Justin Kan's Exec Starts Running Errands For Companies And Startups Today - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2012/03/26/exec-justin-kan-corporate-accounts/ <comment><USER2> I really like the approach of trying to reduce friction as much as possible. The main problem that I have with TaskRabbit, fiverr, etc is that while those services might be able to help me outsource things I don't want to do myself, they create additional, new work for me in making me draft a proposal, vet people, and so forth, which is (partially) self-defeating.

<comment><USER3> That's pretty much the precise reason that I don't tend to use these so-called "collaborative consumption" services more: it takes a lot of effort to ensure you get a quality experience. It's great that Exec is doing all that work up front so I won't have to.

It seems to me that a lot of startups go the two-sided marketplace route because they're unable (for fear of becoming a party to the transaction, as well as often lacking the resources) to take control and directly manage the supply side. Airbnb is a great example of this: while they provide a platform to connect hosts and guests, that's pretty much where it ends. They don't even require their hosts to keep their availability calendar accurate, which kind of defeats the point. At least when I go to hotels.com I know that I'll have a room waiting for me when I arrive.

<comment><USER2> The other main point of friction I've encountered with AirBnB is the whole checkin process - it's rare that people lay around their apartments all day long, so there's always a bit of scrambling as both parties try to sync up their schedules.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Its funny the Y-Combinator mafia (and I mean that lovingly) can really be such a great tool for these personal services companies like ZeroCater and Exec. I doubt they're forced to participate but its such a great source of initial users. I think for some of these companies this may be a bigger Y-combinator benefit then the mentoring/cash or VC intros.

<comment><AUTHOR> Our early customers were probably 50% or more YC and we got a bunch of great initial feedback. So yes, this helps a lot.

There is a pay-it-forward mentality -- Justin.tv serves as an early customer for many YC startups.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I'm quite surprised TechCrunch didn't mention Exec's similarity to TaskRabbit.

<comment><USER6> Instead, they covered the interesting part, which is the _differences_ between Exec and services like TaskRabbit (I've used several.)

> Unlike other services, it doesn't make users manage a bidding process and > vet offers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> It's a nice perk, but "distracted" by dry cleaning or grocery shopping? What's next, distracted by sleeping or having a life outside work?

I'd take this kind of thing a lot more seriously if it was at least not pitched as a way to spend more time in the office.

<comment><AUTHOR> Lots of our customers are using Exec as a way to provide their team members with more leisure time. The way I normally pitch it is that if you want to go grocery shopping to get ingredients for a special meal you are going to cook and you will enjoy, then by all means, go for it. If grocery shopping is a chore that you don't look forward to, then outsource it. You should outsource the things you don't want to do to leave more time for the things you want to do.

Personally, I dislike having errands that require me to physically leave the office disrupt my work day, especially on days where I need solid chunks of time programming. Our goal with Exec for Companies is to help teams spend more time doing what they want to do.

<comment><USER8> Justin, I love the idea of Exec.

What have been biggest challenge to get it working so far?

<comment><AUTHOR> Just making sure that every single customer has an amazing experience. It is the core of what we do and there is nothing more important.

<comment><USER9> So, "quality control?"

<comment><AUTHOR> yes

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I would be weary of relying on Exec for anything substantial to my company because if they get acuihired, they could disappear overnight and leave a gaping hole in my business that could be very difficult to fill.

<comment><AUTHOR> I definitely understand this given all the acquihiring going on in tech right now -- it makes it hard to rely on something for your business.

That being said, for a few reasons I don't think we're likely to go away through an talent acquisition:

1) The majority of our headcount won't be engineers and product, it will be operations. This is necessarily the case because we are such a local service. This means that anyone who wants to buy a team to work on product is paying a massive premium for all these other people they probably don't want (at least, traditional tech firms won't want them).

2) I think Justin.tv / TwitchTV will already make me very wealthy. I didn't start Exec to make money. I started Exec because I want to build something that will take over the world. I want to be Facebook of labor -- not as in "a company that opens up your social graph around work" but as in "a company that fundamentally changes and expands the category it is in, and becomes ascendent in that category".

That said, it is easy to talk. Watch what we do and draw your own conclusions.

As a side note, if any readers are interested in contributing to this vision check us out: <http://iamexec.com/hiring>

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Are average developers really getting paid 150K in the valley these days? (figure mentioned in the article)

<comment><USER12> At $150K, you are not "average", you are a good developer, with some specialized skills that make you hard to replace quickly.

<comment><USER13> Or a college hire at a famous company (counting equity and benefits) ,

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Congrats Justin & Co. - Exec was a great experience for us at Mixpanel. It has that "just works" feel to it which is incredibly hard to create.

</comment><comment><USER15> Any chance you'll have an API for this in the future? I can see amazing potential for new business and experiences to be build on top of Exec. If nothing else, in some sense you can "automate" tasks that occur at less predictable intervals, such as "clean up my condo after my airbnb guests have left" or "need virtual assistant when workload exceeds X".

Congrats guys! I look forward to seeing this grow!

</comment><comment><USER16> That's pretty interesting.

One of the things I've always wanted to learn is how to drive a stick shift.

I'd definitely pay someone $25/hr to learn.

<comment><USER17> Check my profile. If I'm close, I can help with that.

<comment><USER16> Thanks, but I'm in Seattle.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I forsee a near future where employers offer Exec/TaskRabbit credits or dollars alongside other standard benefits such as healthcare, 401k, etc. Good work guys!

</comment><comment><USER19> Kozmo.com 2.0?</comment>


Ask HN: Which graph database would you advice? - <AUTHOR> In terms of scalability, reliability and performance? And what are your thoughts about implementing a graph inside e.g. PostgreSQL or Cassandra?<p>The graph will contain roughly about 150.000 vertexes, around 50.000 of those are highly connect between the other 100.000, expecting around 2.500.000 edges in between. The 100.000 vertex will almost all be updated daily. The graph will be used for OLTP workloads, expecting around 10 q/s. Queries will resolve the similarity (one-to-many). <comment><USER2> If I were doing a lot of graph specific stuff, where it was crucial to store the graph itself, I'd definitely go with a pure graphdb over trying to shoe- horn it into a relational db, or even Cassandra. It's hard to give a real precise answer without more info, but Neo4J is probably a good starting point unless your requirements are real specific in some way that isn't compatible with Neo4J.

