US bosses now earn 312 times the average worker's wage - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/aug/16/ceo-versus-worker-wage-american-companies-pay-gap-study-2018 <comment><USER2> "the bosses of America's largest companies got an average pay rise of 17.6% in 2017, taking home an average of $18.9m in compensation while their employees' wages stalled, rising just 0.3% over the year."

That's the worst part of it. Companies are split up in two sections. One that benefits from the company's success while others get almost nothing. I see that in my company. In meetings they celebrate increased revenue and earnings. When I look around almost nobody except a few top guys I see benefits from that success and instead has to wonder when his job goes to India.

There was a discussion here about increasing employee participation. I really think we should get away from the belief that only shareholders count but also acknowledge that employees and even the communities where the company has its buildings have a stake.

<comment><USER3> It seems as though there are two competing issues tied to pay inequality:

1) Increasing inequality of social power between the mega rich and the common person

2) A feeling of unfairness as business leaders take home the lions share of profits

#1 is a true issue, _but_ , let's be honest here, the average CEO's level pay isn't contributing to increasing inequality. That McDonald's CEO had a yearly take home pay of 21.7m. That's _unbelievable peanuts_ compared to the wealth of the mega-rich. It is the multi-billionaires flexing their political muscles and exerting influence that leads to the nasty consequences of pay inequality.

As to #2, I understand the unfairness, but fail to understand the social consequences of it. In other words - what harm to society is being done by a manager getting paid more than a line employee? You mentioned offshoring jobs, but that is a separate issue, not tied to pay inequality.

<comment><USER4> The problem with wealth inequality is that it's the same distorting forces of a monopoly. A small cadre use their wealth an influence to shape politics to serve their interests. Markets chase after small lucrative pools of customers. (For example, luxury condos get built, but affordable housing does not.) Education gets warped as the wealthy concentrate in small neighborhoods and thus improving those schools, while the rest fall farther and farther behind. The macroeconomy becomes more unstable as it's driven by the fads whims of the few. This instability and political disenfranchisement then leads to political instabilities and eventually sudden political upheavals where entire political, social, and economic systems are overthrown for sake of reform, but at the same time just leads to more extreme instability.

Until ironically, the wealthy simply leave (because who wants to stay in an a dangerous unstable place, when you can afford to leave), and let place that they set on fire burn to the ground, click their tongues and say, "Who knew this would happen?"

To think of it another way, no one puts all bets on a single investment. You diversify. That's what spreading the wealth does. It diversifies opportunity.

<comment><USER2> "he wealthy simply leave (because they can afford to), and let place that they set on fire burn to the ground,"

There was a movie while ago where the rich people lived in space in beautiful habitats, had technology that could heal anybody while the rest had to labor on Earth under terrible conditions. Don't remember the name but maybe the move isn't that fictitious.

<comment><USER5> [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elysium_(film)](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elysium_\(film\))

Elysium is the film.

<comment><USER6> Great movie. I liked the way the regular citizens (the non leadership) of Elysium were portrayed as largely oblivious or lacking in any care to the sufferings on Earth.

<comment><USER2> That's probably how I as middle class would look from the view of a poor person in the third world :-).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> It's simple: workers have less bargaining power than they used to have so they can't demand a share of the profits the way that those at the top can. I'm not a fan of unions because they have the same power-structure problems that any large organizations have, but the rise in pay inequality clearly coincides with the decline of unions.

No idea what the answer is. Whether it's some version of ensuring a worker advocate is on the board of a corporation or that some kind of coop ownership scheme gives employees voting rights, hell I have no idea, but pay inequality won't change on its own.

Workers that have done well are those who can either draw a direct line between their contribution and profits (sales) or are scarce enough to demand high compensation (tech workers). Most everybody else is shit out of luck from a negotiation perspective, at least without some form of collective action.

<comment><USER2> Unions have to make a comeback. Look at German unions. They are organized over a whole industry, not just companies, have a seat on the board of directors. I think this system works really well.

<comment><USER8> I'm not confident that Unions would work for huge issue that is coming up - Mass Mechanization. There will be very few jobs Robotics will not be able to replace in a decade or so. This will easily facilitate few people owning large chunks of means of production. I don't see any serious solutions to this issue on the horizon.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This is only the 350 highest paid CEOs in the US -- there are >50k enterprises of substantial size in the US. The _median_ pay for CEOs per the government is less than many medical professionals. Some CEOs receive lavish compensation but _most_ work for wages of a Silicon Valley software engineer.

I'd much rather work as a software engineer than a CEO.

<comment><USER10> I love this perspective. Do you have data to support it?

<comment><USER11> > The median pay for CEOs per the government

[https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes111011.htm](https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes111011.htm)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> If I put my shareholder hat on I can believe that competence at the CEO level is 312x more valuable than at the worker level.

Personally, I'm suspicious that all the extra money won't correlate with any sort of useful increase in performance. How is paying these people more going to encourage better decisions? It just means they'll have more comfortable holidays. I've seen head-office politics, and believe that the system used for promotions can tell great from terrible. But there is no way it has the capability of picking who would be best choice to run a company out of 50 senior management figures. There is a lot of pot luck in whether the market conditions are favorable in any given CEOs tenure. Anyone 3-4 levels away from the frontline probably has a reasonable shot at being the best choice to manage a large company.

<comment> village-idiot Iirc studies have shown very little correlation between executive compensation and company productivity/profitability.

The CEO is worth more than the typical janitor or manual laborer, you'd be pretty hard pressed to prove otherwise. But the current compensation scheme seems to be way out of wack with what each employee actually brings to the table.

<comment><USER13> I think this study has the same problem as the argument that hedge funds are a waste of time because hedge funds don't make money on average. Imaging the average return of hedge funds was 50%, what would happen? people would open up more and more less and less competent hedge funds until it was a flat return and no longer attractive.

You're measuring the results post (arguably) a market force which has impacted the results. If paying managers more than the current average showed obvious results, the average would go up. You also have correlation/causation.

I'm not sure if i'm pro bosses mental pay or whether I think it makes any difference just don't buy this argument/study.

<comment><USER14> "I think this study has the same problem as the argument that hedge funds are a waste of time because hedge funds don't make money on average."

Maybe they are a waste of time, on average?

<comment><USER13> Not making money on average like I'm trying to say is a true but meaningless statement.

But there's a difference between the statement:

"I can't make money on average by putting money into this system (this system isn't undervalued)"

and "This system is worthless" which is kind of conflated. Like the system will always expand to the point that there's no free cash on the table, so looking at it and saying "on average paying more for CEOs or putting money into a random hedge fund doesn't move the dial" has no bearing on whether executive pay being high or hedge funds existing is keeping money off the table (if they were smaller/lower there would be gain to expanding).

The gradient at the equilibrium is always zero, "We found that paying developers more or less doesn't impact the average success of a firm". Yeah because there's an equilibrium where the firms/market has decided roughly what a developer costs, and everyone is paid close to that. That's not an argument that developer pay should be wildly less, because if the average was moved to "developers make $10k per year" than at THAT point, far from the equilibrium, you'd see a big gradient that firms who paid developers more (ergo probably got better devs) did far better.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Average Walmart worker earned $19,177 in 2017 while CEO Doug McMillon took home $22.8m – a ratio of 1,188-to-one. Yes its a big number, however I don't see anything wrong here. Walmart has around 2.3m workers, Doug's salary is roughly $10 per worker per year. Also, $23M is chump change as he is doing a great job in moving Walmart (just this morning Walmart stock increased 10% == $26B - 1000x his salary).

Salaries are only part of the equation. For example, Drew Houston (founder of Dropbox) is worth $3 billion while an software developer at Dropbox has net equity of less than $1 million. Thats 3000-to-1.

<comment><USER16> So what about the fact that the average worker earned a salary low enough to qualify them for foodstamps (given a household size of 2)? Basically walmart is paying these low wages and getting subsidized by the federal government so that their workers can eat.

Or when you say "I don't see anything wrong here" are you really just limiting yourself to the difference between average worker salary and ceo pay?

<comment><USER17> Worker pay is a function of the available supply of people capable and willing to work the job and the opportunity cost of not filling the position.

The opportunity cost of not filling a low paying job is generally quite low. Likewise, the wages for such jobs vary quite a bit, moreso than cost-of-living differences would account for.

If you want to price wages based on some moral virtue, you will risk losing investors, or hurt poor people (aka your customers) by raising prices. In your scenario, it isn't Walmart that's being subsidized, it's a community with so many people desperate for work but not qualified enough to get a better job that they're willing to take a job that doesn't pay enough.

<comment><USER18> Don't you think there are plenty of people out there that would be willing to do Doug's job just as well (or better) for < 22.8 million?

<comment><USER17> There certainly are. Some of them might even have the experience that would lead the board to believe that they could do it successfully.

What's the point? CEO positions should be chosen by random lottery? The company either offered a large enough chunk of money to attract the most talented / experienced individual they could, or Doug negotiated strongly enough to convince them that hiring him to CEO would be worth paying him that much.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> As the US's gini gets closer and closer to Brazil's, its politics start to look similar also.

<comment><USER20> When you marginalize people, they'll look more and more outside of society's box.

The US is luck in that there are plenty of opportunities for non-workers without advanced education to make their life, but there is no way their inequality can keep increasing without those opportunities disappearing (as they depend on a middle class). When they disappear, the only thing out of society's box will be crime.

If you want to know how the US will become once it gets more similar to Brazil, take a look at Brazil.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> The problem, as always, is that there are no _apparent_ penalties for being Worst CEO Ever, except "fewer millions of dollars". And the screw-ups are the ones that make workers say "hell, pay me 1/100th of what you paid him and I can make bad decisions too!".

