Bottled Water Is Sucking Florida Dry - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/15/opinion/bottled-water-is-sucking-florida-dry.html <comment><USER2> It must be nice to pay $115/year to get a million gallons of water per day. This is a significantly better deal than we're getting under JEA, our single available utility company here in our area of Jacksonville.

Our water bills include a $30/month connection fee for tap water, a $30/month connection fee for reclaimed water (lawn and yard), $15/month for sewer, and a tiered water system that puts you in the $250+/month (total) range to water a relatively standard size lot plus provide water for a family of 3.

If our HOA didn't prohibit it, I'd drill a well.

This could certainly benefit from a heavier tax, considering their 91.4B in revenue

<comment><USER3> You're buying it from a utility (water company) they're taking it straight out of the ground. It is an apples and oranges comparison. Most of what you're paying for is purification and the infrastructure cost piping it to your home/business, neither of which is true with groundwater.

Look, I am not defending these people, but to have a real conversation about this topic we have to at least get the facts right.

The law is outdated. It treats water the same as air. If you can get it on your property it is essentially yours. They're buying land, putting in a well- head, getting a cheap permit, and taking it straight out of the groundwater, just like a utility would.

The problem, as I said, is that the law is outdated. But if it was updated we also need to have a real discussion about farm/agriculture usage of water and what they pay/how it is distributed.

By the way in, 2017, 41% of South Florida's Water District's surface & groundwater[0] went to agriculture (1,076 million gallons). Another 41% went to the public utility (1,084 million gallons). Only 4% to industrial/commercial (116 million gallons). But yet we're talking about the 4%, not the 41%. Why is that?

[0] [https://www.sfwmd.gov/our-work/water-supply](https://www.sfwmd.gov/our- work/water-supply)

<comment><USER4> Did you miss "If our HOA didn't prohibit it, I'd drill a well."? A well wouldn't be treated water from his water company.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> > The permit allows Nestlé to take one million gallons per day at no cost, > with just a one-time $115 application fee.

This has virtually no impact on the aquifer:

> According to the United States Geological Survey, total withdrawals from the > Floridan aquifer system in 2000 were ranked 5th highest of all principal > aquifers in the Nation at 3,640 million gallons per day (Mgal/d)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floridan_aquifer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floridan_aquifer)

<comment><USER6> Regardless, they are making money on this extraction and the state isn't getting direct compensation. It doesn't need to be exorbitant but it should be more than a nominal amount. There should be some volume dependence. It should be whatever the commercial water rate is.

It's also not only a FL problem. Nestle has similar contracts with other states too.

<comment><USER7> Why does the state need compensation? It's an aquifer the state isn't treating waste water and selling it to Nestle. Commercial water rates include treatment and all the infrastructure to move it around.

That's similar to saying farms should pay the state for using soil.

<comment><USER6> It's a shared natural resource. If it gets exhausted or gets polluted we all are affected.

If they bought the land and proportionately drew water, then, okay. They'd pay taxes on the land asf.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Every time I see this kind of news, this cartoon comes up in my mind: [https://www.newyorker.com/cartoon/a16995](https://www.newyorker.com/cartoon/a16995)

</comment><comment><USER9> > Florida should prioritize providing safe drinking water for its residents, > rather than bottling that water to resell elsewhere.

Does bottled water actually get exported/shipped long distances?

<comment><USER10> > Does bottled water actually get exported/shipped long distances?

Have you ever seen Fiji water?

<comment><USER9> That is exactly why I thought _most_ bottled water is not exported/shipped long distances: I thought Fiji was an outlier in this industry.

<comment><USER10> Are you joking? Evian. Perrier. Volvic. Massive export water brands shipped all around the world to probably every country on earth.

<comment><USER9> Those all still seem small compared to the "common" bottled water brands that you can get everywhere, which I thought were bottled relatively locally.

<comment><USER10> What common brands can you get in more places than Evian?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> This article is missing evidence to support the basic claim in the title. What portion of water usage can be attributed to bottled water?

<comment><USER12> … and if it's being shipped off to other places and people are drinking it, then… that's a good thing, right? As long as it's not being wasted. I'm a lot more concerned about people (like my kids) who take three sips from a water bottle and then throw the whole thing in the trash. Now fresh water has been completely removed from the ecosystem, at least until the plastic decomposes in ten million years.

<comment><USER13> Your trash collectors will probably crush the whole thing, so the water will seep out. Polluted, yes, but not locked away for that long. (And even if not, I'd give it a very short time until the water seeps out from micro-fractures anyway.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Is there some political reason people go after the bottled water companies than the other water users? Does it poll well with focus groups or something similar?

<comment><USER15> It's a stupid, inefficient, and wasteful use of water.

If almond growers want to use a ton of water to grow almonds, fine. At least we get almonds, almond milk, almond oil, etc from that water usage.

Bottled water gets us nothing because most places it's getting shipped to already have clean, potable water available. It's a waste of water first and foremost. (Obviously this argument is against wealthy first world nations drinking bottled water. It's totally reasonable to ship clean water to the 2nd and 3rd world).

It's doubly offensive when you factor in the fact that most bottled water is transported in single use plastic containers that don't fall apart. There weren't any empty water bottles washed up on lakes in the 90s. They're everywhere now.

It's triply offensive when you consider this water is transported using pollution emitting vehicles.

It's 3x the waste for 1x the benefit.

The final straw is that a company is getting rich doing this but not paying for the externalities they're creating.

<comment><USER16> Almonds, meat, and golf courses are exorbitant consumers of water which no one needs to survive. You absolutely need water to survive.

One liter of bottled water requires 1 liter of water. One liter of almond milk requires 384. It is absurd that you justify almost 400x water consumption because "at least we get almonds".

I live in Florida. The amount of water I need is independent of bottles. If I drink a gallon of water from a pipe or bottle, I take a gallon of water out of the springs. If I drink a gallon of almond milk, I take 400 gallons from somewhere in California.

Your argument against plastic applies to almost all other things in grocery stores. The argument is specifically applied to water because everyone seems to have a personal grudge against Nestle.

Is bottled water wasteful? Yes. Should we dedicate more energy towards 400x wasteful activities in the same grocery store? Only if you want to be taken seriously.

<comment><USER17> Where do you think those 384 liters of water to produce a liter of almond milk go? Back into the environment, mostly the ground.

Water is not being consumed or destroyed. There's the same 384 liters left.

<comment><USER18> If this were true, aquifers wouldn't be falling worldwide. Some of the water will make its way back into the aquifer. _Most_ of it will evaporate, eventually raining down into an ocean or onto a watershed that drains into an ocean.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I don't think I've ever purchased bulk bottled water. Occasionally I have bought a single bottle if I'm in a pinch but I can't remember the last time. I just carry a double walled vacuum insulated water bottle with me and fill it up with a simple brita filter carafe that I keep in the fridge for ice cold water all day and near zero waste other than a filter once every few months.

<comment><USER13> It's good to store a pack for cases of emergency. Even things like a broken supply water pipe on a hot sunday can be harsh, let alone local pollution warnings that last half a day or more.

Storing the tap water itself is a lot harder since you need to keep it clean enough nothing grows in there for a while; bottled water is very convenient.

<comment><USER19> Definitely, I have a few gallon bottles at home and a couple in the car for emergencies.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Does it matter ?

I thought that fresh water aquifers in Florida were predicted to get contaminated with seawater fairly soon.

<comment><USER21> Isn't seawater infiltration directly related to depletion of the fresh water in the aquifer?

<comment><USER20> I thought that it was caused by the expected rise in sea level.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> In US, socialism for corporations is fine. But if you talk about giving free health care to cancer patients, all hell breaks lose.

<comment><USER23> This is unfortunately the narrative that the news has forged</comment></comment>


Jeffrey Epstein Hoped to Seed Human Race with His DNA - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/31/business/jeffrey-epstein-eugenics.html <comment><USER2> This is off topic for HN. Please don't submit articles like this.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

<comment><USER3> I was hoping there would be a discussion on this.

I identify myself as a transhumanist. My transhumanist goals are : anti ageing, enhancing human intelligence, furthering robots and AI, utopia and to a certain extent genetic engineering of the human DNA.

While there are transhumanists of various stripes, characterisations like this give the other transhumanists a bad name..as it's already considered fringe'y and weird.

<comment><USER4> I think what makes people weird in an undesirable sense is when they wish to set themselves apart from others. Creating a maternity home for the exclusive selection of women to produce your own children is disturbing.

As far as I can tell, Epstein was so rich he paid the foremost scientists to attend dinner so he can troll them. Or worse, he actually believed in what he says, but only his closest associates can vouch for him.

<comment><USER3> @ryacko, Epstein is undoubtedly..for the lack of a better term, a moron.

But men do it all the time with religious polygamy, affairs, rape..even sperm donation banks where they are willing to 'seed' random women who will pay for it.

It has nothing to do with whether he is rich or not. If one has 19 kids and is in a religion, he is a reality show star. If it's in Utah, it's a constitutionally protected right. If the same person is rich and wants 30 kids, transhumanism becomes a fringe movement.

Meanwhile..women all over the world..remain unamused.

<comment><USER4> The similarity to Lebensborn is uncanny, and reminiscent of Dr. Strangelove.

It all makes me think that the United States was defeated by the Nazis at some point.

<comment><USER3> No, it's not. I don't see the similarity.

Some rich and powerful guy wanting to plant his 'seed' in as many women as possible is a story as old as time.

Beckoning Nazis is really not helpful.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


To Self-Publish or Not to Self-Publish - <AUTHOR> http://www.ideasonideas.com/2010/10/to-self-publish-or-not-to-self-publish/ <comment><USER2> I've gone both routes. Self published many years ago, then my last book was Random House/Broadway, next one is with Portfolio.

