San Francisco split by Silicon Valley's wealth - <AUTHOR> http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-silicon-valley-backlash-20130814,0,762467,full.story <comment><USER2> Are there any actual critiques to be had against Google busses other than some vague misplaced anger? Here we have private companies using their own capital to provide a more environmentally friendly way of getting their employees to the South Bay. What exactly is the problem here? Would they prefer if things were more like LA and everyone of these tech employees had their own high priced car? Would that make the wealth disparity less apparent?

Then after a few anecdotes of assholes acting like assholes (as if that's representative of anything), Uber is of course targeted. I find this particularly hilarious because I would argue that ride-share companies are _exactly_ the tech companies who are working on real problems. Go ride in a Lyft or Uber X and ask the driver how they feel about the company. Lyft is providing real jobs and making use of resources that would otherwise be _notoriously_ redundant and misused (cars).

<comment><USER3> I have gone through similar feelings and you raise a great point: The buses from Google, Facebook, etc. are far better than those same companies quietly doing nothing as their employees clog the freeways, which is very common among other companies but basically invisible. So they get crap for doing a good thing.

Here's the flipside, although I've never heard anyone actually make the first argument:

-Google the company actively dodges taxes, albeit through tactics common in the corporate world. So while it is pampering its own employees, it is undermining public transit by not paying nearly its fair share into the federal (and likely state) pools that help fund the transit for everyone else. Thus, Google is actively exacerbating inequality.

-Google's buses use public land intended for public transit to provide "stops" for its employees. Google can clearly afford to compensate for this, but, as far as I know, does not do so. This at a time when Muni and other transit agencies could really use the money. Free rent for large corporations is never going to be popular.

-Although there are environmental benefits to the buses, Google, Facebook, etc. are almost certainly not motivated primarily by the environmental benefits but by self interest. In other words, the freeways are full, and getting to South Bay each morning is a nightmare. And yet many desirable engineers etc prefer to live in SF vs South Bay. Hence, the buses, which make it easier for these companies to recruit. This competitive element then puts pressures on other smaller internet companies to run their own buses, even if those buses are not particularly full or if they are driving large distances within SF to pick up only a small number of people or single person at a given stop.

<comment><USER2> 1\. Google does not "dodge" taxes. They follow the incredibly complex web of rules the system specifically designed for this sort of use (or abuse). Its absurd to expect any corporation or person to go out of their way to pay more than they need to. (Milton Friedman Why Tax Reform is Impossible: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TruCIPy79w8](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TruCIPy79w8) )

2\. Muni does not need more money. SF does not need more money. SF's budget is twice that of Idaho's, and we have far fewer people and far less space than Idaho ( [http://www.sfweekly.com/2009-12-16/news/the-worst-run-big- ci...](http://www.sfweekly.com/2009-12-16/news/the-worst-run-big-city-in-the- u-s/) ). Look no further than the ridiculous extension of muni from China town to downtown to see a clear indication of how funds are being completely misused. No one wants to fix the budget problems in SF and its so much easier to just blame whoever happens to be successful at the moment.

3\. I'm not sure I disagree with your third point at all but also don't understand how its a negative thing. You are describing normal competition between companies. I can at least provide one piece of information: I used to work in the South Bay and hated the commute and would do everything in my power not to ever do it again, bus or not. So there's plenty of incentive to stay and work in a small company here, I assure you. Do you see lots of small companies running buses (honest question, I'm simply not familiar)? I seem to just see the flipside happening: more small companies simply being in SF.

<comment><USER3> I was framing the argument more than taking a side, I can see both sides of this. Not sure what you mean about Google not dodging taxes though. Like I said, it's common among large corporations, but that doesn't mean it's not a fact that it's happening. Google's tax avoidance schemes are well documented, whatever your opinion of them is morally there's no use denying they exist.

The broader point I was making isn't Google Is Evil For Not Paying Taxes. The point was, if you're going to not pay taxes, you don't get to play the "I'm a benevolent corporation helping make society a better place" card when you run enormous luxury coaches all over town and use sketchy pick up locations. People will assume the worst intentions.

I actually lean Google on this one. But that doesn't mean I have to buy the argument they are doing this out of the kindess of their Googler hearts. I say make them pay through the teeth for these stops like any red blooded capitalist would. (Like, say, Milton Friedman.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> _Her son, like most young people, wants to be able to move out and live on his own even as the city gets more and more expensive._

These articles frustrate me because they rarely manage to mention obvious factors like, say, supply and demand—a problem that I wrote more about here: [http://jseliger.wordpress.com/2013/04/08/connecting-the- dots...](http://jseliger.wordpress.com/2013/04/08/connecting-the-dots-between- beliefs-an-example-from-density-and-housing-policy) . If you're unhappy about rapidly rising housing prices, the simple solution is to build more of it. We have the technology to do so and have for a hundred years.

One can argue that high prices are a reasonable cost for low density, but to do so at least requires some basic knowledge of how supply and demand work.

On a separate note, articles like this also show why newspapers are having so many problems: if a random commenter like me knows more introductory-level econ than the reporter writing about such issues, the reporter has no business writing about business.

<comment><USER5> SV tech giants creates artificial demand in SF by providing premium buses, without motivating any sort of supply. Developers can't choose to say, build more housing near the place of employment in SF because there isn't one. The closest would be to build near a bus stop -- which is completely ephemeral real estate.

And that's the point of the article. How can developers __possibly __respond to this demand?

<comment><USER6> There's a lack of real estate for businesses in the city as well.

Getting an office for your tech startup isn't trivial nor cheap. A lot more of these companies in the south bay along the Caltrain could be in SF if there was more commercial real estate available.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> It amazes me how the examples given in the article as displays of wealth don't resonate with me at all.

In the Middle East, you have Sheiks creating gigantic palaces that rival wonders of the world, all for their display of wealth and power.

In the Balkans, you have rich gypsies throwing money on women at their weddings and carrying more bling on them than you will ever have in your lifetime.

I just left SF for a bit after living in SoMa for a year. People should understand that spending YOUR money on YOUR wedding to make it special is not an exorbitant display of wealth. Neither is having a corporate jet area at an airport or a charter of private buses for that matter.

It could be worse; much worse.

<comment><USER8> > In the Balkans, you have rich gypsies throwing money on women at their > weddings and carrying more bling on them than you will ever have in your > lifetime.

From my understanding, the throwing of money during a wedding is a tradition in some cultures. It's either used to pay for the wedding, or the money goes around and is used in another wedding.

I've given money at weddings, in an envelope instead of throwing it, but I wouldn't call that a display of wealth. Not if spending YOUR money on YOUR wedding isn't, at least.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Either build more housing, remove rent control or have SF no longer be appealing. Those are the only options to stop rental increases. Anything else is artificial and doomed to fail by introducing flawed mechanisms to try and subvert the most natural process there is (Supply/Demand)

SF seems like one of the only places on earth where the general mindset is "I have a absolute human right to live in San Francisco". Good luck trying that attitude in Aspen or Greenwich. The bottom line is that so long as SF is one of the most desirable places in the US to live, people are going to flock here and capitalism will take over (SURPRISE)

Its really just simple supply and demand. There is a lot of people wanting to live in SF (demand) and lots of low paying tenants who dont move causing little vacancies (supply). The end result is astronomical prices.

<comment><USER10> Well come on, it's a little more complicated than that. Where you live is not just a simple commodity to you, it's your home. Having lived through the complete gentrification (Disneyfication) of Manhattan I found that, despite being of the Liberal bent, it was hard to see old neighborhoods disappear, look around at nice neighborhoods and realize a good percentage of the apartments are owned by people who are in them only a few days a year, and watch as the interesting fringe stuff (i.e. The Hat) was replaced by the interesting mega-expensive stuff (i.e. Per Se.) It feels bad to become an outcast in your own land, even though that kind of thing does not come into play in Liberal thought.

I don't think that some people asking for some other solution than pure supply-and-demand is untoward. Understanding how they feel: that their home (meaning both the place they live in and their neighborhood) might be more important to them than most other things. There's a certain amount of suffering we cause them with our exercise of simple capitalism. While we can't measure pain in dollars and cents, that doesn't mean we shouldn't care about it. Not everything should be measured in dollars and capitalism is not the only moral system, nor is it inevitable.

I don't have answers (well, actually, I have plenty of opinions on answers but none that are radically different than any other answers already given) but I also don't think that the brou-ha-ha is useless: it's always useful to have these discussions. The end result of this kind of public pressure is often compromise.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Gentrification happens, people get bitter when they don't own their homes. This is normal economics that happens in every major city (e.g. Williamsburg, Brooklyn, East Side, Austin, Mississippi District, Portland, Mission, SF, etc., etc., etc.). Much of this has to do with the end of white flight, which should probably be considered a good thing. The laws in SF are as renter friendly as you can get in this country. I'm not sure what all the fuss is about.

<comment><USER12> Well, it kind of sucks that your options in the US are gentrification or Detroitification. It's part of the price we pay for not having the social safety nets and public investment in infrastructure that other countries have.

<comment><USER13> In Canada, similar gentrification is also happening rapidly in Toronto/Vancouver. Detroitification happened on the Canadian east coast (when the fishing industry died). And we have better "social safety nets". I don't think social programs manage to keep cities alive or the same as they were, nor would the overall country benefit from trying harder to do so.

The main difference w/ Toronto vs SF is that Toronto has a liberal condo building policy so more affordable housing is being built by a (relatively) booming real estate industry. Whereas SF's property development growth has nowhere near reflected its population/income boom.

<comment><USER14> The problem in SF is there is no middle class or family housing being built. All these fancy new buildings going up are high margin 4k/mo rent and some percentage of section 8. There's nothing going up even in the range of 1800-2800 1 or 2BR places.

