On Ada Lovelace Day, how diverse are tech companies? - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/oct/11/ada-lovelace-day-tech-company-diversity-equality?CMP=edit_2221 <comment><USER2> This problem cannot be fixed by changing hiring policy or corporate diversity training. 18% of computer science graduates are women. If women are 18% of programmers, then arithmetic dictates that most software companies cannot reach gender parity. If one company has more than 18%, another company has to have less than 18%. It's just simple math.

I applaud companies who try to increase the diversity of people learning computer science. But they cannot, by changing _internal_ policy, reach gender parity - not without making some other company even more male-dominated. It is pointless and counter-productive to continually whack Google and Facebook over the head for their inability to make two plus two equal five.

<comment><USER3> But they can still point to other companies and call the names. :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> When I first saw a first computer I knew that I want to know more about these mysterious machines. I still remember the joy and happiness on a day of the first snow when I realized what the double for cycle does. I think I was 13 then. I also remember the passion in reading the only accessible book about object oriented programming in C++.

My passion became my profession and therefore it is hard for me to relate with this dance around the diversity.

People should do what they feel passionate about regardless of their gender (or skin color or other nonsense there is possible to come up with). Everything else is a moot point.

It still does not follow that we should not make something more accessible for anyone, or that we should tolerate a discrimination. But if people do not share the passion then for me it does not matter what special body parts they have or have not, there is no place in my heart for them.

<comment><USER4> > People should do what they feel passionate about regardless of their gender > (or skin color or other nonsense there is possible to come up with). > Everything else is a moot point.

Yes. This is why I believe children should be raised in a gender-neutral way. It helps in steering clear of premature expectations.

<comment><USER5> Setting premature expectations seems orthogonal to me than gender neutrality. As in, it can be as well a product of being in a successful lawyer/engineer/politicians family than gender by itself and generally more a result of parent projections than gender determinism.

edit: see also this comment about Ada parents [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12683739](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12683739)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> An interesting tidbit is that Ada's mother "forced" (maybe too strong a word, but obsessively encouraged her) to study the opposite of what Lord Byron did (poetry, arts) in fear that Ada would turn out like him and thus she studied mathematics and logic.

<comment> atom-morgan A good point you bring up. Similar to Ada's mother, a lot of Asian parents are very involved with their child's academics and often push their kids towards studying STEM. Yet, even as a minority in America, Asians are never included in discussions related to diversity and inclusion within tech - and it isn't because this point is addressed. If we're going to attempt to find the root cause of why there may be a disparity in tech, race or gender, what good does it do to ignore the differences in upbringing?

<comment><USER7> "I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. My sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history, naval architecture, navigation, commerce, and agriculture, in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry, and porcelain." - John Adams (1735 - 1826)

<comment><USER8> No one needs to be given the right to study music.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> On Tuesday, how diverse are garbage/sewer workers?

<comment><USER10> Ahh they don't care about the dirty jobs. It's OK for men to dominate those fields.

A better example would be teachers. Female dominated, and there's some half- hearted "concern" about the gender imbalance, but get back to me when the media and the president are harping on the issue constantly.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: What do you do for bookmarking? - <AUTHOR>

Hello, fellas.
What do you guys prefer as a bookmarking tool? Do you use your browser bookmarking? I've been searching for better ways to remember and organize some sites, and I'm unsatisfied with local bookmarking.
I've been trying del.icio.us lately,
I wish to know from you if I you know something else I can try to make my experience better. What do YOU use? <comment><USER2> I use the Evernote plugin for saving random snippets of interesting text I might want one day; and for pages I'll want to visit in the next 6 months, I use 'Read It Later' <http://readitlaterlist.com/>

What's so nice about read it later is that it's quicker than regular bookmarks. I hit alt-w to add current page to the list, alt-w to remove it when I'm done, and that's it.

The regular bookmarks are heavyweight enough that I just wouldn't do that. (And this allows a nice division between regular bookmarks, links I'll be using for years, and RIL bookmarks, which I could get rid of anytime as soon as I finish with them. I _could_ do that with folders, and that's how RIL works behind the scenes, but that's still more heavyweight.)

There are other features, like auto-saving the pages to disk for offline access, or a personal RSS feed, and integration with various Web 2.0 thingies - but that the core functionality is _so_ quick and easy is the greatest part about it.

</comment><comment><USER3> I tried delicious for a while but it never really clicked for me. I now use Xmarks with Firefox and love it. It keeps my bookmarks the same on my several personal and work computers with different views for each, not to mention it syncs usernames and passwords.

</comment><comment><USER4> I use InstaPaper for stuff that I want to "read later" as is its intended purpose, or stuff that think I might want to return to occasionally. I like that I can get to it from anywhere, doesn't matter if I'm using my local machine.

For pages I use all the time... I have a local HTML file as my home page. It's just a simple set of links organized into a few broad categories. Faster than navigating the browser's bookmarks, for me, though slightly more work to update.

</comment><comment><USER5> I got through hundreds of site a day and never bookmark them. For me the internet is more an experience and I don't' like to read things twice. I can usually find what I want very quickly using google. So my suggestion is to just use google.

<comment><AUTHOR> The problem is when I _want_ to remember things for certain ocasions, like, showing something to a friend, or just revisit if there is a need to. Google sometimes is inefficient for that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Browser autocompletion, with Google for the tricky ones. I visit the same 6 sites all the time anyway.

I figure that if I can't remember a useful keyword off the page, it must not've been a site worth remembering.

</comment><comment><USER7> I use standard issue Firefox bookmarking, including a large group of bookmarks imported from the last time I was using IE. I refer to those bookmarks often during online discussion--I just did this afternoon.

</comment><comment><USER8> delicious, pretty much since the day it started. Probably would not be using it that heavily without the Firefox plugin. Ctrl-D is one of my more used actions.

</comment><comment><USER9> Browser bookmarking with TagSifter in Firefox.

<comment><USER10> I still fondly remember Kaylon's PowerMarks. Tagged bookmarking, with auto- generation of a default set of tags and with fast search based on parsing input to a textbox. It may still be around, but I believe development stopped years ago.

Searching on "TagSifter" turned up

<http://linux.com/archive/feature/145955>

which gives me it and two other Firefox extensions to look at further when it's not so late in the evening.

Maybe the combination will get me close to what PowerMarks offered.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> A combination of Instapaper for PDFs and the like, with Delicious for everything else.

</comment><comment><USER12> pinboard.in + instapaper

</comment><comment><USER13> command-B

</comment><comment><USER14> zotero for saving pages that I'll want to see again or want to be able to search locally</comment>


Ask HN: Freelance sites for single scripts or small programs? - <AUTHOR>

I'm looking for some <i>good</i> freelance sites that specialize in only gigs for single scripts or small programs. Anyone know of any--or currently making something like this? <comment><USER2> I think that's what <http://gun.io> is for.

<comment><AUTHOR> gun.io gets linked on HN often, but I didn't know it was a service. Thanks for the link, this was what I had in mind essentially.

<comment><USER2> No problem.</comment></comment></comment>


A tiny Swiss company thinks it can help stop climate change - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/12/magazine/climeworks-business-climate-change.html <comment><USER2> It is an important technology, but it will not really help right now.

It will always be cheaper to prevent creation of CO2 (burning fossil fuels) than to catch CO2 back from the atmosphere.

So, the first thing we need to do is to move to completely carbon emission free technology of energy production. Then we can perhaps produce more than we need (e.g. in the peaks) and can start thinking about catching some CO2 back from the atmosphere to reverse the climate changes.

Unfortunately, there is not even global consensus on getting to zero emissions. In this situation, I can't imagine how there can be a consensus on doing something (like utilizing this technology) on the mass scale that helps to save the environment for free.

<comment><USER3> I don't think it's a given that it will _always_ be cheaper to avoid emissions. Long-haul air travel, for example, isn't likely to go electric anytime soon, and it could well be that the cheapest option is to absorb their emissions from the air and inject them into the ground, rather than producing carbon-neutral jet fuel.

If this technology really does get down to $94/ton, then a $100/ton price on carbon emissions is likely to give it a role. People can reduce emissions whenever it costs less than $94/ton to do so, and if it costs more, they could pay for absorption instead.

$100/ton CO2 would raise the price of gasoline by a dollar a gallon, which doesn't seem all that unattainable, especially if the collected funds are redistributed as a dividend.

