Show HN: Fast, Easy System Diagrams - <AUTHOR> https://architype.io/ <comment><AUTHOR> I spend lots of my time at a whiteboard diagramming current or proposed systems. The whiteboard experience is less than ideal: my handwriting isn't great, folks on the other side of a VC can't see, etc. Most diagramming software is designed for careful human placement to get precise results. I built Architype to let me take notes and play with system designs in real time during a conversation, in a way that can be easily projected. It's designed to be entirely client-side and fast, but still powerful enough to produce useful diagrams for most purposes.

<comment><USER2> [https://tomassetti.me/recognizing-hand-written-shapes- progra...](https://tomassetti.me/recognizing-hand-written-shapes- programmatically-find-the-key-points-of-a-rectangle/)

[https://azure.microsoft.com/fr-fr/blog/turn-your- whiteboard-...](https://azure.microsoft.com/fr-fr/blog/turn-your-whiteboard- sketches-to-working-code-in-seconds-with-sketch2code/)

[https://www.theverge.com/2017/4/11/15263434/google-ai- autodr...](https://www.theverge.com/2017/4/11/15263434/google-ai-autodraw- doodle-bot-drawing-image-recognition)

[https://quickdraw.withgoogle.com/#](https://quickdraw.withgoogle.com/#)

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Really cool stuff! I'm glad I didn't miss it. The keybindings really make prototyping much faster, especially for keyboard-centric devs out there.

</comment><comment><USER4> This is neat though I don't seem to be able to link more than 2 nodes together.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for this and filing the github issue as well. I put together a tutorial to walk through usage in more detail: [https://github.com/firestuff/architype/blob/master/TUTORIAL....](https://github.com/firestuff/architype/blob/master/TUTORIAL.md)

<comment><USER5> In the linked example for the tutorial, I see there is a "gRPC" label for the links inside the two region groups, however, I am not seeing that label show up anywhere on the diagram. Is that expected behavior?

Other than that, very promising project and the vi keybindings are a nice touch.

<comment><AUTHOR> Bug fixed early today -- you may have a cached copy. Try shift-reload.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Suggestion: it would be very useful to see some examples.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the suggestion. I'd previously added the tutorial linked below, but that clearly wasn't cutting it, so I've now added an example diagram for first-time visitors. If you already visited, click on the top object (probably the help text), press shift-D to delete all items, then refresh the page.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> mscgen + graphviz

<comment><USER2> or plantUML: [http://plantuml.com/en/sequence- diagram](http://plantuml.com/en/sequence-diagram)</comment></comment>


Google no longer able to pay Android developers in Argentina, pulling apps - <AUTHOR> http://mobile.theverge.com/2013/5/24/4363960/google-no-longer-able-to-pay-developers-in-argentina-for-apps-pulling

<comment><USER2> Repost: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5765759>

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> The original title was "Arg. Gov. Fucked up mobile devs" as this is what happened and what i think is most interesting</comment>


Swift: Close to greatness in programming language design - <AUTHOR> https://www.synopsys.com/blogs/software-security/swift-programming-language-design-part-3/ <comment><USER2> LMAO it's just a rip-off of Kotlin. Talk about Apple fanboy piece

<comment><USER3> ... and Kotlin is a rip-off of Apache Groovy. But with static typing _everywhere_ so it always works properly in IntelliJ.</comment></comment>


The Nature of Code free online book with live examples - <AUTHOR> http://natureofcode.com/book/introduction/

<comment><USER2> I am in awe of this book's online design and pricing. Well done.

<comment><AUTHOR> Same here, I posted this when I first had found his videos on simulating natural phenomenon in Processing on Vimeo.

This book was created by NYU computer science professor Daniel Shiffman and is open source and free online (HTML with live code examples). The PDF or ebook version are available as well and are a good value.

[edit] links:

github repo <https://github.com/shiffman/The-Nature-of-Code>

ebook and online: <http://natureofcode.com/>

videos <https://vimeo.com/shiffman></comment></comment>


Should an emoji come before or after a full-stop? - <AUTHOR> https://writing.stackexchange.com/questions/51030/should-an-emoji-come-before-or-after-a-full-stop <comment><USER2> This is amusing to read. Language is a beautiful evolving thing. Personally I love seeing how people use it in new ways. New words or ways to add emphasis. Emojis are a interesting way of getting facial expressions across in a minimalst way

<comment><USER3> I'm of the opposite persuasion. At least with English, there are many ways to express connotations or degrees with word selection. Should emoji be considered along the lines of ebonics? Languages adjust with usage. New technology and knowledge arrives while somethings fade. To me, the cute little characters are a form of laziness.

<comment><USER4> You said yourself that languages adjust. So why can't emoji be part of it?</comment></comment></comment>


IPhone Development Costs - <AUTHOR> http://osxdaily.com/2010/09/07/iphone-development-costs/

<comment><USER2> Eh, I hear this all the time: It costs 30k min to do an iPhone app! Etc.

My company does mobile development (see profile for email) all day long.

The issue is _letting your dev tell you what can be done inexpensively_ and starting with that. The hourly ranged mentioned in the article fits exactly what we charge (although on the lower side), however the time required is way off base. If you come with fully developed wireframes, etc, they're sure to include 3-10 things which would take quite a bit longer than an alternative, or will contain lots of things better put in a version 2 product. What you want is no approval requirements based designs with a developer you like the past work of.

Mobile is not an easy platform. It has lots of constraints that normal PC's and the Web do not have to deal with, and so it's harder to train qualified devs for it still. However, the projects created on this platform can be done economically with the correct guidance.

If you try to run the project too completely, try to be too involved, you can very well get the prices and timelines in that article.

Even if you have the cash to spend 30k on the App: My suggestion, get something done for the 7-10k range which satisfies part of your original vision, release, then work on adding more. Iterate on the design you got in the first version, after you can get solid quotes on the changes in it, and after you have some revenue to justify additional expense.

<comment><USER3> The average rate first mentioned is roughly what we charge as well. Personally, I think it's absurd that people are willing to fork out that much money on an app. The gold rush is over, people; look at the recent analyses: most apps don't make that much money, so unless you're app is "revolutionary" enough to make it to the lucky Top 100 or it serves some greater purpose than making you money (ie the Obama app)...

"Mobile is not an easy platform. It has lots of constraints that normal PC's and the Web do not have to deal with, and so it's harder to train qualified devs for it still." Personally, I find it much easier to do development for iOS than for regular Mac OS X. Yes, there are constraints and the workflow is quite different, but once you get over those I have found it to be a much easier system to understand.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> _Outsourcing has it's own pros and cons, and I'll leave it up to you to decide if it's a worthwhile approach for your apps development._

That is pretty bad advice. Baiting with the "outsourcing is cheap" but not citing the statistical increase in failed projects is a disservice to those looking for genuine information.

Worse yet taking an easy exit like "I'll leave it up to you to decide" is punting the responsibility of disclosure. You should either not mention it, or inform you readers that outsourcing required intricate detailed knowledge in technical development, or one can loose control of the project, which directly translates into a higher risk of failure and total loss of investment. It is also your duty to inform your readers that recovery of funds is impossible due to the disparity of legal systems and protections afforded under international law. AKA, if you get ripped off you have little recourse and the recourse you have is more expensive that the money lost, in regards to sub $200,000 projects.

<comment><USER5> Why is it the author's duty to tangent that far? I'm not a fan of outsourcing myself, however even I can't deny there are both Pros and Cons that are evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

It sounds like you're wanting to the article to stray from the original content and either enter into an anti-outsource rant or ignore an elephant that everyone knows is in the room.

<comment><USER4> Actually the article states that it is cheap and does not address any other aspects. My point was that it could be viewed as biased and it is a disservice to due diligence. You infered the rest. It is obviously an elephant that countless businesses fail to see because the failed project still stream in day by day.</comment></comment></comment>


Fintech's fast pass to traditional banking is now cut off - <AUTHOR> https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/24/fintechs-fast-pass-to-traditional-banking-is-now-cut-off.html <comment><USER2> There is always opportunity in any crisis. If one is passionate enough about their cause / business model, I'm pretty sure another ethical path can be found.</comment>


The Greatest Violin No One's Ever Heard - <AUTHOR> http://lithub.com/the-greatest-violin-no-ones-ever-heard/ <comment><USER2> I kind of wonder how it would actually sound at this point. As a guitarist who has played a lot of older instruments (some upwards of 100 years), I find that _getting played_ is critical to the health and tone of a guitar. A decades-old guitar that is in mint condition probably sounds like crap. But a guitar that has been played intensely, even if only for a few years, can sound really great.

"Break-in period" is certainly widely believed among guitarists, and I believe it myself (based on the experience of owning new guitars and playing them until broken in), although it's near impossible to measure. The instruments seem to change noticably in both tone and feel as they get played.

My favorite instruments generally are upwards of 30 years old and have been played extensively. I had the pleasure of playing a 50 year old Gibson SG recently, and it was fantastic - far better than any modern SG I've played. Why is that? It's just wood, metal, and glue. It's not made any better than a new SG. So I think age and playing really matter.

Beyond that, my own instruments seem "angry" if I don't play them for months on end. They don't like just sitting there. This is, of course, a very animist, non-scientific approach to the issue, but it seems very real to me.