You should probably also ask if you really need a graph _database_ or if you just need to use a graph _processing engine_ (like Giraph) to perform graph operations on data that can be extracted from elsewhere.

</comment><comment><USER3> The main concern I would have is over the OLTP requirement.

A well-built analytics system should be able to start from the raw data and rebuild if you trash it, thus would not be so concerned about transactions, consistency, etc.

For online transactions at the volume you are describing, however, you don't want a glitch to break the app, so the first question in my mind is what the story is for concurrent access and updates to the DB.

I build systems big enough to break Neo4J but as others mention, it works just fine for graphs your size.

</comment><comment><USER4> I'm only speaking from experience, but I quite liked Neo4J. I had ~50M edges and as long as you get the Cypher command right, it's amazingly fast. The web GUI is slick and very helpful, and it's got a community edition!

<comment><USER5> +1 for Neo4j and the web GUI. I use it on my side project. Cypher is very easy to learn. If your data is highly relational its a good choice.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> You could also have a look at ArangoDB. Open-source with Apache2, Cpp-based and some neat features like Foxx framework. It's open-source with Apache2 license and I have to say their support is pretty impressive. Worth giving it a spin.

</comment><comment><USER7> It's straightforward to build a graph database using LMDB, the performance is excellent, and it supports transactions, online backups, etc.

If you don't mind Java, Neo4J is another good choice.

</comment><comment><USER3> It would help if you'd share something about: (i) data shape and size, (ii) expected query load, (iii) expected update schedule, (iv) transactional vs analytic nature, etc.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes you are right, please have look. I have updated the question text.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> ArangoDB is very suitable for you. It's a multi-model database (key-value, document, graph).

Your data size is not big and can very fast handled on one machine.

</comment><comment><USER9> As long as what you are doing is data that makes sense for a graph, I'd go with neo4j. We use it at work with great success.

</comment><comment><USER10> +1 for ArangoDB

</comment><comment><USER11> Datastax

</comment><comment><USER12> Neo4j

</comment><comment><USER13> OrientDB</comment>


Short Heels and Long Toes: A Surprising Recipe for Speed  - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/10/biomechanics-of-sprinting/ <comment><USER2> _To understand the paradox, the researchers set up a computer model of a sprinter's push-off. The simulation revealed that despite providing a mechanical disadvantage, the short lever arm of a sprinter's heel actually produced more force than the longer lever arm of a non-sprinter._

Funny how as soon as you discover something, your computer simulations miraculously start to predict it.

</comment><comment><USER3> This shouldn't be a surprise for anyone who knows what a gearbox is, should it?

</comment><comment><USER4> nice how this study remarks on the earlier one about shorter toes being more energy efficient for long distance running.

i look forward to the vertical studies that show whether a regular person who starts sprinting regularly can shorten their tendron, or whether it is entirely genetic. not sure about toes changing lengths,...

<comment><USER5> You can definitely shorten your overall foot length. I've dropped one shoe size over the past two years since starting to run semi-compettively, mostly due to stronger foot muscles pulling my arch higher.</comment></comment>


Debt Is Good - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/21/opinion/paul-krugman-debt-is-good-for-the-economy.html?_r=0

<comment><USER2> tl;dr Economies need something safe to invest in with a decent return (more than inflation). Government treasury bonds provide that flexible safe haven.

If T-bond interest rates are too low (a function of supply and demand), investors will avoid them and seek higher-risk investments, adding risk to the economy. So when governments run low/no deficits, there's no motivation for them to create bonds with attractive interest rates for investors. This raises the risk profile across the economy.

Meanwhile, the private sector cannot be fully trusted to create safe, low risk investments. Remember the housing crash? That was the result of CDOs, a very clever derivatives game that indirectly coupled AAA mortgages to the worst subprime junk bonds. The private sector is full of very bright people who are paid lots of money to find clever new ways to game the system. That means it can all be gamed. So government-backed securities mean there's at least one honest(ish) game in town.

The triumph of ideology over evidence, and "common sense" over deep thought, causes no end of economic problems. Austerity is common sense and ideology. Debt is bad, right? Except when you need a certain amount of government debt out there to stabilize markets. When investors are practically begging for government bonds to shelter them from the private sector storm and there are no bonds to be hand because the austerity police think the common sense thing is to reduce spending, they're actually making it worse, not better. They're leaving private investments out in the rain.

</comment><comment><USER3> For the Government to run at a surplus the private sector must run at a deficit which is clearly not good for the economy.</comment>


900 Workers Have Already Died Building Qatar's World Cup Infrastructure - <AUTHOR> http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/over-900-workers-have-already-died-building-qatars-world-cup-facilities-180950088/?no-ist&1 <comment><USER2> Boycott FIFA. Call on the Architects and Engineers to end their working relationships on the projects. This is outrageous. We know better. It can start with Ms. Hadid. Speer the Younger and Arup.

[http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/25/zaha-hadid- qata...](http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/25/zaha-hadid-qatar-world- cup-migrant-worker-deaths)

[http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/german- architect...](http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/german-architect- albert-speer-plans-for-the-2022-world-cup-in-qatar-a-836154.html)

[http://www.arupassociates.com/en/case-studies/qatar- showcase...](http://www.arupassociates.com/en/case-studies/qatar-showcase/)

<comment><USER3> Holy crap. If I'm not reading this wrong, the German architect in question is the son of a Nazi architect, _a member of Hitler 's inner circle_. This guy made his career in such bastions of human rights as the Middle East and China. Who'd have thunk it? Not looking good for Germany really, is it? Architects depending on slave labour... runs in the family. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Speer,_Jr%2E](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Speer,_Jr%2E) (His father was _the Nazis ' principle exploiter of forced labor_. [http://www.auschwitz.dk/Speer.htm](http://www.auschwitz.dk/Speer.htm))

<comment><USER4> So if you mother or father is a bad person, then automatically you are. Great logic.

