Hampshire College changes speed limits to honor math professor - <AUTHOR> https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/10/17/hampshire-college-changes-speed-limits-honor-math-professor/LN73juokCzLM217YVF1UzI/story.html <comment><USER2> I have fond memories of taking a class with David Kelly and listening to his ranting about why 17 is objectively the best number. ("For example, the average length of a Giraffe's tongue is 17 inches! What more do you need?") He also hated the number 23 "because it's the mortal enemy of 17, I don't have time to explain why." While I was in the class the movie "23" came out: he urged us all to boycott the film, or better, form a picket line.

</comment><comment><USER3> Not only is it cool to honor David Kelly, it's also probably more useful to have a speed limit like 17 vs 15. The thinking is that 15 feels generic where as 17 is specific.

<comment><USER4> What? Those are completely arbitrary descriptors. I think 15 feels specific because it's a multiple of 5. While I don't know the history of using multiples of 5 as speed limits, I do know I'm easily able to tell when I'm driving at a multiple of 5 due to my car's speedometer layout.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Hey all, I've never registered or written on HN; I'm most definitively not a hacker. I barely speak computer.

I am an F '85 alumnus. I just wanted to say hello, my guess is that most of the responders here went to Hampshire, too. I know a few who are diehard computer-builders, but, since I left that notorious social media platform, I've not been in touch.

I'm in Vermont, if any of you are of that crew, You'd likely guess who I am based on that tid bit.

I doubt it, I simply wanted to extend my well wishes, and send my support.

Saudade; nostalgia brings fond memories.

Be Well, and Take Good Care...

~RA

</comment><comment><USER6> We do that (amongst a few friends), we pick a time such as 3:22 to meet up. I wish I could recall why we started doing this, but it always feels purposeful.

<comment><USER7> The advice to use specific times to encourage punctuality has been going around for decades, if not longer. I recall reading this advice in the 1970s.

I don't know if there's any basis for this practice in fact, but I know of at least one second-order effect: When someone invites me to a meeting at an odd time, I always presume they are making an effort to get everyone to show up on time, and that motivates me to make sure I'm not the straggler!

<comment><USER6> Hah, I'll have to pay attention to see whether or not my thinking works along those lines as well next time!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> That's sweet! It should be noted that Michael Spivak shares the blame for Yellow Pig and 17: [http://www.vinc17.org/yp17/index.en.html](http://www.vinc17.org/yp17/index.en.html)

</comment><comment><USER9> David Kelly was my advisor (1976 - 80). He is one of the greatest educators I've ever encountered, in any subject.</comment>


Why code in C anymore? - <AUTHOR> http://www.drdobbs.com/cpp/why-code-in-c-anymore/240149452

<comment><USER2> Here's more ammo from Linus (2010). He explicitly articulates that communication is the most important thing and that C is "a largely context- free language" which is a huge boon for large projects like the kernel.

[http://www.realworldtech.com/forum/?threadid=104196&curp...](http://www.realworldtech.com/forum/?threadid=104196&curpostid=104299)

<comment><USER3> Couldn't resist posting my favourite OO quote again!

 _I think the lack of reusability comes in object-oriented languages, not in functional languages. Because the problem with object-oriented languages is they've got all this implicit environment that they carry around with them. You wanted a banana but what you got was a gorilla holding the banana and the entire jungle. If you have referentially transparent code, if you have pure functions-all the data comes in its input arguments and everything goes out and leaves no state behind-it's incredibly reusable. You can just reuse it here, there, and everywhere. When you want to use it in a different project, you just cut and paste this code into your new project. Programmers have been conned into using all these different programming languages and they've been conned into not using easy ways to connect programs together. The Unix pipe mechanism-pipe B pipe C-is trivially easy to connect things together. Is that how programmers connect things together? No. They use APIs and they link them into the same memory space, which is appallingly difficult and isn't cross- language. If the language is in the same family it's OK-if they're imperative languages, that's fine. But suppose one is Prolog and the other is C. They have a completely different view of the world, how you handle memory. So you can't just link them together like that. You can't reuse things._ \- Joe Armstrong in Peter Seibel's _Coders at Work: Reflections on the Craft of Programming_

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Why code in C++ anymore?

