio.com/l/227/San-Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa-Clara-CA-HUD-Metro-FMR-Area)

</comment><comment><USER79> I wonder how much interest they're paying on those "payday loans".

<comment><USER54> A good bit. Payday loans aren't something anyone wants to do, ever. They are predatory, they know people only turn to them at the last resort (ie, cant feed your kids) so they can charge whatever they want.

The justice comes in the fact that they lose a shit ton of money, because of how sleazy they are, the important credit companies (Equifax, Transunion, etc) wont work with them, so if you don't pay them back, your only loss is not being able to get more payday loans... (there is a specific payday loan/pawn shop loan credit bureau).

So, dont give people shit if they have to take a payday loan, i've been there... i've had to, when i got laid off and went 2 months without income and borrowed from about every family member I could... i basically asked my prior manager to lie and say i still worked there so i could get a loan to feed my family. I'd never walk into one of those places if I werent in dire straits...

</comment></comment><comment><USER80> I'm going to come right out and say it and fully expect to be downvoted to death - these people are the problem. Not Facebook (who they don't actually work for) and not their actual employer. They make a combined 75-80k a year. The median household income in CA is 61k. The median for the Silicon Valley area is 94k. They need to get up and move to give their children and themselves a better lifestyle. They have the means to do it based on the state's median household income. They're just being assholes.

They need to make the commute to work and live in a place that's much more affordable. It's that simple. I work in NYC and make substantially more than their combined incomes and yet I don't live in Manhattan or any NYC borough. Why? Because it's hideously expensive in Manhattan and the nearby areas. I drag my ass all the way from central NJ and it takes around 2 hours each way. I'm not an outlier either. They have multiple bus lines to service all the other central NJ commuters. These people need to come to grips that they can't afford to live in that ridiculously overpriced area that happens to be located within a convenient proximity to their jobs.

Also, their entirely mentality is completely fucked. They seemed surprised that they weren't allowed to bring their kids to work when other, actual Facebook employees did. It's like they don't realize they don't actually work for Facebook, but rather just work in a Facebook building. Also, there's this entitlement-driven, handout-seeking garbage: _"Our motivation is not to bash either company. It's for our families. Why do we have to live like this, when the company we work for has the resources to make it better?"_ So...just because your company has enough money to give you a raise, it should do so? Their employer should just ignore market forces and the fair price for this work? Speaking of which, they receive above the fair market rate already which makes this comment even more astounding. They want their employer to also ignore shareholders/owners interests and just give them more money? And this money wouldn't even be done to retain talent, reward extraordinary performance, or any of the other standard reasons for which this is usually justifiable? Wow. The company I work for makes a lot of money and has fantastic margins. But if I ever was in a performance review and said something like, "hey, the company makes a lot of money and I feel like I should get a larger piece" \- and didn't follow it up with a damn good reason to justify that comment and prove my increased claimed value to the company, they'd laugh in my face, and rightfully so.

These people need to get a clue.

<comment><USER81> Exactly who then is supposed to do the service industry work for the bay area?

Two hours from Palo Alto gets you nowhere - because its not any more affordable two hours away by car - there two hours on public transit wouldn't even get you out of the Bay Area proper.

50 years ago, it was common that the employees in the cafeteria (janitors too) were actually employees of the company who's building they worked for - <USER4> should they have a different want - its not unreasonable to ask that they be extended the same benefits of others working on the site.

To give you a clue - most of the bay area housing is single family homes (by area) - its not anywhere near as dense as NYC or even large parts of NJ - <USER5> a housing supply problem.

<comment><USER80> While I'm not familiar with the area, a very quick search produced a rental available across the water in Fremont, apparently only ~30 minutes by car. The rental is $2,319 a month and has 3 beds and 2 baths and a total of 1,100 sqft of living space.

Sounds extremely reasonable, all things considered.

<comment><USER81> Their combined pretax income is like 74k - that means their take home is probably closer to 58k - a 2300 dollar apartment is a stretch on 8k - it would be a stretch for me and I make considerably more.