<comment><USER3> That 50 year old Gibson SG is definitely at least a partial case case of survivor bias. All the less-well built ones that came off the production line with neck-warps and dead-frets have long been tossed out by the owner. Though, I bet off-the-line, the ratio of 'well built' to 'not well built' guitars was significantly higher when Gibson was still privately owned.

The other factor is I'm sure back when Gibson and Martin were US-made, there was a certain amount of QA that went into each unit that went out the door. I know some fine men who make their living off craft furniture for the bourgeoisie and every unit is meticulously inspected. I'm sure even if they attained commercial success, they'd ensure a base level of quality that a MNC like Ikea or West Elm probably doesn't have. In the same way you have an emotional attachment to your instruments, those instrument craftsmen/women have a similar bond/sense of pride.

Also, as a woodworker, I can tell you that there are so many contributing factors to wood, ranging from completely obvious spruce vs cherry vs sikta, to more subtle things like where the tree was harvested from, access to water, the way it was cut (quarter-sawn? flat? did the craftsman just select whichever was cheapest?), the way it was cured, in what environment, and for how long. These all contribute to the way they age, the way they cut. It's not unlike wine vintages and variations (which, incidentally, have a fetishized community, but certainly an amateur like myself can identify the difference between two bottles of the same grape and vintage, but of a different region). New SG's are produced in an assembly line with the cheapest acceptable materials, rather than having some skilled tradesman who went down to 4 different lumberyards spending 6 weeks picking the best wood stock for that years production.

<comment><USER2> I don't think the QA was better then. There's tremendous variability in those older guitars. Arguably, the wood quality was better, but top makers today are still getting their hands on great wood. It's just more expensive.

One of my favorites is a well-played 1980 Tokai. In its day, it was a "cheap guitar", considered inferior to American instruments, but it's magical. It's better than Fender Custom Shops I've played - but I imagine 35 years from now, they'll be much better.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I was never a great violinist, but this fetishization of old instruments is part of what turned me away. I refuse to believe that we can't produce instruments as good as those of yesteryear - and indeed, no expert can tell a true Stradivari from the best modern instruments in a blind listening test.

<comment><USER5> The classical world is more diverse than people seem to think. Most string players I know play on modern instruments, made within the last hundred years. Likewise actual musicians don't idolize young prodigies – both of these things are marketing phenomena that the actual artists generally oppose.

That said, the idea that there's no difference between a great old instrument and a modern one is just as fallacious. Perhaps as a not great violinist you never got to the point where you got to find out, but there are qualities of an instrument that have nothing to do with sound. The fact that a Strad costs $5 million and an Iizuka costs $27,000 is ludicrous, yes. But the great old instruments are still around for a reason.

<comment><USER3> 30k for a hand-crafted instrument that you'll use professionally is quite reasonable. A skilled laborer spent somewhere between building that instrument for ranging between ~3 -> 18 months. Every stroke of his chisel was dedicated to the production of that instrument. Every pull of his rasp. As a (subpar for the time I've spent in the shop, but acceptable compared to the average bear) woodworker, I can respect the labor that went into it. I'm not saying that everyone should buy at that level (e.g 30k), but if you're going to pay $150k for an education at Julliard or Berklee, $30k isn't unreasonable for something you're professionally going into. (For the hobbyist or student, you can "almost-there" apprentice-crafted string instruments for under 10k that will have proper action which won't contribute to bad-form habits.) I'd imagine most people here have spent well over that on Macbooks and iPhones alone, which are hobby purchases that have lost 80% of their value within 3 years. You can retain most of the value on a good instrument[1] and if you're lucky it might even appreciate in value[2].

I think it's commonly accepted amongst collectors that you're buying a Strad because it's a Strad. They're not buying it for it's sound any more than one would buy an 1894 Patek Philippe because it keeps time. (A 20 dollar quartz Timex does just as well.) You're buying a piece of history. A piece of art. In the case of a watch, you're buying a piece of a combination between history/art and engineering. Watch this[3] to see the engineering beauty in it all. If you're further interested, watch this traditionally trained German[4] to see how delicate[5], how precise, how intricate his movements are, despite having lost the steady hand he had at 35, he regains the fluid motion in certain strokes.

[1] Humidity control, minimize temperature fluxuation, peg maintenance, etc. Just the basics - you don't have to baby it, but obviously don't neglect it either.

[2] I don't know what the current scene is like, but take the 1960s Yamaha FG180's which were basically thought of "junkers" you'd buy your 8 year old for Christmas. A mint Red Label with no neck warpage can get 3 or 4k easily.

[3] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8OViP9AR2HE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8OViP9AR2HE)

[4] Or Swiss (?) I don't know German well enough to distinguish regional accents, so he could be from the German-speaking region of Switzerland.

[5] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkGygB7BMsQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkGygB7BMsQ)

<comment><USER5> In case it wasn't clear, I was referring to the price difference as ludicrous. I have an Iizuka viola and it's worth every penny.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Here's a double-blind test of modern vs Strad violins:

[http://www.thestrad.com/cpt-latests/blind-tested-soloists- un...](http://www.thestrad.com/cpt-latests/blind-tested-soloists-unable-to- tell-stradivarius-violins-from-modern-instruments/)

(spoiler alert: a modern violin won)

</comment><comment><USER7> Just wanted to share a sentiment from a living luthier that I like.

Samuel Zygmuntowicz (a modern maker) has remarked, Strad made new violins. It's a reminder that age has little to do with the quality in some fine antique instruments. Strad's craft to fabricate brand-spanking-new violins made him quite a wealthy man (because they were fine instruments then, as they are now).</comment>


Brazil's leading payment processor begins accepting Bitcoin - <AUTHOR> https://decrypt.co/8841/brazil-cielo-payment-processor-pos-bitcoin <comment><USER2> Is this in any way related to neighbouring nations with inflation issues (Venezuela, Argentina) being a target market?! Also curious how variable transaction costs are taken care of?! these weren't insignificant in the single US dollar range during the last crypto high when bitcoin was around $20k. does the payer or buyer shoulder them?

<comment><USER3> Most likely not. Cielo has been struggling with the recent increase in competition for payment services in Brazil, and is probably just trying to stay ahead of the curve.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Why will users need an account with some provider? Why can't they just send BTC?

<comment><USER5> They can, this doesnt affect the normal, quasi-organic way of BTC payment processing. But in the traditional Bitcoin processing, the shop providing any service or good that can be payed with BTC must have a private wallet, as we know.

This, on the other side, propably means that you, the customer can choose to pay with BTC instead of debt or Visa and the shop will receive the money in the local currency without the need to deal with BTC or you to directly move the value from your digital wallet.

They are just doing what they alredy do, being just the middle-man who gets its cut just for being the middle-man.

I just cant wait for the time they choke our legislators with so much money, that they will push to regulate bitcoin in a way where the traditional peer- to-peer payment becomes forbidden, and we all have to use the greedy middle- man, that we didnt even need to use anymore, thanks to the inovations like the blockchain.

Welcome to the future, were all things old are new again.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Very simple REST client in JS. Which framework should I use? - <AUTHOR> I just recieved an interview assignment from company I'm applying for, which I should submit in ~7 days. The task is to create simple web utility with BE exposed by REST API and FE in JavaScript framework of my choice - the latter is where my problem lies, as I have no experience with JavaScript, or frontend programming in general (the company is aware of this fact and wants me to cope with it).
So my question is, which framework should I use for this, given my limited time for learning? I'd prefer some of the mainstream ones, like Angular, React, or Vue so I can benefit from this experience in the future. My only requirement is making POST request to REST API endpoint and consume the response, maybe even asynchronously, but that is not a must.
I'd also appreciate if you could point me to some resources that'd benefit me with this task. <comment><USER2> In this situation, I'd suggest Next.js which is kind of a framework for React applications and instead of trying to understand how React and related technologies are working, you can just start using it. Just go to [https://nextjs.org/learn/](https://nextjs.org/learn/) and spend half an hour, probably you'll understand how it works and how you can do basic things such as navigating a page or deploying it to somewhere.

I believe, between React, Angular and Vue and all their boilerplates Next.js is the easiest one to understand. And they have a huge example library in their GitHub repository if you want to know how a certain package/library/service works. In your case, this might help: [https://github.com/zeit/next.js/tree/canary/examples/data- fe...](https://github.com/zeit/next.js/tree/canary/examples/data-fetch)

</comment><comment><USER3> Has the company or recruiter told you anything yet about their stack? I'd suggest using whatever framework they use.

<comment><AUTHOR> They claim to use Angular, React and Vue.js so that did not help me much.</comment></comment>


Being creative and imagniative correlates most strongly with programming ability - <AUTHOR> https://www.inc.com/jessica-stillman/the-1-personality-trait-you-need-to-be-a-great-programmer.html <comment><USER2> 'How many talented people didn't go into tech because they thought their creativity wouldn't be well used there, or that they didn't have the requisite love of Dungeons and Dragons?'

I'm quite happy for those people that think people in tech are sad to stay out of tech.</comment>


The Ultimate Emacs Course - <AUTHOR> http://tv.uvigo.es/gl/serial/513.html

<comment><USER2> Comments from anyone who has seen this?</comment>


A whistleblower says Facebook ignored global political manipulation - <AUTHOR> https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/craigsilverman/facebook-ignore-political-manipulation-whitstleblower-memo <comment><USER2> None of this would be important if social media gave us what they originally sold us: See updates from your friends, family, and people you want to see updates from, in chronological order, rather than based upon weird engagement algorithms and privacy-destroying ad networks.

