Hikikomori: The Postmodern Hermits of Japan - <AUTHOR> http://www.warscapes.com/opinion/hikikomori-postmodern-hermits-japan <comment><USER2> I sure found that article difficult to read. Considering it was done by someone with a PhD in Literature, I guess it's just me.

Welcome to the NHK was a great watch. Someone would call it terribly depressing but surely not to the degree of Elfen Lied or Neon Genesis Evangelion.

The author mentions:

> An identikit of an average Hikikomori: likely a school dropout, may or may > not have specific skills, most likely unemployed unless he has an online gig > of sort, lives in his room in his parents' house, never steps out of the > house, spends the day daydreaming, reading, roaming the internet, flipping > TV channels, floating in his room.

It's comfortable being at home, especially your family home. I could spend all day reading online, offline, watching adultswim's marathon streams or just taking naps. When I walk outside the safety of my home I meet people that are different from me.

These people don't speak by reciting lines from early Simpsons episodes. These people don't think my jokes are funny. These people don't talk about the things I like to talk about.

The Internet solves this. Reddit gives me subs. IRC gives me channels. Twitter gives me the ability to follow only those that interest me. I'm able to be someone else online, the best extension of me or the me that I want seen.

Now if my parents continue to pay and let me stay at home, I'll do just that. Eventually, that routine will be too difficult to break.

In my darkest moments, I thought exactly that. It was simply easier and more comfortable being at home and socializing online. When I read articles like these I relate and think back to those dire moments when my room had a leaning tower of pizza boxes and I hadn't showered in over a month.

<comment><USER3> When you skip showering, is it because of lack of energy or you just "don't feel like it"? What did you use for money? Savings?

<comment><USER2> For me it was a lack of energy. I wanted to be clean I just couldn't deal with expending energy on the task.

As for money I had savings and my father.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I appreciate the article--I spent about a year as kind of hikikomori.

Nevertheless I feel the need to make some minor critiques...I feel the author makes a number of small errors in trying to prove their point. For example, the author says:

"The Hikikomori phenomenon is now finding a form of narrative legitimacy in cinema, manga and pop culture. It is creating its own iconography. The novel Welcome to NHK (acronym for Nihon Hikikomori Kyōkai or The Japanese Hikikomori Association) plays with the name of Japan national broadcasting giant (NHK) and a story of a conspiracy to create the Hikikomori. The novel became a manga series and a twenty-four episodes anime series. Since then Hikikomori characters multiplied in anime and manga: Rozen Maiden, Serial Experiments Lain, Tatami Galaxy, Anohana: The Flower We Saw That Day, to name a few."

Welcome to the NHK is a novel from 2002, and the anime came out in 2006 iirc, so "now finding a form of narrative legitimacy" is maybe a bit disingenuous...and Serial Experiments Lain, which is from 1998, predated it and to my mind more properly fits alongside other cyberpunk meditations on technology and identity (interestingly, though, there is an 2channel-styled imageboard that has adopted Lain as its mascot). Similarly, I don't think someone would watch Tatami Galaxy or AnoHana and come away from those thinking that the "dominant theme" is about hikikomori-ness. At least, I didn't. You could certainly contest these points, though--the author's method of speeding through points that, if more properly explored, might not fit so cleanly into the essay's thrust, just left a bad taste in my mouth. Just my 2c.

It just crossed my mind that the American writer Tao Lin makes a number of explicit references to this lifestyle in his work; he has an ebook called "Hikikomori", which I haven't read, and his novels almost always have the main character spending days or months not really talking to anyone, feeling depressed, and just "doing things" on the internet. He has a book coming out in the future called "Leave Society".

If anyone knows of other American authors who treat this topic, would be interested. I feel like it has certainly come up in literature, just not under this name.

<comment><USER5> Yeah, Lain jumped out to me as a questionable inclusion in that list as well. It has hikikomori themes, though I wouldn't have thought of it that way before, but no major characters are hikikomori. OTOH Tatami Galaxy makes sense to me, given the analysis paralysis sort of thing going on in that, even if it isn't always directly about hikikomori. Rozen Maiden is really the only straightforward choice there.

<comment><USER6> Don't you feel the Lain character was on the fast track to become an hikikomori if the in-story universe didn't follow through with the scifi/fantasy storyline ?

<comment><USER7> I don't because Lain became steadily _more_ outgoing with each episode.

<comment><USER6> Ah, you are right. I forgot about that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I strongly object to insinuation that people who are socially isolated and dependent in the physical world are almost by definition wasting their lives. Not everyone's spending their online lives doing nothing but surfing porn and Facebook.

They could have very rich online lives, where they are able to socialize - even very freely, competently, and confidently. They could be very creative online, or learning, producing, and contributing to all sorts of projects, from open source programming, bug fixing, or documenting to contributing to projects like Wikipedia to creating art or music, and so on. They could have many friends online, or perhaps the focus of a scholar. They could even be helping others on all sorts of online forums.

What's missing is the ability to support themselves and the lack of friends or a support network in the physical world. But what a lot of people from the old, mostly physical-only world miss is that the virtual world can often be as rich or sometimes even richer, more full of potential and free of limits than the physical world.

All sorts of achievements and connections are possible to a much greater extent virtually than physically. Many people can find social and emotional connections, creative and productive fulfilment, and a great education online, where they could have many problems in the physical world.

That's not always or necessarily a pathology. It's an expansion of possibilities, which are sometimes negative, but not always or necessarily so, and sometimes can be positive, growth-promoting, and can even lead to more physical contact -- as when someone who's active online find a kindred spirit online and then continues the relationship in person.

I'd love for there to be more research on how modern hermits spend their time online, rather than always fixating on a pathological interpretation of the choice of being solitary.

<comment><USER9> > _All sorts of achievements and connections are possible to a much greater > extent virtually than physically._

Like what? In any case, I don't think it matters much if you can't support yourself. If the achievements and connections don't translate to scope and agency then what are they worth?

It's certainly possible to do something worthwhile, generally fail in life, and only have the value of your work recognised after your death. This has happened to many artists who are now regarded as greats in their fields. But I think the online world makes it too easy to delude yourself into thinking what you're doing is worthwhile when in fact it isn't.

So much of the online world is premised on feedback loops and empty rewards, like levels in games or even karma points on Hacker News. You get "praised" by these systems just for using them. It can become an addiction like gambling can become an addiction. It becomes easy to lose perspective and waste time pursuing something that is ultimately valueless.

You gave the example of helping others in online forums. Let's say that's, for example, helping people with Microsoft Windows. I'd say all you're doing in that case is taking on the cost of Microsoft's software support. You're making the cost of doing business cheaper for Microsoft with no real return for yourself. Altruism is good, but I think too many people do it at too much cost to themselves.

In the end, if the expansion of possibilities doesn't result in real world returns then I think they cannot be called opportunities. They must be recognised as merely distractions.

<comment><USER8> _> Like what?_

This is not the best example, but things like helping hundreds or thousands of people on something like stackoverlow is an achievement in the virtual or online world that is simply not available in the physical world because stackoverflow only exists online. The same thing could be said of Wikipedia, which is essentially an online-only phenomena that you can not participate in in the physical world.

You could argue that people could be helped in the physical world instead of online on a site like stackoverflow, and one could contribute to a physical encyclopedia like the Britannica instead of Wikipeida: but the dynamics of these sites and media are very different, and I would argue they are not equivalent. Things like the policies, credentials, editorial policies, social dynamics, etc, are so different that they many ways more different than alike.

 _> I don't think it matters much if you can't support yourself_

Well, the Hikikomori are not supporting themselves, but they could and often do manage to survive by the generous help of their families. Many ancient hermits and some modern ones survived by help from society. There is now talk of a living wage. All of these means of survival do not require the ability to support oneself, and can be viable -- though they are clearly very controversial.

 _> It's certainly possible to do something worthwhile, generally fail in life, and only have the value of your work recognised after your death. This has happened to many artists who are now regarded as greats in their fields. But I think the online world makes it too easy to delude yourself into thinking what you're doing is worthwhile when in fact it isn't._

Just because you aren't considered now or perhaps never to be a great in your field doesn't mean that what you do is not worthwhile. Much of science and academia is mostly the work of many non-great, ant-like contributors rather than the work of a handful of greats -- though the greats certainly get a lot more credit (sometimes justly, sometimes not).

Wikipedia is even more like hive mind rather than the result of the work of a few geniuses. In the modern world, even the idea of taking credit is in many cases collapsing and reverting to models that resemble the anonymous contributions of the ancients, as people adopt temporary pseudonyms as they join the hive to make their little contribution or edit and then exit again, to possibly reappear under another pseudonym for another contribution later, or not.

For all we know, Wikipedia could have been built mostly by Hikikomori.

 _> So much of the online world is premised on feedback loops and empty rewards, like levels in games or even karma points on Hacker News. You get "praised" by these systems just for using them. It can become an addiction like gambling can become an addiction. It becomes easy to lose perspective and waste time pursuing something that is ultimately valueless._

Sure. Absolutely. Completely agreed here. But just because that's possible doesn't mean that that's the only way to interact with these media and phenomena, nor that it's even the most prevalent way. Also, man "great" men and other prolific contributors to many things that are considered "great" could be said to have been obsessed or addicted. It's just that the successful ones and the ones societies value get the praise, while things unvalued (even if only temporarily) are ignored or even denigrated. But who really has perspective on the worth of some endeavor, especially a long-term perspective, as in how valuable your efforts might seem to someone hundreds or thousands of years in the future.

