Open-plan office is the worst. Why can't we kill it? - <AUTHOR> https://blog.nuclino.com/open-plan-office-great-for-photo-shoots-terrible-for-collaboration <comment><USER2> At my previous employer, I worked in an office with real walls and a real solid wood door, in a cubicle with a sliding plastic door, in a cubicle with no door, and in a couple of larger open areas with between zero and three other people sharing the space. The real office was by far the best, but having a cubicle with a couple cabinets and a sliding door was almost as good.

I've experienced an "open plan" setup that worked; we based the setup on Bell Labs' Unix Room after visiting them. The Unix Room model is actually great, but it's different from your standard open-plan setup:

* People in the Unix Room seemed to be largely working on either individual projects or projects involving only a few others.

* The room itself was not actually very big, so you couldn't jam too many people in there

* Workspace was pretty generous, you weren't expected to tuck your elbows in lest you rub up against your neighbor

* Everyone in the Unix Room also had their own private office with a door, which I think was the key to success.

The last point is the biggest challenge: implementing a good open-plan workspace is going to require even more space than a traditional cube farm.

Edit: I work from home now, in a shed in the back yard. It's the size of a nice office, has doors and windows, and if I decide to work with the door open I get fresh air and birds chirping :)

<comment><USER2> Posting a follow-up rather than editing:

I also wonder if open-plan offices are a symptom of the increasing centralization of tech companies. These days people seem to think the first step of starting a tech company is to move to the Bay Area. If we were founding companies in Redding, Rochester, Yakima, Grand Rapids, or Albuquerque, could we afford to give everyone an office with a real door for the same price as a San Jose hellhole?

We've got better connectivity than ever before, but we insist on clustering up more and more. Cray was out in the Wisconsin woods. Microsoft got started in Albuquerque. DEC and Data General were both well outside Boston in small towns.

<comment><USER3> In all fairness though, DEC and DG _were_ part of the Route 128 cluster of computer companies. They were just mostly scattered in small towns around the region (as were their manufacturing and other smaller offices) because being located in a city was not really something that tech companies did at the time. [ADDED: AFAIK all of these companies mostly used the typical for the time mix of high cubicles and offices for managers.]

Boston metro was still losing population up to around the late 90s and, when Teradyne moved out, that was basically the last major tech employer in the city proper.

The current fascination with urban living (in certain specific cities) by a certain young professional demographic is mostly quite recent.

<comment><USER4> I don't understand this comment:

> In all fairness though...

"In all fairness" to what? What is this referring to?

<comment><USER2> I had used DEC and DG as examples of tech companies starting in small towns, he was pointing out that while they may have been in small towns they were still in a "tech corridor" right outside Boston. Which is a reasonable point to make! I guess he means "in fairness to" the modern silicon valley trends I'm criticizing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Because it's cheap. Less walls to build, more employees packed on to a floor.

Do you lose more money than you're saving due to decreased productivity? Maybe. But that's hard to prove, and "This office proposal is $X million cheaper because we can lease three fewer floors" is very straightforward.

<comment><USER6> My illogical hope is that one day we'll have the ability to run "simulations" in parallel universes so we actually can prove that option X was better in the long term than option Y.

<comment><USER7> Either way, there's still too many variables. If a company's ROI drops after changing to an open work-space... some variables off the top: decreased product quality/quantity, both/none, competition, consumer needs/wants, all of the above, etc.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This article nails it:

> _Open offices clearly suck. So why are you (most likely) still working in > one? Behind all the fluff, there is a simple explanation: they save insane > amounts of money._

In the beginning, there was a lot of talk about open offices producing more collaborative environments, and I'm willing to give this charitable credence and believe that some people might really have thought that at the time. It was an emerging idea and the complete ramifications were not really understood.

These days though, I don't think anyone ingenuous would defend that idea anymore — it's all about money, and this is doubly so in dense tech hot spots like San Francisco where real estate commands a huge premium.

My large company is entirely open office, and has even been known to downsize standard desk size in order to get more of them into the same area. It's annoying, and there's no question that it creates a large productivity tax (desks are packed tightly enough that even a small group of people having a conversation at normal voice levels three rows over is pretty disrupting), but it mostly works, and giving everyone their own office in our central location would be pretty much financially infeasible. You learn to start working around it as best you can with sound insulating headphones, working from home where possible, or even reserving the occasional meeting room when you can.

I find some comedy in the fact that my parent's generation used to complain non-stop about being ousted form their offices and into cubicle farms. These days, my generation would kill for cubicles. Even a couple drawers to store a few personal items are a fantasy at this point.

<comment><USER9> I work in an open office and it is clearly more collaborative than if we were all in separate rooms. You can easily talk to people about things and interested parties often overhear and join the discussion when they wouldn't have even known it was happening otherwise.

Also, being honest, I'd totally waste more time browsing the news if I had my own office.

The key is:

1\. Have plenty of space per person. We have big desks and are only at about 60% occupancy at the moment.

2\. Don't make the offices enormous. I'd say never more than 100 people in one room. Ideally less.

3\. Good acoustics. Carpets are essential.

I used to work for Dyson and they had 1000 people (no joke, I counted) in one enormous office (actually it was a repurposed factory building) with no sound absorbing material at all and it was awful. Current company is just insanely better.

The only issue I have is there is one guy with a really loud and penetrating voice... But it's not a deal breaker.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> > Treat your office like a library, not a kitchen.

A VP at my fast growing and profitable Fortune 500 publicly ridiculed my proposal to let our smallish engineering team geek in empty, unused offices in the building, on grounds that the office was _not_ a library. He was kicked upstairs and to another division, bless him.

<comment><AUTHOR> Honestly, they only upside of an open office is economic. When you have empty offices in the building, putting up with it really makes no sense.

Basecamp actually designed their office around "library rules": [https://m.signalvnoise.com/library-rules-how-to-make-an- open...](https://m.signalvnoise.com/library-rules-how-to-make-an-open-office- plan-work/)

<comment><USER11> That office is mostly empty space, and with all the effort to noise damp one has to ask - why bother? Just add offices at that point. At Microsoft you could always chat in the halls and people would just close their doors.

<comment><USER12> Did you read the part about 'Library Rules'? It's a cultural leap, but that would make all the difference.

Christ, I'm sitting in an open plan office right now with two telephone conversations going on in my right ear.

Thank the hardware overlords for headphones ...

<comment><USER13> That office plan, and 'Library Rules', are particularly stupid in a world of lack of thought. That is, it's worse than just not thinking about it at all.

3-5 people in the office at any given day? Just build offices, christ.

One of the founders must have had a particular itch to scratch is all, and it has cost the company money so that they could have the worst of all worlds

The 'Library Rules' are dumb because one of the prime reasons you need to make noise in an open office is to share a screen with someone, as you collaborate or problem solve or whatever. This is hard to do if you have to move to a quiet room because you can't move your monitor setup with you, or have the comfort and access of the things at your desk.

Even non-code discussions are easier at your own desk, with kbd and mouse for notes vs laptop and trackpad.

Not being able to talk above a whisper, or at all, at your own desk is a disaster.

<comment><USER3> I mostly work remote these days but "library rules" in anything but a limited area is silly. If I'm in the office, I have phone calls to participate in and people I want to chat with. If I want to have an extended conversation with someone, I'll (try to) find an alcove but there is zero point to my being in the office if I have to go somewhere private every time I open my mouth.

<comment><USER12> I have nothing to do with Basecamp, but I understand they're primarily a remote company. I think you're misunderstanding how their space is used.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I used to have a drive that required an hour drive each way in and out of Manhattan. When I arrived at the building, I shared a room with two other engineers who were team mates. I had so much energy after a day of work in that environment, including the drive, than I did at a regular NYC open office. Open office's suck energy through distraction.

I have basically given up on finding a job that would give me an office with a door that closes. I think it's much more likely that I could find a remote job. If I ask for an onsite office I would basically be laughed at or thought of as a prima donna.

<comment><USER15> " Open office's suck energy through distraction."

that's how I feel. Since working in a cube farm I am totally shot when I come home. The noise, lack of daylight and visual distractions suck all energy out of me. There is no escape from the stress while I am at work.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Every time this topic comes up there are a bunch of HN people saying open-plan is "clearly the worst" and that they want cubicles back. Note: this is hardly scientific. It's just your personal anecdote, ok, you don't like being around many other people and would prefer a cubicle or private office. That's fine.

However, don't discount the fact that other people exist that, gasp, actually like open-plan offices. Like myself! I'm one of those more sociable engineer types and I love the open plan bullpen at my current company, I love the bantering and conversations we have there, and I love that due to our social nature we have built a really cohesive TEAM that likes each other and supports each other. The atmosphere, friendliness, and fun, simply wouldn't be as great if we were all in cubicles or separate offices.

So now you have my anecdote too, which is of course not science. But I know there are plenty of others like me (unless I'm some sort of engineer unique snowflake out of the millions out there, which seems unlikely).

Instead of simply condemning "open-plan" as the "worst," why not try and understand why it works and helps some people and teams and why some others don't seem to like it. Maybe it's personality dependent, maybe it depends on the exact size of the open-plan area, there are hundreds of other factors that could make a difference here.

<comment><USER17> I like bantering and chatting too, but I definitely don't think it's that conducive towards me being a productive engineer. Sometimes it's nice being able to freely walk about and bounce ideas off others, and I'm sure this has resulted in some positive benefits, but 70+% of the time I really just need to go heads down on something and not be distracted. Always being near people who are talking is very distracting. As a result I get more done when I'm not in the office.

