How Organized Spam is Taking Control of Google's Search Results - <AUTHOR> http://www.seomoz.org/blog/how-organized-crime-is-taking-control-of-googles-search-results <comment><USER3> Part of the problem with "spammy" content coming out on top is often the competition from real content is pretty thin.

To take the example of Pandora jewelery, Pandora is a company that controls it's marketing channels with an iron fist. They're very careful to partner with better-than-average jewelers and each retailer has an exclusive territory. So far as I know, there's no legitimate channel for new Pandora products online (everybody who claims to sell them on Ebay seems to have fewer than 10 feedbacks.)

Thus, other than Pandora's official website there's no legitimate e-commerce presence for Pandora online, so there's nothing to compete with the junk. Somebody might randomly write about them, but there's nobody (legitimate) who's got a feedback loop going where revenue supports content creation and marketing efforts -- which will inevitable come out on top against amateur competition.

Demand Media, ExpertsExchange and quite a few junk sites similarly thrive on the lack of good content. I was having trouble changing the ribbon on an old typewriter a few weeks ago, and web searches asking about this particular model turned up junk pages with advice like:

(1) Buy a new typewriter ribbon, (2) Take the old typewriter ribbon out, (3) Put the new typewritter ribbon out

Now, these pages were keyword stuffed with the name of the typewriter, but they didn't even bother to have an affiliate (or other) link to a place where I could buy the goddamn typewriter ribbon, which according to them is 33% of the work!

Once more, the feedback loop doesn't exist to nourish a good answer here, so of course the blight is going to move in.

<comment><USER4> To reinforce the feedback angle, I think it's important to point out that the weeds starve out the opportunity for genuine content to grow into a valuable audience. Even when there's real content that wants to compete, the risk is the upfront investment required to peek out above all the crap exceeds the profit from serving that niche.

<comment><USER5> [negative allelopathy]

And, in those cases where the content mills do have a few morsels of useful information, they've usually just pushed other less professionally/cynically optimized sources for the same info down off the first page of results.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I run a blog host, so I get to see these spammers at work. Every day, they sign up for several hundred new accounts and post informative articles on how to find NFL Jerseys, Ugg Boots and Tiffany Jewelry, all with plenty of links back to sites like the one in the article.

The scary thing is that it's not automated. There are real people pasting in content and checking to see that it's correct. Fortunately for me, it's all going straight into my bayesian filter's spam corpus and making it easier to detect, but even for my one site it must be costing somebody a lot of money to post it all.

If Google had an API to report this stuff, I'd be happy to forward it along to them on the fly. Seems that there are plenty of User-generated-content sites like mine with a ton of valuable spam data if anybody figured out a way to use it.

If anybody's interested, here's what we're doing to keep the site spam free:

[http://expatsoftware.com/articles/2010/03/care-and- feeding-o...](http://expatsoftware.com/articles/2010/03/care-and-feeding-of- happy-spammer.html)

<comment><USER7> That gives me an idea. What if Google were to provide free anti-spam tools like Akismet that integrate with forums, blogs, and wikis? They could detect the spam patterns and essentially blacklist those spam sites from the search engine. With enough sites using their tools, Google could build a significant dataset of what these sites are trying to do to generate spam links.

Wouldn't detected who's trying to generate link spam be a fairly effective way of removing them from search engine results?

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I ran across this a few months myself while searching for bicycle info. Note that this is completely different than the spam content (SO, eFreedom, etc.) issue.

I wanted to learn more about the bianchi infinito and what I found was a number of web stores selling bicycles at impossible prices. I mean oscommerce or zencart or whatever instances of legitimate looking web stores. Then when you look closer they're mostly in Indonesia and in order to complete the purchase you have to bank wire the money.

I think it's spilling over from alibaba and similar sites where 99% of the vendors are scams. Now those vendors are creating whole ecommerce web presences to make their scam sales.

The stores I saw didn't usually make the first page of results. Usually third or fourth. Sometimes second. Anyway I was a bit shocked out how many fake stores there were and how they ranked as highly as many legitimate bike shops.

<comment><USER9> I think I would be interested in having the option to filter out _all_ search results for shopping sites. There already is Google Product Search for that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Funny this is being posted the same day as Matt Cutts' HN post which is currently at #1.

Also per exhibit one of the article: The first hit for "nfl jerseys" I get, even with pws=0 is to nflshop.com. The website that nfl.com links you to when you click on the "shop" link.

More bandwagon jumping about google spam being out of control? I like to think so.

<comment><USER3> Note that Cutts is talking about a different problem: which are sites that 'syndicate' content and end up ranking better than the original site. People have been complaining about this for years (usually third-tier bloggers who don't have much ranking power) but people perceived that this became a crisis in the last few months.

The morals are also different too. Some people might not like eFreedom, but the fact is that StackOverflow is CC-BY-SA. Anybody who wants to repackage StackOverflow content in a different way is free to do that. I do think that StackOverflow should generally outrank eFreedom, but a site like eFreedom can potentially add value a lot of value.

On the other hand, other spam sites are generating original crap content with their own crap content generation system... And if they aren't, they can switch to some other content generation method to get around duplicate content filtering.

(And speaking of which, duplicate content filtering content of some kind is absolutely essential for a workable web search engine... It's not even a matter of spam. Building a search engine for one the largest units of a large Uni, we found that there were many documents that were duplicated all over the place for all sorts of reasons, and that since the on-page factors are the same, these tend to form 'plugs' of search results that displace other results.)

<comment><USER11> "...but a site like eFreedom can potentially add a lot of value."

Genuine question here...are you talking specifically about eFreedom, and if so exactly what value does it add? When I've inadvertently stumbled in there, the questions and answers are an exact ripoff of SO, and I (and I suspect everyone else) just immediately clicks on the "from StackOverflow" link so all the responses in the original can be read.

<comment><USER3> For one thing, eFreedom.com actually answers your question. This is different from ExpertsExchange (which promises you might get an answer if you fork over $, yeah right) or eHow which only sometimes answers your question, and if it does, does the worst possible job that could possibly be done.

Community sites, at least in their early phases, need to focus on getting people to put content in more than they need to focus on making it easy for people to get it out. Delicious is the classic example: it's a roach motel which makes it very easy to put your bookmarks in, but doesn't provide a useful browsing interface for your and other people's bookmarks (other than having a list of recently hot for various tags.)

Particularly in the semantic age I think there's a lot of room for remixing CC content to improve browsing and discoverability.

<comment><USER12> I don't understand this. Are you saying that efreedom adds original content to that which they scrape? I avoid them like the plague, but my exposure has taught me that they are merely reprinting SO content with crappy formatting. Not much of a value-add in my eyes.

<comment><USER3> No, I'm not really defending eFreedom. However, I think that sites that are ~like~ eFreedom in some ways to be useful. For instance, large scale text mining could create things that are more than the some of their parts.

For example, I think within 10-20 years at the most we'll have systems that can decompose text into facts and then reassemble it into 'original' text.

<comment><USER12> Actually there are link farms that are doing exactly that in order to appear to robots to be original text. However, it's just chunks of text "mined" into a mass of subject-focussed sentence fragments. That's the thing, the race to the bottom is: original content is scraped without improvement in order to pay someone else via ads, and original content is generated without regard to coherence in order to pay someone via ads.

Two ways to do this: you have good content either left intact (no value-add) or rearranged or otherwised structurally corrupted in order to appear to be a different/better answer (value-minus), or you have advertisers being led to believe their ads are showing on relevant content, when it's really just a jumble of random words loosely oriented around a concept. "The dog was dog walking. Dog food always is in the grocery store. RALEY's. It dogged him for years..." so on and so forth.

On one hand users are being defrauded and on the other, the advertisers/affiliates. There is no defense for eFreedom, nabble, mail- archive, and their ilk. They are bad people, bad for business and bad for the internet. I sincerely believe this.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I see NFLShop.com as #1, but some of the rest appear to be spam (in some cases it's hard to tell if they are legitimate or not). I looked for legitimate sellers of NFL jerseys and by and large they have terrible SEO. I don't know how companies haven't gotten wise, but check out FinishLine.com's NFL jerseys landing page:

[http://www.finishline.com/store/shop/nfl/nfl- jerseys/_/N-2z7...](http://www.finishline.com/store/shop/nfl/nfl- jerseys/_/N-2z7k7?categoryId=cat10015)

They have "nfl-jerseys" in the URL which is about the only redeeming thing. The page title is unrelated, which is what would show in a SERP. I clicked on the top result, a women's Ben Roethlisberger jersey and the page has nearly zero information and the images 404 (!).

[http://www.finishline.com/store/product/reebok-womens- pittsb...](http://www.finishline.com/store/product/reebok-womens-pittsburgh- steelers-ben-roethlisberger-replica- jersey/_/A-22814?categoryId=cat10015&productId=prod602846)

Compare that to one of the results that comes up in Google and you can see why. Great titles, URLs, the filters don't require forms.