<comment><USER3> Heh. Your logic is this [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man) ... I never said that. On the contrary, I believe that each person is ethically responsible for their actions, direct or indirect. This man and his father are both guilty.

<comment><USER5> Actually, you strongly implied that his father being a Nazi somehow influenced his own behavior. Why bring up his father at all otherwise?

<comment><USER6> Not caring to look myself, did this man's father raise him?

My father certainly influenced my outlook on many aspects of life when he raised me. I am of course responsible for my own actions, and it is everyone's responsibility to rise above the shortcomings of their parents, but to ignore the role a parent plays in their child's development is just silly.

For example, my father is an evangelical christian. I am not. Realizing that my father is gives a window, however murky, into my development and provides context for many of my beliefs and convictions.

Noting the similarities between the father and the son gives us potential insight into the [lack of] moral development of the son.

<comment><USER7> Not too much, except for the first eleven years, Albert Speer Jr. was born in 1934. In 1945 his father got sentenced to 20 years in prison and served until 1966, mostly in Spandau. Wikipedia states that he wrote many letters to his children from prison but "found himself unable to re-establish his relationship with his children, even with his son Albert".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Well this is what happens when you have no worker safety regulations and the families of the workers are poor Pakistanis and Bengalis that can't file wrongful death lawsuits. America's support of countries like Qatar will be remembered in history like our support of the Apartheid regime in South Africa. These countries treat Pakistanis and Bengalis as de facto slaves.

<comment><USER9> Qatar is one of a few countries which have an exit visa. These workers (en masse) could not leave the country, even if they want. So, yeah, they are slaves.

[http://www.moi.gov.qa/PermitForm/PermitFormE.jsp](http://www.moi.gov.qa/PermitForm/PermitFormE.jsp)

<comment><USER10> Exit visas? Wow I never knew such a thing could exist. If you are a citizen of a country you should always be allowed to travel to that country unless you're arrested for committing a crime elsewhere.

<comment><USER4> It is a way to check you before you leave. Like a security guard checking your bag before you leave a store. Do you owe money, have legal trouble, etc. I am not saying it is right but that is how it is viewed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> This and news that a Qatari firm paid off one of the top FIFA officials for votes during bidding for the World Cup doesn't help Qatar's image going forward. [1]

[1] [http://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/mar/18/jack- warner-...](http://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/mar/18/jack-warner-fifa- world-cup-2022-payment-allegations)

<comment><USER12> Those news were completely unsurprising.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Just to put this in perspective, Qatar won the bid in Dec of 2010 -- they are _literally_ killing 1 worker a day building this.

I spent some time in Dubai and Abu Dhabi and saw this "big money, big building" craze first hand... it truly is modern day slave labor. No more thought is put into the migrant workers than you would an extra shovel, concrete or tile - they are a resource to expend during construction. The locals don't see them as human, just building material.

</comment><comment><USER14> I refuse to have anything more to do with professional sports. That includes the "professional level" university sports. (And -- I am reminded of their recent, latest round -- the Olympics.)

I'm just one person, but for my part I won't reward nor contribute towards such behavior.

The next step, I hope, is in my country to strip such institutions of their tax breaks and tax exempt status. And the perpetually extorted... "public construction funds" for new stadiums and such nonsense.

I've quite enjoyed playing sports, and I don't begrudge the role of the spectator. But current circumstances have become extremely distorting; this extends to the IP lobbying that continues to hamstring technical developments around media and connectivity.

<comment><USER15> >I refuse to have anything more to do with professional sports.

Genuine question, what exactly have you stopped doing? I guess not watching FIFA 2014 world cup is on the list?

<comment><USER14> I haven't attended a game in several years -- although most of my infrequent attendance had been at others' invitation, anyway.

Although I was never a sports nut, I no longer watch games on TV, at all. Recently, I told one friend I would not be attending his Superbowl party, this year. I had the prior year, with some misgivings, because I wanted to see people.

I did not watch the recent winter Olympics, and I told friends why. I shared some links to articles describing the outrageous branding practices, among other things. This seems to have gotten at least some friends thinking about the matter.

For the fellow who throws the Superbowl party, I specifically shared some recent reporting both on the ever more apparent link to traumatic brain injury (including that "Frontline" show and connected reporting) and on the enormous tax shelter that pro-sports teams have become for their owners. Also the financial shenanigans around facility financing. He has been reconsidering his attachment to the game and to other pro sports (including non-US football, aka soccer).

One friend is an auditor for the Federal government. He has taken the point that while this is not his specific purview, a lot of public money is, one way and another, going to line the pockets of specific, well-connected interests. Being an honest soul, he admits to significant discomfort with this.

I think that most people are basically "fair" and decent people. As they learn more, they find an increasing distolerance towards stomaching the situation. And they decide that there are other things they can spend their time, energy, and money on.

Again, I'm not dumping on sports. I'm communicating my strong dissatisfaction with what this "sports industry" has become.

<comment><USER15> Thanks, I would love to see more reporting done on such practices. If you still have those links you shared with friends, please share them here.

<comment><USER14> Taking a quick look, per what I referenced:

How the NFL Fleeces Taxpayers

[http://www.beyondchron.org/news/index.php?itemid=11877](http://www.beyondchron.org/news/index.php?itemid=11877)

Frontline's "League of Denial:The NFL'S Concussion Crisis" Airs

[http://www.metafilter.com/132838/Frontlines-League-of- Denial...](http://www.metafilter.com/132838/Frontlines-League-of-DenialThe- NFLS-Concussion-Crisis-Airs)

And, since I happened across an older mention of this, as well:

[http://www.metafilter.com/124600/Soccer-matchfixing- probe-68...](http://www.metafilter.com/124600/Soccer-matchfixing- probe-680-suspicious-games-worldwide)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Before we look at 2022, just look at 2014's World Cup.

It is known that the Brazilian government is still behind their schedule delivering stadiums and basic infrastructure.