I think it's pretty obvious that you could have a hybrid approach where you have open areas for collaborating as well as a lot of private booths or rooms for people who actually need to get things done. But of course that wouldn't be cheap..

<comment><USER16> The open-plan areas at my company are kept limited in size. Our area seats about a max of 14 people and right now we have 10 people. Everyone has their own movable standing desk and the company provides pretty good noise- cancelling headphones if you want.

Given the limited amount of people and decent sized area, there is a good amount of space between desks and the noise level never really gets that high since there aren't really that many people around.

<comment><USER18> I think we need another word for that. It isn't really the definition of "open office" that is usually discussed. Open office typically refers to 10s or 100s of people in the same room. <= 10 is something else because that is small enough for everyone to respect each other's space, ears, etc even when on top of each other. I have had a few jobs with that particular set up and I never had a problem with it. However I have never liked larger open offices.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> > Behind all the fluff, there is a simple explanation: they save insane > amounts of money.

Yes pretty much. It's disappointing that companies cannot be honest with their employees and just say that simply. People can understand price per sq. foot, it's not inverting binary trees or building rockets.

But when they are told stuff like "We can _all_ collaborate better! Look at all this (busy) work happening!". It insults people's intelligence. It's like giving a kid who doesn't like potatoes, carrots and telling them they are just orange potatoes. Yes, I have tried that with my 2 year old and it works great. But doing it with engineers who you trust to build your product is just crazy.

</comment><comment><USER20> I'm _so_ glad to have a remote position. Less distraction than any office I've ever been to. And much more cozy, because I can choose exactly how to furnish my own space.

It's such a massive perk I have no second thoughts about turning down jobs with a considerably higher salary. It helps that commute time and expenses are _zero._ Commute is essentially unpaid, unproductive labour; it's not your free time, it's something you do for the sake of your employer, and you don't get anything done except translate your corpse.

</comment><comment><USER21> It's not just price.

Think about how trends evolve over time and how long it takes larger companies to "catch up". The planning/facilities groups are still high-fiveing from the major work it took to spin up open layouts, ignoring the growing evidence that it was the wrong direction.

And completely opening and shoving people in like cattle is _way_ easier than "well-planned open" (as mentioned in other comments), or even closed offices.

They're not about to embark on an expensive complicated project until it's unavoidable.

Will be years if ever.

</comment><comment><USER22> I have my own office. Very happy with this! Everyone where I work has an office, so not that special here.

Where I worked before I fought tooth and nail to get an office, by the time I was leaving I had the smallest office in the building crammed in with 2 others, while other (non-developers) had offices twice as big all for themselves.

Management wanted to cram 10 people into an office space the size of the office for the boss. HR put a stop to that plan luckily.

<comment><USER23> I used to have my own office but now my desk is in the basement.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> We just closed a lease on a new space where every employee will have their own office. Definitely atypical in Silicon Valley, which meant that buildings with a lot of build out are less desirable. That made it easier to negotiate the price.

</comment><comment><USER25> My employer has the opposite of an open office plan after moving from our old location to our current one a few years ago.

Tech support has a cubicle layout, but they are big cubes and assigned to each person. There's no sharing even across shifts.

In other departments, each team has a "pod". You enter through a swinging door from the hallway into the pod. Inside, you find a conference room with conference table, whiteboard, and TV for shared viewing of code, project boards, or presentations. Around the conference room are individual offices, up to ten or so of them, mostly with sliding doors. A few offices have swinging doors. The offices are big enough for a desk, filing cabinet, bookcase, and a visitor's chair or a small couch/futon. Not every office is on the outside of the building, but they all have windows at the top to get at least some reflected natural daylight.

There are bigger conference rooms for bigger meetings, but a team can meet whenever without going searching for a room. They can have a hack session together or pair program right there in the pod. There's a break room on each floor. Besides drinks and snacks, the break rooms have power outlets, bar- style seating counters, tables, chairs for both heights, and great wifi coverage for anyone who wants to work in a more open environment or catch more hallway chatter.

Yes, the company had to expressly ask the architects for this layout. Yes, the architects originally thought our management was crazy. From what I've heard now the architecture firm has office pods and promotes the idea for their other clients.

Management also specified mostly redundant hospital-grade air handling systems that turn over the air in the building several times per day. We get not just minimum and maximum temperatures and humidity monitored and handled, but oxygen/carbon dioxide balance, too. There's no more drowsy afternoon mental fog from a literal lack of oxygen which many offices suffer.

The last time I interviewed with some Bay area companies, they tried to convince me that there are enough conference rooms to just duck into to get some peace and quiet. That, I think, defeats whatever purpose beyond being cheap that open offices are supposed to serve. I also think if you have enough extra rooms that are never booked that people can do this, you might as well put teams in those rooms instead of in a corral.

<comment><USER26> reading this with a mental fog in an afternoon... I feel a tear is coming or maybe just dry eyes from the hot air and high CO2 balance...

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> This is painfully relatable... Marketing and sales teams don't seem to mind much but as a developer I once had to quit a job because of this.

<comment><AUTHOR> I actually worked in sales and trust me, we DO mind the noise. Imagine trying to talk to a client on the phone when you can barely hear yourself.

<comment><USER28> Also gives me a pretty poor impression when I hear other sales people shouting over whoever I'm talking to. Feels like they are in some kinda boiler room selling me vapourware.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Ideally, high ceilings and light are great. A hybrid office type is the best. Offering several different work areas has most advantages.

I like to think of my college library, areas open and no noise restrictions. Other areas closed off/private for hard focus. Some private rooms for group meetings, private rooms for individual work.

Mobile technology has been a great thing, offering all that extra flexibility

</comment><comment><USER30> I find the open office preferable to a cubicle farm. Most cubicle setups don't offer much in the way of privacy, especially with regard to noise and conversation, but they are dreary and soul-draining to look upon. Obviously a private office for teams or individuals is ideal, but if it's between open office and cubicles, I'll pick the open office every time.

</comment><comment><USER31> As with all questions like this, it's a fundamental misunderstanding of what this is optimizing for. It's only "the worst" from one perspective. But it is optimal for another.

The tension is not realizing that difference.

</comment><comment><USER32> At least in NYC, it's because of rent.

<comment><USER33> Average compensation for software engineers in NYC is $150k+ a year. Add in benefits and payroll taxes, etc. and you're looking at $180k+

Office space leases for around $75/year in NYC. A cramped open floor plan requires 80 square feet per person. A spacious 2 window private office is 150 square feet.

A company only saves about $5000 a year, even in the expensive NYC market. If an open floor plan results in an engineer being distracted for even 2 minutes an hour, it costs more in lost productivity than it saves in rent.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> Great photo at the top. Replace the computer monitors in the photo with sewing machines, and you have my perfect idea of a sweatshop.

No wonder I quit and started my own firm. I get hives just thinking about that.

</comment><comment><USER35> One thing I do like about working in a hot desk environment is that its easy for people to move around regularly. Its nice to mix groups of people, work close with those your current project is with and even mix up your day.

One problem with offices is that it gets territorial. People get their office then its really difficult to move. Some offices have a better view or more/less sun. Do you take turns or goes to most experienced or senior person on the team? It becomes political and ripe for stupid games.

</comment><comment><USER36> For the same reason why airlines are giving you less and less leg room. Unfortunately, we sacrifice comfort for the sake of cost.

</comment><comment><USER37> What should I call my situation? There are 2 people in a room with a door-free opening. It's probably 11x13 feet. It has drywall and a high drop-ceiling. There are a bunch of similar areas all off of a hallway.

It's kind of the degenerate transition point between open-plan and a traditional office.

</comment><comment><USER13> I am so tired of this article. As far as HN goes, this is the new bi-weekly 'should I work at a startup?' post. As far as the general blogosphere (that's still a thing, yes?) goes, it's the latest click attractor.

We all know by now why open-plan offices dominate. Cost. We don't need to belabor the point.

This specific article is particularly annoying:

> The reasoning behind the idea of an open office is simple and makes sense in > theory: fewer physical barriers – more communication and collaboration.

The author knows damn well that isn't the case. The way he presents this false statement is annoying af. It's not setup as a false assumption to be torn down (which he proceeds to do), it's setup as an actually true statement. It's insulting to the reader because, nobody is so misinformed at this point in the game.

He then goes on to speak from a position of authority on the history of the open office plan, which of course he gets wrong. Wilkinson didn't create an open office for Google, he created glass-walled cubes.

<comment><USER38> > The reasoning behind the idea of an open office is simple and makes sense in > theory: fewer physical barriers – more communication and collaboration.

To be fair to the author, this is always the reason I've heard given by management for having an open office plan, when the reality is, in fact, about cost.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> Office Space made me hate cubicles. Open-plan made me appreciate cubicles.

</comment><comment><USER40> Because real estate is expensive and your boss is cheap.

</comment><comment><USER41> Employee per square foot is an easier metric to quantify than knowledge worker happiness and productivity.

</comment><comment><USER42> Because maximizing local task performance ≠ maximizing group task performance.

<comment><USER43> What is the evidence it maximizes group performance?

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> I feel like I'm the only one who likes open-plan offices.

<comment><USER45> What do you like about them?

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> Because it is the cheapest...

