How Facebook knows who you might be dating online - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/34518576/how-facebook-knows-who-you-might-be-dating-online <comment><USER2> The thing that I find most interesting about this article is the displayed approach towards privacy management. People quoted in this article reveal little about themselves in a dating network, and don't want to give enough information to make it possible to guess their real identity. Facebook destroys this concept by suggesting dating matches as potential facebook friends, making it possible for their dating matches to discover all about them in their public profiles and timeline.

That's a straightforward conflict, but it makes me wonder why people are comfortable with revealing "all [their] information" publicly on facebook, when their dating network behaviour shows they don't want total strangers to know all this? Facebook provides lots of privacy controlls, allowing you to finely tune who sees what. If you don't want strangers to know your last name, or which area you're from, why make it publicly viewable on facebook?

Is the problem with facebook making it not simple enough to hide things from total strangers (i.e. people you have not friended)? Is it a problem with people never bothering to change default settings? Or is it something about the way people use facebook that makes this apparent inconsistency actually completely rational?

<comment><USER3> Most people don't understand the privacy settings, and in any case they keep changing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I think this is far less mysterious than people suppose.

Hypothesis - if someone on facebook views your profile then facebook is more likely to suggest them as a friend. Increase the probability if the person is a low degree of separation from you.

Obviously people on dating apps are often going to be searching each other out on facebook to see more info.

I guessed this was how facebook did it because I saw an ex of mine once on the street (I don't have the fb app on my phone or anything like that - so I doubt it was using location data). We never spoke - but made eye contact. Later that day she appeared as a friend suggestion for the first time. My guess is that she viewed my profile out of curiosity.

</comment><comment><USER5> Something similar happened to me on Facebook.

There was someone I was meeting in real life but we had absolutely no FB connections. No mutual friends. And I didn't even know she was on Facebook.

Suddenly I saw her on my 'Suggested friends' list.

The only reasonable explanation is that she found me on Facebook and viewed my profile. Facebook saved the incident and suggested her to me as a friend.

Facebook forgets nothing. Nothing.

<comment><USER6> > Facebook forgets nothing. Nothing.

Export your Facebook data and check out they keep your message history with everyone _forever_.

[https://www.facebook.com/help/131112897028467/](https://www.facebook.com/help/131112897028467/)

<comment><USER7> _You will not find information or content that you have deleted because this is deleted from Facebook servers._

[https://www.facebook.com/help/405183566203254](https://www.facebook.com/help/405183566203254)

So if you delete it, it won't be in the download.

<comment><USER6> Can you delete entire Facebook Message conversations?

<comment><USER7> I think I saw that option before. I know I definitely can delete messages and they don't appear in the download.

<comment><USER8> Doesn't mean they really deleted them from their servers...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Here's my theory on how Facebook can be telling the truth here:

Your Tinder/Grindr matches are people in your local area. Your Facebook social graph contains people in your local area, even ones you don't know, through your local friends. The chances of one or several Tinder matches eventually intersecting with your Facebook graph are significant. When this happens, people interpret it as a deliberate act, not just a coincidence.

If you use Tinder in an area which does not contain any of your friends, and people from that area subsequently show up, and have no connection to any of your friends, that would be a lot more suspicious.

</comment><comment><USER10> This article doesn't make anything clear - though it attempts to make the suggestion that the different social networks are communicating information about your activities across networks. In reality it seems as tho many of these social networks are actually just using very similar inputs to their people suggestion algorithms (on Facebook to suggest people you might want to be friends with, on dating networks to suggest people you might want to date). Since many of these suggestions are made to you based on your phone number or device location, you are likely to see the same people suggested to you by these different networks even tho they are not sharing data about your activities.

<comment><USER11> > Facebook goes through your phone book and checks them against other users' > phone numbers - you give it permission to do this when you install the app.

> "What Facebook does and what Tinder does is go through your phone book, > upload your phone book and does cross-correlation between your numbers and > anyone else's number - and suggest people based on that," he explained.

That seems pretty clear. They grab your WHOLE address book, so there is an established link stored in their database(s) between you and every other person stored on your phone. From there, it's just a matter of graph traversal.

This is one of the reasons I decided I would stick with a dumb phone and why the mobile web (or using the web from phone or tablet) is so ripe for abuse.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Most likely this is because someone on the dating profile saw the persons profile, thought it was interesting enough to 'dox' the person.

If people knew how little information is needed to get started they would be either terrified or amazed.

First name + Location + Instagram profile and you are already off to a good start. And maybe there's a picture from some marathon you participated in, and they might have an online list of participants, narrow down to matching first names, then look them up on facebook.

What facebook then sees mimics person A trying to find his new friend person B, which makes it natural to include this person on the other "do you know list"

</comment><comment><USER13> This is why I want the ability to "sandbox" my apps, so even though they might want to have access to e.g. my telephone numbers, they can't because the sandbox will hide them.

</comment><comment><USER14> I'm getting tired of how aggressive Facebook is at suggesting new friends.

Facebook sends me phone notifications telling me they've found someone I might know. I get it if it was a new profile and they want the ball rolling, but I have over 900 friends on Facebook already, many I can barely remember where I've met. Why do I need more people I barely know?

What is it that makes Facebook think their app is more engaging if my friend list if full of people I barely know and never interact with?

</comment><comment><USER15> The Facebook app on iOS isn't listed as having requested access to my contacts. Is this just an Android thing? Or does the app have some way of sneakily getting access?

<comment><USER16> Contacts is accessible by "Messenger" on mine, the Facebook app itself doesn't provide contact sync.

<comment><USER15> Ok, that makes sense. I don't have Messenger installed.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Facebook App copies your phone book.

Facebook App copies your matches phone book.

Facebook finds that your phone book contains your matches number and vice- versa.

Facebook suggests your match as a friend and vice-versa.

Nice and simple.

<comment><USER18> Exactly. This article basically just talks about how you gave the permission to an app to use your address book and then complains that it's using your address book to identify who you should add as a friend. It's your fault for agreeing to install an app that requests these permissions without understanding why it needs those privileges from your smartphone.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> My husband told me that his customers show up as suggested friends on Facebook. We always thought it had something to do with Whatsapp and Facebook. Now I guess it's just because he uses the Facebook app on his work phone. Crazy stuff!

<comment><USER20> At this point Facebook has enough data and capability to tell you not just who you're dating right now but who you're likely to date in the future, based on preferences and who you're likely to meet. They may not be doing it yet but I'd assume it's at least been considered by them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> I've had this happen to me several times with guys I met on Scruff. It be nice if there was an across the web ghosting tool for bad dates.

</comment><comment><USER22> I think this goes well beyond that. I've had FB suggest neighbors to me even though we have never exchanged emails or friends etc.

<comment><USER23> That's simply down to proximity. Facebook, like Google, can tell based on your GPS where "home" is (where your phone spends the night, basically) and it knows the same about your neighbors. Your smartphone is a funnel for detailed information about you to whatever apps you install on it, especially social and communication apps.

Google in particular creeped me out with this kind of "feature". A few years ago when I still used an Android phone, I changed jobs but didn't change the information in any of my social media profiles, nor in my contact card on the phone itself. After a few weeks, Google Now started giving me drive times to work at the new work address instead of the old one.

<comment><USER24> Question: what, if any, phone do you use these days?

<comment><USER23> I have an iPhone 6, and I'm seriously considering backing down to a non-smart phone in the future. These days I mostly use it for SMS, voice, and very, very light web browsing (basically HN and a few other news sites, and sometimes my mobile banking site). I don't do apps, and the only really compelling feature of the iPhone is Apple Pay. Now that my credit and debit cards are all smartchip enabled, even that is just a gimmick.

In fact, I'd say the only thing keeping me on a smartphone at all is playing Ingress, and my wife and I both are getting bored with it. Our local groups are also playing less and less.

<comment><USER24> Thanks.

I'd rightgraded to a feature phone, which often gets left off and/or at home. I recently picked up a WiFi-only tablet. For much use, that's as much connectivity as I need, though the ability to access a _very_ small set of tools while in motion (mostly transit/navigation related) would be useful. There I could get a 4G LTE wireless hotspot, and the price for both devices and services is about right, but, as with the tablet itself, my concern is _control_. I'm fighting Samsung for who's boss of my tablet (have yet to root/re-ROM it), but for now, I most definately am not, and no, I'm not OK with that.

A hotspot would have to support very extensive /etc/host blocklisting -- I've grown quite fond of my laptop's 60k+ entries, and use of dnsmasq. Actually starting to look at what I'd have to do to build and configure my own device, though I'm not sure that'll happen.

Among other benefits, battery life for both phone and tablet is vastly better than what I'd previously had for smartphone alone. Phone'll last a week, tablet at least all day, heavy use.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> The article has lots of words and stupid pictures so here is a summary: if you give someone your number (via any app or medium) and they have the FB app installed, it will recognize it as the number of a user and trigger the friend suggestion.

The best way to handle the advent of this information is to treat your public facebook profile as public information and assume even the creepiest stalkeriest guy on the internet has access to it. Cause they do.

</comment><comment><USER26> Sounds like someone's lying.

</comment><comment><USER27> > He says this whole issue is mainly down to your phone number.

> Facebook goes through your phone book ... you give it permission to do this > when you install the app.

This is 100% demonstrably false. It literally comes down to advertising/tracking.

Because tinder is ad-supported for the free app, they're sending data directly to advertising networks (of which Facebook is one), and that's being used to track you. Period.

