Authorities say Hobby Lobby's Gilgamesh tablet is stolen, must go back to Iraq - <AUTHOR> https://www.npr.org/2020/05/19/858605788/u-s-authorities-say-hobby-lobbys-gilgamesh-tablet-is-stolen-must-go-back-to-iraq <comment><USER2> One of the outcomes of the US-Iraq war was Iraq's national heritage of antiquities getting plundered and sold illegally.[1]

The burning of the Library of Alexandria is a potent symbol in Western culture, but the world has repeatedly suffered massive losses of cultural and historical artifacts in the last few decades. The public quickly develops historical amnesia for recent events. Compare, for example, the loss of Brazil's National Museum to a fire two years ago.[2]

[1] [https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/03/ir...](https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/03/iraq- war-archeology-invasion/555200/)

[2] [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/sep/03/fire- engulfs-b...](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/sep/03/fire-engulfs- brazil-national-museum-rio)

edited: clarity and link formatting

<comment><USER3> Given the region's susceptibility to Islamic State uprisings, I'm not convinced Iraq and Syria are going to be good stewards of antiquities in the long-run. [1][2] These areas haven't been stable for decades.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_cultural_herita...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_cultural_heritage_by_ISIL)

[2] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_Mosul_Museum_ar...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_Mosul_Museum_artifacts)

<comment><USER4> Well, one of these artifacts looks to have been in that region of the world for over 5000 years. That's a pretty good track record.

I'm sure the citizens of Philly wouldn't be susceptible to any arguments that Baghdad would be a better place to store the Liberty Bell.

<comment><USER5> That's not a very good argument. ISIS has destroyed a lot of artefacts and antique ruins. The track record, even recent, is actually pretty bad.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> > Hobby Lobby bought the tablet in a private sale, after a Hobby Lobby > representative viewed the tablet in London. The auction house shipped the > tablet to its New York office and, from there, hand-carried it to Hobby > Lobby's headquarters in Oklahoma City, "so that Hobby Lobby could avoid > incurring a New York sales tax," according to prosecutors.

Oy vey. I don't know how serious this is but it's not a great look. Is this kind of thing common in the art world?

I find old clay tablets, and ancient writings in general, absolutely fascinating - particularly the randomness of the information that we can get from them. The oldest person whose name we know is from a signature on a receipt for some oil or some other merchandise.[1] It's slightly incredible when you realize that you have no idea who the ruler at the time was, or what he (or she did) but you can pinpoint precisely which goods exchanged hands on a specific date.

1\. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kushim_(individual)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kushim_\(individual\))

<comment><USER7> > Is this kind of thing [tax evasion] common in the art world?

Oh yes, it seems so common that it's more or less openly advertised:

[https://www.wealthmanagement.com/art-auctions-antiques- repor...](https://www.wealthmanagement.com/art-auctions-antiques- report/freeports-art-world)

And art collectors are not infrequently involved in shady schemes:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urs_Schwarzenbach#VAT_fraud_an...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urs_Schwarzenbach#VAT_fraud_and_art_trafficking_with_Galerie_Gmurzynska)

<comment><USER8> I wonder if this is actually tax evasion. I think the idea behind this was to avoid a taxable event from taking place, not to lie in order to avoid paying taxes they legally had to. It's analogous to me driving out of my way to avoid going over a toll bridge, vs. (for example) covering up my license plate to avoid being caught by the toll cameras.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> NYTimes:

"In a lawsuit filed on Tuesday, Hobby Lobby accused the auction house Christie's of "deceitful and fraudulent conduct" in connection with an ancient tablet bearing a fragment of Gilgamesh. The suit claims "fraud and breach of express and implied warrant" in connection with the tablet, and seeks the return of what it paid for the tablet. In a statement on Tuesday, Christie's said the lawsuit was related to an unidentified dealer's admission of illegal activity "predating Christie's involvement" with the tablet."

Interesting how few are interested in the defense that Hobby Lobby was a victim.

<comment><USER10> >Interesting how few are interested in the defense that Hobby Lobby was a victim.

They weren't. With this tablet, maybe they never had any solid reason to suspect it had been looted. This wasn't the only artifact they bought, other items had no documentation detailing their history and they made purchases after being warned that items were likely illegal. It's doubtful they tried very hard to verify this tablets history given their record.

There are other criminals involved, but Hobby Lobby was not a victim.

<comment><USER11> Why are such auctions even allowed? Or was this an illegal auction? It seems to me that any respectable auction house has an obligation to ensure that their service is not abused to fence stolen goods.

<comment><USER10> It wasn't auctioned as the owner said the provenance would not pass public scrutiny, but instead listed for private sale. I have no clue how the legality of that works in Britain, but Christies exists to allow rich people to show off who is richer. I wouldn't trust their moral character.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> This is a related and surprisingly fascinating article about the cast of characters involved in many of the missteps of the Green Collection (which became the Museum of the Bible):

[https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/06/museum-...](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/06/museum- of-the-bible-obbink-gospel-of-mark/610576/)

</comment><comment><USER13> > "Whenever looted cultural property is found in this country, the United > States government will do all it can to preserve heritage by returning such > artifacts where they belong,"

How does this tablet differ from any other artifact in a museum? Couldn't it be argued that any ancient artifact from another culture is stolen?

<comment><USER14> Many historical artifacts were obtained under conditions we would not repeat today. You _could_ argue that almost all artifacts of other cultures in western museums are stolen, but not everyone goes that far.

The British Museum is embroiled in many such controversies[1] and has put up statements around their Parthenon sculptures[2]. Large artifacts have been returned by nation states[3].

Generally, as I understand it, museums will keep artifacts they obtained under a framework that was legal at the time of its construction. Modern critics point out that these legal frameworks likely would not have been accepted by the population of the country giving up the artifact.

The Hobby Lobby artifacts do not even have a questionable legal framework as a fig leaf over their theft. They were taken in violation of international law as well as Iraqi and US law.

[1] [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/nov/04/british- museum...](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/nov/04/british-museum-is- worlds-largest-receiver-of-stolen-goods-says-qc)

[2] [https://www.britishmuseum.org/parthenon-sculptures- trustees-...](https://www.britishmuseum.org/parthenon-sculptures-trustees- statement)

[3] [https://whc.unesco.org/en/news/116](https://whc.unesco.org/en/news/116)

<comment><USER15> The British Museum was disappointing to me. I don't know what they're doing with the space, but if someone had told me that the British Museum was the same size as the Art Institute of Chicago it would have turned into an argument.

Meanwhile the Louvre is so big (>2.5x the size) that you have to pace yourself.

But that's not what was really disappointing. I had a vague comprehension that the British Museum contained artifacts that other countries wanted repatriated, and then I walked in and I knew. I knew exactly what they were talking about.

It didn't feel like a museum. It felt like I had wandered into a pirates treasure cave. Other museums have works that were purchased through channels, or loaned out. They have cultural artifacts and archaeological pieces that are contemporary to the region, offering vignettes into history, how we got to be here today.

I was just looking at colonial plunder. In an era where sane people would be scrambling to define themselves any other way.

<comment><USER16> > The British Museum was disappointing to me. I don't know what they're doing > with the space, but if someone had told me that the British Museum was the > same size as the Art Institute of Chicago it would have turned into an > argument. Meanwhile the Louvre is so big (>2.5x the size) that you have to > pace yourself.

Whaat! I visited the British museum for the first time a couple years ago. I spent two whole days there and still didn't see everything I wanted to!

> But that's not what was really disappointing. I had a vague comprehension > that the British Museum contained artifacts that other countries wanted > repatriated, and then I walked in and I knew. I knew exactly what they were > talking about. It didn't feel like a museum. It felt like I had wandered > into a pirates treasure cave.

However this, I get. I can definitely see that point of view dampening your experience.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> The tablet is real? A bunch of the Hobby Lobby / Museum of the Bible scrolls turned out to be fake.

[https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/dead- sea-s...](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/dead-sea-scrolls- face-museum-of-the-bible-washington-artefacts-a8596636.html)

"Hobby Lobby said that it was new to the world of antiquities when it began acquiring historical items for its Museum of the Bible in 2009 and made mistakes in relying on dealers and shippers who "did not understand the correct way to document and ship" them."

</comment><comment><USER18> Auction houses have some very shady practices sometimes, and I imagine it's very difficult for buyers to navigate what is legal and what's not - but also in this case, it kind of seems like maybe they should have known.

<comment><USER19> They knew. Their own expert lawyer warned them in 2010. It's also their MO apparently. A second case involves Egyptian papyri. They also mis-declare things to get them into the country (ie calling them "tiles" in customs declarations). So, lying and stealing.

1\. [https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/05/nyregion/hobby-lobby- arti...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/05/nyregion/hobby-lobby-artifacts- smuggle-iraq.html)

2\. [https://www.thedailybeast.com/hobby-lobby-scandal-widens- as-...](https://www.thedailybeast.com/hobby-lobby-scandal-widens-as-museum-of- the-bible-admits-oxford-prof-sold-illicit-papyri-to-green-family)

3\. [https://www.theguardian.com/news/2020/jan/09/a-scandal-in- ox...](https://www.theguardian.com/news/2020/jan/09/a-scandal-in-oxford-the- curious-case-of-the-stolen-gospel)

<comment><USER20> The comical part is that their very interest in the items is based in a religion that's nominally very opposed to lying and stealing. Fetishizing artifacts is apparently more important to their faith than doing what's right.

