How companies use RethinkDB in production - <AUTHOR> http://rethinkdb.com/blog/case-studies/ <comment> robert-zaremba At AgFlow ([http://www.agflow.com](http://www.agflow.com)), we've been using RethingDB for 2 years (since version 1.3 to 2.0). Eventually we migrated to PostgreSQL. The query language from RethinkDB is very powerful. But it's nothing compared to SQL when it goes to expressiveness and performance (at least on PostgreSQL). ReQL is deceptive. It performs well as long as you don't embed JavaScript or don't do sophisticated joins (even based on indexes). When doing more complicated queries it becomes very ugly and slow.

Our main motivations for migration was:

        * transactions
        * performance
        * tool kits around SQL

We are very happy after migration. Backup process is way faster. I think there is only one place where RethinkDB is better then PostgreSQL: replication + automatic failover. If your data is not in TB, then I wouldn't recommend Rethinkdb. World with relational DB, transactions, pl/sql, pub/sub, GiS, data constrains, stability... offered by PostgreSQL is way easier, reliable and offers better performance.

<comment><USER2> > I think there is only one place where RethinkDB is better then PostgreSQL: > replication + automatic failover.

I was about to ask. Are you guys running a single server deployment? Because, while I haven't used RethinkDB yet, it appeals to me precisely because PostgreSQL is an absolute pain to operate beyond single node setups. I've heard citusdb tries to tackle this, I don't know if they succeeded but still it doesn't look nearly as friendly as RethinkDB.

<comment><USER3> I tried pg_shard a few months ago and after a few hours, I gave up. I somehow remember that partitioning MySQL was easier, and that's not a compliment.

<comment><USER4> Sumedh from Citus Data here. I'd love to hear what difficulties you ran into, or any feedback you may have on pg_shard. My email is in my profile if you want to drop me a note.

We are also actively working on making our products easier to use and would love to get more user input along that way.

<comment><USER3> It was mostly a lack of docs. Most of the documentation assumes citusDB, and how to get things work without citusDB is left out.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I'm torn between supporting open source businesses, and calling this and almost all of your previous submissions spam.

<comment><USER6> Rethinkdb was seeded by ycombinator and Andreessen Horowitz.

There is no way these posts would ever get removed even if most people did feel it was "spam".

<comment><USER7> Dang is incorruptible (which is why YC put him in charge of HN). He couldn't care less if someone was funded by YC, A16Z, or POTUS. If enough people flag something as spam (or he felt something is spam), the post would removed faster than we could blink.

<comment><USER6> Isn't he being paid by YC though? And there are frequently special hiring threads for YC companies.

Anyway there's a very thin line between spam and not spam, and is generally based on whatever people want to see at the time.

<comment><AUTHOR> Totally agree. Which is why I'm telling you this isn't spam :) I wanted to post something to answer a lot of people's questions, plus it's a fun project to work on. If people want to watch it, that makes me happy. If they don't, then don't click, ya know?

<comment><USER8> It totally is spam. It's three short commercials. Hell, it's spam for multiple companies at once, it's like, quadruple-spam.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Key Mathematic Principles for Performance Testers - chris-at https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb924370.aspx <comment><AUTHOR> This is a introduction to fundamental statistics, and not a very instructive one. For example, this is incorrect:

"By definition, one standard deviation is the amount of variance within a set of measurements that encompasses approximately the top 68 percent of all measurements in the data set; in other words, knowing the standard deviation of your data set tells you how densely the data points are clustered around the mean."

The 68% refers to a rule of thumb for normal distributions, not the definition of standard deviation.

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

Also, applying this rule will get you in big trouble if your data happens to have a mean that's less than zero:

"Data with a standard deviation greater than half of its mean should be treated as suspect. If the data is accurate, the phenomenon the data represents is not displaying a normal distribution pattern."

<comment><USER2> Not only that, but saying "the top 68 percent" is flat out wrong. Even if a normal distribution is assumed, it should say "the middle 68 percent" or something to that effect.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> _Guide to Performance Testing Web Applications_ home page: [https://msdn.microsoft.com/en- us/library/bb924375.aspx](https://msdn.microsoft.com/en- us/library/bb924375.aspx)

</comment><comment><USER4> under the "Medians" section: "In the case of the exemplar data sets, Data Sets A and B have median values of 4, and Data Set C has a median value of 1."

I didn't bother to check data sets A and B, but C is obviously wrong (Median for C would be 4).

</comment><comment><USER5> Things like this are why MS are in the state they are in.

<comment><USER6> Please don't post unsubstantive dismissals to HN.</comment></comment>


The Most Privileged Interns Aren't on Wall Street, but in Silicon Valley - <AUTHOR> http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/03/04/glassdoor_survey_ranks_the_20_companies_that_pay_their_interns_the_most.html

<comment><USER2> Earning a lot of money is not necessarily 'privilege'. Earning a lot for doing very little certainly is, but arguably that's not the case for these interns - I would guess that they justify their salaries by providing considerable value to their employers. The fact someone is an intern is not a reason to pay them a low wage.

</comment><comment><USER3> Rightfully so, since on average interns in Silicon Valley produce products worth paying for (software), while interns on Wall Street do... what exactly? Learn how to wrangle the market?</comment>


Happy Valentines Day from the NSA - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/NSA_PAO/status/566606602220756995

<comment> X-combinator They probably do.</comment>


Nigerians angry at oil pollution double standards - <AUTHOR> http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/africa/06/29/nigeria.oil/index.html?hpt=C2

<comment><AUTHOR> This is probably the best stat of the article:

"According to Amnesty International, people living in the Niger Delta have experienced oil spills on par with the Exxon Valdez disaster every year for the last half century."</comment>


Coding is a Privilege - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@alishalisha/coding-is-a-privilege-5a592e7d94d7 <comment><USER2> I self learned to code at 12 on pentium 100 Mghz with 8 megs of RAM. Without internet. And when I had it was on 33.6 Kbps dial-up modem. While living in impoverished family in Eastern Europe. Oh the privilege. As did all of my IT peers.

Coding is NOT a privilege.

</comment><comment><USER3> Why should "the path to becoming an engineer should be wide open and accessible for everyone — particularly young people — regardless of their background, what their parents do, or how much money they have" and not the path to becoming a lawyer, a nurse, a doctor, an architect?

I understand that HN is an echo chamber for developers and software people, but enough with this "everyone should learn to code" BS.

Everyone sells coding skills as a way to get more money and more freedom, but don't you understand that if everyone knows how to code the opposite will happen? Don't you see that companies push this crap down everyone throat to make sure they have access to a large pool of talent and can drive salaries down? Who keeps asking for "coding classes" for toddler? Who keeps pushing to raise the limit on H1B visas? Who finance coding bootcamps?

We need talent and smart people in _all_ fields, not just software.

<comment><USER4> Agreed. I actually _do_ believe that it's a pretty easy field to get into (I started learning freshman year of college having never coded before, and picked it up well enough by graduation to be successful in HFT) -- but there's no way in hell I'd want to give the impression to the general population that this is an easy discipline and everyone should flood in.</comment></comment>


Venezuela's currency is dying - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/11/04/venezuelas-currency-is-dying/ <comment><USER2> Venezuelan here, the current problems related to our currency losing 70% of its value in only 3-4 days are directly related to media manipulation.

Black market was totally stable in the 1000:1 mark for months, until the actions from the gov to stop the presidential referendum made again the rich unhappy and they decided to attack with all they have and this includes the media.

95% of the imports in Venezuela are made using the official rates and thats a bit complicated to explain, there is 2 rates wich are 1usd:13bsf (a price fully subsided used mostly for food and items that are considered "basic") and 1usd:658 for everything else and then there was the black market dollar wich is now 1usd:1758bsf

The thing is you can sit here and say the dolar is 1:2000 but it doesn't really mean thats the cost, thats where everyone fails, because neither the venezuelans have the money to pay for it or people want our currency, there is an special case of people doing this kind of trades and are the ones that are fleing the country, emigrating to other places and are desperated in need of USD

In the other hand, is somehow totally fake that we are paying this prices, in fact, noone imports anymore since gov barely gives USD at subsided price thus this is why we are now under scarcity problems.... so there you go.. offer and demand sets the prices but theres actually not really demand, I mean there is an insane demand but not demand for the 2000:1 price, thats just a political fight.

<comment><USER3> > made again the rich unhappy and they decided to attack with all they have > and this includes the media.

From what I understand, the government has pretty much eliminated the independent media.

More generally, are you saying that the government has done a good job of managing the oil industry, and also developing the rest of the economy so it is not so dependent on oil?

<comment><USER4> > From what I understand, the government has pretty much eliminated the > independent media.

There's no shortage of independent media in Venezuela, both press and TV.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> There was a solid Planet Money story about the collapse two weeks ago.

