Amazon workers sleeping in tents - <AUTHOR> https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/news/local/fife/325800/exclusive-amazon-workers-sleeping-in-tents-near-dunfermline-site/ <comment><USER2> Given all the handwringing on HN in the last month about fake/biased news, it's ironic to see so many comments latching onto this story with "well duh, we always knew Amazon was a terrible employer, and here's more proof!"

I'm not going to try to defend Amazon - it certainly has many employment issues both in the FCs and at HQ. But this story specifically is virtually content-free. Most of it's content is to be found in the first sentence: "At least three tents have been spotted in woodland beside the online retail giant's base just off the M90 in Dunfermline in recent days" and then later it emerges that they managed to find one occupied tent whose occupant was using the tent to avoid commuting from his home. The rest of the article strings together innuendo and rehashes talking points to try to build the desired narrative and mental picture of a tent city full of freezing, starving Amazon FC workers.

A truthful headline would have been "An Amazon worker sleeps in a tent near Dunfermline site to avoid long commute", but then that would neither have sparked the same moral outrage nor garnered the same number of clicks.

<comment><USER3> > He added that he had opted to stay in a tent as it was easier and cheaper > than commuting from his home in Perth, although his camping equipment had > disappeared by Friday afternoon.

Perth and the Dunfermline site are roughly 30 miles apart, on public transport the trip would take roughly 2 hours.

Sounds like a great idea castigate an employer in a semi-rural area with piss poor public transportation.

<comment><USER4> Honestly, you're never going to have good public transportation in rural areas. There simply isn't the density to support it. It's a given that efficient transportation in such areas happens via car, which is a huge problem if you're working a job at a place like an Amazon warehouse that doesn't pay enough money to be able to easily afford a car.

Some potential future network of public transportation provided via self- driving cars excepted.

<comment><USER5> There's hourly buses from Perth to Dunfermline and very infrequent direct trains: the real problem isn't the ruralness of it, it's getting out to the industrial estate on the edge of town where Amazon's site is located that makes it take so long.

<comment><USER4> Ruralness is the exact problem, though. That's why the buses are only hourly and trains are infrequent: Not enough population density to justify the increased expense of running more. I live in Manhattan, and trains and buses are waaaay more frequent.

<comment><USER5> Right, but at the same time there's still a very large difference between a token, once-a-day service and an hourly service: an hourly service is sufficient for many to use it for commuting (and while I haven't ever been on the X55, the majority of other buses in the area which have hourly services are heavily used by commuters and I've seen them have to turn passengers away upon occasion).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I don't like this article because it seems like a purely emotional appeal.

To be sure, there's a lot of people who have said that Amazon is a shitty place to work: not just in entry level jobs, but even as a well-educated 6 figure software engineer. I would not choose to work for Amazon unless I was desperate, period. It seems too corporate and too micromanaged a place to work and the few good things about working there that I've heard like small teams don't outweigh all of the negatives.

That being said, Amazon isn't a government entity that is responsible for your housing and they have no right to tell you where to sleep at night.

Look at this section of the article in particular.

> One worker, who did not wish to be named, was reluctant to speak to The > Courier but did describe the firm as a "poor employer" and criticised > working practices at the Fife site. He added that he had opted to stay in a > tent as it was easier and cheaper than commuting from his home in Perth, > although his camping equipment had disappeared by Friday afternoon.

This is a guy took the best job that was available to him (even though it's far away from his house) who is doing this by choice for a period of time as he believes that this decision benefits him the most. I don't see anything wrong with this. I feel bad for him if his stuff got stolen because of the extra media attention there: the reporter was probably intending to do something nice for them and it might end up backfiring.

But really, what can Amazon do about this? For that one example, that's a guy that already has a home but chooses not use it out of convenience. If they offered seasonal workers some extra resources and facilities (say use of the parking lot to sleep in safer at night) to make their lives easier, they'd instantly be accused of exploiting workers and there would be images of tent cities on the news every night trying to make them look bad.

<comment><USER7> > But really, what can Amazon do about this?

They could pay their workers a living wage and not treat them like dogs.

<comment><USER8> Supply and demand.

<comment><USER9> The Silicon Valley empathy vacuum strikes again.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Let me describe my experience with the application process. I did not accept the job.

I applied to be an Amazon Fulfillment Specialist (or whatever they're called) back when I was without a job in Silicon Valley a few months ago.

I applied online and got the job offer without any interview at all whatsoever. They asked me to attend a 'training session' in a conference room at a nearby hotel. When the doors opened, there were tables lined up on the perimeter of the conference room with a small projector in the middle that illuminated the Amazon logo on the screen. In one corner, people started lining up to get their photo taken and were also given a piece of paper with their name and other information like a candidate number. After you had your photo taken, you had to take a seat at one of the tables which had a swab stick for a drug test as well as some other paperwork for the drug test (like a consent form). The presenter was a real prick because when people asked him questions he would be very assertive and act as if people were wasting his time trying to get through the slideshow, which described their work ethics and talked more about the job. At some point we got to the drug test part which involved the presenter slowly going step by step through the process and checking to make sure we were all in sync. Once we were done, we put the drug test into some kind of bag and were free to go.

Overall, the process was horrendous and really showed that Amazon just wants anyone and everyone to become part of their fulfillment center. It doesn't surprise me that people would sleep outside of the fulfillment center given how smooth sailing the hiring process is, if it's anything like what I went through. It's meant to be open and 'friendly' to anyone without any recent drug usage.

<comment><USER11> > process was horrendous and really showed that Amazon just wants anyone and > everyone to become part of their fulfillment center

It sounds like you're saying this is a bad thing. Here we are with a hiring process that really lives up to the ideals we've been preaching for the past 50 years. Equality. Actual, real equality. Women, Blacks, Ethnic Undesirables, Special Needs... It doesn't matter who you are, you can get the job.

And it's "horrendous."

For what it's worth, I actually agree with you, but it does seem telling that this process that clearly lives up to the requirements all the underprivileged of our society demanded, we call it horrendous.

Are you suggesting that a meritocracy is better?

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I worked for an Amazon fulfilment centre in Scotland, I don't want to say too much on the matter, as it'd be quite negative. It's suffice to say, this does not surprise me in the slightest.

<comment><USER13> Doesn't that imply that Scotland's inadequate legal and social structures leave them to <hope> that Amazon behaves in a morally generous way? Let's say that Amazon starts paying their workers more. Should the workers of Scotland then go to sleep, comfortable underneath the blanket of Amazon's incidental moral generosity?

Shouldn't the workers of Scotland, if they have the ear of their fellow countrymen, move to change the legal and social structure in which Amazon is only one of many members? What about the company that behaves cruely but isn't big enough to reach the news like Amazon does?

This is why I don't have faith in moral narratives.

<comment><USER14> I think you intended this comment as snark, but the irony of it is that Scotland is today part of the UK, but was almost --- and will likely be within the next few years, as a result of Brexit --- an independent country _precisely_ because its citizens don't agree with the policies set in England on its behalf.

Scotland is quite a bit more liberal than the rest of the UK; it does indeed see more of its future in the social democracies of northern Europe.

<comment><USER13> No I don't mean for my comment to deliver emotional impact or to be carried through vehicles of sarcasm or irony.

And whether Scotland becomes independent, my point remains -- you can ask why Amazon pays minimum wage, or you can ask why minimum wage is so low.

Depending on Amazon to be moral is as inadequate a solution as hoping for noblesse oblige. It's more interesting to discuss the <mechanics> of why Amazon class entities will pay higher wages.

Or people can morally shame <one> Amazon event, just like people who disagreed with Peter Thiel's influence in the sex tape case instinctually shame <one> Peter Thiel event. Whether you're asking for Amazon or Peter Thiel to "do the right thing", you're asking for noblesse oblige.

This kind of moral shaming does not scale, it depends on flash outrage, and companies that play the long game in media will beat this kind of ad-hoc moral shaming.

I also wanted to discuss not merely government structure, but also social structure, to imply that multiple parties need to fail for classes of workers to be exploited. The net of your society is the reason why Amazon is permitted to exploit an individual, and that includes churches, advocacy organizations, unions, etc.

I thought that discussion of both hard and soft structures is the better way to go, or we can hope that outrage continues to shows up at the right time and the right place.

<comment><USER15> No, we can ask why any profitable large corporation thinks its ok to pay starvation wages to their workers. Its not right; they have the money to pay more; they don't. I'm asking why.

<comment><USER13> Is it right for you to have drinking water delivered through modern technologies and systems? Is that your moral right?

Should we discuss whether you have the moral right to water, or should we discuss the formal plans to erect an infrastructure of water?

The latter doesn't require you to do any serious moral labor (deliberation and consensus work). You need only want. Do we both want something? Then we already have a basis for discussion. The question of whether you want workers to be paid more is far easier to answer than the question of whether moral consensus on workers wages can be achieved in your lifespan.

 _Also, how many moral frameworks for achieving moral consensus are you aware of?_ There are certainly frameworks for achieving empirical consensus on policy effectiveness.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Someone very close to me works at a newly constructed Amazon fulfilment center. She was told she would be a "sortation expert" and when she arrived was told her job had changed and she would now be the person loading trucks with packages that weigh up to 49 pounds... Not ideal considering she weighs 110 pounds bit whatever, she has agreed to the job. The shady stuff is how they schedule workers. Only 4 hours a day "so your muscles are fresh" according to a supervisor. They also mysteriously had no work to do on Thanksgiving so everyone was sent home (so they didn't have to pay time and a half we later learned). But the next couple days after they we absolutely slammed. Also they reward employees that are forced to stay late with $5 swag gift cards for the Amazon store, not Amazon. It's seasonal and temporary so it's not a huge deal but I couldn't imaginr working for a company like that permanently.