</comment><comment><USER14> <http://duckduckgo.com/?q=nfl+jerseys>

I believe Google's results are less spammy than duckduckgo for this particular query.

<comment><USER15> Bing has similarly poor results. This isn't a Google problem -- it's endemic to all search engines.

<comment><USER14> Agreed. The article's title deliberately said Google, as if the other engines are doing a better job.

<comment><USER16> No, the article's title said Google as if the other engines do not exist / are irrelevant.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> "Google needs to greatly lower the value of keyword-rich anchor texts."

Won't this have a lot of adverse effects? And if keywords in anchor text become less valuable, can't spammers compensate by ramping up their existing efforts?

"I would not be surprised to see Google shift even more ranking signal power from anchor-text heavy links to relevant social media "chatter"."

Why would this be harder to game than links?

Spam happens because search is hard. There are probably solutions, but they're not as easy to come by as the ones suggested in tfa. Still, it's good to see this sort of community feedback on search results, especially given how responsive the search team is to this sort of thing. Keep up the good work, guys.

<comment><USER9> There might be an AI solution to discriminating real social media chatter from fake content.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Organized _crime_? [http://www.seomoz.org/blog/how-organized-crime-is-taking- con...](http://www.seomoz.org/blog/how-organized-crime-is-taking-control-of- googles-search-results)

<comment><USER19> Yes, they sell copied stuff. Here in China there are huge organizations handling these things. No surprise that in some of the examples the wording sound very Chinese and even some Chinese characters appear. I am pretty certain where those guys are located.

<comment><USER20> Contraband and counterfeits have long been a source of funding for gangs -- both sides of the northern irish conflict, ETA in the Basque country has a commercial wing, and I'm sure the more traditional mafias are into this sort of thing too.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> There's a change slowly rolling out that improves the [nfl jerseys] query substantially. I'll check on the others. Thanks for the examples.

Some really dramatic changes to how we use links are on the way. (Sorry I can't say anything more specific. This is a really sensitive area.)

</comment><comment><USER22> Warning: contrarian rant ahead.

Something has been bugging me for a while, and it took a few hours after I read this article to figure out what it was.

I love the coining of a new term: "organized spam", and I love calling out things that are wrong, but I wonder if we're not taking this crime metaphor a bit too far.

Look guys, it's a search engine. You type in a search term, it gives you results. There's nothing magic or special about it -- anybody with a smidgen of database training can make one (although nowhere near as Google's, granted)

Although some of these examples involve people ripping other people off, I get the feeling that somehow Google has become such a part of our lives that we feel as if somehow these folks trading links and trying to get attention are acting criminally. That anything that gets in the way of my getting instant information is a crime against humanity. That really bugs me.

It's not. Get over yourself. Sure, large parts of this may be well-funded, but there's nothing necessarily criminal going on. For instance lots of poor people in lots of third-world countries are making money dropping by my blog each day and telling me how awesome I am. It's not expected, but I'm happy they're making a few dollars. I can live with the inconvenience or try to fix it on my end. I don't need to blame them.

I don't like the state of Google search right now either, although I'm still a loyal customer. But what I see in the marketplace is humans reacting logically to their best interests. If you're going to monetize google search so that billions of dollars flows through it, there's going to be some ancillary effects that nobody predicted. Instead of blaming the people, understand that the people are just regular, intelligent folks doing the best they can. Hell, my wife is in a social group with a lady who made several thousand dollars adding advertiser text to her blogs -- until Google delisted her. She saw nothing wrong with it, and still is pretty pissed at Google. From her standpoint Google crapped all over her party.

And yes, Google has every right to delist sites and such. More power to them. I hope they continue to delist and evolve their search engine. I hope they get a handle on this. But I think we should all separate our well-wishes for Google's success from our opinions of our fellow man. I've heard linkspammers and spammers called "subhuman" and all sorts of nasty things. While there are criminals who are trying to rip you off, there's no evidence that there are more criminals on the web that anywhere else. Most of these people are trying to make a living. The fact they might inconvenience you on your way to get an answer to a technical question or find the latest mp3 you have to have is really not that high on their list of priorities -- nor should it be.

Google needs to do a better job. Period. There seems to be this "conversation machine" right now where people post articles showing how bad search is, then folks come out and rant, then Google makes an announcement. Repeat and rinse. It's as if we went down to the local newstand and asked the grocer for a magazine on trucks. He gives us a bunch of magazines on boats, so -- we blame the magazine publishers! It's simply not logical. A little perspective, please. Google is the provider here and those of us who like them should try to help out. But we shouldn't cross the line into thinking that anybody that annoys Google or searcher is somehow evil or criminal. That's crazy. Much better to understand people as rational actors than to demonize anybody who tricks some random American internet company.

</rant>

<comment><USER23> I'm not going to comment on your entire post, nor am I against what you're saying, but I did want to comment on this bit:

>It's as if we went down to the local newstand and asked the grocer for a magazine on trucks. He gives us a bunch of magazines on boats, so -- we blame the magazine publishers!

This analogy would be more true to the situation at hand if you say that the magazine publishers are using methods that they know will increase their chances of getting boat magazines in front of your eyes when you're seeking truck magazines. Do you think my assertion is off-base?

<comment><USER22> Yes I do, and here's why.

The magazine publishers are free to configure their magazines and the world around them in any way they wish. The newstand operator is responsible for what goes on inside his stand. If he's serving up junk, do we go blaming the rest of the world for the quality of his service?

Somehow we've taken Google out of the picture as an independent agent, It's as if whatever program they are running is somehow golden, and by outsiders changing the inputs that Google uses so that it doesn't work correctly that somehow the outsiders are at fault. But outisders don't set the inputs -- Google does. Outsiders don't write the ranking algorithm -- Google does. Outsiders don't make money from having ads alongside search results and tracking individual's search behavior -- Google does. Outsiders are free to do whatever they want -- that's the entire reason for picking one search provider over another, the fact that one engine can take the world as it is and do a better job of organizing it than another one can.

If we don't expect Google to be responsible for how they process data -- if we somehow place Google's poor results and put the blame on the world at large, then exactly what of value is Google providing here in our relationship?

Like I said, I'm a fan. I want them to do well. I'm happy to help if I can. But hell if I'm going to let Google off the hook for providing good search results simply because the nature of the internet has changed. Things change. That's what they're supposed to do.

This is like writing a web app that is open to SQL injection attacks and then getting pissed at everybody else when they crash your system. Except there's one big difference: with an SQL injection attack there is an outsider directly interacting with your system, perhaps malevolently. With Google, _outsiders don't even enter data in, Google goes and gets it_. We've got the shoe on the wrong foot, as my mother used to say.

<comment><USER24> I understand what you're getting at, but you're _way_ off the mark here:

> The magazine publishers are free to configure their magazines and the world > around them in any way they wish. The newstand operator is responsible for > what goes on inside his stand. If he's serving up junk, do we go blaming the > rest of the world for the quality of his service?

There's a difference between selling junk and selling something that's obviously criminal. If you walked into a store where every magazine had "VIAGRA - 50% OFF. MAIL US YOUR MONEY". Do you honestly mean to tell me that the magazines in question were perfectly ok and it was the magazine vendor who did something wrong?

It's good that you realize that it's humans that are committing crimes, and not subhuman beings. But that doesn't excuse them nor should you.

Yes, Google has some level of responsibility here and they should be held accountable. But they're not the ones actually committing the crime.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I know this isn't a perfect solution. But I made this site that uses Google's Custom search to allow you to maintain your own blacklist so that you can filter out sites you don't want displayed. Here's the link: <http://blacklist- search.appspot.com/>

</comment><comment><USER26> How is "greatly reducing the value of anchor text" going to improve search? Didn't we all start using google because anchor text was a great ranking signal? It seems the appropriate course of action is to devalue links from sites that either ignorantly or willfully pollute the link-o-sphere.

</comment><comment><USER27> i agree with people who are complaining. this morning i was looking for a docking station for my cowon mp3 player. that spammy-ass website called techframe kept showing 3 times in the first few results. it was annoying.

</comment><comment><USER28> I guess google shows different things to different people. My search for NFL Jerseys for example, seems just fine:

<http://grab.by/8DYK>

what do you think?

<comment><USER29> Except for the first one, those are the spam jersey sites.

<comment><USER30> well the results can't all be the first one repeated over and over.

if you search for 'nfl jerseys' you're probably looking to buy a jersey, and at least a few of those (eg football fanatics) do in fact look like legitimate stores.

