How brain activity changes based on various activities - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@dileepbapat/cost-of-cellphone-notification-e1ca4c4495b0#.plzhwc9lh <comment><USER2> Hate to rain on this person's parade, but his findings are mostly meaningless. You cannot simply infer neurological activity from a single electrode. Besides the need for a proper ground/reference, you also need electrodes placed in the correct anatomical locations to derive any meaningful insights into attention networks.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes I do understand it like measuring temperature at one point on mac and trying to predict what application its running. However thats not what I wanted (though I dont know what I wanted), I was curious how activity changes and If am not wrong these activity comes at cost both energy and capacity to think / focus. Who knows if you can wear fitbit for mind tomorrow :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Unless something has happened to drastically alter EEG analysis since last I checked, this is meaningless with one electrode. You need at least one other specifically to measure eye/muscle movement, etc.

<comment><USER4> I think the author means single channel and not single electrode. At least the picture suggests that there are three electrodes (one to the skull two white ear clips for ground/reference). For bipolar electrodes you need three: channel, ground and reference. For unipolar electrodes, just two.

You can remove artifacts like eye and muscle movements with prepossessing, not as well as with electrodes, but still.

I'm more worried about electrode connections and electrode quality in these amateur EEG applications. You also want high quality active electrodes if you take EEG outside laboratory. I'm also skeptical about these dry skin electrodes (no alcohol scrubbing and conductive paste). NeuroSky devices are surprisingly cheap. I would be very interested to know how well they work in practice.

<comment><USER3> Thanks. It said one electrode and after glancing at the picture I thought the ear clips were headphones for some reason.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> People are way too negative. This guy is trying something and showing what he did. Not every discover came from proper scientific laboratory or with a standard procedure. Instead of hating what he is doing, I would encourage him to go further. In my opinion, I prefer those kind of research than nothing at all and found interesting his conclusion. Keep trying and improve and some day it will be probably something.

<comment><USER6> If the research is bad, how is it "too negative" to point it out? Should we pretend it's good in order to be "less negative"?

<comment><USER3> This is common. Journals will even refuse to publish things for being "too negative":

"In October 2006, Potti and Nevins described in Nature Medicine how examining the sensitivity of cell lines to particular drugs could predict patients' responses to cancer therapies for a range of cancers. [...] We had difficulties pretty early on," Baggerly says. He and Coombes say they found errors in the 2006 paper, including genes that didn't seem to belong on the list and tumor samples that were incorrectly labeled. [...] But Potti and Nevins continued to publish papers using the same method. This troubled Baggerly. He became obsessed with determining why the Duke team could make their prediction models work when he and Coombes could not.In subsequent papers by the Duke group, Baggerly says he found new errors and contacted both Lancet Oncology and the Journal of Clinical Oncology (JCO), where they had appeared. Both declined to publish Baggerly's letters [...] Baggerly then learned that Duke was running three clinical trials using the Potti- Nevins approach to assign patients to treatment. He took a new tack: publishing a paper of his own. He and Coombes shared their critique of several papers published by Potti and Nevins with a "prominent" biological journal, he says, whose editors suggested that the paper was too negative. " [http://www.sciencemag.org.edu/content/329/5992/614](http://www.sciencemag.org.edu/content/329/5992/614)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for both comments, as I mentioned in other comment I am curious if it can be fitbit for mind tomorrow :)</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Report urges end to "California Competes" tax credit program for businesses - <AUTHOR> http://www.timesunion.com/news/article/Audit-California-tax-credit-program-ineffective-12320581.php <comment><AUTHOR> This article is on page C8 of today's print edition of the Mercury News, yet it cannot be located on their website using the search features or indexes.

Other past articles on this program that _are_ findable on the Mercury site include one from last month regarding Gov. Brown pledging $200 million from this fund alone for Amazon HQ2[0] and one for Yamaha last year for adding 66 employees in CA[1]. The latter quotes $200M in tax breaks in 2015 and $243M+ in 2016.

[0] [http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/10/18/gov-brown-pledges- hund...](http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/10/18/gov-brown-pledges-hundreds-of- millions-in-incentives-for-amazon-hq2-in-california/)

[1] [http://www.mercurynews.com/2016/12/05/how-the-state-of- calif...](http://www.mercurynews.com/2016/12/05/how-the-state-of-california- convinced-yamaha-of-america-to-stay/)</comment>


Why It's Time To Get Good At Functional Programming - <AUTHOR> http://www.ddj.com/development-tools/212201710

<comment><USER2> I have written a lot of XSL code which seems to be a pure functional language. (Can't change values once assigned, but you can do math an call functions etc.) I wonder how many other domain specific languages are functional?

<comment><USER3> I think Microsoft Excel would be the most common example.

<comment><USER4> If you do not use Macros. And spreadsheets are a cumbersome form of computation.

<comment><USER5> On the contrary, spreadsheets are a cool model of computation. They're live - you can update the value of any variable (cell) and all the other references update automatically. It's a dataflow model.

See, for example, the Cells project at <http://common-lisp.net/project/cells/>

<comment><USER4> Cool and cumbersome do not contradict each other.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


No value: Investing, CEO pay and the economy - <AUTHOR> http://www.economist.com/blogs/buttonwood/2014/12/investing-ceo-pay-and-economy <comment><USER2> There have been great legal barriers erected to protect management from shareholders. Without restrictions on hostile or silent(unannounced) takeovers, management would not be able to employ tactics like overloading with debt or emergency stock repurchase (effectively harming the company to prevent being taken over).

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

[http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/sharkrepellent.asp](http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/sharkrepellent.asp)

<comment><USER3> That assumes that hostile takeovers are good, even relative to entrenched and entitled management. It could amount to one fox keeping another out of the hen house.

<comment><USER4> Whether "good" or "bad" (not sure what that means in this context), it should be the owners of the company that decide whether or not to accept a bid for their ownership, not the company's management. Management and shareholder incentives are not often aligned when it comes to a change of control.

Management operates the company for the benefit of the owners. Preempting the owners' decision to sell by making the company a less attractive target should not be within their remit.

<comment><USER5> I don't think I agree.

If a company's "owner" is mainly short-term money, then any publicly traded company is vulnerable to takeovers that destroy long-term value in favor of extracting cash in the short term.

For example, imagine a scotch distillery. For the last couple hundred years they've been reliably producing scotch, with their most common version aged 12 years. They've got solid people, many of whom spend their whole careers there. They have a very well-regarded brand; sales and profits are solid and consistent.

A corporate raider buys them. They immediately stop putting new whiskey in barrels, fire anybody who has been there more than a few years, and start selling off property and distilling gear. This frees up a lot of cash, making quarterly results look great. They then increase sales volume 3x by buying inferior whiskeys and selling it under their brand while increasing marketing. Quarterly numbers look even better. The raiders load the company up with debt, extracting cash, then take the company public. There is some grumbling from whiskey aficionados that it's "not the same", but the public, looking at the strong numbers and the beloved brand name, eagerly buys the stock.

A few years later, as the aging whiskey runs out and the lowered quality harms the brand, sales fall. Interest rates go up, making the debt hard to manage. The house of cards comes tumbling down and the company declares bankruptcy. People mourn the loss of a once-great distillery, many good people are out of jobs, and a lot of stockholders take a loss on their tax forms. The raider uses its now-larger cache hoard to repeat the process elsewhere.

An outcome like that is within the current rules of business, and is depressingly common. But it's not why we as a society provide for and support the whole notion of companies. Sure, sometimes takeover defenses are management getting comfortable. But "management operates the company for the benefit of the owners" is an ideological statement, not a descriptive one.

<comment><USER2> >If a company's "owner" is mainly short-term money, then any publicly traded company is vulnerable to takeovers that destroy long-term value in favor of extracting cash in the short term.

That just means companies have to be valued high enough so they're not vulnerable to the 'raiders'. However, if that's not the case then there may be a fundamental problem with the long term prospects of the company. It may be better indeed to use the capital of it for something else.

<comment><USER5> My issue with answers of this sort is that they seem circular. If the concern is about the cult of shareholder value, answering with the dogma of shareholder value doesn't enlighten.

I get that economic theory can be a useful way to look at actual productive relations in the world. But it's just a theoretical model. If we find that following the theory leads us to behaviors that destroy the things economics was created to describe, we should stop to ask ourselves whether we could use a better theory.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> With plenty of respect to the conclusion (stock options to pay CEOs are wildly exploited) I'm not sure how that's supposed to be a failure of the idea that "companies exist merely to generate economic returns to their owners". It sounds more like a failure of a common mechanism used to seek that goal.

<comment><USER7> It's a critique of a movement not an idea.

I would argue executives should receive stock with long vesting schedules (as in 30 years) not options. However, options are nominally cheap up front so they tend to look more appealing for boards.

<comment><USER8> While I agree with your sentiment, 30 years seems unreasonably long to me. At that point, you might as well just require the stock be put in a trust for the CEO's heirs.

<comment><USER9> Doing exactly that would select specifically for people that care enough about future generations and those to follow to make personal sacrifices: "you won't end up filthy rich, but your children can escape the bonds of debt." Obviously not universally appealing, but I would go out of my way to work with someone like that, and would attach a level of personal trust to an organization under their guidance.

I wonder what situations this would apply well to? It doesn't greatly bother me that CEOs of oil companies are profit-driven, but the concept of rewarding someone's work by enriching the people that they love, rather than just creating short-term incentives, would fit especially well with nonprofits and NGOs, which oftentimes seem like their primary mission is to justify their continued existence.