<comment><USER17> I suspect the "up to 49 pounds" is some sort of legal limit on the amount of weight a healthy adult is expected to be able to carry.

<comment><USER18> It is. (Or rather, 50 lbs is; I'm guessing someone rounded down here.)

You probably see this most often when traveling: Normal checked suitcases must be at most 50lbs. (Typically up to 70lbs is allowed if you pay an extra fee, but the bag then needs a "HEAVY" sticker, which alerts ground crew to handle it carefully to avoid injuries.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Say what you will about the conditions at places like Foxconn in China, but at least they provide food and shelter.

I wonder if there is an opportunity for western companies to build factories on a smaller scale to Foxconn where employees live on campus. Wages could be low, but with basic services provided it could be a chance for low wage earners to save up some money. The costs might be too high for it to work on that scale though.

<comment><USER20> > I wonder if there is an opportunity for western companies to build factories > on a smaller scale to Foxconn where employees live on campus. Wages could be > low, but with basic services provided it could be a chance for low wage > earners to save up some money. The costs might be too high for it to work on > that scale though.

How quickly we forget history.

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

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

<comment><USER21> I was gonna say, didn't this lead to exploitation and almost slave-labor before?

I mean with some strong regulation things might be different, but with the political landscape as it is I don't think it would work out.

<comment> the-dude The Netherlands has several 'Company neighbourhoods', I was raised in one. They were typically built before the second world war and they were actually meant to 'enable the working class'. Build quality was good and had quite some space for the time. Layout of the neighbourhood was not dense but left spaces open for nature and play.

Facilities included schools, sports accomodation etc. PSV, a dutch premier league football team is a project of Phillips the former electronics giant. PSV -> Phillips Sport Vereniging.

And Phillips built neighbourhoods, schools and public swimming pools too.

Ah well ... sigh ( I was not raised in a Phillips neighbourhood btw ).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Amazon is the new Wal-Mart. I stopped shopping at Wal-Mart around 2008 I think. I stopped shopping at Amazon after returning to the states. The real price of low prices is too high.

<comment><USER23> Where and how do you shop now?

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Why are these people working for Amazon if it's so bad and what would they be doing if it were not for Amazon? It's not like they're conscripting workers in the dead of the night and shackling them to the warehouse. I'm not saying there shouldn't be labor rules, work week hours, etc, but if they're not breaking any laws what's the big deal?

Every few months we see articles about programmers working at $SILICON_VALLEY_BIG_CORP that lives in a van outside the office or sleeps under his desk at night. The worker is usually a combination of frugal and nutty. What's the difference between that and this?

<comment><USER25> From the article:

 _> He added that he had opted to stay in a tent as it was easier and cheaper than commuting from his home in Perth, although his camping equipment had disappeared by Friday afternoon._

<comment><USER5> For those with no idea about the geography of this part of the world: it's about a 30 minute drive down the motorway, and from memory congestion only gets particularly bad further south on it at rush hour, so even at rush hour it won't be that much longer.

Of course, the big difference with the programmer under the desk is the programmer is unlikely to be earning minimum wage. Anyone 25 and over, working 60 hours a week at minimum wage, is earning £432/week. If we assume they're working those hours or on vacation all year, their take home pay is £355/week. If we assume fuel costs of ~£4.50 each way, then if they're working five days a week that's ~13% of their income, or if six days ~15%.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> >I focus very heavily, especially in peak times, on associate experience.

Why do they call their workers that? I also can't imagine how much I'd hate working for minimum wage in a warehouse for an alleged 60 hours a week with a DJ playing. It doesn't sound all that fun.

</comment><comment><USER27> This is hardly Amazon's problem: If the minimum wage is not liveable, MSPs such as the one criticising Amazon in the article should work to increase it.

<comment><USER4> It's absolutely partly Amazon's problem. They're highly profitable, and they could choose to pay a living wage (other companies do), but they do not. I don't understand this impulse to absolve companies of all responsibility save from things they are legally mandated to do.

<comment><USER28> The only reason most companies pay a living wage is because they have to, to attract enough employees. Amazon pays as little as it does because it can. Almost the entire employment age population is qualified to work in a warehouse (I've done it). There is almost no competition for employees at that level, they're everywhere.

People who can code and run huge network operations are relatively rare, so they're paid a lot; it's competition for scarce employees. It has nothing to do with responsibility. If Google could pay minimum wage it would.

Not defending Amazon, just pointing out that they're paying the least they have to, just like Google is paying the least they have to.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> How is this different than Brandon living out of a truck in a Google parking lot? (Ignoring the separate issue of whether Amazon is a good/bad place to work.)

[http://www.geekwire.com/2015/this-google-employee-lives- in-a...](http://www.geekwire.com/2015/this-google-employee-lives-in-a-truck- in-the-companys-parking-lot-to-save-money-on-rent/)

<comment><USER30> I would imagine a software engineer at Google is earning a lot more than £7.35 an hour, and could easily move into a better place to live if they wanted to.

<comment><USER31> If you are earning £7.35 an hour, assuming 37.5 hours a week, that is £1,076.11 per month after taxes. Zoopla has quite a few properties to rent in Dumfirmline for under £500 per month [0] - it isn't SF prices.

I'd take a guess and say that the people doing this are seasonal workers who live further away. It's not worth relocating for a few months, and commuting for 2 hours per day isn't nice (from Edinburgh during rush hour it could easily take over an hour to get to Amazon's warehouse), so this is their choice.

[0] [http://www.zoopla.co.uk/to- rent/property/dunfermline/?price_...](http://www.zoopla.co.uk/to- rent/property/dunfermline/?price_frequency=per_month&price_max=500&q=Dunfermline%2C%20Fife&results_sort=newest_listings&search_source=home)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> I just bought $250 worth of about a dozen Christmas presents from Amazon. Assuming $20 per item, I'd like to know how much goes to wages (I'm guessing less than $1). If it may not significantly raise prices to double wages, I'd like to know why companies are so reluctant to do so. It seems illogical when customers would generally pay more to know they aren't ripping someone off.

Short of that, I recommend that we stop pointing the finger at these large multinational corporations. They are incentivized at every level to skirt the law as close as possible to maximize profits. Historically the only thing that ever changed that was pressure from the demand side (unions, consumer protection programs, lawsuits, legislation, etc etc).

Off the top of my head, a fairly straightforward way to effect change might be to get every worker signed up in a time-wage union. Pick a target wage for every employee and have them go home at the end of the day a few hours early by however much their wage is short. Women earning 75% of men would leave at 3:00 instead of 5:00. For every firing, send one or more employees who have a lot of savings or are thinking of changing jobs home with them as leverage.

The core of the issue is that currently labor is undervalued against capital which is self-evidently incorrect since time is priceless but we can always print more money. I would even argue that as we approach full automation, labor has been devalued to such a degree that it no longer makes sense to measure it against the inherent worth of a person's life. The inevitable conclusion is that at some point labor will not have enough value to support a minimum quality of life and we'll move to a non-labor form of compensation. We already do it in various forms for the bottom half of earners and it's only a matter of time before that fraction becomes the majority.

<comment><USER33> > I'd like to know how much goes to wage

Amazon annual revenue: $107 bil

R&D annual expense (where engineering compensation is typically stuffed): $12.5 bil

General expense (everybody else's compensation): $20 bil

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> Why is it bad that they're sleeping in tents? I've heard homeless people say that it's extremely hard to find a job while homeless. If Amazon is willing to give homeless people a chance at a job, that's a good thing.

There are people working for Google living in their cars/campers/motorhomes. There are posts about how people intentionally choose to live in tents and enjoy it.

[http://mashable.com/2013/06/11/homeless-entrepreneur- thomas-...](http://mashable.com/2013/06/11/homeless-entrepreneur-thomas- backlund)

[https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1a8sjz/hi_i_am_a_guy_...](https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1a8sjz/hi_i_am_a_guy_who_lived_in_a_tree_on_public_land/)

</comment><comment><USER35> Alternative title: "Amazon gives jobs to local homeless population". But seriously, I fail to see how this is on-topic on HN other than Amazon being a tech company.

<comment><USER36> Haha, was just about to post this. From what I hear, it's very hard to get a job if you're homeless, so this is a good thing. Imagine the outrage if the opposite narrative were being reported; "Amazon refuses to employ homeless people".

There's no suggestion that they are paying below the minimum wage, so I think singling out Amazon is quite disingenuous, regardless of how in vogue it is to bash the quality of their work environment.

If there is a story here, it is that there aren't enough homeless shelters in Fife right now, or that the minimum wage is too low; this has nothing to do with Amazon.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> Now is the winter of our discount tents.

(sorry)

</comment><comment><USER38> We need to do more to make low cost housing legal. By allowing more low cost alternatives, builders could create low cost housing or rentable units, so people wouldn't have to camp in tents. This is a problem nationwide, too many regulations are stifling housing innovation.

<comment><USER39> Here we have the consequence of trying to solve poverty by making it illegal. Having raised the standard of living so high, on the notion of ending bad conditions by simply prohibiting them, we now have to reverse regulations so people can live as they can at their level.

<comment><USER38> Regulating away "bad conditions" doesn't get rid of the cost for it. It merely eliminates your choice in the matter, forcing everyone to upgrade. It's like, if you outlaw all car designs that don't have leather seats - all the sudden, everyone gets leather seats in their car, but they're still paying extra for it, whether they like or not. that's what regulation does in the housing markets, but much more extreme.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> UK-AL Minimum wage in that part of the country could easily get an apartment share.

</comment><comment><USER40> This is not Amazon's fault. This instead is the choice of the worker. He is choosing to work for Amazon and is choosing to sleep in a tent because he does not want to make the long commute back to his house. All his choices, not Amazon's.