I don't know C++ and its community very well, but here are my suspicions. I'd love for someone to confirm or dispel them.

* Relative to C is obviously that it provides a greater toolbox.

* Relative to Java, it gives more fine-grained control of the target platform, and programs have somewhat better startup speeds (though still often not very good, which I again suspect is because of large binary sizes).

* Relative to Python and Ruby, its static typing gives better guarantees as it allows less to fail at runtime.

* Relative to Go, Rust, D and ML languages, it is more well-established. Especially regarding GUI toolkit libraries.

</comment><comment><USER5> "The computer benchmarks hosted on Alioth, for example, show that C++ (running on 32-bit Linux) runs the series of tests 27% slower than C. Other surveys show this difference as slightly larger or slightly smaller."

I don't know how they can make this conclusion. I'm not even sure what it means when they say that "C++ is 27% slower". In the C benchmarking code, they hand roll a lot of the data structures whereas in the C++ code, they include either the standard library or boost. So it's not really a comparison of C vs C++ is it. There is nothing about C++ that would make that big of a difference.

<comment><USER6> I haven't looked at the benchmark, but I'd assume that the comparison is supposed to be "idiomatic C" vs "idiomatic C++".

<comment><USER5> Possibly, but as they present it, it makes it seems as if there was something inherent that would make it so much slower.

<comment><USER6> Well, for a long time the STL string class had poor performance. Idiomatic C++ would use the STL string class. Therefore idiomatic C++ would suffer a performance penalty.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Well... I code in C because I am working on embedded systems, where power and clock cycles are very precious.</comment>


JSON versus s-expressions again (2012) - <AUTHOR> http://irreal.org/blog/?p=713

<comment><USER2> "Notice how short and easy it is to write."

Yeah, it really shows how LISP is beautiful language and why no one uses it.</comment>


Boarduino + LCD + Ethernet + Temp monitoring  - <AUTHOR> http://hackaday.com/2009/10/30/arduino-python-integration/

<comment><USER2> I really want to build temperature monitoring sensors, but this seems REALLY expensive per-unit.

I was thinking xbee + the dalsemi temperature sensor. I don't think you even need a cpu of any sort in there, since the xbee can do a little bit of the work.

<comment><USER3> Do you need them all in the same location? If so, you could use multiple sensors per device. Or, leave out the LCD... once the device is working, you shouldn't need any display. Or you could make that part modular and plug in an LCD only when you need it.

We have some temp sensors setup to monitor the temp of our server rack (poorly ventilated area), and the box we have takes 4 temp sensors (and a few open/closed sensors like power/security). It cost us around $400 for the entire setup. However, it looks like I could have made one for much less...

<comment><USER2> No, I'd like them to be distributed.

I'm pretty sure I can do them for less than $80/part...</comment></comment></comment>


Should BP Nuke its Leaking Well? - <AUTHOR> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=bp-nuke-oil-well

<comment><USER2> An ex BP oil engineer (who I know) used the following words when I asked him about it:

 _dear god no, it would be horrific_

His opinion is that the geology in the region would not take a massive explosion well and the most likely result (he admits it _could_ plug/slow the well) would be a large number of cracks/channels deep underground that would seep up through the sea floor and be pretty much unstoppable.

<comment><USER3> The problem with questions like this is that you need knowledge from a variety of areas in order to offer a well informed answer. I mean, how much can a BP oil engineer know about exploding a nuclear bomb underground? I'd imagine that there are only a handful of scientists around the globe who have worked directly with exploding nuclear devices, and even fewer who have studied the effects such explosions on underwater geology. There are entire fields of study dedicated to the effects of explosions on geology, but they deal with relatively small explosions, and the results simply don't scale to things like 30 kiloton nuclear detonations.