Look at all the minutia collected on Wikipedia. Much of it is considered garbage, but it could be a gold mine for pop culture scholars or future archaeologists or anthropologists.

 _> You gave the example of helping others in online forums. Let's say that's, for example, helping people with Microsoft Windows. I'd say all you're doing in that case is taking on the cost of Microsoft's software support. You're making the cost of doing business cheaper for Microsoft with no real return for yourself. Altruism is good, but I think too many people do it at too much cost to themselves._

I'd still take the position that providing free support for Microsoft is less of a waste of one's life than the typical view that the mass media has of online solitaries: that all they do is surf porn or Facebook all day. At least in the support case, they're helping people. That's constructive.

But there are tons of other ways of helping people on stackoverflow and online in general. Providing free support for corporations is just one very minor option. But even there, you're providing support not just for the corporations but for the users, which is a noble goal -- especially when it's done for free.

<comment><USER9> > _which is a noble goal -- especially when it 's done for free._

Nothing is free. Everything has a cost. It's one thing to expend your own resources writing articles or helping people on Internet forums. It's quite another thing to impose that cost on other people. Sitting in your bedroom and living off your parent's resources is not noble.

There's nothing wrong with trying and failing. It's good to try, even when you fail. But there's nothing good about a situation where you're not even trying to find a way to support yourself.

<comment><USER10> So who owns the air that you breathe?

<comment><USER9> The Universe, man. As I consume resources in the process of maintaining a highly ordered state for the duration of my lifetime, I cause an increase in the overall level of entropy in the universe and hurry along the heat death of everything. Nothing is free. Everything has a cost.

<comment><USER10> Life does not take the shortest route to entropy.

The original point of the parent was obviously cost as in money.

My point was that "only expending your own resources" as in "you need to pay for your resources (with your own money) before you can morally do thing x" is rather problematic.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I have a theory about Western and Japanese nerds. It's not really worked through, so don't get too angry if something is wrong.

In the western, and especially American, stereotypical school environment of the '90s, the bookish nerds were social outcasts and bullied. There was a strong connection between nerdyness, not fitting in and intelligence. The nerds sat at home and learned programming on their own. Of course it turned out intelligence is very useful. The nerds ended up producing a lot of valuable things, such as much of the internet.

In Japan, there wasn't the same too-cool-for-school attitude, and the smart kids did alright socially. Good for them, but it meant they didn't spend their high school and college years programming alone. That eventually hurt the Japanese tech industry, who couldn't just hire self-taught programmers and had to wait for the school system to figure it out or teach their employees to program from scratch.

Back in school, there will always be social outcasts of course, but in Japan, the average "nerd" was no more intelligent than people in general, maybe the opposite. I think they were more artistic than their western counterpart. The Japanese nerd-sphere were making amazing amateur manga (dōjinshi) back when art on the western web was little more than scribbles in Ms Paint. Sadly for them, making manga porn doesn't pay like programming. With no way to support themselves and no social status, the Hikikomori hide from the outside world.

What makes all this interesting for us is that the west appears to follow in Japan's tracks. Today's high school students are much more diligent and better behaved than 20-30 years ago. Meanwhile nerd culture isn't as intellectual any more. Japan has a group of online right-wingers that love to harass opponents. They are called netto-uyoku and are just like the alt-right, except they appeared a decade earlier, and their racism is directed at Koreans and Chinese.

I have no doubt we will see a wave of Hikikomori in the west. They may be different. Maybe they will live alone and survive on delivery food instead of living with their parents.

<comment><USER12> No parents, no hikikomori. America's is more likely to have rampant homelessness, particularly as boomer parents start to hit peak insolvency.

<comment><USER11> At least in Japan, that hasn't happened. The homeless and semi-homeless are an entirely separate group of mostly 50+ (former) construction workers and day laborers. The hikikomori-likes who cannot live with their parents stay in manga cafes that offer cheap overnight rates for a comfy chair and a PC in a booth. They need some kind of job to pay for it, but not much.

<comment><USER12> There won't be jobs for america's drop outs. There aren't jobs for america's graduates, right now.

I'm guessing this will be very slightly motivating for the few that can get their shit together and get haircuts and real jobs. But for most, it's going to be even more disastrous than a lifetime in one's parent's basement.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Gwern discusses this in his essay at [https://www.gwern.net/The%20Melancholy%20of%20Subculture%20S...](https://www.gwern.net/The%20Melancholy%20of%20Subculture%20Society)

He makes an interesting point that by withdrawing from larger society into sub cultures, people can return to dealing with groups of a size our minds are more comfortable with. It's the same reason small towns are (I hear) less socially stressful. I am not convinced though. In larger society I end up dealing with relatively small groups anyway - friends, family, and co-workers.

It seems pretty straight-forward that people would want focus on their interests and spend their time communicating with people that share those interests. It's definitely unfair and unfortunate that other people end up supporting them financially. With that said, we'll eventually have to come to terms with vast numbers of people not being economically productive anyway. People will have to do something. Withdrawing from society at large in favor of the parts of it that interest them seems like a fine choice.

<comment><USER14> "It's the same reason small towns are (I hear) less socially stressful. I am not convinced though. In larger society I end up dealing with relatively small groups anyway - friends, family, and co-workers."

There's a fundamental difference. In a small town, most of the people around you are usually known to you and friendly. In a bigger town, you tend not to know/trust more people directly around you. Kids spend much less time at the local park and more time indoors. I wrote a posting recently talking about social pressures of our modern day and part of my post was comparing the communities around us today vs 50 years ago.

I'm lucky that I live in a suburb where I know many people around me. My friends (who don't live locally) and extended family are both surprised and envious at how lucky we are being surrounded by friendly and generous people. Frequently popping in, bringing home made cakes, jams etc. I love it! As an example, I had a neighbour bring my wife some flowers recently for no particular reason.

I am fairly certain that our modern lifestyles and socialisation with neighbours is far more stressful than it used to be, judging by most people I know.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> This ties in with yesterday's article about young people staying home and playing video games.

The article mentions " _Welcome to the NHK_ "[1], which is an unusually bitter anime.

[1] [http://www.gogoanime.to/welcome-to-the-nhk- episode-1](http://www.gogoanime.to/welcome-to-the-nhk-episode-1)

<comment><USER16> While there are much better sites than gogo for watching anime (Flash? ugh), I absolutely second the recommendation to check out _Welcome to the NHK_.

<comment><USER17> Check out animeftw

<comment><USER18> If you're going to pirate anime, please don't do it on a streaming site with ads.

<comment><USER19> Unless you use adblock, there isn't a pirate streaming service for anime that doesn't have ads. Even the non-streaming bittorrent trackers have ads. How can you pay for a server to host anime if pirates are trying to avoid paying money?

<comment><USER18> Some of them run on goodwill, it's not very expensive to host a tracker. Nyaa runs on JList ads.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> There's a solo RPG titled after the phenomenon that, I feel, pretty well captures he idea and feeling of being a hiki. It's a kind of 'week in the life' game, where the narrative occurs entirely in the form of journal entries that you write to make sense of your rolls. Very chilling, in some playthroughs.

[http://dsg.neko-machi.com/hikikomori.pdf](http://dsg.neko- machi.com/hikikomori.pdf)

<comment><USER21> There's also Yume Nikki, which is surreal and fascinating, about a hikikomori girl who travels through her dreams.

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

<comment><USER22> And, as far as I understand, it's a story about suicide.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> i was a bit of a hiki for awhile as a teen. i didnt goto HS or anything, i just stayed in my room and sat on 4chan for years. for me i think it was that the combination of some unmedicated mental issues i didnt know i had yet, and a bad family situation, had left me barely able to cope with being alive.

on the bright side i got my start with tech/programming/etc with all that free time. thanks /g/ haha

<comment><USER24> I guess when I was working on my SaaS, I was in a similar situation for a few years. I didn't have any social interactions. Just coding and peddling monthly subscriptions for years and years.

Were there underlying issues that drove me to such extremes? I think so.

But I really thought that I could pull it off.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> I didn't read _Escape to Another World_ [0] until today, but it has a similar point. Could it be that the West, as has been the case in other areas, is following the same path as Japan as it turns around the demographic transition? Does Japan have the same pseudo-sociopathic self-help movements that grew up in the US in response to people leaving society?

[0] [https://www.1843magazine.com/features/escape-to-another- worl...](https://www.1843magazine.com/features/escape-to-another-world)

</comment><comment> a-guest Escape from reality is not limited to culture, race, economic background, or a society's technological advancement; it has always been a part of the human condition. In modern times, a unique form of escape presents itself with great force in affluent societies, even though the "escape artist" him/her-self need not live in an affluent environment. The escape artist requires these basics: (1) shelter, however primitive, (2) a food source, and (3) either a television (TV), video games (VG), or internet connection (IC).

TV/VG/IC is the escape mechanism, and the escape artist, whether he/she stays in the 4 walls of his/her room or occasionally ventures out, lives in the confines of his/her escape world.

Perhaps we can consider aspects of "Hikikomori" as a uniquely Japanese manifestation of this condition, mingling itself in fascinating fashion with Japanese cultural nuances.

Thought experiments: Would Boo Radley have been a hikikomori if he lived in Kyoto rather than Maycomb, Alabama?

What are the differences and similarities between: (1) a hikikomori living in Kyoto, (2) a person living in inner city Detroit, MI, living from welfare check to welfare check and watching TV 16 hours a day, and (3) a college dropout living with his parents in suburbia and watching TV 16 hours a day?

In what ways is a hikikomori who programs different than the TV/VG/IC escape artist?

