Anatomy of a Scam - <AUTHOR> https://jacquesmattheij.com/anatomy-of-a-scam/ <comment><USER3> A couple years ago I had the privileged of getting to overhear an adjacent table where a scam cryptocurrency founder was pitching their ICO to an investor in a restaurant in mountain view. At the time I hadn't even heard of it but it went on to raise a lot of money then end up mired in legal trouble.

The central premise of the pitch was to repeadily go over how Bitcoin market price had changed from 2009 to whenever it was (probably around $3000 at the time), and then suggest that their new asset would experience even greater increases even faster because <jargon>. Paraphrasing: "So if I invest $1m today, in seven years...?" "Your investment be worth 100 billion! maybe more, but I can't promise that. 100,000x growth is the _minimum_ but the maximum is anyone's guess". They looped over and over again, I think with the prospective investor making extra sure he understood before writing the guy he was talking to off as a scammer.

At that point I stopped worrying about the particular pitchee was going to get scammed, it was too absurd. (I'm sure my numbers aren't exactly right, for one they had a bunch of excess precision in reality, presumably based on the day's Bitcoin price, but whatever it was was totally absurd).

> or even a VC that is not tech savvy

Honestly, I think being "tech savvy" is a liability. Someone who doesn't think they're tech savvy knows they don't know. It takes a certain level of expertise to talk yourself into something extremely dumb. They might not fall for this particular pitch deck (or the one I overheard), but there are scams for every skill level. And the more confident you are in your understanding, the larger the "investment" you will being willing to make.

<comment><USER4> I think at some level expertise does become a robust defense against scams; it's just that the level required is incredibly high. Scamming Cynthia Dwork or Wei Dai with a new cryptocurrency would presumably be a waste of effort, because they'd jump straight at that <jargon> bit and even a very good con artist wouldn't keep up. Likewise, top physicists, cryptographers, and mathematicians hear from a lot of cranks without ever getting taken in. (Or, I suppose, they're too embarrassed to admit it.)

But most people aren't at that level of expertise, and no one is that good at everything. If you're an expert at one thing, you're bound to be merely informed on a bunch of topics at the periphery of that thing. And "tech savvy" more or less means "informed by not an expert", so I think you're exactly right - that, more than cluelessness, is where danger lies. As we gain knowledge, we rely more on our own expertise than on consensus wisdom. And that's often right for spotting bad ideas, but it doesn't work for spotting scams. If someone is trying to hide the flaws where your knowledge is lacking, learning twice as much gives you far less than twice the resilience.

I _definitely_ can't identify the next bit thing in gene therapy or concrete additives, so there's no point in even trying to pitch me. I'd turn down the real deal and not regret it later, because I have no chance of getting it right. But I first heard about Bitcoin in 2011, so it's not quite unimaginable that I'll get a shot at the next one also. And a "not quite unimaginable" shot at riches is pretty much what scammers live off of.

<comment><USER3> I think the only thing that might protect Cynthia Dwork or Wei Dai would be if they were wise enough to not believe they were immune to being scammed.

Yes, the person I was talking about wouldn't be successful against a more sophisticated target. But there is no amount of technical sophistication that makes you immune against the right scam because even the most technically adept has finite time to consider things, and they're all still human.

Your excellent point about "learning twice as much gives you far less than twice the resilience" means that essentially no one can be completely immune, once you factor in time.

So I think only the wisdom to really appreciate your vulnerability is universally protective, even if you are an honest to god super-guru.

Case in point, witness the fact that one of the early Bitcoin developers publicly endorsed and obvious fraudster claiming to have invented Bitcoin but who can't even get basically technical points about _Bitcoin_ right, much less some new and unfamiliar system. In some alternative universe where that hadn't happened his name might have easily found its way onto your list.

I agree with you that the kind of top flight technical background needed to shunt off even fairly unsophisticated scammers is very rare.

> But I first heard about Bitcoin in 2011, so it's not quite unimaginable that > I'll get a shot at the next one also.

Indeed, but there you wouldn't have needed to expend much-- and not anything that could have directly made a scammer money.

I've always thought it was weird to see people who in 2011 said Bitcoin was a scam and didn't mine any though they could have at little cost... years later turn around and dump their life savings into super sketchy premined altcoins. I think they learned the wrong lesson. Their skepticism wasn't a problem.

<comment><USER4> "Once you factor in time" is a very good point, and one I shouldn't underestimate because it's almost always a factor in scams. Most people can avoid being scammed with enough time and space to consider, and most scammers are excellent at denying those to their marks.

And yeah, now that I look at the list of people who've claimed to be Satoshi, it's pretty alarming to see how many have gotten at least one major Bitcoin figure to vouch for them. Even Craig Wright, who claimed he'd move the genesis block and then simply _didn 't_ \- I guess being a Bitcoin guru isn't enough to make sure you actually verify somebody's published transactions.

I suspect that you need several times the technical sophistication of a scammer to catch them out, and if they know who they're pitching to the bar might rise unattainably high. The fact that it normally doesn't, that even I know enough to catch out scammers, has less to do with protective expertise and more to do with not being in their intended demographic of marks. Which ties into your last point: I don't really regret not buying into Bitcoin given what I knew, but my takeaway is "don't be afraid to throw $100 at a crazy idea", not "try to search out hidden gems", and so I'm not likely to be a high-dollar target for later scams.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> All those pages that you found of people having exactly that same combination of educational background can be simply explained. They are the default sample content of the Team page on certain Wordpress themes (Therefore also the WP in 'Blockchain WP'). A quick Google search shows that for example the FinanceCo theme from Radius has the same exact Education listing.[0]

So the other profiles you found could just be sloppy webmasters who didn't remove the default Team pages of their Wordpress theme.

[0] [https://www.radiustheme.com/demo/wordpress/themes/financeco/...](https://www.radiustheme.com/demo/wordpress/themes/financeco/team/alexander/)

<comment><USER6> Interesting, ok never thought that it might be the wordpress template. Will update the text. Even so, that "Sam Chester" page on that first linked site is legit. I think I found the legal guy too (US lawyer by the looks of it), this is his twitter page: [https://twitter.com/richardnacht](https://twitter.com/richardnacht)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> If we are going to list our own scam experiences here: a company asks for $15mm on a $30mm pre.

You better have sales, I say. They do they say. $1 Billion worth!

What are your margins? 30% they say!

Uh, so why don't you go to a bank? Well, you know banks charge an arm and a leg.

At this point, I don't believe anything but I ask for the contracts or the POs from the companies (GE! Honeywell!) thinking I would verify them later.

I get identical looking POs, adding up to a few hundred thousand, all from unheard of companies.

<comment><USER4> Over on the employment side, I got a summer job pitch in college from a hot new startup building some kind of app to help turn activity tracker output in actionable info. A startup of four people.

"This sounds interesting, but I'm wondering why you're looking for a fifth employee who's only going to be around for a few months instead of someone committed?" "We don't want to shorten our runway with salaried hires too fast, but we're expecting to close funding within the next year, so we can bring back the summer hires full-time after graduation and you'll already be ramped up."

"So you have some runway now, and you're negotiating more funding - you've raised angel funds and are working out Series A?" "Well, we're still at 'friends and family' and we haven't pitched VCs yet, we don't want to dilute the company too quickly. But we're starting to sound out investors and we've had a lot of interest!"

"So if you're that early on, are you looking at hiring purely in stock? How will that work with the temporary role?" "Obviously we can't give people shares just for a summer of work, and we don't want to plan too far into the future since we don't know our timeline yet. But once we close this funding we'll of course be making very competitive salary hires _with_ stock grants."

"So it's contract work with the potential to become an early startup employee later? I don't mean to obsess about salary, but I see it's in New York City and I'm going to need to pay rent." "Well it's not _contract_ work as such, we want people more dedicated to our mission than that. But I guess I could talk to the other founders about putting together some sort of housing stipend."

"So, it's an unpaid internship in NYC, and you're not willing to put anything beyond that in writing?" "..."

Just for fun, I kept talking for long enough to find out the top-secret details of what the app actually _did_ , which took some doing. It was going to assess your activity level and "holistic well-being" to present a "supportive audiovisual experience". They'd stapled a 2000-era WMP music visualizer to a mood ring.

<comment><USER7> Ugh.

I'm glad you were aware enough to ask the right questions. However, I will add that whatever poor judgements people make there is just this line that is crossed with actual falsehoods that is hard to undo.

Whatever mistakes these would be employers made, at least they told the truth.

<comment><USER4> Very true - I don't think I was told anything factually false, and that's hugely to the founders' credit. It's the distinction between _caveat emptor_ and fraud, I suppose, and since some friends had gotten suckered by similar offers I knew what to beware.

Perhaps this story fits better under the other thread here of legitimate arrangements with scam-like effects on their partners. The pitch I got reminded me more of a doomed restaurant than an MLM: the founders seemed sincere about the merits of their idea at least (they demanded an [now- expired] NDA, even!), and I really don't know if their optimism about the company's prospects and the job's quality was faked. They knew something was wrong well enough to bury the problems, but an outright work-for-free scam would probably have been pitched more smoothly, maybe as a "take-home interview assignment". As is, they might well have followed through on the promises if they had somehow gotten their millions. They didn't exactly have my best interests at heart, but like many people overselling failing projects, I think they were aiming at a wildly unlikely success rather than pushing a strictly negative deal.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> But I think the worst scammers are those that operate in a semi-legit way. They're actually out there, in person, trying to raise money for some product which may work on a fundamental level, but that does not mater, as they have no plans on developing anything. Maybe they have legit experience from before, and even have serious people that can vouch for them, if needed.

