Sorry Dan Shipper and other coders, you are wrong.  - <AUTHOR> http://blog.crranky.com/web/sorry-dan-shipper-you-are-wrong/ <comment><USER2> Doctor: You seem to be in good health, what again did you say you need me to do?

BizBrah: Well, I'd like to be several inches taller, and have four arms.

Doctor: I don't really, uh, do that sort of thing, if it were even possible.

BizBrah: Listen, this is a one in a million idea, I just need someone to implement it. I'm the idea guy, you're the doctor.

Doctor: It's not impossible per se, but none of my colleagues would actually attempt such things on a human subject. Perhaps you should read up a bit about the current state of medical science, and maybe become a doctor if body modification research is your calling.

BizBrah: I looked at what's available at the pharmacy, but it's all too hard to understand. I love tall people. I love the dynamic nature of juggling many things at once. Am I forever cursed to be uninvolved in the medical community because doctors keep shooting down my ideas?

Doctor: ...

BizBrah glares demandingly.

Doctor: Actually, I _can_ help you out! The kind of doctor you're looking for is called a psychiatrist. I know a good one, here's his card.

BizBrah: Bingo! I'm a people person, persuasion is my strength.

<comment><USER3> This is a flawed comparison because you do not need to "become a doctor" or read up on medical science to know that there is currently no way to get another pair of functioning human arms on top of the two you already have.

By the way, there are surgical options to grow taller by lengthening the limbs [1]. I'm not a doctor.

[1] [http://abcnews.go.com/Health/york-man-grows-inches- surgery/s...](http://abcnews.go.com/Health/york-man-grows-inches- surgery/story?id=15776730#.UC6CykLh12M)

<comment><USER4> I believe the strength of the joke lies in its cunning lesson, not in its details.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Thanks for the reply zipop I really appreciate the other perspective. That said, you said some things in your response that make me think that the way I wrote my post may have lead you to misinterpret the point I was trying to make. Sorry about that, let me try to rephrase slightly.

To be clear: I know how tough it is to teach yourself how to code. When I was teaching myself as a kid there was no StackOverflow, no Code Academy, and no W3Schools. It was just me and my programming book, and either I figured out the problem for myself or I had to give up. It was really hard.

The point I was trying to make wasn't that you could become a master engineer in 6 months. That's absolutely untrue. The point I was trying to make is that you can teach yourself enough code in 6 months to build SOMETHING, to move yourself along far enough to get to the next level.

I know this is possible because I've seen people do it. One of my best friends from school went from not knowing a how to write a single line of code to being the lead technical founder on a YC company in less than a year.

The real point here is that it's very easy to tell yourself something is too hard, and that you don't have enough time to learn it when that's really just a personal constraint. The point is that it's easy to get distracted doing things with short term rewards (going to events) rather than doing things with rewards that are played out over the long term (building skill). It's more written as a way to shift perspective than anything else. Again thanks for the response, hopefully that cleared it up a little bit.

EDIT: Original post is here if you missed it: <http://danshipper.com/the-now- syndrome>

<comment><USER6> I read it as coding just being a particular example. The argument works equally well for a pure-tech founder who needs to pick up some marketing to take his project to the next level.

<comment><USER5> That's absolutely the way it was meant to be read.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I'm a developer with extensive experience in building technology solutions and scaling them at all levels, from Fortune 500 all the way down to hobby game (400,000 lines of C / Lua) with a couple of thousand users running on a single PC. I love all aspects of building up a platform and can't get enough of it.

I'm drawn to the _idea_ of being a technical co-founder and even have the financial resources to take a calculated risk on equity over initial income for a good amount of time. I don't live in CA, don't particularly want to move, and really struggle with these online "find a co-founder" sites when it's so hit and miss.

I feel like I have decent business sense but would prefer to spend my time building rather than dealing with VCs and fund raising and board meetings and paperwork so I just focus on small sites making "pocket money" and let the bigger opportunities pass by.

I guess my point in all this is that it isn't just "none technical co- founders" struggling here. This whole area of "partner discovery" is still wide open for someone to come along and find a better way to do things. Do any of the VC companies themselves do any kind of "partnering up"? If finding a technical co-founder is a challenge for so many people then perhaps there's a way for would-be leaders on the technical side to make themselves known to VCs up front, complete whatever interviews were necessary and let the VCs (or another 3rd party) do the matchmaking at a deeper level than just filling in forms on a site? Definitely open to suggestions in the meantime...

<comment><USER8> I agree the problem is still open. It's a _very_ difficult problem. Partners have to trust each other. It is hard to build that kind of trust ethereally, and startups, by definition, don't have the capital to have people travel around "dating".

Solving that problem would certainly open many doors, and not just in the startup world.

<comment><USER9> I'd love to see a blog post along the lines of this thread.

One question I have is that each partnership in my experience has a different mode of operation. For some, it's a lot like a marriage. For others it's a "I can work with him. I could never stand him in a social setting."

Then there are the well-known partnerships of the past: Jobs and Woz, Larry and Sergey, ...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> When I was about 11, I bought this book: [http://www.amazon.com/Teach- Yourself-Game-Programming-Cd-Rom...](http://www.amazon.com/Teach-Yourself- Game-Programming-Cd-Rom/dp/0672305623)

I had never touched programming before. I read the whole book, and did the lessons, but C++ was just too hard for a beginner.

Then I found QBASIC sitting on my computer. QBASIC was easy, it was idiot proof. I learned all the basics (pun) of programming in 1 day. The problem is not that programming is hard, it is that these days there is no easy starting point. To an experienced developer, Javascript might seem easy, but after trying to teach it to my brother for the past few months, you can see how complex it really is for beginners. He took every course at Code Academy and is still struggling.

<comment><USER11> Opening up your browser's JS console and typing alert("hello, world!")

is way easier than running GORILLAS.BAS

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> How much of programming potential is innate? Is saying "I'm not built to be a coder" more like saying "I'm not built to learn a foreign language" (which is implausible and smacks of laziness if you're at least moderately intelligent), or more like "I'm not built to be six feet tall" (which is true for most of the world's population)? I'm interested in the truth here, not in just-so answers based on personal experience. Are there good scientific studies answering this question, and do they agree? And if programming potential is mostly innate, is there a simple test for it that doesn't take 6 months?

<comment><USER13> I'm repeatedly surprised by how often good coders take their skillsets for granted, as something everyone could learn in a short time if they set their mind to it. They think that just because computers make intuitive sense to them, and they can learn any new programming language or paradigm in a few weeks, a newbie could do the same -- albeit in a matter of months, perhaps. They learned their most important skills from toodling around on the internet, or deconstructing simple machines or programs or something, and they think that this means you don't need formal training, it can come to anyone with time.

The thing is, I don't think people appreciate how much of a deep skill thinking logically is. It's not something you can pick up in a weekend: there is a monstrous gap between the basic common sense appreciation of cause and effect that nearly everyone attains in their lifetime, and the rigorous analytic mind that can look at a series of instructions and deduce all possible outcomes. This is a skill that doesn't require formal training, yes, but it is a skill that must be mastered, with all its requisite 10,000 hours of training beforehand. The best programmers have all been doing this for years, deconstructing the world and its workings whenever they can, and learning the mechanical structure behind their every experience. This training has given them a unique mastery, and while it's not for me to say whether this skill is fundamentally innate or purely a result of practice, it certainly takes years to develop the right modes of thinking. All I can say is that mastery the ability to think logically is a prerequisite for programming in any deep sense, and not everyone has this skill. This is why when I ask my mathematician and physicist friends to look at a program, they can decipher it in minutes even if they don't consider it particularly gripping, while if I ask my writer and even medically trained friends they blankly stare at a wall of gibberish.

Sorry if this answer is more anecdotal than you are asking for, but in my experience there is a fundamental skill in programming that must be mastered that many programmers take for granted, and you can't expect people without it to pick up deep programming in a reasonable amount of time. That's not to say there's no useful place in a place with colleagues for someone who can't really synthesize new bulletproof code, especially in this age of Google and StackOverflow, but the kind of skill people need to whip up a prototype of a novel application on their own without outside assistance takes years. I think Zed Shaw is right in his response to this blog post, if you really are a "people person" than perhaps coming to a programmer with a completely thought- through user experience designed out matches your skillset better, and it's every bit as valuable to the final product as programming knowledge.

<comment><USER8> This is one of the best comments I've read on this topic. Again, anecdotally, I look at the world in a massively different way than other people in my family (other than my brother who is also good with computers). This way of thinking is repeat with looking under the hood, analyzing why things behave the way they do, and imagining other outcomes that could occur. There is also a lo more questioning, followed by _needing_ to know the answer.

I wonder how you could define a study to determine corellation versus causation here. Maybe I think this way because I've spent so much time fighting computers. Or maybe I've been willing to spend so much time fighting computers because I think this way. It's a fascinating question to me.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I don't think the message us technical guys are trying to get across is that you need to become one of us and strive for the full ability to implement your idea all by yourself. Hell, the less people that are awesome programmers the better, keeps us in high demand.