<comment><USER21> Opposed to lying, stealing, and worshiping artifacts, no less.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> what a bizarre timeline we live in

(edit: to be clear what I mean is that it's extremely bizarre that a discount tchochke store in the US would own an extremely precious Mesopotamian artifact in the first place, not bizarre that justice is actually being done about it)

<comment><USER23> It's not that weird. The founder of Hobby Lobby is an evangelical Christian, among other things.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Green_(entrepreneur)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Green_\(entrepreneur\))

<comment><USER22> tbh that guy's whole deal only makes it weirder

<comment><USER24> I have to think it's because the Epic of Gilgamesh has a flood in it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> take that, L. Bob Rife.

(the similarities between hobby lobby stealing tablets and religiously motivated tech magnates doing the same in a certain cyberpunk book of wide repute are, as usual, a bit eerie)

<comment><USER26> Maybe the downvoted are for lack of on topic and substantive response, but I really appreciated the Snow Crash reference. I thought it was funny.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> "The United States of America v. Approximately Four Hundred Fifty (450) Ancient Cuneiform Tablets" \- [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobby_Lobby_smuggling_scandal](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobby_Lobby_smuggling_scandal)

<comment><USER28> One of my favorite random Wikipedia finds:

"United States v. Approximately 64,695 Pounds of Shark Fins" [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Approximately...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Approximately_64,695_Pounds_of_Shark_Fins)

In rem cases have fun titles in general. :D

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> How is this any different than basically everything in the British Museum?

</comment><comment><USER30> Here are some more similar cases: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archimedes_Palimpsest](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archimedes_Palimpsest) and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elgin_Marbles](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elgin_Marbles)

</comment><comment><USER31> >"Whenever looted cultural property is found in this country, the United States government will do all it can to preserve heritage by returning such artifacts where they belong"

So what is the definition of "looted" here? Museums are full of things that fit various definitions of that word.

<comment><USER32> There are a few clear lines you can draw.

Many institutions built their collections through a practice known as partage or division of finds. They would go to a government and offer their services as archeologists in exchange for a portion of their finds. While this practice is rare post-1970, there's not any serious debate about the legitimacy of cultural heritage exported under this regime.

Purchases from the antiquities markets are also considered legitimate, assuming the export was originally done with the permission of the originating country.

Where things really get questionable is when material culture was extracted by imperial power or as spoils of war. The Rosetta Stone is the most famous example. Also, you've got things like the Elgin Marbles that were taken through fraud and subterfuge a long time ago. These kinds of things are grandfathered in as a legal matter, but there's a moral argument for returning them anyway.

<comment><USER33> Does this line of thought apply to land as well?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> I'm amazed that "[...] fragment of the oldest known creation tale" is only worth $1.6 million. What is even more amazing is its (recent) history:

> The U.S. dealer bought several pieces, including the Gilgamesh tablet, for > $50,350.

<comment><USER10> Every time that the fragment was sold their were at least concerns that it was stolen, which likely drove down the price.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> While we are at it. The United Kingdom should return all the artifacts it stole from Egypt.

</comment><comment><USER36> Aren't most museum pieces in the west pilfered? I say we send it all back.

</comment><comment><USER37> Hopefully Germany will do the same with the Bust of Nefertiti.

</comment><comment><USER38> weren't a lot of the remaining artifacts just getting destroyed recently anyway?

</comment><comment><USER39> Kind of sad all around. The table was essentially rescued from ignominy. But of course it belongs to Iraq. Then it'll probably just disappear again. Sigh.

<comment><USER40> > _Then it 'll probably just disappear again. Sigh._

What are you basing that on?

<comment><USER39> Oh is Iraq's government stable again? Are the people not at risk of hunger? Will the sanctity of museums be observed now and in the future, uninterrupted?

The Elgin marbles are safe in the British Museum. Would they have been safe, left where they were found, for 100 years?

Being PC about antiquities is intellectually interesting. But practically, it means many antiquities will be broken up, lost or hidden.

<comment><USER41> The Government was stable, until the US of A decided to bless them with freedom and democracy.

Your logic is absurd. Should a rich and stable nation steal all things of historical value from a poorer nation, in the name of history preservation?

> The Elgin marbles are safe in the British Museum. Would they have been safe, > left where they were found, for 100 years?

It frankly doesn't matter. It was the right of the native people to decide what to do with them.

<comment><USER39> Right, that's the PC line. Rational and reasonable. Sadly, likely to result in more lost antiquities.

None of that argument actually addresses the safety of the artifacts, which is my single point I'm making here.

Argue all we like about what 'should' be. The reality is, they were lost once and could be lost again. All in support of the 'native people', who in these cases would include hungry looters.

<comment><USER41> The "hungry" looters getting food by selling them is a much better outcome then the rich "gentleman" taking pleasure by seeing them in a museum. Just because one won the genetic lottery by being born in a richer nation doesn't mean their entertainment has more value than the food of "hungry" looters, who too are human beings.

<comment><USER39> So its ok if local thieves and looters take the treasures with no thought of their preservation or provenance? But a methodical effort of record-keeping and analysis is wrong, simply because of the thieves nationality? That's what I mean by 'PC'. One results in the loss forever of the treasure; the other at least preserves them.

One is 'better' than the other, only from a comfortable armchair far from the turmoil.

<comment><USER42> > So its ok if local thieves and looters take the treasures with no thought of > their preservation or provenance?

No. But two wrongs don't make a right.

> a methodical effort of record-keeping and analysis is wrong, simply because > of the thieves nationality?

When the thieves illegally steal a nation's artifacts and illegally sell them to a private buyer? Yes.

> One is 'better' than the other, only from a comfortable armchair far from > the turmoil.

... he said, from a comfortable armchair far from the turmoil.

<comment><USER39> Not fair! I'm not suggesting a course of action, or passing judgement on the right solution; that is squarly with responders here. I simply observe, the 'right' action will likely result in the destruction/loss of more antiquities. Which is amply supportable by history, recent and ancient.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> It's just going to go back there and be stolen again, so what's the point? At least where it is now it is protected and on display to the public.

</comment><comment><USER44> This NPR, source we should trust. It carefully avoids to say that tablet was stollen from Iraq during US invasion. Whole museums and collections were stollen during that time by advancing US soldiers and "contractors".

I highly doubt HobbyLobby owners didn't know origin of this tablet.

<comment><USER45> Since the article claims the tablet was in London "in or before 2001" it couldn't have been looted during the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> This sounds like the beginning of a horror movie you'd find on Lifetime or Hallmark, but where the ancient Mesopotamian evil accepts Christ and sits down for tea and cakes with the children like in Narnia.

<comment><USER47> "Ned Flanders comes into possession of an ancient evil stone tablet and makes Homer do his bidding"

<comment><USER46> Or maybe JHU, given their financial exigency of late?

[http://washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/heavily-in-debt- ne...](http://washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/heavily-in-debt-newseum- considered-risky-strategy-to-improve- finances/2015/07/01/b5e94286-19e7-11e5-bd7f-4611a60dd8e5_story.html%3FoutputType%3Dcomment%26commentID%3Dwashingtonpost.com/ECHO/item/8a001840-11a1-4ecd-9d6c-f7797ebd39b6)</comment></comment></comment>


Watchdog: FEMA wrongly released personal data of victims - <AUTHOR> https://apnews.com/4a6e02072d544db4a658e3f1718e3a49 <comment><USER2> Its going to take at least 8 months, up to 20 months, to stop sending bank records to contractors? Can't they just... Not send the specific info they aren't supposed to? What's going to take until 2020 to implement?

What is this world coming to lmao</comment>


A serial entrepreneur wants his portable MRI to transform medicine - <AUTHOR> https://www.statnews.com/2019/10/25/smaller-lighter-cheaper-a-serial-entrepreneur-wants-his-portable-mri-to-transform-medicine/ <comment><USER2> The frequency at which an MRI works is directly proportional to the strength of magnetic field,all the way down to that of the earth's magnetic field. The downside is that sampling time is inversely proportional to frequency... which makes getting high resolution at low fields impractical. Seems like he's made some trade-offs and likely some better signal processing to help make up for the lower field.</comment>


Do most peole have more than 1 browser installed? - <AUTHOR> http://www.knowledgenotebook.com:8600/knDEMO/yourBrowser.cfm Do most of the web users in the states have more than 1 browser installed with his/her computer? Reasonably accurate info would help any web app developer... <comment><USER2> Not even an "Other" option?</comment>


24 executives who are exceptional at chess - <AUTHOR> https://en.chessbase.com/post/busine-insider-24-executives-who-are-exceptional-at-che <comment><USER2> Demis Hassabis (CEO of deepmind) is a notable exclusion from this list.

He was ranked only behind Judith Polgar at age 13 with a 2300 rating.

</comment><comment><USER3> Weinstein is famous for this I think, and is mentioned in "The Quants".

Didn't know Thiel was so exceptional at the game.

Surprised to not see anyone from Two Sigma given their support for chess.

Also SIG strikes me as a place known for recruting M:tG players

<comment><AUTHOR> Actually, Peter Thiel uses a lot of analogies with the game when discussing business strategy

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> If they include traders, how about Luke McShane? Claimed to be the world's strongest amateur (FIDE 2643) he's a city trader who used to be at Goldman.</comment>


Why we need to reinvent healthcare with technology - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2011-10/13/massive-health

<comment><USER2> _Mine says 101. What the hell does that mean? It doesn't even tell you whether that number is good or not._

Saying that to a diabetic would be like asking you: The thermometer says 98.6 F is that good or bad?