They put together startups, have a couple of good months, but then go back to regular programming of funneling VC money into their own account, while starving out their startup.

Then when the startup goes under, they disappear, only to resurface a year or two later somewhere else. Probably with a new name or alias.

They almost never go for the real big fish / tens of millions, or even millions - but just enough to live a cushy and flashy lifestyle. Nice leased penthouse, cars, etc.

<comment><USER9> I get the feeling that it's easier to raise money for some vaporware, and then have fun for a couple of years with that pile of money than to spend a couple of years self-funding something that actually works and trying to find a buyer.

<comment><USER6> The more frustrating version: you work hard and self-fund for a couple of years to make something that works. Then along comes clueless bunch 1.0 who are bankrolled by clueless VC who then undercut you on price, over promise and do not deliver leaving you with potentially years without sales because you can't match the hype train. I've seen this a couple of times and it isn't pretty. By the time they finally go belly up you may have preceded them down that path.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> > _I have no idea what the graph has to do with the words, maybe there is some > connection here but I haven 't found it yet._

With the slide saying: "The lack of direct integration with operating companies and associated funding sources creates volatility and eventually subjects other coins or tokens to disintermediation and extinction."

(Or, translated "other tokens die because of $reasons")

I think the point of the graph is to just _reinforce the mood_. Be an emotional influence that makes you take the slide's message more seriously. Where the text talks about the reasons why other tokens fail, you see a line representing something going down in value fast. For some reason, just looking at it makes me feel sad, the "oh no my investments" kind sad. Which I believe was the whole goal.

<comment><USER6> Good call. Will update the text.

edit: updated, credited. Thank you!

<comment><USER10> You're welcome, and thank you for writing this article!

<comment><USER6> I promised someone to pick this one apart. Pity about the flags though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Total aside, but this notion that before the invention of minted coinage all exchange was done via "barter" is just completely ahistorical. Before currency exchange was done via favors. Instead of countable coins, you contributed to your community and built up a reserve of "honor" or "cred" that you could use to call in favors when you needed any kind of help or support. It's usually referred to as a "gift economy," but people get thrown off by the term "gift." It's less about the stuff you give or do and more about the obligations you have as a member or friend of any given community.

The main thing to remember is that people just had a very different way of thinking about the exchange of goods and services back then. It wasn't about financial transactions or maximizing economic returns, it was much more about building up cred and standing within a community.

Where financial transactions really come in is being able to facilitate exchange between two communities where that underlying foundation of trust and persistent social connection doesn't exist. This is why marriages between "clans" or "tribes" or whatever would often be marked by exchange of things that hold value like livestock, heirlooms and handicrafts, or parcels of land. These aren't really "barter" exchanges though, they're more like collateral or shows of good will between two groups or people who don't necessarily have a strong basis for trusting each other.

This is why coinage really starts to come around when you have large kingdoms or empires. Those rulers mint the coins because they control larger swathes of territory than could be governed by the sort-of-feudal interractions of familial obligation. So you start keeping track of things via precious metals instead.

<comment><USER12> In longer form: "Debt: The First 5,000 Years" by David Graeber

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Here's a deck from the convicted con artist Anna Delvey, [https://www.are.na/block/2250665](https://www.are.na/block/2250665)

The strongest slide is the team, which includes 2 PhDs, and an MIT research scientist.

<comment><USER9> People really want to believe in a "Female Steve Jobs." I think one key to a successful scam today is a female CEO.

<comment><USER6> This should not be downvoted. It is _definitely_ a factor, just not quite in that way. Founder diversity is a thing and female CEO will get you funded in some cases where a male CEO would not. There is a huge push to level between males and females and in some cases the balance is shot through to the other side and critical thought loses out over the gender balance thing.

<comment><USER14> [https://www8.gsb.columbia.edu/newsroom/newsn/6917/why- arent-...](https://www8.gsb.columbia.edu/newsroom/newsn/6917/why-arent- startups-founded-by-women-getting-more-funding)

>According to researchers from Columbia Business School and London Business School, businesses led by women are 63 percent less likely to obtain venture capital (VC) funding than those led by men.

<comment><USER6> That's not in any way contradicting what I wrote. Yes, men are much more likely to obtain funding than women. But, in some cases women are funded when men would be passed over with the same idea. It's similar to affirmative action.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Making the fictional company a cryptocurrency startup is lazy writing in my opinion, they are too easy to criticize. This article would be more compelling if it were analyzing a more "stealth" scam in a different market sector.

<comment><USER6> Some other time :) Candidates enough, but this is a deck doing the rounds right now.

<comment><USER16> Thanks for creating this post! Fascinating read. You mentioned in the post that a lot of the links in there would probably right t away with time - <USER2> you think there's any value in archiving the links and linking to the wayback versions so they're preserved for education for posterity?

<comment><USER6> Yes, that would be very useful.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> It's interesting to look at these slides because I so strongly prefer simple straightforward "ugly" presentations to slick vector art ones that include a timeline from 9000 BC. Slick presentations prime my "this is BS" suspicion.

I know this preference is a trope for people on HN (I mean, look at the HN layout) but it's strange to me that VCs apparently have such different preferences.

<comment><USER18> I'm not sure if I'd be able to resist asking the presenter how they got data from 4000 years before the beginning of recorded history if I was presented with a slide like that.

<comment><USER6> Totally missed that :(

</comment></comment></comment><comment> edouard-harris What's immediately remarkable about this deck is the frequency of poor phrasings and misspellings, especially as you get deeper into it. Virtually none of the "legitimate" pitch decks I've encountered have suffered from this degree of sloppiness.

<comment><USER19> Maybe it's like the apocryphal rumour that spelling mistakes in scam emails are really a filter to get rid of a large chunk of people who wouldn't fall for the scam anyway.

<comment><USER20> Does that make sense from a behavioral-economic perspective? What is the scammer's incentive to filter certain people out? Wouldn't it be better to move more people down the "funnel" and filter potential troublemakers as they appear?

<comment> edouard-harris Generally in a sales process, the further down the funnel you get (as a prospect) the more of your counterparty's time you'll be consuming. A mass- email might trigger a call, for example.

I think the idea is that the scammers might be pre-qualifying their prospects for gullibility before committing further time to closing the sale.

<comment><USER6> That's exactly it, similar to the Nigerian scammers reference (usually spam) in the article.

See:

[https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/publication/why- do-...](https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/publication/why-do-nigerian- scammers-say-they-are-from-nigeria/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I have a question. How in the world do VC's ever fall for this bullshit? I mean in most situations they have made enough money on their own to invest, so they aren't stupid right?

<comment><USER22> 1\. Most VCs don't create value. Compared to a passive fund, like an ETF, they lose money ( _and_ take large fee, regardless of performance).

2\. Most of the people staffing VCs were not necessarily successful investors. Many were people in their 20s escaping the NYC banking scene to be analysts in VC. These days, there are many people on the capital side that are ex- entrepreneurs, but that still doesn't mean they know how to spot a deal.

3\. It does not always make economic sense to try to out a scam. If your model is that you find one mega-return to erase 100 failures in your portfolio, you actually go around looking for deals that sound insane (like Theranos). If other reputable VCs have already led the round, you just throw your money in without even investigating.

4\. Most importantly, most VCs don't fall for anything this crappy. The target is likely individuals with net worths in the millions who aren't very business savvy. There are lots of such people (children of wealth, for example).

<comment><USER23> Related story: Around the turn of the century I was talking to a VC friend about the dot com boom. He said "Watch out if the dentists start investing." Meaning, people with high net worth, inflated sense of knowledge, and not much tech savvy. Next teeth cleaning visit, my dentist enthusiastically told me about a start up he was investing in. Coincidental or not, the crash soon followed.

<comment><USER24> I was involved in a bitcoin ATM company and left... two years later, was sitting at my current company in the bathroom and I hear someone from the non- technical side go 'Dude, you have to invest, it's at nearly $20,000, it could go to a million'.

You'll never guess what happened when it passed $17,000

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> The thing that set my alarm bells is the projected revenue, users, posts, and etc. column charts. They have noise in them. As if someone played with the numbers to make them look like they're real data.

</comment><comment><USER26> Being involved in a blockchain company since 2001 is quite an achievement, given the Satoshi paper was only published in 2008.

</comment><comment><USER27> In India anyone can purchase the balance sheet and p&l for any private company as long as you know its name or directors name on a website like [https://zaubacorp.com](https://zaubacorp.com)

PS - no affiliation

Edit: Not sure why I'm being downvoted, added this because I genuinely think it is a good additional step for seed investors and HNIs investing in startups to ensure the legitimacy of the claims made in a pitch deck.

<comment><USER28> Fraudulent balance sheets / P&L statements aren't impossible.

<comment><USER27> Fair enough, but they're much harder to fake than a pitch deck. Require co- ordination between multiple businesses. Fake Income Tax returns, etc.

