Hardware startups should consider local manufacturing - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@senic/made-locally-5f495a822d44 <comment><USER5> I'll add one word of caution, I've looked into getting a product made that had a textile component and a separate product that had a leather component.

Precision, automated stitching is either totally absent or completely unaffordable in the US. There are great shops India and China that can do laser cutting and CNC stitching super cheaply and if you want to make an inexpensive product to tight tolerances this is exactly what you want.

Unfortunately much of the consumer level textile industry has completely left the US. Same with leather. You can find boutique manufacturers, luxury manufacturers, and aerospace type companies, but the sweet spot of high quality and a good price just doesn't exist here. (I actually hope I'm wrong about that but I did _a lot_ of searching before abandoning a couple projects.)

<comment><USER6> Read your own comment.

You're basically saying that laser cutting and CNC stitching - <USER3> performed by robots based on files uploaded by computers - are done better in China than here.

That's like someone in China saying that we are better at standing. People on both sides of the ocean probably do just fine at both. ;)

<comment><USER7> > You're basically saying that laser cutting and CNC stitching - <USER3> > performed by robots based on files uploaded by computers - are done better > in China than here.

Not done better. They're not done here _AT ALL_.

That's a big difference.

<comment><USER6> That's a bold claim. Laser cutting and CNC stitching are not done "here" which I guess is outside China, at all, by anyone?

<comment><USER7> In the US, pretty much.

There are boutiques that cater to the very high-end crowd, but they're few and far between.

If you want units of 100's, that just isn't going to happen. It's simple economics--if you want 100K units, you have more than enough incentive to go to China. If you want 100's of units, you're either too small and will go bankrupt or you will change over to China next round because you have the volume. So, you don't get future work, and you tie up one of my machines.

It's very hard to explain to people that the economics of automation dictate that a machine should either be operated nearly 100% or 0%. 100% is the obvious production mode. 0% is the non-obvious one. You want 0% because you need to be ready for when you get the 100% order. The opportunity cost of not getting the 100% order due to lack of capacity, machine needing maintenance, etc. far exceeds the profit you would make on that order for 100 units.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I have backed a half dozen Kickstarters and Indigogos that were hardware based (consumer electronics) and chose to manufacture in China. Seeing the time and money they spend in order to fly someone over to China to troubleshoot and issue with manufacturing or testing has left me wondering - why do small startups choose to manufacture in China to begin with?

> Is it because they assume that despite the initial cost over local > manufacturing the investment will be worth it if their product takes off?

> Is it because everyone else seems to do it?

> Or maybe because there aren't any good local places to have electronics > manufactured? This I would find a little hard to believe given the > concentration of hardware startups in SF, NYC, SEA, which have local > hardware manufacturers.

<comment><USER9> My guess would be that it starts with the assumption that "China is cheaper", and that makes for an easy story to tell to investors "we're making XYZ in China!". The second you say "we're making it in Texas", it opens you up to questions of "isn't that expensive?"

On the face of it, I'm sure the up-front quote from a Chinese manufacturer is cheaper than something in the USA. Where costs skyrocket is when something goes wrong: the parts are wrong, the products aren't ready on time, something was done incorrectly, etc. If you don't have a manufacturer you can trust, one of those will happen, and is almost impossible to diagnose from the US.

Even if all of that works out, there are other things to consider: costs (and time) of shipping. Want it in a week? Well, get ready to pay. Even if you ship it air freight consolidated, it's still not cheap. If you want it on a boat, there's a good chunk of time to think about.

On top of THAT, there are all sorts of fun import tariffs and such to deal with (at least on the US side). Get ready to front money for an import bond, for starters! And there may already be some hidden costs of importing into the US: if you use some TI parts that have to be imported into China, you're going to be paying taxes twice.

A lot of those things are likely not looked at in the low quote from a Chinese manufacturer. They're costs that can/will show up later along the line.

<comment><USER10> > there are all sorts of fun import tariffs and such to deal with (at least on > the US side)

Hopefully some free trade agreements help eliminate blockages like this in the future.

<comment><USER11> As if China had any difficulty in selling their products already. Cutting taxes even more to benefit Apple et al, why?

<comment><USER12> Because Chinese people are still poor and you white saviors are good Samaritans doing God's work lifting us?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> > If you're based in Germany, there is a 7 hour time difference to east Asia, > if you're based in California, it is 16 hours.

No, in California, it's 8 hours (in the other direction). It doesn't make sense to talk about more than 12 hours of time offset except if you really care about aligning the calendar day instead of just the hour of the day.

<comment><USER14> Around weekends, it does matter. E.g., when it's Friday afternoon in California, it's already Saturday in East Asia.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I agree that manufacturing in-house is great for hardware startups. I've seen it work for several. The insight they gain into the details of design, and the speed they can iterate at, more than make up for higher local labor costs.

<comment><AUTHOR> hey, author here. we're thinking about sharing stories about hardware startups that decided for the local manufacturing route including price differences, manufacturing tips, gm contacts, etc. If somebody is interested or wants to get involved, please send me an email: firstname.lastname@example.com

<comment><USER16> I'm not from [http://schiit.com/](http://schiit.com/) but they also went with local manufacturing route and their prices are quite competitive.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> In the NYC area, there's [http://www.refactory.co/](http://www.refactory.co/). I used to work with these guys, and they know their stuff.

They argue in favor of both designing and manufacturing locally. A quote from their blog: "If you kind of just prototype something and bring it to China expecting that then thousands of these things can be made easily without understanding the processes and materiality of manufacturing, that is gonna be a big problem for you. What works is when the design process is iterated alongside the manufacturing process."

</comment><comment><USER18> Those costs in China are too high. I've lived in Shenzhen for under $70 USD / week in a hostel. If you eat out every meal for 100 RMB, you're not even going to be spending $350 a week for meals. While I agree that if you can do it locally, do it locally, but those numbers for the cost of living and travel in China are inaccurate.

<comment><USER19> For context: 100RMB is about $16, so you better really be enjoying those meals you're eating 3 times a day, because wowzers that's upscale.

<comment><USER18> Exactly, and they were suggesting that it would be $200 USD _more_ than that per week!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> What exists to help entrepreneurs find/pair up with manufacturers locally/domestically? Opportunity there?

I work for a US manufacturer (non-tech related), and we frequently get inquiries from folks about making their products. We are primarily focused on producing our own products, but it is nice to fill gaps in production and explore new partnerships. But we don't actively pursue this, and I have no idea how they find us. WOM and random online databases, is my guess.

<comment><USER21> thomasnet.com was decent for finding leads, but we weren't able to find a suitable manufacturer to get past prototype

<comment><USER20> Interesting. I see that our company is listed in there. That's not voluntary on our part, which may result in a lot of unsuccessful leads.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Local manufacturing only works if you're in a place where there's a lot of manufacturing, or your product doesn't really require much manufacturing capability. You many need to be in a place where there's someone down the street with a 20 ton press. If you need a 20 ton press, you need to be in a place where at least three shops have one.

If you're making things which are basically PC boards, manufacturing is not too hard. Making boards and soldering parts onto them has a well developed workflow. There are lots of board houses and board-assembly services. If you design for what a pick and place machine can do easily, things usually go well. Hint: production is surface mount today. This is a pain for people who are used to prototyping with through-hole parts.

Kickstarter-class startups seem to have excessive problems with making cases and panels. Tooling for injection-moulded plastic is difficult and expensive. Once you get it right, the parts just fly out of the machines at a few cents per part. The production process is just getting warmed up on a run of 10,000 parts, and few Kickstarters get there. Basic truth about manufacturing: most of the processes are really cheap if you're making enough items, and far more expensive for short runs.

<comment><USER23> 20 Ton presses are $200:

[http://www.harborfreight.com/20-ton-shop- press-32879.html](http://www.harborfreight.com/20-ton-shop-press-32879.html)

Agreed on the injection moulding, that's expensive (and rightly so). But a simple press is not going to be a showstopper on any budget.

If you're going to do sheetmetal manufacturing there are a ton of companies waiting to get your business just about anywhere up to a reasonable volume. Manufacturing hasn't completely moved out (yet).

Small series, prototypes, even your first batch of some product can usually (definitely not always) be manufactured locally in just about any country.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> On the electronics side we ([https://circuithub.com/](https://circuithub.com/)) have spent a lot of time on automation to bring US manufacturing costs inline with China.

I definitely agree with the premise of the OP, local manufacturing has a lot of benefits.

</comment><comment><USER25> Local manufacturing is the only way to go if you're developing a reasonably complicated product and don't have a team that's super experienced with international manufacturing. I was the technical co-founder of Brightbox (brightboxcharge.com, us founders are no longer affiliated), we were based in NYC and could never have done the prototyping and iteration required if we couldn't clap eyes on hardware constantly.

There's plenty of great manufacturing in the US. Since I'm a software guy, we had one company build us a prototype and handle industrial design (Tomorrow Lab, [http://tomorrow-lab.com/;](http://tomorrow-lab.com/;) Pepin is a friend) and found an integrated mechanical engineering and manufacturing firm just over the river in NJ (Tech Products, techproductsco.com; Bob is an awesome human being) for the final product and first few real runs.

Having an actual partner we could meet with all the time, understand clearly, and iterate with was incredibly valuable for us. Plus obviously there are important technical integrations (I was writing all the software myself while the ME and EE was happening) and multiple suppliers, and if you're in charge of managing a few bespoke engineers who sometimes don't see eye to eye, you'd better be able to work with them all carefully and personally.

</comment><comment><USER26> Totally agree with this. Have a friend who had a successful kickstarter and decided to go with China - he shipped a year late after spending most of his time in Shenzen and going through multiple suppliers. In the interim, they lost the first mover advantage and there are now multiple similar products on the market. If you're not already well established and making a massive amount of something, it's a really bad idea to outsource.

