Rethinking 99 weeks of unemployment - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2011/01/26/rethinking-99-weeks-of-unemployment/ <comment><USER3> Should be titled: "Wanker Libertarian Rich Guy Complains About Poor People Getting $100-$400 Per Week In Taxable Income".

I would guess the mortgage interest subsidy the government gives to Phil Greenspun for his house(s) rather significantly exceeds the payments made to anyone receiving unemployment insurance. Which of course is INSURANCE in the first place - the employee pays for it while working, and then receives it, when not working.

MIT receives something close to a billion dollars per year in government funding. Phil Greenspun is eating a lot more of that government cheese than anyone receiving unemployment insurance. But self-awareness is not a common trait among the libertarian programmer mindset.

So, everyone on unemployment should just take a MIT course to learn SQL for web apps. No problem, except it costs $50K to attend MIT. Hmmm. Well, you could just take one course. How much would it cost to take a three-day course with five skilled teachers ( <http://philip.greenspun.com/teaching/rdbms- iap-2011> )? Maybe $2000? How many weeks of unemployment payments at $100-$400 per week would I have to save up to pay for that course? What precisely will I eat during those weeks?

There's quote attributed to Marie Antoinette where she advised the poor, lacking bread, to simply consume cake instead. The modern version is the Wall Street Journal's criticism of Lucky Duckies - those folks so "lucky" in their income levels that the government declines to tax said income directly (of course they pay more in taxes relative to their income than any millionaire, but that fact is conveniently omitted). Such statements display a total lack of knowledge - not only does Greenspun not know what he's talking about, but he doesn't know that he doesn't know.

[http://gocomics.typepad.com/tomthedancingbugblog/2010/07/luc...](http://gocomics.typepad.com/tomthedancingbugblog/2010/07/lucky- ducky-day.html)

<comment><USER4> _How much would it cost to take a three-day course with five skilled teachers (<http://philip.greenspun.com/teaching/rdbms-iap-2011> )? Maybe $2000?_

If only Greenspun had thought this through - then he might have suggested something like this:

 _for people who've been unemployed for 12 weeks, simply pay for a year of education in programs with proven records of skills-building (I guess you measure by how many finished and were able to get jobs)_

I guess ad-hominem attacks are a lot easier than addressing Greenspun's simple economic question: "Is the 99-weeks-of-Xbox system that Congress created more sensible than it seems?"

<comment><USER5> If Greenspun had thought it through he might not have suggested such ludicrous examples:

Subsidising the high costs of aerospace engineering training and certification to add a few people to the back of that unemployment queue (behind the people with a decade's experience and two decades' aviation enthusiasm) doesn't sound like a better use of funds than buying X-boxes. Maybe the existing unemployed engineers should revitalise their resume with study at efficient modern universities like the University of Phoenix?

If I wanted to contract non-nerd programmers to cut costs, the ex-clerk with the six month boondoggle programming course isn't going to get a look-in ahead of the cheaper outsourcing company staffed by smart graduates motivated enough to endure a CompSci degree in the hope they might one day impress the boss enough to make manager.

If Greenspun had thought it through he probably wouldn't be implying a shortage of demand could readily be addressed by investing in increasing the oversupply of mediocre job candidates. Or, working at the high end of the state-subsidised education market, maybe he still would...

I'm all in favour of state sponsored training, but he couldn't have made a much worse case for it.

<comment><USER4> _If Greenspun had thought it through he probably wouldn't be implying a shortage of demand..._

There is no longer a shortage of demand. Sales, consumption and production have more or less recovered to their pre-recession levels.

<http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/INDPRO>

<http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/PCE>

<http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/RSAFS>

<http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/GDP>

This would not have occurred if we had a shortage of demand. The only thing that hasn't recovered is employment - firms are meeting the same demand with fewer workers. This is why profits are up:

<http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/CP>

This also suggests that it will be very difficult to solve the unemployment problem - it appears that most of the laid off workers were completely dispensable (perhaps with some changes to business processes). If they provided little of value to their former employers, it will be hard to convince a new employer that they will provide value for him/her.

<comment><USER5> To clarify, I meant _labour market_ demand. Either way, it appears that the employment problem isn't simply skill mismatch or geographical immobility; firms have effectively substituted for [US-based] labour and overall demand needs to continue to pick up to restore the health of the labour market.

If growth of the economy overall is needed to solve problems of structural adjustment reducing labour market demand levels, I'm not sure that churning out more mediocre database programmers through subsidised courses can be presented as an optimal solution. As I said earlier, I'm not remotely opposed to govt-funded training when advocated in less crass terms than Greenspun's, but _if implemented badly_ the end results can make employees even more dispensable by commoditising skillsets that were previously an edge for those investing in their own education and dissuading newly-profitable employers from investing in training in areas where demand is picking up.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> If unemployment was a matter of marketable skills, fresh grads probably wouldn't be at the top of the list of groups with high unemployment.

I'm all for training and educating instead of just handing people money. Or as a condition of handing people money. Or just making it available to the unemployed at no cost.

But 99 weeks was an exception and AFAIK no-one is getting 99 weeks ever again. So bringing that into the discussion makes the whole thing seem like a disingenuous class war against the unemployment-is-spring-break strawman.

Frankly, I have a hard time believing that anyone who conflates 'unemployment' with party time has never been on unemployment or known anyone close who has. You don't make what you used to make on unemployment. You won't be paying your bills with it. You'll tap your savings, and those will dwindle away. You may well still lose your house. Your stress level is through the roof and your personal relationships will suffer as well.

I can understand people whose moral hackles get raised, when they hear of an unemployed person who partakes in leisure activities. But if you've ever been in the situation, or seen it up close, you know it's not at all what it looks like.

<comment><USER7> I don't disagree except with this:

> But if you've ever been in the situation, or seen it up close, you know it's > not at all what it looks like.

I've personally known a guy on unemployment for over a year, able-bodied with a college degree. He snowboarded 5 days a week, but admitted that when his unemployment ran out he was probably going to have to start looking for a job. It really was "party time" for him, though I don't claim he was the norm. I'm just giving this anecdotal evidence to say that if we want to discuss the usefulness of long-term unemployment benefits, we're going to need hard data. Your descriptions of what unemployment is _really_ like aren't any more convincing evidence than the OP's.

<comment><USER6> It's not evidence. It's an anecdotal counter-point to an unfounded and all-to- common lazy characterization.

Feel free to look up any number of sociological and economic studies about what happens to people who are on unemployment. Suicide rises, separation rises (divorce itself tends not to, as divorce is expensive), domestic abuse rises, savings plummet, bankruptcy rises, foreclosure rises, future earnings drop.

The studies have shown that it looks nothing like party time in the aggregate. But somehow that doesn't stop people moralizing from a privileged vantage.

Edit: Frankly, it's just the same damn Welfare Queen argument all over again and I keep hoping that nonsense was long since disproved and buried, back with Trickle Down and the rest of Reagan's 'conservative' fiscal bonafides.

<comment><USER4> It would be useful if, rather than offering vague assertions that statistics exist, you actually presented some.

The simplest way to determine whether unemployment induces people to consume leisure: measure whether changes in the duration of unemployment benefits affect the duration of unemployment. Do you know of any such measurements, or are you simply assuming that reality supports your views?

Edit: The classic paper on this topic is Meyer, but it's a bit old. [http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:xdATBYGtHBcJ:w...](http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:xdATBYGtHBcJ:www.econ.upenn.edu/~hfang/teaching/socialinsurance/readings/Meyer90\(4.12\).pdf+%22unemployment+insurance+and+unemployment+spells%22&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESijVugfxTMH8N17GpSU_u2JvA9mKUnU2-0yEbjnU4nwsZzfb6xylzJiPCE7EUAmsWycAgt74ZcB3dWYw4wZ- JRBbT5DLbajcMt_A0VhvZTgz74ppJlG27NwAeZXcun3IjfAtx70&sig=AHIEtbRr14Z-jKd0rYrZD25qNSBSVWlWEg)

This paper strongly supports the theory that unemployment benefits create moral hazard.

Here is a more recent paper showing the same thing in Europe, after a natural experiment: <http://ftp.iza.org/dp2171.pdf>

<comment><USER6> It would be more useful if Greenspun had, as he's the one who should carry the burden of proof in this case. He's made the implied claim that unemployment==party-time. You really shouldn't be asking me to refute his assertion. Feel free to disagree or use Google to sate your own curiosity if you don't believe me.

I think it's notable that people are more willing to give his careless characterization a pass, simply because it aligns with our moral sense that economic outcomes have some sort of parallel to our sense of justice. (economic losers _must_ be social losers who deserved and/or inadvertently caused their unemployment/foreclosure/bankruptcy with bad planning/habits/use of time, etc.)

Speaking of Google: Moral Hazard has nothing to do with whether unemployment is party time. I agree that it exists and 99 weeks is far too long for a standard policy. I don't see how that has any bearing on my disagreement with the article.

<comment><USER4> Greenspun doesn't bear the burden of proof because he isn't trying to prove anything. He is asking a question and admitting his uncertainty: "The standard 26 weeks of unemployment makes sense to me...But the subsequent 1.5 years don't make sense...What's wrong with my thinking?"

Jessriedel did the same thing: "I don't claim he was the norm. I'm just giving this anecdotal evidence to say that...we...need hard data."

You asserted the existence of evidence without providing it (potentially misleading), and then attacked the people who disagreed with you (harmful). If you have your own theory, argue it and acknowledge uncertainty (just as Greenspun and Jessriedel did). If you have facts to support your position, present them (if you do, awesome). Ad hominem attacks provide no value.

<comment><USER6> Let's take a step back.

I didn't (intend to) take issue with any part of jessriedel's post. Clearly I misspoke in my reply and people were confused. My intent was to _concede_ his point: I was not providing evidence about what unemployment looks like. I provided nothing more than my own opinion. We all agree on that.

