Cloudant.com Refresh: CouchDB in the Cloud - <AUTHOR> http://blog.cloudant.com/cloudantcom-refresh-couchdb-in-the-cloud

<comment><USER2> What is your take on CouchDB? After some initial investigation, I've all but written off CouchDB for anything moderately write-heavy due to its single writer at a time design. I'm by no means an expert on that however. Please tell me what I'm missing about CouchDB.

<comment><USER3> If I recall Damien Katz recently added a "many writers" patch.

<comment><USER4> Yep, Damien's patch greatly improved CouchDB's write throughput for the case where you've got a pool of processes trying to write to the same DB simultaneously.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I have a beta account but I have not yet used it very much because I have CouchDB running on two of my own servers, and usually on my laptop.

Except for not really being able to do ad-hoc queries (you write map/reduce view functions which create indices) I like CouchDB. That said, I use MongoDB a little more frequently because it is easier for me to use.

What I really like about CouchDB is the way it uses REST and JSON. I use Ruby clients, and sometimes I prefer to just use simplehttp and json gems, and do everything low level because it feels natural.

</comment><comment><USER2> I think a good way to promote this would be to self-host the blog using a CouchDB application running on Cloudant instead of using Posterous.

<comment><USER6> I disagree. I would only even consider using a schemaless DB in a case where I need high performance logging of unstructured data. We use it at work as a hot cache and as first line click & impression tracking.

I wouldn't be remotely impressed that it could serve a blog. It would be meaningless to me.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I'm wondering what differentiates this service from <http://hosting.couch.io/>. Is it about extra GUI management options? Both seem very interesting services, because as an existing CouchDB user I can absolutely see the benefit of having an external database to replicate to.

<comment><AUTHOR> I've used both hosting.couch.io and Cloudant. So far I've had the best experience with Cloudant.

hosting.couch.io seems well geared for playing with CouchDB and building pure CouchDB apps. There is clearly a great team behind it but they seemed to be working on and distracted by a whole bunch of other things rather than focusing on making the hosting service brilliant.

Cloudant feels like a more robust service that will scale as usage of my app grows. They also have a great team but appear to be much more focused on delivering the best hosted CouchDB service. They also have a number of funded startups that are dependant on them which gives me more confidence that they are taking the service seriously.

<comment><USER8> (full disclosure, I'm a founder at Cloudant)

Thanks for the kind words jot. The guys behind couch.io are smart and talented, and they really know their couchdb, but I don't think that hosting is their primary focus (they can correct me if I'm wrong).

The main technical difference between us and couch.io is the distribution (clustering) layer we've built. This allows a single couch database to be spread across multiple servers. It provides true horizontal scalability, not just multi-master replication. A database can expand elastically based on resource and concurrency needs. In our next release we'll be adding the ability to tune robustness via quorum constants (a la Amazon's dynamo) on a per-document basis. That should be coming soon.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Wow, a fully Ajax front page (<http://cloudant.com>). Looks nice but a bit overkill?

<comment><USER10> If you look at the source, you can see about 500-1000 words that aren't displayed on the page / doesn't sit well with my "good intentions" meter.

<comment><USER11> It's not ajax, it's javascript and css. All the content is on a single page.

<comment><USER9> Good point. I kind off broadly classify all javascript only pages as Ajax though its not strictly. I guess with one page only it was probably easier to make the website.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


In the DNA of ancient infant, scientists find traces of the very First Americans - <AUTHOR> https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/in-the-dna-of-an-ancient-infant-scientists-find-traces-of-the-very-first-americans/ar-BBHPZx6?OCID=ansmsnnews11 <comment><USER2> Much more thorough story posted 2 hours ago:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16067109](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16067109)</comment>


Interview with California mom about her "DIY home" - <AUTHOR> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=DsVxgOjNLbA#!

<comment><AUTHOR> I _love_ this video and how in-depth it details her hacking, her can-do and positive nature, and her plans for the future. I'm curious how she schools her kids.</comment>


Shedskin: An experimental optimizing Python-to-C++ compiler - <AUTHOR> http://code.google.com/p/shedskin/

<comment><USER2> I would be more impressed if this did not involve "implicitly statically typed" code as surely one of the joys of high level programming is not having to use implicit typing. However I can totally see the point of prototyping and then adding in the typing and running it through something like this.

<comment><USER3> You don't have to specify the types of variables. They get inferred automatically. You only have to ensure that each variable has one definite type, i.e. it doesn't change its type throughout the program.

<comment><USER4> > You only have to ensure that each variable has one definite type, i.e. it > doesn't change its type throughout the program.

Yetch.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Interested parties should also check out pyrex, Python2C, and pysco.

<comment><USER6> unfortunately, Psyco hasn't been ported to 64-bit. The web page says something about working with pypy.

The idea of a Python-like statically typed language is good.

<comment><USER7> Unless you have a decent type system like Haskell's, statically typed languages are nothing but an unnecessary burden. I am a huge fan of python, and dynamic typing in general... Haskell was the first experience with a language that made me appreciate the power of a type system in certain situations. Every other implementation I've used has been broken.</comment></comment></comment>


Why MAC address randomization is not enough (2016) [pdf] - <AUTHOR> http://papers.mathyvanhoef.com/asiaccs2016.pdf <comment><USER2> "The three golden rules to ensure computer security are: do not own a computer; do not power it on; and do not use it"

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Morris_(cryptographer)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Morris_\(cryptographer\))

<comment><USER3> Without being facetious, that strategy does work for this particular problem: _turn off your wifi_ if you are walking around, traveling, or not in range of a network you intend to connect to.

I also have Bluetooth and NFC off most of the time since I rarely use them. (But then there's the cellular connection of my phone ...)

<comment><USER4> I wish the mobile OS could do that automatically based on the location.

Under iOS' settings it does hint at this as Wifi is one of the system services that uses locations services.

<comment><USER5> WiFi is used to speed up geolocation, sometimes a lot if you're in a dense city with poor satellite reception.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wi- Fi_positioning_system](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wi- Fi_positioning_system)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> By some of the same people, also interesting on the same subject: "Defeating MAC Address Randomization Through Timing Attacks" [http://papers.mathyvanhoef.com/wisec2016.pdf](http://papers.mathyvanhoef.com/wisec2016.pdf)

<comment><USER7> [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14782777](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14782777)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Is new hardware required for these "Hotspot 2.0" things?

<comment><USER9> Nope, it's all in the MAC and additional usermode services that help phones identify to the network using, in most cases, its SIM.</comment></comment>


Beyond bubble: Google loses its mind - <AUTHOR> http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2011/02/02/beyond-bubble-google-loses-its-mind/

<comment><USER2> This sounds a lot more like Path loses its mind.</comment>


Apps? No root? Your device serves others, warns Berners-Lee - <AUTHOR> http://www.zdnet.com/apps-no-root-your-device-serves-others-berners-lee-7000010661/ <comment><USER2> Corey Doctorow explains more fully:

 _"When we turn a computer into an appliance. We're not making a computer that runs only the "appliance" app; we're making a computer that can run every program, but which uses some combination of rootkits, spyware, and code- signing to prevent the user from knowing which processes are running, from installing her own software, and from terminating processes that she doesn't want. In other words, an appliance is not a stripped-down computer -- it is a fully functional computer with spyware on it out of the box."_ [The Coming War on General Computation]

Video: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUEvRyemKSg>

Transcript: [https://github.com/jwise/28c3-doctorow/blob/master/transcrip...](https://github.com/jwise/28c3-doctorow/blob/master/transcript.md)

<comment><USER3> More like Cory Doctorow grinds his axe. Most people don't _want_ to know how it works or hack on it, they just want it to operate reliably for the purposes they purchased it. It's not a war on general-purpose computation, it's an unprecedented variety of embedded computers.

<comment><USER4> _"it's an unprecedented variety of embedded computers."_

... at the expense (decreased availability, and public tolerance) of the general ones. Possessing or promoting general purpose computing might well wind up on the FBI's list of suspicious behaviors, along side such threatening habits as paying cash for gum; "normal" people are still basically terrified of magic/the unknown. Hackers are the new witches. A plethora of embedded devices, where one general purpose computer could have done the same, would be tragic.

Of course, all of this is just my humble opinion.

<comment><USER3> Oh, I remember people worrying about the same thing 20 years ago and general purpose computing is cheaper and more accessible than ever. Embedded devices exist because they serve a purpose well. I like a good Swiss army knife, but I also have a bag of specialized tools.

As for hackers being 'the new witches,' people aren't exactly scared of computers. If anything, they take the complexity of the digital age with too much complacency.

<comment><USER4> I think the complacency you describe is only side of the coin. People are happy as long as knowledge doesn't empower other people more than it does them, but as soon as you see and say that the emperor has no clothes (especially if they're the emperor), the lawyers and the Luddites descend like the four horsemen of the infopacalyse.

