Mr. Wu - <AUTHOR> https://granta.com/mr-wu/ <comment><USER2> I clicked through to the story planning on downvoting it for being offtopic. I was wrong.

What a touching story. The world needs more people like Mr Wu.

<comment><USER3> Really? It's pretty opaque what the topic might be to begin with.

<comment><USER2> Yes. I dislike the title, and wish it was edited to give a better idea, but the story is good.

<comment><USER4> At least this story was written deliberately in a style that brought you in, even if you didn't know where you were going, and you were happy to come along for the ride.

OTOH there are quite a few articles in HN like "Update 2.1 on WhizBangBlahBlah" and I have to read half the article before I know what a WhizBangBlahBlah is and why I might want one. :/

<comment><USER5> You misspelled "rilkef": [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18577758](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18577758)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This is an example of when submissions should have a descriptive title.

</comment><comment><USER7> Maybe a little odd but when I was little I called my grandfather Mr. Wu and I never could remember why.

</comment><comment><USER8> That's it? I was expecting something more at the end.

<comment><USER9> It did end rather abruptly. Beautiful, but not a great story. Sort of like how I feel about Westworld.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> There are so many lovely subtle references to the Old Beijing warmth and quirks (such as bellowing into the phone in a fancy cafe).

</comment><comment><USER11> Reminds me a bit of the landlady in Wong Kar Wai's _In The Mood For Love_ ;)

</comment><comment><USER12> Loved it! This was a great read. Thank you for sharing

</comment><comment><USER13> What a wonderful story! Glad to see such a story about China. US news doesn't do a good job humanizing the people of China.

</comment><comment><USER14> Can't believe that table-full of dishes is called smörgåsbord in this article.

</comment><comment><USER15> Guli

<comment><USER16> This is an interesting choice for a first post. What does it possibly mean? Why was this enough to finally get you to sign up after all those years of reading without response?

In context, are you saying that the piece is "encouraging"? [https://dictionary.hantrainerpro.com/chinese- english/transla...](https://dictionary.hantrainerpro.com/chinese- english/translation-guli_encourage.htm)

Are you Georgian and saying that you "heart" the piece? [https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=guli](https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=guli)

Are you from a place named Guli and just leaving graffiti? [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guli](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guli)

A devoted but taciturn fan of the long distance runner Mina Guli? [https://www.minaguli.com](https://www.minaguli.com)

Don't leave us in suspense!

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Sometimes I think the US could do with a communist revolution. Then I realize the semi-luxurious half acre plot my parents live in will have to be shared with a couple of other probably very poor families. I don't know, just a random thought when I read it, and how lucky it is to be in the top 10% wealthy in the US.</comment>


Tensegrity - <AUTHOR> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tensegrity <comment><USER2> Designing structures such that all elements are either in tension or compression, with no bend moments, used to be very important in the era of iron bridges. Truss type railroad bridges were built that way. Often the joints were actual pins, so that no bend moment could be applied at a joint. Iron didn't handle bend moments well, but cast iron could handle pure compression and wrought iron could handle pure tension.

Steel is equally strong in tension and compression, and once good steel became cheap, structural design was much less constrained. (Mass production of steel came later than is generally realized. Until about 1890, good steel was about as rare as titanium is now. Steel swords go back a long way, but I-beams don't.)

</comment><comment><USER3> Probably the very coolest way to set up a hammock: [https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL4IGA3iO2R62SAhLcIbKE...](https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL4IGA3iO2R62SAhLcIbKE2fCAcXbY-1K9)

</comment><comment><USER4> there's a cool book called Anatomy Trains that analyzes the elements of the human body as forming a tensegretic structure, rather than a compression structure. So don't think of all the bones stacking on top of each other like stone, but instead being held in constant tension by muscles and ligaments. Also in the introduction it shows you how to make a tensegretic tetrahedron out of chopsticks and rubber bands. Pretty good stuff.

[http://www.anatomytrains.com/fascia/tensegrity/](http://www.anatomytrains.com/fascia/tensegrity/)

</comment><comment><USER5> I just bought a "Tensegrity" tent... it isn't pure tensegrity (there is one small bent pole) but it gets close.

[https://www.sierradesigns.com/product/tensegrity-2-elite](https://www.sierradesigns.com/product/tensegrity-2-elite)

</comment><comment><USER6> What happens if a single cable snaps? It seems like all the strucutral members in the network will then experience a "bending moment", yet the structure depended on the lack of bending moment for rigidity.

</comment><comment><USER7> Reminds me of the Stick Bomb. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stick_bomb](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stick_bomb)

<comment><USER8> from the references: [http://lunatim.com/kinart/stickhistory.htm](http://lunatim.com/kinart/stickhistory.htm)

this is amazing. now I'm strongly resisting the urge to order a couple hundred tongue depressors.

<comment><USER9> > now I'm strongly resisting the urge to order a couple hundred tongue > depressors.

Give in: [http://smile.amazon.com/gp/product/B0033F7YQW/](http://smile.amazon.com/gp/product/B0033F7YQW/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I went through a period of being obsessed with Buckminster Fuller's work. I took a trip to Montreal to visit the Canadian Centre for Architecture a while back, and at the library got to view this old construction kit called Tensegritoy. [1]

1: [http://tensegrity.wikispaces.com/Tensegritoy](http://tensegrity.wikispaces.com/Tensegritoy)

</comment><comment><USER11> Diller + Scofidio's Blur building ([http://www.dsrny.com/#/projects/blur- building](http://www.dsrny.com/#/projects/blur-building)), in addition to being an awesome environmental experience, was a tensegrity structure.

</comment><comment><USER12> Cellular cytoskeletons are another interesting area to look for these kind of structures.

</comment><comment><USER13> There's a lot more to this... I've been a fan of these studies for a long time in the way of holistic dynamic analysis of systems - problems that usually get a statistical analysis approach. I think there's another school of thought that can lead to higher fidelity predictions - and these tensegrity systems are examples of that nonformalized and unstudied school.

Although these systems can be treated through classical analysis, there's something a bit more compelling about how they are truly faceted in ways that facilitate further nuanced analysis - and not the other way around, where the systems are a product of an analysis. It's a short-circuiting of the classical methods of scientific analysis and somewhat defies the limitation of models that we are so accustomed to.

Instead, they embody an underlying system with dynamic networked coherent responses. I've thought that there's something fundamentally different about them and a way to punch through some of the computational, analytical, and measurement barriers presented by classical analysis on traditional systems.

I've met one person, [http://ti.arc.nasa.gov/profile/Vytas_SunSpiral/](http://ti.arc.nasa.gov/profile/Vytas_SunSpiral/) who thought the same way I have with a requisite technical background to see the implications of this school of thought, and so far, that is all other than perhaps, Buckminster Fuller in his 1982 book, Synergetics - which deals with the same concept.

I worked on this a few years and then I put it down, about 12 years ago. I hit the end of my cognitive ability in the research and haven't returned. It's a redefinition of analytical engagement. The classical Aristotelian discreteness is a limiting factor in its development. Stepping outside this while maintaining a descriptive formality of what constitutes this form of analysis is exceedingly difficult.

I apologize that this is so vague but it is, for the most part, completely unexplored. I think there's a very real possibility of coming up with a divergent philosophy of science with a completely different disciplinary system - but with higher accuracy and fidelity of analysis and results of some of the problems which are for intents and purposes, currently intractable due to the compounding effects of being multi-faceted systemic problems.

Here we are, we can construct highly-coupled, dynamic, reactive, but ultimately stable systems - the same class of systems we see in our "unformed" natural world. That's the key insight - that this is a real thing and that there is a distinct and different way of dealing with it - and that it can be exploited generally. This I believe, is inherently revolutionary.

If you've read all this and don't think I'm nutso, then congratulations, we can work together maybe. Just respond below. I think this could honestly be the most productive and meaningful project that people could ever engage themselves in.

<comment><USER14> I saw Vytas' presentation at the NIAC symposium a few weeks ago, and as someone whose only previous exposure to tensegrity systems was the typical outsider's view of its use in architecture and toys, I have to say that his robots are damn cool. I'll post a link to the video after I get out of the meeting I have in a few minutes, if no one beats me to it. If you haven't seen this stuff it's worth seeing just for the cool factor alone.

