Y Combinator Taps Into Its Alumni Network, Announces Ad Innovation Conference - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2011/07/22/y-combinator-taps-into-its-alumni-network-announces-ad-innovation-conference/

<comment><USER2> Oh wow ads would be a fun project to hack on.

How do you gain traction in that, though? There seems like a _huge_ barrier to entry. I don't suppose adbrite or google like hiring college dropout python hackers, do they? :(

Something I'd love to see in ads is the ability to give feedback on them.

I _like_ advertisements. One of the things I'll do if there is a new industry that I want to learn about is pickup trade magazines and read all of the ads. My brain has gotten good at filtering out the marketing fluff, so the ads end up being a good piece of information to use.

Unfortunately, online ads seem to be taking a bit of a shotgun approach. I'm never, ever going to be buying weightloss pills online, and I wish there was a way of letting content creators know this.

I'm also never, ever going to buy anything with a talking ad, or a popover ad.

But little boxes with a picture and some text? I'll look at those all day. There is still an ad I saw on slashdot 4-5 years ago that I remember, and have actually tried to find again because the information on it was valuable to me.

It said something along the lines of "colo that box under your desk". It was clever, because I had a box under my desk, and I would have liked to have colo'd it.

If I could see ads for stuff like that all day, I'd probably buy things from them.

If I'm completely honest, I'd probably even willfully give an ad network information about myself so that they could serve me more relevant ads. Make the relationship a mutually beneficial one.

I live in Phoenix. There are a number of bars that I go to pretty frequently, and there are a number of areas of the city that I like going to. Tell me about concerts happening in those areas, or drink specials at those bars.

There are certain genres of movies that I like, tell me when they're coming out, and take me to a place where I can buy tickets to them.

I like DIY electronics stuff. If sparkfun is having some EL wire on sale, I'd love to know about it.

Pandora for ads, I guess. I'd love that.

<comment><USER3> Advertising is a fun problem space to work in. Huge amounts of traffic and data to process. Doing user prediction. All sorts of neat stuff. There are also a lot of smaller companies out there looking for good developers all the time. Get to know the industry and don't limit yourself to the top 5 and you can get in easy.

Stuff like profiles on users a lot of companies already do we also do stuff like predict based on numerous factors how likely you are to convert on different products. All this without you filling out a form.

Local ads are interesting but more work in selling. As for stuff like weightloss pills the reason you see so much of these is because very few sites can fill their full inventory with relevant paying advertisers so they put whatever they can in the spaces and keep their fingers crossed. The more profiling you do the less likely you are to find relevant advertisers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> One idea that I would like to see in ads is the ability for me to fill out some kind of portable profile that ads could use to figure out what to show me. For example if I'm thinking of buying a car it would be nice to only see car ads for a while. Also the ability to blacklist certain kinds of products. Maybe the end users could decide how much info to divulge that would effect their rates in terms of how many ads are required to pay for content.

<comment><USER5> You can do this on Google already: <http://bit.ly/mWaKBy>

<comment><USER4> sure but I want my television and radio ads to be changed in real time, google is just a small slice of what I do in a day.

<comment><USER6> Can't imagine this ever working with radio, but with smart TVs the technology is absolutely possible.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Looking for a mentor? Want to mentor someone? Let's match such people - <AUTHOR>

There a lot of people who are willing to learn, and a lot of people wanting to pass their knowledge and expertise.<p>Post your offers or requests here. <comment><AUTHOR> I am a software developer at Yandex(russian search engine company) and I want to mentor someone(or even a group -- it is much more fun to learn in a group!).

Ideally, a potential mentee: \-- Wants to code her or his own small search engine. Obviously, it is difficult to recreate Yandex or Google, but it is relatively easy to make something on a smaller scale. \-- Knows some C++, but wants to expand her or his knowledge \-- Is in the beginning of the software development career

This is just a description of someone who I can help the most. If you don't quite match this description, send me an email my anyway. I can still help you with your own project in C++ or help you code a search engine in a some other language than C++. And even if I can't help, maybe I can match you with someone relevant.

Email: in the profile.</comment>


T-Mobile Rocks - <AUTHOR> http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2013/10/t-mobile-rocks.html Great points from Fred Wilson. And accordingly to Pogue's NYT article, they signed up more new subs in the last quarter than the big 3 combined. But, in light of their service map and much more limited travel, curious if it's enough to make you switch? Trying to figure this out myself... <comment><USER2> > _Because if all of us move to T-Mobile, the other carriers will have no > choice to join them in being customer friendly._

No, if all people move to T-Mobile, they will just start behaving like the other carriers. The only reasons they're customer friendly is because they have a low market share and try to win customers, not because it's their company culture. Just look at their German parent company, Deutsche Telekom is the German AT&T.

<comment><USER3> But at least there are no 2 year contracts to keep us locked into T-Mobile if they ever turn into dirtbags!

<comment><USER4> I am so tired of two year contracts, but I have a list of 'approved' carriers I can choose from and have my phone partially paid for. Until recently T-Mobile was not on the list. Now all I need to do if wait out my current two year with the other guys.

There is certainly nothing smart about paying seventy, eighty, or more, per month for a smart phone. If anyone is smart its the guys charging for it and getting it.

<comment><USER5> Two year contracts are a lie, a prop, an illusion. If you break it, you basically pay back the prorated part of the phone discount you got. If you go to a carrier without phone subsidies, they'll charge you less month-to-month an amount equal to the monthly prorated phone discount.

This was my realization when pricing out basic phone service with T-Mobile, ATT, etc. You have to really work hard to pay different. Just don't be afraid to break the contract, it's not a real penalty.

<comment><USER6> You clearly have never used an MVNO(Reseller)

I just went to Verizon and chose a free SmartPhone (Droid 4) with a 500MB data plan. It was $80/mo 2 yr contract

I can buy that phone outright (brand new) for $300.

If I go to PagePlus (Verizon MVNO) and sign up for their $1200 Minute, $3000 Text/MMS 500MB $30/mo plan here is what I paid after two years.

Verizon - $80 * 24 = $1,920

PagePlus - $30 * 24 + $300 (phone) + $50 roaming (average usage cost for 2 yrs) = $1,020

And what did I get for my $900 difference? (That is $37.50/mo BTW) A big "Verizon" label on my phone, and a two year contract.

You could get two plans and phones from PagePlus and still pay less.

I realize that there are other factors like level of customer service, and no roaming charges that VZW and ATT die-hards will tell you about. Well, in my experience, the service is no better and most people almost never use roaming service while using a Verizon MVNO. I would say that i have only spent around $20 in the last two years from roaming.

Other factiods: Have Verizon or ATT and want to change your plan options (Minutes, Data amount ETC)? Sure - that will require a new two year contract. Don't want a new phone. Well you will still be paying the same regardless. Break the contract and you will still pay the same penalty. This seems to refute your claim that you are just paying back a subsidy.

Want a new phone with your new contract? OK, choose a "free" one from a list whose retail prices have a $150-$200 difference in price. Are you going to pay less per month if you opt for the cheaper (3g) free one? If your statement was true you should.

<comment><USER7> Generally, MVNO customers have lowest priority on a network. I know AT&T, for example, gives network priority to Postpaid first, then Prepaid, then MVNOs. So on a congested network, you'd be the first to be kicked off.

<comment><USER8> Generally speaking, I don't think the experience would be as bad as you say. Yes they get the lowest priority but given how good AT&T's network is, you generally won't be kicked off and would probably incur a reduction in speed. The reality is, you aren't going to need (insert super fast speed here) on a day to day basis. There are exceptions of course, such as tethering or streaming content, but really, how often would you be doing that and need it? This is why I don't buy the 4G argument, especially when there're carriers that ask us to pay more simply to be on 4G.

<comment><USER9> I think that's going to depend heavily on where you are. I was in Chicago last week for work and found out the hard way that VZW LTE is _severely_ over capacity inside the Loop. I'm a postpaid customer and had to force my phone to CDMA data on a few occasions just to get a usable connection.

Knowing that I'm going to be travelling a fair amount in the near future on business, I'm not sure if it'd be worth gambling that the host network for my MVNO wouldn't be similarly over capacity elsewhere resulting in me getting lower priority.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I'm glad that T-Mobile has become a customer focused company in recent months, but let's not forget that just a short while ago, they were just like all of the other major carriers.

T-Mobile had a sudden change of heart not because they give a shit about their customers, its because their network wasn't good enough for people to put up with typical carrier bullshit. As a normal carrier, they were losing money and customers so fast that they had to either change or go out of business.

I highly doubt they would have made the same philosophical changes if they had been successful doing things the scummy way.

<comment> alive-or-not Same as Apple - when they were almost dead they had to use and contribute to open source projects and treat the customer fair. Nowadays they are making it clear all iThings out there belong to Apple and working hard to wall Mac OSX as well.

<comment> X-Istence Apple still contributes to open source A LOT.

<comment><USER11> Barely. OpenDarwin is dead. WebKit was stolen from KHTML. CUPS has barely any development anymore. Apart from LLVM, what have they _really_ contributed to OSS? Okay, it's more than Microsoft, but net contribution is still nothing compared to Google or Sun (when they were still alive).

<comment><USER12> KHTML was not stolen - it was used as the basis for Webkit in compliance with its licence, which is _exactly how Open Source_ is supposed to work.

Have a look at [http://www.apple.com/opensource/](http://www.apple.com/opensource/) \- which outlines the Open Source components that Apple use and contribute to. You're right - it might not be as much as some other companies (though I don't know if it's practically less than Google or Sun) but they are consistently among the largest participants in Open Source among large tech companies.

<comment><USER13> I think my biggest beef with them is that they tend to make up for their small amount of OSS in a negative way by being such patent trolls. This is more true of their presence in the hardware world.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I ended up switching to T-Mobile for their $30 prepaid plan - 5GB of data (not at reduced 2G speeds either, actual data) a month, plus a reasonable amount of voice minutes and the ability to text. Way cheaper than what I'd pay on AT&T or other carriers, really simple to set up.