Would Boo Radley have saved Jem and Scout Finch in "To Kill a Mockingbird" if he had been playing video games 16 hours a day?

Find two studies whose authors claim watching television: develops a sense of wonder, encourages critical thought, benefits interpersonal relationship skills, solidifies familial bonds, promotes physical well-being, reduces the objectivization of persons, cures depression, increases patience and self- control, reduces sense of entitlement, grows positive self-worth, and decreases worry, sense of isolation, and self-pity. Next, find studies coming to the opposite conclusion.

</comment><comment><USER26> This article bugged me. It seems like a Columbine style which hunt. Some people killed some other people. The killers played video games. Therefore beware evil video games. In this case it was some people killed some other people. Those people were hikkikomori. Therefore hikkikomori equals latent murderer.

There were lots of other stereotypes, judgements, misunderstandings etc...

It felt very much over sensationalized, exaggerated, and wrong on so many levels

</comment><comment><USER27> I just saw [https://youtu.be/Jyfnl8K8fJM](https://youtu.be/Jyfnl8K8fJM) which covers this topic quite well

</comment><comment><USER28> Alienation, atomization of communities, and commoditization of people are features of capitalism, not bugs. Just saying.

<comment><USER29> Sad, and socialism and communism has starvation and death.

The god of biomechanics is too cruel.

<comment><USER28> Totalitarian communism is not the only alternative to capitalism.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Related topic: [https://news.vice.com/video/schoolgirls-for-sale-in- japan](https://news.vice.com/video/schoolgirls-for-sale-in-japan)

</comment><comment><USER31> site appears to be down...

</comment><comment><USER24> I feel like this is the future for tomorrow's generation. As artificial intelligence's economies of scale proves to be far more seductive than exploiting human labor, unskilled white/blue collar labor will disappear.

As jobs become scarce like they have become in Japan and Korea, intense competition will inevitably produce 'losers'. Losers in the context of a structural pressure imposed on those that fail to keep up.

I feel like there's a connection between neo-Confucian societies and hikkikomori. It's also a rising phenomenon in South Korea.

<comment><USER32> How about the United States, where a person's value depends to a large extent on the amount of money they make, and "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" is the prevailing mentality?

<comment><USER33> saw this recently on HN: Men not at work: Why so many men aged 25 to 54 are not working[1]. I know that "not working" and "not leaving your bedroom" are differnt things, but maybe that's what makes it "American".

[1]: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13795397](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13795397)

<comment><USER32> A really interesting question:

Let's assume that AI does explode, and it does obsolete jobs like a steamroller in a glass sculpture exhibition.

Which culture is best prepared, by its nature, to face the tremendous tsunami of unemployment in a way that minimizes overall suffering and leads to the best long-term outcome?

Take your pick from: american "bootstraps culture", asian post-confucianism, west european "humane capitalism", east european post-communism, south asian (okay: indian) semi-socialism, etc, etc.

P.S.: The designations are a little bit tongue in cheek, don't take them literally.

<comment><USER34> With the trend towards automation, hikikomori are just ahead of the curve. I am sure there will come a day when almost anyone will be able to "retreat" in their own space and never leave again. The recluse will create worlds and experiences where they spend their time, and it will become very difficult to reach them, if not impossible.

Before automation, people had to reach out, to meet other people in order to survive. Maybe in Japan they used "parents" as an automation of sort, in order to separate themselves from other people, but with the advent of internet and home deliveries, it becomes easier and easier to be a recluse. Especially that there is company and a whole culture around this lifestyle.

<comment><USER15> _I am sure there will come a day when almost anyone will be able to "retreat" in their own space and never leave again._

"The Machine Stops", by E. M. Forster, is the classic on this. Published in 1909, it doesn't sound dated today.

 _" Imagine, if you can, a small room, hexagonal in shape, like the cell of a bee. It is lighted neither by window nor by lamp, yet it is filled with a soft radiance. There are no apertures for ventilation, yet the air is fresh. There are no musical instruments, and yet, at the moment that my meditation opens, this room is throbbing with melodious sounds. An armchair is in the centre, by its side a reading-desk - that is all the furniture. And in the armchair there sits a swaddled lump of flesh - a woman, about five feet high, with a face as white as a fungus. It is to her that the little room belongs."_

...

 _" Vashanti's next move was to turn off the isolation switch, and all the accumulations of the last three minutes burst upon her. The room was filled with the noise of bells, and speaking-tubes. What was the new food like? Could she recommend it? Has she had any ideas lately? Might one tell her one's own ideas? Would she make an engagement to visit the public nurseries at an early date? - say this day month."_

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> This might be just an oriental way of living. I am not sure why researchers are hell bent on classifying almost anything as some kind of mental issue. I frequently stepped out of workspace to grab a hot coffee and my psychologist friend told me that drinking hot beverages frequently is a person's way of coping to the lack of emotional warmth in life by replacing it with material warmth!

<comment><USER36> I think it's more that these roles seem to prefer studying phenomena from an outside point of view - some believe that by immersing themselves in the culture, they would lose their objectivity (also, this appears to be a _particularly_ difficult culture to immerse oneself in, as by the definition presented in this article, having deep social interactions with a Hikikomori makes him/her less of a Hikikomori).

I think really the key is to work your way into the place where you can relate to the people you're studying, but still understand the person you were before / the status quo.

<comment><USER22> > (also, this appears to be a particularly difficult culture to immerse > oneself in, as by the definition presented in this article, having deep > social interactions with a Hikikomori makes him/her less of a Hikikomori)

Anonymous communication doesn't count as "social interactions". Imageboards are where the hikikomori culture thrives. I doubt many would remain hikkis if they were deprived of internet access.</comment></comment></comment>


When will the Netherlands disappear? - <AUTHOR> https://www.politico.eu/article/when-will-the-netherlands-disappear-climate-change/ <comment><USER3> It won't. NL has been preparing quite hard for a rise in sea level and/or worse storms. The port of IJmuiden is being overhauled, the shoreline defenses have all been raised, in some places only about 3 ft, in others much more depending on the likelihood of flooding. A bigger problem is that during an extended period of high water that the rivers won't be able to drain into the North Sea and studies are being made on how to deal with that, the 'room for the river' ("ruimte voor de rivier") plan is one of many ways in which change can be made. Other options are to use the IJsselmeer as buffer storage and to vastly increase pumping capacity.

[https://www.ruimtevoorderivier.nl/](https://www.ruimtevoorderivier.nl/)

[https://www.gemalen.nl/gemaal_detail.asp?gem_id=264](https://www.gemalen.nl/gemaal_detail.asp?gem_id=264)

(Photo 4 is particularly interesting, that's one of three such pumps, and this is an old one and now relatively small, it is one of many such pumps)

The alarmist tone of the article is a bit strange, if there is a place where I feel safe with respect to water it is here, there is an extensive network of canals, pumps, monitoring and reserve capacity on just about everything to deal with water and flooding. Compared to how other countries fare (annual news from France, Germany, Spain and elsewhere shows extensive damage) we do pretty good here.

Of course on large time scales there is a real risk and it will cost a small fortune to deal with all that but with dikes as a well understood mechanism to keep the see out and one of the wealthiest nations on a per area basis it would highly surprise me if NL were the worst hit.

Consider another angle: if the problem had not been dealt with successfully in the past this country would not even exist today.

<comment><USER4> I may be biased because I live in the NL and I live slightly below sea level. But I would be more worried to live on the coast somewhere else that has no history of dealing with these kinds of problems.

In some sense The Netherlands is the only country on the planet to have the political structures in place to deal with rising sea waters.

What do people think Florida is going to do? They're already losing their drinking water and they're still in denial.

And it really is about having social and political structures in place to deal with problems of this magnitude. The engineering questions are largely understood. Build pumps, dikes and create flood plains. We shouldn't focus on the engineering problems. The problem is one of coordination and mass mobilization of political will, and that already exists here.

<comment><USER5> > What do people think Florida is going to do? They're already losing their > drinking water and they're still in denial.

> Build pumps, dikes and create flood plains.

Just want to point out this approach won't work for Florida (and I'm not implying you said it would). The land in south Florida is porous limestone, and the water will just pass under any dykes you build.

<comment><USER6> Is there a solution that would work for Florida?

<comment><USER7> Evacuation...or build more homes on stilts. When does Florida become America's Venice?

<comment><USER8> > When does Florida become America's Venice?

Quite an amusing comparison considering that Venice is commonly seen as an international beacon of sophisticated culture and history, while Florida is... well. I'm not American so I'll leave the rest up to the reader.

<comment><USER9> /r/FloridaMan is a pretty accurate depiction of how we view Florida. That and Disney World.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Indeed the question is not if, but when the Netherlands will flood due too sea level rise. Unlike many other nations the Netherlands is managed in a way that it can potentially handle quite significant (I would say 1-3 meters) in the next couple of decades if necessary at high _but bearable_ costs.

The cost of retreating to higher parts of the country would easily go into trillions of euro's, which compared to the +/\- 1 billion euro spent on sea defense according to the latest "Deltaplan".

Until now most climate models put catastrophic (say 3m+) sea level rise at hundreds to thousands of years of now so we (I'm Dutch) should be alright.

However, I personally feel that there is a non negligible possibility that all the current models are wrong because they are more or less extrapolating current changes and conditions. There are several mechanisms that could cause runaway sea level rise in shorter timescales, think melting permafrost with methane, regime change of jet stream, regime change/stop of ocean currents.

