Ask HN: Is Ruby on Rails still worth it? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> Yes. Rails has by now certainly crossed into boring software territory – arguably a [positive thing]([http://mcfunley.com/choose-boring- technology](http://mcfunley.com/choose-boring-technology)) anyway – but it remains an excellent choice coming into 2018:

\- Out of the box, Rails has close to unbeatable developer ergonomics, tooling, stability, and ease of use

\- Lots of high quality, large companies use it (GitHub, Shopify, Airbnb, Square, Twitch) and have by now figured out how to scale it, often sharing and open sourcing their efforts, e.g. [https://github.com/Shopify/identity_cache](https://github.com/Shopify/identity_cache)

\- If your product front end is simple, Turbolinks can be an excellent choice (find me a faster, more bug free product than Basecamp)

\- If you prefer to use a more modern JavaScript solution on the front end like Ember or React, Rails API is a perfect fit

\- The Ruby ecosystem and community are both very high quality

<comment><USER3> Boring yet still very volatile.

I wonder if or when Rails will settle down and stop changing everything between major releases causing all documentation to be out of date, gems to break, developer habits to break, etc. Not to mention all of the related tooling like Bundler which seems to spit out new and uninteresting warnings and errors every time I update it.

It would be great to be able to write an application using a framework and not have to constantly change the application just to get long-term updates to the framework like bug fixes, security patches, compatibility with new versions of Ruby, etc.

Basically Rails-LTS but not from a 3rd-party (and embraced by the ecosystem).

<comment><USER4> Volatile in comparison to what exactly?

<comment><USER5> Django. I'm not doing software these days but still following the news etc., and it seems to me that the general knowledge of the tool is still operable since very early releases. I'm not very familiar with Rails itself but when an environment changes very quickly it's both a big distraction and a great inconvenience. I've last worked with django around January 2014, today when I look at a Django app it's the same beast but a bit better. I was also interested in node in its first days, then about 0.12 I lost my interest. Each time I look at it it's a new thing. If Rails is more like node than Django, that's a problem for a beginner, as they'd rather spend time learning fundamentals of web dev rather than learning a breaking change every month.

<comment><USER6> The upgrades have progressively become much less painful. Rails 1 to 2 was a big deal, as the change introduced the RESTful API. Rails 3 was slightly less violent, but the asset pipeline was still a pretty big deal. Rails 4 had a lot of API cleanup/simplification. A lot of meta programming magic was removed in favor of simpler code, which resulted in some rewriting of existing code.

Rails 5 was the easiest upgrade yet. ActionCable was the big change, but it's an addition to Rails, not a replacement for some existing tech. As a result, it doesn't disturb much existing code.

<comment><USER4> This has been my experience. I've been working on a large Rails project that started on Rails 4 beta in ~2014. Since then it's been incredibly stable and the upgrade paths have been quite simple from 4.0 to 4.1, then 4.2 and now we're on 5.0 with a few minor updates left before moving to 5.1.

Everything would have worked fine if we didn't keep things up to date, but just about everything in the software world needs to be continuously updated due to security updates/patches, etc.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Absolutely. If you're building a POC or MVP it's a quick and easy way to get something off the ground. The framework will take you pretty far before you have scaling issues (long enough to know if what you're making is worth it). The community is very knowledgeable and friendly, and gems for almost everything already exist.

If I needed to spin up a new project and get to work right away on something I'd go with rails no question. I've yet to find another language/framework combo that works as well as a Ruby & Rails stack (Laravel and Django are good alternatives too, I'm just more experienced with Ruby). Don't think too far ahead. Premature optimization or thinking about future scaling issues if starting a new project is time that could be spent better. Rails isn't going anywhere anytime soon.

</comment><comment><USER8> Speaking for myself, and I tend to make practical choices for what I understand now. At the moment, I am not using Rails in my day to day work, and this is largely based on my past experiences.

Pros:

\- easy enough to find libraries for most things I wanna do

\- community likes testing, as do I

\- community seems to focus on business & web implementations, so good for those use cases

\- lots of questions for which I want answers already answered

\- package management

\- deployment to PaaS/Herorku-ish platforms pretty easy for smaller teams

\- here in San Francisco, there are lots of job opportunities for Rails developers

\- I like Ruby, even though I am less excited about OOP these days

Cons:

\- Rails is magical & opinionated, and that always annoys me

\- Figuring out where some method is coming from in a Rails object is often a pain

\- In Elixir I almost never need a debugger, but in Ruby I almost always do

\- loading Rails apps can get really slow, and learning to wait for software to boot isn't a skill I like to develop

\- I feel more pressure "to do it" right when the time "to do it right" simply doesn't exist for reasons, because trying to come back and refactor gnarly Ruby code is just harder than it is in a compiled language

\- Ruby has to be installed on the system to which an app is deployed, and needing to think about how to pre-install Ruby or how long a Ruby install takes is a mild pain (stand alone Go binaries or Elixir releases are pretty sweet)

<comment><USER9> I feel like figuring out where a method is coming from to be a routine source of tedium and a massive gumption trap when working on Ruby projects. This, along with bugs rooted in hidden state mutations, far overshadows the time saving conveniences in Ruby and Rails for me.

<comment><USER10> When I have creative freedom, I use Rails for routing, serving requests, and talking to the DB. I try to not to lean too heavily on Rails for business logic stuff.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Ruby on Rails is a great bet for those who need to kickstart fast. When Ruby/Rails becomes a performance bottleneck you're probably already making tens of millions and have dozens of people to diversify your tech stack.

Core team takes care of many things like webpack, ActiveStorage, etc for you, many thanks to folks. I've been doing Ruby on Rails since 0.19 as far as I remember and it's been great ever since.

Not that hyped anymore but who cares about hype when you get your shit done. Also as you grow, you appreciate talent availability when it comes to Ruby/Rails.

</comment><comment><USER12> In my opinion, yes. I recently built a recent project in Rails 5 and it was rock solid. As your JS needs evolve or you want to start from scratch with a JS framework you can even use Webpacker to introduce Vue or React into your app easily and manage dependencies with Yarn.

<comment><USER13> This. Webpacker enormously improved the JS experience with Rails.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> No.

Long time rails developer, but if you can green-light a project I'd highly recommend node all the way. I've found it much easier to comprehend a pure javascript stack (or even better an all-Typescript stack) due to substantially less cognitive overhead, find other people to work with (very important as your project scales), and the fact I can deploy node with a serverless implementation on Azure, GCP, and AWS makes it a home run when it comes to security and devops costs (and the need for devops in general).

While rails has a bunch of great features, those features (rightfully) have been copied elsewhere, e.g. Active Record, which has a fantastic javascript implementation - TypeORM.

Finally, when it comes to interface development, nothing in rails will get you as far as React these days, especially as the web moves mobile, and into AR/VR, which IMO present the next challenges of interface development. And like rails, nearly every question related to React/Node is answered on Stack Overflow or has a well-documented library to solve that use case.

<comment><USER15> It seems like you're comparing a framework with a language?

What framework do you use on node.js?

My experience with nodejs has been pretty poor. I'll give some examples;

* The language and runtime is constantly updating - there is no such thing as stability

* Even npm couldn't produce deterministic installs until this year

* npm dependency hell

* there are lots of ways to do any task, so there is much fragmentation with advice / community

* the repls in node suck compared to pry

* I can't find a good opinionated framework - so everyone lays out each application differently, with different standards etc. That means you end up spending a ridiculous amount of time configuring everything.

* most apps i've needed to make don't actually benefit from being a SPA. It's a cargo cult thing.

* javascript as a language sucks!

<comment><USER14> GraphQL and Express (wrapped with AWS Lambda's express handler for deploys)

To answer your points:

* You're right it hasn't been - but it is now with LTS releases of Node.

* I agree, this is why I use yarn.

* Yarn has solved any dependency issues I've witnessed.

* While this is true, every solution boils down to simple objects or simple functions. New solutions tend to be simpler than the status quo (e.g. redux)

* While debugging isn't as easy - all my back-end code boils down to simple functions which just need a simple test (I use mocha which is a lot like RSpec). Also Typescript and TSLint enforce types and code styling so I don't really need the pry-style debugging.

* The only configuration I feel you need is Typescript and TSLint which will enforce a very specific way of styling code, file naming conventions and so much more. From there my individual functions representing GraphQL mutations and queries on the back-end or React components on the front-end are small, modular, and encapsulated in a folder to make for an easy `cp -vr`.

* You're only talking about web. React Native/VR are extremely compelling reasons to expand beyond just the browser. Plus I feel separation of front/back-end makes for faster product development on bigger teams.

* Haha yes, though ES2015 made it a lot better and Typescript has made it complete IMO. Microsoft and Google have both made substantial investments into the language, with the former making it as big of a center-point as C#. That's saying something. You can code Typescript code on a cheaper and faster Windows machine, ruby? much more difficult.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I've yet to find anything that comes close to Rails in programmer productivity for the web. So, as long as programmer productivity is a concern, it's relevant.

EDIT: On the other hand, I wouldn't choose Rails for a project where the main concern is performance/scalability

<comment><USER17> Try ASP.NET. It's managed to take learn most of the lessons (what to avoid and what to replicate) from RoR and is built around a better language (C# or others of your choice) and environment (Visual Studio and MSDN) to boot.

Now that .NET with .NET Core is officially a first-class citizen on Linux, there really no good reason not to embrace it.

