Ready to leave? Why you shouldn't give two weeks' notice (2005) - <AUTHOR> http://wistechnology.com/articles/1757/

<comment><USER2> You should be _prepared_ to leave immediately when you give notice, but wow, giving no notice is up near the top of the list in terms of dick moves. The exception to this is if you're being grossly mistreated (as in harassed or demeaned or abused, not as in underpaid).

I've given less than two weeks before, but it was a contract I'd only been on for 3 weeks, so 2 weeks notice was excessive. Anything else, 2 weeks is a minimum. If you're a key person at a startup or small company, 4-8 weeks is more appropriate.

</comment><comment><USER3> "You may want to give two week's notice, but from a security standpoint, you are out the door that day. Locks are changed. Passwords and IDs are terminated so you should have no access to files or other confidential information. That is the reality of today's workplace."

This policy always mystified me. If you've decided to leave and have decided to do something malicious, you would have done it _before_ telling your employer. By the time you tell them, it's too late.

<comment><USER4> Perhaps that's the case with rational people. People who do malicious things may not be too rational in the first place.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Getting a 500... Cache is here: [http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:n5nvfo7...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:n5nvfo7nIAoJ:wistechnology.com/articles/1757/+http://wistechnology.com/articles/1757/&hl=en&gl=us&strip=1)

<comment><USER6> same here

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> It should be noted that this article is from 2005.

I also have to say that my personal experience is the opposite of what this article says. How you treat your former company and co-workers stays in their minds, and affects their future opinion of you. Most fields, in most cities, form fairly small communities and you _will_ wind up working with people again. You don't want to burn bridges like this.

That said, you should be mentally prepared for the possibility of having access yanked.

</comment><comment><USER8> Alternate title: How to burn bridges in one easy step

<comment><AUTHOR> It's a touchy subject, which is why I thought it would be interesting to submit the article and see what people had to say. I'd never really considered NOT giving notice but I thought the article brought up some good reasons to consider. (Although this does seem geared more towards leaving a job you are unhappy with.)

One aspect I hadn't thought of was liability. There is also the chance that they decide to terminate you immediately and what if you needed that last paycheck? You lose some control over your own situation by giving notice and for some people that may not be worth keeping that bridge around I suppose.

<comment><USER8> The few times that I've hired someone and they were immediately cut loose, they just called me to let me know they were available sooner than expected. That worked out well for everyone.

Liability is limited to the things you're actually responsible for. In the example in the article, the employer would have to prove in courts that the employee was responsible for the failure. Convenient timing is not grounds for a viable lawsuit.

By leaving without giving notice you aren't just burning bridges with the employer you're leaving; you're also letting everybody you work with know that you are someone who will do this sort of thing. Nobody wants to work with someone who might decide to change jobs and leave them hanging with no notice.

I know a few people who have done this; I absolutely remember them and won't hire them if I get resumes from them. Additionally, if someone calls because they knew we worked at the same place and they're thinking about hiring them, the first thing I'm going to share is the fact that the person left everyone hanging.

<comment><USER9> _if someone calls because they knew we worked at the same place and they're thinking about hiring them, the first thing I'm going to share is the fact that the person left everyone hanging._

Check with your lawyer before you do that. Really.

<comment><USER8> I'm not talking about someone calling me about a former employee (I've never had someone quit with 0 notice to me directly before); I'm talking about the case where I've worked with someone at the same company before and they left with no notice. If they want to try to sue over that, then they're welcome to go for it.

<comment><USER9> I see. Poor reading comprehension on my part.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> The guy forgot to caveat his article.

I would suggest that anyone on the cusp of resigning consult their actual employment contract before resigning without notice.

Most employment contracts have a clause related to employee notice.

<comment><USER11> Those kinds of clauses are illegal in states like California and Arizona. You or your employer can terminate your relationship at any moment without cause.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment>

<comment><USER12> Not true. At-will employment is more of a default than a binding rule. In other words, you and your employer may have a contract that sets more specific rules than what at-will employment requires. However, if you don't, then it is implied that you are employed at will.

<comment><USER13> A contract can say any thing but courts will enforce only certain things.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Sounds like a very pessimistic view geared towards drones working in cube- farms for Corporation, Inc.

<comment><USER15> Even large corporations aren't necessarily like that. When one of my contracts at Microsoft was up, they trusted me to pave my desktop and lock myself out of the building (by hiding my keycard in my lead's office).

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> In the example at the end, how does the lady leaving with no notice affect the scenario. I understand how being involved with the lawsuit and server crash could affect her next job, but why does how she quit affect it?

Overall, I think this is horrible advice. When I quit, I want to let my boss know so he can ensure my responsibilities are covered the next day. If they want to kick me out early for security reasons, that is fine, though I haven't seen that often when leaving on good terms.

And what happens when my now former boss, who is mad at me, leaves for a new company that I am interested in? I might have burned that bridge.

</comment><comment><USER17> I'd be curious to see other peoples opinion's on this article.

In my experience the moment you are an "anyone" in a company then your employment contract almost always stipulates the amount of time that you must give before leaving.

It almost always works both ways, with your employer being required to give the same amount of notice before letting you go, or severance in replacement.

I can't imagine any one other than an entry level worker not having a defined time to give before leaving.

I also think it speaks pretty poorly on someone to just announce that they are leaving as of today.

</comment><comment><USER12> I don't think it's more accurate to say you should _never_ give notice than to say you should _always_ give notice. Make your own decision based on the context of your situation and your knowledge of the pros and cons.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Here is a follow up to this article where he talks a bit more about the ethics involved: <http://wistechnology.com/articles/2786/>

</comment><comment><USER18> And people wonder what happened to things like "responsibility". This is a professor teaching this? Whatever happened to the golden rule?

<comment><USER19> In fairness, it's about as much "responsibility" as most companies show toward their employees when firing them. I don't encourage being a jerk when you can avoid it, but the generally accepted view that employees owe the business more deference and respect than the business shows them is downright feudal.

<comment><USER20> It's not true that "most" companies do the things mentioned in the articles (firing people through a note on their desk or a fax), and in most cases that kind of thing is done by weak managers who are simply afraid of telling people bad news face to face.</comment></comment></comment>


Tell HN: I will build a functioning prototype of your idea - <AUTHOR>

Hey I am doing this offer again as I have been getting good results so far.
I have been doing ruby on rails for about 1.5+ years and I am looking to expand my portfolio with some projects and I currently have some time to do freelance work.
This could be your minimum viable product(MVP). This could be what you link to in incubator applications. Just a web application that closely matches your basic vision.
I would be able to do very basic design based on mockups you give me.(Mockups, sketches and any graphics and copy text you want me to include)
I am willing to work 1-2 weeks per project so that I can build out your basic idea/prototype.
Let me know if you have any questions/ideas or just message me @ hnprototype[at]gmail.com
Price range for projects $800 - $1500 <comment><USER2> And what projects have you recenly have created..I recently got accepted to an incubatoy to develop an iOS product, i only have the idea sketched and a business plan..i about to have some intital funding from it...And right now i need a technical cofounder to develop this project, in order to beacome my future partner...if you're willing to help me don't hesistate to contact me: email@example.com...i'm willing to give some equitity for the company in exchange...

good luck trying to expand your portfolio!

</comment><comment><USER3> You mention having good results. Care to provide testimonial & examples?

</comment><comment><USER4> who are you, where are you from?</comment>


Show HN: BrowseNodes – Get unthrottled access to Amazon Product API - <AUTHOR> https://browsenodes.com <comment><AUTHOR> When I was building a price comparison site using Amazon Product Advertising API, I ran into this throttling error frequently: "You are submitting requests too quickly. Please retry your requests at a slower rate."

So, I built a shared cache, so that developers can hit the cache instead of hitting Amazon API every time. That's how I created BrowseNodes. Have you faced the same problem like me? Do you think this will solve the throttling problem for you?

Looking forward to your feedback!

</comment><comment><USER2> According to the Amazon API docs, we shouldn't be sharing the API key. Do you store our API key in the cache?

