Enough with the movements - <AUTHOR> http://codemanship.co.uk/parlezuml/blog/?postid=1101

<comment><USER2> > When I flick through my textbooks from my physics degree course, they don't > read as a series of cultural movements within the physics community. What is > true is true.

Wrong book. Try looking at a history of science. You definitely see the same sort of behavior. A good place to start is Kuhn's _The Structure of Scientific Revolutions_. If anything, science is worse because the cycles are longer. As Max Planck wrote: "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

<comment><USER3> agreed.

 _> When I flick through my textbooks from my physics degree course, they don't read as a series of cultural movements within the physics community. What is true is true._

This is actually something that is done deliberately, because the situations, conditions, debates, culture etc.etc. are seen as a distraction from the main objective- to learn physics. The actual history of science is more revolutionary than what many might think- sure there are no wars; but the paradigm shifts that follow the introduction of new ideas is what I would call revolutionary (Interestingly, I believe the term 'revolutionary idea' came about after the discovery of the heliocentric nature of the solar system; i.e the idea that earth goes in 'revolutions' around the sun rather than it being stationary)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I disagree.

There's a huge confusion between the movement as a whole, and the movement at the individual level. What exactly is stupid: the fact that some people sell bullshit seminars about a new fancy programming paradigma or the fact that some people try to improve themselves by looking at the new tools out there?

Movements are just the inevitable by-product of an underlying phenomenon: people are attracted to the next shiny things. Note that I said "people", not just Hackers/Programmers. Actually, a lot of the hype around the new tools does not come just from the Programmers, but is carried by management as buzzwords.

But complaining about "movement" misses the point. Those who currently wrap these concepts around layers of bullshit in order to sell books and certifications are not going to stop doing it anytime soon. Should we stop buying the books? Well that would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. As the OP said, there often is a kernel of truth in these new methods, and although it is annoying for us to have to skim through all that noise, I don't think that ignoring everything new is the right thing to do.

"...very little of what I've learned that's genuinely important wasn't known about and written about before I was even born."

The problem here is to know what is genuinely important. I guess the only thing that's genuinely important is what makes a turing machine: the rest is just some extra layers. But detail matters a lot. The reason why there are so many different languages / paradigmas is because different tools are more adapted to different problems. I'm not a big fan of OOP, and I never use it ... unless I think that it is absolutely obvious that objects are the right thing to do (which is pretty rare).

</comment><comment><USER5> > _We've made it much more complicated than it needs to be. It's a lot like > physics or chess (both set-theoretic constructs where simple rules can give > rise to high complexity, just like code): sure, it's hard, but that's not > the same as complicated._

I'm on board with the movements sucking part, but the "more complicated" argument is a strawman. Chess and physics are completely different from software engineering. Chess is different because the goal is strictly defined. Physics is different because it's attempting to describe a set of timeless, immutable and readily observable truths about the physical universe.

The problem with software engineering is that experimentation is very difficult. You can come up with all kinds of theories, but they are impossible to test in any kind of objective or reproducible fashion. Plus, even if you come up with something that seems universally true, it's not universally applicable. For instance, we know that NASA's dev process produces fewer bugs than other processes, but at a cost that's several orders of magnitude higher than typical business software development. In practice you care about concrete ROI and tradeoffs, so you might be interested in knowing whether unit testing or very strict static typing (eg. Haskell) is more reliable at preventing bugs. But even if you had unlimited time and resources to analyze all possibilities, I think you'd find it's heavily dependent on the type of software you're writing, and the types and applications of software are not stable or categorizable.

In short, software is not more complex, it's just less constrained. Software engineering is more like mathematics than chess, and more like economics than physics.

<comment><USER6> It's not even about being complicated, the flaw in the argument lies in "What is true is true. If we keep testing it and it keeps working, then the insights hold."

It's essentially the difference between science and engineering, and why so many people who are good scientists have trouble being good engineers. What is true today may not be true tomorrow when people are involved. Engineering is applied science. Applied by who? People.

The human brain is the universe for us, and it's not nearly as static as the universe that scientists work in. Brains learn, they adapt, they get bored and lazy, sometimes they make irrational decisions. They act differently depending on if/where the brain went to school, and what it had for lunch, and what the economy looks like, and how shiny an object is. That's what we're dealing with, and why there are so few "truths" in the field.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> This is not too long, and it's definitely worth reading. Here are some highlights:

        ... at the core of every movement, there's a little kernel of almost
        universal truth ... become enshrouded in a shitload of meaningless
        gobbledygook ... miss the underlying point completely

        ... there also tends to be a small kernel of software developers who
        actually get it.

        True evolution and progress in software development ... will require
        us to drop the brands, dump the fads and the fashions, and focus on
        what we know ...

<comment><USER8> Sturgeon's Law again. The way it works, is that a small core of people understand an idea, an aesthetic, a new mental system, and they create real value with it. However, the reputation of the new thing grows into hype, which is then exploited for marketing purposes.

The thing to do, is to focus on real value. That's hard sometimes and very natural other times. What empiricism works in software?

<comment><USER9> Or, since it's universally market forces which are responsible for this corruption, block them from being able to profit off the idea.

<comment><USER8> The problem there, is that the same dynamics occur with non-monetary compensation. (Or indirect monetary compensation.)

<comment><USER9> >same dynamics occur with non-monetary compensation

In my experience, at least with Open Source Soft/hardware, this does not appear to be the case. Are you referring to a particular study or incident?

<comment><USER8> Non-monetary (direct) compensation: Some entity gets famous doing something which they're not paid for, but parlays the fame into economic gain.

FOSS example of notoriety (non-monetary compensation) later resulting in money: GCC has some benchmarks that are better than vendor compilers. Companies that use GCC start paying to improve it. The thing is, GCC is pretty good, and deserves its good reputation.

However, the notion of "Open Source" itself has been subject to hype.

<http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-10295530-16.html>

[http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2006/05/25/beyond_the_...](http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2006/05/25/beyond_the_open_source_hype)

I think the marketing and dumbing down phenomenon has happened with languages. However, there, proprietary software also fares worse. You may have a point.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Comparing software engineering to physics isn't entirely a fair comparison. While there is a solid basis for scientific principles, there is a lot of art in software engineering.

I would say that software engineering is actually closer to architecture. Architecture has a solid basis built on science (otherwise the buildings won't stay up!), but a lot of it is being constantly refined through various movements. I don't think that its that surprising that software engineering got design patterns from architecture!

</comment><comment><USER11> The comparison with physics is interesting. If you look at physics (or science) before Bacon it could be considered as a set of movements and people 'believed' things. Post Bacon and the Baconian method people tested and verified. This had the effect of unifying people behind testable facts.

Maybe Software Engineering is waiting for it's own Francis Bacon. Software Engineering is a young 'science' and the natural sciences went many hundreds of years before their watershed moment.

Of course then their is the argument that Software Engineering is a misnomer altogether and in fact it's an art/craft and well art is filled with movements all of which are untestable and (in)valid to the same extent.

Personally I think that Software Engineering is hard and most people are not up to the challenge and they latch on to movements as a safety net. Actual (real world) Engineers are weeded out during training in universities. We seem to let anyone call themselves a Software Engineer/Programmer and to be honest a lot of the ones I meet are well below par.

</comment><comment> a-priori _My question is, do we need movements? When I flick through my textbooks from my physics degree course, they don't read as a series of cultural movements within the physics community. What is true is true. If we keep testing it and it keeps working, then the insights hold._

"Movements" or "schools of thought" are common in one form or another. It happened in psychology with Freudian, Neo-Freudian, Behaviourism, and finally the Cognitive revolution, which transitioned into the modern merging of psychology and neuroscience. It also happened in mathematics with the Liebniz vs. Newtonian schools of calculus, and countless times through the entire history of philosophy.

When future people look back at the state of Physics in the 20th century to the present, I think they'll see it too with the split between relativistic physics and quantum mechanics as an explanation for how the universe works.

I'm sure there are countless other examples. My point is that this isn't unique to computing. It's a common phase for a field to go through -- perhaps every field does at the beginning. Some fields transition out of this state and become stable, with a kernel of very solid principles and new development around the periphery. Others, like philosophy, are stuck in this state seemingly indefinitely. That kernel never develops.

The only question is when will it end in computing? What will that kernel be?

</comment><comment><USER12> As an 'amateur developer', when I read articles about these new 'movements' I often wonder about the authors who write them. All I ever think is "Wow, this person must have a really cool job with awesome, care-free managers who don't mind letting their staff run wild with the latest and greatest framework/language."

When I picture a proper, professional, employed software developer, I think of somebody who follows a "Right tool for the job. Go with what you know. Don't get caught up in the razzle dazzle" kind of philosophy/attitude.

Just seems like a lot of people in the industry don't always think this way, and I often wonder where/how they actually put these fantastic new technologies to use in the real world.

</comment><comment><USER13> Great article, but one caveat:

The underlying concepts in computer science ARE simple, but the problem is that your average developer deals less with them and more with higher level concepts. In fact, you might argue that at this point computer science is ALL about the complexities we have introduced. We are not writing assembly anymore, and we kind of have to deal with the unfortunate reality that computer science is going to be needlessly complex for some time to come, thanks to poor (or lack of) standardization (yes, I would throw every web standard in this bucket). Needless to say though, I agree that we should find a way to simplify things (if that is possible).

