Show HN: Vidfit – get free webcam personal training session by subscribing - <AUTHOR>

Hi,
We are Vidfit a brand new fitness startup that will change the way we exercise. Subscribe on our website and get a free workout when we launch! See below some more information about us.
Name: Vidfit - www.vidfit.co.uk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lp8x5SpYApo
Elevator pitch: Vidfit is 1-to-1 LIVE webcam personal training. You can search, book and execute a full tailored personal training session while you are on a business trip, holiday or you simply you want to exercise in the comfort of your home. All you need is a PC/laptop/tablet, webcam and internet connection. More details: 2 co-founders, finished the testing stage and about to launch in the end of June
Looking for: Subscribers & early adopters
By visiting www.vidfit.com and subscribing you will get a FREE Vidfit training session when we launch! <comment><USER2> > By visiting www.vidfit.com and subscribing you will get a FREE Vidfit > training session when we launch!

www.vidfit.com [http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-9hMdL0JEzRY/VTtbg8xbVeI/AAAAAAAAAO...](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-9hMdL0JEzRY/VTtbg8xbVeI/AAAAAAAAAOk/f5fhZbGel-0/s1600/Screen%2BShot%2B2015-04-25%2Bat%2B11.13.55.png)

Don't do these despicable mistakes.

<comment><USER3> it's ".co.uk"</comment></comment>


Moving towards a faster web - <AUTHOR> https://blog.chromium.org/2019/11/moving-towards-faster-web.html <comment><USER2> Google Capone: "Hey, nytimes.com, your site loads awful slow. We're gonna have to put this badge of shame on it for everyone to see.

Now, if you just dumped your other ad networks and ran everything through us, I bet it would be load much faster and that badge might magically disappear..."

<comment><USER3> > Now, if you just dumped your other ad networks and ran everything through > us, I bet it would be load much faster and that badge might magically > disappear...

My experience with everything google has touched lately suggest that this wouldn't improve speed any. Gmail and youtube make continental drift look speedy and even the search page takes 1.4MB and takes over a second to load for me (maybe corporate network issue), that's approaching the size of doom to display a dozen links.

Google doesn't have any moral authority when it comes to bloat.

Edit - for reference HN takes about the same time to load, but that has to cross the pacific ocean whereas google supposedly has local data centers.

<comment><USER4> The only PC where I saw Gmail being fast was a Ryzen 9 3900x build, I suspect that if Google devs were given shittier PCs they'd build faster products that would appeal more to the average user.

<comment><USER5> I run a Core i5-2500K from 2011 and Gmail runs just fine. Far better than Thunderbird or Outlook ever did, but it does take a lot of memory.

<comment><USER6> I have a Google-issued corporate workstation with 64 GB of RAM and 12 cores. Gmail is really really slow. Like so slow that I if I have to refresh it I'll go get coffee. But I'm on Firefox, and so "I Am Not The User" and all that.

<comment><USER7> IMO the best way to use Gmail is to open and pin it, only load once a day. It seems optimised for this use case.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I'm trying to fully understand it.

So if I'm in a site that is loading slow, Chrome will tell me "this site is loading slow". which is almost like putting a sign in the middle of the ocean, "you in the ocean". Like, a person should notice it on its own, right?

Ok, I understand they mean to tell me that it's slow loading due to the fault of the site, and not due to (let's say) my bad internet or device. But I think that most people don't understand those kind of technicalities, and don't really care to know them. I see it, as someone else put here, a "badge of shame".

Moreover, it's kind of regulating the internet. No one gave Google the mandate to regulate the internet.

There are two other problems with this "speed above everything else" approach. First, what is fast depends on how the browser parses websites, so one website can be faster in Firefox but slower in Chrome, and still get a "badge of shame". There's no standard here afaik (perhaps I'm wrong).

Second, the internet is supposed to be a place of equality, where kids, experimental artists and businesses all get the same respect and treatment. But businesses websites are obviously going to be faster, they got the professional technical stuff to ensure that, making the other second-rate internet citizens.

<comment><USER9> If Google didn't own AMP then I might be less critical of this change. But they do, and I bet they don't rate any AMP pages served from the Google cache as slow.

They're determined to make AMP the de-facto way of publishing content and this feels like just another way of making AMP more appealing.

<comment><USER10> I haven't seen an AMP page for quite some time, it seems that strategy is pretty much a failure.

<comment><USER11> I still see them quite a lot on my iPhone 8... and it's very annoying

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> This reads to me as an attempt from Google to further balkanize the web. This looks a lot like the "blue bubbles" effect from Apple iMessage.

Did Google run out of actual features to implement? How about reacting to real user concerns such as controlling the privacy of their personal data on the web? Rhetorical question, I know...

<comment><USER13> Speaking as a real user, let me assure you that website speed definitely falls under real user concerns. I don't know how much I'd use this indicator, but loading speed matters to me. Loading speed matters _a lot_.

This won't win me back from Firefox, but I don't consider it a bad move.

<comment><USER14> Then demand for smaller sites, nothing will make for a faster web if web pages are larger than operating systems from just a few years ago. do you know how ridiculous it is to have web pages that are tens and hundreds of megs?

The issue is not with the browsers, it's with the damn stupid sites out there. 3G is pretty much useless out there, let alone 2G.

<comment><USER15> This is an attempt by Google to influence the bloated websites out there, rather than a browser feature intended to attract users. It's probably mildly helpful as a user to know if a site is slow (as opposed to it just being slow for you), but it's a big incentive for a website owner to speed up their site if this badge of shame appears it for a majority of users.

<comment><USER16> Except of course unless it's one of Google's sites...

[https://developers.google.com/speed/pagespeed/insights/?url=...](https://developers.google.com/speed/pagespeed/insights/?url=gmail.com)

Gmail scores a 50% on Google's own PageSpeed. And that's just the login screen. If Google can't even meet their own metrics and standards then they have no place telling other people what they should be doing with their websites.

<comment><USER4> > If Google can't even meet their own metrics and standards then they have no > place telling other people what they should be doing with their websites.

The fact that they are failing their own if anything, shows that the tests don't discriminate. It's defeatist to say that we shouldn't strive for faster websites if some webpage fails. I really like how dumb f __*s making 40MiB pages are now finally punished.

<comment><USER17> Yes, but Gmail doesn't really have to compete in Google Search, does it? So, in their eyes, it's OK for Gmail to score low because it has its own link in basically every navigation toolbar/header Google owns. This won't improve the speed at which Gmail loads, whereas all non-Google websites _will_ have to improve their speed.

<comment><USER15> It's not that Gmail has a dominant position and so doesn't need to care about its rating - Gmail is an app not a page and it's less important for apps to load quickly than pages. Apps tend to be long lived and so a slow startup time is tolerable, whereas one is constantly opening new pages.

That is to say, I don't think e.g. Trello would really care if their site was "slow to load" either.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> The multitude of comments here scream the same thing:

1\. No one trusts Google to be an impartial judge of speed.

2\. Increasingly, Google is inserting itself as a non-neutral third party between the end user and creator/developer. Power lies asymmetrically with Google, and threatens both creators & users.

If anyone from Google is reading, this incremental but definite appearance of a power grab by Google will only draw more regulation

<comment><USER19> I mostly agree, but more regulation means higher barriers to entry which would suit them. It's win-win.

We should really just stop using Google so much. You go first, I can't be bothered to switch!

<comment><USER20> _> but more regulation means higher barriers to entry which would suit them_

That's a recently very popular idea, but in this general form it is simply untrue. It depends on the specifics of any regulation.

We can regulate oligopolists in a way that doesn't affect anyone else.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> While I appreciate fast loading sites as much as anyone, there's something I appreciate even more: getting to the content as fast as possible.

It's becoming increasingly common to have all sorts of pop-ups blocking a big part of the screen at best or adding an overlay across the entire body.

If only I knew that my click would result in that kind of monstrosity I wouldn't have clicked in the first place. So maybe it would be more useful to show an of how many things we need to close before we get to the content. I think that something like this would also help get us to "a faster web".

<comment><USER22> So many sites load 8MB of garbage, often from dozens of domains, just to display 8KB of text. Then as soon as you try to start reading, an obnoxious pop-up window appears, demanding that you sign up for their spam list. These are anti-patterns that need to go away.

<comment><USER23> If Google actually gave a damn about making the Web a better place, it'd start downranking sites with mailing list popups.

<comment><USER24> I thought they did? Some years ago they (and/or Mozilla) offered an addon which you could use to report popups like that - [https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/in-page- pop-u...](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/in-page-pop-up- reporter/) comes up.

But so far, nothing's been done yet. This is kinda weird to me because one of the reasons why Firefox came to power (and took over a bit chunk of IE's market) was that it had a pop-up blocker. I don't understand why they aren't doing more to block inline pop-ups now.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> It's crazy how misaligned the incentives are for chrome development.

