Ask HN: Review my application : Tickmarkt.com - <AUTHOR>

Hello Everyone,
I posted this application about 6 months ago and got a great response. Well it's back with many of the questions/changes/problems you had with the application.
Introducing Tickmarkt, Tickmarkt is a website where you can create/share/explore backtesters and screeners. You are able to create screeners and backtesters in javascript and consume our easy to use api's to screen out stocks and figure out what stock trading technique works best (profitable) for you. let me know what you think I love this site like a child :)
The Site:

    http://www.tickmarkt.com
 The blog:

    http://blog.tickmarkt.com
 Applications:

    http://www.tickmarkt.com/app/directory/all
 Example Screeners

    http://www.tickmarkt.com/forum/thread/6

    http://www.tickmarkt.com/forum/thread/7
 Example Backtesters:

    http://tickmarkt.com/forum/thread/9
 Documentation Screener:

    http://www.tickmarkt.com/app/documentation/screener
 Documentation Backtester:

    http://www.tickmarkt.com/app/documentation/backtester
 <comment><USER2> "see how your trades would of preformed in the real world"

should be

"see how your trades would have performed in the real world"</comment>


Ask HN: If you could automate one thing you do often at work, what would it be? - <AUTHOR> Hello HN!
We're currently working on a work automation platform. We have a few capabilities that we're building to help you do your work better. For guidance it would be super helpful to hear directly from the HN crowd :)
Please do comment below about one thing you'd like to see automated. Would super awesome if you could complete this quick 1-min survey: https://bit.ly/2MjN6fd
Many thanks! <comment><USER2> It's not fully automate, but I frequently find myself having to do a lot of one off shell tasks, which are not quite worth the effort of writing a bash script. While some command is running I would like to start enqueing the next command.

Technically I could write one command like this and go get a coffee:

cd dir1 && task1 && cd ../dir2 && task2 some arg && etc

But then the task would only start executing when I'm done typing all commands... I want it to start task1 right away and then tkae my time to enter the rest...

<comment><USER3> Might be worth it for you to just get better at bash. Use background jobs and "wait":

        do.sh stuff &
        wait; do-other-stuff.sh -123 &
        wait; cd ../; do-something-else.sh

It'll run the first command, when it's done it'll move on to the next one, etc. Use "jobs" to see jobs. Further reading: [https://tldp.org/LDP/abs/html/x9644.html](https://tldp.org/LDP/abs/html/x9644.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Acquiring knowledge. Auto flash card question generation based on the things I read, listen and watch.

</comment><comment><USER5> We have many software programs that need to be run in sequence to transform a set of data from one form (on the order of tens to hundreds of GB) into a bunch of different output file formats. At some points the tools need to be run linearly, and at other points there are a few tools that need to be run in a branched fashion and then their outputs are combined in some complicated way using the next tool. Some of these tools take on the order of up to days to run, so an improper configuration due to human error loses time (pretty common given the complexity of work). Often the time lost is on the order of days.

These tools need to be configured in certain ways depending on the business needs.

Having a nice way to look at the dataflow as a whole, configure these tools on a global level within some framework, and be able to nicely distribute the work on our internal server farm would be worth a good bit of money to the company.

<comment><USER6> This is a common problem and for one you'll find many different solutions.

I used Apache Airflow some years ago to do exactly this. It's pretty good. You build a workflow of tasks (in Python) and set a schedule of how often you want it run. It then runs these tasks on any number of machines that you run the Airflow worker on to orchestrate the running of whatever it is you are trying to do.

If a task fails it can notify you; and if you "miss" a run it can backfill it provided your toolchain understands the concept of time. Very useful for hourly/daily feeds that, if you miss one, the system can go back and retry it just for the slots it missed.

Comes with a nice UI, too.

<comment><USER5> I'm glancing at the documentation, and came across this line:

"Airflow is not a data streaming solution. Tasks do not move data from one to the other (though tasks can exchange metadata!)"

Many of our tools take on the order of 5-200gb of data and do either some transformation (which gets passed along to the next tool; similar size, possibly after another automated validation step) and/or validation (whereby this particular branch of workflow ceases).

The automated modules we have are self-contained; each task in our case is "data + config parameters in, data out", then use "data out" as "data in" after choosing configuration parameters for the next step.

Would this still be a good usecase — am I misunderstanding what the above quote is about?

<comment><USER6> Airflow does not do the work itself; you write stuff in Python, so you _could_ make it do it, but it would be the wrong way forward for large volumes of data if time is of the essence. It merely calls out to stuff that does --- such as other tools that do the processing, and so forth.

One example is perhaps a small python script (run by airflow) to pull the files you need to process; pass them to in a downstream task that runs a shell script; which takes its output and in turn does something else entirely.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Refactoring. I'm sure there could be more advanced refactoring available than rename and extract method.

</comment><comment><USER8> Figure out all the things I need to read and summarise it for me... tab switching, reading, skimming take up a lot of my time

Many channels on slack + email threads + conversations on DMs

</comment><comment><USER9> heres a potentially easy one: create a tool that behaves exactly like outlook rules to the user but can be applied to gmail

I spend too much time looking at email and can't seem to get the hang of the gmail labels system

<comment><USER10> A possible solution is: coarsely label the incoming mail, or just label everything incoming if coarse label is not possible.

In Google Apps Script, fetch all mail with that label, process as wanted, like sending replies, moving, deleting; & then remove the label.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Not related to software.

I have to feed and give fresh & vitamin water to birds almost everyday. I wish, I could automate that somehow.

</comment><comment><USER12> Does code review and keeping up with code reviews count? I find that I can review PRs from multiple teams in a day and keeping up with them all of them is a lot of effort

If there was a bot that kept up with my work and just summarised all the progress since my reviews ... that would really be super useful and I'd likely do more reviews

<comment><USER13> I believe GitHub will show a changes since last review view after you review code, new changes are added, and then you return. What software are you using?

<comment><USER14> Looks like Bitbucket Server got this in version 4.11. I gotta ask my work to upgrade! [https://www.atlassian.com/blog/bitbucket/new-features- bitbuc...](https://www.atlassian.com/blog/bitbucket/new-features- bitbucket-4-11)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Finding something to join meetings in my place, and record anything I was needed for, if anything.

<comment><USER16> Which video conferencing software do you use?

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> I'd like to build a robot to check if a colleague is sitting at his desk or not.

</comment><comment><USER18> Repeated tasks, low structure but high effort:

\- Finding files that are relevant to my work

\- Meetings / stand ups

\- Creating status reports and communicating progress with work

I often find that tasks I do repeatedly is often not automatable due to high contextual information that is required to do so

<comment><USER19> _Meetings / stand ups_

We have recently automated stand ups, so the what I did yesterday/what I will do today/blockers are all pulled from Jira so now we only discuss major sprint goals and how to unblock any blockers...this reduces the meeting to just the important stuff

<comment><USER18> nice

Does this mean keeping all status up to date in Jira? would you mind sharing how you do this?

<comment><USER20> > _would you mind sharing how you do this?_

Not GP and not my personal experience, but I have a friend whose company has a non-developer do this as part of their full-time responsibilities. They privately check in with every developer at the end of every day.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> you will find numerous examples of what can be automated on this thread [https://old.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/ebp6ak/there_is_...](https://old.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/ebp6ak/there_is_a_well_known_saying_that_goes_always/)

<comment><USER14> This is mostly a thread of things computer-illiterate people don't realize can be automated, like selecting multiple rows before copying. I think Hacker News is at another level.</comment></comment>


Do You Know Cobol? If So, There Might Be a Job for You - <AUTHOR> https://www.wsj.com/articles/do-you-know-cobol-if-so-there-might-be-a-job-for-you-1537550913 <comment><USER2> While there may be a job going, I don't want the work.

But I used to like COBOL a lot. It was easy to pick up a program that you had written years and years before and be able to understand it completely. Self- documenting.

I was never really able to do that with BASIC, C, assembly, Pascal or several other languages that I hadn't even looked at for many years.

</comment><comment><USER3> Cobol? Wow. I taught a cobol course in graduate school in the 1970s. Who knew it would still be around.</comment>


Happiness is earning $60,000/year - <AUTHOR> http://www.mymoneyblog.com/archives/2010/05/happiness-is-earning-60000-a-year.html <comment><USER4> Americans are materially wealthy relative to most of the rest of the world. I would suspect (without having any sort of citation to support it) that, when compared to Americans, most of the people who have ever lived in any time and in any country have known nowhere near the standard of living represented by a $60K annual income in the U.S. today. If that assumption is true, and if the premise of this piece is also correct, this would mean that most of the people who have ever lived throughout all of humanity's existence have been unhappy with their lives. That would seem to me a dubious proposition.

I think that neither money nor happiness is the key but rather contentment. Life dishes up the good and bad to us all, and we often can't do anything about that, but learning to be content with what we have is an achievable and worthwhile goal for all - and also a better measure than money can ever be of whether we have lived our lives well.

<comment><USER5> I think the key to the $60K happiness threshold is that it represents being in the top 20% income bracket.

Standard of living may be lower elsewhere, however, an individual's relative wealth (especially with respect to peers) is probably what's really relevant:

[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science- news/3315638/Rela...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science- news/3315638/Relative-wealth-makes-you-happier.html)

<comment><USER6> In fact it might represent both an absolute and a relative component, all it really says is that in the USA today that combined figure seems to be $60k.

<comment><USER7> I suspect that our system is (unintentionally) rigged so that only the top 20% are set-up for happiness. I suspect that most social systems are set up in such a way, such that the majority have to strive for something.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> That sounds about right. From about 1999-2004, I didn't negotiate salaries. I told potential employers that I wanted exactly 60K. The question was how many hours a week I would have to work to earn it. The winner was 22 hours.

I only changed this tactic when I had kids. Because that changes everything.

<comment><USER9> Can you elaborate on this? I'm really interested in the type of work that you did and your negotiating process. Was it software development? What type of companies did you work with?