Admittedly, I don't think general purpose computing will in any sense "disappear," but I do think that we are already in a technological depression ("where's my flying car already?") and the witches metaphor is particularly apt. Until "normal" people catch up on the details of general purpose computers ("what's a filesystem?") and feel empowered by them (confident enough to secure their own systems, and write software to automate their lives), we will continue to stagnate, and embedded devices will thrive. The proliferation of embedded devices is a barometer of the public's aversion to generality, pure and simple... I would even expect a new model for general purpose computing to result from the current Cambrian explosion eventually, and be a net win. But I think it's important to realize we spend less time inventing today than 5 or 10 or 20 years ago, and more time dealing with the political and social response to the full implications of the current breadth of computing if only because it is still entering the mainstream. Anyone interested in pushing the limits today has to focus as much, if not more, on addressing the distaste for change, as on the underlying technology (at least if they want to put their name on it). Designing and coding Bitcoin is the easy part...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The web is the least free of all platforms from the users point of view* so I find it bizarre that Berners-Lee would use the 'freedom for users' angle to try and convince people to switch to web technologies. I fully support the idea that we should have root on devices we own, it's just a shame he had to dilute that point by pushing his own platform.

* nearly always closed source, in the rare cases where you have the source you can't modify the code that actually runs when you use the service, usually no control or even ownership of your data, it runs on a machine you don't control which can make your data subject to mining by foreign governments or advertisers

<comment><USER6> >> the web is the least free of all platforms from the users point of view

You're confusing "the web" with "networked software".

When you use the web, you have no control of the server but full control of your client (if your browser is open source). When you use a networked app, you have no control of the server AND no control of the client.

"Do I want control of the software I run on my machine?" is a separate question from "do I want that software communicating with other computers that I don't control?"

<comment><USER5> There is no confusion here: I want control of my data.

Currently the number of web apps (by which I mean something with a html/css/js interface that runs in a web browser) that I can run locally with my own data that I store locally (or not, my choice) is tiny. The number of native apps that give me full control of my data is huge, because native platforms make that easy to do. Local file access APIs are relatively new in the browser.

You are correct that there are plenty of tasks that are inherently about communicating with another computer, but that is not what we are talking about here. Writing a document needn't involve communicating with another computer. Editing an image needn't involve communicating with another computer. Maintaining my todo list, calculating how much time to bill a client; these needn't involve communication with another computer that I don't control.

<comment><USER2> _"I want control of my data."_

One might even argue the idea of individual control is somewhat at odds with the logical structure of FOSS, particularly in it's GNUist form - i.e. for a Lisper (and Stallman was/is one), there's no semantic distinction between code and data. Your position requires distinguishing bits from bits.

Solutions which distinguish bits from bits are political, not computational.

<comment><USER7> > there's no semantic distinction between code and data

I struggle to understand how this can be true, and I say that as a Lisper (spiritually if not currently), because 'this data does something meaningful when interpreted by a computer' is _exactly_ a semantic distinction from 'this other data doesn't'

<comment><USER2> What is the semantic difference between data which does nothing meaningful and lisp code that does nothing meaningful?

Or to be Wittgensteinian about it, point to the part of a datum which is the meaning.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I don't know if it really matters to the average user to have root on their system; for technical people it certainly implies "true ownership" of the whole stack on the device. What I find bizarre and a bit unsettling is the appification of general purpose computing devices. When it was mobile phones, locking the user out (almost) made sense - the device was being financed by the carrier via subsidy, so they should have a bit of control. Then tablets came along and provided an identical interface in terms of restricting user access, but the user pays the entire cost up front[1]. Now Windows 8 (moreso RT, but even the x64 version) and Mountain Lion are moving to the walled- garden, segregated, impotent app approach. The best reason I can explain why this is terrible is XCode:

I don't really develop for Mac, but there was a Linux tool which also shipped a 32-bit Darwin binary. I thought "I'd like to use that on my 64-bit Mac, surely I can just compile it with XCode". Downloaded XCode from the App Store (after giving my mother's maiden name, my blood type, etc.), and it doesn't appear on the PATH, because it can only write to /Applications/XCode. Jesus [2].

My point is, somehow subsidized phones turned into locked-down tablets, turned into a compiler that can't install itself to /usr/local/bin. That seems daft to me.

1\. ASUS let me root my tablet for free, no strings. So it's opt in, but not terribly evil.

2\. If anyone has a good Mac homebrew tutorial, I was wondering if I could compile with a different toolchain than Xcode? I'm really not up on this stuff, I need to learn.

<comment><USER5> Open the Xcode preferences and install the command line tools from the 'Components' part of the 'Downloads' section, although it does say this:

 _Before installing, note that from within Terminal you can use the XCRUN tool to launch compilers and other tools embedded within the Xcode application. Use the XCODE-SELECT tool to define which version of Xcode is active. Type "man xcrun" from within Terminal to find out more._

 _Downloading this package will install copies of the core command line tools and system headers into system folders, including the LLVM compiler, linker, and build tools._

<comment><USER9> Yes, if you use the Terminal and cd to /Applications/Xcode.app/Contents/Developer, you'll see

      drwxr-xr-x   3 root  wheel  102 Jan 25 14:52 Documentation
      drwxr-xr-x   7 root  wheel  238 Jan 29 13:33 Library
      drwxr-xr-x   7 root  wheel  238 Jan 29 13:11 Makefiles
      drwxr-xr-x   5 root  wheel  170 Jan 25 14:53 Platforms
      drwxr-xr-x   3 root  wheel  102 Jan 25 14:54 Toolchains
      drwxr-xr-x  22 root  wheel  748 Jan 29 13:12 Tools
      drwxr-xr-x   7 root  wheel  238 Jan 25 14:54 usr

Inside ./usr/bin is gcc, git, etc.

Basically the developer tools used to live by default in /Developer at the root of the filesystem, now the Developer directory is inside Xcode.

<comment><USER10> And if you install the command line tools they live in /usr/bin.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> When I clicked on that link, my "device" contacted Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, Omniture, and CBS Interactive. These sites attempt to compile information about me, track me, and make that information available to others - I'm assuming. Of course, I don't know because they don't tell me.

By using the web, my device is serving others (rather, serving me _to_ others) on a massive scale, every day.

<comment><USER12> At least in such a case you have some control over that tracking, by installing ghostery or whatever.

Without root you cannot count on being able to do that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> It's a terrible trend, but I don't see it as some kind of conspiracy as some people seem to. It's a legitimate market trend being driven by several factors:

(1) Operating systems have an outmoded security model. Most focus on multi- user security, which still has its uses, but they fail to focus on application isolation. Applications should be installable by anyone and isolated completely from other apps unless specifically granted permission by a user/administrator. The entire malware problem can be laid at the feet of this.

(2) The (related) poor state of installability. Mac has this problem the least with drag-and-drop .app installation, though sometimes even that can be confusing (and .dmg packages are weird beasts... why?). Linux has .rpm or .deb, which applies a massive and complex band-aid to the otherwise awful state of installability on that platform. Windows is absolutely horrible... it's like Linux where you have "installers" that have to do package management instead of a formal package system.

The open source world -- and even commercial vendors that want to keep the PC alive -- have to either address this problem or accept the dominion of the locked-down vendor-controlled consumer compute device. This will require abandoning the old fashioned Unix design philosophy (and the similar way Windows works) and thinking seriously about the problems of installability and isolation. It would be worth taking cues from iOS and Android here, though there's also a lot of room for new ideas.

Oh, and I forgot to mention. If we don't address these problems, all app vendors will pay a ~30% per-sale tax to Apple, Google, and Microsoft in exchange for the valuable service of a platform that provides installability and application isolation. And you know what? The market will pay it, because for most users those things are _that valuable_.

Point, click, install, with no fear of damaging my system. If I don't like it I click and uninstall. _Anything else is completely broken._

It's interesting to note that the prevalence of virtualization is also a sign of the failure of operating systems. OSes in a box (whether via complex container overlays like OpenVZ/Virtuozzo or hypervisors) are an ugly hack to fix the fact that the OS security model is broken even for multi-user operation. The fact that everything requires root to install is the deepest issue, along with the lack of permission structures for things like network interfaces. It should be possible to run an OS and sell _accounts_ to the general public, not VMs, and people should be able to run whatever they want from their local account and this should be safe. The fact that this isn't viable is because OSes are broken, thus we have the huge overhead of virtualization as an ugly band-aid to fix it.

<comment><USER14> What about hypervisor as microkernel and VM as app? Is this a viable new model for system security?

<comment><USER13> It's feasible, but I personally think the hypervisor overhead stinks. Better to fix to OS permission model.

<comment><USER4> Why not use filesystem permissions/ACLs on named pipes to access native interfaces (as a poor-man's microkernel)?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I have always liked the web as a platform because I can build something once and have it work across many operating systems/browsers/etc... and because the web is built on open standards.

One criticism people have of this approach to application development is that web apps aren't as efficient as native apps.

This pro/con discussion of web vs native apps reminds me of the C programming language, why it was created and what for.

The C Programming language was designed to be a portable language, meaning that it can be compiled on virtually any platform, any operating system. Yet C was also designed to constitute the minimum abstraction away from a given platforms native assembly language.

Thus a program written in C can be compiled on almost any machine, and run as efficiently or nearly as efficiently on that machine as a program written in that machine's native assembly language.

So perhaps we could use something like the C programming language for the web. A technology which allows us as developers to write our applications once in a portable open format, without needing to sacrifice in terms of performance.

Any thoughts?

<comment><USER16> Sounds like <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Native_Client> is what you're looking for.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> I think the best thing the tech community can do in this area is continue to investigate and provide specific criticism of individual apps that are doing nasty things. Great examples include the uproars over Google's data collection, or how Path uploaded the entire address book without asking. These are the sorts of specific nasty things the popular press will cover, and the general public wants to know about.

Root access would be very helpful for the tech community in doing this, but on its own, it's probably too esoteric to make much of an impression on the press or general public.

