What's Your Time Worth? - <AUTHOR> http://blog.salescrunch.com/2010/09/01/whats-your-time-worth/ <comment><USER2> _You can always make more money, but you will never get time ill-spent back no matter how high you climb or hard you try._

I've been seeing this one a lot lately so I'm going to go ahead and call it. Bullshit. Most people directly exchange time for money in the course of "making a living". This is why poverty is referred to as a trap (and a desperate one at that). Poverty is what happens at the limit of this exchange when it takes an extraordinary amount of time to to get very little (or goods worth very little) money.

Instead of people "wasting their lives", what we see in this example is a broken economic system that makes it more valuable for people to sit in their cars two hours a week while the street is cleaned than the other available alternatives. This should open the debate about the failures of public transport or city planning or whatever, not merely provide a smug fellow on a bike an opportunity to look down his nose at others.

<comment><USER3> People sitting in their cars 2 hours every day for a parking space is a questionable use of one's time.

In my opinion the actual problem with the article is that it's not clear these people are actually wasting time. Maybe they use this time to listen to language tapes, audio books or something. In that case it could actually be _valuable_ time to them. I treasure my 2 hours on the train because it's the only place I can't be interrupted and don't have to feel bad about that fact.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> For a personal finance "classic" in this vein, I recommend "Your Money or Your Life" by Joe Dominguez and Vicki Robin: [http://www.amazon.com/Your-Money- Life-Transforming-Relations...](http://www.amazon.com/Your-Money-Life- Transforming-Relationship/dp/0140286780)

The book has some interesting things to say about the value of time and, at the very least, forces you to think about the trade-offs of time, money, work and consumption. There's a particularly sobering exercise in the book that has you consider how many productive, non-sleeping hours you have left in your life which provided me with some new perspective I hadn't considered.

</comment><comment><USER5> "I challenge you to ask yourself what could you delegate, automate or eliminate from your life to free you up for more important things or just spend a little more time with your friends and family?"

So this is the new way to be an online writer - you make up some fluff generalities and the 'challenge' the reader to fix it so that you as a writer don't have to?

<comment><USER6> How in the world is the author going to delegate, automate, or eliminate something stupid from your life to free up YOUR time. Each person fills their day with different tasks, many mundane but everyone is unique.

It's not pontificating. It's simply "a call to action".

I mean, I have no problems pleasing my partner but maybe for you - it's something you could delegate, automate, or eliminate. Maybe the author should've added that in for you.

<comment><USER5> At the very least he could've provided some examples, or case studies of people who have delegated some personal tasks. And preferbly without parroting the 4-hour work week. 'Hey look everybody, getting a maid to do your cleaning!' is hardly news-worthy, now is it. If he can think of tasks that can now be delegated that couldn't be 10 years, then maybe he has a point. As it stands now it's just page filling.</comment></comment></comment>


Symantec Distrust in Firefox Nightly 63 - <AUTHOR> https://blog.nightly.mozilla.org/2018/08/14/symantec-distrust-in-firefox-nightly-63 <comment><USER2> If you're wondering why Symantec certificates are being distrusted Mozilla enumerates a pretty good list of reasons here: [https://wiki.mozilla.org/CA:Symantec_Issues](https://wiki.mozilla.org/CA:Symantec_Issues)

</comment><comment><USER3> It's interesting that Firefox preserves the "Continue" button for affected sites, while Chrome does not. I get that we want to keep broken sites relatively accessible for a while, but I worry that we could also be teaching people to ignore warnings like these. I wonder if the continue button dissapears with HSTS…

<comment><USER4> Probably because Mozilla subscribes to the ethos that a user should get the final say in what computation gets done on their computer, and not some third party. I would be sad if they ever took the "continue" option away.

This is consistent with their position on drm in browsers.

<comment><USER5> Firefox Nightly has the continue button regardless, but if the site has HSTS, it will tell you so, and will not allow you to add an exception; continue only shows the cause of the problem, in this case, that the certificate came from an untrusted source. This is in line with the "no user recourse" section of the HSTS RFC.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> A (incomplete) list of broken sites: [https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1484006](https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1484006)

<comment><USER7> Considering the PCWorld group in the UK have had to disclose a serious breach recently, plus they have not bothered to update their EV certs, i'd suggest their security isn't up to scratch and black hats will notice this.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> So is this costing Symantec a lot of money? Are they no longer a root CA in any capacity?

<comment><USER9> They sold their CA business to DigiCert and quit the market.

<comment><USER10> Probably for the best. They really buggered up the whole CA thing. Hard to establish trust after it's been violated.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> It's been distrusted in Chrome Canary for a few weeks already.

Similar schedule and post: [https://security.googleblog.com/2018/03/distrust- of-symantec...](https://security.googleblog.com/2018/03/distrust-of-symantec- pki-immediate.html)

Sites like PayPal and Intuit, which should be on top of things related to security, have been non-responsive to my pings to fix it.

<comment><USER12> Iirc, PayPal responded to a previous support request from us stating they were aware.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Oh, I guess that's why I've been seeing TLS errors on eBay description pages…</comment>


A Connecticut prankster's newspaper eulogy - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/15/nyregion/joe-heller-obituary.html <comment><USER2> Just to be clear, the Joseph Heller who wrote _Catch-22_ died in 1999.

But I wouldn't put it past this one to be him.

<comment><USER3> Literary jerk here-- Heller was famous for the wrong book. Catch-22 was fantastic, but his lesser-known novel, "Something Happened" is a masterpiece of stream of thought literary form. I could not recommend it more.

<comment><USER4> Another jerk here-- Something Happened is literally the worst book I have ever read. The title is nearly literally true, only one thing happens in its many hundreds of pages (by my hazy memory).

<comment><USER3> I am honestly sad to read that you feel that way. To each his own I guess :-)</comment></comment></comment></comment>


How to escape the greatest serial killer of startup founders - <AUTHOR> https://intropreneurs.io/posts/from-fragility-to-consistency/ <comment><USER2> I wasn't going into this with the intention of critiquing it, but, style-wise, this is a pretty difficult read for me. It seems extremely long, very repetitive, takes ages to get to the actual point, and then repeats the point over and over with little added. I think it would come across much clearer, with nothing lost, if you were to remove 80% of the paragraphs. If this is intended as an intro post for this website, I suspect a lot of people are going to start reading and stop well before the end, and not use the website again.

Others may feel differently; this is just one data point. I agree with the message, but to me it just felt like a tortuous route to get to it.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi there. I appreciate the trouble you've taken to read our article and give your opinion on it. I'm sorry you found it so tedious. I take note of your suggestions. Still, I'm glad that at least you can understand the message and even more that you agree with it. We will try to improve in the future.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Nice write up about what you are looking to accomplish Jose. I have such an allergic reaction to the term "entrepreneur", I can't say I like the term "intropreneur" much better, but I get that you want something people can key off of.

A quick grammatical fix, your first bullet at the bottom of the page says "You are plenty of good intentions. " should be "You have..." The rest are fine.

All the best.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi there. Thanks for your attention, your kind comment, and your correction —we already fixed it.</comment></comment>


Show HN: Gedi, an Evented Model Interface for JavaScript - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/gaffa-tape/gedi Gedi is an interface to your model that lets you bind events to track changes in the model. Gedi will also track the dirty state of your model.
Combined with gel (https://github.com/gaffa-tape/gel) gedi is extremely powerful, allowing expression base callbacks that will evaluate when any reference to the model is changed.
Some examples of usage are in the tests: http://github.korynunn.com/gedi/test.html <comment><USER2> It's great - it's been in our production stack now for a little while and so far everything works as advertised!

</comment><comment><USER3> Aren't you that developer who hates JQuery?

<comment><AUTHOR> You must be that guy that doesn't read to the bottom of posts.

<comment><USER3> Yes. Yes I am.</comment></comment></comment>


Arctic permafrost is thawing fast - <AUTHOR> https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/08/arctic-permafrost-is-thawing-it-could-speed-up-climate-change-feature/ <comment><USER2> I highly recommend getting to know the work of Randall Carlson on the subject.

Joe Rogan had him on podcast [1] few times.

[1] [https://youtube.com/watch?v=G0Cp7DrvNLQ](https://youtube.com/watch?v=G0Cp7DrvNLQ)

</comment><comment><USER3> Back in the late 80's early 90's I remember reading some articles written by climatologists who believed that things were far more dire than the mainstream climate industry accepted.

Quoted from the article " researchers now suspect that for every one degree Celsius rise in Earth's average temperature, permafrost may release the equivalent of four to six years' worth of coal, oil, and natural gas emissions—double to triple what scientists thought a few years ago. Within a few decades, if we don't curb fossil fuel use, permafrost could be as big a source of greenhouse gases as China, the world's largest emitter, is today."

This article from NatGeo is the first modern writing I've seen that has put forth such dire warnings about the permafrost thawing. The warning is not as dire at the papers I read, but nonetheless it something we haven't seen before. I wish I still had those original papers, but they were in fact paper and not electronic, and I don't remember who wrote them or where they were published and I doubt they are cataloged anywhere. I do remember the people who wrote the papers were all older scientists, so I don't think any of them are still around.

