Back to SF After the U.S. Digital Service - <AUTHOR> https://insouciant.org/tech/back-to-sf-after-usds/ <comment><USER2> "Helping rich people get taxis easier". As a Lyft and Uber driver, I count among my rides: getting a rough looking fellow (who has spent years in prison after accidentally killing someone in a bar fight) get to the only job that would take him - affordably and on-time (he would have been fired otherwise). I've given an enlisted navy family from Oklahoma (husband was deployed) get home from a late night run to a distant Walmart - the military pay for an e-3 is low and I imagine tough to support a family of three and there are few other options without a college degree.

It's crazy to read about this guy who wonders if this all matters... The amount of money that the government spends to get a marginal improvement on society beyond basic functions of the government should be even more dismaying.

And it's incredibly patronizing to despair from on high that tech doesn't do any good for society.

<comment><USER3> The explicit inspiration for Uber's founding was as a "limo timeshare service": [http://newsroom.uber.com/2010/12/ubers- founding/](http://newsroom.uber.com/2010/12/ubers-founding/)

I"m glad that some people are also getting easier taxi service. But having worked in in SF since the last bubble, there is definitely an intense focus here on solving rich-people problems; when they serve others (e.g., struggling felons and young military personnel) it is often, at best, a side effect.

<comment><USER4> That's often how technological progress works: it's developed to solve either a pressing-but-not-so-noble problem and then someone adapts it so the average person can benefit, or it's developed to solve a trivial and useless problem and someone improves it so it's useful to the average person.

We built radar so we could detect German bombers; we got microwave ovens from it. We built GPS so we could guide missiles and spy satellites; we got turn- by-turn navigation and Uber out of it. We built Twitter so we could send 140-character text messages; we got the Arab Spring out of it. We built the ARPANet to coordinate top-secret military projects; we got the Internet out of it. We built PCs to play games; we got Visicalc, Word, and all sorts of productivity boosts from it. We built computers to break German codes and guide artillery shells; you know where that went.

<comment><USER5> I'm so tired of the thoughtless repetition of this talking-point. Yes, _some_ technologies developed serendipitously for luxury products. But when you take a broader view than the latter half of the 20th century, most of the technological progress that _actually made our lives better_ were the results of targeted effort: wastewater treatment, antibiotics, essentially all medications. We didn't get to these things accidentally.

Maybe those technologies were _expensive_ at first and came down in price with adoption, but that's _different_ than making the claim that if we just work on _whatever rich people want today_ , we'll automatically get to places that are beneficial for society. Want to help the third-world feed itself? Perhaps you should invest your resources _in that_ , not in a silicon valley nutri-shake startup.

Hell, most of _your_ examples are cases where the military did something to solve a _known problem_ that was too expensive (or too speculative) to be left to private industry. How you turn that into an argument that our best-and- brightest should be working on ad-optimization eludes me.

This industry, I swear: we whine about the loss of space exploration, and wonder what happened to our flying cars, but we brush off criticisms when someone invests millions of dollars in the sixty-seventh niche food-delivery service for the SF bay area. Perhaps the two things are related?

<comment><USER6> Penicillin was discovered by complete accident, actually.

Also, the jury is still rather out on the long-term impact of medications...it sure made a bunch of rich folks richer, though!

EDIT:

Also, most of those solutions came through private industry working on .gov contracts. A better example you might want to use is the innovations out of Bell Labs, all done basically to further solidify the telephone monopoly. That in turn _could_ be argued to be a monopoly granted by a state to solve the communications problem, but still.

<comment><USER5> Fleming discovered Penicillin accidentally, but he was a bacteriologist, and he was doing research into antiseptics. It was a discovery that was entirely related to his work.

<comment><USER4> And he was researching antiseptics because he had served in the Royal Army and had watched numerous colleagues die from infections following their wounds.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I think the US Digital Service is a great initiative and I'll consider taking a tour myself in the future. That said, I don't really like these kinds of thinkers who believe the only companies that are doing something "that matters" are non-profits working directly on a specific problem in healthcare or poverty.

I have yet to work for a company, from non-profit internet companies to product-oriented SaaS startup powerhouses, that didn't enable some great initiative or program that could not have existed without that company creating and improving their product and making it accessible, via availability or cost, to the non-profit that needed to worry about doing their actual work.

Take the author's old company, Google, for example. They don't do anything "that matters"? I assure you there are many non-profits, charities, and important initiatives around the world that would have a much harder time if they didn't benefit from technologies that Google ushered in to the world. Mass, cheap communication via free email that is highly-available and untied from specific ISPs. Free, globally available document storage to safely store records and share documents across the globe, saving on the cost of having an entire department to handle the same task.

These products may seem frivolous and unnecessary to us, because we can (maybe) live without them. But there are organizations directly doing important, charitable work that can't. Saying product companies that don't directly work on the world's poverty, social, or health (etc.) problems are not working on "things that matter" is just pretentious, in my opinion.

All that said, the author has the right to feel the way he feels and work wherever and on whatever he wants to. Just don't tell everyone else what they do doesn't really matter.

But that's just my two cents =)

<comment><USER3> > Saying profit-making companies are inherently not working on "things that > matter" is just pretentious, in my opinion.

Where do you believe he said that?

The things he called out were "helping rich people find taxis more easily, selling ads more effectively, or building sexting apps". He also said that he believed "the advancing state of computing technology has overall benefitted peoples' lives".

So I think you're mainly arguing against a straw man here.

<comment><USER7> I had a feeling that sentence was going to be taken apart and thought I should change it, but I didn't have the words at the time. By "profit-making companies", I mean companies that work on products for people that are not directly designed to help an impoverished people or solve a health or social problem. That is being implied here. He calls out the "sexting apps" directly, but most of the article is about him reconnecting with his friends at Google and the conclusion seems driven from that interaction.

<comment><USER3> Again, I think you're arguing against something that is not actually in the article. I read him as pointing at ends of a continuum, and I think you're falsely constructing a dichotomy out of that.

He says quite clearly: "I'm still a believer in technology, particularly in the web platform, as a force for good." He also is explicit that for himself he wants something farther toward the clear-impact end of the spectrum: "I needed to redirect my energies towards problems that society wasn't adequately addressing."

<comment><USER7> Forgive me, but you're kind of reframing his remarks a bit. For example, you cut off the second part of this sentence:

"Even though I'm still a believer in technology, particularly in the web platform, as a force for good, _society needs more people working directly on problems that matter._ "

While the author acknowledges in the abstract that the internet has improved people's lives, I still see the tone implying we should all be directly working on more worthy causes if we really want to be doing stuff that "matters".

<comment><USER8> > While the author acknowledges in the abstract that the internet has improved > people's lives, I still see the tone implying we should all be directly > working on more worthy causes if we really want to be doing stuff that > "matters".

Er, no. Again, you are engaging in binary thinking not warranted by what was actually said. He doesn't say or imply "we should all" be doing any one thing, he very directly says that "society needs more people working directly on problems that matter."

Note, particularly "more people" (not "we...all" as you would present it), and "directly". That is, there are plenty of things that _indirectly_ matter, and plenty of people working on those, but, in the author's view, _not enough_ people working _directly_ on certain important applications.

The judgement you are reading into it that everyone not working in certain preferred areas is doing something less-than-ideal and not doing stuff that matters is simply nowhere in the text.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Nice read. I don't mean to derail the discussion, but I wonder what sort of developers they were looking for when recruiting for the program. When I applied to the US Digital Service, I received a message back - "we are seeking candidates with skills tightly matched to our current projects. Members of our team reviewed your application, and we don't have the perfect match for your background right now". I'm mostly a web developer, so perhaps they were looking for a different background.

I have many of the same thoughts as the author (feel like my dev skills could be used to help some greater causes), but not sure where else I could make an impact. Particularly in government where I have alot of interest.

<comment><USER10> There are plenty of startups and companies working on important, world changing problems. You just have to look outside of Silicon Valley.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I applied and interviewed with the USDS, but the biggest thing was that they wanted me to move to DC for 6+ months. I'm quite happy here on the west coast, engaged to be married, and attempting to buy a house. Moving cross-country is pretty much a deal-breaker for me.

That said, I really, really want to get involved in something that matters. My dream, for lack of a better phrase, no matter how cheesy it may sound, is to change the world. I want to solve what I call Epic Problems: malaria, clean water, homelessness, HIV, slavery, human trafficking. Or even something as simple as making a trip to the DMV as painless as picking up a prescription at the drug store.

<comment><USER12> Maybe I'm wrong here, but I think if you want to solve Epic Problems like malaria and slavery, you are going to have to be ready to put things like buying a house and living where you like in the back seat.

