Today's developers don't need what the App Store offers - <AUTHOR> https://capiche.com/e/ecommerce-and-app-store-fees-compared <comment><USER2> > Today, a free app brings Apple zero revenue

Today and always, a free app brings Apple $99/year for a developer account, which is mandatory to publish on the App Store.

<comment><USER3> This is actually fairly significant.

As a point of comparison, in 2019, Apple did about 50 billion in sales [1], which means they made about $15 billion

In 2018 (latest I could find numbers for) they reportedly had 20 million registered developers [2] so that's another $2 billion. That's 3.5% of their 2019 net income of $55 billion [3] (of course there are costs to running the app store, distribution, etc that aren't accounted for in here).

It makes me think of Costco -- whose membership fees make up nearly _all_ their net income [4]. Don't make money from the thing, make money from enabling access to the thing -- well or I guess in Apple's case, make money from both.

[1] [https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/07/apple-app-store-had- estimate...](https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/07/apple-app-store-had-estimated- gross-sales-of-50-billion-in-2019.html)

[2] [https://techcrunch.com/2018/06/04/app-store- hits-20m-registe...](https://techcrunch.com/2018/06/04/app-store- hits-20m-registered-developers-at-100b-in-revenues-500m-visitors-per-week/)

[3] [https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/AAPL/apple/net- inc...](https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/AAPL/apple/net-income)

[4] [https://money.com/costco-doesnt-make-much-money-selling- you-...](https://money.com/costco-doesnt-make-much-money-selling-you- groceries-heres-how-it-really-earns-billions-a-year/)

<comment><USER4> > In 2018 (latest I could find numbers for) they reportedly had 20 million > registered developers

Keep in mind that the term "registered developer" is fairly ambiguous. Does it include non-paying developers? Does it include all developers under a single business account (e.g. at one of my jobs, I was a registered developer under a broader organizational account)?

<comment><USER5> I would presume that includes paid and free developers; you have to have an Apple Developer account to sign Safari extensions, for instance, or to sign non-App Store Mac apps, neither of which require a paid Apple Developer account.

The point would still stand though that the total revenue from Apple Developer subscriptions would not be insignificant (perhaps insignificant to Apple's overall revenue, but still enough to be a sizable startup's budget on its own), which I should have noted in the original article.

<comment><USER2> > you have to have an Apple Developer account to sign Safari extensions, for > instance, or to sign non-App Store Mac apps, neither of which require a paid > Apple Developer account.

Their documentation suggests otherwise[1] (scroll down to "Benefits and Resources"). "Safari Extensions distribution" and "Software distribution outside the Mac App Store" are listed on the column of the 99 USD fee.

[1]: [https://developer.apple.com/support/compare- memberships/](https://developer.apple.com/support/compare-memberships/)

<comment><USER5> Interesting, this may have changed.

Just remembered that Safari now only lets you install extensions from the App Store, so that would actually make sense if a paid developer account is now required.

There's yet another reason why Safari has so few extensions.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> > Amazon's Kindle store charges 30%, but with conditions. Your book must cost > $2.99 to $9.99, and 20% less than any print copiesell. It must be exclusive > to the Kindle to get this rate in some markets. Any VAT comes out of your > cut, as does a download fee of $0.15/mb. Sell a $9.99 book, and you might > get $6.69. > > Don't meet those requirements, and Amazon charges 65% of your > selling price. Sell a $10 book, get only $3.50.

That is an incredible fee to pay for a digital good. I looked into this expecting the author to be just outright lying. There is one factual inaccuracy (Amazon and the ebook author split proceeds after accounting for VAT/delivery charges), but it is substantially accurately.

[https://kdp.amazon.com/en_US/help/topic/G200634500](https://kdp.amazon.com/en_US/help/topic/G200634500)

[https://kdp.amazon.com/en_US/help/topic/G200644210](https://kdp.amazon.com/en_US/help/topic/G200644210)

[https://kdp.amazon.com/en_US/help/topic/G200634560](https://kdp.amazon.com/en_US/help/topic/G200634560)

<comment><USER6> It's a common theme. X used to be expensive to do. People used to pay Y to get X. Through technological advancements, X has become much cheaper or even practically free now. The entity closest to the source of X still charges Y for it and does not pass any of the savings to the entities and consumers below.

Your example is one. Printing, distributing, storing, displaying, and shipping physical books was expensive. Booksellers got ~50–60% of the book price for their trouble. Given the cost of doing business, it was a fair and reasonable price. All those costs are near zero now. Booksellers still want their 60%, because they can. They prefer to keep all the savings and pass none downstream.

The same is true for digital distribution, banking monthly and transaction fees, TI calculators, "convenience fee" for printing your own ticket with your own printer at home, ...

Until recently, brokerages charged exorbitant fees per trade. This is even though trades were effectively free for them and they were earning money in other ways. The status quo of charging for something that would naturally be free was preserved for decades, before a new kid came to the block and ruined the party for everyone. Now the consumers are much better off.

We as the consumers should demand and try to make more of this happen.

<comment><USER4> Ebook pricing never really made sense to me. During college when I was buying textbooks, the ebooks on Amazon were frequently significantly more expensive than a new copy of the physical book. Not sure if that's still the case though.

Robinhood has truly disrupted the brokerage market. But I'm curious about their viability now that a ton of mainstream brokerage have also dropped commissions.

<comment><USER6> They are probably not viable. But that has nothing to do with their lack of commission fees. As Matt Levine has described [0], zero is the natural price for transaction fee.It's not like TD Ameritrade and Schwab are losing money now to compete with Robinhood.

Many banking packages in Canada have a low number of debit transactions (like 4 or 12 or 20) per month for free and charge a fee ($1–$2) after that. It's not like debit card transactions are costing them anything (they actually get transaction fees from merchants). But they can get away with it, so they do it. It's just another revenue stream. The natural price for an additional debit transaction is also free. If they drop the fee, I would not be worried at all about their viability.

[0] [https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-10-02/the- tr...](https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-10-02/the-trades-will- be-free-now)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> A modest proposal: Legally require sales and lease of computers herein to include laptops, tablets, phones provide owner or lessee with root access to devices including right to modify device software and use services normally associated with sale/lease of device including updates and cloud services without prejudices insofar as how you use it.

This is to say they cannot deny you updates or access to icloud but if you modify your software so as to prevent it from working that is solely on you.

This would make it impossible for Apple to prevent third parties from offering their own app stores which could offer devs their own terms.

It's exceptionally likely that prices would stabilize under 10%.

</comment><comment><USER8> SaaS costs money to though - there's not an analysis of that in this article, if you use AWS or Azure they cost as well. I can see Apple need to charge for their service (I'd want a lot to argue with developers all day :-)), they could probably charge less though, but the same argument can be made for all their products.

Personally I think its great that I can write some code publish an App and Apple looks after a lot of stuff for me, would I like it if they charge less, sure - but its a level playing field, everyone on the App Store pays the same, so just add 30% to your price and move on. As a user, I like that I can reasonably trust the apps I download from the App Store - and thats who apples customers are, users, not developers. If you want to use apples service then you have to pay a premium, if you don't like it you can probably go to android (I'm sure this is Apples position).

<comment><USER5> Author here, and agreed—I mentioned the payment processing fees, and that SaaS might also pay Stripe an additional 1% (or something like Recurly even more) to manage subscriptions, but that's only part of the costs.

And that's the problem I think. SaaS already has all these other costs, from hosting to account management to cross-device development, none of which the App Store help with. The App Store _does_ offer native app developers value, in licensing, distribution, updates, and more—none of which apply to the SaaS model. Which is where I think part of the conflict comes from: SaaS developers incur the costs of building SaaS, get little-to-no value from the App Store, and so find the 30% fee more frustrating.

<comment><USER8> Yes, I see that, but I'd say that Apple isn't really interested in making SaaS players lives easier - its not their business.

Edit: and upon thought, SaaS actually competes with their business model.

<comment><USER5> True enough—and yet, the App Store by not offering software upgrades, has in many ways pushed developers to the subscription model.

<comment><USER8> I never really thought of that - maybe thats what they wanted :-), they get a continuous stream of money forever from all the apps.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> 1000% this. The App Store is stagnant because Apple refuses to improve their store to where developers choose to distribute their app on the App Store. 30% may have made sense in 2008, but it certainly doesn't make any sense in 2020.

<comment><USER5> Author here. It would be interesting to imagine what Apple could offer SaaS developers that would make them _want_ to pay the App Store a percentage.

Imagine if Amazon was the dominant platform, and they were the ones charging an App Store fee, but somehow that included AWS fees as well...

<comment><USER10> A subscription fee closer to 10% starts to look attractive at least for smaller ventures. By dealing with taxes, exchange rates and credit cards, that is a fairly nice set of things to not even need to think about.

But the developer APIs/processes for dealing with in-app purchases are brutal and virtually unchanged over the past 5 years.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Good time to concentrate on pushing progressive web apps (PWAs) forward: ask for browser developers to agree on standards and implement few missing features that are available only on native, like file system support. Build more PWAs, even if some features are still not available - they might be tomorrow. Let users know about PWAs, what are the benefits (usually faster install and smaller size), how to install them.

<comment><USER12> Apple is never going to allow full PWA support on iOS. It's too big of a threat to their App Store revenue.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> The App Store offers discoverability, hosting, reviews/ratings, payment processing, return handling, and (limited) QA in the form of the review process.