After my experience with a very-non-technical co-founder before, I dont think I would ever again agree to work with someone who couldn't at the very least know how to read the source code and manually tweak database entries. Working with someone who has read the basic rails tutorials makes it infinitely easier to communicate and mutually understand technical and temporal restrictions on a product in development.

I'm a programmer, but I sure as hell read Inbound.org, dribbble, forrst, and other sites besides just technically oriented ones so I at the very least can use the same vocabulary to describe and understand what a a partner is doing and why they're choosing to do it that way. I expect anyone I work with to be similarly versed.

</comment><comment><USER15> I think you make some valid points, and as somebody who self-taught, I get the pain. That being said, I also agree with the common sentiment here "help yourself a little first".

If you consider yourself a technology company, you need an understanding of your technology and what goes into making it. You may not be a master at each part, but you need _something_. It doesn't mean you are not marketing, but like marketing a technology implementation has several nuances that can't be overlooked. Tension always arises when these aren't well understood. Times this problem by 10 if you want "magic" / algorithms which little concept of how they will work (note: you don't need computing studies to figure this out, generally).

Note that I said 'consider yourself a technology company'. There are many companies based on technology that are not, themselves, technology companies (you can argue either way whether this is the right model, but it works). From my experience, these are the companies hunting less for technical co-founders (and who have less excuse for no traction pre product).

</comment><comment><USER16> If you have a great idea, and the value you bring to the table in executing it is "sales", start by selling it to a developer. I'm not sure what we're arguing about here.

</comment><comment><USER17> The OP is replying to this: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4395008>

</comment><comment><USER18> I'm a business student and I feel ashamed the rise of non-technical people in the startup field acting like they've got incredibly valuable skills. I learned more in introductory compsci classes than all the BS in my business classes combined.

In regards to startups, technical people are so much more valuable than non- technical people. Non-technical people keep on perpetuating this: <http://whartoniteseekscodemonkey.tumblr.com/> -esque mentality by saying things like this:

>"I am the nontechnical founder of several great startup ideas (I didn't say startups) sometimes very poorly executed."

The founder of an idea? That doesn't mean much in my mind (then again, I don't know much about the author at all, nor could I did up much). Execution is key to a startup - and technical people are largely the ones that get the important shit done.

Non-technical people can add value for sure - but I think only a small margin of them have valuable skills that rival technical talent in a startup setting.

<comment><USER19> I think it's a mistake to equate all "non technical people" as "idea people" which is what I seem to be reading in your post. There are people who are just "idea people" who have no particular skills in terms of technology OR business.

But _real_ "business people* provide a TON of value. Someone who understands marketing, distribution, sales, fundraising and all of those things? Tremendously valuable to startups (at least some classes of startups). Find me somebody who can construct and execute a solid marketing strategy, craft a good "core story", do market research, develop solid positioning, and who understands PR and how to get stories placed, someone with an extensive personal contacts list which includes the kind of customers you're looking for, someone who understands the fundraising process and has connections with investors, someone who can cold call a customer, get a meeting, make a presentation and close a sale.... find me that person and I'll offer them a significant equity stake in my startup, to join up as a non-technical co- founder, even if they've never written a line of code in their life, and have no interest in doing so.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Using your own example, you don't go to newly graduated doctors and say, "I have this great idea for a general practice. Let's open a shop together split it 50/50."

I think Dan's point is that if you believe strongly enough in your idea, then it ought to be worth the time investment required to personally execute it. At the very least, take it to a level advanced enough to be able to sell the concept (and yourself) to prospective partners/employees and get them excited.

If you don't think you have the aptitude to learn the nuts and bolts of the particular execution, then you should probably refocus on another idea for which you are qualified. Alternatively, you could try and convince someone else to execute your idea and hope that he or she takes you along for the ride.

</comment><comment><USER21> To be a programmer is non-trivial and takes skills and learning. To understand the basics of web development is not. There are too many half cooked coders out there without necessary skill or education to properly engineer complex solutions. That do not mean you can't dabble with coding and still not be a programmer, just like I can dabble with painting - need not be Picasso. That is why specialities exist.

</comment><comment><USER22> While I can't empathize with you because I _am_ a programmer, I feel like PHP isn't a great language to start on simply due to the fact that you have to coordinate a lot of non-programming things (servers, remote editing, HTML/CSS, etc.). I think you'd be more successful starting with Python or something else with a REPL.

PHP might be easier to learn on now than it was for me 8 years ago, I don't really know.

</comment><comment><USER23> It's not hard to learn to code.

Start with Scheme as your language and _SICP_ and/or _The Little Schemer_ as your instruction books.

A smart person can become a competent coder if there is as little friction as possible between him and "holy shit, this actually works, aren't I awesome?"

When you're ready to try more practical stuff, then it's time to dip your toes into Python.

</comment><comment><USER24> Ok, but what are you bringing to the table? Coding is hard. Talking people into giving you money is hard. Either one is sufficient for making a demo.

</comment><comment><USER25> It's because you're a fucking idiot.

<comment><USER26> You have made five comments on Hacker News. Three of them are extremely rude and vulgar (the language doesn't bother me, but the sentiment behind it does). The norm here is civil, intelligent conversation, which is the opposite of "It's because you're a fucking idiot." If you keep going this way, you're going to get hellbanned. Just a friendly heads-up.

<comment><USER27> Why warn him? Let them bring the hellbanhammer down.

<comment><USER26> Some people are capable of more, but for whatever reason have fallen into a rut of uselessness. For those people, a warning can help and they might even go on to become productive commenters. I've even made good friends out of people I nearly wrote off in the beginning. If he/she's not one of those people, the warning will do nothing, the hellban will come soon enough and my comment will have done no harm. I like to see people have a chance to better themselves, even if they probably won't take it.

<comment><USER27> You are a better man/woman than I, then.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Why there's so little left of the early internet - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20190401-why-theres-so-little-left-of-the-early-internet <comment><USER3> I'm not disagreeing with any of this. But I think there's additional perspective to be had.

I see a lot of conversation about early Internet and the health of the Internet. I think some of this is just because those of us who remember it, are starting to ache over it a bit for all kinds of reasons, one of which is because that's what old people do.

Today I got lunch with my 17 year old nephew. I asked him about what he does on the Internet and if he misses the "old Internet". First off, he has no context of what the old Internet is. He doesn't really care nor seem to feel like he's missing out. Second, he showed me what he mainly does. Basically it was a handful of group chats via Signal and WhatsApp, a whole bunch of web comic websites, and some YouTube series.

I felt like a dad of a teenager for a fleeting moment and my generalized conclusion was that he's consuming a ton of independently developed creative content. I was actually pretty proud of what the Internet looks like for him.

I asked him about curation and the ability to hold on to his favourites. How does he ensure that something he loves isn't gone in 10 years? This concept really didn't seem to matter to him. His perspective seemed to be that there's so many webcomics and the "memes" and conversations he has with his friends are ever evolving, there's not really a lot of time to care about the old stuff. Made me wonder if attachment to nostalgia may be fleeting as well.

Is this the full story? Of course not. But it made me feel a bit better about things and a bit more skeptical of the doomsaying I often hear and sometimes take part in.

<comment><USER4> Not caring about the future is something a 17 year old would do. Not worrying about whether the stuff he loves _now_ will endure _tomorrow_ is typical of that age. He simply hasn't lived long enough and matured enough to feel nostalgic about stuff. I promise you he will miss things when he's 30 or 40.

I think this reflects more on teenagers and grownups than on the internet :)

> _His perspective seemed to be that there 's so many webcomics and the > "memes" and conversations he has with his friends are ever evolving, there's > not really a lot of time to care about the old stuff._

He's missing on old stuff like Calvin & Hobbes, to name just one example.

<comment><USER5> I cared about the future a lot when I was a teenager/early 20's, and was a bit of a digital hoarder. When I was a freshman in college a million years ago (2001) it was common to meet people and trade binders of burned Divx's. I had hundreds, because I might want to watch them someday. My Mp3 collection, tiny by some standards, was still tens or hundreds of gb - and this in an age when a 20GB hard drive was a decent size. I saved every photo I took and curated the folders of them.

Then three things happened 1) Almost everything became easily available (or reasonably easily) 2) Of the things that aren't easily available (personal photos), I realized I never look at it, with very little exception. 3) I realized I am going to die someday, and at the rate I consume media I will _never_ get to even a sizeable fraction of it.

So I try to print the pictures I care about, I have a folder of just a few photos and videos I really care about (mostly my kid), and that's about it really.

Media used to be somewhat scarce, but now basically everything is available everywhere all the time (rights issues notwithstanding). We take a thousand photos on a vacation, not a few rolls of film (72-108 images) It's overwhelming.