<comment><USER13> That doesn't seem obvious. There are people working on banking, advertising, business software development, etc. in pretty much every major city. Why shouldn't the same be true of Epic Problems?

You can direct your work efforts towards goals that are important/meaningful to you without necessarily sacrificing everything else in your life. Conversely you can give up a good deal of your life to work on unimportant problems, and many people do.

<comment><USER12> I'm not saying you can't have any of those things and pursue your dreams, but life is not known for putting your dreams comfortably within reach. Banking is pretty universal (in every city); malaria research isn't.

Odds are at some point you will be forced to make choices; how many people are so lucky that their dream job is walking distance from their dream house in their dream city?

<comment><USER14> One less if the Op doesn't take advantage of his position.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Something about DC seems to give people the impression that anyone doing anything else in the world is "stuff that doesn't matter". R&D at these companies is what actually solves problems at the root cause.

How would all of that healthcare exchange work have gone if the tech industry didn't build the massive infrastructure it relies on (database tech, network tech, version control, the Internet)?

It feels like the person that wrote this article is the guy in the war movie yelling at the people designing new defenses for not being on the front lines firing a gun. There is a place for both roles, and shitting all over one half doesn't make you better than them, it just makes you myopic.

<comment><AUTHOR> _Something about DC seems to give people the impression that anyone doing anything else in the world is "stuff that doesn't matter"._

I see this from people that live in the Bay too.

NYC too.

<comment><USER16> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_G%C3%B6ttingen#C...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_G%C3%B6ttingen#Campus_life)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I would love it if anyone repeating the tired talking point, that solutions for rich people's problems will magically transmogrify into solutions for real problems with actual impact on human potential and quality of life, could name even _one example of this_ that's come out of U.S. technology startups in the last ten years.

I would also love it if anyone could explain why so many people don't feel compelled to do anything about the poverty in Silicon Valley that is becoming _much, much worse_ and _drastically_ curtailing social mobility for poor people in the area, and instead promote this idea of "efficient charity" or whatever to help people far away, instead of _fixing the problems caused by the kind of people who focus solely on earning a lot of money_. Problems that exist whether those people spend that money on mosquito nets or hookers and blow.

These talking points get thrown around over and over again, largely without evidence, and it's starting to feel like it's just people trying to justify their desire to make a pile of money without feeling bad about it.

<comment><USER18> > I would love it if anyone repeating the tired talking point, that solutions > for rich people's problems will magically transmogrify into solutions for > real problems with actual impact on human potential and quality of life, > could name even one example of this that's come out of U.S. technology > startups in the last ten years.

Android. It was a technology startup purchased by Google.

Stripe, it has enabled small working class merchants throughout the US to make multiples more money. Every farmers market I go to now days has merchants who can now accept credit cards (my spending has increased dramatically!)

Multiple other mobile payment and banking solutions have helped people around the world gain economic freedom.

<comment><USER17> Stripe wasn't trying to solve rich people's problems. Stripe was started for the explicit purpose you just stated -- to enable small vendors who couldn't otherwise afford credit card processing to take credit cards. It's a great example of what can happen when you actually apply effort to a real problem instead of hoping that some side effect of what you're doing will solve a real problem.

I don't really see where you're going with Android.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Large leaps in technology have always, and will always, benefit the wealthiest 1% at the beginning. This is just the basics of capital in a capitalistic society.

The internet has already redistributed earth shattering quantities of wealth in record time. Besides, to actually solve the "real problems" (no true scotsman, but we won't go down that path) you still need massive amounts of capital. Where else are you going to get that capital except for individuals who have gained their wealth through industry?

Can't help but feel that there's a serious holier-than-thou tone throughout the article just because the author spent 6 months in DC. Thought experiment: who is helping the 1% more, people who generate products for a public company or people who work on pet political projects for the DC elite? (Not implying there's a right answer to that question, and not implying that's all the OP did with their time in DC)

<comment><USER20> > Large leaps in technology have always, and will always, benefit the > wealthiest 1% at the beginning. This is just the basics of capital in a > capitalistic society.

What about the Green Revolution?

<comment><USER19> Honest question, do you mean to imply the Green Revolution did not follow this pattern?

From my understanding it followed the pattern exactly by spawning the creation of the huge food production conglomerates we have today while also greatly enriching vestiges of colonial powers as the movement grew to feed the "global hungry".

The last three paragraphs of this section of the wikipedia page more or less confirm it fit the pattern: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Revolution#Criticism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Revolution#Criticism)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> > _Most social impact projects and organizations are in the east coast, and, > at least as far as I could tell (but in all likelihood, it's probably > because I suck at finding them), most of them don't seem to have significant > / meaningful software projects_

That's because they're stuck in the stone-ages and don't have the imagination to use and create software (aka they're run by marketers, managers and people who want to feel good about themselves). The charities/non-profits are treated as non-technical users, the donors are treated as non-technical, the board members and C-level execs are all conservative. It's a wonder that there's been any use of software in automating and lowering the costs for non-profits to operate.

It's more meaningful to work on Uber because at least there you have the _potential_ to deliver food using the service to more homeless people than any other food delivery service.

The beginning of this post was good; fighting malaria is a big enough problem that could use better software (or at least more big-picture thinking). That's the kind of stuff we should be working on; being able to distribute malaria nets as fast, as cheap and as efficiently as possible.

I don't know, you can't expect too much from companies and you can't expect much from non-profits either. At least while working at Google you have the chance to use some of your time for things like the disaster reporting/mapping tech or something else that can directly help someone like Gmail (charities _do_ need a way to communicate!)

<comment><USER22> The flip side of "you can't expect much" is that a little help from tech folks would go a long way. Organize a hack event where non-tech people describe the stuff they need help with and tech people try to form solutions. The important thing is the relationships, not the solutions.

<comment><USER14> That is probably the only insightful comment on this article, which is sad for hn, however relationships are based on trust and respect and based on the other comments here programmers can't even respect themselves.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> What would be a good way to find companies that try to address more "pressing needs" and need strong technical help? I am currently in Indonesia, on a break after 20y in Silicon Valley, and would have time to help. I've thought about NGOs but I suspect these may be hard to navigate? Thanks in advance for any pointers and ideas

<comment><USER24> If you're interested in working in beautiful Cebu, Philippines, to build products that improve the lives of the poor worldwide, check out www.engageSPARK.com . We're recruiting for 6+ month Fellows as well as Permanent hires. We have a talented international team and are looking for more passionate people who want to leverage their tech skills to do good and help change lives. We're a not-for-profit business/startup building a challenging distributed platform that enables NGOs and governments to improve the lives of millions of people in poverty around the world.

For example, a large international NGO (Mercy Corps) used our platform to do a financial education program using voice calls & sms soap operas with quizzes (to reinforce and test comprehension) for 20,000 people affected by a natural disaster: [http://solutionscenter.nethope.org/blog/view/hitting-it- home...](http://solutionscenter.nethope.org/blog/view/hitting-it-home-soap- opera-campaigns-encourage-financial-literacy-in-the-ph)

And Cebu is a great place to live. If you're a diver, you can be diving in warm tropical waters in less than an hour from the office!

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> I'm sure this is a stupid question, but after a few minutes of googling I am still unclear on the answer so I thought I'd ask it here. I am about to start studying in the US (college), so I was wondering if the USDS accepts non- American citizens? Even without a green card? (I'm British, btw).

<comment><USER26> 18F can hire legal permanent residents.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> I didn't catch this part- why did the author leave? Was it just a term end and he chose not to renew it?

<comment><USER28> They do "tours of duty", since I think they found people had a hard time moving to DC permanently. Using this, they've managed to get a lot of people to take sabbaticals from their Google/FB/etc jobs.

"Quit your high paying job and indefinitely work for the government" is a hard sell; "come do something awesome for 6 months then go back" is much easier.

<comment><USER27> So I was aware of their tours of duty, but I thought that was not a carrot for outsiders to come in, but rather a way to circumvent the traditional hiring process. Probably doesn't hurt that the commitment is temporary.

From what I understood, rather than go through the job listing process with position writeups, giving veteran and disability preferences, dealing with HR on the certification process, getting various new office reorganizations approved by congress (they literally have to approve each individual office creation) and so on, they simply got an approval for 200-300 "innovation specialists" (that's what everyone's job title is there) and then they can informally cherry-pick whoever they actually want without going through the red tape. The mechanism is like having a standing approval for hiring 20 French speaking translators at all times, since that's a specialized standing volume-based need.

Anyhow, guess my question was more about the author's motivation for not choosing to extend the tour. It wasn't really spelled out in the post.

