Fucking Sue Me - <AUTHOR> http://pud.com/post/10103947044/fucking-sue-me <comment><USER3> Contract reviews done by lawyers need to follow good-sense guidelines.

Some contracts are routine and don't need any form of customizing. The review in such cases is minimal and can even be skipped if the routine nature of the contract is obvious or if the entrepreneur is seasoned enough to identify a clean situation without lawyer help. Most such routine contracts cover simple cases, such as a simple nda or a recurring situation in which a basic template is used with no material variation apart from non-legal business items that typically get customized in an exhibit.

For most cases, though, the whole key to doing a contract right is to customize it properly _on its material points_. This means it should be clear, it should accurately reflect the intent of the parties, and it should contain basic legal protections for each party. It is vital to this process that both the lawyer and the entrepreneur understand what is material. Why? Because that determines the proper cost-benefit analysis for how it should be reviewed.

For example, say a startup is negotiating a 1-year office lease for only a few hundred square feet of space at a modest rental rate. That sort of lease needs very little lawyer review because there is not much at stake (the money is small, the location itself not particularly important to the startup, etc.). A quick read-through by the lawyer is the max that this needs and then only to see if there is anything wildly out of line in the document. What about a 3-year lease with more square footage and a higher rent? In that case, maybe a good high-level review is in order, with comments and mark-ups on a range of important points but little or no attention paid to boilerplate clauses that may be highly unfavorable to the tenant as worded but that are also highly unlikely to occur. And what if the lease is for 5 years with two 5-year options to renew, with a location that is very important to the business involved, and with risks (such as potential environmental liabilities) that can far exceed even the value of the lease itself if mishandled? In that case, lawyer review is normally vital and needs to be pretty thorough (including even haggling over much of the boilerplate language) because it is far more likely that contingent risks can come about over a lengthy period, the amounts at stake are greater, and the lease itself may be important to the business (e.g., a restaurant that depends heavily on having a particular location).

This same sort of approach applies to a whole range of contracts. What if your business is getting acquired or if you are buying a business? Well, if it is a little business and the purchase price is very small (say, $50,000), you can very likely be well-served by a canned form used for small business sales (brokers who do these deals use these all the time). Such a form will have basic provisions covered and will usually contain the most important warranties and representations but all of it will be bare-bones. This normally works fine for a small sale. Again, lawyer review can be skipped or done at the quick read-through level. But what if the business you are buying is going to cost you $1,000,000. In that case, you still are in the small-business category but the money is more significant. This likely warrants an intermediate level of lawyer review (contract needs to be customized for the deal, with proper account taken of whether it should be structured as an asset sale, stock sale, or merger - each having different tax consequences - <USER2> with careful attention paid to reps and warranties, to conditions for closing, and to collateral matters such as non-compete, etc.). This might take $5K or $10K or sometimes more in lawyer time but it is money normally well spent (it certainly is if you are a small business owner and $1M is a lot of money to put at risk for your situation). And, of course, once you start talking about acquisitions in the tens or hundreds of millions, you need major lawyer time to make sure the complex aspects of such deals are handled properly.

What about a license agreement? A small deal, with non-exclusive rights concerning routine IP needs little or no lawyer review. But a core OEM deal involving the licensing of IP that is at the core of your company obviously warrants significant lawyer review, especially if it involves joint development efforts, sweeping indemnification clauses that might trigger major liabilities, or other complications that require sophisticated handling of IP and other rights. Of course, there is also the issue of weasel language and its nasty impact if it is not caught and deleted from any major contract.

In short, lawyers and entrepreneurs need to be guided by good sense in handling these matters. It is not good sense simply to act as if lawyers are not needed. It takes only one really bad instance for most entrepreneurs to realize how bad a mistake it is to cut corners in really important matters. On the other hand, letting lawyers run wild with their reviews is foolish as well. Their time must be managed and managed well. It should be used where it matters and curbed where it doesn't.

Let the barbs fly, then, but this is one lawyer who will insist that the advice given in this piece may have a grain of truth in it but is too simplistic to cover most serious business affairs. It may work in a number of cases but it can easily get you into trouble.

By the way, I am not saying give an open ticket to lawyers. If your lawyer can't make good judgments concerning what is important and what is not, and can't manage time wisely, it is time to get a new lawyer.

<comment><USER4> Why aren't there more standard contracts for the situations described in the article? E.g Construction contracts are generally standard documents with very well documented procedures in the UK even with large (say £50M+) contract sums. But this seems to be an exception, not many other industries do this. I wonder why?

<comment><USER5> Here in Sweden a lot of contracts are standardized. Extremely so in the construction industry.

We have a standard contract called "Avtal 90" (lit. Contract 90), that a lot of industries use.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Ugh.

At one extreme: giving your counsel veto power over what contracts you sign, and allowing them to bill time ping-ponging contracts until prospects give up.

At the other extreme: just signing everything and saying "fucking sue me" when things go sideways.

You should be somewhere in the middle. Contracts more often than not have provisions that are silly for you to accept verbatim. And, contracts more often than not have provisions you'd _rather not_ accept, but that are baked into your prospect's own processes and not changeable.

No matter what you do, if you're being sensible, there are going to be tough decisions to make every once in awhile. If there aren't, you're probably doing something wrong. Like, for instance, signing tens of different contracts from giant companies without any legal review.

<comment><USER7> I think the point to "fucking sue me" is that you don't "fucking sue" someone over something trivial. So, if the dollar value of some provision in the contract is not worth the cost of a lawsuit, in a way, it is kinda immaterial to the agreement because it would cost more to collect.

So, I think the article is trying to hit the middle road you're advocating, though didn't make it as explicitly clear as it could have.

<comment><USER8> You're assuming companies act rationally and won't sue you if it costs them money. That is a dangerous assumption: one guy that you pissed off is enough to send you down a dark hole.

<comment><USER9> Also some companies have lawyers as employees. They have to do something with their time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> > Then there was the time I wanted to hire my first full time employee. I was > apprehensive to do it because I only had enough money to pay him for 2 > months, unless I got another client fast.

> "Worry about that in 2 months," Dad said.

Speaking from the perspective of that employee, _fuck you_.

OK, for the serious point: you may be not give a shit about risk. Good for you, you crazy risk taker! The world truly needs more people like you.

But for me? I've got a mortgage and a car payment and a wife who is trying to go through graduate school. I need to know that my ass isn't going to come into work on the 61st day and hear you say "Well, looks like we're outta cash -- sorry buddy..."

If, on the other hand, you share that risk with me up front, thanks -- you're a good boss.

<comment><USER7> Pretty much all employment is risky. It doesn't matter that you have a car payment and a wife going thru graduate school. Those are financial risks _you_ took.

Your employment could end at any time. The company could be seized by the government as part of some investigation and shut down, the CEO could be hit by a bus, you could screw up in a big way and get fired. You could be hit by a brain aneurism and simply not be there to provide for your car payment and your wife's schooling.

Every employee is taking risk that their employment might end for any number of reasons.

This is one of the reasons that, when something like that happened to me, I said "That's it, my livelihood will never be in someone else's hands again" ... and have been self employed / doing my own startups since.

<comment><USER11> The difference is that most of those things are risks you can't reasonably plan for. If you know that the start-up you're working for has x months of runway, then you can plan for looking for a new gig, ensure you have savings to carry you over, or decide to work elsewhere.

But you can't plan for it if the company's owner hides it from you. If you think you need to lie to your staff about the company's finances, then you're an untrustworthy prick.

And if you get lucky, no one will ever know. And if you don't get lucky, everyone will know that you can't be trusted, and that could affect your ability to get contracts and employees at your next venture.

<comment><USER7> I agree with you, but I'd like to point out that the article was expressing apprehension at hiring the guy (e.g.: he was concerned as to whether he'd be able to keep him employed for more than 2 months)... there's no indication that the financial state of the company was hidden from the employee.

At least in my experience, while I haven't known the exact financial state of startups I've worked for, I've generally known the level of risk I was signing up for.

<comment><USER11> If you're completely up-front about the financials then there's no reason to be apprehensive, surely? After all, the employee is deciding their own level of risk then.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Two things:

1\. They will sue. Medium to large - in fact any mature business, considers lawyers and the threat of lawsuits and litigation as a cost of doing business. They don't get emotionally involved, they just do it. FYI, looking at lawyers & legal as cost of doing biz is a healthy attitude and may save you a heart attack.

2\. Telling someone to just "fucking sue me" or simply "sue me" makes it combative and I made this beginner mistake early on in being a CEO. I actually simply asked their lawyer if he thought his case "actually has any merit?" in a cocky tone in a phone call. Turns out he thought it did. Once I had capable council on my side she had to work hard to make nice with the other side and bring it to settlement hours before we were irrevocably committed to litigating the issue.

Lets put it this way: Wouldn't it be awesome if everyone you signed an agreement with "just signed it"?

<comment><USER13> That's right, they will sue. My company has been sued several times - so far, we've prevailed, but it takes time and money to defend a suit. MUCH better to avoid if at all possible.

I have a corollary: you're not a "real business" until you've been sued. (!)

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> This poor advice is like saying you can save money by not paying insurance premiums. Of course you can - until something goes wrong.

A better lawyer would have been able to amend that contract with minimal fuss. I used to get a legal briefing on the dodgy parts of the contracts I was asked to sign, along with sensible suggested changes that often benefited both sides (eg. termination clauses more appropriate to the length of the gig) I'd then send through the amended contract and discuss all the reasons for the changes with the client. Never had any problems.

</comment><comment><USER15> I think his dad is a good advisor.