<comment><USER4> But if you're pulling the CO2 from the air anyway, why not just use the extracted carbon as fuel rather than pull it out of the ground?

<comment><USER5> Cost. The average American family uses 24 metric tons a year (at least as of 2007, but we're ball-parking here) [1]. The article says it's $500 - $600 to extract 1 metric ton of CO2.

(24 metric tons * $550/metric ton) / 12 months = $1,110 per month.

That's $1,100 for raw CO2. Once you factor in CO2 => fuel, then transport, delivery, etc. your cost is dramatically higher.

Suppose scale could help and the entire process were $1,110 per month. For for most of us, that's still _much_ more than we pay each month in electricity + gas.

1\. [http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2007/02/20/picturing-a- ton-o...](http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2007/02/20/picturing-a-ton-of-co2/)

<comment><USER6> According to the World Bank, America produced 16.5 tons of CO2 per person in 2014. Germany produced 8.9 tons per person, Britain produced 6.5 tons, France produced 4.6 tons and Switzerland produced 4.3 tons.

Can we all agree that 16.5 tons per person is an absurdly large amount of CO2?

[https://databank.worldbank.org/data/reports.aspx?source=2&se...](https://databank.worldbank.org/data/reports.aspx?source=2&series=EN.ATM.CO2E.PC&country=)

<comment><USER7> Doesn't help that so many in the US have no realistic choice for transportation beyond an automobile.

I'm a 90 minute walk from the nearest bus station, I work from home luckily (and have no license either) but my wife has to drive literally everywhere. We bought a used 2006 Prius now almost four years ago, so we've reduced our emissions as much as is feasible for now - but we still use roughly 300 gallons of fuel a year at 40MPG average.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I think there might be another lucrative market for this technology. Creating low CO2 environments in corporate (or other) buildings.

There's a ton of anecdotal (e.g. [0]) and some scientific [1] evidence that elevated CO2 levels has negative mental effects. If you could prove this effect and make office workers 1% more effective that would be worth millions to a company like Google, _before_ you consider the advertising, recruiting, tax credit, etc advantages.

PS. I think this is the most dystopian business idea I've ever had.

[0] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18959796](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18959796)

[1] This seems to be a good survey paper. Download button at top right doesn't require a login [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311844520_Carbon_di...](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311844520_Carbon_dioxide_toxicity_and_climate_change_a_serious_unapprehended_risk_for_human_health)

<comment> Iwan-Zotow Well, Google solution would be a lot simpler - oxygenate the buildings. Probably would contribute a bit TOWARD GW

<comment><USER8> Also a good idea - but it's not necessarily an either or sort of thing, since the (potential) issue with CO2 is toxicity not lack of O2.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> > A Climeworks app could be installed on my smartphone, he explained. It could > then be activated by my handset's location services. "You fly over here to > Europe," he explained, "and the app tells you that you have just burned 1.7 > tons of CO₂. Do you want to remove that? Well, Climeworks can remove it for > you. Click here. We'll charge your credit card. And then you'll get a stone > made from CO₂ for every ton you sequester." He sat back and sighed. "That > would be my dream," he said.

That's what I'm working on! Get people who care to take personal responsibility for their own travel. It is just $2-4 dollars a week - a tiny sum for people who fly frequently. In beta for iOS now if you are interested in giving it a shot: [https://www.producthunt.com/upcoming/pledge- balance](https://www.producthunt.com/upcoming/pledge-balance)

An independent app has the benefit of not being stuck with just this Climeworks best case $100/ton direct air capture. Soils and grasslands seem to be a low hanging fruit closer to $10/ton.

<comment><USER10> Someone less convinced about these issues will react to this by saying: "good idea, make those who are interested in this climate thing pay and leave the rest of us alone".

<comment><USER9> Hopefully this is a more palatable solution for skeptics than a big carbon tax or even doing nothing. There is an obvious connection between cars and airplanes spewing gunk into the air, you don't need to make a case with global warming models - just be responsible for your own mess and nothing more. Everyone understands pollution and being responsible for their direct actions.

<comment><USER11> _Everyone understands pollution and being responsible for their direct actions._

And yet still only 2% of the population is vegan.

I don't suppose it will work if we just leave this to the people who care. Most people do care, but enough to sacrifice their comfort.

<comment><USER9> I would argue being vegan is a very hard change, equivalent in my mind to asking people who care about the environment to never fly or get in a car with an internal combustion engine. Those people exist, but man is that a lot to ask!

It is a much smaller ask to opt into paying 5 cents more for a burger to offset. But with travel the connection to emissions is more obvious and wealthy people have a larger share (a rich person doesn't eat 10x more steak than average, but does fly 10x more).

<comment><USER12> You lost me on the comparison between never flying/driving and eating responsibly and well, but i think the "never" part of the equation is going to cause a lot of friction.

If being a vegan is hard, use condiments! Don't be a vegan, just eat way less meat (especially red) and stuff made with palm oil which would both benefit both the climate and your health. Actually the heck with the planet, heart disease will take your number faster than climate change.

"By 2020, 90% of Ford's North American sales will consist of larger vehicles with lower fuel economy" Not buying an SUV that never leaves the pavement which rides on GIANT tires might also be something to consider in the personal choices category. If you really need to see above everyone else, install a periscope.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Capturing CO2 from air seems like a very difficult task. Its only 0.041% by volume, which means you need huge volumes of air, hence all the fans. One promising technology I've seen involves taking CO2 out of seawater, sequestering it as a mineral and producing H2 as a byproduct, called electrogeochemistry [0]. They claim it can be done relatively cheaply but are still lab scale.

The other negative emissions technologies I've seen are biomass energy plus carbon capture and storage (BECCS). That involves using biomass for some energy purpose, say making ethanol or burning woods chips, and capturing and storing the resulting CO2.

[0] [https://news.ucsc.edu/2018/06/electrogeochemistry.html](https://news.ucsc.edu/2018/06/electrogeochemistry.html)

<comment><USER14> Could someone point out to me how BECCS compares to just using solar/wins plus batteries for energy? Independence from local climate/geography? I assume that the vast majority of people live in areas where alternative energies are viable, the main missing piece in thar puzzle is cheap battery tech. For housing purposes this is already pretty much solved, it's called a water tank (for thermal storage).

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> "it costs the firm between $500 and $600 to remove a metric ton of CO₂ from the air"

Ricke et alia center their cost-of-carbon estimates at $417: [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-018-0282-y](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-018-0282-y) . Climeworks is already very close.

</comment><comment><USER16> "At the moment, global CO₂ emissions are about 37 billion metric tons per year"

"Still, greenhouses and soda bubbles together represent a small global market — perhaps six million metric tons of CO₂ annually."

Hmm... as they point out later on, this only starts to make a difference if they get the whole air-capture-to-hydrocarbons thing working, fuelled by surplus renewable energy, _and_ there's a global moratorium or limitation on oil/gas exploration and drilling.

</comment><comment><USER17> A couple of positive notes: firstly the soon-to-be world's largest windfarm started supplying power for the first time this week:

[https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/feb/11/biggest-...](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/feb/11/biggest- offshore-windfarm-to-start-uk-supply-this-week)

Secondly I've just become aware of how much e-bikes have come on, to the point that they could feasibly replace more and more journeys in future. Sadly in the UK the legislation lags behind the technology at present in that either you have a 250w/15.5 mph limited bike, or you have to go full blown motor vehicle registration with number plate, insurance, etc., whereas in Europe they recognise a third category between the two. Hoping this gets sorted out in future (no Brexit comments, please..).

<comment><USER18> Is that 15.5mph limit only for motor output on flat ground? I routinely hit 40-50mph downhill while commuting on my non-motorized road bike.

<comment><USER19> That's the point where the motor stops assisting, to go faster you just need to peddle harder.

In reality it's fairly easy to deresrict these bikes, the only problem is most car drivers won't expect you to be going so fast.

<comment><USER17> > the only problem is most car drivers won't expect you to be going so fast.

Not the only problem - if you get caught there's also possible prosecution, points on your driving license etc. What's doubly annoying is that even if you want to do the right thing and register your 1000w e-bike as a moped there are still barriers in the way, e.g. finding insurance, getting it MOT-d. Still another issue is that once it's registered as a moped it cannot be used on cycle paths etc. It really is ridiculous at present and the law needs updating.