</comment><comment><USER18> Not a terribly coherent discourse by Tim B.Lee. On the one hand, he wants you to run apps downloaded off the internet in your browser. On the other hand, he wants the user to have root. There's not even a whelk's chance in a supernova that I will ever run a browser as root. I assume that Tim's OK with that as a security stance, but it then follows that browser apps can't have root, and if you're a non-tech-savvy user, if your apps don't have root, then _you_ don't have root.

Focusing a bit more on the whole root access thing, I think it would be well to remember that we tried the open root thing already, and it turned out to be a security disaster for normal users. I think it's a good thing that the mainstream computing platforms (Windows, MacOSX, iOS) are trying a new approach. I also think that it's a very good thing that there are more open solutions, such as Android (which, just to be clear, is also a mainstream choice) and Linux, that allow us to see what can be done with more open access. Then the closed platforms can see how to go about providing that functionality in a more secure manner for less tech-savvy users.

<comment><USER12> I don't think he's suggesting that you literally run your browser as the root user.

The argument seems to be that if you don't have the ability to access whatever is the equivalent to the root account on your device _at all_ then this means that whoever does has more control of your device than you do.

This means that you _have_ to trust the device or OS manufacturer. For example if you buy an iPhone there is no way to "untrust" Apple without throwing the device out or doing a jailbreak.

With a more open system such as Debian you can decide to untrust the OS vendor by simply replacing the entries in /etc/apt.sources with something else.

This kind of model is often used in corporate environments where computers are locked down by the IT dept, therefor the IT dept can make choices on behalf of the users as to what the security settings should be, what software is installed etc.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> I don't live here; I just rent.

Sometimes it's OK to just rent. If I want to own, I'll move elsewhere.

<comment><USER20> The problem becomes obvious when you discover that there's no place to move in order to own. When you have no choice, are you really renting or are you a serf?

Even if you think that you own your phone, you still have to get it onto a network for it to become useful and you'll be renting that network access and you'll have no choice between contracts because they're all the same.

<comment><USER21> They aren't all the same. 3 years of contract at $70+/mo != prepaid $30/mo != prepaid 10c/min.

<comment><USER20> They are all the same in many respects though. Do any of them offer true unlimited data? Tethering? Usage of unlocked phones? Decent coverage? Data privacy?

<comment><USER22> Well, none of them offers a pony, either. I think that only one of these (data privacy) is a right; that (2)–(5) are conveniences; and that true unlimited data is impossible (assuming you mean "… at a fixed price").

<comment><USER20> However, if I want to _own_ a pony I certainly have the option of purchasing one.

2-5 are perfectly reasonable offerings and the corporations that control the data pipes have all accepted our tax breaks which contribute to them being able to maintain their virtual monopolies. My point is that the rent analogy does not work at all. It's too simple.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Using a task manager on your phone is like analyzing the water coming out from your tap before you drink it, only a little less important for your general well-being.

Most people are simply ignorant about the details because they trust an authority to keep things in order (e.g. the FTC). Perhaps trust is more misplaced with Apple and Google than with your water supplier, or perhaps those working in the food or water industry will be as wary about water quality as we are interested in whatever spyware is running on our phones - and we will find it a bit ridiculous.

</comment><comment><USER24> My iPhone does a pretty darn good job of serving me. In fact, that's why I own it.

If it happens to server others collaterally, well, I'm not the jealous type.

</comment><comment><USER25> Minor quibble: having to port to multiple devices may be 'boring', but writing native apps can be truly wonderful if you love the platform, framework, etc. My personal experience is largely with audiovisual apps -- and for that, I'm a big fan of iOS. Core Audio in particular may be a tough framework to approach, but what you can achieve with it is very exciting.

</comment><comment><USER26> I fully agree about things that require native apps. When I click on a link to a YouTube video or a tweet and instead of showing me the result in the browser, it pulls me out and brings me to the YouTube or Twitter app, it means I can't bookmark it or share it. I hate that.

</comment><comment><USER27> This is more of the idealistic view that I haven't seen pan out. Android may be more open, in the times when the latest version is open source. But when the carriers modify, lock down the phone it's a hassle. It's still a hassle on a perfect phone, out of reach to the vast majority. So on those 98%+ stock (including carrier mods) you have apps that aren't as jailed as on iOS and (still haven't read anything on this either way) pretty much the only online advertiser supplying you this for free.

Real world circumstances render this correct ideal view mostly or entirely not true.

</comment><comment><USER28> I rather make use of my native applications that know how to take advantage of the underlying hardware and OS.

The browser should have stayed a document only thing.

<comment><USER29> Could you give me an example of anything other than a game that is actually "taking advantage of the underlying hardware and OS" in some way that the browser can not? Looking at all the apps people use, games are literally the only things I've seen that aren't just poorly re-implemented websites.

<comment><USER30> Interestingly, I consider websites to be poorly reimplemented native applications. They make sense when there is a centralized database at the back, but even then UI and UX usually suffer. For one thing, they often lose input methods available to the underlying system. For example, how many web apps use context menus? How many _can_ use them without breaking browser's own UX?

<comment><USER29> >but even then UI and UX usually suffer

Because of bad designers. Most native apps suffer for the same reason.

>For one thing, they often lose input methods available to the underlying system.

Such as?

>For example, how many web apps use context menus? How many _can_ use them without breaking browser's own UX?

I have no idea how many do, but they don't break anything unless the designer messes up.

<comment><USER30> I've seen some sites overriding context menus to provide their own copy/paste commands (for unknown reasons, probably to change the look). In doing so, they remove all the options browser puts in there.

For example, right now in Opera I have 17 entries in context menu when clicking on a empty spot on the page, 9 entries when clicking on selected text and 15 entries when clicking inside text edit field and yet another set when clicking on a link. Some of the options control behaviour of the browser, some deal with current page, some deal with specific page element. If HN wanted to use context menus for some app-specific reason, all of those options would be wiped out (at least for affected elements) because the app would be in direct conflict with the browser.

Touch events are often another casualty -- sometimes they are commands to the OS (swipe to change active desktop), sometimes to the browser (pinch to zoom), sometimes to the app (drag to drag around a map, or maybe pinch to zoom?).

Additional layers always introduce problems and cause things at the end of the chain to have worse UX or adapt by using lowest common denominator. A crazy example: gmail running in browser running in windows running in a windows VM running on a mac machine which is remotely connected via VNC from an android tablet. >:D Android -> VNC app -> OSX -> VMWare -> Windows -> IE -> GMail app. Ok, this doesn't illustrate much besides the point that browser _is_ an element of input chain (that makes a disproportionate effect on UX too -- the other links are at least trying to be transparent), I just like the idea. :)

<comment><USER29> >I've seen some sites overriding context menus to provide their own copy/paste commands (for unknown reasons, probably to change the look). In doing so, they remove all the options browser puts in there.

Of course, and you've probably seen much worse than that. Incompetent web designers are plentiful, but the capabilities of a web site are not limited to "broken sites made by incompetent designers".

>If HN wanted to use context menus for some app-specific reason, all of those options would be wiped out (at least for affected elements) because the app would be in direct conflict with the browser.

If HN wanted to do something incredibly stupid, they could do something incredibly stupid. Right. I'm not sure what the issue is there. If they wanted to not do something incredibly stupid, that is also an option. Why judge only on the worst possible scenario and assume every website is designed to be as broken and shitty as possible?

>Touch events are often another casualty -- sometimes they are commands to the OS (swipe to change active desktop), sometimes to the browser (pinch to zoom), sometimes to the app (drag to drag around a map, or maybe pinch to zoom?).

This applies equally to apps vs web, and isn't even specific to phones.

>Additional layers always introduce problems and cause things at the end of the chain to have worse UX or adapt by using lowest common denominator

That statement is false, and not relevant. The browser is no more an "additional layer" than an app is. The same number of layers in both cases.

<comment><USER30> > If HN wanted to do something incredibly stupid, they could do something > incredibly stupid. Right. I'm not sure what the issue is there. If they > wanted to not do something incredibly stupid, that is also an option. Why > judge only on the worst possible scenario and assume every website is > designed to be as broken and shitty as possible?

But context menu is a useful concept (sometimes). It _would_ be nice if it could be used when it is called for. The problem is that it is impossible (I think) to use context menu or _any other right click action_ you could think of without breaking browser functionality. It would be like you said, incredibly stupid.

Thus web apps effectively lose one whole mouse button, thus reducing available input bandwidth.

Another example of lost input is lack of system-global shortcuts. A web app in my knowledge can't have them. I listen to music while I work and I tend to switch tracks or pause them once in a while. So when I listen to youtube playlists, I have to go back to the browser, open the playing tab and do it there. (and you never know if the video currently playing is SFW :))

> That statement is false, and not relevant. The browser is no more an > "additional layer" than an app is. The same number of layers in both cases.

The browser is a layer, and the native-app is a layer, except to get to web- app, you need to go through the browser first and a native-app sits at the same level as the browser (so a portion of input capabilities is not used up for the browser itself).

<comment><USER29> >But context menu is a useful concept (sometimes).

Of course. Which is why you would use it only where it is useful, not just hijacking a particular input event globally.

>Thus web apps effectively lose one whole mouse button, thus reducing available input bandwidth.

No, you can use right click all you want, and it need not interfere with the browser's use of right click. Also, very few people use a mouse on their phone, so this does seem like a bit of a stretch.