Also the distance makes childcare more complex too.

Also, I'd look at the average price you're seeing too - not the one or two outliers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> I grew up in India and both my parents worked for a Central government company. Their company has quarters (apartment complexes) which were heavily subsidized. The employee could own one individual apartment or pay subsidized monthly rent. The company (central govt. in this case) offer loans for their employees at a lower than market rate to own this apartment.

I like that approach. Since both my parents were working they were able to afford a house outside of the area but a lot of their coworkers owned an apartment.

Those apartment complexes were categorized differently for different income people. So a lower income worker is not forced to live on an apartment that they can't afford.

I wonder why Facebook or Google can't take a similar approach. I understand that in this particular case, the employee is a contractor who happens to work at Facebook. Heck, if I happened to work for such a company I know I would live there.

<comment><USER6> Facebook actually is trying to [build their own housing]([https://sf.curbed.com/2016/7/27/12299438/facebook-housing- de...](https://sf.curbed.com/2016/7/27/12299438/facebook-housing-development- techeis)) now.

Ultimately though its a failure of Menlo Park that it hasn't allowed enough housing units to support the number of office units its allowed to be built.

<comment><USER53> i did not know that. I wish more and more companies did this.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER82> Amazon, Wallmart, McDonalds are notorious for pushing the cost of employees onto welfare and the rest of the population. Facebook doesn't seem as bad but clearly there are lingering issues around the widening wage gap, part time work, contracting and access to basic facilities like healthcare that reflect our societal values and need to be addressed as a whole.

Discrimination in access to facilities and making some employees feel they are some kind of lesser human beings is backward and regressive behavior. Google does this and so does facebook and no civilized society can accept this kind of behavior. I don't know how decision makers in SV companies come to agree to dehumanize some in this manner.

What kind of utopian future or 'better world' can these companies usher if they can't even get basics like human dignity right.

</comment><comment><USER83> > _"He doesn't have to go around the world," said Nicole. "He should learn > what's happening in this city."_

The journalists probably wouldn't notice and thus there would be no (noteworthy) PR and thus no reason to do it. But now that there's negative publicity he might just get around to that.

</comment><comment><USER31> People here in the comments are so insensitive.

I got from the article that Mark Zuckerberg is traveling the US to find people struggling, while a person like that serves him food every day. He's a hypocrite, no need to look for a different meaning in the article.

</comment><comment><USER84> The argument here should be don't have a kid when you work at chipotle, let alone three. Why is this ludicrously irresponsible behavior not called out? Why do we feel sorry for people who engage in such monstrously stupid and selfish behavior?

<comment><USER25> Quite right! There should be laws against the poor reproducing. Perhaps a tax on children? Or some sort of permit system? Maybe a one child policy, exceptions only for the rich? Or just take away the children of the poor if they're irresponsible enough to have them and not be able to afford them. Give them to rich families so they can be raised properly.

I wonder if there are any examples in history that we could learn from? Surely other enlightened countries have tried something similar?

<comment><USER85> This doesn't address parent's comment at all. You act as if there's no difference between calling people out for irresponsible behavior and Orwellian policies to control that behavior.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER86> They own a dyson fan and a projector in the picture, and possibly more expensive gadgets off-screen. It's just sad that when people are not willing to work hard enough through school and end up in shitty jobs that pay less -- then complaining about the undesirable outcome. Suck it up and take an online coding class or something. Time to build some cafeteria robots so they will at least complain on someone else's turf.

<comment><USER87> School is an expensive endeavor, you'd have to shell out thousands of dollars or go into debt for years just to get a respectable degree. Without the degree, most employers wouldn't give these people the time of the day.