<comment><USER10> 10 or even 5 years would be long enough. That's far longer than most CEO's stay in the job.

<comment><USER5> That's not the correct yardstick. CEOs are supposed to be making strategic decisions with decades of impact. If they are compensated based on short-term results, then they will have a strong incentive to make short-term decisions.

<comment><USER10> I think this is an unsolvable problem. I don't understand how anyone could accept such a delay in payment. Remember most companies aren't alive for 30 years. IBM, GE, etc. are exceptions to the rule.

Maybe the best thing to do is to abandon performance-based compensation entirely, because it can't be done over long timescales and over short ones it is an abomination.

<comment><USER5> I think you have it backwards. Perhaps the reason most companies no longer last is that the people running them have no financial interest in their long- term survival.

Note that plenty of founder CEOs are happy to accept near-infinite delays in payment. 90% of Jeff Bezos's wealth is still in Amazon stock despite being there 20 years. And Amazon has been kicking the asses of its competitors for decades precisely because it has been willing to make very long-term investments.

<comment><USER8> >90% of Jeff Bezos's wealth is still in Amazon stock despite being there 20 years.

With Bezos, we are talking about amounts of money so large that I (and I assume you) can't truly conceive of them. If 90% of his net worth is Amazon, Jeff Bezos has ~$3 billion dollars invested in companies other than his own. He's plenty diversified and if that 3 billion is properly managed, he'll never want for anything, ever. Even if Amazon stock falls to 1/10th of its value, Bezos's life won't appreciably change, he'll just have slightly less leeway when building his multi-million-dollar cave clocks.

<comment><USER5> So? Median CEO pay in 2000-2011 was over $2m/year. That's excluding another $6m in stock and stock options. If that equity is locked up such that they get 1/30th every year for 30 years, they still won't be eating cat food.

I'll note that the companies of the post-war economic boom (1946-1980) did well enough even though median CEO compensation (cash, stock, and options) was around $1m annually in real terms. So it's reasonable to think that we'll still be able to attract decent talent for the merely 2x that CEOs are getting in cash. The long-term stock would be an incentive for long-term behavior.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Long vesting schedule isn't a viable solution for many companies. I think 3 year is reasonable.

But this is what I would do if I were in charge.

\- Eliminate options grant because if share price declines, execs are not exposed to downside. Yet when share price goes up, it can be a complete boon.

\- Cap ratio of base salary to incentives so that bonus is no more than 100% of your base. When much of your total compensation derives from your bonus, you are not incentivized to make 'right' decisions.

\- If you want to participate in equity sharing, execs need to make conscious decision to spend part of their after-tax paycheck. This is having true skin in the game.

</comment><comment><USER12> Without saying anything about the broader thrust of an argument, I'll highlight a pet peeve: the drawing of wildly overconfident conclusions from social science research.

The economics experiment on how rural Indian farmers respond to financial incentives is interesting, but... is it really applicable here? How solid is the unstated assumption that elite CEOs have similar ability to perform under pressure as random subsistence farmers? Doesn't sound that solid to me...

</comment><comment><USER13> If returns were in terms of dividends, with owners actually sharing in profits, rather than more easily manipulated and leverage level dependent capital gains, the problem would solve itself.

Make dividends tax deductible for companies (effectively treat them as big LLCs), eliminate the capital gains tax advantage, and watch sanity return to c-suite comp.

<comment><USER14> I have been think about that too. Then investing would also be less of a gamble on the stock market.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> What this is really about, to me, is trust and its tendency toward self- fulfilling prophecy. This isn't about a major change in the philosophical concept of a business. It's about CEOs no longer being trusted to make long- term decisions (and the culture of moronic short-termism trickles down to programmers dealing with "scrum" and "sprints" and shit.)

When people are trusted, most will keep the self-dealing to a minimum in order to continually earn that trust. But once they sense that their organizations or managers don't trust them, it's just natural to conclude, "I don't care for them either" and maximize for short-term personal yield. At scale, this leads to macroscopic underperformance and everyone loses.

<comment><USER16> I feel like there's been a general collapse in trust in at least America in the past 40 years. Short-term behavior is a logical individual response to that. I smell game theory.

<comment><USER17> Your feeling is correct, and numerous polls and studies quantify it.[[http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/11/30/poll- am...](http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/11/30/poll-americans- dont-trust-one-another/3792179/)] [[http://www.npr.org/2014/03/10/288712990/social-distrust- bloo...](http://www.npr.org/2014/03/10/288712990/social-distrust-blooms-among- millennials-but-where-are-its-roots)] Robert Putnam in Bowling Alone was just one of the people who explored this effect. Putative causes include potentially "de-socializing" technology like TV, increasing income inequality, emergence of suburban living, and fear-heavy media.

The vastly increased level of racial and ethnic heterogeneity in America can not be ignored as a potential cause, either. Diversity may hinder social cohesion and a sense of community. [[http://www.hks.harvard.edu/news- events/publications/insight/...](http://www.hks.harvard.edu/news- events/publications/insight/democratic/robert-putnam)] [[https://www.msu.edu/~zpneal/publications/neal- diversitysoc.p...](https://www.msu.edu/~zpneal/publications/neal- diversitysoc.pdf)]

<comment><USER16> I personally feel like all the causes you list are secondary. Primary, at least for me, is abuse of trust and power. People seem to earn trust in our culture only so that it can be "spent" later in abusive ways. Our relationship with our political and business leadership is the classic "abuse, then make up, then abuse again" pattern seen in abusive family relationships, but writ large.

Every event of large-scale deception -- or even incompetence that gives the appearance of deception -- has a _huge_ negative effect on the overall level of trust in a society. It's sort of like the "bad neighborhood effect." If you experience one mugging, that location is forever a "bad neighborhood" even if 99.9% of its inhabitants are perfectly peaceful law abiding citizens. It takes one act of official misconduct to undo the goodwill of thousands of noble and responsible acts.

I think the term is "elite deviancy" \-- the condition in a society when that society's elite no longer believe the rules apply to them and no longer have any sense of shared pride or loyalty to the society at large.

But these things have a way of being recursive-- it's possible that this elite deviancy is a response to growing alienation. This condition could also arise if our elite think they're on a sinking ship. I wonder sometimes about things like the Limits to Growth and what effect that had on the belief systems of those at the top. The timing matches pretty well-- it seems as if everything went to short-term hell shortly after 1970. "Get as much as you can and get out" is a rational strategy in a civilization one believes is dying.

I wonder... did you make a throwaway because of the ethnic/race part of your response? I don't think you're wrong. People do tend to cooperate far more readily with people who look like them and have the same cultural values. It's something I find deeply depressing though... what are we, social insects? Can we only cooperate in homogeneous hives?</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Best Basic Accounting Software for a startup? - <AUTHOR>

Most small businesses I know use Quickbooks but other than the trusty Excel spreadsheet is there something a bit more robust for tracking expenses,travel etc? <comment><USER2> If you are a business, you have an accountant. If you have an accountant, use a tool that the accountant can handle. They all know Quickbooks. Use the PC version or the Online version. The Mac version is shit and my business is all- Mac so I would use it if I could. You will have payroll. QB Payroll is painless and relatively cheap. I'm a tax lawyer and I won't touch doing payroll tax stuff. Too nitpicky.

Kashflow in the UK is good. Xero is another to look at. But only if your accountant is using them.

Do. Not. Be. Your. Own. Accountant.

Also, if you have any outside Investors they will want clean financials. QB operated by an acccountant. If you hope to bring in Investors later and you have shit financial records -- or just amateur hour financial records -- the natural thought in Mr. Wallet's brain is "They can't handle their own money, why should I give them mine?"

All comments above learned the hard way, via pain. :-)

I have no particular love for Intuit. QB is the Windows of small accounting systems. The Mac version is the despised bastard offspring despised and ignored by it's mother. But until you're bigger or until a plausible alternative arrives, use it.

I think the break-point will be at a couple of million of revenue. Above that and growing? Migrate to an industrial-strength package with dedicates bookkeeping people in house.

<comment><USER3> Good advice here from philip.

To put it another way, these "accounting" packages are more about book-keeping and report generating - all useful, but no substitute for the advice from a human accountant who can advise about tax-efficient structures for your particular circumstances.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> <http://www.getharvest.com> might be what you're looking for. there's a lot of buzz about the company right now.

<comment><USER5> Harvest is great. We use them to track our time as well as to bill our clients. However, I think OP is asking more accounting rather than tracking/invoicing clients apps.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I like FreshBooks(<http://www.freshbooks.com/>), it can link up to my time tracking app quite easy. And with it, I can outsource tasks and manage the billing quite easily. Invoicing with pdf is also helpful too.

</comment><comment><USER3> If you're in the UK, try <http://kashflow.co.uk/> \- there's a free 2 month trial to get you hooked!

(I'm not affiliated, just a happy user)

</comment><comment><USER7> Less Accounting is very good for a small business or startup. <http://lessaccounting.com/>

</comment><comment><USER8> Is Nola Pro good? <http://www.nolapro.com>

</comment><comment><USER9> without a doubt <http://www.outright.com> free, awesome, and it generates tax forms and such automatically. we use it to track our expenses.</comment>


Hackable, cardboard Android mini-PC wins award - <AUTHOR> http://linuxgizmos.com/cardboard-android-mini-pc-wins-award/

<comment><USER2> And there it is again. Is there a list of sites fawning the HN imprimatur ORANGE title bar and detailing?</comment>


Food-Delivery Couriers Exploit Desperate Migrants in France - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/16/business/uber-eats-deliveroo-glovo-migrants.html <comment><USER3> >>Uber Eats and competitors including Stuart, a French app, and Glovo, based in Spain, said they were aware of misconduct. "We're concerned because these are illegal practices in which people are profiting from the vulnerability of others," said Nicolas Breuil, global marketing manager for Stuart.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Uber et al have for years argued that driver/riders are not employees. If they aren't employees then they are contractors. One of the basic definitions of contractors is that they may subcontract. To call subcontracting "illegal" is a stretch. It may be a violation of a clause in the contract, but it isn't a crime. Use of illegal labourers is a crime, but the simple act of having someone other than the original contractor deliver the food isn't.