Most of their models were based on the fact that oceans, glaciers and eventually the permafrost would get locked into a positive feedback loop using greenhouse gases as the fuel.

They postulated that humans tipped the balance and we keep skewing the balance until the earth and climate hit a tipping point at which time the earth and climate would get locked into a few positive feedback loops, warming oceans, melting glaciers, and thawing permafrost.

Most of the papers felt the thawing of the permafrost was the point of no return. It was the point where human activity was no longer the driving force in climate change. Even though the thawing of the permafrost would start out small it was the indication that we passed a warming event from which reducing human output would no longer alter the warming trend. The increase in temperature and forces required to start large scale permafrost warming could not be stopped simply by slightly reducing human output.

The authors mostly felt that 20-40 years of future climate change was already locked in, and once we passed the permafrost thawing event, even large scale changes in human output would not alter the next 20-40 years and during that time the permafrost itself would start to rapidly accelerate it's thawing, eventually coming to release yearly, as much greenhouse gases as all of humans emit, in effect accelerating the warming.

The underlying basis for their theories was that the release of greenhouse gases caused the planet to warm, which in turn caused oceans to warm, glaciers to melt, and eventually permafrost to thaw, which caused more greenhouse gas emissions, which caused more warming, etc. They felt that once the permafrost started to thaw that the final piece of the puzzle was in place and that the three systems, all fueled by greenhouse gas emissions would self sustain the feedback loop.

The papers believed that while in the beginning the permafrost greenhouse gas output would be small, but it was enough to sustain the feedback loops without human input, the feedback loops would slow but they would sustain. Since it wasn't possible for humans to cut emission by 10 or 20% overnight the best humanity could hope for would be a 1-2% reduction yearly, and even if humans reduced by 1-2% yearly the permafrost would actually make up the difference, thus not changing the trajectory of the warming trend. In the models they used it took almost 5% year over year reduction so that the permafrost thawing couldn't sustain the positive feedback loops.

Positive feedback loops typically don't stop until they exhaust their resources, which in his case is greenhouse gases. What we've learned recently is that the permafrost is releasing significantly more Co2m, significantly more methane which is now thought to be 76 times more impactful than co2 and significantly more nitrous oxide which is now thought to be 300 times more impactful than co2.

When I read those papers they all made way more sense than than the other more generally accepted models. As a systems guy I could never accept the thinking that if we reduced our output that it would stop the warming, I thought it would slow the warming trend, but never made any sense to think that the warming would stop.

At the time the papers were written most climate scientists believed that the permafrost wouldn't thaw for hundreds of years, which is why people stopped getting funded to study the thawing, it's only been recently that scientists started to monitor the permafrost thawing and discovered the amounts of co2, methane and nitrous oxide are much, much higher than anticipated.

The models put forth in the papers I referenced needed 5% human output reduction starting in the early 90's in order to avoid the permafrost from self sustaining the warming trend. Not only did we not reduce our output, but it's soared since the early 90's. Most of the models had the permafrost starting to thaw on a large scale in the mid to late 20's, with things getting really bad by the mid 50's.

If those rejected models are right, and it's starting to look like they are, then we are actually about 10 years ahead of schedule if we base it on permafrost thawing trends.

<comment><USER4> To me, it's mind bendingly frustrating that we're even considering things in terms of a 'reduction from current emissions'.

It's like someone deeply in debt cutting their spending by 5% or whatever.

What is actually required is that we start from zero emissions and work upwards - e.g. if we need some agriculture, that's some unavoidable CO2 right now until we have electric solar powered tractors or whatever, and so on.

The reduction method is so far from the correct approach that even if it works, it doesn't work, as you've stated, because it's based on the idea that we just go on as normal with small tweaks.

It's looking like we actually need to create a completely different economy, rapidly, in order to survive. Oh boy.

<comment><USER5> Yeah, but that's completely politically infeasible. There's no way to get people to just _stop_ using existing resources to improve their quality of life - or even to keep their quality of life at current levels - without any immediate tangible consequences. And of course, by the time the disaster arrives, it'll be too late to change.

Or, correction, there's one way to get them to do that: Point guns at them.

(Un?)fortunately, the vast majority of the developed world lives under democratic government, and the same people who would rather not massively and suddenly reduce their wealth and quality of life in response to future predictions _also_ would rather not have martial law imposed to convince them to do so.

So the "tiny ineffectual reductions from current emission levels" is the only possible framework under which any kind of preemptive climate action can actually _happen_. You're correct that there's no way this can solve the problem; the correct response is to understand that we're just basically fucked and the only ways out include things like "establish, by force, oppressive totalitarian global state oriented around climate management" which would damage the future world we live in just as much as climate change would, but in a different way.

We're just fucked. And there's a certain liberty in that! You don't have to worry about whether or not we'll fix the problem; we won't, so there's no troublesome uncertainty. Just go see the sights around the world you'd like to see before they're destroyed.

<comment><USER4> What you're saying is probably fairly accurate though I don't like to accept it.

We're in a world full of people grabbing and using as much as they can with no care for what that means for themselves never mind other people. Unexamined lives. People would have to change habits that are nothing worth fighting for to begin with.

I don't care for seeing the sights, though I do care for the world to not become some sort of theme park terraformed (... ha) nightmare for humans to survive.

The answer for me is going to be to continue to do my best regardless because to do otherwise would be barbaric. In a lawless world I wouldn't become a mass murderer just because society allowed it.

<comment><USER5> >that are nothing worth fighting for to begin with

Frankly, air conditioning _alone_ is worth fighting for. The wealth and comfort generated by our carbon-spewing economy is the greatest achievement in mankind's history - and developing nations reaching towards it would be _right_ to fight for it.

Having to make the kind of far-reaching sacrifices needed to prevent climate change at this late stage would (if we actually did it) be among the greatest tragedies in human history, second only to the tragedy of what will happen if we don't.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Writing Remote work on your CV?? - <AUTHOR>

Do we need to write our remote work on CV. I have been working remote for more than one year along side my job. Is it good to mention it or will it be negative thing
Please write your feedback
Thanks <comment><USER2> I think by "remote" you mean "freelance" or "side-work"? If so:

Personally, I don't put it on my resume, but I do put it in my portfolio and website (which hopefully gets seen by everyone who sees my resume).

I find it a little off-putting when someone lists themselves as the CEO/President of a clearly 1-person "company" that they freelance under, and have the dates for that company/position spanning their entire working career. Does anyone else who frequently reviews resumes feel the same way, and get the same impression?</comment>


Concurrency Limits by Netflix - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/Netflix/concurrency-limits <comment><USER2> The blog post announcing this might be a better read:

[https://medium.com/@NetflixTechBlog/performance-under- load-3...](https://medium.com/@NetflixTechBlog/performance-under- load-3e6fa9a60581)

(And while reading that and thinking "I swear I recently read something else talking about applying TCP congestion control to RPC queueing". And indeed I had: [http://www.evanjones.ca/prevent-server- overload.html](http://www.evanjones.ca/prevent-server-overload.html))

<comment><USER3> _I swear I recently read something else talking about applying TCP congestion control to RPC queueing_

I did this almost 10 years ago for accessing Amazon SimpleDB, too: [http://www.daemonology.net/blog/2008-06-29-high- performance-...](http://www.daemonology.net/blog/2008-06-29-high-performance- simpledb.html)

<comment><USER4> Had a co-worker implement something similar to this dynamic throttling in a back-end analytical process, based around access of a DynamoDB table that was accessed by multiple front end services.

The code on the back-end processing software would throttle itself back hard (about 50% of the speed it had reached) whenever it ran into a DynamoDB throttle message as a response, and then would ramp itself back up steadily. Combined with good retry logic on the front end services, it meant we could keep the DynamoDB table humming along at near maximum usage.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This reminds me a lot of the sbroker library in Erlang:

> SBroker is a framework to build fault tolerant task schedulers. It includes > several built in schedulers based on TCP (and other network scheduling) > algorithms.

> [...] in an ideal situation a target queue time would be chosen that keeps > the system feeling responsive and clients would give up at a rate such that > in the long term clients spend up to the target time in the queue. This is > sojourn (queue waiting) time active queue management. CoDel and PIE are two > state of the art active queue management algorithms with a target sojourn > time, so should use those with defaults that keep systems feeling responsive > to a user.

[http://www.erlang-factory.com/euc2017/james-fish](http://www.erlang- factory.com/euc2017/james-fish)

[https://github.com/fishcakez/sbroker](https://github.com/fishcakez/sbroker)

</comment><comment><USER6> I like the sounds of this:

" _Executor -- The BlockingAdaptiveExecutor adapts the size of an internal thread pool to match the concurrency limit based on measured latencies of Runnable commands and will block when the limit has been reached._ "

I'm often surprised this kind of auto-scaling thread pool is not a more common thing in Java land.

<comment><USER7> Agreed - not trying to trivialize the work here, but this thing seems solved with tools at hand. Perhaps I miss some of the subtlety in their usecase, though.