What would probably be reasonable is 1400/mo studio, 2000/mo 1BR, 2800/mo 2BR. What would be ideal is more like 1200/mo, 1700/mo, 2400/mo respectively. Yeah, that's still expensive, but it's a newer building and hopefully older buildings would be around 80% of that. But that's not going to happen.

Some additional policies like penalizing companies for letting new places be unrented for some amount of time, or allowing developers to (temporarily) displace SRO occupants while they demolish and rebuild higher density buildings in the Tenderloin could possibly help change behaviors towards increasing the supply of more modest housing, but that's not going to happen any time soon. In the meantime, the city is fine letting people do what they want at top as long as it benefits the people at the bottom, with no plans to do anything for people in between.

<comment><USER15> Those rent prices are not even available in places like San Jose (one example: [http://www.equityapartments.com/california/san-francisco- bay...](http://www.equityapartments.com/california/san-francisco-bay- apartments/north-san-jose/domain-apartments.aspx))

<comment><USER16> You can rent a pretty nice 2b duplex in Mountain View for 2.5k. 20 minute bike ride to Google.

<comment><USER15> Most of the 2 bdr units in Mountain View on Craigslist are well over 2500:

[http://sfbay.craigslist.org/search/apa/pen?query=&zoomToPost...](http://sfbay.craigslist.org/search/apa/pen?query=&zoomToPosting=&srchType=A&minAsk=&maxAsk=&bedrooms=2&housing_type=&nh=81)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> This article is not the first on the subject, and it probably won't be the last.

I should just save them and forwarded them to the Google recruiters that contact me 1-2 times a year. Not going to work in the bay area. I like living in a place where my neighbors do not work in tech. I like SF, but what made the city truly extraordinary is gone.

<comment><USER18> _I like living in a place where my neighbors do not work in tech._

Out of curiosity, why? Where I live, finding real life interactions with people in tech is quite rare, and I wish it were different.

Grass is greener.

<comment><USER17> Perhaps I should have phrased it as "I like living in a place where _MOST_ my neighbors do not work in tech".

I am in agreement that having some interaction with others in the tech industry is important. There should be a happy medium somewhere since living next to nothing but tech workers and lawyers is boring. My current neighbors are teachers, photographers, small business owners, but I wish there was a techie in the mix.

<comment><USER19> I wish one of my neighbors worked in tech.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Yes, lets put up a divider between the relatively wealthy tech people and the poor, so that the third parties (property owners, _government_ ) stay unharmed.

Tech people also don't want to pay 40% of their net income to some rent seeker for a studio appartment. This level of prices will ultimately be toxic to the economy.

</comment><comment><USER21> This is due to not enough housing being built over the past 30 years

<comment><USER22> Supply of housing kept artificially low (SF gov resisting building up for decades). Demand for housing rising, as it should in any desirable city.

People seem surprised by this.

As long as we are adding CS to school curricula, maybe we should add some Econ 101 as well...

<comment><USER23> My high school (in Cupertino, CA -- 45 miles south of SF) did require an economics course and the one I took (AP Micro Econ for part of the course, regular macro econ for remainder) used rent control as an example of policies with unintended consequences. I don't think ignorance is the problem here, this is textbook stuff.

I think the real issues are these:

1) Economics is a science, it helps you build a mathematical model of ``what happens if''. It doesn't immediately follow that even if rent control has drawbacks (lowered mobility, gradual conversion of units from apartments to TiCs or condos, higher rent and lower ability for those who move into the city) that they aren't socially acceptable due to perceived benefits. I am not making this argument myself here, by the way (I don't think social benefits of rent control justify the costs); I am merely stating that it isn't as straightforward (going from "rent control has unintended consequences" to "rent control is a wrong policy" is an example of Hume's is-ought fallacy).

2) There are other legal/economics issues besides rent control. There are certain tenant right laws that currently making it very difficult for one- property landlords to rent their property out. In other words if you're moving to South Bay/Fremont or Pleasanton for the next 12 years to better schools (more on this later...) or to New York/London for 5 years to work in finance sector it may be more monetarily advantageous to you to sell or AirBnB the place. If you're an individual with a single investment property it makes all the sense to sell now (or again, to AirBnB) as opposed to continue renting out.

Tenant's rights is a great concept and undoubtedly tenants should be protected from unsafe conditions, predatory practices, eviction without any notice, harassment, etc... However, some of the laws (e.g., difficulty of eviction for legitimate reasons, bizzare laws that can require a property to wait for 10 years before being rented or sold again after an eviction in some cases, etc...) clearly make things easier for slumlords (individuals/families with more than a single property), large property management companies, and apartment complexes.

3) Non-rent related political/economic issues: namely schools, transportation, and safety. First, there is whole Western half of SF (Sunset, Richmond) that's simply an amazing town: walkable mixed-use neighbourhoods, slightly larger homes, lower rent, less crime. "Small" problem: it takes as long to get to SOMA or FiDi from Inner Richmond as it does from Mountain View or Palo Alto. Sunset is slightly better _when muni is on-time_ (that's like saying "JVM is fast when you're not having a full GC" \-- at-grade transportation will enviable suffer delays), but it's still a longer (and more exhausting) commute than driving from, e.g., Daly City.

Second, schools are (literally) a lottery ticket. The known-good public schools (e.g., Lowell) are magnets that are extremely competitive admissions wise. Private schools would be fine, but become unaffordable when there's also rent/mortgage to pay in SF. Child friendly neighbourhoods (likes one I describe above) are generally removed from work areas.

Essentially this leaves only one option: if you're a family, due to safety/space reasons you'll probably have to commute[1] anyway to get to work; since you can commute from somewhere with either cheaper housing (East Bay) or great public schools (South Bay, Fremont area, Pleasanton, etc...), or take a job in one of these areas and have a shorter commuter, the costs of living in SF proper outweigh the benefits...

4) Non-political factors: SF is at the end of Peninsula, with mountains in the middle, and on its south side. It's also highly in demand. You can build up as in Manhattan (and SF should) but even though SF is now cheaper than Manhattan, Manhattan real estate is still unaffordable for most Americans.

In other words, imagine you've an NP-complete algorithm. You can apply every optimization possible, but in the end you either have to throw a core with more transistors at it (where you're limited by physics), throw more parallel cores/distributed CPUs at it (_if_ it happens to be easily parallelizable), or find a heuristic that doesn't give you a complete answer but is good enough (like Miller-Rabin primarily test).

Ultimately I think (but may as well be proven wrong) that a combination of these is what will happen here: reform of housing laws ("optimization") and smaller housing in SF proper ("more transistors on a core"), more SF-like dense urban cores in Bay Area, e.g., more jobs in Oakland/Berkeley, revival of Downtown SJ ("more cores"), and "densification" with a move towards mixed use residential/light commercial in suburbs/exurbs coupled with better public and private transportation options ("heuristical solutions").

[1] To out of towners, here are some numbers from personal experience/experience of friends:

Mid-Richmond to SOMA by bus -- 40 minutes Inner Sunset to SOMA by Muni without delays ~20 minutes

Menlo Park to SOMA -- 35 minutes Daly City to SOMA -- 20 minutes at most Saratoga to FiDi - 1 hour 5 minutes Saratoga to Palo Alto California ave area -- 20 minutes Saratoga to Menlo Park - 30 minutes Mountain View to Menlo Park -- 15 minutes Mountain View to Sunnyvale/Santa Clara - 5-15 minutes

Driving commute in SF proper is not a good option. First, you lose out majorly on the savings of living in the city by having a car (the car itself, insurance, gas, parking, maintenance. Second, there's very little freeway in SF proper, but major job centers (SOMA, downtown) happen to be near freeway exits -- driving on SF surface streets is simply not worth it in terms of gas costs from idling/stop-and-go traffic, damage that happens to your car (with a manual car it means having to replace a clutch more often; with an automatic I can't imagine the stress put on the torque converter), and most importantly the stress/discomfort.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Totally misplaced anger by non-techies - the housing problem in SF is down to the planning restrictions.

<comment><USER25> Agreed, that article totally missed the point here on the NIMBY-ism all over SF. Look at cities like Vancouver (often voted best city to live in the world) and their core is filled with dense skyrises that also ensure vibrant and busy street level activity which leads to lower crime and safer streets.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Whose "problem" is economic equality? It doesn't sound like it should be the responsibility of the companies that happen to reside in/near the Valley. Google's mission statement is to index the Internet, not to bolster the Valley, so they optimize accordingly. The companies and its residents don't owe their cities anything. Living there is merely an implementation detail.

Granted, I think it would be nice if San Francisco wasn't left in the dust so to speak... But I can't think of how keeping the city propped up in a certain way aligns with people's and corporations' natural inclinations.

It doesn't add up any other way, I don't think. What is happening is perfectly logical. Maybe unfortunate. But logical.

</comment><comment><USER27> The problem is the SF City gov. They are destroying everything they want to protect about the city by restricting housing developments.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> The buses are a convenient and visible symbol for SF activists to use as a shorthand for the influx of tech workers and housing demand.

While buses clearly reduce roadway commuting loads, and are convenient for those inside them, they are also highly visible at pick-up/drop-off points in the City, and in HOV lanes on the freeway \- especially visible to people who are waiting for a Muni bus, or who are in heavy traffic watching buses go past in an HOV lane.

Activists who understand this keep talking about buses rather than about people, or about the failures of the City to provide more competitive working environments for tech companies and their workers.

</comment><comment><USER28> I guess it's that time of the month again: class warfare and the effect of the tech industry on SF.

> Fueling the growing rift is a common belief that the vast wealth being > amassed by the tech industry is not spilling over into the community.