[http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2016/10/21/498867764/episo...](http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2016/10/21/498867764/episode-731-how- venezuela-imploded)

</comment><comment><USER6> That makes sense, Venezuela's economy, social structure, and political systems are also dying. It would be crazy if currency based on those things were not dying as well. If they were a collapsing star, they'd be rapidly approaching r=2M.

</comment><comment><USER7> > Now, there's never been a country that should have been so rich been so poor > as Venezuela. Indeed, it has the world's largest oil reserves, but has still > managed to have the world's worst-performing economy.

Is there any actual evidence that natural resource wealth is strongly correlated with level of development?

<comment><USER8> There is such a thing as the "resource curse". That is, if a country is rich with exploitable resources, the political economy will tend towards infighting over who controls the resources. This is akin to a zero sum game, instead of creating an inclusive system where innovators can profit from their creating.

"Why Nations Fail" is a great book that goes over this.

<comment><USER9> Is there evidence that Venezuela collapsed due to infighting? Is there evidence that the us (which is resource rich) is going to collapse due to infighting over resources?

<comment><USER10> There are plenty of exceptions to the "resource curse": Canada, Norway, Brunei. There is, however, a lot of infighting in Venezuela.

<comment><USER9> The existence of general infighting and there being a collapse does not mean that infighting (much less, infighting _over resources_ ) precipitated the collapse. I think if you examine the history of the collapse, it has almost nothing to do with political infighting.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> For those who want an impartial overview on Venezuela's economic woes, I high recommend the podcast below:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrfM5UD- Azk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrfM5UD-Azk)

Hint: It did not begin with Chavismo, but it has got worse since.

<comment><USER12> That didn't sound too impartial to me. Seemed to have a firmly anti-left opinion.

<comment><USER13> As a person on the left, I didn't recognize any anti-left sentiment in the video (which I thought was excellent.)

If you're looking for a neutral analysis that won't blame policies instituted or continued by the group that has been in power for 20 years for its current situation, you're looking for something that is impossible. Saying that they have completely failed to prevent the predictable catastrophe that would be caused by the fall in oil prices is undeniable. Blaming it on the rich who are reaping massive profits by exploiting Venezuela's policies instituted to mitigate the harm to the populace is like blaming the wind. Rich are going to rich, it was up to Chavez to come up with a sustainable defense to that rather than simply pumping more petrodollars in. It was a boat with a big leak, and it's becoming more leak than boat.

<comment><USER12> It seem to pretty clearly level its accusations at _every_ left-wing government in South America, not just Venezuela.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> It's not the currency that is dying, it's that nobody wants the currency, because the entity that backs it has no integrity.

So, it's more like 'Venezuelan economy and governance is failing -> nobody wants Venezuelan Bolivars -> currency loses value rapidly

<comment><USER15> Is that not what people mean when they say a currency is dying? Or is there some other meaning of a dying currency?

<comment><USER14> A lot of people surprisingly don't make the connection.

Even among politicians and leaders.

They see inflation, then blame outsiders etc. - and then try to fix prices / grab private businesses which only exasperates the problem.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> The problem, afaik, is that the Venezuelan oil is nastier than most and thus few refineries will work with it unless it is worth it. And since the Saudis opened the valves and the price tanked, few refineries have found it thus.

<comment><USER17> There are a lot of problems beyond much of the oil being heavy. Mostly created by the government and it's not very good economic policy.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> >The problem was that the Chavista regime bungled the state-owned oil company so badly that it didn't have enough money even when crude prices were high, and really doesn't now that they're low.

Naturally, the problem is but a mere implementation detail.

<comment><USER19> That sounds like most western economies of the world.. unable to function without running a deficit, and they'll be worried when interest rates go up and wonder where that massive budgetary hole came from.

<comment><USER20> Well, it's sensible to take some debt (2% interest rate FTW); but the question is how much?

<comment><USER19> Yes, it's sensible to take on some debt to invest in actual projects, such as infrastructure. Those have a positive ROI.

But: low growth in western countries is here to stay, and it's not sensible to borrow billions every year without reducing structural expenses. You're borrowing from the future, with no money to pay it back. That's just pushing the bill to the next generation, e.g. look at what happened to Greece.

<comment><USER21> Greece is a bad example because they're not monetarily sovereign.

The harsh fact is: As long as there are leaks in the circulation of money, you either have to plug the leaks or increase the in-flow. If you do neither of these things, the economy shrinks and people suffer.

Western countries have leaks in the form of people saving (in part it's fair to blame the rich, but the whole emphasis on private pension funds is also a huge contributor to the problem reaching all the way into the middle class) and companies accumulating money. You either have to plug the leak (by taxing the rich and/or companies to drain all those savings, and returning to public pension schemes that are pay-as-you-go out of taxes) or increase the in-flow (this is what budget deficits are doing[1]).

 _Reducing_ the in-flow is pretty counter-productive: it increases incomes of people without addressing the structural problems that cause the leaks (like pension systems, ridiculously wealthy companies and individuals, etc.).

Also, the whole "pushing the bill to the next generation" rhetoric is pretty non-sensical, because government debt is never an inter-temporal problem, but always an intra-temporal one: If government debts are high, so what? It just means that assets are high elsewhere. You can be worried that assets slushing around are a problem (I am), but myopically focusing on the debt side of the equation without looking at the asset side is pretty dangerous.

[1] This is also what central banks are trying to do by decreasing interest rates etc.; here, the in-flow would come from private debt. The problem is that it's not a very reliable tool.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Adopt US$ as your national currency [http://qz.com/260980/meet-the-countries- that-dont-use-their-...](http://qz.com/260980/meet-the-countries-that-dont- use-their-own-currency/)

</comment><comment><USER23> Don't forget that some years ago the gov renamed the currency taking three ceros out and renaming it the Bolivar Fuerte (strong bolivar). So really we are talking about an exchange rate of Bs 2.000.000 = 1 usd at current black market prices...

</comment><comment><USER24> All comments in which the word 'socialism' appeared, are now [flagged] and [dead], therefore invisible for most users. And you still dare to argue that there is no far left political bias and manipulation on HN?

EDIT: I posted this comment and immediately refreshed the page. I took no more than 2 seconds, and this comment already had 0 points. No real user would be able to reload a discussion page, recognize a comment as a new, read it and downvote, all of this within 2 seconds after the comment was posted. I bet some bots do this, maybe this is even happening on the server side. Thank you for providing the best evidence for my words!

<comment><USER25> Your comment was (rightly, since it's false, off topic, and unsubstantive) downvoted by a user who happened to see it less than a minute after you posted it. This is hardly unusual on a high-traffic site.

The comments you're referring to were rightly flagged by users as containing nothing more than empty political rhetoric. We don't need posts on HN like "This is what socialism looks like. Bernie fans take note." This would be just as true if you flipped all the ideological bits.

I've given you many detailed explanations in response to these insinuating comments about HN, and already asked you once to stop. Every sinister claim you've made has had a simple factual explanation. If you are open to changing your mind, you now have lots of good information; if not, that's your prerogative; either way, it's high time you stopped posting these harmfully misleading comments here.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Seems like the ideal situation to implement a blockchain-based currency.

<comment><USER27> Trouble is, there's nothing in your response that lets me differentiate "there is a blockchain solution here and it would work, here's why" from "I'm a bitcoin fan with a blockchain hammer and this kinda looks like a nail".

<comment><USER26> I'm actually working on an on-demand hardware store that sells only nails and accepts only bitcoin

<comment><USER11> I'm generally amendable to the idea of cryptocurrency but I don't like the current way Bitcoin is designed. Block size has been discussed ad nauseum whereas nobody seems to be willing to admit that a deflationary currency is doomed to fail.

It's an interesting experiment but I am still waiting for something with proper inflation targeting.

<comment><USER28> The argument that a deflationary currency is doomed to fail has been made many times too. But it's not a very strong one since Bitcoin isn't forced on anyone like a national currency, so it doesn't behave in all the same ways as everything we've seen before.

Gold is also deflationary, but it's the longest lived currency on Earth. That pretty much proves your claim wrong.

<comment><USER29> You might be conflating currency with value. Nobody in the world trades in gold. Precious metals did have its hay day for hundreds of years, where coins were the most popular currency, but today nobody will accept gold or silver coins for anything, they want fiat.

Gold remains a tremendous store of value as a deflationary scarce resource. Bitcoin behaves exactly the same - the limited amount of gold, where demand grows as population grows but supply grows slower because it is a fairly limited resource barring occasional literal "gold mines" mimics bitcoin, where assuming network growth the supply curve is not changing to meet increased demand and thus the currency deflates against the dollar.

That isn't a viable or usable currency, though. Societies moved away from gold primarily because just hoarding gold in a vault was too viable a monetary strategy. Forcing transactions in an inflating money means just hoarding the money is losing wealth rather than growing it through deflationary scarcity, and when nations transitioned they saw significant economic growth as all the dead weight precious metals money started moving faster as paper (even under gold standard, every country was devaluating its currency against gold to print more, thus inflating it).