<comment><USER19> I'm not sure allowing 1000W unrestricted bikes on cycle lanes is a good idea.

<comment><USER17> ..hence the fact there should be a middle category, to remove the temptation. It does make me pretty cynical about political rhetoric on climate change when the opportunity to act fast to promote new technology is there, and they apparently do sweet FA.

<comment><USER19> Actually thinking about it I'd really like to see something down about electric scooters, the type that companies like Bird rent out. Currently they are illegal because they have a hand throttle.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> "Last year, when David Keith and his associates at Carbon Engineering published figures projecting that their carbon-capture technology could bring costs as low as $94 a metric ton, Herzog was not convinced. Keith nevertheless made the case to me that two new investors in Carbon Engineering — Chevron Technology Ventures and a subsidiary of Occidental Petroleum — scrutinized his company's numbers to an exhaustive degree and agreed the economics of the venture were solid enough to merit putting up substantial amounts in a $60 million investment round."

This is the most interesting part. The investors are oil companies. Perhaps they are just funding the story that there is no need for government to curtail or tax their activities, because DAC will be able to "reverse time" for us in the future? The article has already debunked this quite well, like the quote from Hal Harvey. But at the same time, these technologies are still pencilled in by the I.P.C.C.[1] and of course, Chevron when they say they will abide by the Paris agreement but still increase their year-on-year output of fossil fuels[2].

Carbon Engineering does seem to get outsize coverage in the news. Hope sells better than despair, or the idea that we would actually need to change our lifestyles (fly much less, eat less meat, etc) to combat climate change.

Carbon Engineering is also based in Calgary, home to a lot of the O&G industry, but are not working on the thermodynamically easier problem - extracting CO2 from the pollution output of power plants, where it's 25% of the output instead of 0.04%.

[1] [http://blog.policy.manchester.ac.uk/posts/2018/10/response-t...](http://blog.policy.manchester.ac.uk/posts/2018/10/response- to-the-ipcc-1-5c-special-report/)

[2] [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-02-07/chevron-p...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-02-07/chevron- pledges-alignment-with-paris-accord-but-won-t-cap-output)

<comment><USER21> I am really curious what goes on in the minds of the people working at these companies in top positions. How do they sleep at night? Do they simply say to themselves "I'm just one person, I can't do anything about a global problem and I need money"?

I find it hard to believe that there is some sinister plot to do damage as long as possible to make the most money. Surely these people realize we are all doomed no matter the amount of money you have in the end? Or perhaps that's it... perhaps they know we are doomed and just want to live out their lives in the most comfort possible and buy whatever comfort money may afford for their children?

<comment><USER22> I was reading a "biography" of (I think it was the) Nature Conservancy (or a similar legal activist group.)

They got their start when they had figured out that PG&E (California's electric company) could meet their projected demand while saving money and reducing pollution by improving efficiency of existing infrastructure instead of building new power plants. They couldn't convince management to even look at the numbers. They had to sue them to get them to do something obvious that was in their own best interests. That's how gung ho the executives were to "build, baby build". It wasn't a conspiracy, it was just systemic cultural dumbness.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I think it would be far more manageable to just plant more trees. They were optimized for millions of years to pull CO2 out of the air and store it in the form of wood which is a fantastic material by the way. And trees are not only a simple but a scalable solution.

<comment><USER24> Trees are scalable in that you can keep planting them at low cost, but no where near effective enough at sequestering carbon. Even if you cover all agricultural land in the world with trees, you won't sequester enough carbon to prevent climate change.

<comment><USER25> We can achieve ⅓ of the global emissions reductions called for in The Paris Agreement with 'Natural Climate Solutions' - replanting trees, rangelands, and fire response and restoration.

[https://nature4climate.org/resource- centre/messaging/](https://nature4climate.org/resource-centre/messaging/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I do believe taking CO2 from the air is critically important.

But meanwhile not far away from this site, all around Europe, power stations are burning mountains of coal. Surely its easier to stop that than scrubbing it.

</comment><comment><USER27> This is one of those areas where nuclear power might be useful. The main expensive input to this process is energy. If you had several nuclear power plants powering this process, you could remove a substantial amount of CO2 from the air. Additional energy input could be used to create hydrocarbons, and you could have a carbon neutral fuel that is ultimately nuclear powered.

</comment><comment><USER28> No one can "stop" climate change. It's far too late for that. All we can do now is hope to blunt the force of the impact.

<comment><USER29> Well, its already occurring. We can certainly still aim to reduce the actual continued worsening of climate change, _as well_ as mitigating its effects.

If cheap, easy commercially viable fusion power was unveiled tomorrow I'd have hope that we could stop climate change in 10 years. A real, cheap commercial way to remove carbon from the atmosphere in massive amounts could also stop it. I can't say that this company feels like they have that.

<comment><USER30> There is only one issue with that thinking. Till people who directly profit from destroying environment can lobby our democratic system, we cant do anything with big enough influence. We would have to introduce totalitarism lead by Gandalfs to change that.

<comment><USER29> If you equate concerted international government-lead action to totalitarianism, you are part of the problem.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> If this was scaled up and functioning in a significant number of cities and energy production centers, would it matter?

From what I understood, the troublesome area for CO2 in our atmosphere is in a level way above where we live and work, so we need scrubbing up there, not down here closer to the ocean.

</comment><comment><USER21> I think this is one of many approaches stated in this video: [https://www.ted.com/talks/chad_frischmann_100_solutions_to_c...](https://www.ted.com/talks/chad_frischmann_100_solutions_to_climate_change)

</comment><comment><USER32> Doing some bandaid solution doesn't solve the root of the problem. And that is that companies are running through natural resources with wanton abandon.

We have deserts (California) with acre-feet of water pumped in to water almond trees, while we destroy freshwater aquifers. We burn dead dinosaurs and leave the toxic accumulants to hang out in atmo. We inject nasty carcinogens and then blow up the ground to salvage more oil. We dump all sorts of things in the ocean for 'someone else' to deal with.

Sure we individuals can do a few conservative things for ecology. But the bulk is the companies are allowed to leverage natural resources and the tragedy of the commons of the world to make a few more $$$. And these tiny companies with some carbon sequestration makes people feel good, but ultimately means that we buy a few more weeks, months, or perhaps years before we're completely fucked.

<comment><USER33> Well, no it doesn't. Although it at least has the merit to shed some light on the matter, make some cash flow towards the problem, and offer some imperfect solutions.

I would love the Earth resources to be considered and treated precious by all of us 8 billion humans, but that's clearly not the case. We in Europe have been organizing strikes for months, and we are not being listened. If I think about the USA, where politicians listen to their constituents even less, and the general opinion is just not concerned enough to VOTE for their president, much less get involved politically, I fall in despair. I cry. Then I just try to forget because I want to carry on.

What will you do? Are you getting involved with your local politicians? Are you doing a few conservative things for ecology? I just hope that you are doing more than writing critical comments on the internet.

<comment><USER32> > If I think about the USA, where politicians listen to their constituents > even less, and the general opinion is just not concerned enough to VOTE for > their president, much less get involved politically, I fall in despair. I > cry. Then I just try to forget because I want to carry on.

I live in the US. Indiana. Our last governor was Mike Pence.

Our state is full of Republicans who wholly reject any idea of global warming or climate change. Fracking is cool and a good way to make money. Public institutions are a place to extort more money from students. Our state and national forests are places the Dept. of Natural Resources have deemed OK to sell old growth trees for $3 (2.6 euro - yes, pocket change)/tree. A law was passed 2 years ago banning communities from banning or putting fees on plastic bags.

Where I live cares nothing for ecology or environmentalism. The crony politicians only further their own private business interests. I do try to find city/county local politicians that care, but their hands are tied.

I also live with my wife and practice the 4 R's (Repair, Reduce, Reuse, Recycle). But that meager effort only goes so far.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> > _... at prices cheap enough ..._

Argh. Prices can't be cheap, NYT. They can be low.

/pet-peeve

</comment><comment><USER35> The title sounds like someone is actually seriously working on stopping climate change, so that there is something to provide some help to. Which is, well, not the case, no?

</comment><comment><USER36> So they capture the CO2 then.. release it? Into a greenhouse? Then what? How much of the CO2 goes back into the atmosphere?

