Military Professional Reading Lists - <AUTHOR> http://militaryprofessionalreadinglists.com/

<comment><USER2> A few more I would add ( not sure if they are "professional" enough but all very insightful and similar to the existing ones on that list ).

1\. Boyd ( [http://www.amazon.com/Boyd-Fighter-Pilot-Who-Changed- ebook/d...](http://www.amazon.com/Boyd-Fighter-Pilot-Who-Changed- ebook/dp/B000FA5UEG/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1413663919&sr=8-1&keywords=boyd) ) - Came up with the EM theory that gave the air force the analytical framework to analyze dog fighting maneuvers and aircraft. Known for authoring the OODA loop and leading the infamous Fighter Mafia that gave us the F-16 and F/A-18

2\. Warfight ( [http://www.amazon.com/Warfighting-M-Gray- ebook/dp/B00DPTK4ZE...](http://www.amazon.com/Warfighting-M-Gray- ebook/dp/B00DPTK4ZE/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1413664039&sr=8-1&keywords=warfighting) ) Boyd' OODA ideas distilled into a book

3\. The American Way of War ( [http://www.amazon.com/The-American-Way-War- University/dp/B00...](http://www.amazon.com/The-American-Way-War- University/dp/B006Q2J5U2/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1413664077&sr=8-2&keywords=the+american+way+of+war) )

4\. Engineers of Victory ( [http://www.amazon.com/Engineers-Victory-Problem- Solvers-Turn...](http://www.amazon.com/Engineers-Victory-Problem-Solvers- Turned- ebook/dp/B004J4WNMG/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1413664110&sr=8-1&keywords=engineers+of+victory) ) - a decent account of how middle level officers solve problems that allowed strategies to be realized

5\. Makers of Modern Strategy ( [http://www.amazon.com/Makers-Modern-Strategy- Machiavelli-Nuc...](http://www.amazon.com/Makers-Modern-Strategy-Machiavelli- Nuclear/dp/0691027641/ref=pd_sim_b_1?ie=UTF8&refRID=0H50REC7PKWGTQWQ6HP3) )

6\. The German Army ( [http://www.amazon.com/German-Army-1933-1945-Matthew- Cooper/d...](http://www.amazon.com/German-Army-1933-1945-Matthew- Cooper/dp/0812885198/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1413664230&sr=8-1&keywords=the+german+army) ) - A great account of the rise and fall of the German army, including its innovations caused by the constraints imposed on it and its fall

7\. Panzer Battles ( [http://www.amazon.com/Panzer-Battles-Major-General-von- Melle...](http://www.amazon.com/Panzer-Battles-Major-General-von- Mellenthin/dp/1862274592/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1413664290&sr=8-1&keywords=panzer+battles) ) - a great account how the various battles fought by the German army and where they excelled and where their shortcomings are and vice versa for their enemies.

8\. The Second World War( [http://www.amazon.com/Second-World-War-Antony- Beevor-ebook/d...](http://www.amazon.com/Second-World-War-Antony-Beevor- ebook/dp/B007ME5BUG/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1413664362&sr=8-1&keywords=beevor+second+world+war) ) - Great "summary" of the Second World War, including the civilian dimension.

9\. Panzer Leader ( [http://www.amazon.com/Panzer-Leader-Heinz- Guderian/dp/030681...](http://www.amazon.com/Panzer-Leader-Heinz- Guderian/dp/0306811014/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1413664476&sr=8-3&keywords=panzer+attack) ) - a history of the development and deployment of the German panzer armies by the father of tank warfare himself.

10\. Six Days of War ( [http://www.amazon.com/Days-June-Making-Modern- Middle/dp/B004...](http://www.amazon.com/Days-June-Making-Modern- Middle/dp/B0042NKD4Y/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1413664552&sr=8-3&keywords=six+days+of+war) )

11\. The Yom Kippur War ( [http://www.amazon.com/Yom-Kippur-War-Encounter- Transformed-e...](http://www.amazon.com/Yom-Kippur-War-Encounter-Transformed- ebook/dp/B000XUBECU/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1413664580&sr=8-1&keywords=the+yom+kippur+war) ) - an account of the Yom Kippur War and how the Israelis were blind to the innovations of the Egyptian army that upended its defense strategy based on tanks and aircraft and also how a near victory for the Egyptians allowed them to negotiate a peace with Israel.

<comment><USER3> > 10\. Six Days of War ( [http://www.amazon.com/Days-June-Making-Modern- > Middle/dp/B004...](http://www.amazon.com/Days-June-Making-Modern- > Middle/dp/B004..). )

If you're going to read this, the same author (Michael Oren, former Israeli ambassador to the US) wrote a book called _Power, Faith and Fantasy: America in the Middle East 1776 to Present_. A fascinating look at America's involvement in the region since the founding fathers.

The book falls short during the post-WWII period and the author fully acknowledges that weakness but up to that point the book is fantastic.

<comment><USER2> Thanks for the recommendation. That book looks fantastic!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> What is scary to me is that Michael Scheuer[0] is not mentioned at all [1], judging from my first obvious search for his groundbreaking Imperial Hubris.

Now, I know he does not count as military professional, but as a 20+ year counter-terrorism and counter-intel officer who lays out clearly our policy is fucking us and how we will inevitably lose the so-called GWoT.

He wrote it anonymously, at the time. So if you like Snowden, you will love him. I would hope a reading list about the most important combat operation of the 21st century for USG armed forces would read harsh criticism in an attempt to win something so important.

[0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Scheuer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Scheuer)

[1] [http://militaryprofessionalreadinglists.com/search?keywords=...](http://militaryprofessionalreadinglists.com/search?keywords=hubris)

<comment><USER5> There are many great interviews by Scott Horton with Scheuer. [http://scotthorton.org/tag/michael- scheuer/](http://scotthorton.org/tag/michael-scheuer/)

<comment><USER4> Cool. I will check those out.

I still want to underline, how can this OP website not mention anything with him.

(Unforunately, he ended up working at Georgetown, and I could not stand him after that, haha.)

<comment><AUTHOR> The site only contains various military reading lists, so apparently Scheur's book hasn't been represented on any of those - at least not the ones that I've managed to collect, that is.

But the "Defense Academy of the UK" list has a book by David Owen (The Hubris Syndrome: Bush, Blair & the Intoxication of Power) that sounds like it's in the same ballpark.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I'd also have to add the companion to Grossman's book "On Killing," "On Combat." [0]

[0] [http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0964920549/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_d...](http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0964920549/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_dp_ss_1?pf_rd_p=1944579862&pf_rd_s=lpo- top- stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=0316040932&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=1N78PE5PQC6H1TFB1JQB)

<comment><AUTHOR> Yup, "On Combat" is on the Air Force reading list. And "On Killing" has shown up on four different reading lists.

The only author I can think of who gets more space there is probably John Keegan; he's everywhere: [http://militaryprofessionalreadinglists.com/search?keywords=...](http://militaryprofessionalreadinglists.com/search?keywords=keegan) .

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Let's not forget the timeless classic by Major General Smedley Butler: War Is A Racket[0].

[0][http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html](http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html)

</comment><comment><USER8> So much of how you decide to lead comes down to your philosophy, so I'm surprised they didn't include

Meditations by Marcus Aurelius: [http://classics.mit.edu/Antoninus/meditations.html](http://classics.mit.edu/Antoninus/meditations.html)

</comment><comment><USER9> I never know how to approach massive (meta)-lists like this. I'm sure a lot of those books are worth reading, but I have no idea how to pick the good from the bad. (And how to prioritize the good).

<comment><USER10> I know what you mean, but if you are interested in this stuff at all then reading not-the-very-best one is still better than reading none, so pick any that seems interesting to you and start with it immediately. I found forcing myself to use this approach so much more useful than wasting time on all that meta-research (making lists of worthy books, asking for recommendations, etc) I am naturally inclined to do.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Interesting but what are you guys making out of it? Are you trying to get towards a more strategic mindset? Or what are the main take aways for you reading military literature?

<comment><USER12> There are lessons in leadership in many military texts.

<comment><USER13> same here. i recall once reading that generals aren't born, they're made. and looking at how an organization builds, screens and develops leaders of (sometimes exceptional) quality is a worthwhile investment of my time.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Good collection but your domain is very non imaginative. How you expect anyone to remember it?

<comment><AUTHOR> When I started the site 6 years ago I was on a "four word domain name" kick. Also, sadly, militaryreadinglists.com was already taken.</comment></comment>


What does the 'rc' in `.bashrc`, etc. mean? - <AUTHOR> https://superuser.com/questions/173165/what-does-the-rc-in-bashrc-etc-mean <comment><USER2> The Jargon File is still a great resource for this kind of search and if you like these background stories like me you might also enjoy reading all of it.

> [Unix: from `runcom files' on the CTSS system 1962-63, via the startup > script /etc/rc] Script file containing startup instructions for an > application program (or an entire operating system), usually a text file > containing commands of the sort that might have been invoked manually once > the system was running but are to be executed automatically each time the > system starts up. See also dot file, profile (sense 1).

0\. [https://www.eps.mcgill.ca/jargon/jargon.html#rc%20file](https://www.eps.mcgill.ca/jargon/jargon.html#rc%20file)

<comment><USER3> The canonical location of that link is:

[http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/R/rc- file.html](http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/R/rc-file.html)

<comment><USER4> The canonical location of the jargon file is at jargon-file.org, which contains not just ESR's jargon-file, but also pre-ESR versions. Apparently he ripped a lot out that represented LISP and ITS culture, and spun some of the political aspects of it to conform more to his taste.

