Canada is North America's up-and-coming startup center - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2017/04/20/canada-is-north-americas-up-and-coming-startup-center/ <comment><USER3> This article doesn't mention one of the major reasons for talent _leaving_ Canada: if you work there, you need to stomach a 50% pay cut in average salaries vs the US. This is true pretty much across the board regardless of tech niche on the 2017 Stack Overflow Developer Survey[1]:

Machine learning specialist: US 108k, Canada 53k (49%)

Embedded applications/devices developer: US 100k, Canada 53k (53%)

Systems administrator: US 90k, Canda 49k (55%)

Doubling your salary by moving south across the border is a _very_ tempting option, especially considering that NAFTA makes it extremely easy to do so. No need to wait for an H1-B, just show up at the border with job offer & credentials in hand, assuming you've graduated college. TN visas are instant and infinitely renewable.

[1] [https://stackoverflow.com/insights/survey/2017#work- salaries...](https://stackoverflow.com/insights/survey/2017#work-salaries-by- geography)

<comment><USER4> While I do have a grievance with a much lower pay ceiling across Canada, those numbers are ridiculously low even if in US dollars as I assume they are. I don't put much stock in the StackOverflow survey.

And I'm not trying to be argumentative, but your take on TN visas is extremely simplified. For instance software developers aren't actually allowed to have a TN visa, and instead you have to say that you're a "system analyst". Only they've actually started strictly demanding proof that you're an analyst and not a programmer, etc. Add that _any single border crossing_ can lead to a revocation of your TN visa.

No thanks.

EDIT: Before more people reply with general comments, I am specifically talking about the salary claims for "ML Specialist" and embedded developers. Those numbers -- and I happen to have a good amount of reason to know this -- are ludicrously low. But yes, if you're a web developer, a generalist, etc, pay will be terrible in much of Canada, just as it's terrible in much of the US.

<comment><USER5> _those numbers are ridiculously low even if in US dollars as I assume they are. I don 't put much stock in the StackOverflow survey._

Then put stock in a the words of a guy who has actually looked for employment in Canada, and after the election of Trump is very incentivized to take a positive view on moving to Canada: as far as I can tell from the salaries posted, I'd take about a 50% pay cut, and I wouldn't be able to afford a house (at least not in Vancouver). Drop me in, say, Kamloops for $65K/year and maybe I'd do it. But there are few, if any, software jobs in Kamloops, or Kelowna, or much anywhere else outside Vancouver.

<comment><USER6> If salaries and housing prices in Canada were at all reasonable, I know many fellow Canadians would move back from the Bay area in an instant. Toronto is the other major tech center which is stupidly priced (hopefully the new govt measures slow things down). If you can speak french, consider Montreal.

<comment><USER7> Be mindful that there is (mostly) terrible weather everywhere in Canada except in Ontario/South BC(Vancouver)

<comment><USER8> Depends on your definition of terrible, I suppose. I never feel more alive than when I go for a walk on a crisp, sunny -20 degree morning. I used to get mornings like that quite often in Ottawa, and I've missed them the past couple of years in Toronto.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> It makes me feel proud that Canada has been North America's up-and-coming startup center since I graduated from Waterloo over 20 years ago. That's a solid, consistent track record of almost being there.

<comment><USER10> There has been a story equivalent to that on the front page every few weeks for the last five years that I've been reading HN.

I attribute it to some kind of watch-goliath-fall fantasy. That has been amplified dramatically since Trump got elected. Since then, a couple dozen countries are now supposedly candidates to swipe a lot of tech talent away from the US. Nothing will come of it; even more high-skilled talent will actually make it to the US thanks to reforming the H-1B back to what it was supposed to be. Inbound, substantial corporate tax cuts will increase the power of the magnet luring start-ups to US shores.

<comment><USER11> Cities that are commonly touted as the "next silicon valley":

\- Berlin

\- Toronto-Waterloo

\- London

\- Vancouver

\- Shenzhen

\- Chicago

<comment><USER12> Not OP, but some thoughts on these cities:

Berlin - startup capital of Europe. Strong education system, low cost of living, dev salaries are held down by immigration from, and proximity to, Eastern Europe. Possible synergy with German automotive and manufacturing industries.

Shenzhen: global manufacturing hub, access to Chinese-speaking World. Major support from Chinese government. Possible synergy with supply chain, manufacturing, and logistics.

London: English speaking, global financial capital. Drawbacks include immigration questions and small population.

Toronto seems to be based largely on proximity to the US with a better healthcare and immigration system, plus the university of Waterloo.

Not sure what the obvious rationale would be for Vancouver or Chicago.

<comment><USER13> small population?

<comment><USER14> It has a smaller metro population than Shenzen, LA, etc. It's a big city, but a small gigacity.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> The startup scene here in Vancouver is scrappy but really shouldn't be compared to SV in any way, it's just not a fair comparison.

We are, however, woefully under-represented with experienced seed stage investors, as the author states. The few that are here have abandoned seed and pre seed and are exclusively VC, mid to late round investors. Can't blame them, either, as the wins are still few and far between.

Vancity seems to excel at bridging H1B visas for large firms hoping to cycle them into the US once they've cleared. Candidates get here easier and quicker.

We're also a cost effective labour farm, and our devs are happy for the work to help pay for their ridiculous mortgages.

Great city to live in, worst city to fundraise, good place to launch and validate, and really nice for avoiding the noise.

We'll see a unicorn or two in the coming years. They'll just go a much different path than the typical SV startup.

<comment><USER16> The word is out in the last few years though with any young developer googling Vancouver. Low pay, high cost of living not worth it. Even the founder of Hootsuite wrote an op-ed and the situation is only worse since the 2 years ago he wrote that. Something that pays 125,000USD in SF pays like 78,000CAD here. Condo's are $1000/sqft still.

<comment><USER17> > Condo's are $1000/sqft still.

In the suburbs maybe.

<comment><USER18> Presales downtown are at $2k/sqft.

<comment><USER17> Sometimes I fantasize about winning the lottery and go browse condos to see what I could buy.....$5M downtown gets you something completely unimpressive, it's really hard to fathom.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Rule of "Silicone Valleys" and "Startup Centers": if it is announced in a press release that a place is becoming one of those things, chances are they won't.

A lot of these press releases come from top down incentives, tax cuts, special programs and such that. The problem is they fail to capture all the reasons and causes a startup center is a startup center.

One thing might help is to start war for example and have the Canadian defense ministry invest heavily in war technologies and hand out cash to develop radars :-) or other such non-obvious things.

<comment><USER20> So we use our armies to keep peace and to defend ourselves, not to attack. The NRC -- National Research Council -- works with the private sector to productize promising new technologies without invading ^_^

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Vancouver: where senior developers would be genuinely lucky to top out at $90k, a single bedroom on a transit line is $800k, a teardown in a distant suburb is $1.5M, and bottom shelf cheese costs $40/lb.

I don't think a startup scene in a city is ever going to really blow up when sticking around in that city is giving up the possibility of building any kind of future for yourself.

Everybody I know who's worth half a damn moved to Seattle.

\----

Toronto: maybe.

Montreal: sure.

The prairies: "Is Fargo the next up-and-coming startup center?"

<comment><USER22> I grew up in Toronto and have visited Montreal numerous times but only as a tourist.

At any rate I'm very skeptical of the Montreal claims. It is a wonderful place to visit, but all of my Canadian non-native French speaking friends eventually found that their career opportunities were limited and the culture was simply too hostile to non-Quebecois and so they relocated away.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> I just want to give my POV on all of this as I have lived in both Vancouver, Toronto, and now in Mountain View.

