The Future of Web Startups - <AUTHOR> http://paulgraham.com/webstartups.html <comment><USER3> What Paul ignores is the fact that most people out of college are faced with seemingly insurmountable debt as a result of having to pay for an education - esp. in America (and to a lesser extent in Canada). This is one problem that will prevent startups from happening at such a rapid pace as he anticipates. In fact, most graduates want to find stable jobs to pay off their debt -- startups are not really on most graduates' radar. On a somewhat related note, Businessweek had a survey of the top ten desirable places to work for new graduates -- three were govt. agencies, one accounting firm, google, etc.

<comment><AUTHOR> So wouldn't those people drop out earlier? If you strip out the emotional content of your post, it's quite banal: the price of a product (college) is going up, so people who buy the product (students who pay full tuition) have less money, and since money is a transportable, transferable form of freedom, they're less free.

" In fact, most graduates want to find stable jobs to pay off their debt -- startups are not really on most graduates' radar."

That's irrational. If they're already way in debt, shouldn't they want to take more risks? Why the hell would you do something boring for ten years to pay off your debt, when you could do something fun for one year and have a 10% chance of more than paying off your debt. Also, employers are impressed by people who start their own businesses.

" Businessweek had a survey of the top ten desirable places to work for new graduates -- three were govt. agencies, one accounting firm, google, etc."

Right, because Businessweek can't say "The best place for you to work is that company you start in your apartment with your pals," because 1) that doesn't appeal to BW's audience, and 2) startups are small and varied, so it wouldn't make sense. It's like taking a survey of the most popular restaurants (McDonalds, Burger King) and using that as proof that the swanky new sushi place down the street is an awful place to eat.

<comment><USER3> "So wouldn't those people drop out earlier?"

No those people would not drop out earlier, because they likely did not know they wanted to be startup founders until they had enough technical knowledge and/or more importantly built those relationships with students around them which led to the creation of a startup in the first place. Perhaps your experience has been different in which case I cannot argue with that.

"when you could do something fun for one year and have a 10% chance of more than paying off your debt"

For precisely that reason -- that the likelihood of success is only 10%. And it often takes more than a year to build something meaningful.

"Also, employers are impressed by people who start their own businesses."

This is not always true. It depends on the role the employee is being hired into.

<comment><AUTHOR> So you're saying that college, while expensive, is still worth it? I don't get your argument. For a given student, either college is too expensive to be worth it, and people will drop out early, or it's cheap enough to be worth it, and people will finish. Only one of these things can be true, and there are obvious conclusions depending on which you pick. So which is it?

"For precisely that reason..."

Did you miss what I said above? If you're already broke, why is getting broker a problem? What do you have to lose if you have less than nothing?

Can you give me some detail on your 'depends on the role' comment? I didn't realize this; when I recruit people (IT/quant finance), employers respond more favorably to entrepreneurs than to people who worked for someone else. Where did you hear otherwise?

<comment><USER3> "So you're saying that college, while expensive, is still worth it? "

Yes that's exactly what I'm saying. You meet like-minded people there who are excited about technology - potential co-founders. You learn about technology.

I've been through 3 universities, and the relationships I have built at these institutions have helped me to this day. I'm running a startup btw.

<comment><AUTHOR> What was the point of your original post? It looks like you were saying "It is better to have a college education than to spend that time or money in any other possible way." But you keep saying that like it's a bad thing, and talking about how college reduces your chances of starting a startup because it's so expensive. If college increases your chances of starting a startup, and you want to start a startup, your original post doesn't make sense. What were you trying to say?

<comment><USER3> What I was saying is that paying for the education that gives you the tools to start a startup is one of the biggest impediments to starting one.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm really having trouble following this. You're saying that your odds of success after getting an education are higher than before. But that, uh, getting an education makes it harder to start a startup. You see the contradiction.

Is this like saying "If you're going to be a programmer, you'll do better to buy a computer. But if you buy a computer, you'll have to get money, which leaves you less time to be a programmer!"?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> _"Then the effects of being measured by performance would propagate all the way back to high school, flushing out all the arbitrary stuff people are measured by now. That is the future of web startups."_ What an impressive conclusion - I hope it happens.

<comment><USER5> When this happens "Hiring will be obsolete" <http://www.paulgraham.com/hiring.html>

...because we've inspired everyone to do startups. There will be nobody else to hire :)

We're back to the pre-industrial revolution era. Where everyone didn't hire anyone and had their own backyard industry.

Woohoo!

<comment><USER6> Not really. We are at a new plateau, if you want: stuff that used to be hard is now standard. So people can lift up their heads and get going with something new.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I wish acquisition was this easy. I worked at a very large bank in Emerging Technology and I pushed our group to buy 3 startups. We passed on all of them because of bureaucracy and lack of vision. Heck, the same bank passed on paypal (and tried to create their own), and now they have to compete head to head with a company that could be in house.

</comment><comment><USER8> The unexpected Ted Stevens reference at the end really made me grin. I find Stevens so hilarious and horrifying at the same time.

I was surprised to find it in a PG essay, but on reflection it seems really appropriate in context. Though it did distract me enough that I had to read the last section twice.

</comment><comment><USER9> With standardization comes bureaucracy. I dread what will happen when all this starts to become apparent to the government, and they decide that they need to "fix" some of the perceived injustices. How long before we start seeing laws regulating founder/investor relationships that look like our current laws for employers and employees? Will investors start being required to submit reports to the government to prove that their investment decisions aren't racially biased?

<comment><USER10> > Will investors start being required to submit reports to the government to > prove that their investment decisions aren't racially biased?

Are you suggesting that investors should be racially biased?

I'm playing devil's advocate far further than intended for sure, but the laws regarding employment, although bureaucratic are there for very good reasons.

<comment><AUTHOR> I think he's suggesting that they could be accused of it. Startups are disproportionately started by men, most of whom are white or Asian. Paul Graham says not to blame on malice what you can attribute to math, but other people might not see it that way.

"I'm playing devil's advocate far further than intended for sure, but the laws regarding employment, although bureaucratic are there for very good reasons."

What is that reason?

<comment><USER11> I'll take a stab at this. I recently read one of Milton Friedman's books, and I liked it a lot. His pursuit of freedom is admirable, and something that I can understand. He even suggests that freedom is more important than using government power to attempt to stop racism, for instance by letting people choose not to hire black people (as an example).

That got me to thinking though. While I'm attracted to the sentiment of freedom above all else, what I think is missing in his equation is that communities tend to be sort of self-reinforcing. It would be very difficult, if it were accepted by others to not hire black people, to be the first one to do so. Now, laws against that kind of discrimination don't change the way people feel, nor make their racist sentiments go away overnight. However, they do drive those thoughts underground, and break the cycle of "we've always done it that way" by making it no longer acceptable. And with time, that improves the climate and makes it easier for attitudes to change.

At least that's one thought that came to mind. I really admire Friedman's purity of thought, but think that perhaps it's a bit naive. It would certainly be an interesting subject to discuss in person with a person of that libertarian mindset.

<comment><USER12> Just imagine the level of job candidates you could be selecting amongst if you were the only one hiring from a population as big as the black community. In any competitive field, employers are fairly limited in how 'racist' they can be in their hiring practices without setting themselves up for a fall.

<comment><USER11> Sure, but there are a lot of fields that aren't really that competitive (where you simply hire cheap laborers who basically work about the same), and where the pressure to conform may be higher than the pressure to find an employee that is 2% better than the next guy.

<comment><USER12> Even then, widespread aversion to hiring from one of two equally productive groups creates a big incentive to break the mold. And that incentive will only keep increasing as long as no one steps out. In the limit case, you pretty much have access to an 'unlimited' pool of free labor. This line of reasoning does presuppose a reasonably free country, though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Hey, Paul: I've got an even better idea. What say I just cut all you investors out altogether? Whatever happened to growing a company slowly, based on the profits coming in? Oh, that's right - we don't do this in the tech industry because everyone says it won't work.

That's just a bunch of bunk. Nothing was funnier during Web 1.0 than guys saying we were "rewriting" the rules of business - like, profits didn't matter. Truth is, from a business point of view, starting a web service is no different than starting a dry cleaners: give people what they want, at a reasonable price (in our business, that usually means ad-supported)... and they'll come back (and click on ads in the process).

Yes, it may take some technical innovation... but it doesn't take any _business_ innovation. Everything you say in your essay is true; so seriously, why do I need you? You expect me to go through this whole dance to come to Cambridge for, what, the possibility of _five-thousand bucks_? And then move to SilCon for three months so you can keep tabs on us once a week? Like, are you _serious_?!

Your essay is particularly prescient because you might have inadvertently predicted the ultimate demise of your current business - i.e., venture funding. No, I won't fill out your form; no, I won't travel to Cambridge for the possibility for you to give me five-thousand bucks. No, I won't move to the Valley so you can keep tabs on what I'm doing. I'm a big boy, and I can take care of this end myself, thanks. Good luck with giving away your cash.

James Touchi-Peters, Founder/CEO CONK!/Arrow Media Minneapolis USA firstname.lastname@example.com <http://conk.com>

</comment><comment><USER14> Where is the evidence that Google has the best programmers? Certainly if you look at Google's acquisitions, they all stagnate post Google. Picasa was a pretty good product -- two years ago when Google bought it. Since then it's added a button to upload photos to Blogger. Gmail had a pretty good feature set for Web-based mail -- two years ago when it rolled out. Since then? etc.

<comment><USER15> That seems to say more about Google as a company than its programmers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Can't agree with the "Younger, nerdier founders" section.