>Another example of lost input is lack of system-global shortcuts. A web app in my knowledge can't have them.

Right. There are a few other things like this that web apps can't do. And apps that people would want this sort of interface for should not be web apps. But as I said originally, virtually all the apps people use are not of that nature (and those that are almost always are apps that came with the phone), they are just websites turned into clunky, awkward apps for no reason.

>except to get to web-app, you need to go through the browser first

The browser is the app.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> if 'open' wants to compete, it should do so by being better than 'closed'. The argument in the article tries to outlaw being 'closed'. No one stops anyone from making any 'open' system (OS or hardware or whatever) and why should anyone stop someone trying to make a 'closed' system. If someone wants to make a closed system and someone else wants to buy that, sure, by all means..

<comment><USER32> _If "safe" wants to compete, it should do so by being more fun than "dangerous". No one stops anyone from making any "safe" system (automobile or recreational drug or whatever) and why should anyone stop someone from trying to make a "dangerous" system._

One of the best uses of law is to place limits, regulations and standards on what businesses are allowed to get away with.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> I don't have root on my TV and it serves me just fine for what I need from it. There might be good arguments to keep platforms open, but this ain't one of them.

<comment><USER34> OTOH, I would love to root my DVD player so I could fast forward when I want to, not at the mercy of the FBI.

<comment><USER35> Hacking the player would be useless. DVDs are _programmed_ and any (and all) limitations that are there are because a programmer put them there.

Same with Blu-rays.

<comment><USER36> This isn't correct. The DVD can only specify that fast-forward and other functions are to be disabled. It's up to the player firmware to enforce or ignore the DVD's user permission flags.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> From the comment section:

>Trust will disrupt Openness

There are a couple of factors that will disrupt the Web architecture.

The Web has trained us to build dumb clients and centralize anything of value on the server, at a huge cost and never enough trust. We can safely predict today that light-weight protocols, mediated by the mobile OS (and its Platform) will directly challenge the Web architecture, precisely because we can leverage the platform trust model. That evolution is extremely profound.

For instance, apps running on your device can securely and privately share information without requiring a complex temporal integration involving a 3rd party service (such as Google AdSense). The information is produced and consumed on the device or the device of a related end-user. What happens on your device can now stay on your device.

Just to be clear, and to show how disruptive that architecture is, the primary key of your private data becomes your phone, not your identity. Merchants no longer need to identify you. They can't care less about YOU, they just care to know some information about you. The problem with the Web Architecture was that the only way to do that was to associate PII to a primary key on a server and hence merchants needed to identify you to track your every move (and they shamelessly did).

The second factor is just as profound: the very open nature of the Web is driving scale over scope. The Web has successfully nurtured the largest Catalog, the largest Search engine, the largest Auction site, the largest Social Network, but I see this as a negative side effect of the Web architecture because it limits the scope of what people can do. In other words, the scope of what Amazon, Google or Facebook offer is limited by the scale (and hence the revenue) they can achieve.

I actually argue that a trust-based neutral Platform will support a more vibrant and diverse ecosystem than a truly open model because in essence a Web business couples the leve of trust it can achieve with the functionality it can deliver. The Platform decouples the trust from the functionality and it enables much smaller actors to deliver a lot more scenarios while relying on the trust establish by the Platform.

I would be surprised if the Web can resist being disrupted by the Platform. Actually, I think it already is.

<comment><USER38> Unfortunately, you can't really trust a device, since there is always a chance that it could be rooted. See the long history of rooted game consoles.

The best you can do is sort-of trust the device. But that's not much better than not trusting the device in terms of the kind of architectures and products you can build.

<comment><USER39> "you can't really trust a device, since there is always a chance that it could be rooted. See the long history of rooted game consoles"

How many get rooted without the user's intervention?

<comment><USER40> I do not have an answer to your question, but in my mind the targeted attack is more concerning than a random drive-by that hits everyone. That means just one instance is too many.

As another example: In the earlier days of iOS, you could root it just by visiting a website. Who knows how many fell pray and have malicious code running on their devices today? With a targeted attack, you don't even get the benefit of security researchers all scouring over the code like you would with something more widespread, thus there really is no way to even keep track of what might be out there.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Lost in Syria - <AUTHOR> http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/02/16/lost-syria

<comment><USER2> very well written article and definitely a crazy story.</comment>


Ask HN: Why do startups use fake client testimonials? - <AUTHOR> How come this trend is so widespread in the startup community. Do people not realise that it makes them look unprofessional when they clearly use a stock photo, and some fake reviews to boost their credibility. The ones I'm referring to are the small oval pictures, that service/product offering startups are so fond of using. There are usually a few client testimonials that are obviously fake. <comment><USER2> A lot of times people just are trying to gauge demand initially. Why blow hundreds of hours or thousands of dollars trying to build a product that people aren't interested in buying.

</comment><comment> UK-AL You know exactly why they do it, to boost credibility. But obviously they're not every good at it...

</comment><comment><USER2> Do an A/B test and you'll have your answer.</comment>


Gender Balance on Social Networking sites - <AUTHOR> http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2009/who-rules-the-social-web/

<comment><USER2> Hacker News: "♂♂♂♂♂♂♂♂♂♂♂♂♂♂♂♂♂♂ M 99.9%"

<comment><USER3> More like this:

♂♂♂♂♂ ♂♂♂♂♂

♂♂♂♂♂ ♂♂♂♂♂

♂♂♂♂♂ ♂♂♂♂♂

♂♂♂♂♂ ♂♂♂♂♂

♂♂♂♂♂ ♂♂♂♂♂

♂♂♂♂♂ ♂♂♂♂♂

♂♂ ♀♀♀♀ ⚥

      Male    92.5 %
      Female     6 %
      Other    1.5 %

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=749617>

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> It's unfortunate to call sites with a preponderance of female users matriarchal.

Majority is not the same as power.

<comment><USER5> Unfortunately, all too true. I have seen a lot of female dominated (numbers- wise) lists where some man is the center of attention and power, apparently largely because he is male. And should some woman be so uppity as to stand up to him, all hell will break loose -- not just because he won't stand for it but because of the gaggle of women who will try to ensure that no one speaks to him without being appropriately obeisant.

Huge sore point for me. This is probably not the place to get into it.</comment></comment>


Advice to Mathematics Teachers on Evaluating Introductory Statistics Textbooks - <AUTHOR> http://statland.org/MyPapers/MAAFIXED.PDF

<comment><USER2> What is the general opinion on HN of Allen Downey's Think Stats?</comment>


In praise of dual-class stock structures for public companies - <AUTHOR> http://blog.pmarca.com/2008/05/in-praise-of-du.html

<comment><USER2> Bravo!! I absolutely agree with Marc, and kudos to the google guys, since they had the foresight to do this.

I don't like the idea of public companies pandering to so called _shareholders_. No one is putting a gun to anyone's head and asking them to buy a public company stock.

Having a dual class structure will hopefully, help structure the right incentives for people running public companies and will make sure they don't do things just to boost stock prices or do things in the short term to make their quarterly numbers.

<comment><USER3> _I don't like the idea of public companies pandering to so called shareholders. No one is putting a gun to anyone's head and asking them to buy a public company stock._

I understand your general sentiment, but this is silly. I don't know why you call it pandering when they have a vested stake in a company's financial future; the shareholders are owners, too.

 _Having a dual class structure will hopefully, help structure the right incentives for people running public companies and will make sure they don't do things just to boost stock prices or do things in the short term to make their quarterly numbers._

This depends more on management compensation than stock structure. If the CEO gets a huge bonus for the stock going up in the short term, he's more likely to do shady things to boost the price.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> "If the market overall doesn't like the dual-stock structure, it can refuse to provide capital to those companies, and instead provide that capital to companies with shorter-term objectives and more outside shareholder control. But I don't predict that will happen, and _I would be willing to bet my own company on that_."

-First dibs on Ning IPO in a couple year!

<comment><USER5> > First dibs on Ning IPO in a couple year!

How do they make enough revenue to justify their valuation? In the current climate, you need a rock-solid revenue model to actually go public.

If Ning has that, I've managed to completely miss it.

<comment><USER4> Just a joke, poking fun at people overreacting to little statements from big names.

But if you were going to bet on a tiny-revnue/big-eyeball startup, it would be wise to bet on the one started by a guy with 2 multi-billion dollar exits :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Can anyone explain please, how is the dual-class structure reflected on the stock price? Class B should clearly be more expensive, even though not necessarily 10 times.

<comment><USER7> If it were public, yeah, but usually class B shares are not tradable. Their whole purpose is to keep ownership in the founding family or founding investors.

<comment><USER6> Even though not publicly but still tradable, is this correct?

<comment><USER7> I think there may be some conditions for private sales of class B shares, like if a member of the founding family wants out and sells their shares to current management. Not being privy to any folks who have class B shares, I wouldn't know. There's definitely not a liquid market like the public exchanges - it's like selling stock in a private company.

Edit: just thought of a public company with both class A and B shares. Berkshire Hathaway (Warren Buffett's company) has class B shares that each have 1/30 the rights of class A shares, except that they have 1/200 the voting rights. Right now, they're trading at almost exactly 1/30 the price of BRK-A, so the market doesn't seem to give much weight to the reduced voting rights. It's worth noting that BRK-B shares were created for a very different reason than the article is about: some mutual fund manager was about to setup a mutual fund that invested _only_ in Berkshire Hathaway but let you invest in chunks of much less than the $100k share price of BRK-A, so Buffett figured that if someone was going to arbitrage the share price, he might as well be the one doing it instead of letting a money manager pocket the liquidity premium.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER2> Do YC companies use dual-class structure? If not PG & Co, should make it the norm and set the standard.