<comment><AUTHOR> No. I don't store your API key (i.e. awsSecret). I only cache the product data to serve other users: [https://browsenodes.com/how-to-solve- requestthrottled.html](https://browsenodes.com/how-to-solve- requestthrottled.html)

Hope that helps!

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> If this just caches the requests, then couldn't you still be throttled?

This just moves the throttling problem to BrowserNode

<comment><AUTHOR> Not really! Lets say, user 1 makes an API call to our server to fetch browse node: 1000 (Books). The first time such request is made, our server will make an API call to Amazon using user 1's AWS key. Once we get the response back, we will cache the result and send back the result to user 1. When user 2 makes the request for the same browse node 1000 (Books), we will not hit Amazon server again. Instead, we will get the cached data from our database and send it back to the user 2 without using his/her AWS key. This way the number of API calls made will be less than one per second for a user.

<comment><USER4> This assumes all your users are searching for the same browse node.

I'm not familiar with the Amazon API, how many browse nodes are there?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes. Browse Nodes are essentially product categories. So, users search for the same set of categories. There are ~40K browse nodes in each Amazon domain and we have cached most of them already [1]. So, the cache miss is unlikely here.

But, product cache is little complex. We have already cached the top products [2]. But, products are added every day. So, there will be some amount of cache miss there.

[1] Cached browse nodes - [https://browsenodes.com/amazon.com/explore.html](https://browsenodes.com/amazon.com/explore.html)

[2] Cached products - [https://browsenodes.com/amazon.co.uk/itemSearch/83451031.htm...](https://browsenodes.com/amazon.co.uk/itemSearch/83451031.html?parent=Apparel)

<comment><USER3> Ah I see now, so you guys have pre-fetched most of Amazon and are providing a less restricted API to the cached content.

Is that permitted in the Terms and Service of the Amazon API?

Anyway great idea, would make a lot of developers lives easier!

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks! Amazon TOS allows caching. But, not sure if there is any specific restriction on shared cache.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


The Decimation of Safari Extensions - <AUTHOR> https://lapcatsoftware.com/articles/decimation.html <comment><USER2> Even at it's peak monopoly, Microsoft wasn't as evil or delusional as Apple. It's suffocating to stay inside the "walled garden" of a deeply unethical, trillion dollar mega-corp, with zero self awareness of how much developers are starting to _hate_ these artificial roadblocks. Why is Safari oh so special that it's extensions need Apple developer ID, approval and a $99 annual fee?

I was on the iPhone, from it's release date till the iPhone X. Switched to Android since, and have never felt more liberated. Same with my workhorse PC, WSL on Windows 10 is pretty cool, if a little slow on storage. But WSL2 will fix even that. So what exactly does Apple offer, other than 2X-3X markup on inferior hardware, with unlimited roadblocks to your dev workflow?

I'm calling it - unless you develop _for_ Apple devices (iOS, Mac, ..), a Mac is simply not the best choice</comment>


Priced To Go - <AUTHOR> http://www.newyorker.com/talk/financial/2009/11/09/091109ta_talk_surowiecki

<comment><USER2> _Consumers view these guarantees as conducive to lower prices. But in fact offering a price-matching guarantee should make it less likely that competitors will slash prices, since they know that any cuts they make will immediately be matched. It's the retail version of the doomsday machine._

Fascinating read. This part in particular caught my attention. Interesting that price matching guarantees keep prices higher by dissuading competitors from slashing prices. I had never considered that. Hell, I've always been one of those naive consumers who thought price-matching generally meant lower- prices.

<comment><USER3> I think he is wrong about price matching. You can _very_ often find items at stores with price-match guarantees at prices higher than elsewhere. If you are willing to price-match and spend a relatively large amount of time, then you can get the item at... that _same_ price you would have paid somewhere else. Surprisingly enough, consumers rarely take advantage of this! Price-match guarantees are a cheap way to mislead consumers that your prices are lower, not a way of negotiating with competitors. If stores wanted to signal each other, as he claims, they would _automatically_ match prices. They don't.

<comment><USER4> Price matching serves two purposes. One is it's an effective market segmentation tool (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_segment>) as it allows people to trade effort for discounts.

The second is that it does not dissuade price _differences_ but does dissuade price _wars_. As long as prices remain stable, differences are not much of a worry. It's when they start reacting to each other that retailers stand to lose a lot of money.

<comment><USER3> > it allows people to trade effort for discounts.

It doesn't really do that. Instead of going through the hassle (and it _is_ a hassle) of price matching at store A, I can just buy the item at store B at the advertised price. The store offering price matching _knows_ I will do that. They don't care because the guarantee sounds good to the consumer too busy to comparison shop. Unlike, say, coupons, price matching guarantees are not meant to be taken advantage of.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Ten books by Amazon and Walmart, considering their size, is more a loss-leader than price war. The publicity alone, as mentioned in the article, is worth more than any losses. After the dust has settled, both their revenue and profit intakes will likely be up.

<comment><USER6> Prices for books move around more than I would have thought. I can understand the Amazon price drop on Stephen King as mention in the article because it was an analyzed move to compete with Wallmart. (price history graph: <http://www.shopobot.com/under-the-dome-a-novel-hardcover>)

But why do some book prices swing wildly up and down day to day? ex. <http://www.shopobot.com/where-the-wild-things-are-hardcover> Do they dynamically price based on sales that day? Anyone know how Amazon's pricing system works?</comment></comment>


Spotify Saved the Music Industry (But Not Necessarily Musicians) - <AUTHOR> http://freakonomics.com/podcast/spotify/ <comment><USER2> It seems to me like musicians have always been in a precarious relation to the economy, same as all other artists. The only difference is that for a brief time in the 20th century the average person was willing to spend money on music, unlike every other time in human history.

Nothing will ever stop people from making music, and 99% of working musicians are making a meager living doing what they enjoy, just like always.

<comment><USER3> > Nothing will ever stop people from making music

The funny thing is how true this statement is, and yet how often it's deployed as if that means nobody needs to further consider or negotiate the present economics.

How would one establish the idea that average person wasn't willing to spend money on music before the 20th century? Because I'd expect as long as there's been instruments and money, there's been _some_ form of economic participation.

But let's say it's true -- does that really direct a normative discussion on current economics? Because a hell of a lot of things about human society after industrialization have only been true for a brief time in human history, and that's no clear indicator of whether or not they have value.

Here's a better standard: how well does what we're doing support people who are in a position to make musical contributions that people value?

Recording sales fared pretty well by that standard, although there was the problem of predatory middlemen. Streaming revenues seem to have the same problem, and don't fare anywhere near as well.

<comment><USER2> > how well does what we're doing support people who are in a position to make > musical contributions that people value?

This is the best possible time to support an artist you enjoy. You can buy physical and digital copies of any artist in the world, artists can set up Patreon accounts, and you with a small amount of ingenuity can probably even mail your favorite artists a check directly.

The issue is that people don't do this, because they don't value the music enough to do it. It is not a great argument to say that Apple Music is mistreating artists, the fans are mistreating artists.

As a final point, the way most popular (not just pop) artists get popular is through marketing, advertising, venue promotion, radio deals, etc. The record company probably deserves the majority of the money produced by such enterprises because without their intervention no one would be that famous to begin with. Kanye West is a brand, just like Ford and Dockers.

<comment><USER4> Only indie artists can do that. Record companies are now signing musicians and bands to what they call "360" accounts, meaning that the company controls every aspect of how the musician might make money, from digital presence to merch to advertising to touring. By staying independent, they can make their own deals, but then they have the problem that they can't get on the radio and have a hard time getting known.

<comment><USER5> Do those deals have expirations, or are they "for life"?

I feel like once a musician is established, the label should have to justify their ongoing role in that musician's career, and certainly in the past lots of musicians have switched labels or started their own small labels later on in their career.

<comment><USER6> 5-10-15 years and more is not unheard of. In case a musicians becomes established they will just say it's the result of their support and their investments, so that's when they push for max returns (see the many stories of rushed albums which labels forced out of the artists while trying to ride the wave of initial success).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> It's interesting how different types of music have thrived through the streaming economy.