Worse, there is a scale of effect here. If you take a million dollars away from even an above-average worker, his life savings is gone and he's screwed and in debt. If you take it away from an overpaid exec, he's just a little pissed but he'll be fine. Heck, the excellent PR alone should make it a good idea for companies to spread extra millions among workers, as it is unquestionably the right thing to do morally (besides: the workers probably deserve it due to inflation alone, the company _will_ do better due to worker motivation, etc.).

</comment><comment> village-idiot I'm worried that this is starting to get to destabilizing levels of inequality.

<comment><USER22> It's well beyond that already. There is just a lag between the condition and its effect. But if you look at American politics, it seems we might be in the midst of the destabilization process.

<comment> village-idiot I live there, so I'm not super thrilled about this social experiment.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> That reminds me of a study about the ancient Rome by Walter Schiedel et Steven Friesen (The Size of the Economy and the Distribution of Income in the Roman Empire) Link there : [https://doi.org/10.3815/007543509789745223](https://doi.org/10.3815/007543509789745223) To sum it up, they studied the economy of that time and noticed a few things : the "elite" (1,5% of pop.) had about 20% of the state wealth, they studied the other classes, and reached the conclusion that the economy structure could not allow for more concentration of the wealth. And if you analyze the numbers, the inequality in the USA is more important today than it was in Rome. That's quite striking when you remember that in Rome, they had slaves, their kind of nobility, domination of vast lands and resources...

I don't know where, but I read something else about Rome, and the parallels with today :

\- the candidate elected to an office was the one who spend the more money on 90% of the time

\- the draft abolition led to distancing the citizens to the blood shed in wars, and there was a rise in the use of mercenaries ("private contractors")

\- the empire expanding, being a citizen was not being simply a white guy born close to the country.

All those three points were true for Rome and they are today true also for most of the Western countries. In Rome, it led first to the fall of the Republic, the rise of the empire, the growth of inequalities and its fall. So my guess is that all Western countries should think about it, because they all have some similarities with this society evolution course.

<comment><USER24> The elite also retreated into their estates, away from the law. This led to perverse insentives where they would withhold fighting men from the state, illegally, as the empire desperately needed men to replenish losses.

There are many parallels to draw, not all are valid given the 1500 year difference, but... Yeah.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Maybe somewhere there are CEO/Workers salary statistics by country in 2018? I'm found only this[0], but 2014 years.

[0] [https://www.statista.com/statistics/424159/pay-gap- between-c...](https://www.statista.com/statistics/424159/pay-gap-between-ceos- and-average-workers-in-world-by-country/)

</comment><comment><USER26> "The society that puts equality before freedom will end up with neither. The society that puts freedom before equality will end up with a great measure of both."

\- Milton Friedman

<comment><USER27> Milton Friedman was one of a few economists responsible for what would become the neoliberal economic policies that free markets are infallible that we have today.

Policies that have benefitted primarily the already wealthy amassers of capital and which are in large part responsible for the massive income inequality and erosion of labour rights that is present for the first time since the Gilded Age.

His idea of human beings as rational, self-interested economic actors that is a ludicrously narrow model of the human being and has been disastrous for the working and middle classes all over the developed world.

Quotes from Friedman are worth nothing to me, personally.

<comment><USER28> > His idea of human beings as rational, self-interested economic actors that > is a ludicrously narrow model of the human being

Sure, but in order to understand human behavior on the scale of millions of people making billions of transactions, you need to start with a simple axiom and move on from there. I think people hear the word "self-interest" and think "greed", and assume that mainstream economics must be predicted on a very cynical view of human beings. That's not the case at all. We all want to survive. We can't possibly understand the individual needs of other people outside of a small circle of people that we love and care about. None of us are omniscient. The beautiful thing about markets is that none of us need to have perfect information in order to participate. By simply buying the things we need and selling things the things we don't, prices emerge in a totally decentralized way.

If you can think of a more accurate way to describe human economic motives, I'd like to hear it.

> has been disastrous for the working and middle classes all over the > developed world.

Capitalism has lifted billions out of poverty. Sure, there's a large gap between the richest and poorest, but the poorest people of the world are also materially better off than at any other point in human history. I don't see how this is a bad thing.

<comment><USER29> That doesn't mean Capitalism can't do better. I'm extremely tired of this "Capitalism did good things once! Why are you criticizing Capitalism?" trope when talking about the very obvious flaws of it.

<comment><USER28> I agree. It's definitely not perfect, and I do view the rising inequality and stagnant wages as a serious issue. I just find it alarming that when people criticize capitalism, they usually advocate for some variety of full blown socialism, which has been tried many times before and failed disastrously every single time.

I don't know what the solution is. Every government intervention has the potential to distort the market and create corrupt/perverse incentives. Rent control is a great example of something that sounds nice on paper but ends up increasing housing costs as a result. I'm generally in favor of expanding the welfare state but I think we should be extremely cautious in doing so.

<comment><USER29> "I just find it alarming that when people criticize capitalism, they usually advocate for some variety of full blown socialism, which has been tried many times before and failed disastrously every single time."

Scandinavia says hi. And those "disastrous" times you're talking about are more the result of dictators, than any economic system used.

<comment><USER28> > Scandinavia says hi.

Idk, maybe I'm spending too much on the internet but it seems like the discussion around inequality has shifted from "let's increase the welfare state" to "let's dismantle capitalism and give socialism a try". There seem to be a lot of people these days that call themselves Marxists or capital-S Socialists, and even some who are apologists for the likes of Stalin and Mao. These people are everywhere on Reddit and HackerNews.

I'm all for the Scandinavian model (which, to be clear, is capitalism with a large welfare state and a sovereign wealth fund, not socialism), but do I want a planned economy or a dictatorship of the proletariat? No, because it doesn't work.

> And those "disastrous" times you're talking about are more the result of > dictators, than any economic system used.

Socialists use this argument a lot but I can't think of a scenario in which socialism doesn't eventually devolve into fascism. Even if the means of production are owned by the workers, the workplaces are run democratically, and resources are allocated by direct consensus, you'll still need to use coercion to force people to participate in the economy. If people in village A need more grain and the farmers in village B don't want to produce more grain, do you point a gun to the farmers' heads and make them produce more grain? Disagreements will still happen in Socialist societies. People will still fundamentally be selfish. People will still want to barter with each other and enrich themselves through their labor, intellect, and unique talents. How do you seize peoples' property, prevent them from bartering and hoarding, and force them to participate in a planned economy without a massive and violent state apparatus?

The great thing about capitalism is that it recognizes the inherent self- interestedness of human beings and channels it into something that is (mostly) positive for society. Socialism starts with the premise that human beings would behave in higher-minded way if only they had more economic power, which I think is a flawed assumption and the reason why socialist economies will always fail.

<comment><USER29> "Idk, maybe I'm spending too much on the internet but it seems like the discussion around inequality has shifted from "let's increase the welfare state" to "let's dismantle capitalism and give socialism a try". "

Given how shitty capitalism is treating people right now, that's a pretty valid viewpoint.

"There seem to be a lot of people these days that call themselves Marxists or capital-S Socialists, and even some who are apologists for the likes of Stalin and Mao. These people are everywhere on Reddit and HackerNews."

So what?

"Socialists use this argument a lot but I can't think of a scenario in which socialism doesn't eventually devolve into fascism."

I can't really think of a scenario in which capitalism doesn't either.

"The great thing about capitalism is that it recognizes the inherent self- interestedness of human beings and channels it into something that is (mostly) positive for society."

This isn't a positive, and it does not channel it into positives for society. Captialism encourages things like dumping waste into rivers. How is that a positive for society?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Getting a big payout is not the problem. Getting a big payout that's disproportional to the company's performance or profitability is. Getting a golden parachute while the plane is diving should not be an option. Bonus/malus.

<comment><USER29> Agreed. I'd wager that most people on this board, if they fuck up at their job and get fired, are not going to get any kind of golden parachute. They're just going to be kicked out on their ass.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> > Bezos ... took home $1.7m in 2017 while the average Amazon worker earned > $28,446 - a ratio of 59-to-one.

The claim is highly misleading. Bezos owns a large amount of Amazon stocks. The stock value growth is a huge extra to his salary.

<comment><USER32> Which is pretty great way to bind Performance to compensation.

<comment><USER33> And a truly great way to exacerbate economic inequality.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> What are the chances that this has anything to do with merit? It's just another example of the same thing happening everywhere else in the American economy: people who are already rich taking more and more money for themselves, leaving much less for the rest of it. Of course there are people whose job it is to tell us that yes, these CEOs actually deserve this and have earned it, but that's just another part of the scam.

</comment><comment><USER35> How do I become a US boss ?

<comment> xkcd-sucks I became my own boss through a program called AmWay, and you can too. Email me for details

<comment><USER36> Even as a troll, that shit isn't funny here. I've seen college students at Tulane trying to "finance their education" by selling Cutco. These guys are not from poor families.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> I am still of the opinion that you need to look at the overall compensation of the company versus how much the bosses are taking in. this type of comparison can be made in many industries from sports to movies as well. there are always people at the top of the food chain but for some reason we single out corporate leaders rather than sports and movie stars. heck we could sit back and compare the pay and benefits of the leaders in politics to the rank and file at the bottom of their party or typing pools too.

my local university pays over a million plus benefits to its chancellor/president, how does that compare to the cafeteria workers or sanitation people of the university? a public funded university.

it is all perspective, you are being led by the nose to look everywhere but behind the curtain. behind that curtain you will find many who want to slap others with rules they will quietly excuse themselves from or word in such a way as to miss them. it is exploitation of jealousy for political benefit

</comment><comment><USER38> I wonder what this looks like if you break it down by industry and firm size. It seems odd that this sort of thing can persist (and increase) over time since you'd expect competition within industries to drive this down over time.