<comment><USER6> Older dude checking in. I threw out my Divx collection about 10 years ago. I have precious little time to spend watching 2-hour films, and I recognize that the number of films I will watch before I die is on the order of maybe 300. When I do get a chance to watch a film, I want the experience to be as great as it possibly can be. I want as high a resolution as I can get with the best color. Compared to 4k HDR stuff available today, the Divx stuff looks like total shit. I have grown to despise my fellow human beings in groups larger than about 7, so I've built a home theater where I can watch a movie without having to deal with the bullshit that is the general public. I'll invite 4 or 5 of my friends over on occasion. Specifically, the ones who respect my rules of watching a movie. No talking, no phones, that sort of thing. I'll buy a Blu-ray disc brand new so I don't have to worry about random scratches or whatever from previous renters. I don't stream because I no longer tolerate any of the bullshit that happens half the time, like random degradation from the service resulting in pixelation or pauses.

For music, I just subscribe to a streaming music service where I can download ("pin") stuff to my phone. Mainly because it's ridiculously cheap and convenient. I don't care about "owning" music, like it could somehow forever "go away" and I'd be sitting in the corner of my basement crying about how I can't listen to such-and-such a song any more. But honestly I'm more likely to listen to audiobooks these days, which I do immediately strip the DRM from and store separately on my phone.

When I go on vacation, I take a pathologically small number of photos, and I only take them on my phone. I can't be bothered with lugging around a huge lens and camera body everywhere I go when I'm trying to experience some place new. Whenever I show the photos to people, they often say, "Wow! What camera did you take these with??" And I say, "A used Pixel 2."

<comment><USER7>
        and I recognize that the number of films I will watch before I die is on the order of maybe 300

This kind of thing seems morbid, but as I tiptoe into my 40s I find it hilarious. Got my home's roof redone lately. Allegedly has a 50 year warranty. Mentally added 50 to my current age and was like... well, yep, that oughta do it. hahaha.

<comment><USER5> A bit morbid but also incredibly important.

When my colleagues say "I worked on this over the weekend" I get pretty upset because

1) Dude you're in your 40's. If you're lucky you've got ~2100 lazy Sunday afternoons left. Probably a third to half of those in decent health. That's not very many. How many of those do you want to spend doing stupid shit (aka most jobs) for somebody else for free?

2) Don't normalize that behaviour so I have to do it too.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> _if I ever needed to show proof of my time there it would only be a Google search away_

On that topic, has anyone discovered why Google deep-six'd Usenet archives it acquired with Deja News?

You used to be able to find specific posts from specific posters with by: and other operators. Sometime in the aughts it degraded quickly to the point where I can't find threads from which I have explicit excerpts and full author names.

Does someone high up in Google have an embarrassing usenet history? Did it just fall in disrepair?

<comment><USER9> > Does someone high up in Google have an embarrassing usenet history?

I don't know if that's true (it probably is), but personally I am glad that almost all of my old Usenet posts have vanished. I was horrified when Deja News started up. That was the moment I realized the internet is forever and decided to never use my real name or to upload any pictures of myself to anything connected to the internet.

Of course, I'm still screwed because I use a smart phone and probably several entities have that data and could connect the dots, but the average person I encounter can find out very little about me with just my name.

<comment><USER10> This is _the_ problem.

I've mentioned on multiple occasions that the current post-Snowden security and privacy movement is creating a serious threat to the Internet history preservation, and to some extents, threat the understanding/insights of the human civilization in the digital age.

My personal interest is Internet culture and communities. And I'm not amused by this comment, let me talk about the problem briefly.

Online communication from 1970 to 1995 was almost completely public, archived indefinitely. You can still read every single comment by every hacker from the late 80s in Usenet archives, sometimes even back to the ARPAnet era. There are a million posts to read and no spam and low-effort posting at all (by modern standards, even many flame wars seem to be high-quality). You can easily lost days, months or even years in the Usenet archive.

Records like these are often the only remaining records of the online communities, a snapshot of great historical and cultural value. _To me, even the controversial political flamewars are interesting as they reveal parts of the history I would not know otherwise (I guess if someone rereads Reddit threads about Donald Trump today in 2055, he /she may have a similar feeling)_.

On the other hand, you also have names, addresses, and even phone numbers of almost everyone posted on Usenet. It was not a big problem when the access to Usenet/Internet was exclusive to members of the academia, and at a time when there was almost no systematic, organized abuses of the personal information. But today's different, we have big and little brothers who have "Collect Them All" as their slogan, and they are actively trying to exploit the information available to the maximum extents.

What is the response then? People (at least many in the hacking community) start to prefer private, semi-private, or in-group communities over public communication, often protected by cryptography. Some people also actively erases/purges their footprints, for example, some would delete every single post when they left a community, no matter how insightful they are, others may even deliberately insert misleading or false information. And we have something roughly similar to Vernor Vinge's True Name (describes an underground hacking community in the cyberspace). Good, now personal privacy and security is more or less protected by using the cryptographic barrier.

But what is it doing then? We are now creating a unprecedented, HUGE GAP of information in history, within our life time, we are now entering a new digital Dark Age where no one has seen before.

Centralized and/or proprietary services often delete information when they go out-of-service, too, so we need to archive them, desperately. You can't imagine how many resources/memories that are extremely valuable to members of some communities exist solely on a single web server/service provider. I remember reading a post from Schneier's blog that says a website contains numerous posts of wine culture were gone forever when the hard drive failed, and one commenter said that he uses w3m/lynx CLI browsers, and records everything he reads to his hard drive so he would never lost a single piece of information he has seen.

Is it an act of little brother surveillance? Arguably, it can be seen as one. But is it justified? I would say yes, and even say we need more people doing this, systematically. Naturally, archive.org was born in this way.

But then it faces the same issue. On one hand, many archived information can be abused, on the other hand, the more archive-refusing people we have, the more damage to historical records is made.

I don't know how to solve this problem.

The only way I can think of, is (1) Cypherpunks were correct. Anonymity is crucial in the information age, and we should have more of it: never use True Name and reveal personal information unless absolutely necessary, use an anonymous network (e.g Tor) if possible, discard identities periodically (but if you delete posts, it still reverts to the original problem...), (2) Encourages further developments and applications of anonymity, and (3) Training people to assume every piece of information published publicly cannot be removed, may be abused, and they should be able to withstand all possible consequences of it. But now, "life" and "information" simply become inseparable, if you are active in a community you have to post something...

I don't know the solution.

\---

Appendix 1: what you can see in an Usenet archive.

You can see people's reactions to the rumors that Apple would release new 68000-based machines, how Larry Wall was releasing patch-2.0, the debates about the audio fidelity of vacuum tube/transistor amplifier, how /bin/sh on System V was having a problem with "CFLAGS=-g make", the first hand perspective on the impact of Great Renaming, Richard Stallman announcing the GNU project and Linus's flamewar on microkernel with Tanenbaum, early Sci-Fi fandom culture posted from a 4.3-BSD machine (beta version!) and how it influenced the hacker culture, how the anti-spam movement gained momentum due to its intellectual challenges, raw discussions of fringe political movements (some interesting ones related to tech include the Cypherpunk movement, and Exopian, an early sect of transhumanism), FAQs on almost every subjects written by the active participants of the community who have probably spent hundreds of hours, some weird "emergent" memes/phenomena created out-of- nothing from the collective community, and also have a laugh on thousands of forgotten Internet memes, like alt.religion.kibology, Usenet Oracle.

The only downsize is: no external resources is accessible, and nobody is going to reply you. It feels like Otomo Katsuhiro's animation _Memories_ , the protagonists in trapping inside a 3D Hologram simulation of the past, created by the supercomputer in the abandoned space station.

<comment><USER11> Most communication throughout history has been ephemeral, and lost as soon as the people relevant died without relaying it to someone else.

Consider the 1800s, where much of our understanding of the attitudes of the day comes from newspapers and archived letters. Then consider how many more were discarded once they had served their purpose.

Today it's possible to archive all of that ephemeral information, but it has never been necessary.

Usenet, for example, was thought to be ephemeral because at best you had a few months worth of posts archived on your server and maybe your local machine, so if you said something boneheaded, it was going to naturally fall off the internet sooner rather than later. As it turns out, that was an incorrect view of the world.

Most forums are treated by their users the same way; a place for people to meet and talk about things in quasi-realtime, but not to archive those discussions for all time. Of course, as it turns out, those discussions _are_ archived for all time, or until the forum closes or has a catastrophic data loss (e.g. this one we're on now).

<comment><USER7>
        Consider the 1800s, where much of our understanding of the attitudes of the day comes from newspapers and archived letters. Then consider how many more were discarded once they had served their purpose.

Don't you think the world would be a somewhat better place if we had more records, and therefore more understanding, of what people thought in these times?

Also consider the class implications here. Letter-writing (and archiving) was something more often practiced by folks who were "elite" in terms of wealth and/or education. The thoughts and opinions of these classes have disproportionate representation in our understanding, and those of people in lower classes are underrepresented or erased entirely.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> The web has nothing built-in for archiving and versioning. It's a gaping hole in this technological platform, one that has been noted and criticized for a very long time. The reality of this problem, however, is vehemently denied by the current generation of "technologists". Of course, those are the same people who get six-digit salaries for managing complexity they themselves create - partly through hyper-centralization. Good and resilient archival, on the other hand, necessarily implies some level of decentralization.