It's like any other long tail, in this case the prototypical founder (late 20', single, technical guy) will not be as common - it'll become a more- diverse population. There will be younger founders and there will be older founders, too. Nerdier, and hipper. Etc.

For example, I'm a 40 yo front-end developer (started in 1995 building interactive apps at ESPN). I'm now starting a company, doing all the backend development too, thanks to Ruby on Rails. This was never available to me before 2006, really.

My bet - the trend will be away from the core developers, as the back end tools become commoditized and packaged, and the prized employees will become the designers - UI and graphical. Brands and positioning will start to play a larger part, and these contributors will have the most to say about this part of the company. I predict the trend will go away from the technical, as people will need to wear many hats in a small company.

As for the young, I don't believe they have an advantage in a crowded startup environment. The lucky bet, or obvious missing younger-demographic website will be created by the kids, but this will happen less and less as the low- hanging fruit is gobbled up. Instead, I think the older (or rather experienced) will have an advantage in a crowded startup world. Here, it'll be the niche positioning, establishing business relationships, and pursuing effective growth strategies that will make the difference.

<comment><USER17> Agreed. As per below. You probably know that Fred Wilson stirred up the "age of founders" issue a few months back. I'm curious to find some data on age/general demographic trends re: founders.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Prediction: Angel investors will ink deals with VCs to create an official pipeline. For example, let's say KPCB agrees to fund at least one Techstars company per year in exchange for first pick or something like that. That's the way elite prep schools interface with certain Ivy's, and it seems to work out for both of them. Of course startups will never get as locked down as colleges because there will always be more money than good investments, at least for the foreseeable future.

<comment><USER19> I always assumed the prep-school -> ivy connection was informal, much like the one between certain software companies and cs programs. For instance, Yale takes 10 kids from andover every year because they know all about how smart the 10 smartest kids from andover are from previous experience.

<comment><USER18> Most of them are informal, but not all. Here are a few situations where an Ivy would offer guaranteed admissions:

1) The university promises admission the top student from the Japanese language program of a certain high school each year. Situations like this often arise from alumni putting crazy earmarks on the donations to their colleges.

2) The university guarantees admission to a certain percentage of state residents each year in exchange for state funding.

3) The university wants to buy more land but the town tries to block the deal because it doesn't want the property taken off the tax roll. The university brokers a deal guaranteeing admission to a certain number of students from the local HS in exchange for the land.

4) A top prep school comes to some more formal agreement with a university for purely strategic reasons.

Situation #1 seems to be the most common in terms of connections to prep schools, although it's hard to say since the relationships aren't exactly published.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> "And being Google, they're figuring out how to do it efficiently."

pg, I am a little alarmed by this flat recognition that is awarded to Google. It might be actually true. But its not an optimal way to think about things in the long run. As a teen ager I was a Michael Jackson fan, It took me a good while longer than other people to realize that he has turned into shit.

<comment><USER21> That's not a comment about how successful or cool Google may be, it's a comment about their management and corporate culture.

It's like saying "And being Wal-Mart, they're figuring out how to squeeze the last nickel out of their suppliers." It's just how they're interested in doing things.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> I think there is a logical inconstancies in here. You say specific startup hubs are important, but specific colleges are not? Bullshit, either both are important or both are not. By your own arguments they will be performing the same service, building communities.

You say one goes to Silicon Valley to be in a community of startups, meet cofounders and talk with smart people. Then you say that in the future, in college, we will be more concerned with meeting cofounders and communing with smart people than we will be concerned with grades. Why won't yo want to go to the school with all the smartest like-minded people? Thats what Harvard is to business people. A community of like minded people that band together to help each other. The same will be created at the new breed of startup oriented tech schools. The admission standards might be a tiny bit different though.

</comment><comment><USER23> Great post, as usual, there is one point though - assuming that all the best will move to the startup hubs is like efficient markets hypothesis i.e. not really. They would move in a rational world but there are many seemingly irrational reasons that you can find world class people in obscure places anywhere in the world and, moreover, they are content to stay there. I am talking from personal experience, in my previous (vertical) search startup my chief programmer was world-class and had results to prove it, has since produced another world-class (Facebook) app and has not set foot in US ever. Similarly in my current search startup, I have some really great young kids. So the moral is that sure, the ratio of world class people is higher in startup hubs, but the rest of the world is so much bigger :) that many more are still out there ...

<comment><USER24> He didn't say all the best founders will move to Silicon Valley, just that more will than previously.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> "At the moment, there is no one within big companies who gets in trouble when they buy a startup for $200 million that they could have bought earlier for $20 million. There should start to be someone who gets in trouble for that."

I think it's right that startups will be acquired earlier and earlier, but that makes me wonder: might those earlier acquisitions (which sometimes decrease productivity to 1/13th what it was) sabotage the success of the startup either because once acquired the founders don't have to work as hard to keep their heads above water or because when not constrained by a tiny startup budget the founders won't worry as much about finding efficient ways to do things--which in the past made them better startups/companies?

<comment><USER26> I wondered if anyone would bring that up. I think another thing that will happen is that acquirers will figure out how not to ruin the startups they buy.

A company that bought a bunch of hot startups early on and didn't destroy their productivity would be a force to reckon with.

<comment><USER27> It seems the act of acquiring does a lot of damage all by itself. One thing that would probably go a long way would be if the acquiring company kept the acquisition process short, sweet and easy.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Paul,

Your each and every article is giving indication that married people are not good enough to start startup. Come on man - I am reading your articles to inspire myself and to keep up my tempo but when I read age analysis then that is very demotivating.

Well I think I need to find place where there are success stories without age limit ;)

I understand that kids and wife can take quite a bit time. But if there are people like me who dreams about own business for years and wasn't able to start it because never found right channels and due to that now I am above 30. Now I have vision and courage but also I am married. Does it mean that I have to stop seeing dream? No way man. I am here to prove you wrong. Will let you know whenever I am succesful :)

Thanks for all great articles.

<comment><USER29> I agree. I would rather invest in a startup run by a 30+ person than one run by two 20 somethings. I think one problem of starting up at 30+ is that one has achieved already a level of income, status etc. Putting that to risk is not so easy step to take than just having graduated. But if such a person takes that risk her idea is probably worth a second look...

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> What about the fact that when an industry matures it tends to become an oligopoly. It almost happens with any industry in history (e.g. automotive). With maturity often comes standardization which in turn compliments big bureaucratic organizations.Will this also apply to the Web? What about the chances of startups in the automotive industry? They used to be good round 1900... Some thoughts on costs: While it is cheap to get some system up and running in a world of lots of different apps and competitors that go after a limited number of users it will be vital to get attention in order to succeed. In the end this probably means spending loads of marketing money which is anything but not cheap.

</comment><comment><USER30> If being in silicon valley is important to mix with the best and brightest then being in a good university deserves the same argument/conclusion. Any old university won't have students capable of learning at fast pace and so the curriculum will be watered down. Any old university won't have high quality teachers that can mentor the most gifted students.

I do think taking that last exam and finishing university was a magical moment. Following a commitment through to the end even when things are tough or tedious is valuable experience. You can get this other ways but there is a huge difference between someone who stuck in there and finished university and someone who called it off just three credits short.

</comment><comment><USER31> Hmm. I find the argument for unlimited concentration of startups in startup hubs somewhat unconvincing.

If the number of startups founded goes up by an order of magnitude or two, then the need to move to Silicon Valley in order to be in a startup-rich environment goes down.

Now, I do think that startups will still move, but I think that the number of hubs they can choose among to move to will be increasing as well.

I also have a feeling that beyond a certain density, the largest hubs will eventually hit diminishing returns in terms of their utility for startups (which will prompt more hub specialization).

<comment><USER26> That is a valid objection. Though there are only 5 or 6 web startup hubs, out of the thousands of similar sized towns in the world. That number could increase by a factor of 10, and it would still be likely that you'd have to move.

And in any case I doubt the number would increase. The power of hubs is self- perpetuating. So no matter how many startups originated in St. Louis, there wouldn't be a lot there when a given new one started, because many of the previous ones would have already moved.

(Suppose it happened that 50% of the next generation of big movie stars were from St. Louis. That would not make St. Louis a rival to Hollywood.)

Also there's the empirical argument: I can't think of one industry in history whose growth made the established centers irrelevant.

<comment><USER9> > Also there's the empirical argument: I can't think of one industry in > history whose growth made the established centers irrelevant.

How about textiles, after the spinning wheel came to Europe and the cottage industry developed?

<comment><USER26> The spinning wheel replaced the distaff, which was even lower tech.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> "We now get on the order of 1000 applications a year. What are we going to do if we get 10,000? That's actually an alarming idea. But we'll figure out some kind of answer. We'll have to. It will probably involve writing some software, but fortunately we can do that."

The company that manages to blend digital identity and reputation with the information power of networks is probably going to be the next MS. I've been interested in this problem for a long time now. Someone should really submit a proposal as a YC idea.

</comment><comment><USER32> Does anyone believe that the future viability of web application innovation depends on the availability of consumer access to higher and higher bandwidth connections (at a cheaper and cheaper cost - to the point of commoditization), and if so, as the US falls further behind other countries in this respect,will that reduce the relevance of Silicon Valley as a startup hub for web application companies? Which country (city) do you think will emerge as the web app innovation leader?

<comment><USER33> I think Japan or South Korea is at the forefront in terms of widespread availability of cheap high speed internet access. Probably their reputations as societies that are not very inviting to foreigners, and the difficulty of non-native speakers learning the language is going to dissuade a lot of people from moving there to start companies.

<comment><USER34> A lot of people study Japanese, think Japan is really cool, and would enjoy living there, I think. I think Korea is behind Japan in these trends but catching up.