The reason he was hard to sue is that he's so small. If things went really South on a small project, what's the worst thing that happens? He's 22 and talented in New York - he declares bankruptcy, and gets another job or stays on Dad's couch. This is a situational thing - you can accept liability when the downside is so low. This is why legal departments in small firms are much gentler than legal departments in the Fortune 500. Of course this doesn't work for a large firm, or someone with 3 kids and a mortgage. His dad would have said, "Go get a real job" or something like that.

Similar on the hiring - when you're that small, you invite someone to take the risk for you. You can take more risk when there's limited downside. And in this case it was the other guy's downside - if there was no work, he'd be the one in trouble.

<comment><USER16> Exactly.

Put another way:

Odds of getting sued: 1%

Max downside if he gets sued: What? 50k before he declares bankruptcy?

Ok, so risk adjusted cost of the "just fucking sue me" approach: $500.

$500 vs. $350,000...hmmm...tough choice.

You might say, well, it's not as though it's one or the other. You can request reasonable changes and not jeopardize the 350k.

Well, ya, I suppose so, but what are the odds that any request you make will kill the deal? If it's also 1%, then the expected cost is $3500.

That's still more expensive than the "just fucking sue me" approach. In reality, the odds of killing a deal over contract disagreements are much higher than getting sued.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Here are some specific contract provisions that can cause real-world problems for your business. (Shameless plug: These are discussed, and illustrated with true stories, in my short e-book, _Signing a Business Contract: A Checklist for Greater Peace of Mind_ , at [http://www.ontechnologylaw.com/before-you- sign-a-business-co...](http://www.ontechnologylaw.com/before-you-sign-a- business-contract-a-five-point-final-checklist-for-business-managers-and- executives/))

* Most-favored customer clauses

* Exclusive-rights provisions

* Indemnity obligations

* Automatic renewal

* Confidentiality obligations (or _no_ confidentiality obligations)

* Termination for convenience

* Unilateral amendment rights

* Best-efforts obligations

* Assignment-consent requirements

* Non-compete / no-hire / no-solicitation clauses

* Tax consequences

</comment><comment><USER18> > Then there was the time I wanted to hire my first full time employee. I was > apprehensive to do it because I only had enough money to pay him for 2 > months, unless I got another client fast.

> "Worry about that in 2 months," Dad said.

This seems really dishonest. Yeah, everybody knows that startups are risky, but if you can't afford to pay more than 2 months of salary, then don't hire a full-timer. Either find a co-founder or hire a contractor instead.

<comment><AUTHOR> Not many companies could afford to pay their entire payroll for a quarter, if sales were $0.00 for that quarter.

<comment><USER19> Most companies also have steady revenue streams.

<comment><USER20> Or at least revenue forecasts.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I once rode a motorbike drunk, with a stranger sitting behind me. We didn't die. Lesson learnt: I got lucky.

I don't drive drunk any more :-)

</comment><comment><USER22> I still show my contracts to my lawyer, and sometimes really fight for certain clauses, but I'm realistic: Sometimes having a signed contract is more important to me than certain categories of unlikely risk mitigation.

If you have the luxury of leverage -- the ability and willingness to walk away if the contract isn't perfect -- then yes. Hammer it out to protect your interests.

But if the contract is critical to the company's survival, then he's right: Just sign it. It's better to have an income from an imperfect contract, then no company at all because you've run out of money.

<comment><USER23> My experience is that the people who jerk you around with contracts are usually bad payers. If it's a bad contract then the prospect of income is very uncertain.

Business ultimately relies in trust, if they give you a poor contract then it is a strong reason not to trust them over anything.

<comment><USER22> I went back and forth with one client for about five months on a contract worth about $300k.

They actually started PAYING me on milestones well before the contract was signed. We didn't nail down a final version until just before the last milestone payment.

They paid in full, no delays -- they even paid extra for when they wanted additional changes out of scope. In my industry (games), it's actually quite common to start work on a contract before it's signed.

They were a rather large company, granted. But yes, don't DO a lot of work for someone you neither trust nor have a solid contract with.

If the contract allows them to weasel out of giving you any money at all after you've put significant time and resources into it, then that would be qualify as "I sometimes really fight for certain clauses". Ownership of IP is another critical nonnegotiable for me: If I have a library that I own and I'm using it in someone's product, it's going to be spelled out in the contract that I still own it (work for hire notwithstanding), or I'm not signing.

But if you're talking about unbalanced boilerplate legalese (nonreciprocal indemnification or nondisclosure, or clauses that otherwise aren't ideal according to your legal counsel), then I still agree with the article.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> The lesson here: it was 1998. "The industry" was still a little fledgling, so the legal territory was still largely unchartered. But it grew into an ugly duckling, quickly.

 _Sent the contract to my lawyer. She marked it up, sent it to the client. Then the client marked it up and sent it back to my lawyer. And so on, back and forth for almost a month._

Garbage in, garbage out. During the "ugly duckling" phase, the legal machine is just learning that it can spew garbage. It tests its limits. Just how much garbage can it spit before something happens? When the garbage is between private parties? Apparently, a lot.

 _I charged my first client $1,400. My second client paid $5,400. The next paid $24,000. I remember the exact amounts — they were the largest checks I'd seen up til that point.

Then I wrote a proposal for $340,000..._

The Bust was just growing pains.

It probably could be reasonably argued that the industry is still in an ugly duckling phase (multi-Billion dollar valuations, _really?_ )

But this is part of growing up.

In _Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace_ Lessig writes:

 _It is a lack of a certain kind of regulation that produced the Y2K problem, not too much regulation. An overemphasis on the private got us here, not an overly statist federal government. Were the tort system better at holding producers responsible for the harms they create, code writers and their employers would have been more concerned with the harm their code would create. Were contract law not so eager to allow liability in economic transactions to be waived, the licenses that absolved the code writers of any potential liability from bad code would not have induced an even greater laxity in what these code writers were producing. And were the intellectual property system more concerned with capturing and preserving knowledge than with allowing private actors to capture and preserve profit, we might have had a copyright system that required the lodging of source code with the government before the protection of copyright was granted, thus creating an incentive to preserve source code and hence create a resource that does not now exist but that we might have turned to in undoing the consequences of this bad code. If in all these ways government had been different, the problems of Y2K would have been different as well._

[source: <http://www.code-is-law.org/conclusion_excerpt.html>]

This is dated (1999), but interesting. He was wrong about Y2K, of course, but not about the underlying issues and problems with contract law and IP.

<comment><USER25> Why would a coder ever be held responsible for something not specified in the requirements doc? If people wanted Y2K compliant software in the 70s and 80s they should have specified it.

As for multibillion dollar valuations, what's wrong with the valuations on MSFT, AAPL, GOOG? If you think the PE is crazy on LNKD, just short it. As for what VCs are willing to invest for particular companies those investments are more anecdotes than data.

<comment><USER4> Because it's not unreasonable to expect the coder to supply you with something which will not fail arbitrarily in 10 years for a reason which is 100% predictable. A parallel example: If an Architect designs you a building which develops a leak because of a mistake in a construction detail you would sue for the cost of repairs and damage to property. Either in contract if available or in Tort for negligence if no contract exists.

<comment><USER26> Buildings are expected to last, and cutting corners (on multi decade support, for example) is not exactly a "mistake" like the one that would spring a leak. Aside from that, where do you draw the line?

If the software doesn't work with accented characters and it wasn't in the specs, do you blame the coder? Reading that common-but-not-currently-used-here file type? IPv6 support?

Maybe it's because I'm a coder, but if you want a building to withstand an earthquake, you gotta say so.

<comment><USER27> Buildings also need to be maintained and retrofitted. Around here in Cambridge, there are countless residential and commercial buildings that were built before the days of electricity and air conditioning, and even plumbing in some cases. The maintenance costs often far outweigh the initial building costs, even given inflation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Linkbait. Some of my competitors write contracts specifically so that they can sue other companies. How about this, I fucking read my contracts and I don't sign bullshit.

<comment><USER29> Thanks for sharing this. Do you have any tips for things to look out for?

<comment><USER13> The main thing I look for is unknowable downside. For example, when a big company asks my small company to indemnify them, I always limit the indemnification to whatever they paid for the work. If they don't like that, then I get a different client.

ALSO, NEVER let lawyers run the show. Lawyers are your water boys/girls -- they do what YOU want them to do. If they don't, then get a different lawyer. YOU have to read and understand everything in a contract -- and lawyers can help you do that. But in general, you tell your lawyer what you want, and she does it. End of story.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Articles like this depress me, because in 1998, I totally knew how to make websites, but didn't know I could make money doing it. Instead I was 18 and doing what I was supposed to do, that is I was busy going to school, and now I'm 31 and still in school not making money. What's wrong with me? Sigh.

<comment><USER31> It's still possible to make money building web sites, perhaps more so than ever. If you aren't happy with still being in school, why aren't you putting the pieces in place to start your own web development practice?

<comment><USER30> You make a good point. Mostly the answer is that after 10 years I'm definitely going to see this through and finish my degree :)

But also, 10 years ago I might have been interested in web development, today I have developed skills in other areas (robotics, embedded programming, etc). It would be a shame not to put them to use. Perhaps more importantly, if I got back into web stuff, I'd be quite far behind in the game; I simply wouldn't have the skills for someone with my experience level. Probably I could get up to speed quickly, but I'd prefer to stick to what I know; there just happens to be so much work in web stuff lately that looking at the job market I sometimes get this omninous feeling that I've been making a mistake...

Anyways, looking for work now for when I'm done my degree later this year, so we'll see how it goes. I have an impression that this must be a common feeling for people at the end of their doctoral studies, so I try not to be overly worried.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> I think the lesson is here it's all fine and dandy until someone does sue you. Then it's a different story.