For me, this is what makes the answer a "no". We simply do not know what the results will be. There aren't enough trustworthy experts. As much as relations have improved with Russia, I don't think we can trust their advice in this situation. From a policy perspective, they have a history of putting results before safety.

<comment><USER2> I am told that there has been occasions when explosions are used to either break or cap wells - not this deep (as you say). But the point is that there is experience in such an activity; and those people seem to be pretty much saying the same as yourself (we don't have the experience)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> _"I don't know what BP is waiting for, they are wasting their time."_

I don't think it is really up to BP whether or not to set off a nuclear bomb in the Gulf of Mexico, even if they happened to have one in their repertoire.

<comment> brown9-2 And after their mismanagement of this crisis, thank God corporations aren't allowed to possess nuclear weapons.

<comment><USER5> Do you really believe that governments are more responsible than corporations? What do governments manage better than corporations? When something does go wrong at least corporations can be held responsible while governments can claim sovereign immunity, like the Mexican oil company did with <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ixtoc_I_oil_spill> .

<comment><USER6> When talking about _nuclear fucking weapons_???

Are you serious?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The short answer: no. The slightly longer answer: no, they can't, only the US government could do that and nobody is going to sign off on the risks associated with possible side effects of doing this.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peaceful_nuclear_explosions>

What could possibly go wrong ?

</comment><comment><USER6> No, but I'm strongly in favor of a plan to nuke the moon. That thing's been looking at me the wrong way for years now.

<comment><USER8> I've long had that pegged as the ultimate terrorist act. Wait, wasn't that the plot of Superman 2 or something?

<comment><USER6> I think a James Bond villain tried to draw his name on the moon.

<comment><USER9> I know Chairface did in an episode of The Tick... he only managed to write "CHA" though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> [comic store guy] Worst. Idea. Ever. [/comic store guy]

</comment><comment><USER11> > __Prof Ershaghi says: __"A nuclear blast would not fuse the pipe under the > cooling effect of water but rather would create a crater and would make it > impossible to control the flow."

<http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/us_and_canada/10268979.stm>.

</comment><comment><USER12> [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dk-matai/gulf-of-mexico- danger...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dk-matai/gulf-of-mexico-danger- of_b_619095.html)

That this is even a remote possibility suggests that, no, big explosions should not be used. 1 in 10^9 is still too risky.

</comment><comment><USER13> tl;dr: Some cigar-smoking fat cat with a history in the nuclear industry, as well as assuredly well-read bloggers, consider the nuke the ultimate solution to a very thorny problem.

</comment><comment><USER14> BP are so incompetent that they can not even control a robot without hitting something, nor place a cap over the leak, nor even accurately estimate how much oil is leaking.

Giving them a nuclear weapon is not a good idea.

<comment><USER15> Probably harder than it sounds.

Analogy: Look at that stupid NBA guy. All he has to do is throw the ball in the hoop. How hard can that be? Jeez, how incompetent. :P

<comment><USER16> It's more like BP has 100's of world-class NBA basketball players at their disposal, and billions of dollars of cash to pay for equipment and basketball training, and yet not one of their basketball players has been able to make this basket. wiff. wiff. this will certainly work. wiff. optimistic this will work. wiff. it's under control. wiff. i just want my life back. wiff. :)

<comment><USER15> Ha. Good point.

However, I read a comment somewhere whose author mused that BP probably invests heavily in the discovery & extraction department, and very little in cleanup. May or may not be true, sounds plausible.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Why am I not surprised a Russian is proposing a nuclear solution? I swear, Russia and nuclear goes together like peanut butter and jelly.

<comment><USER15> That's a fairly one-dimensional view of Russia.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> I think its amazing how with all the Ivy League Scientists that have been thrown at this leak, none have managed to effect a brilliant solution to this problem that can actually work. Maybe we need to rethink exactly what qualifies someone as smart in this world. They had Bill Nye, James, Cameron, and even Kevin Costner there. LOL. Despite the enormous pool of intelligence that now collects BP checks for failing to "solve" this problem, only the most basic juvenile and idiotic suggestions emerge, like Nuking the drill site. Wow. Megafailure.</comment>


The End Of The CrunchPad  - <AUTHOR> http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/11/30/crunchpad-end/ <comment><USER2> Although it may seem like an irrelevant point, I'm guessing the price was a big contributor to the project death.