I do agree, though, that Japan does have a reputation of being not very inviting to foreigners that is to some degree deserved. I don't know as much about S. Korea in this regard.

Japan could probably do much to solve some of their looming economic problems (low birth rate and rapidly aging population, for example) by allowing more people to immigrate and integrate into Japanese society and culture. Especially entrepreneurial, technology loving types who could contribute a lot to Japan's high tech economy.

<comment><USER32> I lived in Japan for 6 years and found that it's quite an easy place to live in (and I lived in both a rural/industrial backwater as well as the Tokyo megapolis - Tokyo was much more fun). Yes, you do always feel like a foreigner but you also do not feel the pressure to conform to every norm like a typical Japanese person would. There are some signs that Japan is opening up more. For example, when I started working there you had to have your visa renewed every year, by the time I left it was possible to renew for 3 years.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Paul, you always speak of acquisition of a startup by a big company. What possibilities exist for startups merging? Is it common, or do you expect it to be?

I know a couple other startups in my town (one of your big 3) who do similar things to my startup. Thanks to the public (link-happy!) structure of the web, we already let people go from one to the other: a loose ad-hoc integration. Will this be the future of cooperative web software development?

<comment><USER36> > What possibilities exist for startups merging?

Sure they can merge, but this is not an "exit". As far as I know, the _purpose_ of a startup is a successful exit of some type.

<comment><USER35> It is if they do it a couple times. Ever try folding a piece of paper in half 5 times? It's how Google might have formed, if they had started acquisition instead of interview-hiring sooner.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> n-alexander Hi Paul,

I'm not quite with you on universities.

I haven't been to US education system, but I don't think you get to know stuff like Fourier series or why inverting a matrix is unstable, etc., until you get through a university. And such stuff is important in high tech. Unless you're into web sites that host user generated videos. Being in video hosting pays off, for some, but it's not what I'd call high tech. I mean, it isn't a new UNIX, or a new Internet, or a new CPU design.

Those bigger, more interesting things were done by people who'd been to universities, and I think there's a reason to it.

Those startups started by undergrads, they may very well make money and produce cool apps and products, but I doubt they will drive technology.

I recently found I wasn't keeping up with new languages any more. Not because I've become too lazy, but because there aren't any new concepts in all those Pythons. Those are products of smart hackers, and new concepts are done by scientific kind, who seem to be out of fashion today.

Thanks for your writing anyway.

Alexander

</comment><comment><USER37> Yes, I'm kind of fan of PG posts and this one is also cool. While I can argue a lot about what the future will bring for startups and hackers etc., I'm more interested into that "being in the hub". While I'm from Europe, I would like to know what would be the hub in the Europe (Maybe I'm writing in the wrong place but anyway) and if the cities/areas compete, how come that there are no Silicon Valley VCs present in Europe, if they are present in Israel?

While I like having in my mind all about good stuff from Silicon Valley, VC and tech folks, I would encourage Paul to write about bad things that can happen to hackers when they deal with VCs or Angels like dropping out of the Board, etc. it would be good to maybe prepare us tech folks to handle the truth that not all people will be good people around us that will try to invest in us, or are there only "good people" in Silicon Valley?

</comment><comment><USER38> This already happened to me. Early on I realized that grades weren't that important and the best thing about going to school was having time to take huge intellectual risks with few consequences. In addition to the basic computer science concepts I learned, I also took on personal projects that caught my interest.

Through these projects I learned new ways of making things using current technologies like Ruby on Rails, Python, Mapreduce, Amazon S3 (and friends), Lisp, and other technologies that someone simply fulfilling the graduate requirements would likely not have learned. I also met great people along the way who were far more impressive than any programmer, designer, or manager I've met in the industry.

Oddly enough, now I'm in grad school, hacking the iPhone for a degree.

Eventually, I imagine that my continual curiosity will bring me to the startup arena, or perhaps to the international sphere.

</comment><comment><USER39> In point 1 where Paul states there will be a lot of startups because it's cheap to startup, I have to wonder where is the demand side of the equation. Is there enough demand for whatever it is these startups are/will be doing? Hearing more about that would be very interesting; I'd love to see a world with many many more startups.

ak

<comment><USER40> The different thing about the web is that a biz doesn't need to be physically close to its customers. In fact, there frequently aren't any advantages to being close to said customers (or it's impossible to be close to all of them because they're spread out).

However, there are still advantages to a biz being close to itself and its resources.

The combination of those to things means that startup hubs will become stronger.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> "We know because we make people move for Y Combinator, and it doesn't seem to be a problem. The advantage of being able to work together face to face for three months outweighs the inconvenience of moving. Ask anyone who's done it."

Hello, Paul. I'm selection bias. We haven't met formally, but you're obviously acquainted with me.

</comment><comment><USER42> >> One of the most important things we've been working on standardizing are investment terms. <<

I can see this being very beneficial, both for the VCs and the startups. The standardization of terminology in any discipline or field allows the people in it to have their lingo easily referenced and indexed, increasing efficiencies. Who wants to wade through a bunch of superfluous gibberish to get to the point?

In grad school, I remember having the realization that every discipline has it's own little shorthand lingo. I remember thinking about how confusion can result when there are clashes/overlaps in, for example, acronyms.

>>An angel who wants to insert a bunch of complicated terms into the agreement is probably not one you want anyway.<<

Exactly: reducing complexity, not increasing it, seems a better objective.

<comment><USER34> "In grad school, I remember having the realization that every discipline has it's own little shorthand lingo. I remember thinking about how confusion can result when there are clashes/overlaps in, for example, acronyms."

I've long ago lost track of all the different meanings I've run into for the word "feature", for example. Practitioners of various academic disciplines (or even in the same discipline but for a different theory) use this term for all kinds of things with absolutely no connection to each other. I nominate this for most overloaded academic term.

Any other nominees?

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> Many influential and smart guys like Paul are saying that starting your own company today got a lot cheaper, but what does it mean in practice?

While it depends on a nature of the business you are starting, in many cases "build something quick" advice does not work as well as advertised IMO: for most non-trivial ideas "something quick" still means a few months of full time commitment which means tens of thousands of dollars that many "younger nerdish" founders _still_ do not have.

I guess what I am saying is that a million dollars is no different from fifty thousand when that's the money you need but do not have. Sure it probably easier to find an external investor with 50 grand, but is it really? Especially for "nerdier" types?

This is why YComb exists, but that is only about 30 deals a year.

</comment><comment><USER44> This essay argues against local YC clones, which I think is at odds with another point he's made. As he says in "Why to not not etc", the most powerful reason people get regular jobs is because they're conventional. Local YC clones can make startups vastly more conventional by supporting hackers who aren't ready to take the leap and move.

Furthermore, I'd like to point out that even if local YC clones perform worse than YC, there may still be a market for them. State governments pay much more than YC (monetary) costs to encourage YC effects. Local VCs demand more startups, and people to tell them which startups to invest in. And as I argued above, many YC-caliber hackers would be interested in a local YC knockoff, but not YC itself.

</comment><comment><USER45> Startling, arresting and direct as always. Thank you.

The one thing I find interesting is the overall theme that seems to pervade many of these essays--mainly that all trends are moving to increase the importance of hackers. While this is true for now, I think the more the web evolves and the easier it becomes for non-hackers or even technologists to build apps and start companies then the advantage potentially moves strongly to those that understand consumers and markets. Which may well be hackers, but also may not depending on the app--as has been pointed out in the past by Josh Kopelman the Tech Crunch 50,000 of 2006 (or even 550,000 of 2007) is not the mass market.

Thanks again--nothing I read provokes more intense thought than your essays.

</comment><comment><USER46> _Google has by far the best programmers of any public technology company. If they don't have a problem doing acquisitions, the others should have even less problem. However many Google does, Microsoft should be doing ten times as many._

I actually think Microsoft does.

<comment><USER18> I heard Carl Schramm (the economist) give a talk on Tuesday, and IIRC he said that MS buys six to ten startups per month. Most big companies are buying startups like crazy now though, even the ones you'd never expect. For example, even Proctor & Gamble buys around 100 startups per year.

<comment><USER47> Mostly like in Bioscience they are buying patents ( P&G ) so that is not really comparable to web startups

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> Great essay. Maybe a new startup should be something like one of the microfinance sites like Kiva (<http://www.kiva.org/about/microfinance>) but instead of people making loans, they purchase equity in a startup. All the startups put their "pitch" on the web site and let people read the pitch and decide if they want to purchase equity in the company. If not enough $ comes in, the pitch was not compelling or they are not giving enough equity for the $$. One challenge will be to have a system where getting funding is not just about who can make a slick pitch, but about "real value" (how ever you measure that). Pat

</comment><comment><USER49> also - i felt there was too much focus on the 22 year old hacker set - this is a segment not the only segment of hungry, savvy, smart entreps. A real solution to the leaky pipe problem needs to include the slightly older pipes as well.