</comment><comment><USER47> it's all anecdotal opinions

<comment><USER48> No, it isn't; there have been studies done on open office floorplans, and they come to the same, obvious conclusion: they're bad on any metric you care to measure them on, except the one the article points out: if you ignore the productivity loss and all the other costs, they're cheaper. From the Wikipedia article on open floor plans,

> _A systematic survey of research upon the effects of open-plan offices found > frequent negative effects in some traditional workplaces: high levels of > noise, stress, conflict, high blood pressure and a high staff turnover._

> _Open-plan offices have been found to elevate the risk of employees needing > to take time off for sickness._

The article's citations will allow you to delve into the studies, if you wish.

[1]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_plan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_plan)

<comment><USER13> The cited studies all date circa 2011. But open office was trending well before then, and studies were done before then. For example, [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S02724...](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0272494405000538)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> I think the real reason is that the bosses like watching all their subordinates at once. They can see that nobody is slacking (or at least everybody is pretending not to, which signals social submission almost as well), and enjoy the feeling of power. Productivity statistics don't produce the same feeling, partly because they're too abstract, and partly because they're evidence of submission to the organization as a whole, not to the boss personally.

<comment><USER50> I can slack off just as easily in the office as I could at home. :D or work just as hard at home as in the office.

<comment> loa-in-backup You're lucky.

I automated my deployments and test analysis, which were the most time consuming tasks (sequential process, with few quirks along the way) as a developer. This gave me reliably 30-40 minute forced breaks.

Soon I got notices that there were complaints that I do not conform to the office norms, and that apparently I "sleep instead of working", and people "ask if they can work like I do" (never got any further explanation). I got passed the slip and I'm moving on to a different job next week.

<comment><USER51> If you automate your job, DONT show it. Use it and hide it, unless your job is explicitly automation engineer or thereabouts.

Most places don't value the work you saved via automation. It's the company's gain; it shouldn't be yours!

And shame on you for not cranking the gear next to your computer keeping it working! /s Remember, the appearance of work matters more than actual work for almost every employee.

<comment><USER26> yup, that's why I carry a notepad and take notes down with a serious face and occasional frown... I doodle well too</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Apple is using MS Visual Studio - <AUTHOR> https://jobs.apple.com/en-us/details/200061987/firmware-engineer?team=HRDWR <comment><USER2> I wouldn't be surprised if the standard development environment for low level ARM work is Windows, with reference device drivers, development and test tools, IDE utility plugins, etc to assume Windows and VS.

Beyond this role, Apple also develop versions of iTunes, the iCloud client and such on Windows. They also provide device drivers for Windows as part of Boot Camp and those will all require in-depth development and test skills and tooling on Windows.

</comment><comment><USER3> Visual Studio has been available for OS X for several years, but I believe the only language it supports is C# with GTK. (ETA I guess there are some other languages, but not C++/C).

The job listing is for firmware dev, and there are mcu tools that are only available on Windows unfortunately -- note also that it says in the same sentence gnu toolchain experience is necessary.</comment>


Ask HN: Would you pay for "moonpig like" technology? - <AUTHOR>

we are building an API which would allow to implement easily websites like moonpig.com or vistaprint.com (the printing side of it). We would like to know if there is any interest on these kind of things before locking ourself in months of devs. We would appreciate any feedback. <comment><USER2> What would be able to print on/sizes and what would be the turn around time?

<comment><AUTHOR> The main part of the idea is to allow a PDF file ( a template) to be customized based on some data received. More details here: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5601127>

Our MVP won't go up to manage the physical printing but would be coming in the second phases (unless it become a hard requirements for phase 1).

To explicitly answer, you would be able to print on whatever you want as you would, at the beginning, not handle the relation with the printer.</comment></comment>


What Dwarf Fortress Taught Me About Startups - <AUTHOR> https://blog.opsee.com/what-dwarf-fortress-taught-me-about-startups-30800ea98324#.d7jgrjiu4 <comment><USER2> I'm really surprised that the author didn't get into one of the main ways a fortress fails. It's humming along smoothly and then suddenly the population doubles in size when a group of settlers (VC cash) arrives and the whole place goes to hell from disorganization and growing pains.

<comment><USER3> Would love to hear honest story telling from really successful startup including FB, Dropbox and even some of the smaller players on this.

Would it make sense to just go full hacker culture like FB from the beginning without any serious management layer and goes small team instead of big team?

<comment><USER4> Best you're going to get is a Rashomon-style retelling. Anybody early on has retold the story so many times - pitching new hires, onboarding the next wave of employees, and then the next wave, and then the next wave - that they probably don't really remember the real thing very clearly anymore.

Then there's also the pressure to agree to a similar narrative, not necessarily in a bad way, just like any couple has agreed on a how they met story, they've been telling it for so long and had the arguments about "did that happen?" that the story has been set. Who knows what happened.

You'd have to assemble a collage of The Official Story, some of the weirder first interviews the group gave in the press, early non-hires who interviewed and caught a glimpse of a weird snapshot, the inevitable disgruntled folk (who may not inevitably wrong).

Aside from that, I do like [http://justinkan.com/three- stories](http://justinkan.com/three-stories) , it's a good series of disasters.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Fun analogy. One of my favorite mechanics in Dwarf Fortress is stress. Dwarves have thoughts which are contingent upon outside influences (fatigue, other dwarves, etc.) [1]. Failure to keep your dwarves happy results in a loss of productivity. Left untreated, your dwarves can eventually go insane and destroy everything you've built [2].

Fortunately, I've never seen this manifest in a startup before my own eyes (at least in an extreme way), but I'm sure someone else has a story to share.

[1] [http://dwarffortresswiki.org/index.php/DF2014:Thought](http://dwarffortresswiki.org/index.php/DF2014:Thought)

[2] [http://dwarffortresswiki.org/index.php/v0.34:Insanity](http://dwarffortresswiki.org/index.php/v0.34:Insanity)

<comment><USER6> _" Fortunately, I've never seen this manifest in a startup before my own eyes (at least in an extreme way)"_

That's because, however tough the entrepreneurship may seem, the businesses are part of the larger society which is collectively protected to a high degree from many society-devastating causes. I've mentioned this before¹: _" The world around you and your loved ones is relatively safe thanks to multitude of operating services that make sure that the individuals roaming free are not that crazy, not that malevolent, not that contagious, and in short will not have that much of a negative impact on society at large (which includes you)."_ Of course, the environment of the Dwarf Fortress does not promise you that kind of protection.

¹ [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9150147](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9150147)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> What's great about this analogy is that Unicorns are officially Bad News for dwarfs, and will frequently gore and trample everyone in your fortress to death.

<comment><USER7> They're also valuable.

"Unicorn products are worth four times as much as domestic animals, making unicorn genocide in the name of profit an attractive proposition."

\- DF Wiki [http://dwarffortresswiki.org/index.php/DF2014:Unicorn](http://dwarffortresswiki.org/index.php/DF2014:Unicorn)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> > and the gameplay is brutally difficult.

Dwarf Fortress is not particularly difficult once you figure out the obtuse interface. It's only a little bit more difficult than Minecraft without the boss fights. I got bored in a few months. Admittedly, much of this was the tendency of the game to slow my machine to a dead crawl. Once you're proficient at avoiding the pitfalls, the only really interesting thing to do is to keep growing the fortress. Sadly, the performance cliff is steep.

<comment><USER9> There is of course a certain extent to which you can adjust how difficult the game will be for you, such as where you embark or just restricting your playstyle, but ultimately coming up with goals is necessary to keep enjoying the game. I never last very long myself...

<comment><USER10> The problem with embark locations is that they mostly just increase the size of the initial difficulty cliff. The game still settles down to more or less the same amount of challenge once you've dug in. Maybe your migrant waves are smaller after wading through the river full of zombie hippos, but once the survivors get indoors they're as safe as anywhere else.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Interesting analogy.

I'd guess that the average Dwarf Fortress erm, Fortress, and the average startup fail at about the same rate. For, basically, the same reasons: too many unknowns, random events and morale.

</comment><comment><USER12> 1) Name everything silly random things.

2) Have a super complex UI.

3) Cats will end the world.

4) Kill the rich nobles (management) asap.

</comment><comment><USER13> OT, but for those of use who know kids into Minecraft, is DF a good thing for them to graduate to? KSP maybe better? Seems like there's a family of games here that have a progression of sophistication.

<comment><USER2> Depends if they like starting at ASCII. KSP has a much more familiar interface and would probably be the better route to go.

<comment><USER9> There are actually a surprising number of detailed graphics mods you can get for Dwarf Fortress (although not wanting to fiddle with modding the game is entirely understandable).

<comment><USER2> Very true, but even with graphics mods the difference in ease of use between DF and KSP's interfaces is vast.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> There's no Fun that good old fashioned Risk Management can't ruin.</comment>


How to Beat Your Competition by Innovating in Ways They Can't - <AUTHOR> http://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesleadershipforum/2013/02/05/how-to-beat-the-competition-by-innovating-in-ways-they-cant-copy/

<comment><USER2> This got me thinking through ways to harness a motley collection of social misfits to develop models for my organization, but isn't that just another way of defying the "Think Different" mantra?

<comment><USER3> I don't know but the author of the linked Forbes piece, Kaihan Krippendorff, has written a couple of pretty good books on strategy.[1][2]

I got a lot out of reading _Outthink the Competition_ and am planning to read it again soon. I like his ideas about "coordinating the uncoordinated" and "take what's left behind when the battle moves elsewhere" (paraphrasing in both cases).

