Tuning Ruby's Global Method Cache - <AUTHOR> http://www.shopify.com/technology/16777156-tuning-rubys-global-method-cache

<comment><USER2> A fun bit of info, you can get access to the method cache data directly from Ruby (in MRI) using `RubyVM.stat`. The variables are not really well named, but here is a test program to demonstrate the behavior:

        class Foo; end

        foo = Foo.new

        p RubyVM.stat # => {:global_method_state=>133, :global_constant_state=>804, :class_serial=>5486}

        # break a classes method cache. :class_serial will increase
        foo.extend(Module.new { def bar; end })

        p RubyVM.stat # => {:global_method_state=>133, :global_constant_state=>804, :class_serial=>5491}

        # break Object's method cache. :global_method_state will increase
        class Object
          def omb
          end
        end

        p RubyVM.stat # => {:global_method_state=>134, :global_constant_state=>804, :class_serial=>5491}

        # break constant cache, :global_constant_state will increase
        Object.send :remove_const, :Foo

        p RubyVM.stat # => {:global_method_state=>134, :global_constant_state=>805, :class_serial=>5491}

Extending an instance will break the cache for that class. Adding methods to Object will break the global cache. Removing a constant will break the constant cache. I think there are other ways to break the caches, but I can't remember off the top of my head.

Anyway, the point is that you can get access to the information from Ruby, so I'll use this when testing Rails to ensure we aren't breaking caches. Making a Rack middleware to output this info might be handy, or adding it to tests might be a cool project too (like output a warning if a test method breaks the cache or something).

<comment><USER3> Does OpenStruct still break caches?

<comment><USER4> If you're worried about flushing the cache, there's Charlie Somerville's flush-free OpenStruct:

[https://github.com/charliesome/fast_open_struct](https://github.com/charliesome/fast_open_struct)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Before the release of 2.1.0, funny_falcon, samsaffron and I developed a patch that removes the global method cache in favor of a local method cache inside each class. (This was originally proposed for upstream inclusion in [https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/9262](https://bugs.ruby- lang.org/issues/9262)).

The patch has been running in production on GitHub's servers for over a year, and provides the benefits of a high cache-hit rate without the need for manual tuning. I recently ported this patch to ruby 2.2 as well and it is available in this squashed commit: [https://github.com/github/ruby/commit/bd002fc9fc3c7236395df2...](https://github.com/github/ruby/commit/bd002fc9fc3c7236395df29955984b20188eed06)

<comment><USER6> I originally read about this patch here, [http://samsaffron.com/archive/2014/04/08/ruby-2-1-garbage- co...](http://samsaffron.com/archive/2014/04/08/ruby-2-1-garbage-collection- ready-for-production).

There hasn't been any activity on the upstream proposal for almost a year. Has the core team rejected the idea or is there still hope it will make it into a future version?

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I learnt more about ruby internals through this post and the comments thereupon than I had learnt in the whole of last year's sporadic reading. Thanks everyone for sharing all the links!</comment>


Class Coercion in Ruby - <AUTHOR> http://mutuallyhuman.com/blog/2011/01/25/class-coercion-in-ruby

<comment><USER2> Well written post as it covers a feature in ruby that I haven't seen covered before. Another piece of knowledge to add to the arsenal.</comment>


Ask HN: Design patterns resources for functional languages? (inc JavaScript) - <AUTHOR>

I'm growing frustrated with the design patterns commonly used for creating JavaScript applications, there seems to be a lot of focus on replicating code reuse patterns from traditional OOP languages (e.g. classical inheritance and MVC), these just don't feel like they take advantage of JS's streangths. Pro JavaScript Design Patterns  http://apress.com/book/view/159059908x doesn't have enough depth for my liking.
I often think that a more functional approach leads to more expressive and concise code (having worked with Erlang a reasonable amount), particularly coupled with some sort of state machine and using the prototype chains to make application wide changes.
It seems that while the JS community advocates JS's functional abilities there is very little in the way of how to structure and implement large applications with these techniques. The Good Parts is the best I've found so far http://oreilly.com/catalog/9780596517748
I've been rereading my Erlang books to gain a better insight into design for large FP apps. I've also ordered "The Little Schemer" and  "Purely Functional Data Structures" by Chris Okasaki for a bit more FP knowledge.
Can anyone recommend anything else, particularly if it would relate to building UI based JavaScript Apps? <comment><USER2> You might want to look at Garnet and Amulet, which used a number of neat techniques with prototype-style objects to build user interfaces. There's a good summary of their work at:

      http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~amulet/papers/amuletappframe.pdf

On the FP side of things, I'd _very_ highly recommend "The Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs," by Abelson and Sussman.</comment>


iOS 11 is Apple's Vista - <AUTHOR> https://www.computerworld.com/article/3263916/apple-ios/ios-11-is-apple-s-vista.html <comment><USER2> OP and I have different experiences here. I'm very satisfied with iOS 11, with one significant exception: my iPad mini 2 is very slow. But it's nearly five years old so I think that's just the way the tech industry works.</comment>


How hustle culture took over advertising - <AUTHOR> https://digiday.com/marketing/welcome-hustletown-hustle-culture-took-advertising/ <comment><USER2> I'm American but I've lived overseas for nearly a decade, and I hardly ever go back.

In recent years when I meet other Americans who are visiting my city, I often get this vague feeling that they're just _trying too hard_ in one way or another. Maybe they're working too hard, or trying too hard to impress someone, or get attention, or assert themselves. I don't know if I've changed or if America is changed or if it's something else entirely.

What I do wonder is, what's with all these Americans working themselves to the bone? I own an agency which is one of the types of businesses called out in this article. I tell all my employees very clearly, whenever possible, work 40 hours and then call it a week. We also happen to be mostly remote so I tell them, within reason, respecting a small number of important calls/meeting times etc. you can put in those hours whenever you want, preferably after a great night's sleep.

There's nothing like "you're measured by how many hours you bill out," nor does there need to be, if we have more than 40 hours of work per person per week, we hire more people.

Where does this all come from? This is an honest question. Why are people working themselves to death in the US and having this crazy mindset that doing stuff which puts you on the verge of a breakdown is good? When did this start?

Is it good for health/happiness? Definitely not

Is it good for productivity? Maybe, but I doubt it

<comment><USER3> I think we're all increasingly aware that our society and infrastructure are crumbling, and no matter how "rich" the country as a whole is, if you haven't built up your own security through wealth, you're [going to be] fucked. And that awareness translates into people being willing to overwork themselves, so they don't lose their spot in the rat race; and corporations with money to spend on workers are well-positioned to take advantage of that, and they do.

<comment><USER4> > if you haven't built up your own security through wealth, you're [going to > be] fucked.

Another approach is to build security through self sufficiency and community based initiatives. For example, growing your own food wherever possible, or community gardens on common land.

There is a long list of examples and ideas where future security, defining that as decent quality of life, health and education, doesn't need to be based around monetary wealth.

<comment><USER5> Almost no one in the US has a problem with getting enough food. Maybe substandard nutrition, but no one is going to starve.

Healthcare and education are areas where a common option could make a major difference in people's lives. But I think the "community" has to be pretty large to make a meaningful impact.

<comment><USER6> This may be true in socially progressive areas such as Silicon Valley, but it is far from the case anywhere else.

Hunger is further down Maslow's pyramid. You can't even begin thinking about things like education until you are able to adequately eat.

[http://map.feedingamerica.org](http://map.feedingamerica.org)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> So, this is the industry that:

\- puts flashing colored boxes in front of our faces at any possible opportunity

\- requires us to click through multiple popups to access almost any for- profit website

\- has normalized the act of wasting human life at a mass scale by injecting multi-minute time-wasting sessions in activities

"How hustle culture took over"? It's a hustle by default. I'd call it a swindle.

<comment><USER8> Hatred of advertising at a larger scale, nice. How are those people on said websites (and almost any other medium) supposed to make money?

<comment><USER7> Examples, with specific citation:

My local bus stop has adverts (London).

My local metro station does too (London).

They're all over the roads (UK).

They're in pubs (UK).

They're on paid television services (Sky).

They're on paid programs (Windows 10).

They're shown before movies (cinema, UK).

Advertising is _everywhere_, in paid services, unpaid services, whatever.

Unless I'm in my own, or a friend's private home I could probably find an advert by spinning my head around.

Ask yourself - why haven't you included an advert on your comment? You could, and it'd allow you to comment on HN more, right?

<comment><USER8> I understand this but it doesn't really counteract my point: it pays for stuff. It (helps) pay for your bus stop (or at least it does in the states), it's on paid television because you'd have to pay EVEN MORE for it, and movies on top of that.

Now, if you made an argument that the entire structure is screwed up and the people at the top deserve to make less and therefore not needing as much cash flow and therefore we should be able to cut the ads, THEN I might agree...

<comment><USER7> Nah.

I don't believe that my train or bus would cost substantially more without the advertising.

And even if it did, it's just an internalization of costs.

The advertising (if it works) pulls money in through a side channel (someone sees an ad and later buys a thing).

It makes far more sense to just pay for the bus.

Other examples, like ads at the side of the road, don't even pay for anything. Driving along the road, I see an ad in a farmer's field. I'm not using that field in any meaningful sense.

edit: I actually looked up the transport example.

Transport for London had approximately a 1:20 ratio of advertising to fare revenue last year.

So, I'd have to pay approximately 5% more, or 7 pence per bus fare, to not have adverts plastered on the inside and outside of buses, tubes, station platforms, corridors within stations, and probably various roads under TfL authority as well.

