The 1% hide their money offshore, then use it to corrupt our democracy - <AUTHOR> http://www.theguardian.com/news/commentisfree/2016/apr/10/money-offshore-corrupt-democracy-political-influence <comment><USER4> While I've been meaning to read Noam Chomsky's: "Understanding Power" I ran across the documentary: "Requiem for the American Dream" over the weekend and this is clearly showcased within the first 5 minutes as he begins to describe "The 10 Principles of Concentration of Wealth & Power" and starts out with this infographic: [http://imgur.com/QVcagot](http://imgur.com/QVcagot).

Quoting Chomsky from this portion of the film: "Concentration of wealth yields concentration of power. Particularly so as the cost of elections skyrockets which forces the parties into the pockets of major corporations. And this political power directly translates into legislation that increases the concentration of wealth. So fiscal policy like tax policy, deregulation, rules of corporate governance, and a whole variety of measures - political measures designed to increase the concentration of wealth and power, which in turn yields more political power to do the same thing."

The documentary has spurred me to start reading the book, but falls in line with what's coming to light in the mainstream media today unfortunately.

Edit: Honest question - why the downvote? Directly falls in line with the original post.

<comment><USER5> It's changed so much since Carter's day:

>Carter compared elections now-a-days to those when he was running for office, saying, "In those days when I ran against Gerald Ford, who was incumbent president or later Ronald Reagan, who challenged me, we didn't raise a single penny to finance our campaign to run against each other. We just used the $1 per person checkoff that every taxpayer indicates at the end of his or her income tax return."

Guess things could be changed back?

<comment><USER6> With the Citizens United decision, that's no longer possible without either a Constitutional Amendment or the Supreme Court overturning their own decision - neither one is very likely.

<comment><USER7> With Scalia gone you still think it's unlikely?

<comment><USER8> I don't claim to understand SCOTUS - but they are extremely conservative institution. I mean dictionary definition of conservative - upholding the status quo. And they prefer to not get involved in the day to day affairs of the country.

So even a bad SCOTUS decision could stay on the books for a long time - <USER2> to save face and uphold the credibility of the institution.

They look to rock the boat the least. Even in their current hyperpartisan state.

<comment><USER9> Saying that the Court upholds precedent to "save face" shows an complete and total lack of understanding of the body.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I know that "1%" has a nice ring to it, but articles like this that mention "billionaires," "David Cameron," and the "Koch Brothers" aren't talking about 1-in-100, they're talking about _1-in-100,000_ or more. The 1% are your small town local doctor and lawyer, and they're not tax dodging on their (nonexistent) huge hordes of cash by moving them out of the country.

<comment><USER11> In the UK, a one percenter earns £160k or above [1]. That's above the salary of any kind of doctor or consultant in the NHS, though they may earn more privately[2]. Very few doctors of any kind are likely to exceed this salary.

Lawyers potentially could earn far in excess of £160k, though the vast majority would not.[3]

I would guess that working in finance is the single mostly likely way of earning over £160k.

I appreciate this may well be different in the US.

[1] [https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/percentile- points-f...](https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/percentile-points- from-1-to-99-for-total-income-before-and-after-tax)

[2] [http://www.bma.org.uk/support-at-work/pay-fees- allowances/pa...](http://www.bma.org.uk/support-at-work/pay-fees- allowances/pay-scales/consultants-pay-england)

[3] [http://www.chambersstudent.co.uk/where-to- start/newsletter/h...](http://www.chambersstudent.co.uk/where-to- start/newsletter/how-much-do-barristers-earn)

<comment><USER12> That defines a 1%er _in the UK_. On a global basis a much, much more modest income will put you in the 1%.

<comment><USER13> I would guess that a large proportion of people reading this comment have _incomes_ in the top 1% globally.

[http://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal- finance/050615...](http://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal- finance/050615/are-you-top-one-percent-world.asp)

Interestingly, this is less likely to be the case in _wealth_ terms; many people globally with a lot of wealth (e.g. in agricultural land) have relatively low incomes, and the opposite is also true.

<comment><USER14> Measuring wealth without adjusting for lifecycle effects (which is how it's usually done) is a meaningless exercise. A doctor four years into his or her career almost certainly has negative wealth, while any retiree not solely depending on a government pension presumably has some reasonable wealth.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I didn't see anything in this article where the author explain how offshore money corrupted democracy. He also throws out the Koch Brothers as some kind of left-wing talisman, even though I haven't seen them implicated in the Panama Papers.

It is certainly possible that offshore money could be corrupting democracy, but I don't see any evidence in this article.

<comment><USER16> When I was at school, we used to play a game in English whereby we each had an obscure word that we had to get into compositions as often as possible without the teacher spotting it. The record, if I recall correctly, was something like 6 mentions of chiaroscuro.

I sometimes feel that Guardian political journalists aren't paid by the word but using some form of buzzword bingo similar to the game we played. So the more times they get terms like 1%, neo-liberal, progressive etc the more they make. Polly Toynbee is definitely the master at that but Chakrabortty is pretty good too.

<comment><USER17> Keyword stuffing?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Even more tax hypocrisy being spouted by the Guardian.

[http://order-order.com/2012/11/26/the-guardians-offshore- sec...](http://order-order.com/2012/11/26/the-guardians-offshore-secrets- guardian-media-group-still-operates-caymans-company/) [http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/06/28/the- insuf...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/06/28/the-insufferable- hypocrisy-of-the-guardian-on-corporation-tax/#4ec0bd22b232) [http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/guardian- med...](http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/guardian-media-firm- makes-186m-but-pays-only-200000-tax-8675818.html)

<comment><USER19> Ad-hominem. Does not make their articles any less relevant or wrong.

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

<comment><USER18> ad hominem "directed against a person rather than the position"

The Guardian position is that avoiding tax using offshore companies is morally wrong. The Guardian avoids tax using offshore companies

hypocrisy "the practice of claiming to have higher standards or more noble beliefs than is the case."

edit: You are right that it does not make their articles any less relevant and I did not claim that it did.

<comment><USER20> One of the most valuable realizations I had in my mid-20s was that just because someone is a hypocrite doesn't mean they're wrong.

<comment><USER21> The reason people tend to pay less attention to arguments by hypocrites is that arguments are often about tradeoffs that cannot be scientifically computed or discovered purely through rational debate, and actions speak louder than words.

If someone is arguing for tradeoff A, and relying on moral/emotional/somewhat vague arguments for it, whilst simultaneously their actions suggest they actually prefer tradeoff B, then that suggests their proposed weighting of the tradeoffs is actually wrong and thus that their words are not worth very much.

In this case, the Guardian loves to argue that tax avoidance is wrong, using arguments that are vague and emotional at their core (e.g. fairness), but actually engages in it rampantly themselves. Given that actions speak louder than words, that suggests that their proposed tradeoff is perhaps not the right one.

<comment><USER20> > The reason people tend to pay less attention to arguments by hypocrites is > that arguments are often about tradeoffs that cannot be scientifically > computed or discovered purely through rational debate,

Wow, you've just chosen to discard rationality right at the beginning? I guess that's one way to go about it but I sure don't feel like I need to say much to prove that assuming hypocrites are wrong is irrational.

> actions speak louder than words.

This is a great rule of thumb when applied to judging a person's character, but completely irrelevant to evaluating the correctness of an argument.

> If someone is arguing for tradeoff A, and relying on > moral/emotional/somewhat vague arguments for it, whilst simultaneously their > actions suggest they actually prefer tradeoff B, then that suggests their > proposed weighting of the tradeoffs is actually wrong and thus that their > words are not worth very much.

Sure, moral/emotional/somewhat vague arguments are poor arguments. Actions still have nothing to do with it.

> In this case, the Guardian loves to argue that tax avoidance is wrong, using > arguments that are vague and emotional at their core (e.g. fairness),

So attack their arguments. If their arguments are invalid they can be proven invalid without attacking The Guardian. The Guardian's hypocrisy remains irrelevant to this conversation.

> Given that actions speak louder than words, that suggests that their > proposed tradeoff is perhaps not the right one.

No, it doesn't suggest anything of the sort. Even if we could consider the Guardian to be a single entity--which is isn't: as another poster pointed out, the writing staff are not the same people as the finance department--but even if we could consider the Guardian to be a single entity that was condemning behaviors while engaging in them, that would only prove that The Guardian is kind of an asshole. It doesn't prove that they're wrong.

<comment><USER21> You cannot evaluate the "correctness" of arguments about many things in the political space. Bob says that the country would be better if taxes were raised on the rich and spent on the poor. Charlie says that this would make the country worse and a better approach is to focus on educational attainment. Who is right? How do you arrive at a situation where both Bob and Charlie agree with each other?

Experience tells us that this isn't possible. They're probably arguing from different assumptions, they very likely have different ideas about what "better" means, and even if they could agree on those things, which path would actually yield better results is impossible to simulate or predict accurately.

That doesn't mean Bob or Charlie have discarded rationality, it just means that pure application of logic cannot solve most of the problems on which politics dwells.

When you say "attach the Guardian's arguments" after I just said that their arguments are vague and emotional, you're requesting something that won't go anywhere. The Guardian argues that companies should feel a moral obligation to pay more tax. At the same time, they don't appear to feel that obligation themselves. That's a fundamental inconsistency that invalidates their own "argument" (using the term loosely). There's nothing to refute: they did it themselves.

<comment><USER20> > You cannot evaluate the "correctness" of arguments about many things in the > political space.

Of course you can. How do you vote, just pick the guy who you'd like to have a beer with? Give me a break.