I've seen pitch decks where companies claim they have 100s of customers like Amazon, etc. Whereas their revenues on P&L are like ~$20,000 per year.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> I've seen these types of decks pitched internally at blue chips as well. There, an audience being bewildered by innovative words is exciting. Get in, get budget approved, get promoted before the devil even knows you're there.

</comment><comment><USER30> I think the most important takeaway from this is how many businesses which are not scams and have real revenues are tempted to flesh out presentations with similar vanity metrics and spurious background info...

<comment><USER6> This really happens and it almost invariably leads to some pretty pointed discussions during the due diligence. The tough part for the founders is that any surprises during DD cause break off risk or adjustments, sometimes major ones. Not getting funded in some circles leads to you not being able to get funding at all. The tam-tam is pretty powerful in VC circles.

<comment><USER30> The irony is that whilst posting that I was interrupted by a founder for feedback on market size indicators for an investor presentation. One where the DD guys will have signed contracts in tough-to-enter markets to scrutinise ahead of CIO survey percentages on slide decks, but still feel my _less is more_ advice was justified.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Most pitches come off as scams to me, as their main goal is to sell you an idea that you haven't heard before...

And some people will do what ever it takes to convince you, like; lie, obfuscate, appeal to emotion etc...

</comment><comment><USER32> I wish I could be as "religious" about my own company as that pitch deck is about warp. I know it's a scam, but the way its presented, I'm almost excited about it, lol.

<comment><USER33> at face value is a great idea, you sidestep blockchain adoption by tying it to physical and social services, you sidestep certain taxation like vat because value is gained only when these coin are converted back into money, you're not holding account because people purchase coins for money, so the money you sit on is yours, they only have a guaranteed buy back price.

it's extra funny because I know a startup that did basically that and is quite successful; but of course it focused only on the coin service exchange part and throw away the bitcoin / services nonsense.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> While this points to outright scam - I've seen a fair number of pitch decks that deserve to be thrown in the trash but get serious attention anyway. It seems obvious but I've seen a number of investors who will ignore a history of average growth, simply eyeball next year's forecast, and go with their gut if the management team has solid verbal skills and looks the part.

</comment><comment><USER35> My favorite graphics in these slides are the revenue/user graphs that show occasional, apparently randomly inserted, MoM downturns. Could be an effort to make them seem more "realistic", even though I would be surprised if it were possible to make predictions with that kind of precision.

<comment><USER36> What genuinely puzzles me is the myChauffer revenue forecast quadrupling from Dec of Year 2 to Jan of Year 3, seemingly without any explanation offered in the text: [https://jacquesmattheij.com/warpdeck/WarpDeck-14.png](https://jacquesmattheij.com/warpdeck/WarpDeck-14.png)

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> [http://archive.vn/mvdxA](http://archive.vn/mvdxA) vindicates [https://archive.vn/zKT4B](https://archive.vn/zKT4B)

</comment><comment><USER8> I can't imagine anyone falling for these scams, unless there's a complete and utter breakdown in due diligence. At some point you're gonna go on and have a meeting or video chat, and it'll all come crashing down.

<comment><USER6> You'd be surprised how many investors simply do not do due diligence at all. There is a lot of dumb money floating around.</comment></comment>


I've used Dvorak for 10 years, and it's not all that - <AUTHOR> https://www.theverge.com/2019/2/17/18223384/dvorak-qwerty-keyboard-layout-10-years-speed-ergonomics <comment><USER2> I've been typing dvorak primarily for about 20 years, also since I was in high school, and I _highly_ recommend it.

I agree that switching is a pain in the ass. It will make you essentially unable to type for about 2-4 weeks.

Ctrl-C/V/X is a valid concern. I fixed it by mapping mouse buttons to copy/paste, and also getting an Advantage2 Kinesis into which I've programming custom keybinding for Undo/Redo/Copy/Cut/Paste.

I can still touch type qwerty and often do at work on co-workers' keyboards. I'm pretty slow though, about 40wpm (100 on dvorak), and I usually have to look at the keyboard.

I also use qwerty on my phone - I tried dvorak and also found it to be a hindrance there. That makes sense, since dvorak is designed specifically for ten-fingered typing.

The primary benefit that the author of this post completely overlooked is comfort. It just feels... easy and comfortable, in a way that Qwerty doesn't even come close to. Whenever I am forced to type Qwerty I feel like I am doing finger calisthenics. It's _tiring_. My wrists never hurt after full days of typing, and I'm hopeful that the reduced motion and strain will help me avoid carpal tunnel or other hand/finger issues.

I plan to spend my entire career and much of my free time in front of a computer. Why on earth would I subject myself to anything less than the best interface system possible? That would be like a professional chef using the $20 knife block from the grocery store, or your doctor using WebMD to try and diagnose you.

<comment><USER3> I've been on a computer pretty much 12-16 hours a day for 30 years now. Dvorak only makes sense to me if you only have to use a single keyboard/workstation for all of your computing time consistently. On my own I have four different machines/OS and I frequently have to type at other peoples'.

I spent 10 years in Dvorak, Colemak and a variety of modified Colemak layouts before settling back on qwerty. I never noticed much difference in typing speed between it and dvorak (~104wpm) and I am still without RSI.

Using vim with dvorak is a real pain.

<comment><USER4> "Using vim with dvorak is a real pain."

That is not my experience, at all.

Then again, I don't use Vim like notepad with "hjkl" instead of arrow keys... All the powerful movement and editing commands (b, w, $, 0, /foo, *, #, %, cw, dd, ^], ^t, cib, ., etc.) work just as well with dvorak as with qwerty.

<comment><USER5> There's people that remap those on vim, but I found that doing so may force you to start remapping all the keys on every vim-inspired application and plug in.

It happens that "J" and "K" are next to each other and easily reachable, and that "H" and "L" still are 2 columns away and "h" is on the left, so using them in their new position it's not that bad.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> It's not yes. It was non-scientifically created and self-promoted to hell from the inventor in the early 20th century, for commercial interests. And there are a lot of myths about Qwerty too:

[https://www.utdallas.edu/~liebowit/keys1.html](https://www.utdallas.edu/~liebowit/keys1.html)

Not to mention that for programmers it's even more complicated. Most of our symbols we use most of the time (e.g. { } ; -, _) have nothing to do with DVORAK vs QWERTY, and the distribution of most common letters isn't even the same as English (e.g. C and the use of i).

Add OS keyboard shortcuts (and things like Vim and Emacs special keys) to the mix, and it gets even more complicated soon.

Oh, and since this is not 1970 anymore, consider that computer users come from all other the world, and type in their native languages, where QWERTY vs DVORAK means even less.

That said, there are better researched layouts that DVORAK, with actual modern research behind them.

<comment><USER6> On a sidenote: we worry about "singularity AI" and expect "SAE level 5 driving cars"...

How about we solve the much easier problem of "typing much fewer words"?

We don't even have a good auto-complete story yet in most IDEs, even less so a general purpose predictor that puts whole worlds at our disposal as we type.

<comment><USER7> I'm not convinced that auto-complete will ever become more useful than the costs it imposes on the user. Even when the suggestion is correct, it still causes a mental interrupt to shift from thinking about whatever virtual problem you were solving to validating some UI behavior. To me it's just another source of distraction.

If auto-complete could reach the point where it was near perfect, then it should probably be able to write entire paragraphs or functions based on context and some minor cues. But that's not going to happen.

Where auto-complete becomes valuable is on limited keyboards, such as phones. Even there (on Android), I find it so sub-par that quite often the variant of the word I want is simply not offered to me until I have typed all but the last character. This is maddening.

<comment><USER8> I'm quite capable of dealing with the mental breaks and prefer an editor that can save me some typing. The only improvement for me would be able to say "switch statement (3 cases, no default)"

swi<TAB>

switch <cursor> {

case <tab location>:

      <tab location>

default:

      <tab location>

}

Actually, if I could say "switch on enum X" then have all cases generated, that would be a huge productivity gain.

<comment><USER9> You are describing code snippets. This feature is available at least in vs code [1], but I think other editors have similar features.

[1] [https://code.visualstudio.com/docs/editor/userdefinedsnippet...](https://code.visualstudio.com/docs/editor/userdefinedsnippets)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> It doesn't look like anyone has yet addressed my biggest PRO for switching to Dvorak. It has pretty much healed my RSI. QWERTY had caused a huge drain on my ability to type. I was at risk for being unable to continue my work if the pain progressed.

I made the admittedly-difficult switch to Dvorak and that went away almost immediately. My typing speed is on-par with what it was with QWERTY. I can type out conversational English in real time, and that's about my functional limit. I don't consider that a selling point, but for those of you with wrist pain I can wholeheartedly recommond Dvorak.

<comment><USER11> Imho, this is were alternative layouts really shine: comfort, health.

Typing speed is an overrated fad (and in the worst cases an e-penis length contest) as in most cases when writing stuff (be it fiction, reports, code) your throughput isn't limited by typing speed.

Avoiding injuries on the other hand is invaluable.

