How Much Should the Met Cost? - <AUTHOR> https://www.theparisreview.org/blog/2018/05/30/how-much-should-the-met-cost-you/ <comment><USER2> In my experience the impact from mandatory museum fees is that people will not make short museum visits. A single new exhibit is not worth $25, nor is a 1 hour visit after lunch or before dinner. When there's a large cost visiting the museum becomes an event, something that gets planned into the day's schedule for many hours. I'm curious to see if the fees have any impact on the number of out of town visitors.

<comment><USER3> A good solution would be affordable long time tickets. Why not a yearlong ticket for $50? I don't think the revenue would be less than with single tickets but take away all pressure of making the best out of the ticket.

<comment><USER4> Its called a membership and most museums offer them.

In most cases it is about 3 times the price of a regular one time ticket and gives you unlimited access to the museum as well as discounts in the stores, early access to exhibitions etc...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The Minneapolis Institute of Art is free (except special exhibits). I'm a paying member, but it's great that it's free, both for those who can't pay, but also because it means you don't have to spend a huge amount of time there to feel like it justifies the ticket price. I used to live nearby and would sometimes walk over to look at one piece for 5 minutes.

</comment><comment><USER6> Very interesting article.

I recently visited New York and spent a day at the Met. As a tech-employed American who can afford to do things like fly to New York for a week, $25 dollars seemed like an amazing deal. An unbelievable deal, really. $25 there and $25 at MOMA didn't really register against the overall expense of the trip.

They still have pay-what-you-can for people who live in New York or within a certain distance thereof.

<comment><USER7> I visited the Met a number of times as a broke college student from Ohio, and a number of times after graduating when I lived in the SF Bay Area but was still broke. The fact that I could go up to the ticket counter, pay a nominal $1 donation, and get the same metal tab button to get in as everyone else was a godsend.

I love New York City, but every time I go back to visit it feels more like a playground for the wealthy.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I live near the Met, and go frequently. Other articles, but not this one, mention another huge reason: the fact that the Met is effectively free has lead to crazy overcrowding.

Tour buses line up on 5th Ave, people are pushy, lines are hours long, etc. It's an incredible place, but sometimes it feels like the fact that it's free means that people treat it like it's cheap. It turns into the default thing to do, which to me feels like it devalues one of the greatest institutions on the planet.

I'm a member at MoMA, and it's a totally different situation - it's quieter, people are more respectful, and it's a lot less crowded. I'm sure the fact that MoMA is non-negotiably $25.

Pro-tip: If you're in New York, on your first day buy a MoMA membership, and the next morning go to Member Hours (you can't buy a membership during Member Hours). Being in the Warhol room alone is a remarkable experience.

</comment><comment><USER9> "To be ideological is to preconceive reality." Indeed! In his fervor to picture the Met as a racist, elitist, outdated bastion of high art the author does not care to spend any verbiage on the real problem: the Met's inaptitude for money. While mentioning a constant beat about money troubles he doesn't really talk about _what_ is causing these, except mentioning number of visitors has doubled.

Leaving that aside, as one data point I wanted to compare Met's membership rates for two adults with those of Chicago's Art Institute, of which we are members: $105 for the Art Institute, $100 for the Met. And the Institute, while great, is no Met!

</comment><comment><USER10> >or they charge a king's ransom to see the work on their walls, like the Louvre (seventeen euros)

Partially true, European visitors under 25 years get free access.

As a not-so-rich-student this is what made me visit the Louvre. I'm not an arts student and didn't really know what to expect from an art museum, so this is what made me visit the Louvre on a recent layover. If I had to pay, I probably wouldn't have visited it, as I expected to not get the money worth in the 2-3 hours I had. I'm guessing others feel this way as well.

$25 seems like a good filter for very interested visitors though.

</comment><comment><USER11> Even charging tourists at a mere $5 would exceed their $10m needs.

To contrast the pricing, The Vancouver Art Gallery charges $24 (membership for $90.) More often than not, I leave disappointed with the overall experience. That being said, they have expenses, and its not like I'm going several times per month.

If we could have the quality of the Met in Vancouver, I'd gladly pay $25+ per visit.

</comment><comment><USER12> I actually find the new policy more honest in some ways. Because of the way admission was set up (you had to go up to the cashier and get a little clip-on thingie), it always felt like the donation was optional but not really. And the museum certainly didn't go out of its way to advertise that you didn't have to pay the printed amount.

London museums are also a bit guilty of trumpeting "Free" and then expecting a donation. But the suggested amount is more modest and the collection is just a box/globe so it's very low-key.

</comment><comment><USER13> The Met is one of the world's great museums. It is easily worth $25. As a student of art history in Southern California I simply did not understand the appeal of certain artworks until I saw them at the Met, where I was moved to tears several times. It turned out that I simply hadn't been able to experience first-rate collections where I lived.

</comment><comment><USER14> I was visiting Baltimore's Inner Harbor recently with my wife and our two kids. With a couple of hours available, we thought we'd checkout the aquarium. Then we learned our 4 tickets would cost $130 ($40/adult, $25/child), so we found something else to do instead.

I know an aquarium is not an art museum, but still...

<comment><USER12> Aquariums tend to be pretty expensive. Those types of rates are about par for the course. I assume that operating costs are high.</comment></comment>


The Trouble with Data Warehouse Analytics - <AUTHOR> http://www.allanalytics.com/author.asp?section_id=2386&doc_id=282385 <comment><USER2> Data warehouses aren't materialized views of relational databases much any more. These days they are enhancements or sources of truth for things like event data (iot clickstreams etc) as much as anything else.</comment>


Electric Audi A2 with 375 Miles Range on 6-Minute Charge - <AUTHOR> http://www.salem-news.com/print/16354

<comment><USER2> _Apparently, when connected to a generous enough power supply, the batteries can recharge in just six minutes._

I wonder how generous of a power supply that would be. The Tesla Roadster has a 110/120V "emergency" charger, a 220/240V "home" charger, and I believe there are plans for 440/480V "public" chargers in the works.

The emergency charger takes 48 hours to do a full charge (120V 15A), and the home charger about 4 (240V 90A). In theory the public charger should do it in 1 hour (assuming 480V 180A). This "generous" Audi charger sounds like it will have some serious juice flowing through it.

</comment><comment><USER3> Does anyone know if the lithium metal polymer (LMP) battery technology is useful in other spaces, such as personal electronics? For a long time, we've been hearing that batteries are a key limiting factor for a variety of electronics.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> full article with pic: [http://green.autoblog.com/2010/10/27/converted- audi-a2-claim...](http://green.autoblog.com/2010/10/27/converted- audi-a2-claims-new-electric-vehicle-distance-record-3/)</comment>


Sean Parker: "Little Startups Are Ridiculously OverFunded" - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2011/11/15/sean-parker-little-startups-are-ridiculously-overfunded/ <comment><USER4> I don't see what's wrong with larger companies having a hard time attracting talent.

A good read: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_the_firm>

As transaction costs go down (in general), it makes less sense for us as a society to have production/value creation organized in larger organizations (firms, companies, etc) - instead in a bunch of independent smaller groups.

Companies only exist to minimize transaction costs.

<comment><USER5> _Companies only exist to minimize transaction costs._

I think this is a bit of an overstatement. Another purpose of companies is to provide the benefits of a command economy (e.g., the ability of a great leader to jump from a local to global maxima) with less of the dangers of a command economy (great leader robs/kills you, poor planning screws everyone over).

E.g., central planning in the food supply _can_ work reasonably well, but this is hardly guaranteed. Market discipline gives us the benefits of McDonald's 5 year plan, but a McBankruptcy rather than Soviet Union style food shortages if the 5 year plan fails.

<comment><USER6> That is a bizarre argument though, you are saying that capitalism works fine so long as companies are run as soviet states? The Soviet Union showed basically no benefits to the command economy... And the great leaders of large businesses look rather more like command economy leaders than products of a free market.

I think you need a better argument than that that large corporations are here to stay, not a passing fad due to factors like transaction costs... There have been few great leaders running large corporates, although not none, and many people just enriching themselves for doing little.

<comment><USER5> _That is a bizarre argument though, you are saying that capitalism works fine so long as companies are run as soviet states?_

No, I'm saying that embedding command economies (structured as companies) in a capitalist economy allows us to gain the benefits of a well run command economy while mitigating their harms.

<comment><USER6> Yeah thats what I meant. First prove there is such a thing as a well run command economy then, and then that the company system will generate such a thing...

<comment><USER5> Walmart serves as an existence proof for both your propositions.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Each day, I thank god for all these useful idiots in SV. They're madly running a rat race to build the next social widget. Throwing off useful technology I can use to serve the vast wasteland ignored by them.

Thank you Sean Parker.

<comment><USER8> Care to elaborate? I just found your comment interesting but I'd like to know what you're talking about.

<comment><USER9> Sounds like he means the open source tools startups are generating can be used to target areas they are ignoring.

<comment><USER10> In that case "useful idiots" is a bit harsh (and not accurate from my reading of [1]).

The creation of this much open source software is a true public good. The people producing it (both at small companies and big ones) may be working away at misguided projects, but it's wonderful that as a byproduct they're producing software useable by everyone. In the future, it may be obvious that the open-source side-effects of this SV generation were more value-creating than the businesses created directly.

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot>

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Thinking in the most simplistic form possible - how about engineers just doing what makes them the most happy? Forget about whether we could provide more value at an established company. Maybe building our own products is our passion. That alone will drive more value than doing something we're not passionate about. Just a thought.

Whether early stage startups are overvalued is a different topic to be discussed.

<comment><USER12> Again that drains talent, though, if they're working on it full time.

