Google to stop showing news snippets for French users - <AUTHOR> https://www.reuters.com/article/us-alphabet-google-france/google-to-stop-showing-news-snippets-for-french-users-idUSKBN1WA1FK <comment><USER2> Congratulations to the EU commission and the EU parliament on achieving the exact opposite of what they wanted to do despite being told this would happen and despite it actually already happening in Spain and Germany. It's not like this is any kind of surprise, it's the only logical thing that could've happened. I am still extremely bitter about the dirty way this law was passed, the lies, the deliberate lies by the commission, the nasty response EU politicians had at protesters and the absolute contempt they had for young people saying they we're entitled children trained by internet giants to expect free things. I watched the debates in parliament and there were MEPs who actually said that. The horsetrading France and Germany did over Russian gas in order to get a deal on this law. That disgusting blog post the EU commission published calling people who disagreed with them bots and brainwashed and positioning themselves literally as knights out to slay the google dragon. It's all horribly corrupt and cynical. I'm sure many young people got the message that their leaders view them with such absolute contempt and open hatred and I fear the consequences for Europe.

<comment><USER3> Your reaction is over the top IMO. I'm quite perplex about this law myself but I think you're missing the point.

You comment reads a bit like "the workers wanted a raise, now they're on strike and they get _less_ money than previously, achieving the exact opposite of what they wanted to do!" It's technically true of course, but I think they hope that Google will suffer enough from this decision that they'll have to reconsider in the future. Alternatively, they hope that people will still want to get French news and will move to other websites which will accept to give money to the news organizations.

I'm really not sure that it's going to work on either count but on the other hand it's clear that many EU constituents (those who actually pay taxes and employ people in the EU) felt that something had to be done.

>the absolute contempt they had for young people saying they we're entitled children trained by internet giants to expect free things

I mean, if anything I agree with this statement, except I'd put "free" between quotes. The ad-driven business model is a cancer as far as I'm concerned.

<comment><USER4> > ...they hope that Google will suffer enough from this decision that they'll > have to reconsider in the future...

Google loses literally nothing.

Google doesn't make any money off Google news. They make money sending traffic to advertisers, not to news sites. And the Google news page doesn't run ads. It's just a free service.

The only benefit to Google is that it makes their brand better.

This has been the irony all along; Google's been running a 100% free (NOT ad supported) service to help users find news sites, and the news sites demand to be compensated. So OF COURSE this is going to be the response; there was never any money to share.

<comment><USER5> > Google loses literally nothing.

That's not true. The entire reason Google hosts these "snippets" on their search results page is to keep users on that page and not clicking through to other sites. With this they lose that ability.

You're talking as if Google News is the only affected site here. It isn't: the vast majority of this traffic is on search results pages. Which Google does make vast amounts of money from.

<comment><USER6> Are you saying this out of theory or experience? Anecdotally as a user I can tell you that when I see a compelling snippet, I am more likely to click, not less.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I really wish traditional news media, aka those people that are supposed to dissaminate the news, would get a grip and stop breaking the internet and their core business altogether one of these days. If you lose revenue because google shows a few sentences of the introduction your content is not worth it to readers. But no, instead of better content and easier ways to consume it, we get more clickbait and whining about fake news.

At least on the level of local newspapers in Germany it's a complete disaster for me personally. It's not even that I wouldn't want to pay people that go out and report on local happenings, it's just that I don't want to add another 10-20EUR subscription for the 1/2 articles I'd want to skim that's actually relevant content and not some made up outrage or simply agency content.

<comment><USER8> > it's just that I don't want to add another 10-20EUR subscription for the 1/2 > articles I'd want to skim

I've also been thinking about this, with all the paywalls I've been running into. I don't mind paying for quality news, but I'd prefer to pay one entity for a certain article/month limit for _all_ (or at least most) paywalled news sources. The one entity could distribute my subscription money to the news providers pro rata, according to my consumption.

The current system of paying for one news source doesn't work for me, because I want to read articles from all over. I don't consume enough from one source to justify the subscription cost.

<comment><USER9> Interesting. This probably exists already in one form or another, but it could also be good opportunity for a major startup. "Netflix for news" \- premium access to the best articles from the best newspapers and news agencies, with sophisticated A.I. powered recommendation system, custom content subscriptions, instant access wherever you are.

<comment><USER10> Alternatively, some news organisations should get together and set up an independent non-profit organisation to do that before some corporation gets a monopoly and starts taking a 90% cut while implementing political bias and censorship as a compulsory extra.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Users will have less incentive to click on links without a little preview. Publishers will scratch their head about numbers getting worse. Smart publishers will enable previews. Soon, everyone will enable previews.

Well done!

<comment><USER12> > Soon, everyone will enable previews.

Only on the big websites though, why would a news org bother with small or tiny news aggregators?

The small websites will have to shut down while google will get even stronger. (This happened in germany already when they introduced a very similar law)

<comment><USER11> I do not know about the technical details. Is it more effort than putting something in your robots.txt or putting a meta tag in your HTML?

<comment><USER13> That's not really the question, the news sites will give Google explicit permission to use their content while not granting the same usage rights to any other smaller EU-based search/news-aggregation service.

That's why every single person who knows what they are talking about has warned about this law from the beginning, but they were all ignored. Now this deals incredible damage to the future of EU internet companies and helps established big US corps. Everyone knew that, its just business as usual with the corrupt to the core and incompetent EU.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> oaw-bct-ar-bamf I am in favour of this. If a site is doing the work of providing content (news, sport game scores, weather, ...) and Google passes by, scrapes the most important information and shows it on their own site, a large swath of users will never visit the content provider.

The one providing the content has rights to his content.

<comment><USER14> I'm wondering whether you're also in favor of disallowing journalists to basically create blogspam copies of other, real journalist's, work?

Because that actually hurts the original source. Google providing the first 2 sentences _with a link to the article_? Not so much.

As the Springer case has shown, Google is actually providing a service to the publishers here, who receive considerable less traffic without Google sending users their way.

<comment><USER15> What do you mean by disallowing? Regulation is extremely specific for a reason. If it works, yea, that would substantially raise the quality of reporting. Google just seems trivially regulatable compared to "journalists".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Reminds me of when news publishers tried to do the same in Germany and then lamented the drop in click through rate.

Lobbyists for magazines and newspapers got the EU to put this law into effect and I'm glad they're going to be the ones who suffer the worst. If your news story is so short it can be explained in a thumbnail and the two lines Google shows, you don't have anything of value to protect.

<comment><USER17> I agree with the gist of your comment, but:

> _If your news story is so short it can be explained in a thumbnail and the > two lines Google shows, you don 't have anything of value to protect._

Major scoops that require many man-months of digging can often be summarized in just a headline.

<comment><USER18> Everything can be summarised in just a headline, including your or my life. But I doubt your life can be _explained_ in just a thumbnail or headline.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> After reading the comments (on HN) and the law I think this is a good thing. I'm rather confused by the visceral response by some people on HN.

It may be an unpopular opinion, but Google was stealing. They were showing enough information no one was clicking the links. What this means for content creators is that you couldn't make revenue.

If I search for something on Google I get so much information above the fold (and ads), I pretty much never see a real site. That's a serious issue, because Google isn't creating that content. Worse, their using their monopoly to push the AMP framework to make it easier to get snippets and actually serve your content on their servers.

No, this doesn't have to be the end of the world. Almost all decent sized websites add their own preview and snippets (which Google can display). So all it does is enable further controls to publishers.

<comment><USER20> > They were showing enough information no one was clicking the links.

Were they? From the data I found for a very similar law in Germany the opposite seems to be true.

Axel Springer AG (biggest publisher, also primary lobbyist for the law) gave Google a free license two weeks after Google removed the snippets for all their sites. They noted a 40% drop in clicks coming from Google and an 80% drop from Google News. With estimates from statistics collectors putting users coming from Google anywhere between 15% and 35% (depending on the individual site) that's a massive reduction in users and ad revenue.

<comment><USER19> I mean, those claims are anecdotal at best and more importantly Google controls what people see, which is kind of my point. You can't validate Google isn't manipulating results. They have every incentive to manipulate them.

I don't know the specifics though and there was no link provided. However, in any case I think my point remains - assuming that's true, why was it the case?

<comment><USER21> I'm not sure you fully follow what's happened here, as the post you're replying to is comprehensive. Here's a history of this whole sordid affair.

Publishers have always been able to control their appearance in Google and Google News, using robots.txt and meta tags. If they thought Google was 'stealing' they could prevent it by just ... asking them not to.

They (Axel Springer and other EU publishers) didn't do this, because they make a lot of money out of Google sending them traffic which they can then monetise by running ads on the resulting page loads, ads that Google will also help provide if they want, but doesn't insist on. Instead they quite happily let Google index and send them traffic completely gratis.

At some point some newspaper barons noticed that the EU was very much in hock to them because it relied for its own ideological and political goals on lots of positive press coverage and more importantly, no digging for dirt. Also the only tech firms that existed were all foreign and publishers are bleeding money, so, they decided there should be a "new deal" in which Google not only paid lots of money to index their website and serve a Google News index (in return for nothing), but should also _pay them_ for the privilege! And because this made absolutely no sense for Google at all, they decided the only way to make Google do it was to enforce that Google News couldn't exist in Europe without these huge payments.

Google said that they weren't going to pay firms for the privilege of linking to them and if they weren't happy they were welcome to take themselves out of Google using robots.txt. So the battlefield was laid out.

First was Germany. The publishers bet Google would pay them rather than lose Google News. Google called their bluff and refused, with the result that the publishers caved and basically voided the law they'd lobbied to pass by granting Google a free license.