I don't mean to write this guy off altogether, his heart is in the right place, his statement about _"products for people's health that they love to use?"_ I guess is on the right track but only because it is so vague.

I work in medical technology, I have a next generation device sitting on my desk right now. But you know what? When I go to work tomorrow I'm not going to worry about the diabetic too fucking stupid to not even have a passing knowledge of what their blood glucose level means. Better UI isn't going to get the Tracy Morgans of the world to get off their asses and give a shit about their condition. If a doctor telling you the ramifications of your condition doesn't get you to care, it doesn't matter that the UI sucks, because you're not managing your condition anyway.

 _We are always trying to solve the wrong problem," he said. "How can we make products for people's health that they love to use?_

Yes, products people like will help, and I am glad to watch when those devices hit the market. However, you think the industry is focusing on the wrong problem? We have patients so poor they resort to boiling used catheters and this guy has the balls to worry about if the high tech devices are love-able? That just pisses me off. The first problem is and always will be access. Is that how consumerist our country is now? Basic knowledge can go out the door because people can't even be arsed to stay alive unless things are love-able? I don't care, we have bigger fish to fry, there are many orders of magnitude more people without access than people squandering access.

I know there is that line of bullshit that a more attractive product will sell more units and mean more capital for whatever else; but these aren't consumer products you choose to buy, you get sick and then have to buy it. There is going to be better overall ROI for both the medical companies and the healthcare consumer by getting substantial healthcare improvements out the door.

Edit: "Siri, my friend is having a spasm on the floor as his throat closes up, he is pointing to something labled EpiPen. My heavens, what do I do?!?!"

</comment><comment><USER3> >Likewise, he explained that around 22 percent of people don't complete their course of antibiotics, which helps to creates bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics. "You have to change the way you deliver medicine."

When you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail. The thing is technology isn't going to help these 22% of people. Self responsibility and a little education would help.

<comment><USER4> > Self responsibility . . . would help.

The point of a lot of great tech is to help humans where they're weak. People in general are not very responsible nor do they remember well: That's why we have schools and calendars.

<comment><USER3> I don't the technology itself can do much about human weakness.

<comment><USER5> That's the _whole point_ of technology - we use our knowledge to augment ourselves and fix our weaknesses.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Healthcare is insanity much like education because the current institutions assume everyone is identical. Simply using more tech isn't the cure. There's an almost a paranoia about using resources inequally, when choosing properly can yield huge benefits. That said, tech can certainly improve things! My favorite healthcare insanity and a glimpse into what can be done story:

[http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/01/24/110124fa_fact_...](http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/01/24/110124fa_fact_gawande?currentPage=all)

</comment><comment><USER7> In a slightly different sub-topic , i'd like to bring this up again :

[http://www.ted.com/talks/jamie_heywood_the_big_idea_my_broth...](http://www.ted.com/talks/jamie_heywood_the_big_idea_my_brother_inspired.html)

Social webapp for complex diseases, helps patients communicate and share data/insight. Great inspiration.

</comment><comment><USER8> 10 Healthcare is expensive

20 Technology is good

30 So we use technology to make health care cheap

40 We announce massive NHS-IT project

50 We spend $20Bn

60 We discover project totally useless and abandon it

70 goto 10

<comment><USER9> Pretty much sums it up.

(for non-Brit HNers not aware of the NHS-IT project reference, the not-so- thrift previous Government launched various IT projects to 'improve' the NHS, such as <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15014288> which cost £11bn, took 9+ years and was a big failure overall... mind you, they did create IT projects since they thought they sounded 'sexy' - <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk- politics-12905303> \- so I guess it's little wonder the main NHS-IT project failed)

<comment><USER7> Wasn't the problem tied to politics and national scale reforms (1) more than absolute improvement room in the healthcare systems ? Maybe smaller/more innovative attempts could succeed; things like non invasive surgery, new or cheaper ways of monitoring (earlier response is often best)

at one point, all people want to be healthy, they just don't have tools to do it.

(1): I just skimmed lightly through both links btw.</comment></comment></comment>


Tell HN: The "sexism in IT" bit is getting old - <AUTHOR>

The bitching and moaning about sexism in IT needs to stop. Men are a little smarter than women on average, and the male IQ distribution has a higher SD. Men and women also have divergent interests, across all cultures and societies of all time periods. In a society completely free of sexism of any kind, IT would still be 80%+ male.<p>By the way, white American women are the most privileged group of people to ever exist. The amount of time that they spend complaining is absolutely staggering. <comment><USER3> You mean men test better on average? And male variance in test scores (even in math) is higher in most countries, not all. See sources 40-43 here <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_and_psychology#IQ> And involvement in tech is not lopsided in every country -- look at Malaysia. <http://iae- pedia.org/Women_and_ICT#Women_in_IT_in_Malaysia> Please don't spew non-science as science, or please cite your sources if they're credible.

Further, American white men are probably the most privileged group, just look at salaries, Fortune 500 CEOs, government positions, self-reported happiness, or sexual assault statistics. Occasional free drinks for women at bars does not make women a privileged group.

</comment><comment><USER4> > Men are a little smarter than women on average, and the male IQ distribution > has a higher SD

No. The higher SD means that men's IQs are spread over a bigger range - <USER2> are more brilliant men than women, and also more moronic men than women. Average it out and it's the same.

<comment><AUTHOR> > Average it out and it's the same.

Nope. It appears that way if you test people under the age of 25, because women reach maturity much earlier than men do. If you only test people who are at least 25, the male average is 3-5 points higher than the female average.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Yes. :) I think we can all agree that none of us are really sexist, at least in the vast majority of cases. Believing that men and women are different is not sexism - men and women are different. As soon as more women enter CS, more will be in IT. If not, they simply are mostly not interested at this point in time and there is nothing wrong with that. No one is holding anyone back.

</comment><comment><USER6> So why start another topic to discuss it? Seems contradictory to me.

</comment><comment><USER7> You know what is old? Sexism.

When people in IT stop being sexist, we'll stop talking about it.

</comment><comment><USER8> Awesome troll, dude. What's wrong with being 'sexy'?</comment>


Wait, is Facebook using their app to listen in on your conversations? - <AUTHOR> http://nbc4i.com/2016/05/24/spying-secrets-is-facebook-eavesdropping-on-your-phone-conversations/ <comment><USER2> Since you've broken HN's submission guidelines egregiously more than once today ([https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11766548](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11766548)), we've taken story submission privileges away from your account. If you want them restored, you're welcome to email email@example.com.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm a bit confused. Currently trending #9 on the front page is: "Is Facebook eavesdropping on phone conversations? (news10.com)" >> basically same article. Seems as if the language is approximately the same. I don't expect an answer here (I don't think that you can see my responses)... but I am posting my question for posterity.

<comment><USER2> We buried your submission because you broke the rules so badly. Another account reposted it using the article's original title. Since they didn't break the rules, that's fine.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> This seems too creepy to be true.

<comment><USER4> Why?

[http://www.engadget.com/2016/03/22/silverpush-claims-no- us-p...](http://www.engadget.com/2016/03/22/silverpush-claims-no-us- partnerships/)</comment></comment>


WePay and DailyBooth Hackathon - <AUTHOR> http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=138815859500979

<comment><USER2> For those of you who dont have FB or dont want to login:

Time Saturday, November 13 at 12:00pm - November 14 at 12:00pm Location WePay HQ 455 Portage Ave Ste B Palo Alto, CA Created By Sophie Monroe, Bill Clerico More Info Join us for our first ever 24 hour hackathon!

WePay founders will be holding a start up workshop for tips on how to start your own company. Rasmus Lerdorf will be available to help you with the WePay API as well as any of your PHP questions.

It's going to be 24 hours full of hacking, food, music and awesome prizes in the awesome new WePay HQ (we have an Oasis, no big deal.) What more could you ask for?

We'll have an IRC channel setup, and maybe some sort of video stream, if you'd like to participate remotely. Stay tuned.

See you there!

</comment><comment><USER3> Asks me to login to facebook... Um no.

<comment><USER4> Why not?

<comment><USER3> All I have is a four word title... I don't really have an incentive to login to facebook.

Plus sometimes it's really inconvenient on a mobile device.

Better: link to web page, Twitter, or blog post.

Best: link to above and title "WePay and DailyBooth Hackathon - Nov. 13 - 14"

<comment><USER5> whiney?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> We've been working with the WePay API, integrating it into Scoreyard, for the past few weeks. I can't make the in person event, but can be available on IRC / Email / Skype for a good portion of the hackathon to provide some Rails support.

I'd be interested in a Justin.TV stream of the workshop presentations too.</comment>


Ask HN: How to find mentors? - <AUTHOR> I've been looking for a mentor outside my company in areas of Computer Science I'm interested in. What's are some ways you can find a mentor? <comment><USER2> Some ideas:

You can find a new, more relevant job.

Peers with varied background and skills are often just as useful as mentors. Some places to look:

1\. There are Slack communities, mailing lists, and possibly even subreddits and IRC channels that have decent, supportive people. Varies a lot by size and culture, but sometimes you can find a group of people who will provide advice. Here's a list of Slacks: [http://www.slacklist.info/](http://www.slacklist.info/)

2\. If there isn't one that's relevant to you, start a Slack for e.g. former coworkers. It seems like Slacks work best if started by people who know each other, but worst case you can also try starting your own that is topic-based.

