Don't shut down the pharmacy of the developing world - <AUTHOR> http://handsoff.msf.org/ <comment><USER2> Access to drugs should be available to everybody, on a need basis, not wealth basis. Just like health care in general (or even infrastructure), pharma research should be financed by taxes.

<comment><USER3> I think we should have both private and government financed pharma research. The approval process should be the same for both. If private pharma discovers a drug that is approved - then they should be able to sell it in such a way as to maximize their profits. If government pharma discovers a drug that is approved - then they should be able to provide it at cost.

This way we don't have to worry about new drug discovery drying up because of lack of profits, while at the same time we have a way to allow government funding for actual drugs that could be provided at low cost.

I think this private-public competition will provide both innovation and low prices in the long term.

<comment><USER4> We already have private and government financed pharma research. US alone spends around $26.4 billion each year, which do not include university founded research (that goes under education) and the other smaller incentive systems for pharma research by organizations such as FDA (which is a third recipient of government founds). Regardless, no drugs is provided at cost. Government founded research is also the primary ground work for which private pharma use, and private pharma would unlikely survive today without that core research being done for free.

But maybe government could be more return-on-investment friendly for the citizens who pay taxes and re-route some of that research founds into actually developing the end user drugs. At the same time they could create legal barriers for private pharma from using any tax funded pharma research. That would create some loud screams from the pharma lobby, and we would finally be able to say how valuable the patent supported pharma industry really is. I doubt however we will ever see such day, and patent supported pharma will continue to claim the glory while tax payers silently pays double for medicine. First through taxes and then a second time through the expensive drug prices in the pharmacy.

<comment><USER5> > private pharma would unlikely survive today without that core research being > done for free

I tend to view private pharma, as it exists today, as a leech on society, at best. Perhaps destroying it and making it pay it's own way entirely would be for the best.

Yes, in the past, private companies did real work and it was beneficial. But, mostly, they seem to invent cures for problems that get blown way out of proportion thru marketing directly to the public (restless leg syndrome? really?).

At a minimum, let doctors become the filter thru which medicine is prescribed, and put a very heavy penalty in place for pay-to-subscribe.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Going forward, open source would work much better for drugs than for-profit models. It does the long tail better. Bill Gates famously said that baldness is treated before malaria because of the aggregate economic power of the "customers". Similarly, Microsoft etc release Windows for x86 while Linux even runs on Toasters. Because without patents, anyone in the world can build on the work of others. Like they do in, you know, science. If they help the third world it will be by standing on the shoulders of giants, legally:

[http://magarshak.com/blog/?p=93](http://magarshak.com/blog/?p=93)

<comment><USER7> While I agree with the premise that open source could, in theory, serve the long tail better, I think the barrier to entry of pharmacological research is far higher than that of software development. It should be noted that this is not without reason. Controlled, double-blind studies are necessary for development of medicine and they are hard to do without a substantial amount of funds.

This barrier to entry may decrease as biological models become cheaper and more accessible, but even as a hopeful bioinformatician, I am skeptical of this happening in the near term (10-15 years).

<comment><USER8> Governments have lots of money.

Even if a government research department was 20% less effective than an equivalent private sector research department (which I _strongly_ doubt; they're probably equivalent), it would still be more cost effective. Pharma marketing budgets are titanic and that's an _epic_ waste of money.

<comment><USER9> I decided to look into this. I pulled the financials for Pfizer, Merck, and AstraZeneca. Their research and development (R&D) spending, while significantly less than their Selling, General, and Administrative (SGA) spending, it is still comparable. Considering SGA includes a lot more than just advertising I would wager that their actual ad budgets (at least for Merck and AstraZeneca) are less than their R&D budgets.

Pfizer: $7,690 million R&D, $14,809 million SGA

Merck: $6,704 million R&D, $10,313 million SGA

AstraZeneca: $5,997 million R&D, $9,951 million SGA

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> homepage is social media fauxtrage garbage, but there is some real information at [http://handsoff.msf.org/generics-under- attack#anchor](http://handsoff.msf.org/generics-under-attack#anchor)

</comment><comment><USER11> That's a lot of shoulds.

I hear government spending on research as part of the defense department is super effective.

<comment><USER12> We detached this subthread from [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12189499](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12189499) and marked it non sequitur.

<comment><USER11> What? That's absurd. It's not a non-sequitur. It's a statement that massive government research projects are exceptionally overpriced and inefficient.

Maybe a sarcastic comment isn't the most effective means of communication. But given the quality of the root comment I felt it appropriate.

Here. Let me paste a blurb by Richard Posner from An Economic Analysis of Copyright Law. Copyright law is not the same as patent law, of course. But the balance being sought is much the same.

"A distinguishing characteristic of intellectual property is its "public good" aspect. While the cost of creating a work subject to copyright protection—for example, a book, movie, song, ballet, lithograph, map, business directory, or computer software program—is often high, the cost of reproducing the work, whether by the creator or by those to whom he has made it available, is often low. And once copies are available to others, it is often inexpensive for these users to make additional copies. If the copies made by the creator of the work are priced at or close to marginal cost, others may be discouraged from making copies, but the creator's total revenues may not be sufficient to cover the cost of creating the work. Copyright protection—the right of the copyright's owner to prevent others from making copies—trades off the costs of limiting access to a work against the benefits of providing incentives to create the work in the first place. Striking the correct balance between access and incentives is the central problem in copyright law. For copyright law to promote economic efficiency, its principal legal doctrines must, at least approximately, maximize the benefits from creating additional works minus both the losses from limiting access and the costs of administering copyright protection."

<comment><USER10> Posner says nothing about public vs private funding, and says nothing about alternatives to copyight protection.

Your follow-up post is another non-sequitur

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> In fact, lets shut down pharma-for-profit, at least in the developed world.</comment>


Show HN: https://send.rest "API to send notifications" - <AUTHOR> https://send.rest/ <comment><AUTHOR> Hello HN, I am usually working on some side projects and I saw that I always ended up making a common "component" which will send emails/sms etc to people on specific date & time using a template which has data from some API (eg send report to all customers every Monday morning). Usual gateways were not helping much in customisations (eg I cant fill the template from my API endpoint).

Hence I came up with [https://send.rest](https://send.rest), where templates support "a JS templating language" which can be filled up with data from any API. Scheduling comes along with the package along with an option to pick any sender (SMS or email).