<comment><USER3> What I've long wondered is- would it really be that hard/expensive to build an open source social media alternative that does exactly that? Updates & photos from friends & family, in chronological order, and little else. Social media has been around for a while now, I have to imagine that most of the hard problems around a customized feed and so on have been solved. Probably some idealistic ex-FB and IG engineers would join on, so we'd have their domain expertise. I bet some prominent, wealthy anti-FB types could kick in some seed money to get it off the ground. It could be set up as a non-profit, B corp or foundation of some sort.... You could run non-targeted display ads for brand advertising to help cover costs, with the added lure for advertisers that the site would be brand-friendly because it's non-controversial.

Of course it wouldn't have sophisticated features like photo tagging and such, and probably wouldn't be Hip And Cool for Gen Z, but it could be a functional bare-bones Facebook replacement. You'd have probably have to disable virality features, and maybe linking to external news sites just to prevent your racist uncle from posting Breitbart links, I don't know.

Would that really be so hard? Or do the servers, hosting, security and moderation costs just scale exponentially after some threshold of say 10 million users or what have you? Supposedly Instagram was running with a very small team when Facebook acquired them

<comment><USER4> I think you misunderstand.

People _want_ to be mad. They like it.

<comment><USER5> It's a serious problem.

I have two Twitter profiles. One follows only makers, tinkerers, artists and educators. I mark "do not want to see more posts like these" if anyone posts something political.

I have another one that follows people with strong political views and the latest outrage.

Guess which one makes me feel better when I view it?

Guess which one I find myself viewing more often?

<comment><USER4> 100%. I do the same thing. On my "safe" account I have 80+ muted phrases (mostly political). On my corporate account I don't really have that luxury.

Same feeling.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I am surprised this segment (admittedly picked from Ars's secondary writeup) hasn't made a splash:

 _" It's why I've seen priorities of escalations shoot up when others start threatening to go to the press, and why I was informed by a leader in my organization that my civic work was not impactful under the rationale that if the problems were meaningful they would have attracted attention, became a press fire, and convinced the company to devote more attention to the space," Zhang wrote._

That is a damage control role. Perhaps more tellingly, it highlights the entire organisation's priorities: if it isn't drawing press attention, ignore it. Of course that's not the phrase FB would use in a press release. They'd deploy a convenient euphemism, such as "dedicate the resources elsewhere".

<comment><USER7> I do think that's a poor way to handle the situation. Playing Devil's Advocate here, but is there a better way for that organization, in their fragile political position and immense power in the world, to handle situations like that? The sheer amount of bandwidth to moderate and manage every piece of data responsibly is so vast, there has to be a way of ranking content and trends and to allocate resources to them.

It's not morally sound to have an organization optimize for public image, but they are THE public image platform. Optimizing for social good would be so much better but that's really hard to track and quantify and it can be so divisive on some topics. Esp. now that trends marked "social good" are so quickly developed and redeveloped as other things.

<comment><USER6> Simple: devote more resources. People, money, teams, _management support_.

Even if the rational reason for being slapdash is lack of resources and lack of focus, that means the company is not investing enough on addressing the underlying problems. Things happen, and sometimes you need to jump to put out a fire - but if putting out fires is a routine mode of work, it's a symptom of a much wider problem.

I am under no illusion that trying to protect against disinformation and propaganda would be easy. As you said, the volume is so vast that it's going to require a lot of effort and immense focus. Constant firefighting shifts the efforts, and deprives focus.

Whether that's intentional or an emerging property, the end result is the same.

<comment><USER8> Suppose you have enough resources to try to do it "right". How do you moderate in a way that's globally fair? There is disinformation (which should be moderated), but there are also legitimate disagreements (which should not). Even facts themselves are often open to interpretation, and people don't argue in objective terms.

The degree of nuance leads me to believe it's just impossible to do at commercial/global scale (though I would agree it could be done better than it currently is).

<comment><USER9> That isn't what's being discussed here. This is the case of artificial amplification of opinion.

One person : one opinion seems a fair goal.

Posting all day about something as yourself is very different than running a network of accounts.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> The pattern of hiring young, passionate, ambitious workers, then telling them their job is of critical importance to the company (and, in this case, society at large) while simultaneously underfunding their team and providing them with completely inadequate leadership is REALLY common in Silicon Valley companies. These same companies will actively stigmatize saying "it's not my job," and so you have very green employees who end up doing work that's wildly outside their zones of competence and comfort, internalizing all the stress that builds up along with being put in that position and not even understanding that speaking up is an option.

Many of these people lack the experience required to see the forest for the trees and they draw similar conclusions to the ones in this memo. "There's no bad intent, we're just overworked and underresourced" (paraphrased) is something I've heard time and time again from people working on supposedly important problems at companies making money hand over fist.

<comment><USER7> Companies do this a lot with college grads, they sell them on a vision that they will have high impact and an important role in order to get them into their hiring funnel. It's not necessarily an operational failure more than it is a sleazy marketing tactic to prey on the lack of information by young ambitious people. Though it also results in an operational failure and a terrible waste of young talent.

<comment><USER10> It goes beyond the hiring funnel. These narratives are pushed and often believed internally. The people who actually do the work, who understand that things are not how they should be but don't understand why, who are passionate and ambitious enough to assume personal responsibility for the outcomes of their efforts nonetheless (as if a junior-to-mid-level data scientist receiving radio silence from their management chain can reasonably be expected to protect democracy in places like Ukraine and Azerbaijan), often don't understand that they've simply been put in a fundamentally dysfunctional situation - and it's rare that anyone will actually sit them down and explain that to them.

<comment><USER7> I really like what you said here and yeah, it's tough b/c I don't think anyone would explain this to them

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This is pretty frustrating, clearly she said that she wanted her privacy respected, they even acknowledge that in the article, why did they publish her full name and a short description of her linkedin just to make it even easier to find her? What motivation did they have to do this?

But they hid the name of the software engineer that spoke on her credibility? Something seems a little off, either on the source's side or on the distributor's side.

<comment><USER11> Maybe the same reason why a journalist tried to dox Slate Star Codex. Which is to say, who knows but it probably isn't good.

<comment><USER7> It's really uncomfortable reading the part where they say that they aren't publishing personal information from the memo as if they're doing something to protect her privacy when they've given the internet way too much information on this person already. Things like the state of her mental health, some signal into her economic status, etc. Things that even non-devs on the internet could pick up on, it's so tone-deaf.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> > Still, she did not believe that the failures she observed during her two and > a half years at the company were the result of bad intent by Facebook's > employees or leadership. It was a lack of resources, Zhang wrote, and the > company's tendency to focus on global activity that posed public relations > risks, as opposed to electoral or civic harm.

> "Facebook projects an image of strength and competence to the outside world > that can lend itself to such theories, but the reality is that many of our > actions are slapdash and haphazard accidents," she wrote.

> "We simply didn't care enough to stop them"

This is the key takeaway, IMO. Not as an excuse for Facebook, but as an indictment of "slapdash" information technology in general, particularly social media. It's becoming more and more clear that "bringing the world closer together" is a pandora's box, one that Facebook is not equipped (motivated?) to deal with the consequences of. Maybe no company ever could be. Maybe this is simply a thing that shouldn't exist.

<comment><USER13> "A lack of resources" is not a thing a 500+ billion dollar company gets to lean on, and Sophia does acknowledge that.

This is the old "don't tell me what you care about, show me your balance sheet and I'll tell you what you care about".

<comment><USER12> Right, which was the reason for the "(motivated?)". It is a genuinely hard problem, and I wouldn't be surprised if it's intractable even for a motivated organization, but at the very least there's no profit-incentive to put real effort into solving it. So for one reason or another, I don't think any company can be relied upon to keep a handle on this problem.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> ""I have personally made decisions that affected national presidents without oversight, and taken action to enforce against so many prominent politicians globally that I've lost count," she wrote."

The scale of how the platform's being used for political manipulation in every country is enormous, and it's clear that if a junior data scientist is having to independently make these decisions, that there's little interest in proactively dealing with this.

<comment><USER15> With real estate and rent so expensive a protest by a junior employee pretty much ends in moving back with their parents or homelessness.

<comment><USER16> Nah. Even were I a junior employee, I could go work at any company offering a six figure salary and continue to live comfortably without roommates in SF. Rent is exorbitant but you still end up with half your post-tax software engineer salary as disposable income.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> What is the public interest in publishing her name after she has expressed concerns about her safety? Shame on Buzzfeed.

"In her post, Zhang said she did not want it to go public for fear of disrupting Facebook's efforts to prevent problems around the upcoming 2020 US presidential election, and due to concerns about her own safety. BuzzFeed News is publishing parts of her memo that are clearly in the public interest."

<comment><USER17> It's journalism 101. You provide the identity of your source to help the reader evaluate his credibility.

Anonymous sources are supposed to be used only in extreme circumstances. But these days that gets abused all the time.

The New York Times has published its rules for making a source anonymous, and they're pretty good, IMO.

<comment><USER16> They didn't provide the identity of their source. They instead doxxed a third party who wished to remain private for her safety.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I get frustrated over these pairs.

What are Facebook supposed to do? They could spend billions moderating every comment and like, but they'd piss off every politicians world wide and the users would all cry censorship (and that's if they get it perfectly correct). They could pick a side, but the same would apply with slightly fewer pissed off people. They could do nothing and save billions and piss off less people.