Everything pointed out in the comments about low pay, and high cost of living in Vancouver is true. However, let's look of it from another angle. If you were a young college grad with options, wouldn't you want to go to sunny California? Not only is it an adventure, there's better night life, better sports teams, the glory of the valley, and on top of that, higher pay. It's really a no brainer for some.

Toronto is definitely a better environment and I can see it blossoming more and more. I know a couple of Founders there and they love it. I would go there myself in the future, except for family ties in the west coast.

Just my 2 cents.

<comment><USER24> I've also been to Mountain View. As a young college grad I would like to live in a CITY, not a sprawling suburban nightmare where half of my day would be stuck in traffic.

The higher pay is the ONLY reason to move to Silicon Valley. It has nothing on Vancouver or Toronto in terms of night life, food, or fun for a college- educated professional.

<comment><USER25> So why not NYC? More of a city and better wages for devs than either Vancouver or Toronto.

<comment><USER24> Agreed. NYC is the best choice.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> What bothers me about these articles is that they lay out all these reasons for why a place will be great, or is a great place to start a company, but then why -- in spite of these assets -- does that place not produce like Silicon Valley?

I am not saying Toronto is not a great city to live and work and start a business.

But if it has all these things going for it, why isn't it producing startup value per capita like SV? Doesn't this show that these things are not enough for a startup scene? Or, to put it another way, having startups is not essential for a great city.

<comment> 52-6F-62 I think there are a number of factors here, and I don't think social factors should be ruled out.

There are a number of startups here, but there are also many community/social innovation hubs[1] and organizations that draw in a lot of people who come here to start something up.

The number of jobs I have seen posted for the "Next Flipp!" the "Next Uber!!!" is outstanding. How many flyer-aggregate apps do people really need? There's an odd lack of creative capital in business for a city that prides itself on the arts.

I think some of that is due to social pressures. Many in the arts here, at least the people who would need the money, seem to think earning any real money is evil unless you earned your $10.50 an hour working on the line in a diner kitchen. As if a financially successful business is inherently a corrupt business.

Other organizations like Enterprise Toronto[2] seem like great ideas to bolster people in theory, but (speaking only from my experience) it seems to attract people who want to only run their quaint one-man dev-designer gig with enough money to do what they want, and all the free time to do it. Sounds kind of nice, but the city is flooded with people who have the same dream. (Maybe there's more space for it these days, and maybe I should get in on it).

Your last paragraph raises very good questions, and the answers are probably too many: the best talent goes to California/New York/Boston(/Waterloo?), or otherwise the best talent here doesn't get into business but stays in academics. Some of the highest capital here seems to be made through selling to American companies.[3] Then of course the social factors I mentioned: it might just be that the dream is a little different for a lot of people who come here. They didn't necessarily come to strike it big with a company, but more for the culture of the place. Like you put it: having startups is not essential for a great city.

[1] [https://socialinnovation.org/](https://socialinnovation.org/) [2] [http://www1.toronto.ca/wps/portal/contentonly?vgnextoid=0323...](http://www1.toronto.ca/wps/portal/contentonly?vgnextoid=032354ae91cda510VgnVCM10000071d60f89RCRD) [3] [https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/why-is- canadian-m...](https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/why-is-canadian- media-ignoring-the-100m-sale-of-a-toronto-startup-bitstrips-snapchat-bitmoji)

edit: I should add the obligatory MaRS is an awesome resource comment. [https://www.marsdd.com/](https://www.marsdd.com/)

<comment><USER27> Actually, MaRS has been not at all useful in my experience. Additionally, Toronto is home to a lot of great startups, though many are a bit smaller than the giants, but some are giants. Shopify and 500px are good examples. Smaller examples are AgileBits who make 1password and PagerDuty. There are more too, in enterprise, legal, you won't have heard of these as the aren't consumer facing.

<comment> 52-6F-62 MaRS seems to be much bigger in science and medical startups, and unless you look for what they've been supporting it's like you mentioned most won't have heard of them because they aren't consumer facing. I think I mentioned elsewhere -- Shopify and 500px (I've applied there and failed lol) are some of the unicorns here. Good companies with good products and good talent. I'll have to check out AgileBits.

I work for a company that sometimes deals with other smaller startups but they can be fleeting in lifespan.

I would love to find something viable to join in on vs. the enterprise environment I find myself in now. Though I honestly haven't had my ear to the ground as much lately.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> As far as Toronto is concerned, nobody grows to the size of a multi-national juggernaut. Everyone takes the buyout/merger/acquisition way before that ever happens. It's often been said, what major multi-national corporation has their headquarters here? Reuters is the only one and they are technically headquartered in New York now.

The companies that get that far will typically come out of other places where they aren't stifled by the conservative VCs/angels eager for an exit like they are in Toronto.

<comment><USER29> Does TD count?

<comment><USER28> No, I don't think any of the big Canadian banks would or should count.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Mind you this is by the same author who wrote : "The Netherlands: A Look At The World's High-Tech Startup Capital" and half a dozen similar pieces. Often cringeworthy PR fluff written in tourist brochure style.

</comment><comment><USER31> I saw a poster in my business school building (in the midwest) about "Silicon Plains." Honestly, it'd be so cool if there really were more tech hubs, but the degree of wishful thinking can be almost painful.

I'm _not_ suggesting by this that Vancouver isn't an up-and-coming startup center. Just commenting on the extreme desire I see all around to be like SV.

</comment><comment><USER32> This article reads like someone who doesn't give 2 shits about Canada decided to crack open wikipedia.

> but many countries of similar stature — G7 nations, for example — dismiss > the Great White North as nothing more than America's top hat

Canada is one of the G7 nations. Or did you mean the other 6 don't care about Canada?

Can you please just not bother writing about my country anymore.

</comment><comment><USER33> " Similarly, sub-zero temperatures scare people to warmer areas, leading to a brain drain and serious demand for startup-orientated marketers."

Living in one of the cities, sub-zero might have an impact but I don't think it's the brain drain main reason. For aspiring founder, I think it's more related to insufficient founding. For engineers, I think the very low salaries is more to blame. Even if cost of living is a bit lower, the difference makes no sense at all.

<comment><USER34> It's hard to do a proper comparison of costs unless you're young and single. Consider medical costs (usually, but not always covered by your US employer), and family-related costs (school for kids is the biggest I can think of: private schools and private universities being more expensive in the US).

<comment><USER28> What's sad is that Canada has a very good public school system all the way from Kindergarten to University. Combined with the lower costs (i.e. free K-12 for these good schools unlike Americans sending kids to private schools) and reduced stress on children due to lack of a standardized university entrance exam, Canada SHOULD be a place where people want to have families.

That being said, I'm a product of the public schooling system in Scarborough/Markham. Which could possibly have the best free public schools in North America.

<comment><USER35> Same here ! I think we might be from the same school. I grew up my highschool in Scarborough.

<comment><USER6> Markham yes .. but Scarborough having the best schools?? Which one? George S Henry in North York was pretty awesome.

<comment><USER35> Agincourt, oldest :-)

I know few Campbell guys

<comment><USER36> Agincourt grad here.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> I'm surprised to see how little funding/support there is specifically from Alberta[1], given the oil/gas wealth and the general awareness (going back decades) that they need to diversify their economy.

1 - [https://www.mentorworks.ca/what-we-offer/government- funding/](https://www.mentorworks.ca/what-we-offer/government-funding/)

<comment><USER38> Alberta used to be the best province regarding the behaviour of government, and this was one of the great things. The provincial taxes are fairly low, and until the most recent regime change none of the cities had municipal debt.

I would take lower taxes over a grant most days.