<comment><USER13> Good. No one has the _right_ to having employees. If you want employees, you pay what it takes to attract them. Parker is trying to manipulate the market here to get prices down to what he wants to be paying.

<comment><USER12> Yeah I was going to respond with a point based on economics, but I think you have me here. The point I was responding to was about value for the engineer. If the engineer creates a lot of value from working for themselves, it would just take that many more dollars to pull them away from it. (This has applied to me as well.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> At Startup School, the Sequoia guy showed a bunch of slides which had two main points highlighted:

\- Companies like Microsoft, Google, Yahoo, LinkedIn raised very modest amounts of funding and has multi-billion dollar IPOs

\- Cost of creating a company (and associated technology) is down over 90% from what it was back when a lot of these companies were started.

Given these two, it's amazing to see VCs pouring in millions into startups that have nowhere near the valuation they invest at. Color is the most famous example, but there are tons of other startups raising $2-5M at pretty ridiculous valuations. If you consider that in light what Sean Parker says, regardless of his vested interest in engineering talent going to companies he's backed, it feel like what he's saying makes sense. Companies are ridiculously over funded, and VCs are doing a disservice to their investors as well as to their portfolio companies by giving more money than they need.

<comment><USER13> >Companies are ridiculously over funded, and VCs are doing a disservice to their investors as well as to their portfolio companies by giving more money than they need.

No they're not. They're following the market. If they were doing a disservice to their investors, do you think the investors would just sit back and lose millions?

<comment><USER15> Yes.

<comment><USER13> You have a pretty low opinion of people who've managed to make large sums of money. If they're as stupid as you think, maybe that money would be better utilized by people who aren't?

<comment><USER15> Bah. The problem is that the feedback cycle is too long to penalize certain behaviours. It's not about stupidity, etc.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> This isn't just whining.

My theory is that 500 2 person companies have a worse chance at making a real splash than if the 100 best ideas from that group had 10 good people working on them. That's part of what he's saying - it's harder now for good startups to grow when everyone wants to and is incentivized to make their own web startup.

The other part he's saying is that people can have a larger marginal impact on the world working at a place like Facebook than they could in their own startup. For the median case, this is true.

<comment><USER17> Facebook was once one of those startups.

<comment><USER16> The funding environment has changed quite a lot since then. YC didn't even exist when FB started.

And FB would clearly be in that 100, given the massive growth it had. For every potential FB, there are lots of borderline useless apps that get funding, and wouldn't have when FB was first funded. Those people could have instead been working on FB.

He's not complaining that startups are getting funding, he's saying that the overavailability of funding is acting as a repulsive force, keeping engineers from grouping up.

Whether that's a bad thing on the balance, I'm not sure, but it's not an unmitigated good.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I love it when someone who no longer has to participate in the rat race is admonishing others to stay in it. So easy for them to say this..

</comment><comment><USER19> Yes, he's right, but let's put this in context. There are probably a lot of talented engineers who are doing startups now who shouldn't be. The problem is how do we know who is going to be a good entrepreneur and who is not? We don't. The only way we know is by doing it, which is what a lot of talent is doing. I think many startup founders are a bit grounded in reality and know that they face real possibilities of failure. Just as long as they keep this in mind and don't become obsessed with caviar dreams, then I see no harm done. Being an entrepreneur is one way for an engineer to develop non-technical skillsets and learn something about himself in the process.

Let's not forget that this entrepreneurial activity is forcing the big guys (Google, FB, etc) to be more innovative than they would otherwise be - <USER2> to attract talent or to compete with startups.

</comment><comment><USER20> So his argument is that we should start building the consolidated Internet bureaucracy now?

The problem isn't overfunding small startups, it's going after markets that are all hype and have little to do with innovation.

Our smartest engineers should be working on ARPA-funded energy projects not how to create a new feature to keep Facebook relevant.

</comment><comment><USER21> I was at an event in NYC several months back where a mid-stage VC said the same thing (blanking on his name) but specifically regarding the NYC community. It was an angle I hadn't thought about and initially had the same negative reaction to as someone in the midst of an early stage company.

For later round investors it's undoubtedly in their interest to encourage these engineers to join larger firms rather than being on their own. In NYC it's especially competitive given the competition between more mature companies, early stage startups and the money wielding finance industry. The combination could lead to a 'glass ceiling' of sorts for larger companies because of the inability to attract talent; that is, until some of the smaller companies fail and these individual engineers likely end up at a larger spot.

It mirrors the consolidation of an industry. It just takes longer than some investors (like Parker) would prefer, which is the inspiration for statements like this.

<comment><USER10> Or the market price of talent goes up : The value being created by engineers is recognized by the financial institutions, so why shouldn't tech companies pay up too?

[ And I'm thinking Facebook before people get on my case about financial companies creating value in the real world... ]

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> What Sean left out was -- overfunded for whom? He implied it, but didn't say it: the bigger dogs in the fight (Facebook/Twitter/Google) have to compete for talent like everyone else.

The overfunding is mostly a problem for those larger tech companies, not the little guys.

<comment><USER23> I suspect he means that _investors_ are overvaluing small startups (relative to their chances of becoming successful). The consequence he worries about is that having too much funding available makes the opportunity too appealing to the best engineers, making it harder for ventures that will succeed to keep/attract talent.

<comment><USER22> His arguments seem a big reach, though. Lots of investment means opportunity recognition, and there are a finite number of engineers, so supply/demand takes it course.

He's arguing against capitalism, and not making a very good one at that. While trying to sell this as an industry-wide issue, I suspect his real concerns are more immediate -- for his own ventures.

<comment><USER23> He's not arguing against capitalism. He's saying that the market is currently overvaluing certain kinds of businesses, causing resources to be misallocated. That's it.

You may be right that he is either wrong or making his argument for self- serving reasons. Or he might be right.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> So I wonder if Sean Parker actually believes this, or if he is just frustrated by a lack of engineers available for his larger backed companies. Either way he doesn't look great making comments like this.

</comment><comment><USER25> Startups are akin to an MBA.

Running a small but ambitious company forces a serious, motivated founder to think about every business function. I don't see any meaningful downside for the founders who choose to spend some time on this task, and I see a lot of upside.

Parker's complaints strike me as absurd. If he really believes they can have more impact at FaceBook, he should find a way to create special purpose vehicles within FB that allow founders to get equity in the work of a small team, rather than just getting .00005% of the sum of FaceBook.

</comment><comment><USER26> I think what happens is the price of an engineer has gone up. Engineer starts a start-up, big company buys start-up at a million per Engineer - <USER3> happy.

</comment><comment><USER27> He paints a picture of "Google pretending to be Switzerland, but doing back deals with everyone, and Apple being left alone to build the Deathstar."Guess where that will leave most startups.

Nice analogy. Time to move to Dantooine and work on my X-wing startup.

<comment><USER28> Dude, are you sure you want to do that? I've got this buddy that's got this crazy thing going on on some gas giant. They're way past angel stage, they've got catered meals every day, a band practice room, a fooz ball table, and a carbonite freezing chamber.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> It is better to be the head of a mouse than the tail of a lion.

All good things in life comes from collaboration with others as much as individual contributions, but there is nothing that says that collaboration has to be imposed by a external force, like with a company. The world has ruled before with open collaboration like science, and what we call "open source", "open hardware" today.

BTW, if I could do anything to destroy the vision that all the world is going to be controlled by oligopoly juggernauts and bureaucracies, I will, including creating new companies or helping young people to renew the landscape, as facebook or Google did(when companies success in a free market, next they want to destroy it).

</comment><comment><USER30> If you think an engineer or product designer is better incentivized to do their own thing and you want to hire them away to BigCorp, you need to change your compensation offerings.

</comment><comment><USER31> _"The problem in his view is that many of the talented engineers and product designers who are now starting their own companies could have a bigger impact at places like Facebook..."_

\- says Sean Parker, the guy who owns between 2 and 7% of Facebook. Well yes, of course.

</comment><comment><USER32> Basically he's saying investors are dumb for making it hard for his now large company to hire engineers. Get out the violins.

</comment><comment><USER33> Pretty sure it's not a coincidence that Mark Zuckerberg emphasized a related message at Startup School ("don't start a company unless you're really, really passionate about it"). Facebook, like every other tech company in the valley, is having trouble hiring enough engineers, and this is a campaign to make would-be founders think twice.

<comment><USER34> I think they're very different messages. Sean Parker's message comes off as more self-serving - saying don't start a company because it's not as good for the world as joining one that can effect change to a greater degree. Zuckerberg's comment was about not starting a company for the sake of it, the same message PG had and a very good one. Start a company because they're the most efficient vehicle to solve a problem you care about. Don't fabricate some problem that doesn't exist because you want to start a company.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> I don't think he is completely wrong but I think this is just another (higher- end) instance of the age-old tradition of companies saying it is too difficult to find engineers while being unwilling to pay fair value for said engineers.

To be clear, I know that Facebook does pay quite well by industry standards (offset somewhat by the bay area cost of living) for top talent, but if this situation is causing them an issue then what they are paying (or offering in general -- money isn't always the only thing) still isn't enough.

<comment><USER36> There's a certain type of personality (very prevalent in the valley) who won't work for a big company like facebook, twitter, or google for any amount of money. I would imagine these types of people make up the majority of the YC class.

Maybe they'll get bought via a talent acquisition but as soon as their golden handcuffs are off, they are out doing their own thing again. The reason they allow themselves to get bought via talent acquisition is to be able to easily raise money in the future.

I think Sean Parker is reacting to these types of people. I think the misconception is that the increased funding sources is what is driving these people. I would suggest that they were always there, but 5 years ago they were just living poor and working their ass off to build a startup (usually unsuccessfully).

I do believe I'm part of this group. There's no amount of money that would compel me to take a corporate job. Sometimes money isn't what matters.