"rc-file" does not seem to be present pre-ESR, however: [https://jargon- file.org/archive/jargon-1.0.3.dos.txt](https://jargon- file.org/archive/jargon-1.0.3.dos.txt)

<comment><USER5> Because we didn't have any Unix systems at MIT while that collection of terms was assembled. I think the first unix system I saw at the LCS was around 80 or 81.

The gnu project was developed on a vax running Unix that somehow had been installed at the AI lab. Nobody used it so RMS decided to use it as a development machine. We had our own OSes, languages, and hardware and at that point in time Unix offered significantly less power for a large investment of effort.

<comment><USER6> LCS ran a pdp-11/45 in 1974 that was used to teach lisp. I don't believe it ran unix, but it definitely was multi-user.

<comment><USER5> I think it was probably RSTS/E. There were other pdp-11s like the KTV or XGP machines. There might have been Unix machines someplace (MIT is a big place) I just meant that never saw any, and in particular around where quux was assembling the jargon file.

<comment><USER7> Nope. It ran an in-house OS named "Delphi". There was a PDP 11/45 at LCS and a PDP 11/40 in building 38 used to teach 6.031 (the predecessor of 6.001).

<comment><USER8> Is there any information available about this "Delphi" OS?

I've always found obscure historical operating systems fascinating.

<comment><USER4> If you're still interested you might want to ask on TUHS: [https://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/](https://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Still referred to as "runcom" by FreeBSD init (pid 1), for example, in reference to the /etc/rc program (pid 2):

[https://github.com/freebsd/freebsd/blob/master/sbin/init/ini...](https://github.com/freebsd/freebsd/blob/master/sbin/init/init.c#L1041-L1054)

<comment><USER10> > Still referred to as "runcom" by FreeBSD init

Not to be confused with zombocom.

<comment><USER11> Welcome to you who have come to zombocom!

<comment><USER12> This is zombo com [https://html5zombo.com/](https://html5zombo.com/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> For me, the hard part is remembering if .bashrc is supposed to source .bash_profile or vice versa.

<comment><USER14> My rule of thumb: shell-independent commands go to .profile, those ran at boot time go to .bash_profile (or shell-appropriate) which then sources .profile, those ran each time you open a new shell go to .bashrc (or shell-appropriate).

<comment><USER15> OSX is an exception. OSX runs a login shell for each new terminal window and executes .bash_profile. # [http://www.joshstaiger.org/archives/2005/07/bash_profile_vs....](http://www.joshstaiger.org/archives/2005/07/bash_profile_vs.html)

<comment><USER16> You can do that in most (all?) Unix terminal emulators. It's the -ls option to xterm and rxvt, or a checkbox in {gnome,mate}-terminal.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Tangentially related - but for those interested in finding out the ideas behind various Debian package names: [https://wiki.debian.org/WhyTheName](https://wiki.debian.org/WhyTheName)

</comment><comment><USER18> My first introduction to .___rc files was with irix back in college. Somehow I got it into my head that it stood for Resource Chest. I probably just made it up.

<comment><USER19> I've never heard that before, but I like it. and next time somebody is asking this question, I'll probably remember it and repeat it as if it were fact.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> I was always thinking it was mean something around Resource or Configuration ... For what it means it's just off how is used now, for example, the common `.prettierc` is a JSON configuration object, just that. I feel like culturally the `rc` suffix means Configuration.

Maybe unlikely but maybe still, this is one of those things how language evolves where a word/suffix has an original meaning that is lost in the practical use day today.

Well, at least! I had no idea the meaning behind it, and it amazes me how I never think it about it.

<comment><USER21> In .prettierc only c is the suffix actually. `rc` has never meant configuration for me. I actually always wondered about what it meant too.

<comment><USER22> They meant .prettierrc: [https://prettier.io/docs/en/configuration.html](https://prettier.io/docs/en/configuration.html)

<comment><USER21> Well, I have to admit he is right and I'm wrong.

<comment><USER23> Careful. You can break the internet with a comment like that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Funny, I came across this very same question/similar answer yesterday in "Build Awesome Command-Line Applications in Ruby 2" by David Copeland (Pragmatic Programming, 2013): [0]

"The .rc Suffix (Origin Story)

Most UNIX commands use the suffix rc for the name of configuration files. According to Wikipedia, this extension isn't an acronym for "resource configuration" or "runtime configuration" but comes from a command called RUNCOM.

RUNCOM was created by Louis Pouzin for the Compatible Time-Sharing System (CTSS), which was one of the first time-sharing operating systems. RUNCOM was used to execute a series of commands in succession—a precursor to what we now call a shell script.

He is even credited with coining the term shell, as he describes in a post on the Internet from 2000 on the origins of the shell:

'After having written dozens of commands for CTSS, I reached the stage where I felt that commands should be usable as building blocks for writing more commands, just like subroutine libraries. Hence, I wrote "RUNCOM", a sort of shell driving the execution of command scripts, with argument substitution. The tool became instantly most popular [sic], as it became possible to go home in the evening while leaving behind long runcoms executing overnight.

Without being invited on the subject, I wrote a paper explaining how the Multics command language could be designed with [the] objective [of using commands somehow like a programming language]. And I coined the word "shell" to name it.'

Although RUNCOM (and CTSS) has long-been retired from regular use, its legacy lives on both as the name for user-specific configuration files and as the basis for the UNIX start-up scripts, typically located in /etc/rc.d."

[0] [https://pragprog.com/book/dccar2/build-awesome-command- line-...](https://pragprog.com/book/dccar2/build-awesome-command-line- applications-in-ruby-2)

<comment><USER25> But oddly, in Multics they became "ec" (execute command maybe?).

r 13:41 0.055 7

ls >sc1>system_start_up.ec

Segments = 1, Lengths = 2.

r w 2 system_start_up.ec

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Previous thread with 126 comments on the Wikipedia article about Run Commands: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20853214](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20853214)

The comments are more interesting than the Wikipedia article...

</comment><comment><USER27> I go back and forth on my feeling about terseness, abbreviations and 3 letter acronyms. 3LA are almost always annoying, specially since they overlap so much.

In source code sometimes a longer name really helps, but then some people take it to the extreme and make everything look pretty ugly and tedious to work with.

In this case, I guess it would not had been that bad to name the files `.bash.runcommands`. `.bourne-again-shell.run-commands`: maybe too much :-)

<comment><USER28> I think the issue is that abreviations and acronyms are mostly ok only when its meaning is so widespread it's unmistakable - but then again, an acronym never reaches that state at birth.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> "Run Commands". These text files contain commands that are to be run during startup, like when starting a new bash session, for example.

<comment> john-radio OP isn't asking the question; they shared a hyperlink to a StackOverflow conversation that answers the question.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> Never bothered to google, but always assumed it was something like 'respective config' :D

</comment><comment><USER31> It means 'run commands,' I googled it for you.

Just google for "rc unix meaning", as I did. Have to acknowledge I didn't know it either. But now we all know. Good question.

Edit: more info here, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Run_commands](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Run_commands) .

<comment><USER32> > Just google for "rc unix meaning", as I did.

FYI, the link mentions not only 'run commands' but also 'resource control', 'run control', and 'runtime configuration'.

Instead of bashing a stranger to google, reading the link might be more productive.

<comment><USER33> It's plausible that the GP was trying to teach someone the basics of how to research this thing.

<comment><USER22> I do wonder if it's time for some tiny social cost to not even doing a cursory google search, though. It couldn't be easier, yet all sorts of people's time is wasted on places like r/learnspanish by people asking "what's pero vs perro?"

<comment><USER34> > yet all sorts of people's time is wasted on places like r/learnspanish by > people asking "what's pero vs perro?"

Yet, if they felt like it was a waste of time they wouldn't bother answering those people at all. It's not like anyone is forced to respond to someone asking a question with an easily searched for answer. But people choose to, so they obviously must feel like it's a good use of their time.

<comment><USER35> Because people in general would prefer to shit on the person asking to feel better about their own mighty intelligence and preserve ego. That said, I have to admit there are some pretty low effort questions around on Quora that sometimes I wonder if they're just generated by a bot actually. The whole 'explain what the difference between dog vs dogs is' type questions do leave me perplexed

<comment><USER34> >explain what the difference between dog vs dogs is'

To be fair, I actually made a search like that recently and was directed to quora which actually had a question and answer related to the dogs I was searching for.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Alternatives to Credit Rating Agency Cartel - <AUTHOR> It's clear the current system sucks: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11471151 It's an oligopoly, and it's damaging people's lives.
This is fundamentally a data and identity problem, so I thought I'd ask all you smart people here:
What are some alternatives to the current credit rating agency system? It's gotta go! <comment><USER2> Place responsibility back on the party with the most to lose in the situation- the one risking something.

Don't want to have to evict your tenant? Don't sign them for an overpriced lease with expensive ammenities if you can't afford the risk.

Does your potential employee seem a bit off? Why are you considering hiring them?

Sure, you can stick with the current method of pullinh credit reports, but then why do companies turn away good people, AND continue to get burned by wolves in sheep's clothing?</comment>


I had my second company stolen. Also, bonus office scandal - <AUTHOR> https://nubela.co/blog/how-to-steal-a-company-and-sleep-with-your-22-year-old-employee/ <comment><USER2> Willingly choosing to leave your company because you don't like how your 50:50 partner is behaving is not 'losing' your company. It's giving it away. Let's face it as well, in any small startup, losing 1 of your founders is often the death knell. Especially if you're going to walk off with half the money. It doesn't sound like the company he left really lasted long after he left - it's got a website with no updates since 2015.