<comment><USER86> zuckerberg never got (finished) his harvard degree. Plenty of success people never went to college, richard branson, henry ford, rockefeller, murdoch, etc.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER88> Tech workers from lots of different companies are organizing to get better working conditions for cafeteria workers and other service workers like them. See: [http://brokeassstuart.com/blog/2017/06/27/the-tech- workers-h...](http://brokeassstuart.com/blog/2017/06/27/the-tech-workers- helping-to-unionize-big-tech/)

</comment><comment><USER89> > Now she works at cafeterias with names like "Epic" and "Living the Dream"

It's like they went out of their way to come up with the most cringeworthy, Silicon Valley stereotype confirming names possible for their cafeterias.

</comment><comment><USER90> Upvoted, it's easy to blame others for not taking care of the people, while walking by and not noticing thousands of homeless people on your way to a 6+ figure job.

</comment><comment><USER91> In summary: wages have not kept up with dramatic cost of living inflation. A very common story on the west coast.

</comment><comment><USER86> They own a dyson fan and a projector in the picture, and possibly more expensive gadgets off-screen.

</comment><comment><USER92> Zuckerburg is running for president.

</comment><comment><USER93> If you're going to be featured in an article highlighting your financial difficulty, move the $450 Dyson fan, 65" DLP TV, and overhead projector out of the frame. It begins to erode their footing and make you question their priorities.

I have friends that make much less than these folks. Some can barely make ends meet and sometimes I will help them with their personal finances. Which is when I usually discover why they can't make ends meet. $150/m cable bill, $100/m mobile bill, a car they can't afford, and constant meals out. They're usually living larger than me on 1/4 the income.

It's sad really, and I'd argue that it's probably not their fault. The level of entitlement we feel is out of control at all income levels.

<comment><USER94> Question - Why is this down voted? Isn't living within your means a basic idea in major parts of the world?

<comment><USER95> This is a great question. Those electronics are actually rational purchases, considering their situation.

The total value of the entertainment devices is around $2500. Spread out over 3 years (the length of time they've lived there), this equates to about $70/mo.

These devices offer a lower-cost option than taking the family out to eat twice per month, cable television, or for each of the adults to go out to a tavern once per month.

In other words, $70/mo wouldn't bring great opportunity to them but allows a low-cost way to blow off steam. Gardening, cooking, or athletics would be nice recreational options at similar costs, but they don't have a yard, nor a kitchen, nor do they likely have the time for scheduled athletics if they work varied shifts. Hence, the electronics are by far the most rational choices for entertainment.

<comment><USER93> I can't agree with you sorry.

No yard? Try a park in town. You can have hours of fun with a $20 soccer ball or basketball or wiffleball or cornhole or horse shoes.

Need entertainment? Read a book from the library. The great thing is you might actually learn something.

You're wrong about the value of $70 a month for someone who takes payday loans. If they banked the $840 per year they could save hundreds in payday loan interest on top of that.

Then after a few years of savings one of them could take night classes and become a welder, a nurse, or learn some other trade that would boost their income.

That is the American dream.

Let's stop pretending their jobs should pay more and start looking at reality. The reality is there are plenty of _opportunities_ out there. Stop dreaming that your current skillset is worth more and start learning one that actually is.

<comment><USER95> Thanks for the input. I think you either are an extreme autodidact or haven't been exposed to the poverty trap.

Try a park in town? Not at night time you won't. Night time? Yeah, your irregular shifts cause you to have down time at random times. Remember, the Facebook contract isn't their only gig.

I never pretended the job should pay more. I'm remarking about the choice to purchase electronic entertainment being rational.

I actually agree with you that the parents have the choice to commute from East Oakland, Antioch, or Tracy if they want to start saving money. They are clearly making some trade-offs. I think their trade-offs are rational, but they shouldn't blame Zuck

Facebook is _heavily_ pushing employees to transfer to Seattle. They even keep their pay rate!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER68> MacDonald's is also a multibillion dollar corp., nobody in their right mind thinks they can raise a family working at MacD's without additional income or subsidy.

It's a job for teenagers to get experience and for blue collar retirees to make some money to and to their SS checks.

People should stop thinking teenager jobs sustain families. It doesn't have the value add. If you want to make a living open up a stand and maybe if you do things well, you'll survive and thrive.