If Uber wants to deal with a particular person and ensure that only that person handles the actual labor, Uber is free to HIRE that person.

<comment><USER4> I believe the (official) problem here is that the subcontracted workers can't be employed because they are underage, illegal immigrants etc.

<comment><USER3> As I said, using illegal labourers is a crime. But "profiting from the vulnerability of others" is the basis of Uber's business model. It's laughable to hear them complain about someone _else_ sidestepping labour standards to pay people less than a minimum.

I think they are just upset that someone has managed to shave profit from their system. Uber is jealous that it cannot access this ultra-cheap labour pool itself.

<comment><USER5> It's not laughable because they aren't hypocritical but cynical. They know they can get away with this, and do.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> _> Uber Eats and competitors including Stuart, a French app, and Glovo, based in Spain, said they were aware of misconduct. "We're concerned because these are illegal practices in which people are profiting from the vulnerability of others," said Nicolas Breuil, global marketing manager for Stuart._

They should look inward: basically the _entire gig economy_ is people profiting from the vulnerability of others. If these companies could cut out the middle man and pay people as little as these subcontractors are being paid, they would.

<comment><USER7> Tax driver a respectable career that earned its drivers good pay until it got exploited by billionaire capitalists, I mean disrupted.

<comment><USER8> Care to elaborate a bit more? Where's the exploitation?

Edit: typo

<comment><USER3> Taxi drivers were once largely independent operators, or they worked as employees of taxi companies. In recent decades this was "disrupted". Drivers became contractors who rented their cars and licenses (medallions) from wealthy investors. That's how NYC medallions started being worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. Now a taxi driver neither enjoys the freedoms of being independent nor the security of being an employee. They live the worst of both thanks to the disruption of the industry.

<comment><USER9> Taxi drivers also provided a terrible experience, had dirty cabs, refused to pick up people, would lie about the fare, take the long way, etc. Uber and the other apps took a one time anonymous transaction where the cab driver didn't care about repeat business and made it accountable. Much like yelp/trip advisor hurting business for tourist trap restaurants. It aligns the incentives.

<comment><USER3> Much of those problems with Taxis stemmed from the aforementioned previous disruption of the industry. You care a lot less about your car when you don't own it. You care a lot less about customer experience when you are not free to deal with customers directly. You don't care about response times when you are only ever dispatched from a central office, are forced to follow a GPS, and so have no home territory or local knowledge. Taxis are bad today, but they weren't always like that.

<comment><USER10> Bullshit. There has never been a time when riding in a taxi in NYC was pleasant. It was always a terrible experience. And not just in contrast to better options, it's objectively bad and always has been.

My theory is that it's because there's no incentive for any individual driver to improve. The odds of getting the same driver twice is effectively nil so all they care about is not getting in trouble with the owners or the taxi commission. Outside of that, anything to improve the service is a cost borne solely by them which is not worth it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> It's an extension what already happens in industries such as construction. If you want to remodel your home in Florida, you'd hire a local contractor who then subcontracts people who are almost certainly illegal immigrants from Mexico to do the actual work at a much lower rate than if they hired Americans.

The reality though is that it's not really exploitation because these often illegal workers don't really have any other options. Anyone who has been to Paris will tell how expensive it is. Ideally the arbitrage between the legal contractor and the illegal sub-contractor is as small as possible but until they have better options, to them this is better than nothing.

<comment><USER6> Using someone else's limitations (e.g. inability to work legally) as leverage for your own gain (e.g. paying them an extremely low wage) might as well be the textbook definition of exploitation.

<comment><USER12> Isn't that just the definition of negotiation? Do you routinely expect fairness in business negotiation when the reality between the parties are anything but that?

<comment><USER6> They're two sides of the same coin, aren't they? "Exploitation" is just a very one-sided negotiation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Regarding the use of illegal migrants in sub-contracting work, their numbers in the construction bussiness is orders of magnitude higher than in the gig- courrier industry. They are usually employed by contractor / sub-contractor, making any kind of control complicated; even then most people are taking advantage of this so there's little incentives to change. The use of illegal workers in construction is apparently driven by a race to the bottom in the construction price, all the while prices are going up, especially in and around Paris, the difference being pocketed by land owners/promoters.

Regarding the deliveries services, I've never used them, but they are imposing externalities on everyone with their motor scooters parked in front of busy fast-food places and drivers (not all of them, though) with little regard to the traffic code (though it's in part caused by the incentives to deliver as quickly as possible).

<comment><USER14> International workers labor away for the profits of international capital. People wonder why nationalism is rising...

<comment><USER15> International labor is taking advantage of the arbitrage that exists due to wealth inequalities between different parts of the world.

Without the use of force (or natural borders via land, lack of information, or language), wealth will flow from societies that have it to those that don't, because the labor will be cheaper. Same situation as having a new store open in town selling the same items for cheaper. Buyers will flock to it and the original store will have to lower prices or offer a different product. Or put up new barriers to entry (immigration, etc).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> It's the government that is accepting these people into the country while at the same time telling them they can't legally work. They have to survive somehow.

<comment><USER17> It's hard to say that they were « accepting » if they arrived clandestinely.

I'd rather claim that a colonizing country has the responsibility of taking care of the people it colonized if it's going to plunder its resources, but not sure if this is the right venue for that.

<comment><USER18> Not according to Charles de Gaulle:

"Have you seen the Muslims with their turbans and their djellabas (traditional, hooded, long wool coats)? You can see that they are not French. Try and integrate oil and vinegar. Shake the bottle. After a moment they separate again. The Arabs are Arabs, the French are French. Do you think that the French can absorb ten million Muslims who will tomorrow be twenty million and after tomorrow forty? If we carry out integration, if all the Berbers and Arabs of Algeria were regarded as French, how would one stop them coming to settle on the mainland where the standard of living is so much higher? My village would no longer be called Colombey-les-deux-Eglises [the two churches] but Colombey-the-two-mosques."

<comment><USER17> > Try and integrate oil and vinegar

Yeesh, CDG never heard of mustard. He must have had something against Dijon.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> This is very sad. Regular earnings from Uber eats or similar are already way too low to live in a city like Paris, so as a sub-contractor, I cannot imagine how those people live. We are back to the 19th century and Victor Hugo novels.

<comment><USER15> They live similarly poor or poorer lives in the country of their origin also.

<comment><USER19> So does this make it fine to let them live poorly in our countries? I don't think so, we can certainly do better.

<comment><USER7> Yes we can't have them live poorly, they must be either paid fairly or denied any money so as to leave. In other news Gig Workers create jobs for underprivileged and unemployed immigrants.

<comment><USER20> This is never either-or. Those jobs should come with fair pay and benefits. In whose interest is the new class of servants?

As a software developer, I know I am highly prized in the current market - <USER2> this might change, and the people who are treating drivers and couriers as disposable cogs would do the same to me given half the chance. Fighting for worker's rights is self-preservation as much as it is a question of ethics.

<comment><USER21> Paying them more will drive up costs. When costs go up, less people use the apps. When less people use the apps, delivery drivers get less money. Nothing exists in a bubble and it's important to look at underlying issues rather than crying foul play

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Isn't this just normal in the US? I'd expect 3/4 of the delivery guys in NYC to be illegal too.

</comment><comment><USER23> Same thing is happening in Mexico, Colombia, Perú and Argentina with YC backed Rappi. The fact that most of their recruits happen to be desperate Venezuelans fleeing their country makes this practice all the more glaring.

</comment><comment> La-ang "The fact that there is less money from the platforms has pushed poor people to outsource to people even poorer than them," said Jean-Daniel Zamor, a courier organizer in Paris". It's welfare, not exploitation. But on the dark side, those who exploit are less guilty than the giant gluttony-firms that have no end to their greed.

</comment><comment><USER17> I've wondered what's going on with Uber in Paris. Almost all drivers are from Francophone Africa, and, until recently, we're almost all driving fairly nice Peugeot 507s, as if a fleet was operating them.

The car-mix seems to have changed a lot recently. Dunno why.

</comment><comment><USER24> I found out about this from the mailing list of community bicycle workshops. I have seen zero coverage in French press. I'm glad the NYT is as shocked as I was.

</comment><comment><USER25> What a bizarre use of the word "exploit". The _government_ is prohibiting migrants from working, to the point where their only option is "stealing or begging on the street." So of course the NYT places the blame on people who provide an alternative, rather than go after the anti-life state policy.

<comment><USER26> Replace migrant with child. Does this hold?

<comment><USER27> It doesn't. Children have parents or legal guardians who must provide for their livelihood. If they don't the government provides it. Such is not the case for migrants.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Wouldn't the « landlord » of the account be subject to a lot of taxes?

</comment><comment><USER28> _Illegal_ migrants, to be clear.

</comment><comment><USER13> NY times won't show me the article if I'm in private mode. Do anyone know why would they do that?

Edit: the site also detect Edge in non-private mode as running in private mode

<comment><USER29> It's so they can spot people reading more than 5 articles a month, which is their "free quota" before they hit you with the pay wall, if i recall correctly.