<comment><USER33> If you're a 22-year-old with no assets it's probably not much different; you lose a judgment and declare bankruptcy and that's that.

If you're older and have a lot of assets, you just do it via a corporation and it's the same, thanks to the magical unaccountability of the corporate veil.

<comment><USER34> Nowadays a lot of companies try to add clauses that pierce the corporate veil (for example, having personal guarantees)

<comment><USER35> For all kinds of things, like leases and such were the company is too young to have any credit. But a personal guarantee on delivering a website on time would be a bit much.

<comment><USER34> For longer projects, you should be asking for some sort of upfront payment (to avoid being screwed over -- i learned that the hard way).

In that circumstance, companies may demand some sort of clawback if benchmarks aren't met.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> I agree with the sentiment of this point in general I think. Having counsel read every single contract and letting them wrestle directly with clients is probably a bad idea. Your lawyer will have only your interests in mind (or theirs, who knows?), and it probably won't lead to much productive happening. And even further, taking a few business law classes would be cheaper than using up tons of lawyer hours and probably net a better end result.

Anecdotally, At Arcturo, both myself and one of my principal guys have a good bit of contract reading experience (he much much more than myself). Every time I get a contract, I toss it to him and let him give me a thumbs up/down/comment. Having him around to handle reading things over and nit picking (often times to the point of having their lawyers concede points to us they hadn't addressed or thought of) has been awesome. If you can find someone who has a lot of business operations experience and can also hack code, they'll add a LOT of value to your company.

</comment><comment><USER37> Remember watching a vid (1) where Pud explicitly mentioned his mom being said lawyer and his dad (as mentioned in the article) being the entrepreneur. Wonder why he left that out this time. I certainly enjoyed the dichotomy know who his folks were and what role each played. (1) <http://vimeo.com/25489184>

<comment><USER38> Certainly puts things in a different perspective.

His mother tanked the first deal? So his father told him to fire her? I'd love to be a fly on the wall at that family christmas.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> Just change that one line "He was right. I got the job, they paid, things went well, nobody got sued." to "He was wrong. I got the job, they didn't pay, things went horribly wrong, everybody go sued".

<comment><USER40> Even if it were changed to that, the story wouldn't end with "I couldn't buy food, my macbook pro got repossessed, and I went to federal pound-you-in-the- ass prison."

If you do get sued and your business collapses you can always start another one.

<comment><USER41> Personal liability would be a nasty thing to deal with after your business failed. And you may not get to start another company with a huge personal debt.

<comment><USER40> It's so easy to incorporate it should always be done. I assume when someone starts working with that kind of money and has knowledgeable lawyers advising them that they'll be told to do that.

<comment><USER42> Incorporating without sufficient capital makes it almost trivial to "pierce the veil" of incorporation and go directly after the company's owners.

<comment><USER40> That seems somewhat backward, because it would discourage those with limited assets from starting businesses and trying to improve their situation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> "Just be lucky like I was" is rather poor advice.

<comment><USER44> Did you read the very last line of his post? "I'm not sure what the lesson is here."

I don't see him giving advice to anybody. I see him recounting some rather... debatable decisions early in his career.

<comment><USER43> Yeah, but if you're recounting what has worked well for you in your career, you're giving advice - even if you qualify it at the last minute with a totally wishy washy ending like that.

Also, if you've followed Kaplan since his (awesome) "Fucked Company" website you'll know that the man is no babe in the woods. IMO he has too good a grasp on the nature and consequences of risk to be "not sure" what the lesson is here.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> Well, your business may well not be like his business. First, it was all new then, and the first half of the swhoosh to the top.

But being of the conservative sort, I have generally had a lawyer review whatever contracts people want me to sign, firstly for him to explain what it really means--what are the actual risks. Even as a very young fellow in my first one with a contract, I knew enough that it was for me to make the business decision and for my lawyer to explain what the legal ins and outs were.

Then there was the fellow who liked to do negotiation by contract. It said that everything that I did they owned, probably back a year before I started, and that if I didn't perform the would take my house and my first born, but then on the second page they said that we are kidding about the house. And it was from a law firm that was bigger than most buildings, and Very Famous. But I pushed back and after a couple of cycles got things to be in a reasonable state.

In another long-term consulting contract negotiation, my lawyer's first response after reading it was one word "Egregious". Fortunately, I was able to hammer that into better shape. This was one where the contract was supposedly non-negotiable. I learned something there.

But in no world that I am familiar with does it make sense for the lawyer to do the negotiation. They (in all likelihood) don't understand your business as well as you do.

Even though I have been doing this for a while now, I wouldn't sign anything without a lawyer's review.

But I have also been at the other extreme, where there was no contract for a multi-year deal and it worked out well.

Use a lawyer, but use the lawyer wisely.

</comment><comment><USER46> The interesting part of this from my perspective is "my dad - a lifelong entrepreneur."

I recently saw that pud is a year younger than me, and we entered the job market at almost the same time with similar skill sets. Why did it take me so goddamn long to pull my head out of my ass and finally start my own company (at 35)?

Perhaps pud's acceptance of risk has a genetic component, or at the very least he was brought up in an environment where he learned to adjust to uncertainty.

He credits laziness - but we all know that lazy + smart = effective. I wonder if that's part of entrepreneurial DNA as well...

<comment><USER47> We don't necessarily need to turn to genetics to explain this.

When one of your parents is an entrepreneur, being an entrepreneur yourself is a natural and obvious option -- but when no one in your family has ever started a business, it's anything but.

When I was younger, I simply didn't think 'hey, I could start a business' when thinking of things I could do with myself.

I wouldn't be so hard on yourself. We're all products of our environment.

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> Sounds like the opposite advice to: <http://www.vimeo.com/22053820> (Fuck you, pay me).

Should have found a better lawyer.

</comment><comment><USER49> If you are the small guy, then try to get YOUR document to be the starting point. Use YOUR law firm to write it. Go to a law firm and tell them to use something from a similar contract before.

If you expect there will be negotiations, basically try to use and re-use your standard document. You are going to be in this business for a while, hopefully. So you only have to pay for your standard document once. Plus you'll know the ins and outs of it better than anyone else.

I think the right solution these days is to insist on standard documents and focus on the amendments rather than getting something from scratch. There is a good list of documents to form startups, for example, here:

[http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2010/03/standardized-venture- funding...](http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2010/03/standardized-venture-funding- docs.html)

Similarly there are things at legalzoom and other places. I realize that sometimes the big company will insist on going with their standard contract, but if they were really that adamant, they wouldn't let you go back and forth with your lawyer too much. Just start with your own document or walk away if you don't want to take the risk.

</comment><comment><USER50> One of my favorite bosses was general counsel for a state government agency. She once told me that "no contract can ensure performance of someone of poor character."

Whenever I'm offered a contract, I boil it down like this: "Do I believe they'll hold up their end of the bargain?" If the answer is no, I do not sign the contract.

</comment><comment><USER51> This sort of advise works great until they actually do sue. One of my biggest clients got recently sued by a long term client of his - a Fortune 100 company with all kinds of legal resources. My client had to shut down his business and then scramble to protect his personal assets like house, properties, etc.

</comment><comment><USER52> sounds like your dad had faith in you, above all. don't misinterpret this as careless disregard for risk.

</comment><comment><USER53> TL;DR;

"Get lucky"... Then walk away with survivor bias.

</comment><comment><USER54> I took something different from this article, which was that if you wait to do business until you have a sure thing, then you are waiting too long. Take advantage of opportunities, and figure out the details on thew way.

</comment><comment><USER55> > I'm not sure what the lesson is here.

The lesson is : you were lucky. You are the prey to some people who look for people like you to sign a contract and then extort money. Saw that happen at a company I worked for.

</comment><comment><USER56> Not just a way to run a business, but a way to live life. Might not work for everyone, just as the opposite of whatever this strategy is may not work for everyone.

</comment><comment><USER57> The two contracts I spent the most time going back and forth with before signing were the two biggest wastes of my time. One was a ridiculous NDA with a paranoid guy with delusions that he had the world's best original idea which turned out to be worthless and obvious. The other was a decent gig but they tanked and ran out of cash before I ever got paid. It didn't matter how tight the contract was when there's no money there.

</comment><comment><USER58> You have to balance your risk and reward and take the biggest risks when you have little to lose. The riskiest thing you can do is play it safe.

<comment><USER59> I know it feels good to think this, but often times playing it safe is _not_ the riskiest thing to do. Climbing the corporate ladder, being smart with investments, and doing the right things financially are considered "playing it safe" and would be viewed considerably less risky than alternatives.

</comment></comment><comment><USER60> When there's nothing to lose, there's everything to gain, but when there's everything to lose, there's alot more lawyering that will keep yer nose clean if something eventually goes south. Get a lawyer when there's really something to lose.

</comment><comment><USER61> Congrats on constructing the perfect troll for this community!

</comment><comment><USER62> This is really dangerous advice

</comment><comment><USER7> I wish someone would write an expert system that works like his dad. Something that had some validation of what was a worthwhile risk and what was a risk that even if you tried to mitigate the risk really would still be a risk. (For instance, even if you had enough work to presume you could employ that employee for more than 2 months, that's not a guarantee. What if the contract with a customer was for 12 months, but 2 months in, right after staffing up, they just cancelled it and said "fucking sue me"? Kinda hard for the small startup to sue... and if they did, and they won, that win would be years after they had to let the employees go.)

You can't mitigate all risk, and being able to ignore the ones that you can't' do anything about is an important skill.

This goes for technical risk as well. I try not to over-architect. I spend a lot of time trying to decide which things need to be handled now, and which things can just be added later.