<comment><USER37> The article mentions what they plan on doing with it:

"What Gebald and Wurzbacher really want to do is to pull vast amounts of CO₂ out of the atmosphere and bury it, forever, deep underground, and sell that service as an offset. Climeworks's captured CO₂ has already been injected deep into rock formations beneath Iceland..."

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Check out olivine weathering.

</comment><comment><USER38> Is this an actual article or an advertisement for a gimmicky company and a part of the company's paid PR campaign? What's news worthy here?

</comment><comment><USER39> maybe one day they will take out so many co2 from the atmosphere so the atmosphere becomes toxic. we must stop this madness and use more disel!

<comment><USER40> Modern Diesel engines are more CO2 efficient than petrol[1].

[1] [https://theconversation.com/fact-check-are-diesel-cars- reall...](https://theconversation.com/fact-check-are-diesel-cars-really-more- polluting-than-petrol-cars-76241)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Here's the thing: there's this thing called conservation of mass and energy.

The carbon reaction goes like this: Carbon + Oxygen = CO2 + energy.

You can reverse it, like you can with any chemical reaction, like this: CO2 + energy = Carbon + Oxygen

This is all high school chemistry stuff. But the long and short is: To sequester carbon from the atmosphere requires _at least as much energy as you got by burning the carbon in the first place_.

That's why no scheme to unburn the carbon can ever work.

<comment><USER41> That kind of dismissive, smug response is never helpful and often disempowering. While so far we've never gotten around conservation of energy laws, we've often engineered solutions that met our goals. There are renewable sources of energy that can power this effort. Many wind-farms and even solar farms are starting to overproduce in some areas. Nuke plants overproduce because they can't adapt quickly enough to changing demands. There are solutions to the problem of powering these sequestration units.

<comment><USER4> Right, but they are always worse than just not burning the CO2 in the first place.

Also, "So far"? If you believe that we're ever going to break the conservation of mass and energy, you _literally believe in magic._

<comment><USER42> Yup either everyone who talks about carbon capture _literally believe in magic_ and failed high school chemistry/physics, or there is more nuance to the issue than you think.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Analyze my business model - <AUTHOR>

I have a startup that is subscription based dating site.  However, instead of charging users initially for the service, I charge them if the stick around too long.  So, that if you are successful in finding a SO, it costs you nothing, but if you have a hard time finding that someone it'll cost you.<p>My business model incentivizes users to get on with it and not dawdle around.  Therefore, if users believe they are above average daters and are successful at it it won't cost them a thing. <comment><USER2> You should make the service free and allow people to send gifts to each other in the form of small icons/pictures next to their profile (but charge a small amount). I know this has been done before, but it works.

The guys want to impress the women and the women like the social status of having "gifts". You could make this into a sort of social game (think Farmville) where you feel compelled to spend money on something.

There are way too many dating sites out there. You either need:

1) lots of hot women 2) a really good niche site (example: gay bankers) 3) something else that draws people into your site

OKcupid has done a good job with this.

I also have a question about your current model. How is this different than a 2-week free trial?

</comment><comment><USER3> This is more of a pricing strategy than a business model.

This is a good overview of all the elements of a business model: [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/10/Business_Model...](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/10/Business_Model_Canvas.png)

That would give a better picture of what you're experimenting with.</comment>


Microsoft Band (official site) - <AUTHOR> http://www.microsoft.com/microsoft-band/en-us

<comment><USER2> Comments moved to [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8530819](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8530819).</comment>


InfluxDB 2.0 Alpha and the Road Ahead - <AUTHOR> https://www.influxdata.com/blog/influxdb-2-0-alpha-release-and-the-road-ahead/ <comment><USER2> Been using InfluxDB for a rather long time now and while I've had my share of the problems (including [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17768860](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17768860)) generally I do like the ecosystem a lot. When it works it just works and it's awesome.

That said while TickScripts are not exactly a pleasure write, I wouldn't say a new language is pretty high on my wantlist. For example, as the blog post states:

> We also need to add features for backup & restore, bulk data import and > export, and data deletes.

I'd take any of those over a new query language any day now. Especially the restore part is at the moment nearly completely non-existing after backup format change in InfluxDB, so good luck if you happen to run into data loss or just want to move around data in general. Same goes for data deletion outside of whole measurements.

I am hopeful that those features arrive before a 2.0 launch and hopefully in some sort of backwards compatible way (or at least ported to Influx 1.x).

<comment> e-dard Hi, I'm one of the engineers working on the storage side of InfluxDB. Improving the performance of adhoc deletes, as well as import/export (backup/restore) are features that my team will be actively working on in the coming weeks and months.

<comment><USER2> Hi @e-dard! That's great to hear, looking forward to next releases! Keep up the good work!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> InfluxDB creator here, happy to answer questions and add more commentary here!

<comment><USER3> I tried out InfluxDB a while ago in my spare time and was intrigued by the feature set, but ultimately couldn't get past the abstruse query language, especially coming from the simpler and more flexible PromQL (not being able to do ad-hoc math across time series was a big deal for my use case). I'm eagerly looking forward to giving it another shot with Flux and have super-high hopes.

What does the data model for time series look like in 2.0? Mostly the same as 1.x, or has that gotten more flexible as well?

<comment><AUTHOR> For now we take writes in the 1.x line protocol so it's still measurement, tags, and field. However, Flux doesn't really make that a requirement. So in the future we plan on having a way to write series in without requiring a field or even a measurement.

Once the planner gets the data to the Flux processing engine it views everything thing as a table of data with columns and records. So it's much more flexible in how we can represent data.

<comment><USER3> Sounds good; thanks for the reply!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Backup and easy restore (not having to run SQL statements to switch up tables) is the thing I care about the most.

I agree with the folks below suggesting you use javascript as the language instead of reinventing your own.

</comment><comment><USER5> I really like what Influx is doing. I find getting information in and out much easier in Influx than most others.

<comment><USER6> There's a canned dashboard for that actually. Setup the telegraf input for your influx instance and it can tell you all kinds of neat stuff about what it's doing internally.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> To other users of InfluxDB : How do you read data if you want to group, filter, sort by something other than time?

We used to use InfluxDB to store our perf data where every data point contained a timestamp (thus we thought influxdb was ideal for our use case). But, soon we wanted to group, filter, sort by various dimensions and it lead to performance issues.

Bringing it all in-mem and using pandas to do that was very slow for us. Also, creating indexes for so many columns didn't seem like a good idea.

We switched to postgres and the decision has served us well so far. I just want to understand if influx isn't suitable to our kind of use-case or we used it incorrectly.

<comment><AUTHOR> InfluxDB 1.x was definitely not designed for that. With Flux in InfluxDB 2.0 you will be able to do things like store reference data in other places and join that with time series data in InfluxDB at query time. You can also sort, group and filter by any measurement, tag, field, or value. However, there are no user defined secondary indexes so the scope of this will be a bit more limited based on how things are stored. I'd have to know more about the specific kinds of queries to figure if it's something that would make sense within InfluxDB 2.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> > Kapacitor is the killer app

Um. Yes. Wait, there are people that use influxdb _without_ kapacitor alerting??? Someone name any commercial or open source equivalent, b/c I'd like to know in case they kill it.

<comment><USER8> I haven't had any other needs since switching to Prometheus / Prometheus AlertManager / Grafana and a Slack binding.

AM looks ugly as hell ("designed by engineers"), but it's damn rock solid and versatile.

Tried Influx in the first days, but it was slow and buggy and they changed their paradigms every other version. Well, looks like they're doing it again...

<comment><USER9> How do you store long term data?

<comment><USER10> Prometheus can write data to another system for long term storage: [https://prometheus.io/docs/operating/integrations/#remote- en...](https://prometheus.io/docs/operating/integrations/#remote-endpoints- and-storage)

<comment><USER9> I know. As the OP didn't like Influx, I was wondering which other solution is used.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I haven't seen flux and a few other things before, but it sounds really exciting. It looks like influx people release a lot of this info (and related tech like grafana) on their YouTube channel: [https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCnrgOD6G0y0_rcubQuICpTQ](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCnrgOD6G0y0_rcubQuICpTQ)

Good content, it's a shame it's not more popular.

<comment><USER12> They quote something like 8 grand-a-node. It is a bit off the the 'popular' zone.

<comment><USER11> You can still do a lot with the open version. Especially if you need it for a small/side project, it's great.