<comment><USER39> Just to flip your assumptions around here's an idea; no personal knowledge here, just a potential alternate narrative.

Perhaps competition drives executives salaries faster than general workers. There is intense competition for those who can have a large impact on the bottom line. In tougher/faster paced competitive environment the demand for qualified/experienced individuals must be intense.

<comment><USER40> I imagine much of the explanation is firm size growing.

You don't have to scrape out a lot of Walmart's revenues to get a huge salary. You have to scrape out a pretty big chunk of the revenue of a 50 person firm to get a large salary, never mind a huge one.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> I'll be flamed or downvoted or both, but food for thought:

After a long time (most of my adult life) as a small-l libertarian believing in the rationality of free markets, the rule of the invisible hand, and heck, the sheer _morality_ of profitability, after seeing what wreckage that has brought to societal institutions, the internet, the environment, and generally speaking, what growthism has done to our ability to plan long-term as a species, as nations, societies, and what selfishness and greed has led us all to, I have gradually come to the conclusion that the world should institute an overall personal wealth cap that _specifically_ targets the people at the top. Concretely, I think that no human should be allowed to have personal assets of more than $~100 million in any way, shape or form.

Yeah, I know, it's unworkable. Unfair! Impossible to enforce! It won't fix our financial mess! It'll suppress growth and innovation! How do you expect people to motivate themselves if they can't make a billion dollars!?

Well I'll humbly submit that anybody who feels driven to earn a billion dollars--that's enough greenbacks that if you thumbed through them, one a second every second of every single day of every day of the year, it'd take you 30 years just to count them--has a severe mental illness called _greed_. A billion dollars is 100 lifetimes of living 100 years at $100,000/yr living standard. It's just insane to think that we're OK with this because they "earned it". Horseshit. Jeff Bezos's $150 billion is _15,000 lifetimes_ worth.

Billionaires are accidents. They are artifacts of hierarchy that we endure, cowed, because we don't have stomach to see how empty our souls are and _do something about it_. No billionaire has ever earned 100 lifetimes of wealth.

<comment><USER42> To put the 15,000 lifetimes in perspective... there has been 7,500 generations of humans since the emergence of Homosapiens. Civilization started only 500 generations ago..

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> The CEO of my company could give each of his 10,000 employees $1M and he'd still have a higher net worth than all of them combined.

</comment><comment><USER44> it's the same story in football. I am an average player and Ronaldo makes a lot of money, while i nearly went broke playing football.

Pretty, sure most people don't understand what it takes to be a good CEO, so they'll be crying inequality. Inequality comes from the nature.</comment>


NWM: Window Manager for X11 Written with Node.js - <AUTHOR> http://mixu.net/nwm/ <comment><USER2> kill it with fire</comment>


Startups Need to Fire More Customers (email Req'd) - <AUTHOR> http://go.theinformation.com/474303 <comment><USER2> I am so sad after reading this article, this confirms an essay I shared on HN last year :

[http://read.reddy.today/read/5/new-entrepreneurs-are-no- long...](http://read.reddy.today/read/5/new-entrepreneurs-are-no-longer-wise)

It looks like the startup community is discovering how to start a profitable business.

>This means startups need to do things like setting a strategy to select the best customers out of the pie, and serving them with better products.

>If possible, it is always better to set up a company or service so that the wrong customers never come in the front door in the first place.

Really, I find this article sad and laughable. It's like Silicon Valley is discovering fire.

This unspecified strategy used to be called marketing in ancient times...

>When a bad customer makes it into your system, eat the cost and rip off the bandaid.

I'd be very concerned if I created a business system in which there was a possibility for me to lose money with a customer. That's where the issue is, this concept of firing customers is just fun.

First time I write a negative comment but the state of tech entrepreneurship is just so disappointing. Most young people really have no clue on what they are doing.</comment>


The Difference Between Saying 'Thank You' in Chinese and English - <AUTHOR> http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/06/thank-you-chinese/395660/?single_page=true <comment><USER2> I have experienced few culture differences since I moved to the U.S. from China.

one is how to respond to compliment. In China, we were told to stay humble, to lay low. So my natural response to a compliment is often denying it. When I did this here in the U.S., people seemed to think I was impolite.

It took me a while to get used to say "thank you" in this situation.

Another thing I could think of is when receiving a gift. American kids seem to open the gift right away to show excitement and appreciation. I would be rude if I don't do this. Whereas in China, I was taught "not to accept gifts too easily" to reduce financial burden for others. When accepting a gift, I should hide excitement, so that people won't see me as being greedy or valuing the material gift more than the friendship.

The third thing is working while you are sick. In China, this is appreciated, people would think this hard-working. But here, this is disliked. people think you are infecting people.

<comment><USER3> I have been in US for almost 20 years now and I am still having trouble responding to "thank you". I have no trouble saying "thank you" though.

Replying "you are welcome" feels like an acknowledgement that something I did to be a great deal, and to a Chinese (brought up in Chinese culture), this is _embarrassing_ \-- not I think it is embarrassing but I always automatically feel embarrassing. So each time even though I know I should reply "you are welcome", I always glitch out and when it come out, it is nearly always "no problem". Of course it means "no problem" for me (to do it or do it again), not that there wasn't problem for you that need help with. To a Chinese, attitude comes first and I have the first need of being modest (not as a virtue, but to actually feel comfortable). On the other hand, in Chinese culture, right or wrong is often not that important, so it is ridiculous that people would actually interpret "no problem" as a denial of their saying thank you in the first place (from the fellow comment, and this is actually the first time for me to understand why would some one give me over reaction when I reply no problem).

I actually always feel embarrassed (for another reason) when I realized I didn't say "you are welcome" and meeting some surprised expressions.

This article got me thinking and I decided that I should not feel embarrassed any more. There is nothing wrong in Chinese culture and I have been spent great effort coping with western culture half of my life and I believe most people do respect cultures. I will reply "no problem" and if people feel surprised I'll explain that is merely a culture difference.

<comment><USER4> I'm a bit confused as I think "no problem" is the perfect response to "thank you" in American mores. I say it all the time.

It's a way of assuring the gift receiver that the gift didn't burden you, the gift giver. That makes everyone happy and allows the gift receiver to accept the gift without guilt. And no native speaker will think you meant, "your problem wasn't a problem after all."

If it's a major gift, then it might be more appropriate to say, "you're welcome." But for minor gifts (like telling the time or help with a coding problem) "you're welcome" is a tad smug.

In any case, you're right not to worry about it too much.

<comment><USER5> As an American, I tend to use "no problem" when the value of what I gave was much less than the utility they got out of it, such as when I already know the answer to a problem they've spent a lot of time researching -- for me, it's 30 seconds of recalling information, while for them, it's 30 minutes of time saved. So the person I helped ends up much more thankful than I am put out, and deflecting the need for any thanks is appropriate in my eyes.

I tend to use "you're welcome" when it's things like getting called at 4am to come pick up a friend whose car broke down in the middle of nowhere. There's absolutely no way there their request didn't mess up my day, just due to the timing and time commitment involved, so it seems more appropriate to take their thanks seriously.

But on the whole, I think both are accepted well enough by native Americans in both situations, and it's one of the less important details of the language to worry about.

<comment><USER6> I'm confused because, etymologically, there's no difference between the two statements. I see them as two parts of a whole, in fact: "it was no problem; you're welcome to ask again." An "any time" can also show up in there.

<comment><USER5> Except that for some favors, it's not true that "It was not problem", even if it is true that "you're welcome to ask again". In these cases, I use "you're welcome".

In the others, I use "no problem".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This is too cute by half. Yeah, I suppose you can try to dissect something like this in terms of the subtleties of language and the forces they have on interpersonal interactions. But then, to do that, you'd have to be ignoring some of the _huge, gaping differences_ between Chinese culture and Western culture: those same people who are shouting "off the car!" are probably also _pushing you out of the way_ while they say it (welcome to China!)

In other words, it isn't _just_ language, or even _mostly_ language. By western standards, Chinese people are damned rude, in general. They can certainly be lovely, warm people, and there are deep cultural explanations for the behavior that are fun to explore...but still, don't get lost in meditation about it when you're walking in Beijing, or you'll get run over by a grandma who is driving her motorcycle on the sidewalk (hey...you were in the way!)

Likewise, the whole extended meditation on what shopkeepers say to you on the way out the door is...overwrought. There are a few comments in this thread that suggest that the author's translation is perhaps a bit too literal:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9712050](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9712050) [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9712559](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9712559)

...which wouldn't be surprising in Mandarin, where words/sounds/symbols are overloaded, and meaning depends heavily on context.

Also, sometimes people just say things _because that 's what they say_. Every shopkeeper in Paris will say "good journey!" to you as you walk out the door. You could write an essay on how beautifully meaningful it is that they're wishing you goodwill in your life's journey -- or you could remember that the dude who just sold you toilet paper doesn't really care. It's automatic. (Fun fact: the greeter at WalMart doesn't really care if your day is nice, either.)

This essay strikes me as someone _fetishizing_ a culture, deeming it "mysterious", and trying to find great meaning in the self-imposed mysteries, when simpler explanations are at hand.

<comment><USER8> > Every shopkeeper in Paris will say "good journey!" to you as you walk out > the door.

Actually, it's _bonne journée_ , which means "good day"...

<comment><USER7> Ah, indeed. I knew that was the word they were saying, but I'd always, incorrectly, _assumed_ that the jour/journée distinction derived from the same root as the English "journey".

Oops. Bad example. Thanks for pointing that out.