I think the world in which we pay 7 pence more for bus fare and have nice artwork on the bus or something instead of hair loss adverts that call us ugly balds is better.

<comment><USER9> I'd rather pay £129 for my Zone 2 pass than £135 without ads. The £6 I can buy a kebab with.

Even bought the Kindle with special offers. Preferred it to the one I have without.

<comment><USER7> If it ever happens, I'll gladly pay 12 more and you can have a kebab and a pint on me. ;)

I reckon if we ever get to that point, by then the pint alone might be 12 quid though. Soz.

<comment><USER9> Haha, every month? I'd happily take that trade. If only since I'd enjoy the company.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> > it wasn't just working hard — it was "maximizing every last bit of energy > you have in order to produce."

That reminds of this blog post by Jamie Zawinski[1]:

"What is true is that for a VC's business model to work, it's necessary for you to give up your life in order for him to become richer.

Follow the fucking money. When a VC tells you what's good for you, check your wallet, then count your fingers.

He's telling you the story of, "If you bust your ass and don't sleep, you'll get rich" because the only way that people in his line of work get richer is if young, poorly-socialized, naive geniuses believe that story! Without those coat-tails to ride, VCs might have to work for a living. Once that kid burns out, they'll just slot a new one in."

[1] [redacted]

<comment><USER11> EDIT: Make sure you don't click the link but copy and paste it. It seems the author is intercepting all traffic from HN site to an _interesting_ image.

<comment><USER12> I love that the author is doing that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> As a professional diesel mechanic, I find most of the points in this article pretty difficult to understand outside the context of, say, Hollywood? or maybe iPhones? Do programmers really have to show this kind of reckless drive? This hasnt been a thing in tradecraft since...forever i dont think...and if it is, its punished pretty severely.

An example: if im rebuilding the idler and pitman assembly on a fourteen ton truck, theres no hustle. there is no competition to do it "the fastest." You do it right, because if that assembly fails in a turn you could cause a pretty horrible accident. Depending on what that professional driver hauls (benzene, chlorine, pesticides, etc...), you might find your "hustle" on the evening news as the police evacuate some poor suburb.

If you're writing a web application, shouldnt you take care to make sure its secure and well written? Just because nobody had to pick hair out of a windshield doesnt mean a hacked webapp doesnt ruin just as many lives.

<comment><USER14> The work that programmers do is not physical. Management have a hard time seeing the result of our work.

What always ends up happening because of this is that managers start to manage time spent instead of value outputted. Since the work done is all very vague for them, _the best programmer is the one that finish their projects the fastest_.

We do our own estimates and our subconscious is trying to "win" that race. Sometimes, we even get bonuses based on this. So we end up stamping time estimates that would only happen in a perfect world. Management use those estimates as hard deadlines. If you do not meet the deadline, it's your fault.

 _So you start to work crunch time at the end of months._

Since the work is virtual, nobody but the programmer cares about the quality of the work. Management pushes you to finish as quickly as possible.

 _You then start to work for free one or two extra hours a day every day to fix those things in the code that bring you shame._

The things management won't give you extra time to correct. You know this glaring security hole is going to end your career, even if management doesn't want you to correct it. So you correct it anyway.

You want better tools to insure the quality of your projects but since programmers have to build their own tools from scratch, management won't grant you time to build them.

 _You use some time out of your weekend to build them._

Nobody wants to use a dull blade so your sharpen your tools on your own time.

A few projects done the road, you work 20 extra hours a week without even noticing anything has changed.

... now imagine a new hire trying to compete without putting any extra time. On his first meeting, he gets asked why he takes double the time to finish projects. He quickly end up doing the same as everyone else. Everyone is working for free because everyone else is.

It's a vicious circle that's very hard to break. Most of the time you only notice it when you are a new hire... and nobody listens to new hire. Heck, what management would allow the situation to get back to normal? They are getting so much free work.

<comment><USER15> I've read this narrative that only the programmer cares about the quality of the work many times. I find, however, that sometimes the programmer cares more about showing off how clever they are then building a quality and simple system that is delivered in a reasonable time frame.

Hacker News has this narrative that programmers are always right and always smarter than "management" or any other non-programmer. That's not reality though. Programming isn't some special discipline where everyone is great. There are a lot of poor programmers out there like I describe above. Management often ends up not believing people because of this, just like in other professions.

Developers need to share the responsibility of the situation, it's not all just "bad managers". Developers need to start caring more about the people they build products for rather then simply their wallet and personal "fun".

<comment><USER14> Of course this is but an anecdote from my point of view based on the workplaces that I experienced.

What I've lived through a lot of time is teams of senior programmers led by junior managers. Sometimes they are fresh out of school and have never led any team. Heck, sometimes senior programmers turn into code monkeys because they are hired as nothing more than glorified trophies. IT teams having to answer directly to sales department managers, etc.

Teams of juniors or intermediates are way more likely to make mistakes such as the one you describe. I've seen my share and I do agree that they exist. People migrating entire projects to the language-du-jour and creating a bad situation for everyone because they didn't master that language and ended up refactoring stable solutions into shaky messes.

In a perfect world, we would have a team of strong senior programmers leading a few juniors under a strong management team.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> >Hustle is public. And in the ad industry, publicity matters.

There's your reasoning right there.

I've drank a bit of kool-aid myself. It feels normal now to overlay a level of 'hustling advertising' because that's what the business culture does and you don't want to be the one guy in a client meeting who looks pained to be there.

Another way of thinking about it: would you learn to do a little dancing for a good salary + benefits?

It quickly becomes second-nature to at least be engaged in the hustling adverts and culture meetings. The real trap (which is toxic) is feeling like hustling is a competition and a second job.

This stuff can push introverts to the sidelines though, and that can make their real world suffer if they feel isolated because they don't participate as much.

<comment><USER7> > would you learn to do a little dancing for a good salary + benefits?

This isn't an appropriate analogy because dancing is harmless.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> The "hustle" culture has been a key part of MLM (pyramid schemes) for many years. It's sad to see that crossing over into legitimate businesses.

</comment><comment><USER18> I think companies are missing something. Just because I like to work on side projects doesn't mean I want to work for free for you.

<comment><USER19> Oh but you wouldn't work for them, you'd work for yourself! That's what they want to sell you anyway, so they have no obligations whatsoever to their employees.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Hustle != Struggle. The original meaning of the hustle culture is that you creatively find your way into an expected result, often creating value along the way.

For example, instead of simply spending money for advertising, you create a valuable piece of content and share it in places your audience hangs out. Then repeat this and be consistent until you get to a result.

Instead of using quick and lazy methods, you achieved something, often creating value for others along the way, and the whole activity was a 'hustle'.

You can hustle 9 till 5 and be done with it. Though, I do get that if you were more persistent and focused on a result, this can easily become 9 till 7 or 12.

So yes, while the term in my opinion was a positive one, it is worth being cautious when explaining it.

</comment><comment><USER21> Nothing really new except the social media amplifier. After all, the Ad industry has been defined by this quote since the 60s:

'Please don't tell my mother I work in Advertising, she thinks I play piano in a whorehouse.' -David Ogilvie

</comment><comment><USER22> Out of curiosity, as a non-american, am i the only one who understands the word "hustle" to be synonymous-with/frequently associated with con-men, shysters, spruikers, boosters, etc?

I mean, for me it has almost no connotations of busyness or hard work, but its basically all about defrauding/image-projection.

The phrase "side-hustle" stemming from an almost ironic ghetto-esque- referential joke: like a scam or something a low level gangster or drug pusher is doing on the side to make money. But with complete openness that a hustle is, like his other activities, criminal and fraudulent...

<comment><USER23> I had to come to the comments here to figure out what they were meaning by "hustle". I had assumed what you thought and was thinking the article was about some sort of gorilla marketing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> "Of course, every industry has its fair share of hustle idolization, but ad agencies and advertising in general are unique"

Expand your horizons! Ad agencies are not unique. Boasting about the number of hours your work is one of the oldest, most tired tropes in many industries.

I have clients across all sectors that simultaneously boast and complain about their long hours and how committed they are to their business, or employer. Early rise, stay late, skip lunches, skip vacations, work from home even on holidays - I've heard it all - how is this unique to just the advertising / agency industry?

</comment><comment><USER25> I know this is a snarky comment, but... is it surprising that an industry built entirely on framing things to look better has a problem of workers having to frame themselves to look like better workers?

I do think we should aspire to better, but the extra image consciousness seems like the common thread here.

<comment><USER26> The problem is, this is affecting every industry. I have friends in accounting for instance, and if you aren't prompt with your emails over the weekend, if you aren't early at work and late to leave, etc, you will not be promoted.

I have friends in law and its the same thing; If you aren't putting up 55+ hr weeks, you are going to get an awkward reference and won't get your next job.

The problem is universal in early careers, and entirely absent in mid to late careers. We all know that for X amount of entry level hires there's only Y amount at the top of the food chain, but when people are being pushed out of the field for not being able to devote all their available waking hours to an entry level position rather than rewarding real skill and prowess, the situation is completely untenable. In 25 years, senior positions won't be filled by the most clever or bright workers, but whoever was able to slog through being overworked and underpaid and put their life on hold for their first 15 years out of college.

<comment><USER27> That sounds like a stupid human cognitive bias of judging powerful less harshly by following their self serving standards. The CEO made a mistake and has a problem by showing up to work drunk. The janitor doing so is an irresponsible waste of space.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> I don't think "hustling" has to be synonymous with overworking. When I think of hustling I think of my dad who used to pay for his life traveling around Europe by buying, driving, and selling cars in different countries he was visiting. Or how he was able to spot a pair of good tires in the junkyard that he could buy for 50 bucks but sell for 500. I always felt hustling meant you could see small opportunities in the world that could make you money, basically out of the knowledge that most people aren't paying attention and turn their "money-making" brain off when they leave the office.