</comment><comment><USER14> the problem is that you are, IMHO mistakenly, conflating at least thee different things: movements, the subject matter and business around them.

Movements are _not_ about the subject matter or the business that develops around it but about _people_ who are interested in the subject matter. Movements are about how those people interacts and go about discovering, leaning, improving and interacting.

As such stating that they are stupid is...errr..stupid and kind of shows that in this case you are doing exactly the same mistake you are (correctly) complaining about: you don't know enough about the body of knowledge called Anthropology that came before you.

also: just because you don't see the movements in sciences like physics doesn't mean they are not there. You are comparing an extremely young thing (software engineering/CS) with sciences that have been going for centuries (and more). You need to study the history of science in order to be able to see the movements over the centuries (and it's plausible that after a few centuries movements become slower/longer)

</comment><comment><USER15> The usefulness of each movement isn't that they're right in themselves. It's that when the hype has faded, and they wash out again, the landscape they leave is different. If they're successful, half of what they advocated is seen as hyperbole, and half of it is taken as common sense.

</comment><comment><USER16> I use all of these programming conventions and take them with a grain of salt. To say they're stupid is stupid.

I understand there are movements behind these conventions, but I wouldn't say these conventions are stupid.

</comment><comment><USER17> so what are the core things? some suggestions:

\- indirection

\- abstract data types

\- awareness / isolation of mutable state

\- choosing the time of evaluation

what else? i am trying to get the fundamental, simple issues that underly "movements" or allow us to manage complexity (many gof "design patterns" seem to reduce to the above, for example). although i am not sure what movements encapsulate the above...

</comment><comment><USER18> The software industry today is where the medical industry was 200 years ago. We still have a long way to go and a lot of movements to look forward to.

</comment><comment><USER19> Is there a list somewhere of concrete things that we know about software engineering?</comment>


Why startups are leaving Silicon Valley - <AUTHOR> https://www.economist.com/leaders/2018/08/30/why-startups-are-leaving-silicon-valley <comment><USER3> Many of us from early on argued that SV had no vision. Yes, there are a lot of people who think they are some kind of "visionaries", and perhaps on some narrow areas of focus they are. But, if it had a real vision it would have foreseen the growth problems and it would have united to solve it.

There is a lot of money sitting at Apple, Google, and the rest. They could have easily use their weight, reach and influence to envision and build an entire tech city community. It's not that hard.

If a few lobbyist in DC can send the country into all kinds of wars, why can't SV companies use their weight to do something that can resolve this problem. It makes perfect business sense to me.

Instead, we get apartments build adjacent to CalTrain to act as sound insulation or they would not get approved. This is ridiculous.

To have a habitable area with a decent quality of life, you need all types of workforce. Teachers, restaurant workers, gardeners, etc. Where are these people going to live? When you see some houses filled with 7-8 occupant because they can't afford rent, you know this is not sustainable.

I've lived in the Bay Area since 1991. These days, for my work, I spend a lot of time working with our remote team in Minsk, Belarus. The thought of coming back each time to SV is distressful if it wasn't for the loved ones back home. There are many tech guys here in Belarus who dream of coming to SV. I remind them their quality of life is far far better than what they would get in SV.

So unless we get some true leadership in SV, that has a vision of making the Bay Are more habitable instead of trying to think about how to colonize Mars, this is going to get worse. The once almost utopian Bay Area is becoming rather dystopian.

<comment><USER4> For all I know, Belarus is an amazing place to live, but there are real economic factors. The GDP of Belarus is ~$47 billion ($4,989 per capita). That's about the same total economic output as Albuquerque, NM or Knoxville, TN (each of which achieve their numbers with about 10 times fewer people than Belarus (meaning, of course, that the per capita GDP in those cities is also about 10x)).

Americans wildly underestimate the economic power of the United States. There are dozens of "small" U.S. metros that match the productivity of Belarus.

And those are the small metros. There are dozens more totally ignored "flyover dumps" \-- think Cleveland, St. Louis, Kansas City, Columbus, etc -- with GDPs 3 or 4 or 5 times that of Belarus.

And only then do you get to an "irrelevant, dying" place like Detroit, whose GDP is ~$280 billion (about 6x that of Belarus).

Most of these comparisons shouldn't ever leave the gate.

<comment><USER5> I hate comparisons like this; purchasing power parity GDP is much different and much more useful for comparisons than raw GDP. "National purchasing power parity income" is the old timey comparison that actually measures what you want to measure. Otherwise you're mostly just comparing how cheap the rent is in Belarus.

<comment><USER4> I agree with you. I grabbed a crude, available measure. But my argument stands by most ways of measuring (and the one I chose, while crude, doesn't tell us _nothing_ , despite what some of the commenters here suggest).

It's more difficult to find PPP data for cities than it is states, but here's the latter:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_between_U.S._states...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_between_U.S._states_and_countries_by_GDP_\(PPP\))

And for Belarus:

[https://tradingeconomics.com/belarus/gdp-per-capita- ppp](https://tradingeconomics.com/belarus/gdp-per-capita-ppp)

You're right to notice that it's a better measure, but it still favors the spirit of my argument.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Since at least the early 2000s, every few years, we get the "why companies are leaving SV" or "SV is dying" or "tech center is moving to X, Y, Z". Northern virginia was supposed to depose a while ago. Then it was Austin. And yet, SV is still SV. And the same reasons are given. High cost of living, income tax, etc as if SV hasn't been expensive for a while now and they recently boosted taxes.

You can almost set your clock to SV's downfall and of course the monthly "collapse of china" stories.

As long as tech's most valuable asset is human capital and as long as stanford and the universities in california, oregon, washington, etc produce top talent, SV doesn't have much to worry about. As long as california and its natural wonders and the magnificent pacific ocean is around, it'll keep drawing top talent from around the country.

<comment><USER7> Reminds me of "Nobody goes there anymore. It's too crowded."

> 46% of respondents say they plan to leave the Bay Area in the next few years

But they are not leaving empty houses - they are selling them for millions as the world's would be movers and shakers move in.

<comment><USER8> > But they are not leaving empty houses - they are selling them for millions > as the world's would be movers and shakers move in.

Er, not necessarily:

> Last year more Americans left the county of San Francisco than arrived.

Now, granted, that could be a very specific piece of datum and either of the following could still be true:

1) When you include more than just "Americans" the net influx is still positive

2) Even if they're moving out of SF county, maybe they're just moving to, say, Alameda county

But nonetheless that is an interesting tidbit.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I have always found it ironic that many of the very people who created the modern Internet, and have sold the world on the transformational possibilities of connecting with each other through it, also believe that one must physically be in Silicon Valley to succeed in their own industry. A founder's desire to start a company that could reasonably be run from anywhere in one of the world's most expensive areas should turn off investors, not attract them - and this is happening with more frequency as Bay Area costs escalate. If those within the Valley bubble want to remain relevant to the startup scene in the coming decades, they would be wise to leverage some of their own tools to provide those outside the bubble with greater access to the resources within it.

<comment><USER10> Salaries high in SV. Talent goes to SV for high salary. Companies go to SV to seek talent.

<comment><USER9> When cost of living for a quality of life that is equivalent to almost any other area (e.g. not having 8 roommates on a $150k salary) is taken into consideration, SV salaries actually pale in comparison to those in other areas.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> circles_for-day People love to point out the problems in that area and say SV will evaporate. I just moved from sf to a city that's in the top 3 for venture capital.

The job opportunities, talent, networks, and standards of code here are so much lower I wouldn't have believed it if somebody had told me.

Maybe some startups are leaving but I'd move back if I had a startup. It's a lot of small ponds out here

<comment><USER11> Power structures shift in recessions. The political and economic seeds of a shift are being planted, by outgoing migration, investment and political support. These things have a habit of slowly drifting before coming to a loud succession of socioeconomic bangs within the months following a recession.

<comment><USER12> Interesting. Can u elaborate further? What will be end result??

<comment><USER13> Probably a moderate recession. SV will still be the place for startups, but it's costs have reached a rather high and probably unsustainable level.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> The real question is why haven't they been leaving sooner? With the power of telecommunications and the cost of doing business/living there.... it just doesn't make sense to me for a startup to try and grow there.

<comment><USER15> > it just doesn't make sense to me for a startup to try and grow there.

When you have access to limitless amounts of capital that prefers to deploy that capital in it's backyard, then yes it does make sense.

<comment><USER16> That's the part I'm always surprised by: the capital seems to continue preferring to pour a bunch of excess money into landlords' pockets rather than open little offices in other cities, fly to meetings a bit more often, or do more business by video conference.

<comment><USER14> Maybe they ARE the landlords!!?!?! :P

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> The long-standing prohibition of non-compete agreements in California is really the X factor in why it continues to be the innovation juggernaut. So many startups here are the result of founders capitalizing on some element of their experience at prior employers. And the ability to hire top talent away from direct competitors also provides a significant advantage for rising startups.

Even if other states pass legislation to end non-competes (as MA has tried to do a few times), it will take time for regional business culture to adapt. I've worked for a few East coast tech firms where company loyalty is taken very seriously, and defectors were semi-publicly shamed even if not outright sued for violating a non-compete.

<comment><USER18> I dont buy this.

Nobody Ive ever met gives a shit about non-competes. They aren't really enforceable unless you blatantly steal or copy work.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> From the conversations I've had and from my own experience I think the ludicrous real estate cost is a larger factor than this article implies.

