Disruptive - <AUTHOR> http://minimalmac.com/post/9113339945/disruptive

<comment><USER2> Less than an "iPad Market" or a "mobile market" I think we are simply seeing the beginning of a world where you think less about the gadget that you are using and more about _what you want to do_. Now, the only reason this will be possible is because the gadgets are/will be designed so well that you are able to start ignoring them.

For instance, I have my contacts in Gmail on my Android phone and when I update them in one place, I have access to them everywhere I use Google. Why can't my GPS use my google contacts so that I can find directions? Why would I have to check my voice mail from my phone (I don't with Google Voice)? etc.

Apple understands the gadget aspect of this. Google understands the "cloud" aspect of this (Apple is catching on). What people want -- normal everyday people -- is not PCs/tablets/iPhones; for the most part, they hate computers; they want to interact with people and things made easier for them. They stick a key in their car and it "just works". They wash their clothes in a washing machine and it "just works". As hackers/developers/etc, we love computers for what they are, everybody else just wants an appliance.

<comment><USER3> >Why can't my GPS use my google contacts so that I can find directions?

Because you haven't installed Google Latitude?

<comment><USER4> Even more: because you didn't click on your contact's name in your contact list?

I click on my dad's name in my contacts list and it shows his home phone, cell phone, and address. Next to each is an icon allowing me to "call the phone number" or "launch Navigation for this address".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> John Siracusa explained on an episode of his podcast that part of the reason long-time Mac users experience so much schadenfreude about PCs and PC market share is that Mac users have felt like the persecuted minority despite being advocates of what they saw as a superior product for so long. It's a very emotional thing, he explains.

That does not explain, however, why a Mac user imagine himself, just because of his association with Apple as a consumer, that he had anything to do with Apple's success, or that his advice to anyone would be in any way meaningful.

Especially when that advice is "be disruptive." Disruption's easy to see in hindsight. But it's almost impossible to see before it happens. That's why it's called 'disruption.'

And anyway, Google is a force of disruption. On many vectors. In mobile, Google has introduced a business model that's so disruptive that all the industry players feel threatened enough to resort to litigation. (I'm referring to licensing of Android, wherein the manufacturers actually _get paid_ for using the OS, through some ad-sharing deal that's never been completely explicated as far as I know.) They're also still quietly working on ChromeOS, another potentially disruption.

My point is, saying "be disruptive" is about as valuable as saying "just win!"

<comment><USER6> _My point is, saying "be disruptive" is about as valuable as saying "just win!"_

I agree it's not the most prescriptive advice, but it's not the same as "just win!". The term "disruptive technology" was coined by Clayton Christensen, who has written several books on the topic. In _The Innovator's Dilemma_ he describes several disruptions in many industries in great detail.

The scenarios he describes (which the OP is referencing by using the term "disruptive") are not generic "here's a company who won!" situations. They are very specific. Namely, a competitor introduced a new technology that was inferior to established technologies in many important ways, but which was vastly superior in at least one. And importantly, it was superior in a way that could not be "backported" to the mainstream technology.

We talk about defensibility here sometimes, and each of these new technologies has a clear defensibility strategy.

Every Google Doc has a URL your coworker can click in an email, and be immediately editing the document, on any computer, whether or not they've paid for Office. That is a feature that will _never_ be added to Office. It _can't_ be added to office.

Telling Google (or HP, or Amazon) to be disruptive is telling them to focus on finding features that Apple _won't_ or _can't_ add to the iPad, and building your products around those.

That's a hell of a lot more to go on than "just win".

<comment><USER5> And _Innovator's Dilemma_ was written like fifteen years ago. I'm pretty sure anyone at any position of authority understands the concept. That's not what stops large companies from being disruptive. It's fear, bureaucracy, risk aversion, any number of things. But it's not because they've never heard of disruption before.

So, I stand by my point that the value proposition for the sentiment "be disruptive" is equal to that of "just win," namely: zero.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> "You are the company that names your beta builds after candy, ice cream, and sugared cereals. Apple names their betas after things that will eat your things along with the tasty human wrapper that eats that crap. Do you honestly think anyone can take you seriously?"

Really? That's his biggest dig against Google is that they like to have fun with their beta names?

<comment><USER8> Apple fanboy takes cheap shots at Google for eating Apple's smartphone lunch, film at 11 :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> So what about the Kindle and the Nook? They seem to be doing okay, and would anyone really call them a different market? I mean, they're obviously specialized as e-readers while the iPad is more general-purpose, but I don't see why Kindles and Nooks won't morph into more general-purpose devices as well (the Nooks already are fairly general-purpose)?

That is to say, are Kindles and Nooks _fundamentally_ different from iPads, and therefore would be considered to serve different markets, or is it much more like Apple computers vs. PC's in the 80's? One had a much larger market share than the other, and they were _different enough_ that we had a divide between "Apple Computers" and "Personal Computers", even though they largely did the same stuff?

<comment><USER10> I like the Kindle (and the new Nook, not the old ones) for two reason:

1\. the e-ink is easy on my eyes when reading for hours; I would never seriously read on a backlit tablet device.

2\. The devices really are ONLY for reading. I spend my entire day in front of a full-blown computer, so when I have a break I don't want another full-blown computer in front of me. I want a book or a reading device. This is the same reason why I don't own a smartphone. I think I'm in the minority of geeks, but in the majority of regular people when I say this. I think most people would say, "Why would I want to check my email on my book?"

From that perspective I think they're hugely different markets than the iPad. It bummed me out to hear that Amazon is jumping on the tablet bandwagon with their unreleased Kindle, because like I said in another thread (and like this article says), people don't care about tablets, they care about iPads. I'd bet that any tablet not made by Apple is doomed to failure for at least the next 5 years, because only Apple knows how to put together such a slick and seamless user experience.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Why is anyone happy that it is only an iPad market? Do they expect Apple to continually innovate in a non-competitive market? If you like tablets and not just Apple, you want to see more contenders in the market not less.

<comment><USER12> "Do they expect Apple to continually innovate in a non-competitive market?"

Probably, yes, and I would argue there is some reason to believe they would do so. Look at what happened in the MP3 player market: Apple utterly dominated that market long ago, and yet they kept messing with the product lines, adding models, changing the feature balances, etc. There was and still is a lot of experimentation going on there and there's essentially no real competitors in that market anymore. "Portable music player" and "iPod" are practically synonyms.

Apple (with Steve Jobs at the helm, anyway) is different from many companies. They don't see themselves as competing with other companies. Instead I believe they consider Apple of the previous year to be the competitor to beat for the current year.

<comment><USER13> _> Apple utterly dominated that market long ago_

Was that true outside the 'States? I don't remember the iPod ever dominating here, while in the tablet market the iPad does seem to dominate.

<comment><USER14> Interested to know where 'here' is for you. In the UK ipod did and still does dominate the public perception of modern portable music.

<comment><USER13> _> Interested to know where 'here' is for you._

Portugal. There were iPods, but as far as I'm aware they didn't dominate the market - in fact, I believe Creative players were more popular.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> "You are the company that names your beta builds after candy, ice cream, and sugared cereals. Apple names their betas after things that will eat your things along with the tasty human wrapper that eats that crap. Do you honestly think anyone can take you seriously?"

Funny, because Android has 20% of the market. ([http://venturebeat.com/2011/08/12/android-tablets-peel- away-...](http://venturebeat.com/2011/08/12/android-tablets-peel-away-20-of- ipads-mega-market-share/))

And that's without having a compelling price point. Right now a rooted Nook is the only value product point out there in Android, and Google still has a 20% OS share. When somebody inevitably figures out how to pump out an equivalently featured tablet at the sub $200 range, volume market shares will change dramatically. This does not, of course, mean that the iPad will not continue to earn the vast majority of the market's profits. But that's a different story...

As to the main thrust of the argument, I think that disruptive innovation from Apple's competitors will continue to be exceptionally rare (rather than the norm, as it is at Apple) as long as product development is feature driven rather than UX driven. Please correct me if you think there are other structural factors in play.

</comment><comment><USER16> Main takeaway points:

1) The iPad is disruptive. Interesting evidence for that from HP, but the point is not surprising.

2) In order to be very successful, do something "disruptive, mind blowing, magical" (which the author hasn't thought of yet). No Duh.

</comment><comment><USER17> "Make the iPad as irrelevant as the iPad seems to be doing to the consumer PC."

I don't think this is wise goal in the short term. The iPad/tablet space is just ramping up. There is certainly room for competitors here, but I just don't see a vector for disruption right now. Maybe in 5 years.

There are plenty of other markets to disrupt, though. Look at Sonos-- they blew up the (hugely expensive) whole-house audio market. Or Flip (rip) with their camcorder.

</comment><comment><USER18> Bookmarked and probably will throw it at the OP's face in 5 years. 30 million odd iPads sold does not mean anything. Yes iPad is a spectacular success, but it hardly is the end of the PC era. There is a world beyond the United States as well, they do have a little say in determining the market.

<comment><AUTHOR> I wonder ... At what point in Facebook/Microsoft's history was it justifiable to say that they were going to dominate the market so entirely that every other entry was destined to be a chimp, not the gorilla?