<comment><USER26> Hustling would be if your dad was buying more and more cars at a time, making more and more profit, eventually reaching a point where if he were to flip more cars he would need to hire people, and doing so. Hustling is exponential growth, not stopping at comfortable profits.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Just some random thoughts here...this strikes me as a consequence of the contemporary idea of work having to be the end-all to one's identity, purpose and meaning in life.

Advertising, perhaps the 'original' fundamentally meaningless career field to spawn from consumer capitalism, used to be mostly about just communicating your product/service. Eventually it morphed into lifestyle marketing and at this point has reached its ultimate conclusion: advertising workers themselves have drunk the Koolaid that used to only be peddled to consumers.

I wonder if we'll ever see a return to simple "hey, we make this thing, you might find it useful."

<comment><USER30> I think it's a consequence of abundance.

If you have a grocery store that has cantaloupes, and that's unusual because most grocery stores don't have cantaloupes most of the time, you just hang a sign in the window that says "Cantaloupes". Maybe you put a print ad in the newspaper. Those who decide they want them will come to your store. When they're all gone, well, your advertising did its job.

But if every grocery store has cantaloupes year-round, you're not going to sell many extra cantaloupes by hanging a sign in your window. You need to get _clever_. And behold, advertising-as-hustle is born.

<comment><USER31> This is where it turns into tragedy of the commons. If every grocery store has cantaloupes year-round, they need to figure out something else to advertise, or - if they're all selling the same stuff - they should all shut up. Instead, someone will always start the advertising arms race, and suddenly everyone has to waste time and Earth's natural resources on actions that roughly cancel each other out.

<comment><USER32> >actions that roughly cancel each other out

Welcome to the 'the service industry is a job program for the middle class' view. It's not a rosy one, and the predictions it makes even less so.

<comment><USER31> I've been entertaining that view for a long time now wrt. advertising, but what other service job has the same characteristics? Namely, that your works serves mostly to undo the results of your peers' work, and vice versa?

<comment><USER30> I think medical insurance has a component like this. The doctor's office has people in it whose job is to make sure that the doctor gets paid, and the insurance company's office has people in it who try to find ways to not pay.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> "hustle culture" is a scam that's tricking you into robbing yourself of worker's rights

I suppose when it comes to the advertising industry, hustle culture is at least better than misogyny and alcoholism

<comment><USER34> Would setting up an LLC for yourself help protect some of those rights?

<comment><USER33> Probably not.

As an LLC you might also be entering a whole new world devoid of worker rights by being considered a contractor rather than an employee — which of course means you don't qualify for benefits. Ask a freelancer about how wonderful their healthcare options are.

The American variety of capitalism has successfully vilified unions and coined nonsense like "hustle" and "gig economy" to make it seem like this shift in work came from the bottom-up, but it's all just a guise to cut benefits and wages.

It's essentially a system that rewards executives for doing anything possible to exploit labor as much as the law allows for.

If you don't believe me, just look at the ever-increasing gap between employee and executive pay. Or check out the salary plateau despite the enormous increases in worker productivity. We've been suckered into doing more for less.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Gary Vaynerchuk is one of those clowns that encourages people to work to their bones and sometimes comes off as selling snake out. Leonie Dawnson did a great write up of him.

[https://leoniedawson.com/the-horror-pitchfest-an-honest- revi...](https://leoniedawson.com/the-horror-pitchfest-an-honest-review-of- gary-vaynerchuk-success-squared-and-success-resources-australia/)

<comment><USER36> Getting hit with her course (For only $79!!!!1!!11!) at the end of the article is such a hilarious pot kettle situation and lack of self awareness I'm frankly stunned.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> _> To be clear, hustle isn't just hard work — it's showing that you're working hard._

I often find that the people that try the hardest to make it appear they're working hard are only working hard at maintaining that appearance, and are often doing only the basics of their job.

If you're trying so hard to prove it, it's coming at the cost of actually doing the job you're trying to prove you're working so hard at.

The double-irony is that in many cases, this over-proof effort is needed because of Managers that are dis-engaged from their subordinates and only notice the sizzle, not the steak, because the Managers Manager is the same, and so on up the chain.

In time, the side-hustle will be all that's left. Which could already be the case given that people now live off their earnings as an "influencer", and if they have a day-job then that's just their side-hustle.

</comment><comment><USER38> Hustle is an interesting concept.

Most of the time the hustle is making sure the hours at work and at home are effective and not slacking off.

Sometimes it means that as you build a business shit happens at unexpected times so make sure that when an opportunity comes by you take it and don't say oh but it's 7pm and I'm tired.

However I never take it to mean that you should work 50 hour weeks until you collapse. And so far this has been the mentality pushed by fiverr and other companies because it means that they get to profit off your barely profitable labor.

Having to work 60 hours a week is not a hussle. It is a horrible situation.

</comment><comment><USER39> > it was "maximizing every last bit of energy you have in order to produce."

This sounds really dystopian, a mindset like this genuinely frightens me.

</comment><comment><USER40> Meanwhile over in this other thread: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18271834](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18271834)

We learn that you aren't really an "entrepreneur" unless you are a salesman. Business without "hustle" is unthinkable?

<comment><USER41> Every traditional business is living from sales, it's incredible you find this shocking.

<comment><USER40> I suppose it's surprising to me because I interpret the word "hustle" to mean something like "tricking the customer into paying more than needed to turn a profit on a trade"

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> Seems fitting that this was on Forbes just yesterday - [https://www.forbes.com/sites/alizalicht/2018/11/04/how-to- st...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/alizalicht/2018/11/04/how-to-start-a-side- hustle)

</comment><comment><USER43> Hustle Culture: What does it mean, exactly? From article:

>"maximizing every last bit of energy you have in order to produce"

>To be clear, hustle isn't just hard work — it's showing that you're working hard.

How anyone can imagine this is supportive of creative work, I just cannot get my head around.

</comment><comment><USER44> [https://youtu.be/zBfwIWblz5E](https://youtu.be/zBfwIWblz5E)

Gary Vanyerchuk, IMO king of hustle culture BS, explaining why his glassdoor reviews by ex employees and employees used to be so bad.

</comment><comment><USER45> This article is apparently about nothing, and it doesn't example" how" anything happened. People show off for other people to gain status and manipulate others. This is not news.

</comment><comment><USER46> To answer some of the questions as to why people do this. To try to get ahead. To try and advance. To move up. If you don't hustle, if you aren't trying to advance then how could you ever expect to move up financially?

Think of it in the small scale at a fast food joint. You bus tables, sweep etc. If you do just that you can do just that forever. You can also do more to try and get promoted. You can also do less and get fired. If you want more money per paycheck then you'll want to get promoted. To get promoted you have to hustle. You have to do more. No one will give it to you if you weren't already born into it.

<comment><USER46> To my downvote. Tell me how you get ahead without working harder than you're currently working? How do you get a raise without showing you've put in the requisite work? How do you gain the experience you need to move from junior to senior other than working harder.

I'd say you could get there with time. But how do you make future possiblities happen in the present without working harder.

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> So where's the exit lane? If you're willing to move to a low COL location and work remotely, how do you assure yourself a modest, if reliable, income?

</comment><comment><USER5> Reminds me of this:

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

</comment><comment><USER48> I think "hustle" is over now. Someone pronounce the time of death.</comment>


Bitcoin mining on an Apollo Guidance Computer - <AUTHOR> http://www.righto.com/2019/07/bitcoin-mining-on-apollo-guidance.html <comment><USER4> The author, Ken Shirriff, is an important personality in the retrocomputing scene, who has involved in the restoration of multiple vintage computers. As a programming exercise and entertainment (mainly, it's just about the implementation of SHA-256), he has attempted to mine Bitcoin on various platforms, including pencil-and-paper (7.75e-6 H/s) [0], IBM 1401 (0.012 H/s) [1], and Xerox Alto (1.5 H/s) [2].

And now it's the Apollo Guidance Computer (0.097 H/s)! I think it's particularly hilarious, as the slogan says, Bitcoin to the Moon!

[0] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3dqhixzGVo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3dqhixzGVo)

[1] [https://www.righto.com/2015/05/bitcoin-mining-on-55-year- old...](https://www.righto.com/2015/05/bitcoin-mining-on-55-year-old- ibm-1401.html)

[2] [https://www.righto.com/2017/07/bitcoin-mining-on-vintage- xer...](https://www.righto.com/2017/07/bitcoin-mining-on-vintage-xerox- alto.html)

 _Edit: fixed all incorrect H /s numbers, thanks for spotting that._

<comment><USER5> I'd also suggest checking out CuriousMarc's channel who is involved in restoring what I believe is the same AGC and has a bunch of very interesting videos about it (among other antique computing gear like teletypes and a Xerox Alto): [https://www.youtube.com/user/mverdiell/videos](https://www.youtube.com/user/mverdiell/videos).

Speaking of AGCs, he just recently uploaded a video where they used a restored AGC to dump prototype core rope memory modules from the Computer History Museum's (non-functional) AGC.

<comment><USER6> All those guys are amazing but I especially enjoy Ken and Mike reverse engineering stuff. Really impressive.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Rope memory is so fascinating and economical. Just wires and only one metal rings for each word, which can be hundreds of bits longs. My question is: is it possible to construct a finite state machine only with rope memory and mechanical relays and maybe capacitors. You can perhaps raise reading voltages so high, that the signal is detectable with relay coil. This would be the first real steam-punk, post-apocalyptic computer that people with early iron age technology can construct themselves.