The real answer is it depends on (1) your bigger business plan (meaning is the book largely a lead-gen mechanism for a bigger funnel, do you want to get paid well to keynote or are you looking to make bank on sales) and (2) the size and loyalty of your tribe.

The bigger and more committed your relationships and tribe and the less you are looking to generate revenue through channels that still hold traditional publishing dear, the easier it is to choose and succeed on the self-publishing side.

</comment><comment><USER3> My writer friends have told me that they only self-publish if they can't get a real publisher to go with it. A real publisher brings a lot more to the table than just killing some trees and laying some ink on it.

<comment><AUTHOR> Based on my research, this can really vary by subject/genre. For example, novelists are probably best served by a traditional publisher, while authors of niche technical books could go either way.</comment></comment>


The Emacs Commune (2002) - <AUTHOR> http://www.oreilly.com/openbook/freedom/ch06.html <comment><USER2> I consider Guy Steele Jr. to be one of the greatest programmers of all time. And when he praises Stallman that way, you begin to grasp just how brilliant Stallman must be.

Plus 10 hours of Steele and Stallman coding together, what a thing of beauty those 100 lines of pretty-print would be.

<comment><USER3> I didn't realize just how crazy smart he was until I started reading _Free as in Freedom_ and read the accounts of how other impressive early programmers viewed him. Even among these guys, he stood out.

Sometimes I think, "what a shame it is that he had to stop coding!" Then I think of how the world might have turned out without the FSF and the GNU project and I shudder.

Stallman was exactly what the world needed, exactly when the world needed him. Now that the glory days are gone, the GNU project has matured, and there are other competing mindsets and communities, Stallman's looked at as this crazy hack activist and that's a shame. Nobody can be all things to all people. And the things he says are still right, still prescient, and still timely, if a bit antiquated.

Anyone reading this, if you can donate to or join the FSF, please do. Everything you love about computing today ultimately rests on Stallman's hard work.

[https://crm.fsf.org/civicrm/contribute/transact?reset=1&id=1...](https://crm.fsf.org/civicrm/contribute/transact?reset=1&id=14)

<comment><USER4> I didn't realize how crazy smart he is until I attended a couple of LibrePlanets (FSF annual conference).

I have a vivid memory of a young hacker's face, full of pain and confusion. Stallman was belittling him for taking too much time fiddling with his smart phone camera--you know, the kind that has only an onscreen shutter button... The kid had traveled across the country to snap a photo with the folk hero of his culture.

I watched the faces of his keepers/coworkers, too. Their lips were tight, they said nothing.

They are no slouches! They aren't socially inept. Yet, yet... they tolerate him, even while keeping him away from starry eyed kids as much as possible. For the greater good.

I heard again and again that he's a genius. That the little trick he pulled with that now famous software license has irrevocably changed the world for the better.

I get the impression that to this day, he protects the FSF from making mistakes that would eventually land it in history's dustbin. He's a strategist. (Or tactician? I'm not clear on the distinction. I'm no genius...) NB: I'm not talking about simple mistakes; I'm saying that what they are trying to achieve is _really_ hard.

Stallman has a second sight for how systems plus inputs will unfold (oh, the parent post used the word prescient--good word!) and he saw something terrible in our future, so he has dedicated his life to changing it.

But he's still a world-class asshole.

Does anybody else have his talent? And maybe a little charisma? Or at least compassion?

<comment><USER5> > But he's still a world-class asshole. There's bits about him berating Tim > O'Reilly for charging for the books his company publishes.

Here's the famous rider for his speeches: [https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/pipermail/developer...](https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/pipermail/developers- public/2011-October/007647.html)

He's a fine leader for the FSF, but not a frontman.

<comment><USER4> The leader and frontman can be a different person? Is the Free Software movement a 'grassroots' movement?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> > _" As a programmer, Steele was used to marathon coding sessions."_

That's not really a fair representation of programmers. Not all of us have coding sessions that go by like a blur, causing us to lose track of time and everything around us.

<comment><USER7> >coding sessions that go by like a blur, causing us to lose track of time and everything around us.

I used to engage in sessions like that, but now consider them undesirable, so now I make a point not to get so absorbed in coding for so long that I lose track of time.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Does Stallman still have a bad case of RSI?

[http://ergoemacs.org/emacs/emacs_hand_pain_celebrity.html](http://ergoemacs.org/emacs/emacs_hand_pain_celebrity.html)

I was under the impression that he could no longer code.

<comment><USER9> From his website:

 _In the mid 90s I had bad hand pain, so bad that most of the day I could only type with one finger. The FSF hired typists for me part of the day, and part of the day I tolerated the pain. After a few years I found out that this was due to the hard keys of my keyboard. I switched to a keyboard with lighter key pressure and the problem mostly went away._

He still hasn't coded much for years, choosing instead to promote free software usage through writing articles and giving speeches.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Link to the same chapter in the 2.0 version (Stallman's annotated version) of the same book:

[https://static.fsf.org/nosvn/faif-2.0.pdf#chapter.6](https://static.fsf.org/nosvn/faif-2.0.pdf#chapter.6)</comment>


MS and Oracle's big dev tools - who needs 'em? - Viva Emacs and Vim - <AUTHOR> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/02/28/ides_versus_the_people/ <comment><USER2> I think part of the issue is that languages like C# (and I would suspect Java) were literally designed with the IDE in mind. Languages like Ruby were designed to be easy to use without an IDE. I'd prefer the latter, but I suppose a valid case can be made for the former.

On a personal level, I agree with Reginald Braithwaite (sp?) when he said that IDE features are language smells. I think a good language should be easy to use in any IDE.

<comment><USER3> Never thought of it that way. Of course, I wouldn't call it a language smell, rather a framework or library smell. C# isn't complicated. The frameworks and libraries on top of it are a bit much, and that's where the IDE really helps. C is a small language, but tack on a framework and you aren't learning C as much as you are learning the framework. Same things for Rails.

Of course, no one is going to use C# without the frameworks and libraries added in, so I guess you almost have to include the IDE support. But then, seeing what VS 2010 can do makes me wish Eclipse or Netbeans could do it as well. Couple that with the fact that Eclipse and Netbeans feel so heavy and clumsy compared to 2010 despite 2010's size and beta status.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> While I do agree that development, build, and testing shouldn't rely on a single IDE/toolset, I have to admit that I really do enjoy the explorative properties of many of the current IDEs for Java, C++, and C#. When I need to dig through foreign code I always find it a lot easier to do it using a IDE that has good jump and search capabilities like Eclipse.

</comment><comment><USER5> I tend to stick to Vim for everything Java, Scala, Python etc. :vimgrep along with :tabedit works nicely. To help with nested path I tend to have paths for my project setup in .zshrc so I can do :e $PROJECT_SRC/foo/bar/x.java or $PROJECT_TEST/foo/bar/simple.java.

vim + terminator[1] + build tool (ant, maven, sbt [2], scons...) works very nicely for me.

Two reasons I stay away from IDEs: a) I find them horribly unresponsive b) Being used to Vim for the last 10 or so years I find I am very quick with it.

[1] <http://www.tenshu.net/terminator/> [2] <http://code.google.com/p/simple- build-tool/>

<comment><USER6> I gave you karma for your use of Terminator, and of course, VIM. I find these tools immensely helpful to my development.

With dual 24" Monitors I span terminator across both screens, split horizontal once and vertically on each screen. Modified keybindings make switching between terminals so simple. Add Synergy for seamless access to my Windows system, I can't find a better set up.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> The funny thing is that when compared to Visual Studio (and JDeveloper?), NetBeans, IntelliJ and even Eclipse can be considered lightweight.

<comment><USER8> That's actually true. A fresh install of Visual Studio (VS) is already quite heavy, but when you install an add-in like ReSharper (hands down, it's still one of the best add-ins for VS) on top of it everything gets more heavy and slower. Yet still, for the time I had worked with Eclipse during my studies, I have to say (languages set aside) that I enjoy more to work with VS.

<comment><USER7> Most users of Visual Studio I've spoken to usually recommendeds the ReSharper addon, like you just did. ReSharper is a nice tool, no doubt about it. But what I don't understand is how Visual Studio can be so big and heavy and still don't have refactoring tools that can match ReSharper.

<comment><USER8> That's the question I'm asking myself, too. They added a lot of functionality to VS (unit testing, TFS support etc.), but they never added more refactorings, which I and surely others would appreciate. ReSharper's refactoring functionality is right now the only reason I would consider to install the add-in, but since I didn't need any of the _advanced_ refactorings yet, I'm keeping ReSharper away from my VS installation. I get my work done without it, so I see no need to bloat VS any more :) But, I surely can recommend to install it for various other reasons, e.g. I stumbled upon a few interesting things thanks to its suggestions.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> "But lighter weight tools offer a more rapid edit/test cycle with less waiting time."

If I'm using Visual Studio then a rebuild is a keypress away. I currently have the Resharper addon installed, which means that running all the unit tests just means pressing ctrl-shift-N. I can't see how a lighter weight tool would make that any faster...

<comment><USER10> autotest for ruby will run your tests every time it detects a file has changed ;)

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> The main thing I miss from "big" IDEs is decent refactoring tools.

