Microsoft 'Mortally Wounds' SHA-1 - <AUTHOR> http://blog.gerv.net/2013/11/microsoft-mortally-wounds-sha-1/ <comment><USER2> If you can produce a collision against SHA-1 the Bitcoin network will pay you 2.47 BTC (which is worth about $1111 at the current market prices): [https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=293382.0](https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=293382.0)

<comment><USER3> >> We advise mining the block in which you collect your bounty yourself

If you solve one of these, don't send the transaction to a miner for inclusion in the blockchain, or they'll steal your reward!

<comment><USER4> Without joining a mining pool or broadcasting the transaction, wouldn't it be incredibly difficult to have a chance to successfully beat all the others and mine the block yourself?

Or is the assumption that anyone who is able to solve the puzzle will also be able to mine any and all blocks instantly?

And why couldn't you re-steal the award back again?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Is Intel still going to add SHA-1 specific instructions to their next chip? I'm hoping for that to be reversed.

<comment><USER6> AES-specific instructions were even a bit questionable... but this is _highly_ questionable. Algorithm-specific instructions are basically going to become very dated cruft within a few years to a decade tops and are probably a bad thing to add to any instruction set. Better would be to add instructions for speeding up all sorts of crypto algorithms.

<comment><USER7> AES-specific instructions are also the only sane way to implement AES without timing attacks.

I'm curious about this "instructions for speeding up all sorts of crypto algorithms" proposal -- how would you do that, given that crypto algorithms tend to have a wide variety of implementations and a wide variety of mathematical underpinnings? Do you want instructions that speed up all sorts of math?

<comment><USER8> I'm not sure that's true. Maybe you're thinking about implementing GCM without lookup tables; GCM is most often considered in AES context, and is infamously tricky to do in software in constant time and reasonable speed.

<comment><USER9> He's right; implementing plain constant-time AES can be done without AES-NI, but is by no means easy or obvious.

<comment><USER8> I didn't think it was obvious, but also didn't think the performance hit was as bad. (We're getting out of my comfort zone; I know how constant time AES implementations work, but not what the current speed records are for them.)

<comment><USER9> The best timings I'm aware of are ~7cpb for AES-CTR, and ~14cpb for GHASH on Nehalem [2]. It's a bitsliced implementation, so it makes sense to compare it to counter-mode AES-NI. A recent AES-NI implementation on Sandy Bridge [1, pg. 25-26] achieves 0.79cpb for AES-CTR, and 1.68cpb for GHASH.

The point: the ratios 14/1.68 and 7/0.79 are quite similar.

PS: The performance of PCLMULQDQ was vastly improved in Haswell, and I believe AES-GCM in there runs at something like 1.5cpb. However, the vector size of Haswell also doubles to 256 bits, which would also improve an hypothetical bitsliced AES-GCM implementation. Hard to say what that speed would be, so I won't try to compare things in Haswell.

[1] [https://crypto.stanford.edu/RealWorldCrypto/slides/gueron.pd...](https://crypto.stanford.edu/RealWorldCrypto/slides/gueron.pdf)

[2] [http://eprint.iacr.org/2009/129](http://eprint.iacr.org/2009/129)

<comment><USER8> This is a cool paper, but I don't see 14cpb GHASH in it; their best timings for large packets in constant time are over 20cpb.

<comment><USER9> Yes, that's the aggregate time 7 + 14 (plus some small overhead). The 14cpb figure is mentioned at the end of page 10.

<comment><USER8> Neat. Thanks again!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> > Error establishing a database connection

STOP REQUIRING DATABASE CONNECTIONS TO SERVE STATIC CONTENT!

<comment><USER11> Everything is going to be OK.

<comment><USER12> I just used a google cache: [http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Mv3YNrj...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Mv3YNrjD0gwJ:blog.gerv.net/2013/11/microsoft- mortally-wounds-sha-1/+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> I'm in two minds about this: it's great that we're going to be able to move forward, but I'm not sure about one organisation having the power to unilaterally dictate to everyone and expect people to listen to them.

Also, I imagine that people are still generating SHA-1 certs out of a (possibly misguided) sense of remaining compatible with old devices. Anyone know what impact this might have?

<comment><USER13> Killing off weak encryption is absolutely necessary. Sha-1 is hard-coded into their RSA implementation in the dotnet library.

Without doing this in a total way, they wouldn't be able to do it at all. Now all the internal Microsoft fiefdoms will have to comply.

<comment><USER14> This is not true.

[http://msdn.microsoft.com/en- us/library/9tsc5d0z(v=vs.110).a...](http://msdn.microsoft.com/en- us/library/9tsc5d0z\(v=vs.110\).aspx)

The second parameter is the digest algorithm.

<comment><USER13> That's if you sign the data. If you just run Decrypt, it does not ask for a hash function. Under the hood, it uses Sha-1.

Edit: Here is a link to the golang implementation [http://golang.org/pkg/crypto/rsa/#DecryptOAEP](http://golang.org/pkg/crypto/rsa/#DecryptOAEP) It takes a hash as the first param Here is the C# counterpart [http://msdn.microsoft.com/en- us/library/system.security.cryp...](http://msdn.microsoft.com/en- us/library/system.security.cryptography.rsa.decryptvalue\(v=vs.110\).aspx) It does not take in a hash function though I believe you can modify how it works although I never tried to.

I wasn't referring to explicitly signing the data.

<comment><USER14> Ah, I see. The problem is that it uses PKCS #1 v2, which defaults to SHA-1. It seems OpenSSL does the same. That is unfortunate.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> > Any certificate being used on the public web today which has an expiry date > more than 3 years in the future will not be able to live out its full life.

Why not have a later cut-off for certificates that were issued before, say, 1st January 2014? That way the CAs after January will know not to sign SHA-1 based certificates which will expire in or after 2016, but current long-life certificates (which aren't selfies anyway) will still be OK

Also, microsoft.com seems to be using a certificate which uses MD5...

<comment><USER16> The certificate I get for microsoft.com is "PKCS #1 SHA-1 With RSA Encryption" according to Firefox.

<comment><USER15> You're right, I was looking at the cipher, I think. SSL_RSA_WITH_RC4_128_MD5

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Is that 98% of all internet certificates use SHA-1 statistic true?

<comment><USER18> According to this EFF presentation [1] (slide 24) where they scanned the internet for SSL servers in 2010, it's actually an underestimate -- in fact around 99.995% of servers use SHA1. The query shown only considers certs created in 2010, though; I'm grabbing the data set to verify now, but I suspect that 98% is not unreasonable.

Edit: Here's the full data. ~99%:

      mysql> SELECT `Signature Algorithm`, count(*) FROM valid_certs GROUP BY `Signature Algorithm`;
      +</comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>--+</comment><comment>----+
      | Signature Algorithm      | count(*) |
      +</comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>--+</comment><comment>----+
      |  md2WithRSAEncryption    |        4 |
      |  md5WithRSAEncryption    |    13942 |
      |  sha1WithRSA             |        3 |
      |  sha1WithRSAEncryption   |  1441335 |
      |  sha256WithRSAEncryption |      106 |
      |  sha512WithRSAEncryption |        1 |
      +</comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>--+</comment><comment>----+

[1] [https://www.eff.org/files/ccc2010.pdf](https://www.eff.org/files/ccc2010.pdf)

<comment><USER17> Jesus. Thanks for the data!

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Do they know something we don't about SHA1?

It's not usual for Microsoft to be a first mover in cases like these, as far as I can remember?

Also, is there a source on *.microsoft.com for this announcement?

<comment><USER8> Probably not. And, when it comes to crypto compatibility, there really is no such thing as "normal". It's all still early days.

<comment><USER4> Just noticed all four certs in the chain on [https://www.microsoft.com](https://www.microsoft.com) use SHA1. The root cert, "Baltimore CyberTrust Root", expires in 2025. Will root CAs also have to be replaced by 2016?

The relative urgency around this cutoff comes off as panick-y to me. They never seemed to bother updating roots or add SNI support for older, still supported OSes like WinXP.

<comment><USER19> Windows XP is officially dead in 144 days, so they're likely unconcerned on that front.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> This is an interesting, good 'up the ante' (or follow up) from MS to Mozilla.

Mozilla announced waay back at the end of 2010 that it will phase out support for certs using MD5 and 1024 bit keys:

[https://wiki.mozilla.org/CA:MD5and1024](https://wiki.mozilla.org/CA:MD5and1024)

We are at the end of the phase out (last deadline is end of 2013) Mozilla will still accept SHA-1, but recommends against it. I would not be surprised however if Moz supported MS in their effort.

</comment><comment><USER6> Personally I think the risk that CAs are or will be compromised is _much_ higher than the risk of a practical SHA-1 preimage attack. The entire CA model is very shaky.

MS has a history of helping out its buddies in the certificate troll mafia. This seems like it kind of fits in that category.

<comment><USER18> You don't need a preimage attack for SHA-1 to cause problems with CAs, just collisions. For example, MD5 does not have any preimage attacks I'm aware of, but it is possible to create rogue CA certificates that use MD5 [1]. Bruce Schneier estimates that we will see SHA-1 collisions relatively soon [2], so it's not like Microsoft is just making this stuff up.

I agree that CA compromise is a serious problem, but it's not one Microsoft can do something about. They _can_ ban SHA-1 in certificates, and I think it's a good idea.

[1] [http://www.phreedom.org/research/rogue- ca/](http://www.phreedom.org/research/rogue-ca/)

[2] [https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2012/10/when_will_we_...](https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2012/10/when_will_we_se.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> I'm cool with their change if they also auto upgrade all WinXP users.