This article also shows a real lack of self-reflection and judgment. There are lots of lessons from this story and 'have more equity than your partner' is not the most important one. Thousands of startups fail because of inter- founder dynamics, there's lots of interesting stuff to talk about there. But if your approach to that is 'have 51% and vote my founder out', then your attitude is wrong.

Also, don't spread gossip on the internet about your cofounders! Now anyone who you consider partnering with in the future knows that if things don't work out, you're at risk of spilling their personal lives on the internet. I know that would be a red flag for me.

</comment><comment><USER3> One of the things I noticed was how much he undervalued having lunch with the team. He says its mindless chatter.

However your staff are stakeholders in your product and you need to support them.

Also in any workplace the informal communication channels are far more effective then formal ones.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Guys, don't take this too seriously. I am over it now and have been for a long time (> 5 years?). This was one of the earliest stories (failures?) I had, and it is just one of the daily posts that I write to tell stories about my journey.

<comment><USER4> You posted a picture of your cofounder as part of a story that frames them as a thief. And the lesson you learned amounts to "never trust somebody with 50% of a joint venture".

People don't seem to be taking things "too seriously", you've posted your thoughts and people are giving you honest feedback on them.

<comment><USER5> As a general rule, partnerships are very risky and should be avoided, and this story illustrates that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> There was no "stealing" whatsoever, OP got tilted by his slacker partner (understandable) and undersold his shares of the company.

As a general rule, I never do business with friends or family:

1) If things go poorly, you risk losing both.

2) If things go well, you still risk losing both.

</comment><comment><USER7> I wouldn't call it stolen. If we are to believe the article, the founder was naive, and gave it away. The co-founder had definitely played a part in taking it, but it takes two to tango.

<comment><USER8> > A few days later, he gave me documents to sign over all my equity and gave > me half of what the company had in the bank.

Agreed. That's what I get from the article as well.

<comment><USER9> Cash is not the most valuable asset of a company. In this case he lost the clients and a valuable worker, which his partner took from him. Could be considered as stealing, but we don't know the other side.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> All avoidable if he consulted a competent lawyer early on.

<comment><USER11> The lawyer could solve the technical issues of how to split the company up (or not).

But the real issue is the relationship between the founders. The business is screwed because these two people don't get on any more, and the business requires them to get on. Even a really competent lawyer can't solve that.

<comment><USER3> When reading your comment I realised that working out how to manage distributing shared property between two people is basically the task of a divorse lawyer.

Which makes me think are there equiverlents of marriage counclers for business partners.

<comment><USER11> interesting question.

The closest I've seen to this is a professional chairman. I was on a board for a few years with a VC-appointed professional chairman, and he was really good with managing the relationships between the founders, VC's and executive team.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> It doesn't sound like it was stolen. It seems just a bad breakup. Kian started to have other priorities in life besides his own company. I've been in a similar position, I quit and I wasn't so melodramatic about it.

Ironically, Steve Goh, the blogger, calls himself "the lazy CEO". I guess he wasn't match for an even lazier one.

</comment><comment><USER13> Agreeing to leave with 50% of the banks cash amount may or may not be a good deal for him. I guess the second. Much better to discuss something based on the expected 1-2 years revenue.</comment>


New startup turns CAPTCHAs into advertisement - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2010/09/20/an-online-ad-thats-tough-to-ignore/

<comment><USER2> An interesting way to monetise captcha. I'm not sure how hard it would be to break - they say they "pixelate the image differently each time".... seems to me you could fairly easily map average colour to phrase. e.g if the captcha is mostly yellow, the phrase is "browse safer". Calculating avg color isn't hard.

But supposing they do a hue rotate or something clever (and evade OCR scripts) it's an interesting idea.</comment>


How to Become a Design Genius: Take Time Off. Lots of It. - <AUTHOR> http://www.fastcompany.com/blog/cliff-kuang/design-innovation/design-geniuss-secret-time-and-lots-it?1255209275 <comment><USER2> Good link, terrible headline. The link us an interesting video about the benefits of taking a year long sabbatical every seven years, but it doesn't claim that the sabbatical is what made Stefan Sagmeister a design genius. He was insanely talented before he started taking sabbaticals, and they just made him more productive.

<comment><USER3> Maybe a better title would've been - How To Stay A Design Genius. I didn't see a lot of connection between his post-sabbatical projects and the year that he spent off, which is fine - the main benefit seemed to be a rejuvenation of his love for the craft.

I've thought about doing something similar for a long time now, probably because my dad was a prof and some of my best childhood memories are from spending copious amounts of time abroad.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I think it's less about vacation time/'time off' and more about just disconnecting from your normal routine (often times fairly rigid as we're natural creatures of habit)...and giving yourself the freedom to explore different paths/options/ideas.

<comment><USER5> I definitely see the value in that and it goes for any career where creativity and insight is important. Taking the time to step back, disengage and then reengage with new ideas and perspectives can be very valuable. But like he said, it needs goals and structure to make sure you accomplish that, otherwise, you're just screwing off.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> <http://www.sagmeister.com/index.html> ... makes me feel nauseous/dizzy

<comment><USER7> Resizes the browser, too. Why would anyone do that in 2009?

<comment><USER8> Why would any browser let it in 2009?

Dear browser, you are my electronic advocate, not the website's. Act in my interest, not someone elses.

<comment><USER9> Firefox preferences -> Content -> Javascript|Advanced ; uncheck whatever you want to disallow. You probably could make similar change in other browsers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> It isn't really time off if you are working is it? It is time spent thinking and learning and depending on your life outside work this could be accomplished without taking time off and just working less.

<comment><USER11> working less still means you think about work, which distracts from thinking about other things.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I just afraid to take 1 year vacation. I will have a constant feeling that my business will be ruined this year...

</comment><comment><USER13> please link to TED directly.

<comment><USER14> This summary took me 1 minute to read, not ~20. It's worth the indirection.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> "We named our inkjet printer Sagmeister. Coincidentally, it stops working periodically." <http://twitter.com/andrewcmyk>

</comment><comment><USER16> Spoken like a true rich pompous azz</comment>


"Companies are unfundable until they are oversubscribed" - Naval Ravikant - <AUTHOR>

Why is it that VCs are mostly followers rather than leaders? Why do so many companies (including Google, Groupon) get turned down when they pitch to VCs in the early stages? <comment><USER3> VCs like to take risk, but risk at the investment level of potentially millions is a lot harder to leverage or hedge when you only have 2 options. Invest or don't invest.

Big players in the stock market, hedge funds, banks etc have the ability to hedge and leverage risk with different processes such as short selling and many other tactics.

A VC will think like an investment bank but have limited potential to save themselves in a moment of bad judegement.

School yard mentality too, once its clear everyone is getting involved, due diligence shows that there is some sort of hype building then they follow - <USER2> takes a lot to be the first especially in a playground of Silicon Valley and startups.

(I have never dealt with any form of VC therefore this is my judgement and idea going from the mass amount of reading I've done)

</comment><comment><USER4> It's hard to tell what will become successful. VCs, like any other kind of investor, have a limited amount of time and insight into what will make something successful.

Even discovering an investment opportunity doesn't come equally easily to all firms. As in any industry, there are those who find/do things for the first time, and those who hear about the first group and jump in.

Finally, the competency disparity between leaders and followers isn't as big as it seems. Many of the leading firms won a lucky bet and now make money simply by attaching their name to a project. Or, they are connected and can create income and offers for their investments while the follower firms don't have those advantages.

</comment><comment><USER5> Different VCs look for different things, even if you've got a great startup in the transactional space a VC which primarily focuses on marketplace/network plays isn't going to be interested.

There are dozens of factors that go into a VCs decision, everything ranging from the age of their active fund to how well the relevant partner gets on with the founders.

Not every deal is right for every VC.

Also you need to be careful of survivor bias, for every Groupon that succeeds there might have been a hundred that looked identical to it at seed-stage but ultimately failed.

</comment><comment><USER6> Why do all VC's need to be leaders?

I think some do, but remembering this 3min talk by Derek Sivers [http://www.ted.com/talks/derek_sivers_how_to_start_a_movemen...](http://www.ted.com/talks/derek_sivers_how_to_start_a_movement.html) about leaders and followers, we need more followers than leaders. Once a lead investor is established, bring on the followers, startups need traction with investors too of which not everyone can be there first.

The question becomes which investors are known leaders and which ones are followers.

<comment><USER6> Also interesting email conversation on timing in investment between Paul Graham and Fred Wilson. Not so simple.. <http://www.paulgraham.com/airbnb.html>

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> via email (anonymous): "From my experience only the best European investors that have the confidence to go first, so you need to find the combo of the right firm and the right partner if you dont want to get stuck in a waiting game."

Feel free to chime on Quora too: [https://www.quora.com/Venture- Capital/Companies-are-unfundab...](https://www.quora.com/Venture- Capital/Companies-are-unfundable-until-they-are-oversubscribed-Naval-Ravikant- Why-is-that)

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> From Twitter: Naval Ravikant @naval @ediggs not about VCs being followers but rather that outcomes are nonlinear - so funding is as well. The problem with pithy quotes :-)

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Via Twitter: Tom Samodol @tomsamodol @ediggs Because VCs are lazy. Lemming effect: scared missing on next big thing, so they all plough into the same start-up</comment>


When Sears Flourished, So Did Workers. At Amazon, It's More Complicated - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/23/business/economy/amazon-workers-sears-bankruptcy-filing.html <comment><USER2> Sears' huge pension liabilities was cited as one of the main reasons that prevented any possible re-structuring that could have saved the company when it was declining and heading to bankruptcy... I mean, let's be realistic here. For how long was Sears in this pitiful state?... Getting all that real estate + semi-established brand was a private equity's wet dream, yet nobody ever contemplated that option.