Let me know your feedback!

<comment><USER2> A small suggestion, if I may - browsing your landing page, I found it would occasionally jump each time your 'typing text' changed towards the top of the page. You might want to set a static height on that div, or maybe just have a permanent zero-width space at the start of the div to give it a height when there aren't any visible characters.

Or I suppose you could just tweak the JS so that it only runs when it is visible, otherwise it's paused maybe?

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you for the suggestion! You are right, weirdly I didn't notice. Fixed.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Completely crazy idea for an image classification system? - <AUTHOR>

Image classification is a tough problem, and as far as I know nobody has ever really solved it in a way that you could rely on it.
So, if that's the case why not brute force it ?
Imagine a fingerprint of 40x30 pixels, 3/3/2 (r/g/b) for a given image, with an associated set of tags.
There are 2^9600 (40x30x8) possible prints like that, which is obviously an astronomical number, well over the number of atoms in the universe.
But because you can compute the distance from one print to another in a relatively simple way (the sum of the squares of the distances of the r, g and b components of every pixel) you could find the closest 'match' by comparing against a library of previously tagged content.
Is there anybody here that can take a stab at how big such a library should be to get a given level of confidence ?
My gut tells me that it is probably still a very large number but knowing roughly how large that number is would help a lot in judging if this is madness, hard or doable.
thanks! <comment><USER2> you might want to take a look at the Shazam song classification system, which essentially does a 'brute force' search like the one you sketched out, except with a lot of cleverness to make it run super-fast

research paper: <http://www.ee.columbia.edu/~dpwe/papers/Wang03-shazam.pdf>

blog entry summarizing paper: <http://laplacian.wordpress.com/2009/01/10/how- shazam-works/>

</comment><comment><USER3> Check out the [SIFT Algorithm]([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scale- invariant_feature_transfo...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scale- invariant_feature_transform)). It's not exactly what you describe but might give you some ideas.</comment>


Ask HN: So does Facebook delete anything? - <AUTHOR>

Scenario: Got sick of Facebook. Deactivated account and requested deletion. Waited whatever time period for deletion to take place. Created a new account last night (2+ months after original account was deleted). Accidentally logged into old account since Safari had my credentials stored.
All of my content is still on the site however I get an error on first login. Simply clicking on my page though shows me everything (including all messages, etc).
Wtf Facebook? <comment><USER2> Short answer: No. It actually shares your data with the US Government which makes sure that nothing goes to waste!

</comment><comment><USER3> I believe that they store some info for up to 6 months. After that, your original profile is gone.</comment>


Could An Omnipotent Being Prove It? - <AUTHOR> http://www.juliansanchez.com/2010/10/04/could-an-omnipotent-being-prove-it/ <comment><USER2> If this being is omnipotent, it should be able to prove anything. Otherwise it is not really omnipotent (for it can't do this one thing).

BTW - talking about omnipotence using logic is useless - omnipotence can't be described by logic, because it leads to paradox (can omnipotent being do something, that omnipotent being can't do?).

Anyway - interesting questions.</comment>


FiFo.cloud VPN – networking in hybrid cloud envrionments - <AUTHOR> https://blog.project-fifo.net/fifo-cloud-vpn-automatic-multi-cloud-overlay-networks/ <comment><AUTHOR> I'm happy to answer questions to our design.</comment>


Apple Says Right to Repair iPhones Will Turn Nebraska Into a 'Mecca' for Hackers - <AUTHOR> https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/apple-tells-lawmaker-that-right-to-repair-iphones-will-turn-nebraska-into-a-mecca-for-hackers <comment><USER2> I was on the Nebraska's side until I saw this, did everyone miss this part or did the article incorrectly wrote this?

> Right to repair bills in each state require manufacturers to provide > software tools to bypass locks that prevent repair.

No, sorry. I do agree with companies (not just Apple) with locking down the security components to ensure no one could just take your device, replace a few components and give it back without your knowledge. We live in an increasingly mobile-only world and where such mobile components are getting more complex, powerful and more information-dense.

We're not talking about a dumb mower that is not storing any of your personal information, we're talking about a smart phone with complex security systems in it. Apple has the absolute right to protect it in order to protect your data, even in the ways that prevents you from repairing it yourself. With this law, there's no barrier or visible line between your ex replacing parts to monitor you and you replacing parts to repair it. Apple has a security lock for a very clear reason, to prevent your ex from doing this.

If you want to repair the broken Touch ID sensor and stuff, take it to Apple or if there's no store, mail it in.

If you just want to replace the battery or screen, then yes, Apple should be forced to sell these parts, just not the security related parts. Did the law clarify this distinction?

<comment><USER3> Your entire argument amounts to: Trust Apple and nobody else. What makes you think that's a good idea?

> We're not talking about a dumb mower that is not storing any of your > personal information.

Exactly. That's why it's even more important that we be able to repair it ourselves.

> Apple has the absolute right to protect it in order to protect your data, > even in the ways that prevents you from repairing your yourself.

There are no absolute rights. There are laws. I trust myself more than Apple and I don't think there's much you can say to convince me otherwise.

> If you want to repair, take it to Apple or if there's no store, mail it in.

Nope. I'd rather not, thanks! That's why we're going to get this law passed.

<comment><USER4> > Trust Apple and nobody else.

That's a straw man, you've already trusted Apple. The argument is 'trust no one else' which seems like a good idea.

<comment><USER5> This. If you dont want apple device, compile aosp from head, or use cyanogenmod or something.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Here's the actual legislation [1] (pdf).

Of note, notice the carve-out for automotive industry.

> Sec. 7. Nothing in the Fair Repair Act shall apply to motor vehicle > manufacturers, any product or service of a motor vehicle manufacturer, or > motor vehicle dealers.

Why is Nebraska making it easy to repair farm equipment and cell phones but not cars?

[1] [http://nebraskalegislature.gov/FloorDocs/105/PDF/Intro/LB67....](http://nebraskalegislature.gov/FloorDocs/105/PDF/Intro/LB67.pdf)

<comment><USER7> Do, if Apple becomes or buys a motor vehicle manufacturer, they are exempt? If their self driving car project gains steam, this is in the realm of possibility.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> To save Nebraska, maybe Apple should campaign for similar laws to be passed in all states; then, there will no incentive for the hackers to move there.