Next up was Spain. Spanish publishers looked at what happened in Germany and decided the problem was that the German publishers had been able to chicken out. Because the sort of news sites that get a lot of traffic from Google are largely interchangeable there was a prisoners dilemma in which whichever publisher folded first would take all the traffic and earn lots more money than their competitors. So in the Spanish law, publishers weren't allowed to give Google a free license.

The result was Google shut down Google News in Spain entirely. Also local competitors to Google News shut down too because the prices were calibrated to suck money out of a rich tech giant and small firms couldn't pay. Once again, Google called their bluff but this time, nobody won, the Spanish people just lost everything.

France and Germany looked at this and decided the problem was that individual countries were too small. If the same thing was done at the EU level then _this time_ surely Google would be defeated and give them a free firehose of money, as they so desired.

Fortunately for them the EU Commission long since gave up on its people ever creating a tech firm, and the EU is very pliant to the wishes of German publishers. Note how Juncker and other top EU functionaries always write their op-eds in German newspapers. So the Commission was quite keen. Popular outcry doesn't matter because the EU is not democratic, it just resulted in this amazing response from the Commission:

[https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20190215/18005841607/eu- co...](https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20190215/18005841607/eu-commission- decides-to-mock-public-insists-fears-about-eu-copyright-directive-are-all- myths.shtml)

So now the EU has passed the same law and round three begins. Will Google give in and pay the publishers lots of money? Or will it just shut down Google News in all of Europe?

So far we seem to be in the middle of this engagement, with France losing snippets. Maybe other countries will soon too. In the end Google News may vanish entirely in the EU. I am very skeptical Google will pay because after all, once the principle has been established that they'll pay to link to content, where does it end? That's all the company does: they could open themselves to arbitrary payments to anyone, anywhere, until they have no profit left at all.

<comment><USER19> I'm fully following what's going on and I think it's a bit more nuanced than your comment. Many many of the arguments i've seen have not to do with _linking_ , but with the _preview_. The preview is Google automatically pulling answers to questions from their site. They wanted that to end, because they wanted actual visitors OR they wanted Google to pay for that information.

Google _can_ and _could_ always link to the website. What they were doing was a bit more than that. Google is now trying to strong arm them to let them pull data from their sites. Literally, everything you describe above is what occurs when someone has a monopoly.

<comment><USER22> There are two different things you are conflating, the quick answer thing to the right of the search results is different from the snippet shown below the item in search and news.

The quick answer area has a different set of issues and I think there is a stronger argument to be made for it reducing click through rates (though I always click through when the quick answers my question to verify there isn't additional relevant context that is not included.)

Publishers already had the ability to block Google's indexing, image indexing, news indexing and snippet creation and even snippet length using meta headers.

It is unclear to me how this actually gives publishers any more control over how Google uses their content. It seems to have much larger impacts on smaller aggregators. It does put legal weight behind that control, but it seems to me that a much better law would have standardized these meta-headers and put the force of law behind them, perhaps creating a header that notifies crawlers that they must have a license to display snippets of text over a certain length from a site. As it is, is there any way for a publisher to automatically grant all agregators rights to display snippets of their content or does the law forcibly opt all publishers into content restrictions?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Almost there... just a small effort and Google News will look like Hacker News.

</comment><comment><USER24> This reminds me of the daily posting on reddit in the GPDR subreddit. People are shocked that the countries outside the EU are not respecting the GPDR. Or more shocked that a website would rather not do bushiness with or block people in the EU from seeing their website. Most times a website put up bannersaying "yadda yadda cookies...privacy...agree/disagree?" and that's that.

</comment><comment><USER25> EU is the nightmare for every startup with all that laws. No time to develop the product, because there is a lot of bureaucracy that take all your time.

<comment><USER26> So Google should be allowed to grab your content and put it on their page - but if you make a video of yourself and put it on youtube and a car with the stereo appeared for a few seconds in it your video is claimed. It is like all the laws that make big companies money are good and the ones that make the same big companies less money are bad.

<comment><USER27> Google is not the one issuing takedown requests on YouTube for music in the background.

This whole concept of a small sample of something violating copyright IMHO is the death of culture, it's excessively injecting chilling effects and barriers into information sharing. We went through this in the 80s with Hip-Hop artists and sampling.

I mean, if my son quotes a paragraph out of a French news website for a term paper, and that paper is published online, is it now a copyright violation? When does text summarization down to 2-3 sentences violate copyright? How far do we take this?

The publishers business models are collapsing, but their foray into hyper monetization and litigiousness surrounding any use of what they publish, if anything, will only serve to speed up they're demise.

We have to find alternate models to support local journalism, and this ain't gonna help.

<comment><USER26> I know Google is not the one asking to take those down but they are actualy the ones that made the algorithm , but taking those videos down is based on DMCA law witch is a US law pushed internationally by the big US companies.

What feels to me as hypocrisy is when US citizens accuse Europe of targeting this big US corporations with some laws where similar laws were pushed before by US, So is illegal for me to make a video clip with scenes from different movies but it should be legal for a big US company to compile snippets of text and images and put them on their page.

In my experience it happened to find the answer in that snippet and not visit the website and in other case the smaller snippet you see under the results was not to be found on the web-page that was linked

<comment><USER27> Most people I know opposed to the European laws also hate the DMCA too.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> This law is pointless , it was tried in germany and spain, result,google news closed down. google news provide a service , free , no ads. if a newspaper wants to get paid for links or snippets, it should expect that most websites will opt out. The result is less traffic to newspaper websites, see google reader, google plus etc no one can force google to provide a service, even if it has millions of users. If it does, not fit in google,s plans the service will disappear . IT WOULD Be disastrous if google actually paid for a snippet, IT,S , a slipperly slope, next thing is google will have to pay to link to Any european news or list them in the search results. Say i,m looking for news on brexit, i should not have to go to 30 different websites, going to google news is a much better option.

The european newspaper companys remind me of of music companys in the 90,s , they were facing declining sales of cds, , music piracy, they launched apps or various mediocre incompatible music service,s with drm some of which only worked on phone,s or pc,s or various devices, and used various , It required steve jobs to appear and apple to invent the ipod and itunes , a simple service ,buy music, buy albums, ,1 song for 99 cents ,all music in mp3 format. Then streaming came along and the music industry is actually making more money every year as people get used to paying subscriptions for apple music, spotify etc The News industry needs a tech genius to come along who knows how the web works , what users want, what they will pay for , Maybe have a website, New,s .fr, news,germany.com, news,spain.com etc Where any news paper or blog can post links to news storys or any article. WIth ads if they want , Any news paper with a website can post on the website, it would be run by a semi independent board, so its not under the control of just one company .

</comment><comment><USER29> Google has also started classifying non-news sites as being news sites and no removing snippets from them. I have already had to manually change the designation in the Google Search Console on a couple of sites that I look after this week after Google flagged them. I'd recommend that site owners check in the search console to see if they are affected.

</comment><comment><USER30> > The change means French users will only see the headlines and not the first > few lines or a thumbnail image for news content unless European publishers > specifically request to show previews, the company said.

I'm guessing some publishers will give permissions and eventually forcing others to follow suit when they start losing traffic.

</comment><comment><USER31> I'm a bit confused by this because Google News has only been showing headlines since their last redesign. I guess they will stop showing images as well? I think that would be an improvement.

</comment><comment><USER32> This is why more countries need to break away from the EU.

</comment><comment><USER33> How does Google rank pages with and without nosnippet?

</comment><comment><USER34> I'm surprised it didn't happen sooner and all over the world.

</comment><comment><USER35> How the eu fights American big tech. Compare it with how China fights American big tech ...

</comment><comment><USER36> Not that Google News is any good. My newsfeed is basically far-left propaganda.

I would almost go as far as to say that this is a good thing for France.

</comment><comment><USER37> Good, I believe media outlets will benefit, unless Google deliberately undermine their business model in some way. As a deterrent for others.

</comment><comment><USER38> This would have been a logical part of robots.txt from the beginning. Under an earlier Google this would probably not have been allowed to escalate this far.

</comment><comment><USER39> This is good. More clicks to the news sites and google is more like Reddit now. But it is sad that there had to be a law for that. Gooogle should give the option to remove anything but the title from the page result (is this possible?).

<comment><USER40> Less clicks. Much less. It's exactly what happened in Germany. They "won" and then saw their Google click-through rate plummet, which was a significant % of their click-throughs.

<comment><USER39> Less clicks through search for sure. This however may render google news useless, and increase direct traffic instead

<comment><USER41> Would a news stand being forced to cover all the newspapers in black bags drive more sales to online orders?

<comment><USER39> That s not what s happening. Paper Newspapers have a frontpage for a reason: only titles, not the content. If you want more, buy it

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> Google is still a new phenomena, and we are still trying to come to terms with it as a society. It's the first global monopoly, and it's on _information_. Holy cow, that's just strange.

I applaud the EU for at least attempting to grapple with the potential existential threat that Google represents, rather than rolling over and pretending nothing is wrong as the US does; or censoring, as China does. Even though I think the specific solution is probably unhelpful, it's _much_ better than pretending that everything is as it should be, and crowing when newspapers get their "comeuppance" when Google punishes them by reducing their traffic.

<comment><USER39> The US is not pretending; there is actually nothing wrong because googld is a US business. EU is following china here, building a covert great firewall in an attempt to resurrect local market. A little too late though

<comment><USER42> You didn't address the main point. So to expand on it, Google is effectively an information monopoly, which means that it uses its market dominance to restrict competition. Moreover, it also uses its position to influence the web and public opinion itself in ways for which there is no precedent. The US is not addressing this last aspect in any respect.

