TV Advertising - <AUTHOR> https://stratechery.com/2016/tv-advertisings-surprising-strength-and-inevitable-fall/ <comment><USER2> I absolutely agree with his take on this; and I've echoed a similar sentiment in my comment history.

The advertisers who advertise on TV are the biggest, slowest, oldest companies. They're largely just interested in "brand advertising" and they don't understand how to properly do digital advertising.

TV money is absolutely going away -- the future of TV is commercial-free subscription VOD (like Netflix). But we haven't replaced TV with anything that the marketing managers at these companies know how to measure and report on. For all its faults, the cause-effect relationship in TV advertising is well- understood. That's not the case for digital, so advertisers aren't as comfortable spending $300 million on digital ad spend. They don't believe that they have to change the balance of media buys and creatives; it's been an invaluable rule their whole career so why change it now?

The big question is "What does TV advertising get replaced with?" I'm not sure digital is the answer; and I think the need for traditional advertising somewhat disappears along with their use cases. As we start to rely more and more on AI to make decisions for us, promoting one product versus another in AI applications will become a new form of advertising (which is why Google is all-in on AI).

But we don't know what form those products will take because the market hasn't taken shape yet. The next 5 years will be really interesting on the AI front with regards to advertising.

<comment><USER3> "What does TV advertising get replaced with?

Snapchat. Recently, they've been injecting ads into their stories (these clips are on average about 10 seconds). A few things I found interesting about the implementation and observing others interactions with the ads:

1) At being 10 seconds, the ads are relatively short and contextually relevant. They flow more naturally in the stories than a television ad in linear programming. There's likely strict quality control being enforced by Snapchat. It will be interesting to see them scale this.

2) As a user progresses further along in a story, does a user become more invested in the story (this is a thread of related snaps that Snapchat curates) or are they more likely to bounce before the end. In television, you've got the hook of the narrative keeping the user until the end. That would dictate ad placement. Recently Snapchat has done something interesting to combat this: giving the user different story paths to go into (from a given story point).

3) Most importantly, as a user, you're able to skip the advertisements if you want (and go on with the story). This creates a pressure on the advertiser to create engaging and contextually relevant ads. The feedback of length of time played, number of times skipped, etc all create signals on creative performance (historically difficult to judge on television as it's not an interactive medium).

This is markedly different from the typical television advertisement. There's the element of engagement of the user (skip or stay), the constrained view time, and constraint of being relevant to the surrounding content. This creates a competitive pressure that television ads haven't faced.

Edit: This isn't to say that Snapchat is final platform for this medium of advertisements. These learnings (and more) will likely be applied to most social networks that enforce constraints on short-form video advertisements.

<comment><USER4> _There's likely strict quality control being enforced by Snapchat. It will be interesting to see them scale this._

Given that a small number of companies are responsible for a large proportion of brand advertising spend, I would posit that it isn't too difficult to scale quality control if you focus on building relationships exclusively with heavy spenders. Quality control becomes a bottleneck at the long tail end of the market, where ad budget per creative is much smaller. At the top end, you can behave like a TV channel and reuse established quality control practices. If you have 100m+ active users and a video-heavy medium, this shouldn't be impossible to accomplish.

That said, I have heard several reports about Snapchat's eagerness to build programmatic ad expertise, which (in the context of this discussion) _may_ pointing to one of the following possibilities:

1\. Large brands are not exhibiting TV-style buying behaviour (i.e. large upfront buys) on Snapchat. This would make sense as it mirrors trends in the rest of the industry. If you, as the buyer, have access to technology that lets you better control and manage your spend, gather intelligence, and understand ROI, then why wouldn't you? This is the buying mechanism that programmatic technology enables, and its more or less incompatible with TV- style upfront buys.

2\. Snapchat wants to open their doors to mid-market and long tail advertisers. The goal might be to boost spending, drive up prices, or to go after performance advertising dollars. If I were a Snapchat investor, I'd find this second scenario slightly worrying, as quality control becomes very very difficult.

<comment><USER5> Agreed with most of your points. I commented elsewhere in here, but a lot of their options here seem somewhat hinged on implementing better tracking (which , which seems to go against their brand promise of anonymity.

How do you see their recent policy updates[1] in this context?

[1] [http://marketingland.com/snapchat-changed-terms-service- priv...](http://marketingland.com/snapchat-changed-terms-service-privacy- policy-170899)

<comment><USER4> The only thing that stands out in that piece is that they're collecting advertising device IDs. Those IDs are anonymous and resettable. Snapchat doesn't need them internally since they have a more persistent identifier, i.e. snapchat user ID.

It might be that they want to pass this ID into programmatic platforms. Some systems treat them as pseudo-cookies for frequency capping, measurement, and basic targeting.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> > Relatedly, big box retailers that offer little advantages beyond > availability and low prices are being outdone by Amazon on both counts. In > the very long run it is hard to see why they will continue to exist.

I have lately noticed amazon is increasingly more expensive and return policies more restrictive. Yes, it is good for their business but I find amazon is getting less compelling offering for me.

And the 'very long run' part is cleverly phrased obviousness. I mean in the very long run I do not see why human with so many shortcomings would not be replaced by some superior digital form of life.

</comment><comment><USER7> Beyond the dinosaurs being the big spenders on TV, there's no way digital advertising as we know it today will replace TV advertising. Creatively, you really can't even compare the two. A TV spot is the opportunity to make someone laugh or make someone feel something – anything. A banner ad or a spot with a "skip now" button is not going to do that. You really can't tell a story (as cliche as that sounds, its true). Digital advertising has less creative opportunity for the people making it and basically no reason for anyone seeing it to care.

This is why Snapchat and Facebook starting to really figure out video is so huge in adland. As attentions shift there and it starts to house real content, advertisers will have an actual digital channel to create content people might actually care about.

<comment><USER8> I would posit that Snapchat and Facebook are working so hard on videos because video ads have a much higher payout in the current ecosystem. I don't know that it's necessarily because of efficacy.

<comment><USER7> The higher payouts for video exist because those units are more effective.

<comment><USER5> The higher CPMs are because it is a "new" format that has less ways of avoiding it (ie. prerolls) compared to banner ads.

Effectiveness is totally dependent on a variety of variables, and as someone very well versed in these things, I can confidently state that most advertisers have no clue about things like "cross channel attribution," how to go about finding a proper value for view-through conversions (hint: it sure as heck isn't 100%), viewability, etc.

For example, right now FB counts a view as a video that plays for three seconds[1] (could have sworn it used to be 2). A lot of advertisers, myself included, would laugh at that in terms of properly conveying the value of most messages (Geico ads aside--they really know their medium).

Combine that with Facebook also counting view-throughs as conversions with 100% credit (albeit with a short lookback window) by default, and you have the recipe for overvalued CPMs on video. And that's just on FB--other sources can be much worse.