<comment><USER18> Except that Visual Studio 2017 is a dog, especially on Windows 10.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I'm not Rubyist, but when I see an article about RoR it's one of these:

"I just started using Ruby and omg it's out-of-box everything, rapid development, monkeypatching makes everything super easy, it's like second Jesus coming."

and the second category is this:

"I am working with RoR for years, maintaining/migrating anything is super painful, because everyone is monkeypatching everything, so you cant safely touch anything."

Choose wisely.

<comment><USER4> The second category there is typically people who adopted Rails and then ignored it's culture of testing. One thing about Ruby is that you better have good test coverage if you ever want to be able to safely upgrade your dependencies.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> From someone who doesn't use Rails day-to-day: It's still about as relevant as it used to be before, for the same reasons it was relevant then.

In summary: If you need to get shit done fast, it's a good bet.

It isn't as hyped as it used to be 5 or so years ago, and if hype cycles are relevant to you, you likely already know your answer.

As to whether you are asking whether learning it would make you unemployable, by no means. RoR is still going strong, at least in my country.

</comment><comment><USER21> Yes, Rails helps developers make good upfront choices to the structuring of their application and database. The DB layer and structure is going to be a bottleneck well before the programming framework is (I think this is true in any framework). I enjoy that Rails makes it easy to do things like take care of N+1 queries, do associations correctly, etc. That isn't exclusive to Rails, but it is really good in Rails.

<comment><USER9> I think Rails helps developers make ok choices to the structuring of their application, particular if it's serving a domain that models easily into a fairly conventional RESTish-API relational data structure. The strongly-held conventions (in both framework and community) that position it so well for upfront productivity don't leave a ton of space for taking a proactive approach to managing complexity in a trickier domain.

Smart, experienced people can of course identify where the framework leaves off and build within the confines of Rails to get things done. But I wouldn't say that Rails makes it particularly easy to, for example, use a object- oriented approach the the model layer. ActiveRecord, with its lovely but dangerous APIs, really wants to be your everything class. Domain namespacing, while doable (you can do anything in Ruby), isn't particularly intuitive compared to other parts of the framework.

None of this is to say that Rails is a bad tool and I'm grateful for what it's provided (thank you OSS maintainers). It does, however, trade medium-term maintainability for the up-front productivity it offers, which could be totally fine, but for me doesn't feel like a great trade.

<comment><USER21> A tool in the hands of an expert will be used differently than a non expert. The model layer that AR suggests might not be good for an expert, but it will certainly help a non expert build their app for some time without too severe of issues.

You are right that it's far from perfect and it really is a "be everything" ORM.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Yes! The Rails core is quite stable and the community continues to innovate. I've recently gotten very involved with Devise Token Auth, an open source project that helps you use Devise on apps that do auth on the client side, like those written in Vue and React. We're on the hunt for new contributors: [https://github.com/lynndylanhurley/devise_token_auth](https://github.com/lynndylanhurley/devise_token_auth)

</comment><comment><USER23> Yes. I have used rails since about 0.6 and evaluated other frameworks since. Nothing comes close for me, especially for CRUD apps. For anything complicated (50+ models), things can begin to feel unwieldy but it helps to be disciplined about how you structure your code. I find trailblazer very useful in that regard.

I've recently started to learn vue.js and it's making JavaScript a pleasure to use alongside rails. I think my future projects will be vue + rails by default

</comment><comment><USER24> It depends on whether or not you are on the React bandwagon. Yes Rails does work with React - but this means two different asset pipelines (Rails and React/Node).

If I was building a product focused stack, then I would simply do React+ Typescript. Why bother bringing in two different languages for front end and backend ?

Typescript is pretty awesome in itself.

</comment><comment><USER25> Pretty sure that this Quora answer from DHH is still valid in 2018: [https://www.quora.com/What-makes-Rails-a-framework-worth- lea...](https://www.quora.com/What-makes-Rails-a-framework-worth-learning- in-2017)

</comment><comment><USER26> It's so fast to spin up, deploy, and iterate on a rails app it's insane.

As stated, it depends on your context and your goals, but if speed matters to you, it's hard to say rails is not a top solution.

</comment><comment><USER27> Wouldn't Python/Django make more sense in 2018 considering that Python could be used for data science and machine learning? I realize this is a Python vs Ruby question, but if you didn't know either Python or Ruby and were trying to pick between Django and Rails for a project, wouldn't you pick Django in 2018 due to future data science and machine learning opportunities?

<comment><USER28> No. Learning Python is quick and simple compared to learning data science or machine learning.

Knowing Python and Django (which I do) does not afford you any ability do to those things.

<comment><USER27> Interesting. I assumed that spending more time working with Python would be beneficial, but I guess it's not a big deal. This is great to know, as I've been resistant to starting with Ruby/Rails for the reason I described. Thanks!

<comment><USER28> Learning Ruby would give you a big leg up over starting from scratch learning Python.

I don't know if you are familiar with any programming languages at all, but many skills translate cross-language...the paradigms are the same. Particularly with Ruby & Python which are very similar languages. They're good at the same things, by and large.

Taking your Ruby skills over to Python will be a matter of "google: [python thing] in ruby".

For a specific example, Python has a unique thing called "list comprehensions". Using that google string you can get some great ideas about replicating that functionality in Ruby.

Anyway, on a grander scale, picking up new languages is the easy part of programming--even when they're not so similar.

Best of luck!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Still one of the best, if not best, choices for building a CRUD web app. I don't see this changing any time soon.

</comment><comment><USER30> The simple answer is it probably depends on what you're doing and what you're optimizing for.

I don't know of a better way to get an MVP project up quickly. Rails at scale is probably a touch harder to manage, but that's by no means impossible.

</comment><comment><USER31> I'm of the opinion of using the best tool for the job. If you need an MVP fat then use Rails but if not evaluate other options. Please your need may come from what you know best.

</comment><comment><USER32> Yes. It's still a very good framework for simple Web Apps. It's takes care of a lot of boilerplate.

With Rails 5, it's good for a simple API backend as well. And there are a ton of gems that can alleviate a lot of pain.

It's when something non trivial where Rails may not be a good choice.

</comment><comment><USER33> No.

</comment><comment><USER34> If you already know Rails, yes.

If you are thinking about learning Rails now, probably not.

Yes Rails is great for MVPs, but then so are a lot of other things, like Meteor.

<comment><USER35> What would you suggest if you don't know rails?

<comment><USER9> I would suggest Elixir/Phoenix if your priority is maintaining and scaling a business application. I would offer that suggestion with caution, though, if you're considering building a core skill set for employability today. A small contingent of the experienced Ruby community have become fervent Elixir evangelists, but the number of successful projects, jobs and skilled candidates is a miniscule fraction of Ruby and other mainstream choices.

<comment><USER18> Yes, here in London Elixir jobs are still very thin on the ground. I don't see Elixir moving beyond its current position in the job market. It has everything - great concurrency, Phoenix - except mindshare and adoption. In another era, with less competition I would have bet on Elixir but not today.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> There's nothing _wrong_ with Rails in 2018. It's maybe not the most forward- looking choice you could make but it'll get you running quickly.

But if you have a smart team and a little bit of time for ramping up then I'd suggest Elixir+Phoenix or Node tbh.

Rails is good at what it's designed to be - a one stop shop for fast to develop, kinda dirty, framework magic, webdev.

And there is nothing wrong with that.

<comment><USER16> Node with which framework? By itself it's not comparable to Rails.

<comment><USER36> True! Though I actually think that's a _good_ thing (imo too much magic & abstraction in a framework leads to bad app design because _too much_ is hidden).

But that sort of reinforces the point I was making tbh. Want something that makes all those choice for you? Right or wrong? Rails.

Nothing wrong with that as such, but it _will_ cause issues eventually.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> Iwan-Zotow No

<comment><USER37> Could you please not post unsubstantive comments to HN? We're trying for a higher standard here.

If you'd take a look at [https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html) and [https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html) and follow the spirit of the site, we'd appreciate it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> No. What does rails have that a different python framework doesn't have?

And you'll save yourself the tears of migrating later.

<comment><USER16> Why would you need to migrate to Python later? I can understand needing to migrate to something more performant/easy to scale, but Python doesn't have any advantage on Ruby in that department.

<comment><USER38> Not migrate to python, migration away from Rails. I'm suggesting Python as an alternative to Rails to start with.

<comment><USER16> You still didn't answer why would I want to migrate away from Rails. Python has no advantage I can think of (unless one has to work with data analysis).

<comment><USER38> My experience is admittedly tainted because we migrated away from a Rails codebase and it was not fun. The Rails code was extremely convoluted and encourages metaprogramming in a way that is very un-typed.

Basically, I think Rails is inferior because it encourages bad practices, has no distinct advantages over Python, Python seems to have a larger talent pool, and Python has uses outside of Rails that make it a better choice for a one- language shop (i.e., your tools can be in the same language as your code and can utilize that + Python is everywhere, Ruby has extra devops costs incurred).

I won't say you can't be successful with Ruby. That'd be silly. But do I think there is a reason to choose Rails over Python if you can start fresh? Nope.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> Much of what you learn in Ruby and Rails is not portable to other languages. Ruby and Rails are deeply flawed and much of what you learn is dealing with those flaws. Similar to learning PHP for example (but differently flawed than PHP). Ruby is also showing its age and is lagging behind modern languages.

Rails is probably fine and fast and good for small projects. It is probably not good for professional large projects.

<comment><USER40> What web dev languages/frameworks aren't deeply flawed and teach you more portable skills?

<comment><USER39> Unfortunately I would say Javascript. Unlike Ruby, you will learn about compilers, static analysis, linting (eslint is more useful than rubocop), type systems, function composition, and have a good alternative to OO based programing built into the language (as opposed to your `UnboundMethod` lambda block proc whateverthehell design flaw Ruby has now). Javascript also gives you decent jumping off points into languages you will learn more from (Elm, Purescript).