<comment><USER15> I was using that plan, but I was finding that I didn't really have enough voice minutes (100 was less than I'd need). T-Mobile does throttle after 2GB on that plan, though that wasn't a big deal for me. The big problem for me was that T-Mobile's coverage area sucks; there were whole areas of Boston and Cambridge where I got absolutely no signal.

I recently moved to the $45 unlimited-everything plan on Straight Talk, which uses AT&T SIMs, and I'm pretty happy with it. (I don't know if they too throttle over 2GB, but I rarely hit it anyway.)

<comment><USER16> I was interested in StraightTalk but this article scared me a bit:

[http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2414418,00.asp](http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2414418,00.asp)

<comment><USER15> Yeah, I've seen that. I don't really care, though - my real number is on Google Voice, so if I get tossed I'll just put my TMO SIM back in my phone. In the meantime, I get way better coverage.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I love the service I get from T-mobile, as far as the human element goes. I've been with them for a long time and they treat me very well when I need them to.

Unfortunately, I can't tolerate the service the network itself provides anymore. It used to be fairly functional inside city limits here (Chicago), but now it works poorly downtown, often shows max signal on HSPA+ but doesn't actually have a data connection, and if I leave city limits to go for a drive, I'm looking at probably 20 minutes outside the city before I'm on a non-data or roaming connection.

I just started a new job that provides smartphone service, so I'll probably move my t-mobile account to a minimum amount per month and get a little nokia flip phone for when I'm not doing work related things. - Another big plus for t-mobile is they'll be happy to change my monthly plan without some badgering renewal bit, I've done it twice and they always accommodate me.

</comment><comment><USER18> When I visit the US from the UK I use T-Mobile pay-as-you-go SIM cards to get data on my iPhone. It works great - you go in to a T-Mobile store, pay for the SIM and $3/day of credit (I normally spend about $25), they set up the phone and profile for you and you walk out within a few minutes with a working iPhone.

I used to use AT&T GoPhone for this, until they sold me a "special deal for SXSW" in Austin that would keep my number and data working for multiple trips three years for $100. A few months later they cancelled the data portion of the plan (naturally refusing to refund my $100 since voice still works) and made it impossible to get pay-as-you-go data on an iPhone no matter how much money you give them.

They might have fixed that now, but they've lost me to T-Mobile.

<comment><USER19> I used T-Mobile too - the trick I wish I'd known about is it'll allow free (?) roaming on to AT&T in very select areas. Your non-US credit card may not work on the website either, I just preloaded the amount I needed while at the store.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> I'm really confused when reading articles like this because it sounds like a different company to the one I know which was formed out of "Deutsche Post" during the 90ies and patronizing and shitting on its customers ever since, at least in Germany.

The biggest thing with them this year was their 384kbps Speed Throttle[1], where after your family consumed 75GB of data (download and upload) the speed of your DSL (flatrate) will go down to 384kbps for the rest of the month.

Ok you could say "this is Deutsche Telekom, the parent company, but T-Mobile is very different!" but sorry, that is not the case.

I wanted to buy a Alcatel One Touch Fire with Firefox OS when I was on holidays in Poland this year so I went to a T-Mobile store and well, there was advertising and everything and they even sold them there. But only together with a contract, which I didn't want (because I can't use it in Sweden where I live). They send me to another store so I went there, they told me the same and send me to a third store where they told me that they only sell a couple of them without a contract and only in the main cities.

I mean wtf? They have been doing advertisement all over the place that they sell it for 404 zl without a contract, even in those shops, but they wouldn't sell them to me, or they would but only with a two years contract which ended up costing around 1200 zl. So I gave up.

At home again I checked their website[2] again, and yep, there they still (and to this day) advertise it for 404 zl.

I later found out that if you have a polish ID you can order one for 404 zl from their website which I did with help of my fathers ID.

So they were just fucking with me, again, and yeah, this was not the first time. I had big time problems back then when I still lived in Germany and chose a different DSL provider after being very disappointed with T-Online. Basically they didn't send a technician for two months who would fix the tech so the new provider could provide me with internet so I was without internet for two months. That is kind of a big thing if you're working from home.

[1] [http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/13/technology/deutsche- teleko...](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/13/technology/deutsche-telekom-data- use-and-net-neutrality.html) [2] [http://www.t-mobile.pl/pl/indywidualni/telefony/telefon- ze-s...](http://www.t-mobile.pl/pl/indywidualni/telefony/telefon-ze-starterem)

<comment><USER21> So, shitty real answer:

It's not profitable for T-Mobile to sell you that device at $404 if they can get someone else to pay $1200. Yes, that's shitty, but from an economic perspective it doesn't make sense for them to sell that equipment to you. The equipment, even unsubsidized, is a loss leader for the service.

In short, it would be a good customer experience if they should you the phone, but it doesn't make economic sense.

Also, sort of unrelated, but I really don't understand all this T-Mobile love. The carriers went from eating a $400+ subsidy on every phone to eating $50 or less to acquire a new subscriber. The plans aren't THAT much cheaper, and they're still a joke compared to the cost of delivery (but I digress!).

I think T-Mobile is pro-consumer the same way AT&T is pro-consumer. They just happen to do a better job marketing it.

<comment><USER20> I wouldn't mind if they didn't advertise it for 404 zl (ca. $130) in the shop, on TV, the radio and in newspapers.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I just switched to T-Mobile with my iPhone 5S, largely on principle. My monthly bill won't go down much and my service has gotten worse, but I'm _so_ happy to leave AT&T and support what T-Mobile is doing. The new international roaming policy is icing on the cake.

<comment><USER23> Your bill won't go down much?

5GB of 4g internet with 3g speeds after that, unlimited texting, and 100 minutes of non-wifi talk (unlimited on wifi) per month is only $30 flat on T-Mobile if you buy the start-up kit at Walmart.

If you need more minutes than that you can either call over wifi, pay $0.10/minute or talk all you want for free over Wifi/3g/4g using a VoIP app like GrooveIP.

<comment><USER24> I don't think the iPhone 5s has wifi calling.

Is this accurate? [http://support.t-mobile.com/thread/52768?start=0&tstart=0](http://support.t-mobile.com/thread/52768?start=0&tstart=0)

<comment><USER25> Although Facetime Voicecalls are not the same thing, its similar and works with any iOS 7

<comment><USER26> Not really... FaceTime only lets you do iOS to iOS. Wifi calling lets you call any phone number.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> "$2000 a month for a family plan" How is this possible? I've never heard of such an expensive monthly cost. Perhaps they're paying for several iPhones on contacts?

<comment><USER28> The monthly plan for an iPhone is in the ~$95/month range. I agree that I can't even find this possible unless OP has 10+ kids.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> T-Mobile has to do this because their network is the worst. For a lot of people, that's more important than device availability, customer service, data limits, international roaming and contract terms. I say this as a T-Mo customer.

<comment><USER30> My experience is that T-Mobile's 4G is the best. It beats Time Warner's cable modem. I'm able to stream HD Youtube without stalling on my phone but not at home.

But the coverage is truly more limited.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Yeah, I went to Tmob a few months after their big relaunch/remodeling/whatever that made quite a splash in nearly every blog as the "end of bullshit"

The results? well the plans were just as expensive as those from AT&T, Verizon and Sprint, except that Tmobile had by far the worst coverage of all, I didn't get any signal inside my office.

The plan mobility was crap as well, with some plans you were stuck and couldn't move, they wanted me to buy a new SIMcard to change plans and I had to get the new one from one of their stores in particular else it wouldn't work. Why do that if not to keep me locked in a crap plan?

They said it was the end of carrier trickery but they forced me get a ridiculously expensive plan in order to be able to pay for an additional international calling service, meaning that I had to pay for a bunch of crap I did not need just to be able to qualify for that small extra feature.

Overall my experience was pretty bad and Tmob's new strategy can be summed as much ado about nothing with a lot of fine print in the middle.

</comment><comment><USER32> I'm usually not one to complain about what hits #1 spot on Hacker News, but this boils down to "I like T-Mobile, their customer service is good and I have a good plan with them" but not much else. Would it have been so highly upvoted if it wasn't from the "A VC" blog? I suspect not.

</comment><comment><USER33> The funny thing is, T-Mobile is not exactly renowned for customer friendlyness in their home market, Germany.

<comment><USER34> Not sure about T-mobile being so great in the UK either

<comment><USER35> Tesco. I'm telling you, man, Tesco's customer service is so badass. Never had a problem with them. They also piggy-back off of O2's network, so I never have coverage problems unless I'm out in the sticks.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> I'm also moving from AT&T back to t-mo. It will save me a little money, but the main reason is to show t-mo that I support how they treat customers.

</comment><comment><USER37> My experience with tmobile and Att is probably reversed: tmobile found ways to add hidden or mysterious charges that others couldn't (I.e. $10 / month android charge). Most of the customer service reps in recent years got worse and worse.

I finally switched to Att about 2 years ago and I have to admit: every time I called, everyone was friendly and helpful. Nothing was hidden: they laid out their charges and I agreed to them. They may have even slightly higher ($10 a month), but I have excellent nationwide coverage and very good internet speeds when I need it.

This was just my experience, and it may be different for others.

<comment><USER38> I would definitely not want to be a new AT&T customer today as they've phased out nearly every part of my current grandfathered plan, but I've had nothing but good experiences with support.

Even last year, when they somehow lost my old messaging plan in a phone upgrade, the rep (who I didn't even have to wait long to speak with) quickly switched me back.

The moment they require me to switch to a Mobile Share plan I'm out, but until then I'm continually surprised to be such a happy customer.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> I just switched off of tmobile to verizon b/c I thought it incredibly unfriendly. They said I'd get 4g in Atlanta. But I didn't on 3 separate devices. I couldn't get service at all at my intown house which seems insane for a major city. When I tried to get out of my contract because they'd said I'd get service and I didn't they pulled up a map of their service area and said I was mistaken. I wrote letters I tweeted etc. They basically told me to fuck off.