</comment><comment><USER9> > You don't have to be afraid of technology—you have to be afraid of the > people who are trying to prevent you from knowing the things they know.

I think Brasch hit the nail on the head with that.

</comment><comment><USER10> My understanding of Apple's argument is that currently, it would take a significant investment of resources to introduce a working hardware vulnerability to a target device, and that if this ability became commoditized (and thus viable on a larger scale) the decreased security might cause irreparable harm in the time it takes us to collectively correct it. Say, a device that stores screen tap locations and exflitrates as you walk by free public wifi? Don't know how practical that is but you get the idea. There's no hardware equivalent of a hash function to verify that what you've acquired is what you requested. Most people will never take it apart to check or would be able to spot something amiss if they did.

</comment><comment><USER11> > "Apple said we would be the only state that would pass this, and that we > would become the mecca for bad actors," Brasch, who is sponsoring the bill, > told me in a phone call. "They said that doing this would make it very easy > for hackers to relocate to Nebraska."

Oh, they meant the other type of hackers

<comment><USER12> Those nasty electronics repair for hire hackers.

<comment><USER13> Isn't all this depressing after realizing the origins of Apple. There are no machines for hackers these days.. it's all "look at the looks of this fancy UI" today, with _actual_ interaction being all but an afterthought.

It'd be a different, better world if Symbolics had survived... but you know evolution doesn't quite work that way.

<comment><USER14> The Homebrew Computing Club would be raided for trafficking in bare components, such as a novel, hand-soldered motherboard from a tiny company founded by two guys named Steve.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I'm very rarely for new regulations (very much libertarian and conservative), but this is one issue I will gladly "reach across the isle" on. In the end it'll spur all the things I like: small businesses, competition, market diversity, and innovation.

<comment><USER16> One of the issues is that this is a state policy and may act as a deterrent for global companies wanting to sell products within the state. It may very well be easier to just skip Nebraska and focus resources elsewhere. Especially for low margin electronics products.

I'm sure Apple has enough resources to follow through with this but not all companies can afford the lawyers and special operations centers to appease local regulatory laws in a single state. Just look around you house and consider how many electronics came from a low budget Chinese vendor.

I'm all for state rights but the costs should always be considered.

As Thomas Sowell said: "Economics is not about good intentions and hopes. It's about cause and effect".

For ex: US Chamber of Commerce just posted this article that 1/3 of small businesses surveyed said they hire less people because of health care costs. It's easy not to spare a tear for big companies. But the real victim of regulatory burden is not mega corps its the small businesses who account for 50% of all employment in the US and 90% of businesses are SMB.

[https://www.uschamber.com/above-the-fold/small-businesses- te...](https://www.uschamber.com/above-the-fold/small-businesses-tell- congress-they-can-t-afford-obamacare)

<comment><USER17> Are you seriously saying you think Apple or HTC would stop selling things to Nebraskans? How's Apple gonna stop Amazon from sending iPhones to Omaha? eBay? Are they going to instruct Best Buy employees to demand proof-of-residence in neighboring states to prevent those conniving cornhuskers from replacing their batteries?

<comment><USER16> > Are you seriously saying you think Apple or HTC would stop selling things to > Nebraskans?

I literally just said Apple isn't the one who will have trouble affording to pay for these regulations. And that it's difficult to spare a tear for a big company.

Reread my comment.

<comment><USER18> How many small manufacturers make a large percentage of their income by having a lock-in on repairs to their proprietary hardware? I'm having a hard time understanding who these little companies are that you're worried will be harmed by this law.

<comment><USER16> If only it was just this one law.

81 major regulations were added each year on average under the Obama administrations 8 years. Major was defined as costing over $100 million each.

The federal register recording legislation has exploded to 75,000 pages from 20,000 a few decades ago.

There are plenty of statistics which show the level of downward pressure regulation puts on small business. This isnt just mega corps wanting to dump chemicals in rivers. It's death by a thousand cuts to reach some ideal perfect consumer marketplace through extensive administrative oversight.

Meanwhile the number of people are starting small businesses has declined significantly and GDP growth has totally stagnated.

It's not a mistake that small business optimism index reached the highest point in decades (since 1980) after Trump announced major regulatory reform.

<comment><USER17> None of the things you're talking about appear to have any documented connections to any of the other things.

<comment><USER16> > Recently, the National Small Business Association released a survey, the > 2017 Small Business Regulations Survey, which showed that the average small- > business owner is spending at least $12,000 every year dealing with > regulations.

> When asked to estimate their businesses' first-year regulatory costs, the > average fee was a whopping $83,019! Nearly one-third of small-business > owners spend more than 80 hours each year complying with federal > regulations.

> This burden is becoming a barrier to entrepreneurship and a likely driver in > the lagging start-up rates we've seen in recent years.

> More than half of small businesses have held off on hiring a new employee > due to regulatory burdens.

[http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/economy- budget/317308-...](http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/economy- budget/317308-trumps-regulatory-rollback-a-relief-to-small-business)

All of these are connected:

\- the business environment (taxation, regulatory burden, availability of capital) influence the number of people starting businesses

\- small businesses already struggle with regulations, especially anyone doing hardware consumer electronics products

\- plenty of new major regulations were getting added each year

\- the federal register tracks regulations, which is growing in size very fast

\- therefore the effect of this new forced repairs regulation would only add to the burden on small electronics companies, making it hard to start them up and compete with the big firms

\- small business optimism has been connected to anticipation of the regulatory environment. Regulations must always be factored into to future business planning, it creates a lot of risk to know new ones get added all the time. Not every industry is effected but a big chunk of them do and likely influence the optimism index.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> It is so telling that when we [1] read this headline, we thought Apple was saying how great this would be for Nebraska; that Apple is suggesting Nebraska can boost its economy and profile by becoming a hub for technological innovation.

Turns out they're trying to scare Nebraska into _not_ doing it.

Doug Barnes, of course, told us all along that Apple was hostile to hackers.

[1] Or at least, "I"; I'm hoping it applies to other people as well.

</comment><comment><USER20> This seems to be about the most reasonable legislative idea I've seen in tech in years. It's not surprising that Apple don't like it, but I don't think anyone expected them to, and the desperation and implausibility of the arguments they're presenting against it just reinforces how reasonable the changes would be.