<comment><USER31> What if I'm trying to find a sports geek's blog post about the history of NFL jerseys, or something like that? My personal problem with all the search engines is that legitimately interesting/useful amateur content, or even things like mainstream news articles, gets lost in a sea of sites that are trying to sell me stuff when my query could be construed as even remotely commercial. Unfortunately this is a trend I don't see changing, because (a) the hawkers have more expertise and resources than the bloggers when it comes to SEO, and (b) the search engine itself benefits financially by assuming I want to buy things and showing results accordingly (especially if it's Google due to AdSense).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Looking at the specific examples:

[nfl jerseys]

#1) <http://www.nflshop.com/category/index.jsp?categoryId=2237409>

Visit nfl.com, click "shop", then choose the "jerseys" tab, this is the page you are on. Seems _perfectly_ relevant. The domain does not contain "jerseys" in it, and while the title does - it's the Jersey's category page for the nfl's shopping website, that makes sense. Hardly spam.

#2) <http://www.footballfanatics.com/NFL_Jerseys>

Visit www.clc.com, the collegiate licensing company, click retailers->collegiate retail outlets, Football Fanatics is one of 13 licensed collegiate retailers. Most major college universities sell their football merchandise through them. It's been around (run whois) since 1997, 14 years! Perhaps it's not ideal for NFL (non-college), but it's definitely Not Spam.

Unfortunately, below this some of the results do start getting ugly - <USER2> aren't too many online retailers that can legally sell NFL merchandise. Even Amazon is just a storefront for the NFL Shop (see <http://www.amazon.com/NFL- Football-Fans/b?node=374273011>). That might make it a good result, but it's essentially duplicated content given the NFL Shop result.

[pandora jewelry]

#1/#2) Pandora.net, totally not spam, this is the type in [amazon], get amazon.com kind of result.

#2.5) Below the second result I see a shopping results box which has only pandora jewelry from authorized retailers.

#3) <http://www.pandoramoa.com/> \- the Pandora Mall of America stores. Authorized pandora retailer. The domain has been around since 2007 (4 years)

Below this, the rest is getting ugly. Similar to [nfl jerseys], there aren't many online retailers legally able to sell pandora jewelry, so once Google has listed the only 3 good results available, what do want them to do? Try [jewelry] or [necklaces] - queries where there are lots of legit destinations and the top 10 results are all non-spammy.

[thomas sabo]

#1/#2) ThomasSabo.com, just like [pandora jewelry], this is exactly what 99% of the people with this query want.

Same story for the non-existant good results below.

These 3 queries are a very specific type of query where there are only one or two relevant results, but there are lots of sites that "match" the query. I'm not saying the rankings after the first few relevant results are good, but what would you propose to show after those relevant results as an alternative?

Writing an article about a specific class of queries is fine, although the author doesn't really propose a better set of results. The implication made is that this issue applies to a broad set of queries which it doesn't seem to. Ironically, the author's signature line is a link to <http://www.tomsgutscheine.de/>, whose title translated to english appears to be: "Coupons, Coupon Codes & Coupons (January 2011) - Tom's Coupons".</comment>


I'm moving to Silicon Valley and living in my car  - <AUTHOR> http://kurtvarner.com/post/19347794553/man-car-startup <comment><USER2> I went crazy one time and decided to leave Silicon Valley and live out of my car in southern California. I saw a lot, met characters, and learned lots more.

Biggest takeaway: the idea bordered between impractical and stupid. But I was 24 and I thought I knew better. Also, I was 24, I could tolerate being stupid.

Other takeaways:

1\. Buy a Costco 24 Hour Fitness membership. You now have access to facilities around the country.

2\. Make friends with 7/11 clerks, the nice ones got your back at night for a few days at a time.

3\. Pack a baseball bat. Seriously.

4\. Bring a tent and camping chairs.

5\. Very few bums and vagrants have good stories but the ones that do are worth their weight in gold.

At the end of the day you're going to spend more time and effort figuring out how to survive than working. This becomes a huge drag after the magic fades the first week.

And, oh yeah, if you want to be full on relentless: make friends with big corp employees in Mtn View and Palo Alto to partake in their cafeterias. Or figure out how to do the tailgating dance.

<comment><USER3> Thanks for the Advice. However, I'm going to disagree about your point on productivity. I'll be spending all my waking hours in coworking locations, and the only time spent in my car will be for sleep. Finding showers are the only thing that may become a distraction. If that proves to be the case, I will get a gym membership.

<comment><USER4> See my other comment, but I think you underestimate the physical and mental strain something like this usually entails. Hey if you are going to do it you are going to do it, more power to you. Go get em!

I just think "being tired" in all senses of the word is a pretty impactful thing. As a young person I never understood why people would complain about xyz, to me, through my ignorant ass teenaged eyes I thought everyone was just weak-minded and dumb.

When you are young you are invincible sorta thing. And hell I'm still young but now I seriously think .. damn I'm tired. Damn it sucks to get sick. Damn what if this, what if that. I overdosed on caffeine recently. That sounds pretty "funny" actually, but caffeine is a _real drug_ and suffice to say I completely tripped out. One of the worst experiences. Long story short it made me really really really really prioritize a healthy lifestyle. I don't want to feel unhealthy, its not worth it.

Mom was right. Eat your vegetables, balanced diet. Exercise every day. Take a minute to relax. Love your friends. See the sun.

Ok shutting up now.

<comment><USER5> That's good advice. One of the first things I do when I move is find a gym. I find it really helps to break the day up and go work out for a bit. When I finish and get back to work it is almost like starting another day.

<comment><USER6> How long do you work til? Going to the gym for me would entail: getting ready, driving there, working out for an hour, driving home, showering and then getting back to work. Seems nice in theory but it'd be way too disruptive for me.

<comment><USER5> I usually wake up at 8 and work until around 12. I'll go to the gym and be ready for work by about 2. Most of the time I'll work until my girlfriend comes back from work which is around 10pm. I try to do a minimum of 8 hours a day with a few breaks in the day. Some days I'll do 3-4 hours but because I tend to do 6 days a week (and quite frequently 7) it is not a big deal.

I'm currently living in Toronto, Canada (I'm from Australia). I don't really know anybody here so I have nothing better to do than work. I take time off for the gym, food and when my girlfriend has time off work. This way she stays happy and I get to work as much as I want.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I hope this works out for him, but it seems kind of dumb.

It'd make more sense if he were single and living in the middle of Kansas or something. Even then it'd seem like a last ditch effort.

But it just seems silly when he has a wife and a house and is only going 250 miles away. And all of it for an alarm clock app?

<comment><USER3> It doesn't matter the distance. The fact is that LA is cannot compare to the Silicon Valley. See PG's posts on the topic <http://www.paulgraham.com/startuphubs.html> and <http://paulgraham.com/hubs.html>

<comment><USER8> Yes, but it's, what, a six hour drive? Not great, I grant you, but you could work for a few days in LA, then drive to SV, stay for a few days, meet the people you need to meet, then drive back to LA. Once things start happening you can make a permanent move.

I know it sounds like a waste of time, but you're going to lose a hell of a lot of time dealing with the inconvenience of living in a car.

<comment><USER3> I think you're missing the point. I will be staying in Palo Alto full-time. I won't be commuting to LA very often.

<comment><USER8> No, I understand that is the point. What I am saying is that I think that the benefits of being in Palo Alto full-time and sleeping in a car are minimal (at best) when compared to working in LA and travelling to Palo Alto as needed, until you get set up and on your way.

I can understand wanting to be in SV for the networking opportunities and so on. But you can code anywhere, including in your home in LA, and the results will be the same.

SV is a fantastic place to create a startup, but it isn't the only place you can ever do it- I'm in NYC and plenty here have no trouble. Presuming that the only reason you haven't been successful is because you haven't got to SV yet is a very dangerous path of thinking.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I think this is really silly. How is living uncomfortably in a car make you relentlessly resourceful? It seems entirely counter productive. You won't get good rest and even have a decent work environment. Half the fun of creating a start-up is not having to go to an office every day in peak hour traffic.

Right now I'm sitting outside in my backyard working away. It's a beautiful quite day and I have already achieved heaps. If you already have a nice apartment then you're better off working from there.

<comment><USER3> Because I know the value of being in the Silicon Valley, and I'm doing whatever it takes to be in that environment. And surprisingly, my set up is not uncomfortable for sleeping.

As for working, most of my time will be spent in coworking spaces. Spending 16 hours a day in a workspace won't hurt my productivity.

<comment><USER4> I tried looking for your resume after reading this comment (I downvoted you).

If you think working 16 hours a day makes you _more productive_ , I'd have to imagine you are not an experienced developer.

<comment><USER9> If he works 16 hours a day, gets enough exercise, and gets enough sleep, he will likely be _extremely_ productive. Having not much place else to go but his working space will encourage that.

Not everyone has the same cookie-cutter brain that you imagine.

<comment><USER8> No, but a lot of people seem to work on the basis that "more is more". While it's possible that this guy is uber-productive in 16 hour blocks, it's unlikely. It's a recipe to burn out.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I am friends with much of my city's homeless population (including some people who sleep in their cars), so I have a bit of insight into some of the problems that this fellow will face. Have you considered:

\- Where will you wash your clothes?