<comment><USER13> It's 5 articles time the number of installed browsers on your computer; at least it's what I do when I hit the paywall.

<comment><USER30> Or just clear cookies after 5 articles.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Easily compare legal documents with DocCompare - <AUTHOR> http://doccompare.com

<comment><USER2> For lawyers, how is this superior to software like Workshare Compare (formerly DeltaView) that runs on the desktop, integrates with Outlook and document management systems, and doesn't require sending legal docs to the cloud? DeltaView (and a few similar software packages) are pretty well entrenched in the legal community.

It looks like your redlines are slightly prettier, but I'm not sure that's enough of a distinction to cause people to switch.

Also, how do you make money? I worry a lot if I'm asked to send confidential docs and there's no visible mechanism through which you profit.

<comment><AUTHOR> By being faster, easier to use and cheaper.

<comment><USER2> > faster

DeltaView has right-click integration; that will always be faster than opening a web browser, logging in, and transmitting files into the cloud.

> easier to use

It's a tie at best. See the right-click integration point, above. DeltaView has a huge amount of customization potential, but most users don't need all of it.

> cheaper

That's what worries me most. What is the revenue model and why should lawyers trust a stranger to not misuse their docs (or Anonymous to not hack the server, etc)?

To put it in perspective, DeltaView is (at most) $175 bundled with other software. To a lawyer, that's an hour of billing time at most. I don't know why a lawyer would rather risk sending confidential docs into the cloud when the alternative is software that costs (at most) one hour of billing.

I don't mean to come across harsh, but the product appears to be at best an iterative improvement in an industry that is very slow to change and is very concerned about confidentiality. The benefit of "it's free" does not carry nearly as much weight among lawyers, who often able to pass costs along to their clients and don't have the same cultural attachment to "free" as do average 20-something developers.

It just seems like the professional legal market is the wrong fit for a very powerful tool. Are there other markets worth considering?

<comment><USER3> > To put it in perspective, DeltaView is (at most) $175 bundled with other > software. To a lawyer, that's an hour of billing time at most.

You're undercharging :)

But apart from that you're exactly right.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Beautiful idea if it works. I wonder how much lawyers will like it, though, since they get to charge hundreds an hour to task an associate to be the mechanical Turk inside diff. They might not _want_ to be efficient.

<comment><USER5> There are likely to be concerns (e.g. privacy, confidentiality, waiver of privilege...) about sending documents to a third party website.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Thanks everyone for the feedback! I made this tool for myself and other entrepreneurs, not just lawyers. Last year when I was negotiating with investors I often wanted to diff their changes against my original forms. A tool like this would have helped me.

I recognize that there are many challenges involved in selling to lawyers, and I'm talking to lawyers about that. Here on HN I was hoping I would hear about how DocCompare is or isn't helpful to entrepreneurs, investors and hackers.

<comment><USER6> The last funding round I was involved in, I used a combination of mercurial (show changes over time) and scripted Word diffs. It worked really well. And there's no chance I would have uploaded any of it to a site or server I didn't control.

Just one datapoint.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I would LOVE this for PDFs. A API would be super for this too, so we could integrate diffs into our applications.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I've uploaded the Series Seed docs (<http://www.seriesseed.com/>) and made them public. Check it out here:

<http://doccompare.com/compare/viewresults/314170241641/>

</comment><comment><USER3> Looks nice but... What does this get me that the inbuilt comparison feature of Word doesn't do, apart from making me give you copies of all my legal documents?

<comment><AUTHOR> Not all versions of Word have a comparison feature, and when present, it's not very easy to use. Track changes only works if all parties use it, it can't be turned on after the fact.

<comment><USER8> Even if track changes has been turned off, you can do a comparison between two documents that results in a redlined document. Not sure what this does other than make a pretty redlined document.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I didn't know there was a demand for document diffs.

I created <http://diffchecker.com> but it's mostly meant for programmers.

Is there a significant improvement in experience if I allow document uploads versus them copy and pasting the document contents?

<comment><USER10> Mostly that Word documents aren't blocks of text.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> This is great but you could serve an unfilled niche by: (product suggestion....) offering something that OCRs PDFs and compares them to the original and says whether or not the signed document matches the one that went out. This would be useful.

</comment><comment><USER12> I"m a little surprised that given your market, that you don't have a disclaimer / terms & conditions on your web app, or did I miss that?

</comment><comment><USER13> If I need to compare documents, and I'm too cheap for the higher-end comparison tools, what is this going to do that Microsoft Word doesn't?

</comment><comment><USER14> This is solid shenanigans prevention.

<comment><USER15> Yeah, it's useful for both checking revisions of a contract and for comparing an initial contract vs a 'standard' template contract to see the initial pressure points.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Since it's tailored to lawyers, make it obvious that you only store the DOC files for the duration of the comparison, and then you delete them from the server. And not just delete them, but fill the files with random data before deleting them.</comment>


Ask HN: Am I missing out by not being in sillicon valley? - <AUTHOR> I'm a serial bootstrapper/software engineer that has been consulting remotely for clients in between trying to start different lifestyle businesses.
I'm living in a small town away from any tech hubs, I feel like I have access to the best of whats happening in tech via the web but sometimes feel like my career is being hurt by not being in sillicon valley.
The lifestyle is laid back here, and things are cheap. I'm not in any kind of rat race. But am I just staying in my comfort zone and missing out?
I would be very interested to hear thoughts of devs who have lived in sillicon valley and whether or not they find it worth the high rents. <comment><USER2> No, absolutely not. I just left and I couldn't be happier. We work in this ironic industry where, on one hand, you can do this job from literally anywhere with an internet connection... but there is this tremendous pressure to be in the Bay Area. It's all hype my man. Save your money and keep doing what you're doing. Correlation is not causation: there are other ways for you to stay current, you don't need to be in SV.

<comment><USER3> The thing that's concentrated in the Bay Area is capital. You can work from anywhere, but raising money is exponentially easier when there's a ton of it in your back yard.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> It depends, of course.

If your goal is primarily to save money so that you can retire or don't have to work or can choose when/where/how to work, you're already on the right path. Economically, demand for housing in the bay area is strong enough right now that rents are rising to whatever level people can afford to pay. That means you're basically assured of having little or no surplus unless one of your ventures is wildly successful.

If your goal is to develop a bigger network of people in your industry, you're probably missing out, although your client network will be very valuable to you as well. Also, not all of the people you're missing out on are people you want in your network anyway...

The culture in "silicon valley" is toxic. People are obnoxious and narcissistic; many are pathological liars and self-promoters. Plenty has been written about this, both serious and satirical. There are certainly people who enjoy it, but it sounds like you're fairly happy where you are, so you probably aren't one of them.

If you're tired of bootstrapping and want to get funded, you'll probably have a better chance in the bay area or some other large city. Otherwise this is moot for you.

Also, remember that most of "silicon valley" isn't involved in technology any more. It's become mostly a media/advertising center. There are still technology companies around, but the focus has definitely shifted.

You might want to ask yourself not "am I missing out?" but rather "what would I like to change about my present circumstances?" and go from there.

<comment><USER5> > The culture in "silicon valley" is toxic. People are obnoxious and > narcissistic; many are pathological liars and self-promoters.

I grew in Silicon Valley and work here now as a dev at one of the major tech companies and have no idea what you're talking about. The people I work with seem totally normal.

Well I mean, they're all relatively enthusiastic about technology, and generally affluent, but aside from that I don't see anything particularly unusual.

<comment><USER6> > Well I mean, they're all relatively enthusiastic about technology, and > generally affluent, but aside from that I don't see anything particularly > unusual.

The culture of the bay area in general can be very toxic for a particular type of individual. If you're religious or lean to the right in any way, you'll be met with open hostility. The culture of the bay area is also passive aggressive. Nobody wants to offend or confront, so if your manager doesn't like you, you probably won't know it. You'll just get the shittiest tasks and won't be sure why. It's a particular kind of hell for someone who values honestly and blunt talk, like a new yorker, for example.

<comment><USER7> There are neoreactionaries in the bay area and they seem to be doing fine.

<comment><USER6> Stunning counterargument.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I'm in a similar situation and I've decided that while I won't live there, it's worth visiting my friends and contacts once in a while to catch up and learn about what they're doing.

I've been told by many friends in the Bay Area that day-to-day, it doesn't feel to them like there's enormous networking because everyone is in their own routines. They advised me that a huge percentage of networking can be accomplished by telling people you're "visiting for two weeks".

However, living there long-term and having your personal network double as your professional network is a different order of magnitude benefits. My perception is, from the outside and from visiting, the reason specific companies get bought or partnered with is often because they were more closely socially connected and geographically nearby (more likely to hear about one another, have friends in common, etc.)

I believe it's not something that happens overnight, but over time as an investment in the community and being there long-term.

I've recently made a conscious decision to put other priorities in life (where I really want to live, and my life outside tech) on equal or greater footing. For those for whom that's no conflict, I'm sure it's fantastic to live there.

</comment><comment><USER9> I moved from the midwest to San Francisco. In my experience:

      -> the culture here is more optimistic and open-minded; people are more willing to take risks and try hard things
      -> the weather is more moderate
      -> the scenery is more interesting and varied
      -> there are vastly more (good) job opportunities for software engineers.
      -> Bay Area/NYC software engineers get paid more than engineers elsewhere *on average*. But they are also much more skilled on average. If you're skilled enough to be hired in the bay area, then you probably will be paid less than what you could demand where your skill is rare.
      -> cost of living is totally unreasonable in the bay area, and the stats understate this because many people here have massive effective subsidies from rent control and fixed property taxes.