If I think about how much time I'd spend building and managing all that stuff _on top of_ building my app, I wouldn't be surprised if 30% was actually a pretty good bargain.

I would love if Apple lowered their percentage, but I don't feel particularly ripped off by it.

<comment><USER14> As DHH explained though, letting Apple manage the payments process means that the user becomes Apple's customer rather than yours, which is actually a negative for them since they can no longer handle any problems customers have with billing.

> QA in the form of the review process

They are checking that you aren't breaking _their_ rules, they're not looking out for you. This is akin to companies telling you their HR/legal department is there to help you. They are not, they are there to protect the company.

> I would love if Apple lowered their percentage, but I don't feel > particularly ripped off by it.

The problem is you don't get a choice whether you think they are ripping you off or not

<comment><USER15> > etting Apple manage the payments process means that the user becomes Apple's > customer rather than yours, which is actually a negative for them since they > can no longer handle any problems customers have with billing.

As a buyer, it's awesome to be able to use Apple manage the payment process. I am able to cancel recurring services far more easily (I don't ever want to call someone or mail something), and I trust them to be more secure with my payment info.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> If you can get away with a web app, do it. It doesn't just save you the app store fees, it also gives you more control over your software.

<comment><USER17> Unfortunately, Safari is not so friendly to those

<comment><USER18> "not so friendly" is a nice understatement.

I'd go as far as to say Mobile Safari is actively bad at the technologies required to build a compelling web application so that they don't threaten their cash piñata in the app store.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> It's curious to see so many saying that these developers _owe Apple_ x amount, but only a couple acknowledging that a steady stream of people developing apps for their locked-in platform is one of the only things keeping them relevant for anything beyond the most basic use-cases. I'm not an Apple guy nor an Apple developer (and hope to never be one), so I don't have an immediate skin in this race, but this kind of behavior just seems unhealthy overall, and reads as biting (one of) the hand(s) that feed(s) you.

For instance, people developing games mainly for windows is the only reason I'm not running a full Linux box right now (maybe some day, c'mon proton...). If MS made releasing on windows hostile enough to make a non-trivial number of people consider releasing titles linux-only, I would abandon it in a heart- beat.

</comment><comment><USER20> The article doesn't live up to the title (on Hacker News). Or, really, the actual title. SaaS means nothing to the developer of an iPhone/iPad app. Apple offers distribution, collection, and a limited form of discoverability. In addition - people don't talk about this much, but it's real - if you sell an app direct, no matter how much you protect it, if it's popular sooner or later some hacker will break your protection and offer downloads of your app for free. Apple protects you from your revenue suddenly going to zero because somebody "cracked" your app. That's why it's still possible to make millions from a $1 app. Not a bad deal.

</comment><comment><USER21> This article makes a good case for why ALL of these big monopolistic corporations need to be more heavily regulated due to abusing their market power in all of the ways mentioned.

</comment><comment><USER22> Is it me or the math in the article doesn't make sense. The author is accumulating the costs for selling a SINGLE instance of the product on Shopify, Ebay, Amazon, and Walmart. When in reality, you would be paying only for the one you sold your product through, even if you offer your product on multiple platforms.

</comment><comment><USER23> To make it fair for both parties, Apple's App Store needs to adopt a hybrid/affiliate model. The App Store still provides lots of value in terms of discoverability and marketing. Many users find apps to download while browsing the App Store. The App Store will also feature apps while continually optimizing its algorithms to ensure the right apps are shown to the user in order to increase conversion rates, thereby benefiting the developer. Ranking highly on the App Store is very lucrative just like on Google. So this notion of developers not needing the App Store doesn't jive with me, especially for smaller developers who don't have the brand awareness that Basecamp does.

For that, Apple deserves to be paid for it but _only_ if new users are referred from the App Store–an affiliate commission. That 30% is more than worth the extra marketing and customers you wouldn't otherwise have gotten. For anyone that isn't referred, the fee shouldn't apply.

<comment><USER5> Author here—I guess, to a degree, that's how Apple sees it too, it's just they think they deserve a larger percent than developers want to give. There are apps—business software including Adobe and Microsoft's subscriptions, media subscriptions, and more—that offer subscriptions directly on their site, plus offer in-app purchase subscriptions on their mobile apps. If you've already subscribed on their site, Apple gets nothing, but Apple gets a percent of any sales that originate from the App Store.

If it were closer to just payment processing + an affiliate cut (say 3% plus a 7% affiliate cut) perhaps it'd frustrate devs less. And for what it's worth, Apple does take only 15% on subscriptions after the first year which gets closer.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Then don't publish on the App Store

<comment><USER25> What exactly is the alternative for iOS devices?

<comment><USER24> I thought you said you didn't need what the App Store offers?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> It's like a store not needing the protection the mob offers

</comment><comment><USER27> The App Store model is thriving. Absolutely bursting at the seems gushing cash... SaaS did not "kill the App Store model"

<comment><USER28> We've changed the baity title to the less baity subtitle.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> The new definition of 'dead' is 'doing $50bn a year in sales'?</comment>


Outrageously Large Neural Nets: Sparsely-Gated Mixture-of-Experts Layer (2017) - <AUTHOR> https://arxiv.org/abs/1701.06538 <comment><USER2> Discussion 2 years ago at time of publication:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13518039](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13518039)

</comment><comment><USER3> N00b here.

I can't tell if this is primarily intended to provide effective sharding of a largely homogeneous network, or if it's intended to allow for incorporation of diverse networks and use the gating to classify and route the inputs to the appropriate networks.

<comment><USER4> Heh. I'm not sure you're wrong to say it either way.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> This work uses conditional computation to allow for "Outrageously large" networks which may work better in practice but which will be even harder to understand.

I'm very interested in working on using this same sort of conditional computation to make reasonably sized neural networks easier to understand. Has anyone seen papers on this sort of work?

<comment><USER6> What is it with needing to understand NNs? Its the same thing as not trusting a human to drive a car because you cannot understand every stage Of computation happening in their brain. If a neural network learns a task, test it well enough to know that it performs well enough in target domain before using it. Don't expect to be able to understand how it works and from there claim to know that it will work well and have more confidence in it. This approach barely works in standard software, let alone a neural network. Stop worrying and learn to love the NN, after all it is a mirror of your own ineffable nature.

<comment><USER7> _" Those are scary things, those gels. You know one suffocated a bunch of people in London a while back?"

Yes, Joel's about to say, but Jarvis is back in spew mode. "No shit. It was running the subway system over there, perfect operational record, and then one day it just forgets to crank up the ventilators when it's supposed to. Train slides into station fifteen meters underground, everybody gets out, no air, boom."

"These things teach themselves from experience, right?," Jarvis continues. "So everyone just assumed it had learned to cue the ventilators on something obvious. Body heat, motion, CO2 levels, you know. Turns out instead it was watching a clock on the wall. Train arrival correlated with a predictable subset of patterns on the digital display, so it started the fans whenever it saw one of those patterns."

"Yeah. That's right." Joel shakes his head. "And vandals had smashed the clock, or something."_

<comment><USER8> To summarise: if a system is not understood there exists the possibility of sudden, unexpected harm. The system is unsafe. This is (probably) ok if the system is putting icing on donuts (you might get a bad batch) but is definitely not ok if the system is deciding on dosing levels for drugs or controlling machines that could suddenly smash into queues of school children.

<comment><USER7> Moreover, if (as customary in all technology) you build systems upon these systems, even the low malfunction probabilities will multiply into nearly assured failures. With a system you understand you can find the cause and fix the issue for all: this what allows us to build ever more complex systems over decades of engineering R&D.

But for a system you don't understand you are at whim of cascading patterns of errors in underlying behavior.

<comment><USER9> Two counter examples:

1\. A cpu you rely on is a well understood system yet unexpected failures do happen (eg pentium bug, spectre exploits, etc).

2\. A human you rely on might fail unexpectedly (tired, drunk, heart attack, going crazy, embracing terrorism, etc).

After testing reasonable number of things, if NNs perform more reliably than those other systems we rely on currently, it will be increasingly harder to justify using the other systems, especially when that means more people accidentally dying every year.

<comment><USER7> I believe "With a system you understand you can find the cause and fix the issue for all" covers the first case. The second case is applicable to both NN and traditional control systems.

<comment><USER9> So which system would you personally prefer to rely on in life or death situation, the one that is well understood (accident rate 0.0001%), or poorly understood (accident rate 0.000001%)?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This is from 2017, so probably obsolete by now.

<comment><USER10> It is. For example, it uses LSTM, which is obsolete now.

<comment><USER11> People keep saying this with extreme confidence; I'm not sure I buy it.

Certainly recurrent networks in general are not obsolete, even if attention/convolution works better for some applications.

Perhaps one ought to try GRU before LSTM but there's no reason to suppose that it would dominate in all cases.

<comment><USER12> Indeed. Here is a very fresh paper finding that attention is certainly not all you need as sometimes recurrence is necessary.

[https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.01603](https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.01603)

This is also obvious: Without recurrence you cannot remember information that is not externally visible, but it may be computationally very convenient and often necessary to maintain information that is hidden.