[1]: [http://www.amazon.com/Outthink-Competition-Generation- Strate...](http://www.amazon.com/Outthink-Competition-Generation-Strategists- Options/dp/1118105087/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1360477665&sr=1-2&keywords=Kaihan+Krippendorff%2C)

[2]: [http://www.amazon.com/Hide-Dagger-Behind-Smile- Competitive/d...](http://www.amazon.com/Hide-Dagger-Behind-Smile- Competitive/dp/1598693808/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1360477665&sr=1-4&keywords=Kaihan+Krippendorff%2C)</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Facebook app promotion techniques? - <AUTHOR>

Hey guys,
Curious to know if anyone had any FB app promotion techniques to share. Promoting on FB is a pretty different dynamic than on web apps. Aside from assuring your product takes advantage of viral features, how else do you grind out getting those first thousand users to actually use your app?
Any tips/discussion appreciated. Thanks <comment><USER2> As a general rule, unless you're willing to shell out dollars and buy facebook ads (which many developers do), you need to really optimize your virals, especially the feed.

For more specific advice, what have you done for viral features? It would also help if you explained what your app is as well. Games work differently than say a quiz app.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Has anyone tried link exchange networks like Fbexchange? Seems interesting, you can also buy clicks from the network, but I'm not sure on the quality.

</comment><comment><USER3> Its harder now, since u cant use notifications anymore. I want to know as well.</comment>


One-fifth of Earth's ocean floor is now mapped - <AUTHOR> https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-53119686 <comment><USER2> I'm always fascinated by that fact that despite the immense amount of observations we have carried out on our planet (especially during the satellite age), the ocean is still largely uncharted in detail.

The discovery of the Muirfield Seamount [1] is a great story. A cargo ship is steaming through the Indian Ocean in waters charted at 5,000 meters depth, and suddently it hits a previously unknown submarine mountain where the summit extends to 16-18 meters below the sea. And apparently no one had discovered it prior 1973, when that cargo ship hit it.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muirfield_Seamount](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muirfield_Seamount)

<comment><USER3> A similar case with a telling difference is Anchorite Rock in NZ's Hauraki Gulf:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Anchorite_(P422)#Service](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Anchorite_\(P422\)#Service)

The difference being that this rock was already known by some local fishermen, who had allegedly refrained from informing the Hydrography Office because it was an excellent and little-known fishing ground. (jokingly) lacking patent protection for fishing spots, they opted for a trade secret.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> That leaves 56% of the Earth's surface unmapped. (!!)

Then add most (?) of the Earth's surface covered by ice, which seems at least as hard to see/sample/explore as the ocean floor, and we're living on a planet whose surface is nearly two thirds unknown!

Education and revelations to come!

<comment><USER5> A mountain range the size of the Alps was found fairly recently (2009) buried under the ice in Antarctica:

[https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/feb/24/antarcti...](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/feb/24/antarctica- mountains)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I hope this better mapping is used for this:

> Seabed 2030 supports the UN's Sustainable Development Goal 14: 'to conserve > and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable > development.'[1]

and not for this:

> A new report by the Deep Sea Mining Campaign and MiningWatch Canada examines > the potential risks of seabed mining operations… 16 international mining > companies have contracts to explore the seabed for minerals within the > Clarion Clipperton Zone (CCZ) in the Eastern Pacific Ocean, and other > companies have contracts to explore for nodules in the Indian Ocean and > Western Pacific Ocean.

[1] [https://seabed2030.gebco.net/faq/#q1](https://seabed2030.gebco.net/faq/#q1)

[2] [https://news.mongabay.com/2020/06/deep-sea-mining-an- environ...](https://news.mongabay.com/2020/06/deep-sea-mining-an- environmental-solution-or-impending-catastrophe/)

</comment><comment><USER7> These seem like vanity metrics: a gauge of how much we care about science and exploration. The truth is that open ocean projects are slow and expensive. High-effort / low-impact projects like fine granularity sea floor maps are difficult to coordinate without financial backing from a national superpower dedicated to data sharing. I suspect that what will change the trajectory is new low cost technology that simplifies the process.

</comment><comment><USER8> So we have had these nuclear submarines hiding in the oceans and listening for other submarines for the last fifty years. And in this time we have not charted out the bathymetry to a high degree of accuracy?

I don't believe the navies need centimetre resolution bathymetry however if they had it then they would keep quiet about it much like how the National Reconnaissance Office keep quiet about their spy satellites.

<comment><USER9> Given the purposes of military submarines, most of the ocean is not useful to visit, and most of that "uninteresting" ocean is too deep for those submarines to care about.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Seems like this technique is not precise enough to resolve the likes of MH370? Otherwise at the rate they're going they could find the wreck soon.

<comment><USER11> If, like me, you needed a refresher about flight MH370, I wholeheartedly recommend this video by LEMMiNO: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kd2KEHvK-q8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kd2KEHvK-q8)

<comment><USER12> That was very interesting, I like that it mentioned conspiracy theories without giving them credence.

I remember MH370 as the moment I realized that the ocean was wilderness. While the search was underway, my coworkers and I spent quite a bit of time guessing what could have happened. Quite a few of us assumed that the resources of the various governments involved surely would recover something fairly quickly. That is until we saw video of the Indian ocean, it was immediately clear that if they did find anything it would be luck.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I know oceans and caves are relatively unexplored parts of Earth. Are there any land surfaces that are similarly unexplored?

<comment><USER14> Depends what you mean by unexplored. Satellites have taken photographs of the whole surface, but I imagine there are still pockets of remote places where no human has set foot.

Inaccessible mountain slopes, central Antarctica, the land under glaciers, central Sahara, deep jungle, far northern Canada and Russia.

Or, more interestingly, modern cities may still hide secrets. For example, it's well known that London is built on top of London. Digging anywhere typically uncovers archaeological evidence of past generations. But there are still some places which are off-limits to digging because they are under historic buildings. For example, St Paul's cathedral very likely has historical artefacts underneath it, but we will never know because you'd have to demolish St Paul's first to get at them.

<comment><USER15> Another possibility would be to use soundwaves, x-rays and other energetic wave forms to locate and map stuff under such buildings. I wonder how far the technology is in this area...

<comment><USER16> Ground-penetrating radar seems to be fairly well developed as well

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Not the bit with a crashed Malaysia Airlines jet, but quite a few places nearby (in hundreds of kilometres away oceanic terms) maybe

</comment><comment><USER18> _Only_ 1/5?!

<comment><USER19> Earth is really big.</comment></comment>


Tmux 2.3 released - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/tmux/tmux/releases/tag/2.3 <comment><USER2> > Incompatible Changes

None in this release, but previous releases often broke _something_. Thanks to that, I can no longer use the same configuration/scripts on multiple platforms.

Are there really and valid reasons for breaking things in a mature product like this? Do the developers understand how much trouble a "minor change" can cause for millions of users?</comment>


Social Distancing: 100 Ideas What to Do at Home - <AUTHOR> https://artlapinsch.com/2020/03/16/social-distancing-ideas/ <comment><USER2> Good time to be a gamer.

<comment><USER3> 4sho</comment></comment>


Show HN: Radiobar (MacOS) – Open source app to stream radio in your menubar - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/mdbraber/radiobar <comment><AUTHOR> I enjoy listening to streaming / online radio and easily switch channels, on/off etc using my keyboard. I used to use a very old version of fStream to do so, but that doesn't work anymore under macOS Mojave.

So I've forked wass3r/RadioBar to build a simple, small open source menubar app for macOS to listen to online radio. It includes a simple script to switch channels, pause/resume etc. (which can be used with Alfred or other launcher).

Built with Python, rumps and vlc.</comment>


Bored people quit (2011) - <AUTHOR> http://randsinrepose.com/archives/bored-people-quit/ <comment><USER2> > I've gone back and forth on whether managers should code and my opinion is: > don't stop coding... Over time it means you'll have a harder time talking to > engineers because you'll forget how they think and how they become bored.

For me, this is the money quote. Like rands, I've gone back and forth on this over the years as well, but I do strongly believe that you cannot effectively manage a team if you do not understand what it is that they do, at least at a high level.

You don't need to be as good at coding as the engineers who work for you, but you must know enough to empathize with them, and to help mediate dead-locked discussions.

I'll admit that there are exceptions, and effective s/w managers who can't code do exist, and I'll also admit that finding such managers is probably not a scalable task, but I feel it's something that every company should strive for.

<comment><USER3> I'm borderline if managers should code or not, but as soon as you get to manage a team, and the job doesn't require it, do stop coding!

It is not your job anymore, and if over the next 5-10 years you start having a hard time talking to engineers, than maybe you weren't that good of a programmer to matter. Frameworks change, but general programming knowledge doesn't. Even if an engineer says something like "In rails 7, you can't splice the header from the body of the message stream sent over airsockets" as an excuse to not deliver and if you think it is important for the rest of the project, you should easily check google to understand what is going on, but you don't need to know rails 7!

<comment><USER4> Once you stop programming, your skills will degrade like a musician who stops practicing, you'll eventually forget what its like to be a programmer like a parent forgets what its like to be a teenager. You'll lose your ability to connect with programmers, but hopefully by that time you are managing managers who manage programmers, or something like that.

Google can't fill these information gaps, and any manager who trusts Google over their engineers is probably a toxic one at that.

<comment><USER3> A musician will have his skill decline, but his appreciation and understanding of music probably wont. I think this is the key point. Yes, after 10 years, the manager won't be as able to code something in the project (nor should he) but he won't just magically forget what O notation or graph theory is all about.

I think a better analogy maybe coaching. Some coaches were players before coaching, while others weren't, but their understanding of the sport isn't linked to them actually playing the sport.