</comment><comment><USER27> If you haven't heard of Schiit, it's a fascinating story of a small company that builds high end and low end headphone amps/dacs, for much less money than competitors. In CA.

One of the two founders wrote an online book about it here:

[http://www.head-fi.org/t/701900/schiit-happened-the-story- of...](http://www.head-fi.org/t/701900/schiit-happened-the-story-of-the- worlds-most-improbable-start-up)

<comment><USER28> There's the minor issue of them not actually testing their designs perform as expected, at least one amp damaging some people's headphones as a result, and them denying the issue existed: [http://nwavguy.blogspot.com/2011/07/banned- at-head-fi.html](http://nwavguy.blogspot.com/2011/07/banned-at-head-fi.html) Though that's not really a problem with manufacturing in the US, it's more of a general audiophile industry problem.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> I know some people that started a company that makes GPS receivers for avionic use (any pilot will likely be able to name them). I heard them explain their rationale for manufacturing in China, and IIRC it wasn't related to cost—in fact, they said that cost was comparable to domestic production. Rather, the main advantage was the ability to source components, such as the Apple- specific connectors they have to use. Of course, there are difficulties inherent to working with a manufacturer that's half a world away (miscommunications, timezones, travel, etc.), but they determined that it was still the best way to manufacture their product.

China especially has manufacturing centers where just about any component can be sourced within a few hours, rather than waiting for parts to be shipped from around the country (if not the world).

China has a huge edge in electronics manufacturing, and it's not because of cost (anymore). If we ever hope to compete, we'll likely need to promote such a domestic manufacturing ecosystem via extra-market means.

</comment><comment><USER30> We ([https://supplybetter.com](https://supplybetter.com)) get asked the China vs. US question all the time and my answer is usually "your mileage may vary". It's a great post by the Flow team, but where to source your manufacturing supply chain is highly dependent on the type of product being built. For instance, the product and vendor certifications required for aerospace, defense, and medical industries are a much larger influencer of where to setup a supply chain than in the consumer hardware space. If you're developing a high-end consumer office product like the Flow team, then it probably makes sense to do the majority of the development domestically. The Bay Area is a great place to prototype hardware, and there's a large fraction of potential beta testers and software talent for them to tap. But like I said, YMMV.

</comment><comment><USER31> As usual, the answers are not simple. At our last hardware startup we ended up manufacturing the mechanical parts (injection moulded case, springs, etc.) in China via our industrial design company but did PCBs, assembly and packaging locally in Poland. We simply didn't have enough prior experience to design a foolproof assembly process (which involved flashing, testing on GSM/GPS repeaters, etc.). We are considering moving the to production to China, but only once we solve any critical hardware bugs, smooth out the wrinkles in the flashing/testing process and reach sufficient quantities. With small orders of 100s of units and unexpected disasters like resistors tombstoning due to small errors in solder paste stencils, a five minute call to the manufacturing plant beats cross-timezone, cross-language and cross-culture debugging every single time.

</comment><comment><USER32> I've been thinking about this just the other day. The context then was locally grown weed in the US and the implications of that for farmers in South America. Wouldn't we be better off distributing the "workload" evenly across the planet?

<comment><USER33> Probably not: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage#Ricardo.2...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage#Ricardo.27s_example)

To take your pot example, there are places where it grows well, and places where it's not so easy to grow. It's better for everyone if it's grown in the easy places, and traded for goods that are more easily produced in the 'not so easy' places.

That's the theory, at least. Naturally, that specific example also has a lot of legal issues surrounding it!

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> As a founder of [https://www.opendesk.cc](https://www.opendesk.cc) I think _all_ startups should consider local manufacturing -- when they're fitting out their work space.

</tenuous plug>

</comment><comment><USER35> I read the story how "Schiit happened" the other day and the last part of chapter 8 also touched this subject: [http://www.head-fi.org/t/701900/schiit- happened-the-story-of...](http://www.head-fi.org/t/701900/schiit-happened-the- story-of-the-worlds-most-improbable-start-up/495#post_10375915)

</comment><comment><USER22> Local manufacturing only works if you're in a place where there's a lot of manufacturing, or your product doesn't really require much manufacturing capability. You many need to be in a place where there's someone down the street with a 20 ton press. If you need a 20 ton press, you need to be in a place where at least three shops have one.

If you're making things which are basically PC boards, manufacturing is not too hard. Making boards and soldering parts onto them has a well developed workflow. There are lots of board houses and board-assembly services. If you design for what a pick and place machine can do easily, things usually go well. Hint: production is surface mount today. This is a pain for people who are used to prototyping with through-hole parts.

Kickstarter-class startups seem to have excessive problems with making cases and panels. Tooling for injection-moulded plastic is difficult and expensive. Once you get it right, the parts just fly out of the machines at a few cents per part. The production process is just getting warmed up on a run of 10,000 parts, and few Kickstarters get there. Basic truth about manufacturing: most of the processes are really cheap if you're making enough items, and far more expensive for short runs.

</comment><comment><USER22> Local manufacturing only works if you're in a place where there's a lot of manufacturing, or your product doesn't really require much manufacturing capability. You many need to be in a place where there's someone down the street with a 20 ton press. If you need a 20 ton press, you need to be in a place where at least three shops have one.

If you're making things which are basically PC boards, manufacturing is not too hard. Making boards and soldering parts onto them has a well developed workflow. There are lots of board houses and board-assembly services. If you design for what a pick and place machine can do easily, things usually go well. Hint: production is surface mount today. This is a pain for people who are used to prototyping with through-hole parts.

Kickstarter-class startups seem to have excessive problems with making cases and panels. Tooling for injection-moulded plastic is difficult and expensive. Once you get it right, the parts just fly out of the machines at a few cents per part. The production process is just getting warmed up on a run of 10,000 parts, and few Kickstarters get there. Basic truth about manufacturing: most of the processes are really cheap if you're making enough items, and far more expensive for short runs.

</comment><comment><USER22> Local manufacturing only works if you're in a place where there's a lot of manufacturing, or your product doesn't really require much manufacturing capability. You many need to be in a place where there's someone down the street with a 20 ton press. If you need a 20 ton press, you need to be in a place where at least three shops have one.

If you're making things which are basically PC boards, manufacturing is not too hard. Making boards and soldering parts onto them has a well developed workflow. There are lots of board houses and board-assembly services. If you design for what a pick and place machine can do easily, things usually go well. Hint: production is surface mount today. This is a pain for people who are used to prototyping with through-hole parts.

Kickstarter-class startups seem to have excessive problems with making cases and panels. Tooling for injection-moulded plastic is difficult and expensive. Once you get it right, the parts just fly out of the machines at a few cents per part. The production process is just getting warmed up on a run of 10,000 parts, and few Kickstarters get there. Basic truth about manufacturing: most of the processes are really cheap if you're making enough items, and far more expensive for short runs.

</comment><comment><USER36> For some it will make sense. Try iterating on your board designs in CA - <USER4> mean like testing your pcb antennas, component swap out etc during development and spend weeks waiting around for you pcbs. Being in shenzhen you can get 1 or 2 day turn around... Even if you don't manufacture there, development is pretty awesome

</comment><comment><USER29> I know some people that started a company that makes GPS receivers for avionic use (any pilot will likely be able to name them). I heard them explain their rationale for manufacturing in China, and IIRC it wasn't related to cost—in fact, they said that cost was comparable to domestic production. Rather, the main advantage was the ability to source components, such as the Apple- specific connectors they have to use. Of course, there are difficulties inherent to working with a manufacturer that's half a world away (miscommunications, timezones, travel, etc.), but they determined that it was still the best way to manufacture their product.

China especially has manufacturing centers where just about any component can be sourced within a few hours, rather than waiting for parts to be shipped from around the country (if not the world).

China has a huge edge in electronics manufacturing, and it's not because of cost (anymore). If we ever hope to compete, we'll likely need to promote such a domestic manufacturing ecosystem via extra-market means.

</comment><comment><USER29> I know some people that started a company that makes GPS receivers for avionic use (any pilot will likely be able to name them). I heard them explain their rationale for manufacturing in China, and IIRC it wasn't related to cost—in fact, they said that cost was comparable to domestic production. Rather, the main advantage was the ability to source components, such as the Apple- specific connectors they have to use. Of course, there are difficulties inherent to working with a manufacturer that's half a world away (miscommunications, timezones, travel, etc.), but they determined that it was still the best way to manufacture their product.

China especially has manufacturing centers where just about any component can be sourced within a few hours, rather than waiting for parts to be shipped from around the country (if not the world).

China has a huge edge in electronics manufacturing, and it's not because of cost (anymore). If we ever hope to compete, we'll likely need to promote such a domestic manufacturing ecosystem via extra-market means.

</comment><comment><USER29> I know some people that started a company that makes GPS receivers for avionic use (any pilot will likely be able to name them). I heard them explain their rationale for manufacturing in China, and IIRC it wasn't related to cost—in fact, they said that cost was comparable to domestic production. Rather, the main advantage was the ability to source components, such as the Apple- specific connectors they have to use. Of course, there are difficulties inherent to working with a manufacturer that's half a world away (miscommunications, timezones, travel, etc.), but they determined that it was still the best way to manufacture their product.

China especially has manufacturing centers where just about any component can be sourced within a few hours, rather than waiting for parts to be shipped from around the country (if not the world).

China has a huge edge in electronics manufacturing, and it's not because of cost (anymore). If we ever hope to compete, we'll likely need to promote such a domestic manufacturing ecosystem via extra-market means.