Edit: to clarify, I am not advocating that Amazon is a stellar employer. My opinion of how they treat their workers and handle the interviewing process is actually very poor. I however do not see the decisions this particular worker is making is Amazon's fault.

</comment><comment><USER41> I have a friend that works at the Amazon Fulfillment Center in Tracy, California: she works 60h a week.

Amazon should be made accountable.

</comment><comment><USER42> Government failure to provide cheap housing ?

<comment><USER43> It's not the governments job to provide welfare to companies by subsidizing the labor force. Government should provide infrastructure and safety nets. The employer should provide sufficient payment for the employee to use the resources without needing special government subsidies.

If a full-time employee needs government subsidies then the company is not paying enough.

<comment><USER42> To me, Its the goverment job to provide welfare to its citizen, this include cheap or free housing, regardless what the job situation is.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> One tent seen and two others reported. Is this fake news?

</comment><comment><USER45> WTF...

</comment><comment><USER46> It's hard to take this article seriously when all the evidence they have is a 30 second video with a dramatic shot of two tents.

<comment><USER45> It's hard to take Amazon seriously given this series of revelations. Probably not everything is true but we all know they have low ethical standards...

<comment><USER20> What I know of Amazon, and why I no longer shop there.

1\. They treat their engineers terribly.

2\. They treat their fulfillment center employees terribly.

Either Bezos is tone deaf, or just doesn't care. Either way, voting with my wallet.

<comment><USER47> I've had it in the back of my mind for months that I need to get away from Amazon for the reasons you've listed. How have your shopping habits changed since ditching Amazon? Did you go back to more conventional stores or are there any online marketplaces that you've found to fill some (obviously nowhere near all) of the Amazon-sized hole?

<comment><USER20> Instead of window shopping in stores and buying on Amazon, I now window shop on Amazon (all prospective purchases go into the shopping cart to monitor prices), and then I bundle my purchases every 2-3 weeks at brick and mortar stores. ALL of our baby purchases (diapers, wipes, etc) have been switched to Target.com. I don't even really miss Prime (my packages were already not sticking to within 1-2 day delivery deadlines, so not much loss there). I also don't impulse shop as much, and plan my purchases out, which is nothing but beneficial to my wallet.

It's not perfect, but if principles were easy everyone would do it.

<comment><USER48> Is Target.com any better? My understanding is that almost every major online store outsources its fulfillment centers, and Amazon's are basically par for the course.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Is it just me, or has this post dropped from the front page suspiciously quickly? In just 2 hours it went from #1 to the second page I think. I'm trying to notice these things more and more because we're seeing this "fake news" meme being pushed a lot recently and there have been accusations of bias on HN by the admins before.

Supposedly, as part of the ranking algorithm at HN, there's a "flame war" detection feature that drops controversial items off of the front page quickly unless they're explicitly allowed to exist there.

Having this feature in place is great for the admins as it gives them plausible deniability in terms of bias when items get ranked lower quickly, but not so good for users if it's inconsistently applied and the topics they see are for all intents and purposes controlled and guided towards certain viewpoints.

You can see my previous post in this thread: I'm not even a fan of this article! I'm even saying this as somebody who (I think fairly reasonably) defended and criticized Amazon in my response. I don't fear anything from this article however and things can be gained by talking about this issue.

<comment><USER49> This post got a lot of user flags (it currently appears as [flagged]) and was also penalized by the software flamewar detector. It wasn't touched by moderators.

<comment><USER6> That it wasn't touched by mods was exactly my point. This feature that's ostensibly a "flame war detector" is effectively admins exercising editorial control over content if overriding it is inconsistently applied.

<comment><USER49> I'm not sure I see this as distinct from the standard moderation penalties that we do actively apply regularly. And when users ask in those cases we say we've done so ([https://hn.algolia.com/?query=dang%20penalty&sort=byPopulari...](https://hn.algolia.com/?query=dang%20penalty&sort=byPopularity&prefix=false&page=0&dateRange=all&type=comment)).

Another way of putting this is that plausible deniability isn't valuable to us. We're clear on what this site is for, and we're open about how moderation practices are intended to support that. Though we can't be perfect, we do actively strive to avoid bias that would take us away from the goals of the site and of the community.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


A (Mostly) Comprehensive List of Swift 3.0 Changes - <AUTHOR> https://buildingvts.com/a-mostly-comprehensive-list-of-swift-3-0-and-2-3-changes-193b904bb5b1#.1ps2e9e9a <comment><USER2> _(My least favorite change) Restructured condition clauses You can no longer use the where keyword in guard, if, and while statements. The where keyword still applies to for loops in the form of for-in-where._

That's one of my favorite changes. The Where clause was very awkward when you had multiple optional unwrapping with various conditions. Now everything is nicely comma separated.</comment>


Simple web app ideas that generate $10 per day - <AUTHOR>

I've launched quite a few iOS apps that are generating around $10 a day. This might not sound like much, but $10 * 10 apps = $100 a day income, or ~$36k a year.
What is the easiest way to get a web app up and running that would generate $10 a day.
Interested in frameworks, hosting, monetization. <comment><USER2> If you already have iOS apps making money, I'd say the easiest path to additional revenue would be iOS tutorials/screen casts/code examples. There's a market for this, I've paid for such things several times. Take a look at: <http://www.raywenderlich.com/store/ios-apprentice>

Get a Stripe account and a copy of ScreenFlow. Pick 5 new iOS 5 features and make a tutorial + example app. Then spin up a little Rails/Django app to take $10 in and spit out a .zip file.

</comment><comment><USER3> Interesting can you share the apps that you have already built?

<comment><USER4> Second this :)

<comment><USER5> third it!

<comment><USER6> Fourth it

<comment><USER7> Fifth it ;)

<comment><USER8> Sixth it :D

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> "What is the easiest way to get a web app up and running that would generate $10 a day?"

Solve a problem.

Take a close look at stable, non-tech industries to figure out a common problem that a number of businesses inside of them share. Ensure that your solution will save / earn the company more than $10 a day.

</comment><comment><USER10> Its most likely that you would need to build at least 20-30 apps that some of them will make 1 or 2$ a day.

I would recommend to focus on 1 app only and put all your coding, marketing, promoting and design chips in this app.

</comment><comment><USER11> First of all, congratulations on building a few apps that are generating $10/day - some people have never made t this far and have given up before they have reached this point.

With regards, to building _more_ apps, in my opinion it is easier to build 1 app/site that makes $100/day than it is to create, manage, operate 10 apps/sites that make $10 each per day however, this is hard to say without knowing your existing apps.

There are several factors for the fact that 1 is better than 10+ in my opinion including, the fact that they will all require maintenance, management, promotion, support etc and this is time consuming especially, if you are operating 10+ sites/apps. I have seen people attempt to do this and they have managed to a certain point but then it becomes problematic, even on small scales with 100 sites producing $1 each/ day and have eventually merged them all into one since, it is far easier to manage 1 bigger site/app.

However, if you are really determined to build 10 apps that produce $10 each/day then there are loads of ways of doing this but, it depends which route you would rather go down i.e. FREE apps which are monetized with ads & even in-app purchases or PAID apps which can also be monetized with in-app purchases.

Likewise, you should have a look at PhoneGap - <http://phonegap.com/> with regards to a framework etc since, you can build and easily deploy your app to multiple platforms (increasing your revenue streams) since it would be easier for you to launch your existing apps onto Android, Windows Platform and BlackBerry's etc.

Again, without knowing your existing apps, I can't really say if you should solely focus on scaling these up to producing more revenue and expanding them or launching a "bigger" type of app which can make $100+ per day since, whilst I have highlighted in my opinion that it is easier to have one core focus there are also certain aspects which can limit their expansion strategies.</comment>


Appnr - Free Ubuntu App-Store - <AUTHOR> http://appnr.com/

<comment><USER2> why? what does this offer that is not in software center?

<comment><AUTHOR> 1\. You can browse with a webbrowser.

2\. You don't need the repositories installed to see the software, but it is nothing you couldn't achieve with other tools.

<comment><USER3> "You don't need the repositories installed to see the software"

So does this imply that there are no software upgrades (including security upgrades) if I install something not in my repositories?

<comment><USER4> Alternately, it could imply that the repository, or an individual application "update feed", gets installed along with the app. Further, I could imagine that what the site is actually proffering is a shell script that simply adds a repo repository and then calls apt.

Having checked: Clicking the "Install" button for the "RAR" app redirects to "apt:rar?section=multiverse", which, I imagine (not having Linux installed, I can't follow further) opens in Synaptic. Looking around, I can't find a link that doesn't point to either the default, universe, or multiverse repo, so I assume it just doesn't offer externals.

<comment><USER5> "Install" button on Chrome/Ubuntu runs xdg-open apt:<package> that on Ubuntu 10.10 opens Ubuntu Software Center.

The homepage is not so updated, it does not mention the last Ubuntu version.

I don't see who that site can be useful to.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Thanks for this. I'm amazed how well this worked (just installed WINE).