On iPhones an app specifically has to ask for permission to read your contacts beforehand. There's nothing "implicit" about that, you literally have to agree it explicitly.

I really wish the COO at a Security research company wouldn't spew nonsense. And people wonder why the general public is misinformed as to the harm of advertisers/tracking.

<comment><USER14> Most phones are android though and there you have to give up your contact list or simply not install the app.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Yeah, I haven't actually used facebook for anything in years, so now I'm deleting my account and I will use a temporary phone for any future situation where I need it.

I will also be going out of my way to spread as much FUD among my less tech savvy friends as I possibly can.

Go Zuck yourself, Mark.

<comment><USER18> Why don't you just delete the Facebook app from your smartphone? That way, Facebook won't have access to your contact list. Therefore, this should not happen.

I'm a casual Facebook user since like 2008, but I never even considered installing any of the Facebook apps on my phone.

<comment><USER29> This is irrelevant.

You will still be tied to a unique identifier and tracked all over the web because your browser fingerprint (yes, it's probably unique: test here [https://panopticlick.eff.org/](https://panopticlick.eff.org/)) will be reported back for every site affiliated with an advertising network affiliated with Facebook.

<comment><USER18> Not necessarily true with smartphones.

I just tried it out. The site acknowledges it tested out ~6M devices so far. It's not that big of a number actually. My browser turned out to be unique even though I'm using a pretty common method (basically just run Chrome on an Android).

I've sent the version of Android (which was falsely detected because I upgraded to a newer version, but I'm still sending the info about the older version, so I'm assuming this is a bug), my Android model (and build) and my timezone. Anyone who bought the same model from my country (and possibly even the surrounding countries) would probably get the same fingerprint (unless he's using a different browser).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Facebook is fighting back. The drag queens didn't like Facebook's "real names" policy. So Facebook is showing that it can infer the connections anyway.</comment>


What Is Product-as-a-Service (PaaS)? - <AUTHOR> https://www.firmhouse.com/blog/what-is-product-as-a-service-paas <comment><USER2> There was almost an entire alphabet of XaaS still free, but they had to take the already-used PaaS? ...</comment>


Ask HN: Who are your favorite poets? - <AUTHOR> There's a post from 2015 with the same title. It's been a while. Who are your favorite poets now that it's year 2020? <comment><USER2> Neruda</comment>


Publishing more data behind our reporting - <AUTHOR> https://medium.economist.com/peeling-back-the-curtain-487bd3be0c47 <comment><USER2> This is a great move. Journalists are finally regaining our trust in a western world that really needs somebody to hold other institutions accountable.

[https://www.edelman.com/trust-barometer](https://www.edelman.com/trust- barometer)

</comment><comment><USER3> Unrelated to the article: why does a news organization with an established web property stoop to writing articles on Medium?

<comment> rm_-rf_slash Because non-subscribers can't get past the third paragraph of the paywall?

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Publishing raw data itself is definitely a good start but there also needs to be a push towards a standardized way of sharing data along with it's lineage (dependent sources, experimental design/generation process, metadata, graph relationship of other uses, etc.).

<comment><USER5> > _Publishing raw data itself is definitely a good start but there also needs > to be a push towards a standardized way of sharing data along with it 's > lineage (dependent sources, experimental design/generation process, > metadata, graph relationship of other uses, etc.)._

Linked Data based on URIs is reusable. ( [https://5stardata.info](https://5stardata.info) )

The Schema.org Health and Life Sciences extension is ahead of the game here, IMHO. MedicalObservationalStudy and MedicalTrial are subclasses of [https://schema.org/MedicalStudy](https://schema.org/MedicalStudy) . {DoubleBlindedTrial, InternationalTrial, MultiCenterTrial, OpenTrial, PlaceboControlledTrial, RandomizedTrial, SingleBlindedTrial, SingleCenterTrial, and TripleBlindedTrial} are subclasses of schema.org/MedicalTrial.

A schema.org/MedicalScholarlyArticle (a subclass of [https://schema.org/ScholarlyArticle](https://schema.org/ScholarlyArticle) ) can have a [https://schema.org/Dataset](https://schema.org/Dataset). [https://schema.org/hasPart](https://schema.org/hasPart) is the inverse of [https://schema.org/isPartOf](https://schema.org/isPartOf) .

More structured predicates which indicate the degree to which evidence supports/confirms or disproves current and other hypotheses (according to a particular Person or Persons on a given date and time; given a level of scrutiny of the given information) are needed.

In regards to epistemology, there was some work on Fact Checking ( e.g. [https://schema.org/ClaimReview](https://schema.org/ClaimReview) ) in recent times. To quote myself here, from [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15528824](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15528824) :

> _In terms of verifying (or validating) subjective opinions, correlational > observations, and inferences of causal relations; #LinkedMetaAnalyses of > documents (notebooks) containing structured links to their data as premises > would be ideal. Unfortunately, PDF is not very helpful in accomplishing that > objective (in addition to being a terrible format for review with screen > reader and mobile devices): I think HTML with RDFa (and /or CSVW JSONLD) is > our best hope of making at least partially automated verification of meta > analyses a reality._

"#LinkedReproducibility"; "#LinkedMetaAnalyses", "#StudyGraph"

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Recently my website was criticized for using the data on the food package rather than USDA data.

I'm unsure what the 'correct answer' is, given they were off by 25% which is significant.

I could add javascript so the user could decide which reporting method they would like to see, but I'm considering that this is massive overkill with limited benefit for the customer.

I doubt my conclusions are impacted as despite this huge difference, top 10 items usually stay around the top 10.

Any thoughts on how to make the data the most trustworthy and accurate?

<comment><USER7> Doesn't have to be fancy JavaScript. Even an asterisk next to disputed items and a link to the "Alternative Nutrition Facts" would be helpful.

<comment><USER6> Ive been thinking about this since the morning.

I believe a link to the alternative calculation is probably going to be my solution.</comment></comment></comment>


Uncontacted Amazonian tribe photographed - <AUTHOR> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1022822/Incredible-pictures-Earths-uncontacted-tribes-firing-bows-arrows.html

<comment><USER2> What I don't like is the presumption in this article that it would be best if these "uncontacted" people stayed that way. It's just as bad as the presumption that our ancestors would have had that we should immediately go in and start giving them trousers and bibles.

Is it really right to deny these people the benefits of our thousands of years of hard-won knowledge, just because we think it's cute to watch them in their body paint?

Also, does this help us in thinking about what more advanced extraterrestrial civilizations might do if they encountered us?

<comment><USER3> Well, like the article said, the biggest threat is probably disease introduced that they are not immune to. I'd say that's a good reason to leave them alone until we have at least a plan to go in and protect them w/ vaccinations (if they would even let us give them vaccines - I highly doubt they would understand them; even people today are fear mongering over mercury in vaccines). But then again we're going to run into contact with them eventually, so it might as well be sooner than loggers or land-grabbers go in and kill them all.

<comment><USER4> But don't we have a moral imperative to share our knowledge? Why is it a law that children must attend school if not to underscore the value of _spreading_ knowledge that we've acquired. The instinct to teach (not to convert, but just to teach) is human. We can't force them to adopt our ways; but shouldn't we show them the alternatives and give them the choice of accepting it or not?

<comment><USER3> The reason it's required for children to attend school in our society probably has more to do with the fact that it's pretty much a requirement if you want to exist in our society, while for a native it isn't necessary to survive - they can get along alright with their preexisting knowledge base, however limited.

Ex: A native running around protecting his territory in our society would most likely be shot by police.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The orange guy on the left marched right back into his hut, pulled out his OLPC and filed a complaint with the FAA for nuisance planes flying too low, buzzing the village and disturbing the peace, describing the incident as "uncivilized behavior".

<comment><USER6> Nah, but now Jacob has told them they need to move the village.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> "they want to be left alone.

And for good reason. The history of contact, between indigenous tribes and the outside world, has always been an unhappy one."

If they've had no contact, how do they know about that history?

<comment><USER8> Poor fellows are already unhappy cause they have been discovered and sooner or later the contact will happen. What matters now is how the contact is to be conducted. I think the best way is to take a couple representatives of the pride young enough to be able to percept reality and learn things, show them the rest "civilized" world, teach some basics, provide with some primitive instruments and get them back to the pride. Then, just watch how things will get developed: will they kill each others or will they develop ? What we can get of this is prove or bust of mainstream development theory, at least. :-)

<comment><USER9> I want to be on the team that briefs them just so I can teach them the Ford's prayer. Might be enough to make sure they avoid us as long as they can ;)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> OK so it is not tech related but so amazing I thought it was worth a mention.

</comment><comment><USER10> I love the picture where they have their bows at the ready. That is truly the poor mans anti-aircraft system. Even better would be a new set of pictures showing that they actually brought down the plane, how would you explain that one to the boss?

</comment><comment><USER11> like something out of a video game. Black & White or Populus.

best comment yet: "you know there be missionaries pitching tents over this" <http://twitter.com/ibeching/statuses/823727719>

</comment><comment><USER12> more info here: <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7427417.stm>

</comment><comment><USER13> They got two archers and a settler. Not bad. If a country with lots of technology grabbed that tribe, and got lucky, we might find a really cool tech like fusion or Superconductor. I can't believe the spanish explorers missed the goody box way back then.

Edit: If this actually was Civ, those archers could of held off that helicopter, and about a dozen battleships, with no sweat forever.