<comment><USER39> How do taxes play a role for a startup that defers profit for growth? Taxes won't be a factor until you've succeeded.

Or is it that your experience with grants are that negative that you value them so poorly?

<comment><USER38> Grants are dangerous for society, because they encourage private businesses to cooperate with current-term politics, and they take money out of the market. Last year, our federal government gave nearly $400mm to one company expecting the creation of just 1300 jobs. There are federal tax incentives for any company that does essentially anything novel (SRED) and that somewhat works, since acceptance is only conditional on meeting the criteria. Grants are preferential.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> This article looks like a fluff piece that is pretty thin on actual research.

They talk about how great MaRS is and how much revenue it has generated... but in reality MaRS has been an issue and has had hundreds of millions in bailout money.

</comment><comment><USER41> This sounds like the typical Silicon-everywhere story. Any big developed country now has a "start up scene", and rightly so. Otherwise they wouldn't be developed. Relatively speaking, all of them are up and coming, as they're all catching up with the original silicon valley.

The only notable and interesting stories are when the articles compare absolute investment amounts, tech GDP growth, IPOs, open tech jobs or other real measurable comparisons. This seems to be lacking any of these deeper comparison to actually non-trivially show how this area is really the "up-and- coming startup center" of North America.

</comment><comment><USER42> Favorite quote:

 _Vancouver is found in British Columbia (BC), amongst the Rocky Mountains on Canada's west coast._

Yah. Excellent.

<comment><USER43> To be fair, there are mountains and they're pretty rocky :-)

<comment><USER42> Totally fair.

And speaking of rocks, the hike up the Yosemite Half Dome, just an hour by car from downtown Vancouver is really nice.

[https://www.google.ca/search?tbm=isch&q=stawamus+chief](https://www.google.ca/search?tbm=isch&q=stawamus+chief)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> I speak as a founder of an AI company in Vancouver Canada and ran it there for ~1 year - we relocated to US for fundraising and that's another story - <USER2> here is my sense for salaries:

* AI/ML Scientists (UBC, SFU) , Typically MS/PhD: C$85K-125K

* Web developers: ranges from 60K (mediocre) to 110K (very good), the exceptional are nearly impossible to find.

* Database/Backend : C$80K-100K for the good to very good talent.

I would expect Toronto to have similar salary ranges, Waterloo and Montreal might be a bit lower.

<comment><USER45> Montreal is way lower. But then again rent here is significantly less than Vancouver/Toronto.

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> SV used to be a cheap place to live and this helped the startup scene grow into what it is today. Now it's (more or less) self sustaining.

It enabled a lot of risk taking.

I don't think you could call any major Canadian city cheap.

So how does it build up an ecosystem? Maybe if all the VCs etc get chased out of the US?

</comment><comment><USER38> Seems like Conrad is doing the equivalent of one of those _$YOUR_CITY voted best place to live 2017_ articles, but instead for entire countries, and specifically for startups.

Not saying he's necessarily wrong about any of this though, I wouldn't know.

[https://techcrunch.com/contributor/conrad- egusa/](https://techcrunch.com/contributor/conrad-egusa/)

<comment><USER47> An obscure bylaw in the TechCrunch corporate charter mandates them to publish a 'why <some place that will never be the next Silicon Valley> is the next Silicon Valley' article every two months. Rumor has it that in the bottom desk of the editor's drawer is a jar of used blood from the last time vampire Thiel had a hemocyte change and a dart has its tip wetted with this foul ichor before being thrown across the room at a large map. Whoever does not turn away from viewing the ritual fast enough is assigned the story.

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> So basically because the cost of living in San Francisco is scary, everyone is looking for the next start-up center and assuming it will be somewhere outside the United States. But there are many other cheap places to live in the US, much cheaper than Canada. I guess the current political climate in the US could be a driving factor.

</comment><comment><USER49> There is no huge difference in tech jobs salaries between US and Canada. You can easliy spot it on the salary map: [https://jobsquery.it/map;bounds=%7B%22south%22%3A46.23432130...](https://jobsquery.it/map;bounds=%7B%22south%22%3A46.234321302666864%2C%22west%22%3A-129.74610045552254%2C%22north%22%3A56.09145008422483%2C%22east%22%3A-107.77344420552254%7D)

But there is a significant difference in the number of job offers:

USA: ~5000 [https://jobsquery.it/jobs;page=1;tags=;sortBy=PUBLISHED_AT_D...](https://jobsquery.it/jobs;page=1;tags=;sortBy=PUBLISHED_AT_DESC;query=;location=USA)

VS

CANADA: ~100 [https://jobsquery.it/jobs;page=1;tags=;sortBy=PUBLISHED_AT_D...](https://jobsquery.it/jobs;page=1;tags=;sortBy=PUBLISHED_AT_DESC;query=;location=Canada)

</comment><comment><USER50> Canada is a better place to live but due to the low population, culture (less consumerism/socialist mentality) you are not going to generate outsized returns from pure capitalism.

</comment><comment><USER51> > Many household names, such as Slack, Hootsuite and Shopify — which may be > mistakenly considered as U.S. products — hail from north of the border.

They are Delaware corporations, aren't they?

<comment><USER52> Not essentially, everyone registers as Delaware for tax benefits. So did we but we're situated in Toronto.

Also you could be sarcastic, hard to tell.

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> This headline is funny. North America is only three countries. One is already its startup center which leaves only Mexico or Canada or both as its up and coming center.

</comment><comment><USER54> Canada is North America's shameful violence against seals for furs center. Oh, and Waterloo is a good school.

</comment><comment><USER55> feast your eyes [https://www.linkedin.com/jobs/view/325100669/](https://www.linkedin.com/jobs/view/325100669/)

</comment><comment><USER56> The title is really foolish - so out of the two countries in north america, the first one actually being the startup center canada is aspiring to (according to the title) canada is up and coming.

Also, shocking news - I use my left hand the second most often of all my hands.

A better, and overused, title would be "Canada is poised to be the next startup center" or something.

</comment><comment><USER57> Meh. The weather is already too cold for me in the Northern US.

<comment><USER23> Actually, the weather in Vancouver and Seattle are not bad as they have the Pineapple Express. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pineapple_Express](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pineapple_Express)

<comment><USER58> "Pinapple Express" is an ironic term for what is, in fact, days of shitty weather. There are waves of heavy rain. The air might not be that cold, but you will be if you're soaked.

<comment><USER23> "Shitty" is subjective. The fact is, the Pineapple Express brings warmer, tropical-esque temperatures. I grew up in Vancouver and didn't move away till I was 18. I've always thought the rainy weather was nice and didn't think too much about it. That's just me...haha :D

<comment><USER58> Pineapple express weather is good for people who walk to their cars with an umbrella. 11 degrees C in January indisputably beats being in some snow blizzard in northern Ontario. Look how much better off we are than those suckers, ha ha!

11 degree _water_ , on the other hand, is like out of the cold water tap. Not so great for outdoor activity. Add to that the windchill factor if you're running or cycling.

Clear, sunny weather and -3 degrees is better than pouring rain and 11 degrees.

Staying warm isn't much of an issue for outdoor activity. It's not hard to achieve: an extra layer, some head gear and gloves; being _dry_ is more important.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER59> Is Waterloo or Toronto better for starting a tech startup?

<comment><USER60> I'd say Waterloo, getting office rentals are cheaper and overall living costs are cheaper in Waterloo. You also get access to UW and Velocity (shout-out to Jay Shah!).

Toronto has MARS and DMZ and 111 Richmond are a few places to start off. I'd rather take Waterloo over that any day. The real-estate in Toronto is just insane.