</comment><comment><USER50> The title of the talk (or article) is "future of web startups" and most of what is in it is satisfyingly accurate and perhaps marginally prescient. Except for the jump to the gushing, meritocratic tubes of the future. This much is true about startups; they are high-risk high-reward options, with the risk basically come down to around monetary opportunity cost now. Smart people definitely have a better chance at succeeding at these and college is not necessary for success at startups. Read that again. Success at startups. What most young people (I am in my mid-twenties and almost definitely going down the start-up trail so I do not speak from any graying high horse) do not understand is that priorities change as you age. And not just fuzzy notions of priority engendered by cultural forces, but those fostered by your own biology. There is literature, and longitudinally applied common sense, suggesting so. The opportunity cost of foregoing college is changing, not evaporating. Yes you can pick most of those lessons on the web, and the elitist cachet of iv(or)y league schools is losing its allure. In fact, you don't need to live in a dorm to have an immersive social experience, not that many here do anyways. The oppurtunity cost is that of being thrust into social situations with people whose interests and desires don't align with yours. It is about being part of a tribe for four or more years and finding a niche to flourish within that tribe. Most geeks don't get this anyways, and the evolutionarily obtained multiple equilibria of personalities are partitioned into the black and white of nerds and jocks. OK, not all are that extreme,but branding the gentle friction of shallow social interactions as 'fake' is rather blinkered. That is an opinion, or even a delusion, and may suit some well, but do understand that what works for some does not work for all. We can all of course go on with our sheltered lives deciding not understanding why some cultural institutions have evolved (and why their need may eventually be obviated) and it cannot be a bad life. An ignorant life is in fact a blissful one isn't it? But to distort and distill the argument into catchy trade-off: "startups leads to success; college leads to catalepsy" is not even apples and oranges. ..

One last thing: Recognize that success is a shape-shifting beast.

</comment><comment><USER51> The proliferation of startups also exposes a need for better integration. If signing up for accounts and remembering usernames/passwords for a dozen different sites is a pain, think about doing that for hundreds!

<comment><USER52> That's what OpenID is for.

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> Paul:

Look out, oldsters with all your real world money and stuff, Reality 2.0 is on its way, and it doesn't look good for slow-moving dinosaurs. I, for one, welcome our new 20-something overlords. I cross-posted on your piece to <http://blog.innovators-network.org> The Innovators Network is a non-profit dedicated to bringing technology to startups, small businesses, non-profits, venture capitalists and intellectual property experts. Please visit us and help grown our community!

Best wishes for continued success,

Anthony Kuhn Innovators Network

</comment><comment><USER54> "standardized procedures" are a very, very important thing. I founded five small companies in the last 15 years and helped a few other founders to start their businesses. One of the big problems i never found a solution for within the process of "standardization starting a startup" is having a tool for the organisation of all the companies' information - i needed a "mini-SAP" for that and i found nothing. So i startet vitool.com. What kind of _software_ do you suggest for your founders, that is simple & cheap and can grow with them?

</comment><comment><USER24> The funny thing about a great metaphor is that it somehow makes it easier to draw conclusions. If Paul had only said, "A startup now can be just a pair of 22 year old guys, so they can move to a new town pretty easily, so we'll probably see more clustering of startups, not less" then you'd nod and continue on. But instead he said this about startup hubs: "the particles they're attracting are getting lighter." Suddenly you can see it and feel it: move your startup to Palo Alto! Buy real estate in Mountain View! It's so obvious!

</comment><comment><USER55> I love the image of the big straight pipe. However, it's worth noting that no market operates at perfect efficiency, and even in the big straight pipe there will be leaks. What's most interesting to me about this image of the future is where the arbitrage opportunities will be around the edges of the future pipe. Because they will certainly be there. You have to wonder what the aggressively ambitious entrepreneurial types will be doing once "tomorrow's startup" becomes equivalent to "today's college education and job."

</comment><comment><USER56> "Knowing that risk is on average proportionate to reward, investors like risky strategies, while founders, who don't have a big enough sample size to care what's true on average, tend to be more conservative."

I don't think that's the only reason founders want to keep risk low.

The most important reason is that money has diminishing effect on happiness. People want to be able to guarantee a "moderate" life. What comes beyond that is not as important basic needs.

</comment><comment><USER57> So much to think about. One niggling question I have is related to the definition of "start ups". I've heard and read varying opinions. Is a start up a new business with an idea to execute on the web or is a start up a company that executes an idea on the the web or is it both or neither? Depending on the definition of start up, there will be vastly different business models, challenges and economic opportunities.

<comment><USER58> The major difference between a business and a startup is that a startup is intended to scale extremely quickly.

<comment><USER59> That is probably inaccurate. A startup is a fledging business.

If you are instead saying that a big company is not designed to scale as fast as a small company/startup then that is perhaps inaccurate too, especially if you were to determine scaling as a function of headcount and/or revenue.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> > Acquirers will also have to get better at picking winners.

Hrm... one of the things that makes markets work so well is that it brings "the wisdom of crowds" to bear, and doesn't require small, homogeneous groups to attempt to pick winners. So something about that section raises a flag in my head - if there are more startups in the future, maybe more of them will have to go it alone, instead of this "easy out" of being bought?

<comment><AUTHOR> Aren't acquirers a crowd?

<comment><USER11> Maybe, but orders of magnitude smaller than most markets.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> It's always been less risky (though perhaps harder) for younger people to forsake a corporate job and do a startup. They have less to lose. So if the degree of "courage" needed to do startup is going down, doesn't that suggest more older people with families and corporate jobs doing startups? (not that's mutually exclusive with more young nerds. more startups means more founders...of all types).

</comment><comment><USER60> I the article is pretty much spot on; especially the part about how big companies suck the life out of innovation. Having worked in both environments myself; I even worked at a startup that went from nothing, to an IPO and then being acquired by a big company. There aren't words in the English dictionary that can fully explain how the business and the people changed over the years.

</comment><comment><USER61> I'm currently in uni and have been thinking of starting up a biz as soon as I graduate and as Paul pointed out my goal has actually made me learn stuff in uni instead of trying to get the best grades to impress employers.

It would also be a great change to see technological universities align their teaching to help students startup companies instead of preparing them for 9-5 work.

</comment><comment><USER62> I dont think starting startups gets cheaper.

The whole essay is based on this idea. But Paul gives no reasons, why there should be a such a trend.

<comment><USER26> Moore's Law, open source, more abstract languages, the web for promotion. (I believe this list is in the Wikipedia entry for YC.)

<comment><USER63> so its cheaper for software startups only, then?

<comment><USER64> Hardware development, prototyping, and testing is cheaper for a number of reasons.

Cheap CAD tools, cheap custom boards, processized manufacturing.

Most people drastically underappreciate how much China has helped innovation in this regard.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER64> >> "Sometimes it literally is software, like Hacker News and our application rating system."

You have software to rate the applications?

<comment><USER9> I assume he just means that the administrative interface to the submission system lets them record scores for each application they review.

<comment><USER64> yah... 7\. Better Judgement Needed

If the number of startups increases dramatically, then the people whose job is to judge startups are going to have to get better at it. I'm thinking particularly of investors and acquirers. We now get on the order of 1000 applications a year. What are we going to do if we get 10,000?

That's actually an alarming idea. But we'll figure out some kind of answer. We'll have to. It will probably involve writing some software, but fortunately we can do that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER65> Great essay...there is only one point I disagree with and that deals with elite universities. The same argument that is applied to startup hubs applies to elite universities (which usually happen to be in these hubs). The competitive advantage of finding a better cofounder or employee is one that should not be passed up on.

</comment><comment><USER66> Another trend: as start-ups veterans become more common, they will form a group of people who are not reliant on organizations for their livelihood. Like Jefferson's agrarian ideal of individual farmers living off the land, those citizens who control their own destiny through technology will be enjoy the greatest liberty.

</comment><comment><USER67> Paul excellent essay but I disagree on one point. A college education is more than learning about business. It is to be informed to make better decisions re public issues. The elite college issue is very true. Note how most VCs and investment bankers tout their "Ivy" pedigree. Very few of them could start a lemonade stand.

<comment><USER26> I certainly don't think a college education is a matter of learning about _business._ Where did I say that?

</comment></comment><comment><USER68> There is a fundamental flaw in academic education given today's speed of change.

So I couldn't agree more to your 8th point on the future of colleges!

I am a professor at a German University of Applied Sciences for 7 years now and a serial entrepreneur and business angel of 9 start ups.

</comment><comment><USER69> Do you have any comments on the similarity in ideas which early founders share. Essentially an idea emerges out of ones experience of life. Most of life's problems are out of context for undergrads. I am 22 ear old myself, have started, but this thought is bugging me.

</comment><comment><USER70> Forgiving the possibility of alternate spellings I'm unaware of (e.g., "color" vs. "colour"), and despite the fact that I wish I had more to contribute, I would like to file a:

Pedantic Typo Report

The Future of Web Startups, Section 2. Standardization.

 _"In essense, let the market design the product."_

"essense" vs. "essence"

That is all.

</comment><comment><USER71> Nice article Paul. I always get many forwards from my longtime friend Frank Gerhardt about your articles. I like the way you compared the commodities and webstartups. I am in silycon valley and i know exactly what you are tallking about.

</comment><comment><USER72> I think what you say and how you say it is wise. you could help change education as we know it. but i guess, even in a subversive way, you are - <USER2> i just ruined it by talking about it.

thank you for your communication skills.

</comment><comment><USER36> This was unexpectedly quite good. It hit some points that I've been feeling strongly about for a while.

I found the warning that it's getting more risky to just sit on ideas and not act inspiring. Will be doing extra coding tonight!

</comment><comment><USER73> Hi paul,

I have enjoyed all ur essays and am fascinated by how insightful they are. I am graduating from college in december with a bachelors in electronics. Could u please recommend some of the books which have helped evolve ur thinking to this level.

Thanks

Gaurav

</comment><comment><USER49> on the topic of starting a startup right out of college - being a rich kid of course would have its many advantages - but thats a given in all aspects of life - thus moot point - here is where the US Gov can and in some cases does offer some help. You can call up the US loan dept., and tell them you having a hard time paying the loan because you quit your lame job and are starting a business and they will defer the loan payments for a while, I did it and it works.