\- Where will you store your clothes in between washing them? They will end up quite badly wrinkled. Do you have any idea how hard it will be to go into an important meeting looking like you slept in your clothes? Even if the people you're meeting are cool, it will take your confidence down a notch (or seven).

\- What is your backup plan in case of a catastrophe? (ie - what do you do if your car gets towed?)

\- Personal safety. The streets are full of predators who roam them in search of easy prey. Sleeping in your car puts a big target on your back. Sleeping in your car with a laptop/other tech equipment puts an even bigger target on your back. Be very, very careful.

\- Apartment envy. Becoming homeless is as big (if not a bigger) culture shock than moving halfway around the world. Based on conversations with people who have become homeless, you will go through points where you miss how easy your 'old life' was. Building a startup contains the same kinds of lows. What will you do if the no apartment low coincides with a bad startup low? You don't have a support system in SF...

I'm not trying to dissuade you, but I feel like I owe you a bit of my knowledge. Best of luck and please be safe - both physically and emotionally.

</comment><comment><USER11> You are trying to short-cut through Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, and I don't think you will win.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslows_hierarchy_of_needs>

Maslow states that in order to achieve the high levels of self-actualization, ie. creativity, problem solving, etc, you need to have solved the other problems of life, ie. physical safety, love, companionship, etc.

By living in a car, you are giving up the foundations of the entire hierarchy, (shelter, safety, food, etc), and will be fighting an uphill battle to reach that higher state of self-actualization that is required to be able to work at a startup pace. I don't think it's a good idea to just live out of a car and fight the small battles every day because it will exhaust you.

I mean, let's be real. What if you get sick? What if it's 5am and you had a bad gyro the night before and you need to go real bad. Where are you going to go? Drive down to Page Mill and Hillview and do your business next to the horses?

If you can't afford the $600/month to rent a room in a house, even for 6 months, then you might want to consider saving up the money first and then getting a place or sublet for the summer. There are plenty of college kids that need sublets over the summer.

</comment><comment><USER12> I'm split on being impressed with the intensity and turned off by the crazy- rays.

The bay area has many advantages, but it also depends on your specific vision and skills – not _every_ business will get a net benefit from the bay's mix of benefits and stresses/costs.

In particular, the benefits of proximity to capital and deep (but pricey!) technical talent might not outweigh the logistical challenges of not knowing where you'll shower, make breakfast, and do laundry from day-to-day. Especially when your startup is a wake-up app.

</comment><comment><USER13> I don't see how this is of any benefit other than self-promotion...which isn't a bad thing for an entrepreneur, but I'd be willing to bet that the time it takes to worry about all the other daily needs has a net negative impact on your success when weighed against the publicity etc you receive. I think if your goal is to be "famous" for living in your car in the blogosphere etc, its a good way to do it, but to help you actually produce/build something.....not so much. GL either way.

Do you have an actual idea for a startup, or just looking for a cofounder then going from there?

<comment> jack-r-abbit Did you click to the article? It says right there to the right of it: "I'm living from my car in Silicon Valley while I build my startup." And "startup" is linked to <http://dailytoaster.com/>

<comment><USER14> Oh god, yea I am sure this will go great. As if every single phone sold in the world doesn't have an alarm clock function.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I'm sorry but this represents everything that's wrong with the industry and why I sometimes find it hard to take startup people seriously. This sort of behavior, which is reckless and illogical (not to mention unsafe) should not be rewarded. It should be seen as a vain attempt at attention seeking. It's clear you have other options at making the move. If you have your heart set on being here, that's fine. Do the move in a controlled and logical way that makes sense. Just like you should be building your startup.

Instead of pulling stunts like living in a car, you need to wow us by creating an awesome product that people love, that solves a real-world problem. Investors, VCs, and other devs respect that. Not for being the startup world cliche poster child of living in your car in Palo Alto.

All through your article you rarely mentioned your product or business, or why you think it's so great you're willing to go to these lengths and accept this sort of risk that crosses the line of what most people would consider sane. You didn't say how much you believe in it, only a thinly-veiled illusion that somehow meeting the "right people" in SV will make the difference for you. If that's what your belief system is based upon, I'm sorry to say you're in for a rude awakening.

And for the people that say this "will be a great experience". That is rubbish. Moving a few 100 miles away to SV to build an iphone app out of your car is not great or cool. I know some people doing that at startups right now that get paid and have a nice apartment in SF and are miserable.

If you really want to have a great experience, spend it in a foreign country learning about another culture. Travel around Europe. Be homeless (coach surf) there. That, I assure you, will be a far better experience and leave you a much richer person than spending your days buried in Xcode in the back of your Honda Civic.

</comment><comment><USER16> I seriously hope this is a joke. If you can't make it happen when you have a place to live in one of the largest cities on earth, you aren't going to make it in SF. Oh, I forgot, SF is "the center of the startup universe." That seems like a good reason to live out of your car.

If anything, it would make more sense to move OUT of SF to pursue a startup, since it is one of the most expensive cities in the US.

</comment><comment><USER17> So you have to go to Sillicon Valley to build an alarm app? I really don't get it. Are there no computers where you live? Or no internet? I really feel like missing something big here.

</comment><comment><USER18> This sounds like a dream for a hacker, but a single hacker. I am recently married, and it has been discussed to move up to San Fransisco, but we ended up realizing it wasn't the right time to move yet.

To leave your wife for a few months and live out of your car is not an admirable move. My thought is, once you get married then your spouse is your priority, everything else excluding family is second.

San Francisco might be start-up paradise, but by scanning through Craigslist, you will see tons of startups in the Los Angeles. I don't know if Kurt will see these comments, but I highly suggest he rethink this. By moving to San Francisco, he is leaving his biggest supporter: his wife.

<comment><USER3> I absolutely agree, Doug. My wife is completely on board and supportive of this. We reached this decision together. At this point, if I tried to stay in LA she wouldn't even let me.

<comment><USER18> Relationships are crazy man, I'm glad that you and your wife were able to work it out, and hopefully this crazy journey will be a success for you.

If you ever want to try to move the startup back to LA, let me know, I'm sure there are a few other hackers in the area that would love to start up a little monthly or bi-monthly meeting to bounce ideas and have hacking events.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Showers: Get a gym membership. Has the extra benefit of the occasional workout to stay healthy and sane.

<comment><USER20> And make sure not to tell them _why_ you're getting the gym membership. They tend to frown upon people using their facilities as their only shower.

<comment><USER21> I read somewhere that fitness gyms are about cycling people through their facilities as fast as possible since you could never fit all the people that have memberships there at once. If anything I'd think they'd love to have a guy who pays full membership go there just for a shower.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> How stupid is this idea ? You would live in your car just to be in the Silicon Valley ? A good idea and a good execution are what matters. Doesn't matter if you are hype and live in Palo Alto, go back to your apartment in LA and do some coding.

<comment><USER23> He seems to want to relocate to "silicon valley" (the Bay Area) and make it work long-term, from what I can tell, so while its a bit radical, it could work out for him, its hard to know when to make the jump. I think the case of a founder, who doesn't have a stable, solid income, it is even harder, personally I prefer the route of relocating for a job offer, putting in some time and then later, once some roots are put down, working on a startup, but since he already has one going, its probably not an option for him.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> One suggestion on working spaces if you're traveling up to the city. There's a place called Noisebridge in the Mission that is more or less a free hacker lounge with a lot of creative folk in. The only caveat is that it tends to be noisy and sometimes it feels a little too hipster for my tastes.

<comment><USER25> To set the record straight: Noisebridge is NOT free. There's membership fees just like all the other hacker spaces, and there's rent and bills to pay to keep the space open and the lights on. Even if you're not a full dues paying member, you should be chipping in $5-10 into the donation bin every visit.

There's also been a lot of problems recently with homeless (mostly nonhackers) trying to live out of and take advantage of the space, without contributing anything back to the community.

That being said, please, please come to Noisebridge and work on your startup, or hack on something else exciting. There's lots of great tools and cool, knowledgable people there. Noisebridge has an ethic of radical inclusivity, so you're most definitely welcome to just show up and ask someone to show you around.

Just plan on being a contributing member of the community by hacking on something cool, chipping in for rent and bills, and by not sleeping/bathing/etc there.

<comment><USER24> While I won't argue with the fact that you should donate, I never felt any pressure to donate while I was taking classes there. I didn't even know there was a donation bin on-site until you mentioned it. To me, that was the cool thing about the place and made me want to donate more.

I admittedly haven't been there in about 9 months though and I never noticed a homeless problem while I was there. Everyone seemed to be a contributor. Have things changed?

<comment><USER25> You're right, it's not a high pressure donation situation (hacker dojo is _way_ more in your face about it). However, there are two donations bins right in front of you when you walk in the upstairs door into the space. I just really want to see Noisebridge continue on in all its glory, and making sure that people know that it's all membership/donation run is part of that.