<comment><USER8> Which tools are you referring to, exactly? Some citations would be helpful.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> PROTIP: Managing congestion control on application level is not a good business. A better idea is to leave it to the edge and CDN, while the app level uses computationally cheap optimistic algos since the com in between the app and your edge will go over your own high quality infrastructure.

This adds flexibility to allow for use of multiple algorithms in different load balancing regions (mobile as a lossy fabric is better to stay with conventional, desktop and server clients can use a some smarter throughput maximizing algo, and in countries with high percentages of connections being laggy DSLs, you can use something else )

<comment><USER8> Can you refer us to any papers or analyses that support your claim?

<comment><USER9> No

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> This library looks very interesting. I've used a similar approach for pulling batches of items from a queue (e.g. discover the optimal batch size and inter- poll wait time). There are plenty of other places we could benefit from something like this. I can't wait to try this out.

Netflix puts out some amazing Java libraries. I've had excellent results using Hystrix [0]. It has been an excellent addition to our systems.

[0] [https://github.com/Netflix/Hystrix](https://github.com/Netflix/Hystrix)

</comment><comment><USER11> This is a pretty cool design if your requests to a given endpoint are supposed to all take about the same time. It's not easy to see how you'd adjust it for things with more variance; perhaps rather than using the fastest seen mtt, you could look at your p99 over the last N minutes, and see if it's been changing?

<comment><USER12> I think you bring up the main problem w/ using tcp vegas. It's not clear to me this will work with heterogenous requests. If the typical request time distribution is long tailed, it might never increase the window size.

<comment><USER13> Even with heterogenous workload there normally is a uniform distribution of request types. Instead of generating complex statistics for average latency or tail latencies, especially for multimodal distributions, we just look at the minimum latencies as a proxy to identify queuing. So, when there is any queuing for whatever reason (increased RPS or latency in a dependent service) all latency measurements will show an increase, especially the minimum.

<comment><USER12> "uniform distribution of request types" \- okay, it makes sense in that context. Although if that assumption breaks down, your thread limits may become under or over provisioned.

I'm wondering though - how do you pick the right alpha and beta values? It seems like you need to do testing/validation to ensure you use the right values, right?

Sorry if I'm sounding critical by the way. I think this is a really cool project - thanks for open sourcing it!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Would this work when connecting multiple threadpools (java executors)? Imagine I have a microservice where first threadpool downloads large files to disk (IO bound) and another threadpool that processes the downloaded data (CPU bound). Those two threadpools communicate with a bounded queue. Will using the concurrency-limit Executor allow me to get the best throughput in this scenario?

</comment><comment><USER15> Can anyone explain how they decide which requests to reject? The blog post just mentions that excess RPS gets rejected, but couldn't rejecting arbitrary requests cause other problems?

<comment><USER12> My guess is they use a 0 / small queue in front of the request pool. If queue is full (indicating the server is at its concurrency limit), it returns a 429 (which is sort of weird - return a 503 instead). I don't think that is part of the library though - the library just provides the low level bricks.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I'm not grasping the concept; Do I use this in production to manage concurrency, or do I use this in 'testing' to fine tune my system?

<comment><USER17> You use this on production to allow either the server or client to self determine optimal concurrency levels.

<comment><USER18> Thanks

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I would have thought reactive streams or back pressure would be the usual way to deal with this issue.

Is this better ?

<comment><USER20> Netflix's circuit breaking OSS project, Hystrix, is commonly seen alongside Ratpack/rxjava where both reactive streams and back pressure are in play. I don't think you're wrong, but Netflix and others using their solutions like Hystrix and Hollow, are outside of what I'd consider "usual" problems and solutions.

<comment><USER12> I don't think this library is meant to be used w/ reactive streams. It talks a lot about limiting number of concurrent threads, so it sounds more like traditional RPC with a request pool that they are trying to size to inform clients to back off (by returning 429).</comment></comment></comment>


Hacking the .SVN directory - <AUTHOR> http://www.adamgotterer.com/2009/01/26/hacking-the-svn-directory/

<comment><USER2> This is true for git, too. However, I don't know of any git command like "svn export" that doesn't also pull the .git directory. The working solution seems to be to simply delete the .git directory after a clone ---preferably in some nice deploy script --- in conjunction with appropriate *nix file and Apache permissions.

<comment><USER3> The .git directory, however, is top-level, rather than in every directory in your repository, so it'll only be a problem if your site root is the same as your repository root.

<comment><USER4> If the server is ever exploited then they have all your revision history (including anything accidentally checked in that you didn't rebase(?) out) but you do have the added advantage of being able to quickly check for any modifications to any of your code. My repo's follow a /public /logs/ /app so with git (over svn) none of the repo is exposed.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The apache server at my office is set up to not serve files or directories starting with a .

We use svn export anyway, but wouldn't ignoring (.) directories be the most foolproof step?

</comment><comment><USER6> Why are you pushing files with rsync with a working copy? That is what "export" is for. There is no special security in the .svn folder, because you are not supposed to publish it to the website.

<comment><AUTHOR> To be perfectly honest I'm not sure if its an rsync or a checkout. I'm not the sys admin or the person who set up the process. But doing an export makes sense, that was something I was thinking about after I discovered this. Thanks for the confirmation.

Regardless, this problem exists and it exists on some extremely large websites.

<comment><USER7> You seem to have made a mistake with the rewrite rule. I think you mean:

      RewriteRule (\.svn)/(.*?) - [F,L]

Note the backslash before the .svn directory.

I'm also not entirely sure that the question mark (zero or one quantifier) is necessary; it seems like

      (.*)

would suffice for catching files within the .svn directory, but this is quickly getting out of my league.

<comment><AUTHOR> Your right, I forget to transcribe the backslash (its correct in my htaccess). I will update the article. Thanks!</comment></comment></comment></comment>


John Stockman's Medical Bills Topped $1M – What Happened? - <AUTHOR> https://www.wsj.com/articles/john-stockmans-medical-bills-topped-1-million-what-happened-11545934412 <comment><USER2> Let's back up and make this a statistic instead.

In 2016 there were 770,000 people who were bankrupted due to medical costs.

Around 45,000 people a year die from a lack of health insurance.

In every country that has universal coverage reform has started with a push to ask a basic moral and ethical question: should we consider healthcare a basic human right?

In the U.S. we pay 18% of our GDP on healthcare, yet we rank ~ 37th in terms of death due to preventable causes, and 31st in terms of overall life expectancy. If you look at how healthcare works in other countries there are many different systems but what they all have in common is a commitment to provide access to healthcare for all citizens. There are different mixes of private and public, and we have already implemented most of them to some degree:

There are 4 main systems 1. Beveridge (public health care providers and insurance rolled into one, like the NHS in UK): The VA and healthcare systems used for native americans use this system

2\. National health insurance (private healthcare providers and public insurance funded by the government, like Canada's system): Medicare was copied from the Canadian system (even the name!).

3\. Bismarck Model: (private healthcare providers and mostly private insurance, along with an individual mandate and heavy regulation of insurance companies: this is used in Germany and Japan). Obamacare was an incomplete attempt to move more towards this model.

4 Out of pocket model: (fully private: a non-system used by most poor countries in the world). This is what the uninsured fall back on.

The main piece that is missing is we haven't committed to scaling either systems 1, 2 or 3 in order to provide universal access to healthcare and so we have an incredibly fragmented and complex system with soaring costs. American for-profit insurance companies are bloated by ~20% administration fees whereas in most countries they are non-profit entities with 5% or less.

To back up and sum it all up the fundamental question we need to ask ourselves is: do we want to provide universal access to healthcare?

<comment><USER3> A few comments:

First, US insurance companies are often pseudo non-profits, with profit caps. [1]

Second, another model is Medicare Advantage where beneficiaries can choose a private entity to administer their Medicare plan.

Third, most commercial insurance in the US is not actually underwritten by insurance co's, but by "self-funded" employers. In this case, the insurance company is merely a third-party administrator (TPA) for the employee plans, using XYZ's bank account (and trying to save them money, offer health incentive programs, etc., to secure repeat business). Most companies with more than, say, 500 employees operate this way, though usually you won't even know this is the case.

\---

Finally, if by

> do we want to provide universal access to healthcare?

you mean "do we want everyone to have healthcare?", the answer is an easy "yes". We want universal access to housing, healthcare, employment, etc.

But if the question is "do we want _the government to use taxes_ to ensure that everyone has healthcare?", the answer is far more divided. There's a lot of interesting examples elsewhere. But as you've mentioned, the US government has already dipped its toe into those waters with the VA, and I don't think it's been perceived as a success.

[1] [http://thehealthcareblog.com/blog/2012/02/04/does- obamacare-...](http://thehealthcareblog.com/blog/2012/02/04/does-obamacare- limit-profits-for-health-insurance-companies-in-your-state/)

<comment><USER2> I believe this article is about a provision in the ACA to limit administrative costs to 20%, which is highly unimpressive when you look at the way non profit insurance works in every other developed country.

<comment><USER3> Perhaps. Where are you getting the 5% administrative costs?

All numbers I've seen have been _far_ higher than that.