And I'm truly not interested in trying to solve political problems on the internet, so I invited him to sate his own curiosity as to what unemployment looks like. You're either interested in the issue and thus _need_ to do your own research or you're not. If I'd used Google to scare up a link or two, that should _not_ be sufficient for any critical and skeptical thinker.

Feel free to disagree with my characterization of unemployment all you like. I invite you to. But please note that you only disagree with me, because I didn't provide any more evidence than Greenspun did.

And then hopefully you'll take a moment to wonder why you're complaining about my lack of evidence, but not Greenspun's.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Allow me to play the contrarian (if that's okay):

1) Supply of training is probably limited.

2) Not all of these folks need training. There are a lot of people who are older, but not of retirement age yet.

3) Just because those people are trained doesn't necessarily mean that there will be jobs for them. There is a flat out lack of work out there for people - people with college educations, even.

To elaborate on that last point, lots of people (most notably Paul Krugman) contend that the recession is fundamentally caused by a lack of demand. So keeping folks on unemployment, paying rent and playing XBox instead of homeless and dumpster diving helps to prop up a segment of the economy that would otherwise have to completely drop out.

Having said that, there has to be a better way - being unemployed is miserable, even if you're receiving unemployment checks and playing XBox with your free time. It just happens that unemployment benefits are easier to defend politically than government works programs of all kinds.

<comment><USER9> The older workers are the biggest issue. When they show up at interviews they are basicallly saying "hi, i have 25 years of experience in a completely unrelated field, probably making 2.5x the salary you're offering for this entry level position. I have no real interest in this industry, but i did just get a certification from university of phoenix online during the year i was unemployed. So will it be me or the recent grad?"

<comment><USER10> "I have no real interest in this industry" just doesn't fit with the other items in your argument. It's unfair and it plays to emotions not facts. And, even without that facetious addition, you'd probably convince me.

<comment><USER11> It does, though. Faced with two options, one employee who is passionate about computers and has been playing with Photoshop since he was a kid, and one employee who took a "two week" course and obviously is just looking for a paycheck anywhere... Who would you chose?

<comment><USER12> Insufficient data to draw conclusion.

Passion is nice, but it's not all it's cracked up to be. People who are "just looking for a paycheck" tend to be _very_ interested in staying employed and are highly motivated to learn. We all like to talk about the person who only wants a job so they can survive while looking for other work, but we ignore that many of them realize they won't get another job, and their best bet is to do well in whatever position they can find and move up.

I'll take a steady, reliable, hard worker over a "passionate" precious and unique snowflake any day.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> As someone whose startup is focused on helping new grads land jobs, I've learned that most job seekers focus on the job search process. They try to find better jobs, improve their resume, network, and do other things that will help them sell the existing product. Very few commit to actually improving the product. Instead of admitting that they may not be good enough, they focus on trying to convince other people why they are good enough. I think a lot of startup founders have this same problem with their products.

On another note, here's an interesting blog post from Greg Mankiw (another Harvard academic) on the economic rationale behind setting a time limit for unemployment insurance: [http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2010/12/my- agnosticism-about-...](http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2010/12/my-agnosticism- about-ui.html)

The basic gist of it is that there is an optimal time limit for unemployment insurance benefits, and that that time limit should probably increase during a weak economy to help reduce income uncertainty and prop up aggregate demand. The question is how did we end up with 99 weeks? Why not 199 weeks? Or 13 weeks?

<comment><USER14> Very few people commit to improving a product, because very few people understand what their role should be when joining organizations. It's not that they don't understand what their work might consist of, the real question is whether they understand how they will contribute, and why a business should justify hiring them.

Beyond the fact that roles & contributions that you have in your work place, this is still a difficult task, because it requires you to understand the organization you work within, not just the market/business.

And lets be honest, there is no perfect organization where tasks and opportunities come up, and the requirements flow smoothly into design, implementation and roll-out.

In short, people don't get what role they should play in the workforce, because nobody ever talks about participating in the workforce from an individual perspective. You have to cobble together knowledge from the domain of personal productivity/product management, being actively involved tracking the business you work in and the structure of your organization, and lastly be capable of measured critical review of your performance.

If you can do these things, congratulations, you are amongst the few. :P

<comment><USER13> You hit on the second biggest flaw that I spot in job seekers (and startup founders). They focus too much on their own wants/needs and not enough on the needs of the people they're trying to sell to.

<comment><USER14> What's the biggest flaw? :)

<comment><USER13> Unwillingness to invest in themselves or work towards improving themselves (or a lack of realization that they need to do these things). Most job seekers have a "take me as I am" attitude. Even new grads who should be all pumped up about learning new things seem to think that their degree alone will guarantee a job.

Even the grads (and other job seekers) who are eager to learn expect to have a company invest in training them. Why would I invest in training you if you spent 6 months job searching without once doing something that actually made you a better candidate for the job?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> How did 99 weeks of unemployment become "99 weeks of Xbox"?

Sure, if that's reality then it doesn't make much sense. But saying it's so doesn't make it so. The Cadillac driving welfare queen is a hyperbolic Reagan talking point.

But let's pretend for a second that nonsense is real and most of those on long term unemployment are spending most of their time playing Xbox - <USER2> suggestion is that instead of paying those people the marginally sustainable monthly pittance, we should pay to train them ... and then they pay rent/mortgage, purchase food, pay for children's needs, etc. with what, exactly?

<comment><USER16> And why should I be so passionately concerned about whether someone collecting unemployment plays with an XBox?

Being unemployed _sucks_. It's a horrible situation. While there are, of course, some slackers out there, it's almost always involuntary. (As can be clearly seen from the job statistics out there: The reason we have 10% unemployment in the US right now is because there _aren't enough jobs_. Telling the unemployed to "just get a job" is as productive as telling a sick man to "just get better".)

If someone who can't find a job chooses to pass some of their time playing video games, who am I to complain? If it makes their life a bit better, then I'm all for it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Phil suggest that I should have bettered myself whilst unemployed. I have a masters degree in Mathematics, professional programming experience in 13 languages including Java, JavaScript, and Python, more if I include things like SQL, HTML, etc. in which I also have professional experience. I speak four human languages (and bits of three others). Perhaps a vocational school will make me more marketable.

So how did I waste my time during my 83 weeks of unemployment? Mostly looked for work. I read and did a few exploratory things. I went on quite a few interviews as my resume is pretty good, but one look at me told the tale of my age. I coached a high school basketball team (and wrote a Java GUI for game stats and management). I did work around the house, repairs etc. I paid bills and figured out ways to stay afloat. Sorry, I don't have a gaming console. I exercised to try to stave off depression. I visited my failing parents weekly and took over their financial chores. I took up singing. (No one would pay me for that either.)

To be fair, Phil was probably not talking about me, but about younger workers like my son. He hasn't been in the work force and is not eligible for unemployment benefits. His generation is having a harder time than mine. Maybe he should study SQL at U of Poenix. He doesn't have a gaming console either.

<comment><USER18> I don't understand how someone like you wouldn't find work. Where do you live? Did you have extremely high expectations? I don't mean to be rude, I ask because the qualifications you have are outstanding, and I am curious.

<comment><USER17> After 83 weeks I did find work. The reason it was difficult was my age plus few openings. The age thing is interesting. Some places where I applied I got past phone screens that gave fairly little programming quizzes. When I got to the in person interviews there were no questions about me experience, education, or publications. It seemed the whole process was geared to finding folks fresh out of college. Things are picking up here. The recruiters are calling and there seem to be more openings. The unemployment insurance was helpful. Keep in mind though that I have paid more into it over the years than I have gotten out of it. That's fine and fits with the general pattern of insurance. That's why insurance companies make money. I guess I have two point. One is that it is insurance, as opposed to a direct handout from the government. The other is that age discrimination is a big factor that Phil's agenda does not address. OK, there's a third point in that market conditions also make Phil's agenda impractical although I agree that folks should try to "retool" during hard times. It's just not ass easy and effective as Phil suggests.

About the high expectations, perhaps I do. I don't think that's so bad though. I hope you do too. A difficulty though is that so do prospective employers. They are often reluctant to offer lower pay to people that they feel might flee when times improve and they can find a better job.

<comment><USER18> Thanks for the answer, it makes a lot of sense.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> >Many of the students had very limited programming experience and many were not MIT-affiliated, so it is not as though we took MIT computer nerds and made them slightly more nerdy.

There seems to be some deliberate dishonesty here. First of all, you're posting this on the Harvard blog, so this sounds like a group of undergrads from the Ivy League and top 20 schools. So this little anecdote has almost no relevance to those who have been on unemployment for over a year. The deliberate omission of where these students come from makes it difficult for me to take this article seriously, especially with the explicit assumption that only MIT students are nerds of a serious caliber, and furthermore that basic SQL is something difficult for non-nerds to pick up.

Furthermore, the article doesn't recognize that retraining and job-hunting are separate tasks, and not only are they difficult to do at the same time, but it's actually counterproductive.

Finally, the assumption that people are sitting around playing XBox with this money is slander. I doubt the author has spent more than 10 minutes in a social setting with anyone on unemployment. Unemployment checks in most cases probably won't even pay rent.

<comment><USER20> Either some of those training times are unrealistic, or there are broadly different definitions of competence. I'm extremely skeptical that ANYONE can learn enough about video editing in 2 weeks to become a professional editor. Or "go from zero computer knowledge to being a Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer or a Cisco network engineer" - I'm not sure we have the same understanding of the general public's computer knowledge. There's a bit difference between "Harvard non-nerd" and the average unemployed person in terms of learning aptitude and in terms of computer familiarity.

