Jeff Atwood On Parenthood - <AUTHOR> http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2011/10/on-parenthood.html <comment><USER2> So true that you can't explain to people. You can try, but they will either get the horror, or the bliss, but they'll never understand the strange and gut-bustingly hard mix of the two, and how quickly it swings from one to the other.

When they are defying you and just threw food over the kitchen, you'll get grey hairs trying to fight the urge to blow your top. You'll say things you promised yourself you would never say, because you're all out of ideas how to handle a tiny creature who is intent on riling you, just to see what it's like.

Then they'll get sick and you'll need to carry them to a doctor and entrust them to medical staff you've never met, and you'll be so anxious you won't eat or sleep.

Then the next day you'll have the most wonderful conversation where your little charge asks you about the universe and you try and explain it to them, not knowing where to start or how much understanding they really have.

One thing though, you'll learn compassion, forgiveness and patience like you never thought possible.

<comment><USER3> One thing that surprised me immensely was the unexpected new perspective and sense of respect for my own parents who had obviously been through it all themselves.

<comment><USER4> I became a father 2 weeks ago and that's the thing that's struck me most. We're only 2 weeks into it and we are giving everything we have night and day to look after our daughter.

I don't recall ever hearing my parents using it against me or even mentioning it. You suddenly realize that ever parent has just taken it on the chin and selflessly put themselves second to their children.

As a father I completely understand why, as a child I just had no idea (until now).

<comment><USER5> For me, the first 6-8 weeks were the most difficult. It starts getting easier and you start getting better at it. Hang in there.

Your parents didn't mention it because they probably forgot how difficult that part was. It passes quickly-- even though it may not seem like it at the time-- and is mostly a blur when you look back. Take lots of pictures. Think about keeping a journal.

<comment><USER6> When they turn 13 you'll miss the "baby days". You'll look on those days fondly, forgetting the stress, lack of sleep, etc. etc.

And when your son turns 18 and joins the Army. You'll wonder "where'd it all go".

It all goes by in a blink. Enjoy the moments you have now. You'll miss then soon enough.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I'm not a parent and don't ever plan to be (not all plans go that way, so my feelings might change on the matter) but I dont really get the whole parenting/having kids thing. I really have no affection for children at all, I dont find babies cute, i dont think kids are darling and i honestly think i'd make an absolutely terrible father because i just dont think im wired that way.

When Jeff talks about the 51% to the 49%, my personal opinion is why even bother devoting 18+ years of effort for a measly 2% payoff? Because, if it WAS worth it, wouldnt it be more than 2%?

I know this is perhaps a controversial opinion but please keep in mind I dont advocate my own views for anyone else. I have friends who i wholeheartedly believe weren't complete until they had kids, they're great parents and its what makes them whole and i think thats brilliant. But kids are like bungee jumping or religion, great for other people, but certainly not for me.

<comment><USER8> This is hilarious because this is exactly what both my wife and I think and we would have said exactly the same thing as you just did.

I think some people are geared for it. Some people are not. Unfortunately, a lot of people that aren't geared for it still end up having children anyway and that becomes a huge mess, obviously.

I personally just don't like children. My family begs my wife and I to have children and it annoys us to no extent. We understand the complexities of having a child and we also understand how selfish we currently are. We would probably end up despising the child if we ever had one.

We go through periods at times where we'll see a baby and be like "aw, how cute", but that quickly changes when that child starts screaming and crying.

I can't even stand my nieces and nephews. I'm serious... I hate holidays because I know I'll have to put up with them. This sounds harsh, sure... but it's the truth. All I see out of them is a mass quantity of pure concentrated annoyance. While I love them because they are family, I simply don't want to be around them. If they ever needed help, I'd help them. If they ever needed a home, I'd house them... I'd be there for them because they're family and that's what family is there for... however, nobody said I had to like them!

Our views may change, obviously. As you get older, your priorities change and we both may have different opinions. However, we're both in our mid thirties and time is not on our side anymore and we still, to this day, feel that not having children was a great idea.

As far as the 51/49 split, I'd personally say I feel that way with my dog. :) However, when I want to get away from my dog, I crate her and go out to dinner!

<comment><USER9> "We understand the complexities of having a child and we also understand how selfish we currently are." How is _not_ having a child selfish? I believe that having children is way more selfish - there's already 6 billions mouths feed and it's just adding another one.

<comment><USER8> I guess it's a matter of perception. If I'm going to have a child, I'm basically giving up my lifestyle of travel, going out wherever/whenever I want, spending money on what I want, eating out all the time, etc... In order to provide for that child. This is selfish activity, as far as I'm concerned. However, this is how my wife and I live at the moment. We don't want a child ruining our fun! :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> > _49% incredible pain in the ass, 51% most sublime joy you've ever felt; that > one percent makes all the difference._

Between 49 and 51 I count a difference of two percents?

> _Turns out, we're having two babies, due in mid-February 2012._

Aha. Let's talk again in a year or two, see who you'd throw under a bus.

I have three of those myself. I don't really subscribe to this whole "kids are wonderful" cliché.

The first kid, it's wonderful, yes (but this has been said before, no?) The other kids? Let's say I would agree more with Louis CK:

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcnXpOygKGI>

Edit: downvoters should try to take care of my kids for a few days ;-)

<comment><USER11> I have four kids and you'd have no problem watching them for a few days ... they're obedient, yet questioning ... civil, yet fun-loving ... rambunctious yet non-destructive.

Each of our kids was different and their personalities were by no means easy to deal with, but molding them into who they should have been was our job as their parents. A few days with your kids might be hard but once they understood our boundaries I think you'd see a big difference in them. A few months with your kids and I'll bet that we'd love them too.

<comment><USER12> You assume, without evidence, that his kids are troublesome. You overlook that they could be perfect angels, but that he still feels they are a larger timesink than he would have liked. You validate the taboo: he dissents, so your immediate kneejerk reaction is that he must be a bad parent with unbehaving kids.

Here's a thought: one can be a model parent with model kids and still feel that life without kids would have been better. You can even enjoy your life and your kids while still feeling that way.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> As a childfree individual, I'm amused by the euphoric claims of parents regarding the improved quality of their lives after having children. All the science seems to point in the opposite direction:

[http://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/01/why-does- anyon...](http://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/01/why-does-anyone-have- children/)

I have to confess: from the outside looking in, parents resemble nothing so much as cult victims gushing with conversion stories, complete with the requisite, "It'll be so much better once you join!" It's even creepier than that, though: cults may have leaders, but parents merely have genes flipping switches. It's like we all have a brainwashing trigger implanted at birth, waiting for the right circumstance to arise. This makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint, though: if raising kids is extremely hard, something would _have_ to get tweaked in the parents' minds to convince them to stick around.

(Sometimes I wonder if some aspects of my genetic "kid trigger" were co-opted by my cat. She reduces me to a babbling puddle of mush, and I'm enormously protective of her. When she nearly died, I was reduced to tears, and I made large sacrifices in time and money to save her life — and I'd cheerfully sell a kidney if that's what it took to do so again. I plan on having her cryogenically preserved if the worst happens someday. But throw myself under a bus? No — although I'd throw _someone else_ under a bus for her.)

The hardest part of being childfree, I've found, is the realization that I don't even live on the same planet as people who are, or will be, parents. Each side looks crazy from the other. I've found it impossible to maintain a close friendship with someone once they've had kids; schedules and priorities diverge, and you become increasingly convinced that it's best to "stick to your own kind" in the first place.

<comment><USER14> > I'm amused by the euphoric claims of parents regarding the improved quality > of their lives after having children.

I would go the other way and claim that the main benefit of raising a child is that it's the most effective way to banish the seductive illusion that you yourself are the most important thing in the universe.

<comment><USER13> I'd argue that "the most important thing in the universe" is always an utterly subjective feeling — an "illusion" — whether evoked by thoughts of oneself, one's child, or anything else. The interesting lesson is that the object of one's supreme devotion can change _at all_.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Nicely written, although I have to say I don't find having a baby quite as horrible as most other parents seem to find it. Exhausting at times, yes, but nothing that gets me angry. As for my old life - maybe I wasn't partying hard enough, because I don't really miss it that much.

OK, it is terrifying, but not because the kid is a terrorist. It is terrifying because life suddenly has you by the guts. I guess I cared a little about my own survival before, but now I really want to survive to be able to be there for my kid, and I definitely want my kid to survive. Suddenly life has gained a whole new dimension.

<comment><USER16> > I don't find having a baby quite as horrible as most other parents seem to > find it

It depends on your partner a lot. If your partner stays home, doesn't mind if you travel 50% of the time, or allows you to arrive home late from work (after 6) every night, it's just a completely different ball game.

Having NOT lived in that situation and splitting child care responsibility 50-50, I've found the adage "you can't serve two masters," is true for me. Either my business or my kids will suffer, even with 50-50.

So I've decided to allow the business to suffer, which means I don't create situations where I'll let down 3rd parties (investors, customers) due to my limited, erratic schedule (9a-5p and 8p-11p M-F, with random days off when day care shuts down or early departures from the office for 3:30p day care pickup).

