386-DX/SX support nuked from Linux Kernel - <AUTHOR> http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git;a=commit;h=743aa456c1834f76982af44e8b71d1a0b2a82e21 <comment><USER2> To think that support for something so edge-case has been supported this long is remarkable.

Even very basic embedded x86 processors are 80486 caliber. Those more feeble than that have no hope of running the current kernel in any meaningful fashion.

<comment><USER3> In 2000, someone gave me a 386 desktop that they were about to throw out, and I ran OpenBSD on it until 2005 or so. (I was a student, so getting new hardware was more of a big deal then.) To get it working I had to recompile the kernel (which I did on a "more capable" Celeron 366) without support for newfangled hardware such as USB and PCI in order to have enough memory to boot and log in in a tolerable amount of time. (Otherwise too painful due to swap.)

So I was pretty grateful at the time that it was still working, even though what I was doing was, now I can say with the benefit of hindsight, pretty crazy.

<comment><USER4> I loved my Celeron. I had a 300 which over clocked amazingly well to 450Mhz.

In fact, those were the last days of my "dinking" with hardware. The Pentium and beyond offered such diminishing rewards that it wasn't worth it.

<comment><USER5> Celerons of that era were very easy to officially overclock generally because a great many of them were _underclocked_ by Intel.

They ended up with far more of the more expensive 400+MHz capable parts than they expected to produce (presumably they were overly cautious when predicting how well the production process would work and therefor how many of the better rates chips thye'd get) but too few of the cheaper 300Mhz and 333MHz rated parts that were actually selling well - so they rebadged faster units as slower ones to fufil sales promises for the slower units.

This meant buying a machine based around a Celeron 300 or 333 (often referred to as "Silly-rons" at the time) was a lottery: you might have got one that is genuaninely expected not to be stable if run much faster, or you might have got one that Intel could have sold as a 450+MHz device.

<comment><USER2> It wasn't so much as they were underclocked, but that Intel's process was so refined that they were often produced over-spec.

The other thing that made them so easy to over-clock was that, unlike the Pentium Pro, II and III, there was no on-chip L2 cache that would malfunction at higher speeds. All you were over-clocking was the CPU.

I had a dual-Celeron system that ran like a champ for the better part of ten years.

<comment><USER6> The binning process where higher end CPUs are marketed as lower end parts has been going on forever.

Only the first generation Celerons (which everyone hated) had no L2 cache. The second generation had 128KB of full-speed on-chip cache, which is actually why it overclocked well. The Pentium II and early Pentium III had 512KB of half- speed off-chip cache which struggled to keep up with the CPU when overclocking.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Wait you mean it won't run Linux now even if I press the turbo button?

<comment><USER8> Wow. I miss the turbo button. They should have been required for all computers shipping with Windows 98 through XP with the message -- "Push this button every 10 minutes if you haven't reformatted this computer after 6 months."

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> 386's were the first computers I ever used Linux on. Man.

I will say this much, a 386 sx/16 was a large part of learning learn how to get so much done with so little resources.

It's amazing how Linux was more efficient than windows even then, while the decade of driver drought was being bridged.

<comment><USER10> Isn't this the platform Linus used for Linux when he started too?

<comment><USER11> That's what Ingo is referring to. "Unfortunately there's a nostalgic cost: your [i.e. Linus'] old original 386 DX33 system from early 1991 won't be able to boot modern Linux kernels anymore. Sniff."

Turns out Linus is not the nostalgic type.

<comment><USER12> I sent my original 40 Mhz 386 that I used when hacking Linux 0.12 back in 1991 to be recycled last year, after it was displayed on exhibit at Linux's 20th year anniversary party. I tried to see if anyone (like the Computer Museum) wanted it, but ultimately, I'm not the nostalgic type either.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Even The Hubble Space telescope had it's processor upgraded to a 486 from a 386 and it's in space.

[http://www.theregister.co.uk/1999/12/27/hubble_telescope_get...](http://www.theregister.co.uk/1999/12/27/hubble_telescope_gets_intel/)

</comment><comment><USER14> The 386sx was a fun processor. Lack of a math coprocessor was fun to work around. I'm surprised support lasted this long.

<comment><USER15> All 386's lacked the math co-processor, the SX just had a 16-bit data bus.

<comment><USER16> Yep. The 486SX was the 486 with disconnected math processors that failed quality control. The coprocessor "487" upgrade chip was simply a fully working pin incompatible (only fit in the upgrade slot) 486.

On the 386 line, the SX/DX distinction was the equivalent of the 8088/8086 distinction for data bus width (NOTE: the 8086 was the wider processor, the cheaper 8088 was in the IBM PC).

<comment><USER14> Yeah, I meant the 486sx, but the little grey cells were not up to snuff when posting that apparently.

I got a fair amount of grief about not having a math co-processor due to some programming friends and I were doing at the time.

That said, those were the formative days where getting dirty and playing with your machine (building your own rig) started for me. I've since given that up since most machines are fast enough these days for my uses.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Nostalgia is not as good as it used to be anyway.

<comment><USER14> Nostalgia will return in the form of JS emulation...

<comment><USER18> I think this patch will be needed for jslinux in the future

<http://bellard.org/jslinux/tech.html>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I would have thought that support for this architecture would have been useful to keep, since a lot of rad-hardened systems (think space, satellite applications) still use it.

<comment><USER20> I'm into retrocomputing so these kinds of retirements always sting a bit.

In realistic long term operations, deprecations don't hurt. I.e. your air traffic control system running on PA-RISC and HP-UX doesn't care that HP-UX only run on Itanium now. You keep running the old software and set up some kind of support schedule to keep the system patched during it's service life through the vendor or otherwise.

<comment><USER21> It's comforting to know others are interested in "retrocomputing". For some reason I like slow old computers too. (Not being sarcastic here at all)

<comment><USER22> I've got a soft spot for the Z80 and they were considered out of date by the time I was born. A few years ago I found a great book on how to build a simple microcomputer based on the Z80. I learned a ton working through that book and that little chip brought me a lot of joy. I've still got a couple Z80s in my part drawer... you know... just in case...

<comment><USER23> Z80 was only out of date when you were born if you're not TI.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I love old hardware big time, but if the current kernel can be trimmed up, let's do it. Those older machines probably shouldn't be rocking the latest kernel anyway.

I'm typing this from a 2004 PPC Powerbook running Ubuntu 10.04. There are a lot of packages and software I simply can't get anymore. But it's ok, because it doesn't have the power to run them anyway. It's frozen in time, and I know that. Anyone running on relying on 386 stuff should just stick with the older software that's working and pray they don't have a hardware failure. If the kernel starts packratting stuff it's going to be bloated and huge and it will hinder future development.

Maybe they should set a time limit on stuff, like 10 years before they drop support, or maybe 15 for the military and law offices.

</comment><comment><USER24> There are always LTS older builds.

<http://xkcd.com/619/>

</comment><comment><USER25> 386-DX was my first PC. This is incredibly sad, even more so because it makes me realize I'm getting old!

<comment><USER8> I remember my first Gateway 2000 / 486 DX2 Tower. They computer was so big, all of my friends were envious.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> I ran Windows 95 on a 386 SX 16MHz for a few months. Not amazing speed-wise, but it worked.

Amazing little processor for its time.

<comment><USER27> Yea, it is unfortunate MS ended up screwing the move to protected mode so badly that it took 10 years after its release in 1985 before 32-bit programming became popular. While Intel waiting until 1988 to release the SX didn't help, look up the MS OS/2 2.0 fiasco (begin with "MS OS/2 2.0 SDK" and "Microsoft Munchkins") for some pretty horrible history.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> I never really got why back support should be an issue - its all x86 instructions, if only a subset of what is used today right? I'm curious to know exactly what makes supporting old cpus so hard.

<comment><USER29> It's not just instructions - it's CPU bug workarounds, too. For example, some 386s did not honor the write-protect bit in the page table when in supervisor mode. Now, since Linux normally does copies from kernel to userspace by writing straight to userspace and letting the WP bit detect writes to read- only memory, it's a problem if the WP bit doesn't work (it'd let you overwrite write-protected userspace memory). So Linux had a check that tested (at boot time) whether WP worked properly in supervisor mode, and if so it would set a flag to perform a slower, software-checked copy. This adds overhead to _every_ copy from kernel to userspace, as it needs to check this flag, and branch to the fallback implementation.