<comment><USER19> Windows XP already has support via a hotfix. Windows XP dies in 144 days, anyway, so anyone left using it by the time this takes effect will be using a hopelessly insecure system for some time already.

<comment><USER22> it won't die. it will be used for years by millions of users. that some company stops issuing security updates for a software means nothing to most users. it probably will even make them more happy because they are not nagged by update messages all the time.

<comment><USER19> People can still use it. But it's dead, insecure, and unsupported. Just like Windows 3.x, 95, NT, 98, 98se, 2000, etc. People still use all of those, too.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I hope all my sha-1 hashed git commit ids are gonna be okay. :(

<comment><USER6> Even if SHA-1 were weakened considerably, this would not impact this particular use case all that much... except in cases where git hashes are used in a security-critical way. (Which is probably not that great an idea...)

<comment><USER24> Doesn't a signed git tag rely on signing the 160-bit hash? So if SHA-1 was really weakened, you could reuse a signature by generating a repo that hashes to the same value as the signed one?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I might have missed the obvious, but what are the currently suggested alternatives to SHA1?

</comment><comment><USER26> Shouldn't the title be "Microsoft 'Mortally Wounds' Windows" ?

I mean it is only windows affected.

And I bet browsers other than IE will work.

<comment><USER7> Yes, website operators that don't have any Windows users they care about aren't affected. All three of them.

Somewhat more relevantly, CAs that don't have any customers who have any Windows users they care about aren't affected. That's probably closer to zero.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Now how about you "mortally wound" Skype's (in)security model, Microsoft?

No end-to-end security = no security.</comment>


I have no idea what I'm doing - <AUTHOR> http://ninjasandrobots.com/you-need-some-experience <comment><USER2> I've had to externalize this behavior since having children: "I don't know. But we can look it up."

I do this all the time anyway-- need to decompose an audio sample? I have no clue, but I can read about it ... oh, look FFT. Calculate a loan schedule? Think I was curious about that several years back ... Google amortization ... Got it.

My children think I'm a genius (I have a 17yo that still thinks her dad is the smartest human on the planet) simply because A) I will deduce an answer aloud, B) admit that it's a guess but plausible, C) research when we get home, and D) summarize the findings (including my mistakes in deduction) in language they can understand. And I learn something along the way.

Can't learn past 30? Bullshit. I learn every day and plan to for the remainder of my life.

<comment><USER3> It sounds like you are already doing this, but now make sure that you not only answer your kids' questions, but more importantly teach them your A,B,C,D research/teaching steps! Give a man a fish, ... :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I experienced this over the past two weeks when I was staying up 'til 4 AM trying to get this project to work: <https://github.com/jlongster/dcpu-lisp>

I knew it was possible because I could compile the program in my head, but automating that in to a program is a whole different task. Still, the concept was easy to prove. It was all in the details, and I constantly was reminded that I had no idea what I was doing. I've never written assembly before, and barely done any compiler work. Still, over 10 painful nights, it all came together.

What a rush.

<comment><USER5> > Still, over 10 painful nights, it all came together. > What a rush.

This. This is exactly why I'll spend 10 painful nights. For that moment of exhilaration. It's almost like a masochistic adrenaline rush.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Constantly feeling like you have no idea what you're doing can be a good thing.

It means you're constantly putting yourself in position to grow. It means you're challenging yourself instead of simply falling into a routine. After a while, it means you know what you're doing in a lot of areas that you wouldn't have if you'd just stuck to what you know -- so even if you don't know what you're doing in this specific way, you know what you're doing in a lot of supporting areas. Because of all the figuring out you've done in the past, you're able to figure it out this time too.

(This advice is remarkably applicable to parenting, as well.)

<comment><USER7> I know exactly what you mean. When I started in my new job (Tier 2 system admin), everyone around me was so advanced that I felt completely out of my league for months.

That feeling is beginning to abate just now, almost a year later.

It kind of sucks while you're in the grip of it - and no amount of ensuring myself "Damnit, Karunamon, you _like_ learning, stop herping the derp" silenced that little niggling voice that says "Oh god what have I gotten myself into here, I'm so outclassed it's sad"

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Here's the secret which has brought me to some pretty interesting places over the last 10 years - "Go for the thing you find most interesting, irrespective of how hard it is".

What does this mean? I'm about to start a job optimizing and developing algorithms for high performance scientific computing, over 1000s of CPUs and terabytes of memory. I have _NO IDEA_ how I'm going to do this exactly, but I also have complete faith that I'll figure it out and will do it well, because it's a really interesting problem, and figuring stuff out is what I do. It will make me a better programmer, better equipped to do other things I want to do, and better prepared for similar work in the future.

If something is easy, it's probably going to become boring. Find something hard and beat it into oblivion.

</comment><comment><USER9> The smartest developers/people I know don't have to prove they're the smartest at every step.

They have the comfort to say "I don't know" and "You could be right".

Most importantly, they have an attitude of "I can probably figure something out that will work".

They rarely say something is not possible. They rarely say no outright.

They more often than not will say "Let me think about it and get back to you." They understand how delicate an idea is and how valuable it could be.

Being a problem solver every day, coming across new situations and getting better at it means this mindset is a normal, expected thing.

Problem solving is an optimistic skill, not pessimistic.

Problem solvers live in possibility, tempered by healthy, but not poisoning doubt.

What does this leave?

Those who are so full of their own doubts that they start to believe in the insurmountability of their doubts. They turn, like evangelists to spread their viewpoint and validate their insecurity and bring others down with their doubts.

I call them, the the doubt worshippers. Blind doubt is as painful as blind faith to me; especially where creativity and innovation are expected to occur.

Starting with a seed of believing in logical thought and debate, doubters now feed the monster of doubt, and live and see life through doubts, first, instead of possibilities tempered by doubts.

Doubters look at everything with what they believe to be a critical eye. Rather, it is one of doubt seeking to destroy, not tempering possibility so it may have a chance at succeeding.

Doubters love to play the position of contrarian, having something grand to say that's generally the opposite of whatever is being said, just to fuel their doubt muscle. Doubters are generally risk averse. Doubters generally avoid pushing their limits and growing. Yet, they're so smart and logical and skeptical.

Still, great things only seem to get accomplished in the realm of possibility and creativity.

Exclusive doubters kill creativity and innovation.

I generally avoid self-doubting doubters. If a scoffing, smarmy, self-absorbed know it all can't openly entertain an opinion that isn't theirs, isn't really as open of a mind as advertised. Logic is a great tool, but it is not where creativity resides. Doubt and logic can be used to fuel ignorant, stupid, petty and fanatic ends as easy as anything.

There's too many folks who try to fake it until they make it. They are driven by managing their insecurities instead of building their strengths. Unfortunately you can't fake being able to learn the details, see how the dots could connect and making a new reality that actually works with them.

Find and cherish those who know the balance of living in creative and innovative possibility and letting the doubts be a healthy, but not ruling force.

0.05

<comment><USER10> > The doubt worshippers. Starting with a seed of believing in logical thought > and debate, they now live and see life through doubts, first, instead of > possibilities tempered by doubts. They look at everything with what they > believe to be a critical eye, but it is one of doubt, and not possibility. > Great things only get accomplished in the realm of possibility and > creativity.

I'm sure I'm not the only one, but I can't stand these people. I've worked with one directly. The most frustrating part of the experience is even when you prove time and time again, that the goals they are so pessimistic about are achievable, they do not alter their outlook on future goals! It's as if their only comfort is in predicting failure and then passively ensuring it.

<comment><USER11> I've had similar problems with people who think everything and anything is possible in just 4 weeks. People with positive attitudes who over-commit a whole team is bad enough, but when I try to say 'what you're talking about isn't possible, let's scale back the requirements' I'm told I'm a pessimistic person. The most frustrating part of the experience in when you prove time and time again, that the goals they are so optimistic about are more complex than they think, they do not alter their outlook on future goals! It's as if their only comfort is in predicting success and then passively ensuring failure and burnout.

<comment><USER10> Of course when hard time constraints are involved, things actually become impossible. Even the universe has a fixed limit how far you can go in an amount of time.

Nobody (besides you) is saying that "scaling back requirements" is pessimistic. Where is that coming from?

> It's as if their only comfort is in predicting success and then passively > ensuring failure and burnout.

How is predicting a success and then failing a comfort? Mine was: predicting a failure and then failing, which would make the prediction a comfort because it was correct. Yours, as a whole, is not comforting, because it was incorrect.

> The most frustrating part of the experience in when you prove time and time > again, that the goals they are so optimistic about are more complex than > they think, they do not alter their outlook on future goals!

That's not exactly a bad thing, considering the alternative. I would so much rather someone never lose optimism than pessimism, even if they are wrong every time. With optimism, you're dumb enough to try again. With pessimism, you're dumb enough to never try.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I don't think I've ever started a project that I knew how to do backward and front. Every thing I know about iOS programming comes from "oh crap, a client wants this, how do I do it?". Although, it makes every past project look worse and worse every time I start a new one.

Google it 'til you make it.