And in the background, a small number of people continue to manipulate everything you see in legacy media, and no one really cares because we're used to it. Seriously. What the fuck?

<comment><USER19> You're right, moderation at Facebook's scale isn't feasible. It's the scale itself that's the problem. They've focused so much on "making the world more open and connected " that they never stopped to think how that could be weaponized.

<comment><USER20> If you focus on how everything could be weaponized you are a short sighted paranoid a skip and a hop away from fascism. Even tyrants aren't stupid enough to ban all hammers.

How about stopping the idiotic tool blaming and blaming the bad actors?

<comment><USER19> Where did I say they should focus on how it could be weaponized? I'm saying they never seemed to have even considered it. And that's a charitable take; they could very well have considered it and decided it wasn't worth their worry.

It's all in balance. Bad actors are responsible. But systems designers have a responsibility too. If you optimize a system for something (e.g., engagement), that's a reflection of your values. We're seeing the ugly consequences of Facebook's values.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I can see it in my least tech savvy, least educated friends. As Facebook users they seem to be radicalising the longer I leave them to the devices.

But what's the alternative?

If people want family & friends social media, where to go?

Aren't the open/alternative platforms just as open to abusive, if not more so, as no-one like the whistleblower is even hired when it comes to open platforms?

<comment><USER22> The alternative is introducing some regulation around patterns of usage.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> What's scary is that with all the resources that FB has, it still has to prioritize enforcement, which means that platforms like reddit or even HN have no chance of catching this.

</comment><comment><USER24> Missing from article is any causality between Facebook bot farms and any real world effects, election outcomes or deaths. It just says, oh there were a million fake likes on a post in this country... months later some political unrest. Like this has never happened before Facebook?

<comment><USER25> Bots and fake accounts are another form of advertising. Governments and political parties manipulated, influenced or controlled legacy media. Online and offline politicians are disseminating misleading political ads. Partsian news networks attack their opponents all day long while claiming to be objective.

On the surface the outrage seems misplaced. This seems like business as usual.

Perhaps the outrage isn't misplaced if the goal is regulatory capture and entrenchment of the social media space. Imagine a world where "fact-checking" and identity verification is mandated by regulators as a prerequisite to posting online. This wave of censorship will be buoyed by a tide of righteous indignation.

[https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/governments-are- go...](https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/governments-are-going-to- mandate-fact-checking-on-facebook-aap-boss-20191117-p53bat.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Something I have always failed to understand is why there are people who still work for this company. She states "I know that I have blood on my hands by now"; doesn't everyone who works there? At this point, it is well known by everyone that this is a product flawed to the core. It is maintained by a company that insists is not a media company to evade all social responsibility, and insists that its AI will solve the unsolvable problem of moderation at scale. Ethical alternatives of federated social networks already exist. Why do people still work there? Do they not care?

<comment><USER27> A lot of people don't care about ethics and mortality in their work as long as they get paid and get to go home to a house/apartment at the end of the day.

<comment><USER26> I think you meant "morality" instead of "mortality", but I'll go with mortality anyway.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> _"One of the big tools of authoritarian regimes is to humiliate the opposition in the mind of the public so that they 're not viewed as a credible or legitimate alternative," she told BuzzFeed News. "There's a chilling effect. Why would I post something if I know that I'm going to deal with thousands or hundreds of these comments, that I'm going to be targeted?"_

That's not just a tool for authoritarian regimes, that's pretty much the most used tool in any form of political conflict, in any country.

</comment><comment><USER29> It's weird watching Neal Stephenson novels come to life: miasma, apm, corporate-states, virtual worlds, mind viruses.

</comment><comment><USER30> This sounds really bad. In searching the web for this title it seems like small news services are running this. To be fair to Facebook, I am willing to wait a day and see what they and other organizations/news/people say about this disclosure.

<comment><USER31> Looks like the NYT ran a short summary [https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/14/technology/facebook- manip...](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/14/technology/facebook-manipulation- whistleblower-sophie-zhang.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> So what happened to Facebook's "real names" policy? If they got serious about that, fake accounts would be less of a problem.

<comment><USER33> It's still a policy and they try hard to enforce it, but despite taking down literally billions of fake accounts each year, it is hard to stop 100% of it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> Is it just me, or does it seem like, with both social media and "tech" in general, that the 'regulation axe' is grinding - and that it is only a matter of time that these algorithms core to these companies' business models 'suffer' from likely blunt, harsh regulatory instruments that will broadly stop this kind of influence and manipulation.

By doing so, it will also significantly harm these business models (and valuations) as we know it today.

<comment><USER35> Indeed! Social media amplified vaxxers, climate change deniers and all the possible fringe lunatics you can find.

The social media should be much limited by the physical aspect, for example, if you never met the person in a real-life event, you can't connect with it via social media.

Throw out the news feeds. Throw out the ads alltogether (because political propagandists will always find a way if you want to make the distinction).

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> The article claims that these kind of manipulation caused them to be reported by international news but this is the first time I ever hear about any of the examples listed by the article, which leads me to believe that these kind of manipulations doesn't really have that much power.

</comment><comment><USER37> Love the use of the term "inauthentic". They cannot say "fake" anymore.

<comment><USER38> It's also a clever little bit of legal CYA. Coordinated inauthentic behavior' = fake accounts amplifying things. Actual extremists posting on main and organizing on FB? A-OK as long as they exercise a bare minimum of discretion and avoid discussing specific illegal activities.

<comment><USER33> I'm not sure I follow your logic. "fake" seems like a completely wrong word to use to describe actual extremists (but I completely agree they should do more to police extremist content).

Coordinated inauthentic behavior describes exactly what it says on the tin. They try to limit coordinated inauthentic behavior even if the content is true and even if the users are "real" people (e.g. workers who are paid to click/promote/create content).

<comment><USER38> I'm saying FB heavily emphasizes its efforts against coordinated inauthentic behavior as if that were the only significant problem on its platform.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> The only way anything will happen to Facebook is if these three things actually happen in sequence and within a short period of time of the first event occurring.

1) Facebook wittingly or unwittingly ignores political manipulation on its platform within the United States of America that demonstrably affects US political outcomes.

2) All necessary parts of the US government required to hold a corporation like Facebook accountable for 1) act in concert to do so.

3) The US mainstream media extensively reports on 1) and 2).

</comment><comment><USER40> >Zhang said she turned down a $64,000 severance package from the company to avoid signing a nondisparagement agreement.

You really have to ask yourself what kind of place it is you're working for and what you're building, if a totally regular employee basically is paid hush-money to not speak about their job.

This isn't a private business any more, it's the mafia. People talk a lot about the culture of free speech and the rights of end-users, but we live in a world where a private company that builds a social media website, this isn't the NSA or anything, can stop an employee from _speaking the truth_.

It's time policy makers throw all of this out of the window, together with the anti-competitive non-competes that at this point affect IIRC, almost a fifth of the American workforce.

<comment><USER41> I know someone who got extra severance conditional on non-disparagement when leaving a pretty modest Canadian tech company.

Is this a more rare event than I thought?

<comment><USER42> It's pretty rare. Never have I ever met anyone who had or would sign such an agreement. Given my income bracket, I should have by now if it was merely uncommon. Then again, maybe not admitting to the agreement is part of the agreement. Insidious.

<comment><USER43> Worked in three companies and in all of them every single fired (as was the case here) individual was offered severance. Usually it's 2 months + 2 weeks per year of work but higher severances are routinely offered if company feels person can be a problem. 64k (4-5 months of pay) is essentially go away money - not FB trying to really hush somebody. Even baseless rejected EEOC complain will cost more to resolve.

<comment><USER42> I was not talking about "severance" per se, but about a non-disparaging agreements. I would agree that severance is typical.

That being said, California, Oregon, Washington State, Georgia, getting 4-5 month's pay as severance? That doesn't even make sense from a business perspective, imo.

If you're small enough you are face to facing investors, everyone has experience with volatile employees. If you're larger, you don't care about a single player anyway. That's just my experience.

<comment><USER43> Most (if not all) severance agreements in case of firing include non- disparagement. Severance is just cost of business - HR sees volatile employee and automatically offer severance with not-sue, not-disparage agreement. Employment lawyers are $600/hour and a huge distraction.

[http://www.shpclaw.com/Schwartz-Resources/severance-and- rele...](http://www.shpclaw.com/Schwartz-Resources/severance-and-release- agreements-six-6-common-traps-and-a-rhetorical-question?p=11399)

<comment><USER42> > Most (if not all) severance agreements in case of firing include non- > disparagement.

I've never seen it. Employment lawyers are very happy to take cases against companies, who have money. Just like non-competes, they have been dropped from contracts over the last few decades (severability applies anyway) on the west coast.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> Cognizant employees (contracted Facebook Moderators) are on camera admitting that they censor specific people based on their political leanings.

Facebook sent them specific memos about which violent images towards which politicians were not to be removed.

That particular set of facts escapes most coverage of this topic for obvious reasons.

These conversations about this topic will never be seen as sincere since they themselves are biased.

</comment><comment><USER45> Facebook is trying to get attention worldwide by playing this master political role amongst other things, which is just a decoy because everyday it's losing real world relevance - less people use it, less and less.

<comment><USER46> Maybe in the US but in many of the countries listed, Facebook and its associated properties are synonymous with the internet.