[1][http://marketingland.com/whats-a-video-view-on-facebook- only...](http://marketingland.com/whats-a-video-view-on-facebook- only-3-seconds-vs-30-at-youtube-128311)

Part of me wishes Ben had guests on Exponent. I listen to every episode, and would LOVE to dig into this stuff with him from an advertising perspective as he actually has a somewhat solid sense about it. But what I've been disappointed in is his inability/refusal to dig deep into these key points.

Performance for video and display overall is super hard to measure effectively given the nature of the beast. Just because there's lots of data available doesn't mean it is the right/best data, and he should point that out more. Attribution is a hairy beast, and ad sales people take full advantage of people's lack of knowledge on this.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> One perspective I try to keep in mind is that all media will one day be addressable. That means whether an "ad" is video, social, mobile, desktop, or VR, it will be accessible to marketers. That turns television commercials into video ads and the ads will be powered and purchased in real-time depending on the end user. I agree traditional TV buying will decline, a new more holistic approach (digital buying) will replace it. For the end user this means more targeted advertising. There are several companies that have embedded their tracking into modern televisions.

</comment><comment><USER10> Ad spend will be up in 2016 because of the elections, that is what makes the dead cat bounce.

</comment><comment><USER11> _No one is going to click a link in their feed to buy a car or laundry detergent, and a brick-and-mortar retailer doesn't want to encourage shopping to someone already online._

Automobile manufacturers have been working with digital advertising for years and their methods are quite sophisticated (1). Every day tens of millions of people see their campaigns on Facebook, mobile games, SERPs, etc.

Brick-and-mortar retailers are also using ads to drive people to their websites or to their stores. One example that springs to mind is the Best Buy campaign in the runup to the Superbowl to get people to come in and buy a wide-screen HDTV before the game. I don't know how effective it was, but surely some people clicked on the ads.

1\. [http://www.adweek.com/news/technology/car-brands-are- startin...](http://www.adweek.com/news/technology/car-brands-are-starting-get- marketing-data-theyve-always-wanted-162762)

<comment><USER12> No one clicks on a link to buy a car not because no one wants to, but because, unless you're buying a Tesla, you can't, you have to buy through a dealership.

<comment><USER13> There's no reason that link can't redirect you to a local dealer.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Interesting fact in the linked page:

"Looking at data since the 1920s, the U.S. advertising industry has always been about 1 percent of U.S. GDP. It's surprisingly consistent, mostly tracking between 1 percent and 1.4 percent—and averaging 1.29 percent."

</comment><comment><USER15> Mods should update the URL to [https://stratechery.com/2016/tv-advertisings- surprising-stre...](https://stratechery.com/2016/tv-advertisings-surprising- strength-and-inevitable-fall/)

<comment><USER16> Thanks! We updated the link.</comment></comment>


Muons: the little-known particles helping to probe the impenetrable - <AUTHOR> https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05254-2 <comment><USER2> When I was in high school I participated to the EEE project (Extreme Energy Events), which used various vapour chamber-like detectors scattered all around Italian schools to calculate the trajectories of muon showers produced by cosmic rays hitting the Earth's atmosphere. We used the trajectories to approximate where the cosmic ray hit the atmosphere. Turns out you have to take into account quite a lot of relativistic effects to get precise readings

</comment><comment><USER3> Question: why muons? Why not electrons?

Or why not neutrons, which are not charged (hence should penetrate better, if I understand it correctly)?

<comment><USER4> Electrons can interact in additional ways, so they aren't as penetrating. Neutrons are rarer than muons in cosmic ray showers and are also much more difficult to detect.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I saw a presentation for using muons to image the inside of asteroids: [https://www.lpi.usra.edu/sbag/meetings/jan2014/presentations...](https://www.lpi.usra.edu/sbag/meetings/jan2014/presentations/08_1600_Prettyman_SBAG.pdf)</comment>


How Militaries Should Plan for AI - <AUTHOR> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/08/how-militaries-should-plan-for-ai <comment><USER2> We cannot stop technology, for as we know, we'll heading to a star "war"-ish era if that happen. One thing we must do is, if military will use it to betterment of humanrace and not extinction, then why not? The innovation of technology today also produce psychopats on our way.</comment>


America's Complacent Class - <AUTHOR> http://www.npr.org/2017/03/02/517915510/americas-complacent-class-how-self-segregation-is-leading-to-stagnation <comment><USER3> > "wealthier people tend to live together more than before and so do poorer > people"

Some people are essentially told to contribute to this phenomenon when you buy a house in the US. High home values mean good school funding, which means homes will hold their value over time, pricing out people of different incomes. Buy the cheapest house you can in the most expensive neighborhood you can afford for the best return (with the caveat that mixed use zoning is rare).

If had a Japanese zoning model,[0] decoupled school funding from local incomes,[1] and ended or capped the mortgage interest deduction, a lot of this would go away.

None of those are trivial changes without entrenched interests though.

[0] [http://urbankchoze.blogspot.com/2014/04/japanese- zoning.html](http://urbankchoze.blogspot.com/2014/04/japanese-zoning.html)

[1] I've heard some states do this already. Oregon maybe? I know economic mobility varies a lot based on where you are in the US. [http://www.npr.org/2014/01/23/265356290/study-upward- mobilit...](http://www.npr.org/2014/01/23/265356290/study-upward-mobility-no- tougher-in-u-s-than-two-decades-ago) Would be interesting to cross compare that with some of these policies, see how much they matter. Maybe the effects of redlining can't just be papered over so quickly.

<comment><USER4> There's more to it than just school funding. Homes are expensive in certain areas _because_ they are expensive. Affluent people are willing to pay more specifically to avoid being near poor people.

<comment><USER5> People who can hardly-afford-their-(new)-home will _also_ move to expensive areas to avoid being around the "typical" poor people: alcoholics, drug- addicts, dropouts, street gangs, etc.

My mother raised me as a single mom. Her two options were "live reasonably in a poor, drug-riddled, crime-filled area" or "live poorly in a more affluent area with far less drug/crime issues". As a kid I understood that we were too poor to be living where we were living but was still too young to understand why we had moved "if we couldn't afford it". It wasn't until I was old enough to know I'd never raise my kids in my hometown either, even if it meant struggling to live somewhere I couldn't quite afford.

We weren't affluent by any means, but we we had _just_ enough money to not be living down the street from a meth addict and being next-door-neighbors with the neighborhood slinger.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This touches on something that's been bugging me for awhile, and I think it's related to all the harm people do in the process of furthering their careers. Most people's goal seems to be either to get into that perfect career spot or do ANYTHING to maintain that current job they acquired.

Everything else is secondary. Family, religion, strong personal beliefs, politics, getting treated for substance abuse, etc etc. Everything is less important than that career, you are not a real man or woman if you don't have a job and don't provide for your family. Everything important is disregarded to further one's own career (I HAVE to fly to this conference, I have a super important career and all that carbon emission nonsense is for other people or other days).

