Why I will not negotiate with you about cost - <AUTHOR> http://erronis.nl/2012/05/25/why-i-will-not-negotiate-with-you-about-cost/ <comment><USER2> First off:

1). any business will start to decline at some point, including you(rs). So cost cutting is a proven solution. You are not buying a business, you deliver a service

2). the whole point of hiring subcontractors is to reduce risk (in my opinion). You are an expert they want&get when they need, probably with some strict clauses.

3). agree that the request is pretty left-handed

Secondly, about negotiations:

Everybody likes to feel special or more exactly that they "won" something. Why not make them happy by giving them a 2-3% (negotiate) and ask for this a contact-commitment of minimum 20/30/50 hours/month. That way you also minimize your risk of looking for work.

If you do have too much work however, then you have the upper-hand in negotiations. Play it now!

<comment><AUTHOR> I agree that businesses should always been looking at costs, but only in relation to the benefits. Just looking at costs and trying to reduce them is meaningless.

<comment><USER3> > _I agree that businesses should always been looking at costs, but only in > relation to the benefits. Just looking at costs and trying to reduce them is > meaningless._

I know exactly what you mean and this is a very engineer kind of view... the point is, no matter how great a trip to Rome would be if your body is bleeding out right now you need to go to the ER first. A business works much the same but their "blood" is not so much money but rather liquidity and if it is in danger than they WILL have to cut costs and even in places where it hurts or where great things are done because if they didn't, they would be shut down from the outside. So just looking at costs might be vital, or it might just be some higher up trying to get a bonus. Also, liquidity on its own doesn't tell you that much about the state of a business.

<comment><AUTHOR> You are right. I was slightly oversimplifying it. Liquidity can be a problem, but that was not likely to be the case here.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Getting tired of simple-minded self-help advice in blog form. And this bitter post even doesn't give you any advice.

When doing business you will face negotiation tactics every single day (like the OP described in his post). If you are long enough in business you know how to handle to this and how to counter attack—without having to write a whiny blog post. And if you are a talented developer you have enough options anyway.

<comment><USER5> And if you're not long enough in business, this is a useful perspective.

<comment><USER4> Where is his perspective useful?

A disappointed guy telling the world in his Wordpress blog that 'there is nothing to negotiate about' instead of just confronting his client? Very useful and brave btw.

Working as a contractor for clients IS the problem and not his client (which he hasn't realized, yet)—contracting isn't just the best business model to follow. Everybody who's done client work is aware of that and for those who aren't the advice should be: pursue better business models if you can

<comment><USER5> The perspective is useful because the customer isn't always right and abusive customers should be confronted or fired. You, on the other hand, come across as an arrogant know-it-all who is offering no useful advice whatsoever.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Depending what kind of project you are doing there are enough variables to play with (price, deadline etc), however if the client wants to receive the same service for less, there are not much options; either you (or others) cut prices or they find other people to do the job. In the end, if the client keeps coming back to this reduction request, they'll push it through eventually.

A tactic we used to use (i'm from the Netherlands as well) is a) make sure you are close to the decision makers (this is always smart and we always were/are); COO/CIO/CTO/CEO depending on company size and structure b) ask your 'friend' in the top to change your 'title'; so if you are a 'developer' making E90/hour and they want to cut 5%, tell them to make you 'head developer' making E100/hour and then, via your direct chief, accept the 5% cut. Somewhere in the company are bean counters who came up with this 5% across all freelancers; they don't know/care what roles they have, so you change your role, accept the 5%, you earn more and on paper everyone is happy until the next year 5% round which you can blindly take. And I wouldn't stick around for round 3 :) But that's just me.

</comment><comment><USER7> Former management consultant here. I worked about 1 year on a cost-reduction mission for a large industrial company. While I agree that a cost-focused business is doomed in the long run, sometimes a large company does need to review its entire costbase. Over time, this kind of companies amass useless or underused contracts that need to be cut or heavily renegotiated. This kind of analysis takes a long time so when they can't afford it they just spam all their subcontractors to see who will "yield without a fight". All of this is a very common business practice.

<comment><USER8> And there you summarize what the OP was trying to say: When the customer tries this on you, don't just agree without a 'fight'. Challenge your customer and open up the conversation about your value for them and try to come to an understanding which benefits both!

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> The problem at the moment is the suspicion that the economy is being used as an excuse for greedy cost cutting (by both government and business). If my client were genuinely in some sort of trouble, I would be open to helping, but most clients don't disclose accounts.

As an example, one client had the cheek to have next upgraded executive cars delivered to their offices on the same day redundancy notices went out. A day later the contractors arrived to reconfigure the car part because the new cars were a bit too wide for the existing bays.

<comment><USER2> Then that's not a partnership!

The other party just want to squeeze every drop of value before finally disposing of you. They say it's "just business, nothing personal".

Personally, I think good partnerships are always personal.

EDIT: to be fair, this happens on both sides. This is also very damaging to both the company and the contractors.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Clients occasionally have cost issues, sometimes for reasons within your control and sometimes because someone in purchasing had the bright idea "Hey, if we email 500 people and ask for 5% off, 100 of them are going to be unsavvy enough to say 'Yes' and we just saved ourselves a million bucks a year for the price of an email."

Venting on the Internet or at the bar has its time and place, but in terms of mutually agreeable resolution for clients, let's see what we can do here:

a) Tell the client that you hear and empathize with the goal _to reduce the size of your invoices_.

b) Offer the client _ways of achieving that goal which are a mutual win_.

For example, if a client sent me something like this, I might say:

Hiya Bob,

Thanks for the email. I understand that the telecom sector is a dynamic industry and, as a result, you're concerned about making sure our relationship continues on providing provable ROI which you can demonstrate to the other stakeholders at $COMPANY. I want to help you do that.

1) My most recent invoice covered projects A, B, and C. B was very successful and resulted in an increase in customer lifetime revenue of $REALLY_BIG_NUMBER as per the calculation outlined by Dave in our email thread of March 17th. This results in an ROI to $COMPANY of $DIVISION_IS_MAGIC just based on that one component of the engagement. I look forward to continuing to find $DIVISION_IS_MAGIC and above wins for you and $COMPANY.

2) If you would like a more formal report on ROI suitable for presenting to internal stakeholders, I estimate that we can prepare one given one week's time. Would you like me to reprioritize the schedule for our next engagement to include this?

3) Given that the telecom sector is a dynamic industry, our current arrangement might not have the flexibility that $COMPANY needs to arrange your projects at the lowest possible costs. Currently, $COMPANY and I work on a time-and-materials basis for N weeks every $PERIOD. If $COMPANY would like to decrease invoiced amounts, we could:

a) Delay the delivery of D or E from $PERIOD(X) to $PERIOD(X+1), resulting in $INVOICE(X) coming in at $SUBSTANTIAL less, for a cost reduction that you can book in the current quarter.

b) $COMPANY currently purchases availability for work within $PERIOD at times mutually agreeable to $COMPANY and myself at the beginning of $PERIOD. If $COMPANY is willing to be flexible on the scheduling such that work will be delivered at any time during $PERIOD, I would be happy to grant $COMPANY a per-invoice line item discount of $DOLLAR_AMOUNT_CALCULATED_TO_BE_ROUGHLY_5%_OF_MOST_RECENT_INVOICE. (You may want to run this by Jill as her project will block if our next project does not get done as per the current schedule.)

You can continue humming bars in that direction.

If you _routinely_ get emails like this, though, firm handshake and recommend a provider more appropriate to their needs. Anyone who does not wish to pay the price of butter has to cut down on butter consumption right now, because it is a seller's market.

<comment><USER11> "because it is a seller's market." ... sorry as a contractor who has been in the industry for 20 (!) years now I can guarantee you it is definitely not a seller's market. It is very very much a buyers market. It was bad in 1998 (around that time?) before the Euro kickstarted the industry, bad again in 2007 (I think) but this downturn has been the worst yet. I am slightly exposed to the IT / finance industry but as a general rule it is quite closely correlated to IT in general.

<comment><USER12> _sorry as a contractor who has been in the industry for 20 (!) years now I can guarantee you it is definitely not a seller's market. It is very very much a buyers market._

Could you clarify this a bit further? My one-man web dev consultancy (specializing in PHP at that!) is continually on the up. I know that we're not the most expensive out there, but we're certainly towards the top. So is it that top-tier which is suffering right now, or the financial IT market, or both?

<comment><USER11> I can only talk for financial IT and I can tell you it's suffering. Budgets cut (or just not increasing) on any "interesting" projects, double dip recession (yawn) and the fact that a lot of companies are trying to hide their disastrous attempts at outsourcing / offshoring over the last 10 years (as in "Look how much money we've saved by not having local contractors now give me a bonus" and not "Holy Cow nothing gets done here anymore by that clueless consultancy I hope no one notices").