I did laugh slightly at the part where the Apple rep discovered they were dealing with an elected representative who actually was technical and actually would defend their position.

</comment><comment><USER21> The whole planned obsolescence and recently "repairs/modifications only by authorized companies" is utter bullshit. At least it's easier to stop buying Crapple than John Deere.

<comment><USER22> The latter may actually be illegal given this: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnuson%E2%80%93Moss_Warranty...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnuson%E2%80%93Moss_Warranty_Act)

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> The ideology in their logic: "Mecca" is bad because muslims are bad. Hackers are bad because they "think different" about your intended use for the technology.

"Apple said we would be the only state that would pass this, and that we would become the mecca for bad actors," (implying that hackers are bad actors)

"They said that doing this would make it very easy for hackers to relocate to Nebraska." (implying that Mecca is where bad people go)

Its good to know some things never change[0]

[0] [http://cdn.cultofmac.com/wp- content/uploads/2014/06/a2origin...](http://cdn.cultofmac.com/wp- content/uploads/2014/06/a2original.jpg)

<comment><USER24> You're projecting this ideology onto Apple.

Out of all of the places that people make pilgrimages to, Mecca is the most well known, and therefore commonly used to refer to a place that's popular for likeminded followers to visit. E.g:It's very common in Canada for marijuana enthusiasts to refer to Vancouver as the Mecca of pot in Canada. There's no negativity in that phrase at all.

<comment><USER25> I think you're underestimating how carefully Apple chooses it's words when it's crafting these one-line public statements. When they use an ambiguously charged word like 'Mecca', they have carefully worked through every possible sub-text that might be associated with it, and if they use the word, then they are intentional about having those subtexts be associated with their statements.

They could have said that 'right to repair legislation will turn Nebraska into a _hub_ for Hackers', but that's not what they said.

<comment><USER24> >When they use an ambiguously charged word like 'Mecca'

I don't believe mecca is an ambiguously charged word, nor do I see any evidence to support this claim. It's probably the most commonly used metaphor for a gathering place of like-minded individuals, and was the perfect choice in this context.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Um... good?

<comment><USER27> Right? I saw the headline and thought, awesome! Wait... they think that's an argument _against_ , don't they.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Suitably facetious counter-argument for the facetious Mecca statement: Well, given that the Hajj is over a million folks per year and Nebraska only has two million people, being that Mecca would bring in a ton of tourist money and employment opportunities. A huge economic windfall for the state.

</comment><comment><USER29> They could also just stop selling in Nebraska because nobody cares.

<comment><USER8> There is this guy in Omaha, the one whose company owns over 57 million Apple shares, who might care.

<comment><USER29> Even a shareholder would care about impact to revenues more than his ability to get an iphone from a neighboring state

But nice try, turns out you can also own shares of foreign corporations that do no business anywhere near you, so there goes the basis for that argument

<comment><USER8> I do not see how stopping the sale of iPhones in Nebraska would help Apple solve the potential loss of revenue from the new competition in the repairs market. The main thing it would do is reduce sales revenue. I think every shareholder (based in Nebraska or otherwise) would be concerned about that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Steve Mobs would be proud.

</comment><comment><USER31> What is the difference between Apple Authorized iPhone Repair and Independent Repair?: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2Vz6FwoXUE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2Vz6FwoXUE)

Turns out some of those bills were practically written by Apple lobbyists - they are worded in a way to "let you do as much as Apple certified Repair", which as this video shows means it lets you mail in your broken stuff to Apple ... :(

</comment><comment><USER32> From the article:

> _Right to repair bills, which are currently making their way through eight > states (Nebraska, New York, Tennessee, Wyoming, Minnesota, Kansas, Illinois, > and Massachusetts), would require electronics manufacturers to make repair > parts and diagnostic and repair manuals available to independent repair > professionals and consumers, not just "authorized" repair companies._

This seems like forcing Apple rather than releasing consumers. Just another example of over interfering Govts.

<comment><USER21> IMO it's a very good law for the population/nation/citizens. Ignoring that it will help small businesses, being able to do what you want with the things you bought should be a right, not a privilege. The government exists for stuff like this. If they don't interfere, then what?

Your car stops working because you haven't made your mandatory overpriced yearly checkup? Sounds neat

Also having access to at least service manuals (if not complete schematics) can help repair and reuse electronics, which is great for the environment, low wage workers/families and developing nations in general.

<comment><USER32> > _IMO it 's a very good law for the population/nation/citizens._

But this is how Govts make enemies in business communities. Actions like these what made China 2nd most wealthy nation in record time.

> _Ignoring that it will help small businesses._

How ? Common sense tell me this will put more legal requirements; those are never fun.

> _being able to do what you want with the things you bought should be a > right, not a privilege_

Absolutely. But this _forces_ Apple/others. It does not release customers from restrictions. If there are such any restrictions, Govts would be with in their rights to make such user/customer agreements unenforcable. But again, thats what not happening here.

> _Your car stops working because you haven 't made your mandatory overpriced > yearly checkup? Sounds neat_

How about you look for more favourable company ? But you know thats what people do. Such anti-customer corporations you are describing does not last for long in the market unless ofcourse Govts are helping them in someway, as the history shows.

> _Also having access to at least service manuals (if not complete schematics) > can help repair and reuse electronics, which is great for the environment, > low wage workers /families and developing nations in general_

Irrelevent. You are curbing liberties. Thats the argument against the law.

<comment><USER21> The government is for all people not only businesses.

Small businesses providing repair services is what I meant, but it could also help businesses keep costs low by repairing stuff themselves.

BTW, I'm not only talking about Apple with this right to repair stuff, I'm talking about every company. Companies that make devices everyone lives with and depends on, and they want to retain control of them even though people pay the full price not for renting, but _owning_.

Yeah you can look for another company. Do it before they're driven out of business or acquired by the established ones. Or you can force corporations to do something that will benefit the population.

Liberties of the corporations. Well, companies really need some restrictions right now. The chase for growth and profits is insane and will fuck up the majority of people and this planet pretty soon.

You sound either like a multi-millionaire CEO or a brainwashed person who believes he's gonna be a millionaire someday. Well, guess what, if you're middle to low class, the odds you'll strike it big are quite low (and they're getting lower every year).