I singlehandedly maintain a 14-year-old website that used to be a modestly popular web magazine. It's not very expensive, but it's a pain. DNS system is horrible and it's easy to loose domain names to some nonsense. (I lost one that used to be a free 2nd level domain when it was converted to a paid-for zone. Not a matter of money, just paperwork.) Server management is a time drain. Stuff like adding SSL certificate to a legacy VPS can lead to a cascade of updates and config changes that can take days to make and test.

BTW, everyone sings praises to archive.org (and it's well-deserved), but most people here do not seem to realize that they are also a centralized platform that can collapse and take everything down with them. Who archives the archives, etc. Fortunately, they are not the only one of the sort. Unfortunately, it's all very ad-hoc.

If W3C weren't a bunch of corporate shills, there would be a standard for creating versioned web archives, like, 10 years ago. It's obvious that we need one.

<comment><USER13> Interesting post. So are you saying that if there was a good standard for versioned web archives, then you could stop maintaining your website and just point people to the archives?

<comment><USER14> Yup, that's the idea behind projects like [https://github.com/HelloZeroNet/ZeroNet](https://github.com/HelloZeroNet/ZeroNet) and [https://github.com/oduwsdl/ipwb](https://github.com/oduwsdl/ipwb).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I looked into this awhile ago and came to a similar conclusion about the web. Here's the examples of pre 1996 websites I know of (some are recreations):

* The famous first web page: [http://www.w3.org/History/19921103-hypertext/hypertext/WWW/T...](http://www.w3.org/History/19921103-hypertext/hypertext/WWW/TheProject.html)

* The Global Network Navigator: [http://oreilly.com/gnn/gnnhome.html](http://oreilly.com/gnn/gnnhome.html)

* Trincoll Journal: [https://web.archive.org/web/20010413164311/http://www.trinco...](https://web.archive.org/web/20010413164311/http://www.trincoll.edu/zines/tj/tj12.02.93/tjcontents.html)

* BBC Networking Club: [https://archive.org/details/bbcnc.org.uk-19950301](https://archive.org/details/bbcnc.org.uk-19950301)

Anything pre 1994 is very hard to find.

<comment><USER16> Can't forget spacejam: [https://spacejam.com/archive/spacejam/movie/jam.htm](https://spacejam.com/archive/spacejam/movie/jam.htm)

<comment><USER15> Ha, that's great! Although it is 1996, which is much better archived then earlier years.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Websites got a lot less fun at some point too. A lot of the designs seem dated now, but I really miss the days when websites had brightly colored text over load backgrounds. Obviously modern sites are more usable, but I want <blink> tags back.

<comment><USER18> I think back in the day people created websites really for fun and can do whatever they want. Now you are judged against the best websites.

Probably the only remnants of the old web are professors who publish academic websites and are based on content rather than design. I do remember when I was about to graduate there was talk of standardizing all the professor websites. I would agree all websites would need accessibility, mobility etc but like you I miss the old web where you could just explore.

Having said that, the new Captain Marvel website is awesome. I don't think the page counter is real though :( [https://www.marvel.com/captainmarvel/](https://www.marvel.com/captainmarvel/)

<comment><USER19> Nothing makes me trust a site more than a ~ in the url somewhere.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Whenever we get into web nostalgia I've got to post [http://wiby.me](http://wiby.me) which is a search engine for live retro websites, a mix of modern sites with very little except text and immaculate sites from the early web that time hasn't changed.

</comment><comment><USER20> Am I the only one who is seeing this sudden surge of bbc.com linked articles ? Not that I'm complaining.

When people started making pages for Search Engine instead of Human Consumptions, Internet died. "Light on information and Heavy on keywords and linking" sites and pages flooded the internet, through which finding the actual content, needs another level of skill.

I think solution to this is, an AI based open source browser extension, which find relevant page from search engine result depending upon its usefulness index. ( or just show its usefulness index, along side the result, in short sabotaging the Google search results ;) ). Is there anything similar available ?

<comment><USER8> It's an Eternal September problem, not a search engine problem. Whenever I use search like a proper normie to buy something, check song lyrics, or weather, the results are excellent.

<comment><USER21> On that note, lately it seems Google results are more and more about what's "popular" in some sense instead of what's relevant, especially when your search term has multiple meanings. Two recent examples of things I've run into are "cloud" (pages and pages of cloud computing results, no mention about the meteorological phenomenon) and "thrush" (nothing about the songbird family, just dozens of results about the yeast infection). Whether I'm logged in or use private browsing doesn't make much difference. Not sure what has changed, but I'm used to Google giving a more representative sample of different meanings of a search term.

<comment><USER22> Duck Duck Go has a similar problem for cloud and thrush, but if you click the "meanings" tab, it lets you switch results over to what you meant, and then gives decent results.

More broadly, DDG implements UI features that allow users to clarify their intent, while Google focuses on using machine learning to infer intent.

When things go sideways, this means DDG empowers users, and google overrides them.

Disclaimer: I switched away from google search years ago, and now I find its user interface completely baffling.

Maybe I just don't know how to use it any more, and there is some override I've overlooked.

Also, I'm kind of shocked by how many corporate logos and spam links fly by when I scroll down the Google results for "cloud". It feels like the 90's internet before animated gifs and the blink tag were invented.

In fairness to google, ddg has a similar number of logos, but they're each approximately the size of one normal sized character, not one third the width of the screen like in google.

<comment><USER23> > Duck Duck Go has a similar problem for cloud and thrush, but if you click > the "meanings" tab, it lets you switch results over to what you meant, and > then gives decent results.

This is a good idea but not well implemented. For example, searching Python displays a relevant carousel of "meanings" \- you have the snake represented, and the programming language. But choosing an item from the list simply changes the search term.

This is particularly bad with "Ruby". Perform a search for Ruby and then click the 'a pink to blood-red colored gemstone' meaning. Observe that the top result now that you have clarified is "Ruby Programming Language".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I've been doing some research on videogaming in the 90s and I run across so many dead links to things that even archive.org doesn't have. The thing that is really frustrating is that there were a handful of psuedo-podcasts with interviews from game developers that are all gone because they were posted in real audio.

<comment><USER25> if you're finding stuff that's not on archive.org just append web.atchive.org/save/ in front of the url to get the crawler to capture it.

I used to have a chrome and Firefox JavaScript bookmarklet to do it in one click but that doesn't work anymore.

<comment><USER25> oh, for the love of...two hours into work and I read this thread and there's a fat-fingered spelling error that I can't edit anymore.

The url is obviously [http://web.archive.org/save/https://<url-to-be- saved>](http://web.archive.org/save/https://<url-to-be-saved>)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> The answer is clear: It takes an effort to publish something on the internet. Companies and other organisations disappear and their web presence disappears with them. It takes an extra effort to create a copy. The dark web - the parts of the web that aren't easily accessible because they consist of databases, paid access areas or perhaps simply facebook posts not published as "public" \- remains hidden and inaccessible to preservation efforts.

There's also the problem of consuming old internet content. Do you still have a gopher client? Will old web pages look the same in your browser as they did in 1995? Flash will no longer work (hooray?).

On the other hand books, photographs and magazines stick around until you throw them away and we have public institutions that are dedicated to their preservation.

<comment><USER27> FWIW old web pages do look the same as they did in 1995, with the exception of the default background color changing from silver to white at some point for some reason. But, at least under Windows, the default fonts, colors, spacing, etc are 99% the same.

Flash also works if you are using Chrome. Sadly, Firefox does not support Flash plugin anymore (and i say sadly because just yesterday i was trying to find some files from an old site that was made using Flash and i had to use Chrome just for that).

<comment><USER28> Firefox still supports Flash, it just doesn't bundle it, unlike Chrome - <USER2> have to install the plugin manually. They're only slowly deprecating it starting on FF 69 (the "always activate" option will disappear, so users will have to click to activate it every time: [https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1519434](https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1519434))

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> With the new Terrorist Content Regulation by EU there will be even less left of the internet we currently have today, here is a recent open letter from Vint Cerf, Jimmy Wales, Bruce Schneier, EFF regarding the matter. [http://www.politico.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/TCO- letter...](http://www.politico.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/TCO-letter-to- rapporteurs.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER30> "While digital storage has fallen drastically in price, archiving all this material still costs money. "Who's going to pay for it?""

This is really interesting. If you think about it, for all of our print archives, the creator bore some of the cost of archiving it. When you print a book you have to send a copy to the library of congress, so the "storage" is paid for by the publisher. Same with newspaper archives -- usually the newspaper is sent by the publisher, who pays for the "storage" (the paper and ink). I think the UK and France and many other countries have similar systems.

But in the digital age, the entire cost is carried by the archiver.

<comment><USER31> >When you print a book you have to send a copy to the library of congress

As best I can tell, you only need to send two copies of a book to the Library of Congress if you want to get an LCCN. Otherwise, there's no requirement to do so, certainly not to receive copyright protection.