<comment><USER19> There was a point in MySpace's history where lots of folks said that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Wow, if you're not a fanboi, that was really tough to get through. But what the author fails to realize is that it isn't about hardware. If Tim Cook had truly 'locked up' the components channel, competitors wouldn't be flooding the market (which they are).

I agree with the author that this market already needs to be revolutionized. Google and Microsoft aren't just playing copycat. The Kinect isn't the only technology coming out of Microsoft that truly changes the game. [http://www.conceivablytech.com/8886/business/beyond- windows-...](http://www.conceivablytech.com/8886/business/beyond- windows-8-patent-hints-to-a-future-streaming-os)

</comment><comment><USER21> "You will never be able to build at the same cost they do and produce anything even close."

Umm..the Galaxy Tab 10.1? Also the Asus Transformer tablet is pretty close, too, and $100 cheaper.

And speaking about the Transformer. I think this it. That is the new market. The evolution of both notebooks and tablets - the Transfomer style notebook. You get iPad style consumption by detaching the tablet, and you get productivity, too, by attaching it to the keyboard dock. Although, having a keyboard and 50% higher battery life (Asus Transformer with keyboard lasts 15-16 hours) will not be enough for "productivity". You also need some productivity apps, and Google should work harder on that. But luckily for them, and Microsoft, the world is moving to HTML5 web-apps, and the tablets are catching up quickly in performance with most notebooks.

Why did I say for Microsoft's sake, too? Because whether Microsoft or Intel likes it, the world is moving to ARM based machines. And when Microsoft will do that with Windows 8, they'll have _zero_ legacy apps on it. They'll have to start from scratch. This is why they need HTML5 apps, and are trying to promote them over Silverlight apps, because they think it's the quicker/easier way to get into the market.

So yeah, think about it - the Transformer style notebook/tablet. It's both a tablet and an evolution of the notebook. It's the best of both world's and this way the tablet can also become a "necessity" not just a luxury item, because you won't be using it just for consumption anymore.

Yes, there is an "iPad market" out there, and although it's growing, it's still tiny and I don't think people will ever consider them their main "computers". They could consider their main computers a Transformer style tablet, though. Two years from now they'll have enough performance and apps to do just that for everyone. But the trend starts today, and Asus is leading the pack.

The others should follow them if they want to outsell the iPad and make themselves relevant for the future. They need to make the tablet something that is a _necessity_ for everyone, just like a phone or a notebook is (the iPad isn't). And the Transformer style tablet/notebook is the way to do that.

There's a reason why Apple promoted a keyboard with the iPad from day one. They felt the iPad is an _incomplete_ product without it. And it is.

</comment><comment><USER22> This guys has a major stick up his ass. His comment that Google fails in the tablet market because they have silly beta names is ridiculous. Google does not even manufacture the hardware and as such cannot guarantee the UX.

On top of that his suggestion is blatantly obvious - Apple dominates tablets. So if you want to make money its probably easier if you go for the lower lying fruit.

to paraphrase: steve jobs is so frickin' awesome its not even worth trying to compete with him. So go and find greener pastures.

<comment><USER20> His writing style is annoying with it's 'Apple holier than though' attitude. But I think you've missed the overall point of the article.

If you can ignore such pedantic arguments as the beta names, he actually makes one good point. At the same time, I think he completely misses the fact that it isn't the hardware manufacturers that will differentiate, it's the OSs. The hardware difference between the iPad and other tablets is minimal at best, which is why Apple is suing Samsung for copying the design.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> So it looks like we've now got the term "iPad effect" to represent when someone creates a new market... Wonder what the next one will be...

<comment><USER24> I'm rooting for Augmented Reality eyeglasses and contact lenses.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augmented_Reality>

=]

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> You can replace "iPad" with "iPhone" and "2011" with "2008" to see how silly this argument is.

</comment><comment><USER26> what's with so many sites recently having poor kerning? is anyone else seeing this? is tumblr doing something strange with fonts?

</comment><comment><USER27> What the author carefully sidesteps is that, according to Gartner, Apple market share is DROPPING fast. And, that Android has reached a critical "over 20%" market share this year.</comment>


PyPy: the other new compiler project - <AUTHOR> http://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/388160/52ddb2785b47e70b/ <comment><USER2> Off-topic: I was intrigued by the 'ATS' in the shootout (don't remember it being there a couple of years ago).

I had followed the link posted by rodion_89 (2008 blog), into <http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/#acceptable> (nice opening and closing) and [http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u64/performance.php?test=b...](http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u64/performance.php?test=binarytrees) \- where 'ATS' sits at #3 (behind C and C++, edging out Java6).

The code (e.g. [http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u64/program.php?test=binar...](http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u64/program.php?test=binarytrees&lang=ats&id=3) ) does not look too ugly, but apparently it may be twice as verbose as C++ ( <http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u32/ats.php> ).

So, on to <http://www.ats-lang.org/> :

 _ATS is a programming language with a highly expressive type system rooted in the framework Applied Type System. In particular, both dependent types and linear types are available in ATS. The current implementation of ATS (ATS/Anairiats) is written in ATS itself. It can be as efficient as C/C++ (see The Computer Language Benchmarks Game for concrete evidence) and supports a variety of programming paradigms that include:

\- Functional programming. [...]

\- Imperative programming. [...]

\- Concurrent programming. [...]

\- Modular programming. [...]_

</comment><comment><USER3> PyPy while great news for Python, is still a snail compared to another high- level language JIT, LuaJIT:

[http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u32/benchmark.php?test=all...](http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u32/benchmark.php?test=all&lang=luajit&lang2=pypy)

edit: bit of background: Lua is a minimalist dynamic language. It can be used anywhere in your web development request stack since mod_lua was included in Apache 2.3.

<comment><USER4> And it also has nothing to do with it from an architectural point of view. LuaJIT's code is not generally reusable. It's highly optimized, often platform specific C and assembler code. PyPy is an experimental (in the good way) and successful attempt at using a subset of python to make a faster python interpreter than the native C interpreter, while in the process creating a platform to create other optimized dynamic languages interpreters. It's code is highly general and readable, especially compared to something as specific and low level than LuaJIT. In the process, the devs have created a new language, rpython, that is as fast as C while being much more expressive.

Lua is also a much simpler language than python, and therefore a much better target to fine tuned optimizations.

You could almost say that LuaJIT is a pragmatic project, and pypy an idealistic one. And they're both succeeding. But they don't have the same goals at all.Please dont compare them without giving a bit of background. It's very misleading.

<comment><USER5> Do you have any references for your "as fast as C" part? That seems like a very dubious claim.

If your ultimate goal is performance, I believe PyPy is fundamentally flawed because it already introduces two levels of indirection that cannot easily be removed. Of course their goal seems to be to simply be faster than the python interpreter and remain maintainable at the same time. They appear to be succeeding at that and I congratulate them on that.

LuaJIT takes the right approach w.r.t. performance. The interpreter for LuaJIT 2 is well-optimised and not actually that hard to understand. This goes together with a well-chosen set of interpreter instruction set and intermediate representation. All these layers require careful design, and Mike Pall didn't come up with this over night.

<comment><USER6> Here's how RPython is "faster than C":

1\. PyPy's Python interpreter is written in RPython, a subset of Python.

2\. CPython is an interpreter written in C.

3\. When compiled into a JIT, PyPy's Python interpreter is now generally faster than CPython, sometimes by a wide margin.

4\. Code written in RPython is faster than code written for a nearly identical purpose in C. The C code in question has been the target of aggressive optimizations for years while the RPython code is relatively immature.

Now, for many applications I'm sure C remains faster than RPython. But for the application RPython is designed for--writing an interpreter for a dynamic language--I think it is safe to say that RPython appears faster than C.

The fact that the PyPy's interpreter is cleaner, safer, and more maintainable than equivalent C code is also a huge win. Again, the point of the original post is that RPython could become an simple implementation language to create fast interpreters for dynamic languages. It could also become a target language for other compilers.

Anyways, as others have pointed out, Lua is a considerably simpler language than Python. LuaJIT is a really remarkable piece of engineering, especially since it was written by one guy, but it's really a completely different project than PyPy. Its aim is to make Lua--and only Lua--extremely fast. If PyPy's Python implementation gets no faster (which I think is unlikely) the potential ability to easily create new dynamic languages that are similarly speedy is itself an amazing achievement.

<comment><USER7> > 4\. Code written in RPython is faster than code written for a nearly > identical purpose in C.

This is where your argument falls down. Selection sort and heap sort are both written for the identical purpose, but due to their different designs and different complexities, a heap sort written in _ordinary_ Python would outperform a selection sort written in C for a great many inputs. This does not prove that Python is faster than C, it simply proves that two programs, even written for the identical purpose, can achieve that purpose in vastly different ways, and those differences can greatly impact the performance of those programs.

<comment><USER7> A downmod but no counterargument? Sad.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


California just became the first state with an IOT cybersecurity law - <AUTHOR> https://www.theverge.com/2018/9/28/17874768/california-iot-smart-device-cybersecurity-bill-sb-327-signed-law <comment><USER2> "... Starting on January 1st, 2020"</comment>


Reconsidering Star Wars IV in the light of I-III  - <AUTHOR> http://www.morningstar.nildram.co.uk/A_New_Sith.html <comment><USER2> I really like reading this, but I can't shake the feeling that I'm reading a form of "creation science", where you need some particularly creative interpretations of things in order to make sense.

