Unemployment tax or $20000 reasons not to hire someone - <AUTHOR> http://boss.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/03/20000-reasons-not-to-hire-someone/?em <comment><USER2> As a U.S. startup or small business, when you hire your first employee, among other things: (1) you start having to pay employer-related payroll taxes to federal, state and possibly local governments; (2) you need to hire a payroll service to handle the myriad reports to be filed with the taxing authorities; (3) you can get dinged for unemployment insurance claims (the point of this piece); (4) you need to take out a workers' comp insurance policy; (5) you are at risk for claims of wrongful discharge; (6) ditto for claims of sexual harassment; (7) ditto for claims of illegal discrimination; (8) you can face waiting-time penalties if you are slow to meet payroll; (9) you can face the so-called 100% penalty if you fail to remit withheld payroll taxes to the government; (10) you must pay at least a minimum wage for services rendered; (11) you must pay overtime for work in excess of 8 hours per day or 40 hours per week; (12) you must post some bureaucratic notices of workplace rights about your premises; (13) you may have to fund your employee's retirement along with your own; (14) you may have to pay for your employee's rehab if it is deemed a disability; (15) you can be vicariously liable for the acts of your employee that damage others (e.g., if he runs someone over while driving on company business); and (16) add here any of many other possible oddball consequences, such as possibly increasing your business license tax, requiring you to register as a foreign corporation (if you are such) in a state other than your state of domicile, etc.

No doubt you can others. While there may good and valid reasons for each of these requirements under law, is it a wonder (when you consider their cumulative impact) that startups will typically have x reasons of their own "not to hire," at least early in the company's history?

<comment><USER3> These reasons pretty much all pale compared to "will I be able to make payroll?", though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This is another example of perverse, unintended consequences of "pro-worker" initiatives biting their intended beneficiaries in the hindquarters. Take a look at France for the endgame to that: between generous benefits and legally guaranteed protection from firing that makes Japanese salaryman positions look unstable, the economy is structurally incapable of employing a huge percentage of the work force. The young and immigrants, who are the worst affected by this (not surprising: the lowest skilled/lowest educated/poorest always catch the worst of every systemic economic issue), have little to do but sit on the dole or riot, and few prospects for ever doing anything else.

My impression is that similar issues cause the massive underemployment of the non-salaryman strata of Japanese twenty-somethings. Many of the freeters (people who bounce from part-time job to part-time job) are cut out for entry level work, but hiring someone is a lot like marrying them, so if you don't have the appropriate credential and a resume which looks like exactly what the company wants, they generally pass.

<comment><USER5> On the other hand, the Danes have a system where the workforce is extremely mobile, precisely because every worker is guaranteed up to four years of unemployment benefits. Employers are under no obligation to retain employees, because there's a great safety net.

If we're going to talk about unintended consequences, we need to consider all sides: what is the unintended consequence of a system that provides no assurances to workers during economic downturns? I suspect the downside is quite harsh.

<comment><USER4> You have a curious definition of "all sides" in which the solution space appears to be "Impose European-style levels of benefits" XOR "Unemployed people starve in the snow." I am missing anybody here seriously proposing the second option.

I suspect the downside to having employment-at-will, very modest unemployment benefits, and a liquid labor market exists. I also suspect that it can be measured in terms of objectively verifiable criteria, and compared with the alternatives. For example, I suspect that I can look in a US newspaper for a count of the number of cars burned last night by immigrants rioting over lack of economic opportunity. It will take me a whole lot of searching, because few newspapers publish articles titled "BREAKING! No riot today, either!"

Then I could look at the same number in a French newspaper. (100 a day on quiet days, spiking to over a thousand on New Years or during periods of mass unrest. You might think I'm exaggerating. [http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1869392,00.htm...](http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1869392,00.html) )

Alternatively, if counting riots seems a little messy, I could look at unemployment statistics for those under twenty five. In the United States, for youths at large, it is about 11~12% right now. In France, it is over 20 -- down a bit from a few years ago when it hit 25%. For socially disadvantaged groups in America, for example black males without a high school degree, it is about 48%. For similarly situated folks in France (for example, uneducated immigrants), unemployment is close to total.]

I can go on if you want me to.

<comment><USER6> You have valid points, but you also must consider how different France is from the U.S. When their unions strike over compensation, for example, they close down roads and burn things. Our unions strike by marching in circles with signs. Most of the immigrants you speak of live in the equivalent to housing projects. America has housing projects, but much, much fewer. It's something the French have embraced, to the detriment of their society, because it keeps their immigrant population from integrating. America prides itself on it's diversity and France prides itself on it's "Frenchness." I think you need to consider all of these things when talking about the reasons the young, unemployed French riot.

One more thing. I don't know about the ethnic or age breakdown, but right now French and American unemployment percentages are same. The difference is the French unemployed have healthcare and other social programs, so they're better off, in many instances, than Americans.

<comment><USER7> Well, yes and no. The farmers will do that, year. Metro workers often "strike" by running a normal service but refusing to collect fares. That keeps the public on-side.

A friend of mine was at the last Santacon in Paris, they were mistaken for striking workers...

Incidentally, the banlieus of Paris are worse than "the ghetto" of any American city. Except maybe Detroit.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This covers one big point that a lot of 'workplace rule making' types never quite understand. Most policies designed to protect people from losing their jobs actually increase either the chance they will lose their job, or their chance of getting another job. If there are penalties for firing an employee, with an associated 'trial period', then the employee stands a greater chance of getting fired before that period is up, even if there was a chance that any issues could have been worked out.

If an employer knows they may lose money from claims of unfair firing, then they will resist hiring employees until they have sufficient funds to cover the cost of losing someone.

Anecdote in point : a member of my family runs a business. A new hire didn't work out, and after counselling them several times, they decided the person had to go. They waited until after Christmas, fired the employee, who said that they understood the reasons. The former employee found representation, came back and successfully won compensation for an unfair dismissal. The reason was that some paperwork had not been completed correctly during the firing process. The resulting legal costs and compensation meant that the position will remain unfilled for several months until the balance sheet position is restored.