</comment><comment><USER17> In NYC, there's [http://www.refactory.co/](http://www.refactory.co/). I used to work with these guys, and they're great.

</comment><comment><USER17> In NYC, there's [http://www.refactory.co/](http://www.refactory.co/). I used to work with these guys, and they're great.

</comment><comment><USER17> In NYC, there's [http://www.refactory.co/](http://www.refactory.co/). I used to work with these guys, and they're great.

</comment><comment><USER37> A lot depends on the product you are manufacturing, and the relationship you have with the manufacturer.

Business in China operates via 'Guanxi' [ [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guanxi](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guanxi) ] - which losely translates to a heirachy of: family first, then friends, then people from the same town, then of the same province, then of the same country, and then, the lowly gweilo / white devil.

If you don't have previous contacts or a solid history in China, you fall right to the bottom of the stack - meaning you'll have a bad price, bad negotiation point, low priority in the factory, and ripe for being 'disappointed' with your experience.

Likewise, many people who outsource manufacturing to China hop on alibaba, find a manufacturer with a low per item cost, and think they've cracked East/West trading. Not so. There are many, many hidden gotchyas involved - ranging from child labor, poor conditions, the 'factory' you chose isn't even the manufacturer, to hiden nasties in pricing / shipping, etc.

There is a large misconception that products from China are junk. This is partly true. Some products from China are junk - simply because the Chinese can and will manufacture according to the resale price specified by the buyer - that is to say, you. When you buy a $1 item from WalMart, and you know its price 'should be' $5, you contribute actively to this problem. Want to see a great product made in China? Look at your Apple device.

If you're contemplating doing business or manufacturing in China, there's a few basic things to do to avoid common pitfalls: 1\. Visit your factory. Fly over, arrange meetings with 4 - 5 similar factories, and inspect them all. If something seems suspicious, return unannounced to see the reality. This is really, really important. Meeting clients and relations are very, very important in China. 2\. Understand / learn how Chinese do business. If you don't have local contacts, consider finding a local broker to do the hard work on your behalf, and negotiate Chinese/Chinese (See Guanxi above). Due diligence here is important. 3\. Plan for 12-month development cycles. If you're in a big factory, you're competing with their big clients. Most manufacturers plan in 24-month development cycles, so plan at least in 12 month cycles. This is just common sense. 4\. Factor in shipment prices / shipment terms. Learn the difference between EXW / FOB / etc. These make huge diffrences to your bottom line. Remember for production runs to have shipping insurance / liability insurance. 5\. Don't fall into legal issues: ensure you know what and how your goods are manufactured. Making toys / figurines? Make sure your factory is certified to make them, or be able to live with the consequences. 6\. Be realistic about your MOQ. If you're looking for 5 items, don't look to China - you'll only waste your time and the factory's time.

Like any decision in business, you need to consider what works best for your business.

Source: 30+ years of manufacturing hardware [locks, tools, etc], toys [figurines, plush, etc], and electronics [PCBs, injection moulded cases etc] in China.

<comment><USER38> Good points, and another one worth mentioning: watch out for the case where the single unit or small quantity of sample product you order when evaluating a new supplier turns out to be of much, much better quality than the bulk order you eventually place.

<comment><USER37> Very good point; typically if you inspect the factories and only work with ISO9001 factories, you can ask to see their random selection / testing procedures that are in place. And, as you say, asking to see the policy is one thing, asking to see the records of the last random test they made is another :D

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> Great points - thanks Tobias!</comment>


Android's new permissions: Unappreciated by many, disparaged by few - <AUTHOR> http://www.networkworld.com/article/2363986/opensource-subnet/android-new-permissions-unappreciated-by-many-disparaged-by-few.html

<comment><AUTHOR> Android users worried about the new Android permissions aren't the users this update was intended to help. Android enthusiasts - the minority of the Android ecosystem - know enough to protect themselves against the perceived flaws. The controversy that surrounds this update is clearly an example of what Voltaire referred to when he said "perfect is the enemy of good" two and a half centuries ago.</comment>


Software Foundations by Benjamin Pierce et al. - <AUTHOR> http://www.cis.upenn.edu/~bcpierce/sf/current/index.html <comment><USER2> This is a lovely book. I gathered a group of students to work through this book last year (and even roped in a professor). If you're interested in formal software verification or interactive proof assistants, this is an excellent and approachable introduction.

Another free book, using the Isabelle proof assistant, is [http://concrete- semantics.org/](http://concrete-semantics.org/). It's also very good.

<comment><AUTHOR> It looks very nice. The Little Prover, recently published is also a neat small intro.

I wonder how does Software Foundations compare against other more specialized classics in the field like [1-3].

[1] [https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/principles-model- checking](https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/principles-model-checking)

[2] [http://www.springer.com/fr/book/9783540654100](http://www.springer.com/fr/book/9783540654100)

[3] [https://www.cis.upenn.edu/~bcpierce/tapl/](https://www.cis.upenn.edu/~bcpierce/tapl/)

<comment><USER2> I've worked through TaPL too. I'm not even sure they are comparable :) It's possible to formalize the contents of TaPL in these systems (and, indeed, Pierce has taught it like that). But it's still a very different focus than Software Foundations.

I've not read or worked through the other books (wow they are expensive), but I'm in general not very keen on model checking as an approach. Tools like Alloy or NuSMV can be useful when designing or investigating algorithms, but they always do a bounded search and can't be applied directly to implementations. I personally don't confer that much trustworthyness to systems that appeal to model checking tools for their correctness.

I've seen The Little Prover, but am somewhat wary of it. On the other hand, I enjoyed The Little Schemer very much. I might take a look at it next month.

<comment><USER3> > and can't be applied directly to implementations

There are model checkers that work directly on implementations, like NASA's JPF.

> I personally don't confer that much trustworthyness to systems that appeal > to model checking tools for their correctness.

Given that the going rate for proofs is roughly 1-1.5 days per one line of code, which grows superlinearly with the code size, I think we have no choice...

In any event, pretty much all safety-critical software that human lives depend on (even many, many lives) is verified with model-checking in the best case. Use of proofs in verifying safety-critical systems is very rare, as even those domains can rarely afford it.

Also, remember that no one really needs 100% proof, as no other, non-software component in the system guarantees 100% reliability (not that model-checking can give us probability bounds).

<comment><USER4> 100% certainty in proof doesn't mean that you're aiming to get a 100% proven system. It means that you can stop worrying about the proven part forevermore. So it reduces long term running overhead.

<comment><USER3> If your proven component is so well-isolated from others and doesn't undergo changes (and neither do its assumptions about input), it seems like the same would apply to a model-checked component. Besides, the cost of proofs is well over 1Kx if not 10Kx over model checking, so I don't see how this consideration is important.

Proofs are useful -- because of their total coverage -- when verifying components that will be used in many different projects, like compilers, kernels and libraries, and even then only when they are sufficiently small to be doable within, say, 5-10 years by a dedicated team. A one-time gigantic job will pay for itself by being used (and hopefully paid for) by many customers over many years.

<comment><USER4> I've got no problem with model checkers, though I'm not sure I agree with your effort ratings. Different tools for different jobs, eh?

I think I also have a different conception of proof than you're naming. You don't need to prove your entire program. 10 small proofs strung together can go an enormous distance with low weight.

<comment><USER3> I don't know. The spec I'm working on now is ~1300 lines of TLA+, and that's just the essential core of the thing -- nowhere near the whole program. By comparison, the Raft TLA+ spec is under third of that, yet the Verdi proof[1] is ~50K LOC, took a whole team of _experts_ months of work, and didn't prove liveness.

I have a very small sub-algorithm that I might try proving in TLA+ just to see how it goes.

[1]: I couldn't find the original TLA+ proof online, but the author of the Raft protocol said that he struggled even with partial machine-checked proofs.

<comment><USER4> I don't think this is really surprising. I don't know a ton about distributed systems, but the last time I read up on formalizing them and proving properties it seemed like an incredibly daunting task. There's an exponential blowup problem in that you end up having to follow every state in the state spaces of every actor against every other state over time. I saw some interesting proofs which used topological invariants to keep a hold of that whole complex more delicately... but to actually just dive in and try exhausting it cannot be simple.

<comment><USER3> Well, formalizing them isn't too hard, and model-checking them is quite easy (once you have a good formal spec), but proving them is another matter altogether...

People prove specific algorithms (distributed, concurrent or sequential) with TLA+, but once the spec is of a real system, things get much, much harder to prove.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Certified Programming with Dependent Types (available online as well [http://adam.chlipala.net/cpdt/](http://adam.chlipala.net/cpdt/)) is also a good resource for learning Coq (note: I just started working through the material this weekend).

</comment><comment><USER6> Whatever your views on that stuff... it is fun to play in Coq.

On the other hand, playing with J-Bob, the toy "proof assistant" used in The Little Prover is tedious at best. I'm torn between just giving up with the last two chapters of the book undone.

</comment><comment><USER7> Working through this right now as a directed reading with a professor and a couple of other students. Would definitely recommend this as a follow up to an intro PL course.

</comment><comment><USER8> Can someone familiar with this kind of stuff lay out a few benefits of learning this material for a practicing programmer? I'm quite interested (since I've heard a lot about Coq and Pierce) but since there are so many things to learn, I want to prioritize appropriately.

<comment><USER4> It's hard to say exactly. It will teach you to think of programming in an entirely new way.

Will that make it easier to write good code elsewhere? Almost certainly if you're not familiar with mathematical proof (maybe you took a discrete math course before). If you know what it is to prove then you'll learn an interesting deep connection between programming and proving.

You probably don't want to prove things in your programs. Not really. Even after you learn Coq it's too difficult to do day-to-day.