Not sure what Google being an American company has to do with that.</comment></comment></comment>


Brain-computer interfaces are opening new possibilities (2013) - <AUTHOR> http://nautil.us/issue/59/connections/pop-pop-pop-she-heard-her-brain-in-action-rp <comment><USER2> I got fairly into these years ago at the beginning of my MSc, since a research team at my Uni had cool projects about them. I gradually lost interest but I have been wondering lately if the recent advances in the Machine Learning could be capable of significantly improving the quality of some BHI application: I am happy to get pointers on papers/research labs to check out!

<comment><USER3> From what I understand, the main problem is getting the signal form individual neurons, and getting a large number of those distinct signals. I don't think there are any non-invasive methods to do that, and no one wants to do a brain surgery on a healthy brain to implant a large electrode array.

</comment></comment><comment> 52-6F-62 I bought an early EEG interface from MyndPlay. It still sits fairly unused in my wall-mounted cabinet. For shame.

I was pretty interested in this stuff a little while back. Daily work needs kind of steamrolled it.

I recently interviewed with another company working on these kinds of devices, however their application appears to be limited to wave tracking for meditation. They failed me for not being able to answer some vaguely-worded multithreading questions when the job was to work in web and embedded software...

I'm still intrigued. Like @winterismute said, I wonder if ML can help — maybe with pattern detection/seeing through the ..."junk".

</comment><comment><USER4> Related open source project: [http://openbci.com/](http://openbci.com/)

I have no affiliation with them just ran across it a while back and it has been sitting on my to-do list.

</comment><comment><USER5> One of Elon Musk's companies is working on this:

[https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-25/elon- musk...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-25/elon-musk-s- neuralink-gets-27-million-to-build-brain-computers)</comment>


Al Gore's New Movie Exposes the Big Flaw in Online Movie Ratings - <AUTHOR> https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/al-gores-new-movie-exposes-the-big-flaw-in-online-movie-ratings/ <comment><USER3> The following explanation is probably implied but I still want to mention it: When a movie (or any form of media really) discusses such a polarizing issue like climate change doesn't the rating always lose its meaning? When a film, book, etc. treats a polarizing issue, most people probably abuse ratings as a (binary) vote on whether or not they agree with the narrative. And not whether it's a good movie based on film theory (ie. characters, visuals, story arc, etc.). Does this issue have a name? We see it on HN too, where people use up- and downvotes for agreeing/disagreeing, rather than separating informative, from non-informative comments.

<comment><USER4> Another thing to keep in mind here is that these kinds of review systems will often result in high amounts of polarization regardless of whether the topic is controversial. My feeling is that people often vote based on how they want the current average to change rather than based on how much they liked the movie.

E.G. Sometimes I'll watch a movie, I'll think it's an 8/10 but then see it has 4/10 on imdb, so I'll give it a 10.

Presumably this may affect another person's vote. Maybe someone saw the film, hated it, wondered why the review was so high, and gave it a 0 to bring the average down.

IMDB recognizes this and uses a "secret formula" ([http://www.imdb.com/help/show_leaf?ratingsexplanation](http://www.imdb.com/help/show_leaf?ratingsexplanation)) as a result.

<comment><USER5> > Sometimes I'll watch a movie, I'll think it's an 8/10 but then see it has > 4/10 on imdb, so I'll give it a 10.

Do you really do this?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> A good context to this piece would be the recent NYTimes article ("Attacked by Rotten Tomatoes") that claims Rotten Tomatoes is damaging sales for films. Everyone is to blame except for the studios, who are producing bad movies that no one wants: endless sequels, remakes, and adaptations of successes in other media.

If An Inconvenient Sequel really were controversial, that would be all the more reason for its success. Controversy sells. In fact, it's the least-risky kind of film to make: a sequel to a widely-lauded, successful film (An Inconvenient Truth has 93% Fresh on Rotten Tomatoes). Hollywood execs can cry me a river.

<comment><USER7> _who are producing bad movies that no one wants: endless sequels, remakes, and adaptations of successes in other media._

How do you square that belief with the fact that 8 of 10 top grossing movies so far this year (and 7 out of 10 for last year) is a sequel, remake or adaptation? Obviously someone seems to want them

<comment><USER8> Everybody hates sequels when they sit down and think about it. But, when they don't... When it's "Eh... Let's go see a movie. What's playing?" They are faced with two investment choices: One selection of high-risk, unknown, unproven, original movies Vs. another selection of low-risk, familiar, proven productions --some of which are well-known to be liked by their group and others are well-understood to be skippable.

The "Eh... Let's go to a movie" scenario makes up a far larger portion of the total revenue than the carefully researched, highly anticipating planners. It should be no surprise that they spend so much on sequels and adaptations.

<comment><USER9> > Everybody hates sequels when they sit down and think about it.

As someone whose only hobby is watching and discussing movies: No, this isn't true.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> some-guy I suspect that Al Gore's name had the biggest impact on the polarization of the score. He's been a polarizing figure (for whatever reason) for a very long time. Not to mention it's a "sequel".

I'm not attacking the man in any way, but I do wonder if furthering the polarization of the issue using his name (which he cannot reconcile with the public at this point) does the movement a disservice. I place more blame on us as a species than Al Gore himself, but here we are.

<comment><USER10> I doubt that leaving his name off of it would really change much. The people giving it the lowest possible score are reacting to what they see as political propaganda pushing the hoax of climate change. That Al Gore is involved certainly doesn't help, but they'd still hate it even if he had nothing to do with it.

<comment><USER11> At some point a significant proportion of the people who have been ridiculing climate change (or to a large extent just going along with a political movement which incidently ridicules it) will shift their beliefs to accept moderate action to tackle climate change, and it's important they can do that without being forced to admit they are actually changing their minds.

That means leaving open, for people who previously dismissed it, the narrative of "I don't believe in climate alarmism pushed by radical leftists, but I do believe in following the science, and now that the evidence is in, I support reasonable action". I think it is true that a figure like Al Gore acts as an anchor to make those sorts of changes more difficult.

<comment><USER12> Great points and I think you're spot on.

I'm personally a skeptic of the claims made by the AGW side and the alarmism pushed out by so many. The proposed AGW solutions are not feasible worldwide either which is what would be necessary to solve the problem they outline. I'm saying this not to get into a discussion about it at this time but to lay out why I would STILL support the agenda: essentially there are several great secondary benefits from doing what they recommend.

This is the biggest failure of the AGW side - they have terrible positioning and think you're stupid if you question science. If you tell people they're stupid (even if they are) they aren't changing their minds.

This is how you push the AGW agenda. "Let's say we're wrong. Here are the benefits of doing what we're suggesting and making some changes & investments":

\- Better air quality

\- It's good for national security - we no longer need to send large sums of money to hostile countries, many of which support terrorist organizations and other groups which are Anti-American / Anti-Western values.

\- Cheaper energy

That's hard for anyone to argue, assuming the legislation is sensible.

<comment><USER13> That argument is already being made, if people were open to this line of reasoning they would have heard it a long time ago.

I think the longer term and overarching issue is that we don't have a shared reality. Science is not a method of finding truth for a large proportion of the American electorate. Academia, scientific institutions, and journalism might as well not exist if people don't believe in them.

If that's the case, then it's requires a much more in depth answer than "well look, we might do some good if we spend billions in (perceived) cost". I don't have the answer and perhaps there isn't one.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> More evidence supporting the claim that, as a society, we have completely lost the capability to have a conversation on anything. Everything is polarizing and everyone feels the need to pick (and defend) a side.

<comment><USER15> Well, in reference to the subject of this particular movie, one "side" of the "conversation" is frequently in the news as wanting to put nonbelievers of their view of the issue in prison. That might tend to create some animosity.

<comment><USER16> Can you give some examples? I have never heard of this.

<comment><USER17> [https://www.google.com/search?q=climate+change+deniers+%28de...](https://www.google.com/search?q=climate+change+deniers+%28death+penalty%2Cjail%29)

Death penalty, tried for crimes against humanity, jail, fines for disagreeing...

I don't think any of these are mainstream ideas yet, but there was failed bill in the California legislature to have the AG sue those who "spread disinformation" on climate change. [http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/2/calif-bill- pr...](http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/2/calif-bill-prosecutes- climate-change-skeptics/)

Can't reply to responder below - but I am not your research assistant. The parent asked a question, I showed where they could find answers. The google search above links to a professor speculating on death penalty for skeptics, and others speculating on trying them for crimes against humanity.

For spokesmen, Al Gore didn't mention jail, but said we should "punish" and politicians should "pay the price" for differing perceptions (and note that even climate change advocates who are not extremists get branded as "deniers").

[http://www.chicagotribune.com/bluesky/originals/chi-sxsw- al-...](http://www.chicagotribune.com/bluesky/originals/chi-sxsw-al-gore- penny-pritzker-bsi-20150313-story.html)

""" Former Vice President Al Gore on Friday called on SXSW attendees to punish climate-change deniers, saying politicians should pay a price for rejecting "accepted science." ... we need to put a price on denial in politics """

<comment><USER18> Re: your edit:

>but I am not your research assistant

Correct. Also correct: you need to cite specific examples to back up the claim, which you have not done. "A professor speculating" and the nebulous "others" are, again, not in such a prominent position as to speak for their "side" as a whole.

>For spokesmen, Al Gore didn't mention jail

Correct, which would make this _not_ an example of "wanting to put nonbelievers of their view of the issue in prison," OP's only claim.

<comment><USER17> >>but I am not your research assistant >Correct.

Glad we cleared that up.

>Also correct: you need to cite specific examples to back up the claim, which you have not done.

Hmm. See above.