Even in developing economies, this is ceasing to be the case. Never mind mature economies.

<comment><USER96> I don't understand, what point are you making? Your solution is pull yourself up by your bootstraps?

<comment><USER68> No, but you cannot in good conscience believe that you can raise a middle class family if that's your one skill.

We also have people complaining about vanishing steel jobs, listen, they're not coming back and you are going to have to adjust.

<comment><USER97> Have you considered there is no possible skill that will establish a societal middle class for the population, no matter what effort or resources are put behind it?

In less than ten years you'll be talking about vanishing coding jobs, and the word is they're not coming back. What then? There is nothing we can't optimize to require less human labor. There is no possible skill that will translate to 'humans as a class' remaining relevant to productivity and a labor pool that's increasingly nonhuman. It's like expecting people to hammer in railroad ties, or dig through rock with pickaxes. Absurd, unreasonable, insane.

I quite agree with 'adjust', but I'm shocked by the idea that 'acquiring skills' is your notion of the standard to apply to all humans. There is no skill or skills that will do what you think is going to happen. All that will happen is, desperate people will obliterate the labor value of coding and thinking, during the final phase of human-centric thinking as a type of labor.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Book recommendations based on what books you liked? - <AUTHOR> I'm looking for a service that provides book recommendations based on how you've rated books that you've read. Analogue of https://movielens.org/ <comment><USER2> As far as I know, Goodreads ([https://www.goodreads.com](https://www.goodreads.com)) bases its recommendations on what you read/liked. Have you tried it?</comment>


What industry has the highest Gross Profit per Employee? - <AUTHOR> https://craft.co/reports/gross-profit-per-employee-analysis <comment><AUTHOR> This is a follow-up on a previous article looking at Revenue Per Employee that a lot of people commented on saying (rightfully so) that Gross Profit per Employee might be a more insightful measure to analyze. Link to previous article: [https://craft.co/reports/where-do-the-most-productive- employ...](https://craft.co/reports/where-do-the-most-productive-employees- work)</comment>


Ask HN: who here is using or planning to use Azure - <AUTHOR>

Since I have been very involved with free software for the past decade, I think my social graph is biased towards FLOSS. It would be interesting to see how many companies of what size represented here are using Microsoft Azure for what in what languages/frameworks. <comment><AUTHOR> Nobody?</comment>


Ask HN: Best way to decide on a new app icon? - <AUTHOR>

We are interested in changing our app icon, and I want to do it based on data, but I am not sure the best way how.<p>Thoughts? <comment><AUTHOR> Top 2 choices: \- Send an email to our list with a couple options. I would expect minimal response \- Build in a popup in our app asking existing users to choose between 3-5 options, including the current. Report those stats to analytics and make a call from there.

Anything else?</comment>


The Ethos Operating System - <AUTHOR> http://www.ethos-os.org/ <comment><USER2> I'm confused. Two things.

1\. My initial impressions is that the idea is to build an OS that breaks from the past, but then later there is a promise to port to POSIX. Doesn't that restrict some of the design decisions that could be made when starting with a clean slate?

2\. What does this offer over unikernel-based operating systems such as MirageOS, HalVM, LING, OSv, etc...? Basically seems like they already do what Ethos plans to do.

[http://wiki.xenproject.org/wiki/Unikernels](http://wiki.xenproject.org/wiki/Unikernels)

<comment><USER3> Unikernels are a little different from Ethos. What unikernels need is a library interface to any underlying operating system, as opposed to a conventional syscall style interface that dynamically calls into a different privilege level. This lets the developer supply an appropriate set of "OS libraries" that fill in the functionality needed by the application, and no more, and for this to be resolved at application build time instead of execution time.

This implies that unikernels still need to have an underlying OS to drive their logic. The specific choice is wonderfully flexible though: right now we have numerous Xen-based unikernels, and via the Rump Kernel project MirageOS now also boots on KVM and bare metal targets as well.