<comment><USER8> Yes, it is software development. It actually started when I was working at IBM. I asked if I could go part-time, and they said yes, offering 57K for 30 hours a week.

I was also talking to some startups, and told them about the offer I had, asking them to beat it by offering 60K for less hours. One of them agreed, and I worked for them for 2 years.

I followed that model for a few more years, working mostly with service-based companies who were willing to bill me out for part-time work.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I've never agreed with this theory. He seems to frame things in terms of irresponsible living and under that criteria I agree. If the difference between 60k and 90k is just "a little more "entertainment" and maybe some bigger stuff" to you than his theory works out.

But to the person who invests that extra 30k a year and gets to retire at 50 instead of 70 I think the happiness difference is pretty significant. I'd bet the 55 year old who gets to spend his days as he wishes is much happier than the 55 year old still working his 9 to 5 job.

<comment><USER11> _I'd bet the 55 year old who gets to spend his days as he wishes is much happier than the 55 year old still working his 9 to 5 job._

My dad for example has been pushing his retirement forward for several years now because, even though he's looking forward to the free time and has the money to comfortably retire, he loves what he does 9-5 and can't stop thinking about all the awesome projects he'll miss out on if he leaves.

Then there is the dark side of the equation where people retire after a lifetime of work, come home, realize that they have nothing to spend their days on and their life has no purpose any more, and promptly die.

<comment><USER12> > _"ome home, realize that they have nothing to spend their days on and their > life has no purpose any more, and promptly die."_

I honestly wouldn't mind that. In my ideal world I'd work till I drop - <USER2> would be how much I enjoy what I do. As I get older I imagine I would want to scale back _how much_ of work I'd do as other things take over (children, grandchildren, etc), but I doubt I'd ever give this up altogether.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Even if you believe Kahneman (I happen to), the $60k number is probably illusory for most Americans, since location is important. In NYC, perhaps the number is $95k; in rural Arkansas, perhaps it's $25k.

I'd love to see data on how the specific "ideal" income level varies by location.

<comment><USER14> For what is worth, the average yearly income for salarymen in Tokyo is about 6 million yen (~=U$65k).

<http://nensyu-labo.com/ken_tokyo.htm> (In Japanese)

I think NYC's cost of living is not that much higher than Tokyo's. However, as many pointed out in this thread, people care a lot about their income relative to their neighbors. So it's plausible that New Yorkers would require a much higher income to be content, compared to Tokyoites.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> If you make too little money, all you think about is money. If you make too much money, all you think about it money.

I'd have to agree with this article. Personally, I think much of happiness comes from finding the middle ground where you don't don't have to think about money.

<comment><USER16> I forget who it was who said that money is like sex: you only think about it when you're not getting enough of it, and if you are you find something more interesting to think about. I also forget whether this was supposed to be a commentary on money or a commentary on sex.

In any case, if you're getting enough of both you're probably pretty happy.

<comment><USER17> Felix Dennis

<http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/article1084093.ece>

<comment><USER18> Heh... some pearls of wisdom from that article "If it flies, floats or fornicates, always rent it - it's cheaper in the long run."

And, far more relevant to this discussion: "Becoming rich does not guarantee happiness. In fact, it is almost certain to impose the opposite condition - <USER3> not from the stresses and strains of protecting it, then from the guilt that inevitably accompanies its arrival. "

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This article missed half the point and doesn't quite capture what was said in the TED talk. Earning above $60,000 a year doesn't affect the happiness of the _experiencing self_. But as Kahneman goes on to say, it certainly affects the happiness of the _remembering self_. So a lot of money wont affect how happy you are at a particular moment, but it does affect how happy you are with your life as a whole.

</comment><comment><USER19> H L Mencken once defined a wealthy man as one who earns $100 a year more than his wife's sister's husband.

<comment><USER20> Robert Frank has a book (Falling Behind: How Rising Inequality Harms the Middle Class) that makes a convincing case that that effect does in fact exist. He goes on to argue for a progressive consumption tax, which is fairly convincing depending on your politics.

<comment><USER21> "[D]epending on your politics", indeed. It's not self-evident that everyone should be equally happy. It's not even self-evident that happiness should be the overriding concern of our existence. I've sacrificed my happiness many times in the name of other principles, especially truth. And, it wasn't "sacrifice temporarily for greater happiness later" or any other such rationalization.

<comment><USER20> I agree, but that everyone should be equally happy is not what the book argues at all.

Frank's argument boils down to the fact that a lot of categories of consumption are zero-sum games, and that if played with lower stakes people could afford more important things with the money they save.

For instance, if every SUV owner has to have 20-inch wheels to appear wealthy, SUV owners aren't as a whole are worse off than if 18-inch wheels were considered a sign of wealth and they all had health insurance.

So the argument is that there are a lot of consumption arms races in the economy where some sort of coordinated de-escalation would benefit all of the players.

The coordination he proposes is a progressive consumption tax imposed by the government, which I would agree is probably superior to the current progressive income tax.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Nop, happiness is about having $10M in assets and earning $1M a year in royalties.

Believe me.

Until then, keep coding...

<comment><USER23> If I had that wealth I would still keep coding... just for fun and for the sake of coding! Probably I would focus on something extraordinary, like robotics or AI.

<comment><USER24> Then why don't you focus on robotics or AI right now? Life is too short for NOT focusing on something you find extraordinary.

<comment><USER25> Because you can afford to suck in something you find extraordinary when you're rich, whereas you can't if you need to get paid.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Total misrepresentation.

Kahneman says that at $60K a year your direct experience of happiness flatlines. But our _perception_ of how happy we are increases with the amount of money we make, far beyond the $60K.

There's two types of happiness, how happy we are and how happy we _think_ we are and the two correlate only at a .5.

The flatlining question is "How happy are you right now?" The question that increases with wealth is "How happy are you?"

Which is a fairer representation of how people understand happiness?

</comment><comment><USER27> I recently spent a few hours figuring out how much I need to be happy. Happy to me is living comfortable with enough extra cash to go out or take periodic trips without going into debt.

I'm currently living at home and paying off some debt (I'm only 19 so it's still socially acceptable to be living with mom and dad :P).

I wrote out the cost of necessities (rent, phone/internet, food, transportation, healthcare/insurance) and then all of the extras. I want to live comfortable so for rent I said $1500 (about what a 1bdrm condo in Vancouver goes for), food $800 (includes going out to eat and regular trips to starbucks), Phone/Internet $150, Transit pass $100, healthcare $100.

The costs are mostly rounded up, if I can save cash without sacrificing happiness I'll cut costs down. On top of the basics I want to save $500 (minimum) each month and have $2k or so in the "misc" category. This includes clothes, household expenses and extras.

I calculated the amount and it was around $5500/mo. I then recalculated and factored taxes in, I believe it was around $6800/month pre-taxes.

In the past month I've been looking at ways to get this income. I could look into a 9-5 job, but that wouldn't make me very happy. I decided to get a couple clients on retainer with $7k/mo. as my goal. I've already locked down a large client who will cover most of my income for about 40hrs/month of work on my end. I'm quite confident I'll find another client to get me to the goal amount.

I'll be able to live well for approximately 3hrs per day, 5 days a week of work. I'm talking to a startup right now about joining on as a cofounder, and if I do I'm glad I'll be able to work on my own company without having to survive on ramen or live in a crack den.

<comment><USER28> "On top of the basics I want to save $500 (minimum) each month and have $2k or so in the "misc" category."

I would recommend swapping the save and misc amounts.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Another interpretation is that it currently requires $60,000/year for a US citizen to not be lacking the means to fulfill one or another step on Maslow's hierarchy: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslows_hierarchy_of_needs>

Given that the [2008] US GDP is $14.4 trillion/year, and there are ~300 million US citizens, it turns out we're each, on average, creating $48,000/year in value.

So, on average, each citizen is $12,000 of unhappy.

<comment><USER30> Because income is heavily skewed by outliers (e.g. Bill Gates), it makes more sense to look at the median income alongside the average income. Median _household_ income with 1.35 earners and 2.57 household members is $44,389. That's less than the per capita average of $48,000, and it's spread over 2.5 people.

Turns out that about 70% of the households in the United States are going to be below $60,000. Divided by the number of people in the household (hits about three once you get to high enough income levels), you don't get $60,000 per person until household income rises to $180,000. At that point, about 90% of U.S. households fall below that income level.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States)

<comment><USER31> Then again at $60k for one person it may include the ability to afford a decent home + car etc...hence by the time the second or third person rolls in the extra cost to achieve that happiness is not $60k per person. It could be even lower than $30k.

<comment><USER32> or it makes no difference. The happiness trade-off from having the little feller around, knowing you sacrificed your next car upgrade, might make it totally worth it; but if you weren't at 60k, the sacrifices would be too large.

it's possible then that 60k is just the number you need to be earning, whatever your costs base (drugs, gambling and other habits; and disabilities/chronic illnesses aside)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Happiness as a function of wealth represents a sigmoid function. This function is different for people (you could go around and define the coefficients in some stupid analogy).

The second derivative is the most important. Where that hits its peak is where you can define "financial freedom," and where it hits its trough is where you can define "fuck you money."

</comment><comment><USER34> Whether it is in the making of $60K or $1M per year, happiness is in the pursuit of the making, of the living.

An analogy I like is if you ask a 'tourist' about his memories of a place, you're likely to get a very different answer than if you ask a 'traveler'. In fact, in the former case, you might even get a rather drab answer. The latter will inspire you.

<comment><USER16> In my experience, "travelers" are just tourists who have a complex about it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> To me, happiness comes from knowing your financial future is becoming more secure, not less secure. The ultimate happiness will come from knowing that you can get that 60k per year for the rest of your days, without necessarily having to work. Trading your precious time for 60k from someone else would definitely not keep me happy.