<comment><USER30> That seems... odd. Why wouldn't you just swap implementations at startup, if it's a non-negligible performance hit?

<comment><USER31> How? If you use function pointers, you end up paying more than the cost of a branch.

<comment><USER30> Simplest way: have two implementations, copy the proper one into place (and relocate if necessary). No overhead.

<comment><USER32> Or you know, use a flag. And if it becomes a performance issue later on _after_ some profiling, consider a more complicated approach. Don't underestimate your CPU's branch prediction.

Self modifying code is a can of worms. Many things can go wrong, and good luck debugging the mess.

<comment><USER30> This is all resting on the assumption that the flag does actually have an impact, which was an argument in the original comment.

As for self-modifying code, the dangers are way overstated IMO. Having written a lot of it as well as reverse-engineered and debugged code using self- modifying code heavily, I look at it as just another tool in the chest. It's pretty easy to chop your limb off using self-modifying code, but having audited a whoooole lot of static code, I'd say that argument applies to just about any tool.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Last time I tried to install Linux on a 386 (in 1998 or so) I couldn't get it to boot anyway. I never did figure out what the problem was. The existing Windows installation ran fine.

</comment><comment><USER34> Does anyone know what the speculative execution notes in processor.h are talking about? The code seems to be trying to set up spec execution "barriers."

What does that mean? I thought speculative execution was a micro-architecture optimization (and the speculatively executed instructions won't be retired until the processor knows that it wants the side-effects).

In contrast, I've only seen barriers come up for x86 at the ISA-level (and even then, only for multiprocessors setups).

</comment><comment><USER35> "NOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!" \- No one

</comment><comment><USER36> The 386SX 20 MHz was the first PC I got to buy after my trusty Timex 2068.

Along with some Amiga 500 and Amstrad PCW at school and friend's places.

Oh I'm becoming a bit nostalgic.

</comment><comment><USER37> Just run older Linux software if it's that's important to run. There are old archives of Linux out there to download, I myself still have Mandrake 6 and FreeBSD 3.0 laying here in my cabinet ha ha, for just such an occasion ;) Or in that case download Ubu 5 and get it up and running, sure no updates but it'll run :)

</comment><comment><USER38> I wonder if this has implications for the Intel MIC, whose processors are not dissimilar to the 386. Maybe run a 64 cluster on a single chip?

<comment><USER39> MICs are actually roughly based on an updated Pentium 1 (P54) platform so it won't matter.

[http://m.extremetech.com/extremetech/#!/entry/intels-50core-...](http://m.extremetech.com/extremetech/#!/entry/intels-50core- champion-indepth-on-xeon-phi,50a7077394f4be71692bda10/3)

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> i still have an old toshiba 386 laptop i used 20y ago, pretty much outdated and outperformed by current hardware. I could run the latest linux on it but I am not sure linux 3.7 can be made to run comfortably in 4 MB ram.</comment>


Best Kubernetes Training Course? - <AUTHOR> Throw a rock hit a K8s training course. Seriously there are so many now. Is there a gold standard? <comment><USER2> Hey there. I'm working on a new course, "Learn Kubernetes by Building 10 Project". I am not claiming that this is the "best Kubernetes training course," but if you want to learn Kubernetes based on real-world examples, I've put a lot of what I know about practical use cases in this course.

You can preorder it now (and save 80%). It will be released on 31 Jan 2020.

[https://bf.eralabs.io/learnkubernetesbybuilding10projects.ht...](https://bf.eralabs.io/learnkubernetesbybuilding10projects.html)</comment>


Kidnapping a Nazi General: Patrick Leigh Fermor's Perfect Heist - <AUTHOR> http://blog.longreads.com/2016/01/07/kidnapping-a-nazi-general-patrick-leigh-fermors-perfect-heist/ <comment><USER2> During one of John Mosby's raids, he captured a brigadier general and a couple hundred horses. Abraham Lincoln is quoted as saying the he regretted the horses more: he could make a brigadier general any day. It is not clear what benefit this brought to the allied cause, unless raising some morale in the UK. Was that an equivalent for the damage done by the Germans trying to find the general?

<comment><USER3> look at the cost of terrorism today. we spend a fortune to combat relatively unlikely events. no doubt axis general began wasting time, men and money trying to protect themselves from kidnapping.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Great article but in particular, love the map.</comment>


A Year in the life of a SaaS accounting web app – Numbers and Strategy - <AUTHOR> http://blog.kashflow.com/2010/02/16/2009/

<comment><USER3> Cool number sharing!

They're keeping the salary book nice and light, though. 60% of £500k is £300k and they have 17 employees.. so an average of £17647 ($28200) each - <USER2> that's not taking into account employer NICs which, when deducted, would take the average down into £15k territory. I guess many are part time or the founders aren't taking salaries.. :-)

<comment><USER3> One of their head honchos hit me up on Twitter to note that all of those 17 employees weren't there for the entire year ;-) Good point. Still, I hope they hit that £1m then!</comment></comment>


How Authors Really Make Money: The Rebirth of Seth Godin - <AUTHOR> http://www.fourhourworkweek.com/blog/2010/08/23/seth-godin-and-print-publishing/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+timferriss+%28The+Blog+of+Author+Tim+Ferriss%29

<comment><USER2> IIRC the Gini coefficient among authors in the UK is something like 0.7. The income stratification is insane.

Tim Ferris's figures match my experience. What he _doesn't_ make explicit is that "publishing" is about fourteen different vertically integrated businesses flying in loose formation -- genre fiction publishing, for example (my stomping ground) is utterly different from business publishing or academic publishing, although the products are _sometimes_ sold via the same retail channels -- and the prospects for a successful career vary drastically between fields. Nor does success in one field imply a track record transferable sideways into another publishing field.

I'd also pick a nit: in my experience, ebook sales (and Amazon Kindle store sales in particular) are _dwarfed_ by hardcover sales -- by a 50:1 ratio, in fact. Amazon are almost certainly cherry-picking if they can come up with books where Kindle sales outstrip hardcover. However, that's looking backwards -- it's fairly clear that ebooks are a rapidly growing sector and in another 2-5 years they'll definitively overtake hardcover sales by volume, if not by revenue. (Hardcovers net roughly $16 after discount, of which 10-15% goes to the author; Kindle store books net $7-10, of which Amazon takes a 30% cut before 5-10% of the remainder goes to the author.)

<comment><USER3> > I'd also pick a nit: in my experience, ebook sales (and Amazon Kindle store > sales in particular) are dwarfed by hardcover sales -- by a 50:1 ratio, in > fact. Amazon are almost certainly cherry-picking if they can come up with > books where Kindle sales outstrip hardcover. However, that's looking > backwards -- it's fairly clear that ebooks are a rapidly growing sector and > in another 2-5 years they'll definitively overtake hardcover sales by > volume, if not by revenue. (Hardcovers net roughly $16 after discount, of > which 10-15% goes to the author; Kindle store books net $7-10, of which > Amazon takes a 30% cut before 5-10% of the remainder goes to the author.)

As mentioned in the article, Amazon already sells more Kindle books than they do hardcover books so I fail to see why they would need to cherry pick. And no need to wait 2-5 years, the future is here.

<comment><USER4> _As mentioned in the article, Amazon already sells more Kindle books than they do hardcover books so I fail to see why they would need to cherry pick. And no need to wait 2-5 years, the future is here._

But Amazon has talked about how they got to that number and won't provide many specifics about Kindle sales in general. In addition, if Amazon is selling an _equal number_ of books, then hardcover sales can still generate more revenue, which is what Stross points out: "they'll definitively overtake hardcover sales by volume, if not by revenue".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> "If you choose to go digital only as an e-book, this is where profit rules and amazing numbers can be achieved. How amazing? I know one man who nets between $5,000,000 and $10,000,000 per month with a single e-book and affiliate cross- selling to his customer lists. I'm not kidding."

Any idea of what ebook is he talking about?

<comment><USER6> none

it's bullshit...that's $60-$120 million profit a year from a single book. These numbers just don't exist.

If most of his sales are from affiliates, who typically get 75% per sale...that means the book would need to sell close to $200 million.

If the book costs $1,000, that's 200,000 sales.

If the book costs $500 that's 400,000 sales

If the book costs $250 that's 800,000 sales

If the book costs $125 that's 1,600,000 sales.