Hip hop is huge on Spotify, where it struggled for radio play and sales before because commercial radio is so conservative (in the sense of risk-averse). Then there's the whole Billie Eilish thing: huge on Spotify, almost no radio play at all.

On the other hand, there are Billboard 100 artists who are more or less absent from the streaming landscape. Some sell lots of albums but aren't on the streaming charts at all.

It's probably not as simple as saying that streaming is only good for established artists, but bad for the long tail. For some of the previous long tail, it's been very good. And for some of the oldies, it's been phenomenal - Spotify enables them to monetize their back catalogue with near zero promotion or distribution costs, year round.

<comment><USER8> Spotify has had a severe and negative effect on musicians who make what I term 'peak experience music'. Amazing music, but not something you listen to every day. Say you listen once a month or even just a few times a year.

Before: 2 listens = dealer price of a CD in UK = about £7.5 (on a good UK indie that's split 50/50 with the artist).

Now: 2 listens = income from 2 streams on Spotify = about £0.0006

I'm thinking of artists like Autechre.

Spotify is starting the shape the sort of music that artists can be successful with, in a bad way.

<comment><USER9> This is not true/unfair interpretation.

An artist does not get paid after the first payment from the label from the sale of a CD. If you play the CD on repeat, the artist does not benefit, nor does the label.

/Labels/ get paid for every single listen on Spotify.

There is also Spotify Direct, too, and the artist can directly benefit more than if they went with a label.

<comment><USER8> You appear to have missed the point. I'm singling out a genre of music where you might only listen to an album a few times. So repeat plays are irrelevant.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> As an amateur musician I still make most of my monthly sales from iTunes. Streaming pays so little, unless you're a big name – which incentivizes the big labels while squeezing the smaller artists.

Early platform like Lala (bought by Apple) had a cool model – $0.10 per song, but you can only stream it. Ownership was still there, and artists were paid equally per sale.

Nevertheless, getting your music distributed is easier today than ever, and I'm sure all artists are grateful for that.

<comment><USER11> > Streaming pays so little, unless you're a big name

Are you saying big acts get more per stream?

Also, I'd love to hear what you think about how the incentives from Spotify et al are changing music itself. From what I understand, a play isn't registered until a certain portion of the song has been played. This hurts songs that have a slow build and so hooks are being pushed right up front. Do you think it's homogenizing music to any degree?

<comment><USER10> I don't think Spotify (streaming services) are influencing the composition of new music – listening habits are mostly unchanged since popular music in the 50's. The 3-minute song with the initial hook is a product of 50's AM radio. Whereas Radiohead/Sigur Ros/Slowdive artists with long builds do so intentionally, and their listeners enjoy that about them.

But.... what has changed is the frequency in which artists need to release content in order to compete in the algorithm arena. Some artists understand this, and more singles, EPs and early album previews allow for more "touch points" with their audiences throughout the year.

<comment><USER11> > what has changed is the frequency in which artists need to release content

So, the album is dying? Could something like Pink Floyd's The Wall be released today? It's a two CD package with gapless songs.

<comment><USER12> The Album has always been a weird thing. Yes, the album as a concept has largely fallen off. It has very little advantage over a 2-4 song EP at this point. You no longer need to package weak b-sides in, because they're not going to get plays anyway. More bangers, less chaff.

But yea, you can still do a concept album like The Wall or Sgt. Pepper's. Kids doing drugs and laying around listing to weird noises for an hour+ is still a thing these days.

<comment><USER13> I don't quite understand this claim that the concept of Albums have fallen off, Metal still puts out quality albums today.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> If something hasn't "necessarily" saved musicians, then there's not much of a defense of whatever else it's done for the industry.

And any idea that services like Spotify were just the only way forward to revenue is one that thoroughly ignores the growth of digital recording sales that took place independent of it (not to mention what they may well have been like if it'd never happened).

Buffet streaming services marry the worst of piracy and the old-school middleman capture. They give the illusory impression that you're actually rewarding value.

<comment><USER14> > Buffet streaming services marry the worst of piracy and the old-school > middleman capture.

You have an interesting perspective... as a consumer for me Spotify marries the _best_ of those two worlds. I get the music I want and discoverability, quality, and ease of use is extremely good.

<comment><USER3> You're talking experience rather than economics. The consumer experience of Spotify is certainly much more convenient and pleasant than the experience of P2P piracy.

And it turns out that can be true even while the economics of buffet streaming services simultaneously effect the drastic cuts in first-order revenue that piracy brought directing it instead to distributor and label.

<comment><USER15> Short-term experience anyway. Long-term experience requires remaining a subscriber ad infinitum. I admittedly come from the perspective of someone who prefers to own music that I care about. Which, in turn, is very influenced by the fact that I had a very large digital/digitized music catalog before streaming came along so incremental purchases aren't very expensive.

<comment><USER16> I think there is a difference between collectors and people who just want to listen to music. I gladly pay Spotify each month to NOT have to manage a collection of physical or digital music.

I gladly pay HBO and Netflix as well, but it seems no matter what I pay, I cant get the same movie/series coverage that Spotify provides for music.

<comment><USER15> I don't really think of myself as a music collector. I just like to know that if I decide tomorrow I don't want to pay for a streaming music service any longer, I'll still have all the music I care about. That said, given that all the major music services have at least most non-niche music, having subscriptions to some things is just the way things are these days and you're probably not realistically going to drop a music streaming service.

Video is, of course, much more fragmented but it's also different in that you're not going to rewatch most video content. There never were music rental stores (although libraries did/do have music) but video rentals were a thing pre-streaming.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Platforms like Spotify, YouTube, etc, are a marketing channel - not a revenue channel. They can be used effectively to develop an audience, but not to monetize it.

For example see Pusheen the cat. Started off as a tumblr web comic/character and now generates millions in merchandising revenue:

[https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/how-an-internet-cat-craze- be...](https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/how-an-internet-cat-craze-became-a-toy- empire-1287225)

<comment><USER3> > Platforms like Spotify, YouTube, etc, are a marketing channel - not a > revenue channel

Which would be cool, if Spotify wasn't meant to be a replacement for a revenue channel.

<comment><USER18> You can't replace something that is dead.

<comment><USER3> Revenues from US digital recorded music sales steadily rose from the introduction of iTunes up into the billions through at least 2012. Maybe 2013/14-ish. I think at one point it'd actually matched 90s CD sales revenue, though I may not recall correctly.

That was hardly "dead." There's this narrative that goes around "oh, yeah, the internet happened, copies are cheap, no one was ever going to buy music again" ... and it's not true.

The truth is that there was a thriving digital recording sales growing up to take the place of physical recording sales. And buffet streaming kneecaped it.

<comment><USER19> Buffet streaming killed it because it's cost-competitive to the consumer, period. That's a triumph of capitalism.

<comment><USER3> At best that's like saying it's a triumph of capitalism when Walmart hollows out local retailers, or industrial agriculture hollows out smaller operators and with it communities. Sure, you get cheaper goods, but there are less pleasant externalities that go with it.

As someone once said about another triumph of capitalism: when you value McDonalds, you get McJobs.

Possibly McMusic, as well.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> This interview sets up this false dichotomy where people ostensibly accessed music by spending $15 on a CD or not at all. The contention seems to be that piracy/Napster were a forgone conclusion because there was no real choice.

People listened to ad-supported radio or they listened to records socially or borrowed them. That's how it worked for about 80 years.

I'm not defending the music industry, its practices, or its stalwart backwardness. But suggesting music was inaccessible is plainly false.

<comment><USER21> Or they made copies of friend's records ("ripping"). the CD-R drive has been around for 2 decades now, and came as a default option on many laptops and desktops in the early 2000s. And before that, people had CD/Casette Boomboxes where you could record CD tracks to the cassette. It was the only way to make mix tapes.

I remember the days of ripping CDs borrowed from friends on a 4x speed drive; back then, you could do 8x but there was a risk of file corruption/recording failure.

<comment><USER20> I completely forgot about this set of practices. Yes, a huge part of youth culture concerned itself with the creation and sharing of mix tapes. Looked at through this lens it makes me almost wistful thinking about the mix CDs I exchanged with friends in high school. They took a fair amount of work to put together and were often deeply personalized for the receiver. Makes you wonder who's missing out, us or "kids these days."