And now that Sears is bankrupt, their pension fund is going into default and passed to the government who will need to fulfill those obligations (thankfully the pension benefit guaranty is not funded with tax revenues).

Of course, I'm not blaming Sears retirees. They deserve their pensions as much as any other person. But the reality is that corporate America learned this lesson a while ago and Sears is just one of many examples.

Is not about pleasing shareholders and fucking up employees as this article claims. It's a problem of business viability and long-term expectations.

Wanna increase salaries and stock grants? Sure, do it. Two quarters later Wall Street will fuck you up because your new shiny compensation model just shaved the company revenue. And guess what, they will punish you at much larger magnitude than your declining revenue. So that 5% of lost revenue is going to cost you 20% or 30% of market value, and now all those stock grants are 30% less valuable. So your great initiative just put you in a negative spiral. And now your employees will be pissed, and the press will come and write an article claiming that your once frugal company is now a money firepit and that morale is low, completely forgetting their initial narrative on how you used to fuck over your employees.

<comment><USER3> I don't necessarily disagree with many of your points, but I think drawing attention to the end of Sears' lifecycle is an unfair thing. Someday Amazon too will have an end of life, and employees and shareholders will get fucked over then too.

The article also draws attention to how workers benefited _in good times_ at Sears, not near the end. And this is where the comparison is most meaningful, where Amazon is more questionable.

<comment><USER4> Agreed. I worked at Sears in college (~15 years ago) loading dock/warehouse. It was a great job at the time. Good pay, plenty of hours, and generally good managers. The downfall of Sears had very little to do with wages, but Amazon crushing all brick and mortar stores. We were dependent on foot traffic, and sales flyers in the Sunday paper - things that don't do much today.

<comment><USER5> IMHO Sears would have an opportunity now if they hadn't sold off their brands. Cobranding (for instance) Anker products as Craftsman would have me buying it there instead of Amazon for one reason: commingled inventory and fakes.

<comment><USER6> They had SO MUCH customer loyalty from Craftsman, I can't believe anyone would throw that all away.

<comment><USER7> the mismanagement of the craftsman brand will one day be a case study in all business schools. It is incredible how much I spent on tools with them over the years, and incredible how I'm not even sure where to buy them anymore.

IMO, the biggest mistake Sears ever made was NOT buying Home Depot when they had the chance.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I think tech workers at Amazon are closer to the Sears workers than fulfillment center folks are.

My friends working at Amazon as tech workers are making money hand over fist right now. 100+ stocks each grant.

On the flipside, Amazon has a "projected total comp" which they keep you at, and if you're over projected, they don't give you more which is fucked. Google gives you 80k in stock and doesn't tie your future say to it.

<comment><USER9> It's not just Amazon, techies at most tech companies get generous stock grants as there is a considerable talent war going on. Even non major players like Priceline group now give equity.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Yeah I remember Bernie Sanders praised Amazon's decision in a tweet, but only later did people and the media realize that increasing the minimum wage came at a cost to other things, such as stock compensation. no free lunch guys.

<comment><USER11> Amazon realized that they kept getting a black eye because of their wages so of course they pivoted. Now some workers are probably worse off. I blame the media for only caring about sensationalist headlines.

<comment><USER12> What nonsense. Many thousands of workers will be compensated much better. Other retailers will have to increase their wages. This is a good outcome.

<comment><USER13> Did you even read the article? Many thousands of workers will be compensated less. The higher wages came at the cost of no more free stocks.

<comment><USER14> Nobody is going to be compensated less. The "extra" compensation they received before was simply a consequence of the fact that Amazon stock quadrupled in the last three years.

So if previously they got $14 + 0.50 in shares their total comp ended up being $16. But they still got paid less than somebody who was paid $15 in cash straight up (who could have then purchased AMZN on the market).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> If you're making 30k / year, having any kind of equity in lieu of traditional compensation (bonuses, wage increases) is an extremely risky affair. Amazon's stock has increased x6, but that is not normal, nor is it indicative of future performance. For those living paycheck to paycheck, there are far better methods of compensation that will ensure a higher quality of life without huge amounts of risk. An increase of just $1-2 per hour would easily make up the difference.

White collar workers can absorb the risk in the case of a market downturn, but I'm not sure that blue collar workers can.

<comment><USER15> It would be really nice if EVERYONE not in the 1% got a raise of some sort. An extra 1-2 an hour or whatever...

However then the prices of everything would go up for everyone, just like they are everywhere.

When the 'living wage' 15 USD/whatever minimums are passed don't the prices of everyday living just rise to meet that extra cash in the market?

Meanwhile everyone who was previously making a little above minimum wage, mostly the (lower/mid) middle class, get shafted, because they do not get raises.

<comment><USER16> One can also argue that rising minimum wages directly benefit the economy as this money will be immediatly consumed.

Giving $10 to a poor person will result in $10 more goods and services demand. Giving $10 to a very rich person will probably make 1/10th of a share change hands and have no effect on the real economy whatsoever.

<comment><USER17> This argument is a fallacy because it implies that money not spent is wasted somehow, but that is opposite of the truth, that savings underpin investment and thus growth.

<comment><USER18> Considering that the largest economic problem of the last 20 years (well all human history really, but it's been a keystone of economic strife recently) is the dramatic difference in the wealth growth between the wealthy and the wage increases of the remaining population, that whole "trickle down economics" myth has been sorta shorted out.

"Growth" can represent too many things and is thus a great slippery beast that can be used to obscure helping the wider population. We continue to see economic "growth" but wage increases has been stagnant for decades. Owners need fewer workers to amass revenue due to changes in the type economy as well as automation. You can grow a business without benefiting as many people as you used to. Look at how many people Bell Labs had working for it when it was in it's heyday vs how many people work for Google now.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Why does the article keep comparing warehouse workers at Amazon with salespeople at Sears? Those don't seem like comparable positions (sales comp is often very performance based) and thus, compensation wouldn't be the same.

Maybe compare the salespeople at Sears with account managers or some similar position at Amazon?

<comment><USER20> > "Most of these people retired with a good pension," said Jon White, who > worked at Sears for 38 years, most recently as a manager in a store in > Lithonia, Ga., before retiring in 2008. "Most of them are comfortable for > the most part — cashiers, clerks, replenishers, all kinds of workers."

<comment><USER19> It would have been exceedingly easy for the NY Times to do research to get us some numbers. Instead we get this handwavy quote.

And this statement doesn't invoke a lot of confidence for me. The article talks about profit-sharing for salespeople, then this quote says "most" retired with a "good" pension. So there were some that didn't retire with a good pension? Who were they?

And then the quote ends with "most" are "comfortable". Comfortable is quite different than the prior part about profit-sharing and retiring with the equivalent of a million dollars today.

That quote is just so exceedingly vague it doesn't answer the question that The NY Times itself poses.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> An interesting exercise in what Bezos could do about this if he wanted to: [https://direkris.itch.io/you-are-jeff-bezos](https://direkris.itch.io/you- are-jeff-bezos)

HN discussion: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18276937](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18276937)

<comment><USER22> Stock money is not as liquid as you think it is.

It's not that he is Scrooge McDuck and all his money is in cash.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Is it really complicated?

Workers are drones to be squeezed for all they have and then discarded.

</comment><comment><USER24> Everyone seems to only focus on the blue collar staff at Amazon.

They're enot Amazon's main employees, developers are.

The warehouse staff will be mostly replaced by machines in the next 5-10 years.

<comment><USER25> Main employees - care to explain what you mean?

* Largest number of people?

* Largest share of total salary?

* Most 'important'?

\--

I think for a long time they are going to have a larger number of blue collar workers than white collar. In in an automated future - who will look after and maintain the robots? Don't forget that they now also own Whole Foods that currently are 'people' heavy.

Quote: While Amazon employees at its Seattle headquarters make an average salary of more than $110,000, according to Glassdoor data cited by the Seattle Times, the paper reported Thursday that the company's median employee earned just $28,446 last year. That's because the vast majority of Amazon's 566,000 employees are not white-collar workers in Seattle but blue-collar workers toiling in the company's 140 "fulfillment centers" across the country [https://splinternews.com/a-staggering-number-of-amazons- empl...](https://splinternews.com/a-staggering-number-of-amazons-employees- still-need-foo-1825389776)

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Why does NYT have it out for Amazon? Is it because Mr Bezos owns a rival paper?

<comment><USER27> I don't know that the NYT has it out for Bezos, but he's a very easy target. He has a long reputation of treating employees badly while amassing enormous wealth.

<comment><USER28> Yes, it's just this simple. I don't know why more people can't understand how basic this is.

<comment><USER29> The better question is - why are so many in such a hurry to defend billionaires?

<comment><USER30> I don't know, I think it's right to question journalists' motives in an attempt to keep them honest. This works both ways.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> And look how that worked out for them?

<comment><USER32> During their best years, when Sears was a genre-defining behemoth, workers owned 25% of the company, and a warehouse worker could get the same kind of retirement package a salesman could if they had the seniority.

They build an empire that lasted over a century, and flourished.

Sears' downturn didn't come until two decades after they phased out worker- friendly policies like profit sharing, and their decline was based on poor strategic decisions, not the profit-sharing that had existed decades earlier.

In other words, being excellent to their employees worked out great for Sears.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> Right, cause stuff is cheaper at Amazon.

</comment><comment> purple-again The sears salesmen directly drove revenue. He was being incentivized to increase revenue. The warehouse worker is not directly driving revenue at Amazon. The developers do...and they are being incentived to keep doing so.