<comment><USER30> That's true, but basically every publisher does it because they want an LCCN. I suppose if you self publish you don't have to.

But the bigger point is that to be in the archive you have to bear some of the cost.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> In some ways the 'old' web died around 2006-2007 when Facebook started to get its hooks in.

MySpace was a big thing before that, where people curated their own profiles with custom HTML, then Geocities before that.

When Facbeook came along it felt like a breath of fresh air at the time as the interface was clean and simple, and all your pals were there.

I guess it was one of those "you don't know what you've got til its gone" things, because the sterile Facebook UI and overly corporate Instagram fiefdoms makes me really miss the old internet.

The thing is though, does anyone outside of tech or media really give that much of a crap? All their pals are on Facebook/Instagram, the barrier to entry is low (no need to learn HTML/CSS/JS)

<comment><USER33> Now Instagram users have to learn how to optimize posting time and how to cheat algofeed by adding unrelated hashtags and even tuning color scheme in photos. I regularly hear about such things from casual users with 50 subscribers, not SMM workers. It's much harder than knowing <b> and <img> tags.

With heavy videoization of social media, they also have to learn video montage and lighting.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> The best page in the universe is still up! [http://maddox.xmission.com/](http://maddox.xmission.com/) Like it or not it is a historical monument.

</comment><comment><USER35> I used to be involved in multiple popular things on the internet and became quite famous, even having my own "fan club". All of that is gone. Googling my old nick name yields 0 results.

<comment><USER36> Same here. In the late 90's I was involved with some other kids from college creating and maintaining a site called "The Crazy Zone", where I designed some of the first JavaScript games ever made (as far as I know), including a crude breakout clone and a magic 8-Ball. We even had a chatroom applet made in Java!

But it's just gone now. Can't find a trace of it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> My favorite memories of the earlier internet was hijacking Yahoo chat rooms (guns and ammo was a favorite) and singing 80's karaoke while the normal denizens became increasingly irate. Because once you took control of the microphone you got to keep it as long as you held the button down ;)

Now the internet does not seem as fun and wholesome as it did back in the 90's; I feel bad that my kids don't get to enjoy that. On the plus side, maybe they can make some side income as influencers?

</comment><comment><USER38> This lack of care is amazing. On one side there is a majority of people who react with oh, there's so much worthless stuff shared and consumed every day. On the other side there are people who realize that there is so much valuable information, which takes so little memory by today standards.

Take for example Sci-Hub library of articles. It's only 70TB. Most of it is not stuff people share and like and consume like they do with Youtube or Instagram. Most of it is even old, because many recent scientific articles are available without passing through Sci-Hub.

Only 70TB of valuable data, in a sea of crap. We might loose this any day. Which corporation cares about a tiny ammount of data?

Or suppose you're a historian in 100 years from now. What you have as sources? Nothing? In the age where everything is posted on social media? Too bad, Google or Facebook or others like that decided to trash a huge quantity of data, most of it crap, to be sure, and a tiny quantity of unique, or hard to produce, or scientific, artistic data.

Books which you can't read because MS drops a service? How many of the share- and-like people passed by the experience of writing a book?

</comment><comment><USER39> I find it sad that a post like this about the "early Internet" is really about websites. The web is, of course, not actually the "early Internet".

</comment><comment><USER14> I arrived a little late here, but for anyone just getting into web archiving, it's a fascinating space!

We maintain a master community index with a list of all the major archiving organizations and open source tools here:

[https://github.com/pirate/ArchiveBox/wiki/Web-Archiving- Comm...](https://github.com/pirate/ArchiveBox/wiki/Web-Archiving-Community)

Some of the cooler projects apart from ArchiveBox.io:

\- [https://github.com/webrecorder/pywb](https://github.com/webrecorder/pywb) / webrecorder.io

\- [https://github.com/HelloZeroNet/ZeroNet](https://github.com/HelloZeroNet/ZeroNet)

\- [https://github.com/oduwsdl/ipwb](https://github.com/oduwsdl/ipwb)

\- [https://getpolarized.io](https://getpolarized.io)

\- [https://github.com/internetarchive/brozzler](https://github.com/internetarchive/brozzler)

And many more blog posts, articles, projects, and organizations on the wiki!

</comment><comment><USER40> Somewhat cheeky from the BBC, which has a record of permanently deleting large sections of its website much more recently than c. 1999.

</comment><comment><USER41> Someone at the internet archive brought this thread to my attention. You all may be interested in checking out my project. [http://theoldnet.com](http://theoldnet.com)

The original purpose of this project was to allow vintage computers (old browsers) to surf the old net using the Internet Archive's WayBack API. But most people use it on modern computers. We just passed 100,000 pages served up yesterday.

I've added a number of features to the site including a working guestbook and automatically bubbling of geocities pages to the homepage upon discovery.

Two days ago I released the Old Net Navigator web browser. It's a little buggy but mostly feature complete. You can check that out here [http://theoldnet.com/browser](http://theoldnet.com/browser)

</comment><comment><USER42> Isn't the distributed nature of web making this super hard? Everyone can buy a new domain, everyone can structure one's website differently, everyone can stop publishing content in any date. Innovative ideas about distribution and structure pop out frequently and change how data is served. It's different from usual publication where publishers are needed to publish content, structure has not changed since the B.C. era when books were invented, and data is physical. We started archiving publications long after they were invented; the web was made only 20 years ago. I'll take a long time to find a way to reliably save data that is served in a distributed sense, and people will have to study web with ones that survived, just like how we study papyrus or the Rosetta's stone.

<comment><USER43> > It'll take a long time to find a way to reliably save data that is served in > a distributed sense

That's actually easy - it's literally what blockchains are for. The whole issue is how to manage the tradeoff between reliably archiving everything (and expecting participants in the network to do the same, so that the system doesn't end up relying on a single point of failure), and delivering/serving the stuff efficiently.

<comment><USER44> I don't think a long term, major _content_ archival project is a good idea for a blockchain. Since the internet is so large, you would have to have major, major sharding (as opposed to the naive approach in bitcoin where all nodes contain the entire history). And additionally if you archive everything in an immutable datastore, you are going to end up archiving and then hosting illegal content, and afaik it is still not settled whether that constitutes a crime (in my opinion, it should).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> One of the brain's most important abilities to maintain sanity is the ability to forget the unimportant and remember the important.

The internet will need that ability as it becomes more intelligent. Having AI reasoning based on vast pools of fake news and other disinformation would not be a good thing.

</comment><comment><USER46> I got sued over copyright infringement a few years back, and most of the evidence against my company consisted of screenshots of my sites/blogs from the internet archive. It is a good research tool for "who came first".

</comment><comment><USER47> Time really did move fast, but it seems to have slowed down. "The early Internet" \- by the end of 90's it seemed like Internet was all over the place and has been with us forever with large sites established their presence and we were on the verge of dotcom. All in all, it was only what, five or six good years (until 1999). All of THAT happened in that time span.

Now, look at the last six years.

</comment><comment><USER48> I'm still amazed that Internet Archive maintains copies of my first site from 1997: [https://web.archive.org/web/19971222141333/http://stuff.simp...](https://web.archive.org/web/19971222141333/http://stuff.simplenet.com/)

Many of the external links are archived too.

Anyone else have links to share of their old, pre-2000 sites?

</comment><comment><USER49> For some nostaligia, poke around [http://www.webring.org/](http://www.webring.org/)

</comment><comment><USER50> And this is just web. Don't forget that we also have Apps. Some of the newer startups / media company don't / choose not to have a web interface. We have archive for web, but not for apps. I looked at the screenshot of the first Uber & Amazon app, and it was amazing how different they look compared to today (2019)

</comment><comment><USER51> Spent last ~10 years to actively search each other week a small game I liked as a kid. It was on those CDs you buy with PC magazines. Even got in touch with the original author who, of course, lost it too. Found it a month ago. Can you imagine the happiness?

</comment><comment><USER52> It's going to get even worse now that entertainment media is being "streamed" and DRM is preventing users from making copies. Today's game servers and loot boxes are very short lived, and they aren't even selling physical disks for people to preserve and enjoy.

<comment><USER53> The solution to this problem is a simple one: Don't buy DRM content. It's just entertainment, you can live without it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER54> Often it's the domain renewal issue. People won't keep paying the domain for an irrelevant website, even if the hosting itself is free. OTOH, why would we want to keep everything that was ever written on the internet, forgetting is a natural process in culture.

<comment><USER55> I think there's a lot of sadness around forgetting. I'd like to preserve almost all of it, really.

That's why we have stories, and care about legacy. All to avoid forgetting and being forgotten.

<comment><USER56> Put static HTML on GitHub pages and it'll probably stay up forever..

Well, at the time scale of forever, it's always sketchy, but the odds are decent.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER57> The Internet Archive is the closest I have to a resume of past projects.

So many things I've worked on no longer exist (at least not in the same form) but can still be found there.