If performance was the criteria by which they made decisions then they would probably bake ad-blocking directly into chrome, since ads/tracking is one of the leading reasons for poor performance.

Instead we are left with PR pieces and false features. It feels like they are creating a lot of noise to drown out the signal.

<comment><USER26> > ... ads/tracking is one of the leading reasons for poor performance.

That's especially obvious when using nested VPN chains and Tor. Because latency can exceed 500 msec. Sites like HN typically load in a second or two. But sites with ads and tracking take 10 seconds or more.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> I appreciate the intent, but why are they putting badges/indicators like this into Chrome instead of Search?

Sites usually load slowly because because of ads and trackers, and Chrome's only telling me what I'm already seeing with my own eyes. Plus, I already decided to visit the site, and it's probably quicker to finish letting it load than find an alternative source, if one exists at all.

Whereas Search would seem _much_ more useful, since it's where I'm already presented with _alternative_ links, and can actually affect which one I click.

I know Search already says they de-rank slower sites... but obviously they're still appearing, especially for the "long tail" of searches. So badges still seem like win there.

(But the whole concept is sound, I think, because developers often want to build fast sites but management won't dedicate the resources. But if management sees Google is giving them a big red mark, that's suddenly something very easy for them to understand and allow to be fixed.)

<comment><USER28> from the article: "We are building out speed badging in close collaboration with other teams exploring labelling the quality of experiences at Google."

We're hearing about this first from Chrome, but that doesn't mean it will happen in chrome first. I suspect that badges of shame will come to the search result pages long before they actually show up in chrome. Say what you will about google's policies, but the chrome team is really pretty good about announcing this sort of thing well in advance. Look at their multi-year rollout schedule for the "not secure" badging in the URL bar.

Search results, on the other hand, will just update one day with no warning.

<comment><USER29> Right, I think they're using Chrome as a testing ground for this.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> This kind of effort sounds great, but the issue is that Google has already spent their goodwill on improving the web in this area. Who can trust the company to implement this fairly? Will Gmail get a "badge of shame" (it surely deserves one)? Will websites that are fast but don't use AMP or the new Google hotness be ranked as they should? There are a lot of questions that I'm sure many have already answered in their head based on Google's past efforts.

</comment><comment><USER2> _Our long-term goal is to define badging for high-quality experiences, which may include signals beyond just speed. We are building out speed badging in close collaboration with other teams exploring labelling the quality of experiences at Google._

Exactly what does "high-quality experiences" mean? Penalize sites with bad colors? Sites that are artsy and an algorithm can't understand? Sites that have been repositories of information for longer than Google has been around? Sites that don't meet Google's worldview? That disagree with Google's politics?

<comment> rlv-dan "Quality" should be reserved for the content and its usefulness. Speed is not a quality factor. It's a convenience.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> To me this is better than amp - give me clear messaging around a site's performance rather than mandating a platform that gives the site less control. I certainly worry that there's the potential to abuse this, and I also wonder if Google's own sites (i.e. amp pages) will be biased. To their credit they're showing one of Google's own pages as being slow in the example, but I'd be interested in seeing a 3rd party analysis of what pages are considered slow and which aren't.

Another part of me worries that this will lead to a cobra effect[1], where people optimize a page's first load so Chrome says the page is fast, while withholding the main content of the page for a delayed load, leading to even more site bloat. Identifying when a page has actually loaded will be tricky.

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

<comment><USER32> See my other comment about how our metrics are designed to capture various milestones in the loading experience. I think it's already harder to game a good Performance score than you might imagine, and it's only going to get harder over time as the web platform collectively gets better at metrics: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21511477](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21511477)

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> I prefer Firefox's way of "moving towards a faster web" \- blocking trackers.

<comment><USER34> Indeed, it's so much more effective and it has immediate real results.

Also: it's not a "police state" approach. Google loves a good police state.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> This will give developers leverage to ask for time to optimise, upgrade, and improve things they are not normally allowed to work on, as it will raise the discussion to the level of managers and the general public.

However, do you think more could be done to make the default MySQL/PHP type configurations faster out of the box? If it is possible to speed up the default config of most websites on the internet, perhaps there is an easy win to be had.

<comment><USER36> > However, do you think more could be done to make the default MySQL/PHP type > configurations faster out of the box?

I'm pretty sure that most slow websites aren't slow because their server-side rendering takes a long time. This seems to be mostly a front-end oriented thing (especially directed at pages that load MBs of JS); basically if the page doesn't adhere to all the front-end optimisation guidelines.

<comment><USER37> The slowness described in the article isn't jank, but time-to-initial-load. Conceivably the initial client-side render could take a nontrivial amount of time, but in the vast majority of cases - just like for server-side rendering - it isn't a deciding factor.

The real deciding factor is the amount of dependencies that have to be loaded. This includes JS, but usually the JS for ads/tracking is far larger than the JS for the actual UI, even on fully client-side-rendered sites.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> One of the regular complaints I've pushed against AMP is that it's a hamfisted way to address page speed. Search placement should be determined by generic speed tests, not by forcing developers to use Google's technology.

This looks to me like a positive effort. I'm not thrilled with overlays like this, and I'm not thrilled with baking this kind of stuff into the browser. It feels over-engineered and weird.

But, I think it's a better direction than AMP.

There are a lot of ways this could go bad, but very cautious thumbs up from me.

</comment><comment><USER39> I hope they won't whitelist their own pages from this. Maybe then they'll notice Google's own products have a performance problem.

<comment><USER40> Gmail

Loading...

Usually loads _slow_.

<comment><USER41> I think the "Usually loads slow" warning shown in the article is grammatically incorrect. Shouldn't it say "Usually loads _slowly_ "?

<comment><USER42> Came to say this. It seems as though a browser of chrome's scale ought to spell-check before cutting a release?

<comment><USER43> I'm going to be a little nitpicky here: This would be grammar checking, not spell checking. "Slow" is spelled correctly, it's just not the right word (adjective vs adverb).

This also seems to still be in the experimentation phase and is not released as far as I can tell and may never actually make it into Chromium based on:

> In the future, Chrome may identify sites that typically load fast or slow > for users with clear badging. This may take a number of forms and we plan to > experiment with different options, to determine which provides the most > value to our users.

Regardless, I agree. This probably should've been caught early.

<comment><USER44> Maybe they used adjectives instead of adverbs because it's both ad-words and they can no longer feel the difference.

<comment><USER41> Your comment about "ad-words" made me think: could Google sell ad space on these "slow site" pages? Site X might jump at the chance to pay Google to advertise its service on site Y's slow site page. I'm only half-joking.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> Generally, I can tell when a website is loading slowly because it, well, takes a long time to load.

Am I misunderstanding what Google is trying to do? I'm not seeing the use case.

<comment><USER46> Erm. How do you tell that before you click?

<comment><USER2> The screenshot in TFA shows a Google slow site warning _after_ a link to the site has been clicked.

<comment><USER46> Ah. I hadn't actually looked at TFA.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> The best way to have a faster web is to get rid of Google Analytics, DoubleClick, AMP, "web assembly", WebDRM, ECMAScript (and all derivatives), and go back to only loading text and images from a blind server to a user- agent entirely defined by the wishes of the specific user.

But all the stuff that makes the Web slow and pointless to use is how Alphabet makes money.

So as long as you drink the Google-Aid, you're doomed to a slow web of garbage.

<comment><USER48> Webmail was terrible back when every single click required a fetching a new page load. Even on a reasonably fast DSL connection, JavaScript Gmail is noticeably more snappy than HTML Gmail.

Pre-ajax online maps? Almost unusable. I certainly wouldn't want to return to those days.

<comment><USER47> Yes, because you're asking a client for text and images downloaded from a server to do things it was never intended to. When you start employing torturous misuse, you're going to find the tool unsuited to the job. You can use a pipe wrench as a makeshift hammer, but a sledgehammer can't tighten a nut (more than once).

Use an email and newsreader for email. Use a full mapping suite to download specialized map data. Don't force a web browser to shim into those niche jobs.

Old adage I learned with computers: Do One Thing, Well. That's what each program should be. One thing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> Pages are made of 30 sites, more. This is what makes the experience shit, and Google are bang up responsible. The architecture of the web did not, and does not, include this - the business model that is sustained by it exploits the web, it does not support it.

</comment><comment><USER50> > Your website seems slow, try speeding it up with AMP today!