<comment><USER45> I don't believe this to be true. It would only be true if you consider 'internet' can change meaning VERY FAST and almost inevitably. Because that's what happens, everywhere in the world: people get really excited about new tech and possibilities and explore everything about it, very fast. Facebook is trying to build itself in social/cultural fabric as some sort of institution of democracy or something like that, when in fact it's only a fad. This can change in almost a glimpse of an eye. Anyone who has taken the time to study platform strategy will know this.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> Do any of the major platforms really have a handle on how to deal with these challenges? I'm not excusing the lack of oversight. But most companies that grow this quickly are a complete cluster inside. Imagine having to battle well funded state actors on top of trying to build a business.

Again, not saying Facebook shouldn't be held accountable. But it's always easy from the outside looking in.

<comment><USER26> I think your cause-effect is backwards. Moderation at scale does not work, and a social network does not have to be the all-out-for-clicks disinformation machine that Facebook is. The company _chooses_ to make it that way because it is optimal for their bottom line; rage makes clicks, clicks make money. They already built the business, and they choose again and again not to change it. So, to your statement, it is not that the company accidentally grew to what it is today and now it is swamped with unsolvable problems; rather, the company solved a different problem and has no intention to solve the others (nor they can with this business model).

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> Sounds like they need to increase severance packages

</comment><comment><USER49> This is so melodramatic, and a bit pretentious to think your Facebook job has such an effect on the world.

<comment><USER50> rohingya?

<comment><USER51> This memo is from a member of the "fake engagement team", tasked with fighting fake accounts used for disinformation operations. The Rohingya issue was primarily a moderation issue; community and military leaders were issuing authentic calls for violence under their true name.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> ~~Can we get the actual report Zhang published, rather than a BuzzFeed link? I mean is Buzz Feed really considered news?~~

EDIT:

I retract my comment, I was unaware of the distinct nature of Buzzfeed news from Buzzfeed proper,

<comment><USER53> They mention this in the writeup: it's not going to be made public (yet).

Also BuzzFeed _News_ does real journalism, despite the BuzzFeed origin of their group.

<comment><USER21> I'll concur buzzfeed news do excellent journalism and should be considered distinct.

[https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/buzzfeednews/about- buzz...](https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/buzzfeednews/about-buzzfeed- news)

From their Award page:

BuzzFeed News is a two-time finalist for the Pulitzer Prize: for a stunning probe that proved operatives with apparent ties to Vladimir Putin have engaged in a targeted killing campaign against his perceived enemies on British and American soil, and an exposé of a dispute-settlement process used by multinational corporations to undermine domestic regulations and gut environmental laws at the expense of poorer nations.

Our reporting has also won a George Polk Award, National Magazine Award, Livingston Award, Society of Editors Press Award, National Association of Black Journalists Award, National Association of Hispanic Journalists Award, Mirror Award, GLAAD Media Award, London Press Club Award....</comment></comment></comment>


How to quit your job and build a startup - <AUTHOR> http://shelfmade.wordpress.com/2008/01/22/how-to-quit-your-job-to-build-a-startup/

<comment><USER2> Also? Arguing for a raise, and then quitting 3 months later after mentally checking out of your job for 3 months? Bit of a dick move.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, it is a dick move. I wrote this post in response to a YCr asking about quitting their job to work on a startup in the face of this possible recession.

Not to be a jaded asshole, but there are many companies that don't really care about their employees and cutback etc to increase profits. Sure 2 wrongs don't make a right, but this raise will fund your company which can care about employees. Also, asking for a raise is empowering and a boost to your self confidence. In my example this comes at a time when you are overworked and a bit uncertain about your future.

<comment><USER2> It's funny that everyone thinks of "the evil company" when they make decisions like this, but never talk about what they're doing to their coworkers.

<comment><AUTHOR> I don't understand. Surely you aren't arguing that you shouldn't ever quit a job because of the way that it will effect your coworkers, are you?

<comment><USER2> You're correct. Surely I'm not arguing that. That would be a stupid argument. What I am arguing is that deliberately stiffing your employer for a raise while spending all your real cycles building your own company can fuck over your teammates.

Look, you just said you agreed it was a dick move. Great! Do you agree with what you yourself said, or not?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes of course. I would guess that you check out YC News or Reddit throughout the workday. Most people take care of personal business or watch funny videos on company time. Nobody works 8 hours straight.

We are describing 2 different employment situations. You are picturing a team environment where everyone has to carry the load to reach a common goal that you feel is meaningful, I'm not. The job I'm thinking of is more like Fight Club or Office Space.

People that have truly team oriented employment where coworkers are working towards a worthwhile goal are less likely to be jumping ship for a startup.

It can be a dick move to the company, but I've seen companies treat people a lot worse.

<comment><USER2> I'm not trying to prolong this, or be petulant or pedantic, but you don't have to be working for Greenpeace to have dependencies and shared goals. Your project slips 6 months because you were dead wood during dev and QA while you learned Rails, and you just fucked over everyone else whose bonus and raise depended on the project.

We don't have to argue about this because I think we agree.

The more important point is, if you need to come up with an elaborate plan to figure out to engage your new company, you haven't figured out what your new company is. There's a YC meme going around here, along the lines of "is now a good time to start my company?" or "what's the best way to smoothly transition into my new startup?". None of that means shit. 2 months into your startup you are going to face some problem that is going to be an existential threat to your project, and it's all going to go badly, and you're going to have to figure out how to work through it anyways, and all this talk about how to "start the startup" and "milk your last job" is going to sound pretty silly.

<comment><AUTHOR> Cheers, we agree. I'm not a programmer so I don't have that perspective (probably added to the confusion). As I said on your previous comment, I wrote the post in response to someone asking about quitting their job.

I definitely agree that people asking for random advice on YC about tiptoeing in may be in trouble when problems occur, and they will occur early in the startup.

I'm having the 2 month problems now. If I would have quit my job when I was overly excited earlier in the journey I would be facing some seriously hard times.

Goodluck :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER2> I read this article for literally all of 5 seconds before getting pissed off. The answer to this "question" is simple, but you can get 1500 word blog posts voted up for it because nobody wants to hear the answer, which is (1) build a viable startup, and then (2) quit your job. Or! If you're daring and an extremely excellent salesperson, you can try (1) quitting your job and then (2) starting a company.

If you need to think past either of these two strategies before "deciding" whether to start a company, you're not going to start a company.

</comment><comment><USER3> Start-ups are a cut-throat business where very few succeed. The less serious you are about it, the greater the chance that you will fail. And to be frank, working on your startup in weekends probably won't get you ahead of the pack.

If you want to do a successful startup I think that you it needs all your attention.

</comment><comment><USER4> Does this guy have any credibility? He sure doesn't speak as if his rant is mere conjecture, yet doesn't have any supporting data or even anecdotes. As far as I can tell from the about page, he's a guy with a flaming turd of a startup telling other people how to be successful.

This article seems to be mainly about how to not succeed.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hey Matt, Good to meet you as well.

Some perspective: I'm not a coder, yet I am starting a web business. I previously founded and grew a non-tech startup to 2 million in revenue in our first 18 months. I fucked it up and made a horrible exit with very little cash.

Currently, I'm on step 5 of the blog post, with a new raise working both a full-time job and a startup company.

I do worry about market risk, so I'm researching several customers for the technology besides the obvious B2C. My biggest concern is a roadblock with google also focusing on the concept for ShelfMade. <http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/11/19/google-magazine/>

Not to start a fight, but I will be kicking your ass in fantasy football next year. And if ShelfMade has revenue or funding, we'll be doing it on Yahoo fantasy sports, agreed?

<comment><USER4> Ha, sorry to hear about the bad exit. And if we qualify the revenue with some dollar figure then I'll even agree to the yahoo thing.</comment></comment></comment>


JQuery site hacked - <AUTHOR> http://api.jquery.com/

<comment><USER2> Probably not a good idea to link to a hacked site, and not a good idea to click through to one either.

</comment><comment><USER3> Previous discussion: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8359223](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8359223)

</comment><comment><USER4> I went to jQuery.com and the website is normal, and this is the second time this comes up. Does anybody know what's going on?

</comment><comment><USER5> What was the hack? Seems they fixed it / took it down already, whatever it was</comment>


Cigarette Lighter Device Said To Improve Car's Fuel Effeciency By 18% - <AUTHOR> http://www.gadgetreview.com/2010/02/cigarette-lighter-device-said-to-improve-cars-fuel-effeciency-by-18.html#more-48055

<comment><USER2> Money quote: _The device mitigates electrical interference from the stereo, lights, air conditioning, and more that can negatively affect the ECU's ability to optimize fuel injection and fuel efficiency._

Silliness. My lighter is on a different circuit from the ECU. And doesn't the ECU have maybe a couple of capacitors in front of it to clean up noisy power?</comment>


Ask HN: Gmail extension for unified text formatting in sent emails? - <AUTHOR> Sometimes, if you paste something in an email, it looks like it's formatted correctly to you, but your recipient sees it as two different fonts. This can look pretty unprofessional.<p>Is there any tool to help avoid this? <comment><USER2> Paste into Gmail with Ctrl-Shift-V. It will remove formatting and paste as plain text.

</comment><comment><USER3> Command backslash on MacOS strips formatting. For more complicated situations, the easiest fix is just to copy it into Sublime first.</comment>


Frozen Android phones give up data secrets - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-21697704 <comment><USER2> This really has nothing to do with Android, or even phones. It's a well-known exploit that works against most devices.