I agree with you that one of the most difficult things about tensegrity structures is predicting their behaviour under stress and failure - and since behaviour under exactly those circumstances is also one of the main strengths of the concept, that kinda sucks. It's like trying to sell a car which gets better gas mileage, but you can't really predict how much. Better but unpredictably better can be a hard sell and especially bad when trying to optimize a plan for.

I see a lot of parallels between the concept of tensegrity and certain concepts of resilient design of complex software. In both cases, testing (and having good test cases) is a vital component of testing. In both cases, even with testing it is hard to have a good predictive model of failure, because at a certain level the complexity of test cases can start to compete with the design itself.

What I see as the really cool thing about what Vytas is doing, is the addition of controls (e.g. motors etc) to tensegrity structures. This only adds to the complexity when it comes to testing, because now there are many more variables. However, if this is a huge issue, it is theoretically possible to set the controls in such a way that it actually reduces the space of possible behaviours, and thus makes analysis more tractable. Of course, I think it's much cooler to go the other way and make the darn things do crazy stuff, but it all depends upon what you need out of a design. It's somewhat the same issue with a robotic arm: it can move in so many ways, sometimes the easy or safest way to do a job is to restrict the possibilities (like not letting it move into a danger zone). But making it dance is more fun!

<comment><USER15> I'm working with Vytas at NASA on the control issues for these tensegrity robots. One of our main ways to address the complexity issue is to use machine learning to determine control parameters. We have been using traditional evolutionary techniques as well as some techniques related to importance sampling. A counterintuitive result of using evolutionary controls is that the control problem does not necessarily become more difficult as the complexity of the structure increases. This is because the number of good solutions may increase faster than the solution space. Currently in hardware, we are building relatively simple structures, but we hope to expand to more complex ones in the future.

<comment><USER16> So effectively, the percentage of good solutions increases as the complexity increases?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Every year I've gone to Burning Man I've lived in a tensegrity-supported structure. See

[http://shelter-systems.com](http://shelter-systems.com)

<comment><USER18> Tensegrity structures don't have any internal bending forces, just tension and compression. Those tents appear to be based on bent or curved struts exerting forces in several directions, so I doubt they're actually tensegrity structures.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Ha, I was thinking about similar system but non static, absorbing multi-state ones. Fuels my curiosity back, so thanks.

</comment><comment><USER20> love tensegrity! I'm working on a springy tensegrity bar stool.</comment>


Tesla fires back at NTSB over the investigation into fatal Autopilot crash - <AUTHOR> http://www.businessinsider.com/tesla-removed-from-fatal-model-x-investigation-ntsb-claims-2018-4 <comment><USER2> Wow. So worried about their own self image they attack the NTSB as if they were worried about theirs? What a PR travesty. Then they go on to say their self-proclaimed safest cars in the universe should be above suspicion or investigation. If I ever wanted a Tesla, that ship has now sailed. I cannot support this level of thoughtlessness. This is not the way to make the world a better place. Step up and take responsibility, or at least stop issuing half- truths to the media as facts.

Even with all the custumer antagonizing anti-repair bs, I did not expect this from them.</comment>


Ask HN: What vesting schedule does your startup use? - <AUTHOR>

My fellow co-founders and I are looking at various vesting schedules.
We've found a couple good articles on it; the best one being: http://blog.simeonov.com/2010/02/02/the-best-vesting-schedule/
HN community, what would you recommend?
In advance, thanks for your advice! :) <comment><AUTHOR> Clickable: [http://blog.simeonov.com/2010/02/02/the-best-vesting- schedul...](http://blog.simeonov.com/2010/02/02/the-best-vesting-schedule/)</comment>


Biased Algorithms Are Everywhere, and No One Seems to Care - <AUTHOR> https://www.technologyreview.com/s/608248/biased-algorithms-are-everywhere-and-no-one-seems-to-care/ <comment><USER3> > even those who know their algorithms are at a risk of bias are more > interested in the bottom line

There's more to it than the bottom line, the trouble is that nobody wants to take responsibility trying to change the world that they think they've distilled into a model - there's a lot of fitting decisions to past patterns than actually changing society.

The algorithms are inheriting biases from the past and hiding them - <USER2> zipcode affecting your repayment potential, that's good old redlining in action all over again. Change can happen, but the algorithms will hide the bias, where it can't be challenged.

And then there's carried-over sample bias - if most people who sign up to clinical trials for cancer are those of a certain level of wealth, with adequate help to drive them to the chemo, then the uncovered genetic samples that come out of the research program will reflect the economic inequality advantages which was offered to a geriatric during their earning years.

Algorithms which rely on past information to be incrementally better are in fact conservative towards their underlying model. Anything else would be self- destructive to the algorithm and in effect, be a problem to the user of the algorithms.

</comment><comment><USER4> This problem will haunt us forever if we don't take it seriously today. What does taking this seriously look like? Is there an effective model for "lobbying" the industry and specific companies in a meaningful way? As I am just descending down this particular rabbit hole, I don't have any answers yet. Perhaps exposing the worst examples of these biases, like in criminal sentencing algorithms, and other public verticals, we might begin drawing more attention to the urgent matter at hand.</comment>


Elizabeth Holmes is finally presenting her technology to scientists - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2016/08/01/elizabeth-holmes-is-finally-presenting-her-technology-to-scientists-including-a-mini-lab/ <comment><USER2> Before the for loop starts printing out the same beleagured points about Holmes, I think it is important to recognize how many people work hard at Theranos.

The medical indistry has been dodgy as fuck (no excuse) but also technically illiterate. My personal hypothesis is that because America and many other nations require so much education to become a doctor, there is little time to learn about programming/tech.

However, the point is, they made some pretty bad mustakes but this is why we have venture capital. Theranos is 13 years old. It irritates me when outrage manifests as an I told you so. So much has been learned between 03 and now, that to come in at the height of an obvious scandal and pour on like they are building angry birds pisses me off. I hope they succeed.

If Holmes did something horrible and the internals of the company rot out, and the tech fails, that sucks. BUT, I hope VCs still step up and take big bets like this because these are gge ideas that change the world. In fact, if on balance, the company only fails because of bad bysiness and ethical decisions, the outpouring of talent and tech into the space could be great.

tl;dr I would rather try and miss on a big bet, than win on a tiny one.

<comment><USER3> Let me take a counterpoint, since unfortunately you've started said loop (at least for me) by saying some things I can't honestly agree with.

Primarily, "I would rather miss on a big bet than win on a tiny one" Since I see this not as "winning a big bet" so much as e.g. "winning a big bet on Enron." The fact that you summarize "if holmes did something horrible and the internals rot out" as "that sucks" demonstrates the difference in our views. That's not a "that sucks" to me, that's a "bring down the goddamn hammer." I've seen techs I respect and look up to leagues beyond anyone involved in theranos leadership, not even just speaking of Holmes, but they aren't given a FRACTION of the leeway I think Theranos has gotten for consistent breaches of trust, integrity, and legality.

Theranos is not an "I told you so" for me, it's an example of how different the playing field is for different people, and _THAT_ pisses me off far more than any amount of angry birds rebuilding. This next statement won't earn me any allies here, but after significant contemplation I've come to the conclusion I hope they fail, because otherwise conveys (yet again) the message that you can start with one foot in a reprehensible place and still profit enormously.

To be very clear, I agree with your hope that it does not poison future VC, but I hope it causes people to both look deeper and more comprehensively before leaping. I also agree that there are good people there, and I dislike the thought of them taking part in the pain, but this is part and parcel with my "there should have been more due diligence", since otherwise Theranos would likely not have scaled as far, as fast, or touched as many people as it did when it came time for that bubble to pop. To forgive such a level of misdeed because the recompence has collateral seems to me taking one step forward and two steps back.

<comment><USER4> > it's an example of how different the playing field is for different people

I really liked your response, and am curious to know if you'd be able to comment more specifically on that little bit I quoted above.