<comment><USER13> It depends on the technology of course but pretty much as fast as most of them move, most projects are going to involve new technology and a rapid learning curve to work with it. That being said, I think I am cut from a different cloth than a lot of developers, there are a lot of technologies that I do not know and have to pick up quickly but the part that I differ on is it seems that there are a lot of developers that scramble to adapt, where I never feel the pressure of that scramble. I can't explain it, but things just kind of fall into place for me. For any of you old enough to know the reference, I am kind of a Ferris Bueller like figure, where things appear to come easy for me. This can drive people crazy at times, my wife included because it appears that things are easy for me. While I do concern myself with adapting, I just don't stress about it, as I am confident in my ability to adapt. I personally don't feel that things are easy for me, rather I feel that things align for me a lot of times and I capitalize on that momentum. I never read stories from developers that have similar experiences, so I often wonder if my experience is an anomaly.

<comment><USER14> Where most people scramble and panic, I take it that you grin, roll up your sleeves, and say, "Let's get this party started."

That's what I'm envisioning anyway.

<comment><USER13> Yes that is probably appropriate, and I think it comes from my world view, I never see a big problem, I see a bunch of small unknown problems, therefore everything to me is a small issue, nothing to freak out about. I quickly figure out what are the deadly problems and fix those first, they are always small quickly fixed issues, and from their I work to find the issues that lead to the deadly problems, I think this systematic processes may appear to others that the pieces fall into place, but they really could have been arranged in a multitude of orders and the outcome would have been the same. I am very good at putting blinders on when they are needed and to others this may appear that I am carefree, rather, I do care, just not at the moment that I am fixing what I feel is the most important issue to overcome or avoid a crisis.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> This is the same thought I had after reading Justin Kan's post (<http://justinkan.com/what-good-is-experience>). I was surprised by how much emphasis Justin placed on the importance of experience. I feel one of the best traits of an entrepreneur is the ability to learn quickly and figure things out on the fly.

<comment><USER16> I think it also helps to have (or develop) a high tolerance for ambiguity. You don't really know where you're going, and something may happen tomorrow that upends your business model. You have to be okay with that. I think experience with that process makes it a bit easier to focus on what you _can_ control.

<comment><USER9> High tolerance for ambiguity is a wonderful way of putting it. The people who can't play with abstract ideas and concepts simply can't do this.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Dogen, the Japanese Zen philosopher has said (in the context of study and practice): "For example, when you sail out in a boat to the middle of an ocean where no land is in sight, and view the four directions, the ocean looks circular, and does not look any other way. But the ocean is neither round or square; its features are infinite in variety. It is like a palace. It is like a jewel. It only looks circular as far as you can see at that time. All things are like this." (quoted from this translation - <http://genjokoan.com/>)

I know a translator who once had a conversation with another, 70 years old, translator, my friend complained how with each book she translates her perception of language becomes murkier, the elderly translator replied, "you still have it good, I have to check the meaning of 'table' in the dictionary."

My point: with experience things become more complex, not vice versa. Certainty is usually a mark of naivety.

</comment><comment><USER18> I assume, perhaps wrongly, that there are more efficient methods of becoming an entrepreneur than pure trial-and-error and plugging oneself into HackerNews, Quora, and irc channels, and reading books. People always ask, where do I begin? What's the most efficient way of doing X?

I'd love to see a mind map, or even a basic checklist, of all the skills you need in a typical startup and the different options for gaining that skill. Maybe I'm being too picky and demanding, but knowing what you know and what you don't know would be a nice efficient alternative to "I don't know what the heck I'm doing. Grit FTW!"

<comment><USER19> In my experience, I think you are assuming wrongly. The efficiency comes from speed, and nothing else in my opinion. It could be because I am too dumb to grasp theory, and can not learn without doing and failing/succeeding and then subsequently learning from the outcomes (be it good or bad), but the most efficient way is to speed up the doing, speed up the getting to an outcome, speeding up the learning , and then speeding up the full cycle.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> I definitely agree with the end of this. There's been many times where I've come up against something I need to learn - a new technology, technique, library integration, and wondered how I could figure it out.

Then I remember, years ago, thinking the same thing about the things I'm doing now. How I thought Python looked fancy and confusing, how configuring servers was arcane, and how I took hours to make a page POST a value to another page. And update a database (with no range checking, so that went into negatives, but it _worked_).

Now I can reasonably assume that given enough effort, I can figure almost anything out.

</comment><comment><USER21> I've found that most people don't know what they are doing. Which as you pointed out is fine. But what I find very alarming is that most people don't ever take the time to mend their ignorance.

I've also found that since people rarely know why they are doing... The ones that can bullshit the best are viewed as more competent. These are the worst perpetrators of the ignorance issue. These are the people that become the token useless over compensated middle mananger.

</comment><comment><USER22> Great post dude and i think i can relate to many of the situations you found yourself in. Hell every time i finish a module or feature on my current project i am always like ... What the hell ... It actually works. I do this because i remember not 5hrs or a day ago, i had no freaking idea what i was doing, the VIM screen was empty and had no idea where to start or how to solve what i wanted to do (specially if its a new language, new team or new technology your working with). Team always tells me to sit down and get back to work (jokingly) after i joyously get up and do fist pumps but i get happy when i have no experience in something but manage to stumble over things until i get it to work, cause the joy is not simply the thing works, its that i feel having no experience and getting something working no matter what the topic of concern is, is a big deal, whether its programming, math or traveling the world by your self when you have never left the house. It is a big deal ...

Right now though, i am working on a startup, just small, making some revenue to live of but finding it tough, very very tough, competition is aplenty, constant new technical problems ,design choices, no idea how to market cause just no experience (so far its been organic but we need a faster rate of growth)and i can honestly say this feels like it could be a particular case where i might not be able to make it out with a smile on my face. In all the other problems i had no experience with, i got this voice in my head that says, mate... you will do this no problems, you will get the problem solved but for this startup the voice is there but just not as strong cause its been told to shutup in more then one instance when things didn't turn out as planned. However, since I know in the past when i kept going things turned out alright I just keep going.

For a startup, there are just so many fronts that need some experience and as far as i can think back , I only ever had to face a single topic at a time for which I didn't have experience. Some examples have been when I worked on new math or programming problem or studying for any exam, solving a problem at work that is more inter personal, asking for a raise when i had never asked for one before, its all just one thing so its easier to focus all the attention on how to make that single thing work. But for a startup there are just so many fronts that experience would really help to make the event of starting a startup successful. Its painful sometimes ...

I guess this is the first step towards getting more experience :) and hey .. its fun

</comment><comment><USER23> Some things you can figure it out as you are doing. Some times I think being in software development is cheating as I can do that in many cases.

But in most cases, I think you can do great harm and likely waste a lot of time (but probably learn a lot!) if you just go along blindly without having some clue of what you are doing. To take an extreme example, you really don't want to be in the air as your pilot is reading a "Flying airplanes for dummies" book.

And he uses being in a class as an example! If you knew what you were doing already, you wouldn't need to be taking the class!

Having said that, I also believe that much of the time, no amount of preparation can prepare you for what you need to do. You still need to figure out many things on the fly, and frequently, you don't learn those things until you actually do them.

</comment><comment><USER24> Ben Pieratt, CEO of Svpply, shared a similar sentiment in this great blog post last year: [http://pieratt.tumblr.com/post/5450242474/my-job- pt-1-i-have...](http://pieratt.tumblr.com/post/5450242474/my-job-pt-1-i-have- no-idea-what-im-doing)

</comment><comment><USER25> Reminds me of a theme that many historical icons embodied....a sense of self- education. But on a daily basis.

Ben Franklin was a self taught printer, scientist, etc...who went on to become world-renowned for each profession. He had no formal education or schooling either.

<comment><USER26> Name the last self-taught great scientist or mathematician, and the year of their birth.

<comment><USER27> Srinivasa Ramanujan, 1887.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> It's all about perspective. As a lifelong learner, you're gonna have the highs of discovering an insight and the lows of realizing your ignorance. If you have the right mindset and character, then it's a challenge and up to you to deal with those highs and lows properly. Celebrate those wins, use that momentum and motivate yourself with those lows. Personally, what gives me the most problems is when there is too much of a gap in time or other resources and I lose that momentum. Getting over that inertia and rediscovering that spark for that subject or project can be difficult. Once I find it though, there's no stopping me!

</comment><comment><USER29> It baffles me that people who seem to pay careful attention to the appearance of their websites are so careless with their fonts:

[https://www.dropbox.com/s/3mi5ecf8xguccl4/20120424-025233-ni...](https://www.dropbox.com/s/3mi5ecf8xguccl4/20120424-025233-ninjasandrobots.com- you-need-some-experience-proxima-nova-windows7-firefox12.png)

The allure of web fonts becomes stronger and stronger as availability and implementations improve, but people need to be careful: there are very few choises that work well everywhere.

<comment><USER30> Unfortunately, Windows' hideous rendering of web fonts in general is nothing new. I'm not sure why it's such a tricky problem, as even Linux does a better job.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Nate, the thing is, you do know what you're doing. You'd be having no fun if you were just doing things you already knew how to accomplish. You are intentionally choosing to do things where you know you will have to learn in order to achieve them. It's not that you are clueless, you just know how to achieve things you haven't already learned how to do.

You know how to learn. You know how and more importantly when to search on Google (which a shocking number of people don't). You know how to try things.

I wouldn't call that having no idea.

</comment><comment><USER32> I always get stuck on new things and just get absolutely frustrated over things that i have no idea what i'm doing. I find taking a break and then coming back to it usually helps. The funny thing is once you figure it out you cant ever see how it didnt click in the first place

</comment><comment><USER33> _It took about 12 floppy disks. :)_

Java is about four times that size (for a minimal distribution) nowadays.

<comment><USER26> Only because we've decided as a profession that optimizing for binary size is low priority when compared to speed of development, maintainability, and framework's features, among others.