It's the same law of unintended consequences that means rent controlled apartments actually decrease housing affordability in cities (apart from the lucky few). Employment policies like this decrease employment (apart from the lucky few). In both cases the results are the direct opposite for what they are intended.

In terms of a social policy : governments should cover minimum wages, working conditions and other safety issues. Compensation for unfair dismissal should be capped regardless of salary and paid out of a central fund taken from company income taxes.

That might be tough but that is life.

<comment><USER9> I have trouble believing your story (assuming it takes place in the states ...) - do you have any more details?

It's (thankfully) really hard to win an unfair dismissal suit since we're all 'at will' employees by default. You can fire someone because you don't like their shoes, don't like that they smoke, or even no reason at all (the handful of exceptions are 'protected categories', like race/religion).

<comment><USER8> No, it is not in the USA. I can't post any more details because I doubt the particular business would appreciate it being discussed online. However, I can assure you that it is very much true, right down to the employee being fired after the christmas break. The workplace in question closes down for two weeks after Christmas and the employee was kept on full pay, and dismissed upon their return to work. This was because nobody wants to fire someone just before Christmas, when their chances of getting a new job are slim.

In this country, you can't fire an employee for any reason other than non- performance of written job duties, and only after three written warnings, and a whole pile of other paperwork. It's easy to get this wrong, and then open yourself up to unfair dismissal actions. The union representatives actively look for these types of cases to prosecute.

<comment><USER10> "In this country, you can't fire an employee for any reason other than non- performance of written job duties, and only after three written warnings, and a whole pile of other paperwork. It's easy to get this wrong, and then open yourself up to unfair dismissal actions. The union representatives actively look for these types of cases to prosecute."

I'm pretty sure that this varies by state.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Maybe I'm just inexperienced, but can't you get around this with contract-to- hire? E.g., bring your prospective salesguy in for a 90-day contract, and if they cut the condiment of choice, keep them?

<comment><USER12> A contractor is a very different thing than an employee. In most circumstances employees and contractors are not interchangeable [1].

Companies that hire Permatemps [2] can get bit hard. As a regular contractor I work hard to keep that line very clear.

[1] [http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=179115,00....](http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=179115,00.html)

[2] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permatemp#Vizcaino_v._Microsoft>

<comment><USER13> All true, but he'd talking about temp-to-hire (which I've done with success (well, I wasn't the owner, just the direct report of the employee). And the author of the article pretty clearly doesn't want to try to play the Permatemp game.

<comment><USER12> What is temp-to-hire?? I think the "temp" part is an extended probationary period, right? I don't think you could fire someone 45 days into a 60 day probationary period and then expect to not pay unemployment because of some agreement between the employee and employer. Does the concept of temp-to-hire exist as law or policy in any government agency?

<comment><USER14> Temp-to-hire is hiring a person for a temporary period say 3 - 6 months as a temp with the expectation that if everything works out they'll get a job offer at the end. If it doesn't then the contract is finished and they leave.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> And you know what that means? If you are a salaried worker this money is coming out of _your_ pocket!

Think about that! Everybody should plan for occasional unemployment and there are two ways to go about it:

1\. You save a year worth of expenses all by yourself, and live on that when hard times come.

2\. You don't save, but the government saves for you (directly via payroll tax or indirectly via unemployment tax).

On the surface the two approaches are equal as far as worker is concerned. And yet! In the first case once you save enough you could stop saving and enjoy the surplus, but in the latter case you can't stop saving no matter how much you "saved" already.

Just one more benefit of working for yourself. Employment is such an archaic concept.

</comment><comment><USER16> This post makes no sense. From Illinios State site <http://www.ides.state.il.us/employer/uitax.asp> Rates for 2010 are max 7.250% min 0.650% base $12,520 (you don't pay into unemployment insurance for wages over $12520/yr)

The rate you pay is based on past claims not to exceed 7.250%. How does he get $20000?

<comment><USER17> One successful claim against you changes the rate you pay for each employee. If your rate is set at 7.25% then for one employee you might pay 7.250% * $12,520=$907.70. You pay that much for EACH employee, e.g. 10 employees yields a bill for $9,077.

<comment><USER18> Except that the headline quite clearly tells us that the charge is 20x higher than that (it's a $20k reason not to hire "someone", not "$20k reason not to fire 21 people").

Surely the headline would lie for the purposes of exploiting partisan anger?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Wow, this is pretty conservative for the Times.

I think that if an employee is fired for cause, they should be forced to sell their organs to pay back the debt (and cost of finding a replacement worker) to their company. This would make small businesses more profitable, and it would be an incentive for people to work harder. It would also lower the cost of organs, allowing the ultra-rich business owners to get a replacement kidney AND own a vacation home.

What I meant to say is that I think business owners whine too much about money. If your business is not profitable, then it's time to do something else... not whine about how your fired employees shouldn't get unemployment benefits.

(I worked at a small company once, and all I ever heard about was how everything was too expensive. Health insurance is too expensive. Salary is too expensive. Taxes are too expensive. Guess what then, you aren't charging the clients enough.)

<comment><USER8> Maybe you should read this article

<http://www.paulgraham.com/gap.html>

It might be convenient to paint all business owners as 'ultra-rich' but the majority of employment happens through smaller businesses, which generally aren't in a position to 'charge clients more money'. Ask someone who is getting a start-up off the ground why they can't just pay everyone more money.

<comment><USER19> And ask an average person who might work for you why they should subsidize your likely-to-fail startup with their own health.

It seems like the general consensus on HN is that The Government should subsidize startups and small-businesses Just Because, but that it's evil when the same government subsidizes the employee that didn't work quite hard enough and needs to eat food and live in a house while they look for a job they can do better. I don't get it.

(I bet if I wasn't so sarcastic when I made the organ-harvesting reference, I would have been upmodded!)

<comment><USER8> I can't speak for the rest of HN, but in my case I want no subsidies from the Government. What I want the goverment to do is _get out of the way_ so I can get on with creating wealth for me, my family and any employees I hire. Having small companies grow into big ones is a net win for the government.

'subsidize your likely-to-fail startup with their own health' Not sure how to respond to that statement, but all paid employees are offered to exchange their time and effort for cash compensation. It's up to those individuals if the exchange is worth it or not. If there is a chance of a detriment to their health, then they'd need to factor this in.