<comment><USER51> I used to hate AMP with my guts. But to be honest, usually when I tried to avoid or loaded the site instead of AMP, I get presented with a worse experience in a bloated web-site, whereas when I click on the AMP version, it loads immediately. So now I don't care anymore. But google is not my main search engine, so I less very little of it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> Third-party calls are one of the main reasons for slow loading sites. These calls include loading Google Fonts, loading Google Analytics and loading Google's DoubleClick advertising scripts. Remove these calls and scripts, and websites get so much faster.

Edit to add some stats:

94% of sites include at least one third-party resource.

76% issue a request to an analytics domain.

Median page requests content from 9 unique third-party domains.

Google owns 7 of the top 10 most popular third-party calls.

[https://almanac.httparchive.org/en/2019/third- parties](https://almanac.httparchive.org/en/2019/third-parties)

</comment><comment><USER53> I feel like this will get a lot of flak from HN users, but I think this will overall be a benefit to the user experience on all browsers, not just chrome.

</comment><comment><USER54> I'm on a slow connection. This page took a good while to load.

100kB of JS, 100kB of fonts. The images get a pass.

There's jQuery in there. It's a blog post. wat?

Just send me the text.

</comment><comment><USER55> This page doesn't contain any body text unless I run their Javascript. Is that supposed to be faster?

</comment><comment><USER56> Maybe Mozilla can add something like this to Firefox, but for websites that break when using adblockers.

</comment><comment><USER57> The web is already pretty fast if you don't put too much stuff into your webpages.

<comment><USER58> :)

Yeah, pretty much. If web sites would stop stuffing these giant js frameworks pages + 3 trackers + 3 ad networks into all page we could be using like iPhone 4 now.

</comment></comment><comment><USER59> I hope they roll out good monitoring tools for website owner for these features - i.e not a tool to test your site but a tool to tell you what google reports to it's users about the site. Otherwise you can be fooled by running lighthouse against your local server and never see the "this site loads slowly" message...

</comment><comment><USER60> This is just another attack on the open & free internet. Why so? Since Google defines per their own metrics fast vs slow, they will imprint that impression upon the user, making an otherwise good willed user a starting bad impression on your site.

As people pointed out, this will make AMP even more attractive, driving more traffic away to Google...

Also, it may impact sites hosted on cheap far datacenters, like my user being in Brazil, and my server being in Virginia. Suddenly, my site is considered slow by Chrome, while my _rich_ competitor who hosts in São Paulo gets the "fast" badge...

I think this kind of classification creates extra confusion and impact at no tangible benefit to everyone that isn't Google.

</comment><comment><USER61> Can someone explain the point of this for the user?

As a user, I already know if the page is loading slowly.

<comment><USER62> You might not know why. Is it just a slow site, or is your connection failing you?

</comment></comment><comment><USER63> You know, I've noticed that most things load just about instantly with ad blockers.

</comment><comment><USER64> Blue checkmarks but for websites. A merit badge for playing by the biggest boys' rules.

</comment><comment><USER65> If it's just a simple display to the user saying "this website generally loads slow, dont worry", I'm ok with that, I often wonder whether some sites are just bloated or it's my internet connection.

</comment><comment><USER66> Who watches the watchmen?

<comment><USER67> Mozilla?

</comment></comment><comment><USER68> Isn't this just going to reward the facebooks, amazons, etsys, pinterests and all the other websites that stole the users attentions away from homegrown sites... even more?

</comment><comment><USER69> Ad blockers speed up the web quite a bit!

Pity about that for Chrome, hey.

</comment><comment><USER70> There's a concern over pushing AMP & their ads. I totally get that, but so far the recommendations that they link to aren't directly related to either:

       % curl https://web.dev/fast/ 2> /dev/null | grep -I amp
                   Terms & Privacy
                 </a>, and code samples are licensed under the

</comment><comment><USER71> How does Google know which sites "typically load slow for users?" Is this collected via Chrome telemetry or is there another mechanism?

<comment><USER32> [https://developers.google.com/web/tools/chrome-user- experien...](https://developers.google.com/web/tools/chrome-user-experience- report)

</comment></comment><comment><USER72> So how does this work? Where does Chromium get the data for the websites which load slow? Does this mean that websites which one visits get sent to Google now? Or do they use the existing SafeBrowsing queries to also send page load times? What are the implications of this for tracking?

</comment><comment><USER73> I'm a Web Performance guy so moves such as these benefit my business. Despite that - I dislike this heavy handedness by Google.

\- What speed metrics? \- How would they be gathered?

If Web Performance was so single dimensional to classify it in this way, it would have been solved a lot better by now.

</comment><comment><USER74> I understand why using an anchor tag is not always technically correct, but I don't see how wrapping something like an image in a button is the right thing to do, for an onclick event.

</comment><comment><USER75> I'd appreciate if DuckDuckGo would implement this kind of speed badge to their search results. Never going to assume Google would even consider it as they sell the things that make sites slow in the first place.

<comment><USER76> Rather than play offence, play defence.

Come up with a "privacy" or "non-tracking" badge.

Identify free-standing / independent / non-AMP sites.

Note simple and JS-free designs, or graceful degredation.

Well-formed page structures (microformats, HTML5), lack of obfuscated elements (JS, CSS), accessibility.

An open and distributed Web index standard.

Pretty much all of these are generally useful, and disadvantageous to Google.

</comment></comment><comment><USER77> > We... hope to land on something that is practically achievable by all > developers.

There are a LOT of people who have websites that depend upon software that they don't directly control, best example might be Wordpress users with plugins. I myself have built a number of hobby websites that I just don't have time to figure out how to update based on Google's recommendations. For example, according to PageSpeed I need to "Serve images in next-gen formats" and I just don't have the ability to do that now (underlying image processing libraries don't support it) without a serious time commitment.

So I'm worried that a lot of smaller sites that don't have the resources to keep up with Google's requirements are going to get a "badge of shame"..

<comment><USER78> > I just don't have time to figure out

[https://developers.cloudflare.com/images/about/](https://developers.cloudflare.com/images/about/)

Also Chrome doesn't collect or aggregate performance data for sites without a decent amount of traffic. They are not going to label your hobby sites as slow as there is not enough data to do so. [https://developers.google.com/speed/docs/insights/v5/about#f...](https://developers.google.com/speed/docs/insights/v5/about#faq)

<comment><USER77> Yes, exactly, I don't have time to move tens of thousands of images to Cloudflare, update the image upload code, change all of the links, etc.

I think you are also underestimating the number of hobby sites that are the primary source of information for their niche and have decent traffic, many of them running Wordpress with tons of horrible plugins. Yes, I know, not ideal. But these people don't have many alternatives.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER79> We need some proper anti-trust action here. Split chrome from google.

<comment><USER80> We have to prove some sort of monopoly, but looking back at Microsoft Windows and Internet Explorer should give some legal framework.

</comment></comment><comment><USER81> Disable JavaScript in your browser. There, the web is much faster :)

</comment><comment><USER82> I just had to reboot my work computer today because chrome practically wedged it by pushing everything into swap (or whatever Microsoft calls it.)

The web gets a _lot_ faster when you dump JavaScript.

<comment><USER83> Or just dump Chrome...

</comment></comment><comment><USER84> It's like we need some sort of indicator or progress visualization. Something that will show the user were the page is in terms of loading and rendering.

</comment><comment><USER85> How will this work in corporate environments with intentionally slow web proxies (decrypting TLS traffic, etc)?

</comment><comment><USER86> Whats the point of colorizing the load bar? If I see the bar, don't I already know its slow?

</comment><comment><USER87> what i m seeing with these "safety badges", "lightning icons", "green thumbs up" are attempts by google and apple to control the web the same way they control their app gardens. i m hopeful that they can't though.

</comment><comment><USER88> Ironically, the linked web.dev/fast page took way too long to load for me.

<comment><USER67> web.dev also seems pretty broken with Firefox's built-in tracking protection enabled. Ho hum.

</comment></comment><comment><USER89> Google does this while at the same time making a heavy framework like this [https://bundlephobia.com/result?p=@firstname.lastname@example.com](https://bundlephobia.com/result?p=@firstname.lastname@example.com) . This is not fair. This is abuse of power.

</comment><comment><USER90> Now would be a good time for alternative news aggregators.

</comment><comment><USER91> This is great news for the anti-trust case.

</comment><comment><USER92> Just use Safari or Firefox

</comment><comment><USER93> Reddit is going to earn this so fast lol

</comment><comment><USER94> " Our long-term goal is to define badging for high-quality experiences, which may include signals beyond just speed." My speculation is that they are gearing towards web moderation. Tag sites that don't agree with their world view as "potentially harmful". This could make an average chrome user immediately balk at opening the site and reading the content.

Before you downvote my comment explain why the above scenario is not plausible.

<comment><USER95> Google search has defined itself by being the way people access the web, and already has heavy antitrust pressure put on it but the EU for related reasons. Extending that would go against their stated world view, and more importantly raise even more regulatory concerns.