If you are doing great guns on your web dev consultancy then I am happy for you - keep it up - I'm jealous !

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> There have been lots of single idea blog posts on the front page, which means they have obviously resonated with people that are on this site to the point where they upvote it.

I think that this is a good post for new entrepreneurs who may not have faced this type of thing before and get suckered in. For us more weathered business people it seems like fluff as we're used to people trying to pull dodgy moves, but hopefully this kind of post will stop the younger crew from getting burned.

</comment><comment><USER14> The situation described is not really a negotiation at all. Of course, spamming all of your suppliers requesting a 5% price reduction is silly.

But I totally disagree with the headline. Service providers should be prepared to negotiate price and the best way to do that is to have some "asks" to balance it out.

</comment><comment><USER15> Negotiation is a game, everybody is bluffing, just like playing poker. There are good and bad players but whatever you do (within a short term) luck matters. So you never know if avoiding a 5% cut you'll loose 100%. It's a risk that some can afford and others can't.

</comment><comment><USER16> Really, leave the costs alone?

My inclination would be to assign an annoyance premium to that client. If they fail to come to agree to more next time, move on and find another one that you like more (even if they pay less).

</comment><comment><USER17> "I'm always happy to work with our partners to save them money. I already offer a 10% discount for customers using our retainer plan. Would you like me to send you the paperwork for that?"

</comment><comment><USER18> So cut your rate, but track your time more aggressively. Every email read, every call - all billable. Be a fuckin lawyer.

<comment><USER19> Or do like corporation style, quote 3 to 5 times the time it takes your engineers to complete the work and accept the 5% reduction after much talk on how it's breaking your balls (cartman).

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Every now and then someone decides to be a douche to get attention to their blog. There is a hearty debate on HN about it but most of the time they are completely wrong. An exception is DHH with his opinionated rails talks and blogs.

Is this guy any different?

</comment><comment><USER21> Hmm so you just lost 100% of your business because of your unwillingness to negotiate over 5%. Really clever indeed. Have you ever considered the fact that they see you as replaceable (why else the 1 day deadline?).

<comment><USER22> 100% of your business with that particular client - someone who, assuming that the article is accurate, comes across as either very badly organised, desperately short of money, or a bully (reduce your price by 5% by the end of today or we're dropping you). Unless I'm desparate, this doesn't sound like someone I'd want to be doing business with, and almost certainly not someone I'm going to be able to profitably increase my business with in the future.

I can now use the time that I've saved on servicing a poor client to invest in getting contracts with better ones.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Better to cut your hours than cut your rate?

<comment><USER24> Yes, always :-)

You are a talented, experienced developer, whose work provides value to the company. That value is reflected in your costs.

If you are valuable, then you are valuable even if only contracted for an hour. Then its up to the client to ask for more hours.

If you are not valuable, you are not valuable even for an hour.

This does fall over a little if there are specific projects / actions the client wants - which is why automating the last contract so it becomes a simple function call for the next is always a good idea.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> > _Sending out a mail to a bunch of your subcontractors asking them to agree > to a cost reduction is not only silly, but it also shows you have no clue > how to run a business._

It is a mildly smart and efficient way of demonstrating brute-force against your one-man-shows and small contractors of which too many will rather swallow the 5% cut than being afraid of not getting hired again... it is communicating "take it or leave it" and makes you worry about consequences. No, this is not nice but that is exactly how a lot of those big businesses are run and you wouldn't believe some of the stories I could tell you even about big names in IT. And it is not necessarily a sign of a huge decline, it could just be one of the higher-ups trying to earn brownie buttons or sweetening their own bonus by demonstrating some sort of cost reduction.

I don't think this blog post should go on to give suggestions how a business could cut costs elsewhere but it should demonstrate tactics of how you as the developer can respond to this, whether it comes from actual necessary cost reductions or just some management whim. There are a few good ones in the comments luckily! I liked the idea of the "counter-offer" where you offer them to work 5% or 10% less at the same rate.

When it comes down to it, it is just negotiation tactics and a lot of that comes down to not even going where they want you to go and having enough experience to direct things into the right direction much beforehand so you won't even get into these "yes or no" kind of moments.

Another idea is offering them an appropriate amount of "free" service if they order that-or-that many days with you - this might seem stupid at first but think about it, you could get a guarantee for days that you might not have had otherwise and MUCH MORE IMPORTANTLY: you did not lower your price!!! This is the one thing you should definitely avoid because re-negotiation prices up is very,very hard and probably impossible, so don't even go there. Place your high rates but offer "free" days where and when appropriate; that way your price is settled and you avoid further discussions on price and you can bill them at that rate later on.

<comment><USER25> _No, this is not nice but that is exactly how a lot of those big businesses are run and you wouldn't believe some of the stories I could tell you even about big names in IT._

Would you mind sharing some of these stories here or on a blog?</comment></comment>


Woman With No Fear Intrigues Scientists - <AUTHOR> http://www.livescience.com/health/woman-has-no-fear-ptsd-101216.html <comment><USER2> Fearlessness is a trait of psychopaths. It appears that the amygdala is dysfunctional in psychopaths :

" the amygdala is crucial for stimulus–reinforcement learning and responding to emotional expressions, particularly fearful expressions that, as reinforcers, are important initiators of stimulus–reinforcement learning. Moreover, the amygdala is involved in the formation of both stimulus–punishment and stimulus–reward associations. Individuals with psychopathy show impairment in stimulus–reinforcement learning (whether punishment or reward based) and responding to fearful and sad expressions. It is argued that this impairment drives much of the syndrome of psychopathy. Stimulus–reinforcement learning is crucial for socialization, for learning that some things are bad to do, and individuals with psychopathy fail to take advantage of standard socialization techniques."

[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2606709/?tool=pm...](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2606709/?tool=pmcentrez)

</comment><comment><USER3> While one may want to be fearless or without the ability to feel pain, they are essential emotions and sensations. The lack of either can be life threatening.

Its common among those who cannot feel pain to have bitten of their tongue or crushed their own teeth or jaw bone. Inability to feel pain is often accompanied by inability to sense temperature. People afflicted by this disease rarely live beyond their 20s. The reason being that they cannot monitor and correct for their bodies inner core temperature. The run a way fever or hypothermia turns fatal.

<comment><USER4> Pain, yes. Fear, debatable.

Fear plays a role in helping people to assess danger, and in making decisions related to your survival and well being. Neither of these things _require_ a fear response though. The article mentions that the woman might have found herself in dangerous situations more often due to her inability to fear, but at best this means that fear might be a useful addition to our ability to assess danger.

It seems to me that the vast majority of situations that are dangerous are either a) obviously so, or b) the opposite. In obviously dangerous situations, you should be able to pick up on the danger by common sense and act accordingly (I don't feel fear every time I cross the street, but I also don't step out in front of cars). In situations where the danger element is very hidden away, it's unlikely you'd get a fear response anyway, since your intuition is only as good as its input.

That leaves a third category, that for which the danger is non-obvious, but fear gives us an evolved intuitive-response to be wary. My argument would be that this is a small and constantly shrinking class of situations, because the environment most of us find ourselves in is so strikingly different than the one in which we evolved. You might have an evolved, intuitive fear response to the sound of a lion's roar, but this does no good whatsoever for most people in the world. So most of the dangerous situations we actually encounter, we deal with using reason and learned behavior rather than fear instinct.

That's my stance anyway. The only area in which I can see a concrete use for fear is its ability to stimulate a very quick flight reaction in certain dangerous situations. That is, things that you need to react to before you have time to think them through. Again, less common in the modern western world, but it does put at least one point in the pro-fear column.

<comment><USER5> I think you underestimate how often fear comes into play. I recently was at the park with some kids and I noticed a couple of dogs playing... I then realized they were pitbulls. Maybe perfectly nice dogs, but my fear factor jumped through the roof and I quickly, but quietly gathered up all the kids.

Now fear isn't something that kicks in often, but when it does it usually means you're in pretty grave danger. Not properly reacting to potentially life threatening situations, just once a year, likely greatly shortens your expected lifespan.

<comment><USER6> Pitbulls are _not_ vicious child eaters by their nature. They are called nanny dogs for a reason. May be just the people I am around - but I have yet to see a Pit that is anything beyond sweet, loving and awesome.

Now puddles - those are a kind of beast I would never trust to act decently around my kids.

<comment><USER7> So are you saying that the idea that pitbulls type dogs are the most dangerous kind of dog is bullshit? The statistics don't agree with your personal experience.

<comment><USER6> Correlation now counts as causation on HNews?