<comment><USER10> Bay Area does pay more than elsewhere. However, given the extraordinary rents, it doesn't pay _that_ much more. If money is a concern, I'd say somewhere like NYC or LA is a better option.

<comment><USER9> Sorry, I was not clear: I think if you have the option to work in Silicon Valley, you can make more elsewhere.

The housing crisis and (to a much lesser extent) generally high wages amplify this imbalance.

Lots of people say that Silicon Valley pays particularly well, and I think this is true only statistically. Silicon Valley pays world-class engineers more than Chicago pays mediocre engineers. I believe a world-class engineer is likely to make more in Chicago than in Silicon Valley, provided that the engineer can find a suitable job at all in Chicago.

So if want to maximize expected income, I think you should live in NYC working in finance, or if you don't like that option, anywhere in the U.S. except the Bay Area. I don't know anything about the rest of the world so I wouldn't give any advice about that.

If you want to maximize the likelihood that you can find an interesting job in software, you should move to the Bay Area.

<comment><USER11> Maybe...I'm not sure if you can find "world-class engineers" that are somehow interested in working with less than world-class coworkers (so if they were paid crazy amounts of money perhaps).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I lived in SF on-off from '98-'01, and I'm out there semi-regularly.

If you're hoping to raise funds for a company, there's a clear advantage to being in SFBA.

If you're hoping to _avoid_ taking investor money, there's a _disadvantage_ to being there, because of how the place impacts your cost structure.

There's such an intense competition to get new ideas, technologies, and that kind of thing in front of as many eyeballs as possible that you're almost definitely not missing out intellectually from living somewhere else.

I think it's also worth remembering that there's really, in a day-to-day living sort of sense, two "Silicon Valleys" \--- the Oakland/Berkeley/SF† Silicon Valley and the South Bay Silicon Valley. Most people aren't willing to drive 2-3 hours regularly just to be casually social on a weeknight. So: even if you lived in SFBA, you'd still have to pick _which_ SFBA to live in, and "miss out" on a lot of the other part.

† _I may be being overly generous and there 's really 3 SFBAs, or maybe East Bay is like an adjunct to both SF and South Bay, I don't know._

<comment><USER13> <tangent>Burritos (as generally served in US) are basically cheap concentrated umami. Not my favorite form factor for it or what I would gravitate to at a Mexican place, but I can see the attraction.</tangent>

<comment><USER14> Tangent is an understatement, I would call that orthogonal!

Speaking of which, monads are like burritos :-) [http://blog.plover.com/prog/burritos.html](http://blog.plover.com/prog/burritos.html)

<comment><USER15> I think patio11 meant to respond to [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9572750](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9572750)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> wh-uws Simple solution to find out?

You work remotely right? Split some time here. about 3 months here will let you know for certain if you are or not.

There are alot of hostels and hacker houses (just google "hacker house sf" or "hacker house silicon valley")

Also remember its really interesting how the layout of companies in the valley follows the OSI model

[https://engineering.linkedin.com/endorsements/geographic- tre...](https://engineering.linkedin.com/endorsements/geographic-trends- skills-using-linkedins-endorsement-feature)

So make sure to spend time not only in San Francisco but also in Palo alto, Mountain View, and maybe even San Jose.

That way you can experience the whole of whats out here and decide for yourself.

Myself personally I found out I very much was. The level of talent and the caliber of the average person in tech here is rarely paralleled.

Not to mention most other markets don't create the caliber of consumer tech compaines I'm most passionate about and are more focused on B2B.

I learn alot through osmosis so I would be short changing myself to be anywhere else if I want to be among the best in the field.

There are certainly snakes and sociopaths around but any place there is money to be made or power to be had you will find those people.

SF and SV do the best job they can to still only reward those with the talent to make big things happen.

<comment><USER16> Awesome, I wasn't aware of "hacker houses". I've always wanted to visit (move to?) SF, but the rents are a huge turn-off.

I'll check them out right after graduation.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> It's hard to answer this question without some idea of what your goals are. What is it you feel you're missing out on? The chance to work with great people? To make a lot of money? To eat a decent burrito?

<comment><USER18> I think that the burritos in LA are better.

<comment><USER19> Burrito based decision making is clearly the way to go.

<comment><USER20> As is Burrito Driven Development!

<comment><USER21> Let's write the manifesto!

<comment><USER19> "Dear Humans, for the last several centuries you have used many different mental strategies to try and make decisions. These seem to have produced a generally optimal outcome (ignoring the genocides) with globally increasing standards of living and increases in freedom for humans generally. We are here today to proclaim that you have been wrong all these years. You could have been so much better off if you had only migrated towards where there were more burritos. Ignoring the blatantly counterfactual spin this argument carries, the data is in. Burritos are king. Sincerely, BBD Evangelists"

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I live in Phoenix, Arizona. My cost of living is $800/month, living comfortably (yes that includes rent, food, utilities, and transportation). It's always sunny, and 3/4 of the year it's beautiful weather, and the rest is swimming season. There are no natural disasters here, and when it rains, people go outside because water is associated with fun. Everybody owns a car and there is parking space everywhere. I'm not sure how life could get easier here.

<comment><USER23> Not being 100 degrees in the summer would be a start. I'm not a fan of SF, but their weather is much more temperate (despite the annoying-ness of having to carry a jacket with you all the time, all year for when it randomly turns to 50 degrees).

But maybe this is the part where everyone trots out their ideal personal locale as fact.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> I think you can build a great life and career anywhere. There are upsides to being in the valley, but there are many other upsides to living somewhere else that you love.

Ultimately it's up to you to slam dunk your business.

I moved out of Toronto a year ago to a city (Hamilton) about an hour away where houses were affordable and the city was seeing renewal. My mortgage is much cheaper than a 2 bedroom rental in Toronto and I feel because I have such low overhead, it makes me a much better entrepreneur. I'm willing to take many more risks because I can make my mortgage pretty easily.

So - my quality of life is very high outside a major tech hub and because we work on the internet, I'm still very involved.

I recommend you watch this video about Chris Coyier / CSS Tricks. He runs one of the biggest web development websites around, two podcasts and CodePen from Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRmbVOI6oIM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRmbVOI6oIM)

</comment><comment><USER25> "The grass is always greener" right? :)

I work in the eye of Silicon Valley and sometimes I wonder if I might be happier with more distance between me and the madness. They pay well to keep me here but it's just human nature to wonder what's on the other side of the fence, I think.

</comment><comment><USER26> My family and I just recently moved away from SF. We lived there for close to five years. I still consult remotely. My network is valuable.

Yes, it's worth spending some time there. Especially if you can find a company that is successful in an area that interests you.

Some companies have fantastic engineering processes but still die because they don't meet a market need. Some company's have hyper-growth but an atrocious engineering culture. Tons have neither and die horrible deaths. A very small few have positives on both sides.

If you're considering, be deliberate in your choice. Want to learn about growing a company, try to get on a company that's showing signs of fantastic growth (IFTTT, We Heart It). If you want to learn engineering processes, choose a company that's incredibly opinionated about their engineering processes and learn from them (Pivotal Labs, Carbon Five).

Please for the love of god, don't just choose whoever will take you.

</comment><comment><USER27> Always take quality of life into account.

SV has more opportunities for engineers/entrepreneurs, but then you're up against people who have done a lot more of that, plus the outrageous housing costs in the area. Oh, and the crazy traffic.

I was living in a 'burb and moved back to the city for quality of life. Being able to walk to things (grocery store, restaurants, bars) was more important to me than having a bunch of land. Also, my commute is now 5-10 minutes instead of 30-90. The cost of it was a smaller house on a much smaller plot of land, but we decided that's a sacrifice we're willing to make.

</comment><comment><USER28> I chose what I wanted out of life, and moved to a place that had the most of that (great food, good weather, reasonable cost of living and a growing startup ecosystem). I lived in SV for a few years (2007-2009). It was great. I live in Portland now, and it's better in many ways (lifestyle, cost of living, ability to get out of the city) but it's def not the startup hub that is SV. On the other hand, you can be a bigger fish in a smaller pond here, vs. SV, where you're swimming with sharks. Both have place, but, for me, moving away was a good choice.

<comment><USER29> Portland, great weather?! But I agree for quality of life Portland is better.

Unless you're one of the very few that work trumps all. Other factors can be more important. I still live in my hometown (Sacramento) because family is here.

Personally San Diego is more tempting than the Bay. An uncle moved for school and never left...

<comment><USER30> Portland is only dreary in the cold season. You get a nice mix of sun and rain other times. It's good if you prefer variety over constant 70 degree sunniness.

<comment><USER11> My wife is from Portland and we go there nearly every year for the months of July and August. Amazing weather during that time of year. I've been there ten years (during the summers) and would highly recommend it.

<comment><USER31> As a former Portlandian, I fully agree that Portland has amazing and wonderful weather during July and August.

I will also note, as a resident of the USA familiar with the common calendar, that there are ten other months to the year.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> I lived in the Bay Area for 3 years and might return. You do meet some pretty cool people working on interesting projects.

Besides the networking you just feel pressure (and inspiration?) to work faster and harder. Not just because your savings are being eaten alive, but also because many are majorly ambitious.

On a list of top five things that will make or break your company, I don't think Silicon Valley would make the list. But if you live and breathe your startup and want nothing else in the world, it's worth a look.

</comment><comment><USER33> Companies that want you in their office will say you're missing out. Investors who want you to hire and raise from the area will say you're missing out. But these things are only as important as you make them.