</comment><comment><USER63> Great post. :)</comment>


Google Maps 2D Driving Simulator - <AUTHOR> http://framesynthesis.com/drivingsimulator/maps/ <comment><USER2> How do I shoot? [1]

[1][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Theft_Auto_2](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Theft_Auto_2)

<comment><USER3> Need a handbrake! [SPACE]

<comment><USER2> Yeah, the car doesn't really slow down. Anyways, this has an insane amount of potential. Imagine the moral questions raised, when people spend hours committing violent crimes in a simulation with their neighbors.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Rotate the map, rather than the car. With OpenGL in the browser, you can get the graphics card to do it.

</comment><comment><USER5> It would be fun to add some multiplayer support via websocket just like Mozilla did with BrowserQuest. Maybe make it run on phones and take it with you when you actually drive.

Then we can simulate the traffic jam in Mountain View together!

<comment> h-m-b-g [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uveD0Z3lIWo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uveD0Z3lIWo)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Could it get roads and buildings from OpenStreetMap to add collisions?

</comment><comment><USER7> Next step. Make it 3D using Street View. Theoretically, you have enough 3D information in there to detect building collisions. Also, Oculus ;).

<comment><USER8> The developer seems to be making progress: [http://framesynthesis.com/drivingsimulator/3d/](http://framesynthesis.com/drivingsimulator/3d/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Wouldn't it be better if he used an airplane since the car is flying over building and fences anyways

</comment><comment><USER10> Eventually driving simulators should replace 80% of initial real-world driving instruction. It has the potential to be a lot safer, cheaper and environmentally friendly.

Not to mention that repetition-based practice of mind-muscle reflexes, like stick-shifting, could just as well be practiced in a fun context (like racing simulators).

<comment><USER11> You'll need to replicate the full physical feedback, i.e. you'll need a simulator machine akin to what flight pilots use.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Good stuff, small remark: the braking and accelerating on the car are pretty poor (as in, both take forever).

<comment><USER13> And it handles like a brick in a vacuum. The momentum taking you of your lane in a corner at 20km/h is just ridiculous.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> It says "Box2D" but I am not seeing any collisions, is it just for car control?

</comment><comment><USER15> Driving around Mountain View again gave me a big nostalgia trip. I miss that place.

<comment> david-given I fly out of there tomorrow. I'm _not_ going to miss it (except for the excellent food).

<comment><USER16> Why not?

<comment> david-given It's a desolate suburban wasteland of freeways and strip malls, utterly lacking in character, history and any real sense of geography.

Although I will grant you that once you get up into the hills it's really rather nice.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Reminds me of the first (pre 3D shooter) Grand Theft Auto.

</comment><comment><USER18> reminds me someone had put together a way of entering directions into google maps, then seeing a 3D view of the step by step navigation. Anyone remember what the url was for that?

</comment><comment><USER19> It riminds me of a video game I used to play as a kid -- you could be the driver of a hook-and-ladder fire engine, and you could drive in the front or back position. The fun part was driving through neighborhoods smashing everything flat and causing fires, all in awesome two-color graphics!

</comment><comment><USER20> The turn radius on my car is abysmal

</comment><comment><USER21> Whoa, this is so cool because you can pick a real world location you're familiar with, and role play driving around, and you know you can reach any destination you imagine. It's going to be there. So fun.

<comment><USER22> It let me see how fast I can get to work if I drive 120 km per hour. :)

<comment><USER23> This, combined with driving through a few walls and parks seemed to speed up my commute considerably.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I had a fun time flying down the runway at Groom Lake going 150mph

</comment><comment><USER25> I wonder if you could detect trees and objects from the shadows

<comment><USER26> Also there is 3D data for buildings that could be used.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> The car controls really weirdly. When you steer to the right, it slides right off the road to the left.

It's like the center of rotation is in front of the car, instead of beside it.

</comment><comment><USER28> That's pretty awesome. Would be cool if you could upload a google tracks file and have it show you're route with the car.

</comment><comment><USER29> Make this a multiplayer, an MMO! Force a slightly different field of view, like a chase view and it'll get even better!

</comment><comment><USER30> Neat! Of course the first thing I tried to do was see whether you could drive though buildings. You can.

<comment><USER31> Same. It's neat, but I don't think you can call it a simulator without collision detection.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> >No WASD

:(

</comment><comment><USER33> Cool. This really needs some audio though.

</comment><comment><USER34> Awesome!

</comment><comment><USER35> Game of the year!

...and I'm not kidding</comment>


After co-founder breakup, who can claim the name of the startup? - <AUTHOR> I just broke up with my co-founders because they declined to work full-time for our startup, something that I've been doing since the start. We haven't incorporated yet, and the domain was registered under my name (I also came up with the name--if that's important). After the breakup, I told my co-founders that I still wanted to run the startup, but they said I need to use different business name. It feels unfair to me because they don't even seem to care for the name; they just don't want me to get the advantage of the brand that was built together. What do you think? I will really appreciate your views on this issue. <comment><USER2> If you want a definitive answer, you'd really need to discuss this with a lawyer who is familiar with the laws of your state.

If you do something that your co-founders can sue you for, it could end up costing you much more than a consultation with a lawyer would. A lawyer can also give you advice on how to avoid this kind of situation if you want to start a new business in the future.

</comment><comment><USER3> You came up with the name, and you also paid for the domain. It's yours. I would just keep doing what you're doing.

Do you think they'll bother taking you to court? I doubt it.

<comment><USER2> > You came up with the name, and you also paid for the domain. It's yours.

It's not that clear. It depends on what kind of an agreement was made with the co-founders about the joint ownership of intellectual property, and the business name (trademark) is intellectual property. Even a verbal agreement could constitute a binding contract. The co-founders may have also contributed to the product that the poster now wants to keep working on.

> Do you think they'll bother taking you to court?

It depends on how much money is at stake. There may be nothing worth suing for today, but if the business ever becomes successful, the co-founders could have more to gain by suing. If the poster doesn't establish a clear right to use the shared intellectual property, the risk of a lawsuit would always be lurking.

For example, the Winklevosses sued Mark Zuckerberg for using their ideas and code in Facebook, and ended up with a $65 million settlement:

 _" In 2004, ConnectU filed a lawsuit against Facebook alleging that creator Mark Zuckerberg had breached an oral contract to develop ConnectU and used their source code and idea to create TheFacebook.com. The suit alleged that Zuckerberg had copied their idea and illegally used source code intended for the website he was hired to create."_[1]

This is why getting competent legal advice is essential.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ConnectU#Facebook_lawsuits](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ConnectU#Facebook_lawsuits)</comment></comment>


Proxyman – a modern and intuitive HTTP debugging proxy for macOS - <AUTHOR> https://proxyman.app/ <comment><USER2> Saw this app on Twitter yesterday [https://twitter.com/KrauseFx/status/1143998523265957888](https://twitter.com/KrauseFx/status/1143998523265957888). Seems like a lightweight version of Charles :-?</comment>


Uber creates a 10% drop in DUIs - <AUTHOR> http://duischoolnv.com/2016/01/01/uber-creates-a-10-drop-in-duis/ <comment><USER2> I wonder how that would correlate with the "death by drunk driving stat?"</comment>


What Programming Languages Do You Struggle To Hire For? - <AUTHOR> http://www.codingcupboard.com/blog/2014/01/29/programming-skills-needed-uk-businesses-grow/ <comment><USER2> Speaking as someone who has done a _little_ hiring (i.e. authorized to hire two more people for my team at BigCorp) the answer is "All of them".

I'm not being facetious, I seriously mean that.

The skilled people you want are a scarce resource in a world of high demand. The recruiters shotgun anyone whose resume buzzword-matches at least 25% of the job posting. It just sucks.

Imho, your best bet is to develop relationships with the sorts of people you wish you could hire and offer them something interesting when you hear they're considering a move.

<comment><USER3> We're currently trying to hire one or two people in Aalborg, Denmark. Getting anyone with skills beyond C# or Java for a smallish company is next to impossible. We're looking for Python and/or Javascript skills, preferably working knowledge of Unix. We've gotten may one real application, it's strikes me as a bit strange, I would have loved to have had open positions like ours when I graduated.

An open position in bookkeeping or warehousing however will get us 300+ applications. Skilled software developer ( and yes you can be newly graduated ) will get us nothing.

So yes, I would agree with: "All of them", there aren't enough people to go around currently.

<comment> k-mcgrady >> "Skilled software developer ( and yes you can be newly graduated ) will get us nothing"

Maybe that's the problem. I'm a freelancer but anytime I've thought about applying for a full-time software developer position I get put off by words like 'skilled', 'senior', and a list of technologies the person needs to know that no single developer in the world knows.

I've been coding for about 8 years, professionally for 5 and I consider myself a good programmer. But I don't know if I fit your definition of skilled or someone else's definition of senior as those are both too subjective. It puts me off applying mainly because I don't want to embarrass myself.

Edit: I think a good way to hire would be a short coding test a person can take online BEFORE applying. If they pass they know they are skilled enough to apply for the position, if not they don't get laughed out of the room.

<comment><USER4> For good companies, laundry lists of skills are more like wish lists than requirements, especially with niche technologies. Use the job description to figure out what general kind of developer they're looking for (low level? database? UI? enterprise? team lead?) and apply if you're interested.

Regarding the idea in your edit, huge companies like Facebook and Google do have coding puzzles and competitions. People who excel in those surely gain confidence to apply to all sorts of job openings.

<comment><USER5> > _For good companies, laundry lists of skills are more like wish lists than > requirements, especially with niche technologies._

No, for good companies requirements will be actual requirements and as such be fairly short, the rest if the list appearing as "bonus", "preferred", or other flexible adjective.