It's tolerable if you're a just out of college bachelor/ette, but if you want to have a bit more space (let alone a family) you pretty much have to leave unless you've gotten rich. Even for young people if you do the math your big Bay Area salary actually doesn't get you ahead as much as a slightly lower salary in a much lower cost of living city. Your whole paycheck goes to the landlord.

A secondary factor caused by real estate hyperinflation is that all the stuff that once made the SF Bay Area so interesting has been priced out. I remember the Bay Area in the 1990s. It was a hub not just of tech but of art, music, and culture. It was a magical in a way that's hard to explain today, and I say this as someone who only visited. My main experience of it was from the culture and "vibe" it exported. All that is gone now. It's a glorified office park. Why spend so much to live there if it's no different from any other city?

<comment><USER20> "Even for young people if you do the math your big Bay Area salary actually doesn't get you ahead as much as a slightly lower salary in a much lower cost of living city."

But that's the point: the difference in rent is much smaller than the difference in market salaries.

"Your whole paycheck goes to the landlord."

If you're an engineer with a $150k salary, which is at the low end for most companies you've heard of that have offices in the Bay Area, then it's very unlikely you spend anything close to your whole paycheck on rent.

<comment><USER21> Average rent in SF is $3,442. If you want it a bit fancier we're talking about $4,377 for a two bedroom appartment. [1]

In your 150k example you're using 1/3rd of your salary just for rent (assuming you get 150k, net).

[1] [https://www.rentcafe.com/average-rent-market- trends/us/ca/sa...](https://www.rentcafe.com/average-rent-market- trends/us/ca/san-francisco/)

<comment><USER20> So let's assume you can reduce your rent from $50k/year to $20k/year.

That's a saving of $30k/year, or maybe $40k/year before tax.

From what I understand from reading comments here, salaries in places with lower cost of living are not just $40k/year less, but much much less.

And for those earning more than $150k, the math works out even more in favour of the Bay Area, as the % drop in salary goes up with salary, whereas the $40k rent difference doesn't.

<comment><USER22> Rent is just the tip of the iceberg, you also have higher taxes, higher entertainment costs, etc. Also, even with a >$200k salary, buying a decent home without a brutal commute can be hard.

If you don't mind living in a rented room or commuting >1hr a day and shop exclusively at amazon and costco, the bay area is a great opportunity to save money.

<comment><USER20> "Also, even with a >$200k salary, buying a decent home without a brutal commute can be hard."

If you're a software your aim is to buy a decent home in $US_CITY at some point, the easiest way to come up with large downpayment is to work in the Bay Area for a few years. You don't have to live in the Bay Area forever.

<comment><USER23> You can do that. But to a large extent you are giving things up for that money. Being close to your family, or cultivating friendships have value. So does many other things. I get why people do it, especially since alternatives hard to come by, but it is still a bit of a tragedy. Or at least not ideal.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I think the "shift" that's most interesting is this one:

> Alphabet and Facebook pay their employees so generously that startups can > struggle to attract talent

I've heard anecdotally from quite a few people that this has made hiring incredibly difficult - as those comp packages continue to increase the math just doesn't work out for a startup employee _even if there 's a generous exit for the employees_.

Not that the comp at FAANG was ever _bad_ , just that it's gotten so much better over the past few years (undoubtedly helped by a huge bull market) that golden handcuffs have really put a drain on the startup hiring scene - <USER2> in cities where those companies have large offices or are growing considerably.

Further, supposedly anyway, as those companies become larger and larger and need more people it's become less difficult to get in the door there.

<comment><USER24> FANG can only hire, what, 10% of all currently-employed engineers. Additionally, their hiring processes are notoriously capricious. Unless startups are exclusively targeting the same 10%, I don't see how that has a significant impact.

<comment><USER8> > FANG can only hire, what, 10% of all currently-employed engineers

That number is probably growing over time (as the article alludes to).

I mean, just take a look at how many positions Netflix alone is hiring for:

[https://jobs.netflix.com/teams/engineering](https://jobs.netflix.com/teams/engineering)

> Additionally, their hiring processes are notoriously capricious.

Supposedly, this is also changing as their demands are growing and they've had to "lower the bar", so-to-speak.

<comment><USER24> > That number is probably growing over time (as the article alludes to).

I don't see them growing that fast, nor do I see all that growth being in the US. Companies can only grow so fast or they end up hurting themselves.

Additionally, I have been seeing an increasing nber of online anecdotes about Google and Facebook rejecting candidates who passed the interviews because there was no head count at their level.

> I mean, just take a look at how many positions Netflix alone is hiring for:

112 is less than a rounding error when there are well over a million people currently employed in some sort of software development position.

> Supposedly, this is also changing as their demands are growing and they've > had to "lower the bar", so-to-speak.

I haven't personally seen any evidence of this, and every time their processes come up for discussion here there seems to be no end of defenders of these practices.

<comment><USER8> > 112 is less than a rounding error when there are well over a million people > currently employed in some sort of software development position.

But there aren't over a million people employed in software development in the bay area (where those jobs are located) - that number is closer to 60-90K [1]. Not to mention that those are 112 job postings, not positions. It's likely that many of those roles have more than 1 headcount allocated (e.g. "Senior Video Engineer").

Regardless, ultimately the question isn't "what % of software jobs are at FAANG companies?" it's "For every 100 software developer hires in the bay area, what % are at FAANG companies and is that % increasing over time?"

It may be true that the answer to the first question is "a minority", but it can also be true that the answer to the second question is "yes, at an appreciable rate".

> I haven't personally seen any evidence of this, and every time their > processes come up for discussion here there seems to be no end of defenders > of these practices.

As a minor-but-concrete example: I've heard that Google is starting to de- emphasize whiteboards and giving candidates Chromebooks to code on instead.

As a more gossip-y example: I've definitely heard that a few of the larger tech companies, as they've started to acquire more and more, have allowed the acquired teams to maintain control of their hiring process with some token changes. The result I've heard is that the interview process with some of these acquired teams is... less rigorous, and largely ignored by the parent company (even if they say otherwise).

I'm hesitant to draw a trend from some anecdotes, but I can say for certain that I interviewed for a position with one of those acquired companies a couple years back and the interview process was much easier than I anticipated (though I ultimately didn't take the position).

1: [https://www.quora.com/How-many-software-engineers-work-in- Si...](https://www.quora.com/How-many-software-engineers-work-in-Silicon- Valley-and-NYC)

<comment><USER25> Google does give you the option of using a Chromebook with a really basic text editor on it, but it's the same whiteboard problems they want you to solve. There just isn't the friction of having to hand write code on a whiteboard.

From my experience, they only care that you can recall individual lectures from a sophomore-level college class. More rigorous, yes, but I'm not sure about harder. You can memorize CTCI and ace the interview, because that's the only thing they do during the onsite.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> The reason they didn't leave sooner? The "Beehive Effect".

Paul Graham said it in one of his essays, Steve Jobs in an interview.

Essay: [http://www.paulgraham.com/siliconvalley.html](http://www.paulgraham.com/siliconvalley.html) Interview: [https://youtu.be/PinOL79U2bg](https://youtu.be/PinOL79U2bg)

</comment><comment><USER27> In the last few months I've come to appreciate Amazon's vision here. Amazon, as I'm sure we all know, is conducting a search for their HQ2 location. I, like many others, suspect they always knew where they wanted to put it but they're playing this game to see what concessions and tax breaks they can extract from state and local governments. Perhaps an offer other than their intended location will be so good they'll change their mind but honestly I'd be surprised.

I've come to realize this is genius for two reasons:

1\. Amazon is pitting governments against each other. This sort of thing is a well-known and well-trodden path so it's nothing new but the real genius part is:

2\. Once Amazon has two headquarters they're no longer at the mercy of the city of Seattle and the state of Washington.

Let me elaborate: take Google, which is heavily invested in Mountain View. Essentially the Mountain View City Council has them where they want them. Google wants to stay in MTV (and, more importantly, expand in MTV) so whatever taxes and conditions the council wants to put on them, well they kind of have to suck it up.

The latest of these is MTV forbidding free food in new campuses because it hurts local business.

Now Google has obviously expanded well beyond MTV at this point (Redwood City, San Antonio Boulevard, Sunnyvale, San Jose, San Francisco). But these are less than ideal solutions. Move a team from MTV to Sunnyvale and you've added 10-20 minutes to the commute of everyone living in SF. Getting around "campus" requires a transit system all of its own.

Compare this to Amazon's future position: if Seattle decides to put an onerous (from Amazon's position) tax or set of conditions on them they can simply say "we'll expand our other campus instead". So they're not beholden to one town or city like the SV giants are (specifically Mountain View, Cupertino and Menlo Park).

I really wish the SV giants would take this approach.

Also, as others have mentioned, the cost of living for those not fortunate enough to be in tech is horrendous in SV. You can blame small-minded NIMBYist towns and voters for this if you like but (IMHO) that's shortsighted. By continuing to exist there and expand there the giants are supporting those anti-progressive positions.

At some point you're either part of the solution or part of the problem and (IMHO) continuing to expand in SV makes you part of the problem.

<comment><USER28> The contrast is Redmond. Microsoft has a great relationship with the city, and so tend to concentrate its development there and a few nearby satallites.

<comment><USER29> Right, but that's because Microsoft hasn't seen the kind of explosive growth that Amazon has so it's easier to plan. Also they've been around a lot longer.