I think you'll find that your downvotes are because you disagree with the majority of readers of this site, not because of tone or sarcasm.

<comment><USER20> >"I think you'll find that your downvotes are because you disagree with the majority of readers of this site, not because of tone or sarcasm."

If he argued that the article author was wrong in a civil tone with a thoughtful manner, I doubt he would have downvotes. There are highly upvoted comments on this very thread that disagree with the article author.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Seymour Cray Obituary by John Markoff (1996) - <AUTHOR> http://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~bezenek/cray.html <comment><USER2> Please email us at firstname.lastname@example.com if you would like us to send you a repost invite. This is an experiment in giving good stories a second chance at attention on HN.</comment>


Building Code Posters with Elixir - <AUTHOR> http://www.east5th.co/blog/2017/02/13/build-your-own-code-poster-with-elixir/ <comment><USER2> Creator of Commits.io([https://commits.io](https://commits.io)) here.

Love the project!

Note on trust: I've shipped out hundreds of posters since 2013. BTW you can create a Gist if you want to control access exactly. Hopefully Github will allow fine grained access they are trying out in beta right now.

I'd love to send some PRs your way this weekend (I love elixir) about:

      - Fonts - I've messed with so many fonts and test prints and trying hundreds of fonts. I finally settled with Fira Mono. Was probably the best that didn't bleed @ 4pt.

      - Margin - I ended up having a 1/2 inch margin to allow frames to not cut off letters, I don't think you do this?

      - Classification - How do you throw away vendor code? I found that most repos unfortunately have a huge amount of  generated code (JQuery, assets, compressed/minified JS)

One final note, since each :text element has an x and y couldn't you create all the elements in parallel and collect them at the end? That'll probably save you a lot of time on the generation time.

By Far the hardest thing was to:

      - Launch a single use instance
      - Clone a repo
      - Classify and remove any "generated" and vendor code
      - Create a poster (I use PDFs)
      - Take a lower quality screenshot (save the user's bandwidth)
      - Upload to S3 so the user can view it
      - destroy single use instance

all within 3 to 4 seconds

I ended up going from Ruby => Clojure => Go => Rust for the speed.

BTW if anyone just wants a poster [https://commits.io/discount/10off](https://commits.io/discount/10off) to get 10% off. But I think you should at least try to generate it with elixir_poster first.

<comment><USER3> I've always thought about sending one of my larger projects to commits.io so I could frame it for rememberance. Privacy is not the main reason I hesitate - it is the fact that other ruby programmers will look at my code and laugh at how 'Pascal' I make it look (I cut my teeth in Pascal >30 years ago).

But serious question - is there an ideal code size that works better on a poster? My app is broken down into several sub apps - some with only a few hundred lines of code, and some with 20,000+ lines. Obviously the more the merrier, but I was wondering - could you filter out only, say, the _.rb files for the poster, and ignore the billion_.js library files that I didn't actually write myself?

And, final question - do you ever look at the end result poster for a customer and shake your head thinking "This guy shouldn't be allowed near a computer!"... :)

<comment><USER2> You can select the language on the poster page. It'll let you select any/all languages it detects.

Everything is automated so I only look at the poster if someone asks me to checkout an inconsistency (was earlier, not at all now).

Take a look at some of my code ([https://github.com/Ortuna](https://github.com/Ortuna)) most of it is bad and hacked together. Until I find that one thing that is fun, like commits.io. Then I savor writing each line. I start sweating the little stuff because its fun. But then again some days code isn't as important as going outside.

"Your are not your code"

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> This is great until you notice someone committed your aws access keys to source :(

<comment><USER5> well, then, you'd be the poster child for not doing that!

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Hey Pete, I was an intern at AdmitHub a while back! Really cool to see some momentum behind a weird language Ive been a huge fan of for a few years.

</comment><comment><USER7> Really cool! Inspired by this I created a quick and dirty inkscape plugin as a gist here ([https://gist.github.com/om- henners/8c642c87b71daa3ea68222d40...](https://gist.github.com/om- henners/8c642c87b71daa3ea68222d40167edbc)) that drops source code matching some file extension pattern as a flowing text object on the page.

</comment><comment><USER8> Not to be that guy; but it is silly that the page functions just fine until the CSS loads and hides the content. This is a blog post, it's not going to take 30 seconds to load, and even if it did it would still be better to watch the page fill in while listening to the dulcet tones of the modem.

</comment><comment><USER9> This is excellent work.

</comment><comment><USER10> Great work, I'm learning elixir as well. Very cool

</comment><comment><USER11> very cool</comment>


Internet companies should not be monitoring terrorists or anyone else - <AUTHOR> http://techfruit.com/2014/11/26/internet-companies-not-monitoring-terrorists-anyone-else/ <comment><USER2> It's also impossible. "I'm going to kill some soldiers when I get back" might refer to my super secret terror plot, or my PlayStation-related plans for the evening.

<comment><USER3> Here's my solution to that. Gather all the information possible, including things you've purchased so that I know whether or not you actually _have_ those games or any of your friends do (and whether you actually play them). Assess, whether any major life changes have occurred for you based on all my data-mining and algos and assign a risk-factor for that particular statement. Monitor/filter your subsequent (or even previous?) communications (SMS, calls) for anything that might increase the risk-factor. If it's above a certain threshold, dispatch a discrete drone to follow you around 'just to be sure' (it's ok, you won't even know it's there). Maybe one day, I might decide to have armed drones, you know, 'just in case'. Oh, and make all of this automated because software is eating the world and what not (bugs? what bugs?).

Obviously, I say all of the above tongue-in-cheek but it wouldn't surprise me if there are people in government (or the security services) who actually think that way.

<comment><USER4> There very definitely are people who think that way who make policy decisions - most of them. They see themselves as invulnerable demagogues, and their apparatuses as being able to do anything, because they say they can. Computers are this amazing thing you can wave a wand at and anything can happen, and because it came out of a computer, you know it's GOT to be right.

We used to have a saying for this, which was "high on their own bullshit".