The one thing I _don't_ miss is having them take over my project workspace. That really irritates me.</comment>


Ask HN: Starting career at a small or large company? - <AUTHOR> Hello Hacker News! I'm a senior in a small midwestern college studying computer science, deciding where I want to go for my last internship (likely where I will end up full time).
I know a lot of software engineers browse HN and I wanted to crowdsource advice. My career goal is to be a senior software engineer / engineering manager in 5-10 years from now. I'm facing two choices - one is a small company (~50 employees) in the financial media space. The other is a large N-tier bank (think Chase, BOA, C1).
I think this comes down to the tradeoffs between large companies and small companies. Being specific to starting careers, do you think one is better than the other? <comment><USER2> Start at a big company. The brand recognition will get you more interviews in the future, and Big companies hire a lot of people... which if you're spry will allow you to build a decent network (effectively alumni). Of course the work is significantly less stimulating and if you have an entrepreneurial spirit you'll be progressively more bothered by the bureaucracy (as a gross generalization), but generally the tradeoffs are worth it for ~2-3 years</comment>


You can do it alone - <AUTHOR> http://ryancarson.com/post/35939367603/you-can-do-it-alone

<comment><USER3> You can certainly start a business without a cofounder. What's hard to do, empirically, is to start one that gets really big. There are a handful of counterexamples, like Amazon, but Treehouse is not one of them yet.

We have a lot more data about what happens in startups than any individual founder does. What interest would we have in mischaracterizing it?

<comment><USER4> _What interest would we have in mischaracterizing it?_

Advantages to YC of multi-founder companies that have nothing to do with "growing really big":

1\. Multi-founder companies shrink the available pool of founders.

Assume the pool of available founders is fixed at any given point in time. By requiring start ups to have 2 or more founders, YC is able to capture a larger part of that pool, harming competitive incubators and increasing the likelihood that the founders they've been able to capture will produce for YC.

2\. Split ownership is much easier for YC to manipulate favorably.

By providing YC with two or more avenues to affect the actions of a company, the autonomy of a founder is reduced even below the numerical amount: a single founder in a company with two isn't just half as influential, it's probably more like 1/3. The extra influence is retained by YC, which can play the founders against each other.

3\. To maintain this competitive advantage and influence, YC effectively forces successful single founder companies like Dropbox to dilute themselves and gain a founder.

The entire process is now self-reinforcing, with YC actively manipulating the inputs while claiming the outputs are unbiased. (1) and (2) above demonstrate why YC has incentives to do this.

Of course, pg is a good person and would never blah blah blah. I agree, he is a good person. That doesn't mean the above things are untrue though, even if YC is consciously telling themselves they don't matter, or even "don't want" these advantages. Humans are really good at deluding themselves, _especially_ when they have something to gain.

<comment><USER5> I think all your points are nonsensical, bordering on insane.

"Shrink the available pool of founders"?? In country of 300 million, how in the world is that even possible for a relatively tiny incubator to do??

"Split ownership to manipulate the startup" - YC takes a 5-10% equity stake!

"YC effectively forces successful single founder companies like Dropbox to dilute themselves and gain a founder" - HOW?!?!

<comment><USER6> ..."Shrink the available pool of founders"?? In country of 300 million, how in the world is that even possible for a relatively tiny incubator to do??...

It's not a pool of 300 million that would be included. The number of people that are considering starting venture-backed companies that are "swinging for the fences" by trying to build a 9-figure company is much much smaller than 300 million.

<comment><USER5> OBVIOUSLY 300 million are not doing start-ups. But it is a country of 300 million and the biggest economy of the world. I cannot imagine that a little incubator that signs 100 start-ups a year can possibly "shrink the pool of founders" in any meaningful way. Give me a break. It's idiotic to claim that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> As I think Ryan would be the first to agree, he may have built Treehouse on his own but his early businesses have all been very much built with the support and partnership of his wife Gill.

Ryan has also been a master of bootstrapping businesses upon business. He built Carsonified on the foundation of simple workshops he ran, he built ThinkVitamin on the foundation of Carsonified and he built Treehouse on the combination of both of them.

I say that not as a critic but as an admirer. I think he's done a first class job of building his reputation, wealth, influence and expertise through all of these.

However I think it's somewhat disingenuous for Ryan to state that because he has done Treehouse on his own, "so too can you". It's what the people want to hear and it will bring the enthusiasm of the bulk of HN readers who are going it alone.

However the risk for most startups is not that they will exit for millions and the CEO will only own a paltry 20% of the company rather than 70%. It's that they will die. It has taken me many years to realise it but the presence of a true co-founder dramatically reduces this likelihood.

It feels odd writing this all these years later because I knew Ryan at the very start of my career and almost the start of his. I then was a single- founder, he was working with Gill. I feel like we've passed each other going the opposite direction.

I gave only a small fraction of equity to my first co-founder and paid a high price for that. I have now come full circle and realise the importance of a good co-founder and of an even split between you.

Ryan is right in that he can do it without a co-founder. However if you fit that mold you probably already know that and are running a business quite possibly as the sole influencer already. If you don't then I think there is good reason for the astonishing faith of the valley in the co-founder. There is a degree of group-thought, sure but there are a lot of very, very sound reasons not to go it alone.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi Pete - great hearing from you. :)

Yes, Gill has played a _huge_ role in running our earlier businesses. She has also supported me hugely during the running of Treehouse. But I've shouldered the weight of making all of the big decisions at Treehouse. The buck still stops with me.

I wrote this post not as a "anyone can do what I did" post but rather a counter point to the rhetoric that is coming out of The Valley.

It's important for new Founders to hear both sides of the argument.

<comment><USER8> I also believe that people should hear different point of views. Thanks for sharing your story!

But hopefully people also realize that the existence of a co-founder doesn't mean that there is no clear leadership. YourMechanic would not be feasible without my incredibly talented co-founder, but the buck still stops with me. I talk to my co-founder & team about big decisions, but I make and take responsibility for all the decisions.

Having run different businesses for 5 years as a single co-founder, I have found that there is something magical about having the 'right partner' (in my case, brilliant + 100% dependable).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> "What's wrong with having one founder? To start with, it's a vote of no confidence. It probably means the founder couldn't talk any of his friends into starting the company with him. That's pretty alarming, because his friends are the ones who know him best."

Wow, pg is so wrong. Whenever I get an idea I want to execute it myself. Bringing in friends is not something I even consider.

<comment><USER10> "It probably means the founder couldn't talk any of his friends"

PG also has an age bias in that statement as it would practically be true only for a certain age group (young, in or recently out of college, without kids) anyway.

Someone who is, say, 33 years old, married with two kids and with friends who are in a similar situation (and assuming those friends even live in the same town at the time) would find it quite difficult to pull those people from their possibly established careers (say as an attorney, doctor, or rising manager) to leave on a "startup". Additionally not everybody has a large group of friends who share the same goals and interests. Obviously.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> "I believe Paul and David are stressing the importance of co-founders because they're talking about young founders with no previous business experience."

"I funded the business with cash from my previous business"

Ryan has thoroughly convinced me that if you've run some successful businesses in the past, it's probably better to go it alone your new one.

However, I don't think he convinced me that PG was wrong (and I'm not sure he was trying to), just that PG's advice doesn't necessarily apply to serially successful entrepreneurs. All of PG's cautions about the dangers of going it alone still seem completely valid. However, it's not like there aren't dangers to having a co-founder (the marriage analogy, though a little cliche, is cliche because it rings true).

I suppose, as with all things, the thing to do is take stock of your own particular situation and weigh the risks. But if you don't have direct experience overcoming at least some of challenges PG refers to, a co-founder still seems like the more sensible route.

</comment><comment><USER12> I just applied to TechStars Cloud in San Antonio for <http://commando.io> and was denied as a single founder. I knew it was a long shot, but had to apply just for the amazing opportunity that is TechStars and the mentors and experience.

Being a single founder is bloody hard. Mostly though it is lonely. Nobody to talk with, nobody to bounce ideas around and debate features or implementation with. Should we use MongoDB or Riak? Being a single founder you make all the decisions. Also investors believe if you can't convince anybody else to join your company, than its probably a bad idea. I don't necessarily believe this, since I am myself a single founder.

So, why is finding a co-founder hard. I moved up to San Francisco over a year ago, left my pool of friends, and drove up in my car with everything I owned. Finding people in San Francisco that are either not already doing their own startup, or already working at a badass company is extremely difficult. Even more, there is the catch-22, I don't have any capital to pay you, but I have equity. Again, not a really convincing proposition for a rockstar developer or designer.

Startups are hard, the hardest thing you will probably ever do. So being a single founder is just not mentally healthy and as productive as having co- founders.

<comment><USER13> > I just applied to TechStars Cloud in San Antonio for <http://commando.io> > and was denied as a single founder. I knew it was a long shot, but had to > apply just for the amazing opportunity that is TechStars and the mentors and > experience.

You speak this highly of TechStars, and yet you're still running an LLC?

<comment><USER12> What does that have to do with anything? By the way, 37Signals is an LLC.

<comment><USER13> <http://ask.techstars.org/corporate-structure>

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I'd love to see someone (ryancarson or pg?) write a complementary article about "what if you _have to_ do it alone?"

In other words, sometimes, it's not your choice to be a solo co-founder. Many people have compared finding a co-founder to finding a spouse. In both life decisions, I don't think anyone seriously advocates for "sucking it up, and going with the least bad option."

Sometimes, you're poorly geographically positioned, or in a "strange" market, or later in life (friends are already "matched up" or in secure jobs), etc

For myriad reasons, you could sincerely try to recruit a co-founder and come up short.

The question then becomes ... do you make the best of it and go for it anyway?

Or, is the lack of a co-founder a signal (to yourself and others) that your idea / plan is unworthy?

I hope the answer is the former because that is what I am doing. Someone remind me to write this article when I figure it out.