Ethos has an interesting capability and crypto model that unikernels could map their distributed communication primitives too as well. In this world, the name resolution libraries used by unikernels could use CurveCP (or whatever equivalent version Ethos provides), and provide a multi-tenant, fine-grained capability-based, runtime for dust clouds of unikernels.

<comment><USER2> > "This implies that unikernels still need to have an underlying OS to drive > their logic."

From the Ethos homepage...

> "The solution to both of these problems is Virtual Machines (VMs). Since VMs > allow multiple OS to run on a computer, it is no longer necessary to choose > one OS; multiple OSs can be used simultaneously. Hence, one significant > application can justify running an OS. Second, the VM provides an abstract > hardware architecture which is far simpler then the vast variety of > computers extant. The drivers for the real hardware are provided by the VM. > We are using Xen as our VM because we believe it is a good security > architecture on which to build an OS."

So the plan is to run on baremetal hypervisors like Xen, just like MirageOS and the rest.

> "Ethos has an interesting capability and crypto model that unikernels could > map their distributed communication primitives too as well."

If that's the main aim, then I don't see why they don't build their capability/crypto model into one of the unikernel OSes, specifically one of those that has the strong type safety and process isolation they are also aiming for. I don't see what they gain from having a custom OS requirement when a lot of the groundwork has already been done for them.

<comment><USER3> > If that's the main aim, then I don't see why they don't build their > capability/crypto model into one of the unikernel OSes, specifically one of > those that has the strong type safety and process isolation they are also > aiming for.

They seem to be doing just fine with their current efforts, from which really interesting things like the MinimalT protocol has emerged. If I have one frustration, it's that they haven't released a reference implementation of it. I had a f2f conversation with DJB at Real World Crypto a few months ago and the explanation was completely reasonable: they are still working on cleaning it up and making it suitable for external consumption. I still want it today though :-)

David Sheets did some work on rebuilding portions of the protocol in MirageOS: [https://github.com/dsheets/ocaml-dnscurve](https://github.com/dsheets/ocaml- dnscurve) . This level of interproject coupling is just fine by me -- the whole point of library OSs is that we can pick'n'mix these things much more easily over the years, and that's working out fine.

<comment><USER2> > "David Sheets did some work on rebuilding portions of the protocol in > MirageOS: [https://github.com/dsheets/ocaml- > dnscurve](https://github.com/dsheets/ocaml-dnscurve) . This level of > interproject coupling is just fine by me -- the whole point of library OSs > is that we can pick'n'mix these things much more easily over the years, and > that's working out fine."

Yes, collaborating in that way seems like a good approach.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> This would be so much more interesting if it was actually available for download. It's sad that djb's minimallt seems to be stuck with ethos non- release. I remember them promising open source release 'soon' back in 2013 when it was initially published, but there doesn't seem to have been any progress in that direction.

Has anyone poked the authors recently to hear what's going on?

</comment><comment><USER5> > Most of our programming is done in C (kernel) or Go (user space). [1]

It's cool that Go is being used in a project like this. For some reason I found that a bit surprising.

[1] [http://www.ethos-os.org/background.html](http://www.ethos- os.org/background.html)

<comment><USER6> Why? Go seems like a reasonable choice here: it's much, much safer by default than C and much, much simpler than C++. I mean memory safety, mostly. To me it seems that Go is actually much better suited for things like these than for webapps that some people use it to write.

<comment><USER7> Not only that, it follows the Inferno model, just that Go has a native compiler instead of a VM like Limbo has.