<comment><USER40> Many of the popular web frameworks like Django and Elixir have a lot in common with Rails with regards to typing and compilation or lack thereof.

Function composition and partial function application is totally supported in Ruby so not sure what your complaint is there. Here is one rather forced example: [http://genua.github.io/ruby/2015/03/17/ruby-function- composi...](http://genua.github.io/ruby/2015/03/17/ruby-function-composition- and-more/)

I don't know anything about Elm and Purescript but I'll look into them. They aren't hugely popular (as far as I know, feel free to correct me) so I'm not sure that's a major win for portable skills versus Ruby engineers learning Scala or Python. If you don't get too wild with the symbols, Scala can actually look quite familiar to Ruby programmers. Twitter had people use a subset of Scala when they transitioned many services from Ruby to Scala so that it would be an extra easy transition.

JavaScript has come a long way though and is certainly the lingua franca of the Internet.

<comment><USER39>
        pp_proc = self.method("pretty_print_me").to_proc

Exactly :(

<comment><USER40> I did say it was a forced example ;)

Even assuming you implemented it their way, their code isn't very concise. In the snippet you pasted, "self.method" could be replaced with "method" for example without changing anything</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Am I good enough to do consulting? - <AUTHOR>

Context: I'm a JavaScript developer working a nice day job, and I just keep hearing (in stories and comments on HN and elsewhere) about engineers who moved into freelance consulting and make hundreds of dollars an hour, and I feel like a chump getting <$60/hour at this day job.
But I'm only 23, I've only been programming for 5 years, and while I'm decent at what I do, I'm not a whiz and most importantly I'm rather slow to grok new code bases and infer the relationships between arbitrarily designed system components. I understand the technologies I work with pretty well, but I have a hard time understanding what people are trying to accomplish a lot of the time.
Ye of HN with more experience, could I consult anyway? Do I have to be really, really good? If you've done it, what was your experience with consulting? What skills served you the best? <comment><USER2> It's easy to become seduced over the articles on HN, Double Your Freelancing, Patrick McKenzie earning $30k/week and guys commenting they charge $180.

The reality is very different.

Most consultants are much older than 23. They usually know a few technologies inside-out.

For example we had to hire someone recently - he was a guy in his mid-40s who knew this particular thing we needed doing, this is a real email:

\</comment><comment>----

My rate would be £1350/day + expenses.

If the customer wishes to go ahead, I would suggest spending a day on site when all the relevant [company name] staff will be available, and possibly [third party company] who I presume is a supplier or partner associated with the X.25 links or the function which runs over them? This would be split into a meeting where I can discover more about their requirements and constraints, and then some time investigating the systems to see what they're running on the systems, what can be found of any development/build/testing environment, etc. I can then return home and write this up for them, so they can decide what they want to go. This is a minimum of 2 days work for the visit and initial write-up, but it would be wise to allow for more because it's going to depend on what I find when I get there which is a big unknown at the moment, as they know so little about the system themselves -- it might take longer than a day on site to work out what their current setup is."

\</comment><comment>----

Note £1350/day is about $250/hour, however, he was worth every penny because nobody in our company knows how to do this.

He was on site roughly 2 days though to gather requirements and around 2 weeks to do the work. 12 days at that rate is $24,000.

<comment><USER3> The tone and details of this email oozes a person with experience, has seen problems before but heads-up this might be worse than you think, and despite being worded quite formally seems a pretty modest (assertive, not aggressive nor submissive). Given the technology that is X.25 they also seem to be aware they can charge an eminently reasonable market rate to get approved yet put their foot down on working conditions (their quote is their quote, hours and 'productivity' agreed in advance).

I'd imagine they get a lot of recommendations, just from extrapolating that email.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> It is unlikely that you'll make hundreds of dollars an hour.

It is also likely that you'll spend most of your time trying to find new clients.

The book "You Can Negotiate Anything" would be helpful. You also need to learn some basics of contract law. While you may need a lawyer at times, sometimes it is better to know when to just walk away from a bad contract, or negotiate a small change so that a contract you shouldn't sign becomes a good one.

Where people want a consultant, is when they can't find the staff they need in-house. For me that has commonly been to provide Mac ports to companies that otherwise publish Windows software. What could you offer, that your potential clients don't already have?

<comment><USER5> It is unlikely that you'll make hundreds of dollars an hour... because...

<comment><USER4> The people who make that kind of money offer services that no one else can supply. Or at least the client has that perception.

Contract programmers generally make more per hour than perm staff, but there isn't generally even the perception that contract programmers do what no one else can.

I can see how marketing consultants could earn that much money.

I've been wanting to get out of contract programming and into "real" consulting. I've done a little bit of that but don't know how to find clients on a regular basis.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The key to consulting is not technical skill. You can hire that.

      technical skill != business value

The necessary element is knowing people who are willing to pay your rate and convincing them to do so. If you're not in the orbit of people who are in the habit of dropping $10,000 per person per week on consultants, such work is inaccessible. Getting into those orbits is usually a matter of "paying dues". It takes a deep rollodex to sustain a backlog.

Good luck.

</comment><comment><USER7> I am 24 and have been consulting for close to a year now, with no real end in site. However, each assignment includes problems and skills on a spectrum between pure dev and pure business. So your comment about not understanding what people are trying to accomplish worries me. However from my perspective, there is a lot of value from my confidence and being able to map out what my client SHOULD do (not necessarily what he wants or is trying to accomplish) and directing him down that path. You can't always get them there, but you really need to be able to read people well to bridge the gap from a potentially idiotic or doomed decision they are about to make and a much much better one.

Also, I recommend reading Alan Weiss's The Consulting Bible: [http://books.google.com/books/about/The_Consulting_Bible.htm...](http://books.google.com/books/about/The_Consulting_Bible.html?id=Pxx5knnbhR8C)

</comment><comment><USER8> I went into consulting at 24 and had around 3 years of commercial experience.

Fast forward a year later and I have numerous clients and am working on some exciting projects. I currently charge £35p/h (Based in the UK). The hardest part I found was that some clients do not trust you due to your age (Might be a UK thing) but this is where your sales pitch will come in handy.

The most important skill I found was to be able to communicate effectively with clients, to be able to break problems down and explain them in layman terms for them. This builds up their trust with you and then the sale gets easier.

Get out there and start networking, meeting business owners, your parents contacts, your own contacts. One of the best contracts I had come from an university friend I went for a coffee with.

Build up a few months of funds and work on some freelance work on the side and then go full time into it.

You can always get another job, but the older you get the more responsibilities you get and the less likely you are to risk it.

</comment><comment><USER9> No, you aren't "good enough to do consulting."

Skills are important, but attitude matters. If you charge $200 an hour, you have to BELIEVE that you can add $400,000 in value if they keep you around for a year.

Note that "Attitude" <> "Arrogance". You don't go in thinking "I rule and you suck; I know better than all of you." People skills are EXTREMELY important. Clients have to give you the information and the guidance you need to do a job well-- if they dislike you, they'll sabotage you in 100 small ways.

But if you don't believe, deep down, "I can walk in the door of anyone who hires me and contribute to the company on some level", then don't consult.

</comment><comment><USER10> I've talked about consulting here on HN in the past [0].

>> ... but I have a hard time understanding what people are trying to accomplish a lot of the time.

This will be a problem. If you have non-technical clients, this will really be a problem. Work on this first.

Given how the market is, you don't need to be really good. I've found communication to be more important than technical skills.

[0] - [http://dopeboy.github.io/consulting/](http://dopeboy.github.io/consulting/)

</comment><comment><USER5> There's a right answer to this question: take a job at a consultancy.

<comment><AUTHOR> I appreciate this straightforward response, but (from where I'm standing) it seems much easier to say this as a top cybersecurity expert than as a mid- level front end developer who is often bewildered by the fractal-like complexity hiding behind simple applications. I just cannot really grasp how anyone could show up and contribute to a large foreign codebase in a meaningful way in a matter of days or weeks.

<comment><USER11> He meant go to work for n someone n elses consultancy. Not jump immediately into running your own.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> What can you do in a day or two that would take some business weeks, or that the business could not do at all? If you can identify that, you're ready to start consulting.

I'd recommend a look at Gerald Weinberg's _Secrets of Consulting_ and _Becoming a Technical Leader_. See [http://www.dorsethouse.com/authors/weinberg_gerald.html](http://www.dorsethouse.com/authors/weinberg_gerald.html)

</comment><comment><USER13> Remeber that a lot of these consultants get hundreds per hour, but sometimes only get 10-20 hours per week (other times 100 hours per week, just saying.)

I've been consulting for going on 10 years now. haven't had a boss in god knows how long. Do it! There is more than enough work to go around. You can probably link up with a larger consultancy and get some work outsourced to get you going.