<comment><AUTHOR> I think it comes down to personality. For better or worse, I have a personality that allows me to barrel into big-risk situations and not worry. I don't think it's bravery though, it's closer to naive optimism (hence the name of my blog).

If you have no choice but to be a Single-Founder, then it's probably down to whether or not you could survive your startup failing. If you can, then it's down to whether or not you feel happy taking the risk.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Mark Suster agrees that you don't need the 'typical' co-founder split. Here's his take: [http://www.bothsidesofthetable.com/2011/05/09/the-co- founder...](http://www.bothsidesofthetable.com/2011/05/09/the-co-founder- mythology/)

<comment><USER16> That's a great link that describes the common problems of having multiple founders!

If your technical "circle" already includes people that you want to be co- founders with and you guys agree to start something because the chances look good, then this is a powerful situation to start from -- better than being a single founder. But if you don't have that "social infrastructure" established (and you have not been hanging out with that type of crowd), then just adding a co-founder may cause more problems than helping.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Ryan has built businesses before Treehouse - ThinkVitamin and Carsonified for example. He knows the people, has the connections, the talent pool to pick from.

PG's YC (using YC since that's the case being used) are tend to be populated with fresh/younger people, who probably never ran a business prior to YC.

Not really fair to try and compare the two and draw conclusions that will blanket the other side of the argument.

Are you going to succeed right out of college as a single founder with your very first business? Probably not.

Would you succeed if you had decade of experience under your belt, built previous successful businesses, know the industry, know the players, and etc? Most likely.

<comment><USER4> Agree, with one exception: pg isn't arguing about "success", he's arguing that single founder companies (which he further qualifies to mean "and that have no early employees") will not, statistically speaking, grow into large companies.

Of course, pg's stacking the deck by disallowing early employees for solo founders (which he does by claiming that early employees _are_ "founders", and thus, support his multi-founder hypothesis).

I do think it's correct to say that companies without employees are rarely very large, but this doesn't seem all that insightful.

The more interesting question is _why_ pg disallows solo founders with early employees? The vast majority of large, successful companies actually fall into that camp, and not the multi-founder camp, of which Google is a large, successful example.

To pg, a "founder" is apparently an early employee who (a) wants the company to succeed, (b) plays some kind of "important" role (e.g. is not a janitor), and (c) has some skin in the game to benefit from "success".

I think that's _far too broad_ , and that we should call them early employees with equity (i.e. what they are), not "founders" (what pg apparently wishes them to be).

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Somewhat off topic but I'd like to ask about this:

> We've grown from three people to 54, and $0 revenue to $3.4m+, all in just > two years.

I'm completely naive about these things and I'm not involved in business, but isn't this very risky? That equals to only 63k/head revenue. I guess this is banking on future growth but is this a standard pattern for a growing startup?

<comment><AUTHOR> We're not profitable yet. That's the whole reason we raised $5m in Apr 2012: To increase head count faster than revenue growth.

<comment><USER19> You think revenue will follow?

<comment><USER20> His actions of hiring ahead of revenue say yes. Investors giving him $5M show they think the same thing. Actions always speak louder than words.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I think that many founders won't be in the same position as you as having come from a successful business and be well known and respected in the industry.

I think either way is cool, I'm happy to share 50% with my co-founder because money isn't my primary goal and he's a fun and clever guy to work with which makes the journey even more enjoyable

</comment><comment><USER22> The point I find to ring the truest with me is that of a single life goal. If your startup is the love of your life, your ultimate passion and purpose on Earth, it gets very hard to find someone to share in on that passion. And taking someone on board for half equity because they see it as an exit opportunity doesn't feel right.

<comment><USER23> This is the primary reason I am a single founder. I am extremely passionate about the company I run and have a very clear vision for what I want this company to accomplish and I do not want to have to fight for this vision with a cofounder or a board.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> If it hadn't been for my co-founder, I would be insane at best, and at worst, divorced and nearly dead. We keep each other going, pick up each other's slack when we're having a bad day/week/month, and keep each other energized throughout the day.

I'm sure you can do it alone, but I wouldn't want to.

<comment><USER23> I'm glad that you and your co-founder help each other do that. Some people can self motivate, have enough self confidence to avoid startup depression, talk to other company owners in the industry on a daily basis, and have enough cash to hire employees from the beginning to do work that the single founder isn't as good at.

This "everyone should do it this way" attitude is stupid. For some people having a co-founder is necessary and for some it isn't.

<comment><USER24> It's a shame I can't downvote your post.

Such a smug attitude, and so unnecessary. There's not one spot where I said 'everyone should do it my way,' and your first paragraph is a rather astonishing ad hominem attack

EDIT: I've done some more thinking about this, looking to the times when I wished I was a solo founder, and I've come to the realization that the entire thing is situational.

My co-founder and I are co-founders because that's the way things worked out. For others, it might happen the opposite way.

We've already identified our differences and understand that eventually we'll have to make new decisions based on our dissimilar visions for our own personal futures. I completely recognize the desire and drive to be the captain of your own ship.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I am curious, Ryan says: > This is also why I don't ever want to take Treehouse public. I hate the idea of having to answer to outside investors who don't have day-to-day knowledge of the challenges and opportunities we face. They also don't share the insane passion that I have for the business.

But Treehouse has raised $5M. How did that work? What outcome are those investors looking for?

If you didn't want to go public, then what did you sell the investors on? Seems to me that you are weakening your hand - because any potential acquirer knows that your options are limited because you don't want to go public.

What's the point of publicly disclosing something like that?

Given that VC investing is a hits driven business, I can't see any rational investor being satisfied with you not swinging for a large outcome for them.

Given that you own 70% of your company, if we make the simplistic assumption that you sold 30% for $5M - which would give you a $16M post-money valuation...you would have to sell to Google or some other deep pocket for almost $40M just for them to double their money. Assuming this doesn't happen for 5 years, those returns look paltry.

What is the end game for them?

P.S. If you never told them that you didn't want to swing for the fences, then this must be a sucky way for them to find out.

<comment><USER26> An exit is not the only way for a company to return money to investors. If it makes money it can pay the a steady stream of dividends.

<comment><USER27> As a practical matter, how would this work?

Wouldn't there have to be a fair amount of upfront and unique legal legwork to put something like this in place? Would the investors be guaranteed a certain percentage of any money Carson takes out of Treehouse?

I'm pretty much allergic to the idea of answering to a board, shareholders, and and analysts myself. 37 Signals seems to have an interesting idea about how to compensate employees in the unlikely case of a liquidity event, but some sort of structure that would allow profit sharing, without requiring a path to IPO or acquisition would be great: [http://37signals.com/svn/posts/2987-an-alternative-to- employ...](http://37signals.com/svn/posts/2987-an-alternative-to-employee- optionsequity-grants)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> It's misleading to point out how startups worked in Bill Gates and Steve Jobs era. Then, it really took a team to build anything.

The technology has improved drastically. 10 years ago, it requires millions of funding to start a web business. Today, a team of talented developers can build an impressive app in a weekend.

Even marketing has become easier. With App Store, it's now possible to have apps distributed to millions of users over night.

Yet, our assumption about startups stayed the same disregarding the change of context.

Sure, even Steve Jobs had a cofounder. But then what would be the equivalent of building a PC in today's age? And have that distributed to millions of users in that age?

Take into account now it takes a beginner Rails developer 15 minutes to build a blogging app. If the cost of running a startup is going down as technology matures, then it really shouldn't take a team to build a startup. It should take one guy with a vision, a few freelancers and/or interns.

Solo founders are being discriminated against for all the bullshit reasons. Time has changed, technology has matured. It's time to end it!

<comment><USER29> There is a lot more to a business than simply making the product.

<comment><USER28> True, but even marketing has become a lot easier. Like they say, the 1 million users is the new 100K.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Since dropbox's valuation might be bigger than that of all the other YC companies (including airbnb) combined, it serves as blazing evidence that you don't need a cofounder. Possibly the truth is that singlefounder companies have more struggles but are capable of bigger wins (which is what investors should want).

Kinda how many succesful dyslexics (like Ari Emmanuel) credit dyslexia for their success.

The fact is that many of the extraordinary people YC looks for are often written off by YC's own bias against single founders. That's silly, but in the end it hurts YC more than the founder, because of all the other Dropboxes they miss out on. So forgive them for knowing not what they do.

An investor usually has only one chance to pass or invest, whereas the entrepreneur has many chances to succeed. Single founder or not, if you are tenacious you will keep having chances for as long as you are willing to fight. Many more chances than any one investor does.

</comment><comment><USER31> A big factor if you are trying to succeed while doing it alone is can you hire a great team to complement your skills. This usually costs more money in the beginning stages in salaries than having a co-founder. It means the founder must have some money behind them and usually means they must have succeeded in business before.

<comment><AUTHOR> Exactly. This is why I used cash from my other business to bootstrap.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> I don't think anyone has ever said that you can't. Just that it's harder and success is less likely. Yes, certainly co-founder add additional risks to the equation and do indeed reduce the magnitude of success, should you find it. But as others have said, the more important # to optimize is your _chance_ of success.

I'd love to see data to the contrary versus an (admittedly inspiring) anecdote... All of the data that I've ever heard about (from PG and other sources) seems to support that ideas that people who find a co-founder have a better shot.

<comment><AUTHOR> As PG said in the comment above, businesses with Co-Founders have a better chance of becoming "really big". I'm not sure what data they have about company survival and what "really big" means in terms of revenue and net profit.

<comment><USER33> Ryan, I don't know about you, but I didn't start any of my companies to become big. I started them to be my own boss and achieve the happiness you can only get through control of your time. I wake up when I want to and work on what I want to when I want to.