Personally, I am proud to say the new NYC Mayor has made an excellent decision not bidding Winter Olympics ([http://theweek.com/article/index/256746/hosting- the-olympics...](http://theweek.com/article/index/256746/hosting-the-olympics- in-new-york-city-is-a-terrible-idea)). Multi-years of preparations before and after selection is going to take away energy focusing on real domestic-city- wide issues.

The Beijing 2008 Olympics was a great success given the amount of new stadiums and infrastructure added. Though the main stadium (Bird Net) was officially, completely finished sometime around March 2008. London's main stadium was completed in 2011 and under budget. Clearly if the government really care about the event, they will everything to stop corruption and prevent delays. I don't know anything about Brazil's local politic, but press has been criticizing Brazil government its poor coordination and corruption.

<comment><USER17> Every olympics or world cup is preceded by stories about how construction is far behind. And in the end, with some exceptions, most olympics and world cups work out fine.

These labor abuse stories are another issue altogether and a much more serious one.

<comment><USER18> One day everyone else will start to notice this cycle as well. Look at the reporting for the recent Sochi games, where the first week was rife with stories about unready facilities and hotels.

Then, once it starts, everything is forgotten and the sports become the center piece.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Vice did a documentary on similar shit happening in Dubai : [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMh- vlQwrmU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMh-vlQwrmU)

There are so many issues occupying the world currently that I doubt anyone from governments will raise an eyebrow for 'just 900 deaths over 2 years'.

</comment><comment><USER19> It's hard to figure out how bad this is because they don't give enough information about the other projects they compare to.

For instance, they compare to 25 construction worker deaths when preparing Sochi for the 2014 Winter Olympics. As far as I have been able to find with some Googling, Sochi officially involved 74000 construction workers, but an advocacy group for migrant workers says that there were around another 50000 working without permits. Let's take the high figure, and that gives us 1 death per 5000 workers.

So given 1.2 million migrant workers in Qatar, then if they were as safe as Sochi workers, we'd expect 240 deaths, so 900 does indeed look like it indicates they have some major safety problems.

The comparison to 11 who died during the Golden Gate Bridge construction seems pretty worthless. The FAQ at goldengatebridge.org says it was built by 10 prime contractors and the subcontractors, but also that they don't have any employment records from any of them so can't say how many workers were involved. It's also not a good project for comparison because it actually only had two fatal accidents. The first killed one man. The second killed 10 men, when a scaffold failed and the safety net did not catch them.

Up until that point, the project had set a record for remarkable safety. The norm for that kind of project was about one death per million dollars of construction, so getting that far with only one death was amazing, and even with all 11, I think they came in quite low. It was a $30 million project, so 30 deaths would have been normal. At that death rate, taking into account inflation, a project the size of the Qatar FIFA project would have, if safety was comparable to typical bridge projects at the time the Golden Gate was built, about 5000 deaths total for the project--which is close to what the article says they are looking at. However, bridge work is, I think, inherently more dangerous than much of the FIFA infrastructure work, and I'd hope bridge work today is more safe than bridge work was when the Golden Gate was built, so this is consistent with the Sochi comparison. Qatar does indeed to be doing something very wrong.

Conclusion: something very bad is indeed happening in Qatar.

<comment><USER6> As another data point, there were _no_ deaths during the construction of London 2012 Olympic Park: [http://www.hse.gov.uk/press/2012/hse-olympics- research.htm](http://www.hse.gov.uk/press/2012/hse-olympics-research.htm)

There was a single death during the construction for the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver, and 10 deaths during construction for the 2008 Beijing Olympics.

[http://constructiondatacompany.com/olympics-world-cup- constr...](http://constructiondatacompany.com/olympics-world-cup-construction- worker-deaths/)

 _(As you speculate for Sochi, there may also be reporting issues for the Beijing Olympics, but that is nothing but speculation on my part. I don 't believe that the same could be said of the construction projects in UK or Canada.)_

There is something __really__ wrong going on in Qatar.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Forget asking Qatar to kill fewer people, etc. The world should simply force Qatar to withdraw.

Any number of countries have the infrastructure to support the event and would be happy to do so without resorting to quasi-slavery.

</comment><comment><USER21> For me, every work day starts by strapping on a pair of steel-toed boots and a hard hat, climbing high up some steel structure (usually hundreds of feet), building an anchor, and rappelling in to get done whatever needs gettin' done. I think this gives me a different perspective on matters of industrial safety than the typical Hacker News poster.

Granted, I have never worked in a developing country; neither have I worked in the United States in the 1930's.

The culture of industrial safety in the United Sates is... interesting, to say the least. The squeeze for productivity is there for sure, and it sometimes flies in the face of every employer's claim that "safety is our number one priority."

This puts the worker square in the middle of the predicament. Pressure, culture, and, sometimes, a lack of training and equipment creates the worker who is less-than-dilligent about their own safety. Then, when something does go wrong, whether it's a real accident, a "near miss," or just a "violation" that could have escalated but did not, the worker is blamed. Disciplinary action and firings are commonly heard about. This happens because the employer gets to point to "safety first," loads of policy, and their entire (huge) HSE department, while ignoring the fact that the worker was under pressure, mired in a culture of others behaving exactly the same, and, sometimes, poorly trained.

I'm talking about the United States in 2014, where we benefit from a history of labor unions, modern government regulations, two centuries of industrial experience, incredible technology, and a legal environment that scares the pants off every employer.

I cannot imagine what these migrant workers in developing countries are going through. Given the safety statistics we've seen here, can you imagine what the day-to-day grind is like?

</comment><comment><USER22> compare to that, Russia starts to look almost like civilized country. Some displaced people, some unpaid salaries, nothing serious :)

[http://www.bwint.org/default.asp?Index=5192&Language=EN](http://www.bwint.org/default.asp?Index=5192&Language=EN)

<comment><USER5> Maybe not so much if you count the still-existing North Korean slave camps in Russia.