</comment><comment><USER14> _could I consult anyway?_

Would it be possible to do it on the side while still working a regular job? That might allow you to learn whether or not you can make it and/or learn what you NEED to learn to make it work.</comment>


Avoid These 5 Job Title Pitfalls: Co-CEOs, Managers & Directors Who Don't... - <AUTHOR> http://ongig.com/blog/career-development/5-job-title-pitfalls

<comment><USER2> I know a lot of people balk when they see the C titles for small company employees but I tend to disagree. The top tech guy at a small firm is the CTO, he is leading the technical vision of the company and doing all of the technical decision making. Even if he does the lower level grunt work the upper level work cannot be discounted in favor of it. Just as if the CEO plunges the toilet he should not be considered the janitor, just a CEO that is willing to get his hands dirty. I fear the aversion to such lofty titles hurts technical people and this is due to perception. The perception may not be internal but it can be from business partners or vendors. I have seen many cases where a young technical guy will be dismissed by solution providers trying to sell to the company leaders because their perception of the technical persons influence of the company. Conversely I have seen when a technical person is introduced as the CTO, they instead try to gain the confidence of that individual instead of trying to undermine his recommendations with the rest of the executive team. The point is titles may not matter to us, but they do to a good deal of people. Utilizing them helps level external individuals perceptions of who calls the shots for what.</comment>


Ebola outbreak: Why has 'Big Pharma' failed deadly virus' victims? - <AUTHOR> http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/ebola-outbreak-big-pharma-failed-victims-why-9716615.html

<comment><USER2> The problem is why there's no pharma companies in those countries.

And why they don't have refrigerators, and why they're eating bushmeat in the first place?

Are they just too lazy to raise cows like everybody else?</comment>


Ask HN: What's the best money-making scheme you ever came up with? - <AUTHOR>

Inspired by this thread on reddit: http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/cx3lm/whats_the_best_way_youve_cheated_the_system/<p>Bone fida business model or devious hack - how much did you make and how long did it take? <comment><USER2> I've got an AWESOME scheme, but I don't want to post it publicly. It's worked really well for me though.

If you want, I'll send you a CD with complete instructions, just shoot $10 to my PayPal account to cover S&H. firstname.lastname@example.com

<comment><AUTHOR> sure. I'll need you to PP me $20 to cover transaction costs though</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Do you test your cognition? - <AUTHOR> It occurred to me that I may not be able to detect declining cognition over time due to age, or an incipient illness, or other general health factors. Does anyone periodically test their cognition using some standardised method, assessing working memory, verbal fluidity etc?<p>(I'm not talking about IQ obviously.) <comment><USER2> I've always wanted to.

I keep track of changes in my personality (Big 5) and political orientation (Political Compass and 8Values) every couple months, but I haven't been able to find any good (and free) neurocognitive assessment I can use to track cognitive performance.

As I understand, the problem of typical "intelligence" tests is that if they're done too frequently, it's easy to just get better at doing those particular tasks and getting higher scores, making them unsuitable for tracking your cognition in the long term.

I would love to see a FOSS webpage or tool that facilitated it, I believe there are lots of papers describing the exercises themselves, the problem is merely implementation.

</comment><comment><USER3> > some standardised method, assessing working memory, verbal fluidity

> (I'm not talking about IQ obviously.)

Why not IQ? It's the most well-researched, standardised and validated test for cognition that we have. It's trendy to criticise IQ and IQ tests but any alternative will be supported by even less evidence, far less in fact.

</comment><comment><USER4> I don't regularly test for the sake of testing. I regularly train for the sake of improving.

It seems to be an odd question, like asking a professional athlete if she regularly tests her speed and stamina. Most of the people in this forum are professionals who make money off their cognitive ability, and likely regularly improve theirs.

I don't have a perfect methodology for this. But every year, I solve harder problems and puzzles, read books I couldn't digest before, type and do mnemonics a little faster, find out which lanes on the road are faster, smile at more strangers.

</comment><comment><USER5> I've had what I think was called "neurocognitive evaluation" which involved testing working memory, reaction time, some other memory tests (reproduce image, list as many words of certain type that I can), and probably some other stuff. So there's probably a standard list out there that doctors might now.</comment>


Show HN: Blindpad – p2p collaborative editor with semi-anonymizing voice chat - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/blindpad/blindpad <comment><USER2> Awesome app idea. Are you going to put up an arxiv preprint about it?</comment>


Computational Complexity of Air Travel Planning (2003) - <AUTHOR> http://www.demarcken.org/carl/papers/ITA-software-travel-complexity/img0.html Here's the PDF version: http://www.demarcken.org/carl/papers/ITA-software-travel-complexity/ITA-software-travel-complexity.pdf <comment><AUTHOR> Here's the PDF version: [http://www.demarcken.org/carl/papers/ITA-software- travel-com...](http://www.demarcken.org/carl/papers/ITA-software-travel- complexity/ITA-software-travel-complexity.pdf)</comment>


Space Shuttle Flight Deck - <AUTHOR> http://360vr.com/2011/06/22-discovery-flight-deck-opf_6236/index.html

<comment><USER2> I'm a big fan of minimal interfaces. But I guess minimal interfaces are good for the web user who is looking at your web app for two seconds before deciding whether to keep looking or move on.

This actually looks like a pretty effective interface for users who are willing to be trained for months. Think about it: after you are trained, every piece of information is just one glance away and every action is just one button click away.

I'd love to hear an opinion from an expert, though. _sinks back into his armchair_

<comment><USER3> I found a picture of an A380 cockpit and it appears to have that design philosophy. [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a4/Airbus_A3...](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a4/Airbus_A380_cockpit.jpg)

<comment><USER4> As you can see there are a lot of big screens and very few actual buttons and switches in that photo. It looks like the four keyboards are the bulk of the buttons. I would be curious to know how modal those screens are and how much information they can display at one point in time. It doesn't look like they can display much and I can't imagine that it's fun to go hunting for necessary information in an emergency. Depending on how that works it might be a usability nightmare, one can only hope that Airbus does plenty of UI testing.

(In that context an interesting question is what this interface is optimized for. It may work great on normal flights – that's nearly all of them, by the way – but break down horribly in emergencies. I guess the UI design rule of designing for the common and not the rare case doesn't really apply here.)

<comment><USER5> Actually I was reading an article (I can't find it now) about that Qantas A380 engine explosion, and it said that this was a genuine problem in that situation. Once the engine blew up, there were dozens and dozens of different errors popping up, and the first thing the pilots had to do was to page through all the error codes and prioritize them to figure out what the _real_ problems were.

In many ways, better to have a single giant control panel which lights up a different light for each error that can occur.

<comment><USER6> This is actually an artifact of the way planes are certified today (DO-178B). The verification process has to be done by hand - you can't verify automatically generated computer code.

The result is that you can't build say, a prolog program which produces a huge switch statement to prioritize errors. As a result, there effectively is no prioritization of errors and warnings at all. They're all treated as the same severity.

The new standard, DO-178C allows for computer models to be used in verification. So we may start seeing automated prioritization and management in the generation of planes after the A380/787.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I chuckled when rotating the image and seeing the Dell laptop in the back.

<comment><USER8> This actually reminded me of Stargate SG-1 - everywhere they went they popped open a chunky Dell machine and started typing.

(It's an interesting thought that it would have cost about $50,000 to get that laptop into space, weight-wise.)

<comment><USER9> Not if they went through the gate...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> The biggest "user interface" feature I noticed wasn't the buttons -- it's that there's velcro, and lots of it, _everywhere._ Well done.

</comment><comment> j-g-faustus Interesting, thanks for the link.

I guess this is similar to what non-programmers see when looking at source code: An impenetrable mess of gobbledygook where it would require months or years of dedicated effort to figure out what the different commands actually do.

</comment><comment><USER11> Well so much for heads up displays.

That was a cool shot of the shuttle I've never seen before. I wonder how many of those controls are redundant systems you only need to touch if they light up?

</comment><comment><USER12> Well, user interface is full of short-cuts, which makes sense considering pilot would not have time to flip through pages to execute a command.

The seats look awfully uncomfortable, though.

</comment><comment><USER13> Not really all that different from an jet airplane cockpit. I'm an aviation enthusiast, btw.

</comment><comment><USER14> Weird how they assume the pilot is left handed...

<comment><USER15> Actually that is not the assumption at all. The assumption in both the space shuttle and most other (fixed-wing) aircraft is that the pilot is right handed. However, what you don't expect is that actually most of the really fiddly work happens with the right hand, changing settings, pressing buttons, tuning radio's and writing down notes. The left hand has to be taught to fly but thats actually less demanding that teaching the left hand to do that other stuff. This is even true of aircraft which have yokes rather than side-sticks, as the throttles are controlled by the right hand and during the take-off and landing the right hand is stationed on the throttles.

Interestingly for a helicopter this pattern is reversed, the control inputs required to control a helicopter are so much more demanding that the pilot sits on the right hand side so that he uses his right hand for the primary control and has to either make do with his left or temporarily switch hands to do the other stuff described above.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> This might be the coolest thing I see all year

</comment><comment><USER17> Flash required</comment>


Maybe We All Need a Little Less Balance - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/22/well/mind/maybe-we-all-need-a-little-less-balance.html <comment><USER2> This is a very good point. People tend to look for more "balance" when they are unhappy with whatever their main focus is right now. The obvious example applies: people don't like their day jobs very much, and so they go around advocating more "work-life balance" to compensate for it, because they feel it is a necessary evil. It's not (at least in most cases).

If you're not happy with whatever your main focus is, you need to change it, not add more stuff to compensate.

(Of course, there are still some things that you should pay attention to apart from your main focus, like your health and family. This is not the point here).

<comment><USER3> Is it really true that in _most_ cases people can find a day job that isn't a necessary evil? People usually work because they need money to live, and employers usually pay money because they want stuff done that is not interesting or enjoyable enough for anyone to do as a volunteer. Most jobs in developed countries are service jobs, and few of these are things people _love_ to do, they're just things that need doing, and someone is willing to pay for them to be done: working restaurants, inserting IVs in hospitals, caring for elderly, picking up trash, cleaning offices, staffing call centers, answering email on behalf of the CEO, processing insurance claims, driving Ubers, etc.