Career politicians are just that - in politics, for _their_ career. Not for your sake. Not because they want to change things. Because they see a trough, and daddy stuck his nose in it and did alright, so why can't I too? This doesn't require any particular knowledge of the world around you, or empathy, just a machiavellian drive to clamber on corpses until you reach the top, where you can crown yourself king of the ashes.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Why not? We expect and demand that banks monitor billions of transactions between 100s of millions of customers for evidence of money laundering and terrorism financing - and fine them billions of dollars when their controls or oversight are deemed insufficient.

I expect most us agree that banks _should_ be held accountable for the legitimacy of their customers behaviour. Why should the same standards not be demanded of internet companies?

<comment><USER6> _> >I expect most us agree that banks _should_ be held accountable for the legitimacy of their customers behaviour._

I don't think most people have this expectation.

Banks to be accountable for customers breaking law? What's an example of this? If I open a bank account in a different country, under an LLC, to illegally avoid paying taxes or to receive kickbacks it's up to the bank to figure that out? I do not expect banks to be responsible for their customers unless something outrageous happens, like a non-corp account suddenly reaching a billion USD balance. And this is ____much____ easier to automate for banks too and will produce almost no false alarms. If Joe-The-Plumber's account is suddenly more than Donald Trump's net worth... something is going on.

Conversely, with Facebook/Apple/Google you'd just get this[1] happening all the time. And have you ever had the joy of XboxLive's in-game audio and messaging? False alarms galore. Blowing up planes and burning down / shooting up schools was a common joke even when I was a kid in the '80s, not even to talk of today's youngsters. <\--- And now if HN had terrorism-dection built in, will this comment of mine get flagged?

1\. [http://www.cbsnews.com/news/long-island-high-school- student-...](http://www.cbsnews.com/news/long-island-high-school- student-17-threatened-to-blow-up-school-arrested-by-police/)

<comment><USER7> Enough people have shot up schools that I think some sort of response to "I'm going to kill people at school" is warranted. A conviction may not be the best outcome, but I don't think it's entirely safe to ignore all of them.

<comment><USER3> How about trying to understand and deal with the _root-cause_ of people shooting up schools?

<comment><USER8> You can do both.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Is this just the first offer in a bid to get police access to data for investigation purposes - like ask for the world and then asking just for a mountain sounds reasonable.

In this case it would be asking that service providers monitor everyone; but, the actual desire is to allow investigative authorities (police, MI5, ...) access to suspected terrorists online dealings _via_ the service providers at the back end.

In the Lee Rigby case it seems that the exchange about murdering soldier would have been sufficient to push the suspect in to the camp of making terrorist threats and allowed for an arrest.

It's curious in some ways as Adebowale had been the focus of investigations and yet GCHQ clearly didn't have information on all his online exchanges (that could be tied to him), yet a company in the USA did have access. This suggests that the level of integration in to online communications that GCHQ has is far less than we've recently been led to believe. We're being told left-and-right that government spooks know our every move and whisper - this seems not to be true, not even for people associated with terrorism investigations.

</comment><comment><USER9> I don't think it's practical to require the likes of Facebook to monitor for terrorists and the like. After all one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. However it would be quite reasonable for them to choose to look out for that and bullying, grooming and the like especially if the posts are semi public.

</comment><comment><USER10> I thought the global intelligence services _already_ had access to Facebook etc. data, maybe the question in-light of the Ed Snowden leaks, is _why_ they didn't see this. Except, as commented there would be an extreme false-positive rate. In which case, why do we continue to fund the intelligence services...

</comment><comment><USER11> The title of this article is slightly misleading. The article actually says we should be monitoring known terrorists. Perhaps they should change the title to "Internet companies should not be monitoring non-terrorists".

</comment><comment><USER12> I think that's a bit hard to do when your business model is built around user profiling, even if it is only for purely legal business ends.</comment>


Ask HN: How to connect Alexa to a standing desk? - <AUTHOR> I notice that most of the standing desks have the button block connected to the desk controller via a network cable and a regular RJ-45. This means that it should be possible to put a ras-pi and maybe a tiny switch in the middle, intercept/replay the signal and pair it with a simple Alexa skill to control the desk position. The only question is what does it send over the network? Is there any specification on that or does anyone have an idea on how to reverse-engineer it? <comment><USER2> Second Google result for "alexa control standing desk" should help you, or Reddit.</comment>


Don't Glorify Dropping Out - <AUTHOR> http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2010/12/dont-glorify-dropping-out/68156/ <comment><USER4> > _But there's something to be said for a degree as employability insurance._

There's something to be said for going out and learning how to get things done and build a business as well. A college degree is hardly insurance for anything.

It's clear this guy doesn't have any actual experience with startups. He rattles off the usual talking points:

> _startups can be as profitable as a few are, only because the great majority > of other entrepreneurs with similar ideas fail._

Uh, no, they didn't succeed because others failed; they succeed because they were able to sell a product. Also, the ones that failed did not all go hungry in the streets, many if not most of them gained priceless experience of far more financial value than what academia is offering.

I don't necessarily advocate dropping out _or_ going to college. You can learn a lot in college, and I certainly value my degree, however it is not the source of my financial security. As the cost of college goes up, grades inflate, and the percentage of people with college degrees increase, the cost- benefit of college is rapidly shifting. Going to college simply isn't much of a differentiator any more, and because it's gotten so easy, it's not as good an indicator of competence the way it used to be.

Especially these days when companies are no longer loyal, the type of job that a degree is required for is not some bastion of stability. 30 years from now when those college graduates get layed off to cut costs, what is the value of their college degree then? At that point they will be much better off if they've learned some business hustle.

<comment><USER5> Counterpoint:

First off, I don't have a college degree. I have something like 102 hours, so I'm a year'ish short.

That said, I'm always a bit wary of hiring folks who don't have (at least) a liberal arts education of some kind. I don't really care about the computer science, engineering, physics part of the degree.

I care about the part of college that prepares you to learn. I care about the breadth of experience that literature, writing, philosophy, and the like give you. I've now interviewed far too many folks who have deep computer science knowledge without a degree, but lack the ability to internalize and _learn_ at a deep level. I think that's what college does a tremendous job of preparing people for.