Pitbulls greatest asset and its ultimate downfall is its wonderful toned muscular body and its iron will. Thats why they get picked up by assholes who tend to abuse them and _train_ them to attack humans. Its the owners that are problem not the dogs. These guys could make any kind of animal into a "vicious killer".

The pit is anecdotally the worst breed for guard dog. They tend to be that friendly towards humans. You have to remember that these dogs _were indeed_ bred for fighting. Dogs not humans. So they were heavily bred to be friendly towards humans - how else can one control a powerful beast if it won't obey you and let you tend its wounds?

They are so protective of children that you can easily let one babysit your kid while you're away.

Condemning the breed because of their retarded owners is like condemning whole minorities because of gang members.

<comment><USER7> I'm sorry but given the choice between your personal hunches/anecdotes/biases and published statistics I'm going with the latter:

        Year	Total	# Most fatal attacks by	       # Second-most fatal attacks by
        2005	29	Pit bull-type (18) (62%)	Rottweiler (6) (21%)
        2006	29	Pit bull-type (15) (52%)	Rottweiler (8) (27%)
        2007	34	Pit bull-type (18) (53%)	Rottweiler (4) (12%)
        2008	23	Pit bull-type (15) (65%)	Husky (3) (13%)
        2009	30	Pit bull-type (14) (47%)	Rottweiler (4) (13%)
        2010	32	Pit bull-type (22) (69%)	Rottweiler (3) (9%)

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

The vast majority of these deaths were <10 year olds.

> The pit is anecdotally the worst breed for guard dog. They tend to be that > friendly towards humans. You have to remember that these dogs were indeed > bred for fighting. Dogs not humans. So they were heavily bred to be friendly > towards humans - how else can one control a powerful beast if it won't obey > you and let you tend its wounds?

Yeah right that's why they are the #1 human killer dogs with a spectacular margin.

> They are so protective of children that you can easily let one babysit your > kid while you're away.

 _shudder_ until your 3 year old accidentally hits the pitbull on the nose.

Do you happen to own a pitbull?

<comment><USER6> Had I owned one - I'd have already disclosed it. I'd love to raise a pit - it's just that currently I'm in no position to own such a demanding animal. However I love to hang around people who do own them.

As far as statistics go - there pretty skewed: [http://animals.change.org/blog/view/are_dog_bite_statistics_...](http://animals.change.org/blog/view/are_dog_bite_statistics_reliable) \- yes thats a blog post - but I couldn't be bothered to perform a more thorough research, I'm sorry.

I agree that pitbull attacks will result in more damage and are more prone to kill somebody. But thats not because there _evil_ or _go crazy_ , its because when you mistreat a poodle - you get a minor annoyance, but when you mistreat a pit - you get a 100 pound of muscle and bones bomb ticking to go off.

> shudder until your 3 year old accidentally hits the pitbull on the nose.

Pits _not_ reacting to a 3 year old punching them is _exactly_ the reason they are so good with kids. Pits pain threshold is so high they don't mind kids being abusive towards them (lets face it thats what kids do to animals).

I guess that asshats will keep mistreating their dogs and enjoying in making them _vicious_ and that something has to be done. But banning the dog is the wrong thing to do. _Dangerous dog handlers license_ or/and _personality screen_ of owners is the correct way to go IMHO.

<comment><USER7> That blog post contains no evidence for anything whatsoever, again it's just a bunch of hunches and biases. It is also not relevant to the statistics I posted, their central claim is:

> an incident could be anything from an accidental and playful scratch or nip > to a full-blown attack by a poorly-trained, aggressive dog.

But the statistics I posted ARE KILLINGS.

> I agree that pitbull attacks will result in more damage and are more prone > to kill somebody. But thats not because there evil or go crazy, its because > when you mistreat a poodle - you get a minor annoyance, but when you > mistreat a pit - you get a 100 pound of muscle and bones bomb ticking to go > off.

And again zero evidence to back up this claim. There is evidence to the contrary however: there are plenty of dogs that are bigger than pitbulls and perfectly capable of killing a kid with a single bite. Yet they aren't responsible for ~60% of the deaths.

Also it only seems logical that dogs bred for being aggressive are aggressive. In the same way I'd argue for keeping your kids away from fighting breed cocks (I've been attacked by them, and while they don't do much damage to adults, you don't want to be attacked by them when your height is such that your eyes are within their reach).

If you have any _evidence_ to the contrary, please do post it here.

> I guess that asshats will keep mistreating their dogs and enjoying in making > them vicious and that something has to be done. But banning the dog is the > wrong thing to do. Dangerous dog handlers license or/and personality screen > of owners is the correct way to go IMHO.

I'm arguing for keeping kids away from pitbulls. Do not let your kids play with them. Whether it is the right thing to ban pitbulls depends on how you value the joy they bring their owners over another dog breed against the deaths they cause.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> "Previous studies with this patient revealed she can't recognize fear in facial expressions, but it was unknown if she had the ability to experience fear herself."

People have been say "it takes one to know one" for a long time, but real evidence that we can't recognized something unless we have that same capacity within ourselves would be piercing.

Tell me again why are so many self proclaimed good people are convinced that everyone else is evil?

<comment><USER9> > but real evidence that we can't recognized something unless we have that > same capacity within ourselves would be piercing.

It would be difficult to find someone with no capacity for evil, wouldn't it?

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> > _Researchers put out their best foot to try to scare the patient, who they > refer to as "SM" in their write-up in the most recent issue of the journal > Current Biology. Haunted houses, where monsters tried to evoke an avoidance > reaction, instead evoked curiosity; spiders and snakes didn't do the trick; > and a battery of scary film clips entertained SM._

The rest of the article aside: I don't think that's _quite_ conclusive. After a few such trials, it'd get merely interesting or boring, and I have to wonder how skilled at frightening _specific_ people researchers can ever be. On a more fundamental level, I highly doubt you can even perform an accurate test along these lines with a person's consent.

"People" as a whole? Easy, someone's always afraid of something at-hand. A single person, who knows what you're doing? Unlikely. Case in point: a little work with acclimating to spiders, and I'd pass those tests with flying colors. Haunted houses and scary film clips fall somewhere between mild amusement at the attempt and outright boredom, and I like snakes. Plus, snakes don't have legs / claws; get the head under control, and you're fine.

</comment><comment><USER11> It's interesting that most of her other emotions function normally. It was my understanding that the amygdala facilitated a number of emotions, not just fear. Am I wrong?

<comment><USER12> "The diary also had her indicate emotions she was feeling from a list of 50 items. Her average score of fear was 0 percent, while for other emotions she showed normal functioning."

Far apart from the brain structure involved, what amazed me the most is the severability of fear from other emotions. For someone untrained in neuroscience and coming purely from an experiential point of view, it seems impossible that one emotion could be completely absent without having any effects on the functioning of others. For instance, even with an emotion like happiness, it seems like there's some component of the feeling that relates to the enjoyment of being free of fearful things. Perhaps the emotions don't actually function the same, but her perception of them is similar to unaffected patients?

<comment><USER13> I think it has to do with how primitive or instinctive the emotion is. I'd bet that fear is one of the oldest emotions, after all every animal experiences fear as far as I know.

Many of the other emotions are restricted to apes, specially humans. I'd say a dog can't be happy or sad, just excited or not excited. If those human emotions evolved thousands of years apart there is a good chance that they are at different parts of the brain.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Not only does she not fear, but it appears she cannot assess danger (picked up a snake).

<comment><USER15> If you aren't afraid of the snake, what's the danger?

<comment><USER16> that it bites you and kills you? Fear is not a requirement for that to happen.

<comment><USER17> not all snakes are poisonous.

<comment><USER3> Its only a tiny fraction of all snakes that are poisonous and of them, not all are deadly to humans. But this is largely irrelevant because the chances are high that the snake in front of you has not been sampled uniformly from the distribution of all snakes. A lot of factors dictate the statistical make up of a snake that one may encounter and its aggression level. Geography, weather and time of the year play an important role.

Let me give an anecdotal example. My college has a reputation with snakes, so much so that pea-cocks were artificially introduced to control their population. I would hazard a conservative guess that 50% of all students encounter a snake in close proximity every year. These are almost always a cobra, krait or local species of a viper. All extremely poisonous. Nonetheless in the entire history of the institution there has not been a single instance of a snake bite, and they have actually stopped stocking on anti-venom.

But unless you are trained to handle snakes, picking them up is certainly not wise and my prior would be high that she did not have such a training.

<comment><USER18> This varies a lot by location. I guess you're in India, where there are lots of dangerous snakes. It sounds like SM is in North America, where there are only four poisonous snakes — cottonmouth, rattlesnake, copperhead, and coral snake — and they're all pretty easy to identify, and for the most part, not very aggressive. The vast majority of individual snakes in most parts of the US aren't one of these types, especially in urban areas.

