Growing-ups - <AUTHOR> http://aeon.co/magazine/living-together/emerging-adults-need-time-to-grow-up/ <comment><USER2> It wouldn't be too hard to argue that the Baby Boomers are strange. Not Gen X, Y and Z.

Until the 1950s, young people in the west were expected to live with their parents until they married and settled down. Just crack open a Victorian novel. (A few HNers have noted that this is true in India, China and Japan; but it was also true in the west.)

This changed all at one and all of a sudden under the Baby Boomers. Young people left home earlier, travelled the world, experimented with drugs. Let's forget that the Baby Boomers were responsible for psychedelia, the protest movement and flower power.

Here's what I'm saying: The Baby Boomers were a blip, premeditated by the astronomical rise of the USA in the global economy. Money and jobs were everywhere all of a sudden, endowing people (and especially young people) with the new freedom to experiment. Something that is not true now: We're facing increased global competition from the East and the west's manufacturing base has been hollowed out.

In terms of global and Western culture they were a non-stereotypical blip, the result of very particular and unusual economic and social conditions, a few flicks of the second hand on the our cultural watch.

So, are the Baby Boomers justified in criticising this generation for returning to former cultural values and habits?

Personally, I don't think so. It's hard not to feel it smacks of myopia, of judging others through the wrong side of the binoculars.

<comment><USER3> _This changed all at one and all of a sudden under the Baby Boomers. Young people left home earlier, travelled the world, experimented with drugs. Let 's forget that the Baby Boomers were responsible for psychedelia, the protest movement and flower power._

I'm puzzled how people can make generalizations about a group people born over a range of 18 years. While the notion of "generation <foo>" is dubious in itself, claiming that someone born in 1946 has a whole lot in common with someone born in 1964 seems especially silly.

What I've found is most people, when talking about "boomers", really mean the subset of those who might have plausibly attended the first Woodstock festival.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I don't know if this is a "new" stage of life or rather a return to an earlier way of life. The whole phenomenon of kids leaving the house at 18, moving across the country, and not coming home again is fairly recent and fairly unique to the Western world.

My wife and I are "grown ups" in the sense that we both are done with grad school, have professional jobs, and have a kid. Yet, my mom lives with us during the week and we spend nearly every weekend at my parents' house in D.C. Not because they need our support, but because we need theirs'. This is a living situation that wouldn't be unfamiliar to my grandparents back in Bangladesh, where the expectation, back then, was that a young couple would move back into the husband's parents' home after marriage. It's novel relative to what I encountered growing up (in the U.S.), but it's not "new."

Various studies have shown that Millenials are closer to their parents than any generation in recent memory. They are not only likely to live with them after graduating college, but turn to them regularly for career advice, take them on job interviews for support. It's the opposite of the rebellious streak that characterized the baby boomers.

<comment><USER5> That makes sense; to oversimplify somewhat, the boomers tended to be really crap as parents, resulting in a generation (my generation, more or less) who are absolutely adamant that they won't inflict the same on their own kids. This seems to have resulted in a close and strongly nurturing, if at times somewhat smothering, parenting style, which in turn gave rise to the millennials, who seem by and large to have much stronger family ties than their parents' generation does.

(By the way, I'm a member of the "moved across the country at 18 and never looked back" cohort, and I've occasionally had reason to wish I weren't; by placing myself far beyond any distance at which I could reasonably hope to receive the support of my family, I set myself up to blow a scholarship and drop out of school half a semester in. I've managed to make my way in the world reasonably well despite that, and have no real reason to be dissatisfied with my lot, but it certainly gives useful perspective on some of my fellows' declamations of narcissism and selfishness on the part of the generation following ours -- if I'd had some of that "narcissism" and "selfishness" when I was young, I'd have a doctorate now.)

<comment><USER6> That's an interesting observation. I had thought it was really more the result of the prevailing economic conditions, rather than the result of a strong, nurturing relationship. These are hypotheses that I would really like to see tested, that way I know whether to blame parents for causing economic crisis, or for babying their children (j/k).

<comment><USER7> It's interesting to look at the one time events that have happened in the last few (or several) generations. The destruction of farming/agriculture as the primary source of employment and the post war boom would be two big ones.

I think the change in agriculture is interesting here because the decision making process for the child of a (relatively poor) farmer wouldn't have been very involved, they would be quite likely to do what they knew. There would also probably be quite some pressure on them to get to it.

The post war boom is interesting because there were substantial opportunities for every single 18 year old that went looking for them. That's probably still reasonably true today, but the opportunities are at least riskier (in a life trajectory sense) than getting a good paying job at a mill or factory.

<comment><USER8> Great point about agriculture. Fortunately, telecommuting enabled me to stay on the farm, which couldn't support me by itself. Had I been born a decade earlier, moving away to a populous area would have been an almost certainty. If you have to move away from your family, the risk is already high, so what's a little more? Now, the vast majority of the population already live in urban areas, so we are back to not having to move very far from your family.

<comment><USER7> I didn't say much about it, but part of what I was thinking about is that someone who has had the experience of picking from many choices is probably going to give better advice to a child doing the same thing than someone who had one path that was quite clear.

(Which isn't contrary to anything you said, it's just another factor)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This is interesting to me because my brother and I (both in our later twenties), ended up taking two different paths. I knew what I wanted to do since high school (software engineering), unwaveringly pursued my 4-year degree with solid scholarships, got a good job the day after I graduated, and bought a house at 25 with a decent down-payment.

My brother, on the other hand, did not have that kind of luck. He tinkered around in college, then joined the Navy. After a couple years, he was discharged early (but honorably) due to panic attacks while attempting one of their most difficult programs. Now he's back at my parents' house as he pursues his degree in environmental science (the closest thing he could think of that matched his interests) at a community college. My family noticed he seemed a bit depressed as his 25th birthday approached last month. Turns out he was pretty upset that at 25, he hadn't gotten anywhere in life.

I feel sorry for him because he's compared to me. I am not a better person. I just have a more studious, middle-of-the-road demeanor, and I know what I want to pursue. There was no moment where I was like, "Man, I need to settle down and pick a career." It just happened, and I was blessed enough to have had a straight path to the "American dream."

My brother isn't in that stage of emerging adulthood by choice. He wants to be viewed as a respectable adult. It's just that he was not gifted with well- defined, lucrative goals, and he doesn't want to do something he hates simply for a good paycheck. I wouldn't have either. It just worked out better for me, and now I look like I have my shit together.

<comment><USER10> I feel the same way. My success as a programmer is some combination of luck and hard work, but it'd be unfair to judge others based on the kind of luck I've had. I was lucky to have been exposed to computing at an early age, stumble upon source code for qbasic games, like programming, major in it, and happen to have my graduation date align with a huge period of growth in our industry.

Good luck magnifies the effect of hard work, bad luck can make it appear non- existent.

<comment><USER11> Success as a programmer meaning what exactly? Salary or knowledge?

If its the former, i reckon ""with a huge period of growth in our industry" has a lot more to do with it than anything else you did. If you studied ancient greek instead, all the hard work in the world wouldn't have helped you.

<comment><USER10> Yep, I agree completely. That's what I meant by "Good luck magnifies the effect of hard work, bad luck can make it appear non-existent."

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Only had time to skim the article, but the section on work caught my eye. Like a lot of people I was fairly dissatisfied with my early career, but, luckily, as a programmer my job had some future prospects worth obtaining. I now really like what I do, and I've learned a bit about the nature of work. A few things come to mind:

0\. The more competent you are at something, the more interesting it becomes. Expecting your first job to be interesting is setting yourself up for disappointment.

1\. Autonomy, at least for me, is really important.

2\. Nobody hires someone else to do the most interesting work available.

3\. The best jobs aren't advertised. Visibility, or self-promotion, is important to some degree.

The awesome thing about computing is the capital costs are so low you can short circuit a lot of the career progression. You'll probably still make a mess of your first N years, which is why venture capital was invented ;-)

<comment><USER13> Perhaps I was fortunate in my career choices, but #2 is not my experience. Plenty of people are hiring for problems they don't fully understand and can't solve, or they wouldn't be hiring. Often enough, those are the interesting problems.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Much of the author's analysis is lacking economic perspective. In particular, I'd argue that a large contributor to 20 somethings with 'dead end' jobs is the obvious lack of 'real' jobs. Additionally, giving everyone a college degree is not going to magically place everyone on career paths - it will probably just debunk the assumed correlation between college degrees and careers by sinking all of the "x percent of college grads" stats.

</comment><comment><USER15> You now what this article needs? More cowbell! I mean graphs!

This is a social phenomenon being critiqued using self-reported social scoring without tying it back to either theoretical or applied economic models.

If large swaths are asked fairly banal "Will you get what you want out of life?" questions with waaaaaay more rigorous subjective and practical analysis a bigger picture can't be assessed.

Elders "ridiculing," which is really a cynical take on what people older than adult children are doing, are expressing some insight into the pitfalls of delayed productive income acquisition. This article also flies in the face of trends that HN loves.

We've seen articles questioning and advocating against ageism, as if this was somehow unique to HN-fields of interest. Whether it is pop music, high art, math, or technology (or many other fields), the people who "make a difference" and live those envious lives of freedom to walk the path to becoming all-stars in their field and/or lives... those are young people.