</comment><comment><USER58> haven't logged in in a while, but more people should donate to archive.org - and I'm not speaking AT HN at all because statistically I'm sure HN contributes more than anyone but archive.org are truly the historians of the web and we need to support them.

</comment><comment><USER59> I know of Eternal September, but is there much life left in Usenet other than for binary distribution?

<comment><USER60> Some obscure groups, like comp.os.vms, are actually quite active.

</comment></comment><comment><USER61> Article is about the web. Clicked it because I thought it's about the early Internet.

</comment><comment><USER62> The title is misleading. The article is about the early Web, not the early Internet.

</comment><comment><USER63> It's about the database or where the content has gone ?

It's not about the web.

</comment><comment><USER64> Simply put: It is not free to keep stuff up on the internet forever.

</comment><comment><USER65> That site is heavy on generic clip art photos.

</comment><comment><USER66> the process of wild growth fueling the need for organization which in turns causes sclerosis is .. as mundane as strange.</comment>


Where are the best bank holiday Monday deals on the high street and online? - <AUTHOR> <comment><AUTHOR> There are many retailers in UK who hand out special bank holiday discounts on furniture. Choice Furniture Superstore is handing out special bank holiday discounts on furniture. The Choice Furniture Superstore Early May Bank Holiday Sales for 2016 will start on 30th April 2016 and end at midnight of 2nd May 2016. They are offering huge reductions on Oak Furniture, Sliding Wardrobes, Bedroom Furniture, & dining furniture. [https://www.choicefurnituresuperstore.co.uk/](https://www.choicefurnituresuperstore.co.uk/)</comment>


Was the QWERTY keyboard purposely designed to slow typists?  - <AUTHOR> http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/221/was-the-qwerty-keyboard-purposely-designed-to-slow-typists

<comment><USER2> Bizarrely no one chose to mention one of the "tales" i have heard for why QWERTYUIOP is the top row: you can spell TYPEWRITER using these letters, which was a neat demonstration for potential buyers, back when the name for this new technology was up for grabs...</comment>


Ask HN: Visas beside the H-1B for working in the United States - <AUTHOR> I'd like to move to the US and work there. I don't think I would have any problems getting a job, but the H-1B cap continues to be a major roadblock.
Do any of you know of a different visa or immigration status that allows you to work in the U.S.?
Here's some info particular to me, if it helps:
- I was not born in a oversubscribed country (i.e. China, India, Mexico or Philippines). Does this makes getting an employment-based green card easier? Additionally, is it possible for a company to directly file an immigrant petition for you, without you first being in the country on an H-1B ?
- I have a Bachelor's degree (in Comp Sci) from a fairly well-known US university. (I had to leave the country after graduation, for certain reasons.) <comment><USER2> There is a concept called "consultancies" (I am not a lawyer and have no clue about the legalities). Many of them provide H1B to anyone for a fee of $5K refundable deposit.

The best way to find out the list is to see the USCIS issued list of companies that had filed H1B petitions. The top ones will be companies like Infosys, TCS etc. The bottom ones who files around 10 - 40 petitions are generally these consultancies. Contact them.

Note: I have no clue about the legalities. I am not a lawyer.

<comment><USER3> Care to elaborate more about how to find those consultancies?

<comment><USER2> Consider this :

[http://axiomtechgroup.com/h1b-visa- sponsorship/](http://axiomtechgroup.com/h1b-visa-sponsorship/)

You will find many more on:

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

[http://www.myvisajobs.com/H2B_Visa.aspx](http://www.myvisajobs.com/H2B_Visa.aspx)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> If you work for a company outside the US that has a US office, and they agree to transfer you to the US office, you can get an L-1 visa:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L-1_visa](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L-1_visa)

<comment><AUTHOR> I am aware of that visa. But it requires you to work for them for atleast a year. In addition, the L-1 is only for executives and managers. The L-2 visa, which is for normal employees, has no transferability (unlike the H-1B), so it ties you down to that particular to employer. If loose your job or resign, you have to leave the country immediately.

You _can_ however perform an adjustment of status (AOS) to H-1B, while working on an L-2 -- but it requires going through the H-1B lottery, wait times, and all that nonsense. In comparison, Germany gives highly-skilled a work visa in _7 days_ (cf. [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6648443](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6648443)).

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Where are you a citizen of?

Australians can get the E-3 visa for example, though I'm pretty sure that's sponsored which you seem to not be looking for.

<comment><USER6> If one is from a country that has a relatively easy employment visa (e.g. Canada, Australia), is it worth getting an H1B? I know that H1B is dual intent (i.e. lets one apply for a green card). Any other reasons?

<comment><USER5> As I understand it (based only on internet resources and the anecdotal experience of friends) the E-3 has many benefits beyond a H1B.

It's cheaper, easier to apply for, processed faster, allows heterosexual married spouses to work, is renewable indefinitely, and has a separate annual quota from H1B's (that to my knowledge has so far never been exhausted).

There are a few catches, some technical and quite specific (e.g. limits on international travel). The main one seems to be you will need to leave the country (possibly overseas) every 2 years to apply for an extension.

It is not a dual-intent visa, but there seems to be some contradictions about that and some people seem to have made the transition to a green card. I imagine you'd need to talk to a lawyer about that - having a green card application in progress when it comes times for an E-3 extension would potentially be an issue.</comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Enable New Eslint Rules More Easily - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/Faithlife/suppress-eslint-errors <comment><AUTHOR> One of the most common reasons for disabling an otherwise useful eslint rule is the cost of going and updating all of your existing code to follow it.

Often, there isn't a great business case for doing this, and so the lint rule sits disabled while new violations slowly creep in.

suppress-eslint-errors suppresses existing violations so that you can start getting the benefit of the checks against new code.</comment>


Discovery Channel Buys Revision3 for $30 Million - <AUTHOR> http://allthingsd.com/20120503/discovery-channel-gets-a-web-video-arm-courtesy-of-revision-3/?mod=tweet <comment><USER2> Here's a press release: [http://revision3.com/blog/2012/05/03/discovery- communication...](http://revision3.com/blog/2012/05/03/discovery- communications-to-acquire-top-digital-video-provider-revision3/) And here's why Discovery wants them: <http://revision3.com/about>

        72% 18-34 year olds
        99.6% audience recall for 1 or more sponsor
        56% of Revision3 viewers have purchased a product or service from a show sponsor

</comment><comment><USER3> Kevin Rose has 3 of his company have major exits within months. There has been a lot of discussion about him in the past because he doesn't fit the mold of a HN "hacker". Regardless of his methods/role, the results are impressive.

</comment><comment> k-mcgrady Congrats to Rev3. They've always produced some really good content and a lot of stuff I've watched as religiously as I would a TV programme.

I think the price is interesting. Especially when you compare it to other exits, particularly Instagram. AFAIK Rev3 had a decent, proven business model and have been growing and expanding in different directions (distributing content from other content producers). We don't know exactly why Instagram was bought (defensive move, user/photo data) but when you compare the two the Instagram price seems ridiculous.

(I personally think buying Instagram was a smart move by Facebook and I understand the price it just seems crazy when you compare the exit of a company with a proven business model to that of a company with no business model and no plan for one).

<comment><USER4>
        > AFAIK Rev3 had a decent, proven business model

Definitely and that may have been a problem: the business model was certain and their valuation could be easily calculated. OTOH, Instagram's business model is uncertain and their valuation was calculated based on "comps" rather than on business model performance, leading to a much wider range of valuations. Add to that the fact Instagram became a leader in a hot market where Revision3 became an also-ran in a legacy market and their relative valuations make more sense.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Wild to think they might have a bigger exit than Digg.

<comment><USER6> Why is that?

<comment><USER7> For starters,

1\. Diggnation was the flagship and highest rated show for much of rev3's life.

2\. All of the founders were full-time employees of Digg when they were working on Rev3. In fact, at least one of them has publicly stated that Rev3 would not exist if it hadn't been for the digg salaries.

<comment><USER6> That's very interesting. I used to use Digg but moved away from it because of the signal/noise issue. Then after they changed the UI at some point a ton of people came over to reddit and I remember it was a big deal.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Anyone know how much funding they have gotten. I'm happy for them, but it doesn't seem like a big win.

The thought of TRS or some of their other shows showing up on cable makes me super happy

<comment><USER9> Do you really think Discovery would sacrifice ratings juggernauts like _American Chopper: Senior vs. Junior_ , _The Devils Ride_ , or _American Guns_ to air anything Revision3 makes? Yeah, unfortunately, me neither.

Sadly, I'm part of the reason, since I enjoy _Deadliest Catch_.

<comment><USER10> Discovery owns a lot more than a single channel - they own 13. It's possible that they could use these programs on Science, or maybe for a late night block on The Hub (as an Adult Swim competitor), or somewhere else.

(Or else not - it might be valuable to have Internet-only programs.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Sometimes you get lucky (like instagram) but revision3 hustled to thrive where many failed in video. Kudos to Louderback and team!!