<comment><USER17> Interesting. I've never been treated badly by any of their support staff, but I definitely have the "doesn't work in my own home" problem with them, as many other friends do. It perplexes me because AT&T works just fine inside my apartment, and I believe they are on close to the same frequency. Weaker signals perhaps?

<comment><USER40> AT&T has HSPA+ on 850MHz and 1900MHz, T-Mobile uses 1700MHz and 1900MHz, so the building penetration is significantly worse. However, due to the failed AT&T acquisition, T-Mobile phones can now roam on AT&T's 850MHz 3G spectrum, so most of the coverage issues indoors should disappear soon if they haven't already.

<comment><USER17> I didn't realize the frequencies were so dramatically different. If I remember my basic electronics, that's double the wavelength for the AT&T signals and that makes complete sense. Thanks.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I think Fred might be disappointed when he switches back to t-mobile. I was a t-mobile customer for years and I agree they have awesome customer service. The big problem for me was the terrible cell reception in many buildings in NYC. That said, I hear there are many areas in the US where t-mobile provides decent service. For people considering switching if t-mobile's international data deal isn't that important to you, you may want to check out [http://www.solavei.com](http://www.solavei.com) first. They are a t-mobile reseller (MVNO) and you may be able to save some money compared to going through t-mobile directly. Their prices are similar to straight talk (mentioned in some of the other comments) and they also allow you to refer customers to reduce your monthly bill.

Best cell phone service for the price IMO is [http://www.pagepluscellular.com/](http://www.pagepluscellular.com/) (a verizon reseller). $55 / month (including taxes and fees) for unlimited calling, unlimited texts, and 2 gigs of data. I have been a customer of theirs for a year and a half. Their customer service is pretty good, but more importantly their signal strength (coming from verizon's towers) is the best out of all the carriers in NYC.

The one big caveat with the MVNO resellers is that they don't offer LTE data and some don't support LTE phones (ie iphone 5, 5c, 5s, etc).

TL;DR - if you're down to use an iPhone 4S or other 3G smartphone you can save some serious money per month going through an MVNO reseller.

<comment><USER19> I was in NYC last week using T-Mo and noticed this too. Is it due to the GSM frequencies they use?

I was told by a rep in Seattle that "new towers have just gone in for NYC", though YMMV.

<comment><USER24> As far as I know, the signal strength for voice calls and the data speed are different issues. Many T-mobile towers only support edge (1x) speeds on non- LTE GSM phones. Some towers have been refarmed to support the 3G hspa+ frequencies. Here is an unofficial coverage map: [http://www.airportal.de/](http://www.airportal.de/)

In my apartment in the Upper West Side, I was getting a 3G data on an unlocked AT&T iphone 4S with a t-mobile sim, but only 2 bars of voice service. I'm tempted to try t-mobile's $30 / month 5Gig data + 100 minutes plan to use with my iphone 5s.

If their LTE service has decent coverage I may be able to get away with using facetime audio + google voice + talkatone.

Has anyone done this in NYC?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> This is such an obvious puff piece. Has T-Mobile been paying these people to write these things for them? I'm still awaiting a response from T-Mobiles legal department after I threatened to sue of their refusal to release me from my contract without the $300 fee [http://www.scribd.com/doc/169303371/Demand- Letter-T-Mobile](http://www.scribd.com/doc/169303371/Demand-Letter-T-Mobile)

</comment><comment><USER42> T-Mobile simply doesn't have any data coverage outside of major metropolitan areas. If you're someone that travels outside these areas, you will be unable to use your devices for anything but calls and texts.

That's a big caveat that should be mentioned.

(If you never leave the Bay Area, for example, then T-Mobile is a logical choice. It works well for me 98% of the time here.)

<comment><USER8> Couldn't T-Mobile use another carrier's cell towers and allow their customers to fallback into those networks?

<comment><USER19> They do (although I was only able to test this in a very small part of Idaho) allow roaming on to AT&T. Supposedly it's free with a data limit.

<comment><USER43> Yes, there is free UMTS/HSPA/EDGE roaming on AT&T for post-paid plans (aka not the $30 100 minute/5gb plan) and there is a data limit. For my plan, its 50 megabytes, which doesn't seem like much, but AT&T throttles you to 128kbit/s, so you really have to work hard to get to that 50 megs.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> I recently wrote a piece on how I'm using T-Mobile and TalkaTone on my iPhone 5 and only paying $30 a month for unlimited talk, text, and data. That's why I love T-Mobile.

[http://thetechblock.com/get-unlimited-talk-text- data-30-ipho...](http://thetechblock.com/get-unlimited-talk-text- data-30-iphone)

</comment><comment><USER45> "companies sit around trying to figure out what customer charges they can get away with" That is so true! I used to work for a US telco and I've read all the stories about the "mystery charges".

Also, I must say that telcos, and even banks, in India are to an extent like this. Had one bank put a 1.5$ on my credit card statement for an analysis that they did on my spend the previous month - which indicated that 100% of my card spend was towards airfare. I used the card only once, EVER, and I did not ask for that analysis! I ended up spending 3$ (counting just travel cost) fighting the 1.5$ charge, but I absolutely wasn't going to let them have it!

Imagine telcos making an extra 1$ on some random charge on some 10 million customers. Even that is a lot of money!

</comment><comment><USER46> Ting, Ting, Ting. A thousand times Ting.

A customer, not an employee. I won't gush, see ting.com, it's an MVNO on the Sprint network.

EDIT: It kind of bothers me that someone downvoted this. It's not like I used an affiliate link or stand to benefit from this. Sorry for sharing :P

<comment><USER47> I don't think you actually save any money on Ting. Their biggest data plan is 3000M for $55 (with no text messages and no phone service), compared with T-mobile's unlimited everything for $70. The innovation they offer is that if you don't use anything and know you never will, you only pay $6 a month. But then again, I could get you the complete lack of calling, data, and text for $0 a month. You don't even have to buy a phone.

<comment><USER46> I save a significant amount of money, but you're right that if you're a heavy mobile data user other plans might make more sense. I am not: less than 1K voice minutes, 1K texts, and 250MB data between 2 lines (~$800 up-front for pretty decent smartphones). I pay $35-50/month. And not having a contract is nice.

I would be remiss not to give them a huge amount of credit for their support staff. They really care about that. The only time I called in, a live person answered the phone after 1 or 2 rings and then proceeded to solve a somewhat technical problem without transferring me.

Anyway, I don't want to sound like a paid plug for them. But I like them a lot.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> I don't understand how they're paying $2000 a month to AT&T. We have 5 iPhones and 1 AT&T iPad on a family plan with unlimited text and very high number of minutes (can't remember exactly) and pay not more than $450.

<comment><USER49> I was blown away by that number as well.

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> _" I was a T-Mobile customer for more than a decade from the late 90s until a year or two ago."_

Unless he was a T-Mobile customer in Europe, I don't see how this is possible. T-Mobile in the US was formed circa 2001 with the purchase of Voicestream Wireless. I remember because I've been a customer since 2002, and all their equipment was tagged with Voicestream logos.

Unless of course he was a Voicestream customer first, who was then rolled into T-Mobile. Who am I to say, I just pay attention to details.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-Mobile#United_States](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-Mobile#United_States)

</comment><comment><USER51> I'm wondering if there's a purpose-built, fast FirefoxOS device that works on T-Mobile that could help Fred make the transition.

Is there's anybody that knows of something faster than the ZTE-based phones?

</comment><comment><USER52> It's weird how different the are across the pond. Here in the UK the old TMobile (now EE) was absolutely terrible. I took out a new contract for the iPhone 5 on Preorder. They never delivered it and started harrasing me to pay my contract that was due to start when the phone arrived (which it didn't.)

It took me 25+ hours on hold and in the end I ended up tweeting them. Their twitter support team was a billion times better than anyone on the phone and the guy got it resolved for me.

</comment><comment><USER53> I love T-mobile whenever I am in the US. Coupled with Google Voice and Nexus 4 (LTE works!), I pay way less than an AT&T contract + phone. The only time I was unhappy with their coverage was in my apartment in Mountain View this fall. Apart from that, I've never had to call their customer service. Every time I come back to US, I simply recharge my account online and get going in minutes.

I am curious to try out the Walmart plan (refer comments) next time and cut my costs by half.

<comment><USER54> Curious about the details of the Walmart plan. Anybody?

<comment><USER55> It's been mentioned several times. Unlimited text, 5GB data, 100 minutes. Prepaid.

[http://see.walmart.com/t-mobile/](http://see.walmart.com/t-mobile/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> I moved from T-Mobile from AT&T because AT&T started demanding I buy a data plan if I were to have a smart phone, _and automatically signed me up for one and billing me for it_.

T-Mobile's network is _worse_. Really, it's worse. I'm considering going back to AT&T despite all the crap because I'm sick of picking up my phone and seeing "no coverage available" in places where I had five bars yesterday.

</comment><comment><USER57> Completely off topic but I am truly amazed by how good that spoken article was at the bottom of the post. I expected some Microsoft Sam voice, but it was actually a good clever sound with near-perfect emotional context switches in tone use.

Is that a plug and play solution or does the author have to do manual fine tuning? In both cases it is amazing how far we are with text-to-speech compared to only a few years ago.

</comment><comment><USER58> My entire family is on t-mobile and I am glad we are. I wish they would tell samsung to drop their samsung cruft, though.

</comment><comment><USER59> I'll like them more when they offer their pre-paid customers the same benefits they have on their post-paid plans. They got a lot of good will because of their recently announced reduced international roaming charges, but "post paid plan" was peppered on every article about that. Give me a break.

</comment><comment><USER60> My company uses ATT and Ive switched to using my company phone 100% of the time. However, I still have my TMobile sim pard sitting around and I'm still paying monthly payments even I don't use my TMobile plan at all. Had it been any other carrier, I would have cancelled in a heartbeat.

</comment><comment><USER61> T-Mobile (should be crushed by) Rocks.

Here on the Western slope they have the worst service of the big four. Here, only people shopping strictly on price choose T-Mobile. They want your business, they just don't want to spend any money on the infrastructure to make it even marginally acceptable.