But I only have the luxury of doing this because I sold my last company before we had kids. My advice to entrepreneurs who plan to have kids: find a partner who wants to take primary responsibility for child care (or hire an awesome full-time nanny) so you can put as much as you need to into your business. OR save enough money to be able to bootstrap and be available to your kids as much as they need you.

<comment><USER15> True enough, and I don't even have enough money yet to see all this with peace of mind. But still, I can't help thinking: I am not Steve Jobs, so it is an easy decision (what I do is not that earth shattering atm). My business is not really that important, as long as I make enough to put food on the table.

Also grandparents help, money helps. If you have money, I suppose you could also hire a babysitter.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> "As an adult, you may think you've roughly mapped the continent of love and relationships. You've loved your parents, a few of your friends, eventually a significant other. You have some tentative cartography to work with from your explorations. You form ideas about what love is, its borders and boundaries. Then you have a child, look up to the sky, and suddenly understand that those bright dots in the sky are whole other galaxies."

So Jeff is implying that those who choose to never have children will never experience love, life, and the universe with the intensity and awe that parents do. Somehow I'm "missing out". Sorry, but no.

<comment><USER17> A quick clarification in response to the downvoting. I have no disrespect for Jeff or anyone else's choice to have kids. I have brothers and sisters who went down that road and I'm happy for them.

But Jeff threw around condescending terms like "roughly mapped" and "tentative cartography" to describe the worldview of people who don't have kids. That's where I begged to differ.

All I'm saying is live your life and love it regardless of the path you go down. But please don't talk down to people who choose not to follow you there.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> There's not an original thought in Jeff's post and it's wonderful. Yes, becoming a parent is exactly like that.

The birth of my first baby was pretty difficult for my wife, because of injuries that happened because of incompetent midwives. My wife was very crippled for the first week, our daughter had a hard start to life outside the womb, and our family was almost completely useless so I had to do nearly everything (the new midwife was great, though); oh, and just to make it perfect, our dog sliced her paw deeply open on some glass four hours after we returned from the hospital who had kicked out my injured wife at 5am because they didn't have space. That week was the happiest of my life. If I ever am in need of cheering up, I just need to think back to changing my first blood- stained nappy.

As Jeff sort of said, becoming a parent is weird.

</comment><comment><USER19> I couldn't agree more with Jeff. I myself have said it on multiple ocasions, having a kid is an emotional roller coster. It's amazing just how much you fall in love with them and with life, but there also quite a few moments where you just wanna disappear, leave it all behind and just... rest...

These times are a real challenge. You HAVE to deal with it, you just cannot give up, and most of the time there isn't really anyone else that can cover for you.

It is, by far, the most difficult thing I've ever done.

<comment><USER20> Parenthood is kind of a good rehearsal for founding a company: you won't sleep much, you're very emotionally invested, you're on the hook for everything, and boy is it hard without the right partner.

<comment><USER21> Parenthood also makes founding a company 100 times harder, because you don't have the luxury of throwing yourself into the company 100% and never looking back. You have other responsibilities, and just letting them go to concentrate on your business comes at the cost of not being there for these wonderful little beings that you brought into the world.

And quitting your job to try a startup is fraught with a whole new peril -- you've got a family to feed!

I can imagine starting a part-time lifestyle business and taking it full-time if it ever became successful enough, but never a full-on work-til-you- can't-work-anymore startup. People who can do this after they have kids have my utmost respect, but I genuinely don't know how they can do it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Having kids will change you, no question. You would throw yourself under a bus to save your kids, absolutely. But let's not forget that you are still an individual with aspirations, ambitions, needs. Even after your child is born. Some people are better than others at repressing that side of their identity, instead evolving into a seemingly completely altruistic being. I couldn't.

The first year with my first born was hard but still magical (plus my wife stayed home with him so it helped a lot). After that, time to be used for myself was coming back, restful nights... Piece of cake.

Then I pushed for a second child (I always loathed the idea of raising an only child for some reason). My wife had resumed working by then and it was understood that she would go back after a couple of months of staying home with the baby.

That's when it became insanely painful for me, trying to protect my newly returned freedom (after my first born became more independent) while carrying 50% of the child rearing load with a newborn and a toddler.

I had to surrender (my self lost) for my own sanity and the well-being of my children. The lesson I think I've learnt is that to be as "successful" as possible at raising kids (whatever that means) you have to let go. A lot at times. And hope for the best.

</comment><comment><USER23> Interesting how the core elements of this are similar to what people say about psychedelics.

The whole theme of "People told me about it but I never really understood. Then I tried." and "Feelings/emotions I'd never been able to imagine.", this is exactly the kind of language people use when trying to explain to me why I should try psychedelics. I haven't so far. I don't find it compelling. Wonder if the chemical effects are similar though.

</comment><comment><USER24> Congrats to Jeff! My firstborn is also Henry, and I have two year old twin girls (Ada and Alice). The most interesting things about twins is how incredibly different they are from each other. They were nurtured in the same way, they share the same sets of genes, but they are wholly and fully their own people from day 1. It is completely fascinating stuff.

<comment><USER25> Ada and Alice. Might I ask if the inspiration for those two names came from a computer background? (Ada for the first programmer, and Alice for the first Apple computer)

<comment><USER26> I bet when she gets to school Alice is going to be trying to pass secret notes to Bob.

<comment><USER27> Just as long as they stay away from that Eve kid, I hear she just wants to know EVERYTHING!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> "Having a child is a lot like running a marathon. An incredible challenge, but a worthwhile and transformative experience."

Yes, except it never ends.

My elderly father's last conversations were filled with concerns about my siblings. The more limited his mobility, the more exhausted he seemed, the more he worried about how they would get along.

I tell people that there are switches in the brain - that when you first hold your child (or any child should you hold it long enough), those switches turn on. You have no control of the switches; they are genetically-controlled hardware passed down from your parents. They have lain dormant for the several decades of your life, awaiting this moment. Once they turn on, they will not turn off.

The "switches" change your behavior radically: you will now react to the child's cry to sooth it, you will protect the child at all costs, you will grieve if it is harmed, etc.

Here's an example. One friend, an animal lover, upon entering her home with her first newborn instinctively commanded "Get the animals outside, all of them, outside, NOW!!" and to the bewilderment of all present, four previously beloved and sheltered pets were cast out into the frozen dark backyard (we did improvise shelter). To this day she remains amazed at what she did. The pets were allowed indoors 18 months later.

When I was young I didn't understand this. I was taught that we were _tabulae rasae_. Once I started to understand evolution, I saw that it only makes sense from an evolutionary perspective: what could be more important to a gene than producing another copy of related genes? What better way to do this than to program the organism to protect its young at all costs?

But there's another level of understanding: standing there, holding a child as the switches turn on. The experience itself.

<comment><USER29> One of the beauties of the human experience is that we can overcome our genetic "switches" to derive a more positive experience.

You're not a slave to your instincts unless you want to be.

<comment><USER28> " _One of the beauties of the human experience is that we can overcome our genetic "switches" to derive a more positive experience.

You're not a slave to your instincts unless you want to be._"

That's old _tabula rasa_ thinking - it's false. Tell that to someone who has fallen in love (another example of this type of genetically-programmed behavior) or who has bonded normally with their child. They'll laugh you out of the room. They would, in a heartbeat, throw you and themselves under a bus to save their loved one(s). They _are_ slaves to their instincts.

Until the "switches" turn on, few (in modern society at least) realize/believe the switches are there! It isn't easy to counteract something internal that you have no belief in and have not experienced before. And it may be best (for the other, certainly) not to try.

Some say, for example, that romantic love isn't real. But romantic love is automatic and non-participatory: that is, your _conscious_ self doesn't do the decision-making. And when you fall in love, every conscious system in your brain will be suborned to justify your automatic genetically-programmed behavior. So much for "free will!"

There are many instances where a parent does not bond with a child - they will not be protective or nurturing. In extreme instances they may _kill_ the child. But none of this is normal or common.

<comment><USER30> _Tabula rasa_ says there are no real switches. Grandparent is saying that there are, but we don't have to obey them unthinkingly.

Not all switches in the human brain are for stuff that's as nice as caring for children or falling in love, so you might still want to think twice before unquestioningly endorsing their superior wisdom over conscious thought.

<comment><USER28> \- " _Grandparent is saying that there are, but we don't have to obey them unthinkingly._ "

How does he _know_ that we can override genetic behaviors? Sure, we can _try_ , but that doesn't mean that we _can_ override them.

\- " _you might still want to think twice before unquestioningly endorsing their superior wisdom over conscious thought._ "

Don't put words in my mouth. I said: "it may be best (for the other, certainly) not to try."

<comment><USER30> _How does he know that we can override genetic behaviors? Sure, we can try, but that doesn't mean that we can override them._

Given that you could view large parts of human culture as semi-successful overrides of instinctual behaviors, I'm not entirely sure what kind of thing your thinking of that might not be possible even in principle. Not feeling the instinctual impulses to begin with as opposed to not acting upon them?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> "choosing to become a parent is the hardest thing I have ever done"

Actually, I'd imagine that that bit is pretty easy because the subsequent parts (as described in the article) cannot be imagined before they happen. Thus choosing to become a parent probably looks pretty easy.