</comment><comment> rw2- OMG. What a crap!</comment>


Ask HN: What have the s/w interviews evolved to :( - <AUTHOR> Throwaway a/c for obvious reasons. I am a software dev with a few years of exp. and preparing for s/w dev interviews at Facebook, Google, Airbnb et. al. At my current company I am decent performer and have been working/delivering on some critical projects but some how I find the preparation for these interviews overwhelming. I feel lost with the vast amounts of subject knowledge one needs to acquire to succeed in them.
Some of the problem solving/algorithm questions that are being asked, I find it very hard to figure out the perfect solution leave alone coming up with a solution in the 45min window one is provided. The crazy dp/graph problems that get asked are something I find hard to grapple with.
I am in no way trying to be critical of the interview processes but actually respect them!!! and makes me feel the folks working there are super human.
This is making me very miserable and I am losing my sleep over this and this is effecting my daily job as well; Anyways just wanted to vent out the steam and look for ways other ppl here coped with similar situations and how to be successful.
P.S: IMO, going thru Career Cup and other interview prep material is helpful but awfully falls short of the kind of questions being asked! In fact sometimes I want to walk away from the interviews unless I am in the range of decent ranking topcoder and that makes me question the whole cs career has come to be i.e. does one have to be an elite competition level coder and only then have a fair chance to work in the top companies and whether this really translates to great software contribution. <comment><USER2> Ask yourself this, if you're losing sleep over the interview process because of anxiety/stress maybe these companies aren't a great fit right now.

A friend of mine studied really hard for three months while working a full time job to get into one of the big four.

He got the job purely because he studied coding interview questions. So he moved to the other side of the world with his gf to work there.

A year later he went into PIP, got out of PIP and then had so much anxiety he couldn't concentrate on his work. Now he has to move back home with little to show for it.

I know this is hard to hear but you most likely will fail until you change your mentality. You're spending your time being very hard on yourself rather than constructively asking why you want this and what is the next step I can take.

<comment><USER3> What does PIP mean in this context?

Thanks for the advice, gives me something to think about as I was preparing to study for a few months to get into a big 4.

<comment><USER4> Performance Improvement Plan (?). It means he was about to get fired.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> You are interviewing at companies that so many people in the field from around the world apply to. So it's really damn challenging to even get an interview lined up. It's up to you, often you can have more fun, and play a bigger role in product design, architecture, and planning at smaller companies. But if you care about the status, pay, and comforts of working at one of the big ones, then go for it. It really depends on what you value.

Also, based on my experience with interviewing and being interviewed, the questions are difficult on purpose. If everyone got the solution, you couldn't differentiate between applicants, but if they are very tough, you can get a sense of a persons problem solving skills, how determined they are, what types of questions they ask to proceed through the problem. etc. It shows a lot about a persons thought process and how likely they are to be successful when a tough problem is thrown at them. Often, getting to the solution isn't the point of the question. Seeing how someone solves something, they haven't encountered before is much more informative (especially for companies and startups working on things that are game changers).

<comment><AUTHOR> I agree with some parts of your answer but I have always wondered do u really evaluate the capabilities solely on an ability to solve these mind bending problems, there are lot of folks who might not know how to get an exact solution for a crazy hard dp problem but are very good devs and vice versa is also true a good cs interview might not necessarily translate to a great dev in a real world scenario.

<comment><USER5> I didn't mean to imply that I solely evaluate capabilities based on a mind numbing problem. I think it's important to balance questions: CS coding questions that they should know (based on education or previous projects), and questions that they probably haven't encountered before. This way you get a good assessment of the level and quality of their existing knowledge, and then get to assess how well they can think and solve new challenges.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This made the rounds here a little while ago and should help you prepare for CS heavy type interviews:

[https://github.com/jwasham/coding-interview- university](https://github.com/jwasham/coding-interview-university)

It's pretty in depth and extremely popular (44k stars). Hope it helps.

</comment><comment><USER7> I actually just went through a thorough interview search over the past month, where I have interviewed with Google, Facebook, Apple, Stripe, Lyft, and much more. I failed on several of the more earlier interviews due to lack of knowledge/exposure on certain algorithms that could be applied to certain data structures, so I studied them up after failure - that has been my approach in general, fail on interviews, then learn how/why I failed & refine those aspects after.

After the early failures, including a phone screen with Facebook, and an onsite with Google & Apple (with Google, I think I got rejected purely because I bombed the DP question I got really badly, I felt I did strong on all my other sessions), I got accepted by two different teams within Apple after back-to-back 6-7 hour onsites with Apple (with Apple, you interview with the team - I did a total of 3 onsites with Apple, and failed two phone interviews & an onsite for 3 teams).

IMO it is better to optimize for career growth and work on the algorithms/data structures for interview purposes as minimal as possible. They're important, but being good at your regular job is moreso IMO. That has been my guiding philosophy, and it has finally paid off for me - I have 4 1/2 years of experience in predominantly frontend work (and some fullstack as well).

Just food for thought - of course, it's all up to you how you approach interviewing. Personally, I don't fear failure, and use it as an opportunity to improve.

<comment><USER8> Hi I found your post interesting. I'm a frontend dev myself for about 3 years and also with some full stack. I've been on the lookout for frontend engineers at the big4 & I wanted to know how the process is like? Is this CS heavy. If you don't mind can I email you? Thanks in advance.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> This doesn't answer your question, but have you tried interviewing at companies that don't get a thousand awesome resumes a day and thus have very tough interview process? When I interviewed last year I had none of these problems. Perhaps your stress, anxiety, and job performance is not worth a job at a "respected" company.

</comment><comment><USER10> It will be overwhelming to be significantly prepared, even for a passionate CS expert. But a passionate CS expert can still get an offer at these places, even without preparing significantly. This is because (many) interviews are designed to test a breadth of fundamental knowledge, up to pushing the candidate to their limits, and even the limit of the state of the art. As an analogy, just because a Corvette doesn't perform like a Ferrari doesn't mean it's a bad car. It could still be chosen. Perhaps chosen based on some other soft qualities. Or because the Ferrari is too expensive.

Don't worry so much. Keep preparing by focusing on small bite size chunks you can master. Then attempt some interviews.

</comment><comment><USER11> Ehm, what makes you think that "Facebook, Google, Airbnb et. al." should hire people with "a few years of exp"? Also, programming is not only about those huge megacorps. Just join a startup and get some exp.

</comment><comment><USER12> Focus on the fundamentals and problem solving with data structures. Try to map the solution into a data structure and algorithmic technique. Read and study the solutions. Start as simply as possible. The first task is to understand the problem being asked. Sometimes we figure that out after being shown the solution.

I wouldn't worry about dynamic programming or network flow per se. Everyone finds those hard and looks up the algorithms.

These are at the harder end. Recursion is maybe somewhere in the middle.

That said the competition level could be very high at these companies and ask yourself if you really want to work in such an environment. Also ask if you want to work on what they work on.

Interview questions are the same as word problems we see in math. Class. You have to map the problem into the CS, then apply what you know. Forget finding something optimal at first. Once you have the toolbox of algorithms/data structures you will find success.

</comment><comment><USER13> "Super human"? I went to college 10 years ago to study computer science. Questions were sometimes way harder than that. Part of it is intelligence but it's mostly a memory exercise. Memorize 500 soluions then you'll crack any SWE interview. The problem is, as soon as you start working you forget about all this BS and nobody cares.

Which is why the interview process is broken. We already go through that painful exercise in college. Companies should stop being lazy and look for a better solution to double check that you really went to college. They could focus on a lot of other things in 45 minutes, projects, behavior, culture fit, etc.

</comment><comment><USER14> The interview process at many software companies is weighted towards fresh grads who display a "genius factor", i.e. are quick to answer typical engineering problems with the best possible academic solution. Simple as that.

</comment><comment><USER15> The trick isn't to interview well. It helps! But the trick is to have a great referral into the companies.

</comment><comment><USER16> CareerCup is good, but it has so much content with no structure, so you feel overwhelmed obviously.

Try leetcode if you haven't already, start with topic wise easy questions, then medium and then difficult, participate in the message boards discussions about problems, you need time and discipline, that's all.

</comment><comment><USER17> Consider using something like interviewing.io to practice interviews with real people that can give you feedback in real-time on how you're doing. Some other people in this thread have offered some other choices, like HackerRank and Code Kata and so on. All good choices for practicing algorithms. Becoming good at interviewing for technical positions is a TOTALLY different skill set than being a good programmer, so just keep practicing and eventually you'll get better.

Once you're more confident, consider using something like Triplebyte or interviewing.io to do your tech challenges and hopefully skip past some of the earlier tech challenges.

For what it's worth, as a hiring manager I would also say that, generally speaking, I'm not interested in whether you got the "correct" answer in 45 minutes, and I'm certainly not interested in perfection in 45 minutes. Don't worry about being perfect. Just worry about being _competent_. I'm far more interested in the bigger picture. Things like:

1) Can you write code in the first place? The basics should be easy for you.

2) Are you familiar with the language you're writing? You shouldn't have to look up how to sort an array or how to declare a function, for example, and your code should be clean and readable.

3) Can you properly assess the problem and begin working on a solution? Take a moment to think about it. Ask follow-up questions if necessary. I always try to repeat the challenge back in my own words, just to make sure I understand what's expected.

4) Is your solution heading in the right direction? If not, you either don't know what you're doing or I didn't explain the challenge well enough.

5) Can you identify and fix edge cases? Usually the problem I give you will have some reasonably obvious edge-cases, like the popular FizzBuzz test has.

Trust me. As an interviewer, I know you're nervous. I don't expect perfection. I expect _thoughtfulness_ , _progress_ , and _adaptability_. I expect you to think through a problem, make progress toward a solution, and be able to make changes as necessary to fix edge cases and unexpected problems. That's all. (ha.)

IMO, if your interviewer is fixated on whether it's "perfect" or whether you got the exact right answer, they're not good interviewers and perhaps you shouldn't want to work with them in the first place. In fact, an ideal programming challenge should have multiple solutions (e.g., there are many ways to sort a list). The challenge should be more about figuring out how you think than whether you can add 2+2.