</comment><comment><USER12> Discovery Communications owns a couple strange properties. I was shocked when I _discovered_ they owned PetFinder.com.

<comment><AUTHOR> They also own some fairly nasty patents, so they are quite an interesting company.

example: <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090317/1826164156.shtml>

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> $30 million for Revision3, $1 billion for Instagram. Is there really that much of a gap in value between these two companies?

I know I followed Rev3 closely because I enjoyed old-school TechTV. I also know I'm not an Instagram user. Am I the minority, here? Just trying to understand what's at play here, and what it means for the future.

<comment><USER5> Honestly? No one gives a crap about content. It's not exactly worthless, but it's been pretty solidly commoditized. Which company do you think had more content? Revision3 or Instagram? My guess is Instagram had 100x more content than Rev3.

The way a company like Revision3 gets a big valuation is by having massive distribution AND a big hit that goes mainstream, much like what Draw with Me did for OMGPOP. Revision3 never had a crossover hit that the average Joe watched. They stayed niche, and $30m is maybe as much as they could get for that audience and distribution footprint.

Meanwhile Instagram had MASSIVE distribution, in the millions, AND was generating content at an epic clip. No one piece of Instagram content might be as "sticky" or engaging as a single piece of Revision3 content, but wouldn't you want to have all those photos instead of a bunch of shows watched by a small but fervent audience?

<comment><AUTHOR> Given all the articles about people being pretty unhappy with not being able to watch Game of Thrones on HBO, I don't think content is commoditized. I also don't think a picture on Instagram is equivalent to an episode of GoT.

<comment><USER5> Game of Thrones is world-class Content with a capital "C". Revision3 had nothing so valuable or desired. That was my point. Their content never really escaped the commodity zone.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Post-it note design docs - <AUTHOR> http://lostgarden.com/2008/12/post-it-note-design-docs.html

<comment><AUTHOR> An interesting approach to iterative design. I have always felt that considering application design from a game design perspective might yield interesting/valuable results. In this case, I think the advice to prototype many features and invest in the best is good advice. A sort of "discard features early and often".</comment>


Electron Band Structure in Germanium, My Ass (2002) - <AUTHOR> http://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~kovar/hall.html <comment><USER2> Excellent.</comment>


New Userium: Customise the usability checklist - <AUTHOR> https://userium.com/welcome/checklist

<comment><AUTHOR> UX reports are often boring to read - and to write. We decided to solve the problem by making a simple, fast way to make a UX checklist for your project.

We prepared a UX checklist, which you can customise for your own needs and then invite your team and client to check it out.

We'd love your feedback!

Thanks, Nina</comment>


'I have nothing to hide' is killing the privacy argument - <AUTHOR> http://thenextweb.com/insider/2016/02/11/i-have-nothing-to-hide-is-killing-the-privacy-argument/ <comment><USER2> of course it is. because it is the right argument against privacy.

I love to scratch my balls and I do it at home with my wife in the room proudly.

I am a cynique. My dream as a man would be to wank like a dog on the public space and that putin or bill gates came to me asking me if I needed something (probably to stop disgracing the place).

In my dreams I answer "Move your ass from my sun, I already have the best I wish, and the sun whatever the fuck powerful you think you are is not in your power to command".

The guy probably would have asked me if I was not fearing him and I would have answered: are you waking up every morning and looking up in the mirror thinking you are a bad guy? No. Should I fear the good guys?

Knowing the answer, I would have had resumed wanking again.

But the actual modern internet is all about self censorship by bigotry. If they were less bigotry internet would be a tad better.

Nowadays, living like a dog as a choice is not possible anymore. So when I basically tell the story of Diogenes who made fun of Alexander the Great, I see a problem with our civilization pretending that our society is better and more free than the Athenian democracy because we have no more slaves.

I would say the opposite: we are now all slaves. Especially from not only bigotry and the fear of the disapprobation of the moeurs, but also the fact there is an asymmetry between the citizens that must strip without consent of their privacy, while the more powerful shield themselves in invisibility cloaks.

And if someone read greek old myths as I do, we all remember the Gyges ring parabol about how substracting yourself from the public view is a perfect tool for planning and hiding crimes.

So my problem with the privacy always boils down to: who watches the watchmen (Allan Moore 1996)

EDIT conclusion what cynism tells about privacy Fear not who you are, because the pressure of feeling observed is our universal moral compass. There is no morality possible without accepting fully your own nature and build you life centered around not the picture a society have of you, but around your true nature. The true slavery is the one of imposed morality. Hence the true face of slavery is a society that requires privacy to function properly. Care not about the eyes of the others, care about your own weakness at not accepting your differences.

<comment><AUTHOR> Theoretically I think it's great to live in a society were everyone can be themselves, without the need to 'fit in' with everyone else. To be able to do everything you truly want, without having to worry about what others might think. But I think that such a society isn't possible in the real world, since we tend to judge each other in a matter of seconds. I believe that if everyone knows everything about me, that doesn't make them judge me on the whole me, but only on the things that stand out. Just because I like to 'things' in my own home, doesn't mean that i'd like my colleagues to know about it. Or Facebook. Or the government.

It should always be my own decision (freedom of choice) to make something public.

<comment><USER2> Well I don't think a society problem can be fixed with cryptography.

Diogenes messages is clear: the less you need in order to be happy, the more free you are.

The first spying system seems to be in your brain not in the nature of the world, and it is called moral judgement; useless thoughts that make you vulnerable.

You can shield yourself more around your vulnerabilities (crypto), or you can totally accept to give up on your vulnerabilities (shameless UK/US).

Maybe giving up on moral crap and living as we really are would solve the problem much more than spending useless money on this topic.

Being shameless= 0$ (poor's weapon), good crypto = ...M$ (wealthy kid's weapon)

Sometimes I pledge for a clear business analysis for highlighting stupid ideas.

People claim they need crypto just in case they need to revolt (China...) and they cannot revolt against stupid stuff because they don't have tools. For being more free.

But being more free is above all a state of mind. And believing that submitting to more (technical) constraint is a necessity to be more free seems very idiotic to me. I think it a technical solution to a shared nevrosis of some illuminated developers that never took the time to open "good old paper books". Crypto is a shield to protect a vulnerability that can be avoided by accepting to wank in the public space.

Hey, geektarded, there are libraries with SMALL DATA. Pieces of knowledge written in intelligible way. It is called books.

Of course, you have then 2500 years worth of books about "the social contract", political science on how to solve the need to accept our differences (ourselves) and how to share a public space.

But I guess, coders suffer NIH syndroma since their hubris is exploding the standard reference set by Narciss. They seem to ignore old pieces of knowledge.

Sometimes, IT is making media more efficient to distribute shitload of new non information at the detriment of our past cultures that are loaded with a lot of them.

It is time for being a Luddite.

<comment><USER3> You'll never compete in the next revolution with books. Too slow; need a publisher on your side; the govt has all the electronic communication and can react/communicate instantly.

No, its about an escalating war and going back to bow and arrow is not going to win. Witness the Maginot Line in WWII etc.

Modern e-communications are available to folks of almost every wealth - witness in Africa that most banking is done on phones! Its a tired old argument that only the rich worry about computer tech.

<comment><AUTHOR> I agree. You can't battle the information overload with books, since they aren't as available as the internet for the entire world population.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Antihuman keyboard design - github-cat http://www.pixelstek.com/topic/128-What-antihuman-design-have-you-seen-in-a-keyboard

<comment><AUTHOR> I've been quite happy with my recent Toshiba purchase. The main thing for me was that I wanted one without the numpad so I could have a nice big keyboard, and a big trackpad. It's pretty similar to macbooks, which is what I was going for. However, there turned out to be one issue similar to the power button on the ASUS ultrabook in the link: there is an airplane mode key right next to the mute key. I actually liked the idea of being able to turn off the radios with a push of a button, but I didn't think about the problems I'd have activating it when I am trying to quickly mute.

</comment><comment><USER2> If more people demanded better keyboards, the market would deliver them. We just need to inform others:

[https://h4labs.wordpress.com/2015/07/16/the-model-01-an- heir...](https://h4labs.wordpress.com/2015/07/16/the-model-01-an-heirloom- grade-keyboard-for-serious-typists/)

<comment> github-cat Every person has his/her own habit. We can accept that not every keyboard has the same design, they can have their own customized designs such as Apple's keyboard, but we do care that keyboards should not become a tool which violates human common sense and hence hinders the use of it.

<comment><USER2> I don't think they should be the same design either. In fact, I wish there was more experimentation.

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

[http://octopup.org/computer/datahand](http://octopup.org/computer/datahand)

[http://octodon.mobi/#/en/home](http://octodon.mobi/#/en/home)

<comment><USER3> By the way, your RSI org notes seem to be down? [http://thespanishsite.com/public_html/org/ergo/rsi.html](http://thespanishsite.com/public_html/org/ergo/rsi.html) is a 404.