The hard part is learning reps for hidden information as recurrences are plagued by vanishing and shattering gradients.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Your Random Numbers – Getting Started with Processing and Data Visualization - <AUTHOR> http://blog.blprnt.com/blog/blprnt/your-random-numbers-getting-started-with-processing-and-data-visualization

<comment><USER2> This is an awesome article. I've been teaching myself/experimenting with data visualization at my job, but mostly just with excel tools. This definitely opens my eyes to a whole new level.

I think the most interesting was when he laid it into a grid, and then going backwards and seeing how difficult those trends are to spot in the previous graphs.

</comment><comment><USER3> Pretty cool, and an interesting approach to data visualization. I was actually doing something similar just the other day, and what I ended up with was much more boring:

<http://www.bluh.org/curve.png>

(Which is a RNG I built to distribute the values along a known probability distribution, this was simply a test of the system).

</comment><comment><USER4> Wow, very nice intro to Processing, and a nice demonstration that human- generated random numbers aren't very uniform. I absolutely love the C-like syntax. Anyone have any tips on integration with R?

<comment><USER5> The C-like syntax is inherited from Java, iirc you can use Processing from regular Java.</comment></comment>


Show HN: I've created a third place. (for getting to know HNers) - <AUTHOR> http://athirdplace.com/hi

<comment><USER2> The text is so small I have to zoom in 3 times to get it the same size as Google with no zoom. I was too distracted by that to attempt to read anything. The only button on the page is a Facebook login that requires access to every bit of data in my account. I passed on that.

<comment><AUTHOR> Sorry to hear that. We went with the smaller font to fit everything on one page. Working on it now. As far as FB, we only ask for your email.

<comment><USER3> _As far as FB, we only ask for your email._

"thirdplace is requesting permission to do the following:

* Access my basic information - Includes name, profile picture, gender, networks, user ID, list of friends, and any other information I've shared with everyone.

* Send me email - thirdplace may email me directly at <email>

* Access my data any time - thirdplace may access my data when I'm not using the application "

<comment><AUTHOR> Unfortunately, with FB all apps are required to ask for basic information. All we have control over is the additional data (email). You are right though, FB sometimes asks for/gives away a lot of data unnecessarily.

<comment><USER3> But why do you want to access my data even if I'm not using the app?

<comment><AUTHOR> when someone introduces themselves to you, you are notified via email, this way you don't need to constantly check the app for new intros. the only way to retain your email is to ask for offline_access

<comment><USER3> Sorry, but it sounds like you are doing it wrong.

<comment><USER4> I've only glanced at the Facebook API but I'm pretty sure he is doing it right.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Please repost when/if you drop the FB requirement. I don't use my FB account anywhere but FB, and it really seems at odds with the "anonymous" aspects discussed.

I would love to see it, thou, so here's hoping you don't stop here.

<comment><AUTHOR> It's anonymous in that you don't have to give your name to anyone at any point. We keep it confidential. The FB requirement is a way of ensuring a few things, but primarily that you are acting as yourself (with your own photo).

<comment><USER6> Require a twitter or google acct. Use gravitar for the photo.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I hate to sound like a grammar nazi, but is there a reason there is no capitalization on the front page? And I second everybody else. If anonymity is one of the features, having Facebook as the only login option kind of defeats that purpose. OpenID would be better.

</comment><comment><USER8> Added myself, but thought twice about giving you access to my Facebook stuff, so revoked the FB app stuff again. You don't need to access my FB account, period.

<comment><USER9> Especially since it's requesting offline_access. That's shady status for sure.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Backstory: This concept spawned from feedback received on HN for a previously failed idea. I look forward to your feedback and to getting to know some of you!

<comment><USER10> First thing I noticed was the lack of capitalization just about everywhere. The font-size is a little small, too. Other than that, it looks pretty good.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Passed because of the Facebook requirement.

</comment><comment><USER12> hmm...

You seem to fail to take your audience into consideration. It is common for HN to resist facebook login.

</comment><comment><USER13> _"everyone provides a brief, anonymous introduction to their life"_

It still can track your identify since it uses facebook connect. Please make this anonymous for people who wish to be anonymous.

</comment><comment><USER14> I don't have a facebook account, so for now, cannot use it :(

</comment><comment><USER15> Sorry, but I don't use Facebook so I'll pass on this.

</comment><comment><USER16> Nice concept, terrible implementation design-wise.

</comment><comment><USER17> When editing my profile, I click on "twitter username" or "blog or website url" and it immediately replaces the form with "entering a third place..." and it just sits there.

</comment><comment><USER18> I was resistant to the FB login, but clicked it anyway. I balked when I saw your app requesting access to my information any time. Nope, not gonna happen.

<comment><USER19> Yeah, what this needs is just a regular openid login...

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Saw the font size, closed the window. You have a column that is 330px wide? Make it twice that width, and increase the font size.

</comment><comment><USER21> Damn, I was hoping this was going to be a real third place; you know, not on the Internet but in the real world.</comment>


Ask HN: What tool do you use to manage your app's assets/images? - <AUTHOR>

An app, whether a SaaS or mobile app, needs many images of different sizes for all different platforms:
- the iOS App and Google Play stores (icons in sizes X/X'/X''/..., screenshots, ...) - your app's Facebook page (icon in size Y, cover, ...) - its Twitter account (icon in size Z, cover) - ad campaigns - ...<p>What tool(s) do you use to manage (upload/resize/edit/version) them? <comment><USER2> This is exactly what we designed Pixtulate for ([http://www.pixtulate.com](http://www.pixtulate.com)). Hit me up if you have any questions.</comment>


YC's 2015 Reading List - <AUTHOR> http://themacro.com/articles/2015/12/yc-2015-reading-list/ <comment><USER2> Great share!

I noticed something funny about myself after reading Ayn Rand - I found her writing influenced my mindset and made me (personally - not casting this on all Rand fans) more isolationist, individualist, and just a little bit more of an asshole.

Interested by that phenomenon, I've been on the lookout for books that might subtly influence my perspective in ways that would make me warmer, kinder, more sympathetic/empathetic.

Two of these recommendations look spot-on for that. Purchased:

 __The Road to Character

"Focuses on the deeper values that should inform our lives. Responding to what he calls the culture of the Big Me, which emphasizes external success, Brooks challenges us, and himself, to rebalance the scales between our "résumé virtues"—achieving wealth, fame, and status—and our "eulogy virtues," those that exist at the core of our being: kindness, bravery, honesty, or faithfulness, focusing on what kind of relationships we have formed."

 __Tiny Beautiful Things: Advice on Love and Life from Dear Sugar

"Cheryl Strayed was an advice columnist called Dear Sugar, and this collection of her essays is a guide to finding inner strength through tenderness. She masterfully links the problems of her readers to her own painful experiences, and the result will cling to you with its vulnerability, sweetness, and intimacy. I've been in love with this book all fall."

<comment><USER3> I've not yet read 'Atlas Shrugged' or 'The Fountainhead', and feel I shouldn't comment until I do. However, my anecdotal experience is that there is an association between people who have read Rand and people who are isolationist, individualist, and, uh, unpleasant. I have wondered about the mindset, about whether it's the book that develops the mindset, or the mindset that finds the book, and about whether books might help develop a different mindset. As a person who devoured the Lord of the Rings trilogy as a teenager, I always liked this quote:

"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." [1]

I am hopeful for any social discussion of character.

[1] [https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Rogers](https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Rogers)

<comment><USER4> I have read both and, at the time, it put me in a position of valuing great fantastical deeds done by the folks portrayed, the absolutist nature of objectivism to value the individual over all else really left a bad taste with me.

I don't think the mindset finds the book, although it would certainly help in finding the recommendation.

<comment><USER5> what are you talking about?

I understood Rand as if each of us truly focus on our individual needs then the world will be a better place.

The world is lot shittier because there are lots of people who seem to think they know what someone else wants.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Another great source of reading material: FiveBooks[0] interviews "experts" and asks them to recommend five good books for understanding their field.

E.g., this[1] interview with David Brooks from 2009 is a lot of the source material/ inspiration for his book.

[0] [http://fivebooks.com](http://fivebooks.com)

[1] [http://fivebooks.com/interview/david-brooks-on- neuroscience/](http://fivebooks.com/interview/david-brooks-on-neuroscience/)

<comment><USER7> Vaguely reminds me of this list, where scholars were asked which book changed their mind the most: [http://chronicle.com/article/What-Book-Changed-Your- Mind-/14...](http://chronicle.com/article/What-Book-Changed-Your- Mind-/149839/)

Would love to find more lists of the sort

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Nonviolent communication is a precise and liberating way of talking. You can be exposed by watching this talk too:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwXH4hNfgPg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwXH4hNfgPg)

It's three hours FYI. But my sales pitch is: Marshall Rosenberg is _funny_ when talks about miscommunication. I haven't laughed out loud at a three hour youtube video before reading this.

In case you cringe at the term "nonviolent communication": Marshall Rosenberg dislikes it too, and he coined it!

</comment><comment><USER9> Why Information Grows is probably the best one I read this year.

It's fairly ambitious and sets out to link information theory, the emergence of life, evolution and economic growth all in one coherent story. It doesn't quite hit the mark as it becomes a bit too abstract towards the end, but the first 3 chapters are the best story of how information theory fits into thermodynamics and the emergence of life. It's also the best summary of Ilya Prigogine's work I've read (including, ironically, Prigogine's own books)

[http://www.amazon.ca/Why-Information-Grows-Evolution- Economi...](http://www.amazon.ca/Why-Information-Grows-Evolution- Economies/dp/0465048994)

</comment><comment><USER10> +1 for Sapiens. Good overview of the histroy of humanity, and I especially liked the theory of how shared beliefs enable cooperation among larger groups.