</comment><comment><USER36> Hey tech brainiacs. Read this, and then come work at one of the many non- profit organizations starving for your intelligence, but unable to attract you because of ridiculous salary imbalances. We'd love to have you...and 60k is about all we'll ever be able to afford...and you'll be happy.

<comment><AUTHOR> I think a recruiting campaign centered on that point might actually be effective. I'd like to see some non-profits use it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> So if I'm single $60k is fine, throw in some dependents and that changes very fast. I think I'd be happier at $180k a year and $60k more for each new dependent that comes along. That takes care of health, house, education and plenty extra to stash away.

<comment><USER31> It's not linear. One person = $60k. Two = definitely less than $120k.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> If I made, say, $1 million/year, I think I'd be happier -- for the simple reason that I could afford to only work one day per week (or a few months per year, or work for 5 years and then semi-retire, etc.). That would mean a lot more freedom to choose how to spend my time, to travel, and so on. (Of course, I'd probably end up doing something similar to "work" during a lot of my spare time, but there's an amazing difference between extrinsic and intrinsic rewards for an activity.)

I've often thought that applying this on a smaller scale would be interesting -- for example, trading $140k/year for $110k/year plus an extra six weeks of paid vacation time.

<comment><USER39> Or, Trading $140k/year for $110K/year and _taking_ two weeks of vacation. I'm astonished at how few people in Silicon Valley companies take more than a week off per year. I think it's unhealthy, and, ironically, likely reduces their effectiveness overall.

But, as one who took a day off, and came back to 192 email, at least 10-15 of which really needed me to pay attention - I don't understand how to leave the work place gracefully. It's almost like I have to hire my replacement, and transition all my responsibilities to them prior to taking any time off.

I couldn't agree more with the author of the story - once the basics like shelter, housing, food, water and Medical Care are taken care of, spending quality time with friends and family really is the key to happiness.

<comment><USER40> Until you consider the safety net you need if things go to hell in a handbasket. Is that $60K living at or below your means? Does it consider enough to sock away so you don't have to eat cat food in retirement or cover your _real_ expenses if your job is pulled out from under you?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> This title comes off as cliché...No, money can't buy you happiness but it does _allow_ one to be happy. For when you consider the other end of the spectrum, poverty won't make you happy either; but then, everyone knew that.

</comment><comment><USER42> I suspect this is a case of using a metric (money) to explain a complex fact (what makes us happy).

Yes, $60,000/yr may make you happy. But I suspect that is about being comfortable and able to live without concern (over money issues, for example). I expect that if you gave a control group a comfortable life / success and just $1,000 a year then a large part would also be happy. Reverse would apply to a group with $100K but put through merry hell :)

A better conclusion would be that happiness is probably being comfortable and feeling successful etc.

</comment><comment><USER43> You can be happy with really low earnings, too. It's just _harder_ then but the happiness or lack of it is still inside your head.

It's harder with very little money because you will have to learn to be _truly_ happy—not just I-don't-have-to-worry-about-paying-for-food-and-rent happy.

In the latter case, you can keep thinking of how happy you are because you have so few things to worry about. In the former case you can't afford to worry at all.

</comment><comment><USER44> Last time I read the number was 12,000:

[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- dyn/content/article/2006/07...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- dyn/content/article/2006/07/02/AR2006070200733.html)

I must say, I got by with 12k (what I made in 2004), but if any emergency would have happened I would have been in trouble.

60k is very comfortable here in Texas.

I also know some very miserable millionaires who are depressed no matter how many pills they take.

<comment><USER45> It really depends on where you live. In Toronto, I pay more than $16K a year in rent alone.

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> I think the key take-away is this:

        But the real trick, Kahneman said, is to spend time with people you like.

I've looked at my history of happiness, and I've found very little correlation between my salary and happiness, mostly just a short term happiness bump when I first get a raise. On the other hand, the correlation between nearness of good friends and my happiness stands clearly.

</comment><comment><USER47> Everyone here seems to be missing the fact that in the video he differentiates between the "experiencing self" and the "remembering self".

With respect to the "remembering self", the reflective state, the more money you earn the more satisfied you are. Or to paraphrase Socrates:

The unexamined life is not worth living, unless you are poor.

</comment><comment><USER48> A better title would be: "Study shows that happiness does not increase with salary if you make over 60k a year"

</comment><comment><USER49> Apparently you only needed $40,000 to be happy in 2004. [http://blog.penelopetrunk.com/2004/08/01/you-only- need-40000...](http://blog.penelopetrunk.com/2004/08/01/you-only- need-40000-to-be-happy/)

</comment><comment><USER50> I think the caveat is that the money is earned doing something you enjoy. I'm sure most of us here can attest to that.

</comment><comment><USER51> I would be miserable making a steady $60,000/year.

</comment><comment><USER52> The inverse seems kind of obvious - poverty sucks

</comment><comment><USER53> They say money can't buy happiness look at my __cking smile ear to ear baby!. Boiler room

</comment><comment><USER54> Happiness is not having others try to tell you what makes you happy based off of some study.

<comment><USER55> I hold the same philosophy with regard to cigarettes. I'll decide for myself what's carcinogenic, thank you very much.

<comment><USER56> I am afraid that saying cirgarettes are carcinogenic is a simple fact. It has been established strongly that they increase the risk of cancer, and that is the very definition of the word.

With that said, I support your right to decide for yourself what is an acceptable level of risk for you and to enjoy them if you please. I choose to refrain, but that is my choice and you have every right to make a different one.

<comment><USER55> I was being sarcastic. The intended message was empiricist, not libertarian. I've been getting absurdly wild karma swings from this comment, and I'm worried now that the upvotes are all coming from people who think smoking is safe.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER57> Having watched how developers (even several from HN) completely mis-understood John Allspaw's talk about business needs & deployments, I now imagine part of the next generation of HN start-up types will begin offering $60k salaries to engineers citing that TED video as the basis of their market rate guesstimate.</comment>


Classified Search Engine Seeking Growth and Marketing Cofounder - <AUTHOR> I'm Lawrence from AutoMudo.io in Victoria, BC. AutoMudo.io is a vehicle classified search engine, that lets users search multiple popular classified sites to find the perfect vehicle.
We're looking for a non-technical growth & marketing cofounder
Website: https://automudo.io
We're building the most comprehensive automotive classified search engine that lets car shoppers search multiple classified sites. We had this idea when we got frustrated of searching multiple classified websites.
I'm a former senior full stack developer in the fin-tech and ad-tech industries. I was previously at 2 ad-tech companies and before that the largest online payment provider in Canada. I've already built the backend and front end of the website, and generate some organic traffic with little to no marketing.We're looking for someone with growth and marketing experience who can join as an equal cofounder to drive user acquisitions, ad revenue, and brand. We're very happy to work with someone remotely, but would prefer you be based in North America.
If you're interested email me at firstname.lastname@example.com. <comment><AUTHOR> [https://angel.co/company/automudo- io/jobs/729392-marketing-a...](https://angel.co/company/automudo- io/jobs/729392-marketing-and-growth-cofounder)</comment>


Microsoft chairman explains how Satya Nadella won the cloud wars - <AUTHOR> https://www.businessinsider.com/microsoft-chairman-explains-how-satya-nadella-won-the-cloud-wars-2019-7 <comment><USER2> Isn't it a bit premature to say that anyone has won the cloud wars? Most assume it's a two-horse race between AWS and Azure but Google is aggressively marketing their cloud ($750/month in GCP credits for 3 years, trying to get you hooked) and IBM's acquisition of Red Hat might be more about OpenStack and bolstering their cloud efforts than anything else. And don't forget "third tier" providers like Digital Ocean, Linode, Rackspace, and many, many other small companies who have long-standing relationships with local and regional IT decision makers and who have benefited by acquiring the best IT talent leaving companies upon "migrating to the cloud." Azure certainly has momentum but I think it's far too early to call a winner in this race.

<comment><USER3> Where are you getting $750/month in GCP credits for 3 years? I'm not debating you, I want to go get that!

<comment><USER2> No sooner than I posted that I began to wonder if I mis-heard that number (pretty sure I heard that number on a podcast... which now that I think of it, might have been hyperbole to make the point that Google __really __wants people to check out GCP and, ideally, get hooked). Microsoft had their BizSpark program which granted $150 /month in Azure credits plus operating system, server, and enterprise edition developer licenses for three years, a value that comes to far more than $750 a month if you really use to its maximum potential. The best I can find at the moment is $300 but I don't know if this is per month and if it's just limited to K8S research/education or not: [https://cloud.google.com/blog/products/gcp/google-cloud- gran...](https://cloud.google.com/blog/products/gcp/google-cloud-grants-9m-in- credits-for-the-operation-of-the-kubernetes-project)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Microsoft Chairman explains why Microsoft CEO "won/will win" the cloud wars. It's like getting my son to explain why I'm "The Worlds Best Dad". Could be true, but probably subjective at best.

</comment><comment><USER4> The article is paywalled but I'm fairly certain that Microsoft are currently no better than second in the "cloud wars"

<comment><USER5> The title of tfa even says 'poised to win' \- not sure why OP changed the title like this

<comment><USER6> Title: microsoft-chairman-explains-how-satya-nadella-won-the-cloud-wars

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Paywalled and the title here is quite different from the source, did BI change it?

<comment><USER8> It is the original title. <title> and <h1> often disagree.</comment></comment>


Any Mockup for $5 - <AUTHOR> http://5dollarmockup.com/

<comment><USER2> How is the user supposed to pay? I did not found any obvious button, at least not in the page or after clicking images.

</comment><comment><USER3> > How is the user supposed to pay?

How about clicking on the "Pay with card" button on the home page?

<comment><USER2> It didn't appeared to me with NoScript defaults. Thank you.</comment></comment>


Show HN: My failed-wannabe-saas-startup project Beyondpad going open source - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/artursgirons/beyondpad <comment><USER2> I'm curious to know how / at what point you decided it has failed? What metrics helped?