What exactly is the playing field? Getting VC funding? Managing regulatory agencies' demands?

Who has an advantage on the playing field? Who doesn't?

<comment><USER3> The philosophical answer would be "yes"; the pragmatic answer isn't that far off, at the risk of a cop out. All the things you suggest and more, by "playing field" I meant life, or less broadly, success in enterprise. Advantage in this case seems broadly wrought by connections and political/financial clout. (citing early Theranos board composition, funding, etc) To make my comparison stark by drastic example, many years ago I watched a friend go under trial for minor possession. Although in relative terms, the hits Theranos/Holmes will receive if some of the current investigations pan out may be larger, it seems unlikely to assume that she won't still derive such a significant windfall from her tenure in the interim and the publicity that comes along with it (good AND bad) to put her in a position in life that I assure you said friend would gladly trade for. The types of outcomes derived for these two people don't even seem to be in the same game, if we're talking playing fields. (this made even more comical given the potential breadth of impact of the respective crimes, a comparison I hope I can leave as an exercise to the reader)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> driftsumi-e Found a video of the full presentation, including the surprisingly lengthy Q&A session:

[https://youtu.be/n6JRG733ReQ](https://youtu.be/n6JRG733ReQ)</comment>


Facebook claims no user drop - someone is lying - <AUTHOR> http://fvrit.com/archive/2008/02/23/facebook-claims-no-user-drop---someone-is-lying.aspx

<comment><USER2> what goes up comes down</comment>


What are the odds of one vote changing the US presidential election? - <AUTHOR> https://80000hours.org/2016/11/why-the-hour-you-spend-voting-is-the-most-socially-impactful-of-all/?source=hn <comment><AUTHOR> I wrote this post! I had to cut back a lot of analysis to keep it manageable but very interested to hear people's thoughts on its strengths or weaknesses.</comment>


Ask HN: Is React Native enough to justify using React over alternatives? - <AUTHOR> The discussion on Gitlab's choice of Vue.js got me wondering about everyone's thoughts on this. I hear a lot about front end frameworks but based on everything that I've read about React Native it seems that it gives me the impression that even if Vue or something else might be preferable - the potential cost/work/time savings of React Native would win the decision every time. Is there more to it? <comment><USER2> At Infinite Red we chose React.js over our previous choice of Ember not because it was objectively better at web, but because it lowered the context switching when our devs would switch between mobile and web projects. We have many devs who only handle web or only handle mobile, but for the ones who can do both, it's well worth it.

React.js being superior/inferior to Vue.js or others isn't very relevant unless the gap is huge, which it's not.

</comment><comment><USER3> Having just started a project in Swift due to some limitations with 'native' JS frameworks, I can honestly say I have _no_ idea why someone would use anything else unless they had a burning need for code reuse with Android.[0]

The quality of the language and documentation has been superb, and I feel more confident in my code than I did with another project written with JS bindings.

[0] I suppose the argument can be made that web-view components could be recycled with minimal effort, but that sounds like it'd be a worse story for end-users more often than not.

<comment><USER4> I'd like to respond with a real example if you don't mind.

We developped a native app that looks pretty much Instagram. It is written in Swift and Java due to reasons you can probably imagine.

React Native became handy when we wanted to add a payment flow that can have native like ux, remote updates (adding new offers, disabling some options due to sudden legal changes etc) and a shared codebase. React Native with Codepush was the perfect choice. It had native like performance, updates without involving app stores and most importantly ability to be maintained by our backend Node.js developers.

Was it worth the add the huge dependancy just for it? Arguably yes. Tooling is good, integrating it took only a day. App size didn't increase a lot. Our backend developers had the chance to use already established in-house utility libraries.

Our design was to implement a React hosting Activity, a Fragmentand and a UIViewController. No issues have yet be faced and it works like a charm (users have no idea those screen are backed a few lines of Coffeescript.

<comment><USER4> Sorry for the typos. That comment was written with my mobile in a hurry. :(

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Honestly depends on your use case.

Do you absolutely need a native-feeling mobile app? React Native (and ultimately React) are worth your time and investment.

In Gitlab's case, Vue.js works well for them because their product is web- first and allows them to iterate quickly.

For the most part, I consider React Native separate from React entirely. I consider most startups to either be completely web or completely mobile, and to let questions in the former case be answered by validating and iterating on the product quickly with a web app.

</comment><comment><USER6> I put together an article a while back comparing a few different frameworks. They all have their pros and cons. I should probably update it to add React Native and NativeScript, but here you go for what it's worth: [http://anthonytietjen.blogspot.com/2016/07/choosing-a- mobile...](http://anthonytietjen.blogspot.com/2016/07/choosing-a-mobile- development-framework.html)

</comment><comment><USER7> There are certainly still alternatives to React Native such as Cordova and NativeScript, among others.

Some other frameworks have bindings to React Native using it as a just the final "renderer". CycleJS has a React Native binding, though I'm not currently aware of how well it works yet. I'm not aware of Vue.JS bindings for React Native, but it may be possible.

There's certainly a question of whether or not you need "native" to begin with. Cordova doesn't always feel "native", but it is reliable and reliable can be all some apps/dev-teams need.

</comment><comment><USER8> Xamarin is a great alternative.</comment>


My first year as a developer - <AUTHOR> https://hackernoon.com/my-first-year-as-a-developer-2376317be109 <comment><USER2> Well you made it through the year anyway so congratulations.</comment>


Ask HN: Regreting Not Doing a Startup - <AUTHOR> Hey, to anyone late in their career who wanted to start a business but didn't do it, do you regret it? Why? <comment><USER2> I did one for about 6 months. It flamed out hard. My co founders and I parted ways. We had no idea what we were doing and it showed. Had we persisted we might have succeeded, but honestly who knows or cares. You have to ask yourself what it is you actually want from starting a business.

Is it to become a wealthy and famous billionaire? Don't bother unless you have all the pieces stacked in your favor.

Is it to do something you're passionate about? Find a way to do that anyway, whether it's through working with friends on it, working for someone on it, or working by yourself on it. You can still do that with a day job, just try to limit all the other things in your life that might distract you.

Is it to be your own boss? You're not gonna ever be your own boss. Your boss is the person who pays you the money. You can only be your own boss by achieving financial independence which you can do with similar amounts of risk in other ways.

Is it because you hate your job or chosen career? Entrepreneurship amplifies, not limits, the effects of that.

Most successful businesses are started by people in their mid careers who have developed a solid network and good set of skills as well as a decent financial cushion and sent their kids of to be independent of them financially.

</comment><comment><USER3> I very nearly did a startup with a friend. We had a bit of seed money and were accepted into an accelerator, and had a decent beta. But we had major concerns about the market, which seemed to be a bit of a fad, so we pulled out at the last minute. I don't regret that decision at all - within a couple years the primary competitors failed and Amazon ate their lunch.

What I do regret is never finishing my side projects. I recently stumbled across a little website that my boss had paid me $50 to make for his cousin years ago. It was a slick but very simple site that basically just played a few useful audio files. The site now accepts donations and has been wrapped into paid iOS and Android apps that have thousands of downloads. It kills me that someone has made thousands of dollars off of that dead-simple weekend project. Over the last 10 years there has virtually never been a time when I wasn't working on a side project, and yet I haven't actually launched and monetized a single one.

<comment><USER4> I have a similar story. I let myself steer pretty far in the startup direction before I ultimately dropped those plans.

7 years later, I'm on a M&A team evaluating startups in the exact space I would have been in. There are many of them and few of us (companies looking to acquire). Most of them have failed or will fail and get nothing (beyond investment). The winner will get a mediocre payout that, for the founder, will merely compare to the salary I've earned in the meantime, if my back-of-the- envelope is correct. The stress, of course, will not compare. That's the reward for the _winner_.

I don't envy the people across the table.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> i regret working myself into early alcoholism and it costing me my marriage.

i look back on life now and realize that me being a workaholic wasn't necessary. i was making damn good money with the career i had, but always needed MORE. wish the old me could tell the young me that you're rich enough and if you really want to make an impact on this world, be one of the few in your generation to celebrate a 50 year wedding anniversary.

my friend... if you're married, go home and kiss that spouse of yours.