3\. Become a contributor to a relevant open source project, ideally one with a code review process.

If you can't find a mentor, here's some more suggestions: [https://codewithoutrules.com/2017/04/17/learning-without- a-m...](https://codewithoutrules.com/2017/04/17/learning-without-a-mentor/)

</comment><comment><USER3> I'm currently mentoring a college student (I've been in the workforce for 5 years) and one of the issues I have is that I don't know what the mentee really wants / needs. So i'd recommend you figure out what information you want from a mentor, then hit up the social networks to find someone who can provide the information you want. Then once you establish a baseline, you create a two way street of value.

</comment><comment><USER4> Those who want to mentor are usually very up for it. Myself, I love sharing what I've learned over the years and I'm not afraid to let people know that. I usually end up helping people through work and I'm currently helping youths through a municipal project where I meet a lot of computer interested kids.

Here we have IT meet-ups, where we discuss certain topics. These don't happen often enough, in my opinion, and I'm looking for more like this. This is great for meeting like minded people and maybe your mentor will be among them. If something like this don't exist near you, I would recommend trying to get something like this going.

Of course, you can find communities online as well. I feel it's harder to find interesting people to cling on to online because it takes a certain type of person to sit down and actually explain stuff through text and they usually rub me the wrong way.

</comment><comment><USER5> While I know it is not the answer you are looking for, I would say you can't – they find you.

This is just my experience. I put a lot of stock in the importance of having a "mentor" early in my career. And I lamented the lack of being able to find one.

I eventually changed gears – different job in a different field – and found someone I consider to be a mentor. The most interesting part is that instead of this person being someone I want to be exactly like or even someone that I share a great deal in common with, I just find myself trying to do what I think they would do in situations I am faced with. It's the way they handle themselves, communicate with others, make decisions, etc.

So I would just say be involved in as many things as possible and be open- minded. Ideally you will share a lot in common and be in the same field. But I don't think that has to be the case.

</comment><comment><USER6> People just love to give advice, however you ask you will find.

I actively searched: friends of friends, networking groups, customers, government funding schemes (via Business Link in UK), paid people but I don't feel I ever found somebody I would class as a mentor. I took value from all these people but they were never somebody whom I relied on beyond a couple of get-togethers.

I still think it is very much worth searching. If you can find somebody who is a great fit for you it can transform your perspective, I have seen this happen to others.

</comment><comment><USER7> I like to meet with people for coffee, so messaging people you look up to (try linkedin) is always a good idea. Ask if you can meet for coffee to get to know them, and over time, a mentoring relationship _might_ develop. As some other people have said, you can't force a mentoring relationship, they form naturally.</comment>


Ask HN: Is there a site for data scraping/retrieval and cleaning gigs online? - <AUTHOR> Not Craigslist <comment><USER2> You could make one</comment>


Abusing IP: the story behind one studio's Portal 2 ARG adventure - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2011/04/abusing-ip-the-story-behind-one-studios-portal-2-arg-adventure.ars

<comment><USER2> ARGs and similar types of viral marketing can be a novel way to engage customers into your brand, but at the same time you run the risk of it leaving a worse impression of your brand if at the end they feel it was a waste of time and nothing more than a roundabout way to say "Be sure to drink your Ovaltine".

People immediately cried foul citing contractual agreements with retailers not to break the street date and thus saying that Valve cannot release no earlier than midnight on original launch date, and once users had data about the fill rate of the progress bars, it was calculated that at best a 6am Tuesday release would be shorted by a few hours. It felt like an unwinnable situation to those in the know.

While Valve is a company known for experimenting on its customer base, and everyone that complained still bought the game anyway, it does seem a bit cruel to lead your fanbase on a wild goose chase that ended in essentially a ransom to release the game. In the end it boiled down to "Pay us $X or else you'll have to wait to play the game you've already paid for, oh, and you'll still have to wait 90% of the time anyway."

<comment><USER3> I remember when the first couple games were 'complete' and I said to my friend '2 games are done and they've only shaved over 1.5 hours. Seriously? Why bother?'

I didn't have the Steam version pre-ordered (I ordered the PS3 one, which had a code for the Steam one in it for free) so I didn't have any stake in the matter, but if I had, and I had bought the Potato Pack, I'd have been a little upset at them.

But then, I remember thinking that about almost every ARG I've ever seen. When you try to mix reality with a game, you almost always end up with a very thin game with very thin rewards. You rarely get more out of it than just enjoying the ARG itself, even though they present it as a chance to get something better.

In short, I think the expectations were set wrong. Had they presented it merely as an ARG with no 'reward' at the end, I'd be less disappointed with it.</comment></comment>


Warner Brothers reports own site as illegal - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-37275603 <comment><USER2> > "After reviewing the Warner Brothers report, Google decided not to remove > links to Amazon, IMDB and Sky Cinema from its results."

I took that to mean, by omission, that Google went ahead and removed warnerbros.com from its results. That would have been a great way for Google to hint that indiscriminate takedown requests are bad.

But searching for "batman the dark knight", as described in the article, still does bring up the Warner Bros site. Ah well.

<comment><USER3> Exactly

Google should have not sanitized that list.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> tldr: "Film studio Warner Brothers has asked Google to remove its own website from search results, saying it violates copyright laws."

<comment><USER4> I wonder how much Vobile charges Warner Bros to provide them with this service. How incompetent.

<comment><USER5> We can only hope this will lead to a 'contract review', and that a few other companies using these services follow suit...</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Is it illegal to hit a public API from my native app? - <AUTHOR> Hi have an app the uses a un-protected public API. The API owners do not like me using it.
My servers never hit these APIs. The calls go straight from the APP.
My users are made to acknowledge the fact that this is happening. The app is free.
I know, I have to get legal advice. Has anyone faced a situation like this? <comment><USER2> > The API owners do not like me using it.

If the API owner gained knowledge and warned you they could now claim damages in a civil lawsuit. You're an enabler. You're trying to defer the obligation to your users while ignoring the easier approach to disable the feature. It's tricky with open source software since anybody could have a copy and continue, or use an old version. A court (more likely lawyers sending letters to each other) would question if you did everything in your power to stop the API access.

> anyone faced a situation like this?

As API owner multiple times. App is for, let's say, taxi drivers. Each user is expected to create a free account and does some small usage. Taken together it would not be covered by a free account. The app developer charges money and instead of creating a paid account with us tells all users to have free accounts. We don't sue but we have deleted accounts and added IP blocks over this.

From what I've seen one approach is not to ask users to acknowledge, that's a click of a button I assume. It needs to be more actively. Like a field the user has to fill out with a URL, a plugin that needs to be installed separately or a small piece of code that needs to be written (if it's a software library). Then you can claim the user is in control and chose to use that API.

<comment><AUTHOR> "It needs to be more actively. Like a field the user has to fill out with a URL" \- I like that.

Can I tell them what to fill? Also once they fill it, can I cache it?

<comment><USER2> Storing the user's preference should be fine.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Dont be surprised when you can no longer access or they want you to pay. I'd rather not have to depend on 3rd party for my app. My $0.02.

</comment><comment><USER4> It really depends. Are there term & conditions on the API access?

<comment><AUTHOR> That's the thing. It is not an API, I happened to figure it out digging around the Network Tab.

Their product has Terms and Conditions. Like no reselling of data etc.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Even if it's not illegal, basing your application on an API you can't control and may lose access to if the owner cuts you off or decides to charge you for access, is a bad idea.

<comment><AUTHOR> Chances are, by that time I will have a decent user-base. I will build out the API myself at that point.</comment></comment>


Finding Fuboy: unmasking an internet troll - <AUTHOR> http://www.theverge.com/2015/11/23/9772824/commenter-defamation-lawsuit-identity-revealed <comment><USER2> Kind of surprising the initial lawsuit to get the IP address didn't drag on long enough to cause the ISP to delete the records due to age, which seems to be a common issue with more complicated cases.

</comment><comment><USER3> > _Who else would know Hadley lived across from the local school?_

Pretty much anyone on the planet who knows the address and can use Google Streetview.

</comment><comment><USER4> [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10628400](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10628400)

<comment><AUTHOR> Odd, it didn't add an upvote to the previous submission (that's the usual behaviour when I submit a duplicate).

Still, it didn't get any discussion, and it's interesting for the privacy implications.

<comment><USER2> > _(that 's the usual behaviour when I submit a duplicate)._

That was changed recently, specifically to allow resubmission of posts that didn't get attention. Announcement here: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10223645](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10223645)

<comment><AUTHOR> I'd missed that announcement, thanks :)</comment></comment></comment></comment>


You Can't Multitask - <AUTHOR> http://www.azarask.in/blog/post/you-cant-multitask/ <comment><USER2> I find it interesting how some wise teacher told me to do one thing at a time and to put all of my effort, all my focus and all my skill into this single action, no matter how insignificant it might be and then my performance will be great -- and now, this post says the same (in other words)</comment>


Twitter to move away from Hashbangs - <AUTHOR> http://storify.com/timhaines/hashbang-conversation

<comment><USER2> This is fantastic news.