<comment><USER21> Yeah, those were the days of making mixes for actual events, like road trips, relationship anniversaries, etc; these would be highly personal mixes, with inside jokes and obscure references. Now the trend has shifted to becoming an influencer with public playlists.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> So, Spotify pays 70% of _revenue_ to labels. In the end it's labels who pay the artists.

Why does no one, literally no one ask: where the hell does that money disappear? Everyone is busy writing 20,000-word essays on how streaming is bad for artists. Maybe, just maybe, it's not streaming that's bad but the labels and their agreements with both the artists and the streaming services?

</comment><comment><USER23> >For a company that doesn't really make anything

People think technology just develops itself huh?

<comment><USER24> What technology are they developing that people are asking for?

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> People love to complain about nothing, eh?

Think about what the distribution landscape for musicians used to be like in the past.

You can literally put up your entire music catalog at almost _no_ effort and and generate enough popularity to support your act through live plays. Live shows have _always_ been the main source of revenue for artists.

People saying that the situation for artists is bleak have _no_ idea of what they're talking about. It has never in history been easier to start a music act and get followers from all around the world. It has never been easier to concentrate fans of every possible little genre into their own communities.

What most people don't realize is that the live act scene has _exploded_ all over the world. There a literally thousands of live music festivals going on every summer that just weren't there 20 years ago. Modern festival culture is fueled by streaming media, Soundcloud, BandCamp and Youtube.

I follow scenes where an artist's greatest hit gets 20k plays on YouTube and 500 physical vinyl copies. That's literally enough to make a living and tour around a little on your free weekends. How possible do you think _that_ was before Youtube?

</comment><comment><USER25> I prefer to buy, not rent music. Luckily we have enough DRM-free music stores around that simply sell you music files. FLAC is the best option.

<comment><USER26> Like what stores?

<comment> ry-n [https://bandcamp.com/](https://bandcamp.com/) is really wonderful if you're asking about music in general and not artists hitting the billboard charts. However, as it supports free listening there isn't a barrier to searching around and discovering new things.

If you want some good coding music for the day I'd suggest starting with [https://wanderband.bandcamp.com/](https://wanderband.bandcamp.com/)

<comment><USER27> I love bandcamp. For 9 years now I've been getting almost all my music (I think maybe one or two albums from Amazon in-between) from them. I can get straightforward notifications, I can get whatever format I want and I can stream the whole album as much as I want before buying it (though I never listened to one fully before buying it – or deciding against it).

And not to forget that I can often choose my own price (when I was a student I sometimes paid less, nowadays I usually pay a bit more)

<comment><USER25> Yep, Bandcamp is my favorite store for music as well.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> It saved music labels from illegal p2p (maybe). But it introduced the shitty model pay-per-service and now you need 10 accounts to get 10 different things. The same applies for videos.

The unique true service that can centralise everything is still Kodi + plugins

</comment><comment><USER29> Now can someone do Spotify for old movies? The online Netflix catalog keeps shrinking. Studios are cracking down on Youtube showing movies that used to be used as filler on late-night TV.

</comment><comment><USER30> The long tail is dead. The algorithm that was supposed to help you find it has killed it instead.

<comment><USER31> The long tail is more alive than ever, but algorithms have always been a bad way to find it. Instead, listen to personal recommendations on web forums etc. There are people who are passionate about any obscure micro-genre you can imagine, and they'll point you to the best of it. Bandcamp and Soundcloud are full of long tail music that's completely ignored by the mainstream music industry.

<comment><USER32> It's interesting, I've gone back to Spotify from Apple Music primarily because I can easily find more interesting playlists from curators.

I don't think Spotify has any kind of special algorithmic sauce, they just make it easy for people create and share playlists.

It amazes me how most of the other streaming services try to turn everything into an algorithm, via "special radio" stations, etc. And yet, the best way to provide a long tail for music still seems to be basic web 2.0 - let the people make the content for you.

<comment><USER33> In my humble opinion all discovery algorithms with all large providers are terrible. Instead of expanding they narrow down choices and never surprise me in a good way like some human curated playlist can.

I had been switching between Apple Music, Spotify and Google Music in different countries. Currently I have settled on Google Music simply because Google practically abandoned Google Music so they are not so in my face with curated playlists and stations.

On the other hand I think that there is opportunity for good (like in really working) AI engine for music recommendations.

<comment><USER34> What's interesting is that these algos are trained on human feedback. What does that say about our revealed preferences in music?

<comment><USER33> As an anecdote I have left Apple Music after it had been suggesting to me at least 3 heavy metal playlists for 30 days. And this is the one genre I do not listen to.

I had been clicking 'I don't like it' buttons hoping the AI will get it but no luck. So after 30 days I had enough and moved on back to Spotify.

So much for human feedback.

<comment><USER34> Maybe you actually like heavy metal but won't admit it to yourself ;).

(Just kidding, but this kind of thing will be more common in the future, especially as we learn more about how little the brain knows about its own desires and motivations)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> I would argue that most musicians should be salaried employees making 80-150k. The label would then handle everything else. The musicians only need to focus on creation and performing. I have always been interested in the problem Spotify is trying to solve for. However, I think they've only solved half the problem. The other half of the problem is solved by putting long tail musicians on a salary and then they can graduate out of that once they achieve a certain level of commercial success.

(Why is this being downvoted?) It is on topic and is not at all hostile.

<comment><USER36> The problem with this is that it requires really successful artists to work for _far less_ than the value they create, which they won't – because they know they could make far more money independently.

And without the top performers subsidizing the salaries of everyone else, the whole thing falls apart.

<comment><USER35> Top performers are already working for far less than the value they create allegedly. Usually, there are a whole host of people working on a project.

Right now you have fake writing and producing credits simply designed to generate a stream of income for the musician. I think going to a salary would allow people who are best at writing or production or something other than singing being able to focus and it brings the cost to produce a record down.

You may or may not be able to make more money independently. You never know when the public is going to move on to some other sounds and you never know the perks that are lost as a result. The top of the top performers probably could swing the independence but for many it may not be the way to go. The bottom line is that for the vast majority of musicians a salary system could be better to work under.

I think everything should be on the table as it relates to how the music business is run and that's what the Spotify CEO said he was interested in. He's just doing from one side instead of both sides of the equation. That's why the vast majority artists and content creators are on the losing end of Streaming.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> The thing that fascinates me about Spotify and other streaming services is that the people who weren't willing to fork out 15$ for a CD in the past are now willing to pay 10$ every month for... pretty much nothing at all, if you think about it?!

<comment><USER38> > pretty much nothing at all

Except for instant access to what is probably the biggest collection of music in the world. I don't mean to be snarky but, have you ever used Spotify? It's a godsend.</comment></comment>


We Need A New Path To Liquidity - <AUTHOR> http://avc.blogs.com/a_vc/2008/04/we-need-a-new-p.html <comment><USER2> Or, maybe, we just need to focus on building companies that make, you know, actual money and what not ...

<comment><USER3> this often time requires skill/knowledge of a market, that frankly, many technologists don't have.

the company where I work does software for Natural Gas Companies -- no matter how great of a hacker one is, if you don't know Viscosity, dew point calculations, flow rate conversions and a number of Petroleum Engineering- related equations and problems, you couldn't do what we do.

oh, and the software goes for $5k a copy -- definitely not ad-based.

although tons of small start-ups are doing facebook apps, have they thought about solving the problems of the Universities who won't trust Facebook/ social networks further then they can throw them. CMS, Housing management software, etc. Universities pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for that stuff.

<comment><USER4> "no matter how great of a hacker one is, if you don't know Viscosity, dew point calculations, flow rate conversions and a number of Petroleum Engineering-related equations and problems, you couldn't do what we do."

combining hacking skills with deep domain knowledge (petroleum engineering in this case) would seem to be the alternative path. Of course you need to spend 3-4 years learning petroluem engineering, which may be a bit of a disincentive. But I think the point remains valid . Hacking skills + investment banking/chemical engineering/medicine/choose_your_domain knowledge would be a killer combination.

