Sergey Brin: Come to Silicon Valley to scale a business, but not to start one - <AUTHOR> http://www.businessinsider.com/sergey-brin-on-starting-a-company-in-silicon-valley-2016-6 <comment><USER2> I'm anticipating that some people will misunderstand Brin's advice which is caused by 2 factors:

(1) Page and Brin started Google Inc successfully in SV so it seems contradictory to advise others not to start a company there

(2) the meaning of the word "start" as Brin is using it

As for (1), Larry and Sergey had the luxury of building Google (the _product_ \-- not the formalized "incorporated" Google Inc) inside of Stanford and therefore using the university's computers and bandwidth for free. Piggybacking on Stanford's resources to create an "mvp" was like getting "AWS" for free. A lot of startups don't have that situation. Therefore, a founder may be better off working out the parents' garage in Kansas to keep expenses low. The free room & board is money that would have been spent on a crappy apartment in SV. Instead take those savings and use it to pay for the AWS hosting costs, or a 2nd programmer.

For (2), I think Brin is talking about "start" as in start from zero with an idea on a paper napkin, before an MVP, and before traction from others (users and investors). Zuckerberg started Facebook in Boston and after Sean Parker got interested, he moved Facebook to the more expensive SV. Bill Gates started Microsoft in Albuquerque, New Mexico and made profits before he moved the company to the more expensive Seattle. In other words, you can have a "low profile startup" in your local town that's under the radar which lets you keep expenses very low. You can later have a "high profile startup" in Silicon Valley where the very high costs are worth it to hire from the talent pool and network with other entrepreneurs and investors. That delayed move to SV is what Brin called _" that second step"_.

<comment><USER3> I've always wondered how much of the money YC seeds to its founders eventually ends up in a landlord's pocket? $3000/month on a studio apartment. That's crazy burnout for a startup.

<comment><USER4> You live with a few roommates. It's not hard to find housing in SF for 900-1300/month if you're willing to make some lifestyle tradeoffs.

<comment><USER5> Yes because we all want to relive the glory days of being a poor student. Will the tradeoff include a divorce and place to stay for the kids?

<comment><USER6> > Yes because we all want to relive the glory days of being a poor student.

I thought that's exactly what people in the startup world glorified.

<comment><USER7> Days when "ramen-profitable" meant you actually ate ramen are over. Now everyone jumped on the fitness bandwagon, and eating various types of salads & green stuff is hip. And also expensive - "natural"/organic food is a big business these days.

<comment><USER8> Ramen, just not Maruchan ramen. Asian bistro hand-made organic gluten free gastro molecular gastronomy ramen.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> There's a lot of talk about investors not being as easily available outside SV, but having worked for startups outside the valley most of my career my experience is that it's actually the rich customer bases you're missing by not being in the valley. I think it's easier to evangelise a product where there's a huge receptive audience, and doing it in person is much more effective. Trying to sell people on some new tech in a 1 million person or less city is hard, even when that city has decent official support for startups.

Businesses are more cautious and there are harder to cross barriers to word of mouth spread for consumer oriented businesses. For example, I worked for a social network started before Facebook that was used by nearly every teenager in a large region, but we could not break out of that region no matter what we tried. The kids in the schools in our region just didn't interact outside the region much, so there were no network effects.

In the valley, though, nearly everyone you meet is excited about tech somehow. Many people are from somewhere else in the world and are still in some way connected to where they're from, both in terms of businesses and people. It's just fertile ground for network effects.

<comment><USER10> Couldn't it also be that your Viral K-factor was below 1?

<comment><USER9> Certainly by the time Facebook became open to the general public it was. Before that, until we saturated our geographic area, it was definitely viral growth.

I'm not saying we didn't have other problems that would have led us to fail eventually anyway (especially to facebook), but we observed this as a very real problem.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> The folks who disagree seem to be aligning with the reasoning that it's easier to raise capital and be closer to investors in SF.

But raising money != starting a company. Sure, it's important at some point, but this is the growing problem with the industry as a whole, no? People show up with just a pitch deck and want a million bucks.

Most responsible (and technically-capable) founders are trying to save as much money as possible and get on the investing boat as late as possible.

</comment><comment><USER12> I have wondered this for a few years now. It seems to me the best way to start a company is to actually build your idea somewhere cheap and fly to where the investors are. I don't see how someone moving to San Fran to start a company is a good idea when a large amount of your angel investment is spent on rent.

I think a better idea would be to move to a college town. I think the guys at id did this when they first started though they moved to somewhere in the midwest, but cheap nonetheless.

My take would be to move to college town with a large student population and good science programs. Somewhere like pittsburgh or even state college, PA

<comment><USER13> I can tell you're a fellow Pennsylvanian. haha Philly has a huge talent pool as well. Access to students from UPenn, Temple, Drexel, etc.

<comment><USER12> I'm actually not from PA, but have been to much of PA. I purposely left out Philly because I think its too expensive and not a smart financial move for a startup. In my mind, you are better off moving to DC if you are going to pay Philly rent.

<comment><USER13> It's all relative. Philly can be affordable, cheap even, if you aren't picky about location. I live near Scranton now, so maybe that has changed in the ~4 years since I've lived in Philly.

<comment><USER12> But I am picky about location which is why I wrote my post.

"move to college town with a large student population and good science programs"

Scranton doesnt fit the bill.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Depends a lot on the type of company you start I suppose. If in doubt start it where the initial customers are going to be. Even if you intend to build the next network-effect based super customer product....maybe pick one specific niche first and be around those people for feedback (FB/Harvard etc.).

My gut would say that location (close to key customers) is very important for B2B for example. For some startups I can't help but think that some of their (scaling) problems are directly related to being started in SV (food delivery or cleaning services started in SV for example).

I also think you should double check your mindset if your reasoning revolves around getting financing and thus moving to the place that optimizes for that. Solve problem, ignore capital (software isn't very capital intensive) >> think about funding first.

</comment><comment><USER15> Lots of top valley folks say this, but then the VCs still want someone to be nearby. Anyone know if Brin is investing his own money more broadly (geographically)?

<comment><USER16> What Brin actually said was to start somewhere cheap, then move to Silicon Valley when you need VC funds. So he isn't dismissing the need for proximity when raising funds.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Question out of interest - is it likely he is talking about companies moving from a location from within the US to SV?

Lots of young programmers/entrepreneurs in Europe seem to dream of going to SV as soon as possible. At the same time there are lots of great cities for startups around over here - London, Stockholm and Helsinki to just name a few... SV might be the best/a great choice later on in the process but I'm quite sure Europe has lots to offer as well (not even considering potential visa issues here, which obviously restrict many or most Europeans from joining startups over in the US).

</comment><comment><USER18> As someone who has only visited SV, I wonder: In order to avoid the crazy living expenses in SV and SF, why don't more people start companies within 100 miles of SV, in cheaper places like San Ramon/Castro Valley, Livermore, Sacramento, Pleasanton, Modesto, etc.? That way you have reasonable proximity without having to suffer the living quality issues associated with SV and SF.

<comment><USER19> Because then you're dealing with the talent pool in Sacramento, and people in SF aren't going to commute 100 miles to get paid Sacramento salaries.

<comment><USER8> They might if you can offer half the cost of living and 75% of the salary. The company saves on rent as well.

<comment><USER20> That still involves moving to Sacramento. Most of the people in SV are there because they want to be in SV, not Sacramento. They want to be in SV to be in the center of what's happening, not to mention the cultural fusion of SF.

<comment><USER8> I'm talking more about people who have grow up and have families. That stuff gets boring after you get older.

<comment><USER21> "That stuff"?

Partying definitely loses it's luster (at least for me) but the opportunity for meetups, learning about new tech, etc. hopefully doesn't. Clearly it's a balancing act but everything in life is. How much time do you want to spend with a spouse, kid, hobby, exercise, work, meetups, relaxation, sleep, etc. People are here because they want to have access to all these options. I'm 41 and still excited about all that is available here. So maybe I don't want to grow up. :-)

<comment><USER8> In that case, you don't get to complain it's too expensive. I just dont think its good for kids to grow up in a tiny apartment.

<comment><USER21> I absolutely do get to complain. I also vote against the nimby council members who refuse to build residential in lock step with commercial in Mountain View which led to half the board being replaced a few years ago... Things still have not gotten much better and now they are collecting signatures to get rent control on the ballot which in general I am opposed to but clearly something needs to change.

Everyone has different ideas about how much space is necessary. Up until recently homes _were_ really tiny and it varies greatly by country (ref: [http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/how-big-is-a- house](http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/how-big-is-a-house)) I agree that the kids should be _outside_ playing in parks and riding bikes and all that jazz and not in a tiny apartment. But then we have the "safety" fears when the world is far safer than when and where I grew up.

In my life I have lived in townhouses, an efficiency, rented a room in 2 houses, rented a whole house, lived in a dorm with roommates and lived in a big house with an acre back yard. They all have their plusses and minuses. I have not yet owned a house myself though. I would argue it's better the kids live in a small apartment than their parents have 2 hour round trip commutes because they had to switch jobs after they bought a house. I put a lot of value on the ease with which I can move closer to my job.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> How about people just start building your idea, wherever you are. Rather than worrying about where you are when doing it? If the thing has merit, the rest should fall in line.

</comment><comment><USER23> Why would Sergey Brin advocate startups being founded where all the action and high valuations are?

He knows that it's hard to move your company once you've settled in somewhere. Much more economical for Google if you stay on the fringe outskirts and let them acquire your baby for pennies on the dollar.

</comment><comment><USER24> If only he would put his money (Google Ventures) where his mouth is.

<comment><USER25> GV have at least one investment in Atlanta. I don't have the drive to dig up the geographic data for this list: [https://www.gv.com/portfolio/](https://www.gv.com/portfolio/)

<comment> atom-morgan Which one?

<comment><USER26> Here's one: [https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/pindrop- security](https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/pindrop-security)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Being headquartered in San Francisco, CA is "negatively correlated" (standard deviation when pooled with all cities: -0.5261) with having a successful exit.