Making Han Solo into an unwitting front for a Wookie mastermind is a lot like explaining how Carbon 14 would decay at a different rate before the great flood. It's better to just accept that there are holes in the story than to try to make everything fit together perfectly.

<comment><USER3> Being a writer, I can personally believe Lucas when he said he'd planned Episodes I-III before the original trilogy, however at the time he likely only ever considered them as a back story for the original trilogy. This would be much-like Tolkien's appendices that cover much of the back story of Middle Earth, but are in no way a novel, just as Lucas's back story was in no way a script.

There are obvious plot holes, but that happens with any prequel. It just so happens that for me there are enough mentions of the past in the original trilogy that I believe he did have plans for a prequel even from the beginning. However, I believe that was simply good story telling, because if it wasn't there wouldn't be the whole star wars universe there is today.

From Lucas' films, Bail Organa did absolutely everything. Yoda was completely out of communication, likely simply to stay out of the Emperor's way. The Jedi are good, Yoda is amazing, but even he wouldn't stand up to the Emperor's wrath (remember, the Sith are as adept at foresight as, if not better than, the Jedi) had they found his location (IE he'd have glassed the planet). Anyone travelling to Degobah would have been suspicious, and as Obi Wan was the first to go blue (Qui-Gon having died like 50 years too early, plus the established cannon that Obi Wan was sent to Tattoine to learn the secrets of immortality) Yoda was really and truly out of communication. Obi Wan likely had the ability to communicate more, but probably didn't manage much beyond "Hey Organa, Skywalker got heat stroke again, looks like he's pulling through though!".

Obi Wan's mission was a lot more important than living forever. He learnt how to physically join the force, which has to be achieved at death (Qui-Gon didn't vanish, he died), hence "If you strike me down now, I will only become more powerful than you could ever imagine!" Not exactly a cry for mercy. Why is this important? Well there was only 2 Jedi and 2 Sith left in the _entire universe_ , if the Jedi managed to skip the whole 'disappearing into non- existence' they would be able to restore the Galactic Senate to its height pre-prequel-trilogy. Obi Wan died, and so did Yoda. However, if Vader hadn't turned back to the Light-Side he and the Emperor would have vanished, with all the knowledge of the Sith with them. 100 years down the road when someone talented in the force appeared, they'd be visited by two Force Ghosts that could train them and re-establish the Jedi Order. This was their plan, they knew full well that Luke and even Leia could die just from life, or at the hands of the Emperor and it would spell the end of the Jedi for eternity, while potentially not being the end of the Sith.

Bail Organa, sadly was Obi Wan and Yoda's patsy. His job was to incite rebellion and bring down the Empire by killing the Emperor and Vader. However, when the first time failed, the Empire was really onto them. The Rebels jumped into the Battle of Endor right into the Imperial's trap. Had Luke basically not sacrificed himself, voluntarily being captured and luring Vader onto the Death Star 2 with the Emperor and distracting them both then the entire battle would have ended with "Oh shit, the thing has a shield!" as the DS2 had an active cannon and the Empire had deployed its gravity well technology to stop them jumping out (this was passingly mentioned in the film as the reason why they couldn't escape, but never directly explained). Luke, by all rights, got lucky that Vader had a heart, which gave him time enough to escape. Had Vader not had a heart, Luke would have been human-pork-roast and the Emperor and Vader would have died in the explosion.

The New Trilogy aptly set up the story line that Lucas told in the Original Trilogy. He had to smooth a few rough edges, but the Original Trilogy itself had many plot holes to begin with, for instance: How did Vader manage to be within an inch of his daughter and not recognise her, but barely got into the same room as Luke before knowing it was his son. Lucas is doing decent to say there was 22 years between the two movies, and apart from the whole "Han Shot First" fiasco, he's made the stories significantly better for new fans watching through from the beginning. However the whole "Luke I am your Father" is ruined, so my Kids will one day see the original trilogy first and I'll ruin all of George Lucas' work!

Why didn't R2 and Chewie know who each other were? Well firstly R2 can basically communicate with C3P0 and Luke. Chewie can basically communicate with C3P0 and Han. Simply put, the only one with a talent for communicating there is C3P0 and from the looks of it, he's had so many memory wipes that he's basically incapable of doing much but following and acting as a more annoying google translate. Secondly R2 and Chewie are part of a fucking terrorist group, they're plotting to destroy the government! I doubt there's an open list of active members published at every meeting house. Chewie was working with smugglers, R2 was working with _royalty_. Simply put, there should be no reason whatsoever that they should have known they had both acted for the Rebels.

When Han left with his cash, it was likely Chewie who prodded Han to return, likely by bating him. Chewie had worked with the rebels, and disappeared for 20+ years. It's safe to say, that after seeing his entire civilization and species be concurred by the Empire, he expected the same for everything else. when he saw how organized Bail Organa had got the rebels, he likely wanted to rejoin the fight.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Leia specifically says "I have placed information vital to the survival of the Rebellion into the memory systems of this R2 unit." So, the interpretation of R2-D2's role at the beginning seems spurious.

<comment><USER3> R2 was a message boy, Leia dumped him onto Obi Wan hoping some loyalist sentiment would be kicked up in the old fool. Likely she'd over heard some communication between her step-father and Obi Wan, but never grasped why the old guy had marooned himself in a desert. Incidentally, to find out how to go Force-Ghost, which was instrumental to the survival of the Jedi order.

Apparently the Jedi's plan was that Obi Wan discover the ability to go force- ghost and as he's human and has a shitty lifespan, he could die and secretly transmit the information to Yoda without Sith interception. Obi Wan, instead of risking capture decided to let himself die . . . apparently after training Anakin, he really hates padawans.

Why did Obi Wan travel to Mos Eisley and not simply dig up his old ship he owned 20 years ago and fly that? I mean he was a frigging fighter pilot! This major plot hole introduced by his own backstory is somewhat helped by Chewbaca's back story, Obi Wan set up the meet, and possibly knew of Chewy beforehand and that Chewy and Han operated from Mos Eisley. This, I believe, was pure luck on Lucas' part.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Here's my question: how did Luke end up stuck slogging in the desert with his grouchy uncle while his twin sister got to grow up a princess on a beautiful world?

<comment><USER6> I know. It's no fair that Luke got a quiet, peaceful childhood, spending all his time tinkering with his Land Speeder, shooting swamp rats, and daydreaming about adventuring through the Galaxy, while his sister had to grow up in a stifling, controlling, political environment where her every word, action, and appearance were constantly monitored giving her very little freedom or privacy.

Obviously, Obi-wan went easier on the boy.

<comment><USER3> Because Vader managed to tell Luke was his son at like 300 meters distance through steel walls and shit, but didn't catch on when he was stood next to his daughter . . . some father!

If Luke had taken on the place of Bail Organa's kid, the rebellion would have been found out very, very fast. I'm sure Bail Organa ran into Vader many times while he was under Empire suspicion, however I believe it's _very_ had to explain if Vader walks into your house and says "What the hell, that's my fucking son! Why do you have my child?!"

Apparently fathers have no connection whatsoever to their daughters. They've got to strangle their son multiple times before they notice they even have a daughter . . . sounds like an episode of the Simpsons.

<comment><USER7> It isn't necessarily a difference between father-son and father-daughter; more likely it's because Luke was using the Force unconsciously in his flying and shooting even before Obi-wan starting training him, while Leia never showed any signs of Force use during any of the movies.

<comment><USER3> I know. To be fair, Luke didn't realize she was his sister with her tongue down his throat, so they're all a bit of a messed up family. Hopefully Luke would have figured it out before he tried to get into Leia's pants.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This actually makes me rethink George Lucas as being brilliant rather than stupid. It's also re-written the entire Star Wars saga in my mind for the remainder of my life.

<comment><USER9> No. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxKtZmQgxrI>

<comment><USER10> I thought that was going to be a link to the Star Wars Holiday Special (<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCNGjKnTzaQ>) as a testament against George Lucas. Gives me the shivers just thinking about it.

<comment><USER11> the holiday special is painful even _with_ RiffTrax... and those salvage even some of the worst movies. And yes, I've watched _the whole thing_ , and my friends who watched it with me are still friends (somehow). Though I did warn them of the badness.

(for the uninformed: they're the MST3K guys' current project)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I never was a fan of Star-Wars, but after watching the prequels my thought was that the Jedis deserved their fate for not taking prophecies literally or not knowing basic math.

Obi Wan to Anakin: "You were supposed to bring balance to the force!"

Dude, two Jedis and two Siths sounds pretty balanced to me.

</comment><comment><USER13> As far as I'm concerned... this is the new canon for the entire series.

Thank you for saving my love of Star Wars.

</comment><comment><USER14> This just popped up on Cracked's "6 Insane Fan Theories That Actually Make Great Movies Better" article - [http://www.cracked.com/article/18367_6-insane- fan-theories-t...](http://www.cracked.com/article/18367_6-insane-fan-theories- that-actually-make-great-movies-better/)

A related discussion at Metafilter pointed out TV Tropes' page on "Wild Mass Guesses" - <http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/WMG/StarWars> \- specifically, "Luke was a baited trap that got lucky." Obi-Wan & Yoda would have rather trained Leia in the Force. :)

</comment><comment><USER15> One of the more interesting theories I've read about the leadership of the Rebellion is that control was passed from the aristocracy of Alderaan to that of Mon Calamari (Admiral Ackbar's planet) between IV and VI, as the Calamari contributed most of the Rebel capital ships to what was originally a network of spies and rogue X-Wing jocks.