<comment><USER12> saying it doesn't affect code writing speed is incorrect imo- after you've laid out your algorithm in pseudo code being able to quickly type it out is invaluable time savings. even if you try and automate it all away with shortcuts and refactors it still takes time to press those shortcuts for someone who's familiar with the keys and able to maximise their APM(actions per minute)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I'm disappointed that this article is no different from all the other articles on keyboard layouts that I've ever encountered and ignores non-English uses.

Obviously, a post written in English has no good reason describing a Norwegian-specific alternative to QWERTY, but it still manages to ignore half of the population of English-speaking people by not taking into account using multiple languages on the same keyboard.

I'm slowly losing hope that someone will mention whether there are any accommodations in Dvorak for French accents, how it affects writing German or whether it is worth the effort to learn and switch to Dvorak for English while using the Estonian layout for other purposes.

<comment><USER10> My experience isn't much, but as a Dvorak user I can say that I haven't had any issues with Icelandic. I'm on linux which has great compose-key combinations. I haven't used anything but default Dvorak on an American layout or ortholinear keyboard. Hope that helps a bit.

<comment><USER13> Why did you decide to switch? Are you typing much more of English than Icelandic? Are the two languages similar enough that what works for one is likely to work for another? Or was there an unrelated reason?

Do you think it made your life better? Would you recommend it to others, not necessarily using Icelandic? Are you using compose combinations to enter non- English letters (there's 8 [0], a significant number)?

Thank you for speaking up, your experience is so rare I consider it invaluable.

[0] [https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Icelandic/Alphabet_and_Pronunc...](https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Icelandic/Alphabet_and_Pronunciation)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Considering the author did not begin the Dvorak journey as a touch typist, their experience doesn't carry much weight with me.

I took the time to learn Dvorak (years ago), and I found it very much nicer for typing prose. However, I couldn't code with it (and I didn't try a code- focused version). Perhaps I should have tried different Dvorak variations to find one that was still better than QWERTY for writing while also being usable for coding.

I also tried a chorded keyboard (the BAT). With only a little practice I got to 60+ WPM (which isn't bad considering it's a one hand keyboard)... but it was just too laborious to code with since modifier keys and symbols took so much extra effort.

I'm still waiting for a neural interface... although if you give me a neural typing interface, then I'll want a neural visual interface so I'm not limited by monitors.

As an aside, why why why do people use the international keyboard layout? There is no possible way that it is more efficient given that two of the most used keys - left shift and (right) return are reduced in size and pushed further out of reach from home position. Worse yet, their lost space is taken by less frequently used keys. I cannot fathom why that design has remained popular outside the US.

<comment><USER14> > As an aside, why why why do people use the international keyboard layout?

That's like saying "why do characters outside standard English exist?". I honestly don't understand what you're complaining about. People use international keyboard layouts because they want to write another language than English.

<comment><USER7> UK and Netherlands use an international keyboard with a tilda ~ key where the return key should be, and a backslash key where the left shift should be.

To hit return requires actually moving the right hand to reach return. How often is that tilda needed? That is a poor trade.

Moving the shift key away is even worse, because it's a modifier key. Now you cannot press shift with your left pinky finger while also reaching several of the left hand keys.

<comment><USER15> >> How often is that tilda needed? That is a poor trade.

That tilda is needed every time I need to access my home directory on Linux, and the backslash key is also a pipe key when you press shift - so I can use a pipe in command line using a single hand.

I actually come from a country with US keyboard by-default. Now, whenever possible - I switch to UK layout even on MacBooks. UK layout is actually wonderful for development.

I can obviously see though why one can ask why is it this way.

<comment><USER7> Seriously, are you suggesting that you reference your home directory so often that it is a more frequent need than hitting Return?

Every single command you type ends with return. Unless you are typing long paragraphs in a word processor with line wrapping, you will be hitting return once every 80 characters or less on average (much less in the case of commands). Do you really need to reference a unix home directory once every 80 characters you type?

<comment><USER15> But I do have a return key, don't I? I don't particularly care about the size of the keys since I will remember their placement anyway, by a certain time.

I do care about their placement, however - since that's where my fingers are physically limited.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Disagree with a lot here. I could touch type before switching to Dvorak, but it's still been very much worthwhile.

Just trying out a single sentence in QWERTY now the difference is stark to me. My fingers move so much. With Dvorak I find there is much much less finger movement.

It's not painless, but I'd recommend it to anyone who types for 8+ hrs a day. It's not a small optimizations imo.

<comment><USER17> I switched about 10 years ago and can still touch type qwerty as well (and need to do so fairly often). I haven't seriously considered going back, but I don't know that there is even any ergonomic advantages much less speed ones.

I think the most relevant thing is that it might actually be worse for programming, both from the symbols and from qwerty-optimized hotkeys.

I use vim with most of the regular bindings which is designed as a combination of mnemonics (which are still fine) and qwerty layout (which obviously just end up in a random spot, though j and k happen to still be together but not in the home row).

<comment><USER18> It's certainly worse for programming if you use a semicolon rich language.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> The author was literally not the target audience. Unless you are already touch-typing, there won't be much of a benefit:

* all keys are equally easy to reach when you hover your finger 10cm above the keyboard while searching for a key

* you are moving fingers, hands and arms much more and with much more variety than when touch-typing, the risk of repetitive strain injuries is therefore lower

* you are typing much, much slower. Switching to dvorak is like buying an expensive pair of hiking boots for your daily 1 minute walk to the kiosk.

Last but not least, I know much more people who use a dvorak-like layout (as do I) - they adapt it to their needs (e.g.: as a lisp programmer I don't care about curly or square brackets, when I have to hack on other languages, I adapt my layout to make required special characters more easily accessible)

<comment><USER20> > as a lisp programmer I don't care about curly or square brackets, when I > have to hack on other languages, I adapt my layout to make required special > characters more easily accessible

I find it fascinating that people change their keyboard layouts frequently.

For me, there seems to be plenty of mental complexity to contend with that adding n > 1 keyboard interfaces would overload my ability to work efficiently.

I'm also worried about having to set up something complex just to get to work.

What are your thoughts? I'm just curious how you think about these issues

<comment><USER19> It's just a few keys that change. If you stick to _one_ layout per task/language, muscle memory will take care of that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I've been using [https://neo-layout.org/](https://neo-layout.org/) for about 10 years, which is a keyboard layout optimized for German, English, Programming, Maths, in that order. It has many layers with conveniently located "special" keys.

Dvorak only rearranges the main layer. NEO introduces a bunch of useful ones.

Adopting an ergonomic keyboard layout doesn't typically make you a faster typist, but it makes typing more pleasant.

<comment><USER22> It seems that most non US keyboard layouts suck really hard for programming, because the special symbols are in hard to reach places. Neo really fixes this by having a layer 3 that gives easy access to all important programming symbols. And with the layout it is also reasonably simple to write texts in various western languages beyond German and English.

Because Neo repurposes CAPS LOCK it is adviseable to have a ISO keyboard with 105 keys and not a ANSI keyboard without the second CAPS LOCK key. But I've also used Neo with ANSI keyboards in the past...

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> I used Dvorak for 5+ years. I eventually stopped for a number of reasons:

* Occasionally coworkers or friends will need to type on my keyboards and I grew tired of having to switch back and forth.

* Similarly, using someone else's computer would require me to type QWERTY anyway.

* I've been trying to reduce the amount of custom configuration I have to maintain and backup to the bare minimum.

* It didn't make a difference for me ergonomically. Typing for a long time still took a toll. I saw a much better improvement simply by occasionally changing my sitting position.

<comment><USER18> One time a coworker tried to prank me by posting a silly message to slack on my terminal (I don't usually use my work Mac so I forgot to log it off), and he was thwart d by Dvorak.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> I never really understood the obsession about WPM that some programmers have.

You're a programmer, not a court reporter. You don't need +200 WPM. You need to think before/during/after writing each one of the characters you type. And more often than not, you actually spend +5min of 20 lines of code, so your +200 WPM ability doesn't matter at all.

<comment><USER25> I type normally below 50wpm (just did a test which scored 54, but that is above my normal day-to-day rate), and I _do_ feel constrained by my typing ability. More specifically not the rate I can spew up finished code, but the way I can't efficiently and naturally use computer (via typing) for sketching out ideas and overall as _a tool of thought_ or an extension of my mind. Indeed I do often resort to pen and paper for that purpose which, in addition to being just plain quaint, simply locks me out of vast arrays of capabilities and tools I'd have on computer (org-mode etc).

There are also other ways I think faster typing speed can transform the way computers are used, for example being more comfortable in the cli, being more willing to write small _simple_ throw-away code snippets, less reliance on tools like autocorrect and autocomplete, which in turn can give more freedom to experiment with more niche tools, and so on.

<comment><USER10> There's also the personal enjoyment factor. People that run long distances rarely need that skill level. People that sing for fun don't need to do it. It's great to push your abilities just for its own sake. Lots of us just enjoy it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> On a similar note, let me say something which is sure to be controversial/unpopular on HN. I type with 2-3 fingers, and I can tell you that the "peckers" like me aren't missing out on much either. I can consistently type at 60-70 wpm, and that's after adjusting for typos. A big part of that comes down to me having memorized the keyboard layout, and not having to look at the keyboard at all while typing. I've also never suffered from RSI, and that might be a positive side effect of my hands being more mobile.