If you really need the HA, you can start spending on the enterprise edition. Or move to another storage.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> What's the story regarding high availability for InfluxDB 2.0? I know it is a commercial offering in the current release, and while I'm not super thrilled about that, I do think it's reasonable. It would be nice if you could buy the self-hosted version with a "contact sales" step which I honestly will never do. (I would just put a proxy in front of the multiple instances that tries to write to as many of them as possible and does reads from one at random. What could go wrong!)

The other thing I never figured out in the current version is how to write the following query. I store samples like (device, network, direction) -> packet count. I then want to know how many packets were sent across the network in total.

With monitoring systems I've used in the past (internal to my former employer), this was easy. You would do the delta calculation at the lowest level to convert device packet counters to number of packets sent in the last time interval, which varies randomly because samples are not necessarily arriving at discrete intervals. Then you would do an align, to bring the randomly-added sampling times into alignment across all the "streams" (which is a unique (device, network, direction)). Once the data is aligned, you can then do a group by to get rid of a certain tag, like device (and just have (network, direction) -> total packets sent in the time interval).

With InfluxDB, I can't figure out how to do this. It has the group by time concept, but not alignment, so I can't write a query that will work. I ended up just computing the deltas before inserting the item, at which point everything works fine.

I have not tried the same query with Prometheus, but I suspect it would work like I expect, as it seems very heavily inspired by a certain internal monitoring system I am most familiar with.

<comment><AUTHOR> This release of 2.0 is not a commercial offering. It's completely free and open source under an MIT license without restrictions of any kind. For example, you could use it as the basis of your own commercial offering or use code from it and that is all fair game.

For the query you mention, you can do that in 1.x using a combination of group by time, fill and subqueries. In 2.0 you can do this in Flux using similar operators. More complex possibilities for interpolating missing data is also in the works.

Solving more complex query processing like what you mention is a specific reason why we started developing Flux. We couldn't figure how to address some of the more advanced query feature requests in the old language so we started with something new.

In addition to giving Flux more functions, flow control and more power, we also will be adding more out of the box functions and syntactic sugar to make some of these more advanced queries possible without being overly verbose and complex. Our order of operations for developing the language:

1\. Make it powerful 2\. Make it easy 3\. Make it fast

So it'll take us time to get to all of our goals, but I think we've laid down a pretty good foundation.</comment></comment>


How Bassem Hamdy aims to disrupt the construction industry - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2017/07/10/how-bassem-hamdy-aims-to-disrupt-the-construction-industry <comment><USER2> (audio)</comment>


Ignore Ruby Go Python - <AUTHOR>

Why the movement toward Ruby? This is complete inefficiency. Why are we rewriting all this code when we have many of these same structures coded in Python? Just because one big name web developer preferred Ruby - guys, let's get real again. <comment><USER2> I think both languages have a very vibrant following and future. I think it's worth it to learn both and encourage anyone to do so. There are many terrific open source projects written in both languages and I can understand why any developer would want to dive in and expand their horizons. It seems that the hot new language changes almost monthly but both ruby and python have proven that they belong for the long haul.

</comment><comment><USER3> Why not both?

</comment><comment><USER4> why Python?</comment>


"Please let me know if I should stop developing apps for Google Products" - <AUTHOR> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/google-tasks-api/T4kKnEDl6so <comment><USER2> We developed a product specifically for Google Drive using their JavaScript client. We were hoping to make it commercial but had to abandon those plans due to 3 bugs that have been present since around the beginning of 2013.

Also, there's no open bug tracker. The developer relations people are very friendly, but when I ask where to report bugs I'm told "just tell me". So every 2 months I've reported the same 3 bugs in person and they get swallowed up and that's the last I hear about it until my next report.

The silly thing is that we were one of the showcased applications in Google I/O this year, for the Drive section. A number of Googlers came past and said "Wow, cool. Please, please commercialise this". The truth is, we can't and it's because of the bugs in Google's code (well, partly, the other problem is Drive has just been too unstable over the past 4 months, until there's 99.9% uptime for a year, we can't consider it).

Don't get me wrong, I love what Google are doing with their API stuff and the dev relations really go out of their way to help (specifically the Drive SDK team). But, as it stands, this isn't a platform I'm confident in building a critical business product on, currently.

EDIT : That last sentence is wrong. I'm confident to build a critical business product on it, I think it'll get there, I'm just not confident to charge money and have to support it, at this point in time.

<comment><USER3> "I love what Google are doing" \- but of course you do, it is called Stockholm Syndrome. Irony aside, i'm trully amazed of Google. See, the smallest misstep Apple makes, everybody jump to hate Apple. Google on the orher can do whatever they want and nada, everybody jump in to alleviate the evelasting, unconditional love, no matter what. Remarkable achievement, hat off, in todays world.

<comment><USER2> Don't patronise me. I've been developing commercially for 20 years now, I'm not exactly wet behind the ears, nor easily persuaded by anything but facts.

I've evaluated what they are doing on their technical merit. If you want me to give you a detailed explanation of why I prefer their system, it'd probably take about an hour, so it's a bit much as a HN comment.

I genuinely think their direction with the API I'm using is the way forward, I've been waiting for someone to have the balls to do it for some time.

Any anyway, I must have missed the outpouring of love Google received for closing Reader, for not having a native Google Linux kernel OS Drive client, and so on.

<comment><USER4> > I've evaluated what they are doing on their technical merit

That's your problem. Google is phenomenal on their technical merit. It's the softer, people skills (support, listening to bug reports, etc.) where they constantly shoot themselves in the foot.

<comment><USER5> > Google is phenomenal on their technical merit

They turn into Microsoft where brilliant engineers are bogged down by corrupt management :)

<comment> test-it Funny that all the Google product managers I know personally are ex-Microsoft guys.

<comment><USER6> Does that mean that they brought Microsoft's problems to Google, or that Microsoft is having problems because they left? ;-)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> If you build something on someone else's API, you can get fucked in a million ways. They might shut down the API (Google Reader), take away the functionality you relied on (Google Calendar), limit it (Twitter) or deprecate the version you're using, forcing you to do development work to keep working at the worst possible time for you (IOS). They might also decide that your product is very good and build a version of it themselves, using functions not available to you via the public API so that you cannot compete with it (Apple).

So before building something that relies on things entirely outside of your control, consider a few things and the effort it would take for each:

\- Can you run it on something else (S3 is a good example - there are several API-compatible competitors) \- Can you replace the service you're relying on with one of your own (e.g. building your own Google Reader sync API)

Then decide if it isn't worth building the whole thing yourself. Heck, you might even want to put an API on it yourself. Feel the power? :)

Oh, and never, ever rely on someone else doing authentication for you. It's just too easy to get your entire userbase taken away from you.

<comment><USER8> > They might also decide that your product is very good and build a version of > it themselves, using functions not available to you via the public API so > that you cannot compete with it (Apple).

Can you give an example of that?

<comment><USER9> Notification Center > Growl?

<comment><USER8> Growl 2 integrates with notification center.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> The problems with Google start at the very basics of communication, with their policy of providing just one email adress (and nothing else) where you may or may not get an answer, effectively handling incoming requests more like petitions than providing real communication.

This is in constrast to many other big companies where you get at least _some_ reply (although it's often canned and not very helpful, but still more than a generic auto reply), or where you can call a more or less expensive hotline, so you can at least _pay them for hearing your voice_.

This behaviour of Google is so restrictive that it even violates consumer protection laws in some countries. For example, here in Germany they got into trouble because they violated the so-called "Impressumspflicht". This law requests that they have to provide (among others) at least one postal address and one telephone number on their website, and that they can actually be contacted by those, in 60 minutes or less.

[http://translate.google.de/translate?hl=de&sl=de&tl=en&u=htt...](http://translate.google.de/translate?hl=de&sl=de&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.googlewatchblog.de%2F2013%2F04%2Fgoogle- deutschland-abmahnung-verletzung%2F)

[http://translate.google.de/translate?hl=de&sl=de&tl=en&u=htt...](http://translate.google.de/translate?hl=de&sl=de&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.recht- freundlich.de%2Fgoogle-durch-verbraucherzentrale-abgemahnt-impressumspflicht- moeglicherweise-verletzt)

<comment><USER11> Google can do what they want. If you want to do better, than do it. Complaining won't help you.

<comment><USER12> Please never run a restaurant.