<comment><USER4> Not the same.

A coach would observe their players play everyday, and review their performance quite directly. Their bodies are not able to do it anymore, but they are "still in the game" so to speak. A bad development manager is often never looking at their programmers' code (or if they do, they might not understand it), only seeing and evaluating indirect results of their work. Even a good dev manager is not looking at their programmers' code very much, but at least they understand what is going on and are able to themselves in their programmers' shoes.

Organizational "visibility" is why it is so important for programmers to attend and speak up at meetings; the organization is incapable of valuing what they do directly. Also, "managing up" is the secret to getting things done with a non-coding boss.

<comment><USER3> But that is exactly the point I'm trying to make. A coach won't be able to do a dribble (soccer) or sprint for the header goal, the same way a manager shouldn't be writing the unit tests or OAuth login, but both are involved in their fields and don't magically forget the rules of the sport or what OOP is.

I'm not advocating that bad managers should learn through google, but if you were a good developer and didn't program for 10 years, if the time came to decide between TDD or BDD for the project (though that should be a Team Lead or CTO job, not a PM) he should be able to brush up quickly. Maybe not decide if you should use Shoulda or xUnit or whatever, but have a general picture of what the developers they are managing are talking about.

<comment><USER4> What do binary decision diagrams (BDDs) have to do with TDD (test driven development)?

If this manager hasn't been doing development for 10 years, he is a lot cause. But this doesn't have much to do with programming, just being involved in building software. But in cases where their experience isn't fresh enough, they will have a tendency to either be static (we will write our web project in COBOL, because that is what I used to use dammit) or be very trendy to a fault (I heard post modern node-oriented programming was hot, let's use that for our compiler).

<comment><USER5> > What do binary decision diagrams (BDDs) have to do with TDD (test driven > development)?

In context, BDD = Behavior Driven Development [1], not Binary Decision Diagrams.

[1] [http://dannorth.net/introducing-bdd/](http://dannorth.net/introducing- bdd/)

<comment><USER4> Is that related to Brooks' behavior-oriented programming for controlling robots?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I left my very first job because I, too, ended up bored and learning almost nothing. But I do remember that I was too scared to bring it up, because I thought there existed a possibility that the (very small) company might preemptively let me go, which would have screwed me up quite a bit. The most logical thing to do, in my mind, was to not let anyone know what I was thinking until I had signed a new offer letter and was handing in my two weeks' notice. Sort of like the prisoner's dilemma.

Was I wrong? (I hope I was wrong.) My manager was a great guy, and definitely not unreasonable. But at least from my perspective at the time, the stakes were so high. Was this just some stupid fear that doesn't actually reflect what happens in real life?

<comment><USER7> I've seen it happen: someone getting fired for pointing out how they'd like more work and are bored.

I think you just have to leave with an offer in hand, saying politely no to any counteroffers. But, always remember, move jobs like Tarzan, with one hand in the next vine before letting go of the current one. (Have an offer before letting _anyone_ know at your current job).

That being said, I encourage my employees to let me know if there is anything I can do _before_ it gets to that point. I believe in letting people move around between roles, jobs, and teams if it helps them engage better. But I'm a pretty private guy about not being happy at work, so I'm not even sure I'd take me up on it unless I framed it in such a way like "boy this other team is doing some cool stuff, can I help out?"

Something about the asymmetrical power relationship makes me very careful to not harm myself with my own actions: and having been fired once in a humiliating way really opened my eyes to how bad things can go if the person on the other end wants to be cruel.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> This article really hits the nail on the head. my first job out of college I was working for a big firm where I was bored. I kept getting told I was an exceptional engineer and was on a fast track for becoming a senior engineer. I was barely twenty two. I moved to a new job six months later where I was constantly challenged and learning new things and I couldn't have been happier.

<comment><USER9> i have a similar story, my first real company after college was a great place when i started, and then it seriously stagnated... i stayed 5 years in all, but in the last year i had no active project, just minor maintenance tasks... people were also getting laid off left and right as well..

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> > _The reality is that someone is going to tell you they're bored quietly and > when you least expect it. They'll tell you halfway through your 1:1 and they > won't use the word bored. They'll say something innocuous like, "…and I > really don't know what to do next," and you're going to blow right by the > most important thing they've said in a while because you're worried about > your next meeting._

I see a parallel between this quote and a supervisor or co-worker stating some other co-worker "doesn't understand", which when translated to cold, honest English becomes:

"[co-worker] is antagonistic, aggressive, rude and stubborn. I do not want to confront [co-worker] regarding this issue because I want to avoid the hostility that will be thrown back at me, you will have to deal with [co- worker]'s hostile behaviour all by yourself because I am a stinking coward and want to brush this problem under the carpet."

</comment><comment><USER11> His post from today, "The Diving Save" [1], is also quite relevant to this: how do you keep someone, once they've started to check out?

[1] [http://randsinrepose.com/archives/the-diving- save/](http://randsinrepose.com/archives/the-diving-save/)

<comment><USER12> One way is to give more interesting work and/or work that is a natural possible progression in the employee's career. That technique helped my company woo me over into staying, along with a modest salary bump (although I was seeking much more - career progression mattered a lot to me).

From a personal perspective - I've turned to the quit mentality due to boredom after my first job after not having enough to do, and at my second job I converted over after immense deadline pressure for half a year when combined with significant underpayment (extreme frustration).

The best pre-emptor would be to be proactive in addressing these problems. If your company is exerting too much pressure on developers, then you probably did a poor job hiring enough employees or incentivizing them enough - I'm looking your way startups.

<comment><USER13> > If your company is exerting too much pressure on developers, then you > probably did a poor job hiring enough employees or incentivizing them enough

I've noticed this to be a huge issue when it comes to large companies who try to defend the situation saying we are "lean" and reduce forces by "cutting the fat." I'm currently in a situation where I've become "The Guy" for two entire product lines and its gotten to the point where they keep tempting me with "You'll be on Next Generation SOON". But soon, in my eyes, will never come because I'm a single Engineer maintaining hundreds of thousands of lines of code, code that deals with an OS no one else uses, in build environments no one else uses.

What I use to think of as job security has become a pill that induced boredom.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> As with everyone else, after reading I've realized I'm extremely bored at my current situation. The one thing I'm having difficulty taking away from it all is what to do about it. I work for a big company, been here for a decade, have become "The Guy" for two major product lines and have never really had a Team. In a decade I've done two...yes two projects. Each one all written by me, application code, kernel drivers, building a root file system. Hundreds upon hundreds of hours generating thousands and thousands of lines of code. I'm bored because I'm given a project and because they will not fund additional heads (I'd love just one but really should have 3 or 4) these projects take 3-5 years to complete. The beginning is interesting but after a few months it comes down to "Implement these 200 API calls" which gets old really really fast.

At a startup there are tons of tasks to get done and not enough people so you can easily jump from one area of the company to another. Your manager can say "Joe is getting board doing X, but Y needs to be done and its completely different." But what do you do when your job doesn't have other areas for you to jump to? We have different areas of the business but at this point I'd have to take a demotion to move...or become a manager and not code anymore.

I guess I've got more of a gripe than an actual comment. And I know a lot of people post about startups and small companies where change can actually occur. Sucks that I have to give up stability to get interesting work.

</comment><comment><USER14> Seems pretty on target, though it may be too late by the time you notice a change in their daily routine (the first bullet point), as this may indicate that they've already begun going on interviews. Perhaps it's better instead to ask the employees periodically for their feedback, rather than wait until you notice a bad sign.

<comment><USER15> And when they give you their feedback, listen. They may only tell you once.

<comment><USER16> Or, if they worry about getting laid off, they may not tell you at all.

<comment><USER17> Yep, lots of people work for little people at BigCo.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Agree with this post, but would go further: if someone feels that they are not contributing in a way commensurate with what they _think_ they should be able to contribute, then the reason- whether they are bored or not, and it is their fault, or someone else's, or no one's fault- they will be unhappy. Challenging is not as important as fulfilling.

</comment><comment><USER19> My problem in my old job was due to boredom. But it was more than that - I was bored and management didn't really take heed of what was wrong despite the feedback that I have been giving at my annual performance review (where I did extremely well) and monthly meetings with the line manager. Even if I had the education and work experience with certain projects, politics ("X's department is doing that") and That's-not-your-day job-isms" got in the way. So in the end, I got bored and quit.

</comment><comment><USER20> I'm so bored I've been unemployed all my life</comment>


Two megapreachers defend their private jets - <AUTHOR> https://boingboing.net/2018/10/01/watching-these-2-megapreachers.html <comment><USER2> Having just returned from the Monaco Yacht Show, I can firmly state that need is a very subjective word.</comment>


Ask HN: What are some psychologically interesting interviews or documentaries? - <AUTHOR>

My scope here is wide. I've enjoyed interviews with Jim Morrison, Charles Manson, and other unusual people of various unrelated walks of life. Documentaries on Jackson Polluck, Mark Borchardt, and others have been interesting as well.
This link enumerates much of what I'm looking for - people or cultures which, whether because of delusion or some other cause, are entirely different from my experience: http://www.listal.com/list/weird-weirder-weirdest-documentaries
Cults are good. Strange artists like Pollock or Morrison are as well. Anyone who has been subjected to bizarre circumstances would probably get my mind churning.
Thanks. <comment> vezzy-fnord _First Transmission_ , 1982. Just as mysterious and unsettling today as it was 33 years ago.</comment>


Ask HN: What do you want most from webmail? - <AUTHOR>

Webmail has been the same old for too long. What do you wish your web mail had?
Even better spam filters? Absolutely no ads?
And, are you already happy with what you can do with IMAP across all of your devices? <comment><USER2> Gmail was a huge step forward from Hotmail/Yahoo. People went from 4MB storage ad-riddled sluggishness to massive storage AJAX interface awesomeness.