Now if someone would bother to write a bare metal runtime, Go could follow Oberon's footsteps.</comment></comment></comment>


Volvo bucks the industry, will sell Lidar-equipped self-driving cars by 2022 - <AUTHOR> https://www.theverge.com/2020/5/6/21248415/volvo-luminar-lidar-self-driving-highway-pilot-spa2 <comment><USER2> Wonder if it relays all of that imaging data back to datacenter. Getting that data early would be wicked valuable.</comment>


What to do when you just start making something useful - <AUTHOR> http://blog.garrytan.com/what-to-do-when-you-just-start-making-something-useful <comment><USER3> Good perspective to focus decision-making. I think option 3 is a little too simplistic, however:

> If you can't grow or you can't make money doing what you're doing, then > don't do it

It seems to me that better advice would be: If you can't grow and make money, be very cautious about how many resources you commit to the project. Passion projects have a place, and it seems like 'pivoting' can be a powerful way of using what you've learned to move in a better (profitable?) direction - <USER2> are valid options besides "don't do it"

<comment><USER4> 'passion projects' are called 'hobbies', and this post isn't talking about that.

<comment><USER3> It's talking about what to do if something you considered treating as a business doesn't look economically viable - I am suggesting that instead of shuttering the project, it is perfectly valid (and even beneficial) to keep it going as a hobby/passion project.

Just because it's not going to make you money doesn't mean it's not valuable, particularly since you'll likely learn a lot that can be applied to future entrepreneurial projects - just don't over-commit.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This short post falls into the common trap of assuming that if you decide not to raise money, your company must be a lifestyle business.

What about all the profitable companies that never need to raise venture capital?

Attention, founders! You can choose to play "small ball"[1] instead.

[1]: [http://avc.com/2016/05/small-ball/](http://avc.com/2016/05/small-ball/)

<comment><USER6> DuckDuckGo is a financial success?

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> There is also nothing wrong with a small project that will always remain a side project, just offering something to the world for free, simply because you want it to exist.

If it starts to take more resources than you are willing to commit, THEN you evaluate how to monetize and grow. But small hobby projects absolutely have their place.

<comment><USER8> We aren't talking about OpenSSL here, right?</comment></comment>


Google's Trillion-Dollar Driverless Car: How Google Wins - <AUTHOR> http://www.forbes.com/sites/chunkamui/2013/02/12/googles-trillion-dollar-driverless-car-part-4-how-google-wins-2/

<comment><AUTHOR> Has anyone pondered what it could mean if Google hypothetically partnered with Tesla for it's initial rollout of driverless cars? Just some fun speculation on my part.

The advantages (in my opinion):

\- Going driverless means a threat to existing, big car companies since there would likely be less cars needed on the road. Partnering with Tesla would sidestep that - it would allow Tesla to ramp up production of it's electric cars, and would fit nicely with Elon Musk's stated life goal of making energy consumption sustainable (along with sustainable energy generation - SolarCity, and making humanity a multi-planetary species - SpaceX).

\- Google would get a partner that would be likely to enthusiastically embrace driverless.

\- An investment in Tesla by Google would provide a huge cash boost to open new factories, expand it's existing factory, re-tool for new Tesla models. It would greatly aid Tesla's goal of mass producing the electric vehicle.

\- Driverless technology gets around the initial range issues for EV batteries while the technology is new - a driverless, electric car would bring you to the office door, drop you off, and drive down to the basement to recharge itself until summoned via smartphone for the commute home.

\- Simpler, cheaper servicing and running costs since EVs have less parts - <USER2> oil filters, radiators, gearboxes, drive trains, heavy engines (and potentially pedals, steering wheels etc if driverless). The twin technologies of electric and driverless means the cars are more reliable, as there's less parts to break, cheaper (once initial technology costs drop), lighter and greener (as the bill of materials for a driverless electric is a fraction of that of a regular 4 cylinder gasoline car). If every car on the road was electric and driverless, most/all vehicle safety equipment could be eliminated along with accidents - less weight, hence more range for lithium-ion batteries, and cheaper vehicles as less parts are needed to manufacture them.

\- For re-fueling, EVs don't need to drive to a dedicated re-fueling spot, they can charge up in the same house/workplace/shopping center that a passenger is going to anyway.

Thoughts?

<comment><USER3> That would be great, it would just be a $400,000 vehicle right now. It would be an awesome machine.

Larry Page and Sergey Brin have invested in Tesla since it's beginning. I think they both own a Tesla Roadster and probably both own a Model S (wouldn't you if you had $20 billion).