</comment><comment><USER16> it's a shame that the misspelling of Tatooine in that article hasn't been corrected in 4+ years

oh and Lucas isn't that clever.

<comment><USER17> Also Kashyyyk.

While I don't really think Lucas is that clever, he did have plans for nine films, so I suppose it's possible.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> why are people expending effort making excuses for George's abortion?

</comment><comment><USER19> How is this HN material? I am curious...

<comment><USER20> HN == nerds

<comment><USER7> And nerds == technologically competent + artistically stunted

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> There were three prequels to the Star Wars trilogy?

<comment><USER22> I don't know what they are talking about neither. I love those sci-fi movies from the 70s though...

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Most geeke Hacker News entry I know :) By the way I-III sucked, so we don't have the reconsider anything.</comment>


Why do people write viruses? - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/security/?p=1422

<comment><USER2> The general impact of their work however is a healthier commercial software industry because viruses scare away many users from pirated software.

I wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft appreciates their work, just as long as it doesn't get too much out of control.

BTW, I also think Microsoft appreciates a certain level of piracy as free advertisement.

<comment><USER3> * I also think Microsoft appreciates a certain level of piracy as free advertisement.*

Exhibit 1: Vista 7

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> For the lulz :) (Read: it's all about ego)

</comment><comment><USER5> Because they have AntiVirus software to sell.

<comment><USER2> Or maybe because they want to encourage cutting edge biology-inspired research for anti-virus software:

<http://www.cs.unm.edu/~immsec/publications/virus.pdf></comment></comment>


I Was a CIA Whistleblower, Now I'm a Black Inmate - <AUTHOR> https://theintercept.com/2016/09/13/i-was-a-cia-whistleblower-now-im-a-black-inmate-heres-how-i-see-american-racism/ <comment><USER2> As background:

Sterling was convicted after it discovered that he'd been leaking details of "Operation Merlin" to reporter James Risen. "Merlin" was a scheme in which blueprints for Russian nuclear arms technology was to be altered, such that attempts to test those weapons would fail, and then passed through to Iran's nuclear program. "Merlin" ultimately failed.

<comment><USER3> so where is the public interest to justify whistleblowing?

<comment><USER4> The blueprints weren't altered enough, apparently, and the Iranians were still able to use them to advance their nuclear program. Thus, it was sheer stupidity on the CIA's part.

And you know what you don't do? Point out the big, mean guy's stupidity in public. He gets angry.

<comment><USER5> But within the government mistakes are made all the time, should every mistake be publicly acknowledged as it happens?

<comment><USER4> There's a mistake (painting the wrong building), and there are "mistakes", like Fast and Furious[1]. Doing something extremely risky in a half-assed manner and chalking it up to a "mistake" is just trying to shirk responsibility.

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

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Lots of comments here about the information he leaked from the CIA and zilch about race. This article isn't about the CIA; it's about racism in America.

<comment><USER7> Yeah, let's talk about that. Racism in America vs natural segregation vs enforced segregation. Let's talk about how ice makers only provide 1 thing, but TVs provide many channels. Personal preference or group mentality. Would everyone in that prison be OK with watching ESPN or Cops? What differences drive the differences in programming? How does innate racism fit in?

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Off topic but what is the name for this (as a style element?):

> "Man, this is prison."

> "Man, this is America."

<comment><USER9> I believe this an Anaphora, even if in this case, repetition are not really close to each other

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anaphora_%28rhetoric%29](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anaphora_%28rhetoric%29)

<comment><USER10> Linked from there is "symploce", which may be a better match?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> He wasn't a whistleblower: he was a leaker. He permitted national-security information to fall into the hands of someone not cleared to handle it.

Moreover, he shows not one whit of repentance for his crime.

<comment><AUTHOR> To be fair, very early on he says, "I was charged with, and a jury convicted me of, leaking classified information to a New York Times reporter."

He doesn't try to protest his innocence.

<comment><USER11> > He doesn't try to protest his innocence.

No, but neither does he seem to have any real recognition that he did wrong.

Indeed, reading his article I get the sense that he's a narcissist.

<comment><USER12> Maybe don't assume that he's wrong. You only see what government presents to you about him. And you know, government would never make itself look bad.

<comment><USER13> It's an article in _The Intercept_. That isn't a publication that is known for making government look good.

<comment><USER14> For a view from the other side of political spectrum: [https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national- security/twist...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national- security/twisted-view-of-cias-operation- merlin/2015/01/26/dc107fd6-a3e7-11e4-9f89-561284a573f8_story.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> So, honest question: Why _does_ HN seem to have a consistent morbid curiosity, regarding the CIA?

I count at least one post a month, in the front page, in which the CIA is the main focus and topic.

Given the regularity of recurrence, I question whether it's honest intrigue, or something more subversive, like a an informational recruitment and promotion campaign, complete with informational reinforcement components.

(in this example, we find out what happens to employees and entrusted individuals who spill the beans, or whatever, who cares, big deal...)

</comment><comment><USER16> It's funny how they say "these disclosures put lives at risk", and put him into prison. Because prison is itself risky and torturous.</comment>


MonitorES – Monitor Energy Saver - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/ukanth/monitores

<comment><AUTHOR> This is a great little tool I found.

"MonitorES is a small windows utility that helps you to turnoff monitor display when you lock down your machine.Also when you lock your machine, it will pause all your running media programs & set your IM status message to "Away" / Custom message(via options) and restore it back to normal when you back."

There is a Lite version that just does the energy saving and a Linux port: [https://code.google.com/p/lmonitores/](https://code.google.com/p/lmonitores/)</comment>


Ask HN: Am I hireable for a tech company if I don't like complex stuff? - <AUTHOR>

I don't really like complexity nor do I like fads.  That doesn't mean I don't like working on hard problems though.  I just like trying to keep things simple.
I've noticed lately that almost everyone of my fellow programmers seem to be immersed in fads and other like things.  The rest seem to try and make some of the most simple problems in the world into some of the most complex problems in the world.
Then I look at Ad's out there and it says they are looking for top programmers and these 'rock stars' out there.  Not only do they ask for that, they also seem to give out these super brain teasers and ask questions about overcomplicated specifications like they are the holy grail of good programming and I should be writing programs like them!  (In my opinion, the only reason I see a lot of specs end up that way is because two people couldn't agree on something so they compromised on the worst of the two ideas to move on.)
Well, after spending hours listening to people talk about stuff way over my head just to realize all they are talking about is something rather simple - I feel very unhireable by my fellow programmers except for the lowest level programming job or simple CRUD jobs. <comment><USER2> What do you mean by not liking complexity?

If you can't deal with complexity (whether or not you actually like it) you simply won't be a good programmer. Complexity is often imposed on you from the outside, it can't always be designed out. Things should be made as simple as possible, but often "as simple as possible" is still pretty complex.

As far as faddishness goes, I think it's worst in the Web fields. I'm an embedded software designer and while I have to deal with pretty complex systems, the underlying technologies change very slowly. When you're building something that has a design cycle of 4-5 years and will be in the field for decades, that's a desirable attribute.

On the flipside, when your design cycle is measured in hours and your product may only be live for a few months, chasing the latest fad may be the only way to survive.

If you like hard problems and want to be a programmer, there's lots of work for you out there. You don't have to live and die by webapps.

</comment><comment><USER3> This is an impossible question to answer without any examples of what you are talking about.

</comment><comment><USER4> I have some axioms:

1) One man's complexity is another man's simplicity

Often what we consider complex, is just what we are unfamiliar with. If you've been working on something for awhile it gets simpler. Keep in mind that what at first appears complex, will get simpler.

2) He whose work is most incomprehensible, is most respected.

Unfortunately, this is the bane of our industry. The ignorant are impressed by incomprehensibility. It all seems like magic to them and the more incomprehensible an aura you surround yourself in, the more respect you will get. This is not the same as arrogance. Arrogance will not get you respect. People may put up with you, but they won't respect you.

3) Never be a maintenance programmer. Always be the original coder.

For me, it's very easy to take a spec and create a system. It's much harder to clean up someone else's mess. I call it, "Being handed a turd and told to make it float". In fact, just the fact that a "maintenance programmer" is needed means the code is more or less a mess. Unless you are about to get thrown out on the street for lack of money, never work on someone else's code. It's 3 times harder but you get paid less and get less respect.

4) All programmers hate other programmer's code.

It's always going to be too complex. Other guys code always sucks. You can always find a better way to do it than they did, at least in my experience.

<comment><USER5> I think your advice is a little bit naive and maybe even dangerous, because it ignores the reality that many programmers have to deal with, even those working in startups.

"3) Never be a maintenance programmer. Always be the original coder."

I think this is pretty unrealistic. Maintaining legacy code is definitely not as fun nor as exciting as working on "green fields" projects, but it's often necessary and can definitely help you mature as a programmer.