<comment><USER33> I'm not sure why "pro business" always seems to mean pro-big corporate.

They already have huge advantages, having laws that even the field and allow smaller businesses seems much more pro-business to me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Microsoft has become less evil than Apple in the mindshare of the "technical folks" these days. This is pretty amazing!

I am very quickly starting to lose any sympathy for apple as they turn from a great product company into a financially engineered entity without a trace of real innovation. With a full-on user-hostile attitude, to boot.

<comment><USER35> I'm always surprised people see this as a recent trend. If a machine has no expansion ports and the case is sealed with the weirdest screws they could find, it was meant to be an appliance for consumers rather than a tool for people.

<comment><USER36> They are the same screws BMW uses for wingmirrors.

<comment><USER37> Mhmm, and BMW isn't well known as a pinnacle of open, easy to repair cars either. Usually you end up pulling apart the whole front end on your beamer for something that'd take a few minutes to fix/replace on most other cars.

<comment><USER36> I just mention that incase anyone is wondering what tool to Google for ;-)</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Will Vue.js become a giant like Angular or React? - <AUTHOR> https://10clouds.com/blog/vuejs-angular-react/ <comment><USER2> Vue.js is a step backwards, relative to React, in my opinion. What I love about React is JSX (or TSX if using TypeScript). JSX is a combination of JavaScript and HTML syntaxes. You don't need to learn a new syntax in order to incorporate loops and conditionals in the view layer, thanks to JSX: you just use JavaScript. More importantly, you get compile-time verification. If you use a JavaScript variable in JSX and someone deletes that variable you find out about this issue at compile time. This is very important for large projects that multiple developers are working on together. Angular and View.js don't have this capability and that's a very serious shortcoming for large projects.

<comment><USER3> I love React but you're completely wrong here. Vue has JSX support as well [https://github.com/vuejs/babel-plugin-transform-vue- jsx](https://github.com/vuejs/babel-plugin-transform-vue-jsx). JSX isn't a React thing anymore. Most Virtual DOM solutions offer JSX.

Styling React components is a huge pain. What I like about Vue is the awesome styles, HTML and js in one file for each component. With React projects I have a completely seperate styles folder.

<comment><USER2> The documentation for view.js seems to highlight a custom syntax that cannot be verified at compile-time: [https://vuejs.org/v2/guide/#Conditionals-and- Loops](https://vuejs.org/v2/guide/#Conditionals-and-Loops)

If you are interested in HTML, JavaScript and Styles in one component you really want Web Components. React and view.js support components but they are brittle. W3 Web Components (implemented by Chrome and Safari) solve this problem. More on that here: [https://github.com/wisercoder/uibuilder](https://github.com/wisercoder/uibuilder)

<comment><USER4> Vue templates are verified at compile time (don't know where you got that from), and static analysis is planned for the future (which isn't directly possible with JSX): [https://medium.com/@youyuxi/pretty-good-comparison- overall-b...](https://medium.com/@youyuxi/pretty-good-comparison-overall-but- a-few-points-id-like-to-discuss-e4f6460e75d5)

There are two distributions of Vue, one in which templates are precompiled (this is the default and recommended build), and one bundling the runtime template compiler. You are most likely thinking of the latter.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> After being burned really badly by Ember and Meteor, I'm probably never going to use tools that are all-in-ones ever again.

With React I get something laser-focused, just does 1 thing well and that's it. With Vue, I have to buy into the entire ecosystem.

I don't want to experience what I did with ember and meteor ever again in my professional life. I think about all the great developers I've worked with and I looked up to, and almost all of them hated all-in-ones. I rolled my eyes when I was younger, but today it's like damn these guys had a point!

<comment><USER6> Out of curiosity, how did Ember and Meteor burn you so hard and why are you so averse to "all-in-one" tools as a result?

<comment><USER7> A typical all-in-one framework is Ruby on Rails. It is _great_ to quickly start a project that does basic things planned for by the framework.

But as your project grows, and you start to need special, custom things (and you inevitably do), you understand the "Rails" part. You have to move along the rails. This leads to a growing number of ugly hacks, just to keep the whole thing within one framework. The problem is that you can't replace _one_ component you want different. Everything is cross-dependent, aka "integrated".

In the long term, libraries rock, and monolithic frameworks suck. But in the beginning, the lure of a monolithic framework us strong.

<comment><USER8> What drives me insane about Angular, both 1.x and 2.x, is the sheer amount of idiosyncratic boilerplate required to merely get started and do things the "framework way". It's unreal, though of course Angular 2.x takes that to a whole new level. AngularJS could at least be written in vim without boilerplate generators and meta-meta-meta tooling.

I suppose the thinking behind all these services, providers and factories was that they give mediocre developers that don't really know how to program a more common vocabulary and a set of childproof "design patterns" to grok — that's always easier from a management perspective than giving people who don't really know what they're doing the freedom to architect. But it just frustrates the snot out of actual developers who just want to be left alone and resent having to shoehorn their _entire_ application code base into some framework's mandatory structure, by way of which there are still yet more APIs and conventions to learn and with whose changes it is necessary to keep up ...

In this sense, Vue wins very big. It handles data binding and rendering/UI generally, but in no way premeditates how the rest of my JS is going to work.

<comment><USER9> So ... actual developers are people who don't work on teams for large scale applications? Because what you call "childproofing" is basically the most obvious tenets of a shared codebase.

<comment><USER8> Sure, but there's a subtle difference between having to adhere to shared internal conventions and structure vs. having to adopt some overly complicated and constricting external framework's contrived conventions so that (in theory) a few people don't drive the bus off the cliff as often.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I think there's merit on staying small-ish. Not every framework has to be a giant that dominates the industry.

Having a small community means the potential for focus and strong canonical learning resources, as opposed to the mess of poorly written React and Angular posts/"guides" we get every week. The community feels tighter and it may be easier for the maintainer(s) to manage it and the codebase.

Ember is a good example. Ember's community isn't small (sold out conferences every year), but it's not in the spotlight like React or Angular are. That doesn't mean the framework is doing poorly. If anything, their community and meetups are "better" than React's (for my definitions of a good community/meetup).