* Canada 12%

* Britain 16%

* Netherlands 20%

[https://www.commonwealthfund.org/sites/default/files/___medi...](https://www.commonwealthfund.org/sites/default/files/___media_images_publications_in_the_literature_2014_sep_himmelstein_comparison_hosp_admin_costs_ha_09_2014_itl_exhibit.png)

<comment><USER4> Your link is provider admin costs. IIRC insurer admin costs are 3% for UK and 5% for Canada.

<comment><USER3> You're correct; good clarification on which admin costs we're talking about.

<comment><USER2> Right, I was only talking about insurance administrative costs.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> When I read these stories it always strikes me how arbitrary the system is. You can have insurance but you still may lose everything. There really is no way to do it right. It's a pure gamble.

<comment><USER6> "Insurance" can't solve the issue of sky-high healthcare costs. In fact, the closest thing to a quick solution (a _real_ solution would require draining the swamp altogether, by reforming the entire healthcare sector essentially from the ground up) is its very opposite, namely _price transparency_ , with the end-user paying directly for their health care. This doesn't mean doing away with insurance entirely, but it will have to be _catastrophic_ insurance, the main purpose of which will be dealing with truly rare health conditions/medical emergencies, albeit with a sub-component of subsidizing cheap preventive care.

<comment><USER7> I'm not sure why you conclude insurance cannot solve healthcare. Private insurance, where there's a profit motive, may be inappropriate but insurance - as a concept of spreading risk over a large population - seems logical for a generally healthy population with occasional health issues.

The problem with healthcare is it's not a good like others which are insured. Even with price transparency the patient isn't qualified to decide what treatment to get at what price (your doctor is), and often the patient isn't at their best physically or mentally when treatment decisions need to be made.

Comparing the US healthcare cost to other countries is slightly misleading as much of the world free-rides off US pharma research.

If we want affordable insurance we should let people with chronic or debilitating diseases die rather than treat them with expensive medications/procedures that increase cost on us all. But when it's your loved one that's sick it's extremely hard to be this cavalier about the decision to not treat at any cost. I know I couldn't make that call.

<comment><USER5> "Comparing the US healthcare cost to other countries is slightly misleading as much of the world free-rides off US pharma research."

I want to see hard numbers on this. I strongly believe that this is just self- serving propaganda to justify ripping off people in the US.

<comment><USER7> Fair request on hard data. I don't have it and don't want to suggest this is a well-researched point on my part by simply Googling some random report.

I was going off comments from some post-doc friends who immigrated to the US because they said medical research funding here is much better than elsewhere.

(As an aside I think some replies to my comment misunderstood my point. I believe government insurance is highly appropriate for a good like healthcare. Just that it's not without it's downsides and being Canadian I've seen those first-hand).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> 2 entities with asymmetric information and shockingly little oversight are in a constant race to increase pricing. It cost $2900 for me to enter an ER and leave it an hour and a half later after no treatment and no medication whatsoever.

<comment><USER9> Perhaps no longer surprising, but of note especially to people in other countries, with regard to health care in the U.S.

People are frankly -- and justifiably -- scared of going to the emergency room. To the point of declining transport from the scene of an accident or other medical event, etc.

They actively ask people _not_ to call an ambulance.

It's not necessarily that they fear the doctor or the treatment. They fear _the bill._

And yes, often enough these are people _with insurance._

A couple of years ago, I faced bills north of three grand, because someone called the paramedics when I didn't need them. I'd purchased the best insurance plan available to me, that year, and I was told at the time that service should be covered. Nope: Insurance failed to pick up the majority of it.

Fortunately, I could afford to cover the expense. And the paramedics -- part of the local fire department rather than privately owned -- forgave the balance of their charges when they learned that insurance had crapped out on all but a couple of hundred. (It cost, at that time, about a grand just to "roll the bus", with surcharges added to that for actual service and transport.)

That last was another reminder that _public,_ non-profit safety can be a lot kinder than private, for-profit.

<comment><USER5> Somebody hit me at a red light a few years ago and the firefighters suggested I take their ambulance to the hospital. I was really scared that this would turn into a huge bill and almost declined but wasn't in good enough shape to go home so I went but was stressed for days. In Germany I would just have hopped on without worry.

At a minimum the US needs regulation so people can go through most medical situations and know what they are getting into financially.

<comment><USER10> If the at-fault party to your accident had auto insurance or you had uninsured or underinsured coverage, you should have felt no compunction at riding the ambulance. Auto insurance would have covered your damaged vehicle and your health care costs after which your lawyer would be able to demand from the at- fault party's insurer a cash settlement for the identical costs already paid to the hospital, EMTs, et cetera (essentially paying out twice). Your attorney would take 30 percent and you would deposit a check for the remainder. U.S. health insurance doesn't have the monopoly on insanity.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Wait, what? The article says that eventually, after a year of talks involving a hostage negotiator^W^Wpatient advocate, the patient from the story paid only his in-network deductible of 13 kUSD. Good for him, but you can afford that kind of legal defense only when you are wealthy to begin with. Someone who isn't a retired 1%-er would likely have declared medical bankrupcy, had he faced the same circumstances.

</comment><comment><USER12> [https://outline.com/4KRWuK](https://outline.com/4KRWuK)

</comment><comment><USER13> A root cause analysis would probably look at why the US didn't end up with one of the various European-style health care systems.

<comment><USER2> I really recommend this book: [https://www.amazon.com/Healing-America-Global- Better-Cheaper...](https://www.amazon.com/Healing-America-Global-Better- Cheaper/dp/0143118218)

It goes into comparing health systems around the world and understanding the history of why they went into effect.

There is a cheeky answer to your question: we have _all_ the main systems that are used in Europe and other places in the world.

There are 4 main systems 1\. Beveridge (public health care providers and insurance rolled into one, like the NHS in UK): The VA and healthcare systems used for native americans use this system

2\. National health insurance (private healthcare providers and public insurance funded by the government, like Canada's system): Medicare was copied from the Canadian system (even the name!).

3\. Bismarck Model: (private healthcare providers and mostly private insurance, along with an individual mandate and heavy regulation of insurance companies: this is used in Germany and Japan). Obamacare was an incomplete attempt to move more towards this model.

4 Out of pocket model: (fully private: a non-system used by most poor countries in the world). This is what the uninsured fall back on.

A less cheeky answer involves looking at the common factor in the rise of systems 1, 2 and 3 in countries around the world. The fundamental political driving force behind this was a moral and ethical decision that healthcare is a human right that the government should provide. When Clinton attempted healthcare reform in 1994 he couched the politics of it in economic terms saying that we need to reduce costs, and it failed. Obamacare only began to make some headway once the politics and debate around it started focusing more on the basic moral and ethical question of whether our society should provide universal access to healthcare.

So it's this weird situation where maybe some people want it for economic reasons (our system is by far the worst in terms of costs per outcome), but politically the best thing is to make this a fundamental moral question of healthcare as a human right. Most constitutions written in the second half of the century include some kind of reference to healthcare as a human right.

<comment><USER14> You keep saying "human right" and I don't think you realize this undermines the persuasiveness of whatever else you might be saying.

It may well be for the overall good to expand Medicare to everyone. But it isn't some sort of "human right" in the same way free speech is. It never will be, as that implies we have the "human right" to demand services from others. We don't--that's nonsense to anyone who actually considers it for five seconds.

<comment><USER2> Yeah I think for someone more libertarian like you appear to be the argument is more about how bad our system is in terms of costs and outcomes and how good everyone else's is. We should look at those other systems and see why they work well. The common factor seems to be a commitment to providing universal coverage.

My point is that an argument in economic terms historically has been ineffective for actually getting reform to happen, whereas an argument based on healthcare as a right is effective (I get why it's not effective for someone like you)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> A point I can't help repeat: the US already _has greater public healthcare spending_ than almost all countries that have universal public healthcare [1].

To fix the damn system:

Step 1. Decide on an amount you want to spend on public healthcare.

Step 2. Fund an external body (for an example see [2]) to figure out which treatments will result in the most bang (roughly speaking QALY's) for your chosen buck. This will result in some hospitals and some treatments not being funded because they are too expensive.

Step 3. Watch the private insurance market become sane private and hospital cost disease reverse because they have to compete with fairly decent public health coverage.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_hea...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_per_capita#/media/File:OECD_health_expenditure_per_capita_by_country.svg)

[2] [https://www.pharmac.govt.nz/about/your-guide-to- pharmac/fact...](https://www.pharmac.govt.nz/about/your-guide-to- pharmac/factsheet-01-introduction-to-pharmac/)

</comment><comment><USER16> Looks like they measured his financial resources and grabbed because they could.

</comment><comment><USER17> when people repeat, ad nauseam, that "America is the richest country in the world", i reflect on stories like this one and think "really?? how many people are benefiting from all these 'riches' when this kind of thing can happen to just about anyone in America?"