<comment><USER3> You guessed correctly about my college.

What I found fascinating was the difference in aggression level of the same species at different times of the year. The speed of their strike also blew me away. But they can cover very short distances with that, so the trained handlers would pick them up like nothing.

But back to fear and reflexes. I had the opportunity to study one of the aggressive ones very closely in a protective enclosure. How much ever I resolved not to flinch when it lunged at me, I would invariably jump back a pace. The override is just way too strong to control consciously even when you can anticipate it and want to counter it. Even when you know you are not in any danger.

What I find interesting is that I dont think we are hardwired to fear snakes, it is learned. The hardwired bit might relate to sudden motion though.

<comment><USER19> You're correct - fear of snakes is not instinctual in humans. Most young primates will avoid a snake, while a young child who hasn't been taught otherwise will blithely walk over and pick one up.

<comment><USER3> I upvoted you for confirming my hunch. But not sure why it did not get added.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Research into this could have clear and fascinating military applications. They're already well aware that a controlled psychopath is an asset:

[https://notes.utk.edu/bio/greenberg.nsf/0/bd7eed04567bfe2b85...](https://notes.utk.edu/bio/greenberg.nsf/0/bd7eed04567bfe2b85256e3b002f29c1?OpenDocument)

<comment><USER21> Interesting, though somewhat disturbing. Using this research to select from nature's random yield is one thing, but leads one into something of an ethical minefield. Inducing or enhancing similar characteristics by neural modification would be bad, but people who already exhibit such pathologies wouldn't find that troubling at all.

The author seems a olittle overly-assured of his conclusions but that may just be the result of the short article form - the bibliography seems worth a look. 3-4% of the adult male population is a higher incidence than I'd have expected.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> This woman has missed her calling. She could be one of the greatest poker players the world has ever known.

</comment><comment><USER23> IMO, your arguing with evolution. Its there for a reason.

</comment><comment><USER24> This woman has not met me....

</comment><comment><USER25> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sara_palin>

</comment><comment><USER26> I think she is suffering from <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASPD></comment>


A Flag For The United States Of Europe - <AUTHOR> http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2010/05/29/a-flag-for-the-united-states-of-europe/ <comment><USER2> One, [http://www.designdenhaag.eu/en/sites/designdenhaag.eu/files/...](http://www.designdenhaag.eu/en/sites/designdenhaag.eu/files/imagecache/690w/vlag/762.png), includes a swastika - which would make it (IIRC) illegal to display in Germany?

</comment><comment><USER3> How about just adding stars to the current one? Those look really bad for flying from a flagpole on a windy day.

<comment><USER2> Of the 1400, <http://www.designdenhaag.eu/symbols>, I think a lot more look like good flags though.

<comment><USER3> guess, I didn't go far enough - the examples were not good - some of those are pretty nice. Most are way to busy - its a flag and will move in the wind - needs to be simple.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Forget job board, what about an idea board? - <AUTHOR>

I'd be one of the first to say ideas are a dime a dozen.  The idea may be kindling, or a kernel, but it's just the beginning.
But what if you can combine the idea, business plan, system architecture, founding documents, advisory board, and some petty cash ($10 - $20k) all together.
Are there awesome coders out there that would jump at such an opportunity?
I'm thinking about creating an idea board where people can post their ideas, and what they can provide along with it, as a way to recruit an engineer or engineering team. For example, some ideas may be a founder looking for a team, some may be an investor who wants to recruit a team to work on a specific problem they think needs solving.
I'm confident about the supply side of the equation -- but what about demand? <comment><USER2> You should check out the following links. It might not be all of what you described, but it's close.

<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4537834>

<http://www.todaystopthing.com/hackerideas/>

</comment><comment><USER3> My main concern would be the people I'd be paired with. The team seems more important than the idea, and it can be tough to get a feel for people from written communication, let alone commit to them.

One approach to this problem might be to target local DIY and artist communities, and people could suggest engineering and art projects to do for fun and learning. By targeting people who share creative interests in the area, and removing the profit motive, maybe people could be less suspicious of those they're grouped with, and eventually find people they would like to start serious projects with.

</comment><comment><USER4> I like this idea, but my main concern is that it would become an idea buffet for developers/teams. People with original ideas that post on this board may become the next Winklevoss. How would the site protect intellectual property?

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> TL; DR - How many teams out there are looking for a great new idea to work on?

<comment><USER5> In my experience, developers have too many ideas and not enough time. The good developers do at least.

<comment><AUTHOR> Agreed. So can you empower those great developers to take those great ideas, develop them to a certain point, and then help them find a competent team, give them some working capital, and see where they can take it?

I guess the biggest challenge is giving the person offering the idea package the tools to screen potential founders. Assuming it's even possible to do that effectively online.

Maybe it's a two phase process. You pitch to them, they pitch it back to you.</comment></comment></comment>


California IoT Cybersecurity Bill Signed into Law - <AUTHOR> https://www.securityweek.com/california-iot-cybersecurity-bill-signed-law <comment><USER2> There is no way around it, IoT will never be feasible until companies start to take updates seriously. Slapping a fully upgradable, WiFi-enabled Linux-based firmware on appliances whose usable life spans several years if not decades (haven't changed my fridge in more than 15 years) can lead to disastrous consequences if the manufacturer stops providing security updates (something they totally do not care about, as they've shown with their android devices).

I don't see how this could be solved without a fully open platform like the PC, where a third-party company (like MS on the PC) can ship a whole OS on every single machine without having to develop a custom firmware image because thanks to standards.

<comment><USER3> Why would you need Linux on your fridge? Besides, I think the whole point of sticking IoT stuff on kitchen appliances _is_ planned obsolescence.

<comment><USER2> Everything embedded runs either Linux or Android (still Linux) nowadays.

<comment><USER4> Doesn't mean it's necessary

<comment><USER5> Your response isn't necessary, so what? The discussion is about dealing with the existing reality of devices utilizing an OS layer.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Having glanced over the bill, I see too many phrases and words that make the bill optional. Also, it uses the word reasonable, as it pertains to security. That is entirely subjective and not defined in the law.

Are there any lawyers on HN today that can correct my interpretation that this law has no teeth and no actionable items?</comment>


Yahoo Brands Flickr; Users Retaliate - <AUTHOR> http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/09/24/yahoo-brands-flickr-users-retaliate/ <comment><USER2> You know, if Yahoo actually took advantage of the fact that people have multiple accounts on its service, some active (Flickr, Mail), some dormant (delicious, upcoming), and really fucking figured out a coherent user profile strategy, they'd have something.

<comment><USER3> Aren't Flickr accounts already merged with Mail accounts (and the other Yahoo- branded services)?

<comment><USER4> Yes.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> _The underlying fact is that Flickr users, many of whom are techy hipsters_

awesome journalism

<comment><USER6> and entirely accurate. See also: Yelp.

<comment><USER7> There is a difference between people who post reviews or complain on certain forums, and the actual user population.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> May be if Yahoo put up a contest and asked Flickr users to create a logo with Yahoo branding, it would have created a good PR, a better logo and time for Flickr users to digest the fact that this is coming.

</comment><comment><USER9> Maybe they should've made a Yahoo logo especially for Flickr. The purple staggered lettering does sort of clash with the blue and red flickr logo.

<comment><USER10> There's a hilariously detailed 50+ page internal style guide at Yahoo explaining exactly what you can and can't do to the logo. These kinds of decisions go all the way to the top at Yahoo! (exclamation mark obligatory), which says a lot about the company.

<comment><USER11> What's awesome about that is that red was heavily tied into their brand identity and purple came from nowhere and really un-does a lot of the brand equity they have built up.

<comment><USER7> Internally, Yahoo has always had purple and yellow as a theme. The legend is that they were the cheapest colors at the store when Jerry and Filo were setting up the office. Personally, I don't buy this; probably the real explanation is that they deliberately chose eye-watering colors like every other startup in the mid-90s.

They also say that the online Yahoo logo was made red because there wasn't a good shade of purple on old Windows 3.1 computers. Remember those days?

In recent years, Yahoo has been dominated by more cheerleaders and corporate climbers than do-ers, and purpleness has become an _obsession_. It's purple purple purple everything there. Proof: the move to rebrand Yahoo as purple, a color which users had never associated with the company before.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> At least yahoo had the decency to let flickr live at <http://www.flickr.com>. There's just no escaping the associations of <http://picasa.google.com>

</comment><comment><USER13> Were it only a logo change, I'd say much ado about nothing. It's the watermark that's raising hackles. TC piece misses this entirely. See here:

<http://www.flickr.com/photos/shellen/3951018593/>

</comment><comment><USER14> With users like this who needs competitors? It's a bit unreasonable to complain about a company branding a service they own.