"oh, and the software goes for $5k a copy"

I am not surprised. I guess you keep upgrading it all the time for even more $$?

<comment><USER3> upgrades, new releases, and support ... it could eventually go SaaS I guess, but the Oil/Natural Gas Industry are not exactly forward thinking in how they want to spend their $$

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Cool post. Should be titlted, "A New Path to Liqudity" because of the interesting "private liquidity markets" - I've never heard of one. And it seems these have not been discussed before on news.YC. (at least, GSTrUE, oaktree, or OPUS-5.)

Does anyone have experience with these markets? What size company does one need to interested a private equity investor?

ps - If these markets look to be a major pathway to liquidity, it would be great to hear about them at startup school. :)

<comment><USER6> Private equity usually requires actual profits -- their plan usually is to take a profitable (or at least revenue-generating) company, cut costs and increase revenue by good management, then turn it out to another private equity firm or hold it and operate it for the income stream. Sometimes they'll spin out a company to take it public, but not at the same huge premiums that VCs want.

You have to be a reasonably mature company for a private equity deal to make sense. They usually want steady income rather than the 10x growth that a VC pays for, and the valuations reflect that.

</comment></comment><comment> daniel-cussen I've always wondered if Nasdaq Portal is an adequate alternative. It lets you issue shares to qualified institutional buyers (anyone with over 100 million dollars) for 2,000 to 3,000 dollars in signup fees. I don't know much about the process, so I wonder: is there a reason nobody talks about it? Is it a reasonable way to get an IPO-like event?

<comment><USER7> You can raise equity through private securities that "trade" (with little liquidity) on these markets through rule 144A offerings. I've never heard of a 144A being done for less than $75 million, although I haven't followed the tech markets. After all, it costs money to market your company to the kinds of firms that invest in private securities.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> One wonders how the assimilation has gone for the YC companies

</comment><comment><USER8> _"The idea behind both of these new emerging (and currently illiquid) markets is to provide a place for private equity investors to trade securities with each other. The companies remain private, do not have to file with the SEC, and do not trade daily like public stocks do. When an entrepreneur or investor wants liquidity on a position they own, they come to these private markets, offer their position or part of their position for sale, and a trade is made."_

er... can I get a translation?

...I'm not sure my positions are liquidy enough.

<comment><USER9> > er... can I get a translation?

Basically, it's a market where investors that own shares in private companies can get cash for those shares from other private investors without taking their company public and being subject to all the bureaucratic rules that apply to public companies.

In theory, you could also do this by simply trying to find an outside investor yourself, but the hope is that by creating a market, it will be a more efficient process.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Fred Wilson is complaining about not having enough ways to make money - an old problem. Companies he invests in can't go public because of Sarbanes Oxley or a tough market. Acquisitions are apparently anti-climactic.

Making money is hard. Unregulated (liquid!) markets in which to do so are probably a bad idea.

When companies create substantial value for shareholders, investors will be able to "get out" easily. And probably not until then.

</comment><comment><USER11> As always, the really interesting stuff is in the comments. Ideas around non- synergistic acquisitions, dividends and why they're not suitable for VC investments, "late-stage incubators," etc.</comment>


Wireless Charging Is a Disaster Waiting to Happen - <AUTHOR> https://onezero.medium.com/wireless-charging-is-a-disaster-waiting-to-happen-48afdde70ed9 <comment><USER2> I don't know!? I have a Nokia9 PureWiev and an Anker wireless charger with two coils. I used Nokia original charger which came with phone and connected it with Anker. On my surprise on my phone screen showed "wireless fast charging" all the way to 100% full battery. It looks like that on wireless is quick charging whole time. Please take this with a grain of salt, because I don't know if this is a bug or a feature. Nokia charger is QC 3.0.</comment>


Collaborate on complex problems – but only intermittently - <AUTHOR> https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2018/08/collaborate-on-complex-problems-but-only-intermittently/ <comment><AUTHOR> The only thing that frustrates me with this article is that they conclude with a rec for "intermittent isolation" when it is "intermittent collaboration" that's the way to go, according to the experience of every person working in a deeply problem-solving-oriented job.

Shows how deeply lost the industry is in this area.</comment>


Tell HN: Use hand grippers to alleviate hand pain when using your keyboard  - <AUTHOR> I start using hand gripper at work and noticed  it alleviates hand pain from using the keyboard all day long. Just place it on your desk and when you are not typing, start excising your hand with the gripper.<p>http://www.amazon.com/dp/B005Y83SJI <comment><USER2> In addition to strength training exercises, also consider joint mobility exercises. There are numerous joint mobility movements for fingers and wrists, and all good joint mobility workouts include at least a few of them.

Leading joint mobility experts include Scott Sonnon, Steve Maxwell, and Eric Cobb. Maxwell and Cobb studied under Sonnon.

Last time I checked, Sonnon's most popular joint mobility resource was Intu- Flow. In this DVD, Sonnon comes across as a bit of a New Agey weirdo, but he really knows his stuff.

Maxwell produced the Encyclopedia of Joint Mobility DVD and he has downloadable follow-along joint mobility videos at his site. His instruction isn't as deep as Sonnon's, but some people find Maxwell more likeable.

Cobb's company is named Z-Health, and his resources are overpriced.

Unrelated to joint mobility, Kinesis has announced plans to release a new version of their Contoured ergonomic keyboard. I can't wait.

</comment><comment><USER3> Climbing donuts are an interesting alternative that offer a greater range of motion in the exercises you can do:

[http://www.amazon.com/Grip-Pro-Trainer-Forearm- Strength/dp/B...](http://www.amazon.com/Grip-Pro-Trainer-Forearm- Strength/dp/B000NJHD1W/)

Those powerball/gyroscopic spinners are also interesting for RSI:

[http://www.amazon.com/NSD-Power-Essential-Gyroscopic- Exercis...](http://www.amazon.com/NSD-Power-Essential-Gyroscopic- Exerciser/dp/B007GGCLK8/)

</comment><comment><USER4> Good tip. Thanks.

FYI (alternatives):

My (career military) ex husband only had pain at the keyboard when his weightlifting regimen was interrupted.

I have an old tennis injury that can be troublesome. When it was at its worst, I took gelatin as a supplement daily for two years to feed the tendons (so they could self repair) and generally have fewer problems since then.

</comment><comment><USER5> Using my mouse left-handed helped with mouse-induced RSI. If you swap the buttons, it will also keep anyone else from using your PC ;-)

<comment><USER6> This. Swapping my mouse-hand a few times a day solved all RSI problems for me. I don't swap the buttons though. :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> A cherry MX blue equipped mechanical keyboard solved my hand pain issues. Caution: the switches are loud.

</comment><comment><USER8> One question: what keyboard do you use?

Since I'm using a mechanical Keyboard my pain went off and I don't feel any stress.</comment>


Using Masked Identifiers to Reference ActiveRecord Models - <AUTHOR> http://blog.matthodan.com/63159496

<comment><USER2> Why not use a UUID? Seems wasteful to have to do a SELECT for every INSERT.

<comment><USER3> I thought so too at first, but this way I can control the length of the unique ID while still guaranteeing that every ID is unique. Clearly, if you decided to have a 2 character masked identifier, you'd end up with a small number of possible objects before problems start to happen. As a TODO, I need to implement an elegant way to handle situations when all possible UIDs have been exhausted. If you know of a good UUID lib that lets you control the length of the UID, guarantees 100% unique codes, and gracefully handles issues when UIDs have run out, let me know! I'd definitely consider replacing my CodeGenerator.</comment></comment>


STL Benchmark Comparison: C++ vs. Julia - <AUTHOR> https://aaronang.github.io/2018/stl-benchmark-comparison-cpp-vs-julia/ <comment><USER2> Since many C and C++ implementations use LLVM, which Julia also does, it is frequently the case where C/C++ code and Julia code when fully optimized end up performing almost identically. However, what makes me love Julia is the programmer productivity, in general I can write many fewer lines of Julia code, and get generic code that runs as fast as my optimized C code, in about 1/3 the time (so I have time to spend with my kids, or simply hack more!)</comment>


Pink Slips at Disney. But First, Training Foreign Replacements - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/04/us/last-task-after-layoff-at-disney-train-foreign-replacements.html?_r=0

<comment><USER2> Previous discussion on HN: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9653389](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9653389)

</comment><comment><USER3> This type of use of H1-Bs is really frustrating for people that legitimately have developers who have a true need for the visa.