I chose to contribute to the conversation by pointing to examples of behavior that poison the discussion, in the spirit of thrill's comment.

I personally thought "death penalty" and "war crimes" were stronger examples than just "prison".

I did not attempt nor do I need to prove the ancestor literally correct, but just for fun, here are a couple of links that do - you'll have to decide if Bill Nye and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. meet your criteria as "prominent" (which was not in thrill's post - just that they are in the news).

Rfk, jr. [http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/sep/23/robert- kennedy...](http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/sep/23/robert-kennedy-jr- we-need-laws-punish-global-warmi/) Koch brothers should be in prison in the Hague

Bill Nye [http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/apr/14/bill-nye- open-...](http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/apr/14/bill-nye-open- criminal-charges-jail-time-climate-c/) compares it to jailing guys from Enron

Examples, plural, specific, people in the news claiming their opponents should be imprisoned.

Good enough for me.

<comment><USER18> I agree, you did not prove them correct, indeed that was my only point.

Now you have presented _new_ evidence. Simply linking to a Google search was not sufficient after all?

The RFK quote gets thrown around a lot, in context it's much more clear: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41yJTxrPFhM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41yJTxrPFhM)

He says the Koch brothers are treasonous, and for _that_ reason should be arrested. He goes so far as to clarify that there is no law politicians can be punished under (the opposite of the ancestor's claim).

Bill Nye compares them to the guys at Enron. He does not suggest jailing them.

<comment><USER17> SippinLean> The RFK quote gets thrown around a lot

Thrill> one "side" of the "conversation" is frequently in the news as wanting to put nonbelievers of their view of the issue in prison

Yeah, what you both said.

(And Rfk said the Koch's "treason" was co2 "pollution", and he wished there were a law, which pretty much matches thrill's statement)

So we can agree that the idea is "thrown around a lot", even apparently by someone prominent enough to be recognized as a spokesman, but (thankfully or regrettably) there isn't yet a law to enforce it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I'm surprised the article makes no reference to the worst of this phenomenon: 2016's The Promise: [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4776998/ratings?ref_=tt_ov_rt](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4776998/ratings?ref_=tt_ov_rt)

* 52.9% 10/10 * 42.6% 1/10

For a total of 95.5% polarizing votes!

Interesting that The Ottoman Lieutenant is top of the 538's list and it deals with exactly the same subject matter.

Turks really need to grow up and stop being such babies about their history. Face it, don't go spamming down the ratings for movies that dare talk about your history.

</comment><comment><USER20> See also Zoe Quinn's "Crash Override"\- totally polarized reviews, with notable difference between verified purchasers and not.

[https://www.amazon.com/Crash-Override-Gamergate-Destroyed- Ag...](https://www.amazon.com/Crash-Override-Gamergate-Destroyed- Against/product- reviews/1610398084/ref=cm_cr_getr_d_paging_btm_1?ie=UTF8&reviewerType=avp_only_reviews&pageNumber=1)

<comment><USER21> Someone writes a book about how anonymous people on the internet tried to ruin her career by spreading fake stories. People don't like that, so they post fake reviews in an attempt to ruin the book's sales.

...making the author's point for her.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> I wish someone would create a more personalized algorithm for movies. Use the movie critics' reviews, and compare the other movies they liked to the other movies you liked. Even bad movies get a few good reviews, and there are people out there who would still enjoy those generally poorly received movies. Why not show me the reviews of people who liked a lot of the same movies I liked?

</comment><comment><USER23> I found the fact "The Emoji Movie" getting 74% 1-star reviews in their ranked chart to be a more interesting fact. Climate change and Al Gore being controversial and highly politicized is nothing new. South Park has been satirizing Gore's hyperbolic approach for years. An approach which tends to draw tribalistic audiences who have opinions formed well before hearing the arguments.

But the fact Hollywood spent $50 million on such a disaster as T.J. Miller's big feature film is what is somewhat shocking. Especially given it had some big names like Columbia Pictures and Sony Pictures Animation behind it.

You'd think with the data-driven cookie-cutter focused-grouped-to-death process that is the modern film industry would be able to avoid producing one of the worst rated films in the history of online film reviews. I thought modern Hollywood was extra careful? Or are those resources only limited to hedging their financial performance rather than producing enjoyable content?

<comment><USER24> The primary KPI of any movie by a major studio is _box office revenue_. Making the movie good is a correlation but not causation. (Especially for children's movies.)

Case in point, the Emoji Movie made way more than its budget. ($150M)

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Begs the question why does the IMDb voting system allow reviews before the movie's release date?

<comment><USER26> Because many movies are actually screened months before the official release date in film festivals and the like.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> I'm curious if there was an organized campaign to give the movie low votes or if it was simply an army of similarly minded trolls.

</comment><comment><USER28> I would like to point out that there are times when critics pay more attention to the hype surrounding the movie when it fits their agenda, "XX" the horror anthology film directed by women directors for example was hated by the audience because it's bad. Check out the "I Hate Everything" review for the film.

</comment><comment><USER29> Filter bubbles ie when you consume content by your previous content to provide confirmation bias on your already existing ideas.

Filter bubble [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filter_bubble](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filter_bubble)

Confirmation bias [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias)

On rating systems including how the IMDB rating system works [https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/6418/rating- system...](https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/6418/rating-system- taking-account-of-number-of-votes)

</comment><comment><USER30> > _men hate the film way more than women do_

The "climate change is bullshit" narrative is engineered to appeal (among many other things) to this whole mythology of rugged individualism. If you "believe in that global warming stuff" it must be because you're a weakling - <USER2> opposed to the strong manly individuals who choose to reject it.

It's gut instinct politics.

I've a hunch (heh) that gut instinct politics correlates with falsehood (and perhaps specifically with engineered, purposeful falsehood) more strongly than intuition would guess. E.g. the whole rise of the National Socialist Party in Germany in the 1930s was entirely predicated on a backwards, anti- intellectual, think-with-your-guts ideology.

<comment><USER31> That's just one of the counter-narratives. Unlike the "97% narrative", the counter-narratives are not monolithic.

Another counter-narrative says that climate change is happening but the models to date are inaccurate and overblown.

Another counter-narrative says that man-made or not, it's hubris to assume that humans can do something about it.

And yet another counter-narrative acknowledges climate-change but says that the prescriptions for fighting climate change aren't guaranteed to work and will hurt humanity - in that we should spur innovations that continuously adapt to climate change and boost economic prosperity for all mankind while avoiding worldwide austerity controlled by an earth-worshipping misanthropic orthodoxy. (or something like that ;) )

<comment><USER30> All that is technically true.

What's missing is that Reality doesn't care about human narratives. It is what it is. Narratives align with it in varying degrees. Some align with it quite well, and we call them true. Others don't align with it at all, and we call those bullshit.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> In general, I find 1-10 rating systems too much, it's just too much granularity when the measure is purely subjective anyway.

I like 1-5 better, but the descriptions are the best, "Hated, Didn't Like, No Opinion, Liked, Loved".

At the end of the day, if your sample is big enough, I think the new Netflix approach is really the best, liked or didn't like, and then you can draw from that what you want based on demographics, etc.

</comment><comment><USER33> This is why YouTube went from a 5 star rating system to a thumbs up / thumbs down system back in 2009. See: [https://youtube.googleblog.com/2009/09/five- stars-dominate-r...](https://youtube.googleblog.com/2009/09/five-stars- dominate-ratings.html)

</comment><comment><USER34> I'm not sure the ratings are that broken in this case. Googling it I get:

78% Rotten Tomatoes 5.5/10 IMDb 3/5 The Guardian

above the fold, which is enough to guess it's quite good but not amazing. It's kind of obvious IMDB will be polarized if you look or just use common sense.

</comment><comment><USER35> Gore's response to critics: "You don't have to get snippy about this!"

</comment><comment><USER36> This is a worthwhile analysis - interesting to see the graphs and breakdown along different angles.

But I don't see the "big flaw" exposed. You've democratized movie rating and got an accurate reflection of the polarized feelings on the topic. Are you arguing people should be "objective"? Are they objective about any movie?

People voting before really seeing the movie - a problem yes, but the outcome wouldn't change much. And it is an implementation problem, not a problem with online rating per se.

<comment><USER21> The "big flaw" is that a film that people either love or hate is indistinguishable from a film that everyone thinks is OK.

<comment><USER36> So on Amazon page we see the distribution in addition to the average score. People clearly either love it or hate it.

[https://www.amazon.com/Inconvenient-Truth-Al- Gore/dp/B00AB0S...](https://www.amazon.com/Inconvenient-Truth-Al- Gore/dp/B00AB0SHRW)

Plus it skews toward the positive, since we would expect a verified buyer is more likely to be someone that already approves.

On the other hand, films that everyone thinks are OK are still indistinguishable from a film I may either love or hate. This is not a flaw, but inherent in the idea of ratings itself.

I don't see bimodal distributions as a problem, but hiding them might be.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Climate change conspiracy theorist really hate the truth.</comment>


Show HN: Train myself to launch, 12 projects in 2015 - <AUTHOR> http://www.a-project-a-month.com/

<comment><USER2> Nice. I like ambition, I like building first and "strategizing" later. Basic tech gets a lot of play, but if HN slowly transformed into a much more active Show HN, I would not be disappointed at all.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks - I spend too much time getting it ready and then never launching, so by publicly declaring this I'm hoping it'll motivate me to actually get the job done, 12 times!

This post hasn't gained any traction but maybe one of the monthly projects will catch the groups interest!</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Turkey has GitHub, dropbox etc. blocked. What is a good VPN to be using? - <AUTHOR> obviously doing any kind of work in this country is pretty hard, so which VPN services are decent and secure? any personal experiences? please share, thanks. I haven't seen any recommendations in their respective threads. <comment><USER2> I use Torguard which features exit nodes in +80 countries for ~ 60/year. I use it with openvpn[1].