<comment><USER14> I know exactly what you mean. I once had a barbarian warrior take out one of my stealth bombers... it was embarrassing.

Civ2 ftw.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Why is there no "down mod" ability for stories such as this. This is hacker news not Reddit.

<comment><USER8> Those fellows are prehistoric hackers, don't you see that ? ;-)</comment></comment>


How Big Data Transformed the Dairy Industry - <AUTHOR> http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/05/the-perfect-milk-machine-how-big-data-transformed-the-dairy-industry/256423/

<comment><USER2> I realize I'm coming at this from a different angle than a lot of other HNers, but for me this is good science gone wrong.

Dairy cows are some of the most mistreated and unhealthy animals in the agriculture system. This push for efficiency has created a large group of animals with very little genetic diversity. They are kept on a stream of antibiotics because one bad outbreak can take down the entire group. They often develop mastitis and cancer is common by the they are 5 or 6 ("retirement age") due to poor nutrition, over-milking, and living conditions.

This kind of science really excites me, but the applications are almost always depressing and we should absolutely not be lauding squeezing out every last "inefficiency" in an animal based industry.

<comment><USER3> My guess is that you haven't spent any actual time on dairy farms. Early in my career I worked in the fertilizer business and a large part of my customer base were dairy farmers.

I worked with dairy farmers with as few as 100 cows and as many as 1200. These were family farms and they cared well for the animals. Antibiotics were only used on sick cows and not as a daily regimen. I really respect those guys, most of them are far better businessmen than the tradesmen in town.

The few times that I saw animals mistreated were farmers who weren't very long for the dairy business.

<comment><USER4> As with most agriculture in the US (assuming you're talking about the US), family farms are the exception - not the rule.

<comment><USER5> "In 2010, of all the farms in the United States with at least $1 million in revenues, 88 percent were family farms, and they accounted for 79 percent of production." -- [http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/07/the- triu...](http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/07/the-triumph-of- the-family-farm/8998/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> A high degree if genetic selections is a high risk thing. For a long time you just get a lot more of what ever you want, milk, eggs, etc. And then a virus appears and kills 99.9% or more of your animals because they were all so closely related.

The free market rewards the up side of closely related species but does not cost you anything for the potential catastrophe. Day to day the probability of a catastrophic disease is near 0, but in the very long term it is near certain. Our free markets have no smart way of pricing that kind of stuff.

That's why we've already lost several varieties of banana to diseases.

<comment><USER7> Hey, I found your comment on bananas interesting. Where can I read up more about it?

<comment><USER6> This is a good start: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gros_Michel_banana>

Many wild, seed packet bananas exist, but all (as far as I know?) bananas that we eat have no seeds and are actually all clones. Thus they are all under the extinction by disease threat.

Someone could in theory continually keep developing new strains of bananas in case of future diseases. Practically however there is no profit in that. You could argue a charity or NGO should do stuff like this.

<comment><USER8> This book (pop science kind of thing) was a lot of fun too: <http://www.amazon.com/dp/1594630380>

Note that the Gros Michel isn't extinct. It's still grown as a boutique item. But the blight is apparently persistent in fields, and thus it can't be grown in quanitity without huge risk to the plantation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This is a great addition to the unfortunately too limited category of articles about how big data / analysis changed actual decision-making.

That said, the definition of big data used by this article doesn't strike me as what I would think of as big data. Based on what it says, the dairy industry was changed by analysis and data collection but nothing that couldn't be stored on your typical phone. The article hints at big data (via greater genetic analysis) transforming the dairy industry in the future, but the massive changes in cow DNA so far are seemingly due to "small" data.

This confusion of big data with just solid analysis and decision-making happens a lot, but does a good job of highlighting how much progress there is to be made in using data to drive decisions (independent of how much data we use).

<comment><USER10> You've written what I was planning on posting. This is classic data aggregation and analysis. while Big Data is a trendy term, I see and perceive nothing in it that qualifies as even a particularly large set, much less what most see as Big Data.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Just a note: published May 1, 2012</comment>


Solving VR Films' Biggest Problem - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/2015/10/uncorporeal-vr-movies/ <comment><USER2> This isn't VR film's biggest problem. VR film's biggest problems are:

1 - Coming up with N compelling stories and endings for each of the N perspectives and actions a truly free-moving and free-acting VR user could choose.

2 - In life-action films, having N cameras for each of the N perspectives a truly free-moving and free-acting VR user could choose while making the cameras unobtrusive enough to not detract from the immersion.

That N amounts to a lot (potentially infinite) cameras, perspectives, compelling storylines, and compelling endings. This makes VR film orders of magnitude harder than traditional film, where the viewer accepts being limited to a single perspective, a single storyline, and a single ending.

The problems the firm profiled in this article tackles are trivial by comparison.

For anyone who's interested, there's a good panel discussion by VR film makers about the challenges and potential of VR cinema here:

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

</comment><comment><USER3> I'm so incredibly excited about the possibilities in this field. I recently made the move from film to game dev in hopes that at some point I can work with people on some of these problems. I firmly believe that real time experiences can blossom into one of the main avenues of storytelling in the future.

What is so exciting is the thought that so many of the little conventions and tools and tricks haven't even been thought of yet. There was a point in film history when the crossfade, or parallel edits, close ups hadn't been invented, and now we take them for granted. I think people will look back in a 100 years and that will be where we are on the VR side right now. To me, that's incredibly exciting and I can't wait to dig into it more.</comment>


Chris Langan:  World's Smartest Man - <AUTHOR> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkTM5tEb_f0 <comment><USER2> Of what value is this, except as a salutory lesson that having a high IQ doesn't necessarily lead to success, nor help you to contribute positively to society or technology?</comment>


Yahoo's Perplexing Remote Workers Decision - <AUTHOR> http://www.lockedowndesign.com/yahoo-new-remote-workers-policy/ <comment><USER2> I applaud Mayer's decision, because I loathe collaborating with remotes at my workplace. I can't just walk to a remote's office to ask them a question. I can't do in-person code reviews. In meetings, remotes miss out on all the natural human interactions and cues, so they constantly interrupt someone who is about to speak. Remotes can't talk to a specific person, so we all have to stop talking when any of them talk. Technical issues with the software are a constant annoyance, and slow all of us down. And God help us if there's more than one remote in a meeting: they talk over each other all the time.

I view remotes as a drain on the workplace and on my productivity, and I resent them for it. I've made the choice to live near my company's HQ, and make that damn commute every day, so that my workplace gets the best of me. Remotes have not, and I wonder if they get paid the same as me while they sit at home, and I view them as selfish.

The prospect of not having to tolerate remotes actually perks my interest in working at Yahoo.

<comment><USER3> Sounds like you have had some poor experiences with it. I wonder if all your at office experiences have been expedient and not slowed down in any way or is there some bias there? Sounds also like there is some grudging that you have to commute...

The question is, if a company is able to pull off 'remotes' do you think this is a competitive advantage since coordinating this seems to be so hard for some companies? Is it a survival mechanism for companies that might not otherwise be able to happen locally?

Is a company like 37signals, stackoverflow early or others possible in an office or did they succeed longer because they were remote? How has all the research been done across the world and across oceans? What about multiple offices, does remote communication suck that way as well? Is everything done in your office or are there some outsourced parts?

Remote skills and virtual communication are a requirement today, companies unable to do this are missing out on competitive advantages. Companies that can perform well remotely also look at external factors more I have found, offices get an internal sickness. I think a mix is probably best but a company must be able to operate remote I believe today. Companies that can't write/read/coordinate enough to remote probably can't coordinate customer communication as well either (who are all remote in many cases), it is an organization culture thing. In the end how many times and people at your office do you actually need to meet up with on a daily basis? Driving 1 hour both ways for 15 minutes of face time sometimes.

All this means for Yahoo is they are going to miss out on workers and engineers located outside of SF or a 'remote' office, the bet is being in the same place will beat out the pool of developers farther than 100 miles from a Yahoo office. And it sucks when that good engineer or employee has to move that you've invested in and knows or built successful products in the office...

<comment><USER4> > Sounds also like there is some grudging that you have to commute...

Not the OP, but what I can say from my own experience is that people who work remotely are indeed seen by their co-workers as being "privileged" or "above the rest" etc. This might very well be an exaggeration, but the affect on morale and team-spirit is certainly there, especially during bad times.

To put it another way, let's say you just got into the office after a dreadful one-hour commute (by car, metro, doesn't really matter, we all experienced them), ready to drink your coffee when suddenly the server is down, or a crazy client is yelling on the phone at your sales-people who in turn yell at you, the IT dept. etc. What do you do then? You first curse the whole world for not allowing you to drink your morning coffee in peace and then proceed to quickly fix what needs fixing, you don't have time for opening bugs in the issue- tracker or skype-ing the guy who is tele-commuting and trying to explain to him what the hell just happened (by this point your boss might as well be asking passive-aggressively "do you know why this happened?", he's asking you who are on site not the guy who's tele-commuting). And so on and so forth, you just reason inside your head that none of this would have happened if you had had the same "privileges" as the guy who's tele-commuting.

<comment><USER3> I agree putting out fires are more intense at the office but maybe shouldn't be. But remote and on site office workers can both do the same things in tech to fix those situations except unplugging a machine. Many times the fire to put out is actually on a remote server or only accessible virtually in most cases today with VMs. Unless people pair work all day (doesn't happen) then you still go back to your desks individually and fix it. Remote controlled desktops and skype are actually better for integrations/pair in some cases when working on the same screen even in the same office. Nothing worse than two heads knocking into each other to see one screen.