<comment><USER37> You claim that this class of people won't work for a "big company" for "any amount of money," yet in the next breath you admit that they will work for those companies in the context of a "talent acquisition."

What is a "talent acquisition" if not an alternate mode of compensation to persuade individuals to "take a corporate job" who previously considered themselves above such positions? Yeah, it sounds more impressive to tell people "we got bought by X" instead of "I took a job with X," but either way they've "gone corporate." You're still dealing with the same endless HR meetings, PHBs, "culture," etc, as all the other "drones."

Yes, a good number of such "acquisition hires" leave after earn-out is complete, typically two to four years. This is actually a fairly lengthy of time for any high-value employee to hold any position in the valley these days, startup or not.

<comment><USER38> Exiting a company as soon as you can after a talent acquisition to go on and become an entrepreneur again is very very very common. Most recently I can think of Arrington, Levchin, Nguyen.

I would even guess that the majority of founders who are acquired by Google, Yahoo etc. leave in the first 12 months.

It is either to get the first run on the board, or to give a startup that would otherwise fail a graceful exit - but these people are entrepreneurs and do not fit into large companies.

Sean Parker should be asking what is Facebook doing to attract these types of people, not bitch about these people not wanting to join and blaming free- market funding, of all things.

<comment><USER39> > I would even guess that the majority of founders who are acquired by Google, > Yahoo etc. leave in the first 12 months.

That is absolutely not the case.

You often don't even hear about most Google acquisitions, or you don't know what they were even working on until they get released as Google Egg Timer or something. And even after vesting a lot of acquired employees still stick around. Some of them have families by then.

Yahoo tries hard to make them quit in disgust, but even they hang on to founders longer than that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> How exactly does he expect the internet to consolidate like the PC industry? How _can_ the internet consolidate?

<comment><USER41> What I'm wondering is, how do more and smaller startups equate to eventual consolidation? His preference seems to be that engineers would elect to become agents or enablers of consolidation by joining the very companies that have the scale to consolidate a market.

His two points don't seem to have any intersection that I can see.

<comment><USER42> "What I'm wondering is, how do more and smaller startups equate to eventual consolidation?"

It doesn't, if anything it slows down any eventuality of it. He's saying it does to try and scare talent on the fence and talent that has already gone the startup route by saying its a misguided and futile effot.

Ask yourself this, if this big companies werent hurting because of these loses, would they waste time making the comments in the first place? Its cheaper to try scare tactics then to offer them more money.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> His complaint that more engineers won't go to work for larger tech companies instead of either working for smaller startups or starting their own company is rather hypocritical. A cursory read of his wikipedia page shows that he has never joined a large tech company.

</comment><comment><USER44> Having trouble hiring talented people seems to be a pretty good problem to have. The logic is flawed - from a guy who stuck his middle-finger at various large companies while working at the helm of Napster.

I think the new economy (eventually, hopefully) will be many small companies with a handful of people (read: democracy) calling their own shots, more creative freedom and an interconnectivity with other small companies that spits in the face of fear-based competitive angst and eventually creates a real revolution that more of us are proud of rather than this disgusting idea that we all should work for the Umbrella Corporation.

</comment><comment><USER45> This is shit.

I heard something similar from Joel Spolsky not that long ago.

It's like a George Wallace speech. The old guard, giving speeches targeted at the "do nothing class", urging them to help suppress a revolution.

</comment><comment><USER46> His comment about "go work at Facebook" is just talking his book.

However, he is right about that the internet will consolidate as it matures. However, we should not forget as soon as consolidation happens in a certain industry the very next thing what happen is disruption. So yes PC industry is consolidated, but whoever got of the PC train and jump on iPhone/iPad/Android did good.

</comment><comment><USER47> I think a point that got missed in the discussion: The reason that this situation is occurring is that money is flowing into the sector at a fair clip.

Make hay when the sun shines. It will start raining in the future, and there might not be a lot of warning.

</comment><comment><USER48> Here's the video. [http://www.livestream.com/techonomy/video?clipId=pla_5c88e44...](http://www.livestream.com/techonomy/video?clipId=pla_5c88e446-0468-4f33-a7ee-721ff5176f68)

<comment><USER48> About 30 minutes in

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> _talented engineers and product designers who are now starting their own companies could have a bigger impact at places like Facebook_.... then .... _Whoever wins the revolution builds a bureaucracy." And what will end up happening is the big powers will control the tech industry_

In others, many talented developers are better off going to work for FB or GGL and help them get quicker to a position of total control.

</comment><comment><USER50> I disagree entirely. Here's why:

1\. Social psychology shows us that, smaller, more focused groups perform better and have superior productivity to larger groups, which tend to become disorganized and derailed. (<http://sgr.sagepub.com/content/40/2/247.abstract>) Startups tend to have fewer employees (this is universal), and, even in hugely successful companies like Google, work is divided into highly productive nuclei of coordinated, amicable teams. This is a trend that repeats in very successful companies, and when startups pick up and start gaining more employees, though they decentralize, the "small team > big force" mentality remains.

2\. If you outsource all the miscellaneous things a company needs to do to get a product out, you find that a) each of those outsourced functions is done on a much more quality level than if the company tried to do it all on its own, b) the company doing the outsourcing can focus more on its principal product. This actually spreads the wealth and improved productivity for _every_ company involved. ([http://www.industryweek.com/articles/breaking_the_rules__whe...](http://www.industryweek.com/articles/breaking_the_rules__when_business_needs_drive_the_outsourcing_of_specialized_business_processes_24780.aspx))

I could see why Sean Parker would be a bit concerned, but, really, I think the explosion of new startups is fantastic for the overall quality of products.

<comment><USER51> _each of those outsourced functions is done on a much more quality level than if the company tried to do it all on its own_

Ho ho ho. There is a long, long list of companies who have discovered to their cost, the opposite. And amusingly, it's getting longer.

</comment></comment><comment><USER52>
      "The problem in his view is that many of the talented engineers
      and product designers who are now starting their own companies
      could have a bigger impact at places like Facebook, and they in
      turn will have a hard time attracting the best talent because
      those people can get funded to start their own projects as well."

Obviously I just read TC's article and didn't see what Parker said, but what's notably missing from that statement is any discussion about what is best, or highest expected value, for the engineer or designer. It's obviously better for Facebook/Google/Yahoo/et al if great engineers and designers have to work for them because they can't get funding. It's not obvious this leads to better outcomes for the people in question. It kind of feels like Parker is talking his book.

edit: formatting

<comment><USER53> There's a rich tradition of self-interested complaint in this industry. This reminds me of Fred Wilson's complaining about startup lawyer fees[1], Aaron Greenspan's complaining about the Money Transmission Act[2], and pg's Patent Pledge[3].

Not that people shouldn't speak for the causes of their choosing, but you do lose some rhetorical impact if you only do so once you have a horse in the race.

[1] [http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2011/03/a-challenge-to-startup- lawye...](http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2011/03/a-challenge-to-startup-lawyers.html)

[2] [http://www.quora.com/Aaron-Greenspan/In-Fifty-Days- Payments-...](http://www.quora.com/Aaron-Greenspan/In-Fifty-Days-Payments- Innovation-Will-Stop-In-Silicon-Valley)

[3] <http://www.paulgraham.com/patentpledge.html>

<comment><USER54> Don't forget the classic _Open Letter to Hobbyists_ [4].

[4] <http://www.blinkenlights.com/classiccmp/gateswhine.html>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> I think he's right, for the most part. It's also interesting that a lot of these startups end up with "successful" exits where their technology isn't used at all (ie talent acquisition for FB/Goog, etc). I don't know if there should be a correction for that, but I sometimes feel that it leads to people building for the sake of building until they get acquired.

Interestingly, we (<http://feefighters.com>) had 2 of our 4 interns leave us in the past week because they got accepted to YC (2 different projects). I guess we should feel good because we're picking smart people who want to work for us, but we'd rather have them with us!

<comment><USER9> Even if the product isn't used on many occasions, the best aspects of it and the teachings from running it often are. I think the aquihires allow experimentation that would be hard to achieve within the acquiring company.

The aspect I dislike is when startups say that they are in for the long haul then sell a few months later. Makes it hard to trust a startup that the investment in time you spend to get up and running on their product will be worth it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER56> Sean Parker is ridiculously overfunded.

<comment><USER57> That's the right answer.

</comment></comment><comment><USER58> What he is basically trying to say is that your chances of achieving "success" or "making an impact" is better if you work for Mark Zuckerberg than try to become (someone like)Mark Zuckerberg.

Wow what a narrow definition of success!For example by working for facebook how can I get every child in third world countries to get a decent education?How can I get every woman in rural india to break free from male dominance?

My respect for Parker just took a strong hit!

</comment><comment><USER59>
      Parker suggests that one reason it will end badly is
      because the Internet industry will ultimately consolidate
      just like the PC industry did in the 1980s and 1990s.

Why? Why does the future have to be like the past? As rich and well connected Sean Parker is, he cannot predict the future. Coincidently given his stature it makes him probably the least qualified to predict what will ultimately happen in the computing industry.

There is no reason the computing industry cannot be more flat than it has in the past. I believe it is highly likely the industry will continue to fragment. Android, IOS, Windows7, BBX... there will be more platforms in the future, not less. More diversification, not less. The game has changed forever, as it should.

<comment><USER21> The issue with fragmentation that ultimately leads to consolidation is the cost incurred by companies and developers to support all of these platforms.

I can't tell you how much it pains me as an android user to see an app only available for the iPhone. As a developer, it's magnitudes worse to have to send messages to my users saying "we'll be getting to an [x] platform app soon!" when realistically it just stunts our growth to develop the same thing 3 times.

I can't wait for the end of this native app nonsense.