<comment><USER32> From personal experience, saying "Let's have a baby!" was at least as terrifying as "Will you marry me?".

<comment><USER33> I would say that having a kid to me seems like a lot bigger change than getting married. But of course I am married already, so maybe that in retrospect doesn't seem like such a big change...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> This was a great post. My wife and I have 4 kids and even though we are technically "outnumbered" we try our best to get everyone in on the idea that we are a team in this adventure of life. It's hard but it's wonderful too!

This was my favorite line: "Children give the first four years of your life back to you."

It's true! They teach you in those 4 years so much about life and I think the true loving nature of humans before we all get shaped through our environments.

</comment><comment><USER35> Way to go, Jeff! Congrats on twins!

I had twins born just over 10 years ago, and can clearly remember the doctor pulling up the ultrasound and circling a little dot and calling it a baby. There was another dot just like it on the other side of the screen, and I thought "this guy has no idea what he's doing", because he was missing the other dot.

Then he said, "here's another one". I said "another what?" He looked at me, and calmly replied, "there are two babies in here. You're having twins."

At that point, everything changed. Nobody believes me, but I bet you do. And everyone else on this thread who has kids gets it, too.

I had a boy and girl; the boy is named Henry. Small world, brother.

Keeping with the hacker theme, my kids are easily the best products I have ever shipped. :-)

</comment><comment><USER36> Little tip for any budding writers: Whenever you feel the urge to use the word "enormity", use enormousness or magnitude instead. Especially if you're talking about your children.

<comment><USER37> This is particularly true if you're writing before the 18th century.

Anyone writing in the 21st century however could just ignore the original meaning of the word and go with the meaning it's picked up over time - that is implying a sense of scale without the negative implications. This definition would be supported by a majority of modern dictionaries.

<http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/enormity> <http://www.merriam- webster.com/dictionary/enormity> <http://www.thefreedictionary.com/enormity>

See also: <http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/enormity>

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> It is nice to see some positive words about having kids. But still what is so hard? Spending less time online? I have the impression that raising kids is much harder in the US.

<comment><USER39> You have less free time, in smaller increments, and no longer under your control. Let's say you have no children, and work a standard forty-hour week. I know that's not common here, but bear with me. The thing is, that other 108 hours per week is yours, and you can arrange it as you like. You can choose to work longer hours at a startup, or spend time on strenuous hobbies. You can choose to stay up late and sleep in late. You can choose to work more one day to guarantee yourself a large block of free time another day. Whatever you do, it's a choice.

Now you have a kid. That 108 hours just turned into 80 or less - much less in the early stages for just about any parent, still less for at least the next decade even if you're a selfish parent. What's left is no longer movable from earlier until later, or from one day or to the next, because your child's schedule is not as flexible as an adult's. You practically never get to sleep in past 8am. When you do it's because you owe your spouse a favor - and with everything else in the paragraph it's a big one. It's impossible to do anything requiring intense concentration, because your child is a high- priority interrupt and that interrupt triggers frequently. My daughter (seven) is far better than most at staying occupied by herself, and even she interrupts me all the time. You know that look you give your coworkers while they interrupt you just when you finally got into the coding groove? You can't do that to your kid, so you don't even start anything that intense. You code less, you read less, you exercise less, you game less, you get online less. Your only real opportunity to have a significant block of free time is after the kid's in bed. To take advantage of that you'll be dipping into that 56 hours per week of sleep time and using caffeine the next day to (sort of) make up for it. By the way, I hear all of these factors are compounded when you have more than one kid, and I just can't even imagine what it's like for single parents.

I'm not complaining. There are other things that more than make up for the loss of time and control over time, but it's still draining. Still, I just have to laugh at the childless people who just assume all that time is available and flexible, who don't realize that being able to ride their bikes three hours a day or spontaneously head out for a three-day binge in Vegas is a _luxury_. Enjoy it while you can. Enjoy it your whole life if that's your choice. Just understand that every parent in the world is going to have a different perspective on free time than you do. Even though the result is worth it, losing two thirds of your usable free time is hard.

<comment><USER38> [edit: redoing my comment on desktop, was stuck with it on phone, sorry for the mess]

When our kid was still sucking his mother's milk we went on 5 days trip in Dali, Yunnan, rented a 4*4, went to cheap backpackers hotels, no problem at all. The only diff was to wake up earlier than we would without him.

For the interruptions, why do you allow them? When my dad was working at home, we wouldn't enter his place without a reason.

I think a big issue is about a new kind of culpabilization of the parents. Mothers need to be perfect mothers. Fathers need to be perfect fathers. Kids are supposed to be perfect kids. That's ok, but can be dangerous if taken to the letter and too seriously.

<comment><USER39> Different concerns apply to children of different ages or temperaments, and to different situations. My seven-year-old daughter is actually better than most at entertaining herself with books or puzzles etc. She also has a mother who stays home. Thus, when I work from home, she's quite capable of leaving me alone and knows to do so. During the evening or weekends, though, it's perfectly reasonable for her to request my attention pretty often. My wife deserves her breaks too, and there are no siblings. Someone who would completely shut out a seven-year-old during those times, under those circumstances, is IMO too selfish to be a decent parent - or for that matter husband, colleague, ...

If your child is a different age, or has siblings, or is even more exceptional in terms of self-entertainment, or if you're content to plop your kids in front of a TV/computer for hours on end, or if you have other family/friends willing to take your kids often, then maybe you're able to achieve longer periods of concentration. Good for you. Please don't assume, though, that your circumstances and thus your choices are applicable to others. Among the hundreds of other parents I've talked to, this issue of limited and fragmented free time is a _major_ challenge for every single one.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> This has been one of the more interesting posts I've seen on HN in a while. Imagine if you presented all this evidence to each parent before they decide to have kids. I wonder if most people would still go through with it?

I'm glad my parents did! But the more I hear about parenting the more it seems that you lose your life. I hope that one day my DNA forces me to override my logic unit and find a nice lady to have kids with.

</comment><comment><USER41> I just hope Jeff realizes that the amount of work per child is exponential not linear. So having twins will be about four times the work of just one child.

Also, I'm sure Jeff has already done the math on this but at at roughly seven diapers per day, 40 diapers per week, 2000 diapers per year, your average child goes through about 5000 diapers. 5K down, 10K to go :)

<comment><USER42> Regarding the amount of work per child being exponential, is this from your personal experience? My experience is the opposite.

<comment><USER43> His point on twins (triplets ..), where there are parallel simultaneous needs is perhaps different than multiple children, where at some point older ones 'help' with younger ones.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> OMG...I was just trying to explain to a friend why she should wait 3 - 5 years before having kids, but I found it so hard to put into words.

That graph is SOOO true. Haven't even read the entire post yet, but after 2 kids (both under 4) that graph sums up the entire experience - from my perspective anyway - more true than any words can.

</comment><comment><USER45> The angle that you almost never see mentioned in discussions like this is those 0.01 percent of scenarios where "both mother and baby are doing well" isn't true. There are all kinds of risks, complications and gut wrenching, soul searing, life destroying outcomes which you're up for when you play the game of life.

</comment><comment><USER11> Congratulations Jeff! We were never concerned about being outnumbered as long as we had a hand for each of them, so we had three and adopted a fourth. Now that the oldest two are 20 and 18, I'm pretty convinced we've been outsmarted ... but that's a good thing ;)

</comment><comment><USER46> Its funny that I was about to post this on Twitter here when I saw Jeff's post:

Successes and Failures melt away in front of a two year old. Validations and affirmations happen by way of a smile.

That being said, I cant wait to go home and wrap my hands around my two year old son.

</comment><comment><USER47> I can't believe how accurately this post reflects my own thoughts on parenthood. He just put into words so clearly exactly what I've been thinking and how I've been feeling.

</comment><comment><USER48> I whole heartedly agree. Our baby is 1 next week and it has been, without doubt, the most amazing, terrifying, tiring and joyous year.

Can't wait to teach him to code.

<comment><USER21> Just remember: you don't get to pick what fascinates your children. He may love sitting by your side learning all about coding -- and he may get bored and restless and want you to go outside and throw a ball around with him.

<comment><USER48> He can code a physics engine and throw a ball in that. </sarcasm>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> I've always admired Jeff Attwood's courageous honesty and insight. Gives me hope for getting married :)

</comment><comment><USER50> Beautifully written!

</comment><comment><USER51> Jeff has done what women have tried for ages...made men open up emotionally

PS: for the 1% female population reading this...nevermind I don't think it is even 1%...

</comment><comment><USER52> Having kids is the ultimate startup

</comment><comment><USER53> Beautiful. I'd give this 400 points if I could.

</comment><comment><USER54> I love children but I am looking forward to NEVER having them. My sister's got a couple now and my cousin's boys are carrying on the family name for the people in my family who care about that.

I think it's incredibly selfish to bring new kids into the world when there are so many that nobody wants. I don't normally say that to people and I don't really hold it against anyone (I do understand the motivations for having your own children), but that's how I feel.

If really want to do something useful and not just serve your own desires, why wouldn't you just adopt?