Again, you're starting off by rejecting rationality as an approach, so I really don't need to prove that you're irrational here.

> How do you arrive at a situation where both Bob and Charlie agree with each > other?

We don't. Bob and Charlie's agreement is entirely unnecessary. Why is this even your goal?

> which path would actually yield better results is impossible to simulate or > predict accurately.

This is rarely true in practice for major voting issues.

> That doesn't mean Bob or Charlie have discarded rationality, it just means > that pure application of logic cannot solve most of the problems on which > politics dwells.

Nobody is claiming that Bob and Charlie have discarded rationality, but I'm claiming that you're discarding rationality. You've again state this fact for me.

If logic can't solve your problem, it can't be solved.

> The Guardian argues that companies should feel a moral obligation to pay > more tax.

That's not The Guardian's argument as far as I know, so let's stop right there. I doubt anyone with The Guardian's caliber would bother with the idea that companies should feel.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> When I see the Koch brothers mentioned, but not George Soros, who's donated far more money and influenced far more country's politics, it always strikes me as highly partisan. When it comes to influencers of US politics, the Koch brothers are relative pikers.

<comment><USER23> Do you have a source for this assertion? So far as I have seen, Soros has donated more money _personally_ than the Kochs have - but the Kochs have an extensive network of "grassroots" political organizations which in aggregate have funneled _far_ money to politicians than Soros has done personally(on the order of hundreds of millions). I suppose at some level they are all using tricks and loopholes.

<comment><USER24> Clinton's FOIA emails are full of Soros literally giving orders to her and other reps. Use Wikileaks archive to read them/search for Soros.

He's also bought electronic voting corps and managed to get them into primaries like Utah. There were all kinds of shenanigans with them recently like denial of service to some voters.

<comment><USER23> Sources would be good for this. I'd like to see him literally giving orders via email.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Really disappointed with the recent flood of clickbait Guardian articles submitted.

<comment><USER26> It's The Guardian, what do you expect? Lots of HN users like reading trash it seems.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> 1) Avoiding tax is in legal bounds is completely moral and is practised by everyone who is able to do that. I know a _lot_ of programmers in US who establish private consulting companies to write off all their private expenses and get 15% effective tax rate. If you think avoiding tax is immoral, you should hate them just as much as you hate billionaires.

2) Most of the people believe in political causes that are likely to directly benefit them. College students and young professionals are upset about college loans, old people are concerned with pensions, etc.

3) It's completely legal and moral to put effort and money to support political causes you believe in.

So, everything the article describes is completely normal and moral for an ordinary man — but it seems that when billionaires exhibit the same behaviour, scaled with their personal wealth and it's influence, everyone thinks it's awful, immoral and illegal. How so?

<comment><USER28> > 1) Avoiding tax is in legal bounds is completely moral and is practised by > everyone who is able to do that. I know a _lot_ of programmers in US who > establish private consulting companies to write off all their private > expenses and get 15% effective tax rate. If you think avoiding tax is > immoral, you should hate them just as much as you hate billionaires.

Morality is not binary, and it is quite reasonable to think that while programmers evading taxes is bad, billionaires doing so is worse.

<comment><USER27> Why worse if it's the same %?

<comment><USER29> When does a difference in degree become a difference in kind?

(Not arguing the specific point -- but differences of degree do matter in the messy empirical real world.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Here's a non-snarky question.

What can we do about this? I've seen coverage about all of this, and the question I'm hearing across everyone I know is - what can we do?

Any thoughts?

<comment><USER31> Here's a thought - which to many people is a very crazy one. Treat the world as a unified world and economy, instead of having individual nations with separation of certain laws related to finance and human rights. All the nations just become states under a single union, with open trade and a standard on taxation.

<comment><USER32> One of the lessons that history in the XIX and XX century taught us is that economic competition between states is essential for determining how to best organize societies. A single worldwide ruling hierarchy negates this competition and may hold humanity in a local maximum.

Even today, there are major choices that are different between successful societies, and the definition of what is best is yet to be found. Is it better to have state paid medical care, like in Europe, or private medical care, like in the US? Is it better to have strong unemployment benefits (Sweden, Denmark) or strong worker protection laws (France)? Is pure capitalism (US) better than Social Democracy (EU), or is the better choice Capital Oriented Communism (China)?

The freedom for states to compete fiscally has produced an aberration, though, in the form of offshores. We should work towards severely limiting capital flux between our societies an unregulated tax havens. Without hurting the basic competition principle, though.

Throw the bath water out, keep the baby.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> It isn't remembered today, but in the 80's Reagan made a deal to get his tax cuts through by eliminating tax shelters (tax shelters are poorly performing investments made worthwhile only because of favored tax status).

This caused investment to flow out of poorly performing investments into better performing ones, which was good for the economy. I suspect that had a lot to do with economic growth in the 80's.

Moving investment money offshore to reduce tax liability is the same thing, and the solution is the same - reduce tax rates so that it is no longer worthwhile to invest elsewhere.

</comment><comment><USER34> _Newspapers so often bandy about the million unit that readers can get inured to its true significance. But if at the stroke of midnight on New Year's Day you were lucky enough to get one pound coin every single second, it would still take 114 days to amass £10m. You would even now be waiting till Sunday week to collect the whole amount._

I have a very hard time imagining that. Surely it would be better to describe what having £10m would allow you to do.

<comment><USER35> You and a 130 other people could eat a £1 cheeseburger three times a day for the rest of your lives.

<comment><USER36> Actually, forever, because interest?

<comment><USER35> Life expectancy is also increasing, so, maybe not? But then again eating 3 cheese burgers a day may work against that...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> We're still linking to The Guardian? The government stenographers that are protecting the intelligence community by sitting on their part of the Snowden archive?

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJValv4YQcY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJValv4YQcY)

(warning: video contains strong language. Jacob Appelbaum isn't pulling his punches at The Guardian)

</comment><comment><USER38> Hmmmm, strange how these supposedly all-powerful billionaires who own all the politicians through their nefarious offshore tentacles can't manage to get a bridge built:

[http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_18423887](http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_18423887)

[http://www.mv-voice.com/news/2013/12/12/council-deadlocks- on...](http://www.mv-voice.com/news/2013/12/12/council-deadlocks-on-google- bridge-idea)

(note that the second article is two and a half years after the first - <USER3> and a half years of fighting for a simple two-lane bridge)

<comment><USER39> Well, it _is_ easier to destroy than create...

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> Meh can we keep this hyperbole shit off HN?

<comment><USER41> I'm disappointed both in the Guardian and HN users for posting this crap. The article doesn't even have any evidence that Cameron evaded tax (which is the implication).

Cameron says he paid tax on the capital gains, so why the doubt? I know Cameron is a huge ass, but that doesn't mean he's guilty of tax fraud. In the UK you can't legally avoid tax by investing in an offshore fund. If you are UK resident you must pay capital gains tax when you sell the asset.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> While I appreciate the general thrust of the Occupy emphasis on "the 1%", as an old school socialist I believe the real issue with the distribution of wealth is on who controls the institutions of wealth generation and power, not who happens to be holding large amounts of units of currency. That some people are 1% and others are in the 99% is a product of unequal distribution of power.

By some calculations, I am briefly in "the 1%" in my country but I own know corporations, factories, large quantities of stock, and am in that tier only on account of a set of temporary circumstances, and I've paid over half of it out in income taxes. And I have no more power than any other average voter.

Whereas there are people who have far more influence, and it isn't necessarily due to how much wealth they have, but more to do with the kind of control they have over wealth generation itself.

<comment><USER43> > who controls the institutions of wealth generation and power

What would you define as the institutions of wealth generation and power?

> And I have no more power than any other average voter.

Is that because of your wealth of lack thereof or because you do not value that power over other interests?

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Why is income from money, you know that which is earned because you have lots of capital, taxed at a much lower rate than incoming from labor? The < 1% are hiding their money in plain sight and not paying the same level of taxes as people who trade their labor for money.

<comment><USER44> Partially from economic theories about the use of capital in a market economy.

Partially because the socio-economic class of people who benefit from such tax laws overlaps heavily with the socio-economic class of people who create tax laws.

<comment><USER29> Please don't forget the economic theorizers, and the subtle and not-so-subtle pressures that keep them in line.

(Put another way: in "[1] economic theories about the use of [2] capital in a [3] market economy" there's a whole lot of assumptions and underpinnings, at least three of them, that are not laws of physics, but rather are ways of perpetuating and recapitulating our present system.)

<comment><USER44> I fail to see how my statement did not include what you are saying, or how it suggested anything else.

<comment><USER29> Wanted to give the same critical emphasis to the economic theory explanation as you had given to the socioeconomic class interest bit.

The statement articulated two "parts" of the explanation.

The second "part" was phrased as a matter of class self-interest, with a critical tone.

But the phrasing of the first, as being "from" economic theories, can very easily be read as giving those theories a pass, esp. in environments like HN.

If we wanted to explain with some finality, we might answer, "why do we mandate lead shielding around radioisotopes" by saying the reason is "from physical and biochemical theories [about harm from ionizing your DNA]."

Or we might answer, "why are some traits observed to be epigenetic / both heritable and environmental" by saying the reason is "from biological theories."

The appeal to science-y authority is pretty conversation-ending in technically-oriented conversation venues like HN, I find. Or more properly, it might not end conversations but it makes that piece a leaf node.

I just like to remind people that economic theories are far, far more than their hard-science counterparts, political products.

<comment><USER44> Ok, I guess that makes more sense now. I do t see the imbalance of emphasis you read in it, but that is fine.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> Rich people corrupt democracy ? Does this mean if rich people leave politicians alone, politicians will be somehow honest?