This is a deliberately naive view of economics. Unless tech workers spend nothing they consume local goods and services and money flows through the economy that way. If you profile tech workers who live in SF you'll tend to find they're young (20s) and tend to spend a lot of their money on "entertainment" (bars, restaurants, etc). How exactly does this not benefit the SF economy?

> Instead, activists say, the high-tech invasion is driving up the cost of > living to levels that more San Franciscans cannot afford.

No, ignorance of supply and demand, archaic zoning laws and other artificial constraints on supply drive up the cost of living in SF and the rest of the Bay area.

If, for example, you had high density housing along the Caltrain corridor you'd probably find that a lot less people would feel the need to live in SF.

> She has seen a sharp uptick in evictions under the Ellis Act, the state law > that allows a landlord to evict all tenants of a building if it is being > taken off the rental market. And now she and the other tenants in her > building

This is inevitable when you create artificially low rental prices. If you want to avoid this sort of thing the only way to do it is either a) have a government authority own the buildings or b) subsidize the rent paid on the private market. Rent control is always going to leave owners looking for a way to get out of it.

> So he's hunting for a job as a recruiter in the tech industry.

And who said this isn't benefiting the SF economy?

As for the private buses, I don't recall the cost per worker for the system but I believe it's actually pretty low. BART/Muni/Caltrain/VTA/etc is actually pretty expensive and government subsidized. The real problem here is that public transit in the Bay Area is appallingly organized and run so companies have no real choice but to go private.

But I bet the politicians love all this finger-pointing at tech companies. It certainly takes the heat off them.

<comment><USER29> _If, for example, you had high density housing along the Caltrain corridor you 'd probably find that a lot less people would feel the need to live in SF._

What are you talking about? There's plenty of housing by Caltrain. I myself live within bed-shaking distance of Caltrain.

A shortage of residences near Caltrain isn't the problem. The problem is ... all these cities SUCK. They are homogeneous culturally barren wastelands. THAT'S why people want to live in SF.

But by moving to SF in such large numbers, with tech millions burning a hole in their pockets, they are driving up rents and home prices to such a degree that non-techies cannot afford to live there.

As this continues, SF itself will turn into a homogeneous culturally barren wasteland - more like San Jose. And the yuppie bars and overpriced restaurants that remain will be staffed by workers bussed in from somewhere else. The art and music and quirkiness will be long gone.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> I've read a few articles noting the tension between private bus services and public space. I don't live in Silicon Valley, but it sounds like these private buses are really taking advantage of public space and I think the city needs to step in, write up some rules for fair use and generate revenue from this private system.

<comment><USER22> Generate revenue from these? (that is, make up and levy a new tax)

Were it not for these buses, there would be more cars on the road (and jostling for parking spots, and more pollution) and more people piling into Muni, Caltrain and BART during rush hour. These buses, like the bathrooms in Starbucks, are a private company providing a public good.

I work for a company that doesn't give me these buses. I wish they did. I'm plenty envious. But I am under no illusion that these private bus systems owe me anything more than the lightened traffic burden they already gave me.

<comment><USER31> Or the people wouldn't live so far away from where they work thus freeing up more housing and lessening (at least for a time) the skyrocketing rental situation in the city.

<comment><USER22> I don't think that is necessarily the case. I live in SF and work in Sunnyvale and would ever even consider leaving SF as long as I'm single.

Even if the shuttle is convenient, it is still 2-3 hours of your day gone, every day.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> > _Most young technology workers order food and supplies online, so she doesn > 't run into them at the corner store. They keep their noses buried in their > smartphones when they walk on the streets and don't volunteer in the > community, Flandrich said._

This is true even outside Silicon Valley. A techies community is the Internet. GitHub, Reddit, Hacker News, forums, etc. This trend will only get more prolific as the Internet becomes more immerse.

</comment><comment><USER33> What can be done? Build more housing I guess, but who's to say the most desirable still won't be bought by those looking to pay the most?

Not to be dismissive of the impact to those who have up to this point been able to afford it and now must change their lives.. but I don't know if there's any 'cure' for people wanting to sell a scarce resource to the highest bidder.

</comment><comment><USER34> Just so the article is clear on which group it's trying to scapegoat: they fail to mention any of the big biotech companies who also run commuter coaches out of San Francisco.

There are so many reasons for SF's growing wealth gap and housing costs. This is just an article with all the same hate-speech as one blaming a minority.

</comment><comment><USER35> It's funny how the article doesn't consider technologists to be intellectuals.

<comment><USER36> Sally the project manager, Ben the QA guy, and Amit the Rails hacker, who make up 99% of the SV workforce, are decidedly not intellectuals.

<comment><USER37> Do you know any interesting people who you would consider to be intellectuals who work in technology? If so, are their intellectual interests separate from technology (ie., they have a second life as a musician/artist/writer), or do they have technical interests that you would consider "intellectual".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> I don't live in SF but question about the techie bus stops: Do panhandlers congregate there?

<comment><USER38> They've had some problems with muggings, but I haven't seen more panhandling than usual near them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> Pf, Silicon Valley is split by Silicon Valley's wealth. There are a huge amount of people here who have $1m+ net worth, and an even larger number who have moved in since to clean up their code (making far less). That's not even mentioning the even greater number of support staff who make less than the transit workers and cops.

The amount of money the top tier people are making around here should be illegal.

<comment><USER40> On what principle should "making huge amounts of money because you are top tier" be illegal? And with what filters?

<comment><USER41> >And with what filters?

From my years of spending time on HN: being involved in banking or finance means your wealth is undeserved and ill-gotten. When your business fails, you should go to jail.

But the excesses of the technology world are lauded. Because, you know, Napster.

It's some interesting hypocrisy.

<comment><USER40> First of all, I wouldn't call it "hypocrisy". I would call it "not very clear point of view". I doubt they/we do it by intention; they/we just don't get the whole picture.

And I write "they/we" because I sometimes have the same "hate" towards the banking/finance industry. But sometimes it's well-fed by its methods. Of course I wouldn't demand a clerk to go to jail but I would like to see a few bank bosses that always get away by bribing (or blackmailing) politicians treated the same way a small store boss would be treated.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Exiting my boutique logging company? - <AUTHOR> So I wrote a log management app last year. I'm about to hit $10k/month in revenue, no real costs or employees.
I'm burned out on the tech industry, the people more than the work, and I've decided to leave it for good after 25 years. My goal is to buy a cabin and never touch a computer again.
What do I do with this thing? Ideally I sell it off for 2-3 years revenue, and have maybe a 1-month transition period.  Is that realistic? <comment><USER2> One month might be too short, but I think 3-6 months is possible. The valuation can work. Contact a broker like [https://feinternational.com/](https://feinternational.com/) They will review the numbers, create a prospectus, send that to their list of clients. Or marketplaces like [https://flippa.com/](https://flippa.com/) or ebay.</comment>


YC Office Hours at TC Disrupt [Live] - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/disrupt/ <comment><USER2> I was on stage (testranking.com) I completely froze when PG started to fire questions at me. It is amazing how fast he got to the core points.

It was my first time on stage, it is really hard to prepare for this kind of experience.

<comment><USER3> I looked at your site after it finally started working again during your segment. Why is the Macbook Pro ranked #1 for gaming laptops? It has superior build quality, but gaming performance leaves plenty to be desired compared to many of the laptops below it. It also costs much more, which doesn't seem to be factored in to the price.

The ASUS G73SW-A1 listing says this in the Display summary:

"Looking at the screen both indoors and outdoors is a generally enjoyable experience"

Then this in the Display details:

"The reflections on this screen cause its usability to be close to minimal. Users will only be able to comfortably view the display in either dark environment or with the least possible amount of lighting. Outdoor use will prove to be absurd; patience and continuous focus will be required for any actual and efficient use of this laptop under medium lighting conditions."

These seem contradictory, and there were little inconsistencies everywhere I looked.

It is a fun idea/project though!

<comment><USER4> To be fair, the category topped by the MacBook Pro is not "gaming" but "performance and gaming".

The MBP is known to be a good match for many "performance"-tasks such as video editing and graphical work.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Can anyone comment as to the quality of these interviewees in relation to the proper YC applicants?

It seems that some of the guys wouldn't know their arse from their elbow. I appreciate how stressful it would be on stage, however a lot of them just didn't grasp the fundamentals of business or communicate a clear value prop.

Were past YC companies more polished during their first elevator pitches, or is it something that comes with practice?

</comment><comment><USER6> <http://cardflick.io>

<http://testranking.com>

<http://omniplaces.com>

<http://slides.io>

I think there were 2 others but the stream was on in the background while I was working. I must have zoned out and missed them.

<comment><USER7> just tried out omniplaces.com. works pretty fast, i kinda like it. though when I looked for burgers near palo alto, i mostly got burger king and in and out, though that's fixable.

One could potentially build a yelp like website with this search experience - especially if you don't manipulate reviews :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I would've loved to hear some more from Harj, he got some good questions in but it seemed to me he had a hard time actually hearing the interviewees (and vica versa). Plus Paul's enthusiasm probably didn't make it easier to get a question in (not meant as critique towards Paul). \-- It's really interesting and it has to potential to transfer a lot of startup/business related knowledge in a short amount of time. But it could definitely be optimized (better seating arrangement/better sound). Perhaps it takes away some of the spontaneity, but picking more _suitable_ startups beforehand and perhaps a 5min briefing for the interviewers so you can get to the point more quickly would go a long way.

I've done a bit of research on how to transfer expertise and I feel that this (public office hours) really is an effective way to do just that, you can learn a lot from this, even if you're not the interviewee.

</comment><comment><USER9> "Allow me to give some backgrou..." "NOOO we don't have time! Just tell me who is the user."