</comment><comment><USER15> Online service makes minor change, users complain. News at 11.

</comment><comment><USER16> Good for yahoo, lets see those techy hipsters flock to photobucket where freedom reigns.

<comment><USER17> Ummm... I'll stick to Flickr, thank you very much.

<comment><USER16> I guess there really does need to be a universal sarcasm indicator on the internet.

<comment><USER17> You should have used the sarcasm font.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> It's been 5 years. I think it's time to let it go.

<comment><USER19> Just because they changed the logo? It's been a Y! Company for years, it's been yahoo-mail only login for more than a year.

<comment><USER18> I think you misunderstood me. I know well that it's been a yahoo company for years. Nearly 5 years, in fact. I'm suggesting that the people who are still complaining about this need to get over it.

<comment><USER19> Yes. I misunderstood you. Sorry :-(

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> This will almost certainly blow over with a week or two. Remember when Flickr added video and there were mass protests?

<comment><USER21> Even more, remember when Flickr transitioned to all users having to log in via yahoo? A month after the drop date, no one really cared.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Does it even benefit Yahoo to put their finger-prints on Flickr?

<comment><USER23> It does let them show people who say Yahoo is lame, that they do have some "hip" properties, that said, all their best stuff was bought not built. However, I'm not sure most people care except some who read tech blogs.</comment></comment>


The US Mint lost $69M making pennies last year - <AUTHOR> https://qz.com/1318203/making-pennies-costs-the-us-mint-millions/ <comment><USER3> They should sell ads on the back of the penny.

"A Penny Save is a Penny Earned - Chase Bank"

A durable, historical, innovative new channel that also makes minting pennies profitable. Everyone loved collecting those state quarters they made a few years back.

Of course, if this is successful we can move upstream to other coins and eventually dollar bills. Alternatively, we could allow rich people to put their face on the penny instead of that old president guy on there now.

Just the media exposure alone to be the first company to sponsor the penny would probably yield a positive ROI.

And think about how jealous the CEO of McDonalds will be when forced to dispense Burger King branded coins from their automated robot cash registers.

<comment><USER4> This is one of the best terrible ideas I've ever heard.

<comment><USER5> In Hong Kong paper money is designed and issued by private banks. Works fine.

<comment><USER4> Are consumer brands advertised on those notes?

Having private banks print money is a lot different than selling ad space to McDonald's on your dollar bill.

<comment><USER5> Yes, the consumer brand (HSBC in this one for example) is printed and advertised heavily on the money:

[https://www.leftovercurrency.com/wp- content/uploads/2016/11/...](https://www.leftovercurrency.com/wp- content/uploads/2016/11/20-hong-kong-dollars-banknote-hsbc-2010-issue- obverse-1.jpg)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> So get rid of them. At one point in my life, a long time ago, things could be purchased for a penny. That time has long passed. Now pennies are used just to make the math work out. Round everything up a nickel ($0.05) and call it a day.

Or look at it another way: inflation has made the nickel from my youth into today's penny.

<comment><USER7> No. Most purchases are not made with cash and fewer people are using cash every year. You're basically saying that all consumers should pay more with every purchase so that the mint can make <2% more revenue, a negligible amount in relation to the federal budget.

[https://www.frbsf.org/cash/files/figure-3-2015dcpc-share- of-...](https://www.frbsf.org/cash/files/figure-3-2015dcpc-share-of- transaction-number-by-payment-instrument-final.png)

<comment><USER8> It's actually the people who use credit/debit cards to make purchases who raise the prices on all goods/services for people who pay cash.

The average merchant pays 2.3-3.5% per swipe, as a result prices are increased across the board and passed on to consumers, no matter if they pay with card or cash.

<comment><USER9> You claim this, but cash has its own costs. Such as running the risk of getting robbed, wrong change (and the retailer losing out), a safe, the costs and time included in physically getting the cash to the bank - either by employees driving it or paying a service to do it. Having enough change on hand can be an issue.

Now, I don't know if all of this equals out to the same as the credit card fees, but it isn't like cash is cost-free.

<comment><USER10> Cash also has very diffuse benefits. It is anonymous, private, untraceable, and not able to be stolen or compromised without physical access.

<comment><USER11> And the police will confiscate it for their own use if they find you with a lot of it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> The point of the mint is making money, not making money.

<comment><USER13> Yeah, the headline seems dumb. If the mint creates a $100 bill for $1.50, did they make $98.50? No.

The purpose of the mint is to maintain the US currency. It's a cost center, not a profit center.

<comment><USER14> "Making" and "creating" are pretty ambiguous here.

The mint literally creates physical money (coins). But in the end, the government actually does generate revenue, that gets calculated into a profit or loss for the country:

[https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/seigniorage.asp](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/seigniorage.asp)

$100 bills DO generate profit. Pennies generate a loss. If you look at all of the currency in aggregate, it generates positive revenue for the country.

<comment><USER15> $100 bills generate close to 0 profit for the United States Treasury as they are sold to the Federal Reserve Banks at manufacturing cost.

However coins are sold by the United States Treasury to the Federal Reserve Banks at face value and can generate a profit/loss based on the difference between the face value and the cost of manufacturing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> When the half penny was decommissioned in 1857 it was worth the equivalent of 10-15 cents in today's dollars. It was decommissioned because inflation had made it nearly useless and the metal was worth more than the coin.

<comment><USER17> We should get rid of everything below the quarter. All we need are some rules for rounding up (or down). Then we could also drop the $1 dollar bill for a coin. A lot less confusion with only two main coins in circulation.

<comment><USER18> We've had $1 coins for a hot minute. You can almost only ever find them at the bank, post offices, and some other government places (the Sound Transit ticket kiosks here in Seattle spit them out, I found out last week), but they exist.

We also have/had a 50c coin, but it's huge and I believe out of circulation these days.

<comment><USER19> The genius it took to design a $1 that was basically indistinguishable from a quarter...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Here in Canada we got rid of the penny some years ago. If you're paying with cash, the total just gets rounded at the register. Honestly I don't miss it.

<comment><USER21> I wish they would take it further. Dimes are the new pennies.

<comment><USER22> What about the nickel?

<comment><USER23> Goodbye nickels and dimes too I'd say. Might as well just do it all at once and simplify things for a good long time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> We still have the penny because Jardin Zinc Products (the manufacturer of penny blanks) lobbies the government and pays for astroturf campaigns to keep the penny.

[http://www.post- gazette.com/business/businessnews/2007/08/15...](http://www.post- gazette.com/business/businessnews/2007/08/15/Jarden-Zinc-Products-lobbies- Congress-to-keep-the-1-cent-coin-from-going-extinct/stories/200708150320)

[https://www.publicintegrity.org/2014/07/02/14959/saving- penn...](https://www.publicintegrity.org/2014/07/02/14959/saving-penny-makes- cents-zinc-backed-front-group)

<comment><USER25> "Never attribute to stupidity what can be explained by corruption."

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> I think Canada has got rid of pennies; US should also follow that lead, hopefully.

<comment><USER27> Canada did! The last Canadian penny was minted in May 2012, and ceased the distribution of them as of February 4, 2013.

No real issues either (it still remains legal tender). Non-cash transactions are still denominated to the cent, the rest is rounded.

On the positive side the mint has more coin in their bank now!

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Am I the only one who views pennies like an extreme annoyance? I would rather throw pennies in the trash than have them. They are literally THAT worthless. They take up far more space and weight than they offer in value. It seems like such a massive waste to continue using valuable metals to create something so worthless.

Honestly, I think quarters should be the only coin we have.

<comment><USER29> I've moved beyond that. I discard all change, ruthlessly. If there's somebody nearby who wants them, I give them the whole handful of change. Otherwise it all goes in the trash on the way out of the store.

Used to wear holes in my pants pockets, get stuck in dryer etc. Cost more than it was worth, in wear and tear, and in emotional energy to manage it.

You can't imagine the freedom you feel when you discard your first handful of change! Just toss it and walk away!

<comment><USER30> Jeez, at least throw it on the street to make someone's day. Why the trash?

<comment><USER31> You'd be fined for littering.

<comment><USER30> Are you from Singapore? You would not get fined in the US, unless you were poor and/or black.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> I read somewhere that there is a lobby group that's preventing the government to remove pennies from circulation. I think they're related to copper/zinc which explains why.