I jump at the chance to hire people who took strong programming skills to college and got a degree in something perpendicular to their programming skill set. One of the best hires I ever made had a degree in hospitality management. Short of that, at least stay in college long enough to complete those required core classes. You'll be a much stronger developer, business person, whatever for it.

<comment><USER6> I'd be wary of hiring a college drop-out simply because college can be a filter for stick-to-it-ness. Only a very few college drop-outs do so because they can do better elsewhere; the majority do it because they've failed. And they don't believe that can get back on their feet.

I came close to dropping out, but I'm really glad I didn't- because managing to come back showed me that effort really matters and that I have the ability to succeed at things I thought were hard as long as I work at it.

<comment><USER7> I think the questino of why you dropped out is a huge one.

If you dropped out becuase you wanted to start the next big thing and fail, why didn't you go back? You can go back for the next 7 years and pick up where you left off.

So if you are a college drop out, I am far more inclined to think it was because you couldn't hack it than becuase you tried to go big.

<comment><USER8> I dropped out after a year, but it wasn't to go "big," merely to go (work) at all.

The reason I never went back is simply that the cost grossly outweighed the benefit.

Strictly from a quantifiable/money perspective, the loss would have been huge. After 7 years, for example, I'd have been giving up around $85k annually in salary and spending $15k or so on tuition and books. I'm ignoring living expenses, since I expect those would have been close enough to comparable. I'd also be trading 3 additional years of industry experience in addition to the $300k for a diploma. Each of those years turned out to be worth $5k-$10k of additional salary in the short term, though it's tough to say what they've been worth in the long term.

As for the intangible benefits, that was an even easier decision, since neither the process nor the "rounding" subjects outside computer science appealed to me. These were all more difficult than high school, but in the wrong ways. That is, the was just as tedious[2], more voluminous, and no more intrinsically rewarding. Writing an essay about literature that parrots the instructor's opinion is something I already knew how to do, but making it appear as if I'm not was a college-level skill I couldn't be bothered to practice, let alone master.

Had I dropped out to do a startup, even having failed, I can't imagine undergraduate academia as being anything but stifling and insulting.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Reminder: People who think of themselves as getting prestige from their college education may view something that challenges the prestige of college as an attack on their hard-won status.

Reminder 2: College is broken. It needs challenging.

<comment><USER10> Your point is well taken but I'd offer one caveat which is the people in Reminder #1 are a big part of the problem that creates Reminder #2. I recently attended a meeting between educators and future California Governor Jerry Brown.

At that meeting I watched a woman with a doctorate in English scream at the future (and former) Mayor of California because he was telling her they'd have to cut her six figure salary. Even though she admitted her students test scores were abysmal and everyone in the room knows she couldn't go anywhere else and get paid the same rate she still felt she was entitled to the money on her degree alone.

Bottom line (IMHO): If society is to move forward people who deify the degree need to be relieved of that delusion even if it's painful to them.

<comment><USER5> My bet is that her expertise in English <whatever> is vast and noteworthy. I don't deify the degree, but I certainly deify the accomplishment of earning a PhD. The fact that as an English PhD she was able to even get a job, much less a high paying one certainly implies that she's an expert in her field.

I'm not arguing about her pay, that's up to the market. However, the condescending tone of your post shows that you have zero inkling of what's involved in the PhD process (no worries, most people don't even when they think they do). I've lived through my wifes years in PhD school (accounting). It was as intense a 5 years as I could imagine anyone enduring.

<comment><USER11> Should all difficult accomplishments be rewarded? Or should only useful accomplishments be rewarded?

<comment><USER12> A very good question!

My answer:

A difficult accomplishment should be its own reward irrespective of the outside world.

A _useful_ difficult accomplishment _will_ be rewarded by the outside world.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> _But there's something to be said for a degree as employability insurance._

There is something to be said, and it's been said.

The question is whether not it's just _said_ or it's _real_. Growing evidence suggests that college degrees are falling out of line with needs of society. (I'm not saying degrees are bad things. I love education and keep learning every day. If anything, I have a problem with certification madness)

If you'd like some arm-wavey slandering of the tech community, I'll give it a shot: younger and younger people are making millions of dollars at startups. This has, in effect, created something of a lottery system where there is huge payback but most folks don't win. VCs and Angel groups are jumping on the bandwagon, using age as a indicator of startup potential. All of this creates a perverse set of counter-incentives against a traditional classic liberal education. That's a bad thing.

But it's not bad enough to get all upset about. Not yet. It's simply something to observe and see how it progresses.

</comment><comment><USER14> I'm not sure why we are meant to judge the glorification of dropping out by a drop out more suspiciously than the glorification of academia by a European History PhD.

<comment><USER15> But to be fair his arguments against dropping out mostly didn't have to do with Thiel.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> College is broken.

Anyone who paid and went for 4 years, knows its an inefficient use of time and money.

What we need to do is stop glorifying college.

<comment><USER17> College isn't broken, it's just not for everyone. I don't regret my 4 years one bit, it was the best period of my life. I had some amazing social and educational experiences that I wouldn't have received had I not attended - <USER2> knew religion and geology could be so interesting? Most importantly I received a CS degree which helped me transition into the real world and be successful today.

You may feel it was a waste of time and money but for me, it was a bargain.

<comment><USER10> The point is there's nothing you get from college that you couldn't get for free somewhere else (Internet for info and Industry gatherings for social aspects). College puts it together in a nice, easy to digest package but they vastly over charge for it.

The college model is still based around a philosophy from the 1800s when they were the sole providers of information.

<comment><USER7> The perception that "IT'S ALL AVAILABLE ON THE INTERNET" is a strictly CS thing. Outside of programming, you will find drastically less information online for free.

Sure you can buy the same textbooks and push yourself through them, but I'm 100% sure it would have taken me longer than 4 years to learn as much on my own as I did in college that was directly relevant to my day to day job. I'm not even sure if I could have gotten through the high end math without a lot of help.

Would you like a self taught doctor over one with a degree?

<comment><USER18> > Would you like a self taught doctor over one with a degree?

The degree is for his/her own benefit. What I care about is whether the doctor is smart and well-informed.

No, I don't think that earning the right to use the suffix "M.D." means that the doctor is well-informed and knowledgeable.