When this all goes away and nobody works unless they want to the shift is going to break so many fucking brains. I really hope people can embrace the shift and work on self improvement and curiosity above all, but my hunch is most people with this idea that their job completely defines them won't handle the transition very well.

<comment><USER7> That's the wrong way of looking at it. Question why people are like that. Humans aren't infatuated with their work by some corporate conspiracy. Work has always defined the individual. Look at the history and origins of family names.

<comment><USER8> > Look at the history and origins of family names.

Yeah, largely derived from occupation or location [0], at least in the West. They've lost their meaning though. Example: I'm a German-American kid named Scott; as in "from Scotland." This has always bothered me.

[0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surname#Typology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surname#Typology)

<comment><USER7> Right. It doesn't mean much anymore, but it certainly has history. OP seems to think this infatuation with work is a new phenomenon.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> It certainly hasn't helped that:

\- The adage "don't believe everything you read on the internet" from the 90's and 00's has substantially died off.

\- People have turned to listening to reply, not listening to understand.

\- Death of "the expert", where people believe they're a search away from being an expert on a topic.

\- The language of the current divide (Patriots vs Authoritarians) is still instead presented along the partisan axis (Democrat vs Republican).

\- Glorification of the 50's prosperity, where the USA was the only major manufacturing power worldwide not decimated by WW2.

All of this is fuel for various forms of civic-oriented intellectual laziness.

</comment><comment><USER10> The article paints a pretty negative picture of the present. While its true that there has been a convergence of factors that have caused much despair/desolation in most of America outside Tech/Coastal areas, this might simply be a rebalancing of the economy. Completely anecdotal of course, but most of the young Americans I see/meet are incredibly optimistic about the future, willing to work hard for their future, interested in other cultures etc. (But perhaps this is only because I live in a liberal city). It seems like Millennials are much better poised to build and contribute to a 21st century America.

At the risk of sounding incredibly ageist, it seems like its the older generation, the baby-boomers who are unwilling to retrain, unwilling to move, unwilling to accept or understand the new economy and world order. They seem to be yearning for a time when life was easier. While I can understand the sentiment, it seems to be producing incredibly toxic effects on the nation; we've seen the political ramifications, soon we might see social and economic ones as well.

<comment><USER11> I think there is a strong selection bias going into effect here. I know plenty of young people who are struggling to find good jobs and not optimistic about the future, and I live in a "liberal" city.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> "On the fact that median male wage was higher in 1969 than it is today"

The obvious explanation for this is women entering the workforce, it is basic supply and demand. While this is good for the economy and society as a whole, clearly men now face more competition for jobs.

</comment><comment><USER12> On the one hand I'd love to talk about this with other people, particularly the sort of person who gets (some of) their news from Hacker News. On the other hand I feel like political garbage is what killed off Slashdot, and I love how HN feels like /. before it tanked. So with that being said - what I took from the article was the author's belief that Trump won because the economy is doing great for some people and terribly for others (this seems like a reasonable statement to me). He goes on to say that those people who are doing well haven't done enough to help those who have been left behind. I think there's a kernel of truth here, but I think he's also leaving something important out. Many of those most solidly left behind vote hard-right. They go to the polls and vote for politicians who promise to gut the government - <USER2> slash taxes, eliminate public education, slash Social Security and Medicare, to make the government so small you can drown it in a bathtub. It's very, very hard for those who are doing well to help those who are left behind when the people who are left behind are working so hard to eliminate any help they could (and should!) get from the government.

</comment><comment><USER13> The fact that the rich keep getting richer seems to argue against his point of people becoming complacent around those like them. I would argue that the wealthy surrounding themselves with other wealthy is actually a driver for them to acquire more.

On the other hand this definitely has a negative affect on the poor and minorities. Although I would argue they are not so much complacent as just treading a path that is very difficult to deviate from, probably in part due to factors the article references.

In the tech sector I don't really see any aversion to moving for a job or reluctance to jump ship, just the opposite, and the tech sector is a major driver of US industry. But I can understand how this occurs in fields such as manufacturing. This is just my personal experience though.

I think complacency is not the best word to describe this phenomenon.

</comment><comment><USER14> Tyler Cowen has a good video on this as well: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdfYEJa_Q38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdfYEJa_Q38)

</comment><comment><USER15> I'm new here, and just read the Guidelines. It says "Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon."

This post doesn't seem particularly technical, and (IMHO) isn't particularly interesting. Should this article actually be here?

<comment><USER16> HN has a complicated relationship with submissions related to politics. There's been plenty of discussion related to what's appropriate and what's not. Also key to remember is what's on-topic: "anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity." Please note I'm not here taking a position on this particular submission.

Here's a link to some comments by mods on the topic:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13527940](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13527940)

When you've been on HN after a while you'll get a feel for what's appropriate and what's not, and when you've accumulated enough karma, you'll be able to flag submissions you think are inappropriate.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> I love the idea of NPR discussing a complacent class</comment>


What is a 'Successful' Start-Up? - <AUTHOR> Excluding the financial incentives and rewards associated with a successful start-up (i.e. acquisition price, IPO value, etc.), what other events or factors would allow you to feel that your start-up is a 'success'?
In other words, what is 'success' within the realm of a start-up (excluding $$$)?
I personally feel that a start-up's success is measured on its number of active users and its impact on other businesses and/or the world/society.
What is 'success' for you? I'm curious to see how other entrepreneurs view 'success'. <comment><USER2> I've been thinking about this lately myself. I have come to believe there are different levels of success in a startup, which could also be viewed as milestones in a way. Particular startups will only get to a certain level, but attaining any level is a success to some degree. Perhaps, they aren't really levels, because that insinuates a linear process. You can tell from this rambling that I haven't really nailed this thought down yet...I hope someone can build upon it. But off the top of my head:

Level 1: Actually make something that is functional.

Level 2: Actually have someone test it.

Level 3: Actually have someone buy it/use it for real.

Level 4: Actually have the users from the previous Level maintain their use, i.e. convert to real users.

Level 5: Get to some level of profitability.

Level 6: Make a decent amount of money.

Level 7: Make a lot of money, i.e. from an exit event or just large value of company, etc.

I know this includes financial stuff, which you specifically didn't want. However, I think this is inextricably tied to the higher levels of startup success. Obviously in the lower levels, some people may have other metrics beyond other use, like organizational metrics such as hiring employees or making something that grows beyond themselves, i.e. can be passed on.

<comment><AUTHOR> That's a great point of view. Although I excluded money in my question, I am aware that that can only be done in a hypothetical world. I also agree that there are different levels of success. I suppose it is very reasonable to view success as a process rather than an end. The various levels of success which you outline makes sense, however I was wondering whether there was a level beyound money (i.e. Level 7 in your outline) for other entrepreneurs.