<comment><USER6> love this, thank you for sharing the advice

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah, good advice. Always hard to balance career vs personal life success.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I'm not the archetype you were asking for, but I am later-ish in my career (40 years old). I co-created a startup not all that long ago (little over a year). I don't regret creating a startup, _but_ it is very very hard at times in ways I did not anticipate. So, there are times when I'm very envious of my former self. Where I got to deal with the perils of regular employment rather than the perils of being an employer. Thoughts like, "Ah, I remember the good old days when this kind of thing was somebody else's problem to deal with. Those were good times. Good times. Welp... (rolls up sleeves to try to figure out the least bad decision from a mountain of uncertainty)"

That's despite having previously operated a moderately successful small business and also helping lots of other companies take on difficult technical challenges and get their products to market. So, there are a lot of things that I had my eyes wide open to that sometimes less experienced founders I know end up a bit blindsided by.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I can say for myself that if my motivation for undertaking this were rooted primarily in the possibility of regretting not having done it, said FOMO would probably not provide the sustaining fortitude necessary to keep pushing and pushing and pushing through the numerous challenges in fundraising, development, go-to-market execution, etc. etc.

So, my only real bit of commentary would be to do a startup because you're dead certain that's the thing you want/need/should do to achieve some goal about something you want to change about the world, the marketplace, and/or the state of technology, etc. I'd not suggest doing it on the fear of regret of not doing it. If that makes any sense? That said, if you have a goal or ambition like that, then I'm always supportive of folks who want to go out there and grab ahold of entrepreneurship and ride it either into the dirt or into the sunset.

<comment><USER8> >I'd not suggest doing it on the fear of regret of not doing it

Second this. Don't start a company because you think it's "checking a box". It has to be something you can't imagine not doing, or else you're in for a world of hurt.

<comment><USER9> Also, unless you're going to be a one-person operation, it's a very serious responsibility. People will be affected by your hiring and firing decisions (and not just your employees, but those in their circle).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I'm the opposite of the person you're asking for, but I'll take a stab. I have the academic pedigree to have worked in a lucrative scientific / banking / management field, but instead chose to take an entrepreneurial path. I could likely have made more money (risk adjusted) on the other path, but am thankful on a DAILY BASIS that I'm a pirate, and didn't join the navy.

Had I not chosen the entrepreneurial path, I'm confident I'd be the person you're asking for: late in my career and regretting not starting a business.

<comment><USER10> Same here exactly!

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Nope. I refuse to regret my past choices, so that I can be happy with my situation. If you gambled and won, it might have been a bad bet. If you gambled and lost, it still might have been a good bet. No sense in regrets. Best of all possible worlds, and all that.

<comment><USER12> This is so true. I've started a few startups and had a good acquisition. I've since made it one of my missions to espouse the underappreciated role that luck plays in a successful startup, and in life, in general.

You don't often hear it from people who have had the kind of success that leads them to being keynote speakers, I think, because everyone wants to feel like they deserve the success they've gotten. So, survivorship bias tends to kill this message. I think it's important, though, for people to understand when evaluating decisions (past, present, and future) and for learning from and empathizing with others.

Everyone likes to think of life as a meritocracy; that when you succeed it's because of the decisions you made and actions you executed. But people can make the right decisions for the wrong reasons, or vice versa. People can be prevented from making the decisions they'd like through no control of their own. And perhaps most significantly to the point, two different people can make the same decisions with different outcomes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Before you regret something you didn't do, ask yourself whether you understand that thing well enough to regret it. Why did you want to do a startup?

For example, one popular reason is "I'm my own boss", but that's largely wrong. If you're trying to make money, you have bosses. Going from a salaried job means going from one or a few bosses to many, many bosses. Depending on the startup, these could be a multitude of consumers, a few big clients and/or investors. These bosses will not tell you directly what to do, but will rather stop paying you, or never pay to begin with if you don't do what they want out of you.

You needs and wants about what you _want_ to do is probably very different from what your bosses will pay you to do, and adjusting your needs/wants/ideas to what will pay is what we call "finding product-market fit". Yes, new markets arise, and sometimes someone extraordinary will mold the market to themselves, but largely you'll be molding yourself to the market.

This is not to say being your own boss is BS - you still get plenty of autonomy and are the final decision maker. The layers between you and the market are extremely thin, so the highs are higher and the lows are lower.

<comment><USER14> One point I love about having many bosses is that the more numerous they are, the more you can get away with ignoring any single one. When I was consulting, I always tried to keep a few gigs going at different levels. That way if one client wanted something insane or dangerous, I could say, "Gosh, so busy!" and move along.

Paradoxically, having the ability to say no meant I didn't have to say it very much. When a client wanted something foolish, I could say confidently, "I don't think that's in your best interests," and explain why without fear.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I recommend side gigs. I co-founded a reasonably successful business (5 employees) from a side-gig (i was supporting getting remote sensor data remotely from a modem into a form easily red by clients).

Side gigs are reasonably risk free and will grow or shrink organically. You're not trying to force a market. The question is do you know something that works as a side gig? If so go for it.

Remember that the big idea->millions in venture funding->unicorn or bust path isn't the only way to go. That's a very stressful path.

</comment><comment><USER16> No. You can start a startup at any time.

What people mean when they regret not doing a startup they mean they typically regret not trying to start one when young, having it become a booming success and then reap the rewards for a larger portion of their lives.

There are better regrets to avoid in life; the regret of a lost love, the regret of not reconciling with your parents, the regret of not having a child, or the regret of not tending to ones health.

</comment><comment><USER17> I'm not exactly late in my career but having been doing this for ~7 years I'm not clear how people are able to accumulate the capital to start a business and have enough cash to live on until it makes money. It's something that seems like a great experience, and I can see myself wishing I had been able to, but I just don't know how I'd afford it.

Even assuming you have virtually no business expenses other than cloud hosting, are you just supposed to watch your emergency fund disappear?

<comment><USER18> The solution for me was buying cheap houses in Detroit. For $30K you can buy a house that nets you $500 a month ($800/month rent minus expenses) so for example if you save $150K from your job that buys 5 houses yielding $2500 a month (or if you had $300K savings, $5K a month). That was the way I was able to replace at least part of my income and venture off to the land of not having a salary to free up time to pursue other projects.

<comment><USER19> That's a 20% yield if I'm not mistaken, there's got to be some catch to it.

Are those people renting a $30,000 house with $800 per month able to get banking services (and mortgages)? If not, I would feel like a dickensian landlord renting those houses to them.

<comment><USER20> Even at a 10% interest rate and 0% down, a $30k mortgage is only $263/mo. This person is basically admitting that they are extracting value off the backs of the working poor due to unequal access to the banking system. I cannot imagine admitting being a slumlord on a public forum. And people wonder why people hate landlords.

<comment><USER21> If he got a loan, it wouldn't be 0% down because it would be on investment terms not residential terms. Chances are a $30K house needed improvement before it could be rented, and rentals are seldom free to run either -- there's ongoing maintenance, there's the carrying costs between tenants, etc. Calling the parent poster a slumlord without facts when your account is just a few hours old is pretty lame.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I worked with a man who had done boring and lucrative government contracting, startups, tech companies, and self employment over a 35 year career. His last "job" is a startup. You always have choices. Especially if your skills are up to date.

</comment><comment><USER14> I have started a few things with varying levels of success. I was looking at starting another thing, but instead decided to take a job with a not-for- profit. I don't regret the choice, because as a general rule I believe it's never too late to start something. I'll never stop having ideas, and given that we've had 250 years of technological and economic innovation, I think there will always be opportunities.

What I would regret is walking past a specific confluence of circumstances that seemed especially auspicious. It's sort of the inverse of my top reasons startups fail: [https://www.quora.com/Startups/What-are-the-early- symptoms-t...](https://www.quora.com/Startups/What-are-the-early-symptoms- that-a-startup-is-going-to-fail/?share=1)

If this time I had found people I really wanted to work with, an idea that had promise, a market that we loved, etc, then I would be kicking myself for walking past that. At the end of the day, I ended up taking the path where I thought my next few years would have the most impact on the things I care about. I made the best decision I could with the facts I had. We'll see!