[http://mondediplo.com/2006/04/08koreanworkers](http://mondediplo.com/2006/04/08koreanworkers)

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> "The world is a place rich in natural beauty and cultural diversity, but also one where many are still deprived of their basic rights. FIFA now has an even greater responsibility to reach out and touch the world, using football as a symbol of hope and integration." \-- FIFA Mission Statement ([http://www.fifa.com/aboutfifa/organisation/mission.html](http://www.fifa.com/aboutfifa/organisation/mission.html))

Slavery in this region is nothing new and this choice is abominable on FIFA's part. This type of treatment is endemic in the region including the UAE. In an organization that supposedly promotes equality, Qatar and other such nations should not even be allowed to participate or be members of FIFA. I suppose money talks loudest, however, mission statement be damned. Not to mention the "mistake" acknowledged by FIFA's president already of scheduling the world cup in a country whose average temperatures in June is 81 - 106 degrees Fahrenheit. ([http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/soccer/news/20130909/2022-q...](http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/soccer/news/20130909/2022-qatar- world-cup-mistake-sepp-blatter-winter/?sct=obnetwork))

</comment><comment><USER24> You can get away with a lot of shit if you hold the keys to some petroleum.

</comment><comment><USER25> There are several similar stories of people not being able to leave the country, or life threatening situations like this in Dubai. It's a very similar case there as well with expatriate workers.

</comment><comment><USER26> It's a tragic story, but it doesn't seem a good fit for HN. This is the sort of story that major media outlets should be reporting, and there's no technology angle.

<comment><USER27> As I posted elsewhere, they (TV) aren't.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> The question was asked on a different thread earlier today, and I think it deserves asking here too:

What does this has to do on Hacker News?

Both articles are about groups are the lagging edge of development; both groups are made exclusively of one gender (although, unsurprising, only the other one used that aspect to hammer victimisation). Both issues are connected to an existing hardware technology that could be, but is not of interest to HN.

I read that kind of article (both) in my daily rotation outside of HN, so I don't mind -- but I was wondering if HN commenters had felt the parallel, and would have reacted the same way on both.

<comment><USER27> > Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're > evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or > disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's > probably off-topic.

This sounds like an interesting phenomenon in that I assume this wasn't the case at other recent major sporting events.

As for TV news: [http://www.msnbc.com/search/world%20cup](http://www.msnbc.com/search/world%20cup) (nothing) [http://www.foxnews.com/search- results/search?q=world+cup&sub...](http://www.foxnews.com/search- results/search?q=world+cup&submit=Search&ss=fn) (nothing) [http://www.cnn.com/search/?query=world%20cup&sortBy=relevanc...](http://www.cnn.com/search/?query=world%20cup&sortBy=relevance) (nothing)

I almost didn't even bother with CNN because it was obviously nothing due to the missing flight.

<comment><USER28> It wasn't covered by TV recently because it's not recent.</comment></comment></comment>


Myth: Entrepreneurship Will Make You Rich - <AUTHOR> http://gigaom.com/2009/10/18/myth-entrepreneurship-will-make-you-rich/ <comment><USER2> 1) Being an entrepreneur, for me, isn't about being wealthy, it's about being successful.

2) Rich is a variable term, and intended to be so.

Entrepreneurship may not make you wealthy, but it can certainly make you rich.

I enjoy the freedom and independence afforded by starting EveryDNS and OpenDNS. Both contain a passion for a system I love, the DNS, and both have let me help millions of consumers around the world. I even like knowing I control the DNS for millions and millions of Internet users. That's an awesome responsibility and it certainly makes me feel rich about everything I do.

And when it comes to money, Eric is only somewhat right. He says you should get a job that rewards and promotes effort. But lots of lawyers and finance kids in New York thought they had stable jobs that would make them rich. Ask them today and most will tell you a different story altogether. Now they hate their jobs and have no job security or path to becoming really wealthy.

So like I said, being entrepreneur, for me, isn't about being wealthy, it's about being successful. That's a measuring stick that's far more important.

PS- Eric is awesome and I like that he's beating the drum on this stuff, I wish I were doing more of it. :-)

<comment><USER3> Can't agree more.

People that I've spoken with in the past more often than not associated the idea of me doing a startup in the tech industry with gaining massive wealth. While I may entertain this, deep down I find it lacking as there's so much more than wealth to be had.

How about, living in a world... some distant future from the everyday-everyday where day-by-day you toil piecing together a vision, one day injecting it into the present, in order to influence a whole new set of social behaviors while also unfolding valuable opportunities. How about, the day of flipping that proverbial switch, releasing this vision out in the wild. How about, the potential of millions interacting with your vision, it becoming a staple part of a users online experiences. There's something undeniably provoking about all this, rush of my life.

Wealth, although a welcomed aside pales in comparison. Hell I would even go so far as to say, in a world where sex is constantly peddled as a cure all, let me say it, sex pales in comparison to the feeling I get from being an entrepreneur.

<comment><USER4> > sex pales in comparison to the feeling I get from being an entrepreneur.

Ha, and they suggest that software developers are naturally weird.

[http://ask.slashdot.org/story/09/10/18/1557210/Are- Software-...](http://ask.slashdot.org/story/09/10/18/1557210/Are-Software- Developers-Naturally-Weird)

Kidding.. sorta. ;)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Straw man. Nothing is guaranteed to make you rich. Entrepreneurship certainly has vastly more potential to make you rich.

And if we're not talking about being rich strictly, but are implicitly including a quality of life component, well, the information I've seen[1] implies that entrepreneurship is near the income level of other professionals and has a higher sense of well-being.

[1] [http://www.gallup.com/poll/122960/business-owners-richer- job...](http://www.gallup.com/poll/122960/business-owners-richer-job- types.aspx)

<comment><USER6> Many more people become rich from careful career planning and money management than do from starting companies. The difference between the approaches isn't the potential, it's the speed and the risk.

<comment><USER7> What's career planning and how does one go about it?

<comment><USER6> "I eventually want to be rich, so I'm going to be a lawyer, not an artist."

"I eventually want to be rich, so I'm going to move to Ann Arbor to go to Michigan for law, instead of staying with my friends in Phoenix."