From the recent tweets by <https://twitter.com/danwrong> it looks like Twitter are moving entirely to HTML5 pushState, and leaving IE users with full page refreshes rather than continuing to serve them #! - Dan says "I'm not sure why everyone is so adverse to page refreshes these days. You can make them fast too."

Of course, Twitter are going to have to include a piece of JavaScript on the <http://twitter.com/> homepage which checks for a #! and redirects the user to the corresponding page - and they'll have to keep that JavaScript there forever, since they have nearly two years worth of links that they need to avoid breaking. One of the many reasons #! is such a nasty hack.

In terms of performance, this is going to make Twitter a lot /faster/ for me - I often open Twitter profile pages in new windows (due to working on Lanyrd) and each new window has to pull in and execute a HUGE chunk of JavaScript before it will display the page. Being able to just load a regular HTML page will be much faster for me.

<comment><USER3> can't they just do a one-line .htaccess regex replace? or is it more complicated than that?

<comment><USER2> Nope, because anything after the # isn't included in the HTTP GET request made to the server - so a .htaccess-level redirection won't see it. You have to execute actual JavaScript on the client to read and redirect the #! bit.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> The actual URL for the informative blog post is this: <http://danwebb.net/2011/5/28/it-is-about-the-hashbangs>

The linked blog post only contains some relatively meaningless Twitter messages and the hyperlink as text, not as an actual link.

One of the things the post doesn't mention (it's sort of implicit in "going under the radar") is that with hash bangs, every request has double the round trip time to retrieve the initial data being displayed, as the server cannot know what data the client wants to retrieve. This makes a lot of nifty performance optimizations impossible.

<comment><USER5> Only inter-site links incur the double round trip (and in NewTwitter's case, serious load time); intra-site links should be faster.

<comment><USER6> "intra-site links should be faster"

Why? With proper caching, all you need is the new content. Which possibly entails a few KB of HTML boilerplate and a few milliseconds for the browser to render it, but the round trip is the lengthy part and you get that either way. The only thing hashbangs get you is a prettier transition.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Good. A lot of developers justified doing it in their own projects because Twitter and Gawker were doing it. Now that one of the headline sites is no longer using it (and will hopefully condem it) we can file this episode to history and never speak of it again.

Edit: wouldn't it be awesome if Google (they did start this, afterall) would allow sites using hashbangs to auto-update all indexed URls

<comment><USER8> Hashbangs for state representation are just a tool, which can be used to make things better or worse for the users.

Where content is the main purpose ("websites"), they are overkill at best.

They can be useful though in functionality-first applications ("apps"), where the interface can be costly to build (too slow if you reload the whole "page" on each state change). Ideally, the app differentiates between fundamental states, represented in URLs, and transient states, represented in hashbangs.

Anyway, this is good news for Twitter, if they are really going through with it.

<comment><USER9> I believe the best implementation of this patten comes from the trance.fm website. Trance.fm gets that people come to listen to their online radio, so avoiding a page refresh is priority #1. It's very quick and responsive, too. You can listen to the music as a non-member, become a member and rate the song you're listening to, all without the music stopping. I believe it makes for a really good experience.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Twitter's implementation of the hashbang was awful. It broke the back button and it was slow. I don't think it's a fair representation of the technique.

EDIT: And based on their implementation, I wouldn't trust anything their engineers have to say about hashbangs either.

<comment><USER11> In what sense did it break the back button? Back takes you to the previous thing you clicked correctly.

<comment><USER12> It didn't _break_ back. It just hijacked the browser's history by adding a 2nd page load in order to inject the "!#" into the address bar. Pressing back would, as a result, act like the refresh button.

<comment><USER13> I don't follow you. Changing the functional behavior of the back button _sounds_ a lot like broken.

<comment><USER11> I'm not sure that this is the case.

Back works as expected - it takes you to the previous page you were at. Fragment identifiers don't break the back button. That's all from a user perspective's point of view, which is mostly all that matters in the end.

If you look at this from a technical standpoint, then back is a refresh of twitter.com, yes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> YES! For anyone with a high latency (huge swathes of the US are still stuck with satellite or mobile and the tech industry seems to have ignored this), twitter is a nightmare. The first pageload only pulls the empty 'framework' page, then a series of js requests pull the information. You can't walk away while it loads, either, because it will register the latency and display errors instead of content.

</comment><comment><USER15> Good. Now if they would get rid of minified urls they would be done with their damage to the web.

</comment><comment><USER16> I've been using the mobile version on my laptop for a few months now since the hashbang was so sluggish, but this could get me to switch back.

</comment><comment><USER17> Can somebody explain to non-web-types why this matters, other than making the URL itself look cleaner?

<comment><USER18> It was hinted at in other comments, but when you go to <http://twitter.com/#!/danwrong>, what you're really doing is going to <http://twitter.com/>, processing a chunk of JavaScript that looks at what's after the #!, then loading up danwrong's page. This causes issues with search engines (the server has already told the crawler everything's OK, so how do you tell it the page can't be found?) and changing URLs (if you want to stop using hashbangs, you have to include an annoying piece of JavaScript on your home page _forever_ ).

So now, Twitter wants to get rid of the hashbang from its URLs because of— in part— the first reason, and it's currently dealing with the second.

Hope that explained a bit.

<comment><USER19> Actually, twitter should not have any google indexing problem. Search engines have provided new scheme for indexing hashbang URLs with Ajax content[1]. But, maybe, not all search engines have implemented it yet.

If I had to guess, primary reason would be that server is blind as to what page needs to be loaded when you click twitter.com/#!something and an ajax request actually serves the relevant content, so it's relatively slower. Twitter's implementation was particularly slower.

[1][https://developers.google.com/webmasters/ajax- crawling/docs/...](https://developers.google.com/webmasters/ajax- crawling/docs/getting-started)

<comment><USER20>
         Search engines have provided new scheme for
         indexing hashbang URLs with Ajax content[1].

This is a myth.

First of all there is no standard and Google has no way of knowing if a website's implementation of hashbang URLs behaves in the expected manner, or not.

Then, you've got all those other issues ... with hashbangs you have no standard way of telling Google some content moved (302, 303) or is not available anymore (404).

Therefore they have to make tweaks for individual websites (akin to how Microsoft was pushing "special" fixes for various popular software running on Windows that broke on updates).

Telling people that hashbang URLs are indexed is exactly the same as telling them that Flash content is indexed ... sure it is. But unless you're too popular for Google to ignore, then get ready for a world of pain.

<comment><USER21>
        This is a myth.
        First of all there is no standard and Google has no way of knowing if a website's implementation of hashbang URLs behaves in the expected manner, or not.

[https://developers.google.com/webmasters/ajax- crawling/docs/...](https://developers.google.com/webmasters/ajax- crawling/docs/specification)

However you are probably right on everything else.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Thank god. I've always felt uncomfortable that every link normal users share (I manually remove them) is technically pointing at their front page.

</comment><comment><USER23> I especially agree with that last comment, people are so hyping over not making pages refresh for speed, they rather often trigger the opposite effect.

</comment><comment><USER24> As far as I know, the proper way to create a modern web app to deal with location.hash fallback and pushState, replaceState etc is to use <https://github.com/balupton/History.js> .

Comments/Corrections are welcome.

</comment><comment><USER25> I thought this was about twitter moving away from hashtags. For some reason I got a bit excited, may be because I find vast majority of hashtags to be annoying noise. That said, I know they serve a purpose in specific use cases and donno a better alternative.

<comment><USER26> Hashtags were/are a Twitter user creation that they do very little to support apart from making them linkable within posts so they are easily searchable from their application interfaces.

<comment><USER27> Seems a bit disingenuous saying they do very little to support it. There was a big UI change in the latest official Twitter client that made a major tab for trends and hashtags. Seems to be a core facet to me.

<comment><USER28> Yes and no. First of all, at least until recently, a hashtag wasn't actually distinguishable from the word itself. So 'ycombinator' and '#ycombinator' would both show up in a search for 'ycombinator' (and that was intentional. If anything, they were making it easier for people to ignore them (if they wanted to).

Second, the hashtags (as well as the @replies) both grew organically out of the userbase. They adopted them because the users had _already_ adopted the hashtags. In fact, if I remember correctly, they were initially resistant to the idea until they saw how much people took to them and used them even without any official support.

The new tab seems like a glorified search - they use a hashtag for an icon, but it seems like the system itself would work pretty well for any single-word search. And with a data firehose as fast as Twitter's, you don't really want to have to do search over multiple words if you can avoid it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> "PushState or bust" means there will be no support for IE version 9 or earlier, which makes me wonder if they'll take the approach of layering replaceState on top of the existing hashbangs thereby fixing the deeplinks issue.

</comment><comment><USER30> OTOH isn't this the "modern way" to develop a web app?

HTML templates + AJAX on the client and a REST/JSON API that you can reuse for iOS apps on the backend?

<comment><USER31> I wouldn't say the re-use is specifically for iOS apps, but in general, you're right.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> Even though Twitter has decided it's either "pushstate or bust" what sort of fallback for pushstate exists for those of us who care about _all_ our users, not just the ones with good browsers?

<comment><USER33> The fallback is a normal web request and page refresh. This seems far more caring for all of their users than the high load that the hash-bang design placed on client computers.

<comment><USER32> In their case, yes, but the _potential_ speed gain by pushing a lot to the client-side is great when properly harnessed.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> How about they move away from URL shorteners too?