Unless you have ideas that are as big as that you probably shouldn't bother stepping into the ring. The product quality bar is very high and so is the lock-in for email (Yahoo/Hotmail are still bigger than Gmail).

<comment><AUTHOR> Yahoo/Hotmail are still bigger? Thanks for the eye-openers. I'm passionate about helping people communicate more easily so if I discover a way to make email more efficient for my generation, I'll step into the ring!

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I love Gmail's filters.

Labels/folders, no ads would be awesome, IMAP (and Push) is exceptional.

I'd like to see everyone implementing Gmail's "conversation" layout but not taking it to other level—making email look like chat, that is.

Plus, I'd like the feature to export all of my emails from one account whether it's Gmail or Yahoo, etc.

<comment><AUTHOR> This is good. You like Gmail. What one better feature would entice you to leave Gmail. Only no ads?

<comment><USER4> Gmail has ads?

Enticing the average HN reader and enticing the average Gmail user are two different problems.

And it already has great spam filtering and minimally-intrusive ads that people have learned to ignore.

<comment><AUTHOR> I know, you are right. My mission isn't to revolutionize email itself but to revolutionize how people message people online. Not by email. By messaging.

Email only sites like Gmail probably won't last in a world where a high percentage of your contacts are on your social network of choice. I want to be that social network and I want to offer a better way for people to message each other.

<comment><USER4> Communication is a deeper problem than email. It's not something you will single-handedly solve, but there is a lot of room to do good work in this area.

"I want to be that social network" - if that's your sole strategy, you're screwed. You need to start smaller than that.

Build a tool which lets users do more for less effort and it will be easy for them to adopt. Worry about penetration from there.

<comment><AUTHOR> More for less effort. Got it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Batch delivery, except for urgent messages. I like to get my email like my snail mail, all at once.

</comment><comment><USER6> upvote/downvote emails.

<comment><AUTHOR> Sounds like a really intriguing idea but why? What exactly do you want that up voting to do for you?

It could be a way to ensure that emails from contacts with higher votes are prioritized. Is that it?

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> upvote/downvote emails</comment>


Ask HN: Which websites actually have a useful search that Google can't beat? - <AUTHOR>

Everybody uses Google, Bing, DDG, or some other search engine.  But are the search giants as ubiquitous as they seem?  I think there's a great value to individual sites' search features, mainly because they go beyond the grasp of GoogleBot.
There was a post recently about Google's main competition being Bing.  I think that's entirely untrue.  I think their main competition is the long-tail of search that they simply don't have the dataset to compete against.
Here are sites that I can recall using the search feature, and it actually being useful:

  - Wikipedia (half the time I use Google, though)
  - SearchYC
  - Urban Dictionary
  - BTJunkie
  - <USER2>
  - <USER3>
  - <USER4>
  - <USER5>
  - <USER6>

 What sites do you find have a useful search feature? <comment><USER7> Bing's travel search is the best in the Biz as far as I'm concerned.

Wolfram Alpha is phenomenal for certain types of queries. I find their results for companies pages to be so cleaner and more intuitive than either Google or Bing's.

I think there are huge openings for competing with Google and Bing when focused on a specific niche. Google's revenue per search query in the US is $0.12.[1] And, I know I"m getting frustrated with their search results, and I find myself using multiple search engines for different types of queries.

There's tons of room for competition in this market, and I don't know why more startups aren't taking advantage of it.

<shameless plug>

This is the reason that we're turning <http://Newsley.com> into a search engine for economic and financial news. The news sections of Yahoo Finance and Google Finance suck IMHO. We're trying to make financial news search suck less.

We're focusing on building our index and results pages like crazy right now. We're currently indexing the Economist, NYT Business and BBC Business[2]. Bloomberg News should be online this week.

After getting Bloomberg online, we're going to focus on getting the alpha version of our search released.

We're making our results pages available as soon as possible, however, so we can start building a bit of organic search traffic to our site even before search is released. So far, it's worked great. Since we started releasing those pages 6 weeks ago, our traffic has tripled.

In the meantime, each one of the keywords or tags below each article leads to the results page for that specific term. Feel free to click around.

</shameless plug>

ref:

[1] [http://dondodge.typepad.com/the_next_big_thing/2007/05/why_1...](http://dondodge.typepad.com/the_next_big_thing/2007/05/why_1_of_search.html)

[2] <http://newsley.com/crawl_stats>

<comment><USER8> What are the particular queries where you've been frustrated?

<comment><USER7> I'm finding Google less and less useful for queries about specific programming problems.

I'm finding myself going to DDG and Stack overflow for answers to those problems first, just because I don't have to sift through results from crappy forums or Experts Exchange to get to answers for my specific query.

I do prefer Google results to Bing's results for those topics, because I can query Google groups, which also tends to have higher signal::noise ratios.

As I said, Bing has Travel search down pretty cold as far as I'm concerned, and I travel quite a bit. That may well change since you guys bought ITA, which provides Bing's data. Brilliant move, btw. I do use <http://matrix.itasoftware.com> a ton after a quick overview search on Bing because of the domain specific language that itasoftware lets you use on your searches.

Amazon does much better for shopping and product search. My first inclination these days is to go to Amazon and look for a product. If the price seems reasonable, I have Amazon prime and the product gets shipped to me for free in 2 days, or I can spend $4 and get it shipped next day.

I found myself living over at Edmunds.com when I was searching for a used car to buy two months ago.

I think that the results from Wolfram Alpha on company financials are much better laid out than Google Finance or Yahoo Finance. I'm much more likely to use Wolfram than GOOG or YHOO to get an overview of a companies financials.

I think there's a lot that can be added when it comes to financial news search, which is why I'm building <http://Newsley.com>

Looking for recipes on Google pretty much sucks. I'd much rather go to the Food Network.

The reason that I think you guys are hurting at times in search results, is because your mission is to categorize "all the world's information". So, you're approach is to pull in as much information as possible, and then sift through and sort though what's important.

If a site takes a semi-supervised approach like DDG or provides search over a specific silo of curated content like Stack Overflow, then I think you guys are going to be hard pressed to compete.

And on a certain level, it doesn't make sense for you guys to try and compete with sites like Edmunds.com or Stack Overflow. You guys are looking for niches that can provide the next $0.5 Billion to $4 Billion in revenue. Small verticals like programmer searches, recipe search, financial news search etc... aren't really going to be worth a huge investment for you guys to dominate.

<comment><USER9> umm..what's DDG? (yes, I googled it)

<comment><USER10> <http://duckduckgo.com/>

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> LinkedIn. Try asking Google for a list of all the Ruby developers who went to Princeton and live in New York City.

<comment><AUTHOR> I did, and it let me straight to your post.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> stackoverflow is useful? they have one of the worst search engines I've ever seen. If you are looking for anything more specific than "Javascript" you are going to have a hard time finding good results.

if I need to find something on stackoverflow, I just go to google and do a site:stackoverflow.com

<comment><AUTHOR> I personally hate typing out the whole "site:stackoverflow.com" before my query. But you're right, it is better.

<comment><USER13> If you do it often just make an alias for it in the browser.

<comment><AUTHOR> True. But that won't solve the problem for everybody. I will solve the problem for everybody.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Standard search engines can only help you find results to a search query you can put into keywords. Often I want to ask the question "Am I missing something important about X?" and that cannot be translated into an effective search query.

We've built resourcey.com trying to tackle this problem. That is, <http://resourcey.com/site_details/2/news.ycombinator.com/> is the answer to "Am I missing something important about Hacker News?".

This is a different form of search queries we couldn't find a way to get results for via standard search engines. If you think this functionality can be somehow produced by a standard search query, do tell.

<comment><AUTHOR> This is great.

Right now, there are not too many metadata websites out there. Your site, AboutUs.org, Alexa and ilk, moreofit.com and ilk, and comment aggregation like BackType and UberVU, are all that come to mind when I think: "I have a URL, what can you tell me about it?"

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Newegg. The Power Search, in particular. I find the ability to specify certain features for a product extremely useful. The guided search is also nice to quickly narrow down on more common criteria.

For example, here's the video card power search: [http://www.newegg.com/Product/PowerSearch.aspx?N=100007709&#...
It allows you to specify manufacturer, port types, memory/memory type, chipset, etc. When I'm just starting to look for a new part or device being able to narrow down the list that way is very helpful.

<comment><USER16> This is interesting though, Newegg has to change the standard search box to something more guided to be useful. I think most sites have too little content for a visitor to find anything useful with a search box. In these cases a directory or tag system is a much better solution. Some exceptions to this are web applications where users are looking up content they created on their own.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Often at database-like sites, where I can get a list of something in a selectable category that matches a particular term. For example,

IMDB can give me a list of all TV series / films / etc. with "Hobbit" in the title: [http://www.imdb.com/find?s=tt&q=hobbit](http://www.imdb.com/find?s=tt&q=hobbit)

Musicbrainz lets me search by track name, album name, artist name, etc.: [http://musicbrainz.org/search/textsearch.html?type=track&...](http://musicbrainz.org/search/textsearch.html?type=track&query=I+Am+the+Walrus)

<comment><AUTHOR> MusicBrainz is nice. Thanks for sharing.