Not to mention that with lots of people from Tier 1 schools having a hard time finding jobs, it's not like the recession is a result of not enough people having college degrees. I mean, training never hurts, but the issue we're facing isn't a skills-to-opportunities mismatch, it's just a total lack of available jobs in all sectors.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> One thing I didn't hear noted is that unemployment is also considered a low friction way of getting money back into th economy. Those people on unemployment usually spend the money (not save), and there tends to be less protest in doing this than other forms of welfare.

Additionally, I think there is a belief that to really move the needle we're going to need to really get business back to hiring. I don't think the deamnd in the job market is low end programming -- you can find tons of students graduating from Phoenix U and Devry for that. It's the "hit the ground running" expert talent. Someone who can come in and immediately start building iPhone and Android apps (even web talent seems to have much more supply than demand).

For some of these people 99 weeks may be sufficient to get them up to speed for such a task, but I do think it will be difficult. First they have to find good training, which in itself will be tough if they aren't web or tech savvy. I just don't think someone who can edit a picture is going to be hired in this market climate.

<comment><USER22> Except the money for unemployment is confiscated from working people's paychecks, so it's a net wash on the economy at best, less the sizable bureaucratic overhead.

<comment><USER23> If I got an extra $100 or so on my paycheck, it would have very little economic utility. It would just be added to my pile of savings.

But if you take that $100 from me and give it to an unemployed person, they are going to spend 100% of that, guaranteed.

Moreover, I'm not following you on the "less the sizable bureaucratic overhead" comment. You make it seem as if the gov't takes $100 from me, burns $10 in the White House Furnace, and gives $90 to the unemployed person.

On the contrary, every dollar of "bureaucratic overhead" is income for somebody -- a government contractor, supplier or employee. I've never understood why people act like the money the government spends just vanishes from the economy. Yes, a small, small fraction of it goes overseas. But it's so small it cannot be described as "sizable."

<comment><USER24> _If I got an extra $100 or so on my paycheck, it would have very little economic utility. It would just be added to my pile of savings._

Nonsense. That's great that you'd save the $100, but even if you do that it still has economic utility, presuming you're putting it into a bank account. It then gets lent out to businesses or reinvested into the economy. The bank isn't sitting on a giant pile of money.

<comment><USER21> _The bank isn't sitting on a giant pile of money._

I thought banks were sitting on giant piles of money (thanks to the Fed), hence the low interest rates?

<comment><USER24> In a sense, yes, but that's mainly on the books and it depends on which interest rate you're referring to. You're right, much of the bailout money was used to cushion the capital accounts of these institutions. However, banks are businesses too and at the moment happen to be making tremendous profits, much of it due to the spreads they're getting on the low lending rate from the Feds.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I don't think its realistic to expect someone who has been a marketing manager for 20 years to get laid off and then tell them to go learn SQL or get a plumber certification. Most people don't think that way- their career is a huge part of their identity. They need to exhaust all options and go through the whole 7 stages of grief, they can't just switch careers on a dime.

<comment><USER22> True, that's why we have unemployment, and other entitlements for job retraining, to help people through that transition period. But 99 weeks?

<comment><USER25> Really, 99 weeks is just too much. If you cannot get rehired in a year or so, do you really think you will get hired at all? If you were good enough or lucky enough you would get a job in 1 year or else you seriously need to rethink your "career"

<comment><USER26> That's pretty easy to say. What happens when jobs are not available? Or when people cannot relocate to where jobs are? Do we cast off a large body of people to sink on their own? And when they are sinking, will that be good for society?

<comment><USER25> I live in a country with no such guarantee and people have managed to live.

<comment><USER9> Which country, out of curiousity? I'm only asking because I'm not aware of any countries without some form of social safety net where life isn't absolutely miserable for the underclass.

<comment><USER27> Sherlock says: India.

1\. Look at HN profile. See manky website listed there: lifeasparesh.co.cc.

2\. That website doesn't load for me.

3\. Go to Mr. Google and type in lifeasparesh.

4\. Find blog.lifesasparesh.in.

5\. Notice that in the search results the owner of this site reports a HN username of rick_2047.

Economic/political analysis may now continue based on this piece of information.

<detour>

(And yeah I'm receptive to ideas the original article. "99 weeks of xbox" is hyperbole but after pruning away the hyperbole from the article -- and the opposing comments in this thread -- there are some hard questions remaining. It's worth talking about these questions in an adult manner while attempting to avoiding Godwin-lite debate tactics. Which, I confess, I frequently find myself using because it's fun to go "Ha! Score!)

</detour>

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> philg here...

A reader pointed me to this response to my Weblog article.

To answer Jellicle's question about "how much would it cost to take the three- day course?" ... $0. The course was free, open to the public (no unemployed people chose to attend), and all of the teachers volunteered their time over a three-day holiday weekend. We did use an MIT classroom and wireless network, but no capital equipment other than a video projector.

Let's look at the rest of Jellicle's assertions...

Wanker? Perhaps.

Libertarian? I voted for King Obama, though it might have been simply to make my December 2007 prediction come true... [http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2007/12/12/election-2008-...](http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2007/12/12/election-2008-prediction- obama-wins-by-5-percent-we-will-all-be-dep/)

Rich? Since I don't work on Wall Street, by definition I am not rich. I have some money saved up, but the total is about what a successful hedge fund manager earns in a week.

Home mortgage subsidy? I've never had a mortgage. I worked from 1978 until 1996 as a programmer, saving money each year, until I could afford to buy a two-bedroom condo with cash. I certainly do not advocate a continued tax deduction for home mortgages. I think the events of the last decade should have proven the folly of the government subsidizing an oversized housing sector. Prior to the Collapse of 2008, I wrote [http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2008/04/05/why-do-we- want...](http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2008/04/05/why-do-we-want-to- maintain-the-worlds-highest-housing-prices/) on the question of whether high housing prices are good for our economy overall.

</comment><comment><USER29> Some of Greenspun's ideas are great in theory, harder in practice. Part of the problem is that you put people through a training course, now they have to try to find jobs in that area, and that may be just as difficult or more difficult than before. So your unemployed person (who yes, did get through a training course but had no money to pay for their or their family's needs during that course) now has more skills, but possibly more debt accumulated due to living expenses. And there's still no guarantee they will find a job.

Or you take a mid-thirties woman, out of work, who has developed a reasonable competency in some mid-level A/P job for a medium sized business. Put her through a language course and now you have a mid-thirties woman with a reasonable competency in German and mid-level accounting. Does that really make her more employable than she was before the training course?

Not saying that a WPA-style project instead of extending unemployment would be bad, just that there are a number of repercussions to it that would have to be considered.

</comment><comment><USER30> Great idea! Now we just need to find some excellent teachers to train the unemployed. Perhaps we can find a few more retired millionaire MIT graduates willing to volunteer their time?

In seriousness, I do think more people should consider programming as a vocation. It's good work if you can get it. Even our "crappy" jobs pay as much as the US median family income (seriously, look it up). But I don't think you can learn it in 3 days. It takes years, and not everyone is going to be good at it -- look at the people who are _already_ programmers!

</comment><comment><USER31> It takes more than two weeks to become skilled at PhotoShop. I've been using it 10 years and still have _lots_ to learn.

</comment><comment><USER32> I've spend time on unemployment twice, and each time I got what I think was the max payment (in MA)... The first time didn't cover half of my rent, and the second didn't cover half of my mortgage. We were able to move for employment, but we took a nice loss on the house.

Those in industries that are contracting (manufacturing, pink-collar, STEM) probably have to move to find work. If one has a working spouse or school-age kids, this might be a no-win situation.

The partiers might be living solo and/or at home.

</comment><comment><USER33> When I read these types of pieces by Philip, I am uncertain of whether it is a legitimate take or he is just playing a troll.

"Let them eat cake!"

I believe I posted a comment on his site to that effect in response to one of his earlier "cadillac driving welfare queen" missives, and it was quickly deleted (Mr. Greenspun is quite adept in deleting comments that do not agree with his sentiment).

I collected unemployment once, for a couple of weeks -- it was ~$200 per week, not even sufficient to cover the mortgage payment, let alone health insurance, food and utilities. It was shocking to me, as I remember my father experiencing bouts of unemployment back in the 1970s/1980s (tough times for steelworkers then, who saw their ranks dwindle), and he received ~$350 per week and we were able to meet living expenses (along with gracious helpings of government cheese).

Not sure training is the panacea -- put simply, as we become productive in the aggregate, it requires less workers. Corporate employment, even before the "great recession" has been trending downwards.

Sadly, nobody is addressing this structural realignment.

<http://www.marshallbrain.com/robotic-nation.htm>

<comment><USER34> > Mr. Greenspun is quite adept in deleting comments that do not agree with his > sentiment.

Happened to me a number of times. A major reason I unsubscribed - if I'm going to read economic and technological musings, I'd rather read something like _Marginal Revolution_ where the posters will give the same glib economist answers but will also consider how they fail.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> I'm not going to complain about long unemployment benefits because in the long run its a lot less expensive than measures the government might take to artificially prevent unemployment. Governments are much better at redistributing wealth than at running economies - lets let them do what they're good at.

</comment><comment><USER36> I haven't seen anyone here address his proposed modificaitons.

"for people who live in states with an unemployment rate higher than average, offer a lump sum at the end of 12 weeks to assist the person in moving to a state with a lower-than-average rate"

This solution ignores several factors that make this a hideously bad idea in general. Factor 1 is that the unemployed person may be married and their spouse is still gainfully employed. So either he expects to trade one unemployed spouse for another after the move, or he expects the couple (and possible children) to split up for the sake of maintaining two households several states apart, just to expedite getting the unemployed person off the rolls. Factor 2 is that the unemployed person is undoubtably living somewhere and either has a rental lease or a mortgage. So I'm supposing he's going to break his lease, and thus screw over his landlord, or try and sell his house quickly in a down market, or if not, simply walk away, thus screwing his bank and possibly tens of thousands of equity that he's built up.