<comment><AUTHOR> It came down from two sides. I kinda burned out while working on Android app and I was expecting much more users and engagement. And I didn't want to create another note taking app - idea for BP is to be one unified place for your data. And notes is only one form of casual-data. Sentiment was like this - Imagine note taking app, calendar app, task tracking app, etc. as destinations on a map. And to get to each of those destinations you need to have special vehicle for each one! So idea was to try to state than notes, calendar entries, tasks, fitness info etc. ar casual-data. And you can have one tool that gives you mechanics to aggregate and manipulate those data in one unified place. Where then you can slice, combine and get insights on your data as a whole. And its is hard to pitch something so generic!

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I'm always sad when I see a startup/service 'fail' that I would've used had I known about. I've been searching for something like this for a really long time. I didn't think something existed and hobbled together a solution using fedwiki.

Thanks for open sourcing!

</comment><comment><USER4> Whoa, that seems awesome. I think it is too full-featured for me (also, I don't use these kind of apps), but I would imagine people would be using this. It seems much better and faster than Evernote or Trello, for example.

Why "data-driven"?

<comment><AUTHOR> data-driven cause I want Beyondpad to be about casual-data. And notes are only one form of casual data! Other forms could be calendar entries, task tracking. Or for example when Ill add ability for tags to work as bi-directional data adapters, you could create tag "hacker news", and under that tag, this feed would show up! If this info would be something you considered for yourself as data you are interested in.

<comment><USER4> That's a thing I like. Did you get users doing this kind of complex data manipulation? Or did them all just use the app as a simple note-taking app?

I've been making prototypes for a long time now to try to turn Trello (or make my own Trello-like app) into a "data-driven" collaboration platform. I think the idea is similar. My idea was to let people create magic Trello cards that would behave like database queries, or mapreduce views, for example, a card with some special instructions would show an aggregate value based on properties of all other cards in the board, or list; another magic card could show a list of links to some other cards, working as an index; that kind of thing.

From what you say I imagine your app is probably better than what I am only imagining for this Trello-thing. However, my idea was to have this for teams, small businesses and projects. Since I'm not used to note-taking apps, calendars, smartphones or anything like that I don't imagine a tool like this for my own "casual data" (but the name "casual data" is a good one, maybe you should use it more on your marketing efforts).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Did the same a few years ago: [https://github.com/rafaqueque/responsly](https://github.com/rafaqueque/responsly)

It's always cool to give back to the community :)

</comment><comment><USER6> Thanks for open sourcing it!

</comment><comment><USER4> Relevant thread: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8361258](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8361258)

Question: why did it failed?

<comment><AUTHOR> [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10491357](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10491357)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Demo: [https://www.beyondpad.com/demo](https://www.beyondpad.com/demo)

</comment><comment><USER7> Nice idea, but i suppose it's to featured for a "MVP"... I'm curious how long you spent on this ?

</comment><comment><USER8> From the video,looks just like Google keep, does it have anything that is better than Google keep ?

<comment><AUTHOR> just to name few things - ability to create custom forms or templates, different note lookup mechanics via tags and tag tree traversal, ability to assign "logic" to tags and forms. Ide is to be more data centric than keep is!

<comment><USER9> Plus it's self-hosted which is always nice, especially if you are worried about what data you are sticking in there.</comment></comment></comment>


Entanglement Makes Quantum Particles Measurably Heavier - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/entanglement-makes-quantum-particles-measurably-heavier-says-quantum-theorist-6fbd1e1e3eee

<comment><USER2> > _Bruschi's idea is simple in principle. Physicists have long known that a > single quantum particle can exist in two places at the same time. There is a > clear quantum correlation called entanglement between these two locations > that is well-defined mathematically in quantum mechanics._

I don't like this sentence. I've read about entanglement between two particles. I have Math Ph.D. and a 50% Physics major. Can someone with a 100% Physic major explain if this is correct? Is this related to quantum gravity?

> _Don't hold your breath, however. Bruschi has carried out some back-of- > an—envelope calculations of the size of the effect for a quantum particle > with the mass of an electron, of the order of 10^-31 kilograms. He says the > change in this particle's weight when it is entangled in two locations is > just one part in 10^[-]37. Inconceivably small._

10^{-37} Kg ~= 56 meV ~=2 mHartrees [http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=10%5E%28-37%29kg+*+c%5E...](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=10%5E%28-37%29kg+*+c%5E2+to+hartree)

In quantum mechanics there are a lot of examples with a lot of correlation (it's similar to like entanglement) and using spectrometry technics I think that it's possible to measure a few mHartrees.

<comment><USER3> Yes indeed this sentence seems very wrong to me as well: The author seems to mistake entanglement for superposition. The former describes a quantum state that involves TWO quantum systems whose wave functions are "intertwined" such that you cannot write it as a simple product of the wavefunction of either system (a so-called "product state"), and which thus produces some seemingly paradoxical effects (e.g. the famous Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox). Superposition, on the other hand, means that a SINGLE quantum system can have a wave function in which the system is in more than one possible state at once.

Or, in mathematical terms, here's an entangled state

|\psi> = 0.5^(1/2) _(|0 >_|1> \+ |1> _|0 >)

If we would make a measurement of the first quantum state, we would project it to either the |0> or the |1> state. This would result in the state of the other system to be projected into either the |1> or the |0> state, respectively. So there is some strange, "spooky" action between the two seemingly independent states.

Here is a superposition state for comparison:

|\psi> = 0.5^(1/2)_(|0>+|1>)

Note that it involves only a single quantum system, which has a 50 % amplitude in either of the states 0 or 1.

Wikipedia has some good definitions of entanglement and superposition:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_superposition](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_superposition)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Ugh, I understand that there's limit for how long title could be, but there really is a difference between "Entanglement Makes Quantum Particles Measurably Heavier" and "Entanglement Makes Quantum Particles Measurably Heavier, Says Quantum Theorist". When I saw the title my eyes got wider and I was wondering why it's even on medium, but then I followed the link and saw magic dust fading out. Turns out, nothing really happened. Not yet, anyway.

<comment><USER5> I was reading and looking for where the experiments prove the claim in the title, but there is none. Just a theory so far.</comment></comment>


Ray Kurzweil: Why Solar Will Dominate Energy Within 12 Years - <AUTHOR> http://fortune.com/2016/04/16/ray-kurzweil-solar-will-dominate-energy-within-12-years/ <comment><AUTHOR> I know Kurzweil's a bit of a crank but thought the hypothesis that solar output will double every two years interesting as a comparison to the recent "Nuclear power is the fastest way to slash greenhouse gas emissions, decarbonize" discussion [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19592771](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19592771)

I'd give better odds to an exponential take off of solar than a load of new nukes.

<comment><USER2> If you financially modeled the deployment of each: set aside the tech aspects of solar and nuclear, and just take empirical data points and cost trends from past solar and nuclear projects, modeling how the finances of each come together as well as the pool of parties willing/able to finance projects, I think you'd find the pure financial/project bandwidth available is several orders magnitude higher for renewable than Nuclear.

<comment><AUTHOR> Certainly the trend has not been promising for nuclear:

>Nuclear's share of global electricity production has fallen from 16.5 per cent 20 years ago to barely 10 per cent today. (FT)</comment></comment></comment>


Convert Pure CSS to React Style or JavaScript Literal Objects - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/raphamorim/native-css <comment><USER2> I don't get it. You take a solution (pure CSS) that does not require JavaScript to run, so that users that turn off JavaScript for security or other reasons can see the page styled as intended, and you convert it to something that will require JavaScript to be enabled so that it can be displayed properly.

<comment><USER3> This kind of thing is useful for web applications, specifically single page apps i.e. a situation where the user needs to have javascript to use the product / whatever in question. Easily scoped and programmable css is very useful for self-contained, non-leaky react components.

However, for a web page I agree it would be absurd.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I was looking for something like this. In my case I went with vue to allow pure html/css in the templates vs converting to jdx.

Will look into this on my next project

</comment><comment><USER5> well done mate, had a ton of spare time lately? :-)</comment>


Local privilege escalation kernel bug left in apple core os due to Final cut pro - <AUTHOR> https://www.quora.com/Did-you-ever-intentionally-leave-a-bug-while-writing-a-software-code/answer/Terry-Lambert?share=147e37a0&srid=C0r8 <comment><USER2> I've released software with minor bugs that we didn't have time to fix, but that really takes the cake.</comment>


One-handed typing on MacOS by mirroring the keyboard while spacebar is held - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/qubist/mirrorboard-mac <comment><AUTHOR> This is a script for Karabiner Elements. I'm trying to master it while I have a broken wrist - not sure how fast I'll get but interesting idea for touch typing one handed (I am not the author)! It's inspired by [https://blog.xkcd.com/2007/08/14/mirrorboard-a-one-handed- ke...](https://blog.xkcd.com/2007/08/14/mirrorboard-a-one-handed-keyboard- layout-for-the-lazy/) I believe.</comment>


Tokyo couple married by robot - <AUTHOR> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8685184.stm <comment><USER2> Actually it seems like this marriage was turked. (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Turk>)

The robot was remote controlled.

Can only find a German reference for this: [http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Getuerkte-Trauung- auf...](http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Getuerkte-Trauung-auf- Japanisch-1000888.html)</comment>


ADP Drops Lawsuit Against Human Resources Startup Zenefits - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2015/10/27/adp-drops-lawsuit-against-human-resources-startup-zenefits/ <comment><USER2> the legal system is really complicated to an outsider[0]. lets look at these two qoutes:

> The legacy payroll company ADP on Tuesday dropped its defamation lawsuit > against ... competitor, Zenefits.

and this

> in a major victory for the startup, a U.S. District Court for the Northern > District of California dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice

While I understand how appeals work, this does seem contradictory. ADP decided to drop the lawsuit. ADP was told their case sucked and had it thrown out. I understand how this works, but reading the title it looked like a voluntary act, reading the article it looked like the only option. this was pretty much gradeschool bullying and name calling sorted out by a very stern principal and a few teachers who likely cost/charged millions in aggregate.