And more importantly that sea level rise is IMHO the possibility of extreme storms hitting the North Sea. Last year we say a few of those cyclone/hurricanes that usually stay on the other side of the atlantic come our way. That was highly unusual, and even though Ireland and Portugal are still a long way from the Netnerlands, if if all of a sudden a super storm with 300 km/h winds hits us (highest record gust unitl now is only 173 km/h), then we are sure doomed.

I can't predict the future, but living in the potentially vulnerable west of the country, I'm glad my parents in law have nice bit of property in the east at 17m+ sea level. I intend to live another 50 years, a lot can happen in my lifetime

<comment><USER3> That's a lot of ifs! Yes, if the sky falls we'll all wear blue hats. But for now the indications are that change will be gradual rather than sudden and we are actively working on this rather than sitting back and waiting to see how bad things will get (which is the standard in the rest of the developed world). NL is one of the few places where there is substantial funding _today_ to deal with this.

Level of upheaval that could happen is of course orders of magnitude worse than what you can reasonably plan for but if such a thing were to come to pass it will have much larger effects than that NL would end up being a part of the ocean again. By that time you're looking at 100's of millions of people that will be displaced and catastrophic events pretty much all over the globe. NL will be a footnote in that story.

<comment><USER10> Just to be clear, I still enjoy and plan on living in the west for a long time. But there are quite a few theoretically possible regime changes that I am aware of (and probably even more that I am unaware of) to make me concerned about it. Any significant regime change (break with historic trends) will automatically invalidate all models/predictions/assumptions about our safety levels. Current design criterion is we should be safe for 1/10.000 year conditions.

And if all goes wrong, you better be in a low population density rich country that can handle a little warming (thinking of Sweden and Norway in particular) Better move there before everyone else does ;)

<comment><USER3> Sweden and Norway are attractive for many reasons, but I don't think any of this will happen soon enough to impact my life in a meaningful way. I'm 54, I haven't exactly been too careful with this body and if I live to 80 it would highly surprise me.

But my children likely will see this in full force and I sincerely hope that by then humanity will have come its collective senses.

<comment><USER10> I hope you're right, I expect the world to be in a very different place in a few decades and not for the better. I'm still under 40 so I'm keeping my options open; even though the chances are probably very low, the effect is also pretty extreme making the risk (probability * effect) approximately 0 * inf. I estimate the probability to be somewhat higher than 0, so therefore I believe the risk is significant.

<comment><USER3> > I expect the world to be in a very different place in a few decades and not > for the better

Given history to date I would say that is a safe assumption when you are living in a time of prosperity, it is the global equivalent of 'this too shall pass'. But even if NL will be hit hard I highly doubt it will be hit hardest or first. We've been vaccinated in a sense in not trusting nature to leave her boundaries where we'd like them to be, the country is more like a machine than a static arrangement.

If we stopped pumping water out you'd be living on the lakeside within a few years, and on the seaside a few years after that.

<comment><USER10> Indeed we won't be hit hardest or first, but consider this. Just about the entire Randstad is in a single "Dijkring" (Dijkring 14). And because a large part of the Randstad is flooded, if any part of the defense goes, it goes entirely. And as the Randstad is the economic heart of the country, the country will not recover. Also because it can't feasibly be evacuated. So flooding will happen in other places first, but the other places are above sea level and will get dry again. Or a few meters of coastline is lost. Not the Randstad, it will be flooded exactly once and stay flooded completely and forever. Lets just hope it will take a long time before it happens.

<comment><USER11> The only time anything like this came close was a freak storm in 1953 as far as I know - 2000 dead in the Netherlands (also 200 dead in UK). Since then sea defenses have been improved by a huge factor, nothing was left to chance. I just don't see the kind of freak event that can cause this (and why would a freak storm hit the Randstad and not New York / London / San Francisco ?). If you're talking about gradual sea level rise doing this, well the current pace is 3.8 mm rise a year. Even if the rate doubles (is this likely?) we're still under one meter in 100 years. I wouldn't run away to Sweden just yet but hey it's a free country! P.S the sea level rise pace around Netherlands is even lower than the rest of the world currently.

<comment><USER10> thing is cat 5 hurricanes happen every year (and are thus not freak storms), just not here. In the parts of the world where these happen, people tend not to live below sea level so even poor islands eventually recover after being hit. Extrapolating form the current climate the probability for cat5 hurricane winds in NL is about zero, cause the mechanisms that cause these kinds of storms don't apply here. But as the climate changes, and the seas warm, you might see the general storm patterns change, and you might get into a different regime where such storms are possible. Take hurricane Lorenzo, the easternmost Category 5 Atlantic hurricane on record. What was previously unthinkable just happened last October. If you extrapolate from this trend (more frequent, more eastern hurricanes happening in the Atlantic), I think it looks a lot less unlikely that one of those monster will someday make it to the North Sea.

Same with sea level rise: the currently observed rate of change is very manageable, and even a factor 5 higher can probably be managed. But what if we reach (or have already reached) a tipping point in the climate system that causes rapid acceleration of sea level rise? The existence of these tipping points cannot be derived from historical (say last 1000 years) observations, and therefore one might conclude that they don't exist. I believe such reasoning is known as the black swan logical fallacy. But from my casual observations, we are entering uncharted territory now (greenhouse gas levels, sea temperature, changing weather patters, changing jet stream patterns), so who knows what will happen.

Last point, look at the temperature 40,7 °C reached just last summer. Until 2018 the highest recorded temperature was 38,4 °C (in 1947). Some say this was a huge outlier, I think this is the new normal. I would love to know the probability of this happening taking the weather observations from start of record until 2018, would be surprised it it in the 1:1.000.000 range.

edit: Of course someone did the math (in Dutch) [https://www.knmi.nl/over-het- knmi/nieuws/hoe-bijzonder-zijn-...](https://www.knmi.nl/over-het- knmi/nieuws/hoe-bijzonder-zijn-de-nieuwe-temperatuurrecords)

<comment><USER12> The British Isles form a big protection block for the country from the worst weather coming form the ocean.

Also, if the sea level rise is caused by ice melting on the North Pole the rises will be countered considerably by the earth's crust rising due to the mass being removed from it.

Sea level rises are scary - and are part of the reason I don't live in Amsterdam / Utrecht / Rotterdam - but that shouldn't be the thing to scare us.

Food shortages and the wars this will fuel will be a problem long before the sea causes the dykes to fail (and my assumption is that said dykes are part of what makes The Netherlands almost impossible to defend).

<comment><USER3> It's a mixed blessing. They also allow water to pool in the channel because it can't really flow out fast enough. And contrary to what you say the dikes are part of the defenses of the country. The Spanish had an interesting experience to that effect.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> (I'm Dutch)

My original post: _The strange thing is that all the weight of the ice is pulling our area down. When all that ice melts our area will be lifted up. So we won 't notice much difference. Edit: some facts are that the sea level at the west coast of north America has dropped and the sea level above Australia has risen. Sea levels are not as 'level' as you might think. By the way: I'm not saying we should not worry and nothing is going on._

After looking more into it I must say the above is not true. Our area is just outside the 'dent' of weight of the ice. So our area is likely to go down a little when the ice melts.

It has more to do with the gravitational force of the ice mass. In our area the ice is pulling the sea towards it so the sea levels are higher. When this mass melts the sea levels in our area will go down.

<comment><USER14> This is the first time I hear about this. Do you have a source for it?

<comment><USER15> There is a big gravity effect with ice sheets attracting water. If/when Greenland melts, water levels nearby will drop a lot, NW Europe might even fall too.

[https://sealevel.nasa.gov/understanding-sea- level/regional-s...](https://sealevel.nasa.gov/understanding-sea- level/regional-sea-level/ice-mass-loss)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I find it a bit ironic given the MIT climate simulator on HN yesterday - <USER2> biggest impact (in that simulator) to climate change was the land/agriculture methane.

Right now the Dutch farmers are again harassing the country with their tractors on public roads, angry about what they feel is undue pressure to reduce their emissions. Maybe they'll get one or two more generations of farming as they hasten their own demise.

Meanwhile, since NL has failed significantly to meet EU (nitrogen) emissions requirements - almost entirely because of mass agriculture - there's a freeze on building housing, roads, etc. Oh and the country-wide max speed limit will be limited down to 100kph starting Jan 1 (which I don't mind so terribly, but many people do mind).

So basically, the commercial farmers are ruining this country (and contributing to ruining the planet), and being jerks while doing so.

<comment><USER17> I do not know the details, but it is my understanding that the Netherlands exports a large amount of its agricultural production. One could say, let's only produce what we need, and methane production will go down. However, if that was done, all of the countries that rely on the Netherlands for agricultural imports would need to increase production or find somewhere else that would. There is no guarantee that using country level caps will improve anything.

Unless I'm missing something, maybe it would be better to assign the emission penalty of a product to the consumer rather than the producer?

<comment><USER18> Moving the production to a different country _would_ be a solution, since the Netherlands is currently producing way more nitrogen per area of land than other European countries.

Moreover, our nature areas are generally smaller and closer to agriculture. Therefore, nitrogen output has (had) a lot more impact on nature here than in other countries.

More information can be found in this news article (Dutch): [https://nos.nl/artikel/2307260-kan-de-ruime-duitse- stikstofn...](https://nos.nl/artikel/2307260-kan-de-ruime-duitse-stikstofnorm- ook-in-nederland.html)

<comment><USER19> > Moving the production to a different country would be a solution, since the > Netherlands is currently producing way more nitrogen per area of land than > other European countries.

Isn't this just because it is producing highly efficiently, at least in terms of land use? If you move the production elsewhere, it will consume the same amount if nitrogen on a wider area, so with worse impacts on wildlife and biodiversity.