The example of "The Legend of Peugeot" was also great: does the company Peugeot actually exist, can you point to what it is. No, it only exists as a shared belief.

Also, Jeeves is great :-)

</comment><comment><USER11> Note that this is different than the YC library:

[https://www.ycombinator.com/resources/](https://www.ycombinator.com/resources/)

The YC library keeps a good list of perennial favorites....

</comment><comment><USER12> Before you go looking for "character" in David Brooks' book, remember that he was an enthusiastic backer of the Iraq War, and belittled and sneered at those protesting the war.

His comments after the House voted to restrict NSA phone data collection: "I'd say it's a moral victory for the wingnuts. And, you know, you look at the moment. What are we faced with? We're faced with a rising libertarianism, both on the left and the right."

I'd look for my "character" elsewhere.

</comment><comment><USER13> Here is a list of lists: [http://popsnip.com/topic/863/Best-Books- of-2015-List-of-List...](http://popsnip.com/topic/863/Best-Books-of-2015-List- of-Lists)

</comment><comment><USER14> 'The Prize' is phenomenal. I took an econ class on the petroleum industry and the prof used it instead of a text book. PBS turn into into a really good multi-part documentary.

</comment><comment><USER15> Best books I have read this year:

\- Shareholder letters of Warren Buffett: [http://amzn.to/1OgZVh9](http://amzn.to/1OgZVh9)

\- Endurance: Shackleton's Incredible Voyage: [http://amzn.to/1Oh09oz](http://amzn.to/1Oh09oz)

</comment><comment><USER16> Bill gates anual reading list is also nice.

For 2015: [http://www.gatesnotes.com/About-Bill-Gates/Best- Books-2015](http://www.gatesnotes.com/About-Bill-Gates/Best-Books-2015)

</comment><comment><USER17> I've worked halfway through "The Elements of Computing Systems" aka "Nand to Tetris" and it's fairly high on my already way too excessive todo list for 2016. Great recommendation :)

</comment><comment><USER18> My recent favorite: _The Planet Remade: How Geoengineering Could Change the World_ by Oliver Morton. Engagingly written -- I could hardly put it down! -- comprehensive, thorough, and optimistic without being credulous, this book contains a wealth of information about the "earthsystem" (as Morton likes to call it) and the effects we're already having on it as well as those we could potentially create intentionally. The book makes an excellent case for expanding research into geoengineering, and I hope it gets widely read.

</comment><comment><USER19> I've seen Seveneves appearing across multiple lists of best books in 2015 (here, Amazon's top 20, Goodreads' list for 2015...).

I can't wait to grab my hands on it!

</comment><comment><USER20> Does anyone know if The Supermen is available on audiobook?

</comment><comment><USER21> Nice list. The one by Nisan/Schocken is on my to read list.

Does anyone know of any lists full of new math books?

</comment><comment><USER22> Nice. I've read four of those. I have some book buying to do.

</comment><comment><USER23> Only 1 female author :,(

<comment><USER24> It's a shame you got so heavily downvoted. You make a reasonable point, and not in a flame-baiting way.

<comment><USER25> It's not really productive though unless you name some that you think should have been included on the list.

That said I've been enjoying this book a lot, and two of the three authors are female:

[http://www.amazon.com/Participatory-Culture-Networked-Era- Co...](http://www.amazon.com/Participatory-Culture-Networked-Era- Conversation/dp/0745660711/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1450629321&sr=8-1&keywords=participatory+culture+in+a+networked+era)

I'd say it's just one piece of a larger body of literature on these issues rather than the definitive work that stands on its own, but it's also the kind of thing where when you look at the list of authors and the subject matter then the burden of proof is on you to justify not reading it.</comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: A team wiki that builds up on Slack conversations - <AUTHOR> https://onebar.io <comment><AUTHOR> Hello, HN!

We've been working on OneBar since spring, and ran it for about three months in a few companies. We're now ready to show it to the broader world! (it's still in beta though ;) )

A few things OneBar can do for your team:

\- Store Q&As (just like Quora or StackOverflow)

\- Search the KB right from Slack (via a bot)

\- Source questions from Slack, and assign them to team members

\- Save Slack threads as Q&A

\- Automatically cross-link content

Here's one particular thing that worked well during the test: [https://blog.onebar.io/crowdsource-your-companys-glossary- in...](https://blog.onebar.io/crowdsource-your-companys-glossary-in- slack-7e83b5674895)

We would highly appreciate HNs feedback on OneBar. Thanks in advance for checking it out!</comment>


"Not everybody lives in California": Tesla Model 3's frozen door handles - <AUTHOR> https://qz.com/1541060/tesla-model-3-owners-are-griping-about-frozen-door-handles/ <comment><USER2> This spate of reports about performance and reliability problems for electric cars in extremely cold weather has pointed out lots of problem with reliability and reduced range. To be meaningful and useful, these really ought to include comparisons to conventional internal combustion cars.

I lived in Fairbanks for a while, and I found that lots of things don't work well when it's -40, especially cars. I had to plug in the block heater at least a few hours in advance of starting, and then idle for at least 15 minutes before driving. A block heater and battery blanket were necessary but sometimes not sufficient. My gas mileage was reduced by about half. There were lots of cars with mechanical problems that only crop up in those conditions. Some had doors, windows, or gas doors that would freeze. Relays and (starter!) solenoids would get stuck. A few had heater cores that would would ice and stop working so the heat and window defrost were not usable. Some displays won't work when they are cold. The manufacturers say they test for this stuff, but it was obviously not fully addressed.

Don't assume your ICE car is going to work well when it's that cold. Nothing works right when it's that cold. When we use things in an environment that differs greatly form that in which they were engineered and tested are bound to surprise us. Even my bike didn't work right up there. The grease in the headset and wheel bearings got really viscous and stiff, the cables and shifters were balky, and the breaks felt funny.

I actually managed to bike commute pretty often as a student, partly because it was more reliable then driving. My ski jacket was made plastic so it got really stiff and crumpley feeling like cardboard. When I got to school my phone screen didn't work, and my laptop wouldn't turn on until it warmed up, but the bike at least never made me late, which is more than I could say for any car.

<comment><USER3> -40 is pretty rare for most of us, but -20c (-4 f) is not too uncommon in many parts of the mid-west.

My ICE car handled the polar vortex just fine. Although any marginal parts are vastly more likely to fail, I imagine a lot of batteries were replaced.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I just realized the other day that winter weather will most likely mean that self-driving cars will more dangerous than conventional cars in much of the world for the foreseeable future, until they can be made fully autonomous in even the most difficult weather conditions.

Winter driving can be some of the most difficult and dangerous conditions to drive in _for a human_. It's already bad enough after the first big snow when experienced fair-weather drivers have to re-acquaint themselves with winter conditions, but if they're driving skills atrophy in good weather due to self- driving car use, it will be _even worse_.

<comment><USER5> _if they 're driving skills atrophy in good weather due to self-driving car use, it will be even worse._

I remember driving in New Hampshire in the 80's as an undergraduate, thinking to myself, "They drive like it's winter _all year!_ " If people only drove when it was winter, perhaps they'd drive like I drive now in middle age: to minimize the chance of collision. (As opposed to how I drove like a butthead in my 20's.) No assuming the turn signal is true. No assuming oncoming traffic will brake for you when you merge. (Unless you simply have no choice.) No merging turns unless you have first actually seen the oncoming traffic.

On the whole, US drivers are too aggressive, and make too many assumptions. If people could model the behavior of autonomous vehicles, maybe they'd drive more rationally. (I'm Asian, and many would call my driving "Asian driving." I just don't think it's the smart or rational tradeoff to risk any more than you have to in the way of car damage, injury, or death just to get someplace a few minutes faster. Really, that strikes me as just plain stupid.)

<comment><USER6> In Iowa I like to say "Every summer Iowans quit believing in winter, and it takes them completely by surprise." The first day or two of driving in snow are a huge surge in accidents.

So no, its not auto-driving cars that make winter-driving skills atrophy. Its summer that does that.

<comment><USER4> > So no, its not auto-driving cars that make winter-driving skills atrophy. > Its summer that does that.

My point was that summer already makes _winter_ driving skills atrophy, but self-driving cars will make _general_ driving skills atrophy at the same time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Reminds me of the case of an automated soap dispenser not reliably detecting African American users.

The high concentration of tech in one particular part of only a minority of countries will almost certainly lead to more of these occurrences.

The concentration of production and mostly homogenous workforce involved in the process will undercut basic discovery processes that would expose these sort of design in the design process, not when the products ship out to customers.

</comment><comment><USER8> Just spray with windshield washer fluid. Or straight anhydrous methanol, if you like. Windshield washer fluid for sure won't damage the finish. Methanol might, but probably not.

Methanol depresses the freezing point of water at low concentration. Adding ~10% methanol to gasoline was a classic for deicing fuel lines.

<comment><USER9> Windshield washer fluid is generally methanol just fyi

<comment><USER8> That was the point :)

But it does contain some water, and detergent. So straight methanol works better.