</comment><comment><USER35> That totally makes sense. Time to pushState!!!

</comment><comment><USER36> Dan says "I'm not sure why everyone is so adverse to page refreshes these days. You can make them fast too."

 _Rolls eyes_ I don't need Twitter (140 characters should be enough for any application!) telling me how "fast" their pages load. Particularly coming from the notorious fail whale.</comment>


Ask HN: Visual counting? - <AUTHOR> I'm wondering if anybody has heard of a general purpose application that lets you count things you care about in images. Think of counting people in marches, cars on a highway from a shot taken above or tree logs in a pile put together by a logger. Or maybe cells from a microscope image. Applications seem limitless.
It looks like advances in computer vision of recent years make such a product possible to make and I'm surprised I can't find a company doing "spreadsheets for the real world".
Have you heard of one or have ideas where to look? <comment><USER2> It's an extremely hard problem. Much harder than you'd think. Just spotting a known "thing" in an image is often a research problem; doing any generic image is much harder.</comment>


Should I use Ruby or Drupal to build my web app? - <AUTHOR>

I am planning to build a web app that allows people to easily build and manage their own websites. My site would need to have people sign up, build a site, deploy it (at a subdomain of my site), and then manage the content and design.<p>My question is this: should I build this from scratch, or should I use Ruby on Rails or Drupal? I haven't built an app in either, so I'm not sure if one would work well in this situation. Any advice? Thanks. <comment><USER2> Neither actually sounds like a good fit, to me, but maybe I don't understand your definition of "site". Are you talking about something like Weebly, Blogger, Wikia, what?

The sub-domains stuff is actually pretty hard in every CMS I've ever used, so I suspect it's a challenge in Drupal, too. Besides that, I don't know that a community-style CMS like Drupal brings you any benefits, does it? By this, I mean, are users connecting in some way? It seems like you're just looking for a way to make scaling out to multiple machines a nightmare. RoR, also, is a CRUD building tool. It's really good for building CRUD apps. I'm not sure what you're building is a CRUD app...but, then, I don't know what you're building.

If you're thinking straight up, "build a website" in the Weebly, Synthasite vein, then you probably don't want a framework or CMS at all, except perhaps for the management layer (which doesn't have to scale much at all). Perhaps relevant: I helped a free website hosting operation scale up several years ago, and he achieved his 1.5 million websites scale from a handful of off-the- shelf machines (in 2001, or so) by deploying to static pages. He also could add new machines and re-hash without any trouble at all--no database was involved, except for the creation and management of pages. I believe Weebly does the same (and they're kicking ass with nearly a million websites now, and scaling up without even having to think hard about it, because they designed it appropriately for scaling).

I think maybe you need to spend a bit more time thinking through your problem domain before deciding what the solution looks like.

<comment><AUTHOR> Good advice. I am looking to build a site similar to Weebly, but for a specific niche audience. I like your idea of static pages. Thanks!

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Could Wordpress MU fit in?

To many people today, a blog and a traditional website are almost the same thing, so perhaps a multi-user multi-blog framework might get the job done.

<http://mu.wordpress.org/>

</comment><comment><USER4> The answer is pretty simple. Use the language you are most familiar with. It's tough enough building an innovative web site without also building new language skills.</comment>


Why is the grass always greener?  A manifesto for overachievers  - <AUTHOR> http://katemats.com/2012/04/01/why-is-the-grass-always-greener/

<comment><USER2> Great piece, and the first part especially reminds me of a term I came across in psychological literature a few years back. It's called the "multipotentiality" problem. (<http://www.tip.duke.edu/node/784>). Essentially, the problem is that those with the aptitude for, and interest in, a number of diverse disciplines -- typically, gifted individuals -- may suffer from an inability to choose one path over the others, or to stick with any given path long enough to truly master it. Additionally, they tend to suffer from an occasionally crippling form of regret over the paths they didn't take. (Da Vinci, one of history's most famous polymaths, is said to have remarked late in his life that "I've wasted my hours").

There is some debate about whether, and to what extent, multipotentiality is a legitimate psychological phenomenon. But I've sure grappled with it, or at least something that feels quite like it, for a large part of my life. I know plenty of others who have, as well. And your article really struck a chord w/r/t the topic.

[I'm not saying any of us is a Da Vinci, btw. Just pointing out that even someone who legitimately _did_ master multiple disciplines suffered from "grass is greener" crises every now and then.]

<comment><USER3> I've heard this described as "too many aptitudes" - <http://megasociety.org/noesis/138/aptitude.html> \- but multipotentiality has a nice sciency sounding ring to it.

<comment><USER4> A lot of this article seems to apply to INTJ personality types, I wonder what the overlap is?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Reminds me of the saying: "The grass is greener where you water it."

</comment><comment><USER6> There's no point thinking what would have been if you only chosen this other path - If you really chose this other path, you are not _you_.</comment>


Facebook admits rogue employees may have shown bias against conservatives - <AUTHOR> http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/23/facebook-admits-rogue-employees-may-have-shown-bia/ <comment><USER3> It's interesting how media outlets are spinning this news. People that read conservative media are left thinking that Facebook has admitted bias. People that read liberal media are left thinking the opposite.

Washington Times: "Facebook admits rogue employees may have shown bias against conservatives"

LA Times: "Facebook investigation reveals no evidence of bias against conservative topics, company says"

NY Times: "Facebook Says an Investigation Found No Evidence of Bias in a News App"

WSJ: "Facebook to Revamp 'Trending Topics' Feature to Reduce Bias Risk"

NY Post print edition (my favorite): "You won't read this on Facebook; Site censors the news"

<comment><USER4> I am curious how many of these medias actually admit that they are biased themselves?

<comment><USER5> My anecdata suggests conservative outlets tend to acknowledge their bias, as a counterweight to liberal bias in the "mainstream" media, whereas liberal outlets tend to believe themselves to be unbiased.

Given how much liberal outlets scoff at the notion of there being a pervasive liberal bias in the MSM, I suspect they legitimately just don't see it as they're surrounded by people with the same political views and so are predisposed to believing that's what "normal" is.

<comment><USER6> Reality has a notorious liberal bias. Look at climate change, which went from scientific position to liberal position.

<comment><USER7> Just so you know, I read "Reality has a $MY_POSITION bias" as "I've completely epistemically closed myself by reading only what I agree with". Perhaps not something you really want to advertise quite so loudly.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> rm_-rf_slash I suspect this may be an unpopular opinion, but given that in my experience, the Trending tab tends towards garbage and clickbait instead of real news, one would imagine Fox News hysteria and Facebook's Trending news would be a match made in heaven, and if it weren't for personal curation, we would see even more garbage as a result.

<comment><USER8> It's funny how BuzzFeed or Vox shit is deemed reasonable by the left while Fox News shit is treated as, well, shit.

No. Both are shit.

<comment><USER9> I'm not sure when I've ever seen someone deem Buzzfeed's shit "reasonable".

<comment> rm_-rf_slash To be fair buzzfeed does have some decent long-form journalism. Just like any media company, they want as many eyes as they can get, whether they're reading intently or glazed over during a commercial break.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> You can't give employees the power to filter content then label them as "rogue" when a bias inevitably emerges. Obviously any innate biases (overt or not) will influence what gets filtered.

<comment><USER11> Exactly. This outcome was clear. FB handled this astonishingly poorly and now it looks like they were lying the whole time. Which honestly I'd probably true since it's so obvious that personal bias would enter.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> "But with nearly two-thirds of Facebook users saying they get at least some of their news from the online platform, conservatives said any chance of bias could skew political conversations."

Two-thirds... get at least _some_... Ooookay? I'm not sure at what point we're all supposed to start running around with our hair on fire. Am I supposed to pretend that the much smaller number of people who _rely_ on Facebook for their news were ever going to be great in a political (or any other) conversation?

<comment><USER13> They still haven't shown that there's any sort of anti-conservative bias. Finding a trending topic and using the best source available to represent the information is not the same thing as bias. Conservative sites are, by definition, not the best sources available.

<comment><USER14> Well, other than Facebook admitting to the possibility of bias.

<comment><USER13> Well, that's why everyone who's ever been on trial for murder is a murderer.

Wait, that isn't correct? Neither is the Washington Times headline... but then, the Times is about as mainstream as it gets for the right-wing fringe. The content of the article disagrees with their headline.

Saying that there's a possibility is not the same as saying that there's a certainty. Except when it comes to political nonsense.

<comment><USER14> I honestly have no clue what you are going on about.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> To be honest, I'm a.) somewhat surprised that people are surprised by this b.) not sure why there is a government probe into this. Also the irony of Glenn Beck bitching about bias in media is definitely not lost on me.

<comment><USER16> Glen Beck actually wrote a piece after the meeting saying he took Mark at his word, and complained about the tenor of the other conservatives in the meeting: [http://www.glennbeck.com/2016/05/19/what-disturbed-glenn- abo...](http://www.glennbeck.com/2016/05/19/what-disturbed-glenn-about-the- facebook-meeting/)

> But until then, based on our research and my personal experience with > Facebook, I believe they are acting in good faith and share some very deep, > fundamental principles with people who believe in the principles of liberty > and freedom of speech.

<comment><USER17> I was quite surprised at the very reasonable position Glen Beck took. Very interesting.