Neither Toronto nor Waterloo has the VC's of Sand Hill Road, so if you're on the fund raising track, Waterloo being an hour away makes no difference.

So yea, I'd still opt for Waterloo, just my opinion, others will likely disagree.</comment></comment>


Create and visualize your microservice applications with IcePanel - <AUTHOR> https://icepanel.io/l/CSTs3TQd3 <comment><AUTHOR> Struggling to understand your complex microservice architecture from a bunch of huge YAML files? Quickly visualize and develop new or existing projects using the IcePanel editor. Check out our website and download the free VSCode plugin to give it a try.

[https://icepanel.io/l/CSTs3TQd3](https://icepanel.io/l/CSTs3TQd3)

Thoughts, feedback and suggestions are welcome!</comment>


Tesla to reveal the new Model 3 tonight 8:30PM Pacific - <AUTHOR> https://www.teslamotors.com/ <comment><USER2> Announcements of announcements are always off topic.</comment>


Nissan Motor Company has announced a new type of gasoline engine - <AUTHOR> http://www.reuters.com/article/us-autos-japan-nissan-engine-idUSKCN10P0IK?il=0 <comment><USER2> Here is a simple explanation gathered from this image [http://o.aolcdn.com/hss/storage/midas/de3e84cf46030cd7b3ea39...](http://o.aolcdn.com/hss/storage/midas/de3e84cf46030cd7b3ea39900a1fa7ba/204201576/image1+%281%29.JPG) :

The difference from a conventional engine is that the engine stroke is increased or decreased automatically. The stroke is the distance the piston travels up and down in order to turn the crankshaft. A shorter distance that is closer to the combustion chamber increases the compression ratio because there is less space for the fuel/air mixture. When the system is operating in low compression mode the piston travels more and does not reach as high. The combustion chamber then ends up being farther away and a lower compression ratio is achieved.

What is novel about this approach is how the combustion chamber was left in the same place. Past efforts by SAAB had the engine head moving the combustion chamber away from the pistons. This drastically changes the characteristics of the combustion process. Something that makes emissions control challenging. Any power loss due to a dynamic combustion chamber is removed by pressurising it with a turbocharger, just like Nissan did.

Possible issues with this design could be:

\- Uneven wear of the cylinder bore due to the piston travel being dynamic.

\- An overboost condition during a high compression cycle could damage the mechanism and even crack the engine block.

\- Increased NHV due to regular wear and tear making its way into the valvetrain and transmission input shaft.

This is a good effort and I hope Nissan is able to pull it off. Make sure to wait two years before you buy a vehicle with this technology. Dont be the guinea pig. :)

<comment><USER3> _> A shorter distance that is closer to the combustion chamber increases the compression ratio because there is less space for the fuel/air mixture. When the system is operating in low compression mode the piston travels more and does not reach as high._

I think this is partly inaccurate. The images show the piston at the top of the stroke; when the compression ratio is high the piston is higher at the top of the stroke. But the bottom of the stroke is the same in both cases. That means the actual length of the stroke--the distance the piston travels--is greater in high compression mode. This is consistent with the definition of compression ratio, which is the ratio of cylinder volume at bottom of stroke vs. top of stroke; a larger compression ratio means a larger difference between these volumes, i.e., a longer piston stroke to get the piston higher (closer to the top of the cylinder) at the top of the stroke.

<comment><USER4> I don't follow how the stroke length changes. The conrod (upper-link in the image) is a fixed length, therefore the stroke length is fixed.

The compression ratio changes because the mechanism changes where TDC (Top Dead Centre) is.

Or have I misunderstood something?

Edited to add: If TDC moves then the bottom of the stroke moves with it because the conrod is a fixed length, right?

<comment><USER4> Never mind, I see now how the mechanism changes the stroke length.

<comment><USER5> Can you elaborate? I'm trying to figure it out. I'm also confused about where the crankshaft is supposed to be in this picture.

<comment><USER4> Erm, I'm not sure I get it. I think I'd need to see an animation. If the crankshaft is fixed I don't see how that linkage can change the stroke length because all it shows in that diagram is the piston further along the stroke, which is what all piston engines do when the crankshaft rotates.

So yeah, I probably need to see an animation to grok it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> From the (much better) Reuters article [0]:

> The higher the ratio, the more efficiently the engine works, producing > better fuel economy and, with the addition of a turbo-charger, more power.

> Traditionally, design engineers had to fix a gasoline engine's combustion > compression ratio, essentially deciding whether to go for power or economy.

Everything gets better with higher compression ratio, so where's the compromise? As I understand it, the only reason engine makers don't crank the ratio as high as possible is to avoid knocking.

[0] [http://www.reuters.com/article/us-autos-japan-nissan- engine-...](http://www.reuters.com/article/us-autos-japan-nissan-engine- idUSKCN10P0IK?il=0)

<comment><USER7> The drawback is that higher compression ratios require higher octane fuels. Nissan claims to have solved this by some kind of intelligent feedback system that allows them to control compression ratios on the fly. Presumably the compromise there is that it will require more moving parts, be expensive, and may come with issues of its own.

Variability in something like a combustion chamber is a cool idea, so is variability in the angle of turbo vanes. The issue is how you do it, affordably, and in a way that lasts the way that consumers expect from their cars.

<comment><USER8> The obvious precedent for variable-pitch blades are variable-pitch propellers on aircraft and helicopters. I don't want to say it's a solved problem for turbos, but there is almost a century's worth of prior art on the topic. That's one of those things that (in hindsight) really makes you wonder what took so long to think up.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable- pitch_propeller](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable-pitch_propeller)

<comment><USER9> Because it has to be cheap and reliable at 1000*C for 200,000 miles over 10 years while constantly accelerating to 280,000RPM and decelerating with no oil or cooling air circulating when the car is stopped. [https://garrett.honeywell.com/products/how-a-turbo- works/](https://garrett.honeywell.com/products/how-a-turbo-works/)

[http://www.epi- eng.com/piston_engine_technology/turbocharger...](http://www.epi- eng.com/piston_engine_technology/turbocharger_technology.htm)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Despite claiming they could replace diesels, I don't see any real numbers other than comparisons with their own gasoline engines. For internal combustion engines, the most efficent are still two-stroke diesels, which can have thermal efficiencies of over 50%:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brake_specific_fuel_consumptio...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brake_specific_fuel_consumption#Examples_of_values_of_BSFC_for_shaft_engines)

Seeing as this design includes several more moving parts than conventional ones, it's an open question how much reliability and longevity are affected; I remember reading in a book that over the years many have tried to make more efficient engines and succeeded in achieving that goal, only to be let down because of real-world reliability issues.

</comment><comment><USER11> SAAB was working on one of these years ago before GM flew that company into the ground. This link gives you an idea of how it works.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_Variable_Compression_engi...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_Variable_Compression_engine)

<comment><USER12> Variable compression? So logical next step is variable octane, right? One tank of 87 and one tank of 93, dynamically mixed in response to changing compression ratio. :)

<comment><USER13> not sure if joking or not, but the injection map on your ecu does that.

<comment><USER14> I think you are incorrect. Most production cars (all that I know) have only a single fuel tank, thus nothing to mix.

<comment><USER2> I think the point of the person you replied to is that any variation in octane is handled by the fuel injection system. This renders having two tanks unnecessary (unless you require more distance between fill ups).

<comment><USER15> It can adapt to lower octane fuel by adjusting the timing, it's far from optimal, and at high enough boost level you need higher octane regardless. At non boost levels, you need less octane rating to prevent knock, but under boost you need higher octane rating. So you run the higher octane fuel all the time, and that is less efficient.