I have not yet reached a "Level 7" in my endeavors as an entrepreneur, but I have a feeling that it goes beyond "Level 7".

I guess my suspicion comes from observing those that have already reached "success" in the start-up world. For example, why would PG still work after reaching the elusive "Level 7"/MONEY, why would Steve Jobs keep working, etc....

<comment><USER2> First I just want to point out that there are many different levels of being rich. I know PG said this in one of his essays somewhere, and I have said it on this forum too. And it is true. I know this isn't what you were asking in reply, but there are certainly different levels above Level 7 (in my original scheme) that are just higher levels of monetary attainment. And that is what motivates some people to go from say Level 7 to Level 7a, i.e. they see 1M vs 10M vs 50M or whatever as different levels.

But if I understand your reply correctly, I think you are saying, what is beyond all those monetary levels? That is, assume you reach a monetary level that is enough for you financially, what is beyond that? (This is why I just stopped at Level 7 in my scheme btw.)

Having achieved some degree of Level 7 myself, all I can say is that startups are what I like to do (at least for now). I want to start all over again and climb up the Levels because each level is rewarding to me its own right. A different project brings different users and solving different needs, and I guess I just like that. So in this scheme, I guess I think of it sort of as a reset for myself; not a circle exactly, but a new path.

Other things beyond Level 7 are charity, prestige/celebrity, and doing things with bigger impact. Steve Jobs is obviously a celebrity, and I would assume he sees that as part of his success. PG seems to be in the bigger things category, hoping that YC will really change the world in a big way. Maybe he can jump in here and speak for himself though. I remember an article on here a while back (but can't find it right now) about what people do after exit events. It had these categories, but it was a little more thought out, if I recall correctly. Maybe someone can provide that link.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Changing the way people work or behave - for the better - or give them more understanding about things they can change.

\- Meetup.com is getting people out and into social situations with lots of benefits \- Google maps helps people to find things more quickly without getting lost \- Ebay and Craigslist changed the whole value structure of entire classes of goods and enabled a lot of people to do useful work and earn money they couldn't have before. \- Reddit and related sites are the office- worker's version of talk radio. I'm thinking they're going to have a noticeable affect on politics, hopefully for the better (besides creating a significant drop in productivity of the average programmer.) \- Google.

I'm not sure how social networking sites fit in all of that.

But the revolution isn't anywhere near over yet. \- Government [http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2007/07/why_congress_ne.ht...](http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2007/07/why_congress_ne.html) \- Medicine - Portable medical records, better understanding of outcomes and genetics can make us all healthier. \- Business - People waste way too much time in offices moving data from one place to another and then trying to balance back to the original. Businesses go broke and partners sue each other because they didn't understand or keep track of or share information. People waste money and time because they didn't understand trends unfolding around them.

And there's a lot more.

And then there's all that money, too.

<comment><USER4> Well, if you can change the way people behave, you're beyond success. You have the ability to literally change the world. That's god-like. That transcends success.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> When you start hearing "How did you do it?" If you gotta ask, then you are clearly not.

<comment><AUTHOR> can you elaborate on that?

<comment><USER6> You've succeeded once people start asking you how you succeeded.

<comment><AUTHOR> That may be one of the indicators (and a shallow indicator at that) of success, but I'd be hard-pressed to use it as a threshold or a point of satisfaction in terms of success. Wouldn't a start-up have much more meaning to a founder? Normally, when one comes up with an idea, it addresses a need in the world or a better way to do things.

Others have asked me for advice, but in no way do I feel that I have accomplished my mission. There are greater and more substantial objectives other than being asked advices or receiving praise.

My question was, what is 'success'?

<comment><USER6> OK, then success is something that is very personal. You've gotta define it for yourself. I wonder if you're undergoing an existential crisis, having succeeded at some superficial or not so superficial level but feeling there has to be something more out there that you're missing. There's nothing more out there. Life is only what you make it, just like success.

To some people, success is raising a happy family. To others, it is making manager or director or executive as a cog in a Fortune 500 machine. Most of us here want to start a successful company and make a nice profit or reach a liquidity event.

I would consider myself having succeeded if I can do any or all of the following:

1: Make the GUI that I outlined in my first YC application, an interface intended to make the internet really easy to use for non-traditional users of computers.

2: Cure a major illness or create a major technological breakthrough through my own research lab.

3: Take over Equatorial Guinea.

<comment><USER7> Why Equatorial Guinea?

<comment><USER6> It's a target that Western governments want to fall and it has an enormous amount of oil for its small population,

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Success is when you've significantly improved your users' lives. Great success is when you do this with tons of users. Marlboro is a failure. Wikipedia is a great success.

<comment><USER4> Marlboro is not a failure. It improved the lives of hundreds of millions of people by helping them live the dream of being a handsome cowboy while they rode the subway to work.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> My interpretation of success is when a client/user says, 'Thanks, it works great!' or 'Great job!'

Hearing that sincerely puts a smile on my face and makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside

<comment><USER10> Does that warm and fuzzy feeling pay the bills every month? =)

In all seriousness, I agree that having happy clients is a strong indicator of success. But for myself, success is more than just being at the front of the pack.

Success is having the satisfaction of knowing you put out your full effort (and then some). Success is personal struggle and personal growth, regardless of the problem or project.

<comment><USER11> As far as I can tell if a warm and fuzzy feeling pays your bills, you are probably going to jail.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> A lot of the comments seem to focus on influencing the lives of lots of users. That would pretty much cut out the entire Enterprise startup category wherein a few 1000 IT admins are enough to take a company to profitability. Of course, employees of the company end up becoming indirect users. As to what defines success, the following quote works well for me:

"When all is said and done, the journey is the reward." \- Randy Komisar

</comment><comment><USER13> As a business, I tend to think success has to have SOME connection with revenue/profit... Unless you want to bet your success on your ability to sell a profitless venture.

I'd say when you have customers who want to keep being customers is a pretty good measure of success. Customers are the people who pay the bills... So if you have a free service, it means advertisers who are reaching an audience they care about and getting a good return on their investment.

I find the emphasis on 'users' to be a bit too simple, and decidedly not very bubble-proof. It's probably also important to qualify who your users are and how much you know about them. 100,000 users that you have no information about aren't very valuable.

</comment><comment><USER14> Success is defined by the goals you set for your startup. Some people may create a startup in hopes to match their current salary at their "real job", so that they can quit. Once that goal is attained they consider their venture a success. Others have higher, loftier goals (go IPO) and if they don't achieve that goal then they feel that were unsuccessful and thus continue creating/joining other startups and ventures until that goal is reached. One man's failure is another man's success.

</comment><comment><USER15> If you had/are having fun and don't regret for a minute having left your day job to start your startup, then it's a success. Of course, it's best to measure that at least a year into the thing.