</comment><comment><USER23> I started a business. Sold it for a couple years salary. Glad I did it. Don't miss it.

<comment><USER24> could you share the details, which type of business

<comment><USER23> It was a recruiting business. You can read the short version on my LinkedIn page. Link in profile.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> My first internships were early-stage / startup type businesses, and the last decade+ of my tech career were at similar companies or businesses of my own. They gave me a wider array of experiences and a greater sense of personal control, but there's no doubt I would have made a lot more money elsewhere.

I wish in the early part of my career I would have not been so eager to get into startup / entrepreneurship land and had instead tried to get a few more "name brands" on my resume, for the experiences and contacts. That would have helped down the road.

I would actually spin this question back around on you: Now that you are in a later stage of your career, what's stopping you from starting something now? Don't ask if you will regret not doing it, figure out your plan and do it.

</comment><comment><USER25> Honestly, don't regret not starting a business. It's about 1000 times harder than you think it is, despite all the glamor and wealth that 1% of the people achieve. Doing a startup takes a certain personality type. I am not that personality type. I joined a startup and saw the type of madness that was occurring and that made me understand how ill suited I was to start my own company.

My guess is that if you didn't already start one at this point, you probably don't have the proper personality type in the first place. Founders don't need the opportunity, then just go for it, and it's that type of spirit that keeps them going through all the ups and downs.

<comment><USER2> Doing a startup takes luck. So much luck. Luck of birth, luck of everything going right, luck of meeting co founders, luck of circumstances being right to allow you to take risk. It's mostly just luck.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> It isn't a binary question of "startup or not" \- but always comes down to the specifics of what problem you wanted to solve, how you wanted to solve it, and all of the logistics (especially timing and team composition).

</comment><comment><USER27> I am 50, my advice is don't fall into the trap that its either or. You can get a lot of signal without quitting your job. You can get a lot of work done by a $15/hour stay at home mom remotely. You don't have to risk it all. Once you are making money you can make the jump, or abort if it's not working. Just make sure your spouse is on board so there are no fights. If she is not (no sexism intended, I assume you are a man because women don't typically ask questions like this) then dont lose your marriage over it. That is a very real thing.

</comment><comment><USER28> I think about this most days. The problem is that startups that fail put you very far behind relative to peers and the majority of startups fail.

It's fun, but it's also gambling with your financial future.

<comment><USER29> > startups that fail put you very far behind relative to peers

I think this really depends on what metric you're using for success. If it's finances, a failed startup is almost certainly a significant setback. In terms of experience, that's much more debatable.

<comment><USER16> Believe me, finances is the metric of success for 95% of people and for the 5% where it isn't they are either independently wealthy already or so delusional that failure is guaranteed.

<comment><USER30> if no one did anything because they loved it, or because they thought it would help humankind, the world would be a much sadder and more transactional place. i dont know that we would have mathematicians, musicians, writers, costumers, chefs...or really much of anything

maybe just replace delusional with 'idealistic' or some other dismissive but less directly offensive term

<comment><USER31> Or maybe it's that many people who did those things and became successful with it are from privileged positions that allowed them to do such things...

And so if we lifted people into positions where they didn't feel like their basic needs would be taken away if they didn't work some job making money then they could experiment and do things that were less transactional... But until we have that Star Trek future - we gonna be transactional.

<comment><USER30> i guess i was talking sideways...was trying to say that some of the most valuable things we do as a species are already non or quasi transactional.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Have data on the opposite end: super stable type (Stanford MS&E undergrad; PhD track in ML 10+ years ago) who chose startups and entrepreneurship in scrappy, un-sexy niches of retail excess, operations research in shipping, etc., passing up opportunities in ibanking, hedge fund, and ML in Big Tech in the past ~15 years. My East Asian extended family was INCREDIBLY FRUSTRATED that I kept going off the beaten path and not following the "cultural formula" of good school->good role in company->seniority through years of service for a tried-and-true path forward... and they were right.

The EV of every path I've skipped was probably low eight figures by age 40 and more comfort/sanity, based on my friends/peers who went into them. Instead I have a semistable lifestyle business that I obsess over 24/7 and am constantly doing things outside my comfort zone, and while I make a reasonable amount there's a lot of business and inventory risk loaded in every step.

If I had a recommendation it would be this: instead of FOMO, collect a data point or two -- especially since you're implying that you're more steady-eddy and mature in your career path, switching to do a business for 2-3 years is super respectable and has very little downside since I imagine you have plenty of network and history to fall back to. Several of my friends in their 30s-40s have expressed a romanticized view of my career path to me, to which I bluntly say: this is mostly shit work that I suffer through to be consistent with identity and my values. It's got higher highs and WAY lower lows than your traditional 9-5, and I wouldn't wish this upon my enemies or friends. Do it only because you see unfilled needs and it bothers you so deeply that you gotta fix it on the market yourself.

There's a deep amount of glorification of entrepreneurship that's celebrated... and while I think everyone loves to see the journey, I honestly don't think most people would care for it themselves. To use an analogy: it's exhilarating to see an olympic gymnastic do her thing and push the limits of human possibility in 3-5 minutes on TV... but honestly, do most kids wanna practice 4-8 hours daily in a gym during your formative years of 8-18, obsessing over form and weight transfers and live with constant soreness and bodyaches while most people their age get to play videogames and gossip with friends and develop life their own way? Starting a business can have tradeoffs that feel similar -- for the brief moments of glory that are celebrated there's a lot of discomfort, monotony, suffering, and uncertainty that accompanies it that is rarely portrayed.

But simmer in that angst and FOMO... just realize you can use that as energy to get you to start down the path. Get a good advisor who's done it MULTIPLE TIMES BEFORE and hash out an MVP, and get the experience yourself before you figure out whether you want more. You're in a good position of having developed a long track record, so leverage your strengths and come collect a data point. :)

<comment><AUTHOR> Very thoughtful reply, thank you :)

<comment><USER32> Good luck on your decision -- it's a toughie! :)</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Why are startup events/conferences in Bay Area held on weekdays? - <AUTHOR>

I recently moved to the Bay area to work for a startup. I subscribed to startupdigest in hopes of attending startup & networking events in the bay area. However, I find that many of these events are held on weekdays which makes it very difficult to attend. Attending these events means taking a day off or leaving really early from work.
I'm not saying that there aren't events over the weekend, but more often i find them scheduled during a weekday.
Does anyone else feel the same way ? Or is it just me ?
edit: changed title per suggestion below <comment><USER2> Suggested new title: "Ask HN: Why are the startup events/conferences that I've looked at recently in the Bay Area held on weekdays?"

Most of the ones for startups in my area (Dallas) are Saturday, weekend, or weekday evening. No clue about anywhere else as I haven't really looked elsewhere.

</comment><comment><USER3> Most of the startup events/conferences here in the midwest (that I've seen) are on the weekends or in the evenings. The few I've attended that were during the mornings on weekdays have always been targeted at business owners, though I never realized that distinction until just now.

<comment><AUTHOR> well..there are several events scheduled during weekday evenings in bay area as well. however, considering how spread out bay area is, commuting isnt quite trivial and fast.</comment></comment>


Worst Union in America (2012) - <AUTHOR> https://www.city-journal.org/html/worst-union-america-13470.html <comment><USER3> "The union had persuaded March Fong Eu, the CTA-endorsed secretary of state, to alter the proposition's heading on the ballot from PARENTAL CHOICE to EDUCATION VOUCHERS—a change in wording that cost Prop. 174 ten points in the polls."

Those devious villians, forming a cabal to change the name of the proposition to accurately reflect what effect it was to have!

<comment><USER4> Both headlines are factually accurate.

<comment><USER5> > Both headlines are factually accurate.

"Parental choice" is however uninformative (speaks of the perceived results and not the action about to be voted), highly subjective, and without any meaningful information.