<comment><USER8> Arguably, a finite state machine is not a computer, its logically equivalent to clockwork, which has been around for thousands of years.

Although I do like the sound of your idea...

<comment><USER9> Computers are really just finite state machines with really fancy input and output. We like to pretend they are Turing machines, but that breaks down when you run out of RAM: a Turing machine has infinite memory, a computer has a large finite amount of memory.

I suppose computers really are fancy clockwork. So are humans.

<comment><USER10> I think it's at least an open question whether humans are fancy clockwork or not. (Unless all you're doing is denying Cartesian dualism, in which case, I agree but so does everyone)

We don't really understand how the brain works, but it does seem that neuronal integration is an analog and probabilistic process, quite different from deterministic responses in computers (or clockwork). Some people have even speculated about quantum mechanical effects, though those hypotheses are very controversial and I don't put much stock in them personally.

It's overly reductive to compare the brain to a computer, and the analogy tends to obscure more than it illuminates.

[https://mindmatters.ai/2018/08/the-brain-is-not-a-meat- compu...](https://mindmatters.ai/2018/08/the-brain-is-not-a-meat-computer/)

[https://aeon.co/essays/your-brain-does-not-process- informati...](https://aeon.co/essays/your-brain-does-not-process-information- and-it-is-not-a-computer)

<comment><USER11> I know this is controversial but I've always felt the entire universe is Deterministic which would make it just a massive State-Machine.

We as humans might be missing the right equations/right measurements/precision to actually figure out it's exact state.

<comment><USER10> Maybe. As far as anyone can determine, some physical processes (e.g. radioactive decay) really are random. There is "noise" in reality. Even with a perfect accounting of every subatomic particle in the universe, you couldn't predict when a particular atom will decay.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> > the AGC results in a hash rate of 10.3 seconds per Bitcoin hash VS a > relatively slow USB hash device that performs at 130 billion hashes per > second.

> it would take the AGC 4×10^23 seconds on average to find a block. Since the > universe is only 4.3×10^17 seconds old, it would take the AGC about a > billion times the age of the universe to successfully mine a block.

Pretty mind boggling stuff.

<comment><USER13> I also did this calculation and got a different result.

According to Google, one block requires 2,440,643 * 2^32 hashes. Multiply that by 10 seconds per hash, and you get 3.32176901e9 years. The Universe has been around for longer than that, about 13e9 years.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> > Trying to mine Bitcoin on this 1960s computer seemed both pointless and > anachronistic, so I had to give it a shot.

Brilliant.

</comment><comment><USER15> From the notes at the end of the article:

"The AGC that we're restoring belongs to a private owner who picked it up at a scrap yard in the 1970s after NASA scrapped it. For simplicity, I refer to the AGC we're restoring as "our AGC"."

How much other fantastic equipment of historical significance have we lost, I wonder?

<comment><USER16> Not quite as rare, and certainly nothing like this, but several years ago I picked up an Altair from a local electronics junk yard.

Crazy thing was, I must have walked by where it was stored hundreds of times over the years since I first started to go to this place back in 1991 (Apache Reclamation and Electronics, here in Phoenix). Apparently it was kept in a trailer that was outside. I never saw the Altair in there, but it was stuffed full of junk and hard to "wander" around inside (the few times I went in, I was lucky not to be bit or stung by any number of things, to be honest).

So one day I was out in the yard wandering around; I turned around - and saw it sitting on a chair (I must have walked right past it). I walked over to it, thinking "No way - just, no way" \- but yes, there it was. Very dirty, missing it's top cover, but otherwise all there with a ton of peripheral cards slotted in place.

I went over to one of the owners of the place; he was up on a forklift - <USER3> pointed over at it, and said "I'll give you $100 for that thing over there". Yeah, I knew what it was worth, but this same guy had sold me 100 meters of multimodal fiber cable for the cost of copper, back when that stuff ran you 25 dollars a foot - so I thought "maybe he has no clue what it is".

He looked, turned to me and said "Nope - can't do that. Some guy a week ago pulled it out of that trailer there and told me it was an antique. Can't go any lower than $250.00". I dropped my smile, hemmed and hawed, grumbled a bit - you know, put on a show. Then I looked up, and said "Danny (that's his name) - you drive a hard bargain, but that's a deal."

15 minutes later I had it in the back of my pickup and was driving home as quick as I could before anyone changed their minds. A sale's a sale! I went back the next week, dug around some more, and came up with a ton of S-100 bus cards - and got those for nothing as well. Every now and then I go back and look for other cards, but other than a stash of NOS S-100 edge connectors - <USER3> couldn't find anything else.

I later went online on to an Altair message group, posted what I had, and was told mine was rather unique, as mine had flat handle toggles, and the later versions all used round handled toggles. I was offered close to a grand for it in as-is sight unseen condition, but I turned it down. My ultimate goal is to restore it to operating condition. I have not plugged it in (beer can capacitor would probably explode and catch fire if I did). It needs a ton of TLC.

It has a full amount of RAM, and the 8080 card was replaced with a Z-80 card (common upgrade of the time); there's enough RAM to run CP/M if I wanted to. Various serial and parallel I/O cards, plus a fixed-sector floppy drive card (good luck finding a drive, let alone media, for anything short of a fortune). I later had others donate to me other cards and parts (including an interesting unpopulated 6502 processor card - but I don't know if the pinout is the same as what the Altair used, or if it's meant for some other S-100 bus computer - despite the S-100 bus supposedly being a standard, there were a few variations of it - as it goes).

I figure if I can get it working to some extent, and get the test program from the manual toggled in and working, I'll consider that a success. But what I'd like to do is take it further, getting my VT-100 terminal hooked up to it, and using some kind of method to boot either BASIC or CP/M from a flash drive or something (I know this can be done).

Sadly, I contacted the case manufacturer about getting a top cover, and had no luck. The company (I don't recall their name), used to make that case as an enclosure that tons of companies used for their equipment. They made it for decades, long after the Altair ceased to be a thing, long after MITS went under. I told them what I needed, and they told me they no longer made that enclosure since a couple of years prior, and no longer had the engineering drawings, either.

So - if I want that part fixed, I'll either have to custom make something myself, try to find the part other ways (maybe visit and talk to people at a vintage computer fest?), or pray I run across one somewhere. Another possibility, though it wouldn't be cheap, would be to have a machine shop make me a one-off of a top that'd fit. Honestly, something tells me the first option might be the best, and in spirit with the machine itself. I doubt it would hurt it's value any.

<comment><USER17> This is amazing - I'd love to learn, some time in the near future, that you've gotten the system up and running and are doing something interesting with it.

I am the curator of a small collection of retro computers here in Vienna [1], and have managed to get a few systems up and running again - nothing as cool as an Altair, but you've now gotten me motivated to have another look at it as a platform. There's a clone kit out there [2], but I'm not sure its available .. but for sure its something I'm going to check out in an emulator.

Got a place we might be able to follow you for future updates about your restoration project?

[1] - [http://primitur.at/TIMETRON2019_Opening/](http://primitur.at/TIMETRON2019_Opening/)

[2] - [http://altairclone.com](http://altairclone.com)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> This has to be the best description of how Bitcoin mining works that I have ever read (easy to understand and none of the usual ideology you find in usual Bitcoin writing)

<comment><USER19> IMO, the original Bitcoin paper ([https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf](https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf)) is similarly easy to understand, and also doesn't contain ideology.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> CuriousMarc's series on the AGC restoration has been really cool to watch: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2KSahAoOLdU&list=PL-_93BVApb...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2KSahAoOLdU&list=PL-_93BVApb59FWrLZfdlisi_x7-Ut_-w7)

</comment><comment><USER16> I found this story interesting, but unsurprising knowing the author. I'm amazed he got that thing to work - but if there were anyone who could do it, it's him.

Unfortunately, I didn't find an answer to something I suspect, but I don't know for certain? Maybe someone here could shed light on it?

He mentions that the AGC was the first computer to use integrated circuits, in the form of 5600 NOR gates, built into custom "logic modules", each set then wired together using a backplane or something like that. But take a look at those ICs - are they thru-hole, or SMT?

I seem to recall seeing pictures of the AGC - of other parts of it - and that it used a form of SMT in its construction; does anyone know if this is true? If so, would that also make it the first time SMT was used in a computer? Or were there other prior examples.

It seems also curious that if it was SMT being used - that such a thing was chosen for this critical piece of hardware, mounted on a rocket undergoing tremendous strain and vibration. I would think in that case DIP would be the better solution, ideally with extended pins for wire-wrap, then everything embedded in conformal coating after test - but while the DIP vs SMT question is up in the air, I've never seen any pictures that suggest wire wrapping was used, and nothing that showed anything like conformal coating.

So - can anyone shed any light on this?

<comment><USER21> To answer some of your questions. The AGC was a very early integrated circuit computer, but probably not the first.

The ICs were surface-mount flat packs onto boards in the modules. They were welded, not soldered. The modules plugged into the backplane connectors, which were wire-wrapped. The modules and backplane were encapsulated in plastic (epoxy or polyurethane) for flight. (This AGC was for ground testing, so it was not encapsulated.)

The non-logic circuitry was built with cordwood construction, i.e. the components were inserted into holes in the module. Point-to-point wires were welded onto the components on either side. These were also encapsulated in plastic.

I don't know if DIP integrated circuits would have been more reliable, but the DIP wasn't invented until 1964, too late for the AGC.