Your anecdote actually seems to reinforce that for quality of life, remote working can be better. Same type of emergencies but communication has to happen during them, documentation, teamwork not throwing all out the window to fix a fire every two seconds. Yes they happen and rules can be broken to get sites running but overall places with constant fires need internal people. Places run like that aren't going to be successful anyways so blaming remote workers on that seems unfair. If the emergency happened after hours is your company setup to handle this remotely or are people driving in an hour to fix issues? (i.e. remote repos, access etc). Workplaces and teamwork are great but can suck in bad situations, at the office even more sometimes such as during emergencies but it has to be done. I like documented discussions and tasks/plans written out rather than just spoken. These tasks that are just spoken tend to change and are hard to track how long things actually take especially in emergency driven situations.

The modern office even with all the near proximity to others, people still IM, email, etc over face to face quite a bit to prevent interrupting flow states and barging in to fix some issue not related to your tasks that are due at the end of the day. And what about the people in the next building, are you walking over there or are you just IMing like you'd do to a remote worker. Location is almost irrelevant for well run teams.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> _Remote workers must be judged on how much they produce, while office workers can show up for eight hours and that's what the office manager remembers._

That's a common situation. I've also seen remote workers get away with doing almost nothing while the co-located ones pick up the slack. I've seen remote working be used as a "reward" for some, and it's lack be a "punishment" for others.

Letting any of these situations happen is down to lousy management and leadership.

I do a heck of a lot of remote work myself - I see many advantages to doing so. But from what I've seen it's not a universal performance benefit.

I've seen smart, committed teams almost double their measured performance by deciding to co-locate to a single team room... even with all the skype video / IM / chat windows you could wish for open. There's a lot of ambient communication that happens in meatspace.

I really wouldn't be surprised if this turns out to be a really smart decision for Yahoo!.

<comment><AUTHOR> This decision alone won't save Yahoo!, I think the problems are a lot deeper than this.

The return on remote work is dependent on two things: the right people getting hired, and the managers making sure that work is being produced. Anyone left to their own devices is going to slack, unless they are invested emotionally in the job.

There's an old saying: Inspect what you expect. It holds true for office workers and remote workers. Both have the potential to slack or produce. The person in charge needs to measure what each person is producing, and perhaps Yahoo! is lacking a way to measure that right now.

<comment><USER5> _This decision alone won't save Yahoo!, I think the problems are a lot deeper than this._

Wasn't trying to imply that it would ;-)

However I'm less convince by many seem to be that it's a _dumb_ decision.

Especially since, in my experience anyway, fixing those problems of engagement are much easier to do when everybody is in one place.

 _The return on remote work is dependent on two things: the right people getting hired, and the managers making sure that work is being produced. Anyone left to their own devices is going to slack, unless they are invested emotionally in the job._

There is also a moderate amount of evidence (see <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5145358>) that there is a performance hit with distributed teams regardless of other factors.

 _The person in charge needs to measure what each person is producing, and perhaps Yahoo! is lacking a way to measure that right now._

I disagree with the first bit. What folk need to measure is what the productivity of the team/group as a whole. Optimising for individual productivity will often hit global productivity.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> What's the point of the faux outrage at Yahoo's HR decision? Most of those outraged probably don't even use Yahoo or have a stake in its future. If they can't at least concede that Yahoo is a company that is fighting for its place in this world then I don't think reflexive justifications for these kinds of perks add much value to the conversation.

<comment><USER7> > What's the point of the faux outrage at Yahoo's HR decision?

Because Yahoo is still respected enough to affect the decision making process at other companies.

And many of us want to see more flexibility and trust in our work life. Working remotely for many is more than just a "perk".

<comment><USER8> On the other hand, the perception that being onsite makes me more valuable is the reason I get paid more than somebody in Peoria or Phuket. Even though I think that perception is probably false, I moved to the Valley because I might as well benefit rather than suffer from it. If remote work were the norm, we'd all be competing with people who currently work for rates that would barely feed us, and I'm still surprised the industry sort of gave up on outsourcing rather than solve the fraud problem.

<comment><AUTHOR> I don't think outsourcing is the big problem, because at the heart of it, you still have to have clear communication.

I think the biggest advantage of living in the Valley would be the ability to meet other people and establish connections. A worker should be paid mostly for the value that they provide to their company, not necessarily just their cost of living.

I don't think that anyone wants to undercut someone else in the industry. That's just a bad practice that hurts everyone in the end.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I agree with other commenters on this topic that really this is about forcing attrition. At some point Yahoo has to make big layoffs. We all know it. They know it. They employees there know it.

Getting a bunch of folks to jump before they're pushed is a great start. It reminds me of the two Bobs from office space: "we fixed the glitch... we tend to find it best to avoid confrontation".

There are plenty of rationalizations for both sides of this decision. I lean to the simplest explanation. They're happy to see folks go.

<comment><USER10> This doesn't seem so clear-cut to me. Some quick and dirty calculations using 2012 data:

Yahoo: ~$280K profit per employee.

Google: ~$290K profit per employee (not including Motorola Mobility .

Microsoft: ~$180k profit per employee.

Apple: $590K profit per employee.

Apple being off the charts aside, broadly speaking Yahoo is right where they should be. This looks more like an attempt at culture change to me.

(That Apple figure is tremendous when you consider that 2/3rds of their employees work in the retail channel)

<comment><USER11> Could it be _because_ 2/3rds of their employees work in the retail channel?

<comment><USER12> It is _despite_ of it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> > Face time at the office shouldn't trump productivity or collaboration, but > in this case, it seems like that's happening.

I don't think that's happening. I think they're trying to use face time at the office to drive productivity & collaboration.

<comment><USER7> Which if it's the case then they have a shocking lack of understanding of how people actually work.

I mean people email every day do we need to get rid of that as well ?

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> it's hard to maintain culture with remote workers. It's a trade off and not clear completely which pattern is better

<comment><USER15> I'm not sure if we should want to force a company culture on workers. And perhaps this idea of company culture doesn't fit these times anymore. People are much less inclined to stay within the same company for most of their lives anyway.

Personally I never cared too much for a company culture. I don't join a company because of a culture. I join it because the projects are interesting, the money is good, the benefits are nice, etc...

I do feel the approach Yahoo is taking is bad for the company. I'm sure for some work it's good to be at work in the company offices, but for some other work a home environment works much better. In most companies I've worked I always got bothered by other employees, making it much harder to concentrate on tasks. Since june last year I started working with a friend on our start-up and I thrive much better in this environment. Now I work from home and the silence and serenity helps me achieve much better results. I should note I have no wife or kids, just 2 cats, so very little distraction there.

A company like Yahoo should realise that some employees will deliver much better results when giving them more freedom. One example could be Bill Atkinson, who delivered great work for Apple, yet did most of his work at home:

[http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macintosh&s...](http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macintosh&story=Round_Rects_Are_Everywhere.txt&characters=Bill%20Atkinson&sortOrder=Sort%20by%20Date&detail=medium)

<comment><USER16> its much easier in start up environments generally to telecommute.

Once a business becomes huge there are other factors at play that may mean there are trade offs. For instance Bill Atkinson left apple in 1990, Similar to Woz. Great people for their time but not happy when it goes corporate.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> This is the only article I've read about this, but it seems like an easy way to have mass layoffs without the negative press.

</comment><comment><USER18> "Remote workers must be judged on how much they produce, while office workers can show up for eight hours and that's what the office manager remembers. "

Is that true in 2013? Are office workers in a tech company not judged by production?

<comment><USER7> > Is that true in 2013?

It's absolutely true and nothing will ever change it. The fact is that likability and fun at the workplace can routinely trump the quality of the output. Especially if the manager is a permanent employee and they expect to spend their life at the company.

I work at a large company and have seen plenty of talented people sidelined and ignored exclusively because they were more introverted.

<comment><USER2> How do you measure output? If I walk to my coworker's office to ask a question, and that saves me fifteen minutes of digging, that reflects in my output, not his. But if my coworker is remote, I can't do that. I can't get an immediate answer, while he avoids the distraction of helping his team member. In terms of measuring individual output, he looks good, while I look bad.

I believe that co-location forms a sort of prisoner's dilemma. If everyone is local, everyone benefits from increased collaboration, morale, etc. If one person is remote, they benefit more, while acting as a drain on the remainder of the team. And when everyone is remote, then everyone loses.

<comment><USER19> Utter bullshit. You've not heard of Skype?

I am a remote worker, and routinely help coworkers with all shirts of stuff. It works best when everyone's remote.

<comment><USER20> I've downvoted you - I don't have an opinion on the subject, but I feel that the tone of your response is against the HN norm. Nothing personal.

<comment><USER19> You're right. I responded in some anger. Need to remind myself, "Do _not_ feed the troll"

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Having worked at a large software corp I totally agreethat if you're a remote worker you have to work twice as hard on your output. Since you're not there in person to attend all the meetings, you're less "seen". This adds more pressure on you to deliver, get on calls, work weekends, etc.. I've seen people working from home in Australia and deliver amazing results (for a based SF company). If this is indeed about attrition, I think they may be losing more of the people that they would probably want to keep.

</comment><comment><USER22> >Remote employees who wish to remain with Yahoo! must uproot their families, move to a more expensive city, and face an hours long commute each day. Frankly, I see the majority of them quitting and going to work for a startup closer to home.