Sure, some fields require great levels of extended experience or knowledge only acquirable through time, but the people getting everything out of life most frequently start early with a passionate drive for exactly what they will become.

The ascendant efforts of the young from about 18-30 is vital, innovative, and disruptive. I dislike the "disrupt everything!" mantra that leads the naive into the ditch. Fail fast can easily lead to lost opportunities to establish strong financial and technical (or creative) foundations that enable the later bloomers their time in the sun.

It's tough at the top and there are only so many who can get there now or ever. For the rest, it's best to be able to get productive to start saving early to establish a life where you can get ENOUGH out of life to not hit some anxious or depressive state later when you see doors closing to attaining EVERYTHING.

It's efficient to be able to minimize suffering as you go versus rolling the dice that you will suddenly find a calling later.

Feast upon life to learn everything you can. Deconstruct suffering and you'll find ways big and small to constantly create a life that you wouldn't trade for some amorphous "everything." The destination (goals) is usually only a milestone in the journey you are already engaged in. "If you don't stop to look around once in a while, you might miss it."

<comment><USER4> > The ascendant efforts of the young from about 18-30 is vital, innovative, > and disruptive.

It's important, but if you look out your window, the world that exists out there was designed and built mostly by people over 30. There are some geniuses that were most prolific in their 20's (Einstein's miracle year was at 26), but most people who are awarded the nobel prize do their most important work from 30-50 ([http://www.nature.com/news/2011/111107/full/news.2011.632.ht...](http://www.nature.com/news/2011/111107/full/news.2011.632.html)). Picasso started developing cubism around the age of 30, Braque at about the same time.

The young have particular relevance in the area of entertainment (pop music, Facebook), largely because so much entertainment is targeted at the young. They also have particular importance in the area of mathematics. But the kind of day-to-day innovation that makes the world go around is a process of stepping on the shoulders of those who came before. And it's experienced people who understand what came before who do that most efficiently.

<comment><USER15> Those people doing that at 30+ are the ones who are knee deep in culling lots of important industry, business, etc. experience. Delaying targeted launch is riskier. Paying your dues is a safe pattern. You don't suddenly become relevant in your 30's per the Nobel. You don't win $500M contracts before you win $10M. There are very few overnight sensations starting into their field in 30+.

<comment><USER16> Sometimes. Other times[1], you've been so successful that you lose touch with reality and think you're invincible.

The truth is, the laws of physics don't care about your age. You can make a product people want at any point in time. 99% of it is plumbing. That 1% brilliant insight is often just common sense applied to an intersection of two disparate domains. The majority of successful web companies have made this apparent. All they did was use the web as a platform to simplify some previously web-disconnected task.

As humans, we love the Heroic Myth above all else. That some are chosen by God to rule over us with their talents.

The reality is, if you learn to work within what the laws of physics allow, anything is possible. Just go out there and do it, and don't give up. Physics doesn't care how many times you try, or how long it takes. As long as you don't kill yourself in the process, you can always keep improving.

Don't get caught up in the hype. The tortoise wins the race 99% of the time.

1\. [http://www.fastcompany.com/3028159/a-broken-place-better- pla...](http://www.fastcompany.com/3028159/a-broken-place-better-place/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> When I was a child, I asked my dad if his work was fun. He said, "If it was fun, they wouldn't pay you." I remember that from time to time, because it's true. Something that is fun (relative though "fun" is) doesn't warrant payment.

When my mom asks about my current job, I sometimes repeat that phrase, and she gets all huffy and annoyed that I don't view my current job as enjoyable. Sure, my job is satisfying in small ways, but ultimately I'd rather be doing something else.

I just mention it because my mom and dad show two sides of the generation mentality discussed in the article: the "buckle down and get a job" type, and the "you should do what you love" type.

<comment><USER18> Interesting how your parents have such archetypal responses. I kind of feel that it's "they're both right" but to go meta here, it's really a question of "what would motivate me to be a productive employee?". For some, it's respect in the terms of compensation. For others the reward _needs_ to be from within (in addition to external compensation).

From a management point of view, this is instructive - each employee is different and have different (vector of) motivations.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Many "emerging adults", in my limited experience, eventually transition into the "desperately poor" category when they run out of other peoples' money. I'm going to go shake my cane and yell at clouds now.

<comment><USER20> Yelling at clouds is the best, especially if you have a cane handy.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> If you are an "emerging adult" at age 30, then there is a problem. Further, the author of this article claiming that these so called "emerging adults" are not lazy or self-entitled is ridiculous. It is clearly a case of "first world problems". The mere fact that these "emerging adults" have the luxury of living "on the dole" (whether parental or governmental) while they "figure out what they want to do with their lives" into their late 20s and early 30s is a clear case of self-entitlement.

If you don't have a place to live, food to eat, and shelter ... you "emerge" as an adult pretty quickly and figure out what you "want to do with your life" by DOING WORK you don't want to do to get said food, and shelter (i.e., to survive).

What is the saying? An absence of alternatives clears the mind marvelously.

<comment> UK-AL Most survival work like that doesn't pay that well, so you would not be able to get shelter, food etc anyway.

A large majority of professional jobs in business, programming, accountancy, consultancy are filled with people who want to be there.

I am in a professional job, and I doubt I could afford a decent place to live without parental help other than a crappy flat in a dodgy area.

How people afford to live by themselves, on non-professional jobs I don't know.

<comment><USER21> >I am in a professional job, and I doubt I could afford a decent place to live without parental help other than a crappy flat in a dodgy area.

Then live in a the "crappy flat in a dodgy area".

>How people afford to live by themselves, on non-professional jobs I don't know.

Then don't live by yourself. I had 2 and 3 roommates over various times as a young person getting started. We split the rent in crappy small apartments.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> "Adulthood is full of onerous responsibilities, as all of us who have been there for a while know well: going to work every day, making the meals, keeping the household reasonably clean and orderly, paying the bills."

That's the bar for onerous, now? And this is an attitude we, as parents and as society, are obligated to encourage, support, and indulge?

<comment><USER23> But if there's no point to all of it, then there's no point

That's not attitude that's science

Space exploration is the point

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> "I made enough to live on, but only because I had moved back home with my parents and didn't have to pay for rent or groceries."

No, no you didn't.

<comment><USER25> had the same thought at this line. The use of 'to live on' while not paying rent or groceries is very strange. These are the EXACT two bills I think of when I think of the base costs 'to live'.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> I think that economic variables also play an very strong role in what we're seeing with delayed adulthood in millenials.

Credit is much harder to come by, jobs are more difficult to get without a college education (addressed in the article), and there are also changing attitudes to sex and relationships that are becoming more pronounced with millenials (specifically casual sex/relationships) that make it easier for men (probably women as well) to put off marriage and having children.

WRT to credit, when I got out of college back in 2003, I got a credit card with a $5000 limit in my mailbox which I started using immediately, I was talking to my brother who graduated last year and he says that those credit card offers are few and far between now, and that even when you get your hands on one, the credit limit is about $1000 ..... this blew me away. I couldn't have started my business without that $5000 credit card and much of what I have now revolves around the skills/experience I gained from my initial self- employment 10 years ago.

The economic realities have such profound implications that its giving rise to the "sharing economy" [http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/09/the- chea...](http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/09/the-cheapest- generation/309060/) and changing the way corporations are marketing some of their products to this demographic [http://seattletimes.com/html/businesstechnology/2021715711_d...](http://seattletimes.com/html/businesstechnology/2021715711_drivingamericaxml.html#)!

Lots more going on there than meets the eye IMO.

</comment><comment><USER27> > They expect work to be fun, and if it's not fun, they refuse to do it.

That is a big difference and a good way to sum it up.

Unfortunately, lots of jobs are both needed and full of drudgery.

<comment><USER28> >Unfortunately, lots of jobs are both needed and full of drudgery.

I get the feeling millennials are calling that bluff: "If it's so needed, why won't they hire me for it/why doesn't it pay more?'

<comment><USER27> * why won't they hire me for it

Because "you" got a humanities degree and "it" is a tradesperson job which does not "make the world better". "You" chose to pursue "fun and interesting", and didn't run the numbers on "ROI", which only geeks, low-class people, and in-it-for-the-money people did.

* why doesn't it pay more?

Because experience counts a tremendous amount, far more than willingness to show up.

/me shrug

A lot of tradespeople jobs are done by immigrants willing to work many hours with low pay where natives are out looking for "rewarding" and "fulfilling" work. The Great Hand of Bettering Yourself By Hard Work will sort it out, more or less, more or less unevenly, in the end.

<comment><USER28> Fine---but if the jobs are being done, why all the whining about "kids these days?"

<comment><USER29> Because "kids these days" are refusing to do them, yet demanding they have better lifestyle then the people who are doing them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Interesting topic. It seems that every generation has something to criticize about the next. I'm sure that the Greatest Generation who witnessed both World War I, World War II and the Great Depression had a few words (critiques) about the Baby Boomers...just as the Baby Boomers have a few words about Generation Z (the Internet Generation)...

</comment><comment><USER31> I wonder how much variation there is between different cultures. I don't have a lot of context to go off of myself, but speaking to some of my Indian friends, it seems more prevalent in their culture to stay with your parents until you're married rather than running off while you're still single.