<comment><USER26> I'd argue it's mostly a carrot. The hiring authority is either one year or two, with option to renew. Most taking a leave of absence commit to six months at the onset.

The goal is to get to 500 by the end of next year. [1]

[1] [http://www.fastcompany.com/3046756/obama-and-his- geeks](http://www.fastcompany.com/3046756/obama-and-his-geeks)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> The first paragraphs read like cheesy paid promo for jobs in Washington. Trying to fix government is a great endeavor though, independent of the articles authenticity.

<comment><USER30> It's sometimes genuinely hard not to sound cheesy when discussing my work in DC (moved here a few months ago). :) Here's another piece on this sort of work with a different tone but the same message: [https://medium.com/@USDigitalService/mikey-dickerson-to- sxsw...](https://medium.com/@USDigitalService/mikey-dickerson-to-sxsw-why-we- need-you-in-government-f31dab3263a0)

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> I love how after 6 months working for someone he is happily blogging about it and he isn't ashamed about it even in the slightest. If I saw he'd worked for someone for 6 months only then I'd want to hear a good reason why he left. Otherwise I will just assume he was fired, or knew he was struggling against his peers and decided to move on by himself. You have to read his About page to realise that is probably not likely to be the case in this instance, but still.

<comment><USER32> You sign up for 6 months ...

</comment></comment><comment> a-dub So... Gates Foundation or Google Ideas?

</comment><comment><USER33> Why not take rich people's money for taxis, and then donate how ever much of your salary to charities that are trying to fight malaria you think is appropriate?

Is making $40K/yr doing something "meaningful" better than making $100K/yr doing something "meaningless" and donating $60k/yr to meaningful causes?

<comment><USER3> Have you tried this? I know a lot of people, but nobody who has done this sustainably.

I've definitely seen people start out on that road. But either they eventually quit and find jobs with meaning or they gradually end up not caring about meaning and spend the money on creature comforts.

<comment><USER4> Bill Gates is the most prominent public example.

I also know a number of folks at Google who are very charitably active despite working big-corp jobs. Usually they compartmentalize very drastically, though, so I never heard about their charitable activities at work and only learned about them second-hand, through chance encounters with mutual acquaintances.

<comment><USER34> Is Bill Gates really an example of what the person described? Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think his motivation for working or making money was to donate it. It seems like he decided after accumulating his wealth that he should use it for good.

It seems important to note the difference because I don't find it hard to imagine how a person whose motivation is to help the public good might not be passionate about a job which doesn't inherently do "good".

<comment><USER4> It's hard to speak of motivation unless you're the person in question. Most people do things for a number of different motivations. Hence the adage "We judge ourselves by our intentions and others by their behavior."

I suspect that as far as Bill Gates is concerned, he considers it all a game and just wants to win. For the first half of his life, the game was maximizing the money he makes. For the second half of his life, the game was maximizing the money he donates. This is all just suspicion, though.

<comment><USER3> Did Gates ever speak of this? If not, it's a terrible example.

Plenty of rich people, after spending their lives in business, eventually switch to philanthropy. Presumably because they discover, like the OP, that they value doing something more meaningful than stacking up money. But that's entirely different than somebody who has that realization young and does corporate stuff as a way of extracting cash, which is what alwaysdoit was suggesting.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> If there were profit in solving real problems, there wouldn't be any real problems.</comment>


The Motorcycle Gangs - <AUTHOR> http://www.thenation.com/article/motorcycle-gangs?page=full

<comment><USER2> This is a 2005 article. GET BENT. Why is it all these articles 6, 7, 8, and even 10 years old are being posted. Eff off. This isn't news, nor is it even remotely relevant to modern society.</comment>


Show HN: Maximus Adonis – A Fitter You is a text message away - <AUTHOR> https://www.maximusadonis.com/workout-planner <comment><AUTHOR> Overview:

On the list of who you should share your cell phone number with, I believe a personal trainer would make the cut, but just barely. There is a gap in the fitness market between X) working out with no knowledge and Y) having a personal trainer with you in the gym. I would like this service to bridge the gap between X->Y.

Maximus Adonis is a "app-less" service that a user interacts with via text message. A user 1) plans a workout 2) works out 3) logs the workout 3) reviews their workout data for insight and repeats the process. Steps 1-3 can be driven by the Maximus Adonis personal trainer.

This Specific Page:

Today I am showing you the workout planner section of the site but I am open to feedback on everything.

The workout planner kicks an email off to the user with an embedded calendar invitation. On a computer, adding the invitation to a calendar works pretty well. From a smart phone, not so much.

As the time of the planned workout gets closer, the user will be sent a workout reminder via text message, which is where I believe the value of the service begins. I think that knowing a human is going to see whether or not you logged your workout will increase your commitment to actually work out.

</comment><comment><USER2> This is a great concept. May need some tweaks to make it completely mobile as most people are recording all activities on that. I would sign up with a social media trainer to see all the things they offer and make sure they are part of the basic model.</comment>


Ask HN: What have been your best decisions in life? - <AUTHOR> What have been the best life [and career] decisions that you've made? <comment><USER2> 1\. Working out regularly (3 times a week lifting weights), eating healthy, and playing team sports (co-ed soccer and volleyball). In my 30s, and still in the best shape I have ever been.

There was a time when I didn't work out regularly, and I have to say that a 'weak' body affects you in many way down the road. Trying to 'save time' by skipping working out, or not doing physical activities is counter productive. Similar to skipping sleep because you don't have time. It destroys your health in many ways.

2\. Moving to the US as an exchange student (in high school), and living for a year with an american family that I had never met before.

3\. Studying Computer Science

<comment><USER3> I agree with number one. There aren't many decisions anyone can make which are %100 guaranteed to improve your life. That is one of them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Being ruthless about removing people from my life who are bringing me down, or who have a view of me that may be accurate, but is pessimistic.

<comment><USER3> One of mine was not worrying about what other people thought of me.

<comment> aaron-lebo _"You 'll worry less about what people think about you when you realize how seldom they do." _

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Picking the right spouse.

Edit: Picking the wrong partner can be catastrophic financially and emotionally. Pick someone you can trust, rely on, and who compliments your strengths and weaknesses. Be prepared to go to great lengths for them when necessary.

<comment><USER6> Yes, yes, and yes. I never heard this until way after I picked the wrong partner.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> 1\. Choosing Computer Science in a less-reputed (but still decent) college over a different major in a better college. All credit to my dad.

2\. Coming to the US for an MS rather than doing an MBA in India (my original plan when entering college). All credit to the cultural milieu of my undergrad college.

3\. Paying a lawyer myself to apply for a Green Card in a more ambitious category. All credit to my first co-founders in SV for connecting me to a good lawyer. With hindsight I got in through a 'loophole' that was plugged soon after.

What's common in all three: zero rational decision-making, huge influence from others, lots of luck in happening to be congruent with broad trends in society.

</comment><comment><USER8> Like most decisions that turned out to be good financially, it was purely by luck.

* Buying real estate... a lot of it

* Staying out of the stock market until after 2009... then leveraging and buying a lot of stocks

* Playing inverse volatility until 2017... missed out on the VIX termination event in Feb 2018

Some things that didn't turn out well:

* Crappy career. Had to quit after many years of training to get there due to external pressures. Fortunately the above compensated many times over.

Life isn't perfect, but I'm lucky to be relatively healthy and living in a safe part of the world.

<comment><USER9> Can you elaborate on the career?

<comment><USER8> It wasn't tech related. Highly regulated and unfortunately quite unnecessarily politicized.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> * My parents leaving Romania for the US (on the Greencard lottery) when I was 10. * Leaving a large company to work on a product I believed in (Airbnb 2012). * Not paying too much attention to my peers and doing what felt right: not getting a service job as a teenager and freelance coding(even when my effective hourly rate ended up being lower than working at Subway), becoming a farmhand after working as an engineer; taking a job at an art hedge fund in NYC while living in rural Washington. * Viewing money as a side product rather than a goal.

<comment><USER8> That's a really interesting history. I took a very traditional route. How did you end up positioning yourself for jobs like the art hedge fund? In my experience that would have required some amount of real life social connections or hustling. Just curious... for my kid's sake.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> 1). Marrying my wife

2). Sticking it out in CS undergrad when I was having a hard time with the material instead of dropping out

3). Leaving shitty jobs(though I could've left sooner at each instance) for greener pastures

4). Instead of resorting to drugs or alcohol to deal with bad times and loneliness in my life, turning to running instead and running the Marathon des Sables(and unrelatedly but subsequently finishing my pilot's license) which made me believe in myself

</comment><comment><USER12> This question is far less interesting than _how_ you made those best decisions. We make decisions constantly, and any of those have a chance to be good or bad depending on circumstances. Just because "moving to a different country" was great for randomPoster35 doesn't mean that moving is generally a good idea.