[0] while this is true of all systems, it seems to be a greater extent with the law. which is fucked up, as everyone needs the law to be _more_ clear.

<comment><USER3> As far as I can tell, the second quote from the article is incorrect. The lawsuit was not dismissed with prejudice (which is a legal term that means the judge issued a ruling dismissing the lawsuit without ability to re-file).

Instead, there was a hearing on Zenefit's motion to dismiss, the judge indicated during the hearing that ADP's case wasn't going to fly, and ADP "voluntarily" withdrew before the judge issued an official ruling dismissing the case.

<comment><USER4> It's also possible, but rare, for a judge to refuse a voluntary request to withdraw a suit; typically, this is because the judge intends to rule to dismiss with prejudice (they can't re-file). It's only really seen in states with strong anti-SLAPP protections against lawsuits designed to bully rather than resolve a grievance (hence the acronym, Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> What is a "legacy payroll company?" As far as I can tell, ADP is online too.

<comment><USER5> I think the phrase is used in this context

      The dispute began in June when ADP, a 50-year-old payroll company,

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Serious question: Is Zenefits providing much value for anyone here that uses it?

<comment><USER7> The start-up I'm at uses it. While I can't speak for the administrative side of things as far as using it as an employee it's way easier than the typical HR paperwork bullshit you have to do. Everything is in one place, all my paperwork, insurance sign-up, direct deposit and employment agreement all through one website. I had to print and fill out zero papers which that by itself is such a relief at least for me.

<comment><USER8> Personally I value accuracy over speed when it comes to important legal docs. Read too many horror stories about bad data entry with Zenefits to trust things will get done right. Double the headache of a "legacy" provider if these things are done incorrectly.

<comment><USER7> Fair enough; I've read some of those stories but we haven't had an issue like that as far as I know. Naturally you're going to hear the bad more frequently than the good so I'm not convinced it's a huge problem but it's obviously an issue.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> There was a comment in the post from Scott Yates I found to be insightful. Apparently he's a customer of both ADP and Zenefits and felt the effects first hand.

[https://www.blogmutt.com/blog/adp-and-zenefits-end-their- sil...](https://www.blogmutt.com/blog/adp-and-zenefits-end-their-silly- lawsuits-is-peace-next)

I can't add more to the conversation, but I found it added another (more interesting) angle to the situation.

<comment><USER10> Thanks for the mention! I had a lot of fun writing that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> The article didn't make it clear... has Zenefits regained access to ADP's systems?

</comment><comment><USER8> Zenefits feels like one of those Unicorns that will go poof. I find employee satisfaction and turnover in startups to be important signs of the health of a startup and Glassdoor reviews are terrible and turnover looks high via LinkedIn

</comment><comment><USER12> What a waste of money. Such gnashing of teeth over nothing. Now Zenefits should drop ADP.

</comment><comment><USER13> When this happened we ditched ADP for ZenPayroll - wasn't that hard. Now ZenPayroll and Zenefits are fighting.</comment>


Facebook not protecting content moderators from mental trauma: lawsuit - <AUTHOR> https://www.reuters.com/article/us-facebook-lawsuit/facebook-not-protecting-content-moderators-from-mental-trauma-lawsuit-idUSKCN1M423Q <comment><USER2> I'm curious what they expect Facebook to do in this situation. I get that these moderators have to look at disturbing imagery, but that's the job they signed up for. It's not like Facebook can only show them nice images, it's their job to look at those horrible images. I don't think Facebook was sugar coating the job description or anything.

This feels like a class action lawsuit brought by garbage workers because they have to handle trash all day long.

<comment><USER3> There is a simple way to deal with shitty users. The problem is that it runs counter to the interests of the organization that hosts them. Require every user on the platform to use an invitation code from another user. They don't have to use their real names, but if they do something fraudulent or awful both the inviter and the invitee get banned.

This is why Dribbble is still nice and most other places turn to garbage.

HN is a rare exception. It's likely because the subject matter requires a certain degree of intelligence, which tends to negatively correlate with trashiness.

<comment><USER4> >It's likely because the subject matter requires a certain degree of intelligence, which tends to negatively correlate with trashiness.

I think you're confusing "more homogeneous" with "less trashy".

Trashy is just whatever the local minority does that the local majority finds repulsive.

A lot of the opinions conveyed in the commentary on HN that are reasonably well accepted would go over like a lead balloon in some other communities.

<comment><USER5> While I see where you are coming from, I think we can all unanimously and irrevocably agree that posting child porn and snuff videos to social media is pretty damn trashy.

<comment><USER6> I think you're sort of missing the point. Posting gore/cp on, say, your public feed on a public internet social media site is trashy by the common idea of civil/moral behaviour, but it would be par for the course on liveleak social/ a tor hidden services pedophile social network. It can be taken for granted that most people think CP is bad, and that sending pictures of dismembered kids to thousands of strangers is rude. Anyone who doesn't agree* will hide anyway, or act anonymously. What's the point in a post like this?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> [https://www.wired.com/2014/10/content- moderation/](https://www.wired.com/2014/10/content-moderation/)

You'd figure that four years after this article came out the larger social media companies would have solved this issue.

A section that stood out to me:

 _Eight years after the fact, Jake Swearingen can still recall the video that made him quit. He was 24 years old and between jobs in the Bay Area when he got a gig as a moderator for a then-new startup called VideoEgg. Three days in, a video of an apparent beheading came across his queue._

 _" Oh fuck! I've got a beheading!" he blurted out. A slightly older colleague in a black hoodie casually turned around in his chair. "Oh," he said, "which one?" At that moment Swearingen decided he did not want to become a connoisseur of beheading videos. "I didn't want to look back and say I became so blasé to watching people have these really horrible things happen to them that I'm ironic or jokey about it," says Swearingen, now the social media editor at Atlantic Media._

</comment><comment><USER8> Microsoft had a similar lawsuit last year. It sounds like their moderators had to deal with even worse.

[https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jan/11/microsoft...](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jan/11/microsoft- employees-child-abuse-lawsuit-ptsd)

<comment><USER9> Could Reddit moderators have a case?

<comment><USER10> The ones who are actually employees? Maybe.

The ones who are regular users who choose to moderate a community? No. There's no business relationship.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> > Facebook not protecting content moderators from mental trauma

> Facebook in the past has said all of its content reviewers have access to > mental health resources, including trained professionals onsite for both > individual and group counseling, and they receive full health care benefits.

...which is it?

<comment><USER11> You don't get a free pass for injuring your workers just because you give them access to doctors, why would this be any different?

<comment><USER12> But that`s _the_ job. It`s not like they were doing something else and this is a side effect.

If i employ you to clean human feces, you can sure me for not providing adequate protection etc but you cant sure me because you had to deal with human feces. That is the job.

<comment><USER13> You've hit exactly what this lawsuit is about. They aren't saying "when I got a job as a content moderator I wasn't expecting to see traumatizing things", they're saying "my employer isn't providing adequate protections from the things I have to see as part of my job".

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> After reading the comments and thoughts about the job. This is just new territory. I am not sure that any company can prepare an employee for this kind of mental barrage. ...or counter that constant consumption of evil.

</comment><comment><USER15> Let's all just switch to RSS, social readers, and QR stickers and call it a day.

</comment><comment><USER2> I wonder if maybe tighter integration with law enforcement would help the situation? Part of the problem may be that people feel so helpless when all they can do is ban the image and maybe send a copy up into the black hole of law enforcement.

It has to be incredibly demoralizing to see yet another child sex slave image posted from that Kremlin IP range taken in what is clearly the same room they've been seeing for months. You can forward all of the pictures to the FBI, but they can't do anything about it and you're seeing victim after victim paraded around the Internet. Facebook's jurisdiction stops at the uplink from their datacenter.

<comment><USER8> Where does it say anything about the Kremlin IP range posting child sex slave images?

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> How is it any different from ER doctor, coroner, social worker, or investigator?

<comment><USER17> > How is it any different from ER doctor, coroner, social worker, or > investigator?

Yes. All those people should have support too. And many more.

What is it with people and saying we need to race to the bottom? Like when people react to other people's high pay and benefits not by saying, "I should be up there with you", but instead, "why aren't you down here with me?"

The implication being, I guess, we need to do more to spread the suffering and not lift people.

<comment><USER16> What is it with people saying we need to sugar coat, bubble wrap, and insulate our tender egoes from the reality of the world? Psychologists have a term for that. It's called denial.

<comment><USER17> If you happen to have a psychologist who is trivializing trauma or PTSD type symptoms in these terms I'd say I think you need to find a different psychologist.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Alt Onion Title: "City not protecting coroners from seeing dead bodies: lawsuit"

</comment><comment><USER19> I'm pretty sure a traumatized content moderator was extracting revenge on the people misbehaving on social media on a CSI Cyber episode, was it on Black Mirror too?</comment>


Summify acquired by Twitter - <AUTHOR> http://blog.summify.com/2012/01/19/summify-joins-the-flock-at-twitter/ <comment><USER2> Will they delete all their user data, shut down their service and present this as "Great News!"? /checks. Yes, yes they will.

<comment><USER3> I wish companies would let the current version continue to hum along until the new version w/ integration were done.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Good for those guys for living the dream. Too bad that dream didn't also result in job creation in Vancouver, Canada.

There is quite a bit of noise in media about the economic benefits of investing in foreign entrepreneurs. Unfortunately, it strikes me that these guys chose the quick win and we will now see those economics benefits move south of the Canadian border.

<comment><USER5> This is starting to happen all over. Tech startup accelerators in places like Vancouver are in danger of becoming a farm system, a "minor league" of tech entrepreneurialism.

A team that attracts attention will impress the scouts (either acquirers or investors) who will sign them up to play for the "big leagues" in the Bay Area.