I will say that the weather is nice in much of the bay, SF has (I think) one of the highest young single populations in the world which can make for an interesting time, and there are many events that take place that could help your business but a plane ticket can rectify that.

</comment><comment><USER11> I'm gonna divide this into two questions:

1) IS THE BAY AREA THE ONLY GOOD PLACE FOR SOFTWARE ENGINEERS?

I think most would agree there are other good cities. Seattle, New York, or Boston are great examples with large tech companies located there.

2) WOULD YOU BE MISSING ANYTHING?

Absolutely. Whatever city is behind Silicon Valley in second place, is very far far far behind. The best and the brightest talent head straight to silicon valley, so if you want to be exposed to new technology then Silicon Valley sits a head and shoulders above the next place.

Peter Thiel made the statement that they are not opening Venture Capital offices in any other city because they didn't think there was enough value, meaning that the big ideas come to Silicon Valley - so venture capital will wait for it there.

There is no EASY way to simulate the same network from afar. It works for most people for 2-3 years or you need to actively visit regularly, but usually it's some combination of the two.

In summary : if you care about working with great developers, learning new technology, building a company/raising capital, or building a professional network then Silicon Valley is a smart choice. If you care about having work life balance, being near family, or saving earned income then the bay area maybe a big mistake.

<comment><USER34> > The best and the brightest talent head straight to silicon valley

I know a lot of really good developers who left because of the toxic culture.

> so if you want to be exposed to new technology then Silicon Valley sits a > head and shoulders above the next place.

This is not true.

> Peter Thiel made the statement that they are not opening Venture Capital > offices in any other city because they didn't think there was enough value, > meaning that the big ideas come to Silicon Valley - so venture capital will > wait for it there.

All this means is Peter Thiel is providing VC exclusively in SV.

> There is no EASY way to simulate the same network from afar.

We have IRC, Github and tons of other social networking options that have been more than enough for me, and surely for many others. Plus the SV isn't the only place to network.

> In summary : if you care about working with great developers, learning new > technology, building a company/raising capital, or building a professional > network then Silicon Valley is a smart choice. If you care about having work > life balance, being near family, or saving earned income then the bay area > maybe a big mistake.

This is probably the only part I agree with here. The Silicon Valley isn't objectively the _best_ place to build your career. If you don't give a shit about work/life balance then it probably is a top choice, but if work/life balance matters to you then it's probably one of the worst choices. You won't fit in with the people in the valley, and you might end up getting depressed or burnt out.

<comment><USER11> I am curious to get a little more information about your opinion.

What do you mean by "toxic culture". You said you grew up in the bay area...what part?

I said... "so if you want to be exposed to new technology then Silicon Valley sits a head and shoulders above the next place".

You said, "This is not true." WHICH CITIES ARE YOU THINKING OF as better than Silicon Valley for exposure to new technologies? I would love to find the best place possible and if there is a better place... that would be exciting to me.

>The Silicon Valley isn't objectively the best place to build your career .. WHERE DO YOU SUGGEST?

>if work/life balance matters to you then it's probably one of the worst choices... I TOTALLY AGREE WITH YOU 100%.

<comment><USER34> > You said you grew up in the bay area...what part?

Sunnyvale. I went to Homestead High School. It was 3 blocks away from Apple HQ. Steve Wozniac went to one of our football games after Steve Jobs died... presumably to reminisce about his high school days.

> What do you mean by "toxic culture".

I'd say that 1/20 people I've ran into fit into this personality type of "I'm better/smarter than you" in a passive aggressive sort of way. Their opinion is an objective truth, and anyone who disagrees with them is stupid. They tend to look down on everyone who isn't as smart or successful as them. And when you talk to them, all they give a shit about is how successful you are and what your accomplishments are, and if you aren't as successful as they hoped you to be then they give you the cold shoulder and think of you as a plebeian or something similar.

It's kind of like what you'd imagine an asshole New Yorker to be, but they don't say anything to your face.

I was definitely guilty of this while growing up there... I'm trying to unlearn all of that shit.

And again this is about 1/20 people. You might not end up running into these people but my high school and my first internship had quite a few of these characters. It left a sour taste in my mouth.

> WHICH CITIES ARE YOU THINKING OF

Dunno. Depends on the technology. I was mostly just disagreeing. To say that SV is best for exposure to new technology would have made sense back in the 80's with all that hardware, but 99% of the shit there now is just web and mobile, which can be found anywhere as long as you have an internet connection (and programmer friends to suggest you new stuff).

Like, if you want to build your career, all you really need to do is move to where there's a lot of people. There _will_ be tech people there if the city is big enough, and you'll probably make more meaningful and substantial connections if you actually like and connect with the city you move to, instead of just blindly moving to SV because that's what everyone else is doing.

> WHERE DO YOU SUGGEST?

It literally depends on who _you_ are. What might be the best place to build your career for one person might not be for another.

For example, on paper, SV would be the the best place to go because I have shittons of connections there.

But I know I would get depressed. I'd long for a better life if I lived there. And I'd hate myself if I got exposed to that 1/20, and felt myself becoming like that again.

I'm going to try my luck in NYC, and possibly abroad in Germany if that doesn't work out (unlikely).

<comment><USER11> Upvoted. I appreciate the feedback. That makes more sense.

NYC doesn't seem like the first place that comes to mind to avoid "that 1/20" that think they are "better/smarter", however you're right than you can learn mobile development from any location with a couple friends and a wireless connection.

<comment><USER34> Did you also grow up in the SV?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> I grew up in NYC and lived there until I was 32 and then moved to rural Massachusetts. The time I spent in NYC has been invaluable to my career, but I am able to draw on that (the network, the experience, etc) from where I am now and get much of the benefit and a much lower cost. I currently remote to a job in NYC.

So, knowing nothing about you, I'd generically say that, yes, a few years in a tech hub can be a lifelong benefit.

</comment><comment><USER36> Flashback: Mark Zuckerberg: You Don't Have to Move to Silicon Valley> [http://www.inc.com/news/articles/201111/mark-zuckerberg- in-a...](http://www.inc.com/news/articles/201111/mark-zuckerberg-in-a-rare- interview.html)

Striking a balance -- it's also good to attend workshops, meet-ups, and conferences in other markets.

<comment><USER11> >"I knew nothing, so I had to be out here. Facebook would not have worked had I stayed in Boston,"

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> You don't say where you are, but one thing you may want to consider is that your area is probably good at something that people in Silicon Valley, on average, know nothing about, and live nowhere near. I live in the Detroit area, and for all the drama, the automotive industry is still quite strong here, for instance, and we have at least a bit of a medical research community. Whatever you have in your area, you have an opportunity to get your foot in, ram home your advantage of being local, and bootstrap that way.

It is likely that while you won't grow a billion-dollar social media site that way that you can find yourself an underserved niche, or a niche dominated by somebody still peddling software from the 80s, or something like that. This turns the "problem" of not being in SV into a foundation of your career, which, if that is what you are looking for, can be a good deal.

</comment><comment><USER38> If you are young, ambitious, and enthusiastic about technology, then I'd say you are definitely missing out. The energy you get from being surrounded by other like-minded people passionate about technology is the most amazing experience. Between meetups and parties, I learn about new technologies and how its used to solve a particular problem regularly. I learn about new technologies before it becomes mainstream. I get to try new apps and new experiences that might never become mainstream. All these experiences and learning will cultivate your creativity and as you grow older, might give you a very unique way of solving difficult problems that would have stumped others. Personally, I think that the cost premium of living in silicon valley is worth it. If I had a kid in his/her twenties I would strongly encourage them to live in silicon valley.

<comment><USER39> That sounds.. quite distracting, a real-life version of checking HN all the time. How would you find the time to focus on building something with all these meetups and hype and... squirrel!

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> I moved to Orange County after living in Bay area for 4+ years and I don't miss a bit. The ridiculous cost of living, full of pretend-like-entrepreneurs, incubator scams etc was too much. Looking back I wish I hadn't caught up in the hype of Bay area/silicon valley being the center of the universe.

<comment><USER27> Yes, if there's some place to move to get away from people who think they're the center of the universe, Orange County was definitely the way to go ;)

<comment><USER41> Nailed it, lol.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> It depends how social you are. The value of being here is being able to go to social and networking events, and hanging out with others in the industry, where you'll make serendipitous connections and discoveries.

If you're not into socializing, then you aren't missing out on anything.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> What a surprise to see my afternoon pondering on the front page. Thanks for all the responses!

To get a little more specific with my point of inquiry, is in person networking in silicon valley better than networking by making cool things and showing people (on the web).

I've been disappointed in the past with all my in person networking (not in the valley). The signal to noise ratio has always been terrible. My hypothesis is that its better to make cool things (with tech) and show people (on the web) and meet allies and fellow travelers that way. This type of networking gives you access to the entire world, and should be much more efficient than meat space.

<comment><USER11> I actually would look at it a different way. In one sense, if you don't "make cool things" then it doesn't really matter where you live. That is the bare minimum for building a network.

It's my opinion that you would have MUCH, MUCH more success in Silicon Valley building a network of quality developers. It takes much more than cool projects for people to want to work with you, recommend you, or invest in your company. Culture fit is consistently expressed for a reason, it may even be more important than cool projects (assuming you have some programming background) for some companies.

Everywhere you go you meet someone building something, compare that to reading HN from a far and hoping someone is paying attention (and impressed) at a Meetup.

My 2 cents: Yes you are missing out with your in person network living in other locations.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Nope. I lived the rat race for 7 years before I learned enough to get out and do exactly what you're doing. If you're already successful enough at consulting remotely and starting lifestyle businesses to be making a living at it, then there's little benefit to going to the valley.