<comment><USER28> Microsoft has seen explosive growth beyond amazon, its Redmond campus keeps growing and is a small suburban city by now. But they did it (a) over a decade or two and (b) without much other competition in the area.

<comment><USER29> You seem to be contradicting yourself: how is growth over 2 decades "explosive"?

<comment><USER28> Really, even a town growing to that size over two decades would be considered explosive. And it hasn't stopped, at all.

The difference between 1998 and 2008 alone is incredible.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Am I missing something, or does this article entirely lack any substantiation of the claim made by its title beyond noting that Miami is ranked first in startup activity and Peter Thiel is moving to LA? The only stat about anything actually leaving the Valley is a survey about people intending to move out of the Bay Area that doesn't elaborate on the demographics of the respondents (are they tech workers or non-tech workers trying to escape costs?).

I think the thesis is roughly accurate - tech companies are less dependent on being in SV for success than any time in a reasonably long time, I just don't see much hard evidence backing it up in this particular piece.

</comment><comment><USER31> The article says three things:

"The reasons for this shift are manifold, but chief among them is the sheer expense of the Valley. The cost of living is among the highest in the world.... The problem is that the wider playing-field for innovation is also being levelled down. One issue is the dominance of the tech giants."

And third, government policies on immigration and education.

</comment><comment><USER32> If we assume that the premise here is correct (there is some amount of exodus of technical talent from SV), isn't it still a good thing? My impression is that the result of having all the major tech companies located in one region is the development of a tech cultural bubble. The current tech industry has a hard time understanding and relating to the rest of the country/world. Wouldn't we all be better off if they spread out a bit such that they could better represent the entirety of the world?

</comment><comment><USER11> The number one thing Silicon Valley had and lost is the narrative thrust of playing the good guy. The inequality, sexism, racial monoculture, NIMBYism, political indifference, disregard for civil liberties and shift from technological exuberance to something much shallower has large fractions of the country and world hoping some smug faces smack hard into the mud. That's not healthy, and out of all the possible solutions, diluting away the Valley's power seems like the best outcome.

<comment><USER33> What racial monoculture?

<comment><USER34> I hope they aren't suggesting that it's all white.

It's not unusual, particularly when discussing race in the US, for people of Indian, Chinese or Korean descent to, somehow, not count. I used to consider it borderline racist. I've since removed the borderline bit.

<comment><USER33> As a Pakistani-American, that's what I was driving at, yes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Although not mentioned, I'm also seeing a split between startups as defined by YC: VC-funded fast-growth vs. startups who are comfortable with a slower, smaller path resulting in a bootstrapped lifestyle company. If you don't want VC money, then the downsides of SV simply aren't worth the trouble.

<comment><USER36> It also depends on your definition of "tech." SV tends to self-referentially define tech as "what we do a lot of in SV" (i.e. web/social/mobile--plus infrastructure tech that comes out of that). There are a lot of other areas like biotech, fintech and even automotive (Tesla, Waymo notwithstanding) that are concentrated elsewhere.

</comment></comment><comment> ur-whale An article on startups leaving the Valley, and not a single mention of California having one of the highest income tax rate and highest real estate priced market in the US?

I think they're missing the point.

<comment><USER11> > _not a single mention of California having one of the highest income tax > rate and highest real estate priced market in the US?_

From the article:

"The reasons for this shift are manifold, but chief among them is the sheer expense of the Valley...the cost of living is among the highest in the world..."

<comment><USER37> > among the highest in the world

but its not in the top 10

[https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2018/03/15/asian- an...](https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2018/03/15/asian-and-european- cities-compete-for-the-title-of-most-expensive-city)

<comment><USER38> 2 things with that survey:

1\. It said American cities had fallen because of dollar weakness, which means it sounds like they're comparing based on exchange rates instead of purchasing power parity. Obviously for people paid in dollars in those cities, a weaker dollar doesn't make anything cheaper.

2\. A lot of those expensive cities, especially in Europe, have much better social services. So Oslo may be very expensive and taxes sky high, but families there aren't worried about how to put their kids through college or how to pay for medical expenses.

<comment> village-idiot You really have to compare cost over the entire life cycle, the effect of social services, financial regulations, tax rates, etc. will vastly differ between the very young and the very old.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> The reality on the ground is more nuanced then this, and one should be careful not to treat either tech or startups as uniform categories. I would frame the situation as _some broad classes_ of both tech and startups have migrated to other cities and established critical masses elsewhere, but not tech and startups as a whole. If you work in one of those areas of tech, the action may not be in Silicon Valley. A prominent example of this is Seattle and cloud tech. Other areas of tech, like AI, are regionally diffuse currently.

I do think the gravity of Silicon Valley, while immense, has weakened over time but being expensive is a marginal factor. Most of the oft-touted alternatives like Seattle are also expensive. As the scale of the tech industry has increased, random concentrations in the distribution of tech development has simply created critical masses in other cities in some key domains, giving them a sustained competitive advantage. These are not engineered outcomes but the organic confluence of conditions and events. No one planned to turn Seattle into Cloud City but it happened anyway, and you can see this dynamic becoming more prominent in the US tech scene at large. Most stuff still happens in Silicon Valley but the likelihood of diverse tech randomly achieving critical mass elsewhere has increased.

</comment><comment><USER40> Who cares outside of the valley? The average tech worker can find a good job in just about any city in the world nowadays. Startups are some of the worst places to work but tech penetration is so deep, established companies that need tech work and have decent working conditions are everywhere. Why pay the insane costs in the valley when so many other options are available? As far as innovation, that's just a small percentage of companies and often it happens at established companies. Given the cost of living (sky high) and quality of life (mediocre at best) in the valley, I'd say it's one of the worst places to be a tech worker. It is a good place to start one's career for a few years as it really makes one appreciate working at a decent company rather than the startup insanity culture in the valley. There are decent companies in the area, but they are hard to find due to the sheer number of mismanaged startups and scams. The valley falling out of prominence is great news for the rest of the country and the rest of the world, if it's true.

</comment><comment><USER41> Because people "in the forefront of technology" realized they don't need to be all cramped in the same overcrowded area?

</comment><comment><USER42> There is not one single mention in the article of one of the probable causes, which is the rise of remote work.

And much of the technical cloud infrastructure that allows companies to operate remotely has been built in Silicon Valley itself, so in a sense, they are one of the main contributors to solving the problem of urban overpopulation, in the Valley or elsewhere.

</comment><comment><USER43> Come on down to Texas! We have no state taxes, a business-friendly government, and we even have an ocean (well, a gulf anyway).

<comment><USER44> But it's hot as fuck...

I grew up there. Every single person I'm blood related to lives there. I could never move back. If I ever leave SF, it'll only be to go somewhere equally temperate.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> I live in the Bay Area, so maybe it's only outside that it's used, but I have never heard anything like the term "Off Silicon Valleying". Googling it only turns up results about TJ Miller leaving the HBO show. Has anyone ever heard it?

</comment><comment><USER45> I know of a large, well established corporation that _just_ decided to open an office in Silicon Valley. I was shocked and could not fathom why they would go to that expense to do so, when they could have just as easily done this in one of their established metropolitan or other less expensive areas.

Silicon Valley is special without a doubt, but does anyone here think it still makes sense to do such a thing? These days people with the skills needed are much more distributed and many are willing to move from Silicon Valley or other places for the right job and quality of life, at least what I have seen.

I suspect that company is going to spend a fortune for not much benefit.

</comment><comment><USER46> I'm curious if the cost of living is starting to take its toll on the risk taking that SV is famous for. IE: I can't quit my high paid FB job to start a new venture due to mortgage/rent etc.

<comment><USER47> No because of FU money and steady influx of young blood. More likely reason is salary costs are just too high for a lot of potentially viable businesses, but VC masks/distorts that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> Recently left Airbnb to start a new company in Washington DC. I'm reminded of my previous experience starting a company in London. As soon as we had success (exit) we moved to SF. All that's changed for me is that the $ threshold has gone up, but the principle is probably still true.

</comment><comment><USER49> I think the title should be "Why aren't more startups leaving Silicon Valley"

</comment><comment><USER50> Perhaps, as startups begin to solve average business problems in the current startup landgrab, those businesses exist everywhere and such startups can exist regionally.

</comment><comment><USER30> > Phoenix and Pittsburgh have become hubs for autonomous vehicles

Aren't the main players in those cities just AV offices of Bay Area headquartered companies?

</comment><comment><USER51> We need a killer app for collaboration. I think VR tech could solve this by building a shared IDE-space for pair programming.

<comment><USER52> There is a no-true-Scotsman position here. If you extrapolate from science fiction, there is a level of VR implementation that we can imagine, if not implement, that would enable distant collaboration with out the defects that are mentioned in the siblings of this comment. I feel that VR today cannot deliver enough to resemble Holodeck fidelity, more like .1 H, and maybe at least .5 H is needed.

Maybe pair programming needs less to be fluid enough to be beneficial.

<comment><USER51> It actually doesn't need to be, like, flashy 3D game stuff! It can just be a 360-degree screen-space that lets me have every file in the system open at once. The problem with pairing in 2D is there is only one cursor, and even if there were two cursors like google docs, there is not nearly enough screen real estate for us both to work at the same time. These are mostly 2D problems, but VR still solves them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> Well, this is isn't surprising to be honest.