I think she's drastically overestimating how easy it is to change jobs. There's also the fact that, Yahoo, as a large and well established firm, can offer things like generous insurance and retirement plans, which startups generally do not offer.

</comment><comment><USER23> My guess....Yahoo needs to fire lotsa people (they have 18,000 employees), so probably they are starting: "Oh, you can't move your family from Small Town, Ohio to Big City in 7 days? Unfortunately we have to let you go."

<comment><USER24> Can such a company afford to fire essentially randomly? Remote workers may be some of the best producers. Generally a reduction-in-force is done more selectively.

<comment><USER25> I was working at Lucent when they crashed from 106,000 employees to a targeted 37-35,000.

Managers _boasted_ about laying off some of the best producers; I think the subtext was "If they're not safe, no one is".

Granted, this did kill the company (they got bought by Alcatel), and I know it killed the project I was working on when I left/was pushed out, something that was necessary for Lucent's survival (1/2 of the modern style telephone switch, what follows the 5ESS in their case).</comment></comment></comment>


Portable systemd services - <AUTHOR> https://lwn.net/Articles/706025/ <comment><USER2> I used to spend time arguing with people on the internet about how systemd was an actually very useful tool but I never changed any minds and didn't help myself any. Now I just wait and watch for new helpful things it does to show up and I live a much happier life.

<comment><USER3> I almost think there should be a divorce. Call it systemdOS and be done with it. At that point every service it subsumes will be seen as a step closer to the obvious end-goal rather than a point of contention. And the other OS can be something like the Gnome2 fork MATE.

It's not a technical thing, it's cultural. The two sides are playing tug-of- war with the same OS, and systemd's winning, but maybe it would be better to have a positive culture around the changes they're making instead of always having people dragging on the rope. Some forks have been good in the past - EGCS/GCC for example.

<comment><USER4> > Call it systemdOS and be done with it.

Every major Linux distro has chosen systemd as their future. I think that means whoever wants something different needs to change their name, rather than every major Linux distro changing theirs. Just as the Gnome 2 fans chose a new name for their future based on that lineage.

<comment><USER5> > Every major Linux distro has chosen systemd as their future

Gentoo is a major Linux distro too.

<comment><USER6> Correct me if I am wrong here, but I thought Gentoo user had to make active choices when it came to make, compile and configure an installation, and that Gentoo as a distribution had a hands-off approach when it came to make decisions for the user. Is there a "default" init system, where if the user make no decision they end up with a specific one?

<comment><USER7> [https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Comparison_of_init_systems](https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Comparison_of_init_systems)

Gentoo officially uses OpenRC (and eudev), which is what you get if you follow the installation handbook. However, Gentoo also encourages choice and allows many options for init, daemon management, etc, which includes systemd. Other options ( are also available, too, at least unofficially.

> if the user makes no decision

While OpenRC is the official default, the "compile and setup everything yourself" nature of Gentoo makes this kind of statement somewhat irrelevant. One of the major reasons to use Gentoo is the ability to pick the components you want in your OS so it meets your specific needs. So yes, while there is a default, the concept of having a "default" is less important when you are installing everything manually.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> It's very interesting how the whole article (and Lennart) shies away from even uttering "package manager" and instead talks about containers.

This is fundamentally an implementation of Lennart's blog post - [http://0pointer.net/blog/revisiting-how-we-put-together- linu...](http://0pointer.net/blog/revisiting-how-we-put-together-linux- systems.html). That article used the words "We want an efficient way that allows vendors to package their software " ... which was followed by a storm of angry systemd-is-the-borg-it-needs-to-die tweets and articles.

Even on HN - the response to this article seems fairly muted... although it is a bigger political issue than even init systems. I wonder what the response would have been to "systemd introduces new portable packaging format"

<comment><USER9> If no one will say it, I will: it's stupid that we have multiple package managers and package formats.

There's no fundamental technical reason Linux couldn't have just 1 extensible package format and 1 extensible package manager. All the reasons for the split are social ("I like A"), political ("we want to be able to control A") or historical ("A came first, we built our house on A, we can't abandon A").

<comment><USER10> The historical argument might be the biggest one, from my own experience with the steaming pile of shit that is RPM: [https://blog.bethselamin.de/posts/argh- pm.html](https://blog.bethselamin.de/posts/argh-pm.html)

<comment><USER9> I actually recently took a much shallower dive through RPM than yours ([http://blog.oblio360.com/2016/08/23/rpm- install/](http://blog.oblio360.com/2016/08/23/rpm-install/)). I knew that RPM was not that loved as a format, but what you've described there truly is "insane" (I know that you used that word many times in the article, but it fits the situation).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Isn't ubuntu snap already doing all this? The competing standards I don't think help in this regard. Now to make a "portable service" I will need to make sure whatever I do can be used as a snap and a systemd portable service.

Why is it so hard to settle on a standard when it comes to this stuff? The same confusion exists when it comes to rpm and deb packaging formats. At the end of the day both do the same thing and yet to deliver software to redhat and debian systems you have to double your packaging effort.

<comment><USER12> The RPM/Deb split, at this point, isn't so much about packaging formats, as it is about dependency graphs. Even if the two distro "families" of Redhat and Debian shared a common packaging format, a package would still have to be built—or at least specified—twice for them, because each family would still have its own set of deps that are factored out in incompatible ways to the deps of the other family. (For example, in Debian land, if your package wants to declare a dependency on OpenSSL, that might mean a package dependency on any of 'openssl', 'libssl1.0.0', 'libssl1.0.0-dbg', or 'libssl-dev'. RHEL _et al_ do not have an isomorphic set of packages that these dependencies could be mapped to.)

<comment><USER13> This is already the case for SuSE and Redhat. Package names are different, RPM macros are different. Doing a package that works for both is gruesome. Also, at the time of SysV, you had to use two different init scripts.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I'm sorry, but I can't keep a straight face hearing the phrase "portable systemd."

I don't care what init system you run, but if you're writing userland software (GNOME, for one), than what init system I run is none of your damn business. For that matter, ideally you'd at least try to support the *BSDs.

As much as Systemd is the borg, I could at least live with that. I cannot live with the fact that systemd maintainers continue to say that having high-level userland software link to libsystemd is viable and acceptable. I cannot live with the fact that systemd continues to violate widely-accepted defaults for no reason (kill all processes on logout? really?). I cannot live with the fact that Lennart has widely stated that you should ignore POSIX and that all systems other than Linux don't matter.

<comment><USER15> > high-level userland software link to libsystemd is viable and acceptable

This is a direct violation of the KISS principle which made Unix and Linux so great. Not only do they want to intertwine user software with system software, now they even want an additional layer of abstraction on the _system_ level!

I think we need a counter strategy against the aggressive takeover of the Linux land before it is too late. I have nothing against people who love systemd. If they want it they should use it. But any Linux user should also have the option to get rid of systemd _completely_ if it turns out to be a failure.

Init systems and system services should be as replacable as desktop environments! Only if systemd is aiming to be "portable" like that than I can live in peace with it.

<comment><USER14> >I think we need a counter strategy

The Gentoo folks, as well as many of us Arch users, are with you. Gentoo in particular has been aggressively forking and maintaining patch sets for any of the software that has succumbed to the cancer (the *kits, various desktop software, DBUS, GNOME, and most notably udev. Although if they weren't needed for some pieces of software I use, I'd gladly chuck 90% of that stuff). So yeah, if you want to help, that's where to contribute your effort.

<comment><USER15> > So yeah, if you want to help, that's where to contribute your effort.

Gentoo and Arch are good options. However, in the long term classical Linux will likely only be able to run on retro systems and FREE HARDWARE! If Gentoo and Arch want to survive they should focus on free hardware pretty soon.

I think so because upcoming mainstream hardware will likely all be based on UEFI/SB. SB is yet optional but I expect it to be mandatory soon. Only Linux with certified kernels -- likely systemd Linux -- will be supported on those systems. I don't like that because I want to be able to install up-to-date kernels and software at any time without messing around with proprietary certificates.

The Monster 6502 [1] was an excellent starting point into a world of discrete SMD cpus. I hope there will also be a 16/32-bit cpu capable to run Linux (or its successor). At least 68katy [2] is capable.

The most promising project however is RISC-V which will hopefully be available with non SB-mainboards.

[1] [http://monster6502.com](http://monster6502.com)

[2] [http://www.bigmessowires.com/category/68katy/](http://www.bigmessowires.com/category/68katy/)

[3] [https://riscv.org](https://riscv.org)

<comment><USER14> I'm dubious of that assertion, although it is good to know how the free hardware projects are going. We may well get a cert for UEFI SB, and if we don't, then someone will crack it sooner or later.

Honestly, the only thing that keeps me from migrating to the BSDs at this point is Steam.

<comment><USER15> > We may well get a cert for UEFI SB,

As long as the vendors cooperate you will be fine. We will see how it works at Win 11+.

> and if we don't, then someone will crack it sooner or later.

Other people may be able to live with it but for me this is an unacceptable option. Either a system fully supports Linux or BSD, or I take another one.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Tangentially, glad to see Jon finally put up a signup banner for non- subscribers :)

(see discussion 3 months ago: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12224408](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12224408))

</comment><comment><USER17> Excited to see where this goes. After some recent issues with running docker on arch (vague devicemapper issues, inability to stop containers properly), and my newfound love for systemd using it from day to day on my personal computer (writing unit files is pretty darn easy), I've actually been seriously considering going back to writing applications that just get run as processes, and managed by something other than me.