But proofs do not work without being completely consistent in the same way that good programs are. So you can learn a lot of techniques for good programs from techniques for good proofs. Coq rejects bad proofs, so it can be good practice.

Finally, Coq is unashamedly higher-order. The chops you gain working with it will translate more or less directly to better functional programming comprehension.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Uh, how do you pronounce Coq?

<comment><USER4> As is traditional:

You pronounce it with an understanding of how difficult it must be to speak French and have most of the CS world talk about bit twiddling.

<comment><USER3> :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Looks like the book should have been called 'Playing with Coq' instead.

<comment><USER11> Is there some better resource for learning programs-are-proofs people should be using?

<comment><USER10> In my opinion, many people are curry Howard blind. It's like they found this one correspondence between certain proofs (constructive ones) and programs and are hell-bend on using it. Personally I like not to confuse the two things. Proofs are proofs, programs are programs, programs can generate proofs, proofs can verify programs. And proofs are classical.

<comment><USER12> Identifying proofs with programs undeniably gives a beautiful economy of concepts, best experienced among mature tools maybe in Agda.

But there is a price to be paid, and that's the restriction to constructive logic. If you need classical logic, use an LCF-style prover like Isabelle/HOL.

<comment><USER3> > But there is a price to be paid, and that's the restriction to constructive > logic.

That's the price on the proof side. The price on the program side is the need to encode complexity in the types because C-H is about abstract programs, not computations.

Otherwise, the existence of a computation is entirely ignored except where it may break the logic's consistency in the case of non-termination, but from the computation's perspective, a long computation and a non-terminating one are the same. The result is that you can "prove" the correctness of programs that are effectively non-computable, i.e. programs that don't encode effective computations (by effective computation I mean one that terminates before the end of the universe, but it could be exchanged with more practical definitions).</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Judge gives Sony access to PS3 hacker's PayPal records - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2011/03/judge-gives-sony-access-to-ps3-hackers-paypal-records.ars

<comment><USER2> I find it odd that Sony is allowed to infringe on the privacy rights of thousands of innocent people all to help them prove something that it is their duty to do in the first place. None of these individuals are even being notified that this is even happening, so even if they would spend the effort and money to fight it they have no chance to.

Frankly, this issue really shows how bizarre our adversarial system is. Sony must establish jurisdiction to the court, but they cannot. The court then orders unrelated service providers to disclose information about further unrelated persons to Sony. Sony then takes that information and uses it to try and prove what they are required to to the court (and also get the added value of learning the identities of a lot of consumers they presumably hate).

If Sony is allowed to make the court do its work for them, why do they even get to have the information disclosed to them? The court is the one that is going to decide on the evidence anyways, so why don't they (or a third-party appointed by the court) just look at it and decide?

I'm also reminded of cases where people have tried to request the source code of devices (voting machines and radar guns) to audit them. They could not even get it supplied to an independent third-party because of corporate privacy.

<comment><USER3> "I find it odd that Sony is allowed to infringe on the privacy rights of thousands of innocent people all to help them prove something that it is their duty to do in the first place."

Eh, yes, that's how discovery works - in (hundreds of?) thousands of court cases every year. Otherwise how can one party prove its claim against someone else? Enforcing your rights would become a magnitude harder if one would have to rely on information from outside sources alone.

<comment><USER4> I'm sure you're right. Shouldn't Paypal just be able to give a yes or no answer to the question of if any donations came from California, without turning over all the records to Sony? If the jurisdiction is really what is at stake here.

But... I am no lawyer, so there must be issues I don't understand here.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> > The information sought is part of a jurisdictional argument over whether > Sony must sue Hotz in his home state of New Jersey rather than in San > Francisco, where Sony would prefer.

He also accepted funds from France (hello!), but somehow I doubt they'd try him here. Is Sony actually allowed to do this? (This is not -completely- a troll, I don't know US law and I'd be interested to know.)

<comment><USER6> The issue is a due process one under the U.S. Constitution. The law does not deem it fair to sue someone in a remote jurisdiction with which the defendant has no connection and, if a defendant is improperly sued in such a place, he can have the case dismissed on the technical ground that the court has no legitimate authority over him to be able to act on the case. If a court hears such a challenge, and grants it, it will dismiss the case "without prejudice" to its being refiled in a proper jurisdiction. In other words, such a dismissal does not determine the merits of the case but only whether it has been brought in a proper court.

The constitutional analysis on this issue turns on whether a person has what are called "minimum contacts" with a given state such that the law deems it fair and reasonable to require that person to have to appear to defend an action there (there is an alternative specialty form of jurisdiction called "in rem" jurisdiction that deals with property but the foregoing pertains to the all-encompassing area of "jurisdiction over the person" or "personal jurisdiction"). To establish proper jurisdiction in a given state, the party suing must show that a person being sued is either _generally_ "present" in that state (i.e., lives there or, if an entity, is domiciled there or conducts regular business there) or, alternatively, that such person had sufficient contacts with that state concerning the transaction over which he is being sued so as to make it fair to sue him there with respect to that transaction only. If either general jurisdiction (the first type) or limited jurisdiction (the second) is shown, then someone can be sued in a given state. Of course, as an individual, if you are sued under general jurisdiction, that means you are being sued where you live. However, if you are sued under a theory of limited jurisdiction, you can be sued in a place that is remote from where you live (a "remote forum," in legal parlance) provided only that the court deems it fair under a minimum-contacts analysis. Once jurisdiction is determined to be proper, a defendant sued in a distant forum can still attempt to get the case transferred to a place that is more convenient for him to defend in and that analysis then invokes a separate legal doctrine called "forum non conveniens" by which a court further assesses whether, among the range of forums over which a case might technically be brought, which is the most convenient and appropriate one given practical factors such as where most of the activity in dispute occurred, where people live, and the like.

So, from a fairness standpoint, anyone sued in a distant forum can fight on two fronts, jurisdiction and forum convenience. He makes what is called a "limited appearance" to challenge jurisdiction without agreeing to submit himself to the jurisdiction of the court for purposes of making that challenge. If he wins, the court dismisses the case while allowing the party to refile in a proper forum; if he loses, then the court has jurisdiction unless he can change the result through an emergency appeal. Once jurisdiction is so established, then any action of the court is binding on the defendant and any judgment entered can be enforced against him in that jurisdiction or in any other state in the U.S. (which will give "full faith and credit" to the judgment under prevailing U.S. law).

If you are sued in a remote forum, and you do not "specially appear" to challenge jurisdiction once you are served with the summons and complaint, then the party will take a default judgment against you. When the party comes to your state to ask a court to enforce the judgment against you, you can seek to set that judgment aside even at that stage on grounds that the original court lacked proper jurisdiction over your person and so was constitutionally incompetent to enter that judgment. If you win on such an argument, the judgment is unenforceable and void; if you lose, of course, then the judgment is enforced against you and, since you defaulted in the original action, you have no defense to it unless you can return to the originating jurisdiction and seek to set it aside on whatever grounds they permit for setting aside a default judgment. Since it is usually very difficult to set aside default judgments, it normally behooves a party who has been sued in a remote forum to hire counsel to challenge the jurisdiction right up front via a "special appearance" rather than letting a judgment go by default in hopes of challenging it later at the enforcement stage in your local jurisdiction.

All that said, what is happening in the _Sony_ case is that the individual defendant appeared specially to say that the federal court in the Northern District of California (i.e., San Francisco) lacks jurisdiction over his person under minimum-contacts analysis and should therefore dismiss Sony's case without prejudice to its being refiled in the place in which he lives. Sony is arguing that sufficient minimum contacts do exist with the San Francisco forum such as to make it fair and reasonable to require the defendant to appear to defend the case there.

Once the issue is so joined, a federal court will normally allow a party such as Sony to conduct limited discovery tailored to determining facts relevant to the jurisdictional question only. Since the main issue concerning jurisdiction concerning what "contacts" the defendant had with the San Francisco forum relating to the underlying actions over which he is being sued, it becomes technically relevant for the suing party to attempt to find all such contacts. That would be the legal basis upon which the court is permitting this sort of subpoena to be enforced.

Why San Francisco? I assume this is less for the purpose of harassing the defendant as such than it is for that of having the case heard in a forum in which the judges are likely far more knowledgeable about Silicon Valley-style legal issues than they might be elsewhere.

This sort of high-profile fight, by the way, is wildly expensive to conduct and, I assume, the defendant is only able to do so because of donations from others or because of volunteer efforts by organizations who specialize in defending the rights here being attacked.

I hope this helps explain the relevant legal issues (sorry for the length but I clerked for a federal judge in the Northern District of California many years back and it fell to the sorry lot of the law clerks to research these exact issues many times over during one's stint with the court).

<comment><USER7> This is an absolutely wonderful summary of jurisdictional issues facing courts in the United States. I really wish you had taught my civil procedure course!

What's interesting about the original question, which pertains to standing in French courts, is that there's an on-point case involving the inverse of that. Yahoo! Inc. v. La Ligue Contre le Racisme et l'Antisemitisme (LICRA) establishes the competence of French courts to hear internet cases. Of particular interest is that Sony, which presumably has offices in France, could use the US Marshals to serve the defendant in the United States, pursuant to the Hague Service Convention. I imagine that any potential benefit Sony would get from doing this would be outweighed by the costs of litigation, and the risk of having the judgment unenforceable in the United States, though.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I don't think this case is getting enough attention outside of places like HN and Ars. The way this man's rights are being stripped bare is a very impressive display of fascism that needs to be seen in a public light.