</comment><comment><USER54> also dont forget that startups have started embracing remote development culture</comment>


Ask HN: Opening a bakery next month, need coffee machine advice. - <AUTHOR>

I know this is a very specific request but thought maybe someone knows about these things here. We want to serve espresso, lattes, and cappuccinos. I know next to nothing about finding a good machine. Any advice?<p>Thanks! <comment><USER2> The standard is LaMarzocco, <http://www.lamarzocco.com/>. Find a service provider that will come clean it for you regularly and do other maintenance included in the price. Ask the same question on <http://coffeegeek.com/>.

</comment><comment><USER3> Better coffee machines are more like pianos than appliances. Finding a good one is only half the equation (and maybe not even the important half). You're going to need to find someone who can play it. Its not a deep dark art like some coffee mystics will try to convince you, but it is something that takes a little experience, a little taste, and some good practice.

</comment><comment><USER4> Illy. Ebay. Hire someone who knows more about it than you do.

<comment><AUTHOR> I thought I might find someone here actually.

<comment><USER4> I hate to break this to you, but all those development platforms referencing coffee are just a front. Most developers know nothing about good coffee, but it's hard to pitch things named after herbal tea or beer.

Seriously, one place to look is a restaurant supply store/website, and a lot of them trade in used gear. you may even find some on Craigslist. But lots of people think running a coffee shop is super simple and then go out of business within the first 6 months. Food service of any kind is a tough business with pretty unforgiving economics. It's going to cost you anywhere from $2-600 just to open your door to the street each day, so the additional cost of hiring someone who knows what they're at might actually work out cheaper than learning the hard way.

Illy was the brand they had in the diner where I used to cook years ago, but I couldn't tell you about a specific model. It's good enough that customers will see it as a mark of quality and that's because the design hasn't changed much over the last few decades. In return it takes longer to clean and you're more likely to get a steam burn if you don't maintain it properly. If you've got free or absurdly cheap rent, then just read up for a while and then wing it, but if you're trying to start a small business then I'd say hire someone or else get a job somewhere for 6 weeks so you can learn the basics. Best of luck.

<comment><USER5> Yeah, this is great advice - the first person you hire is much more important than the coffee machine you buy.

About the machine: there's a ton of second-hand equipment in the market right now, so definitely contact two sources: restaurant supply companies if you want to do most of the word yourself, or a coffee distributer/servicer/supplier if you want an all-in-one solution - i.e. a company that brings you the coffee, cleans the machine, etc. AVOID CRAIGSLIST FOR THIS ONE.

The reason why there's a lot of second-hand machines out there is because, as said above, there are a LOT of food service companies that don't make it. Make sure you hire an excellent first employee, and have at least 8 months of operating expenses saved to cover your variable costs - that's after all the equipment has been purchased, improvements to your shop, etc.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: How to move from developer to support role? - <AUTHOR>

I've worked for a bit more than a year as a developer but recently transferred to a customer support role which still requires dev skills. I seem to be managing fine, but I'd like to have another resource besides experience to learn from. As a developer, I was used to having many reputable sources of information and experience at my disposal that I could rely on, such as official documentation, StackOverflow, HN and so on. Unfortunately, with "customer success" being as broad as it is, I see there is a lot more snake oil and buzzwords being thrown around, with no clear sources of truth or at least objectiveness to be found.<p>Has anyone else been in a similar situation (moving from dev to support)? What/where did you learn from, besides intuition and experience? <comment><USER2> Ah, Devops! Yes, I've been in a similar situation. I set up a support desk, writing documentation and certification tests for the new platform at my firm (also providing them a portal and a nifty sentinel program that got shelved) before moving to an architecture team. I was pretty much lead technologist for them. Here's the surprising part:

You make it up as you go.

OK, you don't really make it up. You take the lead, find out what the business needs and stakeholder needs are, attempt to apply relevant principles (which you'll discover as you go) to their logical conclusions, and yield only when there's pushback from your boss.

I was frequently given the responsibility of making people comply with the rules while being forced to ask for their permission as we went. I was nice. I was mean. I cajoled. I coerced.

Principles - all and sundry were applicable. I applied principles from business to technology to morals and ethics.

Principles of Unix Programming: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_philosophy#Eric_Raymond.E2...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_philosophy#Eric_Raymond.E2.80.99s_17_Unix_Rules)

The Principle of Least Privilege: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_least_privilege](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_least_privilege)

Dr. Dobbs has an article about effective devops - [http://www.drdobbs.com/architecture-and- design/top-10-practi...](http://www.drdobbs.com/architecture-and- design/top-10-practices-for-effective-devops/240149363) \- and IBM has a slightly different view: [http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/devops/practices.html](http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/devops/practices.html)

In general, Google for "best practices", "principles", "devops" and related terms. Always do the right thing, especially when your co-workers want to take the easy road, you'll set yourself apart from them. When asked to push code, read it and know what it does. When asked to review permissions changes, scrutinize it carefully, and ask questions. Write documentation. Know the process. Talk to the stakeholders. Update the documentation. Ask how it can be made better. Think hard, and answer that question.

<comment><USER2> Has anyone read this?

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> How ironic. I have the same question, but in reverse!</comment>


#TIMESNOTUP? The EFF's Unfortunate Defense of Sex Traffickers - <AUTHOR> https://firstname.lastname@example.com/timesnotup-the-effs-unfortunate-defense-of-sex-traffickers-cd64a1d898ee <comment><USER2> I'm with the EFF on this one. A law that among other things, can bring federal charges for mere facilitation of violating federal sex trafficking laws? "Facilitation" is a very broad legal standard that you'd be trusting the government to not abuse. The ends don't justify the means, and just because the law's intentions are virtuous does not mean we should trust the government by allowing laws that are overly broad and can be abused.

<comment><USER3> Uh, how is this "overly broad"? I'm not against prosecuting anything like this:

> knew that its website was being used to post ads for illegal prostitution > and child sex trafficking, and directly edited such ads to make their > illegality less conspicuous

From what I can tell, this is merely allowing stares to prosecute them, just like the federal.

<comment><USER4> In the past, 'facilitation' charges have frequently been used to bypass guidelines of "prosecute johns and pimps, not prostitutes".

Basic actions to make prostitution less dangerous, like "one prostitute rents an apartment and security guard, then splits the cost with a second prostitute" suddenly bring down facilitation charges on someone who would otherwise have been viewed as a victim. Similarly, there are a number of prostitutes who argue that Backpage has actually made them safer; they were going to work regardless but online arrangements have made it easier to screen clients.

(The child trafficking issue is very different, and I'm not really up to speed on Backpage's role in it.)

 _Reason_ has a good series on this whole mess; the short version is that good-looking laws end up incentivizing the most dangerous forms of prostitution like trafficking and streetwalking by punishing attempts at security, privacy, or client selection.

Obviously that's not the whole story; I'm also worried that 'facilitation' won't stay at the Backpage level and will eventually erode things like safe harbor laws. But even within the narrow domain of "helping prostitutes carry out their work", this sort of legislation has a history of harming innocents.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is a very... optimistic, let's say... view of a law which could be abused horribly were it to pass.

</comment><comment><USER6> Quite the screed. Unfortunately it doesn't try with any seriousness to address the actual harms the EFF states the law would cause. Not only that, given the regularity with which ostensibly Noble Laws With Pure Names Out To Save the World are, in fact, authoritarian or hand outs to the donor class, it would do well for people to be sceptical( Patriot Act, SOPA/PIPA, etc)

</comment><comment><USER7> Money quote:

 _[...] the EFF acknowledges that "Backpage knew that its website was being used to post ads for illegal prostitution and child sex trafficking, and directly edited such ads to make their illegality less conspicuous" but argues that Backpage should not be held accountable for those actions._

</comment><comment><USER8> Where do these people come from, they contribute nothing of real value to the world, and they attack some of the greatest champions of the people that we've ever known.</comment>


Zuckerberg: Keep the Talent Acquisitions Coming - <AUTHOR> http://gigaom.com/2010/10/07/zuckerberg-keep-the-talent-acquisitions-coming/ <comment><USER2> _The only real theme is that we haven't bought any companies yet to get the company. It's always been because we have a lot of respect for the people involved._

So basically, if you care about what your startup is trying to accomplish, don't sell to Facebook.

<comment><USER3> And from what I've heard, if you care about your investors you shouldn't either. Supposedly some of the deals have been structured such that only the founders get compensated. Essentially large signing bonuses.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Given Facebook essentially just creates a single product on a fairly unique platform there seems to be little chance that anything would really be directly integrated into there product.

I can see acquisitions in future that may be more centered around removing competition such as something like foursqaure if they rendered Facebook places relatively unused and possibly events type startups to push their events platform more.

</comment><comment><USER5> Couldn't help but notice the pg-ism "but it turns out most people don't use friend lists"</comment>


Don't Lose $2,000 to Comcast Business - <AUTHOR> http://www.kellegous.com/j/2015/01/09/beware-comcast-business/

<comment><USER2> I hate Comcast, but what an absolute load of nonsense:

> I asked her what I needed to do and her response left me stunned. She > explained that even though they were no longer able to uphold their part of > the contract, I would still needed to pay them.

YOU are moving. YOU are trying to change the terms of the agreement, not them. If you stay in your current home I'm sure they would happily continue to provide you service, so clearly you're the one altering the arrangement not Comcast.