Bitcoin is a great store of value, for the most part. The Blockstream hijacking of bitcoin core, and the lack of any community movement to dealing with it, significantly tarnishes the long term potential. But having a deflationary cryptocurrency is not inherently bad - it just makes it inherently bad for day to day transactions, because the whole point of modern currencies is to inflate to pressure holders into spending it (either on consumption or investment) rather than hoard it to keep it moving in circulation.

I don't believe we actually have a good currency replacement cryptocurrency yet, because that money will take the form of something you _don 't_ want to accumulate because its monetary base expands, rather than contracts, over time to cause inflation and thus devalue the currency driving holders to actually spend it (outside volatile adoption demand that controls all the cryptocurrency prices today).

<comment><USER30> > I don't believe we actually have a good currency replacement cryptocurrency > yet

Yeah, cryptocurrencies are not perfect. But they are at least better than fiat/gold. Humanity progresses with baby steps.

> over time to cause inflation and thus devalue the currency driving holders > to actually spend it

Here you're bringing up the old belief that a currency needs to have inflation built-in to not incentivize hoarding it, and to foster money circulation. This is a fair requirement, however, it also fosters a consumerism outlook in society. I'm still in two minds of what's better.

Anyway, if you're on the anti-hoarding side, you could like something called Freicoin. It has the good parts of cryptocurrency (vs fiat), and it also has a demurrage fee that disincentivize hoarding.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> It's interesting to me that everyone seems to think all world currencies are not dying.

The problem is the "currency" the worlds been sold into.

Case in point... it takes us all about an average of $2.00 dollars for a gallon of gas. On average right now. Probably more on the coasts.

If I take one of my Morgan silver dollars, and melt it for the silver content I can get as of today roughly 8 gallons and a little more for that one silver dollar.

2 paper, fiat, federal reserve notes for 1 gallon OR 1 Morgan silver dollar for 8+ gallons.

The problem is the currency is worthless. And is inflated away each year to lose more and more value.

So IMO the problem is the currency. It's worthless and bankers are able to devalue it at will.

<comment><USER32> This is such a wildly unpopular notion, and yet I've never heard a reasonably articulated counterargument.

It's like people who understand supply and demand short-circuit when they think that the same laws don't apply to money too.

<comment><USER31> Usually people don't understand the dangers of private banks owning a fiat paper currency they can print at will.

Until I pull out a silver quarter or silver dollar and prove to them how much the private federal reserve has devalued their money.

Then it's like, "Oh. Wow. You're right."

<comment><USER33> …except people don't keep fiat currency underneath mattresses. They invest it, and better their economy for doing so.

So your old coin isn't competing against some ratty old dollar bill, it's competing against the real value of my index fund shares.

Which, by the way, are winning: [http://ritholtz.com/wp- content/uploads/2013/04/fda.jpg](http://ritholtz.com/wp- content/uploads/2013/04/fda.jpg)

<comment><USER34> Just wait until he pulls that silver dollar out of his pocket. Then you will see.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Turkey maintains Tor block, flicks social networks offline for 12 hours - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2016/12/20/turkey-blocks-internet-whatsapp-twitter-assassination/?ncid=rss <comment><USER2> Jeez, wtf is wrong with Turkey?! Any time there's instability, they tighten govt controls. It almost makes me think everything is an Erdogan-backed conspiracy.</comment>


UN council: Nations, stop switching off the internet - <AUTHOR> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/07/01/un_officially_condemns_internet_shutdowns/ <comment><USER2> Does anyone have the full list of the 15 countries that wanted to remove the text that the article mentions? From the article it links [1] I can find:

Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kenya, South Africa, Indonesia, and India

[1] [http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/07/01/un_officially_condem...](http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/07/01/un_officially_condemns_internet_shutdowns/)

<comment><USER3> on the slashdot site it says:

>> _Thirteen countries, including_ ...

where did you get 15 from?

<comment><USER4> "13 other countries that lined up with Russia and China"

Although a paragraph further it says "Russia and China were joined by 15 other countries"

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Can somebody explain why authoritarian governments are even allowed a vote or membership in the UN?

What does it matter what a few elites at the top want for "their" country, when millions of their citizens usually want the exact opposite?

I doubt that many citizens in the 15 countries that voted against would agree with their leadership on this matter, for example.

<comment><USER6> The UN exists as a forum for all governments to come together. It would have a different purpose altogether if there were some democratic bar that would have to be met to join. Also, who would decide what that bar is? There's quite a lot of grey here, and it would be very very easy for certain very powerful countries to set the bar where it was politically convenient for them rather than at some place that actually makes sense. This already happens a bit, hence why the Republic of China (aka Taiwan) is excluded, and it is almost certainly to the detriment of the _people_ of those countries as well as their governments, imo.

<comment><USER7> It's also not a world government. It's a treaty organization designed to prevent another world war. Member nations can come and organize and say whatever they like. These things have no binding effect.

So in a way, this is akin to a "strongly worded letter"

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The vote was 20 in favor, and 14 against. And of course the result is meaningless. Imagine the horrific outcome if the UN had proportional representation and actual power.

<comment><USER4> If the UN had proportional representation, the vote would have gone against, since both China and India voted that way.

Can you articulate what horrific outcome you're thinking of? I'm not good at imagining what other people find horrific.

<comment><USER9> Generally, countries with good human rights record (Western democracies) would be constantly out-voted by authoritarian countries with large populations (China and Russia, and with some less authoritarianism but still poor human rights record, India).

I also find sad that people feel they need to speak of South Africa as a democracy. Mandela is gone and the leadership is what it is.

<comment><USER10> _> Generally, countries with good human rights record (Western democracies) would be constantly out-voted by authoritarian countries with large populations (China and Russia, and with some less authoritarianism but still poor human rights record, India)._

Did you notice the irony in your comment? You praise the "good record" of Western democracies, but do not want a "democracy" within UN, because in that way, the idea of democracy would work against the "Western democracies". That seems to be some kind of "selective democracy", i.e. only apply democracy when it works to your advantage.

If you really support democracy, why not embrace it in the UN and let the decision be based on votes?

<comment><USER11> It's consistent with US representative democracy. Read through the deliberations of the Constitutional Convention and the Federalist Papers, and you can't help but notice that they were as worried about the tyranny of mob rule as they were of the arbitrariness of monarchy - which was rather pointedly illustrated in the French Revolution just a few years later.

People are stupid, and generally don't know what is best for them, and the more of them you get together, the more likely they'll develop mass insanity. You need some kind of buffer to moderate the fickle will of the public.

<comment><USER12> > People are stupid, and generally don't know what is best for them, and the > more of them you get together, the more likely they'll develop mass > insanity.

People all have a similar amount of intelligence. Given that the effect you acknowledge is partially due to large groups, I wonder if it's more a problem of party politics, or an us-versus-them mentality, or collective decision- making...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> India isn't really a _full_ democracy; it says it is a "democracy" as long as it is convenient to say so. India has hardly ever stood for free speech or even understands what free speech is all about.

For example, during 1984 massacre of Sikhs in Delhi these jokers were playing shehnai[1] all day on their only state-owned TV channel Doordarshan[2]. This I know, because I lived there then.

And now they even have a prime minister with sketchy/convicted/ruling- overturned background who is well known to have massacred people/colleagues based on their beliefs/position. One can only imagine what goes on behind those free speeches.

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

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

<comment><USER14> > And now they even have a prime minister with sketchy/convicted/ruling- > overturned background who is well known to have massacred people/colleagues > based on their beliefs/position

You're vastly overstating what is "well known" about Modi, to the point of spreading blatantly false propaganda[0]. But even if you weren't, this has nothing to do with democracy _or_ free speech. (Nor is it particularly unusual in democratic countries).

> India isn't really a full democracy; it says it is a "democracy" as long as > it is convenient to say so. India has hardly ever stood for free speech or > even understands what free speech is all about.

"Democracy" doesn't mean "free speech". And in fact, India's _de jure_ protections on free speech are far greater than (for example) what the UK grants.

[0] While Modi has some figurative skeletons in his closet, it's completely wrong to say 'it is well-known that Modi has massacred colleagues based on their beliefs'.

<comment><USER13> > India's _de jure_ protections on free speech are far greater than (for > example) what the UK grants.

Nope, it is isn't. Comparison between UK & India with vastly different citizenry, laws, enforcement and track record is a non starter.

> You're vastly overstating what is "well known" about Modi, but even if you > weren't...

I wish to bring your statement forward: it is spot on here!

You're right. We can never be certain about Modi's role in the massacre without the democracy in question being available, i.e. a democracy that stands for: equity, representation, freedom and justice. Note, it includes free speech.

Is it not a fact that people were killed or instigated to be killed by the state then?

<comment><USER14> > Is it not a fact that people were killed or instigated to be killed by the > state then?

That is not the claim I contested. Nor is it the statement you made, which was:

> [Modi] is well known to have massacred colleagues based on their > beliefs/position

though it seems that you have now moved the goalposts to:

> We can never be certain about Modi's role in the massacre [because of a lack > of free speech and democracy]

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Slashdot had a good discussion about this.