The world changed, business stayed the same.

<comment><USER34> According to the article, it would appear this was not limited to salespeople:

 _"Most of these people retired with a good pension," said Jon White, who worked at Sears for 38 years, most recently as a manager in a store in Lithonia, Ga., before retiring in 2008. "Most of them are comfortable for the most part — cashiers, clerks, replenishers, all kinds of workers."_

I would assume that "replenishers" are directly analogous to current Amazon warehouse employees.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> I'm hoping Amazon goes public soon.

<comment><USER36> It's already public. Ticker symbol AMZN.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> I joined Amazon as an SDE 1 in early 2015. I was promoted to an SDE 2 in q4 2016. I just was promoted this year to SDE 3.

Hard work, navigating to the right projects, and managing both upwards and down... senior and junior people on my part... I feel a bit ripped off. I'm not sure I would have wanted to get promoted knowing where my comp now falls.

The thing I'm unhappy about is that my target comp isn't actually that much more than where it already was as an SDE 2.

Without going into specific numbers, what Amazon does is if the stock value goes up, you only reap the benefits insofar as your existing grants are worth more. That means if you're above the target comp they assigned you, then you get no additional stock.

My job role as an SDE 3 has changed. I have more responsibilities and the influence I built as an SDE 2 has solidified. It's not easy by any means.

I'm going to just a bit longer as there is some initial vest that's wrapping up early next year... and then I go somewhere else.

My total comp this year is upwards of $250k because of the stock appreciation, but basically I got shafted with the promo raise. My salary and total comp didn't increase. I'm just reaping a higher stock price of vested shares.

Edit In response to the article >A warehouse worker hired now at Amazon who stays until retirement would leave with a fraction of that.

A buddy of mine works at the NYT in a tech role. NYT isn't doing anything different than Amazon. It takes a lot of nerve to write these kinds of articles... Hypocrisy at its finest.

<comment><USER38> _My total comp this year is upwards of $250k, but basically I got shafted_

Only in our industry...

<comment><USER39> If the person did 1 mil dollars worth of work, but only got compensated a quarter of a mil, isn't that getting shafted?

Just because the numbers are bigger, doesn't mean it is less deserving of being fair.

<comment><USER40> Nope. You need to make more than you're paid (on average of course). If this does not happen it does not make sense keeping you around.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Developer Economics Survey - <AUTHOR> https://s.developereconomics.com/en/?campaign=DE3Q17VL&vl=ByC3wfS-b6 <comment><USER2> By "partners", do they mean the companies they sell your data to?

</comment><comment><USER3> "As soon as you finish the survey, you'll get your personalised sci-fi profile"

Sweet.</comment>


Show HN: MGBDTC – the easiest way to track what your employees are learning - <AUTHOR> https://mgbdtc.com

<comment><USER2> I think for larger companies where transparency is low, many employees will not want to answer these questions, or they'll reply with something negative.

Perhaps you could have an "answer anonymously" checkbox available.

Love the concept. If it rolled out to large corporations, you could even use your natural language processing stuff from your other projects to categorize major learnings.

<comment><AUTHOR> Answering anonymously is a big feature, I'm still considering what's the appropriate size of the company for such an option. For example, Secret.app only allows you to see your friends secrets if you have 5 friends signed up...

Also yes, there's much to do with the data, we'll see what we can do there once people are actually using it!

thanks again for the feedback

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> What if an employee does not reply ? Is there a timeout that gets the digest sent anyway ?

<comment><AUTHOR> Great suggestion, I will surely add a timeout after 48 hours! Note that you can still see the answers live on the dashboard even if half the people filled the form.</comment></comment>


Sam Altman: Bay Area is no longer the obvious place for startups - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/sama/status/1096822724217827328 <comment><USER2> > I still expect a significant % of the $10B+ startups will get created here, > so it makes sense for investors to still focus here. But I bet a lot of the > ~$100M startups will happen elsewhere.

> There are still some things—e.g great startup executive talent, particular > kinds of engineering talent—that are much harder to find outside the bay > area.

This is spot on and it becomes a real bottle neck if you want to scale your startup beyond $500MM valuation.

Obviously you often can't choose if you want to be a $100M startup or a billion dollar startup, and by the time you've passed the $100M mark it can be too late to refocus on the Bay Area and you might lose momentum by dealing with all kinds of things that shouldn't matter.

We've run into serious talent recruiting issues when we reached this stage and we "solved" it by opening offices in SF and Mtn View. But it was not ideal and a huge waste of money/time.

<comment><USER3> Why doesn't your employees move out of Bay Area with you? Assuming if you keep offering same comp, this would cut down mortgage expenses to half and even gain much better housing in better school areas. It should be no brainer to move out if comp remains same. So you can come in to shop for talent, have them work remotely until they are ready. No need to open expensive offices in Bay Area.

<comment><USER4> Why would the assumption be that most people would want to move away from their homes because their current employer wants to save money?

Sure, many tech employees probably moved to the Bay Area primarily to find employment, but even if they don't enjoy other aspects of the area, a place you live in for a while will become your home, and abandoning your home is not an easy or obvious decision to make.

<comment><USER5> Yey, living in SF where junkies shoot on the street and everything is littered with excrements because fuck you good social security system.

Let's live there!

Plus, everything really expensive to live there. And if I work at Google I drive two hours with a bus there.

I don't know but reading about that place it's insanity.

And the output is Hit and miss. I know of no startup in the last ten years that's any substantial or enhancing live tremendously.

<comment><USER6> Only a small portion of SF is matches the dystopian vision you claim. Even those portions are not any worse than other urban areas. There is a reason why housing here is extremely expensive. People want to live here.

<comment><USER7> > Only a small portion of SF is matches the dystopian vision you claim. Even > those portions are not any worse than other urban areas.

If you believe that you either live an extremely sheltered existence in SF or you've not visited recently.

San Francisco is pretty bad no matter where you go (except, perhaps, for the affluent areas like Sea Cliff and St Francis Woods). Out in the Outer Sunset I saw what looked like someone shat out a tapeworm over the course of three blocks the other day (if you'd like pictures, I'd be happy to oblige).

I went down to Rainbow Grocery last week and sat outside munching on some popcorn. It only took a few minutes before I was approached by a guy asking for some. Sharing food is something I've done before and will do again, but finger foods? No thanks. So the guy walks away, picks up his walking stick, gives me the crazy eyes, and then starts swinging the stick at me while muttering incoherently. This is also a part of town where you never know which side of the street you'll have to avoid due to the massive encampments (side effect of the super bowl bullshit really). Meanwhile I walked away as quickly as I could only to get hit with the stench of human shit. Turns out someone had dropped a steaming five inch mound of fresh shit nearby. The 311 ticket got closed out because they couldn't be bothered to figure out which corner if the intersection the smell was coming from (despite there being GPS coordinates in the damn picture).

I took BART last weekend to the Oakland Museum of California (the Eames exhibit was fun). I managed to get stuck on the periphery of no less than two fights on the damn trains. Last time I took BART late at night I hadn't quite realized what an open air drug market it had become. And, of course, Civic Center station has never been great but I've been seeing folks shooting up on the steps during the day. Something I never saw when I was working in that neighborhood years ago.

Backing up to earlier last week I sat next to a well traveled woman a few years younger than myself on my flight to SFO. She's from Harlem and visits SF annually. The thing that struck her most about SF vs NY was that drug use is far more open than in New York and so is homelessness. That jives with my experiences as well — San Francisco is demonstrably worse than other urban areas I've visited.

For fun search youtube for videos on sideshows. How many other urban areas get their major roads (e.g. the bay bridge, I-880) shutdown to make way for people hooning their cars? Let's not spend too much time talking about the condition of the roads out here either. They put Newark to shame. And we don't even have the excuse of extreme weather like they do in Jersey.

> There is a reason why housing here is extremely expensive. People want to > live here.

That is a large part of the reason, but San Francisco is also seeing the Vancouver-like thing of rich folks parking their money in housing.

Don't forget that people often have entirely irrational reasons for wanting to live in San Francisco. Some of them have been deported from other states (thanks Las Vegas!), some of them still have a very romanticized view of San Francisco (it's not the summer of love anymore but there are plenty of kids that migrate out here in pursuit of that dream).

<comment><USER6> I work near Civic center and go there everyday. You know, like, Chicago has 500 murders a year. Nothing in SF and Oakland even comes close to that. Oakland used to be the crime capital in the US. People can actually live in West Oakland now. Oakland hill homes now run at $2mn. Drug use in SF has been prevalent since, what like 60s. I have been living in SF since well before the boom. Mid market and Tenderloin used to be way more troubling. I am continually amazed that they actually managed to our Uber, Twitter, and Dolby HQ there. Did you ever go to 9th and market prior to the tech boom ?

<comment><USER8> What's your point, regarding Chicago? Chicago is _much larger_ than San Francisco; it's 5 times larger by area and over 3 times as many people. Chicago isn't one of the country's top cities by murder rate. Further, Chicago murders are largely confined to west and south sides of the city, a result of redlining, and most people in the city (even fewer professionals) don't live in those areas.

It's true, San Francisco used to have sketchy areas (I lived in Bayview in the late 1990s) and now basically doesn't, since the worst apartment in Bayview probably costs more than my house in Chicago does. Ok, you win. But the comment you're responding to is about quality of life in San Francisco. Nobody in Chicago is going to ask for your popcorn and swing a stick at you if you don't comply. We don't have tent cities on our main-drag sidewalks. The CTA goes pretty much everywhere and isn't an open-air drug market. We manage this despite being a larger city, with our own real pressures, and having nothing resembling the tax base San Francisco has.