<comment><USER18> No, because the concentration is a big part of the problem. If things were more spread out, but with the same total amount of nitrogen, there would be less of an issue (and this is why Germany has less strict rules on nitrogen).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Am I the only one who gets angry at stupid "mood setting" in such articles? It leads with the picture of an abandoned settlement that has turned to marshland, only to reveal that it was deliberately given over to the sea.

Why should I read on after they wasted my time with that imagery?

As for Netherlands being flooded, I suppose that threat has existed since the early day of its existence.

<comment><USER21> It wasn't given back to the sea because they were tired of having all that extra farmland. They are strategically giving up on some parts to preserve others.

<comment><USER20> Then they should say so in the article. All it says is "The Noordwaard polder was one of 39 such areas selected for the Dutch government's "Room for the River" program, in which land was given back to the water."

Shame on the Dutch government for the euphemism, too, I guess.

Afaik it is nothing new that the sea claims land that was previously settled on. The destruction of Rungholt in the 14th century is a famous example that comes to mind.

<comment><USER22> The point is that it is an example of an issue that is going to become much more pressing. Considering a 14th. century event without regard to what has changed since then (technically, economically and environmentally) is not very informative.

<comment><USER20> Why not? If such things have happened before, it seems dishonest to use such imagery to conjure a scenario of doom.

Maybe the risk is now higher, more frequent, different, whatever. Fine, then tell me so, show me the numbers.

I don't want to be manipulated with emotional imagery. I want to be informed. I don't read the news for entertainment. I mean yeah I do, but I actually want to read it for information.

<comment><USER22> So you want data, but the only datum you offer in support of your assertion that you are being unreasonably manipulated is the effect of a single storm in the 14th. century. Meanwhile, other people have been posting much more pertinent comments on, for example, the non-uniformity of global-warming- induced sea-level rise.

<comment><USER20> No the manipulation is the story about the abandoned settlement. I don't think you understood my point at all.

The only assertion I made is that land being lost to the sea is not a new or outlandish thing. For that 14th century is sufficient - and even better in context of global warming, as there was no such thing in the 14th century. Also I am not a journalist publishing an article. So I mentioned the first example I remembered. If I was publishing an article, I would do more research.

<comment><USER22> > ...and even better in context of global warming, as there was no such thing > in the 14th century.

On the contrary, that means it has little relevance to the resurgent concerns of the 21st. century. Your position is a form of denial that goes "we don't have to worry about global-warming induced X, because X occurred before there was global warming", which is, of course, bogus if global warming is significantly changing the scale of X.

I get the impression that your feeling of being manipulated is precisely because you do not get this point. Furthermore, your complaint that the author did not write the article you wanted to read is of no interest and is not going to change anything.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> 3 out of the top 5 dredging firms are from the Netherlands and one is from Belgium, right next door.

The Netherlands will be fine. Actually the Netherlands will make bank selling water management knowledge to others.

<comment><USER24> Could be, but would it be fair to only keep your feet dry because you/your country can pay for it?

<comment><USER25> Life's not fair. Sorry to break the bad news to you.

<comment><USER24> Oh, I know. But poor countries flooding will have the additional problem of creating a lot of refugees looking to keep their feet dry.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> the-dude A couple of months ago, one of the guys running our watermanagement ( [https://www.rijkswaterstaat.nl/](https://www.rijkswaterstaat.nl/) ) claimed The Netherlands would sustain 'multiple meters of sea level rise'.

<comment><USER16> I'm sure the "water shapers" are optimistic given their success thus far. They have done quite well overall. But catastrophic failures tend to be combinations of events, events which individually could be handled.

<comment> the-dude That is pure speculation.

<comment><USER16> Humans have quite a history of trying to keep the sea out of their land, and that history has plenty of big failures. It all goes well until it doesn't, and then it's a big deal.

It doesn't require speculation to recognize this pattern, even if we can't predict the failure events accurately.

<comment> the-dude Do you have any specific examples of this ? ( I know of the 1953 flood, a combination of high tide and storm ).

But if there is plenty, I really would want to know.

<comment><USER26> Uh, are you asking for examples of flooding?

Consider this: Delta Works and the rest of ocean polders are built to withstand something like 5m above mean sea level. Katrina caused a storm surge 8.5m above mean sea level.

Granted, North Sea isn't quite like Gulf of Mexico (yet) But there is absolutely a chance that a storm comes next year that would breach it

<comment><USER3> There is a chance that such a storm could happen tomorrow. But the chance is a very slim one and since the Delta works the rivers have been a much bigger problem than the see.

The worst possible conditions for Zeeland/Zuid Holland would be springtide, storm, the initial sea level would be relatively unimportant. The problem is that the wind drives that water ahead of it and will cause the water to rise up because it can't flow away fast enough, in part because the channel is constricted to the South, in part because such storms typically come from the South West aiming directly at the weak spot in the shore defenses. Hence the Delta Works and the storm surge protection near Rotterdam (which is an absolutely amazing work of engineering by the way):

[https://www.google.com/maps/search/stormvloedkering+google+m...](https://firstname.lastname@example.com,4.1580609,1513m/data=!3m1!1e3)

The scale of that thing might not be readily apparent but think of it as two Eiffel towers on their side that can move to close off the river.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> "On the other end of the spectrum is controlled abandonment ... And as soon as this gets known, as soon as the shit hits the fan, there won't be any investments anymore and local economies will collapse"

This seems to be an underappreciated idea. We tend to think of climate disaster as something in the distant future, but capital flight might cause havoc much sooner.

</comment><comment><USER28> I think the tagline is misleading, especially the part that says "Now climate change is threatening to flood it completely". The example they use (of Noorderwaard being "given back to the water") is a result of the "Ruimte voor de Rivier" (Room for the River, verbatim) programme, and the implication is that these policies are necessary due to sea level rise caused by climate change. But that's not completely true!

The Netherlands has a very well-protected coast (after the big flood of 1953 the Delta Works were built to prevent coastal flooding from ever happening again on such a scale), so coastal flooding isn't that big of a threat. And while it's true that rising sea-levels imply a rise in water-levels in the rivers too (esp. the "backwater effect" is dangerous), that's mostly a slow and predictable change - dykes can be raised to deal with it.

The issue is the annual floodings of the rivers; they've been growing in intensity due to a) more meltwater from the Alps upstream and b) more/heavier rain, both a consequence of climate change. Another effect climate change has is subsidence; the country is gradually "sinking", allowing for more land to be flooded in the case of high river tides.

BUT a big motivation for the programme is also the fact that more and more people have been moving to areas susceptible to flooding. The Netherlands has a very high population density, and about 4 million people are currently living within a river basin, and the programme seeks to protect these people.

So really, I don't think the country will disappear - it has the most experience in the world in dealing with these problems. The rivers can be contained, you just won't be able to live right next to them; and reclamation of the entire country is unlikely imo. Especially if the other countries located in the watershed of the Rhine up their game - the Netherlands has essentially been facing these issues alone due to it being downstream, but Germany, France, Switzerland, etc. can all help contain the Rhine & reduce flooding. And hopefully they will!

</comment><comment><USER29> My feet are currently around 4 meters below sea level in the Netherlands. They are still dry.

On its own, even worst case sea level rise is unlikely to have meaningful impact on the Netherlands over the next century, unless we stop maintaining our water infrastructure.

The real problem is droughts, which could simultaneously pulverize dikes, cause ground to sink, cut off our water supply, and ruin the farming industry. When it comes to climate change in the Netherlands, one bad summer is a lot more dangerous than a century of sea level rise.

</comment><comment><USER30> It may be anectotal but I have seen quite a number of dutch people buying land here in central Germany. May be related how moving between countries has increased over the years but then you would also see danish and belgian poeple but as far as I have seen its surprisingly many dutch. Another expaination would be population density of course.

</comment><comment><USER31> When will Florida disappear? As I understand it, no system of dykes and barriers will work due to the porous ground.

</comment><comment><USER32> > disasters such as the 1953 storm that breached the dikes and flooded almost > a tenth of Dutch farmland. The disaster killed 1,836 people, destroyed homes > and drowned tens of thousands of animals.

Wow, never heard about that.

<comment><USER33> It's shaped much Dutch thinking onwater and risk:

[https://invidio.us/watch?v=gY6eio6Eqcg](https://invidio.us/watch?v=gY6eio6Eqcg)

Also affected Britain:

[https://invidio.us/watch?v=vARjm3yHKzY](https://invidio.us/watch?v=vARjm3yHKzY)

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> NL earns fortunes pumping hydrocarbons, thereby contributing to climate change, thereby forcing itself to spend fortunes defending against climate change.

For some reason I'm reminded of Alanis Morissette.

<comment><USER35> The ironic song about how she doesn't understand the meaning of irony?

<comment><USER34> Some argue her mistaken take on what's ironic is intentional, and the true irony of the song.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Netherlands has been dealing with flooding even before the US existed. I think they will be fine.

<comment><USER37> From the perspective of an American living in the Netherlands for several years now...

The Dutch are light years ahead in their Water management from the US, and far ahead of any other developed nation. The Dutch have a separate tax for Water to ensure money is there to prioritize this need, the citizens/children are all educated on the importance of water management (i.e. Indoctrination from young so EVERY citizen knows how important it is).

Highly recommend everyone watch/read about the dam they built in the North Sea.

In short, they will be fine. This is a core part of their culture, investment, and priority.

<comment><USER38> > The Dutch have a separate tax for Water to ensure money is there to > prioritize this need

Also, the local government bodies that runs this (the 'waterschappen') form one of the oldest democratic systems in the world.