Why? because when you say up front (with no experience in hardware/manufacturing design) that you're going to sell it for $x the scramble then becomes "how can each party squeeze margin out?" When theres very little margin, parties are more willing to bluff knowing that they can walk away and there was almost no $ on the table.

Hardware has this problem, and I've seen it so many times, that the founder prices the hardware at only a bit (say ~30%) above the parts cost, not realizing the tons of NRE expenses, ballooning BOM, contractor costs, and the hundreds of other ways the price can easily double. Then they're stuck: the investors/contract manufacturer/designer/customer hates them. That leads to abandonment.

Please please please, if you decide to do any kind of hardware, add an extra 40% margin on top of whatever you pick. If you don't need it, you can always cut the price later! :)

<comment><USER3> You might even take after Apple and price it at double your materials cost. That might seem like a lot, but it forces you to make a compelling product that competes on features instead of chasing the bottom dollar. You can always lower the price if you're in a bind, but raising it is almost impossible.

If you're successful at selling that, you'll see healthy returns. I heard a recent blurb that Apple took 90% of the profits on laptops costing more than $1,000. They certainly didn't sell 90% of the laptops in that bracket.

<comment><USER2> What I'm saying is, dont double your materials cost, thats not nearly enough. You need to add margins TWICE - two 40% margins. Thats 3x material cost, 4x is even smarter. Skimping on margins kills, you can -always- lower the price later.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I don't buy it. This happened because Apple hasn't launched the rumored tablet, and the potential for holiday sales is huge. Here's the main point:

 _We think they were attempting to renegotiate the equity split on the company behind CrunchPad, which was to acquire Fusion Garage. Renegotiations are always fine. But holding a gun to our head two days before launching and insulting us isn't the way to do that._

Sounds like Chandra started with a very heavy-handed offer at renegotiation, part of the implied threat being "you can't back out now that you've made such a public commitment to this project". The only way to respond to a heavy hand with with your own heavy hand - and this post is it, it's all just part of the renegotiation. Another point I don't buy:

 _I never envisioned the CrunchPad as a huge business. I just wanted a tablet computer that I could use to consume the Internet while sitting on a couch. I've always pushed to open source all or parts of the project. So this isn't really about money. It was about the thrill of building something with a team that had the same vision. Now that's going to be impossible._

It's a great story we all know - the "unhyped cool side project" hype, Linux being the best example. From the looks of the demo shot [1], whether anyone "envisioned" it, or not, it _will_ be a huge business, especially with no competitors. Arrington knows it and Chandra knows it. I just hope their lawyers can come to an agreement before christmas, so I can get one :)

1\. [http://cache0.techcrunch.com/wp- content/uploads/2009/06/cdba...](http://cache0.techcrunch.com/wp- content/uploads/2009/06/cdba.jpg)

<comment><USER5> The Christmas retail season is _here_ already. It is far too late to "come to an agreement before Christmas".

Even assuming that all the manufacturing, the shipping, the wholesaling, et cetera are done and the product is sitting in the back of the stores waiting to go out tomorrow -- which I seriously doubt -- there's the little question of marketing. There's just no time for it before Christmas, in a crowded market filled with companies grasping for marketshare. The ad space is sold. The magazines have gone to press. So nobody on Earth is going to know about the CrunchPad before Christmas, let alone want one, except for Techcrunch readers and their Twitter followers. Any plan to sell a lot of CrunchPads within a few weeks of launch necessarily relies on the pre-release marketing that has been performed by Techcrunch. But that has just been blown sky high. Are many Techcrunch readers going to be fool enough to buy the product, even if a BUY link appears tomorrow? Even putting aside all notion of reader loyalty, I don't like spending money on products that turn out to have been built by unreliable companies with legal threats hanging over them.