</comment><comment><USER8> My immediate response is - is there an ulterior motive for this post? Investors screwing around with Ning?

<comment><USER7> The post is about dual-class structures in _public_ markets and Ning is still privately held, so I'd imagine not. VCs get preferred stock, which has _more_ rights than common, so I don't think he's aiming at Ning's VCs.

More likely, it was investors screwing around with Netscape in the months leading up to the AOL buyout. Or possibly something with Loudcloud, though I know nothing of the history there. I remember that Netscape had been severely punished by the stock market starting in the beginning of 98, and if it hadn't it probably could've gotten a much better deal than the $4.2B it ended up with.</comment></comment>


The Wright Brothers: They Began a New Era - <AUTHOR> http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2015/aug/13/wright-brothers-they-began-new-era/

<comment><USER2> Also interesting:

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_brothers_patent_war](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_brothers_patent_war)</comment>


Jump Point Search Explained - <AUTHOR> http://zerowidth.com/2013/05/05/jump-point-search-explained.html

<comment><USER2> So what are the downsides of JPS? Why is A* still the default ?

<comment><USER3> JPS assumes a very particular geometric structure, i.e., a grid with uniform weights, while A* is much more general and works on any graph with arbitrary edge weights. So there are lots of problems where the JPS tricks don't apply, but you can still use A*.

<comment><USER4> What if each tile had a different attrition score (not necessarily making movement slower but e.g. consuming more resources in a game)? Would that conceptually be the be same as edge weights and thus more fit for A*?

<comment><USER3> Yes, you could represent the score of a tile as the cost of an edge leading into (or out of) that tile. I don't know if it's possible to generalize any of the JPS ideas to this setting (my guess is that it'd be tricky), but basic A* would definitely work.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is a beautifully done explanation, especially the JS solver.</comment>


Ask HN: coder, developer, hacker, or ...? - <AUTHOR>

Hi all,
What is the most used term for a coder in the US? Is it coder, hacker,
developer, engineer, programmer or something else?
Sincerely, Baris <comment><USER2> The terms are nearly interchangeable[0] but programmer is more widely used[1].

[0] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programmer](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programmer) (see first sentence)

[1] [http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=coder&...](http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=coder&word2=programmer)

</comment><comment><USER3> Depends on the skill and expereince level. An engineer would be a high level developer, for instance. I think the connotation of coder is a little bit negative for anyone with skill level.

<comment><AUTHOR> Aha, ok. Let me rephrase then: if I want to make a site geared towards people who code, what is the best word to use in the domain name (coder, developer, etc)?

<comment><USER4> Programmer would be the best term.</comment></comment></comment>


Grade your startup website - <AUTHOR> http://onstartups.com/GradeYourStartupWebSite/tabid/6995/Default.aspx <comment><USER3> Great spot sam. You know the market is maturing when their are tools that allow ranking. Interesting to see news.yc at 92 and ycombinator 82 and joelonsoftware 98.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks - I thought it was a pretty nice tool.

I'd be extremely interested to see their algorithm.

I wonder how related it is to the SEO type page optimization calculators - <USER2> seems not much. My "seo optimized" sites have a lower ranking (30-60) than my highly trafficked site (80).

According to the page: _The algorithm uses a proprietary blend of over a dozen different variables, including search engine data, website structure, approximate traffic, site performance, and others._

<comment><USER4> Glad some of you are finding the Website Grader tool somewhat useful. It started out as a simple experimental project (basically I wanted something to meet my own needs).

Since then, it's taken on a bit of a life of its own.

The algorithm is basically trying to to simulate the same kinds of things I look for when trying to assess a site (a combination of traffic, SEO, site structure, popularity and other things). I'm making another big update to the underlying software within the next week or so.

If you have ideas for improvement, please leave a comment (either here or preferably on the websitegrader.com site itself).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> 82 for me (revmap.com)! would be nice to see what you need to improve on to get towards 100

</comment><comment><USER6> onstartups.com scores a 98%

</comment><comment><USER7> 84% for likebetter.com.</comment>


Ask HN: Negotiating My Hourly Rate? - 2bor-2n Hi, I am a freelancer from a South Asian country and I have been working for a client through my friend for a year. The friend is getting $15 from the client and he pays me $9 hourly (i.e he takes 40% cut). I mostly work on the frontend side and handle multiple projects of the same client. Other than that, I communicate with the client directly and manage the work without my friend's involvement. I deliver the work on time and in good quality, however, I am not employed by him nor do I work full time on the projects (because of some personal reasons and the fact that I have my own client). Rather, I give enough time each day to complete the assignments on due time. Despite this, I think, I am getting a low rate on the basis of the value which I provide.
This has been in my mind for a couple of months and I wanted to let it out and pitch a new rate of $18 (double the previous rate) to my friend. But I am afraid this may not be acceptable, as he is getting $15 from the client and the client is already on a tight budget. And, I am afraid if I stick with this offer he will try to arrange some other resource, resulting in me losing this opportunity. Moreover, I do have my own client and work for him for $10.
I will really appreciate some help or guidance here. How should I best approach this scenario so there is a WIN/WIN situation for all of us? Am I pitching too high?
PS. He is already looking for an extra resource to share my work. And I am willing to go as low as $15 <comment><AUTHOR> Here is the basic theory of negotiation and specific advise for your situation:

Theory: in a negotiation both parties are trying to get a deal that is better than the Best Alternative To A Negotiated Agreement (BATNA). So what you're trying to do is say if this negotiation fails what am I going to do instead. Theoretically this is where your leverage always comes from because a good BATNA enables you to threaten to walk away.

Practical: in your post I understand what you want, but I don't understand your BATNA. If your friend refuses, or worse let's say he fires you right now, what would you do/make instead?

The easiest way to get a win-win is the following: 1) go find other gig offers - compare the price others are willing to pay you (recognizing there's some risk the next client is not as friendly/easy to work with) 2) Let's say you get 3 offers at $15,$16,$17. Show these offers openly to your friend and say "look I like working with you and want to continue but the market rate for my work is much higher than what I make right now". This is actually a win-win because if you've done your research right, these are the same offers your friend would have to make to replace you. Now the conversation isn't about what you want vs what he wants, but what each of you would do if you can't get to an agreement.

3) Make your offer (say $18) and explain why it is higher/lower than the market avg (you can trust me, you know I do good work, etc).

4) Truly be willing to walk away if it doesn't work. Not everyone is rational, not everyone will believe your alternative, not everyone wants a quick resolution. Unfortunately this is the hard part with friends, but if it doesn't work you just must be willing to walk away (try to keep it isolated to your business partnership and not your personal friendship).

Notice, throughout, the premise is: here's what my alternative is. Without this, you're just hoping for him to take action out of kindness. It's certainly possible, but it sounds like you are confident in your skills and value and ready to move past charity to career.

Good luck. Ask questions here if you have them. Let us know what happens.

<comment><USER2> I think it is simpler than that. The OP is not freelancing. This is effectively a job. He is underpaid but HAS EXPERIENCE! and just needs to find a new job.

<comment><USER3> > _The OP is not freelancing_

> > _Hi, I am a freelancer from a South Asian country_

<comment><USER4> Still, OP is not freelancing

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I am shocked to see how adversarial many of these comments are.

It's ok to negotiate win-win. And in the long run you win from that, because what you want is great relationships with people who feel they can rely on you and respect your work.

If you can do that without being taken advantage of, you will get tons of work for years and make money you are happy with.

Why double your rate right away? Are you happy working for $10?

Can you find new work? Can you increase the rate gradually? Can you say 'this month it will go up to $12, but in 3 months it will go up to $15' ...

It's great if everyone makes money. Are you annoyed your friend is making money? Why are you willing to make $10 from one person but you want $18 from another?

You don't want to work too cheaply, but you also want to maintain relationships. This is how you get more work for years and years and build a career.

Also it's good practice.

<comment> 2bor-2n >Are you annoyed your friend is making money?

Not at all, the problem is as others have mentioned is a very big cut he is taking. While I am the one delivering a lot of value to the client. Even upwork takes lesser cut (max 20%) than his.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Maintain 3 gigs simultaneously and drop the lowest paid one on occasion. Or devote fewer hours to it. Negotiation becomes, "sorry I can't do more hours for you, someone else is paying me more for my time." This will also mean you don't have to worry about who gets what cut, just your cut. It means only doing part time and keeping a float of 40-60hour weeks.

</comment><comment><USER7> It's difficult to have a win-win situation when one of the three sides is getting paid a massive cut continuously without contributing anything. Next time give your friend a one-off finder's fee upfront and deal exclusively with the client from there.

> And I am willing to go as low as $15

So if they offered you $14 an hour, you would drop the project? Despite working for $9 so far and having another client at $10? You'd better be able to walk away from this or your leverage is non-existent.

<comment><USER8> Getting more leverage would help a lot indeed. Look for some better-paying clients. If you can demonstrate results, prove you can get the job done, you should easily be able to make multiple times that amount for international clients. And once you've got better paying clients, you've got all the leverage you need to ask for more, because you can afford to walk away.