</comment><comment><USER16> google

<comment><USER4> Good point! But playing devil's advocate, "IBM!" Touche!

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> When corrupt old men in Europe who all know each other from P2 meetings agree that you have to be assassinated, then you know you've succeeded. That or if you can make 10,000 people in Silicon Valley slam their heads into a wall and shout, "F^#% ME!!! WHY DIDN'T I THINK OF THAT?!?!?!?"

<comment><USER3> Or if you can make 10,000 people in Silicon Valley call their lawyers and say "BUT I DID THINK OF THAT..."

<comment><USER4> Ya I guess if you can monetize an idea 10,000 entrepreneurs had before you than you can call it a success as well. The smug sense of satisfaction will keep you warm for decades to come.</comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: QuickSilicon – Hire semicon talent effectively - <AUTHOR> http://quicksilicon.in <comment><AUTHOR> QuickSilicon is a SaaS product that caters to the technical hiring needs of the semiconductor industry. QuickSilicon allows companies to host challenges (or hackathons as they say!) consisting of design problems and theoretical questions to test skills relevant to the semiconductor industry.</comment>


Ask HN: Best way to learn UI/UX and web design? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> UI is different from UX and both are large areas of knowledge and training.

I'd recommend working on projects which force you to learn as you go along.

You can also read a bit of theory on both but don't get trapped in the "being informed == learning" fallacy. Reading about bycicles is different from balancing on one and learning to do tricks on it.

Any theory you inform yourself about you need to combine with experience points or it's not very useful.

UX theory:

The Design of Everyday Things and Don't Make Me Think are good books on UX.

You can find a lot of articles on medium but know that many of are written by inexperienced designers and writers and can be quite convoluted and confusing. Much of the web writing is polluted by lists, tips and instructions which provide a false sense of learning. Memorizing a list does not give you experience.

Smashing Magazine has curated sections on both UX and UI.

UI wise I liked the Microinteractions book, the designing forms book from alistapart, and the web typography book by Jason Santa Maria.

Also this: [http://webtypography.net/](http://webtypography.net/)

And this: [https://practicaltypography.com/](https://practicaltypography.com/)

are good resources on typography.

Lastly, take a look at Kathy Sierra's work, including her website and book. Both are very inspiring.

But don't forget to go through a project where you make the ui and UX decisions and ideally get a chance to refine them in the presence of use data. The experience points are the multiplier to the theory.

</comment><comment><USER3> There are really 5 fundamentals you'll want to practice if you want to dive into user interface design for the web:

1\. Typography

2\. Whitespace

3\. Color selection

4\. Image use and presentation

5\. Animation / iconography

With those 5 you'll get the 80/20 of what's needed to make a great design. From there you can dive into the specifics of user experience, information architecture, and a whole host of other facets to make things both aesthetically pleasing and intuitive.

If you want a crash course in those 5 topics, I actually put together a free book with examples on how to apply those things to the web: [http://anonconsulting.com/ui-crash-course/](http://anonconsulting.com/ui- crash-course/)

Let me know what you think and if you have any further questions don't hesitate to reach out.

</comment><comment><USER4> I'm not an expert at UI/UX/design, but I'd say I've gone from mortifyingly incompetent to not-completely-awful so if that's the transition you're also looking to make, maybe my advice can help.

What helped me was to look at designs that I thought were decent and just duplicate them. You actually learn a lot this way and it's much easier than trying to come up with original designs; also much more practical than reading a bunch of theory (which I've also tried).

</comment><comment> Leo-Cabibihan This video helped me [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QR4EbVDkWcI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QR4EbVDkWcI) (Design for non designers)</comment>


Tails is a operating system that protects your privacy and avoids censorship - <AUTHOR> https://tails.boum.org/?new <comment><USER2> Lots of previous discussions, so the project home page is probably too generic to make a good HN submission.

[https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...](https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=Tails%20comments%3E3&sort=byDate&type=story)

The reverse is also true: if the project hadn't had much attention on HN before, this would make a fine submission.

I wrote about this issue recently: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23071428](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23071428)

</comment><comment><USER3> Is tails supposed to be run as an OS installed on the main disk or even as a main OS? From this it looks like it's supposed to be for temporary use in high-risk situations.

<comment><USER4> Mainly from a USB stick so that you run it in memory where possible

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> My first question is who's behind it?

<comment><USER6> Crypto AG shows us that you should assume it is entirely owned by the CIA...

You should evaluate stuff like this independent of your feelings towards the people that did it. Ultimately you can't trust anyone but yourself.</comment></comment>


SIGINT checker for program in C - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/mangalutsav/check_SIGINT <comment><USER2> Hey, this is a really neat idea -- thanks for sharing.

Take special care to review the "Async-signal-safe functions" section of signal(7) [1]. Some of the functions you're using in your signal handler aren't safe to be used there. If you want to still have a correct example of this feature you should focus on narrowing your handler down to something extremely minimal. For example, some enumeration representing the program state stored as a sig_atomic_t. You can write to it in the handler. If you don't like polling the sig_atomic_t you can use the write-to-your-own-pipe trick [2].

[1] [http://man7.org/linux/man- pages/man7/signal.7.html](http://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man7/signal.7.html)

[2] [https://www.sitepoint.com/the-self-pipe-trick- explained/](https://www.sitepoint.com/the-self-pipe-trick-explained/)</comment>


Strata 2014 Conference - Making Data Work: Slides and Videos (strataconf.com) - <AUTHOR> http://strataconf.com/strata2014/public/schedule/proceedings

<comment><AUTHOR> I was excited by John Foreman's dissection of 'Data Science' into a series of Excel lessons.</comment>


Lyft Is Said to Seek New Funding as Its Rival Uber Stumbles - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/01/technology/lyft-funding-uber.html <comment><USER2> Here is how I see it. I rely on those rides to go to work every single day and here what it (would) costs me.

Uber: $250 a month.(Majority)

Lyft: $500 a month (Whenever Uber is too expensive)

Bus : $100 a month (1h:15 for 6 miles and 3 buses... No)

Politics and all internal conflicts aside, there is a need for these services whether we like it or not.

When I need to make a decision in the morning I take whatever is the least expensive and more convenient. I don't want to spend hours on the bus and I do not want a good chunk of my paycheck to go to simply getting to work.

Speaking with drivers everyday, I understand their frustration of driving all around town only for very small profit. Just today, I took a ride with a driver that seemed very frustrated. I didn't want to intrude but he ended up tell me how much he hates UberPool (that's what I use). 70 cents per mile, and when a second rider joins the rate goes down, and for the next even lower. We were 3 different riders.

In the riders perspective, we want the cheapest and most reliable. Sure I want to support those who work for a company that respect them but at the end of the day it is not a charity.

What is the answer in the consumer's perspective?

Edit: Formatting

<comment><USER3> In Europe, your bus fare would be half of the price and probably you would need one or two connections.