<comment><USER3> And the defense is well-known too right?

<comment><USER2> Yes, don't get your device in the hands of attackers.

<comment><USER4> And keep your bootloader locked. It's nice that you _can_ do this on many devices but you probably _shouldn't_ if you care enough to encrypt your data.

They used fastboot mode to boot a custom recovery image to perform the cold boot attack. I imagine it would have to be much more difficult if you couldn't boot unsigned code.

At least on Nexus devices unlocking the bootloader results in a data wipe, in an attempt to mitigate some of this risk. Otherwise someone can just take your phone from you, unlock the bootloader, and do who knows what to it.

Similarly, don't leave USB debugging mode on when you're not using the device; with that on you can extract tons of data whether the phone is encrypted or not (since the user data volume is decrypted when it's mounted at boot time). USB debugging is how many of the Cellebrite and other forensic extractors work: [http://www.cellebrite.com/forensic-solutions/android- forensi...](http://www.cellebrite.com/forensic-solutions/android- forensics.html)

They've done some work to address this in Android 4.2.2, where now there's a key exchange taking place as part of the debug mode handshake and you're prompted on the device to accept the signature. If the device is locked then the attacker wouldn't be able to answer the prompt.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Newspapers: 30% print revenue decline; 16% online revenue drop - <AUTHOR> http://www.niemanlab.org/2009/08/can-newspaper-publishers-survive-this-revenue-freefall-perhaps-if-they-embrace-a-digital-future/

<comment><AUTHOR> This article contains some interesting analysis of second quarter Newspaper industry financials. Among them: \- Adjusted for inflation, the newspaper industry is now half of what it was in 1986. \- Newspaper share of the ad market is less than 15%, compared to >25% in 1989, despite a steady ad market. \- When analyzed against personal consumption expenditure, newspapers appear to be in a free fall unrelated to the economic downturn.

</comment><comment><USER2> I don't agree with the common diagnosis of what ails the newspaper industry. If newspapers focused primarily on their online products, people would probably enjoy them more.

What would that cause? Existing online readers would generate more page views. Many print readers would switch to the digital version. Attracting _new_ readers is unlikely. Local publications have about as much market share as they could ever hope to have[1]. The rest of the market probably just doesn't want their news via text, or doesn't care about news at all.

If most of the effects from improving online content are from moving readers from print to online and increasing page views from existing users, _you've just lost money_. Print ads are more profitable than online ads, so losing a print reader to the online version is a loss. More page views from existing readers isn't much of a gain. Newspapers rarely sell out their online ad inventory. From my understanding, that gives us two scenarios for advertisers:

1) The advertiser has bought as many ads as they can afford.

2) The advertiser has bought ads for their entire desired audience, and would buy more if it were available.

Advertisers in group 1 can't afford more ads at all, so there's no hope there. In group 2, increasing page views of existing readers accomplishes little to nothing. The advertisers already advertise to those readers, and are unlikely to want to show more ads to them.

That leaves us with few significant avenues for increasing revenue. You can try to kill Craigslist, or increase ad yield by targeting and delivering ads more effectively, both of which seem rather difficult.

Improving the online news experience would be cool, but it's not profitable enough to save the industry as so many claim.

[1] For example, [http://www.statesman.com/search/content/advertising/media_ki...](http://www.statesman.com/search/content/advertising/media_kit/audience.html)

<comment><AUTHOR> This is exactly the problem. After 5 years in newspapers and being very tech- oriented, I cannot see a way that any major newspaper company (McClatchy, Gannett, et. al.) will be able to transition print revenues to online profitability. The print model is the heart and soul of every newspaper out there, and profiting in online news (or at all, for that matter) is not as straightforward as simply turning off the presses or 'improving' web content.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> The nail in the coffin occurred the moment it became illegal for newspaper companies to telemarket. The US government granted no exception to newspapers when passing the 'National Do Not Call Registry' and thus signed newspapers death warrant. It is worth nothing that Canada DID grant exception to their newspapers when passing similar legislation. More here [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- dyn/content/article/2005/05...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- dyn/content/article/2005/05/02/AR2005050201457.html)

<comment><AUTHOR> That's a piece of the puzzle, but I don't think it was the final one. A confluence of circumstances seems to be the cause, a proverbial death-by-a- thousand-cuts, so to speak. I would cite the conglomeration over the last few decades of most newspapers into large, profit hungry corporations that became used to solid profits with little investment in development required. An industry steeped in decades of pride and tradition (What other industry still measures things in picas?) has further dampened innovation. There are many other things I could point to, but I think the do-not-call registry is nothing if not another industry scapegoat.

<comment><USER3> I don't completely disagree with you here. But I think a distinction needs to be made between national papers and local papers. I find it completely plausible that small city papers, such as the AnnArbor and RockyMountain Newspapers, could have continued operating profitably if it were legal to telemarket. If the stats are correct, newspapers were suggesting that 60% of their print subscription sales were generated using telelmarketing. Let's be real here, there is an entire (older) generation of people who don't yet feel comfortable reading news online. Since these old newspapers did not adjust well to the operating on the internet in the first place, it can be assumed that their core market for print must have still existed only their sales channels were murdered. What do you think?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes and no. The core market was indeed still there, and there is in fact still a very significant core market for print products. I don't think the sales channel was 'murdered,' and frankly, telemarketing (and 'house ads,' for that matter) are not the only sales channels. Radio, television and outdoor advertising are all channels that newspapers, in my experience, are reticent to utilize, preferring their own in-house methods instead.

Also, the one major flaw in this argument is that the article states: "As a result of the registry, newspapers have cut that figure down to 50 or 55 percent..." from 60-65% Significant? Sure. Dead? If newspaper executives let a 10-15% drop in ONE method of obtaining subscribers kill their business, they probably shouldn't be a newspaper executive.

<comment><USER3> I think you won me over. I'm not a journalist, but I do work as a web analyst for a conglomerate of local newspapers. Not having access to real financials, I've always convinced myself that there had to be a definitive reason behind the decline of print newspapers, apart from the growth of the internet. But the collapse does seem to be a complex cause. If I may ask, what are your expectations for the newspaper industry in the next 5 years?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yea. If there is one definitive cause, I would vote for the internet, or even more broadly, the information revolution. The newspaper model was profitable because of scarcity. Before, say, 1995, the primary information channel was the newspaper. Need to sell used car? Newspaper classifieds. Need to sell a widget to everyone in town? Newspaper display ad. Need to buy a car? newspaper. Need to find out when a city council meeting is? newspaper.

Problem is, information isn't scarce anymore. We can do all that and much much more online. Businesses can publish their own information and sell their widgets around the world online, consumers can buy and sell on craigslist, advertisers can advertise cheaply and effectively on AdWords and many other sites... add it all together and the monopoly newspapers held on a relevant and unique information pipeline is gone. They're simply hanging on by the thread of the luddites who haven't jumped to the information era. Yet.

As for the next five years I think major newspaper companies will be sold off and split up. Watch for more individual newspapers for sale. Smaller papers might make the transition, particularly smaller independent papers. They've likely maintained local ties, have a good reputation in the community and are able to react to change quickly. The deciding factor for them will be whether or not they react and how. Unfortunately, many of the luddites I mentioned earlier seem to be running these organziations.

Otherwise, I think in a year, maybe two, there will be a LOT of heavy competition from very serious local-news web sites. They'll be lean, quick, aggressive and employ some of the reporters currently getting laid off in droves right now. The smart ones will use technology as a tool and competitive edge instead of tripping over it and outsourcing their development. Industry- wide, it'll look more like the 1920s publishing landscape than the 1980s.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Recent stats from a reporter friend at a city business publication with a strong web presence: 50% of overhead is in printing, while >50% revenues are from print ads. hits to the site are increasing, while circulation is decreasing. They'll have to, at some point soon, to take out printing altogether.

This is the story of every print publication in the united states.</comment>


Tchap: The super (not) secure app of the French government - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@fs0c131y/tchap-the-super-not-secure-app-of-the-french-government-84b31517d144 <comment><USER2> This news seems to have escaped HN attention. Too bad, I would have liked comments for some of the security experts who usually post here.</comment>


Verizon Considers Buying Netflix - <AUTHOR> http://www.foxbusiness.com/technology/2011/12/12/report-verizon-mulling-netflix-buy/

<comment><USER2> I won't hesitate to add "I hope not" because of the obvious implications of Verizon absorbing an otherwise useful service.

It seems disingenuous to portrays Netflix as though it were in legitimate trouble as a business. Netflix has certainly had mishaps and a loss of subscribers; but I don't think that's inclination to suspect that they are looking to jump ship. Selling (and tying) themselves to Verizon would just leave a vacuum for another agnostic service to replace it.

</comment><comment><USER3> Absolutely not. Data carriers should not be able to supply any content over its pipes. There is already precedent restricting vertical integration -- see the United States v. Paramount Pictures ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Paramount_Pict...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Paramount_Pictures,_Inc.)).

That would also seemingly invalidate most of the cable TV industry, but in that case, you're arguably paying for the TV feed (which just happens to be carried over cable), rather than the cable itself (which is what you pay for with Internet access). Same argument applies to the public switched telephone network. You're paying for voice service, not the infrastructure; that is why 'data' is a separate line item on your cellular bill.