This isn't malicious, but so many accelerators are trying to build a community, which is really hard to do when so many potential leaders of that community decide to 301.

<comment><USER6> I don't think this goes against the efforts to build a community in satellite locations. The reality is that there aren't many potential acquirers in Vancouver (virtually nil for consumer internet), so one takes an exit where one can get it. The community is helped by the fact now that when startups are raising in the Bay Area we can point to a company that was in the same geography that made a return for their investors.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Well good for them. They used to rent space in our office, and they were a great bunch of guys, quite clever and always focussed on making a good service for their users. Twitter is lucky to have them.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks Dan for the support!

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> This seems much more like a talent acquisition vs a company being acquired.

<comment><USER9> of course ... otherwise they would not close the service :(

<comment><USER10> Check out brief.xydo.com - used them both for months now, and I actually prefer my news delivered topically like xydo does.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Twitter only acquires companies that match /^Summi\w+$/i

</comment><comment><USER12> I don't get it, why are Twitter shutting it down? Makes little sense to me.

I guess there are _some_ cases (like Wordly ----> Google Docs) where that happened and was good in the end?

Most seem to mean the product is completely dead.

<comment><USER7> It's most likely a talent acquisition, not a product acquisition. Keeping Summify up and running would be a waste of developer time (from Twitter's point of view).

<comment><USER13> With such a long list of investors (<http://www.crunchbase.com/company/readfu>) it must have been quite a large sum of money to acquire Summify. So IMHO not just a talent acquisition.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Users abandoned by Summify should check out our alternative - a newsletter based on reader engagement: <http://www.scoopinion.com>

</comment><comment><USER15> not to be confused with Summize. (also taken over by twitter, becoming early incarnation of twitter search back in the day)

<comment><USER16> Indeed; I thought it might have been a nostalgia piece until I realized that my memory isn't fuzzy enough that I could have memorized _Summify_ as _Summize_.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> How much?

</comment><comment><USER18> What was the buy-out?</comment>


Google will punish "intrusive interstitials" with a ranking penalty in 2017 - <AUTHOR> http://marketingland.com/google-will-punish-intrusive-interstitials-ranking-penalty-2017-188945 <comment><USER2> absolutely every Google app greets me with a tutorial and most apps pop me alerts about giving them more data all the time.

maps is the worst. i specifically disable the wifi use for location and wifi info sharing with Google, which are enabled by default, and it ask me every day if i want to enable it. so annoying.</comment>


Doodling in Math: Spirals, Fibonacci, and Being a Plant  - <AUTHOR> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ahXIMUkSXX0

<comment><USER2> The linked video isn't advocating anything so outlandish as intelligent design, so why does the title mention it? Also, the relationship between the golden ratio, and many spirals that occur in nature, don't actually exist (some previous discussions include <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1407586> and <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2902496>).

EDIT: Apparently the title changed.</comment>


Ask HN: Can anyone recommend good html ide (Widnows) for a beginner? - <AUTHOR>

I'm just starting with html. I'd appreciate if you share yuor experience. <comment><USER2> [http://www.editplus.com/](http://www.editplus.com/)

but if you're as sloppy with your html as your post, you may run into trouble.

<comment><USER3> Ouch - maybe the question came from someone who does not speak English as their first language. Be gentle my friend.

<comment><AUTHOR> That's ok, I was aware some haters gonna make bitting comments ;)

Anyway, what's wrong with the post?

<comment><USER4> "Windows" and "your" are misspelled. Still readable.

<comment><AUTHOR> Well, ok I am sloppy.

Wish me luck with html then! :)

<comment><USER2> also bitting. :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> If you are just learning HTML then you do not need an IDE. Notepad on Windows is enough as you can double click any saved file with your code and run it straight away in the browser. Press <F12> on any modern browser to open up the developer tools to see just what is going on if things do not work out as you expect.

If you want something just a little bit more powerful than Notepad then do a Google search and download Notepad++

</comment><comment><USER5> Brackets is really good: [http://brackets.io/](http://brackets.io/)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks!</comment></comment>


Ask HN: After SICP, what next? - <AUTHOR> One of my friends just finished working through SICP (progress here - http://lawfulsamurai.blogspot.com/search/label/SICP, - the last few sections still have to be updated)  and asked me for reccomendations for future work.
I thought of telling him to get really strong on algorithms etc (perhaps by working through Tardos/ Cormen et al, doing all the exercises like he did for SICP), but thought I'd tap the good folk of HN for better (or  different) suggestions. Working through CTM for example is an option (another of my friends was doing this http://ctm-himanshu.blogspot.com/ but he didn't quite complete it).
(This has nothing to do with his day job which is java/python/Django. Just something for him to work through when he has a few hours and learn cool things.). Any suggestions gratefully accepted!
Thanks in advance. <comment><USER2> This is the single best text I've seen on algorithms in the real-world: [http://www.amazon.com/Algorithm-Design-Manual-Steve- Skiena/d...](http://www.amazon.com/Algorithm-Design-Manual-Steve- Skiena/dp/0387948600)

Can't recommend it enough.

<comment><USER3> Here's the second edition from 2008: [http://www.amazon.com/Algorithm-Design- Manual-Steven-Skiena/...](http://www.amazon.com/Algorithm-Design-Manual- Steven-Skiena/dp/1848000693/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1242427006&sr=1-1)

<comment><USER4> Thanks! I did not know there was the 2nd edition!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Introduction to Information Retrieval: <http://www.amazon.com/dp/0521865719/>

Convex Optimization: <http://www.amazon.com/dp/0521833787/>

Foundations of Statistical Natural Language Processing: <http://www.amazon.com/dp/0262133601/>

Read Peter Norvig's review for Foundations of ....<http://www.amazon.com/review/R3GSYXSKRU8V17/>

I haven't read any of these books, yet, highly recommended by some friends.

<comment><USER6> Here are video lectures by the author of the convex optimization book (Stephen Boyd):

[http://see.stanford.edu/see/courseinfo.aspx?coll=2db7ced4-39...](http://see.stanford.edu/see/courseinfo.aspx?coll=2db7ced4-39d1-4fdb-90e8-364129597c87)

[http://see.stanford.edu/see/courseinfo.aspx?coll=523bbab2-dc...](http://see.stanford.edu/see/courseinfo.aspx?coll=523bbab2-dcc1-4b5a-b78f-4c9dc8c7cf7a)

And video lectures by the author of the NLP book (Christopher D. Manning):

[http://see.stanford.edu/see/courseinfo.aspx?coll=63480b48-88...](http://see.stanford.edu/see/courseinfo.aspx?coll=63480b48-8819-4efd-8412-263f1a472f5a)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I recommend the Kleinberg/Tardos textbook: [http://www.amazon.com/Algorithm- Design-Jon-Kleinberg/dp/0321...](http://www.amazon.com/Algorithm-Design-Jon- Kleinberg/dp/0321295358)

It is a really enjoyable read and has a nice narrative that I think other algorithm books are lacking. CLR, for instance, just reads like a handbook to me. The goal Kleinberg/Tardos book, OTOH, is to teach you how to design and analyze algorithms. They will actually follow false starts on certain problems and uncover where they break.

Kleinberg is the rebel king!

</comment><comment><USER8> The best book to follow up SICP is Essentials of Programming Languages, by Friedman, Wand, and Haynes. It uses Scheme to show how the fundamentals of programming languages are built, and both in its form and its content, it seems a direct continuation from SICP. After you've done with it, you'll have a much better understanding of Scheme, functional programming, programming languages, and programming in general.

</comment><comment><USER9> \- Concepts, Techniques and Models of Computer Programming

\- Algorithms, a functonal approach

\- Real World Haskell

\- Paradigms of artificial intelligence programming

Any of these are excellent post-sicp reads.

<comment><USER10> I don't suppose you have a copy of "Algorithms, a functonal approach" you want to sell huh? The used price is more than the brand new price! Lame.

<comment><USER9> I bought it new on Amazon.co.uk for a very reasonable price. It was printed on demand, so it took some time, but it was worth it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Did he enjoy sections 4 (Metalingustic Abstractions) and 5 (Register Machines)?

If so, he'd probably be interested in both these books. They are quite hefty, but seem to be goldmines (so far, I'm only just getting started on them myself).

[http://research.microsoft.com/en- us/um/people/simonpj/papers...](http://research.microsoft.com/en- us/um/people/simonpj/papers/slpj-book-1987/index.htm)

and

[http://research.microsoft.com/en- us/um/people/simonpj/papers...](http://research.microsoft.com/en- us/um/people/simonpj/papers/pj-lester-book/)

Both books cover much of the same ground. The first one is heavier on theory, while the second one reads a LOT like SICP. Currently I'm working through the second one and using the first one when I want more in-depth info on a certain topic.

<comment><USER12> _Lisp In Small Pieces_ ([http://pagesperso- systeme.lip6.fr/Christian.Queinnec/WWW/LiS...](http://pagesperso- systeme.lip6.fr/Christian.Queinnec/WWW/LiSP.html)) is sort of intermediate between SICP and the Peyton-Jones stuff; it still focuses on Lisp dialects that use dynamic typing and applicative-order evaluation, but it shows a whole bunch of different approaches to exploring that design space and implementing stuff in it.

I also enjoyed reading Pierce's _Types and Programming Languages_ (<http://www.cis.upenn.edu/~bcpierce/tapl/>), although I was kind of nodding my head and going "yeah, whatever" during some of the proofs.

<comment><USER13> Both recommendations are little too high for someone just coming out of SICP. I recommend Essentials of Programming Languages as a stepping stone. Pierce's book is probably irrelevant to someone just interested in Lisp; type theory is best approached through an ML angle. And Quinnec's book is not for the faint of heart; you will need to have been well versed in lisp, compiler/runtime implementation techniques and have brushed against denotational semantics (through the Nielson and Nielson book, perhaps.)

[edit: _denotational_ , not operational, semantics; OS can be learned in a fun-filled weekend. The "small-step" variety should appeal to both language hackers and (virtual) machine enthusiasts.]