In the future maybe they could offer this to entice more young people to start companies.

</comment><comment><USER74> The same old mistake, assuming a transitory boomlet will continue forever.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> "I think acquirers may eventually have chief acquisition officers who will both identify good acquisitions and make the deals happen."

I know of one company that already has this, with a different title.

<comment><USER75> This is common practice in biotech and life sciences businesses, and probably in any other field where innovation happens at a rapid rate.

</comment></comment><comment><USER76> Problem: you're confining your thinking entirely to "web" startups. This irritates me, as one currently involved in a non-web oriented startup. The world is bigger than the web.

<comment><USER58> He did present on the topic "The Future of Web Startups" at a conference called "The Future of Web Apps." Perhaps you can forgive his limited perspective.

<comment><USER76> True enough. It just irritates me occasionally that the startup community seems overly focused on the web. There is a lot more out there that can be done than just web sites.

<comment><USER77> Examples?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER78> Yet another essay on startups, by PG... It appears that essays tend to be cheaper to make, as time goes on, too (thanks to, you know, copy/paste). I couldn't find any ideas here that hadn't been expressed elsewhere in your writings or wasn't self-evident. We want more crazy controversial stuff, like the last (brilliant) one on philosophy!

Ideas for new subjects:

\- "google is dead";

\- "how to fund painters";

\- "all things considered, java rocks";

\- "vaporware, or why I gave up arc";

\- "return of the web 1.0"

There are plenty of weird ideas that only wait for PG to write clever stuff on them! Seriously, I don't know why people like FOWA, whoever that is, actually pay you to listen to the same old story...

<comment><USER20> I didn't downmod you. But I guess the reason people are downmodding you might be for the way you said things rather than what you are trying to say.

And oh, the part about ideas for new subjects... ok. I am wondering why I didn't downmod you now.

<comment><USER78> Ok, let's prentend I didn't write the stupid suggestions (which i still find funny). The fact remains, this essay is basically a compilation of ideas already expressed by PG, who needs to know that some of his fans are disappointed... Mod it up, if you want good writing!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER79> This essay definitely gives me a sense of fear and dread. What Paul makes out to be a good thing, really gives me a nasty reaction. Startups becoming ubiquitous? If startups really become so prevalent, I feel like it's not necessarily worth doing. Aren't there only so many things that web startups can do? I'm afraid of startups becoming "the cool thing to do," for students in technical fields. College starting to game students specifically for working on startups. 1000 applications, 10000 applications, it stops becoming novel, it feels like a sellout.

</comment><comment><USER80> PG: Shouldn't that be Brian, not Ryan (Oberkirch)?

</comment><comment><USER81> the trouble with the big pipe theory ..personally I'm living in hope it turns up one morning..is most everybody LIKE the leaks twists and bends, believing rightly or wrongly, taking time's their insurance policy (albeit a cracked Crystal ball) www.peterbainbridge.com

</comment><comment><USER82> I think this is what Clayton Christensen called "the law of conservation of attractive profits."

</comment><comment><USER83> well, i hope he's right about startups becoming more pervasive.

i'd love to be on the bandwagon already, but i don't meet a lot of the qualifications. if the bar is lowered just a LITTLE bit, i am so there.

<comment><USER51> The only qualification that you don't meet is confidence! If you say you can't, then you won't.

<comment><USER83> that's a nice attitude, and generally i agree.

by "don't qualify," i mean i'm not really into the game the same way as the companies ycombinator seems to fund. for example, i'm not that excited about writing web apps, it just doesn't appeal to me. i think there are important sectors that could benefit from a bunch of startups that paul has completely written off, because he thinks it's less lucrative, i guess. well, i'm willing to take a LOT less money to do something i'm actually interested in, rather than learning ruby on rails, say.

<comment><AUTHOR> You're very specific about what you won't do, but very vague about what you will do. Why?

<comment><USER83> erm, because it seems off-topic here?

this is paul's world. i like reading about the energy and creativity involved in web startups. i personally think that narrowing the field to just web startups is short-sighted, but that's not my call to make, certainly not here.

<comment><USER84> Web apps are probably the most common because the barrier to entry is very low, but the field really seems to be more "software" rather than "only web apps". Xobni is desktop software, Loopt is mobile software, Justin.tv is (as I understand it) a mix of hardware and web streaming.

Interestingly, those also seem to be some of the higher profile projects.

<comment><USER83> well, that's certainly encouraging.

i'm personally more drawn to "real" software that runs on desktops and servers. web stuff is nice, but it doesn't fit the way i think as a programmer.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER72> i like what you say. your argument for speeding up tech and all...one of the best articles (it came at the perfect time)i have read in a long time.

</comment><comment><USER85> Awesome essay/speech!

I haven't spent one penny or any time on/in college!

</comment><comment><USER86> Looks like Moscow will soon be renamed to New-Vasiuky

</comment><comment><USER87> Eye openning.

</comment><comment><USER88> The following is 100% true and accurate: <br><br> 1\. start-ups are in fact cheaper now. register at facebook.com, learn how to use their API, and create a facebook app. there is your start-up for the cost of how long it takes you to program the API and any other additional costs, which aren't much. storage is almost free now, and all the other web services you could dream of exist and on the cheap.<br> 2\. current pedagogy s __*s. i'm about to complete a degree from a "prestigious" silicon valley school (marketing/finance) and i can tell you that most lectures are regurgitations of what we read in our over priced text books. additionally, stanford and berkeley (to name just 2 of many more) post many of their lectures online FOR FREE. so in effect, you can actually get a stanford or berkeley education for the price of your computer and internet connection. the autodidacts will have even more access to free information and knowledge, and anyone who focuses more on a meaningful education instead of a brand name/good grades will get the better education. i tell most of my professors to just help me get C's because, after all, no employer is going to ask me what my GPA was 5 years after graduation. why should i care now? plus, the internet has so much more information that most university classrooms that spending my time on the computer all day will actually make me smarter than sitting in most any classroom. but the people still do make the education worth it in some sense. i've met everyone of my partners on campus. and if you're genuinely interested in other people you will meet a lot of cool people who will shape the world. many of the leaders of tomorrow are at a keg party on a college campus right now. <br> 3\. most start-ups don't start off as 8 hour a day 40 hour a week gigs. so it's not always necessary to just finish school or drop out entirely to do your start- up. most kids or people will start a company in their spare time. i've already started 3 that way. when you have a good idea sleep isn't as important or necessary, so the work will be done after work or between classes. the only time you drop out of school or quit your job is if the start-up actually has some success and a lot of promise. and the advantage is definitely with the younger, unmarried, childless, crowd. we don't have as much responsibility other than our own selfish needs. in other words, keep it in your pants if you want to increase your chances for success. the world isn't fair, don't cry. and when you get married your testosterone decreases, any way. google search it (hint site: newscientist.com/channel/sex/love)<br> 4\. web start-ups are a good thing to write about in the context of this essay because the are so damned comparatively easy to do. give me another example? a biotech company? a nanotech company? a traditional, bricks and mortar company where you have lots of PPE? storage space is nearly free, we have things like google adsense, social networks are great mediums for free, viral, guerrilla marketing, ruby on rails, etc etc etc. all of you griping about a lack of representation in other areas are being ridiculous. stop griping and come up with an idea instead of complaining. none of you will probably ever succeed in a start-up with that kind of attitude. your chances of success are already, statistically, a rare event at 5%. but if you cheer up and take a look at all the positive things this essay mentions your chances for success immediately pick right up. name one successful (truly, in every sense of the word) person who does nothing but complain and gripe about things. <br><br> and lastly, a shameless plug, if you enjoyed my insights check out my new blog at quantumcreative.blogspot.com <br><br> cheers -

</comment><comment><USER89> "JOIN ME MY MINIONS! ITS IN YOUR INTEREST!" - P.G.

</comment><comment><USER90> that was excellent!</comment>


Learn new words and shorten URLs at the same time... - <AUTHOR> http://s.mashd.cc/

<comment><USER2> Interesting and fun.

You get to see the words before you enter the URL, which gives you some choice in matching up words to URLs. I also noticed that it lets you add the same URL twice:

<http://s.mashd.cc/nonsubstantiality>

<http://s.mashd.cc/mispage>

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, it lets you use the same URL twice - bit.ly does the same. Potentially different people want to share the same link and see their own stats:

<http://s.mashd.cc/stats/nonsubstantiality> <http://s.mashd.cc/stats/mispage>

...although I see I have a but with the impact calculation :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> What will happen when it eventually runs out of words? Or will the links expire after a certain amount of time?

<comment><AUTHOR> there are ~230k words. once it runs out will start randomly hyphenating two words togther. in the mean time I'm looking at using wordnik's API for word selection - apparently they have ~4M.</comment></comment>


Calculators for Contractors, Builders, Remodelers, Carpenters, Woodworkers - <AUTHOR> https://www.blocklayer.com/ <comment><USER2> So for lots of things like stairs and rafters you can use a good framing square [http://www.johnsonlevel.com/News/FramingSquare](http://www.johnsonlevel.com/News/FramingSquare)

My goto build device is the speed square [https://www.popularmechanics.com/home/how- to/a3999/4306646/](https://www.popularmechanics.com/home/how- to/a3999/4306646/)

And for fractions, thank you Mr Shimel for teaching how to do fraction math.

But I do have a construction calculator that will figure sq feet, cu feet for concrete. It's a standalone device for about $30, but there are a ton of builder apps out there.

<comment><USER3> In my lifetime I want to see the US convert to metric. It's so much easier.