<comment><USER9> Discovery is a phase that's always been there in the court system. What I don't get is that the judge is allowing them to go on a fishing expedition to prove that they can sue him in that jurisdiction. I mean right now, they haven't even proven that they can sue him in this court. If they can't prove that on their own, then why are they allowed to waste the court's time spending months (years?) searching for some proof that probably won't turn up?

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I'd like to hear a lawyer's perspective on how the modern legal climate would have applied to historical events, especially Compaq's reverse engineering of the IBM PC BIOS which enabled them to create PC clones.

<comment><USER7> I'm not an attorney yet (another year), but I can give you a little more insight to that question, specifically. Absent a patent on the technology, reverse engineering is a completely acceptable way to learn the underlying facts and algorithms used in a technology. This was particularly evidenced in Sony Computer Entertainment Inc. v. Connectix ([http://web.archive.org/web/20070228070634/http://www.ca9.usc...](http://web.archive.org/web/20070228070634/http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0/66b3a352ea33712988256952007578c2?OpenDocument)), where Connectix created an emulator and Sony sued, alleging that the BIOS had been transiently copied (thus violating copyright law) in order for Connectix to emulate Sony's systems.

The key to this case was that Connectix had exhausted all other methods before resorting to reverse engineering; Connectix contended that direct disassembly was necessary, because they had no other way to learn the non-copyrightable facts and algorithms.

The holding in the case was that Sony's copyrighted material did not deserve as much protection, because it contained unprotected aspects that could not be examined without copying. This is why Sony's BIOS was accorded a lower degree of protection than more traditional literary/musical/creative works.

Keep in mind, Connectix was a 1999 case. DMCA implemented two 1996 WIPO treaties, and became effective in 1998. I've read through nearly all of the DMCA, and everything in the opinion comports with the sections of the US Code that the DMCA amended. This is probably the best case that illustrates reverse engineering.

<comment><USER11> Another critical reverse-engineering case was Sega v. Accolade, 1992: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sega_v._Accolade>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I feel more and more that Stallman has a point. Everything that's in the cloud is there for the taking. Not to sound like a luddite but if he'd have cashed checks instead of paypal or hosted his own website this wouldn't be possible, right?

I remember Rob Gonggrijp's comment when his Twitter logs were subpoena'd: "This is why people run their own mail servers".

<comment><USER13> Every monetary trading system creates an audit trail. If the ruling is given to give access to an email account, the place of hosting is irrelevant. Unless you were to delete your mail server, which would probably only incriminate you further.

<comment><USER14> The place of hosting is very important if its not in the same jurisdiction as the court

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Does people only get the data who donated, or also how much?In the latter case, Sony now has a strategic asymmetric advantage: it can estimate how much money Geohot has for his defense, and then drag out the process so long until he has no money left.

I'm very surprised the Judge sided with Sony on this one.

</comment><comment><USER16> I wish Sony would use these legal costs to hire some decent designers.</comment>


Ask HN: Do you use any service to generate ToS and Privacy for your product? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> We used [https://www.avodocs.com](https://www.avodocs.com)

There's also [https://www.iubenda.com/en/](https://www.iubenda.com/en/) (You can find a discount here: [https://tr.im/startup_discounts](https://tr.im/startup_discounts)).</comment>


Ask HN: How to convince my company to avoid dark patterns? - <AUTHOR> I'm a co-founder of a small bootstrapped company. I also created an open source A/B testing framework[0] that we use to run A/B tests at my company. It helps us answer certain hypotheses and improve the user experience, as well as conversion.
Lately we've ran an experiment that felt to me like it crossed the line into dark pattern territory. It offered bonus eBooks for those who purchase within 24 hours on the pricing and checkout pages. With a ticking clock to build urgency... textbook example of a dark pattern?[1]
Despite being a co-founder and leading A/B testing at my company, I'm not the only one calling the shots, and others were keen on running this experiment. In their mind it was simply a nice gift that we offer to customers. They couldn't see the potential harm.
Luckily(?) this experiment didn't fare that well, so we're in the clear. For now. I'm wondering how to make them see the dangers and temptation with dark patterns, especially if they increase conversions. Any thoughts / advice?
[0] https://github.com/Alephbet/Alephbet
[1] https://webtransparency.cs.princeton.edu/dark-patterns/ <comment><USER2> Only as a side note, and of course IMHO, A/B testing may not necessarily - even if sometimes it happens - end up with actually improving user experience.

What it does - once a result is chosen - is to "shift" user experience towards what an unqualified numerical majority likes more (which not always is the same as better), and while the experiment is running it risks to irk a lot of users.

To the scope of making the _whatever_ more popular. it is of course appropriate, but it shouldn't be called "better" or "improvement" unless it is actually better or it really is an improvement.

About the specific on dark patterns, you must I believe, re-consider your (or your firm's) approach, as you say "luckily " it didn't work this time, but that doesn't mean that the next dark pattern will not work, possibly surprisingly well.

Dark patterns exist exactly because they are successful (in sheer numbers of subscriptions, conversions, etc.), even if often only on the short or very short term.

We cannot deny this.

Many companies use dark patterns and are successful until they cross an invisible line that - all of a sudden - makes their customers angry at them.

In a perfect world customers at the very first fraction of a hint that maybe a dark pattern is used should get angry and leave.

But this is not what happens in real life, they come and stay until they don't.

So you won't be able to convince anyone that dark patterns are "bad" (as in the short term they do work) if not by scaring them about the possible long term effects or by making ethical considerations (historically things like a company motto "Don't do evil" didn't work all that well)</comment>


Ask HN: What are 'means of production' in IT companies? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> IP, existing codebases, hardware and software to develop on, hardware and software to host on, the organizational capacity to support development efforts, market the fruits of those efforts, and provide support to the purchasers.

<comment><USER3> Your brain is the main one. And then things like listed by gshdg.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Nothing, it's not a capex-heavy business.</comment>


In Fatberg Fight, NYC Goes to War Against Flushable Wipes - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-03-15/what-s-a-fatberg-nyc-goes-to-war-against-flushable-toilet-wipes <comment><USER2> Given the issue is caused by a difference in standards, of which none of the 'flushable' wipes really pass, it seems the obvious solution would be to:

A: Ban all existing 'flushable' wipes and force a recall on those in shops, since they clearly don't work as intended.

B: Set out government regulations for what counts as flushable based on how the water system actually works rather than how the companies are currently testing.

If they're not truly flushable, then they shouldn't be legal to sell as such, period.

<comment><USER3> Harder since it involves changing people's behavior, but even more effective: bring back bidets. Better cleaning, and reduce waste.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I've read about these problems many times, and the official response always seems to be to encourage people not to flush them. I've not seen any numbers, but as these articles continue it hasn't yet fixed the problem.

There also doesn't seem to been an increase in the number of available bins in toilets, certainly in fatberg affected London. Perhaps a campaign for more bins in public spaces (including offices) would be a start.

Judging by comments from people who use them they'd be resistant to going back to dry wiping. Another option would be a campaign to install bidets like in Japan or hand water jets like Finland to provide better cleaning without the wipes.

<comment><USER5>
      Another option would be a campaign to install bidets

That would be nice. I hate having to use public restrooms due to lack of bidet.

<comment><USER6> Grab paper towels before going in, wet them with the faucet and boom. You have wet wipes. Just try to tear the paper towels in half before using them and you should be fine.

<comment><USER7> Paper towels aren't any better than "flushable" wipes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Bidets are a thing -

[https://smile.amazon.com/gp/product/B00A0RHSJO/](https://smile.amazon.com/gp/product/B00A0RHSJO/)

<comment><USER9> I've never understood a hygiene factor of bidets, do you basically wipe your fecal matter with your hands + water? At my office I notice a lot of people don't even wash their hands after they used a toilet, I can't imagine how bad for other's in the office it would be if we had bidets - if they cleaned their butt with their hands instead of a toilet paper and then go to kitchen... We share kitchen afterall with these people...Maybe I don't understand how bidets work?

<comment><USER10> You don't understand how they work. The bidet does the initial and most of the cleaning, then you finish off/dry yourself with toilet paper. You use way less paper though and feel way cleaner.

<comment><USER11> It's... interesting to read this. What I usually do is that I clean my butt with toilet paper until it comes out white, I throw that paper in the toilet, then I wash my butt with soap and water, then I dry it with a towel. I wonder if I'm the weird one?

<comment><USER3> I hate to tell you this, I think you are. Most people stop after the toilet paper.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I don't get the use of wipes. I have no trouble cleaning myself with regular toilet paper, which is designed to quickly disintegrate when wet. I don't understand what problem these are solving. If your stool is so soft/sticky that large amounts remain after you've used the toilet, requiring a pre- moistened cleaning towel to remove, you might want to look into changing your diet.

<comment><USER13> Clean is a relative term. The reasoning is the same that you use to justify washing your hands with a mixture of soap and water, wipes allow you to use this same process to remove the fecal matter from your backside. If you missed while wiping with some single ply at a rest stop, would you clean your hand with only a dry towel? No, you would use soap and water. Even though you can't see large gobs of fecal matter it is still there. You try to make a strange point, the fact that some people don't use water to clean after is generally something that is reluctantly accepted, it is unusual to for someone argue that wiping without soap/water is just fine and to be preferred.

<comment><USER14> There's the minor difference of what I do with my nether regions versus what I do with my hands.

<comment><USER13> Out of sight out of mind I guess.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> These should better be referred to as "so-called 'flushable' wipes". I'm not sure you could really get a FTC action to prevent the word "flushable" being used my the manufacturer (after all, technically you trv _can_ flush lego or an M-80 down the toilet) but it's really terrible that they continue to print that phrase on the box.

<comment><USER16> Lots of things are technically edible but can't be sold as such, I don't see why this would be any different.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Instead of wipes, I take a small bunch of tp and just wet it from the faucet before going into the stall. Not as problematic as the wipe, flushable, and cleans better than the dry tp by itself.