I think both paths can be successful, but each entrepreneur should evaluate their goals and make decisions from there. A single person who has a great idea will probably be better off building that idea into a business fueled by their own passion than they will be by hunting around for someone who will join them in the quest.

If you come up with an idea in a group or with someone and it's a shared vision, that's one thing. If you're an individual with a vision that no one around you understands, don't throw it in the trash because you can't find a co-founder. Go build it, make money, and then hire people to fill in the gaps.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Everyone commenting on this thread should read Founder's Dilemma to at least give some statistical information about success rates of founding teams.

[http://www.amazon.com/Founders-Dilemmas-Anticipating- Foundat...](http://www.amazon.com/Founders-Dilemmas-Anticipating-Foundation- Entrepreneurship/dp/0691149135)

Regardless of one's opinion of solo vs team, statistically it is easier with co-founders. That doesn't mean it can't be done solo, but you have better odds. And YC makes investments so why wouldn't you play the odds?

</comment><comment><USER35> What makes some start-ups succeed where others fail is so poorly understood that superstitions start to creep in -- such as this one: that a co-founder is needed. It's widely believed and utter nonsense. Worse, it leads people to find co-founders artificially and to accept a co-founder when they would be much better served going it alone.

When you add a co-founder, you _might_ have increased your chances of success but you _certainly_ have increased your chances of failure.

</comment><comment><USER36> I think I speak for most young, yet-to-be-successful, founders when I say: I'd rather keep 15-30% of something that has a 5% chance of success than 70-100% of something that has a .01% chance of success.

I thoroughly believe doing it alone (even if you're REALLY good) is a .01% chance, and doing it with complementary talents that have skin, heart, reputation in the game brings that up a ton.

That being said, congrats on being in the 0.01% of that equation.

<comment><AUTHOR> You act as if I knew Treehouse was going to be a success. When we launched it I had no idea if we'd make it.

<comment><USER36> No no, I'm not being sarcastic in the congratulations. I just actually think the single vs. co-founded projects are vastly different in % chance of success. I do think the difference really is .01% to 5%, sorry if I wasn't being as tactful as I could've been in delivering the message.

I haven't hit a success yet, but I've tried to put the puzzle together alone and with others. I think it'd be a lot harder to do alone. We disagree there, and as of today, you have a lot more credibility than I do -- and it's ok to disagree.

We've all got 100 different factors in the equation, not just 1 control to tweak. That's why different shoes for different feet are a-ok :)

<comment><AUTHOR> I wasn't offended at all :) Just pointing out that I was taking the same risk as I had no guarantee of success.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Yes you can.

Best part is focus, clarity, and instant decision making. If you feel you have a great idea, just go for it. Don't waste time convincing others.

</comment><comment><USER37> Startups are a function of the morale of the founder(s). When it becomes zero, the startup dies. And there will be hopeless times when it'll almost approach zero. Empirically, having a co-founder can be a huge boost during those times which in turn means you're increasing your odds of success by playing longer. You can definitely do it alone (kudos), it's all about increasing your odds.

</comment><comment><USER38> I went through YC as a solo, first-time founder and I would not recommend it to anyone. Despite working the hardest I have ever worked in my life, I barely made it through Demo Day, and my Demo Day presentation was not exactly riveting. Furthermore, after Demo Day, you still have to continue building the business.

Solo, first-time founders will undoubtedly lack the emotional support systems necessary to give them even a baseline sense of sanity and the mental clarity to persevere. They are far more likely to make stupid and irrational decisions. It was not until I found a cofounder, long after YC, that our company began to behave even remotely like a normal company.

Having a cofounder to share the load with has unforeseen compounding value that one does not have the awareness of to offset in their first company. Maybe in a second or third company you can pull it off by planning around the repercussions of being a solo founder. Unfortunately, without previous experience, you will have no idea how to do that.

</comment><comment><USER39> Doesn't exactly instil confidence when "You can do it alone" is prefaced by "The Naive Optimist".

That said, upvoted!

<comment><AUTHOR> The only way to survive is to be naively optimistic ;)

<comment><USER14> It takes a certain amount of "willful naivete" to try anything new and uncertain.

Doesn't mean you're an idiot to the facts. Just means that you're willing to temporarily overlook short-term problems / obstacles to pursue a long-term goal.

I'm with you on this one

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> He didn't start a business as a single founder. He had his wife, and I don't mean as moral support, I mean as a defacto founder. To quote his wife Gillian's own blog... " I left publishing to start a business with my husband. We sold that company and we now run an online training company called Treehouse"

</comment><comment><USER41> Fascinating discussion, one of the nice things about multiple founders is you get to hear people who don't agree with you. I've found a huge number of people 'self edit' around the boss, even when you tell them not to. So when you're doing something stupid you really need to hear that from someone else because if it was obvious it was stupid to you, well you wouldn't be doing it.

That is something that always impresses me about teams with a solid level of trust, they can talk about anything. They trust that everyone wants the same thing, success for the endeavor and nobody worries that someone is trying to make them look bad in front of someone else or to the team.

</comment><comment><USER42> From you own point of view it is much better to be the only boss - <USER2> nothing, nothing special.

From the point of view of any investor, investing in a single-founder is a much higher risk. In case of any accident the second founder could be of some use, where in a single-hero case it would be a guaranteed lose.

Another issue is that smart investor would try everything in his power to engage all co-founders in a competition, a standard manipulation about position and respect. Very useful technique.

So, it seems possible to do things alone, and a lot of people do, but investing in a single-founder startup is too risky - there is a single point of failure.)

</comment><comment><USER43> yes, you can do it alone and I had some success building up my hardware company. But at some point I decided to change and bring in co-founders and our momentum just build up x-times higher.

First hand experience tells me too, that starting up a company alone is not only really hard, but slower as well, which these days speed is more crucial than ever.

I have to agree on common wisdom and recommendation here that if you want to start a company and create something with impact try to partner up. Finding the right partners is another whole chapter by itself.

</comment><comment><USER44> Although I am in agreement, I believe it best to re-emphasize the qualifiers for such an endeavor (totally IMO):

1) A single founder must have already had an exit; 2) A single founder must be able to speak to their own weaknesses and address how to balance those to potential investors; 3) A single founder must have domain experience.

Finally, although most people anticipate a single founder as a CEO with technical skills, I believe that a _better_ single founder is a CTO with business skills.

But I guess we'll see where I end up... ;-)

</comment><comment><USER45> From what I've learned, Don't find a co-founder because most internet reports say that a business needs two co-founders to be sucessful. (Despite statistically proven)

I would of have be much leaner/faster going solo and not worrying who number 2 was, and did the vast majority of work early on anyway of which those co- founders left. If you know the task you need a co-founder to do, find a co- founder... otherwise keep moving and find a co-founder/employee later...

</comment><comment><USER13> The title of the article is plainly and simply wrong. The _you_ is every prospective founder of a tech company. A fraction of this group of people can build a company to the point of testing their hypothesis. A fraction of this fraction can do that without a cofounder.

Besides that there are some good points in the article, it's fairly well written, and being a solo founder has put its author in a good position.

</comment><comment><USER28> So, I created a FB group for solo founders: <http://www.facebook.com/groups/390441457703323/>

It would be great to have a group where we can share experiences and motivate one another. Remember, just because you are a solo founder doesn't mean you have to work by yourself.

Would appreciate if you up vote tomorrow around 2pm EST. Thanks!

</comment><comment><USER46> Glad it worked for you, Ryan. You makes some very valid points, especially in #3.

As I am learning daily, techpreneurship has so many facets from the core technical, to biz dev, sales and day to day activities. Can be overwhelming to go solo (assuming one has all the various abilities). Though I am not personally sold no the idea of having a co-founder, I think it helps to bring in folks to augment as needed.

</comment><comment><USER47> I'd hate to have a cofounder. I'd really have to find someone with same amount of passion and who's on the exact same line. I don't like people messing with my vision, having too much control. Don't get me wrong, I listen and take in other people's advise and views, but I want the final say.

Also, I think a lot of people look for funding, while they don't even need it, but that's another issue..

</comment><comment><USER48> It may just be down to logistics. In the past starting a company just required more time in the beginning phase (i.e. someone to build the hardware while someone else writes the code and someone else does bureaucracy). Nowadays, with the cloud, the outsourcing of all kinds of work, accounting and legal stuff, you can build a company literally in a day.

</comment><comment><USER49> I think a co-founder would be great, but I'm afraid I'd have to totally re- arrange my life at this point in order to find one. It would be like dating. It would take up a long time where I wouldn't get as much work done, and I'd still end up hooking up with someone I wasn't anywhere near 100% sure of.

</comment><comment><USER50> I think single founders have it hard because in order to succeed, you need both introvert and extrovert personalities present. Most people are either one or the other. You need one brain thats social and salesman-like. You need another brain thats analytical and details-oriented. Some people (such as myself) are terrified of the idea of going to a party to meet people and make connections. But I have no problem obsessing over a problem that needs solving. Other people love going to parties to meet new people, but would hate the idea of staying home all weekend to fix a technical problem. You really need both 'types' of people to have both types of tasks covered.

<comment><USER23> Introverts can still be authorities in their field and have a big influence over others. And they can capitalize on this influence. A small company doesn't need to be doing all of its biz dev at parties or social gatherings.

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> IMO whether or not you have good cofounders correlates pretty well to whether or not you'll be able to hire good employees.

</comment><comment> zupa-hu The article being #1 on the front page tells a lot about how much driven (we) solo founders really are! ;) Go for it!!!

</comment><comment><USER52> Let's ignite a candle and hug each other. And then let's watch Bob Ross painting a sunset lake.