San Francisco is broken. I'm sure it's fixable, but people probably need to stop pretending things are OK first.

<comment><USER9> > The CTA goes pretty much everywhere and isn't an open-air drug market.

To be fair, the antisocial behavior I witnessed on the CTA {Green Line|Red Line south of Roosevelt} and the Muni is comparable. I've never been verbally accosted by passengers on CTA like I have on Muni, but I did witness blatant pickpocketing and a drugged passenger break the bus door on CTA, which I've never seen on Muni.

For what it's worth, my sense is that the issues that SF has Chicago doesn't-- homelessness, untreated mental illness--largely stem from cost of living differences, particularly housing prices. Everything from opening shelters to operating mental health facilities to avoiding homelessness in the first place is easier when real estate is more affordable. (To give an example, my hometown of College Station, Texas--hardly a bastion of liberalism!--had a quite effective program for preventing homelessness in the '90s and the aughts: straight-up building enough houses to house virtually all the needy and pricing them far below market rate. This worked because of the combination of a rich suburban tax base and rock-bottom real estate prices, which would not work in Chicago or anywhere in California.) That doesn't excuse SF and the state of California from failing to better address the problems, of course.

<comment><USER7> _For what it 's worth, my sense is that the issues that SF has Chicago doesn't --homelessness, untreated mental illness--largely stem from cost of living differences, particularly housing prices. _

My experience is that Muni itself is generally OK (yes even the 8/9, 14, and 38), but that BART has gotten really bad over the past couple years. For a while Muni stopped running the (then new) hybrid buses in the Bayview because people would hit the external kill switches when the bus was stopped.

There are a couple of California-specific and SF-specific issues at play as well. SFPD simply doesn't ride Muni, although I believe they're contractually obligated to. Meanwhile BART PD is spread very thin (around four officers at any given time for their SF stations).

At the state level, California makes it very difficult to force someone to stay on psychiatric medication or keep them in an institution. I don't believe this is as much of an issue in Illinois.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I think it's important for anyone getting to this page to read his whole thread, which is more nuanced than suggested by the sensational title. The point he seems to be making is that it's better for startups that aren't looking at being unicorns to look at other locations where they might have a better chance of success.

<comment><USER11> What's the point of being a startup not looking at being a unicorn? I genuinely do not understand how somebody can cap off their ambitions like so.

<comment><USER12> Some friends created a startup a few years ago. It is now profitable and never took VC.

The two founders pull down $1,000,000 a year and they give staff $50,000+ annual bonuses from profit sharing.

They also work four day weeks and spent every night and weekend with their kids.

What's the upside of trying to make it into a unicorn?

<comment><USER13> what type of business/service, if you don't mind sharing?

I've always found "no VC" stories incredibly inspiring.

<comment><USER10> "no VC" is the majority of businesses in the US (and possibly the world)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Totally agree. From my experience, operating out of the bay area means you pay more for rent, employee salaries, and employee retention (higher turnover). All up, it costs somewhere around ~$50K/year more per employee.

If you run a modest team of 10, you're paying an additional $500K/year to be in the bay area. That's huge for a large fraction of startups.

<comment><USER15> > All up, it costs somewhere around ~$50K/year more per employee.

I'd guess this is significantly under-representing the additional cost compared to most cities in America (exceptions might be NYC, LA, and Seattle). I bet it's quite a bit more than that for someone from, say, Portland.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Last paragraph:

> _This is particularly true in Silicon Valley, where a recent think tank > report estimates that 17 percent of workers in "highly technical > occupations" are native Californians, with 40 percent hailing from India or > China and 29 percent from other non-U.S. countries._

And I thought Toronto was multicultural (~51% born outside of Canada)! I wonder what is the rate regardless of occupation?

Edit to answer my own question:

> _More than a third of city residents (35.6%) were born outside the United > States._

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

<comment><USER17> San Francisco != Silicon Valley.

<comment><USER18> "Silicon Valley" has come to have two definitions: a geographic one, referring to Santa Clara County, and a metonymical one, referring to all high-tech businesses in the Bay Area.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I suspect the VC industry itself will be disrupted at some point (the irony of the VC industry is that the biz model has remained basically the same for 50 years when everything else has changed).

It will become incrementally easier to raise money from non-traditional sources at better terms as "accredited investor" laws are relaxed e.g. through a Security Token Offering.

<comment><USER20> I'm not sure I see the general public wanting to invest in startups, the success rate is just too low.

<comment><USER3> What if YC or 500startups were allowed to go public and people can buy their stock? Returns on YC model far exceeds S&P. I think pg has created an incredible framework which can be further evolved in open markets. I can absolutely see S&P index dominated by company-aggregators as opposed to individual companies. That seems to be the natural evolution.

<comment><USER21> YC should IPO. They can make a much bigger impact with bigger funding

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> One of the biggest reasons so many startups moved (or started) in the Bay Area was because VCs didn't bother traveling and funded mostly local companies. Has that changed?

<comment><USER23> If the VCs are that lazy, and assuming they still seek for the most profit, wouldn't VCs move to the bay area to find the unicorns? Wouldn't it create a virtuous (or vicious depending on the perspective) cycle of formibg a cluster of the companies and VCs in the area?

Eventually too much of such cycle would give way to the increased cost of living. But I see a tendency of more moderation in employee compensation by big companies, which would favor small startups again around the area.

<comment><USER24> agglomeration is not unique to VC and it's not simply a matter of people being lazy. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economies_of_agglomeration](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economies_of_agglomeration)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> One thing to note. Since the time Bay Area became "expensive", contrary to expectations it is actually crushing other geographies (exception being China) when it comes to massive fund raising for startups. Just this week Flexport raised $1bn and DoorDash raised $400mn. A few weeks back Nuro raised $1bn and Juul got $12bn. There is an excellent Crunchbase article on this [https://news.crunchbase.com/news/how-northern-californias- re...](https://news.crunchbase.com/news/how-northern-californias-reality- distortion-field-is-reflected-in-startup-funding/)

Clearly the lesson is that if you want to scale, you are better of being here

<comment><USER25> I would consider fundraising and local cost of living to be completely orthogonal. Fundraising is easier when there is a cluster of potential donors in a central geography. Other important factors are regulatory environment, taxes, potential employees, transportation, and so forth.

<comment><USER6> I mentioned fundraising as a proxy for health of the startup sector in the Bay Area. The expectation was that with high cost of living and relentless FAANG hiring, startups will move en masse to other locations. But fundraising data suggests otherwise.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> And 50% of people living in SF want to leave [https://sf.curbed.com/2019/2/20/18233498/poll-2019-leaving-s...](https://sf.curbed.com/2019/2/20/18233498/poll-2019-leaving- san-francisco-oakland-silicon-valley)

<comment><USER26> Then why dont they? Or are there 2 people willing to take the place of every person leaving?

<comment><USER27> I think for many people it comes down to go exactly where and do exactly what there. Once lived in Bay Area for while, you have certain expectations on compensation, services, things to do, career growth etc.

If you are used to a city like SF and enjoy the level of things in there, in the world and US there only few cities similar. Like nyc, la, London, Tokyo etc. Portland, Seattle, Austin, Berlin are all good but not the same.

Most of these places are almost as expensive or in similar category as SF but all of them have lower tech salaries than SF, by little or by a lot.

In addition, if you live decently and your salary doesn't only go to rent, then any decrease in rent is always less than decrease in your salary. Say your rent is $3000 in sf and you make $300k+ per year in total comp. Say moving to Austin your rent would be $1500 but your salary would be $200k. You are only saving $18k year in rent but your salary dropped $100k. Go to Berlin and you maybe pay $1000 for apartment but your salary is $60k.

Lastly, as messed up lot of startups and companies are in Bay Area, there is still a lot of experience and drive to build succesful companies. Go anywhere else in the world and you will encounter more clueless people with absolutely no networks, who have no ambition, and are just trying to do some local play of a global company. I know it sounds harsh but I think for many people thinking about moving to London and working in some consultancy or bank doesn't sound very exciting or a growth opportunity.

So I think lot of people want to move, but cannot find good or exciting reasons to do that financially, growth or general job happiness. Quality of living and housing yes for sure.

I think options are: 1) start your company and build the culture and company you want whenever or in a distributed way

2) Decide to retire to the countryside and work on your own projects

3) Find a fulfilling, not exactly high tech job or position, but more like a foundation / helping governments with socially responsible software etc. Essentially financially retire, but work on meaningful things

I think Bay Area is still great for singles or couples without kids, that you can get dual high income and share housing costs. Also the career and company options in tech are unparaller.

Starting companies needing massive engineering force, less so.

<comment><USER28> It's not just cost of living but taxes. Living in a state with no income tax is an automatic 10-12% bump in take home pay.

Agree though if you're single your living situation is more flexible and you can find a place for less than market rate here pretty easily. It's once you get married and want kids that SF makes no sense for most people.

Someone making 200k in Austin has a much much better quality of life than someone making 300k in SF. No question.

<comment><USER29> As someone from Austin living in SF I disagree. Austin has better housing affordability and less severe homelessness. To me, just about everything else is nicer in SF. But more to the point, everyone is different and you really can't generalize about what place is better or worse, because people's tastes, interests, and logistics vary so widely.

<comment><USER28> Define nicer. To me housing affordability is a massive lever that drives quality of life. You can find a place for 300k in Austin (renovated) what would cost 1.5m in SF.