That said, I'm not sure if it will work in case because I've noticed that some websites block at least 2/3 of the exit nodes. So I guess that there's an IP list of shared exit nodes for all if not most VPN providers. Even if it doesn't exist is really easy to create by creating one account per VPN provider.

Torguard supposedly doesn't track/keep logs and hides your IP in IPv4/6 when torrenting. There's a tool to check if you are leaking packets which show your real IP through torrents.

In your case (Turkey) I'd go for a single VPS instance and setup an OpenVPN server, it takes 10 minutes to do so... Chances are that the VPS will never get blocked, I can't say the same for VPN's exit nodes.

[1] [https://www.convalesco.org/articles/2015/06/08/raspberry- pi-...](https://www.convalesco.org/articles/2015/06/08/raspberry-pi-seedbox- with-transmission-and-torguard/)

</comment><comment><USER3> I used [https://privatepackets.io/](https://privatepackets.io/) to setup my own server while in Turkey.

The HN search has a couple of recent 'best VPN' discussion threads [https://hn.algolia.com/?query=best%20vpn&sort=byPopularity&p...](https://hn.algolia.com/?query=best%20vpn&sort=byPopularity&prefix&page=0&dateRange=all&type=story)</comment>


Definr: Incredibly fast dictionary - <AUTHOR> http://definr.com/

<comment><USER2> Guys, I wrote a similar tool few months ago: <http://www.instantwordsearch.com>

It does more than definr (e.g. pattern search). But it was met with indifference (except on StumbleUpon). Can you tell me where I screwed up?

May be I shouldn't have mentioned that I wrote it as a toy app? (but it IS a toy app) Picture needed? Looks ugly/too simple? Name too long? All I am able to come up with are some conspiracy theories: 'Definr creator lists Kevin Rose as _friend_ in his Digg profile'; 'Ruby-On-Rails was mentioned' etc. But the real issue must be something else.

I think the fault is invisible to me as I created the tool. Hopefully I can learn a marketing lesson or two from this... Please help.

<comment><USER3> I just typed in 'quotidian' to both apps. (It came up this weekend.)

Definr is very fast. It looks up words faster than I type so that the list of words at the bottom updates with each new letter. With IWS, I had to pause mid-word for a half-second in order to get an updated list. By the time I got a choice of words with IWS, I had finished typing and already made a typo.

Also, the interface for Definr is much more friendly looking and simple. Definr gives you the complete definition on the main page, instead of links to other definitions. And Definr is an easy name.

Sorry, but I liked Definr much better.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I'm not sure it's incredibly fast, sure it uses auto-complete and ajax to load things instead of a page refresh, but it seems a similar speed to conventional web based dictionaries to me.

<comment><USER3> It updates the word list underneath the search bar with every letter typed...at full speed typing. Since typing speed pretty much defines the maximum data input speed, I think that qualifies as 'incredibly fast'.

<comment><USER4> heh I wasn't that bothered about the 'suggest' feature. You still have to wait for the definition to appear.

Still cool, but I'm not sure it's much faster (Assuming you don't care about the suggest functionality).

<comment><USER3> I was interested in the suggest feature mostly because I didn't know how to spell "quotidian"!

Otherwise, the differences are more about presentation than an actual difference in the technology. I guess I was really just impressed by the user interface of Definr.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This cries out to be implemented with Berkeley DB, which is simply much faster than relational databases.

<comment><USER6> I'm not sure it's useful either. Why not just use a dedicated data structure (such as a radix tree dictionary)?

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Nothing will ever be faster than hovering over a word and pressing control- command-D on Mac OS X.

</comment><comment><USER8> Sweet. However, the one word I happened to pick for a test (don't know why) was "spork" -- doh.

At least it wasn't a presentation at YC: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=77269>

</comment><comment><USER9> How is this a startup? Auto-complete is NOT hard: it's a trie.

<comment><USER10> I see no indication that it's intended to be one.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I've been using this one. Easier to type definr though.

<http://www.ninjawords.com/>

</comment><comment><USER12> Making a round trip with each letter typed? Impressive. Who needs a desktop app?

</comment><comment><USER13> I tried "triumphalism" on the first try. Not yet there :)</comment>


What I think Dropbox's next move should be. - <AUTHOR> http://ntomkin.posterous.com/what-i-think-dropboxs-next-move-should-be

<comment><USER2> most of the objections so far are technical, but how about entrenched backwardness of most ISPs as a reason this wouldn't work?

"While most of these addons are simple services glossed with a thick coat of wax, Dropbox is a real benefit and definitely would be worth a line on my bill."

If something's actually worthwhile and not a gimmick, it likely won't work. We get gimmicky commercials demonstrating people being impressed that they get to spend "only" $99/month (for up to X months!) to get "unlimited phone, cable _AND_ internet! (restrictions apply)" service. Or "choose which 3 of our 4 services you want - you've created a _custom_ service plan! w00t!" commercials.

All of these serve only to let them continue to ride the gravy train of massive markups ($40/month for a voip line which doesn't include non-US calling?) and lock you in to future price hikes. I can't recall any service an ISP has ever offered me that had any real benefit to me as a user. I don't want your crappy webmail, I don't want your embedded virus scanning on my PC, I don't want your 5 meg webspace.

A branded dropbox or carbonite-style backup service included at a reasonable price? That would smack of real value - current mega-ISPs would run a mile (or a kilometer) from that one.

</comment><comment><USER3> I would love to see Dropbox brought to a wider audience, but I don't quite see the fit between residential ISPs and Dropbox. Particularly, I don't see why the ISP would _want_ to sell some specific web service along with their main product (the Internet service itself). Sure, the ISP might be able to break even or make a profit, but they might also be able to make a profit selling Girl Scout cookies to their customers.

<comment><USER4> I can respect the opinion that the costs might not be a tipping point factor for the ISPs. Of course, many services are value-added and provide no real profit. The idea is that they are providing something revolutionary through their consumer channels. In otherwords, it's outsourced "personal web space" that comes with most ISP packages today. Dropbox provides a superior experience while lifting the technological overhead of dealing with providing the space.

Dropbox ISP integration would encourage loyalty, not profit. Cookies wouldn't do the same. But since you bring it up, Netflix could offer a similar service to cool off the cable companies, making the headaches Netflix's lawyers have to deal with a little less troublesome.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Biggest obstacle: ISPs want as much vertical integration as possible. They would probably try to develop a commercially competing but not technically competitive product rather than subscribing to a third party. Some already have (Orange). Worse, one of them could actually try to flat out buy Dropbox (like, again, Orange did with Deezer)

</comment><comment><USER6> Sorry, doesn't really make much sense to me...

What about 4 people sharing one Internet connection at home, all with their own Dropbox account? What about someone that doesn't have an Internet connection (and who access Internet at school, libraries or their friends places)? And what about company Dropbox accounts?

<comment><AUTHOR> In the article I mentioned that Dropbox would have to source some costs in infrastructure. In my opinion, Dropbox with your ISP would be more beneficial for multiple accounts. Dropbox could have a control panel for ISPs to link their customers to which would allow a MobileMe-esc division of the available space. The ISP could provide Dropbox with the assigned IP address (hashed, of course) so decisions regarding the use could be handled appropriately. Outside of your ISP connection, you'd have the same access with the same experience.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> OT, but I was intrigued by the other items on the proposed ISP bill--in particular the "US Timeshifting" item. I did some searching. It seems some Canadian cable companies offer for $1/month to provide access to both the east and west feeds of ABC, CBS, NBC, and PBS.

</comment><comment><USER8> Some ISPs-- like Telenor in Norway, for example-- already offer a similar (but not identical) service.

Personally, I use Dropbox instead of the "Telenor Online Backup"-- and I can't say that the billing method has made much of a difference.

</comment><comment><USER9> It says "50BG Dropbox" :-) I guess someone didn't proof read their photo editing.

</comment><comment><USER10> I would love to see twitter/facebook integration so you could have a shared folder with your social networks... i.e. napster with a legally defensible position.

</comment><comment><USER11> Would the data actually be private, or would they roll over to blanket requests from the RIAA and MPAA?

</comment><comment><USER12> ISPs carry with them an expectation of phone support. That could get messy, and wipe out any profits.

<comment><AUTHOR> True, but I don't think it would be any more than the support provided for _personal web space_. The big difference of course is that Dropbox is much better, more user friendly and much more enjoyable as it is available from your desktop instead of FTP clients.

I also think Dropbox's own support system far surpases the support that most ISPs have for _personal web space_.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> It sounds like a very cool idea, I think the way to do it is as a value add. Everyone who signs up gets a free account and can then upgrade. It costs the ISP nothing, allows them to market on it, and is pure lead gen for dropbox.

Do not try to integrate into the billing system on Canadian ISPs, I have experience with two of the major providers and it's a nightmare to say the least. I managed to find $3 million in revenue with a couple perl scripts and the expect module. Let's just say you're dealing with operating systems where TCP/IP is optional.

If you really want to pursue it drop me a line, I may be able to put you in touch with the right people.</comment>


Canadians working for US company remotely? - <AUTHOR> How many of you are in Canada but working for US company remotely ? If possible, please include<p>- How much are you making ?<p>- How did you find the company ?<p>- Name of the company. <comment><USER3> I've hired Canadians to work oh fully remote engineering teams. We didn't try to get a good deal, just tried to find good talent. We kept them as contractors for legal reasons but treated them like employees. We paid between 120k and 160k USD depending on ability. SF Series B Startup.