There are two exceptions, though. The first: if you want to start a fast growing startup with venture capital funding. For that, you still need to go to the valley. The second: if the customers for your lifestyle businesses are silicon valley companies, then you want to go to where the highest concentration of your customers are.

</comment><comment><USER43> Explore alternative cities outside of Silicon Valley. I just graduated college and I didn't want to be in the Valley because I didn't want to live and breathe tech. I'm currently living in Austin, TX, working for a bigger tech company and I love it. Its still a huge tech city and I have plenty of opportunities for growth. But you have other cities such as Boston, Chicago, Denver, Portland (?), and Los Angeles that are up and coming tech cities. Also don't forget about NYC. Don't just limit yourself to one area.

</comment><comment><USER44> Not until you marry if you intend to. The quality of spouse material in smaller towns is higher.

<comment><USER45> Care to elaborate?

<comment><USER46> I'd guess he means that it's easier to find a girl who writes less elegant code than you _outside_ of the Bay Area ;)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> Obviously only you can decide. My vote is no, not if you make an effort to stay involved and to network at least somewhat. I live in San Francisco, having moved here a bit over 3 years ago from the east coast (working in Manhattan, living across the river in NJ). Before that I was in central Virginia.

I love the bay area and enjoy how easy it is to stay connected and up to date, but it's definitely a tech bubble disconnected from how the rest of the world works sometimes. Housing is crazy expensive due in large part to demand, terrible policy, and a weird west coast "I got mine" attitude that's so pervasive among voters.

The bay area is right for my wife and I right now -- we are near extended family, we enjoy being able to walk everywhere, we are easy day trips away from amazing outdoor activities (world class scuba diving and hiking, skiing until the drought finishes it off, etc). We put up with the crazy real estate market because we have to (and I'm fortunate enough to work for a tech company).

I would not move here solely for the tech ecosystem unless I was trying to start and sell a company, though I would probably consider northern California (or the pacfic NW) in general for other reasons regardless.

</comment><comment><USER48> I've been in San Jose since 1984. I was three when we moved. I don't remember anything else. I've worked in tech since the end of '99\. The valley has changed a lot. I used to know my neighbors. People used to be polite and helpful. It used to be easy to find a quiet place to sit and reflect, within walking distance of your own home. None of these things seem to be true any more. We have tech though... So that's a thing.

I've stayed because I'm a startup junky and haven't hit the Big One yet but my current startup may be my last one. Early phase startups like to see your face. We've grown to the point where I can wok remote and visit every couple months. I'm finally able to leave California.

The valley is a neat place to be but I don't think it's a great place to be unless you're willing to give up your right to make your own decisions and give in to the hive mind. It's not a place for free thought, only free engineering thought. Everything else you buy wholeheartedly or you play alone.

</comment><comment><USER49> If your goals are to make a good bit of money and retire by solely doing your consulting business, then you definitely aren't missing out on much. Save that dough up for when the bubble bursts.

That said, if you are interested in a new living scene, weigh the pros and cons. SF has amazing weather and average person is pretty intelligent. However they are passive aggressive as hell and dating scene for men is absolutely terrible.

I don't know if you're seriously interested in it, but I also think you are reducing your chance of building a huge startup, in large part because:

a) SF-tech is a positive signal for funding

b) easier access to funds from VCs + angels

c) easier access to tech clients (nothing beats face to face)

d) easier access to business information (want to find out how Zenpayroll makes money? Find some employees and get coffee with them. Try doing that in St. Louis).

e) A lot of great tech talent has moved here, so you can find some awesome employees relative to other American cities

</comment><comment><USER50> A shocking number of the developers who live and work in Silicon Valley think JavaScript on the server is a perfectly good idea.

Keep that in mind when deciding whether living within that self-assembled tech bubble is necessarily a good thing when it comes to being exposed to what is ostensibly the "best of what's happening in tech".

</comment><comment><USER51> Most points made here are quite valid, especially around the burritos and all the obnoxious pretender-preneurs.

I too live in the valley, and although it is a great place to live and excellent place to raise a family, the cost of living is so prohibitive, even with the high salaries. At the current growth rate of housing and related markets, with almost no end in sight, plan on your cost of living consistently going up 20-30% a year.

Sure it's hard to beat having one finger on the pulse of things, but it comes a high cost, which makes it hard to validate for many. If you do decide to make the jump, I'd make sure that your long game plan mostly sussed out. Most important, know what you expect out of moving anywhere, don't do it blindly like many, including myself have done. Though that said I don't regret it at all.

I vote telecommute for a company here and jet-setting in on demand.

</comment><comment><USER52> I think SF + SV have the highest concentration of interesting people in the world. Just sitting at a run-of-the-mill meetup on a Tuesday night, you might have one of the world's leading experts casually sitting next to you. I haven't lived in any other place where it is like that.

</comment><comment><USER34> I'm a relatively new software engineer who grew up in the Silicon Valley.

I moved out the day I graduated high school and am never planning on coming back (I'm 21 now). I haven't used any of my contacts from high school in order to land myself a job.

I feel like my general quality of life has improved since I left. The bay area is a really boring and expensive place to live. It is also very homogenous (not race-wise but ideology and career wise), which could be a pro or a con depending on what kind of person you are.

Also there are a lot of stuck up assholes that live in the valley (I thought this was just how people were until I left - huge relief). The dating scene is almost nonexistent compared to other places. And there's a huge filter bubble there. I found it very suffocating.

</comment><comment><USER53> I've been pondering this myself as of late. I live near NYC but work in NJ. I often feel like I'm missing out at my current job - but it's hard to make a change as I'm getting compensated relatively well. If I were to go out west I'd surely be competing with people much more talented than myself for similar or possibly less pay.

I feel that NYC has a huge pool of below average developers that somehow find a way to stay employed in the larger financial companies here. Of course I'm only basing that on a small sample size of people I've worked with and interviewed over the years. But I would imagine that on average SV has a much greater concentration of talented devs and people genuinely interested in technology.

</comment><comment><USER54> Consider some other options. I really like the situation that I'm in now. I work remotely for a San Francisco company and enjoy salary that's inline for that city, but I live in Tacoma, WA--one of the cheaper waterfront cities of the west coast. I spend a week down in SF every month or two, catching up with all of my awesome super-nerd coworkers. Being temporarily freed from the demands of fatherhood, I spend my nights going to tech meet-ups and networking. At the end of the week, I fly back to my nice, cheap city where I can afford to own a gorgeous newly-renovated 4/3 Craftsman home in a great neighborhood that we pay only $2400/mo for.

It really is the best of both worlds.

</comment><comment><USER55> Yes, you're missing out by not being pushed out of your comfort zone. There are many things you're not missing out on: expensive cost of living being a good one, but even living in New York I feel like I'm missing out on the challenge of being amongst so much raw talent and the dynamism / sense of possibility you feel there. It pushes you, inspires you, and keeps you from falling for your own bullshit.

That said, I don't think I would live in Silicon Valley proper, rather SF where you can actually run into other human beings, which is the point. And actually I personally wouldn't live in SF either due to the lack of any meaningful cultural industries (art, music, etc.)

</comment><comment><USER56> If you're an actor and want the most opportunities, you go to Hollywood. In the same vein, if you're in tech and you want the most opportunities, you should go to Silicon Valley.

Just like Hollywood, Silicon Valley can be a very poisonous environment. So it's a double-edged sword, because there are many unhealthy things about living here (materialism, greed, house prices, wealth inequality, etc). But if you're looking strictly at opportunity in tech, nothing surpasses it.

That said, you can definitely have a happy and prosperous life outside of Silicon Valley. You don't need to be here at all to be happy and fulfilled, but if you want a plethora of opportunity, your best bet it here.

</comment><comment><USER57> Yes, its worth it. I wouldn't retire here or even think about saving too much money. What you learn here and the network you build is, in my opinion, not something you can find anywhere else.

</comment><comment><USER58> You might be interested in a middle ground. While the valley is a great networking hub, you can probably get a similar but more limited experience from some of the smaller startup hubs like Denver, Houston, Chattanooga (my own home). You might want to visit one or more of them to consider your options.

</comment><comment><USER59> If you're single and otherwise have few responsibilities, why not just give it a go? Move over for a few months and see if you like it.

If you have predictable and steady income and can do that remotely from anywhere, you could easily budget for a "trial period".

It'll be MUCH harder to do with family responsibilities.

</comment><comment><USER60> I'm looking at moving somewhere more interesting (I live in DFW which mostly sucks for programming) but SV seemed to expensive and overworked. What about Austin or some other non-snow area? Or is the Northwest the place to go? I lived in SV 20 years ago and it was reasonable but that was eons ago.

<comment><USER61> I've been in Austin for 8 years or so. Like it a lot. Plenty of tech companies and jobs.

</comment></comment><comment><USER62> I just listened to this relevant interview with Brad Feld, a VC in Boulder, CO: [http://www.feld.com/archives/2015/05/build-life-want- live.ht...](http://www.feld.com/archives/2015/05/build-life-want-live.html)

</comment><comment><USER63> I'm a freelance iOS developer living in soma SF. I do feel that a lot of what I bring to the table is the ability to work onsite and discuss things face to face. Despite all of our technological advances, I feel like there is just no substitute for hashing things out face to face.