<comment><USER34> Nah, no-one made that decision. We just all got lazy.

<comment><USER26> We made the decision collectively. By being lazy, in a good way.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> There's no harm in admitting that you don't know what you're doing, heck it's a healthy attitude to take. It's when you head down the other path and don't acknowledge you're ineptitude or need for education/learning that things start to go wrong.

</comment><comment><USER36> This is why one of the most important skills I look for in dev-types is their ability to learn and figure s#$t out. It's not only what you know today, but that you don't know what you don't know tomorrow, but you've gotta figure it out.

</comment><comment><USER37> A new game for HN commenters: "Guess that reference". A poster gives a relevant but maybe slightly obscure quote from literature and others try to guess where it's from. Here's mine:

"Do any of us know what we're doing? If we did, would we ever do it?"

</comment><comment><USER38> Nate - did you talk about startups at UIUC circa 2010? If so, you (inadvertently) introduced me to the world of startups as well as the YC community, and for that, I am grateful. Life changing stuff - you have no idea.

</comment><comment><USER39> So true. I have never, ever taken a job I knew how to do (fully). I blagged it, and learned it all on the job.

</comment><comment><USER40> Fake it 'til you make it baby!

<comment><USER41> Not really. In that situation you're telling people you know how to do something you don't. In this situation you're telling people you have no idea but can probably figure it out.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> related: On being senior <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3883494>

<comment><USER34> I've lost count of the number of 22-year-old "seniors" I've met. It's a red flag word now, for title inflation.

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> This is inspiring read!

</comment><comment><USER44> Power to the creators!

</comment><comment><USER45> The optimistic viewpoint going into the unknown, i.e, the confidence that the answer is out there somewhere and you will find it, is one of the, if not the, most important success factors in any sort of greenfield venture.

I'm an older guy and even years ago when looking back, things that I just assumed would work out, even though an objective observer would perhaps disagree, always seemed to have more or less unfolded according to plan. It is almost as if life is much like some evil jungle vine that wraps and immobilizes one the more you struggle against it.

Here is one personal example - I was born into a family that valued education, it was always assumed that the kids were going to college - this was a little before the now current assumption that everyone goes to college.

Well, I hated school from junior high onward with an abiding passion and finally quit at the first available opportunity at the beginning of 10th grade. But it never occurred to me that I wouldn't go to college and I did, pretty much on schedule w/my peers (and I paid for it..) getting a BS in physics, MS in Computational Fluids/Mech Engrg.

Again, it just never really occurred to me that I wouldn't go to college as I was bailing from high school, kind of weird in retrospect. But I never even slightly doubted the outcomes - not in a defiant way, either, just a low key assumption.

And again, looking back, I can find many other examples my life or other peoples lives that follow this pattern.

I don't know if there is a term for this mindset, but I see allusions to it both in the OP and in many of the other comments here.</comment>


Demosend – Easier life in music business - <AUTHOR> http://www.demosend.com

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi, consider that the site is in public beta test. With the new update in february you'll menage your bid and agreement inside Demosend and distribute your music on the online stores and receive your royalties directly in your account. In our opinion SC is a social for music instead Demosend is for artists that need labels (and contrary) and search a connection to go on sale

</comment><comment><USER2> Needs HTTPS.

Nice design. But I don't like how scrolling adds entries to my browser history.

I'm curious why artists/labels would use this rather than soundcloud. It seems you have features to make deals happen easier?</comment>


Best dashboard apps for startups? - <AUTHOR>

Hi HN - I'm looking for a dashboard application that can aggregate our key metrics (week over week growth, engagement, etc) that ties in with Google Analytics or Mixpanel. Which ones do you all use? <comment><USER2> I haven't used it but <http://www.geckoboard.com> looks good.

</comment><comment><USER3> <http://sparkwi.se></comment>


Project Free TV shut down - <AUTHOR> http://www.free-tv-video-online.info

<comment><USER2> Apparently they just moved to a new domain: [http://projectfreetv.so](http://projectfreetv.so)

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Looks like a makeover. Maybe it was a marketing stunt just posting "Goodbye"... or just bad communication</comment>


Redacted for Mac Launch [#8 in App Store off just 59 sales] - <AUTHOR> http://blog.soff.es/redacted-for-mac-launch/

<comment><USER2> It's surprising to me how absolutely awful the mac app store is. It's broken on so many levels in terms of UX, and not in the principles, but the actual implementation. Same issue with itunes

Do a search, and you get absolutely no feedback. Plus the store itself is slow so it takes 5 seconds for absolutely anything to happen.

I can't imagine they can't put a small team to clean up the mac store, surely it would increase sales if it wasn't as awful.

</comment><comment><USER3> This is interesting for so many reasons:

1\. How does it get over 500 votes on product hunt? (and so few sales from that traffic)

2\. $5 is cheap for desktop software, yet still seems expensive for this problem (not something I would need often, and there are other ways to do it)

3\. Considering #2 of apps being more expensive, being at the top of the top paid is less important/impressive etc than top grossing. Cheapest in top 10 grossing is $20, and all but 2 > $50. Selling 60 apps a day at $50 is a lot of money.

4\. Now I'll agree that I would expect #8 paid in the MAS to be a bit higher, but I wouldn't have guessed anywhere remotely close to 12k. Maybe $1500. $300 a day is nothing to sneeze at though. $110k a year. I don't know where he peaked in top grossing, but it's at 108 now. 100 apps get to make 6 figures a year, and presumably the top is a decent bit higher. Seems reasonable.

EDIT: 5. Also, ranking in the stores lately is screwy, and at least a little bit meaningless. Not sure whats going on, but there has been a lot of talk about it not correlating that well with sales. Could be part of it.

<comment><USER4> It's not $300 a day. It's $300 on launch day. Sales always, always drop far below launch day unless you have other factors which keep the app in the news or on a "top 10" chart.

My apps have usually dropped to maybe 10% of the launch peak.

<comment><USER5> > _It 's not $300 a day. It's $300 on launch day. Sales always, always drop > far below launch day unless you have other factors which keep the app in the > news or on a "top 10" chart._

Yes, but those $300 were still made _in a day_ as the 8th top app.

What the parent said is that $300 for each day you're on the "top 8th" is good.

If he can't be on the top 8th for long, that's his problem, and it doesn't mean people should be getting $12K for a single day on the top 10.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> It's really amazing how pretty much nobody wants to pay for software anymore. This isn't just true of consumer applications, it's even (or especially) true of infrastructure and other professional components. I'm not sure if this is sad or exciting. My inclination is with sad, until we can figure out some new way to fund meaningful development that actually works.

<comment><USER5> The more important problem is that the middle class is squeezed -- in the US from what I read, but also in Europe that I know, and nobody CAN really spend as much anymore in the first place.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I wonder what percentage of people buy _any_ non-game software for their computers after they get them?

<comment><USER8> I don't know many, but I buy a lot. I kind of got addicted after getting some $100 in gift cards for christmas, spending it all eventually and not realizing I was already past $100. After I realized I didn't care I just bought whatever I wanted. I've gotten a lot of bad apps but honestly the best apps on my phone are paid.

<comment><USER9> I've noticed that too when I recently was able to upgrade from a very old phone (with 3G only!) to a T-Mobile Nexus 6. I never bothered with too many apps before because the phone was just so slow.

Now though every free app is so annoying to use. Trying to not accidentally click an ad. Having to see (and sometimes wait to close) an ad every few game plays or after so much amount of use.

Most paid apps I've used remove the ad annoyance completely and are often more polished or offer features not found in free alternatives.

Plus I get to support the developers for making a quality product and not an ad-infested money grab.</comment></comment></comment>


Review my 'cause' project (causerific.com) - <AUTHOR>

I have built a platform that lets people indicate a cause they need help with and find potential donors/backers. In this case, I added a location feature because not everyone is in a position to donate money to a cause they really want to help with, but they are willing to help in other ways.
My inspiration for this project came when traveling across the country last year and stumbled on this orphanage in Michigan that needed help building a playground for their kids. No one knew of their plight since they are such a small organization and couldn't raise the money for it. I didn't have the money either, but my friends and I were willing to physically build the play ground for them. I think with 'causes' these days, people want to help, but not everyone can help financially. Some people are able to donate 'hours' of physical labor or even specific expertise...and that's what I am trying to achieve here.
Would appreciate feedback as to how to make the platform better achieve its goals. Thanks! <comment><USER2> Clickable: <http://www.causerific.com></comment>


Candor returns - <AUTHOR> http://blog.indutny.com/2.candor-returns

<comment><USER2> Sounds interesting. I wonder if you could explain this better:

> No default runtime

> Candor has no default APIs that are doing 'high-level' things with objects > and arrays. These routines should be implemented by embedder (like > candor.io).

> Removing runtime from VM is good in terms of support, less dependencies - > less things to care about, and leaving things out of the core keeps it > compact.

Are you saying there is no standard library? And what does "embedder" mean in this context?

<comment><AUTHOR> Javascript has standard runtime, that you can use in both browser and node.js (and any other place), which includes Array.forEach and all other high-level stuff. Candor doesn't have this, and thus there're no need to maintain it.

Embedder is a project that's using VM to add scripting. In case of javascript, embedder is node.js, browser or even couchdb. In case of Candor - it's a candor.io (so far).</comment></comment>


Job Opening: Firmware Developer - <AUTHOR> http://blog.sifteo.com/2010/01/sifteo-firmware-developer/ <comment><USER2> Can you indicate where your company is located? (This really does not sound like a telecommuting job)

Edit: Looks like SF.</comment>


Show HN: Google Meet Mini Studio – Tweak your webcam's colors inside the browser - <AUTHOR> https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/google-meet-mini-studio/ohcmmfphdpigpccfppacepjhamgcffjh <comment><AUTHOR> I made this for students like me who use school-issued Chromebooks and lack access to desktop solutions like OBS.