<comment><USER4> My God you could have paid them 1/2 of that or hired twice as many. You understand that there is a 30%-35% premium on USD? You also understand it isn't difficult to find good talent since there is a shortage of work and most are under employed.

<comment><USER5> You should look at it from another side - those who look for (and are able to do) remote work, have more options compared to "local competitive" market.

<comment><USER6> local market sucks here bigtime. Even 100k seems them to like ripping there finances off badly. I can't even understand. Despite of that cost of living is very high. E.x. Chipotle Burrito : US: 6.75$ CAD: 10$ Subway: US: 6.75$ CAD: 10$ >

I am really so pissed off these tech companies, who doesn't pay well but wanted you to take full responsibility as your are a labourer rather then a software eng.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I work remotely for a US company but they are a 100% remote company so everybody is scattered across the globe there, I found them a few years ago in a Who's Hiring thread posted here. I make far more than what a local company would ever pay me, and in USD. I set up a federal corporation, hire somebody to do taxes every year and have a USD local business account to receive wires because any bank will pillage you in fees to exchange wires otherwise.

The only problem is dealing with both sides of the border when you tell them you're going down/returning for something work related. It can range from an hour long interrogation to being waived through so I stopped attending any kind of work related conferences or meetings if they are in the US. Others also had problems so we generally do this in the UK now.

</comment><comment><USER8> I used to (1996-2000) work remotely for IBM Watson Research (as a consultant).

Visiting IBM once a month or so for a few days to communicate with team.

I had rather specific rare set of skills (malware and security research and investigation experience).

Basically having rare set of skills - not necessarily in high demand - <USER2> help.

Been paid in US dollars at a higher rate than Canadian employer would pay, plus exchange rate was favorable too.

Worked in a corp-to-corp arrangement through canadian-based consulting company.

</comment><comment><USER9> Ooo this has been on my mind as well. To add, if I may, off the top of my head:

\- How do your taxes work (I would assume not deducted by payroll, etc)

\- If you enter USA for any work-related thing, do you need a work visa? (I assume the answer is yes, but maybe it's more nuanced?)

To the general HN community: has anyone seen/heard of US companies hiring up north to try and get a 'discount' on talent, based on the currently weak CAD?

<comment><USER10> I'm a Canadian working for a US company in the US, but I can say (having worked remotely in the past), that you'd very likely be paid as a consultant or contractor, so your taxes would work like you're self-employed.

And my understanding is that the work visa issue _is_ nuanced. Generally speaking, if you are doing paid/productive work in the US, you need a work visa. But I think if you make special arrangements, as a contractor, you can enter on a tourist visa for some purposes. For example, if you are engaged in training and your employer pays for the travel (it may just happen to be expensive travel equal to your weekly pay), then you technically aren't engaged in paid, productive work while you're in the US. (I am not an immigration lawyer, this is not legal advice. :P)

<comment><USER6> Hi, Can you please help me with some of the contacts to get work at US based companies. I am based out of TORONTO and believe me, its really hard to find what I use to get at US. I will definitely appreciate your help. My email is panbhatt attherateof gmail.com

<comment><USER10> Nepotism (friends from UWaterloo referred me), so unfortunately I can't help you directly. We are hiring though, so I'll send you an email.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Play Framework 2.1-RC is out - <AUTHOR> https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/play-framework/MGM3Mrdw6WY

<comment><USER2> Not sure if this is the right forum to ask this... but here goes: I have a colleague who suggests porting a complex PHP web app (including Spaghetti Code TM) to Play. Anyone have thoughts on how this would compare to using RoR?

Apologies in advance if this is not the right forum.</comment>


IOS 4.2.1 Jailbreak hits with updated redsn0w  - <AUTHOR> http://www.engadget.com/2010/11/23/redsn0w-updated-for-ios-4-2-1-jailbreak/

<comment><USER2> How about unlocking?</comment>


Ask HN: Best UX alternatives to pagination anti-patterns? - <AUTHOR> Trying to allow users to rifle through pages of a collection without the typical UX pagination anti-pattern.
Purported anti-pattern: `<< Prev   1 2 3 ... 11 13 14 ... 88 89 90   Next >>`
What are some best-practice alternatives? Search? Filtering? Other kinds of pagination? Examples / links appreciated as well. <comment><USER2> Since when is Prev [n] Next considered an anti-pattern? I think that would only apply if the data has structure but that isn't used (e.g. an alphabetical list should be paged by first letter A B C...).

</comment><comment><USER3> It's not an anti-pattern. There are no other better alternatives for generic paging purposes where a lot of pages are involved.

The only change necessary in the example is to drop the 2 3 and 88 89, they're entirely unnecessary and add bloat.

< Prev | 1 | 11 13 14 | 90 | Next >

Drop the Prev on the first page. Drop the Next on the last page. Highlight the page you're on in the middle (eg 13) and keep that page in the middle as you cycle. If you're on page one, it goes to the strict left and gets highlighted.

You can optionally use "first" and "last" in it, although that takes up more overall space and detracts from the Prev / Next visually. You can also put a small jump input box with it if there's an unusual, rare reason to need it.

That's it. It's a paging work of beauty superior to all other generic alternatives. The only way you beat that approach is under circumstances of niche demands. For example where a simple "< Prev | Next >" will do (because you have absolutely no need to ever jump) or you have a small fixed number of pages "1 2 3 4 5" and so on.

</comment><comment><USER4> Infinite scrolling is the popular, because of the efficiency of many mobile adapters. A list of data in our platform takes about 90% of the latency in connection, especially now that everything is https, and the file size is negligible on most devices.

Android on a 2012 device has little issue displaying 1000 text-only items. Most of the weight of infinite scrolling is possibly querying the DB and maybe caching images.

The UX downside is that it's hard to jump to something in the middle. But filters on native mobile are easy to apply and require you to first download a whole chunk of data.

Also by infinite scrolling, I don't mean it pulls infinite items, but rather reloads the 'page' when it hits the bottom.

</comment><comment><USER5> Many systems exist because there isn't a perfect one that works in all scenarios. You should search online for UX discussions more focused on your particular scenario and weigh up the pros/cons. A list of pages might be perfect for one use case, infinite scrolling might be perfect for another etc. Try and find existing apps/UIs that deal with your scenario for ideas.

</comment><comment><USER6> do you really need the numbers? if it's alphabetical list, maybe letters, otherwise, just prev/next . most people are now accustomed to infinite scrolling which doesnt even have a prev button, let alone numbers

<comment><USER7> Being able to do larger jumps can be nice when exploring content, e.g. a long project log.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> For common websites:

Prev 1 ... 53 54 55 ... 99 Next

\- Next/Prev btn

\- Last and first page

\- The current page between his siblings

In mobile width 320-470px I just keep:

Prev / Next

For admin panel:

Prev page: [5] of 100 Next

I like to have a text [input] so I can just type the page.</comment>


VMWare Mobile, Coming Soon to Pockets Everywhere - <AUTHOR> http://os-blog.com/vmware-mobile-coming-soon-to-pockets-everywhere/

<comment><USER2> I'll be very interested to see what use cases come up here. VMWare does a lot of interesting stuff, excited to see what happens on mobile.</comment>


The Mac Pro and Apple's Slide - <AUTHOR> https://lexic.co/barfblog/the-mac-pro-and-apple-s-slide <comment><USER2> > "Steve Jobs was an engineer"

I read the Jobs biography cover to cover, and I'm going to stop you right there, no. The guy who couldn't engineer an Atari game and ripped off his friend's work instead is not an engineer, and the idea that he had any kind of empathy for anyone is frankly hilarious.

He had good taste, and he was a tyrant. In most cases these traits amount to mediocrity. Jobs was in the right place at the right time, in any other situation he'd have been a middle manager at best.

<comment><USER3> _the idea that he had any kind of empathy for anyone is frankly hilarious_

As a counterpoint, he was a good neighbour [1]. The guy had some serious issues with the way he treated people, and he may have had a personality disorder, but it's a bit extreme to think he had no empathy for any other human being.

[1] [https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/10/steve-j...](https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/10/steve- jobs-was-my-neighbor/246327/)

 _Edit: whoops! This was the wrong link. Here is the article I had in mind (it 's been years since I read it and apparently there are multiple neighbour stories about Jobs):_

[https://patch.com/california/paloalto/my-neighbor-steve- jobs](https://patch.com/california/paloalto/my-neighbor-steve-jobs)

<comment><USER4> that article doesn't say anything about him being a good neighbor? all it says is that he kept a simple home. what kind of weird deification is it that there's an article about a guy walking around jobs house (occasionally seeing jobs himself) _and_ in your mind that constitutes being a good neighbor.

<comment><USER5> Being a "good neighbor", in much of the US, means that their house and yard are tasteful and well maintained. And that they don't have loud parties.

<comment><USER4> Op was trying to exhibit jobs' empathy. Does maintaining your yard demonstrate empathy?

<comment><USER5> Sure. Empathy for your property value.

At one point, I lived across the street from a guy whose "front yard" was basically a loading dock. He was not considered a good neighbor, except by the guy down the street. Whose property included a house that apparently hadn't been painted or roofed for maybe a century. And who spent much of his time drinking beer, sitting on his porch. Often with the other guy.

They hosted great parties, though. One time, they had a live band, with a sound system on a trailer. Too many iffy bikers, though. Fights, and occasional gunfire.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I scoffed at Apples for years before getting a 2012 Macbook Pro for the Retina display. I'm still using it 7+ years later whereas the highly rated Vaios and Thinkpads I had before conked out in less than 3 years each. The Unix underlying macOS has been rock solid and I can run whatever I need to. I much prefer Android to iOS though.