Also, keep in mind that the interview works both ways: you should be interviewing them just as much as they are interviewing you. Every question you're being asked is a question you can ask them. If they don't think you're doing a good job, they won't hire you, and if you don't think they're doing a good job, you don't have to work there. Keep in mind that the bare minimum for a programming job is... programming. If that's all they focus on during an interview, they're missing out on everything else you can bring to the table. Imagine if the only question they asked truck drivers was "Can you drive?" or the only question they ask a journalist is "Can you write?"

Good luck!</comment>


Tesla Q1 2018 Vehicle Production and Deliveries - <AUTHOR> http://ir.tesla.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=1062670 <comment><USER2> I used to be one of the people who poked fun at Musk and suggested people short Tesla stock (as the valuation is crazy compared to the production and penetration numbers).

But I am no longer that person. I read his biography (Elon Musk: Tesla, SpaceX, and the Quest for a Fantastic Future) and this is a guy who genuinely wants to change things on a macro scale: opening up space, changing transportation. He is also a genuine risk taker, who will bet his own money and risk everything for something he believes in. I now root for Musk and his companies to succeed. I wouldn't take short positions on Tesla now.

Plus the deletion of the SpaceX and Tesla facebook pages, when told over Twitter they existed was pretty funny.

<comment><USER3> Reading a book doesn't change fundamentals. Tesla is heading for a rough time, I sincerely hope they make it through and hope that Musk will not come to regret making that stupid joke.

<comment><USER4> On the scale of Tesla's own history how would you rate that rough time? E.g. is it more rough vs 1st year of Tesla 2nd year? 3rd Year? How rough is it for people who actually pulled through all the challenges they faced from the founding till now. I think people are overestimating the "rough times" part. Musk and Tesla have a ton of good will that no other automaker has and they can leverage that in a rough situation.

<comment><USER3> There are a lot of things coming together that each individually would have been a serious challenge, to have them all at once and within 6 months of each other is pretty rough. Even so, I would not bet against Musk, he has a habit of making it through somehow. There is a book with a character in it called Reid Malenfant, Musk reminds me of that character.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_(Baxter_novel)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_\(Baxter_novel\))

You get to chose: you're part of the bulldozer or you'll end up part of the highway. Even so, it will not be easy to do right by Tesla and not to ignore SpaceX, and that's before going into the fact that Tesla is now effectively subsidizing Solar City.

<comment><USER4> I'll give you a hypothetical about what I tried to convey. Qatar is spending 200 billion in relation to world cup 2022 in large part as a part of PR effort. Now imaging 2 hypothetical news stories VW AG is opening and innovation center in Doha, Qatar. Tesla Inc. is opening an innovation center in Doha, Qatar. What would be a PR value for each of them be for Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani just ballpark a figure that he would be willing to put up for each one.

<comment><USER3> Oh sure, but then you're in rescue territory. But that's not what we are talking about here, we are evaluating - or at least, I am trying to evaluate - how serious the problems are in isolation. That there will be some white knight is beyond a doubt for me even if things do go very wrong.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The "leaks" on email this last week have changed the narrative a lot. The leak last week (probably not planned) of "prove the haters wrong" resulted in a sell off, while the leak over the weekend cushioned the final numbers.

That said, TSLA, just like SpaceX plays really close to the edge with equity and risk in pursuit of a vision. What most Tesla shorts fail to recognize is that Tesla has already gotten to the point that if something really really bad where to happen, any number of well capitalized tech firms would scoop them up in a instant (looking at Apple in particular). The cars are really a minimal amount of hardware, with software wrapped around them. They have loyalty like the iPhone had loyalty and Alexa has loyalty.

The big bottleneck to this point has been battery assembly lines at the Gigafactory. They just installed a new line for the battery packing line that they yanked back from Panasonic. Now they need to prove they can start scaling more linearly.

The press reaction to all of this is a good example of the media not knowing what they are talking about. The press has issued breathless reports about there being too much skilled labor and parts by hand, then too much robotic automation. They point at the low uptake of reservation holders (30%) without noting that the reservations are holding constant, and that this is mostly a effect of only the most premium of the premium going on sale right now.

Tesla's barb on the Model T is interesting as well. "This is the fastest growth of any automotive company in the modern era. If this rate of growth continues, it will exceed even that of Ford and the Model T. "

What Tesla is trying to do is hard. There is a reason no one has been successful in doing it in more then 50+ years. Watching the people who are opposed to what Tesla is doing is just as interesting.

<comment><USER6> > What most Tesla shorts fail to recognize is that Tesla has already gotten to > the point that if something really really bad where to happen, any number of > well capitalized tech firms would scoop them up in a instant (looking at > Apple in particular).

Maybe -- or they could wait to buy their assets in bankruptcy.

<comment><USER7> Bankruptcy is precisely when a well-capitalized buyer might buy Tesla.

If TSLA fell that far, the shorts would get paid.

<comment><USER8> Yes, or even if they bought Tesla before that because it was in "trouble", the shorts would have paid out.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> CNN this morning: "Tesla will soon report whether it met its target to make 2,500 Model 3s a week. It is on pace to make about half that number, according to Bloomberg." [1]

From the statement: "In the past seven days, Tesla produced 2,020 Model 3 vehicles."

A pretty big improvement, still some hard work to do, but they really are ramping up.

I'm relieved at the announcement they won't need another debt/equity raise this year. Let's see where we are in 3 months.

[1] [http://money.cnn.com/2018/04/02/news/companies/tesla- stock-a...](http://money.cnn.com/2018/04/02/news/companies/tesla-stock- april/index.html)

<comment><USER10> Depends on what made these numbers. Late night burn or proper automation ?

<comment><USER11> They won't reach proper automation until they're getting 5,000 to 8,000 Model 3s per week. But, of course, nobody really does automation to the level that Tesla is trying to do, so their current mix between labor and automation (as they continue to build up their automation line) is approximately what other car makers do.

Getting full automation to work is really hard, takes a lot of labor and time. I think they'll do it, but the task should not be under-estimated. In the meantime, they've already achieved a production rate per factory line similar to what a typical automaker like VW would do (on the order of 100,000 per year for a factory).

Like SpaceX around 2015 or so. Respectable, but not yet Earth-shattering (i.e. 2017).

<comment><USER12> > nobody really does automation to the level that Tesla is trying to do

Have you ever looked at production line videos from Mercedes Benz on youtube? You'll see that what Tesla wants to do is actually already being done, only with dead-tree engines instead.

<comment><USER11> Tesla wishes to do full automation of basically everything, even final assembly. According to this recent Bernstein report (by a Tesla critic), this hasn't ever been successfully done before: [https://twitter.com/valleyhack/status/979434674144423936](https://twitter.com/valleyhack/status/979434674144423936)

The point of the report is that Tesla is trying to automate _too much_ , beyond what everyone else does today and where others have tried and failed spectacularly. The report uses that history as proof it cannot be done and therefore Tesla will fail.

Are you disputing that by saying Benz does full automation of even final assembly?

<comment><USER10> bmw x2 is impressively devoid of humans

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TubOzvqOCmI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TubOzvqOCmI)

if you look closely in the background at 10:14 you can catch a wild homo sapiens wandering between an army of robocop arm prototypes

<comment><USER11> Your video makes my point very nicely.

From 12:00 onward, though, humans are used for many tasks, including multiple assembly steps and especially final assembly. These are things that Tesla wishes to fully automate and which industry experts think they're crazy for trying. And honestly, looking at that video (especially the wire harness installation at 17:00), it sure looks like an incredibly hard problem to solve and the industry experts certainly have a good point.

<comment><USER10> I think it would be hard if approached as a human technique automation, but there might be other ways to connect power and signal lines in a car in more mechanical ways. Depending on how much thought and desire has been spent by experienced factory designers...

<comment><USER11> You're absolutely right, and there's a lot of innovation that comes not from automating existing human technique but from changing how things are made so that the technique can be easily automated. For example: from through-hole components in PCBs to surface mount components in PCBs. Or even the PCB itself, which replaced wire wrapping (which, granted, can be automated) and soldering components together with free wires.

The design and the technique are critical variables that must be tweaked to make automation feasible.

<comment><USER10> Yeah, that's exactly the kind of shift I was thinking about. Now that said, I don't think Tesla is ready to do this, which would somehow prove old timers right. If Tesla managed to this bmw level of automation they'd be pushing enough cars to fulfill demands and keep investors. Later they'll make that 20% jump if Musk really wants to make a SpaceX kind of leap.

<comment><USER11> They are pushing enough cars, I think. One factory producing about 4000 cars per week is a very large factory, indeed!

I think Tesla is continually thinking of ways to improve the design, develop new techniques that can be automated easier. And I don't think these are all making it into the Model 3. Some will need to wait until the Model Y or even later. For instance, apparently the Model Y will ditch the 12 volt battery and feature a MUCH shorter/simpler wiring harness (which is one thing that's incredibly hard to automate, so making it simpler should help a lot): [https://insideevs.com/tesla-model-y-ditch-12-volt- battery-95...](https://insideevs.com/tesla-model-y-ditch-12-volt- battery-95-less-wiring-model-3/)

(with the caveat that Model Y plans seem to change each quarter)

<comment><USER10> from 1500m to 100m seems exciting

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> > _The Model 3 output increased exponentially, representing a fourfold > increase over last quarter. This is the fastest growth of any automotive > company in the modern era. If this rate of growth continues, it will exceed > even that of Ford and the Model T._

Way to spin all the production issues and delay of the previous quarter into a positive.

They're way behind the goals they set for themselves, but instead of measuring by _those_ goals, they measure themselves by their weakest performance, and suddenly their performance becomes historic.

<comment><USER14> > Way to spin all the production issues and delay of the previous quarter into > a positive.