I've hosted FWD.us events, and I've applied for a number of H1-Bs (among other visas). It's hard to advocate for immigration reform when you see abuse like this.

</comment><comment><USER4> Make it easier for H1-Bs to change jobs and companies will be less compelled to bring underpaid foreign workers.

<comment><USER5> Yes indeed. I worked with groups of Chinese chemists all on H1Bs. They had to work ridiculous hours and assigned the most mind killing labor. If they made trouble they were told they'd lose their job and it was deportation. Finally the company fired all its non-H1Bs, including me; eventually giving up the pretense and relocating overseas. Where was the department of labor and industry? One of my coworkers contacted them and they wouldn't even return the call. H1Bs are simply licenses for a form of slavery.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> This is why I'm EXTREMELY skeptical of companies calling for more H1-B's. I'm all for making the path to citizenship easier but these companies don't give a shit about that (However that's what they ACT like). They want cheap tech workers who they can use to replace their American workers. There isn't a shortage of tech workers, there are a shortage of tech workers that will work for shit. It's outsourcing 2.0.

</comment><comment><USER7> The other discussion thread is talking a lot about the humiliation of having to train your lower-cost foreign replacements, all mostly from India.

So my first thought is rebellion. I wonder if there's some cultural blind spots that the trainers could exploit? It'd be the social equivalent of leaving a timebomb in the software. Don't explain how to weigh the options of which system to take down? Make the deployment system more obtuse? Make all of the hard decisions for them during those three months, so even though the trainees have been "doing the job", they haven't been exposed to any of the hard decision tradeoffs that were made?

I imagine that it would be hard for management to spot this kind of subversion.

</comment><comment><USER8> I understand that this is almost par for the course in corporate America (and certainly elsewhere) but it's always a bit more striking when it involves a company whose business is selling fun and entertainment.

I mean...Marvel movies! New Star Wars movies! Pixar movies! All of the cartoons we loved as kids!

But yeah, their damage to U.S. copyright law and stuff like this always makes for a quick reminder that even when your brand means "fun!" it's still based in the calculating world of profits and shareholders.

</comment><comment><USER9> I wish I could think of a good way to produce incentives that would negatively affect Disney; but Disney isn't the one doing this hiring its Infosys. So although Disney is reaping the benefits of Infosys's cheap labor; it is Infosys who is using the H1-Bs. The added level of indirection makes it more difficult in my mind to come up with a sane way to disincentivize this behavior.

<comment><USER10> We have to trace the corporate call stack to find our point of blame.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I feel the article doesn't really capture the whole story. (My comment in the other thread)... [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9653389#9660767](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9653389#9660767)

</comment><comment><USER12> What does this same scenario look like in 30 years?

Sorry to have to let you go, but please continue to perform your tasks so that your roboplacement can learn your function?

<comment><USER13> This is actually a (very) small plot point at the beginning of the book 'Sparrow' by Mary Doria Russell. A technician shadows you for an amount of time, until he/she feels they know exactly how your job gets done. Then they go off and teach an AI to do it.

<comment><USER10> It's roughly the underlying tension in Vonnegut's "Player Piano" as well.</comment></comment></comment>


Analysis of 10,000 studies on marijuana confirms only three medical benefits - <AUTHOR> https://qz.com/886318/an-analysis-of-10000-scientific-studies-on-marijuana-concretely-supports-only-three-medical-benefits/ <comment><USER2> "Only" three? How many should there be?

The phrasing of the title of this article is curious.

</comment><comment><USER3> I benefited from pot my whole life. How many benefits is that worth?

</comment><comment><USER4> Hmmm it'd be interesting to know who the people on these boards are affiliated with

>National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; Health and Medicine Division; Board on Population Health and Public Health Practice; Committee on the Health Effects of Marijuana: An Evidence Review and Research Agenda

Especially the last two...</comment>


Bill Gates: My 1979 Memories - <AUTHOR> http://gizmodo.com/5321463/bill-gates-guest-writer-reflects-on-microsoft-1979

<comment><USER2> One interesting bit is that BillG reads Gizmodo and was compelled enough to mail a story in.

When he wrote comments for his Thinkweek papers (atleast until the last one), I was always amazed by how much he kept track of stuff happening on the web. He would usually know the nitty gritty of some API of some hot new site on the web. He would have test accounts in every hot new social networking site and would have installed and played with every new product, Microsoft and non- Microsoft. He would also have very sharp, insightful commentary on macro strategy as well as micro-level tactical issues.

I think the sad part is that very rarely have people seen that BillG outside of Microsoft. My feeling is that people outside MSFT have this slightly stereotyped image which is either a) evil corporate overlord who got lucky b) wimpy software nerd billionaire or more and more c) wealthy old philanthropist.

I don't think any of the 3 are really accurate or do justice to him.

<comment><USER3> It sounds like you could be describing Mark Zuckerberg.

<comment><USER3> This was a serious comment - it's fascinating how Mark Zuckerberg is perceived compared to what he's really like. Let's re-examine sriramk's comments about Bill G and swap in Mark Z:

"I was always amazed by how much he kept track of stuff happening on the web. He would usually know the nitty gritty of some API of some hot new site on the web. He would have test accounts in every hot new social networking site and would have installed and played with every new product. He would also have very sharp, insightful commentary on macro strategy as well as micro-level tactical issues.

I think the sad part is that very rarely have people seen that Mark Z outside of Facebook. My feeling is that people outside Facebook have this slightly stereotyped image."

Mark gets passed off as the "goofy young CEO who had to get Sandberg in to play adult", but everyone forgets how much of the Facebook strategy he drives, how connected he is with new technology and also how quick he is to adapt strategy. It's also interesting how Facebook was not his first big success (I believe he was offered a $1,000,000 signing bonus from Microsoft?)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I don't read Gizmodo because I had the impression that it's a completely tabloidish gadget blog. But their 1979 series (to which this post by BG ties) actually looks pretty great. At least the Golden Age of Lego gallery gave me that pleasantly piercing rush of nostalgia:

[http://gizmodo.com/5318253/1979-the-golden-age-of- lego/galle...](http://gizmodo.com/5318253/1979-the-golden-age-of- lego/gallery/)

</comment><comment><USER5> And here is Jason Scott's (BBS Documentary, textfiles.com, Get Lamp, etc) mail exchange with Gizmodo after they asked him to contribute: <http://ascii.textfiles.com/archives/2079>

Here is the "article" he could have been part of [http://gizmodo.com/5316206/the-desperate-times-before- intern...](http://gizmodo.com/5316206/the-desperate-times-before-internet- porn/)

</comment><comment><USER6> Well, the gizmodo piece "kinda" looks interesting, but the black bar on the left is totally hozed in my firefox...</comment>


Disco Project: Erlang and Python Mapreduce - <AUTHOR> http://www.discoproject.org/

<comment><USER2> Has anyone used this? I'm interested in hearing how it compares to Hadoop streaming + Python (+ Dumbo?).