Just don't drink it. And it's very biodegradable.</comment></comment></comment>


The LeanLaunch Pad at Stanford class 2 - <AUTHOR> http://steveblank.com/2011/03/15/the-leanlaunch-pad-at-stanford-class-2-business-model-hypotheses/ <comment><USER2> This class seems to provide an interesting contrast to the YC model of mentorship, where the former centers on knowing what to build and the latter centers on knowing how to build it.

Of course, this is just the impression I've gathered. I'd be interested to know exactly how much emphasis YC puts on similar principles (read: Customer Dev). And if such emphasis is lacking, why?</comment>


Social networking will become ubiquitous, but that doesn't mean it's a business. - <AUTHOR> http://www.economist.com/business/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10880936

<comment><AUTHOR> A rare article on the business of the Internet from the best news magazine on the planet...

</comment><comment><USER2> I don't think the predictions are vague at all. Businesses that don't profit don't stay in business.

Facebook and MySpace are both examples of companies (or corporate divisions in the latter case), as best I can tell, that are surviving only thanks to massive quantities of outside investment. If the investments were made with a realistic expectation of return, it would be one thing, but given the economic realities of social networking that this article points out (and not for the first time), these investments are looking more like gross market distortions than anything else.

<comment><USER3> Facebook and MySpace are great businesses. Sure, valuing Facebook at $15 billion dollars is preposterous, but that doesn't mean it can't make some money; that doesn't mean it can't make more than enough money.

<comment><USER4> MySpace and Facebook _aren't_ making more than enough money. That's why FIM doesn't break out MySpace numbers and why Facebook raised a huge round. Business rolling in profit don't need anybody else's money.

<comment><USER3> If you don't think Myspace and Facebook could be profitable, then I don't know why you are in this business.

They are not profitable now because they are investing in growth (which, like any investment, is a gamble). They could scale down their staff and achieve a very good return on capital.

<comment><AUTHOR> I think this article's sentiments is just to point out how tech business that are given highly speculative valuations rarely pan out.

Think about Facebook's implied value of $15 Billion. A traditional company is valued at about 2 or 3 times annual revenue, or perhaps 8 to 10 times annual EBITDA. This would require Facebook to mature with revenues around $5 Billion a year, and EBITDA of $1.5 Billion. Their speculated revenue of $50-$60 Million last year is about 1% of that mature target.

This article is saying that these tech companies may have indirect benefits that are hard to quantify, their core value continues to be questionable.

<comment><USER3> Facebook is rapidly growing abroad. I think the $15 billion dollar valuation is silly, but Facebook is not a textiles company. Optimism is not unreasonable, however it is -- of course -- speculative.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Took me a while to figure this out. Press release in disguise.

I'd not be so harsh if the predictions weren't so vague.

<comment><USER6> I don't know how you could say that. If anything, the article calls for the demise of walled gardens:

"Early services, such as CompuServe, Prodigy or AOL, began as 'walled gardens' before they opened up to become websites. The early e-mail services could send messages only within their own walls (rather as Facebook's messaging does today). Instant-messaging, too, started closed, but is gradually opening up. In social networking, this evolution is just beginning.

"'E-mail…is the most important social network'… because the extended inbox contains invaluable and dynamically updated information about human connections."

Without pressure to make it a business, e mail "can remain intimate and discreet. Facebook has an economic incentive to publish ever more data about its users…but [traditional e mail] can let users minimise what they share."

<comment><USER5> Still just vague analogies. It's not that hard to give a more concrete example of what's possible. Why don't people do this? Because you'd see that this doesn't really provide anything compelling at all.</comment></comment></comment>


Venus flytraps don't eat the insects that pollinate them - <AUTHOR> https://phys.org/news/2018-02-venus-flytraps-dont-insects-pollinate.html <comment><USER2> Just to be clear, there's no evidence of the trap failing to close on a pollinator insect in its jaws. It's just that the pollinators don't seem to go near the traps.

Still interesting, just not quite as amazing as the title might imply. I was picturing the symbiosis of sharks and the creatures that clean their teeth before reading, but it's not quite like that.

<comment><USER3> Maybe you've overlooked the complementary evolutionary traits of both, or perhaps it is all coincidence.

<comment><USER4> Evolution is just persisted coincidence.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> While the article title is a true statement, the ambiguities of the language may create a false impression of Venus flytraps "knowing" who pollinates them and not eating those species. This is not how natural selection works. Some mutations of Venus flytraps produced a variation in placement and color of the traps that allowed some species to pollinate them. If there ever were (or will be) a mutation of a Venus flytrap that catches and eats everything, there will be no one to pollinate these and they will die out as a result.

We should not leave Lysenkoism a chance, even if it is in the subtleties of language.

<comment><USER6> > We should not leave Lysenkoism a chance, even if it is in the subtleties of > language.

Why, are you suggesting that if that idea is taught to this existing generation, that future generations will inherit the idea from them? ;-)

<comment><USER7> xD Well played, sir.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> If a bee is one of the pollinators, it will almost definitely see and hone in on the flower rather than the trap. Flowers are designed to attract pollinators that are adapted to identify them. The flowers exhibit ultraviolet patterns which appear as bulls-eyes to a pollinator that sees more of the UV spectrum. [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-473897/A-bees...](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-473897/A-bees- eye-view-How-insects-flowers-differently-us.html)

</comment><comment><USER9> Sounds like they obey the rule of "don't bite the hand that feeds you"!

<comment><USER10> In this case it's more like, "Don't eat the hand that fucks you".

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Photos in the article don't look like Venus Flytrap (Dionaea muscipula) mentioned in article or linked paper.</comment>


For sale: an Enigma machine - <AUTHOR> http://www.christies.com/lotfinder/lot_details.aspx?from=salesummary&intObjectID=5370959&sid=5d471a41-553e-4a2d-b9ee-cf27e36133b8

<comment><USER2> Also, the next lot is even more exciting: Some offprints of Turing's papers and manuscripts, formed by Prof. Maxwell Newman, guide price _300 to 500 thousand pounds!_ Apparently these are extremely rare; none have appeared in auction for 35 years!

[http://www.christies.com/lotfinder/lot_details.aspx?from=sal...](http://www.christies.com/lotfinder/lot_details.aspx?from=salesummary&pos=10&intObjectID=5370960&sid=5d471a41-553e-4a2d-b9ee- cf27e36133b8)

<comment><USER3> [http://www.christies.com/lotfinder/lot_details.aspx?from=sal...](http://www.christies.com/lotfinder/lot_details.aspx?from=salesummary&pos=5&intObjectID=5370965&sid=5d471a41-553e-4a2d-b9ee- cf27e36133b8)

I'm surprised this hadn't had more attention here!

 _APPLE-1 -- Personal Computer. An Apple-1 motherboard, number 82, printed label to reverse, with a few slightly later additions including a 6502 microprocessor, labeled R6502P R6502-11 8145, printed circuit board with 4 rows A-D and columns 1-18, three capacitors, heatsink, cassette board connector, 8K bytes of RAM, keyboard interface, firmware in PROMS, low-profile sockets on all integrated circuits, video terminal, breadboard area with slightly later connector, with later soldering, wires and electrical tape to reverse, printed to obverse Apple Computer 1 Palo Alto. Ca. Copyright 1976_

<comment><USER4> Wow! a the Apple-1 is estimated to go for £100,000 - £150,000

I wonder if there are any artifacts from todays companies that we should be grabbing up

<comment><USER4> Now I see why - it comes with the optional cassette interface and BASIC on a tape :)

Seriously it is an exceptional artifact: original invoice (Salesperson: STEVEN) and a typed note from Steven Jobs explaining how to hook-up a TV and keyboard: [http://www.christies.com/lotfinder/ZoomImage.aspx?image=/lot...](http://www.christies.com/lotfinder/ZoomImage.aspx?image=/lotfinderimages/D53709/d5370965)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I hope a museum gets it, but I think it will probably go for much more than the estimate.

By the way, any UK HNers should definitely try to get down to the museum at Bletchley park and the national computing museum. Geek heaven :)

edit: wow, they also have the first published ENIAC patents: [http://www.christies.com/lotfinder/lot_details.aspx?from=sal...](http://www.christies.com/lotfinder/lot_details.aspx?from=salesummary&intObjectID=5370963&sid=b1077a41-474f-47b4-8f48-25f5c24fca97)

<comment><USER6> Visitors might want to be a bit patient on the guided tour - largely seems a waste of time initially, with the guide talking a lot about the history of the land/park itself, and the WW2/code-breaking info being somewhat superficial.

Then he takes you into the National Museum of Computing and demonstrates the machines, and sometimes lets you touch and feel as well - awesome! The guided tour ends on quite the high!

<comment><USER5> depends on the guide I guess, I've been there about 4 times (used to live just down the road, and the ticket is for a whole year!) and took the tour twice, the code-breaking content wasn't highly technical, but it was covered in a decent amount of depth I felt.

Riddle from the tour: What must you add to nine to get six? (and no, it's not -3)

<comment><USER5> replying in case someone years from now reads this:

Gur nafjre vf f. avar va ebzna ahzrenyf vf vk, nqq na f naq lbh trg fvk ;)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> One day, I'd like to have a library like Jay Walker's to add this to. He's even got a Sputnik in there, along with his Enigma.