<comment><USER19> Nope but it is some form of metric that you can use to judge the doctor's capability.

With a self-taught doctor, you just have the questions that you ask to help you judge. With a doctor who's been through school, you have both your questions and the fact that he/she has been through what has been set out by the school issuing the degree.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Speaking as a high school drop out, I wouldn't recommend it for the vast majority of people. College is useful for the people you meet as much as the education you receive.

That said, in Silicon Valley, a few companies on your résumé, a single high profile company and/or a major achievement is more than enough to compensate for a lack of education.

Outside of Silicon Valley? Well that's another story.

<comment><USER21> > _Outside of Silicon Valley? Well that's another story._

It's the same here in the Boston area. I suspect it'll be the same at most companies with heavy software work.

<comment><USER22> He probably meant 'Silicon Valley' metonymically.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I dropped out of college and now run a skydiving business pushing $1.5 million in revenue per year. Year over year we're growing about 50% for two years running.

We started with zero online presence and are now able to run Groupon-like social marketing campaigns and gross around $20k in a week. These are good numbers for a B&M business. Especially useful skillset for a business with narrow margins and notoriously low profits.

I did this instead of try to transfer from a city college to a UC.

Seems like two years running such a business is a bit more educational and resume boosting than getting a degree. I am technical but do not have the discipline to study technical majors or really teach myself enough of a language to build something. I can make minor tweaks and know enough to work with devs.

I don't feel like I'd be half as far along with my 'career' if I'd chosen school over life.

</comment><comment><USER24> With all due respect, Peter Thiel doesn't encourage everyone to drop out. He thought that college is indeed _suitable_ for probably a great majority of young people.

</comment><comment><USER25> If you drop out, you can always "drop in" again. People drop out all the time for all kinds of reasons, then go back a year or two later and finish.

<comment><USER26> This doesn't apply to all countries, unfortunately.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> The glorification of dropping out may be a result of sample bias - <USER3> don't spill as much ink about the people who dropped out of college and ended up failing. That said, some dropouts scare me more than others. For instance, dropping out of _high school_ to be an athlete, rock star, or actor seems very risky. It all worked out for Andre Agassi, but what would he have done if he'd only been a top 2,000 tennis player? Dropping out of _college_ or (especially) _grad school_ to become a startup founder seems much less so. If someone has succeeded through the first two years of computer science, they'll be able to go back and finish that degree if they are so inclined.

One major weakness of the article is that it points to the contributions of professors and researchers who made it all possible for gates, ellison, the google guys, and so forth by publishing unpatented research that served as the foundation for blockbuster companies. Great that they did this, of course, I love these guys, but he seems to be saying that everone else is depending on some other underpaid schlub to stick it through. Next career day, I'm going to go to my local college and say "some of you need to finish grad school and do PhD's - otherwise, how will other people get rich off your ideas?" Jeez, what a pitch.

<comment><USER28> So true about journalists and agreed that not all droputs are the same. Andre Agassi was successful, yes, but he regrets never finishing his education --and he's all about kids from his charter school going to college.

Frankly, the world needs all kinds of people, and the work many people do (not just entrepreneurs) depends on the work of others. Many two-income families would be SOL if there weren't people willing to clean homes and take of children, for example.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> I'm a late thirty-something college dropout, and have yet to regret leaving. I attended a fine small liberal arts school (one of those that rotates through the top three spots of the rankings) and attended for three non-consecutive years. I'd start each year with a love of learning and a sense of potential, and finish each one hating the world and most everyone in it.

I learned an awful lot there, but a lot more from the environment than the actual courses. I learned about money (I'd never really seen it before), I learned about class in America (we didn't have much of that growing up in Wisconsin), and I learned about a lot about cultural relativism (theory and practice). Given a chance, I would highly encourage anyone to attend the best institution they can possibly gain entrance to. It will be eye opening.

But actually getting a degree? Optional. It always felt to me that the certification was at odds with the education. Instead of learning anything in particular, I was being taught to juggle, and to not care too deeply about what I was keeping in the air. This is likely of great value to an employer, but as an individual I want the freedom to care deeply about the content, and never found this to be possible in even an excellent liberal arts college environment.

Financially, I'm probably doing worse than most of my peers who stuck with it. But I think this is more a factor of my personality than the lack of a degree. I left the final time to work at a computer company founded by some friends of mine (social networking advantage) and we managed to sell that successfully. The current startup is much shakier, and at this point all the savings are gone, but I'm pretty sure the lack of a degree has not been holding me back.

Anyway, I'm all for Peter Thiel. I wish something like this had been around for me. It would have been great to have the feeling there was some approved alternative to college rather than just slogging through.

</comment><comment><USER30> The article is written by a Ph.d. That probably means he's got a vested interest in people staying in school...

<comment><USER31> I doubt he's motivated by a financial interest, if that's what you're suggesting. What he certainly has a stake in is maintaining the social status that college degrees give you. He put years into getting a PhD, and if he's teaching undergrads, that means he devotes a lot of time to helping other people get college degrees. To someone in his position, "glorifying dropouts" devalues his accomplishments and his work, at least in the eyes of others.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> College is like bundled software. You're buying a basket of goods, some of the items, probably all, are not the best-of-class, but you get an overall value that some people think is worth the cost and time, particularly if they don't think about the time or cost, since there is social validation from everyone else doing it, and it lets them avoid the thought and effort involved with evaluating the alternatives for their lives.

Best way to learn? No, but you'll learn something. College is about being socialized into society. You'll meet people and join networks. You'll have fun, go to parties, and date. You'll be away from home and learn to live on your own. You'll get a certification that will allow you to apply for certain jobs you would otherwise be excluded from. In short, to fit into the role society wants for you.

The people who are supposedly being glorified for dropping out are actually being glorified for dropping out to do _something better_ than the usual thing. And to those comfortable with and benefiting from the status quo, this act of rejection is perceived as a threat to their plans for you.

</comment><comment><USER33> People (here at HN) seem to be relating not needing a college degree to not needing a computer science degree. There is a huge difference though with degrees for pre-med (biology, bio-chem, etc.), electrical engineering, civil engineering, nuclear engineering, etc. You definitely need those degrees if that's the field you are pursuing.