I'm worried by what I hear even from full-on Apple aficionados about the new notebooks and Catalina, which I am resisting. I have to use Windows 10 at work and I don't like it nearly as much. Someday this MBP will need replacing and I feel like I am caught with no good option other than dealing with Windows- whatever or paying a huge Apple premium for hardware that may not be worth it.

(I have tried several flavors of Linux desktops and have been frustrated by all of them)

<comment><USER7> FWIW I have the new 16 inch MBP and I like it a lot more than my 2015 rMBP. Touch ID is a thing you won't want to live without once you've had it on a laptop ;P

<comment><USER8> I'll second this. They fixed everything that was wrong with the previous generation, and it's hardware I'd actually recommend now.

Catalina, on the other hand...

<comment><USER6> This is reassuring. I hope that by the time I need to replace that Catalina or its successor will be stable. I keep an eye on refurbished 2015 MBPs because my friends who have them rave about them and don't want to give them up.

BTW, I am still relatively new to HN. This article/thread is marked as 'flagged' for some reason and I have to access it through my own "Comments" link. Can anyone explain why? It seems on-topic. I have not submitted anything yet and am trying to understand the ground rules.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> It is a little weird to see the Mac Pro described as so ludicrously high-end that the plebs can't understand it. I would describe it as a mid-range workstation. More than I need for sure, but if you want to talk about Serious Power for Serious People it's got nothing on the high-end Dells or HPs.

<comment><USER10> A loaded Mac pro has 2 AMD GPUs, 28 cores, 8TB of nvme disk and 1.5TB of ram for $52K.

I went to dell and got 3TB of ram, 56-cores (two of the mac's 28-core cpus), 40TB of SAS HDDs with 8TB of nvme SSDs and triple Nvidia GV100 for $170k+.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I'm sympathetic to the feeling in this blog post, but not the specific examples. It's not about cost-cutting, because Tim Cook's supply-chain wrangling has resulted in us getting nicer stuff while Apple pays less. In fact, I don't think Apple hardware has ever been as high-end in terms of technology and components. But high-end != good design.

Anyways, producing nice-looking stuff that doesn't work all that well has long been in the Apple DNA, I think. Anybody remember the circular Apple mouse? And who actually enjoyed using a Magic Mouse over, say, a Logitech mx518?

<comment><USER12> Apple's mobile chips are definitely "high end" and have been about 2-3 years ahead of the rest of the industry lately.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> > It's arguably the best workstation money can buy, with a forward-looking > architecture that should satisfy any professional in need of massive > performance

This seems like nonsense. It may be the best looking workstation, but money can buy more powerful workstations with high end Nvidia GPUs.

<comment><USER14> If you ever get a chance to venture out of the Mac galaxy, you will find the HP-Z8 galaxy a lot more interesting!

On a serious note: does anyone know which CAD platform Apple uses to design their products? ie products like Solidworks, Catia, ProE etc? I'd love to hear more about how their most powerful workstation in the world helps them design the next iteration on itself?

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Steve Jobs the engineer. That made me laugh.

</comment><comment><USER16> I think this guys got it wrong. Apple's last half-dozen years of design interation are (IMO) the fault of Jony Ive, And his relentless dedication to how the product looks rather than how useful it is.

Apple likes making a particular kind of computer for a particular kind of user (the iPad) and the Mac has really suffered under the ethos of "The computer for the rest of us" taken to the extreme.

</comment><comment><USER17> > _But it doesn 't signify a new direction for Apple. It's the exception that > proves the rule._

I hope the article is wrong on that and the 16'' MBP and the Mac Pro are actually a new direction for Apple.

<comment><USER18> I don't know. I'm a recent Mac user (couldn't hold out any longer for an updated Surface Book) and the author makes some good points. My $4K 16" MBP is nice enough, but definitely doesn't "feel" like a $4K machine. Worse, Catalina has not been a great experience for me. I've had 3 reboots due to Kernel panic in the last few weeks and just today I had to hard reboot because Finder completely lost the plot and crashed hard when it couldn't connect to a mapped network drive from work (I was on my home network).

My previous Dell laptop + Windows 10 was more stable than my current MBP, which is quite concerning to me. I do like a lot of things about OSX but just as with Apple hardware, their focus on OSX and shipping a refined OS seems to be slipping.

<comment><USER17> I've been using macOS daily since 2007 and the past 5-6 years the QA of macOS has not been great. Apple ends up fixing most problems but it's never a good idea to use a recently released major version. I'd suggest you to go back to Mojave if you can.

<comment><USER18> Yeah, unfortunately this shipped with Catalina. Might go down that path if things don't improve.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> What makes the OP think Tim Cook had any real say in any of the design of the MBP? If anything, Tim probably lets the hardware leadership make the decisions.

I think the Watch and Apple's shift to privacy are Tim's contributions to the world.

<comment><USER20> Also how did soldering the RAM in place "save them a few bucks on parts."?

<comment><USER21> My understanding of the soldered RAM is that it allows them to use LPDDR. It's not about thin, it's not about spending two cents on a socket, it's a genuine engineering trade-off as part of their near-obsessive take on power management.

Interesting that he starts off claiming that Apple sweat the details instead of trying to blind you with numbers - and then proceeds to completely miss such details.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> _There 's been a noticeable decline in Apple quality under Tim Cook's leadership_

I'm the last person to defend the MacBook keyboards for the last 3 years, but let's put the MacBook in perspective. The entire Mac line is only 10% of Apple's revenue and some of those are desktops.

The iPad that was around before Jobs passed were really just big iPhones. There were hardly any affordances for the larger screen. The iPad didn't come into its own until around 2015.</comment>


CIA's NightSkies tool can hack, remotely control iPhones without user knowing - a-smith https://www.rt.com/viral/382080-nightskies-cia-infiltrate-iphone/ <comment><AUTHOR> why do they keep saying "factory fresh"? Is the CIA at the factory doing the install on every phone that comes off the line? If they install it later on a per target basis then what does "factory fresh" mean? After a few weeks is it no longer possible to install the software?

<comment><USER2> "The revelation that the CIA is physically infiltrating factory fresh phones suggests it has accessed the organization's supply chain"</comment></comment>


This 28-year-old's Iowa startup moves $350 million a year. - <AUTHOR> http://www.businessinsider.com/this-28-year-old-is-making-sure-credit-cards-wont-exist-in-the-next-few-years-2011-11?page=1 <comment><USER2> Great quote: "In my own naive way, I would never build a company anywhere but Iowa so maybe I just don't know any better. My personal feeling is, if you want to build it, where you are is just an excuse. Figure out what the area has to offer you and then leverage that. Hustle your ass off and make it work."

</comment><comment><USER3> Surely the problem at hand is not simply an atomic transaction in a distributed system, any HN reader worth her salt can do that.

The problem is satisfactorily handling money laundering, fraudulent transactions, and a myriad other user-facing issues. A better question is what regulation should exist in this space, and the actual mechanics of the payment.

Who gets to say the buyer's money is good, and that the seller has adequately dealt with the conditions of sale?

</comment><comment><USER4> I have strong feeling that majority of money flow comes from Bitcoin-related services. Would be interesting to see real numbers.

<comment><USER5> Dwolla lost a lot of Bitcoin business when they started doing chargebacks (the only reason Bitcoiners were using Dwolla to begin with was the claimed lack of chargebacks).

<comment><USER4> Right, but Dwolla is still an option to fund tradehill/mtgox/etc. I.e. PayPal similar problems, but is not listed as a funding option on any of these exchanges. My gut feeling says Dwolla profit a lot from bitcoin exchanges and that's a reason they allow exchanges to use their services.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This solves a problem of exuberant costs for large payments, but my main problem is the reverse: small payments, transactions of a few dollars each. $0.25 cents for a transfer of just a few dollars is way too high.

<comment><USER7> We're working on it, and so are a number of other startups (I'll have to refer you to BuySimple - <https://www.buysimple.com/> \- I guess, since we're not operative yet, and there are dozens of others)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Wait. What?

In Australia, we have "EFT" - electronic funds transfer (between banks). Typically, there's no cost and it's accepted between all banks. If you have to transfer to another bank though, it _can_ take one business day.

We also have BPay, which is simpler and a little easier.

The USA seriously doesn't have these?

<comment><USER9> It does but it also requires the payee to give away personal information (e.g. routing and bank account number). It also means the payer needs to get this information before they can send money. This is essentially EFT payments but simplified. Instead of needing banking information from the payee you can just send it to them using their email address, phone number or Facebook.

<comment><USER8> Oh awesome. Thanks for clarifying :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> My creating a dwolla account is a direct result of my interest in Bitcoin exchanges. I wonder how many of their users have a dwolla account for this purpose.?

</comment><comment><USER11> If the average transaction is $500 and they move $350MM a year, that's only $175,000 in revenue. I know they are still a young startup but that's certainly a less sexy number than the headline tries to imply.

Am I missing something?

<comment><USER12> Money isn't everything, I think he's more interested in changing the world: those 2% banks take for every transaction is a relic from the past that still exist because of a lack of competition, and the greed of those who dared to compete. I am really impressed by this guy.

<comment><USER13> Those 2.0% the bank take for every transaction is because they own the transaction network.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> If they succeed, it will mean the financial transaction space is truly becoming efficient. At $.25/transaction and an average transaction size of $500, that means a charge of %0.05 or 5bps. Compare that to most credit card companies that charge 2% plus a fixed transaction fee.

That also means their current run rate is $175,000/year which is not a huge business.