[http://www.wired.com/techbiz/people/magazine/16-10/ff_walker...](http://www.wired.com/techbiz/people/magazine/16-10/ff_walker?currentPage=all)

</comment><comment><USER8> Bay Area folks who've read down this far, you'll absolutely love the Computer History Museum, <http://www.computerhistory.org>

</comment><comment><USER9> That would look nice on the living room cupboard, but you can't beat this one for glamour: <http://www.tatjavanvark.nl/tvv1/pht10.html>

Perhaps someone here will be able to decrypt that encoded Haiku...

</comment><comment><USER10> I was interested in the many manuscripts in that sale. I wonder if Google would buy them, scan them and resell them ... they could buy through a third party/anonymous bid and only release the scanned copy after the resale to avoid a negative effect on price.

</comment><comment><USER11> Amazing piece of kit that would be great to own - but what would /you/ do with one?

<comment><USER12> You could probably gut it and put an Arduino inside of it that played MP3's.

<comment><USER13> With all due respect, wouldn't that be a little like upholstering your couch with the Bayeux Tapestry? While the Enigma machine isn't exactly one of a kind, it is quite rare and has a great deal of historical significance.

<comment><USER12> Sorry, I had a feeling the sarcasm in my initial post wouldn't fully come through :)

I probably should have gone with the steampunk-themed comment I was originally planning.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> 30-50k pounds. Shit thats a high price.

<comment><USER5> You think? I wouldn't have been surprised to see it fetch twice the high estimate. It's got appeal to people interested in:

Computing

Codes/Ciphers

WW2

That's pretty broad appeal. I mean even if it was only of interest to Turing fans that's still a huge market, and Turing fans are only a small subset of those larger markets.

Just my opinion, I've no idea if these things come up fairly often or not.

<comment><USER14> It may still fetch more, but honestly that doesn't change that it is a very large amount of money.

<comment><USER15> > that it is a very large amount of money.

Compared to what?

People pay 100K$ for rocks which have no intrintrinsic value.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Questions and Comments about cull.io - <AUTHOR>

Hi Kaushik,
I had a few questions and comments about http://cull.io.
1) You're right, a time constraint doesn't really matter much.  However, it would be interesting to know how long a candidate took to develop a solution from the initial proposition of the challenge and the code submission.
2) I'm not sure if this would be an issue, but isn't it possible for someone to game the system by using multiple emails?  Perhaps a challenge and response would have more merit if the resume submission was the first step of the workflow.  Candidates aren't likely to enter drastically different resumes in order to submit multiple solutions, and they could probably be detected (manually) if they tried to anyway.
3) I'm guessing you just launched this thing recently, but a more complete demo of the workflow (without actually signing up!) would be cool on your home/support page.
This is a great idea.  We do code challenges/reviews at work for hiring.  I am really intrigued with this approach of an upfront technical challenge.  It could save us a lot of time down the road. <comment><USER2> 1) That'll be cool and in fact easily implemented. One of the reason why it din't do it was Candidates need to setup the server and stuff. Some might readily have it, some might not, which might skew the overall time taken.

2) Agreed, may be ask them to login through facebook or twitter before solving the challenge?

3) Launched it like 20 days back :). I wanted a more complete demo with voice over but some suggested that my indian accent would turnoff a lot of audience. Have mailed a few voice over guys.

Over all, all the 3 can be done, will mail you once I have them in.

Thanks for taking the time to checkout cull.io!</comment>


Taxi protest in Paris turns to guerrilla warfare as Uber car attacked on freeway - <AUTHOR> http://www.rudebaguette.com/2014/01/13/taxi-protest-paris-turns-guerrilla-warfare-uber-car-attacked-freeway/ <comment><USER2> For reference, the 15-minute law mentioned in the article is a restriction that companies like Uber have to force their customers to wait at least 15 minutes before getting a ride. Given that the average black car gets to a customer in 7 minutes, this is a _serious_ handicap. [1]

This sort of law feels really backwards. It degrades the service of companies like Uber _and_ imposes negative externalities on society--more cars pointlessly idling and waiting around, more traffic congestion and so on. The idea behind a market is to _improve_ quality; trying to "improve" the market by arbitrarily degrading the quality of some competitors is exactly counter- productive.

Given that the taxis have gotten this absurdly protectionist restriction in place, it's even harder to empathize with their protest. Actually getting violent is even worse.

Of course, it's also important to remember that this is likely an extreme action by a single individual and does not represent taxi drivers as a group. In fact, there is no immediate link between the attack and taxis, although it seems extremely likely. That said, even ignoring the violence, I do not really sympathize with the taxi protests here.

[1]: [http://techcrunch.com/2013/12/28/uber-lecab-and-others- now-h...](http://techcrunch.com/2013/12/28/uber-lecab-and-others-now-have-to- wait-15-minutes-before-picking-you-up-in-france/)

<comment><USER3> How would you feel if you paid quarter of a million euros for your taxi licence (maybe by mortgaging your property or going heavily into debt) only to be undercut by illegal taxi drivers who didn't bother to get licensed and didn't follow regulations ?

Obviously it's not an excuse for violence, but it's important to remember there are always multiple sides to any argument.

<comment><USER4> Because the system is broken and people are heavily invested in the current system and it being broken...

What? What's the logical conclusion to that sentence in your mind?

Should we keep on running the war on drugs because there are so many people who make a living off of it? Should we maintain copyright law the way it is today because companies have invested so heavily in it? Should we maintain software patent law the way it is because some folks have spent billions acquiring patent portfolios?

<comment><USER5> There are a lot of middle-ground options, such as "buying back" taxi medallions before opening the floodgates and letting anyone run a taxi. This is obviously a tricky approach for a lot of reasons, but certainly there's a middle ground between "taxi medallions forever" and "all taxi medallions are worthless overnight".

<comment><USER4> Having a competing service like uber is actually precisely that middle ground, since taxi medallions are not worthless overnight.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Let me tell you how things are in Russia. We don't have any taxi driver unions, I don't think we have any licensing for taxi drivers, but if we do, it's probably not expensive.

In Russia it works this way: you go out on the street, raise your hand and you get your car in like 1 minute (even at 4am in the morning it doesn't take very long time, provided you are downtown, did that many times) - basically some guy who wants an extra buck will stop and get you anywhere. Some make a living that way. You negotiate the price, it's usually rather cheap even in large cities compared to what you'd be charged for the same ride in Europe or the US. You don't have to tip the driver, since the price is negotiated beforehand. Now we also have a lot of competing official taxi companies. They all are relatively cheap and they mostly get their clients through internet or phone and the use case for those is when you need to go to the airport or have a pre-arranged trip.

We also have jitney transportation which is only slightly more expensive, but much faster than public transportation. Drivers are mostly from central asian republics or southern republics - demographics russians are rather hostile to - yet I haven't met more friendly drivers in the whole world. And, in my personal view, people are rather receptive to that and are quite polite with them too. It's pure competition and free market and it works to the benefit of all.

You can criticize Russia all you want, but in some areas the free market here exists relatively untouched (probably thanks to bribes, but still, it's better than regulation).

<comment><USER7> Would light regulation hurt this? Just requiring that all taxi drivers display an ID number, and with some inexpensive process to become a new taxi driver (verifying you're not already banned, that you have a valid license, and if required in Russia, insurance).

The problem with taxi regulation is when "safety" is used as a pretext to reduce supply. I pay a premium in general to get a taxi which is somewhat less likely to be driven by a criminal, and I imagine female/small/weak/foreign/etc. people would pay more of a premium for this. If the regulation is just for the purposes of identification and safety, it wouldn't have a huge cost for the taxi driver ($50 or so and a few hours), and would probably justify an increase in rates to make up for that.

I could easily imagine a private licensing system coexisting with an unlicensed market.

<comment><USER6> Why would you need an ID from a taxi driver? If you're scared a taxi driver's gonna rob or rape you (a common concern among ladies) you remember or photograph his plate number (or ask your friend to do so). An official government paper wouldn't make it any more safer. It would only add problems for drivers since they would have to acquire those licences, it would increase corruption and decrease supply, which would in turn raise prices. If you care about safety, call a licenced taxi company - your choice, isn't it?

Update: I misread you. "licensing system coexisting with an unlicensed market" is definitely the state of things in Russia currently. I think that's a good way to go. Except maybe that since licensing is not required, then safety may be guaranteed by non-governmental agencies or maybe even technologies (as mentioned in another comment below).

<comment><USER8> An Uber-style taxi service would certainly make the situation safer. You get a paper trail before you get into the cab showing that driver X picked up passenger Y at time T.

<comment><USER6> I agree. But please note that government regulation would have nothing to do with it. This would be safety provided by the free market. Question is, what would the demand for such a safety be. If the prices were to remain the same, then the company providing this safety would drive all those freelance drivers out of the market. If not, then there would still probably be some demand for Uber, but also some demand for less safe options.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This is simple case of a Scab breaking down the power of the union and the union fighting back against it.

Violence is wrong and this is not ok.

However, Uber should be more aware of what they're 'disrupting'. Strong unions see this as a foreign company threatening their livelihoods and there will be push back.

<comment><USER10> _However, Uber should be more aware of what they 're 'disrupting'. Strong unions see this as a foreign company threatening their livelihoods and there will be push back._

Yeah, this isn't USA. There are actual employment rights and strong trade unions here.

<comment><USER11> I'm also in France and I am very happy that workers actually have rights here (as opposed to my native land, the USA).