</comment><comment><USER10> I am the person talking about OmniPlaces.com. It's an amazing experience and Paul was right-on with his questions. Given the time limit, I was not able to answer all the questions. Our site provides powerful search features (instant, error tolerant and local), which are important for location-based apps and mobile apps. In addition, we provide aggregated links to other important sites such as Yelp, Foursquare, and Gowalla. Our core value is the backend technology and product developed by Bimaple, which are also ready to be used by other companies.

Chen Li

<comment><USER7> Chen,

A few suggestions: 1\. Prepare answers to basic questions about your business before you go on stage/interview. Practice with someone. 2\. Actively listen and try to understand what the interviewer is asking for. Don't answer question B when interviewer is asking question A. 3\. Think about what use cases your product could quickly become a hit with. Keep some examples ready.

Having said that, I tried out your webapp, and really like the speed of search as well as the quick zoom in and out based on how many search results you found. Get someone to help you with interaction and visual design so you can polish the look, feel and experience. Also try to think through all the steps a user would go through to achieve their goal when they come to your website.

<comment><USER10> Durga,

Thanks a lot for your suggestions. They are all very valid. (1) I should admit we didn't do any preparation before the interview since we didn't think we could get selected. (2) When I watched the video tonight, I also noticed that I should have let Paul finish his questions before trying to answer them. For Harj, I had a hard time hearing his questions possibly due to the distance, even though you guys could hear him clearly through his microphone. (3) We will improve the UI of our site.

I should emphasize that we currently use OmniPlaces.com to demonstrate our backend technologies. Our main focus is companies who can use our search technologies. Our goal is not to compete with Google Local. We want to develop OmniPlaces as a site that can aggregate information from other sites, such as Yelp and Foursquare, which can provide valuable information to end users.

Thank you.

Chen Li

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> The first guy had a business with millions of users, a partnership with Apple, and 20% monthly growth rate. He seems to have gone on stage just to show off!

</comment><comment><USER12> Darn, just missed it. Is it available recorded yet?

<comment><USER11> <http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/17234044>

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I could watch this all day. These people are presenting with such fundamental problems and it is fun to see them try to downplay them when questioned.

<comment><USER13> This is uniquely entertaining. I would love to see this more often.

What this really highlights is that entrepreneurs aren't put face to face with someone as incisive and BS-resistant as PG or Harj nearly often enough.

Maybe there's an opportunity for an Ask Your Target Market like service which specializes in reality checks for entrepreneurs.

<comment><USER14> People at the top of the pyramid almost always suffer from groupthink more than anyone else, because they have the fewest people both able and willing to say no to them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> If you guys watch a little bit later after the talk with Peter Thiel and his partner they did a little segment with PG and Harj. It was very interesting. They talked about the difference of what that was and what interviews and office hours are like. Not sure if it was recorded are not.

</comment><comment><USER16> Key takeaways or at least the main ideas behind PG and Harj's questions & comments-

What pain point are you solving? Is it something you dealt with (or the market deals with)? How do you go about using the product? What is the killer feature of your product that will allow a user to switch from their current method?

Essentially, do you have product-market fit and an intuitive user experience.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Paul Graham and Harj Taggar on stage right now

</comment><comment><USER17> This omni places guy is absolutely brutal.

<comment><USER18> And that should be a softball question: why are you doing this startup over a multitude of others you could be doing?

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Did pg say "I worry..." on purpose?

<comment><USER20> He likes to do that a lot, see [http://techcrunch.com/2011/05/25/absolute- must-watch-office-...](http://techcrunch.com/2011/05/25/absolute-must-watch- office-hours-with-paul-graham-at-tc-disrupt/)</comment></comment>


Facebook trapped in MySQL 'fate worse than death' - <AUTHOR> http://gigaom.com/cloud/facebook-trapped-in-mysql-fate-worse-than-death/

<comment><USER2> I'm skeptical when the main source for this article is working on a database meant to replace MySQL, as stated at the end. I'm sure MySQL isn't perfect, but it's a bit hyperbolic to call it 'worse than death'.

</comment><comment><USER3> What Facebook has demonstrated is that it doesn't matter what technology is initially chosen since pretty much anything can be scaled with a modicum of persistence and ingenuity. So pick what you're most comfortable with, don't worry about scaling until you need to (a great problem to have) and get going.

<comment><USER4> Not really, don't you think that there is cost factor involved here? Imagine you need to run lets say 5000 machines for you uber big app, instead of 12000, you save money, you save environment, and its usually easier to manage everything when you have less machines to care about. Costs are important. And i'm not saying that one cant make mistakes, but you don't grow facebook size in one day, but when you do grow, it's a good idea to refactor your architecture into something scalable AND FAST, before you reach the point of no return ;-) or you will end up writing your own flavour of php....

<comment><USER3> Except that by almost any measure Facebook runs one of the leanest engineering and tech ops organizations in existence.

And don't forget that the author's main thrust was that Facebook faces a "fate worse than death". Adapting a technical architecture to keep up with growth doesn't really seem worse than death, imo.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> 9000 memcached servers, I'm surprised its not more than that. I wonder what their aggregate in-memory cache size is. Terabytes? Petabytes?

</comment><comment><USER6> The article raises an interesting question for aspiring tech entrepreneurs and web application developers. What is the <strike>best</strike> right database technology for my web application? It probably depends, but I'm interested to hear what technologies people are using, for what purpose, and the decision process. Any takers?

</comment><comment><USER7> We just had this thread; it got 40 points and then [dead].

</comment><comment><USER8> This guy doesn't really get it. I assume he's talking about "high transaction volume" when he's talking about scalability. Anyone who knows anything about scaling to high transaction volumes knows that it's not SQL that gets in the way, it's ACID. Transactions don't scale regardless of whether they're implemented in a SQL database or a NoSQL database. This guy's VoltDB project is still shackled by ACID properties, and I don't really see the advantage of it over using MySQL with the in-memory storage engine.

tl;dr -- a lot of NoSQL ("NewSQL!?") information is FUD.

<comment><USER7> There may be FUD here, but I don't know if you understood Stonebraker's argument.

The whole point of VoltDB is that it is (supposed to be) dramatically faster than in-memory MySQL. That's not too hard to imagine, considering that MySQL uses one machine and VoltDB uses a cluster.

In fact, the whole point of NewSQL in general is that it _is_ possible to implement SQL and ACID on a cluster and be dramatically faster than MySQL. While NoSQL is high-performance non-ACID non-SQL on a cluster, NewSQL is high- performance ACID SQL on a cluster; they're not the same thing.

<comment><USER9> To nitpick, Stonebraker is actually arguing that VoltDB is faster and better than both legacy RDBMS's _and_ NoSQL:

[http://highscalability.com/blog/2010/6/28/voltdb- decapitates...](http://highscalability.com/blog/2010/6/28/voltdb-decapitates- six-sql-urban-myths-and-delivers-internet.html)</comment></comment></comment>


Spain planned to 'invade' Australia in the 1790s with 100-vessel armada - <AUTHOR> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/11369341/Spain-planned-to-invade-the-British-colony-in-Australia-in-1790s-with-100-vessel-armada.html

<comment><USER2> Quite incredible. Imagine Australia speaking Spanish instead of English.

Its an extremely stable state. I would be reluctant to think it would still be fought over today if Spain did try to take it.

<comment><USER3> It probably would have been taken by the US in the Spanish-American War, just like the Philippines were.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I wish they'd do it now. We need a new government.

<comment><USER5> The Spanish government has screwed the Spanish economy up. No thanks.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> If this had transpired, maybe our idiot Prime Minister would've made Rafael Nadal a caballero on Australia Day this year.

</comment><comment><USER3> Sounds like a pipe dream from the outset. 100 ships? Against a small colony on the other side of the world? As a sense of scale, the Spanish Armada, expected to take over England itself if it succeeded (albeit 200 years earlier) was 130 ships strong. And the first colonisation fleet sent by the British was only 11 ships. While not all ships are created equal, 100 ships is still an enormous undertaking, especially at the limits of your supply lines.

<comment><USER7> Yeah, just to take a tiny colony 100 ships makes no sense. The English colonists were frequently fighting with the Aborigines, so were fairly well armed and defended against them, but not against cannon. I would think at most a dozen frigates, and perhaps a half dozen support ships would be plenty, even carrying a strong contingent of marines. The colony was still new and small. Perhaps they expected the British navy to show up.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> And tkke on the world power of the English? I'm quite surprised!

</comment><comment><USER9> Is it only an invasion if it's against white people?

<comment><USER10> Post of the day!

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Cute. They couldn't even take Gibraltar then, and that was tiny and on their border.

</comment><comment><USER12> How attacking a colonial settlement is "invading" Australia?.

In fact the British actually used to attack Spanish settlements at the time, and supported piracy against the Spanish Armada.

It has very little to do with actual Australia. It were the British who invaded Australia, killing most of the native population.

Go around Australia and see how many non whites there are. See who has all the wealth on the country.

<comment><USER10> "supported piracy against the Spanish Armada"

I wish your statement of fact on this issue had been as well placed as your sentiments.

<comment><USER13> It's semantics but just in case "Viewed from London, buccaneering was a low- budget way to wage war on England's rival, Spain. So, the English crown licensed buccaneers with letters of marque, legalizing their operations in return for a share of their profits." [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buccaneer](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buccaneer)

<comment><USER14> Pretty much all the major European powers handed out letters of marque to privateers/mercenaries though and the practice predated buccaneers and the Spanish Main. However, the British probably exploited their usage more than any other nation against the Spanish from the 16th to the 18th century.