Minimum terms are required since installation is typically free. However I will fully agree that 36 months is too long, and I'd never have agreed to it. I also think Comcast could have reduced the ETF, and it is bad customer service that they didn't at least give you a small break (given how excessively high the ETF was).

But 85% of the issues on that page are self inflicted. You agreed to the 36 months, you agreed to the wrong package, you moved to a non-serviceable area within the 36 months you agreed to, and now you are whining about it like it is someone else's fault.

Maybe it is about time you started taking some personal responsibility and actually reading what you sign before you sign it?

<comment><AUTHOR> The point is that changing the service location is not covered in the contract. I wrote the article to warn people that Comcast believes this is covered in the contract and will enforce it. So we fundamentally disagree here on whether I'm changing the terms of the agreement. Maybe my expectations are misguided, but I would expect that conditions where they do not give me service and I continue to pay (especially a common one like moving an office to a non-servicable area) it would be explicitly included in the ToS. This is the reason that I think warning people is a legitimate thing to do.

<comment><USER2> > I wrote the article to warn people that Comcast believes this is covered in > the contract and will enforce it

But they aren't enforcing the service location, they're enforcing your minimum term, which is covered in the contract. You can continue to receive service at the current service location if you wish. Instead you're trying to terminate the contract early.

> Maybe my expectations are misguided, but I would expect that conditions > where they do not give me service and I continue to pay (especially a common > one like moving an office to a non-servicable area) it would be explicitly > included in the ToS.

Then what happens if someone starts a new service, Comcast pays the installation costs, and then that individual moves a month later. Comcast would be out the full cost of the installation.

Now, 36 months is absolute greed on Comcasts part, I'm sure they recoup the cost of installation after less than a year. However in principle Comcast deserve to get reimbursed for the full cost of the installation regardless of if someone moves or not.

<comment><AUTHOR> I understand your perspective, but I still think this is a reasonable thing to warn people about.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> It's $2000 to break your contract. It is not really Comcast's fault that you are moving to an area they don't service, and if you want to cancel the contract you have to pay the fee. Makes total sense to me.

<comment><USER4> I agree with you. The contract had a minimum term, you got out of it by moving hence breaking the contract. It's no different than signing an apartment lease, You wouldn't be able to leave the city and expect to break the contract. How would Comcast know you weren't lying to get out of the contract. Based on what you said, it seems like you didn't read the contract nor did you research where you were moving to see if there was service. Lesson learned.

<comment><USER5> That is not true in California. The landlord is required to make a good faith effort to replace you as a tenant.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> So you moved out of the service area and complained that they could not continue to provide you service? And that you had signed a contract stating you would be provided service for 36 months?

<comment><USER7> You are right, but I think Comcast Business sits at a weird intersection between consumer and business. In a business context, for example, many dark fiber deals have terms this way - it is expected. I have suffered when a cross-country line with a long minimum term was no longer needed, but I knew what I was getting into. On the other hand, most people expect to get out of their home phone deal when they move.

The author made the mistake of applying the consumer-style assumptions to a business service. Comcast's sales tactics probably leverage this type of naivete. This was the warning I think he was aiming for.

<comment><USER6> There are plenty of analogues to the consumer world so I don't think there is any naivete to be taken advantage of. Cell phone contracts have pretty strict cancellation terms and I wouldn't expect "I'm moving to where you don't provide service" to have much more weight than "I don't want to have cell phone service anymore". I've had to eat the remaining cost on a gym membership contract when I moved away.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I agree you were screwed. But you were screwed because you didn't recognize that:

* contracts where you as have no negotiation leverage to change the terms of the deal - are always bad.

* business-to-consumer contracts are always set up to maximize the screwage. The contracts were written by Comcast's lawyers to protect Comcast.

* lawyers (that you hire) are your friend.

I have had to sign screwage contracts. In my case it was with a NY bank ( I am in California ). My California lawyer took one look at the contract and knew exactly which state the contract was written in based on the screwage language.

His statement was that if a contract is so completely one-sided, that often times a judge will disallow parts of the contract.

Steps:

1\. Determine what is the realistic amount ( absence of emotion that can be justified as fair ):

      1. I would suggest a pro-rata amount (months left in contract) / 36 * $2K

      2. Determine cost of just maintaining the non-existent service. (vs. paying the $2K) i.e. how many months of service is $2K equivalent to?

      3. Make offer of about 75% the above number ( they will want to negotiate up )

      4. What is your range that is acceptable.

2\. Hire a lawyer:

      1. that is willing to explain things and write down his/her explanation.

      2. Ask about how to avoid being burned again when forced into a must sign contract.

      3. Ask for the lawyer to send a offer of negotiated termination. The fact that the letter is coming from the lawyers office may get Comcast to go away for less than $2K.

3\. Contact Consumer Financial Protection Agency ( Thank you Sen. Elizabeth Warren!! ) : [http://www.consumerfinance.gov/](http://www.consumerfinance.gov/)

4\. Contact your state's consumer protection agency. (Since you live in red states - I wouldn't hope for too much )

5\. See if there are any relevant class action suits that are applicable.

6\. SEO optimize your blog spot so it shows up in search results.

7\. Write letters to your congress critter.

8\. Write to the FCC explaining that your Comcast experience is why Net Neutrality is needed. (Comcast is trying to stop Net Neutrality rules).</comment>


The 9-year-old Microsoft genius - <AUTHOR> http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/05/17/marco.calasan.macedonia/index.html <comment><USER2> Imagine what he will be capable of when he gets a software stack he can understand completely.

<comment><USER3> I commend your diplomacy.</comment></comment>


Cubieboard: A small, high-performance ARM box - <AUTHOR> http://cubieboard.org/

<comment><USER3> I would be suspicious of this. It's not just one alarm bell ringing.

\- The website. Jesus. With all the templates and content management you can pluck out of thin air, the result is very shoddy. Apparently that isn't a warning sign enough for some people.

\- No corporate history. The company has another site but their blog there is empty. No news. Dodgy RSS listings. The whole thing is even shoddier than the product site.

\- The payment is through Paypal. Address was visible yesterday (now encrypted) as firstname.lastname@example.com. lolwut? What a handle. Very professional. Real name appears to be Luffy Wang of Hesseney Road, Hubei 150, HK. (firstname.lastname@example.com) This guy really likes hips.

\- The product is $49. Less than the price (delivered) of two Raspis with a SATA controller and port. This was what made my eyes light up. The phrase "too good to be true" exists for a reason.

\- And while I'm talking about specs, why do the pictures and words disagree so much? How many card readers are there? Are they SD or MMC?

\- Oh and it's available almost without delay. Despite that there are no reviews, no tester units in the wild. No videos of on working. Not even the hint of a fart from a prototype.

\+ There is a GitHub page: <https://github.com/cubie-tech> This is probably a detail I wouldn't have bothered with if I were running this scam.

Yesterday my acquaintances on G+ and I decided that this is most likely a scam. I _really_ hope it's not and I'll be the first in line for the second batch, but please be careful.

<comment><USER4> I don't know anything about these guys, but I don't think it's too good to be true.

Ever since the Raspberry pi shipped, credit-card sized computers have been coming out the woodwork. As expected, now there are projects on vWorker (ex RentACoder) asking for engineers to design such computers with state of the art specs with a maximum bid of $499. I can't make this shit up! $499! At least toss us a bone and add a zero so we don't laugh _quite_ so hard!

Anyway, aside from that rant, this is a Great Thing. I predict an array of products that are now possible due to a flood of dirt cheap, physically small computers that can run Linux. One off industrial controllers that would have taken a week of development time can now be pushed out in a day, etc.

<comment><USER5> _"Ever since the Raspberry pi shipped, credit-card sized computers have been coming out the woodwork"_

No, they've been here all along in the SBC and industrial spaces. They're just on _your_ radar now because they're cheap.

Is Gumstix a line of "one-off industrial computers"?

<http://www.gumstix.com/>

<comment><USER4> Having lived in the SBC and industrial space my entire career I'd probably take issue with that statement if I could be bothered to.

I'll amend it to " _cheap_ credit-card sized computers" if it makes you feel better.

Gumstix have been around for what, about 10 years IIRC? They are more expensive than what I'm talking about. The point I'm making is that CPU boards on the level to run flavors of Linux easily are approaching "jellybean" component status and that will enable applications that simply weren't feasible before.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I can't believe the level of raspberry pi astroturfing present here. This board is so much more powerful that it can run full Ubuntu _fast_ and the same chip is actually used to build very competent android tablets. I read things like "mindshare" "community" "The site is wrong" "the GPU is better in the raspberry" (Ha! sure, games will run better i suppose) , well the site looks perfectly OK for me. I gonna burn points for this, but the u$s 50 Raspberry pi is overpriced since you can get a u$s 67 complete android tablet (<http://goo.gl/Misru>)

<comment><USER7> A key advantage would be if you could actually buy it. Raspberry Pi is still "due to extreme demand the estimated delivery time is uncertain and may exceed 12 weeks."

Gumstix are more expensive but easily available in any quantity, so that's what I'm designing with now.

<comment><USER8> If you buy on element14, I believe you can get it in a few days. Supposedly these guys can ship immediately: <http://www.mcmelectronics.com/content/en- US/raspberry-pi>

I bought one last week and it arrived no slower than amazon.com so I think it's safe to say orders are no longer taking forever.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> The amateur quality of the website (esp. the prose) worries me. Do we have any further information on the owner? Or, the location of the company?