<comment><USER55> Having watched a friend do it a few times, I think only someone who has never adopted would ask the question "why wouldn't you _just_ adopt?"

<comment><USER54> I am close to two sets of families who each adopted multiple kids. One family adopted 2 kids from Russia and the other adopted 2 from China. The first family also had multiple children biologically.

Honestly, the 4 adoptions seemed much easier to me than the biological process which I've also seen many times. This probably sounds terrible, but you can also return the adopted ones if there are any major problems (and I've seen that happen too.)

<comment><USER55> "Honestly, the 4 adoptions seemed much easier to me than the biological process which I've also seen many times."

I can't even begin to understand how that would be possible.

My friend who has adopted from overseas spent several years and thousands of dollars (something like $45,000 if I recall correctly) making it happen.

I had sex a couple of months ago and now I'm 8 1/2 weeks pregnant.

Let's just say I know which route I found easier.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> So we have a 51/49% ratio for happiness and crazy in relation to child rearing. And this is for a middle to upper class person who wanted kids in the first place. Kids are crazy, generally make the gf/wife look 15y older after they have had em, and allow said gf/wife to have ultimate control (child support and divorce) which essentially robs a man of his independance and ability to have fun. There is a damn good reason that there are family sections of restraunts... Also, consider bars/leaving bong & vape on the coffee table/leaving porn and condoms out/leaving booze out/leaving good food out (kids are less behaved than kitties in most ways)/leaving expensive tech out (kiddies going to puke on that MBP)....ad nauseum. There is really no point to having kids, although social convention aka parents in some cultures sometimes advocates them, but it is a matter of rational self interest to disagree with this notion. 99% chance your kids will put you in a rest home, rather than take care of you, thats how the cookie crumbles.

<comment><USER57> Right, but people who don't hate women, children, and possibly themselves, don't really have that reaction right off the bat.

You are right in the sense that you should not have children, less because this is a reasonable and healthy outlook on life and more because if you believe this bullshit and live your life by it, you aren't fit to raise kids period.

</comment></comment><comment><USER58> This is not Parenting Magazine. I am a parent, but I came here to read about startups, technology and etc.. What happened?

<comment><USER59> There are people who want to have startups, deal with technology, AND be parents, too. There's no reason that they must be mutually exclusive. Besides, the number of articles regarding parenting on this site is a metaphorical drop in the ocean of tech articles.

<comment><USER60> I think it's wholly appropriate : To put up a warning flag around some of the major non-tech life events that the site's main demographic will be making decisions about.</comment></comment></comment>


FB new low (18.23), down 52% from 38 IPO price - <AUTHOR> http://www.google.com/finance?q=NDA:fb

<comment><USER2> Should someone add a FB ticker to the HN home page? :-D

But seriously, is there something about Facebook that hit the news that is leading to this drop and is worth discussing? Or is this just to spur some discussion on stock price speculation? If the former, what's the news? If the latter, what's the point?

<comment><AUTHOR> The reason why this cross is important is because it dropped more than 50%. Regulation T, which governs margin requirements in most accounts, says that you are allowed to borrow up to your cash balance to buy shares. So if you had 1900 dollars in your account (for simplicity of math), you could borrow 1900 more dollars to buy FB shares (3800 dollars = 100 shares). Now that FB dropped below 19 (and it looks like it'll close below 19), basically those investors lost ALL of their money (the value of the shares is now 1825, so your equity in the position is 1825[current value] - 1900[borrowed money] = -75) and we should expect another wave of selling pressure as those investors are forcibly closed out of their positions.

The importance is that _institutions_ may decide not to participate in future IPOs (or may do so with weak uptake).

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Can anyone clarify whether the IPO was technically at $38 or $42? On the day of the IPO, everyone in the press was saying the price was $42. But now a lot of the online charts (google finance, yahoo finance, etc.) are showing it opened at $38. Obviously there were a lot of technical glitches that morning. What is going on here?

<comment><USER4> The IPO price was $38. When it opened the price rose to $42 in early public trading before the price started to fall.

[http://www.businessinsider.com/this-is-what-traders-saw- when...](http://www.businessinsider.com/this-is-what-traders-saw-when-things- went-haywire-on-facebooks-first-day-of-trading-2012-5?op=1)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> It is going to be a bumpy road if they miss future earnings estimates. Negative sentiment around this stock is strong.

</comment><comment><USER6> I said it when it first IPO'd that this would be bad. Investors were looking at this company as they did many other things they invested in. What they couldn't understand is that IT IS NOT like the others. It is a social network. People tend to move on and get tired of them. I don't care what the numbers say, they could be misleading. I stopped going on facebook. And when I do go on, my 1000 friends or so don't have much posting going on. It has become pretty much a more popular version of photobucket or flickr. And when I go on, I don't get that "feeling" that I used to when I used to go on back in the days. A lot of my friends have deactivated and most others aren't on much. Unsuprisingly I might add.

<comment><AUTHOR> "Investors were looking at this company as they did many other things they invested in."

tl;dr: Investors were looking for the IPO pop and then dumping it. Problem is, if everyone follows that idea, there's no upside left.

It was obvious from when FB first started trading on SecondMarket that the "IPO pop" would happen before the IPO. The IPO pop stems from a supply/demand mismatch (lots of people want to get in but are unable to). And because the accredited investors got in before the IPO, the only people left were "retail" investors (and we know how that story ended). Many analysts and investors don't understand that key point, which is why a lot of people were caught with their pants down.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Compare that with SPLK. Apparently there's something to this whole 'build stuff people will buy' thing.

<comment><USER8> Let's compare, shall we? Last year, Splunk lost a few million dollars on revenues of 66M. Facebook profited $1BN on revenues of 3.7BN.

Guess there's something to businesses that generate lots of snarky comments.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> They should just start charging a couple of bucks a year to use the damn thing. They have so many users even if some drop off they would still be making money.

(I don't use it so it's easy for me to say)

<comment><USER10> Or freemium servicing.

<comment><USER9> I never understood how giving things/services away for free made sense to anyone. I still don't get it. Sure you have a huge user base but no way to make money.

<comment><USER11> You've never heard of google?

<comment><USER9> who?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> This makes me want to start buying up shares just so I could brag to friends saying I bought it when it was super low. Probably not a good reason, but the heart wants what the heart wants.

<comment><USER13> this isn't super low. $1-2 will be super low.

<comment><USER12> You are right, I guess I was embellishing a little. Though it is quite a drop.

<comment><USER14> Yes, it's quite a drop but I think it will keep dropping until reaches $10. It's a matter of time really.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I plan to buy it if it falls to 4 dollars or less.

<comment><USER16> I bet it won't fall that low. $4 would be valuing the company at about 10x their 2011 income of $1B, which is extremely low for a company expected to grow. I wouldn't expect to see a valuation under 20x, or about $7-8 per share. My guess is ~$10 per share is the floor on this one.

[http://www.forbes.com/sites/tomiogeron/2012/02/01/facebooks-...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/tomiogeron/2012/02/01/facebooks-5-billion- ipo-filing-3-7-billion-in-2011-revenue/)

<comment><USER17> Is Facebook really expected to grow that much? Even counting the 13% or so fake accounts, they have around 800 million active accounts.

That's a bit over 10% of the world's population. They can't really get the growth that's expected with their P/E, especially because of the difficulties that they're having with getting higher returns/user. They can't grow their userbase by that much either.

<comment><USER18> What keeps the stock up is the idea that one day they may do something other than ads, and sell something to their user base.

I don't know if there is an example of a public internet company that was able to transition from being an ad-base business into selling stuff. The closest may be LinkedIn, who's selling recruiter tools and premium memberships. However, LinkedIn had been doing that before the IPO, as a relatively small company.

I'm skeptical that Facebook can pull this off in a reasonable time frame, but shareholders who are psychologically anchored to the IPO price are probably more optimistic.

<comment><USER19> _What keeps the stock up is the idea that one day they may do something other than ads, and sell something to their user base._

Which sounds remarkably similar to the way people thought about companies during the dotcom boom: Get the users first, figure out how to make money off of them later. Facebook's admittedly got one key difference from companies during the dotcom heyday, which is that instead of a burn rate it has this thing called 'revenue'. But that aside, at least for a while investors seemed to have fallen back into the old trap of thinking that the monetary value of a user isn't somehow tied to the amount of income they provide.

Maybe Facebook will figure out something else. . . but if nobody's sure what that is right now then it's still an Underpants Gnomes[1] business model.

[1]: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnomes_(South_Park)>

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Some small additional info:

[http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/08/31/uk-facebook- shares-...](http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/08/31/uk-facebook-shares- idUKBRE87U0PJ20120831)

</comment><comment><USER21> If you thought $38 was a good price, this must be a good time to buy some more with the prices low.

<comment><USER22> > If you thought $38 was a good price, this must be a good time to buy some > more with the prices low.

Only if you never factor in new information to your decision making.

If you $38 was good with the assumption that there would be a pop to $50 then now you wouldn't buy as it's now clear there won't be a quick pop that gets you to $50.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Hmmm... Isn't facebook still growing? aren't they making money? aren't they expanding?

<comment><USER24> Yes. But the question is "how much?"