If my understanding is right, the industry went:

CGI -> processes -> VMs -> containers

I'm thinking of going back to step 2.

</comment><comment><USER18> This should surely stop the critics from saying systemd is doing too much and is bloatful.

No, but seriously I understand the reason why you'd want this, but what stops systemd from being divided into smaller modules? Like the Linux I'm used to.

<comment><USER4> systemd is modular, and is divided into many components. There are several dozen binaries in a systemd package. Where do you believe the lines should be drawn differently?

<comment><USER19> > There are several dozen binaries in a systemd package.

That's not what modular means. Can you use only parts of systemd if you wanted to? Can I e.g. use the very useful dependency-based service initialisation but keeping my log facilities and networking management intact?

<comment><USER4> _" Can you use only parts of systemd if you wanted to?"_

Yes, though most distributions have chosen to use more than just the init functionality.

 _" Can I e.g. use the very useful dependency-based service initialisation but keeping my log facilities and networking management intact?"_

No (logs) and yes (networking). Logging from systemd components, as far as I know, have to go through journald, but journald can send it as plain text to syslog, if you want it to. So, kinda yes on that one, too.

networkd didn't even exist yet when many people began using systemd for their init, and it is entirely possible to use other methods of managing your network services. RHEL still, AFAIK, has a hybrid model that keeps a lot of the old configuration files even though they have switched to systemd for a lot of stuff. Maybe it uses networkd on the backend; I haven't needed to find out, as the config files work the same way they always have.

I think the confusion comes from the fact that very few people _want_ to only use one component of systemd. Even though you can, there is value in all of the pieces working well together and providing a consistent interface and API. Most distros that switch, choose to switch a lot of things over at the same time, because it's just nicer to do so, not because they had to. And, the people who hate systemd don't want _any_ of it, so they never learn enough to know that they probably could get the bits from it they want without being tied to all of it.

<comment><USER19> There is value in only some of the pieces working together, too. I'm sure having all the pieces together makes sense for some setups, but not all.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


So What Is DTube and How Does It Differ from YouTube? - <AUTHOR> http://www.valleyarm.com/dtube-differ-youtube/ <comment><USER2> It will be very interesting to follow dtube and others. I love the idea of distributed and no ability for the media mafia to interfere, but at the same time I don't think the quality of the service will ever match centralized services.</comment>


CSI: Backblaze – Dissecting 3TB Drive Failure - <AUTHOR> https://www.backblaze.com/blog/3tb-hard-drive-failure/ <comment><USER2> I have 2 lightly-used home ZFS servers (OmniOS/Napp-IT), each with 8x ST3000DM001 drives, for 16x drives total. The drives were purchased in mid to late 2012, all shucked from external units. It was by far the cheapest way to get storage at the time, given the Thailand flooding.

I've had to buy replacements for complete or partial failure, for 3 in 2013, 10 in 2014, and 1 in 2015 so far. 4 of the replacements have experienced failures too, including 2 RMA returns after I switched to buying internal drives with warranties. Only 4 of the original 16 remain.

These stats match my experience. The ST3000DM001 drives are by far the least reliable drives I've ever experienced in 20 years of using drive arrays. Fortunately, with two ZFS raidz arrays mirroring each other, I haven't had any data loss.

<comment><USER3> Just coming up to 100,000 flight hours with my 6. No real complaints, but quietly planning retirement to secondary mass storage. Picked up some surprisingly cheap Toshiba 5TB's for evaluation[1].

Did you notice anything in particular leading up to failure? IO errors, reallocated/pending sectors, checksum errors?

1: [http://www.toshiba.co.uk/hard-drives/internal-hard- drives/sa...](http://www.toshiba.co.uk/hard-drives/internal-hard-drives/sata- hard-drive-desktop-md-series/px3010e-1hq0/)</comment></comment>


Steve Jobs Hated iMac, Wanted to Call it 'MacMan' - <AUTHOR> http://mashable.com/2012/05/31/macman/

<comment><USER2> After reading Folklore and Andy Hertzfeld's book, "Revolution in the Valley", one gets the sense that it was pretty classic Steve Jobs to turn down ideas initially. Usually, he would return a few days later and suggest the idea as if it were his own.

Pretty link-baity headline though; I don't see any hatred of iMac anywhere in there.</comment>


Google Ventures uses algorithms to approve or kill VC investments - <AUTHOR> https://www.axios.com/newsletters/axios-pro-rata-52e865b9-2169-4fae-821e-a84a0e98eaa0.html <comment><USER2> > Inputs into "The Machine" include round size, syndicate partners, past > investors, industry sector and the delta between prior valuation and current > valuation. The algorithm then ranks deals on a 10-point scale, with green > said to represent 8 or above

I'm sure there are more inputs than this, but from that list you'd imagine they basically pick deals based on who else is investing. which is not that different from many other VCs. at least in biotech, i typically see GV co- investing in deals led by other top notch VCs

<comment><USER3> > they basically pick deals based on who else is investing.

Another phrase for that is "herd" mentality, which will hopefully result in de-risked "safe" investing, but VC's are supposed to be looking for true breakout possibilities. If LP's wanted safe, they'd buy Treasury notes.

<comment><USER4> There are huge gains to be had in herd-ing. For instance, if everyone herds towards Uber instead of Lyft, you effectively pick Uber as the winner by merely herding, instead of merit or market economics

<comment><USER5> And in that case, the worst possible outcome is to have many competing funded companies in the same space. Merit doesn't enter into it much.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> That would explain their Juicero investment.

<comment><USER7> If a significant chunk of VCs invest based on an algorithm following the investments of other VCs running the same algo... positive feedback loop. Juicebox squeezer receives $120m investment.

<comment><USER6> Supposedly, a lot of this was going on during the (previous) housing bubble.

[https://www.wired.com/2009/02/wp-quant/](https://www.wired.com/2009/02/wp- quant/)

<comment><USER5> And right now companies are absurdly cash rich and the hardest problem is where to invest the money.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Isn't that what a lot of Excel spreadsheets do? I think investments and acquisitions have used algorithms for a long time.

<comment><USER9> By 2014, "checklists" and "investment criteria" had rebranded themselves as "algorithms" across most of finance.

<comment><USER10> And by 2018 they have been re-branded as "machine learning algorithms."

<comment><USER11> Just a fancy formula that works based on people generated input. Without people input said formula would be useless.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> This is nothing new, most funds treat portfolio construction as an optimization problem, where the objective function is some risk over return metric.

"The Machine" is an optimizer, all they've done is build one that looks at early stage companies.

<comment><USER11> G also has inside access to a lot of information from search and email. Could be using that to optimise their portfolio.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> The article has uncovered sources that claim the algorithm makes the ultimate decision and other sources that claim it doesn't.

If it _does_ make the ultimate decision and not just for political reasons then this is very interesting. Having input data that is sufficiently informative is important on a number of levels. Firstly this means that it is possible to pick winners on the basis of other VCs etc Secondly it means one doesn't have to be personally concerned with the story if others can vet it for you.

If the machine doesn't make the ultimate decision then — as others point out — it's just old fashioned screens and checklists with a new interface.

<comment><USER2> If the main input is quality of other VCs, then at some point a VC has to decide to invest based on fundamentals rather than what other investors are doing. a group of "fundamental" investors with good track records then would dictate what the rest of the market invests in.

you sort of see this dynamic play out in reality. YC is an example: they invest early, before other investors often, so they cant rely on other investors as a signal. they've done well though, so many investors follow them. there are more follow-on investors than successful "fundamental" investors, so there's often a valuation step up when follow on investors join that benefits the fundamental investors

same thing plays out in biotech. theres been a massive influx of capital into biotech VC, but not a big increase in the number of funded startups. most startups that go on to raise money are seeded in house by a handful of VCs. these VCs then fund the series a. they get big step-ups for series b and beyond deals and capture nice returns

im working on a more rigorous analysis to understand whether these anecdata are true in reality

<comment><USER13> I agree with your description of he dynamic at play. It raises two questions:

1\. Is the money that the startup attracts responsible for its success? In other words if a mediocre company goes through Y Combinator and then attracts a $55 million round, is it more likely to succeed than a great company that does not? (Let's day the mediocre company doesn't squander the cash wastefully but slowly looks for the product market fit)

2\. Are there fundamentals that can be distinguished from an "observer effect." Suppose everyone believes that a company coming out of Stanford is more likely to succeed than one coming out of (say) Babson. Does believing it make it true because the company attracts more money in each round?

These two thoughts are variations on a theme of the role of signaling in picking out fundamentals.

Edit: I should also point out that GV might also use "true" fundamentals like search results, trends, etc

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I wonder if the prospective company's G Suite data gets crunched.

<comment><USER15> And risk losing thousands of existing paying customers if it ever came out?

Not a smart choice, considering you're betting on the company you're illegally spying on to get profitable at some point.

<comment><USER16> It's not illegal if it's in the ToS.

And even the data of enterprise customers is used to improve Google's machine learning algorithms, according to those.

So not illegal, just entirely immoral. But when has that ever stopped Google?

<comment><USER17> Exactly. These days this is exactly how Google works. Ask an AdWords, Analytics, or AdSense user who slowly realizes that Google has full access to their business data for any purpose.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Anyone know of open datasets around early stage startups and success? Guess might be something mashing up crunchbase, angel.co....