I could quite easily imagine cubiebox being no more than an amateur scammer's effort to cash in on the uptick in interest in ARM boxes.

In particular, the grammar on the parent Company's website (<http://cubietech.com/>) is horrific. Plus, it has a newsfeed populating from god knows where: "Missing NY teen found safe Marriage doesn't make people happier, it just stabilizes the happiness they already have. The research shows that the married people surveyed weren't any happier than..."

Not encouraging.

<comment><USER10> 90% of the 2nd/3rd tier arm market is like that, they certainly have their problems but they're almost all legitimate companies that deliver a product.

<comment><USER11> Agreed. I've worked with some of them (with the mini2440), and a lot of their websites are just ugly, and out of date. They are mostly used as a place to post their phone numbers, and not as a business front. Keep that in mind.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Nasty gotcha: It's using the Allwinner A10 SoC, which is primarily aimed at running Android tablets. The documentation for the chipset is extremely limited, so trying to use it for applications outside the norm may be quite difficult.

<comment><USER13> Actually the Allwinner A10 is pretty well documented by the vendor and by the community, has a bunch of standard linux distributions running already. Much better than most ARM SoCs in the cheap Android tablet market.

AFAIK the one exception is the video decoding hardware, where the Linux libraries are apparently sub-par.

Some jumping off points for resources: <http://rhombus- tech.net/allwinner_a10/> <https://www.miniand.com/forums>

<comment><USER12> Perhaps things have changed since I first heard about it; initial reports were less than positive:

[http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/pipermail/arm- netbook/2012-March/0...](http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/pipermail/arm- netbook/2012-March/002881.html)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> There's so much great, cheap hardware based on the Allwinner A10 out there right now!

I just ordered a Mk802 II for $65. It has a 1GHz Cortex-A8 single core processor, Mali 400 graphics, 1GB of RAM, 4GB of storage, a microSDHC card slot, 802.11b/g/n WiFi, 1 full-sized USB port (usable for power), 2 micro USB ports, and a full-sized HDMI connector so you cna just plug it in to your TV.

It ships with Android 4.0 on the internal storage (with access to the Google Play Store) or you can run the linx dustro of your choise from a microsd card.

[http://liliputing.com/2012/08/mk802-ii-android-4-0-mini- pc-n...](http://liliputing.com/2012/08/mk802-ii-android-4-0-mini-pc-now- shipping.html) [http://www.rikomagic.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=305](http://www.rikomagic.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=305)

<comment><USER15> I have one, too. Yesterday I tried Ubuntu with LXDE, it's a little bit slower then expected and video decoding is not fast enough. I guess I'll use android and maybe try CM10. I use a powered USB hub to plug external drives (the power may not be enough for some USB drives)

<comment><USER16> Make sure you are using hardware decoding which is more than fast enough. I doubt these systems have enough cpu capacity to decode HD streams w/o assistance.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Speaking as the instructor for a class that is using raspberry pis: at this point the most important thing about the raspberry pi is the community and mindshare. It's going to be hard for a new board, however awesome, to replicate this.

<comment><USER18> Ditto. The community, 40,000+ posts, the idea, the talks that's what matters sometimes. There might be 10x more powerful devices in a year or less for the same price, yet they have to gain the same momentum as Pi. And nothing stops the Pi folks from concentrating on these. My understanding is that they (Pi) are not doing it for the money, they simply want kids to learn programming as many of us did back in our Apple ][ prompt, or BBC Micro, ZX Spectrum, etc.

      ] HGR
      ] HPLOT 10, 10 TO 20, 20

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> It looks like the GPU on the RasPi is still more powerful, so the cheaper board might still be better for things like a media center application. I'm very curious though about what appears to be a SATA port on the Cubieboard.

Also, the RasPi has a huge initial advantage in that it was in the space first. They have a leg-up in publicity, marketing, and simply an initial user- base. If the Cubieboard benchmarks don't absolutely trounce the Raspberry Pi for almost every type of computation, I don't see the Cubieboard overtaking the Pi anytime soon.

Still, a cool board nonetheless.

<comment><USER20> > It looks like the GPU on the RasPi is still more powerful, so the cheaper > board might still be better for things like a media center application.

Has either of them actually good (foss) drivers? At least Mali400 has "limadriver" project going on, quick googling didn't find anything for raspi.

Overall I'd love that Allwinner A10 got more attention, it seems fairly popular chip in cheapo chinese tablets. Getting GNU/Linux instead of Android for those would be neat.

<comment><USER21> >Has either of them actually good (foss) drivers?

I have to ask, what is the preoccupation with FOSS GPU drivers? Not just with boards like this, but even standard desktop hardware. Does anyone seriously think a firm like NVidia is going to illicitly slip spyware or something into their binaries?

<comment><USER22> I can compare fglrx (used it for 2 years) and radeon (used for 2 months). And besides worse performance in 3D and smaller power consumption, fglrx is much worse and causes some problems with my laptop. Not to mention that when I used fglrx I was afraid to upgrade the kernel because it forces me to recompile fglrx module (with all the strange DKMS thingy which is very strange to me - <USER2> just want to "make install")

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Would be cool if it had two SATA ports on it so that you could build a NAS with mirrored storage.

<comment><USER24> yes... a 100mb/s NAS...

<comment><USER25> Well my ReadyNas Duo isn't any better...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> cnx say it is expected to be open hardware.[1] if true this would make it a pretty big deal. sata also.

also this is no 'scam' project..

>the cubieboard (intended as BeagleBone competitor) and that aliexpress shop are both from Tom Cubie (aka hipboi). Also the author of the initial u-boot/mmc for sunxi and the software engineer at Allwinner Tech who GPLed the code released by QWare.[1]

assuming this is accurate, this puts him in a pretty good position to support it.

Fwiw, I have Linux running on my a10 tablet and it runs pretty well.. obviously a light weight desktop.. ff runs well on most sites, although there is slow down on complex sites eg. engadget

there is some linux support for the gpu, but not the video acceleration (hopefully, 'yet').

1\. [http://www.cnx-software.com/2012/08/31/49-cubieboard- allwinn...](http://www.cnx-software.com/2012/08/31/49-cubieboard- allwinner-a10-open-hardware-development-board/)

</comment><comment><USER27> Are any of these ARM solutions open source for the full stack?

Arduino is nice because I can use it to prototype something, and then if I want to mass produce it I can take the open schematics, rip out what I don't need and produce custom boards. Is that possible with any of these ARM solutions?

<comment><USER28> Take a look at the Olinuxino: <https://github.com/OLIMEX/OLINUXINO> <https://www.olimex.com/dev/imx233-olinuxino-maxi.html>

They've got one version running an admittedly slow i.MX processor, and another coming down the pike running an Allwinner chip. As a bonus, though, it's all reasonably easy-to-assemble TQFP chips.

<comment><USER12> > As a bonus, though, it's all reasonably easy-to-assemble TQFP chips.

The A10/A13 require memory which is only available as BGA, though.

<comment><USER28> Fair point. You can find BGA memories with ball spacing just slightly north of impossible, though. As far as I'm aware, that isn't possible with most (any?) A10/A13 chips.

<comment><USER12> You might be surprised to learn that the A13 is available as QFP:

[http://olimex.wordpress.com/2012/04/24/cortex-a8-in-tqfp- sur...](http://olimex.wordpress.com/2012/04/24/cortex-a8-in-tqfp-sure- allwinner-a13/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> This is really cool. Seems like this could be turned into a really nice little web/file server and screams to be used in car AV/carputer setups.

</comment><comment><USER30> 502 Bad Gateway

<comment><USER31> looks like they nginx runs on their cubieboard =)

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> I wish Samsung would sell a similar product using the board and chip from the Galaxy S3.

<comment><USER33> I think the ODROID-X is about as close as you can get. Significantly more expensive, but quite nice.

[http://www.hardkernel.com/renewal_2011/products/prdt_info.ph...](http://www.hardkernel.com/renewal_2011/products/prdt_info.php?g_code=G133999328931)

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Btw, BDTI Benchmark Results for the ARM Cortex-A8 [http://www.bdti.com/Resources/BenchmarkResults/Processors/Co...](http://www.bdti.com/Resources/BenchmarkResults/Processors/Cortex-A8)

</comment><comment><USER34> Great board. Great price. Heard about this through the Homebrew Robotics Club.

</comment><comment><USER35> Still waiting for someone to make this kind of cheap little board with 2 ethernet ports.

With OpenBSD it would work well as a home firewall or similar mini network appliance.

Maybe some day! :)

</comment><comment><USER36> How well would this work on a TV as a basic HTPC? I'm looking to play with something simple that would only need to really run a browser with Flash.

</comment><comment><USER32> Does anyone know if the Mali400 supports hardware acceleration with Google Chrome?

UPDATE: It'd be great if ran Chrome OS, too.

<comment><USER37> Chromium maybe. I'm not sure there are any Chromebooks based on ARM yet although there seems to be a profile for building tegra2 devices. I know the Trimslice is supposed to be able to run it but I haven't actually seen a software release of Google Chrome for it. Hexxeh does seem to be working on it for the Pi but I haven't used the Pi so I can't say (I personally need a little more power than armv6 has)

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> About the price of the chinese Android mediacenters. Probably nice, but the great thing about the Pi is the community support.