<comment><USER14> Correct. This involves relying on feedback from knock sensors which literally "listen" for the specific tone that a detonation event produces (usually somewhere in the 6-7 kHz range depending on cylinder geometry). You will sometimes hear this phenomenon referred to as "pinging", and it's actually audible to the driver if severe enough. There is also another method of knock detection which involves using the spark plugs to detect the resistance of the air inside the combustion chamber immediately after an ignition event, which I believe is an indirect way of measuring cylinder pressure. I'm not positive on this, but I think the idea is that you want peak cylinder pressure at the moment of time where the piston is like 20 degrees after top dead center. Earlier than that, and the majority of the force is wasted pressing directly down on the crank shaft. This is more advanced and is used only in specific cars such as the E90 BMW M3.

If the ECU detects knock, it will retard timing. This works to an extent, but you're ultimately worse off than if you just ran premium fuel in the first place. The other issue is that (on systems with conventional knock sensors) this causes you to basically "bounce" off of the knock threshold. Knocking is terrible for the bearings inside of the engine and should generally be avoided, but running regular fuel in a car that calls for premium results in the ECU constantly trying to creep up timing (or switch to the high octane map), only to be confronted with knock again.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Interesting news, The Reuters article[1] they cite has more content than the current article[2], but even the Reuters article looks very PR-like.

The TLDR appears to be: The new engine uses _variable compression_ technology, which [allows] at any given moment to choose an optimal compression ratio for combustion.

> The [new VC-T engine] averages 27 percent better fuel economy than the > 3.5-liter V6 engine it replaces, with comparable power and torque. Nissan > says the new engine matches the diesel engine in torque.

It will be officially unveiled at next month's Paris motor show

[1] [http://www.reuters.com/article/us-autos-japan-nissan- engine-...](http://www.reuters.com/article/us-autos-japan-nissan-engine- idUSKCN10P0IK?il=0)

[2] [http://www.thedailynewsgrabber.com/nissan-on-gasoline- engine...](http://www.thedailynewsgrabber.com/nissan-on-gasoline-engine- breakthrough-diesel-obsolete/)

</comment><comment><USER17> So if this engine changes the compression ratio (the amount the mixture is compressed) how is all this complexity better than a supercharger which changes the amount the air is compressed? Surely increasing the compression of the mixture and compressing the air before it goes in is pretty much the same thing? Except...that all that variable stroke length mechanism is a lot more complicated, and patentable?

<comment><USER18> Higher compression ratio allows better fuel efficiency. Supercharging forces more fuel and air into the same cylinder.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> I am far from an expert, but there are two ways I know of to do something like variable compression, one is that Saab technique already mentioned, where the cylinder head is displaced to change the size of the combustion chamber.

The other related scheme is the Atkinson cycle: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atkinson_cycle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atkinson_cycle)

The wiki page shows a complicated mechanical arrangement for having a smaller intake volume vs. expansion volume, but the "poor man's" way to do this is to just keep the intake valve open for the first part of the compression stroke. The upside is that you can then adjust the effective compression ratio with valve timing. The downside is that it reduces the intake manifold vacuum by blowing back some of the intake air, not sure how that's handled.

Don't know what the Nissan guys are doing.

<comment><USER15> This is what Mazda is doing with their Skyactive-G engines if I'm not mistaken. It works reasonably well.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> The way that makes most sense to think about this to me is in terms of dynamic compression.

At full throttle the turbo is shoving a large mass of air into the cylinder for every firing. The compression ratio has to be fixed lower to control detonation under these circumstances.

At light throttle / cruise there is now hardly any mass of air in the cylinder, so although mecanically nothing has changed (same / fixed compression ratio) we are hardly compressing the air at all and we're giving away a load of efficiency for that reason.

The ability to up the compression ratio at cruise / light throttle claims some of that basic efficiency back.

</comment><comment><USER21> > _" Increasing the fuel efficiency of internal combustion engines is critical > to automakers. Not all consumers will accept a battery electric vehicle > solution._

That's the thesis?

</comment><comment><USER22> This is still using ignition timing and spark plugs. Additionally, the connecting shim and the timing advancer/retarder introduce not one, but two points of failure.

Thanks, but no thanks: I'll just stick to my simple (by comparison) direct injected turbo diesel cars.

When there is a gasoline engine which can ignite the fuel without spark plugs and ignition timing, that'll be the right solution. mazda experimented with this (see "VCCI"), but it never made it into production, because it's not a trivial problem to solve. This Nissan patent is a mechanical engineer's equivalent of a duct tape hack.

Or we could just ditch this entire nonsense with pistons and optimize the Chrysler's super simple turbine car engine until it matches today's exhaust emission regulations. This was a tough problem to solve in 1978, but should be doable now with a particulate filter. And that engine isn't picky: since it's a turbine, it'll run on anything that's combustible, from filtered cooking oil to cologne.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2A5ijU3Ivs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2A5ijU3Ivs)

<comment><USER20> Disesl engines have very fine control of ignition timing via injection timing which is now very complex. There are tiny pilot injections and multiple short injections over a carefully controlled length of time so I don't agree that needing to time a spark makes spark ignition a more complex and by implication worse solution.

<comment><USER22> First of all, timing by injection is still simpler than timing by spark: in gasoline engines, the computer must time both the injection and the ignition.

Second, timing by spark means that spark plugs are necessary, so that is more parts, and more parts means higher probability of failure.

Third, spark plugs are needed to start a chain reaction of igniting fuel, because gasoline fuel is volatile enough as not to be combustible. Gasoline fuel is not flammable, but the vapor is, did you know that? That's what makes it volatile as far as combustibility, otherwise we would have self igniting gasoline engines by now.

<comment><USER20> I'd say that modern disel injector problems were more common than spark plug problems, so I guess we'll have to agree disagree :) I could also draw your attention to the cost and ease of replacement of a spark plug vs a diesel injector, or all the extra emissions treatment equipment that modern diesels need that petrol doesn't, but I don't think we're going to convince each other here :)

<comment><USER22> How long have you worked on diesels in order to be able to claim that?

How many cases of diesel engines with injector problems have you had during your career as a mechanic?

 _How much does, on the average, a diesel injector cost?_

 _How often do they have to be replaced?_

I've worked on diesel engines since I was a little kid, and have yet to work on one with injector problems.

The following are ultramodern mazda injectors, for instance; if you look at the spray pattern and the capability of these programmable injectors, it's pretty obvious it's going to be tough for them to experience problems:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDFgiLrEX1o](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDFgiLrEX1o)

modern piezoelectric technology is wonderful, isn't it? And wouldn't you know it, all modern diesel engines sport piezoelectric injectors.

But let's suppose for a moment that you are correct, and that I'm wrong. Your logic has one flaw, and that is that in a diesel engine, I will (and have) get three times the kilometrage that you will get with a gasoline engine. Even if I had to replace all of the injectors, I will still have come out ahead. How?

Assuming that you are running the simplest, ultramodern gasoline V8 (I picked V8 in particular because that is the most reliable of the gasoline engines), if you maintain it according to the extreme maintenance schedule, you might get about 460,000 km out of it before requiring a rebuild. By that time, I will have gotten almost 1,300,000 km on the diesel and _maybe_ need an engine rebuild, and that engine rebuild might not even need new injectors, if I changed my fuel filter every 15,000 km (which I do), and every 30,000 km added one liter of biodiesel to my tank!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> In economics, the Jevons paradox occurs when technological progress increases the efficiency with which a resource is used (reducing the amount necessary for any one use), but the rate of consumption of that resource rises because of increasing demand.