Unfortunately I'm having trouble porting it to Firefox due to its XSS Content Security Policy, though it's also available as a GreaseMonkey/TamperMonkey script.

[https://greasyfork.org/en/scripts/406944-google-meet-mini- st...](https://greasyfork.org/en/scripts/406944-google-meet-mini-studio)</comment>


The Hardest Interview Puzzle Question Ever [by Jeff Atwood] - <AUTHOR> http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2009/03/the-hardest-interview-puzzle-question-ever.html

<comment><USER2> "...what is the solution to this puzzle?"

Surely the answer is "I have deduced that I do not want to work here. Good day."</comment>


A Local Revolution? - <AUTHOR> http://www.paulgraham.com/revolution.html <comment><USER2> > There are already signs that startups may not spread particularly well. The > spread of startups seems to be proceeding slower than the spread of the > Industrial Revolution

Government was much smaller at the time of the Industrial Revolution.

The theory of "regulatory capture" says that government is responsive to those firms that are affected by government regulation and have the money to buy favorable legislation.

Thus, it's much easier for big-dumb-and-slow firms to use government to put roadblocks in the way of startups than it was for inefficient firms to put roadblocks in the way of factory production 200 years ago.

Want to sell wine over the Internet? The established players will make sure that it's illegal for you to do so.

Want to cut a deal with your early stage employees where they get no pay for 6 months? It's illegal in most places to not pay someone a wage. In MA it's illegal to fire someone for blatant incompetence and they pay them their final paycheck on the regularly scheduled payroll 4 days later - you need to hand them a physical check then and there.

Want to buy a bunch of servers? In a lot of locales (MA, again), you have to pay taxes on the assets every year.

Want to sell real estate on the Internet? Hope you're a licensed broker!

Want to write an expert system that generates legal documents? You'd better have passed the bar exam. Actually, wait, even though that was good enough for Lincoln, these days you need to have actually ATTENDED lay school - a mere demonstration of proficiency is not enough.

Etc., etc., etc.

If this is how things are in the free-wheeling US, I imagine that it's far worse in Europe.

I think that people across the globe have what it takes to launch startups. I just think that the legal culture makes it very hard in most places.

<comment><USER3> Why is it bad that in order to automatically generate binding legal documents, someone involved needs to be educated in the subtleties of legal language? A walking, talking lawyer _should_ be personally responsible for the quality of the documents being generated. If there's no such person, you're putting the onus of validation on the client, which I think misses the entire point.

In most of these cases, it's not the government protecting existing companies, it's the government protecting the naive population. You won't fire someone after six months of unpaid labor, but someone else will. Your expert system might create air-tight contracts, but someone else will cut corners.

These laws do not exist solely to frustrate you. Part of being in a uniformly free society is ensuring that naive people are not at the mercy of the better informed or less scrupulous. Things can't work any other way.

<comment><USER2> > Why is it bad that in order to automatically generate binding legal > documents, someone involved needs to be educated in the subtleties of legal > language?

I wouldn't put up a huge stink if the law was "you must pass the bar exam".

However, the law is "you must attend 3 years of law school".

> These laws do not exist solely to frustrate you

Agreed. They exist to decrease the supply of lawyers, thus increasing the price that lawyers can demand.

Frustrating me is just a side effect.

<comment><USER3> I know a fair number of newly-minted laywers, and my understanding is that most of the concrete material tested in the bar exam is taught in the summer following graduation from law school. Law school is largely concerned with abstract concepts that are important, but more difficult to test.

I sympathize with your frustration, but the reason for the prerequisites could just as easily be that they don't believe they can create a test which properly encompasses everything a lawyer should know.

Also, at least in San Francisco, the job market seems to be saturated with lawyers, even before the economy went south.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I felt the effect of being in Silicon Valley the moment I moved out here. The area is not only teeming with endless talent, energy, and enthusiasm, but (and this is important) we have an entire culture that makes this talent, energy, and enthusiasm possible in the first place.

When I moved to San Francisco from Chicago, I felt the change immediately. People simply _get_ me out here. They understand why I'm doing what I'm doing. They ask intelligent, insightful questions. They give me invaluable advice. They share their knowledge freely. And they do all of this because they believe in -- and belong to -- the same amazing culture that I now do.

<comment><USER5> The flip side of that is there's a complete lack of any criticism, and to me it feels like that will be its downfall (Detroit met its downfall, and so will Silicon Valley). A recent case in point is the whole DiggBar controversy. I'd suggest that the criticism has come entirely from outsiders or people "not of the valley," Meanwhile there's been a whole tide of "digg is taking over the world," "digg is growing up" from the usual denizens of the echo chamber. And then there's Robert Scoble - a one-man black hole of uncritical praise for all things SV. Add to that the complete disappearance of IPOs or anything resembling an exit (in fact the big trend now seems to be the opposite of exits -- Stumbleupon, Skype) and this piece feels a bit pollyanna-ish.

<comment><USER6> You must have seen a strange slice of the Valley. People here think much more critically about startups than in the rest of the US. People in Nebraska aren't worrying about Twitter's business model.

<comment><USER7> You must have spent some time 'out west' during the Viaweb acquisition. How much did you see of the valley in those years? I lived in San Francisco in 1999 and early 2000, and thought things were actually pretty crazy. I don't think I knew anyone who wasn't doing something related to computers, and there was a very unhealthy "free money! wheeee!" attitude amongst a lot of people, so much of it was being sloshed around in a way that obviously wasn't sustainable.

Also, there were virtually no children, no old people, not many "middle class" people... it all just struck me as very out of kilter.

That's not to say that there aren't lots of good things, or that the area is a bad place or somewhere people shouldn't go, just that it has its downsides too. I got the feeling that it has never really cast off the 'gold rush' mentality: get in, get rich, get out. Sure, some do stay and make it their home (you, for instance), but so many move on that I never felt much sense of community, something that I do enjoy over here in Italy, and have found more of in other towns in the US.

> People in Nebraska aren't worrying about Twitter's business model.

They're busy getting rich with more traditional stuff that they understand:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Buffett>

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> At the beginning, there is always a 'center', but that does not negate the influence of the other districts. I suspect that PG has gotten caught up in a bit of the valley hype.

There are many more counterexamples. Microsoft (does it not count because it was pre-internet?) was a start-up outside the valley at one point. MySpace didn't start out in the valley. So why skype? because a valley company overpaid significantly for them? (I love skype though, i just don't think they are the best counterexample).

Detroit thought it had all the 'talent' and 'knowledge' in building cars, and then got it handed to them on both sides, cheaper and better from Asia, more expensive luxurious and better from Europe.

No question the valley has investors, and very talented ones at that. As costs for internet start-ups decreases, amazing open-source technologies like hadoop continue to spread, and talent realizes they can excel anywhere, why would the valley continue to as the center?

What will be the draw to keep people in the valley? Angel financing can now accomplish what only VC could a few years ago, and that continues to change. Ideas are not limited to the valley, technology is not limited, for many start-ups their are no physical goods, and when there are, those are created overseas.

So, though Silicon Valley may be the center today, what will make it the center tomorrow?

<comment><USER9> This comment seems to disregard the point of PG's essay. He's describing a network effect. Just as it's hard to create a startup community (not a single startup, as in your examples) you need the types of people who build startups present or on their way. The valley is full of people who are interested in startups and work with them to some capacity. It would be difficult to attract someone interested in startups to move to New Haven when there is already so much attraction to the valley. It's true, you could start a startup anywhere. It's probably going to happen in the valley.

<comment><USER8> Does network effect require a hub? Or will their be only one 'connector'?

</comment></comment></comment><comment> old-gregg When you interpret Paul's "startup" as a "newborn Internet media company" the essay makes a lot of sense, especially the comparison to movie business.

But if you interpret "startup" as "newborn consumer electronics company" or a "newborn software company" or anything else more generic not squeezed into a web page it falls short: first, the percentage of GDP generated by internet media is miniscule, the whole thing isn't that big, it's a sizable niche in a software development world but not more. For instance, when measuring life in "robotic startups" one may conclude the SV is not relevant, but Boston very much is, and Japan is taking over the world, I'm sure Trevor would agree with some of this.

<comment><USER10> The kind of companies Paul is talking about appear to be software companies, in general. More new software companies originate in Silicon Valley than anywhere else in the world by a wide margin. Most new software companies (Google, for example) tend to be internet companies, but that's just because the internet is the most sensible way to distribute most software now.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I think pg has misjudged what stage of the start-up revolution we're in.

He notes that the industrial revolution spread quickly because there were geographical areas with middle class populations and cultures that let people keep the large sums of money they made. He also notes that the culture necessary for large numbers of start-ups is not present in many areas.

IMO, we're no way near the railroad stage of the start-up revolution. I think we're in the early renaissance. The valley is like Venice in the 1400s. It's a very localised concentration of merchant traders and a culture of what we now call "modern values", meanwhile the rest Europe is living in the "dark ages". It wasn't until the plague spread across Europe and gave the surviving working classes more influence that the culture started to change. Even then, it's another 300 years before society really starts to change.

Looking at Europe in the 1400 hundreds you might well have thought that Venetian style modernism would be a very localised revolution and that these new fangled "banks" would only ever be established in small areas.