I am used to Guardians amateurish articles but this puts the bar even lower. Just like there is no such thing as "natural balance" there is no such thing as "honest democracy".

All sort of special interest groups will always try to influence power in many ways. Rich people will always be at top. We have two choices. Either have entrepreneurs and free market driven ruthless rich people or more socialistic crony capitalists who steal our money using government. I prefer the former any day.

<comment><USER46> Regarding representative democracy there were roughly 2 lines of though, historically speaking:

1) the ones that believe government would work as long as we had good people there; and that's where we need to focus, getting good politicians that can do good things, oh well if there are bad apples, nothing is perfect

2) government is a necessary evil, that has to be constantly under check because even if there is good such thing as a good politician, the ones that should worry us are the bad ones even if that also hinders the good ones; oh well if government has it's hand tied, government doesn't need to be a father figure, and has to be limited

The first group, fueled by the symbiosis of some enlightenment naivete, different classes of people trying to legislate advantages for themselves and the lust for power, won over time.

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> > Thirty years of runaway incomes for those at the top, and the full armoury > of expensive financial sophistication, mean they no longer play by the same > rules the rest of us have to follow

They wouldn't have played by the same rules even without offshore tax havens because they would be required by law to pay higher tax percentages than most people anways.

Is it a surprise to anyone that people try to avoid paying 45, 50, sometimes as high as 90% on their earnings in tax and perhaps just as much on illiquid, inheritable assets?

<comment><USER48> Doesn't seem like they fought in the same ways, as underhandedly, when they were actually paying 90%.

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> With the tax evaded, we could END hunger, we could END child poverty, we could have universal pre-school, we could pay for state college for everyone.

It is good to keep in mind that society must be balanced between to centers of power: state/political power, and economic power. If the state has complete consolidation of both political and economic power, then you have Russia, China, etc. and corruption at a state level.

If you have economic power control the politicians, you have something close to the US and some other countries where wealthy politicians pick and choose senators and greatly influence outcomes.

Both extremes are bad - a state controlled by the wealthy, and all wealth controlled by the state.

If the wealthy control the state, you have mass poverty, crime, a weak democracy, corruption, etc. If the state controls the wealth it has total power, so you have people disappear if they question it, you have mass starvation, no one to complain towards even if mines are unsafe, etc. In general, states killed 1000x more of their own people than corporations did.

<comment><USER50> "David Cameron's Panama Papers Show How Little Offshore Tax Dodging Is Going On" [http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2016/04/10/david- cam...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2016/04/10/david-camerons- panama-papers-show-how-little-offshore-tax-dodging-is-going-on/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> To my mind this really throws the excesses of the financial industry into light.

The sum of money reportedly made David Cameron's father, as the director of a long-established stock brokerage, is less than some of my 25-year-old friends were earning as relatively junior employees at London investment banks in 2008 (£200k+ pa).

</comment><comment><USER52> Tired of the 1% categorization. People making 600k annually aren't single handedly affecting us political outcomes or storing money offshore.

</comment><comment><USER53> Why does this line of investigation happen with British leaders but not in the US? Australia has also recently had a lot of media coverage of misuse of government benefits by political leaders. I feel that US media is awash with coverage on the presidential race, immigration, wars etc, but the integrity of politicians in congress isn't explored as deeply.

<comment><USER54> Depends on where you get your news from. If all you do is watch the evening news, you will never get the full picture. Most of what is on television is so dumbed down as to be useless.

</comment></comment><comment><USER55> Voting != Democracy;

Voters succumb to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome) and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vote_selling](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vote_selling)

</comment><comment><USER56> They don't need to hide it offshore when America is just about as good a tax Haven now ( _ahem_ , Arizona, Nevada)

</comment><comment><USER57> Duh

</comment><comment><USER58> "1%" is a joke. if you apply that to the entire world, and not just selectively to western countries (as is the habit):

According to the Global Rich List, a website that brings awareness to worldwide income disparities, an income of $32,400 USD a year will allow you to make the 1% cut.

Using current exchange rates, that amounts to roughly:

        29,185 euros
        2.2 million Indian rupees, or
        211,126 Chinese yuan

[http://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal- finance/050615...](http://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal- finance/050615/are-you-top-one-percent-world.asp)

<comment><USER59> Maybe the phrase "1%" is a tool used by 1%'ers like Aditya Chakrabortty(the author of the article) to manipulate the innocent masses against other 1%'ers like David Cameron.

Those rich people and their political infighting. I have no doubt that Aditya - being a member of the 1% - is at this very moment twirling his mustache and plotting to enslave some poor African children. As soon as anyone crosses the income threshold of $32,400, they immediately start foaming at the mouth with an urge to bite the common man.

<comment><USER27> > As soon as anyone crosses the income threshold of $32,400, they immediately > start foaming at the mouth with an urge to bite the common man.

Replace $32,400 back with 1%, and you get a statement that audience of this article seems to sincerely believe in.

<comment><USER58> that's because it relieves them of any feeling of responsibility for contributing to said global disparity.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Applications Open for Winter 2012 YC Funding - <AUTHOR> http://ycombinator.com/apply.html?2012 <comment><USER2> I'm apply last year (W11) but was rejected. Now I know why - not because I'm russian, just my idea was a totally shit. Thanks PG, that you reject me. I got many ideas since last year - Startups Franchise, Help Button to any smartphones and many other, I invent new XML-format RSS+ and tons of many ohers great things. Now I got an idea, that 85% of G+ techbloggers say 'this is realy cool' because this is really cool, not because I'm think so. This is a startup, that can grow fast and make good cashflow. September, 15 Steve Blank come to Moscow and I'm pitch him with it. If him also say 'cool' I'm apply. I have a great cofounder - IP lawyer from New Delhi. We can do it, PG.

<comment><USER3> Go Bourdine!

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> If you're still on the fence about whether or not you should reply, I suggest reading "What Happens at YC": <http://ycombinator.com/atyc.html> \- that's the essay that convinced us to apply with Lanyrd, and it was everything the essay promised and more.

<comment><USER5> The best summary I have heard of whether or not to apply is:

"If you think you might need YC, you need it. If you think you might not need YC, you need it. If you are ABSOLUTELY SURE you don't need YC, you probably still do, but maybe not."

<comment><USER6> I'm not really comfortable with the word "need" there since obviously most successful companies don't go through YC. It's more like, "What are the situations where going through YC is a net minus?" and there are very few.

YC is a great boost in the right direction, but most people that apply won't be accepted. What should they do? Well, if they were serious in the first place, they should start their company anyway. People who want to start companies should start companies; people who just want to get into YC (and assume that they'll then be on the gilded path) shouldn't do either.

<comment><USER7> > "What are the situations where going through YC is a net minus?" and there > are very few.

Last I checked, doing YC requires one to live in the USA, a place that has been rapidly increasing in insanity for the last ten years or so. That's a net loss for anyone who values their basic freedoms.

Then again, some value customers, cash flow, and shareholder value more than their own personal liberties, so the "net loss" calculation will vary from individual to individual -- but note well that it will probably only become more likely as the US becomes worse.

Plot the points from the PATRIOT act to the TSA harassment and groping and throw _that_ graph in your deck.

<comment><USER6> It's particularly ironic that you say that replying to a YC founder that lives in the same city as you.

YC has never required you to live in the US beyond the 3 months that the program runs. They strongly _recommend_ it, but there are a handful of YC companies headquartered elsewhere (with the largest contingent in and around London).

<comment><USER7> 1) That's enough to ruin the Foreign Earned Income Exclusion (presuming US citizenship) for 2012. 35 days/year is all we get.

2) Short of bussing down to Mexico and flying home from there, how would one avoid sexual assault at the hands of the US government after the program ends?

3) Whoever solves this telepresence issue for problems like this once and for all will make a mint.

<comment><USER8> For what it's worth. 1 - There are ways around this. For instance you don't have to pay yourself a salary.

2 - I've flown in and out of the US numerous times this year and have yet to be "molested" or even go through millimeter wave scanning. Even then the radiation dose is minuscule. You'll get more exposure to radiation on the flight itself than in the scan. Don't let your fear rule you.

3 - Telepresence isn't the problem; the 8-hour time difference is. Technology will not surpass this unless one side becomes nocturnal

<comment><USER7> Maybe my problem is the mistaken(?) assumption that the best code is always written between midnight and 7AM.

<comment><USER8> That is not my experience. While the odd all-nighter can be productive when deadlines are looming I think many would agree it's not the best practice. Personally I like to sleep normal hours and function in the daylight

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I would like to ask a question.

We have a product. We have beta customers and it seems we will have revenue of about $30K/year (that is according to survey of existing customers). We believe the revenue should be 100M/year :) But we are not sure if we know what we don't know.

We are old (in 40s) and geeks (never did any business before but we dreamed about).

Does it make sense for us apply to Y combinator? Meaning what path would be the most efficient for us?

<comment><USER10> Nowadays it is common for YC founders to be older. One group of founders had 9 kids between the 2 of them that they brought to Mountain View for this last YC batch. Those guys also had a product already, although after YC it is a few times larger and they raised a nice seed round. Go for it!

<comment><USER11> How were they able to afford it? Living off the money YC gives you is one thing if you're the proverbial single 20-something, much different if you're married with 4 or 5 (!) kids.

<comment><USER12> Having kids just changes the equation a bit, it's not a unpassable roadblock. If you have 1/3rd of a dozen kids, you've probably had a job for a while, credit cards with excessively high limits, etc. It's not impossible to get enough savings to survive for a fixed amount of time, and the credit cards can provide a nice safety net just in case.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Can anybody that is in or has been through YC answer these questions:

How difficult and costly is it to find a place in SF for 3 months? It seems like a large part of the YC money would get used up for the founders basic living expenses.