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

</comment><comment><USER24> > The turbo-charged, 2-liter, four-cylinder [VC-T] engine averages 27 percent > better fuel economy than the 3.5-liter V6 engine it replaces.

You don't say.

<comment><USER25> _... with comparable power and torque._

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Any way to know how they accomplish the variable compression?

<comment><USER27> [https://www.google.com/patents/US7165517](https://www.google.com/patents/US7165517)

<comment><USER28> Oh, so that's how it works. See Fig. 2 of the patent. It's a lot like the Peugeot MCE-5, an earlier variable-displacement engine. The Nissan mechanism looks simpler and seems to take up less space inside the engine. Maybe that will make this workable. Variable-displacement isn't new, but previous attempts were mechanically clunky. It adds extra moving parts to the highest- load path in an engine - the piston to crankshaft connection. It has to deliver large benefits to justify the costs and problems that implies.

Most engines already have knock sensors. They're used to adjust fuel/air ratio and spark timing to just above/after where the engine starts to knock. A few engines adjust valve timing while running, which is also complex mechanically, but not as difficult as adjusting compression. Now there's another variable to tweak.

It may take a machine learning system to tune such an engine. All those interdependent variables to adjust make that a hard problem. Different values required based on engine speed, load, temperature, fuel consumption, and emissions outputs. All this is usually expressed as precomputed tables which are interpolated within the engine controller. Those tables have to be developed somehow.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> This should probably link to the original Reuters article: [http://www.reuters.com/article/us-autos-japan-nissan- engine-...](http://www.reuters.com/article/us-autos-japan-nissan-engine- idUSKCN10P0IK?il=0)

</comment><comment><USER30> More information: [http://www.autoblog.com/2016/08/14/infiniti-vc-t-engine- vari...](http://www.autoblog.com/2016/08/14/infiniti-vc-t-engine-variable- compression-official/)

</comment><comment><USER31> This looks cool, but complicated. The problem addressed seems to be that turbocharged (and supercharged) engines are sub-optimal at lower powers.

IMHO mild electric hybrids, or full serial electric hybrids would be a more elegant solution - only run the combustion engine when full power is needed, and use the electric motor otherwise. "full power" could be used to top the battery if it's not all required for motion.

<comment><USER32> Would an electrically powered, computer-controlled turbo be silly?

<comment><USER33> The electric motor to be used would have to be a pretty unusual motor. IMO, supercharging is "better" because the PTO side of an engine is less ... trouble than the exhaust side. Superchargers are generally heavier.

<comment><USER15> Super chargers generally result in a fairly large parasitic loss to power it. Turbo more or less harvest free energy with only a minimal loss due to increased back pressure.

<comment><USER33> So they say. The story I always got is that turbo ( for aviation - where this all grew up ) was simply lighter.

The old rule of thumb "turbo costs 3x less than super" is true for a lot of cases. Supercharge provides a linear boost where turbo does not.

<comment><USER15> Some superchargers provide linear boost, others behave much like a turbo. In any casem FI is used to increase efficiency, so it doesn't make sense to use a super charger with a must larger parasitic loss. Modern turbo can provide boost from 1500 rpm, and result in a flat torque curve - the only negative thing is the lag.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> I'm curious as to what, if anything, would preclude variable displacement from being used in diesels as well as petrol engines. Diesels also have performance/economy tradeoffs like this gasoline engines, so it stands to reason that tweaking compression should give similar benefit. I've got a feeling that rumors of diesel's impending demise are greatly exaggerated.

<comment><USER35> Diesel's fatal flaw is particulate emissions.

Attempts to mitigate those, without cheating (e.g., VW), have proven difficult.

<comment><USER34> Volkswagen cheated to try to get a less expensive system in place. DPFs and urea injection are pretty well proven technologies and work pretty well.

<comment><USER36> They work well enough on new vehicles coming out of the factory.

The real problem is 5-10 years later when these systems need repair or replacement. For many the economic temptation to have them "nulled" is too great (fuel efficiency is improved by removing the DPF) - and that once-clean diesel is now a toxic, polluting nightmare.

This is a huge problem in the UK - and why we need to phase out diesel in private/light motor vehicles.

<comment><USER37> How do they pass the emissions test?

<comment><USER36> In the UK, there is no emissions test for particulate or NOx emissions, other than the subjective "does it emit visible smoke?".

A visual inspection for the presence of the DPF is required, but this is easily defeated by installing a look-alike "null" filter.

The people doing the MOT testing can be pretty shady anyway. Since any mechanic can operate as a testing facility, it's often the same people who remove DPFs that will then pass them in the MOT inspection.

<comment><USER37> Seems like fixing that system would be more sensible than outlawing diesel cars, no?

<comment><USER36> I agree with you. A strict emissions test regime would be a good first step. But politicians have known about this for years and little has been done - apparently it's a too hard (or too expensive) problem to fix.

The thing is, even brand-new "clean" diesels are still worse polluters, for toxic particulates and NOx, compared to petrol and petrol-electric hybrid vehicles.

London already has a disincentive on diesels coming into effect by 2019, when pre-Euro 6 (i.e. older than September 2015) diesel vehicles will be subject to a £12.50/day charge to drive in London.

There are calls to extend this to cover all diesel vehicles, eventually leading to a total ban:

[https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jul/18/ban- dies...](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jul/18/ban-diesel-cars- in-london-thinktank-urges)

Licensing of new diesel taxis will also soon be prohibited in London, and all single-deck busses will be zero-emission by 2020 (and double-deck busses will, at minimum, be hybrids).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> This is an excellent implementation of variable valve gear timing that external combustion steam locomotives have had for about a century and a half. Impressive to see it put into an internal combustion engine.

Edit: looking at the posted image, they change the stroke depth of the power linkage. That plus valve timings let them customize the entire combustion cycle.

</comment><comment><USER39> How are they preventing engine knock ? At 14:1 compression you'd have to be running premium gas, which would pretty much cancel the efficiency saving, in a $$ perspective.

<comment><USER14> I think direct injection allows engines to run higher compression ratios without knocking. I'm not sure exactly why, but I assume it's because the fuel sprays directly on top of the piston which could allow it to cool any hot spots which would have normally caused detonation.

<comment><USER40> The fuel probably has to fully vaporize before it can ignite. This happens in the manifold for a normal EFI, or in the carburetor for an older engine. There's some short period of time that this is happening, and so if you time the injection to happen with enough time to vaporize the fuel before ignition it probably doesn't have enough time to pre-ignite before spark.

This is speculation.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> I have a lot of respect for Nissan's engineers, but somewhat less respect for their lawyers, who hounded Uzi Nissan for a decade trying to get him to turn over his domain.

[http://www.nissan.com/Lawsuit/The_Story.php](http://www.nissan.com/Lawsuit/The_Story.php)

Cybersquatting is obnoxious, but once they found out it was the guy's actual name, and that he was using it to run his own business, they should have just accepted he had a right to the site and worked to buy it from him or moved on.

<comment><USER42> Lawyers are tools. (Being one, I feel I can say so, with a humble degree of confidence.)

Certainly there's a give-and-take between lawyers giving advice and clients taking it, but by the "big X" their lawyers essentially do what they are told - lest the big client move elsewhere.

All to say: Lawyers doing a bad thing are often a symptom of an internal disease or conflict.

Which is to summarize a whole host of conflicting emotions: I'm slightly defensive about the profession, wholly sympathetic to the outcomes of wielding lawyers to achieve evil ends, and biased by personal experience – but nevertheless appreciative of comments, like this, that highlight the responsibility that lawyers bear to not only advise and act but to represent the reputations of institutions.