Start-ups are not the "railroads" of the industrial revolution. They are the "banks" of the industrial revolution.

<comment><USER12> The main problem with PG's article is that he is, as always, overly focused on startups. For something to be a revolution, it has to last for a while (otherwise it's just a rebellion, and a failed one on top of it), which is something directly opposite to the nature of startups.

By definition, startups don't last -- they either disappear (either by failing or M&A), or they stop being startups and turn into "regular" companies. But, that being said, I still think that Paul is on to something -- the future model of a succesful company is not a large multinational conglomerate like IBM, Microsoft or Shell, which is too large for its own good and where, like with dinosaurs, it takes ages for a signal to travel from limb to brain and back.

Instead, I believe that the future of companies lie in small, flexible and agile companies which have simple operations and global reach. This doesn't mean that a successful company should somehow prevent its own growth -- but it should grow in small units, sprouting new, smaller companies which operate on their own.

My favo(u)rite example, which proves that this model works, is the Virgin Group, which includes lots of small to medium sized companies which operate in a number of different industries. For a traditional, centralized company such diversity would be a suicide, but in this case the companies are connected by the common brand and its messages.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> "The most likely scenario is (1) that no government will successfully establish a startup hub"

Take a look at HaiDian/ZhongGuanCun in Beijing, chock full of startups big and small. From my understanding, the reason entrepreneurs flocked there originally was because HaiDian offered huge tax breaks versus the rest of China (for the explicit purpose of developing a high-tech industry).

In my eyes, HaiDian is a huge counter-example for the first point--not forgetting of course that the economic climate in China is one of urbanization unseen since the American Industrial Revolution.

<comment><USER14> PG does appear to assume ease of movement by potential founders to current startup hubs. Large cultural and language barriers remove this ease of movement. Perhaps a more rigorous claim is that there will be very few startup hubs per largely-different (culture,language) region.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Two nit picks:

1\. Innovation over the past couple centuries has not spread evenly. Cities always got a disproportional deal. That is why even today small towns all over the developing AND developed world are still losing people to the big cities.

2\. A big part of the high-tech startup concentration seems to be VC clustering. But if startups are to be a truly revolutionary change I hope we get away from the investor model and move closer to the paying customer model. And this would make the valley's regional advantage smaller.

<comment><USER16> Especially nowadays, with the direct costs of a web-based software startup approaching zero; there is no reason for fincanciers to be the bottleneck. When three motivated people working out of their homes can build a fully functional site; the direct costs to the founders aren't that different from their living expenses and there is no need for large amounts of capital until after product development is completed.

The main advantage of regional hubs is that of social density; easy access to expertise and enough demand for experts that they can survive and thrive.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17>
      In practice I doubt any government would have the balls to try this

I'm a bit surprised to see a metaphor about testicles used.

A few thoughts:

This isn't a revolution if it is localized.

Also, there might be a way to create a government that had the will needed.

It is going to get easier to start countries. Rich individuals like the leaders of Qatar are buying their way into a good university system, e.g. <http://www.qatar.cmu.edu/>

These two trends mean an empowered individual could start kickstart a startup hub with a clean slate of government. Immigration law, taxes, and other burdens could be removed, making it particularly appealing.

Schools for the kids of founders and university employees would be the hardest part, because we haven't seen an efficient pattern for schooling that is also effective.

</comment><comment><USER18> Am I the only one who sees the irony that so much localization is required for an industry that specializes in remotely connecting resources?

<comment><USER19> I do wonder if future improvements in communications technology will render the need to go to Silicon Valley moot.

If FutureHN can provide both a valleyesque enthusiastic social network and a contact with investors, will the benefits of migrating to S.Valley become less important?

<comment><USER18> It'll certainly be interesting to watch. I'd like to move to SV, but it's not really practical for me for a variety of reasons. So I'll keep plugging away out here; I don't really need investors (yet), but the idea of having so much technical talent in one place is really what makes Silicon Valley so unique in the world.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I'd still like to see you talk some more about the economic factors that point to startups being very common (Coase et al). In other words, what fundamentals have changed so that starting your own company is the best option for a sizable number of people. I think to predict a true revolution, you'd have to demonstrate that these conditions don't just exist in a particular high tech sector with amazingly low capital requirements, but across a much broader swath of the business world. For one thing, will capital requirements drop in other sectors too? Or is the web just a blip, and eventually capital requirements will eventually rise again as it takes more 'stuff' just to get off the ground? What other things come into play that mean that more people will strike out on their own. Are there historical precedents?

</comment><comment><USER20> All industries have "centers":

finance -- New York, Boston automobiles -- Detroit entertainment -- LA etc.

There are natural reasons for that: new companies are often founded by execs who think they can do better than the big companies they leave, infrastructure gets built up that benefits all in that given industry, talent begins to congregate in those areas, etc.

I think that different types of startups might be congregated around different geographic locales: biomedical startups would likely flourish near big research hospitals, etc. Service industry startups likely aren't clustered: restaurants, etc.

With technology startups, yes there is a natural clustering in Silicon Valley and Boston, but I think that's because tech startups are fairly new. I hear lots of good things coming out of Chicago, Austin, Columbus, Minneapolis, and elsewhere. It's definitely spreading.

<comment><USER21> This is on the line of why I think this article is actually pretty weak; it's acting like a bunch of known, understood factors are somehow new and revolutionary.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Yes, industrialisation "spread" in the sense that it was possible to use an engine anywhere, but in practice most countries developed tightly clustered industrial areas (as in heavy industry being the predominant economic engine), while others areas of the country remained either agricultural or mercantile or service economies.

The reality is that in any human endeavour (steel production, summer blockbusters, LCD screen manufacture, grunge, salmon farming, dadaism) there are clusters of activity - they do not preclude the activity being carried elsewhere, but the people who do carry out the activity at the cluster have both synergy gains, and act as a magnet so create a snowball effect.

Obviously the SV is a cluster of excellence for startups. Why is this expected to have a social impact, even if they do represent a new economic phase? (which personally I doubt - the numbers of people involved are just too small). I don't get it.

</comment><comment><USER23> "Startups don't seem to spread so well, partly because they're more a social than a technical phenomenon"

It's this social aspect that makes me think startups _will_ spread beyond some major centers. The Internet has proven to be great for "finding the others," be it for social/political/transactional kin.

Also, as pg suggested in an earlier essay, vc is only growing less necessary for many startups. The shrinking dependence on vc, and the social lubrication of the Internet suggests more startups will bloom in all sorts of places.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I appreciate the caution expressed in the essay; that it is unclear both that an event is on its way and that location is necessarily decided. No doubt SV is the capital of startups, but I still think in the world of startups it is slightly different than Hollywood or Wall Street because you _can_ do it with little money or connections. The distribution of startups across the world remains to be seen, but I agree often it will depend on who is offering the money.

To address the randomness of the revolution, I sincerely hope someone out there is developing some kind of portal to find all of these neat tools being developed. There are several YC apps in faq.html that, when put together, give many people no reason to really have any desktop software at all.

<comment><USER8> You must have posted this while I was putting out my rant below. I agree, though I'm confused by your last 'desktop software' comment.

<comment><AUTHOR> Which part?

Just as an example, let's say a school teacher uses her computer for email, web browsing, managing files, photo editing, and maintaining her second grade web site. Gmail, (some browser), dropbox, snipshot, and splashup/weebly would be all she needs.

If all these websites were somehow organized in a way that said teacher can easily find them, then I think a 'startup revolution' would be more likely: people could go to a central website to browse for startup that meets their needs.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> "People are dramatically more productive as founders or early employees of startups—imagine how much less Larry and Sergey would have achieved if they'd gone to work for a big company—and that scale of improvement can change social customs."

I question this assertion. I'd bet a single Google engineer who makes a 1% improvement in adsense targeting can create more economic value than most startup founders.

<comment><USER25> Exactly. Productivity only matters when it's directed properly. A brilliant MIT student working 20 hour days on some silly mash-up is not nearly as productive as a slow and obtuse engineer in some large corporation working 6 hours days. It's the results that count.

I would argue the contrary case to Paul's; I think that Silicon Valley has slowed down growth. They make it a lottery that you can win with having a cool, quick hit. The money in the valley has little love for hard problems and a lot of love for fads, much like record producers.

<comment><AUTHOR> This sounds nice in theory, but I don't think it is always true. There are techies who have a career and those who have a job. It is better to get as many who have a job doing what they are passionate about, because they are probably wasting their time at their job.

And I wish that at least one of the 100+ companies that have come out of YC were IPO bound. I tried to hint that we were of that mindset when we had applied, no cigar. I'm not really sure why YC continues to advance sites which seem to go against their own "Derivative Idea" rule for why startups fail (e.g. this round: a group bookmarking site, a themed video site which piggybacks on YouTube). It would be interesting if YC decided to have one round where they choose nothing but "hard problems" with huge potential.

<comment><USER25> I couldn't agree more about YC. The application questions would change to "we're only interested in single founders, but we will consider a technical co-founder." I think it also just makes sense for the "spray and pay" style to fund 1000 startups focusing on hard problems with the potential of 1 making up for it all.

When we hit it, dbul, you and I can put this together. Deal? :-)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> _(1) that no government will successfully establish a startup hub_

What about the Pearl Delta and Shanghai's Pudong district? Both seem to be smashing successes.

 _There are two very different types of startup._

I don't buy that there is a hard distinction between different types of startups (or even between startups and small businesses).