</comment><comment><USER62> I would really really like to join T-mobile, but I'm just really hesitant based on coverage area....

</comment><comment><USER63> That being said, Speedtest reported Hong Kong 3G speeds on my (recently unlocked) iPhone 4 that are better than any of the reported 4G LTE speeds of any carrier in the US (7-9 mbps download...it was great!)

</comment><comment><USER64> T-Mobile is the worst operator I've had. Expensive, shitty customer service, dick policies, retarded user plans and contracts.

Who knows about what country I'm talking about though...

</comment><comment><USER65> I think the two thing that matter are reception and price. T-mobile clearly wins on price, but in many areas its reception is not as good as AT&T or Verizon.

</comment><comment><USER66> I'd really like to know how Fred's shared plan bill is $2000/month for what seems to be a family of four.

</comment><comment><USER67> T-Mobile is shaking up the industry like Apple should have (and could have) done with the launch of the iPhone in 2007.

<comment><USER68> Let's not discount what Apple pulled off. Before the iPhone, carriers ruled handsets with an iron fist, dictating what features they would have and what apps would be available.

Apple completely smashed that. Carriers now, for the most part, accept that they don't get to decide what your phone does, only how you use your connection with them. The carriers used to do things like disable Bluetooth and charge you extra to turn it back on, or force all apps to go through their own internal approval process and purchasing.

I'm not terribly happy with the status quo Apple has left us with. Rather than place control with us where it belongs, they've just moved control to Apple. Apple is a far better overlord to have than the carriers, but it's still not great. However, we should still recognize that Apple pulled off a massive change that nobody really thought could be done.

<comment><USER67> Keep in mind when the first iPhone released, there was no App Store. And no plan for one, supposedly [1]. Apple had as much control over your phone as the other carriers did. And much more than it does now.

My comment was more about the leverage it had over the carriers and completely squandered. IIRC, AT&T was paying Apple $10 or so per user per month. A carrier paying a handset manufacturer a fee seems like a lot of leverage. At this point, Apple had the potential to turn the industry away from fleecing customers. Instead, in 2013, we're lauding an upstart-ish company for contract-free smartphones. Great progress, but its taken far far too long.

[1] [http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jul/10/business/la-fi-tn- if...](http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jul/10/business/la-fi-tn-if-steve- jobs-apple-app-store-20130709)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER69> T-Mobile are terrible in the UK; +1 for their pay-by-the-day SIM being an amazing option when visiting the US.

</comment><comment><USER70> and they have IPv6 across their entire network. As someone who does research in this space, and advocates for it as a matter of religion^W principle, this alone makes me want to give them money.

<comment><USER71> To be fair, Verizon Wireless has been much more successful at getting IPv6 devices into customers' hands.

[http://www.worldipv6launch.org/measurements/](http://www.worldipv6launch.org/measurements/)

      - Verizon: 40.11%
      - T-Mobile: 1.57%

The Samsung Galaxy Note 3 is T-Mobile's first device to ship with IPv6 on by default:

[https://sites.google.com/site/tmoipv6/lg- mytouch](https://sites.google.com/site/tmoipv6/lg-mytouch)

</comment></comment><comment><USER72> I live in the UK, and never found anything special about T-Mobile.

<comment><USER54> This thread is about T-Mobile US.

<comment><USER72> I am aware of this, but I wanted to highlight that the brand reputation isn't consistent throughout the globe. I wish this was also T-Mobile UK !

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER73> As a Canadian, I'm curious about the international roaming.

<comment><USER74> If you are going back and forth often and end up spending more time than half the time south of the border, it might just work for you :)

Here is a quote from their fine print

> Not for extended international use; you must reside in the U.S. and primary > usage must occur on our U.S. network. Device must register on our U.S. > network before international use. Service may be terminated or restricted > for excessive roaming or misuse.

</comment></comment><comment><USER75> 2000 dollars per month? is this reality in the us? :/

<comment><USER76> 200, not 2000. for a family plan (reads like 4 or 5 people, so that's around $50 a month per person)

<comment><USER20> The article states $2000

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER77> I understand that Fred Wilson is an important voice in the startup / ycombinator world... But is this really the quality of content that really deserves to be on the front page here?

<comment><USER78> it's sunday afternoon. this is pretty normal sunday afternoon HN content. If you want something more insightful, come back tomorrow morning.

</comment></comment><comment><USER79> what's wrong with virgin mobile?

<comment><USER80> Nothing. I switched from Virgin to T-Mobile when it looked like I may be traveling internationally so I wanted a phone that would work in Europe. My coverage is a little better with T-Mobile and the ability to roam to other carriers in the event I am out of T-Mobile's coverage areas is nice. They had a better choice of phones too.

The only bad thing I would say with Virgin Mobile is about the roaming, but if you are sure you say in Sprints coverage area (in the US) then you probably won't have a problem. Other than that, I'll still recommend people look at Virgin when they are looking for new plans.

<comment><USER81> I have Virgin and agree with the points here. Basically roaming on the $35/mo plan is non-existent but I have never had an issue with my phone not working in the areas I live and visit (unless there was a tower down). Sprint's 4G coverage is very poor so if you expect that then good luck but my phone is not so I don't mind yet and can easily switch to another carrier like T-Mobile when I do.

<comment><USER82> Virgin Mobile USA is owned by Sprint and only works on Sprint towers, roaming is explicitly non existent.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER83> All carriers are shit, T-Mobile is no exception.

<comment><USER84> I prefer to say they suck less.</comment></comment>


Mystery Russian satellite's behaviour raises alarm in US - <AUTHOR> https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-45194333 <comment><USER2> The initial source is here: [https://www.state.gov/t/avc/rls/285128.htm](https://www.state.gov/t/avc/rls/285128.htm)

It says NOTHING about how the behavior is unusual and why it raises concerns. Would be interesting if they gave at least some information.

<comment><USER3> Slow news day for BBC?</comment></comment>


American millennials think they will be rich - <AUTHOR> https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2019/04/22/american-millennials-think-they-will-be-rich <comment><USER3> This is nothing new. Americans have always considered themselves temporarily poor.

And while many don't become fantastically rich, there's still a huge amount of turnover at the top levels of wealth between generations.

<comment><USER4> Indeed, in the US 12% of the population will find themselves in the top 1% of the income distribution for at least one year.

([https://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/20/opinion/sunday/from- rags-...](https://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/20/opinion/sunday/from-rags-to- riches-to-rags.html?smid=pl-share))

<comment><USER5> > 12% of the population will find themselves in the top 1% of the income > distribution for at least one year

That is just wild. I wish they dove deeper into the data here. The top 1% of earning, based on a quick google, is 1.3m/yr. That's a lot! Are there, say, estate windfalls pushing people around to cause some of those blips?

Also, this article fails to separate income from wealth/assets, which seems to be a common pitfall in this kind of conversation. Many of the people with the most _wealth_ are not those with the most _income_. So while there appears to be lots of income volatility, I would be interested in seeing the same thing for wealth over time.

<comment><USER3> Wealth typically only lasts 2-3 generations. That might change as people have fewer kids. Takes 2-5 generations to go from poverty to top 1%.

I would give citations but I've forgotten where I heard this.

<comment> munk-a Your phrasing is a bit misleading, wealth is very fleeting, but the 2-5 generations to get into the top 1% is not "typical" by definition 1% of people reside in the top 1% - if we were to assume that the cycle of boom and bust is the lower bound in your example (two to fall out, two to get in) then one out of every five generations a family should be in the 1%, yielding that 20% of the population should currently be in the top 1% - using your upper bounds it's a bit less silly but still mathematically unsound _and_ I would strongly challenge that 2-3 generations number. Evidence that I've seen doesn't support wealthy families falling out in 2-3 generations (except borderline wealthy families) and the dynamics of money are changing, the estate tax has been abolished and we simply don't have enough information past 1980 to see if that claim will hold true... and what evidence we have (general information about wealth inequality) is showing a strong trend to continue the concentration of wealth.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Having 1 million dollars at one point in your life (probably near retirement), after 30-40 more years of inflation, is probably pretty realistic. That will just be a regular lower middle class retirement, maybe not even enough to pass on to your kids but enough to get by. 2% annual inflation compounded over 35 years means that 1 million in 2054 will be about equivalent to $500k now. Which in most of the country is basically a paid off, middle income house and a few hundred thousand more in savings.

<comment><USER7> I think $1M would qualify much better than lower middle class retirement. I'd bet a good chunk of the middle class is going to end up retiring on social security.

<comment><USER6> I wouldn't really call that middle class then, but maybe

<comment><USER7> Middle class is a very politically charged term, but the way I see it, "median" ought to describe middle class fairly well. I don't know what qualifies as official numbers, but what I've read recently is the median American hits retirement age with a net worth less than $200K. Probably mostly in their house. They probably spent their whole lives getting that thing paid off so they may plausibly survive on what social security pays them, if they're careful.

I suspect most of us on HN are a bit optimistic about the definition of middle class. Maybe we identify socially as middle class. But unless the numbers are lying, a huge chunk of America is in a much tighter financial situation.

<comment><USER6> Historically that's not what middle class meant (it usually referred to closer to the top 10% who had to work for a living but were well off) but I agree. To me living on $10-15k/year with enough money to sustainably supplement another $10k/year seems pretty poor, but maybe I'm just too privileged to understand. Close to half of all americans couldn't handle an unexpected $500 expense which seems pretty poor to me too

<comment><USER7> My understanding is that the common definition of middle class is in between working class and upper class, but that in America the people who most identify as middle class would be called working class anywhere else. Personally I tend to view it more as a mindset than an income range.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> > Then there is mum and dad: even if they don't become millionaires, > millennials will one day inherit from their parents, and that may help > redress their relative poverty.

Boomers (in general) have as little saved and are in as much debt as their kids. Mcmansions, healthcare, and luxury cars aren't cheap. I (gen Y) am not counting on any Social Security or inheritance.

</comment><comment><USER9> The term "millionaire" is very dated.