<comment><USER4> Verizon already provides cable TV service.

<comment><USER3> And? As I said -- when you pay for cable TV, you're paying for the TV feed. Netflix is VOD carried over IP. The power company doesn't try to sell you energy-guzzling AC units.

<comment><USER5> Honestly, I don't see the difference between Cable (video not-so-on-demand) over the FiOS wires and Video on Demand over an IP over the FiOS wires.

<comment><USER3> Ignoring the _huge_ technical differences, it boils down to net neutrality. Other services could be throttled in favor of Verizon's, much as the carriers were screeching over VoIP apps few years ago.

<comment><USER5> How is that different from throttling all content-over-ip services in favor of their television service? I still don't see how, with regard to the grandparent's post, providing TV and on demand streaming is different.

<comment><USER3> They already throttle, to some extent. Bandwidth and speed caps, which may or may not apply to a Verizon-owned Netflix. Then things like preferential QoS come into the picture. Also see the peripheral dispute between Level3 and Comcast, due to the bandwidth imposed by Netflix.

I reckon things will get worse before they get better as more people start cutting all cords except for the Internet.

I don't need phone service, I don't need TV. But I need the Internet. I would prefer if my ISP were simply an ISP (then it could compete solely on the merits ISPs should be judged by), but I will not tolerate it if they try to interfere with my access by squeezing more dollars out of me for services I'd rather get elsewhere.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Might as well read: "Verizon Considers Destroying Netflix"

<comment><USER7> I'm nervous the only thing good enough for me to pay for on the internet will go away. I will have to spend that $7 on coffee again, I guess.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Verizon is a good partner for Netflix. No product overlap and great synergy. Verizon will get a leg up for the next generation of TV which will sell itself with home and mobile data plans while Netflix will get oodles of capital and improved digital delivery costs. The capital is what Netflix really needs if it wants to spin up premium TV shows at $100 million a pop to compete with HBO. [1]

The DVD business probably doesn't do as much for Verizon. Thankfully that's already profitable and Verizon would be getting it for free after Netflix's failed divorce tanked its valuation.

I don't think antitrust will be a real issue. The courts have been fairly permissive such as with NBC and Comcast. If anything, Verizon and Netflix is more like Comcast and Xfinity.

[1] [http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/06/netflixs- ch...](http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/06/netflixs-chief-sees- hbo-as-its-main-rival/)

<comment><USER9> > great synergy

you don't work for verizon by any chance, do you?

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> What an awful idea. Netflix had to make some bad deals that it now has to live with. They'd also have to deal with the dying DVD business that has nothing to do with Verizon's business model. They'd likely have to find a buyer for that and spin it off. Maybe that's what Netflix was trying to prepare for with quikster.

Netflix owns nothing. Any exclusivity is small and worth very little. There is no value there. If you're a streaming customer, there's nothing keeping you with them once someone comes out with a competing service at a lower price.

Netflix is a distributor that can easily be replaced by any of the big guys: iTunes, Amazon, Microsoft, etc. If Verizon wants to get into this game, they should partner with a big guy who can build the distribution network for them.

<comment><USER11> > Netflix owns nothing.

Except for customers and a well known brand.

<comment><USER10> Customers who have no loyalty.

There's nothing keeping a customer from jumping ship if Amazon creates a similar service at the same or lower price. There's no contract, no setup fee, no hardware that becomes useless with a new provider. They own nothing that's worth buying at anywhere near their current valuation.

<comment><USER12> Amazon has created a similar service for a lower price.

Amazon Prime gives you unlimited access to a large part of their video catalog. For $79 a year instead of Netflix's $7.99 * 12.

<comment><USER10> Amazon's service will eventually be similar, if not superior, but right now their limited content keeps them from truly competing with Netflix.

I believe Amazon is simply using this as an opportunity to learn the ins and outs while also ramping up their capacity to stream.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> "Citing a source close to the matter" - I wonder how much Netflix stock this source had before leaking the story. Don't hedge funds stir rumor for their own gain?

</comment><comment><USER14> Seems like this news falls squarely in the "someone's got to" area. Verizon might not be the ideal buyer, but Netflix has run into the dual problems of bandwidth and IP restrictions. They could really use a corporate parent to fight their way through.

Verizon could really help on the bandwidth side, but companies like Comcast, Apple, Microsoft, or Amazon could all help on the IP side.

</comment><comment><USER15> Aren't they already in the movie streaming business via FiOS?

<comment><USER16> I would guess that lots of FiOS customers also subscribe to Netflix (and maybe don't understand the FiOS streaming interface). So why not give in and try to capture that?

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> I hope netflix doesn't commit yet another blunder. Though verizon would benefit enormously by this deal, the end users are at risk of locking in with verizon.</comment>


OOP Is Dead, Long Live Data-Oriented Design [video] - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yy8jQgmhbAU <comment><USER2> Functional programming is always been my passion since my Lisp days. OOP itself promotes mutation thus falls ineffective for overall statement of the computation trying to be achieved.

Alright, I made the comment above to get bit attention because post about this subject before (which has fn paradigm top comment), and this video is mostly about game programming, not about patterns in general.

In game programming, mutation is inevitable because performance is vital. Whoever persuade game engine design, likely to start with OOP, then contaminate game logic with same because devs don't go extra step to have DoD like pattern for entities. You can see few popular engines holding back, notably UE4.

While it is not perfect, pretty sure companies figured out their ways out of complexity with their fiat paradigms and delivered on time. Still, components such as UI/Audio manager has been done a lot easier using OOP.

My point is, OOP is not dead; it just doesn't have to be silver bullet for every situation. In that case, dense environments such as game entities under load. Sounds better if we could just embrace combining patterns as necessary.

TL;DR; I think title of presentation is misleading, and evaluates OOP in specific use case which it falls short (game entities/systems)

<comment><USER3> Talk about the title isn't terribly productive. I think the link to FP is on the money, though.

A lot of code is easier to read and reason about as a pipeline (or DAG) of data transformations, usually as top-level functions on "raw" (and often immutable) data.

In Python it's often easiest to use a single-purpose namedtuple or some arrays and dicts rather than special classes. In JS "objects" are most commonly just hash tables used as structs to group related data together. And when I say "related", I mean "related by _use_ ", not "related by some taxonomy."

Redux/reselect is built on a similar model, too. Often the what the speaker calls "existence-based predication" is also employed by selecting "just active animations" so the consumer doesn't have to branch. Again, usually not for performance reasons, just softeng/maintainability stuff.

I still write classes with constructors and methods and private state etc, and sometimes still use inheritance and "virtual" functions, but not nearly as often as I did when I graduated from uni. That weight is just not always necessary, and it's not often the "right language" with which to express what I want to do.</comment></comment>


AOC and Ted Cruz agree on bill banning Congressmen from becoming lobbyists - <AUTHOR> https://www.newsweek.com/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-and-ted-cruz-agree-write-bill-banning-members-1440184 <comment><USER2> Wouldn't such a law (assuming it could pass in the first place) run afoul of the First Ammendment? Maybe you could ban payment for lobbying, but I would have thought that "lobbying" and "political advocacy" were essentially the same thing, and thus protected speech. I like Glenn Reynold's (Instapundit) idea: a high tax on any earnings from lobbying in the first X years after leaving government service.

<comment><USER3> > Maybe you could ban payment for lobbying,

This is really what they mean. "Lobbying" as a term generally connotes getting paid to do it. When people do it for free, it's more frequently called activism or advocacy.

I actually think a limit on pay might be better than an outright ban. Former members of Congress have skills, experience, and connections that could be beneficial for advancing a variety of social causes. It's the big payday, cashing-out part that stinks of corruption and undue influence.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Not a point about the article, but I love how Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has come to be referred to primarily by her mono-acronym.

Are there other individuals who have been primarily known by only their initials? (Excluding authors like J.K. Rowling, etc. where pen names are more common).

<comment><USER5> It used to be common to refer to politicians by their initials. JFK, LBJ, FDR for John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson and Franklin Roosevelt. It seemed to go out of style when we started knowing them by their diminutives. E.G. Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton.</comment></comment>


Facebook Now Responsible for 25% of Hooker Hookups - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/01/ff_sextrade/all/1 <comment><USER2> I agree about the editorialized headline, this has little to do with Facebook and it's limited to NY. But the data itself is interesting, if not surprising. Legalizing sex trade would help getting rid of some of the uglier side of prostitution (minors, STDs, physical abuse).

<comment><USER3> Tangentially related: [http://www.zephoria.org/thoughts/archives/2010/09/06/how- cen...](http://www.zephoria.org/thoughts/archives/2010/09/06/how-censoring- craigslist-helps-pimps-child-traffickers-and-other-abusive-scumbags.html) "How Censoring Craigslist Helps Pimps, Child Traffickers, and Other Abusive Scumbags" I'm a fan of Danah Boyd.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> "Condoms and lubricant. If the client wants to skip the condom, there's usually a 25 percent surcharge."

Wow. Isn't that risky? Or does it only apply to oral sex? (still risky, but less than condom-free intercourse, I guess...)

<comment><USER5> This is very uncommon from blue collar agencies and downwards, but actually an expected service of more upscale agencies and/or freelancer prostitutes. Really expensive escorts sleep with less men in 10 years than really cheap ones in a year or two. Also, it's a given that sexually transmitted diseases are less common in men that belong to the social class willing to spend two thousand dollars for company, therefore they're also less common in the prostitutes this men frequent.