<comment><USER41> Fellow attorney, I know how it feels to be defensive about the profession.

So I should have said I'm less than enthused with their legal strategy, rather than placing blame on a specific group of people.

GC definitely has an obligation to provide guidance on legal strategy before following the board's demands, and maybe they did so. Impossible to say where things broke down in this case.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> "tarnished by Volkswagen's (undefined) emissions cheating scandal." Dear Reuters time for you guys to use flow in your js code.

</comment><comment><USER44> It will interesting to see if this can be combined with electric power to have a very efficient hybrid engine.

</comment><comment><USER45> This is all moot. Battery technology and charging infrastructure for EVs will improve so much over the next 5 to 10 years that engines running on dinosaur juice will no longer be worth the hassle for mainstream vehicles.

<comment><USER46> So all companies related to gas technology should just close up shop? Something that may or may not work is on the horizon, so all the engineers that have been researching gas technology for years should throw in the towel and quit? There is no chance that electric overtakes gas in 5 years.

<comment><USER45> er, electric cars work fine. They just need to get cheaper and have longer range. That will happen easily in the next 5 to 10 years.

<comment><USER47> ...But it hasn't happened in the last 100 years--it also hasn't happened over the last 5-10 years. The Nissan Leaf, for example, is over 5 years old.

There are good reasons why EVs haven't dominated yet--cost, range, flexibility, etc. Battery technology hasn't changed all that much either: [http://www.cnet.com/news/why-batteries-arent-getting- better/](http://www.cnet.com/news/why-batteries-arent-getting-better/)

Someday EVs may dominate, but it's doubtful that will happen in the next 5-10 years unless there is a large technological leap.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


How to be passionate (when you open your mouth) - <AUTHOR> http://www.scottberkun.com/blog/2010/how-to-be-passionate/ <comment><USER2> And like all other things, practice, practice, practice. I also wanted to echo his thoughts in the comments: that there is a fine line between courageous and desparate as well as passionate and annoying. This is something that can be learned and honed like all skills if you're willing to put the time in (talent in certain areas doesn't hurt either).

</comment><comment><USER3> There's a joke in the title somewhere.</comment>


Three major U.S. data providers attacked  - <AUTHOR> http://news.yahoo.com/data-brokers-d-b-lexisnexis-altegrity-report-cyber-020617370--sector.html

<comment><USER2> The original Kreb's blog post is far more interesting and detailed-

[http://krebsonsecurity.com/2013/09/data-broker-giants- hacked...](http://krebsonsecurity.com/2013/09/data-broker-giants-hacked-by-id- theft-service/)</comment>


Beyond the Dichotomy of Open-Source and Corporate Worlds - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/persper/software-development-in-the-next-decade-beyond-the-dichotomy-of-open-source-and-corporate-worlds-985742ba1aee <comment><USER2> I think the concept makes sense, but the author's main point was a bit obscure and so was the implementation of the goals.

And implementation seems like a pretty complex issue when I consider it.

A lot of code can be "grunt work", and very necessary. Sometimes just the logic explaining how to do something can be worth more than knowing how to code the logic. Writing the code is often the easy part.

So assigning values to those two distinctly different aspects of creating software, and even hardware for that matter, is really a pretty complex issue.

I would have liked to learned more about what they have in mind in regards to that.

</comment><comment><USER3> I like the idea very much. I like decentralization.</comment>


Canadian border guards to check iPods for infringment  - <AUTHOR> http://boingboing.net/2008/05/28/canadian-border-guar.html

<comment><USER2> The post this links to is dated 2008.</comment>


JQuery adds a touch of class to it's act - <AUTHOR> http://ejohn.org/blog/classy-query/

<comment><AUTHOR> One of today's (1st April) better web posts - it actually has some value as well as humour</comment>


Most Startups Should be Deer Hunters - <AUTHOR> http://www.bothsidesofthetable.com/2009/09/16/most-startups-should-be-deer-hunters/ <comment><USER2> I just need a post now on how to catch these deer. I don't think bringing my 30'06 into a boardroom is likely to win me any sales. Seriously though, I'd love to see some posts on how to target and then win over those deer-sized companies.

<comment><USER3> 1\. A small business has problems and knows that there _must_ be a solution, but doesn't know what's possible or where to turn.

2\. You make contact. Through a personal introduction by a friend, relative, or business associate. Or at an industry event ( _their_ industry, not yours). Or at a chamber of commerce event. Or any local business event. Or by mailing them a postcard, flyer, or letter using a purchased list or phone book. Or in a restaurant, bar, or party. Or from a flyer or business card that someone else gave them. Or from an ad you ran in their trade publication. Or from a search that landed them on your website. Or... (you get the idea, it could be anything).

3\. You meet and _listen_. I cannot stress this enough. This is 100% about their problem, not your solution or anything else.

4\. If you have a way of addressing _their_ problem, do it. It may be software you've already written, a service, or (quite likely) a prototype you mock up to show them how to attact _their_ problem.

5\. They love the fact that someone has finally actually listened the them about their problem and addressed it. Your solution is a good first step, but it still needs a, b, and c.

6\. You quickly add a, b, and c to your prototype and show them.

7\. They're in love. _Now_ you can get started.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> One possibility that I didn't see mentioned is what to do when you _accidentally_ snare an elephant. Do you hold on to it, or set it free because it's too big for one person to manage?

I have/had (don't really devote much time to it these days) a small company making niche electronic hardware. One day I got a message from $BIG_TRUCKING_COMPANY that wanted a unit for evaluation because they were rolling out a fuel management application to all of their trucks and that was my market. I was able to sell the single unit (what, me _give away_ an eval :-) and provided what I thought was excellent support to their software guys, but never made another sale to them even after my followups.

I've wondered a few times if it was better that way. I mean, I could have made a ton of cash selling them many more boxes, but working for a large co. myself, I understand the hoops they make suppliers jump through. Perhaps I was best off having made the single $200 sale to them and sticking to my smaller customers that didn't mind dealing with a 1-man shop?

</comment><comment><USER5> completely pointless. anyone here could churn out a post like this everyday for years without ever really saying anything of substance.

<comment><AUTHOR> Completely disagree, partly because we made this mistake. It's important to figure out what the characteristics of the companies in your market's sweet- spot are, and in our case, as the article points out "elephants" can be a big distraction, even if landing one seems more emotive.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Great analogy! Elephants=Enterprises. Rabbits=Consumers. Deer=Small & Midsize Businesses.

The problem of servicing customers of greatly varying size is not just one of scale. It means that you're _in a different business_.

I have avoided enterprises because great software doesn't matter. You're playing a different game. I've also avoided the consumer market because it's also a different animal. Scaling and capitalization are at least as important as the application itself.

The small and mid-market has always been my sweet spot. They have money to spend and needs sophisticated enough to warrant great software.

I never thought about the animal/customer size model, but it paints a much clearer picture of the dilemma. Thanks, OP.

<comment><USER6> Rabbits != Consumers, he says rabbit hunters are 37signals and outright.com which seem to be aimed at micro and small business. To an extent small business fall into deer, but I'd guess only the 30+, hence the 'deer can change your t&c' which isn't worth it for a really small business.

Unfortunately he says absolutely nothing about deer apart from waxing lyrical about how they're great. Given that he only gives examples of elephants and rabbits, one wonders if he's yet to find the pain of working with deer?

Having worked in a company that targeted the 'deer' it's not as easy as he makes it sound, generally you start having to customise your product per customer and also implementation is non-trivial meaning consultants & some sort of training, which is a major hinderence to scalability and you still need to get past the board which means a face-to-face sales force. They'll also be at the size where they might have their own IT guys and man a lot of them are incompetent & usually a barrier to sale ('mmm, I'm not sure whether that's compatible with our special gerzambi-thingy' - i.e. more work for me? no thanks).