My best decisions were made with a feeling of rightness. Even when it was hard, either involving sacrifice or letting other people down, I was able to think about them and _know_ that they were the right decisions to make. Years later, it's obvious to me that I did the right thing in that scenario. Now that I've learned to trust that sense, it's easier for me to make good choices without endless hand-wringing.

</comment><comment><USER13> My best decision was probably (however banal that would sound) accepting myself. After I realised (the realization is still work in progress) that I am just who I am and nothing else, I started working on eliminating ties and traits I didn't personally want myself but which I have developed earlier due to some societal accepted "norm". It turned out to be rewarding - I love living, I am becoming more and more calm with time. I am becoming more calm with time also due to that with self-acceptance came slow and on-going realization of that I am nothing. It may seem dreading but it is opposite.

As to why I came to this realization (someone else in the comment section said this question is of no lesser interest) - I've been through some deaths (four of them to date) of my relatives, which were dreadful for me, I've seen more deaths than that too, which was dreadful for me too, I was looking how to stop deaths from coming, in 2010 I was seeking a refuge in Abrahamic religions and soon abandoned them because it turned out I didn't believe in any of that, in 2010 I abandoned almost all tries to explain deaths in any otherworldly or supernatural manner, and with time, slowly, this realization came, of that it is just how it is in this world, it is what it is. Deaths are deaths. With that realization came some inner calm and gradual self-acceptance. Prior to that, as a boy, I used to imagine myself this and that and since self- acceptance came the pretending of being something practically disappeared. Buddhism also helped in 2014, as I was close acquaitance with a guy, who turned out to be a Buddhist so to outwit him I was reading some books on it. I didn't accept it at all, but instead of learning how to outwit that guy I took some clues from it, since it heavily resonated with my conclusions about that world is just what it is. And it brought even more calm.

</comment><comment><USER14> 1\. Marrying my wife.

2\. Not leaving her when things got hard.

3\. Having children.

4\. Learning how to program.

</comment><comment><USER15> (in no order and i might have left out some)

1\. Traveling and living overseas for over half of my twenties. Gave me a world and multi-cultural perspective.

2\. Getting emotional healing from an abusive childhood. Gave me confidence to pursue life from a place of healing and peace.

3\. Getting married to my wife who I share everything with, including being work partners.

4\. Having children which has opened up a whole new aspect of wonder, curiosity and adventure.

<comment><USER16> How did you get to travel and live overseas in your twenties?

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Taking a sabbatical and going to the Recurse Center ([http://recurse.com](http://recurse.com))

</comment><comment><USER18> 1\. Working hard through university.

2\. Picking my first job out of university based on interest rather than money.

3\. Brushing my teeth twice a day and having a good oral hygiene routine.

4\. Travelling as much as possible.

5\. Telling awful clients to go whistle.

6\. Reducing alcohol consumption.

7\. Exercising daily.

8\. Spending more time with family.

9\. Paying mortgage off as quickly as possible.

10\. Reading HN.

</comment><comment><USER19> It's difficult to answer because we don't know what we the roads not taken would have been.

For me, the best decision was to move to a foreign country. My life has been much more exciting in so many ways. One of my regrets is that I could have done it sooner.

</comment><comment><USER20> After missing out on Bitcoin from inertia and putting a little too much weight on efficient markets, I resolved that next time I saw a good bet, I'd actually buy it. That turned out to be the Ethereum presale.

</comment><comment><USER21> Moving to a different country

</comment><comment><USER22> Joining the Peace Corps; deliberately and stubbornly (though often gracelessly) tackling the ways my upbringing had left me with lenses and reactions that harmed me and those around me; marrying well. There's no way to disentangle these decisions from each other, as they're interlinked and support and demand each other. What they all have in common is an unceasing demand that I be willing to reevaluate, surrender, and ultimately change my perspective.

</comment><comment><USER23> Working out improves my life very much and is a good balance between life and career. I go to the gym and do cross fit once a week in the park. Another good decision was to join Zenkit (a project management tool) as COO. This tool is amazing and I´m so proud what it became in about 1,5 years and I´m curious what it will become in the future. It´s a lot of work but I love what I do.

</comment><comment><USER24> Ditching my smartphone.

<comment><USER15> Do you use any phone?

<comment><USER24> I've got an LG B470 flip phone. It's really quite a piece of crap but it does the minimum. I've got a family and a side business, so it's not really practical to go without (despite the temptation.)

My fondest hope is that enough people will step back from smartphones to create a market for slightly-more-capable flip phones. At a minimum, having a decent camera would be nice.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Taking a remote job and moving to Oregon. I grew up in the mid-west and worked for a family-run real-estate business, it took a lot to leave that environment, but the housing crash of 2008 made it easier as it was a very real possibility that the company would go bankrupt.

I got a remote-job and since I could live anywhere I took the opportunity to also get away from Indiana and I haven't looked back since.

</comment><comment><USER26> Acting on the few things that I knew I'd regret if I didn't try at some point. For me, those were starting a company and living in different countries than I was born in.

Getting thousands of hours of experience in something useful - vocation, hobby, whatever - before I got out of school. I was fortunate that I still loved it and it became a career, but even if it hadn't, I learned what it takes and feels like to get really good at something.

</comment><comment><USER27> In unspecified order:

\- Maxing out the 401k early

\- Marrying the right girl, also not marrying the wrong one

\- Ensuring (in my own religious views) my eternal salvation. This one brings great peace of mind.

\- Doing volunteer book reviews for programming books. This has opened a great many doors.

\- Giving up alcohol after my kids appeared

All these have brought great payoffs. I can't say I made any of these decisions out of wisdom (most were just luck), but I am very happy with the way they've all turned out.

<comment><USER28> How did you get started doing volunteer book reviews?

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Eating low carb, high fat.

Trading options and taking risks generally. Not "diversifying."

Not watching TV or owning one. I seem to have much more time than my friends to start all kinds of projects.

Reading literature and learning to think in a literary way instead of a rationalist way. Coming to terms generally with humans as non-rational beings and treating them as such.

</comment><comment><USER30> Moving to the US.

<comment><USER31> Same here.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> Quitting tuba.

<comment><USER33> sounds like there could be an interesting story behind it

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> Learning to program.

Lifting, learning to count calories, healthy habits in general.

Staying out of the sun.

Moving out of the rust belt.

In preparation for moving, moving back in with my parents and getting close with them after a period of about a half decade of taking my family for granted.

<comment><USER35> > Staying out of the sun

Can you elaborate? I am doing the opposite, because I am almost all the time in the office or gym. I force myself to get as much sun as possible for the Vitamin D and articles associated with it here on Hacker News[1].

[1] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16556732](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16556732)

<comment><USER34> It ages your skin. Take a vitamin D pill instead.

You can go outside without being in direct sunlight.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> \- Quitting my great job as a digital artist to learn web development and build a startup.

\- Adopting a healthy lifestyle - healthy diet, daily jogging.

\- Developing a habit of listening to audiobooks every day.

</comment><comment><USER37> Traveling slowly for almost two years. I tried staying at least a week in each place and at least a month in each country. Stayed in some places like Peru for longer (9 months total).

</comment><comment><USER38> 1\. Seeing a doctor about my anxiety issues.

2\. Deciding not to pursue a career in software development. I enjoy programming way more as a hobby that I can take a break from whenever I want.

</comment><comment><USER39> Never financing or leasing a car. Never using any credit or loyalty cards. Befriending odd people. Staying with a small/niche software company.

</comment><comment><USER40> Taking the huge step of quitting a well paid normal job as a software developer to become a freelancer. It has been much more rewarding than I expected.

</comment><comment><USER41> Life \- Dropping out of a for-profit college and moving from Atlanta, GA to San Diego, CA

\- Focus on my own goals

Career \- Javascript! Javascript! Javascript! \- Starting my own company

</comment><comment><USER42> Deciding as a 13yo that I would be a games developer.

<comment><USER43> would you share any games you made?

<comment><USER42> Sure, you can find me here: [http://www.mobygames.com/developer/sheet/view/developerId,36...](http://www.mobygames.com/developer/sheet/view/developerId,36254/)

It should also include this: [http://www.mobygames.com/game/windows/nba- inside-drive-2000/...](http://www.mobygames.com/game/windows/nba-inside- drive-2000/credits) but crediting practices in the games industry sometimes leave a lot to be desired.