<comment><USER6> 'Parental choice' isn't at all a 'subjective' result of such voucher programs. It's both the intended and actual effect wherever such programs are offered.

Parents wind up sending children to different schools than they would have otherwise attended, in accordance with the parents' choice.

Even the CTA opposition to the proposition implicitly conceded that, because they predicted doom for public schools after many children left for other schools. If after the proposition passes, children are going to new, different schools – parental choice will have undeniably been exercised.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This is written like a political hit piece, and while an interesting viewpoint, it's about as useful to foster a rich policy discussion as any other partisan media - meaning, not very.

<comment><USER8> The site is the magazine for the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, a conservative thinktank. Not really surprising

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> "Such pleas seem impudent coming from the highest-paid teachers in the nation, with an average annual salary of $68,000"

Those monsters.

<comment><USER10> The average rent (3-rooms) in LA is 3,596 so $43.000 per year, in SF is $5,143 so $61.716 per year, so yeah $68.000 is nothing to brag about -at least on the main cities-

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> That fact that public schools are a shambles in this country is fucking insane given how much we purport to value education.

Also, it's fine to bitch about unions. They're not all perfect and there are certainly trade-offs. And (like anything) they can be perverted and misused. But overall they've done great things for the middle class in this country and we should all be very wary of powerful forces trying to hobble them.

Especially when it comes to teachers and education.

<comment><USER12> I've been in a Union and hated it, however I would advocate for their purpose with a whole heart.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> "Troy Senik is a senior fellow at the Center for Individual Freedom and an editor at Ricochet.com."

"The Center for Individual Freedom (CFIF) is an Alexandria, Virginia based U.S. nonprofit conservative policy advocacy organization, founded on the principle of securing individual freedoms as embodied in the United States Constitution and state constitutions. It was founded in 1998 by former tobacco industry executives who sought to counter government restrictions on smoking, but is no longer associated with tobacco or smoking." - <USER2>

Oh no, it's horrible. Teachers get paid well! This might attract great people to the job of educating the next generation! And they have banded together to represent their interests! This shall not stand.

<comment><USER14> Your comment is literally the first time in my life that I have seen the words "teachers get paid well" in what seems to me to be a serious fashion. Someone quoted below that the highest paid teachers are pulling something like 68k.. I'm east coast, and not smack dab in a major metro, but still--calling 70k "well-paid" seems pretty unrealistic.

<comment><USER15> You missed the implied /s in "teachers get paid well". It's a parody, based on his quote from TFA.

<comment><USER14> :facepalm:. Yea that makes much, much more sense. My bad.

<comment><USER15> Hey, we all get pwned by Poe's Law, sometimes. Especially when it's about something that's important to us. So no blame.

And I apologize for going off-topic, but Poe's Law arguably underlies much of the recent drama about online censorship. Twitter, Mastodon, Patreon, etc. That is, many who feel strongly about various sorts of hate speech have zero tolerance for stuff that parodies and satirizes that hate speech. But of course, there are also lots of trolls out there, whose only goal is upsetting people and generating lulzy reactions. So confusion is understandable.

And that's how it is with Poe's Law. When you see and hear (for example) Lenny Bruce, Dave Chappelle, Bill Hicks, Richard Pryor or Chris Rock, you know that it's parody and satire. But when you read stuff online, there's no context.

Anyway, it's sad.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I recall that a supreme court case about a year ago said that unions are no longer able to demand membership fees from members. I wonder how that is affecting these unions, if at all.

<comment><USER17> The ruling was that, for public sector unions, mandatory fees for _non- members_ violate the First Amendment.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janus_v._AFSCME](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janus_v._AFSCME)

<comment><USER18> Thay sounds very resonable actually. If you are not a member, how on earth does a union have a mechanism to force you to pay a member due? What if I don't agree with how the union runs or the goals of the union?

<comment><USER19> > What if I don't agree with how the union runs or the goals of the union?

The argument is that you benefit from the union whether you are a member or not because you get the same benefits as union members because of the union's bargaining with the management, so you should pay.

I don't really agree with it, but that's the argument.

<comment><USER20> What don't you agree about?

<comment><USER21> Benefit is in the eye of the beholder. Non-members may not actually be benefiting if the results are not really what they want.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> >"the CTA—now the single most powerful special interest in California"

Show me whatever numbers you're using to bolster that assertion and then show me the same metrics for the California Correctional Peace Officers Association (CCPOA).

<comment><USER23> CCPOA has approximately 40,000 members. CTA has 325,000 members.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> The opening diatribe against "strikes" certainly sets a plutocratic tone for this hit piece.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> USA slid from #6 place in 1990 to #27 in 2016 for education and healthcare.

<comment><USER25> There is probably some correlation to demographic shifts in that slide...

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> [https://youtu.be/xzYgiOC9cj4](https://youtu.be/xzYgiOC9cj4) : Milton Friedman - The Real World Effects Of Unions (1980)

</comment><comment><USER26> City Journal -> Manhattan Institute for Policy Research -> conservative trusts and think tanks

This is an anti-union, libertarianism propaganda piece, at best... please don't fall for it.

</comment><comment><USER27> I wonder how it is now 7 years later. Probably worse

Edit: yup still at it [https://twitter.com/WeAreCTA](https://twitter.com/WeAreCTA)

</comment><comment><USER28> City Journal is part of the Manhattan Institute, and uses content generated from conservative sources like National Review. Its hard to take a publication like this seriously when their political bent is already anti union. There may some substance and truth behind the content, but the title of the article is definitely subjective rather than objective. By definition every union is their eyes is bad.

<comment><AUTHOR> It is still a point of view. Should we not read anti union opinions from someone who has conservative views?

That's like saying we can't take the teachers union claims about teachers demands because they support teachers rights?

<comment><USER29> When a union organizer yaks about the evils of corporate <insert topic>, a critical reader discounts the rhetoric because of the source. If you want to form an opinion about the Verizon CEO, don't use the CWA as your primary source.

Similarly, these folks have an agenda that drives everything they write. Read it, but do so with a critical eye and remember that the authors employment is tied to the positions/opinion that he is expressing.

The answers to the problems we have with education are nuanced and numerous. The convservative portfolio of solutions is narrow, and never, ever changes.

<comment><AUTHOR> Do you think that conservatives have a real and legitimate membership just like progressives have a real and legitimate membership in political discussion groups?

Imagine if conservatives dismiss all progressive points of view...and vice versa..won't we all be talking to each other in our little echo chambers?

<comment><USER30> They do dismiss it. They are in an echo chamber.

<comment><USER31> They being both left and right.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Are people satisfied with their website analytics? - <AUTHOR>

There's a growing number of options out there for web analytics. Google Analytics being free still seems like the primary tool, but there's a few key areas it falls down. Primarily you're stuck in a page view mentality, where if it isn't a page it doesn't matter in regards to goals and funnels.
There are some newer players in the space that try to fill some of the gaps of google analytics. Clicky attempts to offer real time analytics so you have faster insight instead of the 2-3 hour delay that currently exists for most products. Mixpanel allows you to get outside of pageview limitations, essentially giving you a blank slate to track anything, but then it starts to seem very broad as to how deep you have to go and whats effective.
Having used several of the tools during bootstrapping, I'm still coming away unsatisfied with the insight that each were able to provide. Am I entirely alone in my desire for a yet to be found, incredibly useful web analytics tool? <comment><USER2> Don't forget about chartbeat. <http://www.chartbeat.com>

<comment><AUTHOR> There's several in this realm, though chartbeat still seems like another variation on whats out there. Real time dashboard, but not really new methods of capturing and reporting on data.

It is nice that they specifically target publishers, which is where real time has more relevance. But it seems most sites can't react to knowing the information in real time, so even the real time value proposition is limited.</comment></comment>


Computer Science from the Bottom Up - <AUTHOR> http://www.bottomupcs.com/index.html <comment><USER2> This isn't really a "computer science" book in general, it's more of a "computer systems" book. A necessary component of component of computer science to be sure, but this title should be changed.

</comment><comment><USER3> Computer Science needs another name;at least it does if that page is representative. There is precious little science there.