(EDIT: actually, looking up the English word, we borrowed it from the French journée! So I got the example right, but for entirely the wrong reasons, and in the wrong direction.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> The one glaring surprise in this article is that the author thinks "excuse me" in US English is used as an expression of politeness. Usually it is used in the opposite way, as an innuendo which pretends to be polite on the surface but really means "hey, you are being rude by blocking the path / taking up too much space." If you don't believe me, pay attention to how it is used when walking or standing in a crowded shop, subway platform, or sidewalk in any crowded area of a US city. Especially listen to the tone of the words. When these words are used, it usually is not with anything near a polite tone.

"Pardon me" and "sorry" on the other hand are, in my experience, used politely.

<comment><USER10> Personally, when I say "excuse me" on the pavement, I'm being sincere :) the space is no more mine than it is their's. But, I think all of this varies based on the culture of your immediate surroundings (for context, I live in London, UK). After all, "excuse me" could only be used ironically, if its genuine tone was apologetic (at least _somewhere_ ). I also have heard "pardon me" used interchangeably with "excuse me" in the ironic sense (usually to feign not having heard an offensive remark).

<comment><USER11> [http://www.lady.co.uk/people/8352-pardon-that-s- practically-...](http://www.lady.co.uk/people/8352-pardon-that-s-practically- a-swear-word)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I think this is more of a reflection of mainland China than Taiwan or some of the other overseas Chinese communities. Taiwan takes a lot from its Japanese colonial days. A lot of the polite "culture" also left China (to Taiwan or elsewhere) after 1949, due to the Communists winning the Civil War. The 1930s Shanghaiers of the wealthy class did pad their speech with lots of pleasantries. However, the rural people (many of whom top Communist party officials trace their ancestry) did speak a lot coarser, as is the case in America too with farmers as opposed to city slickers.

<comment><USER13> I'm not sure the Chinese nationalists had any more respect either, since they sacrificed tons of lives by intentionally flooding rivers during WWII.

<comment><USER14> This is such an absurd response to your OP. Like a Russian saying Germans are a bit rude then a German replying, "do you know how many lives Stalin sacrificed at Stalingrad?!"

That is to say that while your statement is true it doesn't really negate the original statement.

<comment><USER13> Except that I'm not defending the Chinese communists either, nor was my intent to do that. Both are rooted in the cultural value of not valuing individuals like the West does. They are a collectivistic culture, and that behavior is in line with collectivism.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> There are so many intricacies to being polite in China. Living in China for over 12 years hasn't taught me even half of what I'd need to know. I don't think one can decide whether a society is polite or not based on one or two phrases.

Comparing what constitues politeness in China and in America is an interesting topic. In China, it is polite for younger people to greet their elders with the proper title (e.g. Grandfather Li, Second Auntie, etc., uncle) when meeting them. In America, teens will often go into people's houses without so much as a "hello". It's funny how far Chinese people will take this. Even children who can barely talk are strongly encouraged to greet their elders appropriately, and for most kids, grandfather (爷爷 yéyé), auntie (阿姨 āyí), grandmother (奶奶 nǎinai) and uncle (叔叔 shūshu) are probably among a childs first 10 words.

<comment><USER16> After traveling to 30+ countries, China multiple times, and currently living in Japan, the last thing I associate with China is politeness.

<comment><USER17> You're still stuck in your narrow view of politeness. The concept of politeness is not a constant, but a variable that changes throughout various cultures.

<comment><USER6> "Politeness" is not an objectively-quantifiable one-dimensional characteristic of a culture, sure. There are smaller traits that _are_ quantifiable, though.

"Care taken around inattentive strangers", for example: the difference between assuming it's someone else's fault if they stand in the road, and assuming it's your responsibility to not hit someone standing in the road.

Or "empathy for people who don't know your customs", for another: the difference between expecting foreigners to already know how to be polite in your locale, being willing to teach foreigners local etiquette, and feeling a responsibility to _learn multiple foreign cultures in order to react to each foreigner with the etiquette of their own culture_ , which is a truly strange feeling I've only experienced while in Japan.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I'm Chinese. The most confusing thing for me between English and Chinese is the number. English number is seperated by comma every 3 digits (thousand, million, billion),no matter in formats like 3 billion or 100,000,000, but in Chinese, the number is seperated by 4 digits, and this happens in every format except one, printed 100,000,000 format. The printed ditgit format is affected by western world and for international convenience. When we say or write it in Chinese we use "万"(ten thousand) and "亿"(one hundred million) which are 1,0000 and 1,0000,0000 (I never see this digit format which is seperated by comma every 4 digits), so every time I see something like 123 million or 123,456,789 in English, I'll seperated it from 3 by 3 to 4 by 4, million is 1,000,000 which is 100,0000, so 123 million which is 123,000,000 will be converted into 1,2300,0000 which is 1亿2300万, in my head.

<comment><USER6> A similar confusion used to arise between the American and British meanings of "billion." An American billion (now the only version) was a thousand million. In Britain, this unit was called a "milliard", and a British billion was equal to a million million instead.

Effectively, the British were thinking in terms of a billion being "made out of" millions, to create numbers that would look intuitively like "1,000000,000000."

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> One thing I've noticed with oversea Chinese in South East Asia is that they tend to say thanks and please a lot more than Chinese from the mainland (At least I've noticed it for people speaking Hokkien don't have as much experience with other dialects). I wonder if it's because they also speak English and got used to say Thank you and Please more regularly.

<comment><USER20> Ancient China had tons of courtesy in social interactions, and used to consider other countries uncivilized. The lack of courtesy in Mainland China is due to the communist revolution, which promoted tough fighting mentality to break social hierarchy and order, and threw away traditional values. It's an aggressive way of promoting equality. The revolution is over since Chairman Mao left. Now that the Communist Party is the governing party, the emphasis is hierarchy and order, or in a better sounding word -- stability, so that they can stay in power forever. They try to bring back traditional values, but the revolutionary damages are hard to overcome.

<comment><USER12> Well stated. To see "polite" culture in China, just watch some old 1930s movies. There are also some modern movies that have tried to copy "politeness" patterns of 1930s and 1940s China, such as Ang Lee's《色戒》.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Formality versus familiarity ...it's a puzzle for us westerners.

As a states speaker of english i have always suffered when to use the familiar 'you'. French: Vous/Tu, German: Sie/Du, Russian: вы/ты ... [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T%E2%80%93V_distinction](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T%E2%80%93V_distinction)

The most amusing guidance i ever received was from a French postdoc: "So, once you've slept with someone, -then- you can use 'the tu'"

</comment><comment><USER22> I've visited China a number of times over the last three years, and am learning Chinese. It's obvious to me that I say "thank you" way, way more than native Chinese speakers would. It's an instinct that has been ingrained in me from a very young age, that when someone gives you something (e.g., in a restaurant), says something nice to you (e.g., a teacher compliments my pronunciation), or is just generally kind, to say "thank you."

I'm (slowly but surely) realizing that this is taken as acceptable because I'm Western, but that it's a bit weird, as well. Given how important such etiquette is in the US, and how strongly my parents ingrained it in me, I can see that it'll take some time for me to undo these habits in Chinese. But until I do so (as well as improve my vocabulary, grammar, and pronunciation, of course!), I'll be seen as speaking strangely.

</comment><comment><USER23> I can understand this. I feel a little hurt when a really good friend offers a handshake. Handshakes feel like there's a bit of social distance.

<comment><USER24> If s/he is a really good friend, just go for the one-handed hug. Fairly safe option while less distant than a handshake. S/he's not going to drop you as a friend over that so if you are looking for something less distant, you could try that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> The writing in this article is very difficult to understand.

>"At a restaurant with friends, a delicate choreography will have one person carefully select a few choice morsels from the common bowl and place them on a neighbor's plate. It is a small, perfect gesture."

A "perfect gesture"? What does that even mean?

And this paragraph:

>"Take, for instance, the Beijing tradition of man zǒu. Man means "slowly" and zǒu means "walk," or colloquially "walk slowly." Man zǒu is the tender goodbye offered from every small shopkeeper I have visited in Beijing. It is usually spoken in a quiet voice, and somehow sounds so much more sincere than "Have a nice day." Sometimes I will make the trip to my neighborhood laundry with a single shirt for cleaning, just as an excuse to hear the "man zǒu" when I leave the shop."

What is "man zǒu"? A spoken farewell? If so what is the significance of saying "walk slowly"?

<comment><USER26> > A "perfect gesture"? What does that even mean?

It means "read the sentence again, this time from a figurative perspective." From my perspective, the whole sentence is a play on how the meal is a delicate dance, and how this act is like a perfectly executed move.

> What is "man zǒu"?

>> Man zǒu is the tender goodbye offered from every small shopkeeper I have visited in Beijing. It is usually spoken in a quiet voice, and somehow sounds so much more sincere than "Have a nice day."

I mean it's literally _right there_ , I'm not sure how you missed it. It sounds similar to how American English speakers would use "Take care."

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> > serving drinks to everyone before filling your own glass

this happens in almost every culture but Americans, British and Germans.

Koreans even have extra rules (it must be the older person at the table).

<comment><USER28> As a Brit who lived in Germany for a while, a lot of Brits and Germans will fill each other's glasses before their own when sharing wine or water. Can't say anything about Americans though.

<comment><USER27> in California bars sell only 600ml glasses that are individual.

my Californian American friends when in Brazil said he was very disturbed by our "communist" approach to beer

<comment><USER29> There are California bars that sell pitchers of beer.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> It _seems_ politeness is hard in North America. You have to say 'Thank You' or 'You're Welcome' ALL THE TIME, for the smallest of gestures. You have to tip everyone for fear of not offending anyone. Interacting with people is a delicate dance. Can't afford to slip up even once. I get exhausted. I enjoy being alone a lot. Aside from close friends and family I prefer the company of machines and animals.