</comment><comment><USER2> there is very little public data available on startups as compared to private companies. so id imagine for an algorithm to be useful there would have to be a lot of proprietary data. further, id imagine a lot of this data is somewhat subjective -- ratings of management team, market potential (when a market is still not defined enough to quantify), etc. so its possible that many of the quantitative inputs have some degree of subjectivity -- the human element is still very present, its just hiding behind data

</comment><comment><USER19> Best-performing seed round investors:

         7.5724 . . . . True Ventures

         6.6294 . . . . Accel Partners
         6.1189 . . . . Seedcamp

         4.7562 . . . . Nxtp Labs
         4.7474 . . . . Y Combinator
         4.4846 . . . . Softtech Vc
         4.4720 . . . . Gecad Group 2
         4.4720 . . . . Radu Georgescu
         4.4246 . . . . Creandum
         4.3653 . . . . Sv Angel
         4.3636 . . . . Google Ventures
         4.3016 . . . . Greylock

         3.9381 . . . . Baseline Ventures
         3.8225 . . . . First Round Capital
         3.7816 . . . . Mitch Kapor
         3.6702 . . . . Atomico
         3.5938 . . . . Felicis Ventures
         3.3963 . . . . Freestyle Capital
         3.2857 . . . . Yee Lee
         3.2183 . . . . Naval Ravikant
         3.1193 . . . . Boldstart Ventures
         3.1038 . . . . Keadyn
         3.1007 . . . . Birchmere Ventures
         3.0376 . . . . Betaworks
         3.0012 . . . . Hyde Park Angels

         2.8730 . . . . Ff Angel Llc
         2.8578 . . . . Slow Ventures
         2.8268 . . . . Rose Tech Ventures
         2.8052 . . . . Chicago Ventures
         2.7709 . . . . I5Invest
         2.6940 . . . . K9 Ventures
         2.6469 . . . . Founders Co Op
         2.6132 . . . . Oleg Tscheltzoff
         2.5637 . . . . Nyc Seed
         2.5558 . . . . Ta Venture
         2.5148 . . . . Geoff Ralston
         2.4748 . . . . Cnm Ventures
         2.4327 . . . . Genacast Ventures
         2.3829 . . . . Wi Harper Group
         2.3526 . . . . Allen Morgan
         2.3171 . . . . W Media Ventures
         2.2827 . . . . Oliver Jung
         2.2532 . . . . Amplify La
         2.2509 . . . . Chris Devore
         2.2481 . . . . Dharmesh Shah
         2.2291 . . . . Innospring
         2.2290 . . . . The Accelerator Group
         2.1947 . . . . Gary Vaynerchuk
         2.1791 . . . . Crunchfund
         2.1772 . . . . Jon Callaghan
         2.1700 . . . . Oca Ventures
         2.1666 . . . . Kfw
         2.1652 . . . . Plataforma Capital Partners
         2.1136 . . . . High Tech Gruenderfonds
         2.1079 . . . . Marc Simoncini
         2.0933 . . . . Tom Mcinerney
         2.0908 . . . . Steve Anderson
         2.0879 . . . . Battery Ventures
         2.0590 . . . . New York Venture Partners
         2.0256 . . . . Emerge
         2.0038 . . . . Andy Appelbaum

Worst-performing seed round investors:

        -6.9802 . . . . Wayra

        -5.8839 . . . . Start Up Chile
        -5.0805 . . . . Startupbootcamp

        -4.0593 . . . . Jumpstartinc

        -3.8784 . . . . Sosventures

        -2.7610 . . . . Start Engine
        -2.6717 . . . . Social Starts
        -2.5748 . . . . Ff Venture Capital
        -2.5641 . . . . Ben Franklin Technology Partners Of Southeastern Pennsylvania
        -2.5460 . . . . Ace And Company
        -2.4309 . . . . Quest Venture Partners
        -2.0690 . . . . Masschallenge

Best-performing series A round investors:

         7.0711 . . . . Greycroft Partners

         5.5854 . . . . Venrock
         5.4365 . . . . Trinity Ventures

         4.9683 . . . . Intel Capital
         4.9600 . . . . Scott Banister
         4.9400 . . . . Kleiner Perkins Caufield Byers
         4.8362 . . . . Redpoint Ventures
         4.6803 . . . . Ron Conway
         4.5240 . . . . Sv Angel
         4.3989 . . . . Crosslink Capital
         4.3097 . . . . Storm Ventures
         4.0204 . . . . Shasta Ventures

         3.9124 . . . . E Ventures
         3.6809 . . . . Leapfrog Ventures
         3.5279 . . . . Khosla Ventures
         3.3344 . . . . Valor Capital
         3.2867 . . . . Accel Partners
         3.2164 . . . . Austin Ventures
         3.1917 . . . . Accelerator Ventures
         3.1199 . . . . Inveready Technology Investment Group
         3.0892 . . . . Signia Venture Partners
         3.0283 . . . . Mangrove Capital Partners

         2.9607 . . . . Alliance Of Angels
         2.9039 . . . . Ventures West
         2.8911 . . . . Novartis Venture Fund
         2.8627 . . . . Carmel Ventures
         2.8622 . . . . Brightspark Ventures
         2.8440 . . . . Omnes Capital
         2.8099 . . . . Reid Hoffman
         2.7943 . . . . Alta Partners
         2.7847 . . . . Partech International
         2.7432 . . . . Balderton Capital
         2.7391 . . . . Helion Venture Partners
         2.7341 . . . . Wellington Partners
         2.6948 . . . . Mercury Fund
         2.6859 . . . . Sofinnova Partners
         2.6841 . . . . Holtzbrinck Ventures
         2.6694 . . . . Metamorphic Ventures Llc
         2.6218 . . . . Frazier Healthcare Ventures
         2.5929 . . . . Doughty Hanson Technology Ventures
         2.5796 . . . . Bessemer Venture Partners
         2.5772 . . . . Menlo Ventures
         2.5608 . . . . Divergent Ventures
         2.5439 . . . . Jafco Asia
         2.5071 . . . . Vanedge
         2.4915 . . . . Amadeus Capital Partners
         2.4576 . . . . Texas Venture Labs
         2.4355 . . . . Newfund Management
         2.3769 . . . . August Capital
         2.3561 . . . . Dave Morin
         2.3195 . . . . Xange Private Equity
         2.3058 . . . . 3Ts Capital Partners
         2.3021 . . . . Hummer Winblad Venture Partners
         2.2973 . . . . Flybridge Capital
         2.2966 . . . . High Tech Gruenderfonds
         2.2782 . . . . 5Am Ventures
         2.2499 . . . . Constellation Ventures
         2.2463 . . . . Opus Capital
         2.2099 . . . . Softbank Capital
         2.1956 . . . . Miramar Venture Partners
         2.1705 . . . . Oregon Angel Fund
         2.1541 . . . . Greylock Partners Israel
         2.1507 . . . . Schroders Private Bank
         2.1277 . . . . Dcm
         2.1233 . . . . Alta Berkeley Venture Partners
         2.1211 . . . . Qualcomm
         2.0847 . . . . Mountain Partners
         2.0840 . . . . Boxgroup
         2.0605 . . . . Azure Capital Partners
         2.0559 . . . . Legend Capital
         2.0505 . . . . High Peaks Venture Partners
         2.0434 . . . . Ggv Capital
         2.0280 . . . . Kpg Ventures
         2.0204 . . . . David Tisch
         2.0045 . . . . Bluerun Ventures

Worst-performing series A round investors:

        -3.1130 . . . . Founders Fund
        -3.0555 . . . . Andreessen Horowitz
        -3.0272 . . . . Emergence Capital Partners

        -2.9966 . . . . Crp Companhia De Participacoes
        -2.6290 . . . . Techcolumbus 2
        -2.4801 . . . . Sigma Partners
        -2.4795 . . . . Nexus Venture Partners
        -2.4344 . . . . J Hunt Holdings
        -2.4001 . . . . Sevin Rosen Funds
        -2.3166 . . . . Commonangels
        -2.2516 . . . . Oca Ventures
        -2.2448 . . . . Long River Ventures
        -2.2120 . . . . Alloy Ventures
        -2.2035 . . . . Eden Ventures
        -2.1966 . . . . Granite Ventures
        -2.1778 . . . . Allegis Capital
        -2.1778 . . . . Shenzhen Capital Group
        -2.1708 . . . . Morgenthaler Ventures
        -2.1347 . . . . Golden Seeds
        -2.0325 . . . . Split Rock Partners

<comment><USER20> If you don't mind sharing, where did you get this data?

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> You can't do this with crypto startups

<comment><USER22> Given how that market is doing, that might be to its credit.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Wow. They can't bother to have people working in customer service, and now they can't even bother to have people working on where they invest their money?

Please tell me that the execs are next to be automated.