</comment><comment><USER37> Most states won't pay you unemployment if you go to school full-time. And while the suggestion of paying for a year of school sounds great, how do all the other bills get paid?

</comment><comment><USER38> I think Greenspun would be less optimistic if he did not extrapolate wildly from his experience in teaching an RDMS course to a bunch of "bright" students (some of whom aren't even from MIT --- OMFG, are you kidding me!).

Instead, he should go find a bunch of middle-aged 99'ers, teach them his RDMS course and report back.

</comment><comment><USER39> I wouldn't pay much attention to a public policy expert lecturing me on programming. I don't begrudge a guy his opinion, but let's not pretend it's an informed one just because of confirmation bias.

</comment><comment><USER40> This looks like it's an article about politics, essentially:-/

That's generally something best left to other sites.

</comment><comment><USER41> He's managed to come up with a list of job skills for which no employer is hiring.

</comment><comment><USER17> Inflation adjusted money I paid for unemployment and disability insurance over a 30 some year career (roughly): $40,000.

Money paid to me by said insurance over 83 unemployed weeks $38,475.

</comment><comment><USER42> 99 weeks of publicly subsidized unemployment for a non productive commodity? I agree, this is outrageous. These commodities need to transport themselves to a more favorable market and increase their utility through intelligent investment of the resources being generously showered upon them. A shorter period of unemployment should adequately incentivize these recalcitrant products.

<comment><USER43> It looks like you're trying to be sarcastic, but the most basic principle of economics is "incentives matter".

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> Just throwing it out there, but what if we threw some of this 'X-Box' money into non-profit organizations that specialize in finding a suitable job, matching the credentials of these desperately unemployed? This way, we can weed out those who simply want to live off the two year no-effort, money- making program playing X-Box. I think that Microsoft makes enough with X-Box Live.</comment>


Fact based, data-oriented news - <AUTHOR> http://s0rce.com/issue-event/copyright-and-piracy-legislation <comment><USER3> While I think this is a great idea (and similar to things I've been slowly working on in spare time), I don't think that the execution really does "Fair" or "Fact based" justice.

The facts that are presented are pretty minimal - while I may agree with some of the conclusions that seem to be pushed by it, it doesn't feel like a general-use tool in order to provide better information. It feels like a presentation with specific goals.

EDIT: I think a better way of phrasing what bothers me about this is: It focuses on making the presentation of the data compelling. That's a good thing - if the presentation is compelling, people are likely to engage and learn. However, here that seems to have been accomplished in an "editorial" way - <USER2> hand-selecting things. Compelling presentation of data will be meaningful and honest when it can happen with minimal editorial influence. This is (or at least appears to be) completely hand-selected.

<comment><USER4> I have the opposite criticism.

This feels like data porn. There's no love in here. I'm not sure why I should read through this data. I don't know what the point is, or what relevance it has to ... well anything.

Data display is not the same as analysis.

This is one of the reasons why i _hate_ all the stupid supposed "data- visualizations" images that people always repost from the net. They don't provide people context for the information they're supposedly displaying, nor any way for people to view the source of the analyses.

In that light, i am delighted that a site like this provides ways to interact w/ the data and dive back to the source of the data. And I do hope that these guys will keep experimenting, but I kind of have a "what's the point?" reaction at the moment.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Fact based, data centric news can still be quite biased through selection of detail, so Im not sure its any more trustworthy than an article.

Love the site though, really well done.

<comment><USER6> I agree on both points.

One thing that is missing from much mainstream news reporting is linking to/referencing primary data in an accessible fashion, which this site seems to do(except the links are not clickable), so that's a development in the right direction.

<comment><AUTHOR> The links being clickable is a CMS issue, and one that's been on the "get to it eventually" list for a while. It's definitely something we intend to have though.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> It's our (rndmize and my) attempt at creating a sane approach to the news. do you feel like something like this useful? if not, how can we make it more so?

<comment><USER8> This (fact-based news) has been at the back of my mind for a long time.

If you stick with it and it ends up working out, this could be the start of something really interesting.

What are your plans to monetize? It seems that the NPR model works somewhat, but maybe there are other ways.

I worry that the market for nonsensationalized news might be small, but again, you have NPR as an example, so at least there's a niche. Worst case, this could probably work as a hobby, facts are useful in that once you put them on your site, they don't have to be updated much.

Good luck.

Edit: minor point: sources could be clickable.

<comment><AUTHOR> We're aiming for a subscription model ideally; we've seen a good number of complaints about how a lot of ad-supported news often has link-bait titles, excessive internal linking, is sensational/poorly researched and so on, none of which is surprising given their primary objective is to increase pageviews.

On the flip side, we don't want to lock the majority of content behind paywalls, which seems to be the way a lot of better news sources seem to be going today.

We'd like to have all our content be accessible for free, and subscribers would get various additional benefits: no ads, the ability to manipulate charts and graphs more directly (perhaps a way to adjust the scope beyond what we display, make projections and share with friends), mobile app with nice interface that requires subbed account, etc.

As for the market - we think it might be possible to serve as a secondary news source for people that want hard info on an issue/event, or the background/context to get up to speed on something (hopefully the range of people interested in this would cross party lines and even into groups that don't have the time or interest to keep up with politics on a daily basis).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Can we see this in real dollars? Hard to understand the actual trends the industry is facing in nominal dollars.

</comment><comment><USER10> Data is great, it lets you make your own conclusions. There still remains an element of trust though, in the provider of the data. It's certainly a step above bloat-filled news articles though.

<comment> simba-hiiipower Agreed. And I like the concept as well, but (even in just briefly poking around the few topics on the site) I also felt a lack of trust. This has less to do with anything particular to the site and is more so related to the fact that with pure data, and with little-to-no context, it is impossible to discern any potential biases that one could otherwise pick-up on. Furthermore there is no information on how data is selected (two guys sitting in a room copying Wikipedia? I'm not saying that's the case here, but how would one know? And even if it were from absolutely reputable sources, any human intervention in selecting and deciding which data to include/not include makes it hard to claim real objectivity).

I think an interesting (though much harder to develop) implementation of this concept would be to have it powered by a complex algorithm that combs the web for sources and pulls consistent data from them. Such a system would essentially verify data accuracy through identifying consistency across a massive number of sources and prevent any selection bias. Just a thought..

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Glad to see that more and more people think about data-driven blogging. We've done small project[1] in this area -- embeddable live trend charts based on Google Finance and Google Analytics data where trends can be commented right in charts. Initially, we thought this could help explain trend reasons. But we saw no traction and switched to another project. [1] <http://explainum.com>

</comment><comment><USER12> I really liked this. I liked how easy it was to see all the data, even if it wasn't the most relevant data, and if it wasn't very relevant I would have liked to be able to fish into sources. I just wish there was an easy way to for me to delve into those sources, or find related news from other sites. Like a "these articles give opinion on this issue".

Great stuff.

</comment><comment><USER13> I like it. It's a much more polished version of something I tried to do with <http://www.facster.com> back in 2005. I was writing blog style stories to go with queries of statistical abstract data. The stories are gone now, but you can still query the DB.

</comment><comment><USER14> Now that is an impressive chart. A little tough to quickly sort out at a glance but informative nonetheless.

</comment><comment><USER15> Now that is quite an amazing site. I'll definitely be checking it out again.

BTW, a minor correction. From the "Instant Tour":

> The right column of any Summary tab is facts, the left is analysis.

I think you got "right" and "left" backwards.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, fixed.</comment></comment>


Japanese mini Segway "WalkCar" - <AUTHOR> http://www.catchynet.com/2015/08/japanese-mini-segway-walkcar.html <comment><USER2> The wheels on this device are smaller than I'd feel safe riding on. Small rocks can stop a skateboard, and when they do, it is much better to be perpendicular rather than facing forward when stopped abruptly. I remember goofing off riding on a board facing forward, and every time the board stopped abruptly, I would fall face forward. Unrelated, they could have picked better music for the video.

<comment> semi-extrinsic Small rocks etc. is one thing, but going around a city there's so many manmade obstacles as well. Every sidewalk curb, cobblestone, pothole, with this thing you have to stop, bend down and pick it up, walk a step or two, put it down and resume. At least on a skateboard/longboard you can kick it up and throw it down again, or even just ollie shit.

<comment><USER3> China is churning out cheap mini-segways that are not much bigger and have larger pneumatic tires. This is just the first one I found on ebay for $370 (including shipping):

[http://www.ebay.com/itm/New-Mini-Smart-Self-Balancing- Electr...](http://www.ebay.com/itm/New-Mini-Smart-Self-Balancing-Electric- Unicycle-Scooter-Balance-2-Wheels-colors-/361355582245)

<comment><USER4> The specs show the maximum speed is 100km/h - sounds a bit risky :-)

<comment><USER5> It lists maximum load as "20kg"!

<comment><USER6> The perfect way to send your six year old to first grade!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This is a slight tangent but....

It's unfortunate that we have such restrictive and inconsistent rules around the place concerning these light electric vehicles. I realize that electric bikes really push the motorbike-bike line, but this stuff is being invented and experimented on at a clip and it's hard to figure out the best form factors when the rules are all defined around what was available and popular at some point.

And, it's important to advance... All these little electric vehicles are potentially really helpful. No emissions, low energy, far less infrastructure than cars and trains. All the segway fantasies could actually come true, in some form as these things improve. They just need to keep improving the battery tech and let these guys experiment with form factor.

Here's my request for the V2: double the size and design it to be used sitting in the lotus position. It'd be a flying carpet... that flies really low.