I've also done a number of social and mobile games but they are all dead now, and were not much worth digging up anyway.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> Sticking with a project in college out of interest, despite pressures from family and friends to ditch it or not work as much on it.

</comment><comment><USER45> Having more than one kid - one kid is a pain. Two kids are still a pain but it's twice as fun. Repeat.

</comment><comment><USER46> Traveling all over the world... while young.

<comment><USER16> Where'd you go and how?

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> If the question about business life, leaving an SV-based company. Otherwise, marrying and having children.

</comment><comment><USER48> 1\. Moving out of Russia (to Canada)

2\. Picking up jogging - really helped me to fight anxiety and started thinking straight

</comment><comment><USER49> 1\. Maintain relationships with positive winners exclusively.

2\. Pass on cushy full-time employment for something riskier

3\. Antidepressant

4\. NoFap

5\. Ovo-lacto-pesci-vegetarianism

6\. Start conversations with strangers every day, anyone and everyone. No anxiety, no fear and no fucks given.

7\. MGTOW. j/k. Cultivating abundance so there's little attachment and plenty of options.

8\. Not jumping into any commitment milestone too quickly. Also, filtering carefully and firing soon.

</comment><comment><USER50> Living below my means, both when I was "poor" and now that I have more money.

</comment><comment><USER51> Quitting alcohol. Going vegan. Learning a trade (programming).

</comment><comment><USER52> drugs

<comment><USER53> whatever works ))

</comment></comment><comment><USER54> Moving away from a city into a quiet clean area

Travelling

</comment><comment><USER55> Leaving Los Angeles.

</comment><comment><USER56> Moved to Tokyo

Bought a bike

Started bike camping

</comment><comment><USER57> Staying sober, leaving bad relationships and jobs, helping other people/volunteering, educating myself and getting a job that pays reasonably well.</comment>


2.5 hours per week of exercise of any kind could help you live longer - <AUTHOR> https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2017/9/22/16343458/exercise-2-hours-per-week-live-longer <comment><USER2> That's just half an hour daily, 5 times a week, there is really no excuse, except you are lazy and/or mentally ill, and anyone saying she or he has no time falls in one of those categories. I heard it all, no time, but playing GTA online on the weekend, no time but constantly posting on Instagram or Facebook and browsing aimlessly. Or bingewatching Game Of Thrones. Or some of the comments here which easily take you half an hour to compose. You have to set priorities, commit to that time and stick with it. I don't say you can't have some fun in your life, and believe me, working out is fun too, but AFTER you have done your duty of working out, for gods sake, skip even a meal for making time, it will be even healthier for you. Thats your health in the long run and should be the number one priority for you, for your own sake and for the sake of the people around you, think about the trouble and the worries you create for them living a sedentary life, if you don't care about your own life, then at least be so decent and care about theirs. What helped me a very long time ago was to commmit to 15 minutes daily, no matter what. I used Jerry Seinfelds don't brake the chain motivation technique, there are dozzen of apps which can help you with that. I had a streak of over two years before i took my first brake, now i work out 2.5 hours daily on average, and still waste a lot of time, and you guys will tell me that you won't find that time even in one week? Come on! I hope nobody feels adressed by my posting, but i have the feeling there may be one or two guys, you know who you are;)

</comment><comment><USER3> Someone told me the "Russian trick": every time you have a few minutes, just do some exercises: Squat, crunches, pushups.

It's not at all as good as a 15+min activity but by the end of the day it reinforces a lot of parts.

<comment><USER4> Ever played The Sims 4...

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Says Captain Obvious...

<comment><USER6> > The Department of Health and Human Services has issued a new report asking > Americans to just do anything at all for Christ's sake for 30 minutes each > day.

[http://www.theonion.com/video/health-officials-urging- americ...](http://www.theonion.com/video/health-officials-urging-americans-to- do-something--31093)</comment></comment>


GAP8 IoT Processor - <AUTHOR> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_kiFq5Io4yMMUlJTEl4NFhKVjg/view?usp=sharing <comment><USER2> [http://greenwaves-technologies.com/en/first-internet- things-...](http://greenwaves-technologies.com/en/first-internet-things-iot- processor/)

Shows it has some sdr capabilitues in tbe 1mb/s range

</comment><comment> greenwaves-tech Thank you all for your interest in GAP8. This processor aims at very low power consumption while delivering enough computing power for content understanding and wireless modem (NB-IoT, 802.15.4g-OFDM, Weightless-P,…) in the context of IoT. We see IoT use cases becoming much richer in the future. For example, we have many request for snapping a low resolution picture and classifying the resulting image in the device, before uploading the result over a low data rate wireless connection. Or to count objects. There are also very interesting use cases based on sound and motion, in the machine health monitoring space in particular.

We plan to achieve years of autonomy on a typical IoT battery with events frequency in the few minutes range.

We expect to get our chip back from the fab in the second half of July and to be able to deliver our first Gapuino boards in September. It will come with an ISM RF shield and a sensors shield.

Please let us know if you'd like more info.

</comment><comment><USER3> This sounds way too good to be true.

\- 8 core RISC-V w/DSP

\- Hardware Convolution Unit

\- RTC

\- SDR!?

\- Ultra low power

\- Low cost

\- Lots of libraries

I hope this is real, but I'll believe it when you can buy it.

<comment> fake-name Where do you see a SDR?

It has a software defined /modem/, but that's basically a fancy way of saying it has DSP facilities.

<comment><USER2> [http://greenwaves-technologies.com/en/first-internet- things-...](http://greenwaves-technologies.com/en/first-internet-things-iot- processor/)

Has radio capabilities in the imb/s range.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I've wondered for a while. What would you do with IoT ? The only applications that are somewhat desirable I've seen so far are wifi lightbulbs.

Given that LEDs are getting pretty hard to beat, both on price and possibilities, when it comes to lighting design and usually come with some sort of remote control, it's almost becoming the default.

But aside from that, what would you do ? Remote control doorknobs were popular for a while but didn't last at all. Anything else ?

<comment><USER5> I've started getting interested in hardware for the past half-year or so. Thus far I've built a few projects that are generally useful and have lasted for a while - most of my projects are for learning so they get assembled, played with, then recycled for parts.

Things that I've kept have been:

* A system which sends me a text-message when the washing machine cycle is complete.

* A device that displays the departure times of the trams from the stop at the end of my street.

* A button that you can press which does "something" on the PC - generally plays "alarm.mp3".

* A bunch of temperature sensors which submit their data to a central service on my PC - so I can measure heat/humidity on my balcony, in my bathroom, and elsewhere nearby.

None of these projects are earth-shattering, but they are small enough to be useful. They all use WiFi to fetch data, or submit it. And should be hacker- proof ;)

<comment><USER6> I think most of the uses of the consumer IOT add small value, so in order for them to see demand, they needs to have very low costs, both monetarily, and otherwise(0 install, extremely easy usability- not sure if smartphone is easy enough - maybe voice , interoperability between devices,no security fears or spying issues, no bugs ) combined with really tight UX design.

And there's no technical reason why this couldn't be achievable(maybe with some collaboration). But the companies view IOT differently - as a giant purse, as a lock-in mechanism, as a way to spy on customers, and as a way to do half-work - on UI,security, etc.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> It seems smoke, it mentions that there is available boards but no clear way to buy/order.

It seems funded by public money and needs to show something to justify it.

<comment><USER8> > FPGA demos of GAP8 are available to customers today, and GAP8 samples will > be available in mid-2017.

That probably means that commercial availability will happen on q4 at earliest.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Is it 32 or 64 bit? And what RV* ISA and extensions?

<comment><USER10> Looks to be heavily based on PULP, so probably RV32IMC.</comment></comment>


Re-Creating WarGames with Tableau and Mapbox - <AUTHOR> http://allanwalkerit.tumblr.com/post/136904674217/re-creating-wargames-with-tableau-and-mapbox <comment><USER2> Or just play Defcon.

[http://www.introversion.co.uk/defcon/](http://www.introversion.co.uk/defcon/)

</comment><comment><USER3> "Apart from the introduction of ICBM's, MIRV's and SLBM's since 1959, and the number of countries participating in this MADness…has anything else really changed, other than the time it would take to blow us all to Kingdom Come?"