Simply gaining exposure to good and bad code is very beneficial. It means that the brand new code you are going to go out and write will not be as terrible and maybe will be good enough to make the next person's life not so miserable. Plus, even if you vow to never work on anyone else's code, is that really even possible? If you create a new system today, and have to maintain your own code in 6 months or a year, are you _really_ the same person? It's common to look at your code from a year ago and think "what was I thinking when I wrote this crap?"

"You can always find a better way to do it than they did, at least in my experience."

This is a common reaction that programmers have when reviewing old code (myself included!), but it's not always true. You may think you can find a better way, but you had better be damned sure you're right. You need to check your understanding and make sure you really comprehend all the components of the existing code and are not about to replace something that is working and ugly with something that is beautiful but will fails in 6 months time because you didn't anticipate some edge case that the original programmer did.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> This probably isn't a very popular opinion, but I've always felt that if tech companies spent more time hiring " _get shit done_ " people instead of rockstars, they'd end up a lot better off.

<comment><USER7> Don't fret; you get a very "rockstar"-biased opinion of the industry on tech blogs and sites like this. In reality, a vast majority of industries are quietly pumping along the economy outside the cult of the startup. It's not sexy and much less headline grabbing of course.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> There are times when a company needs a "rock star," and there are times when that's the last person you want to hire. It takes all kinds, and there is work that is enjoyable for all kinds. If you aren't inclined to stuff that is currently considered cool, you won't get the cool jobs. If what you want is a rewarding and successful career, look for jobs that suit you, that you enjoy, that you are good at. Then build on that. There are a lot of people who have made very solid and successful careers out of stuff that some think is boring.

</comment><comment><USER9> Not liking fads and over-complicated solutions is definitely not a problem and in many cases an advantage, and good hiring managers will acknowledge that. However, you do need some way to demonstrate that you are very good at what you do. If you have a fantastic portfolio of work you've done (either open source or publicly accessible stuff that you can convincingly claim you worked on) and some enthusiastic recommendations from people who worked with you, you will be a very attractive candidate.

</comment><comment><USER10> Unfortunately, 9 times out of 10, people interview for constructs they would like. And when you get int he job - you never use.

It's a lottery....I usually work on the personality fit.

Unemployed now for 13 months and counting.... ;)

(not really)

I've gotten many a mediocre score in the practical tests, but gotten the job based on personality.

<comment><USER11> funemployed?

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> You can always look for jobs on companies that don't work with "complex" stuff or "fad technology". E.g. small website development consultancies.

I just don't think you'll learn much on this career path, nor have a lot of the "intelectual" fun that comes with cracking hard problems. Then again, you could not see this as a "problem" anyway...

</comment><comment><USER13> I think your concerns are focused on the superfluous. If you are skilled and willing to work hard you can answer a call for a "rockstar" or "ninja". No worries!</comment>


Why We Still Believe in Working Remotely - <AUTHOR> http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2013/02/why-we-still-believe-in-working-remotely/

<comment><USER2> Thanks to StackOverflow I'm relatively reputed(?) in one teeny niche of the programming world. This leads to a few recruiter emails per week, and almost all of them I reply to with a cheeky way of saying that I'm not going to move[1].

 _One_ company to date has said that not-relocating my entire life is OK with them. The rest can be summed up with the reply that ended an email exchange with an SV angel:

> sorry to hear that, and let me know if you ever decide to head west, young > man :-)

Alas I'm a person before I'm a programmer. And I always will be. And I have a family and friends and a home in New Hampshire that do not fit on airplanes so neatly.

Even apart from the tangibles, I cannot fly the feelings. I cannot fly the sights and smell of my hometown to the Bay Area. I cannot fly the white mountains, so isolated from the civilized world and yet they feel so familiar to stand atop the notch and look around, as if I've been there a thousand times, as if I've always been there.

Maybe that's dopey. I don't know. There are streets to know intimately and sights and mountains and sunsets in other parts of the world. But I feel like I belong here. Life is peaceful, I live slowly, I walk everywhere. I can be in love with the world on a time-scale, a thing at least partially set by surroundings, that works for me.

[1] <http://simonsarris.com/blog/626-why-i-love-recruiters>

<comment><USER3> This morning, I turned left out of the driveway on my bike to head to work -- the same driveway that I've lived on since 1989.

It's "early spring" already in Silicon Valley, and the distinct smell of the brisk, moist air and the sight of the fresh, yellow-green-Crayola-colored grass that has sprouted up all over the hills following the winter rains made me think, "ah, it's this time of year again."

I couldn't help but keep looking at the rolling hills, the bright green grass growing naturally everywhere, and the old, tired oak trees. And it came to me: _how can I live anywhere else? I love it here._

I've considered moving to places like NYC several times in the past, and even recently. I know that NYC is a great city, and having gone to an East coast school, I have many people I'd be able to call friends there. But I know that this is _home_ for me, and a hypothetical marginally better employment situation won't be able to overcome its gravity.

I happen to live in SV, but not because it's SV. I live here because it's home for me, and home to the friends I've known since childhood and adolescence seem to keep hanging around here along with me. I am lucky to have the best of both worlds right now. But if the world changed tomorrow and all the tech jobs moved to NYC, you'd probably still find me turning left out of my driveway like I always have. Just like you I guess :)

<comment><USER4> Two opinionateddevelopers, just with different opinions.

Thank you to you both:-)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> That's very good.

"and Fog Creek had (at the time) a strict no-remote-workers policy. This drove me crazy. These were amazing employees, in whom the company had already invested deeply, who were now walking out the door because they couldn't live in New York any more."

"Pain" is a very good teacher. It slaps you in the face and tells you're an idiot.

"Remote working isn't for everyone. There's a tendency to think that working from home is all sunshine and rainbows and working in your PJs. It's not. You miss out on being around people (which wears even on introverts), doing fun stuff like playing ping-pong or having lunch together, and (sometimes hardest of all) you lose a clear distinction between work and the rest of your life"

Yes, absolutely. That's why even if I'm hired for a remote position I'll find a way to _not work from home_ (at least not every day).

Go to a cafe, somewhere, or just hire a shared space/shared office.

You'll still commute, but to a place near you. You don't get distracted by house stuff. You can concentrate better. You can meet new people, depending on the place, and even getting from your house to somewhere helps 'tune out' of work for a little bit of time.

<comment><USER6> "Pain" is a very good teacher. It slaps you in the face and tells you're an idiot.

I love this sentence.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Here's my big secret about remote working...

I _sit at my desk_ a lot less, but _work_ a lot more. I'm one of those people that simply cannot solve complex problems while sitting at a desk. Because I'm not beholden to butt-in-the-chair syndrome, I am free to spend an hour or more going for a walk, visiting a local coffee shop, or taking a bath so I can think and problem solve before typing into a console. As a result, my work takes less time and requires fewer revisions than when I was sitting in a chair at an office.

The down side...I'm always at work. In order to create the separation I have to make sure to leave the laptop upstairs in the office or else I'll just keep working at the kitchen counter.

<comment><USER8> Amen, brother. Heck, I use a wireless headset so that even when I'm in a hangout I can walk around, go outside, etc.

Don't ask me to think about something and then _sit still_ while doing so; you'll get whatever lazy answer I can come up with quickest - or no answer at all.

<comment><USER7> Recommendations for a good wireless headset that has decent range?

<comment><USER8> I'm using this one: <http://www.logitech.com/en-us/product/8391>

The range ain't great, but it's enough. Combine it with a laptop and good wifi, and I can go quite a ways.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I've worked remotely for 10+ years for various companies. I really appreciate the trust and commitment my employers have for letting me be in this situation.

As a result I always try to go beyond expectations and pay a lot of attention to communication.

Some of the things I do which I think give my employers confidence in me are:

1\. Constant communication. Don't leave it to the imagination what I'm up to. I have a weekly work diary where I say what I'll work on, then tick off what I have worked on. I update throughout the week via IM or email.

2\. Think about problems no one is working on yet. Kind of "skating-to-where- the-puck-will-be". In my case as a product designer I work on features/ideas we haven't discussed yet (usually not on company time).

3\. Flexible with time. Need a presentation done over the weekend? Sure, no problem.

I'm a huge fan of remote working. My ideal scenario is 4 weeks home, 1 week office or something along those lines depending on projects. Although currently I have not been to the office in about 1 year!

<comment><USER10> +1.

I've been working remotely for 3 years.

I am not a super-genius developer but communication is something I really focus on. If they email me I try to respond as quickly as possible. Any meetings during the weekend, I squeeze time out. Even if I am going for a bathroom I just leave a small 'brb' campfire. Update my daily sheet, be very vocal on what I'm upto and make sure my progress is communicated in timely manner. These are important for good scenarios but in worst case scenarios (client being badass, deadlines are in danger of being missed etc.) this is vital.

Plus it's important to understand from employee perspective that the onus is more on us to make sure we communicate better. For on-location workers, colleagues/managers can drop by and check out progress but for remote workers it's us who have to step up.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> In general I agree that remote working has lot of advantages. Especially if you are a programmer you get the peace and quietness you need to get into the flow, no discussion here. I wrote my best code when I was alone with me and my music.