I don't really like Musk but sending positive messages in Investment relations is the key to keeping the company afloat. At one of my previous employers we lost top 4 customers and 10% of our revenue. But, the investment relationship site said - "We are up 1% in revenue, if we discount top 4 customers".

If Tesla admits and says - "We have improved but we are still behind on our original promise" then the stock price is going to drop like a rock.

<comment><USER15> No, investors are not that stupid. They might buy these marketing talks for a while but eventually they will see through. The recent drop in Tesla's share price is a testament of that.

"You can fool some people all of the time, and you can fool all people some of the time, but you can't fool all people all of the time."

<comment><USER16> Price is a function of supply and demand. So this tactic is better than the blunt tactic even if it manages to fool only one shareholder.

<comment><USER17> Yes, it's about the ratio of shareholders you can fool all the time to the ratio of the shareholders you can't fool all the time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> They built 9766 Model 3 in Q1 and were able to surge out 2000 in the last 7 days, and claim a doubling in their Model 3 production rate over Q1.

Something doesn't really add up there. Regardless of their spin their Q1 must have been hellish on the guys and gals on the floor and in production support.

I hope they can do a sustainable ramp soon so my friends can get their Model 3s.

I would REALLY love to see what their internal messaging on this is.

<comment><USER19> I can't find the actual memo. But Bloomberg wrote about a leaked memo.

[https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-29/tesla- urg...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-29/tesla-urges- workers-to-prove-haters-wrong-ramp-up-production)

> Tesla will suspend Model S and Model X production Thursday and Friday > because it's ahead of target on building those this quarter, Peter > Hochholdinger, vice president of production, wrote to employees in a March > 21 email obtained by Bloomberg News. An unspecified "limited number" of > workers who build those vehicles will have the option to work on the Model 3 > line on those two days and Saturday, he said.

They moved workers from the Model S & X lines over to the Model 3. And an unspecified number of "volunteers" also got cracking to make the final spurt.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> I was next to Model X at a stoplight last night.

They look nice from a distance, but when you sit up close you can see where every panel and piece of trim just doesn't line up quite right. Sitting in my cheap little Mazda3, I've never noticed any problem with simple fit-and-finish details like that.

I truly hope the Model 3s catch up, but I really think those owners will be in for a world of headaches after delivery.

<comment><USER21> I also saw a model X, and the doors didnt line up correctly with the chassis. Maybe it was not closed properly? Maybe it was bad construction. I'm not sure.

Edit, added link: [https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/door-alignment- norma...](https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/door-alignment- normal.66520/)

<comment><USER20> The rear doors are a 100% given, especially where the upper chrome trim meets the C pillar. It's like they just threw up their hands at that part of the manufacturing spinup.

But, the longer you look, the more mistakes you see.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> 2,020 is under Elon's 2,500 prediction, but well above the 1,000-1,500 expectations of those shorting the stock (unless the shorts' articles were deliberately misleading, of course).

Also, according to the release, those are customer-delivered numbers. Overall, a good trajectory and a sign of long-term health.

<comment><USER23> Yeah, if they're able to consistently hit that weekly number (and continue to improve upon it) this is some much-needed good news for Tesla.

<comment><USER3> They need to improve on it, badly. Operating a line at 40% capacity is terrible for your bankaccount.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Worth posting Bloomberg's Tesla Model 3 Tracker, which contains a model attempting to independently estimate production, as well as background info about Tesla's past projections: [https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2018-tesla- tracker/](https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2018-tesla-tracker/)

<comment><USER25> I think most people shouldn't take this tracker seriously as it was wildly off most of the time and was often manually adjusted.

<comment><USER24> The tracker on Apr. 2 (Google Cache) has an estimate of 12,245 units, which is based off of a confirmed production total of 2,686 at the end of Q4.

[http://archive.is/WXoXw](http://archive.is/WXoXw)

Today's announcement says 9,766 M3s were produced in Q1: 9766 + 2686, i.e. 12452.

They don't seem that far off?

<comment><USER25> It was adjusted manually in the beginning of the month. In March it was all over the place. I think unofficial tracker like this, even with all the disclaimers, actually makes this worse.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I clicked on this article expecting a graph of an exponential curve, and they utterly failed to deliver. Who _cares_ how many cars they're making, if they can't make a decent exponential curve? That is the #1 priority product of any California hype house! How are we supposed to believe they'll amount to anything if they can't show us a trend line that would consume all matter on the planet by 2045?

</comment><comment><USER27> Despite the disappointment of missing the goal of 2500 cars, this is good news. Tesla came reasonably close to their goal and certainly won't stop at that number. To put the number into scale, they made as many Model 3 in the last week as Model S and X combined. That means, Tesla is on a good track to produce at least twice as many cars in 2018 as they did in 2017, which already was a record year.

</comment><comment><USER28> GM/Toyota/NUUMI would produce four times vehicles in the same amount of time in that plant. (about 120 to 130k/quarter, depending on the nuumi production numbers you believe)

<comment><USER29> You could be comparing apples and grapefruits here.

It has been reported that Tesla makes a lot of thier own parts. So more of the total supply chain for manufacturing the car exists in that plant.

For example Tesla manufacturers thier own motor in the plant were the NUMMI plant would have had thier ICE motors pre-assembled.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Tesla asked for volunteers to staff the assembly lines last week. [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-29/tesla- urg...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-29/tesla-urges- workers-to-prove-haters-wrong-ramp-up-production)

I personally am bearish on this. If they worked so hard, but only made it to 2000 / week (their goal was 5000/week by December2017. They lowered it to 2500 this past week), then its all just marketing spin to make 2000/week look better, which is still missing their original targets.

Volunteer staff while cutting Model S / Model X production (and moving that staff over to the Model 3 lines) is not sustainable. They could do it for one week to pad out the numbers, but they need real growth to remain solvent over the next year.

Ignoring the 2000/week spurt last week, the other 7000 Model 3 cars were made over the course of 11 weeks. That's roughly 650ish Model3 cars made per week, on the average (when looking at it across the quarter). This is actually less than the 793/week Model 3 they did at the end of Q4.

Bloomberg estimates that Tesla's overall production has grown to 1000/week or maybe a little bit above that, which might be closer to the "sustainable" size (ie: not counting the volunteer staff + spurt last week).

I'd be surprised if Tesla makes 30,000 Model 3s next quarter (which is still grossly below their target of 5000/week by Dec2017).

Tesla NEEDS 5000/week. 2000/week is still very low and unsustainable for this company.

[https://money.usnews.com/investing/news/articles/2018-04-03/...](https://money.usnews.com/investing/news/articles/2018-04-03/tesla- says-produced-2-020-model-3-sedans-last-week)

> "Tesla continues to target a production rate of approximately 5,000 units > per week in about three months, laying the groundwork for Q3 to have the > long-sought ideal combination of high volume, good gross margin and strong > positive operating cash flow," it said.

> "As a result, Tesla does not require an equity or debt raise this year, > apart from standard credit lines."

<comment><USER30> > Ignoring the 2000/week spurt last week, the other 7000 Model 3 cars were > made over the course of 11 weeks

Exactly. The 2000 number is complete B.S. They just held back nearly finished units and the "completed" them all in the last week so they could release a semi-decent number without technically lying, but they are nowhere close to target.

"Q1 deliveries totaled 29,980 vehicles, of which 11,730 were Model S, 10,070 were Model X, and 8,180 were Model 3"

"In Q4, Tesla delivered 29,870 vehicles, of which 15,200 were Model S, 13,120 were Model X, and 1,550 were Model 3." \- [http://ir.tesla.com/releasedetail.cfm?releaseid=1053245](http://ir.tesla.com/releasedetail.cfm?releaseid=1053245)

Model S/X: -23% deliveries. That is a BIG problem. Falling demand for S/X and inability to sell at sticker price (where they still lose money) and replacing that with another model that they lose even more money on is not a great "growth" story.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Well, I think many people don't want to understand that _ambitious_ targets are most likely to be missed. So missing the target is actually what is going to happen and the real question is by how much.

So some might ask, why setting a goal that is unlikely to be reached and not simply set a realistic target?

Changing the automotive world isn't realistic. So if you would go with a realistic target you could have shutdown Tesla years ago. Nevertheless, there is an actual risk involved in setting the targets too high as burning people and investors can cause real problems.

Yet, I think it is best to judge Tesla by their actual performance and not so much by the fact that they missed their ambitious targets.

</comment><comment><USER32> There's a number of questions on this thread about Telsa's production uptick being about "burning the late night oil" or automation. Does anyone have any reliable insight into this question?

And, regarding their automation, a few honest questions:

1\. How much automation are we talking about, compared to the status quo?

2\. How much of the automation is reusable across other models? Are they building up a repeatable model to increase scale at a lower cost?

<comment><USER11> Both are important.

They haven't ramped up automation yet, so right now they're burning the midnight oil on both regular production (i.e. likely with a similar labor/automation mix as typical manufacturers) AND tuning automation. Trying to do both simultaneously on a compressed timescale is what makes this hard.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> > _The quality of Model 3 coming out of production is at the highest level we > have seen across all our products._

I am dumbfounded by this statement, weren't tons of images and videos of huge gaps between sections on Model 3s?

He does not even acknowledge it happened, so I cannot assume that it is meant to say that the issues were fixed.

Am I missing something? Otherwise that's incredibly misleading.

</comment><comment><USER34> The joke is an indication their position is stronger than perceived. That's his warped sense of humor, and something he's probably been longing to do (once the time was right). I predict this press will be the first of many positive releases from Tesla. While they flew very close to the sun, the wings have held, and they will be soaring from here.

</comment><comment><USER35> Why is this posted on HN?

I know there are a lot of people here who are so into Tesla. But this does not fit the HN content guidelines in anyway...