</comment><comment><USER31> We unfortunately (IMO) live in a world where offending someone even the slightest is considered a social crime. I think it's perfectly fine to correct people and for people to correct me. It's all about communication; stop assuming that someone who visits your country would know how to react in certain social situations. Sure, they should do their homework but that's not something that I would be offended.

<comment><USER30> I think all too often people are offended by some breach of etiquette and remain quiet about it. Unfortunately the bad feelings simmer inside and can surface in an ugly way. If someone has committed such a grievous infraction in your eyes it's best to address it right away with the individual that committed it instead of taking it out on someone else down the line.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> In Taiwan, thank you is everywhere and yes Chinese is spoken there

</comment><comment><USER33> After tārof now this, I like how Hacker News is discussing culture. It's very beneficial to learn about other cultures. Specially in our super diverse sector.

</comment><comment><USER30> I've met lots of polite Chinese immigrants. Judging by some of the comments here I must be extremely lucky. Geez.

</comment><comment><USER34> absolutely fascinating, thanks for posting.</comment>


Facebook, Nautanki.tv and Zee Come Together to Make Elections Results Live on the Web - <AUTHOR> http://www.watblog.com/2009/05/14/facebook-nautankitv-and-zee-come-together-to-make-elections-results-live-on-the-web/ <comment><AUTHOR> Is this something like we already saw, Facebook CNN Live.</comment>


The "Run Less Software" philosophy - <AUTHOR> https://blog.intercom.com/run-less-software/ <comment><USER3> "Here, read my ramblings about the "Run Less Software" philosophy on my blog that loads 10MB of data for what could be a plain html + basic css page, among which you'll find 800,000 characters of javascript code to execute. And that's not even counting 3rd parties, isn't that great?"

/s

This is obviously marketing for the author's company. What do the four armies have to do with the point the autor's trying to make? "Hey, you should run as little software as possible. But first let's analyze the professional IT landscape with an analogy that does not make anything clearer but allows us to embed fancy pictures and videos."

<comment><USER4> Bit of a shame as Intercom has been doing Content Marketing right for a long time. Older stuff by Des Traynor was pretty good though (and entertaining, his talks about Product Strategy are hilarious). Might have switched to a staff writer, hence the genericism (i hope they don't let engineering write articles on their own).

I guess that is the peril of content marketing in a narrow field - <USER2> you run out of fresh takes but still need to attract eyeballs. Hence the Buzzfeed-style headlines.

<comment><USER5> Initially Intercom was all about being great in a niche (on-site chat messaging), doing one thing well, focusing. Then growth came, demands for expansion, and so their mantra switched to all-in-one suites. So did their content marketing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I don't see why AWS is alone in "Tier 1" on a list that claims to prioritize standard technology and outsourcing undifferentiated heavy lifting.

The post gives an example of switching from self-hosted MongoDB onto AWS DynamoDB. But AWS DynamoDB is proprietary technology, not standard. Amazon doesn't even claim that DynamoDB is standard; they argue that DynamoDB is the best in the world, worth the premium in price. It's not at all "undifferentiated heavy lifting."

It sounds like they made the right decision with DynamoDB, but they did it by violating the pillars of their own philosophy, adopting a differentiated proprietary solution for their scalability problems.

<comment><USER7> DynamoDB is not even a good replacement for Mongo. DynamoDB only lets you index two (?) fields and everything else is a full table scan.

At least go with a hosted Mongo solution.

<comment><USER8> It's certainly nowhere near as full featured. But in our case it is entirely appropriate. Over time we simplified our use of MongoDB to the stage where it's effectively a k/v store. Swapping that simple pattern over to DynamoDB was easy, saves us a ton of money, and means we get to shed a ton of operational responsibility.

Also, you are incorrect about only being able to index two fields in DynamoDB. Though we luckily don't need anything other than the primary key.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Keep in mind this is an article extolling the virtues of outsourcing critical components of your business by... a company that you outsource critical customer interaction components to.

<comment><USER10> Oh my God, not just any company, the company responsible for those annoying chat popups on websites?

<comment><USER11> To be fair, if you want to annoy visitors to your site and make them hate you, you should probably choose to outsource that functionality to Intercom. Annoying your visitors may be dumb, but rolling your own chat widget would be both dumb and time consuming.

<comment><USER12> I am a customer of two SaaS companies that use Intercom, and with them it is nice to use and un-obtrusive. This is the first time I've noticed the pop-up, so it's really on this company for configuring it to pop-up.

<comment><USER13> I can honestly say I've never noticed an unobtrusive Intercom implementation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> The article is mostly about outsourcing "heavy lifting" like database hosting to cloud providers and non-critical software to SaaS providers. I agree with the article when it comes to database hosting/infrastructure but I would like to see more discussion about outsourcing to SaaS.

Outsourcing to SaaS means trusting your (and your customers) data to lots of different companies. And in the case of SaaS those companies could be small software companies or even one-man operations. This is not very compatible with upcoming data privacy regulations like GDPR. And I suspect that more and more companies are going to be looking at a model where they purchase/license/outsource non-core software but host it themselves in their own datacenter or cloud accounts.

The solution I am working towards in my current project is to build the software from day 1 with dual-mode operations in mind. Easy to host as SaaS but with the option of running Standalone on customer premises with the same codebase. Just different configuration/modules.

<comment><USER15> I find it hysterically funny that companies think that operating their own mysql, postgresql, redis or mongodb is "a difficult task". It is like a home owner deciding that knowing how to operate their own toilet is a difficult task that must be outsourced.

Oh and before someone says "we outsource fixing our toilets to plumbers" \- in this case we are not event talking about replacing a flap, we are talking about being able to use a plunger.

<comment><USER14> Setting up a single postgresql is not that difficult indeed. But in a production scenario with decent uptime guarantees you are going to at least need master-slave replication, make sure they fail over when the master goes down, have backups so you can do point-in-time recovery, rotate and ship the logs somewhere, apply security patches, and more.

Sure, I can do all that by myself but that takes time, time that is better spent serving my clients instead of setting up yet another replicated db. It takes me a few minutes to setup an Amazon RDS instance with all that enabled out of the box.

<comment><USER16> Also, "just run your own X" starts to fall flat once you grow beyond having a single project in your life.

<comment><USER15> s/single project/single successful money making project/g

Oh to have those problems

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Everything about this post and the company behind it, is a contradiction of any proposed "minimalism in software" philosophy.

Personally I have found growth and simplification by replacing the complex with the simple, not necessarily less.

But certainly less software that does many things.

For example, I might replace one monolith app with many command line tools that each do a single job well.

Embracing markdown vs myriad of closed note taking tools has been a boon.

</comment><comment><USER18> When I read "Outsource undifferentiated heavy lifting", I was skeptical, but outsourcing infrastructure and components to established companies makes sense (especially the list mentioned). Startups should not outsource to random body shops unless they either have experience doing such or have specific targeted/quantifiable/definable needs that a specialist can help with. Outsourcing, in general, sucks more time and money than the benefit it brings - specifically speaking to job/body shops.

<comment><USER19> And you think thousands of companies didn't do their math before outsourcing.

<comment><USER18> I've seen management push for outsourcing simply on the basis of having worked with a particular company/group before when there was no need/sense. It's about knowing the trade offs and making the right decision for the company as a whole not due to personal preference.

And many companies used to make outsourcing decisions based off of simple head count cost and didn't factor in the extra time/hours/delays due to integration/poor work/other factors.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Anybody know why the domain is on one of uBlock Origin's blocklists[1]? The styling is annoying as all hell but it doesn't seem to be an ad server.

[1]: [https://pgl.yoyo.org/adservers/serverlist.php?hostformat=hos...](https://pgl.yoyo.org/adservers/serverlist.php?hostformat=hosts&showintro=1&mimetype=plaintext&_=211264)

<comment><USER21> Ghostery has it marked as a "Customer Interaction" tracker, which apparently

> Includes chat, email messaging, customer support, and other interaction > tools.

[https://ghostery.zendesk.com/hc/en- us/articles/115000740394-...](https://ghostery.zendesk.com/hc/en- us/articles/115000740394-What-are-the-new-tracker-categories-)

The summary page has some privacy details:

> Data Collected:

> Anonymous (Browser Information, Cookie Data , Date/Time, Page Views )

> Pseudonymous (IP Address (EU PII))

[https://apps.ghostery.com/en/apps/intercom](https://apps.ghostery.com/en/apps/intercom)

<comment><USER20> Yeah apparently they provide chat popups, didn't realize since reader view killed it. Thanks.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> And that is why I use rails and JQuery for my side projects. It is boring but I can pull it off on my own. If I run into some problems there are thousand already who have had same problem.

<comment><USER23> Yes! Boring stable tech is sometimes the right answer. I've heard you should either be pushing business boundaries or tech boundaries every time you solve a problem. But pushing both is too risky.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Great set of principles with some good examples. It's worth noting that leveraging third party providers is not fairy dust--choosing that path brings with it constraints and you may have to spend time working around those constraints.

I wish he'd talked more about the four armies and how they played into the choices Intercom has made.

</comment><comment><USER24> "We quickly discounted this as it didn't fit with our three pillars of Run Less Software and decided to consolidate on MySQL, specifically on AWS MySQL. As we were able to benefit from the pace of AWS innovation (and adopt AWS Aurora when it came along) we got 5x throughput at a 30% cost reduction."

It's worth noting that Aurora is compatible with PostgreSQL (as of Oct 2017) [1].

1\. [https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/aws/now-available-amazon- aurora...](https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/aws/now-available-amazon-aurora-with- postgresql-compatibility/)

<comment><USER25> The indented quote renders as a code block and isn't readable on mobile. I like your reference, so it might be nice to change to formatting for easier reading on mobile.