<comment><USER8> Imagine two of these colliding head on in a mall or campus. Potential 15mph head banger. Definitely dangerous and maybe fatal. That's why these rules are proliferating. Fact is the radius in which any of these motorised mobility aids is safe is much larger than that of a pedestrian. Our legs, torsos are very strong, with dozens of muscles wired directly to our brains for minimum latency, so we can stop or dodge essentially instantly. These tools are therefore appropriate only in less densely travelled areas (factories, warehouses, etc) or on special pathways with strict traffic rules.

<comment><USER9> You seriously believe that if two people collided on these they would both die? You actually believe death would result? Just... I don't even...

<comment><USER10> at 10 km/h (3 meters/second, 4-5 times faster than the average walking speed), it's plausible that you could to fall off, hit your head on the pavement and... die, yes.

<comment><USER11> you mean, the same as if you trip while walking, hit your head on the pavement and die?

<comment><USER10> pretty much, but at least you don't have 4 wheels to slide from under you as you try to keep your footing :-)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I don't understand who this is for. To be able to remain balanced on a small patch of ground that can zip around in any direction under your feet with no handholds requires MORE balance than ordinary walking. That means that almost anyone who could safely use this would have to be healthy enough to walk normally. Walking is almost as fast, vastly more flexible, convenient, reliable, cheap....

Yes, it's more tiring, but someone who could safely use one of these could also safely cruise around on a scooter with larger wheels and a handle for much higher speed, much lower cost, more stability, no fear of running out of power, better handling over uneven surfaces, etc.

The people who need powered transportation on walkways tend to be those with limited personal mobility, and most of them would be at great risk balanced on one of these things. They need something stable to sit on, not something unstable to stand on.

The best market I can think of for these things is relatively young, healthy workers gliding around the smooth floor of a very large warehouse all day long carrying small objects. But that's not how they seem to be positioning this thing, and most of those jobs will be robotized, because the little warehouse scooter doesn't really need the person.

<comment><USER13> At lower speeds would it be much different to a moving walkway? As for use cases these would be unlimited! I imagine 10km/ph is as fast as a taxi would average in a busy downtown

<comment><USER14> You can put your legs in a wider stance on a moving walkway. Furthermore, if the walkway happens to stutter, the rest of the walkway's speed isn't significantly different from the speed of the patch you're standing on.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Cool toy but seems gimmicky. The research just keeps piling up about how sitting at our desks all day is terrible for our health... That we need to get up and walk and move, the exact thing this product seems to be trying to outsource. Too bad we evolved to move about our environments using our legs, instead of stay immobile in a dark swampy cave with bio-luminescent algae interfaces.

<comment><USER16> It was gimmicky for me until it showed him walking with his mom. My grandmother used to love going for walks but now gets too tired too fast. I'm not saying I'd buy one of these just for that use case, but that's the moment that made me see realistic applications. Could work well with a "granny grocery cart", extending the time a person can stay independent as they age without being as cumbersome as a wheelchair.

<comment><USER17> My grandmother is also experiencing declining mobility. She'd probably break her hip getting on this thing, or hopping off to stop it.

<comment><USER18> The lack of movement causes bone degeneration. In the majority of broken hip cases, the hip breaks AND THEN the person falls. What your grandmother needs is to do squats and have mild but abrupt force applied to her bones.

<comment><USER19> This comment requires the disclaimer-

Not a doctor.

<comment><USER18> On the internet, everyone is not a doctor.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Rather than something for me to ride, I'd rather have something that I can toss things onto, that would follow behind me (like Tensor's Floating Disc).

<comment><USER21> The Luggage™

<comment><USER20> Kinda, just with (a bit) less eating people :-)

<comment><USER22> Is this where Boston Robotics comes in?

For heavy load, they have wild cat[wildcat] and for lighter loads, they have spot [spot]. For Ussain Bolt, there is the cheetah [cheetah] that can keep up with the pace peaking at over 29 miles per hour. All these are at various stages in development and as far as I understand not ready for production.

spot [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wE3fmFTtP9g](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wE3fmFTtP9g)

wildcat [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wE3fmFTtP9g](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wE3fmFTtP9g)

cheetah [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chPanW0QWhA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chPanW0QWhA)

<comment><USER23> If you're hiking, maybe. If you're doing almost anything else a platform with wheels should suffice at a tiny fraction of the cost.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> The real mini-Segway: electric monocycle Solo-wheel.

[http://www.amazon.com/Inventist-SW1-Solowheel- by/dp/B007Q3FZ...](http://www.amazon.com/Inventist-SW1-Solowheel- by/dp/B007Q3FZYK)

</comment><comment><USER25> I'd be super worried riding this in anything other than a smooth indoor environment, as it looks like the smallest chunk of gravel could send you flying.

But I think the non-self-balancing but still weight-sensing control scheme has a lot of promise (I've built a few of theses myself: [https://endless- sphere.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=35&t=49557...](https://endless- sphere.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=35&t=49557&sid=3adbdea146edf1d0011cd3b05eb0427b)). I've found segway-style vehicles really twitchy to ride (since they'll literally tip over if they don't react quickly and forcefully enough), whereas basic weight sensing control is super intuitive (much more so than, say, the hand control on the Boosted boards).

<comment><USER26> Is it possible that the front wheels being powered could climb up a small stone, unlike a skateboard that is kind of pushed horizontally into it by momentum?

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> > Can you remember the Segway?

Yeah.

> And how we all thought of it as the new way of human transportation?

No, I don't remember that bit.

<comment><USER27> That was how it was marketed when it first came out. It will revolutionize human transportation they said. Everyone will have one they said.

I almost rented one for the first time on vacation this spring... then I just walked instead.

<comment><USER28> I love watching tourists crash on those things here in Barcelona ;P. I see them as being too unbalanced, compared to the small scooter bikes that are being rented as well [1]. I see the similar thing with these "platforms". The wheels almost reminds me office chairs :), and i know how bad the sidewalks are for example, not to mention holes and other objects.

1: [http://bcnshop.barcelonaturisme.com/shopv3/en/product/21110/...](http://bcnshop.barcelonaturisme.com/shopv3/en/product/21110/electric- scooter-hire.html)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> So twice normal walking speed is good. I can walk at 10 kmph, and I can walk 12 km. But I can't walk 12 km at 10 kmph. However, I can't imagine that I could balance on such a small, short platform, moving at 10 kmph. Even on a smooth surface. And the shape seems wrong. I'd be far more comfortable on a board. Sideways is cool, but only when leaning backward. Catching an edge is so not fun.

<comment><USER30> Unlike skateboards, the four wheels on this platform make almost a square. There's a chance that it can handle pot holes better, since three wheels will still be enough. But yeah, I share your feelings about edges.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Is it as cheap as these[1] mass produced mini segways that have become popular? The linked products also have a range of 8 miles and a top speed of more than 9mph.

[1][http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search- alias%3Dap...](http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search- alias%3Daps&field-keywords=self%20balancing%20scooter)

<comment><USER32> This is the same device being sold by iohawk and Phunkee Duck for over $1,500. Phunkee Duck managed to get celebrities to use them and people are spending a fortune although it is the identical product!

They are available directly from the original manufacturer in china via alibaba [1] or aliexpress for around $150-$300.

[1] [http://www.alibaba.com/product-detail/2015-New-Two-Wheels- Se...](http://www.alibaba.com/product-detail/2015-New-Two-Wheels-Self- Balancing_60294686959.html?spm=a2700.7724856.35.1.AAvdiZ)

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> One practical if very niche use I could see for this would be doing steady shots when filming. I don't think it would let you do anything new but it might make doing some types of shots easier.

<comment><USER18> These exist already. People are using monorover or similar (self balancing scooter) for dolly shots.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UYzaWGTov0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UYzaWGTov0)

[https://vimeo.com/77716627](https://vimeo.com/77716627)

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> Does anyone know what are the motor and battery specifications on this device? Which motor do they use? Which battery?

<comment><USER35> thats exactly my first thoughts. Seems a bold claim to travel so far, with such a seemingly small potential battery space

<comment><USER36> yes, also going over the steep with stuffs on a cart, it's quite a stretch for such a small device.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Malls and airports, for rent, $5 an hour, millions sold.

<comment><USER38> need to require non-anonymous payment (credit card etc) because they'd be very steal-able.

Also, train stations.

<comment><USER39> In Brussels you can rent bikes from public transport at numerous stations in the city. Either be a registered citizen or allow them to put 150€ on hold on your credit card (and pay 1.60€ per day as long as no ride is longer than (I think) half an hour). It's easy to use and popular, so I don't think it'd be a problem.

<comment><USER40> We have a similar scheme in Belfast now but the hold-funds requirement is a disincentive for people with debit cards.

Since you have to log in to your bank beforehand and pre-fund the card it eliminates spontaneity.

I see few tourists using them either.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> Based on its design, I can't imagine it going very far or very fast. The appear (what there was) of the Segway is that it will allow a normal human to go much further, much faster than would be possible by walking. And without breaking a sweat.

With the tiny wheels, I'd think it would be a rough ride anywhere near where I live... with the uneven sidewalks and other transitions needed.

<comment><USER42> "VentureBeat reported that it can go up to 6.2 miles per hour for up to 7.4 miles. It needs three hours to charge."

It's amazing that the tiny battery can run 7.4 miles...

[http://venturebeat.com/2015/08/07/pocket-sized-personal- tran...](http://venturebeat.com/2015/08/07/pocket-sized-personal-transporters- could-soon-be-seen-on-the-streets-of-tokyo/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> You can't stop fast with that thing, except by jumping off. See the video at 0:50. Jump off or face-plant, those are the options. Riders need basic skateboarding skills to use this thing, but skateboarders will be bored by it.

The Segway can stop fast without a face plant. That's what makes it usable.