<comment><USER24> Which content guidelines are you talking about?

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

> _On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes > more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the > answer might be: anything that gratifies one 's intellectual curiosity._

<comment><USER35> > Anything that good hackers would find interesting.

How is quarterly statement from a Car company interesting to "good hackers" or how is this gratifying intellectual curiosity in anyway? If you want to discuss the financial/production reports of the company you can go to the forums dedicated to it...

<comment><USER3> How come someone that's been here less than 2 months and who has two 'Ask HN's to his name one of which is flagged feels they get to dicate what should and should not be on the site?

The Tesla story is interesting to 'good hackers' because it is a company that does _exactly_ the kind of thing that 'good hackers' love to read about: disrupt a bunch of incumbents. The fact that Elon Musk started out as a nobody that came to the United States in order to chase his dreams and is actually doing just that coupled with the fact that I suspect that a large number of HN readers either has a position in Tesla and/or drives a Tesla (or covets one) means there is a pretty good chance that substantial articles about Tesla will get upvoted.

If you can't deal with that rather than telling the people here to go elsewhere maybe _you_ should go elsewhere or at least attempt to add to the discussion in some constructive way.

<comment><USER35> >The Tesla story is interesting to 'good hackers' because it is a company that does exactly the kind of thing that 'good hackers' love to read about

That it like saying Physicists will be interested in the bowel movements of Einstein because he is a brilliant physicist..

Tesla may be an interesting company to "hackers" or what ever. But does the article contains anything of that sort? If HN is filled with the quarterly reports of every "interesting" company, that would be bad, right?

If it contained a technique, or an interesting idea that Tesla is employing, then it would have been ok.

Clear?

<comment><USER24> To be fair, quarterly reports for companies like Apple, Facebook, Twitter, and Google often make the front page. And HN is just as interested in Tesla as those companies. Furthermore, this is a particularly interesting quarterly report for Tesla, as it comes after Tesla faces serious questions about its production shortfalls, on top of the other bad news (fatal AP crash, huge recall for Model S, Moody's downgrade) it has received this past week.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> _" Tesla Goes Bankrupt

Palo Alto, California, April 1, 2018 --

Despite intense efforts to raise money, including a last-ditch mass sale of Easter Eggs, we are sad to report that Tesla has gone completely and totally bankrupt. So bankrupt, you can't believe it."_

\- Elon Musk

[https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/980566101124722688](https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/980566101124722688)

<comment><USER36> For those who didn't already get it, it's an April Fool's joke.

<comment><AUTHOR> Indeed. Given the number of down votes, either folks didn't catch that, or it's all the short sellers :)

<comment><USER3> Or maybe it was a lame joke by the CEO of a publicly traded company and as such totally out of order.

That joke might have been funny if Tesla was making 7500 model 3 cars / week.

<comment><USER37> Agreed. Can't wait to live in a world where CEOs can control themselves and refrain from cracking a quick joke on _April Fools Day_.

<comment><USER3> With being listed on the stock exchange comes a certain amount of responsibility. If you can't control yourself from making jokes about your company going bankrupt then maybe you should stay private?

Keep in mind there are people's savings on the line here.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: What are the best designed/most usable SaaS products? - <AUTHOR> Someone posted recently asking which SaaS products had the best websites. I think most people took it to mean "Which SaaS products have the best marketing sites?" This is a follow-up to that post, but here I'm curious to know which SaaS products themselves you believe to be particularly well-designed/usable.<p>I'll go first:<p>- craigslist.org<p>- polleverywhere.com<p>- dnsimple.com <comment><USER2> I really like Digital Ocean. Compared to AWS, which I use for work, Digital Ocean is so much cleaner and intuitive. They offer fewer services, but the ones they do offer they really mastered.

</comment><comment><USER3> Webflow</comment>


I'm a thinker, not a doer - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/who-i-am/23614fbd9de0

<comment><USER2> I very much recognize myself in this piece and I believe that these situations is created and fostered by a mind stuck in an infinite loop. The notion that one cannot do without knowing everything there is to know about the subject first is mere an excuse not to pursue. It is similar to not doing running because "I've got an fallen arc and I should not run", these excuses define what we can and cannot achieve.

When I was 18 I was amazed by some of the programs that people my age put together and I constantly compared ages believing that I should be able to compare with any my age without putting any effort behind it. Even if I wanted to accomplish something similar, a voice inside me said that I still not had the basic knowledge needed to even start. I'm now 28 and can say that I have in very few ways moved towards these goals.

I have yet to fully break out of this loop, but now I know what tools I need in order to do so. Break the bad habits, by replacing the actions that lead to a goal with better ones. Realize that instant gratification serves little purpose beside delaying you even more on you way to the real goal. Really focus on areas and put some real time behind the goal in order to have a chance of finally getting there.

Our daily motivation is limited, so stop spending it on getting nowhere with everything that remotely interests you and get somewhere with something.

Also: exercise, get some sun and spend some time alone (no friends, music, podcasts, audiobooks or electronics) with your mind every day.</comment>


Ask HN: Where did you go to college? - <AUTHOR>

What are the alma maters of the HN viewer base? <comment><USER5> Did a stint at FSU but I was too immature and irresponsible to follow through with it, pissed a 200% scholarship down the drain.

Enlisted in the USAF, grew up a bit and attempted University of Phoenix Online (a joke), American Military University (part of the American Public University System, another joke), gave up on online school for a bit.

After separating I gave Troy University a try (their entire CS department is online) but they use Blackboard and I've grown to hate Blackboard.

I'll be giving Franklin University a try in the next few months - <USER2> interface is appealing, the program looks solid and they've received solid reviews.

I really enjoyed my little time at FSU - it seemed as if I was really learning something and I loved the "feel" of being on campus, hanging out between classes in breezeways with other students - it just felt like happy (if that makes any sense).

A lot has changed in the last 8 years though, family/life/work and going full- time on-campus just isn't feasible any longer. The majority of online schools disappoint me because the average student is a complete idiot with no concern for spelling/grammar.

I guess I'm a unique target for the online schools, since I actually want to learn something - not just earn a piece of paper.

</comment><comment><USER6> University of Maryland (College Park) - Go Terps!

</comment><comment><USER7> School of Hard Knocks

</comment><comment><USER8> I love posts where people get to talk about themselves.

Oh, and: University of Maryland (both College Park and University College).

</comment><comment><USER9> University of Oklahoma (they offered me a nice scholarship which I proceeded to blow in a hurry)

</comment><comment><USER10> Maybe a better question would be, what school and what major?

UW Madison, Computer Science.

</comment><comment><USER11> Nowhere, too poor for that jazz.

Edit: My skill set reflects that, though. ;)

<comment><USER10> This mindset always strikes me as questionable. I am a pretty middle class guy but I funded my entire undergrad with government student loans without problems and I don't understand why low income people can't do the same.

<comment><USER11> Well, short version, I couldn't get government help 'cause my family is considered upper middle class and I'm not yet independent, plus my grades sucked too hard for grants. Whatever other ways there were I was too lazy to look into.

I do plan on trying again when I turn 23, though.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Universidad ORT Uruguay (2nd South American university I see listed :) )

</comment><comment><USER13> University of Pittsburgh.

</comment><comment><USER14> Northwestern University

<comment><USER15> NU here too (hi Shamiq)

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> UP (University of the Philippines), AMA Computer University

</comment><comment><USER17> Vanderbilt University, go 'Dores! CompSci / English double.

</comment><comment><USER18> Ohio State University

</comment><comment><USER19> McGill University and University of Western Ontario

</comment><comment><USER20> college? not exactly...I went to ITT (North Houston).

Hey, if they advertise on daytime cable, they have to be good, right?

</comment><comment><USER21> FAU Home of the fighting burrowing owls!

</comment><comment><USER22> University of Toledo College of Engineering

</comment><comment><USER23> University of Nottingham, soon to be UCL.

</comment><comment><USER24> Worcester Polytech, but I didn't finish

</comment><comment><USER25> Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay

</comment><comment><USER26> Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI)

</comment><comment><USER27> University of Oklahoma

Go Sooners!

</comment><comment><USER28> University of Wisconsin - <USER3>

</comment><comment><USER29> University of Wisconsin, Eau Claire

</comment><comment><USER30> Arizona State

</comment><comment><USER31> Wabash College U Catolica de Chile

</comment><comment><USER32> Universitiy of Tuebingen, Germany

</comment><comment><USER33> University of Wisconsin — Madison

</comment><comment><USER34> Carleton College (Northfield, MN)

</comment><comment><USER35> Davidson College, North Carolina

</comment><comment><USER36> Georgia Tech but I didn't finish

</comment><comment><USER37> University of Central Florida

</comment><comment><USER38> Brown. With a major in music

</comment><comment><USER39> Massachusetts College of Art

</comment><comment><USER40> Simon's Rock College of Bard

<comment><USER41> didn't finish

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> California State Univeristy

</comment><comment><USER43> University of Pennsylvania

</comment><comment><USER44> Colorado State University

</comment><comment><USER45> Michigan State University

</comment><comment><USER46> Boston University

Why?

</comment><comment><USER47> Berklee College of Music

</comment><comment><USER48> UC Santa Barbara (UCSB)

</comment><comment><USER49> University of Cambridge

</comment><comment><USER50> Texas A&M (Whoop!)

</comment><comment><USER51> University of Waterloo

</comment><comment><USER52> Bangalore University.

</comment><comment><USER53> University of Kansas

</comment><comment><USER54> Marquette University

</comment><comment><USER55> University of Guelph

</comment><comment><USER56> caltech. before numb3rs/big bang theory made it cool.