If I offered you FB stock at $10,000, what would you say? "Too much", I hope.

If I offered you FB stock at $0.05, what would you say? Probably, "Hell, yeah, that's a bargain".

So there's a rational price that the market agrees upon, within certain boundaries. The market seems to agree that the IPO overpriced the real market value of the shares. It's a real time machine that tells us what people think the shares are worth.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> At what price is everyone else going to be tempted into buying some shares?

<comment><USER14> $5 it's a good price for me :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> FB has 2.7B shares outstanding, yahoo and other sites have it wrong.

<comment><AUTHOR> The original prospectus quoted the 2.1B share count that google uses. I'm sure the difference will be corrected after a few filings ...</comment></comment>


Are Pistachios the Nut of the Future? - <AUTHOR> https://grist.org/article/are-pistachios-the-nut-of-the-future/ <comment><USER2> This article is far more fascinating than the headline suggests, and discusses a far broader range of topics than nuts. It covers a number of options we have for continuing to grow food in California as the climate changes and aquifers are depleted.

<comment><AUTHOR> It addresses a lot of issues and problems ..many urgent..with 45 billion dollar California Ag industry.

This is why I fret when Agtech VCs pours $$$ into the existing industry that looks like a cash cow. But it's a crippled cow. They will bring it all crashing down. They are talking to corporations and not to real farmers in the ground.

I started knocking on doors five years ago and at this point, I don't think it makes any difference anymore. So much VC $$$ have been pumped into California Ag that by investing in an industry that was showing signs of a fever..they have only to made the infection worse.

I don't know how this can be remedied anymore. The right time was five years ago. Hubris.

<comment><USER2> Agreed.

The California desert is a foolish place to be relying for agriculture, period. That it's been effective historically (by diverting or draining water at higher rates than we can replenish it) is a poor reason to continue to invest in it.

Switching to desert-native crops is a good start. (I mean, seriously, it's absurd for California to be our agricultural center for almonds, when each individual almond takes a gallon of water to produce!)

For the rest, if we want to keep consuming them, perhaps we'd do better to turn our attention to areas that have more reliable water supplies and whose climates are or will be better suited to those crops in coming decades.

<comment><USER3> Why do you think the Central Valley in CA is a desert?

I agree that CA agriculture needs to be more careful with how it uses almonds, but the Valley is not a desert, it's a great place to grow crops.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> > Valley temperatures are predicted to rise between 3.5 and 6 degrees F by > 2100

I think it's funny we accept we will be able to make meat in a lab in 20 years time but not nuts.

<comment><USER5> If you could plant some muscle in the ground and sprout a cow, muscle would be also be so complex we wouldn't expect to synthesize it soon either.</comment></comment>


"You're posting too fast–please slow down." Is there a one submission/day limit? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> I had this happen to me after I posted something the admins thought was boneheaded and they were right. I promised not to do it again and I got restored.

</comment><comment><USER3> "Please don't post on HN to ask or tell us something. Instead, please send it to firstname.lastname@example.com." [https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

That said there's users submitting 10+ pages per day so I don't believe there's a fixed limit.

</comment><comment><USER4> It is likely an anti-bot rate limit. It is likely a limit of one submission per five minutes or something.</comment>


Paralympic athletes who harm themselves to perform better - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19325756

<comment><USER2> The entire paralympic games baffles me. Injuries which cause handicaps are incredibly diverse. The winner will be the one with the injuries that cause the least amount of disruption to their physical capabilities. I applaud the athletes who refuse to let tragic circumstances get in the way of the enjoyment of their sport, but having a level playing field in the Olympics is about who has the most performance out of a set of extraordinary but roughly equal human beings. It seems hard to get that same level of equality in the paralympics.

Does anyone have any insight into how they match competitors to ensure a level playing field? Would someone with a normal heart rate increase ever be matched against someone with a spinal injury preventing normal heart rate increase, which would basically require this kind of pain training?

<comment><USER3> I raced paracycling for a few years. I was 2nd a nationals once, but never good enough to make it to the paralympics.

There are lots of categories. It's changed slightly now, but when I raced there was C1 - C5 for cyclists, T1 - T3 for tricyclists and H1 - H4 for hand cyclists. So that's 12 categories for each men and women in cycling. I needed to be evaluated twice by physiotherapists for strength, range of motion, etc. Then I was placed in a category. Obviously you want to be put in the lowest possible category for your disability. Lots of shady stuff goes on, faking additional disability etc. You can lodge a protest against other athletes if you think they are in the wrong category.

As I understand it now, they've reduced the number of medals given out, so instead of each category having a medal, each category has a standard speed, and the athlete that beats the standard by the greatest percentage wins. Other sports still have medals for each category but cycling went away from it due to not enough athletes per category. Swimming probably has the most athletes.

Here is the classification guide: [http://www.handbiken.at/Regeln/Paracycling%20Classification....](http://www.handbiken.at/Regeln/Paracycling%20Classification.pdf)

For example, my category C5 is:

Neurological Fair to normal \- Major and minor neurological signs \- Minimally affected diplegic with spasticity grade 1 or 1+ \- Truly ambulant hemiplegic with spasticity grade 1 or 1+ \- Monoplegic and minimal athetoids \- Possible loss of function by uncoordinated hands or one leg

Co-ordination Fair to normal \- Very slight signs of inco-ordination on the bike (not normal function)

Abilities \- Fair to normal (0-2 points): mostly functional but not normal, major and minor signs

Amputation, Impairment as described in 2b 2 "fair to normal" \- Single amputation AE, with or without prosthesis, no functional grip (54 points) \- Single amputation BE with the use of a prosthesis

Minimal disability: Amputation of all fingers and thumb (through MCP) or amputation of more than half foot (forefoot). In the case of a single AE-, BE- amputation or a single upper limb dysmelia, the minimal impairment is met if all fingers and the thumb of one hand is missing through the MCP joint or other impairments who are equivalents, without a functional grip. As a proof of the loss of functional grip, the affected athlete will not be able to operat

<comment><USER2> Very interesting, thanks!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> > When able-bodied competitors engage in hard physical activities like running > or swimming, blood pressure and heart rate increase automatically. Athletes > with spinal injuries do not get that response.

Can anyone explain why a spinal cord injury would render a human unable to raise their blood pressure through strenuous physical exercise? It doesn't seem to make sense.

<comment><USER5> To summarize what I understand from the Wikipedia article, the neurons involved are located between the T1 and L1 levels of the spinal cord. If you have a spinal injury above L1, some of those neurons are disconnected from the brain, and thus cannot activate normal responses (e.g. fight or flight).

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I'm not entirely sure as why, but as I read the article, specially the guy smashing his toe to increase the blood pressure I felt really bad.

They are in a really bad shape, but still will do things like that to win. Not sure what to think of it.

<comment><USER7> I din't feel bad for them, I moreover lost respect for them. Damaging your body more to prove that disability can't stand in your way to success is pathetic and hypocritical. Sadly this just makes me less interested in watching the Paralympics.

<comment><USER8> (Shrug) I gained respect for them. Many if not most of those who compete in a so-called "normal" athletic event either damaged their body to get there, or will damage it intentionally during the competition. (Have you ever watched an American football game, for Pete's sake? Do you have any idea what those guys are doing to themselves? Smashing a toe is the least of their concerns.)

What I read was an article about people hacking their bodies to get to levels of performance they wouldn't otherwise be capable of. In this case the athletes' bodies are already damaged, typically in ways that would stop the rest of us in our tracks.

My opinion is contrarian and I don't expect to see much agreement here or elsewhere. But then, I've also argued that there should be an "unlimited" category in sports like cycling where the athlete with the best drug lab wins.

<comment><USER7> >Have you ever watched an American football game, for Pete's sake? Do you have any idea what those guys are doing to themselves?

You mean the game where you get to wear one million paddings that makes even skinniest person look buffed up? I would have gone with Rugby as a better example of being brutal. However, you argument still doesn't hold because in these cases you are not self inflicting a damage on yourself. Sure you are more likely to get hurt during the game and have a higher chance of causing a permanent damage but there is a big difference between doing that to yourself just to win a game and being a part of an accident. Whatever happened to the term Sportsmanship <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sportsmanship> ?

>What I read was an article about people hacking their bodies to get to levels of performance they wouldn't otherwise be capable of.

That argument would have a better merit if they were to compete against the "normal" athletes. However they are not, they are competing against people who has similar disabilities and limitations like them. So its will be a fair game if they don't resort to such performance enhancing methods.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This is sad. This is not how you win, and your victory is not worth the glory.

<comment><USER10> Why not? For example: sprinters injure themselves during training on a regular basis. Strength increases much faster when you train a bit past the point of injury and then heal, repeatedly.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Hack themselves to perform better, surely?

</comment><comment><USER12> How can a quadriplegic be a climber?

<comment><USER13> Look at the picture in the article.

<comment><USER12> Thanks for the tip. I did that before asking and I saw a guy kind of standing with a lot of equipment behind him.

Prior to the useful other reply, I thought that being a quadriplegic implied you couldn't move your arms or legs.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Part of what makes watching people with disabilities compete in events so heartwarming to watch is being able to share in their victory.