<comment><USER25> There is always a reason why something that is obviously dumb is done and it always involves corruption. There is almost zero copper in the modern penny so let's point the finger at the zinc industry.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> Related:

 _US nickels cost seven cents to make. Scientists may have a solution_

[https://qz.com/1316940/us-nickels-cost-seven-cents-to- make-s...](https://qz.com/1316940/us-nickels-cost-seven-cents-to-make- scientists-may-have-a-solution/)

<comment><USER34> Quartz is really owning this genre of badly misunderstanding what the mint does. The cost of manufacturing coins is an expense that has no bearing on the denominated value of the coin.

<comment><USER24> The point of currency is to facilitate commerce and pennies don't do that. You can't use them in parking meters or vending machines (for example) so we're spending tax dollars to create objects with no function.

<comment><USER35> Those are valid points.

As the parent said, the manufacturing cost is orthogonal.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Personally, I'd like to get rid of all coins, and introduce a $0.25 note and call it a day. Round all cash payments up to the next quarter and no more metal money.

Egypt has a 0.25 Egyptian Pound note. The last time I was there it was only worth about US$0.06.

<comment><USER37> This. Though there is already a $0 .25 coin... Called a quarter.

<comment><USER38> Read again. He wants a $.25 paper bill, and then get rid of all coins.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> I've joked to my pals that if the POTUS (a) eliminated the penny and (b) moved gov't to A-series(ISO 216) paper sizes (biz would then follow) at least then I could feel this presidency is a net (aggregate) neutral from a utility PoV.

A nickel is fine-grained enough for current goods pricing.

While we're at it, let's get rid of the dime, too. They are too small to fish for in pockets and purses. In fact, one famous US retailer has a policy of not stocking dimes in their cash room because the founder believed "dimes lose money."

</comment><comment><USER40> While I can agree pennies are pretty useless, you don't print money to with the purpose of making money unless you are trying to fuck over your own economy. How many times does the currency get spent? Printing money in pursuit of profit is how you end up with billion dollar zimbabwe notes.

</comment><comment><USER41> UK got rid of farthings and halfpennies when they exceeded face value, and the £1 note decades ago.

Pennies and 2p became copper plated steel for the same reason. Pre 92 bronze ones are worth about double.

Coppers can't be worth keeping around much longer. I doubt even penny sweets still exist.

</comment><comment><USER42> I throw all pennies and nickels away or leave them with the cashier. I don't pay with cash all that often so it adds up to a few dollars a year.

One wonders how much retailers spend paying people to fetch pennies and nickels as change, or waiting for people to dig out the right number from their pocket or purse. I am sure it is an order of magnitude larger than $69 million.

Obama's only objection to removing the penny was Abe Lincoln. Let's put him on the dime, and Roosevelt on the $20, and Jefferson on the $50, and Grant on the $2. Andrew Jackson's descendants may have tears, a trail of tears.

<comment><USER43> Dude, I'll take free money all day long. Pennies and nickels spend just like anything else.

At least you could give them to a homeless person or some children to buy some candy with or something.

You don't understand something very basic about life.

Waste not, want not.

Someday you may remember your actions if you ever end up broke and homeless.

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> The value of pennies to the economy must be much greater than $69M right? My reasoning is: if you get rid of them, who'll get short changed? The consumer. And by how much throughout the entire cash economy? A lot.

<comment><USER45> I think the value of pennies to the economy is negative.

Every time I have to handle a penny it wastes my time and energy for no gain. I never find having a penny useful unless it will prevent me from getting more pennies. Multiply that by everyone in the country and that is quite a waste of time (i.e. money). There would be almost no loss of economic efficiency if we get rid of pennies but a nice savings in real time and energy, to say nothing of the waste that mining, refining, stamping and distributing them costs.

<comment><USER46> Why don't you just do what I do: when you buy something in-person with cash and there's change, count the paper money and then just hastily count out the change, knowingly giving more then the exact cent amount, and say "Keep the change, and no need for the receipt." Precious seconds can be saved every time. Also, if I'm in line behind someone who is taking too long with anything up to 2 dollars, I just say "I'll pay it" or I even quickly hand the cashier the money.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> And the Zinc mining stocks are uptoday: Teck Resources (NYSE:TECK), Hecla Mining (NYSE:HL), and Hudbay Minerals (NYSE:HBM).

</comment><comment><USER48> Canada got rid of the penny 5 years ago and the paper $1 in the 80s. We also switched to metric in the 70s.

We're not that dissimilar from the US but they seem to have an inability to make these kinds of systemic changes.

<comment><USER13> Walking around with 2 lbs of loonies and toonies in your pocket sucks to be honest.

That said, I probably use cash a handful of times each year.

Getting rid of the penny was smart though.

<comment><USER49> I think we rushed away the penny too quickly. Glad they stopped at 2 dollars the 50 dollar coin just doesn't seem right.

<comment><USER50> FWIW, the Euro is coins from €0.01 to €2, then paper from €5 to €500. I find dollar bills even more annoying than pennies.

<comment><USER51> Dollar bills take up almost no space, and are easier to handle than coins. Aside from durability, why would you switch?

<comment><USER52> I find it easier to manage a jar of coins on my nightstand, than a wad of cash with a bunch of half-crumpled 1-dollar bills. It's not like I need to carry a bunch of small denomination currency anyway.

The 1 and 2 dollar coins are larger and are made of different materials so it's not hard to pick them out of the jar if I want to use to pay for coffee or something.

<comment><USER53> But instead of keeping your cash in a wadded-up crumple, you can neatly stack them and slip them into a wallet, or neatly stack them and fold them in half and put them in a money clip. Coins are a lot harder to compress.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> How about we forget the insane idea we need to divide the dollar into 100 parts and back it off to 10 making the dime the new penny and getting rid of the whole 1 and 5 cent steps.

So, it gets rid of of the penny, nickel, and quarter. We could save a lot of money just by converting the 1 and 5 bills to coins.

<comment><USER43> There have been dollar coins in America forever and still are. The general public refuses to use them, or just collects them and they never circulate.

<comment><USER54> Yes, but the US has never removed the paper money.

<comment><USER43> I don't understand what you mean. They removed the paper money the explicit said "this is good for one silver dollar and can be exchanged at the US Mint at any time" (those were called "Silver Certificates" and look a lot like the dollar bills around nowadays, without the promise. Now it says "backed by the faith and credit of the US government" (or similar) ....so "backed by a bunch of hot air" basically.

HUGE DIFFERENCE.

<comment><USER54> They did not remove the $1 bill when the redid the $1 coin.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> I think we have a similar problem here in the UK with 1 & 2 pence coins costing more than what they are worth.

It's not entirely clear though as The Royal Mint doesn't reveal their production costs, but it really wouldn't surprise me if making the 1/2p coins run at a loss

</comment><comment><USER56> Wondering if someone is collecting them and extracting the metals out and selling for a profit?

<comment><USER57> There are people storing up closets full of the old full-copper pennies waiting for the day that the penny is discontinued and they can get scrap value that is higher than the face value. For now they aren't allowed to deface money so they're just storing them. I don't even know if it's worth the time spent sorting, but everyone needs a hobby.

<comment><USER58> Additionally, they're a real pain to melt down profitably, even if it were legal. It only makes sense at very large scale, which means only the companies that invest in big foundries will be making real money if it ever becomes legal to use copper pennies for copper.

A good analogy would be like collecting aluminum cans XD

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER59> Surely the value of a penny to The US government is more than just the monetary value displayed on the face of the coin. The ability to store 0.01 USD has to be worth more than 0.01 USD or at least (production cost) - 0.01 USD.

</comment><comment><USER60> Really should just remove the whole second decimal. Get rid of pennies nickels and quarters. Only need dimes and half dollars.

No rounding, we just limit ourselves to tenths of a dollar.

<comment><USER61> I like the idea of a system that would allow only 2 coins - .5 and .1 - <USER2> function properly. However it could potentially mean removing the quarter from circulation completely, unless the holder is willing to sacrifice 20% of its value or has two of them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER62> When I visit America, pennis are the most useless thing to carry out. All they do is add tons of weight and bulk in change without providing any utility.

<comment><USER46> > tons of weight and bulk

What is your height and weight?

</comment></comment><comment><USER63> I fucking hate pennies. Make it a federal law that all prices should be rounded down to 5 pennies and make smallest coin a nickel.

</comment><comment><USER64> I haven't used physical money in a decade, but they should definitely stop making pennies and nickles at minimum.

</comment><comment><USER35> > Between production costs and shipping, they cost $0.0182 each, which totaled > to $69 million (pdf, p. 9) in losses compared to their total value

Say what you want to about a various coins, but this is just stupid.

Does QZ think a coin is used just once? Coins average three decades of use. Reporting minting as if it has some sort of net loss or profit is idiotic.

(By that logic, how much revenue did the US Mint have last year from $20 bills?)