</comment><comment><USER53> I'm with ya - you just have be slightly crazier than any "normal" entrepreneur :)

</comment><comment><USER54> You either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain.

</comment><comment><USER55> Amen.

</comment><comment><USER56> I'm sorry, but this just comes off as a guy ranting about how he defied Graham so that he would have more equity and no one to question his decisions. You know what that says to potential hires and the rest of us? "Huge red flag."</comment>


A Dozen Attributes of a Scalable Business - <AUTHOR> https://25iq.com/2017/08/25/a-dozen-attributes-of-a-scalable-business/ <comment><USER2> So, is Amazon as scalable business?</comment>


Ask HN: A simple yet useful e-book to learn AWS? - <AUTHOR> I'm building my own startup and it has come to my attention that managing the AWS infraestructure manually is not a good choice. Some people suggested Cloudformation to do this. The thing is, I have an EC2 instance up and running and serving some websites I own.
There's this startup I'm trying to build that needs to be able to scale to different regions and the thruth is I have no idea what buckets, cluodformation or other aws services are. Since I'm going on vacations next week to a place where there is no internet at all, I wanted to ask for an e-book to load on my Kindle so I can start reading and understanding what a good approach is, while being offline.
Would you recommend this one? It's the only one that kinda seems to explain what I'm after. https://cloudonaut.io/amazon-web-services-in-action/ <comment><USER2> I too would be interested in this as AWS looks like a monster in itself.</comment>


Ask HN: - <AUTHOR>

Other than hackernews, what other sites do you source news from? <comment><USER2> [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4928762](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4928762)

</comment><comment><USER3> Reddit</comment>


The Doctor vs. Char Limits - <AUTHOR> http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/30/the-doctor-vs-the-computer/?hp <comment><USER2> "Well, we can't have the doctors rambling on forever," the tech replies.

Is medicine like this elsewhere now, too? The idea of having the quality of my medical care determined by grade-A morons in an IT department terrifies me even more than having the quality of my medical care determined by bureaucrats at the HMO main office.

Knowing which specific insurers/hmos/etc have restrictions like this on medical documentation would also be great when choosing where to get your coverage, but I bet regulations like HIPAA would prevent people from naming names.

<comment><USER3> A guy at a help desk says something inane like that to dodge being recorded ("for quality assurance") as bad-mouthing the product. He didn't code that app or set that field size.

Setting a field size that stupidly small could have a lot of causes, from a lazy coder who figures 1000 characters is enough to an actual directive from an executive saying that they don't want long assessments. (I've had higher- ups in a client's company tell me to do just that, in other contexts.)

In any case, it remains fucking terrible.

<comment><USER4> A more acceptable response would be _"Thank you for your feedback, I'll pass it on."_

In fact _"we did that on purpose"_ is possibly one of the worst things he could say. What authority does he have for making that assertion, was he on the design team? He's putting (rather rude) words into the mouths of the people who built the system.

<comment><USER3> Agreed on the more acceptable response, but the corporate culture of the company may _not_ make that the worst thing he could say in terms of staying employed.

He clearly wasn't coached to say "I'll pass it on" and was floundering to respond to a person who was upset over what the help desk guy could easily recognize was a real flaw in the software, while obviously not feeling _remotely_ secure in saying anything that might even suggest that this _was_ a flaw.

<comment><USER5> Agreed, there is probably _no_ feedback system whatsoever, and the IT guy is almost certainly more powerless than the doctor. Which points to the real problem - it's usually the administrative staff that signs off on the software requirements with feedback only coming from other administrators. At least, that was the predominant trend for electronic medical records during the 90s and the earlier part of the past decade.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I'm a doctor, this sort of thing happens all too often. In my case, yesterday, a module of AHLTA crashed in the middle of my note and I had to restart to continue. The mouse functions in AHLTA don't support cut and paste, but luckily no one coded out ctrl-c and ctrl-v, so I was able to save a copy of my new patient's three separate complaints under ctrl-v while the system reloaded. Our system is designed with the idea of writing the note with the patient in the room (we don't even have a separate office, just the exam room and a corpsman). Fortunately my patient was herself in IT (one complaint was ... low back pain) and she was very understanding. But I'm also faced with the problem that I either choose to look at the patient or the computer. The computer is not at a convenient angle for this.

So I'm forced to either spend less time with patients and write the note afterwards, physically not look at them, see fewer patients, or write my notes in the evening after the patients have started to fade and blur together.

I actually brought in my iPad yesterday, but didn't even get through the door before I realized there would be no HIPPA-compliant way to move the information from my iPad to AHLTA, especially since I don't have ready access to encryption tools. I thought about issh, but it only adds a third computer to the security perimeter.

Anyone interested in developing a web-based medical records system with a doctor who can at least work through code, I would love to talk with you.

<comment><USER7> Sounds like an interesting problem... I sent you an email.

EDIT: Could you email me? The only email address in your profile bounced...

<comment><USER6> that's my email, it works. I don't see anything from lukev and your email is unlisted.

Since I can't edit my original post any more, let me also add that I did a summer internship with Edward Tufte and have done analytic design consulting work and helped build and design one web app (tmedweb.tulane.edu).

Hope you can get back to me.

<comment><USER7> Ach, sorry, didn't realize mine was unlisted. Ok, I tried using the HackerNewsers contact link, we'll see if that gets through.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Not just absurd text-entry limits, but UI designs affecting data-use habits.

 _"Nobody, for example, leafs through a chart anymore, strolling back in time to see what has happened to the patient over many years. In the computer, all visits look the same from the outside, so it is impossible to tell which were thorough visits with extensive evaluation and which were only brief visits for medication refills. In practice, most doctors end up opening only the last two or three visits; everything before that is effectively consigned to the electronic dust heap."_

That's a fucking terrible design.

<comment> DanI-S So is this:

 _The system encourages fragmented documentation, with different aspects of a patient's condition secreted in unconnected fields_

I'm pretty sure that problem was solved in the 60s, with the concept of hypertext. Decades of progress resulting in the Internet have somehow escaped these guys.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> This is depressing in so many ways...just a few:

The software he is using is obviously extremely poorly designed:

"It turns out that in our electronic medical record system there is a 1,000-character maximum in the assessment field."

\- Unreal. No further comment necessary.

"In practice, most doctors end up opening only the last two or three visits; everything before that is effectively consigned to the electronic dust heap."

\- Opening individual windows for each visit is ridiculous, this should be viewed through a historic report at least (as well as a thousand other subtle smart features).

"As I type away, I feel like I'm doing the right thing, explicating my clinical reasoning rather than just plugging numbers into a formula."

\- Why is a doctor be typing this stuff in? This should be spoken and recorded permanently, and transcribed by a qualified person into text.

And, maybe it's just me....I don't expect doctors to be experts in software design, but I would like to think doctors would be of average to above average intelligence...these shortcomings should be obvious to him as poor design _as a reasonably intelligent person who has interacted with many forms of software in his day to day life_ and recognized as such - but from the article, he seems to think these are natural tradeoffs that must be made when switching to an electronic format.

<comment><USER9> Medical electronic record systems are almost always poorly designed like this one. That's why doctors perceive such deficiencies as "natural."

<comment><USER8> I would hope that my doctor uses mainstream technology (internet, iPad) and could differentiate between what is "common" and what is possible.

If one isn't able to do that, I would seriously question their ability to properly diagnose complex ailments.

<comment><USER10> "Enterprise" software, as a rule, has horrible user interfaces. The people who buy this kind of stuff are three layers of management removed from the people who actually use it, the software is often customized, and quality of user experience is not a critical factor in the purchasing decision.

From the perspective of a non-geek who works in a medium-to-large company, bad "enterprise" software is just an irritation that goes with the job, like bad coffee. You may complain about it but you don't seriously expect it to be fixed.

<comment><USER11> If you pick up a book on best practices in development of enterprise software, it is basically a catalog of obviously beneficial things that people fantasize about in the pages of a book because they are never allowed to do them in real life.

For instance, talking to prospective users. The importance of this has been stressed over and over again and is no longer disputed. In fact, when an in- house team started designing changes to an accounting app my friend had to use, there was an official user expert designated to work with the developers. The user "expert" was her manager, who had never used the application that was being changed, had never used a similar application, and had never even done a job similar to the one done by the users. What's more, she forbade the developers to speak to the users because she didn't want the development effort to affect their productivity. Oh, it did affect their productivity eventually, believe me it did.

(It's an exaggeration to say it's uniformly terrible; I had a good experience with the one enterprise app I built, but it was for a network operations team, so they understood a lot about software and about the need to be generous with time and access.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Healthcare Informatics is a ghetto (to paraphrase Zed Shaw). No one who cares enough about healthcare cares enough to learn how to develop decent applications and no one who knows how to develop decent applications cares enough about healthcare.

So what you get is a bunch of people who would rather be doing something else but for some reason cannot. Strictly middle to low tier developers. Anyone who is decent gets out of the industry quick due to the huge amount of inertia the established companies have.

Someone mentioned HL7 CDA being an XML format. It is now. HL7v3 was published in 2005. HL7v2 was standard before that and if you have to deal with equipment or software made before 2006-2007, you will need to dive into the fun that is HL7v2.

<comment><USER13> Just to be clear, it was the CDA R2 portion of the HL7 V3 standard that was published in 2005. Other parts of HL7 V3 were published earlier, and some parts are still not done yet. There is no HL7 V2 version of CDA.

Even older versions of HL7 V2, such as V2.3 published in 1997, specified a minimum supported length for individual observations of 64K (OBX-5 field). So we can't blame HL7 for this particular problem. Of course many vendors have defective HL7 interfaces.