Do most YC company founders go in debt / use savings / use most of the YC money, to cover personal expenses while they do this?

<comment><USER14> Most new founders don't live in San Francisco. YC encourages you, and rightly so, to live in and around Mountain View, where rent is much, much cheaper than the city.

<comment><USER15> I dont think it is "much, much" cheaper.

GOTO Padmapper.com to take a look....

<comment><USER13> Cool and very useful site, Thank You!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Shameless plug: I want to do this 100%. I have exhausted every single person I know who codes for the passed 4 years. It pretty much comes down to "They don't want to do the work and are completely happy in their current job".

If anyone is interested, I would love to be your co-founder.

I have built several websites. I am experienced in both C# and Java. Ive built several Android Apps. I know DBs like the back of my hand and I have DRIVE.

I have an amazing idea. Ya of course everyone says that, but I really do. Its a total niche idea and it has the ability to make money from both users and sponsors alike through subscriptions and sales from the application. I am currently iterating the idea my self through the night, but would love for someone to jump on board. This niche is supported by well over 1000 groups willing to pay good money. There is no competition to the point I want to bring the idea.

I want to apply, but I am totally a Solo here. Anyone want to co-found an idea? I want someone who is 100% ready to jump in.

Contact me.

spoiledtechie with gmail

<comment><USER17> Wait, I don't get it. If you have such skills and an idea that you truly believe in why haven't you started coding it yet? It doesn't have to be much, perhaps you can't even do all of it yourself, but you should at least TRY. If your skills with C#/Java/DBs aren't an exaggeration, I don't see any reason why you shouldn't at least start.

It's great that you're looking for a co-founder, this is a great start, but just don't jump head first into a relationship without getting to know them first. You should keep doing what you've been doing by meeting up with a lot of potential co-founders, discussing your idea, gauging their enthusiasm, skillset, and how well you think you'll get along.

<comment><USER18> "I am currently iterating the idea my self through the night"

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> If we have a project that we think has potential to be turned into a sustainable business, but simply haven't had enough time to be able to even identify a good co-founder candidate... should we just wait and apply next cycle once we've found someone that's a good fit?

I can imagine that bringing on a co-founder type later on in development might be the sort of thing that always turns out badly, but I don't really know. It seems shortsighted to let important things like product development and identifying customers take a backseat in favor of finding a co-founder when you're not even sure precisely what you're building yet.

I also find this question challenging since I applied for a previous YC with a solid co-founder who has since moved on to stable work since we got little interest from competent angel investors, so it seems like a step backward to even consider applying without a co-founder this time.

</comment><comment><USER20> PG - Quick question, Does it hurt to apply too early? like before some demos etc. are actually finished?

i.e. My idea is fleshed out but some of the project the application is for is not yet, if I submit now are you guys more or less likely to take a look at it when I re-submit with updated URL's etc.?

<comment><AUTHOR> Submit when you feel you're close to finished. Given that constraint, the earlier you submit the better.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Sorry if this has been asked/answered before: is there a disadvantage to applying multiple times? In other words, is it better to wait until you are totally sure you have your strongest application, or is it worth taking the risk, and then applying again when you are further along with your project?

<comment><USER22> I applied for Summer 11 and didn't get in and I'm still serious about what I'm doing so I'm applying again. If nothing else maybe they'll remember me and if I dont get in there's always the next session. It doesn't hurt to keep putting yourself out there. Good luck.

<comment><USER23> There were multiple companies in my batch (S10) that had applied multiple times. One company had actually applied four or five times, I think.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I've applied twice as a solo founder and have had no luck. If you think Sam Altman is tenacious you definitely have not met me yet. I haven't sold Obama O's like Brian Chesky and the gang but I have some stories that would be considered equally compelling by most.

I founded a company and had an exit while still in college full time. I had 13 employees when I was 19, I currently work for a well funded startup with top tier investors and ship code every day. Yet even with all that said I have not managed to get to the interview round.

This time around I have something a little more special in store for my application, so we shall see how this works. For me (like many others I'm sure) the problem is not selling people on the idea, it is selling qualified people on the idea. I want to bring on someone who can truly add value to the team and I want a partner not just another body.

It's just finding a way to stand out on the application process that a solo founder has a hard time with, I think many solo founders don't realize exactly how hard that is when the YC staff reads through more than 2,000 apps each cycle now.

<comment><USER24> If you're such a rockstar, why bother with YC at all?

<comment><USER20> I certainly am not claiming to be a Rockstar however I will answer your question in the best way I know how.

I believe in people truly adding value, I know from experience (knowing YC Alums) that YC adds value and can turn a good product into a great product. I am not too proud to know that there are lots of people out there who are Faster, Stronger, Smarter and probably better looking than me however I am also aware that if I am not actively seeking out those people (I believe YC has tons of them) then I am already a step behind those who are.

So while I truly believe with the right product and vision I will succeed no matter what I find no harm in trying to better myself via a program like YC.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> How many solo founders were accepted in summer 2011? Has the % accepted increased with the larger class size?

<comment><USER26> Solution: Don't be a solo founder.

I spent a few years trying to go that route. It's death. Death. If you can't sell someone else on joining up, how on earth are you going to sell someone in giving you money?

<comment><USER27> Solo founder here. YC S10. We have 8 people now, are well funded and making good revenues. It might not have worked for you but that doesn't mean it can't be done.

<comment><USER26> Congrats! Absolutely it can be done. And absolutely I failed to pull it off by myself. That doesn't change my advice to folks to find a co-founder.

<comment><USER28> _That doesn't change my advice to folks to find a co-founder._

Right, but you're not advocating the "stop the world" and do nothing until they _do_ find a co-founder, are you? I guess that's my point: a solo-founder isn't necessarily somebody who intends to _stay_ a solo-founder, but are likely someone who just hasn't found their co-founder(s) yet. And I, for one, would not advocate stopping everything until you find that person (or persons).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> pg - if one of the co-founders who won't be the CEO lives far away on another continent, is it required that he/she show up for the interview? While I don't expect this to be a problem either way, we're just thinking of ways to minimize costs.

Edit: I'm talking specifically about the interview. If accepted, we'd both come down.

<comment><USER8> My co-founder and I both couldn't make it to interview. He flew out and I interviewed over a video chat via Skype. It's not a problem at all.

<comment><USER29> Wonderful - thank you for the information!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Has anyone from other countries signed up for this? Does anyone know how the visa situation is in order to work for those 3 months in the USA?

<comment><USER31> It varies drastically by country - see <http://travel.state.gov/visa/>

<comment><USER30> Thank you!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Is it worth applying to Y Combinator if your company is already profitable? My partner and I have a company that is generating enough profits that we are able to work full-time on it, get paid a decent salary, and still have some left over to re-invest into the company at the end of every month.

<comment><USER33> <http://paulgraham.com/equity.html>

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> Hi, a small issue in the application page.

If the 'Company url' field is typed without "<http://> it doesn't get saved.

<http://example.com> (good)

www.example.com (bad)

example.com (bad)

Is it a bug or am I doing it wrong. (Ubuntu /Firefox 6.0)

thank you.

</comment><comment><USER35> The link to "Directed Edge's successful application video" at <http://ycombinator.com/video.html> points to <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=855057>, which in turn leads to a 404. The video can, however, be found at <http://scotchi.posterous.com/directed- edge>.

</comment><comment><USER36> Can't wait to apply to YC.

In the meantime, a shameless plug: if there are any devs out there in DC or NYC who want to join this startup as a technical co-founder let me know. The early version of the product has validated the idea, we have a nice userbase, an impressive following, and deep ties to our industry, contact me - dan at danjberger.com - i'd love to chat :)

</comment><comment><USER37> I started looking for a cofounder about a month ago. I am not sure if I will find one by October 31st but the search is on.

How is this evaluated on the application?

Also, there was a recent clarification by the USCIS that a H1-B visa holder can work for his/her own company.

Is YC cognizant of this and can it help the visa holder jump through any hoops (legal or otherwise) to be a H1-B start-up founder?

<comment><USER38> Do you have a link to this USCIS clarification?

<comment><USER37> [http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-immigration-a- step...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-immigration-a-step-in-the- right-direction/2011/08/03/gIQA2bGgsI_story.html)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> We are already a registered Ltd company in the UK, is this going to cause problems? I understand you must incorporate in the USA.

<comment><USER39> Does anyone know?

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> What do you guys (and gals) think about non-technical co-founders? Well at least co-founders who are barely learning to code?

<comment><AUTHOR> The founders don't all have to be programmers, but we prefer there be at least one.

<comment><USER22> Thank you PG, I really appreciate your reply. The person I have in mind is brilliant and picking up programming concepts quickly. We also work well with each other and he is someone I can count on to stick with me through the hard times.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> From this thread, it almost seems that a founder dating section of HN would be pretty beneficial to a lot of people. Granted, there are already too many find-a-cofounder sites out there, but the caliber of people and ability to see the past posting history of a potential cofounder on HN seems to be potentially valuable.

<comment><USER41> Agreed.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> Just curious, is there any stigma attached to companies that apply without being 100% on everyone being able to move to the Bay Area? I personally can move, though, my co-founder is still in school (it's just the two of us). Is it better to just wait until everyone can move?

<comment><USER43> Yes. It's almost a smell test--if you can't get your team to move, are you really committed?

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> How many two-person startups were accepted last year where one of the founders resided in sf, and the other resided in a nearby city such as Seattle?