In a word: yes. The targets have changed rather dramatically. Regardless of where they sourced their data, their targeting and their location of launch facilities are extremely outdated. The fields in Missouri, for example, are entirely decommissioned. A long time ago. The entire land based missile strike capacity of the United States lives in three areas: the Wyoming-Nebraska- Colorado border intersection, Montana, and North Dakota (though some of ND has been decommissioned). The vast majority of Russian missiles are, in most strategic scenarios, considered to be targeted at these locations The maps for the silo locations can be found here, here, and here:

[http://w3.uwyo.edu/~jimkirk/warren- mm.html](http://w3.uwyo.edu/~jimkirk/warren-mm.html) [http://w3.uwyo.edu/~jimkirk/minot.html](http://w3.uwyo.edu/~jimkirk/minot.html) [http://w3.uwyo.edu/~jimkirk/malmstrom.html](http://w3.uwyo.edu/~jimkirk/malmstrom.html)

The United States has also become much more reliant on strategic submarines for missile delivery, depreciating the role of the bomber force.

As for targeting in the US, here is a state by state guesstimate based on known military targets back in the late 80s. [http://www.ki4u.com/nuclearsurvival/states/](http://www.ki4u.com/nuclearsurvival/states/) A lot has changed since then -- for one thing, both sides have less missiles, hence have less targets. But there are still more than enough to 'get the job done' \-- I can't find the articles any more, but I recall reading a NYTimes or WaPo long form story about the topic from the mid 2000s that mentioned that pretty much every incoming new president, even the hawkish ones like George W Bush, is flabbergasted when he is briefed on the SIOP (now rennamed), as the plan has such a need to find ostensibly military targets for missiles that some of the missiles end up targeting things like railroad crossings.

Anyhow, all that aside, that's a pretty cool animation. Personally it doesn't really trip the nostalgia meter for me, as there was something really 80s about the vector-graphics look of Wargames that doesn't seem to translate here. But hats off to the developer all the same.

<comment><USER4> From [http://www.hp9845.net/9845/software/screenart/wargames/](http://www.hp9845.net/9845/software/screenart/wargames/)

>the frames were created one at a time on a high resolution vector display and recorded onto film. The display was monochromatic, so color separations had to be done and filters were rotated in front of the camera.

What you see in the movie has a lot of analog post processing on film as was typical of the era.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Actual animation: [http://dataplusscience.com/WOPR/wargamesusa2.html](http://dataplusscience.com/WOPR/wargamesusa2.html)

</comment><comment><USER6> So this is where it all begins</comment>


ELF – An extensive, lightweight, and flexible platform for game research - <AUTHOR> https://code.facebook.com/posts/132985767285406/introducing-elf-an-extensive-lightweight-and-flexible-platform-for-game-research/ <comment><USER2> Are they dead set on the name? This isn't the first time Facebook has caused naming conflicts.

For those who don't know, ELF is the name of the format for Linux (and other OSs) executable files, and it's had that name for almost 30 years.

<comment><USER3> Facebook just needs to bite the bullet and release a framework named Google

<comment><USER4> Or somebody needs to write a library to manipulate ELF binaries and call it facebook.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I can't wait for the sequel framework, MACHO.

<comment><USER6> But the competing product "PE" is already superior!

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Coding in a VR game-ified environment for work in 3, 2, 1...

<comment><USER8> ...and now I feel an urge to read Snow Crash again.</comment></comment>


Docker Acquires Unikernel Systems as It Looks Beyond Containers - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2016/01/21/docker-acquires-unikernel-systems-as-it-looks-beyond-containers/ <comment><USER2> I was thinking: Docker. Hmm. Containers. Hmmmm. Xen developers. Hmmmmm. Seemed really boring until I saw " Anil Madhavapeddy, the CTO of Unikernel Systems." Oh... I know _that_ name: it's on quite a few IT/INFOSEC papers I stashed and shared over the years. A smart researcher with a practical focus. Didn't know he was CTOing at a startup.

Yeah, Docker is about to get some enhancements for sure. Maybe some real security improvements, too. You can count on it.

<comment><USER3> [https://twit.tv/shows/floss-weekly/episodes/302](https://twit.tv/shows/floss- weekly/episodes/302)

<comment><USER4> Great video. I follow the Mirage project already, but I thought Anil explained it very well, and some good questions from the hosts too.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I used to be in the unikernel camp of "this is the next step in virtualization tech", but having played around with both containers and unikernels, and now developing with containers, I think unikernels are going to occupy only a very niche space.

There are two touted benefits of unikernels, performance and security. Performance turns out to be a red herring, as the overhead of an OS vs a Hypervisor turns out to be roughly equivalent (with the OS actually winning in some use cases).

Security is definitely an issue, but it's so abstract. My company is a compliance (a very specific industry's compliance) cloud provider and we have gone with Docker as we get to use the OS as our Hypervisor, which means it is much more extensible and, in our use case, secure as we are able to auto- encrypt all network traffic coming out of the hosts with a tap/tun virtual device.

Two things need to happen to make unikernels attractive. A new Hypervisor needs to get made, one that is just as extensible as an OS around the isolated primitives. It should also have something extra too (like the ability to fine tune resource management better than an OS can). Secondly a user friendly mechanism like Docker needs to happen.

<comment><USER6> Wouldn't the unikernel security benefit be the same for a lightweight OS where the libraries/services had been carefully pared down to the bare minimum for the application?

It sounds like the main benefit to the Unikernel security is the implicit audit of all the services you want to roll into the kernel down to the bare minimum. I imagine that could be done with a more conventional architecture, it's just that nobody ever _does_.

<comment><USER7> It depends on which lightweight OS and which unikernel. But e.g. a stripped down Linux will still have a huge amount of C. If you're going to write your kernel in something safer, then you might as well make a unikernel, rather than creating a kernel/userspace split.

It's hard to see how you'd get a traditional OS stripped down anywhere close to e.g. the mirage-firewall unikernel ([http://roscidus.com/blog/blog/2016/01/01/a-unikernel- firewal...](http://roscidus.com/blog/blog/2016/01/01/a-unikernel-firewall-for- qubesos/))

<comment><USER8> Not necessarily.

NodeOS cut out everything but the absolutely essential parts of the linux kernel. No c libraries, no c compiler, no POSIX utilities, no user space, etc.

Instead, everything runs on V8 (ie which also takes care of sandboxing) and minimal tools were rewritten in pure javascript, incl a git clone tool.

It's amazing how much you can cut out and still have a decent platform to build servers.

<comment><USER9> What's next PythonOS, RubyOS? Just learn OCaml, its really not that hard.

<comment><USER10> In itself, beside being a ridiculous amount of work, it would be a good thing.

If all apps ran on its own hypervised runtime instead of a "native" runtime, the world you be a better place.

The overhead of starting a VM is actually in the 2 digit milliseconds and can be done while the initial I/O are performed.

The XDG-App project is trying to make it easier to sandbox Linux desktop and server applications by defining all the interfaces between the sandboxes and the OS. This work, while initially designed for containers, will eventually work on VM too.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Hopefully Docker's paternalistic attitude doesn't infect Unikernel systems.

I'm not very hopeful given that their CTO is quite open about wanting to embrace-extend-extinguish competing technologies. This move embraces unikernels, and now they are perfectly positioned to go the rest of the way.

The discussion at [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10904452](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10904452) may shed light about my complaint.

<comment><USER12> We're in a new weird technology landscape where everything is driven by pride and ego and money instead of "what's best for everyone" progress or even stable technological advancement.

Things like Docker and systemd are exactly EEE land grab lock-in plays to redirect "open source" value back towards private entities and unilateral control structures (instead of cross-vendor standards bodies, because standards bodies can't make individuals into billionaires).

How do we as lowly developers with effectively $0 net worth fight companies with billion dollar war chests? Over time, better _does_ win (see: the collapse and accelerating irrelevance of Microsoft), but in the short term it's likely we'll get stuck in another 10 years of platform "dark ages" until we see the light again.

<comment><USER13> With systems like Docker we're just making sure that we don't lock ourselves in. If you decouple deployment and your code (which you shouldn't have coupled to a container anyway) from how you run it (containers, a VM, etc) then there's no problem moving to or away from systems like Docker. This is how developers can make sure they're not getting the raw end of the deal, and makes for a much cleaner setup anyway.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> OCaml and MirageOS FTW!

I hope this brings Unikernels adoption forward, and boosts a little more OCaml's adoption as well.

<comment><USER2> Exactly. They've been doing exemplary work. I especially like that, upon hearing of language-related obstacles, they try to actually fix or work around them instead of throwing up hands and defaulting to C or C++.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Docker has some really smart people leading it to success. But make no mistake, the economic thesis of Docker depends on a massive landgrab of vendor lock-in. This acquisition is a hedge against any Unikernel company looking to make the same landgrab.

There's a reason Docker is so heavily funded by the biggest cloud companies. They're the ones who stand to benefit from specialized Docker container optimized for their own platform. It's a great way to package open source services and leverage the effort of the developer community into centralized profit.