</comment><comment><USER18> Can anyone even measure the impacts of the US going full "free" healthcare on other countries ?</comment>


Ask HN: What stack technologies to use to build analytics platform? - <AUTHOR>

I need to build an in-house analytics dashboard for our advertisers (think similar to how Reddit or Facebook have their own self-serve ad platform, minus the self serving of ads, but with the stats-tracking portion).
I can't used an API 3rd party service based solution (like Keen.io), because it would be far to expensive at this volume.
The things I need to track and show are quite basic: pageviews, referral breakdown, device breakdown. It needs to be charted on a line chart so I can show the increase or decreases in various traffic sources over time (for example it might show direct, mobile apps, social, etc along with the number of views at each time interval).
I've been really considering how to build this. Our main app is in Rails (not going to use that other than the interface). Most of our low level stuff is written in Go.
At a very basic and noob level.... should I be storing logs rather than MySQL rows? I've been trying to read up on analytics development and a lot of people use log parsing. If I opt to use MySQL is that a poor choice? Data points will be several hundred million per month.
I suppose the only good thing is is that the dashboard is fairly simple. Showing views over time, broken out by source is really the main thing. It isn't like I want to show something like Google Analytics where you can break it out 40 different ways.
I'd love any frameworks, insight, tips, schema suggestions, tech suggestions... really anything, to help me on this task. Thanks! <comment><USER2> InfluxDB</comment>


Customer service fun - <AUTHOR> http://spencerfry.com/story-time-with-carbonmade

<comment><USER2> That's all nice, but what do you do when you get so many custemer emails that you don't have time for coding anymore? I used to answer support emails within the hour and our users loved it. But as we grew it started to take it's toll and slowed down development. I still answer all customer emails everyday but now I do it once a day at night. It takes about 2 hours a day, so it's still manageable, but at some point it won't be. Suggestions?

<comment><USER3> Do the support emails have a few general patterns? Or are they all unique? If it is the former you can have a few canned responses and use a keystroke program to expand a few words into the support email. (e.g. something like this: <http://www.smileonmymac.com/TextExpander/> note I have not used this program so I cannot attest to the quality but I am sure there are others out there that will fit the bill if this one is lacking.)

Another way to reduce your email overhead is to have a good search feature on the website with an indexed FAQ.

Just a couple ideas for you. Not sure how intense your customer support queries are so this might not work for you in a cost effective manner.

<comment><USER2> Thanks, I'll check that app. I have FAQ and help pages. And, when I see patterns in the questions I update the user interface to make it clearer and those emails stop. I've optimized it to a point where most of the questions are unique or are hard to optimize further.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Summary: customer discovers double billing for the last six months, and inquires with company. Company investigates, finds it's been happening for 8 months, and refunds the user in a timely manner.

<comment><USER5> A prompt refund is good customer service. But what pushes it up to 11 in my eyes, was that they refunded her $100 for a $96 overcharge.

Not because $4 is fair compensation for her trouble. Or because $4 is so much money that she should be happy.

But because they actually took a moment to consider what message a $100 refund sent to the customer vs what $96 would send.

<comment><USER6> Can you help me out here because I can't understand what message a $100 refund would send.

<comment><USER7> $96 sends "The overcharge on transaction 677348921 has been refunded to purchaser 2475244. If you have any futher questions please dial our busy call center at our convenience. <beep>."

$100 sends "Hi, we overcharged you how much? Nintety six dollars? Here, call it a hundred, keep the change. We weren't trying to skim six months interest on $96 from you maliciously and we're human and take a personal interest in your problem caused by our company and by us, we're not faceless and mechanical, we have kept your money but we've paid it back and more, have the small benefit of $4 and please consider giving us the benefit of the doubt and dealing with us again in future".

<comment><USER8> Exactly- we do the same thing when people ask for refunds of our iPhone app. It's only $1.99 so if they go to the trouble of providing their PayPal, we send them back $5. Half the time they return it and take another look at the application.

In general, most people have such terrible experiences with customer service that they go in expecting a negative experience, placing them on the offensive. If you're responsive, helpful, and personable then they'll flip right around and tell their all friends about how awesome you are.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Can I Optimise the load time of your Wordpress Site for Free? - <AUTHOR> I am in the process of launching a new service where I help Wordpress users speed up the load times of their site...
I want to get some work to add to my portfolio so am looking for people that will let me optimise their sites for free, well, in exchange for a review/testimonial..
Anyone interested in this? <comment><USER2> I am curious if you are doing anything to optimize featured image using css media queries? This is something that I would want.

I have a few a wordpress sites, and I use wp super cache which helps with speed, but I still think its a waist of bandwidth to have to download the same featured image size on mobile as on desktop.

<comment><AUTHOR> This is something that I look to optimise...

Mobile site speed is growing in importance and this is something that I get asked to look at a lot..

If you want to drop me and email with your details I can take a look and make some recommendations for you?

<comment><USER2> I have two sites I wrote in Go that have hand coded templates. I am thinking about moving more in this direction. I have gotten a bit frustrated with WordPress lately as I cannot get the level of control I would prefer to have.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for all the interest everyone..

Got a nice selection of emails and am going through them to optimise them... Will post the results up in here!

</comment><comment><USER3> I'll bite, how do you want to get in touch to discuss?

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the interest...

If you drop me an email to: email@example.com

Let me know your Wordpress Site URL that you would like me to take a look at.

I will then perform an audit for you and identify how much I can do to help you and I can then provide you with a list of changes to make to speed up the site.... Or I can go in and do the optimisations for you if easier..

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Install wp-cache?

<comment><AUTHOR> That will get you some gains, but there is a lot more that can be done to get your site to load in less than 0.5 secs

<comment><USER4> Cool. Try warrior forum.com for your testimonials. Once you have the testimonials you could sell it as a wso (their marketplace). A big market there for this as Wordpress is popular. Although those people expect a big hyped up sales page to convince them to buy!

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the tip... I will take a look at that!</comment></comment></comment></comment>


WSJ Misleading on Arctic Sea Ice Story - <AUTHOR> http://montyskew.tumblr.com/post/61018470044/wsj-misleading-on-arctic-sea-ice-story

<comment><USER2> Title: "WSJ Misleading on Arctic Sea Ice Story"

Quote from the article: "WSJ is right about the technical details (30% greater summer sea ice than year before), but that sort of change happens."

SO WSJ's assertion was correct, but because "that sort of change happens", therefore it was misleading? Imagine a pickpocket caught red-handed, saying, "Your honor, these things happen, therefore to punish me would be misleading."

I would have called the WSJ's editorial out on its ostrich-like disregard for long-term trends, not because their claim is misleading -- statistical analysts are free to use any parameters they want for a moving average, for example using months or years instead of decades. The claim isn't "misleading", it's perfectly accurate and perfectly stupid.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the comment. A agree that their assertion/statement is accurate, absolutely. Yet the way it is positioned, particularly as a headline, is misleading to the reader because it ignores the broader context of the 2013 data. You can be accurate yet misleading. The graph clearly shows that the 2013 observation is almost exactly where all prior observations would predict it would be. It is the job of newspapers to put information in context.

A more appropriate headline about the amount of ice would say "arctic sea ice continues decline". A sentence in a first paragraph could say "though this year's observation was 30% higher than last year's record low, it is in line with long term decline in the amount of ice".

That said, WSJ has to sell papers/ads and their headline is admittedly more eye catching, particularly to the _stereotypical_ conservative that is skeptical of climate-change/global warming.

<comment><USER2> > You can be accurate yet misleading.

True, but on the general topic of misleading, that should have been the submission's headline. If an original source misleads with facts, and someone wants to call them out, they had better not also mislead with facts.

It might have been better to say "WSJ cherry-picks its facts" or something like that -- something that acknowledges the factual basis of the account, but worded to avoid the very thing it accuses the WSJ of doing.</comment></comment></comment>


I launched a new daily deals site - <AUTHOR> http://checkoutthisdeal.com/

<comment><USER2> You might want to run some exploding ads, or bouncing burger ads. I think your on to something. :-)</comment>


Do a startup or travel around the world? - <AUTHOR> http://paraschopra.com/blog/entrepreneurship/do-a-startup-or-travel-around-the-world.htm <comment><USER2> Why did you put an "or" into a question about two things that go together so nicely?

I'd highly recommend starting your own software company. And I'd highly recommend traveling around the world. I've been doing both for the better part of 10 years. At the same time.

So my advice is to do a quick search & replace on your question. Switch "or" for "and", turn it into a statement, then go do it.

<comment><AUTHOR> Would love to hear your point of view on this. Have you documented your experiences anywhere? Blog post or HN comment?

Also, do you think having such a lifestyle can have be called as truly financially independent?

<comment><USER2> A quick spin back through my blog reveals that I've been shamefully lax on writing about the actual mechanics of running a software company from the road. I'll need to do something about that.

In the meantime, here's a quick overview of what I've been up to since I started working from the road:

[http://www.expatsoftware.com/articles/2006/12/getting-it- dow...](http://www.expatsoftware.com/articles/2006/12/getting-it-down-on- paper.html)

From a financial perspective, it's completely counterintuitive that traveling is actually a lot cheaper than staying at home. But if you think about it a minute, it starts to make sense. Imagine you cut your rent and car payment down to zero (by ditching both car and apartment), as well as all the little bills that went along with them. Now replace that with the comparatively small expense of staying in $5/night accommodation, and otherwise living on about $20/day.