It was first coined in the 1700s and first popularized in American culture as early as the 30s, so really when people envision that "millionaire" from their childhood or from their parents' minds they're really thinking of a decamillionaire in today's dollars.

When you frame it like that, I'm not sure if any millennial thinks that will happen.

</comment><comment><USER10> Well, given compounding interest and inflation, is this so out of the question?

At least I keep hearing I need a net worth > 1 million to retire. If one puts away 10-15k a year for just 30 years, plus interest that would get you there comfortably.

<comment><USER11> Around 50% of the US working population earns $30,000 or less a year. Good luck saving 10k or 15k a year at that income level.

Tangentially, at the typically suggested 4% yearly withdrawal level you'd need more like $1.5 million to retire at the ~$60k median income level.

Also sort of unrelated I thinks it's interesting that about 50% of people can earn under $30k, but median income is still twice that.

<comment><USER12> Median household income is nearly twice median individual income (approx 31k vs approx 57k). Households frequently have two earners.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I'm a millionaire, largely because I own a house. If this is the dream life we have made a huge mistake somewhere.

</comment><comment><USER14> Obviously the basic gist of this isn't a new thing, as said in other comments, Americans (and likely many other country inhabitants) have considered themselves temporarily poor/embarassed millionaires/whatever for decades/centuries.

But part of me wonders whether social media and the internet may have pushed the effect even further. Rich people are seriously overrepresented online, and the rise in social media influencers may make people feel like that's the norm for society nowadays, that everyone has the coolest tech, the most up to date fashion, the fanciest house/apartment, a huge online following and a picture perfect lifestyle. Hell, I even remember articles saying how many kids saw Twitch streaming/creating YouTube videos being their most likely career choice.

Just feels like social media and the internet makes you think that everyone is raking in it and living a dream lifestyle, and that logically you should be destined for the same thing.

</comment><comment><USER15> Crazy. Wealth is certainly within reach of most people, but it requires discipline and a long, long-range saving plan.

I suppose many of those surveyed are watching the 'FIRE' folks. I think those people are high-salary people (usually), also combined with very disciplined savings and investment.

It just won't happen for wishers. Only for doers.

</comment><comment><USER16> I wish they had done something like 20-25 and 30-35 instead of 20-35 and 25-35.

Of course 20-25 year olds are going to pull the median down. They're still in college! But yeah 25-35 is still pretty low

<comment><USER17> I think you're vastly overestimating how much people go to college - <USER2> due to anecdotal experience.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Of course they do. This has been part of the culture for generations. It's an ongoing delusion that fuels the inequality and lack of social services and keeps most people poor while the rich get richer. It's exactly this kind of delusion that the rich spread to keep people from questioning and changing what's currently going on. Americans are known for their stupidity and this is definitely an example of that.

</comment><comment><USER5> Paywall bypass: [https://outline.com/bLtYCK](https://outline.com/bLtYCK)

\</comment><comment>-

> MORE THAN half of American millennials, the generation of people born > between 1981 and 1996, believe that they will one day be millionaires; one > in five think they will get there by the age of 40.

This, to me, is absolutely insane.

Given that it's from a survey by Ameritrade, is it possible that the survey strongly self selects for fiscally healthy people (proximity to ameritrade is probably a strong signal here), and who understand that you can be a paper millionaire with, say, one really good property and a modest retirement account?

I somewhat hope so, because if this means "half the people who work at chipotle expect to be millionaires" then that's admirably ambitious but a little miscalibrated.

Hell, I've got a decent tech salary and my brother's running a healthy lifestyle business. I wouldn't say with certainty that either of us are going to become millionaires, despite being unusually well positioned to do so.

What happens when these people's dreams collide with reality? Are people content to drift through life saying "any day now, things will turn around and make me rich..."?

Nevermind that being a millionaire isn't that important. I'd take median wealth and top decile meaning over median meaning and top decile wealth any day.

<comment><USER19> If you make the median tech salary of $300k and live on a fraction of that it doesn't take that long to save $1m...

Point is there's no magic to becoming a millionaire if you have minimal expenses and single.

<comment><USER5> > median tech salary of $300k

Mean is probably better than median here, right? Because salary isn't quite a normal distribution. The high end is super high. 300k is normal for FAANG, but that class of tech employee is in the top 10% of the wider tech salary pool, at least.

Interesting that you call out being single. I've had the opposite experience – the trick seems to be a salary like that and a spouse that is at least pulling down a normal salary as well. If they're also making engineer money, then you're super set. If I'd have been splitting rent and groceries for the past 10 years, my finances would look a lot better.

That's not an excuse, I could have gotten a roommate with the same effect. Just to say that it seems being single raises expenses because you lose the little collaborative economies of scale.

<comment><USER19> I would put DINKs in the same group, yes (double income no kids). Kids are a very big expense, even for high earners, and actually especially in pricey areas like Silicon Valley because housing near good schools commands an even higher premium than average for that area.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Even if the odds are against them, people like having the possibility of getting rich.

The odds aren't even that bad, if you read up on how to do it, develop a plan, and stick to it.

Why take that away from people?

<comment><USER21> They tend to vote against their own interest because 'one day' they'll have more money and what they're voting for will benefit them 'then'.

<comment><USER20> I'm not so sure it's against their self interest. Crushing taxes on the wealthy makes a country poor, and that hurts everyone via slow, stagnant economies.

<comment><USER22> Care to cite that second half? I know raising taxes to an extreme may cause some issues but I thought we currently have some of the lowest taxes on the richest people?

<comment><USER20> The US has maybe twice the average annual growth rate than Europe, if you compare the S&P500 with EU stock indices.

<comment><USER22> Sure, but can that be attributed to the lax taxing on the rich? Or are there a slew of other things that could be causing this?

<comment><USER20> Let me put it another way. If people weren't allowed to accumulate large amounts of wealth, would there still be SpaceX? Why is SpaceX in the US rather than Europe?

<comment><USER23> Europe is a very fragmented collection of independent countries with massive bureaucracy, lack of intercompatability, and historic division.

<comment><USER20> Pick a country that has a better long term economy than the US.

<comment><USER23> Pick a country that has similar geo-historical background... it's hard, US is pretty unique. Closest would be something like Australia but they have too few people.

<comment><USER20> Looks like neither of us know of any countries whose long term economics outperform the US.

<comment><USER22> I think what the user above you is trying to say is that there are many factors that go into economic performance. Tax on the wealthy is not the only factor and to say that is the reason for the economic advantage would be a bit of a stretch. Every country is very different in almost too many ways to get a real, true comparison.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> In the summarising the results of the TD Ameritrade survery, there is a "Q" number in the bottom left of each results page, e.g., "Q300".

What does this represent?

</comment><comment><USER25> I wouldn't be surprised, if a lot do. Just based on my friend group, a lot of people/couples are doing really really well and could easily hit a million in the next decade+ (and I suspect a few already have) if the stock market doesn't implode.

</comment><comment><USER26> Did they ask how millennials think to achieve this?

</comment><comment><USER27> > MORE THAN half of American millennials, the generation of people born > between 1981 and 1996, believe that they will one day be millionaires; one > in five think they will get there by the age of 40.

I'm 40, I have a good job, and I will one day be a millionaire.

I will never be rich, or the possibility is so impossibly low as to be laughable.

Both of these statements are true, and that is one of the fallacies that the paper is making. It is very likely that a huge number of millenials will be millionaires, given that our current economy is capable of running as-is for another 40-50 years, simply due to pressures from inflation.

I don't think that our economy will run as-is for the next 40-50 years, of course. We will do something about Climate Change, or it will do something about us.

<comment><USER28> The sad truth here is that "millionaire" doesn't mean a damned thing these days. In many cities a crappy crack den looking house in a terrible neighborhood costs more than a million dollars.

<comment><USER23> Not really. Even in bay area there are plenty of places that are better than crack dens for 1mil. But yes, a few places in the world are very expensive.

<comment><USER28> By a very broad definition of "bay" and "area", as in completely excluding the valley.

<comment><USER23> Median home price in Daly city is $936k [https://www.zillow.com/daly-city- ca/home-values/](https://www.zillow.com/daly-city-ca/home-values/)

Median home price in San Jose is $1054k [https://www.zillow.com/san-jose- ca/home-values/](https://www.zillow.com/san-jose-ca/home-values/)

Median home price in San Bruno is $1089k [https://www.zillow.com/san-bruno- ca/home-values/](https://www.zillow.com/san-bruno-ca/home-values/)

Yes, Menlo Park/Palo Alto/Mountain View are expensive but they don't fully define Bay Area.

The cities I showed and more are definitely within Bay Area. And their median house is not a "crack shack."

<comment><USER28> What I mean by "crack shack" is unremarkable home or one in a severe state of disrepair, where the land itself is worth a million dollars.

Those aren't too hard to find when the median home is a million dollars.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> I don't know why the article is picking out millennials (other than that it's a popular tactic in the news media). You can replace the phrase "American millennials" with "Americans" in the headline and it will hold true.

I'm reminded of something John Oliver said during a segment of Last Week Tonight some years ago about the lottery. It seems that there are only two classes of Americans. The rich and the soon-to-be rich. At least that's what Americans seem to believe.

<comment><USER3> > _I don 't know why the article is picking out millennials (other than that > it's a popular tactic in the news media)._

That's the only reason. The Economist is owned by aristocratic Boomers and written by Gen Xers. They're just salty they were born too late to be the Greatest and too early to go to Mars.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> Narrator: They won't.

</comment><comment><USER31> This is the reason why american people don't vote for more taxes on the rich, illusion that someday they will be rich too.

working great for the people with money who created this illusion!

<comment><USER32> what an absurd thing to say

<comment> munk-a What an absurd response! The chance that a random person on the street in America is a billionaire is currently 0.00000212036%. It is absurd for anyone to think they'll win that lottery chance (especially since the acquisition of wealth is correlated highly with... already having wealth)

<comment><USER33> The article is about millionaires not billionaires, in which case the odds are actually around 3.5% (12m out of 327m pop) of US population.