You're gonna need a better conspiracy theory. How about "the Chinese secret service loved the CrunchPad so much that they placed an order for 1 billion units and demanded an exclusive..."

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I think there's more to the story. This disagreement had to start earlier, I doubt it could have gone from everything fine to mutual ultimatums in a single month. Something must have given before.

<comment><USER7> Yeah, that post has the subtle stench of BS. I haven't followed the Crunchpad ordeal all that closely, but they've never been all that forthcoming about problems and this announcement smacks of manufactured drama.

<comment><USER8> From the start the promise of building a large touchscreen tablet for $300 was simply impossible. Either they were naive or dishonest. The 12" LCD touch panel alone is likely $200-$300 in bulk or even more. How can you price a product at retail below the cost of an individual component? As the price crept up to $400, then $500 and probably more realistically $800-$1k I think Mr. Arrington needed an end game that didn't make him look dishonest or naive. An IP dispute solves that problem nicely. Of course he could be telling the truth but based on the pricing fib/naivety I'm skeptical.

<comment><USER9> I've seen large "touch panel" layer parts for various devices for well under $100 and 1080p 22" TN LCD screens with built in speakers for $100-$150, so a 12" touchscreen panel would likely be nowhere near $200.

<comment><USER8> In what type of volume?

<comment><USER10> Here's a 15" panel at $97 for a single order: [http://wholesale.alibaba.com/product-gs/261192316-15inch- SAW...](http://wholesale.alibaba.com/product-gs/261192316-15inch-SAW- touchscreen-water-proof-Metal-frame--wholesalers.html)

Note that this a touch panel not the LCD, but they do work perfectly well

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> It sounds like kind of hard ball that's being played by Fusion Garage could almost certainly be overcome with some effort. Not to justify it, but it's not uncommon for people who feel like they're getting screwed to renegotiate at a time when they feel they have leverage.

My _guess_ is that Arrington was overwhelmed with how out of control the project got. He jumped at the best opportunity to get out of the whole thing, without looking like he just flat out gave up.

Like some people do in relationships they want out of. "Oh, fine, don't want to see that movie? Well let's just break up then!"

<comment><USER12> It was 3 days from a launch (or so he says). If he was "overwhelmed" and looking for an exit, why did he give up so close to the finish line?

<comment><USER13> It makes sense if it was 3 days from a launch, and there were one or more major problems that the public isn't aware of. Maybe he knew that it was unrealistic and saw a chance of getting out.

<comment><USER12> Then why the story about IP rights and backstabbing?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> I sent an invitation to FusionGarage to do an interview on Mixergy about why the partnership fell apart.

I want to learn from the issues they faced.

<comment><USER14> i bet the main issue was unrealistic expectations.

<comment><USER15> But yet they seemed to have been so close. Regardless of those expectations it seems they pulled it off.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I'm saddened to hear what happened (even if what has been explained about his Singapore-based partner, Fusion Garage, is not really what happened). The dangers of long-distance outsourcing - emails can be ignored easily, connection can be broken at will. No ACK. Hopefully this doesn't become a HBS case study (on dangers of outsourcing and IP ownership).

"I have to applaud Michael Arrington for going out of his comfort zone and taking on a sizeable project that is not guaranteed to be successful but if fairly successful, will make a small impact on the tech industry, rather than just reporting on it (like he does now)."

I wrote that comment 5 months ago, and I think Michael Arrington has a better understanding of the tech industry now. I don't think he will give up on launching a product.

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=686137>

<comment><USER17> "Hopefully this doesn't become a HBS case study"

Hopefully it does. Things like this should not happen...