Being on Mission St., it seems there's always been somewhat of a problem of Mission St. craziness colliding with Noisebridge awesomeness. However, from what I can see not being in the space a ton (I live in Palo Alto, and only make it up a couple times per month at best), there's been added pressure on the space in the past 6 months or so. Anecdotally, it seems word has gotten out in the homeless shelter community and Occupy community that Noisebridge is an awesome place to store your food/stuff, hang out on the free wifi, and sleep on the couches. Needless to say, that's not seen as excellent use of the space, and has been a challenge for the volunteer run, often introverted, consensus based organization that Noisebridge is.

Having said that, I've been up there several times recently to hack on hardware projects, and Noisebridge has been awesome, vibrant, and filled with great people working on cool stuff. It's just going through some challenges that would benefit from people helping promote it in the right light.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I've tried this before while reconnoitering new cities. I have a far better setup for stealthy, comfortable car-camping than this poor chap and I typically end up breaking down and staying at a hostel or finding a furnished craigslist/couchsurfing room anyway. The money you end up spending while loitering around coffee shops and burning through gas does not justify the savings over finding a cheap place to crash.

<comment><USER23> During some of my crazier and younger moments I've been on some trips where I would sleep in the car one night and stay in a motel others, it seems saving money is the issue, so maybe he'd be better off "cycling" and sleeping the car a few nights but intermixing it with staying in a motel / hostel others

<comment><USER27> The costs of short-term housing catches up quickly to the costs of an apartment. I did this for a couple months and I ended up paying the same monthly amount as my 1br apartment in the peninsula but I only had a room half of the month.

<comment><USER23> I kind of agree, but, lets see, my current rental in the Bay Area is about $60 per day if you calculate it based on the monthly rent. I just checked and a room at a motel 6 can be had for $55.99 a night this weekend in Sunnyvale, CA (Palo Alto doesn't have any Motel 6's apparently), so if say, every 3rd night, you stayed at a Motel 6, you would be saving based on my rent situation, however I am not sure how cheap one could get a long-term rental (apartment), however, it would only cost about $600 a month to stay at motel 6's every third night and I don't think you can even get a room in an apartment, with roommates for that cost in Silicon Valley

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Dude, seriously, you don't want to be "that homeless guy". It's gonna be hard to shake off that reputation.

<comment><USER29> Agreed. Crashing on couches is way more legit - practically a SV tradition. Living out of your car on purpose is a little weird and it will attract attention from weirdos and repulse legit people. It's a fine way to get a foothold in the area, but he should look into sleeping around as soon as possible.

</comment></comment><comment> dav-id I feel sorry for his wife.

</comment><comment><USER30> I don't think this is a silly idea. It's obviously a nice "PR" stunt and interesting enough to have made it to the HN front page, which should make sure that OP gets enough showering offers. I certainly would offer mine if I lived in the valley.

</comment><comment><USER31> As I was reading this story, I thought to myself: I'd give this guy $100 if he was on Kickstarter or something.

<comment><USER32> Why? I don't mean to be rude, I'm genuinely curious. Would you give someone else $100 to, say, go to Burning Man and learn to fire-dance or are you actually excited about the cloud-based alarm clock?

<comment><USER31> Because I like startups, and he seems interesting and determined.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> When I was just out of college, I met a couple of people in the Bay Area while on a trip. Being from a rather non-tech place in the south, I fell in love with the weather and the access to all the High Tech companies immediately.

I speculated to the guys I met on my trip, "I'd love to live here." They said I could crash on their floor for a bit while I found a job and my own place to stay. When I got home, I quit my job, ended my lease, packed up my small car with my stuff, and drove the 2k miles back to the Valley.

Within a few weeks, I had a contract programming job at a large company, a room to rent, and had begun one of the most exciting periods of my life as I worked in startups, started my own companies, and became steeped in the environment that makes entrepreneurship so very likely.

I guess what I'm saying is, don't hesitate to do this while you can. The Silicon Valley is THE PLACE for people in our industry.

</comment><comment><USER34> Who wouldn't live in their car to get away from their wife for four months :)

The biggest flaw in his plan is that he has an amazing enough wife to let him chase his dreams...If he really appreciated the sacrifice she was making, he would never leave her for four months, or even four days.

I think the posters main goal here is to appear determined to investors. To get the message across to them that not only is he committed to making it work, he has a supportive family, and he is prepared to make every sacrifice to succeed.

Maybe this is a clever enough stunt to get into YC, or get some seed capital...After all, if I was an investor, I would be reassured by someone committed to do WHATEVER IT TAKES to succeed.

That being said, I think he has a serious problem appreciating the ancillary effects of his decisions, and doubt he anticipates how poor of a decision this really is, and how foolish it makes him appear to be.

</comment><comment><USER35> I admire his gusto, and there is something to be said about breaking with the patterns of traditional living for even a short period of time. "The sleeper must awaken."

However, the downsides to vehicle dwelling are numerous (and well described in the comments here); It's a lifestyle probably incompatible with the focus needed for startup level productivity.

I had a similar (crazy) adventure once, based out of a minivan, and my experience was that vehicle living causes a fair amount of stress and doesn't let you easily recover from it. Vehicle sleep is not usually restful sleep, since issues of personal security and lawfulness are always on the edge of awareness. What a car lacks is the basic benefit of home: A place to just relax and have a bit of safe, secure quiet, and for god's sake not have to worry about where your laptop is at the moment.

Bottom line is that a vehicle is not a good place to personally "reset". And if you're planning on working super long days both because you're dedicated to a project and have no other place to go besides the office, that's a formula for burnout.

Most significantly though, he's going to have a devil of a time not being noticed as a potential target at night in his small sedan, which lacks non- obvious provisions for visual privacy or ventilation. A van or minivan would be much better; you can curtain the windows without drawing suspicion from your neighbors.

My minivan experiment lasted about a month. From there, I moved to a sailboat with all the attendant conveniences of a well equipped marina. During this time, I had a steady job and girlfriend (god bless her), but even with the relief of crashing at her place once in awhile, it was only a matter of months before my dreams of road-and-water-borne freedom transformed back to visions of walls and a roof of my own.

YMMV ;)

P.S. As others may have mentioned, AirBnB and CouchSurfing.com are infinitely better solutions to Kurt's stated purpose. But I suspect there will be no dissuading him. When the sea calls, the sea calls.

</comment><comment><USER36> Many comments in this thread are so petty and naysaying, it's shameful.

Surely we can do better. How about suggesting specific places for this guy to park his car at night? That would be my biggest worry. I was going to nominate somewhere around here:

[http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Terminal+Boulevard+and+san+ant...](http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Terminal+Boulevard+and+san+antonio,+Mountain+View,+CA,+United+States&hl=en&ll=37.433568,-122.100012&spn=0.011961,0.022659&sll=37.433397,-122.097437&sspn=0.011961,0.022659&gl=ca&hnear=San+Antonio+Rd+%26+Terminal+Blvd,+Mountain+View,+Santa+Clara,+California+94303,+United+States&t=m&z=16)

... but it's not (quite) in Palo Alto. It's beautiful there, though, and there might be something equivalent on the Palo Alto side (I haven't been).

</comment><comment><USER37> A roundtrip drive from SF to PA would cost about $35 in fuel. 15 trips is $525. Might be cheaper (and a lot better) to just rent an apartment in Oakland.

Good Luck!

<comment><USER38> What? What kind of car takes $35 worth of fuel to drive that round trip? I drive a Chevy Aveo, costs $40 to fill up the tank, and I could probably make 3-4 round trips on a full tank.

<comment><USER23> Seriously.. I used to live in Phoenix, recently, and commuted probably 60 miles a day (roundtrip) and spent about that per week. Granted, SF to Palo Alto may be a bit further and gas is more expensive here but no way is it that much more to where its costing that much unless you have some huge gas guzzling truck, which he obviously doesn't, as you can see his car in the pic

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> On the one hand I feel excited for Kurt- such raw enthusiasm! This must be some kind of landmark for tech froth- that voluntarily becoming homeless in the pursuit of startup gold sounds like a good idea to some people.

This will sound mean but this is a really bad idea. A really, really terrible idea. Being homeless is not something to aspire to. You're due for a dope slap if you follow through with this, and I think life will oblige you in spades.

Seriously Kurt, not all that glitters is gold. There is nothing in Silicon Valley that will magically transform you into a super entrepreneur. There is no reason why you can't bootstrap your business until you can arrange enough cash to get a roof over your head.

</comment><comment><USER40> I envy you. Not because you're doing what you're doing – but because of your 'invincibility' and 'top of the world' feeling. As long as you aren't burning bridges or on a irreversible course, there's no harm in exploration and trying out new ways to live.

I'm sure you'll have fun in the first week, but from where I stand, I think the better way is to crash at a fixed place so you don't have to spend the energy worrying about showering/survival and actually focus on the reason why you went to SF in the first place.

Don't get hyped up and waste too much energy on the novelty of living out of your car, blogging about it, and let it take over your focus.