When I was planning my first long trip, taking the $2,000/month "keep life in the US alive" line-item out of the spreadsheet extended my $10k budget from 2 months to 10 months. Bill a day per month, and yes, you're pretty much set for life. Of course, you're only set for life if you don't plan on coming home, so it's probably best to leave a bit in reserve for when you do.

<comment><USER3> I'm guessing those rates only apply for south-east asia and south america and maybe some rural locations in Europe or eastern europe.

Out of curiosity, are you writing software or managing programmers remotely? I tried traveling and working as a consultant but dual screens and comfy chairs don't do well in a suitcase.

<comment><USER2> Given the option of a 22 inch monitor in a cube or a 12" thinkpad on a sandy beach, it's amazing how quickly you can get used to coding with small fonts.

South America is more realistically $25/day all in. SE Asia, as mentioned is about $20. Indonesia is more like $10. Africa is free.

<comment><USER4> Can you elaborate on Africa being free?

<comment><USER2> Free enough that you don't need to think about it as an expense. I think I bottomed out at $0.70 per night for a room in Malawi. Double that if you want to splurge on something nicer.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> All you people suggesting "do both" - do you really know what you are talking about? We may have different definitions of what a startup is.

If by startup, you mean a one man website that is some kind of low-maintenance subscription service, then yeah sure, go travel the world.

But if you define startup as I do, as a venture-backed, aggressively growing company employing people, then how the hell are you going to travel the world while managing that? Please tell me if you have a way, because I would be genuinely interested :)

<comment><USER6> I entirely agree. You can sustain a travelling lifestyle with web work, whether a niche, "muse" product or freelancing work, but that's not a startup. A startup requires a lot of "personal, on site" touch.

I put my thoughts together here too: [http://swombat.com/2010/12/27/startup- vs-travelling-lifestyl...](http://swombat.com/2010/12/27/startup-vs- travelling-lifestyle)

<comment><AUTHOR> Hey, great blog post! Little nitpick: can you edit my name as 'Paras Chopra'? I know my name is not exactly as easy as John Smith :)

<comment><USER6> Oops! Will fix as soon as I'm in front of my computer (on my iPhone now). I hate it when people misspell my name... But to be fair, I did try to find your full name and couldn't find it on your blog or on twitter, so I had to make a guess :-)

<comment><USER7> How can you misspell Smooth Wombat :-) I always wondered: is that a Bloom County reference?

<comment><USER6> Nope... don't know what Bloom County is. It's just the last iteration that I got to when I decided that my previous nick wasn't up to scratch...

<comment><USER7> FYI: It is/was a newspaper comic strip. The relevant quote was "SMET: the sound of a wet rag hitting a smooth weasel!"

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> We launched our startup <http://lanyrd.com/> while travelling around the world - we got ill in Casablanca, Morocco during Ramadan, so we hired an apartment for three weeks and launched the first version of the site. We've continued to work on it while travelling around Egypt and South Africa.

Now that the site's starting to take off we're planning on staying in the same place for a few months (still outside of our home country), but so far we've found balancing the two less difficult than we had expected.

</comment><comment><USER9> I think the problem is that it's a question of definition... A lot of people here who say that it's possible to travel, define a startup as a smaller "lifestyle" business... If you find a good niche it can bring good money while taking less hours. See for example patio11 for an example of someone in that camp, as a result of his experience and way of thinking he wrote <http://www.kalzumeus.com/2009/10/04/work-smarter-not-harder/>

Now paraschopra's definition of a startup is closer to the traditional VC backed, big payoff definition. He hopes to make it big, become a leader in the field of A/B testing and get FU money...

None of those two ways of thinking are bad. It's essentially a question of risk and reward... The first can lead to financial independence with a nice recurring revenue (for example letsfreckle.com or one of my customer who earns 20 000$/month profit with his website while delegating all the work) and is usually less riskier and less stressful.

The second type of company is more of a high risk high reward scenario where if you get bought or IPO, you get enough FU money to truly have financial independence...

So, it depends on where you stand on the risk/work reward scale... I don't want to look back in a few years and feel that I've wasted my life trying to earn it. So, while I do work long hours, I take breaks, I go on holidays and I travel and use Wifi connections to do any urgent work that comes up. I don't expect my business to be the next google, facebook or flickr but if it's profitable and allow me to support a comfortable lifetime while eventually not taking too much of my time I'll be happy..

</comment><comment><USER10> Travel, then startup. I'm kinda doing it backwards at the moment, but I did a fair amount of traveling before going to work at this place and it was some of the most valuable life experience I've ever had.

I think that if I can sum it up in a thought it's this: there is a remarkable difference between reading and thinking and reasoning about a subject, and actually experiencing it. Even if I don't use many of the facts I learned while traveling (i.e. the odds and ends of the Knights of St. John's defense of Rhodes against the Turks and their subsequent move to Malta), I learned that it's one thing to read about the layered defense of Rhodes, and another to actually walk among it.

In other words, I can read and reason all I want about the situation of my customers, and their problems and solutions to those problems, but until I actually get about working with them, in their space, on their problem set, with their data, and within their constraints, I'll never really _get_ their issues and thus never really provide a 1-1 solution for those issues.

It might seem like a simple concept, one I thought I understood before I set about traveling far and wide, but I really _grokked_ it much better after seeing the world and trying to understand.

(oh, and the never ending different national interpretations of historic world events I find endlessly fascinating and very perspective setting -- very helpful when understanding how to think like your customers)

</comment><comment><USER11> _You have to work extremely hard (think 100+ hours per week) for several years_

<http://www.kalzumeus.com/2009/10/04/work-smarter-not-harder/>

<comment><AUTHOR> Interestingly I'm mentioned in that blog post :)

But I still don't agree with that premise..

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> >Startup requires a lot of sacrifices from you. You have to work extremely hard (think 100+ hours per week) for several years.

100 + hours of work per week?!

What kind of startup is this? That's 14 hours / day!

<comment><USER13> yep, sounds about right.

<comment><USER12> You need to hire people. If you can't afford to hire people, then you don't have a business.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I'd say travel now, and do a startup later. You need a kind of focus if you do a startup that you just can't achieve when travelling.

<comment><USER15> Why not?

<comment><USER14> Some posts here talk about living in a foreign country for some time while doing a startup. That is different from travelling around the world. It's not the same spending 2 or three months in the same place than spending just 1 or 2 days in a place and then continue travelling. In the latter assumption, I don't see it viable.

<comment><USER15> Why do you have to spend only a couple days at each location?

My rule of thumb is I need to stay about a month at each location, so that I don't feel rushed and it's worth the time to setup a temporary base.

A week-long vacation, trying to cram everything in the shortest amount of time, is not real "traveling" for me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Why can't you work and travel? Many cities in the world have good wifi, cafes and cheap hotels and its possible to work and travel at the same time.

In fact, it can be quite refreshing to meet different kinds of people (not just more startup people). I did this for three months this year (lived in Saigon) and I look forward to doing more of this in the coming years

<comment><USER2> I think I see a big false assumption in a lot of comments on this thread. That being, that good wifi only exists in cities.

That's probably true in the US, and to a lesser extent Europe, but in places like Southeast Asia, Central & South America, etc., the internet is _everywhere_. As in, pick the most remote beach you can find, and so long as there is a little grass hut to sell you beer, there will also be an internet cafe.

The cool part is that the more off the beaten track you go, the cheaper things get. Look in the jungle behind that beer-selling, wifi-having, hammock-laden beach bar and you'l find rows of little bungalows that you can rent for $200 per _month_.

Bootstrap your startup on a beach like that and suddenly "ramen profitable" becomes "paradise profitable", and you'll discover that you can live there indefinitely on just a few dozen new paid accounts per month. Or, if you prefer, do one day's worth of billable work per month to keep you living like a king.

Don't forget to send us a postcard.

<comment><USER17> I'm typing this from my iPhone in a bar in Siem Reap, Cambodia, so forgive my brevity and spelling.

Wifi might be prevalent in most places but quality and reliability will always be am issue. I've found it to be ubiquitous is SE Asia, however I've had days where slowness could cause even SSH to bog down to a few characters a minute.

Bigger issue, do you mean travel or live in a foreign country? Because yes, you can very easily find a cheap country with good internet, but traveling itself can be a full time job when you're only spending a week at a time in one place.

If it were me, I'd just travel, and do the startup later.

<comment><USER18> Hey, I'm thinking about stopping by in Siem Reap when I set off to southeast asia (and start working on my project) in a few months. Do you have some tips about good places to stop by in southeast asia?(by that i mean, interesting places that are also work-friendly) Can I reach you somewhere (no contact on your HN profile)?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Seriously, it can easily become an "and" statement right there. In the past 2 months, I've been in almost every major US city and that's without a huge sales/marketing push. If you build the culture and company right you can literally go anywhere for a good purpose:

a) telecommuting employees

b) visiting customers

c) potential recruiting

d) valuable conferences

Startups are a crazy crazy adventure.