But you always must keep diligence, because unions can devolve into a mafia. The taxis here in France are an example of that. I have never had a single ride that was the correct price, and after many attempts I gave up. I'm certainly not alone. People have been trying to disrupt and get around them for ages but they fight as mafia do: fiercely.

<comment><USER12> I'm also an American living in France, and I have never even been able to get a taxi in Paris, on the street, at marked taxi stands, or asking directly in a bar where the taxi drivers hang out while they are 'working'. Fortunately I don't live in Paris.

It seems that taxi companies are more mafia than union in the US also, but at least they will pick you up. This is because the government won't give them money if they don't work. I appreciate that France has a strong social safety net, but this is one of the downsides of that; it's easy to abuse.

<comment><USER13> This seems quite disingenuous to say the least. I'm a French living in Paris, and have never had any trouble getting a cab, unless I happened to be in one of those neighborhoods that are completely deserted at night. In that case you'd have to call one up.

Maybe the cabs you were trying to get already had customers on board. Hint : if a taxi is free, the light on top of it is green. If it's red, there's already a customer on board.

<comment><USER12> The last time I tried I was with my wife and daughter, trying to get to the airport with luggage. I think the luggage scared them off.

You know that the idea for Uber came from the founder's experience trying to get a taxi in Paris, right? That suggests I'm not alone in my experience with Parisian taxis.

[http://blog.uber.com/2010/12/22/ubers- founding/](http://blog.uber.com/2010/12/22/ubers-founding/)

<comment><USER10> > _You know that the idea for Uber came from the founder 's experience trying > to get a taxi in Paris, right?_

Actually that link says the complete opposite. It says that while in Paris, the founder were talking about their (bad) experience of getting a taxi in San Francisco.

> _Garrett Camp and I were hanging out in Paris for a week at Loic and > Geraldine LeMeur's LeWeb conference. Amongst the amazing food, the copious > amounts of wine and inevitable nightlife crawls there were all kinds of > discussions about what's next. Garrett had sold StumbleUpon to Ebay and had > been doing "hard time" at a big company. I had just completed my tour with > Akamai after selling Red Swoosh to them in 2007._ > > _Jamming on ideas, > rapping on what's next is what entrepreneurs do. Garrett and I would get > some good music, good drinks and jam until 5am. Garrett's big idea was > cracking the horrible taxi problem in San Francisco — getting stranded on > the streets of San Francisco is familiar territory for any San Franciscan._

<comment><USER12> You're right. I didn't read that all the way through. Shame on me.

However, the founding story I heard first was the Paris taxi story, and it's backed up by these old tweets from LeWeb: [http://eventifier.co/event/leweb/tweets?page=21&q=uber#](http://eventifier.co/event/leweb/tweets?page=21&q=uber#)

So maybe it was SF taxis after all, or maybe not. If I'm ever face to face with an Uber founder I'll ask.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This would be really terrifying for the passengers and driver -- impressed that the Uber driver was able to deal with it as well as he did. This pretty clearly falls into a lethal self defense situation, so driving off, and if required through, the attackers would be totally reasonable, but if your car is already disabled you're kind of screwed.

It's amazing how some cities have essentially criminal mafias running taxis (Paris, Pattaya, to some extent Bangkok), some have crazy feudalism (New York, where you have rich people sitting on $1mm medallions and Somali immigrants making $30/day to drive), some have what seem to be overpriced but reasonably well run services (London, Singapore), and some just have ~no taxis at all (most of the US outside major cities, and most poor parts of US cities).

I will shed zero tears for the end of the taxi industry. First by Uber and ride sharing, finally by robots.

<comment><USER14> > so driving [...] if required through the attackers would be totally > reasonable

Absolutely not, doing so might kill one of them and it's a crime(Article 221-1 in the french law).

<comment><USER7> Self defense isn't an absolute right in France? Even in NYC it is.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Oh man, you don't wanna take on the french unions. They'll protest when it's cold and burn paris to warm the place up.

Truck drivers starved the country of petrol a few years ago.

This ain't America.

<comment><USER15> replace the word unions by mafias

<comment><USER16> Not a fan of unions or labour rights? Why call them mafias?

<comment><USER17> The way I think of a union, it's an organization of employees who bargain with its employer.

Unless the entire taxicab industry is nationalized by law in France, it makes no sense to me that a taxicab union is protesting against another company disrupting their business. That's just being a thug.

You should have the right to organize for bargaining of salary. Imposing an artificial handicap on another business model is really backwards.

<comment><USER18> Your way of thinking about unions is incomplete.

For one, a "its employer" doesn't work. The employer does not employ the union, and employees of multiple companies may be part of the same union. ".. who bargain with their employers" is a better fit.

For another, a union can do more than just bargin with the employer. It can provide skills training, mentorship, insurance, petition government on behalf of the employees, and more, even outside of any employment relationship.

For a third, union abilities in the US are "artifically handicapped". Jurisdictional strikes, secondary boycotts, common situs picketing, closed shops, and other actions are prohibited by law. By your argument, you want unions in the US to have much more power than they already do.

<comment><USER17> Ah, yes, you're right. My understanding of unions is indeed limited in the ways that you pointed out.

Not sure I agree with your last statement. It depends... I don't think unions should be able to forcefully close down a shop if the owner can actually resume operations by firing all of the union members. On the other hand I'm completely alright with unions organizing and deciding to go on strike, in order to push for a bargain. I suppose I'm more comfortable with these boundaries because it "naturally" follows from ownership (the union can't shut down a factory because they don't own it) and respect for volition (the employer can't prevent people from willfully organizing).

I also understand that sometimes large corporations prefer to shut down a factory rather than sell the factory to the workers, in order to prevent competition. In this case I'm willing to concede that the workers should be able to purchase the factory from the corporation, as a judgement call that the livelihood of the factory workers are more important than whatever benefit the corporation sees.

But I am not willing to extend the liberties of a labor union to stifle the growth of another company that is winning in the free market. I believe there is more at stake in lost opportunity that way, and so I call such practice "backwards".

I'm probably missing a lot of subtlety here; like if the factory owner can fire all of the union workers during a strike, isn't that akin to the factory worker banning unions outright? I really don't know the answer.

<comment><USER18> "I am not willing to extend the liberties of a labor union to stifle the growth of another company that is winning in the free market."

That's the key point. Unions are constrained on what they can do. I can threaten to stop working unless my employer stops purchasing from a company with a horrible safety record, where the employees of the other company are on strike as protest. We're both agreed on that, right?

But do it collectively - say, 90% of my fellow 4,000 employees threaten to stop working in support of the workers of the other company - and suddenly it's labeled a union and our actions considered an illegal sympathy strike.

I can't help but conclude that the legal constraints on what a union can do mean that it can't fully participate in a free market. Instead, the 'free market' you're talking about is actually 'the market where collective action freedoms have been deliberately handicapped.'

(Personally I think there must be constraints on a free market, but that's a different conversation.)

"if the factory owner can fire all of the union workers during a strike"

Why can the factory owner do that? Surely the union contract would prohibit mass firing during a strike. Otherwise, as you say, what's the point of having a union?

In the context of US law, there are certain things that an employer is prohibited from doing. Mass firing of legally striking employees is one of them. Even non-union ones. (See [http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2012/10/15/walmart-striking- wor...](http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2012/10/15/walmart-striking-workers-non- unionized/) for a nice summary.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Many taxi drivers are considered semi-criminal tough guys where I'm from (apparently elsewhere around the world too), so this is one incumbent which can become quite unpleasant while on their way out.

</comment><comment><USER20>
       "Microsoft Managers And Employees Protest, Bash Computer of Linux User"

Eventually, some of these hardworking taxi drivers will have an epiphany. They're fighting the wrong entity. Fighting against decentralized commerce and personal choice is generally a side of aggressors. When the dynamics of reality become inconvenient to monetary interests, the first call of aggressors and cultists alike is to forsake the freedom of others. _We pay the piper. We eat gruel. You better fall in line too, or else..._ The sooner a person begins to _actually_ care about other people, the sooner a person may acknowledge reality to adapt or improve.

<comment><USER21> Or, turning it around somewhat: "Lisp Programmers Demand Expulsion of Users of Inferior Languages".

Dude, leave them alone. If that is what they want to do, let them be. Never mind what your opinion of "improvement" is.

<comment><USER22> > Dude, leave them alone. If that is what they want to do, let them be.

If they're using violence to get what they want, you can't really leave them alone (morally or practically).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Times are changing and people tend to resist change. Unfortunately many times it gets violent. Unions are a dangerous thing to mess with, but in the end the customer convenience should win.

All they need to make sure is that Uber pay their proper taxes in France. ;-)

</comment><comment><USER24> This calls for the police to get involved and bring these attackers to court, plain and simple. How anyone could imagine this is a valid form of protest is beyond me.

</comment><comment><USER25> The luddism approach never wins, but there will always be people who will try.

</comment><comment><USER26> All french people are not rude, stupid and whatever like them ;) It's a shame and in the same time, we can use it against cabs who don't understand that it's maybe time to accept change and move on with, not against.

<comment><USER27> I think the protest is not directed towards the right direction, but Parisian taxi drivers need to buy a license which is like 200 k. They see this investment go down the drain as new businesses like uber appear.