But what kind of victory is it?

I used to wrestle competitively, and I still believe that it's the most underrated sport, partly for the following reason:

Wrestling is undeniably a team sport - matches are scored for the entire team, and the support and camaraderie between teammates is not an empty gesture; I can't imagine a successful team that lacks this. But on the other hand, when you and your opponent are on the mat for your six minutes, you're the only one fighting for your team - all the pressure is on you and you alone.

Most importantly, this makes victories personal. You can win your match even if the team loses, and vice versa. You can lose your match and still help the team win (by keeping the margin of victory low, which impacts the score). You can have a personal triumph, and your teammates will share in that, regardless of the outcome of the team's score.

I know less about the Paralympics than the Special Olympics (and yes, I know they're different), but to me, both always stood out to me as wonderful reminders of the true importance of sportsmanship - not athleticism, but _sportsmanship_. Part of that is about treating your opponent with respect, which is how we usually hear the word, but part of it is about treating _yourself_ with respect. A dishonorable victory may help your team/country, but for you personally, it's a defeat. On the other hand, being able to overcome a personal struggle, even if you don't "win" the match, qualifies as a victory in my book, and as a spectator, I like being able to celebrate that with the athlete.

Knowing that somebody is artificially harming their body in order to boost some artificial metric (like their race time), or even to gain an edge over their opponent - that's not a good way to treat yourself as an athlete. But that robs me of my vicarious joy as well. And that's a horrible way to treat your teammate.

<comment><USER15> > Wrestling is undeniably a team sport - matches are scored > for the entire > team

 _Hey Otto, I've got news for you. Wrestling is not a team sport. When you're out there against a guy who is faster and stronger than you, there isn't a whole hell of a lot your team can do for you."_ [1]

> I know less about the Paralympics than the Special Olympics (and yes, I know > they're different), but to me, both always stood out to me as wonderful > reminders of the true importance of sportsmanship - not athleticism, but > sportsmanship.

No doubt, good sportsmanship is an admirable quality. But is it really reasonable to expect the Paralympics or Special Olympics to be any more of an exemplar of that, than any other athletic competition? At the end of the day, the participants are still people... with ego, vanity, jealousy and whole gamut of human emotions.

[1]: <http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0090270/></comment></comment>


Czech Republic, seeking a snappier name, considers a change - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/15/world/europe/czech-republic-seeking-a-snappier-nameconsiders-a-change.html <comment><USER2> If they do this, Czechia will be forever confused with Chechnya.

<comment><USER3> Business as usual, then. The most frequent question I was answering in 1999 was "how do you feel about Russians invading your country?" followed by "you mean there's two of those?"

<comment><USER4> But... Russians did invade your country.

<comment><USER3> None of the people asking have meant 1968 ;)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Would it be pronounced Check-ia/ʧɛkiə or more like Sheck-ia/ʃɛkiə? The second is much easier for me to pronounce, personally, though if they removed the ending dipthong in favor of just ə they both roll off the tongue.

<comment><USER6> The article says "CHECK-ia".

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> That's what we call it in Russian - Чехия

</comment><comment><USER8> In Poland we sometimes call them Pepiks - quite snappy (although the chechs might not like it :p)

<comment><USER9> Yes, but that is denotation of inhabitants, the same way Pšonci is for Poles :)

<comment><USER10> Well, denotation of the country is Czechy; nobody in Poland would use full Republika Czeska (unless in some official documents). So I guess if the name gets changed, at least Poles won't have to change their convention :)

<comment><USER3> I feel that's the point of the change: it codifies actual use.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I think the current name is superior to all of the choices proposed.

</comment><comment><USER12> They should consider a snappier flag as they were kind of lazy with it.

<comment><USER13> I disagree. It's simple, but the triangle is fairly unique.

<comment><USER3> Not really unique. Simplest of the flags with a triangle, though: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_style_of_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_style_of_national_flags#Triangle.28s.29_on_left_side)

<comment><USER13> OK, not unique in the world, and I know some people think "unique" should be an absolute like "pregnant" – you can't be "fairly pregnant" – but it is much less common compared to vertical or horizontal stripes. And it is unique in Europe according to that list and my memory.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: How to advertise a web design/development company? - <AUTHOR>

Hello. I have a website where I offer web design services and web development for small businesses. So far the only interest I've had has been from family and friends. What advertising strategies could you recommend to get some more clients? I've tried cold calling local businesses with very little luck. I'm looking to make a little money for myself while I'm at uni, so if I could get a couple of jobs a month, that would be great. Thanks. Thanks. <comment><USER2> No one will hire unless you have something to show them. I assume you like to design so maybe you should do a couple for your friends and family pro bono. You'll get something for the portfolio that you can show to others.

I like Shawn's idea to get new customers - follow that. Try to make some connections with a major industry. James Altucher founded Reset, which made websites for movie releases at extremely high prices. You know why? First of all, he worked at HBO so he had contacts with all of them. Second, they were huge companies with even bigger budgets - he cleaned up on them. Granted he did it in the mid-90's when the internet was new and exciting, but nonetheless - if you have the right contacts you can create a great business (he eventually sold Reset for low 8 figures).

best of luck

</comment><comment><USER3> here are two tips go online to your county clerk's office they will have a list of newly formed businesses. The listing usually includes name address and telephone number. It should be easy to get those people to listen to you as they are usually in a process of just getting started and I need of design services. Second you can either actively or passively look for old dated looking websites. Identify outdated designs and contact the company with one or two suggestions for improvement and offered to do it for them. The e-mail should include a link of your previous work.</comment>


"The Lying Pen of the Scribes": A Nineteenth-Century Dead Sea Scroll - <AUTHOR> http://theappendix.net/issues/2014/7/the-lying-pen-of-the-scribes-a-nineteenth-century-dead-sea-scroll <comment><AUTHOR> The artifact in question, to clarify, is almost certainly a 19th century forgery. But there's an element of doubt that persists, particularly because the 20th century Dead Sea Scrolls were found in the same region, and under similar circumstances.

<comment><USER2> Any element of doubt has been destroyed by the comprehensive carbon dating tests run on the DSS that show them to be 2000 years old plus change. The author doesn't mention this. And someone needs to tell him that the Documentary Hypothesis is dying.

<comment><USER3> I'm pretty sure the element of doubt your parent refers to is "doubt that the Shapira fragments were forgeries", not "doubt that the Dead Sea Scrolls are authentic".

I can't shake the feeling that something in your comment went over my head, though... could you say something at greater length?</comment></comment></comment>


Where do you start your new projects on front-end or back-end? - <AUTHOR>

When you start a project do you start on the front end or back-end first?  I have always started on the back-end which seems to drive management nuts because they can't "see" any progress.  Do you have better results with starting with something front end and making it work or does that lead to management/client thinking things are more done then they actually are? <comment><USER2> I recommend starting with one of the major use cases, implementing its UI and some of its back-end, even if you have to mock some of its functionality or simplify it a bit (e.g. only implementing the "happy path").

This has many benefits, not only because "management can see" the progress, but also because it's not uncommon that when we actually visualize how it will look like, our understanding of how to address the use case improves. So this reduces the requirements risk of the project, and could save you having to change or throw away back-end code at the beginning of the project.

It also gives you a vertical slice on the system, so you'll have an idea of what the architecture looks like in practice (e.g. if it's too complex), which reduces technical risk.

</comment><comment><USER3> You don't start a project for the sake of starting a project. The idea should be visualized in your head, along with some back end algorithms to solve it. That said, I usually start sketching it in a paper, then move to skeleton UI, making sure all my HTML is up, maybe use something like bootstrap to make it feel more appealing, then quickly code a lot of backend code (non-optimized) until it's functional..then jump back to UI, so i can visualize the ending project and then fixing remaining bugs/features/performance in backend then finishing touches in frontend.

TL;DR: A bit of Front, a lot of backend, then some front again, a bit more backend, then finishing it up with the front</comment>


Pokemon Go isn't the solution to Nintendo's problems - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/2016/07/pokemon-go-nintendo-stock/?mbid=synd_digg <comment><USER2> I'm not sure I understand the logic of "it can't be popular because the servers are always down." It seems, of course, _because_ it's so popular that the servers are often down. It also seems that periods of downtime are extended, but sporadic: [http://ispokemongodownornot.com/](http://ispokemongodownornot.com/)

Put yourself in Niantic's shoes, pre-release. Let's say that you start with, "Let's pick our busiest day ever for Ingress, and double that." Then someone else in the room says, "No, triple it." And something else says, "No, quadruple it!" The problem is that none of those would be remotely enough. This game is the most popular game in mobile history, and while it's easy to say, "of course!" and point to the confluence of Pokémon and other trends to explain it, nobody predicted that this morning in Addison, Texas, at 9:30am, there would be 26 people ranging from young children to retirees playing the game in a local park.

Perhaps the game is already on the way out, but for now it's bigger than any mobile game has ever been, so difficulty scaling doesn't surprise me at all.

<comment><USER3> That park you speak of had close to 300-400 people catching Pokemon last night in 90+ degree temps.