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

<comment><USER13> indeed</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Keystroke shortcuts in bash - <AUTHOR> http://zwischenzugs.tk/index.php/2015/07/01/bash-shortcuts-gem/ <comment><USER2> I found these two references a long time ago, great intro to readline and how to setup an effective .inputrc: [http://www.chemie.fu- berlin.de/chemnet/use/info/octave/octav...](http://www.chemie.fu- berlin.de/chemnet/use/info/octave/octave_34.html) and [http://www.ukuug.org/events/linux2003/papers/bash_tips/](http://www.ukuug.org/events/linux2003/papers/bash_tips/)

Since then, .inputrc has been an indispensable part of my dotfiles! This one alone saves so much headache:

        # Incremental search with Up and Down: add to ~/.inputrc
        "\e[A": history-search-backward

<comment><USER3> Isn't this ctrl-r by default? With ctrl-shift-r to search forward?

<comment><USER4> C-r is reverse-search-history. You press C-r and start typing your search pattern to trigger an incremental search. Most recent command matching the pattern _anywhere_ in the command is selected.

In contrast, history-search-backword requires you to start typing your pattern followed by the keystroke it was bound to. The most recent command that _starts with_ your search pattern is selected.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Anyone looking for the zsh equivalent of the `bind -P | grep` command, it's just `bindkey`.

</comment><comment><USER6> Actually, that functionality is provided by the readline(3) library. If you understand how to configure it, you can make it usable in every interactive command you build, as long as it uses readline(3):

[http://www.gnu.org/software/bash/manual/html_node/Command- Li...](http://www.gnu.org/software/bash/manual/html_node/Command-Line- Editing.html#Command-Line-Editing)

</comment><comment><USER7> Slight errata: This part of the pipeline: `bind -l | sed 's/.*/bind -q \0/' | /bin/bash 2>&1 | grep -v warning:`

...can be replaced with `bind -P`.

Also, \e represents ESC; tab is represented by \t.

<comment><AUTHOR> nice!

Have updated. Schoolboy error with tab/escape...

However, do you know why tab-tab works as complete?

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Sweet! You might consider using this command for a more human digestible listing:

        $ stty -a | awk 'BEGIN{RS="[;\n]+ ?"}; /= ..$/'
        intr = ^C
        quit = ^\
        erase = ^?
        kill = ^U
        eof = ^D
        swtch = ^Z
        susp = ^Z
        rprnt = ^R
        werase = ^W
        lnext = ^V
        flush = ^O

How come, actually, that ^R does the history search, even though it has been set to redraw the current line?

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks! Yeah I have no idea! I only just realised that ^H works because of a bash binding, while stty takes it from the erase key (which is rendered as '?').

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I've increased my productivity recently by starting to use ctrl+p and ctrl+n for the previous and next command instead of the arrow keys, combined with ctrl+j for <enter> it has really made everything just a bit easier on the fingers.

<comment><AUTHOR> Interesting - has it made so much of a difference as to be worth the pain of transition?

<comment><USER9> I think it took me about 10 minutes to get used to it, it really is rather convenient. I still use <enter> very often when typing regular commands, but when I cycle through previous commands with ctrp+p/n it is much easier to hit ctrl+j.

Also, because my hands stay on the regular keys I don't have to look at my keyboard when switching betweeen typing commands and going through the history. It just feels more natural.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> All you need is set -o vi ;)

<comment><USER11> No, all you need is a file called ~/.inputrc with at least the following contents:

      set editing-mode vi

This causes any program that has its own command line (like bash, psql, etc) and uses the readline library (like bash, psql, etc) to have an editable command line with vi edit behavior.

In man bash, search for /^READLINE (READLINE at the beginning of a line).

Side note: if you want a nice TOC of bash or anything else, run this from the command line:

      man -P cat bash |grep -E "^[^ ]"

Or if you're into the whole minimalism thing:

      man -P "grep -E '^[^ ]'" bash

Or if you're into the whole reusability/automation thing:

      $ cat ~/bin/toc
      #! /usr/bin/env bash

      man -P "grep -E '^[^ ]'" $1

And then

      $ toc bash

<comment><USER12> The biggest issue[1] I've found with vi(m)-like modes in shells and readline is the lack of any feedback as to which mode you're in. That, and my tendency to use C-c as an alternative to esc in vim has...unfortunate consequences in the shell, although I could potentially rebind it.

[1] Actually, the biggest is 'discovered it set by default on a server you occasionally adminster, and taking far too long to realise why you're typing largely gibberish'

<comment><USER11> esc esc esc generally assures me that I'm in normal mode, even on the command line. :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Toying with \e* nearly broke bash/xterm .. probably because of too many chars on screen and completion.

</comment><comment><USER14> use `set -o vi` to use vim binding, if you don't like emacs :)

<comment><USER15> I've tried that a couple of times in the past but I just couldn't make it work for me. I guess it's vi instead of vim, so it felt really crippled in comparison. I seem to recall there was no normal / insert context either so you didn't know which mode you were in.

I'd be willing to try again if anyone had any good pointers for how to use it effectively though.</comment></comment>


Canada Is Stepping Up Its Maple Syrup Research - <AUTHOR> http://motherboard.vice.com/read/canada-is-finally-stepping-up-its-maple-syrup-research-game <comment><AUTHOR> TBH, It /could/ be sponsored content for all I know, but if it's the case, I'd be quite happy reading shortish pieces like that now and then (which actually MIGHT makes me want to buy some maple syrup ;-)) instead of flash banner ads.

Bring it on, either way!

<comment><USER2> Vice is usually pretty good about pointing out which articles are sponsored. They put "Presented by X" next to the author's name, or just replace it with "Sponsored Content"

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> A trifecta of maple syrup stories in the last couple months.

[https://hn.algolia.com/?query=Maple%20Syrup&sort=byDate&date...](https://hn.algolia.com/?query=Maple%20Syrup&sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=story&storyText=false&prefix=false&page=0).

<comment><USER4> I've noticed an up-tick of maple syrup related articles on various sites recently (something that I wouldn't normally notice).

Is Canada doing a big branding push for maple syrup at the moment?

Like another commenter mentioned, smells of sponsored content.

<comment><USER5> I'm guessing that it's just a research "meme": the result of scientists talking to one-another at conferences and spreading ideas about promising avenues of research.

Then again, I'm Canadian myself, so I'm not to be trusted here ;)</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Critique my free app - <AUTHOR>

Hi HN,
I used Ta-da Lists for a long time.  I really liked its simplicity, but there were always a few thing I wish it did:
* Double-click to edit a task.
* To sort tasks, no need to swtich mode.
* Drag an entire task to sort it, so I don't have to search for the little drag handler.
* Sort the lists (as in collections of tasks).
* If I mark a task "complete"by mistake, the task doesn't move into the "completed" section right away, so I can un-mark it in its original place.
* When I enter a list, focus the add-task form, so I can type away.
So I decided to roll my own.  It's nothing fancy, but I hope you find it useful:
http://www.tinkertask.com
Thank you for any feedback! <comment><USER2> I thought it was really neat!

First thoughts: Would be helpful to have shadowed "username / password" in the first fields. I wasn't sure if those were for registering, or for logging in, or what. So that would be helpful.

Second thoughts: Love the simplicity, wish I could do more. Maybe that's not what you're going for - in which case, awesome! - but I'd love a way to go beyond the simple functions and have a simple but subtly powerful ability to do more. Fine though, can move on from there.

Third Notes: Your feedback logo is missing from the first page, just has the link. Intentional? Also, when I want to delete something, I would want something better than a "pop up" asking me if I wanted to delete it - a bit obtrusive. Better to have a fade out or something clever.

Final thoughts: Does something very very simple very well, I just wish it were less simple for my own needs. I also wish there were some quickly user- configurable style sheets to change the colors, since the shades of grey kind of mask the tasks etc and don't quite pop out in a way that makes it skimmable.

But I really like it and it seems to definitely meet the need you wanted to address!

<comment><USER3> RE: First thoughts

I agree. Or if you populate username/password and click signup. The details you've entered are already there.

<comment><AUTHOR> That's a good idea, for now I made the signup link a bit more distinct.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Neat app. Good work.

Things I would change:

(1) The top navigation at the first sight looked like some problem with your markup - <home You may want to change it to something prettier.

(2) There should be some way to directly navigate to other lists from the the list detail page.

(3) The design looks good, but I would play around with the colours a bit more. (Too gray-ish now)

edit: (4) Ability for adding sub-tasks is important.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the feedback.

I change < to an arrow image. Thanks for pointing it out. :)

I haven't had a need to jump from one list to another in one click, but I'll definitely keep that in mind in case it becomes a problem.

I debated with myself about the colours as well. I went through several iterations, eventually I decided to focus on the tasks, while keeping the rest of the app as less distracting as possible. As a result the text for the tasks are a bit sharper and darker than the rest. The idea is to make the frequent things clear and visible, while the rarer elements hide into background.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> It wouldn't let me enter a user-name with capitals (One at the beginning, one in the middle). Not sure if this is a design or a validation problem, but if it's all lower-case by design, just do that once you've gotten my username - don't force me to sit there scratching my head. The validation hint said it must contain only 'letters, numbers, and -'. Nothing there about capitals.

<comment><AUTHOR> Oops, it's a bug. I was using some signup code from a another app. I removed the format requirement altogether now. :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I love the simplicity of the app. I think an iphone client would be an excellent addition as there are not many free/cheap cloud based to-do apps. Great Job, App is very easy to use, I would recommend fb connect or twitter oAuth for less sign up friction.

<comment><USER2> Might be a nice 'to-have,' but it was so easy to sign up I wouldn't really mind either way. It would take almost exactly as long to use connect / oauth as to put in info, since no email authentication or anything is needed. Especially since that way, no one else's servers can mess up your login scheme...

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Clickable: <http://www.tinkertask.com>

</comment><comment><USER7> Good idea, but lacked 'pizazz' for me.

</comment><comment><USER8> Not enough instruction on the landing page. The two login fields are unlabeled, and when I tried to 'register' with my email and a password, it failed. Username cannot be an email, and it should.