There is one thing that you should have in mind though. An escort (whom doesn't mind the unprotected sex) can and will say no to condom less sex a lot of time if the client looks like a shady character that saved 5k for a few months to get the date, when she doesn't know the customer in one way or another, or if she detects the slightest irregularity in the guy's penis' smell or appearance. Condom less sex in upscale operations is a normal thing, but it's almost exclusively done between an inner circle of regular clients, and in some operations all the participants are required to have current blood work and std exams in which they prove they're std free.

It's really a game of quality and quantity. The inherent risk is always there, but trust me, you're more likely to get an std from a random hookup at a high scale bar than from the prostitute your governor uses.

There are also lower end prostitutes that charge more for condom less sex. This are std and aids infested petri dishes. They're not that common, but are always women down on their luck and are generally addicts.

<comment><USER6> Reminds me of this chapter in Superfreakonomics: [http://books.google.com/books?id=_Gy-McfqgYgC&lpg=PA26&#...</a>

<comment><USER5> Totally. The reasons men look to prostitution are basically divided into three possible scenarios:

1) They have a significant other and are not getting what they need from the person, but since they don't want to leave the person they look to undercover sex with little risk of getting caught.

2) They are single but incapable of achieving casual sex with someone that fulfills their standards because of their bad looks, lack of cash flow to flaunt, shyness, social stigma within the social circle they frequent, or any other of the myriad of reasons that make them less than desirable candidates for a woman willing to have casual sex.

3) Single or not, the type of men that view sex as a physiological need (in contrast to men that see sex as more than just penetration and exchange of fluids) are more prone to look for comfort between the legs of a woman that won't judge a man for not really having a desire to please her.

My opinion? For me at least, I have sex because I enjoy the look in the woman's face when she climaxes. I could care less about pearly necklaces and cleveland steamers, the only thing I care about is making sure my sexual partner is satisfied. Having sex with prostitutes, be it with a cheapo hooker in the dark alley or with a high end, four figure, 'siliconized' escort cheapens the experience. There is nothing better than waking up beside a woman (or many for that matter) the next morning and saying to yourself 'That was a hell of a freaking night...'

I don't think prostitution is a bad thing at all, but I do think that it completely devalues the act of seduction, and forgoes the main element in sexual relationships... desire.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The data reported in the interesting submitted article, based on research in one place by one field investigator, do not support the generalization to the headline of the submission here.

<comment><USER8> Yeah but he talked to 290 women! That's a lot of data...

<comment><USER9> Also the 25% number is from the article itself and represents measured empirical data from that pretty large sample set.

One could say with more precision, 25% of hooker hookups in _Manhattan_ come from Facebook and there is just cause for that, it's not a fabricated headline.

If one wants to then say it doesn't even stand for Manhattan because there was not a survey of all prostitutes, one would have to discard pretty much every national survey result and medical study under the same reasoning.

<comment><USER7> _If one wants to then say it doesn't even stand for Manhattan because there was not a survey of all prostitutes, one would have to discard pretty much every national survey result and medical study under the same reasoning._

That would be a good idea. But see Peter Norvig (director of research at Google) for what else would be desirable in most research studies:

<http://norvig.com/experiment-design.html>

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> My favorite part:

I asked one of them how pimping experience helps him in the legit economy: "You learn one thing," he said. "For a good blow job, a man will do just about anything. What can I do with that knowledge? I have no idea."

</comment><comment><USER11> And approximately 95% of college hookups.

</comment><comment><USER12> FaceHOOK?

</comment><comment><USER13> Social media timeline: Craigslist->Facebook->Twitter->???->Profit</comment>


Ask: What programming language is the most kickass? - <AUTHOR>

<comment><USER2> The one you are the most proficient in.

For the most part programming languages are the "same" in that they are a means to an end. Yes you can argue about their attributes but they are tools. If one guy can dig a hole with a pick as fast and as good as another guy can dig a hole with a shovel then to each his own.

All that the language vs. language discussion can really turn into is an argument about programming minutia between a bunch of folks coming from a thousand different unique standpoints. I honestly have never seen it lead to anything productive - pick a context or business need and maybe it'll turn into something useful.

</comment><comment><USER3> Try assembly. It'll kick your ass real bad. Or better yet, try programming in binary!

On a more serious note, what do you mean by kickass? What features are you looking for in the language? What is your target usage/application? What is the environment you are going to be working in?

There is no straight answer to what programming language is most kickass. Different languages are suitable for different purposes and kick asses of other languages given the appropriate application development goal

</comment><comment><USER4> If "kickass" means the ability to build cool programs in a short period of time, then I would suggest Ruby, specifically its metaprogramming capabilities. Very powerful and fun to write.

</comment><comment><USER5> It depends - What do you mean by "kickass" ????

A very incomplete list ...

Utmost speed, very close to the metal: C, C++, Assembler

Easiest to learn and write, quickly: Python, Ruby

Will get you a job in most large corporates: Java, C#, COBOL

Will run on all browsers and many servers: ECMAScript, aka JavaScript (TM Oracle Corp)

Might impress the technorati: Haskell, Scala, Erlang, Common Lisp, ML, F#, Scheme

Totally utterly useless and do your brain in: BrainFuck

</comment><comment><USER6> Assembly Language.

<comment><USER7> Don't stop there - why not Verilog - you could then build your own processor, with its own custom assembly instruction set. ;-)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Lisp.. what else...</comment>


Qualcomm CEO Sees Company Driving Wave of Mobile Internet Innovation - <AUTHOR> http://www.xconomy.com/san-diego/2010/03/03/qualcomm-ceo-sees-company-driving-wave-of-mobile-internet-innovation/

<comment><USER2> I once met Roberto Padovani who is the CTO of Qualcomm. He is an alumni of my university, UMass Amherst, and he had come to give a talk. We bombarded him with some really far fetched questions in information theory and signal optimization and he was able to give really good answers on the spot. Here is a video of him: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-c6W0m_nEk> and his profile: <http://www.qualcomm.com/people/roberto-padovani>

</comment><comment><USER3> How's that FLO mobile TV working out for ya, Paul?</comment>


Startup Failure by Industry - <AUTHOR> http://www.statisticbrain.com/startup-failure-by-industry <comment><USER2> > Source: Entrepreneur Weekly, Small Business Development Center, Bradley > Univ, University of Tennessee Research

Er, there aren't links to the sources. You can't just take someone else's data randomly, assert as truth, and not show its original form. (unless said original form has restrictions on redistribution)

</comment><comment><USER3> It's interesting to notice that 9 of the causes of failure are due to poor financial controlling (as in terrible or absent financial controller/manager). Which does confirm one of my thoughts about startups: they need huge margins to offset all the poor financial planning and accounting mistakes they do. It's not a bad strategy for many, but it is deadly for some. It's a pity given some solid financial controlling advice is not that expensive or hard to get, I believe.

<comment><USER4> Cashflow forecasting at the start of any business venture is almost always guesswork.

The best defence against lack of predictable income for startups is to simply keep overheads to the absolute minimum. This buys the longest runway and increases the chances of survival.

<comment><USER3> Right, but you have to spend money at some point. Once you do, you need to make assumptions on how the future will look and keep track of things. If I assume a monthly OpEx of 100, somebody has to keep track of that number, the worst that can happen is to have an increase to say 120 and nobody noticing or thinking it's worth notice...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I'm really interested in the underlying source data and sample groups. Based on the article, I'm unclear if these are actually startups or just small businesses.

<comment><USER6> From the point of view of most economic studies, there is no difference. For them a business founded for the purpose of making is a startup, be it a plumbing business or an on-demand food delivery service.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Education and Health are lumped together? These are vastly different.

</comment><comment><USER8> So businesses that require you to be extremely well capitalized to be in them (finance, real estate, mining), or are extremely well capitalized through subsidy (education, health, agriculture), are more likely to be in business after 4 years?

Got it.

</comment><comment><USER9> It talks about failure and didn't care to define what that exactly meant? Going bankrupt? Closing down the business with very less profit? What does failure in the 9th and 10th year look like?

<comment><USER10> +1

If you sell your company after 3 years or get a job that's better than consulting, the business entity is no longer operating - though that may not be a "failure" for the founders and employees.

Meanwhile there are zombies that have been draining founders and burning out employees, yet are counted as a success because the business is a going concern.

<comment><USER11> > If you sell your company after 3 years

How exactly is that a failure?

<comment><USER12> That's the commenters point. We don't know what data was sourced for "failures"

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> This information is very vague. I'd be interested to see how they grouped the startups into those categories. For example, FarmLogs is a business in the agriculture industry but the product itself is information/service. Where do you draw the line?

</comment><comment><USER14> FWIW, this statistics mirrors well my own failure as a startuper. So even if I cannot judge the dataset, it looks at least worthy of attention as a sobbering checklist. Kudo to OP.

</comment><comment><USER15> Information startups have the highest failure rate, but the capital requirements are lower than, say, mining.

</comment><comment><USER16> The "statistic" seems to make a point that taking a bet on a strategy and losing is incompetence.

<comment><USER17> The listed specific pitfalls aren't about taking a bet. They're pretty clearly elements of incompetence. I wouldn't call nonpayment of taxes or living too high for the business taking a bet on a strategy unless that strategy is to fail.</comment></comment>