<comment><USER3> one thing to keep in mind: there is no distributed filesystem (HDFS in Hadoop's case). So depending on your workload, you may need to make a choice about which DFS to use along side Disco.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Updated recommendation on Rails versus Django? - <AUTHOR>

Hi guys.
I realize this post is an infamous "versus" question, and undoubtedly redundant with older posts. However, most of the information I find on Rails versus Django is out of date and based on much older versions of the frameworks, so please forgive me.
First and foremost...I'm a Rails guy. I came to it three years ago and really enjoyed a lot of what it brought to the table. I'm not solely a Ruby guy...I have around 11 years of total experience, including Java, C/C++, Perl, Tcl, (some) Python, and more.
Anyway, I have an idea I believe will take over the world. I've already convinced a few folks it will as well and have friends and family funding to take on some offshore developers and get it in beta as quickly as possible.
Now, however, I am left with the decision of what tech to use. While I've really enjoyed Ruby...I'm growing tired of the magic, and the abuse of open classes. It's very nice when you need to inject some behavior quickly, but it can become a real pain when you have to maintain your project, or any of the plugins it depends on. I personally prefer Ruby over Python (largely because of blocks), but I envy the clarity-first attitude in the Python community. Given this frustration, I'm seriously considering a deep-dive into Django and using it for this project.
The pluses I see on the Rails side are: 1. Size of community (which, given some of this "community" includes PHP refugees, is not necessarily a plus) 2. My familiarity and experience 3. Number of companies using it and striving to improve it 4. Availability of offshore resources
Drawbacks of Rails include:
1. Too much magic 2. Documentation continues to be awful in places 3. Inconsistent API 4. Did I mention magic?
The (perceived) pluses on the Django side: 1. Clarity 2. Performance...I believe Unladen Swallow will really change the Python landscape and give it a competitive advantage 3. Google's support of the language itself (see #2)
Drawbacks of Django: 1. Learning curve 2. Smaller community 3. Slower development cycle of the project itself? 4. (un)Availability of offshore resources
So, this is my thought process so far. I'm pretty comfortable I could come up to speed quickly on Django, and I have the basics of Python still in my memory somewhere. But I wanted to get your opinions as I really respect the vision and experience of a lot of the folks I read on here.
I appreciate your help. I really think this idea will take off, so it's very important to me to make the right technology decision.
And saying to choose Rails simply because I have experience there just doesn't sound right. If that were the case, I'd still be using Perl or C.
Thank you! <comment><USER2> You're thinking of putting aside 3 years of experience in Rails and Ruby in order to learn a new language + framework. On a project that you're taking friends and family funding for.

While it's easy to pick up a language or framework, you only pick up best practices by constant usage and community involvement. How are you going to assess the Python and Django competency of your hires if you're that new to a language? How will you make competent estimates for a technology unfamiliar to you?

Both frameworks have been successfully used to rapidly prototype web apps. When you say "make the right technology decision", that is _always_ defined by context. And in your context you have 3 years of experience in one, and 0 in the other. Unless the new technology is demonstrably far superior to the incumbent one, you'll probably be better served by going with what you know.

Note that my answer would be the same if Rails and Django were reversed in your post.

</comment><comment><USER3> I am obviously biased, as I run a django development company. That said, Ill start with answering the drawbacks of Django,

1\. Learning curve.

Not more than any other framework. Plus the Documentation is top notch. (The documentation was what sold me when I was evaluating.)

2\. Smaller community

Definately true. But beyond a critical size, size of community does not matter. Django is well above that size. (Irc: any given time ~200 Devs. Google group: 14000+ Users )

3\. Slower development cycle of the project itself?

Why? If you give more details, I can answer that.

4\. (un)Availability of offshore resources

Definately less than Rails, but still not as bad as you would have thought. A very small list, [http://uswaretech.com/blog/2009/03/web-development- companies...](http://uswaretech.com/blog/2009/03/web-development-companies- working-with-django/)

Thats said, given the information you have, I your case I would choose Rails. Even if most of the work you are looking to offshore, your existing Rails experience would be a huge plus, helping you evaluate vendors, keep track.

</comment><comment><USER4> If you've borrowed money from family and friends to hire some developers in order to get something working as quickly as possible you should use whatever tools are going to help you make that happen. You probably don't want to be tinkering around with a new language and framework on top of having to work with developers you're unfamiliar with when you're dealing with a project of this importance. Use what you know. If you have reservations about Ruby and Rails start thinking about one of the other languages you've used to get important work done. You can always explore other options once you're making some money and have paid back your initial investors.

Personally, I'd be a little miffed if someone accepted my investment for a specific project and then was using that project as a testbed for some fad web framework for no good reason. These people have placed their trust and money with you. You have a responsibility to deliver now.

<comment><USER5> At the same time, if I simply had stuck with what I knew over the years I'd still be doing old ASP...i'd be more miffed as an investor if you had a great idea but killed it because you did it in vbscript just because that is what you knew, or if you chose something that would cost a lot more to scale, thus requiring greater investment just to see a return.

<comment><USER6> That might be relevant if we weren't talking about modern and very actively developed web frameworks on modern and quickly evolving languages.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I've done projects in both Django and Rails. Your list of Rails drawbacks is weak. The magic can bite you but most of the time it doesn't. Documentation on any open source project is usually pretty bad. Both Rails and Django have about the same level of documentation at this point. The API is no more inconsistent than anything else.

The minus I encountered with Django is that it isn't as far along with the nice auxiliary pieces that exist alongside Rails. Gems are much better than easy_install or eggs. Phusion passenger is easier to deal with than... whatever Django is doing these days. Capistrano is better than Fabric. Heroku is better than App Engine.

What I liked about Django is that integrating other Python libs was easy, and some of them are way better than the Ruby equivalents. PIL is way better than any of the Ruby image manipulation libraries. Django also makes it easier to do GIS stuff out of the box.

In my experience the REAL problem with rails is that if you're actually doing high-load transactional sites, like serious e-commerce systems, it is not up for the task. The successful Rails sites I built mostly had few inserts and a lot of reads. Tons of transactions == meltdown in ways neither I nor professional rails consultants understood. Those pieces were ultimately re- architected in Java (with some JRuby to help out). I'm not convinced Django would help with a site like this.

</comment><comment><USER8> No offense, but how amazing can your idea be if it allows you to procrastinate on web frameworks?

<comment><USER3> No offence, but why is evaluating technologies which you are going to be stuck with for a very long time a bad thing?

<comment><USER9> Because, in all likelihood, worrying that you're going to be stuck with your initial choice of technology for a very long time is premature optimization. You should be so lucky.

I have no idea what the original submitter's idea is, but I'll _still_ predict how it's going to work out: It won't find product-market fit. So it won't need to be maintained for a very long time. So he might as well just build it with the framework he _already knows_ , get it over with, and move on to the next idea.

Anyone want to bet that I'm wrong? If so, please make out your angel checks to the original submitter.

Moreover, while fretting too much about the apparent greenness of the grass on the other side of the fence is always a warning sign of procrastination, doing so when you already have three years of Rails experience and know exactly where its pain points are is _really_ a sign of procrastination. Just build the thing already! You will save time by working in a framework that you already understand. And, if you like, you can use that saved time to _improve_ the bits of the framework that you dislike.

<comment><USER10> _"fretting too much about the apparent greenness of the grass on the other side of the fence is always a warning sign of procrastination, doing so when you already have three years of Rails experience and know exactly where its pain points are is really a sign of procrastination. Just build the thing already! You will save time by working in a framework that you already understand."_

I don't disagree, but I think I should point out the danger -- this is _exactly_ how programmers become dinosaurs in the industry.

Next time you feel the urge to make fun of that guy with 20 years of C++ experience, keep in mind that he was probably just working in a framework that he already understood. One day you look up from your last successful project, and everyone is 22 years old and coding in Blub. Only those _old_ guys are working with Rails....

<comment><USER9> I can't argue with this in general, but it hasn't got much to do with the case at hand. Worrying about the day when Rails will be a dinosaur technology is an even _more_ extreme form of premature optimization. And if you are trying to hedge against Rails' obsolescence, why would you pick Django? Shouldn't you pick something sufficiently different that it _isn't_ routinely mentioned in the same sentence?

<comment><USER10> I'm not worried about it, and I realize it's a digression. I'm just saying that if every time you face one of these decision points you go with the technology that you already know, then you're optimizing for something different than career longevity, and it will come back to bite you. The point is that there's always a tension in this industry between learning new technologies and being maximally productive.

That said, it isn't "premature optimization" to diversify your portfolio of technologies as much as possible. It's premature to try to guess the Next Big Thing and use it for your project, but that isn't what I'm suggesting. And in any case, five(-ish) years ago, you might well have faced the choice between using Perl and using Rails for a similar project. That decision would have proved fateful.