This is a case where both founders are software engineers who have already worked together closely for a sustained period.

</comment><comment><USER45> I have two questions:

1\. Do the US applicants have significant advantage over the foreign applicants?

2\. Does YC help to get visa?

<comment><USER46> No and No

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> I'm looking for some co-founders for the next cycle. Tried my social circles and ran into the competence and drive issue that many of you probably experienced. If you are interested we should definitely talk. Shoot me an email at email@example.com

</comment><comment><USER48> I am planning on applying this round, but I have to admit that I hate making presentations, in fact I am dreading the 1 minute video I have to make for the application. I imagine that I will get over it.

</comment><comment><USER49> :D Thanks for the heads up! I can tell there are a lot of excited founders in here, myself included! "Looks frantically in nightstand drawer for napkin with MASTERPLAN scribbled on it" jk.

I wish you all the best of luck.

</comment><comment><USER22> Here we go again, or should I say here I go again. ;)

</comment><comment><USER50> How do people start up with less than $20K? That's barely enough to cover basic icorporation + lawyer + equipment + website graphic design. If you need to hire somebody professional (like sales guys), what do you do?

<comment><USER51> $20K is a LOT of money. You can form an LLC for a hundred bucks, lease a server for another hundred, and do your own graphic design at the outset (or hire a student for a couple of hundred).

To hire a sales guy, just use the money from all the sales that are taking up so much of your time you need to hire someone else to handle them. That comes a little bit later...

<comment><USER52> I wouldn't suggest creating an LLC. I think it's a standard practice to incorporate all Y-Comb companies.

<comment><USER53> * LLCs are corporations.

* My understanding is all YC companies are C-corps.

* That's because LLC's and S-Corps have limitations on shareholders and share classes.

* The C.W. is that any major external investor is going to rip up your corp structure no matter what you do.

* It's almost certainly not the case that YC would turn town a promising team because they were already an LLC. The principals just need to unanimously agree to convert.

* You should get _some kind_ of limited liability structure ASAP when you start, because until you do, most/all of your company obligations attach themselves to your credit, your assets, your mortgage, &c.

* Of the limited liability structures available to you, LLCs are the fastest and cheapest. S-Corp and C-Corp only change taxation and equity structure.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Sergey Brin on Steve Jobs - <AUTHOR> https://plus.google.com/109813896768294978296/posts/dwmWyNSoXTh

<comment><USER2> This was my favorite part of "In the Plex" by Steven Levey. Sergey and Larry wanted Jobs to be their CEO. They had met with a number of CEO's in Silicon Valley and picked Jobs because of how well he impressed them. Also because he was the "He was the only candidate who had been to Burning Man". Pretty cool if you ask me. RIP STEVE

<comment><USER3> Eric Schmidt was the only candidate who had been to Burning Man, I think, although I haven't read the book (by Steven Levy, not Levey). Certainly Schmidt must have been a candidate at some point, since he got the job, and he had certainly been to Burning Man.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> _> Steve, your passion for excellence is felt by anyone who has ever touched an Apple product_

That's a wonderful way of putting it. Steve Jobs was inspirationally, infectiously passionate about making good things. Rest in peace, Steve.

</comment><comment><USER5> N.B. It's _Sergey_ , not _Sergei_. Could an admin please correct the title?

</comment><comment><USER6> Did he make an account just to say this? I thought Google's execs avoided G+ for the most part.

<comment><USER7> Sergey regularly posts photos, ever since the launch of G+ field trial.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Meh. The cynic in me suspects a ploy to get G+ signups.

<comment><USER9> Here is the text:

'From the earliest days of Google, whenever Larry and I sought inspiration for vision and leadership, we needed to look no farther than Cupertino. Steve, your passion for excellence is felt by anyone who has ever touched an Apple product (including the macbook I am writing this on right now). And I have witnessed it in person the few times we have met.

On behalf of all of us at Google and more broadly in technology, you will be missed very much. My condolences to family, friends, and colleagues at Apple.'</comment></comment>


Ask HN: How do I find a tech job? - <AUTHOR> I am an international grad student , studying in a top 3 school for computer science and have worked for over 2 years before.
I have been trying to get a job for 6 months now and I keep getting reject after reject,mostly without an interview.
I have tried LinkedIn and applying to companies directly. After more than 500 applications and lots of iterations on the resume I am still nowhere.
What can I do to get a job ? <comment><USER2> Since you are going to a top 3 school, you obviously have the talent. Without meeting you, based solely on what you said above (nothing about meeting people, just sending resumes), I am going to make an assumption that you are avoiding meeting people in person, or even virtually (like a Slack).

You are going to need to flip the script and proactively meet with people who might work at companies that you'd like to work at, way before an interview. To do that, you're going to need to put yourself out there. Sending resumes to a black box or "black hole" is not the best strategy for finding a job. Ask people to help you (professor, friends, students who might be better at job searching at your school). By being vulnerable, people will want to help you. (Note: This Ask HN is a good first step).

If you are not already attending tech meetups, consider moving to a location (not necessarily SF) that has meetups. If you are already attending tech meetups, start presenting at those meetups. Start organizing talks, maybe even a mini conference at your school. People who bring people together always have more opportunities than those who just show up.

Learn to talk to people so that you can learn about them and find what they need so they ask you what you need (in your case, a job opportunity).

Your goal is to become a local maximum, by being a host, organizer, or leader. It is near impossible to become a global maximum (e.g. president of a country) but you can easily become the leader/organizer of a conference or even a happy hour/coffee get together.

Consider a hackathon or two. If you do well enough, it is almost like a first job interview for the sponsoring companies. Also, it is a good test of "shipping something" and working under pressure with a team.

If you don't want to do this, at the very least sign up for an improv comedy class. I think this may help you get over your fear of messing up in person.

</comment><comment><USER3> I assume you have Visa for where you are applying to.

Without seeing your resume it is hard to highlight what you are doing wrong.

It is important to realize that your resume can get ignored for a variety of reasons. Typically the first filter is an automated system which looks for key words. Second a person in HR looks at it. For techies, the HR is a problem as HR does not look at things in a technical fashion... To get past HR, I recommend a resume writting service. Since at 500 applications you should get a bite, but there is obviously SOMETHING wrong with your resume.

<bitterness on> The annoying thing I have encountered is the companies (HR department) likes to FIND YOU! I have had calls from the HR department saying I would be perfect for a job at their company. I agree that is why I sent a resume last week. Radio silence follows. Implication being, what use is an HR department if they cannot find someone, they do not get as well rewarded if you find them.<bitterness off>

Have you considered visiting a recruiter? Since they are money orientated, they will work hard to fit your round peg in a square hole.

</comment><comment><USER4> You apply to the lowest position, that has the least amount of risk to hiring you as you're unknown to them, and then work internally your way into your role of choice. Or try a recruiting service like this: [https://triplebyte.com/](https://triplebyte.com/)

</comment><comment><USER5> Get side projects together. Look at internships in addition to entry level jobs. You want experience. You may learn a ton from school, but school doesn't always look like valuable experience in the eyes of a recruiter.

Keep it up, just broaden your search and keep getting more projects under your belt and adding them to your resume.

</comment><comment><USER6> Have you got a portfolio? Have you rewritten your resume? Are you writing personalized responses to jobs you are more interested instead of shotgunning the same response?

</comment><comment><USER7> Add a ton of HR people to your linked in, buy premium, advertise you are looking for a job by checking the option after you get the premium.

</comment><comment><USER8> Send me your resume. There is probably a red flag in it (can be your name or something like that).</comment>


Startup is not your job - <AUTHOR> http://igzebedze.com/2012/08/22/startup-is-not-your-job/ <comment><USER2> This is another article that makes a bunch of assumptions about its precise definition of a "Startup", then defines those definitions, then restates them as its conclusion.

But it doesn't mean you need to fit any of those definitions to be a Startup. Except in the mind of the author.

I run a successful little software startup that has as its first and primary goal: "Maximize Jason's vacation time". Every decision I make is made in that context. So profitability is important, as is low customer support requirements, as is technical simplicity (so I never have to cut a trip short because something breaks).

From that standpoint, articles like this that make it sound like a startup should consume your life and thoughts seem a bit silly. No it shouldn't. Not unless you want it to.

That's the cool thing about running your own business. You get to run it any way you please.

<comment><USER3> Well said. I don't understand why people shy away from this mindset. There is nothing wrong with running something successful and living a full life.

<comment><AUTHOR> There's a difference between a "startup" and a "lifestyle business".

<comment><USER4> I would disagree with that, they are not mutually exclusive. Some people create a "startup" to provide them with a "lifestyle business".

<comment><AUTHOR> How about new lifestyle business referring to themselves as new lifestyle businesses versus referring to themselves as startups? How should a startup call itself not to be ambiguous?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I don't understand why the idea that you should try and gain a competitive advantage by stretching yourself beyond limits is so popular in the startup community. Not resting properly (be it vacation or daily sleep) hurts your productivity and decision making ability badly. So overworking is simply not a rational thing to do.

Starting a new business is not a sprint, but a marathon. And all this romanticizing does a huge disservice to the people who buy the hype and end up burned out.

<comment><USER6> _Starting a new business is not a sprint, but a marathon. And all this romanticizing does a huge disservice to the people who buy the hype and end up burned out._

Eh... I don't know. I mean, yeah, I totally agree with the sentiment that "Starting a new business is not a sprint, but a marathon." But, even so, part of the issue is the old saw that (paraphrased) says "an entrepreneur is someone who sets out to change something about the world when he doesn't control the resources necessary to do so."