[https://yro.slashdot.org/story/16/07/03/0340234/un- council-s...](https://yro.slashdot.org/story/16/07/03/0340234/un-council- seriously-nations-stop-switching-off-the-internet)

There's now a group that's also pushing to also make cryptography and anonymity a basic human right.

<comment><USER16> Maybe I'm just jaded, but everyone on slashdot has always seemed like a cynical, tin foil hat wearing, "neckbeard".

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> "Stop switching off the internet [we need it to surveil you]"

<comment><USER18> Nothing is forcing people to _use_ the internet.

All the States already had complete access to the internet anyway - this is about to end users.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Regardless of the result, I highly doubt that the GFW would be removed or even relaxed... What does it take to shove a decision down the throats of people operating the GFW?

</comment><comment><USER20> Nations: uhm, no.</comment>


Judge Rules Against Grooveshark in Copyright Infringement Case - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/30/business/media/judge-rules-against-grooveshark-in-copyright-infringement-case.html

<comment><USER2> The reality is more and more services will switch to the 'client-side- encrypted' model and then you're left trying to stomp out easily replicated and anonymously sharable lists of pointers to legally stored encrypted blobs. Good luck with that.

From an ideological point it seems hard to rationalize. We pretty much have an obligation to fix copyright law, build a digital Alexandria, and give it to the world. For Free. All art, movies, music, books, educational materials, everything. Free. We can figure out another way to reward creators without creating artificial marketplaces that demand most go without so the few left have reason to spend.

If we're going to fuck up the climate for later generations - I think we can manage to at least figure this out. It's pretty low hanging fruit from a technical perspective.

<comment><USER3> >We can figure out another way to reward creators without creating artificial marketplaces that demand most go without so the few left have reason to spend.

I'd argue that we have already. Creating media is expensive, and if you take away the ability for people to monetize media you get rid of a segment who create media for the sake of media. The only people left are those wealthy enough to do so, and are no doubt looking to protect/expand their own profit centers.

The extreme view of this is that now Tarantino can only make his movies as long as he reminds everyone that "he gets the good stuff, Folgers® Brand Coffee, the best part of waking up."

<comment><USER4> > Creating media is expensive

Creating media has never been as cheap as today. My ex roommate has been playing in bands ever since I got to know him. First recordings were done on 6 track tape recorder an replicated to cassette. Then the first, big towers were capable of recording a handful of tracks with low quality. Now, all he needs to go and make solid recordings is a laptop and a semi-professional external sound card. The distribution costs drop to zero on the internet.

The equipment he uses to record is much cheaper than the room they rent for the band and the instruments.

People that create media for the sake of creating media can do so at an unprecedented scale. The issue is with those that want to make a living of being a media creator.

<comment><USER5> I think people who are happy to acquiese to the music recording industry pleas for pity are failing to observe a simple and normal economic event wherein the value of what is being sold is not what it was 10 years. Industries change and then they die all the time. There is little novel about music anymore compared with the joy once brought in a less media entrenched time by the simple pleasures of buying and listening to an album, say 20 years ago.

Your point can roughly be paraphrased as the commoditization of media creation processes.

Schumpeter's gale:

""process of industrial mutation that incessantly revolutionizes the economic structure from within, incessantly destroying the old one, incessantly creating a new one.""

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> It's interesting (at least to me) to think that without the likes of Napster, LimeWire, Kazaa, Grooveshark, Pandora, etc. we would not have gotten to a place where the music industry is willing to play ball at Spotify's level. It's too bad that there was a lot of collateral damage in the process.

<comment><USER7> The iTunes Store deserves much of the credit for that shift.

<comment><USER8> True. That, not the iPod, was Apple's real weapon. Apple was able to bring that off because for a reason that's not well understood. Remember, Apple was nowhere in consumer electronics at the time. There were bigger companies with MP3 players. But Apple had an edge.

Hollywood, which includes the music industry, is very hierarchical. Steve Jobs was not only CEO of Apple. He was also CEO of Pixar. As the head of a major movie studio, he outranked all music executives. He could deal with them as their superior. That got him in the door.

iTunes is now the largest music vendor in the world.

<comment><USER9> Lets not forget that Sony Music/Entertainment kept hobbling Sony Tech. Which supposedly is why Sony had a few brilliant mp3 players, and then ... nothing. For a few years.

It's ludicrous -- the company had the music rights, movie rights, patents and technical know-how -- but just refused accepting the way the trends were going.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> WARNING - the Grooveshark founders were __Personally __liable for the copyright infringement. This means its not just the Grooveshark company that has to pay the fine, but cofounders Tarantino and Greenberg will need to pay out of their own pockets.

From Pages 54-56 of the decision:

> Here, defendants Tarantino and Greenberg satisfy the criteria for corporate > officer liability. Tarantino and Greenberg are the co-founders of Escape. > Tarantino is the Chief Executive Officer and Greenberg is the Chief > Technology Officer. Together, Tarantino and Greenberg manage all aspects of > Escape's business. They both directed the infringements at issue in the > present litigation by: (1) creating a business model that was based upon the > unlicensed sharing of copyright protected material; (2) sending written > instructions to the entire company requiring employees to operate "seeding > points" so that they could launch the Grooveshark P2P Network; (3) creating > the Central Music Library and directing employees to upload files to the > Library; (4) deciding to launch the Grooveshark Lite streaming service and > instructing Escape employees to upload files for that service; and (5) > personally uploading copyrighted protected material, Moreover, they both > have a substantial equity interest in Groovershark and thus, directly > benefit from the infringing activity.

</comment><comment><USER11> I never really agreed with the whole "ignore copyright law" approach. I think tech companies in our increasingly examined world need to stand for righteousness and integrity.

The power of tech and ramping up of robotics is going to bring the pressure of public opinion on us all very soon -- we need to be on the right side of the fence, and so, although I enjoyed the technical capabilities and innovation from Grooveshark, I'm glad they've lost the war.

The founders are still smart and will be able to continue to do great things. They've proven their ability to build/design a functioning, beautiful product and amass an very large audience. Excited to see what is next...

<comment><USER12> > I'm glad they've lost the war

I don't understand this statement, that wasn't the end of the 'war', Grooveshark lost a battle, just like Napster and Limewire were not ends of the 'war'.

Ultimately (as another poster has said) the reason we can get nice things like the Spotify, iTunes and Amazon music services is because people were fighting these battles and winning until the law smacked them down.

I think you should reflect on the first paragraph further, services such as Grooveshark and Uber are skirting the law and users prefer these methods for a reason. Without these disruptions maybe we'd have to buy albums on a USB thumb drive rather than download them over the net.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Whelp, time to export my playlist-metadata so I can find the songs again:

[http://groovebackup.com/](http://groovebackup.com/)

</comment><comment><USER14> Content, like code, should be free!

We also need a judge somewhere to rule against the shark who hijacked the Groovy codebase and turned it all into something it wasn't originally intended to be - surely that's a copyright infringement. Instead of a specified language with many open source implementations and much documentation as per its creator's vision, it's all being controlled by one corporate with hardly anyone contributing. The project person who makes the announcements is now using his own personal blog instead of the public mailing list to announce new versions, and is trying to replace the open communication channels by soliciting for subscribers to a personal mailout that mostly contains links to tweets.

<comment><USER15> Content, like code, should be priced at the level the creator wishes it to be while considering the price the market is willing to pay.

<comment><USER14> > [...] while considering the price the market is willing to pay

What about considering the cost of enforcement? Content "creators" in Hollywood and CBS et al offload their enforcement costs to U.S. government agencies which are funded by tax-payers, not those "creators" (though in fact those "creators" are really content _copiers_ most of the time).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I don't see how the judge could rule against Grooveshark. How is Grooveshark any different from Youtube, for instance?

The only difference is that the users, on their own, upload much less of their own content on Grooveshark than they do on Youtube. The users are more prone to upload illegal work.

But that seems like an arbitrary reason to make this ruling. It's unfortunate that the law can be so vague and ill-defined, and arbitrarily interpreted, usually to the benefit of larger corporations.

<comment><USER17> Did you see the part of the article where _employees of Grooveshark_ uploaded infringing music?

<comment><USER18> Youtube weren't significantly better:

[https://gigaom.com/2010/03/18/viacom-google-youtube- founders...](https://gigaom.com/2010/03/18/viacom-google-youtube-founders- willfully-ignored-infringement/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> When will we stop hobbling ourselves with copyright? It's used to harass people or guarantee profits (or both; the evidence that copyright infringement has an effect on profits is debatable). The failed business models of publishers is not my problem.

</comment><comment><USER20> Awww, I loved their Programming broadcast. I originally went to groovshark after turntable.fm shut down. Now where should I go for a programmer radio stream?

</comment><comment><USER21> Why do you link to websites with a paywall?