Best cities/towns/etc (most correlated with experiencing an exit, rather than failing/floundering (shut down, or founded before 2004 + no exit/acquisition/IPO)) to create a startup:

        stddev      Exits   Total   City

        8.4678      143     207     Mountain View, CA USA

        6.4855      130     356     London, H9 GBR

        5.7360      15      25      Berlin, 16 DEU

        4.5423      23      56      Tokyo, 40 JPN
        4.5105      17      32      Richardson, TX USA
        4.3559      56      159     Paris, A8 FRA
        4.2118      44      99      Vancouver, BC CAN
        4.1381      28      62      Montreal, QC CAN
        4.0152      60      99      Waltham, MA USA

        3.9462      57      138     Atlanta, GA USA
        3.9414      14      21      Arlington, VA USA
        3.8747      15      20      Foster City, CA USA
        3.8528      14      41      Copenhagen, 17 DNK
        3.7484      32      42      South San Francisco, CA USA
        3.7131      14      31      Baltimore, MD USA
        3.6728      39      79      Fremont, CA USA
        3.4364      9       17      Irving, TX USA
        3.3919      8       11      Chelmsford, MA USA
        3.3833      5       7       Surry Hills, 2 AUS
        3.3637      19      59      Bangalore, 19 IND
        3.3335      11      24      Hamburg, 4 DEU
        3.2568      19      36      Morrisville, NC USA
        3.2101      10      29      Seoul, 11 KOR
        3.1476      17      32      Bethesda, MD USA
        3.1191      17      42      Cambridge, C3 GBR

        2.9591      7       18      Zurich, 25 CHE
        2.9566      7       7       Chapel Hill, NC USA
        2.8746      11      32      St Louis, MO USA
        2.8625      39      83      Boulder, CO USA
        2.8225      35      69      Portland, OR USA
        2.8000      45      128     Beijing, 22 CHN
        2.7117      15      23      Aliso Viejo, CA USA
        2.6170      13      19      Los Gatos, CA USA
        2.4679      12      30      Helsinki, 13 FIN
        2.4569      4       12      Istanbul, 34 TUR
        2.4385      22      49      Minneapolis, MN USA
        2.3187      21      72      Dublin, 7 IRL
        2.3046      5       6       Burlington, ON CAN
        2.2251      4       6       Kennesaw, GA USA
        2.1569      8       12      Sterling, VA USA
        2.1564      111     206     San Jose, CA USA
        2.0461      37      58      Cupertino, CA USA
        2.0432      20      36      Pasadena, CA USA
        2.0180      7       8       Itasca, IL USA

        1.9883      23      51      Ottawa, ON CAN
        1.9772      5       6       Oak Brook, IL USA
        1.9468      7       8       Westford, MA USA
        1.9386      3       3       Gent, 8 BEL
        1.9285      4       7       Delft, 11 NLD
        1.9251      9       16      Beverly Hills, CA USA
        1.8902      8       18      Oslo, 12 NOR
        1.8785      4       7       Costa Mesa, CA USA
        1.8746      13      37      Tampa, FL USA
        1.8346      9       21      Jacksonville, FL USA
        1.8340      13      18      San Bruno, CA USA
        1.8246      7       10      Venice, CA USA
        1.8117      16      50      Stockholm, 26 SWE
        1.8010      8       15      Wilmington, DE USA
        1.7720      7       19      Burnaby, BC CAN
        1.7050      5       7       Kitchener, ON CAN
        1.6856      6       16      Gurgaon, 10 IND
        1.6729      398     807     New York, NY USA
        1.6474      3       3       Fuzhou Shi, 3 CHN
        1.6362      15      41      Madrid, 29 ESP
        1.6145      2       5       Utrecht, 9 NLD
        1.6135      5       11      Minnetonka, MN USA
        1.5937      21      35      Milpitas, CA USA
        1.5785      14      28      Mclean, VA USA
        1.5671      6       11      Orem, UT USA
        1.5587      3       8       Prague, 52 CZE
        1.5505      3       3       Lake Forest, IL USA
        1.5461      9       12      Alameda, CA USA
        1.5459      4       14      Rio De Janeiro, 21 BRA
        1.5402      9       14      El Segundo, CA USA
        1.5240      8       17      West Hollywood, CA USA
        1.5223      4       5       Doylestown, PA USA
        1.5127      9       38      Sao Paulo, 2 BRA
        1.4928      4       6       Arlington Heights, IL USA
        1.4881      15      27      Marlborough, MA USA
        1.4800      4       10      Stuttgart, 1 DEU
        1.4516      7       11      Kfar Saba, 2 ISR
        1.4352      5       13      Dubai, 3 ARE
        1.4241      2       3       Blackrock, 7 IRL
        1.4220      3       5       Roncade, 20 ITA
        1.4157      3       8       Espoo, 13 FIN
        1.3833      7       24      Vienna, 9 AUT
        1.3667      5       6       Solana Beach, CA USA
        1.3442      7       14      Mississauga, ON CAN
        1.3139      7       10      Belmont, CA USA
        1.3073      13      29      San Antonio, TX USA
        1.2982      6       14      Buffalo, NY USA
        1.2742      4       5       Ames, IA USA
        1.2476      5       11      Abingdon, K2 GBR
        1.2381      19      50      Washington, DC USA
        1.2296      102     171     Cambridge, MA USA
        1.2282      7       13      Westminster, CO USA
        1.2127      5       12      Annapolis, MD USA
        1.2056      2       2       Odense, 21 DNK
        1.1670      2       2       West Des Moines, IA USA
        1.1492      2       2       Notting Hill, 7 AUS
        1.1480      3       7       Schaumburg, IL USA
        1.1403      13      35      Plano, TX USA
        1.1257      3       3       Sunrise, FL USA
        1.1201      13      31      Ann Arbor, MI USA
        1.0986      4       9       Halifax, NS CAN
        1.0967      2       3       San Marcos, TX USA
        1.0963      2       2       Mi Wuk Village, CA USA
        1.0841      4       7       Newtown, PA USA
        1.0752      3       4       Zug, 24 CHE
        1.0658      37      74      Tel Aviv, 5 ISR
        1.0643      10      34      Shenzhen, 30 CHN
        1.0558      5       10      Munchen, 2 DEU
        1.0379      5       5       Branford, CT USA
        1.0283      3       3       Fredericton, NS CAN
        1.0099      2       3       Pune, 16 IND
        1.0033      4       8       Charleston, SC USA

Worst:

       -9.2963      55      178     Los Angeles, CA USA

       -5.8472      13      135     Moscow, 48 RUS

       -4.2334      2       16      Quebec, QC CAN
       -4.1071      9       24      Berkeley, CA USA

       -3.9312      4       15      Lucerne Valley, CA USA
       -3.7260      63      124     Redwood City, CA USA
       -3.5625      2       10      Netanya, 2 ISR
       -3.3962      8       20      Newton, MA USA
       -3.3100      10      20      Princeton, NJ USA
       -3.2994      9       21      La Jolla, CA USA

       -2.8129      6       13      Petaluma, CA USA
       -2.5981      12      42      Raleigh, NC USA
       -2.3986      14      41      Brooklyn, NY USA
       -2.3916      4       10      Addison, TX USA
       -2.3777      59      155     Toronto, ON CAN
       -2.3297      2       6       Allentown, PA USA
       -2.2695      2       9       Edison, NJ USA
       -2.1975      1       5       Champaign, IL USA
       -2.1557      114     240     Austin, TX USA
       -2.0160      0       7       Livermore, CA USA
       -2.0154      127     244     Palo Alto, CA USA

       -1.9803      1       5       Blacksburg, VA USA
       -1.9321      4       20      Melbourne, 7 AUS
       -1.9214      13      34      Charlotte, NC USA
       -1.8469      0       4       City Of Industry, CA USA
       -1.8068      5       19      Rochester, NY USA
       -1.7758      1       4       Lod, 2 ISR
       -1.7431      0       3       Eatontown, NJ USA
       -1.7269      4       12      Wilmington, MA USA
       -1.7250      0       5       Owings Mills, MD USA
       -1.6628      5       13      New Haven, CT USA
       -1.6467      1       5       Golden, CO USA
       -1.6458      2       16      Memphis, TN USA
       -1.6433      0       5       Cedar Park, TX USA
       -1.6354      3       15      Santa Ana, CA USA
       -1.6351      9       17      Gaithersburg, MD USA
       -1.6102      35      99      Houston, TX USA
       -1.6033      0       3       Superior, WI USA
       -1.5757      0       10      Saint Petersburg, 66 RUS
       -1.5656      0       4       Tacoma, WA USA
       -1.5626      8       25      Orlando, FL USA
       -1.5451      0       9       Little Rock, AR USA
       -1.5421      1       7       Galway, 10 IRL
       -1.5226      9       41      Cleveland, OH USA
       -1.5176      1       6       Liverpool, H8 GBR
       -1.5007      5       30      Columbus, OH USA
       -1.4983      19      48      Philadelphia, PA USA
       -1.4838      0       4       Toledo, OH USA
       -1.4825      0       6       Newark, NJ USA
       -1.4783      26      83      Pittsburgh, PA USA
       -1.4602      15      35      Oakland, CA USA
       -1.4537      0       6       Sausalito, CA USA
       -1.4369      1       8       Kista, 26 SWE
       -1.4364      0       5       New Orleans, LA USA
       -1.3845      6       20      Newport Beach, CA USA
       -1.3755      1       8       Manchester, I2 GBR
       -1.3457      29      84      Dallas, TX USA
       -1.3180      0       8       Centennial, CO USA
       -1.2865      3       13      Charlottesville, VA USA
       -1.2839      0       5       Morgan Hill, CA USA
       -1.2704      1       4       Lawrenceville, GA USA
       -1.2478      1       6       Burbank, CA USA
       -1.2446      0       8       Tallinn, 1 EST
       -1.2440      87      157     San Mateo, CA USA
       -1.2188      4       13      Plymouth, MN USA
       -1.1966      0       3       Laguna Beach, CA USA
       -1.1938      26      64      Salt Lake City, UT USA
       -1.1711      0       9       Jakarta, 4 IDN
       -1.1672      43      106     Irvine, CA USA
       -1.1634      1       5       Guangdong, 5 CHN
       -1.1536      0       2       Orsay, A8 FRA
       -1.1421      0       2       Cherry Hill, NJ USA
       -1.1222      4       13      Longmont, CO USA
       -1.1221      0       3       Columbia, SC USA
       -1.1055      0       4       Laval, QC CAN
       -1.0837      0       2       Mountain, WI USA
       -1.0790      0       3       Gilbert, AZ USA
       -1.0743      4       7       Boxborough, MA USA
       -1.0369      0       2       Pittsburg, CA USA
       -1.0302      0       4       Napa, CA USA
       -1.0275      2       7       Clearwater, FL USA
       -1.0176      9       30      Indianapolis, IN USA
       -1.0122      0       9       Porto Alegre, 23 BRA

<comment><USER28> Source? And why is the column labeled standard deviation? Looks a bit weird that Waltham, MA is 4x Cambridge, MA.