<comment><USER4> I live in Canada where everything is metric. Contractors still use feet and inches. Concrete people talk about how many "yards" they are getting delivered (but the slips are in m³ – never figured that out).

I'd like to see the US switch as well, so that we can switch to 5x dimensional lumber

<comment><USER5> The Canadian experience is probably the short distance from the USA. Contractors in metric Australia use millimetres. If mm get a bit ridiculous then we use metres. The translation between the two is simple (1m = 1000mm). Context is usually enough to know which unit is being used.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I recently wanted something similar to this for drywalling.

I'm a DIY homeowner renovating my basement and adding an office.

There were a lot of rules regarding where/how to use floating corners, what screw lengths/diameters to use, where to place the screws, etc. It was really hard to keep them straight, and in some areas I used way more screws than is ideal.

The issue was further complicated by inconsistent advice from the Gypsum Association (the main trade group, AFAICT) and various contractors who post advice on Youtube, diy.stackexchange.com, etc.

I really wished for a website that let me enter the shape and framing details of my room, and have it show me an optimal plan for the shape / placement of drywall pieces, and the attachment method.

<comment><USER7> I've found many pros have quite a bit of disagreement over these kinds of details, and that this varies quite a bit by region as well - often for good reason. For example, the framing style, climate, and available materials in one region many dictate a different way of doing things than in another.

Many sheetrockers join sheets on studs or joists, but that puts the edge onto the structure, and increases the likelihood that the joint will fail, particularly in the ceiling. It's actually better to join the sheets between structural members with a plywood or osb spline that floats with the wall. This moves the joint off of the structural member and also makes for a flatter (if not flat) joint.

Really high end sheetrockers will put up 2 sheets of drywall. The first is glued and screwed onto the structure. The 2nd is glued and screwed to the first layer. The screws are then removed from the outer layer when the glue sets. This makes getting a pop impossible, and makes the soundproofing a lot better.

<comment><USER6> > It's actually better to join the sheets between structural members with a > plywood or osb spline that floats with the wall. This moves the joint off of > the structural member and also makes for a flatter (if not flat) joint.

When I was doing my research before starting to hang drywall, I had difficulty determining a few things about the various techniques being advocated:

\- Is the technique required for what I'd consider "normal" quality results? I.e., when I walk into most houses I just don't notice anything about the drywalling. I was shooting for that level of quality.

\- How well would the technique stand up over time, given the particulars about my climate, house age, framing style, etc.? I saw lots of confident statements about how the longevity / reliability of various techniques, but not much evidence that people had actually verified these statements empirically. (I.e., I saw few statements of the form "I've used technique X in over 200 houses in Georgia, and after 10 years I've only been made aware of problems with 3 of the jobs."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Pipe notching templates work exceedingly well (once you figure out printer scaling vagaries and measure multiple times) because you can just hack off what's marked on the outside of the pipe, and then take a grinding wheel to the inside angles until they fit flush with a sample pipe. But does anyone actually use a paper template to lay out dovetails?

</comment><comment><USER9> The design is outdated but this seems to be made in pure vanilla JS and all the diagrams are rendered on canvas without any third party library. Pretty impressive if that's the case.

</comment><comment><USER10> "The main Navigation tabs at top of each page are Metric versions of Calculators. If there's an Imperial version, directly under the main tab is a smaller 'Imperial' tab for the Feet and Inch version"

I think I'm too dumb to switch it to metric or I miss something.

</comment><comment><USER11> There probably are already some out there, but I would love to have all of these formulas on an app.

<comment><USER12> There is - my brother is a contractor and uses DEWALT Mobile Pro

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I clicked around a bit but I really disliked the experience.

At one point I thought I was clicking on a button to do something and it turns out that it was an ad and I was redirected to another site.

Resorting to dark patterns like this for ad clicks is scummy IMO.

</comment><comment><USER14> I've made extensive use of the stair calculators, this site is excellent. Built 2 sets of staircases with landings so far. I hadn't thought to explore the rest of the site, I see plenty here that will be useful in the future.

</comment><comment><USER15> 7 years ago I worked for a company that builds pumps. I spent days on [http://www.druckverlust.de/Online- Rechner/](http://www.druckverlust.de/Online-Rechner/)</comment>


The Tools You Really Need to Maintain Your Home - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/14/garden/14pragmatist.html?ref=general&src=me&pagewanted=all <comment><USER2> That list comes up a little short IMO. These are the tools I've had to buy since owning a house:

table saw, jigsaw, reciprocating saw, circular saw, cordless 18v drill/driver, cordless 18v impact driver, corded hammer drill, compound miter saw, dremel, air compressor, nail guns, wet/dry vac, clamps, levels, squares, plumb bob, pry bars, hammers, drill/driver bits, screwdrivers, chisels, torque wrench, pipe cutter, drywall saw, drywall sander, tape measures, stud finder, hack saw, coping saw, post hole digger, pliers (many kinds), wrenches (many kinds), drywall pan and drywall knives, putty knife, voltage tester, GFCI tester, caulking gun, respirator, work lights, tin snips, 12v battery charger, 20 ton bottle jacks.

<comment><USER3> We had an excellent discussion on another (private, sorry) forum with regards to a member who wanted to put together a toolbox for his daughter before she went to college.

The general consensus tended to sway towards the smaller, less glamorous items, and your list would have fit right in. Yes, everyone should have a drill, but it's hard to hang shelves with that drill when you don't have a studfinder or a level. Anyone who's working with a saw is going to need those clamps you mentioned, and probably a ruler or tape measure.

As a geek, my personal toolbox favorite is a headlamp. (And in my age bracket, having a really comfortable allen wrench set is great for moving IKEA furniture.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> A cordless drill won't last you a 'lifetime' it'll last until the battery pack dies and you discover they no longer make compatible ones.

Buy a good corded drill and extension cords and it really will last a lifetime.

<comment><USER5> Cordless drills are one of the few purchases in life that bring real happiness. They're not perfect, but drilling a small hole or driving a screw in seconds as opposed to fiddling with extension cords is bliss.

<comment><USER6> I am still to this day happy with my $300 18v cordless dewalt with an easy self locking chuck. I thought I'd have buyers remorse with that price tag, but I tell you, when you end up needing to frame a basement, put up sheetrock or basically do anything past a simple job, it's money well spent.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> If your hammer is delivering shock to your elbow you are using it wrong. And I don't believe that wood vs. metal makes any difference anyway.

Also, one drawback to jigsaws is that they don't cut straight lines. This is a benefit if you want a curve, but if you are trying to make a 2 foot cut in wood it will wander all over with a jigsaw. You can get a fence to help, but I think the goal is reducing tools not adding more.

I personally would have both.

<comment><USER8> Jigsaws are perfectly capable of doing straight lines. I remember helping my dad and uncle build a picnic table back in the 80s with little more than a heavy duty jigsaw, a sturdy work bench, and lots of 2x4s. Its a matter of making sure that whatever you're cutting is secured.

<comment><USER9> yes and no. The jigsaw I have has a little support wheel with a groove in it down near the work surface that helps support the blade. Also a certain amount of proficiency helps. The first time I used a jigsaw I found that it was real easy to unintentionally cause a bit of twisting in the blade. Using an edge guide helps a lot as well.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> _if you have teenagers, add a combination lock._

If your children don't know how to respect your stuff and use hand tools properly by the time they're teenagers, you have failed as a parent.

I have to disagree with the recommendation for the DeWalt drill as well. Black and Decker makes a comparable drill that's half the price. The DeWalt is better - perhaps twice as good, but you don't need it if you're reading this article.

<comment><USER6> Sorry, but I was raised in a very tool-friendly house where this was instilled in me. However, when I was a teenager I still managed to lose tools in the trunk of my car or wherever for a few months. Long enough to need replacing. I don't think this is in any way an indication that my dad failed as a parent. I think it's just an indication that sometimes life can get busy and cleaning up after yourself everytime doesn't always happen.

<comment><USER10> I've done that with my own tools, as an adult. I have not observed that being a specific age makes this sort of thing more likely. To avoid losing your tools, make anyone who uses them agree to put them away _immediately_ after use (yourself included).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I think list varies with the phase of home ownership

\- Buying a new house - his list is probably good

\- Renting an apartment - his list is probably good

\- Buying a pre-owned house - I needed way more tools - ladder, tool belt is essential, box saw, hand saw, wire cutters, safety glasses, circular saw, mini vans (fold down seats) are as "good" as truck for carrying stuff, hand sander, saw horses, outlet tester

As time has gone on we have needed less and less tools, but having them around makes everything easier.

</comment><comment><USER12> I need a plane.

I've a door that sticks, the hinges haven't moved, it seems the door has swelled or warped somehow. I can't trim it with the jigsaw, it's too fine a cut. Hammer and chisel is too rough, I'm not a carpenter by a long stretch. I could sand it for a couple of hours but again it wouldn't be straight and even.

Any suggestions that avoid me buying a plane for this one job?

<comment><USER6> Electric sander, or a good sanding block. But really, $25 for a decent planer is worth not having a sticking door!

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Aww, how cute, recommendations for people with _new_ houses.

I note they don't include the tuck-pointing trowel or a plaster skim, but you people in houses built last century probably don't need those. (Mine was built century _before_ last, and I can't live without my trowels and many, many bags of mortar and plaster.)

Also: no paintbrushes?

</comment><comment><USER14> for most people, a Black and Decker cordless screwdriver is enough, really. For big-job drills, instead of deWalt, get Makita impact driver 18v Lithium, compact, light, better grip, and a ton of power.

Hammer: article is spot on. Most under-rated tool. Get used all the time and yet most people buy the cheapest type.