I'm a former systems engineer who used to do requirements analysis, so I am a little sensitive to misuse of the word "requirement". Job postings like you describe drive me up the wall.

<comment><USER4> I can relate to that. But I'm willing to give companies a pass on a crappy job posting if the position itself is interesting.

<comment><USER6> Especially since it was very likely written, or at least mangled, by HR staff.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Or, to put it another way, why are you so averse to investing in people/your company that you're looking for the finished article on the job market, rather than finding good people and helping them learn the specific skills you need?

<comment><USER8> Because we need a solution _now_ and can't take time to teach you anything. Can you start last week?

/s

<comment><USER9> You forgot the part about saving the company...

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfxTc7_1UVE](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfxTc7_1UVE)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Don't hire someone for their knowledge in a specific language! (Unless you're doing some very core work in that language)

Hire someone who knows the concepts behind most languages, and can easily understand new ones.

<comment><USER11> I don't understand how people believe this is universally good advice. Perhaps if your company is large enough that you can reasonably pay new employees for weeks or months before they're actually productive, I can see this being feasible. But that's not most companies.

Keep in mind that this also likely impacts the productivity of at least one of your current employees, and if it doesn't, your newbie's language acquisition is not going to happen as fast, and their ramp-up time on your projects is going to be longer.

There's a big gray area between well-funded startup and well-established business where an entirely unproductive employee can have a non-trivial impact on your cash flow.

<comment><USER12> No employee is going to be productive on a new codebase for weeks or months, regardless of the languages they knew coming in. And they're still going to be a drain on resources while coming up to speed with the code base, even if they know the language.

The sooner you realize this, the sooner you'll understand what your real hiring requirements are.

<comment><USER13> I once eavesdropped on some HR people talking shop, and heard the unsupported claim that thanks to employment laws in the US, new employees are rarely profitable until their second year with the company, which is why it is important to hide the company's warts from the new employees.

After that first year, it isn't quite so crucial to keep you happy. That explains why you never get the raise you were expecting after the annual reviews. You are now profitable, therefore paying you more would reduce profits and make you a less valuable employee.

And so we must go job-hopping.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> We don't struggle to hire programmers for languages. The struggle is find programmers who understand the concepts we need them to understand.

That, and Android developers.

<comment><USER15> Out of interest, what concepts are you talking about?

<comment><USER14> Different things depending on what we are hiring for. It also depends on how people present themselves. Algorithms, protocols, software design, data structures.

Hell, there are times I'd be happy if people just understood the difference between TCP and UDP, or knew how to make an HTTP request. I guess it would be a lot easier if we were just looking for code monkeys to follow orders.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> It's true that certain languages are particularly hot, and thus particularly in demand. The three that come to mind right away are Ruby, Python, and JavaScript, for which there seems to be unquenchable demand, even if the absolute number of such jobs is dwarfed by Java and C#. I'm sure that there is a shortage of good Erlang, Scala, and Clojure developers, as well.

But no matter what language you're looking to hire for, you're likely to come up short. That's because you don't just want someone who can write code in XYZ, but someone who can write amazing code, _and_ interact well with the others in the company, _and_ be sensitive to business needs, _and_ communicate well. That combination is rare, no matter how popular and new (or unpopular and old) the language is.

Heck, everyone's favorite punching bag, Cobol, is still used in a huge number of businesses. I've seen in a number of places that if you want to make lots of money doing un-sexy work, you should become a Cobol specialist. Believe me, the businesses who need Cobol developers don't really care that Ruby is the new hotness; they've got billions of dollars invested in existing code that needs to be maintained and improved.

<comment><USER17> There's also lots of money to be made in pivoting/combining your career learned lessons to date and applying them to a different area.

For example, you could take all that great knowledge about unit testing you learned in the Ruby space, and jump into Cobol and in all likelihood you will not only be able to share a new thing or two to some Cobol folks, you might contribute to far better maintained Cobol code.

The new ideas tend to congregate to the language-du-jour.

Of course, most of the "new ideas" were done on Smalltalk and Lisp years ago, but I digress.

<comment><USER4> For the most part that's true, but (for example) unit testing isn't as important in Haskell as it is in Ruby (due to stricter typing rules). Even something simple like mocking an interface requires a lot of boilerplate in C.

That being said, there are probably some things that can be pivoted. The value is in having attempted them in pilot projects so that you already know what works.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> For most programmers its not the new language, its the custom libraries, obscure frameworks, legacy code, or tooling that is going to be an issue for them.

<comment><USER19> Exactly. I can get a guy up to speed with C# in a matter of hours. The problem comes up when we've got to deal with issues in IIS, Entity Framework, ASP.Net MVC, etc. etc.

Most commodity programming languages are simple. Either they feel kinda like Javascript, or they feel kinda like Java. Obviously there are a few shops out there doing elaborate stuff with Clojure and they have a higher bar, but probably 95% of the work out there is being done with "typical statically- typed VM-based language" or "typical dynamically-typed language".

<comment><USER20> I don't really agree. While you can certainly explain the basic syntax of a language in a few hours (assuming a developer who is at least familiar with a diversity of other languages,) it take a lot of time for most developers to become skilled at writing efficient, idiomatic code on a new platform.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> A lot of times it is the company's hiring process that is broken. I recently did a phone interview for a company and it was an absolute disaster right from the start. The interviewer started asking questions about specific Python functions/methods without even asking me about previous work experience. He was so adamant in trying to understand if I could program that he simply forgot to ask about me. This turned me off instantly and I did not answer any questions. I kept the interview short and politely declined through email for any sub-sequent interviews.

Their product is APIs for the financial sector. I write APIs for a living, and have done so for a while. Including APIs for the financial sector. I understood their challenges, and the technology. But rather than try and get to know about my experience a little bit first, he decided to test me on my knowledge of some obscure explanation in the Python documentation.

In contrast, my current employer did the opposite. They got to know me a little bit first and then asked me questions about programming. They brought me in as a contractor for a short period of time and observed me work. Then they did three more interviews including a technical one. Which was really interesting to do because it revolved around the decisions made in the short project I was given. The process was very smooth, and I have already shipped a project for the company, and am in the process of shipping the second one. No silly questions about coin flipping, no fizz buzz on a whiteboard. Just real questions about my skills, and an opportunity to show them off on their own environment. I wish more companies hired this way.

<comment><USER4> > They brought me in as a contractor for a short period of time and observed > me work.

I'm glad that worked out for you, but for the time being, contract work is much more complicated than it should be in the U.S. Expecting all future employees to work through a contracting period while paying double payroll taxes and sticker-prices for health insurance probably isn't reasonable.

But as an option for potential employees, that sounds great.

<comment><USER21> Yes, I agree. It is complicated, but ultimately worth it if you are able to secure someone with my skill set/experience. It might not work for people fresh out of college, but for those of us with years of experience the work environment and insight into how management works is very important.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> This is a fundamentally flawed way to hire. Once a developer has 7-10 years of experience, they should be able to learn a new language in a couple of weeks. If you need a Python developer then hire a Python or Ruby developer. If you need a Java developer then hire someone with C# or C++ experience. And once a developer has around 15 years experience, then their past languages don't really matter any more. If they are good at what they do, then they can be productive with new tools from day one. Sure they might be mostly doing code review those first two weeks while they get up to speed, but an experienced developer can provide valuable input to younger developers that provides value to the employer.

Fact is that we really don't know how to build effective developer teams in the long haul because we have been in an unusual time period where almost all developers have only a few years of experience in their first language.

Times are changing.

</comment><comment><USER13> The answer to the question is "all of them," because it is the wrong question to ask.

When you hire for experience instead of aptitude, it's like trying to photograph Sasquatch with a macro lens.

I see company after company leaving postings open for months instead of just hiring someone and giving him some books to read for two weeks. I thought that was the point of brainteaser interviews--to find out how smart the interviewee is, aside from specific experience.

It is very clear to me that the system for hiring skilled labor in software is flawed at its foundations. There is plenty of supply out there. If you cannot fill your demand, it is for one of two reasons: your requirements are too narrow, or your offered amount is too low.

Is hiring someone fresh out of the diploma stamper and investing in a tiny bit of training really that horrible from a management perpective?

</comment><comment><USER23> I'd like to come at it from the opposite direction, and help engineers build out profiles of what they are looking for. Not another resume site, but a forum for making anonymous declarations of what the the perfect job(s) would look like. And something similar for potential employers. I probably wouldn't even focus on making connections, but instead just provide scores and feedback on availability, trends, regional factors, indirect costs, etc.

It seems like that sort of data would be worth something to new and established businesses, who both have to sort through an increasingly crowded forest of tools and technology.

<comment><USER4> Isn't this sort of what LinkedIn is for?

<comment><USER23> I find linkedin to be relatively useless in this context. I need to be able to supply scores and weights to the various things I'm looking for, and to submitted job descriptions. I'd like to get at what candidates are looking for, not just what they have done.

It makes sense to list Java and C# in a profile, but I'd give a bump to Python and Haskell opportunities, personally (others might do the opposite).

Actual hiring is driven more by accomplishments anyway.

<comment><USER5> What you are describing sounds more like OKCupid for engineering jobs.

<comment><USER23> Maybe e-harmony, since it'd be double blind model-driven matching, but with near real time feedback while one is refining a set of preference parameters.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> > What Programming Skills Are Needed For UK Businesses To Grow?