<comment><USER18> And is community built, so please contribute your CD listings.

I don't have any experience with their audio file (MP3, AAC, etc) fingerprinting, but I can tell you it's a great experience to pop in a freshly purchased CD and have MusicBrainz find it. I know that experience comes from some other kind soul having input the CD, so I try very hard to make sure I do the same.

<comment><USER19> >I don't have any experience with their audio file (MP3, AAC, etc) fingerprinting

I do, via the desktop program [Picard](<http://musicbrainz.org/doc/PicardDownload>). It really works well for properly tagging mp3 files (and renaming files to fit the tags) -- once they know the tracks. That often isn't the case with obscure, new releases. But you can't win them all. It's a program that's really worth using.

<comment><USER20> Maybe it would be possible to identify tracks not known to MusicBrainz by uploading them to Youtube and seeing who sends the automated takedown notice.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> TinEye (<http://www.tineye.com>): a 'reverse image search'. You upload or link to an image and it finds you other copies of that image on the web. This is something you absolutely can't do via google, and is surprisingly useful, for example to find uncropped or pre-photoshopped copies of images.

</comment><comment><USER22> Whaaat? Wikipedia's search sucks (at least it sucked last year, when I last used it). Now I use a Google search with the site specified to get Wikipedia pages.

To answer the question, I'd have to plug my own startup, <http://historio.us>. It's actually made bookmarking viable, for me.

</comment><comment><USER23> I use Google for finding most pages with information on Wikipiedia, and I am a Wikipedia editor who has read three whole books about how to use Wikipedia. Wikipedia's search usability is a disaster compared to using Google to search for Wikipedia pages.

</comment><comment><USER24> amazon.com (their focus on products that they sell makes their suggestions almost perfect).

</comment><comment><USER25> I think Yelp is a good example. When you're looking for a local business, you have a category/search term in mind, as well as a location. The single input field in Google search is awkward when trying to fulfill this need.

</comment><comment><USER26> More structured queries that those that main search engines offer. For example: kayak, travelocity, etc. Bing bought out farecast for this reason. These kinds of queries can't be done easily if the only input a user can provide is in one text box. That isn't to say that web search engines could tackle these areas, but they wouldn't have as much of a head start in the technology.

<comment><USER27> "flight to LA", "hotel room in New York next weekend", "metallica san jose tickets" etc. will return structured results, in both Google and Bing, soon I feel.

Google bought ITA and Bing bought Farecast for the purpose of getting direct access to this data. Since they can't web crawl this type of data, I would expect more acquisitions and/or licensing deals - such as the deal with Twitter.

Google has a decent foundation already with queries such as 'population of london' '<movie name>' (which shows local theatre times) and 'weather 94000' etc. Full list here:

<http://www.google.com/landing/searchtips/#helpcenter>

<comment><USER26> Those queries don't even begin to give enough information.

Flight to LA from where, when, how long, economy/first, what times of the day, etc.

Hotel room in New York next weekend which days, smoking or not, upscale or not, which part of new york, which new york?

Metallica san jose tickets are closer and could generally get you the venue's page that will then ask which showing, which seats, how many tickets together, etc.

<comment><USER27> Google would use all the information it has to make assumptions about defaults to display. When you click-through to the site to make the booking or to drill in further you can specify the details.

eg. 'flight to LA' can show :

      SFO -> LAX  Tod  Tom  Wed  Thu  Fri
      Orbitz      $187 $210 $299 $330 $450
      Travelocity $200 $350  -   $89    -
      United.com

etc. etc.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Newzbin. Bespoke C in-memory search engine with full substring matches and loads of metadata to play with, indexing data Google has no interest in.

I may be biased, since I wrote half of it. Funny seeing it turn into some kind of zombie :/

</comment><comment><USER29> Mainly White pages, when I need to find same phone numbers, but for the other stuffs I can think only at very specialized info like publications where google is not a good enough choice.

StackOverflow is a good example for this, I can usually reach what I was searching for in it with from a good google query.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for sharing. Do you have URLs for the aforementioned White Pages and specialized publications?

<comment><USER29> Is this a joke? ;-)

Well, in Italy we have "pagine bianche": a<http://www.paginebianche.it/index.html>

Which is simply the translation of white pages: <http://www.whitepages.com/>

Regarding specialized pubs, its a long time I don't use one, but this list seems fairly complete: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_academic_databases_and_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_academic_databases_and_search_engines)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> For audio software -- <http://www.kvraudio.com/get.php>

</comment><comment><USER31> Google's search engine is good, but not necessarily the best. For small datasets, I am using Apache's solr. Google's custom search doesn't produce as great results. solr is also highly scalable. read about it here: <http://lucene.apache.org/solr/>

<comment><USER31> just wanted to point out that this is not a website but a tool to implement for your own website...

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> The startup I work for will let you do queries using units of measure and price filters in the query string. For example:

<http://www.shopwiki.com/LCD+TV+%3E43%22+%3C%241000?sb=1> (LCD TV >43" <$1000)

<comment><USER33> [http://www.google.com/search?q=LCD+TV+43..100+inch+%240..%24...](http://www.google.com/search?q=LCD+TV+43..100+inch+%240..%241000)

<comment><USER34> I looked at the results, and I found that Google has some problems parsing content. For example "50in TV $1200 after $500 discount" gets included because Google assumes $500 is the price.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Every single forum search engine, ever. Google is awful for that, the tools just arnt up for the job.

<comment><USER8> What, in particular, are you looking for when you search for forums? Example queries and the tasks that generated them would be most helpful.

There is a fair bit of data on forums that is not exposed in the UI, simply because no frontend engineer has had a chance to look at it. I'm a frontend engineer, I'm potentially looking for a new project or some 20% work, and so examples of where Google isn't quite working right are pretty helpful to me.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> lxrs are a good example of a kind of search that google can't replace yet: <http://mxr.mozilla.org/search>

i also find <http://koders.com> to be useful

bing video search has lots of advantages when it comes to showing and previewing results. (and google video search sucks)

for places photos i always use panoramio search. (compare their results to google images)

Google Blogs search has been completely replaced with twitter search.

and i use thepiratebay.org to search for torrents. (but only backups of things i own :))

</comment><comment><USER37> In addition to the travel search engines that have been mentioned, I'd include Hipmunk.

</comment><comment><USER38> The best way to search StackOverflow is definitely using Google. site:stackoverflow.com

That's one of the first ways I will refine a search about a programming topic these days, but no need to use stackoverflow.com search.

</comment><comment><USER39> Considered as a separate site, Youtube is actually #2 in search volume behind Google and ahead of both Yahoo and Bing.

Craigslist and Facebook are both in the top 10 search engines.

<comment><AUTHOR> Where can I find a list of the sites with the highest search volume?

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> eniro.se is much better for looking up people or companies in Sweden (basically yellow and white pages). I'm sure all countries have some sort of local equivalent.

</comment><comment><USER41> I'd say Torrentz for a torrent search engine.

<comment><AUTHOR> Why are you being downvoted? Sites that have useful searches was exactly what I asked for. Thank you.

<comment><USER41> Hmm I don't know why. NP

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> iStockPhoto - semantic, allows for moderately easy refining

</comment><comment><USER43> PHP.net

</comment><comment><USER44> Intranets

</comment><comment><USER45> NZBMatrix.com</comment>


What makes the camp and darcs VCSs unique - <AUTHOR> http://projects.haskell.org/camp/unique

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm not sure I like this approach. What's to say that the changes in line 4 don't really depend on line 2? I'd rather make dependency more explicit with some mechanism like feature branches.</comment>


Introducing Google Cloud Key Management Service - <AUTHOR> https://cloudplatform.googleblog.com/2017/01/managing-encryption-keys-in-the-cloud-introducing-Google-Cloud-Key-Management-Service.html <comment><AUTHOR> I work on Cloud KMS at Google, AMA.

<comment><USER2> How long until Google shuts this service down, yanking the carpet out from under everybody who uses it? What are my options if that happens? Is it open source so I can self-host it? Or are the API's at least published as an open standard so alternative implementations can exist?

<comment><AUTHOR> While I understand the rationale for the meme (I, too, was a Google Reader user), I think you will find that Google's ongoing support for Cloud APIs is robust. Any potential cloud platform customer has to decide if they want to depend on a service or control everything themselves; there are tradeoffs either way.

Cloud KMS doesn't implement an open standard (there aren't a number of good open standards in the space, KMIP is probably the only candidate I'm familiar with), but use of the current functionality shouldn't be very hard to port to some other API. (Although, given the dependency on keys, etc., this may not apply to moving any reposed data, that's fundamentally more challenging.)

[repeated disclaimer: I work on the product]</comment></comment></comment>


An individual-level pandemic simulation in Python - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/AshtonIzmev/covid-19-pandemic-simulation <comment><AUTHOR> Hi, author here

I wanted to have a low level SEIR model to play with in order to control individual/geographic behavior. The raison was that here in Morocco, the lockdown has not been uniformly respected especially in popular neighborhoods. This is a modest python attempt to model the pandemic with specific lockdown removal scenarios.

I have been also trying to scale it to more than 100k individuals but it seemed quite infeasible without a graph approach using only numpy/dict objects.

Hope you enjoy it :)</comment>


Favorite scientist? - <AUTHOR>

Who is your favorite scientist?<p>(We are building a new tool for scientist: http://bohr.launchrock.com) <comment><USER2> Varies by the day.