"I eventually want to be rich, so I'm going to join a major firm after law school, not a nonprofit."

"I eventually want to be rich, so I'm going to find out what the merit comp scheme is at my law firm, and put extra effort into doing that stuff."

"I eventually want to be rich, so I'm going to work 80 hour weeks to impress the partnership selection process".

etc, etc, etc.

Was that what you wanted to know?

<comment><USER7> I see what you mean but I'm having trouble translating this from lawyers to computer programmers. You can get a programming job at a large company and then impress someone with your skills and become a tech lead and an engineering director and eventually a Senior VP, is that what you mean? The odds for a hard working hacker of getting rich that way seem worse than for an attorney of becoming a partner, or for the same hacker of getting rich through a startup.

In my experience everyone who got rich did it by owning a significant stake in a business (not necessarily a startup or even anything high tech.) I'm aware there are people who got rich from writing bestsellers or becoming movie stars but I don't know anyone like it and I think such people are extremely rare. And I may be wrong but I would be inclined to classify hackers who got promoted to VPs and CTOs together with the movie stars.

I don't really know much about the ownership structure of law firms, but I always assumed becoming a partner is a big deal because it means co-owning the firm in some sense, and getting a share of profits directly, not through salary and bonus. So that's why I figure this is different.

<comment><USER6> I'm having a hard time addressing your concern, because your notion that it's harder for a developer to eventually become a director or VP than it is for a lawyer to become a partner is neither (a) supported with any evidence or (b) apparent from my experience.

I don't know anybody that you know who became rich, and so that whole second paragraph sails right past me. Especially when it concludes with a suggestion that hacker VPs are as rare as movie stars.

As for the partner track at law firms, uh, fine. Substitute MBA -> investment banker, or CPA -> CFO, or Med School -> Anesthesiologist, or any number of other careers that don't have partner tracks.

Even if your salary never breaks $110k as a dev, you're still fantastically lucky to get that in any career, and perfectly capable of becoming a millionaire. So, I guess, cry me a river about how hard it is for techs to succeed without starting entirely new businesses?

Finally, let me just leave you with an uncomfortable truth: it is a safe bet that you will never get rich starting a company, or any number of companies.

<comment><USER7> If your definition of rich is $110k salary or owning $1M in assets (which translates to relatively safe passive income of $40k before tax, according to the financial planning books I read) then sure, you can absolutely achieve it with careful career planning. I don't believe that's what most people would call "rich" though. There are actually people who will tell you that $100k in the Bay Area is "barely breaking it even" (not that I agree.)

I freely concede I could be wrong with respect to directors and partners. I work at a software company and my girlfriend works at a law firm.

I absolutely agree with you that the odds of getting rich by starting a company are low, all I'm saying they're better than the odds of getting rich by other means.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Major error with this line of thinking:

> A more rational career path for money-making is one that rewards effort, in > the form of promotions, increased security, salary and status.

You trade off _a lot_ if you're getting paid for effort instead of for results. No one wants effort. No one wants a badly burnt steak, not well cooked pie, crummily engineered car, and so on. But people will gladly pay a lot for results. Desiring to get paid despite burning steak ("rewarding effort") is a path to much less wealth than you could make, but even more scary, it's a path to much less happiness. Getting paid while failing to deliver what people wanted destroys your self esteem. Doing interesting work and needing to get it right is engaging and stimulating. Harder, more risky, sure. But much more enjoyable and fulfilling.

> Startups, unfortunately, punish effort that doesn't yield results.

Right - no wants to pay _for_ burnt steak. You want to get paid for turning on the grill, regardless of how it comes out? Don't expect to get paid much, or to have a particularly stimulating work life.

<comment><USER9> All true, but at least I can better predict my ability to output effort than predict my ability to output results, even if I am good at what I do.

<comment><USER8> Definitely true - stability is worth something, especially if you've got a family or just want a life with less stress.

But if you don't have serious economic commitments and can handle a little stress, why not freelance after hours for a little while and see how it goes? Can wade in slowly some. If you're willing to focus, you can make 3x, 10x what you'd make salaried if you go self employed.

I remember reading somewhere that the average employee gets something like 2.5 productive hours of work done every 8 hour day: The rest is shuffling papers, meetings, chatting, goofing off online. If you can focus intensely for 5-6 hours a day, you can make a lot more money and have a more free, stimulating, enjoyable life. It is legitimately more intense and stressful, but I'd recommend almost anyone take a crack at it. The rewards are very, very good, definitely worth taking a year or two to see if it suits you. And I mean, why not give it a try? It's huge for you if it works out, and employers more and more are respecting the guy coming back to industry after working for himself for a while.

<comment><USER10> My experience with freelancing mirrors this. It is a bit more stressful because I'm actually working much more efficiently and seriously but I earn twice as much and I can choose my own schedule...

It's liberating. In my old job, I was frustrated and not as happy... now I've got more money, do some really fun projects (because when freelancing you do get to pick your clients a bit more) and I'm trying to grow bigger so as to launch my own product... Life is good...

So to anyone frustrated with his work, I would definitely recommend trying to freelance...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> For the US dwellers, it does say "the pursuit of happiness".

My brother pointed out to me that being rich really isn't the goal. Being able to control your own schedule while paying all the bills is a pretty good life.

<comment><USER12> That is exactly why I want to become an entrepreneur. I just seem to do badly in a corporate environment.

<comment><USER2> If you're really successful, you will inevitably be working in a corporate environment, even one of your own creation.

Some people make the transition happen really well, some don't.

<comment><USER13> It also depends on where you are in the corporate machine. As someone else mentioned on HN once, perhaps Gates couldn't even move up in today's Microsoft, but he makes a pretty good CEO.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> _Startups, unfortunately, punish effort that doesn't yield results. In fact, the biggest source of waste in a startup is building something nobody wants. While in an academic R &D lab, creation for creation's sake will often get you praise, in a startup, it will often put you out of business._

The best articulation of why I'm fond of entrepreneurship world instead of academic world...