<comment><USER32> Although this is genuinely a positive article about young people, I feel that pulling conclusions about all 18 to 29-year-olds is painting with a broad stroke.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> I really hate this term "emerging adults." Suddenly we're not full adults anymore, just because many people of my generation have failed to live up to the standard of adulthood? I really hope this isn't a trend/term which catches on and justifies continued ageism or the denial of rights.

In general, I've always hated these "generational" descriptions. They're guaranteed to be woefully inaccurate for many people in the generation, yet provide ammunition for ageists to discriminate against young people.

For my part, I haven't lived at home since I was 17 and, at 21, have a very "serious" job (which definitely pays the bills). I'm certainly not an outlier in this regard. The people who fail to do this are simply that: failures. (Though that failure isn't necessarily their fault.) Where does this fit in his theory of extended adolescence and infantilization?

<comment><USER34> > The people who fail to do this are simply that: failures.

Yup, sounds 21 to me. Quick to anger and lash out, quick to judge, moral certitude, and lack of empathy.

For one, there's significant variance to how family units function across the human population. In many parts of the world, living together for far longer than 17 is the norm, and the model of how one generation financially supports the next, or families co-manage/pool their finances, works very differently. Often systems emerge that entrench this (e.g. the massive up-front down payments on rental apartments in the South Korean retail markets, which kids simply cannot afford because there's no _time_ to make that kind of money).

So blanket statements like this reek of cultural superiority and lack of education, frankly. I get that you're pissed because you don't feel you're getting the respect you deserve for your accomplishments (or at least that's what I seemed to read there), but starting with some humility and respect for _others_ might change how people respond to you.

(And yeah, I was financially self-sufficient at 21, too. Big deal. It's possible because I happened to enjoy doing work in an area and market that allowed for it. Many things worth pursueing, and of great contribution to society, don't make you money at 21.)

<comment><USER35> > The people who fail to do this are simply that: failures. (Though that > failure isn't necessarily their fault.)

Did you just omit the second sentence so you could go on a little rant? Or did morgante edit his post?

<comment><USER34> It was there originally. I didn't feel that the second sentence did much to affect the overall thrust of the post ("not necessarily" isn't exactly very generous), and even if it did, it's still quite possible to disagree with the notion that having moved out and achieved financial independence by 21 is a requirement for "not a failure" status.

I feel it's exemplary of an arrogance and myopia many of us programmers are possessed with. Our profession is undoubtedly high-impact, but it doesn't actually require all that much knowledge to be useful at it, nor is it that difficult or time-intensive to learn. It's relatively easy to be successful at it and make money even at a young age. Many other paths are much more difficult, take a lot longer, and are no less worthy. Ones that require much more knowledge, or experience and personal growth, for example.

If you try really hard you can chose to read that parenthesis as a passionate plea for society to recognize this and support them better, I suppose, but I'm not that optimistic.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> This article takes way too long to get to the point. Can I get the Cliff- Notes?

<comment><USER21> Yes .. here you go: The article is about the self-entitled generation of "emerging adults" (apparently who range from 18 to 40) of which the author was a part of, but now spends his time writing long-winded articles rationalizing how they (he) are not lazy and self-entitled.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> Let me know when they have a spouse, child, and mortgage. That's the dividing line, as far as I can tell.

<comment><USER38> What precisely is it about having a child and having a mortgage that qualifies someone as "grown-up"?

(I'm speaking as someone who has a wife, a kid and a house bought outright).

<comment><USER39> >What precisely is it about having a child and having a mortgage that qualifies someone as "grown-up"?

It's shorthand for assuming adult responsibilities. It's difficult to survive on your emotionally fulfilling but minimum wage job if you have a brood in diapers at home. Obviously you still have responsibilities, probably including property taxes, insurance, and utilities, if you own your house outright as opposed to having a mortgage.

BTW, it's a bit tricky to buy your home outright if you live, in, say Palo Alto, where I recall a bunch of YC-funded startups are based:

[http://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2013/12/24/real-estate- ma...](http://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2013/12/24/real-estate-matters) "In Palo Alto the median sales price for a home was $2.2 million..."

<comment><USER38> I understand that IF you have a spouse or kids, it's your responsibility to take care of them and provide the best possible environment for them to flourish.

But it does not follow that it's one's responsibility to marry and have kids. There have been plenty of people who contributed a lot to society without ever marrying or raising kids.

You're right that managing a family is shorthand for being responsible. My point is: why use a shorthand when you can simply ask "So what are you doing with all the extra time you get because of not having a family?".

Ask, don't presume.

(I am not even getting into the whole philosophical debate of whether "work == virtue". The subtext in comments like the above is: "Oh, you're living a comfortable life with no responsibilities? You should work hard and suffer like the rest of us!" )

<comment><USER40> > But it does not follow that it's one's responsibility to marry and have > kids. There have been plenty of people who contributed a lot to society > without ever marrying or raising kids.

One's responsibility is to do the right thing, to do one's duty. For some folks, that duty has not been to form a family, but for the vast majority of folks their duty has been to do exactly that: to repay their ancestors' millions of years of evolutionary investment by investing in their descendants.

There are some folks who have repaid that rather massive debt in other ways, but they are few and far between; far more these days simply renege on it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> Surely that should be 'growings-up'? Motion to burn at the stake the author/poster until we reach a conclusion

<comment><USER42> It's based on grown-ups. So I think, it's correct.</comment></comment>


Hr 3606 (crowd funding) bill passes senate - <AUTHOR>

<comment><AUTHOR> I was really disappointed that 1884 was tacked on -- it forces funds to be raised through a 3rd party intermediary rather than direct general solicitation -- oh well, baby steps, baby steps</comment>


Bicycles can help save the planet and improve our cities - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/09/01/could-bicycles-help-save-planet-improve-our-cities/ <comment><USER2> We have an obesity epidemic. Gasoline/Diesel cars cause pollution and climate change. Electric cars still encourage suburban sprawl.

More bicycles please.</comment>


Pyredise gets faster with LUA scripting - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/hymloth/pyredise

<comment><USER2> It's spelled "Lua", not "LUA". It's not an acronym.</comment>


Schneier on Security: A Useful Side-Effect of Misplaced Fear - <AUTHOR> http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/11/a_useful_side-e.html <comment><USER2> "The fake bogeyman lets people avoid talking about the real issues."

Oh good. I'm glad we can avoid addressing who we actually are and can instead continue pretending the world works the way we like. Don't get me wrong. I think the science (there is a hypothesis) is interesting I just think honestly discussing these kind of issues is a much better way of dealing with the real dangers.

</comment><comment><USER3> When someone is already drugging their self , it's going to be hard to prove that someone else tried to drug them even more. Especially outside of lab settings. People respond in different ways to varying amounts of different drugs.

If someone wakes up they may have just had too much to drink the night before and are jumping to conclusions about being 'drugged,' but it's just as likely that someone did drug someone that then assumes they just drank too much.

To try and claim any sort of evidence from the number of incidences that were reported or proven proves nothing. Rape -- in general -- is a notoriously under-reported crime. Trying to generate some sort of scientific conclusion based on such numbers is tenuous at best. Yes, those are the only bits of hard data available to us, but we also know that those bits of information are not the complete picture (and trying to complete the picture is an impossible task).

</comment><comment><USER4> It's the new vagina dentata.</comment>


A space elevator is possible with today's technology (dangle it off the moon) - <AUTHOR> https://www.technologyreview.com/s/614276/a-space-elevator-is-possible-with-todays-technology-researchers-say-we-just-need-to-dangle/ <comment><USER2> An elevator cutting through the air at 1000 miles an hour is not practical.

<comment><USER3> And how do you transfer large quantities of goods and personnel from the flying aircraft to the dangling elevator?

"Pie in the Sky" thinking, of course.</comment></comment>


Red Hat Offers Free Red Hat Enterprise Linux to Developers - <AUTHOR> http://www.zdnet.com/article/red-hat-offers-free-red-hat-enterprise-linux-to-developers/ <comment><USER2> On the SUSE side, you can get SLE gratis and libre if you use OpenSUSE Leap. All of the packages for SLE customers are automatically pushed to Leap (and the Leap community adds more packages on top of it).</comment>


Out of curiosity, anyone else's Google results page look like this recently? - <AUTHOR> http://mkbunday.googlepages.com/2010-02-02-225435_1024x600_scrot.png

<comment><USER2> Yeah, you seem to have added that script which turns Google a little glossy. I have that thing enabled in Firefox not in Chrome.

Okay, as far as your question is concerned, Yes I have seen results like that.

</comment><comment><USER3> That's what I get in private browsing mode.

</comment><comment><USER4> No. It's quite cluttered, isn't it.

<comment><USER5> Is that a question? Anyways, no I don't think it's cluttered. I think it's really improved actually.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Distributed Bootstrapping? - <AUTHOR> Maybe this won't work and you can tell me why, but...
Would it be possible to launch a bootstrapped start-up using a crowdfunding model where the first N employees sign on to contributed $X in exchange for Y% equity, such that sum_N(XY/100) is the needed capitalization? $X might be at least $S/mo  M months, where M is the amount of runway needed, and $S/mo is an employee's salary.
The logistics might be challenging (the more employees you need, the longer it will take to sign everyone on). Also, finding folks who are in need of a job but also willing to invest upfront might narrow the pool significantly.
The reason for proposing this was that the initial N employees have the same incentives as cofounders. <comment><USER2> Isn't it a variation of MLM [0]/Ponzi schemes [1]?