</comment><comment><USER39> I don't see any mention of the power requirements for the board? Is it powered by 5V DC? (i.e. USB)

<comment><USER12> Looks like there's a cylindrical DC power jack on the board.

<comment><USER20> The power jack is labeled "DC5V@2A", but I doubt that the board would actually pull that much current as the SoC is commonly used in tablets.

<comment><USER29> More than likely 2A is just to have some headroom for everything. They likely allocate an amp for the two USB. I can't seem to get access to the site now but I imagine there are a couple 5v and 3.3v pins in the GPIO header that are allocated a few tens of milliamps.

That said, you're right that the board itself shouldn't pull anywhere near 2A.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> VGA?

</comment><comment><USER41> This looks really cool. Will have to get one to talk to my r-pi as I think it is a bit lonely.

I love the fact that more people are building these kind of devices at this price point. I have been looking at pc104 boards for years but they were always far too expensive for anything with some decent kick.

Give it a few more iterations and a few more people trying to build similar devices and then there is a proper marketplace for essentially a new consumer device class, in much the same way as the OLPC project was the catalyst for the emergence of dirt cheap netbooks. There will be tonnes of people working on this after witnessing the demand for the r-pis.

And anyone who thinks that the r-pi lot will do anything other than welcome things like this is off their head. They are a non-profit with the stated aim of getting as many of these kind of small cheap devices out there as possible.

Remember, you don't compete against an organisation like that in the normal sense of the word, as if you put them out of business by doing it bigger and better and cheaper, then all you have done is helped them to achieve their objective without them having to do as much work.

Personally I suspect that it is exactly the kind of development the r-pi lot were hoping for.

</comment><comment><USER42> I wish manufacturerers would make thse boards with VGA output. There's no sense in buying a 35 of 50 dollar computer if you need a $150 monitor to use it.</comment>


Product Hunt Gets Social with Twitter-Like Profiles, Following, Notifications - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2014/10/21/product-hunt-gets-social-with-twitter-like-user-profiles-following-features-and-notifications/

<comment><USER2> Interesting to see there's a profile/follow model...when Product Hunt still doesn't allow anyone to join and comment/submit. That does not help dispel the perception of PH being an elitist Silicon Valley club where the cool kids hang out.

And the self-promotion and upvote begging on Product Hunt is getting even worse ([https://twitter.com/search?f=realtime&q=product%20hunt%20upv...](https://twitter.com/search?f=realtime&q=product%20hunt%20upvote&src=typd)) despite promises for improvement.

See previous rant: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8427079](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8427079)

<comment><USER3> Even though I've always been a bit repulsed by Product Hunt, I'm really glad to see it succeeding - hopefully it will take the whole startup daily news/gossip business away and leave HN with the cool hacks and new tech, As Its Creator Intended.

(Why am I repulsed by PH? Not sure, but I tend to lump it in with the whole cargo cult, ping pong tables, beers kegs, fashion and gossip and startups Valley scene. The most common context in which I encounter it is people asking me to vote them up so they can get 'discovered', as if entrepreneurship were Hollywood or Nashville. It's a meta-startup for discussing other people's startups; it's a carbuncle on a vain, self-absorbed slice of our industry. I guess it serves a niche well and I'm just repelled by the niche.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> A few key things that PH got right from my pov:

      * Requiring a tagline (huge time-saver, s/n!)
      * Curation (via the crowd but also via well known product people, s/n!)
      * Highlighting Makers (great game dynamic & good for s/n)
      * Profiles (& following. It is a community)
      * Embracing Twitter (great way to bootstrap & improved social signal, s/n!)

These things might sound like simple details but when you consider that the magic behind services like PH is the community, attention-span & noise level then they've really nailed it.

Of course seeding the community and growing it was important but when you build a system these decisions make or break the whole thing.

It also makes me wonder why similar services like HN and Reddit didn't go into that direction/depth sooner.

<comment><USER5> Welll.... almost. Curation was done via a small group of friends. Much like Hacker News, not just anyone can come and join the fun. It's not as democratic as you might believe. Go submit your product and see if it's listed anywhere (even with 0 votes). Go login and try to comment.

Product Hunt basically captures the buzz of Silicon Valley. It does so very, very well. That's fine. I mean it's like the celebrity A list in a sense. We like looking at these things. However, let's just keep this in perspective here. It is strongly bias curation.

Whether that was something they got "right" remains to be seen. We'll see if that scales (I think the big question people have right now).

<comment><USER6> "I mean it's like the celebrity A list in a sense." Well... they let _me_ in, and I'm as far from being any kind of celebrity -- I'm truly the most ordinary person anywhere. And I'm pretty sure that I'm not in the usual demographic for a site about new tech products. I like to think that I offer a mature and wise perspective. But really, I just like to learn about tech. :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I guess that I am still skeptical of Product Hunt. I don't get the appeal at all, I'm looking to spend money on less things or reduce the complexity in my life.

The other thing that most people seem to dislike about Product Hunt is the exclusivity, which doesn't bother that much. It is an interesting strategy to combat the quality of a site decaying and I curious as to how it turns out.

</comment><comment><USER8> My suggestion for Product Hunt is to be able to filter by the best of last week, last month, or all time.

The top submissions of the past few days are pretty cool, but being able to see the most highly upvoted submissions of all time would be an amazing first- time user experience.

Plus, if I go on vacation, I can just quickly see the best of what I missed last week.

<comment><USER9> You can do the all time bit - there's a leaderboard built with the PH API: [http://www.yvoschaap.com/producthunt/](http://www.yvoschaap.com/producthunt/)</comment></comment>


Ingress (2015) - <AUTHOR> http://www.anarchogeekreview.com/video-games/ingress <comment><USER2> Any Ingress players out there?</comment>


Complete Hacker Tutorial to getting Time Machine over NFS to work. - <AUTHOR> http://blog.mediafederation.com/andy-hawkins/mac-os-x-time-machine-via-nfs-on-linux-ubuntu-complete-guide-fixes-error-13-etc/

<comment><USER2> Why does the title contain "Complete Hacker Tutorial"? Wouldn't "How I got Time Machine over NFS to Work" be a less linkbait-ish title?

<comment><USER3> Damnit, you beat me to my bitching.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Why use NFS over AFP or SMB? The technique is basically the same but at least AFP and SMB are encrypted...

<comment><USER5> For AFP on anything but OS X, netatalk was missing a flush-to-disk command and failed the last time I surveyed.

Various samba versions have been implicated in backups that are corrupt when when you go to read them. There are enough people successfully using samba now for time capsule that I suspect that issue is a thing of the past or restricted to certain NAS devices.

Time Machine is a big enough bandwidth user that I presume we are talking LAN, and for many people their LAN is secure enough.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Shows the need for xattr on your NFS mounts, that is not documented in other tutorials I've found.

<comment><USER6> I'm not 100% sure on this, but from what I remember most filesystems now have xattr enabled by default.

<comment><AUTHOR> I thought the same. I tested EXT4 on a fresh Ubuntu 10.10 system. My variables wouldn't save till I declared it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> That's interesting. But how does the restore work? Is this something that you can run from an install DVD?

<comment><AUTHOR> The restore works just like any other Time Machine restore. In critical data loss when the machine has to be formatted. You will be able to restore the system completely from the Time Machine. Just remount the NFS on the new OS and run to command so Time Machine will see NFS mounts and click Restore.

~@

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Will it automount? I don't see any specific steps to make it automount. SMB shares setup this way don't automount for me.

What happens on the public network? Is it still going to try to find the volume by IP address and back up?

</comment><comment><USER9> I do Time Machine over AFP, but a more interesting tutorial would be Time Machine over iSCSI+SSH. In fact, that might make for a fun project next weekend.

</comment><comment><USER6> Is Time Machine actually practical for anyone on HN? It seems as if for anyone who has a non-trivial amount of changing data on their laptop, Time Machine would be completely ineffective over a Wifi network (or even wired) - it would just be constantly transferring data and thrashing disks; on my desktop, I could barely afford even 1 complete backup, yet most of the data being backed up is cache files / stuff I don't care about losing.

Am I wrong on this? I've never actually tried to get it set up... does it deal with times where the file share isn't connected?

<comment><USER10> "I've never actually tried to get it set up..."

You could say that again. I bet you don't do any backups at all. Time machine has two options. The first is the location to backup and the second is directories to exclude. Ignoring cache files is one click away...

I used to have all sorts of different backup systems and even hacked my own backup system on top of time machine like in this article, but at the end of the day went out and picked up a Time Machine. It just works. Backups silently in the background and I can recover when needed. I nearly always backup over wifi and never feel it "thrashing disks" or using all my network speed. The hd's that ship with Time Machine are also pre-tested for quality so are not the cheapo hd of the week. Time Machine is also a wiki box, printer, and gig switch.

<comment><USER11> I think you're confusing Time Machine (the backup software on OSX) with Time Capsule (Apple's network backup hardware). Not a big deal but in this context it can be confusing.

<http://www.apple.com/timecapsule/>

</comment></comment></comment><comment> rw2- Wow, a real Hacker. He is able to setup NFS on Ubuntu. ;)

<comment><AUTHOR> Sarcasm and 14 Karma... original. ;)

<comment> rw2- Now you can see what I mean^^</comment></comment></comment>


US Business Formation Statistics (2018) - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> for some reason the link isn't rendering for me... any chance you could post it the comments?

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> 2017 vs 2006 map is striking</comment>