<comment><AUTHOR> I can put this in really concrete terms based on how we broke this down, and why this article really resounded with me:

The US economic census (a great market research resource) breaks things down into groups of: 0-4 employees, 5-9, 10-19, 20-99, 100-499, 500+

The sweet spot seems to be the 20-99 group both in terms of the number of them and their operation budgets (i.e. they exist), probably have some basically technically competent people on board, and don't expect (and aren't willing to pay for) a high degree of customization.

"Rabits" (sites in the 0-9 employees) often don't have any money to spend and are a crapshoot as to whether or not they have even moderate tech teams. A good half of them require extensive hand-holding with the prospect of pulling in a few bucks a month. So in general, we'll set up accounts for sites in that size, but don't do much support.

"Elephants" tend to also require a lot of hand-holding -- not because they don't have good tech teams, but because they have specialized requirements. They also typically have slow decision making processes, usually involving several meetings, conference calls, etc. and the really big sites, especially when dealing with a small startup, are usually more interested in buying your company than buying your product.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I disagree with his assessment on rabbits. I get his point, but his example doesn't stand: He went elephant hunting and then blamed the rabbits for running away.

His piece on conquering markets that already have rabbit hunters in them is more accurate. That's the key right there though: if you want to hunt rabbits, a good evaluator of success will be that you're the only person hunting these particular rabbits, or you're hunting rabbits in a unique way that is _more effective_. Hunting rabbits can only be done with "blue ocean" style strategies.

</comment><comment><USER8> Analogies. Don't go for the white shark, don't go for Paedocypris Progenetica, go for the Tuna.

Unless a startup has identified a problem, dreamed up a solution and talked to potential customers prior to writing the first line of code, then it is very hard to know which market will respond to your product.

Google was in the Elephant Market (trying to sell enterprise search appliances I believe), I am also sure there was someone calling Deers, ultimately one guy said "Fuck it, let's just put it on the web" then rabbits came through running.

I believe until startups know exactly who is willing to open their waller, they should follow the Ron Conway Way: "Spray and Pray". Most likely you have a product that could easily be tailored to several markets. Your best shot would be to make a few variations of your homepage (landing pages) and product screenshots, and try to pitch to different bloggers/end users per market. Which ever groups responds better (Deer or Rabbit or Turtle), you should focus more time with them.</comment>


Positron Dynamics – Antimatter Propulsion - <AUTHOR> http://www.positrondynamics.com/ <comment><USER2> Where is the proof there is any kind of significant source of positrons to tap into?</comment>


Resumes are bull.  HireArt is better. - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2012/03/09/resumes-are-bullshit-hireart-is-better/

<comment><USER2> There is a joke in somewhere.. this reminds me of all those start-ups on a mission to kill email with some great alternative which asked you to register by entering your email. As for hireart ...Since I'm building a company in the same vertical, after the flashy title in techcrunch I went really quick and registered.. and guess what ??? You can't go beyond step one without uploading your frickin' resume !!! How can one have the statement that resumes are bullsh* and make it mandatory at step one to upload your resume... Really ??? .. <http://i.imgur.com/IxDJ3sB.jpg?1></comment>


Survival lessons from Man vs. Wild's Bear Grylls - <AUTHOR> http://www.37signals.com/svn/posts/530-survival-lessons-from-man-vs-wilds-bear-grylls

<comment><USER2> He's a fake. "Survivor Man" would out survive him, and probably drag Bear Gryll's lifeless body back, along with all his camera gear.

</comment><comment><USER3> Forget what everyone says, this is still one of my favorite shows on TV just for the entertainment and thrill factor. Besides, I don't think Les Stroud's background and past accomplishments can even compare to that of Bear Grylls.

Even if some parts of the show are dramatized or even fake, he is still an incredible person and his show is compelling.

It's interesting to note that lots of the tactics and ideologies portrayed on the show can be applied to entrepreneurship too, it's quite obvious but I hadn't thought of that yet. I guess I was too busy watching Bear eat a live frog or snake!</comment>


How To Hold Your Breath Like David Blaine - <AUTHOR> http://www.fourhourworkweek.com/blog/2009/10/30/how-to-hold-your-breath/

<comment><USER2> Something to note:

"The world record for holding your breath after inhaling pure oxygen is now Blaine's 17 minutes and 4 seconds. The record without the pure oxygen, which Blaine failed to break during an attempt last year in Manhattan's Lincoln Center, is 8 minutes and 58 seconds."

[http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1736834,00.ht...](http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1736834,00.html)

</comment><comment><USER3> The primary thing you need to know about holding your breath a long time is if you only work four hours a week, it will start to seem like a good idea.

</comment><comment><USER4> Why would I want to intentionally deprive my brain of oxygen for more than a few seconds? Programming's already hard enough.

</comment><comment><USER5> The primary thing you need to know about holding your breath is that there's more oxygen capacity in your blood than there is in your lungs.

<comment><USER6> That may or may not be true, but it's not why this trick works. The need to take a breath is triggered by the level of CO2 in your blood. Hyperventilation exercises like Blaine's flush out the CO2 so it takes longer to build up to the threshold level.

<comment><USER5> Wikipedia agrees with you. According to <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apnea>: "Blood leaving the lungs is normally fully saturated with oxygen, so hyperventilation of normal air cannot increase the amount of oxygen available."

<comment><USER7> To elaborate a little: you don't sense the oxygen level in your blood. You sense the CO2 level, using acidity sensors in your aorta. CO2 dissolved in your blood reaches an equilibrium with carbonic acid, which means that the acidity of your blood is proportional to the amount of CO2. It's stuff like this that makes physiology fun to study.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The primary thing you need to know about holding your breath is that it becomes painful, and in an emergency, you won't have had any time to warm up.

<comment><USER9> So perhaps a companion article, _Why To Hold Your Breath Like David Blaine_ , would be in order?

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I would rather go for beating the world record of breathing. Somewhere beyond 120 years, I think.

</comment><comment><USER11> i've been playing salamander wrestling and underwater hockey the past few months. they're great!!! it's like zen meditation breathing exercises. it's also super fun. and yeah, my breathing is improving tons. (water is the awesome)

edit: i just wanted to convey that breathing better, especially in underwater sports, is rewarding and fun. trying hold one's breath a single time for a long time is goofy as other commenters have pointed out.

<comment><USER12> Are you playing underwater hockey at MIT or is it a much more widespread sport than I ever realized before?

(I have a friend who's a big fan of the game. I've held out so far, but one of these days...)

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> ok...Am i the only one ? How is this HN stuff...For me it should be in digg...

<comment><USER13> Great...Comment Got Down Voted...But Still i am struggling to find how this can be posted HN community....Everyone would wanna own a world record if possbile..but i dont expect a Hacker to be interested in beating this Breath Record..

<comment><USER14> It's a body hack. HN is about being clever, and this is sort of clever, that's my guess.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> To go the longest without breathing, I'd be most interested in the nanotech robotic blood 'vasculoid':

<http://jetpress.org/volume11/vasculoid.html>

Will it be available anytime soon? I'm not holding my breath.

</comment><comment><USER16> David Blaine and Tim Ferriss, united. The BS in that room must have been so thick you could cut it with a knife.

</comment><comment><USER17> The primary thing you need to know about holding your breath is... there is no breath.

<comment><USER8> If that was a Wet Hot American Summer, Janeane Garofalo reference, then +1 to you fine sir!</comment></comment>