<comment><USER2> Fixed. Thanks.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Caps Lock key taking up a very valuable space at centre left, with the far more frequently used Ctrl in a very inconvenient spot at the bottom left (yes, I know I can remap them; I do).</comment>


Ask HN: What problems are you working to solve? Why? - <AUTHOR>

Just curious. I hope 2013 will be a big year for technological innovation and scientific discovery. I'm tired of hearing about smarter smartphones and bigger social networks all the time. <comment><USER2> You probably don't want to hear this but..

The whole issue with doing work on the internet, it seems like everybody is just OK with using multiple products to do their work.

Even google has very segmented products like drive, google docs, tasks etc and theres no project management included.

I have been building a desk on the internet, where all your work is in one place and I am very VERY close.

<comment><USER3> a desk on the internet eh ? Sounds like an interesting concept, care to elaborate?

<comment><USER2> I'm building des.sk with tasks management, document editor, calendar (with sharing between teams), contacts and project management. Everything I need to be productive online without going to external services. Seems though students love it too.</comment></comment></comment>


Chamath Palihapitiya says most of the things VCs have funded are "mostly crap" - <AUTHOR> http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/03/chamath-palihapitiya-interview-says-start-ups-are-mostly-crap <comment><USER2> The broader thing I've realized of late is that so many startups exist simply because they are building something that appeals to VCs, not something that necessarily appeals to any sort of customer.

So we have reason to be skeptical of any claim to wisdom from VCs and even any claim to understand relevant metrics or KPIs. Good VCs are humble about this, but others posture behind it.

What we should really be wondering is how many bad decisions are made by startups based on pressure from VCs.

Since average (non-accredited) investors are prohibited by law from investing in early stage startups, those who are not prohibited get a highly leveraged game which some are bound to play successfully several turns in a row.

There is nothing wrong with this, but it's sad to see promising startups make bad decisions because they are simply striving for rapid growth at all cost.

</comment><comment><USER3> _we'd ship in lunch and probably two to three times a week the lunch had maggots in it_

Can't continue reading past this. They were ordering food from a place that 2-3x a week delivered maggots? Please.

<comment><USER4> It raises questions about everything else he says.

<comment><USER5> Chamath wasn't in charge of the food. I'm sure he told the relevant person within the company and I'm pretty certain that problem didn't last very long.

<comment><USER6> > _I 'm pretty certain that problem didn't last very long._

More than once is too long.

<comment><USER7> I worked at Facebook back when food was a problem. We didn't quite have maggots 2-3x a week but we did have maggots more than once. We used a lot of different caterers but quality was a persistent issue. Randi actually handled a lot of the food services back then.

Corporate catering has evolved a lot since 2007 and there are a lot of better product offerings now for startups to use.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Is there a reason that's surprising? The difference between a great idea and a dumb idea is largely commercial success. Amazon was crazy when it started, now it's huge.

Startups are experimentation, and you have to try lots of things to find the right things. I'd be _worried_ if most startups didn't end up "crap" in one way or another - it would mean we were being too conservative in our experimentation.

That doesn't mean we have infinite tolerance for "crap", but to say "mostly crap" doesn't seem alarming to me.

<comment><USER9> By "crap", I think he means something like "poorly understood copy cats of successful ideas", not "really bad ideas". See the whole quote:

> I think what we've had is a handful of investors who have extreme vision who > make great investments in things that are amazing businesses: Facebook, > Google, Uber. And then everybody else reacts to that success by trying to do > the thing that most approximates the thing that's working. As a result, most > of those businesses are fundamentally not good, they're poorly run, and they > never should have been invested in in the first place. But the capital came > in because the person who had control of the capital was able to justify it > intellectually to themselves versus something else that could have become > the next Facebook or Google.

<comment><USER10> I can actually see why some VCs would invest that way though. A startup proves that there's a massive market opportunity (think Uber's initial days), it's still not a certainty that that startup will be the eventual winner. So, I can see some VCs thinking: Now that one of the biggest risks (finding whether there's a market at all) is reduced, we can just build a better team and maybe become a much better second-mover. Or, although I am convinced that there's a massive market, I disagree with how the first-mover is trying to handle it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> In other news, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon's_law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon's_law) .

This applies to everything.

</comment><comment><USER12> Well, strictly speaking he said "most of the things _we've funded_ are mostly crap and largely worthless."

Which isn't that far off from the title -- but still, that just wouldn't have been click-baity enough, now would it. So they just _had to_ tweak it, I suppose.

<comment><AUTHOR> Fixed. ;-)

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Isn't that the whole premise of VC funding though?

Invest in a bunch of things, most of which will fail, but make that back from a big payout from the ones that succeed.

<comment><USER14> I'm not sure what the premise of VC funding is.

But I'm baffled when VCs invest in businesses that don't have a business plan that demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of actual profit margins within a reasonable pay-off time, as opposed to steady losses of unknown and unstated duration.

That's pretty much the definition of a failed business. So when everyone seems very surprised that businesses like this fail, it's even more surprising that they're surprised by it.

I think there's a serious opportunity for VCs to fund workable but unspectacular non-unicorns with reasonable but not explosive growth potential.

But maybe that's just not exciting enough, while hyper-growth is, even with no profitability.

I can't pretend to understand it, because it makes no sense to me.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> What was unmentioned in the article, and here in the comments as of yet, is ZIRP, Zero interest-rate policy.[1]

Central banks around the world have made it easy to borrow money almost for free. That money must be invested somewhere, because keeping capital in the bank has _negative_ interest rates in many countries!

That's a big reason why there's so much venture capital sloshing around. What else are they going to do with it? Buy a German 10 year Bund that returns 0.18% per year, or maybe a US Treasury that's about 2%? Why not take a chance on the next startup instead? After all, maybe _Tinder for Cats_ is the next big thing?

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_interest- rate_policy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_interest-rate_policy)

</comment><comment><USER16> I'd say that roughly 90% of things VCs fund fail. A VC which could reduce that reliably to 60-70% YoY would be considered godlike. Think of VC investments as a portfolio where you expect most of the investments to fail, but the few that succeed give you 1000% gains. As mentioned elsewhere in the comments, this is consistent with Sturgeon's law (and other power laws).

<comment><USER17> See, that illustrates another problem: Everything is considered a failure unless it nets 1000%. Taking a more critical eye toward what you invest in, and having more realistic views of success, and therefore not pushing insane growth on everything, would make things much more successful overall.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Which is how the VC roulette works: bet on all numbers hoping at least one will pay many, many times more. No?

<comment><USER19> Except what probably terrifies them: each VC firm probably only bets on, at most, 2/36\. And the industry as a whole only really bets on 18/36.

<comment><USER20> Why 36?

<comment><USER19> Just using the roulette analogy from above. Roulette wheels have 36 numbers (well, they also have 0 and 00. Maybe that's recession and global thermonuclear war.)

In reality it is worse because you don't actually know the number of companies, and you don't get presented with the same options as everyone else -- a good part of being a top investor is access to top dealflow.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> There's a lot of apeness in the world of startups and tech.

Is Whatsapp worth $55 dollars per user? If you pay 1 dollar per year and you have no advertisement? Really hard to believe, unless the money is coming from monetizing nosy activities. Doesn't possibly add up.

</comment><comment><USER22> Reminds me of Geordie Rose who said most people in Silicon Valley work on things that don't matter and won't last

</comment><comment><USER23> Why would an investor complain that other investors are wasting capital on deals unrelated to their investments?</comment>


David Chang: The Restaurant Business Is About to Implode - <AUTHOR> http://www.gq.com/story/david-chang-resturant-business-challenges <comment><USER2> Not a single example given of how the whole business is going to implode. Restaurants always close and new ones always open. This is a poorly written "woe is me the restaurant owner" article that somehow conflates into this ridiculous headline.

<comment><USER3> Also he is talking about a particular type of restaurant -- the "trendy" type where people _want_ to pay high prices in order to be viewed as successful and maybe to see a celebrity or two at a nearby table. No, a bowl of ramen shouldn't cost $28 (or even "just" $17). The ramen places I go to, run by (and largely for) immigrants, sell excellent bowls of ramen for well under $10. Such restaurants are in no danger of going away.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Oh wow, we have to get rid of tipping. What a revolutionary concept! Except that the rest of the world has never had it and their restaurants are fine.

There is still to this day a big line outside of Momofuku for his overrated ramen, everyday. So why is his ramen $19* and not $28? Because he knows he gets $9 of advertising from each customer because of the hype they create looking busy and popular, plus word of mouth and more yelp reviews. Traditional advertising is a huge no-no for a trendy restaurant, so they have to spend their marketing budget this way.

* he conveniently left off the tip even though he said the price includes everything

<comment><USER5> Yep, another example of people in the US saying "X would never work", when X is already is already working perfectly well in other parts of the world.

Other examples of X: decriminalising prostitution, decriminalising drugs, converting to the metric system, banning assault rifles, getting rid of copper coins (pennies), universal health care

<comment><USER4> Parental leave, mandatory vacation days, unions, etc etc

I believe if you go back in my comment history I have said basically exactly what you stated. Agree fully.</comment></comment></comment>