> finding folks who are in need of a job but also willing to invest upfront > might narrow the pool significantly.

Agreed. This looks like an understatement.

[0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi- level_marketing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-level_marketing)

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponzi_scheme](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponzi_scheme)

<comment><AUTHOR> Hmm, I wasn't considering for N to be large/unlimited (ie, rolling recruitment). The idea was basically to have N fixed from the outset; the project would start once the team was assembled.

Basically, I keep hearing that VC, founders, and early employees have divergent incentives, leading to conflicts of interest. The thought was to find a way to align them. This may not be the way, but I was hoping to at least get some discussion. Maybe I should have started with that question instead of a proposed solution....</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Researchers: What practical research hasn't been commercialized? - <AUTHOR> It's my understanding that many fields have practical, useful research results that never get brought to market. Most often, it's because researchers lack the time and interest to starting a business, or the researcher's university owns patents and entrepreneurs don't want to deal with the licensing process, or simply that no one outside the field is even aware of the practical applications of the research.<p>So I ask all you HN researchers: What results are you aware of that can solve problems and help people, but haven't yet been commercialized? <comment><USER2> There are many, just ask any unhappy scientists.

Funding goes to popularity, not new research. This is even true at DARPA where they ignore new technology because it doesn't fit some preconceived notion or don't have a framework to evaluate it.

Case in point for XAI, explainable artificial intelligence. The algorithms we use today give us black box models we can't interpret directly. So instead of fixing the algorithms, they focus on modeling the models and "guessing" which ones come close enough via simpler more intuitive stacks of models. Guesses upon guesses.

There has been research in new algorithms that generate open models where the weights make sense and are editable. There is one company working on this, but it's not nearly enough.

There's another set of research that has managed to convert black box models into open ones, giving full transparency.

Then there's asynchronous circuits research which do not require a clock. These can reduce power usage and boost efficiency on low power devices. Not much going on here.

There's one group building a RISC5 architecture with these, based on 30+ year old research with the inventor who still has not seen his life's work commercialized.

Then there's various types of imaging and tracking with signals we use every day, such as BT, Wi-Fi and Cellular among others, and being able to locate devices or people. You can find several universities doing this, none have made it commercially.

<comment><USER3> Can you provide more references on XAI and converting current black-box models into more open ones?

<comment><USER4> The Economist had a relevant article a few months ago: [https://www.economist.com/science-and- technology/2018/02/15/...](https://www.economist.com/science-and- technology/2018/02/15/for-artificial-intelligence-to-thrive-it-must-explain- itself)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Semi-on topic: people with blue-sky ideas are often asked "if the idea was so good, why hasn't anyone commercialized/done this before?" which often inhibits further inquiry.

But the fact is, an idea's current feasibility may be a function of its present constraints. Opportunities open up when constraints change [1]. This is why it can be useful to revisit old ideas and test them against the current environment.

[1] "Objectives and constraints", [https://www.johndcook.com/blog/2018/06/26/objectives-and- con...](https://www.johndcook.com/blog/2018/06/26/objectives-and-constraints/)

<comment><USER6> If you think you've got a great idea, rest assured a thousand other people on this planet have the same idea. The difference is when one of them actually does it. Few do.

<comment><USER5> I think your point about execution is correct -- few people actually develop their ideas into something tangible.

But I'm not sure that it is an inevitable fact that most people will end up having the same ideas. Someone once said that in humongous countries like China and India, it is statistically inevitable they have thought of most of the things the rest of the world have thought of.

But why hasn't China come up with thoughts that German philosophers have come up with, or with specific ideas that have come out of the west? I think it's because there wasn't a focus on the things that mattered to Europeans at the time. Culture and environment matters, and dictates the ideas we are capable of having.

Large populations are not made up of uncorrelated, independent individuals. Most of the those individuals have highly correlated thoughts, mostly driven by the culture at large.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This is one of those... those who know don't talk and those who talk don't know situations...

You're going to have to put your money where your mouth is!

<comment><USER8> how do you figure that? there are many researchers whose innovative and practical solutions do not get funded. why would people keep quiet about under-funded research?

<comment><USER7> Because it's a valuable idea that I know about and you don't? BTW feel free to send me actual money, I'm sitting on plenty and I can only work on one at a time.

<comment><USER8> that's your mentality.

it's not everybody's.

I'm not interested in sending you money for your ideas, thanks. There's all kinds of people. If there is a big enough problem to be addressed then there exists not only information hoarders/squatters like yourself, but also others who would be willing to elaborate to just move something forward and try to get their problem solved.

<comment><USER7> If it was academia we were discussing, then yes share all the things. But OP is asking about things which can be commercialized.

Sadly science funding in the US is an absolute shitshow and science costs money so...

I think you should consider this from the position of a researcher with no funding sitting on valuable ideas. Commercializing that idea can fund other research they want to do. So even from the perspective of wanting science to be free and the common heritage of mankind, a researcher can do more science by capitalizing on a valuable idea.

It's kinda shitty, but science doesn't take place in a vacuum, researchers have to eat.

I get where you're coming at, but I just don't think it's realistic. You can't just ignore incentives.

<comment><USER8> You think I'm ignoring incentives yet my entire argument was based on incentives. People are experiencing problems in their daily lives. They know of under-funded research that can solve their problems. They don't have to be the researchers. Besides, university researchers are not in a vacuum. They will get patents for their innovations, paid for by the uni, even if it's not ever commercialized. And universities are notoriously bad at just shelving innovations instead of commercializing them. Most schools just simply do not have the right people in-house to do it successfully. There even exists offices of commercialization in the larger universities whose sole purpose is to find for-profit buyers / licensors for their under-funded research. And even they still fail at finding buyers for many practical innovations. The more people that know about their innovations the more likely it is to get the right funding and market access behind it and become commercialized. These are the facts in the real world.

<comment><USER7> I'm having a hard time following your argument... what are you proposing?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> If you run through the ~15 years of my blog, Fight Aging!, you'll find scores of promising lines of work that never made it much further than the initial reports. Medical science has a huge chasm of death between research and commercialization. It is comparatively rare for failure to proceed to be a matter of technical failure. Other causes are, I think, more common.

Part of this is that researchers don't know how to launch it, and most are not entrepreneurial. Part of it is that many technology transfer groups are like dogs in a manger, toads squatting atop things they'll never put any effort into helping along, and whose job in life is to make it slow, expensive, and hard to deal with their IP. Part of it is that funds, VCs, and to some degree entrepreneurs sit around waiting for something to be handed to them, nicely packaged.

I think most of the fault is with the funds and the incubators. They have the money to craft a solution, to make a landing pad for scientist outreach, to give them a beacon to aim at. They can reach back into the research community to a much greater extend. They can build BDCs that increase the ratio of projects:entrepreneurs that can be tackled profitably. But very little of this actually happens.

My company, Repair Biotechnologies, has found two immensely promising technologies for human rejuvenation that have been in the first case dropped on the floor at the chasm of death, never carried forward, and in the second case died because the institutions involved couldn't convince their funding sources to back the incredible potential of the work. This happens. Many institutional sources of funding don't want to see biotech barnstorming, don't want to see imaginative, radical new directions. They shut it down.

All of this combines to form a dysfunctional environment in which knowledgable entrepreneurs can pick up truly revolutionary projects, but there really needs to be institutional change that only bigger organizations and wallets can bring to bear.

<comment><USER10> Is there some comprehensive source of information on these. Downloadable dataset of research, like the patent database that is downloadable.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Apply static code analysis to apps for guarantees like "This app access your addressbook but never sends it to the internet".

Some of my ex-collegues were working on this: [https://pp.ipd.kit.edu/publication.php?id=jodroid2015atps](https://pp.ipd.kit.edu/publication.php?id=jodroid2015atps)

Turn the research prototype into a practical tool. Hope to get acquihired by Google or Apple for their app store.

<comment><USER12> This seems like an incredibly useful and important tool. However, I think ideally a tool like this should be open source and free.

edit: it seems like this groups work is open sourced actually [https://pp.ipd.kit.edu/projects/joana/](https://pp.ipd.kit.edu/projects/joana/)

<comment><USER11> Joana is an open source Eclipse plugin for information flow control. Afaik the most precise one which still scales reasonably well.

The core technology is not the thing to commercialize. The valuable thing is to be an independent third party which provides the guarantees. It is about image and prestige.

The hard question imho: Are such guarantees valuable enough? Do end users care enough that it is worth it?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I heard seasonal thermal energy storage is underrated: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seasonal_thermal_energy_storag...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seasonal_thermal_energy_storage)

Solar power is mostly available in summer, but heating is mostly necessary in the winter. How do you store the energy for half a year? Apparently a big water tank underground is a great solution. It is also boring, non-sexy, and cheap. Thus there is little interest to commercialize it.

<comment><USER13> Doesn't sound cheap for a single family unit, but maybe many of them.