<comment><USER58> > I can't wait for the end of this native app nonsense.

As an iOS developer I recommend that you try to understand how much more intellectually satisfying developing for the iphone is than android or HTML5!

<comment><USER21> I was coming strictly from the standpoint of time being the scarcest factor and thus the most important; I completely agree with you on the intellectual satisfaction of developing native apps :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER60> more interesting concern..

What happens when all the developers with extremely low debt loads are snapped up by the Big firms to start-ups attempting to acquire tech co-founders and dev talent?

It is not that anyone is over funded, its that those with low debt loads and dev talent is in fact a finite amount and when its gone from the market prices adjust upwards..</comment>


Why Facebook, Google, and the NSA Want Computers That Learn Like Humans - <AUTHOR> http://www.motherjones.com/media/2014/09/deep-learning-artificial-intelligence-facebook-nsa <comment><USER2> I love this story.</comment>


Fruit Salad Trees - <AUTHOR> https://www.fruitsaladtrees.com/ <comment><USER2> How does it work? I thought different trees would need different amounts water, sunlight, etc. Combining too many different kinds would give suboptimal fruits. Are these apples, peaches as good as a single tree?

<comment><USER3> The trick is that they don't combine apples and peaches in the same tree. They combine peaches with apricots and red apples with green apples. (I expected apples and pears, I'm slightly disappointed.)

Grafting is an standard technique in agriculture and I think there are a lot of grafted trees in commercial production, so I guess this is not a hoax.

Anyway, I agree that it's very probable that the combination may provide suboptimal fruits.</comment></comment>


Heroku's new timeline style status site - <AUTHOR> https://status-beta.heroku.com/

<comment><USER2> Fairly attractive, though I question if there are easier approaches from a usability standpoint.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I'd love to see the status site opensourced or packaged and sold as a service</comment>


How the FRA is Regulating Passenger Rail Out of Existence - <AUTHOR> http://www.ebbc.org/rail/fra.html <comment><USER3> This is really sad. I drove a long distance (maybe 60 miles?) for the first time in years yesterday because I'm staying with my mom in the suburbs that have 0 public transportation infrastructure.

First: It's impossible to have a life without a car here when the weather gets bad for biking (I'm outside of Seattle so that's a pretty good % of the year). People without a car are basically prisoners in this town with no culture, where the last bus from town leaves at 6:45. I can't go to work on days I can't bike because I usually work crazy long hours, til 10 or 11pm so I have to work from home if the weather's going to be prohibitive (I didn't bring my waterproof gear with me).

Second: My mind was blown at the mental space driving in a car for a long period of time put me in. Weird stuff like traffic lights gave me this feeling of helplessness. It's a blueprint for a system of arbitrary, total control. The fact that no decisions are really based on the situation at hand but on these lights that mindlessly blink from green to red to green to red and you never interact with anyone or anything except through this sheets of glass. Call me crazy but I really think one of the big influences that's creating the massive societal problems we have in the USA can be traced to the fact that between work, home, school, and whatever destinations we get to we interact with one another in this alienated and antagonistic way.

[edit] I know this rant is a little off topic, but it just highlights to me the need for a coherent public transportation network. It'd be interesting to look at this draconian regulation in relation to what was done to the rail network in the USA in the middle of the 20th century. GM and a bunch of other auto-related corporations formed a coalition, bought up and then dismantled lots of inner-city streetcar networks in order to replace them with buses that they would sell to the cities: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_American_streetcar_scanda...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_American_streetcar_scandal) [/edit]

<comment><USER4> "between work, home, school, and whatever destinations we get to we interact with one another in this alienated and antagonistic way."

As opposed to within work, home, or school? Most of our public and private institutions seem to train people to be in abusive relationships.

<comment><USER5> > As opposed to within work, home, or school? Most of our public and private > institutions seem to train people to be in abusive relationships.

These don't have to work on an abuse basis, that's a cultural deficiency rather than a built-in defect. With automobile transportation, the distance and antagonism are pretty much built-in.

<comment><USER6> > With automobile transportation, the distance and antagonism are pretty much > built-in.

Only if you expect them to be. A lot of people enjoy driving.

<comment><USER7> I don't believe I have ever heard anybody say "The only thing I enjoy more than the 45 minutes I spend commuting to work is the 45 minutes I spend commuting back." I'm sure there's somebody who feels that way, but I don't think it's a lot of people.

<comment><USER3> I can honestly say this is how I feel commuting on my bicycle. I've always been blessed with beautiful commutes, along the water or across a bridge, and it makes for an excellent way to wake up when going to work and an excellent wedge I could drive between work and not work on the way home. I could gauge the stress of the workday I just finished by how fast I rode home.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The problem with government regulatory agencies is that once they solve the problem that instigated their creation, they can't stop. They keep looking for more problems to "fix" in a never ending loop of justifying their existence. Once they become typical bloated behemoth bureaucracies, common sense doesn't work anymore.

<comment><USER9> I don't buy that. Every other country with high-speed rail has rail regulations as well.

<comment><USER10> Exactly. In fact, I'd say that looking at the existing evidence successful rail deployments are _entirely uncorrelated_ with regulatory action. This is just a whipping post for the libertarian nutjobs, and the only notable thing is that it's one that aligns them in goal with the pinko commie rail boosters.

Clearly the determining factor isn't regulation, it's subsidy. Countries that pay for fancy rail systems out of public funds ... have them.

<comment><USER9> Effective, good-quality regulation is a form of subsidy.

This article is right to look at the costs of not updating regulation to meet reality.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Ok, as someone who has long been very close to the rail industry, a few points:

1\. "...the Long Island Commuter Railroad (LIRR) in New York City, which has no freight traffic" - Incorrect. The LIRR also is host to the New York & Atlantic railway, a freight line which does indeed operate on LIRR lines daily. Average train gross weight is about 1,200 tons for each freight on that line, not 100 tons.

2\. "FRA staffers point out that it is unfair to compare US buffering standards with those in Europe because passenger rail in the US has to contend with more (and heavier) freight traffic." - They are quite right to do so. The US plays host to the highest density of freight rail traffic in the world with most trains exceeding 5,000 tons (some closer to 15,000).

3\. "In both Europe and Japan, a competitive business exists in the DMU marketplace. But that market is off limits to US transit agencies because the FRA has effectively created a trade embargo." - Incorrect. In San Diego, the Sprinter lines use Siemens Desiro DMU's, a light design totally unadapted for the US Rail network as far as weight goes. The line also plays host to freight trains at night. How they got around the weight requirement, I do not know. Furthermore, the San Diego Trolley has the line from downtown to El Cajon by way of Lemon Grove. That line also plays host to freight at night - <USER2> streetcar line! The market is indeed open, but the trick agencies use to get around the requirement is a bigger question.

4\. "The FRA proposed rule would only allow Quiet Zones exemptions at crossings that had been improved with "four-quadrant" gates and curb medians." - for good reason! Many fatalities happen at grade crossings and horns are one of the only really efficient ways to keep people off the tracks. Most other nations have few crossings, preferring grade-separated rights-of-way. However, in the US, drivers are often grossly idiotic and don't pay attention. Not how many grade crossing accidents you see on YouTube...

That said, it is indeed a major issue that the FRA rules apply to any rail line connected to the freight network that spans the nation. It would be far better if the regulations made clear exceptions for trains on passenger-only lines, hours of operation, etc.

For example, let's look at CalTrain. The main line up the peninsula only sees freight traffic at night. By setting operational rules that restrict speeds near freight trains, etc, this would allow much better equipment for CalTrain while continuing to let freight run at specific times.

The FRA very much needs to get with the program and allow better conditional standards.

<comment><USER12> Rail operators are occasionally able to get waivers from the FRA to run non- compliant rolling stock. Caltrain was awarded such a waiver for a future rolling stock purchase, and the Sprinter was awarded one as well. Typically the FRA requires that there be some sort of temporal separation between the trains, which could mean freight only running at night, or it could mean all trains on the line have some form of electronic PTC (positive train control) that guarantees separation between trains. The freight lines have been fighting PTC for several decades, but they're finally being forced to implement it (of course the FRA hasn't set much of a standard, so there's going to be a dozen different incompatible systems, yay).

The problem is that the waivers are arbitrary and one-offs. There's no standard for light passenger rail in the US, there's just a bunch of hyper- specific waivers for each case and operators must re-apply if their rolling stock changes. So if caltrain wanted to switch from UIC-compliant Siemens Desiro trains to a UIC-compliant hitachi train, they'd have to apply for another waiver.

To top it all off, the FRA's own studies showed that their "buff strength" standards are more dangerous than the more modern energy-absorbing crash structures mandated on European and Japanese lines.

The FRA really does need to be reformed.

<comment><USER11> Totally agreed.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Another failed government policy regarding rail: the requirement for cleaner locomotives. The vast majority of railroads in the US do not buy new locomotives, and in fact usually use locomotives from the 60s and 70s (bought secondhand). Yet, the federal government is requiring newly bought locomotives to have cleaner emissions. Given that most emissions are from yard switchers (again, old locomotives no longer used in long-haul service), this makes no sense...

</comment><comment><USER14> As an airliner, lobbying for tightened RR regulation seems like a handsome roi.

/takes off conspiracy hat

<comment><USER15> I wouldn't be too surprised if that's part of it. In the failed early-90s project to build high-speed rail in Texas, Southwest Airlines spent a lot of money and litigation making sure that all "rail safety" rules would be interpreted as strictly as possible, opposing any streamlining or exemptions granted to the project that would've made it more sensible.

Other main players are the freight railroads and the railroad-workers' unions, neither of which cares too much about passenger rail (freight is much bigger business, on both the corporations' and the unions' side).