<comment><USER28> I suspect maybe you're showing (X exits)/(N funded companies). You can't just compare binomial proportions like that, between proportions of different N. You'll have lots of random fluctuation. If Waltham had a couple of exits out of few tries, it will look better than Cambridge, even though the error bars on Cambridge would be much smaller. Maybe do a lower bound of a confidence interval? Sorry for the stats nitpicks.

<comment><USER27> It was logistic regression, with the cities as features and exits vs. failures/floundering (1 vs. 0) as labels.

<comment><USER29> Wait, what? Logistic reg?

Can you explain that a bit, I don't see any classification going on

Anyway: I think cschmidt's point stands from what I can tell about your methods

<comment><USER27> It doesn't, as you can see from looking at the exit vs. total proportion for each place.

<comment><USER28> Yeah, while you can solve it that way, you're not getting any insight from the analysis. Logistic regression assumes all data are known exactly, while error bars are important for this case. Take a look at my comment to the parent for a better way.

<comment><USER27> Using the "error bar" approach (Wilson score), the following ranking results (need at least 7 startups to make the list):

Good:

            stddev          Exits   Total   Place

            3.17127075776   7       7       Chapel Hill, NC USA
            3.01843089923   143     207     Mountain View, CA USA

            2.94392395713   32      42      South San Francisco, CA USA
            2.33101381278   15      20      Foster City, CA USA
            2.31494411999   7       8       Itasca, IL USA
            2.31494411999   7       8       Westford, MA USA
            2.29564449793   539     966     San Francisco, CA USA
            2.2599048739    102     171     Cambridge, MA USA
            2.16920869781   37      58      Cupertino, CA USA
            2.15675433868   60      99      Waltham, MA USA
            2.14760333093   107     185     Santa Clara, CA USA
            2.03695302614   13      18      San Bruno, CA USA
            2.02879100247   8       10      Redwood Shores, CA USA

            1.96889748562   50      85      Menlo Park, CA USA
            1.92488214848   87      157     San Mateo, CA USA
            1.88561243541   111     206     San Jose, CA USA
            1.87088199283   12      17      Bedford, MA USA
            1.863724487     9       12      Brisbane, CA USA
            1.863724487     9       12      Alameda, CA USA
            1.81215794651   31      52      Burlington, MA USA
            1.80795794099   13      19      Los Gatos, CA USA
            1.79841328745   398     807     New York, NY USA
            1.79232968296   127     244     Palo Alto, CA USA
            1.78670614594   86      161     Boston, MA USA
            1.76603102228   130     252     Seattle, WA USA
            1.76116206965   14      21      Arlington, VA USA
            1.725668452     15      23      Aliso Viejo, CA USA
            1.69835027929   16      25      Emeryville, CA USA
            1.65992493077   115     228     San Diego, CA USA
            1.6288650578    21      35      Milpitas, CA USA
            1.62697011397   106     211     Sunnyvale, CA USA
            1.61878237122   8       11      Chelmsford, MA USA
            1.54045615814   9       13      Watertown, MA USA
            1.54045615814   9       13      Lowell, MA USA
            1.52765254628   23      40      Campbell, CA USA
            1.52184678546   63      124     Redwood City, CA USA
            1.45979095374   114     240     Austin, TX USA
            1.44275765525   12      19      Burlingame, CA USA
            1.43452996236   6       8       Calabasas, CA USA
            1.42071168128   15      25      Berlin, 16 DEU
            1.34271490531   7       10      Belmont, CA USA
            1.34271490531   7       10      Venice, CA USA
            1.34271490531   7       10      Louisville, CO USA
            1.33560665511   20      36      Pasadena, CA USA
            1.31683773572   18      32      Lexington, MA USA
            1.3079978015    35      69      Portland, OR USA
            1.29748756451   8       12      Sterling, VA USA
            1.28502636002   37      74      Tel Aviv, 5 ISR
            1.27560983396   9       14      El Segundo, CA USA
            1.26780216551   12      20      Bothell, WA USA
            1.26575403151   39      79      Fremont, CA USA
            1.25989899302   42      86      Santa Monica, CA USA
            1.16897845975   15      27      Marlborough, MA USA
            1.15041829453   30      61      Bellevue, WA USA
            1.14641742472   19      36      Morrisville, NC USA
            1.12663799508   18      34      Pleasanton, CA USA
            1.12663799508   18      34      Woburn, MA USA
            1.11830928242   39      83      Boulder, CO USA
            1.1055382851    17      32      Bethesda, MD USA
            1.1055382851    17      32      Richardson, TX USA
            1.0729130146    10      17      Malvern, PA USA
            1.06468478349   5       7       Kitchener, ON CAN
            1.06468478349   5       7       Surry Hills, 2 AUS
            1.06468478349   5       7       Bridgewater, NJ USA
            1.04813789306   27      56      Durham, NC USA
            1.0299173951    6       9       Petah Tiqva, 2 ISR
            1.02697161367   7       11      Tucson, AZ USA
            1.02697161367   7       11      Kfar Saba, 2 ISR
            1.00242961826   44      99      Vancouver, BC CAN

Bad:

            stddev          Exits   Total   Place

           -3.03488442406   13      135     Moscow, 48 RUS

           -2.24461906751   0       10      Saint Petersburg, 66 RUS
           -2.24054924343   2       22      Edinburgh, U8 GBR
           -2.1019848289    0       9       Porto Alegre, 23 BRA
           -2.1019848289    0       9       Little Rock, AR USA
           -2.1019848289    0       9       Jakarta, 4 IDN

           -1.99941240406   1       14      Lexington, KY USA
           -1.93525993713   0       8       Tallinn, 1 EST
           -1.93525993713   0       8       Centennial, CO USA
           -1.93525993713   0       8       Reno, NV USA
           -1.86110616417   5       30      Columbus, OH USA
           -1.74075145471   1       12      Glasgow, V2 GBR
           -1.73777813442   0       7       São Paulo, 27 BRA
           -1.73777813442   0       7       Taipei, 3 TWN
           -1.73777813442   0       7       Livermore, CA USA
           -1.73777813442   0       7       Brisbane, 4 AUS
           -1.73777813442   0       7       Turku, 15 FIN
           -1.73777813442   0       7       Lima, 15 PER
           -1.69885420792   2       16      Quebec, QC CAN
           -1.69885420792   2       16      Memphis, TN USA
           -1.65383249608   9       41      Cleveland, OH USA
           -1.62527946863   4       23      New Delhi, 7 IND
           -1.61418876295   6       30      Buenos Aires, 7 ARG
           -1.56634866608   55      178     Los Angeles, CA USA
           -1.53427233432   4       22      Chennai, 25 IND
           -1.48872091756   9       38      São Paulo, 2 BRA
           -1.40898404732   1       10      Colorado Springs, CO USA
           -1.40299548518   21      72      Dublin, 7 IRL
           -1.33066279643   4       20      Melbourne, 7 AUS
           -1.32829693893   130     356     London, H9 GBR
           -1.30824843556   26      83      Pittsburgh, PA USA
           -1.2681757003    13      46      Mumbai, 16 IND
           -1.24409522273   56      159     Paris, A8 FRA
           -1.21002433161   6       25      Hong Kong,  HKG
           -1.20538559097   1       9       Troy, MI USA
           -1.20094804147   12      42      Raleigh, NC USA
           -1.18989409055   24      74      Shanghai, 23 CHN
           -1.18887014907   45      128     Beijing, 22 CHN
           -1.11938393751   2       12      Fayetteville, AR USA
           -1.11331820129   19      59      Bangalore, 19 IND
           -1.10037104532   5       21      Phoenix, AZ USA
           -1.09606612444   35      99      Houston, TX USA
           -1.09541919563   29      84      Dallas, TX USA
           -1.09414918118   3       15      Santa Ana, CA USA
           -1.09414918118   3       15      Hyderabad, 2 IND
           -1.05291108276   16      50      Stockholm, 26 SWE
           -1.04636163325   59      155     Toronto, ON CAN
           -1.0386757642    13      42      Miami, FL USA
           -1.02924375409   10      34      Shenzhen, 30 CHN
           -1.00129935812   9       31      Calgary, AB CAN

<comment><USER30> Moscow, "a success city"... =D

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> I think there's a lot of factors at play when you're founding a company and what Brin is hopefully saying is that given the current conditions SV is difficult for early stage (bootstrapping or seeding), which seems to be true.

In 1998 things were very different so of course they could afford to be in the menlo park area and reap the rewards of the VC network. Now, to stay in the area you need to fund heavily up front which leaves you less time to build that awesome product before funding dries up (or worse, you have to sell too much of your company in order to survive).

The reality though is you can try to start up a company in a place like Boca Raton and unless you have some previous connections and major capital you're not going have the funding network and excess of high tech workers your company needs to really take off. Magic Leap basically went this route and seem to be doing fine but most companies aren't that high profile (and well funded).

</comment><comment><USER32> This is fine advice if you're talented enough to startup without a co-founder. It's also fine advice if you're lucky enough to find a co-founder in your local talent pool.

However, if you find that starting up is beyond your individual skill set, and the people you enlist to help you come over to your garage and spend 10 mins programming and the rest of the time on YouTube and Reddit, you may want to move to a better startup ecosystem to find a more ambitious co-founder.

</comment><comment><USER33> Where would you start one then?

<comment><USER34> Chicago. Highest returns of any startup city.

[http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20160609/BLOGS11/1606...](http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20160609/BLOGS11/160609806/best- city-for-monster-returns-in-venture-capital-chicago)

<comment><USER35> Not really...