<comment><USER15> To succeed in academia, you need to build things that please your customer, its just that your customer is a funding agency and/or your community. There are many, many publications that nobody sites, which is the equivalent of products nobody buys.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I really like Eric, saw him down at stanford a couple of weeks ago.

Honestly, I am poor. Dirt poor. But I LOVE what I do. I consult to pay the bills. Right now, I'm hyper focused on starting a new business so I haven't been spending a lot of time getting new clients.

I had a client that fell on my lap the other day and I was so frustrated with them. The only reason they wanted to start their company was to make a lot of money and get rich. No passion, no iconoclastic idea's. Just, lets do this because it will make money.

I would love to see less money grubbing jerks and more passionate people who just love to create stuff. So i'm with Eric in getting the word out. This won't make you rich! Only do this if you love it. *pushes aside pulpit.

<comment><USER17> You have most likely already seen this, but Guy Kawasaki often talks about a similar annoyance with people involved in entrepreneurship purely for the money: [http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3755718939216161559...](http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3755718939216161559&ei=zb_bSoW2FIO2qQKa8dDjAQ&q=art+of+the+start#4m25s)

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> I'd echo PG's words in that a startup is about compounding your work life into a few years. Even if your startup fails, you'll get a massive amount of experience in seeing it through. Employers will appreciate all the experience you gained in launching a product.

<comment><USER19> All true, but the question for many isn't about the potential ROI (effectively unlimited), but the expected ROI (for the average startup, it is not much more than that experience you talked about). Is that expected experience substantially more valuable than say grad school which is less stressful?

<comment><USER20> "Valuable", in a market sense, means people are willing to pay for it. Apply for the same set of jobs, once with a graduate degree and once with a failed startup under your belt. See how many companies are willing to pay for your services.

My hypothesis is that there are disjunct sets of employers who will value one over the other, but the set of employers who value startup experience value it more than the set of employers who value grad school experience value grad school.

<comment><USER19> My suspicion, and only suspicion, is that you are largely right. Of course, I also think it matters how far along you got in the process and waht kind of stories you can tell from it.

I suspect that the founders of a company that put out an actual product with real users, hired non-founder employees, and perhaps got VC level funding at one point is much more valuable in the market than someone who filed the papers to officially incorporate but died while still working out of a garage with no non-founder employees and few users.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> There we go again. If anyone understand the mind of an entrepreneur, they will stop trying to tell them to do anything other than what they are doing.

If you want to help entrepreneurs, help them refine their ideas, execute against them, and get closer to success.

Anything else is a waste of your time.

</comment><comment><USER22> It may be a myth upon people who are not entrepreneurs but I'm pretty certain money is not what drives entrepreneurs rather being successful, doing what you love, etc.

</comment><comment><USER23> He doesn't say the participants at seedcamp wanted to get rich. He doesn't name any sources for such a "myth" existing. The way I see it, people value entrepreneurship for a whole bunch of reasons, guaranteed financial success most certainly NOT being amonst those. He wants to write an article on his perceptions, fine. He just doesn't base it in reality, though.

<comment><USER24> I suspect he doesn't feel the need to justify it because it's a commonplace in his world. It sure is in mine.

This was especially problematic during the dot-com bubble. This town filled up with MBA-holding locusts and greasily slick smooth talkers. They were in it for the money, and nothing else. Of course, most of their businesses failed, and they went off to plague somebody else. Good riddance, I say.

The problem still continues, though, and it's not limited to high tech. The big MLM scams are funded mainly through taking money from idiots who believe that they'll quickly get rich through _this_ exciting new turnkey business opportunity, even though they've gotten totally screwed on the last three. You want some data points, go to an Herbalife convention.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> This article doesn't make much sense, to be honest...

But anyways if you ask me, entrepreneurship is about becoming successful, rather than rich, because once you are successful, the money will naturally come -- at least you'll love what you do, and not starve while doing it :)

</comment><comment><USER26> Excellent article. Not exactly a myth, but the wrong goal. Striving to maximize financial return is simply not the sort of motivation that is most likely to result in a successful startup.

</comment><comment><USER27> Truth: Entrepreneurship leads to contentment</comment>


Show HN: My weekend project - ExploreMore - <AUTHOR>

My friend Joseph (http://josephcurley.me/) and I built a web app to help people find interesting things to do, whether traveling or just feeling restless at home: http://bit.ly/O5b2jU<p>It is built using Flask and the Eventful API. I'm working on an Android version right now. I know it is rather simple, but I would really appreciate some feedback. <comment><AUTHOR> Clickable: <http://bit.ly/O5b2jU></comment>


Why are code tutorials so terrible - <AUTHOR>

Do the people who write the tutorials actually consult with the people who want to use the code? It is like every time I want to code something simple, the guides always have tons of superfluous stuff. Most end users have simple needs, so have tutorials for those. Consult end users and ask them what they want. <comment><USER2> I think the fundamental problem with teaching code is that teaching code is not math, it's language, and language is quickly internalized once you 'get' it.

Most of the people who write books and web tutorials teaching code already know the code, but don't realize the extent to which they've internalized a large amount of understanding of the subject. So what makes perfect sense to them either gets dropped on the table without explanation, or struggles to actually give a clear _why_ of the thing. Being able to recognize that, and explain those things clearly, is a very specific skill in programming just as it is in language, and just as sometimes language classes get given to someone who just happens to speak the language rather than who is a linguist, you will often find someone who speaks, say, Java or C++, but can't necessarily explain clearly _why_ or _how_ the patterns and techniques they've internalized work.

I'm increasingly a believer in more interactive methods of code teaching, because I think like language it's a subject that requires immediate practice to facilitate that internalization. Exercises like the Codecademy courses, or the Koans, which pair explanation with specific examples, immediate practice with new concepts, and equally immediate feedback about failures/successes, do a far better job of teaching a language than anything else I have seen.

</comment><comment><USER3> I think that sometimes the devs writing the tutorials, didn't bothered trying out the tutorial themselves, so there are little errors that are huge for beginners.

I've seen this in tutorials, but also in open source project's documentation

</comment><comment><USER4> Tech writing is a specialty. It's a different skill set than coding. Unfortunately, it's the devs who write the docs these days and they're not usually good at it.