<comment><USER16> Ironic as Southwest had to ground 44 planes because they were flying them without the federally-mandated safety checks. Also, one of them "opened up" in flight.

"All is fair in LUV and war," I guess

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Good luck: in the UK the worst train accidents with the largest number of fatalities have been due to poor track maintenance. The accidents have tended to occur on commuter trains with high passenger numbers and many people standing. Not sure what the French have seen as history on their much faster trains.

<comment><USER13> Track has been an issue in the US, as has losing track of trains and having collisions. The vast majority of fatalities are exactly what these laws won't help with: people swerving the gates, or walking on the tracks.

<comment><USER16> Or a boat crashing into a rail bridge pier:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_Big_Bayou_Canot_train_wrec...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_Big_Bayou_Canot_train_wreck)

(Honestly, I feel like this is one of those "cannot be avoided" situations.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> (I worked on the environmental assessment of the Acela back in the 1990's and worked with testing the first two vehicles off the line in Pueblo and along the NEC NJ "race track in 2000. The firm I was working for back then also did the noise analysis behind the revised FRA horn noise rules)

This article keeps popping up on various geek sites over the years. In addition to the points kposehn brought up, I'll add the following: FRA isn't the reason why HSR sucks. The reason that HSR sucks is because we as a nation don't want to invest in the infrastructure to make a good HSR system. At a minimum that means exclusive ROW (grade-separated crossings) with relatively few stops and long straight sections where it can get up to speed.

As for the FTA buffering standards - it really doesn't matter. Yes, the Acela is heavier than the TGV. That extra weight isn't why Acela service sucks. The Acela is perfectly capable of maintaining 155+ mph speeds for extended periods (I witnessed this myself in Acela enduracing testing). The power cars are more than capable of handling the load - during the first few months of Acela operation, there was a problem with the network connection that linked the front and rear power cars. To get service running until the power could be sorted out, the trainsets were run with only one power car operating. Running with one power vs both power cars (and pulling the dead weight of the second power car) only increased DC to Boston run time by _5 minutes_. As for cost, the price of an Acela trainset is within the range of most other popular HSR trainsets (TGV, ICE, Pendolino, etc) albiet at the higher end. The effect of the train weight on track wear is minimal as it's the unsprung mass of the train (essentially the wheels, axles, traction motors and brakes) that is proportional to wear, not the static train weight. And train weight has _nothing_ to do with noise.

kposehn already commented on DMU but I'll add that the biggest impediment I saw to transit agencies adopting DMU's was that since no one else in the USA had them, transit agencies didn't know what to expect in terms of maintenance, operation, and environmental effects. In fact FRA and FTA were essentially begging transit agencies to try them, and it's only been recently that they've been operating in Vermont and other locations.

Finally, regarding FRA horn noise rules: first of all, the preemption of state horn rules originated with Congress who directed FRA to get involved with horn noise (Google "Swift Rail Development Act" for more information). But the reason those rules exist is because whenever there is a grade crossing fatality, inevitably the next of kin sue and all too ofter _win_ in court. As a result, there is a tendency to do anything and everything in the name of "safety" on the part of RR operators, agencies and regulators. As long as this remains true, horns are going to be part of rail travel.

edit: btw we had this discussion at ArsTechnica back in 2008 (I'm Anechoic there as well): <http://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?p=2671067>

<comment><USER11> Awesome! Thanks for posting, really interesting to see what you have to say about working on the Acela.

Good point as well about unsprung weight - hadn't thought about that. As the Acela is that powerful (it _is_ based on the TGV Atlantique I believe), what in your opinion is the worst issue that set has faced? I really think that if we could buy off the shelf designs (Shinkansen N700 for example) with minimal adaptation, that would solve a large number of problems. (I'm also more a proponent of HSR with EMU's instead of power cars).

I do agree about our nation being unwilling to invest, but I also would add that it is a matter of density. Average travel distance via any HSR line in the US will be much longer than any other nation on the planet, making it much less attractive. There are some corridors which would see benefit, but because of the sprawl that most non-northeast cities have, a train doesn't provide you a realistic way to get from point A to point B outside station-to-station. You still have to get from the platform to your final destination.

<comment><USER18> > _what in your opinion is the worst issue that set has faced?_

Well the crappy infrastructure (shared ROW, lots of stops, lots of crossings, 100-year old catanary south of NYC, etc) is by far the most detrimental issue to Acela performance.

With regard to the actual Acela vehicles itself: from what the insiders have told me, the worst issue the set has faced was, frankly, the selection of Bombardier/Alstom in the first place. I was told that when FRA auditioned the various HSR vehicles on the NEC (they actually paid to bring over a bunch of European trainsets to the NEC for testing back in the late 80's or early 90's), Siemens told them that their vehicle (ICE) could meet most of FRA/Amtrak's spec with a little work but not everything. Bombardier/Alstom said they could meet all of the performance requirements with no problems. After getting the vehicle contract, Bombardier/Alstom started to agitate about not being able to meet large parts of the specs which led to compromises in the design and delays. By the time FRA/Amtrak realized they made the wrong choice, they were in too deep.

Again from what I've heard, if Amtrak/FRA had it to do over again, they would have gone with Siemens. It will be interesting to see what happens when it's time to replace the Acela.

<comment><USER11> Interesting, didn't know about Siemens bid being much closer to the mark. While we can't say that they wouldn't have had problems, I always figured that Bombardier/Alstom really had botched it, especially with the issue where the carbody was too wide for full-tilt.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> The purpose of government should be to ensure that the minimum expectations of its citizens are met. These minimum expectations are a changing set of things, and I think that better feedback between government agencies and those which are affected by the rulings would be one of the best ways to solve the country's problems.

I think that <http://data.gov> and <http://recovery.gov> are a step in the right direction. Experts should analyze the data and blog about it, and the government agencies should be keeping an ear out to what experts are saying. Also the interested public can do the same.

The word "minimum" that I use is not accidental. The problem is that government rarely solves just the minimum set of problems. Once an agency exists, among the new employees there are always those who want to make their mark, and increase the amount of regulation. This is how government grows and grows. It's free for them to regulate but not free for those who have to implement it, and thus they don't feel the right incentives at the time. We need to figure out a way to incentivize government to stick as much as possible to only enforcing minimum regulations. Maybe it can be done by requiring them to get the citizenry to clamor for something before they implement it.

<comment><USER20> > The purpose of government should be to ensure that the minimum expectations > of its citizens are met.

That seems like the purpose of a welfare state.

If you want a government that sticks to the 'minimums' you're asking for, I'd redefine that purpose statement to something like:

The purpose of government is to ensure the natural rights of its citizens, and nothing else.

<comment><USER19> I've heard that a lot. The problem with this kind of formulation is that "rights" is a loaded term, like "intellectual property". It implies that there are some universally recognized rights that come from nature, and only those. For example, if "intellectual property" was a natural right, then where does the 20 years come from in patents? That number 20, or the length of copyright, show that it's society's conventions and not rights.

Instead, I treat everything as "expectations". Thousands of years ago, most people expected to hunt or farm if they wanted to eat. 500 years ago you didn't expect almost every child to survive past childbirth and the early years. Now we expect all these things and more. Clean water. Food that doesn't contain killer bacteria. Buildings that don't have obvious structural problems.

Obviously we can't ensure things 100% but we as a society can work to set up organizations to regulate and oversee these things. A free market allows anyone to start cutting corners at any time, such as a new and inexperienced company that wants to make things cheaper. For example, a real estate developer can build a building that's not up to code. In theory, we could all walk around with our own subscriptions to private "auditing agencies" like Zagat for buildings, that would inspect buildings as they are built or whatever. But most of us outsource this kind of stuff to a centralized government. Which we vote for. Also, government could tax us to do unprofitable stuff such as the US Postal Service.

However, the problem is that our government lacks incentives to stop growing, and we need to introduce them.

<comment><USER20> I define "rights" as the freedom to do whatever you want with your body and property as long as you don't infringe on another's freedom to do the same.

But as you say, "rights" and "expectations" are slippery slopes.

> if "intellectual property" was a natural right

I don't believe this is a natural right. If anything, nature shows us that there is no such thing as intellectual property. Once an idea is "out in the open" it's out there for good.

> Also, government could tax us to do unprofitable stuff such as the US Postal > Service.

But this is a terrible thing, is it not?

I'd guess at least 85% of mail is junk mail. This is only possible because mail is so cheap and the post office runs at an annual loss in the billions.

Eliminate the post office. Let UPS/FedEx/whoever compete to deliver your mail. Pay $3 to mail a letter. Save trees. Eliminate junk mail.

> However, the problem is that our government lacks incentives to stop > growing, and we need to introduce them.

I agree.

I'd start with not allowing the government to print its own money. As long as it can, it will never have an incentive to stop growing.

<comment><USER21> If you are advocating increased independence for the Federal Reserve (discussing the U.S. case), are you concerned that it will then grow itself to perpetuate the organization as discussed elsewhere in the comments on this post?

<comment><USER20> More likely the eradication of the Fed.

<comment><USER19> The Ron Paul solution? How do you propose to move from the current situation to a non elastic currency backed by a combination of commodities, in a way that doesn't involve hurting a lot of people? And how would it be better?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> If Caltrain did a symbolic disconnect, cut off several feet from the track, put up a barrier, a few days work to do and undo. from the national rail network, would they still be subject to the FRA?

<comment><USER15> In Caltrain's case, they actually got an interesting waiver that allows them to time-segregate the network, where it's part of the national rail network (and can accept freight traffic) at night, but cut off from it (with no freight traffic, and interlocks making sure it's disconnected) during the daytime. In that setup, it would have permission to run non-FRA passenger-rail equipment: [http://wilshirevermont.com/2010/05/31/caltrains-amazing- waiv...](http://wilshirevermont.com/2010/05/31/caltrains-amazing-waiver-with- the-fra/)

However I believe implementation of this is on hold, because they want to coordinate any upgrades with the HSR project.