<comment><AUTHOR> Because the content is of high quality.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Digital Music News has a copy of the decision. Fascinating stuff: [http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/wp- content/uploads/2014/09/u...](http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/wp- content/uploads/2014/09/umg_escape_140929Decision.pdf?638cab)

Also, Paul Resnikoff's take on the story: [http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permalink/2014/09/29/breakin...](http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permalink/2014/09/29/breaking- grooveshark-found-guilty-massive-copyright-infringement)</comment>


Zero to Sold: The Bootstrapper's Compendium - <AUTHOR> https://thebootstrappedfounder.com/zero-to-sold/ <comment><USER2> Compendium aside... If you're a bootstrapper or interested in starting your own bootstrapped business... You should read this. It's insightful. It's scientific. It's valuable advice.</comment>


Opendoor raises Series D, has 100s of MM of debt to buy more houses - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2016/11/30/online-real-estate-service-opendoor-raises-210m-series-d-despite-risky-financing-model/ <comment><USER2> High-value, illiquid inventory and double-ended marketplace with flakey demand: doesn't sound inherently scalable and risk mitigation seems absent. Good luck with that.

<comment><AUTHOR> It's house flipping; deskilled, and at scale. With hedge funds turning to single family homes, it's only a matter of time until a startup got involved.

Looking at their jobs page, they're expanding to Atlanta and Dallas.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> A real estate agency can't find enough customers to use its model -- so it just buys properties to sell, with debt. Bubblelicious!

</comment><comment><USER4> This sounds both stupid and evil. It will be nice when the bad business model crashes and Opendoor is forced to sell off the houses cheaply to those of us with actual savings.</comment>


Weld: Parallel Code Generation for Analytics Frameworks - <AUTHOR> https://weld-project.github.io/ <comment><AUTHOR> Weld is a project of the Stanford Future Data Systems Lab. It's a project by Matei Zaharia, who also created Apache Spark and Apache Mesos.</comment>


The Rules of the Baseball Press Box - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/15/insider/foul-ball-baseball-press-box-rules.html <comment><USER2> Good read.

Like the author, I was also the kid at ball games who always wanted a ball. I frequent my hometown team's games as a season-ticket holder. I don't always get a foul ball, but when I do, I give it to a kid.

When I don't get a ball naturally, I go to the vendor that sells authentic merchandise (see: genuine) and buy a used game ball. It runs me about $30. It comes with a sticker on it to verify its authenticity. I peel sticker off and rub away the residue. I'll then find a kid who's been working for a foul ball all game and toss them the ball.

They'll celebrate as if they won the lottery. Their parent will usually come find me and say how I didn't have to do that, that their kid is so happy; I joke to them "in 15 years, tell them I bought the ball to give it to them because I knew how badly they wanted the ball."

</comment><comment><USER3> Cricket players catch balls with their bare hands all the time, and they don't seem particularly softer than baseballs. Is there something that makes baseballs more painful? Do they get hit faster?

<comment><USER4> This might be a useful table for you:

[https://baseballsavant.mlb.com/statcast_leaderboard](https://baseballsavant.mlb.com/statcast_leaderboard)

The "Exit Velocity" section lists recorded speeds of batted balls broken down by batter, showing their maximum and average speeds. Notice there are a lot of players for whom the _average_ ball they hit comes off the bat at 90+ mph. The "Hard Hit" column lists how many times each player has hit a ball that came off the bat at 95+ mph.

Keep in mind also that balls are also _thrown_ quite hard in baseball, and an important part of a fielder's job is catching balls thrown by teammates.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> What a fun read. If my career had taken a different direction I imagine myself working in Baseball in some capacity. There's a decent community of folks who do amateur sabermetrics stuff for fun. I imagine a good amount of those folks will make Baseball Journalism a full time thing when they retire.

</comment><comment><USER6> Final rule: write a whole article bragging about it! :P</comment>


AusPost opens US-based mail forwarding service - <AUTHOR> http://shopmate.auspost.com.au/

<comment><AUTHOR> Yep, and there's still the issue of some vendors not accepting purchases based on credit card address too. Partial solution, but ultimately geo-blocking should be canned.

</comment><comment><USER2> This sounded like a good idea until I signed up and saw the service costs $30 to ship a book! Not quite sure its worth it yet.</comment>


VetPronto (YC W15) Brings Veterinary House Calls to San Francisco - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2015/01/16/vetpronto-brings-veterinary-house-calls-to-san-francisco/ <comment><USER2> > "Once I got into the veterinary industry, I noticed there were a lot of gaps > in technology all the way through," Hur explains. "And since getting out and > practicing medicine, I've really focused on bridging those gaps and making > sure that veterinary medicine can be upgraded for the dot-com era."

This sounds like a lot of fluff. Vets that do house calls are not new. The vet I use is a full-time mobile vet in the Bay Area and she has been for way longer than the founder has been practicing veterinary medicine. All of my furry friend's records are stored electronically so my vet can retrieve them on her tablet, and she has a mobile credit card reader for payment. She emails me lab test results and when I needed to be referred to a specialist for diagnostics that couldn't be done in a home setting, records were transferred to the specialist within hours.

What doesn't my vet have? A mobile booking app and a network of independent/subcontracted vets who she refers leads to. I don't care about the former (email and phone work just fine) and I don't want the latter (I specifically selected my vet based on her qualifications and references and continued relying on her based on the quality of service).

There's nothing wrong with VetPronto's model, of course. If the vets provide good service and customers are satisfied, that's great. But to pretend that veterinary medicine is behind the times and that a network of mobile vets with a booking app represents real innovation is silly.

> Since launching in September, the company has done north of 300 > appointments, and recently participated in the Y Combinator startup > accelerator which offered them a bit of seed funding. But beyond that and a > small friends and family round, VetPronto has been bootstrapped.

So you can raise six figures in capital from Silicon Valley's most prominent startup accelerator, as well as friends and family, and still call yourself "bootstrapped" today?

<comment><USER3> First of all, thanks for voicing your concerns as it helps hearing from other pet owners. It makes sense that most people are not aware of what happens behind the curtain with the medicine their doctors practice.

I am sure your home vet is a great veterinarian and cannot speak to the quality of medicine they practice as I do not work with them that I am aware of. However, I can let you know that you don't need to look at me as an individual to assess the medicine VetPronto practices as almost no medical decisions are not made by me individually. We actually have a board of veterinarians meeting weekly to ensure our standards of care are the very best as peered review practices are generally the gold standard. I do not know the exact number of years experience combined we have, but it is greater than any individual veterinarian.

As for the technology. This is a huge discussion but let me see if I can address this briefly ass to what makes us different than another home vet. There is a lot of issues regarding the management of pet health care that has not been worked out. Luckily we don't have the same amount of regulation that makes it difficult to create software readily, but it is also not a lucrative business to just make veterinary software. There are also currently no veterinary practices built around technology that I am aware of either which means most record systems actually decrease a veterinarians efficiency rather than improving it and are primarily designed to track billing and inventory. Our software is being built from the ground up ensuring that it allows vets to focus on what they do best, practice medicine.

Finally, we only received funds a less than a month ago and haven't even got our funds from YC yet, so yes...we have very much been bootstrapped although it is debatable if we still are today.

If I didn't answer your question well enough please let me know or you have additional questions, please let me know.

<comment><USER2> > ...as almost no medical decisions are not made by me individually. We > actually have a board of veterinarians meeting weekly to ensure our > standards of care are the very best as peered review practices are generally > the gold standard. I do not know the exact number of years experience > combined we have, but it is greater than any individual veterinarian.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. It's great that you have established practices for the vets in your network in an effort to ensure a high standard of care, but what makes you think that other vets don't adopt best practices? Just because you assemble a team ("board") of vets with, say, 70 years of combined experience doesn't mean a lot to me. I could pull 10 software engineers with 40 years of combined experience into a room and it wouldn't mean that I have access to more expertise than a single engineer with 20 years of experience.

As for "almost no medical decisions are not made by me individually," this is confusing to me. Let's say you palpate a dog on a house call and feel a mass. Are you not going to make certain decisions on the spot? Is _every_ decision or recommendation a vet in your network makes reviewed by a team whose members may not have actually had the opportunity to physically evaluate the pet?

> There is a lot of issues regarding the management of pet health care that > has not been worked out. Luckily we don't have the same amount of regulation > that makes it difficult to create software readily, but it is also not a > lucrative business to just make veterinary software. There are also > currently no veterinary practices built around technology that I am aware of > either which means most record systems actually decrease a veterinarians > efficiency rather than improving it and are primarily designed to track > billing and inventory. Our software is being built from the ground up > ensuring that it allows vets to focus on what they do best, practice > medicine.

This is all very non-specific.

Again, I'll use my experience as an example. I have received high-quality, cost-effective service from my mobile vet. She arrives on time, is responsive and very cost-effective. In short, she has taken great care of my pet, access to special software or not. When she identified an issue that demanded the expertise of a specialist, a referral was made to one of the best specialty centers in Northern California. All of my pet's records were transferred within hours.