And I'm not an exception either: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typing#Hybrid](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typing#Hybrid)

 _" The number of fingers does not determine typing speed... People using self-taught typing strategies were found to be as fast as trained typists... instead of the number of fingers, there are other factors that predict typing speed... fast typists... keep their hands fixed on one position, instead of moving them over the keyboard, and more consistently use the same finger to type a certain letter."_

Would it be great to be able to type 100+ wpm? Sure. But if I have to dedicate all that time and effort, I'd much rather spend it on something else. Like learning a new technology or taking time off to pursue other interests. Besides, the amount of time I spend typing is a fraction of the amount of time I spend thinking. I honestly doubt that my 60+ wpm has held me back in any significant way.

<comment><USER27> I can type at 120 WPM, and it's not all that useful. I'd gladly halve my typing speed if it meant avoiding the occasional bout of RSI.

<comment><USER28> > RSI

Read the Mind-Body Prescription, you might be surprised at what you learn. RSI is not something we should be afraid of in this day and age, with everything we know about the human organism.

<comment><USER12> >Mind-Body Prescription

In this acclaimed volume, Dr. Sarno reveals how many painful conditions- including most neck and back pain, migraine, repetitive stress injuries, whiplash, and tendonitises-are rooted in _repressed emotions_ (book description from amazon)

Excuse me while i chuckle heartily

<comment><USER29> Half-jokingly: it's repressed emotions that usually cause reactions like that :)

I haven't read Sarno's book but I've read the books by another prominent author in this genre, after battling stubborn health conditions for years without respite.

Addressing repressed emotions has been the thing that made the difference for me, without doubt.

Other things have been important too (diet, exercise, sleep, etc) - but none of that made a persistent difference without addressing the emotions, and none of those things were possible to adhere to consistently without also addressing emotional issues.

I know several people who have gone through a similar journey and all found that the emotional approach was the one that worked when others didn't.

And yep, we all know a lot about the placebo effect, thanks.

<comment><USER12> just goto a doctor and leave this newage stuff in the bin where it belongs. pain management is a different thing from pain alleviation.

<comment><USER29> Sarno was a conventional physician.

Nothing about his theories are "newage" or anti-scientific. Indeed, theories around pain must surely be less scientific if they rely on a dualistic notion of the mind and body being seperate entities.

Plenty of people visit mainstream doctors for pain conditions and are told that nothing can be done other than pain medication, which as we're now witnessing, can too often lead to addiction and death.

Whereas people who adopt the Sarno approach can and do achieve complete healing of the emotional and physical aspects of their illness.

If you actually have any expertise to add to the discussion please share it, otherwise, please step aside and allow grown adults to make their own judgements about what works for them.

<comment><USER12> you've gone into ad hominem territory and are claiming to be a grown adult, i'll let you go about your business but trying to claim it's not quackery will get you shot down in any forum. linking your medical and mental condition breaks down very quickly

<comment><USER29> There was no ad-hom. My point was that you're denying the judgements of grown adults about what is effective for them, and you haven't provided any insights with any expert backing but rather are just contemptuously arguing for adherence to what you consider to be mainstream orthodoxy.

Recall that this whole subthread began with your mockery of a method developed by a mainstream-qualified doctor that has helped thousands of people over many years.

The thing is, what you're arguing for is not even part of mainstream medical orthodoxy.

Mainstream medical literature linking chronic muscle-tension and pain to mental health is plentiful, along with the effectiveness of mainstream psychiatric treatments like CBT, and less-mainstream-accepted practices like mindfulness and meditation.

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4526658/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4526658/)

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3237294/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3237294/)

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4914381/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4914381/)

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3200134/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3200134/)

[https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research- matters/meditat...](https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research- matters/meditation-cognitive-behavioral-therapy-ease-low-back-pain)

And here's a specific study on Sarno's technique:

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2955480/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2955480/)

I'm the first to concede that none of these studies are a home run. Human physiology is vastly complex and the factors leading to chronic illness and pain will inevitably be hard to isolate and different from one person to another.

But the plentiful supply of both anecdotal and clinical evidence warrants far more open-minded consideration than you're allowing for with your contemptuous dismissals.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> I learned to touch-type in QWERTY first, and then Dvorak.

Currently, my speed with the latter is significantly higher (~60 WPM vs. ~90 WPM), but as DSK is my primry layout, that's possibly just due to the relative amount of time that I spend using them.

However, subjectively, using Dvorak _feels_ nicer for me than QWERTY - temporarily using the latter feels like going back to a modeless editor after years of using a modal one (vim and emacs+evil).

Does anyone else get this feeling?

<comment><USER31> I feel the same. I don't have the memory of typing qwerty before I learned dvorak but I remember, after I learned Dvorak, how much more fluid it felt. Now it just feels normal. I don't currently touchtype qwerty so I don't have comparison.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> I find it surprising that a person who does not know touch typing would be interested of Dvorak in the first place; I mean for hunt'n'peck the layout does not really matter that much so they could have not understood the relative benefit of Dvorak all that well, and on the other hand learning touch typing (in any layout) would be the obvious first step. But I guess there is all sorts of people.

If you are interested in something not QWERTY, Dvorak is not the only game in town, and indeed many more modern alternatives (such as Colemak-DH) are supposed to be better by almost any metric. Of course that also means you are going deeper in to the niche, and there will be even less support out of the box for those.

If you are European programmer and want a quick easy ergonomics win, consider modifying your layout to put punctuation etc to more US aligned positions, or wherever they would be convenient. I do recommend following the US layout though. The punctuation crazyness in European layouts is one of my pet peeves.

<comment><USER32> I was actually surprised by the level of support for Colemak, when I switched two years ago. OSX and Windows support it out of the box, even my Kinesis Freestyle Edge has a preset layout available on the website. The only real annoyance from the software side is videogames defaulting keyboard controls to WASD, but that's hardly a significant issue. The real problems are on the hardware side; one has to either use blank keys or to hack something up. Even in the mechanical-keyboard communities there is no real attention for non- Qwerty users.

Colemak is awesome, btw. My hands and wrists feel even more relaxed than they did when I first switched to "split keyboards".

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> I have been using Dvorak for a few years. I think learning the skill was one of the weirdest experiences I have had. I went all in and switched the keys on my Macbook to dvorak, and went all in.

It can be frustrating in a way comparable to recovering from a stroke. Emails which normally take 2 min take 10+.

Eventually, it gets better, you start to gain speed and typing becomes normal again. I do like it, it definitely seems easier/efficient to touch type.

Using other computers is not weird, I can easily switch the layout if I plan on spending any significant time on them. The worst part is standard keyboard shortcuts sometimes lose their intuitiveness. Like scrolling with 'j' or 'k', on dvorak they are not close.

Overall, it is a fun challenge. If you commit you can become proficient in about a month, and it's more comfy to type in. But if you think it will be a 'lifechanging efficiency hack' you will be disappointed.

<comment><USER34> J and K are next to one another? QJKXBMWVZ...

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> There are lots of keyboard layouts:

[https://github.com/melling/ErgonomicNotes/blob/master/keyboa...](https://github.com/melling/ErgonomicNotes/blob/master/keyboards.org#alternate- keyboard-layouts)

Isn't the idea that your fingers travel less so it's healthier for your hands?

If you end up with RSI, you might find you're using your nose for input:

[http://www.looknohands.me](http://www.looknohands.me)

</comment><comment><USER35> I've used Dvorak for ~10.5 years (currently on my MacBook, Model M, and Android) and I definitely don't regret it at all. Couldn't tell you my WPM offhand from either now or 10 years ago, but I type pretty quickly and have no issues touch typing.

I might not necessarily recommend it to anyone else unless you're bored or have a good reason to invest in typing more quickly, but I don't recall the adjustment being very painful aside from a week or two of slow typing at the end of the summer break before my sophomore year of high school.

The only real downside is that writing code on someone else's machine is a PITA. On the other hand, it's a good deterrent to others asking to borrow my laptop (no one ever does more than once).

</comment><comment><USER36> I've been using Colemak for about 3.5 years. I think I was at 80wpm with qwerty and within 2 weeks I was up to 40wpm with colemak. Probably within a month or two I was back to 80wpm. I started using it for RSI reasons, but I'm not sure if it helped; I don't have RSI issues much anymore though. Biggest thing preventing me from switching again is VIM, I learned VIM right after I switched.

It took a really long time before my spelling adapted to colemak, I think 2-3years.

One of the nice things about colemak is that cxv are in the same position as qwerty so cut/copy/paste work the same, and the only special key that's moved is the semicolon.

</comment><comment><USER37> I've been a colemak user for a number of years, which has similar pros and cons.

I would say that it is not worth it for most people to change. You could get a lot of the benefit of colemak, with none of the pain, by converting your caps lock key into a second backspace.

The benefits are that it is slightly more comfortable, and you'll have less people trying to use your computer. Also, prior to learning colemak, I had not been typing fully correctly, and learning it forced me to realize that I had been using the wrong fingers for certain keys.

The downsides are the pain of switching, and the likelihood that you'll actually forget how to touch type on QWERTY.

And unless you buy expensive new keyboards with native colemak support, then things like BIOS screens, virtual machines, and so on will likely switch back to QWERTY on you, without much warning.