<comment> munk-a I mean, it's purely rationale to think you'll accumulate a million dollars of assets at some point in your lifetime, but that isn't rich - a large portion of your wealth will be locked into sustaining your living situation. Up here in Vancouver almost everyone (including blue collar peeps) who purchased a home in the 60s or 70s is a multimillionaire, but if they want to continue residing in Vancouver that money is essentially unavailable to them.

I'll clarify a bit, being a millionaire in no way implies that you're rich, inflation is a thing and the vast majority of millennials will be poor.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Startups Ain't Always Pretty (And That's Normal) - <AUTHOR> http://www.metamorphblog.com/2010/11/startups-they-aint-always-pretty.html

<comment><USER2> I've never heard of Hunch before, but just yesterday I was actually thinking that it'd be nice if a tool just like it existed. However, the first thing I thought when I saw their website was "this looks like too much work" (bearing in mind that I'm a little short on sleep today, which is probably why I'm writing this rather than code right now).

I don't want to sign up to stuff and I don't want to answer 20 (unknown) questions to build something (a "taste profile") that I don't understand. After I've seen (and used) some benefits then certainly, but not as soon as I hit their page. I guess this is because every website on the web seems to want me to sign up and invest time and effort in them. I wonder if there is something they can do to lower this initial barrier a little.

</comment><comment><USER3> For what it's worth, I used Hunch as the "decision engine" on a graduate project. While we had to use the old (very limited) API, Hunch was an incredibly useful matchmaking tool. The way they can parse a profile from fbook or twitter and make accurate predictions about tastes could be incredibly powerful.

</comment><comment><USER4> The new HN ranking system is confusing me. Why is this not on the front page?

</comment><comment><USER5> Brave (and true) post

</comment><comment><USER6> Mireles likes startups</comment>


Windows Phone And Android Hate - <AUTHOR> http://techpinions.com/windows-phone-android-and-hate/22730?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=windows-phone-android-and-hate <comment><USER2> Two points that have me confused: 1) I don't fully understand how Android is stifling innovation in local-mobile services simply by having a dominant market share. From where I am standing (which admittedly, is in android's favor as I very much enjoy using and developing for android) the platform is more open to development of advanced local-mobile services and applications due to fewer restrictions of background usage of sensors and services (vs. iOS, for example). In addition, I see Google pushing the envelope much more and much faster than iOS in terms of providing its own local-mobile services and applications (they're potential data harvesting evil-ness aside).

2) Why do you trust Microsoft more than Google when they have pretty much blow-for-blow have equivalent services, applications, and (potential) scalability in online and mobile services? Is it simply because they have bought the Nokia devices and services division and are folding it under the Microsoft brand, making them a true hardware manufacturer (in the sense that they stand to benefit if they profit from hardware sales)? As I see it, the big three mobile companies (Apple, Google, MS - sorry BB) all now have their own top-to-bottom mobile stacks, except Google has kept Moto silo'd away from their core business. So are you simply pointing out that Google's current business model is still to undercut in hardware prices (not try to profit) and make the rest up in services, while assuming that Microsoft will not go this route (they probably will)? Also, all that being said, Google's hardware stance certainly appears to be changing if they really make a mainstream push for Glass and plan to start making their own hardware as they have hinted at (Glass, Pixel, Nexus Q, Moto X).</comment>


The Electric-Bike Conundrum - <AUTHOR> https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/the-electric-bike-conundrum <comment><USER3> This is just people complaining loudly and vebosely about something they don't like and trying to make it into a vague moral failing.

Electric bikes exist.

Bike advocates for years have railed against cars and said the world would be so much better if people biked. Now the electric bike is expanding the world of biking and all of the social benefits of biking still exist with electric bikes and these people don't like it.

It's just classic policing of a sub-culture. According to him, you aren't a real cyclist if you aren't pedaling as hard as he is. What he needs to do is get over himself and realize that progress doesn't look like what you want it to look like; that you should learn to accept the world rather than just like a child expect the world to conform to your purist expectations.

<comment><USER4> I doubt you read the full article.

It's quite a bit more reasoned than you suggest. The author acknowledges his bias, its source, and even that it's not entirely rational. But he's also exploring how e-bikes change the dynamic of pedestrian vs. bike vs. car traffic in a city, what kinds of pros and cons exist, and whether there are any rational sources of objection to the way e-bikes are currently being used.

He acknowledges that e-bikes are fun and useful: "I found the effect narcotic and delightful: on a flat road, I moved faster than I did on a normal bike, with less exertion. [...] Assisted living was so pleasant!"

Commiserating with a friend, they conclude that despite their objections, "for all our shared sense that something was wrong with electric bikes, we agreed that, by any rational measure, they are a force for good. [...] The engines are efficient, they reduce congestion [...] Fewer cars, more bikes."

However, they did identify at least one issue worth considering:

> "if you are not human-powered, you should not be using human-powered > infrastructure. You should be in the street. E-bikes being licensed as > motorized vehicles is good. E-bikes being in human-powered infrastructure is > no good..."

Of course it's not quite that simple - e-bikes mingling with cars seems more dangerous than them mingling with human-powered traffic - but it's a point worth considering, for sure. For example, it's much easier to get up to 20 mph on an e-bike than an ordinary bike, and they tend to be quieter, too, so for pedestrians they can be quite terrifying. As the number of e-bikes increases, it's likely to become necessary to address this kind of thing.

He also notes the increasing difficulty of distinguishing between human- powered and assisted activity in an increasingly machine-assisted world, acknowledging that the distinction in the quote above is becoming less easy to make.

Even if you disagree with his perspective, it ought to be possible to read an article like this and recognize its value, unless you're even more ideologically fixed on a particular perspective than the author is.

<comment><USER5> Ebikes are not faster then the regular bikes. I am biking on a trail that has a 15mph speed limit. Even when I am allowing myself to go at 20 mph, I am constantly taken over by those elitist cyclists who feel like they are doing so much good by mere cycling that the rules don't apply to them.

Assist is "optimized" for 20mph and is capped at like 28 - I believe this is due to European laws. I have yet to breach 24 mph even with a full assist on a straight road.

<comment><USER6> > Ebikes are not faster then the regular bikes.

No but they do react very differently, mainly at startup.

> Assist is "optimized" for 20mph and is capped at like 28 - I believe this is > due to European laws.

EU classifies ebikes as bicyles if the assistance has cut out by 25 _km_ /h (16mph), the ebike must also have an engine under 250W, and must not allow power on demand (only pedaling assistance).

Individual countries may have a broader category for bicycle, or may have additional categories between bicycles and mopeds or motorbikes (e.g. s-pedelec in Germany), but the pedelec classification guarantees your ebike is treated as a bicycle (rather than a moped) across the EU.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Was just in semi-rural Germany (villages every km or two, farmer's fields between, so not urban commuting) and I'd say half of the bikes I passed were electric assist. There weren't actually that many cyclists, considering the infrastructure available. Many bike/ped only paths near the roads, and many roads that are farmworker/ped/bike only, so no cars (but those tended to be significantly hilly, like 1k feet of climbing/10 miles).

But for the most part, the people on the electric assist bikes were older, a distinct population from the ones out for a spin. They were also pretty mellow in terms of speed -- faster than the kiddos but I'd pass them pretty handily on my road bike. It's my impression that the electric bikes there definitely expand the cycling population, and don't detract from it at all.

(ymmv, n=small and all that)

<comment><USER8> Yeah, was in Lindau and Bregenz, Austria last weekend. E-bikes are a big thing with elderly people (or those who live up the big hills)

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> No one parodies Hacker News comments as well as Hacker News commenters.

This is a piece about one guy's emotions and feelings about the rise of e-bikes. He's not policing anything. He's not setting government policies. He's lamenting that bicycling, especially in NYC, was once an activity for people who had to physically struggle with it and who got some viceral return from that and now it's just another form of commuting alongside cars, taxis and the subway.

He's not telling anyone not to buy an e-bike. He's not saying they don't belong on the road. People have written the same pieces about automatic transmission in cars and all other sorts of automation. Of course e-bikes will continue to grow. But riding one will never be the same as doing it all yourself.

<comment><USER10> The attitude in the article reminds me of a passage from George Orwell's _Road to Wigan Pier_ :

"Everyone who has travelled by primitive methods in an undeveloped country knows that the difference between that kind of travel and modern travel in trains, cars, etc., is the difference between life and death. The nomad who walks or rides, with his baggage stowed on a camel or an ox-cart, may suffer every kind of discomfort, but at least he is living while he is travelling; whereas for the passenger in an express train or a luxury liner his journey is an interregnum, a kind of temporary death. And yet so long as the railways exist, one has got to travel by train—or by car or aeroplane. Here am I, forty miles from London. When I want to go up to London why do I not pack my luggage on to a mule and set out on foot, making a two days of it? Because, with the Green Line buses whizzing past me every ten minutes, such a journey would be intolerably irksome. In order that one may enjoy primitive methods of travel, it is necessary that no other method should be available. No human being ever wants to do anything in a more cumbrous way than is necessary."

For someone to whom the effort required to be a bicyclist was a badge of honor, an electric bike is the equivalent of that annoying Green Line bus, I would think..

<comment><USER11> I get your point, but I think it's somewhat ironic we currently have this thread: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15045531](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15045531) just a few items below the current on on the frontpage.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Its a conundrum right now, for sure, but I am all for getting more people on bikes, electric or not.

The main issue with e-bikes in the bike lane is obviously the speed and pacing are not going to match your average bicycle commuter. The same effect would result from a professional cyclist carving through the streets at speeds no one could match.

I think the issue would solve itself as they become more popular. If they can hit speeds of 20-40MPH, then they should be using a full car lane, and can benefit from each other's presence. Professional and highly trained amateur cyclists do this already.

<comment><USER13> The main problem I've seen is that they have a different acceleration curve than a road bike -- they take off from a dead stop faster than a road bike, but for some reason most top out a few mph lower than a slow road bike (15-18mph?).

The result is that they rudely pass all the bikes at each stop light, repeatedly forcing the bikes to pass them in car lanes once everyone gets back up to speed.