> Chicago had just 31 total exits during the period, equal to Raleigh. Austin, > Texas, had 86; Washington, D.C., saw 87; New York posted 98; and the San > Francisco Bay Area recorded 613. While Chicago had 14 deals that produced > returns of more than 10-fold, San Francisco had 153 such deals.

<comment><USER36> If your goal is to start an enduring & profitable business, number of exits is the wrong metric. I get annoyed when total number of exits is assumed to be the only metric that counts. It's clearly a metric VCs care about, though.

<comment><USER37> If you're a founder, not a VC, you would probably want another metric for the rate of return on your sweat from founding to exit.

There's a TVM calculation in there, to normalize the dollars you got paid on exit to the years that you did the work. And there's an opportunity cost for not being a salaried employee of an existing business while your were building your new business.

In the end, you probably want to reduce it to $X/week, run the calculation for all founders, and then aggregate by metropolitan area to see which city is best.

If your business becomes self-sustaining without a buyout, merger, or IPO, you can probably run the calculation using a TVM for a presumed perpetuity after the day you finally start paying regular dividends, along with your equity value as a lump sum. And if it goes bankrupt, you could end up with a negative value if you chose to pay yourself a salary lower than you could have earned elsewhere.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> If you're itching to start a company out of a garage, then you shouldn't pick up and move to Silicon Valley, says Russian immigrant Sergey Brin, who cofounded Google at Stanford University, after immigrating to the United States with his family at the age of 6. With help from an advisor who put him in touch with Larry Page while they were studying at Stanford, they implemented a new algorithm, called Page Rank, on top of a data mining system Brin was already developing. With further help from the Stanford community's network, they soon received a check for US$100,000 from Andy Bechtolsheim, co- founder of Sun Microsystems, written to a company that did not yet exist. About a year later, they announced closing a $25 million round from Sequoia Capital, who suggested hiring an external CEO in the form of Eric Schmidt. Within 4 years Microsoft started making bids for the company, though Google eventually went public instead. Today Sergey Brin is one of three people listed as 11th richest in the world, with a net worth of US$39.2 billion.

Recently speaking at the Global Entrepreneurship Summit, he said onstage, "It's easier to start a company outside the Valley than in it."

In a follow-up interview, he was asked to reflect on the $100,000 check he received from Andy Bechtolsheim of Sun Microsystems, before Google existed. Now that he himself was worth billions, would he write a similar check based on a pitch from someone living in Kansas, the interviewer asked. Sergey Brin laughed.

"That would sort of contradict what I've been saying here," he said with a laugh. "Maybe try kickstarter? But if you ever do move to Silicon Valley definitely reach out."

He then got very serious:"Seriously though. We live in a connected world. It doesn't matter where you live. It matters what you build."

He then apologized saying he had to run, and drove off in a pre-production Tesla Model 3 in fiery red, produced by South African immigrant Elon Musk, who made his fortune at PayPal, based in San José, and now runs Tesla Motors based in Palo Alto. An odd choice for Brin to be driving, as Google is said to be developing its own driverless vehicle.

That is, if a few startup kids in Detroit don't beat them to the punch. You can read about the extraordinary results of the Detroit startup company (find link) . One thing's for sure: just as Brin eloquently stated, there's nothing stopping them.

</comment><comment><USER39> That's great and all but access to capital, even angel capital, is much easier in the Valley than anywhere else in the world. You come here and live threadbare, but you still derisk your startup.

<comment><USER40> How on earth does taking capital derisk your startup? It's like throwing gasoline on a bonfire, yes it burns a lot faster, but also shorter. Early money is the most expensive money you'll ever take, and if you're reliant on it you're dead when it dries up.

Find a viable business with a skeleton crew, grow with your profits, and then pour on the gas if you want when a repeatable pattern is found. It's not as glamorous, but you're more likely to create a solid business instead of crashing and burning like most SV startups.

<comment><USER39> Some people need do need to eat. It's not a cooicidence that entrepreneurship favors people of means who can take that risk.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> I agree. I'd go to NYC or even Florida somewhere

</comment><comment><USER42> Of course he does.

</comment><comment><USER43> Imagine how "Silicon Valley" series would be boring, if Pied Piper founders started their company in cheap US state/country with their own savings. Distributed company would be even more boring :-)</comment>


Go bridges to JavaScript and Python - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YmI7Gw4iq3w <comment><USER2> [https://blog.abourget.net/en/2016/02/25/go-bridges-to- javasc...](https://blog.abourget.net/en/2016/02/25/go-bridges-to-javascript- and-python/) is the content ...</comment>


Sublime Text vs. Visual Studio Code vs. Atom Performance Test (Dec 2016) - <AUTHOR> https://blog.xinhong.me/post/sublime-text-vs-vscode-vs-atom-performance-dec-2016/ <comment><USER2> The file open times where we are talking about a difference of just over half a second for files which are larger than most web-devs (the target market for Atom and VSCODE) shouldn't make a difference in real life usage.

However, where the big difference comes is in searching across an entire project. Want to find all references to `someVar` it's super snappy in Sublime and 10x slower in VSCode and Atom (of course, it depends on the size of your project as well, but my projects are not that large).

Having said that, I'm still using VSCode, my biggest hope is improved search performance. The Git integration is fantastic.

<comment><USER3> Agreed. Git int is awesome. I would just like them to support more advanced git functions.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> For my programming class in the upcoming winter, I'm finally switching to Atom from Sublime Text as the recommended default text editor for my (novice) students. My reasons, in descending order of importance:

1\. Atom has nice defaults, such as spaces for default tabbing and automatic trimming of white space upon save. In ST, you have to manually alter the user config file.

1.5 Atom has much better file handling in its project sidebar -- e.g. Right- clicking a file brings up the expected options for moving/copying/etc a file. And the dialog box is much clearer. In ST, IIRC, I have to install 2 separate plugins to have that convenience.

2\. Atom's package manager is built in. In ST, you have to activate the console and paste in a Python command to install the PM.

3\. The prominent "Download" button on sublimetext.com, until recently, defaulted to 2. And the download page for 3 lacks a call to action, at least in comparison to the page text that warns the reader that 3 is still in beta. I was always amazed at how many students installed ST2 contrary to my instructions until I visited the ST homepage for myself (which I never do unless I have to reinstall ST from scratch).

4\. Atom installs the 'atom' CLI command by default. ST requires manual shell configuration to get 'subl'

5\. Atom is free. ST has a free trial but then nags the user upon every nth save. I know, minor inconvenience, but as a happy purchaser of ST, I found that I vastly underestimated how much that nag dialog broke the flow, especially if students followed my advice to hit Cmd-S casually.

I agree with the OP that ST is substantially more performant, which is why ST is still my editor of choice. But for my students, performance is less of a concern. For most novices, their concept of a "text editor" is Microsoft Word...so a 3 second load up time won't bother them.

That Atom chokes on non trivial data files, e.g. a CSV of 100K rows, has been the strongest reason to stick to ST. But I now see that as an _asset_ when it comes to teaching beginners. I make them learn the command line, and no better way to drive home the importance of tools like head, tail, sed, and grep than to have students experience firsthand Atom's grinding death when trying to render even simple text.

<comment><USER5> You should give VS Code a try. I used it with novice programmers and find it has the easiest to use (and explain) step debugger I have ever seen. Being able to stop a program and inspect variable state and the call stack proved very helpful when learning concepts such as loops, recursion and variable scope.

<comment><USER4> Thanks for the tip. How is its cross-platform consistency?

<comment><USER5> I had students using it on Linux, Mac and Windows with no problems. Only had to assist with setting up the debugger to make it use the right interpreter (Ruby, Python, PHP).

The integrated terminal is also a nice feature.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Have been using Sublime Text 2 for years now and then last year tried out Sublime Text 3 (various builds). Sublime Text 3 (still in Beta), for me, has issues when it comes to loading text files which are around 20MB in size (or more). It just freezes or takes a very long time to load (on my Linux machine). Haven't seen the same issue with Sublime Text 2, which has been a very good editor. I understand that Sublime Text 3 is in beta, but it's the only version that's made available via the official repos on LinuxMint installations. So I had to manually switch to Sublime Text 2 to have a stable working editor.

<comment><USER7> That's truly interesting, I load HUGE (I mean stupidly huge, like multi- hundred MB) files into ST3 and have done for years without issue, even on a relatively low spec machine like my base MacBook (non-pro, gutless as anything) it's quite acceptable.

<comment><USER6> Given that I was able to consistently see this issue when I was using Sublime Text 3, I'll see if I can come up with something more concrete to show/report this issue, over some weekend.

<comment><USER8> I would guess it is probably a Sublime plugin trying to syntax highlight or lint your 20MB file. What is the extension of the file?

<comment><USER6> Just had a quick look at one of the files which I remember was giving me trouble. The file extension is .txt. I will boot up the machine on which I have ST3 installed and give it a try pretty soon.

<comment><USER6> I think I have narrowed this issue down now. Earlier I had assumed this affects all files of certain size, since when I had run into this I was involved in a project where I had to look at certain textual content (dumped out of DB as JSON). That content was generated by one of the in-house dump tools. I had a closer look at one of the files just now and now have a simple python script which consistently reproduces this issue with ST3. Here's the python script which generates a file which can then be opened in ST3 and timed.

      content = 'a'
      with open('content.txt', 'w') as f:
          for x in range(1, 18888789):
              f.write(content)

It took me 39 seconds (consistently) to open it. The generated file size is less than 20MB.

The problem appears to be that ST3 slows down while loading this file which just has 1 huge line. If I tweak that script to change the content from 'a' to 'a\n' to include a new line within the content, the generated file loads relatively quickly and in reasonable time (around 6 seconds for the 37MB odd file).

I admit, this now I think can be considered a corner case but when I ran into this pretty frequently, I just assumed this happens with all files with such sizes. As for why I believed ST2 doesn't have this issue - I'm not sure anymore, because when I try these files now with ST2 it too behaves similarly.

I no longer work on that project which generated these files so had it no been for this thread, I would never have bothered to dig deeper into this and would have just stuck with ST2 :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Awesome comparison! I believe both Atom & Visual Studio Code will only get faster over time.