</comment><comment><USER65> I'll be sad they day they get rid of pennies. They are a great source of zinc for metal casting. :)

</comment><comment><USER37> Time to get rid of a decimal point! Do we really care about pennies, nickels, and dimes?

</comment><comment><USER43> BFD. Imagine the profits on quarters though...nevermind hundred dollar bills.

</comment><comment><USER66> Not even a rounding error.

</comment><comment><USER67> $69M for the US budget is a rounding error.

</comment><comment><USER68> As long as there's some old fossil in the senate with fond memories of buying a salt water taffy for a penny, the penny will be with us.</comment>


Where do hackers get JOBS Act money? - <AUTHOR>

So the JOBS act has passed, and I think it's great. But where specifically do I go to get this money? Apparently there is some sort of gatekeeper - so another bonus question: who are they, and how do I get to be one?<p>http://news.cnet.com/8301-19882_3-57409949-250/jobs-act-5-things-to-look-forward-to-and-5-to-dread/ <comment><USER2> The act includes a 270-day deadline for the SEC to issue specific rules governing how it'll be implemented. So until they do, it's not really operative yet. Hopefully when they issue the rules, i.e. sometime between now and January 2013, that'll answer some of the questions about how precisely the process works.

<comment><USER3> Off-topic: I noticed you're an American living in Cph. Was wondering if you would like to hang out sometime? Always interested in networking with switched on Silicon Valley types :) You don't list an e-mail so I had to ask here.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Ah, the $64,000 question!

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm sensing that the only sensible thing to do is read the bill and just start from there.

[http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi- bin/query/D?c112:6:./temp/~c1127OY...](http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi- bin/query/D?c112:6:./temp/~c1127OYZaK:): [http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi- bin/t2GPO/http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys...](http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi- bin/t2GPO/http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr3606enr/pdf/BILLS-112hr3606enr.pdf)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> RTFM</comment>


Ask HN: Tell Us Your Best RILT(Remember It Like This..) - <AUTHOR>

We are crowd sourcing all those things you have learned which started with "Remember It Like This.." You can add it to www.riltpedia.com or we will collect from the comments.<p>Try to stay away from "mnemonics"  :) The problem is that they are not "intrinsically linked" to the subject/factoid. <comment><USER2> I'm a flight instructor. When I teach engine out emergencies in multiengine aircraft one of the challenges is to quickly identify which engine is failing. The most obvious effect of an loss of thrust on one engine is yaw (rotation of the airplane about the vertical axis), pilot's natural reaction is to compensate for the yaw by pushing on the opposite foot pedal (because pedals control the yaw). So one leg is pushing hard on the pedal, the other one is not. Now it's easy to identify the failed engine "DEAD FOOT = DEAD ENGINE" where dead foot is the relaxed one. If the left foot is relaxed then the left engine has lost thrust.

The next thing is establishing so called zero sideslip, which means banking few degrees into the good engine. Similar RITL is "RAISE THE DEAD", meaning the dead engine side should be higher than the good one after establishing the bank.

<comment><AUTHOR> Haha love it !!!

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> "My Very Educated Mother Just Showed Us Nine Planets" \- Names of the nine (recently eight) planets in their order of distance from the Sun. And, the first "My" makes it easier to remember "M[ercur]y", not to confuse with "Mars".

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> One of my fav on the site is "Algor Mortis - coldness after death"

The RILT for that is "It sounds like Al Gore" and he was known for he's CLIMATE/(READ "Temperature") concerns !</comment>


Volkswagen unveils the ID.3, its first affordable long-range electric car - <AUTHOR> https://www.theverge.com/2019/9/9/20857217/volkswagen-vw-id3-electric-price-specs-mile-range-frankfurt-motor-show-2019 <comment><USER3> European here, trying to actually buy the thing. You can't. The first reservations will be fulfilled in the middle of 2020, but those will only be the mid-sized battery versions.

If you want the version with a larger battery, there is no firm ship date, but it is expected in 2021.

What I find somewhat amusing is that for the past months we've been bombarded by a huge marketing campaign advertising a car that doesn't exist :-)

<comment><USER4> "huge marketing campaign advertising a car that doesn't exist"

Perhaps they are trying to gauge the likely success of the car before some final production decisions are made.

You do have to wonder how Tesla is going to survive the first surge of practical mass-market electric cars. They definitely are riding some sort of tiger while trying to build out marketshare, technology, infrastructure.

My money is on Toyota but would be thrilled to be wrong.

<comment><USER5> Tesla is first to market on a lot of fronts and has the huge first-mover advantage, but you're right, when the competition gets _real_ the easy wins will be over.

It has been said -- many times -- that the actual major advantage of Tesla cars is that they get better over time by virtue of their software update process. While many many of the big players (VW, Toyota, Honda, etc.) are going to match specs when it comes to battery range and whatnot, I haven't seen any indications that any of them intend to follow suit with the software.

My 2 year old Toyota _already_ feels like it is locked in the stone age when it comes to the software and features.

<comment><USER6> I would _pay_ for my car to NEVER update without my express approval. That is the definition of "my" \- I get to decide how and when it changes. In fact, i think i will do just that. I might pick up one of these ID cars and thus vote with my wallet.

I am no EV fanboy, but this one looks like a practical second car fit for simple short-range missions

<comment><USER7> Can't you just remove the sim?

<comment><USER8> yes, or more directly pull the fuse. But as the other poster said, the updates are fantastic, you get useful new functionality and my 5 year car has huge numbers of useful things that weren't in the original car.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> > The central focus is a new 10-inch touchscreen that sits in the middle of > the ID.3's dashboard. But VW has also opted to rely on touch-sensitive > buttons throughout the cabin. In fact, the only things that are controlled > through physical buttons, VW says, are the windows and the hazard lights.

I don't understand why big touch screens in cars are seen as a step forward. To me, they raise safety issues, and they lack the elegant and simple ergonomics of earlier cars. By definition, you have to look at a touch screen to use it. In older cars, you might have to glance at the speedometer, and you can do that without even moving your neck.

The huge screen is the number 1 reason I would not buy a Tesla.

<comment><USER10> You also can't use them with gloves on, and at least where I live, I'm always wearing gloves in the winter.

<comment><USER11> You can buy touch screen friendly gloves... I always keep a pair in my car... nice thing about an electric car is you pre-heat without burning gas and being generally evil to the environment:)

<comment><USER12> Those don't work if it's especially cold. Even if cold-weather mitts had capacitive ability, they don't allow enough dexterity to do anything other than mash your hands all over a screen.

I wear these mitts in the winter: [https://www.blackdiamondequipment.com/en_CA/mens- gloves/merc...](https://www.blackdiamondequipment.com/en_CA/mens- gloves/mercury-mitts-BD801118_cfg.html)

<comment><USER13> You drive a car with boxing gloves on?

<comment><USER12> If you're calling the mitts I linked boxing gloves, then yes. They work just fine for turning the car on/off, steering, shifting, operating the stalk instruments and adjusting all the knob-based controls. I've got Raynaud syndrome (as do a number of my family members), and the alternative to wearing "boxing gloves" in the winter is very uncomfortable.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> _VW says the base version of the ID.3 will only charge at up to 50kW, and owners who want to charge faster (up to 100kW) will have to pay extra_

This is an unfortunate decision. Charging EVs is a collective-action problem. Selling cars that have at least double the charging time at capable public chargers contributes to that collective-action problem. VW could have set a relatively quick lower boundary on charging speed, perhaps by raising the price of the higher-version models to subsidize the price of a 100kW base model.

The problem is worse for this class of car, which is billed as long-range and thus is more likely to have the car's occupants (and other queued cars) waiting for a mid-journey charge to complete, versus a short-range car where owners are more likely to charge overnight or during a work shift.

</comment><comment><USER15> I'm really excited for more viable electric vehicles. But, the claim that this is the first car for the masses when it's simply 2-3k (~33k to ~35k in USD) cheaper than a Tesla model 3 is discouraging.

That said, I do understand that the total cost of ownership does catch up if you keep the car long enough. I would just love to see something in the 20s, or even lower. (Further, I'm very sympathetic to the argument that reduced carbon is more important than my personal financial expense.)

[edit]

Thanks for all the clarification. I had no idea about VAT.

<comment><AUTHOR> Be careful when comparing EU prices to US prices: EU prices always include sales tax (varies by country, but 20% in France and 19% in Germany), while US prices never include them. Assuming 10% tariffs and 20% sales taxes, that bumps the $35,000 Tesla to $46,200, or about 42,000 EUR.

Indeed the cheapest Model 3 that I could find in France costs 42,600 EUR. If the Volkswagen ID.3 comes in somewhere between 26,000 EUR and 30,000 EUR, it will indeed be quite a bit cheaper.