<comment><USER31> I have an electrical engineering degree, and looking back on it, there's really not much there that you couldn't learn just fine from the Internet -- _if_ the material were readily available, and there were a community of people learning EE online. In order for that to happen, though, EE education would need to get its act together, and change quite a bit.

It's frustrating to see how much better education _could_ be, if only more fields would start using the internet properly.

(Fun fact: I don't have a CS degree, but I'm taking graduate-level CS classes and doing fine. I _know_ that CS it something you can learn well from the internet. I know what it feels like to learn the equivalent of an undergraduate degree online. And EE could be that way, too.)

</comment></comment><comment> T-R I doubt that many HN users are really offended by the idea that their degree could be worthless - if it really is, they probably came by that conclusion on their own.

The resume/interview process is broken, too, but I think most people would consider it poor judgement to explicitly invest in those who didn't get through it.

If he really felt like the degree is just a poor indicator of performance, there would be more discussion about what metric serves as a good alternative, or focus on improving the current metric. Instead, with the age limit, he asserts that degrees are a negative indicator, which makes it sound more like he's purposefully making a poor investment to give a voice to those who have contempt for those who finished college.

</comment><comment><USER34> As some one pointed out in the comments, everyone is different. Sure, college may be broken, but I certainly don't regret going to college. I then went to grad school (for ECE) and now I am in school for an MPA (nonprofit studies).

I do not think Peter Thiel is encouraging people to crap on colleges. It all boils down to an individual - people going to college and those that don't - both can make a difference.

As much as I admire entrepreneurs, facebook and myspace do not solve pressing problems (disease, hunger etc). Sure, we admire the founders because they made it, but money is not the end all. I'd be scared to live in a world full of entrepreneurs :).

</comment><comment><USER35> Funny this comes up, since I'm applying to this program (see profile). I think it's what I need in place of a college education. In other words, it's the right track for my post-secondary 'education' as opposed to college.

</comment><comment><USER36> It may not be an accredited institution, but Thiel is basically starting his own school and offering transfers, not telling people to drop out. I find it similar to Seth Godin's "MBA" program.

An education has 3 valuable components: the people it lets you meet, the experiences you get to have, and the story it lets you tell about yourself to future listeners. If you're not going down the path of a formal education, you still have to make sure you cover these bases.

</comment><comment><USER28> I'm wondering how many of those who drop out of college to start companies succeed -- and by success I don't mean Zuckerberg or Gates type of success but have a profitable company and make enough money to live a comfortable (not extravagant) life?

I believe college is not for everybody or at the same stage of life (i.e., you could go back if the company you started doesn't work out). But I do agree with Thiel's point that a degree provides some level of insurance.

</comment><comment><USER37> I dropped out of college and it was a great decision for me. Every person is different. For some, college is great. For some, dropping out is great. I'd guess the choice that is better for you is related to your learning style.

I'd never attempt to convince someone to drop out of college, but if they do and it works out well for them, I'll be happy to congratulate them.

</comment><comment><USER38> Yeah, anyone who posts their degree in their byline is going to be less than objective when writing a piece like this. Nobody likes to feel like they've been ripped off. Maybe in the future the college degree will be thought of as the Thigh Master of our generation.

</comment><comment><USER39> Many people finish school having lost the natural drive to succeed. But they know how to regurgitate.

I'm not saying school doesn't help you think. But for many it seems to inhibit their ability to act independently.

And for many today, there's too much analysis and not enough experimentation.

</comment><comment><USER40> What? Why not? The way things are going, your degree isn't worth as much as you'd like it to be and you'll probably be in debt for a while just to pay it off.

</comment><comment><USER41> A degree is also useful for visas. If your canadian and you don't have a degree good luck getting a TN or any other kind of work permit visa down in the US.

</comment><comment><USER42> dropping out to work on something can be a good idea. start while you're in school, and only drop out once you can't handle both, though. maybe take a light course load at first, and if your project really picks up steam, drop the courses.

dropping out to work for someone is just stupid.

</comment><comment><USER43> Don't glorify staying in school.

</comment><comment><USER44> This man offering the scholarship to 'stop-outs' won't instantly make the university system collapse.

If I had a great idea and an investor was $100k confident in the monetization of it, I would probably drop out, too. The author's whole premise is that dropping out is universally bad and should be discouraged, and that staying in school is universally good. Neither are true.

The article also misses the point: Where might we be if some of the 'usual celebrity dropouts' hadn't dropped out? What if they had said, "I'll get a real job first, then work on my idea." The world might look very different.

Non-Ph.D. entrepreneurs and academics can peacefully coexist.

EDIT: I concede to gxti that my statement about the author's premise is false. I stand by my other opinions: The scholarship is a neat idea and will not convince most people to drop out.

<comment><USER45> _The article also misses the point: Where might we be if some of the 'usual celebrity dropouts' hadn't dropped out?_

I don't think the article misses the point. He never says Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg should never have dropped out. He's just saying that dropping out should be _rare_. For the vast majority of people, it's not the right thing to do, financially. The "right people" will ignore all the discouragement and drop out anyway. People like Sergey Brin & Larry Page will drop out, with or without Thiel's investment.

"It's better to discourage than to encourage dropping out, so that it's done only for compelling reasons."

<comment><USER9> > People like Sergey Brin & Larry Page will drop out, with or without Thiel's > investment.

That is probably precisely the part that Thiel disagrees with you about. Who knows how many would-be Brins and Pages couldn't afford the risk?

<comment><USER20> Risk adverse people aren't generally successful at founding startups.

<comment><USER46> Exactly. By reversing the equation and actually paying people to leave school and found startups Peter Thiel is likely going to get some people who are too risk averse to do it without a guaranteed reward. I'm not sure this is a preferable outcome, but surely he's thought of it and decided it was worth a try.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> I think the guy is on the right path, don't glorify dropping out. Glorify removing unessential distractions.</comment>


Show HN: Route Optimization API - mck- https://www.routific.com/developers

<comment><AUTHOR> I've never heard of Routific. Linking to your API, I was immediately intrigued and went to go visit the home page[1] of your product.

I have to say: well executed. This is a really good representation of how well Bootstrap can be implemented. From Retina display to mobile, the layout was clearly well thought-out and considered.