The BPG Motors transforming motorcycle[1], with both a Segway form and a motorcycle form, seemed to be a really good concept four years ago. They demoed, then the product disappeared. They've come out with a two-tracked off- road standup ATV (the "Shredder"), but it's not for urban use.

[1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odI4WaYEcCU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odI4WaYEcCU)

</comment><comment><USER44> I believe this will be most awesome on tradeshows or on large company premises.

I'd be interested to see how it can deal with gravel, rain, wind and what happens when you encounter that small step that is just a tad bit higher than the device can take.

</comment><comment><USER45> Seems incomplete. Surely one would want simple foot controls to allow stopping without having to jump off. Or even moderate speed control.

Also having recently seen first hand how much losing ones mobility to illness, this could be a really great product for older people if it were modified into a walker that carried you. Also if it were setup as a walker for the elderly basic hand controls could be added.

Very interesting product I all be very interest to see how this develops and improves with an iteration or two.

<comment> david-given There are parts of the video where he slows down and speeds up. Tilting forwards and backwards, maybe? I think the jumping off feature is being demonstrated more as a safety system, rather the main way you control the speed.

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> I cant seem to get into this idea. First if I were to ride this in NYC I would probably be on my face with the 2 inch wheels stuck in the subway grates or in a pot whole. Some may say "Well skate boards have small wheels" this devices wheels are smaller, and you don't have the momentum from peddling to get you over the bumps. And also its plain awkward without being "cool", like an electric mountain board.

</comment><comment><USER47> I would get one of these for living in SF. It would make lots of otherwise unwalkable neighborhoods perfectly accessible while only using it to go uphill.

<comment><USER48> Alternatively just walk those neighborhoods and they won't feel unwalkable very shortly! My 89 year old grandmother used to walk from her house in Japantown to Chrissy Field and back, regularly--your legs get used to it and suddenly the city feels a lot more accessible.

<comment><USER47> If you're lucky enough to have good legs, yes. Many people get chronic tendonitis after they move to hilly area of SF.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> Many of these are marketed online totally forgetting legal status. Meaning that you can drive these only in closed areas. Using on public road is illegal. Only devices legal are electrically assisted cycle or electric registered scooters. Btw. Segways should become legal in Finland in 2016 what kind of registration and insurances might be required isn't yet exactly known.

</comment><comment><USER50> Would be great at airports!

<comment><USER51> No, will never take off.

<comment><USER52> this comment is underrated.

<comment><USER51> That kind of comment is a point dancer. 4 points at this moment. My guess is 11 up, and 8 down till now.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> When I saw the segway, I thought it was way weird and didn't like it. When I saw this, I was a little excited about it. Funny how a small change in design makes it seem cooler to me.

To the people worried about the gravel, since this guy is traveling over brick side walks in the video (see 44 seconds in) I think it will do just fine on normal side walks.

</comment><comment><USER54> Its great to see so many new approaches. I'm the last person to know which will catch on, but with all this variety we're likely to converge on the right device.

The expensive lesson of the Segway: people don't want to look like a dork. It's hard to quantify exactly but only mall cops look natural on a Segway.

<comment><USER55> Also tourists wearing gaudily colored helmets.

</comment></comment><comment><USER56> I want one of these so bad. The two wheel self balancing boards that are popping right now are so cool and this looks way cooler.

That said, the current ones are heavy as hell because they are all battery, I'm interested to know what the deal is with capacity / weight for this one.

<comment><USER57> i think a lot of power gets wasted on self balancing. this things balancing gets taken care of by the four wheels and frees the battery into pure propulsion. also maybe it can recharge on downhill slopes, something a self balancer cant do.

</comment></comment><comment><USER58> I suppose it isn't too surprising they don't have any clip longer than 10 seconds in that video.

Lets guess that it is going 1.5m/s (a bit more than 5km/hr or 3.3 mph which is a brisk walking speed). And lets assume the typical rider is 75kg (about 165 lbs). that takes about a kW to get up to speed but you only need it once you get to speed and it looks like it gets there quickly so over 3 seconds or so, figure a 3k watt-seconds. Then driving along you're probably at 1/4 (really efficient) to 1/2 (more typical) power covering rolling friction. (more if you are going up hill [sin(grade) * mass]) so in that size "plate" you can get maybe 10Wh of battery? That puts run times in the 60 - 70 seconds range. Followed by a 30 - 90 minute charge cycle (depending on how aggressive you can be)

I love the form factor and the concept, but we just don't have energy density in our batteries yet AFAICT.

<comment><USER23> My little laptop battery is 80Wh, and they could fit ten into that thing.

Edit: watching the video it's a bit thinner than I thought but I see no problems with battery mass.

Edit 2: [http://www.greencarcongress.com/2009/12/panasonic-20091225.h...](http://www.greencarcongress.com/2009/12/panasonic-20091225.html) Look at these for example, they go in tesla packs and would provide enough power by your calculations at about 1 liter and 5 pounds, and that thing can definitely fit a liter.

<comment><USER58> Excellent, that is a pretty energy dense battery! I stand corrected, if they are using something like this, it could work.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER59> As a youngster I rode a unicycle ... Now I want one of the self.balancing motorized ones. The "transportation" device described in this article is totally unappealing compared to both powered and unpowered skateboards.

</comment><comment><USER60> Serpentza (Winston Sterzel) covered these things from Shenzhen a month or so ago. Take a look.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGWR- KQlEBs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGWR-KQlEBs)

<comment><USER61> That's a different product.

<comment><USER60> It's true, it looks to be better in every respect (especially price). The only downside to the Chinese electric unicycle is the size (the Japanese one fits in a backpack).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER62> And promptly face plant at any kind of pothole. These wheels are _tiny_.

<comment><USER63> Agreed. As a 20 year+ street skateboarder, I can tell you that even with larger and softer urethane (85-90A) wheels, a pebble the size of a tic tac will send you to ground rapidly. The key is to over time develop skills of controlling weight on your board. I suppose this design could be modified some, but more likely that the driver/rider will need to learn some skills from skateboarders :)

<comment><USER64> I have a piece of titanium in my orbital bone from when I ran over a little rock when inline skating. If this thing hits a rock you'll go flying. Really hard.

<comment><USER65> Where really hard is 10kmph.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER66> No speed control? That is critical - when walking in a crowd, we change speed and direction constantly to respond to opportunities. Without speed control, this thing can only work on open ground.

</comment><comment><USER67> I want one just so I can glide around dressed as M. Bison at Dragon Con.

</comment><comment><USER52> What is up with all of these new motorized transportation things? They seem to be coming all out of the woodworks lately. Gone are the days of walking, seemingly.

</comment><comment><USER68> It looks like he's riding a MacBook. Looks kind of... dorky. They should design this as a Skateboard, and it might just take off.

</comment><comment><USER69> Great idea. If only the malls would allow me to stand and cruise while my wife shops. I'd me that much happier.

</comment><comment><USER70> cool concept. Put handle on it like a scooter and my Mom got a new way to get around. Oh wait, clearly, I wasn't thinking big enough. Add self-steering with collision avoidance on this deck and now you can stare at your phone the entire way from the train to the office. Google, are you listening?

</comment><comment><USER71> Looks like the motorized version of Apple's Magic Trackpad to me.

</comment><comment><USER72> skateboard

</comment><comment><USER73> First exactly look gravel friendly.

</comment><comment><USER74> We're fatter than ever and people are creating ways to be even more fat.

Humanity! F Yeah!</comment>


Without The Net - <AUTHOR> http://freshmeat.net/articles/view/3239/

<comment><USER2> Refreshing article. The author refuses to rationalize his Web addiction, unlike a lot of other smart people. The very advantage of the Web over TV, absence of central control, makes it an even more efficient timewaster.</comment>


Study: naps > coffee, good night's sleep to combat tiredness - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080611-study-naps-coffee-good-nights-sleep-to-combat-tiredness.html

<comment><USER2> I don't doubt the truth of this statement, but its not that easy. I can drink a cup of coffee at will, but napping not so much. It's not even that my work wouldn't allow me to; I could probably arrange for that. I just can't seem to take naps. I've never really been able to fall asleep in the day, except after 48+ hours with no sleep.

<comment><USER3> Yeah, same here -- learning how to nap would be valuable, but I just can't seem to do it (perhaps because I'm usually wired on caffeine?).

Sometimes I'll pass out from exhaustion when I get home from a long day, but that is more involuntary than deciding "Hmm, a nap would be good right now".

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Usually you don't have that time for a nap! It's the day before exam and you still have to read those 200 pages. No time for naps, it's coffee.

</comment><comment><USER5> this was good too, i think i found it on YC. Heading out to buy flaxseed oil right now

[http://www.fourhourworkweek.com/blog/2008/01/27/relax- like-a...](http://www.fourhourworkweek.com/blog/2008/01/27/relax-like-a- pro-5-steps-to-hacking-your-sleep/)

</comment><comment><USER6> Unfortunately I can't nap at work.</comment>


China battles to shore up stocks, yuan after globe-shaking slide - <AUTHOR> http://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-markets-idUSKBN0UJ00X20160105 <comment><USER2> "globe-shaking" "currency tumbled" "wild price swings" These terms are relative to whatever stability what there in the recent past. No matter how stable a market is, when it starts to change, reporters are going to label it like that. The reality is everything's just fine. Look at the price of CNY in USD for the last 5 years. Before 2011 it was even lower, and nobody cared then.

[http://www.xe.com/currencycharts/?from=CNY&to=USD&view=5Y](http://www.xe.com/currencycharts/?from=CNY&to=USD&view=5Y)

It's swung over a 10% range during that entire period. Who cares about 10% change in 5 years? This might be a small surprise for traders who expect it to change by less than a fraction of a percent each day, but for normal people it's not relevant. If the economy is collapsing, this exchange rate certainly isn't a sign of it.