<comment><USER5> Doesn't work in public restrooms where they used the cheapest possible tp.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> I'm on a sceptic system so I'm highly incentivized to not flush anything problematic… it will be mine to deal with.

But I am still amazed at all the work the water reclamation plants do, to somehow deal with all that is thrown at them through the pipes.

{{ Insert joke about piping to /dev/null }}

</comment><comment><USER19> This wouldn't be a problem in much of Asia.

People are used to throwing their toilet paper (and wipes) in trash bins rather than flushing them down the toilets along with excreta.

<comment><USER20> That's disgusting. I don't want to have a bin full of shit stains next to my toilet.

<comment><USER21> This is common in Africa and the Middle East, too. The plumbing systems weren't built with paper waste in mind. You don't throw "shit stains" in the bin, you use a hose or bidet to wash, then dry with paper, and throw the paper in the bin.

Pretty straightforward, and not disgusting.

<comment><USER20> Why would you dry with paper, when you can just use a cloth towel?

<comment><USER22> In a shared or public restroom? Eew.

<comment><USER20> Ah! I was thinking of being home.

I don't care about public restrooms, I can take a shit in the middle of the bathroom if I want to.

<comment><USER23> > _" I can take a shit in the middle of the bathroom if I want to."_

That would be exceedingly inconsiderate, possibly criminal.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I don't understand why the don't just put big shredders at the inputs to the treatment plants (and maybe along the main pipes). Shred everything to small bits, and then the heavy stuff sinks and light stuff floats, and then you can skim the top and bottom to get it out.

<comment><USER25> The whole problem is they make massive blobs ("fatbergs") in the pipes and thus never get anywhere NEAR the plants.

<comment><USER24> The article starts off with a story of a man who clears large debris from an intake filter at the processing plant. I was suggesting replacing him with a shredder.

Also, that's why I suggested shredders in the pipes, for the same reason.

<comment><USER26> EBMUD in the Bay Area offers free tours of their water treatment plant in Emeryville. Very cool if you are interested in infrastructure and don't mind some bad smells. :)

[https://www.ebmud.com/wastewater/collection- treatment/wastew...](https://www.ebmud.com/wastewater/collection- treatment/wastewater-treatment-plant-tours/)

<comment><USER24> Maybe I will! I actually toured a treatment plant in LA when I was in elementary school, but I could probably ask better questions now. :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Why don't they have the same problem in Germany where the use of wipes is extremely common?

</comment><comment><USER27>
       After Washington, D.C., enacted a law in 2017 to prevent manufacturers from labeling wet wipes as flushable, Kimberly-Clark turned around and sued D.C.'s mayor and attorney general. It contended the measure would violate the company's right to free speech.

Good Lord. I'm hoping there's some more subtlety to that. At first blush it's hard to see the difference between claiming you're flushable and claiming your pills cure cancer.

</comment><comment><USER28> From the article:

> London has infamously suffered the largest fatberg specimens, one about 15 > semi-trucks long, mostly made up of cooking grease and now partly exhibited > in a museum. New York City has largely avoided the monstrosities by removing > unwanted items before they enter the plant [..]

Isn't the problem the blockage in the sewers to the treatment plant itself?

<comment><USER29> The problem can be anywhere downstream of the can. After a vacation, I pulled 12 out of a cleanout T in my yard from a house-sitter we won't be using again...

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> Fatberg will be the word of 2019. I first heard of it earlier this year about something in the UK and now it's everywhere.

<comment><USER31> These articles have been coming out for a while: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatberg](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatberg)

It was added to OxfordDictionaries.com in 2015.</comment></comment>


Humble Indie Bundle back with Humble Frozen Synapse Bundle - <AUTHOR> http://www.humblebundle.com/?unique

<comment><USER2> I like the new twist where you only get the extra games if you beat the average. It's always pained me a little bit to see how low the averages have been on these things for some quality games. I understand that the participants in these bundles are willing to accept those prices or they wouldn't do this so it's not as if they're unfair or anything, but I'd hope that people would have given better value judgments. I hope this new twist helps!

<comment><USER3> I have bought all humble indie bundles so far. I was always paying below average.

I didn't have time to play any of the games though so I have probably not exploited anyone's hard work (yet).

<comment><USER2> May I ask why you were paying below average? The average has always been what I would call "ridiculously low" and, except for some form of financial hardship, I don't understand what good reason there is for not ponying up a more respectable amount.

<comment><USER3> This will probably offend some people but I grew up in a culture of not paying for information. Piracy was for long time the only way to obtain interesting software in my country.

If I'm hitting some paywall while searching for something crucial for me I always go extra mile to find the thing I need (or equivalent) without paying.

I sometimes pay when acquiring software but I don't view it as paying for but rather as voluntarily supporting a cause.

That's the case with Humble Indie Bundle. I think the idea of "pay what you want" is worth the support.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Don't forget that the Humble Bundle guys are also backed by a $4.7 million venture capital investment by Sequoia: [http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/34255/Humble_Bundle_Backe...](http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/34255/Humble_Bundle_Backed_By_47_Million_In_Venture_Capital.php)

Puts an interesting spin on the whole situation. The sliders are set to give the organizers 15% of the gross, and they claim that when all is said and done, that's approximately the rate that they actually get.

How many more bundles until Sequoia turns a profit? What's been the total gross so far?

Anyway, an interesting business / promotional model.

<comment><USER5> I assume (with zero inside knowledge) that the Humble Bundle guys have big(ger) things planned in the future - otherwise what's the point of taking that much funding in the first place?

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I don't know. The bundle with Machinarium and Auditorium - that was truly awesome with original games that were one of a kind. but this one... it is a bundle of, essentially, the same run-and-shoot game. Maybe it's me getting old, but this is just not interesting.

<comment><USER7> Frozen Synapse is not a run and shoot game. Instead it is a turn based tactics game.

<comment><USER8> Description of Frozen Synapse reminds me of RoboSport, glad to see games like this are still being created.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Don't get the negative vibes here (complaining about the number of games included, for example).

I watched the trailers and videos for that game [1] and _wow_, this will be the 3rd? 4th? (got every one so far, I guess) bundle I'll purchase. It's quite on topic as well, in my opinion: The idea is so frikkin' simple. Well executed (didn't play yet, but the videos and reviews so far are promising), this is a well played "launch". I'm impressed.

1: <http://www.frozensynapse.com/media.html>

</comment><comment><USER10> Not really a "bundle" when you just have one game. I hope that the Humble Bundle people don't make a habit of this, the inconsistency will diminish their brand significantly imo.

<comment><USER11> I am a little annoyed with how Mode7 is handling this. I bought it for full price a while ago (because everyone said it worked great in Wine, and it does). Still no linux download for their previous customers!

They should have

1) quietly released the linux build to their customers so that we could find bugs (and I am hearing there are a lot of bugs, good luck getting it to run on nvidia)

2) waited three months (while polishing the linux build) and been the big title for the next "real" bundle

<comment><USER12> I don't know Mode7, but as an indie-developer myself I can tell that you that if HIB knocked on my door I wouldn't tell them to wait 3 months.

I am not sure you realize how much of a king-maker/lottery HIB is.

For one developer I personally know whose game was on one of the previous bundles, it single-handedly brought him from losing with little to no chance of ever recouping costs to paying for more than a year of salaries for the 3 people involved thereby financing their next game.

That's mostly due to the money HIB brought in directly but also due to bringing a lot publicity that helped them after the bundle was over.

It's basically the indie-games equivalent of a brand new unfunded startup getting a phone call from PG asking if they want to join the next YC, starting in 1 week - you don't say no to an opportunity like that.

<comment><USER11> I seriously doubt the "one game bundle" was HIB's idea. (Or rather, I really hope it was not. Does not bode well for the future.)

And I know exactly how profitable the Bundles have been. This de-values the bundle.

Here are the options:

1) Do a one-man-show today, with just you. This is what Mode7 is doing. (The included Frozen Byte stuff does not count, it is a rehash of the worst selling HIB. Desperate!)

2) Wait for the real HIB in December-ish and release with 4 other games.

How does being part of a bigger bundle hurt you? This is not like "join the next YC, starting in 1 week", this is like "you have not have coffee or a shower and are still in your PJs, but get down to the board room and pitch right now". YC's value is that it is a group event, with lots of startups. HIBs value is that it is a group event with lots of games. This is not a group event. It is one game, with a desperate attempt to recoup more from the least popular past HIB.

<comment><USER12>
        I seriously doubt the "one game bundle" was HIB's idea.

Whose idea do you think it was? Mode7 is hardly in a position to dictate HIB how to do their bundles, if they're not interested there is a long list of other developers waiting to replace them.

I seriously doubt this __wasn't __HIB's idea.

        2) Wait for the real HIB in December-ish and
        release with 4 other games.

And get 1/7 of $x million instead of 1/3. It was a gamble but looking at how much money it has brought in after scarcely a day - seems pretty much the same as the average of the other bundles.

Whether or not it's a good idea for HIB is a good question (I don't know the answer but I can see both pros and cons).

But Mode7 are making out like bandits and would have been fools to turn this offer down.

<comment><USER11> I find it much more likely that Mode7 said "Hey HIB, we just finished a linux port yesterday. Can we be in your next Bundle?"

HIB has been approached by developers before. There is quick profit and massive exposure in the HIB. Case in point, the devs who have asked to be in the bundle for free, just for the exposure.

HIB might have had to ask devs and make offers in the early few, but not now.

Regardless, let's not get distracted from the central point: Frozen Synapse is a great game :-)

(Still no linux client for their previous customers though.)