Interesting product and well-done design. Stuck this in the file for not only routing issues, but design and implementation inspiration.

[1] - [https://www.routific.com](https://www.routific.com)

</comment><comment><USER2> I work with a non profit that would benefit from this so much.

They employ 600+ staff serving over a thousand persons with disabilities and are currently starting their own transit arm to support the agency. They operate something like 2 dozen buses and large vans across 50+ recurring destinations.

<comment> mck- Sounds awesome! Would love to talk about doing this pro-bono -- shoot me an email firstname.lastname@example.com

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> "Research shows our routes are up to 20% shorter" shorter than what? Which research?

You're lacking a lot of copy, but the idea is pretty good. Niche, but good. I'm interested to see if people will pay for it.

<comment> mck- Here's my thesis paper for reference [1]

[1] [http://thesis.eur.nl/pub/6427/6427-Kuo.pdf](http://thesis.eur.nl/pub/6427/6427-Kuo.pdf)

<comment><USER4> I just started to skim your thesis so I apologize if this is covered somewhere. Is it commonly understood that route optimizations for maritime transport are equivalent to automobile transport?

<comment> mck- Maritime transport, specifically Tramp Ship Scheduling, is very similar to a taxi operation. Taxi logistics are known in literature as Pickup and Delivery Problems with Time Windows (PDPTW) -- which is an advanced type of VRPTW -- which, in turn, is more complex than the classic TSP.

To answer your question: mathematically, Tramp Shipping is a more advanced type of PDPTW, so they are almost equivalent.

We will support PDPTW on our API soon, but what I present here with Routific is but a subset of what I cover in my thesis: Multi-Depot Capacitated Vehicle Routing Problem with Time Windows and Heterogenous Fleet with Shift Constraints (MDCVRPTWHFS -- so glad I did not pursue academia)

P.S.: in my thesis I also optimize the sailing speed of the ships, which -- as my thesis goes -- can save millions a year on top of an already optimized shipping fleet. The cubic relation between sailing speed and fuel consumption does not hold for vehicles on the road though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I'm curious: What's your target market? I assume FedEx-size companies already optimize routes, and ver small companies may not understand the cost savings your site offers.

Not being negative - seems like a very good and potentially very big idea...but you'll have to prove its worthwhile.

<comment> mck- You're right: FedEx and UPS are spending billions on route optimization. Must mean they see an ROI. What about the rest who cannot afford that?

Routific makes route optimization accessible for SMEs, as well as large enterprises who are risk-averse towards committing lots of capital to consultants.

And you're right again. We'll have to prove it :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Sounds like a great idea!

One small thing: It would be great if you can include a sample curl call on the API dashboard screen (with my authentication token). It is not immediately obvious that you cannot copy + paste the token displayed into the curl call directly.

<comment> mck- Great feedback - will do!

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Do you account for current traffic? How would you do that? That's the single most important element in routing, I think, and, although Waze was in the right track for solving it, it doesn't use well all its data.

<comment> mck- No we do not account for traffic. We're not in the business of getting from A to B. We're about optimizing entire fleets (think 1000 orders, 100 vehicles).

Traffic delays are but a small factor, when we can cut 20 obsolete vehicles. We do take average road speed into account though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I love the design, may I ask who did it?

Also, would have been great if you could drag & drop destinations on the map (I also assume some of your costumers would prefer it that way, rather than an API).

<comment><USER9> Axiom Zen Collective :) [https://www.axiomzen.co/](https://www.axiomzen.co/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Site looks great and it was easy to understand the service. However, I went looking for pricing and couldn't find it. My guess is that maybe you are testing now to see what type of demand there might be? I think some type of note on pricing would be helpful (even if it is somethings like "currently free for beta testers but we plan to start charging from x date").

<comment> mck- Currently free beta, plan to charge $29/vehicle/month

<comment><USER11> What countries are supported? What will happen if I ask to route between two places I can't drive between? What's the cap on number of vehicles/orders? How long does optimization take? Have you ever driven one of your optimized routes? How does your product compare to Eurobios, Descartes and oracle real time scheduler?

<comment> mck- 1\. Global support 2\. The orders that cannot be reached will be returned in an array: unserved 3\. No cap. $29/vehicle/month. 4\. Hard question; since we're talking about an NP-hard problem: \- For ~20 orders, it takes ~1s. \- For ~120 orders, an API call (from POST to response) is about ~20s. Just to give you a few pointers of benchmarks. Having said that, given the nature of our algorithms, you may run the algorithm for as long as you have time, to keep searching for better solutions. 5\. No I haven't. But I always drive with a GPS :) 6\. I used to work as an OR consultant. I haven't used the products you mention, but I have used AIMSS, GAMS, Quintiq, and the like before. My take-away is that those software packages are expensive, bloated, and clunky. They require consultants and IT integrators. And workshops and manuals. Routific is Simple. Straightforward.™

<comment><USER12> You should include some of these comparisons on the site. You seem to know your market really well and you should expand on the website copy with some of this reaaly valuable information. Well executed BTW. Looks really nice on mobile too.

<comment> mck- I think that's a great idea :) thanks!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Looks interesting! Does it work in UK?

We are using OptimoRoute ([http://optimoroute.com](http://optimoroute.com)) for planning our delivery routes. Like Routific it's also priced per vehicle/month, but it includes a web application.

<comment> mck- Yes, it works globally. How are you liking OptimoRoute? Looks neat :) We have a web application and mobile app on our roadmap

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Small bug: If you are searching for a route between two places in Europe the map is still focusing on america and not moving to europe, you just see the map pin moving on the right hand side of the map.

<comment> mck- Fixed, thanks. Will be deployed in 3 min :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I'm actually looking for something like this!

No mention of pricing yet, though. Are there plans which aren't per user/truck, such as if we're putting it in our SaaS?

</comment><comment><USER16> This seems to be what I need. What map data are you using?

<comment> mck- OpenStreetMaps

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Just what I'm looking for, thanks.

</comment><comment><USER18> Vancouverites, by the looks of it? :)

<comment> mck- Yep :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> The site looks particularly nice, and the service looks like it could be useful.</comment>