The public transport is much more developed and to me seems like a much better mass transportation alternative. More ecological, cheaper, less cars overall.

<comment><USER4> It also helps that Europe and its cities are ... smaller.

<comment> semi-extrinsic I don't know if you're thinking about area or population, but by either metric London is bigger than any city in the US, and has a much better public transport system.

<comment><USER5> The New York and Los Angeles metropolitan areas are larger in area than the London metropolitan area

The NY metro area is much more populous than London, and the LA metro area is very slightly less populous.

<comment><USER6> NYC transportation sucks even within areas where the population is very dense. It takes 2 hours to get from Bronx to Coney Island on subway. Plus there are almost daily service disruptions of all kinds.

San Francisco's Bart is hated by almost everyone but it is much faster[1]. In fact, I have never taken a slower subway than NYC subway.

[1] [https://flic.kr/p/7LhwPz](https://flic.kr/p/7LhwPz)

<comment><USER7> > It takes 2 hours to get from Bronx to Coney Island on subway

That's a bizarre example. Of course it takes a long time to go from one corner of the city to the other. No reasonable person would be making that commute regularly.

<comment><USER6> The point is that the subway is slow and unreliable unless you are commuting within Manhattan for 4 stops.

Lots of people work in Manhattan and commute from Brooklyn. It's a 1.5 hr train ride to Columbus Circle + 0-60 minute random slowdown where you may have to take the train in the opposite direction for a bunch of stops.

Sometimes they actually tell you to get off the train, take a shuttle bus and get back on the train. Other times the train stops 8 subway stops from where you have to be with an inaudible message from the conductor. As a result, you are stuck the middle of nowhere at 8 PM on a Saturday. Only option is to take a local bus (that tends to be much more reliable) or Uber. This kind of treatment is unheard of in any European country including Russia.

It could have been a 45 + 0-5 variation minute ride if trains ran as fast and reliably as they do in almost every other city.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> According to leaked financial in [1], Lyft is expected to generate $32M of net revenue on about $158M of fare, while losing $50M per month. If everything stays the same, Lyft would have to raise rate by 156% to break even. Also, Lyft's growth is mostly purchased:

> While rides increased about 11 percent from April to May, fully paid rides, > without the use of a coupon or a credit, grew by only 5 percent in that > period.

They recently launched in 50+ cities simultaneously, which means they will bleed cash faster in hope of generating some growth number.

In comparison, according to [2], in Q3 of 2016, Uber collected 5.5B of fare, and after paying drivers, had a net revenue of 1.7B (30%) and a loss of 800M. If everything stays the same, Uber could break even by raising rate by 47%. If you consider that most of the loss is from developing markets, it's actually not that hard for Uber to break even in the U.S.

[1] [https://mattermark.com/lyft-financials/](https://mattermark.com/lyft- financials/) [2] [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-12-20/uber-s- lo...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-12-20/uber-s-loss- exceeds-800-million-in-third-quarter-on-1-7-billion-in-net-revenue)

Edits: grammar

<comment><USER9> Uber was in a similar situation to Lyft not too long ago. Uber's also already said that they're cash-positive in the US, and Lyft is focused on the US for now.

It's not hard to imagine that after this multi-city expansion, costs will go way down.

I wouldn't qualify the growth as "mostly purchased" when it's... 50/50 couponed/full? That seems to be more a consequence of the multi-city launch than anything.

I'm pretty optimistic of Lyft's chances here (politically motivated by Uber's attitude, granted). They're spending a lot of money to capture parts of a well-defined market (US carsharing), and have a PR edge with informed riders.

Uber could theoretically start couponing to hell and back in the US again, but they're going to run out of money someday.

<comment><USER10> > I wouldn't qualify the growth as "mostly purchased" when it's... 50/50 > couponed/full

If most of their customers are buying only because they are selling under the market price, then it doesn't matter if the subsidy is 5% or 50% or 100%; their sales are "mostly purchased".

Imagine you open a store tomorrow and sell gold for 1% under the market price - suddenly your sales blow up to $1 billion in a day. You have purchased all of your sales, with just a 1% coupon.

<comment><USER11> thats the price of acquiring a customer. for my saas the cost to acquire a customer is X, X is multiple of montly fees. so only after couple of months im going to be on 0. The cost for me could be adwords, running a free plan, or something else.

how is this different. I assume that they hope to convert some of those to regular customers.

<comment><USER12> "We'll sell at a loss but we'll make it up in volume."

<comment><USER13> Selling at 1% under market price is only a loss if you're acquiring from the same market.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Forgive me if this is me being dense, but from an outsider's perspective I don't understand what makes Lyft any better than Uber. Neither company properly categorizes their drivers (as employees), both have a rather sizeable cut from fares, both depended on being basically illegal cabs--except for Uber Black, which uses licensed black car services--to get started, and neither has a financially viable business model.

Why is either business the cat's meow?

<comment><USER15> The key points are

\- CEO never blackmailed journalists

\- No major revelations of sexual harassment

\- ~~No major revelations of political support~~

Related to core business

\- Surge Limit has prevented complaints about emergency pricing vs Uber.

\- Lyft takes a lower commission capped at 20%/25%

\- Lyft has in app digital tipping (drivers keep 100% of tips). Uber's tip policy encourages cash, which is an often cited complaint of taxis.

\- Major investment / partnership with GM (mentioned in an Uber thread that Car Makers will need a cheap / reasonably priced app)

<comment><USER16> > _Lyft has in app digital tipping (drivers keep 100% of tips)._

One of the reasons I don't like Lyft. How about this system: pay the drivers a fair wage up front, so they don't need to subsist on the generosity of strangers. If they get great ratings, you can give them a bonus.

<comment><USER17> Exactly! Charge me what you're going to charge. None of this tipping nonsense. It's really a vestige of former times when if someone felt nice enough they'd offer you a tip --not that you deserved it, but it was to show they had heart, a kind of virtue signal.

Why would Lyft want to continue this anachronistic idea which puts the burden on a fare? It's the number one reason I do not use Lyft.

<comment><USER18> The number one reason you don't use Lyft is because of tipping? What do you use instead, Uber, taxi, or do you drive? If it's the first, how do you justify using Uber when its practices are significantly worse than an _optional_ tipping for the users? If it's the second, how do you justify using a taxi when tips (in the US) are almost mandatory?

<comment><USER17> Uber. It's just mentally easier to deal with. After spending time in other countries, I have come to dislike tipping. Having to decide --do they deserve it, do they not? I don't want to deal with it. Tipping used to be an optional thing in transactions but it has become pervasive. Tipping jars. Just charge me more and pay the barista a wage a highschooler or recent graduate can live on.

<comment><USER19> But that is what Lyft is doing... they charge your more to give a little more to the driver. And on top of that they offer the tipping. On the other hand Uber pays less and doesn't offer tipping. The worse of both worlds.