With all due respect, it is absolutely not true that there are "no veterinary practices built around technology." The specialty center I was referred to, which is staffed by board certified vets, makes extensive use of technology. Is a practice with everything from an on-site CT scan to one of newest linear accelerators available for radiation therapy in pets not "built around technology"?

In short, you seem to believe that custom practice management software with a mobile booking app makes you a technology-based veterinary practice. While I see nothing wrong with the nature of your service and wish you the best of luck, I would simply suggest that you're underestimating what the word "technology" means in modern veterinary medicine. Of course, this "wrap a mobile app around a service business and call it a technology business" approach is widespread today and not exclusive to your industry, so anything that I wrote here which might be construed as criticism applies to many startups.

Finally, as for "but it is also not a lucrative business to just make veterinary software," you might want to look at [http://www.henryschein.com](http://www.henryschein.com), a Fortune 500 company that did hundreds of millions of dollars in sales of dental, medical and vet practice management software in 2013.

<comment><USER3> Sorry for the delayed response, I was on a plane. Great follow up questions though. Let me answer them for you.

> ...as almost no medical decisions are not made by me individually. We > actually have a board of veterinarians meeting weekly to ensure our > standards of care are the very best as peered review practices are generally > the gold standard. I do not know the exact number of years experience > combined we have, but it is greater than any individual veterinarian. I'm > not sure what you're trying to say. It's great that you have established > practices for the vets in your network in an effort to ensure a high > standard of care,

I'm glad you appreciate that we practice a high standard of care.

>but what makes you think that other vets don't adopt best practices?

I am not individually responsible for other vets and don't make that assumption. I am just focused on the quality of our own medicine.

>Just because you assemble a team ("board") of vets with, say, 70 years of combined experience doesn't mean a lot to me. I could pull 10 software engineers with 40 years of combined experience into a room and it wouldn't mean that I have access to more expertise than a single engineer with 20 years of experience.

Good point, but just as paired programming can oftentimes help make a solid product, peer reviewing cases is a great way to achieve better results than an individual might be able to.

>As for "almost no medical decisions are not made by me individually," this is confusing to me. Let's say you palpate a dog on a house call and feel a mass. Are you not going to make certain decisions on the spot? Is every decision or recommendation a vet in your network makes reviewed by a team whose members may not have actually had the opportunity to physically evaluate the pet?

I meant that I don't make the standards of care myself. It is true that vets must make decisions on their own, and getting rid of human error is something that has not been accomplished at any clinic human or veterinary medicine . However, all of our vets are very experienced and excellent clinicians as our reviews can support this as well.

> There is a lot of issues regarding the management of pet health care that > has not been worked out. Luckily we don't have the same amount of regulation > that makes it difficult to create software readily, but it is also not a > lucrative business to just make veterinary software. There are also > currently no veterinary practices built around technology that I am aware of > either which means most record systems actually decrease a veterinarians > efficiency rather than improving it and are primarily designed to track > billing and inventory. Our software is being built from the ground up > ensuring that it allows vets to focus on what they do best, practice > medicine. >This is all very non-specific. Again, I'll use my experience as > an example. I have received high-quality, cost-effective service from my > mobile vet. She arrives on time, is responsive and very cost-effective. In > short, she has taken great care of my pet, access to special software or > not. When she identified an issue that demanded the expertise of a > specialist, a referral was made to one of the best specialty centers in > Northern California. All of my pet's records were transferred within hours.

I think I would agree with Joe's previous comment addressed this pretty well, but please let me know if it needs more elaboration.

>With all due respect, it is absolutely not true that there are "no veterinary practices built around technology." The specialty center I was referred to, which is staffed by board certified vets, makes extensive use of technology. Is a practice with everything from an on-site CT scan to one of newest linear accelerators available for radiation therapy in pets not "built around technology"?

This sounds like a very technologically advanced clinic and I don't know what software they run so can't really give specifics on what may or may not be great about their systems.

However, I am fairly passionate about medical records in general so will dig in a bit. Unfortunatley these days, picking veterinary practice management software gives you the options of bad or worse so am skeptical of any third parties assumption that any clinic is built on a great platform. This is a problem I tried to solve directly initially in and out of vet school, but veterinary clinicians generally do not care about having great technology drive their practice as they were trained to practice medicine and view the computers as getting in the way of that. Unless they see direct results to their profit right away They are not interested in adopting new technologies. This is why most practice management software just focuses on inventory. Many practices are still largely paper based even if they have a practice management software solution.

This is slowly changing though. I've been active with the Association of Veterinary Informatics, performed collaborative research between human and veterinary medicine on natural language processing of medical records with amount Sinai and worked with Trupanion pet insurance in trying to pull meaningful data from clinics trying to find ways to solve this.

I hope VetPronto can eventually help define some of the medical record standards to help more seamless integration occur between practices, but for now we are focused on delivering a great service to as many pets as possible.

>In short, you seem to believe that custom practice management software with a mobile booking app makes you a technology-based veterinary practice. While I see nothing wrong with the nature of your service and wish you the best of luck, I would simply suggest that you're underestimating what the word "technology" means in modern veterinary medicine. Of course, this "wrap a mobile app around a service business and call it a technology business" approach is widespread today and not exclusive to your industry, so anything that I wrote here which might be construed as criticism applies to many startups.

I am a bit confused with this. Is a veterinary specialty center your definition of a technology based veterinary practice? If so, I think I answered this but please let me know.

>Finally, for "but it is also not a lucrative business to just make veterinary software," you might want to look at [http://www.henryschein.com](http://www.henryschein.com), a Fortune 500 company that did hundreds of millions of dollars in sales of dental, medical and vet practice management software in 2013.

Henry Schien is a drug distributor that bought out one of the largest practice management software services (AVImark) to sell more product to clients and get their foot in the door of more clinics. AVIMark was likely easy to buyout because making practice management software because it wasn't very lucrative. I can't speak for the other markets and practice management software outside of veterinary medicine.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> I am very excited to have the amazing YC partners to help us bring the best care possible to pets.

</comment><comment><USER4> Haven't looked at the app myself, but was curious to know if providing vet feedback was available? Can specific vets be requested to build a repertoire with your pet?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes. Right now, this is done informally....but we definitely have plans to provide more structured vet request and feedback systems.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I'm very excited to be officially launched as a YC company!</comment>


Why do we think cats are unfriendly? - <AUTHOR> https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20191024-why-do-we-think-cats-are-unfriendly <comment><USER3> _The bad news for cats? They lack this muscle. As a result, cats' stares can look cold and unfriendly, and two cats staring at each other can often be a prelude for fisticuffs. But a slow blinking stare – one that your cat probably gives towards you from the other side of the room – is something else entirely; it's their way of expressing love. Even turning their heads to one side isn't necessarily disdain, but a sign of their relaxation._

When I rescued a street cat, the first thing I did was google how to take care of it and understand it. This was many, many years ago. All this information existed a long time ago, and so it's weird to me that people still think that cats are unfriendly. Or are people knowledgeable, but media just likes to make clickbait?

I'll forever trust that cats absolutely can be friendly. My cat would come and sleep with me every night, often cuddle up in my lap, and my roommate told me when I went on vacation, my cat would stay all day at the door every day waiting for me to come back. Yeah, I once took care of a friend's cat that was particularly unfriendly. That cat just had a difficult time bonding with strangers. But just because some human being has difficulty interacting with people (especially people on the autistic spectrum), I wouldn't label them (and certainly not the entire human race) unfriendly. Those cats and those humans just have something else going on in their lives and need a different approach, that's all.

As a cat guy, these articles do annoy me. Show a cat love, the cat will respond positively. Some cats are high-strung and need certain attention, but that's true for people too. Even my friend's unfriendly cat eventually came around, though it took weeks. Don't label the entire species.

<comment><USER4> > can be friendly

This has been my problem with cats. They are hit or miss. I've grown up with cats and dogs and enjoyed both of their company. I never once had an unfriendly/bad dog. At least half the cats I had were... "distant" to say the least. Didn't really want attention, liked to be off on their own, etc.

Of course, the good ones are so great. A nice kitty is a really great thing and if it weren't such a dice roll, I'd have cats now.

<comment><USER5> Two absolutely adorable and friendly kittens in my life, both got snatched, probably by a neighborhood dog. Both times we were looking and calling out all day. Even mom and dad were in tears. I don't think it's a good adaption for cats to be friendly, at least for outdoor cats. The distant ones always got to live longer (at least the females, tomcats tend to roam and disappear after a few years).

<comment><USER4> Similar story myself. Had a really amazing cat growing up, the friendliest little bugger... And so, so sweet.

Went missing one day, and we never saw her again. Everyone in my family was heartbroken.

I can certainly understand and agree that for a cat being so aloof and carefree probably isn't a great survival trait. Something got her, probably a coyote.