> In short, they will be fine. This is a core part of their culture, > investment, and priority.

It's also one of the things there isn't ever any real political discussion about, it just never comes up. No one will ever suggest cutting the budget for this. It's just something we all agree needs to be done so we just do it.

<comment><USER24> Every time there is elections for the waterboard ("Waterschap"), there is a very low turnout and talks to just merge them into the provincial governments. But I guess we'll only know what we miss once it's gone.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> Ugh. So much text when the headline is a simple question.

Did they give an estimated year?

</comment><comment><USER40> We will just build bigger dykes.

<comment><USER25> Finally, a real solution to climate change. _

<comment><USER41> A historically very real and very effective solution to rising sea levels.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Who would have thought building a country in a flood zone would be a bad idea? /s

</comment><comment><USER42> Clickbait headline. Move on.

</comment><comment><USER43> I have to imagine soon, given that we are about to pass the third, impassable deadline for saving the world from climate change (2020).</comment>


Drinking two cups of coffee a day might affect sleep years later - <AUTHOR> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-6049461/Drinking-two-cups-coffee-day-leave-struggling-sleep-years-later-study-shows.html <comment><USER2> Even the article doesn't suggest some long lasting effect on your brain years later because the older people they surveyed were still drinking coffee so it's quite different than if they used to drink coffee for most of their life but then quit.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Perhaps someone can quote detail from the actual paper from the journal 'Sleep'.</comment>


Live map of SF MUNI - <AUTHOR> http://firebase.github.io/firebus/

<comment><USER2> Mesmerizing. Shared this with my gf and she was like "Whoooaaa! I could watch this for hours."

PS hello from your next door neighbor at famo.us :)

</comment><comment><USER3> cool</comment>


Ask HN: Should I trust my competition? - <AUTHOR>

I've started a small freelance web design/programming/hosting/support effort to help small businesses get on the web with websites that are functional, look great, and don't cost a lost of cash.
I recently landed a rather large client with an incumbent host/design/support company. This is your typical large hosting operation that offers minimal Drupal installations with crappy/ugly design, overpriced dedicated hosting, and rude customer service.
I use Rackspace for my clients and when I called their incumbent hosting provider to get answers on their DNS they went crazy on me. My client decided that they wanted to stay with this other hosting solution to keep from disrupting e-mail, and that they had a long standing relationship with them. This doesn't bother me.
My application requires a database, but their current Drupal installation is already using their 2 allotted databases (despite the fact that they are overcharged for their entire situation).
After having some back and forth with both my client and the host, the host said,
"Well, I'll call [your client] and tell them that they need another database and how much it will cost them... he'll roll his eyes, wine, and then say ok."
On top of this they want to version control my solution using SVN on THEIR servers. My entire experience with this larger web host has rubbed me the wrong way.
They know that my solution is completely custom, stream lined, more focused, and probably requires less server load/CPU cycles than what they offer their customers (think 'less is less').
Frankly, I feel nervous literally handing over all of my code/brand to them as they've proved even just in that one phone call that they don't have the client's best interest in mind.
My question to Hacker News is - how can I trust them not to copy my code and use it for their future clients (its very lightweight and highly customizable)? Should I hand over my custom made solution to a web host/design company just to finish the contract with my client? The client is the #1 hit for their search term and pulls over 50gb of bandwidth so I figure I could get a lot of future leads with them, but dealing with their current provider has continually left a bad taste in my mouth (probably because I'm stealing their business).
I'm sure there are plenty of experienced freelancers doing similar business here, and I would really like your guys take on it as I trust your experience, wisdom, and advice. <comment><USER2> Sounds like you should not put your stuff in their SVN, and I really don't see _why_ that would have to be that way, you can run a repository anywhere that has HTTP access.

As for trusting them, if you put your stuff on their servers they have access anyway... (unless it is compiled, that's a different story)

<comment><AUTHOR> You make a good point, and I don't necessarily even feel comfortable doing that.

I just don't want them stealing my code and turning it around and using it for other clients. We are, technically, competitors.

I'll figure out why they want SVN access and make it very clear that they can't modify or use my code at all without my consent.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> If there is a technical means to cooperate without just handing it over, I would shoot for that. If not, then at least try to get a strong contract spelling out the specific limitations on its use -- ie that it's for this one client...etc.</comment>


Ask HN: What do you wear to work? - <AUTHOR> In my first week at a midsize company, I was confronted by the CEO in an elevator. In front of several other employees he interrogated me for overdressing. I was wearing slacks and a dress shirt with buttons (no tie). He was wearing a t-shirt, cargo shorts, and sandals (in February?). He was visibly upset I was overdressed: "Don't you know this company doesn't have a dress code?" I was humiliated.
I am male, in my late 30s, and I am new to software development. I would just buy clothes similar to the people around me but a lot of my peers look like they are in their early 20s and I fear I'd look like a old fool trying to wear hip, casual, millennial clothes. I'm also concerned about going too casual and giving the impression I don't care about my career.
People tell me "just wear normal clothes" but nice clothes are normal too me. I've spent hours searching through candid photos taken at startups for older men wearing clothes as casual as the younger people in the same photo. But the sample size is too small for me to reach any conclusions.
Has anybody else experienced this problem? What did you wear that was as age-neutral as business or business casual but casual enough to fit in? For those of you older than 30, what do you typically wear to work? To meetings? To interviews?
Thank you. <comment><USER2> > He was visibly upset I was overdressed: "Don't you know this company doesn't > have a dress code?"

The company has a dress code apparently. It's "forced casual-the-way-CEO- likes-it".

You've really got 2 options: emulate the style, or continue dressing in your style. (Or quit...) Depends if you can handle the potential confrontations and how much you care what you're wearing. It's really up to you.

I've worked with people wearing wife beaters as well as full suits in places which wanted "smart casual". Don't try too hard to look at what other companies/people do. They have their own rules which don't apply to your situation.

<comment><USER3> Dress code or no, if I saw someone wearing a wife beater in an office I'd be compelled to ask if they're feeling okay.

<comment><USER4> Why? It makes perfect sense for anyone living in a warm climate. Anywhere that's casual dress you'll typically see women wearing tops that are quite similar to a wife beater.

<comment><USER3> It's not warm in the office. It should be free of armpit hair.

<comment><USER4> I'm not in the office all day. If it's cold enough that a wife beater is uncomfortable to wear in the office then you have the air con way to high.

> It should be free of armpit hair.

Why?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> To give an alternative viewpoint on the CEO, I doubt he was upset. He probably meant to be teasing you, but he's an immature CEO who doesn't realize the effect his power has over subordinates. i.e., he was trying to joke around with you like you were his peer, but didn't realize you might interpret it differently given the power dynamics. He's definitely an idiot, but it sounds like he's more guilty of not realizing his position in life than he is of being actively malicious.

</comment><comment><USER6> You were not overdressed; rather, he was underprofessional. Consider either conforming to the dress code he was enforcing, or after some time possibly finding a more professional place to work.

<comment><USER3> > conforming to the dress code he was enforcing

Nailed it.

OP, perhaps consider jeans with an untucked dress shirt?

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I read this situation differently to you and a lot of other people here. I think your CEO was testing you for your reaction.

It's a confidence test. Or, possibly a "dude" or "bro" test, depending on your CEO's age. You're supposed to match his jocular tone while telling him where he can stuff his ideas on fashion (and his flip flops).

Volleying his smack talk back at him as one does to equals sends a signal. As does obediently Yes Sir, Right Away Sir'ing. As does getting offended. As does being embarrassed and humiliated.

He wanted to see which of those signals you'd send. (And he's probably not the nicest human being for doing so).

</comment><comment><USER8> Dude

You are in your 30s. You aren't going to look old.

If you're comfortable in cargo shorts and T-shirts wear them.

That's my typical daily dress because that's what I like wearing. Cargo shorts, long sleeve T and keens, even in winter.

What's your typical casual dress? Maybe go with Khaki Pants and a T-shirt if you're not in to shorts.

You're only as old as you feel, wear what you like. But take advantage of casual.

Y, he was probably just surprised you weren't taking advantage of it. Probably didn't come across the right way. No dress code is sort of like a badge of honor.

I love companies where I can wear what I used to wear to class at college. Definitely a bonus.

Relax, no need to research it . . . just dress down and enjoy it.

<comment><USER9> where do I apply?

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Your boss is a doofus. If there really is no dress code then just wear what you feel comfortable in. If someone else comments you could reply with something about how "this makes me feel comfortable and puts me in the mindset to work".

</comment><comment><USER11> I wear a shirt and pants, while everyone wears jeans and t-shirts.

We don´t have a specified dress code and they once told me: you know, you dont have to come like this.

My response was, this is my trademark. If a customer comes he will have a good impression.You know what they say, if you want to reach something act and dress as if you are there already.

You are a proffesional, dress like a proffesional.

</comment><comment><USER12> I went from working at a Fortune 500 with > 100k employees to a small firm with less than 500 people. You would get weird looks from people in the Fortune 500 if you wore jeans into the HQ. You might bump into the CEO (literally did that once) and you don't want to stand out.

At the new place, I just wear what I want. Usually jeans, polo or nice t-shirt and some kind of fleece/sweater like thing if it is colder out. Some people wear shorts and flip flops in summer.

I think it is a culture shift - some places like Fortune 500 tend to focus more on form rather than function. Lots of ceremony and bureaucratic work practices like getting approvals for things and checking with management for every little action. You would get slightly mocked if you dressed above your pay grade.

Smaller companies, and maybe the culture where you are, want less formality and are more casual. Your actions at such a place speak louder than your clothing choice.