<comment><USER18> I think he means that he doesn't want the CrunchPad to become like other HBR case studies, not that he hopes a case study isn't written about this story.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Hardware is difficult. Not just a bit more difficult than software, but WAY more difficult (and is inclusive of software, usually at a lower level). For a small company at least the manufacturing is outsourced, and often the design as well. Who gets the IP and who has ultimate control are MAJOR issues that are often not given enough attention up front. Sure, every relationship is rosy at the start. But imagine that you have hit a major roadblock that prevents a release (because invariably, you will get stuck and have to find a solution), what happens now? Who gets to decide? This stuff needs to get hashed out before the first contract is signed. And often time the problem is going to be your outsourced design firm or manufacturer, so I'd say the contractor needs to stay at an arms length away so that you can change if need be, even if it costs more cash. The flexibility might keep your venture alive.

</comment><comment><USER20> "A major multi-billion dollar retail partner has been [..] offering to sell the CrunchPad at a zero margin to help us succeed in the early days. They were also willing to pay for the devices on order instead of 30 days after delivery, a crucial cash flow benefit [..] Intel [..] has assisted us repeatedly with engineering and partner advice, and gave us pricing that was ridiculously generous [..] Other partners were eager to promote and sell the device for little or no benefit on their end other than "supporting the project.""

Does anyone see a problem here? You think TechCrunch would be able to honestly report on these "partners" while being in such close relationship with them?

<comment><USER21> You really think Arrington is an impartial news source? Really?

<comment><USER22> Is _anyone_ or any company _really_ totally impartial or without bias? Even the BBC, which tries to live up to such ideals on the taxpayer's dime, can't quite get there.

<comment><USER20> Nobody is totally impartial, but one can at least attempt to be. Journalists are not supposed to be invested in the market they cover.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Is this the CrunchPad copy? [http://wholesale.alibaba.com/product- gs/268088826-touch-scre...](http://wholesale.alibaba.com/product- gs/268088826-touch-screen-umpc-wholesalers.html)

and [http://wholesale.alibaba.com/product- gs/268087366-10-2-inch-...](http://wholesale.alibaba.com/product- gs/268087366-10-2-inch-touch-screen-panel-pc-wholesalers.html)

It's a 10.2" screen, but the rest of the specs look pretty similar. $288 each for 50 orders.

</comment><comment><USER23> I don't understand why this kills the CrunchPad. If Foxconn pulled that shit with Apple over the iPhone, Jobs wouldn't throw up his hands and say "well, I guess we're not doing a phone."

Just take the prototype to Foxconn or one of the other firms that would be happy to do what Fusion Garage won't.

<comment><USER24> I think the key difference is that Apple (probably) built a working prototype themselves _before_ showing it to Foxconn. This way IP rights were completely owned by Apple. Foxconn may have helped tweak it, but the rights still belonged to Apple.

It sounds like both TechCrunch and Fusion Garage have rights to different parts of the IP. So TechCrunch can't go to Foxconn (and neither can Fusion Garage) w/o violating the IP rights that the other party has.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> If the product has real and imminent commercial potential, there will soon be an equally dramatic announcement of a mutual compromise. The intervening PR about the feud will have only drawn more attention to the eventual launch, to the benefit of both sides.

If the product has technical or cost-of-production flaws that undermine its commercial viability, the feud provides time and cover to work them out -- or abandon the project entirely, blaming the failure on the other side as a face- saving measure.

It's win-win!

I'd actually view this as a slight positive signal of the CrunchPad's viability, especially if lawsuits are filed. Battles are more serious over things of real value.

</comment><comment><USER26> Sounds like a good cover up to me. The project was always destined to fail IMHO. This way they can all maintain it would have worked if they had not had a disagreement.

</comment><comment><USER27> FusionGarage won't be developing this themselves. They will just covertly sell full documentation to some Chinese company that will manufacture it in huge quantities for Asian markets at first. We are going to see CrunchPad in few months from now under completely different name.

</comment><comment><USER26> Makes the award "10 Most Brilliant Products of 2009: Techcrunch Crunchpad Tablet" just that little bit more ridiculous.