I've been using Atom for over a year and it has made great strides over the last few months. I don't have any problems opening large repos or files now, as much as I did a few months ago.

I use VScode for personal projects & it's fast and awesome as well.

I linked your comparison in one my detailed Quora posts comparing Atom & Sublime --> [https://www.quora.com/How-does-Atom-compare-with-Sublime- Tex...](https://www.quora.com/How-does-Atom-compare-with-Sublime- Text/answer/Clifford-Fajardo)

</comment><comment><USER10> I find Atoms memory usage (and leaks) combined with odd periods of strange input latency so aggravating that I end up going back to sublime text 3 every time I try it. It just 'feels' so javascripty - like a web app, not like a snappy desktop app which is the reason I don't use my web browser for development. Coupled with the poor performance handling files over a few MB in size I can't see myself using atom in the foreseeable future unless it became a native / compiled app which isn't going to happen.

</comment><comment><USER11> It's exactly what you would expect. But are VS Code and Atom fast enough to be useable? I didn't think so before a year or more back), but I think so now.

<comment><USER12> I find that the electron/node based apps tend to work acceptably when you're running on SSD, otherwise the startup is much slower. But I've been very happy with VS Code for well over a year now... much happier than my experience with Brackets and Atom at the time. And imho it's gotten a lot better, though could stand for some more flushed out git support in the box, there are a couple extensions that improve things.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> These numbers "feel" very accurate - I ended up adopting a peculiar behaviour using st3 & atom in parallel, using st as a default editor for anything that likely is big or will probably be accessed outside of "project scope" like csv, conf, sql, and sticking to atom as dev environment.

Need to adapt here and there but couldnt bother to decide for good

</comment><comment><USER14> I agree with pretty much everything people say about Atom. But I tolerate those flaws because of how easy it is to get my environment configured for a bunch of languages. Finding working, decent plugins for sublime felt frustrating at times, and never quite obvious.

</comment><comment><USER15> I am using VS code from quite a while and enjoying it a lot. feels much faster than Atom.

I am wondering what Servo will bring to table. Will it bring close to native performance to browser and whether electron will ever migrate to Servo.

</comment><comment><USER16> This isn't a fair comparison unless SL has the same features as VSCode and Atom - Git integration, right-click file options, etc.

</comment><comment><USER17> Vim and Emacs not in the list. Trololo...</comment>


Ask HN: Does syntax highlighting help users read english? - <AUTHOR> My code editor/IDE is awesome and helps my eyes parse code and find errors..<p>Do writing apps need syntax highlighting for verbs, nouns, punctuation, etc, and would this be helpful for english writers/readers? <comment><USER2> like [https://english.edward.io/](https://english.edward.io/) ?

<comment><AUTHOR> cooool.</comment></comment>


If 'Big Tech' Is an Antitrust Problem, Why Are We Ignoring Telecom? - <AUTHOR> https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20190603/11293142321/if-big-tech-is-huge-antitrust-problem-why-are-we-ignoring-telecom.shtml <comment><USER2> By any measure, telecom is a fairy concentrated market that creates antitrust concerns, relative to many other industries. But the comparison to telecom only highlights the market concentration in tech. There are four major wireless carriers, none with more than about a third of the market. Google has 90% of the search market. There are just two viable mobile OS competitors, and Android has 75% market share (50% in the US). Even within a given market, there is more competition in telecom. The big four cellular companies are nationwide. Verizon is just the sixth largest wireline carrier, has less than 40% market share across its FiOS footprint. That does not mean that telecom (or day health insurance) is a highly competitive market. It's not. But at least search and mobile is even less competitive.

It also matters what is happening going forward. Even in areas with no wired competition, wireless (cellular and satellite) exerts competitive pressure. 15% of high income households have abandoned wired internet for cellular only, and that number is growing. (There are more cellular-only households by a large margin than ones that use something other than Google search.) Meanwhile, there is no viable competition in sight for Google Search or Android.

<comment><USER3> > There are four major wireless carriers, none with more than about a third of > the market.

Can that be said for wired internet carriers? And can that be said at the municipal level and not just the national level? My point is that in many areas, people generally don't have a choice in who their internet provider is. So if you look nationally, yes, the coverage is split between several companies, but at the local levels the areas serviced are often carved up such that there are local monopolies.

<comment><USER2> Obviously there is more market concentration in telecom than say in frozen yogurt. But telecoms face competition (from DSL, cellular, and satellite) in almost every market. Comcast, for example, has 47% broadband market share even in its own footprint: [https://www.bizjournals.com/philadelphia/news/2019/04/24/wha...](https://www.bizjournals.com/philadelphia/news/2019/04/24/what- to-expect-for-comcast-s-q1-2019-earnings.html). They also face competition across local markets. Verizon followed Google Fiber to the $70-80 for gigabit price point, even though it competed in no markets with Google.

<comment><USER4> I have comcast service in one of the most dense urban environments in the US.

I have no alternative. I am being bled dry because there is no competition of similar service.

Please, if you're going to compare things at least stick to fruit. This is apples and basketballs.

<comment><USER2> 50% of folks in Comcast's footprint don't subscribe. Those folks aren't going without Internet access. For a significant portion of the market, those other alternatives are viable. That creates competition, though obviously less competition than an equivalent competitor. (I've been lucky to mostly live in FiOS territory, and now I've got two fiber lines to my house. But back when I lived in Wilmington, I had just Comcast. Instead of subscribing, we used a T-Mobile hotspot the whole time. It was fine. With 5G, that phenomenon is only going to increase.)

<comment><USER4> And what % of people that actually _have_ alternatives like FiOS (unlike me) don't subscribe to comcast? Saying 50% of subscribers in Comcast's footprint is prevaricating about the bush AF. Why, you ask? If 50% of potential Comcast subscribers have an alternative to Comcast, that would mean 100% of people with an alternative are taking advantage of the free market. Which would mean that 100% of the people remaining are likely forced to subscribe through a lack of access to alternatives.

I don't even have working voice cell coverage at my house, much less data. Again, almost certainly due to a an entrenched monopoly limiting the market outreach of competition, and thereby obviating the requirement that they themselves perform adequately enough to retain customers.

Q.E.D.

<comment><USER2> For your hypothetical to hold, you'd expect to see some providers with near 100% market share. (You'd also have to assume Comcast builds and maintains infrastructure to millions of households in areas where it has no market share.) Who are they? FiOS's market share is 40% in its footprint. AT&T's fiber is around 25% now, hoping to reach 50% by 2023.

The only other way to get your math to work out is to assume that only a very small portion of Comcast's footprint has no other cable/fiber competitor.

As to your cell situation—what mechanism do you think creates this competition-limiting monopoly? And why doesn't that same mechanism apply to say my house (in the DC exurbs), where all of the big 4 have a decent signal? (Or the majority of the country, where at least three providers have coverage?)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I would say the strongest example is wired telecom, which may not be a national monopoly but is certainly a local monopoly across nearly the whole country. The way the companies divvy up territory to avoid competition is probably what keeps U.S. prices so much higher than, say, Europe. I wonder if a case could be made for it being a cartel.

But yes, cellular and satellite providers have started to provide a saving grace of disruption in that market. We'll see if it ends up being enough.

<comment><USER6> Look at profit margins though. Apple and Facebook are consistently 30%+ and Google is 20%+. Verizon, Comcast, and the rest of the telecoms are in the low to mid teens or worse. That's pretty close to the S&P 500 average margin.

So while it appears that wired telecom is a monopoly they don't make money like monopolies. Compare Google Fiber with Google Plus. Google had people literally begging them to put Fiber in but backed off because they couldn't make (enough) money. Plus was a hugely important project for them but they canceled it because they couldn't beat Facebook.

We've seen major tech companies take aim at the monopoly/duopoly product of a rival and they've all failed:

Microsoft poured billions into Bing, Maps and mobile for little market share

Google couldn't dent Facebook with Plus

Amazon and Facebook's phones fell flat

<comment><USER7> > Verizon, Comcast, and the rest of the telecoms are in the low to mid teens > or worse. That's pretty close to the S&P 500 average margin.

I would want to see the margins for just operating high speed internet service. I suspect their overall margins are lower because their financial picture is clouded by things like cable TV and content costs. A big reason why telecoms suck is precisely because if you just want high speed internet, they force you to buy all their bullshit content as well (for me, it's cheaper to buy internet + cable TV than just internet!), _and_ they make it hard to buy that content any other way. The main action I'd like to see taken against telecoms is to force them to spin off their content businesses (and they never should have been allowed to buy them in the first place).

<comment><USER2> The opposite is true. Video service enables companies to charge enough to justify broadband deployment. That's why Google and Verizon offer video over their fiber service even though they don't really have their own content. Verizon won't expand FiOS into Baltimore because it can't get a television franchise from the city without agreeing to onerous build-out requirements. Without video revenues FiOS isn't really viable.

<comment><USER7> Google Fiber charged $70/mo for internet, and $130/mo for cable TV [1]. Standalone TV streaming services are also around $50/mo (e.g. hulu [2], youtube live TV packages [3]).

Something doesn't add up. If it costs $50/mo to get cable TV content, why does it cost me $-10/mo with comcast?

1\. [https://www.tennessean.com/story/money/tech/2016/04/11/googl...](https://www.tennessean.com/story/money/tech/2016/04/11/google- fiber-move-signals-higher-prices-plans/82917614/)

2\. [https://www.hulu.com/live-tv](https://www.hulu.com/live-tv)

3\. [https://tv.youtube.com](https://tv.youtube.com)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The regulatory systems in the US since Reagan have been anemic, and if we believe in effective business competition there are probably very few industries that would have a good time if a new regulatory environment were put in place that is more... effective? I can't find the right word because I'm biased - I strongly believe in collectivism and strong regulatory environments.

When I look at major industries: social media (sadly, IMO), telecom, health care, transportation, military, and more; what I see are industries that need regulation in order to meet the needs of society, but that is based on my point of view of the world. My guess is that the folks with capital and data, and thus power, view the situation very differently, and are more focused on their own needs than those of a more nebulous society that has needs. I believe that this can be seen in the practices of businesses throughout the United States.