Tesla could either sell batteries and the electric powertrain to Google or Google will could just autonomous vehicle technology to Tesla and others. Musk likes to sell it's technologies and parts to other companies.

Imagine if the car drove off to charge itself. There wouldn't be any miscalculated trips (like the NY times article). The car could be programmed to not let you run out of energy.

It's coming, just hang tight. There are a lot of people fighting this kind of technology (not sure why, money) and that's unfortunate.

The best part of autonomous vehicles would be turning around the front seats to eat, sleep, play cards, anything. Autonomous vehicles will provide a whole new industry for America, new parts, news services, new shops. It's a good thing, I guess.

Apple needs to get in the "helping the world" business. They should invest some of their $100 billion in future technologies. The world made everyone at apple extremely rich, and Steve Jobs was never the charitable type, isn't it time Apple gave back to humanity? $5 billion from Apple would be nothing to them, but would be everything to a company like Tesla.

The military could even invest in Tesla. I'm sure they would have tons of uses for high-quality batteries and electric powertrains.

Tesla sure has a bright future ahead of them. As soon as a bad review comes out they respond publicly and are not afraid to call out bad journalists.</comment></comment>


Pianist Maria João Pires panics as she realises she prepared wrong piece (2013) - <AUTHOR> http://www.classicfm.com/artists/maria-joao-pires/guides/wrong-piano-concerto/ <comment><AUTHOR> From one of the video comments: "They (Maria João, conductor, and orchestra) had recorded 6 months earlier three Mozart concerti. This lunch concert was the rehearsal for the evening performance. Since they had rehearsed to prepare the recording six months earlier, this lunch concert was the only rehearsal. She came prepared to play K. 467 and was caught off guard by K. 466 (although it has been in her repertory for years)."</comment>


Show HN: Buy Quality Package Tours Directly from Top Travel Agencies in China - <AUTHOR> http://mavel.co

<comment><USER2> Hi, thanks for sharing. I'm in Thailand where tourism is a big thing. Have you considered personalized amateur tour guides?

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for your comments. We have not really thought about personalized amateur tour guides. It would be really nice to have your opinion. I assume that personalized amateur tour guides are quite popular in Thailand. It would be appreciated if you could let us know how they operate.

<comment><USER2> It's starting to pick up, though it's supposed to be illegal when done by foreigners. Check out [http://www.producthunt.com/tech/meetngreetme](http://www.producthunt.com/tech/meetngreetme)</comment></comment></comment>


C++ Event Listener Design Pattern - <AUTHOR> http://www.flipcode.com/archives/Theory_Practice-Issue_06_Event_Handling_Model.shtml

<comment><USER2> The ClassID trick is reminiscent of ObjC's KVO addObserver:forKeyPath:options:context: - you typically pass a context to sort-out which type of object you are observing, because the observer only has one entry point for KVO notification.

static void* kFooContext= &kFooContext

... [foo addObserver:self forKeyPath:@"bar" options:... context:kFooContext ] ...

if(context==kFooContext){ NSFoo* foo=(NSFoo*)object;... }

A better alternative is to use a blocks/lambda based approach, that way you can have several distinct callbacks and don't have to handle routing yourself. (see Facebook KVOController)</comment>


Ask HN: What is a modern-day alternative to a Majordomo mailing list? - <AUTHOR> I have a requirement to set up a private email list for around 20 users.  I have a Linode server on which to self-host the software.  Many, many years ago, I used to run a Majordomo mailing list, so I am looking for something similar.  It needs to be completely email controlled -- e.g. you can subscribe, unsubscribe and post via email.  Web interface is not required.  Open source preferred. <comment><USER2> Mailman 3</comment>


Rogue Bank of England supplier gave clients head start on briefings - <AUTHOR> https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-boe-audio-feed/rogue-bank-of-england-supplier-gave-clients-head-start-on-briefings-idUKKBN1YN02K <comment><AUTHOR> What I found interesting:

> The rogue supplier also offers high-speed audio services for news > conferences hosted by the European Central Bank, the U.S. Federal Reserve > and the Bank of Canada, the newspaper said.