<comment><USER24> Just updated it. I thought there might be a way to apply blockquote styling, but the traditional markdown syntax didn't work.

<comment><USER26> Thanks.

Dang: please consider removing the code-block functionality from HN.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Arguing simplification and then using DynamoDB, that is, opaque software handled by somebody else, does not make any sense or useful argument IMHO. It's like saying, we don't want to handle all this stuff, let somebody else handle it so that we can just be users. This is fine if is good for your company, but kinda negates the initial premise: you have a simplification problem if you _own_ your infra, otherwise what's the point? Somebody else is handling all that for a premium price, I bet you have less software to handle.

<comment><USER8> I'm humbled that you read our post! We love your work, and heavily use Redis at Intercom. Thank you :)

The DynamoDB move is certainly a tradeoff, but for us it really makes sense. Moving to it will allow us to:

\- scale out this storage layer trivially easily

\- shed a ton of operational responsibility

\- save lots of money

There are certainly downsides to moving to a proprietary database run by a single proivider, but we're happy to make that tradeoff.

Also, we're absolutely not recommending that people move from MongoDB to DynamoDB as some general rule. It just made sense for us at this time.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> I feel a strange dissonance between the fantastic write-up, with which I 100% agree, and the ever so annoying intercom product... oh that horrible popup. What a terribly effective product though.

</comment><comment><USER29> Nice piece with lots of takeaways but I think that they tend to lock themselves in AWS. This certainly adheres to the Run Less SW paradigm but they might suffer a vendor lock later on.

<comment><USER30> We've deliberately chosen to accept vendor lock-in with AWS. I probably should have made that explicit in the blog post.

We believe that the value we get from going all-in on AWS is greater that the _potential_ negotiating power you _may_ get by staying higher level and having the illusion of low cost switching to GCP or Azure.

This also accepts the risk that if AWS goes down, we go down.

I think both of those are acceptable risks/tradeoffs at this point.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> In early stage you should outsource as much as possible but as you grow and get competition - in order to lower margins you have to incorporate full stack expertise and control the supply chains. However contraditional to the software solo-entrepreneur who's time is free, which allows almost zero operational cost vs crazy burn rates of some startups.

</comment><comment><USER32> Related reading: "Ephemeralization", by Adam Wiggins (Heroku co-founder) [https://adam.herokuapp.com/past/2011/4/7/ephemeralization/](https://adam.herokuapp.com/past/2011/4/7/ephemeralization/)

</comment><comment><USER33> Opening that link my ad blocker is going crazy. I guess the website surely runs _less_ software, huh?

</comment><comment><USER34> This philosophy fits well with a new open source framework I've been working on that is focused purely on simplicity.

[https://github.com/jaequery/jasis](https://github.com/jaequery/jasis)

The goal is to have a framework that's so easy to use that even non- programmers can understand it. I'd really love to hear your thoughts, especially anyone that is new to programming. @jaequery

</comment><comment><USER35> That article was a long winded way to say "Serve an underserved market efficiently, and execute sooner, better than competitors."

You don't say!!!!

<comment><USER8> That is a very concise summary! I still think the examples and detail are useful to explain how we do that at Intercom, rather than simply issuing a statement :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> This statement about software talent appears to be in direct contradiction with software development history:

"But as technology advances and provides us with more advanced software components it devalues and commoditizes what we're working on and at worst makes us redundant."

</comment><comment><USER37> Kinda wish my browser would follow your advice; the blog post is over 10 megs.

</comment><comment><USER38> uBlock has blocked this page from loading due to this filter: ||intercom.com^ Peter Lowe's Ad and tracking server list

<comment><USER39> You've missed out on a charming popup bubble offering you a... customer retention start kit, was it?

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> My readability bookmarklet doesn't remove the vertigo-inducing animated background. So I'm going to have to pass on reading this one.

Will someone please post a summary?

<comment><USER41> My adblocker blocks the whole domain, so I am also waiting for someone to post a summary.

<comment><USER24> It's because Intercom is sometimes classified as marketing software. Unfortunately their blog is hosted on their domain which is blacklisted by most adblockers.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> Good read and info

</comment><comment><USER43> Does/Did Intercom use MySQL, PostreSQL and MongoDB at the same time?!

<comment><USER44> No :). Started with Postgres long time ago, switched to MySQL. Added MongoDB into the mix. Removing MongoDB from the mix.

<comment><USER45> What was the reason for switching from Postgres to MySQL?

<comment><USER46> I am interested as well — this is the first time I have ever heard anyone, without being under duress, switching to MySQL from PG. I would hope the reason is technical, but given it's MySQL we're talking about, it was likely a political decision.

<comment><USER47> This was a quite popular write-up of such a switch by a major company: [https://eng.uber.com/mysql-migration/](https://eng.uber.com/mysql-migration/)

With the HN comments being here: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12166585](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12166585)</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Learning Elixir: My side-project - <AUTHOR> http://adrian-philipp.com/post/learning-elixir-first-side-project <comment><USER2> This looks awesome! It's also a kind of perfect companion piece to an Elixir/Phoenix project a friend of mine, Travis, did over at Stride[1].

I also have my own social-good oriented learning-phoenix/ecto project[2], OpenPantry, which I started some months ago after I'd learned Elixir pretty well and done a little Phoenix micro-service, but still hadn't done anything full stack or involving Ecto or Channels... We're actively looking for help building out the feature set and it's for a great cause if anyone's interested, helping those with food-insecurity to get food more easily and with more choice than many pantry programs are currently able to provide!

[1][https://github.com/stride-nyc/remote_retro](https://github.com/stride- nyc/remote_retro) [2][https://github.com/MasbiaSoupKitchenNetwork/open_pantry](https://github.com/MasbiaSoupKitchenNetwork/open_pantry)

</comment><comment><USER3> I think what I learned the most about my past year of working heavily in Elixir is this.. Don't learn elixir.. learn Erlang/OTP if you really want to harness the power of Elixir. Elixir is nothing but a series of macros which give erlang some convenience and better syntax.

If you learn to harness the power of Erlang, while writing it in Elixir, then you will see the beauty of it. Get away from Phoenix as fast as possible. Seriously it will do you wonders. It's so unnecessary and cumbersome.

OTP, OTP, OTP.. can't say it enough.

<comment><USER4> I learned Phoenix and OTP at basically the same time. I knew I'd need to build out a worker queueing system as part of a web app, so I started reading an OTP book while I was building the initial structure of the Phoenix app. By the time I needed to do more interesting things than just a crud app, I could work with GenServers and Supervision trees.

The moment that the lightbulb went on for me was when I ran `iex -S mix` in my Phoenix project and fired up erlang's observer to see its processes. I realized that phoenix is just a supervision tree made up of different microservices, much more complicated than the toy projects I'd built, but still relied on the same OTP tools and patterns. And once you understand that, it becomes trivial to use OTP to expand the functionality that Phoenix gives you out of the box.

I think what you're trying to say (and I agree if you are) is that Phoenix and Elixir are great, but you are missing out on what makes Elixir so powerful (Erlang/OTP and BEAM) if you stop there.

<comment><USER3> Yep, that's exactly it. I'm just not very eloquent ;)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I had a brief stint of working with Elixir a while ago, and got side-tracked and spent that time going down the GraphQL/Relay rabbit hole instead. During that time I was ramping up to help out on the GraphQL Elixir project [1]. I don't know its current state, but it might be worth looking into vs Absinthe (which I'm pretty sure was branched off that project originally).

EDIT: Looks like the repo is pretty abandoned actually, scratch that!

[1] [https://github.com/graphql-elixir/graphql](https://github.com/graphql- elixir/graphql)

<comment><USER6> Absinthe is completely separate from that project. I think the whole community effort is around Absinthe at the moment and it's shaping into a great library. There's also a PragProg book coming out in Autumn "Craft GraphQL APIs in Elixir with Absinthe" [1].

[1]: [https://pragprog.com/book/wwgraphql/craft-graphql-apis-in- el...](https://pragprog.com/book/wwgraphql/craft-graphql-apis-in-elixir-with- absinthe)

<comment><USER5> It's not completely separate. The maintainer of Absinthe got started working with the maintainer of GraphQL-Elixir. I'm not purporting they still work together, just that they have common roots.

Though that's cool a book is coming out! I remember when these projects were just getting started.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Picking up new languages is fun.

I have to say things like this tickle my funny bone though:

> def backlog(board_id) when is_integer(board_id) do

What happened to good old fashioned function foo (int bar) :)

Is there an equivalent to typescript for elixir?

<comment><USER8> I've been reading about Erlang recently, and guards (the when clause) seem much more expressive than something like type annotations for function parameters. For example, TypeScript's annotations can't express something like this (which also shows Erlang's pattern matching):

      right_age(X) when X >= 16, X =< 104 ->
        true;
      right_age(_) ->
        false.

[http://learnyousomeerlang.com/syntax-in-functions#guards- gua...](http://learnyousomeerlang.com/syntax-in-functions#guards-guards)

<comment><USER9> Unless you're telling me Elixir has static analysis that can tell me that `right_age(18) == true` then I'm not sure how that competes with types much less is so different from any other runtime conditional.

<comment><USER10> > Unless you're telling me Elixir has static analysis

Sure does: [http://erlang.org/doc/apps/dialyzer/dialyzer_chapter.html](http://erlang.org/doc/apps/dialyzer/dialyzer_chapter.html)

> I'm not sure how that competes with types much less is so different from any > other runtime conditional.

You can write:

      f(5) ->
         "got a 5";
      f(X) when is_integer(X), X > 1000 ->
         "got an integer greater than 1000";
      f(X) ->
          "not 5 and not an integer greater than 1000".