<comment><USER13> I buy the cheapest type because I lose them constantly. I subscribe to the "saturation" model of losing things - keep buying the item until it saturates your environment and you starting finding hammers as fast as you lose them.

(In my defense, I have a big house and it's still mostly uninhabited - I just found a hammer in the master bathroom that I'd left there three months ago. I hadn't _been_ there for three months; there's no working plumbing yet.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I'd add a pair of channel locks to cover %50-%70 of your DIY plumbing needs.

</comment><comment><USER16> I can fix anything with a hammer.

<comment><USER17> I accidentally melted a diode by hooking it up directly to an electrical outlet. Can you fix it with a hammer? Bear in mind that it has melted.

Fixing a broken heart with a hammer would probably be easier.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> you could probably buy all this stuff for under $100 a harbor freight. Lame article

<comment><USER18> actually I just added it up, $60</comment></comment>


Responding to Wired's ad hominem hatchet job - <AUTHOR> http://paranoia.dubfire.net/2012/08/responding-to-wireds-ad-hominem-hatchet.html <comment><USER2> Without a lot of prior context, this seems like a clear-headed rebuttal to an otherwise pretty low ad hominem attack.

On a specific note, to characterise someone as sexist because they disagree with someone who happens to be a woman is in my opinion itself one of the most egregious examples of both sexism (for reasons I'll detail) and libel (for the damaging political and social impact of being branded with such a label).

First, throwing the term 'sexist' around carelessly undermines genuine claims of sexism. Second, it attempts to not only target an individual as sexist, but often the male gender as a whole as being part of a "misogynistic boys-club", in turn implying that masculine identity itself is inherently wrong. Third, it undermines genuine gender equality - if people are concerned about their criticisms being perceived as sexist they will refrain from open and honest critique which is the hallmark of colleagues and equals. Fourth, it assumes (paternalistically) a gender role for women as "poor persecuted girls" who need protecting from criticism and attack. Consequently, sexual inequality is perpetuated - after all, if this same criticism had been targeted at a male journalist would we expect to see responses such as "you're only picking on him because he's a man"?

There are plenty of genuine cases of sexism (against male, female, and other gender identities) which emerge out of the obsolescence of traditional social roles. Leveraging the political sensitivity of this important issue to attack an opponent is pretty low.

<comment><USER3>
      > First, throwing the term 'sexist' around carelessly
      > undermines genuine claims of sexism.

The same goes for rasism. We are at the stage, that merely acknowledging someone's sex or race will earn you these labels. Too bad.

<comment><USER4> An the same goes for antisemitism. In America, [publicly] write anything critical of the Israeli government and you are labeled an anti-Semite.

<comment><USER5> Criticizing the actions of any government is what it is, but many critics of Israel go so far as to say there should be no Jewish state, which in effect means the Jews should be a people without a homeland, forever vulnerable to extermination by the Gentiles they are forced to live amongst as an eternal minority. That alone is suspicious as it carries the shadow of antisemitism, but once you throw in explicit support for groups like Hamas, the picture becomes clearer.

Except for a brief moment of shame after World War II, the general attitude of the West has always been antisemitic. Those seeking to criticize the actions of the Israeli government _should_ have to work harder to distinguish themselves from the antisemites who merely disguise their attitudes as criticism of Israel.

<comment><USER6> Criticizing the entire idea of a theocracy, and that a religion should (of course) have a homeland to dominate, does not make you an antisemite, nor covered with antisemitism "shadow." More an antisemitism smear.

Now, I am suspicious of the people who are irate about Israel as a Jewish state, but are all about the Dalai Lama. I don't see how that makes sense unless you have something against Jewish people.

<comment><USER5> The child of a Jewish mother is Jewish regardless of their religion, and this applies recursively, so you can have generation after generation of secular Jews as long as there's an unbroken matrilineal line. So Israel is not a homeland for a religion, it is a homeland for a nationality.

Sure, a convert to Judaism is also a Jew. But Judaism is explicitly not a religion for everyone, it is only a religion for the Jews. So if you believe in Judaism but have no desire to be a Jew yourself, you can just follow the Noahide laws. Actually becoming a Jew entails an extra step beyond that, namely the intention to join the Jewish nation. So not even in the case of conversion can the Jewish nation be equivalent to Judaism.

In practice, Israel is also just as secular as any Western country. No theocracy to be found there. This is more than you can say for, say, England, which has a state-established church with the monarch at its head.

<comment><USER6> >The child of a Jewish mother is Jewish regardless of their religion, and this applies recursively, so you can have generation after generation of secular Jews as long as there's an unbroken matrilineal line.

So it's just racist? I prefer to think of it as a theocracy that preserves a culture that has been historically very endangered. That, I don't feel as bad about.

>it is a homeland for a nationality.

If you, by law, make being a member of a religion a sufficient qualification for citizenship in a nation, this is self-fulfilling.

<comment><USER5> A theocracy is a government that governs based upon the dictates of religious doctrine. The Israeli government does not do this in any way, shape, or form. It is as secular as most Western countries.

Most nationalities are passed down by descent. If this constitutes racism, then so does the citizenship law of every nation that grants the right of citizenship to the children of a citizen. Nearly every country does this, so there is no reason to single out Israel unless you are trying to enforce a double standard.

Some nationalities allow outside individuals to join, and the Jewish nation is one of these. Like any nation, the Jewish nation has steep requirements of cultural belief and assimilation in order to join, namely conversion to the Jewish religion. But this is not merely a matter of belief. A Gentile who merely believes in Judaism is still not a Jew until they formally convert (i.e. joins the nation), just as an otherwise qualified foreigner who can pass the US citizenship exam is still not an American until they take the test and swear the oath to become a naturalized citizen.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> There is nothing I can find in Soghoian's two posts that are any sort of criticism of Patterson, the security expert. It seems to be a huge and false claim of Wired's that there is any criticism of Patterson.

Soghoian does criticize the reporter, who is a woman.

Apparently for Wired, when you criticize one of their reporters, and their editor it's all out war to the death and here they played the gender card.

It was either that or admit their mistake.

<comment><USER8> Seems simple to me. If you call us out for terrible reporting, we'll slander you as a sexist. Welcome to my hosts file Wired.

<comment><USER9> >Welcome to my hosts file

Would you mind sharing your hosts file, or some sanitized subset of it?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Another response: <http://c1qfxugcgy0.tumblr.com/post/28976190142/oops>

      [Wired's rebuttal is] kinda annoying. Ryan Singel, old white guy, repeats
      Quinn Norton's gender (female) five separate times (she is a girl)
      because Sogohian, dirt-poor terrorism suspect, is apparently the
      chairman of the Patriarchy.[1] Hey, you know who else has white male
      privilege, Ryan? Editors at old-media print magazines.

</comment><comment><USER11> Reverse-sexism undermines and hurts the anti-sexist and female-friendly atmosphere that most of the tech community would like to foster. Gender discrimination and sexism need to be called out and stopped everywhere, but "crying wolf", without reason, weakens the very moral ground we purport to defend.

<comment><USER12> Indeed - I find Ryan Singel's attitude to be completely and utterly baffling. From his Wired post:

"Soghoian suggesting that if Quinn Norton ever wanted to write about about encryption tools in the future, she ought to "step back, take a deep breath, and pull the power cord from your computer" isn't just rude and obnoxious, it's border-line sexist"

Out of context, I can't really see what he's getting at. In context, the idea it's 'border-line' sexist makes no sense at all. Singel has chosen to infer sexism under the mis-guided impression it's targeting one of his writers, but in fact the quote is pretty clearly intended to be read as a criticism of _all_ technology journalists.

<comment><USER13> "Borderline" _anything_ does not make any sense to me. It seems to be nothing more than a way to call somebody something with plausible deniability, I guess to protect against libel/slander suits?

The way I see it, being "borderline" to something means that it is "close" to something, but not _actually_ something. I guess an octagon could be a "borderline" circle? The issue here though is that if you are pointing out that something is "borderline sexist", you are basically saying _"it is not sexist, but it is close to it"_. What the hell does _"close to sexist"_ mean? Is being _"close to sexist"_ wrong? If yes, why isn't it just called _"sexist"_?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I know csoghoian personally. I found the rebuttal article from Wired to be absolutely abhorrent.

I do not speak for him, but I think you can safely assume that the vitriol reserved for Chris is somehow co-incident with his preference towards working with the WSJ to bring cogent computer security reporting to a wide audience. My impression is that Wired sees this as a US vs. THEM kind of thing.

Delivering secure solutions to an audience that is unaware of the risks is always a dodgy proposition. Better informed customers would improve the market for those solutions and keep vulnerable persons from over-trusting a flawed product. We all benefit when this happens.

Chris is asking for better reporting, not male reporters. A very big difference indeed.

</comment><comment><USER15> There's an interesting post at Cryptome that mentions crypto.cat - <http://cryptome.org/2012/07/chile-comments.htm> (apparently the Chilean police have some transcripts of conversations, and it's not clear how).

</comment><comment><USER16> I decided a while ago to stop reading Wired, after some ridiculous piece of hack journalism I can't even remember now. This makes me want to stop reading Wired again, but I can't do it twice.

This is like Sony all over again. I've been boycotting them for the past few years, and they _just keep doing things that make me want to boycott them_. When will someone invent the double boycott?

<comment><USER17> Dunno, but I've all too often had a Clayton's boycott - the boycott you have when you aren't having a boycott. Perhaps we could email each other to exchange ideas?

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Being sexist is bad.

Accusing a man of sexism just because he doesn't agree with a woman is worse.