It seems blatantly obvious that Docker is looking to build the app store of devops. I wish them the best of luck, but they are going to face some heavy resistance from open source initiatives. There is nothing about Docker that makes it fundamentally superior to the systems it's based on, specifically the LXC project. When developers finally wake up to the fact that they are sleep walking into a massive walled garden, Docker will lose some of its clout.

<comment><USER16> Docker doesn't build on LXC, they have their own implementation of a container runtime known as libcontainer, which has been used for over 2 years. I also want it noted that the OCI and runC mean that vendor lock-in is very hard. There is a tonne of work going into making Docker a wrapper for runC so you can replace Docker usage with runC and containerd without having to rewrite your configuration.

I've been involved in the Docker community as a free software developer for a long time. I may have squabbles with some of the people who work at Docker Inc. but many of them are very passionate about software freedom, so I don't think it's fair to say the project is bad because the CTO (who hasn't committed code for almost a year) has views that are unfriendly to free software.

<comment><USER17> I have to say, after having contributed thousands of commits to free software, recruited hundreds of people to do the same, and directed tens of millions of dollars to open-source contributions... this stings a little.

For the record I don't have views unfriendly to free software. But I have upset many people by disagreeing with their design opinions, and as a result not merging their pull requests. Sometimes those people imagine a conspiracy of evil VCs smoking cigars, instructing me to reject their patch for an obscure capitalistic motive that they can't quite express. When in reality the explanation is simpler: I disagree on their opinion, and I have commit rights.

If you point out an example of my supposed hostility to free software, I will be happy to refute it with objective facts. But then everyone is free to believe what they want to believe.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> OCaml is a fine language that most people don't use. If I want a unikernel in my own language, do I need to build one myself? I wonder if someone is building a unikernel that have external language bindings, which will allow one to create "High-level" unikernels. This will open up the possibility to completely bypass the installation of language runtime. For example, I can just type some Python code into a browser editor, the backend can take the source code and fork a Python unikernel to run the code. Docker can currently do this but one still has to rely an underly OS to manage all the packages etc. Wouldn't it be nice if you could simple write "import xyz", and the unikernel takes care of fetching them automatically?

<comment> jorge-fundido Will probably be a while before could build a clean-slate unikernel with something like python, but doing what you want in a rumpkernel looks to be just around the corner:

[https://github.com/rumpkernel/rumprun- packages/tree/master/p...](https://github.com/rumpkernel/rumprun- packages/tree/master/python3)

<comment><USER19> It's getting really close! I have a post detailing how you would run Flask in a rumpkernel[0]. Right now any pure Python modules will run just fine.

We get into tricky situations when you need C extensions, e.g MySQL or PostgreSQL. Since extensions must be statically linked, you have to decide upfront what you want. Either extension can be compiled in, but including both in the package by default.... So a production Python build is fairly custom right now.

Nothing insurmountable, just haven't gotten the workflow perfect.

[0] [http://projects.curiousllc.com/flask-in-a-rump- kernel.html#f...](http://projects.curiousllc.com/flask-in-a-rump- kernel.html#flask-in-a-rump-kernel)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> We also put a note on the company website [1]. I'm looking forward to working with the Docker folks on this. :)

[1] [http://unikernel.com/#notice](http://unikernel.com/#notice) (not to be confused with the _community_ website at [http://unikernel.org](http://unikernel.org) :)

</comment><comment><USER3> So far Docker seems to be a good citizen when it comes to FOSS, hopefully that will continue.

I've been following the Mirage and rumpkernel lists for a while and its nice to see these hackers getting traction (and money!) for their efforts.

Not too long ago unikernel.org was started, which IIRC was billed as a community driven "one stop shop" for information on the subject, which I assume is independent of the company "Unikernel Systems". Hopefully Docker won't go rogue and start attacking others that use the term "unikernel" by claiming that its trademarked or something like that.

Congratulations Amir et al!

<comment><AUTHOR> Unikernel Systems was supporting the community site (i.e. paying for stuff) and that will continue with Docker. It's important that the open-source work continues to grow and that all the projects benefit from each other. unikernel.org just got started so we need help to grow it and make it the place to go.

Also, the word 'unikernel' is used like a generic term and as far as I know it's not trademarked.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Congratulations to the all the OCaml homies up in Cambridge! Well-deserved.

</comment><comment><USER21> I have been following unikernel development for sometime. The work done by Atti Kantee and others on Rumpkernels [1] is most promising and has the right abstractions (POSIX userspace using NetBSD stack). Also, in the demo video, unikernel folks should acknowledge rumpkernel work as they are using it :)

[1] [http://rumpkernel.org](http://rumpkernel.org)

<comment><USER22> I sort of agree with you and I sort of don't. For example, I think an interesting future path for the Rumprun unikernel (which, I always stress, is _not_ the same thing as a rump kernel) is running without the POSIX-y userspace interfaces. In fact, that's pretty much where I think e.g. Golang support for Rumprun should go, i.e. remove the userspace abstractions from the stack, since they, conceptually, do exactly nothing. Parts of the implementation of Rumprun are wrong, because I didn't previously see the importance of no-userspace, but I'm slowly converting those. (ironically, Rumprun -- before the codebase was even called Rumprun -- started out as no- userspace, and then grew too much userspace ... but that's really another story)

(edit added later so that we get credit going where it's due: It occurred to me that it was Sebastian Wicki who was campaigning for the no-userspace mode last summer as part of his lowRISC project, and did the initial work to be able to again use Rumprun without "userspace". Apparently my memory of events goes only a few weeks back if I don't think about things carefully ...)

Now, if I'm allowed to summarize rump kernels, I'd say the goal is to build a framework which incorporates enough of the past to allow things to work, but tries to be as flexible as possible so as to enable the future. I'm a firm believer in "there's no such thing as #1", which means you shouldn't produce software components which work only in one type of tool, because it's easy to foresee that right around the corner you'll have to build components for the next tool.

p.s. "Atti"? That one was new, usually it's "Antii" or something like that ;) ;)

<comment><USER21> From the comment:

Having everything in-kernel (single memory space) with POSIX-y API for applications the right direction ?

or I just brain farted here ?

<comment><USER22> Assuming that was directed at me, what's "the comment"?

Anyway, that's the right direction if that's what you want you want to accomplish. Otherwise it's the wrong direction.

sincerely, anti

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Holee shit. I totally called this. Even got made fun of on twitter (via @ShitHNSays) for mentioning it.

I didn't expect unikernels to gain mainstream notice for at least 6 months to a year.

</comment><comment><USER23> I didn't quite get what a unikernel was. Reading up on approaches that were a bit different than MirageOS was helpful:

[http://osv.io/](http://osv.io/)

[https://github.com/rumpkernel/rumprun](https://github.com/rumpkernel/rumprun)

<comment><USER24> I thought OSv is dead?

<comment><USER23> There are recent commits: [https://github.com/cloudius- systems/osv/commits/master](https://github.com/cloudius- systems/osv/commits/master)

I posted the links because (at least for me) it was hard to get my arms around what a unikernel was by looking at MirageOS. Largely because I have little knowledge of functional programming, OCaml, etc.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Our latest distributed database uses a mono kernel too. We use Pure64[0] to boot the system and then the "kernel" is derived from QK[1], but it's also just our database software.

Other than reducing complexity, our distributed database use the virtual memory hardware in a unique way, so a mono kernel was essential.

Having said that, the easiest way to develop such a system is _not_ on the bare metal, it's by running Linux in such a way that in only uses the first 1 or 2 cores, and then running your "custom kernel" on any other cores in the system. Then you can use a normal debugger and utilities during development. It's only when you actually want to put it into production that you can consider not using Linux at all.

[0] [https://github.com/ReturnInfinity/Pure64](https://github.com/ReturnInfinity/Pure64)

[1] [http://www.state-machine.com/qpcpp/struct.html#comp_qk](http://www.state- machine.com/qpcpp/struct.html#comp_qk)

</comment><comment><USER26> Considering the way docker tends to feature-creep, they will eventually just be re-implementing a full kernel. :)

<comment><USER27> This ^

Docker is trying to be the next systemd

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Why don't I see Antii Kantee's[0] name all over this?

[0] [https://archive.fosdem.org/2013/interviews/2013-antii- kantee...](https://archive.fosdem.org/2013/interviews/2013-antii-kantee/)

<comment><AUTHOR> Antti isn't part of Unikernel Systems. List of people involved can be found at [http://unikernel.com/#notice](http://unikernel.com/#notice)

<comment><USER22> That, and my name not being Antii (as already mentioned in the discussion).