<comment><USER11> You may be right about the quality of meetups, but meetup quality is a pretty unusual metric for a JS framework's success.

<comment><USER10> True. At work we use React for the practical reasons explained by others in the comments.

My point was that Vue doesn't need to be huge. It's fine the way it is and its current size has some benefits.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Having used all three, it feels like Vue.js will grow to occupy the role that React occupies today. That, or React will (smartly) take on some of Vue's core features like single component files with actual HTML, CSS, and JavaScript in them. Vue is far easier to start with yet feels more powerful too. Angular 2+ is a separate animal for larger teams, so will probably remain for that use case.

<comment><USER13> it always amazes me how one person project such as vuejs and laravel can compete against with the frameworks made by giants such as google and facebook. yes there are more developers involved in vuejs and laravel now but the two main authors are still the king to rule these two extremely popular projects, truly amazing.

<comment><USER14> That's also why taking on Vue is a huge risk. The project has a high bus factor. If the main author burnt out and quit, the project is dead.

<comment><USER15> Vue is used by huge Chinese companies, and tons of Chinese startups. It's also adopted by Laravel, which is very popular in PHP land. It's not going anywhere soon.

<comment><USER14> That is the word on the street, but I have yet to see publicly visible evidence of it. You can inspect Facebook to see React is there. You can inspect Walmart to see React is there. You can inspect LinkedIn to find Ember there. I have yet to see flagship product of huge companies built on Angular or Vue. Is Alibaba.com built with Vue?

<comment><USER15> Check [https://www.quora.com/How-popular-is-VueJS-in-the- industry](https://www.quora.com/How-popular-is-VueJS-in-the-industry)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> It's a bit disingenuous to say that Facebook uses Vue for Newsfeed. It's on a marketing site, not on a performance and business critical part of the site.

These marketing sites are very often built by contractors, not FB engineers, and tend to be one off efforts.

Not to knock Vue, but it weakens the message when deliberately misleading info like this is used

<comment><USER17> I've seen the word "disingenuous" used many, many ways over the internet. People keep using this word, I don't think it means what most people think it means.

Because it doesn't: "not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does."

There's nothing insincere about saying that newsfeed.fb.com uses vue because it does. It isn't pretending to know less, if it were false, it'd be pretending to know _more_.

Disingenuous doesn't mean "I don't like that this person said x", or "I like y, so I don't like that this person said a good thing, even if true, about x."

It's becoming a pet peeve.

<comment><USER16> Consider me schooled, thanks :-)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Nope. React has 10 people in its core team, highly compensated to work on React. There is at least one genius among those 10. Think of Fiber and how it works. VueJS may copy that model but in this sense, as in the case with JSX, they're a follower. They are not a thought leader. Just a sink/collector for React haters.

<comment><USER19> Maybe you should share your opinion with Even You at the next conference you go to and see how he takes it. Writing Vue off like this is an insult to it's creator. Evan works really hard on maintaining and improving Vue for what probably amounts to pennies on the dollar when compared with the money Facebook pumps into react.

I'm not saying that you're wrong about Vue not being a "thought-leader" or whatever, just that you really should be more appreciative of developers who release awesome libraries under OSS licensing.

That said, being a "thought-leader" is not necessary in order to make a difference. Software has been, is, and always will be an iterative process. We build upon the shoulders of giants that came before us. We take the best ideas from our predecessors and combine them to create something new and, hopefully, better. Regardless of your opinion on the philosophical aspects of Vue, you have to give credit to its creator and its community.

<comment><USER18> Point well taken.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I went Angular, because I can get a well paid job very easily, it's a very fun Framework to work with, TypeScript is awesome, it's complete, fast and powerful, is backed by Google and has a huge community.

Vue might be fun to work with, but it doesn't have all the advantages of Angular (or React) I listed above.

<comment><USER21> We ship Vue.js + TypeScript + Webpack templates: [http://docs.servicestack.net/templates-single-page- apps](http://docs.servicestack.net/templates-single-page-apps)

Vue.js also has the nice advantage of being able to use HTML, TypeScript and SASS within the same .vue component:

[https://github.com/ServiceStack/Templates/blob/master/src/Si...](https://github.com/ServiceStack/Templates/blob/master/src/SinglePageApps/VueApp/VueApp/src/home/Home.vue)

<comment><USER21> Vue.js is simpler and complete with integrated well-documented core components that's much faster than Angular.

Vue being stewarded by Benevolent Dictator is why it has an elegant design that's more pleasurable to use. Angular2+ has morphed into another design by committee complex monstrosity requiring much more code, conceptual and cognitive overhead to achieve the same result.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Everything has already been said in the article, but there's one thing that makes Vue stand out the most: The author(s) are really focused on _keeping_ this framework's API simple and getting rid of/deprecating stuff that doesn't promote productivity.

<comment><USER23> How is this different from React?

<comment><USER22> React is much more verbose and thus unnecessarily complicated. Case in point: TODO MVC done in Vuex vs Redux.

<comment><USER23> Redux isn't React.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Tried Angular, ReactJS and VueJS and to me, they have their own strengths, but all are more than capable as frameworks for building large and solid enterprise level apps. IMO, productivity and simplicity has Vue winning my preference.

Reading the article, I was surprised at this part:

"Wait, did I just write Facebook? Check Facebook's newsfeed."

I did checked facebook's newsfeed and certainly, the Vue Devtools lit up on my Chrome browser, which detected VueJS being used on that page. Given that FB has heavily leaned on React, I wonder why they would be using Vue on one of their premiere pages? Is it because they are also trying to analyze what's being offered by Vue and integrate it with React in the future?

<comment><USER16> As other comments here and on the post itself point out, that page which is a marketing site "about" news feed, not actually News feed, was built by contractors with zero knowledge or involvement by Facebook engineering. The reason given was that they had an engineer familiar with Vue and none with React experience

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> for what it's worth I will say that writing components in Vue is enjoyable in the way that React was initially. the two are definitely more similar than either is to Angular, but I find Vue slightly more easy to get started with (no JSX overhead). JSX is far more powerful than simple HTML templates but I rarely find myself needing that power.

<comment><USER26> As a reminder, you don't have to use JSX to use React. JSX is just a wrapper that makes it more elegant but you can just use the React API to create and declare element structures.