I read (in the Times I think) that each press conference was priced at USD 2.5k - waiting for Matt Levine to do a post on pricing of insider information :)</comment>


Microsoft bids $44.6B for Yahoo (2008) - <AUTHOR> https://www.cnet.com/news/microsoft-bids-44-6-billion-for-yahoo/ <comment><USER2> Yahoo and Microsoft compete in most of the divisions. Namely search, sports, news, video, mail, chat and advertising. Probably, the news & media part of Yahoo is the only thing better than Microsoft at this point; Even, that I don't see remaining as such for long time with MSN coping up well.

So, if Microsoft would have acquired Yahoo they would have surplus of divisions and similarly talented people & infrastructure; Which would eventually lead to more layoffs and more time wasted consolidating teams, infra, design and resources.

</comment><comment><USER3> Probably the biggest bullet Microsoft ever dodged considering what it eventually got picked up for.

<comment><USER4> Verizon will pay $4.8 billion for the yahoo parts of yahoo. If you also include the $40 billon of Alibaba the total number is about the same (but Microsoft still dodged a bullet)

<comment><AUTHOR> Couldn't locate the 'Alibaba' word on the said article, I was assuming Microsoft had offered it for Yahoo alone ... as it was desperate for 'search' share?? are you sure, the bid included Alibaba share too??

<comment><USER5> yes. there was no spinco or remainco as it has now with the fdic filings.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Yahoo is the perfect candidate for the next Microsoft write off. I wonder how these executives analyze these opportunities.

<comment><USER7> The article is from 2008...</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Why aren't there enough C & C++ Web frameworks?  - <AUTHOR>

How come there are no nodejs equivalents for C & C++? They're faster, have better libraries and have a larger developer base! <comment><USER2> Because it sucks to deal with strings in C & C++, and the web is mostly strings.

<comment><AUTHOR> Is C & C++ really worse than Java at strings? Don't think so but I'm not sure. Can't imagine they're far apart.

<comment><USER3> C definitely - strlen() not binary safe, you have to deal with malloc()/free()/strdup() etc. by hand instead of letting a highly optimized GC do the job...

<comment><USER4> Or you could just strdup and malloc a bunch of strings and let the kernel clean it up when the cgi process exits. ;)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> You should investigate "CGI", arguably the simplest such "framework"

</comment><comment><USER3> Easy for C, getting shit done (tm) is something for pros. The subtlety of getting malloc, free, and pointer arithmetic in general, right just isn't easy for a novice coder.

C++ suffers from the same problem, just to a lesser degree.

node.js on the other hand has the advantage that nearly everyone who knows a bit of JS from his latest website gig can also do a node.js application.

<comment><AUTHOR> Well isn't that really because nodejs has the V8 engine behind it which has created enough helper functions and libraries to make it easy to make a webapp on. Otherwise there isn't much on the barebones JS language itself to build a webapp is there? If C/C++ got those frameworks wouldn't they have had these libraries built as well.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> The average website essentially boils down to a CRUD app of some sort. You're creating, reading, updating, and deleting text in a database.

Does using C really benefit the average new business with this task?

I'd love to do more C web-development, but it's sort of logical that C web frameworks aren't as common as other languages.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah but if CRUD alone was what's important, doubt the world would have gone far beyond PHP, right?

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> <https://bitbucket.org/futurapp/swiftly>

This is a C++ web framework I wrote. It's a work in progress. I could beat go and nodejs in some simple perf test.

<comment><AUTHOR> Sweet I'll check it out.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> The OpenBSD news site undeadly.org is written in c. You can grab the source here: <http://undeadly.org/undeadly-src.tar.gz>

</comment><comment><USER8> In a way, all web frameworks are written in C - at least, the Python, Ruby, and PHP interpreters are written in C, and the V8 engine is written in C++ :)</comment>