So there is some amount of needing to do something you don't necessarily love for a job, but it's perfectly reasonable for you to _also_ not want this to consume your life 24/7\. I mean, if you can achieve the feat of the photo at the top of this article—getting paid to surf—that might be great, but that's not really the norm for jobs.

<comment><USER4> I think it's more a matter of being lucky enough to enjoy doing something which is valuable to others. It's easy to love what you do if your hobby is in demand.

<comment><USER5> Sometimes even those are pretty shitty jobs, though. My hobby is art.

Commissions really suck sometimes, as they aren't creative and generally aren't enough to live on. Comic book artists often work long days only to be greeted with pain at the end of the day. Hand cramps are the least of the worries: such artists often develop problems with their dominant arm, commonly carpal tunnel and tennis elbow. And these are usually contract jobs with no benefits whatsoever.

My mother is an excellent seamstress. Most paid work is wedding alterations, tailoring clothing, and sewing patches on military uniforms (decent demand here for quality work, which she does). That work absolutely bores her and she winds up hating her hobby.

Of course, these aren't exactly in demand per se but is illustrative of how things change once you are working for it. It really isn't all that easy.

<comment><USER4> Agree 100%. As they say, if you only had to do it when you felt like it, they wouldn't call it 'work'.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I can relate to what is being discussed in this article. For the last 2 years I've been focusing solely on my startup at the expense of my relationships with family and friends. So far, it's been working alright because we're still quite young and I don't feel like I'm missing out on any significant things in their lives. But now I'm at the point where I don't need to sink 16 hours 7 days a week and I'm really struggling with reevaluating my identity which has been so closely tied with just building shit constantly

<comment><USER7> I did the same thing in my early 20s and came to regret it. Especially since I know now that if I'd found the right mentors and/or learned the right things, I could've made better decisions and gotten much more accomplished in less time. You live and you learn.

The identity thing you mentioned is big, too. We can turn ourselves into machines, but it robs us of our personalities. Like anything else, being good at being social requires practice. You get rusty. It also helps to have interesting things to talk about, and work talk gets boring fast. If that's all you have to talk about, you start to wonder what happened to the rest of you, and so does everyone else.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Interesting how in US I always see articles talking about how to find happiness. Ever since I moved to Japan I haven't heard this theme yet. I am made to wonder if consumption based societies have a bigger issue with being unhappy than those that strive for conservative lives. One one hand the author has a point. I can think back to activities where I was happiest that involved being consumed wholly by that activity. On the other hand, there are moments where I think I'd be better off if I didn't focus so much on that one thing. I'm not sure where I'm going with this other than I'm tired of these articles that seek to define ways to be happy. This really says something about our society or perhaps about the nation. Is there a happiness crisis? I don't see it happening here in Japan but perhaps I'm disallusioned as I have not fully integrated into this society.

<comment><USER9> "Interesting how in US I always see articles talking about how to find happiness."

One of the things worth remembering sometimes is that technically, what you're seeing is the _media_ culture of a country, not necessarily a country's culture, in articles like this. They are certainly not unrelated to each other, but they are not the same, either.

I've often thought, for instance, that _part_ (not all, but _part_ ) of the reason so many of our journalists are down on capitalism is not just political belief, but the specific fact that they are in an industry being actively disrupted by it. Of course they're a bit dour about economic issues, they're not exactly looking ahead to great prospects. I expect there's an ongoing selection process where anybody who has any reasonable chance of getting out mostly already has, so a lot of who is left is precisely the ones who are trapped there.

Are Americans actually obsessed with seeking happiness all the time, or is just our happiness-starved writers? I mean, it's not a topic I hear come up in my casual conversations very often. I know self-help books sell, but there's also a bit of difference between buying one on a whim and scanning it, and obsessing over it.

<comment><USER10> Your examination of the media is astute.

Part if the problem is businesses wanted more tabloid journalism because they wanted to make money. The real journalists fought it but apparently lost, or gave up, or did something else. Now that all news is essentially tabloid, they're not distinct enough to not be aggregated.

I mean with Trump, it's even happening to the papers that have good journalism. They've all turned to Chicken Little and the sky is falling. I mean I can go anywhere to read about the part where Trump said something stupid. I want them to analyze everything he said.

The newspapers were one of the latter industries affected by globalization and disruption. Had they been one of the first, and complained when globalization and automation was in it's infancy, a lot of people wouldn't have embraced it so and the wealth gap would be a lot smaller. Who knows?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> > "the path to fulfillment in life, to emotional satisfaction, is to find what > _you_ really excites you and channel your all into it."

That reminds me - what happened with the proofreader strike again?

This article is way out of touch. We know what we want, but we cannot have it because we are in a system that forces us to work. And we cannot break out of that system because of land costs. We want to go cycling. To spend time with our kids. To sit on our ass if we so choose. To help others. To stroll. But we gotta pay the rent.

I guess this guy needs to spend a bit more time at the office away from his family to "achieve excellence" in basic proofreading. I wouldn't normally be so harsh but who is this guy to tell us what life should be like when he seems so out of touch.

<comment><USER12> > This article is way out of touch.

It is and it isn't. People have to write articles to make money. Most articles just say things to say them because the journalists/authors have to earn their pay checks.

> We know what we want, but we cannot have it because we are in a system that > forces us to work.

"Let them eat cake"... Exactly. We all want shelter, food, necessity and money to survive.

> who is this guy to tell us what life should be like when he seems so out of > touch.

He's just some guy who is trying to get you to click and read his articles so that he can make money.

Just like the evangelical preachers or the self-help gurus. They are all in the business of making money. Not providing insights or anything of real value.

</comment></comment><comment> Chiba-City I try to live in Skill Sprints that direct focus for a few years. I pick things that combine history, books, places and tool mastery like photography, music training, cooking, core muscle exercises or even Buddhist Pali suttas and walking meditation. You have to create your series of time boxed challenges. With a daily drumbeat of global finance news and HN it keeps me out of trouble. Our notational computer process logic and memory access hierarchies turn out to describe almost everything worthwhile. [ed. Did not want to skip music training.]

<comment><USER13> Fitter, happier, more productive.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I've wondered when people tell me to be more balanced if it is for my good or because people feel uncomfortable when someone is working very hard on something. I do know I've had better success in things with single minded focus, but when more balanced others find me more interesting. Perhaps I need to balance my periods of balance and being focused.

<comment><USER15> I think a lot of people are stressed or sad when they are just going 100% on something difficult. They are probably just looking out for you. When my friends get crazy busy for a long time on something I tell them to take little breaks and balance it out because I know they don't feel good.

For some people though, working all the time doesn't feel bad. That could be the case for you.

<comment><USER16> The thing that sucks about going 100% on something difficult isn't the thing being difficult, it's when you fail relentless for an extended period of time that makes you burn out.

<comment><USER17> I've taken a big step back from start up culture. I don't work more than I have to, I travel more, I meet interesting people. The funny part is now I feel more energized and connected with what people really need. Very little of it has to do with apps or algorithms.

My feeling when being in startup mode was essentially the sunk cost fallacy. I've already put this much work in, success must be around the corner. But I look at some of my peers with similar mentalities and you can't help but feel they're too focused on the day to day without realizing the product and demand is garbage. Life is short, enjoy it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> You do have the strongest experiences and form the strongest memories (both good and bad) when you are at your most unbalanced.

But it's also unsustainable to stay unbalanced for too long.

</comment><comment><USER19> I think the idea is to be balanced across a larger time frame, not balanced at every moment. Sometimes, you might be more into one thing or another, but you have balance across a decade or some other time scale.

<comment><USER20> Exactly, you can have these extreme moments in your life and still be balanced. The behavior the author is advocating is reactionary.. overly negative, relax please!

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> This misses the dimension where specific people are your passion in life. For example your significant other and children. In those cases work IS a necessary evil and work life balance is a direct attempt at gaining more time for your passion.

I'm not in that boat and gladly lose myself in things, but I understand the perspective.

</comment><comment><USER22> "Maybe the good life is not about trying to achieve some sort of illusory balance. Instead, maybe it's about pursuing your interests fully, but with enough internal self-awareness to regularly evaluate what you're not pursuing as a result — and make changes if necessary. Living in this manner..."

...IS balance. Period.

</comment><comment><USER23> > Instead, maybe it's about pursuing your interests fully, but with enough > internal self-awareness to regularly evaluate what you're not pursuing as a > result — and make changes if necessary. Living in this manner trumps balance > any day.

That is exactly how I would describe 'balance'. The article seems to use a different definition, though.

</comment><comment><USER24> What author describes likely comes down to individual traits, especially hormone and enzyme status. E.g. if you produce high MAO-A due to genetics, then your dopamine and serotonin status will be chronically low. And this might lead to you being addicted to novelty, quick wins, and generally overly stimulating activities [1]. Gut or microbiome issues can also have unbalancing effects on neurotransmitters.

I don't mean to refute the article, it's just not for everyone; and maybe people already do what they gravitate towards anyway.

1: [http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1869106,0...](http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1869106,00.html)

</comment><comment><USER25> To each is own.

I love my friends and my happiest moments are stories of adventures we did together. Yet, I'm ultimately an introvert so after a weekend or week with people I desperately crave consecutive days of solitude.

I love my job, but it's tough and there is always more work to do than there is time for. When I'm on a project I like I throw all of myself into it, work too much, and burn myself out.

I'm constantly trying to find balance because my default approach is an "object in motion stays in motion".