But things are different if you want to build the next big thing with cofounders and there I experienced three big disadvantages:

1\. All big (and finally successful) ideas and ventures were born by sitting together, day for day. By being forced to stay together in one environment. And we haven't born those great ideas when we had meetings about our products or were specifying some API, no, it was always when we were jabbering around doing silly things. You won't get breaking ideas on Skype or Google Hangout, believe me. Maybe a group of people needs sometimes a kind of antogonist or some constraints to get even more creative and if it's just some "we have to share our workday together."

2\. Just working alone and from time to time a face2face meeting won't establish a relationship which you definitely need to overcome conflict situations. You can't build real relationships at some artificial situations like meetings or team off-sites while usually working all the time alone. Once you have a severe conflict and you have missed to build a relationship before odds are small that you get things working again (or even a normal conversation). A lot of people are the type "forever gone", leaving the non finished code base untouched forever.

3\. You have to be positive and think that everybody will contribute in the same manner and quantity as you but some are not able to do this because they are heavy procrastinators when left alone or just not persons of integrity. If you have somebody who is ambitious and is in control of his time and energy, great! Jackpot! But the probability that you end up with a procrastinator, somebody who never finishes something or somebody who quickly looses motivation (or is just depressive) is not so low as you might think and you hear crap and other excuses every update meeting like 'oh I couldn't do this because I had to reinstall osx and xcode blabla and the gem sucks anyway' or whatever. Some freelancers invoice the same time many times to many clients, just remember this guy recently outsourcing his work to some people in China. You never know who you work with and what the person is really doing if you do not know them too well. I know that freelancer could also do this shit onsite (you cannot watch their screen 24/7 and check if it's really your source they are working on) but being together in one office lets the person focus more on your work and your environment and they are not distracted by other potential projects or ideas. And integrity/work morality increase.

So, it's hard to say if remote work is good or bad. But to sum up, I feel that when working as freelancer for a client then try to do this remotely. As a dev I would try this, as a client of course not. But if you want to start something great with friends or just met new cofounders you have to be together for some time.

<comment><USER12> (Author, here) Regarding #1 and #2, I have to say that one of the most surprising things about Google Hangouts is that they've really make it easy to... hang out! It's pretty standard on Fridays (or during the week) to kick back for an hour or two and just talk in the hangout. A lot of people just keep it open sort of half-listening while they work, and if they need to do something that requires a lot of concentration, they just drop out. In fact, I have it open right now and all I hear is a bit of breathing and typing...

You have to think about it differently than "Oh, we go here for meetings". It's more like a watercooler -- pop in every now and then and see what's going on.

<comment><USER13> I'm glad to hear I'm not the only one doing this. A colleague and I run a hangout most of every day, and it really makes it feel a lot like being in the same room. (I had to ask the other day -- "Is that your doorbell or my doorbell?) We can quickly ask one-off questions, have impromptu show-and-tell sessions, and of course engage in random brainstorming and "water cooler" talk. It's also easy to tell if the other person is deep in the zone before interrupting.

I blogged about it a couple of months ago: <http://cafbit.com/entry/hanging_out_on_the_job>

<comment><USER14> Yep. Hangout makes this ridiculously easy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I currently work at home 3-4 days a week with the others being in the office, usually for meetings and collaborating on things.

The office is an open floor plan with very poor noise reduction. When not in meetings in that environment, it is hard to get work done even with headphones. Visual and audio distractions persist. That said, there are times where getting together is helpful.

When contacted by companies, I ask about telecommuting. Many play the "it is up to you and your manager once you are established" game. Result - thanks but no thanks.

Time spent in the car/traffic is productivity lost.

<comment><USER14> Time spent in the car/traffic is _life_ lost, something you will never get back again.

A 1 hour commute one-way is about 20 hours a week. That's a part-time job for some people. Commuting is simply not that interesting of an activity.

<comment><USER16> 20 hours a week? I think your math is wrong (1 hour * 2 ways * 5 weekdays = 10 hours).

<comment><USER14> Oops, my math is wrong. It's 10 hours a week. Still a chunk of time.

<comment><USER17> Another way to put it is every four weeks you are 'working' a full week of overtime.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> This blog post is wonderfully written; it succinctly outlines the benefits and the caveats from both the employer _and_ the employee's perspective.

"I'll let you in on a secret: most of our remote developers work longer hours than our in-office devs."

This reminds me of the 'unlimited vacation' policy, which, if I'm not mistaken has effectively showed that employees don't end up taking as many days off as they would if they were allotted the standard 15/20 days.

I generally feel that when you empower an employee, and give them ownership and responsibility, provided that they're passionate and capable, you'll see significant productivity gains. In the case of SE, this holds true because the problem that they're solving is so close to the creators of the product.

<comment><USER19> I'm not sure "unlimited" vacation time is empowering. It makes who goes on vacation more or less than whoever else something that may be silently judged. Bob went abroad for five weeks- is that excessive? Bob has no way of knowing what others will think, and may not go abroad at all to avoid the potential fallout. This judgment is also very difficult to uncover- if one person discourages his team from taking vacation, how would you tell? With allotted vacation times, HR tracks whether a specific manager's employee's are taking vacation.

More importantly the lack of vacation time accounting provides less protection for the employee in terms of job loss. Unused vacation time is often added to severance pay.

In actual practice, "unlimited vacation" seems to be a nice term for the company to minimize potential severance pay, bookkeeping, and potentially create a work environment that silently discourages taking vacation time while publicizing the opposite.

<comment><USER20> > In actual practice, "unlimited vacation" seems to be a nice term for the > company to minimize potential severance pay, bookkeeping, and potentially > create a work environment that silently discourages taking vacation time > while publicizing the opposite.

I too have been bitten by this - hearing "there is no vacation time limit", and then seeing your paycheck shrink and being told "You took too much vacation"... That's extremely negative for morale.

I wish that companies had a _minimum_ vacation time, but no _maximum_ besides "your work isn't getting done".

<comment><USER21> Curiously, in Europe we have a required minimum number of days of vacation a year (20). I had been remembered several times by HR in different companies that I HAVE TO take those days off before the end of the year (around November or so).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I wonder what the legal issues are for an American company having cross-border employees. How do they take care of national insurance and income taxes etc for their UK-based employee when (presumably) they have no legal presence there? How does this work for them?

<comment><USER23> I work for Stack Exchange in Germany (where they have no presence except for me), and I'm a regular employee with all German taxes, social security etc. that entails. These things can be made to work.

<comment><USER22> How do they do this? I seem to be having a mental block as to the logistics of this. (On a side note, the pragmatics of having cross border employees when you have no presence in that country would be a very, very interesting blog post, and one I'd read with interest.)

From another comment I understand they also have a UK presence. Are you a true-blue employee or a contractor who takes care of their own taxes and affairs, and just issues monthly invoices? If you are an actual employee (in the legal sense), are you employed by the UK or US company, or something else? Do they have to have an address there, or a foreign subsidiary? Presumably there's no German legal entity, so how have they registered there to pay tax?

This is something I'm prospectively interested in doing for my own business, but I'm not sure how I'd make it work from a tax point of view.

<comment><USER23> I'm a regular employee (of the UK presence; it's all EU, so I assume that makes things a bit easier). There's a German tax office that does the wage accounting to make sure that it follows all the rules.

The only difference to a standard German employee is this: While in Germany legally the _employee_ owes the wage taxes, they're usually collected by the _employer_ and passed on to the authorities. But the German tax authorities don't like to do that with foreign companies (basically because they can't hunt after them when they don't pay). So from a legal perspective, I pay the wage taxes myself (but the tax office takes care of that as well).

<comment><USER22> I never knew that was possible! I'd have imagined it could have been possible as a contractor, but not with this arrangement. Is there any particular benefit to being an employee in this case as opposed to a contractor?

<comment><USER24> I expect some aspects of EU working law apply, which gives you a lot more protection than a simple contracting relationship.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I've been working remotely at my current company for just over 4 years now. I've never met anyone that I work with. I actually work less overtime (none) with this job than any time I worked in an office (usually 60-80 hour weeks). I just get my work done without interruption.

Working remotely has allowed me to move out of New York and have money to pursue other goals. It has been difficult to stay social -- it a 45 minute drive to the nearest small city. The tradeoffs are worth it though.

I'm likely to return to working somewhere on site soon, but working remotely has significantly improved my focus and my work ethic.

</comment><comment><USER26> Likewise if someone is a Japanese citizen, with official residency in Japan, and is in the US as a tourist or a student, and works remotely for a German company, a Canadian company, and a Guatemalan company, and gets paid by wire transfer to his bank account in Japan from his three clients... is he breaking the law in one or more countries? Perhaps there will be a telecommute country, with laws designed to let telecommuters live easily. Like incorporating in Delaware for companies.

<comment><USER27> The laws and boundaries around citizenship and taxation really need updating in these high-tech times.

<comment><USER28> Not really. I like them the way they are. You end up paying the lowest common denominator, which is usually zero dollars.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> > #2: When done right, it makes people extremely productive.

Do you have any tips as to how to make this "done right"?

I, and a few of my remote friends, have hard a really hard time being nearly as productive while remote. I find myself really proud of being able to accomplish 4 hours of dev work when at a coffee shop or at home, but in an office I can work 8-10 hours without putting much thought into it.