<comment><USER14> Depends on the cost of digging.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> It's theoretically possible to build really small nuclear reactors for electrical power generation (such as for a pacific island that currently uses heavy fuel oil and diesel). I recall a pilot project that was trying to get off the ground to power a fly-in town in Alaska.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galena_Nuclear_Power_Plant](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galena_Nuclear_Power_Plant)

Regulatory, nuclear material proliferation and safety concerns have prevented anyone from doing so up until now.

</comment><comment><USER16> Phage therapy is the most glaringly obvious to me, particularly as antibiotic resistance increases while the pipeline of new drugs is nearly nonexistent.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phage_therapy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phage_therapy)

<comment><USER17> Thoughts on why this hasn't been commercialized?

<comment><USER18> Hard to get regulatory approval and concerns that phages can't be patented so pharmaceutical can't guarantee a monopoly. Plus, the existing way works, so not much incentive to replace it with something speculative. Sort of like why you don't rewrite an existing codebase in C in some other language.

<comment><USER16> > Plus, the existing way works, so not much incentive to replace it with > something speculative.

Except the existing way is quickly no longer working, hence antibiotic resistance. Also, it's not speculative, phage therapy works.

<comment><USER18> Sure, I'm disputing either of those claims. But if you look at it from the perspective of a drug company the existing way is fine (for now) and it's risky to switch.

<comment><USER18> Oops should have said "not disputing".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I'd wager that anything that is not profitable is not commercialized. For instance, finding some household substance has the same efficacy of a billion dollar pharmaceutical.

<comment><USER20> The "Rapid Ramen Cooker" took till 2010 to be commercialized: it's a plastic tray.

<comment><USER21> The commercialisation of water is an even better example. You can sell anything if you market it right.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I couldn't give you a list of examples off the top of my head, but I do know that people are aware of this problem and one of the more prominent solutions is to attach a start-up accelerator to the university.

The example I know of is the Innovation Deport in Birmingham, AL (my hometown) being attached to the University of Alabama at Birmingham. The university does a lot of medical research and from what I hear, the Innovation Depot is trying to establish itself as the go-to place for professors to take their patents and provide business/engineering/manufacturing expertise.

[https://innovationdepot.org/](https://innovationdepot.org/)

<comment><USER23> Many universities (if not most) already have technology transfer offices for this purpose. What is the difference between the Innovation Depot and [1] this department at UAB?

[1] [https://www.uab.edu/research/innovation/](https://www.uab.edu/research/innovation/)

<comment><USER22> I'm not exactly sure where they draw the lines...but the "Accelerate" picture on the website for that department at UAB is a picture of the Innovation Depot.

That department might just be the university side of the accelerator.

<comment><USER24> After a brief reading, it's important to note that two paths for faculty:

1) Get someone else to commercialize your research (tech transfer often does this)

and

2) Start a business around your research

Have _very_ different paths and consequences.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Hypersonic and supersonic civilian transport. SpaceX published a first render of what parabolic arcs through low-earth orbit would look like. With estimated one-way arrival time under an hour. YC's own Boom Aerospace is set to announce first flight of its experimental XB-1 aircraft sometime next year. But it is just the beginning. Latent consumer demand could equal 100M+ passengers per annum. The technology is here today. It's simply not evenly distributed yet ;)

<comment><USER26> Do you really think there are 100M people on the planet willing and able to pay for the absurd fuel cost this would require, just to shave off a few hours heading to a holiday or business meeting? There's a reason that present day jets are so slow, and it's not technological, it's economical.

<comment><USER14> You are confusing "unique visitors" with "clicks", to borrow from Website- speak. I hope this makes sense now.

Also, the reason the jets are so slow is that supersonic flight is illegal for civilan aircraft over much developed land. There are ways to greatly reduce the noise though, and for subsonic aircraft there are also ways to fly fast but very silent if optimized for this. We have the tech, the oscillations have to be eliminated in e.g. rocket engines, and we are talking about conditions that we can simulate due to the temperature and pressure being in much more comfortable ranges.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Million dollar question :)

</comment><comment><USER28> Almost any state-of-the-art computer science paper can be incorporated into a commercialized product. Entire companies are often built around a single fancy new index method or the like.

The trick is in the execution and application. What problem are you going to solve? Are you able to build up the surrounding "boring" bits necessary to productize something?

</comment><comment><USER29> In the US, this is one of the purposes of the National Labs and they probably all have easily googled programs. For example:

[https://www.ornl.gov/connect-with-ornl/for- industry/partners...](https://www.ornl.gov/connect-with-ornl/for- industry/partnerships/)

[http://lanl.gov/business/business- opportunities/index.php](http://lanl.gov/business/business- opportunities/index.php)

Edit: list of labs

[https://science.energy.gov/laboratories/](https://science.energy.gov/laboratories/)

[https://www.usa.gov/federal-agencies/national- laboratories](https://www.usa.gov/federal-agencies/national-laboratories)

</comment><comment><USER30> Several of my tool designs for developers have not been applied to products yet (while some have).

See my pub list: [http://austinhenley.com/publications.html](http://austinhenley.com/publications.html)

Let me know what you would like to fund :)

<comment><USER31> Can you link some products that have your research as a basis?

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> Universities patent lots of practical research that has yet to be commercialized. Here are some patents I've helped file that I know are not yet commercialized:

[http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph- Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=H...](http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph- Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch- adv.htm&r=0&p=1&f=S&l=50&Query=%28an%2Fthe-trustees-of-dartmouth- college%29+AND+in%2Fpeterson&d=PTXT)

</comment><comment><USER33> Just a note that not all research needs to lead to a product to be useful. Changing how an existing process is done is sufficient. A library for a programming language might be another result.

</comment><comment><USER34> I think one general point that we all need to understand is that even though a practical research is amazing and have good potential, in the real world, it will have to work with the existing and very complex ecosystem. This task of bringing a new tech into an existing ecosystem is really really difficult and depends on so many factors that are outside of control for the people who developed the new tech.

</comment><comment><USER35> I don't know how far research has been so far, but I can see a few Nobel prizes of medicine (and lots of money) in the gut microbiome field

</comment><comment><USER36> My impression is that cooperations these days facilitates a lot of practical research to attain an eventual patent and reap the benefits of the scientists' achievements.

It isn't research, but I was at a party the other day and this women who works at a record company specialising in classical music said that an classical music app with high quality recordings didn't exist.

<comment><USER37> TIDAL/Spotify have classical music, though I'm not sure if FLAC/320Kbps is what she meant by high quality recordings.

<comment><USER38> I think a lot of it needs to be remastered for digital, she might mean that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> Not all research is designed for commercial exploitation! For example some ideas that are both practical and useful can only be implemented by regulators or government agencies. In this arena good research may fail to find adoption for any of a vast number of stupid reasons.

</comment><comment><USER40> There are many advances in diagnostic medicine that aren't pursued because the cost of testing many people outweighs (economically) the benefits of treating the few positive cases who would be found.

Finding a way to change that calculation could open many paths to treatment.

</comment><comment><USER24> I know for my own work, which I think has commercial potential, I go back and forth as to whether or not the juice is worth the squeeze as far as commercialization is concerned.

</comment><comment><USER41> Network on Chip

</comment><comment><USER42> The capitalists lobby pretty badly to suppress incoming disruptive technologies that could take their market share. Energy, agriculture, medicine, etc.</comment>


Founder's Syndrome - <AUTHOR> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founder%27s_syndrome <comment><USER2> Much of the characteristics described are necessary for early success of a company. After all, you need at least 1 founder with a "work all day and night to keep the company alive/growing at all costs" level of devotion. Most startups won't take off without some degree of fanatical founder behavior.

> [the syndrome causes problems] following the effective initial establishment > of the project

This is easy to accept in theory. In practice, there is rarely a specific event or milestone that determines the "effective initial establishment of the project" (after which, according the the wiki article, Founderitis turns from necessary to harmful)

A lot of founders operate in survival mode (sometimes quite literally) when starting a company. Transitioning out of survival mode once the company has enough momentum and traction to be able to survive on its own is easier said than done, most often (I think) because it's difficult for founders to identify the exact point in time where things will and can go on without them which is often years after the company was founded

Edit: Side note, why is this on Wikipedia? It would be a great blog post. But really Wikipedia?

<comment><USER3> The last link in the article kind of defends "egomaniacal" founders: [https://www.businessinsider.com/entrepreneurship-startup- fou...](https://www.businessinsider.com/entrepreneurship-startup-founders- success-overconfidence-andreessen-horowitz-scott-kupor-2019-6?r=AU&IR=T)

Marc Andreessen and Ben Horowitz described their ideal candidate in a single word: "egomaniacal." Founding partner Kupor said "The really successful entrepreneurs are able to willfully suspend disbelief, but then also figure out a way to not make themselves impossible to deal with."

> Side note, why is this on Wikipedia?

I think there are enough papers for the topic to be on Wikipedia, although it could do with some balance.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I've worked with founders and they're great at getting stuff off the ground and have tremendous passion.

This is the 'honeymoon' phase.

However once things start picking up and the company is becoming less and less of a startup the they can be the greatest hindrance to achieving the 'next' level as an organization. They are usually set against formality and structure, which they perceive as as impediment to attaining their vision.

This is the 'old ball and chain' phase.

Of course, this is from my direct experience.

<comment><USER5> This is a well-known phenomenon in the VC world. From the outside, it looks like evil VCs are just trying to take over the company, but often the company outgrows the founder's comfort zone.