Any small business that tries to grow will create a differentiated offering. An ice cream shop might promote a special flavor, a restaurant will develop a certain vibe, a furniture company will create signature ergonomic chairs, a web form company will create an awesome UI, etc. The amount of uniqueness of the offering can be plotted along a continuum. When it passes a certain point, we call it a "tech startup".

The special thing about Silicon Valley is that it attracts a ton of many smart, talented, ambitious people. Therefore the offerings of their businesses tend to be very novel and differentiated. The supply of brilliant innovators is limited so it is not necessarily possible to replicate this everywhere (but I am guessing the world is very significantly under performing its potential).

Edit:

Perhaps another way of saying this is:

1) A startup is a small business that attempts to scale by developing a new technique (that technique can be a product or a way of doing operations).

2) Different sectors of the economy have different opportunities for developing new techniques. It's harder to develop new techniques in agriculture than in software.

3) In the absence of high transportation costs, industries tend to cluster ( autos in Detroit, entertainment in Hollywood, finance in New York, energy in Houston, education in Boston, software in Silicon Valley).

4) Silicon Valley has a cluster of industries that natural have a high level of new technique development (software and electronics). Therefore Silicon Valley has many startups.

That said, now I'm not sure I buy my own argument. Silicon Valley seems to have the most innovative companies in every industry. In addition to software startups, there are energy startups, automobile startups, etc. So Silicon Valley really is a cluster of companies that specialize in innovation. Perhaps the thing that limits the spread of Silicon Valley magic is that there are only so many innovative people, and only Silicon Valley has been able to attract a critical mass.

</comment><comment><USER25> I agree technology may represent a new economic phase -- but startups are just the way they're introduced. And it has nothing to do with productivity and everything to do with uniqueness of vision. If big companies did more things like Google's 20% project, you'd have the same effect.

Also, I think you ignored that VC is becoming less and less important. And as it gets less important, the big funding hubs will become less important. I see a future of micro-equity and the big hits coming out of everywhere.

Also, the hubs have a horrible self-delusional feedback loop. Once you get an entire environment that thinks the same way, these feedback loops are inevitable and you spiral into silliness, e.g. Twitter.

</comment><comment><USER27> The other question to consider is if the revolution is local, does that really matter for the society at large? The startups are creating value for the rest of society, regardless of where the startups are located. Using the internet as the means of distribution, decouples the location of the business from the consumers of the product, thus allowing the startups to have a central location. The business revolution will only matter for a subset of companies, mostly software companies.

<comment><USER6> The fact that the Industrial Revolution was localized mattered a lot to the regions that were left behind. It made them the victims in the ensuing era of colonialism.

<comment><USER25> That's true, but meaningless. History is only our friend when it applies. A lot of technology is now software based and thanks to the web, it is immediately distributed evenly to all those who have computers with internet access. While that still leaves out a large chunk of the world, it gives no substantial benefit to the place where the technology was born.

<comment><USER28> Open source and internet help to spread software source. But the mindset of how a piece of software solve users' problems are still limited the location that the software is created.

It will be more like a culture barrier. For a culture that has no sense of custom satisfaction, the user interface for e-commerce will never be as good as Apple or Amazon. We as technologists sometime forget a lot of our assumptions are based on our environment.

<comment><USER25> That's a perfect reply. You're absolutely right, but I know a lot of companies who've made a fortune doing "Ebay for Switzerland", etc. Businesses will step in to fill that gap to a certain extent but the applications themselves reflect the hub culture. Excellent point.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Regarding spreading, it seems to me that location doesn't matter as much as it could. I've never lived in the Valley, or in any other stereotypical "tech hub" though, so I could be wrong there.

I'm currently working for what I consider to be a startup in a small town in the UK. We're making software that is applicable to a specific industry, and the industry is _very_ hungry for it. I'm currently the only programmer.

What looks like the probable course for us (and probably for other people like us - people starting up software dev stuff in smaller areas), is that once we've sold what we're working on right now, we'll probably move on to doing more interesting things, and form a small software development house of sorts.

What we're doing right now would be utterly impossible without the internet, if only due to communication-over-distance issues.

I think that the stereotypical "startup" is just the start of what we'll continue to see as more and more people realize that they can make their livelihood online. What I'm doing doesn't fit the stereotypical startup mold, but is the type of thing that I think we'll see more and more of, assuming nothing majorly bad happens to the internet or society in general.

</comment><comment><USER30> I'd LOVE to have outsource a few hours worth of google research to plot the founding locations of all of the startups on these lists:

[http://startup.partnerup.com/2009/04/08/complete-list- of-q1-...](http://startup.partnerup.com/2009/04/08/complete-list- of-q1-2009-web-internet-tech-acquisitions-companies-bought-and-sold/) [http://startup.partnerup.com/2009/01/06/complete- list-2008-w...](http://startup.partnerup.com/2009/01/06/complete- list-2008-web-tech-internet-acquisitions/) [http://startup.partnerup.com/2008/01/02/2007-acquisitions- we...](http://startup.partnerup.com/2008/01/02/2007-acquisitions-web-internet- technology/)

Of course, SV would dominate, but I wonder by how much. It'd be REALLY interesting to see it as a ratio to total startups started, but I think that'd be a harder # to come by.

I think startup success is fueled by how many people have the desire to start something up and access to early-stage funding. The Valley clearly dominates the latter, but it seems (anecdotally) that hackers who want to spin something up are becoming more commonplace in non-valley locations.

</comment><comment><USER31> The essay's stated thesis is that the Valley is and will continue to be a hub for startups because of the abundance of Venture Capital and talent, both of which are produced by previous startups, maintaining a strong cycle of success. At the same time, the essay points out that Seattle is a center because Gates and Allen wanted to move back home, and it has been suggested in past essays that Venture Capital is increasingly less necessary for startups.

My impression is that PG has unintentionally suggested that the current state of high housing prices and less Venture Capital could easily reduce the Valley's role in the startup market. The way for other cities to capitalize on this is to convince smaller, upcoming companies to move "back home", or not relocate to the Valley in the first place. As some commenters have pointed out, other states may have legislation that is less inviting to startups, and these should be repealed.

Ultimately, startups will probably flourish wherever smart, ambitious people want to live, as long as the government treats them well.

</comment><comment><USER32> Starting little businesses to write microblogging and photo sharing websites does not matter in the scope of human history. Comparing web startups to the industrial revolution?! You gotta be kidding me, I don't care how much ajax or standards compliance or user generated content your social grocery networking website has, you're deluding yourself.

</comment><comment><USER33> On the other hand, it's easy to break into the startup industry from anywhere in the world. You just need to gain a certain number of customers and following, and you will be noticed. Contrast that with the film industry, where the need for expensive equipment means that financing is critical to every venture.

It makes sense for the film industry to be concentrated in hubs because of the huge expenses in each film. It does not make sense for startups, because such expenses don't exist, and the need for connections, while important, is not critical.

So, though the trend may look like it's going towards major hubs for now, over time this will normalise itself as those players who are not able to go to the startup hubs will fragment and create successful companies all over.

There will be few major hubs for technology startups - but they won't be ever as concentrated as hollywood - simply because there is no need for them to be so.

</comment><comment><USER34> I wonder if a smaller local revolution has happened before: formation and spread of great research universities. Govts have tried to set up great research universities by will, China is trying hard, India is making small steps, so are places like Germany. But they have not succeeded yet. Even in a small country like UK, only 3 great universities have emerged.

Within US, Stanford is today a great research university but it was not so in 1945. Great luck like the combination of cold war spending and the idea of steeples of excellence by Terman made it happen. Uni. of Florida or ASU may be today aspiring to greatness, but they are fighting the 'locality' of research universities. Maybe some random events will help them out.

<comment><USER35> "only 3 great universities have emerged."

Do you mean Oxford, Cambridge, UCL?

Oxford & Cambridge are not 1 university, there are a lot of different colleges.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> Nobody seemed to mention (in a quick read) that the local/legal environment influences whether startups fly or not. Boston was a startup hub well before Silicon Valley was flying, but it's my understanding that IP and labor law in MA is (far?) more favorable to the employer than the employee - as compared to California.

If you're going to look for an environment that has "movement" of ideas and people, the environment has to be conducive to this. California has done well, but might strangle itself on commuting costs, the lack of infrastructure and the costs of living there.

It'll be hard for states to favor new vs. old businesses, but there's 50 of them out there, and a number of them will probably give it a go at some point.

</comment><comment><USER37> Information technology is still just a fraction of the whole world economy. I don't think it is big enough for anyone to have the slightest idea of what the world will be like when we actually become an information-based economy.

I think the point that people like the google founders were many many times more productive than their equally-smart employees counterpat is important, but I think the same contrast can be found on people working on their free software projects compared to people working on their day-job projects.

I personally think that things like free software will have much more impact in the future economic revolutions than the concept of "start-up".

* sorry for my weak english :/

</comment><comment><USER38> It is pretty neat to wonder if, during the Industrial Revolution, people had nearly-free ways to ship their manufactured products and electricity, if there'd have been more than a few hubs, or if it would have worked out about the same.

</comment><comment><USER39> I am keeping my eyes on Boulder, CO. From what I hear, good university, good business climate, willing to take initiatives (Smart Grid being rolled out as we type).

Now if they only had ocean access... :)

<comment><USER40> Boulder _is_ a good example of how to foster a tech hub. Wired had a print story about this a few months back, but I couldn't find it on their site. Though they did claim that Colorado's Front Range is an optimal site for a new SV. Given time, I agree.