So, are "we" ignoring telecom? No, that headline is aggravating. Why isn't it "Antitrust issues in Telecom"? Because society has been trained to be enraged. Why? Because it serves those who already have power, and they disagree with me about how regulation should work.

<comment><USER9> It's the same across all government. You hollow out the function of actual, substantive work through 'necessary' budget cuts - like actual funding for IRS audits, any form of environmental regulation, or just education in general.

Then when the low-hanging fruit is all those agencies can pick, which happen to have the largest impact on middle- to low-income families, it gives more fodder to cut and gut the agencies.

<comment><USER8> Under the current regime (post-Reagan is what I mean), there are government bodies that still receive lots of money, and those, as you say, that are getting hollowed. The main thing that I can point to that says that it is corrupt is the fact that white collar crime is largely ignored in the interest of much smaller fish.

There are government agencies that I'd like to see gutted, though, like the prison system, the support of the weapons manufacturing industry by our military which I calculate as grotesquely unecessary, etc. There are others that disagree with me strongly on this issue. I'm not right, just opinionated.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I've yet to see a telecom company tell anyone who they are allowed to communicate with or deny anyone service because they don't approve of their ideological views. That might only be tangential to antitrust issues but engaging in overreach is a good way to get the public against you which in turn makes it much easier for the government to come after you.

<comment><USER11> And yet I've had to deal with telecom companies placing incredibly low data caps, overcharging for bullshit reasons, throttling consumer bandwidth when visiting certain sites or using certain protocols and more.

If Facebook decided to ban me tomorrow for whatever reason, I still have access to the rest of the internet. If my ISP decided to charge another $100 a month to access the internet, there would be nothing I could do to fight it.

You'd have to make an argument that site access is a right, which throws out moderating a platform for abuse or spam entirely.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> You should have seen it when it was just AT&T.

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

</comment><comment><USER13> Not a full defense, but telecom is already heavily regulated while tech companies are not regulated at all.

<comment><USER14> That's a pretty strong argument against regulation then, given what a terrible consumer experience it is.

<comment><USER15> It's just bad regulation, performed by incompetent or corrupt governments. Down here in NZ we have excellent telecoms regulation performed by competent government.

Specifically, copper/fibre last mile lines are owned by companies which are prevented by law from acting as ISPs, and similarly required to wholesale lease access to their lines to any ISP which wants to use them, at a regulated price (or lower).

The result is a hyper-competitive ISP market where I can choose from dozens of ISPs (almost) anywhere in the country. Combined with a few hundred million in government investment, and I can get gigabit fibre almost everywhere in the country from a world-class ISP.

I have basically no complaints about my ISP, and it's all thanks to government regulation.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Economics 101 states that wasteful duplication of infrastructure is one of the few acceptable exceptions from the free market thesis. Natural monopolies should nevertheless be regulated to avoid suboptimal services.

What's more interesting is the recent suggestions of seeing industries with a monopolistic business model such as social media as natural monopolies. Perhaps we should regulate Facebook rather than argue for breaking up telecoms?

<comment><USER17> My street literally has a minimum of 6 companies that provide garbage collection services to me and my neighbors.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> I don't think anybody ignores that telecoms is a big monopoly problem; people know intimately that they have one or if they are lucky, two real options in any given market.

We busted up Ma Bell once long ago, and it has just coalesced back together. The capital costs and infrastructure tend towards it being a natural monopoly, so I don't think that we'll reasonably see a million telecom flowers bloom without putting the finger on the scale heavily.

Software is so much more ephemeral, and we have a much healthier oligopoly of big players. Even the sick old man of computing, IBM, is doing better than Time Warner did trying to compete in cable.

<comment><USER19> No the local monopoly was never busted - just use LLU

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> ENUM anyone? [https://www.nominet.uk/search/enum](https://www.nominet.uk/search/enum) \- ha! (There used to be a page on the Nominet site about ENUM but now the ITU doc: [https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-T/inr/enum/Documents/ENUM/ENUM%20...](https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-T/inr/enum/Documents/ENUM/ENUM%20Approvals-2018-12-01.pdf) can't even spell Nominet correctly)

I should explain: In simple terms, ENUM allows you to turn a phone number into a SRV record that points at a PBX via a DNS lookup. The ITU allocates the zones to registrars, the zones neatly map to country codes - its a great idea.

However, as you can imagine this is not very popular with big telecoms who are used to charging by the second/minute and location by distance which is obviously bollocks when you turn a circuit switched network into a packet switched one that no longer routes calls via satellites to cross the Atlantic (eg). OK pricing and tech for "POTS" has come a long way since I were a lad but it is still a nice little earner over letting us lot do our own thing.

You can also imagine that Google, Facebook int al would also suffer a collective coronary should us lot be able to do our own comms without them.

I'm fairly sure that you (for a given value of you) can't remember the last time you used a "landline" but if ENUM was available it might have been a few minutes ago and not logged externally and charged as though it was 1970 _sigh_

</comment><comment><USER21> Telecom is probably one of the industry groups lobbying for antitrust legislation/investigation against Google and its ilk.

</comment><comment><USER22> In one sentence: It's not as much of a threat to traditional media, therefore we don't hear about it as much.

</comment><comment><USER23> I think this is a poor take. Since Bork, anti-trust regulation has been an afterthought in Washington. The fact that DOJ, the same agency that bloodied Microsoft, is looking in another big tech company is very big news. DOJ lawyers aren't dumb, digging into BigTech will bring a lot of bodies to the surface and the culture of anti-trust regulation will change, eventually BigTeleco and BigAg will be next.

</comment><comment><USER24> Who is "we", exactly? No-one is ignoring telecom monopolies, it's something people complain about all the damn time. Spoiler alert: it's because the telecom industry has spent decades embedding itself at the top levels of organizations like the FCC, and it's gotten worse since the arrival of the Trump administration. Is that good? No. Should we change it? Yes. Does any of this have anything to do with regulating big tech? No.

This stuff just feels like whataboutism to me. There's no reason we can't tackle both big tech _and_ telecom. If wait turns then the telecom industry will just say "what about other utilities!". Those utilities will say "what about the defense industry!" or whatever the hell.

"What about these bad guys!!" just feels like an attempt to deflect attention away from tech.

<comment><USER25> It's not really, because the two (telecom and big tech) are in a fight for dominance and focusing on one will benefit the other. It's natural to wonder about the influence of telecom when the Attorney General, under whom the DOJ's investigation is being conducted, was the general counsel of GTE/Verizon for 14 years and then served on Time Warner's board until last year, helping them to merge with AT&T. If you assume the antitrust division of the DOJ has limited resources, and that they were until recently focused on telecom, it's not "whataboutism" to wonder what's driving the abrupt shift to tech.

<comment><USER25> and to be explicit, the "we" is the FTC and the antitrust division of the DOJ.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Because "Regulatory Capture" (google it) and because they have better lobbyists and have been greasing politicians for a much longer time.

</comment><comment><USER27> I was forced this morning to have Comcast charge me $40 to install a cable to set up internet at my new place by an authorized technician. I hate Comcast SO much, and from what I can tell I don't seem to have another option, supposedly AT&T but the speeds are slow and their website says my apartment is not in service area.

<comment><USER28> The quality of AT&T's service is going to vary depending on where you are.

I have a gigabit connection from them that I pay $60 / month for (they lowered the price when I tried to leave). It's the fastest internet connection I've ever had.

<comment><USER29> It's a moot point if where you live does not allow anybody but a single exclusive provider for internet, which is nearly every apartment in the US.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Comparing software businesses with traditionally asset-heavy business such as wired telecom is disingenuous.

I hate Telecom monopolies as much as the next guy, but the comparison is so inaccurate to the point of being useless. What's next? Comparing 'Big Tech' to Utilities?

</comment><comment><USER31> 'Big Tech', unlike Telecom, has made itself friendless, having alienated pretty much everybody along the political spectrum, and that is a dangerous place to me with a field subject to such legal vagaries as antitrust law is. I am not talking here about lobbyists or about legal technicalities but rather about the visceral reaction we all can have as human beings to the basic question: do I sympathize or even relate to these people? At inception, Google, FB, et al. were seen as innovative, dynamic, helpful to average people and the like. Sadly, those days are long past and all too many people are instead inclined to reach for the nearest garlic clove in hopes of warding them off.

</comment><comment><USER32> Because telecom companies' monopolies are easy to understand. Google doesn't have to run wires to _everyone 's_ house. In fact, they tried and failed. It's a lot harder than building a website.

<comment><USER33> They are easy to understand and the harm that they do to consumers is very real and easy to measure.

<comment><USER32> Internet should be classed as a utility and regulated as such. Infrastructure and bits should be separate.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> In the book "The Chickenshit Club"

There is some psychology amongst the regulators that results in them not fining or sanctioning large players because they don't want to make them go bankrupt and further consolidate the market.

You can have a monopoly in America, as long as you don't do anticompetitive things to get there, and don't do anticompetitive things while you are there from within your company. (protip: the trick is to change the laws and regulations to favor advantages you have and make it impossible for new entrants)

</comment><comment><USER35> Checkout [https://althea.org/](https://althea.org/) if you're interested in decentralized internet structure.

This is NOT vaporware. The theory behind it is simple and solid. It works and is happening right now. The fact that is uses shitcoins doesn't make it a scandal or get-rich-quick scheme.

</comment><comment><USER14> Because Big Tech siphons ad dollars from traditional media? I'm being glib, of course, but I can't help but wonder if that isn't one big reason.

</comment><comment><USER36> Because there is not antitrust investigation there is only making the 4 pillars come to heal and become part of the NSA.

</comment><comment><USER37> What happened to local loop unbundling? Is the problem that it didn't also apply to "cable"?

<comment><USER38> The "problem" was that ILECs never followed the rules and regulators never punished them for that. If a CLEC wanted to add a customer, they got a schedule for 3 weeks, even though the ILEC would do it in less than a week if the customer were signing up with them. Anyway, the schedule was also a fiction, because the ILEC would come up with half a dozen reasons to delay it to 5 weeks. We're not talking about a technician visiting a customer's house. We're talking about a couple of switches thrown in a central office, an operation that would take less than a minute. How could anyone attract new customers in such a situation? That is why all CLECs went bust or were acquired for pennies on the dollar.