</comment><comment><USER3> I'd have thought implementing rule that halts trading when the index drops by X% would make a sell off worse, because nervous investors even considering selling will rush to do so before the threshold gets breached.

<comment><USER4> The drop is happening regardless. All the halt does is give space for rational thinking. Stocks actually worth something should go up whilst others plummet.

<comment><USER5> People are panicky animals. Even fundamentally sound stocks will fall alongside the dogs.

<comment><USER6> All true, but remember that even the fundamentally sounds stocks got seriously overbought in 2015.

[https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome- instant&ion=1&e...](https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome- instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=csi%20300%20index)

(change the chart to a 5 year view)

<comment><USER5> Thanks for that!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> If I understand this correctly:

1.) The Yuan and Chinese stocks dipped severely.

2.) The Chinese Central bank put up $20bn to compensate.

If my understanding is correct, this could be good for the Chinese economy? It reduces the value of Yuan to the ROW (rest of the world), thereby decreasing the cost of Chinese goods and increasing exports to the ROW.

I'd like to caveat with my knowledge of the Chinese economy and how it operates is probably well outdated.

Last I knew, it's growth was very export driven and thus dependent on foreign markets. It was also very strongly influenced by the Chinese government.

It may now be the case now that it has enough inertia from those days to grow (and hit financial targets) by simply bringing up its own population (economically). Thus this is a real risk in the Chinese economy and I am an ignorant ass.

Would anyone mind illuminating the situation for me with with some data, please?

I'm happy to have been way off the mark and an ignorant ass. Learning is cool.

<comment><USER8> 1.) yuan devaluation -> (accelerating capital flight + Chinese companies needing to pay more on their dollar denominated debt (more defaults) + decreasing reserves + declining stock market/RE/assets held in yuan) >>> increased export

2.) yuan devaluation -> increased export + more money for business owners (whose money leaves China) + less money for Chinese workers/consumers + no social safety net -> spending is stagnant

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I suspect this is going to be the economics story of 2016, the one where China decides to jump in on the world stage and discovers the limitations imposed by participating in that stage. What I hope we end up with is a much more transparent view of the Chinese economy.

<comment><USER8> A transparent view would be 1-2 percent gdp growth, 300 percent gasp/debt ratio, bankrupt shadow banking, bankrupt commodity related state companies, a trillion left that can be used from reserve, 800 billion per year capital outflow, etc. not sure China can even take that first step. Not to mention lack of global consumer brands, pollution, corruption, etc

<comment><USER10> > 1-2 percent gdp growth, 300 percent gasp/debt ratio ...

Are these numbers real? If so, what are they based on? If they are just examples of what might be found under the hood, that's fine; I'd just be interested in some reliable non-official economic numbers.

<comment><USER11> No, just a 'greatest hits' compilation of the same things China detractors have been complaining about since 1995. Their analysis is no better than the already dubious "official" numbers.

<comment><USER10> > a 'greatest hits' compilation of the same things China detractors have been > complaining about since 1995

That's what we would expect to see in a bubble, criticisms that aren't coming true until the day it pops. How do we distinguish this situation from a bubble?

<comment><USER12> If it were possible to distinguish it reliably, we'd get rich (and the bubbles wouldn't happen in the first place).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> The latest news update shows the China market (where it is now already Wednesday, a new trading day) down some more, and the global geopolitical news for China is not good, with north Korea claiming the test of an H bomb. The signs of market weakness from economic weakness and political risk appear to be genuine.

[http://www.reuters.com/article/us-global-markets- idUSKBN0UK0...](http://www.reuters.com/article/us-global-markets- idUSKBN0UK01B20160106)

</comment><comment><USER13> This kind of move seems to be a global trend. BOJapan is going to spend $2.5B to buy ETFs.</comment>


US government opposes Microsoft in Supreme Court patent lawsuit - <AUTHOR> http://blog.seattlepi.com/microsoft/2011/03/21/us-government-opposes-microsoft-in-supreme-court-patent-lawsuit/

<comment><AUTHOR> From the article: _"If patents are too easy to invalidate, the risk of invalidation – as well as the prospect that every infringement suit will be met with a burdensome validity challenge – may raise the cost of enforcing a patent to the point where the expected value of the patent cannot justify the outlays entvation (sic)," the government's brief states.

"By allowing a lay jury to second-guess the PTO's judgment even in close cases," it continues, "the preponderance standard would diminish the expected value of patents and would reduce future inventors' incentives to innovate and to disclose their inventions to the public."_

This seems like one of the best steps toward ending SW patents. If you can't knock them off the books, effectively make them toothless. Of course the US government is strongly in favor of the status quo.</comment>


Dropbox buys HelloSign (YC W11) for $230M - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2019/01/28/dropbox-snares-hellosign-for-230m-gets-workflow-and-esignature/ <comment><USER2> HelloSign is one of the few utility SaaS products I use somewhat regularly that just nails it perfectly (and for free). Please don't screw this up, Dropbox.

<comment><USER3> Second that. I came here to say the same. Been enjoying Hellosign as a paying/free customer for years. Absolutely love their product.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I don't mean to ask this ironically; how do these companies come up with these numbers during a sale? Jet.com was sold for $3 Billion, but Craftsman Tools was sold for only $900 Million.

I don't really know anything about HelloSign, but can someone tell me roughly why they might have come up with the $230M number?

<comment><USER5> revenue * multiple

let's say $10m in ARR * a 23x multiple

The way you get to the multiple is a combination of how fast the revenue is growing, how long you think that will keep up, and the margin of the revenue.

Craftsman Tools, for example, was probably not growing much or shrinking and likely had low margin revenue but I don't know.

<comment><USER6> Revenue is almost meaningless. At least use a multiple of profits or of net income.

You know, you can have a crazy revenue, and still lose money, and your company can be bankrupt in a few months.

<comment><USER7> Those issues end up being reflected in the multiple.

Revenue * multiple is just a common way of talking about it, especially because companies within the same industry tend to have similar multiples. In reverse if you notice two public (since the information is easy to find)companies with seemingly-similar businesses that have very different multiple, you can start looking into why, and the quarterly financial reports with high-level numbers like cash burn, outstanding debt, profits, or net income would be a great place to start :)

<comment><USER8> > Revenue * multiple is just a common way of talking about it, especially > because companies within the same industry tend to have similar multiples.

This is the common way _media_ talks about it, either because they are (1) uniformed or (2) they only hear of top line revenue.

Companies are _typically_ acquired for EBITDA * Multiple. However when their is a "strategic" acquisition (which this one is) then there is all sorts of weird math that potentially goes on.

Examples: (napkin math)

\- Company being acquired has $100M in revenue, and $20M in EBITDA. Post close, they realize $20M in synergies, so they might buy the company at 20x * $40M Adjusted EBIDTA ($20M EBITDA + $20M new EBITDA from synergies)

\- Company being acquired has $100M in revenue, and $20M in EBITDA. The acquirer is going to remove 100 engineers post close (100 _120k /yr = $12M) and therefore the new EBITDA is going to be $32M, and the company gets bought at 20x _ $32M EBITDA

At the end of the day, the ROI is really what matters.

It's also worth noting - most M&A does not realize the hypothesized deal value. So yes people are right to be critical, but without full details, being precise about what the true value of a company is nigh impossible.

<comment><USER9> All acquisitions are "strategic". Even holding companies acquire assets that they believe accrue toward their strategic vision.

The EBITDA calculation is at best a sanity check for the acquirer.

<comment><USER8> > All acquisitions are "strategic".

I'm just using industry nomenclature. When people sell to a PEG, they don't say "we're selling to a strategic".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> EXCELLENT! I've been saying Dropbox needed to add this type of functionality to their existing offering for a while now so this is very exciting.

It's a natural fit with everything else that they are doing with Dropbox Paper.

Now they just need to add a direct integration for something like eFax and it will be on the short list of indispensable SMB tooling.

EDIT: Didn't realize HelloSign had the fax capability already...so all around great news. This is probably the most well aligned acquisition I can recall seeing.

</comment><comment><USER11> This acquisition will fail if Whitney, Neal and the HelloSign team isn't given the freedom and authority to direct integration, marketing and product direction going forward.

HelloSign has demonstrated competencies Dropbox has not. Great that Dropbox nailed sync, desktop integration and sharing years ago; but since then they've done little to show any vision or execution in marketing, sales or product direction.

As a Dropbox shareholder and user I am hoping the Dropbox team will give their HelloSign colleagues the freedom and authority needed to save Dropbox from almost certain failure. The sync, store and search ship sailed long ago.

There are two more acquisitions I'd like to see Dropbox make this year of private companies to round out the product line.

<comment><USER12> Have you used Paper? Also an acquired team, and a great product that has seen a bevy of improvements since being under Dropbox.

<comment><USER13> Paper is a security nightmare. Every document is automatically accessible publicly if you know the url. You need to set each document individually to private. At least for the Personal/Pro plans.

<comment><USER14> The URLs contain a long random string in them, no? This makes them unguessable. Public-by-default seems to enable easy sharing of documents. I would hope that corporate plans would impose stricter privacy controls, but for personal use, being able to share a document just by sharing its URL seems very convenient. Though I suppose defaulting the permissions such that anyone with the URL can edit the document seems maybe too permissive.

<comment><USER15> This is security by obscurity, it's still technically possible to access the documents. Like if you accidentally revealed the URL somehow. You shouldn't have to worry about things like that.

<comment><USER16> Surprisingly, it turns out that using security based on a URL with a random string is /not/ security by obscurity.

The security pattern of a URL with a random string is security-equivalent to a pubic username and a random string password, and also equivalent to the security pattern of a bearer token: so long as the URL is shared only with authorized users, it's the same security hardness.