But on the other hand, buying a quality keyboard is actually a solid investment, considering how much time people spend at the computer. Personally, I recommend a heavy mechanical tenkeyless board. Heavy so that it won't move around. Tenkeyless to save desk space and so you don't need to reach your arm far just to use the mouse. And mechanical because it is much nicer to type on.

<comment><USER38> I've spent more years of my life now typing in Colemak than I ever did typing in QWERTY: I switched in about 2004 or so when I was touch-typing full sentences in the dark playing video games and my fingers started hurting even with a natural keyboard. After the switch, the hurt went away and hasn't returned. I can still touch-type in QWERTY, but oddly enough it depends on the keyboard make and model and my familiarity with it. I often use Mac so on a Apple keyboard my brain expects Colemak, but on touch screens and Dell/OEM keyboards I expect QWERTY. It helps that if I'm having trouble remembering the QWERTY layout I can just look at the keys to remind myself, then I can pick it up again. As FYI, Colemak is now natively supported on Mac, Linux, mobile, but... strangely has never made it to Windows almost two decades later...

<comment><USER32> Uhm, last I checked Colemak was available in Windows, but maybe I misremember...?

<comment><USER37> Yes, but you have to download it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> I've been typing dvorak for the past three years. I can touch type and switch between dvorak and qwerty.

I program in dvorak (vim), but my typing is much faster on qwerty(80 wpm on dvorak and 100 wpm on qwerty).

I also need to type in korean from time to time.

Trying to fit this configuration onto any specific new machine has been a pain. I've used karabiner, ukulele and what not for mac, and autohotkey for pc. I forget what I used for linux, but that was also a pita.

So dvorak was useful in speeding up my qwerty, but tbh most of that time was not really for utility that I experience now, but rather for the enjoyment of honing my tools. (The work never ended up getting done :)

So take what you will, I just think thinking about things you take for granted and taking the time to reprogram your mind (and sadistically challenge yourself) is not such a horrible use of your time...!

<comment><USER40> Perhaps someone could develop a USB dongle that can convert between keyboard layouts.

<comment><USER41> There are keyboards you can buy which have a switch on them that can toggle between QWERTY, Colemak and Dvorak

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> I used Dvorak for about 5 years. Switch to it was hard. Stopped in 2008 when I got a nice Dell XPS laptop at work without approval to mod the keyboard. Soon after that switched back to QWERTY with all the other computers as well.

Main issues during this _brief_ encounter:

\- there was not a really big difference in speed, even after the _training period_ ;

\- nobody was able to use my computer, having half of the keys blank also helped;

\- it was very hard to use normal QWERTY that happened to be... everywhere; every coworker had it; or laptop you had for taking random notes.

</comment><comment><USER43> On the same topic, but not with dvorak. I'm using a custom version of bépo[0] (kind of french dvorak, see [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keyboard_layout#B%C3%89PO](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keyboard_layout#B%C3%89PO)) since ~2009/2010, and don't plan to switch to something else anytime soon, but I wouldn't recommend anyone else to do switch if not to satisfy their curiosity (learning to create custom layout for windows, macos, and linux can be quite interesting).

> Dvorak was different. It forced me to learn to type properly, and eventually > I did.

That was for me the main benefits. When I started with bépo I couldn't look at my keyboard, and even if I thought at the time that I wasn't looking when typing, as soon as a tried a different layout I could see how often I was really doing it.

But bépo isn't great for english and programming, so I had to do some modifications to have a good way to access [], {}, (), <>, =, w, etc. And now I spent so much time using this layout that I don't see myself moving to anything else. It just feels natural, and very comfortable, and I only remember that I'm using something special when I try to use a coworker keyboard or play some games that require keyboard shortcuts (which isn't something I do that often).

Also, there is one really cool, fancy benefit: I have a very quick access to weird characters such as «» (french quotes), … ("..." character), — (long dash), ÷, ×, and a bunch of other weird accents, greek characters, symbols, etc :)

[0]: if you're curious, see [https://gist.github.com/dgellow/5915994](https://gist.github.com/dgellow/5915994) to see an xkb version. Config commented in french.

PS: I also have macos and windows version of the layout if someone is interested.

</comment><comment><USER44> I switched back to mechanical keyboards (actual buckling spring from unicomp) at home, and a cherry mx brown (real cherry switches) at work. The only reason for the browns at work is it's slightly less noisy.

I hate every laptop keyboard I've ever worked on. The least annoying beyond the early 2010's macbook keyboards before they reduced travel. Now they're a bit worse imho.

I'd have a horrible time switching, and have tried a number of alternates. Ergonomic options, etc. What made the rsi stuff better was a simple, mechanical keyboard and being able to register a click without always bottoming out.

The layout of different options is from bad to horrible. Especially arrow keys on some keyboards. Worst was one where the up arrow was left of the right shift key. Changing is hard and the difficulty cannot be understated.

</comment><comment><USER45> Dvorak reduces effort 25% over QWERTY [1]. I'm using QFMLWY, which reduces effort by 43% [2]. Unlike op, I'm very happy with my switch. It feels a lot more efficient and has greatly helped reduce wrist pains for me. The drawbacks are that it's difficult for other people to use my computer and that I've basically forgotten how to touch type in QWERTY, so am much slower there on the 1x/yr occasion where I have to use it.

1: [http://mkweb.bcgsc.ca/carpalx/?dvorak](http://mkweb.bcgsc.ca/carpalx/?dvorak)

2: [http://mkweb.bcgsc.ca/carpalx/?full_optimization](http://mkweb.bcgsc.ca/carpalx/?full_optimization)

<comment><USER46> They have metrics of how good it is, but does it depends on the language being used?

<comment><USER47> Yes, it does.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> If you want to learn how to touch type without changing your layout I can recommend getting blank keycaps, that very quickly got rid of my bad habit of looking at the keyboard to "make sure" the keys were actually where I thought they were when typing.

Also I think it's worth mentioning that the QWERTY layout was likely designed for transcribing Morse code which explains some parts of its layout.

[https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/fact-of- fiction-...](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/fact-of-fiction-the- legend-of-the-qwerty-keyboard-49863249/)

</comment><comment><USER49> Both the article and most of the comments here don't seem to touch the elephant in the room: There's no reliable scientific evidence for Dvorak or any other keyboard being any better.

Here's an article covering the flimsy evidence: [https://www.economist.com/finance-and- economics/1999/04/01/t...](https://www.economist.com/finance-and- economics/1999/04/01/the-qwerty-myth)

Is there a place for better keyboard layouts? Maybe. Show me properly controlled studies and I'll take it seriously.

<comment><USER50> Actually, the elephant in the room is that rearranging the keyboard map whilst still retaining the ISO 9995 parallelogram physical positioning is to entirely miss a major factor. (-:

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> I've used Dvorak for the past 15 years.

I have learned to touchtype qwerty at school and then regularly trained it for couple of years without much improvement at around 60wpm (yeah, I'm not very agile). Then one day I red a book (I believe it was Bill Gates "Business at the speed of thought") and decided to switch to Dvorak and use same methods I used to learn it at school. It took me a weekend and Monday but on Tuesday I was able to type Dvorak and couple of weeks later I plateaued at around 80wpm.

What I like about Dvorak layout is not that I can type faster but the feeling.

</comment><comment><USER51> I've used Dvorak for 10 years or so. Dvorak has no benefits when it comes to speed. It's all about comfort, and there IS a very big difference. I use Qwerty too now and then, and you really feel your fingers darting all over the place to a much higher degree.

I'm not sure I would recommend it unless you convert sometime during your high school or student years. I converted in the last year of high school. I have a colleague that converted just a year ago though, so it is possible after starting work as well

<comment><USER52> I learnt Dvorak well after school years. The hardest part was sticking to it during the first couple of weeks of horrible typing speeds.

I mainly use QWERTY now because it's convenient, but can easily switch back and forth.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> I tried Dvorak last year and the theory was great but it was a right pain in the ass for programming and using programs keyboard shortcuts in general.

Then I tried Colemak and all was good in the world.

</comment><comment><USER53> I have been using Dvorak for 10 years and I love it. I also type in three languages regurarily (English, Finnish and Japanese), and that would make it pain in the arse for anyone who doesn't have the energy to define their own layout.

Btw. I use a layout based on the Dvorak-⌘qwerty on Mac, which reverts the layout to QWERTY when the command button is pressed. That makes the keyboard shortcuts work better. On the other hand, it messes up some non-native apps, especially Java-based ones.

</comment><comment><USER54> For some reason noone mentioned the best Dvorak variation for programmers - Programmer Dvorak.

It has symbols instead of numbers. And it's just perfect for writing both code and regular text.

If you are a programmer and want to learn to touch type - that would be the best thing to learn.

[https://www.kaufmann.no/roland/dvorak/](https://www.kaufmann.no/roland/dvorak/)

</comment><comment><USER28> Cool article, I like honest reviews like this. I think a lot of people who learned Dvorak won't admit to themselves that it hasn't been worth it, because of the sunk cost (?) fallacy hindering objective self-reporting.