I agree with you on tipping but your reasoning seems to need some work.

<comment><USER20> You assume he cares more about the driver than his own internal state.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Anyone tried carpooling services like Waze pool? As an employee at google, I decided to give Waze pool a try. I live in San Jose and usually ride the google shuttle to work. During traffic, it takes about 1 hour to 1.5 hours (keep in mind Google shuttle has multiple stops).

After using Waze Rider a few times, it has now become my main mode of transportation to work and back. It cost $5 (and possibly less) and you get to sit in a car and talk about life, share your interests, problems, with another human being. So far I have completed about 26 rides and the socializing aspect outside of my social circle makes my commute much more exciting. Since drives can't make a living off the money from Waze carpool, the drivers I tend to meet are those who doesn't really need the money and simply doing it to meet new people. They all have different backgrounds going to work (or home). I've met a nanny, tax accountant, an aspiring policeman going to the academy, VP of a company, and software engineers. Yesterday, I waze carpooled with a product manager and a startup who picked me up in his Tesla. It was the first time I've ridden in a Tesla.

<comment><USER22> Looks like we found the Google employee

<comment><USER23> > As an employee at google

It was disclaimed. Let's not be snarky.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Lyft and Uber, from a birds-eye view, do the _exact same thing_ ; and furthermore, neither is profitable, so the entire market is built upon potential future sales bases. Lyft is here valued at, generously, $7 billion. Meanwhile, Uber's valuation is reported variously, but a general Google search suggests its well in excess of $50 billion.

This exceeds any expectation of market craziness. Are these investors _talking_ to each other? Are things so far gone that a vague promise of self- driving cars is worth almost a _factor of ten_ valuation difference?

<comment><USER25> Early stage private valuations tend to be focused on future potential, usually expressed in total addressable market figures.

Lyft was selling slow expansion (they're still a US-only operator, and even within the US operate in relatively few markets) and most likely positive cashflow.

Uber was selling rapid global expansion, where each new city could be scaled up via Uber playbooks. Then it started selling itself as "last-mile logistics provider" for things like food deliveries and clothing. Then as a leading developer of self-driving vehicles, later complemented by self-driving trucks, later complemented by self-elevating passenger-carrying robotic drones.

You have to give Uber credit, they do address a broader TAM, even if their underlying core business doesn't seem that different from Lyft or Gett or Wingz or Hailo or MyTaxi or Didi or GrabTaxi or Ola or Yandex.Taxi.

<comment><USER24> And? What's the difference between total coverage in 2018 versus total coverage in 2020? Uber can't lock Lyft out of the market- that was abundantly proved when a bit of ham-fisted PR made Lyft one of the most popular apps of January. And Lyft can just copy any of Uber's random X-delivery schemes _that actually works_. Self-driving cars might be a distinguishing factor, since as far as I know Lyft has no efforts in that direction, but that deficit could be entirely compensated for if Lyft winds up selling themselves to some company that does have that tech.

<comment><USER26> One of the most popular apps in the US. Not the world.

Here in Australia everyone uses Uber and the experience has been excellent. Which means that it's going to be that much harder for Lyft to get any traction.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> While I think now is probably the time for lyft to strike while the iron is hot, I appreciate nytimes' candor in acknowledging neither Lyft nor Uber has demonstrated a "financially viable business". The road ahead is undoubtedly not easy for Lyft.

<comment><USER28> > neither Lyft nor Uber has demonstrated a "financially viable business

Self driving cars

<comment><USER29> In the magical future where self-driving cars will be able to replace 100% of what a driver does 100% of the time, what barrier to entry will protect Uber from competition? What stops someone from leasing a few dozen vehicles, and opening up their NotUber self-driving taxi service?

<comment><USER30> Especially in a world where Google Maps has already intermediated the ridesharing services. NotUber just needs to integrate with gmaps to instantly get ridership without spending billions in incentives to build their own two- sided marketplace.

When that happens, any Uber employees still holding equity are going to take a bath. They will be holding onto shares likely worth less than what they paid in taxes to get them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> I often wonder what is the natural market price of these services? Basically, without massive VC money distorting everything, how much would a Lyft or Uber ride really cost? I have a feeling it would be much higher than now. Despite all the hype, true level 5 self driving is decades away. When the VC money stops, what are these companies going to do?

I think the only viable option for them is Lyft Line/Uber Pool. It benefits from network effects (more using the service, better it gets) which also prevents newcomers. It could become a monopoly like Facebook. They should be pushing this harder than unrealistic dreams of level 5 self driving.

<comment><USER32> I saw one economist trying to figure out what the appropriate fare for BART should be.

Ans: Free.

One place I worked in the early 2000's gave us checks were could redeem for transit.

[https://commuterbenefits.511.org/docs/faq.pdf](https://commuterbenefits.511.org/docs/faq.pdf)

One thought might be to have a subsidized ride share system where employers/transit authority pays people to ride share. Impression that based on transit authorities reaction to causal car pooling is they wouldn't support it. AKA they don't want people carpooling they want them to ride busses.

Second thought of mine based on buses in San Francisco is the buses are too large and too few. More smaller buses would increase ridership and reduce trip times.

<comment><USER33> You can already pay for Uber rides with commuter benefit cards. [https://newsroom.uber.com/poolcommutes/](https://newsroom.uber.com/poolcommutes/)

<comment><USER32> My thought might be interesting if car poolers could tap into the commuter benefit cards. AKA pick up someone on the way to work and they can transfer 25-50 cents a mile into your account.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> I had the opportunity to speak with an Uber driver today who spoke with a gentle voice and was very pleasant. She didn't speak much and when she did, she was very agreeable. However, when the Uber topic came up, she was very vocal about how unhappy she was driving with Uber (She did not know about the recent Uber drama going on because she was so busy driving all the time).

She complained about Uber's frequently changing driver bonuses. Right when she figures out a routine that fits her schedules, Uber sweeps out the rug from under her and changes the payment structure.

Example: Previously you complete 125 rides / week and you will get a $500 bonus. This a significant number for her. Now, Uber split it up so you have to do 75 rides by Thursday to earn $250. Then do 65 rides on fri/sat/sun to earn the remainder $250. This is incredibly frustrating for her because on weekends she usually gets long rides (SF to San Jose). This immediately takes an hour off her day (for one ride) and she would have to work extra to meet her target.

Obviously, I asked her why she doesn't drive for Lyft. She used to, and Lyft did many things right. She loved it. However, Lyft decided to take away Lyft power driver bonus (similar to Uber's bonus) and that made a significant dent in her earning potential. She had to switch and drive for Uber to make ends meet. I'd imagine many Lyft drivers had a similar reaction, which is why I still find much more drivers on Uber than on Lyft despite the all the negative publicity. Here are some things that I think Lyft can improve on their business strategy:

1\. Be willing to do what it takes to succeed. Uber has repeatedly shown their agility and versatility to adapt to changes around them. When they realized that Uber Black was not what the public wanted, they introduced UberX (which screwed over alot of their existing drivers) and lowered fares. It was harsh and unfair, but it had to be done.