This situation differs from eg. YouTube because they do not themselves host the content, and are not subject to copyright laws related to it.

Also: Google is made of human beings who have already protested against, for example, censoring Google within China.</comment></comment>


RIP: 15 tech companies and products that bit the dust in 2018 - <AUTHOR> https://venturebeat.com/2018/12/27/rip-15-tech-companies-and-products-that-bit-the-dust-in-2018/ <comment><USER2> There sure were a lot of google and facebook products on that list. I wonder what the success rate of google/facebook in-house created products is vs the market as a whole.

Also, another interesting question: what is the start up success rate in recent years vs years of past? My intuition based on all the stuff I've been reading over the last 10 years tells me that the success rate of start ups is decreasing, especially for software only startups (ones that are just innovating "bits rather than atoms" \- avc.com quote.): it just seems overly saturated, or perhaps most of everything that can be done with the current opportunities has been done.

<comment><USER3> 2 out of the 3 Facebook ones were acquisitions. It seems Zuck is the new 800 pound gorilla, when he sees a threat to Facebook he buys them: WhatsApp, Instagram, the 2 companies there. And I guess if you own it, you're free to shut the whole thing down...</comment></comment>


Ask HN How much do you spend on lawyers? - <AUTHOR>

With a Bootstrapped company, every dollar counts, and it seems like legal fees are a never ending money pit.<p>Beyond the basic requirements of doing business, what do you pay lawyers to do, and how do you keep it affordable? <comment><USER2> I imagine you are talking about the US. Just to show the EU side of things. I have been in business (around 10 businesses; most of them sold) for over 20 years now, I have been threatened with lawsuits over 500 times in that time. But the legal system in the Netherlands works in such a way that you won't gain anything on either side, so threats almost never pan out to real cases.

A few of them did and in total I spent a few E100 on them in 20 years. Here, even if your ToS or disclaimers and whatever suck, there is not really money to get. A lawsuit is lost money wise for both parties. Which I like. I can just say; bring it on, whatever they are saying. Which usually is a good deterrent.

Thought I would say this here as the US seems quite the opposite. I cannot imagine the feeling defending yourself for $10k+ to some troll. Your hard work punished by some moron with deep pockets and no morals. Seems like a horrible way to be; I would always incorporate here and have a sibling company in the US, all contracts stating that Dutch law applies and that any suits have to be fought out in the court of Utrecht, NL.

</comment><comment><USER3> I had to spend $300 for an hour of my attorney to have him review my ToS, and he found that I had copied/pasted a Creative Commons ToS from another country that was using phrases & terminology that wouldn't hold up in the US, and advised that I redo it all because it wouldn't hold up in court. So I was glad to have hired him to learn that.

The company folded before I had to hire him to rewrite it though, otherwise I would've spent another $600 on another 2 hours of writing & revising a new ToS.

<comment> rush-tea when you use a lawyer to draft your ToS, then if your company is sued because of ToS that the lawyer provide, is the lawyer for any lawsuit that comes with the ToS? and lets say if your company lost a lawsuit due to ToS, who will be liable for it? and who is going to pay the damage or settlement?

I am thinking it's the lawyer who may have to pay because your company paid the lawyer to draft the ToS and he was not competent if such case happens. But I am not sure, hence the question.

Thanks.</comment></comment>


Show HN: App that makes time travel possible - <AUTHOR> https://timeboundapp.com/ <comment><USER2> The all caps was painful to read. I'd reconsider.

<comment><USER3> there's also a kickstarter page [https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/278795341/timebound- the...](https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/278795341/timebound-the-app-that- makes-time-travel-possible)

<comment><USER4> the video on kickstarter is hilarious

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is a fantastic idea, and I love the approach it takes to merge the real world with creative storytelling. While it's easy to get excited about things like VR to relive past events, it's very cool to see folks utilizing simple, existing tech in a clever way to create a more visceral understanding of the past.

</comment><comment> rm_-rf_slash As cool as it looks, realtime updates - to me - takes away from the unique place in time that these events occurred.

If you wanted to know what was going on in WWII, you'd turn on the radio or walk to the newspaper stand to pick up a copy of The New York Times.

If you wanted an update on the Spartan stand at Thermopylae, you'd have to wait for the message runner to reach town and catch their breath before you'd get the news.

Maybe I'm too much of an immersive gamer to buy into the idea of Timebound, but I would much rather experience "the past" in the ways that the people themselves experienced it, or else I come away with a distorted projection.

</comment><comment><USER6> The Times did this via email for World War I. It was kind of fun for a few weeks, but then I lost interest and it turned into spam. I'm also not much of a history buff, so maybe not exactly the target market.

[http://ww1.thetimes.co.uk/](http://ww1.thetimes.co.uk/)

</comment><comment><USER7> If only this were android I'd back it and even sign up for the beta package on kickstarter right away. Sadly ios with no mention of android :( Looks cool though, repost when there's android..

<comment><USER8> Hi! This is Misha from the Timebound team. Thank you for pointing it out. Android will be available in late May, once the app is released. It's only the closed beta that's available for iOS, but the campaign is for both platforms. We will make it more clear on our Kickstarter page.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> It's a great idea, but I found the Kickstarter page way more informative.

</comment><comment><USER10> Really cool idea (though .. no Apollo 13?), but MY GOD does the typography on the webpage suck. I couldn't even read the whole page. I hope the app has better-considered design!

<comment><USER11> I actually went into the CSS to try to turn off uppercase (seriously stop using it) and it turns out all the text is an image

:|

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I prefer olduse.net. In 30 years will any of your blogs or walled garden comments still be available?

<comment><USER13> Depends if github / git is still around I guess [https://github.com/divbit/blog](https://github.com/divbit/blog)

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Best for historical geeks

</comment><comment><USER14> wow! what a great idea!

</comment><comment><USER15> looks interesting

</comment><comment><USER16> this is so cool.

</comment><comment><USER17> wow:)</comment>


The Deep, Dark Invisible Web - <AUTHOR> http://tastethecloud.com/content/deep-dark-invisible-web <comment><USER2> I don't mean to bitch but that site is just a pain to read. However, one of the source links, <http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1454163> looks pretty interesting. Or at least the abstract does.</comment>


Ramaze: a Ruby framework that will amaze - <AUTHOR> http://antoniocangiano.com/2008/01/08/ramaze-a-ruby-framework-that-will-amaze/

<comment><USER2> I personally installed Ramaze on my Ubuntu box. And I must say it's very light weight compared to Rails. I mean you don't even have to generate controllers via the terminal. You can just write it down on your favorite text editor and Ramaze.start then off you go. Well that is you have to use the terminal to start Webrick to run the Controller. But there doesn't seem to be any auto magic behind it. Which is good cuz I myself prefer to structure the app according to my own tastes.

<comment><USER3> For what its worth, you certainly don't have to generate a Rails controller from the terminal. Its just a convenience method.

A question though: Several times throughout the article it talks about how Ramaze is not like Merb. However, based on the things they've said, it sounds a lot like Merb. (ORM agnosticim, for instance) Does anyone know how they actually differ?

<comment><AUTHOR> The way I see it, Merb is an implementation of Rails from the ground up- it appeals to Rails users and follows very similar conventions as far as configuration, directory structure, support for REST and included helpers (form_for, input_field, etc like in Rails)

Ramaze, on the other hand, is very Ruby oriented in its implementation- it follows KISS and POLS religiously. It does not force any convention on you, you are free to choose your own directory structure and there's no configuration files involved.

Ramaze allows you to write an entire web-app in one file (see <http://source.ramaze.net/source/examples/facebook.rb> and <http://source.ramaze.net/source/examples/ramaise.rb>), which is not possible with Rails or Merb. Merb is great for RESTful applications and handles content negotiation very elegantly (with a simple 'provides :json, :xml' in your controller).

<comment><USER2> Agreed I love Ramaze's approach. And yes Tyler I agree with you on the terminal bit, my bad on that comparison. The point is that it's loads more fun to code in Ramaze as opposed to Rails. And I hope alot more people try it out too.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I like the idea of this a lot. Being ORM agnostic is a real win in my book.

</comment><comment><USER5> Now this is interesting.</comment>


Animated RNN, LSTM and GRU - <AUTHOR> https://towardsdatascience.com/animated-rnn-lstm-and-gru-ef124d06cf45 <comment><USER2> Is there a GIF for this:

[https://arxiv.org/abs/1808.03867](https://arxiv.org/abs/1808.03867)

[https://towardsdatascience.com/the-fall-of-rnn- lstm-2d1594c7...](https://towardsdatascience.com/the-fall-of-rnn- lstm-2d1594c74ce0)

<comment><AUTHOR> Do you mean the attention module?