Dicke is a perpetual candidate.</comment>


Ask HN: Best way to learn Java? - <AUTHOR>

I'm looking to learn Java and need a resource that is preferably not a thick and verbose book. I have experience with Ruby, PHP, Go, JS etc.<p>What have you guys used or found to be good and interesting? <comment><USER2> Honestly, its the same for all programming languages. Just find a project in that language and start coding. I feel like the best way to learning programming languages is the same as human languages, organically.

</comment><comment><USER3> Find a project to work on and look up things on stackoverflow when you need to figure out something.

</comment><comment><USER4> If you're fine with online video tutorials (not just books), a Coursera class "Algorithms" uses Java <coursera.org/course/algs4partI>.</comment>


Comparison Between iOS, Android and Windows Phone Sales - <AUTHOR> http://lesmond.net/2011/04/3-months-in-comparison-between-ios-android-and-windows-phone-sales/

<comment><USER2> Tough he makes some valid points, I don't think that having just his one app makes for a valid argument.

How were the apps marketed differently on each platform?

What are the release dates for each platform?

Here is a link to the iTunes web entry for the product [http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/plane-finder- free/id361273585...](http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/plane-finder- free/id361273585?mt=8)</comment>


Shuddle (Uber for kids) is shutting down tomorrow - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2016/04/14/shuddle-the-uber-like-service-for-getting-your-kids-around-is-shutting-down-tomorrow/ <comment><USER2> > News of the shutdown comes by way of an email sent to customers this > afternoon, and it all certainly seems pretty sudden — they'll cease > operating at the end of tomorrow's business day.

A service to get your kids to and from school shuts down with 48 hours notice? That's going to cause a few headaches, and unfortunately is a great reason to not become an early adopter making such a business even harder to get off the ground. Shame, seems like it would fill a useful niche.

<comment><USER3> You don't usually get that much notice when the _school_ is unexpectedly unavailable. Whether that's a snow day or (as we're currently experiencing in Edinburgh) catastrophic building problems.

<comment><USER4> Because those things can't usually be predicted in advance. There's no way that Shuddle thought everything was fine until they suddenly realized they had to shut down in two days. They knew this was coming, and they kept it from their customers, who now have to scramble to get their kids to school.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Great service. Sad to see it go. I used it every week.

For people asking, another difference between Shuddle and Uber (as I understand Uber) is that you could schedule your Shuddle rides in advance, and be confident a driver would come at the appointed time.

</comment><comment><USER6> Did they spend the $9.6m series A already? The CEO is apparently a cofounder of Sidecar and has experience in investment banking and at a VC firm. Maybe they're bleeding money and realized in today's climate they'd never be able to raise again, and so decided to return whatever is left under pressure from his friends/investors.

<comment><USER7> The founder stepped aside and brought in an outside CEO in November. Not sure how that affected their fundraising chances.

You'd need some awesome growth projections to raise a Series B on what looks like less than half a million in lifetime revenue!

[http://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/Shuddle-Uber- for...](http://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/Shuddle-Uber-for-kids- service-reaches-end-7249450.php)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> What exactly was the logic with this company? It feels like a fundamental misunderstanding of the Uber business model, which thrived on the constant demand and ubiquity of a market. It also, frankly, is cashing in on people who uber when they know they'll be drinking. That's a giant slice of the market that, for obvious reasons, kids won't be a part of.

It seems like it would be tough for a "Shuddle" driver to make a lot of money, during the limited hours when they'd be needed.

<comment><USER9> The logic is that some parents will happily pay a premium to not have to drive their kids everywhere, but below a certain age they won't entrust them to random Uber drivers.

You seem to think that a driver can't do both Shuddle and Uber, but I don't see why that wouldn't be the case. During peak kid hours, they pick up Shuddle rides. When they don't have those, they do Uber, Lift, delivery, or one of the many other things you can do with a car and a cellphone.

<comment><USER10> When you think about it though, it seems like a feature of Uber or Lyft. Just pay an extra fee for extra vetting for sensitive rides where the passengers need extra attention (maybe it's a monthly subscription?).

<comment><USER5> You'd think, but Uber and Lyft aren't doing it.

<comment><USER11> But it's somewhat probable that they could (given their mission), and that's what makes this risky.

And even if they don't do it themselves, I imagine that uber will eventually release an API of sorts, allowing anyone to tap into their logistical network.

The food delivery startups faced similar risks, it'll be interesting to see how they fare now that uber eats is gaining momentum

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I invested in this company. I love the idea and the founders. Startups are hard.

<comment><USER13> How does a company that has made $1.5M revenue and is growing 50% in the last 6 months go out of business? Raise too much money? Inaccurate business plan? Wishful thinking about future funding to provide economies of scale? Lack of due diligance by investors?

Not trying to be confrontational or rude, just genuinely curious.

<comment><USER14> unit economics

I would make 1.5m in rev so fast if I gave each of my customers $1 for $.90!

<comment><USER13> That's always the risk with a business plan like this. Uber seems to have a similar business model, but the difference is that Uber is an easily scalable business that has become a household name. Investors are happy to keep throwing money at Uber until they have taken over the world, and then they can worry about profit. Not every business is going to be an Uber, so it's a big risk basing your business plan on requiring constant injections of cash until you become a billion dollar business.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> So, maybe now parents can talk directly to drivers they got to know through the app and cut the middle man

</comment><comment><USER16> [http://www.hopskipdrive.com/](http://www.hopskipdrive.com/)

<comment><USER14> oh geez...if only you knew why the new COO from Uber was fired you would not be promoting this company that clearly did not do a reference check.

<comment><USER17> can you elaborate?

<comment><USER18> his comment is #2 on google when searching 'uber coo fired' and its only been 20min. so 2 takeaways:

1\. google is damn impressive

2\. he is probably just trying to stir shit

<comment><USER19> Don't you hate it when you Google for an answer to your problem, find a promising StackExchange post, and it's your question you asked a few days ago and there are still no answers?

<comment><USER20> Obligatory xkcd: [https://xkcd.com/979/](https://xkcd.com/979/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Very sad. I intended to use this service one my child became old enough to do so.

<comment><USER22> As a user of uber since they were founded, and a father of three, I was super exited to start using shuddle, but I could only do so for my eldest child. (My younger ones are below their requirements)...

But I had planned on using them.

Uber should buy their whole fleet and their drivers.

I WILL use a service like this. I will be sad to see it not exist...

<comment><USER14> I mean do you really believe the background checking was much better than Uber's? What exactly do you think was actually different? Seems like optics to me.

What if Uber gave you the option of a female driver/highly rated tenured driver/female tenured driver?

Just curious what'd make you actually feel better about leaving your kids in a stranger's car.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> this really sucks. i was looking forward for my kid to turn 8 in a few months to be able to use this service daily.

</comment><comment><USER24> Uber works for kids and provides the same guarantee as the rest of society– none!

<comment><USER25> If only that were true. Uber doesn't allow unaccompanied minors to ride. Lyft has the same rule.

<comment><USER26> The taxi company that I drove for required kids who were less than 12 years old to have a fingerprint-cleared driver, or to be accompanied by someone over 12 years of age. One time I did get a group of siblings who needed to get home from school, and the oldest one was 11. I asked, and learned that it was an exception that a manager in dispatch allowed to go through.

Some of the teenagers' case managers [foster care/etc] specified that their drivers also have a fingerprint clearance. I'm not entirely sure what the criteria was.

Parents in most cities can certainly contact a local taxi company and arrange for their kids to be hauled around by fingerprint-cleared drivers.

<comment><USER24> Cool story, meanwhile Uber and Lyft drivers just look the other way. Works really well

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I'm surprised at the reactions. Are parents really that cavalier about putting their kids in some random person's car and entrusting them to some random person's driving habits?

<comment><USER4> What, you mean like a bus driver?

Also, "Shuddle's main pitch point was their focus on safety: They did intense background checks on drivers, monitored drivers to ensure they stayed on route and didn't speed or text while driving and offered real-time ride tracking to parents."

<comment><USER28> Turns out to be a school bus driver takes a little bit of work: [http://www.wikihow.com/Get-a-School-Bus- Driver's-License](http://www.wikihow.com/Get-a-School-Bus-Driver's-License)

<comment><USER4> Indeed, and so does being a Shuddle driver. It's not (wasn't) the equivalent of trusting your kid to some random cabbie.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Google is now officially evil - <AUTHOR> http://www.businessinsider.com/google-is-now-officially-evil-2010-9

<comment><USER2> The only thing I can figure out is a small company no one has heard of is bitching that Android uses Google services for maps and direction finding and stuff like that.

Except Google makes this service free to all, Android is Google's distro, and Google's service is higher quality. Did I also mention its free?

Whats the deal here?

<comment><USER3> This case seems to be about whether Google can insist that devices carrying the Google trademark actually include particular Google programs. Specifically, can Google require Motorola to ship Google Maps as a condition of Motorola's use of "with Google(TM)" branding?

Maybe it's like Bob's Booze complaining that Bacardi has pressured Thirsty Time Beverage Co. to use Bacardi rum in the "Thirsty Thursday Party Punch with Bacardi(TM)" drink. Bob wants to make a deal with Thirsty to use his company's rum as a key ingredient in the punch. Suppose Thirsty Time always uses Bacardi's filtered water as an ingredient; can Bacardi insist that Thirsty Time also ship its famous rum as a condition for TT's use of the Bacardi brand name?</comment></comment>