If the book costs $50 that's 4,000,000 sales

Then you need to take into account conversion rates. If the book sells at 1:200(average more or less)...

@$1000 that's 40 million uniques a year

@$500 that's 80 million uniques a year

@$250 that's 160 million uniques per year

@$125 that's 320 million uniques per year

@$50 that's 800 million uniques per year

And as far as I know the #1 site in the world is Facebook, not makemoniezonline.com

<comment><USER7> Think less like a technically savvy HN reader who does not pay for content online, and more like an info marketing huckster who has an email list of 50,000 people who have bought a similar product in the last six months.

<comment><USER8> Let's be careful here. Patrick, you and I both know how the conversion models in this area work, and while the info-marketing world is filled with scammy sleazebags, there are also some very credible ones.

For example, I sell information products as well as a New York Times best- selling book. My students do very well, whether it's learning how to automate their finances or earn more via freelancing. If they don't, they request a refund and I eat any costs of my online products.

Virtually every info-marketer offers generous guarantees and has to live up to their product's hype...or they go out of business. This is an extremely competitive area.

Vaksel, let me also offer some feedback on your numbers. You're analyzing them without knowing how the field works, and frankly every Web2.0 company could learn a LOT from studying the direct-response field. Want to know how to increase your AOV by 200% or 300%? How about finding undiscovered 6-figure revenue sources in your business (like I did 2 months ago)? Why not look to the people who have been doing this for decades?

You assume that most of the money is made from the sale of the ebook itself. That's not correct. Most of the revenue is actually made from the "back end," or other products that are either cross-sold, upsold, or repeatedly sold. Every direct marketer knows that you profit more from having a dedicated group of customers who buys from you time after time...which is why the very best ones take INSANE care of their customers. I'll speak for myself, but I continue to send lots of free material to both my free users and my customers. I email them free stuff. I call them. I write them hand-written cards (seriously).

As a result, on the rare occasion when I sell something, I can sell it for premium prices (often 100x more than my competitors charge for their products) and people happily pay it because they trust me and they know it's the best.

Here's another example. I know an info marketer who pays a 200% commission for any affiliate who sells his book. So if you sell his $27 ebook, you get $54. How does he afford that? Because he's systematically built a funnel that offers his customers more products _that they want and are willing to pay for,_ making it a simple no-brainer customer-acquisition cost -- even at 200%.

A skilled direct-response marketer could take a $27 ebook and turn it into $500 of LTV...and the customer would be DELIGHTED to pay it if the material is of outstanding quality.

IMHO, a lot of Web2.0 companies should stop poo-poohing marketing and learn how it really works. Virtually every Web2.0 company should be doing upsells, cross-sells, and partnerships...and as a guy who co-founded a venture-backed startup and know a lot of other startup CEOs/marketers, I know that very, very few do.

I've put together several bookmarks that might be interesting:

* <http://delicious.com/ramitsethi/emarketing> (direct-response stuff)

* <http://delicious.com/ramitsethi/marketing> (general marketing)

* <http://delicious.com/ramitsethi/monetization>

Hope this helps.

<comment><AUTHOR> Back in the day I used to do a ton of affiliate sales for information products. Personally I stay away from the long-winded sales copy pages, I see them as insanely scammy, but they still sell to normal people.

Ramit has a way of marketing like a scammer, but delivering solid content every time. Seriously "I will teach you to be rich"? I was really reluctant to buy a copy, but after a few solid recommendations picked it up. I trust Ramit's opinion on finances highly, enough to bring my people to see him at sxsw and keep reading his blog. My copy of his book has been passed through probably 10 people by now (haven't seen it in a year) and I link to his articles from my University niche sites, because they have tremendous value.

When is "I will teach your business to be rich" book coming out?

<comment><USER8> Not for a while : )

I'm focusing on helping people earn more via my Earn1k freelancing course right now, so it's basically an IWTYTBR business course. We teach a lot of techniques that can apply to freelancing or even product-based companies.

Btw, thanks for the kind words!

<comment><AUTHOR> Loved the briefcase technique, but Earn1k wasn't exactly for me. I just emailed you, if you have a minute. Keep up the good work Ramit.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I didn't find the post to be very useful, but this part is worth the read:

> _I believe (conjecture, yes) that the figure we are missing is Books-Per- > Person._

>If you have a Kindle, as I do, how many books did you buy in the first week or two? How many unread books do you have on your Kindle? Unlike with print books, you don't have to look at a stack of unread material like undone homework. Ergo, you purchase more digital books than you would ever purchase in print. If Amazon is selling 180 Kindle books for every 100 print books, I wouldn't be surprised if 10-20 people are responsible for the former, whereas 80-100 people are responsible for the latter. This reflects that Kindle owners are buying more books per capita, not that paper purchasers are buying fewer.

</comment><comment><USER7> I _want_ to hate Tim Ferris for his persona and frequent exaggerations of the truth, but _grits teeth_ he writes good stuff sometimes.

<comment><USER10> Used to think the same way - now I've got two modes when I'm reading a successful author. Either (1) absorbing his good information, or (2) trying to figure out how the bad stuff could be marketed so well. (2) is more meta- learning, but I start asking questions like, "Who does this appeal to? Why is this worded/marketed like this?" Etc. Sometimes I learn more from bad information, because it forces me to reconsider the level of complexity writing should be if you want to sell in volume (very, very low - dumb it down 10x... okay, now make it dumber) and things of that nature.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Good article! Don't skip the video.

I have written several books, and only a few have sold well, so I have to admit that my net worth would be more if I had spent my writing time doing working (software development). However, echoing the article:

1\. writing books gives an author access to very interesting people and experiences

2\. writing has a long tail of benefits that often come in the form of interesting work and offers for collaboration

</comment><comment><USER12> This all ties in with a blog that I just started reading yesterday. It's written by a genre fiction writer that has also made the switch to predominantly ebooks. I guess the most relevant post is <http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2010/08/beginning-of-end.html> but the whole blog is really interesting and worth reading.

<http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/>

</comment><comment><USER13> He's wrong about paperback, they're a gold mine for authors. Halving the price doesn't multiply the number of purchases by 2, it multiplies it by 20. That's why ebooks outsell hardcovers on Amazon but are still a trivial fraction of overall rev.

Also, it is not any more work for the author. You usually don't even have to sign any additional paperwork. It's extra work for the publisher to be sure, but it's all gravy for you.

</comment><comment><USER14> For anyone interested in a "programming book" specific perspective: <http://beginningruby.org/what-ive-earned-and-learned/>

</comment><comment><USER15> As much as I enjoyed the article, the title is simply too SEO for my stomach. "Money"? Check. Famous guy's name? Check. At least 10 words? Check.

I miss the long-gone days of clever, concise and original titles for stuff.</comment>


Why Startups Should Choose Canada Over Silicon Valley - <AUTHOR> http://www.techvibes.com/blog/choosing-canada-over-silicon-valley-2013-04-08 <comment><USER2> I have a few problems with this article, namely the comparisons drawn between The Valley and Canada.

I am currently a Canadian citizen, working in San Francisco at a company that moved from Vancouver many years ago.

The author seems to be comparing the Bay Area to the entirety of Canada. Canada is not a small area, a city or a state. It is an entire 'continent' spanning multiple provinces with very different laws and dynamics. A startup in Waterloo, Ontario targeted towards engineering may fare better than one founded in Vancouver.

Secondly, he is mentioning his connections in the Bay Area that have helped him succeed in Canada. First he is arguing FOR founding a startup in Canada but then admits that most of his barriers to entry were lifted with help from the valley. There is a difference when you're starting fresh in Waterloo without any outside help.

I think what the author should have done is draw a parallel between The Valley and somewhere in Canada (Waterloo, Vancouver, Montreal, etc...). One may not be better than the other but perhaps working WITH The Valley can help get your startup off the ground elsewhere.

I would personally love to work for a startup back home in Toronto and perhaps one day found my own but I don't see the same enthusiasm towards tech and startup in Toronto that I see here in The Valley.

<comment><USER3> Agreed. A lot of people seem to be mentioning Toronto (never been) but can anyone comment on the tech/startup scene in Vancouver (loved it but it seems very small)?