I had another cat growing up that was far more distant. Didn't really like being held / pet (but would endure it). She was a hunter. Regularly brought back kills. She lived into old age, and died peacefully.

<comment><USER6> I had an outdoor cat growing up that lived to be 18. Spent about 1/2 his time outdoors and 1/2 his time indoors. He occasionally would bring back live mice or baby rabbits. So although he was self-sufficient in that aspect, when he was inside he was the most affectionate cat imaginable. He'd come and nuzzle his head into you and lay on your lap or chest until you petted him. He was never super affectionate with the dogs, but he put up with them. Cats are very complicated.

Once in his old age he didn't return for about a week; we thought he had died. We put up posters for him around the neighborhood-it turns out that a family who lived in a house several streets away had "adopted" him (this was before RFID chipping). I still miss him.

<comment><USER7> All cat owners seem to have owned more cats than they started out with :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Cats seem unfriendly to us because they can't move their faces as much as dogs. They can't make as many facial expressions.

Cats do show affection for each other and humans, but their body language is more subtle.

EDIT: I also disagree that cats are asocial, as suggested by the article. They clearly form bonds with each other and with humans.

<comment> crooked-v For example, see this study: [https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/24/science/cats- humans-bondi...](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/24/science/cats-humans- bonding.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I have had cats my entire life (well maybe if I add up all of the time without cats for various reasons it would add to a year... but close enough).

I can't tell you how often I will go to a friends place and they tell me the cat hates people, and half an hour later they are in my lap sleeping, or laying next to me.

A lot of people misunderstand how to act around cats. I see people chase them around the house, jump right at them with all this energy, and then get upset when they jump away that the cat is "mean". No... the cat just clearly does not like what you are doing to them.

In my experience, you have to be slow. Let them come to you if they want, but don't force it. Every cat is different though, and you can't treat them all the same.

Have I met truly indifferent cats, of course. They exist and I will never deny that they do. How much of that is based on people not knowing how to properly socialize them as kittens is an open question for me though.

<comment><USER7> > How much of that is based on people not knowing how to properly socialize > them as kittens is an open question for me though.

A lot from what I've read and my experience, there's a critical period between 8 and 12 weeks where they need handling if they aren't always to be a bit wary around people.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> My cats love me to death. I never force myself on them and never try to train them to obey me, greet me etc.

We think cats are "unfriendly" because they do their own thing, and don't OBEY people like Dogs. When an animals doesn't obey you and do your biding, you think they are "unfriendly".

Cats are also not "reward" oriented like Dogs, i.e. you can't "train" a cat to obey you and do your biding by giving it rewards like you can with Dogs.

<comment><USER11> As the old comparison: Dogs excellent are for people who want to be worshipped as Gods. Cats are for people who want to wake in the night to find a God sat on their chest demanding a sacrifice.

Few people have seen much of my cat, because it takes her a bit of time to get used to new people[†] and will scuttle off when they are around. But she is quite attached to me. She misses me when I'm away for longer than usual and is very fussy when I come back, despite having a full bowl of kibble all morning she'll often wait until I come home at lunch and have me sit near her while she eats, she plays with me like an excited kitten at times, etc. She is happy to order the lodger around too when I'm away[‡], and will let her guard down enough to play while she is there (though usually not enough to actually play _with_ her). There are a few others she will come out and greet, though no others she _really_ relaxes around.

[†] she was a rescue, though I don't think she was abused explicitly in her first six months, just ignored (as she'd have never put up with kids, and her age suggests she was a Christmas kitten) so she didn't learn that a fair number of us humans are pretty decent, but we don't know for sure as she was left outside the RSPCA in a box heavily pregnant.

[‡] apparently when I'm not there, the lodger gets woken up at 0730 sharp, which is the time my alarms normally go off six days a week, and breakfast is demanded, if I am there she usually sits with/on me purring, waiting patiently, perhaps being fussed and/or massaging me, while I snooze the alarm a few times.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Random cat thoughts:

They are more social at night, solitary during the day.

Three "modes" of hunting, related to three main kinds of prey, each cat can have one, two, or all three:

Pounce/bite-neck: for mice and other ground prey. Some cats will pounce with their paws, but if they're hunting for food they try to get a quick kill by nipping the spine at the neck. I've heard, but I can't verify it, that the cats' tooth lines up with the mice' neck vertebrae just right to snap it instantly, when the pounce is good.

Leap/two-paw-grab: for birds/bats and other flying things (bugs). (Look up the videos of the cat and owl that grew up together...) The cat will try to grab the bird with both paws and then _land on it_ to pin it before bringing the mouth to bear.

Reach-and-pull: For fish. Many cats ignore fish, but the single-paw reach-and- pull maneuver is to hook fish on the claws and yank it out of the water onto the land (thence to pounce/bite.)

</comment><comment><USER13> I had two indoor outdoor cats.

It was cool. There's something really neat about having a little creature you can let outside and they're smart enough to return to you and learn the neighborhood.

It's no longer ok to do that, and I'm not really recommending that anyone do that. Feel free to tear into me for it (I get it). All I'm saying is that there were interesting and unexpected aspects.

I attached a gps to my cats just to find out where they'd go. This was back in 2010 or so, before gps was very small. It was just small enough to put on their collar without too much risk to them.

I ended up with a scatterplot of my cats' favorite spots. It was the Midwest in a relatively smallish suburb. Scuzzle was such a ham; it turns out he'd made friends with a lot of the neighbors, and sometimes he'd stay out for a couple days since people kept feeding him.

Eventually I started driving my car to meet him each night. I'd get pretty close to him and yell out "Scuzzle!" And he'd mrowww from the shadows and run up to meet me, then hop in the car like a dog. Eventually he started recognizing my car, and me driving it. I know this because I'd often encounter him observing my approach, and at a certain point you could see him go "oh, it's you." He was always very aware of the roads.

Eventually a neighbor kidnapped him and took off the gps collar. I don't think the old lady understood it was a gps. We were walking around at night near his last known location shouting "scuzzle!" And we were getting pretty frantic since it had been days. But then we tried the last known location again and shouted again, and we heard "mrowww!" The old lady had let him sit in her sunporch, and the window (but not the screen) was open. So he heard us and we heard him. I went up and thankfully the door was unlocked, so we got him out of there without more hassle.

Showed up the next day with a picture of him on a flyer and asked her directly "have you seen this cat?" The look on her face was kind of funny in hindsight.

Meh. It was an interesting experience. Life is like that sometimes. Don't do that; not worth the stress. But not a lot of people know that cats are smart enough that they do learn a lot of our customs, like roads and where you live.

</comment><comment><USER14> When approaching a new cat, I find it helps to be sat on the ground or crouched, so you don't tower over them. Don't be too close. Then hold out your hand and let them approach and sniff it, so they can identify you. I usually click to get their attention. Then when you stroke them be gentle on their head. Do not under any circumstances start with their belly or further down their back, unless you like scratch marks.

I have a theory that cars like being stroked on the parts of their head that they can't lick themselves, so just above their eyes etc. Logically this also means under their chin, but they had better trust you before you attempt that.

Have had very close relationships with cats - one that would meow on command for me (without reinforcement training), come and find me in the countryside if she wanted attention, curl up with me every evening, chew my hair; another that sat on my shoulders like a parrot; but also one (male) cat that I was never able to properly bond with - built like a panther and liable to bite me for no clear reason.

</comment><comment><USER15> Cat treats. I've used it to train my cat, she will run to the cat chair next to my desk. Hop on it, roll around, and start the loudest purrs for some tasty cat treats. I just shake the can, where ever she is hiding, I got instacat.

Shes smart though, I don't always give her a treat with a can shake, soon as she runs to me. She will sit and wait for me to "remove" the lid before she hops on the stool. But I figured that out, and just removed the lid, and I get the look like "wtf", so I pet her a bunch, then give hear a treat, not before.

I even got her to roll on her back and let me pet the soft belly. But that backfired, she now demands belly rubs, and will lay there while I'm on the computer, expecting my hand on her.

And yes, lots of slow eye blinks, shes a happy puss.

Just gotta understand them.

</comment><comment><USER16> I believe there was a study done some time ago (I cant find the link) that suggested cats perceive humans as large, dumb, docile cats.

<comment><USER17> [https://www.bustle.com/p/cats-apparently-think-humans-are- bi...](https://www.bustle.com/p/cats-apparently-think-humans-are-bigger- clumsy-hairless-cats-so-thats-adorable-11768160)

The author is John Bradshaw and the book is Cat Sense

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> I don't think cats are unfriendly at all. Just less understood.

<comment><USER19> Or more discerning. A dog will love anyone who crosses its path. If you want that kind of affection from a cat, you just have to earn it.

<comment><USER18> I've had to work pretty hard to get some dogs to trust and approach me. Some cats, even on the street, a hi kitty is enough to get the most wonderful figure 8 oflove around my legs.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Unlike a dog, you can never own a cat.