I can say that there is a very open and supportive start-up culture here (Boulder & Denver metro). Tech Meetups and LUG groups are pretty active; the new-tech group based in Boulder routinely overfills 300-seat auditoriums and is expanding to handle the traffic. Most tech folks here have the mentality of wanting others to succeed, no matter if it is with our own companies or with a different one. We are happy to share knowledge.

Sorry no beachfront though, you'd have to settle for the best mountain sports anywhere.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> If you want to see startup revolution as the norm, just go to Asia. I'm sure Paul Graham has seen the scale of small business across the Mideast, China, Southeast Asia, for that matter the whole world, I just haven't been to South America so I can't speak about that.

It's kinda helpful to look past your own borders sometimes. There's a lot more lint in the world than just in your own belly button.

</comment><comment><USER42> as i told Paul when he sent me this essay, he's got it all wrong. silicon valley's rate of startup growth is slowing and the rate of startup growth in many of the leading cities of the world (london, bejing, mumbai, banglore, new york, tel aviv, berlin, etc) is increasing. i think Paul's view has been skewed by living in Boston and Silicon Valley. Boston's startup ecosystem has been in decline for almost ten years now and when compared to Silicon Valley, it looks like game over. But if you chart the number of new startups funded by angels and VCs in all these cities since 1995, you'll see the right picture. I did that for my web 2.0 keynote and if i can find the chart, i'll post a link here

</comment><comment><USER43> Let's move to New Zealand. Auckland is a beautiful city and NZ has 0% tax rate on capital gain.

</comment><comment><USER44> Excellent essay, as usual. Question: does this imply that Silicon Valley will continue to grow as a result of being the dominant location for startups? And if so, is there a point at which its size will diminish its superiority?

</comment><comment><USER45> What about the spread of existing hubs? How much bigger is Silicon Valley than it was a couple of decades ago? How many start-ups and how much land will it encompass in another 20 years?

</comment><comment><USER46> Paul, this post gives me hope. I'm now in a university belt and we're about to turn up the research heat and our students are seriously looking into startups - perhaps your localization will materialize before our very eyes. And yes, still no Silicon Valley equivalent to contend with at the moment!

</comment><comment><USER47> _If so, this revolution is going to be particularly revolutionary_ lol every revolution is revolutionary that is why it is called a revolution and I doubt you may have a particular revolutionary revolution lol

Anyway, you may say that the intellectual revolution of the enlightenment was local, it started in Italy and remained there for a while, some century I think. But this is not a start up revolution, it is a technological revolution, the revolution is not the start up culture but the advances made in communication technology. As such it is not any different than the industrial revolution as far as the importing of technological aspects is concerned. Nor is it any different from a power plant, every nation must have internet and with Italian internet comes Italian Google, which as it happens I think it is libero.it although that might be more like yahoo than google. So perhaps now the start up culture is localised to silicon valley, but I doubt it will be long until a silicon valley appears in London or Rome or Berlin.</comment>


Updates on twin prime polymath project  - <AUTHOR> http://terrytao.wordpress.com/2013/08/17/polymath8-writing-the-paper/

<comment><USER2> The whole bounded gap on prime numbers was particularly interesting to me, since we kind of got to see math happen in real time:

[http://michaelnielsen.org/polymath1/index.php?title=Bounded_...](http://michaelnielsen.org/polymath1/index.php?title=Bounded_gaps_between_primes)

It's neat to be able to see what improvements were thought of and exactly how long it took these mathematicians to think of them.

</comment><comment><USER3> Trivial aside - there appears to be a bug with the LaTeX-generated images on that post that produces this somewhat amusing screenshot:

[http://imgur.com/mAG3dWO](http://imgur.com/mAG3dWO)

It's pretty interesting just how _many_ revisions the constant H has gone through:

[http://michaelnielsen.org/polymath1/index.php?title=Bounded_...](http://michaelnielsen.org/polymath1/index.php?title=Bounded_gaps_between_primes)

A copy of the original paper:

[https://www.dropbox.com/s/su3uak2a057yrqv/YitangZhang.pdf](https://www.dropbox.com/s/su3uak2a057yrqv/YitangZhang.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER4> Okay, for those who glanced at the article and (like me) couldn't immediately understand what the "breakthrough" was about, here is a simple explanation ripped off from replys there:

 _What these brilliant mathematicians are trying to do is solve a 3000 year- old problem which is to prove that no matter how high up in the numbers you look you will always find some twin primes. Primes are whole numbers that are exactly divisible only by themselves and one; an example is "13." Twin primes are primes separated by 2 as in 11 and 13, or 17 and 19._

<comment><USER5> Zhang proved that there are infinite "twin primes" separated by 80,000,000 or less. People have been lowering the bound, but it seems like this approach will not reach the goal of 2 without another breakthrough.

<comment><USER6> Tao mentions in the post that H=16 has already been proven [1].

[1] [http://arxiv.org/abs/math/0508185](http://arxiv.org/abs/math/0508185)

<comment><USER7> I don't think that's what he's saying. What Goldston et al. have proved is that Zhang's approach can't prove a bound any better than H=16 without major modifications, but it doesn't actually establish the H=16 bound. In principle, if the twin prime conjecture were only true for, say, H=20, that would still be consistent with both results.

<comment><USER6> Nevermind, I saw "we prove that there are infinitely often primes differing by 16 or less" but missed the caveat "assuming the Elliott-Halberstam conjecture".</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Is earth travelling at 0.88 speed of light - <AUTHOR>

Hi,
I am confused by the article on http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13964767. If light left the black hole 0.77 billon years after the big band how can it take 12.9 billon years for the light to get to the earth?
Unless I have misunderstood the article. A quick response will stop me pulling all my hair out. Are we saying at that time or as the light is near a black hole the laws of physics were different. Otherwise we would need to be travelling at about 0.88 speed of light for it to be true. Cheers guys. <comment><USER2> It could be due to Inflation (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology)>). This is where the universe expands faster than the speed of light, since it's not the matter moving, but the space between it that's expanding. Not my area though, so would welcome thoughts from someone intelligent in that area. JB

</comment><comment><USER2> Hey Miahi, good point, but if the light set off at .77bn years, and we assume it's on the edge of the far side of the universe to us, we'd be at most 1.54bn light years apart (were it not for Inflation) when the light left. We'd be moving away from the light, but it's taken 12.9bn years to cover the initial 1.54bn light years and subsequently catch up with us. JB

<comment><USER3> Found this note here: [http://www.science20.com/news_articles/ulas_j11200641_most_d...](http://www.science20.com/news_articles/ulas_j11200641_most_distant_quasar_yet-80376)

[2] Because light travels at a finite speed, astronomers look back in time as they look further away into the Universe. It took 12.9 billion years for the light from ULAS J1120+0641 to travel to telescopes on Earth so the quasar is seen as it was when the Universe was only 770 million years old. In those 12.9 billion years, the Universe expanded and the light from the object stretched as a result. The cosmological redshift, or simply redshift, is a measure of the total stretching the Universe underwent between the moment when the light was emitted and the time when it was received.

<comment><USER2> Hey Miahi, I agree with what you, but I think Ifran's question is about why the light had to travel so far in the first place.

If you assume(?) that the maximum speed anything can travel is the speed of light, and ignore factors such as space expanding (redshift / inflation) then at .77bn years the radius of the universe would be .77bn ly, so the maximum distance between two objects (A & B) is 1.54bn ly. Now if light leaves A it has to travel that 1.54bn ly to point B; it shouldn't take 12.9bn ly to do this. However, A and B aren't fixed points - so though the light from A is heading towards B, B is trying to run away (albeit at a slower pace). Here, Ifran's calculated the minimum average speed at which B would be running from A as .88c (if we assume that light from B is moving at c and not influenced by any interference, and that both A and B moved at c for the first .77bn years). That seems to be moving too fast, given at this stage in the universe's life the known/current laws of physics apply. Redshift can account for some of this, and Inflation means that the starting distance can also be much larger than the assumed 1.54bn ly, which hopefully explains the rest?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> If that black hole is 12.9 billion light-years away, it takes 12.9 billion years for the light to travel to us. Considering the age of the Universe 13.75 billion years, what they actually presume in the article is that we don't move at all: 12.9 (the time of the travel) + 0.77 (the age of the light) = 13.67, in the error margin of the age of the Universe (± 0.11).

</comment><comment><USER4> From it's point of view, we are travelling away from it really fast.</comment>


Ask HN: Do you misuse apps? - <AUTHOR>

Do you quickly check if you have a working internet connection by looking at CloudApp (exclamation mark on cloud = no internet connection)?
Do you ever write MON, TUE, ... in front of the task in things even though you're using the 'Today ' tab?
Do you misuse apps? How and how often? <comment><USER2> The one of these I'm conscious of is using the web browser's location bar as a quick text editing area, including pasting in to it then cutting out of it as a way to remove text formatting from something on the clipboard.

<comment><USER3> I do this all the time too.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I don't think there's a sysadmin in existence who hasn't misused $(cat). It's really for concatenating 2 files, but only rarely have I ever used it or seen it used for anything other than quickly checking contents of a file; e.g., $(cat package.json | grep version).

<comment><USER5> why not write $(grep version package.json)?

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I use apps. They may not always be used for their intended purpose but my use of them provides my desired result either more efficiently, conveniently or cheaply than other methods available to me.

I think all of us do so daily without even knowing about it.

</comment><comment><USER7> I don't misuse apps.. although I do misuse APIs, if you catch my drift :)</comment>