<comment><USER26> I know, I am from Paris :). But my point is "why not accept it's maybe time to change some "things"". Why we use Uber? it's geek (ok its a point) but mostly because: -nice and clean car -nice people -good service -moderne (phone, payement,...)

I am sure it's possible to modernise cabs of Paris (and other cities)(hmm maybe time to think about a new project! ;))

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Uber driver apparently pulled them out safely. It's a shame some countries take change so violently. I love Paris and France, I also use Uber there... this is terrible. SO glad Kat and Renaud made it home safely afterwards.

<comment><USER29> The article doesn't state it's a protest against Uber.

I condemn violence and most strikes when they're used as an easy form of politics, but we can also note that protesters don't feel supported by their government and that's their way to make a threat.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Uber and it's ilk are nice and disruptive and all and you get a cheap ride out of it, but we must not forget that they are disrupting people's livelihood and cultural and social traditions too. I do not condone the violence, but I kind of understand it. Do we really want every country to be Americanized like this, one disruptive app at a time? To some people, these "unions" appear to be protection rackets, but I saw them as part of the French society and culture. If you don't like it, don't force your own beliefs and practices down their throats. Go somewhere else.

<comment><USER30> Oh yeah and the Mafia is just part of Italian culture right? Don't like it go somewhere else? As a person with Amsterdam Taxi experience (including getting pulled out of a taxi and forced to ride another taxi at the train station at midnight) I welcome competition. The problem with no competition is the way some taxi-drivers can treat their 'clients': We've had drivers refusing to accept clients, because they were female, or because the ride wasn't profitable enough or even because they were BLIND. The driver didn't want the dog in the car. We've even had drivers trying to rape clients. It's a bloody mess. UBER in Amsterdam has been a big success. I welcome them with arms open wide.

<comment><USER21> The mafia is illegal in Italy as far as I know, so that is not a valid comparison. Yes there are problems with all taxi drivers, and I do not see how Uber drivers are immune from these.

<comment><USER30> THATS the disrupting part: You can rate your driver online. See [https://www.uber.com/drivers](https://www.uber.com/drivers) You see the rating before you book a ride. This makes all the difference.

<comment><USER31> But aren't the ratings meaningless? I remember reading how Uber drivers were upset because a rating measurably below 5 out of 5 can get you fired. As long as that system prevails, a driver's rating won't tell you anything more than the fact that you found them on Uber did.

<comment><USER30> I think if you had the identity of the driver (both before and after the ride) a lot of drivers would not behave like criminals. Instead of fighting UBER these companies would do better if they put the client on the center stage and perhaps start their own rating-identity service.

<comment><USER32> The taxi registration and the time of the ride are as good as an identity for the purpose of identifying an individual driver if you chose to report the driver to the regulating authority...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> This is like Hotel owners hitting home owners for being host on Airbnb?

<comment><USER34> > This is like Hotel owners hitting home owners for being host on Airbnb?

Hotel owners are typically a bit above minimum wage.

<comment><USER35> French cab drivers are typically way above minimum wage...

<comment><USER32> Not in Paris. The independents still paying their medallion ("plaque de taxi", valued at about 240k €) are strangled by debt, and those that are employee are barely above minimum wage.

It's pretty obvious to everyone that dropping the medallion system is the way forwards, but is there any example anywhere of dropping the medallion system in a fair manner for those that actually bought their medallion recently?

Also, another thing I'm pretty concerned about is the qualification of non taxi drivers. The taxi license is actually very hard to get, I'm not so sure of what Uber requires of its drivers...

<comment><USER36> _is there any example anywhere of dropping the medallion system in a fair manner for those that actually bought their medallion recently?_

Why not just return their money?

<comment><USER32> Their money was paid to the previous holder of it, not to the state.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> French labour laws are serious. French unions don't mess around.

Farmers use their machines to fling cow shit at government buildings. They set fire to lorries full of live sheep.

See this example of officials vigorously enforcing labour laws. [http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/french- pub-f...](http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/french-pub- fined-9000-after-customers-returned-empties-to-bar--because-its-undeclared- labour-9018432.html)

<comment><USER31> > They set fire to lorries full of live sheep.

Wow. I'd love to see that happen in the US, where Obama was criticized for swatting a fly in public.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> Bashing french unions certainly is fun, but please note that there absolutely no evidence (in the article) that the attack was perpetrated by a french taxi driver. This article is either very poorly documented or consciously misleading (or both).

> There's no confirmation that this attack came from the protesting taxi > drivers; however, that certainly seems to line up with the sentiment felt by > taxi drivers these days – unwarranted hate.

<comment><USER39> But it's not only about the physical attack itself, which I agree that it's doubtful, it's also about the broad view. There's an economical-based conflict that stretches far out of pure economical front, using questionable methods, for questionable reasons (fight someone because some one else ripped you off?). Not that is something unique, but interesting to watch nevertheless.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> I've been always curious about these relationship that arises when someone disrupts an existing ecosystem.

I'm all for innovation,and finding ways to make things, environments and habits, better, more efficient, safer and more intelligent. This, however, raises an interesting moral dilemma. In these ecosystems, prior to the disruptor, agents live and thrive. After the disruptor, these agents must adapt or otherwise, be gone.

When you think these agents are actually human beings, with issues, dreams and families, a new variable is added to the discussion. Is it OK to disrupt an ecosystem if you find a way to make everything better? Is it moral? You found a better way, so surely it must be implemented, and there are few arguments against that. The agents in the ecosystem had almost all what was needed to find the new way, to enhance their ecosystem: time, experience, imagination. And for one motive or another, they failed to do it. What is their argument when someone else comes along and provides a better solution?

I'm not trying to sound Randian or anything, but I truly believe that 'we have families to feed' or 'will lose job' is not a very good argument. Is the ecosystem supposed to be kept in the previous state just for the agenda of a subset of the agents? Under that argument, we shouldn't have cars in the first place. Nor bronze age ([http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EGAtLGDU7M](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EGAtLGDU7M))

Is this a testament of the inherent cruelty (cruelty in a poetic way, just as natural selection can be thought of cruel) of the free market, or just a testament of the importance of innovation as a way of survival? Maybe both? I can't help but notice heavy analogies with Natural Selection.

<comment><USER17> At the same time, it's just a bit strange that we take "innovation" for granted.

Think about it. The way we prod it forward, always stumbling away from our past.

Overall may be the biggest baddest religion man has ever seen.

Godliness is our final destination. That's significant, and possibly our own undoing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> What a great way to win support for your cause.

</comment><comment><USER42> That's what I call disruption

</comment><comment><USER43> > There's no confirmation that this attack came from the protesting taxi > drivers

So why are we talking as if it came form the protesting taxi drivers then? Maybe they were just ordinary thugs. I know people who got robed in their rental car in Paris. I love Paris but there are certainly saver places in France.

</comment><comment><USER44> This isn't "guerrilla warfare," it's an isolated case of assault.

</comment><comment><USER45> Would it be of any benefit if Uber cars were less identifiable?

<comment><USER29> Yes.

While Uber doesn't seem faithful to me on this story, I would also love if taxis in Paris were affordable and good quality, like in Madrid and Syndey. It would develop the job and reduce car pollution.

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> Glad to see the taxi drivers of Paris taking action. Uber are just another scumbag American company, trying to turn a skilled profession into an anonymous commodity service, and in the process ensure the CEO makes millions while the employees receive peanuts. This doesn't fly in a country with such strong Unions and solidarity as France.

<comment><USER47> This seems like sarcasm, but if it isn't would you care to elaborate on how France or its citizens are harmed by Uber? You seem to have first praised the Taxi drivers for lashing out at Uber drivers, but then you claim that Uber is a "scumbag" because of the way it treats its drivers. Isn't that contradictory?

<comment><USER46> Not sarcasm. American companies are notorious for treating employees like shit and paying them as little as they legally can. French Unions ensure decent working conditions and a fair wage.

<comment><USER36> _" treating employees like shit"_

Unlike smashing the windows and tires of the car they're driving? The guy driving the Uber car is just an employee, too.

<comment><USER46> He's essentially a scab, undermining the Unions bargaining power. Enough scabs and it becomes difficult for employees to be treated fairly.

<comment><USER36> If there are enough scabs to fill the required positions, one might question the legitimacy of the union.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> Luckily for Uber, the protesters only protest a maximum of thirty five hours per week, Fuck off entirely for the month of August, and won't travel more than two miles from one of the dirty bistros to protest in the first place.

If I was Uber, I would pay cash to all the homeless people to take slow long rides in the normal cabs to block them up.

<comment><USER49> I downvoted your comment because it doesn't add nothing to the conversation other than prejudice and borders on racism.

Every other day there is content on the front page suggesting that a shorter work week and 4 weeks of holiday are actually good for you and still here you are.

You're probably just a troll, I shouldn't even have replied.</comment></comment>


The 'Cuddle Hormone' Might Help America Take on the Obesity Epidemic - <AUTHOR> https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2019/04/oxytocin-obesity-treatment/587533/ <comment><USER2> I have fibromyalgia, which is characterised by chronic pain caused by muscle tension. Out of all the methods I've tried to limit pain, from meditation to weight lifting, cuddling has been the most effective. All muscle tension just instantly melts away. I wonder if oxytocin would work as a light pain killer.</comment>


Show HN: Tech Talks and Books - <AUTHOR> http://www.ttbooks.io

<comment><USER2> Really loved the concept. A very good resource.

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