The Saturn V rocket contained a Launch Vehicle Digital Computer (LVDC), which was completely different and built by IBM. It also used surface-mount modules, but IBM's hybrid modules, not integrated circuits. So the AGC wasn't the only surface mount computer at the time. (Does anyone have a good history of surface mount?)

> if there were anyone who could do it, it's him

Honestly, Mike Stewart is the AGC super-expert who made the restoration possible. He knows way, way more about the AGC than I do.

<comment><USER6> Ken, I love watching you and Mike do your stuff (Marc too but usually he is behind the camera). Thank you for taking the time to explain things.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Super cool. I got mining to work on my forked bitcoin. I've got 5-8 GH/s using a usb miner. It was a lot of work. It's also a good way to learn about cryptocurrency. My effort is trivial compared to this.

</comment><comment><USER23> > For instance, the AGC (like many 1960s computers) didn't have a stack, so > you had to keep track of the return address for each subroutine call.

> I managed to get everything to fit in one bank by reusing these 16 words for > multiple purposes, but I spent a lot of time debugging problems when a > variable clobbered a location still in use.

It could be fun to make a slightly higher level ad-hoc assembly language for solving these problems. For example SSA with basic blocks.

</comment><comment><USER24> Always happy to see another writeup from Ken Sherriff. I think he has an account here, so if you're reading this, thanks.

The estimate of the amount of electricity Bitcoin consumes (from a footnote) is distressing -- on the order of a small country...

This is one of the big reasons why I personally will never buy into a cryptocurrency (and especially bitcoin) -- too much wasted energy. If I want to engage in speculative trading, I'll do it in the stock market.

<comment><USER25> Ethereum is replacing proof-of-work with proof-of-stake in 2020, which should help with this.

But what are you comparing the cost of running Bitcoin to, the entire world's banking infrastructure? Does this take into account all of money that has slipped through the cracks over the years?

i.e. [https://www.thenation.com/article/pentagon-audit-budget- frau...](https://www.thenation.com/article/pentagon-audit-budget-fraud/)

> "there were no ledger entries or receipts to back up how that $6.5 trillion > supposedly was spent"

> "In all, at least a mind-boggling $21 trillion of Pentagon financial > transactions between 1998 and 2015 could not be traced, documented, or > explained"

<comment><USER26> >Ethereum is replacing proof-of-work with proof-of-stake in 2020, which should help with this.

I seem to remember that proof-of-stake has been coming 'next year' for about 3 years now.

<comment><USER25> I don't really mind if they take one more year to do it if it is seamless. Seems like all existing ETH will eventually become ETH2.

Is it notable that proof-of-stake moves power from the means of production to the owners?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> This link warms my heart.

</comment><comment><USER28> I can highly recommend the curiousmarc AGC restoration series on youtube, which also feature Ken.

</comment><comment><USER29> Could he post responses on the internet to people wondering more about this weird piece of history and how he came across with that thing. If you can surf the web then it is useful!

</comment><comment><USER30> It'd be cool if this was hooked up to the internet, with a camera pointed at it, and people could rent it for an hour at a time to play with.

</comment><comment><USER31> In my opinion this person seems like one of those 10x people. Amazing job.

<comment><USER21> 10x kind of implies that they are doing something actually useful. :-)

<comment><USER32> From whose point of view? A mythical "10x" working at a Californian small startup making IoT juice machines isn't necessarily doing anything more useful.

<comment><USER33> I think he's the guy from the blog and he's making a joke

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> I wonder if this can be done in a C64 and what would be the hashrate.

</comment><comment><USER35> The irony is strong here - the most productive computer computer in the world, the one that's taken us to the moon, has been tasked with the most un- productive activity, that is burning energy for the sake of maintaining a ledger of fictional possessions.

<comment><USER36> Remember when computer nerds the world over pooled their spare compute resources for Folding@Home and Seti@Home, in exchange for nothing but leaderboard positions and bragging rights?

The real tragedy of the cryptocurrency gold rush is that by providing a profit motive it decimated these kinds of collaborative computing projects.

<comment><USER37> There are initiatives to perform useful computations with cryptocurrency.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> You know what most amazes me about a guy like Ken Shiriff? The fact that he is smart enough to do this but he uses his brains to just scratch a curiosity itch. It seems not only time consuming but in practical terms (other than mentally) obviously worthless. (Not that there isn't a worth to the acheivement after all people spend all sorts of time on hobby pursuits of little apparent value).

I have to therefore say (will leave out the 'honestly') that if I was 'that smart' I'd use my brains to do something that would put money in my pocket.</comment>


Field Report on the OpenAV Release System [pdf] - <AUTHOR> http://lac.linuxaudio.org/2014/papers/29.pdf <comment><AUTHOR> _" The release system works by creating the software, announcing it, and releasing after a waiting time. If money is donated to the project, the waiting time is reduced, which in turn results in an accelerated release."_</comment>


Ask HN: have you used an HTML slicing service? - <AUTHOR>

There are a great deal many companies who perform PSD -> XML 'slicing' for a set fee per page.
I've been looking at W3 markup, primarily because they seem to emphasize clean code (microformats and all) and support @font-face. But their customer service also seems to be offshore (their English isn't so great) and I'm concerned they could be a chop-shop.
Anyone on HN used a slicing service? Any recommendations or thoughts? <comment><USER2> We used PSD2HTML for www.steves-digicams.com and www.ultimatecoupons.com. I would definitely recommend them.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for this - I ended up using the same guys and was quite happy.</comment></comment>


Looking for FinTech Engineering Mgr advice on a few day-1 architecture decisions - <AUTHOR> Hi all -
We're looking for a FinTech Engineering Manager who would be interested in helping us with some day-1 architectural decisions and who could guide us set up our engineering team.
This isn't a full-time role yet, although it could become one long-term.
For context: My co-founder (MIT) and I started a company called Carlypso after graduating from Stanford Business School in 2013. We went through YC in 2014, raised $10M Series A from August Capital by 2015 and sold the business to Carvana.com in 2017.
We joined Carvana pre-IPO, went public at a $2.5bn valuation and are now worth $25bn.
After 3 years, my co-founder and I left to start a digital auto finance platform. Our new business is all around helping Americans with challenged credit and doing our part to address income inequality.
We left Carvana on June 1st, just closed a healthy seed round and are off to the races making our first hires as we speak.
Excited to get your thoughts!
Nick <comment><USER2> I'm happy to help with this.

I have been the first engineer (& 1st employee) at a fin-tech start-up based out of Bangalore for 4 years now, and am currently the head of product & engineering (~50 engineers). The product is globally available, and is primarily sold in the US.

</comment><comment><USER3> How should we get in touch with you? Alternatively, you can drop me a note, my email is in the profile.</comment>


Mark Zuckerberg is asking for donations to help families detained at the border - <AUTHOR> https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10105029863405211 <comment><USER2> > Mark has raised $16,658 for Texas Civil Rights Project

That's pretty underwhelming considering has a net worth of $75,600,000,000.

He could donate orders of magnitude more than what he'll raise without even _noticing_ the decrease in his wealth.

<comment><USER3> 75B*9%/365/24 = ~$776,712 per hour</comment></comment>


Barely 3000 people used '123456' as their Gawker password - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2010/12/13/the-top-50-gawker-media-passwords/

<comment><USER2> > A plurality of Gawker Media passwords are six characters long

A plurality of _brute forced_ Gawker Media passwords are six characters long. Maybe this statistic is valid for all 1.5 million passwords, but that's quite a lot of extrapolation. Taking the easiest 10% of passwords to brute force and basing the data off that?

They mention this fact on the paragraph prior, and then seem to forget about it: "In both cases, the datasets only include passwords that could be decoded and aren't necessarily representive [sic] of all users."

</comment><comment><USER3> I'm not sure this even matters. Gawker accounts are for commenting on inane media stories. If people used the same password for their email, that's one thing, but I wouldn't be surprised if most had a harder password for their email, and resorted to 123456 etc. for less important accounts.

<comment><USER4> According to this study ([http://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/article/355776/study_reveals_p...](http://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/article/355776/study_reveals_password_re- use_rampant/)), the common user reuses passwords everywhere.

The 3000 who used 123456 might be outliers. The real danger of this leak is in those who didn't think of Gawker as being a less important account and therefore undeserving of their primary password.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I got two emails today claiming to be from gawker, telling me to change my password.

Both were phishing emails that pointed to a domain in China and another in India. These guys move fast

<comment><USER6> I got a seemingly genuine email from Gawker entitled, "Gawker Comment Accounts Compromised -- Important"

Although I don't believe my email address was in the dump.

<comment><USER7> I got that as well. I'm certain my email isn't in the dump (downloaded the torrent to double- and triple-check).

I thought is was strange they used a URL shortener with an uncommon TLD (.kr) to point to the FAQ lifehacker. Seems you'd want to be as unsuspicious as possible in this situation.

<comment><USER6> Actually I just realised that while my email wasn't in the dump, my username was.

I didn't find it myself with grep, but I did find it using this utility: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1999373>

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I've got the same combination on my luggage

</comment><comment><USER9> My favorite is always the people who go the extra length and use '12345678'.

Also, why are Jennifer and Michelle the first female names on the list? Are they just the most common names for women?

And is there a story to "monkey"?

<comment><USER10> > And why, oh why, is "monkey" in the top 10?

I think 'monkey' has always been a top ten password, not just for Gawker users, but I have no idea why.

<http://modernl.com/article/top-10-most-common-passwords> (2006)

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Why is the title here on HN "Barely"? Because it's less than 1%?

<comment><USER12> It's not less than 1%. Look at the chart. 3k out of 188k

<comment><USER2> No, that would be 3k of 1.5 million. They would have tried the password '123456' on all of the accounts.