[http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/upgrade/4332415.h...](http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/upgrade/4332415.html?series=88)

<comment><USER13> It adds significantly to their credibility that they appended this to the article:

Update: On Nov. 30, 2009, CrunchPad's Michael Arrington announced that the product introduction was being canceled, owing to a business dispute. By giving an award to a prototype, PM took a risk: that a promising product created by a smart group of people might fail to be realized. In this case, it seems, we were a bit too quick to act on our enthusiasm for an innovative idea. While this product is not coming to market, Popular Mechanics anticipates that tablet-style devices for consuming media will represent an important trend in the coming year.

<comment><USER26> I think in the future they should probably only award prizes to things that actually exist, on sale.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I threw up a quick, life and death of crunchpad page, with all the milestones.

Probably missed a few, so if you know of any, let me know.

<http://crunchpad.com>

but it currently redirects to a page on my other site( <http://styleguidance.com/the-life-and-death-of-crunchpad> ), but once I have some free time I'll make it a proper page.

<comment><USER28> how on earth did they not register crunchpad.com ?!

<comment><USER14> happens all the time, Apple didn't register iphone, Dell didn't register Adamo.

But for this, basically the name came up in the comments, in the first post(on 07/21/2008). When it was just an idea. They didn't start calling it a CrunchPad until the 2nd prototype, 6 months later.

<comment><USER29> I'm sure that will be a nice, convenient source of income for your some day, assuming that the Crunchpad doesn't completely fold, which I doubt it will.

<comment><USER30> OTH, if the Crunchpad TM is still owned by TC or FG(or both), that domain will revert to them pretty soon.. (Think Dropbox and countless other cases).

Not saying which way is right, but that is the reality.

<comment><USER14> a) they registered CRUNCHPAD, not CrunchPad

b) they registered it on the 17th, when I already had the domain for more than a year.

c) the product is already dead

But yeah I know they can probably still nab it, if they try, but I figure if they do, I can still win from riding their bad publicity wave. It'll have everything: a clumsy company forgetting to register a domain for their product + company name(lollerskates) and that same company using big mean lawyers to steal the domain away from their fans(boo lawyers, boo big business).

And who knows, maybe the reason I registered the domain was to sell my own line of CrunchPad Yoga Mats.

<comment><USER29> a) That probably won't make any difference. b) Now that's better. c) Let's hope not.

Either way you'll benefit. Publicity is sure to be yours especially if you play it up like TechCrunch is playing it up right now.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> I agree with this comment from <http://styleguidance.com/the-life-and-death- of-crunchpad>:

" Is the CrunchPad really dead? Honestly? I'd put my money on no. Arrington is way too "powerful", and did too much, to just roll over for a few bad apples. My guess, is that, at this very moment, his mailbox is exploding with tons of emails from Fusion Garage competitors, offering to finish the project for him.

And if they aren't...then their CEOs need to be kicked out.

Where else, will you find a partner, who has the connections to have a major retail chain(most likely Best Buy) who not only are willing to help you with shipping costs by letting you use their planes, but will also sell your product with zero margin and will pay upfront?

Where else, will you find a partner, who has the connections to get your people advice from the guys at Intel? And a huge discount on pricing?

Where else, will you find a partner, that already has investors lined up for the project?

Where else, will you find a partner, that already has brand recognition, with millions of people? "

<comment><USER32> Well, not if - as the story suggests - the intellectual property is jointly owned by TechCrunch and Fusion Garage.

<comment><USER33> That was the critical mistake. Always own all of your IP. If you sub out anything you need it in a contract. When he agreed to jointly own IP with fusion garage he essentially lost control.

It looks like the Crunchpad just runs fusiongarage software. Maybe they just didn't like the terms to run their software on the device. This seems like a strong possibility.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> I'll withhold any and all judgment until I can hear both sides to the story. In the meantime, we should let this drama unfold over the course of the week.

</comment><comment><USER35> If there just was device that let us browse the web (much like Chrome OS would do), integrating an unlocked 3G modem (where I can drop any SIM card and configure it in 30 seconds) and good WiFi support, in the range of the 200$-400$, I'd buy it. Right now.