<comment><USER13> He isn't. And neither is Google.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Perhaps slightly off-topic: The name, GmailSharedTasks, doesn't look like one that Google's legal department would agree with. Your brand/product name incorporates a Google trademark. It might have been better to call it "SharedTasks for Google Tasks™" or "SharedTasks for Gmail™".

See "I'm a developer and used Google's developer products/tools to create a new product. Can I use the Google name?" on [http://www.google.com/permissions/faq.html](http://www.google.com/permissions/faq.html)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks Luit for the information, I have fixed it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> You're probably better off creating a product for a more professionally managed marketplace - like the Office365 marketplace - [http://msdn.microsoft.com/en- us/library/fp179924.aspx](http://msdn.microsoft.com/en- us/library/fp179924.aspx).

This lets you develop apps on Exchange (similar to your tasks app). See [http://msdn.microsoft.com/en- us/library/jj220499(EXCHG.80).a...](http://msdn.microsoft.com/en- us/library/jj220499\(EXCHG.80\).aspx) and [http://code.msdn.microsoft.com/office/Exchange-2013-Create-t...](http://code.msdn.microsoft.com/office/Exchange-2013-Create- tasks-39b938ea)

Office365 customers (all of them are paying customers) who find it useful can install the app on their accounts. You don't have to stuggle with PayPal issues as Microsoft will pay you through the marketplace account after charging the customers.

Office365 support is excellent as well (they even do phone support). No need to chase anyone on Google+.

(I'm not shilling for Microsoft. I have no financial interests here).

<comment><USER16> > (I'm not shilling for Microsoft. I have no financial interests here).

Paid or unpaid, this post is pretty much shilling.

<comment><USER15> Fine. If that's what you want to call it. I just want to point out alternatives. Take it or leave it.

<comment><USER16> You weren't just pointing out alternatives but actively dissuading someone. That's where I think it crosses the line.

<comment><USER15> [http://xkcd.com/386/](http://xkcd.com/386/)

<comment><USER16> Yeah I mean it's not like I explained to you why I felt it was inappropriate in a succinct way in my spare time. (That is exactly what I did)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Google _are_ terrible at developer support, but I think it is fair to say that they didn't foresee anybody using the Tasks API in this way, where you are proxying for all your users.

Keep persisting, but as a temporary measure I would prompt your users to provide you with their own API key. Lots of apps do this (such as CMS plugins). You can give them a link to the API portal and explain in 2-3 points how to generate a key and paste it back in your app.

Also, your app is in debug mode, so errors are showing a complete stack trace. Your database is also down right now.

<comment><USER18> > Google are terrible at support.

FTFY

<comment><USER19> Could you offer arguments or anecdotes about why you think Google is terrible at support? Snarky, four-character comments like yours do not add much value to the discussion.

<comment><USER20> Ever try to contact a human at google regarding their services/products? Or even your account? It's quite difficult to find an email form that will lead to a human let lone a phone number.

<comment><USER21> I've actually been fairly impressed with the support for Google Apps (paid version). I submit a ticket and a competent human calls me on the phone and usually solves the problem pretty quickly. One time, I got a lousy tech who had obviously not read my initial ticket and I had to go through the whole thing on the phone, but that was an exception.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> If you work on something for 3-4 months, that's $30-40K at valley rates. To do this for free with the intention to enhance the product offering of a megacorp basically sends the message that you don't value your time. Of course said megacorp is not going to give you the time of day. They start to pay attention when the dollar value of your account is large enough. Start charging for your app. Then you can say, "I want to make us both some more money, could you please help me?"

<comment><AUTHOR> It is difficult to charge money from India as Individuals, paypal does not accept money for India nowadays and it is near to impossible to attach a international payment gateway. I thought of donation as well but again paypal issue.

<comment><USER23> You should check out Bitcoin as a payment option, it was pretty much designed for your use case: [http://www.weusecoins.com/en/](http://www.weusecoins.com/en/)

BitPay as a payment processor in particular: [https://bitpay.com/](https://bitpay.com/)

<comment><USER24> How are users supposed to get bitcoin? It's way too difficult right now compared to cash.

<comment><USER7> That's the problem exactly. While I encourage folk to implement bitcoin payment, as a developer I don't expect any significant amount of users to adopt it as regular payment option any time soon. Even my more nerdy friends are being very cautious about it - "regular" people like my parents wouldn't touch it even if they knew what the heck it was.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I put in an API quota bump for Google Calendar a few months back and it was silently accepted after 2-3 days.

Based on my experience, each team individually deals with quotas for their API. Google Tasks is not really a dedicated product so it probably has little to no permanent team behind it. This is probably the cause for the slow response time on quota requests.

<comment><USER26> Yeah, we requested an API limit increase for Adwords. When we got an email about some specifics and how we stayed within their terms I figured it might just get rejected.

Thankfully it was a real person who actually knew what they were talking about and were able to sort it out over a chain of emails.

So yeah, I guess it is team by team.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> You should stop developing apps for Google

<comment><USER5> Or any other PRISM company. Unless you want to aid the NSA.

<comment><USER28> That effectively means "any other US/UK/AUS/NZ/CAN" company, not just PRISM- interfacing ones.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> We also receive very little love from Google. They are notorious for not helping developers, which is tragic.

<comment><USER30> Google does give a lot of love to developers. AFAIK, they have dedicated developer teams for developer relations; just look at the quality of their API documentations and support. This one looks like a operations issue. Perhaps they do not have a corresponding relations team focused on operations support.

<comment><USER31> > Google does give a lot of love to developers.

That simply isn't true. They have support for some very specific areas which they consider of specific importance (e.g. Android), for the rest you're left to rot.

> Perhaps they do not have a corresponding relations team focused on > operations support.

This has nothing to do with ops, it's a developer needing a raise in his apps requests quota.

<comment><USER26> The core areas can have the opposite problem almost. The Adwords API has moved pretty quickly but they are also quick to remove things. Most stuff built in early 2012 would have had to be updated for changed/ removed features by now.

<comment><USER30> I admit I haven't really traveled much on the less beaten paths. From the quality of what I have seen, I thought they must have policies for the minimum acceptable quality of all the public facing services to developers.

On the other hand, I am happy that even the big G cannot afford to cover all fronts. It means, there is still room for new players to grow and do well in those areas.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> This is so tragic but basically verifies my own experiences with Google. If you are not a paying customer, they don't listen to you. Even if you do something that is more to their advantage then to yours. Maybe some paying customers who use gmailsharedtasks could direct their Google support to the thread.

<comment><USER33> It's been mentioned before that, considering the volume Google serves in all their services, it's unrealistic to expect any sort of customer service beyond the FAQ and bot variety, but I'm sure there are those who are willing to pay for an actual response.

But, as one of my clients would attest, even if you're a paying customer, you may still be left hanging in the wind. I hope they don't start spreading the YouTube feedback treatment to all their services.

<comment><USER34> Google is on track to see a $14 bil pre-tax profit for 2013.

If they spent 15% of that ($2.1 bil) on support, with say a mix of 2/3 low pay ($100k/yr cost) and 1/3 high pay ($150k/yr cost) people... they could hire 18,000 additional support staff and still show a great profit.

That works out to 30 mil support hours assuming 1680 hrs/yr (35 hrs * 48 weeks) actually spent on support. They could probably hire twice that many people by hiring some people in less expensive areas.

To sum up, Google puts making a more money ahead of better support. It's their right to do so, but it not "unrealistic" for them to provide much better support.

<comment><USER35> Your numbers don't quite work - Google has to pay taxes, benefits, office space, training, perks, equipment, recruitment costs, and so on. And then, have you tried to hire 18,000 people? Finally, Google's reported head count is around 40K - you are suggesting adding about 50% just for support. That's a _tough_ sell to your investors. Where would all these people go. Mountain View is basically Google these days - the office I am sitting in will be razed for a Google parking lot (goodbye beautiful trees :( ). You have to factor in how many new buildings, how many new buses and bus drivers, city taxes, chefs, HR personnel - it goes on and on. The phrase "google scale" doesn't just apply to their apps.

I'm not disputing that they could improve their support, just the price tag and scale that you have placed on it.

<comment><USER36> Not to mention the inflexibility associated with having that many people around. Google's lack of support may come with the territory at present.

If someone figures out how to automate support better, they're going to get paid.