But as long as you treat it well it will always come back to you. :]

</comment><comment><USER21> Oh no, my cat is very friendly, but only when she gets hungry. She knows who has access to Fancy Feast. Also, "from the other side of the room" probably means the cat can only see the general outline of you if the room is large enough - their eyesight acuity at a distance is pretty bad. They have broader field of view, and higher sensitivity to motion though. Another misconception is that cats and dogs don't see colors, but they do, just not the same way as humans, and not as many.

</comment><comment><USER22> With cats, you need to meet them halfway. I've never met a cat I couldn't bond with, including a number of "lost causes", ferals, etc.

</comment><comment><USER23> Like most behavior in living things, cats are a product of their environment, how they are treated, how their needs are met. Lots of people "do it wrong" then blame the animal. The family I live with for a while longer went through a dozen cats in 3 litters over the first year or so I was here as the matriarch kept getting pregnant and they would never take her to the vet. Most of the kittens disappeared quickly. They had to live in a garage and I assume they were killed by wildlife in this rural place. I had enough and took the eldest female kitten to get spayed and intended to take the mother next and the others when of age but the mother and the remaining little ones ran off or were killed as well and the one I had was the only one left. She is the best, and really only good thing in my life now, and she is expressive and has clear emotions and personality around me because I spend time with her and treat her well. She isn't "allowed" in the house by them but when they are gone I bring her in and she will curl up with me and purr away.

The family generally ignores her. They are "put food and water down once a week" sort of people. One does the occasional petting when walking in or out and it's convenient, and one person especially claims she is "mean" and hasn't once gone out just to socialize with her. She isn't mean...she just doesn't trust them. That's something many people don't seem to innately understand and I don't get it. You have to build trust and be consistent in how you treat life. If you treat them like things, shout, swat, or ignore them, it's you who are unfriendly and wrong. In my opinion your true character comes out in how you treat life you have power over. Whether a kitten, puppy, homeless person, employee whatever. I do the best I can for her given the "rules" they set in their house, but not being able to ensure her future as my life declines rips my heart out. I know they won't take proper care of her and I see no future where I have stability to protect her. I've tried to adopt her out before, but they refused to allow it out of some weird ego driven feeling of insult they are crap pet owners, which is a demonstrable fact. The thought of claiming she ran off and sneaking her to someone has crossed my mindm but there are so many homeless cats here its near impossible to find someone in short order. I put in my will that I want them to rehome her and left some money toward it, but I expect that to be ignored like all other requests are.

I know all of that may sound mental or ridiculous to some. My life is collapsing and it brings out intense emotion and focus on what is truly important. She has been a light for me. My family are "its just an animal/tool/mouser" types. But to me she is a living thing that feels emotions and pain and deserves a life. To me that's more important than some TV show or Facebook argument or "I don't want hair on the carpet" or the new boat or whatever other stupid egotistical material bullshit they think matters more than making sure she is fed or not locked out of the garage. I am sure my own situation magnifies my empathy, there but I wish people would consider what really matters more often. Life matters more than things. I am going to go feed her then bring her in now for a stealth cuddle session. She will probably claw bloody "play" gashes in my hand today as a reward for talking her up ;) The love scars are worn proudly. I need to start wearing some leather gloves when I antagonize her.

</comment><comment><USER24> FYI the grey cat in the article is a British shorthair, a pedigree.

</comment><comment><USER25> Maybe it's because I've cut his testicles

<comment><USER26> Normally you get a vet to do that...

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> I was recently bit on my ring finger by my indoor house cat. Unbeknownst to me, people were messing with the poor guy all night during a party. I ended up being near him when he freaked out and bit (I am glad it wasn't someone else). Had to go to urgent care and was almost sent to the hospital for an IV drip because my coffee made it seem like I had a fever when they took my oral temp.

The DR reported the bite to the state, who forced a home investigation and vet checks on me. Even though it's no longer infected, my finger/hand still hurts and I expect it to for a long time. The whole thing cost me time away from work, prescriptions/medical stuff, and the cat's vet exam. 10/10 will never own a cat again, especially if I had kids in the house.

<comment><USER28> Dogs would do the same thing

<comment><USER29> I suggest you google for "cat bites vs dog bites".

<comment><USER30> Having been hospitalised following a bite from one of our cats (caused by a dog scaring him witless) I hadn't realised how dangerous their bites are - <USER2> now know that if you get a proper deep bite from a cat _get medical attention_.

<comment><USER7> Cat bites are the strongest of any animal in terms of PSI because their teeth are so sharp, and they're ambush predators that kill with a single bite. I would totally go to hospital after a full-on bite from our cat.

<comment><USER27> Just in case, because of my experience, the cat bite doesn't have to be powerful/severe or deep to require medical attention. Mine was on my finger and quit bleeding after I washed it, but now I know I should've gone to urgent care pretty much right away.

I've read a ton of stories lately about folks who barely bled/hurt and ended up requiring surgery.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> I'll never understand why anyone would want to own a cat, especially one that frequently roams outdoors, when something like toxoplasmosis exists and affects over 30% of the global population.</comment>


Google Employees Say Their Careers Were Stymied After Reporting Harassment - <AUTHOR> https://jezebel.com/google-employees-say-their-careers-were-stymied-after-r-1837981794 <comment><USER2> One day, perhaps Googlers will reinvent unions and discover what it's like to have actual negotiating power with your employer. Until then, expect stuff like this to keep happening.

<comment><USER3> Unions never take root at tech companies because software engineers seem themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed 10x programmers.

<comment> toper-centage Most of the times, the market is in the favour of developers because every company is looking for more developers all the time. It's only in specific cities, and specific companies, that developers don't have the upper hand. This lead to a culture of developers having no idea how unions work or even considering them because they got well paying jobs the moment they left college.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> one who reports harassment today will report illegal conduct tomorrow. not good for doing business nowadays. you must be domesticated to be any use to coroporations.

</comment><comment><USER5> I hate this ongoing PR attack on Google now being joined by politically ambitious state AG's. Google has done more positive things than any other company over the last twenty years. Instead of targeting bad companies that destroy people's lives (think gambling or alcohol or junk food), they are trying to destroy the company that gave us free search, maps, and email.

</comment><comment><USER6> Hmm I always thought Google was pretty good about this stuff but I guess not... passing over dodgy things the higher ups do is pretty bad.</comment>


William Shatner On Star Trek Vs Star Wars - <AUTHOR> http://www.tekgoblin.com/2011/09/18/william-shatner-on-star-trek-vs-star-wars/

<comment><USER2> I recently caught Episode III again. Among other nice touches, it has a lovely scene showing Obi Wan heading into a sinkhole (cave) on a planet surrounded by moons (water/aggression). On his arrival a character walks over and says "there is no war here, unless you've brought it with you."

It's probably fair to say that Lucas made the same film six times, but I find the moral center and symbolic subtlety of his work interesting. I've never gotten that feeling of thematic consistency and purpose from Star Trek.</comment>


Need Job - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> I guess this will get flagged soon. In that case:

Please see the FAQ regarding job posts: [https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html)

For the latest post, see [https://news.ycombinator.com/submitted?id=whoishiring](https://news.ycombinator.com/submitted?id=whoishiring)

Meanwhile some advice. You need to provide more information. In particular, what can you do, where do you live (country?). But writing it here will not be helpful for you because this thread will get lost. Go to the "Who wants to be hired" thread. Look at the format of the messages, and try to write something similar.</comment>


Wi-Fi speeds are about to triple  - <AUTHOR> http://money.cnn.com/2014/04/04/technology/innovation/qualcomm-wifi/ <comment><USER2> Ugh, what's the use of faster WiFi if the outbound internet connection is so slow. I think we need to focus more on faster broadband.

<comment><USER3> It's not like they're aren't working on faster broadband (like Google and its project to expand to 10GBps fiber). There are more than one project at any given moment any way, it's not as if the whole country is just working together on one thing at a time here.

The problem with faster broadband isn't technical, it's politics and greed as usual in US. It's very easy to lay out fiber (I'm oversimplifying for the argument here but it is once we put the money to it) to 95% of the homes in US. However, the big companies like Verizon, AT&T, etc wouldn't do this unless there's a huge benefit for them involved. It's much easier for the government to handle this as a utility, rather than an information service.

For this article, the problem was technical as the router can't push the data out at maximum speed to multiple devices at the same time and MU-MIMO in this article is a solution for this.

How about the local network traffic? Even for a single user, having multiple devices reduces the maximum bandwidth the router can push out at any given time. MU-MIMO will help the efficiency of utilizing the maximum potential bandwidth that multiple devices can use at the same time. In my apartment, 3+ people would want to access the Internet at the fastest speed possible and MU- MIMO will make that possible once we all have the compatible chipsets and routers.

With faster Internet speeds, you still need MU-MIMO because you'd like each device to use that speed at the same time. Otherwise, only one device at a time would be able to use your speed and it'd be a waste.</comment></comment>