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> I created GIFs for us to understand these recurrent neural networks. Do let me know if you have any feedback!</comment>


Show HN: Sellsword, a tool for switching application environments - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/bryanwb/sellsword

<comment><AUTHOR> This tool is similar to the excellent awsenv [https://github.com/michaelcontento/awsenv](https://github.com/michaelcontento/awsenv), but different in that it can be used for multiple applications. It is also different in that it is primarily written in a fully-featured programming language rather than Bash.</comment>


Boxie, the story gathering robot - <AUTHOR> http://boxie.media.mit.edu/ <comment><USER2> As a former journalist, I found the camera to be a constant source of problems, immediately inhibiting my subjects from opening up.

I had never appreciated the power of anthropomorphizing the capture device to help people interact directly with it.

<comment><USER3> Documentary filmmaker Errol Morris' (creepy) solution to the camera problem is his (patent pending) _Interrotron_. Something like a cross between a teleprompter and a two-way mirror, the Interrotron lets the interviewee watch the interviewer's face while talking into the camera.

[http://www.errolmorris.com/content/eyecontact/interrotron.ht...](http://www.errolmorris.com/content/eyecontact/interrotron.html)

Diagram: [http://www.whiterabbitdesigncompany.com/Miscellaneous/images...](http://www.whiterabbitdesigncompany.com/Miscellaneous/images/Interrotron.html)

<comment><USER4> Quite some time ago I went through Morris' first person interview series. Very interesting stuff but also very odd characters. Especially the Murray Richman episode stuck with me as one of the very view interviews that I still can remember years after watching it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> "Untitled document" as title... way to go. :/

Still a cute robot collects stories... unbelieveably cool!

<comment><USER3> > _"Untitled document" as title... way to go. :/_

It's an artistic statement! ;)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> It's really interesting to see people engage with an inanimate object as if it were a person. I think it's the adorable voice and the "face" (such as it is) which does it.</comment>


Tesla's SolarCity gamble has gone wrong - <AUTHOR> https://om.co/2019/09/12/teslas-solarcity-gamble-has-gone-wrong/ <comment><USER2> The article in question is from weeks ago and was already discussed on HN here[1] and here[2]:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20796290](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20796290)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20799594](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20799594)

</comment><comment><USER3> Is there an actual link to the article in this blogspam I'm missing? It says "worth a read", but I can't find anything to actually click on.

edit: Googling the author mentioned's name I found [https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/08/how-elon-musk- gamble...](https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/08/how-elon-musk-gambled- tesla-to-save-solarcity)

<comment><USER2> No kidding!</comment></comment>


Show HN: Elevatr - <AUTHOR>

http://techcrunch.com/2013/05/10/elevatr-is-a-mobile-first-tool-for-startup-business-plan-creation/ <comment><USER2> Main Website: <http://elevatr.com/>

TC Article: [http://techcrunch.com/2013/05/10/elevatr-is-a-mobile- first-t...](http://techcrunch.com/2013/05/10/elevatr-is-a-mobile-first-tool- for-startup-business-plan-creation/)

I'm glad I stumbled upon this as it solves a problem I never even thought about fixing. My ideas are currently all over the place.. in Evernote, Notes.app, random text/markdown files and random bits of paper all over the office..

Gotta say I love the UI and I like how it forces me to think about the big questions - I've realised that by answering some of these questions early on I can filter out the ideas that probably won't work out.

My first thought was "This would be a great way to mine and steal ideas" so I went to check your privacy policy but unfortunately it's currently returning a 500 error.

Support for other devices / a web app would be a great addition too!

</comment><comment><USER3> I think you should update the link to go to either the main website or the techcrunch website. Most of us are very fast clickers and are not going to waste time having to select, copy and paste. ;)

<comment><USER2> This comes up a lot - if you use Chrome there's an extension I use to help with that: [https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/select- it/fdhjbnho...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/select- it/fdhjbnholnoanipellgioennnjmipnol)</comment></comment>


Ask HN: How does your startup handle customer support? - <AUTHOR> The startup I'm part of has seen significant user growth over the past year. As we get more and more users on the platform, though, our time spent doing customer support increases.
Our current system is to have everyone, from the CEO to developers, do some customer support tickets. We're reaching a point where doing customer support is taking away too much time from our "normal" jobs.
How did you handle customer support in the early stages? Was outsourcing necessary, or was hiring a dedicated customer support employee or employees the way to go? <comment><USER2> How many total hours per week is your team spending on customer support? Is it 20 or more? Hire a dedicated support person or agency, even if they're part time.

Do you still want everyone else to have skin in the support game? Figure out how much time per week it's reasonable for each other member of the team to spend. Have them plan to spend 15 min per day on followup emails. Then schedule dedicated hours for each person to be on call for support so that they don't have to worry about being interrupted all the time but you still have coverage.</comment>


Basecamp Employee Handbook - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/basecamp/handbook <comment><USER2> Under parental leave;

> You may also choose to take an additional 8 weeks leave unpaid. Note that > this does not guarantee your employment. We're simply keeping your job open > for an additional 8 weeks, unless your position becomes redundant.

Is it just me, or does that sound a little harsh? (Maybe I'm used to UK workers rights) Isn't this exactly the reason why many parents don't take the parental leave they probably should? ie that they fear they will become obsolete simply from not being in the office...

<comment><USER3> This is curious considering DHH's involvement in Basecamp and how often he espouses European ideals. You'd think they had a year of maternity and paternity leave.

<comment><USER4> 50 person companies can't as a rule guarantee year-long parental leave; that's just not realistic. They can do their best to make it work, but no company of this size in this kind of market can make promises like that.

<comment><USER5> "Employees at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the largest private foundation in the world, will be able to enjoy up to one year of paid time with their newborns during the child's first year after birth or adoption starting next year." \- Business Insider

<comment><USER4> The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation can promise a lot of things that a 50 person competitive startup can't reasonably promise.

<comment><USER6> Also, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation does not make a profit...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> _Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) Allowance

Fresh, organic, local fruits and vegetables are great to have on-hand, so we'd also like to offer a CSA membership to you. Finding a local provider will be up to you, but you can expense the cost of a seasonal or annual CSA share as an employee benefit, up to $1,000/year._

Count that as a perk I've never heard of before.

Cool peek into how a company that works remotely can function successfully. This handbook could be a blueprint for that model - are there any other examples of remote companies publishing their internal handbooks?

<comment><USER8> I don't really like this kind of perk. Just give me the cash and I can decide what to do.

<comment><USER7> I'm OK with these kinds of quirky add-on allowances so long as the category for the add-on is positive, either for you as a person (e.g.: fitness, learning) or the local community (e.g.: paid time off volunteering, charity matching). We'd all be better off if we were a little more involved with our community, a little more active, and eating a little bit healthier, and the most common excuse for not doing these is "I don't have the time/money." If you just give extra cash how can you achieve the same effect in encouraging people to live healthier?

<comment><USER8> I exercise daily at home. Probably more than most of the people who get the gym paid for.

It's not a big deal but I wouldn't mind some extra cash.

<comment><USER9> One company I worked for had a benefit of paying up to $1000/yr for a gym membership OR up to $1000 of gym equipment for your home per year.

<comment><USER8> I guess I can get a really expensive yoga mat :-)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> > Sabbatical - Every three years, employees are eligible to take a one-month- > long sabbatical. Just give a heads-up preferably three months in advance, so > we can coordinate the work-load accordingly.

I wish this was more common in the tech industry. I know for other industries this is basically a standard thing, but it seems like many tech companies don't do this.

<comment><USER11> One-month-long? Isn't it too short for sabbatical? How is it different from vacation? I think I might not understand what they mean by sabbatical.

<comment><USER12> Most vacations, at least in the US, are 1 week in length. Upper middle class takes maybe 2 weeks. The wealthy of course take as long as they want.

I don't think I've ever had a vacation longer than 10 days.

<comment><USER13> Wow that's awful.

<comment><USER12> I agree! That's why I became an entrepreneur lol.

<comment><USER14> Then you realize entrepreneurs get even less vacation

<comment><USER12> pretty much

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I'm pretty immersed in the field of parental leave benefits in the US and UK, having setup Pledge Parental Leave www.pledgepl.org. Important to get the full perspective on the market in the US. You're taking a crap on a company with extremely progressive benefits across the board, furthermore so, one offering them at a 'meager' size of 50, where the relative cost is much greater than compared to a 'large' company.

It is very easy to make simple comparisons between UK and European standards vs US standards. The fact is that there is almost zero government funding/support for parental leave in the US. The US is the only developed country in the world without any government mandated parental leave standards.