EDIT: I just looked at the dataset and about half of them list NULL as the password. ~3000/748,495 = ~.4%

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> My favorite throwaway password is 'nopassword'

</comment><comment><USER14> I'm curious how many were 'jesus' 'bible' and/or some other obvious one.</comment>


Trump Administration Strips CDC of Control of Coronavirus Data - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/14/us/politics/trump-cdc-coronavirus.html <comment><USER2> Hospitals are to report data "through ONLY ONE of the methods" according to the document ( [https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/covid-19-faqs- hospit...](https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/covid-19-faqs-hospitals- hospital-laboratory-acute-care-facility-data-reporting.pdf) ). Where the only viable option is a new federal system called TeleTracking™ & Palantir (funded by Peter Thiel by the way). For a hospital to continue to report to their state, both the hospital needs a written waiver from the state and the state needs a written waiver from the federal government. Considering this goes into effect tomorrow, that likely won't happen.

<comment><USER3> Elections have consequences - play stupid games, win stupid prizes. This is the worst administration the US has ever had.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Who to target Businesses or the General Public - <AUTHOR>

So I have this idea rolling around in my head which was formed while I was interning at a Construction company doing some IT work. The idea is centered around document management and could be either a consumer or business SaaS app. Which should I aim for Consumer or Business under the case that I would like to take the option witch can be executed to launch faster? <comment><USER2> I would go B2B because business are more likely to pay for things that save them time and money. Consumers generally dont like to spend money, which is why consumer services are typically free or cheap and usually generate revenue through ads.

</comment><comment><USER3> I wouldn't ask HN. I would go ask consumers and businesses to find out who has the problem. Then I would go with whichever group actually has the problem. If neither of them have the problem, then I wouldn't launch for either one.</comment>


Why I'll never work on First-Person Shooters again - <AUTHOR> http://gamasutra.com/blogs/CharlesCox/20130419/190893/Why_Ill_Never_Work_on_FirstPerson_Shooters_Again.php <comment><USER6> Can't help but think that perhaps this post is timed in response to the events of the week.

And it reminds me of a thought I had in the midst of the madness: that is, we invade countries for apparently no reason, maiming thousands of our own troops and killing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. We celebrate violence in movies, music, TV, and games. We have been in a pressure-cooker since 9/11, with a constant, ever-present anxiety about terrorism. We have had a tanked economy for nearly 5 years with massive unemployment and near-constant financial stress for many.

On top of all of this, we have a media that lives for opportunities to incite fear and endlessly highlight the actions of the worst human beings on the planet.

Then, when someone loses it, everyone looks around and asks "what's the matter with _that_ guy?"

It can certainly be argued that FPSes are a drop in the bucket, reflection of society, etc. as some comments on this thread have stated. But, I don't blame the OP for not wanting to risk being a contributor to the problem.

It starts with one.

<comment><USER7> I think the actual violence committed for whatever reason - <USER2> countries, blowing up weddings and children with remote drone strikes, keeping prisoners without legal framework in gitmo - these things are several orders of magnitude worse than violent games and movies

Games and movies are merely ways of processing these real world events - <USER3> violence begets violence. Those kids we blow up today with drones, one of their brothers, sisters, or even just friends will eventually come back to us. For example, to senselessly kill innocent people at a marathon.

Boston bombings are a good example - the chechen war / rebellion was a bloodbath, fought ruthlessly and largely off the cameras. It just came back to us.

Violence begets violence, throughout the history of humanity. Its up to us to stop the cycle. We cant do much about conflicts in faraway countries - <USER4> maybe to stay out of them. But we can do things we are directly responsible for - CIA operations come to mind, and of course the drone war.

<comment><USER7> I forgot to say - the violence we commit on others affects us just as much as them, the perpetrator is as much a victim as the victim.

I recently read the story of the most efficient sniper in the US military, a man who killed well over 200 people in various US wars around the world. Who shot and killed two armed would be carjackers in Texas in a way that would be fit for a dirty harry movie (shot them with his back turned to them). The cycle was complete when he was himself shot and killed while taking friends shooting. Could it ever have ended another way?

But most of these cycles are much longer, spanning generations.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The FPS mechanic seems like it could be much bigger than Call of Duty style. You can have the gritty style without the violence: Brave Firefighters is an old coin-op game FPS in which you put out fires with your water cannon gun, rescuing people in the process. Or you can keep the violence, but make it silly, like Mario games. Team Fortress 2 sort of points in that direction, and could be taken a lot further.

Instead of abandoning FPS games, why not try to disrupt them by working on non-traditional FPSes? The genre is in a rut, and could use a big dose of innovation.

<comment><USER9> On that note, I though Kreedz Climbing[1] and Grappling Hook[2] were interesting takes.

[1]: <http://kzmod.com/news.php> [2]: <http://ghook.speedrungames.com/>

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Notwithstanding the idea that working on something inappropriate for a 6 year old is somehow a moral issue, the FPS genre is much bigger than just "realistic" titles like CS/CoD, and it is regrettable that they are being mixed up in the public's imagination. While the CoD:MW series has artistic merit despite being in the "realistic" category, there are legendary titles with deep artistic value like Half-Life, Unreal, and Crysis where (to me anyway) violence is not really the point of the game.

<comment><USER11> This reminds me rather of a Google+ post I read recently:

[https://plus.google.com/105363132599081141035/posts/W3ys5fKn...](https://plus.google.com/105363132599081141035/posts/W3ys5fKnz5t)

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> If he was in the movie industry would he refuse to work on anything that wasn't G rated(and even a good number of those) because it would be inappropriate to show to 4 year olds?

Most of the movies on the AFI 100 Years 100 Movies list would be tough for an editor to explain to his kid if they were sitting there while he was cutting, splicing, and reviewing. Does that somehow make them unethical?

</comment><comment><USER13> I think I've tl;dr'd this correctly: "I won't work on FPSes because they're [excessively?] violent and I'm ashamed of contributing to it".

Which is a great reason, I wish them luck! I'd say it's slightly mis-aimed - it's not just FPSes - but it's a start. I'd love to have a whole variety of blockbusters that aren't the standard fare we have now, and more people working on other things makes it more likely to happen.

<comment><USER14> > it's not just FPSes

Quite right. Violence is the simplest form of human conflict, the one we can most easily adapt to games. Even chess is an abstraction of war strategy.

But personally, I'm much more OK with fairly abstract strategy games than I am with games that shove a gun in your hands and shower you with blood. It's exhausting. I have no problem with those games existing on the market, I'm just so very tired of the fact that nearly every big-budget game centers on shooting people in the face. Or stabbing them.

If nothing else, I've been doing that in videogames for the past 20 years now (since Wolf3d and Doom), and it's getting boring.

<comment><USER15> _If nothing else, I've been doing that in videogames for the past 20 years now (since Wolf3d and Doom), and it's getting boring._

I've had this problem too for the last several years. I like 3d, and I like hyper-realistic game environments, and I like science fiction. But I am sick to the back teeth of gore, and of being confronted by hideous mutants/ zombies/ creatures that I'm supposed to splatter all over the walls. I play games far less than I used to because I'm tired of this horror element.

What gets me is that even within these genre conventions, there seem to be very few new ideas. How come I don't see survival-horror games based around super-powered alien insects that can walk on the ceiling? Why isn't there a Terminator game that involves fighting giant robots in Shadow-of-the-colossus style as well as FPS? Why not a game set in an abandoned but heavily trapped environment where destructibility is a key game mechanic?

<comment><USER16> There was Portal. And then Portal 2. And also Mirror's Edge. And... that's about it? _sigh_

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> >> _He had no choice, really -- this industry works people overlong and threatens them with excommunication if they complain, knowing full well that enthusiastic young talent will gladly come fill in at a lower wage._

Having never worked in the gaming industry, just about every 1st hand account I read tends to emphasize its fairly brutal nature. Frankly it sounds like a shit-terrible environment. Is game dev really fun enough to justify this kind of treatment?

>> _And this drama -- this tightrope walk between building virtual violence while fashioning a safe space for the next generation -- was forced to live in the same building that received countless letters, forum posts, YouTube videos, and more from angry gamers that threatened us -- and our families -- if we didn't deliver them the bloodthirsty experience they wanted, the one they demanded._

Speaking of terrible environments, enter the gaming _community_. There's something about competitive online multi-player games in that they inevitably seem to breed awful. Years ago I gamed competitively at what would be considered "elite" levels, and all too often many of my fellow top-tier gamers were beyond the pale. Rampant racism & misogyny are only the tip of the iceberg, at times.

I suppose I think there's something pretty "off" with both the gaming industry and the community it serves. Wish I had a constructive solution in mind, but for the time being I simply avoid both.

<comment><USER18> I follow Starcraft 2 pro scene and it is not so bad, although, many players are young, so immature behaviors happens sometimes. I guess that competitive strategy games are different from competitive FPS.

<comment><USER17> Yeah, I agree. The SC2 community is on average far more civil than those in shooters and even (PvP) MMOs.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I was hoping this would be a commentary on the genre being - with the rarest exceptions - a mess of utterly derivative, barely distinguishable dreck.

</comment><comment><USER20> I have a similar feeling regarding PvP games. Not so much for any simulated violence, but rather for reinforcing the zero-sum philosophy of, "For me to win, another human being has to lose." However, I don't feel the same about many non-RPG, zero-sum games, like chess or poker.

Maybe because it's easier to be detached from cards and plastic pieces, than from a character in an RPG - who has a name, 'friends', a pet, a history of achievements, etc.