The pattern can tune the security by using more randomness, such as more characters. There are implementation areas to consider, such choosing a random number generator with high quality randomness like /dev/urandom. There are some access control areas to consider, such as all the people having the same bearer token, which means there's no way to do finer-grained permissions per- user or per-role or per-attribute. There are some user interface areas to consider, such as if a user/agent doesn't treat the URL as secret, because it shows content rather than masking characters such as " __ __ __* ".

For comparison, "security by obscurity" means there's a weakness in how the security is built, such that if you saw the source code, or the physical insides of a lock, then you would understand more about how to crack the security.

In URL pattern, an example of security by obscurity would be if the URL string was not actually random but instead was simply incrementing, or was based on a reversible function of the time or username, etc. If you read the source code, you would discover that there's guessable sequence or guessable trick, and thus become much more likely to break the security.

Edit: I strongly favor higher security, and fine-grained access control, and multi-factor authentication, and UI/UX masking, etc. This post is just to look at security by obscurity.

<comment><USER17> Browsers do not treat URLs as secure. If you just go to the page and happen to be live-streaming on Twitch or whatever, anyone can access the document because the information is printed visibly on the screen. This makes it starkly different from a password.

<comment><USER14> And if you type your password onto a keyboard and happen to be live-streaming your physical self on Twitch or whatever from an angle where people can see your hands, they know your password too.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> This is awesome news, congrats folks!! Have relied on hellosign over the years, including doing all of my home buying paperwork with it.

<comment><USER19> I've used HelloSign as well, but every other app that I used that Dropbox bought has been discontinued so while I'm happy for the team, I don't have high long term hopes for the project.

<comment><USER20> This. After Dropbox acquired and then unceremoniously killed one of my all- time-favorite apps (Umano), I greet most of their acquisitions with dread.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> There's something I never understood about e-signature services: how are they legally binding? Why do we need them at all? The end users don't have control over any of the keys, so it all hinges on the e-signature service telling the truth. It's significantly less secure than say, S/MIME with a proper CA-signed certificate. Is the bar for legal "signatures" really that low?

<comment><USER22> The law isn't like programming.

The reason you sign something is to show clear intent that you intended to agree to something.

Nobody's under the impression a paper signature cannot be forged either. It's no different.

It's social not mathematical.

<comment><USER21> Then that leads to my second question

>Why do we need them at all?

Why not just email the contract, and the person replies back with "I agree to this"? Simpler and cheaper than paying $150/year.

<comment><USER22> Because the ceremony of a signature has been socially recognised for thousands of years. That's what our society expects.

<comment><USER21> >Because the ceremony of a signature

Come to think of it, I remember "signing" pdfs in adobe reader by clicking a form field that produced a signature similar to[1]:

       John Smith
       Digitally signed by
       CN=John Smith
       [...]

This would satisfy the "ceremony" requirement. According to adobe[2] it looks like you can do this with self signed certificates, so it's completely free as well. But this option is significantly less popular than hellosign/docusign. I guess the value-add for them is having a web interface, but I'm not convinced it's worth the $150/year (significantly more for "business" or "enterprise" plans) for a web interface that essentially signs pdfs with self-signed certificates.

[1] [https://helpx.adobe.com/content/dam/help/en/acrobat/11/using...](https://helpx.adobe.com/content/dam/help/en/acrobat/11/using/signing- pdfs/_jcr_content/main- pars/procedure_1345595113/proc_par/step/step_par/image/signature-placed.png)

[2] [https://helpx.adobe.com/acrobat/11/using/signing- pdfs.html#S...](https://helpx.adobe.com/acrobat/11/using/signing- pdfs.html#SignaPDFusingadigitalID)

<comment><USER23> The main benefit is around workflows. First and foremost, if you are in a position where you need external people to sign documents (say you're a photographer and need signed releases), it's a lot easier to send someone a link to the standard document and get them to sign a release then to email them and then call the person and walk them through digitally signing a document. Especially if you're doing this 50+ times a year. And you typically get the documents signed much quicker. It's pretty much the difference between having to mail in a check for every payment vs using a web portal. It's more convenient and there's a faster turnaround time. Oh and you've removed the risk that something isn't signed correctly (was there a section that wasn't initialed?) or that something was redlined. It's certainly not for everyone or every business, but there are certain use cases where the money is well worth it.

<comment><USER24> It's also a huge win if you need multiple people to sign a document.

Without a tool like HelloSign you need to email the document to each person one by one to get everyone to sign on the same "paper". It's a mess and takes up a lot of time and coordination.

With HelloSign (and other similar tools), you can just send out an email with a link to everyone at once. They can sign the document asynchronously in whichever order they want, and when everyone has done that, you get a notification.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Given DocuSign's market cap of $8B, does this price seem low?

<comment><USER26> DocuSign makes like $700 million a year.

HelloSign makes less than $4 million a year (according to Crunchbase at least).

If Dropbox was buying revenue then by Docusign's multiple they handsomely overpaid for HelloSign. But they're not buying revenue, so who knows if they over or underpaid.

<comment><USER27> That can't possibly accurate, right? If their revenue is 4M, the acquisition is 57x their rev. That's crazy. Except if they have long time contracts signed maybe?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Dropbox's announcement: [https://blog.dropbox.com/topics/company/dropbox-is- acquiring...](https://blog.dropbox.com/topics/company/dropbox-is-acquiring- hellosign-to-improve-document-workflows-for)

"Dropbox is acquiring HelloSign to improve document workflows for hundreds of millions of users."

</comment><comment><USER28> is this a 70X acquisition multiple? I read somewhere they had ~3mil in turnover?

<comment><USER29> They raised 16m. So it's 14x

<comment><USER30> Turnover typically refers to revenue, not equity raised.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> I wonder what was their revenue?

</comment><comment><USER32> Neat. I've used HelloSign for several things over the years, with their fax support saving me a ton of time on numerous occasions. They've always been very easy to deal with.

</comment><comment><USER33> As someone who has never worked in an enterprise SaaS will never fully understand the hype or secret sauce around building and selling eSignature software.

<comment><USER34> because printing a document, signing it with a pen, taking a photo of it, and emailing it back is a thing rich investors keep having to do.

<comment><USER33> You can sign docs with free Apple software on Mac/iPhone

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Wow. I've been a user since the beginning and I seem to recall a point where they almost closed their doors. Talk about it paying off to keep going.

</comment><comment><USER36> Hmm... the headline has me wondering what was the first time one YC startup bought another YC startup.

Is this the first time? Or has it happened before?

<comment><USER37> Dropbox previously acquired Hackpad (YC W12), Snapjoy (WC S11), and TapEngage (WC S11).

<comment><USER36> Thank you!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> Does this include HelloFax?

</comment><comment><USER39> From 2014, still germane: [https://www.drop-dropbox.com/](https://www.drop- dropbox.com/)

</comment><comment><USER40> > Dropbox snares HelloSign (YC W11) for $230

The title appears to have a negative slant. Is the modern jargon for acquisitions of this nature?

<comment><AUTHOR> I don't think it is meant to be negative. I think "snares" could be positive or negative.

I interpreted it as Dropbox was fortunate to acquire HelloSign.

Also, this may just be some creative writing. Dropbox's announcement did not use such language.

<comment><USER22> > I think "snares" could be positive or negative.

You know a snare is a hidden trap for animals? I can't imagine being snared to be positive - it implies you're going to be skinned or eaten.

<comment><USER41> It also implies you've caught something of value. And get to have stew.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> Congrats John, Sarah and Ron!

</comment><comment><USER43> Hellosign is great, however please add tags!!!

</comment><comment><USER44> Congratz!

</comment><comment><USER45> well deserved.

</comment><comment><USER46> In love hello sign but it feels like a few weeks of work to build. Feels like they dodged a bullet.

</comment><comment><USER47> Finally DropBox will offer a useful product.

<comment><USER48> You think their core offering isn't useful?

<comment><USER49> How many companies are either Office 365 or GSuite? You get document storage and syncing as standard these days. You need a compelling reason to use Dropbox over GDrive/OneDrive.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> Got this email from them a couple days ago:

We've noticed you haven't used your email@example.com Dropbox account in over one year and have closed your account for you. Devices connected to this account have now stopped syncing. Any remaining files in your account will be subject to deletion.

Sincerely, \- The Dropbox Team

There goes my files. Fuck dropbox. Stick to google drive.</comment>


Google Maps: Which Highway is Which? - <AUTHOR> http://www.41latitude.com/post/460688441/which-highway-is-which

<comment><USER2> While I agree Google Maps aren't perfect, it isn't because the Google Maps team is dumb.

Would you believe it's hard to render perfect street maps? This isn't a million monkeys with crayons... they have a very nice set of cartographic algorithms that make stunning maps, and every street isn't going to be perfect.

The blog post is glib and doesn't say anything more than "this looks bad, fix it."

<comment><AUTHOR> There was nothing in the article implying in any way that the Google Maps team is "dumb".

The article is about a real usability issue that exists in Google Maps--a product released over 5 years ago and that has long been out of beta.

<comment><USER3> This isn't really a problem, though. All you have to do is zoom in, and the ambiguity resolves itself.

The post (not exactly an "article") comes off as a silly complaint that Google Maps isn't completely perfect, without seeming to understand that something as complex as this _can't_ be perfect. There are always going to be trade-offs, and the label locations Google Map's algorithm chose seem perfectly reasonable to me for the zoom-levels displayed.

<comment><AUTHOR> Why isn't it a problem? It makes the maps confusing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Completely useless article. If you're going to criticize something, present an interesting solution. Otherwise, stop trying to increase your hit count.

I do agree that the labels can be confusing and should probably be changed to the same way roads are handled: text perpendicular to the road, making it easy to distinguish.

<comment><AUTHOR> The solution is pretty obvious: don't put highway labels on top of intersections.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> zoom in. problem solved.</comment>