<comment><USER14> There are some things you can do for the environment. The main thing is creating boundaries so that your home life separates from your work life. So for example:

(1) Spatial boundaries. If you can, dedicate an entire work for just working from home. In some places I can't do that, what I do is set up the laptop at the kitchen table and take it down again at the end of the work day. This includes cords. It might seem like a pain in the ass to put the laptop together every morning, but it is no different than if you had gone to a coffee shop. If you have a family with kids, you'll want to set up space that has a door. In return, when the computer is shut down (and you always shut it down or put it to sleep) or the laptop lid is closed, it's now family time.

(2) Temporal boundaries. You want some accountable way of starting the clock, so to speak. Standup is a good method for this. There needs to be something to end it, so you know when to stop and put things away. You will want to announce when you go on lunch or bio breaks. You can also type a quick end-of- day standup on what you accomplished that day. This provides temporal cues on when things are beginning and ending. This way, not only does work not bleed into your home life, your home life does not bleed into your work life.

(3) Social cues. I don't like pair programming much, but in a remote situation, you need to pair more often even if you don't normally pair. "Pairing" can be sharing a Hangout conversation to consult on something or tmux-shared-screen. This way, you don't go off shaving a yak. If you are in a group of peers (for example, some founders), then it is helpful to have everyone check in on each other occasionally. "What can I do to help?"

By setting up boundaries, you keep these things from bleeding into each other and help you concentrate while at work ... and enjoy your home life when you're not working.

With coffee shops: the best approach I have found is to establish a co-working group. You don't need a formal co-working facility if you convince some of your locally-based remote friends (or acquaintances you have met at the local User's Group for your technology niche) to co-work at a coffee shop. Small, family-owned coffee shops, pizza places, even bars, tend to be very friendly for this sort of a thing. You're treated as a regular and you tend to start camping out at a particular corner during the non-rush hours. Once a week can be enough.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> I love working remotely. My current arrangement has a gotomeeting standup every day, jira for tickets, hipchat for persistent chat (I had to recommend persistent chat to them but now they love it), and frequent code pairing through screen sharing. They all go home at five so I can stop then, too. I wonder sometimes if there are other similar arrangements out there - java, spring, etc - but it seems like a pretty high bar to clear.

<comment><USER31> What do you use for screen sharing? Most of the products I have utilized feel laggy..

<comment><USER32> Its tough. Screen sharing can have tremendous bandwidth limitations. I've been using Sococo Teamspace, but I work there too.

The best advice is to upgrade your remote-office (i.e. home) IP provider to 5Mb or better UPLINK.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> > #1a: You don't lose people to silly things like their significant other > going to medical school.

I really don't like the attitude here. Your significant other moving, is _not a silly thing_.

> I'll let you in on a secret: most of our remote developers work longer hours > than our in-office devs.

Yet another reason not to work remotely -- to maintain your work-life balance. Home is a place you spend with family and/or significant other, and doing non- work related stuff.

> it forces me to look at what they've done

This is something you should always look at. Measuring someone's performance by the number of hours they've spent in the office is _never_ a good idea; some people are just productive than others.

I stopped reading at this point. The author is quite selfish/insensitive to employee needs (since your significant other moving is "silly"), and he objectifies employees and doesn't treat them humanely (anyone who is happy with their employees working like 14 hours a day truly doesn't care about the employees' holistic well-being.)

<comment><USER34> > I really don't like the attitude here. Your significant other moving, is > _not a silly thing_.

I don't want to speak for the OP, but I took this sentence as, "Losing a good developer because his significant other is headed to medical school is a really silly thing for a company to do", which I would completely agree with.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> I love working remotely, and I want to believe the following, but I'm not sure that it is true:

"...most of our remote developers work longer hours than our in-office devs. It's not required, and probably won't always be the case, but when going to work is as simple as walking upstairs (pants optional, but recommended) people just tend to put in more hours and work more productively."

From personal experience, what happens is that the remote worker went downstairs to play with the kids and pets or watch something on T.V. that someone else was watching while they had a snack. Then they work 30 min more later to make up for it. It isn't working more- it is spreading out the work.

Also the post mentions that a self motivated, proactive worker is more likely to do well remotely. But, that depends. Micromanagement of remote workers is really bad, but so is just saying that they have to figure out what to do on their own if that is not their personality/work type. I personally work better when it is clear enough what needs to be done, and maybe if it is something I'm unfamiliar with, then a lot more information about the internals and business requirements and logic is provided, but I'm not told how to implement it. That is true whether I'm remote or not. But each person has their own way of doing things, and usually those aren't evident or may be misunderstood in an interview, so I don't think you can just say "they need to be proactive and self-motivated" and somehow some mystical force draws the right people to work on your team.

</comment><comment><USER36> I also love working remotely.

I work for an office with an office culture where 99% of the people go to the office. I find more and more of my time is spent on smaller, time critical projects that can't afford to get held up by the politics of an office! Makes sense. Given a 2 year period I likely won't make as a complete project as a team in the office. But given 3 weeks to 2 months to come out with something minimal, I have a much higher success rate doing it remotely than if its handed off to members of the team in the office. Not sure if that says something about me, the people in the office or a company as a whole.

I can also relate to this drifting though. If I'm not kept busy I do find myself drifting and not being productive for periods of time - until things pickup again. Not sure if being in the office would help there, or if I'd just clock more hours playing ping pong!

</comment><comment><USER37> The hint about a persistent Google Hangout is very interesting. It sounds like you just create a Google+ event, attach a hangout to it and the URL is persistent forever[1].

Is it really that easy?

<https://plus.google.com/+CheeChew/posts/RmPerogdhrB>

<comment><USER12> Yes, that is exactly what we do. Create an event far in the future and attach a hangout to it. We then use a URL shortener to give it an easier URL.

<comment><USER37> Cool, thanks! I'm going to set that up for us at Leanpub.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> I cannot express how happy am I working remotely, I am more productive, I can be with my dogs, I can think much more clearly.

But unfortunately, I get terminated for working remotely in the past 3 jobs I have as a programmer.

I live and work in the Philippines, and I always opted for an office job that takes care of my government securities and taxes, which I cannot get from working remotely on a virtual staff company or freelance website.

So I always end up working on a traditional office, but every once in a while I take up my vacation leave or sick leave and do excuses just to be at my house and _continue_ working, because I love programming and I always love to do it at home.

But it always turned out badly for me, and always get terminated for being 'AWOL' or work abandonment, just because I'm not at the office.

</comment><comment><USER39> Remote working is all great. One downside I notice is the blurring of work and home life, especially the working hours. I've drifted slowly to work later and later into the night. At one point I've shift working until 6am in the morning. That's time I decided to reset the clock and do regular hours again.

</comment><comment><USER40> Are cost of living adjustments made to the compensation packages for remote workers, or does a developer in rural Iowa get the same six figure salary that seems like nothing in Silicon Valley?

<comment><USER28> Remote workers tend to be freelancers/self-employed. There may be no compensation package at all ;-)

<comment><USER40> Well, I was specifically referring to the situation in the link, where StackExchange hires remote workers to be full-time developers. Unless I've somehow misunderstood and those appointments are not full-time but rather contract-based.

I understand that if you're freelancing things are very different.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> Does anyone have experience with remote sales teams? Do they work?

<comment><USER35> Sales is probably the longest running remote working occupation in the world, so yes, it works. I know a number of people in sales that are remote almost all of the time.

Sales is much easier than tech/web development to do remotely because you can use commission and/or sales targets to quantify how well the remote salespeople are doing. Don't use a single salesperson as a "test" though; abilities vary so much, you'd have to have a larger sample to determines how well remote will work for your company specifically. Also, internet connections can go down at home, so if you have limited sales staff and depend on them to be selling everyday constantly, you might invest in a secondary method to connect to the internet or make sure they have a backup plan like working from a cafe.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> And if someone is in the US on a 6 month tourist visa working for a Japanese company (no US presence, paid by invoice) remotely, is their legal status in the US in jeopardy?

<comment><USER42> IANAL, but as long as they are paying your company for your work - you should be safe. I.e. you two should not have employer-employee relationship.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> Google hangouts is good - but I think Sococo Teamspace is better. But remote- working tools have been debated elsewhere, so I'll just say that some tool is very much better than phone calls, emails etc. It really helps to remove the friction to communication, shortening conversations that could take days by email, to minutes 'in person' via tools.

</comment><comment><USER43> Because of Linux kernel, FreeBSD, OpenBSD and countless of successful high- quality open source projects done remotely?

<comment><USER28> Exactly. There is not one interesting piece of software nowadays that is not done remotely. Everything else is going bankrupt because they simply cannot compete. Just for cost/quality reasons, remote will have to become the norm.

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> Just an anecdote - I work on a team of about 12 developers and we have 2 remote guys that get far more done than anyone in office. Granted they are the most active on Skype (what we use for inter-office chatter).

</comment><comment> marco-fiset Not related, but why does StackExchange have a sales department?

<comment><USER45> To sell ads and job listings on Careers so we can employ ourselves to continue to make the internet better.

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> I wish I knew how to get hired remotely. I'm an experienced programmer, but I happen to also be a security paranoid, so not only I have not bothered building an online persona, I have also removed every trace of myself on the internet. I can prove my experience, but not to an HR guy. I also think I have good written English, and yet I haven't even had a response to any emails I've sent for remote work in other countries (I don't want to work for my country, for several reasons). Any thoughts?