<comment><AUTHOR> Vancouver has exceptional talent, a shared time zone with the valley, and ski hills minutes away. Grow labs and launch academy are also seeding and launching legit companies. All this adds up to a pretty strong scene. I'm not aware of investors stoned Boris and Bdc ... But again, SV investors aren't shy to invest globally. In fact, many including Dave McClure, and our former investors (tandem entrepreneurs) focus on these markets.

<comment><USER4> It's funny that theres a west coast startup lab called "grow labs". Wonder what sort of business ventures they focus on.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Rose coloured glasses. You want to startup in Canada? Either a) have access to network with money, or b) bootstrap like there's no tomorrow.

Investors in Canada have an appetite for risk somewhere in the neighbourhood of "mutual fund vs GIC" levels. For someone with Silicon Valley connections, fine it could work, but this is not good general advice.

Even iNovia, which is probably the most forward looking VC in the country, has a fairly small fund (low $100M if memory serves), I believe below the size of the average US fund.

<comment><USER6> This man here speaks the truth. Without revenue, it is easier to get a $30k grant than it is to find an angel investor willing to invest for the same amount. (Source: I raised a $30k grant in about 3 meetings and 5 hours of paper work. I also spent about 6 months with two idiot "angel investors" from Ryerson Angel Network when I was young and dumb and didn't close a dime. One guy said he wanted to invest but sheepishly said "I'll have to ask my wife first, since it is $10k". More like RRSP investors. The only angel investor in Toronto that is worth anything is the one guy from maple that told me that nobody in the city has any money and to just get on bootstrapping.)

It is even easier to raise $800k in grant money too. Depending on your startup, the CMF may think that your startup is in fact an "emerging digital platform" that has promise. Most startups I know that raised this type of capital did so from Americans.

If you are a Canadian angel that disagrees, feel free to talk to me. I know a bunch of pre-revenue startups that are cool, but you won't ever hear of because they've all given up hoping to raise Canadian cash.

<comment><AUTHOR> Why does everyone seem to think you need to raise money from Canadian investors? We raise from US investors in our first startup. We were Canadian nobodies with nothing but a beta as a pitch deck. Yes, it's easier to raise if vc's can drive down the road to visit .... But it's a lame excuse to use.

<comment><USER6> When you are in university or fresh out of it you don't know to get us angel funding.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> One thing that Canada has in it's favour is that for competent CS graduates, you're competing with stultifying companies rather than companies in the SF bubble. PagerDuty is one of those companies that I expect Canada would've been happy to keep, and we're loving it in SF, but we're fighting with a lot of similar companies for people.

This year, we opened up an office in Toronto, and even though our standards are the same (exact same interview process everywhere) we've had a measurably easier time attracting CS talent.

<comment><USER8> But can't Canadians move to the valley too with the TN visa?

<comment><USER9> Canadians can move to the valley with a visa but there are a lot of Canadians who want to stay in Canada. I live in Waterloo and am a CS student and I have talked to hundreds of students who do not want to leave Canada, even if they are offered a very attractive package from a company simply because they like Canada. Myself being one of them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> A good direction seems to be Waterloo/Velocity->YC->Seed round->Main office in Canada

There's a ton of advantages of having your main office in Canada, but there are many disadvantages as well. Seed round pretty much has to be done in SV as Canadian investors are notoriously cheap and horrible [1]. So you get your seed money in SV and then work for cheap in Canada.

The downside is that not having "close" communication with your investors may impact follow-on financing, though that remains to be seen. Also, for certain types of companies being surrounded by a bunch of other startups can be very useful.

No matter what, if you're going to be in the tech industry it's usually a good thing to have some contacts and relationships in the valley. If you're a first time founder then doing everything from Canada is going to be difficult. If you've been around the block a few times, then the downsides aren't so bad, and the upsides are major.

[1] Unconfirmed, but I heard a stat recently that BDC takes controlling interest in 75% of their pre-Series A deals.

</comment><comment><USER11> Other than the Dragon's Den show that makes a mockery of early stage entrepreneurs, or "cockroaches" as one panelist likes to refer to them, Canada has failed miserably to participate in the tech scene.

From a recent report by the Conference Board of Canada titled "Canada Fails to Put its Money Where its Ideas are—and it Shows in Poor Innovation Grade":

"Ottawa, April 4, 2013—Canada ranks second-to-last among its peers in venture capital investment and business R&D spending, according to The Conference Board of Canada's ranking of innovation among the world's leading economies. And the rest of the report card doesn't get much better, as Canada ranks 13th in the 16-country How Canada Performs benchmarking."

Google the report if you have any dillusions about doing a startup up in Cantada

<comment><AUTHOR> The state of local VC is only one of many elements to measure startup prospects in a market. Given "the market" is becoming more global, I'd argue "local VC" is becoming moot

<comment><USER11> The inability to access vc in Cantada is moot, maybe if you're 16 and living with your parents.

I suppose Canadian bootstrappers could always mine for bitcoins... that's pretty modern, global too!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I'd love to choose Canada, but the last time I looked at the immigration 'points' system, they only want me if I have $500k+ USD worth of money to invest in the country (hah, as if I'd need to move if I did) or I'm a fluent French speaker...

<comment><USER13> Enter the Canada Startup Visa, released last week:

[http://venturebeat.com/2013/04/02/silicon-valley-north- canad...](http://venturebeat.com/2013/04/02/silicon-valley-north-canada- startup-visa-program-could-cost-u-s-in-war-for-talent/)

[http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/business/start- up/ind...](http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/business/start-up/index.asp)

<comment><USER12> That's incredible! Thanks for the link :)

EDIT: Bah, too bad they demand proof of secondary education. Sucks for people who couldn't afford college...

<comment><USER14> The same problem occurs for a Canadian with no college degree (but tons of freelance dev experience) wishing to move to SV. Anyone here know a good way to get around that?

Some details: I took two years of university so far, but ran out of money to keep going. I'm now living month-to-month (averaging about "feed myself and pay rent for a room") doing severely underpaid web-app development (think ELance rates.) Apparently my skillset (Ruby, Erlang, systems-level/embedded C, Clojure, some Cocoa Touch experience) would be making me at least $100K/yr in SV, but nobody wants it up here in Vancouver; it's all ASP shops and C++ game- dev, and most of the gigs I do get end up being in PHP, even though it's not my forte.

I really don't want to spend however-many more years it would take to pay my way through school at this rate, struggling out in the software "hinterlands", when a better life is just one border-crossing away.

And technically, If I'm asking for a pony, I don't really want to get hired by a Microsoft or a Google and only work in the US _for them_ ; I want to go to the US because I want to participate in SV startup culture, which both includes working for a startup, and starting my own. It seems like _that_ possibility is just locked out for anyone but permanent residents of the US, though.

<comment><USER15> If by diploma you mean a 2 year (which is usually what it means in Canada), it won't be enough on its own.

You can actually get an exemption if you can demonstrate equivalent knowledge and a career progression towards it. What that usually means is having a professor of your field vouch for your knowledge and being able to prove work history for 3 or 4 years of each of the four years of university you didn't take. A two year diploma may cut that amount in half, but I wouldn't necessarily count on it.

If your work history is hard to prove you may want to try other types of visas. TN-1s aren't so difficult, but re-entry can apparently be a pain. You can also get an equivalent to an H-1B by working for a Canadian subsidiary (of, say, MS or Google) for about a year and then getting a transfer to the American head office. I believe these are much easier to get.

And then there's the traditional ways, like being sponsored by family etc. Unfortunately, no matter what, a degree will make it much much easier.

<comment><USER14> > If by diploma you mean a 2 year (which is usually what it means in Canada), > it won't be enough on its own.

I really did mean a four-year; I just said "diploma" because "degree" implies education was involved. The diploma is the piece of paper. :)

> prove work history for 3 or 4 years

Does that mean _employment_ history? I don't have much of that. Completed contracts, certainly, but I've not been "on payroll" anywhere for more than six months at a time.

<comment><USER15> Well, in Canada it's very unusual to call a bachelors a diploma. The piece of paper is a degree. Diplomas are for two year colleges and high schools.

I think the work history requirements might have relaxed in recent years a bit, but not by much. 10 years seems to be the point where most American employers start to seem optimistic about being able to get you an H-1B without a degree. But if it's not employment experience you'll have to work twice as hard to document it, and that can be very difficult. Most of my work history, for example, is tied up in companies that no longer exist or as contracts, as with you.