[x] Being able to put up a survey and allow a visitor to receive notification when results are available without faking input and pretending they're a company

<comment><USER4> Yeah, I'm interested in the results, but not interested in junking up their data in order to see them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Talking strictly about UK, but I'm pretty sure this applies to majority of other countries as well. Recruiters are the firewall that surrounds absolute majority of jobs and they won't let you through unless you follow their bullshit protocols. They call you up and try to psyche you up with a position in a modern company/startup which works with new technologies like Haskell, Erlang, Scala, Clojure, etc. There's only one thing though, you have to pass their online 2 hour IKM Java 6 test to be considered... Most of the recruiters I've dealt with don't know the difference between Java and JavaScript. I think this would be a good niche for a startup - providing a service that cuts off the dead meat - incompetent recruiters.

</comment><comment><USER26> JavaScript. So many bad developers, so few good ones. You get a lot of people coming to interview.

<comment><USER13> I just had an interview where the company passed because they wanted someone with specific Javascript experience, and I had only useless unrelated experience with Lisp, C++, Java, and C#. None of those could possibly help a new hire be successful, when what they really need to know is the syntax of a specific scripting language.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> I read the actual page as "Please tell us why you're prejudiced against hiring Graduate Developers and give us your email address so we can name and shame you/your company."

</comment><comment><USER28> Does anyone know how in demand Perl skills are?

I am being asked to learn Perl by my employer and I am wondering how much real value it will add to my CV down the line.

<comment><USER29> what kind of Perl skills? sysadmin skills automating server tasks? web framework skills like mason? something else?

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> That they even focus on programming languages for candidates, seems misplaced.

When I tell people I am a software engineer, they inevitably ask me what programming language I use. I use the right language for the job. In the past 5 years I've just happened to use C, C++, C#, Python, Perl, shell, AWK, Fortran, m4, and several assembly languages. The language is just a way of expressing something which needs to get done. If necessary, I could learn a new language for a new job.

I'd rather hire a candidate who is able to find and use the right programming language for a job, teaching themselves if necessary, than a candidate with competencies in a given language.

It's always a matter of cost -- what is the quickest and most productive way, now and in the future, to deliver what the customer needs? The costs factor in the decision of which language to use.

The fixation with specific programming languages seems to be misplaced.

It also seems slightly insulting to say that if you haven't had prior experience writing code in a specific language, then you are not a good candidate for the job. Some of us can learn new languages quickly.

For example, I had over 20 years of C experience before I learned C++ on the job through self-learning. I was not hired as a C++ expert, but for broader experience. C++ just happened to be the best language for the project, so I learned it, all the way to template metaprogramming. Before I left the company, I was the goto person for C++ language questions, which is ego boosting in a way, but is not where I wanted my career to go. I did not want to become a language goto person where everyone sent their C++ template compilation error messages. C++ is just a means to an end.

Even if the job requires competency in a specific language because it is the best language for that job, or because there has already been a lot of code invested in that language, a generalist who is able to learn a new language is better than a specialist in one language.

The only time I'd want a specialist in a particular language would be if they were working on a compiler or interpreter for that language, where expert knowledge of the language, and not merely programming competence in the language, is required.

The question should be: Are you hiring a translator competent in a specific language, or are you hiring a problem-solver who can write in a variety of languages and who can learn new ones appropriate for the problem at hand?

Most programming jobs are the latter.

</comment><comment><USER31> GPU programmers who know CUDA

<comment><USER32> You should get in touch with the Texas Advanced Computing Center at the University of Texas. They have people teaching and learning CUDA/OpenCL in large batches; and like any good academic program they want to ensure their students are employed (and employable!). If you like, email me and I'll set up an introduction.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> Might want to change "Objective C" to "Objective C (because Apple told us we couldn't)" /snarly_remark</comment>


Dash – Beautiful instant offline docs for almost everything - <AUTHOR> http://kapeli.com/dash?hn=1 <comment><USER2> In my experience (using Zeal - which is the Linux QT port of Dash and uses the same repos) the docs generally seem to have some glaring oversights at the moment.

Possibly Zeal's search just isn't as good yet, but I had a heck of a time finding things about Python which are trivial to locate on the website through Google.

Speaking of: [http://zealdocs.org/download.html](http://zealdocs.org/download.html)

Dash-docs for Linux, PPA for Ubuntu/Mint available! It uses the exact same documentation sets and supports downloading in app.

<comment><USER3> Having just built a docset for Python 2.2.1 [1], I think the issue with search is that it relies on generated indexes. If the index does not include the keyword you're looking for, it won't return anything. For example, in my docset I've indexed all modules, which is what I'm usually interested in, but not the entire language specification (although it's in the actual package).

[1] [http://blog.pythonaro.com/2014/06/dash-docset-for- python-221...](http://blog.pythonaro.com/2014/06/dash-docset-for- python-221-ie-jython.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I've enjoyed [http://devdocs.io/](http://devdocs.io/) for the same purpose, though it doesn't have quite the same library.

<comment><USER5> devdocs' C++ doesn't have the first thing I tried (list::erase)

<comment><USER6> It's in there under std::list, but for some reason erase and begin are linked to externally. All the other member functions seem to be present/offline.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> What happened with this? [https://twitter.com/wakaba_en/status/322751026211983360](https://twitter.com/wakaba_en/status/322751026211983360) [https://dribbble.com/shots/1046492-Dash-app-replacement- icon](https://dribbble.com/shots/1046492-Dash-app-replacement-icon)

<comment><USER8> It looks like there's a back-and-forth with someone associated with Dash on the Dribbble here: [https://dribbble.com/shots/1046492-Dash-app-replacement- icon...](https://dribbble.com/shots/1046492-Dash-app-replacement- icon#comment-2490121)

The icon has changed since then as well.

<comment><USER7> That was the second in the comment you replied to. I reread it though and noticed that it looks like they admitted their mistake: [https://dribbble.com/shots/1046492-Dash-app-replacement- icon...](https://dribbble.com/shots/1046492-Dash-app-replacement- icon#comment-2490121)

I guess I'm OK with the situation now and I shall use Dash without guilt (if it turns out to be useful, buying the Alfred Powerpack now I think).

<comment><USER9> I can't unsee how bad that black visor looks on the new icon, though.

They should just throw out the baby and the bathwater and start fresh.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> I travel a lot. And I'm thinking about buying a houseboat in France. I wish I'd seen this years ago. Happily purchased.

I can't believe this hasn't come up before - we had a big discussion about working offline on cruise ships and it wasn't mentioned. [1]

[1] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6697787](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6697787)

<comment><USER10> I'd be interested in hearing about your plans for a houseboat in France. I have plans to build a titanium Catamaran for a circumnavigation.

<comment><USER11> You sound like you are living up to your username.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Can't imagine life without this anymore. How it frees up the ~5 tabs of docs I used to have open in another window is worth it alone

For those of you on OSX, the integration with Alfred[0] is also stellar.

[0] - [http://www.alfredapp.com/](http://www.alfredapp.com/)

</comment><comment><USER13> For ppl living in emacs, there's a plugin that use dash docsets but don't require dash and it's quite integrated with emacs (helm).

They work in linux and windows.

BIAS ALERT: I'm coauthor of the plugin.

[https://github.com/areina/helm-dash](https://github.com/areina/helm-dash)

<comment><USER14> Oh, nice, I'll have to check that out! It's great to see these sorts of posts on HN, you learn something new every day :)

<comment><USER13> :)

Indeed, comments in HN aggregate a wiiide range of signal/noise. Great case of study.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> The thing about Dash is that it's just so much faster at displaying documentation than going to the browser and doing a search query - I use it even when I'm online with Alfred integration.

Certanly a great investment.

<comment><USER16> Agreed. I started using it back when it was a free beta and bought it once that was an option (iTunes receipt says that was a few days over two years ago), and I've probably used it daily since then. The ability to almost instantly search through tons of different docsets and find what I'm looking for, narrow them down, create groupings, and so on has made it absurdly useful to me.

I make a lot of my own docsets as well (i.e., ones for GLFW 3, Gambit Scheme, JeroMQ, and so on), since kapeli was hesitant in the past to add docsets that would be only of interest to really narrow groups of people, though it looks like the user docset thing on GitHub sort of fixes that. Either way, it not being closed off to outside docsets was nice, since I imagine it would've been easy to not allow it.

Anyway, glad to see it on HN since I'm a huge fan of Dash after using it for years. Sort of a shame it's Mac-only, since I keep looking around for ways to jump to Linux, but it looks like there're some open source alternatives. So, yeah, Dash was probably the best $30 I spent back in 2012.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> I bought Dash a year ago. I've barely used it. My brain is wired to search on the web, not on Dash. The only times I've used it were when I had no internet connectivity, and it saved me.

Great product, it just doesn't fit into my routine.

<comment><USER18> Many would find the cost justified even by the no-internet-connection saves!

Perhaps the author should integrate web search for the best of both worlds when available.

<comment><USER19> If I understand what you're suggesting, it does fall back to a web search if it doesn't find what you're looking for which can be really helpful.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Dash is great. The only reason I don't use it is that it offers only latest docset versions; once you update (in-app, great feature) the docsets, there is no way to access previous versions.

I would pay and use it immediately if I could access all versions (for example, Django 1.0 thru 1.7 etc)

<comment><USER21> The latest update of Dash added support for older versions. If any version you need is missing, let me know and I'll add it ASAP.

<comment><USER20> Wait, are you talking about 2.1.1? Can you describe how it works or point to docs or something?

<comment><USER21> Yes. There are now dropdown buttons next to each docset in Preferences > Downloads. You can use them to choose which version(s) you want.

<comment><USER20> Awesome! I bought it. Thank you :)

If it's possible, can you make available all Django versions, from 1.0 onwards? Too much work? Perhaps just 1.x.latest?

<comment><USER21> I'm not able to find the docs for Django 1.0 and 1.1, but all others should be doable. Right now I'm focusing on fixing things for OS X 10.10, but I've added a todo entry for this and as soon as I can I'll add them.