</comment><comment><USER57> Syracuse University

</comment><comment><USER58> New York University

</comment><comment><USER59> Bentley University

</comment><comment><USER60> Gettysburg College

</comment><comment><USER61> Auburn University

</comment><comment><USER62> Monash University

</comment><comment><USER63> Carnegie Mellon

</comment><comment><USER64> Michigan Tech

</comment><comment><USER65> UANL - <USER4>

</comment><comment><USER66> Virginia Tech

</comment><comment><USER67> UC Santa Cruz

</comment><comment><USER68> Case Western

</comment><comment><USER69> Georgia Tech

</comment><comment><USER70> UT Arlington

</comment><comment><USER71> NIT Silchar

</comment><comment><USER72> UIUC

</comment><comment><USER73> Penn State

</comment><comment><USER74> UT Austin

</comment><comment><USER75> Dalhousie

</comment><comment><USER76> Stanford

</comment><comment><USER77> UC Davis

</comment><comment><USER78> Vassar

</comment><comment><USER79> Oxford

</comment><comment><USER80> Duke

</comment><comment><USER81> Yale

</comment><comment><USER82> MIT

</comment><comment><USER83> google form please

</comment><comment><USER84> Didn't.</comment>


MPEG Plus or Patent Pool Lite? MPEG Mulls Royalty-Free Proposals - <AUTHOR> http://www.robglidden.com/2011/12/mpeg-plus-or-patent-pool-lite-mpeg-mulls-royalty-free-proposals/

<comment><USER2> Two questions: was this move spurred by increased adoption of the non-MPEG WebM, and did they consider (or even mention) using WebM or Theora as a royalty-free baseline instead of an amalgamation of MPEG1, MPEG2, and JPEG?

<comment><USER3> MPEG takes the position that Theora and WebM infringe on patents, and have been (publicly) attempting to find patents that infringe (notice they haven't actually put forward any such patents). In fact, the biggest reason Apple, Microsoft, and other large tech companies don't back Theora and WebM are because of the fear of submarine patents; patents that people aren't aware of that cover Theora and WebM. The situation isn't helped by the fact that Theora and WebM are broadly comparable to codecs developed by MPEG.

<comment><USER4> You are confusing MPEG (<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_Picture_Experts_Group>) and MPEG LA (<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPEG_LA>). The latter one is evil.

<comment><USER3> Yes I was, things seem a lot clearer now. So, from what I understand, researchers (and companies) make standards through MPEG and ISO. Companies holding patents for the included technologies then put their patents into the MPEG LA patent pool (in a way totally unrelated to MPEG). Is that about right?

<comment><USER4> Yes.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


The Nightmare Scenario: Trump Fires Comey, the One Man Who Would Stand Up to Him - <AUTHOR> https://www.lawfareblog.com/nightmare-scenario-trump-fires-comey-one-man-who-would-stand-him <comment><USER2> Something I can't quite get a handle on.

I have friends that I respect that are both Rep and Dem.

During the elections : Dems wanted Comey fired, Rep thought Comey = truth

After the elections : Dems think Comey = truth, Rep want him fired.

Anybody else notice this?

Yes - someone can say the "email scandal" is different than the "Russian scandal"...but wouldn't it seems that he is either qualified to run the FBI or he isn't?

<comment><USER3> Never let facts stand in the way of party alliance...

<comment><USER4> The whole election in a nutshell.</comment></comment></comment>


Alexander Calder-themed Google - <AUTHOR> http://www.google.com/?calder <comment><AUTHOR> (you can also shake your laptop to make it move)

<comment><USER2> I'm really curious how they did this - how does it move when the laptop is tilted?!

<comment><USER3> Some browsers hook into the device's accelerometer and expose that information to the web-page. For example, Firefox fires MozOrientation JavaScript events[1] when it's running on a device with an accelerometer.

[1]: <https://developer.mozilla.org/en/DOM/MozOrientation>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> It casts a shadow too :)</comment>


Dashboards on a stick: Now with more Chromecast - <AUTHOR> https://www.telemetryapp.com/blog/2014/3/21/Dashboards_on_a_stick_Now_with_more_Chromecast

<comment><USER2> I want about your site</comment>


Why is Puerto Rico in bankruptcy? - <AUTHOR> https://www.globalpoliticsandlaw.com/2017/04/22/crisis-puerto-rico-explained-5-graphs/ <comment><USER3> Puerto Rico becoming a state would solve a bunch of their problems in the long run.

Even with the problems listed in the article their economic situation from the the 90s to now was not unmanageable, it was corruption and corporate collusion to extract the maximum amount of money from the island that expanded the problems to their current levels. Becoming a state would put enough regulation and oversight in place to make those problems go away, or at least put their corruption on the same level as a normal US state.

The short run... There will be problems.

<comment><USER4> > Becoming a state would put enough regulation and oversight in place to make > those problems go away, or at least put their corruption on the same level > as a normal US state.

Becoming a state wouldn't fix the combined impact of NAFTA + the Jones Act, which alone is enough to wipe out the economy[0]. Corruption may be a cherry on top, but eliminating that doesn't solve the problem that there is simply no way they can export anything at a competitive rate, and that they _also_ can't import things they need at reasonable prices either.

And becoming a state is in Puerto Rico's best interests, but it doesn't fix this problem either. Hawaii is suffering as well from the Jones Act - <USER2> difference is that Hawaii's economy was slightly less dependent on NAFTA- affected trade, and over 20% of Hawaii's economy comes from the military and national defense. So Puerto Rico is hit harder, but not for reasons that would be solved by statehood.

[0] NAFTA itself would not have been as much of a problem for Puerto Rico if it weren't for the Jones Act, so it's specifically the combination of both that's relevant.

<comment><USER5> Hawaii definitely needs an exemption from the Jones act. It is crazy that goods from Asia to Hawaii go through California because if the non US flagged ship stops in Hawaii, it can't continue to California.

As stated, statehood would not solve this part of the problem for Puerto Rico (i.e., they would need a Jones Act exemption as well).

<comment><USER6> Wouldn't going from Hawai'i -> Canada/Mexico -> US solve this?

Similarly for Puerto Rico, wouldn't Florida -> The Bahamas -> Puerto Rico solve some of the issues?

The only issue with adding foreign stops is the additional import/export regulations. NAFTA solves some of that for an intermediary stop in Canada/Mexico, but doesn't do much to help Puerto Rico's situation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I hope that this can once and for all time convince investors of a basic truth. These are US government bonds. They are not going to be repaid.

What is generally believed:

Government bonds (with a few exceptions) have always, and will always be paid back no matter how much money the government loses, or how bad the economy is. Simply because governments can't go bankrupt.

Reality:

Government bonds, for all governments including the US government, have never been paid back, with ONE exception (in 4500 years of capitalist history). As soon as the governments get into trouble, losses are imposed on creditors immediately, and often repeatedly. Since states survive, on average, less than 2 centuries, the default rate on government bonds (including government bonds of global hegemons), over all of history, is about 2.8%.

Therefore any government-issued bond that pays less than 2.8% interest is a net-negative investment.

Even the corollary, that government debt is safer than large company issued debt is wrong. Large companies only have default rates of 2.5%. The difference is even larger in the US because the US of course defaulted in practice when Nixon killed the Gold standard, and so did most if not all governments worldwide. Companies that had issued bonds at the time, most paid them back just fine. Same with WWII. After world war 2, a lot of large company debt was actually transferred back to the owners, whereas even the German state did not even repay it's postwar debts.

Even in cases where it's incredibly ridiculous and morally wrong, governments don't pay back debts. Take for example the German debt to Greece from WWII. The Germans decided not to pay it back, and Greece had no way to enforce this. They still don't, and now that Germany can impose monetary limits on Greece, they still don't see any need whatsoever to pay back their owed debts [1]. And yes, the German debt to Greece FAR exceeds what Greece would need to get out of their crisis. Even now, the German state is not willing to even forgive Greek debt to the amount they still owe the Greeks.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_reparations_for_World_W...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_reparations_for_World_War_II#Greece)

</comment><comment><USER8> Good explanation!!!

</comment><comment><USER9> They attempted an indigo and sugar strategy? The player to their right was new and didn't know how to play?

</comment><comment><USER10> From a tourist point of view it is just much easier to visit neighbouring Caribbean islands...

<comment><USER11> Could you elaborate at all? What's easier? I've not travelled in the Caribbean.

<comment><USER12> I'm not sure what the parent is referring to. If you're an American citizen, you don't need a passport, just book a flight. Large numbers of the population speak English, and much of the US is already there. The roads are the same, the dollars are the same, hell, even the fast-food is the same.

<comment><USER13> > The roads are the same, the dollars are the same, hell, even the fast-food > is the same.

And those are supposed to be features?

<comment><USER14> Yes knowing what side of the road to drive on and understanding driving laws and being able to spend the currency you already have are indeed features.

<comment><USER15> Man, where is your sense of adventure.

<comment><USER11> People who want an "easy" vacation (per the original commenter) are not looking for an adventure.

<comment><USER16> Maybe not an adventure, but you can do some fun things.

\- Culebra has amazing beaches \- Visit the bioluminescent bay \- Visit El Yunque. You can do the regular tour or visit other trails. \- You can go rapeling \- You can go SCUBA diving \- You can go visit reefs \- You can go zip-lining

They're not limited to PR, but you can do them someplace new/different.

You can escape the cold. (45° here and raining. I _kind_ of wish I was back in PR)</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


IPTables Tutorial 1.2.2 [pdf] - <AUTHOR> http://homes.di.unimi.it/sisop/qemu/iptables-tutorial.pdf <comment> john-foley This tutorial is 459 pages long. What's it take to get an in-depth understanding of the program?

</comment><comment><USER2> Learn nftables instead, iptables is going to be replaced by it in the future.</comment>