The game is popular across all segments.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Buzzy article, contradictory in spots and doesn't leave a concise conclusion. No idea what Chris is trying to get at. He suggests that the most popular app to date isn't sustainable, yet mentions that it's producing tons and tons of potential buyers for the new Pokemon releases.

Chris states "Pokemon Go's remarkable success surely awakened Nintendo's conservative management team to the potential of mobile gaming" but in the previous paragraph says "The company is developing mobile versions of its strategy RPG series Fire Emblem and its adorable anthropomorphic Sims-style Animal Crossing, but their success is not guaranteed". Clearly their marketing team has "awaken" before pokemon to develop these other IPs?

/rant

</comment><comment><USER5> Even if Nintendo doesn't end up making much money out of the Pokemon Go game, the value of the mostly positive press that the company has received will certainly also affect positively product sales in the future.

<comment><USER6> > mostly positive press

I guess that's one perspective.

From a gamer's perspective, Pokemon Go has been a disaster so far. The app itself is pretty clunky and prone to freezing. The servers have been down for lengthy periods during prime hours. And, worst of all, they took a beloved franchise and essentially gutted it, which is a huge disappointment to everyone who's loved Pokemon since the '90s.

Casual gamers will be put off by the poor technical execution, and the core gaming audience will be repelled by its shallow, gimmicky gameplay. It has all the markings of a fad. Niantic better have some pretty massive updates up their sleeve...

<comment><USER7> "It has all the markings of a fad"

My thoughts as well. It already favours players who play obsessively. Casual gamers can't really expect to ever challenge a gym in even a reasonably populated area. I was excited by the idea and I lost interest after a few days. No guarantee that everyone else will follow suit, but I have that sort of gut feeling.

<comment><USER8> Actually,

With how terrible the gym metagame is right now, casual players can absolutely take on a gym.

I placed a pretty decent Jolteon in one and my lower-leveled Wife pretty much beat the crap out of it with a Vaporeon.

Right now: Vaporeon rules the streets.

There's a great post about why this is right now on /r/TheSilphRoad: [https://redd.it/4tylty](https://redd.it/4tylty)

But I do concur - it is looking like it will be a fad. They will have to pump updates and new features into it in order to keep it alive, or it will die quick. Already 2/6 (of my) office workers have dropped from playing it.

<comment><USER7> Wow that is ridiculous, I had no idea. Thanks for the link. I guess "normal" Pokemon rules don't apply, perhaps that's why I've been having trouble!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I'm pretty sure that Nintendo's recent problems are largely due to them releasing a console that didn't have a lot of great games.

They have a new console on the way, and if they avoid those mistakes this time they'll do well. The new Zelda game looks wonderful.

<comment><USER10> Nintendo is highly dependent on its first party games. They can only crank so many of them out at any time. Third party developers seem to prefer ps4 and XB1.

<comment><USER11> If I'm not mistaken, third party developers prefer the other platforms because there are fewer restrictions, both in terms of hardware power (which Nintendo consoles at least since the Wii have lacked in comparison with competitors), and content (where Nintendo wanted to cultivate a more family friendly reputation).

<comment><USER12> It's relatively easy to write a game that will run on PC, Xbox and PS4. At a high level, they're very similar platforms. The Wii U is a very odd duck. At the very least, they have to address the touch screen at least minimally.

So I'm sure most developers decide the Wii U just isn't worth the effort.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Ecosystem changes are only deadly to a company if they don't adapt to them.

Before videogames, Nintendo made playing cards. The console-locked model has been profitable for them for decades, but I wouldn't cash my chips out on them failing to make the roll to mobile just yet.

</comment><comment><USER14> If Pokemon Go succeeded in one thing it was validating the value of Nintendo's IP. People clearly want Nintendo products on iOS and Android and there's a much larger market for Nintendo outside their first-party devices.

</comment><comment><USER15> This is what the article thesis should have been:

Nintendo's used to be a hardware company that also created some amazingly valuable software. Today, their biggest asset is their IP around some of the most valuable gaming franchises in the world -- Pokemon, the Mario universe, and Zelda are the big three IMO.

Unfortunately, Nintendo can't seem to figure out how to make insane amount of money from this IP without losing tons of money on failed hardware projects.

The author claims that porting Pokemon gameboy games to mobile would only be a bandaid, but even if that doesn't "save" Nintendo, I think it would actually be a massive boon and sorely needed culture shift for the company. There are great memes online around "Mario Kart Go", but wouldn't "Mario Kart with Friends" (or random people online) be great?

The Zelda franchise, my one true love :), I'm not sure how to fix. I literally bought a Wii only to play Skyward Sword and will buy whatever system is needed for the next game, but i'm in the minority and that pattern is an indication of a terribly unhealthy hardware business hanging by a thread from their gaming IP.

</comment><comment><USER16> I don't know! The company creates an alternate universe that needs a "Tricorder" to react with... What can go wrong? I could see Nintendo making phones now.

<comment><USER17> I guess you didn't read the article. Nintendo _didn 't create this alternate universe_, a third party did.

<comment><USER18> And as a game it's terrible. What's compelling is how well it fits into the Pokemon story.

<comment><USER19> > "And as a game it's terrible."

Niantic/Nintendo could easily update the game to make it more engaging at the point interest starts to wane. For example, updating the game so you could take control in gym battles.

<comment><USER20> Easily? As an early Ingress player, experience shows that Niantic as a company are extermely slow to add features.

The UI for dealing with gameplay have always been terrible. You had to drop items one by one in Ingress for years until they finally made a capsule item.

There's no way to sort by pokemon type and no way to transfer all but a few of your weakest pokemon. They just seem not to care.

Good luck making the game actually fun...

<comment><USER19> > "Easily? As an early Ingress player, experience shows that Niantic as a > company are extermely slow to add features."

Yes, easily. It's not as if the mechanics haven't already been worked out, they were there right from the Red/Green/Blue/Yellow era. All Niantic would be doing would be adding some buttons to the combat interface and adding some extra animations.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Nintendo just need to make a powerful system, powerful process lots or ram .. and a developer friendly sdk If they want to remain in the console business

I don't why they don't see the obvious

If Nintendo NX is not as powerful as the next playstation and the next xbox, this could only mean, Nintendo is getting out of the console system .. and targeting a new market

<comment><USER22> >Nintendo just need to make a powerful system, powerful process lots or ram .. and a developer friendly sdk If they want to remain in the console business

>I don't why they don't see the obvious

Because both of their biggest console/handheld successes did the exact opposite of that...

<comment><USER21> the opposite of what, i don't get it

<comment><USER22> >powerful system, powerful process lots or ram .. and a developer friendly sdk

The Wii is a souped up Gamecube, wasn't even full HD.

DS can only just barely manage 3D and it's about Nintendo 64 quality when it does. Far weaker than the original PSP that predates it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> no one cares</comment>


Show HN: Try Google fonts in Style - <AUTHOR> https://typehero.now.sh/ <comment><AUTHOR> I made this because I love Google fonts and beautiful colors. The website lets you try out all of Google fonts with multiple color combinations. You could use it pick a font for your startup logo or tag-line and test it with awesome color pallets. It lets you search for Google fonts, change the canvas color, text color and also font size & weight/style.

No logins or registrations needed!

If this gets any traction I plan on adding more features like: \- Move it to its own domain \- Background photos from Unsplash \- Icons from The Noun Project \- Downloading your finished design \- Short URL sharing \- Make it look better on mobile \- And many more features

Comments are appreciated! You can also tweet at me [https://twitter.com/iamtekeste](https://twitter.com/iamtekeste)

Thanks to [http://colorhunt.co/popular](http://colorhunt.co/popular) for the beautiful colors!

<comment><USER2> This is great. Let me say it again, great!

My feedback would be to make it easier to discover fonts. Right now I only have a few fonts to choose from the select box.

Another issue is that once a font is selected, I must erase the text in the select to get the select items drop down again.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> well done. nice and simple</comment>


Startup Mapillary Is Turning Crowdsourced Images into a 3-D Virtual World - <AUTHOR> http://www.technologyreview.com/news/543286/build-a-3-d-virtual-world-with-this-crowdsourced-map-of-the-real-world/ <comment><USER2> [http://blog.mapillary.com/update/2015/11/10/pointclouds.html](http://blog.mapillary.com/update/2015/11/10/pointclouds.html)

</comment><comment><USER3> Video of the thing here: [https://vimeo.com/144356789](https://vimeo.com/144356789)</comment>


U.S. Said to Investigate AT&T and Verizon Over Wireless Collusion Claim - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/20/technology/att-verizon-investigate-esim.html <comment><USER2> >The investigation was opened about five months ago after at least one device maker and one wireless carrier filed formal complaints with the Justice Department, two of the people said.

Betting it's Apple. They're probably eager to get rid of SIM slots.

<comment><USER3> Yep. My guess is Apple and T-Mobile.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Related but the IMEI blacklist is the definition of collusion. It's done serious damage to the used phone market.

Even if an IMEI comes back clean, there's nothing stopping former owner from reporting it as stolen later on and causing the phone to become worthless across all providers in the US.

I'm not pro-theft, but there's no way to be 100% sure a device is going to work and not flag when purchasing used anymore. Apple's method of doing icloud lock was a far more elegant solution to the theft problem.