<http://careers.microsoft.com/careers/en/ca/home.aspx> <https://jobs.ea.com/locations/canada/> <http://www.google.ca/about/jobs/locations/waterloo/>

I also think there was an article here recently about Facebook setting up a Vancouver office just to bring graduates through the subsidiary employment process. It's a one year thing specifically for that purpose.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> It seems disingenuous for the OP to advocate Canada because of the US immigration policy when hiring non-Canadians to fill jobs usually requires a Labour Market Opinion proving that you couldn't find a Canadian to fill the job.

<comment><USER17> The US system requires the exact same thing.

<comment><USER16> Yeah, that's my point. OP criticized the US policy and presented the Canadian system as an alternative when it isn't.

In fact, the only benefit here seems to be for founders, but given the comments about the lack of angel/VC money in Canada, fulfilling the requirements looks to be difficult.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> To those complaining about raising money as a Canadian startup. Overly simplified steps: 1\. Stop whining. 2\. Build something awesome. 3\. Spend time on angelist angel.co 4\. Spend time on hipmunk.com booking your trip 5\. Be thankful you're starting your company in 2013 and not before 2009 when tax laws made it painful for foreign investment, there wasn't a frothy environment in the valley, when fundraising was actually hard, when starting up was way more expensive. 6\. Watch the money roll in.

</comment><comment><USER18> As a VC in Silicon Valley I have tremendous respect for the Valley, but I must say (having formerly lived in LA) it sometimes feels like a 1 industry town. In L.A. every and his brother "had a screenplay." "Oh man, can you read my screen play? We're looking to raise a million for this indie film." In Silicon Valley say you're a VC and my lord the way people change, from talking to you casually to looking at you like an addict and you're a bag of heroine they desperately need.

Startups CAN actually survive and meet early milestones without us VCs you know. In Canada I'll bet it would be refreshing to "have" to meet those early milestones without being made to feel like a failure just because you're not already "funded." "Are you funded? Yeah, by who?" "You're not funded? Oh bummer." (Person walks away.)

So eventually a Canadian entrepreneur may need/want to move to Silicon Valley, but I'll bet they learn alot - and find it alot more refreshing - to start out at first without the non stop "you got a screenplay? you got an agent?" equivalent I see and hear every day and every hour in Silicon Valley.

We VCs aren't the be all end all.

Happy to take any questions from entrepreneurs.

<comment><AUTHOR> Absolutely agree (I wrote the post). It's amazed me (but not shocked me) to see so much of the commentary focus on the state (or lack thereof) of VC in Canada. VC _can_ be a means to an end. But it certainly isn't the end ...

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Being in Canada also means flying under the radar, which can be a good thing for long term viability of your product.

My company does 100x the traffic of our nearest competitor but you'll never see a TechCrunch article about us, since we're in Toronto. So there's no pressure for overnight success and you can work diligently towards making a better product instead of meeting unreasonable expectations.

<comment><USER20> Being in Toronto has nothing to do with seeing (or not seeing) a TC article about your company.

TC covers plenty of Toronto based startups, including the last two that I've worked for.

Also, seeing your company on TC isn't all that useful anyways...

<comment><AUTHOR> I think he was using techcrunch write ups as an example. In Canada, there seems to be less time spent focusing on the tech elite echo chamber ... keeping up with the startup benjamins.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> If I were doing something legally challenging in any way related to copyright or privacy/security of consumers (particularly w.r.t. finance), I'd seriously consider (in no particular order) CA CH NZ HK SG various-EU.

Curious where Chile and Brazil fall for privacy/security stuff, including AML and general financial regulations. Costa Rica and Panama are the traditional Central American options, and there are the Caribbean or other island/tax haven options, but a lot of those are too small to have developers (and expensive), and will bend over for the US officially or unofficially, particularly if a small business is involved (without political connections); I made the mistake of doing stuff in Anguilla before.

</comment><comment><USER22> To be clear, this is specifically aimed at telling Canadian startups to stay in Canada. YMMV.

</comment><comment><USER23> I wonder if cheaper health care costs give Canada any kind of advantage business-wise?

<comment><USER24> Absolutely they do. Employers don't have to chip in for basic insurance... that's already paid for. Employers end up taking part of that money and throwing it into extended benefits: in Vancouver I get $200 every 2 years for eyeglasses, $400/y HCSA (covers massage, acupuncture, nutritionist, etc.), $1500/y dental, fantastic Rx coverage, 1x/annual income life insurance, etc etc etc. - all of which costs the company _less_ than what it costs the same company to provide basic insurance to their employees in the USA.

Sure, the employee pays more in income tax, but there's no lifetime maximum on claims, no 'taking a chance' and hoping you don't get sick, no gambling with your health period. For me that extra 6% I pay in income tax is well worth it.

<comment><USER25> Also, everyone pays the same price (through taxes), so big companies don't get any advantage from their stronger negotiating power.

OK, there's also private insurance (for stuff like dental, and private hospitals). But since companies aren't expected to pay it, it's more competitive.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Not sure if this has been picked up anywhere else in the comments, but I find the Canadian university coop system prepares students there to be entrepreneurs better than anything I've seen in a U.S. university. This requires them to work in an actual JOB. As mentioned, Waterloo grads tend to be stellar, and our best intern to date came out of UBC in a coop (thank you, David Q, for placing him with us!).

Why don't U.S. universities run coop programs? My school fought like hell to keep students on campus. I guess they viewed work as destroying the "art" of liberal arts...

<comment><AUTHOR> Thx Doug. For context, Doug runs TandemEntrepreneurs.com - The valleys leading mobile incubator/investors - which was extremely successful in it's first fund. So this is high praise.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> On the main point of the article, I do agree that a lot of ideas fly higher in San Francisco than other parts of North America. I see "Highlight" as a good example of this where an app finds a lot of early adopters in a small area but it becomes harder for that kind of ubiquity to happen somewhere people aren't as fascinated by new technology like people outside of the valley are.

I believe that a number of communities like this end up being "geek ghettos" on account of this.

</comment><comment><USER28> The author says he chose to start his company in Canada because, "In the Bay Area, investors, friends, and early adopters are so embracing and supportive of new ideas," and this can actually have bad consequences. It's an interesting notion. I have no startup experience, so maybe this is a dumb question, but isn't the solution just, "Take what investors, friends, and early adopters say _with a grain of salt"?_

<comment><AUTHOR> Absolutely, that's fantastic solution, and what great entrepreneurs in the valley do. Unfortunately that's easier said than done ... especially given how pervasive the "buzz" can get.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> > At the end of the day, my advice to Canadian startups is to stay in Canada

I think this can apply to many cities outside of the silicon valley bubble.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yup, you're essentially right (I wrote the post). The gist of the article really could have been "Why you should start your startup outside of the valley" ... but choosing Canada has a few specific advantages I never really delved into with this post ...

<comment><USER29> I agree with so much of what you said in your article. I'm trying to make it in LA for a lot of the same reasons why you're working in Canada.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Not to be mean, but the author looks really young.

Maybe I'm getting old, but I find it really hard to take advice from such young people. My personal take is that they're bypassing a lot of the experience it takes to make a well rounded business person.

I personally feel like a douche trying to give advice to other people, particularly people older than me.

<comment><AUTHOR> * Disclaimer - I wrote the post Thanks for suggesting I look young :)

I have a hard time taking advice from young people too. Well ... until Brian Wong, schooled me during a tech conference we were both panelists for.

A lot of super smart valley entrepreneurs "bypass" what it takes to be a well rounded business person ... I guess. But I doubt that has anything to do with age, and more to do with the current frothy acquisition and funding environment.

<comment><USER30> Thinking about it, I'm sure they can be just as good. Regardless of age. I would guess it's like anything else. Constant exposure and practicing will breed excellence. I would just be scared of all the mistakes they haven't made yet.

It's funny you mention Brian Wong, his company is a competitor of the company i work for. He's a smart guy, from what i can tell, but he would actually be one of the examples i'd use to cite lack of experience.

In software development, lack of experience can be a really big issue. For example, with lack of experience you may choose core piece of technology based on hype. _cough_ mongodb and kiip _cough_

But, I digress, thanks for the article. Learned a bit about the Canadian start up eco-system.