What Basecamp offer in terms of paid leave to either parent is top tier in the US. If you take a look at Facebook, Google and others they offer close to similar benefits - [https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ibj79Eh8Cvk4Wy_dPZNc...](https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ibj79Eh8Cvk4Wy_dPZNc19894N8zcQNgYem0K4EWrAg/edit?usp=sharing)

In the US, any company stepping up in this area is doing so of its own volition and cost - again the government gives a company zero funding. In the UK, German, Sweden etc they pick up most of the tab of extended leave. In the US, the only form of support is for mothers through expensive health insurance for the 'disability' of having a child. So before you engage in moral relativism, it's healthy to get the context and the facts. Check out [http://www.pledgepl.org](http://www.pledgepl.org) if you want to clue up or help fix this situation.

<comment><USER16> Language matters in this case, especially when you're in an advocacy role.

"The government... pick[s] up most of the tab of extended leave" is simply not true. Other taxpayers - including other parents - pick up the tab.

<comment><USER15> Yes, point well made. This is how taxes work. In this case I was highlighting that the company itself does not have to cover the majority.

<comment><USER16> Sure - because that burden has been pushed, in part, onto its staff.

I know it may seem pedantic but phrases like "Government funding", "free", and "entitlements" muddy the waters when discussing the morality of policies.

Is the same as hearing "the US Government declared war on North Korea". Sounds much more heroic than it'd wind up being. At least, since Davy Crockett died ;)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Wow - they advise employees to remove all company data from devices, leave the company 1password account, disable touch ID, and put their attorney on speed dial every time they go through customs.

<comment><USER18> I don't go that far, but I do have all my hardware encrypted (MBP, iPhone, iPad) and I power these things off so that they will be unable to trivially decrypt them when I go through customs.

I wish iDevices had a thing that would let me "double click" the power button to passcode-lock the device and disable TouchID until unlocked again.

I don't use the TouchID on my MBP at all.

<comment><USER4> That's not enough: they can demand that you unlock the device at the border, including powering it on. If your battery is depleted, they'll give you a charger and wait. If you refuse, they can and will confiscate the devices. You can't outsmart them: for pretty much every major country, they're better at this than you are.

They can do all of this even if you're a citizen. In the US, citizens (and, to a lesser but still meaningful extent, LPRs) cannot be denied entry to the country. But you can still lose all your devices. You can be detained, potentially overnight, no matter who you are. If you're not a citizen, you can be detained and then sent back without your devices.

The only realistic answer is not to have sensitive data on your devices at the border at all, nor any indication of where your sensitive data is or any means of getting access to it.

<comment><USER19> I wonder if some form of push back on this would be timed release malware? its just crazy talk and all, I'd NEVER do this, but as a hypothetical since they are plugging your device(s) in to a machine, it would be possible to infect said machine, yes?

Now that's resistance.

Also: I've heard of people who just wipe their devices and then just download really really grotesque photos to their devices to gross out the employees who have to look through it.

<comment><USER4> If you want to go to prison, this is definitely a way to see the inside of a federal prison cell.

<comment><USER19> I imagine as such. Though, if its timed....could they even trace it if done right? you'd be long gone by then.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> This company publishes a handbook that puts most corporations to shame in every benefit category. So we are picking them apart for their 401k and their parental leave? Seriously!?! I don't understand HN any more...

<comment><USER21> It's always easier to identify the bad then it is to identify the good. Especially if you're coming at this from a specific perspective "This company sucks!", then you're bound to find something that doesn't strike you as excellent.

At my current company, I do not get any 401k matching, and it sucks. However, the company fully covers medical insurance for each employee and their ENTIRE family. My copay's are more then fair, and unless I end up in an emergency and I'm rushed to a hospital that's out network and it turns out that it wasn't an emergency, I have no other costs. Being married, I save thousands a year in my paycheck by not having to cover any of my insurance. Compared to the cost of my previous job, the difference is enough to fully fund my IRA which is roughly equivalent to a 4% match in my 401k which is the best any company has offered me to date. So in the end, I lost an employee match, but save $6k a year in medical insurance for my family.

It's a balance, and I can understand why people would be upset to "only" see six weeks of Paternal leave, but when you look at their entire portfolio of perks, it's amazing. It is among the best. Can they do better? Sure. Should people flay them for two sticking points? Absolutely not.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> There's a lot of good stuff here. I'm surprised about their take on speaking engagements (they're OK as long as they don't involve multi-day travel obligations). I get that you don't want team members touring talks or becoming conference tourists. But a lot of companies _want_ their employees doing speaking engagements; Matasano/NCC, my old employer, pays a pretty substantial cash bonus for every time you do that.

<comment><USER22> Is "doing speaking engagements" really a big thing in tech? I've been in the industry for close to 20 years and have never felt the need to (or been asked to) go drone on about something at a conference somewhere, or even to go attend one for that matter. I couldn't even tell you what any major software conferences are, although I'd probably recognize the names of some of them.

<comment><USER23> It seems like speaking and even attending conferences varies a lot by a developer's personality type. I've always been a fan and find it the most effective way to take in info on a large variety of topics I might not otherwise find in a very concentrated period of time. The networking and whatnot can be useful too. At PyCon it was neat to meet GvR for instance. Anecdotally I'd say maybe 20% of the devs I know pursue conferences regularly.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> For anyone interested in handbooks and culture codes, my startup, Tettra, curated all the ones we could find on CultureCodes.co. Will add Basecamp to the list soon too.

<comment><USER25> Looks like the slideshow framework you're using to iframe in the handbooks is broken; i couldn't page through any of the companies I clicked through on.

<comment><USER24> Sorry about the issue. Which company's broken for you and which browser are you using?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I find this discussion of "benefits" fascinating.

In Europe, _standard_ in IT companies (Central Europe, mind you), is:

* 25 fullt paid days (or more) of vacation every year (no need to call it a sabatical and limit it to once a three years), not including national holidays etc.

* one year of (or more) paid maternity leave (or more), while second parent gets few weeks (two at my country)

* free gym membership (so I can yoga/climb/whatever for free)

* private health coverage (in addition to the public one, if your country (most EU has)

* sickness time at least 80% paid (in most IT it's 100%)

* fresh fruits daily (I don't even mention drinks etc)

* education budget per employee (conferences etc)

Thats a STANDARD if you want to recruit software engineer here you must have.

<comment><USER27> Other than the vacation and parental leave time spans, which is mostly gov't law in many cases and not the company, that is pretty close to what it is in the USA.

<comment><USER26> Quite the opposite.

1\. dozens comments here from USA guys, treating basecamp benefits as superb.

2\. it's paid by the company in the Europe, not the govt.

3\. you seems to quitly skim over thing like unpaid sick leave in USA. It's paid in europe. This alone is a huge difference. or am I wrong and this is paid in US?

<comment><USER27> I was comparing to a typical SV tech company benefits package. I'm pretty sure your central european benefits package isn't standard for the rest of the country either.

Sick leave is usually just taking a day off and in practice nobody really cares. If your really sick then it gets covered by your disability insurance, which is pretty close to that %XX of your wage coverage.

What is your income level there?

<comment><USER26> Definitely is not 'nobody really cares'.

Adding vacation time (which is standard not only in IT) of 5 weeks plus average sicktime (let's assume two weeks in a year) that's a big _paid_ difference.

And as to the basecamp package being typical in SV: I concluded from many posts in this conversation differently.

PPP adjusted for cost of living, I suspect 20% lower on average than yours. Taking into account healthcare (priv and public), pensions, education (here is free and much better objectively: [https://blog.hackerrank.com/which-country- would-win-in-the-p...](https://blog.hackerrank.com/which-country-would-win-in- the-programming-olympics/) but also feel free to google OECD reports for EU/USA gap if you don't like hackerrank) and of course that year of paid maternity leave you skimmed over ;-) yeah it's much "different" here.

p.s. There was also a great discussion on HN about CA standard of housing and costs (rents, houses etc) two months ago. Conclusion: insane, unless you're DINK.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> > Basecamp will pay up to $100/month for your gym membership, yoga studio > membership, or whatever activity you do to stay in shape.

Is this sort of thing common? I wish my current employer did something like this. While I'm still skimming some of the documents - Basecamp sounds like a cool place to work.

<comment><USER29> I think it is often subsidized by your health insurance. But even if it isn't, it just makes sense - healthy employees need fewer sick days, and have better mental health and energy levels.

<comment><USER28> Thanks for the reply - I was just curious because currently (first job post graduation) nothing like that is offered where I work and I would take advantage of it if I got the chance.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> It's a well thought and nicely written document though I'm not sure I'd like something like the 5x12s ( [https://github.com/basecamp/handbook/blob/master/our- rituals...](https://github.com/basecamp/handbook/blob/master/our-rituals.md) )

<comment><USER31> I think the "5x12s" actually sound pretty neat. Sure, it's not work related, but it's nice to have some kind of socialization with your co-workers that isn't just focused on work.