<comment><USER25> totally! but the pure JS syntax is pretty rough (IMO) and I was simply comparing their "default" templating languages, since most people will probably start with them.

I love react and have always been super impressed with the ecosystem FB created - just wanted to give Vue credit for being an enjoyable framework.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Facebook news feed always crashing after sometimes of scrolling on mobile devices. The whole version of mobile web Facebook looks terrible, old fashion, completely awful ui\ux. This is a result of working framework. Try to compare it with another social networks like VK.com which is extrimely stable on mobile devices (both desktop and mobile version), very fast and user friendly.

</comment><comment><USER28> It's the best parts of Angular and React in one framework. I don't know why you'd want to use anything else.

<comment><USER23> What are the good parts of Angular that are in Vue?

<comment><USER28> [https://vuejs.org/v2/guide/comparison.html#AngularJS- Angular...](https://vuejs.org/v2/guide/comparison.html#AngularJS-Angular-1)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> While I don't mind if Vue stays small (as in, just used enough to keep momentum), I'd love it if it became more popular. It's truly a joy to work with.

Angular was the first framework I used, and I liked working with it well enough, even if I wasn't a big fan of many of its idiosyncrasies. But then Google announced they were going in an entirely different direction so I decided to try new things.

I tried liking react (gods, I tried, many, many times) but I just can't like how the code looks when using it or the structure it ends up forming, or the boilerplate it requires.

Vue, however, feels like doing plain JS, which I actually like[1], as each component is rarely more than a few objects and functions. Well, that and html templates, which I'm fine with and would have to use anyway as a backend developer.

[1]: JS has always been my second favorite language, after python, and the new versions are just so nice to write.

</comment><comment><USER30> This is a valuable discussion to me right now. At work I've been tasked with looking into a number of front end frameworks (Angular 4, React, Vue, Aurelia and Mithril) to see if we'd like to start writing new pages and components in one of those as opposed to AngularJS which we currently use. AngularJS has a few specific pain points for our web app, a complex and (unfortunately) ambitious SPA.

I'm building a prototype of one of our actual landing pages in each framework to get a bird's-eye view of what works and what doesn't. So far I've been really impressed with Vue, but my team has a couple of objections from the outset:

1) Most mid-level developers haven't heard of or used Vue, so the pool of candidates we can hire as our company grows will be smaller if we switch from a common denominator like AngularJS to something relatively unknown like Vue. I personally love to learn new tech, but not everyone does and a "Vue developer" job posting may not get a lot of hits.

Then again, if (e.g.) 15% of devs want to use Vue and only 10% of companies use it, that's a clear advantage over 75% of devs wanting to use Angular and 80% of companies using it. I wouldn't be surprised if the numbers worked out like that.

2) Vue is kind of a one-man band, whereas Angular and React are backed by large cap companies. This is the weaker argument IMO, since there's no law stating that Google and Facebook can't run up on hard times and decide to drop support for their open source projects. And after seeing how sloppy Angular's documentation is, I've lost a lot of confidence in the "bigger is better" argument. However, in a rational universe, it may be fair to say that Vue would die more easily than Angular would.

My view on the situation is that it's better to use the right tool for the job and have less developers/support than to use the wrong tool for the job and have more developers/support. But I'm more technically-minded than business- minded, so I understand that I might need to be open to business concerns outside of my normal decision-making criteria.

I'm keeping detailed notes as I compare frameworks, so I may do a write-up when I'm done if anyone's interested. (Although the "battle of the frameworks" genre has been done to death...)

<comment><USER8> Re: the first point -- the counterpoint in my eyes would be that that hiring devs for any particular framework experience might be a losing battle, given the insane life cycles of front-end JS technology.

In web development more than anything else, the chances are higher that whatever keyword you hire for will be sidelined in 1-2 years. Even compared to other fast-moving tech niches, the web front-end arena is a batshit insane ADHD chipmunk in this regard. A DBA or a networking guy's current keywords are going to have at least five years of shelf life in some fashion. You can't count on those kinds of lifespans in the web world anyway. Yes, I also think that's ridiculous.

And so, "all-around competent JS developer experienced in a variety of frameworks and tools" might be the only viable hiring selector here.

Also, the barriers to entry to Vue are much lower. The simplicity is one of the main selling points. I'm not even a web developer by trade, but I picked up most of the essentials in a day or two. Admittedly, I did have a [kind of amateur] AngularJS background, which made that process much simpler, but I gather a React background equally predisposes one to rapid assimilation of Vue.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Don't forget about others, such as Preact [1]

[1] [https://github.com/developit/preact](https://github.com/developit/preact)

<comment><USER32> I am a fan of this "small (and focused) is beautiful" approach, like yo-yo [0], hyperHTML [1], and numerous others.

The thing that sold me on Preact is its compatibility layer with React, which provides a kind of de facto standard API for components. One day I just replaced React with Preact, with the only difference being a happily reduced app size - and have been using it since. I don't plan to keep up with React's latest developments - I'm satisfied with the rendering performance of Preact, and want to stick to a stable API which lets me focus on actually building things with it.

I feel the same about client-side routers, the build process with Webpack, etc. - I'm fatigued of keeping up with breaking changes, and have started transitioning to smaller, individual libraries that just do their modular jobs, with minimum API surfaces that are reliable over long-term.

[0] [https://github.com/maxogden/yo-yo](https://github.com/maxogden/yo-yo) [1] [https://github.com/WebReflection/hyperHTML](https://github.com/WebReflection/hyperHTML)

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> I hope so, its really easy to use, anyway it has my vote

</comment><comment><USER34> The only advantage React has is a huge backer..Facebook.

So large companies are more open to using it because it's less risk and has higher chance of being around in 5 years than a framework without a huge backer.

That's my theory on how 'biz' people make I.T. decisions.

<comment><USER35> Another aspect is lower ramp up time for hiring new developers, and easier convincing developers to come on board where they'll learn / use a growing technology rather than some oddball niche thing.

They're solid, non-arbitrary reasons. Given a choice between the most common tech on the market and a niche offering, you need to have a good reason to choose the niche offering, because it comes with real downsides to a development team (as opposed to an individual developer).

<comment><USER8> Yeah, but the simplicity of Vue is one of the main selling points.