If I was running Lyft and was low on cash and could not afford to continue driver bonuses, I would have laid off a chunk of the engineering team / staff to raise capital to retain the drivers from switching.

2\. With all these #deleteUber hashtags, why haven't I heard any of my friends promoting Lyft? Now should be the perfect time to splurge on marketing and capture all the disgruntled uber drivers and passengers. Wait a month, most of the fire would have died.

As much as I love Lyft and the experience I have riding with Lyft, I prefer giving that up for a cheaper service. Most people I know would prefer to save money. I hope Lyft figures out an aggressive business strategy and become a viable Uber competitor.

</comment><comment><USER35> I don't think this will work because I don't think modern megacorporations suffer consequences for poor ethics the way normal-sized local businesses did a hundred years ago. If the local tannery was run by a bad person, people would say "I don't do business with him" and he could lose 50% of his serviceable customers and employees. Today, the corporations are completely faceless, and the fact that there are actual people behind Uber the company is not readily apparent when using their app. People will just go for the cheapest ride and think only briefly about the scandal they read about last week.

<comment><USER28> Except when #DeleteUber trends on Twitter... Sure it won't be 50% but I doubt the charts look pretty

<comment><USER36> I'd wager the folks reading Twitter and random blogs on medium occupy a microscopic portion of Uber consumers. I would be very surprised if Uber saw any significant hit to their business because of the recent events

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Lyft couldn't sell themselves for $5B and now they're looking for funding at $6B. I'm curious as to who would be dumb enough to invest in Lyft after a scenario like that.

<comment><USER38> The same ones who were dumb enough to invest in Uber I guess.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> Also, the quality of Uber cars has declined, even within "black" and especially "SUV" classes.

So, might as well save the money.

</comment><comment><USER40> Outside of SV and HN crowd, I don't know of anyone who heard of the scandals here in Paris at least. They seem to be doing great (or at least similar than pre-scandals).

</comment><comment><USER41> Let's say I have to take a cab everyday to work. If Uber gives me a ride for 15 bucks and Lyft gives me the same ride for 18 bucks, I know which one I will choose. Do you?

<comment><USER42> It's easy for me to say, but I won't ride in an Uber vehicle. I've disagreed with their practices for quite some time, and these more recent events have only solidified my resolve.

I'm sure I'm the tiny minority, but $3 a day is a pittance vs knowing I'm supporting such a toxic culture.

Plus, if you can't afford an "extra" $3 a day to get to work, then use neither Uber nor Lyft and get on a bus.

<comment><USER41> My understanding is that Uber was never popular in cities with good public transport...

As for 3$ a day, this is the choice people make everyday with using free Google stuff and promoting ads and surveillance culture. It's really not that simple as money as you make it sound.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> If that is the best shot Lyft has, it would seem futile

</comment><comment><USER44> I'm really surprised that Lyft and Uber are not profitable. As for which is better. Uber once charged my friend $80 for a 15 minute ride in Salt Lake City around midnight. There is a markup and a then there is bend over. They marked up a bend over on that one. I try my best not to use them. I also like the option of giving a tip.

<comment><USER45> On the other hand when I visited SF I did five rides on Lyft and got charged $0.79 in total which I thought very nice of them but not very profitable. They gave me one of their intro deals.

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> I'm curious.

Do you price check each time??

Is there an app that can determine which is cheapest?

If the prices are about the same can you hail both and take the one that arrives first (& cancel)? (Getting from a to b is a commodity)

Does the uber app detect that you have a competitor and can it be smart enough to price accordingly?

</comment><comment><USER47> Anybody who's got a small but viable alternative to Uber could really benefit by pivoting to an "ethics first" model right now. Between Kalanick and Thiel, the market seems ripe for disruption.

<comment><USER48> Can you give an example of large companies which operate on a "ethics first" model?

<comment><USER49> costco and mars incorporated both have long histories of ethical, sustainable practices, and a strong reputation for resisting the quality lowering death spirals that infect many consumer goods focused companies.

<comment><USER48> Costco is probably the best example that comes to mind for me to, considering the scale at which they operate and the fact that they are actually widely reputed for their ethical practices.

Nonetheless I think they are an exception and, while not impossible, it would be pretty difficult to disrupt the disruptor with a business model based on being more ethical.

<comment><USER50> Costco's profits are less their subscription revenue. That tells me the space for bulk retailers in middle class areas with the type of consumers that can shell out a yearly subscription fee isn't a whole lot bigger than Costco already occupies. Costco shoppers have more money, so they can buy more economically at Costco quantities, and they have a higher expectation of service which requires a higher paid employee. Costco has effectively packaged that arrangement in a $50 fee and keeps prices competitive by selling mostly bulk quantities compared to grocery stores. Good luck trying to compete at scale while holding on to costly values that your competitors don't. Your choices are fail entirely or carve out a niche that you can keep almost exclusively.

In my mind, the mental ceiling keeping us from understanding 'Why more companies can't be like Costco' and 'What's the real value of an Uber ride sans venture capital subsidies' is a lack of understanding of the extensive properties of capital that automation is going to either push us through or bring down on us in a rain of deadly glass shards. I'm not going to wait around for the market to 'get real' and 'focus on companies with actual viable business models' though. 1) The bulk of your portfolio should already be occupied by companies that fit that mold, but 2) The practice of leveraging profitability today for gains in equity tomorrow is going to push through a few big winners consistently enough that it's not going away regardless of the overall consequences. Meanwhile we'll keep asking the same questions that ultimately amount to 'Why does capital beget capital?'

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> Hopefully us former employees see some liquidity before driverless wipes these companies out. The value of ride dispatching aggregators is in the driver network. Apps and cars are easy to make.

</comment><comment><USER52> Wouldn't it be better, if half of that money could go into improving the public transport of cities or building new infrastructure that would ease up congestion on roads?

</comment><comment><USER53> Do we have any reason to believe Lyft is actually more moral? And not just putting on a "we're moral" marketing stunt?

<comment><USER54> I personally was convinced Lyft was more moral when Uber employees did things like booking Lyft rides for the purposes of recruiting away the drivers or making fake Lyft accounts to book and cancel thousands of rides. As far as I can tell, Lyft employed no similar tactics.

[http://money.cnn.com/2014/08/11/technology/uber-fake-ride- re...](http://money.cnn.com/2014/08/11/technology/uber-fake-ride-requests- lyft/)

[http://www.businessinsider.com/ubers-operation-slog- against-...](http://www.businessinsider.com/ubers-operation-slog-against- lyft-2014-8)

</comment></comment><comment><USER55> Anyone betting that GM will end up acquiring them?</comment>