I like just dressing "as myself" basically how I would dress on any normal Saturday. If a company makes me feel like I need to change from that, I treat it like a uniform.

For meetings - are they with customers? If so, ask someone that maintains the relationship with that customer what is appropriate.

For interviews - check the company out, see what social media shows people wearing if it isn't stock photos. And dress a bit above what you think everyone wears to work.

</comment><comment><USER13> I normally wear what, generally, everyone else wears. I know this sounds a bit weak-willed but hear me out...

When I was contracting, I would go from businesses to business, every 6 months or so. I would always start by 'dressing up', full suit. Tie. Etc.

I'd then suss out how people acted on the first impression. Some companies have a culture where a suit = respect and authority. I wanted this because I was there to get a job done quickly and needed people to be on board, as I was only there for a few months.

Then, some companies have alternative views. Suits can provoke anti- establishment mentalities. So, I'll dress more like my colleagues and rely on more honest things to gain that respect.

One man can change the world, by recycling every day, hugging a loved one or cycling instead of driving. But the way people jump to conclusions based on the way someone dresses is unfortunately far too ingrained in our society. And this has been the case for 1000s of years. There's little value in making a statement by wearing something different.

FYI, if I'm not in a suit is probably a plain t-shirt, dark jeans and a 'smart trainer' (such as converse?). Take a look at some of the high-street shops and find a style you like.

</comment><comment><USER14> Late 30s? You're not old, it seems insane to me that you are googling what normal clothes are..? Put on some jeans and a polo... this isn't exclusively for people in their mid 20's it's for all ages. But regardless it doesn't matter because no CEO should be berating an employee for over dressing that's the more absurd part of this story.

</comment><comment><USER15> Suggestion: Could you go "outdoors"? Something that is suitably casual but also doesn't give the appearance you're trying to look an age you are not.

Like you might take a hike later, without changing. Or are spending the weekend at your place in Tahoe.

(Or, with more aggressive selections and attitude, like a fitness type.)

Dunno. But at least I find those clothes both comfortable and age appropriate.

And maybe you'd be buying clothes that you actually want to wear on the weekend, anyway.

As for me, I'm considering a long overdue return to flannel shirts. After catching grief over the idea from a "trendy" friend who subsequently turned out to be a crap friend, anyway, I'm finding my thinking lately reinforced.

Anyway, whether it's suits or anti-suits, some people just want to tell other people how to dress. When I can, I try to avoid them.

</comment><comment><USER16> This might be an outside perspective since I have yet to have my first professional job in software development, but it is absurd the chief executive officer would confront and interrogate you like that. At the very least, call me over to your office and let me know about the dress code. But then again, I can't think of a sound logical reason for not being able to dress formally to work. I would like to know if that is the culture of tech companies? If so, which ones? So I can steer away from them. Like, really? I'm in my early twenties, and I enjoy wearing slacks with a dress shirt tucked in and no tie, it makes me feel confident and good.

I say don't mind too much what people think about your clothing style, wear what makes you comfortable and good (and I suppose, "appropriate" to the dress code).

</comment><comment><USER17> Plaid shirt + black tshirt + dark pants/dark jeans[1] + clean fancy boots[0].

[0][http://www.redwingheritage.com/us/USD/product/mens- footwear/...](http://www.redwingheritage.com/us/USD/product/mens- footwear/6-inch-boots/6-black- harness-8114-08114;pgid=p7CFVOLO6EhSRp_WVWMqmT_30000VIwFiqCl;sid=yAD5fhlh6iD6fkMeqg74fhkeUzfgabYp8WJiSQB2) [1][http://www.hm.com/us/product/83116?article=83116-B](http://www.hm.com/us/product/83116?article=83116-B)

</comment><comment><USER18> My advice; Be honest (tell the boss you feel better that way) and don't care beyond that.

I wear jeans + T-Shirt and a Hoodie 99% of the time. I had a super busy week once and forgot to wash any jeans, so I put on trainer pants. Colleagues (even the boss) made fun of me few times during that day. I jokingly explained to them that I forgot to do basics in my life and everyone was happy. I don't think anyone felt any emotions regarding my clothes beyond that few secs we were chatting. I think it will be the same in your case if they are at least a bit professional.

</comment><comment><USER19> That sounds like a crappy experience, I'm sorry you had to go through that. It sounds like the CEO acted very unprofessionally.

Personally I am in my late 20s and the dress code here is casual, too. I normally wear jeans and hoodies or sweaters in winter and shorts and skirts/dresses in summer. There are definitely a few people who prefer to dress more formally here (one who used to come in a suit every day, and some who had self-imposed "formal fridays") and nobody game them crap for it (aside from sometimes asking if they've got an interview :))

</comment><comment><USER20> Wear what you want.

He sounds like an inexperienced CEO who is compensating by trying to shame you into dressing like he does.

Unless you're wearing a tuxedo, it's pretty hard to over-dress at work. Be comfortable with what you're wearing, and be confident.

If he brings it up again just say "This is how I like to dress" and leave it at that. If he continues to press, ask him if there is an over-dressing policy at work.

Don't let him bully you because of his title.

</comment><comment><USER21> I wear black dress pants or jeans (depending on what is clean) and Hawaiian shirts.

If it's cold outside, I'll wear waterproof hiking boots.

If it's warm, I'll wear Keens sandals.

If people don't like that, then I'm working in the wrong company.

In the case of the OP, I would take what the CEO said and ask "wait — didn't you just say that there is no dress code policy?" And then I would give him a very quizzical look.

</comment><comment><USER22> Wear whatever you want. "no dresscode" means exactly this. Until it's formally changed, I don't really care what others wear, or what others think. Even if it's the CEO. I am 31, wearing hoodies, jeans and some geeky t-shirt. Most of us dress up similar, some of us wear shirts with buttons or even suits. Everybody is happy I think.

</comment><comment><USER23> I imagine he meant it to be more lighthearted than it came off, and wouldn't read much into it.

No dress code = dress how you like. If you like to dress up in slacks and a dress shirt, then so be it.

Don't change your preferences for the CEO. Be confident and stand behind your convictions. If he doesn't respect that - you're going to have muuuuch bigger problems.

</comment><comment><USER24> A couple ways to dress down your current look: \- Wear sneakers instead of dress shoes

\- Wear a tshirt or hoodie instead of a dress shirt with khaki pants.

\- Wear jeans with a polo or dress shirt. This dresses both of those options down. I'd also go with sneakers here.

\- Wear a dark tshirt under the button ups and half button them or keep them open. This will (again) give a casual look.

</comment><comment><USER25> Skip the dress shirts. Try some plaids or stripes like the one below -- on sale for $15 at Old Navy. :-)

Good luck with your new job!

[http://oldnavy.gap.com/browse/product.do?cid=1102404&pcid=10...](http://oldnavy.gap.com/browse/product.do?cid=1102404&pcid=1010005&vid=1&pid=827244082)

</comment><comment><USER26> > Don't you know this company doesn't have a dress code?

The most ironic thing I've read all year.

</comment><comment><USER27> As a compromise, perhaps try a polo and mesh pant? It should look professional enough to where you'd feel comfortable with it, and casual enough to where he'd be okay with it. Plus, mesh pant is way more comfortable than slacks are.

</comment><comment><USER28> Honestly think you're having an industrial world problem. If wearing crappy clothes makes you feel uncomfortable, why not do it to get out of your comfort zone? Try it for a week or to and then reevaluate your situation.

</comment><comment><USER9> Dark jeans and a t-shirt.

I wouldn't take it too badly, you got hired so you must have done everything right :) The CEO wants you to be relaxed at work (but unfortunately took the wrong approach).

</comment><comment><USER29> The guy was an asshole.

</comment><comment><USER30> I love dress shirts and casual blazers. I give zero shits about anyone not liking it.

</comment><comment><USER31> Jeans and a nice blouse.</comment>


Ask HN: Is there a demand for volunteer Engineers abroad? - <AUTHOR> I'm interested in other peoples first hand experiences volunteering abroad as a software Engineer. Organizations like Engineers Without Boarders tend to be looking for Civil or power systems Engineers to help with construction projects while groups like the Peace Corps look for health or education experts. I imagine there must be a need for software Engineers to do data analysis, tech development for field work or software development to aid in disaster recovery. Any suggestions? <comment><USER2> If you were an actual engineer then yeah those organizations would certainly be interested (but you aren't)

</comment><comment><USER3> [https://hotosm.org/](https://hotosm.org/) sends people abroad to help building maps for disaster planning. Most of the work is teaching.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, I'll check it out. I didn't know they build a humanitarian organization around the open source project. I remember reading about the great work they did mapping Haiti after the earthquake to help first responds navigate the roads.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Has anyone found a good co-founder using "founder dating" techniques? - <AUTHOR> There are many sites out there, such as FounderDating, FoundersHookUp, CoFoundersLab, etc., that attempt to help solo startup founders find a co-founder. (To clarify, I am a tech founder.)
Is there any evidence that this actually works to create a great founding team? Have you used it successfully?
Relatedly, might it be better to be a solo founder than to find a co-founder you don't already know well? <comment><USER2> Here's my experience.

I was on FounderDating for at least a couple months last year actively looking. (I am speaking from a tech cofounder perspective.) During that time, a few emails were exchanged with a few prospects and a couple Skype chats were made too. But nothing came about from it.

Then instead of waiting any longer I decided to go ahead myself and just keep an eye out as I go. Soon afterward I serendipitously found another startup doing something similar to what I was trying. I contacted them just to exchange ideas. Turns out they were looking for a CTO. So here I am now.