</comment><comment><USER26> Generally a good article but I think the author struggles too much with something that isn't that difficult. If you really enjoy something then won't you naturally pursue it? Of course, you love it. If you have multiple things you love you'll pursue multiple things, dividing your time between them. IF you hate something then the only reason you would give it time is because there's something you don't hate about it.

This isn't that difficult, its really just intuitive.

</comment><comment><USER27> I think balance will mean different things to different people, so this question is going to be nearly impossible to answer. I also think people have different personalities and happiness gradients.

I'm going to use a hazy definition of balance here, meaning that you do not forget your friends, family, health, hygiene, ethics, beliefs, secondary hobbies, leisure.

> Nearly all of the great performers I've gotten to know — from athletes to > artists to computer programmers to entrepreneurs — report a direct line > between being happy, fulfilled and at their best and going all-in on > something.

The vast majority of people are not great performers, so this seems like a poor sample to draw any conclusions from. Combined with survivorship bias, likely this is just finding that the people who are most positioned to reach what this society calls "greatness" tend to be those who are able to hyper- focus on one thing without it draining them. There are often fairly serious consequences to disregarding balance in one's life, but when it comes to the "great", those consequences are often forgotten, forgiven, or written off. But the "greatness" label is not absolute, it's assigned. We could have chosen to value something else. I think the fact that we dropped ethics in favor of "greatness" is a huge, costly mistake.

This is not the case for the other 99% of the population. Why does Western philosophy insist so much on this insane focus on the "great"? They're not most people. They're never going to be most people. And, frankly, they're not very important. Why do we want to compel the person to just zero-in on one thing? If you ask me, that sounds incredibly boring. Cue Heinlein's famous quote.

As for me, I can observe a distinct increase in day-to-day happiness when things are more balanced for me. When I have a solid schedule and routine, when I eat well, when I exercise regularly, when I keep my area clean, etc., I'm generally much more content with things. If I have to super focus on a given thing for a long time it usually wears me out and winds me up and not in a good way.

This doesn't mean that aspects of balance don't need to be sacrificed at times to get something done (after all, extra things require extra resources and sometimes your resources are limited). But I didn't really enjoy such times.

But I've never been a thrill seeker, I've never been a hyper-specialist, nor do I have a very obsessive personality over any given topic. This seems a very personal thing, but current society definitely has a preference for the hyper- specialized. I think that's a pity.

<comment><USER28> Could you please point to or paste here the Heinlein quote you're referring to?

I've tried to google-guess it but failed.

<comment><USER27> "A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> An undiversified portfolio maximizes possible upside … and possible downside. If you have a rational level of risk aversion, that should persuade you to strive for balance and a more certain return.

The fact that in this case the portfolio is of "life elements" rather than "shares of companies" shouldn't change the conclusion.

<comment><USER15> I disagree- when doing something in life you can tell very quickly how it makes you feel, but when investing in a company it can be difficult to see how the company will do.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> One way to look at it is that balance is fundamentally about stability, not neutrality. Maybe your fulcrum isn't at the center of all possible aspects of your life, and maybe that's not something that needs to be fixed.

</comment><comment><USER31> Achieve self-actualization in [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs)

</comment><comment><USER32> I do need some unbalances to make sure that I'm a human, not a balance. Passion, flow, abnormal, whatever you name it.

</comment><comment><USER33> So .. we need a balance between living balanced and unbalanced. That's actually quite a good insight to ponder.

</comment><comment><USER34> I had a little moment of hesitation before clicking on the link "Rich Roll" in the article..

</comment><comment><USER35> Instead of a work-life balance, consider a state-of-flow/state-of-social balance. Spend chunks of time heads-down in solo project; and spend chunks of time between tech talk, elevator pitches, and tangential discussion. Instead of striving for an eudaimonistic balance between the two, let the balance freely oscillate between those extremes as feels natural for you.

</comment><comment> d--b So? We need more balance between a balanced life and an unbalanced one?

Seriously though, who is that guy talking to? Does anyone truly believe that having a perfectly balanced life makes one happy? Haven't they made thousands of movies about this?

Sorry for the negativity but "live a little" seems a bit of a shallow advice from the New York Times...</comment>


Why Your Brain Isn't A Computer - <AUTHOR> http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2012/05/04/why-your-brain-isnt-a-computer/

<comment><USER2> Can you imagine if our bran was like a computer? Every terrible memory we had would be there in perfect clarity.</comment>


iSmell (2001) - <AUTHOR> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISmell <comment><USER2> I remember when this was in the news and had a hard time believing that it wasn't a joke. Even apart from the terrible branding, the idea has several flaws that everyone (except the people behind it) immediately saw.

The second most important flaw is that computers can fool the human visual system into seeing color with only 3 signals, but our noses can distinguish hundreds of individual chemicals.

But even if that was somehow overcome, what is the use case? The company had some demo of a person buying perfume online, sampling each one using a webpage. But if I had a box attached to my computer that could generate the smell of perfume with any accuracy, why would I ever buy perfume again? Just get the box to exude the liquid it was using to make the smell in the first place.

<comment><USER3> > why would I ever buy perfume again

Because it would be cheaper, in greater volume, and easier to apply to your person than the smells generated by the device.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> It took 5 years to name this 'one of the "25 Worst Tech Products of All Time"', but the idea was already being made fun of 5 years before this product hit the market.

[http://web.archive.org/web/19961231045934/http://realaroma.c...](http://web.archive.org/web/19961231045934/http://realaroma.com/)

Be sure to check out the <DEVELOPERS' CORNER>

[http://web.archive.org/web/19970416020233/http://realaroma.c...](http://web.archive.org/web/19970416020233/http://realaroma.com/Docs/develop.html)

</comment><comment><USER5> Did anyone buy one if these? If so, would love to hear your thoughts.

<comment><USER6> Review: [https://www.wired.com/1999/11/digiscent/](https://www.wired.com/1999/11/digiscent/) (TL;DR: It actually worked, with a pre-alpha version and 26 distinct smells during a few minutes of video)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Also see [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smell-O- Vision](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smell-O-Vision)

</comment><comment><USER8> > _was designed to emit a smell when a user visited a web site or opened an > email._

What a waste. All this potential, and the best application was websites?

I've been thinking about an idea like this over past few years, but in my view, the applications would be immersive 4D movies - adding a smell dimension to the experience that already features 3D images, sound, and tactile effects like blowing wind, water dripping on you, etc. - and immersive video games.

Anyway, thanks for posting. Until today I didn't know anyone was seriously working on something like that.

</comment><comment><USER9> Silly as this is, I've often thought about digitally recording smells for re- emission. For the consumer it probably isn't very useful, but having been knee-deep in the theatre world in my college years, I longed for the opportunity to contribute "smell design" to productions. Smell is often described as the sense most strongly tied to emotional response, and so using it as a tool to evoke emotion in the theater would be really interesting!

</comment><comment><USER10> Silly as this product is, as a kid I always wished for something like this to up the immersiveness of video games. Maybe it would be doubly effective now with VR.

Getting it in a reasonable form factor and some practical issues (stinking up the house) seem like roadblocks, but I wouldn't be surprised to see something like this come back around, focused on gaming.

<comment><USER8> I was always thinking about cinemas - especially since I first saw a "4D movie", in which they augment the usual 3D movie experience with tactile effects generators - air blowing at you to simulate wind, small amounts of water suddenly being sprayed at you, etc. It really added to the immersiveness of what you were watching, and the only thing lacking was smell effects.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I remember seeing this at a tradeshow and wanting to buy their $99 developer kit, but they disappeared from the market before I got around to it :-)

I asked them about the "hundreds of chemicals" and they claimed 10 or 12 were enough for most scents. (Compare display gamut to full range of visible light.)

</comment><comment><USER12> I tried one of these at COMDEX, and it was kind of underwhelming. All of the smells were vaguely floral and fruity, but I still smiled and nodded as the attendant described what I was supposed to be smelling.</comment>


Desert Island Discs – Demis Hassabis, CEO of DeepMind [audio] - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08qy1sl <comment><USER2> I can highly recommend this. For us Brits this is a national institution and appearing on it is considered a badge of honour similar to a minor peerage. We listen to it live on a Sunday morning.

If you enjoy the format there is a large archive of these with many of the most influential people of the 20th century. However the modern (Kirsty Young) ones are by far the most insightful due to her masterful, understated interviewing.

I offer these as a taster to non-Brits who would like to hear more:

Dustin Hoffman:

[http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01p314n](http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01p314n)

Tom Hanks:

[http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b079m78n](http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b079m78n)

Bruce Springsteen:

[http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0855znp](http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0855znp)

Bill Gates:

[http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06z1zdt](http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06z1zdt)

<comment><USER3> Thanks for this! This is an amazing series!!! I'll probably listen everything in time!

Another amazing podcast series from BBC is "a brief history of mathematics": [http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00srz5b/episodes/downloads](http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00srz5b/episodes/downloads)

<comment><USER4> The programme has been running since 1942, so "everything" is rather a lot :)

There are a few more programmes of similar longevity, one that people may like is Alistair Cooke's "Letter from America" [http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00f6hbp](http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00f6hbp) from 24 March 1946 to 20 February 2004

<comment><USER3> Indeed! Ok, maybe not _all of them_ but definitely _some_ of them! :-)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I enjoyed listening to the short segment on how and why he gave up chess at 11 despite being ranked 2nd in the world for that age group. Remarkable reflectiveness for an 11-year-old. Check out this down the page:

"Demis Hassabis: 'I thought we were wasting our minds'

AI expert Demis Hassabis on giving up chess tournaments aged 11."