If you buy that definition then doing a startup is trying to do the (nearly) impossible. Given that, you look at the simply ridiculous amount of work in front of you, and the resources you have available, and you don't have much choice but to do as much as you can with the one resource you do control: yourself.

I guess there is some romanticizing involved, but doing a startup is _hard_ and I don't see any way around that. It takes a lot out of you, and I believe you do have to sacrifice a little (maybe a lot) at least in the early days, until you get some traction and can start attracting more resources to your initiative.

Maybe, if you're a natural born salesperson and can attract more resources without traction, it's a different story. Or maybe I'm just one of the people who has bought the marketing hype.

I probably watched _The Social Network_ one time too many. :-) Or maybe, in my case, it's just because I'm getting older and feel like I'm running out of time to do something big.

<comment><USER5> I completely agree that most startup founders are going to be making sacrifices and using all the resources available. If you are expecting anything to come out of your startup you better be really committed to it. I'm against that school of thought on a totally different basis.

My issue with it is that it views starting a startup as a kind of gamble. Every sleepless night, weekend at the office and skipped vacation is absolutely guaranteed to come back and bite you in the ass after a certain time. If you are into gambling, you might bet on "hitting a home run" (whatever that means) before that happens. But you might as well try your chances in Vegas. In reality behind every overnight success is skill and years of dedicated work. And there's no way you are going to stay in overdrive for years without wrecking yourself and your startup.

I'm speaking from personal experience btw. I used to subscribe to that ideology and I still haven't fully recovered years later.

<comment><USER6> _But in reality behind every overnight success is skill and years of dedicated work. And there's no way you are going to stay in overdrive for years without wrecking yourself and your startup._

Yeah, you definitely can't sprint the entire marathon. I won't argue that. But I think there are moments when you choose to sprint for a while, to achieve certain goals. And even the non "flat out sprint" moments are a hard slog.

The thing that I don't do well, is allowing myself to take time off. I can't escape the sense of feeling guilty when I do... if I go out to watch a movie or go out drinking or whatever, I always find myself thinking "I could be (writing code|doing market research|writing a whitepaper|etc.)" the whole time. So I don't wind up taking much time off. Whether I'll look back on this whole experience as being a net negative, or a net positive, remains TBD.

<comment><USER5> Actually I still feel the guilt when I take time off too, I just learned to do it anyway :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> > You don't need time off. If you think you do, you're in a Job and should > stop thinking it's a startup, because it will fail.

Strongly disagree. Start-ups fail for lots of reasons; burn-out being one of them.

Start-ups are just high risk/reward jobs without many of the guarantees or safety nets that the traditional employer/employee relationship can provide.

If you don't have your work life balance sorted out, then something will fail; be it your start-up, your relationships/marriage/family, or both.

If you get to the point of burn out and it's a choice of either burn-out completely or - by taking a holiday - a failed start-up then you can't blame the holiday, I'd be looking at the original idea and/or the execution.

</comment><comment><USER8> Founder's Prayer (with apologizes to AA & the original author)

God, grant me the tolerance to accept the limitations of my MVP, strength and determination to work on what must be worked on now, and wisdom to know the difference.

</comment><comment><USER9> Also, could we stop pretending that every startup founder is in it to "change the world"?

<comment><USER10> startups make money by making people behave differently - paying them instead of someone else. that's changing the world.

let's stop pretending there is more to it than that, because it's hard enough.

<comment><USER11> I step on ants and consume bacteria everytime I eat. So I change the world as well.

<comment><USER12> Great observation there. Wanna know a secret? You can demean and belittle someone's argument just just by taking it out of context anywhere on in the world, not JUST hacker news.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> _You don't need time off. If you think you do, you're in a Job and should stop thinking it's a startup, because it will fail._

Or you're a human being and you'll be just fine.

</comment><comment><USER14> Do yourself a favor: take time off and mean it. Who are you racing against? Probably just yourself.

</comment><comment><USER15> So I'm curious, what would you define a job? True, running a startup requires you to make some concessions with your private time. But when you have what you describe as a job, assuming there is no need to excel (i.e., prioritising, pushing), seems a bit judging. Aiming to be good at what you do, doesn't that hold for anything?

So with that argument turned around again on startups, if you need time off, vacations, private me time or whatever to get better at what you do, you should take it. Excessive stress does not make a better person, nor a better life.

<comment><USER10> great question, thanks.

i call a 'job' something that has a stable job description, clear career path and predictable roadmap. vacation becomes just another item on the calendar then, which is perfectly fine.

you can and should still excel in those conditions, but the project won't be jeopardized or stalled if you take time off. and when you come back, chances are that the specs of your project didn't shift yet.

there is a surprising amount of people working in jobs, even in technology sector, but they are not founders or employees of early stage companies.

and yes, if you feel like you need time off, you need time off. but planned vacations in this environment I just don't see plausible. I've never been able to even book a plane ticket more than a week in advance, because plans always changed.

best, b

<comment><USER2> _I've never been able to even book a plane ticket more than a week in advance, because plans always changed._

Fix that if you can.

From your comments on this thread, I get the sense that you've let your business get out of control a bit. You think that it's all normal and part of the deal because it's all you know. But lots of people here are trying to tell you it's not.

If you can't mold the business you created yourself to fit the pattern you want, that's a big red flag. Now, it's likely that the pattern you want actually is to be occupied 24/7 and pour your whole life into your thing, in which case you've succeeded.

But know that it doesn't need to be that way. It's entirely your choice.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Agreed except for holidays. If you don't have a clear sharp line between work and life day-to-day, then you need those more than ever.

<comment><USER10> hey guys,

a) i'm not saying anyone should overwork themselves, you're seeing that in my post. all i'm saying is that even when entrepreneur (or a type thereof) tries to unplug, the brain still works on the same problems.

b) work-life balance is bullshit, doesn't work. you can't switch contexts like that efficiently. if you try and think you'll be able to, no surprise you need vacation as well.

c) i'm racing against wantrepreneurs who think they have a hard job building a startup because they worry about paying for office space and other non- essential things. as more cash is sent towards early-stage startups, I see more of this behavior emerging.

best, b

<comment><USER17> "work-life balance is bullshit, doesn't work. you can't switch contexts like that efficiently"

Efficiency is the _anti-goal_ of a well-balanced life.

It's not efficient to drive four hours to Yosemite just to hike a new trail with my wife. It's not efficient to spend all afternoon trying to cook my own pizza instead of just ordering one for delivery. It's certainly not efficient to spend years learning to speak a new language for no practical reason.

However inefficient, all these "life" activities enrich and contextualize your work. There is nothing quite like a long hike to help you wrap your head around a difficult algorithm, or bringing a team together over some bad homemade pizza, or serendipitously running across a potential investor who speaks your otherwise "useless" second language.

This is what work-life balance is all about. It's about investing in yourself and, indirectly, your work. It's never efficient, but a lot of us find it necessary and rewarding.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> This time crunch is exacerbated even further when you're trying to bootstrap. 8 hour day job (at least) + at least 3 or 4 hours nightly trying to hustle your way through a product doesn't leave much time for sleep/breathing etc. let alone relaxing your mind in any substantive way. Plus the guilt you feel if you take a day off from the day job and don't spend that on what you're working on.

I'm trying to figure out better ways to maximize my time and squeeze the absolute most out of it, while maintaining some semblance of work/life balance. But it's a struggle, there's no doubt. There's the momentary victory of working out all of the scheduling but if you burn out, it's not worth much, is it?

<comment><USER10> well... i'd say nothing is worth over-working yourself. i like my sleep very much.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Depends how you define "job". If a job is defined as repetitive, non-engaging, focused, simple work, then a startup is not a job. If define a job as anything, no matter how board, critical, and requiring abstract though, then a startup is a job.

In my opinion, a job is what you spend time doing to live your life. If you do a startup so you can continue to live, that's your job.</comment>


Twitter Eng Team's list of more inclusive words in code - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/TwitterEng/status/1278733305190342656 <comment><USER2> So I can agree with e.g. using "Blocklist" instead of "Blacklist", or replacing master/slave as those have many fitting synonyms and are unnecessary, even though I don't think that will affect any of the actual racism issues.

But what is the problem with terms like "Grandfathered", "Sanity check" and "Dummy value"? Replacing such words (that you can still frequently encounter in literally any english text) prevents Twitter from justifying the rejection of any further change requests. If "grandfather" is supposed to be offensive(I guess because some people don't want to think about their grandfather?) then what stops people from demanding removal of terms like "stylesheet" (because maybe I don't like being reminded of my looks) or "backend" (because it could remind someone about a traumatising event)? And how could Twitter reasonably reject those demands when they already started to remove everyday words?

<comment><USER3> Replacing ANY of these terms is completely unnecessary. They never implied racism or inequality of any sort. This is all coming from a fresh out of college engineer who was looking to make an impact and a name for himself. He went searching for offense and found it in non-offensive places. This does nothing to solve racism, ageism, sexism etc.

Why not take offense to terms such as "hex" and "daemon" if you're a fundamentalist Christian?

None of these words were offensive until this one random developer decided to make them offensive.</comment></comment>


Trump: Tribune of Poor White People - <AUTHOR> http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/trump-us-politics-poor-whites/ <comment><USER2> "The average kid will live in multiple homes over the course of her life, experience a constant cycle of growing close to a "stepdad" only to see him walk out on the family, know multiple drug users personally, maybe live in a foster home for a bit (or at least in the home of an unofficial foster like an aunt or grandparent), watch friends and family get arrested, and on and on."

I'd prefer to see a statistical presentation of this information, rather than hearsay, but if even somewhat true, a basic income trial in these areas would be highly valuable.