You can call me a "care bear", but I personally don't feel that reinforcing such a limited world-view is how I want to use my time and energy. And it's not something I describe as fun.

<comment><USER21> Chess and Go and Bridge and Ambition (self-plug, why the fuck not: [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1S7lsZKzHuuhoTb2Wj_L3zrhH...](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1S7lsZKzHuuhoTb2Wj_L3zrhHZh5IEKBDf56ExgErv4o/edit) ) aren't truly zero-sum because the hedonic payoff is based on the quality of the game ("the game" meaning the immutable artifact as well as "the game" meaning the specific contest among players) not winning or losing. You still enjoy a truly great game if you lose, just slightly less than if you win. There's an emergent art to the game that is appealing and interesting regardless of the outcome.

Poker is in the middle. I feel like it's more of a zero-sum game because it just sucks to lose. At real stakes, I find losing humiliating. At low stakes or for free, I don't care. The game itself I am not that into.

I see what you mean about PvP. The culture of them (at least, as usually played) makes it hard to enjoy the game for its own sake.

<comment><USER22> > You still enjoy a truly great game if you lose, just slightly less than if > you win. There's an emergent art to the game that is appealing and > interesting regardless of the outcome.

Sigh, and that of course applies to PvP games as well. Back when I played a lot of FPS deathmatch I quite enjoyed a good match, even if I didn't come out on top.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> It's a career limiting move in the same sense that my career as a doctor is limited by the fact that I didn't choose to go to medical school. There's no evidence that any of his opportunities outside of making violent shooters have been limited. If he wants to turn down those opportunities then props to him for standing up for something in a way that actually impacts his bottom line. Whether you agree or disagree with his reasons for doing it, this should be applauded. We just shouldn't pretend that he's being persecuted for his choice. He's not a whistle blower that's exposing a conspiracy. People like violent FPS games, they buy them, studios make more of them. That's all there is to it.

Now if you want a conspiracy, you should be looking at gaming addiction and how studios are explicitly engineering games to keep people coming back and spending money. That's where you'll find the real shady stuff.

</comment><comment><USER24> Violence, sex, and spectacle have always been used as a crutch for bad storytelling and simply being out of ideas.

<comment><USER25> All of those things can also be totally valid parts of a well-told story. Not only that, any historically significant factual account of human beings is likely to contain at least one and probably more of those things.

Yes, _only_ using those things, or using them to prop up otherwise poor writing, is most certainly a crutch. But generalizing that too far takes very significant parts of our nature and behavior -- for better or worse -- and casts them in an artificially negative light as invalid literary mechanics.

<comment><USER26> Totally agree. This is what I keep telling people whenever they moan about Game Of Thrones/A Song Of Ice And Fire being porn and/or too violent.

<comment><USER21> Excellent point. Those books also get into a lot of detail about medieval food and clothing. He's just very detailed and realistic. (I almost think of IaF as magical realism, not fantasy.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I think we need to come up with another term than first-person shooter. There may have been a time where all games in first person were games like Duke Nukem, Quake, Doom, and so on, but I think it cheapens and trivializes what can be accomplished in the medium - not genre - of first-person-based videogames.

Games like "Call of Duty", "Battlefield", "Halo", and so on definitely rot the soul of a lot of developers, but I personally think the first-person medium is one of the best way to do something immersive and interactive.

I don't think Elisabeth in Bioshock Infinite - or a game like Portal - <USER5> have been possible under any other circumstances, and to use the term "first- person shooter" for a game like B:I is to misrepresent it to people inside and outside the videogame community.

</comment><comment><USER28> A rather conveniently timed blog post...

My point-of-view is: if people are worried about kids growing up with violent games that allow you to shoot people "in the face" or wherever you should be more concerned your kid is growing up in a politically and economically unstable world instead where a Government is cheered for killing a wanted terrorist (Osama Bin Laden or cheers for the death of the Boston Bombing suspects). What kind of world are we living in where it's considered okay to cheer because a criminal died, but it's a moral dilemma making first person shooters because they might make some people think it's okay to shoot people in real life? Regardless of what someone did or who they hurt, cheering any death is sick in my opinion.

Sure computer games send mixed messages to some, but having grown up in the 90's when first person shooters were in full swing (Doom, Quake, Duke Nukem) I never once had the urge to go and do it in real life, neither did my friends and trust me I remember spending a large chunk of my youth playing Golden Eye 64 when it came out with friends on the Nintendo 64. I wonder if studies have been performed on people likely to commit violent crimes and whether or not games actually help take the urge away to do it in real life?

If people don't get their violent entertainment from games, they'll just get it from; movies, highly publicised sporting events (MMA, Boxing, BJJ), the news or in real life. The art of violent entertainment was well in full-swing before the home gaming revolution took place. Since anyone can remember, people have been using weapons as a means to cause harm to one another. We can blame games and we can blame easy targets like Eminem or Marilyn Manson, we should be blaming ourselves. We are responsible for our own actions and when we're not, it's because we convince ourselves it's because of someone or something else.

It sounds to me like this guy is in the wrong industry. If he doesn't want to make violent games and violent games sell as Battlefield and Grand Theft Auto have proven, then what does he want to do? Sounds like he should be working for a smaller struggling developer who specialise in family friendly games instead or even considering a career move entirely. This is not an insult, it's an observation. If you have a problem with the kind of work you're doing, find a new job and someone who can and wants to do your job, will.

Developers don't make FPS games because they love to praise and glorify violence, it's because FPS' sell. As a keen player of Battlefield 3, I can see why they sell. They're a good escape from the busy day or week you had. Mindless entertainment you can mash the buttons on your controller and relieve some stress, not to mention have fun.

I think anyone who can go out and commit an act of violence and blame it on a game is a mental health issue, not an issue attributed to playing games. Violent games activate and induce violent behaviour in real life no more than drugs or alcohol have been doing for centuries. I know there have been stories over the years, but the number of crimes committed supposedly because of games is rather small compared to deaths via firearms, dangerous driving, drugs or alcohol.

Thought for the day: A drug addict kills someone with a gun for money to get their next hit, what aspect of the story does the media focus on? The fact he was a drug addict who needed help, the fact he had nobody to turn to for help, the fact he obtained access to an illegal firearm or the fact that he played a lot of Grand Theft Auto?

<comment><USER29> > _"but it's a moral dilemma making first person shooters because they might > make some people think it's okay to shoot people in real life?"_

I don't think any non-crackpot really believes that video games cause people to pick up guns and shoot people. No one has ever played a video game and gone "hey you know what'd be cool, if I went and shot up a mall".

The moral dilemma is not about directly causing someone to become violent, but rather about creating a culture where violence is _celebrated_ rather than abhorred, and the consequences of _all_ of this violence in aggregate. No single video game would drive someone to violence, but the aggregation of thousands of video games, tens of thousands of movies, and a government that glorifies war, certainly doesn't help anything.

I think the moral dilemma isn't about any real, measurable harm, but rather about whether you're creating a pop culture that reflects the world you want to live in, or you're contributing to a pop culture that is the antithesis of your own principles.

> _"Thought for the day: A drug addict kills someone with a gun for money to > get their next hit, what aspect of the story does the media focus on?"_

The fact that they're an addict. Seriously, I have _not_ seen any major case pinned of video games for _years_. Jack Thompson and Columbine was a _long_ time ago, before the mass-marketization of shooters. With games like COD and Halo being so mainstream your grandma has played it, the "video game causes deadly shootout!" angle is no longer tenable.

And we as gamers need to stop pretending the world is still like the bad old days of the 90s when every evil was pinned on us. Only the most extreme, the least credible news sources are still hanging onto this angle, and it's disingenuous to pretend that this is still a mainstay of modern news reporting today.

<comment><USER30> I fail to see how FPS games contribute to _"creating a culture where violence is celebrated rather than abhorred"_. Do you have any references to research that supports that claim?

I can see that good action movies can contribute to the culture where good action movies are _celebrated_. But that doesn't have anything to do with celebrating violence.

<comment><USER31> Do moviegoers feel bad when people die in movies? I do, and it makes me not like the movie, unless it is a drama and the death gets appropriate attention and consideration.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> I worry a lot about what my kid will learn, but exposure to violent video games is really low on the list. Much more worried that he will be lied to and exploited by "the system", for example schools only teaching how to be a docile wage slave.

I am not keen on violence in games, but sometimes I think there also is some honesty in those games. The world can be a cruel place.

</comment><comment><USER33> Why I don't think parents know how to parent anymore.

For those parents, the problem is videogames, or Marilyn Manson's music, or bicycles, or movies, or obscene writing but never, never, it is something remotely related with their parenting skills.

However, when years later their kids now grown to adulthood have to go to a psychologist, what's what they talk about? Videogames? Music? Obscene books?

No. They talk with the psychologist about their parents and their awful lack of parenting skills.

</comment><comment><USER34> There are so many virtually identical FPS out there these days I have to believe the genre is due for a slump in sales. These days as soon as I discover a title is an FPS I pass over it in search of something novel.

</comment><comment><USER35> You stole this idea from Mad Men. I hope it gets you a job.

<comment><USER31> Mad Men stole it from Jerry Maquire.

"It's not a manifesto. It's a mission statement."

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> What struck me was the fact that this guy seems to be actually worried about his career. How fucked up is an industry where saying "I don't want to work on [X]" makes you unemployable? I hope the AAA studios (and Zynga + clones) collapse under the weight of their mediocrity. Let's get to making some real fucking games.

<comment><USER36> This comment makes it sound like you think the problem with the games sector is that it's dominated by companies like EA. That's a problem, but it's dwarfed by the real problem, which is supply and demand.