<comment><USER20> Yep, you're right, django 1.0 and 1.1 are not available anymore according to [https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/22273](https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/22273)

Take your time with other versions, it's not like it's urgent.

Once again thanks for great work.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Bought this a while back and was very impressed, definitely a worthwhile purchase if you ever spend some time without much internet access. The integration with Alfred + the fuzzy searching is just the icing on the cake.

Also as a little side note, I thought the way it handled the UI for tabs was interesting, though it does leave little room to grab the window and drag when you've got a few open.

</comment><comment><USER23> OS X is surprising to me. This is something that should be cross platform.

<comment><USER21> I'm Dash's developer. Currently there is Zeal, that has access to all of Dash's docsets - [http://zealdocs.org](http://zealdocs.org). Native apps for iOS and Windows are also under development and recently an app for Android has been released ([http://lovelydocs.io/](http://lovelydocs.io/)). Note: these apps are made by other developers, I'm just providing the docsets.

<comment><USER24> Zeal looks nice... but am I missing something or are there no urls available for just the docsets on the dash/zealdocs pages? I get that zealdocs can download dash docsets -- but quickly skimming the c++ source for editdocsets didn't reveal any obvious link to a http repo?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Dash has been one of the most amazing tools to improve my day-to-day workflow. It's incredible.

I love to travel and specifically I love to travel to places that dont have wifi. Often times I take fly fishing trips to Montana, or shorter trips to the Smokey Mountains and during these times I need to be able to work an entire day without internet and Dash is the only reason I can do this effectively.

Dash + Alfred + Sublime are probably my most used tools in any given day (aside from Spotify which is rarely ever turned off)

</comment><comment><USER26> I really like dash. It's also super easy to provide your own documentation. I've created a small python script for my software [1].

Here is the dash-feed: dash- feed://http%3A%2F%2Fspeedata.github.io%2Fpublisher%2Fspeedata_Publisher_(en).xml

[1] [https://github.com/speedata/publisher/blob/develop/bin/creat...](https://github.com/speedata/publisher/blob/develop/bin/create- dash-documentsets.py)

</comment><comment><USER27> Dash is great and a big shout-out to the developer (@kapeli) who is really responsive to support requests. I found that the backbone docset was actually using the Edge version not the latest stable release. He had it fixed in a few hours.

<comment><USER28> Agreed; a few weeks ago my license of Dash (purchased via iTunes) somehow went out of sync. Within 5 minutes of forwarding Kapeli my iTunes receipt of purchase I was back in business. Fantastic support.

The advantages of searching document's offline really can't be emphasized enough, 'hotkey - search term - answer', all provided in a floating window that doesn't interrupt the programmers workspace.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> This has been the single best investment i've made to my workflow for years. Really communicative, friendly developer too.

</comment><comment><USER30> For users other platforms there is Zeal which does almost the same (and also is free): [http://zealdocs.org/](http://zealdocs.org/)

</comment><comment><USER31> Just bought this recently. I feel that I got my money back with all the time won over Google searches multiple times already. The low latency and absence of unrelated results helps me stay in the flow. For me the trick was to assign a global shortcut to invoke the tool.

</comment><comment><USER32> I like the idea, I bought it and have it open all the time, however I don't find myself using it that often. That's probably because I know most of the tools I work with out of memory (angularJS), and the documentation I do have to look up sometimes (UnderscoreJS) I actually prefer to see in the browser; the navigation on the browser version has a better subdivision in Underscore modules (functions, arrays, objects etc) which Dash's index is missing.

(subtle feature request: subcategories for the underscore docset, or headers/sections in the method listing)

<comment><USER21> The method listing does show headers/sections for Underscore. See [http://i.imgur.com/agqawiL.png](http://i.imgur.com/agqawiL.png). As far as I can tell, this is the same as the side menu at [http://underscorejs.org/](http://underscorejs.org/). If anything is missing, let me know!

</comment></comment><comment> dorian-graph Great developer too. I've put in docs request (for ColdFusion) and he constantly sought feedback from me to ensure it was presented in the best way possible and if he was unsure about something himself.

</comment><comment><USER33> I was very happy to see this in HN. This is one of my favourite everyday job tools in my Mac. It's also easy to integrate with vim, emacs or sublime to show the docs for the selected keyword.

For a clojure programmer having clojuredocs docset is also a must ([https://github.com/dlokesh/clojuredocs- docset](https://github.com/dlokesh/clojuredocs-docset)) although I think this is unofficial.

<comment><USER14> Yes, I originally bought Dash for iOS development and was pleasantly surprised to see ClojureDocs appear one day. Really freaked me out ... in a good way!

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> Bought the license few weeks ago and loving it.

Would be willing to pay even more if it integrated well with ReadTheDocs — there are tons of (not only) Python docs living there which I need regularly.

And yes, I know #662 exists [1] on the RTD side and the future is not so clear.

[1] [https://github.com/rtfd/readthedocs.org/issues/662](https://github.com/rtfd/readthedocs.org/issues/662)

<comment><USER35> If the project is using sphinx (most python projects) you can use [https://github.com/hynek/doc2dash](https://github.com/hynek/doc2dash) to make the docset yourself.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> I've been using Dash for more than a year now. I love it. It is great for quickly looking up things, and best of all it works for multiple languages. I regularly write code in Clojure, Perl, Java and C, I also use Redis and PostgreSQL, and Dash helps with all of that.

My only wish is that someday I could get Intel's x86 manuals and ARM Cortex M0 and M4 instruction set documentation in Dash.

<comment><USER37> My experience is at the opposite end of the spectrum. I installed it roughly one year ago, played with it and admired its functionality, then never used it since. It might be just that I'm way too connected to my Chrome tabs.

<comment><USER38> You just need to get used to incorporating Dash into your workflow. If it helps convincing you, Dash also has tabs and uses the same shortcuts as Chrome.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> I love dash; I've been using it for years.

A small wishlist:

\- ClojureDocs: [http://clojuredocs.org/](http://clojuredocs.org/)

\- Hoogle integration: [http://www.haskell.org/hoogle/](http://www.haskell.org/hoogle/)

\- BroPages: [http://bropages.org/](http://bropages.org/)

</comment><comment><USER40> I love Dash.

My one request. I wish that I could take my own HTML docs (WiiU Dev stuff, as example) and my own PDF's and get them into DASH for searching.

I have a fair amount of documentation in HTML that I would love to have all in one place along with the Docsets I use daily.

<comment><USER41> There is a way to make your own. [http://kapeli.com/docsets](http://kapeli.com/docsets)

It's got examples for

1\. AppleDoc (Objective-C Source Files)

2\. Python, Sphinx or PyDoctor-Generated Documentation

3\. Javadoc-Generated Documentation

4\. RDoc or Yard-Generated Documentation

5\. Scaladoc-Generated Documentation

6\. Doxygen (Source Files: C, C++, C#, PHP, Objective-C, Java, Python)

7\. Any HTML Documentation

<comment><USER40> Thank you!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Definitely a requirement on the next non-Internet-accessible development opportunity!

I would like to see a utility that would collect (readability-ified) urls and package them nicely for Dash/Zeal. This would make it easy to build an ultra- custom collection of useful info - a searchable offline bookmarking tool. Best of all would be something that knew how to periodically refresh this archive.

Also, these tools should include a timeline tracking what was useful so that as I return to projects/problems I can scroll back and pick up where I left off.

</comment><comment><USER42> Dash really is an indispensable developer's tool for OS X, but it took me a bit to integrate it into my work flow. Now I use it all the time, it's great.

</comment><comment><USER43> This is pretty sweet. How do the docsets get prepped for download? The author scrapes the html doc pages at the tool's site? But for example in the case of Node.js, the menu nav on the left side of the official docs [0] aren't found in Dash's docset.

[0][http://nodejs.org/api/documentation.html](http://nodejs.org/api/documentation.html)

</comment><comment><USER44> When the option to buy on the website or on the App Store is presented like this, which do the authors usually prefer?

<comment><USER18> If you are comfortable managing your own problems, giving the author Apple's 30% cut is probably appreciated. However, the app store handles long-term hassles like re-installation, etc. A support incident is probably more expensive time-wise than the $6.

<comment><USER45> Consider however that if we all bought off the app store, then while apple may take 30% of our payments, the author may benefit far more from the increased exposure due to the inherent popularity contest that is the app store.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> Is there a way to tab into the content for a query (right side column) instead of having to mouseover and scroll? Also it would be nice to be able to search the content area as well so I can more effectively jump to the material I think I need.

</comment><comment><USER47> Dash is beautiful because it doesn't get in your way. Very flexible, and even the most convoluted features are quite simple to configure.

My only wish is that it would let me use a 'night mode' so I can use white text on dark background at night.

</comment><comment><USER48> I've really found this app incredibly helpful; I use a really wide variety of libraries and APIs and not having to go to each site has saved me tons of time. Maybe it's not for everyone, but I've loved it. Worth trying out.

</comment><comment><USER49> Dash has become a part of my standard workflow in the last few months. It's great and it's always getting better. @kapeli responds quickly to feedback/questions on Twitter. I use it with Alfred and the vim plugin.

</comment><comment><USER50> Wow, this is probably the most incredibly useful app for the Mac I've come across in a long time! The UI is seamless and well-made. I'm gonna love using this. :-)

Kudos HN, for bringing this app into the limelight!

</comment><comment><USER51> Looks good, particularly alfred and sublime integration. It doesn't download any docsets for me on the OSX10.10 preview but I'll try it again when Yosemite is a bit more prepared for the real world!

Good stuff!