<comment><USER31> "In software development, lack of experience can be a really big issue" can you explain this one to me? I hope that someone who calls themselves a senior developer with 20 years experience will know a lot about different technologies. On the other hand if you are a co-founder who needs to code, design, network and do many many other things, software development has nothing to do with it. Your demo will not be using the right technologies. Companies grow and new developers get hired. Code gets re-written and technologies you use, will be changed.

<comment><USER30> What is there to explain? As a software developer, experience matters.

If you're building disposable demos, you probably have more problems than building software.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> "Why Canadian Startups Should Choose Canada over Silicon Valley."

</comment><comment><USER33> So the moral of the story is: if you are a first timer, do it in SV. Once you make enough connections from SV, do it in Canada.

</comment><comment><USER34> s/Canada/Portland/

Our visa is easier to get. :) (if you're in the US)

<comment><USER35> Why not s/Canada/New York/ ?-)

<comment><USER34> Because I'm not in New York! :)

Also, I originally wrote it out as s/Canada/(Portland|Austin|Raleigh)/ and then felt like NYC was conspicuously left out. And further realized those other cities could post for themselves.

<comment><USER15> Also you'd confuse sed, it would have no idea which one to replace with. ;)

<comment><USER34> That's true, I was taking literary license with sed. :)</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


'True face of Shakespeare' appears in botany book? - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-32782267

<comment><USER2> This article has a bit more information about the specific "code" that has supposedly been cracked:

[http://www.theguardian.com/culture/2015/may/19/shakespeare-w...](http://www.theguardian.com/culture/2015/may/19/shakespeare- writer-claims-discovery-of-only-portrait-made-during-his-lifetime)

I wish this were true but it doesn't even come close to passing Occam's razor to me. Shakespeare, as we know well by now, was not particularly famous in his lifetime (indeed, our contemporary concept of "fame" or "celebrity" didn't exist at the time). Short of some new discovery that Gerard (the author of the herbal) was personally associated with Shakespeare, I don't see why we should be convinced by the evidence available. A lot of it is a huge stretch, like the AW / OR lettering in the image being interpreted as a reference to the golden background ("or") of Shakespeare's father's coat of arms, or the fact that Shakespeare mentions corn at one point in his plays and the figure here is holding an ear of sweetcorn - "corn" could refer to any grain in Elizabethan times so it's hardly surprising that the word shows up in his work. At any rate, here's a high res scan of the actual image for anyone interested:

[http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/109874#page/1/mode/1...](http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/109874#page/1/mode/1up)

Edit: this guess that it's actually Sir Francis Drake strikes me as being much more likely, though still impossible to prove:

[http://www.historyneedsyou.com/blog/the-language-of- flowers-...](http://www.historyneedsyou.com/blog/the-language-of-flowers- speaks-clearly-not-in-riddles)</comment>


Spotify Becomes Latest Tech Company to Hit Pause on Political Ads - happy-go-lucky https://www.npr.org/2019/12/28/792078881/spotify-becomes-latest-tech-company-to-hit-on-pause-political-ads <comment><AUTHOR> Can't blame them. If I owned a software company I wouldn't touch politics with a mile long pole.

<comment><USER2> While I agree and think I generally approve of tech companies banning political ads, these bans are still not an apolitical move.

They're going to disproportionately affect underdog and non-incumbent candidates, as well as anyone who needs the voters purged in places like Georgia.

<comment><USER3> I think it will affect the incumbent the most. Trump used the impeachment fiasco to do record fundraising, and now he's heading into 2020 with a massive war chest.

With major platforms banning political ads, they're increasingly making that war chest less valuable.

<comment><USER4> I'm sure there will be plenty of opportunities to spend that money on traditional media.

<comment><USER5> It's all a big coincidence, the timing of this, affecting a party that's not popular among tech titans, no breach of ethics here at all. Everyone remembers the groundswell opposition from tech, to the Obama campaign's use of social media and targeted advertising, right? No?

Wait, was the media and tech sprawling with fawning reviews, declaring the Obama campaign a genius use of tech?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Is this even addressing the root cause of 2016 misinformation campaigning? I was assuming most misinformation was distributed as user-generated content, not ads.

How much was Spotify exploited as a media platform for campaign misinformation? Its cute that Spotify is doing this, but I think Facebook + Twitter were the big distribution channels (and probably Reddit is closest to the "astroturf core").

Edit: grammar

<comment><USER7> Spotify is doing what they want to do for their platform. I'm not sure what you want Spotify to do about the user generated content on Facebook and Twitter.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Can't they just charge a lot more? Like $10million per ad?

It's a surcharge to avoid political ads, but hey Mr. Bloomberg, if you need to get attention... we will collect your money.

What would they do with this extra money? Fund open source foundations?

...wait... is $10Million too low? Is there that much money in politics?

<comment><USER9> This is how the system currently works. The best financed (so: most popular with business people) candidate gets heard the best and often times is pretty easily elected.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Remember when they praised the Obama campaign's efficient use of tech/social- media, including targeted advertising? Why do you think this new fangled opposition to political ad spend is timing itself right before the 2020 ramp up?

Hint: it's because tech Titans and their cronies can't tolerate an opposition campaign being just as good at tech/social-media targeting. Not because of some new found puritanical, ethical hate of politics

</comment><comment><USER10> Remember MySpace? Music oriented social networking with no politics or invasive tracking. Good times.

</comment><comment><USER11> The issue is that people are able to be targeted with surgical precision because of mass data collection. Banning political ads is just a half ass treatment of the effect.

And sociopath Zuck doesn't even see the need to do that.</comment>


Ask HN: My snail mail has me going postal - <AUTHOR>

I've come to my whit's end when it comes to managing my real life inbox: the mailbox in my driveway.
It's enough to drive a person mad. Not only do I receive tons of worthless crap everyday (those senders should be prosecuted and sent to prison for destroying the environment and wasting everyone's time) - I also get statements from the bank/credit cards that have sensitive information in them.
After moving a couple of times in the past few years I'm sure there have been plenty of opportunities for identity theft of my info. It's probably just pure luck it hasn't happened yet.
My question is this: How the hell do I stop snail mail from coming to my address? There is one solution I know of at http://www.earthclassmail.com/ which might be a little pricey but for the peace of mind it definitely seems worth it.
Anyone else out there had success with this "problem"? Any solutions you know of I could try? I'm thinking of having a giant bonfire in the backyard otherwise.. <comment><USER3> I have this problem. 99% of my snail mail (by weight) goes straight into the recycling bin. To really make you cry, I live on an outer Hawaii island - <USER2> not only the trees died for no reason, but large amounts of fuel was consumed to bring this junk here, just so it can be shipped back as recycling.

I was actually desperate enough to pay a service that promised to stop junk mail. It didn't really work - a lot of my junk mail did not come from sources they knew about, it was too much effort to tell them about all the sources they didn't know about, in some cases the sources actually refused to stop the junk mail without a WRITTEN request and in some cases they refused outright to stop it at all (because I get my snail mail at work, and other people also there happened to get their catalogues).

The only plan that I think would really work is to get a new address (a PO box), tell the USPS to not do any bulk mail forward - and in fact, if your source of real snail mail is actually small enough, tell USPS not to do any forwarding of mail at all - and just tell the few people that really have to send you snail mail your new address.

I don't know what happens to the undelivered bulk mail - I'd like to think the sender eventually gets the idea and stop sending it - but at least it will no longer be your problem.

<comment><USER4> _tell the USPS to not do any bulk mail forward_

the USPS will not forward bulk mail, and even magazines will not get forwarded. only mail carrying first class postage will get forwarded.

however, as soon as you submit a change of address, the USPS makes that information public, so many companies subscribe to those lists and will get your new address (like magazine companies). so your best bet is to just not forward any mail and submit the address changes manually to the companies that send you mail.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> There's plenty of alternatives to EarthClassMail which are more reasonably priced; check out a list here:

[http://unhappyecmcustomer.blogspot.com/2009/09/earth- class-m...](http://unhappyecmcustomer.blogspot.com/2009/09/earth-class-mail- alternatives-part-2.html)

I've been using a newer one, <http://virtualpostmail.com> , which I've found both cheaper and better for my purposes.

You can also opt out of catalogs pretty effectively with a site like <http://catalogchoice.org> .

Beyond that, sign up for eBills and the like as much as you can through your bank's online bill pay.

The only thing I really havn't been able to stop are those pesky credit card checks, but I havn't actually tried calling my banks and asking.