Of course you can still try to cut your friend out of the loop. If he's not providing any value, then working directly for the client will already be a nice boost for you.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> > How should I best approach this scenario so there is a WIN/WIN situation for > all of us?

In my opinion, when you are negotiating, you should only keep in mind _your_ "win", not of the others.

The other thing is that I would work on improving the "demand" side for my work: if I have 10 potential clients, increasing my hourly rate becomes very easy, something I can do with confidence. On the other hand, if I only have 2 clients, I have to negotiate carefully, because I don't want to lose 50% of my work and income.

<comment><USER10> This is not correct, as others have pointed out, you need to think of what others consider a "win" when negotiating. You need to put yourself in their shoes and understand their goals, their limit and their BATNA.

I've found it helps if you create a grid with you and your partner as the columns and "Goal", "Walk-Away" and "BATNA" in the rows.

Your goal would be "$18/hr", your walk-away would be $1 less than your current rate (it sounds like) and your BATNA is to find another job that pays more, but accept the risk that you find another job.

For your friend, his goal is to keep you at $9, his limit seemingly would be his own pay or $15/hr and his BATNA is to find someone else but accept the risk that he may not find someone.

Ultimately, most negotiations end between people's limits, so it sounds like if you negotiate you could increase your rate to $12-$13 an hour.

<comment> 2bor-2n >if you negotiate you could increase your rate to $12-$13 an hour

That makes it 80-85% of the original pay. I will keep this in mind but try to pitch my least acceptable offer be 13.5 (i.e 90%)

<comment><USER10> One of the key steps in a negotiation is to make the first offer. This is called "anchoring" and its been proven that the person who makes the first offer generally gets more favorable terms. It works because if you set the first offer the negotiation tends to revolve around that number.

To make the best initial offer and anchor it in your favor, you should aim for their limit/walk away price. This would be probably around $17/hr for him since asking him for $18/hr I would believe would be beyond his limit price.

In general you should always make the first offer and make it at the limit of your opposition. How do you know their limit? You have to do your research ahead of time and know your opposition and their needs. This even further proves the OP I replied to was wrong.

<comment> 2bor-2n >This would be probably around $17/hr for him since asking him for $18/hr I would believe would be beyond his limit price

$15 is his limit. How do i know that?

First this is the amount he is getting from the client, second he won't accept that I get the entire cake while he gets nothing while the fact is that the client is his not mine.

I know him from my school days, he is very careful when i comes to money and I find him tight-fisted. Just to share an experience with him, when I first started working with him he offered me $6, trying to take 60% cut, I told him that this was very low and $9 would be acceptable. At this demand he got irritated and said I worked nights to build this stuff. So I explained him how I would provide value to him and his client and he won't have to worry about my work because I would handle the client directly. After that he came to some sense and accepted that $9 demand.

<comment><USER11> Worked nights doing what exactly? It seems that he only did the initial work of finding the customer.

My advice would be to look for exit path and walk away from this situation when it becomes possible. You can easily make more than $9/hr. on freelancing marketplaces once you establish yourself a bit.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> To be fair, this is how placement agencies work for contract staff here in Canada, too. The agent maintains separate contracts with the client and the candidate and takes a cut (often 30-40%) for the duration of the contract.

In return for their cut, the agent handles the payments and provides the guarantee that the candidate gets paid on time even if the client pays late.

There's usually a clause in both contracts that prevents them from cutting out the middle-man.

<comment><USER13> So basically they're paying 30-40% of the salary for a payment insurance service? That seems a little... excessive? Just how often are payments missed to warrant this kind of a premium?!

<comment><USER14> Most staffing companies work like this in the US as well. There are a couple of ways they maintain their middle man status. 1) most of the jobs they provide personnel for are not overly specialized and the client is happy to no have to hire for and deal with hr issues around these positions. 2) the staffing firms often oversell their role to contractors in how difficult it is to make sure they get paid in a timely manner/offer "career development" training (e.g. letting the contractor work) 3) staffing firms often do a lot of client wining and dining to maintain favorable status. 4) staffing firms often hire young and attractive reps to distract.

<comment> blaser-waffle > staffing firms often hire young and attractive reps to distract.

LOL, what? "The only reason we used staffing firms was cuz them reps be dummy thicc".

I worked for a small/medium ISP for a while and did a lot of hiring for entry- level and mid-level roles. If we threw an ad up on Craigslist for DC, NYC, or Baltimore we would get back, easily, 500+ responses.

The signal-to-noise ration was insane. A huge chunk of the responses would be spam or automated-resume-slinging-bots, and like 30-40% would be immediately disqualified for being in different states/countries or being wildly unqualified. Even after adding a few homemade filters and a basic online tech quiz, we'd still end up with like 40 candidates to screen further. The viability of these candidates was... not great... and a lot of them tended to split after a couple years, and several didn't last 6 months.

Then we started using a headhunting firm and they did all of the sorting, vetting, and gave us a great 3-to-6-month hiring window. We could ask them for 3 decent clients -- "decent" was relative sometimes -- and have them in a couple weeks, get them hired comparatively quick, and turn them to full-timers in 6 months if they were good; usually we did.

Some of the hires were for very specialized roles (frame relay/fiber optic types) that often took a while to source or had to be lured out of other places, and they were generally good at doing that too.

I'd never want to be one of the contract-to-hire candidates again (once was enough) but I'd be hard pressed dissuade others from using them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Can you get more projects on your own? If you get enough money to get comfortable without this project, you can have leverage with your friend and the client. Something like: " _I 'd like to continue working in this, but I have an offer from XYZ that pays me more._"

Also, read whatever patio11 wrote about this.

[https://www.kalzumeus.com/2012/09/17/ramit-sethi-and- patrick...](https://www.kalzumeus.com/2012/09/17/ramit-sethi-and-patrick- mckenzie-on-getting-your-first-consulting-client/)

[https://www.kalzumeus.com/2012/09/21/ramit-sethi-and- patrick...](https://www.kalzumeus.com/2012/09/21/ramit-sethi-and-patrick- mckenzie-on-why-your-customers-would-be-happier-if-you-charged-more/)

</comment><comment><USER16> >>> Other than that, I communicate with the client directly and manage the work without my friend's involvement.

If your friend has zero involvement and no relation with the client, I don't see how they are getting paid in your place to begin with.

Do you have a contract with your friend? If not, just notify the client to update your bank account details and they will start paying you directly.

<comment> 2bor-2n The friend is taking a cut because he introduced me to the client and kind of provided me with the opportunity to work.

He is rarely involved. I send him invoice monthly, and if I get stuck on some technical things he guides me a little (this have happened around 3-4 times in the whole year, so to give you an idea). He doesn't even have the domain knowledge of projects I am working on for his client.

"just notify the client to update your bank account details and they will start paying you directly" I don't think this is ethical, especially with your friend. This would result in a bad relationship between us or the end of it. We've been friends since childhood.

<comment><USER17> Is this person really your friend? If I "provided opportunity" for a friend I would never ask for a commission from his earnings. Actually, I did exactly that twice last month because I want my friends to have work and I trust their work. Even if I did ask for a commission, I'd arrange it so he'd pay me only a percentage of what he made the first month or a single fixed fee. What your friend is doing sounds a lot like pimping. If you've been friends since childhood something like that should not be enough to end your friendship. Of course I'm making many assumptions here, but that sounds abusive. You are afraid you will lose your friend if you ask to receive full payment for a work you put on on your own, with zero input form him. You are doing the work and you should be receiving the money. Even if you two have an arrangement of you paying a fee for the leads he generates to you, his cut should be much, much smaller.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I'm curious to know what value your friend is offering to justify taking the cut. It sounds to me like you're putting in 95% of the effort for 60% of the return.

If your work is good quality, it's almost certainly worth much more than $9 an hour. I would seriously consider:

\- negotiating with your friend to reduce his share - as long as it's still profitable to him, he should be willing to move a little.

\- trying to find some other freelancing work opportunities so that you don't feel pressured to accept your friend's terms.

</comment><comment><USER19> Do you have samples of your work? I'm sure someone on here would be willing to pay you more than $15/hr.

<comment> 2bor-2n I am working on my portfolio, unfortunately even after 5 years in the industry I still don't have portfolio of projects in JS frameworks like React or Angular. Mainly because I wasn't totally focused in my career. But I am very good with building static UI's with intermediate skills in vanilla JS.

But since last year, I have started to take my profession seriously. I quit a good paying job last year and started freelancing because the job was fulfilling for me.

Shortly after quitting the job I started working for my friend's client and that $9 rate was decided back then.

<comment><USER20> Do not wait for perfection. Just come up with a portfolio. Use Github for that!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> You don't have to charge every client the same. A client that is easy to work with gets a discount. A client that has steady work gets a discount (because you can count on them in lean times). A client that does work for a cause you support gets a discount. A client that provides some other benefit that I can't think of gets a discount.

This is a consideration that others haven't mentioned. Don't be afraid to take a different rate from different clients.

</comment><comment><USER22> I can think of two Options:

You could try getting in touch directly with new clients (costs time and effort) and negotiate a better deal.

You could negotiate with your friend to pay you the full amount but pay your friend a fixed fee instead (applicable if the worktime is not constant). For example if you work 50h/month the client pays 700 - 450 for you. Offer your friend a constant 200$. But try to increase your worktime so you get a better quote and your friend has a fixed income.

</comment><comment><USER23> The way to set your fee is to decide on a rate that is fair.