Good luck!

</comment><comment><USER4> I won't comment on my personal negative/positive take on this - doesn't much matter.

But the main issue I see, as others have stated, is the sheer amount of effort involved in merely _surviving_ each day, every day. Not being assured a minimal level of safety, warmth, and shelter, is both physically and mentally draining. I don't know about you but I can't even work well if I wake up one hour earlier than usual.

Seem quite counterproductive from the "I'm doing this for my startup" point of view.

</comment><comment><USER41> You're going to die; it'll get hot as hell in that car.

Good Luck though. It'll be interesting to hear how you get on.

I read a short snippet in the 1986 Whole Earth Catalogue about some guy doing digital nomadism on a three wheel bike.

I think it's here, but I can cope with the flash / pdf / UK wireless broadband dongle / "invisible" proxies to check.

([http://www.wholeearth.com/issue-electronic- edition.php?iss=1...](http://www.wholeearth.com/issue-electronic- edition.php?iss=1220))

<comment><USER42> Can't imagine how I forgot about that: <http://www.nomadness.com> You can find his whole story from the bike days to today here.

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> So he's taking on two huge challenges at once. I mean, I hope it works out, but I seriously doubt it.

</comment><comment><USER44> Something I've pondered about doing is eventually buying and living out of a motor home. No property taxes, easy (in some areas) to park, and you can pickup and drive away from impending natural disasters (e.g. hurricane). Park near a library or Starbucks to borrow WiFi, or get a cell-phone plan.

Downsides include cost of fuel with low fuel economy, difficulty manuvering and finding parking in dense locations, and potential cost of RV hookups. Plus an RV is a vehicle which comes with its own maintenance issues, and I'd imagine insurance is likely high relative to a car. They are expensive, $200,000+ for something that's large enough to comfortably live in.

Does anyone have experience doing this, or know someone who has? Upsides? Downsides?

<comment><USER42> There is no reason to buy a new motorhome. The ones the size of a bus can be found used for $12,000 needing just a little work.

I haven't done it, but my inlaws lived in their motorhome for about 9 months while building a house. They just parked it on the lot away from all the construction. That solved all the problems like parking, power hookup, laundry (close enough to family to use their washers).

I couldn't see myself living in one for any length of time, but at the same time, one of my "life dreams" is to live on a boat for a few years. Same difference :-)

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> Its a shame that he doesn't think Los Angeles is good for the startups..really stupid move.

<comment><USER18> I agree, it's a bigger population and Craigslist has tons of ads for startups that are growing and need more assistance. What he is doing can be done from his computer, and he doesn't need to leave his wife.

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> I actually did this. In 1999, I lived Monday through Friday sleeping on a mattress in the bed of my truck under a camper shell in the parking lot of the startup I worked at. I would drive down to Orange County on Friday nights and come back up early Monday morning. I rented a really cool house in Orange county in a great place near the beach with 3 buddies... and I didn't want to give that up... But I wanted to work in the Valley... After about 6 months, I was fed up and I got an apartment and moved to the Valley full time.

</comment><comment><USER47> I knew of several groups of people who lived in San Francisco but pooled together for crappy commuter apartments in Silicon Valley where they could sometimes sleep during the week after work. It was usually just a sleeping bag per person. Maybe you can find something like that, it'd be a lot easier. Their rent was usually 200 or so per person.

</comment><comment><USER48> I respect the grind and the willingness to sacrifice comfort to try your hand at this startup game. Good luck to this guy.

</comment><comment><USER49> What about doing laundry? Washing your socks in a nearby toilet on a gas station might seem a bit shady to some people.

<comment><USER50> There's usually laundromats in every city.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> bring a rain jacket :) its been raining non-stop all week, having lived off and on in northern California for much of my life honestly I would recommend waiting another 2-3 weeks as thats usually when the "dry season" starts for sure so you don't have to worry about rain, etc when doing something like this

</comment><comment><USER51> Check out this guy that lives in an RV and loves it: <http://tynan.com/living- in-a-small-rv-introduction>

He's got the perfect sized RV that fits into standard sized parking spaces. It must be pretty nice being rent free.

</comment><comment><USER52> Trade to a honda element, and throw an ecamper conversion on it. It'll be much more comfortable.

</comment><comment><USER53> Interesting, same as <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3709260> but more up votes.

He even links to a Hacker news discussion in his blog posting.

Wondering why this didn't get flagged as a dupe.

<comment><USER54> Tumblr posts don't care about the last URL portion, it's there only for presentation.

blog.com/post/[id]/[title]

where [title] is completely ignored and can be anything. For example: [http://kurtvarner.com/post/19347794553/random-title-no- relev...](http://kurtvarner.com/post/19347794553/random-title-no-relevance) will link to the post. The original title his post had was "A Man, a Car and His Startup" which became "a-man-a-car-and-his-startup" but the URL was changed to "man-car-startup" so now when submitted it's a "different" URL but Tumblr treats them as the same.

<comment><USER53> Ah thanks, that was the mystery I was wondering about.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> "PariSoma is in San Francisco and will cost $295 for full-time."

Why is PariSoma so expensive? That's triple the cost of Hacker Dojo. You can rent an apartment room in the valley for < $200 more.

<comment><USER56> SF rent is probably more than 3x rent of the bay. I believe the Dojo rent is around $1 per sqft -- mostly because that area is actually zoned as light industrial.

</comment></comment><comment><USER57> Keep your mattress and supplies in the car out of sight, there are slime things that make their way up and down market street that would smash all your windows for just the sleeping bag or mattress.

Getting smashed and grabbed is a very likely thing to happen if you have anything in the car at all.

</comment><comment><USER58> this guy really believes in people waking up on time enough that hes going to live in his car for a summer?

</comment><comment><USER59> This dude is completely insane but I admire his total steadfast belief. If he manages to one day apply that intensity of conviction to actual real information, he'll probably do very well.

Kurt, if you're reading this, for the love of God, stay the fuck away from east Palo Alto. At least look it up on Wikipedia. You'll read about an anti- gang-crime task force which included 500 FBI agents and plenty of other law enforcement people. You'll also discover the city held the highest murder rate in the country back in 1992. It's lost its champion status since then, but it's still in the game. Point being that it is NOT the same as regular Palo Alto.</comment>


Show HN: Building a zero-latency WordPress front-end - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/trambarhq/relaks-wordpress-example <comment><USER2> This is cool, but the end result is you are basically using WordPress as a document store. Because you need to implement an entirely custom frontend, you lose various wordpress templating abilities. Granted, that might be a worthwhile tradeoff.

<comment><USER3> Honestly, the sophistication, usability, and hackability* of modern wp-admin makes it worth the price of admission alone (even considering the performance hit from awkward wp_posts schema). I once used a siteless WP as a CMS for a lean CodeIgniter mobile app JSON API.

* Hackable in the positive sense; WP has its security reputation for a reason, but the majority of vulnerabilities are attributable to third-party plugins and themes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> It serves div soup rather than modern HTML5. I am a stuck record on this topic but I think your document structure needs to come first. Simplicity always trumps complexity when it comes to speed, no matter what the discipline.

<comment><USER5> Does it matter what it serves considering it's written in something completely different and the output is generated by a server not a human?

<comment><USER4> Yes if the benchmark is speed. The new browser layout engines are quicker than the old floats and divs with billions of class tags. Plus the quickest download is always no download.

Then there is the matter of maintaining the content. Div soup has to get chucked down the drain for the new agency or developer to make more div soup. It is worthless.

Meanwhile, a document with proper markup and judicious use of semantic HTML5 tags is content with value that can be easily re-styled.

SEO matters too, pure speed matters but so does document structure. Hiding your content in div soup does not impress the Googlebot.

Next?

<comment><USER6> > The new browser layout engines are quicker than the old floats and divs with > billions of class tags.

Can you back that up with benchmarks?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Interesting, but somehow missing a point for me. You can have quite fast WordPress pages without rolling out this big of a tech stack.

It all comes down to a good theme (most themes are not good) and utilizing a little bit of tech, most of which is already integrated into WP.

For example, I love the Transients API. You can easily cache database calls for posts with the Transients API and save lots of lookup/query time for complex datasets. One could argue that the Transients API is not meant to be used this way but I've build large sites which run fine (and fast) with that.

In the end it comes down to making smart choices: No tracking, few dependencies, minify all your assets, use browser caching, use scaled images, the whole toolset of good practices.

This will get you fast WordPress pages without worrying much about the tech stack you have to build around it.

<comment><AUTHOR> The setup is more useful in a mobile situation, where latency is high and connectivity isn't so certain. Imagine you're travelling by metro and reading something on your phone.

<comment><USER7> That doesn't make sense. You have to deliver the whole markup and assets in one way or another. Keep it small so it gets transfered quickly, even on a slow connection. Once it has been transferred, you're done.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Live demo is hosed at the moment. I think you should host the one that allows cache purges on a separate instance.