<comment><USER4> By its own admission, it's more about creating competent technicians by presenting them with the foundations created by engineers (who in turn are informed and prepared by the science, although that is neither mentioned nor explained, but rather is almost dismissed by treating standard science curricula as "top-down" and "at a superficial level").

The introduction uses the analogy of a shop class:

 _the prospective student is starting out trying to work on a Forumla One engine without ever knowing how a two stroke motor operates[...] Nobody will expect them to be a Formula One engineer, but they are well on their way_

This appears to be yet another example of terminology inflation in computing, where _technicians_ are called _engineers_ or even _scientists_ with little regard to what those terms actually mean in the wider technical world.</comment></comment>


Systemd broke my file manager - <AUTHOR> https://fungos.github.io/dolphin-deep-dive/ <comment><USER2> "Manjaro delivered a systemd upgrade without enforcing a minimal kernel version."

Systemd didn't break his file manager. Manjaro maintainers broke his file manager.</comment>


My five biggest blogging mistakes  - <AUTHOR> http://www.businessesgrow.com/2012/03/04/my-five-biggest-blogging-mistakes/

<comment><USER2> I really agree with the first one, it's something I identified in a post I made about the lessons I've learned after 6 years of blogging: [http://www.puremango.co.uk/2010/10/six-years-blogging- lesson...](http://www.puremango.co.uk/2010/10/six-years-blogging-lessons- learned/)

I'm not sure that 'cerebral' blogs are a mistake. I mean, PG's essays have a huge following. I think if you do it right and capture the right audience then there's nothing wrong with long, well thought out posts.

</comment><comment><USER3> I'd say the biggest blogging mistake is not having a "popular posts" list right near the top of every page. I want to see the good shit you write, right away.</comment>


Technical feasibility of a proton battery with an activated carbon electrode - <AUTHOR> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360319918302714 <comment><AUTHOR> DOI link for use with your preferred source of scientific papers:

[https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2018.01.153](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2018.01.153)

Press release from RMIT:

[https://www.rmit.edu.au/news/newsroom/media-releases-and- exp...](https://www.rmit.edu.au/news/newsroom/media-releases-and-expert- comments/2018/mar/all-power-to-the-proton)</comment>


Ask HN: Are you really interested in office environment or company culture? - <AUTHOR> Hi all!
Based on the Stackoverflow's survey (https://insights.stackoverflow.com/survey/2018/#job-priorities) I see that 13.6% of developers say that "The office environment or company culture" is the priority for them. But on the other side I don't see much job postings which mention something about these things.
So, Is it really important for you? What is the most important for you 1) office environment OR 2) company culture? <comment><USER2> >What is the most important for you 1) office environment OR 2) company culture?

Office environment is either a subset of company culture, else has massive overlap with it.

If you are asking for comparison between company culture and _physical_ work environment (i.e. the tangible sites, facilities and decoration) again there is massive correlation/causation between the two, and are very intertwined subjects - Here is a fairly comprehensive overview of the current literature:

THE IMPACT OF THE PHYSICAL WORK ENVIRONMENT ON ORGANIZATIONAL OUTCOMES: A STRUCTURED REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE - Paul Kegel

[http://jfmer.org/doi/full/10.22361/jfmer/76637](http://jfmer.org/doi/full/10.22361/jfmer/76637)

'Office environment and Company Culture' are bundled together for the above reasons. - In summary, it isn't really possible to compare as an 'either/or'. Data would be too noisy and interrelated to split, and if split would have little value that could be derived anyway.

</comment><comment><USER3> I have a feeling this is mostly something that can break an otherwise great job, mostly a negative modifier. So the default is no influence, so not worth mentioning?</comment>


Ask HN: Has anyone here ever made an Ubuntu usplash theme? - <AUTHOR>

Shouldn't be too hard with the resources out there on the web to help, but it's always good to be in touch with someone that can answer questions.  Not looking to go too complex, but definitely want to have custom animations for loading bar,etc. included.  If you could leave your contact info here or just drop me a quick email j[at]jasonlbaptiste.com it would be greatly appreciated! <comment><USER2> I've done it for Kubuntu. My laptop boots with my company name (Neurogami). Just because. :)

I used a tool on KDE: KSplasher. Trick getting the image size and resolution correct. Helps to start by modding an existing theme.</comment>


Show HN: Sebenz.ai – Convert your time and human intelligence into money - <AUTHOR> https://www.sebenz.ai/ <comment><USER2> Signup page:

> _Terms and conditions apply. You agree that we may use your data for > marketing purposes and share it with any of our affiliates or partners. Do > you agree to waive all legal consequences and rights to legal recourse > relating to this survey?_

Neither Hacker News nor Reddit have the appropriate typeface options for the requisite magnitude of NOPE this deserves to be responded to with. Nothing about completing AI training tasks requires anything but the bare minimum of my data, and certainly not selling it.

"All legal consequences and rights to legal recourse"? Dude, no. Just no. Combined with the lack of privacy policy and ToS, this looks like a very sketchy, fly-by-night operation.

<comment><AUTHOR> fixed

<comment><USER2> No it isn't.

[https://sebenzai.typeform.com/to/MQ6QUy](https://sebenzai.typeform.com/to/MQ6QUy)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Clicking the "Download" link on your "Terms" page takes me to the following page [1] and clicking the "Get in touch" link takes me to a dead page [2]. Also, your title is still set as "Quicksmart - Webflow HTML Website Template" which appears on the tab for your page. I would suggest going over your site once more and clear up some of these low hanging fruit, as it really doesn't give me a lot of confidence that I'll be paid for my work. :)

[1] - [https://webflow.com/templates/template- licenses](https://webflow.com/templates/template-licenses) [2] - [https://www.sebenz.ai/contact/contact-1](https://www.sebenz.ai/contact/contact-1)

Edit: As I was submitting this, I see the Get in touch link has been updated, however, the Download link has not, and the terms has simply changed to "We encrypt all data in transit and at rest."

That's great, but, that doesn't really sound like Terms of Service to me.

<comment><AUTHOR> Fixed, thanks!

Still working on legal stuff.

Working on more bugs now.

This wasn't like an official launch still very much work in progress.

<comment><AUTHOR> Added some proper legal now :)

<comment><USER4> You should spent a lot more thought and effort on privacy and legal terms than "adding it now" after being challenged on it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> > Convert your time and human intelligence into money This describes literally > all paid work

</comment><comment><USER6> I'd be extremely concerned about downloading an app to my mobile device from a data collection venture.

<comment><AUTHOR> What if it means you can afford to pay rent?

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> "Walk around your neighbourhood and take photographs. We'll pay you per photograph. Collect vehicle license plate data..."

This reminds me of communist-era practice of spying on your neighbors for "the good of your country." And, just like this app, the spies received small payments for the quality and frequency of their information. The more things change, the more they stay the same...

<comment><AUTHOR> Fixed

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Can you just call it "data processor for training AI"?

<comment><AUTHOR> Sure. Good idea.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> A variant on Mechanical Turk? MT has been doing image classification for a long time.

<comment><AUTHOR> yes but we encrypt the data.

companies that use mechanical turk share your sensitive data with people working in third-world clickfarms.

we "digitally shred" your audio and image data before we get it annotated.

Basically we just productizing CAPTCHA and making it work on smartphones and Ethereum

<comment><USER10> Ah yes, the good old sprinkling of magic cryptography over your product. I suppose it's all fine then.

Encryption is reversible, the question is who has access to the keys and what data does it unlock.

Also, it seems odd that this is never mentioned in your privacy policy (ctrl+f "crypt" to match decryption/encryption/cryptography, but no hits). You'd think if this is a core feature to maintain security and/or privacy and distinguish yourself from the competition, it would be in there...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Any questions / feedback?

<comment><USER3> Are your terms of service just lorem ipsum?

[https://www.sebenz.ai/utility/terms](https://www.sebenz.ai/utility/terms)

<comment><AUTHOR> um check now

<comment><USER10> > We collect and use the personal data described above in order to provide, > improve, promote, and protect the Services, and to develop new products and > services. We also collect and use personal data for our legitimate business > needs.