Sure you can do it with an if statement in some languages. Except in Erlang can also have the same guards on process message receive expressions. There would have to process all messages then check the type and somehow re-insert it back into the message queue.

<comment><USER9> Looking at the dialyzer docs and how you truncated my full question, I'm still not sure if Elixir has static analysis that is aware of those guards or not.

<comment><USER10> Sorry for being confusing. I think this might be better description of static type analysis:

[http://learnyousomeerlang.com/dialyzer](http://learnyousomeerlang.com/dialyzer)

Erlang is a dynamic, strongly typed language. Dynamic means the compiler doesn't do static type checks. "Strongly typed" means once a variable has a type it usually doesn't get automatically coerced to other types. So adding a string "5" and an integer 1 doesn't return a string "6" or integer 6 but throws an exception.

In addition to the compiler there is also a tool called Dialyzer. It's based on the idea of Success Types (paper on it: [http://www.it.uu.se/research/group/hipe/papers/succ_types.pd...](http://www.it.uu.se/research/group/hipe/papers/succ_types.pdf)).

It checks for type inconsistencies, violations, etc just like a compiler in a traditional statically typed language. But it doesn't emit optimized code based on it. So say it deduced that a variable can only be an integer between 1 and 10 it doesn't have a way to emit some optimized assembly code based on that information. Besides the types it automatically infers, additional typing constraints can be specified by the user.

So for the guard in question, if say the second clause of right_age(_) -> wasn't there and it saw calls to the function with X=105, then Dialyzer would come back with an error with something like:

       your_module:105: Clause guard cannot succeed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I picked up Elixir and LFE (Lisp Flavoured Erlang) at the same time. I prefer Lisps, and so I stuck with LFE, so my knowledge of the current state and capabilities of Elixir is lacking. Robert Virding who co-created Erlang, created LFE. He responded to Jose Valim in 2013 in a LFE vs Elixir thread [1].

I was accused of spreading misinformation when I made the same point recently on HN in another Elixir thread [2].

So my question is: Does Robert Virding's point still hold about Elixir's macros only able to use its predefined syntax, and not create new syntax like a Lisp can. I like Elixir, I just prefer Lisp's syntax. However, if Elixir is making these type of improvements I may want to revisit it, and to ensure I am not repeating old, incorrect information.

Robert Virding uses this example (look at the thread for context):

>> (defmacro kl >> ((list* k v rest) `(cons (tuple ',k ,v) (kl ,@rest))) >> (() ()))

>> which I can use

>> (kl a (+ 2 7) b 6) ==> (#(a 9) #(b 6))

Can Elixir do this or not?

Thanks!

      [1]  https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/lisp-flavoured-erlang/ensAkzcEDQQ
      [2]  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14390916

<comment><USER12> Yes, sorta.

The point I think he was trying to make was that Lisp's syntax is less restrictive, but that seemed to get confused by:

\- mentioning the some people say it has no syntax (which it definitely does have)

\- saying macros can create new syntax (which they can't in Lisp)

Elixir macros are approximately the same as Lisp macros (apart from not being able to take a variable number of arguments).

This is a straight port of that macro into Elixir:

      defp kl_i([k, v | t]) do
        quote do
          [
            {unquote(Macro.escape(k)), unquote v}
            | unquote kl_i t
          ]
        end
      end
      defp kl_i([]), do: quote do: []
      defmacro kl(l), do: kl_i l

      # usage
      IO.inspect kl [a, 2 + 7, b, 6]
      # => [{{:a, [line: 16], nil}, 9}, {{:b, [line: 16], nil}, 6}]

Note: Elixir's syntax does get in the way a bit here, the `a` and `b` are converted into nullary calls, you could use a different escaping function to fix this

      defp escape_key({v1, v2}), do: {escape_key(v1), escape_key(v2)}
      defp escape_key({:{}, pos, els}) when is_list(pos), do: {:{}, pos, Enum.map(els, &escape_key/1)}
      defp escape_key(els) when is_list(els), do: Enum.map(els, &escape_key/1)
      defp escape_key({sym, pos, nil}) when is_list(pos), do: Macro.escape sym

<comment><USER11> I sort of get it. But this part he writes in the discussion seems to hold, no?

"What I mean here is that elixir has a predefined syntax. It has a number of predefined syntactic constructs, operators and function calls. And while I can with macros change the meaning of the constructs I cannot add new constructs or operators as the handling of macros is done after parsing. So if I want to add something completely new it ends up syntactically being a function call. Now elixir has many ways of disguising function calls at the end of the day they are syntactically still function calls. For example parentheses around arguments are optional, there is special syntax for property lists where the keys are all atoms, special syntax for using these property lists as function arguments, special handling of do ... end when it is a function argument, etc. Elixir's uniform abstract syntax makes it easier to work with these but I am still limited by only having the existing syntax."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I've been learning elixir for past 10 months and will be releasing a project to the public hopefully by the end of the month. Is anyone interested in any specific topics? I plan to write an accompanying blog post when I release.

Stack: Elixir, RethinkDB, Inferno (react alternative) + Redux (The goal when I started was to learn new things, hence the unusual stack)

<comment><USER14> First time I've ever seen that stack. +1

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Elixir was my Koolaid when it comes to functional programming. After getting the hang of pattern matching, I was hooked. Everything I'd do on Ruby/Rails, I just do on Elixir/Phoenix instead.

<comment><USER16> Clojure was my FP Koolaid, but Erlang (which I learned before Elixir) really blew my mind with it's pattern matching heavy syntax. I'm happy Elixir kept it as part it's core design patterns. So agreed it's a great abstraction that every modern language should be using.

That plus extensive use of list comprehensions when working with arrays.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Thanks for the write-up. Have you thought about using gigalixir.com instead of Heroku?

<comment><USER18> Sounds cool. Should probably add disclaimer that you're the founder.

<comment><USER17> Oh my bad, I usually do that. I can't seem to edit my comment though..</comment></comment></comment>


Social Networking and Ethics (2015) - <AUTHOR> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-social-networking/ <comment><USER2> Great article. If I could request an additional section, it would be "Business Ethics and the Design of Social Networking Services" or something like that. The article focuses on impact of consumption, which is important. We should also talk about how to construct these systems.

We know that design encourages behavior. Twitter's design, for example, incentivizes attainment/maintenance of status over truth-seeking/fairness[1]. If you were to design a site to promote argumentative virtues, you would design it quite differently[2].

But how much should any site care about the virtues/vices that users tend to practice when using the site - assuming for argument's sake such care would have no impact on user "delight" or profitability? My view is "a lot" but I don't expect everyone would agree.

If you do think that social sites (or any business) should be serious about user betterment - not only user delight - then I think that has significant implications for how to run/grow the site. It should be grow slowly, watchfully; and it would need to prioritize considerations that might not maximize shareholder return. Both seem inconsistent w/ a venture-backed startup, especially where the user is the product. Users paying membership fees into a cooperative would be an interesting model. Nonprofit also of course possible.

[1] See e.g., this paper: [https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1410/1410.0610.pdf](https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1410/1410.0610.pdf)

[2] An impressive bibliography of research on argumentative virtues: [http://my.fit.edu/~aberdein/VirtueBiblio.pdf](http://my.fit.edu/~aberdein/VirtueBiblio.pdf)

<comment><USER3> I'm experimenting with building the social network I want to see at [https://postbelt.com](https://postbelt.com)

It's designed to be a place where discussion within your network is front and center, with distractions kept to a minimum.

This means no ads, no images or video, no upvoting of posts, no rearranging of your feed based on what you may find more instantly appealing or to see certain people's posts more frequently, complete control over your own data and the ability to silently edit and delete posts even at the expense of others' UX, and privacy focused rather than the alternative broadcast-focused behaviour being encouraged.

The problem, as you say, is really in the business model. There are two confounding factors that make it almost impossible to implement a free social network in this style: growth, and profit from advertising by having control over what a lot of people are exposed to. They feed into each other in a positive feedback loop, and implementing any of the features I mentioned above will hinder you where the competition won't be.

A way to short circuit this is to charge a small subscription fee for a centralised service, free up to a certain number of connections to bootstrap the growth of the network into something populated enough to be interesting. With the subscription, you have a very clear incentive structure and people can trust that you can prioritise the user's (customer's) interests above all else.

That's what I'm trying with postbelt to see if there's any appetite for it. If it sounds interesting to you please check it out. Thanks by the way for the very interesting links.

<comment><USER2> Very interesting - thanks for sharing. I'm checking it out.</comment></comment></comment>


Diaspora's opportunity: Model real life instead of SQL tables - <AUTHOR> http://interuserface.net/2010/05/how-diaspora-can-succeed-model-real-life/

<comment><USER2> It's not as simple as building around social environments such as work or school. Because there may be overlaps between all the environments, and not all workmate, schoolmate, friends are created equal.

My strategy on facebook is having a friend group called "all pictures". I'd imagine some people have even more fine-grained grouping of friends.</comment>


Robinhood outage appears to be caused by leap year bug - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/jtech63/status/1234600045787394048 <comment><USER2> Hopefully they fix the outage quickly and solve this problem. If the problem is a leap year bug and they can't fix it eternally they will a lawsuit every 4 years.</comment>


Duncan to ed schools: End 'mediocre' training - <AUTHOR> http://voices.washingtonpost.com/class-struggle/2009/10/duncan_to_ed_schools_end_medio.html

<comment><AUTHOR> "For decades, schools of education have been renowned for being cash cows for universities. The large enrollment in education schools and their relatively low overhead have made them profit-centers."