I can't speak for other vendors, but at my company we have been able to attract top tier developers (and are hiring more).

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> He's not "The Doctor" - he's "a doctor". The Doctor would have fixed the computer with his sonic screwdriver.

</comment><comment><USER15> So the software is shit, like most special purpose business software. The tech's response isn't what justified the software limitations, it is the other way around. Nobody really wants to design or build this stuff so this is what they end up with. I've seen it hundreds of times. (I used to do consulting for small businesses and interned with an engineering contractor before that.)

<comment><USER3> We clearly need a way to make medical data systems sexy enough that talented, skilled folks build startups to try to horn in on the market.

No, I'm not being flippant or joking.

It would be a fantastic thing if even a handful of people see this story, go, "I could _shit_ out better software then that!", look into HIPAA and other complications, consider a moment, then say, "I could _still_ shit out better software than this," and get to work challenging the status quo.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> _1,000 characters?_ What, are they paying for storage by the byte? Was this system designed in 1960? For that matter, were any doctors involved in the design of the system?

How on earth do they store medical imaging, compress it down to 128x128 GIFs?

<comment><USER17> Medical imaging is probably in systems and hard copies completely disconnected from (and inaccessible by) the database.

<comment><USER16> You're probably right, although that's another problem. I've heard (this is not my area) that most of the big, expensive machines all use their own proprietary image formats.

Although I once had some emergency dental work done in New Zealand, and they were able to give me a laser-printed copy of their digital X-ray along with a printout of my EMR as I was walking out the door.

<comment><USER18> Actually, I unfortunately know a fair bit about medical imaging (since I supported radiology systems for a couple years).

There's a ~1980s protocol called DICOM which is largely used to transport images around. It is quite complex for what it actually, has lots of vendor and device inconsistencies, and because medical imaging devices are expensive and have a long duty cycle, you can have a 10-20 year spread of equipment on your network.

Some of the actual imaging technologies (MRI, CT, US) are inherently low resolution per image in a study (due to the limits of physics), but a study can be composed of a bunch of images, and it can end up 5-10GB. The high- resolution individual images tend to be x-ray, especially digital mammography.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> The thing that isn't clear to me: Is this some sort of medical profession electronic document 'standard?' Or is this doctor just running up against the limitations of a single vendor's solution to an issue that has no standards?

<comment><USER13> The medical profession has an electronic document standard in HL7 Clinical Document Architecture, Release 2. [http://www.hl7.org/v3ballot2009may/html/infrastructure/cda/c...](http://www.hl7.org/v3ballot2009may/html/infrastructure/cda/cda.htm) It's an XML format so there is no character limit on narrative sections. Apparently that one vendor just decided to impose an arbitrary limit for no good reason.

<comment><USER20> Could it be for backward compatibility with something else?

A lot of medical data processing is spread through a huge series of SQL and mainframe databases with lots of hacks to keep them roughly compatible.

A friend worked medical database where "sex" was a seven field containing values from {"F", "M", "Male", "woman"...} etc.

This is horrific but it's possible to imagine that it arose as a compromised between various equally terrible options...

<comment><USER21> Reminds me of a health insurance form I filled out where it asked you for your gender, but never your sex.

<comment><USER22> For the curious: <http://www.who.int/gender/whatisgender/en/index.html>

Essentially, sex is biological while gender is social. Transsexuality is a disparity between what someone was born biologically as (sex) and what they identify as (gender).

See also: <http://www.docstyles.com/apacrib.htm#AppA>

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> This article sounds like it's trying to say that electronic medical records are a bad idea, but all I'm hearing is "our vendor's software sucks ass". I mean, none of these limits are that tough to fix. If there's a need to tell which visits on a list are long ones and which are short, we could color-code based on duration or just display the duration of each visit in the list, for instance.

<comment><USER3> This is what happens when users get conditioned by really bad software in a specialist market.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Are there any speech to text systems for medical records ?

It seems like speech recognition technology has reached a pretty high quality level. Of course there would be some transcription errors. What if the system had an editor window that required the physician to verify and sign off on the transcription ?

Wouldn't speech be a better primary interface for this application ?

<comment><USER13> My company includes back-end speech recognition in our transcription workflow. [http://www.axolotl.com/news/57-axolotl-adds-speech- understan...](http://www.axolotl.com/news/57-axolotl-adds-speech- understanding-to-its-elysium-product-range.html) Human editors review and correct the draft report, and then it goes to the physician for a final review before becoming part of the patient record

Some physicians also prefer to enter text directly into our web application with third-party front-end speech recognition products such as Dragon. <http://www.nuance.com/for-healthcare/index.htm>

<comment><USER24> It sounds like your system should be light years beyond the problems that are being discussed in the article and in this thread.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> This serves as a great reminder that great software is about a lot more than great code.

For the most part, this sounds like a large but basic CRUD app, which is basically a solved problem from a technical point of view. Most of the key decisions in the software development process are not necessarily made by programmers.

</comment><comment> ok-computer I'm not sure this is _why_ there is a limit of 1000 characters, but one possible reason would be to limit the amount of unstructured data put into the assessment field. This can be a way to force people to use structured data fields and more generally to avoid excessive verbosity.

(TLDR probably applies to doctors too.)

</comment><comment><USER26> These services will be in place for years and more and more institutions will depend on them. The computer systems we design for health care will shape health care service.

Add Joseph Weizenbaum's Computer Power and Human Reason to the list of books that the developers of these systems should be required to read.

</comment><comment><USER27> A ton of usability research in this area has been done by The Microsoft Health Common User Interface <http://www.mscui.net>

It's a pity (and rather ironic being Microsoft) that none of the major healthcare IT suppliers seem to want to follow a common standard.

<comment><USER28> As a vendor in the UK, we have been integrating the CUI for the last few years. The quality of the guidance is mixed - there is good evidence that having a "Patient Banner" in a consistent format prevents "right thing, wrong patient" problems. However, a lot of the evidence supporting the other guidance is sketchy. They also lean heavily on MS implementations of the guidance which I would think most vendors will avoid because it does not likely fit into their technology stack (Silverlight / WPF).

However, the real problem is that the market does not value good usability. We are lucky if a potential customer has even heard of the Common User Interface, let alone specifying it as a requirement on a tender.

The "ghetto" effect described by another poster is largely down to the "market for lemons" around healthcare IT, in the UK at least (many different vendors promising a silver bullet to hospitals with no experience in procuring such things - they just pick the cheapest / "least risky").

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> I think this is a good reminder to thoughtfully consider how we handle edge cases.

I know that I often treat edge cases with the least care. This is certainly a situation where the opposite required.

<comment><USER3> Why do you see this as an edge case?

<comment><USER6> doctor, here. This is definitely not an edge case.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Yeah, but if we used TEXT instead of VARCHAR we might need two disk reads to look up the data instead of one! Fuck human life, think of that poor hard drive!

</comment><comment><USER31> Start your own practice and get your own software?

How viable is that (genuinely curious)? How easy is it for a doctor to start a private practice?

<comment><USER32> If you use your own system you're cut off from the rest of the medical universe. These systems are integrated with the pathology guys next door, the pharmacist down the road, the medical imaging center and so on. Everyone benefits from this so if you decide to use your own homebrew system you'll make life more difficult for everyone else around you.</comment></comment>


DIY Gin and Tonic Laser - How to Make a Laser Out of Gin and Tonic - <AUTHOR> http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/how-to-make-a-laser-from-a-gin-and-tonic?src=rss <comment><USER2> \-- Burdick ... can't recall the exact circumstances around which the gin-and- tonic laser was built... I suspect the actual circumstances and the fact he doesn't remember are related.

</comment><comment><USER3> I don't understand. What's the point of it? You need a laser to make it work, so what's the gin got to do with it? Aren't they just making a laser out of another laser, while having a beverage at the side?

Is this article a joke or something, it's not April fools yet?

If it's not a joke, it's one of the most _meh_ articles on something that could potentially be interesting. The title is misleading--it's neither DIY nor a "How to".

If it was _really_ DIY, they would have had a couple of pictures of what the final set-up looks like. My guess is that they did not do it themselves.

So the entire article is bullshit. They have nothing to say about the subject.

Maybe it's possible to build a Gin-n-Tonic laser, I don't know anything about the subject, but this link fails to tell me anything, except how _not_ to write an article about it.

</comment><comment><USER4> I wonder how the choice of Gin affects the laser. There's many different Gins with different recipes, in theory the change in impurities should affect the colour, but I'm not sure how.</comment>


Could this site finally kill the SEO industry? - <AUTHOR> http://something.to

<comment><USER2> There's nothing to indicate the "contact us" link will open up my e-mail client. I'd expect a mailto link to have the e-mail address as the link text. The link as presented I expected to lead to a page with your e-mail address, phone number, a contact form, and/or your postal address.

<comment><AUTHOR> On the TODO. The views are very lacking at this point. Thanks.

</comment></comment><comment><USER2> That appears unlikely, what with the site not seeming to do anything.

<comment><AUTHOR> Did you expand the tree structure?

<comment><USER3> What tree structure? the only thing I can see is a blank page with a copyright message below the fold.

<comment><AUTHOR> Works perfectly fine for me in Chrome, Safari, Firefox...are you using IE?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Horrendous.