<comment><USER3> While basic income might make sense, many of these people won't be satisfied with it. They would be ashamed and angry that society has no useful job for them anymore. Wouldn't you?

There's a reason many of these people prefer Trump, who promises jobs and (false) hope, over Clinton, who isn't making such promises.

<comment><USER4> What?

Hillary is totally promising jobs, it's one of the core planks of her "platform": [https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/jobs/](https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/jobs/)

<comment><USER3> She is, but it's not exactly the same.

Where I grew up (Appalachia), there's already plenty of great infrastructure. There are, however, no industries to replace coal mining or steel production. It's literally impossible for Trump to bring those jobs back -- it's much cheaper to extract coal in the West, so there's little-to-no incentive for a for-profit corporation to build new mines in Appalachia.

I did a social studies report in 6th grade on the topic, "What will replace coal in West Virginia?" Even then, we couldn't figure anything out. Nothing has changed. WV is the strongest state for Trump for that reason.

Clinton can promise jobs in a general sense, but it's not what they want to hear. They want to hear someone offer them a time machine to 1960, when men could work in mines or manufacturing from his teens until he retired, and they knew their sons would be able to do the same.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is a really thoughtful article* and I plan to read the book ("Hillbilly Elegy") discussed.

*Despite the URL, it's not kneejerk anything. Ignore the comments at the end as usual though...</comment>


Code review of the Imperial College London Covid-19 modelling - <AUTHOR> https://lockdownsceptics.org/code-review-of-fergusons-model/ <comment><USER2> John Carmack's response: [https://twitter.com/ID_AA_Carmack/status/1258192134752145412](https://twitter.com/ID_AA_Carmack/status/1258192134752145412)

<comment><USER3> There's 3 tweets in that thread:

> It is disappointing, but not really unexpected, to see this take on the > epidemic simulation code release: [https://lockdownsceptics.org/code-review- > of-fergusons-model/](https://lockdownsceptics.org/code-review-of-fergusons- > model/) If we accept it at face value, we have a retired software engineer > making the case that non-determinism in a simulation shows incompetence. I > am all \

> for deterministic-everything, but issues with random seeds and parallel > floating point reductions are extremely widespread, and a great deal of > science gets done with non-deterministic simulations. Heck, professional > software engineering struggles mightily with just making \

> completely reproducable builds. I take no position on the mechanics of the > simulation or the conclusions drawn from the runs, but implicitly > encouraging scientists to keep their code secret if it isn't "perfect" is > damaging.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I have pretty deep experience in modelling code across a wide range of dimensions (academic, industrial and government, supercomputing to microcontroller, internet ads to protein design). I've seen a lot of modelling codes, and run a bunch of them, written some of them, and helped people fix problems in them.

Throughout that time I've seen a wide range of modelling quality. Very few people can churn out really nice code that solves useful problem, update that software for a wide range of uses over the years, keep it documented, pay down technical debt, fix bugs, write great tests, and make sure the numerics are excellent. Often times these things are built by people who are experts, but spend most of their time in meetings explaining the situation to politicians, or running labs and publishing papers.

Having read this particular article, many of the problems I see being complained about are typical and happen in industry frequently, even in highly functional orgs with strong incentives to build high quality software. Further, it really just seems like the author had a very strong position about lockdowns, and tried to make a quantitative/technie takedown of some code that was used to make some decisions. The article really drips of that kind of animosity. i see a number of technical errors and ambiguity which make it unconvincing.

That said, we _could_ have far better codes. In principle, all the data and support libraries would be open, the pipelines to produce the data reproducible, maintainable, and well-tested, and anybody would be able to write a simple notebook that reproducibly model their hypotheses for large populations in a way that a large number of people could inspect and come to their own conclusions.

<comment><USER5> Crappy code abounds, and yes, the authors seem to be grinding an axe. That notwithstanding, a reputable scientist, seeing that this code was being used to make decisions that would directly affect millions of people in a life-and- death way, would stand up and proclaim, "This is _just a fucking prototype and not to be used for important policy decisions_." Not doing so is pretty unethical. (Far more so than breaking quarantine for a little nookie...)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> _Investigation reveals the truth: the code produces critically different results, even for identical starting seeds and parameters_

The fellow claims to have been at Google, yet seems not to have heard about non-determinism in parallelized code? Are we supposed to throw away all molecular dynamics results that were not run on a single core?!

And what's with the beef about the mathematics? Yes, it's apparently poorly determined, but that is a feature, you can extract uncertainty from it. An engineer, even if it's a software "engineer" should have heard about experimental error!

<comment><USER7> > heard about non-determinism in parallelized code

There's a term for it. It's "race condition". It is usually considered a bad thing. Exactly because it makes the result of the code unpredictable, unless you take special care to control it. Now they question is - did the authors of the model do it? Given that their advice is "just run it single-threaded" \- no they didn't.

<comment><USER6> In MD, you can eliminate race conditions like a computer scientist would or you can listen to the underlying physics and ignore them when appropiate. In real life, we depend on weak causality, not on strong causality. A throw of dice will demonstrate the fact.

<comment><USER7> A throw of dice will demonstrate the fact that we shouldn't care about bugs in models caused by race conditions? How does that even make sense?

<comment><USER8> The "race condition" is that the random numbers fed to each thread are nondeterministic given a specific seed. Even though a specific run can't be reproduced due to the nondeterminism, the random values aren't causing math bugs.

Let's say we are doing a stock market simulation. You have 2 shares of company A and 5 shares of company B. Your profit depends on the change in share price.

        srand(seed); // generates: [rand_0, rand_1, ...]
        total_profit = 2 * profit(rand()) + 5 * profit(rand());

The race condition can result in two different outcomes given the same seed:

        total_profit = 2 * profit(rand_0) + 5 * profit(rand_1);
        total_profit = 2 * profit(rand_1) + 5 * profit(rand_0);

Both of those outcomes are valid. Even though there's a reproducibility bug, it doesn't affect the correctness of the model.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> The code is a dumpster fire. I wouldn't trust it to manage my shopping list and would get in deep shit at work for something like that. Not sure if that article itself makes good points, but the code alone should anyone nope out. Publishing any results from this feels criminal, let alone something world- changing as their reports.

</comment><comment><USER10> This is an incredibly poor take. It's well known that academic software doesn't follow great software engineering practices. The model is an incredibly complex piece of software that attempts to model stochastic behaviour. That it isn't fully deterministic (with a fixed random seed) doesn't make thee research invalid and shouldn't discredit research that builds on the model.

>On a personal level, I'd go further and suggest that all academic epidemiology be defunded. This sort of work is best done by the insurance sector.

This is another level of crazy.

<comment><USER11> >This is an incredibly poor take.

No it isn't.

> It's well known that academic software doesn't follow great software > engineering practices.

That doesn't make it acceptable. Also, it's also "well known" that vast majority of academic work has zero tangible effect on society. This isn't one of those works. It's possibly the most important piece of academic work that has happened in recent memory. So the bar for this is MUCH higher than typical academic research work.

>. That it isn't fully deterministic (with a fixed random seed) doesn't make thee research invalid and shouldn't discredit research that builds on the model.

It does make it invalid, when the difference between runs is as big as 80,000 estimated deaths which can lead to dramatically different government policies.

> This is another level of crazy.

No it's not. Academia is way behind the industry when it comes to modeling the economy and the real world.

<comment><USER2> > No it's not. Academia is way behind the industry when it comes to modeling > the economy and the real world.

The insurance industry is expected to ask the government for bailouts because none of their models can account for the fallout from this, just like AIG did during the '08 crisis.

<comment><USER12> Not to protect the insurance industry, which I know nothing about, but how does their hypothetical failure, misery and bailout relate to, or validate the study in question?

<comment><USER13> Criticism: Academia fails to model the real world, in contrast to industry ("is way behind industry").

Response: An entire industry of competing and well-funded actors that specialize in modeling and predicting expensive failure states also failed to model the world accurately.

Implication of Response: Where is the evidence that this is inferior to industry?

<comment> no-s >>Implication of Response: Where is the evidence that this is inferior to industry?

A meta implication is that expert models were insufficient to inform decisions.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Actual code: [https://github.com/mrc-ide/covid-sim](https://github.com/mrc- ide/covid-sim)

<comment><USER15> Thanks for the link.

As I randomly clicked through, I wasn't _that_ horrified until I got to this file:

[https://github.com/mrc-ide/covid- sim/blob/master/src/SetupMo...](https://github.com/mrc-ide/covid- sim/blob/master/src/SetupModel.cpp)

Of course, it's absolutely insane to suggest that all of academic epidemiology should be defunded.

<comment><USER7> > I got to this file

I have no idea how ever anyone could make sure such code is correct. What I suspect happened is it was tweaked until it generated the results that seemed plausible, and then left at that. But if somewhere in that huge haystack there's some > that should be <, only by sheer luck somebody could find it. And since there's no unit tests (I was pleasantly surprised to see "test" directory but of course no unit tests there) it's probably impossible to find small errors if they still produce plausible results.

> Of course, it's absolutely insane to suggest that all of academic > epidemiology should be defunded.

True, article probably would be much better if it stayed within the area of expertise of the writer.

<comment><USER16> I'm hoping that the result of this critique, whether the model is correct or not (which is beyond the scope of the critique), will push for better software writing in academia.

There's some discussion in the GH issues, too: [https://github.com/mrc- ide/covid-sim/issues/165](https://github.com/mrc-ide/covid-sim/issues/165)

I'm hoping it doesn't get hijacked and turns into a flamefest, which would distract from the main point.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> It's disappointing to see this flagged.