Neither too high nor too low. A fee that you think is reasonable.

When someone asks your fee, you say.... "this is my fee. I think it is fair. I do good work. I don't overcharge. I know there are cheaper people out there but that's not where I am positioned. You are welcome to work with the cheapest.

If you want good work at a fair price then I am happy to work with you but I cannot discount my rate because it's not commercially practical for me to do that."

If you lose the potential client then that is fine . Do not chase them with lower prices. Wait for the clients who agree with you.

When clients insist on some concession, some discount, then give it only in return for something else, like up front payment. Don't concede discounts for nothing.

<comment> 2bor-2n "Don't concede discounts for nothing" This is a great advice. Thank you.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> If you're in the Indian subcontinent, please email me with some examples of your work, I can send you some work from time to time - no cut.

<comment> 2bor-2n Just asking out of curiosity, why no cut policy?

<comment><USER24> because no reasonable cut would be worth the effort

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> This is a little off the particular circumstances of topic, but highlights it is not always as straight forward as it might seem.

Sometimes the mark-up is for more than is apparent - in Australia there is a 6% payroll tax that kicks in after a certain size payroll is achieved.

Also, big companies often like to "write one cheque" a week/month and not deal with a lot of hassles which can consume a few admin staff continuously.

My current contract was direct for years and they paid a 2.5% "supplier markup" extra to me because that is what the agency charged just for insurance postage and petties etc, at the individual scale it wasn't enough by maybe 2%, just for those issues, esp insurances.

There are more issues, but even though a contractor (hourly pay) almost entirely for my 30+ year working life, I still use the agency at times as the convenience can be worth it rather than going direct and often they can find work you can't, in my circumstances.

Having work vs not having work really lets you consider if you are prepared to pay them a bit to help you out, so it is just the nature of the problem sometimes.

</comment><comment><USER26> You can negotiate with your friend. You have more experience in general than when you started, and you have more experience with this client. Just keep in mind that if you negotiate, a couple of important "rules" will tend to set practical boundaries: 1\. you will have a hard time asking for more than "market value" for your skill level for your programming language in your area, from ANYONE (your friend or client) unless you can differentiate your service 2\. if you want your friend to pay you more than the customer is even paying him...guess what... you are really asking your friend to negotiate a higher rate with the customer... so you need to provide the justification and arguments your friend will use to dramatically increase the billing rate

This is possible to do. I've negotiated big increases in the past. But you need to understand what your skills are worth in the market.

You will also find that if you spend time finding new clients yourself, that activity takes times to do. So if your friend has a lot of connections, you may want to consider preserving that relationship if you don't want to worry about the business side.

</comment><comment><USER27> Nice "friend" you got there. A couple years ago I got my friend a $150/hour contracting gig, and my cut was $0/hour.

<comment><USER28> Hey, do you wanna be friends? :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Maybe try to keep a standard hourly rate of 12-14 and charge the same from all clients. And do work of that quality. You should definitely charge more than 9 for the kind of work you are doing, but you don't want to lose this client till you don't have a backup. So tread carefully

</comment><comment><USER30> In any negotiation the main factors are power, information and time. Does the client have the power to get someone else to do the job or does he need your specific skills and experience with the code? Can you do other work and just walk away if you don't get your asking rate? Knowing the rate your friend charges is good info and it would be good to know what any other client employees/contractors make and also what general rates are available from other employers. Time can help - how soon does the client need the work done - can he afford to hire and get someone else up to speed? Can you hold out for a higher rate or do you have living expenses to pay etc?

</comment><comment><USER31> If you're interested, could you please summarize your skills and experience? Someone here (including me) might have some work for you depending on that. You could also link to your resume.

</comment><comment><USER32> nice "friend" \- like straight from the mob I guess. I mean, I understand, that he might want some commission for his contacts (and sets up a payment plan), but a permament fee?!

<comment><USER33> Not sure why you're being downvoted, it's a fair criticism, introducing someone to a client doesn't entitle you to a percentage of their rate forever if you're bringing nothing to the table.

<comment><USER34> If you are a sub contractor to the company that has the contract then you lose margin to the company. That sounds like the arrangement here.

The multi billion dollar staffing agency business in the United States is built on these layers of comp for labor and finding labor.

<comment><USER33> Well yeah but OP mentioned it was his friend, who apparently twiddles his thumbs all day while OP busts his arse for $9 p/h. He has the ability to lean on the fact that this is a friend and should care a bit more about his well being than a multi billion dollar staffing agency.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Other commentors gave good advice about how to negotiate.

In the US, there's an expression called "Keeping up with the Jones'". It means you're trying to match what you see other people getting in income, material goods, etc., often at the expense of your own happiness. Think about the following before you act.

Why is the situation bothering you?

Are you being influenced by another party who thinks you're being taken advantage of?

Are you happy with the work and is it allowing you to enjoy your life?

</comment><comment><USER2> Any reason you can't get higher paid gigs online? I'm sure you could beat 9/h. If you can code 40/h should be a minimum then keep negotiating up as you do gigs.

</comment><comment><USER36> Make a profile on Upwork and experiment with your pricing there. Find more clients.

</comment><comment><USER37> Read 'Never Split the Difference', great book on negotiating.

<comment><USER2> I like it. I've not applied it directly to a negotiation, but it helps me edge forward on sticky points. Turn an angry complaint (or more likely for me passive aggressive) into a powerful question to move on. Maybe that is negotiation! But not used it on a high stake thing yet.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> You can ask for $18 and __not __stick to that offer.

If they pay you that, all is good. If not, you go on working with them until you find something else.

</comment><comment> 2bor-2n OP here: Guys what would be the best medium for negotiation Call, Face to Face or messaging?

</comment><comment><USER39> Your 'friend' is scamming you, they are basically taking a chunk of your wage for doing absolutely nothing at all.

Can you deal directly with the client and cut out the middleman? Early in my career, I did this with an employment agency who were perpetuating the same scam on me.

They weren't pleased about it, but fuck 'em. These capitalist bastards will grind you down and steal your labour any way they can - and you deserve better!

Anyway good luck with it, whichever approach you take.

<comment> 2bor-2n I am not sure this is the right road, as the middle man is my good old friend. May be I will try to persuade him, how much value I provide by managing all the client work by myself. I think I can give him a big rate, if he refuses or couldn't convince the client to pay that much then I will stop working for him.

<comment><USER40> "good old friend" and he is basically profiting of your work for doing nothing? I'm not sure what other qualities he offers in the relationship with you, but leeching isn't something friends do. Don't get sentimental just because you guys know each other for a long time. If the roles were reversed, would he accept the same conditions? I don't want to sound harsh, but when money is involved you should maximize negotiations for your own gain because you should assume everyone else is doing the same. Your friend maximized his and he didn't care about the relationship with you, just about his own gain.</comment></comment></comment>


The short list of jobs with high and rising pay - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2016/07/26/the-short-list-of-jobs-with-high-and-rising-pay/?mod=e2tw <comment><USER3> I've often thought that Physician Assistant might be a decent gig. Pay isn't stratospheric, but you can work anywhere in the country (a factor for two career families) and the training costs can't possibly be as extreme as a full physician.

There may be fewer "insider" investment opportunities available to physicians. Salary income for physicians is only part of their earning potential.

<comment><USER4> This is an astute comment. I live with a physician and have met lots of physicians who wish they'd been PAs instead, for reasons I enumerate here: [http://jakeseliger.com/2012/10/20/why-you-should-become-a- nu...](http://jakeseliger.com/2012/10/20/why-you-should-become-a-nurse-or- physicians-assistant-instead-of-a-doctor-the-underrated-perils-of-medical- school). Even the name is a misnomer, because PAs increasingly practice autonomously, so the "assistant" part of the job title is increasingly a misnomer or historical curiosity.

Among policy wonks, there's a meme going round about how healthcare jobs are the new manufacturing jobs. See here for one example: [http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2012/01/25/decline_of_ma...](http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2012/01/25/decline_of_manufacturing_rise_of_health_care.html).

<comment><USER5> I am a physician. Really wish I was a PA instead. In fact, I've left medicine and would only consider doing it a gain as a PA, not an MD.

<comment><USER6> Why would you not want to be (practice as) an MD, but _would_ be willing to consider being a PA, especially when the much higher cost of becoming an MD (time, effort, money) isn't even a factor for you (you already paid and won't get a refund)?

(I'm not challenging your choice; I'm hoping to learn something that might be useful to a younger relative of mine considering a medical career.)

<comment><USER5> Mainly because my specialty is collapsing and there are no jobs, so I would have to retrain in a different specialty. Of course, to be a PA I'd have to go through training as well, but the hours and stress would be a bit less. The stakes not as high.

I'm unlikely to do it though. The job market was only part of the reason I left. The field is so corrupt, political, and biased, the patients often so arrogant and defensive, I just hated the job.

<comment><USER6> thanks

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Mostly manager positions at the top. That's how you know society is falling apart. When it starts becoming an old boys club with shared resources among guys that don't do anything useful.

<comment><USER8> Has there ever been a time in which managers weren't making more money than everyone else? By your logic, society has always been falling apart. Every generation creates its own old boys club.

<comment><USER9> Making more is expected, that there wages are growing faster than the people under them is the exceptional part.

<comment><USER10> I'm not sure making more is expected. In my other comment I mentioned e.g. sports teams or quant trading as examples where even average performing subordinates can make more than their managers.