<comment><USER19> This statement makes no sense to me. "Being sexist" encompases an absolutely huge range of behaviors. It could mean something as small as making a dumb assumption about what type of aesthetic preferences someone has, to something as large as making hiring decisions that can permanently stunt someone's career growth. It could even mean promulgating laws that legitimize violence against people.

Sexism is thus a category of bad behaviors, some of which are worse than anything I could imagine stemming from being accused of sexism. I am not saying that being falsely accused of sexism is nothing. It certainly would make me angry and frustrated to be so attacked. I just think false accusation of sexism is worse than the least severe forms of sexist behavior, and better than the most severe forms of sexists behavior.

Asserting that false accusations of sexism are always worse than sexism seems obviously false.

<comment><USER18> Mostly, I agree. Except with the part about (laws that legitimize) violence against people. In this case, the problem, IMO, is not sexism/discrimination, but violence as such.

I wrote the above mostly because I wanted to make a statement, and I wasn't in the mood for writing lengthy arguments. Also, from a purely philosophical point of view, where we analyze not the actions, but the motivations and principles behind them, the statement holds true, because accusing someone of being sexist is both sexism (belief that people of different sex differ in more than their most basic biology (which they maybe do, but that shouldn't be generalized)), and ad-hominem, which is (philosophically) worse than being just sexist.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> As usual Wired's brand of journalism is skin deep, at best. Any time they report on something I have a bit of expertise in, it's wildly inaccurate.

OP's tale sucks, but does not surprise me.

</comment><comment><USER21> Unfortunately, a lot of "tech journalists" are amateurs with exaggerated notions of self-worth because they have some readership. Like the hacked guy at Wired who was so clueless as to keep important data in one place (his Apple acct), but blames everybody else for his loss.

If you keep all your data on your MacBook and believes Apple will take care of the rest, you are not an expert, you are a fanboy that has no right to state your opinion publicly.

</comment><comment><USER22>
        > Today, Ryan Singel, the editor at Wired's Threat Level
        > blog responded to my blog post, but incorrectly frames
        > my criticism as if it were solely directed at Quinn
        > Norton and her coverage of Cryptocat.

Considering about half of your original article was strictly discussing Norton's coverage, I can see where he got that idea. Then your original piece includes this bit:

        > It isn't clear why Norton felt it wasn't necessary to
        > publish any dissenting voices. From her public Tweets,
        > it is however, quite clear that Norton has no love for
        > the crypto community, which she believes is filled
        > with "privileged", "mostly rich 1st world white boys
        > w/ no real problems who don't realize they only build
        > tools [for] themselves."

That's an attack on the author, don't you think? You just implied she neglected to include any criticism of the tool because she hates the crypto community. Not only does this illustrate your lack of understanding the concept of privilege, but it's rude and unnecessary, so I don't blame Ryan for taking offense.

For starters, Quinn wasn't trying to bury facts— the paragraph about how Cryptocat is an experiment is directly above the screenshot of the app, so it's fairly noticeable.

Second, your section titled "On the issue of privilege" _doesn't actually talk about privilege._ It talks about how two white men were stopped at the border to the US and one who had some of his devices seized. Her tweet was stating that maybe tools made by white men in first-world countries might not be able to adequately address the needs of less fortunate individuals under oppressive regimes.

So sure, it's great to call out projects that seem Too Good To Be True™, but multiple times you drew attention to Quinn's specific article, and even once needlessly quoted a few of her tweets. I don't see that attention paid to any other reporter, so Ryan's rebuttal is mostly on point.

<comment><USER23> _That's an attack on the author, don't you think?_

(Shrug) Quinn effectively attacked and discredited herself by posting that Tweet. It's fair to bring it up when suggesting that she might not be the most qualified person to write articles on subjects related to cryptography and information security.

If there are _any_ subjects that don't benefit from uninformed opinions posted by dilettantes, cryptography and security would be near the top of the list.

<comment><USER22>
        > Quinn effectively attacked and discredited herself by
        > posting that Tweet.

That comes off rather victim-blamey. Nothing about what she tweeted paints her as ill-informed. In fact, quite the opposite: I would argue the crypto community is _very_ privileged. It requires higher level education in a STEM field and access to modern computers.

<comment><USER24> Since we have that sorted out, can we then come to the core point of your argument here? Namely, what does this have to do with bad or good crypto?

Cryptography is math. Its no soft science where someone can push his agenda through careful interpretation of statistics. The background of the people researching it is irrelevant.

But none of that is important. Important is what happens when you use terrible crypto in a terrible country: your data will be siphoned off at the backend and western IT people with the same high level education will trivially decipher it.

And that is why its necessary to criticize people pushing magic crypto systems. It literally kills!

<comment><USER22> Well, the background of crypto researchers was core to Quinn's "privilege" tweet. That's one of the points the OP author touched on in his response- response, so it was relevant here.

And of course it's necessary to scrutinize people pushing crypto systems or tools that claim to do something no one has been able to do before! That's not what the Wired post was about, though. It was about _how_ the OP author _specifically_ targeted the Wired piece's author and made it seem like she was either too incompetent to write an article about Cryptocat or that she wrote the article because she hates the crypto community (still don't understand how he came to that conclusion.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I'm thinking Singel's -ism meter is just screwed up, here's a twitter post where he seems to equate the driver-bicyclist relationship to racism, and in a somewhat offensive way to boot:

<https://twitter.com/rsingel/status/232719063854510082>

<comment><USER26> John Lennon, apparently: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woman_Is_the_Nigger_of_the_World

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> To me the Wired piece reads like the sort of defensive rebuttal that is usually best to put in a drawer for a day or two before sending (or in this case publishing). It's long, wandering, needlessly emotional (appeal to sexism), and in places reflects an inaccurate reading of Chris's piece.

</comment><comment><USER28> Wired really sucks a lot of the time. This is an unfortunate example of just how bad it can be.

</comment><comment><USER29> Sadly, there is a growing contingent amongst the computer security/hacker scene who, instead of actually looking to improve things, are looking to be indignant about something.

A major conference has recently had to deal with issues stemming from a complaint about harassment that wasn't actually a complaint. It was never reported to staff, nor venue, nor law enforcement. Instead, twitter and blog posts were used.

</comment><comment><USER30> I still remember when Wired was relevant. You know, back in the 90s, before they declared the web dead for the first time.

<comment><USER31> You mean the Wired who has been getting tons of press for their reporting on the Apple iCloud debacle last weekend? That irrelevant Wired?

<comment><USER32> That whole Apple thing was staged. It started as a thought experiment over beers and was carried to its natural conclusion in the name of page views and awareness.

Wired has oscillated between relevant and annoying for many, many years now.

The type of attack they 'documented' is well-known and has been discussed in many circles. This is part of the reason they've had so many quotes from 'the hacker'. It's all about pushing the right buttons. Apple stuff is news.

Life is awesome. Enjoy.

<comment><USER33> Is this your pet theory, or do you have some way of documenting that it was staged? And do you have examples of records on the internet where this attack was discussed before?

I'm not saying that you are mistaken, nor am I saying that you are lying. But I can't accept an assertion like that at face value without seeing some supporting evidence.

<comment><USER32> I can accept that. I don't have anything that I'm willing to share. To be sure, I'm not suggesting that any of the companies (Apple, Google, Etc.) were willing participants.

Likewise, if you're looking for a discussion of this exact implementation of exploiting the trust relationships created by users of cloud services, you'll not find it.

That said, exploiting trust relationships that users naturally create in the cloud, is common. This is just one specific attack, designed to get page views and raise awareness.

It worked flawlessly. Life is but a dream.

<comment><USER31> Ha!

>I don't have anything that I'm willing to share.

That's a great phrase than can truthfully mean both:

"I have stuff that I'm not willing to share." and "I don't got nothing."

<comment><USER32> I'm going to channel Harry Reid on this one and ask that my claims are disproved. Let's see the logs. Let's see the communications with "The Hacker".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Wow, wired really has hit a low point here.

This feels like little more than linkbaiting trolling, but I suspect that it was in earnest which is almost worse.

</comment><comment> void-star This sort of nonsense isn't surprising from tech media at all. However, I am genuinely surprised and dismayed to see it coming out of Threat Level.

</comment><comment><USER35> I hope users of crytpo software in critical situations look to more than Wired Magazine to evaluate the safety and reliability of their software.

</comment><comment><USER36> I can't say I'm surprised.

I've read some great stories in the Wired print magazine over the years, but their online presence is typically Gawkeresque.

</comment><comment><USER37> The header of the blog post is broken in Firefox. I had to remove an element with Firebug in order to read the first couple paragraphs.

</comment><comment><USER38> If the author's going to complain about hype in news coverage, perhaps he shouldn't be a leading contributor to one-sided news coverage like the Wall Street Journal's 'What They Know'.

Or is hype in news coverage only a problem when it's hype the author personally disagrees with?

<comment><USER39> Isn't that a Tu Queue fallacy?

<comment><USER38> It would be if I was trying to invalidate the author's argument, which I wasn't - I was just pointing out his hypocrisy.

<comment><USER39> That's fair I suppose.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> He's right that WSJ security coverage is by far the best of any "normal" publication. I also think WSJ AllThingsD is probably the best general startup coverage (and also headed by a woman).

</comment><comment><USER41> Sexism debate in 3...2...1...

</comment><comment><USER42> ITT: snake oil people talk about snake oil things

</comment><comment><USER43> Sorry, Ms. Singel, your sexism card has expired.</comment>


Vigil [Website Monitoring] - <AUTHOR> http://vigil-app.com/ <comment><USER2> I'm one of the developers if anyone has any questions about the app.</comment>