<comment><USER5> Something very wrong is going on with IMEI blacklist.

We had a brand new phone stop connecting to T-mobile's network (in the US). When we went in to the store, they told us the IMEI was reported as a stolen phone. I brought back my receipt showing it was a new phone when I got it. They said they could not unblock because they didn't put the block in place, a carrier in Mexico did. The phone has never been used outside of the country, to the best of my knowledge. When I called the carrier in Mexico, they told me it was not possible for them to blacklist the IMEI of a device that's never been on their network, and that they had no record of my IMEI.

I ended up returning my phone, at the expense of the manufacturer.

Also, frequently when I sell my old phones on eBay, people love to ask for the IMEI to check the blacklist, but I believe they can also be programmitically swapped (the potential buyer has a blacklisted/stolen phone, and simply asks for a valid one), so I never provide it.

<comment><USER6> Shouldn't this be the retailers problem, I've have kicked up a shit storm for a replacement there and then.

<comment><USER7> It should be your telcos problem if they're refusing to give you service which you paid for because of your IMEI.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Good, screw them both. Had issues with AT&T in the past not liking my unlocked Samsung Note phone. They would not provision it fully and caused my service to suffer.

</comment><comment><USER9> Wow, you mean "the undeniable value we provide, our awesome service and uncompromising commitment to the customer" aren't enough to keep customers around?

</comment><comment><USER10> _In a private meeting of a task force called G.S.M.A. North America this year, AT &T and Verizon pushed for the ability to lock phones to their networks, bypassing the purpose of eSIM technology, said Harold Feld, a senior vice president of Public Knowledge, a nonprofit consumer group, who was briefed on the meeting. Verizon has said it needed to be able to lock down phones to prevent theft and fraud._

To prevent theft and fraud?! They literally have no shame, and I hope the government throws the book at them. Telecoms and ISP's are just the worst of the worst, along with banks, and both need aggressive oversight to stop them from outright robbing us all and calling it "holding your money for safekeeping."

<comment><USER11> Apple's Kill switch actually has dramatically reduced fraud rates.

[https://www.igeeksblog.com/apple-kill-switch-reduced- iphone-...](https://www.igeeksblog.com/apple-kill-switch-reduced-iphone-theft- worldwide/)

Short of Google building something like this, with all the concerns and disputes that would lead to, it seems like the carriers almost certainly need to build something like this for Android phones?

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> >lock a device to their network even if it had eSIM technology.

Why not just buy a new sim card?

<comment><USER13> eSIM devices don't necessarily have a slot.</comment></comment>


Microsoft tackles China piracy with free upgrade to Windows 10 - <AUTHOR> http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/18/us-microsoft-china-idUSKBN0ME06A20150318 <comment><USER2> _" Microsoft tackles China piracy with free upgrade to Windows 10"_

That's some impressive marketing spin there. To me this reads "Microsoft admits defeat to software pirates and gives Windows away for free." They may have some pretty legitimate reasons for wanting people to update to the latest OS, but giving it away for free is a massive shift for the company that lots of people call "M$"

<comment><USER3> There's probably a catch - a built-in app store where MS can earn via commission on applications, a subscription model for future updates or basic features, that kinda thing.

If they did some better marketing (like Google manages to), they could call it 'combating botnets' or something.

<comment><USER4> The app store isn't really a "catch," it's been in Windows since 8.0.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This move makes sense: better to have people running a legitimate copy of your latest OS than a pirated copy of a 15-year-old OS. All the better to try and convert them to paying customers of Microsoft services.

<comment><AUTHOR> Bill himself said in the 90s - "About 3 million computers get sold every year in China, but people don't pay for the software. Someday they will, though. As long as they are going to steal it, we want them to steal ours. They'll get sort of addicted, and then we'll somehow figure out how to collect sometime in the next decade."

<comment><USER6> Interestingly, that quote is from almost 17 years ago and they don't quite seem to have figured out how to "collect" yet.

<comment><USER7> They did very well. When you and everyone around you grow up using Microsoft's OS and office suite and then you start your own business, you will choose to run Windows and MS Office in your company - and since you want it to be a legitimate operation, you will buy the software.

And then there are various ways to pass the bill for your software further - e.g. to the taxpayer, if you're a government organization or a company funded by EU grant (I used to intern at Rutherford Appleton Laboratory; I'm pretty sure Microsoft makes a boatload of money on the licenses for all those thousands of Windows machines that run there).

It's a brilliant strategy. Adobe uses it too (Photoshop is so trivial to crack that it _must_ be intentional).

<comment><USER8> I swear that MS only introduce the online serial code checks etc after the BSA threatened to expel them. Before that you could install Windows and Office as much as you wanted with just a serial code. No check back to a server, or any kind of hoopla over swapped motherboards on already registered copies.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> So, this effectively means that Windows 10 will be free(ware). This also means that Microsoft will have to make up for lost profits. Apple makes money from hardware, Micrsoft made money by selling their OS. Seems they are going the service/Google way as they will also be giving away roms for a Xiaomi phone[1].

[1] [http://www.windowscentral.com/more-details-emerge-how- xiaomi...](http://www.windowscentral.com/more-details-emerge-how-xiaomi- windows-10-preview-will-be-distributed)

<comment><USER10> If they can create an actual Windows App Store (not a mobile, but Windows), they could more than make up the cost in the long run with a 30% cut (thats what everyone is charging for stores these days after all).

Not to mention their Office 365, MSDN, etc lines that are mad profitable.

<comment><USER11> >> thats what everyone is charging for stores these days after all But as soon as Microsoft starts doing it, everyone will bury them in negative reviews and criticism for being evil, greedy and the reason the industry sucks. The "everyone else is doing it" excuse doesn't work for Microsoft, people just want more reasons to hate it.

<comment><USER12> They also tried this with Windows RT.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> As with any MS licensing press release it is necessary to read the fine print: this is only for upgrades, so first you need to install something and then upgrade it, and only upgrades from Windows 7 and up as opposed to the more easily acquired/pirated Windows XP that is prevalent in China.

<comment><USER4> There were a lot of people trying to read the fine print about the free Windows upgrades "for one year," spinning out wild conspiracy theories about how everyone would have to pay a yearly license that turned out to be based on a misreading of some journalist's summary of what Microsoft said. If we're going to read the fine print and look for loopholes, we should wait for something more substantial than a Reuters article.

<comment><USER14> Read on Ars Technica that ZDNet's Ed Bott received confirmation from a Microsoft spokesperson. ZDNet shows a chart.

Ars Technica: [http://arstechnica.com/information- technology/2015/03/window...](http://arstechnica.com/information- technology/2015/03/windows-10-will-be-a-free-upgrade-for-genuine-and-non- genuine-users/)

ZDNet: [http://www.zdnet.com/article/windows-10-to-launch-this- summe...](http://www.zdnet.com/article/windows-10-to-launch-this-summer-with- free-upgrades-for-pirated-copies/)

<comment><USER4> From the ZDNet article you linked:

> The additional detail about free upgrades for "non-genuine" (i.e., pirated) > copies of Windows was a surprise, and it leaves multiple unanswered > questions. Earlier, Microsoft said that consumer PCs running Windows 7 and > Windows 8.1 would be entitled to free upgrades to Windows 10 for the first > year after the product is released. A Microsoft spokesperson confirmed via > email that the plan to allow free upgrades for non-genuine copies of Windows > applies to all markets and is not limited to China.

So it's not limited to China. But there are other "unanswered questions." I think it's prudent to wait for those to be answered, rather than assuming based on early news reports. Windows 10 isn't out until some nebulous summer launch anyway.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Well, if everyone is already using the pirated software in China, making it free means no loss in profit, but an increment in legitimate beta testing. I guess a free early release for China would make much more sense and might result in a higher quality general availability release... or do we also need to wait for Windows 10.1?

</comment><comment><USER15> How would someone prove they are from China? It surely can not be just ip address or language setting based

<comment><USER16> Read the article. They don't care where you're from. If your copy isn't legit, you can upgrade to a legit copy of 10.

>"We are upgrading all qualified PCs, genuine and non-genuine, to Windows 10,"

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> My entreprise has migrated from XP to Win7 last year and is in no hurry to migrate again.

I think the strategy of microsoft is to accelerate the migration of users, even if it is for free in order to stimulate entreprises to migrate earlier and more often.

</comment><comment><USER18> OK everybody, time to pirate Win7!

</comment><comment><USER19> At that point why not make it free for everyone, even the Pro version, charge more for CALs if you wish.

You can more quickly retire older versions if the new one is free too, saves money.

</comment><comment><USER20> Wasn't Vista supposed to have some revolutionary database like file system ?

Will we ever get to see it ?

EDIT: Wasn't being snarky, was just wondering if it's still in the works.

<comment><USER21> Long ago, when it was still called Longhorn, yes. But it ended up being cut.

<comment><USER5> IIRC, it got axed as a separate product but some features from it were carried over into NTFS. Similar to how Courier was killed, but they used what they learned from it to build the Surface platform.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> So it will be free for everybody in summer right ?

</comment><comment><USER23> I guess India will also fits into this strategy</comment>