<comment> chung-leong The server might be hitting the open file limit or something. A lot of sockets get opened when the server generates an HTML page.

<comment><AUTHOR> Forgot to close file handle. JavaScript-induced rotting of the brain :-p

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This is beautiful. It is an example that how good are fast web pages.

</comment><comment><USER10> What magic is this? I've never seen a WP site comes close to these speeds. Incredible.</comment>


Microsoft CEO Candidate Elop Said to Mull Windows Shift - <AUTHOR> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-11-08/microsoft-ceo-candidate-elop-said-to-mull-windows-shift.html

<comment><USER4> _> analyst Rick Sherlund said the sale of Bing and Xbox, along with other moves, could lift fiscal 2015 earnings by 40 percent_

Short term, quarterly numbers-focused business people. Lying off 50% of their employees will also improve their numbers by 2015.

Apple and Google have become the largest tech companies thanks to their consumer facing products. Selling Xbox and Bing will only seal MS's faith as another IBM. Windows Phone and Surface will stagnate (even more) and eventually they will have to be let go too.

Non-tech people often ask me if IBM still exists when it is mentioned in a conversation. They'll be asking the same thing about Microsoft in a decade or two if Elop takes over.

<comment><USER5> IBM not only still exists, they are massively successful. Today they're worth more than Microsoft, in fact, because of a strategic decision to refocus on selling to businesses that has worked out extremely well. They've stopped being a household name since they stopped selling to households, but I doubt they're losing much sleep over that.

Microsoft's ratio of popular to unpopular consumer products has been dismal for years; it's hardly unreasonable to think they might likewise do better by refocusing.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibm#1980.E2.80.932013](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibm#1980.E2.80.932013)

<comment><USER6> I'm not too sure about that. A lot of Microsofts dominance in business comes from the ubiquity of its operating system, while IBM has _always_ been big in enterprise / mainframe computing and research regardless of their "foray" into PCs.

Giving up the consumer market to focus on business puts this dominance in danger (even more so than the mobile/tablet threat), because someone might very well and up doing to Microsoft what Microsoft did to the minicomputer makers, and eat their business "from the bottom up".

So I think the interesting question is whether Microsoft could survive and thrive on enterprise software/services in an environment where neither Windows nor Office were dominant.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The best part of this article is the quote from Microsoft spokesman Frank Shaw when asked to comment about what Bloomberg is reporting:

"We appreciate Bloomberg's foray into fiction and look forward to future episodes"

<comment><USER8> Frank Shaw is arguably one of the most outspoken, take-no-prisoners, pugnacious PR heads of any large software company. Examples:

[http://www.theverge.com/2013/10/23/4975448/microsoft- frank-s...](http://www.theverge.com/2013/10/23/4975448/microsoft-frank-shaw- rips-into-apple-for-comparing-iwork-to-office)

[http://www.businessinsider.com/microsofts-david-pogue- tweet-...](http://www.businessinsider.com/microsofts-david-pogue- tweet-2013-10)

[http://pulse2.com/2012/07/28/frank-x-shaw-responds-to- micros...](http://pulse2.com/2012/07/28/frank-x-shaw-responds-to-microsoft- lost-decade-articles/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> This is a very unusual kind of planted leak in the context of a candidate who is in the reckoning for being CEO. There are only two possible motives behind this story - either to scuttle or to aid Elop's chances of becoming CEO.

Given that Bloomberg seems to cite three sources who vouched for Elop's thinking on this, I think this could be a tactical move from Elop (because it would be relatively harder for his opponents to get three senior Microsoft sources to smear him).

Elop is shadow signaling his thinking to various Microsoft stakeholders. _" I am not status quo. I will reconsider all old notions. I know Microsoft needs radical change. The era of Windows is over."_

<comment><USER9> Or back to the future at Microsoft?

[http://emuneee.com/blog/2012/11/12/microsofts-org- chart/](http://emuneee.com/blog/2012/11/12/microsofts-org-chart/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Was anyone else dumbfounded by the idea of selling the Xbox business? That's been one of the only bright points in MSFT's consumer products for the past decade.

<comment><USER11> Not when looked at from a return on investment perspective. The profits, when they've existed, are dangerously close to being totally eclipsed by the truly massive occasional losses/write-offs.

MS have a problem in that they don't really have a successful consumer products division. One way around that is to stop worrying about it, which seems to be an increasingly popular point of view.

<comment><USER12> Can someone provide some analysis and numbers to support this? Creating a gaming hardware console is naturally capital intensive, but has the PlayStation always generated losses for Sony? How about the Wii for Nintendo? What is the breakdown on the Xbox P/L statement? (I realize this doesn't exist in the wild, but someone knowledgeable feel free to hazard a guess, case-study style ...)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> They need young, real "down to Earth" technology people like Scott Hanselman or J Allard to run that old monolith. I would list other people from tech but those people would never tolerate working for the Microsoft board.

Anyone that wears a suit and tie to work is going to just steer Microsoft further and further into the ground. Elop needs a hoodie.

<comment><USER14> Wow, ageism is nothing new, but I've never seen clothism before.

What kind of experience and character traits do you think the next Microsoft CEO should have? I'm having trouble deducing those from age/clothing.

<comment><USER15> hipster-ass VC slave "startup founder" type, from the sounds of it

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> The real question here is whether operating systems have been commoditized, and if so, what Microsoft should do about it.

It's certainly true that I can get the windows-on-a-desktop paradigm from Windows (pre-8), OS X, or GNOME or KDE from five years ago. I could probably get the Metro user experience from an especially clever KDE Plasma plugin too.

However, despite free software versions being widely available, we've only seen two windows-on-a-desktop operating systems in wide use, and one of them (OS X) has a very limited install base. This means that the free versions are _not_ equivalent to Windows, as much as I'd like them to be.

I see two reasons for that:

1) Getting the details right is really, really hard. This is especially true when there are a large number of computer users who are used to Windows - <USER2> don't think it's impossible to make another OS that they would use, but it would take a huge amount of usability engineering. (This is basically what Ubuntu is trying to do; but that's a side note here.)

2) Application compatibility is really, really important. In other words, even if GUIs are a commodity, the APIs underneath them aren't. This is something that is currently being attacked on two fronts - the Web is providing an alternative, standard API across desktop platforms, and non-Windows mobile devices are forcing developers to use non-Windows APIs. That makes Windows just another incompatible system to weigh the costs and benefits of developing for, rather than the standard which every program must support.

Elop isn't just looking at the explosion of tablets and smartphones, markets where Microsoft doesn't have much marketshare. He's also looking at the fact that the Chromebook has been the best-selling laptop on Amazon for at least a year, if not more. That shows that (2) is no longer enough of an advantage to keep Windows on consumer computing devices. It probably is enough to keep it on business workstations for a while longer, but he's smart enough to know that won't last forever - business IT is becoming increasingly consumerized. (1) is still an advantage, but the Chromebook and tablets both show that people will use a simplified, well-designed interface that's not Windows - hence the move to Metro with Windows 8.

Given all this, what is Microsoft going to do? The operating system cat is out of the bag, and it's probably not going back in. People are going to increasingly expect to bring their own devices into work, and some of those devices are not going to be running Windows. If platforms that don't run Office gain significant marketshare in the business world, then businesses will have to start considering alternatives, and maybe even start using formats that aren't doc and xls.

Thus, Microsoft's next move is clear. It offers Office on all popular platforms, allowing businesses to continue to not think about alternative office software. Apple makes its money from devices, and probably won't even fight if Microsoft does this. Google won't be happy because of Google Docs, but Microsoft has enough legacy support and can offer good enough enterprise management features that they'll still do well in this market.

In the meantime, Microsoft continues working full-tilt on Windows - <USER3> because it's no longer dominant doesn't mean that they can't make significant amounts of money from it. My thought would have been to bring the Metro interface to Xbox, although apparently Elop is thinking differently. It might even be true that the Office programs continue to work best on Windows. But whatever happens in the OS market, there's no reason Microsoft can't extend its office software dominance for a while longer.

</comment><comment><USER17> >As he formulates some broad strategic outlines for Microsoft, Elop is drawing on his years as CEO of Nokia Oyj, where he showed he wasn't wedded to homegrown software by canceling the company's then-dominant Symbian phone software in 2010, said the people

What? He was purposefully planted there by Microsoft for that exact purpose- kill symbian so microsoft can buy nokia for a steal.

</comment><comment><USER18> Can't Microsoft do better than Elop ? Gates and Balmer were visionary founders in their time. I am not sure Elop will measure up ; he seems to be only looking out for himself.

<comment><USER19> It's hard to get excited about the guy who ran Nokia into the ground.

<comment><USER20> Only if you believe he left Microsoft and worked for Nokia. If you consider he has always been working for Microsoft all the time, he successfully completed the mission of running Nokia into the ground so Microsoft could buy the salvage.