They've also discussed completely cutting it off from the national rail network at times. Unlike in many places, Caltrain actually owns the rails (rather than a freight network owning them), so that would be possible. There's strong lobbying against it from various landowners along the line, though; even though the line doesn't get a lot of freight usage, the possibility to receive at least an occasional freight shipment increases the value of the land.

<comment><USER12> Yes Caltrain (actually the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board that owns the track) has a clause in their contract from when they bought the line from Union Pacific that states they can start freight abandonment proceedings if they make a significant change to the line. It's generally believed that was put in there in case they wanted to convert the line to BART, but in theory it could be brought into play for a Caltrain electrification or the HSR project.

Caltrain has so far, however, refused to go down that route. Apparently the one freight train per day is too much to lose.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Those Trinity Rail Express cars are now used for the Denton-Dallas A-train commuter rail, soon to be replaced with new Swiss-made cars. I like the old ones actually, extremely comfortable and seats like a massive couch.

[http://www.dentonrc.com/sharedcontent/dws/drc/localnews/stor...](http://www.dentonrc.com/sharedcontent/dws/drc/localnews/stories/DRC_Rail_Cars_0821.e5c8cf00.html)

<comment><USER24> I can asssure you, the new ones will be quite comfortable as well ;) Granted, they might not have couches as seats but they are very spacious and bright. I like them quite a lot... (They are in use since a few years already here in Switzerland.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> The one issue this article doesn't address is what is being done about the FRA. Are there movements to change the regulations? Overhaul the FRA? Even something as small scale as what, if anything, the author is trying to do about it would have been nice to hear.

</comment><comment><USER26> I wonder if they have regulatory authority over monorails or maglev?

<comment><USER13> What this article talks about is only for trains that run on tracks used for freight...so that wouldn't apply to monorails/maglevs...

<comment><USER11> Monorails and Maglev are remarkably expensive and inefficient, so unfortunately I doubt they'll ever be a viable alternative.

<comment><USER26> I'll agree with you on maglev at present, but monorail has gotten a bad rap from some false assumptions (e.g. switching) and some early problems.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I think these numerous regulatory agencies are a way of circumventing popular will (read: write mandates handed out by interest groups). Whatever happened to Obama's promise that he would weed out regulations that harm small businesses (I think they would benefit the most from the increase in foot traffic that would result if public rail service were more prevalent).

</comment><comment><USER21> Can we add "in the U.S." to the title?

<comment><USER28> The FRA only has jurisdiction in the US.

<comment><USER29> We have an FRA in Sweden too, except it's our NSA-like thing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> what strikes me as odd is that one of most cost-effective safety devices, the set built, is unavailable to most passengers on buses or trains.

<comment><USER31> What is a "set built"? Do you mean "seat belt"? If you do, then you should know that seat belts do nothing on vehicles of that size.

<comment><USER30> I think I was half asleep when I wrote that :-) wtf

<comment><USER30> But I'm not sure I understand your point. It seems when large vehicles stop suddenly, unsecured cargo doesn't. Airplanes have them don't they?

I had heard something suggesting seat belts are not cost effective on trains and buses for the amount of lives saved. Perhaps that's what you're thinking of. Still, I would rather have them even if it cost an additional tenth of a cent per mile.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> The honking is driving me nuts. They're required to hit the horn four times _per crossing_. Sometimes it's a series of quick blasts. Other times, they'll lay on that thing for -- I swear -- five full seconds per honk. Midnight, 2am, 3am, they don't care. I'm around a mile away from the track, and I can't imagine what life could possibly be like for those who live closer to the track.</comment>


Xbox Scorpio Won't Feature a Jaguar CPU Most Likely; Might Have Ryzen Features - <AUTHOR> http://wccftech.com/xbox-scorpio-wont-feature-jaguar-cpu-likely-might-features-planned-ryzen/ <comment><USER2> [http://thientampc.com/nhom-san-pham/water-cooling- system.208...](http://thientampc.com/nhom-san-pham/water-cooling- system.208.html)

</comment><comment><USER3> This is _fantastic_ news for the game industry. With console gamers demanding 4K or 60FPS, gone are the days of shoddy console ports.</comment>


Airbnb Raises $555M in New Funding - <AUTHOR> http://fortune.com/2016/09/22/exclusive-airbnb-raises-555-million-in-new-funding/ <comment><USER2> I wonder how they are doing valuations? Expedia is worth about 16 billion. They have pretty steady positive cash flow. They have about 16% growth. Airbnb is pretty risky they might have better growth, but they are worth 30 billion?

Priceline is worth about 70B. They make 3B in cash a year. If you are investing at 30B valuation your upside might be 2x, but there is a ton of downside risk.

</comment><comment><USER3> Not much of a surprise. The VC funds that have all these billions to invest need to get a return. The early stage funding may have slowed but companies that made it as far as AirBNB have will still find funding.

</comment><comment><USER4> More money for the bonfire? What the hell does a company like AirBnB need this cash for?

<comment><USER5> I think they are going to try to heavily expand their brand of tourism as a local. I can see them using this as an added benefit of booking through airbnb vs a hotel, but this would require tons of capital to hire local tour guides/ use locals to create hyperlocal, frequently updated itineraries.

<comment><USER4> So basically make a giant bonfire and throw money in.</comment></comment></comment>


White House rejects clemency for Edward Snowden over NSA leaks - <AUTHOR> http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/03/white-house-nsa-edward-snowden-clemency <comment><USER2> Rep Mike Rogers said (about respecting privacy) "We did this in the 1930s and … that led to a whole bunch of misunderstandings that led to World War II that killed millions and millions of people. We did the same darn thing that led up to the [9/11] Osama bin Laden effort."

Did he really just say that 9/11 and the Holocaust happened because the US was too worried about individual freedom and privacy? That's really ridiculous.</comment>


DevDocs: combines multiple API docs in a fast, and organized interface - <AUTHOR> http://devdocs.io/about

<comment><USER2> This looks nice. Anything to reduce the friction of referring to documentation whilst developing is a good thing.

Not to detract from this, but I can't not give a ringing shoutout / endorsement to Dash[1] in the context of this conversation. If you are on OSX it is just brilliant, and when combined with Alfred[2][3] is just ridiculously seamless to interact with.

[1]: [http://kapeli.com/dash](http://kapeli.com/dash)

[2]: [http://www.alfredapp.com/](http://www.alfredapp.com/)

[3]: [https://github.com/willfarrell/alfred-dash- workflow](https://github.com/willfarrell/alfred-dash-workflow)

<comment><AUTHOR> dash is great. Vim plugin for dash [1] is great too.

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

[1]: [https://github.com/rizzatti/dash.vim](https://github.com/rizzatti/dash.vim)

</comment><comment><USER3> This is really terrific. I think the best feature is the integrated search, which is significantly better than Google if you're looking for authoritative API docs.

Questions: How did you source the docs? Can they go stale? What versions are being used and is that configurable?

<comment><USER4> Thanks! The project is open source: [https://github.com/Thibaut/devdocs](https://github.com/Thibaut/devdocs)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> If you're using Firefox Aurora/Nightly, or Firefox Beta for Android, you can install it as a native app too [https://marketplace.firefox.com/app/devdocs?src=search](https://marketplace.firefox.com/app/devdocs?src=search)

</comment><comment><USER6> FYI: I've been playing around DevDocs and VIM integration. In the end came up with this script: [https://github.com/naquad/devdocs- shell](https://github.com/naquad/devdocs-shell) \- Python 3 + GTK3

</comment><comment><USER7> Having the ubuntu man pages on here would be amazing.

<comment><USER8> there is a trello board for voting on which docs should be included: [https://trello.com/b/6BmTulfx/devdocs- documentation](https://trello.com/b/6BmTulfx/devdocs-documentation)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Awesome work!</comment>


Dreamer's Hope - <AUTHOR> http://www.dreamershope.info/

<comment><AUTHOR> I need my words to spread on web. Can anyone discuss on the best way to come closer to my thoughts.

<comment><AUTHOR> <http://www.dreamershope.info/> my opinions are yet to gain peoples reviews. I'm waiting for someone to comment on my blog.</comment></comment>


Sweet 16: The 6502 Dream Machine (1977) - <AUTHOR> http://amigan.1emu.net/kolsen/programming/sweet16.html <comment><USER2> I've been working for the last two months in a personal project to build a 8-bit microcomputer based on AVR MCUs. Because these MUCs use a Harvard architecture I implemented a 6502 VM to run programs from external SRAM.

But I digress; the relevant bits for this story are that I'm using CC65, a compiler for the 6502, so I can write programs in C for my toy computer.

It's impressive the amount of stuff CC65 does in its runtime just to implement C. Sure the 6502 is a beautiful processor (I loved implementing the VM!), but it is also very limited.

Just an example: C65 implements its own stack in regular memory space because the actual stack of the 6502 is limited to 256 bytes!

Every time you pass a pointer as a parameter in a function call the compiler loads the 16 bit address in A and X and pushes it into its own stack, where the the destination will access to it as needed.

Look at the pushax implementation here: [https://github.com/cc65/cc65/blob/master/libsrc/runtime/push...](https://github.com/cc65/cc65/blob/master/libsrc/runtime/pushax.s)

All that just to "push value in a/x onto the stack". Amazing :)

EDIT: typo

<comment><USER3> The cc65 project also has a very excellent 6502 assembler, ca65, which I find quite nice when writing assembly by hand. Together with ld65 it implements a full unix-style module/library-archive stack for 6502 object code. The assembler's macro system is quite well developed, as well, to the point that I prefer using it over cpp.