<comment><USER29> There isn't a neighborhood in the entirde Austin metro where you can walk to all your daily needs. The summer heat is brutal and the winters are surprisingly chilly given how hot the summer is. You don't have anything like the natural beauty of California at your doorstep.

For me though the walkability is the biggest thing. There's not a single neighborhood in Austin that can compare to the quality of life in my "middle of the road" SF neighborhood. Miles of beautiful archictecture all around. My kids can and do walk everywhere.

It's just a completely different experience, being in an actual pre-car city, and unfortunately there's nothing like it in Texas.

<comment><USER30> Just left Austin for this exact reason. All the companies, except a few startups and exceptions are not in downtown. They are out in the boonies. Live downtown and you are looking at 2-3 hours of commute every day and traffic is gloriously terrible. The transportation system in Austin is none to speak of. The other thing that bugs me is none of these companies are actually in Austin. It's more like Round Rock. So, when people say Austin is a tech hub, it seems like play on marketing.

This is why I left for Minneapolis, I actually bought a condo in central downtown. I can walk and bike everywhere. I can take a train or bus at any given moment to everything I would ever need and there is something to be said when you are easily and casually attend any of the major 6 sporting leagues at a drop.

As for the tech and pay. I find it pays the same or actually more in my experience. Finding a job is easy. Most companies don't play that Leetcode game, some do, but most don't it seems. Tons of huge fortune companies that use modern tech and have interesting problems, including places like Target, big banks and tons of healthcare. There are hidden startups, if you look, hard, but many haven't even take VC are only 2-5 people right now and are bootstrapped and highly profitable.

If I ever decide to take that job at a big tech in SF I'll rent out my condo in central downtown, pack up my backup and take the light rail to the airport with my one way ticket.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> I see a bright future for products and services focused on remote team management

<comment><USER32> I agree, but quite a few people get lonely working remotely and not having a proper office to go into, and software won't solve that (at least not until VR presence or something of the sort is really good). I've managed great engineers who have complained about this and I haven't seen a good solution.

<comment><USER33> Uhm just a random thing here, but people should look at how online gaming communities work. They solved that problem nearly 15 years ago...

<comment><USER34> Can you elaborate? Curious as to what aspect of online gaming you're referring to.

<comment><USER33> Sure. Have a look at Eve online as an example. You have communities of thousands of people (up to 20k). And the environment is quite close to the one of the current market for corporations. They also face spying, people not doing their fair share, etc.

They work together in a scarce and hostile environment and still build an inclusive culture that make people feel at home. To the point that your alliance is in a lot of way your family, at least as much as all these companies want.

The way they do that is through multiple channels, and the game itself helps ofc. But the main tool they use is _always on vocal server_. Teamspeak and Mumble are the incumbent there, with Discord being the new entrant.

The way it usually works is that people are always logged in these server the moment they are online. They stay online but go in an "AFK" channel if they went away for a break. Otherwise they will be in a shared "quiet" channel. Or in a "general" channel which is about talking with each other and having a shared space.

If you go do something, like play another game, organize a squad to do something specific, have a meeting, etc. Then you create a dedicated channel.

What happens is that you get people to share the space and feel a community mostly through the vocal channel.

You also usually have a forum for longer run things and "out of band" fun. And in general you also add a slack equivalent. Historically Jabber or Discord these days.

The only thing missing is a good whiteboarding experience, but i have high hope for VR there.

So yeah anyway, always on vocal is the thing most people miss that create that feeling of belonging.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> I've been interested in the idea of semi-off-grid live/work communities for remote workers and startups. It's inexpensive and not a bad lifestyle.

<comment><USER36> I've been working on the logistics of this and it's pretty tough.

If everyone at your "semi off grid" live/work community works in tech, you have plenty of money but little free time, and end up bringing in most of the maintenance of the environment, which is expensive and alienating. It's much the same kind of way that it's unaffordable to live in SF if you're a janitor.

If you have some residents working in tech and the rest maintaining the built environment, it's uncomfortably landed-gentry-and-underclass-of-serfs, with people toiling the land.

The best model I've found is something like the East Wind Community, but you need a business model that is highly accessible to all potential residents, and an extremely high level of social cohesion, and I don't think tech fits the bill. You also have to live somewhere extremely remote in order to be able to afford the land to be self-sustaining in any significant degree. [https://www.eastwindblog.co/](https://www.eastwindblog.co/)

I'm interested to hear what other people think though. I think that the fact that we have so much of the space in cities set aside for office space is a little ludicrous.

<comment><USER35> I'd probably go the opposite direction of East Wind: not require people to buy into a philosophy or make any community commitments. My biggest goal would be to use group buying power to buy good land and put in a sizeable well, some very minimal facilities (shower/ restrooms/septic), etc. Maybe a few RV pads.

I've actually got some land in the desert and spent some time working out of a camper. If anyone's ever interested in chatting about future plans, I'm always down to collaborate. Kind of a long term thing that's always on my mind.

<comment><USER36> I mean that already exists, it's basically just an RV park, right? Without the philosophical bent and off-grid aspects, you can already find those things. I spent a big chunk of my childhood bumming around the country on vacation in an RV, and I think that's ultimately the source of my wanderlust, but it doesn't really build a community for the longer term.

<comment><USER35> There are similarities. It would be more spread out and have far fewer residents than an RV park. People could build what they want (tiny homes, earthbag houses, etc). It would also be more of a co-op compared to a commercial RV park. RV parks cost millions to build, this would be more than an order of magnitude cheaper.

I've spent time in RV parks too, I like them. Even the crappiest ones are ~$450/mo in California though.

I bought my 5 acres for a few thousand dollars. If you're able to pull it off, you can live insanely cheap. It's more about hacking cost-of-living than creating a cohesive community. My biggest issue with living in the desert was going it alone - if I had a group of 10 people who had a vested interest in the project, it would have been more enjoyable.

These are all just random thoughts though - maybe at some point I'll look into it more seriously.

<comment><USER36> I'm chuckling because you're right on the same path I was, though I never bought any land.

I think you're dead on when you say "a group of 10 people", and that's where you have to get into building community dynamics, even for a group of hermits :)

<comment><USER35> you're probably right about that being a number where things start getting more complicated. Starting with 5 people might make even more sense, and add members later to raise additional funds.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> At least from the talent side, everything I see seems to say the opposite. I see startups in Philly and other cities struggle to retain any kind of talented employee, losing engineers to the west coast companies and business side to everywhere else. We even had a senior marketing employer leave for a brewery because apparently even a local brewery is more competitive compared to VC funding.

I like the contrarian attitude and I believe it's somewhat true, but hard to reconcile what I see on the ground.

The VCs love the cheap talent narrative but it rings hollow.

</comment><comment><USER38> Its interesting that he mentions short job tenures. I always thought it was weird how common job hopping is in the Bay Area, I thought job-hopping employees was perhaps a good thing rather than a problem. It does mean its easier to build a team.

</comment><comment><USER39> I don't even see how it's a realistic place to start out as a new college grad anymore either. If you don't have a friend in a rent-controlled multi-bedroom house who can let you move into an open room, you're unlikely to find rent for a decent price. A crappy house costs about a million here. If you have that kind of money, why not just buy something in cash somewhere else or just move to another city like Seattle or Denver or Austin where you can make 80% of the income for a fraction of the cost of living and taxes? I don't think the differential income really makes up for the cost of living, taxes, or quality of life.

We absolutely have to be approaching or beyond the breaking point where it stops making sense for a lot of new college grads to want to move here. I have a friend who just started at Google but lives 3+ hours away... that's crazy. Once workers stop wanting to live in the Bay Area, tech companies will have to shift hiring (even more) than they already have. I know at the company I work for they have been pushing more new hires to Austin.

</comment><comment><USER40> I wish he shared more reasoning in why he decided in 2017 being the pivotal year. I mostly agree with 2017 being a bad year for the bay area startup as that was the period where a lot of the top startups like airbnb, uber, and theranos were getting significant negative outlooks, and probably some others that I have forgotten about.

<comment><USER19> I think it basically became the year when the "norm" for talent in SF Bay Area was 1) work at a FAANG or 2) work at a late stage private co (like Uber).

Working at an early stage startup was already risky, but the opportunity cost sort of peaked around then and remains high.

Unless the opportunity cost noticeably drops (i.e. a massive recession that causes a 50%+ drop in public stock market) I think smaller startups will thrive in places like NYC more so than SF.

<comment><USER41> Larger companies have an inherent sales and marketing advantage due to brand size. If 20 engineers at a small startup develop a product and 20 engineers at some big co develop a similar product the latter will generally outsell the former. The big can consequently also pay its engineers more since it is able to make more money from the fruits of their labor.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> This conversation seems to take place toward the end of every "wave of innovation" I've seen in the bay area and I'm sure it took place long before I got here in '97\. There's nothing to suggest to me that things are any different this time around. I'll be looking forward to the next one.

</comment><comment><USER43> Here's a crazy idea: go where your customers are.

</comment><comment><USER44> Though the point it more about funding and founders, seems like a salient point for developers too.

You can learn a lot, really fast, and with very long odds maybe get a nice reward in the Bay Area.

Or you can choose a slightly more boring path with a startup almost anywhere else with a normal 9-5 schedule, pretty good pay, and a low cost of living.

Quality of life is likely better in most other cities as well, the only downside being concentrated tech talent in Bay Area.

Unless you're working at one of the mega companies, how much of a benefit is it really for developers to live there?

<comment><USER45> Already answered here: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19231986](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19231986)

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> Actually it's simple. the people who come to san francisco now vs when i came here is totally different. i'm happy to have all these pretty people but their ability to network into opportunities is the major reason why none of those opportunities fail.