</comment><comment><USER6> I have been using Earth Class Mail for several months and it works fantastically.

You get a real, non-PO-Box address (your user id is in the "apartment number"). Since I've been moving around a lot, including abroad, I use it for my bank accounts, credit cards, everything. Occasionally a company will want proof that it's your address, but once you have mail coming to it, that's easy. For example, changing the mailing address on an existing bank account can be done online, and then you have a bank statement as proof in the future.

Earth Class Mail will scan your mail for you at the touch of a button, so most mail does not need to be forwarded. They scan the outside of all mail, and even run OCR on the return address. If you have them open an envelope and scan the contents, they will scan everything they can, and then put it back in an envelope that they can forward to you if you need the physical contents.

There's really no downside as long as you trust Earth Class Mail and their employees.

(Note: I haven't compared ECM to other alternatives. After reading hannibalhorn's comment below and some of the linked pages, it sounds like people have complaints about ECM's prices, high latency receiving mail to some east-coast addresses, and poor check cashing feature. I have a Seattle ECM address, don't use their check cashing and have not really had any problems. It's a very valuable service to me, and though I don't know if they really need to charge the fees they do, it's not obvious that switching to a competitor trying to undercut them is wise. I will probably give virtualpostmail a look though.)

</comment><comment><USER7> Get a PO Box.

<comment><USER8> I RTS (return-to-sender) any mail that I recognise as not from organizations I deal with - like invitations for credit cards, magazines, conferences, etc.

<comment><USER9> Does this really work? I've Googled around, and it looks like some/most of the junk mail you do this to won't actually make it back to the sender, but will just be disposed of by the post office.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> <http://www.fortknoxmailbox.com/> \-- works great for me (locked mailbox, built like a tank).</comment>


Which tech giants will still be around after 100 years? - <AUTHOR> http://www.economist.com/node/18805483?story_id=18805483

<comment><USER3> Horrible article. It makes an arbitrary distinction between products and ideas. I'm sure if you asked Michael Dell, even 10 years ago, what his company is about at its core -- he'd probably say something more like delivering technology to consumers and businesses, customized to fit their individual needs, and using the best processes and efficiencies to deliver at the lowest price possible.

Don't bother wasting your time reading it. You'll have wasted two minutes, learned nothing, and have even less respect for the Economist.

<comment><USER4> Agreed. Was expecting some kind of idea why information technology actually is a mega-trend and what possible game changers are around the corner. Just imagine only one patent on a working quantum computing device and all mentioned companies are out.

<comment><USER5> I'm not quite sure why e.g. Facebook would care about a working quantum computer, at least in the short run.

<comment><USER4> Looks like bashing Facebook leads to down votes, interesting.

But short run is not 100 years. And yes, Facebook will care from day one about QC, think data center and investors willing to burn money to foster old school technology.

<comment><USER5> As far as I know (and I haven't read too much about QC, so I might very well be totally off), QCs are only useful for a very specific set of problems. And none of those seem to map to FB problems right now.

Will that change? Sure. Will FB do internal research with QCs? Maybe, once they've progressed past the vaporware state. (Sidenote - if we observe QC less, will development work better? ;)

But a working QC will _not_ put FB out of business any time soon. The hardware is only a tiny piece of the puzzle of quantum computing. Algorithms for QC are rare, hard to develop, and the field is in its absolute infancy.

<comment><USER4> "The hardware is only a tiny piece of the puzzle of quantum computing. Algorithms for QC are rare, hard to develop, and the field is in its absolute infancy."

Is that the description of computer technology as of 1911?

<comment><USER5> More ca. 1930 - precursors of the Church-Turing thesis showing up. And if anybody then had predicted that "one patent on computers, and IBM is out of business", they would've been wrong too.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Facebook has huge promise, but I think it is still too young to tell if it has legs on the order of a century. On the other hand, Google has already shown its ability to hop platforms again and again (Search to E-mail, Web to Mobile, Software to Automotive), and their head-start in artificial intelligence will make them an important force for at least two decades. I would bet Google is the company of this generation that is still around in 2050.

<comment><USER7> I agree about Google, but I don't think Facebook is even remotely in the same class. For all I know it could be gone in a couple of years. Apple and Amazon seem like two much more likely candidates, along with Google.

<comment><USER8> Mind you, back in its infancy you could very much have said the same thing about Google (search? how can you even begin to make money off that?) - <USER2> Facebook has been acquiring rather a lot of talented engineers.

Assuming that the core priority is to maintain and optimise their core business to a certain point of stability, they can then look at branching out into other areas that present attractive opportunities.

Of course Google has developed a very specific method to encourage this kind of behaviour (80/20) and Amazon has yet again quite a different process, so it would be very interesting to see how Facebook will go about this in the next few years.

<comment><USER9> I think there's a strong argument to be made for the case that anything based on social is ephemeral. Facebook may be hiring a lot of engineers, but it is also, really very young, and networks change over time. There's a reason the post office doesn't own telecoms, and there's a reason Ma Bell doesn't own facebook, and didn't own Myspace (aside from the fact that they got trust- busted).

Anyhow, it could well the world's greatest computer engineers, but I doubt even that will allow it to survive the shifting sands of both fashion and technology over the next hundred years. Its not that facebook is bad, just that I very much doubt it'll be plugged into the technology that my children use to communicate in high school, twenty to thirty years from now. It may be telepathy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> List of oldest companies: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_companies>

<comment><USER11> Hotels and alcohol seem to be clear winners - same service has been relevant as long as there has been commerce.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> This article is terrible. It is essentially taking the hottest tech companies of today and making a conjecture that because they have maneuvered well to get where they are, that 100 years from now their methodologies will still apply.

I realized this author had no clue when he/she explained that Microsoft isn't a safe bet while Facebook is. Um, last I checked MS had a $200 billion market cap. I don't think you can compare that to a website that has been in existence for 7 years and hasn't even shown profitability. I'd bet a week's pay that he/she hasn't ever used an Oracle product or could even explain how its database technology is used.

</comment><comment><USER13> I think Facebook is really in the most danger of the whole group. I can't help but think something else will show up.

Apple has a good shot, but I think Dell is not going to be around. It just seems like the integrated model is going to last and Microsoft is going to do it own thing (ala XBox).

Google might have serious problems if something other than the web shows up and advertising is harder. I am really not convinced (despite the efforts of many) that the web is the endpoint.

<comment><USER14> I think Google's going after data (profiting on ads), commoditizing automotive, transport, energy, medical, computer hardware, telecommunications, software, and social.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Nintendo has been around for over 130 years now, however they've only been a tech company since the 70's

</comment><comment><USER16> Terrible Article, I am surprised to see the from The Economist. It seems like they just want to name drop the most popular tech companies of late.

Facebook has just as much chance of disappearing in 5 years as it does of being around in 100 year.

Google probably has a better chance than any of these companies of being around in 100 years, they are in the oldest industry of all time. Advertising. Plus they have shown they are willing to invest in new technologies to stay current, ala self driving cars.

Amazon has massive potential, but by no means are they guaranteed.

Apple, Google and Microsoft all have ridiculous piles of cash, provided they don't make any stupid big bets, all of these companies will easily be here for the next 100 years just on these cash piles alone.

<comment><USER17> Google is actually in the AI business, which is why I think they're the most likely to be around in the future.

<comment><USER16> Yes, Ai which is applied to advertising. They do advertising in a very unique way but I still feel it boils down to ads. I think they will be a huge force for Ai in the future, they should be more so now, but will the make money from Ai unrelated to ads in the future? Time will tell.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Weird that Nokia wasn't mentioned. Depending on how you count it, Nokia is nearly 150 years old:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokia>

<comment><USER11> Even though I've seen people explain it as a story arc of _communications technology_ , Nokia's progress through paper, cables, TVs and mobile phones doesn't really make a compelling single service vision that the article was aiming for.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> I'm surprised AT&T wasn't mentioned. Yes, it was broken up as a monopoly, but it's been slowly growing back into its former self.

<comment><USER20> Isn't AT&T dead? SBC bought the name, not the company.

<comment><USER21> SBC bought the company and used the name.

<comment><USER20> <dig, dig>...oh, you're right.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Intel? I always think of them as the bread and butter of IT. Only 45 more years and they'll be a centennial company.

<comment><USER23> Not if ARM processors continue to gain ground.