I should have figured that that is one of the reasons that many colleges and universities keep on teacher-training programs despite their lousy academic reputation.</comment>


SkinVision – An App That Take a Picture to Access Skin Cancer Risks - <AUTHOR> https://skinvision.com/#how-does-it-work <comment><USER2> Why isn't this available on Apple's US App Store?</comment>


Beware compulsive bookmarking - <AUTHOR> http://www.victusspiritus.com/2011/02/15/beware-compulsive-bookmarking/ <comment><USER2> Off topic, but—I can't get over the dreary blog title. 'Defeated spirit'. It's so at odds with the can-do entrepreneurity of the blog.

<comment><AUTHOR> there's more than one definition crux, Victus is also translated as nourishment. My favorite words have a few contradictory interpretations.

[http://www.online- dictionary.biz/latin/english/meaning/victu...](http://www.online- dictionary.biz/latin/english/meaning/victus)</comment></comment>


Nexus One in trigger-happy 999-dialling - <AUTHOR> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/02/23/nexus_one_999/ <comment><USER2> Summary: The nexus one will dial the local emergency number when a call is placed to 911, 112, 999, 000, 08, 118, 111, 120, 122, 110, 119, 995, or 0800 after a January firmware update.

The problem is 0800 is the prefix for toll-free dailing (1-800 in the US) and 111 will forward you to your voicemail for "O2's GiffGaff brand". This has resulted in a number of accidental emergency calls.

The UK emergency number is 999 and 112 (EU) and 911 (US) forward to that.

</comment><comment><USER2> Great, 12 more ways for your phone to dial emergency numbers in your pocket with the keys locked.

I thought auto-dailing 911 with locked keys was bad enough.

</comment><comment><USER3> All my old phones had stupid features which caused them to accidentally dial 911 about once a year while bouncing around my pocket.

One of the greatest things about the iPhone is that it doesn't seem to have this propensity.

</comment><comment><USER4> How did Google "test" this feature, and how on Earth (literally) did it pass these tests?

<comment><USER5> It's common to set systems up so that any emergency numbers dialed go to the local emergency number. Our dialing plan directed at least 112, 911 and 999 that way, I'm not sure about the others.

A combination of trying to do the right thing and liability issues means that you tend to be over caution when trying to work out if something should be an emergency call. Even though it's really expensive for the carrier it's better to do that than fail to connect a real call.

There's also the issue of testing, and putting the same emergency rules on every handset means that you remove one failure point from the chain (making sure the right software version is shipped to the right country).

<comment><USER6> In Toronto simply dialing "9" on a POTS will (apparently) connect you to emergency services. This is especially stupid since 905 is an area code.

My sister once dialed "9", and stopped when she realized she forgot the rest of the number. We didn't believe her until I unplugged the line and hit redial.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Where to sell my startup shares? - <AUTHOR> Hi HN, I am working at at startup. I now want to cash out part of the shares I own from this startup, which represents interesting money.
I found different platforms like: - https://equityzen.com - https://sharespost.com - and https://forgeglobal.com
Any experience or advice in using those platforms or others? There's very few information on how to sell startup shares.
Thanks. <comment><USER2> If you're not looking to sell everything, the ESO Fund also offers cash advances against shares. Each of these firms have different structures. EquityZen and Sharespost typically require a full transfer with company approval while Forge Global has been known to do forward contracts.

The general process for a full transfer is as follows:

Find a buyer Agree on a Stock Transfer Agreement with the buyer Notify the company about the sale The company has 1-3 months to exercise their Right of First Refusal (the company has the chance to purchase the shares first) (note: some companies don't allow transfers at all) If the company allows the transfer to occur, then you can finally close the deal.

This process takes up to 3-6 months depending on how easy it is to find a buyer, negotiate terms, get the company approval, etc.

A forward contract or a deal with ESO can close extremely quickly, usually within a few weeks or even days!

Disclaimer: I work at the ESO Fund

</comment><comment><USER3> Have you asked whomever is in charge of the stock program within your company? They will know exactly what can be done, and when, and how. And if there are people internally wanting to buy, they probably even know who it is. (And if nobody internally wants to buy, you should be asking why not.)

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes it was asked already. What we know: 1- Yes we can sell 2- Secondary market is the way to go

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> In the secondary market, securities are sold by and transferred from one investor or speculator to another. It is therefore important that the secondary market be highly liquid (originally, the only way to create this liquidity was for investors and speculators to meet at a fixed place regularly; this is how stock exchanges originated, see History of the Stock Exchange). As a general rule, the greater the number of investors that participate in a given marketplace, and the greater the centralization of that marketplace, the more liquid the market.

Fundamentally, secondary markets mesh the investor's preference for liquidity (i.e., the investor's desire not to tie up his or her money for a long period of time, in case the investor needs it to deal with unforeseen circumstances) with the capital user's preference to be able to use the capital for an extended period of time.[2]

Accurate share price allocates scarce capital more efficiently when new projects are financed through a new primary market offering, but accuracy may also matter in the secondary market because: 1) price accuracy can reduce the agency costs of management, and make hostile takeover a less risky proposition and thus move capital into the hands of better managers; and 2) accurate share price aids the efficient allocation of debt finance whether debt offerings or institutional borrowing.

</comment><comment><USER5> Whether or not you'll be able to sell shares (and at what price) depends a lot on which company it is. A random startup won't yield you much, a unicorn will do better -- depending on the valuation.

I looked into buying pre IPO Spotify shares through both Equityzen and Sharespost before, and Equityzen seemed (to me) to be the most structured.

</comment><comment><USER6> A good friend of mine is a broker dealer. He finds buyers/sellers of private companies and structures the deal.

If you're interested you can reach out to me and I can put you in touch.

</comment><comment><USER7> I think you'd also look at Preferred vs Common shares, may be restricted from selling?

These classes of shares can affect what you're allowed to do and can affect price.

<comment><USER8> There are companies that will "loan" you the money based on your share values, and you pay back that loan when a liquidity event occurs.

<comment><USER9> anyones you can recommend?

<comment><USER8> Others have made solid recommendations in this thread.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I've never had success selling shares of private companies as an individual. (I still have shares if you're interested)

Good luck

<comment><AUTHOR> How successful were those companies where you still own share?

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I have a close friend that works at Forge Global if you'd like me to get you in contact

</comment><comment><USER12> all 3 of them have sales people who'll be happy to answer your questions. i have only bought, but that depends on people like you selling.

<comment><AUTHOR> So you bought via one of those platforms?

<comment><USER12> yes.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: How can I get better at networking as an introvert technical founder? - <AUTHOR> Any tip would be greatly appreciated. <comment><USER2> My favourite networking hack sounds insane, but it works. When you're at an event, approach groups of two people. Whenever you see two people talking, there is a very good probability that at least one wants an excuse to end the conversation.

<comment><USER3> Ha! That is a great idea. I'm going to try it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Throw yourself in the deep end of the pool. As a technical co-founder, I had to attend an industry conference and man a booth. All fear evaporated by the end of it. You'll find that people are often looking to talk about their issues and their lives. Even better, most people will be sympathetic to your dilemma and will appreciate that you aren't coming at them from the slimy sales perspective. At least, that was my experience over the course of several days of the conference.

</comment><comment><USER5> Learn by doing. Just like dating, it'll be awkward at first, but you'll get better.

I built a low effort tool to help HNers network with each other, it's a good way to start practicing: [https://findkismet.com](https://findkismet.com)

</comment><comment><USER6> Stop asking questions. Make statements instead.

Not "Do you like Node.js?"

But "I like how Node.js has evolved in the last 3 years. I don't care much for React though. I'd rather take on more Functional Programming gigs."

Questions, even the best open ended ones may put the answerer on the spot. Better to model your expected response by _answering_ the question first yourself.

<comment><USER3> I hear what you're saying. However my experience (and suggestion) is the opposite. If one has trouble making small talk and networking a good trick is to get other people talking about themselves, their projects, their work. The best way to do that is to ask them questions. People in general like to talk about themselves.

<comment><USER6> I am not disagreeing with you. You are still asking questions here but initially putting out more into the interaction to try to tip it to an actual conversation. Let me give an example. Sometimes you have to jumpstart a conversation like you have to prime the pump.

Person 1: "What did you think of the talk?"

Person 2: "It was ok." (Kind of a knee-jerk almost blow off response)

Person 1: "The talk was better than the morning keynote. I liked how she talked about how the technical debt at her company was so large they had to declare Chapter 11 Technical bankruptcy. I worked at a place that had a similar situation. I felt chills." (pause)

Person 1: "I didn't get why she could not get approval for.."

<comment><USER3> Got it! Thanks for clarifying.

<comment><USER6> You're welcome. Eventually, it gets to the point where the other person feels the need to fill the pause. And then you have a conversation. The pause, though, can seem to be interminably long even if it is just like 5 seconds.

If you don't pause, you won't give them an entry into the conversation. Some people won't interject or interrupt.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> __How to Win Friends & Influence People __is a good book with practical advice. The title is a bit cheesy but a well-written book nevertheless.

</comment><comment><USER8> Start with events that are not business related but about something fun. You'll feel less pressure and get used to meeting strangers. Language learning events are great. I'm a foreigner in the country I live so I go to events where people want to practise my native language. That's perfect because I'm the expert :-)

</comment><comment><USER9> Check out this episode from the Kevin Rose's podcast: [https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/the-kevin-rose- show/id10...](https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/the-kevin-rose- show/id1088864895?mt=2&i=1000400007112)

</comment><comment><USER10> I've been in your shoes (still am). I've found it to be much easier to start with people that are similar in personality and interests. With people similar to yourself, you'd have more topics to talk about and eventually you can expand into people with different personalities and interests.

</comment><comment><USER11> Be genuinely interested in what people have to say and listen intently most of the conversation.</comment>