The thing with Dvorak is that putting all the vowels on the homerow for one hand actually turns out to be a bad idea. It's a classic example of a technical person trying to optimize something and actually making the thing worse. In Dvorak, one hand is flying all around the keyboard and making a wide variety of motions while the other is stuck in place, stiff as a board, typing at the homerow like a machine. You really can feel the difference after a day of typing like this -- the consonant hand feeling healthy with the vowel hand feeling cramped. If RSI were a real phenomenon then learning Dvorak would surely make it worse, but fortunately RSI is psychological so Dvorak and the expectation effect actually make it better usually.

QWERTY turns out to be a pretty good layout because of the mostly random location of the keys. It's actually a good thing. You want your hands to be moving, not staying in one place or they'll stiff up. Learning alternate layouts has negative net benefits and the worst thing is that because of human psychology, people who undertake the difficult (but useless) endeavor of switching layouts can't look at the results objectively.

</comment><comment><USER55> I switched to Dvorak in 2009, so effectively 10 years ago.

I don't generally recommend it to people, but I don't regret switching. It's never been a problem, other than discouraging me from learning Vim.

I learned to touch-type while learning Dvorak, and I can't type in QWERTY anymore, so I can't really tell how much of the benefits can be attributed to Dvorak vs touch-typing.

</comment><comment><USER56> > Dvorak isn't perfect, mainly because most computer interfaces have been > designed around a QWERTY interface since their inception. For example, while > on a QWERTY keyboard the adjacent shortcuts for Cut, Copy, and Paste can all > be pressed with a single hand, Dvorak turns most of them into a two-handed > affair.

In macOS, you can use the "Dvorak-QWERTY" layout to solve this.

<comment><USER41> Why not use Colemak to solve it?

</comment></comment><comment><USER57> There's a great site to compare how the typing spreads against keyboard layouts.

[https://www.patrick-wied.at/projects/heatmap-keyboard/](https://www.patrick- wied.at/projects/heatmap-keyboard/)

Personally I'm excited to try out Colemak and it's already supported on macOS by default too.

</comment><comment><USER58> I tried dvorak for a little while. Had the same impression as most. It feels good and many letter combos flow smoothy off the fingers. But no significant gains in speed.

I switched back to qwerty for the ubiquity. Despite having no grand design behind it, qwerty gets many things right by accident. Many common letter combos bang out nicely under qwerty too.

</comment><comment><USER59> His gist is Dvorak is faster than Qwerty _only_ because touch typing is faster than hunt and peck. He cannot touch type in Qwerty so he has no grounds to make any claim as to their relative merits at all, and the only reason he seems to have written this article is to brag he can touch type Dvorak on a Qwerty keyboard.

</comment><comment><USER60> Dvorak fixed my RSI, and works very well for polyglot hackers after a few simple key swaps: [https://blog.yourlabs.org/post/168827162258/dvorak-intl- code...](https://blog.yourlabs.org/post/168827162258/dvorak-intl-code- keyboard-layout-update)

</comment><comment><USER61> Forget Dvorak. I have enough trouble going back and forth between the US and UK/Euro QWERTY layouts!

</comment><comment><USER62> For computer programming, a rarely mentioned advantage of Dvorak is that it makes typing underscores much easier. For lisping, hyphens. That's a great choice of a home row punctuation key.

<comment><USER63> I used to dread snake case before I switched to dvorak

</comment></comment><comment><USER64> I've used Dvorak for over ten years, but I think if you're concerned that typing speed is the bottleneck in 2019 then maybe you should re-evaluate your work. :-P

<comment><USER41> It's not about speed. The real story is in the comfort it provides long term.

</comment></comment><comment><USER65> Anyone try the workman layout?

[https://workmanlayout.org/](https://workmanlayout.org/)

</comment><comment><USER46> I switched to Dvorak 6 years ago and my hands (mainly the external part) never hurt again.

<comment><USER46> I also created a layout to use my Apple keyboard on Windows. [https://github.com/edpichler/Apple-Dvorak-on- Windows](https://github.com/edpichler/Apple-Dvorak-on-Windows)

</comment></comment><comment><USER66> I have a very similar experience with bépo (french dvorak-like layout).

</comment><comment><USER67> Try typing "ls -l" on Dvorak. Not fun.

</comment><comment><USER68> isn't colemak the new hotness anyhow?

</comment><comment><USER69> Same journey for me. I went from using AZERTY without touch typing to QGMLWY with touch typing ([http://mkweb.bcgsc.ca/carpalx/?full_optimization](http://mkweb.bcgsc.ca/carpalx/?full_optimization)). I practised with [https://thetypingcat.com/](https://thetypingcat.com/) and zty.pe. It took ~3 months@30m/day to get to 60wpm, then I made the switch and it took about a week to get comfortable using it everyday.

Some takeways:

\- the keyboard layout doesn't matter _that_ much, what matters most is touch typing vs not touch typing

\- I still cannot touch type with azerty. The touch typing skill does not transfer to the other layout surprisingly. On mobile I use qwerty, but I don't type that much on mobile.

\- On OSx, I use this horror of a script: [https://github.com/pinouchon/keybest/blob/master/rewrite_c/a...](https://github.com/pinouchon/keybest/blob/master/rewrite_c/alterkeys.c). It works fine, except that some password inputs use the mapping, some don't, which is slightly annoying. On ubuntu, I use XKB. I made it work through days of digging the documentation, XKB is the most confusing thing ever.

\- The QGMLWY mapping preserves ctrl-x, c, v, z so cutting and pasting is not an issue

\- I re-learned ctrl+letter and cmd+letter hotkeys. I like them better with the new layout.

\- I created a custom layer called 'gamma' for coding with the modifier on the 'm' key: with the following layers: "top: #[({<>})]^ middle: ;=:"'/_-! bottom: ~?$\&+*.,". For coding this is invaluable. For example, to type underscore, my fingers don't move, it's just simultaneous pinky+index while staying in home- row position. On traditional layouts or not-so traditional layouts (qwerty, dvorak, colemak), modifiers are all over the place and don't take into account special character frequency.

\- I also have a 'alpha' layer for movement that I do use. I moved the shift and tab keys. I also tried moving backspace and enter keys but ended up keeping their original positions.

\- One added benefit with messing so much with the keyboard is that when I need a new hotkey or a special mapping for a game (where the default bindings are stupid), I can jump to my script and create a special mapping for that game.

\- One big downside is that whenever I switch OS, I have to redo my keyboard setup otherwise I cannot use the keyboard

\- Like others have mentioned, a neural interface would be better

<comment><USER43> > On OSx, I use this horror of a script: > [https://github.com/pinouchon/keybest/blob/master/rewrite_c/a...](https://github.com/pinouchon/keybest/blob/master/rewrite_c/a...). > It works fine, except that some password inputs use the mapping, some don't, > which is slightly annoying.

For macOS you can use Ukulele to create your own layout.

[https://scripts.sil.org/cms/scripts/page.php?site_id=nrsi&id...](https://scripts.sil.org/cms/scripts/page.php?site_id=nrsi&id=ukelele)</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Help please – OCR Software - <AUTHOR>

Hi HN,
Part of my business requires customers to verify their account by uploading a picture of themselves holding a note with handwritten code on it. It is currently being done manually. I looked into free OCR software in hope to automate the process but the results are terrible at best. I have not tried any paid software yet. Can anyone shed some light on this and share their experiences/ideas/solutions?
Cheers <comment><USER2> I use OCRKit on the Mac, it's rather inexpensive, integrates well in workflows and works really well. Perfect for making PDF indexable for instance.

I scan on my phone with an app that saves on dropbox, and Hazel launches any new PDF saved to that specific dropbox folder in OCRKit.</comment>


The Revenues of a Moderately Successful iPad App - <AUTHOR> http://www.remembary.com/blog/remembarys-return-the-revenues-of-a-moderately-successful-ip.html

<comment><USER2> Really fantastic article, complete with graphs and solid numbers, as well as detailed explanations of those figures.

The underlying theme in all app pricing advice I've seen is that if you're not in the top 100, the actual price of your app matters very little. That is completely borne out here, with price increases resulting in more revenue and about the same rate of units sold.

<comment><USER3> It's bizarre, but I've had this experience as well. Last October, I started raising the price of my app by $1 every week or two. The total number of purchases per week varied very little, so I ended up leaving the price at $9.99 (the highest I tried).

<comment><USER4> I experience something different. From $0.99 up to $9.99, no matter what price I set, my daily income remained essentially the same. Before you ask, the amount was greater than $0.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Thanks for sharing. The diary/journal app space is pretty crowded, otherwise I think you would be selling a lot more apps. The one thing that I noticed is that there aren't many reviews. I think that reviews are key when someone is evaluating your app for purchase.

<comment><USER6> (BTW I'm the author of the article and the developer of Remembary)

Thanks for reading. It is true that the diary space is crowded - and the lock- in on a diary app is pretty strong once people pick one. Getting reviews is of course a bit of a chicken-and-egg problem: reviews help get users, but you can't get reviews without users in the first place. I've got a link in the app for the review page, but I thought an interruptive pop-up box wouldn't be appropriate for a personal diary.

I've worked hard on distinctive and powerful features for the latest releases, but I have a nagging suspicion that my big boost in sales recently was from rearranging the screenshots on the app page to highlight the "Jane Austen" handwriting font.

I'm really looking forward to seeing how the "lite" iPhone and Universal versions work out - but I have to find some time to build them first.