<comment><USER22> But Intel is an ARM licensee through DEC. They've been making ARM processors through the DEC channel for years now.

<comment><USER23> Let me clarify: competing ARM processors :)

Chances are it's not an Intel CPU you're using in your smart phone, tablet, or game console.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Yeah, I'd be very surprised if Microsoft ever managed to branch out from only making BASIC interpreters.

</comment><comment><USER25> I bought Google shares simply to insure myself against the singularity. If AI emerges from Googles data centers, maybe it will have mercy on me because I helped fund it's creation.

</comment><comment><USER26> Tell me more about these Japanese hotels from the 8th century.

<comment><USER10> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoshi_Ryokan>

<comment><USER27> Over 1300 years old, and this is at the bottom of their web page:

"Please use Netscape Navigator and the Shockwave plug-in to see this site in its full majesty."

I'm curious what it will say in another 1300 years.

<comment><USER28> "Teleport to galactic planetary body coordinates: 09248x35624x456643x55633"

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> A little surprised Cisco comes in for no love ... if your mission is to provide the best platform for routable network equipment, one would hope as long as there are routable networks they should do OK.

Of course, if you don't execute on your mission, dilute your franchise by buying tangentially related companies, gouge your customers, might turn out differently.

Are routers and network equipment going to be a commodity, or is a good platform going to keep providing a moat and competitive advantage?

</comment><comment><USER30> We're still defining IT. The building blocks are the same from card-punching days but what we've built on top of that foundation is light years ahead and evolving faster. Information technology has the most potential to displace or swallow other industries and even redefine the human race. The survival of Google or Apple as a going concern seems pretty immaterial in that context.

</comment><comment><USER31> There seems to be a lot of focus on a company disappearing by dying, but it's far more likely that any of these companies will disappear via merger or acquisition.

When you look at it from that perspective, any of them could go through a downturn in the next 80+ years that leads to some hot new company just buying them outright.

</comment><comment><USER32> The free software movement giant will definitely be around in 100 years.

<comment><USER33> COBOL will be around in a thousand, so long as there is payroll there will be COBOL.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> Anybody willing to make _any_ predictions about the world 100 years from now is much braver than I am.

<comment><USER11> The article was aiming to explain the characteristics of a company likely to make it, not exactly to say which companies will.

What is nearly certain is that there will be major technological shifts in the next hundred years. What they are is impossible to say. But the less married a core business idea of a company is to the current technologies, the more likely they can make the jump to whatever comes first.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> Great premise but disappointed with the article's incredibly superficial approach and examination.

</comment><comment><USER36> I think we are not the target audience for this article...

</comment><comment><USER37> COBOL Engineering.

</comment><comment><USER23> Facebook lasting a hundred years? WHAT?! I hardly see Facebook as being in the same league as technology companies like Google, Apple, and Amazon. In fact, I don't really see Facebook as much of a technology company at all, at least in comparison to those I mentioned.

I wonder if the author would have said the same thing about Myspace 5 years ago. I bet he would have.

<comment><USER23> And by technology company I mean:

Hardware (Apple, Amazon) OS (Apple, Google) Cloud services (Google, Amazon, Apple) Web services like email, maps, search (Google)

Facebook has a very large user base. Whoopee. But does that mean staying power? Nope. Just ask Myspace, Yahoo, and countless dot bomb companies. You need to invest in R&D, become a technology provider, and succeed in more than one market. Beyond social networking, what does Facebook have?

This is a horrible article, especially by the Economist's standards.</comment></comment>


Justin.tv a Finalist in the Amazon Startup Challenge - <AUTHOR> http://techblog.justin.tv/2007/11/justintv-finalist-in-amazon-startup.html <comment><USER2> Is Amazon a likely to acquire Justin.tv? It seems they're doing more and more with video.

Congrats!

<comment><USER3> Less likely. How is Justin.tv align with Amazon business? Kindle makes more sense, Justin.tv? far.. too far.. It's more like a personal investment from Jeff Bezos if he ever decided to.

<comment><USER2> You know that Amazon has started selling videos and movies for download, right?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Pretty awesome, and by awesome I mean totally sweet.

</comment><comment><USER5> W00t! go jtv.

<comment><USER6> Congrats!

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Awesome. Nice work Kyle!

</comment><comment><USER8> kick ass. congrats guys.

</comment><comment><USER9> Congrats Kyle!

</comment><comment><USER10> awesome stuff, i hope you guys win!!

</comment><comment><USER11> fantastic. congrats!</comment>


Google: DoubleClick Employees Must Re-Apply For Their Own Jobs - <AUTHOR> http://startupearth.com/2008/03/17/google-doubleclick-employees-must-re-apply-for-their-own-jobs/

<comment><USER2> I think all companies should do the same in any acquisition, and especially in ones such as this where you are basically buying the user base and not necessarily the technology/people.

<comment><USER3> Yes, but Google should be careful not to alienate the people that end up staying. It is necessary for the success of their company that they maintain the Google culture, but the danger is that they seem like a callous giant company who doesn't care about the new people.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> good move. This is what i would want to hear if i was a Google investor.

Cut The Fat.

<comment><USER5> Your inappropriate use of the word "here" for "hear" I can tolerate. But your referral to human beings as "fat" that are easily "cut" is inexcusable.

Please keep this in mind as there are many people in the near future that are going to be losing their jobs as the US economy spins out of control (which I hope it doesn't).

<comment><USER4> So,i would assume that you would rather have us assigning superficial jobs to employees just to give the impression of a healthy economy.

It's that kinda of think that i believe will render America unable to compete globally and ultimately will do more harm than our temporary slump.

also, it's really lame to down mod someone, just because you don't agree with them.

<comment><USER5> Don't confuse what I said. I'm merely objecting to the inappropriateness of referring to human beings as "fat".

My second statement in the above comment was to get you to realize that real people are going to be facing tough times and that they are going to suffer in a VERY real way. Lightly referring to others as "fat" is unnecessary; it's a matter of politeness to those individuals.

Btw, I agree with what you are suggesting overall. I just don't agree with the way it is expressed. Perhaps this discussion has no place here, and for that I apologize to all.

<comment><USER6> People aren't "the fat", redundant jobs are.

Jobs aren't people.

<comment><AUTHOR> I understand your point (and the points above) but it's those 'redundant jobs' that built the company into a viable purchase for Google. How can they value it at $3.1Bn then ditch the very machine that created that value?

<comment><USER6> It's the removal of redundancies which can make a merger greater than the sum of its parts. Why should Google maintain a separate set of HR, sales and administration departments when it already has those in place?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> >...For Their Own Jobs

I'm afraid they are not their _own_.

</comment><comment><USER8> Wild wild west. Works only in the US though :-).

<comment><USER9> Which is a big reason why US GDP per capita is 25% higher than any other country with a sizable population.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> "They're called 'Effeciency Experts' but you're really interviewing for your own job!"

"So ... what would you say ... ya DO here?"

"I already told you! I deal with the goddamned customers so the programmers don't have to! I have people skills! What's the matter with you people?!"</comment>


A Hidden Gem in MySQL: MyRocks - <AUTHOR> https://www.percona.com/blog/2020/02/20/when-to-use-myrocks-in-mysql/ <comment><AUTHOR> The MyRocks is a major trade secret in my company. We can very quickly store TBs of highly compressed text in Hundreds of GB. More than 10x compression

<comment><USER2> Thank you!

Yeah I think MyRocks is rather underappreciated and can give fantastic performance improvements and cost savings for some workloads!</comment></comment>


Judge orders Microsoft to stop selling Word in US - <AUTHOR> http://www.theage.com.au/technology/biz-tech/judge-orders-microsoft-to-stop-selling-word-20090813-eit2.html

<comment><USER2> Just deleted my BBC link (didn't see you beat me).

Anyway from the BBC article (<http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8197990.stm>)

"I4i filed a patent in 1998 that outlined a means for "manipulating the architecture and the content of a document separately from each other" invoking XML as a means allowing users to format text documents."

Well one issue I see: XML 1.0 became a W3C Recommendation on February 10, 1998.

Patent 5787449 (<http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPAT5787449>) was filed Jun 2, 1994 and issued Jul 28, 1998. Can they change the patent that late to include XML?

From what I can read the patent is basically describing a system like LaTeX or HTML/CSS anyway.</comment>