Very specific. This some template that basically says "we don't care"?

<comment><AUTHOR> Working on a new version. Sorry didn't mean for this to be an official "launch". Just working on getting website v0.1 online.

Legal stuff coming soon.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> why did this get flagged?

</comment><comment><USER11> "Walk around your neighbourhood and take photographs. We'll pay you per photograph. Collect vehicle license plate data..."

Yeah, how about fucking off? What the shit is this about? People should mind their own business. It is like those apps that ask you to collect WiFi SSIDs while driving around to 'help creating better location services' aka violate people's privacy for profit by some company.

<comment><USER10> No way that that's legal in the European Union.

An individual might accidentally capture a license plate on a picture they take, or if you use pictures for traffic monitoring and they capture license plates but you don't store the data, those might be legitimate purposes. "Go around and spy on your neighbours for some foreign company" cannot be legal.

See also the privacy policy that was lorem ipsum when this was posted. When someone commented, the owner seems to have quickly downloaded a template somewhere that says vague things like "we use it for legitimate business interests".

<comment><USER3> It gets worse. They just updated the Terms, however, they copied them directly from this site here:

[https://scale.com/legal/terms](https://scale.com/legal/terms)

They even forgot to change the links, so all sebenz.ai links still go to the scale site...

<comment><AUTHOR> Added some proper legal now :)</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Summary of useful tools and resources for working in Google App Engine - <AUTHOR> http://code.google.com/appengine/tools_tips.html

<comment><USER2> There is a great resource that you won't find on that page: appengine-jruby. It works with Sinatra or Rails, so you can write beautiful ruby code and upload it to Google where it will be compiled to byte-code and served. Check it out: <http://code.google.com/p/appengine-jruby/>

</comment><comment><USER3> I used to be huge fan of AppEngine, then I realized that no company will ever pay me to build anything on top of AppEngine. :(

<comment><AUTHOR> This was in recent news, based on Elance data..

 _After making an entry into the top 50 skills in Q1 2010, Google App Engine, the cloud-based application development platform, showed the single largest increase in demand with over a 10x growth quarter over quarter. With this increase, Google App Engine (#37) moved past Amazon Web Services (#40) as the cloud platform highest in demand in Q2._

From : [http://www.websitemagazine.com/content/blogs/posts/archive/2...](http://www.websitemagazine.com/content/blogs/posts/archive/2010/08/09/follow- the-money-it-superhero-s-top-elance-again.aspx)

Currently though, the rankings have changed a bit.. <http://www.elance.com/p/online-employment-report-it.html></comment></comment>


Sedentary behaviour and life expectancy in the USA (2012) - <AUTHOR> https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/2/4/e000828 <comment><USER2> A lot of people try to blame obesity and poor health on the lack of active behavior in the USA. "You're a sedentary person therefore you end up fat" is the idea. But more often than not I see active people get fat from the horrible sugar laden food and getting out and moving is painful and horrible for them. It happened to my brothers and my parents, it happened to friends and family and it happened to me.

Lately I've been getting it under control with fasting and home cooked meals. But it's seriously hard in America to avoid the horrible food. It's freaking everywhere.

</comment><comment><USER3> This is pretty weak imo. The effect could easily just be due to the fact that someone who is morbidly obese probably isn't capable of standing for very long. Because they would be included in the sitting group, it would easily skew the data. Not a fan of this study at all.

<comment><USER4> 3 hours is a very short period. I can't think of a single day in my life where I sat for less than 3 hours. I mean, I glanced at the paper and as far as I can tell that include eating breakfast, lunch and dinner (easily 1.5 hours right there). Even if I'm on my feet for the whole working day, I guarantee that I'll be taking a rest at night either playing a video game, reading a book or watching TV.

Saying that, I basically don't believe the study. The data was self reported and I literally don't believe that there is a statistically significant portion of the population who sit for less than 3 hours a day _on average_. Maybe I'm just misunderstanding the study...

<comment><USER5> It would probably be more useful to study primitive tribes and see how long they sit per day to see what our bodies might be adapted to.

I also find it hard to believe that people can sit for less than 3 hours per day consistently, given commute times as well.

You'd have to be doing manual labor on your property from sun up to sun down and only sit from sun down until bedtime to get close to 3hrs.

<comment><USER6> You're confusing self-reported sitting with objectively measured sitting. The paper mentions both, mentions the rather large difference, and the reported correlation with life expectancy is for self-reported sitting.

<comment><USER7> A person who self reports little sitting is just likely to have a standing or physical job. So this is a weak version of correlating physical activity.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> If that's true I'd be dead by now.</comment>


Network neutrality : A tangled web  - <AUTHOR> http://www.economist.com/node/17800141?story_id=17800141&fsrc=scn/tw/te/rss/pe

<comment><USER2> Finally, someone else makes the argument that I've been making for awhile:

"These details are important, but the noise about them only makes the omission more startling: the failure in America to tackle the underlying lack of competition in the provision of internet access."

Americans seem to believe that, if a company is granted monopoly status by a government entity or if competition is severely limited, then those companies allowed to operate without free market competitive forces should be regulated. Monthly phone and cable bills are regulated by some combination of local, State, and Federal governments with the presumption that these payments from consumers are the companies' main revenue source resulting from this governmental grant of exclusivity. Now, these same companies are trying to invent another revenue source which will not fall under these guidelines, at least not at first. Great, my bill for "internet service" is still $29.99, but this "service" is now limited to watching high bandwidth video from just a few providers who opted to pay for access to my home. I would not mind so much if there was a neutral tier available with a government-regulated price and a "we sell you on the back-end" tier available in addition. It is that these telecoms are attempting to avoid regulation by changing their revenue model which is so bothersome.

Also, I would not mind if there was some method by which I could pick and choose QoS for my traffic and pay based on priority. Imagine some sort of open standard by which a "choose your priorities" app could communicate with my DSL provider's network. Perhaps Google could make watching YouTube more palatable by subsidizing prioritization of its traffic through a transparent back-end rate structure available to all content providers.

In a nutshell, I have no issue with tiered rate structures or traffic prioritization. My chief complaint is simply that the telecoms want to circumvent regulation and choose the winners and losers rather than achieving their purported goals in an open, transparent, and nondiscriminatory manner.

</comment><comment><USER3> I don't think of this as a difficult issue at all. What we have now is the Internet. Once you allow service discrimination, then it is a different service. It is no longer the Internet.

Thus, if a corporate wants to run a network with discriminatory services, then let them do it on their own network. Give us customers the option of another wire or both services on the same wire.

Then let the market decide.

Of course, no-one will want the discriminatory service, so what greedy corporate entities want to do is subvert the status quo. They want to steal the Internet.

<comment><USER4> A good, if slightly out there, analogy would be Pepsi or some other company using its unfair financial position to use existing infrastructure to pipe its product instead of water. In this case the absurdity would be apparent, but when it comes to the internet there seems to be a lack of knowledge (especially in the aged political class) of how it should and does operate.

There is work being done on an alternative internet which would be free for all. Each home would be a node, with the capacity to be a cache, a destination or a bridge, achieved by leveraging wireless routers to create a mass mesh network. <http://netsukuku.freaknet.org/?pag=home>

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I see bits like any other resource that gets piped to your home. It would be disgusting if some could pay extra to siphon off water, electricity or gas at the expense of others. There would be riots if access to water was subject to how much you could pay.

The talk of "special services" is just a ruse: ultimately every service is the same, ie data. The only consideration should be the maximisation of bandwidth in a democratic way: equal access. The only people that would benefit from tiering would be the incumbents; those that generate the most traffic. This will further increase the centralisation of content and money more so that it is now. The only "innovation" needs to be laying cables and pushing the laws of physics.

A slight aside: I find it particularly galling to

</comment><comment><USER5> I oppose network neutrality; regulation and oversight will halt or slow the creation of new ISPs and slow down technological adoption.

Walled gardens like AOL failed without regulation. People noticed when comcast forged TCP reset packets; they will notice a paywall.</comment>