<comment><USER11> Thinking about it more, this may have well been HIB's idea, if only because it is so different and they are very curious/experimentive people.

If this bundle works out well, I could see them trying to float an entirely new business model. Something similar to Woot, with a new game every two weeks. Not sure if this is good or bad. It would certainly be hard on my wallet.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> For those who haven't played Frozen Synapse yet, to me it feels like 21st century chess.

</comment><comment><USER14> I understand having too many games and having to cut some out.

I don't understand having too little games. There's dozens of indies who would love to have their game in one of these bundles.

</comment><comment><USER15> They really shouldn't release these bundles that often. Last bundle had some really great games. And they included an earlier bundle. It was around 10 games. For this one all you get is Frozen Synapse. Personally, I was never really interested in that game. Maybe if they released a proper bundle with a lot of variety, I'd be willing to put down some money. I only played 3 or so games from the last bundle even though I had access to 10. I wasn't interested in the other 7.

</comment><comment><USER16> Ha Linux customers (including myself) pay twice the amount as Windows customers!

To the people complaining here - seriously? Are we so used to just torrenting everything that you can't throw a few bucks at this? The average purchase to get all of the games is currently $4.53.

</comment><comment><USER17> Not a big Frozen Synapse fan here but I like donating to the EFF through these things. Since they have Amazon payments it is dead simple and it helps me expand my Steam library. In the past they have added more games later in the offer, hopefully the trend continues.

</comment><comment><USER18> I play games, I buy games.

I looked at this Web site and didn't have a _clue_ what it was all about.

Either I'm irredemably dim, or their front page could do with some work.

<comment><USER19> Try reading the text. I mean, the tagline is: "pay what you want ... get games" and this is repeated like everywhere.</comment></comment>


Feds Approve $44K Doctor Reimbursement for Using Drchrono (YC W11) iPad App - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2011/07/28/feds-approve-44k-doctor-reimbursement-for-using-drchrono%E2%80%99s-ipad-app/ <comment><USER2> I showed this to a friend who has created software for the medical industry and has close ties with/knowledge of the industry. He allowed me to copy his thoughts here, with some very minor edits for privacy:

Regarding Drchrono app:

> a) [...] compared to PAPER it's pretty good! but its not built with speed in > mind, iits built to tackle other things like billing, and assumes a more > traditional practice. it aint gonna make you more $$ in an office as it does > nothing to speed up the workflow and allow a doc to cut staff, which is THE > overhead in a practice.

> b) that 44k comes with a lot of strings. main one is that you have to have > 30% medicaid patients. that alone can bankrupt a practice, as medicaid pays > a fraction of what insurance/medicare pays for visits. an efficient > practice, for example, would look at the 44k and say 'f that'.

> other strings is what [some doctors] refers to as the 'thought police ' - > you have to regularly submit reports on your patient stats to the gov't. not > nec.a bad thing, but few doctors want some beauracrat to be eyeballing their > stats without knowing anything about the actual patients. i'm not sure how > the data will be used... i generally dont think "outcome based" compensation > is a great way to pay either bc its hard to quantify health and management > of chronic stuff etc.

And opinion on medicine more generally:

> medicine has been, and ought to be, a relationship business - which defies a > lot of efforts to quantify it. a lean practice [with] deep personal > relationships with patients (as opposed to a clinic style 35 patients/day > practice, which is mayhem and prone to problems) ought to be what ppl strive > towards. thats not the trend... trend is towards big groups bc individual > docs are dumb and cant run their practices well.

> anyway, its' a long discussion... :-) not clear what the next 10 years will > bring. hunch is we'll be big losers when primary care is mostly atrophied > and big groups with salaried docs are common. remember how much innovation > comes from large entities. [a certain private practice he knows of] is 10 > years ahead of anyones bc [it is] lean and innovative.

</comment><comment><USER3> Nice going, guys. As a med student, this sort of stuff really excites me. It seems like the government is willing to incentivize the adoption of electronic mobile technologies in clinical practice.

To all who are making quips about the $44k incentive: the amount of money that is spent on resolving logistical, administrative, and medical errors because of disorganized, incomplete health records, yearly, is astronomical. Doctors are often very technologically stubborn and those who run their own practices will usually opt for implementing whatever traditional, paper-based system they're accustomed to as they have concerns that lie elsewhere. $44k (or less) in government incentives could prove to be an amazingly cost-effective investment if adoption of these technologies can truly reduce the risk of error.

I've been eager to play around with Dr. Chrono, but I'm not practicing yet, so is there a demo I can play with? I suppose I could just sign up for a free account.

<comment><USER4> Unfortunately most institutions choose to simply automate their bad processes. The studies that were originally done to justify this incentive were based on hospitals such as Mayo that are simply better hospitals. Their use of electronic systems is not the reason why they are better.

<comment><USER4> One relevant study:

[http://www.ajmc.com/publications/supplement/2010/AJMC_10dec_...](http://www.ajmc.com/publications/supplement/2010/AJMC_10dec_HIT/AJMC_10decHIT_Jones_SP64to71)

<comment><USER4> Another:

<http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/short/170/17/1578>

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> At this point it's downright comical. It seems like a significant percentage of startups these days go to market on a design that is directly copied from Shopify.com

pricing page:

<http://www.shopify.com/signup> <https://drchrono.com/pricing/>

Or worse, look at that little badge in the top right and compare it to the one at www.shopify.com frontpage.

<comment><USER6> That style substantially pre-dates Shopify. It's a fairly inevitable consequence of the tools available and A/B testing. Everyone is working from the same basic starting point and testing everything for conversion. Convergent evolution is remarkably powerful when you can iterate quickly. Whether people work it out for themselves or just copy it wholesale, that layout is used for a reason - because it drives conversion.

<comment><USER7> Copying the layout is one thing. Copying very specific details is another. Look at the tops of each pricing tab in both sites. The tabs with rounded corners. The subtle fades behind the pricing numbers. The 1-pixel-line- highlight above the price. The colors. (I know I'm basically describing the popular "letterpress" effect, but these examples are remarkably similar, even considering that they are both using a popular graphic style.) And clearly the corner badges are almost identical.

<comment><USER8> I'm sorry, but are you seriously implying that because Shopify uses gradients, rounded corners and shades of green that no other website can use those styles?

<comment><USER9> Look at the badges on the front page, it's kinda hard to argue that they weren't copying the design.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Why is my tax money subsidizing software that should have to fight in the free market like the software most other developers write?

<comment><USER11> I think you might have misunderstood the article. Doctor's aren't being paid to use this particular software. Doctor's are being paid to convert to electronic records. To be eligible for that payment, they have to use systems that have been certified. Drchrono has been certified.

Anyone else is free to write a competing application, get it certified, and compete in the same market.

<comment><USER12> Certification isn't cheap though. It's a definite barrier to entry at the outset. CCHIT seems to be structured to favor monolithic companies with deep pockets, and startups with lots of funding. The certification process also dictates to a degree the functionality of the app, which to my way of thinking may inhibit innovation.

<comment><USER13> Certification costs have been going down as the Federal government has become the accreditor of new certifying bodies. Previously there was only 1 certifying body. Now there are 6 that all have to conform to the same standards. As a result, certifying costs have come down and will likely trend down for sometime.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Personally I don't think the 44K incentive has ever made any sense. All it has done is allow existing EMR providers to charge more for their poorly designed software. Physicians would have switched over on their own, if the reason were compelling enough - and that reason would be user friendly software at a reasonable price. Startups would have had more opportunities without the incentive. Now they have to offer it just to compete.

<comment><AUTHOR> One aspect of getting government certification is that all vendors are required to support government approved standards like HL7/CCR/CCD for the exchange of health information.

So forcing all vendors in the space to get certified has forced all of us healthcare IT vendors to cooperate and adopt a fixed set of standards for exchange of data. Without the government stepping in and forcing vendors to adopt these standards, the disparate vendors would never have agreed on any standards and followed them.

<comment><USER15> This is the type of industry that really needs that type of standardization and enforcement of it. I can fully understand why the government wanted to step in and help enforce that standardization for a greatest benefit of all involved, and I can not really think of an alternative to the cash incentive to get people to do it. Can anyone else offer up a reasonable alternative?

<comment><USER14> Getting certification and offering a $44K incentive are different things. I can understand the former being required of software companies - but the medical providers aren't the one who have to seek certification, they have to purchase the software and are being given an incentive to do so, because there isn't otherwise an obvious cost benefit for them to switch over. I feel the software company should provide the cost benefit for the medical provider to switch over. Free market competition, without incentives thrown in, would eventually allow that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Wow... incentives for making the doctors life easier? What a deal. Just what the medical industry needs... more breaks.

<comment><USER17> I can't tell if this is serious or not. Either way, it seems like we all benefit from devices that make doctors more effective.

<comment><USER18> > Either way, it seems like we all benefit from devices that make doctors more > effective.

The problem with your statement and approval is in no way justifies the magic $44K number. Why not a $2 billion incentive for each doctor that switches?

<comment><USER19> I'm assuming it's based on the perceived cost of the software in question(not just Dr Chrono but all EMR system). I was surprised that Dr Chrono doesn't charge around that for it's software. A lot of those packages have so few clients that it needs to be priced ridiculously to make it viable. This is mostly due to over kill design by committee that makes it's expensive to develop. Dr Chrono as a small shop probably has the advantage here.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> To clarify, these subsidies come in the form of medicare/medicaid reimbursements. The reimbursements are also PER DOCTOR. For the doctors to receive the full amount, they'd have to be seeing medicare/medicaid patients and to start using the EHR system in the next year. After 2018 these incentives turn into penalties, in the form of less medicare/medicaid money received per patient.