<comment><USER14> They often stop there because they're speed capped by law.

20mph in the US. Slightly lower in most of the EU.

I have a pedal assist wheel, and it will bring me to 20 fairly quickly on flat ground, but all assist cuts out there and the rest is up to me. Usually I hover around 25, but it depends on how I'm feeling that day. You're not really going to pass me at 25 though... Even if you do think it's a problem, it just means we need better bike lanes and bike planning. Speeds vary all the time.

That said... I bike to work pretty much all the time now because of the electric bike.

The end result is dramatically and unquestionably good.

The article can be summed up by their own quote:

>And yet, for all our shared sense that something was wrong

>with electric bikes, we agreed that, by any rational

>measure, they are a force for good.

This nostalgia fluff piece is fluff. It's basically attempting to explain a soft form of gatekeeping around people who do or don't qualify as cyclists.

<comment><USER13> If you're hovering around 25mph, then you're not causing trouble for anyone. It's good to know the ebikes don't somehow limit you once you're up to speed.

I guess the problem I see is inexperienced cyclists stuck at 20mph. Presumably that problem will fix itself after they log a few hundred miles and get a bit faster.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I think pedal-assist is fine, but some e-bikes are effectively motorcycles in terms of the speed they can travel. Those are dangerous on bike/pedestrian trails and paths. They should be licensed and taxed and require insurance like motorcycles do, and they should have to use the roads not bike paths or trails.

<comment><USER16> In my admittedly anecdotal experience, e-bike riders tend to actually be as safe if not safer on trails and paths.

Plenty of traditional bikers are folks who are using bike shares and do things like not wear helmets, ignore road signs, ride two abreast, and swerve without warning. Also a problem are the "pro" bikers (you know, the ones on a racing bike, fully decked out in gear) that tend to ride ~10 mph faster than everyone else and pass aggressively.

E-bikers on the other hand, go in a straight line, usually single file, without swerving and seem to follow traffic signs because they have an easier time accelerating and decelerating.

Again, just my anecdotal experience -- I ride ~5 miles to/from work in New York.

<comment><USER17> Yeah, I imagine e-bikers have fewer incentives to "cheat" traffic rules, it costs them less to obey.

I wouldn't be surprised if that overshadows any danger from introducing different travel patterns compared to regular bikes.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> One windy day I asked an e-biker if he wouldn't mind breaking the wind for me on my commute. He agreed, and obligingly slowed down for me a couple times when he dropped me.

Ever since I've been much more charitable towards these "cheaters".

</comment><comment><USER19> Perhaps what bothers the author about e-bikes is that using a bike safely on streets requires hard-won skills, and riders who start out on an e-bike might get hurt before they acquire those skills. The faster the bike, the greater the probable damage.

Just this morning, as I was biking to work, a car came within an inch or so of hitting me, but I was moving slowly enough to avoid a collision. On an e-bike the story might have been very different.

<comment><USER14> There is absolutely some truth to this.

Just like learning to drive, learning to bike takes some time and effort.

In the US it's considerably worse because our bike infrastructure is downright terrible in most cities.

I was biking in Amsterdam a year ago, and holy shit the difference is night and day (even with the shitty delivery guys doing 40mph on their gas scooters in the bike lanes).

Just putting up temporary bike lanes in some cities increased bike rides by 800% ([http://usa.streetsblog.org/2017/06/28/macon-georgia- striped-...](http://usa.streetsblog.org/2017/06/28/macon-georgia-striped-a- good-network-of-temporary-bike-lanes-and-cycling-soared/)).

There's a huge and mostly hidden demand for this. People don't think about it, but when it's offered they take advantage.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Take a look at something like the Super 73 Scout: [https://www.theverge.com/circuitbreaker/2017/7/12/15958836/s...](https://www.theverge.com/circuitbreaker/2017/7/12/15958836/super-73-scout- price-ride-range-photos)

When I first saw this I thought "hell yeah I am buying on of those right this second". I bike every day in SF and there are tons of hills, I'd love one of these for when I am feeling lazy and want to have some fun.

But then I thought about what I'd be like in the bike lane. If someone went by me on one of those I'd be pretty grumpy. They take up more space, they don't have the right acceleration patterns, and the rider is not nearly as engaged with the ride.

I think the e-bike is the perfect city vehicle, but not sure where they will fit in between bikes and motorcycles as they evolve.

<comment><USER21> The article describes the super 73 as a minimalist ebike. That's not minimalist. This is minimalist:

[http://www.propellabikes.com/](http://www.propellabikes.com/)

<comment><USER6> You're confusing e-bicycle and e-motorbike. The Super 73 is the later.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> A few critical problems in the US that you don't see as much in Europe (especially DACH + NE where bike culture / support is fantastic):

* is a clear respect for the fact you're in a 4,000 lbs vehicle and I'm on a bike. If you hit me, I die. Drivers in CH stop and wait meters away for bikers to pass the intersection. People in America ain't got time for that I guess. * Great intra-suburban bike lines that can support multiple commute speed bikers on electric assist or not. (Try riding from any south bay city to any other non-adjacent south bay city) * General conditioning to driving culture. You gotta get somewhere, you hop in your whip. Walking or other forms of transportation are looked down upon.

<comment><USER23> CH = Switzerland? Definitely found it a safe place to bike, or to drive for that matter.

Also I guess DACH is Germany, Austria, Switzerland. Never seen that abbreviation before, but then I live in North America.

<comment><USER24> CH = Switzerland indeed (from "Confoederatio Helvetica").

About DACH, I think your interpretation is correct, but I had never seen it either.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Natural progression of the trend I'm seeing in the comments

Step 1: Peaceful citizen buys an ebike to make commute easier. (person is elderly, permanent injury, has steep climb daily, other reasons that are their own)

Step 2: Rider Wears helmet, slows on oncoming traffic, stops at lights, and is generally a perfectly fine rider like many bike riders

Step 3: Concerned mom-type notices faster bikes with engines in lane and complains

Step 4: Law passed, Rider is now doing something illegal

Step 5: Ticket/Jail/Confiscated bike despite no evidence or numbers that rider was a danger to himself or others any more than cyclists

This is literally every law that affects peaceful citizens.

<comment><USER26> A problem is that if the bicycle goes above 20mph, it is a scooter and would fall under motorcycling laws. That means licensing and insurance. Generally under 20 miles or so it is considered a moped and is treated differently.

Also no offense, but going 20 mph in a bike lane or worse a sidewalk would be very bad. An ebike is not a bike, but a moped under the classic definition, a bicycle with pedals and a engine to provide supplemental power. It's just not a gas moped.

<comment><USER14> Yes... and most electric assist bikes cap out at 20 mph in the US, as required by law.

Also... you sound like you've never ridden a road bike seriously. 20mph in a bike lane, especially while going downhill, is pretty meagre for a standard road bike. No assist needed.

Hell, I'm fat (ish) and I can hit 25 on flat ground on my road bike with some effort (although staying there is draining). I can easily do 30 going downhill.

I'm regularly passed by folks doing more than 30 on hills where I live.

<comment><USER25> I forgot about that, downhill without pedaling brings most bikes a good clip, mine being no exception. I have a really good bike with great disk breaks I keep in good shape so I'm no more or less in danger than any other bike on the road. The biggest concern any cyclists have are crowded streets and poorly thought out bike lanes, not ebikes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> How many pedestrians and bikers have been injured and/or killed by electric bikers? How does that compare to cars and trucks? Wouldn't that information be helpful in thinking through whether there is any problem at all here?

<comment><USER28> The population of ebike riders is tiny but growing rapidly. It seems like that might make it difficult to measure relative injury rates accurately.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Electric bikes may end up setting back progress in getting people to switch to cycling as a main form of transportation.

One of the most significant deterrents to cycling has been the danger involved with being mixed in with automobiles that are easily able to injure and kill a cyclist. The biggest gains in increasing bicycle use has been by creating bike lanes for all ages and abilities that are completely separated from traffic with physical barriers. These are safe spaces for bicycle users and all people can feel comfortable riding on them, whether they're young and fit, elderly or if they're riding with their young child that is just learning.

With the advent of fast moving electric bicycles, suddenly these all ages and abilities bike lanes may not be such safe spaces any more and this could discourage people from cycling. People may not want to take their young child out cycling if there are food couriers zooming by at speeds that a normal bicycle wouldn't be capable of.

<comment><USER30> It is actually quite the contrary. Electric bikes should bring bikes back as full members of the public traffic. Yes, some people are terrified to drive amongst cars. But the so called bike paths are the actual death traps, as most of them have dangerous encounters with the car traffic where it is the most difficult to spot bicyclists, that is at crossings. A large amount of the bicycle deaths are caused by trucks turning right across the bike path, killing a bicyclist. Furthermore, at least in Germany, they are not in a shape for comfortable riding. The only ones enjoying bike paths are unexperienced and untrained bicyclists, who ride a long at little more than walking speed.

Any reasonably seasoned bicyclists easily bikes at 20-30 kph in the flats, so by far exceed the safe bike path speeds. Electric bikes give this speed to anyone, who might be older, or is commuting and does not seek the sporty challenge. This requires proper bike traffic handling by the authorities.

<comment><USER31> This is a disingenuous argument - cars are "full members of the public traffic" and are regularly involved in minor and major collisions with each other. Drivers are rarely killed or seriously injured in these collisions, whereas it's almost impossible for a cyclist to escape these collisions _without_ an injury. "Some people are terrified" because injury and death is a very real possibility in traffic.

The primary issue with road safety is not the speed of cycling but the presence of motor vehicles. The only adequate mitigation is to make them go very slowly to reduce the energy of collision (on side streets) or eliminate them (on well-designed, segregated bike paths). The fact that Germany is not very good at segregation does not invalidate the concept - just look at the Netherlands for an example of what can be achieved.