Why collect usernames anyway? As if you'd address them as such... It's a worthless bit of info you don't need for user authorization.

Also, any way to display the full sub-lists on the main list page?

<comment><AUTHOR> The username format thing is a bug, it's fixed now.

You have a point. The thing with email though is some people may be reluctant to give them out. I left it in as an optional field for password recovery, which I have yet to implement. I guess I should leave it out for now.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Nice. Now go to <http://www.culturedcode.com>, get a demo of "Things" and piggy back their award-winning design layout and make a web-based version of it. A good start is to one-up them and make sub-tasks within tasks or task notes, something they refuse to do for some reason.

But good.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks! :)

I used Things and OmniFocus for a while.

I was pretty psyched about OmniFocus' hierarchical tasks when it came out, but what I ended up doing was organizing complex projects with OmniOutliner, which can aggregate numbers better. I simply pick out the more immediate tasks and add them to my task manager in a flat structure.

I love Things, it really strikes the right balance of features and simplicity. The thing is almost all of my tasks were at my computer, so GTD-style context was not used much. In the end I just needed a todo list. I'm sure other folks need to juggle contexts more often than I do, but personally I haven't had a need justify the overhead at the moment.

I think a major appeal for the current GTD apps are the offline mobile versions. They let users take their apps to actual different contexts, away from the computer.</comment></comment>


Are web designers really needed anymore? - <AUTHOR> http://www.drawar.com/articles/we-dont-need-you-to-design-anymore/

<comment><USER2> I think this article is pretty ridiculous. That said, designers need to become more than designers - they need to understand UI and UX, thats something a canned template can never replace.</comment>


C.r.e.a.m. – Crypto Rules Everything Around Me - <AUTHOR> http://newsletters.iafrikan.com/issues/iafrikan-daily-brief-c-r-e-a-m-180291 <comment><USER2> P.i.e. - Please "Invest" Expeditiously</comment>


Reverse engineering Apple Photos - ML labels, quality scores and more - <AUTHOR> https://simonwillison.net/2020/May/21/dogsheep-photos/ <comment><AUTHOR> I've been reverse-engineering Apple Photos and it turns out there is a WEALTH of exciting metadata about my photos stored in SQLite databases on my hard drive.

Not just machine-learning labeling of what's in the photos, but also calculated quality scores across a bunch of different criteria.

<comment><USER2> Simon! This is great spelunking.

If you're frustrated by Photos corrupting its own library when it gets > couple hundred thousand assets, or you want to not be tied to Mac hardware, you might want to try PhotoStructure. (It has robust image deduping and tag inference, an open db schema, and CLI tooling).</comment></comment>


Raising Prices Is Hard - <AUTHOR> https://www.backblaze.com/blog/raising-prices-is-hard/ <comment><USER2> I'll possibly be going against the grain, but they have really made a fanfare about this one. I'm a subscriber and I remember the email coming though and it felt a little too over-sensitive to me. You're putting the prices up by a dollar a month, you've been losing out in real terms because of inflation for years, and I already have gigabytes upon gigabytes of data stored with you. I'm not moving for an extra $12 - and even then I was too lazy to take the promotion because it's a business expense and having to process the additional invoice didn't feel worth the bother. But I'll admit that one is a more of a reflection of me than Backblaze.

I understand you'd be worried about a price increase but the email, promotion, two years of lead up time, and now the blog post comes across and a little too apologetic, perhaps. Just stick the prices up by a dollar and give me a quick "sorry guys, we've not raised them in a decade - we need to stay competitive" and I wouldn't have even remembered it.

<comment><USER3> Yev from Backblaze here -> Jack that's interesting insight, thanks! What's funny is that I was the main driver internally for tone and the process as a whole. We definitely had some intense conversations about the "band-aid" approach where we'd announce and raise shortly thereafter, and the approach we took which was a bit more measured. In the end, I think we spent a lot of time making sure that we were taking care of the customers, but you're right, our tone in certain communications did come off as a bit apologetic.

The truth is we'd never done it before, so we weren't really sure what the reaction would have been - so we erred on the side of caution. Now that we have data points, if we ever need to do this again we'd likely still take an open, honest, but maybe more blunt approach. Tough to say though because I try to default to default to empathy, which means my takes are usually softer. Those conversations are some that didn't quite make it to the blog post, but finding the right balance for us was an interesting process!

<comment><USER4> Fundamentally, your customers want you to make money because when you do, you stay in business and stay happy, healthy, and able to hire great people and innovate.

Please don't apologize (much) or be timid about applying changes that protect the service, customer experience, and business as a whole.

<comment><USER5> There is a sizable contingent of customers who don't care if you make money and want bottom barrel prices or are just around for promos. This group can often be quite demanding without any real justification for being as such.

<comment><USER6> I don't know about you but I'd prefer that the company that's keeping all my data backed up stays in business and if that means paying an extra dollar a month, then so be it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I love the detailed writeup, but it seems like they made this a lot harder than it needs to be.

Most SaaS companies, when they raise prices, will announce that new customers will pay the new price starting in X days, where X is usually 30 or 60. This gives people on the fence a chance to jump on board at the lower price, and lets current customers keep their pricing.

Then they tell their current customers that their existing price will be grandfathered in for X months. If you make X big enough, most people don't really notice, because when you announce it, it seems far away, and when it happens, they probably don't even check their subscriptions that often.

The whole credit thing felt like a ploy to raise some immediate cash and create artificial lock in, and after this post, it seems like it didn't even really help them all that much.

<comment><USER8> I found their approach refreshing open, especially when you compare it to cPanel's recent price hike debacle. That was a good example of how not to do it,

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Wow, the sensitivity, consideration, and care Backblaze consistently shows towards their customers is inspiring. I love companies like this, it's The Right Way To Be. Beautiful.

<comment><USER3> Yev from Backblaze here -> thank you Jay! Our customers were one of the reasons that we felt it would be interesting to share our process, so they could read about how we shot ourselves in the foot :D plus the story is so odd that it was just plain interesting!

<comment><USER10> It makes me confident to recommend your service to people. I know that I'm going to be recommending a product that will take care of the people I care about. I won't need to worry about you guys starting to use dark patterns to milk your customers (i.e., my grandma) for more money!

<comment><USER3> Yev here -> Yea! In the article I mention a few of our company core beliefs and one of them is "be the good guys" \- we take that very seriously.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Backblaze, here's a story. My dad used to run a mailing service, kind of like a UPS store, but non-franchise. We also had private mailbox rentals (PMB) for customers. My dad ran the business for about 12 years. About year 7-8, my dad was like, I have to raise the prices of the PMBs. You know what his longtime customers said?

They weren't mad, but they were surprised. They said, "Damn, it's about time. I've been wondering for a long time when it was going to up. Good for you."

<comment><USER3> Yev here -> that's similar to what we saw too! It's one of those things where because we'd not done it, there was a bit of dread (not because we thought we'd be skewered, but because we really don't want to let folks down). However, once we saw the early responses rolling in, there was a collective sigh of relief.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I am totally okay with them charging however much money they need to in order to be reliable. I switched recently from Crashplan over to Backblaze because Crashplan just couldn't reliably get a complete backup of my workstation. Backblaze does not seem to have any problem with that at all. This is what I want from a backup -- after all, as they say, backups are worth nothing but restores are priceless. Another dollar a month is _nothing_.

<comment><USER3> Yev here -> Thanks! Staying reliable and in-business are two things that we care deeply about!

<comment><USER13> Your desktop application for Windows (which I do not use personally, but have set up for a couple other people) is pretty great as far as backup provider applications go.

The one thing that wasn't spectacular was the signup flow. I found it a bit confusing: IIRC if you subscribe to Backblaze from the prompt in the application, it doesn't automatically configure when that subscription is purchased, so you have to download the custom installer or whatever the normal process is (I don't exactly remember, except that it was a bit less smooth than I wanted).

Nonetheless, once that was out of the way, my brother's two-seat setup works great, and it has given me considerable peace of mind that he will not simply lose all of his audio production files, and be crushed.

B2 is great value and I use it wherever I can.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> This article makes me truly appreciative that my product/service is not essientially a "commodity". Absolutely no disrespect intended for BackBlaze, as they have obviously gone the distance in adding value to their core "we store data" product.

That said, I generally find it easy to raise prices. Indeed, price discovery is "fun" in my tiny tiny niche. Basically, I just increase the price every time a new customer signs up. I honestly think this is completely fair to both past and new customers. Sign up early and you reap the benefits of lower cost. Sign up for a longer term and you keep those benefits.

It's a struggle with inflation, and I strongly appreciate the argument in accounting for it. It is so obviously real, yet customers seem to have an extremely hard time wrapping their heads around it.

<comment><USER15> If you sell a scarce popular product, soak the people first in line. If you build your business on the word-of-mouth advertised of the loyal customers who took a big risk on you, share the wealth they helped you accumulate.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> My subscription got renewed this month. However I feel the pain of having to connect external hard drive every month (because at home, I don't use computer that much, but backups are must have). And actually my ext hdd broke down and there were no backups @ backlbaze, because I was too late :(

Luckily, was able to restore data by buying identical external drive, resoldering bios and voila - turns out it was just the controller issue.

May I ask (because Babklazers hang around here) why this limiation? Can it be increased? Can it be turned off? I don't have that much data and I feel I'm really overpaying for my gigabytes and better buy some home NAS or whatever. Probably wouldn't feel that way if I would be storing TB's @ Backblaze :)

<comment><USER3> Yev here -> glad you were able to restore your data! The limitation exists because the longer we keep data the more it costs us, the 30-Day Version History we have allows us to eventually reclaim space. That said, we're looking at ways to make it easier!