<comment><USER14> There are accusations that he's sucking up to Facebook for more exposure to save his failing web enterprises. I don't know enough to say which is which, but there's almost always another side to the story.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> If Facebook et al are going to replace the dying traditional print and broadcast media, maybe they need to be subject to the equal-time rule as well? Pushing "Don't forget to vote!" reminders only to Facebook users who are likely to vote in favor of facebook-friendly policies and candidates is one interesting anecdote I've seen. I take it with a grain of salt but it's nevertheless illustrative of the power that can be wielded with such a platform/network. It definitely _can_ be done, so why wouldn't it?

<comment><USER19> What equal-time rule are the traditional print and broadcast media in the US subject to?

<comment><USER20> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine) (defunct)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal- time_rule](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-time_rule)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> It's always a "rogue employee"

<comment><USER22> There are phases to big corporate press releases for these things.

1\. My dog doesn't bite 2\. My dog does bite but it isn't my fault 3\. My dog wouldn't have bitten if consumers had more personal responsibility (I don't see how they could ever make the leap to this one)

<comment><USER23> 4\. That is not my dog.

¹ [http://www.reuters.com/article/us-volkswagen-emissions- bosch...](http://www.reuters.com/article/us-volkswagen-emissions-bosch- idUSKBN0TK5OK20151201) ² [https://youtu.be/SXn2QVipK2o?t=52s](https://youtu.be/SXn2QVipK2o?t=52s)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> It seems to me that the same system that dialled in the ratio of happy to sad news was used here as well. Given that it's a configured system, hard to see how no one in charge was aware of the conservative misconfiguration.

</comment><comment><USER25> I'm still waiting for the Fox News bias probe.

<comment><USER26> Evidence seems to indicate that MSNBC is actually the most biased news network.[1]

[1] [http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/01/14/five- facts-a...](http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/01/14/five-facts-about- fox-news/)

<comment><USER27> I think you're referring to this part of the linked article:

> In the final stretch of the campaign, nearly half (46%) of Obama's coverage > on Fox was negative, while just 6% was positive in tone. But MSNBC produced > an even harsher narrative about the Republican in the race: 71% of Romney's > coverage was negative, versus 3% positive.

I am unsure it supports an argument for being the "most biased news network" outside of a specific election.

Also, it does not appear to account for reporting on a sitting president (who is also running for reelection) and will generate non-election news as well as election news versus a candidate who is not currently generating much news outside of their election.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Why am I supposed to care? Facebook isn't a news source. They're a software company. They're under no obligation to be fair and balanced.

<comment><USER29> News organizations also are under no obligation to be fair and balanced (obviously). They don't even have to pretend they are if they don't want to. Some think they should be obligated, but that's a different discussion.

<comment><USER30> [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11764095](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11764095) seems to suggest that at least political candidates can "enforce" some fairness if they'd care to do so.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> I don't think this is a problem that's specific to any one bias, nor will it go away when "rogue employees" are dealt with. I think this is an issue that's inherent to turning dials to tune what you want people to see in any kind of content-aware way.

I also don't think that's necessarily problematic, but it probably is for Facebook because it has a near monopoly on its particular type of service, and because it gives the appearance of being content-neutral.

</comment><comment><USER32> I don't know if it made any difference in this story, and I hate both parties in the US, but I notice that the "right-wing" posts on FB are normally a notch or two uglier than those from lefties. I've got quite a wide range of friends from my travels from the fox news contingent all the way to real communists.

I speculate that it's because those on the right are more "ends justify the means" type of people. Curious what others think.

<comment><USER14> If you can generalize all people in a wide-area political spectrum as all are "ends justify the means", then I would suggest you meet more people in that spectrum before denouncing them as a group.

<comment><USER32> I know dozens, and do not denounce them. It's a valid philosophy.

<comment><USER14> Well then, if you know _dozens_ then I stand corrected.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Facebook also known to use bots to increase their ads revenue. True evil company.

</comment><comment><USER34> I started using this Chrome extension to block Facebook trends: [https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/block-facebook- tre...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/block-facebook- trends/khokbojephkhaaipdpbmmkgammfbjkgj)

I checked the source and it just seems to grab the div and set the style to hidden. It's not perfect, because when I open Facebook sometimes Trends are visible for a second, but it's much better than glancing at the section and being drawn into clicking on whatever celebrity news or other headline-of-the- moment is trending.

It's kinda insidious--I don't watch TV or read celebrity gossip sites, but when the Trend says some Kardashian posted a selfie that people are talking about, I'm tempted to click and see the photo just to see what the discussion is about.

<comment><USER35> I use ublock origin and created a rule to block the trends feature. Just right-click the element and then select "block this". I suppose it would be optimal to create a rule to block the whole damn site, but baby steps ...

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> The concept of unbiased news is in my mind troubling. How can one have editors that won't make judgment decisions?

The more tightly one boxes the editors in with rules the more predictable the enterprise becomes. And a predictable huge enterprise is a standing invitation to be gamed. There is a whole industry of marketeers and political hacks searching for new ways to leverage others infrastructure and social assets to get their message out. The human element so far seems vital to protect against spam. Even Google can't stand still and constantly tweaks their rules - <USER2> gets taken to court for it too.

And if one has editors making decisions and they are all young they tend to be on average more left than the general population.

It is hard for Facebook to win here. The best move may be not to play.

</comment><comment><USER18> Maybe one could let organizations register with social media platforms as a political speech organization. This would opt them out of algorithmic timelines and ensure that their followers always see their broadcasts. There would have to be some sort of downside, though, otherwise everyone would sign up as a political entity. Maybe if you're political you never show up in suggestions/organic recommendedations? The decision to self-identify as political speech would have to be in the hands of the indivudual orgs, otherwise you'd have the same filtering problem where people would just make speech they don't like as non-political.

</comment><comment><USER37> Is this the Washington Post? or the Washington Times?

the Washington Times strikes me as having "conservative bias" as shown in their piece on the Democrat's War on Piece.

</comment><comment><USER38> Or in other words: "people who chose a _single source_ for news complained that this one source is biased". Let's not learn the lesson that perhaps it is a _good idea_ to seek multiple sources so that biases are kept in check and accuracy is improved. Oh, and let's make sure to demand that Facebook do exactly what we want since we're not even paying for access to Facebook.

</comment><comment><USER39> Haha. An article on conservative bias in a newspaper that is the epitome of conservative bias. Stand by for the "truth" as Fox News reports on the Washington Times report.

</comment><comment><USER40> The irony of the Washington Times complaining about bias...

</comment><comment><USER41> "News" organizations who can barely report on the temperature outside without it dripping with bias who use their platform to push their agendas are stoking anger against another platform for being biased?

It's very beneficial for news media to oust social media as bias. This was a con job from the beginning.

I've never even looked at the "trending" section, anyway. So I guess this is yet another happening in modern American society which is generalized to imply societal importance but that really boils down to idiots yelling at other idiots.

</comment><comment><USER42> Now it's employees' fault. It's nice to be able to blame grass roots, not the processes.

</comment><comment><USER43> Why would they be able to filter that has been represented at all?

</comment><comment><USER44> "Man is by nature a political animal." \--Aristotle

</comment><comment><USER45> Here is an example of recent FaceBook censorship: [http://youtube.com/watch?v=25tYyAgejA8](http://youtube.com/watch?v=25tYyAgejA8)

</comment><comment><USER46> This just in: people have personal opinions!

</comment><comment><USER47> Reality has a strong liberal bias.

</comment><comment><USER48> Now if only we could get crazy conservatives to boycott facebook.

</comment><comment><USER49> I'm totally fine with this. If you want to advocate for a world in which _all resources_ are privately-owned (leaving no commonly-owned space for discourse) and that a global, multi-billion-dollar social media service has the same free speech rights as a mom and pop grocery, then you deserve to reap the rewards of your own ideology.

<comment><USER14> It's not always that. Most of the thinking I've heard about this is not to control what Facebook may or not do. Many critics say that Facebook is a private company and can do what they want. The complaint among them is that Facebook lies about it.

<comment><USER29> Why would "Facebook is a private company and can do what they want" not apply to lying, as long as it doesn't become fraud?

<comment><USER14> Oh sure, they could lie. It's not that these people are necessarily demanding laws about the company lying, it's more a suggestion that it's not a nice thing to do. It is the outcry of people with little power to do anything other than complain about an injustice they see. I hear it's quite a popular thing to do on the left side of the political spectrum in the US.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> "But with nearly two-thirds of Facebook users saying they get at least some of their news from the online platform, conservatives said any chance of bias could skew political conversations."

I really don't understand this whole situation? How is this happening?

If the argument is "We don't like how you're skewing news about our kind", how is this not seen as pure hypocrisy and laughed out of the room?

Can you imagine the uproar by Conservatives if a Liberal group demanded a meeting with Roger Ailes over their manipulation of Liberal talking points, skewing political conversations across the country for the last 30 years?

How can anyone on the Conservative side, especially pundits and politicians that rely on Fox News to spin their very special brand of stupid, stand up and say "Facebook is in the wrong?"

<comment><USER51> A key difference between Fox News and Facebook is that Fox commentators are pretty much advertising their bias. Bill Oreilly is clearly stating his personal opinions.

Facebook is stating it's politically neutral but it wasn't.

Another thing to considers is that Facebook is a monopoly in the social networking business. There are probably half a dozen news networks on a cable plan, plus nearly infinitely online news outlets.