<comment><USER30> The point is, if you drive in the normal car lane, it is pretty impossible for a driver, who is not asleep, to miss you and hit you. So while it looks scary, it is very safe, as I assume that every driver tries not to hit a bicyclist. But I have not seen a bike infrastructure inside towns which don't involve crossings. At those crossings it is very easy to hit a bicycle, even if you pay a lot of attention as a driver. So, unless it does not cross car traffic, bike paths are more dangerous than being in lane with cars.

<comment><USER31> It is unfortunately very possible for a driver to be asleep, texting or just to make a massive misjudgement. As you say, crossing situations are some of the most dangerous on a bike, but there's no reason why a properly designed bike lane junction need be more dangerous than a normal road junction. In fact, intuitively, general road junctions are more dangerous as drivers are looking for other road vehicles, rather than bikes, and can very easily miss them. If you're going to continue making this argument, I'd root it in stats - show me a place which has no cycling infrastructure yet which is safer than Copenhagen or Utrecht.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> New York City lowered their speed limit to 25mph. Electric bikes generally don't go over 20mph. The trick is they can consistently travel at 20mphs - <USER2> fast pace for an average human pedaling a bike. That is, they perform like a fast cyclist. I doubt electric bikes will be incompatible with NYC bike and car traffic.

<comment><USER33> By law in the U.S. electric bikes cannot provide assistance over 20mph.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_bicycle_laws#Federal_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_bicycle_laws#Federal_Laws_and_Regulations_Pertaining_to_the_Sale_of_Electric_Bicycles)

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> I have an electric bike and I love it. It makes places that were "just a bit too far" away without assist perfectly close. It won't replace a car 100% for me (I live in Austin, Tx), but it does cut down my total car trips quite a bit.

</comment><comment><USER35> I looked into getting one. It would increase my commute range if I move (I ride about 4miles to and from work daily). It would also make me a little less sweaty on those hot summer mornings.

They are fun, you feel very strong riding them. Most have various levels of assist. They are heavy and making them a good workout with the assist off.

I do feel you would get scowls from other riders, though they are a little discreet (pedal assist means you look like pedaling), you do notice when people ride by such little effort.

</comment><comment><USER36> Ah man as a committed bike commuter in a hilly place I _SOOOOOOOOOO_ identify with the what the author is saying. Something about electric bikes just ... irks me. It's totally irrational because every e-bike is presumably one less car on the road. But the bike lane should be reserved for bikes. And hard work.

<comment><USER37> For what it's worth, as a fellow non-electric bike commuter, plenty of non- electric bike commuters irk me. Whether it's jumping in front of me while I am waiting at a light, only to be significantly slower than me when the light changes. Or passing at speed on the right hand side. Or jamming up a 4-way intersection by blasting through while others are waiting. In general, some people tend to turn into assholes when they are commuting, regardless of what form of transportation they are using. If someone is using an electric bike, and they are being courteous to other road users then there really isn't any problem. And as far as I am concerned, they really aren't that different than the lycra clad strava jockeys that are already racing all over the place, with the exception that electric bike users are probably MORE likely to obey the rules of the road because it is easier for them to get up to speed after stopping.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> > "E-bikes being licensed as motorized vehicles is good. E-bikes being in > human-powered infrastructure is no good. . . ."

And that's a great way to make sure e-bikes stay unpopular. Most "developed" countries make owning a motorcycles only slightly less expensive than a car (because safety). If it's less convenient and not cheap enough to offset that people won't do it.

</comment><comment><USER39> I had a Jetson e-bike and it was great. What I found was that it was much more of a replacement for short haul car trips than it was for long haul bike trips. Also, as a rider and a driver, I find e-bikes are fast enough to not be too irritating in regular traffic.

The more popular they become the safer they will become to ride in traffic. They just need to get cheaper and rangier.

</comment><comment><USER40> > "But, I feel there is a clear line between human power and non-human power," > he added. "I think there should be a very simple classification: human- > powered or not human-powered.

I wonder which side of the line electric shifting (which is legal in cycling race) falls.

<comment><USER41> Electic shifting is irrelevant here. Does it contribute energy to the propulsion? No. It would be akin to asking if wearing a digital watch rather than an automatic (mechanical) watch makes your bike an electic bike.

You can say it aids propulsion, but that's only because it aids managing the gear ratios. It doesn't contribute energy to the the propulsive force of the engine of the bike (the cyclist). Yes, it is involved in the drivetrain, but the engine in the derailleur does not contribute wattage to the turning of the cranks. It's power is applied to a horizontal repositing of the conduit through which the propulsive power is transferred.

<comment><USER42> Technically you're correct. However, practically there is an advantage of electric vs mechanical shifting. Usually mechanical derailleurs misbehave a little when used under load. When in turn electric derailleurs shift just fine. That's one reason why all pro sprinters ride di2, eps or etap.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> > I began to crave that bump. It was the effect of the assist I wanted; it was > the feeling of being assisted.

Isn't that qualitatively the enjoyment drivers can get from accelerating in a car?

</comment><comment><USER43> Here in Tokyo, mamacharis with their 1.1 kids are all electric powered. Real bikes are rare to come by for a city as large as this one.

</comment><comment><USER44> > "If it's such a good thing, why do we have this resentment?" I asked.

Yes, why?

</comment><comment><USER45> Just no, we really need to stop taxing and penalising bike culture worldwide, electric or not.

Wanna tax something? How about fossil fuels and combustion engines.

<comment><USER25> "concern mom" mentality. All ebike sold in the us have to have a speed limiter, I am limited to 20 miles an hour on a flat road and daily get bypassed by a few mph easy.

<comment><USER46> Interesting. My normal flat road pace on my road bike is in the mid 20s.

<comment><USER47> How long can you ride at that speed? I'm wondering because I average around 15 on my commuter bike and i'm thinking of getting something faster for my commute.

<comment><USER13> I average 12.5-15 on my commute, and max out at 22-23 on flats. I can keep up with most, but not all, ebikes, and am slower than most road bikes.

I probably couldn't keep up with you + ebike if you average 15 on a regular bike.

I wonder how the governor works. Does it just stop assisting at 20, or does regenerative braking automatically kick in?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> Here's a conundrum: Cars kill ~30,000 people per year in the USA. Vehicle emissions cause ~58,000 premature deaths. That's a problem. Not bicycles, not E-bikes, not bike sharing programs, not motorcycles, not skateboards, not rollerblades – Cars!

<comment><USER49> > Here's a conundrum: Cars kill ~30,000 people per year in the USA. Vehicle > emissions cause ~58,000 premature deaths. That's a problem. Not bicycles, > not E-bikes, not bike sharing programs, not motorcycles, not skateboards, > not rollerblades – Cars!

Let's also consider how many lives that fuel-based transportion _saves_. How many people would die of starvation if you outlawed internal combustion engines? How much would clothes cost? Food? I'll remind you electric engines cannot easily transport 1000-tons of goods across a transcontinental railroad.

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> I broke my knee three months ago. At that point I went from uninterested to annoyed by the recent wave of attempts to convert roads into bike paths. And this guy -- I hope he breaks his knee.

</comment><comment><USER51> >But he hadn't worked to go that fast.

I can't explain what I think about that without getting banned on this forum, but that feeling seems to be the center of the article; basically hipsters crying about smart use of technology.

<comment><USER52> I swear there's a pervasive feeling among bicycle and mass transit advocates that if the experience is too convenient, it's not morally right. A bicycle is morally right because it takes effort and gets you to work a bit slower than a car. An e-bike is morally wrong because you don't have to work as hard and you get to work just as fast; you're not sacrificing anything by not taking a car, you're not a hero. Similar reasons behind buses/trains vs. ideas of self- driving electric municipal cars.

<comment><USER53> This is true of any community where the barrier to entry has rapidly eroded. The old-school members who bought their way in with hard work and perseverence (and also usually luck or money) react negatively to recent arrivals who don't understand the community's norms -- which are now suddenly out of date. Meanwhile, the new arrivals often see the old guard as a prickly, up-tight clique. I'm thinking of Endless September, D&D, Anime fandom, model aircraft, music scenes, Old Money versus New Money, Lisp Machine hackers versus Unix folks, Unix folks versus OMGUbuntu... the variations are endless, but they're all the same.

And yet, try as I might to be philosophical about it, my gut tells me that people passing me on e-bikes are vile cheaters.

<comment><USER54> As someone who has killed deer with a bow and arrow ( _not_ on a regular basis: it's difficult and I don't always have the time required), I feel the same way about the new rule change that allows people to hunt with crossbows in archery season. I have sympathy for people who can't or won't draw a bow, but I don't see what's wrong with them just hunting during gun season as they always have.

<comment><USER55> Did they give a rationale for the change?

I'm kind of curious, since my understanding is that America as a whole is not hunting "enough" (to keep deer populations at a sustainable level), if it isn't an explicit attempt to thin deer populations more.

<comment><USER54> It's meant to help out feeble people, but it will probably help population management as well. Deer populations are really only out of control in suburbia, where crossbows used over a long hunting season might make the biggest difference. No one is going to call the cops because they heard a crossbow go off.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Portia: Open-Source Alternative to Kimono Labs - <AUTHOR> https://blog.scrapinghub.com/2016/02/17/portia-alternative-to-kimono/ <comment><USER2> "As a team, we're very proud of the product we built, now used by over 125k developers, data scientists and businesses"

...

"Because of our new roles at Palantir, it will not be possible for us to continue providing the publicly available cloud hosted kimono product. Effective 2/29/2016 we will be shutting down the service. From that point forward users will no longer be able to log into kimonolabs.com services or access any data via the website or API endpoints."

We were thinking about building something with Kimono. I'm glad we dodged that bullet. Not so great news for the 125,000 users who now have a few days to deal with the platform going away.</comment>


EPISODE 2 MySQL VS NoSQL - ALL THE COOL KIDS USE RUBY - <AUTHOR> http://www.xtranormal.com/watch/7023615/

<comment><USER2> All the fuckers who think they're better than everyone else because they're discovering language features that have been around since the mid-80s use ruby.

</comment><comment><USER3> Ugh, does anyone have a transcript of this? These atrocious videos are a waste of time.

Just write a rant already.</comment>