<comment><USER4> Do you prefer it over KickAssembler? [http://www.theweb.dk/KickAssembler/Main.php](http://www.theweb.dk/KickAssembler/Main.php)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Some more detail here: [http://www.6502.org/source/interpreters/sweet16.htm](http://www.6502.org/source/interpreters/sweet16.htm)

</comment><comment><USER6> The Internet Archive has the November 1977 issue of _Byte_ , containing this article on page 150, here: [https://archive.org/details/byte- magazine-1977-11](https://archive.org/details/byte-magazine-1977-11)

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I've posted this because I really like the elegant way in which he expanded the 6502 instruction set. Something similar could be done with just about any other processor.

<comment><USER7> If you like the "call a subroutine, subsequent data is interpreted as custom instructions" on the 6502, check out Super-Mon / NakedOS by Martin Haye. Very nicely done, incredibly minimal programming environment / OS for the Apple II: [https://bitbucket.org/martin.haye/super- mon/wiki/Home](https://bitbucket.org/martin.haye/super-mon/wiki/Home)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> John Draper once asked a friend of mine if he wanted to go into the back of a van and execute an 1802 instruction. Can you guess which one?

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RCA_1802#Addressing_modes](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RCA_1802#Addressing_modes)

Because of the 16-bit address bus, and the 8-bit data bus, the sixteen general purpose registers are 16 bits wide, but the accumulator (the so-called data register, or D-register) is only 8 bits wide. The accumulator, therefore, tends to be a bottleneck. Transferring the contents of one register to another involves four instructions (one Get and one Put on the HI byte of the register, and a similar pair for the LO byte: GHI R1; PHI R2; GLO R1; PLO R2). Similarly, loading a new constant into a register (such as a new address for a subroutine jump, or the address of a data variable) also involves four instructions (two load immediate, LDI, instructions, one for each half of the constant, each one followed by a Put instruction to the register, PHI and PLO).

</comment><comment><USER9> Still being ported to old systems and used in, for example, the Oric-1/Atmos machines:

[http://forums.oric.org/t208-pilot-focal-brainfuck-what- else#...](http://forums.oric.org/t208-pilot-focal-brainfuck-what-else#2818)

(Old computers never die, their users do!)

</comment><comment><USER10> There is a 16-bit version of the 6502: the 65816. It would have been cool if the 65816 was an implementation of the Sweet16.

<comment><USER11> It supports both 16-bit and 8-bit mode. I find it quite annoying to have to keep track of which mode a register is in.</comment></comment>


New Prius: 50 mpg, optional solar roof, bigger engine, better drag coeff, EV Mode, etc  - <AUTHOR> http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/01/2010-toyota-prius-hybrid-specifications-price-detroit-2009.php <comment><USER2> At least this one looks better than the last-gen Prius. Probably still has the same handling and acceleration characteristics of a dead llama, though.

Rather than this hybrid nonsense, I would love to see some of the fun little city cars (like the Aygo) arrive over here in the US. Better mileage, yet still peppy and fun to drive.

<comment><USER3> The Yaris is based on the Aygo. Sorry, why is hybrid "nonsense"?

<comment><USER4> According to the latest _Dust to Dust_ report update, the Yaris is vastly superior to the Prius. [http://www.cnwmr.com/nss- folder/automotiveenergy/107%2008%20...](http://www.cnwmr.com/nss- folder/automotiveenergy/107%2008%20Models%20Cost%20Per%20Mile%20From%20Low%20to%20High.xls) [XLS]

In energy dollars per mile, that report shows:

      Smart           $0.583
      Ion             $0.621
      Focus           $0.621
      Cavalier        $0.655
      Xb              $0.683
      Aveo            $0.693
      xA              $0.713
      Corolla         $0.748
      Fit             $0.799
      Yaris           $0.916
      Crown Victoria  $1.134
      Le Sabre        $1.462
      Lucerne         $1.589
      Park Avenue     $1.924
      Sprinter van    $2.173
      Prius           $2.191

Here's the page showing the collection of reports: <http://www.cnwmr.com/nss- folder/automotiveenergy>

This is the Prius-beating Dodge Sprinter van: <http://images.google.com/images?q=sprinter+van>

It's big. It weighs 4,784 lbs., empty. Fully loaded, it's 11,000 lbs. <http://www.google.com/search?q=sprinter+van+weight>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Why do the electric/hybrid cars need to look so bad? If you are going to make the effort to design a new body, and not just slap an electric engine into an existing car like GM does, why not spend a few extra bucks to make it look good?

<comment><USER6> I must admit, I don't find it ugly at all. Different tastes I guess.

<comment><USER7> Agreed. I like the way it looks. I'm interested in the Honda Insight as a competitor.</comment></comment></comment>


Google to Announce Google Wallet Reboot at I/O - <AUTHOR> http://www.mobilepaymentstoday.com/article/196393/Google-to-announce-Google-Wallet-reboot

<comment><USER2> Hands up who wished they could reboot there wallet; Ok hands down, but we can dream.</comment>


How to Keep Crappy Programmers - <AUTHOR> http://www.codeanthem.com/blog/2010/04/how-to-keep-crappy-programmers/

<comment><USER2> This was a sticking point for me in my last job as a programmer, where the owners had actually instituted a punchcard system I routinely ignored. I'm more sensitive to it now that I'm running my own business and hiring people though. The problem isn't generally having a single person come in late. It's that this can affect social perceptions of what general work effort should be. Especially in a small office it is easy for working hours to creep down and soon everyone is starting work an hour late and leaving half an hour early.

It is easy to say, "I'm only going to hire self-motivated people and if they can't get the work done they're fired." But the reality is most people aren't like that. And it's a hassle to have to fire people if they can be productive with more management.

So I'm not sure what the best way to handle this is, but I think HN would be better served by an actual discussion of practical solutions rather than rants by disaffected programmers howling with rage at being asked to keep regular hours. On the employee side, I still believe doing really good work solves pretty much all of your problems if you can effectively communicate what you're doing to the manager (and put in the required time). On the employer side, giving people a bit of slack (30 minutes), a fair degree of autonomy and coming down on them hard if/when they miss their deadlines is the best I've been able to come up with. I'd welcome a better discussion of this since as a manager I don't want to have to waste my time micromanaging this stuff either.

<comment><USER3> One thing I've seen work is to make it clear that, while you have the liberty of working odd hours if you so please, your work product will be under greater scrutiny to make sure you can "handle it".

Make it clear that it is a privilege which can be revoked. This lets your alpha programmers who like to work odd hours excel and keeps your mediocre programmers who might be tempted to mail it in from even trying it (because there's nothing mediocre devs loath more than heightened scrutiny).

<comment><USER4> When I managed a team of people who had "unusual" working hours I made a point of trying to subtly communicate to people who might get upset what was going on in the team:

"Thanks to Bob working to 3am this morning we are all set to give the demo to XYZ"

Do that before Bob comes in at lunchtime an he get treated like a hero rather than being resented. If Bob is always working funny hours then after a while people accept it and assume that he has _always_ been doing something heroic when he comes in at lunchtime.

Of course, being the manager of such folks you actually do have to be able to know that all this is actually worth it from a business perspective.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I disagree with part of #3. I really like being included in some of the business decisions, or at least being aware of why they were made. I don't want to spend 8 hours a day in customer meetings, but I do like having quick meetings with BD people on why I am doing what I am doing. A lot of times it gives reasons to tasks that seem stupid. (ie we are implementing this bad feature b/c it will give us some sort of negotiating advantage)

<comment><USER6> Being aware of business reasons behind decisions is very important. I can think of two main reasons. 1\. Poor translation of customer intent/business goals can lead to some terrible software because the real purpose of it is obfuscated. 2\. Ability to comprehend which urgent deadlines are actually important and which are exaggerated.

<comment><USER7> 3\. The ability to come up with an even better solution for a business problem.

In my experience, a lot of business people don't really know what is possible so their solutions aren't always that good.

Example: "I need to know if I own more than 3% of a company. Give me a report that tells me what percent I own of each company. " "How about a big flashing light or warning if you own more than 3% (or set it at 2% so you know when you are getting close) so that you don't need to spend time each day looking at the report."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> You have to go through at least one company like that.

It is often the only way to find out what type of "employee" you want to be. (environments, coworkers, projects, schedule etc.)

Or, it will motivate you to become self-employed or launch your startup and do things differently :-)

</comment><comment><USER9> (Posted on the article too, but might be more use here) Nice set of articles, but a teensy bit one-sided in places.

What about the programmer who comes across as being a prima-donna about introducing some flavour-of-the-month practise, but who isn't able to justify it in terms of measurable impact on the bottom line to (say) a small business owner. Often they'll be right, but frequently they'll be wrong too. I've often been guilty of this as a programmer–I want to change some code to make the design more elegant, add more tests etc, but if pressed it's hard for me to say whether the improvement adds any value for the business. Sometimes it will, sometimes it won't. Sometimes despite its value the opportunity cost may be too high. Either way as a 'good programmer' I will feel strongly about the matter, and it's my boss's job to try and temper that programmer "I only want to work with good code!" gut feel with a bit of business-oriented practicality.

So yes, the extent to which you indulge the 'great programmer' is always going to be a tricky call, especially for the non-technical, or even the technical- but-non-specialist. On the one hand you don't want to piss off the talent–and let's face it, some (not all!) of this stuff really is just that, in the same way a hollywood producer lays on whatever perks the best actors demand. On the other hand you need to have confidence that there's real business value in activities that are being proposed. Or if not immediately demonstrable value, a way to measure reasonably objectively over time what impact they're having. For example, Google (from what I hear) have an amazing system to measure (in some reasonably useful sense) the value of every test that gets written.