My takeaway is that these are not magic bullets. They are one of many available channels in a co-founder search. The only thing that works is that you need to be "out there" looking. Both on- and offline.

</comment><comment><USER3> I think the problem with these founder dating type sites is that starting a company really isn't like "dating" at all, its more like a marriage. It's tough to just meet someone on a whim and dive into something like starting a company. You wouldn't just walk down the aisle after meeting someone on an online dating site and exchanging a few messages or going on a few dates either (hopefully), and you probably shouldnt launch a company after a few beers with someone you met on a website. These sites can introduce the two of you, but its on you to determine how well you will work as a team.

I'm not really sure how you solve this problem, or if sites like CoFoundersLab can solve the problem. I've met up with a few people from these sites for drinks and coffee to bounce ideas around, but nothing really went further than that. IMO, The best thing to do for those actively looking for a cofounder is to constantly be "out there" as pointed out by quantisan. That means leveraging your network, going to meetups...etc and being active with it.

<comment><USER4> >I'm not really sure how you solve this problem, or if sites like CoFoundersLab can solve the problem.

I think it might have to do with the approach that they're using. When someone comes here and posts an Ask HN about how to find a cofounder, people frequently mention how it's important to actually have a working relationship with the person you're starting a company with. A common piece of advice is to just start working on a side project with someone and see where it goes. CoFoundersLab profiles (and to a certain extent my interactions with people on the site) seems to focus on "here's what my background is, here's what I'm willing to invest, this is the industry I want to go in". It's less about "I have this idea, if anyone with background X thinks this is cool and wants to help me out, feel free to get in touch". Its a subtle difference, but I think it makes a big difference to not trying to 'force it'

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> You are potentially going to be business-marrying this person for the next decade of your life. Founder Dating can be a good way to find people who are interested in starting a company, so you can be on the same page about that at least. But, like real dating, you probably don't want to just jump in and commit to starting a company with someone just because they are available.

You need a combination of wanting the same thing (to build a successful company) and being able to tolerate each other for the next few years, both through good and bad. Founder Dating is not a bad way to meet people (and, as an aside, I've seen lots of good founding teams meet at hackathons, too). But, really, get to know someone first. Do a side project or two with them. Hell, just try to become good friends.

Make sure that you know you can work with them when things are great and also work with them when you fuck up big time.

</comment><comment><USER6> I organized the silicon valley co-founders meetup for a while. I think it's pretty clear that the goal is to get out there and start pitching your project to people and see who bites. It's not about finding THE co-founder that particular evening.

Network effects (friends of friends) are very powerful. A lot of people who want to find a co-founder need some way to get started. But you should expect that finding your co-founder will take months. You need to keep talking to people and you'll find developers, business partners, mentors, etc. and sometimes a co-founder.

[0] [http://www.slideshare.net/alain94040/co-founder- issues](http://www.slideshare.net/alain94040/co-founder-issues)

</comment><comment><USER7> Yeah... I've been on most founder match sites, including 2 of 3 OP mentioned (FounderDating and CoFoundersLab) and found them to be useless. I'm a generalist (business/techy/industrial design). They are inevitably full of people already working on something (thus not available to team up) and some consultants looking for clients. The possibility of encountering the triple coincidence of a free agent with the complementary skills you need, and an interest in your startup's particular space and stage is almost zero.

I'd suggest:

* Attend _action_ focused events like hackathons or startup wknd where you can get at least a little sense of how potential partners work.

* Minimize attendance at tech socials: they're mostly loud, biz-card waving, wastes of time, that get you no closer to getting a partner.

* Buy time at a big coworking space for a few months, where you can have meaningful 1-to-1 interactions with a large cross-section of people over time. A big space will include many people open to teaming up. Some founders I know met this way.

* You can start as a solo founder and if you're active about promotion (eg pitching/demoing at events), then you might stumble into someone who is free and interested in your particular space. When you do, attend a hackathon or work on long project together to test for fit.

* Maintain motivation - hard and the only thing that enables you to keep cycling through the possibilities.

</comment><comment><USER8> I've been on CoFounders Lab and Founder Dating and there are some quality people on the sites but nothing meaningful ever materialized. Had some Skype chats with a few people but it's always "let's keep our options open and keep in touch," which obviously we all know means nothing will ever come of it. I haven't found alot of people who are serious and committed to building something. It seems like alot of people "exploring" building a startup on the side, or it's something they're considering in the future. I haven't spent much time on Angel List so I'm curious to see how that is.

I'm a Non-Technical co-founder and it's a little annoying when technical founders think and act like people like myself can't bring alot to the table, when we've had previous successful companies before.

</comment><comment><USER9> I have a great co-founder dating story. My advise is to know exactly what you are looking for and then recruit for that dream candidate. I built out my business, boot strapped my startup for 6 months and had a strong idea of my product vision. As I hadn't been particularly happy with my engineering team prior- i decided to start fresh with the perfect technical cofounder to build our product. I spoke to a lot of people about what they envisioned for the technical cofounder role for my product and then made a 'dream resume' of that candidate along with the personality traits that would be the ying to my yang. Once I had a good idea of what I was looking for- I went through every single software engineer connection on linkedin to see if anyone might be a match. A woman who had moved into my old room when I moved out of my house had the exact background for what I was looking for (product driven creative software engineer). I got her involved in our market research study and then asked her for drinks under the premise that she had the exact resume and personality of what I was looking for in a technical cofounder-so what would I need to do in order to find a woman like her and get her to start this company with me. She really loved my idea and more importantly, saw the opportunity for herself to build a really cool product from scratch. We are both in similar places in our career and she 180% had the drive and intelligence to start a company and build our product and technology. She said during the meeting that she was actually interested and wanted to meet the rest of the team. We spent two months working together, getting to know each other and really thinking through the product. She met with all of my advisors and poured through our research. We had discussions about communications, got into our first tiff and had multiple discussions about timeline and career goals before sealing the deal. We share many passions like art, music and most importantly, helping women with their careers. Now that she is my technical cofounder, so many amazing things have happened. She's very talented and has the type of personality that attracts good tech & design talent. We work well together because we spent time communicating what we would both need to make this work for us. So figure out what you need, design that dream candidate, go find her or him and take the time to 'date' them till you are both comfortable moving forward. My relationship with her is now the most important one in my life right now and our attention to communicating is what has propelled our product development and our team's growth.

</comment><comment><USER10> A good read for those interested in this topic i.e. the pros and cons of finding a co-worker through something like "founder dating" VS. with friends/relatives VS. with coworkers is "The Founder's Dilemmas"[1] by Noah Wasserman.

If you'd just like a preview/synopsis of the book, there's a podcast[2] of the author's talk at Stanford, which covers all the broad strokes and key points.

[1] [http://www.amazon.com/The-Founders-Dilemmas-Anticipating- Ent...](http://www.amazon.com/The-Founders-Dilemmas-Anticipating- Entrepreneurship/dp/0691158304)

[2] [http://ecorner.stanford.edu/authorMaterialInfo.html?mid=3024](http://ecorner.stanford.edu/authorMaterialInfo.html?mid=3024)

</comment><comment><USER11> I attended many of these events. IMHO, these events are practically useless like what mighter said.

I am a business founder with slight knowledge about tech. Being a business founder, like mighter said again, it's hard to sell the idea to tech founder unless you prove yourself. Rather than wait for the right person to come, I decided that I bootstrap myself and launched the site.

I am still looking for that one CTO because I want to apply for incubator (ycomb, techstarts, 500 startups), but now having a fully 100% working site and some early traction, I hope I am able to attract a more credible CTO or other type founders.

If anyone here (CTO, CMO, etc) is interested to find out more, please email me at (there are 9 6's in the email)

firstname.lastname@example.com

</comment><comment><USER12> Why not get to know the person well? Launch a side business in a week and see how you both work together under pressure. Essentially this is going on a few dates before you get married.

As a side bonus (and unlike a date) you will have a longer runway with a small side income.

</comment><comment><USER13> Find someone else passionate about your problem. You can't just find someone who has the skill, you need skill + domain. This is hard but not impossible if you look within your community.

</comment><comment><USER14> Its real tough to be a solo founder and you need somebody with different skill sets to augment your own and to keep you on track.

The various founder dating sites and events are a means to an end. A lot of it depends on your pitch and idea but it's good practice and networking never hurts.

I met one of my cofounders on Angellist.com and the other on CoFounderslab.com.

I had a decent wireframe of the site and how the database and interactions would work but the other cofounders helped to elevate the rough idea.

RoomPoll.com would not be possible without my cofounders.

</comment><comment><USER15> I've been there for 6 month now and still no luck. The biggest problem I see is not even specific to this platform. It's just that people who claim to be "business developers" or "marketers" know very little about building a startup. They don't want to validate an idea or conduct customer interviews. No marketing strategy, no nothing. When I ask them to go out of the building and do a proper validation, they just vanish.

<comment><USER15> Also every cofounder dating web sites I've tried is a crap. Laggy, unstable and looks like it's from 2000.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I could see these sites working out if you have a decent amount of cofounder material in your local city. In my city there are very few so finding a good cofounder is a much more difficult prospect.

I have heard mixed things about those trying to work with a cofounder remotely. Generally that only works if you have a previous working relationship. Such relationships are hard to establish remotely while also pursuing a new, risky venture.

</comment><comment><USER17> I built/launched one of those co-founder networks a few months ago (itchwork.com) and I ended up completely abandoning the project, in favor of Angellist (angel.co). They're killing it in this space, and they are the only platform I've personally had success on.</comment>