</comment><comment><USER21> Smart way to get it picked up. Use an app and get paid what some people earn in a year? Amazing strategy.

</comment><comment><USER22> Am I right that the meat of this product is a back-end web application, rather than an iPad App? Anyone know if the web service may have existed as a fully fledged EHR business prior to the mobile app being created?

<comment><USER23> I don't think this is really right for Dr Chrono -- they're very iPad focused, although there is a lot of hidden complexity on the server side.

There are plenty of free EHRs and SaaS EHRs which are web based -- Practice Fusion (Salesforce) is the big SaaS one, and . They all kind of suck from a UI/UX perspective.

The big EHRs are really mostly proprietary (e.g. the Vista system used mainly at the Veterans' Administration, MC4/TC2/etc. used in the Army, whatever Kaiser uses...).

There's also a long tail of utter crapware out there -- systems with 0-100 installations built with foxbase, hypercard (!!!), ms access, filemaker pro, ... .

Dr Chrono has the best UI/UX of any of them (a lot of which is "free" because the iPad is so great compared to alternatives, but part of it is the quality of the Dr Chrono app, and the benefit of being a later entrant vs. a legacy app).

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Makes you wonder about identifying similar government grants/reimbursements and building apps to fill a related need. Would make for a very easy sales pitch and maybe give a new venture a bit of a running start.

</comment><comment><USER25> I wouldn't get too excited. Does anyone have any first hand knowledge of the Federal government actually paying out this incentive? I say this because I have medical professionals in my own family, and at least from their experience and from every physician they have spoken to - the incentive is promised again and again, but never materializes despite physicians and medical professionals jumping through the myriad hoops. Like many government incentives, it looks great on paper - but actually getting the thing is entirely different story.

</comment><comment><USER26> Is it just me who finds this 'rebate' quite preposterous. Without sounding too critical about the government measures to reduce healthcare costs, I want to point out to this TED video about a chain of hospitals in India and how they have made quality eye care affordable by cutting costs.

[http://www.ted.com/talks/thulasiraj_ravilla_how_low_cost_eye...](http://www.ted.com/talks/thulasiraj_ravilla_how_low_cost_eye_care_can_be_world_class.html)

</comment><comment><USER20> It's interesting that they decided to go with InfraGuard for certification rather than CCHIT. My graduate research involves healthcare certification standards (and computer security) but when I asked InfraGuard details about their certification process, they asked me to sign an NDA first (which I wouldn't/couldn't do).

CCHIT is more open, but unfortunately, it's controlled by large vendors in the the healthcare space.

<comment><USER27> CCHIT is in no way controlled by large healthcare vendors. For example, on the Ambulatory work group only 3 of 11 members work for vendors. <http://www.cchit.org/workgroups/ambulatory> (I am a former member of another CCHIT work group and work for a large healthcare vendor.)</comment></comment>


Non-NIST Cipher Suite - B-Con http://silentcircle.wordpress.com/2013/09/30/nncs/

<comment> B-Con It seems that they're ditching the NIST crypto suite for the Schneier suite. </joke>

I can understand the skepticism of anything NSA-related, but I'm skeptical that switching is better. These are two algorithms that aren't as thoroughly analyzed.

One of the problems is that AES and Twofish were introduced 14 years ago at this point. AES has been hammered on by everyone since then, whereas interest in Twofish waned after it didn't win. We've seen a little bit about Twofish since, but an order of magnitude more on AES. The scary thing is if modern advances could be used to attack Twofish, but because Twofish hasn't gotten enough attention we don't know yet.

Skein is probably at least as strong as SHA-2, but again, we've hammered on SHA-2 much longer than Skein.</comment>


The 2010s Were an Economic Tragedy - <AUTHOR> https://slate.com/business/2019/12/the-four-mistakes-that-turned-the-2010s-into-an-economic-tragedy.html <comment><USER2> Bit of a weird article that tackles broad economic policy to show how recovery from the recession might have gone faster. But it doesn't really mention any of the actual tragedies in my opinion - rise in inequality, decline of "good" jobs in favor of gig and contract work, out of control healthcare costs, and continued student loan burden on workers.

</comment><comment><USER3> Are we talking about the same 2010s? Because they were the opposite of a tragedy economically.

</comment><comment><USER4> "worth of spending cuts over the last six years of Obama's term. Those, combined with tax hikes and the waning stimulus spending, acted as a powerful weight on the economy"

Not sure if I agree with this. Tax hikes and spending cuts are what's required to build back a damaged economy. These obviously worked over time, as we now have one of the best economies in decades. This combined with the regulations Trump got rid of to enable more fracking/keeping the price of oil way down.

I remember all of the people on the local news that were interviewed just as everything was crashing that talked about how they outright lied on their application about how much income they were making to get a house/piece of property...and now went into foreclosure when they couldn't make the payments.

"by leaving the housing market to spiral downward and households to struggle with their debts"

We shouldn't be propping up anyone. Some things need to fail to recover properly. This was the right move.

"As a Senator and presidential candidate, Obama had publicly supported more dramatic efforts to rescue homeowners, specifically legislation that would have allowed so-called "cramdowns," where judges could slash mortgage debt in bankruptcy court"

Why should anyone get bailed out for a making a poor decision? Most people will never learn from this and will most likely need to get bailed out again.

"Even Donald Trump's trade war—another needless self-own—didn't plunge the economy into another downturn, in part because some people in power seem to have learned lessons from their past mistakes."

I have to laugh about mentioning the trade war. Almost every Democrat candidate wants this because it will lead to less CO2 emissions from China if we are purchasing less goods. But when Trump enacts it, it's a needless trade war.

"But this was decade was not a slow march to a happy ending. It was miscarriage of economic policymaking that left millions without work for far longer than they needed to be. If we remember that—and why it all happened—maybe we won't have to go through it all again."

Creating artificial demand by just throwing government money at it wouldn't have solved the issue any faster. I sure hope we've learned our mistakes from the past, but I already have seen politicians wanting to start forcing banks to loan out money to groups of people that most likely will never be able to pay it back...starting the ball rolling for another financial crises.</comment>


Ask HN: How do entrepreneurs find programmers to team up with for startups? - <AUTHOR>

I wanted to try to find out how startup entrepreneurs without a programming background (like myself); can find a programmer to team up with for a new start up. Do you find potential partners at events? Is there a website with a list of events that you can go to, to meet these programmers or other aspiring entrepreneurs with programming experience? Is there a network? I have the idea but getting the idea onto a website and making it work is what I'm having trouble with. Any help would be much appreciated. <comment><USER2> _I have the idea but getting the idea onto a website and making it work is what I'm having trouble with_

Having an idea is worth nothing. Creating that idea is everything. Unless you have other talents besides being an idea man, no engineer worth his salt will work with you.

That being said, there are a few avenues you can look into. The first, and most obvious, is to pay a programmer. Easier said than done, as there are a ton of startups that are willing to pay market rate + benefits and bonuses just to get good programmers (See Hipser giving $10,000 and PBR for a year to anyone they hire)

The second is to get a friend to help you out, or convince someone to work for you. Very difficult, but they might agree to this, on the assumption that they get a majority of the equity. I mean, implementation of the website is huge over just having an idea, so it actually makes sense that they would get the majority of equity.

Finally, one of the best ways I've found was to learn programming. Yes it sucks, and yes it won't be perfect, but if you just get a prototype up that shows what you attempt to accomplish, programmers will be much more willing to sit down and talk with you.

You can go to events and stuff and talk to people, but to be honest, I've heard many people pitch me their next "grand" idea, they just needed someone to program it for them, who will work for little or no money, and little equity.

<comment><USER3> Startup land is the land of many hats. I've seen some seriously shoestring- and-bubblegum prototypes that were cobbled together by people with little to no relevant background. Both engineers and investors will respect that way more than your PowerPoint deck, even if it has to be scrapped and rebuilt from scratch.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Find out where a bunch of programmers like hang out after work. Find a single programmer of the opposite sex, seduce them, and then start a relationship with them.

You'll have a much easier time convincing your partner to build you a mvp rather than a stranger :)

</comment><comment><USER5> Step one: learn how to Google ;-)

[http://www.google.com/search?q=site:news.ycombinator.com+fin...](http://www.google.com/search?q=site:news.ycombinator.com+find+a+technical+cofounder)

<comment><AUTHOR> Haha. Thanks. Appreciate it.

<comment><USER6> Learn how to google is actually better advice than you may think. If you're serious about this, you should pick a skill that is commonly necessary in a startup (hacking, design, business relationships, PR, something??) and master it. Best place to start is that little box under the google logo. My team has two members. We're both hackers and we just learn to do the other stuff as needed. Good luck!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Check out co-founder needed meetups as well as forums like SV Forum & TIE

And may be post here what your idea is and what you need from your cofounder?</comment>


Google Search: site:*.*/phpinfo.php - <AUTHOR> https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=site:*.*/phpinfo.php&start=20

<comment><USER2> You can find more here: [https://www.exploit-db.com/google-hacking- database/](https://www.exploit-db.com/google-hacking-database/) These are called "Google Dorks" for some reason, even though there's nothing dorky about them. Some of these are honeypots / tarpits monitoring inbound traffic, others are actual servers which are running old versions of PHP. Frankly though if it's public like that it often is a red flag that the webmaster has made other bad choices with their servers...

</comment><comment><USER3> What kind of information can hackers get from phpinfo() ?

<comment><USER4> The PHP version will tell them what unpatched vulnerabilities your apps are likely to have.

<comment><USER5> Isn't that often in the response headers anyway?

<comment><USER4> Yeah, but you shouldn't be doing that, either.</comment></comment></comment></comment>