At the outset of Google's growth, their products and APIs seemed timeless; with the passage of a little time, that's changed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Developed an app for Android and placed it on Android market. It had 5000 users after a week and then it got removed without notice, no email, no reason why, no nothing. First and last time I do anything with Google, malicious company not only for that reason but for many other.

<comment><USER38> What was the app?

<comment><USER37> A music player.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> Google's API documentation are generally abysmal. I have learnt not to spend too much time on the docs but rather look at the samples and source code. But there are times like when beta testing the APIs when there are no samples / source code and you mostly sitting ducks unless someone from google helps you out.

</comment><comment><USER40> That's poor, I'm sorry.

The quota request was denied, but we (Google) failed to communicate the decision properly / at all. Sorry about that.

</comment><comment><USER41> This is just another example of Google not caring a single solitary iota about developers who volunteer their time to improve their products and bring value to their platform and ecosystem. Digital sharecroppers, etc.

It's a tragedy. He doesn't want to spend the time to build his own platform, and Google won't enable him to develop effectively for theirs.

Google are tarnishing their brand, eroding their user base, and compromising their platform, all in the name of what? Avoiding the inefficiency of dedicated support for a global brand?

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> If anyone in Google is reading this please don't mistake me, I know Google is a innovative company and through this post I don't want to give any negative impression about Google.

I want Gmail Tasks to be world recognized and people to use it more frequently. I see that there are very less standalone apps developed for Tasks, this is a small effort by me to make Google Tasks better and more usable.

If you find value in what I am doing and see it innovative enough, please help.

Thanks for giving me an opportunity to build an app on google.

<comment><USER42> I think your HN title would suggest otherwise.

I also think there are development enhancements you could make to your application to work around these problems. Maybe you won't get any response from Google until you have 2M users? What are you going to do about it? There have been some excellent suggestions in the comments for working around this (longer waits before retries, premium level retries etc). Do these first, increase user base, then contact Google when it's less easy for them to ignore you.

</comment></comment><comment> cupcake-unicorn Can someone take the time to explain to me what this means for someone who has an interest in developing Android apps that may make use of Google APIs? I don't know how quotas work and why it sounds like you could request an increase when you hit a limit, wouldn't they want you to move to a paid tier?

Does this mean that as soon as your app becomes popular, you are doomed to fail?

I've looked briefly at a few Google APIs and they seem strange. So there's no longer a straight search API, you have to put some params on a "custom search API" that only has something like 100 searches per day? But on the other hand, hit the Google Local Business API and you can make 10k requests...and then there are APIs that were shut down all together, like translation. This is really weird to me. Is it supposed to make any sense?

<comment><USER43> I'd love to understand this too.

Some services have prices over the courtesy limit (Translation) while others just have a max. What happens for like the Books API when you get above 10k/req/day?

See [https://code.google.com/apis/console](https://code.google.com/apis/console)

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> Doesn't Google have a way of paying for more usage of the API? I know the Maps Geolocation API does. Maybe I'm naive, but if you're using a free service of a mega-corp I would expect the customer service to be nil. Priority goes to the paying customers.

</comment><comment><USER45> I have a feeling that Google is not very eager on having 3rd party applications running on their "free" (ad supported) platform. One reason could be that while these are useful for customers, they are not really bringing in any money for Google. Obviously good 3rd party apps would certainly help people to stick with Google services but they seem to be doing that anyways.

One drawback in having people build their apps on top of you platform is that then you are stuck with the way things are. If you have popular apps depending on the current task system, you can't just take it away or move it to Google+ (or you can, but then you get lots of whining).

</comment><comment><USER46> Google is terrible at support in general. I've been reporting a blogspot website stealing my documents and impersonating me for making money by ads for over two years. I sent my passport two times, and some friends also sent a report for me. Result? not even a verification e-mail. They simply host website that attacks my intellectual property, my name and give me no piece of shit.

<comment><USER16> Identity fraud is a criminal matter. Talk to the police. If they have stolen copyrighted material, file a DMCA.

<comment><USER46> It's a technical doc without copyrights, that I wrote 8 years ago...

<comment><USER47> IANAL, but I did take an IP law course. If I recall correctly, you have copyright from the moment that you create the work. You can have it officially registered at a later date, however, you might be limited in collecting damages to infractions after the registration date.

I'm not sure what happens if they registered the copyright. Presumably you could sue them if you can demonstrate that you were the true creator.

I don't understand the part about sending a passport.

I do think that filing a DMCA notice is certainly the easiest way. Google has to listen to that.

<comment><USER46> I sent a copy of my passport to Google since they want me to prove I report impersonation.

I really hate dealing with legal cases and also since I'm a Turkish guy living in US, and the website impersonating me is also Turkish, I don't wanna spend my time on this shitty case.

I just believe this; Google should start being friend with people.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> There is no reason for a platform to be controlled by a single company. If we need a common platform like gmail then it should be open source. I think we really need to push for open source shared platforms and make sure they aren't controlled by a single company. I think that means that engineering leadership in separate companies have to work together. The easiest place to do that under the radar is probably my github.

One missing piece if the puzzle that is really going to make this idea if a shared platform across companies is moving to encrypted data oriented networking instead of server based networking. Not only does that model make vastly more sense in terms of the real topology of internet use now with data being propagated to leaf nodes, but there are also very strong reasons to move to distributed encrypted computing for privacy and economic reasons. A server based internet means server based web apps which is going to continue to result in due facto platforms created by individual companies.

</comment><comment><USER49> [https://code.google.com/p/google-apps-script- issues/issues/d...](https://code.google.com/p/google-apps-script- issues/issues/detail?id=546)

This issue almost took more than a year to get fixed - I had to drop a project midway and start with other technologies from the scratch to build the same thing.

The developer experience could have been better.

</comment><comment><USER50> I don't understand why all these users who love so much that app can't just pay $3-$5 monthly to help this app survive?

<comment><USER51> It's not clear how a willingness for the end-users to pay $3-5 monthly would help the situation given that he can't use $$ to increase his quota-controlled access to the api.

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> I think Google has such a strong consumer following now that it isn't as interested in keeping the developers happy. We were early adopters so got a good amount of attention at the start but that certainly seems to have waned with Google's popularity.

<comment><USER53> It just doesn't make sense. Without developers all the innovation happens elsewhere, and at some point the consumers will switch. Google cannot keep up with innovation internally, and they're not attracting new talent with such a hostile developer stance.

<comment><USER54> Seriously? Making a driverless car isnt innovation?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> If you are genuinely asking that question I suspect you already have the answer.

</comment><comment><USER56> Oh if its for commercial purpose please stop developing Apps for Google. Usage will increase for a certain period of time, and then it drops constantly...

</comment><comment><USER57> Comment of the day: "If you cannot increase his quota, at least give him a job...". Right, because hiring someone is probably much easier than changing a number in some database.

</comment><comment><USER58> Yes.

</comment><comment><USER59> I find it very hard to believe that a bunch of random people find the time to comment (and all praise that app) on a Google Groups thread. Calling bullshit.

<comment><AUTHOR> They are not random people, they are the users of gmailsharedtasks. They have used it and love it. They have commented due to my request so that google come to know that the app works great and is loved and needs attention.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Anuaitt:

1.) You are clearly young and do not know: if there is something on the internet you do not like, go make it yourself. What obligation does Google have to do something for you? None! They are providing mostly free services, but if you don't like it (or the support), go make your own and quit bothering people (and Google).

2.) You have no relation to the GMail Web Application, yet you specify: "Founder GmailSharedTasks" Remove the Gmail from your description and build out your solution without trying to get a free ride.

3.) Your Google Groups post can be summed up: "Cry! I'm not getting any attention for my pet project!" Instead of crying, create your own solution that does not leave you at the mercy of a company or individual who sees you only as "1 of billions". Get over yourself.

4.) You know how to code, you know how to integrate with FREE APIs, now learn what it takes to run a business.

<comment><AUTHOR> Klarifier:

1) Why make it again if there is a platform already existing ? why not bother them : please check this link [http://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/calendar/vdFSJ...](http://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/calendar/vdFSJiVlhMQ)

2) Yes, I know it is my fault

3) I would rather chose not to comment on this.

4) Why create my own API ? If someone as good as Google has already build it ? I know how to code and have built this app within 3 months.

and yes I am a young developer and I know what business is. I know about code re-usability and providing a great user experience.