Imagine the Trump administration was using a model with similar code quality to justify reopening the economy. We would not be making excuses for it, or flagging articles that criticize it. In fact, if I told you today that I was running the model with a certain random seed and getting a result that said the US would have <5k additional deaths in 2020, how would you even dispute that?

The biggest issue with this link is that it's less a code review than a rant about the code quality, but the code is so badly written that it's hard to know where to start doing a code review.

</comment><comment><USER16> IMO this should be unflagged and the link changed to [https://github.com/mrc- ide/covid-sim/issues/165](https://github.com/mrc-ide/covid-sim/issues/165) which is at least non-partisan unlike the very domain name of this submission.

<comment><USER18> This thread has (again) been flagged.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> >"lockdownsceptics.org"

It seems their conclusion is foredrawn, so I wouldn't expect much scientific rigor here. This article reeks of the kind of cherry-picking and straw man arguments you see in climate change denial.

<comment><USER7> > It seems their conclusion is foredrawn

Said the person who made a conclusion about the article by looking at the domain name of the site it is published in. Oh the irony!

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Well at least they are upfront about their bias...and I must tell you, as an academic, I'm SHOCKED, SHOCKED I tell you to find ugly code in a research paper. And from my prior experience working as a defense contractor, I'm SHOCKED SHOCKED I tell you to that its possible for governments to possibly use messy code for decisions making. But what I'm most shocked by is that a software engineer thinks them not understanding a model from another field is a valid critique of it (so shocked I laughed).

If you are curious about the reliability of this particular source you can start at the end and read backwards:

"On a personal level, I'd go further and suggest that all academic epidemiology be defunded. This sort of work is best done by the insurance sector. Insurers employ modellers and data scientists, but also employ managers whose job is to decide whether a model is accurate enough for real world usage and professional software engineers to ensure model software is properly tested, understandable and so on. Academic efforts don't have these people, and the results speak for themselves."

Sue may be a great programmer but she regularly steps out of commenting on the code to comment on the model...which is like the guy who designed the tractor wheels telling the farmer what to plant. While readability of code may be nice, not a single comment she makes actually disputes the findings of the model. Some things in nature are actually stochastic (I'm sorry...RANDOM ::clutches pearls::). If you think the entire world is deterministic great...show me the computing power and societal knowledge that can account for those variables. And if your solution to global health is capitalism, look at the gates foundation, if you wanna look at what other approaches have gotten us, look at the Carter Center and Jonas Salk. Epidemiologists didn't build the ObamaCare website...

In the past 100 years, epidemiology has:

* Brought us a world where infectitious diseases are no longer the SINGLE LARGEST CAUSE OF DEATH to the human species

* Made workplaces safer, and the food chain safer

* Reduced the maternal death rate by 90%

* Eliminated small pox entirely and eliminated multiple other diseases practically

I don't know Sue, but I'm team Salk not team Sue here...what a loon.

<comment><USER7> You are right on many points here, but I think you are completely wrong on randomness point. Randomness from the model, randomness from real word being non-deterministic and randomness from bugs in the code are qualitatively different. Yes, you can't make real-world experiment to produce exactly the same values all the time (if you did, you'd probably suspect something is wrong...). Yes, model can be probabilistic and return different results. But if different results come from race conditions in the code, and these are significantly different, then the model doesn't model what it is supposed to model, it's no longer the model of the real world. It's a model or the real world plus buggy code with random CPU scheduling. It's fine if we lived in a computer simulation running on a buggy VM with race conditions - then it would model our would perfectly. But since there's no indications we are in such world, the error introduced by this bug - and it looks it's not negligible at all - makes model diverge from the real world, and decisions regarding the real world made based on this wrong model are also wrong. It's a big problem, and no amount of other deficiencies of the article - which you appropriately highlighted - diminishes this very serious problem.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> The article is partisan, and yet it DOES make some valid points.

</comment><comment><USER22> Rather than defunding epidemiology, how about giving them enough money to hire professional programmers?

It's a good investment, given how much is at stake.

<comment> no-s >>Rather than defunding epidemiology, how about giving them enough money to hire professional programmers?

See "Moral Hazard". We should not expect integrity issues to be solved by throwing money at the perpetrators. It's more reasonable to suppose they would spend extra funding on hookers and crack cocaine, or some similar academic/bureaucratic equivalent.

If you have money/time/skills to throw at the problem, I implore you to take up a clean room open source effort to reproduce the model.

<comment><USER22> Who are the "perpetrators" here, and what "integrity" issues are you talking about?

Those are pretty accusatory words you're using. This is a general problem in scientific research. The scientists care about and know a lot about the science and mathematics of their models, but they don't have formal training in programming, software development, etc. They prioritize hiring graduate students who know about the science, and they frankly don't have the budget to poach programmers from industry. Do you know what usually happens to people in graduate science programs who are more interested in programming than the science? They end up at tech firms, making 3-4x as much as they would if they pursued a postdoc.

Research that is incredibly important to society is being done on a shoe- string. The "perpetrators," in my eyes, are the politicians who have failed to properly fund epidemiology, virology, public health, and other vital fields. Something is wrong in a society that can spend God knows how much on increasing the accuracy of ad-targeting algorithms by 1%, but which can't afford to fund a FTE programmer for its leading epidemiological research group.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> It's very disappointing to see this submission flagged. Further, the general trend of politicization of the scientific process is highly worrying. I fear the response to the pandemic is being driven by an emotionally political monoculture rather than data, facts and critical reasoning.

Gailileo would not be happy to see this.

<comment><USER24> We're in the midst mass hysteria --- the kind of thing you normally see in history books. What do you expect? What's more disturbing to me is seeing how otherwise-reasonable people are excusing bugs in this model (bugs that they would never accept in other software) with flimsy rationales presented aggressively.

You have to keep in mind how people actually _think_. Most of human reasoning capacity doesn't go into the beautiful work of intellectual exploration. Instead, most of the time, we use the faculty of reason for the crude and dirty job of finding support for our preconceptions. When facts conflict with one of these preconceptions, we invent excuses to discard the facts --- the smarter the person, the more elaborate the excuses. Facts seldom change anyone's mind.

In certain circles (including, unfortunately, circles composed of smart and influential people) it's become taboo to oppose the lockdowns, in part because the pro- and anti-lockdown positions have developed certain partisan connotations in the United States. At the same time, the weight of accumulating evidence (empty hospital, declining infection rates, repeated large modeling errors, high serum antibody prevalence, a very steep age curve, and large economic losses) is beginning to make the pro-lockdown stance untenable. But a lot of pro-lockdown people, having become emotionally invested in their position, are unwilling to back down. Consequently, we see a ton of elaborate excuses for discarding, ignoring, and suppressing information that further weakens the pro-lockdown position.

The HN community is composed disproportionately from these circles, many of which claim to make up the "respectable" part of society. The HN flags on this article are part of this process of rejecting ideas that conflict with dearly- held preconceptions. The author of the code review post makes valid points and the snide dismissals in the comments on this article say more about the makeup of HN commentariat than they do about the code review itself.</comment></comment>


How Star Trek is Better Than Star Wars - <AUTHOR> http://www.pointsincase.com/articles/5-reasons-star-trek-better-than-star-wars

<comment><USER3> Counterpoints:

(1) on "Science Fiction versus Science Fantasy": Star Trek has a whole lot of fantasy elements.

\- the Vulcan mind meld is a pure fantasy element.

\- In their travels, Star Trek is constantly running into gods who have full godly powers with no particular explanation for how this could be. They also meet things like "beings of pure energy".

\- Also: shapeshifters.

Star Wars aliens actually seem pretty sensible and down-to-earth compared to any of that stuff. Also: "The Force", silly as it is, seems to have _some_ limitations - it doesn't quite reach to the level of godlike. Even the Emperor couldn't take on Q.

(2) Regarding "Anything on Star Trek versus the Death Star": The Borg Collective is at least as silly in its own ways. And if you're determined to make a planet-sized ship, a sphere seems like a more sensible shape for it than a cube, doesn't it?

(3) Regarding dumb names: Calling the robot "Mister Data" is at least as lazy as calling the space hero "Skywalker".

(4) Robot tech: C3PO is a "protocol droid" - being subservient and inoffensive and clumsy and overly polite and generally less powerful than a human seems like a _very sensible_ set of default characteristics for a droid expected to act as a go-between in negotiations. Yes, it's odd that Artoo can't talk - <USER2> seems like a false economy to leave that feature out - but the robots generally are a LOT more scientifically plausible than Data is. There's no particular reason to think star travel would enable robots to be that much better. In fact, Data himself is basically another fantasy element.

</comment><comment><USER4> Great observation, high time someone said it !!!

</comment><comment><USER5> Stargate is better than both.

</comment><comment><USER6> The biggest point they missed: Star Trek never had George Lucas directly involved.

<comment><USER7> here here!

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Aren't they really the same?</comment>


MIT Scientists attempt Molten Salt Reactor - <AUTHOR> http://www.forbes.com/sites/pikeresearch/2012/09/27/a-pair-of-mit-scientists-try-to-transform-nuclear-power/

<comment><AUTHOR> Link to the startup they founded : <http://transatomicpower.com/company.php></comment>


Here's How Much You Need to Make to Be in the Top 1% in Your State - <AUTHOR> http://www.businessinsider.com/one-percent-state-map-2014-9?utm_content=buffer6da0c&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

<comment><USER2> This looks suspiciously similar to a map of urbanization. I would be more interested in seeing this for metropolitan areas instead of for states.</comment>