It makes me wonder how many other brilliant minds are wasted on trivial pursuits and how we can better engage them on major problems of our increasingly complex world.

<comment><USER6> 'It makes me wonder how many other brilliant minds are wasted on trivial pursuits and how we can better engage them on major problems of our increasingly complex world.'

How can you objectify the term 'wasting' (their lives)?

I mean to you the only people that their lives are worth something are scientists?

If you aren't a scientist you have wasted your life?

I think that people that enjoy trivial persuit or chess or whatever it is, haven't wasted anything by doing what they love.

If the only thing you see in life is 'the evolution of science' then I feel sorry for you. There are far better things in life than that. But again each to their own goal, you might enjoy being a scientist and discovering something new, other people might just enjoy living by the beach and have nothing to do with tech. Noone is wasting his/her life.

Also another point, people that can't AI or be good at maths etc doesn't mean they can't have a great mind!

<comment><USER7> The life of that Shepherd doesn't sound trivial at all. And neither does pursuing a life of chess mastery unless that pursuit doesn't bring one personal growth and satisfaction.

<comment><USER6> It's trivial to the people around him, and in my own eyes he is way more successful than demis, you or me will ever be. Because success isn't valued in money, achievements, fame, discoveries. If you do believe that success is only measured in those above, then am sorry about the life you have chosen to live.

<comment><USER7> I feel like you didn't read my comment or didn't understand my point.

That said, I won't make wide ranging judgements about your life based on the few words you have written.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Wow I had never heard this program and the interviewer did a fantastic job. Demis's intellect really shows through. It's really clear how hard he works and how driven he is. This has given me some inspiration on what otherwise might a lazy Saturday.

</comment><comment><USER9> Actually Mozart know about copying as he do scores. And publishing is one of those public goods thing that is key to most of the things we treAsured and talked about here.

E=mc2 is a fish, it cannot be consumed and used by you only.

</comment><comment><USER10> Thanks for linking this. Has given me inspiration to finish off some of my projects. It is interesting he comes from a game design background.

</comment><comment><USER11> KLF - yes mate :)</comment>


Software updates should be free forever, some people think - <AUTHOR> I had to explain to a customer today why there is an update fee for the software I maintain. Why is it so hard to understand that if you paid fifty dollars ten years ago, you can't expect to get free updates for life? <comment><USER2> They probably don't understand how much work it is for you to produce the next version.

Also, software updates are painful. If your washing machine breaks, it's obvious why it's broken, and replacing it just costs money. But when software needs updating, it's unclear to the average person why that's the case. It doesn't rust or rot; why can't I just keep using it? And if I don't like the price of the update, migrating to something else is often a large project.

Maybe it would help to clearly state at purchase time something like "includes N months of updates"?

<comment><AUTHOR> Five years ago I've created an update policy that defines how long after the purchase you receive the latest version for free. That was five years too late for this specific customer, but that customer already paid for updates since then. I wondered why the update fee bothered him now.

<comment><USER3> They were probably just having a bad day and you happened to be the nearest person to take it out on, I wouldn't read to much into it.

After a while in this business you start to develop a thick skin.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Well, depending on how you marketed the initial installment, you could be the one at fault. The industry norm is that quality and security updates are free for the support life of the product (which is usually longer than you say it is). In some jurisdictions you might have no legal right to deny the updates, regardless of what your contract says about warranty.

If you want to save yourself the hassle, factor the cost of maintenance updates into the initial cost, and market upgrades as big new _releases_ like Windows or AutoCAD do.

Which product is this, by the way?

<comment><AUTHOR> Five years ago I specifically added the clause that updates are free within twelve months after purchase. So the customer is kind of right to be surprised if he bought the software before that time.

On the other and, that exact same customer already ordered and paid for updates. That's one of the reasons I'm annoyed to have had that update discussion.

It's an online appointment scheduling software, btw.

<comment><USER4> > _It 's an online appointment scheduling software, btw._

Oh, I thought it couldn't be appointmind, because on that website you literally say "We take care of software installation, updates and data backup.", granted right after saying "Monthly terminable".

I think your pricing model, customer flow, and messaging is incredibly confusing; and I don't think I would necessarily know whether or not ongoing updates are free of charge from your website.

I think the problem lies entirely in your marketing and presentation.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for your feedback. Five years ago we switched from a software that you install yourself on your own server to a Saas offering. The reason for this was that customers didn't want to update their software and if they wanted to do it, they didn't want to pay for it.

The trouble is exclusively with old customers that don't use the Saas, don't want to use it, and still run the software on their own server. They believe they bought the software and therefore own it. Paying again for something you own is, understandably, not something people gladly do. But then again, software isn't a thing, it's a work in progress. A concept hard to grasp for some people.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> It's hard to understand because:

1.) People are often horrible communicators.

2.) Marketing copy very rarely (if ever) discloses there will be a fee for updates.

3.) Updates are confusing and nothing is standardized. Some companies offer free updates forever. Others charge for updates. Still others disguise updates as new versions.

</comment><comment><USER6> Explain them that the software you sold him/her ten years ago is not the software you sell today.

But in the end, some people will just try and get free stuff. Just tell them that doing business with you has a price and that otherwise they can bring their business at someone else's shop.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, I did that and they accepted without comment. Interestingly enough, the total invoice that included some programming work was four figures. The update fee on the other hand was only $99.</comment></comment>


MIT CSAIL's machine learning system can reliably detect fake news - <AUTHOR> http://news.mit.edu/2018/mit-csail-machine-learning-system-detects-fake-news-from-source-1004 <comment><USER2> To reliably detect fake news a system should do fact checking, not calculating probabilities.</comment>


Australian Banks Warned About Cloud Computing (by APRA) - <AUTHOR> http://blog.tomw.net.au/2010/11/banks-warned-about-cloud-computing.html

<comment><AUTHOR> Most interesting is how APRA (Australian Prudential Regulation Authority) is essentially calling some Australian financial institutions negligent:

"APRA has noted that its regulated institutions do not always recognise the significance of cloud computing initiatives and fail to acknowledge the outsourcing and/or offshoring elements in them"</comment>


Redux: 12 Steps to Better Code - <AUTHOR> http://layervault.tumblr.com/post/35779546115/a-year-later-12-steps-to-writing-better-web-code

<comment><USER2> Some of these steps seem very restrictive for no clear reason.

> 3\. Do all employees deploy code on their first day?

You want to make sure that deployment is simple and streamlined enough that it's possible for a new employee to do it on their first day. That doesn't mean that you're doing it wrong if the receptionist doesn't deploy anything.

> 11\. Do you discourage the use of IDEs?

You want to make sure that the code is easy to work, whether you're using Eclipse, vim, or whatever. So make that your goal. There's no clear purpose to be served by nagging people for using XCode if that's what they're most productive in.

</comment><comment><USER3> > 11\. Do you discourage the use of IDEs?

Surely it would more beneficial to mandate a build platform that is IDE agnostic and leave the choice of IDE to the individual developer preference.

</comment><comment><USER4> You can follow all 12 of these steps to the letter and still produce horrible code.

</comment><comment><USER5> Can someone explain why the discouragement of IDEs is seen as a good idea?

</comment><comment><USER6> 3 is somewhat dependent on your system and customer base.

Not every product can just throw code out. For us, any changes that modify the database schema need to be thoroughly tested before going live. We simply can't leave that judgement up to someone on their first day.

However, being able to build a development or production environment in one click is a goal for us. If nothing else, it would save us time were someone to accidentally wipe their machine.

</comment><comment><USER7> uhh, what is a bus factor?

> 5\. Is your bus factor greater than n/2, where n is the number of engineers?

<comment><USER8> LMGTFY <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_factor> :)

The bus factor is the total number of key developers who would need to be incapacitated (as by getting hit by a bus/truck) to send the project into such disarray that it would not be able to proceed; the project would retain information (such as source code) with which no remaining team member is familiar.

<comment><USER7> uhh, what is LMGTFY? (I actually just googled that, lol)

<comment><USER9> "Let Me Google That For You"

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> In your first post, you say that github only deploy from one branch.

I can't find the post offhand, but they now deploy feature branches, and only merge to master _after_ deploying it, at which point they release their "shipping lock"

</comment><comment><USER11> 45 minutes? Perhaps you should refocus some effort on that. And I'm not talking CI.</comment>


Launch loop - <AUTHOR> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Launch_loop

<comment><USER2> no no no. this is way more complicated than a space elevator. 2000 km long?

novel concept but would not work in practice

<comment><USER3> Yes, it's more complicated, but the space elevator can't work right now- the engineering materials simply don't exist for that.

2000 km long is shorter than the cabling that makes up the golden gate bridge.

Nobody knows whether it works in practice, because nobody has seriously tried to build this. Yeah, that makes it harder, because there's no beaten path to follow. Then again, practically everything in this world is something hard that somebody managed to do.</comment></comment>


How Sidekiq makes $80,000 a month - <AUTHOR> https://www.indiehackers.com/businesses/sidekiq?utm_source=newsletter&utm_campaign=interview-promotion&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Indie+Hackers+Newsletter&utm_campaign=ec2594295f-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2016_11_10&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_43062afaa5-ec2594295f-118903173 <comment><USER3> I'm really fascinated by this career path. As I approach 40 I'm really feeling the pain of the whole developer vs manager dichotomy. The fact is, I've always been comfortable on both sides as a generalist and a team lead, but as my career progresses I'm increasingly feeling the pressure to specialize either by going full-time or specializing in some area that can command a hire salary than the reams of bootcamp dev grads + 5 years experience are claiming. One path would be to found a company and raise money, but I don't really want to spend my brainpower on pitching investors, and the thought of having employees dependent on me feels stressful. I figure I have enough general experience with tech and business that I ought to be able to bootstrap a comfortable solo lifestyle business, but what?