</comment><comment><USER5> I was thinking about how it would be kind of nice if their was an official equivalent of a W3C guideline list for teaching programming. Simple things like "start with a working script that your student can experiment with which includes no unnecessary code. Then work backwards to explain how the code works."

</comment><comment><USER6> I think it depends on the tutorial. Michael Hart's Ruby on Rails tutorial is pretty awesome.</comment>


Introducing Trove - <AUTHOR> http://blog.trove.com/post/74067984372/introducing-trove

<comment><USER2> So this isn't associated with [https://trovebox.com/](https://trovebox.com/) ?

<comment><USER3> It's not. But I hope they have better luck than me when enunciating "trove". It's just not a word in many people's immediate vocabulary. Go figure!

      me: Hello, I work at Trovebox
      them: Travel box?
      me: Troooovebox
      them: Toe box?
      me: Like treasure trove
      them: oooh!

Disclaimer: founder @ trovebox

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Looks like it's not quite finished. Their "Terms of Service and Privacy Policy" page is a 404. ([https://info.trove.com/policies](https://info.trove.com/policies))

<comment><USER5> Thanks. Seems to be an https issue. We'll get on it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Is there any way to remove all the "Trending picked this in Trending" articles from my feed? I've not followed Trending yet ~50% of my feed is made up of these articles that I have little interest in.

<comment><USER6> ~12 hours later it appears to have sorted itself out, not seeing many Trending articles now.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Not to be confused with the National Library of Australia's Trove website. [http://trove.nla.gov.au/](http://trove.nla.gov.au/)

</comment><comment><USER8> This actually looks pretty cool...but I'm on Android. Sigh.</comment>


How to Buy a House the Wall Street Way - <AUTHOR> https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-to-buy-a-house-the-wall-street-way-1537102800 <comment><USER2> Thanks for the article! I'm planning to buy my first property in Turkey this year. I've found one reliable real estate company at [https://www.turkeyhomes.com/properties/turkey- region/bodrum](https://www.turkeyhomes.com/properties/turkey-region/bodrum) with the head office in London. Hope with their help I'll find my perfect house near the sea at affordable price.

</comment><comment><USER3> Paywall bypass: [http://archive.is/H21vA](http://archive.is/H21vA)</comment>


What We Know About The Apple Tablet So Far - <AUTHOR> http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/05/21/what-we-know-about-the-apple-tablet-so-far/?awesm=tcrn.ch_2Og&utm_campaign=techcrunch&utm_content=techcrunch-autopost&utm_medium=tcrn.ch-twitter&utm_source=direct-tcrn.ch

<comment><USER2> These posts are ridiculous. "In other words, the project is very real." No, in other words, this is more of the same speculation that has been buzzing around Apple since the beginning of time. I really don't get why people eat up Apple rumors; they don't matter. The product will come when it comes. No one will actually make decisions based on these rumors, one of their only side-effects is noise in AAPL. As far as I'm concerned, these "highly-reputable sources" are just a clever random number generator.

<comment><USER3> "What We Know About The Apple Tablet So Far" - "Absolutely nothing".

Obviously TechCrunch is just trying to cling to any possible hope of rationalizing its own foray into Tablet hardware.

I really do doubt very much Apple would ever make a tablet. I also very much doubt that tablets will ever really take off - despite being around for years.

I love this bit: "Some app developers have seen underlying code that suggests a larger screen device is on the way."

Woah you mean the OS has support for different screen sizes? Some of which may never exist? That _obviously_ means they're making other devices then.

<comment><USER4> I really want a cheap tablet. I've been looking at laptops with the reversible screens (or whatever you call them), but have been put off a little by the size and weight. People said netbooks were a waste of time too, and that anyone who really wanted a laptop already had one.

<comment><USER3> _I_ never said netbooks were a waste of time. They were always going to be a runaway success. Tablets have been about for years. With no success.

Can you really imagine comfortably being able to use a tablet? How does that work? do you hold it with one hand and try to use it with the other? Do you ask a friend to hold it while you use it?

The only usecase I can see is putting it on the wall in the kitchen. But that's a little bit niche.

edit: Rather than downmod, how about explaining exactly which problem a tablet solves (other than the recipe in the kitchen usecase).

<comment><USER5> Relatively cheap, well-built, small, light tablets with a great OS and App Store haven't been around.

<comment><USER3> >> "Relatively cheap"

When was the last time Apple competed on price?

<comment><USER5> iPhone springs to mind...perhaps not at first, but they've gradually lowered the price until it's pretty competitive compared to other smartphones.

That's really beside the point, though. Apple won't be competing with other tablets so much as creating a new category: the touch netbook.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> A 10 inch tablet is a lot closer to a Mac than an iPhone. I don't see the App Store factoring in. That kind of thinking is just buzzword thinking: the App Store was a big breakthrough for smartphones (true), it would be nice to have something similar for desktop software (true, though Linux package managers could probably take a design lesson) so obviously everything else in the future must work the same way (false).

</comment><comment><USER7> I just don't see the appeal of a slab style tablet. It's awkward to handle and has to be docked to use on a desk. Even using one sitting in a chair can be difficult unless you put a leg up and use it as a stand. A dual touchscreen device (folding at the middle) makes a lot more sense. The bottom screen could be used for control -- either a keyboard, or whatever interface device made the most sense for the particular app you were using. Ideally you could fold the device open to a 180 degree angle with little or ho gap between the screens.

</comment><comment><USER8> _...you can_ imaging _a dual core Apple Tablet._

Mr. Arrington needs to divert some funds away from the CrunchPad project and hire an editor.

<comment><USER9> You need to divert some time away from pointing out insignificant typos and add something meaningful to the conversation.

<comment><USER3> What real meaningful conversation can you have around such a ridiculous, empty 'article'.

This sort of 'journalism' is no better than reports in tabloids that some Z-list celeb is _obviously_ pregnant, since they went in a toy shop, and look slightly podgy from certain angles.</comment></comment></comment>