Regarding building of my own API, I could have done that but I always wanted to make Gmail Tasks better, because I have been using it from past two-years.

Learn to praise the people instead of finding negative aspects.</comment></comment>


Core Values - <AUTHOR> http://www.stefankendall.com/2012/10/core-values.html

<comment><USER2> > We will not celebrate. Every day will be awesome, or we stop what we're > doing and make it awesome. Cake is for gazelles, and we are lions.

What does this even mean?

<comment><USER3> That Zoos can feed their Gazelles left over cake?

<comment><USER2> So we live in a zoo and eat gazelles. Ok, that makes sense now.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> To be honest, this seems like a set of 'nice company policies,' rather than core values. A lot of these could be summarized with a single value that they are idealizing. This list looks like a good way to implement those core values.

Edit: Here are the core values of Google, Apple, Facebook, Zynga, Salesforce, Amazon, Microsoft, IBM, Netflix, HP, Zappos, Twitter, LinkedIn, SAS, and Cisco.

[http://bestengagingcommunities.com/2012/07/31/a-sample-of- th...](http://bestengagingcommunities.com/2012/07/31/a-sample-of-the-values- and-culture-of-leading-technology-companies/)

<comment><USER5> Great link. Thanks for sharing!

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> "You are an adult. You will manage your own machine and tools." seems to be almost directly in opposition to "You will not dig ditches here, and we will not ask you to do so."

I'm not sure that's inherently a bad thing though. It quietly pushes towards a follow the standard (hopefully automated) system setup, but feel free to drift from that where it doesn't work for you.

<comment><USER7> That might be possible if the company is still 100% developers. But once your company grows big enough to hire less-technical people - designers, sales and customer support staff, product managers, etc. - it's probably more cost- effective to have some degree of specialization. I can't imagine that it would be possible for all Google or Facebook employees to manage their own machines and tools.

<comment><USER8> Even in Eng org we appreciate the tools teams that dig ditches for us.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I'm curious about the 2nd item. I'm ambivalent about it. On the one hand I bicycle into work (20 miles each way) and do most of my problem solving and thinking on the way in. But what is the value of having an employee live 50 miles away and driving for 1.5 hours each way (I used to do that too)?

<comment><AUTHOR> There's no value, and I think that's the point. If it doesn't make sense to commute, you figure out how to work remotely (if it works for the business).

Burning an hour on driving every day (or biking) doesn't help anyone, but an hour of yoga might. Or time with your kids. Or climbing mountains.

Anything but commuting.

<comment><USER10> > _There's no value ... Anything but commuting._

I disagree... I think this sort of "regular enforced idleness" can have real positives.

I used to have a ~45min commute (by train), and I loved it. Going in the morning was a daily time of peace that I could spend idly reading or vegging out and watching the world stream past in the morning sunshine.

The commute back in the evening helped me unwind, and collect my thoughts.

[I now live about 5 minutes walk from work. That has obvious advantages, but I still sort of miss my commute...]

<comment><USER8> Riding a train is more relaxing than driving....

<comment><USER10> Indeed; people who drive are probably more likely to consider their commute "useless downtime."

But still, the original article made no mention of mode, and notion that commuting _generally_ is dead-time seems wrong to me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I recommend that you read "Delivering Happiness" by Tony Hsieh, if you hadn't already done so.

In my experience, company values are not declared so much that they emerge in practice. You can write down anything you want, distribute it during orientation, and enforce it with penalties. None of this will create a values document that resonates with the people who actually work in a company.

</comment><comment><USER12> "You will manage your own machine and tools."

And when nobody can run/compile anyone else's code because everyone has some weird combination of mismatched versions of stuff that happen to work for them but nobody else, this will swiftly end...

This list is very much "we will not have any organization", when the right solution is "we will have as little organization as required".

<comment><USER13> I'm confused, is this not what generally is done (and works) in open source development?

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I made my own list like this before starting Ridejoy and I think it's a great thing to do. Many of the the ideas got implemented, while others I came to realize weren't good ideas, and others I still want to do but it just hasn't worked out for one reason or another. It's great to think about these things in advance, but remember - no plans survive first contact intact. =)

<comment><USER15> exactly what i thought when i read it. Great to have a plan, but there are a few things on that list that I think won't work in practice, but the only way to find out is to do it!

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I would really like to see this happen. There are a lot of idealists who start companies, and most of them fail (most of all startups fail). But we do seem to be moving towards an era where good working conditions are simply more profitable than they used to be-I believe Valve and Github are perfect examples of this.

</comment><comment><USER17> Love it, and I'd to see or work for a company that abides by those values.

</comment><comment><USER18> But, isn't Consensus meant to be good for the company?

<comment><USER19> No, it's mostly for covering your own ass. <http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?DesignByCommittee>

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Sounds like a fun place to work.

</comment><comment><USER21> This whole list just begs to be implemented just to see it horribly, horribly crash and burn when it hits reality. Any real company and all real projects are far more complex than that and no matter how great these rules sound on their own, I doubt they will survive the proverbial first contact with the enemy.

Sorry if this all sounds too negative but I have seen so many lists like this, nice sounding promises which never held up in reality as soon as the smallest issues came up.

It's not so much how nice and "totally logical" a value sounds, the important thing is realizing how you will hold up this value and deal with possible trade-offs because every decision and value means there will be possibly negative consequences to it just by the fact alone that you prioritize things.

> _Working longer is not working harder. Go home._

Fair enough, except then that one really great opportunity comes around, this huge client who could boost your business to the next level... now tell me you won't bend over backwards for him and so will your team?

> _40 hours includes the commute._

This sounds really great! But John lives around the block and is there in 5 minutes, Jane commutes from the suburbs and it takes her at least an hour by car so there, you "lost" 10 hours of Jane-working and John wonders why he has to work so much more than Jane. You are saying "that's childish"? Well, welcome to working with adults.

> _Resist the urge to call a meeting_

This could quickly put a damper on communication but ok, whatever floats your boat.

> _Consensus is bullshit. Do what's best for the company._

And this is the first nice-sounding but completely empty word-shell in the list. So we are supposed to JUST do what's best for the company and not care about consensus... what if we disagree with you about what's best for the company? Oh and somewhere else you said "customers are your business" so which one takes precedence now? "Business" or "customers"? Because there are a lot of situations where you might have to do something for a customer even it hurts business.

> _We will not ship shit._

So you would rather postpone the launch time and again if it isn't perfect? I am not sure a lot of customers would appreciate this. They EXPECT "not shit" and they EXPECT it on time. Why do you even mention this?

> _You will do customer service for the products you create._

How is this even going to work? The more projects I have been on, the more customer service I will be doing and suddenly I end up being a customer service drone and how is that going to be awesome fun every day like you promised?

> _We will work in public_

What does that even mean? You publish all the code or will you all sit in a café?

> _People are expensive. We will strive to keep individuals working for the > customer, and not on the business._

The most important duty of management is not to fill their own pockets but making SURE people can keep working for the customer... so if you cut managers, who is going to make sure things run smoothly?

> _Efficiency is everything. We will remove obstructions._

Again, a nice sounding shell... it is easy to say "no consensus and remove obstructions" until you are in a situation where cowboy-coding just isn't going to cut it anymore and you will implement some process, some documents, some necessary "obstruction".

> _We will not celebrate. Every day will be awesome, or we stop_

I will be working more and more on customer service than on new, hot, sexy projects... how is this fun? How do you even think you can make every day awesome for all your employees? Do you realize how empty and worthless this sentence is? It is work - if it was all fun and sunshine, I am not sure you would get paid for it and work is NOT always fun.

> _We will enjoy our work, our products, and our lives. We will make work > awesome._

You just repeated yourself and it is just as empty. How will you guarantee this against all the things crashing down on you in the day-to-day of project work and customer service?

> _We will be lean. We will NOT ignore problems, and we will swarm when issues > arise._

What if this directly means it will cut into another customer's work because you need all the right bees swarming on that problem? Does solving those problems take priority over new projects or not?

> _You are an adult. You will manage your own machine and tools._

I thought I wouldn't have to do boring grunt work, how about YOU provide me with a nice, lean, modern workstation so all I have to do is sit down and code?

<comment><USER22> I think most of your objections can be countered with "don't work with idiots." That none is hired should be managements top priority in every workplace.</comment></comment>