</comment><comment><USER20> I would say if your startup is not in one of the current 'hot' spaces like private shopping, group buying, etc. and can wait then definitely travel around the world, but travel with a entrepreneur perspective, dont just spend your money on the beaches drinking expensive cocktails :) travel the countries, watch their economy, local business models. I thinks most of the travel destinations are current emerging economies. Think about how technology can facilitate the developments in those markets. Face the realities. Talk to people from the industry your startup is aiming at in those countries. Note everything, think about if your idea is applicable in those markets. How will you expand if you decide to go global. Think big. After travel I think you will have a more solid and healthier business idea with global perspective.

</comment><comment><USER21> In a couple of weeks I will launch <http://storageroomapp.com> and a little later move to Buenos Aires for a couple of months and work from there.

This of course has disadvantages, I cannot speak to local customers in person, but on the other hand living is much cheaper and more interesting than at the current place I call home.

I wouldn't want to manage a startup while traveling from place to place, but I think it should be no problem to just work from somewhere else and do weekend trips. This is exciting enough for me and I think I can get to know the world better with a couple of short term stays than traveling non-stop.

If I feel I need to go home to make progress, I go home, otherwise I will continue to live in different places all around the world.

</comment><comment><USER22> I've done some startups in interesting places (Anguilla, Sealand, Iraq), and decided to take 6 months to travel around the world diving before going full time on my new startup (in Palo Alto). I figure once I have employees, customers, etc., it will be several years before I can go on a stress-free vacation.

While it's possible to travel and do certain kinds of "lifestyle" startup, I think traveling around the world, or even extensive personal trips, are incompatible with a high-intensity venture funded startup. It's just not fair to the other team members who depend on you, your investors, etc. I can see taking 4 weeks a year off (spread out a bit) as long as you stay reachable, but that's about the limit.

</comment><comment><USER23> Traveling around the world solo while running a business is not going to work out. If you travel in a group, it's possible.

<comment><USER24> Can you expand on why this is so?

<comment><USER23> You will be lonely, and making new friends takes a lot of time away from your work, and you'll not know where to get cheap stuff or where to go and all that. If you just go to one place, it's doable, but travelling around the world alone and trying to bootstrap something sounds near impossible.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> do both, learn the needs of the people, find an interesting problem to solve, then find an interesting city where you can teach English and earn a steady income to finance your project.

</comment><comment><USER13> I started to comment before deciding to turn it into a blog post instead:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2042452>

</comment><comment><USER26> Whatever you do, enjoy every minute and day of doing it. Don't make it feel like a sacrifice, waiting for that magical future to happen. Worst thing you could do is run a startup and feel bad about it or that you are missing out on something. Happiness is in the here, in the now.

</comment><comment><USER27> I swear someone really famous wrote a book on this...

<comment><USER28> haha. . does it start with a 4 by any chance ;)

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> I don't really see the point of doing a start up to fund some vague future travel. If you want to travel go travel.

</comment><comment><USER30> If you have to ask, travel.</comment>


Majority of U.S. consumers still download zero apps per month, says comScore - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2017/08/25/majority-of-u-s-consumers-still-download-zero-apps-per-month-says-comscore/ <comment><USER2> It may be just me, but every time I download an app I have a feeling that I'm signing in into something that will do whatever it wants on my phone - geolocation, read address book, access the internet? for what?

And then, you know, there are these things called "websites" that you access using a single app called "browser" that end up being pretty useful even on your phone.

<comment><USER3> This is exactly why I don't download apps. I proxied my phone one day and almost fell out of my chair. I'm shocked Google and Apple allow this to go on.

<comment><USER4> I was under the impression that mitmproxy is no longer effective with iOS's mandatory pinned certificates. How did you manage to intercept traffic?

<comment><USER5> iOS' App Transport Security is friendly to researchers that install their own CA.

Android Nougat is much worse in this regard: Apps disrespect any user-added CAs, which really doesn't contribute to Android's security level but makes checking what your apps send home a huge PITA.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I download zero apps per month because existing apps have trained me to believe that most "free" apps are actually user-hostile scams trying to trick you into spending far more on in-app purchases than you ever would on an app, and most paid apps still contain ads (or worse, requests that I advertise the app to my friends).

But hey, that's the best way to drive up short-term profits.

</comment><comment><USER7> This isn't 2010, when US smartphone adoption was growing exponentially and the "app economy" was in full swing. The majority of smartphone owners have had phones for a few years now and know exactly which apps they need on a daily basis, be it messaging, social media, games, note-taking, nutrition, transportation, etc.

For everything else mobile websites are more than good enough to cover their needs I imagine.

</comment><comment><USER8> _" The data almost makes it seem like there's not much point in trying to build new apps for anyone but millennials, as they're the only group showing serious interest in downloading more, a willingness to pay, and the ability to adopt a new app at scale."_

Or perhaps since it's ofentimes millennials who are building the apps they don't understand the needs and desires of older users and as such are missing a huge opportunity.

<comment><USER9> anecdotal experience with my parents is that they don't tend to download new apps unless their children or grandchildren convince them to. that and they don't just browse the app store anyway.

<comment><USER10> anecdotal experience with my parents is that they're not really sure what apps they would want, if any.

Hell, neither do I. I essentially have every app I "need". A browser, a music player, a podcast player, some IM clients, a train notifier and banking apps.

Why would I ever need anything else except like, games or something but I have 0 patience for them on mobile unless you can get in and out fast.

<comment><USER11> I am old but quite computer literate. I've done the whole app thing. However, for the past few years, I've installed no apps. The only apps installed are those that are default.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Beside my banking apps and Alaska Airlines, I don't have any other apps that didn't otherwise come with my phone. I just don't have a need, and I think there are quite a few other people who use their phone in a similar way.

</comment><comment><USER13> I work for comScore, on one of their major applications with this data and others.

We are always hiring and need many more engineers. Most of the work is .NET, but 30-40% is other languages. As you can tell, we have large data teams, dealing in a multiple of quadrillion records. Free snacks, nice open floor plan and good benefits.

Our President is also doing good things to move the company forward and being very open with his employees.

<comment><USER14> >Free snacks, nice open floor plan

Why do companies think either of these things are a selling point?

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Why would you once have all the apps you need?

<comment><USER16> Also, my idiotic 16gb Android phone is almost always full (thanks to the OS keeping loads of garbage and leftovers from previous versions, according to google searches). On top of that, every time I plug in the phone on WiFi, all these apps start their regular updates (how often do they need to be updated??).

Thus, I need to be very careful with what apps I have, and constantly trim them. I guess that with a new phone this wouldn't be the case, but heck mine is less than 2yrs old and runs fine.

<comment><USER17> Let's not forget the apps that store locally hundreds of megabytes of cached data (one of the reasons I removed the Facebook app) and those that refuse to store images and videos on an external SD card (WhatsApp)

<comment><USER18> SDCard has security implications (you cannot currently protect them with permissions, for example), which means that any other app could read it.

But then there's encryption... so not sure why they wouldn't do it

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Furthermore I rarely use most of the apps I do have. I update them even more rarely, after more than one experience of being burned by the developer breaking things that were good. (Add new things that suck all you want, but don't break existing things that are good!)

</comment><comment><USER20> I've reached app saturation. I already have apps to do all the things I use my phone for. Really new use cases don't come around often.

</comment><comment><USER21> Apps to do what? How many people do more with their phone than make calls and check social networks?

</comment><comment><USER22> Every time I see the badge on iOS that tells me how many apps need to be updated, I delete apps I haven't used recently. All my apps on my phone fit on one page, no folders.</comment>


Ask HN: What is the best Noah's Ark vessel with current technology? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> [https://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Aether_Paradise](https://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Aether_Paradise)

</comment><comment><USER3> Starship by SpaceX could be an answer</comment>


Vamonos: Dynamic algorithm visualization in the browser - <AUTHOR> http://rosulek.github.io/vamonos/demos/index.html

<comment><USER2> Awesome!

It's nice that it uses pseudo-code, rather than making it specifically tied to a given prog. language.

The python equivalent would be this: [http://pythontutor.com/](http://pythontutor.com/)

</comment><comment><USER3> This would be really great for Wikipedia articles on algorithms. Many articles contain very technical specifications and few examples, which does not work well for conveying understanding.</comment>


Adult immune systems 'remember' germs to which they've never been exposed (2013) - <AUTHOR> https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2013/02/immune-systems-of-healthy-adults-remember-germs-to-which-theyve-never-been-exposed-stanford-study-finds.html <comment><USER2> I grew up on a farm. It was common knowledge that when a calf, or a lamb was born they needed to get that first milk from their mom. The first milk looked different and was called colostrum. Colostrum contained a large assortment of antibodies from the mother that were transmitted to the newborn. If there was some health issue, the mother died or the newborn couldn't drink, we had colostrum in the freezer. If we didn't give it, the odds dropped dramatically of the newborn making it more than a few months.

So, yes, mammals, including people, get immunities to germs they have not been exposed to.

<comment><USER3> My understanding was that breast milk (at least in humans) gave the baby antibodies, but not the ability to _create_ those antibodies. So, the effect wouldn't last.