</comment><comment><USER64> Here are some other locations worth looking at:

[http://www.jobdensity.com/QueryGrid.aspx?q=687&t=Software%20...](http://www.jobdensity.com/QueryGrid.aspx?q=687&t=Software%20engineer&qt=5/14/2015%204:53:43%20AM)

</comment><comment><USER65> As someone who left the valley. I think not. I think we are the lucky ones. The valley is only useful for VCs and having an enourmous choice of startups. But honestly life is better away from it. Unless you can afford a 3M$ house.

</comment><comment><USER66> i think in your sector of the industry it probably matters more than most. if you care about games or finance, you will find that silicon valley is about as far from the centre of that world as anywhere else.

</comment><comment><USER67> Not in the slightest.

</comment><comment><USER68> No.

I moved here. It's terrible. Leaving soon.

</comment><comment><USER69> I'm going to get hate for this, but here it goes anyway: no, you're not.

There are a lot of compelling reasons to be in Silicon Valley, but there are (IMO) many more for staying away. You've hit on most of them: the laid back lifestyle and the cost of living being the big ones.

There are a lot of companies that want you to be in Silicon Valley to work for them, but there are quite a few who embrace remote employees (Etsy and 37Signals come to mind). Does it limit your job options? Probably somewhat. Can you still do really interesting work but live in a place that isn't insanely expensive? Absolutely.

If you're happy where you are, stay there and find companies that embrace that. They're likely to be better companies to work for anyway.

<comment><USER70> > There are a lot of companies that want you to be in Silicon Valley to work > for them, but there are quite a few who embrace remote employees (Etsy and > 37Signals come to mind). Does it limit your job options? Probably somewhat.

In the time I worked remotely, I couldn't help but get the feeling that it also limited your career mobility options as well. Google hangouts or Skype sessions are nice in theory, but when you're in one with a bunch of people across the country who are in the same room together, you miss the subtle quick back and forths with things like body language, as well as the more important ones like actually being able to speak as much as the people actually in the room together (or at all).

</comment></comment><comment><USER71> In general, I'd say that the answer is no.

It depends on what you want. If you can travel, if you can get out to 3-5 conferences per year, and if you get out to Meetups (or organize a few) in the nearest major city, then you're probably learning just as much as you would if you were in the Valley. You might be learning more, because you're more relaxed.

That said, if you want to work for one of the giant tech companies, the main office usually gets the most interesting projects. If you decide to work for Google, try to get them to relocate you to Mountain View. The imperial culture is strong in Bay Area tech giants and in venture capital.

In general, though, the Valley sucks (unless you're trying to raise money). Under 30, you suffer a bad dating scene if you're a heterosexual male (and I've heard that it's unpleasant more generally). After 30, you're too old for the nonsense and, if you're thinking about having a family, forget it. San Francisco is half-decent and has a lot of natural beauty, but it's dysfunctional and shockingly expensive (worse than New York, and you get a lot less!) There are a lot of great jobs in the Valley that I'd say you should take if you're a typical person, but you'd take them in spite of their location, not because of it.</comment>


Solving JVM Performance Problems with Profilers: Wallclock vs. CPU Time Edition - <AUTHOR> https://www.opsian.com/blog/solving-performance-problems-with-profilers-wallclock-vs-cpu-time/ <comment><AUTHOR> I find most developers I've met don't notice the distinction between the two types of time - I'd be interested to know whether people on HN have thought about it much before?</comment>


Real Python Apps on iOS & android for App Store and Google Play - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/kivy

<comment><AUTHOR> link to project website: <http://kivy.org></comment>


Gearbox  – A web framework written in Go - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/abahmed/gearbox <comment><USER3> been writing Go since 2011, have written many http servers, have never really worried about net/http performance.

the bottleneck is usually the storage layer.

let's say you have no storage, your bottleneck is probably serialization.

let's say you don't have serialization problems (except for net/http, optimizing which you could argue is a deserialization problem), what is the problem-domain that's being tackled where you have cpu-bound http performance problems where you shouldn't just use udp instead?

let's say you have no storage or serialization problems, you have a lot of http traffic. if the whole thing is stateless, you add nodes behind a load balancer and call it a day.

ok, none of those things apply: you're dealing with a CPU-bound, stateful http server with all of its state in memory, and it's not fast enough. you are, presumably, at scale and have customers or users; if you weren't at scale, you probably wouldn't be facing this sort of performance problem. so you use something like fasthttp to help you ... scale one node to a very large size? um, I guess you could do that, but now you have a lot of traffic and you've scaled a single point of failure. I just don't get it. I don't get what actual real-world problem this solves that isn't imaginary.

<comment><AUTHOR> I totally agree with you and we all know that (I have a good background and experience from my work in docker and kubernetes), but what we are trying is not to solve real-world problem, we are trying to optimize and enhance using different ways / algorithms to build something better and surely we have a vision. Thanks for your feedback

<comment><USER4> > but what we are trying is not to solve real-world problem

sorry, what? With all due respect why should anyone bother using this framework then?

<comment><AUTHOR> As said in another reply, gearbox is a trial to achieve better performance than current frameworks.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> So this provides an http router written on top of fasthttp?

Why would this be better to use than something like Gin, which has way more features? I would update the docs to be clear about that. What is the advantage of your custom router implementation over others?

Neat project, but it's hard (at the moment) to see why this would be useful over some of the more mature go web frameworks.

Edit: obviously performance is important, but how much faster is it than gin for example if I am going to be giving up features for speed.

<comment><USER6> fasthttp is hilariously fast. it's also missing a ton of edge cases over net/http, but yea, it's very silly fast. i'd say just try it and see for your use-case, but expect 2-3x speedup over standard net/http based frameworks at a minimum.

<comment><USER7> How is your comment helping reply the OP's questions?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Code comments like these frustrate me

> // constructRoutingTree constructs routing tree according to provided routes

> // gearbox implements Gearbox interface

> // New creates a new instance of gearbox

It's obvious from the names of the functions WHAT they do. The point of the comments are to tell me WHY they are necessary. The project feels like commenting for the sake of commenting. I honestly don't know why a "routing tree" is necessary and how it's helping.

<comment><USER9> > > // gearbox implements Gearbox interface

The problem I have with Go is that it does not show an object implements any interface. The implementation is implicit, i.e. you implement the method signatures, and you implement the interface. That particular comment is actually quite useful.

<comment><USER10> The java equivalent is GearBox interface with a GearBoxImpl implementation. I wrote that more times than I like.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Why not import all those consts from net/http?

<comment><USER12> At least with Go 1.14 (what I got with Ubuntu 20.04) importing net/http could add another 4.7MB to the binary size.

This might've been fixed in Go 1.15 though - <USER2> [https://twitter.com/bradfitz/status/1256348714198654976](https://twitter.com/bradfitz/status/1256348714198654976).

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> This project seems promising. Good effort, I am really interested in seeing where this is going.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks!

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Not bad. I just clocked this doing 300Krps (on localhost, on an old i7).

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks!

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Not a fan of unsafe pointers in Go frameworks. :/

<comment><AUTHOR> It's not used now

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Very promising! Keep up the good work

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks!

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> gearbox is a web framework written in Go with a focus on high performance and memory optimization

<comment><USER17> With the performance coming from being based on fasthttp, what does the framework offer on top? The README doesn't really mention any features explicitly (other than soft ones like "secure" and "fast").

A comparison with other fasthttp-based frameworks like [https://github.com/savsgio/atreugo](https://github.com/savsgio/atreugo) or [https://github.com/gofiber/fiber](https://github.com/gofiber/fiber) would also be interesting.

Or maybe a benchmark along the lines of [https://github.com/smallnest/go-web- framework-benchmark](https://github.com/smallnest/go-web-framework-benchmark).

Looking at the commit history (7 commits, most of them from yesterday), the open issues (no way to define URL path variables yet, [https://github.com/abahmed/gearbox/issues/15](https://github.com/abahmed/gearbox/issues/15)), and the release being v0.0.1, maybe it's a bit too early for a ShowHN?

But if you have a vision of how it will be different and better than existing frameworks and the willingness to keep working on your project, then honestly good luck with it, it might become interesting in the future!

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes. You are right about that, but we think a bit differently. we think that would be a good chance for contributors that want to contribute to Go projects or frameworks, also tell that we are trying to build something better and surely we have a vision. For the benchmark, we already opened a PR ([https://github.com/smallnest/go-web-framework- benchmark/pull...](https://github.com/smallnest/go-web-framework- benchmark/pull/75)) after running it locally. Thanks For your feedback

<comment><USER4> "We haven't really done anything useful, but please someone come and make it better"

This is why we have so much crap on GitHub. OP has admitted this solves no real-world problems, and I would argue there is nothing wrong with net/http that it would require anyone to bother installing this stuff.

<comment><AUTHOR> Don't agree with you. We -gearbox community- are working on improving and adding more functionalities, not waiting as you said. Also, we welcome anyone wants to contribute and help us to make gearbox better. what meant by "solves no real-world problems" was that there are solutions (each one has its benchmarks) and what we are doing is trying to provide it with a better performance

<comment><USER4> But why market it as "gearbox is a web framework for building micro services written in Go".

If it's not production-ready, who are these micro services for?

It just seems not even close to polished enough to share it with the wider community. Someone may take this at face-value and try and use it for their own purposes, only to discover it's a purely academic pursuit with no actual merits other than 'oh we might be able to spuriously improve performance.'

I think other commenters have got it right in saying that processing requests is _not_ the bottleneck of most micro services, but interaction with a storage layer or network speed.

<comment><AUTHOR> Recently, we have mentioned that gearbox is still under development and not ready for production usage till we finish supporting all basic functionalities and have a benchmarks results (also for the current release). Thanks for your feedback</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>