<comment><USER47> You have your own answer: Someone who's invisible on the Internet, with unproven skills to the first tier of hiring, applying for remote work. No one in their right mind would hire you because you're impossible to vet. Any manager seeing your email would likely think you're an outsourcing firm in Bangalore trying to present as a lone wolf.

You want to get hired for remote dev? Build a strong online profile by working visibly with a prominent project, and network through there to get someone who's worked with you to vouch for you.</comment></comment>


Are pets really good for us? - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/oct/13/are-pets-really-good-for-us-or-just-hairy-health-hazards <comment><USER2> I have what I'm sure is a very unpopular opinion that most people probably shouldn't own dogs.

Dogs evolved alongside humans and were bred to help us with specific tasks like hunting, herding, etc. When you take an animal with a genetic drive to perform certain activities and turn it into a fashion accessory or have it sit alone in a house most of the day, I think the dog tends to go a little crazy. I don't think it's a good life for them. If you can't realistically be with your dog most of the time, or if you don't have a purpose for the dog (like herding sheep) you probably shouldn't have a dog.

<comment><USER3> Seconded. My wife has a dog who ends up being alone most of the time. My wife and I go out for dinner, we go on vacation, and of course we both go to work, and the poor dog has absolutely nothing to do. I can tell she's sad, miserable and lonely, but my wife wanted a dog. I do my best to at least be nice to her (the dog, that is) when I'm around.

<comment><USER4> Can you afford a walker? Of course spending more time with the dog would be good but just a suggestion. I have a friends who use a walker. They actually do spend time with their dogs quite often but they didn't want the dog to be totally alone while they are at work.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> There is no correct answer to this question-- a whole lot of harm and suffering still all too often goes overlooked. Each individual situation is different.

Is it possible for pets to be good for us, and us for them? It would certainly seem so; most of us have seen fairly clear cut examples of this. But sometimes it's a one-way street, and other times (i.e. a maladapted creature being abandoned) it's even a no-way street.

Far too many 'pet' animals are arguably worse off than if they had never been born. Not spaying or neutering is inexcusable. [Unless you professionally breed, in which case statistically you are more likely than not to be causing a lot of suffering in that process.] Trap, neuter and release programs are essential. Continuous evaluation (and improvement) of quality of life should be part of every animal's existence we choose to force a human habitat upon.

Remember that these are thinking, feeling beings, not as different from us as we like to think. They didn't ask to be born, and most of them don't have a lot of choice in how they live their lives. The more aware of these issues you become, the more questionable a whole lot of pet ownership becomes. If you're gonna do it, please, be one of the good ones.

<comment><USER6> I could just the same argue that _neutering_ is in fact _the_ inexcusable and utmost selfish behavior. None of my pets are neutered, and I very much want them to breed in their life.

<comment><USER5> As long as you can account for and adapt to optimize the well-being for each of their descendants, no problem. If, however, you are foisting an unknown number of new sentient beings into this world with no idea of who will take ownership of them or otherwise be accountable for their happiness, this behavior is seriously unethical and potentially negligent in a legal sense.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I just took my husky for the rounds around a hospital. She's incredibly aloof and will sometimes pay attention to the people around her, yet the love they felt for her brightened their day. I think pets in the right circumstances have profound mental health impacts

<comment><USER8> Interesting. Do a lot of hospitals do this? I would bring my dogs (one at a time) to visit people!

<comment><USER9> It's fairly common. Typically you need to have your dog certified as a therapy dog by somebody like Therapy Dogs International. It's also common for larger hospitals to have a dog or two on staff with a full time handler.

<comment><USER8> Thanks. I've always wondered if my ultra-chill dogs could be of use to other people besides myself and my wife. I will check into this.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Dilbert explains to Wally the purpose of petting a cat: [https://dilbert.com/strip/1996-05-24](https://dilbert.com/strip/1996-05-24)

</comment><comment> Funes- Yes, as long as we are good for them.

I've had ill relatives with impaired mobility that really enjoyed the company of pets; it makes a _huge_ difference on people who can feel lonely at times.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Just as importantly, are we good for our pets - or just hairless health hazards?

<comment><USER11> I think in terms of longevity and comfortable living, humans are a clear win for pets. But in terms of life satisfaction, it's not clear. Maybe my dog would prefer living in the wild, hunting and scavenging his own food, never to be scolded for chasing a squirrel or digging in the trash - that's a tougher life (and almost certainly a shorter life), but maybe more satisfying for a dog than living in a house with seemingly arbitrary rules of what he can and can't do. Though he never would have survived in the wild with the broken leg he suffered as a puppy (before I adopted him).

<comment><USER12> _Maybe my dog would prefer living in the wild, hunting and scavenging his own food, never to be scolded for chasing a squirrel or digging in the trash_

One my dogs could answer that for you, as that's what he did for a while before he got picked up. He was also skin and bones. Sores in his mouth from licking out of cans. Much like humans, domestic dogs might like to _think_ they want to get back to their natural roots, but they're also like humans in that most of them won't last very long. The primary cause of death for feral dogs is starvation. It was going to be Brody's fate had someone not picked him up and taken him in. Go ask Brody which he'd prefer. If he could talk, I'm pretty sure his answer would be, "what the fuck do _you_ think as we stand in the warm house with a 40lb. bag of dog food mere feet away? Dude, I weighed _twenty_ pounds less than I do now." Do not feel bad about giving your dog regular meals, a roof, and protecting them from themselves.

With that rant out of the way, sorry, I didn't mean to piledrive your point. Because I _do_ consider such things, even knowing the likely outcome were it fully implemented. So I let them chase rabbits and squirrels in the yard. If they haven't caught one by now, they never will. And if you're a rabbit dumb enough to come into a yard with two pit bull terriers (or any terrier), well, you need to be kept on your toes. And we go camping, run around in the woods, pretend we really could catch those elk if we wanted to. All of us, humans included, are about as wild as domesticated suburban beings should be allowed to be.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> This is going to sound a bit morbid, but it's helpful for me when I'm thinking about mortality to realize that my dog is going to die _way_ before me and I'm not worried about that, so why am I worried about my own death, which is vastly further away?

<comment><USER14> I do worry about it. I have gone through that process multiple times, and each one was absolutely heartbreaking. I was completely and totally bereft, for an extended period of time.

But looking back, I must confess that most of my grief was for myself, not the animal that passed away. In the death of any sentient being, I think the grief is mostly for those left behind, not the ones who are gone.

So, I'm not too much worried about my own death, just trying to do the best I can to make sure that the ones I love will be well-cared for after I'm gone.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> It's pathetic how some end up taking all these decisions based on research and statistics... If you don't want a dog just don't take one instead of trying to find scientific reasons on why not to own one and then writing an article about it.

</comment><comment><USER16> yes they are

<comment><USER17> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headline...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headlines)

<comment><USER18> This is a misapplication. Usually the law is for headlines like "Will this city be the next silicon valley?", claims against conventional wisdom.

Here, the author is questioning conventional wisdom on pets. Her question could also have been phrased as "Are we wrong about the health benefits of pets?"

Betterridge's law would produce opposite conclusions on both headlines. If you can formulate it that way, it's not a good application of the law.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Cats are a lot cleaner, if you want a clean indoor pet. Dogs are better for spending time outdoors. Don't feed them commercial pet food (especially dry).

<comment><USER20> >Don't feed them commercial pet food (especially dry).

Absolutely correct. Don't feed any pet commercial pet food! Feed raw. I recommend Darwin's Raw Food, but there are many others out there.

I accidentally gave diabetes to my beloved cat Penguino. He was eating standard dry (and occasionally wet) cat food for the first 6-ish years of his life. Suddenly he dropped from 13 lbs to 9 lbs in about a year. Fast forward four years and thousands of insulin and vet dollars, he is much healthier and on a raw diet, but will need insulin 2x a day for the rest of his life. Mishandling his food and health is one of my deepest regrets. And it was almost entirely avoidable, had I had the right information.

<comment><USER21> Why would this anecdote about diabetes be assumed to have any correlation to commercial pet food?

My vet recommended _against_ raw diets because they're easy to contaminate and difficult to manage properly.

Why would you just assume that diabetes couldn't possibly be genetic?

<comment><USER20> Some cats may be predisposed to the condition, sure, but it's not deterministic. There is a correlation between carbohydrate and fiber intake and a number of feline health conditions. You can read more here: [https://catinfo.org/feline-diabetes/](https://catinfo.org/feline-diabetes/)

My cat's raw food is delivered once every few months, it's kept in sealed packages in the freezer, and I've never had a problem with contamination or managing the food. I can only speak for myself, of course, but I would encourage you to do your own raw food research.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> What is the impact of a pet on your co2 output annully?

<comment><USER23> As with anything, it's largely affected by how much you pay attention to it. Pets belonging to people who already have large carbon footprints probably have large carbon footprints. People who are conscientious of their carbon footprints probably have "greener" pets.

With enough effort, a pet could have virtually no impact on a family's carbon footprint. For example, in the U.S., we typically throw away 30-40% of our food. If a family feeds their pet(s) with food that would otherwise wind up in a landfill, they'd actually come out ahead.</comment></comment>