<comment><USER16> UK checking in here. Cheapest Model 3 in the UK is £38,500 which is about 44,000 euros or $48,000

<comment><USER16> (thats including tax, and govt subsidies)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> This is what, in marketing, is called "positioning".

VW is trying to "position" their car as the default electric car, or at least, the only viable alternative to Tesla.

If you don't set your own position, then your competitors will set your position for you. Now it's up to Tesla (or whoever else) to re-position VW, without looking nasty doing it. "The ID.3 is good choice if you can't afford the extra $3k for a Tesla. But only a Tesla has all the features you need, and will keep your family alive in an impact". You don't say "Tesla good, ID.3 bad". This makes you sound nasty. You say "ID.3 good if <scenario that doesn't apply to customers>, but Tesla better if <scenario that applies to customers>"

It's all marketing nonsense at this point until the car exists.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> An article comparing the cost of ownership of Volkswagen ID.3 vs. Volkswagen Golf: [https://cleantechnica.com/2019/09/19/volkswagen-id-3-vs- volk...](https://cleantechnica.com/2019/09/19/volkswagen-id-3-vs-volkswagen- golf-5-year-cost-of-ownership-comparison/)

Cost of gas and electricity are based, if I understand correctly, on German prices.

<comment><USER18> Note that at least part of the lower TCO is due to the fact that they expect the id.3 to retain 43% of value, and the normal golf to retain 33% of value. Setting these to equal eliminates any advantage, either way, the 5 year cost difference is largely a wash out.

That different cars retain value differently isn't intrinsically a problem, however assuming a high resale value for an unknown car feels like stacking the deck. To be fair, the author does give a justification for this difference, it's up to you if you agree with it.

<comment><USER19> Regarding long-term value, a bus company here chose to order electric buses in part because they suspect that in the lifetime of a bus, diesel engines could be banned in cities.

<comment><USER20> That's starting to happen now in Paris: [https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk- france-paris-pollution/gre...](https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-france-paris- pollution/greater-paris-to-ban-old-diesel-cars-from-summer-2019-idUKKCN1NH2BE)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> vincent-toups For the masses? My family is doing fairly well for people in my generation and I've never ever briefly considered buying a car for more than 10k.

<comment><USER21> That's a nice anecdote. The average new car selling price is over $30k (in the US).

<comment><USER22> I think the point is a used 10k car will almost always be more cost effective.

<comment><USER23> Bangeronomics make most sense only if you are willing to work on your own car.

<comment><USER24> Not really. For $10k, I got a car in really good condition with ~$60k miles, and most cars don't have issues until at least 100k miles, if not closer to 150k miles. My car has ~120k miles right now, and I've done very little aside from getting oil changes and having the factory service around 90k miles.

My car cost ~$20k new, and I could sell it for $3-5k, so I'm already ahead if I sold and bought another $10k car today.

Buying a new car only really makes sense if you're really interested in cutting edge technology or are very particular in the options you want. You can't really get a reasonable electric car used, so new is going to be your best bet there. However, you will pay more than if you buy a quality used car.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> On a side note: German government just announced tax incentives for business- registered EVs, but only for those with a sales price less than 40.000€ [0]. This seems like a tailored offer to exclude the Tesla Model 3 in favour of Volkswagens ID.3. This is a big deal as 2/3s of all newly registered cars are registered by businesses [1] (German).

[0]: [https://europe.autonews.com/automakers/germany-offer- higher-...](https://europe.autonews.com/automakers/germany-offer-higher-ev- incentives-raise-fuel-prices-reduce-co2-emissions) [1]: [https://conplore.com/news-posts/diesel-dominiert-mehr-als- zw...](https://conplore.com/news-posts/diesel-dominiert-mehr-als-zwei-drittel- der-deutschen-firmenwagen-sind-dieselfahrzeuge/)

<comment><USER23> Similarly in Poland, current proposed plan is 30% value of a car, but with absolute max price limit of ... ~28K Euro, meaning only Opel Corsa-E qualifies. Why?!?

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> They claim an 8 year / 160K km warranty on their battery. But this usually means they claim to have X percent capacity left after this time. E.g. for the BMW i3 it's 70%. But how can a car owner even measure this? How would one go about claiming this warranty if he thinks it degraded too much?

<comment><USER27> > But how can a car owner even measure this?

You simply check what range you have with a full charge and compare with the advertised range or the range you had when you bought it new for your typical commute.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> As much as I can welcome more options for EVs, I just can't trust VW with electronics and software. It's catch-22, traditional automakers sucks at electronics and software, but tesla sucks at making cars.

<comment><USER29> I just had my Tesla Model 3 serviced. A rear window needed replacing due to a rock chip. Mobile service came out, two bolts to remove the door panel, two for the glass. He was done in 20min. Whatever they're designing for, it was obvious that Tesla is 1000x better than GM when it comes to rear windows. I recently replaced the rear window regulators on a GM Pickup. What a nightmare compared to the Tesla. They might suck short term, but their designs for trivial things like windows are amazing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> Why do electric cars have such different wheels, almost closed discs style? I still have to see the first Tesla with chrome rims.

<comment><USER31> Lower air resistance gives longer range.

The Tesla Model S has spoked aluminum rims in black. For some reason, nobody customizes them.

<comment><USER32> Regenerative breaking also means less heat in the breaks I guess, so less need for cooling. Not sure how much that matters tho.

<comment><USER33> Motors integrated into the wheel might become a thing as well.

<comment><USER32> You mean make a comeback.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lohner- Porsche](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lohner-Porsche)

<comment><USER31> That car would have been more popular if you could tell, by looking at it, which end was the front.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> All the negativity is overlooking that this is a really exciting time for electric cars, IMO. Aside from price, Tesla is still by far the best option around as far as I can tell, but it's exciting that there are so many new cars coming out. An electric car doesn't quite work for me right now because of the limited charging options, but it seems like that's going to change rapidly.

<comment><USER35> Starting a few years ago industrial/automotive electronic manufacturers started heavily marketing stuff for electric cars and 'smart car' electronics. Before that the industry was slightly sleepy.

EV's mean a total rethinking of just about everything automotive.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> It's interesting to compare this car against the Honda e, which looks like an awesome little car. However, they've priced it about €7,000 more than the id.3 which is probably the reason it's getting comparably little buzz.

<comment><USER16> But the Honda-e has less range, right? Over here it says the Honda-e has about 125 miles of range, putting it on par with a 2016 Leaf.

[https://ev-database.uk/car/1171/Honda-e](https://ev- database.uk/car/1171/Honda-e)

<comment><USER37> I just discovered this SEAT: [https://ev-database.uk/car/1191/SEAT-Mii- Electric](https://ev-database.uk/car/1191/SEAT-Mii-Electric)

This is something I can buy.

<comment><USER16> Hey thats a pretty good price. Built on the same platform as the ID3 apparently. 125 miles range is OK for 99% of the time. Long journeys then take a bit of planning but its very do-able.

<comment><USER38> No, it's the same care as the VW e-up!, which is not yet based on the new MEB platform.

<comment><USER39> I don't think it is, this is based on a new platform that replaces the old e-up (which was rather mediocre).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> All looks good, but the charging rate seems really slow.

<comment><USER41> Is there any technical reason for limiting the charge rate unless you pay more? I see this is becoming common now. Even Tesla does it.

I'd be willing to settle for the smaller battery as long as charging it was at the same higher rate. Sure, charging sessions are more frequent during long trips, but if you're charging a smaller battery at the same rate then the charging sessions are shorter. So it seems like they're just trying to get more money out of you by limiting the charging rate of the low-end cars.

<comment><USER32> The charging rate is related to how many cells the battery pack consists of. Each cell can take a certain charging current, so more cells = higher total current.

If they implement the longer range by adding more cells (which I assume they do), then that's your technical reason.

Of course, could also just be a way to get more money...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Can someone summarise the prices for the different battery sizes? - <USER2> this article just dances all over the place.

<comment><USER42> VW only announce the price of base model which is about EUR30k, no prices of two upper models yet.

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> You can buy a Chevy Bolt today and it has a longer range.

<comment><USER44> _" the ID.3 will come in three variants that offer between roughly 205 and 340 miles of range"_

The 2020 Bolt appears to have 259 miles of range, up from 238 for the 2019 model.

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> VW ID.3 sure looks like a BMW i3, 5 years improved.</comment>


Notes from the Jeff Bezos Talk - <AUTHOR> http://joshwand.backpackit.com/pub/1452859

<comment><USER2> Perhaps someone can ask it at Startup School?

PG -- is Jeff doing Q&A?

</comment><comment><USER3> Thanks for taking the notes - I enjoyed reading them.

</comment><comment><USER4> Those are pretty interesting, thanks joshwa!</comment>