<comment><USER9> _five(-ish) years ago, you might well have faced the choice between using Perl and using Rails for a similar project. That decision would have proved fateful._

Let's keep some perspective here. Rails, Django, and the various Perl frameworks each have their rabid partisans, but they represent fairly tiny variations on a single theme: Client-server web applications. There is very little danger in overspecializing in any one of these. You can move from one to another with ease. They employ similar concepts, by necessity. The HTTP and the SQL and the CSS knowledge all transfer over. The browser is still the browser. My god, I _wish_ the browser was changing fast enough that I risked becoming a dinosaur!

I suspect that there is far more danger of overspecializing in, say, MySQL than of overspecializing in Rails. Databases are huge, complex beasts with real differences in their implementation and operation, and they can have profound impact on the performance of your app. (Just ask an experienced Oracle DBA. He or she will talk your ear off, as happened here on HN the other week.) The difference between the various brands of glue that we use to stick our databases to our web servers? Not as fundamental as we'd all like to think. The stuff I do today is not much different from what I and my colleagues were doing in AolServer Tcl in 1999. (Now _that_ is dinosaur web technology!)

The _real_ danger of becoming a dinosaur happens at a higher level. I'm a professional PHP programmer now, god help me, but I'm not afraid of missing out on the Great Django Revolution: When Django is finally ready to call my colleagues and I, I'll listen, and I'll probably understand what it's saying because it'll still be speaking the language of server-side web apps. The real danger is that one day I'll wake up and realize that the interesting problems have moved off the web server entirely and that all the fun is in standalone Javascript apps, or iPhone apps, or Microsoft Surface 3.x apps, or Scala applications embedded in your shoes, and server-side web app development has become about as exciting as Internal Revenue data processing (which it resembles in many ways).

When I really want to _diversify_ , I'll look at Javascript or Objective C or embedded systems programming. I won't look right next door. That's too easy. Alas, this means that my track record of never getting around to learning Python may continue. :(

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Here's what I've found so far after starting a small Django gig (I already knew a fair bit about Rails):

\- Rails has built-in migration support

\- Rails has better support for APIs

\- Django has some neat stuff in contrib including authentication and an admin interface

\- Django has "pluggables" -- downloadable apps that can be snapped in just like the admin interface. Rails has engines, but they're new and not as mature as pluggables.

<comment><USER12> > Rails has better support for APIs

What does this mean?

<comment><USER11> To be specific, Rails has better support for providing XML and JSON APIs. One place where it has better support is serialization. In rails, there is an :include parameter to control whether to include objects from associations (e. g. comments in a post), that is available both on to_xml or to_json. I don't see an option for Django that does the same thing.

[http://api.rubyonrails.org/classes/ActiveRecord/Serializatio...](http://api.rubyonrails.org/classes/ActiveRecord/Serialization.html) <http://docs.djangoproject.com/en/dev/topics/serialization/>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> You'd be crazy not to use Rails. If your idea is really all that you say it is, chances are good that someone else has thought of it too. Maybe they are building it right now, maybe not. First-to-market is practically a sine qua non these days, and you're talking about spending the next three months getting up to speed on a foreign technology? If I were you I'd start banging that puppy out in Rails starting like, yesterday.

</comment><comment><USER14> It sounds like you want 2 things.

1: Build out your killer idea 2: Learn Django and use it

I don't think the transition from Ror to Django should be that big of a deal for you. Ruby and Python are similar enough, and the frameworks have enough conceptual overlap that it shouldn't be that big of a deal for you to switch.

The Django community is very responsive and professional with questions. Posts on the newsgroup usually get answered within hours, and IRC channel within minutes.

If you do go Django, may I suggest Practical Django Projects: [http://www.amazon.com/Practical-Django-Projects-Second- Benne...](http://www.amazon.com/Practical-Django-Projects-Second- Bennett/dp/1430219386/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1248030678&sr=8-1)

Also, if you're looking for off shore Django developers, look up a few people on djangopeople.net.

</comment><comment><USER15> Look it is just a web app framework. If you know Rails well, you should be able to pick up Django fast (and vice versa). Sure you'll get a few surprises in some edge cases, but hey, in the end it is just a framework that mediates between http requests to databases and generates web pages. How difficult would it be to grok either once you know the other?

fwiw, I've built apps with both, I prefer Django, But I wouldn't agonize about switching to Rails for a project or two if required. And no matter how much advice you get only you can decide which one suits you better and you can decide that only afer using both in serious projects.

Just start writing code.

</comment><comment><USER16> You can't go wrong with any of them. I think Django has a slight edge by having a slower release cycle. I find it a desirable quality in a development framework.

While the number of man-months spent developing Rails is an order of magnitude greater than that spent developing Django, is it really that much better for the bottom line?

Most of the early efforts spent on Rails were to make the infrastructure and community more mature. Even the brilliant DHH was a PHP developer before he started Rails.

On the other hand, Django benefited a lot from Python's maturity.

<comment><USER3> > While the number of man-months spent developing Rails is an order of > magnitude greater than that spent developing Django

Wildly off base figure

1\. Years under development. ROR: 5/Django 5

2\. Members in largest google group: ROR 18000+/Django 14000+

3\. Members in Irc currently: Ror 436/Django 401

4\. Commits to repo: Ror ?/Django 11000+

So while Ror has a bigger community, it is not that much bigger.

<comment><USER16> There is no easy way to measure this. But to support my point:

Rails first public release: July 2004 (5 years back)

Django's first public release: July 2005 (4 years back)

Rails Contributors: 1350

Django Contributors: 460

I never said that Django's community was smaller. I just said that it was more mature in their programming language and therefore it was easier for them to get things done right the first time.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Desire(learn django) > Value(rails knowledge) ? django : rails

Nobody can tell you what those values are. Both are acceptable frameworks, just pick one and move on.

</comment><comment><USER18> Can someone who knows Ruby and Python contrast their metaprogramming capabilities along with how much mileage Django and Rails get from it under the hood?

</comment><comment><USER19> Without learning a bit more about the nature of your project, I don't think it's possible to give you meaningful advice. Dish!

</comment><comment><USER5> What about performance and scalability? Doesn't python (with psyco and soon, unladen swallow) win big here? When you choose a platform, it's important to choose one that won't limit you when you start having users on a large scale...

<comment><USER6> Unless something changed, django doesn't even run on psyco cleanly and the combo is unsuitable for production. Unladen swallow also isn't ready for use in production with django and it's unclear when it will be. But performance from these languages aren't the bottlenecks in web apps, and Ruby 1.9 and Python 3 have similar performance, anyway.

<comment><USER12> > Ruby 1.9 and Python 3 have similar performance, anyway.

That's immaterial in this debate, isn't it? Django doesn't run on Python 3, and Python 3 is still slower than Python 2 (though they're starting to focus on performance improvements in Python 3 with every new release).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Trust me, Django is almost dead. The hype around Django is completely dead and existing developers are using it, but new developers are not jumping on ship. In 6 years there will be a serious Django shortage of maintanance personell.

Stick with rails and don't make the silliest mistake of your life.

<comment><USER3> Any statistics you have to back that up?</comment></comment>


Bose Connect Privacy Evaluation [pdf] - <AUTHOR> https://bscc.support/files/bc_privacy/bose_connect_privacy_evaluation.pdf <comment><AUTHOR> Related to: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14148145](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14148145) "Bose Headphones Spy on Users, Lawsuit Says"</comment>


The Lost World of Weegee - <AUTHOR> https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/lost-world-weegee/ <comment><USER2> Probably my all-time most-looked-up-to photographer, in terms of style, hustle and attitude. "f/8 and be there" is still as true today as it was then, and honestly the bulk of my best photography has been from following his advice. Though I'll never quite have the eye for composition he did!

</comment><comment><USER3> Why make an article about visual art, but not include pictures?

<comment><USER4> But there are?

<comment><USER5> Mobile view includes only one picture; desktop view two. Pretty slim either way considering.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Weegee is one of the greats

</comment><comment><USER7> Weegee is also the Scottish word for a person from the City of Glasgow

</comment><comment><USER8> [https://i.imgur.com/xsX0nFq.png](https://i.imgur.com/xsX0nFq.png)</comment>