<comment><USER4> I'm just on the other side of 40 and have similar developer vs manager pains as you. Had my own bootstrapped company for several years, sold it, and lately have been working as an engineering manager at a startup.

Its nice not having the normal worries of a founder but I already have the itch to do something again. Problem is, I never have luck when I go out looking for an idea. The idea usually finds you. You just need to make more opportunities for serendipity.

Also, don't think you have to found a company AND raise money.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Almost $1M as a solo founder - impressive. I wish many years of success and continued revenue for Sidekiq, and hope the founder never succumbs to the dark "we're gonna scale from $1M to $1B" side.

<comment><USER6> Having met Mike several times, I can assure you that won't happen.

<comment><USER7> Interesting. What specific things did you observe which led you to that conclusion?

<comment><USER8> Mike is a very laid back guy - I would have thought he was making more like $8000 a month, not $80,000, based on his general demeanor.

<comment><USER9> I can second this. Mike is incredibly down to earth. In talking with him (briefly) about Sidekiq as a business, he seemed intent on making sure it remained compatible with his current lifestyle.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Nice interview!

The guy behind indiehackers.com, csallen, is doing an incredible job with the site. Interesting interviews tailor made for hackers, the forum is an interesting place and it's been fascinating to follow his journey which he shares in vivid detail.

</comment><comment><USER11> We love and use Sidekiq at our org. We even released a gem for it that enables concurrency throttling : [https://github.com/sensortower/sidekiq- throttled](https://github.com/sensortower/sidekiq-throttled)

There is a bit of a feeling that the community version is somewhat 'nerfed', but it's really Mike's freedom to release the pro/enterprise version.

Though stuff like this: [https://github.com/mperham/sidekiq/blob/master/lib/sidekiq/l...](https://github.com/mperham/sidekiq/blob/master/lib/sidekiq/launcher.rb#L69-L76) scares me~ :)

<comment><USER12> This always makes me laugh when I randomly come across it: [https://github.com/mperham/sidekiq/blob/659dea9601b3a283d9c8...](https://github.com/mperham/sidekiq/blob/659dea9601b3a283d9c85eee1ca3cf11e967c660/lib/sidekiq.rb#L51-L53)

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> The Ruby on Rails podcast recently had Mike Perham on as a guest [0], where they talked a bit more about Sidekiq for those who are interested.

0: [http://5by5.tv/rubyonrails/222](http://5by5.tv/rubyonrails/222)

</comment><comment><USER14> How does Sidekiq compare to Celery (apart from being a different language)?

IMHO Sidekiq succeeded, because it works smoother, than other (Ruby-based) task scheduling systems, but can we say the same for Celery? It seems pretty stable and is used in production by many organizations and companies, so the question is, could one do the same for the Python ecosystem, or is Celery just in such a good shape, that it's hard to compete with (considering the same open-core model)?

</comment><comment><USER15> I really love sidekick and use it in several projects. It's one of those gems that just feel really well put together and complete. And once you add it, it opens up all of these possibilities that you might not have considered previously.

Huge props to the developer, and I'm glad that he's been able to make a living off of this.

</comment><comment><USER16> Kudos to Mike. I'm glad to see Sidekiq Pro/Enterprise are this successful.

My favorite things about Sidekiq (and how Mike runs it) are:

1) The documentation and wiki pages of Sidekiq. [0]

2) The weekly happy hour chats. [1]

The docs and getting started guides are some of best I've seen in OSS -- everything is well-documented and thought through. There's a lot of good things to emulate here.

In addition to his years of conferences talks, blogging, and helpfulness through over mediums... Mike has a weekly happy hour on Fridays to answer questions. I've done it a couple times and he's been extremely helpful.

[0] [https://github.com/mperham/sidekiq/wiki](https://github.com/mperham/sidekiq/wiki)

[1] [http://sidekiq.org/support](http://sidekiq.org/support)

</comment><comment><USER17> > When you learn something, blog about it. People admire and trust those who > educate others.

So true.

</comment><comment><USER18> Great article. I feel like "exciting" applications that made it big get far too much of our attention. There's real value you can create by doing something "boring" like a background job framework.

Most business solve boring business needs. Find something you find interesting and exciting, that most people regard as a boring chore - and solve the problem in a tidy, approachable way. Is this a more reliable way to actually make a living on your own?

<comment><USER19> True that. I had been thinking on similar lines myself. If you observe the restaurant industry, an exciting menu isn't the only thing responsible for its success, sure it night help, but most restaurants will have similar items in their menu. The key is boring things like sustaining the business for sufficient time until it crosses a threshold of patronage and consistency in the taste of the food. So yeah, exciting things are overrated.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Oh damn, that's a lot more than I expected. What a success. That's almost a million dollars per year!

</comment><comment><USER21> I'm a fan of sidkiq but holding out using a different more atomic redis command for 'pro' is pretty lame - it's closer to 'intentional gimping' than 'open-core'.

<comment><USER3> Obviously choices have to be made, I don't understand how you can begrudge the guy his living. It's certainly better than random hot developer tool startup that takes VC funding, grows like crazy, then either implodes, gets purchased, or changes their policies so you get screwed by depending on them. With Sidekiq I feel pretty good about relying on it compared to a lot of stuff out there.

<comment><USER21> I don't begrudge anyone. You can choose a commercial license and get paid. But people don't choose commercial licenses because they want adoption and free support of their tools. I have nothing against 'open-core' with 'expansion- packs' that actually target niches and require development effort - <USER2> redis commands doesn't meet that requirement for me and thus is fails into the category of 'intentional gimping' which I think takes advantage of your community who isn't getting any of that 80k/mo.

That said, Sidekiq is, by no means, egregious here but it's a problem which deserves to be called out.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> What's the opensource alternative to sidekiq? I am impressed he gets this much money out of developer tools...

<comment><USER23> Sidekiq is open source (LGPL). There is a free version that is pretty powerful: [https://github.com/mperham/sidekiq](https://github.com/mperham/sidekiq)

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Can someone please explain the open-source yet earning? Is it that part of the project is open source and the rest is paid and closed source? How to protect products if they're open source?

<comment><USER25> Correct, sidekiq is open source by default. The pro portion of the code base is closed source. Sidekiq is one almost a must have for any Rails app. I'd imagine some people just want to support him and pay the licensing fee. It reminds me of how people were willing to pay for Pivotal Tracker when it was free.

[https://github.com/mperham/sidekiq/wiki/Commercial- collabora...](https://github.com/mperham/sidekiq/wiki/Commercial- collaboration)

<comment><USER26> I try to start similar dual-licensing model for my project. But I don't get this. The link page and "In order to unambiguously own and sell Sidekiq commercial products, I must have the copyright associated with the entire codebase. Any code you create which is merged must be owned by me. That's not me trying to be a jerk, that's just the way it works." \- it has no legal value. I think all contributions are also LGPL unless contributor gives a consent to give up the change as commercial or public domain etc. In my opinion if Sidekiq Pro is forked from Sidekiq then Pro code should be released under LGPL or he should share part of $80k/monthly with all contributors. What about previous contributors' rights when the project switched to LGPL or dual? Can somebody explain this scheme?

<comment><USER27> Changes contributed to Sidekiq are LGPL. Changes contributed to __Sidekiq Pro __must also assign rights for those changes to me so I can sell them. I do have customers who have access to the Sidekiq Pro source code and send me pull requests when they find bugs or enhancements.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> By the way, I punched in sidekiq.com without a second thought and the domain is on sale.

<comment><USER29> Only 3K!

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> Is this one of those "indiehacker" projects where someone created a XYk $ business over night? It's almost like those spam-adverts that you see occasionally on websites if you don't have a proper blocker " $$$ work from home, see how she earned 5000$ / month".

This guy is really beating his own drum every week.

Anyway there are interesting projects there and good luck to all the people working on those things. I just wish the advertising was less "click baity" and more truthful.

<comment><USER31> You might be interested in reading this story. Mike has run an enormously value-creating OSS project for several years. It is one of the most interesting technically-oriented business in the Ruby community, and one whose model should be studied with attention by many HN readers.

Can I encourage people to have less reflexive skepticism about running a business on the Internet? Plenty of people do it. Some of those businesses make more money than you presently think is likely or possible. This is mostly a function not of spamminess or evil but rather that skeptics have an artificially constrained view of what is possible because skeptics have probably not run a similar business and skeptics may have holes in their understanding of how Internet businesses operate at modest scales.

Previous HN thread for additional context, including (predictably) folks who said that the successful OSS project featured in it was a) not an OSS project and b) would never be successful: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6480854](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6480854)

<comment><USER30> I wasn't referring to sidekiq but to indiehackers.

<comment><USER32> I've never claimed that anyone built a business "overnight" on Indie Hackers, or anything of the sort.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Crunchies results: Half the winners are established companies  - <AUTHOR> http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/01/10/congratulations-to-the-crunchies-winners-facebook-takes-top-prize-for-second-year/

<comment><AUTHOR>
      The 2008 Crunchies is our second annual competition and award ceremony to recognize and celebrate the most compelling
      startups, internet and technology innovations of the year.

They should really change their tag line

</comment><comment><USER2> does anyone still consider facebook or twitter to be startups? whats the generally accepted cutoff?

      * a million users?
      * a year of existence?

<comment><USER3> serious revenues (not necessarily profit)</comment></comment>