In other nations, with functioning regulation, unbundling was considered unworkable so they required that a separate entity would own the local loop.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> If I were more cynical, I would say that the antitrust concerns are being focused on in big tech in part due to the perception of anti-conservative bias or de-platforming, and the telecoms, other than in the case of owning CNN, have no such perception associated with them.

</comment><comment><USER40> Telcos and ISPs are the bigger threat by far in a fixed local monopoly physical market that is hard to enter.

Telecom/ISPs are afraid of antitrust, being labeled a utility and competition, they work overtime to throw the blame onto Big Tech starting way back with net neutrality and Netflix share of the market. It wasn't Netflix using the data it was the users. Since then ISPs have been funding mud slinging against Big Tech so they can compete with them on ads by removing privacy protections and content so they removed net neutrality against the will of everyone [1].

Maybe 5G will shake up the telcos and ISPs controls they have bribed to put in place using regulatory capture. The attack on Big Tech is partially funded by them just like oil companies pushed anti-nuclear energy along with opposition to green tech. Big Oil funded many of the anti-nuclear campaigns, probably even had some sabotage involved [2].

ISPs aren't even using the market to get ahead with good products like Big Tech, they are using bribes and regulations that keep them in their false monopolies and fixed markets.

ISPs share fixed local monopoly markets by putting one good ISP and a bunch of smaller ones that don't compete like a Game of Thrones.

FCC reports find almost no broadband competition at 100Mbps speeds, even at 25Mbps, 43 percent of the US had zero ISPs or just one [3]. For a modern broadband innovative market this is unacceptable, there are industries of the future that rely on fast network we can't even get going due to the feet dragging and rent-seeking local monopolies of the ISPs/telcos.

The one time innovators, the ISPs/telcos, have become local monopolies directly harming innovation and network growth, they now have data caps, net neutrality add-ons (like Cox Elite Gamer), content options and privacy protections removed to discourage and reward broadband providers for NOT growing but nickel and diming people [1].

I remember in the 90s when broadband, cable, ISPs, telcos were innovative and the leaps from landline to other sources was amazing. They were innovative then, run by engineers and product people. Now they are rent seekers, holding back innovation, run by HBS style MBAs where everything is a resource and every dime extracted with minimal reasons to innovate or expand without rent- seeking controls in place.

Imagine if water, electricity or other utilities were this toll road like, we'd live in less quality of life.

The network is a utility and platform to innovate and build on, not extract the value and slow innovation

[1] [https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/04/fcc-announces-plan- aba...](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/04/fcc-announces-plan-abandon-net- neutrality-and-isp-privacy)

[2] [https://www.forbes.com/sites/kensilverstein/2016/07/13/are-f...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/kensilverstein/2016/07/13/are- fossil-fuel-interests-bankrolling-the-anti-nuclear-energy- movement/#7bf1c5587453)

[3] [https://arstechnica.com/information- technology/2018/02/fcc-r...](https://arstechnica.com/information- technology/2018/02/fcc-report-finds-almost-no-broadband-competition- at-100mbps-speeds/)

</comment><comment><USER41> I can invest some money right now and become a local ISP. Unless I'm ready to sink $500 billion, I cannot be Google.

This is how big of a problem it is. I would recommend any founder to delay startups and let anti trust probes and hopefully splits happen. Otherwise what happened to Snap, will happen to you.

</comment><comment><USER42> Telecoms are not ignored, compared to Big Tech they are highly regulated.

</comment><comment><USER43> Well to most people the internet is Big Tech. And the big tech internet is arguably corrosive. The only thing Telecom does is hinder people from getting more internet cheaper, faster.

Conclusion: Big Telecom is a net good.

</comment><comment><USER43> actually though, if you break up Big Tech who will have the money to pay Telecom for preferential broadband access?

</comment><comment><USER44> Telecom is a different kind of problem, and it is not clear that antitrust can effectively address it. From a comment of mine a couple days ago when someone here raised a similar question:

> Wouldn't it make more sense to break up broadband ISP monopolies first?

Probably not for the Department of Justice. Some problems with that approach:

1\. If you are trying to address the issue of limited choice in ISPs, I don't see how breaking them up addresses that. If you split an ISP that has a monopoly in a state, say, into separate ISPs for, say, each county...you've just gone from having one monopoly to having several monopolies. The limited choice is because there is only one cable coming into my house, and splitting up the company that owns that cable doesn't change that.

Addressing that probably requires something like making the last mile data transport a regulated utility that ISPs operate on top of. That would probably require Congressional action and a new President to do nationwide or to allow states to do individually.

2\. Competition among ISPs in a region can vary dramatically city to city, and even neighborhood to neighborhood. I've not extensively researched this so maybe this is wrong, but the impression I've gotten is that an ISP's prices in a region tend to be pretty similar between those places within the region where they are the only choice, and those places within the region where there are alternatives with similar performing alternatives. That could make it hard to show that the ISP is abusing its monopoly in those parts of its territory where it does not have competition.

3\. Aside from rural areas that only have DSL via the phone company, in most places there are multiple ISPs available. It's pretty common to have both cable and DSL, and in many cities there is also a fiber option. There's also wireless options, ranging from the regular consumer service of AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile, Verizon, and the various MVNOs that are built on those networks, and many places also have wireless available that is not based on the cellular networks.

You might argue that, say, cellular wireless is not really a viable option to Comcast or Charter or whoever the cable company is in a given area, due to the vast difference in speed. But you will have to actually make the argument. You won't be able to just say that they speed difference makes them different markets. You'll have to actually look at how people are using these various services and show that they really are not comparable.

I think that the factors in #2 and #3 make it almost impossible to win an antitrust case against a major ISP as a whole. The DoJ would have to bring smaller cases alleging monopolization in specific regions, tailored to the specific way the factors in #2 and #3 play out in that region.

Having to do this region by region, or even city by city in some regions, would make this a very long, expensive pursuit. (And where they win, there is still the question of whether or not there is an effective remedy they can apply).

Thus, it is probably better for the DoJ to leave this issue to Congress to deal with via legislation.

<comment><USER45> Getting individual Congressmen on your side is no cheaper than lawsuits by region. I fear there's no hope with the weakness of our current institutions - "reform" has been synonymous with cutting the scope and budget of regulatory agencies since Carter.

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> Spoilers: it's because our regulatory, legislative, and judicial infrastructure exists to defend monied interests. We're incapable of taking collective action that reduces private property accumulation, so no monopoly busting.

<comment><USER47> Google has been the largest spender in DC for a couple years now, I believe.

<comment><USER48> I don't think that's true.

[https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?showYear=2019&inde...](https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?showYear=2019&indexType=s)

[https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?showYear=2018&inde...](https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?showYear=2018&indexType=s)

[https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?showYear=2017&inde...](https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?showYear=2017&indexType=s)

<comment><USER47> 2019 is far from a complete year.

In both 2017 and 2018, Alphabet is the first listed corporation[0], which is probably the reason I see the claim made, most of the rest are associations.

[0]If you ignore BC/BS, which is a "federation of 36 independent companies", though that is largely a way to deal with the law requiring health insurance be in-state. If you want to, I'd accept saying Alphabet is the second corporation on the list, if we're being real.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> I don't think whataboutism is a valid argument against antitrust regulations for big tech.

</comment><comment><USER50> Because even Comcast, the most evil of the telecom companies, doesn't put out a web browser that seeks to permanently entrench its ad business. In fact, it lets me use any browser I want.

<comment><USER51> > In fact, it lets me use any browser I want

...to connect to the gateway they specify, and pull reams of data from with nary a bat of an eye from Washington.

<comment><USER50> But, again, they don't seem to use Comcast Business Layer A to entrench Comcast Business Layer B. They could put a tax on every call to Stripe API if they wanted. They don't. The worst thing they've done is throttle Netflix (very bad) and the market spoke and they were shamed publicly.</comment></comment></comment>


Exceptional Iron-Age elite tomb discovered in France - <AUTHOR> http://www.pasthorizonspr.com/index.php/archives/03/2015/exceptional-iron-age-elite-tomb-discovered-in-france

<comment><USER2> Champagne was an incredibly important trade region in its day, and a large source of wealth for the kings of France. One artifact of that is the unit we use to measure the weight of gold: the Troy ounce comes from the city of Troyes, of which Lavau (where the tomb was discovered) is a suburb.</comment>


Is Facebook Planning a Move to ARM Based Servers? - <AUTHOR> https://josephscott.org/archives/2013/12/is-facebook-planning-a-move-to-arm-based-servers/ <comment><USER2> So is Google:

[http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-12-12/google-said-to- mull...](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-12-12/google-said-to-mull- designing-chips-in-threat-to-intel.html)

</comment><comment><USER3> The proposed applications (network control plane) don't correspond to what you would write in PHP (the main Facebook app).

The arm64 stuff on the other hand is looming like being the first new RISC architecture since er alpha and there may well be a move towards using it. There was a story recently that Google has an ARM license too.

</comment><comment><USER4> Why ARM? What are the benefits of ARM compared to other architectures? Are there drawbacks to the architecture?

<comment><USER2> For the same reason Apple is making its own custom ARM CPU right now - it can be highly integrated with whatever they want it to be, and it has exactly what _they_ need, and none of the stuff they don't need. You can build solutions that are much more custom with ARM.

<comment><USER5> Well that's not a property of ARM the CPU but ARM the business model (IP licensing). And ARM aren't the only player in this space, there is also MIPS (and others).

<comment><USER2> ARM has the momentum, compared to MIPS.

<comment><USER6> While ARM has a lot more momentum I wouldn't completely discount MIPS. They are still out there and churning away in places you wouldn't expect. If I remember correctly the PIC32 is nothing but a modified MIPS core.

<comment><USER7> In addition, China has staked its domestic chip design efforts on MIPS64:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loongson](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loongson)

<comment><USER8> Incidentally, I think the following sentence from the Wikipedia introduction is misleading / untrue.

      China uses GNU/Linux with its Loongson processor family
      to achieve technology independence.

It reads to me like a statement that Linux is widely used throughout China, whereas my understanding is that use of non-Microsoft OSs is basically negligible in China[1]. Perhaps someone who knows more than me about this area would like to remove it.