If you don't like Fox news, there is CNN, MSNBC, Bloomberg, etc. Facebook has no direct alternative.

<comment><USER50> Their tagline is "Fair and Balanced". In reality they're nothing of the sort.

Here is a link describing how Trending topics works:

[https://www.facebook.com/help/737806312958641](https://www.facebook.com/help/737806312958641)

Where does it state Trending topics is a neutral source for unbiased news? They admit readily that an algorithm does much of the work, but that it also relies on human intervention. And the Valley, including Zuckerberg, have worn their "liberal" ideals all over their sleeves via their actions.

They sold people on a tagline, while never really being up front. Need I again quote Zuckerberg's infamous opinion on people trusting him? Let's not forget his shenanigans in India with "free" but hobbled internet.

They're as open about how things really work as Fox. Unless Fox is suddenly inviting people into their meetings where editorial directives are discussed. They put some friendly language on there, making a vague claim, then feed people bullshit.

The mental gymnastics people go through by blindly accepting such shallow rhetoric like "Fair and Balanced" or "We're neutral" without really verifying is bizarre.

Facebook has competition in the form of dozens of news aggregators; Apple, Google, Microsoft, Pocket... This is about one feature of Facebook. Not the entire enchilada.

My frustration is not with Facebook lacking competition. It's the aforementioned obtuse behavior of the populace at large, the mind-boggling mental gymnastics being employed, in thinking that these large, opaque corporate machines are focusing on the end user. The phrase "if it's a free service, you're the product, not the customer" comes to mind. Facebook sells eyeballs to others. They have little interest in being neutral.

<comment><USER52> Please don't create many obscure throwaway accounts on HN. This forum is a community. Anonymity is fine here, but users should have some kind of consistent identity that other users can relate to. Otherwise we might as well have no usernames and no community at all, and that would be an entirely different forum.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> You look confused. Probably because people want to call facebook "social media" and Fox News is also called "media".

Fox News produces editorial content. They are entitled to their opinion thanks to the first Amendment. Facebook is a delivery channel. They do not produce editorial content so they are not allowed to have bias in the very same way that your TV set is not allowed to receive only conservative news channels.

edited for a better analogy.

<comment><USER54> > Facebook is a delivery channel. They do not produce editorial content so > they are not allowed to have bias

That's simply not true; they're allowed to do anything they want.

<comment><USER55> Literally no one is suggesting otherwise.

<comment><USER54> You are literally incorrect as I literally quoted someone suggesting otherwise.

<comment><USER55> Where?

<comment><USER54> Try reading the post you replied to.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> It is hard for me to believe that one employee could show this kind of bias for this long without being noticed. It had to be more systematic and widespread. But good to see FB admitting it and taking corrective action.

<comment><AUTHOR> I also kind of rolled my eyes at the "rogue employee" angle. I hope Facebook makes things right.

<comment><AUTHOR> @voku of course there is, otherwise this wouldn't be news.

<comment><USER57> This is manufactured outrage. As mentioned by abiox, in a free country, every source of news is free to lie and distort things as much as it feels like.

Facebook having an anti-conservative slant (true or not) is about as newsworthy as Fox News having an anti-reason slant. For some reason, though, there aren't too many conservative senators wringing their hands and calling for an investigation into the latter.

<comment><USER14> Actually, courts have established that the first amendment does not necessarily allow anyone to lie and distort things as much as they wish. There are limitations.

It's just that some people are better than others at skirting along that line.

<comment><USER57> Only in a very few select contexts.

1\. When you have a fiduciary duty. 2\. When you are on a witness stand. 3\. When you are speaking to a federal agent. 4\. When you are committing fraud. (See #1) 5\. ???

None of these are relevant to mass media.

<comment><USER14> There is libel and slander, which are relevant to mass media.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER58> Maybe this happens when your hiring process selects against ideological diversity.

<comment><USER58> I guess everybody forgot the "what is Facebook's responsibility to stop a Donald Trump presidency?" internal messageboard question.

</comment></comment><comment><USER59> Having read the Washington Times before, I'm not inclined to believe a single thing they publish without corroboration.

<comment><USER60> Does the media outlet matter? They are all biased in direction or another... The fact that facebook curates their timeline tells you it's manipulated and biased. [1]

[1] [http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/06/everyt...](http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/06/everything- we-know-about-facebooks-secret-mood-manipulation-experiment/373648/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> This is not the Washington Post. It is the Washington Times.

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

      Founded in 1982 by Unification Church leader Sun Myung Moon,
      the Times was owned by News World Communications, an international media conglomerate associated with the church until 2010, in which Moon and a group of former executives purchased the paper. It is currently owned by diversified conglomerate Operations Holdings.[</comment>


Ask HN: Do you use an ad block hosts file? How do you manage it? - <AUTHOR> Do you use a local hosts file to block ads and malware requests? If so, how do you manage your hosts file to keep it updated? <comment><USER2> So, I only use a hosts file for blocking on android, but look into how adaway handles it- you should be able to use the same hosts files it uses. Also, I think ublock origin has a good bunch of lists you can dump into hosts, you can use a chron job or something to automate that.</comment>


Fighting Facebook Tracking: Hover over F like on the bottom of the page. - <AUTHOR> http://www.staedtler.com/comfort_eng

<comment><AUTHOR> Was looking at compasses for my students next year, and saw an interesting take on the "Facebook tracks you through like buttons" issue from an very unlikely source.</comment>


Ask HN: Do you work part time gig while bootstrapping your own startup? - <AUTHOR>

I am interested to know how others view working a part time consulting while you are bootstrapping a startup? Is it bad because of context switching? Or, will it make sure that you have something in your hand if your startup does not work out. <comment><USER2> I'm working full time, 60hrs a week, taking two MBA courses a semester and still finding time to work on my startup. I know there's going to be a lot of people who disagree with this, but as much as I would like to drop everything and get hack-crazy, I don't for three reasons:

1.)I have expenses that need to be paid. My current savings could get me through maybe 5 months? and then what? 2.) I like knowing I have a backup plan. I think its what, 5% of business launched that succeed? Despite working my way through the other 95% of fails already, having an incredibly solid business plan, and (for the first-time)a passion for the product; its still nice to know I can provide for myself and my family. 3.) This is the big one... I need money for my business!. II can hire faster, advertise easier. How's a little guy to compete with the big boys without a hefty budget applied to smart marketing!

With all that said, I have considered dropping my hours, or my job entirely, but why take the risk? there's nobody in my space. There's no rush! Why take a risk of losing everything, when there's no risk of losing your idea to someone else.

<comment><USER3> I'm in a similar situation to you, I work 40 hour weeks, maintain a demanding relationship with my girlfriend, freelance in my spare time and still fit in a couple of hours a night for my private projects.

<comment><USER4> More needs to be discussed about this group of entrepreneurs. So much emphasis is put on the full time, no-expenses-or-responsibilities-whatsoever early to mid 20s male entrepreneur s, but I think there are probably a lot more entrepreneurs like you guys.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I've recently shut down my previous company and am working full time on my new idea.

I currently have ~4 month before I dry out, and am selling one of my cars in order to have a longer run way.

I really think that working full time on your ideas makes you X10(estimated) more productive, since not only do you have more time to work on it, your mind is also empty and totally focused on only one important thing.

Focus is something that people underestimate, but it's sometimes what makes the difference between success or failure.

If you are serious about entrepreneurship, and you can sustain a few month without working part time - my personal advice is that you do it.

<comment><AUTHOR> I agree with your point of working full time will make you 10x more focused. The other important thing when you are at your very early stage of product development is not to be distracted by other stuff like how you are going to do marketing, scale, etc. etc.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I think it depends on whether the biz has been validated in some way or not. I think the first version of most products should be simple enough to not need 100% dedication in order to build it. If it requires that much focus, you might try shedding some features so that you can ship something while reliably making an income.

I WOULD NOT quit my job to build something which hasn't been validated in some way. I have done that and it was a huge mistake.

Imagine the following:

1.) you have a product idea

2.) you have talked to potential clients and find out they need it and are willing to pay for

3.) a percentage of them will agree to pay you, specifically you, when it ships

4.) those potential clients know other people in their field who also need your product and are willing to give you a warm intro to them

Here we have imagined a circumstance where you have a business with an unprecedentedly high probability of success. Furthermore, it's a circumstance which didn't require you to build or really focus heavily on anything. If you're worried about how long it will take you to get off the ground with something like this, don't. Making the above a reality is so valuable, you can afford to spend a little time on it.

After quitting my job and jumping into an idea-phase business, I've raised my standards quite a bit. An idea won't cut it for me anymore. I need validation.

</comment><comment><USER7> I tried to do part time to support my startup but ended up working on my part time gig full time in order to meet deliverables and dead lines. I find, its better to 1 thing at a time. In my opinion, It's better to take a hit for year and work on your startup full time.

</comment><comment><USER8> I freelance part time while bootstrapping and I have my degree to complete. Doing all 3 at once is quite difficult and all consuming!</comment>


Getting real: From idea to implementation - <AUTHOR> http://gettingreal.37signals.com/ch06_From_Idea_to_Implementation.php

<comment><USER2> Why post a single chapter of this well known book?

<comment><AUTHOR> A year ago, I used to make lots of mistakes in the earliest stage of idea development: especially dealing with details. This chapter reminded me of that, and I thought some people, probably beginners, might find it helpful along their way.</comment></comment>