On top of that, sad truth is that a lot of companies don't actually need great programmers. Sure, all else held equal they'd like them, but they're expensive, they often want to spend your money bringing you into line with the latest and greatest–and sometimes it really is sufficient just to keep some old ball of code ticking along. I wouldn't really want to work for one of these places, and doubtless neither would you, but it's an acceptable deal for some programmers and some companies, and there's a more nuanced perspective available than just to patronise them.

The other thing with great programmers is that if you don't give us a sufficiently interesting problem to work on, we'll often go and invent our own (whether consciously or not).

That might be a plus for someone like Google, or sometimes for some kinds of start-ups, but not so much for some more pedestrian smaller businesses.

Or perhaps behaving like this makes one not a great programmer, depending how you define it. It's not a one-dimensional quality I suppose.

<comment><USER10> > _The other thing with great programmers is that if you don't give us a > sufficiently interesting problem to work on, we'll often go and invent our > own (whether consciously or not). > That might be a plus for someone like > Google, or sometimes for some kinds of start-ups, but not so much for some > more pedestrian smaller businesses._

If you actually _like_ programming (as oppose to pursuing it for the money), you should _only_ seek to work at places where you, as a technologist within your particular field will make a difference.

Problem is that it's tricky to tell such places apart from the rest. Everyone calls themselves a "technology company". Mission of the company isn't a good heuristic: there are e-commerce retailers that are run like "IT shops" and there is Amazon (a true technology company). Nonetheless, from this message I can tell that _something_ is different here and better here:

[http://groups.google.com/group/mi.jobs/msg/d81b6c1fa8f361fc?...](http://groups.google.com/group/mi.jobs/msg/d81b6c1fa8f361fc?pli=1)

In most other cases it isn't so clear; you have to read between the lines. Job descriptions only asking for years of experience with specific technologies, non-technical interview questions or interview questions that only involve language syntax and APIs but don't touch on algorithms and data-structures, inflexible working hours, mandated technology stacks (with no exceptions for new projects or experimental code) are a way for an employer to signal "hackers not wanted". Fortunately these are very easy to spot and avoid, but I've been surprised when people (who have other options) choose to work at companies that require them in their seat at 8:30 and clearly under-use their talent.

On the other hand, I am afraid excessive commitment to methodology (e.g., daily stand-ups, inability to write any code without meetings + permission of the "scrum master" + index cards, pair programming, mandated test coverage percentages and "always write tests first") is another such sign, but unfortunately I am in minority.

<comment><USER11> Some good signs in a job description:

        Send us your resume in raw text format. Word resumes will be discarded.
        Experience with an OO language (Java, C++, etc) is required.
        In your cover letter, tell us about a non-mainstream technology you love.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> This applies to so much more than just programming. Almost any skilled production job has the same properties. Quality of output should be any manager's highest priority, and when it isn't, you've created a lousy work environment where the only people who will be happy are people who don't care.

(Just to clarify, I'm not saying punctuality is unimportant. Something that isn't in on time to be useful should not be considered high-quality work. That that's different from requiring a specific set of ass-in-chair time.)

</comment><comment><USER3> I'm surprised he didn't touch on "give your devs decent hardware & tools".

This should be such a no brainer but it's far and away the most common complaint I hear.

$900 on a workstation every 2 years -> happier, more productive devs.

<comment><USER13> What if they want Macs though?

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> The most depressing thing about this series is that they seem to be reflections of standard operating procedure at the median corporation.

<comment><USER15> I've only worked for small companies/teams, and I've experienced everyone of those traits from various managers/team leads. A coralary to "You can write Fortran in any language" could be "You can manage poorly in any environment."

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Ugh, I just watched this happen to one of my friends. Actual quote: "I know we discussed that you like to come in at 11 and stay late at the interview, but the adjustment period is over now. I don't care how good your work is, I care that you're at the office by 8:30."

Luckily he got the hell out of there. I'd fear for his sanity.

<comment><USER17> I had a boss (years ago) who would _scream_ (!) at me if I came even 10 minutes after 9am.

I would also occasionally notice him standing behind me looking at my monitor over my shoulder (he was a 'hands on' kind of manager).

He was really surprised when i quit after a few months.

<comment><USER18> I'm surprised you lasted that long -- there is no reason for anyone to scream at anyone unless they do something incredibly dangerous or careless; you only do this so they understand the severity of their action. For example smoking next to flammable materials, improperly handling chemicals, etc...

<comment><USER17> He had a lot of idiosyncrasies like that.

Another example:

one day he told me I shouldn't leave windows (on the computer, not physical windows) open when I go home at the evenings because it looks like I left work in the middle of doing something.

After that I made sure I minimized all the windows before leaving.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I guess I'm a crappy programmer since I'm not _always yammering on about wanting to test something_

<comment><USER20> I think it's mostly the yammer about testing to actual yammering ratio.

You also have to look at how many conversations you can bring up testing in. If you can do it for at least 90% of your conversations you're doing pretty good. It's probably not worth it to cover 100% of conversations though.

<comment><USER21> TDY (test driven yammering) would suggest that you always shoot for 100% coverage of your yammering.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> This sounds like everyone that was still at IBM when I left.

</comment><comment><USER23> How to write bad blog posts: Make your readers understand 4 levels of double negatives.

<comment><USER24> The sarcastic tone of articles like this seems entirely unnecessary and detracts from their effectiveness to me. It should have been simply something like "Management mistakes that drive away good programmers".

<comment><USER25> Some weekend comedians think less is at stake if they make the joke easy. Going for the joke and accepting that many people will not get it takes some guts.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> "Use Lotus Notes"

<comment><USER27> Hey, I've built an entire career on decommissioning Lotus Notes platforms. It is a lovely niche...

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> The article might add that having lots of department meetings is also a excellent way to keep crappy programmers.

</comment><comment><USER29> 6) Pay well above the market norm

Crappy programmers are well-known for choosing money over career development, intellectual challenge and cultural fit.</comment>


Backbone Cabal - <AUTHOR> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backbone_cabal <comment><USER2> There is no Cabal.

<comment><USER3> good to see a bit of reddit permeating HN without the downvotes.

<comment><USER4> Why?

<comment><USER3> because HN, more often than not, tends to take itself too seriously. a bit of levity here and there will not degrade HN.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Is Spotify Down? - <AUTHOR> I have problems accessing Spotify. Are you experiencing any problem right now? Are you able to use Browse page? https://open.spotify.com/browse <comment><USER2> I can't get to the "Home" view, but I can play music and use the "Browse" view. I'm using the desktop app.

So yeah, something's up.

</comment><comment><USER3> No problems (eu-west).

Edit: I stand corrected. The android app is having trouble showing my playlists now (specifically Release Radar, View Album are down).</comment>


FuckItJS - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/mattdiamond/fuckitjs??

<comment><USER2> To anyone considering using this in production, please note that the license is certainly not GPL-compatible, and probably not Open Source.</comment>


Multidisciplinary You - <AUTHOR> http://4ormat.com/ecr/multidisciplinary-you

<comment><USER2> Once I became "multidisciplinary", I found I could no longer happily work at most large companies. With product management, marketing, engineering, and some modest design (very modest! ;) skills, and a desire to actually use them, small companies are the only places that don't want to pigeon-hole you.

So, if you want to be multidisciplinary in the day job, don't expect to do it at a large company.

</comment><comment><USER3> _Da Vinci made amazing discoveries and is revered as a polymath because he took ideas from one field and applied them to another._

Such a great insight.

The disciplines I would like to master in this life are:

      1.) Riding in the barrel of a wave with a kite and surfboard.
      2.) Building a truly great company that makes people happier.
      3.) Raising a family with an amazing woman.

I have enjoyed pursuing the first two of those goals with very limited but fulfilling success. The third goal is a bit alien at the moment!

<comment><USER4> Dare I suggest you have the three priorities sorted in the wrong order?

<comment><USER5> By priority, perhaps, but not by secondary factors. Kitesurfing is something you decide to do, and you can do it on your own time with some outside assistance. Building a great company requires a greater time investment, but you're still (usually) in the driver's seat. You choose who to hire, and who to fire. There are complications, of course, but ultimately you are in control.

Finding an amazing woman (or significant other in general)? I feel like there's a lot more luck and effort from an outsider (the relevant other person) than either of the others. And you can only put your eggs in one basket at a time. There's no AB testing, lean, agile, failing fast. It works, or it doesn't, and sometimes things are looking great and suddenly leave a giant crater you have to climb out of. So perhaps it's the one that's the least certain in terms of how long it will take? Just a thought, might be wrong :)

<comment><USER6> Great point. I wanted to say something similar. Sometimes it's best to focus on things you can control rather than put all your emotional desire on things you can't. It's dangerous to put "raising a family" as one of your dreams in life.. when you don't know if your wife is infertile, or whether she'll even be around for the rest of your life... building a startup is at least something you have some power over, borrowing going blind or being paralyzed, and even then you can just be the boss and give commands to someone :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Many of the so called narrow job descriptions actually require many skills. Being a good Front End Web Developer requires knowledge of CS, psychology, industrial design and the functional domain of the website. Of course as others have stated, it's easier to be multidisciplinary at a small place.

</comment><comment><USER6> Being multi-disciplined definitely gives you ideas for solving problems. Innovation often happens in the cross roads of disciplines. Just knowing technology or programming won't help you solve any non-technical problem in a meaningful manner. And most meaningful problems are non-technical.</comment>


Can Google Really Launch a Viable Videogame Platform? - <AUTHOR> https://www.wired.com/story/google-videogame-platform/ <comment><USER2> It isn't a question of if they'll launch a __________ so much as it's a question of how many they will launch - and for how long.</comment>