<comment><USER21> There are quite a few issues in Yosemite, especially with Apple's new docsets. An update should be available soon.

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> Dash is great combined with Alfred. I changed the keyword to a period (.) with no space so lookups look like ".extend" and bam I get the results for extend from four docsets.

<comment><USER53> Great tip! Doing this.

</comment></comment><comment><USER54> This looks great, assuming it's very useful when you want to do concentrated coding with internet off to avoid distractions. I'm sold, buying this when I get out of work.

</comment><comment><USER55> This is awesome. Although an excellent resource, there are many times I get very distracted using Google to get this kind of information. This could help me stay on task.

</comment><comment><USER56> When Dash first came out, I liked it a lot, and found it better than Google for finding what I needed in almost any language I used.

But for some reason that even I don't really know, I stopped using it. I just checked the App Store on this computer, and it says Install, not Buy, which means I already paid for it long ago, and could have been using it this whole time. If only the developers could figure out why I stopped, they could probably make a lot more money.

That said, I do still see an App Store notification pop up every once in a while saying Dash needs to be updated, and it is pretty annoying how often that happens compared to any other app.

</comment><comment><USER57> For python you can try a docsets collection of the most popular packages: [http://python-dashapp.tk/](http://python-dashapp.tk/)

</comment><comment><USER58> A great example of a purpose-built app which does one thing really well (i.e. searching docs from a single location). Easily beats having to google for docs.

</comment><comment><USER59> I LOVE the integration: Alfred, PHPStorm, and Sublime. Brilliant. And frankly, I can't believe you have docs for things like Yii.

Easily worth the 19.99 price. Thanks.

<comment><USER59> OMG is has tabs! Ok, now I REALLY love this app.

</comment></comment><comment><USER60> Love Dash !! Esp. since you can also add Rubygems doc

</comment><comment><USER61> I love Dash, have recommended it to everyone at uni. Using a machine where Alt+Space doesn't throw up documentation feels really weird.

</comment><comment><USER53> Dash ramped up my programming game like nothing else. Pair it with the Dash Alfred workflow and you'll be flying. Highly recommended.

</comment><comment><USER62> @kapeli : I am trying to buy Dash, but when I click the green "Purchase Dash" button, nothing happens. Is it normal?

</comment><comment><USER63> Dash is the only app that's making me think twice about buying a Linux machine when my current laptop retires.

<comment><USER64> I'll prolly have the Linux version out by then ;)

<comment><USER63> Cool! Are you working with Kapeli on the Linux version? Is there a site I can keep track of progress? I'd love to check it out once it's available.

<comment><USER64> I haven't set up a site yet for posting about progress but that's because I've been busy, not for lack of interest in doing so. There's a list of people interested in the Linux version and I will email the list once I set up the site. If you want to add yourself to the list you can do so at [http://dash- port.launchrock.com/](http://dash-port.launchrock.com/) .

<comment><USER63> The pink, it burns! Signed up :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER65> If this were integrated with an offline cache of StackOverflow questions that would be fantastically awesome.

<comment><USER65> And ... I see that this feature is already in the product. You've now got my $20.

<comment><USER66> Out of curiosity, how large is the Stack Overflow docset?

<comment><USER67> The SO docsets are specific to a tag. Some of theme are gigantic. Therefore you have the option of downloading them in their entirety for offline use (I think the iOS one was 300-400MB's) or you can download just the index (which was like 20MB) which allows for fast search results but needs a connection to retrieve the full content.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER68> I used Dash for a couple of months but found myself Googling when Dash returned no results.

Dash needs better fuzzy searching.

</comment><comment><USER69> Is there an easy way to (try to) run Mac apps on Linux, like Wine project +PlayOnLinux for Windows?

<comment><USER70> Seriously, if you want to do this just get a mac. I made the switch several years ago after being a loyal Linux user for a long time, after I realised how much easier it made life.

I know they're expensive (though a low-end macbook air is pretty reasonably priced) but I've found it well worth the money given it's what I spend almost every waking hour in front of.

And with decent enough hardware Linux runs very nicely under a virtual machine when you need it.

<comment><USER69> Get a Mac to do what? Run this one application? Sorry, that looks too excessive for me.

Following this logic, should I have bought a latest Windows PC to run the program or two I run under Wine?

Why would I want to do everything inside of a Linux virtual machine, as opposed to natively?

<comment><USER70> > Get a Mac to do what? Run this one application?

If it's only for one app, no.

I just personally find the mac platform in general to offer a better user experience, esp. with regards to not having to waste hours getting stuff to work.

This is just my personal experience; if Linux works for you then great.

<comment><USER69> I deeply respect Apple for its attention to user experience and design, but I don't agree with all of it's choices they make for me. I wish there were many different Apples, then I could choose the one I like, but unfortunately we have only one.

In my very limited encounters with OS X's desktop environment, I didn't find it practical, and the proposition is: take it or leave it, right? Changes to the default desktop environment are as outlawed as they are in Windows, or aren't they?

<comment><USER71> I maintained an xmonad environment for a couple of years on various versions of ubuntu and switched to osx last year. I share your view that Apple frequently makes choices that don't map to my expectations of an OS.

I use slate + pckeyboardhack + keyremap4mac to control my windows via keyboard. Instead of using multiple monitors I switched to a single larger one which is easier to control.

I guess my point is that you can kind of change things, but you might need to compromise in some areas. I don't know of a way to get multiple desktops, for example, but I can switch between apps by binding keys to names of them and get around that way.

It's also going to be hard to try these sorts of things out in the store, and given how expensive the devices are it's difficult to justify given you may end up with an expensive tool you don't want to use.

YMMV, of course.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER72> It looks nice, I wish it were on windows as well (and linux while you're at it)

</comment><comment><USER73> It is really annoying when these HN links are to Mac only applications.

</comment><comment><USER74> I wonder how out of the question Spotlight integration would be.

</comment><comment><USER75> This integrated with Alfred is a must-have dev tool IMO.

</comment><comment><USER76> I have been using it for 6 months, love it.

</comment><comment><USER77> Glad to see people providing offline documentation (and worrying about offline in general)

I am wondering why you went with a native app as opposed to something webbased though?

<comment><USER78> How can you provide offline anything with a web-based app?

<comment><USER79> Lots of ways actually: it could be hosted on the web but use HTML5 offline storage and caching; it could use something like node-webkit or atom-shell; it could be a Chrome extension.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER80> I like DevDocs better. I kind of find it shady that Dash is free and then suddenly, poof, you have to pay.

<comment><USER81> Are you saying that its shady that it has a free trial period (with nags) or that it used to be free and then became a product that the developer charged for? And how are either of these things shady?

</comment></comment><comment><USER82> C#?

</comment><comment><USER83> I love this! Thank you!

</comment><comment><USER84> Call me stupid, but I can't get simple question answered by reading the page: What is Dash? A website? Locally run server listening at 8080? Desktop application? From the screenshots I guess it is probably OSX app, but is it so hard to put it clearly somewhere in the top?

<comment><USER85> One of the first things you see is a link to download on the App Store...

<comment><USER84> Frankly, I don't know whether AppStore offers only OSX apps (or you can also buy iOS apps, or certain website access). It also doesn't mean that it's not some kind of portable application (working also on OSX). That's also suggested by the "Download" link below AppStore link, which may mean that there is also other forms of whatever Dash is, apart from the form which is available through AppStore.

Ok, I guess the target audience would in 99% _guess_ what Dash is, but that still doesn't mean that it shouldn't be written somewhere clearly.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER86> I have no idea what this is as I am not a programmer, but the website looks really good

</comment><comment><USER87> Didn't like it. Why use Dash if you have Google? But maybe I'm missing something. I'll try new version.

<comment><USER88> My use-case is the three hours a day I'm on the train without stable internet :)

<comment><USER89> Hell, even with an internet connection it's faster than Google .

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER90> Nice advertising. It's a decent app that will hold you hostage for data unless you feed it 20 bucks. If they get a better(cheaper) financial model I could see myself doing it.

<comment><USER64> I don't understand what do you mean that it will hold you hostage for data unless you feed it 20 bucks. All the data Dash displays is available publicly on the internet, no?</comment></comment>


Build your own postfix/dovecot/postgreSQL mailserver in less than 10 minutes - <AUTHOR> https://sealmail.net/ <comment><USER2> Is this something self-hosted? SSH in and use Alpine only? no IMAP? Can you give us just a bit more to go on here?

And while it's kinda funny, the Clinton gag is a little off, considering how angry people were about it. C'mon, folks...

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes it's self hosted. IMAP is provided by dovecot. If you complete the process of building your server, there's a video showing how to add your new mail account to your mail client on Mac OS and Android. Haven't made one for iOS yet because the simulator doesn't have the Mail client app.

DO you think I should add a video demonstrating the entire process? Or just list all that information you requested somewhere?

Do you think I should remove the clinton joke?

Thanks for the comment and suggestions! Will implement the changes.</comment></comment>


Shut Up And Get Judged - <AUTHOR> http://mrmilksblog.tumblr.com/post/47452368464/shut-up-and-get-judged

<comment><USER2> You make the ad look way different than it is in reality: <https://www.apple.com/iphone/videos/#tv-ads-brilliant>

You can barely even read the words flashing by. And your point is sort of empty anyway; is this the first Apple ad you've seen? Nothing has changed.

</comment><comment><USER3> Boo, hiss. Taking marketing at face value is holding a weed whacker by the wrong end.

</comment><comment><USER4> Confidence may be quiet, but quiet has never been marketing.

</comment><comment><USER5> I don't buy it. Apple has always been like this, even when iPhone was far and away the best thing on the market. It seemed to work fine for their marketing department back then.</comment>