<comment><USER2> I can definitely imagine you picking up some sales from people searching "Jane Austen" and finding this app, then seeing the screenshot and making an impulse buy.

That said, I can hardly imagine using a font like that, personally. It's fairly strongly illegible.

<comment><USER6> It actually gets easier to read over time - but I'll admit I didn't include it for legibility but rather how distinctive it looks. App sales seem to be a balance between well-implemented innovative features and flashy-looking hype.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Nice read. I am very curious about iPad apps and their revenue, some time ago I asked around here about the profit ratio between the iPhone and the iPad for those apps focused on both platforms but I got no response and I did get some upvotes so I guess it's something people would like to know a little better. Anyone?

Original submission: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2845158>

<comment><USER8> I'd definitely be curious to see a comparison from someone who wrote an iPhone and iPad optimized version of an application and released in the same time frame.

The other thing I'd be interested in seeing is if someone did a study on the buying habits of iPad vs. iPhone (heck, lets generalize and say tablet vs. smartphone) application buyers. I have a feeling we'd see more apps being purchased in the smartphone arena as people buy-try-dump apps on the go, whereas there'd be a more stable market in the tablet space where people research which apps to buy because they use the tablet for longer durations.

<comment><USER6> My next step is to extend Remembary to be a Universal iPhone/iPad app, and to build a cheaper 'impulse buy' iPhone version with only a few of the key features. I'll definitely be writing a follow-up with the details of how that goes.

I just need to find some time to actually build these versions!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> My iPad app got a bunch of good reviews, was featured in stores all over the world, and pulled close to 100 sales a day for the first week. It's looking like lifetime revenue is still going to be in four figures though. When I consider how much time it took to write, I could have easily made 10x the money consulting.

I know there are indie devs out there doing well on the app store but statistically speaking I'm not sure it's a smart investment of time compared to other options. Prices are too low and there's just too much competition.

</comment><comment><USER6> Addendum: Having a post about your app on the front page of Hacker News = several thousand hits, but no extra sales. Funnily enough, this is the exact same experience I had with AdWords.

Have to say I feel much better with the hits from HN than AdWords.

</comment><comment><USER10> Thanks for the writeup and the honesty.</comment>


Antikythera Mechanism - <AUTHOR> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antikythera_mechanism <comment><USER2> The YouTube channel clickspring is building this in their hobby machine shop. Really goes into detail as well as guessing how they would have built it back then. Fantastic channel in general.

<comment><USER3> The last video also really demonstrates how incredibly complex the mechanism is. It manages to fairly accurately simulate the moons orbit around earth using an ingenious set of gears for example.

</comment></comment><comment> java-man Next time we see gears like this happened something like after 1,500 years. Imagine where human kind would be if progress kept pace without this giant gap!</comment>


The nerves and vasculature of the clitoris are absent from OB/GYN literature - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@jessica86/ob-gyns-dont-learn-the-nerves-and-vasculature-of-the-clitoris-ccc56e55ac90 <comment><USER2> This is pretty interesting. The comments are also interesting. The author of this article was apparently banned from /r/feminism and a well-known ob/gyn feminist disagrees with the author's position. That makes me hesitant to simply believe what the author is saying without digging deeper myself.

I don't think we had more focus on male anatomy in medical school than on female anatomy. In fact, I'm pretty sure it was quite the opposite. There's a whole unit on female anatomy and a compulsory ob/gyn rotation, but not a compulsory urology rotation (most students don't even get to do a urology term). This suggests to me the isn't some conspiracy in medicine against female anatomy.

Though, I can certainly believe the author's claims. Tradition holds too much weight in medicine. Also, it's ridiculous how few lay people actually know what a vagina is. Most times I see/hear that word they are actually talking about the vulva.

<comment><USER3> Hey jazoom, I am not sure how or why I got banned from r/feminism. I think it may have been because the initial article was titled, "OB/GYNs don't learn the nerves and vasculature of the clitoris." This was a problematic title, as some may know it.

The biggest reason you see OB/GYNs saying they know it is because they think they know it, but they don't. This becomes apparent when they start saying things like, "the nerves are very small and difficult to dissect" or even "the nerves are microscopic." Because the anatomy is is some general anatomy textbooks like Grant's, Clemente, and Netter, it is taught in some medical schools (Wash U, U Chicago), and some people are actually learning it (more so than I thought).

I also realized they have included the anatomy longer than previously thought, as I previously relied too much on a physician ex to tell me what was in the textbooks. The main anatomy textbook he had in med school, Rohen's still doesn't have it. I have updated my article to try to explain that sometimes it is taught in medical school. I know as of 2012, it was not taught at UTSW. I know that on r/residency, most of the doctors who answer me telling me I don't know what I'm talking about do not know it. Some even tell me the nerves are "microscopic."

I'm talking, specifically, about the exclusion of clitoral anatomy. So, sure, the vagina, cervis, uterus, and ovaries are covered in depth. However, female sexual response is very important. People will think the anatomy is there because the anatomy is shown and/or described leading up to it.

Maybe OB/GYNs do learn it. But if they do, the ones that do are being quite negligent in not speaking up about the omission from their textbooks. They are also failing to mention it in journal articles on sexual function or female genital cosmetic surgery. Right? So why aren't they mentioning it if they know it? One OB/GYN I talk to did mention it in his textbook on genital cosmetic surgeries, but he actually misquoted his source, so it's slightly incorrect. He has been super supportive though.

However, some general anatomy textbooks still don't know it. Here is a review I just posted on Gray's Anatomy. [https://medium.com/@jessica86/sexism-in- grays-anatomy-the-an...](https://medium.com/@jessica86/sexism-in-grays- anatomy-the-anatomical-basis-for-clinical-practice-41e-d1a95695467d)

I have been posting reviews with screen shots so people can see what I'm saying is true. I also posted photos of clitorises, which include some cadaver dissections at the bottom, to show people what this anatomy looks like.

I've also thought maybe there should be a way to put money behind my claims. I can also get my plastic surgeon father to verify everything I say as far as it being dangerous and messed up that the anatomy isn't in the textbooks. He also thinks fundamentally the refusal to add it to boards means GYNs aren't going to know it.

The biggest way to solve it is to just get it added to board exams. If they "know" it, they can test for it on boards.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Caution: graphic illustrations of anatomy. Probably not safe for work, unless you're a surgeon.

<comment><USER2> Genuine question: will people actually get offended if they walk past your screen and get a glimpse of an anatomical drawing?

Or is it seen as a not-appropriate-for-work thing? If so, why not? I'd think more of my colleague for reading this in their lunch break than reading through their Facebook feed. I would be even more impressed if that colleague wasn't a doctor.

<comment><USER5> Maybe not offended, but it's very hard to justify as even remotely work- related. In many companies, their policy is to use their resources for work activity only. It's CYA from multiple angles.

<comment><USER2> But that's nothing to do with the NSFW warning. I purposely included the comment about browsing Facebook to make this more clear.

<comment><USER5> Someone could be offended if they considered it something other than educational (sexual, religious, political). That's highly subjective, though, which is why most companies have policies to use company resources only for official use. Also, depending on the workplace, some people might get pissed by seeing their coworkers idly browsing the web at work.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Do you want open source or free software? - <AUTHOR> I wonder how many would pay for open source software.<p>Are there examples of successful open source software that is not free? <comment><USER2> You're probably asking the wrong question. When you oppose "open source" to "free", the term "free" is usually not used in the sense of "free beer" but in the sense of the free software movement, since open source software isn't necessarily "free".

When it comes to monetization, you might want to ask, what exactly people are willing to pay for -- the right to install % use the software, to modify the software, to get support etc. -- for what type of software.

<comment><AUTHOR> Exactly I think most of the times people want free software, as you said the open aspect is for the ones who want transparency, do security audits, modify etc.

I wonder though if open but not free (can contribute but not fork) is sustainable or even doable. Is there a standard license type for this kind of software?

<comment><USER2> Open but not free is what Microsoft and others do/did in some projects. That's one of the reasons why Stallman is so eager to draw the line between open and free software.

Example: Java's stdlib source code is open for you to read it but you're not free to modify it and redistribute it according to your likings.

(A few) People pay developers of free software to get support (e.g. some libs), for professional editions (e.g. some IDEs), or to support further development (e.g. some Android apps).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> I want open source and Free (as in freedom) software. And I value privacy, freedom and democracy so much it is not a problem to pay good money for such software. Luckily privacy, freedom and democracy respecting software is almost always also free as in beer, so I don't need to pay for it if I can't. But this doesn't stop me from donating to projects creating such software. In fact I have invested a lot more money in such free as in beer and freedom software than I have wasted on closed-source/proprietary/totalitarian.

</comment><comment><USER4> I think to RedHat, the Linux distribution. With the not-free version, the user can have a support from the RedHat team.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah, unfortunately I don't particularly fancy this business model. Support and consulting can't be automate.

<comment><USER5> You're looking for something automatable that will generate you money while being based on a third party's open source code?</comment></comment></comment>


At stackshare Gsuite is used by 17.200 companies vs. MS Office 173 - <AUTHOR> https://stackshare.io/stackups/g-suite-vs-microsoft-office-365 <comment><USER2> All this tells us is that Stackshare isn't good at detecting usage of either platform.</comment>