</comment><comment><USER47> He's a little late.

</comment><comment><USER48> Thread link for better readability: [https://threader.app/thread/1096822724217827328](https://threader.app/thread/1096822724217827328)

</comment><comment><USER49> I see that myself. And I mean this as absolutely no offense to anyone in the area. I've met incredibly intelligent people there, among the best. Though, I believe the very best are distributed throughout the world, and command the ability not to move.

All that said, first, well, the silicon part is all but gone. I find the signal to noise ratio pretty low. For every 10x developer, there are 50 people who did a bootcamp and/or moved for the easy jobs. Salaries are high because the cost of living is on the breaking point. People complain about the area because of high taxes, high cost of living, and of course the homeless epidemic. And to top it off, everyone who can seems to leave the area when they get the chance.

Again, I mean no offense, I think it's a nice area on the whole. But if I were in need of a lot of good engineers today, I'd first offer remote only. If I needed collaboration or a lot of people in one area, I'd look to New York or Northern Virginia before the bay area.

<comment><USER50> That is only one aspect and I think a minor one. What made silicon valley is access to capital, proximity to stanford and a feedback loop of successful entrepreneurs using their experience to create the next generation of successful entrepreneurs

<comment><USER51> I wonder why Boston hasn't risen further, with Harvard and MIT both at their doorstep along with a lot of other really great universities and good companies.

<comment><USER52> MA allows non-compete restrictions on employees which severely stifles the startup economy.

Silicon Valley is what it is largely in thanks to the continuous cross- pollination of talent which is possible due to the lack of non-compete issues.

<comment><USER53> Just saw you said the same thing I did. I think people under attribute just how much oppressive non-competes destroy the market.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> I wonder if Y/C will relocate? Y/C HQ2?

<comment><USER55> Ideally a state without zoning laws or noncompetes. I can't think of one.

<comment><USER56> austin looks like a good candidate to me. not sure about noncompetes, though.

<comment><USER29> Austin rent has gone through the roof, and they've got a strong nimby and zoning problem just like SF so it's just going to get worse. It's on the exact same track, just ten or so years behind.

<comment><USER57> Austin doesn't have Prop 13, and Texas imposes reasonable property taxes. Unless those things change, it's HIGHLY unlikely real estate in Austin will approach The Bay area in terms of prices.

<comment><USER56> It wont. you can also appeal assesments.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER58> So that I don't only spread negativity I'd like to noten that I find this submission's title very fittingly chosen.

</comment><comment><USER59> I think it's a great place to raise money and make connections but for my startup, I'm not going to be expanding it in SF.

</comment><comment><USER60> It never was. It is an outdated idea that innovation can only happen in a specific place.

<comment><USER61> There's a lot more to it than that. Innovation can happen anywhere. But the combination of human and financial capital, there is probably no where better.

If you start a company outside the Bay area, you're at a disadvantage there. You'd better find enough other advantages and leverage them to get on a level with that. If your company needs venture funding, you'd probably be crazy to start it anywhere else still. Most don't.

</comment></comment><comment><USER62> where then? Austin? Seattle? NY?

Since a healthy startup environment needs resources, money, networking and so on, what would be another good place to raise your business?

<comment><USER63> Chicago, Atlanta, Denver, Boston.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Evidence?

</comment><comment><USER64> Peter Thiel.

</comment><comment><USER65> Sam just realizing this in 2019 is a testament to how insulated the millionaire VC class is from the everyday struggles of the of the middle and lower classes.

This is something everyone in my circles have been talking about for 5+ years, it's not a particularly novel take in 2019.

<comment><USER66> He's talking specifically about startups.

<comment><USER65> His whole point is that the individuals that make up a startup don't want to live in the Bay Area anymore because of cost of living and other factors.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER67> I just spent the week in San Jose and I marveled at the ocean of vacant office space. I find it hard to believe that Sam is only now coming to this conclusion.

<comment><USER68> That's weird: what disincentives offset the cheaper cost of commercial space?

<comment><USER67> Is it cheaper? Do landowners have any incentive to lower rent prices?</comment></comment></comment>


Clipstream G2: JavaScript video player - <AUTHOR> http://www.dsny.com/g2/

<comment><USER2> So, how exactly does this work? I'm trying to figure out where the media data is coming from; it looks like it's stored as a giant base64 string in a js file. Sort of a "maybe actually production useable" version of JSONVid ([http://ajaxian.com/archives/jsonvid-pure-javascript-video- pl...](http://ajaxian.com/archives/jsonvid-pure-javascript-video-player))?

Anyway, there's no video element and no Flash, so none of those compatibility issues to worry about. If it can implement the full HTML5 media element API, I might actually use this one.

</comment><comment><USER3> Interesting, it's using canvas to play the video. Wonder if there is player API for JavaScript.

</comment><comment><USER4> good audio, but the jerky video is borderline unwatchable. Chrome/Linux. I noticed that top showed about 46% cut utilization so I'm guessing it's not able to use more than one core.

<comment><USER5> Poor technology productized as DRM. Thanks for making my morning a little more sad, OP.</comment></comment>


Dutch Cops Say They've Decrypted PGP Messages on Seized Server - <AUTHOR> https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/dutch-cops-say-theyve-decrypted-pgp-messages-on-seized-server <comment><USER2> While the headline makes it sound like they've cracked PGP encryption, the story suggests that they may have just discovered the keys that were being stored on the server:

 _" The Dutch authorities also discovered that the 'keys' for the PGP encryption system were generated by the server, rather than by the device. As a result, the Dutch authorities came to believe that the keys to decrypt the PGP encrypted information, on the Ennetcom PGP BlackBerry devices, are stored on Ennetcom's BlackBerry Enterprise Servers."_

<comment><USER3> Indeed this. All your Blackberry belong to Mallory</comment></comment>


How Co-working Is Working in Portland (Y Combinator mention, too) - BusinessWeek - <AUTHOR> http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/jul2009/tc20090723_442220.htm <comment> onreact-com I don't know about Portland but where I live it's still too expensive. For below the price of a month co-working I can get a regular office sharing contract. Also drop in for a day is too expensive. You can work in a cafe for half as much and get drinks all the time.</comment>


Maya – Datetime for Humans - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/kennethreitz/maya <comment><USER2> This doesn't seem to be a submission by the author himself, and the project is only two hours and five commits old, so take my _very early_ comments with a grain of salt -- they refer to the progress as of this commit [1].

I love Requests -- its API design is fantastic, and manages to distill down most of a complex problem domain to a clean, dare-I-say, elegant API.

So I can eagerly anticipate this design applied to datetimes. But the progress being shown so far is definitely not it.

 _> >> tomorrow = maya.when('tomorrow')_

 _< MayaDT epoch=1481919067.23>_

Why is "tomorrow" a precise-to-centisecond, infinitesimally small point on a giant cosmic timeline? I'm reasonably sure it's an abstract concept that describes the calendar day that starts after the current calendar day ends.

At least, Pendulum normalizes tomorrow() and its ilk to represent midnight on the given day [2], while Delorean's natural language methods [3] like next_day() advance the day while leaving the time-of-day unchanged, but the method name makes this fairly clear.

Even Arrow, which is heavily inspired by Moment.js to the point of conflating every single datetime idea into the same class, opts for mutators that are still more clear [4].

> _Timezones fit in here somewhere..._

Yeah, this needs more work.

Java 8 / Threeten, and its predecessor Joda-Time took the approach of clearly modeling each and every concept that humans actually use to describe time; even if you take issue with their API, the designers have clearly done their homework, and their data model is solid.

Formats like TOML wrestled with datetimes and realized [5] that datetimes aren't just woefully underspecified in most other specs and APIs, but that they're frequently mis-modeled, so they adopted large portions of Threeten's data model. Cases like this should merit strong consideration from anyone trying to propose new datetime APIs today.

[1] [https://github.com/kennethreitz/maya/commit/ecd0166ba215c1a5...](https://github.com/kennethreitz/maya/commit/ecd0166ba215c1a5caa778c0a4f7ce51820a5615) [2] [https://pendulum.eustace.io/docs/#instantiation](https://pendulum.eustace.io/docs/#instantiation) [3] [http://delorean.readthedocs.io/en/latest/quickstart.html#nat...](http://delorean.readthedocs.io/en/latest/quickstart.html#natural- language) [4] [http://crsmithdev.com/arrow/#replace- shift](http://crsmithdev.com/arrow/#replace-shift) [5] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12364805](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12364805)</comment>


Ask HN: Can anybody help me with sorting this data? - <AUTHOR>

Hey I have this excel file, it containts 37 or so columns and each column contains list of mustcourses for that department. can u help me get 1-list of pairs of departments that have largest number of shared courses, 2-ability to list of shared courses of one department compared to all of the rest, 3-courses that are shared the most among departments.
p.s. there has to be ignore list where i can add and remove courses to be ignored in calculations. I can send you the excel file for you to take a look before you say you can help. <comment> mike-cardwell <https://www.freelancer.com/>

<comment><AUTHOR> minimum bid for this 30 dollar on freelancer.com thats like 5 hours wage for an average programmer, but i estimate this will take 1 hour to build. no?

<comment><USER2> $30 is 5 hours of pay? Wow. $30 is more like one hour for a new grad first beginning a job.

<comment><AUTHOR> 30 dollars per hour for very experienced programmer, yeah possible but for a new grad with beginning project is too much. 30x8 (hours per day)x20(workdays per month)=4800USD per month salary? well I dont think this is the situation in the world.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> just click the column at the top to sort it. This is how everybody does it.</comment>