[1] [http://gs.statcounter.com/#os-CN- monthly-201211-201311](http://gs.statcounter.com/#os-CN-monthly-201211-201311)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> They've been hiring for this for a while now, [https://www.facebook.com/careers/department?dept=engineering...](https://www.facebook.com/careers/department?dept=engineering&req=a0IA0000006cPTMMA2)

</comment><comment><USER10> Didn't HP consider making blade like units with up to 20 servers per unit? I saw that they canceled that due to some deal with Intel.

</comment><comment><USER11> Maybe for things like photo storage, where CPU speed isn't that important. Baidu is already using ARM servers for cloud storage.</comment>


Code: The Hidden Language of Computer Hardware and Software - <AUTHOR> http://www.charlespetzold.com/code/index.html

<comment><USER2> One of the best, sorry, no THE best book I've ever read about computers. Period.

It's a really good book for the younger generations as well, you know those kids who never had to code assembler or learn C. :)

</comment><comment><USER3> This is the book that taught me the fundamentals of how computers work. It has done me wonders. I highly recommend this book to any novice, geek or anyone who is interested in computers.

</comment><comment><USER4> This is probably the most entertaining book on the subject of computers I have ever read. I recently finished reading it myself and while it revealed very little to me I did not already know, the well thought out explanations of computer fundamentals have shined a whole new light on the subject for me. It should really be the first book anyone interested in computers and programming should read.

</comment><comment><USER5> Required reading for the CS 100 course at my school, I liked it. It's pretty cheap on Amazon, too, anyone interested should definitely get a copy.

</comment><comment><USER6> Anyone got a link to the toc and sample chapter that doesn't 404?

<comment><USER2> You can "browse" the book on Amazon: [http://www.amazon.com/Code-Language- Computer-Hardware-Softwa...](http://www.amazon.com/Code-Language-Computer- Hardware-Software/dp/0735611319)</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Is notifying users about a movie available on torrent illegal? - <AUTHOR>

I'm planning to create a website where users can "subscribe" on a movie and they get a notification when the movie is available in cinema, dvd, itunes, etc. I got an idea that i can also check PirateBay for BRRips and notify the users about the torrent availability, but without any reference to the torrent or the tracker site, just the message "XY is available on iTunes and in BRRip". I'm wondering is this illegal and can i have legal issues with it? <comment><USER2> IINAL. This is a dangerous gray area. Read for example the NinjaVideo case: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NinjaVideo](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NinjaVideo) . (For example, see [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3464060](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3464060) (154 points, 875 days ago, 157 comments), in particular the second comment by murz)

It's very different if you comply with all the DMCA provisions [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Ac...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act) and can honestly say:

 _"Oh my God! I did't see that! It's all user generated content! I'll delete that now!" (and you delete the copyright infringe content now.)_

than

 _"I just finishes the selection and the official movie of the week winner is $title linked by $user."_

(Perhaps this is not the ideal solution and perhaps this is not the right thing, but if you don't follow the DMCA to you need good lawyers.)

<comment><AUTHOR> NinjaVideo was a streaming website, but on my website there won't be any illegal content. Only the "BRRip" word will be present in just two locations:

1\. in the user's control panel next to a checkbox so he can decide whether he wants to be notified about the torrent availability

2\. in the email sent to the user (or in other form of notification) with the text "BRRip is available for movie XY", no links to torrent or warez content or something.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Legal is one thing. Asking for trouble is another. You don't have to necessarily be doing something illegal to invite trouble.</comment>


Email as backend to secure federated chat - <AUTHOR> Many of my non-tech friends are tired of sending emails. Instead why not create an app that lists latest contact names in an interface. When you click on the name/email address, you type "your chat message" which is sent by the app as an email. When the 'receiver/addressee' replies it forms the chat type conversation. This would mean 'users' with no smartphones are also part of conversation. If there is a 'large' email then a snippet can be displayed(with a link to open in a real email client). Bonus, if one can add GPG encryption - by looking up a keyserver for that email address and sending the chat (email) with GPG. Do you think this is viable? <comment><USER2> How do the different latencies in email and chat get resolved in a way where participating via an email client makes sense?

The way to sort that out is probably building a partial system.

Good luck.</comment>


Snaptalent Lessons Learned - Lesson Two - Indecision Kills - <AUTHOR> http://jamiequint.com/lesson-two-indecision-kills

<comment><USER2> I think this is a challenge that a lot of startups encounter. I've certainly encountered it so far. I think the breakthrough for me was when my dad (good 'ol parents) asked me to describe what I wanted to do in one sentence. Once I did, it became clear how to best focus on what I was trying to accomplish, who I wanted to reach, and how I wanted them to benefit. Sometimes giving yourself some solid guidelines will free you more than anything else. Above all I find that you have to maintain focus. As an entrepreneur I find that you will pick up on many problems that can be solved, and many ways to do so. You have to pick the most important problem to solve, and the way that will solve it the greatest amount is the first one to pursue. My thoughts, from someone that is still learning a lot...

</comment><comment><USER3> I don't think this blog post is correct. I do not think that "indecision", or "thinking about something as you work on it" was critical to the failure.

The problem did not lie in the indecision or the discussion, the problem lay in a combination of many factors, and the indecision just meant that the problem was discovered later.

Even if the decision had been made in a single day and the product created as fast as possible - all the other issues would have continued to exist, and who is to know what would have happened after launch.

Being slow in making decisions is not a bad idea, particular when your target market is not changing much. In fact, the longer you wait, the more chance you have to research and understand your market properly.

Deciding quickly all the time and chasing new things is not a recipe for success - and it will surely lead to chaos.

The core problem with their business lay in what I call 'concept', and no speed of decision or different approach would have fixed this for them.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm not arguing for chasing new things all the time, in fact I'm arguing for the opposite. I think its important to be decisive about a path and _not_ chase new things all the time.

I agree that understanding your market properly is extremely important (see the first post in this series), however its also possible to market research yourself to death. At some point you just need to launch and see what happens.

I would argue that 'concept' was not our problem. Certainly the concept behind the Snaptalent blog network was flawed in its economics, we figured that out and tried to shift focus. Recruitment branding (large campaigns not focused on a single rec) is actually a fairly large market where spend is moving online rapidly. I don't think the analysis that this was an opportunity we were well positioned for was wrong, we just never really pursued it hard enough.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> It's an important life skill to learn to differentiate between when you need _a_ decision and when you need _the right_ decision. Applying the wrong strategy to either situation tends to work out poorly.</comment>


Why do progress bars animate backwards? - <AUTHOR> http://ux.stackexchange.com/q/18361/4679

<comment><USER2> Because it makes it look faster?</comment>


Autodesk to lay off 1,150 as company restructures - <AUTHOR> http://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/Autodesk-to-lay-off-1-150-as-company-restructures-12390210.php <comment><USER2> So it appears that in just the last 5 years, Autodesk, Inc. has sponsored over 500 H1B visas.

The majority of these sponsored positions are in the Bay Area, with its high cost of living; a median salary of about $100K for software engineers is definitely appropriate and the _prevailing wage_ for such uber-talent which they searched high and low for in the US, but simply could not find. /s

I'm assuming that of the 1000+ workers to be laid off, the majority of these 500+ H1Bs will be included. Though I won't hold my breath.

If Autodesk truly has a need for such hard-to-find talent, they're in luck: the O-1 Visa was made for just this.

* [http://h1bdata.info/index.php?em=Autodesk+Inc&job=&city=&yea...](http://h1bdata.info/index.php?em=Autodesk+Inc&job=&city=&year=All+Years)

* [https://www.uscis.gov/working-united-states/temporary-worker...](https://www.uscis.gov/working-united-states/temporary-workers/o-1-visa-individuals-extraordinary-ability-or-achievement)

</comment><comment><USER3> Autodesk is stuck in the past - 3Ds Max still costs too much. So does Autocad. Epic saw the writing on the wall and made Unreal Engine royalty based (and if you don't make over the cutoff - free). They also got competitors that are better then them in specialized tasks - ZBrush, etc...

Stuck in the past and cutting headcount - Autodesk is circling the drain. Good comment on HB1s as well in the thread too.

</comment><comment><USER4> Every time this happens, I have a hard time going to sleep. I don't understand what the actual problem is. I mean, I see them undertaking strange initiatives all the time. It is probably the most strange company I have ever followed. But, nobody seems to have much idea of what the root cause is.

Just please don't cut 3ds Max. Oh, what's the use? They're going to cut 3ds Max.</comment>


Ask HN: Any decent email backup viewer around? - <AUTHOR> There is a nice "IMAP Email Backup" thread nearby which misses one point: once the backup is done, how can I look into it?
I have a couple of large cloud mailboxes that I backup locally using getmail python script. As I don't want to keep everything online for life, the plan is to eventually delete the old emails from the cloud, leaving only the offline copy.
So what I need is the software that lets me comfortably read these offline emails like I do now. No edits, no replies, just plain read-only maildir viewer with fast search. Another complication is that the backup is on the NAS and I would prefer to access it by SSH instead of shared folder.
The next big thing is search. Without indexing it takes way too long to look through 200K emails, so I currently run mu indexer (a part of mu4e) that indexes the database after getmail, so I can do fast search queries using command line.
What I want is to provide a list of mu queries - as "filters/folders" to the application that does those queries for me and displays the list of emails and preview, like a standard email client. Anything like that around?
Or maybe there is a way to setup an IMAP server that uses the maildir and the index to serve emails into my email client with fast search?
I tried mutt, but it changed every email I viewed, so getmail was not happy about that. I haven't tried Thunderbird yet, but I think it will mess the maildir, as well. I am sure Emacs can do that, but I am not (yet) ready :)
I can't believe I am the only one who wants to easily look into backed up emails. Ideas? <comment><USER2> I convert emails to JSON, and then import them into Meilisearch, which handles the indexing. Search is instantaneous (CLI/browser). Run the app locally using docker, or deploy it on a cloud service like DigitalOcean (Meilisearch droplet). I don't know if the solution appeals to you, but for me it's very useful

<comment><AUTHOR> It might work, could you explain how you convert emails to JSON? There could be quotations, attachments etc - is there a script for that? Maybe a manual somewhere?</comment></comment>