Many founders are successful precisely because they micromanage every detail of the product and execution, leaving no room for inefficiencies. As you said, this can be effective for getting things off the ground.

However, past a certain scale the micromanagement physically cannot work. There aren't enough hours in a week for the CEO to have a hand in every significant decision on every team.

Good CEOs learn how to scale themselves, build trusted org structures, delegate responsibility, and focus the CEO on the things that matter most.

However, many founders just don't enjoy this. They founded a company not because they loved sitting at the top of an org structure, delegating all of the fun work to middle managers. They liked being in the thick of it, fighting fires and calling shots. So that's what they cling to, to the detriment of the company.

Nobody likes to be micromanaged. Having a micromanaging founder at the helm of the company extends the micromanagement to every level, with an added multiplier of the micromanager having absolute control over the company. There is no pushing back, no changing teams to escape it. You either commit to the micromanagement, or you leave the company.

<comment><USER4> Exactly, that's why I left. It was unbearable for me to see we were consistently pushing half-baked features out of the door with technical debt piling up. Also seeing your colleagues being baffled at supporting customers with new features no one has ever told them about, deployed in production.

I'm all for move fast and break things (sometimes), but this cowboy, shoot from the hip was unsustainable, we simply could not keep up with developing new features and shipping them ad-hoc with barely any support.

A lot of burnout in that org also.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> All in all, I think I'd take founder's syndrome over many of the alternative forms of organizational disorder and dysfunction. For instance, this sounds like a much better situation than a complete lack of vision and guidance, political infighting, or a technical firm that is run by a parasitic infection of bean counters who slowly erode safety-critical practices and encourage normalization of deviance.

</comment><comment><USER7> Sounds like Steve Jobs or Elon Musk. To some extent, Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos.

Contrast: New / outside CEO syndrome.

Any organizational design has problems. Founders tend to be better than replacements, but far from universally.

I've worked in two organizations with "Founder's Syndrome." In one, it was hyper-destructive in much the way described. In one, it lead to a lot of soft issues (we felt micromanaged), but ultimately, really good technology which won in the market.

That's why I hate these stereotypes.

<comment><USER8> > Sounds like Steve Jobs

Apple went to shit when Steve Jobs was pushed out and only recovered when he came back. This is the worst example if you want to claim that excessive founder control is a negative thing.

<comment><USER9> Chances are SJ learned a lot from that experience and returned to Apple more ready to run it. If he wasn't pushed out, it is likely he could run the company into the ground much faster than his replacements did.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> It's interesting how in open-source projects, BDFL (Benevolent Dictator for Life) is usually not seen in a negative light, and the Wikipedia article does not list any "problems": [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benevolent_dictator_for_life](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benevolent_dictator_for_life)

<comment><USER11> I absolutely see it in a negative light. I'm often critical of Linus Torvalds (in terms of communication and behavior, not technical ability), and he's got the same cult of personality around him that many abrasive CEOs do. See also recent drama around Elm and the difficulty some have had with its maintainers.

Open source is, if anything, even _more_ likely to suffer negative effects. And less likely to properly report or handle them, because even the bare minimum profit motive isn't there as a monitor.

(In terms of companies, by the way, Epic Systems - that is, the EHR company, not the game company - and Valve Software are two good, little-talked-about examples of this problem.)

<comment><USER3> > I'm often critical of Linus Torvalds (in terms of communication and behavior

I think that is misguided opinion. Linus is mostly correct (the opposite of Founders Syndrome). He obviously has great interpersonal skills, otherwise Linux would not hold together as a team, and it would be forked by groups within. Even his "rants" seem well reasoned and purposeful (not unguided anger), and he changed his behaviour when pressured by some of those he works with: a sign of maturity and definitely not Founder's Syndrome (has he kept their support?). A "BDFL" maintains their position by people voting with their time and effort, and support is withdrawn if the BDFL lacks the emotional skills or technical "taste" to maintain group cohesion.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> _" The founder makes all decisions, big and small, without a formal process or input from others. Decisions are made in crisis mode, with little forward planning. Staff meetings are held generally to rally the troops, get status reports, and assign tasks. There is little meaningful strategic development, or shared executive agreement on objectives with limited or a complete lack of professional development."_

This is meant to sound negative, but there are a lot of upsides to this. Design by committee, analysis paralysis, lack of agility, diffusion of responsibility and many more problems plague organizations that attempt to achieve the opposite of this "cowboy approach".

For instance, "Founder's Syndrome" would apply to Apple with Steve Jobs at the helm - as opposed to IBM, which is run "by the book". Most people don't even know who runs IBM, nor do they care about IBM products.

If you have a charismatic founder, you have to ride that wave, because it's a unique opportunity. Having somebody with the ability to "rally the troops" is invaluable. You can't just hire somebody to do that for you. If you have too many concerns about this, take your money (or your labor) elsewhere, but keep in mind that "playing it safe" is risky as well.

</comment><comment><USER13> If anyone is interested in how organizations function (or not as the case may be), I highly recommend the book "Moral Mazes" by Robert Jackall: [https://www.amazon.com/Moral-Mazes-World-Corporate- Managers/...](https://www.amazon.com/Moral-Mazes-World-Corporate- Managers/dp/0199729883)

</comment><comment><USER14> My take on this is that this is in some sense an outcome from organizations growing too fast. Fast growth indicates that the founders has done something right. Fast growing companies wakes the interest in certain types of people who wants to be part of the growth. After a couple of years and/or first couple of failures some people start talking about how the organization needs to mature. A conflict between founders (with friends) once successful approach and people in the growing org that wants more structure/processes/transparency starts. As all problems, no answer is right, is it the right way to go the old validated successful way or the new boring/mature way? Maybe the solution lies somewhere between? I think this is one reason this type of "organizational theories" arise. I think a lot of us has seen it and wondered why it happens.

</comment><comment><USER15> Justine Tunney wrote a post on her old blog arguing for founders' 'right to rule': [https://web.archive.org/web/20151128145818/http://justinetun...](https://web.archive.org/web/20151128145818/http://justinetunney.com/founders.html)

> I firmly believe that founders have a right to rule. This is because > founders are the sorts of people who do not take power; they do not usurp > power; and they do not inherit power. Instead, founders create their power > from thin air where there was previously none. Founders are simply awesome > people who make things happen; and as a result, they experience this > phenomenon where power just materialises around them from the æther. It's > the truest and most noble form of power, and I feel it ought be embraced > despotically.

<comment><USER16> Founders often have the legal right to authority in their companies, but advocating for "despotic" power is ... unsavory.

<comment><USER17> Until the 80s the rule for public companies was "one share, one vote."

<comment><USER18> And that's how it should be.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I believe many people start business not for the money, but for the "King-ish side", and I can understand that perfectly. However, even as a King (i.e. _especially_ as a King) it's important to be the first servant of the Kingdom. The king is mortal, but the Kingdom may not be.

</comment><comment><USER20> There's a point in every company's trajectory where you should decide if you're aiding in the company's success or hindering it, and I believe this is doubly true for founders. In my personal experience, almost every startup I've worked in a founder was pushed out by the board or by a cofounder, voluntarily stepped down, or marginalized, and often for the better. The one case it didn't happen, it should have.

Some companies do great with founders still in charge. (Stripe, AirBnB). Others realized their full potential after the founders stepped away (Google comes to mind). Either way, a founder should know when their time is up and think about what's best for the organization.

</comment><comment><USER21> I couldn't find a similar link for "failed organ transplants" of empty shell companies after the founder(s) depart.

The whole "company in name only" disease (without the heart, mind and soul of a founder) deserves its own label.

<comment><USER5> > I couldn't find a similar link for "failed organ transplants" of empty shell > companies after the founder(s) depart.

False dichotomy.

Plenty of founders learn how to scale their companies and delegate to an effective management structure.

This article is about founders who cling to the micromanagement structure that works when startups are small but fails when companies grow larger.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> If I was a founder I would certainly try to give to my organization "founder syndrome". And I'd keep my company private for as much as I could :P

<comment><USER23> This is a very valid way to run a certain kind of company. If the company is kept to a certain size and scope, you can achieve a lot of success with little headaches. But, for companies that reach (or need to reach) a certain organizational size to survive, there's an upper logistical limit on how far you can take this while getting away with it. Bureaucracies, processes and mechanisms were invented out of this necessity.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Can we think of an already successful company that got better after the original founders left and the operation became managed by policies and processes?

<comment><USER25> I can't think of any. Process attempts to reduce humans into instruction following machines. Sometimes this is necessary (think safety checklists) but most of the time it squanders the very thing that makes humans special: the ability to make predictions and respond to changing circumstances.

<comment><USER24> I think most people need a lot of structure in their jobs. Building a company beyond individuals is largely formalizing a way of doing things. But, the process should take the guess work out of everything routine, and provide principles and freedom to do the tasks they are competent at.

With that said, the requirements for an early startup are completely different. It can just be a collection of great people making independent decisions.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Working in a company founded 1990, still has the Founder's Syndrome...

(Also, I kinda read "Tesla Motors" between the lines)

</comment><comment><USER27> Contrast and compare with the butt-hurt employee effect.

</comment><comment><USER8> Why does this crap deserve a wikipedia article?