<comment><USER21> Yeah, as an investor, that's the kind of guy I'd like to have managing my company (not).

Hatchet men are useful, well paid, but definitely not high-profile, except to knock down and make their successor look better by comparison (see HP: Apotheker and Whitman).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> First off, MS's answer to the question is more than enough - "We appreciate Bloomberg's foray into fiction and look forward to future episodes". Three unnamed people? Really?

Sherlund is an idiot. The proposition, if you ask any consultant/financial analyst/Rick Sherlund is to maximize shareholder value. The problem with MSFT, Apple, Google is that shareholders are short sighted and don't understand how technology works or the charms of integrated offerings. They only see Product/Service/Capability-Cost mappings and see that by disposing money losing assets, they can enhance value proposition through the remaining assets.

Elop's strategy is fine if MS is in a money crunch and wants to undertake Cost Optimizations. It's not fine when MS is in the midst of their "3 screens, one cloud" transformation. If XBox and Bing continue their trend of losing money in the next 5 years, then yes, I would do things that Elop is fictionally proposing to do. Until then, hell no.

</comment><comment><USER23> So basically Elop has just publicly ruled himself out of contention with these ridiculous opinions.

Casting off Xbox at this critical point would be a disaster and massively weaken Microsoft's position. The post-PC era is dictating very clearly that Xbox may be the last "full PC" device remaining in the modern home... and he wants to cast it off?

Bing... it's better than defaulting their products to use Google.

Microsoft Office is a fine product but it is a legacy one.

I wonder what Elop's "opinion" is of Azure? That ridiculously high productivity and highly agile team that's been pumping out releases on a 2-3 weekly cycle for the past 2 years?

Wait. What? Why is Elop even in the running at all for the CEO position? That itself is fucking insane. Look what he did to Nokia!

</comment><comment><USER24> Picked the wrong horse for the billion dollar investment.

[https://www.microsoft.com/en- us/news/press/2001/nov01/11-11c...](https://www.microsoft.com/en- us/news/press/2001/nov01/11-11comdex2001keynotepr.aspx)

</comment><comment><USER25> I don't really know who Elop is, but I do agree that having Office available on all platforms would help Microsoft.

<comment> at-fates-hands I thought you could buy Apple versions of the Office products already, or am I missing something??

Getting their stuff on the Android and Linux platforms would help a lot, but then again, Linux has plenty of Open Source alternatives already.

<comment><USER26> OP said _all_ platforms. It would make waiting for the microwave to finish less tedious.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> He destroyed Nokia and he'll destroy Microsoft if he's given the power. He just can't run a company. I'd vote for Tony Bates.</comment>


A Connectome of the Adult Drosophila Central Brain - <AUTHOR> https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.01.21.911859v1 <comment><USER2> So, from 302 neurons and 7,000 connections in 1986 to 135,000 in 2020. I wonder how much things will speed up after this.</comment>


London's high-tech start-ups: Silicon Roundabout - <AUTHOR> http://www.economist.com/node/17581635?story_id=17581635&fsrc=rss <comment><USER2> One of the annoying things about articles like this is they ignore the fact that ten minutes down the road from the Silicon Roundabout (and I mean literally if you walk from Old Street Tube Station down City Road) you'll walk into London's financial tech hub which is one of the most successful tech-hubs in the world.

Reuters, ICAP, Markit to name just a few have all built multi-billion dollar tech business out of London. There are literally hundreds of financial sector tech startups in the area.

Web startups are only a tiny part of the startup ecosystem and we shouldn't forget that.

<comment><USER3> I wonder how many people start tech companies in the financial sector these days. The market there is saturated, the competition is strong and the clients are much more conservative. OTOH, web startups can be launched with very little cash and new markets emerge every other day (social, mobile, location, etc.). Most of them fail but the ones that succeed can have potential to earn billions. Web startups are indeed a tiny part of the ecosystem but I think that's exactly the problem. We need more of them, at least in Europe.

<comment><USER2> There are lots and lots, retail finance is conservative but investment banks are often much more willing to take a risk as are smaller hedge funds, prop shops etc.

There are thousands of unexplored opportunities in the financial sector that are begging to be taken by startups. If you have a clear value proposition, then selling into the financial market is easy. This is especially true if the product you're building helps your customers make money.

Every major investment bank has thousands of developers on payroll building internal systems, they'd love to just be able to buy off-the-shelf solutions that solve their problems instead.

If your product is good than your customers aren't going to be worried about you going out of business, because they know someone will acquire you before that happens. They're more likely to be worried that one of their competitors will buy you.

Sure you need to be more active in doing sales, but because the financial community is relatively tight-knit this is relatively easy. A lot of the time it's basically calling your old colleagues and getting them to make an introduction for you.

When I left the last investment bank I was working for to start my startup, the head of the trading desk pulled me aside and said "if you're building something in our space, come and pitch us first". That's the nature of the sector, everyone wants to get the cool new tech that's going to give them the edge on the market.

Banks and Financial tech firms also tend to be very active when it comes to acquisitions. It's considered a standard way to get exclusive use of a technology or to expand your firm.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> We used to rent desk space near the Old St roundabout, which is the place the article discusses. In the winter I used to have to wear gloves at work because it was so cold and draughty in the office (warehouse) we were in. They were running gloves, so I could still type, just about. Happy days.

<comment><USER5> Well that is European winter for you.

<comment><USER6> No, just British houses. I moved to Britain last year from eastern Germany. It gets much colder on the continent.

The British just don't understand the concept of insulating their houses, and like to complain about their actually rather mild weather.

`Extreme weather conditions' is British English for `snow'.

<comment><USER7> I second that. Having moved from northern Poland where -20C is nothing extraordinary in winter I was quite surprised by the amounts of energy used to heat typical British homes. I guess that is what you end up with if the majority of houses are >50 years old and zoning laws prevent you from changing the outside appearance of the building by for example installing extra insulation.

<comment><USER4> That's exactly what the problem was, the building was an old Victorian printing press, with some desks and an internet connection thrown in. Half the windows weren't flush when closed, and there was a big steel door entrance which conducted away the heat with ease. It was cheap though, if I remember correctly we used to pay 65pounds per week for two desks. Normal rates were probably double that. There was a good crowd of people there too.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Silicon Roundabout doesn't have the range of startups from "soft tech" to "hard tech" like Silicon Valley has. Most of the startups in Old Street are startups with links to the creative industry.

</comment><comment><USER9> "McKinsey, a consultancy, will share management expertise."

God help them.

<comment><USER10> Worry not, for sharing expertise does not oblige listening :)

<comment><USER11> McKinsey's "expertise" is most likely to benefit the BigCorps who conduct studies into the strategic benefit of moving their IT departments into the area (a few blocks north in some cases). The impact of that happening on the creatives and their reasonably-priced shared offices might not be neutral...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I'm not sure London is the best place in the UK for a startup. Office and accomodation rent is among the highest in Europe. And in just about every other respect it's an insanely expensive place to live.

Unless your clientiele requires you to be in London (e.g. you do work for the city, or one of the big media companies) you'd be better off elsewhere in the UK if you want a decent runway.

<comment><USER13> Yeah but by the same logic you could argue the following, yet you would be wrong:

 _"I'm not sure San Francisco is the best place in North America for a startup. Office and accommodation rent is amongst the highest in North America. And just about every other respect it's an insanely expensive place to live.

Unless your clientiele requires you to be in San Francisco you'd be better off elsewhere in the US if you want a decent runway."_

<comment><USER14> There's a reason HP started in a garage in Palo Alto, not in San Francisco. The city is markedly more expensive yet draws on largely the same talent pool as the valley—there's no shortage of people who commute either direction (including me). I don't think the city makes sense for a startup unless you're planning to interact heavily with Big Media, and there it's hard to argue against a branch in New York instead.

<comment><USER13> The City vs Silicon Valley is an on-going and frequent debate here on HN so I won't reopen it.

However while you may not think it makes sense for a startup to be here in SF, so many of them are.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I worked in a hardware startup just off the old street roundabout for a year or two and have lived in Shoreditch for the last 5 years. I'm glad there is a rising tech industry but much like NYC I doubt tech will ever take hold like in the Valley or Oxford and Cambridge simply because there is too much else going on, mostly in the finance sector.

<comment><USER16> That really depends on how much the government pumps into the roundabout as they recently showed.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> I think this begs this question: How on EARTH has Apture convinced so many companies that yes, cluttering up your site with a useless bar is a great idea?

</comment><comment><USER18> * McKinsey, a consultancy, will share management expertise. *

Noooo..you've got to be kidding me. What, in a startup?

<comment><USER19> Money to burn...

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Theres a small place down the road which has fuckloads of web companies, called Brighton...

<comment><USER20> Yep. Can't move for them down here. And we've got a beach.

<comment><USER21> By UK standard, I suppose you could call that a beach.

<comment><USER20> It's a better beach than london that's for sure. And people smile here.</comment></comment></comment></comment>