If you want to see a really "fucked up" industry, try being a tool and die engineer.

<comment><USER37> At the risk of derailing this subthread, I'd be interested in knowing what's fucked up about the tool-and-die industry.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> This article makes a big fanfare and all, but until I see some data that violent video games actually leads to antisocial behaviour (on average), then I'm not inclined to believe that it is necessarily destructive. For all we know, it could be mostly about letting off steam.

Just because something seems to be destructive, intuitively, doesn't mean that it actually is so. Human nature is far too complicated to assume that something that seems destructive intuitively really is so (since most people seem to get by just fine).

</comment><comment><USER39> Good for you! Good for me too...I've always liked third person shooters and side-scrollers better anyway.

</comment><comment> cool-RR Fabulously written.</comment>


Netflix to become real TV and get its own 'cable channel' next week - <AUTHOR> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/04/24/netflix-to-become-real-tv-and-get-its-own-cable-channel-next-week/

<comment><USER2> Am I paranoid or is it possible that the two cable companies that Netflix was supposed to fight against struck a backdoor deal with Netflix to partner with other cable companies that they surely had connections to.

</comment><comment><USER3> Good news! RCN is actually a tiny, upstart cable company that competes directly against Comcast (in certain markets, anyway): [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RCN_Corporation](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RCN_Corporation)

And they're pretty fast: [http://ispspeedindex.netflix.com/usa](http://ispspeedindex.netflix.com/usa) (click "INCLUDE SMALLER ISPS")</comment>


Artificially intelligent painters invent new styles of art - <AUTHOR> https://www.newscientist.com/article/2139184-artificially-intelligent-painters-invent-new-styles-of-art/ <comment><USER2> Is just me or are some of these kind of worrying, a city in ruins burning, dead humans on a beach, blood and gore...</comment>


Using bcrypt to secure passwords in Perl - <AUTHOR> http://gcrawshaw.posterous.com/using-bcrypt-to-secure-passwords-in-a-perl-ap

<comment><USER2> I also blogged about this topic on blogs.perl.org the other week with some code examples that work a little better [1].

Your code appears to work, but is subtly broken in a few ways. Firstly since you don't return the hash in the "standard" format ("$2a", "$", two digits, "$", salt as 22 base 64 digits, '.', and 31 base 64 digits for the pass), one can't tell what work factor was used to create the hash - making it hard to verify a password. Secondly the salt isn't sufficiently random, there are modules out there that provide more randomness for cryptographic applications such as this.

It's nice to see people blogging about this kind of thing for perl, but it's important that the code is correct.

[1] [http://blogs.perl.org/users/james_aitken/2011/07/safely- stor...](http://blogs.perl.org/users/james_aitken/2011/07/safely-storing- passwords.html)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the feedback. I will make some changes.

<comment><USER2> Have a look at Authen::Passphrase::BlowfishCrypt [1]. it handles a lot of my suggestions automatically and is more suited to your general-case than my code is.

[1] [http://search.cpan.org/~zefram/Authen- Passphrase-0.007/lib/A...](http://search.cpan.org/~zefram/Authen- Passphrase-0.007/lib/Authen/Passphrase/BlowfishCrypt.pm)

<comment><AUTHOR> I have updated the code to use the standard storage format and switched to a better salt generator.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Also a very similar post _Safely Storing Passwords_ from a few days earlier on blogs.perl.org which includes a Dancer bcrypt plugin: [http://blogs.perl.org/users/james_aitken/2011/07/safely- stor...](http://blogs.perl.org/users/james_aitken/2011/07/safely-storing- passwords.html)

</comment><comment><USER4> No, no, no. Just use Authen::Passphrase.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks. I updated the blog with a pointer to the module.

<comment><USER4> Nice! One thing that's great about blogging is that if you blog your code, a reader is bound to golf it down to one line of code :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> It's a shame that the first comment was for a typo. Can't people get over these things?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes but the second comment on the blog was great, truly an education in encryption for me.</comment></comment>


Engineering is horseshit - <AUTHOR> http://thebookwriter.org/

<comment><USER2> Engineers are not usually characterized as "expressive creatures", it has nothing to do with pushing pixels to make things pretty and is actually about problem solving, and how does debating "look & feel" apply to engineers in the sense that it applies to designers ? Almost nothing in that article applies as a criticism of engineering so the point that you can replace [graphic] design with engineer fails.

Without engineering you have no product. And, as demonstrated by numerous applications, especially in the corporate world, you can have products without any input from a [graphic] designer or consideration for graphics design.

There is definitely a case to be made about over-engineering, doing engineering for engineering sake, and ignoring other aspects of building a product, but this certainly isn't it so I'm ether missing something or this post is ?

<comment><USER3> I'm guessing this post is a direct response to "Design is Horseshit" (<http://yongfook.com/post/14295124427/design-is-horseshit>), which was on HN earlier.

It appears that the author of this post has taken the original article and simply replaced 'design' with 'engineering' the whole way through it, thus the unusual characterisation of engineers as "expressive creatures" you point out.

<comment><USER2> Yeah that's my point, the author is trying to be witty but fails so the post is "missing it".</comment></comment></comment>


Why Pioneers Have Arrows In Their Backs - <AUTHOR> http://steveblank.com/2010/10/04/why-pioneers-are-the-ones-with-the-arrows-in-their-backs/

<comment><USER2> There are statistical artifacts here that need to properly be taken into account.

First, there is only ever one first mover and many fast followers. Thus, it's not entirely surprising that at least one fast follower would dominate the leader.

Secondly, the failure rate calculations are highly suspect due to historical redactionism. If a first mover fails, it will still be remembered due to it's contribution to the field. If a fast follower fails, it becomes hard to even discover that it existed in the first place.

Think of this in terms of car companies. Ford was the first mover but, up until the 1920's, there were almost a thousand different car companies started by various people: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_defunct_United_States_a...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_defunct_United_States_automobile_manufacturers) . 99% of them failed, some had moderate success and a few like Toyota & GM had enough outsized success to eventually beat Ford. Being a "fast follower" in this case almost always meant you were dead.

<comment><USER3> Some of the examples are also weak.

Ford was not the first car company in the USA. Daimler Motor Company beat it by over a decade.

He did not sell the first commercially successful gas powered automobile in the USA. Alexander Winton holds that honor.

Ford did not sell the first mass produced automobile in the USA. Ransom E. Olds did.

Ford wasn't even Henry Ford's first automobile company. The Detroit Automobile Company was. Ford was his third company.

The most common justifiable claim about how Ford was a first mover was the invention of the assembly line. Even so there is dispute. The concept was patented by Olds in 1902. According to Henry Ford, Ford's reinvention was based on William "Pa" Klann's observation of the meatpacking industry's "disassembly lines", which had been invented in 1867. However Ford certainly perfected it, and manufacturing has never been the same since.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This is a paraphrase of some of the things Michael Porter said in his book,Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance - [http://www.amazon.com/Competitive-Advantage-Creating- Sustain...](http://www.amazon.com/Competitive-Advantage-Creating-Sustaining- Performance/dp/0684841460/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_2) : There is not much gain in having a first mover advantage by itself. But, if the first mover locks up key resources for success then that gives a sustainable advantage. This can be done by fast followers also. The competitive advantage strategy should be to capture resources so that competitors can't access them. For instance, he mentioned Walmart strategy of buying key locations before their competitors figure out that these location were necessary for success.

Other means of locking in resources may include contracts with suppliers and with authorities or patents. The main theme is to block competitors from resources they need for success.

</comment><comment><USER5>
      First Mover: 47% failure rate
      Fast Follower: 8% failure rate

This last statistic is a bit misleading. It implies that you can increase your chances of success by waiting until someone else enters the market. But it fails to account for those who declined to follow because the incumbent market leader held such a strong position.

To put it another way: followers only follow if they have some reason to believe they'll succeed. So yeah, they still do well. It does not lead to the conclusion that you should avoid being first.

</comment><comment><USER6> Pioneers always design armour where there _weren't_ arrows before?

<comment><USER7> Lol. That is all.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Case in point for this would be Wesabe. Interesting recent article and discussion here <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1746832>

</comment><comment><USER9> Speaking of fast followers, I've just started reading this book last week titled 'Copycats' by Oded Shenkar <http://amzn.to/cG7vm3> \- which basically talks about using imitation slash innovation as one of available tools in your repertoire. Read up to chapter 2 but so far I like it and recommend it, on the topic of fast followers.

</comment><comment><USER10> Not to argue the point that Google won in the PPC arena, but it's a little disingenuous to compare Google's current market cap with Overture's sale price in 2003.

</comment><comment><USER11> Statistics on how many startups fail because of X is dubious. Who's to say whether doing the opposite of X would improve any businesses chance at succeeding. Even a large margin of small businesses fail in the first 3-4 years.

Are the slow starters more successful? Do THEY get as big as the "get big fast" companies? Don't just shake the fail stick because you can do it in either direction.

<comment><USER12> > Who's to say whether doing the opposite of X would improve any businesses > chance at succeeding.

Well, if you read the article, you'll see that is dealt with explicitly. 47% of pioneers failed, according to the cited study, as opposed to 8% of fast followers.

> Are the slow starters more successful? Do THEY get as big as the "get big > fast" companies?

The example of Ford vs GM would indicate that they can; or at least that there's no advantage in being first.

> Don't just shake the fail stick because you can do it in either direction.

Only if you can come up with numbers to refute the study, or a better argument than "I don't believe this is measurable" to render it null. Otherwise you're just waving a twig in the air.</comment></comment>