I'm not a web developer at all by trade, but it took me only 1-2 days to pick up the essentials of Vue. That's not because I'm brilliant, it's because the barriers to entry really are that low. It's _simple_. They've nailed that part well, and it's a very seductive differentiator in a JS front-end world that just keeps getting more and more Byzantine.

Admittedly, I did have some Angular 1.x background, but it was really just dabbling in the grand scheme of things. And I gather that a React background is equally advantageous in picking up Vue.

More generally, given the insane ADHD pace at which front-end web technology moves, I'm not sure hiring developers for any particular framework experience is viable. People sometimes say that about tech hiring in general, and I don't necessarily agree, but web front-end work is really the one area where I think it holds true and you just have to hire competent JS developers experienced with a variety of tools and frameworks in general. There's just no telling how different the landscape will be in 1-2 years.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> I've not used Vue or Angular, but I love React. It feels almost object oriented programming like - kind of like programming in Java. Correct me if I'm wrong (I'm new to web dev).

</comment><comment><USER37> Ok I'll bite. What is the equivalent of redux-form in vue.js?

<comment><USER38> You don't need such thing in Vue. It has two way data binding for input components.

(The implementation is quite clever. Very similar to React in nature but with less boilerplate.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> I feel that the biggest advantage of Vue over React is that it's incrementally-adoptable. It's small and lightweight and fits nicely everywhere.

Preact offers a similar experience.

</comment><comment><USER40> React will continue to dominate thanks to react native. Neither Angular or Vue.js has a solution for mobile as nice as react native, at least as far as I know.

<comment><USER41> You might want to have a look at Weex, aka "vue native": [https://weex.incubator.apache.org/](https://weex.incubator.apache.org/)

<comment><USER4> Also nativescript: [https://www.nativescript.org/blog/a-new-vue-for- nativescript](https://www.nativescript.org/blog/a-new-vue-for-nativescript)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> React isn't just a web framework like Angular or Vue AND the company creating it uses it for its main product.

So React doesn't compare to any of the others.

</comment><comment><USER42> Since when is React in the same bracket as AngularJS? Vue is on par with React but still far to go before its as big as Angular

</comment><comment><USER43> #JQuery4Ever

Webassembly needs it's own UNIX. A simple abstraction library for browser IO that scales.

</comment><comment><USER44> Statamic uses Vue.

</comment><comment><USER8> Upvote if you're still using Vue in 2017! /s

<comment><USER8> All right, it seems HN did not appreciate my joke about the life-cycle of front-end JS frameworks.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Previously employed; no CS degree. Should I enroll in a bootcamp? - <AUTHOR> Hi HN,
I feel so stuck. I'm 25 and live with my parents. I do not have a CS degree (I have a BA in Economics). A year ago, I quit my full-time job as maintainer of a legacy C++ code base due to mental health issues (manic episodes). Before that, I worked as an iOS developer.
Thanks to therapy, I am now back on my feet mentally, but I'm struggling with the job market. I've been unemployed for an entire year. I've worked on side projects and tried to broaden my skill set by learning Ruby on Rails and JavaScript, but I still get little to no response from employers.
I'm starting to think it's the lack of CS degree combined with employment gap that's holding me back. Basically, I lost the traction I would have had if I hadn't quit. I also worry that my previous job was a fluke; I basically got it for being a huge C++ geek during the interview.
My therapist suggested I do a 10-week coding bootcamp. She claims since I'll likely be "top of my class" I'll get solid employment opportunities and contacts. Is this a good idea? <comment><USER2> It's easy to be down on yourself. As someone who struggled with mental health issues in the past (anxiety and depression runs in my family) I have a few thoughts on this, not necessarily unique to your situation, but I hope it's helpful.

1) Don't mention your mental health issues to your employer. Maybe one day you can reveal it, I've discussed my anxiety issues with my boss, but it wasn't until I'd been at work and kicking ass for over a year. People are more empathetic once they know you. I don't know if you're actually interviewing but admitting that you were out of work for a year because of manic episodes is a surefire way to never get work. You have a bachelors degree + experience, those are the two things 99% of employers care about. Maybe have someone else review your resume?

2) Therapy is helpful but keep in mind while they may be an expert in psychology, he or she isn't an expert in the hiring landscape of computer science. At least in my job market a coding bootcamp wouldn't make sense at all for anyone who has ever had a job as a software engineer.

3) It's easy to be down on yourself and think it was "just a fluke", but programming is hard! If someone employed you for a year you can cut it. If it was "just a fluke" you would have been out of there in a month. "Being a huge c++ geek" makes me think you are feeling imposter syndrome, the fact that you -can- geek out over C++ makes you better than 90% of the applicants we get when we're looking for a new dev.

You can do it! I personally wouldn't suggest the coding bootcamp. It'd just be busy work, and I don't think it'd help your job prospects that much.

</comment><comment><USER3> Take any suggestions you see here with a grain of salt, but my ¢2. Being 'the top of the class' at a boot camp doesn't mean much, unless you have a chance of being hired on as an instructor (which can be very well paid). As a former bootcamper, the people that did the best in the job hunt were those with CS degrees (for the reasons you mentioned), those who hustled like hell to land a job, and then maybe those who did best in the course.

If you already have your LinkedIn, GitHub, personal site, and dynamic resume tailored to post locked in; I'd suggest trying to get take-home coding challenges from companies that you can give them back on github/bitbucket. Bring it up in cover letters / phone screens. It will help you ramp up on the skills employers want, and it shouldn't take too many before you get an offer.

</comment><comment><USER4> This is a great idea, the better the Bootcamp, the more likely you are to get a job. Think of it as a way to buy into a network. The good Bootcamps will also set time aside for whiteboarding, how to interview, creating a compelling portfolio etc.

Not all Bootcamps are created equal. [https://www.switchup.org/locations/nyc- coding-bootcamp](https://www.switchup.org/locations/nyc-coding-bootcamp)

</comment><comment><USER5> Honestly there is not enough information given for us to give a lot of useful advice.

Here is some information we would need to give more helpful information:

      - What type of positions / companies are you applying to? This is important, because I can imagine applying for dev jobs at small rails shops would be difficult because they are looking for people who can hit the ground running on day 0 (Ie: They are looking for rails at your last job).

      - My parents do not live anywhere near tech jobs. Are you located near a good number of tech jobs where you can cast a wide net?</comment>