<comment><USER4> But still I would imagine that such antibodies would be exponentially more valuable in the earliest moments of life, where it's likely that the newborn fist comes into contact with the mother's fecal material and all of the bacteria living on our skin.

<comment><USER5> Those are (mostly) good bacteria though.

Some theorize the baby _needs_ the mother's poop, to start it's own digestive microbiome. It works that way in other species, but I don't know if it's more than speculation for humans.

You also need a skin microbiome, but you can get that later.

<comment><USER6> I have heard reasoning that c-section babies could benefit from having some given to them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> "...memory CD4s proliferated and otherwise became activated in response to exposure to certain components of the influenza virus, but also to epitopes of several different bacterial and protozoan microbes. This cross-reactivity could explain why exposure to common bugs in the dirt and in our homes renders us less susceptible to dangerous infectious agents."

So the CD4 is a key activated to fit a particular lock, but given the imperfections of locks it fits a random assortment of others too. As we build up a keychain of these we have a better chance to fit any random lock.

But why doesn't the larger keychain also increase the chances of auto-immune diseases when they happen to fit our own locks? Or increase inflammation from other benign microbes it fits? Seems like the metaphor needs work.

<comment><USER8> > But why doesn't the larger keychain also increase the chances of auto-immune > diseases, when they happen to fit our own locks?

The process that generates immune cells tests them for autoimmune reactivity and aggressively culls ones that are.

<comment><USER9> Could you provide the name for this, or something I could search for? This is fascinating.

<comment><USER10> Look up the function of the thymus in T-cell development and selection.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thymus#Function](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thymus#Function)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Could someone add 2013 to the title? I just spent 15 minutes thinking I must be a genius because I had already figured this out. Now I realise I read about it already.

<comment><USER12> I agree, bit confusing. I never read about it until now.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> William Petri is a wonderfully appropriate name for a professor of infectious diseases.

<comment><USER14> love nominative determinism

<comment><USER15> There's a term for this!

The orthodontist that adjusted my siblings braces was named Dr. Hurt (or some homonym) and I've observed similar many times since.

<comment><USER16> If you accept few will, it's an aptonym.

<comment><USER15> I don't have a choice but to accept _free will_ :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> So I do not understand much about biology but could this effect explain why we seem to have so many people test positive for anti-bodies on COVID-19 tests, compared to other forms of testing?

<comment><USER18> Only if the person tested is more than 100 years old (ie spanish flu antibodies)

<comment><USER19> That was an influenza virus, this is a coronavirus they are completely different. But to your point, there have been numerous flu pandemics since 1918

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> "It may even provide an evolutionary clue about why kids eat dirt," said Davis. "The pre-existing immune memory of dangerous pathogens our immune systems have never seen before might stem from our constant exposure to ubiquitous, mostly harmless micro-organisms in soil and food and on our skin, our doorknobs, our telephones and our iPod earbuds."

Have there been studies on the effects of being too clean? Will short term fear (e.g., Covid-19) hurt us in the long term?

</comment><comment><USER21> Would epigenetics from past ancestors explain this? [0]

[0] = [https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fearful- memories-...](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fearful-memories- passed-down/)

<comment><USER11> No. The article says newborns don't have these activated CD4 cells.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> article doesn't provide any citation to the article it is summarizing...

<comment><USER23> [https://www.cell.com/immunity/fulltext/S1074-7613(13)00052-6...](https://www.cell.com/immunity/fulltext/S1074-7613\(13\)00052-6?_returnURL=https%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS1074761313000526%3Fshowall%3Dtrue)

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Antibody production in vertebrates is an amazing example of an extremely efficient directed evolution system within our own tissues.

There is some interesting work being done to mine antibodies from people who have recovered from diseases and use those as a therapeutic medicine. Worked great for Ebola, would also work for COVID-19, but scaling production is really really hard (maybe some schlep blindness there)!

If I recall correctly, they pretty much put the gene for the anti-ebola antibody into a plasmid in bacteria, then vacuumed those bacteria into tobacco, which mated with the tobacco, which caused over-expression of the antibody. Then, you grind up the plant, and purify the protein.

I'm interested in trying that out with my own blood - effectively making open source antibodies for different diseases. I also know a few folks working on DNA vaccination, which could have an interesting intersection.

</comment><comment><USER25> How on earth do they know for sure someone has never been exposed to a germ? Couldn't it just be the antibodies were from very limited exposure?

</comment><comment><USER26> Can anybody recommenf two good books on immunology? One clear introductory and one rearch level detailed?

<comment><USER27> I can only recommend one, but very good: How the Immune System Works by Lauren Sompayrac [https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/940153.How_the_Immune_Sy...](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/940153.How_the_Immune_System_Works)

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> (2013)

</comment><comment><USER29> How is this relevant? I'm not into this field. The article is only from 2013. So I can only relate it to Covid-19.

Thankful for any response

</comment><comment><USER30> I'm thinking Bloom Filters.

</comment><comment><USER31> Could partly explain why it seems like covid-19 isn't hitting developing nations as hard. They have more antibodies to other viruses. There's also the theory that the tuberculosis vaccine (mandatory in many developing nations but not in developed ones) helps too, and there are clinical trials going on to confirm that.

<comment><USER32> It's also warm and wet in many developing nations. Seen a couple pieces suggesting COVID is relatively heat-phobic.

Would also jive with seasonality of the flu...

<comment><USER33> I graphed death rate by absolute latitude for countries with more than 1000 cases, and there is a clear trend. There is a bulge in the middle latitudes, and dips toward the lower and higher latitudes. My guess is the virus doesn't do well in hot climates, and people don't congregate much in very cold climates.

<comment><USER19> It's the spring in the northern hemisphere, it's not cold anywhere in the US or Europe. I don't see how your conclusion is relevant

<comment><USER34> Yup not cold at all here in Indiana. Please disregard the snow that we had earlier this week...

Lol. It's quite difficult (misguided) to generalize about an entire country!</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Tic Tac toe - <AUTHOR> https://codepen.io/jacobBogers/pen/BKXpWv <comment><USER2> When AI goes second he always loses. His first turn should be to angle box.</comment>


Anybots QA live broadcasting Google I/O - <AUTHOR> http://justin.tv/anybots

<comment><USER2> That's cool. We are now officially living in the future.

</comment><comment><USER3> Here's a picture I took of Trevor and one of the bots: <http://twitpic.com/62qnj></comment>


First high-res look at microbial ballistics: Harpoons, spears, Gatling guns - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/science/2017/04/watch-militarized-microbes-use-some-sophisticated-weapons-to-snare-prey/ <comment><USER2> They actually get smaller yet - cellular warfare even. Entire protein collections (R-Bodies) that are like explosive coiled springs [1] that can be made to be pH-sensitive so that when they're 'eaten' by a cell, they explode, bursting the cell from the inside.

Bacteriophages have terrifying-looking injection ports [2]. And there are other viral 'latch-like' proteins that do significant damage to host membranes when deployed in order to permit their own payloads to be deposited.

The entire CRISPR system is a defensive homing weapon used to literally dice up a virus's DNA were any of the above weapons successfully used to enter a cell.

[1] [http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/acssynbio.5b00237](http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/acssynbio.5b00237)

[2] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacteriophage](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacteriophage)</comment>


Ask HN: Why does HN strip out "how" from the start of titles? - <AUTHOR> Every time I've tried to post a link with the title "How X", HN strips out the How and changes the title to "X".<p>Wondering why this is the case and if there is any planned fix. Thanks! <comment><USER2> HN does this with some words, mostly ones that would typically be used in a clickbaity way, I believe.

I just tried posting "10 ways to test if this title works on HN" (the number thing being one I recall encountering before). The title was automatically changed to "How to test if this title works on HN". So there is definitely support for automatically editing some common clickbait title phrases.

It seems to be regex, I tried again with "12 ways to test if HN automatically formats titles" and it was also changed to "How to test ...".

If it breaks your title, you can fix it manually! You should see an `edit` under the title that will link to you an editing page that allows you to edit the title. This works with both link posts and text posts. I was able to change the title of my test post back to "10 ways to test ..." and it correctly updated to show that title with no modifications.

And I just now realized that this is actually one of the probably few things not mentioned on that one repo [1] that documents undocumented HN features!

[1] [https://github.com/minimaxir/hacker-news- undocumented](https://github.com/minimaxir/hacker-news-undocumented)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for your thorough response, it's greatly appreciated.

Created a new issue at [https://github.com/minimaxir/hacker-news- undocumented/issues...](https://github.com/minimaxir/hacker-news- undocumented/issues/41).

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Does it happen with anything besides how? So when you post something like "How to bake a potato", does it translate to "To bake a potato"?

<comment><USER4> It does this with numbers too. This is a fairly recent change fwiw.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> The Ask page currently has 6 submissions with "How to".</comment>


API-scenario integration testing command line - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/thomaspoignant/api-scenario <comment><AUTHOR> I have built this tool in GO called api-scenario ([https://github.com/thomaspoignant/api- scenario](https://github.com/thomaspoignant/api-scenario)) this is an integration testing command line to run scenario over your API.

I wonder if some of you can give me feedback, and even better if some of you want to contribute.</comment>