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Goodness, I wish Backblaze had a Linux client. I pay for Backblaze for my wife's Windows workstation _and_ a second license for her Windows laptop, yet I'm stuck with CrashPlan for Small Business to back up my Linux workstation.

And before I get comments about B2 and Duplicity, my Linux workstation is also our NAS, so I'd be backing up roughly 4-5TB. I greatly prefer Backblaze, but not enough to pay an extra $200 a year.

<comment><USER18> Backblaze has explicitly said more or less the exact reason they don't have a Linux client for their one-price-fits-all backup service is that they don't want people backing up multi-TB NAS devices. The folks over r/DataHoarder/ would absolutely destroy them if they offered unlimited backups for NAS devices for $6/month - many of them have hundreds of TB on their personal NAS'.

Its absolutely the correct business decision, and as you note, you are more than welcome to use B2 and pay per GB for as much storage as you want.

<comment><USER19> you can still (probably) do that now using b2 cloud with duplicity or restic you just don't have an official Linux client.

Although I do use restic on my laptop (backing up to b2) I wish they had a nice official Linux client for desktops

(unless you are talking about non-b2 :) )

<comment><USER20> Then you pay a fair price for the space you actually use, not a flat monthly fee.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> FWIW, I switched from the Backblaze client to Arq + B2 in the past year or so. At this point Backblaze is little more than commodity storage to me and I stick with it because it provides the best combination of pricing and speed.

I switched to Arq once I had multiple computers to backup and paying by the GB for me is cheaper than paying per computer.

From a client-side perspective, Arq and Backblaze each have their own pros and cons.

<comment><USER22> Arq also sells a service* (rather than software) which stores on Wasabi. Slightly cheaper for my own needs (<1TB) and much less of a headache.

* [https://www.arqbackup.com/arqcloudbackup/](https://www.arqbackup.com/arqcloudbackup/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> For all things not purchased with debt, this is true. But look at the housing market. Or, consider industries with severe information asymmetry: see the healthcare industry. Raising prices is no problem for two of the most expensive line items in a middle class household's budget.

For everyone else, it's probably best to start with high prices.

<comment><USER24> Well, it's not a matter of debt. It's more a matter of whether or not new entrants can enter the market and provide that good. In both real estate and Healthcare, it's very difficult for new players to enter the market, especially in highly regulated states. The result is a market where prices are much higher than they need to be.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> I'm glad the people at Blackblaze really look like (from this writing and others) good people who want to run a successful business while doing right by their customers. But...

Jeez, clearly they did not hire patio11

While they technically did _raise_ prices, I'm quite certain they had a lot of leeway to have raised them a lot more

<comment><USER26> Yeah he had some thoughts on how tarsnap should price itself at [https://www.kalzumeus.com/2014/04/03/fantasy- tarsnap/](https://www.kalzumeus.com/2014/04/03/fantasy-tarsnap/) which I think suggests that he would consider Backblaze underpriced.

<comment><USER27> It's funny running into this article for the first time.

I've been using Tarsnap for a couple years now for our SAAS. After receiving the first month's email receipt for $0.25, I replied: saying something along the lines of "damn this is cheap! you could charge a lot more!". No reply of course. He's probably heard it a million times already.

Having gained a bit more experience with pricing our own product this past year, I think it might not be as simple as "he sucks at business".

Here's some potential (and highly speculative) reasons:

\- He may not need the money. He's got a respectable day job that pays well.

\- Higher prices mean less value for your users. Less value means less geek cred/love. I'd recommend Tarsnap to a fellow techie in a heartbeat. I probably wouldn't if it started at $100/mo.

\- Higher prices mean you sell to a different audience with more responsibility. High touch sales, support email threads with 10+ folks all demanding different things, handling exotic types of billing, etc. Many devs don't like dealing with this kind of stuff.

\- What if he's doing this as a lead gen for his consulting services?

<comment><USER28> _I replied: saying something along the lines of "damn this is cheap! you could charge a lot more!". No reply of course. He's probably heard it a million times already._

I do hear that quite a bit, but I also hear a lot of people saying that Tarsnap is too expensive. I figure that as long as I have complaints coming from both directions I'm probably somewhere close to the right price. ;-)

Sorry about not replying -- I usually do reply even to emails like that, but it's possible that I was overwhelmed with email at the time.

 _\- Higher prices mean less value for your users. Less value means less geek cred /love. I'd recommend Tarsnap to a fellow techie in a heartbeat. I probably wouldn't if it started at $100/mo._

This is part of it -- Tarsnap wouldn't get nearly as much free advertising if its prices were higher.

 _\- What if he 's doing this as a lead gen for his consulting services?_

No, I'm not doing that. In fact I do very little consulting these days.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> > This became a full-time job for a handful of our most senior engineers, and > resulted in a six month project before we were ready to put it through our > QA testing.

So let's say that you pay your senior engineers $150k, 6 months is $75k per engineer, say 3-5 engineers, that's $225-375k. Plus QA time, etc.

It might have cost the company $500k just to implement a program that would reduce their revenue by letting people by in at a lower price.

I'm not saying this is the case here, but I often see companies I've worked for not do this kind of math, the opportunity cost of implementing a feature or product.

<comment><USER3> Yev here -> while the numbers aren't entirely correct in our case the equation is correct. We do account for engineering time and opportunity cost of other projects that aren't getting worked on (though we tend to stack projects so while one team works on, billing, another will work on UI, when billing team is done they'll move on to the next project, etc..). One of the side-benefits for us in this case was building out the Extensions program meant we had to build a more robust crediting system, which is code we might be able to re-use later!

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> Backblaze, don't worry about the prices. You are good.

Two things you can improve are (1) more official sdks (2) see if you can simplify your REST APIs.

Other than that, thank you! You are awesome

<comment><USER3> Yev here -> Noted!

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> I hope Backblaze lets me pay them to back up everything including /Applications, my home directory, and /Library one day.

</comment><comment><USER32> I have to say well done BackBlaze. This to me is an integrity move!

</comment><comment><USER33> I considered them when Crashplan threw me away. I've really liked what I see of Backblaze as a company, but sadly their services come up short for me.

Personal is cheap but too basic (keeps file versions for 30 days only, no backup on external drive/NAS). B2 is seems to be too expensive for my 1TB of data.

They also lacked a data center in EU, learned my lesson with Crashplan on that one, though I hear that is about to change.

Currently I've settled for Acronis True Image. Not exactly the same, but more options, faster to get things running again after a proper HD crash (tried that a few times already) and they're cheaper than B2.

But yeah, had I been a customer, the price hike would have been totally fine.

<comment><USER3> Yev here -> things have changed! For 1TB of data on B2 the cost of the service is actually LESS expensive for B2 than the computer backup ($6/month unlimited). B2 is priced at $5/TB/Mo - so that price has stayed the same. We also just opened a data center in Amsterdam - so you can create an account in the EU and your data will be stored there! Not sure if that helps, but figured I'd let you know!

<comment><USER33> Thanks for the reply, it does indeed make it a lot more attractive.

The main issue I have with B2 is that I'll be using some client where the API transaction costs are a complete unknown, at least to me. I have no idea how many API calls of the various sorts the different clients will use, and how they scale with my data.

I have a almost two million files, if a client uses one or two B or C API calls per file when processing the backup set, then that's 5-10 bucks right there.

<comment><USER3> Yev here -> very true, but for a backup those should only occur once and there's a free amount per day. The nice thing about our integration partners like Cloudberry is that they go through qualification and we help them develop so if their apps start to go haywire it's usually caught quickly and fixed rapidly. It's been pretty rare for the transaction calls to go haywire.

Another thing you can do to protect yourself if that's a big worry is by placing a Cap or an Alert for a transaction type. That way with an alert we'll notify you when you're nearing that cap so you'll have forewarning instead of just being charged (or if you set the cap, we'll stop until it's been lifted or reset).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> I agree with some of the other comments here, this sounds too apologetic.

I'm signing up this weekend for a personal account to backup around 100GB of family photos and videos.

I've been using the HDD reliability data to choose my drives for many years and this looks much cheaper than S3. I was also impressed by being greeted as a linux user and sent to this page when I hit sign up: [https://help.backblaze.com/hc/en- us/articles/115001518354-Ho...](https://help.backblaze.com/hc/en- us/articles/115001518354-How-to-configure-Backblaze-B2-with-Duplicity-on- Linux)

<comment><USER13> That was my experience too. B2 is great value and a heck of a lot easier to configure through their web portal than S3.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Based on the price comparison tool they have, their prices are 4 times Lower than Amazon, Microsoft or Google Cloud!! I would think that people would flock to this platform.

I'm bookmarking it, that's for sure.

<comment><USER35> Likewise. I've known the name for a while, just never looked into it much. The prices seem very good!

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> Wouldn't it have been simpler for them to raise prices for new customers a year ago and leave the existing base grandfathered in?

It seems like I have this discussion at work from time to time. The faster we grow our customer base the harder it is to monetize our improvements, because we have a smaller and smaller pool of new users.

Getting big before you get your feature set and cost structure down means you have to go ask forgiveness from old users.

If instead you launch a big ad campaign after improving functionality and increasing the prices...

<comment><USER3> Yev here -> Maybe! That was one avenue we were considering - do the announcement, then make the increase only effective for new users instead of existing. I think one of the reasons we shied away from that was it would create different user "classes" and we'd need to keep that tracked somewhere, so it would still have been some engineering effort to make sure that all the billing code worked correctly. Eventually we decided on the extension program because it also moved up some revenue, even though it was deferred.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> I had a 100EUR per month subscription deal on geocode.xyz and someone was dubious as to "why it was so cheap". Doubled it to 200EUR per month and everybody is happy now.