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I'm personally going to work through Programming Language Pragmatics. I want to have a better foundation in language paradigms, plus fill a hole in my education (no, zero, nada, real exposure to compiler design).

I'll also be learning more about Lisp concurrently.

Sadly, none of this has much bearing to my day job, but when I have an hour or two it seems like a nice way to spend it. At that pace, I plan to finish sometime in 2015 . . .

<comment><USER15> PLP is pretty good. We used it in my university course on compiler design, I quite enjoyed reading it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> If your friend wants to a) get really strong on algorithms, b) put in some hours, and c) actually do the exercises, I'd recommend Knuth. It's worth the effort.

<comment><USER17> I haven't read Knuth but I recommend [http://www.amazon.com/Algorithm-Design- Manual-Steve-Skiena/d...](http://www.amazon.com/Algorithm-Design-Manual-Steve- Skiena/dp/0387948600)

From what I understand Knuth uses MIX assembly language to imlpement his algorithms. Contrast this to the Skiena book which uses C++. I found this to make it very practical.

Though to be fair, I don't think it offers near the depth of the Art of Computer Programming:)

<comment><USER16> It's actually a common misconception that Knuth uses MIX/MMIX to implement his algorithms. The vast majority of the algorithms are described in English, and the MMIX implementation is usually only given when there are relevant implementation details to be discussed. MMIX is just an idealized machine language, and it is trivial for a reader to implement the algorithms described in the programmer's language of choice. (This is assuming that the objective is to learn CS, not to have a cookbook of ready-to-run algorithms to pilfer....)

<comment><USER17> Sorry if this seems dense but I can't reconcile what your saying and I've not read the book. You say:

> It's actually a common misconception that Knuth uses MIX/MMIX to implement > his algorithms.

So you state very clearly that he doesn't use MIX to code his algorithms.

But then you say:

> and the MMIX implementation is usually only given when there are relevant > implementation details to be discussed

So you say that he does actually use the MIX language.

Do you mean that most algorithms aren't presented in source form at all and only the few that are actually coded are in the MIX language?

<comment><USER18> Yes, that is how it is.

For example the first algorithm in the book (found via google):

Algorithm E ( Euclid's algorithm). Given two positive integers m and n, find their greatest common divisor, that is, the largest positive integer that evenly divides both m and n.

E1 [Find remainder.] Divide m by n and let r be the remainder. (We will have 0 ≤ r < n)

E2 [Is it zero?] If r=0, the algorithm terminates: n is the answer.

E3 [Reduce.] Set m← n, n← r, and go back to step E1.

<comment><USER17> Thanks for the clarification:)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> It depends on what he wants to learn.

I got more out of How to Design Programs than I did from SCIP. Though to be fair I read it before SCIP:)

<http://www.htdp.org/>

On the other hand if he wants to learn Lisp then I really enjoyed Lisp in Small Pieces though its not a quick read. It consumed almost all of 2005 for me:)

</comment><comment><USER19> The CLR "Introduction to Algorithms" would be one of the canonical answers.

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

It's certainly one worth having and the only book from my computer science education that I still reference frequently.

In fact, I'm tempted to say that it's the last computer science book that you _have_ to read. After that you should be able to work directly from research papers, though a topical book can sometimes be useful in other areas with fairly wide breadth.

</comment><comment><USER20> He should write a lot of code for fun and try to incorporate what he's learned so far. I understand he codes at his day job, but that's not a place to take risks or to code things 5 different ways "just because".

</comment><comment><USER21> "Problems On Algorithms" (Parberry, Gasarch): A slim volume containing ~700 exercises on proving various properties of algorithms. And it teaches you most of what is needed. Download it from: <http://www.eng.unt.edu/ian/books/free/>

"Elements of the Theory of Computation" (Papadimitriou): Classic text. Sure you've heard of Turing machines before, but what do you know about mu- recursive functions? It's very beautiful and if you have a person with whom to read the book and do the exercises, you will gain immensely.

</comment><comment><USER22> Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach <http://aima.cs.berkeley.edu/> \-- has lots of broadly useful material and ought to be accessible to anyone who's completed SICP. One of the very best technical books I've read.

</comment><comment><USER23> I'm currently working through Practical Foundations of Mathematics: <http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~pt/Practical_Foundations/index.html>

The full text is available online, but I recommend you buy a hard copy. Oh and I can vouch that the back cover blurb is totally true.

</comment><comment><USER24> CTM has my vote.

</comment><comment><USER25> Go be the smartest person at a Java shop!

</comment><comment><USER26> I like CTM. [http://www.amazon.com/Concepts-Techniques-Models-Computer- Pr...](http://www.amazon.com/Concepts-Techniques-Models-Computer- Programming/dp/0262220695/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1242404130&sr=8-1)</comment>


Conway's Game Of Life in one line of APL - <AUTHOR> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9xAKttWgP4&feature=youtube_gdata_player

<comment><USER2> And if you're interested in running it yourself, give this a try.

<http://ibm1130.org/sim/downloads>

The IBM 1130 system emulator with APL/1130. A Windows executable that provides for IBM System 1130 emulation via Hyperterminal and a custom APL font included.

It should run the GOL APL code nicely.

</comment><comment><USER3> This gets posted every few months, but it has great replay value :)</comment>


Show HN: A drop-in iOS keyboard button that mimics the native keyboard buttons - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/illyabusigin/CYRKeyboardButton

<comment><USER2> What happens when it's part of a keyboard extension? afaik no part of your extension's view may pass in front of your app's view

<comment><USER3> Yep, this won't play as an option for the top row of keys inside an iOS 8 keyboard extension. There is no method to display art beyond above the area where the default view of the keyboard resides.

Obviously, Apple doesn't have to play by their own rules... but I understand how this could be abused.

The CYRKeyboardButton seems like a great starting point for someone building a keyboard native to their own app or if the art is used on the lower rows of keys.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I like it. Looks very well done. What are some instances when you would need to recreate the keyboard?</comment>


Cracking Codes in Medieval Books - <AUTHOR> http://medievalbooks.nl/2015/02/20/cracking-codes-in-medieval-books/

<comment><USER2> I love when I discover stuff like this. I remember seeing a medieval bible at the Getty museum with writing in the side, at the time I thought it was Arabic because of the aesthetic. After reading this, it's very clear that the writing was Tironian.

<comment><USER3> Reminds me of typists' shorthand.</comment></comment>


Is it Time for You to Earn or to Learn? - <AUTHOR> http://www.bothsidesofthetable.com/2009/11/04/is-it-time-for-you-to-earn-or-to-learn/

<comment><USER2> The problem is the way company structures are currently set up, where founders get the majority of ownership, and employees just get the pool.

What does this mean? To me it means that the way a company structures itself needs to change. More ownership needs to be given to employees, and founders need to get less.

That how I want to start my next company. Double the options pool, and lower the founder equity. Just because your employee #1 and it was my idea doesn't mean I get to dilute your share of the company but that big of a margin. We'll all be doing a ton of work.

That being said, can someone tell me why this might be a bad idea? :)

</comment><comment><USER3> A lot of peoples eyes glaze over when they go into startups because they hear all the success stories. It can definitely happen in this field, but most people don't realize what it takes. I hate that starting a company is becoming almost trendy now and everyone is trying it.

Edit: and I guess on one hand innovation and providing jobs is good but for everyone to want to do it now is a little crazy.

<comment><USER4> >> I hate that starting a company is becoming almost trendy now and everyone is trying it.

I think it is fantastic that people want to create companies. After all entrepreneurs take risks to create jobs, value and wealth.

<comment><USER5> I created my company to buy office supplies.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I already brought some Indignation Sauce to this topic: [http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2012/07/08/dont-waste- yo...](http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2012/07/08/dont-waste-your-time-in- crappy-startup-jobs/)

Mark Suster is right about the financials. You won't get rich.

I will go further. The VC-istan startup promise is empty. You probably won't get investor contact unless you negotiate for it. Why would they help you get the connections needed to be a founder, when the alternative is that you not get those and never be a competitive threat?

Many of these VC-istan firms develop horrible cultures as the engineers realize they won't get the leadership opportunities they were promised, because those are going to go out to entice new hires. You get a lot of ill- advised code throw-outs that exist only because someone was promised, in hiring, that he'd have that authority... so he uses it on the first day without even knowing what's being tossed.

I don't think you should use "learning" as justification for taking a bad deal. Not if you don't know the people, because how do you know if you're going to learn anything?

In general, higher pay tends to lead to higher-quality projects, not for the obvious reasons, but for this: your salary is how much it costs your boss to waste your damn time.

If you're a founder or a key hire and you trust the people involved, it's different but, in general, don't use "these are my learning years" to justify an awful deal.

<comment><USER7> I really enjoyed your article. It clearly contains a lot more wisdom than Suster's. Still, I think you underestimate how little one can learn in a big company. It all depends what team you land on and who your manager is, and it can be a huge crapshoot. At least at a startup you have a guarantee that the company needs to focus on fundamentals and you will never be chastised for thinking about the business case for what you are doing (obviously this is not strictly true, but those kinds of startups tend to die fast). At a big company you may be assigned to a team doing something irrelevant that exists purely for political reasons. Your boss is as likely as not to be [Gervais Principle] clueless and the only thing you learn is corporate politics. That might help your earning potential down the road, but it won't make you a better engineer. Sure if you get on the AWS team at Amazon or work at Google or Facebook you get an opportunity to work with tech that a startup could never lay their hands on, but those jobs are hardly the corporate average.

You're right that it's no justification for taking a poor package at a startup, but I think the median startup job is much better than the median corporate job in terms of engineering education.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> It goes without saying that you won't get personally rich from any contract or investment _without running the numbers_.

However, many employees consider it pretty enriching to work in a start-up environment for $200k+/year of salary and stock options, where the stock option portion is generally going up.