Pick whichever reason suits your agenda ;-)

<comment><USER28> :)

My 'editability' timed out on my initial comment before I had a chance to fix that, Antti.

That said, there's a footnote about rumprun, and if Justin Cormack of Unikernel is [https://twitter.com/justincormack](https://twitter.com/justincormack), its all so close to Antti (Justin and Antti are both of NetBSD). For -me- Antti has been such a big part of my unikernel experience, I figured there'd be more involvement in this project or at least more recognition of his work.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> I'm a bit surprised. Isn't that a different approach than containerization?

I hope this wasn't acquisition to simply kill unikernel approach.

<comment><USER30> No, it may look a bit different but it has the same aims. And they are not intending to kill us. Disclaimer: I work for Unikernel Systems, now Docker.

<comment><USER29> The problem I have with is that those are two different philosophies to address the same problem. I have concern whether docker can pursue both of them at the same time. I see that sooner or later they'll have to decide which direction to pursue.

If they decide to drop containers and go the unikernel route, then a lot of what they already did to this point is no longer relevant. If go the containers direction then unikernel technology won't be too useful, unless using it to create hosts OS that would run the containers, but that is a huge challenge and at that point it no longer would be simple kernel.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> They seem to have sold very early in the lifecycle of the Unikernel technology. Possible they've left billions on the table?

Were the terms of the deal disclosed?

Perhaps Unikernel Systems ran out of money and it was an "acqui-hire"?

<comment><USER32> I wonder what the planned business model of Unikernel Systems was pre- acquisition.

Even if the acquisition was a result of Unikernel Systems running out of money, I have no doubt that these folks will continue to work on unikernels, rather than, say, more tools for managing containers.

<comment><USER31> Maybe Unikernel Systems was a supernova from the early unikernel universe.

Its people will be the elements that go to make up a new generation of unikernel companies.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Interesting demo materials(`docker-unikernel`): [https://github.com/Unikernel- Systems/DockerConEU2015-demo](https://github.com/Unikernel- Systems/DockerConEU2015-demo)

</comment><comment><USER32> I'm curious about how support for building unikernels will be integrated into Docker. The current Dockerfile-based build process doesn't support separate build-time and run-time environments, but when building a unikernel, the build-time environment is completely different from the run-time artifact. Support for separate build-time and run-time environments is also useful when building container images, so the image doesn't include things that are only necessary at build time. So I hope that problem is solved first; I think the addition of unikernel support will be more natural that way.

</comment><comment><USER34> So Docker will now have some OCaml openings? :)

</comment><comment><USER35> This feels specious:

> The result of this is a very small and fast machine that has fewer security > issues than traditional operating systems (because you strip out so much > from the operating system, the attack surface becomes very small, too).

Obviously traditional operating systems provide a lot of interfaces that represent attack surface, but they're generally able to be secured. On the other hand, much of the operating system actually _implements_ security, so if you throw it out, you're losing that.

<comment><USER8> Implements security theatre. If the OS is immutable then there's nowhere to persist an exploit.

A server could be killed and restarted at the first sign of compromise. If you aren't loading GBs worth of modules that'll never be uses, the OS will be able to boot up in a few seconds max.

<comment><USER36> What do you mean by immutable?

If you're talking about the on-disk files, that's possible to do without throwing away almost everything -- Solaris does this using read-only zones (ROZR).

If you're talking about the kernel itself; that can never be truly immutable. An OS had to read and write memory.

I also don't understand the claim about "GBs worth of modules"; if you're talking about kernel modules, there shouldn't be "GBs" to start with.

As for security theatre; I hardly think crypto support, auditing frameworks, qualify. So you need to define that as well.

<comment><USER8> Immutable as in filesystem.

Meaning every restart brings the system back to a fresh state. Most trojans/backdoors persist because they're able to modify the underlying OS to load them on boot. No, immutable OSes are -- by no means -- a new idea. This just uses the approach by default.

Not talking about the kernel specifically. Although there's no reason the bootup time should be slowed down by loading unnecessary HAL, drivers, protocols, utilities that will never be used in a server setup. GBs of modules was referring to the rest of the OS made up mostly of features that will never be used by the server.

Crypto support is one big issue. I'd assume if the OS uses V8 at the base level, it should be able to be packaged with OpenSSL.

Auditing for what exactly? File access? The filesystem is immutable. Network requests? Can ve handles at the network level or a tool can be added to log network requests via an offline logging service.

Security auditing at the OS level isn't required to the same degree it is on other OSes because the attack surface is so small. For instance, you don't have to check for SSH vulnerabilities when there's no SSH. The userspace sandbox isn't necessary because everything that's network-facing already has to run through V8's sandbox.

Application-level vulnerabilities will always be an issue but that's nothing new. This doesn't solve all problems. Just reduces the potential for issues.

<comment><USER36> _Meaning every restart brings the system back to a fresh state. Most trojans /backdoors persist because they're able to modify the underlying OS to load them on boot. No, immutable OSes are -- by no means -- a new idea. This just uses the approach by default._

Ok, then yes, Solaris read-only zones provide that level of immutability.

 _Not talking about the kernel specifically. Although there 's no reason the bootup time should be slowed down by loading unnecessary HAL, drivers, protocols, utilities that will never be used in a server setup. GBs of modules was referring to the rest of the OS made up mostly of features that will never be used by the server._

A good operating system will be smart enough to only load what it needs; there will be some inefficiency, but protocols, drivers, HAL are actually used in server setups and are not usually the source of significantly increased boot times unless they're misconfigured. Also, with a proper service management facility and packaging, it should be possible to simply omit unnecessary items; services are usually what contribute the most to startup time.

 _Crypto support is one big issue. I 'd assume if the OS uses V8 at the base level, it should be able to be packaged with OpenSSL._

Right, but you generally need more crypto administrative capability than OpenSSL alone provides to manage a sufficiently complex application. (e.g. gnupg, etc.)

 _Security auditing at the OS level isn 't required to the same degree it is on other OSes because the attack surface is so small._

Sorry, I'll have to disagree on that point. Auditing is always important because it allows you to determine what happened and why when privileged operations are involved. The overhead of auditing is almost completely determined by what an administrator chooses to audit and how detailed that auditing is.

 _For instance, you don 't have to check for SSH vulnerabilities when there's no SSH._

Perhaps you misunderstood what I referred to when I spoke of auditing; I don't speak of checking for vulnerabilities -- packaging should generally handle that in combination with metadata and reporting. I was referring to the recording of the assumption of privileged operations, system authentication, and related details.

 _The userspace sandbox isn 't necessary because everything that's network- facing already has to run through V8's sandbox._

Disagree again; the point of having a userspace sandbox is in case something escapes V8's sandbox, which has been done in the past. It's an extra line of defense.

 _Application-level vulnerabilities will always be an issue but that 's nothing new. This doesn't solve all problems. Just reduces the potential for issues._

While it reduces the number of problems in the existing space, I personally believe it creates _new_ problems. I'm not sure the tradeoffs are worth it.

I would rather see an immutable container with a minimised set of packages with proper auditing enabled. That's far easier to test and deploy and doesn't create _new_ problems.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Yes! More OCaml adoption.</comment>


One Woman's Brilliant "Fuck You" to Wikipedia Trolls - <AUTHOR> https://backchannel.com/one-womans-brilliant-fuck-you-to-wikipedia-trolls-aab4107d374b#.68id7x6dn <comment><USER2> When people say that females are equal in America or that systemic sexism isn't still a thing, they forget that what constitutes america is more than the actual laws in place... the practical experience is far more important to focus on...

</comment><comment><USER3> Good for her. It's a shame there are some men (usually men) who are so insecure they think to -- via the anonymity afforded them by the internet -- harass women like this.</comment>


Ask HN: How does Mailchimp send emails as your domain? - <AUTHOR> I'm working on a service that does automations and workflows on top of the emails I get on my Gmail.
I'm curious if there's a way to send emails via my Gsuite address using our own backend (or say, something like Mailgun), rather than via the Gmail API.
How is this usually achieved? <comment><USER2> You set it up on Mailgun and add some DNS records to your domain proving Mailgun is authorized to send.

[http://documentation.mailgun.com/en/latest/quickstart- sendin...](http://documentation.mailgun.com/en/latest/quickstart-sending.html)

</comment><comment><USER3> Don't do this. I know everyone else is doing it, but HTML emails are pure evil and God is keeping score. I know because God and I are personal friends.

<comment><USER4> "God is keeping score. I know because God and I are personal friends"

stealing that lol :D</comment></comment>