<comment><USER32> The fact that the founders are involved as well is awesome. I'd say it really humanizes them in an environment where upper-level management could seem unreachable or distant.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> > TL;DR: Don't Travel With Work Data

> If you don't need your work laptop (or tablet/phone), don't bring it with > you!

> Wipe company data from your phone before crossing the border. Restore it > afterward.

I've heard this advice quite a few times in recent times. Wonder how useful advice like this (and the implications of this) actually is.

<comment><USER4> Can you rephrase the question? What are you wondering?

<comment><USER33> How useful is it to clean all my work data every time before crossing the border? And if I'm asked why there's no data on my system, should I say I wiped it clean? or that it's a new system? or that it's a personal system?

<comment><USER34> If you find yourself in the position of answering why there's no data on the system, I think you'd already know the answer.

It takes a pretty invasive search to come to that conclusion. (Unless your definition of wipe is like, cat /dev/zero >/dev/sda, in which case they'd probably ask why it doesn't work pretty shortly after asking you to turn it on, and then you'd get to the conclusion fairly quickly.)

I've never had to deal with an invasive search like this but I've also never gone through customs with a laptop, at all. I think this kind of policy instruction is more useful as a way of simplifying the kinds of questions that General Counsel has to answer, especially in a corporate environment where you have a lot of (nerds) extremely privacy-conscious developers.

That eliminates a whole class of questions. "What should I do if I am asked to unlock my computer by a customs agent?" Let them search anything they want to, if they have legal authority to do it. "What if I have sensitive company data on my work laptop and we've signed XYZ NDA with LMNO Company?" This question and a whole host of related questions will never come up at all if there is a policy against carrying any type of sensitive data through customs.

If you are an employee of such company and you have issues with this policy, there is a pretty good chance it's because you aren't in the habit of keeping great backups. So that's one more great reason for the company to have this policy, as that's information that you'll want to become known and have addressed some time well before it matters.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Is it just me or are their "real" benefits pretty poor?

Health Care: no vision, I assume no dental. 25% copay on the PPO is on the higher end too, no?

401K: Not matching up to max. Certainly not all companies do, but still. I guess it's rare for startups.

Equity pool: (1) What happens on year 6? You don't vest any more equity? (2) This feels to me like it would not reward tenured employees as much. If you joined the company at 10 people and it IPOs at 300, you would be diluted significantly more than if you started with 1-2% of the company and diluted at investment rounds (I know they don't like to take on investor money, but just for comparison)

Seems like if you decide to work at Basecamp, you are trading some "real" benefits for the unique company culture.

<comment><USER27> What is the difference between matching and just giving you more salary, which you could put into your 401k? Does it enable you to put even more into your 401k tax free?

<comment><USER36> You're limited to 18k a year, which many people probably hit.S So extra salary would not help. That's one reason.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> I didn't know Basecamp was behind WeWorkRemotely.com. That's cool to learn.

Evidently, they also sold it off recently: [https://github.com/basecamp/handbook/blob/master/product- his...](https://github.com/basecamp/handbook/blob/master/product- histories.md#weworkremotelycom)

</comment><comment><USER38> There's a few comments here pointing out their rules for wiping company data from devices when traveling through customs.

As a frequent international traveler, I feel naive here... can anyone point out any resources as to why this is best practice? What's on the line here, and what's going on that we need to be aware of?

<comment><USER34> Well it's probably a lot simpler than you think. If you carry it through Customs then it is subject to search. If you don't carry it through Customs then you can be searched, and you're not disclosing any proprietary company data. Easy peasy.

For any company that has external NDA obligations, this seems like a no- brainer to make legal compliance very easy. You don't want to disclose your proprietary company data, well then make a policy that says don't put proprietary company data in a position where it is likely to be subject to legal searches without any strong requirement for a warrant (probably a very short list of situations, maybe just when passing through Customs.) Now you can sign NDAs and pass through customs too, and don't worry about any potential that a conflict between the two could put you in a precarious legal position.

Customs has very broad legal latitude to perform invasive searches on a whim. (Here in the US, I don't think I even need to pass through customs to be subjected to invasive searches like this when passing through an airport.)

<comment><USER39> That makes Johnny Mnemonic sound a little less crazy.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> Is there a similar publicly available product to Shipshape? [https://github.com/basecamp/handbook/blob/master/our- interna...](https://github.com/basecamp/handbook/blob/master/our-internal- systems.md#shipshape)

</comment><comment><USER41> Anybody else surprised that their billing and identity system[1] is publically accessible (login required of course). Shouldn't this only be accessible within a trusted zone (office/VPN)?

[1] [https://billing.37signals.com](https://billing.37signals.com)

<comment><USER42> Not necessarily, Google is doing something similar: [https://cloud.google.com/beyondcorp/](https://cloud.google.com/beyondcorp/)

And of course there's many companies who use Github and various other online services for core activities.

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> Campfire seems missing from the Product Histories.

edit: filed [https://github.com/basecamp/handbook/issues/11](https://github.com/basecamp/handbook/issues/11)

edit2: and it's fixed already

</comment><comment><USER44> Everyone's going on about parental leave.

To me the big thing is 37 Signals spent years railing against companies with their handbooks and written down procedures. Calling them rituals doesn't change the fact that they have processes

</comment><comment><USER45> email@example.com - is there any risk to putting information like this "out there"?

Sounds like an invitation for a phishing attempt.

<comment><USER46> I dont understand why they wouldn't do "email@example.com" and have it be an email address that only accepts internal mail.

<comment><USER47> Because then every vendor looking at its CRM knows it just landed a whale of a customer.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> What is ShipShape @ Basecamp that is mentioned in the getting started guide regarding security protocol monitoring?

<comment><USER49> Shipshape is just a security and config audit tool that ensures that you have proper MacOS security settings (FileVault, proper password requirements, Gatekeeper, SIP, etc.) and a few other things installed (1Password, etc.).

<comment><USER50> Any publicly available equivalent tools?

<comment><USER51> Puppet/Salt/Chef.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> There has been little mention of the most amazing perk at Basecamp which are the four day work weeks for four months of the year. This doesn't mean working four days of ten hours each day. You work four normal, eight hour days and get one day off.

</comment><comment><USER53> Is the sabbatical paid?

<comment><USER54> Yes!

</comment></comment><comment><USER55> seems like it would be a pretty awesome company to work for.

<comment><USER54> It is. We're hiring for Ops, too!

[https://m.signalvnoise.com/become-the-newest-member-of- our-o...](https://m.signalvnoise.com/become-the-newest-member-of-our-ops- team-d465e4232f3d)

Looking to spread our timezones a bit more, hoping to see lots of EU/Pac applicants!

<comment><USER56> Looking at the job req, it mentions the expectation is for 5 minute response times when you're on call (from alert to being online) and that you're on call one week a month.

Is the compensation provided in line with essentially working 24 hours a day for a week once per month?

[https://basecamp.workable.com/j/A5A189B311](https://basecamp.workable.com/j/A5A189B311)

"We have a shared on call responsibility which is about 1 week (5 week days, and 2 weekend days) a month. (The responsibility means you'll be online within 5 minutes of receiving an alert.) We constantly work on making the on call responsibility as calm as we can. We try to finish what we start vs leaving it for someone else to clean up. When there is a code red event (like a site outage), we all pitch in to help until we are sailing on calmer seas again."

<comment><USER57> (I run our Ops team.) The time burden goes down with the more people we have. It's still a burden though -- and our compensation (in theory) reflects that.

FWIW We're doing everything we can to make this "work hours only" M-F, which we could solve by hiring tons of people immediately, but we also have other ideals like keeping the company as small as possible that we want to realize too.

There's an open and ongoing discussion about making improvements in this area and I'm thankful that David and Jason have been receptive to many of the suggestions I, or anyone else on our team has had.

My personal stance is that we should do everything we can to give Ops a 40 hour work week that's during regular working hours and no more, even if that means people get cut a lot of extra slack to recover after a late night page, etc. (Hopefully our team would back me up in saying I encourage people to take reasonable time to make up "lost" hours.)

(Also fwiw, I participate equally in the on call rotations.)

<comment><USER58> So you've got 6 people and want to have 8.

There's a big problem with being on call for one week out of 6 or 8: you lose touch with the procedures. Sure, your four year veterans know everything by heart - but the first few shifts of a newbie are going to be perilous. I recommend making the shifts shorter and more frequent.

Presumably one person is on-call and everyone else can be called in / woken up as necessary. So - split each day into two halves, and ask people to be on- call for a 12 hour period.