It's just a bunch of moaning that sometimes founders have too much power inside organizations that they founded (imagine that).

<comment><USER9> You see, someone created an organization and then runs is as he sees fit (in fact, tries do do the best, to the limit of his abilities). Someone is displeased by the results _(Oh, the horror!)_ , and starts raging how he would improve things.

This often happens when a displeased person is working in a said organization.

<comment><USER28> Employees are stakeholders in a company. They have the right to express displeasure when the founder "tries do do the best, to the limit of his abilities" and nevertheless creates problems and/or demonstrates they are incapable of quality leadership as the organization grows.

<comment><USER9> When I got really unhappy with the way my ex-boss ran the company he founded (including many lies and false promises he never meant to keep), I have quit and started my own company.

I imagine some employees have left my company, too, because they were unhappy with the way I ran things. However, I have never resorted to lies and making promises I never meant to keep.

<comment><USER23> I don't know how long you've been running a company, but the bar to successfully surviving is a lot higher than simply refraining from lying or breaking promises. There's a reason why the vast majority of startups have failed and continue to fail time and time again. It's hard.

But, you'll make it a lot harder on yourself if you blame it on others when they leave. It will mean that if there is a systematic problem with the company, you will have shirked responsibility of dealing with it and are putting everyone else who works at the company at risk. Is that something you're willing to do? Is rectifying it something you are equipped to do?

<comment><USER9> _> I don't know how long you've been running a company_

Since 2007.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


New Creately Team Plans - Perfect for Project Teams - <AUTHOR> http://creately.com/blog/announcements/new-team-plans/ <comment><USER2> perfect!</comment>


How I Learned French in One Year - <AUTHOR> http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/12/29/15258/287 <comment><USER2> I learned French in one year by hooking up a mic/mixer to my laptop (so that I could easily hear myself speak) and watching French DVDs with French subtitles, pausing after every sentence and repeating what was said.

I'd rewind the film and switch to English subtitles when I didn't understand a phrase. It takes about 6 hours per film at first, but becomes faster and faster as you learn more vocabulary/grammar and get used to the process.

It's best to use real French films, because it's important that the actor's mouth movements match their voice, especially when they're speaking fast.

I live in Paris now, and speak French fairly well with no American accent.

I also read bilingual books and memorized songs on the bus (pasted the lyrics into iTunes so they'd show up on my iPod when listening to the song).

<comment><USER3> Thanks. Very useful information here. Current theory (Krashen) says output or production happens naturally only after hundreds of hours of "comprehensible input". It's great to see contrary evidence. I'd love to know more.

<comment><USER4> I had a similar experience learning Chinese. Output did not follow comprehension.

The rule was never sleep without giving your brain something to work on. I spent an hour in the morning and an hour at night practicing the precise pronounciation of syllables, words and phrases, using tapes as a reference. There was little improvement _during_ sessions, but noticeable improvement _between_ them. Thus the rule about sleep.

As my pronunciation improved, so did my comprehension. I can't imagine it working the other way. Comprehension is passive, and no guarantee of accurate or even coherent production.

Following such a method you can learn a language in 6-12 months.

EDIT: I just read up on Krashen, and well, no, his theories are wrong. I wasted years on that crap. I doubt fluency is even possible with such a method. Just do what sounddust said and you'll be set.

EDIT2: The average person acquires fluency _despite_ the Krashen method, rather than because of it. In my case, due to very poor audio recall, the Krashen method was a complete failure, so I was forced to experiment with other ways.

It turns out perception of foreign sounds is very weak in adults. We recognize a subset of possible sounds and toss out the rest, or munge it into something heavily accented. The repetition & production method compensates for this by making such sounds "real". Once they are real, the actual language follows more quickly.

EDIT3 (sorry): More on Krashen, from <http://www.sk.com.br/sk-krash.html>:

 _The only instance in which the teaching of grammar can result in language acquisition (and proficiency) is when the students are interested in the subject and _the target language_ is used as a medium of instruction._

This is so fucking wrong. The study of grammar is _analytical_. Language is the vehicle of analytic thought--if your proficiency in a language is weak, your level of analytic thought in that language is also weak. So if you want to study French grammar and you've only just started learning the language, by all means, study it in English.

Wow. So this is why the English-speaking world can't seem to learn a foreign language. Thank you xccx, you opened my eyes.

<comment><USER3> IMO English speakers don't learn other languages because they don't really need to. If they do need to, and try to learn with a weak method, then they experience frustration and emotional resistance. (Affective Filter)

For most people, analysis of _how_ a language works is not meaningful. Just like for software users, most people don't care how a program works. They just want to use it.

For highly analytical mathematical minds, study of grammar can be effective. Krashen's research shows, however, that grammar study in classroom environments does not help the majority of students to achieve conversational fluency.

So I'm not saying you are wrong. But there's plenty of evidence to suggest that what works for you might not work for everyone.

Personally, I don't believe that human language is purely analytical framework for thinking. I do believe, strongly, that language is also physical, emotional and expressive. I mean, what is the first word out of a baby's mouth?

Just guessing, but I bet the experience that sounddust describes has less to do with grammar analysis, and more to do with personally relating to the _stories_ in the films and songs. He gets input that A) he comprehends and B) he cares about.

Guessing again, I bet sounddust's success with early output results from practice within a safe environment, where he has _no fear_ of sounding like an idiot. It's a much different experience that being surrounded by peers in a classroom and challenged by the teaching authority.

Further, since he's vocalizing expressions from authentic films and songs, he can mimic not only correct pronunciation, but also mimic expression with real gut _feelings,_ like glad, sad or mad. Feelings are meaningful.

So I agree with you, pradocchia, that early output (expressive mimicry within a safe and playful environment) is useful: 1) it helps us to _hear_ and understand the new language, and 2) it boosts our confidence so we can talk much sooner.

And to sounddust, please correct my wild guessing about what you experienced while learning French!

<comment><USER2> Sorry for responding so late, but I just wanted to say that you're correct on all points above about my learning experience, including (and i'm reluctant to admit this) - the fear of sounding like an idiot (although I got rid of this quickly after actually moving to France, because you don't have a choice).

<comment><USER4> Unexpected (?) but very interesting. I've poo-poo'd some of the points you've just affirmed, perhaps from selective memory, so the anecdotal evidence is welcome.

I was also scared of sounding like a fool, and need privacy to practice.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> From <http://www.alljapaneseallthetime.com/blog/about>

"In June 2004, at the ripe old age of 21, all post-pubescent and supposedly past my mental/linguistic prime, I started learning Japanese. By September 2005, I had learned enough to read technical material, conduct business correspondence and job interviews in Japanese. By the next month, I landed a job as a software engineer at a large Japanese company in Tokyo"

Basically, his method involved constantly immersing himself in Japanese media.

<comment><USER6> Oh man, I wish I could advance at such a pace. Sometimes I doubt these fast- learner stories, but I guess different people just have different abilities.

I lived in Tokyo for 2 years, studying Japanese full-time, and completed several courses in Finland before that. Speaking came pretty easy and I am quite fluent in normal conversation, but learning kanji has proven to be a real time-sink and a source of frustration, although at the same time I love them for their beauty. Also reading Japanese feels different than reading languages in the Latin alphabet, as the characters have an extra layer of meaning (not a huge difference, but helps to distinguish homonyms + create new kinds of puns / emphasis).

There are roughly 2000 kanji that you should know to be a high-school level reader. The latest test I took (<http://www.speedanki.com>) shows I know about 800. Reading a newspaper is not possible currently, as I would have to constantly look up kanji, and often the important words are the rarer ones.

But I will learn them. At this point it's an obsession, I'm not even sure why I need to know them, except to prove to myself that I can.

<comment><USER7> If you use Firefox, the gTranslate extension is pretty good for looking up words/phrases quickly. All you have to do is highlight the word, right click, and there's a translation menu item that has the translation. It might not be the best for individual characters, but it's quicker than going to the dictionary every five seconds.

<comment><USER6> <http://www.rikai.com> automatically displays popups for kanji as you hover your mouse over them. Here's a direct URL to browse the Japanese Slashdot with it: <http://tr.im/ooJg>

But what I really meant were dead-tree books and newspapers that I could read while not at the computer.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> If you want to learn to speak French and use it actively, not just to prepare for some exam, I can recommend French In Action from my experience. It is a base for a 2-year course at Yale University. The whole course revolves around a story about an American student on vacation in France, a French girl, and their families. A complete multimedia course consisting of 52 30-minute video episodes with commentaries, 2 textbooks (500 pages of transcripts, visual aids and readings), 2 workbooks (1000 pages of exercises), 1700 audio files aiding the workbook and 2 study guides (400 pages). There is material for roughly 2 hours a day study for year and a half, but it'll get you to the level where you can easily live in France (or Quebec :).

<comment><USER9> Watch French in Action for free (legally!) here: <http://www.learner.org/resources/series83.html>

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> The Peace Corps of my youth taught the volunteers to speak the new language by 3 months of total immersion, then threw them into the wild. My friends who had gone through the process said that they could get by, but it took a year to become totally fluent.

I picked up enough Portuguese to fumble along in Brazil by taking 40 hours of lessons from Berlitz, 2 hours per day twice a week, just me and the teacher. That was kind of the minimum to make continuous progress. Group classes are way less effective, and courses at the local JC are totally worthless. The only thing that counts is how much time you actually spend speaking.