But yes, the decoupling of manager pay (fast growing) from subordinate pay (slow growing) is frightening. I don't see any evidence that the world gets more value from the activity of management now than previously, and in fact I see _tons_ of evidence, say even just _Moral Mazes_ to start, that managers actively destroy value for society in many cases.

<comment><USER9> I'm not worried about them making more than their subordinates so much, it's not a job I'd want to do.

I've often wondered if we could improve the org charts though, so we don't have things like managers making technical decisions that should be left up to there subordinates.

And so they can't push down work that is part of management, like filling out timesheets.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> A link in the article shows a drastic drop in manufacturing during mid-90s. Ross Perot was spot on about NAFTA and the giant sucking sound: [http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2016/06/20/as-low-skilled- job...](http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2016/06/20/as-low-skilled-jobs- disappear-men-drop-out-of-the-workforce/)

<comment><USER3> Did those jobs move to Canada and Mexico? On the other hand, it's my understanding that NAFTA also provides for cross-border portability for some occupations, notably engineers.

<comment><USER12> No, they moved to China.

<comment><USER13> No, China stole few manufacturing jobs.

US manufacturing output is at an all-time high today. It hasn't decreased, it has significantly expanded since NAFTA was created. Productivity destroyed those jobs. The US is producing far more output, with far fewer manufacturing jobs. It's a replication of the productivity gains in farming previously. Workers have to move to other skill fields with growth, just as they did as farming's productivity soared.

<comment><USER14> Do you have some numbers to back this up? I don't recall almost everything in my house being manufactured in China when I was a child in the 70s. It appears to be the case now though.

<comment><USER15> Here's a decent summary of the numbers around US manufacturing output: [http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-manufacturing-dead- outpu...](http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-manufacturing-dead-output-has- doubled-in-three-decades-2016-03-28)

I'd say the things around the house that say Made In China on them are largely things that simply didn't exist in the 70s. I'd like to find some kind of comparison to look into whether that intuition is correct, but whether it is or not, the numbers absolutely show US manufacturing is high and growing. It's manufacturing jobs that are disappearing, mostly due to automation.

<comment><USER16> It used to be the case that the US made the stuff that simply didn't exist before. (I don't mean apps, I mean tangible goods.)

And lots of stuff that used to be made here is now made in China and other parts of Asia, like furniture and clothing and phones.

<comment><USER15> Furniture production in the US in 1990 totaled $40bn; in 2005 it doubled to more than $85bn: [http://congressionalresearch.com/RL34001/document.php?study=...](http://congressionalresearch.com/RL34001/document.php?study=U.S.+Furniture+Manufacturing+Overview+and+Prospects)

What's being made in Asia that didn't exist before is super low cost disposable stuff that a lower-income family could buy, or that a middle-income family could throw in a guest room. I suspect that pattern exists all over -- I have some high-end first-world manufactured goods in my kitchen, but I also have some crappy junk that I use infrequently or on an almost disposable basis. Turn the clock back 40 years, and I would just have the high-end goods, without the pizza cutter or avocado masher or whatever.

<comment><USER17> The increase in inflation adjusted dollars is only $7bn. Absolutely not a decrease, but saying it more than doubled obscures the situation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> At some point, the owners of capital are going to have to just start distributing a greater share of their profit as wages. Any other solution for stagnant wages is just making excuses for antisocial behavior.

<comment><USER19> Um... the revolution of productivity that his happening in the workplace will likely enhance social behaviour and especially creative behaviour. The last revolution was about applying personal computing to the work environment - which did eliminate a lot of jobs, but created many more creative ones... and also brought about a much greater connectedness between human beings - <USER2> through email and then through social media. The next revolution is through robotics and one that will free many people from mundane tasks to much more creative ones... Bringing manufacturing back to the garage, and opening the opportuity for profit to many more people. In the same way, robotics/ai will also reduce traffic and provide a service where a person can have a physical presence virtually anywhere on the globe. We do not yet know the implications of the latest technological innovations - but history has definitely proven that each one only enhances not only our productivity (and "fun") but also our social connectedness.

<comment><USER20> This seems like an overly idealistic perspective.

 _but history has definitely proven that each one only enhances not only our productivity (and "fun") but also our social connectedness_

I think history has shown that overlords like rent seeking until disenfranchised poor people revolt violently or nations fall into war, making all the normal societal conflicts irrelevant.

I am not sure social connectedness has improved. It may have improved in quantity, but not necessarily in quality. Check out how well people in cities know each other compared to decades ago. Of course, you need to compare apples to apples. Comparing disenfranchised situations yesterday to nice situations today is the same as comparing disenfranchised situations today to nice situations yesterday. Compare nice to nice.

The whole idea about robotics and AI freeing people from mundane tasks is not new. Automation throughout history has always had good and bad consequences, but it's also fairly certain that such industrial revolutions have always been accompanied by upheaval and uncertainty, as power players try to use new technologies for both good and bad.

 _The Victorian Internet_ about the invention of the telegraph is an excellent read for an example of how the more things change, the more they stay the same.

<comment><USER19> My argument is simply.... If you leave technical advancement alone and provide people freedom - not government oppression or try to kill innovation underneath of some set social theory... It works out, and it works out better in the long run. What would have happened if someone was regulating our speech right now in this forum? Would you stand for such oppression in the name of social correctness? It's going to work out... Just not in the old framework of the way you envision. Have a little faith.

<comment><USER20> I'm not sure what is this old framework I supposedly envision, and I'm not sure how the example of regulating speech in this forum relates to or helps to explain anything. We used to be talking about the effects of new technology by itself on society, nothing else. Just not sure where you're going with this if you want to start bringing up all that other stuff.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Love how 10 of the listed job categories are some form of managers. No rent seeking here folks ... move along.

<comment><USER21> Eventually we'll get to a point where it is just a circular hierarchy of managers managing other managers managing the first set of managers. Emails and meetings will fly around ceaselessly, while the machines churn away.

<comment><USER22> The graphic doesn't say anything about how prevalent these jobs are, just which ones are high paying and have high pay growth. It should not be surprising that medical professionals and managers are in these categories.

Trust me, we're far from your world of "managers managing managers all the way down". These jobs aren't growing on trees. Go look for an actual management job posting--you'll find that for every 1 management role most companies have, there are probably 100 non-manager roles open.</comment></comment></comment>


Why are so many Silicon Valley executives involved in sex scandals?Discuss - <AUTHOR> Android creator Andy Rubin is accused of running a 'sex ring' https://www.businessinsider.com/andy-rubin-complaint-documents-sex-ring-2019-7 <comment><USER2> People have moral standards, some use these standards as a currency to buy what others control. A boss might control overtime, travel perks such as assistant to the boss on a trip. This sort of power may well be what drove Rubin, and we can see how money works in cases like this. With large amounts of cash at his disposal he would be able to hire sex rings of whatever size he wanted. the company was unaware of what went on (with the exception of fellow ring members who would keep quiet). Had they known before the settlement, the terms may well have been a lot less generous. Often nerdy tech types like him are at the bottom of the sexual attractiveness pecking order and never learn the nuances of interactive relationships, might even be a part of an Autism aspect?? Then he learns he can flash $$ and hot women line up to grab it, hookers or just flexible morals?

</comment><comment><USER3> Seems entirely possible that Silicon Valley doesn't host a disproportionate amount of sex scandals. Maybe there's something about the PR culture, or the relationship with news media such that sex scandals actually get reported on.

My guess, after working in old large corporations, is that the Silicon Valley people aren't quite as cozy with reporters and lawyers. They haven't had time to develop tactics for getting reporters to not report on juicy sex scandals. They haven't had time to come up with a play book for dealing with sex scandals.

</comment><comment><USER4> Scandals have been going around him for a very long time. Make sure you don't count him more than once.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Two careful points to be observed here. Does Silicon Valley have a disproportionate high share of such scandals? If yes would there be a serious bias in the development of autonomous systems especially in the area of language and context processing?

<comment><AUTHOR> He is the Father of Android. The team he built still runs most of android. How does that work?

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> IDK -- because they aren't paid enough?</comment>


Keep your downloads folder clean, automatically. - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/this-could-be-better/e74fb420cea0

<comment><USER2> My Downloads go to /tmp. Problem solved.</comment>


Ask HN: What is the best way to track where and why your visitors disappear? - <AUTHOR>

How do you track your conversion funnels and visitor drop-off through your site?
Do the goals in Google Analytics work for you? Do you find them easy to set up?
Tracking where and why people drop-off through registration and ordering pages is critical but there don't seem to be great ways to do so.
Our company has just spend a huge amount of money on Omniture to track exactly this. Has anyone used anything simpler that does this well? Are you pleased with it? <comment><USER2> Clicktale.com actually let's you watch users on your site. You see what they see and where their mouse moves. This is different than what Omniture offers, it is more supplemental to what you are asking. I do know that Omniture's number one competitor is probably CoreMetrics.</comment>


Ask HN: Best way to bill customers on a monthly basis (UK and US Customers)? - <AUTHOR>

What is the best way to easily bill customers every month?<p>(For a SaaS site. They pay x every month and I let them use my site)<p>I'm after something that will just work easily and will bill as many customers/no declines. <comment><USER2> Amazon Payments is pretty good; I've been using it and am reasonably happy.

</comment><comment><USER3> Stripe, if you're located in the US.

SaaSy or PayPal, if you're elsewhere.</comment>