Rotate the roster around so that Jane doesn't always have the same Friday- afternoon shift, nobody has 2 shifts in a row, and put it in a shared calendar so you can always see who has the watch.

With 6 people, you'll take 2 and a seventh shifts per week. At 7, it's an even 2 shifts per week.

Benefits:

\- much less of a burden that a whole week of readiness

\- brains work better when they haven't been pummeled for a week at a time (at least, mine does)

\- easily scales fairly when you have more people, or when someone leaves, but keeps everyone in the loop. When you have 14 people in Ops, you only have one shift a week, but you get one every week.

\- much more family-friendly

OK, why 2 12 hour periods instead of splitting the day into 8, 6 or 4? Because people lose track too easily. Trying to schedule around your kid's concert or music lessons with smaller chunks is hard to keep in your head - and trying to work that in with a one week shift is nigh-impossible.

Why not a 24 hour shift? Because it's really hard to recover from that. Humans are generally awake for about 15-17 hours a day. Shifting a few hours is generally doable.

I would recommend that for anyone who took an alert call during non-core hours, you automatically expect them to take the next normal day to recover. I know that when I get woken up at 4AM, I'll run out of steam by 2 or 3PM.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Don't build a product unless you can validate it - <AUTHOR> http://pando.com/2014/01/13/dont-build-a-product-unless-you-can-validate-it/

<comment><USER2> The problem with this article is your idea isn't completely validated until people are paying for it (or just using it if your goal isn't to make a business of it). Going out and talking to people is great, getting them to commit dollars to get you to build it, even better. But the whole reason MVP exists is to get the validation that your idea is on the right track. It doesn't have to be perfect, but you get the feedback which will help shape the idea. Of course, the danger here is that the feedback becomes the form of 'it will be successful if I can just add x feature'.</comment>


45-year-old man living in hospital since age 1 is directing a 3D animation - <AUTHOR> http://catarse.me/pt/leca

<comment><USER2> For those wondering why it is in a kickstarter clone and not on kickstarter:

It is REALLY, REALLY, REALLY hard to setup a Kickstarter if you live in Brazil, in fact I found the existance of catarse.me really cool, and I am rooting for their success (specially if this shows to Kickstarter what they are losing by only using Amazon payments as platform and thus making incredibly hard to people from other countries to setup projects).

</comment><comment><USER3> Related is Ami Ankilewitz, featured in _39 Pounds of Love_ (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/39_Pounds_of_Love>), a fellow 3D animator who had a severe medical condition.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> English text is on the bottom half of the page.

<comment><USER4> <http://catarse.me/pt/leca#reward_9709>

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Cat Arse Me?

<comment><USER6> Catharsis. In Portuguese.

<comment><USER5> Thank you. The perils of domain names in a multi-lingual world.

<comment><USER6> Yes! It makes me wonder if all those good ideas I had for domain names are cuss words in other languages.

Is there a site that will check this kind of thing? And give examples of idiomatic usage?

<comment><AUTHOR> Reminds me of this app called Rego that became famous in Brazil because 'rego' means 'butt-crack' in portuguese (at least in brazilian portuguese), and the site had lines like this: "Your Rego is private. Nobody can see what you put in your Rego. But we know that sometimes you wanna share your Rego with a friend, and we make that easy!"

It was on HN a while ago: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5427798></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Samsung is wrong about TV - <AUTHOR> http://scripting.com/stories/2012/02/18/samsungIsWrongAboutTv.html <comment><USER2> Samsung is RIGHT about TV because they put Lua SCRIPTING capabilities in it.</comment>


We're on Slack, Join us - <AUTHOR> https://creativecommons.org/2016/10/18/slack-announcement/ <comment><USER2> Seems like an unnecessary inflammatory headline?

>If you want, you can still get in touch with us via IRC. We built a bridge from IRC to Slack so you can continue hanging out in #creativecommons on Freenode if that's where you feel most comfortable. We'll also continue to monitor the IRC channels for those who come looking for support.

</comment><comment><USER3> Well, the title is a bit inflammatory. Thoughts:

* I have an IRC client installed, yet never use it except in those few cases where the community I need to talk to only uses IRC.

* The few times I've had companies try to make IRC the dominant in-house private communications channel, it's failed utterly despite a lot of people signing on to begin with.

* IRC doesn't make file transfer easy.

* IRC doesn't support voice chat natively.

* IRC doesn't support integration with desktop, mobile, and _email_ easily.

* IRC doesn't keep a forever-history that is instantly available when someone connects to a channel (if it does, then my clients haven't supported such a thing).

* Companies that need to send notifications to your work group (things like Rollup.js or a continuous integration server) all seem to integrate with Slack. Not so much IRC.

* I finally installed Slack to chat with a couple of local tech communities, and quickly discovered that Slack is in fact awesome, in that it does _all of the above_.

Before you tell me how _this_ client does X or _that_ client does Y, well, I've tried several, and none did all of the above well. Even if there is such an open source client out there, well, the Slack client does the job well and everyone already has it installed.

And frankly I don't want Yet Another Chat App to install. The fewer the better. This is a domain where network effects rule.

</comment><comment><USER4> >Slack is a free messaging and collaboration tool that operates much like IRC, but allows users to have public and private channels as well as direct messages.

So…exactly like IRC?

</comment><comment><USER5> The article's title: "We're on Slack! Join us!"

The submission's original title: "Creative Commons migrates away from open communication protocols"

Per HN's guidelines [1], "please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait." This is editorializing on part of the submitter; and further, I disagree with the implied substance of the submitter's argument.

I think it's nice that they're on Slack now, because it's a platform that's popular with developers right now. They explain why they think Slack is a great choice (accessibility, familiarity, popularity, variety of supported platforms), and as others have pointed out, they are _also_ on IRC and have bridged their IRC to Slack... so this is a best-of-both-world scenario.

<comment><USER6> Thank you, we've reverted the title to that of the article.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> This is a stupid move announced in the most stupid way possible. Was it intentional? CC mission lost a lot of credibility today.</comment>


Ask YC: what to develop first, Facebook App or Website? - <AUTHOR>

Thinking about my current project, I just realized that it doesn't do anything I couldn't do with facebook - I assume anything a social network can do, a facebook app can do. So I wonder if I should create the facebook app first, and only later create a standalone website for my service?<p>And I just realized that there is no way to compete with Facebook, at least not without adding my own "Facebook Apps" feature: no matter how many features I conceive for my SN, I will never be able to add features as fast as the plethora of Facebook Apps creators out there. My only hope is that, just like me, not everybody wants to be on facebook. <comment><USER2> I've been very tempted to take the Facebook App first approach on a number of projects. Like you say, it focuses you on what the core value of your application is without being distracted by the social networking fluff around the outside.

If what you create proves to be really compelling, you should be able to convert a good portion of your Facebook users over to a stand alone version of your app at a later date.

Obviously this only really works if enough people in your target market fit into the typical Facebook demographic.

</comment><comment><USER3> The first thing that you should know and accept is that there are probably 10 other people working on the same application you have in mind or are working on.

Second, if you go the facebook route, the first app of its kind will likely be more successful--that incumbency thing. If it's a compeling app, hurry app and deploy it.

Finally, if you decide to create the website first, then your target market has to be well defined, i.e., you have a niche solution to a specific problem for a specific group of people. If it's too broad, creating the website first will not likely generate enough traction, unless you can create enough volume.

</comment><comment><USER4> For the startup I'm working on, we're going to put together a small app to take advantage of Facebook for advertising purposes - basically an optional thing to put in your profile to say "hey, I'm using this service, this is what's happening for me, come check it out."

That's part of the marketing plan though, rather than the development plan, so it's a way off still.

</comment><comment><USER5> Sounds like you've already made a decision.

Why compete with Facebook head on when you can use their market share as an advantage?

<comment><AUTHOR> Ego, pride... ;-) I am not actually a facebook user myself, I don't even like it very much.

Another concern is monetarization - even if I have more users on facebook, would I be able to earn similar amounts of money per user as with my own website?

I also wanted to get out of the dependency on big corporations. So far most things I did were dependent on somebody controlling the market. With mobile games, there was the dependency on the mobile phone carriers and established games vendors, for example. Overall I was unhappy with that situation.

I haven't made the decision yet, because I only thought about the facebook aspect today.

<comment><USER5> Zuckerburg has been pretty big on promoting favor towards facebook app's, so it's probably not as bad as cell phone development (I had a friend in the mobile games market, they just aren't as friendly as they should be).

Even if you don't get the same monetization, you're going to be able to get a lot more users by building into the biggest existing social network than having them switch/use a new one.

Even if you made 1/10th the amount of money, if you can get 10 times the users then you're still good.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Use the Facebook app to draw users to your website(where there are features not in the app, or more useably than in the app).</comment>