It's expensive as hell, but I strongly recommend 100 hours of individual instruction before going off on your own in learning. It gives you a good feel for the pronunciation of the language. If you learn by reading but with the wrong pronunciation, it may take a long time to recover. The proof to me was when I was in rural northeastern Brazil. The person that I was haltingly talking to said that he could tell that I was from Rio by my accent. I wasnt, but my teacher was.

<comment><USER11> I can't agree more about learning the correct pronunciation first. I spent some time tutoring students learning English, and many of them had spent years learning to read without any training on pronunciation. They end up speaking English using the sounds from their own language, and will never recover from it without massive relearning effort.

The two takeaways here are: learn pronunciation first, and learn the script of the new language immediately (or you'll just mentally transcribe the sounds using your first language)

<comment><USER12> _learn pronunciation first, and learn the script of the new language immediately_

Correct, and correct. All native speakers of any language are habituated to produce the sounds and perceive the phonemes of their own language, and NOT to produce the sounds or perceive the phonemes of any other language. Acquiring an understandable accent generally takes good training at the beginning.

<comment><USER13> OK, so what's the optimum strategy?

How about starting with a CD and book of nursery rhymes and then listening whilst following the text.

Then eventually ditching the CD and reading/singing the rhymes from the book out loud.

Then (having read the translations) doing the same whilst visualising the content.

<comment><USER12> _what's the optimum strategy?_

For an adult learner, CONSCIOUS awareness of the different phoneme system of the target language is almost surely necessary. For some language combinations, dictionaries with International Phonetic Alphabet pronunciation keys can help a good deal. Better quality language textbooks have a beginning section detailing differences in the sound system from the learner's native language to the target language.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Language learning is such a VAST and ignored area in start-up community. I'm also learning French and while Rosseta Stone is the mainstream software it's practically a wasteland with small occasional gems like <http://babbel.com> ( which is very nice Adobe Flex application). Anyone finding a quick and a fun way to learn a language will become an instant billionaire :) But I guess it's the general problem of knowledge learning and is as old as the human race exist. Imagine building something that has a possibility of destroying the current concept of school! For now all we have is sci-fi stories about swallowing pills for instant learning ....

P.S. I wrote a little Adobe Air application for someone who likes to learn a language while listening to songs or watching youtube. You can search lyrics/save/translate and bookmark your videos. It's a just organizes the whole process. Have fun ! <http://www.singandstudy.com>

<comment><USER12> _Anyone finding a quick and a fun way to learn a language will become an instant billionaire :)_

The emphasis would have to be on fun in that formula for making a fortune.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> If you're planning to live in Quebec, then French skills are critical. Lots of points for immigration/selection, and things just aren't in English outside of Montreal. If, however, you're trying for someplace like Vancouver, French is less important.

I think various websites publish the skill set(s) the country and/or provinces are looking for. It's trivial for a US-ian to get work here, and it's a 3-6 month process for Europeans to do so (at least in software-related businesses). It also helps if you're young, single, ...

<comment> a-priori I'm from southern Ontario, in Canada. Right now I'm living in Lausanne, Switzerland, which is a French-speaking city. Knowing French is absolutely critical for living here, and English is almost useless. Thankfully, I speak a bit of French from school... it's not much, but I can get by, and my girlfriend speaks it quite well.

It seems that most Swiss speak at least two languages well, but these two are usually Swiss German and either French or Italian. Those working touristy jobs usually know enough English to take orders and direct tourists to bathrooms, but that's about it.

 _Edit:_ The irony of this article is, of course, that this guy probably now has a better understanding of French than most Canadians outside of Quebec.

<comment><USER16> Most Swiss seems to speak at least three languages well. In addition to Swiss German most of them also know German. (And those are different languages.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Not to rain on his parade, and congratulations to him in achieving a personal, verifiable goal, but learning French as a native speaker of Russian who already had huge exposure to English is less remarkable than learning a non- Indo-European language for him. It is also more remarkable if a speaker of a non-Indo-European language learns English (or French), which I have seen done more than once.

But more power to anyone who takes the time and effort to learn another language well.

<comment><USER17> Language FAMILY doesn't really make that much difference. Closer relationships like Spanish to Italian or Russian to Polish help a great deal, but it is much easier to learn Bahasa Indonesia or spoken Japanese for an English speaker than it is to learn Russian. Language relations are based on historical development, not always (or even usually) on current similarities that would help a learner.

<comment><USER12> _it is much easier to learn Bahasa Indonesia or spoken Japanese for an English speaker than it is to learn Russian_

The United States government agencies that track this matter don't generally seem to think so. But if you have other evidence on this point, I'd be glad to hear it.

I agree in general that a grammatical feature such as minimal marking of nouns for case and verbs for person, number, or gender, making word order the main basis for grammar distinctions, makes Chinese eerily familiar for native speakers of English. But even though Chinese grammar is "easy" for native speakers of English, to the degree that some Americans say "Chinese has no grammar" (definitely a false statement), nonetheless lack of a lot of cognate vocabulary or similar phonological system usually means that the native speaker of English will thrive as a learner of any Indo-European language over almost any non-Indo-European language.

The comparisons I've seen most often assume native speakers of English learning various languages to an equal tested level of functional proficiency after government-sponsored training. Length of training to reach the required level is generally longer for the non-Indo-European languages than for the Indo-European languages. The "easy" languages for English speakers are the typically studied languages like French, German, and Spanish, perhaps because of prior exposure as well as close similarity. It would be interesting to see what studies of language learning starting from various native languages to acquire various target languages are showing these days.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Wow! Fabulous link. Thank you. It just so happens that I am in Montreal at this very moment. I came here for the weekend to get away from Chicago. I am thinking seriously about moving out of the United States to either Montreal or Paris. I have decided to start taking French lessons at Alliance Francaise de Chicago (<http://af-chicago.org/>) this summer, and I have "acquired" MP3 albums of French lessons from the Interwebs. I will try the methods suggested in the article and in the comments here. Thanks again.

</comment><comment><USER19> Cautionary tales:

[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspon...](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/8096988.stm)

</comment><comment><USER20> Any recommendations on learning to speak and understand japanese without learning kanji? I hated studying kanji while taking japanese language courses in undergrad.

<comment><USER21> Get a Japanese girlfriend.

If that's not possible, sounddust's method seems the most likely for a hacker with limited access to Japanese people.

<comment><USER22> With Japanese, you risk ending up speaking fluent Japanese-girlfriend, rather than what you would be expected to speak as a Japanese-speaking male.

<comment><USER21> This is valid, you will sound like a girl. However, it's better than not knowing how to speak at all. It isn't so hard to correct - just go drinking with some old japanese guys once a week.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Metered billing: it's a lack of competition, not congestion - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/07/metered-billing-its-a-lack-of-competition-not-congestion.ars?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=rss <comment><USER2> Competition is the missing ingredient for reducing broadband prices and improving service quality. Unfortunately, a "free market" tends to have the opposite effect in industries that are this capital intensive, resulting in monopolies. Even if you oppose most government regulation of business, this is one area where you, especially as an HN'r, should reconsider.

Does the Canadian regulatory regime differ from the European model discussed in this earlier thread: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2709834>? It appears that British telcos (mention in the linked story) only sell wholesale access, while Canadian telcos sell both wholesale and retail access, but would really like to hear from anyone who has experienced both. Regardless, it seems quite clear which economic model would produce the better outcome for end users.

Related, the recent competition report by the FCC was discussed here: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tr4SULDvrj0> [The Communicators, 7/11/11]. It's interesting to see how the wireless industry defends itself; choosing to parse the difference between "Competition" and "Concentration" (skip to that segment here: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tr4SULDvrj0&t=6m15s](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tr4SULDvrj0&t=6m15s)).

<comment><AUTHOR> thank you so much for a thorough comment, i keep thinking of the catch phrase that our internet providers are "punishing early adopters of the future" but you give me a lot of meat in that argument, so thanks for taking the time to post this, and that cspan debate clip</comment></comment>


Yes, Facebook made mistakes in 2016. But we weren't the only ones - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/yes-facebook-made-mistakes-in-2016-but-we-werent-the-only-ones/2018/11/17/3b62b422-ea9d-11e8-a939-9469f1166f9d_story.html <comment><AUTHOR> Nation-state actors conducted information warfare on Facebook's platform. Solely blaming Facebook for that is a little like blaming United & American Airlines for 9/11\. They are just the most obvious attack vector, but it's a failure of government to allow rogue actors to act freely. Unfortunately after we've created the internet equivalent of the TSA we may find the cure worse than the disease.

</comment><comment><USER2> They showed malevolence when they deal with the errors they made. That makes them the worst among the biggest companies.

Facebook has good "We are sorry,errors were made." PR game but it's not sincere.</comment>


Startup 24M's Batteries Could Better Harness Wind and Solar Power - <AUTHOR> https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601500/24ms-batteries-could-better-harness-wind-and-solar-power/?linkId=26047925 <comment><USER2> This guy should not try to start another battery company after A123, really. People may look past failure but that is going to make fundraising really really hard and the company will have to work twice as hard as any other company for credibility.</comment>