<comment><USER15> If it catches on in retail - like coffee shops, restaurants, etc..., I bet that average will go far down. Sounds like the average is weighted towards with the renters/landlords they have.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> That's awesome that Dwolla is moving 350 million a year, but I wonder how many total transactions that sums up to. Since they're charging per transaction, showing a net transfer amount doesn't really give any ideas about total revenue or if they are profitable yet.

It's an interesting price model for sure, but I'm surprised they just didn't do the typical "under-cut everyone else" strategy. It would be hard for me to stomach seeing $1 million transfer through my system and only 25 cents getting deposited in the company bank account. I mean that's a %0.000025 cut, and since this service is so convenient, I imagine they could charge more.

Remember, things aren't priced at what they are worth but what people will pay for them. Even a 0.5% cut gives you 5k on a million dollar transaction, and that's still tons better than paypal.

<comment><USER17> From the article: "The average transaction volume for Dwolla is right around $500 dollars. We move between $30 and $50 million per month."

So that's 60k to 100k transactions for $15k to $25k per month in fees.

<comment><USER16> Ah thanks, I missed that. So 180k a year? That's honestly not a whole ton for a startup that big...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Dwolla is one of many companies violating money transmitter laws. Having a bank processor as an investor does not make one exempt, nor is such an excuse consistent with the fact that Dwolla had to register as a money transmitter in Iowa.

Our formal complaint to the DFI is below.

<https://www.facecash.com/legal/20111102.dwollapacket.pdf>

As I've made clear in the past (<http://www.aarongreenspan.com/writing/brown.html>), I'm not at all a fan of the laws, but if I have to obey them, so should everyone else.

<comment><USER19> Aaron, I hold you in the highest regard, but this makes you look less than nice.

Essentially what you have done here is rat out a competitor who _may_ have broken a law (how do you know they have not registered?), presumably because you are in competition, not because you are concerned for the well being of your fellow citizens.

If you really are not a 'fan of the laws' and you are just mad at having to obey them I think that you should stand up against those laws, rather than to rat out those that break them.

It's like someone driving 55 Mph on the highway calling the police because they're overtaken by someone else doing 60, after all, if you have to obey the law so should everybody else.

Technically you're in the right, but this leaves me with a weird taste, especially because you say you don't like those laws.

<comment><USER18> Fair points, all.

The list of registered licensees is public...

<http://www.dfi.ca.gov/directory/mt.asp>

...as are lists of recent applicants (updated monthly)...

[http://www.dfi.ca.gov/publications/summaries/2011/september....](http://www.dfi.ca.gov/publications/summaries/2011/september.pdf)

[http://www.dfi.ca.gov/publications/bulletins/2011/october11....](http://www.dfi.ca.gov/publications/bulletins/2011/october11.pdf)

The complaint against Dwolla is one of 34 I have filed with the DFI. I don't plan to file any more complaints, but I'm not done yet.</comment></comment></comment>


Why are you starting a company? - <AUTHOR> http://blog.1530technologies.com/2010/03/why-are-you-starting-a-company.html

<comment><USER2> To control my own destiny as much as I can. To make a difference in the world. Oh, and money.

</comment><comment><USER3> I like starting companies in general because I like: * seeing direct effects from what I do (it's like a game!) * freedom and responsibility to make important decisions, not filling in TPS reports all day * Expressing opinions about what technologies are useful (because they solve problems efficiently), and solving important problems with those technologies * working with people who feel the same way (employees + customers)

I am starting my next company (#3) (full-time this summer) because I'd like to see cloud computing/virtualized infrastructure made (more) secure, and applied to hard problems. I'd rather live in a world with this technology.

I'm willing to give up fairly comfortable 200-400k/yr. I _believe_ the expected value per year at the startup exceeds that, but that isn't really a factor in my decision. I'd do it for free and wait tables to pay the rent.

Doing a startup only because you want the end result (exit) seems like a way to be miserable for most of your life.

</comment><comment><USER4> First, this is a pointless debate: there's a Russian proverb saying "Don't divide the skin of a bear you haven't killed yet" i.e., starting a company that even _gives_ you the option of liquid equity _or_ profit you can live on is difficult and you'd be lucky to do be in the position to choose.

Most don't get to either routes (they fail); others have to choose one over the other due to the nature of their product and market e.g., business software requires _long_ sales cycles and a pipeline that takes many of these cycles to build (before you have any significant traction or equity), "generic" consumer Internet on other can mean sub $1.0 CPMs, requiring immense scale before profit (at which point a "for eye balls" sale sounds lucrative).

I also don't think the understands what fuck you money means. To some it may mean "serial enterprise" (and these people have generally built world changing companies as well as invested in others). To others that means enough money to develop your own Lisp dialect at your own pace instead of spending most of your day working only on the sort of software others would pay for (that is, freedom). They're both noble and respectable goals.

People who are interested in money for the sake of material wealth typically aren't technology entrepreneurs. I'd argue even Ellison and Gates would be technologists even _if_ it didn't make them wealthy.

<comment><USER5> > there's a Russian proverb saying "Don't divide the skin of a bear you > haven't killed yet"

I believe the English one is "don't count your chickens before they've hatched" (i.e. don't count unhatched eggs). My local one is about the same, but more graphical: "don't count on the egg in the chicken's ass" ;-)

(Yes, I do have a weakness for proverbs.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I feel like being an entrepreneur, even at the small single-developer scale that I'm going for right now, is the most _honest_ way I can attempt to contribute to the world.

Employment is essentially the use of my skills as a kind of organizational machinery: sometimes this can be very valuable - more monetarily valuable than things I might do solo - and the work problems can be interesting, but it's not as personally fulfilling, because it's the company that gets to be influential to the world, not me personally, and the work done is usually a "right now" problem that in the very long term has an automated solution. That bugs me to no end.

So while I want some of the "lifestyle" business aspects, I also want some kind of ideological power in the long term to help others live a good and productive life. And I want my work to feel intimate, and to be made with artisan craftsmanship. This has led me pretty strongly towards making independent games; they're a great medium of expression and of teaching, and they have a lot of room for aesthetics. The work has essentially no upper limit on challenge and variation, and building with the market in mind is actually a helpful constraint on the "art" side of things.

I haven't gotten too far towards specific expression yet, but I think that is really going to come as a cumulation of everything else.

</comment><comment><USER7> " _Money, cars and material things won't suddenly make you happy._ "

But what about the freedom to work on things that don't make money? This is the true purpose of seeking out "fuck you" money

<comment><USER8> You don't need fuck you money to do that. I do that and I don't have fu money. I volunteer lots of time and create websites that don't make money or aren't intended to make money.

If you are really productive, live a frugal life, and create a little residual income you can work on whatever you want.

<comment><USER9> If you're happy with a frugal life, then your 'little residual income' effectively IS fuck you money.

Fuck you money doesn't have to be hundreds of millions of dollars, unless you want to support a wealthy/extravagant lifestyle. Then again, maybe you want an extravagant lifestyle and your own submarine. That's not any better or worse in itself than just wanting a frugal life.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Because I'm unemployable.

<comment><USER11> Would you mind elaborating?

How come you're capable of running a company but cannot find a job? Unless you live in a place with a very high unemployment rate, it doesn't sound right.

<comment><USER10> Oh, I'm awesome, I just don't like answering to other people and not working to my own schedule.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> The general take-away is hard to argue with, I suppose: there are lots of reasons to start a company, and when making decisions, you should take into account which of the reasons are yours instead of just blindly following conventional wisdom. But it does seem like pretty well-trodden ground: surely by now we are all aware that you don't _have_ to go the big-scaling-up/huge- VC-funding/looking-for-an-exit-in-5-yrs route, if you don't want to?

</comment><comment><USER13> To get out of a service based profession. To pay my mortgage without having to perform a skill based job.

</comment><comment><USER14> After working at a number of companies, I realized that the thing that would really suit my talents is to be part of the top management of a reasonably large company. To start my own company were I had a top position by default was way easier and more satisfying than working my way up the ladder in an existing one. I now lead a small startup (bootstrapped, highly profitable) and I'm having the time of my life. The key thing is not money, freedom or some such - but simply the feeling of using my brain in a very efficient way, every day.

<comment><USER15> What is the website for your startup?

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I want to add value to the world in the most efficient way possible. For me, that's owning my own company and making customers and/or users happy. I've worked overpaying jobs for large and mid sized companies and it was stifling. Before that I made decent money playing poker and it was unrewarding - I felt like I wasn't accomplishing anything. In the end; I agree it's freedom and the drive to create. EDIT: Grammar.

</comment><comment><USER17> I'm in it for the money. I'm introvert, and hate interacting with peoples I can't stand on a day to day basis. Will it make me happier? not sure, but it probably doesn't make me unhappy and I can do whatever I want.

</comment><comment><USER18> I'm doing it because I love working for myself and I believe there's an opportunity for what I'm working on to help a lot of people. And get paid.

</comment><comment><USER19> So that I can do things I like, and make money from it

</comment><comment><USER20> Because I'm a rebel.

</comment><comment> PG-13 So I never have to interview for a job.

To take over the world.

The knowledge that I'm making money from something I created out of air gives me confidence in other areas of life.

<comment> bjelkeman-again The interview. In the last ten years, or so, I figured that all the companies or organisations that I wanted to work for didn't actually exist, and if they did they wouldn't hire me to run them. So I started my own instead. But several of them have taken outside investment, which means I am doing "job interviews" all the time, but with investors. It feels like investors are pickier than employers. So I am not sure I gained on that one. :)

The "take over the world" part is quite interesting, when you find something to work on which is largely virgin territory and it involves a significant part of the world population (in our case 40% or so). You just have to think a bit different.

And yes, it gives me a real kick to create something from chicken scratchings on the back of a paper napkin.</comment></comment>