<comment><USER24> Oh cmon, like Ycombinator doesn't do the same. They will probably have a bunch of datapoints an features to evaluate each batch. Be it a human or a machine, it doens't matter. Only the accuracy.</comment></comment>


Books to Prepare Programming/Coding Interviews - <AUTHOR> http://javarevisited.blogspot.com/2016/06/top-5-books-for-programming-coding-interviews-best.html <comment><USER2> It's sad that books and blog posts on this topic needs to be written.</comment>


TIL: HTML Parsers in every flavor - <AUTHOR> http://code.google.com/p/html5lib/wiki/Ports

<comment><USER2> Reddit is over there.</comment>


Show HN: Radar, a new way to discover what's around you - <AUTHOR> https://rrradarrr.com/ <comment><USER2> Doesn't seem to work on iOS. Just tells me it's getting my location, and then ... nothing.</comment>


Ask HN: How do I get started working for myself? - <AUTHOR>

Hi,
After working at an agency for years, I'm starting to feel the burnout. I have a couple of side projects that are starting to be profitable, but still not enough that I could quit my day job. I also have a lot of requests for freelance gigs that I just don't have the time to do because it would interfere with my full time job and family time. Between side projects and freelance work, I feel that I should be able to keep up the same income level.
I have been thinking about this for a long time, I just can't get myself to make the decision and get started with this. I love working on my side projects and that's something that really keeps me going.
I am looking for any books, blog posts or alike with people who have been in a similar situation as me. "How do I get started?"
Thanks! <comment><USER2> Follow the initial framework of 4 Hour Work Week if you really can't take the jump otherwise. Basically imagine the worst case after planning and then work backwards from there. Solve or think about how bad each aspect of your worst case would be .

Chances are it's really not that bad, so jump in!

The alternative could be something like I do. I work full time and work on side projects after work. I have a VA that does the heavy lifting for me so when I get home after work I can make efficient use of my 2 hours/night.

I did this due to visa sponsoring I have to do in the coming year, after the visa has cleared I plan on getting out of the employee scene.

I used my consistent salary to cover extra VA costs to build lists of people I can target to become clients, so many, many phone calls and emails will ensue after making the leap.

</comment><comment><USER3> I did it with less than 4 months savings. Had a pretty good credit card though ;-)

Seriously, just jump when you're ready. It helps if you have at least one client or job lined up (helps placate the anxiety) and you're getting out to meetups or places you can meet potential clients / source work.

I'm not sure of your industry, but for me the months following Christmas are always a little lean - busy before and it picks up about March. Just bear that in mind.

Good luck!

</comment><comment><USER4> Consulting/Freelancing full time is hard . . . you're finding work, doing the work, invoicing, etc . . .

It is fun some of the time, meeting new people, new projects but revenue is always up and down.

I would check out podcasts, books and articles by . . .

Brennan Dunn (Double your freelance rate) Patio11 Rob Walling (Startupsfortherestofus.com)

</comment><comment><USER5> I've been following a guy that shares his income and outgo about marketing online. He's created some things and seems to be doing well for himself now. Check him out at [http://mikefrommaine.com/](http://mikefrommaine.com/)

</comment><comment><USER6> Just do it. Whats the worst that can happen? You'll have to get another job? Trust me, you will regret not doing it more then you will regret trying and failing.

</comment><comment><USER7> burnout you say? take a vacation. Burnout will be 10x faster when you not only need to do 8hr work but also marketing, client development, accounting, etc. etc. Side projects are the spice of life for tinkerers, but don't make the mistake of the 'grass is greener on the other side'.

<comment><AUTHOR> This really got me thinking... Burnout might not be the right term to use in this case. My biggest issue right now is that I feel like I'm not learning enough and I'm not using my full potential. My biggest skills and interests are building native iOS and Android apps as well as hardware hacking. At my 9-5 I do neither of these, I get to do semi-big custom web apps but much of it usually ends up being wrapped in WordPress. Sigh.

<comment><USER7> You sounds very skilled and possibly feeling under-utilized. Have you given freelancing for projects of the sort that interest you?

<comment><AUTHOR> I have tried. But I'm now married and have beautiful daughter. So I don't really have time to freelance outside work hours any more.

<comment><USER7> I understand. I also have children. I run my own web dev firm and put in ~10hrs a day, so consider the many blessings of job that ends at 5pm :)

<comment><USER8> How did you get started with web dev firm? How much experience did you have before making the jump? Just curious. My big plan for the future is to run a web dev firm and build products on the side like 37signals.

<comment><USER7> I learned as I went. I actually do more than web dev: maps, web maps, data analysis, GIS, so the projects from month to month can be diverse and interesting. I always bite off more than I can chew and it works, otherwise you stagnate. In the early years I tried adwords and other forms of passive advertising to some success. What really works is making connections. I think people make a big thing out of word of mouth, but this is not a business plan, so don't count on that. Instead you do great work, have a solid/simple web portfolio of what you do/work examples/contact and be seen/heard as much as possible. Eventually you will come across a project or problem that you can provide a consistent solution/tool for. I think that is a great benefit of consulting - exposure to the world of real-world needs, not imaginary. Last point - don't sell yourself short; don't undercharge for your service. Have a good excuse/reason as to why you charge what you do: great work, great support, no tricks or gimmicks, etc. Your dream is a good one. I wish you well in 2015!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> How much money do you have in savings? I had about 8 months of savings before I quit.

<comment><AUTHOR> I have roughly 4 months of savings right now, if worst comes to worst. Obviously there more the better, but I am not sure if I'm going to be able to last another 4 months here :)</comment></comment>


Cooler Master is tired of telling parents their kids aren't on drugs - <AUTHOR> https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2020/01/cooler-master-is-tired-of-telling-parents-their-kids-arent-on-drugs/ <comment><USER2> Cooler Master is tired of telling parents that their kids aren't Juuling (2023)

</comment><comment><USER3> This is clever marketing, but not much more. The (at this time sole) comment is better written than the article.

Am I missing the valuable tech angle of twitter marketing? Oh, that IS the angle... ok.</comment>


Show HN: An app to send instant tweet replies to Elon - <AUTHOR> https://badgerelon.com <comment><AUTHOR> The app watches Elon's twitter account and sends a tweet to him as a reply as soon as he tweets. We send user provided tweets, prioritizing tweets that have the highest bounty paid on them. The bounty can be added to by anyone, using the bitcoin lightning network.</comment>


Mozy discontinues unlimited backup plan - big price increases for some users - <AUTHOR>

I've been a MozyHome subscriber since May 2007.  I use Mozy to store all of my home photos and videos - a total of 409 GB.
Today I received the following e-mail from Mozy, announcing that they have discontinued the "unlimited" plan ($4.95 for unlimited storage) that I am on and that I need to choose a new plan.
"Thanks for being a valued Mozy subscriber. For the first time since 2006, we're adjusting the price of our MozyHome service and wanted to give you a heads up. As part of this change, we're replacing our MozyHome Unlimited backup plan and introducing the following tiered storage plans:
50 GB for $5.99 per month (includes backup for 1 computer) 125 GB for $9.99 per month (includes backup for up to 3 computers)
You may add additional computers (up to 5 in total) or 20 GB increments of storage to either of the plans, each for a monthly cost of $2.00.
While this policy takes effect for new MozyHome customers starting today, your MozyHome Unlimited subscription is still valid for the duration of your current monthly term. In order to ensure uninterrupted service, you'll need to select a new renewal plan.
As the leader in online backup, we're committed to continually providing the highest levels of service and protection that you've come to expect from us as well as delivering those innovations you've been asking for. For more information on the factors that led to this change, please read my note or visit our FAQ.
Be safe, Harel Kodesh President"
It looks like I would have to pay $9.99 (gets me 125GB) plus $30 (gets me 300GB) for a total of $39.99 per month.  Is this a good deal?  Should I switch to another "cloud" backup solution?  Thoughts? <comment><USER2> Link to the Mozy announcement: <http://mozy.com/home/newplans>

For me the new pricing means that they are a no go (although I do appreciate that my current 2 year subscription will continue on). I'm currently at about 500GB of stuff that I actually want backed up into the cloud (mostly photos from DSLRs) and several more TB of stuff that be good to backup but I could live without. With their new pricing scheme, I personally feel like I'd be better off upgrading my dropbox account and putting more stuff in there + buying more hard drives (and keeping them in multiple locations) for my photos. Moving to another cloud backup provider would be an exercise in a lot of uploading time to get 500GB up over a home connection.

<comment><AUTHOR> I reached out to Dropbox customer service to see what they'd charge me for 500GB. I'll let you know what I hear.

<comment><AUTHOR> The only thing Dropbox offered me was their team product: $795 for the year, 350GB. Additional 100GB packs, $200. So it would cost me $895 for the year, or $75 per month.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> AltDrive has secure versioned unlimited backup for $44.50/yr. (<http://blog.altdrive.com/welcome-mozy-users>) Free two month trial. Giver her a try. (<http://altdrive.com>)

</comment><comment><USER4> I'd check out (www.carbonite.com) -- $54.95 Per Computer per year for unlimited backup.

</comment><comment><USER5> Crashplan: backup among all of your machines for free (even multi-site), get Crashplan+ for $50/year for unlimited cloud backups for one machine, or $120/year for unlimited cloud backups for up to 10 machines.

</comment><comment><USER6> There's <http://backblaze.com> which is $50/year for unlimited backup.

<comment><USER7> FYI - we provide completely unlimited storage, unthrottled bandwidth, backup all data by default, backup external drives, and can ship you a restore drive as well.

$5/month or $50/year. We can do this based on our unique cloud storage which Hacker News had a long thread about: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=797995>

We are also offering a 10% off discount for current Mozy switchers: "byemozy"

Gleb Budman CEO, Backblaze

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Amazon charges 0.1$ per Gb impossible to go cheaper than that.

<comment><USER5> I've got 300 gigs backed up in the cloud for <$5/month (Crashplan+). That would run $30/month at Amazon.</comment></comment>