<comment><AUTHOR> The UI or the concept?</comment></comment>


Responding to Mashable - <AUTHOR> http://respondingtomashable.tumblr.com/

<comment><USER2> Sort of entertaining, but I really wish the images linked to the actual articles so I could actually read the articles he's responding to.</comment>


Gustrr - 30 Day Challenges - <AUTHOR> http://gustrr.com

<comment><USER2> You really need a brief description of what it actually is. I'm not giving you my email without any idea what you're going to send me.</comment>


I Stopped a Credit Card Thief from Ripping Off 3,537 People - <AUTHOR> https://www.freecodecamp.org/news/stopping-credit-card-fraud-and-saving-our-nonprofit/ <comment><USER2> Ultimately a tale of persistence in contacting support. Someone less confident or desperate or aware of their rights and associated costs of the issue would probably have not followed through.

Ultimately also a sign that Stripe's fraud prevention and support are pretty bad. Not Google-Level bad But certainly if it takes an active g tech literate merchant a day to resolve such an issue this is 100% on stripe and the author should not have gone through this pain.

</comment><comment><USER3> Gah, interesting story.

But terrible presentation.

Hundreds of paragraphs.

Of just 1 or 2 sentences.

Maybe some like reading that stuff.

But I was just scrolling.

Trying to find the meat.

Authors, learn to be more concise.

<comment><USER4> I liked it. The presentation didn't bother me at all, maybe because I read the story on a relatively small smartphone screen. For smaller screens, the formatting works really well.

It was an entertaining read, well written, so kudos to the author for sharing his story in an interesting way.</comment></comment>


Bing, Yahoo Now Neck & Neck In US Search Market Share - <AUTHOR> http://searchengineland.com/bing-yahoo-now-neck-neck-in-us-search-market-share-104869 <comment><USER2> wow, yahoo abandon it and it's still ahead of bing</comment>


Creating a CC-BY-SA video archive of a Chopin-era piano - <AUTHOR> https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/opengoldberg/kimiko-ishizaka-plays-chopin-on-an-1832-pleyel

<comment><USER2> This needs more attention... It's an important project!

(NOTE: I am not affiliated with this project in any way, but as a pianist, I recognize the importance of it!)</comment>


LIDSBEE: The Incredible Flying Hat - <AUTHOR> https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1314634894/lidsbee-the-incredible-flying-hat-that-glows?ref=nav_search

<comment><USER2> Cool idea, summer is almost here. I am getting one for 4th of July. Thanks for sharing!</comment>


Are Dogs Even Necessary in an iPhone World? - <AUTHOR> http://techpinions.com/are-dogs-even-necessary-in-an-iphone-world/34666 <comment><USER2> If you can replace your dog with a smart phone or any other electronic device, you shouldn't have had the dog in the first place.

</comment><comment><USER3> > diversion from our stresses.

Usually I find the shitty interface causes me more stress. Many times I have been tempted to throw it against the wall. Give me a desktop and big screen any day for writing an email, or browsing the web. (And a dog - my parents dog gives me infinitely more fun than my phone ever will).

<comment><USER4> I am so pleased to hear someone else sometimes has intensely frustrating experiences with their phone!

I used to be the kid who could set a VCR timer (before they introduced +codes). Now? I don't know how to share a link from Google maps; I don't understand how this or that chat / messenging app works; simple things that should be a few clicks are seemingly impossible for me to do.

Sadly, these frustrations make their way onto the desktop too. The GMail interface is suboptimal.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I don't see how a phone can be alert to danger...

As for the author spending 5k on their dog... that is why you have this thing called insurance. I'd rather spend a tiny monthly fee in case something goes wrong than money I don't have _if_ it does. Doesn't he have insurance for his overpriced iProducts too?</comment>


Startup offers trip as hiring bonus - <AUTHOR> http://code.craftcoffee.com/

<comment><USER2> Thank god there's a picture of a fat dude on the page. Had it been a picture of a hot girl in a bikini and we'd hear drama about this for a week.

<comment><USER3> There is already drama, apparently they only address this to guys. How about "Grab your bikini"?

<comment><USER4> I thought of this, but I think it's OK in the context of the joke. (And technically, Speedo might stereotypically be associated with men, but they make stuff for women too.)

<comment><USER5> I sure hope at least _one_ of you is being sarcastic.

<comment><USER4> No, I don't think so. There's a tendency in tech circles to act like programmers etc. are just men. It's not malicious but it makes women feel invisible, which is a factor in the gender imbalance in tech. So as part of the effort to get more women into tech, we're self-conscious about thoughtless (not generally malicious) actions that make women feel less welcome. I would definitely consider a serious headline saying "grab your speedo, we're sending you to Brazil" as unintentionally making women feel forgotten. But again, since it's a just a joke about a photo, it's not really a problem in this case.

<comment><AUTHOR> For the record, we're happy to talk to women developers. And it was women who designed and wrote the copy for the site.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> That picture is from the Romanian seaside (Romanian gypsies), I have a different angle here: <https://www.dropbox.com/s/913zazhaca3i965/lamare.jpg>

<comment><AUTHOR> Wow. You know, we saw him and we fell in love. You gotta go with your heart on these things.

<comment><USER6> Well in case you ever get bored of that one, now you have the option to swap.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Does the job come with that sweet bling cross ?

<comment><AUTHOR> Subject to negotiation! But we're willing to discuss. :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I'm from Brazil and a ruby developer. Can I exchange the trip for a visa?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes. Seriously. If we decide to hire somebody from outside the US who wants to move to NYC, we will sponsor a visa. You should apply.

<comment><USER8> Cool. I guess I'm going to have to give it a shot.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Cool idea: I'm curious why you need a talented developer though. Shouldn't shopify be good enough for you?

<comment><USER10> Can't do subscription billing on shopify

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> More importantly: what sort of beans do you keep stocked in the office?

<comment><AUTHOR> We have an endless supply of the best coffee available on the planet. We receive between 50 to 100 samples every month. We work with NYC's top baristas to do blind tastings of every sample we receive and we keep detailed sensory records (awesome db of data on coffee evaluations, btw!).

After all that, only the top 3 coffees from that process make it into our boxes. And, we partner with General Assembly to provide those same 3 coffees as our office coffee.

So it's coffee heaven.

<comment><USER11> Neat.

Worked with a coffee fiend at my first job that put the "every office needs a good espresso machine" idea in my head.

I've never quite executed that idea because I figure a clueless coworker would not clean it, burn themselves, or worse (flavoured supermarket beans - eurgh!).

Working somewhere with a constant supply of good coffee would be amazing.

<comment><USER12> I don't disagree, but I would honestly worry. I love coffee, and one of the best days in recent memory is when a local micro-roaster opened up shop in the Crownsville area (Bean Rush Cafe, fantastic coffee if you're local to it) -- but y'know, sometimes I like cream or sugar in my coffee, and I could very easily see myself being judged for that in the same way I judge people who put soda in their whiskey.

And I'd hate to end up being the coffee-pansy. :'(

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Great job with the posting. Very creative!

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks!

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I'm sad you guys are in New York and not Boston, I love me some good coffee! beautiful website too

<comment><AUTHOR> Let's talk! Boston is not so far away. Shoot me an email. firstname.lastname@example.com

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> It's cute guys, I give you points for creativity. But as Rails consultant in San Francisco for many years and recent startup founder myself, I must say that the icon about $2500 for the hardware of your choice kind of backfires and I've advised my clients against using such incentives. On the one hand the new Mac Book with the retina display fully loaded runs about that in minimum configuration by itself. So no budget for an external Thunderbolt display? But more disconcertingly is the subtext which says, buy and set yourself up however you want, without regard to what makes for the lowest friction team, pairing and collaboration experience. In a way this is the cubicle of the 21st century. This is why shops like Pivotallabs don't give their employees individual machines, all they have is a room full of pairing stations, because they realize that ease of cooperation is far more important than personal preferences and customization.

<comment><AUTHOR> Point taken. But in our case, we're bringing on our first lead engineer. This person will create our engineering culture and be the one who decides how these processes will play out. So the opportunity here is to shape our engineering team, including how developers will work together.

<comment><USER16> Ok, so the $2500 is the budget for the developer's machine. A more important question is: who owns the machine, the developer or the company?

If it is the former, I see no reason to complain.

<comment><USER15> I've yet to see a startup or any company for that matter that signs over ownership of assets bought with company funds to rank and file employees.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Great stuff, always hard to find good people and Im sure this will bring in lots of nice applicants. And a little trip to Brazil would indeed be nice. Good luck!

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks. Appreciate the feedback!

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> I would apply if I had any skills in Ruby, but alas, I've done mostly .Net / iOS development. That said, I absolutely love postings like this!

<comment><AUTHOR> If you're interested, you should apply. If everything else is a great fit, I'm sure you can learn Ruby/Rails if that's something you're interested in doing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Very nicely done! One minor nit: clicking on '5' on the top scrolls to '4' ;).

(Edit: obviously, it is slide 5, but still ;).)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the feedback. It depends on your browser size. On very large screens it gets a little funky. We talked about it, but ended up deciding to not sweat the edge cases.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Now I know I'm not the only Ruby developer in the coffee industry!

<comment><AUTHOR> Happy to share notes if you ever want to talk. My email is in my hacker news profile. Feel free to connect.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Nice misuse of the term 'low level developers' Craft Coffee...

</comment><comment><USER22> Just curious to hear opinions: How competitive is $50–100k in NYC?

The 0.5–10% does seem potentially generous.

[<http://angel.co/craftcoffee#recruiting>]

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the question, anon user who created an account 3 minutes ago.

You can't realistically boil these things down in a web form text input. So we put a wide range for both salary AND equity to indiciate optionality on the part of the person we end up hiring.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> More people need to recruit like this!

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks! Appreciate the kind words.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> what i can't figure out and want to know is: is stumptown still good or have they turned evil?

<comment><USER20> Not evil, as far as I know. They have some great single origins, but I'm less excited about their blends.</comment></comment>