If you actually join early enough to get 0.25% of a company, like immediately post VC raise, usually the "success" scenario you talk about is not selling for 3x the current valuation. (I wonder how many companies that sell for that are actually "failures" but with well-connected VCs that can make a sale.)

And can we stop talking about "success" like a lottery? There are many Bay Area companies with actual business models making good revenue and growing it steadily into the multiple millions. I'm sure the early employees will make out just fine. I'm sure the founders would be interested in applying this "you're basically rolling the dice" model of business to their companies.

<comment><USER6> Startup jobs at $200k are fairly rare, and not really accessible unless you're an executive implant. At least in New York, very few startup boards will sign off on an engineer salary at that level.

0.25 percent of a post-A company is pretty weak sauce. You should value equity at a fraction of what investors do. First, investors are diversified. You're not. Second, their stake gets the VCs control and an excuse to hand out executive positions to their underachieving, middle-aged friends. Yours doesn't. Third, your equity comes with a cliff and I can name a couple startups that are notorious for firing people days before cliff.

<comment><USER8> To clarify, I meant $200k including the current value of the stock options that vest in a year.

I'm also writing with engineers in mind rather than executives, and based on Bay Area salaries.

<comment><USER6> I don't think that's a meaningful number. As I said, investors have plenty of reasons to value the equity at a higher level than an employee.

If you "cliff out" an investor, you go to jail. If you do that to an employee, that's fair game.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I'm learning at my current job and it just keeps coming. I hate to admit it but the amount you need to learn just to get an idea of what you didn't know before you knew it is staggering. If you're young enough, I say learn as much as you can. Don't waste those few years at companies that won't develop you as a person. You can only push so many cogs before you get jaded.

</comment><comment><USER10> Everything seems to come back to that good ol' fashioned advice:

"Do what you love and the money will follow"

It's pretty cliche, but the point is that you need to actually enjoy what you're doing and worry less about the money (unless you're in love with money, in which case go get a job on Wall Street). Sure, the chance to cash out big is a huge plus, but as Mark pointed out unless you're a founder it's very unlikely.

This is most likely a contributing factor to the talent crunch in the Bay Area. No one wants to take the chance on being the #1 or #2 engineering employee since the odds are weighed heavily against you. I imagine most sane people would look at it like this:

C-level / Founder: Risky, less salary now but larger option grants. Lots of hours.

Early employee: Riskiest. Less salary and less options. More hours.

Later employee: Least risky. Salary approaching market rate. No significant options. Hours that approach a normal work week (~40).

</comment><comment><USER11> As usual, Mark tells a good story by leaving out a lot.

So, he has "(0.5%) eventually sell for $150 million or more".

Okay, so what? Is his argument that the chances of an entrepreneur are just a lottery draw with winning odds of 0.5%? If so, then that's misleading.

Why? Because it shouldn't be a lottery draw. Instead, the entrepreneur should know more than just a lottery draw. The entrepreneur should have done some good, careful, solid, and quite likely effective planning so that when, based on the additional information he has and the planning he has done, he goes for the $150 million or more, his chances are quite good, hopefully well over 50%. If he can't plan that well, then he needs to learn how or get into another game.

VCs, including Mark, won't teach how to do such planning, won't help with the planning, won't evaluate the planning, and, instead, will just report the figure of 0.5% from just looking in simple terms at all the e-mail they receive or some such.

Although the odds may have looked like 0.5% from 50,000 feet up, it is quite possible that for the winners down on the ground the odds looked and were much better than that.

Net, it is quite possible to see a large need, think of a good solution, find a way to provide that solution, and plan a business to deliver that solution, even with some new, advanced technology, all with quite high probability -- all over our economy, all around the world, in many industries, people do such planning and execution with quite high probability.

E.g., when Intel decides to move from line width of some x nanometers to 0.66 x nanometers and build a $2 billion plant to manufacture at 0.66 x nanometers, do you believe that the project is high risk with only 0.5% chance of success? BS. Intel has taken many such steps in their history, and so far they may have had some delays and some kinks to iron out but never really had an actual failure.

E.g., recently movie director James Cameron got in a specially designed 'boat' and took a little side trip to the bottom of the Mariana Trench, about six miles down or some such. No one, not even all the world together, has a lot of experience building 'boats' to go six miles down. So, what he did was essentially for the first time. Thus, he needed a lot of quite good planning. And he came up alive. Lesson: Planning to attack the unknown for the first time is possible.

The great old lesson was the Wright Brothers. Langley had just fallen into the Potomac River. But the Wright Brothers took a train from Ohio to Kitty Hawk and flew apparently with little or no doubt. Why? Good planning. How? They built the first quite good wind tunnel and, thus, had some good data (although they missed Reynolds number) on wing lift and drag. They also knew horsepower and thrust of their propellers. They had the weight of their plane and passenger. They understood the crucial role of three axis control and had a good enough solution. A little arithmetic, and it was clear that they should be successful. And they were. First time.

Planning is doable. Sorry, Mark.

Let's put it this way, drawing from Mark's post: He did point out correctly that a house in the area will set one back about $2 million. Well, if making that much money is as difficult as Mark suggests, then house prices should fall!

Are we learning yet, e.g., how to earn?

A good, old lesson, especially in business, is "Always look for the hidden agenda.". So, VCs are in the business of buying parts of young companies. So, as a buyer, they want more inventory to select from. So, Mark can tell CxOs that their slot is for just chump change and that they need to be CEO and get some VC funding. And if they were a real man, they'd d be paying cash for a $2 million house, and for that they'd need to be a CEO with VC funding. For more, a buyer wants to tell the seller that their product isn't very good, e.g., has only 0.5% chance of being worth $150+ million. So, maybe such is part of Mark's agenda.

Then telling entrepreneurs how actually to plan a $150+ million exit, with some significant probability, is not part of the agenda.

<comment><USER7> This is at best true for the entrepreneur (and even then you strike me as someone who has never founded a startup, because it never goes smoothly according to plan). A prospective employee has no better chance than a VC at picking winners.

<comment><USER11> The "chances", that is, the probability, is close to irrelevant. Instead what is just crucial is the conditional probability conditioned on the information one has. Even if the probability is low, with suitable extra information the conditional probability can be quite high.

You understand: You saw the move 'Wall Street', right? So, what was the probability of a big move up of the PA steel company? Low, right? "A dog with fleas". But the conditional probability given that the takeover guy's plane was flying to PA was quite high. Got it now?

Again, yet again, to repeat just for you, from my three examples in my post, it's possible to plan effectively, even for advanced projects, and then perform according to plan with relatively low risk.

On picking winners, VCs don't try very hard to evaluate projects. E.g., recently a VC told me that he sees a lot of projects that currently have $2000 a month in revenue. Thus he missed the point: No doubt at one time each of Apple, Microsoft, Google, and Facebook had about $2000 a month in revenue. What is just crucial in picking "winners" is essentially to f'get about the $2000 a month and look closely at the project. VCs don't like to do that. Moreover, in recent years in information technology projects, VCs just don't want to believe that there could be any advanced, solid, unique, powerful, valuable technology difficult to duplicate or equal to be evaluated. Evaluating technology and projects just isn't how their business model works.

On my startup experience, you were guessing and guessed incorrectly.

Are you writing for Mark?

<comment><USER7> Yeah, I "get it". Sheesh, no need to be so fucking condescending. If it's so easy to pick winners why aren't you doing more angel investing instead of complaining about hot air from VCs?

<comment><USER11> Here is an explanation of some of the 'difficulty in picking winners': A lot of entrepreneurs try projects, and, right, maybe only 0.5% get an exit 150+ million. But a point is that, how many of those efforts were actually well planned? Not very many. Of the well planned projects, the chances should be much higher. Again, to pick good projects, have to use a lot of information, more than can use when just playing a lottery which, in effect, the 0.5% number assumes.

More generally, the goal is something exceptional. Can't get much insight into that looking at what was not exceptional. But there are some good guidelines for being exceptional. Yes, there are not many examples among the famous IT successes. From this you can conclude either that the path to being exceptional doesn't work or that there are good opportunities.

Whatever the entrepreneurs are, it's easy enough to identify the several dozen well known venture partners. Sadly, for the well known path to being exceptional, they are not and, really, don't have the backgrounds to do the evaluations. E.g., they are not much like the problem sponsors at NSF, NIH, or DARPA or leaders of significant, advanced projects at major labs or businesses.

So, again, the VC business model is not following all the promising paths to success.

For me, this isn't about me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Sounds about right, but then who is buying all of those overpriced $2M cottages in Palo Alto in cash?

<comment><USER13> it takes relatively few sales to define pricing in a real estate market.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> > _If you really want to earn you need to be in the top 3-4 in the company. > Best to be a founder. Very few people can do this. It's a rare skill. Be > realistic about your skills, background and ideas._

As an addendum to this: be realistic what this means in terms of work-life balance or whatever you want to call it. Any executive position that lets you EARN will not only take up large chunks of your life but it will basically become your life. You will have to be available almost 24/7, you will be having phone conferences on the weekends, you will be checking your smartphone constantly, getting ready for meetings, you will be going through tons of paper, you will be having a LOT of unpleasant conversations with all sorts of people for all sorts of reasons. And you will have to put up with the particular kind of people these positions of power typically attract. And remember, the further at the top, the lonelier it gets and especially in large organizations you will have to protect yourself from all sorts of politics and other shenanigans. There is a reason burn-out, heart attack and psychological issues are so extremely prevalent amongst managers.

So before you do make that decision to EARN, you should talk to friends or other people in similar positions and get a feel for what their whole life is like - then decide if that's for you. Money is one thing but what is that nice little place in an exotic country worth when you die from a heart attack at age 50 or 60?

(source: my best friend's partner holds an executive position for an S&P500 company; another friend took over the successful family business)

<comment><USER15> Sounds exactly like consulting, or the experience of friends who have worked as startup employees (all the work with few of the perks).</comment></comment>