</comment><comment><USER24> It all depends on the cost of switching. If the cost of switching is really high then you can screw over customers all you want and raise prices considerably before they move away.

However, if the cost of switching is very low, you'll find it's much harder to raise prices. In industries and products where switching costs are low, prices tend to be much much lower anyway, especially if those users are easy to reach.

<comment> yoz-y According to the article some of the difficulty is self inflicted. For example they were planning to raise the price for some time but then one of their competitor left the consumer space. It would be the best time for them to do the hike but they decided against it because it would be a nasty move.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> Maybe it's just me, but it always seems like a cash grab whenever a company updates its prices and allows customers to prepay x amount for the old price. Why not offer a discount, or coupon code instead? Not saying that I disagree with the price increase, just that specific method of rewarding existing customers.

<comment><USER3> Yev here -> it does absolutely move money "up" \- but as a company (at least if you're disciplined) it doesn't mean you get to use it. You're basically deferring revenue (the amount lost from not increasing prices on existing customers for X amount of time) and the money you bring up is for a service you still have to provide, so for accounting purposes it's more or less "locked down". So you're absolutely right, it does bring money forward, but there's costs involved as well!

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> I loved Basecamp history of raising prices. Thay just made x2 increase overnight, but just for new customers.

</comment><comment><USER40> One of my favorite companies! I plan to become a customer when we finally get proper VDSL/fiber connections here in Greece, currently 900kbps upload :-( They've just opened an EU datacenter(DC4) in Netherlands. It would be nice to see a future blog about distribution of customers.

</comment><comment><USER41> > The year following Crashplan's announcement we saw a huge increase in > customers, which is simultaneously good and bad

No, this is GREAT, but you have to do it right! You should have increased dramatically the pricing for new customers to keep the growth at acceptable levels (in terms of absolute numbers). This way you would have had a lot better margins from new customers and could have scaled your business in a more controlled way.

> raising prices on the day when the industry started having fewer options > would have been the right financial decision, but not the right Backblaze > decision.

It would have been the right Backblaze decision, because you would have secured a decent margin to provide the best service you can to your customers.

> We've all been subjected to price increases that were clandestine, then > abruptly announced and put into effect the same day, or were not well > explained.

Not sure if I use radically different services, but this never happened to me! Usually, you get months of time in advance to get adjusted to the new pricing.

<comment><USER3> Yev here -> Interesting takeaways! It was difficult to map how many customers we'd gain after Crashplan left the business and how many we'd have gained if we had raised prices by a lot more. It was made more complicated by the fact that they partnered with our 2nd largest competitor, so we also had to do a quick "sanity-check" about whether or not we wanted to raise prices to near their level, or stay the same until things calmed down. Thanks for the insights!

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> I used to manually back things up on premise but then it became just too painful and without proper raid I never knew quite when my number would come up. With BB I never worry about. Hopefully I won't ever have to use their retreival service. So far so good.

<comment><USER43> I have had to use their retrieval process.... and it has been SUPER easy. Just selected the drive that failed, they sent me the new one..... copied the data off, sent it back..... no cost to me!

I have had to do it twice so far (my system has 6 drives in it... all included in the standard plan!)

Been super happy with the service.

<comment><USER3> Yev here -> Glad you enjoyed it and that it was so easy!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> Doesn't this just depend on the price elasticity of the good or service in question...?

<comment><USER3> Yev here -> in purely academic terms maybe, but there are a lot of factors which go in to whether or not a person will leave or stick around. I thought it'd be interesting to write about our journey (since it was super atypical) and provide some insights into how we make decisions.

<comment><USER45> Your openness and engagement is highly appreciated. It's always very insightful and pleasant to read about how you're running your business!

<comment><USER3> Thank you so much! We love sharing and hope it gets others to be more comfortable doing it as well (to our knowledge no one in SaaS really talks about churn rates if they can help it). The idea being, the more folks that talk about things the better. If you can avoid making a mistake someone else made because you read their story about it from their perspective, that's good for everyone!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> Would be curious to read "raise prices" patio11's opinion on this one.

</comment><comment><USER47> I honestly didn't realize the price had gone up until I read this post. Checked my billing history and saw it's been $6 the last few months. Shrug. Underpriced service that I'll keep paying for.

</comment><comment><USER48> I didn't need to read an explanation to why they're raising prices, this is something I really value and I'm happy paying a dollar more to know I can rely on Backblaze.

</comment><comment><USER49> I gave a try to Backblaze but stopped using it when I noticed you have to send to their servers you private key to restore your files. For me it's not acceptable.

</comment><comment><USER50> I'm guessing the negative churn rate on their churn rate graph is due to using inappropriate smoothing, rather than anything real?

</comment><comment><USER51> The whole online backup thing would be great if I wasn't already bumping up against my ISP's 1TB monthly transfer limit.

<comment><USER52> You generate >1TB of fresh new data to backup every month? That is not like average user usage.

Large initial backup is a problem indeed but you can split your initial dataset for months.

<comment><USER51> No, I just already use almost a terabyte with no backup activity at all, and how much I download is something I have to be conscious of. Having to balance that along with upload usage would be a significant hassle for me.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> Nice article. I just signed up as I've been having a heck of a time with my time machine backups just failing. Great timing!

<comment><USER3> Yev here -> Welcome aboard!

</comment></comment><comment><USER54> In reality by keeping their price flat for a decade they've lowered their price every year in real terms.

</comment><comment><USER55> * For consumer products.

B2B products often have annual price increases built into contract.</comment>


Those Crazy Americans: a boy's point of view - <AUTHOR> http://blog.thansys.com/2014/03/07/crazy-americans/ <comment><USER2> He's got a point about sheets and blankets. I've never understood the appeal of tucking a top sheet in at the foot of the bed; I sleep with my feet sticking out of the covers, lest they sweat.

He's also got a point about showers, or at least about the timing thereof; I generally take two a day, one in the morning and one when I get home. Not since childhood, though, have I seen a bath as a place to relax, or indeed had a bath at all; the purpose of a shower is to get _clean_ , which rarely takes more than ten minutes, fifteen if I also need a shave. On the other hand, as I understand it, Russian culture includes, or has included until recently, a tradition of social bathing, and perhaps I'd feel differently about bathing had I origins in such a culture; in the United States, no such tradition has ever existed.

And, as far as the adulteration of vodka goes, we do it because we're all lightweights! In the United States, being able to drink a big glass of straight vodka and not end up vomiting or passed out on the floor (or both, in any order) makes you an alcoholic; perhaps our Puritan ancestors are to blame for this, as for so many other things, but it's generally true nonetheless.

<comment><USER3> Indeed! One of the first thing I do in a hotel room is jail-break the bed.

<comment><USER4> I understand the not wanting to tuck the top sheet, but I don't understand the lack of a top sheet underneath the duvet. I don't think it's a US thing either, I grew up in Eastern Europe and the top sheet has the important hygienic role of protecting the duvet from getting dirty. I couldn't imagine sleeping without a top sheet, directly under the comforter.

<comment><USER2> The article author mentions sleeping under a duvet encased in a sheet; perhaps that serves the same role as does a sheet between body and comforter -- I assume the encasing sheet he's talking about is removable for washing in the same way what we call a duvet cover would be.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> martin-adams The beautiful thing about experiencing different cultures is that it will allow you to open your mind about how things can be done differently. You'll walk away either feeling more reassured about how you have grown up doing something, or you'll learn something wonderful.

Being from the UK I do most of those. I sit here in my slippers, ready to go do bed under my duvet where I'll get up and eat my cereal, have a shower and head to work without a hat.

If you want to know about something crazy us Brits do, we're the only country to cause our national grid issues by simultaneously turning on a kettle to make a cup of tea at the end of EastEnders.

[http://www.bbc.co.uk/britainfromabove/stories/people/teatime...](http://www.bbc.co.uk/britainfromabove/stories/people/teatimebritain.shtml)

<comment><USER2> I'm curious where he was in the United States that hats weren't de rigeur for very cold weather; I never saw anyone wear a hat in my Mississippi boyhood, but that's because it never dropped below forty (Fahrenheit) there. Here in Baltimore, when it gets cold out, _everyone_ wears a hat who's going to be outside for more than five minutes at a stretch; I found it weird at first, but quickly discovered that, like a scarf, it's the only thing that makes sense when the temperature outside is measured in single digits.

<comment><USER5> He said New York.

I know here in Minnesota almost nobody goes outside without a hat. Then again weather that will cause frostbite under pants will somewhat ensure sane dressing practices.

And I don't know anyone that walks barefoot in their house. And I tend to take a quick shower before I go to bed, because it seems stupid to go to bed without taking a shower, you're the most dirty then. I also tend to wash before going to the bathroom too for the same reason. I get funny looks for both of those revelations to my fellow americans, but after I explain they all agree it makes more sense.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I'm from the south and we call our meals breakfast, dinner, and supper. For the morning, midday, and evening meal respectively. But the timing was apparently the typical American times. 8am, noon, and 5-6pm.

<comment><USER7> I was raised in the south with the understanding that dinner refers to the largest meal of the day. Typically coinciding with supper, except on Sunday when we ate dinner at lunch time.

Never had dinner at breakfast, but we did occasionally have breakfast for supper.

Culture is weird,

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> 10\. Americans that have graduated from prestigious universities will mention that fact at any opportunity.

<comment><USER9> But they will refer to this university as a "school".</comment></comment>


My Friend's Professor Uses This to Motivate His Students - <AUTHOR> http://recklessvswreckless.blogspot.com/2015/02/my-friends-professor-uses-this-to_2.html

<comment><USER2> I've heard of instructors doing things like this - but, seriously, who has time to keep track of all these points/levels/special adjustments? I'd spend more time maintaining this system than teaching/grading/planning.</comment>