I'm the kind of guy that loves to be connected (reading HN/Greader/Twitter), mostly when I'm out from home (that can be anywhere). I can wait to contribute (hey, it's okay to not have a physical keyboard when I mostly read webpages), but I just can't stay more than two days without checking the mail or opening Twitter (I'm addicted, I know...)

The iPhone is good enough for that, but I need something bigger with multitasking (or at least some decent browser-tab management). That can be used outside. And the CrunchPad looks much like what I want (indeed Chrome OS does!).

I'm sure that Arrington knows the potential of this project. So this is probably not its dead note, but a resurrection note. about:phoenix :-)

</comment><comment><USER36> _Mostly though I'm just sad. I never envisioned the CrunchPad as a huge business._

...makes me think there were handshakes where there ought to have been contracts (or the contracts should have been more tightly specified). It wouldn't be the first time people have cooperated in a spirit of mutual benefit without fully appreciating the efforts and value demanded of each other other, and both sides end up honestly feeling they've been ripped off - the engineering guys had to solve tougher problems on narrower margins than is economically feasible, the creative and marketing people having made expensive brand and financial commitments based on optimistic engineering estimates.

All the same, it would have been wiser to announce that the project had run into a legal hurdle and leave it at that, saving the complaints for a court filing rather than taking them public. Too bad. I would have happily bought this product at $400 :-/

</comment><comment><USER37> What a huge disappointment. I was really looking forward to this as an example of how one could work themselves into the hardware market as a start up, and as healthy competition to any other large touch-capacitive device to come out in the next few years.

</comment><comment><USER38> Im not surprised; I have said (if you'll pardon the big headedness) it was an ambitious product moving into a very fickle niche market (that is still only on the verge of "mainstream") and, most importantly, possibly moving into Apple territory (never going to end well).

Im a little surprised it ended in an internal dispute - my thinking was the funding would run out and the product wouldn't be good enough to sell well. (and then either Apple launch a tablet or the market just fizzles out). With that said this could still be the cause - it's at this point people would probably start to look really hard at the sale point economics.

</comment><comment><USER39> This is why Apple's policy of not talking about unreleased products make perfect sense. Steve Jobs probably experiences this on a regular basis. For every iPhone smash hit, he must've gone through tens or even hundreds of duds.

</comment><comment><USER21> If Arrington wasn't completely full of shit, he'd actually open source some or all of it instead of just "pushing" for it. I mean, it's a dead project right? If it's dead, then release what you've got to the community and watch someone else follow through.

Also how would he ever let Fusion Garage "jointly own" part of the IP? That sounds like a terrible idea. The only way that happens is if his "team" couldn't actually make the thing work (which is what I'm reading between the lines). So he's over a barrel because he promised WAY too much and couldn't actually make it happen.

<comment><USER40> The problem with open sourcing their IP is that Fusion Garage could then turn around and start manufacturing the devices, cutting Arrington completely out of the loop. They would just have to be careful that the separate Arrington IP doesn't taint their existing proprietary parts of the Crunchpad.

<comment><USER21> But if that's a problem, then he'd never open source it and just says stuff like "I pushed for open sourcing it" to excite the geeks (which is what I assume is actually true).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> So opensource it all right now. If Fusion Garage plans to sell it on their own anyway then release all the specs and software so that anyone can build one themselves.

<comment><USER42> And pile on more lawsuits? This is a childish attitude.

(Also, I think open source hardware contains a fundamental contradiction: "anyone can build one themselves" goes against the economy of scale you need to get reasonable production costs.)

<comment><USER41> The idea would be that any other hardware manufacturer could also build them not just Fusion Garage.

If they both have ownership rights, as Mike says in the article, then they can both decide how to use them. Fusion Garage has decided to use them to produce the Tablet on their own and TechCrunch has decided to opensource it and allow any manufacturer to produce them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> There was an awful lot of "deals with partners to sell it at cost" in there. If I was Arrington's partner looking to recoup my investment on my part of the project, that might not sit well with me, particularly if I had no say in the matter.

For Mike, it was an ego thing. He promised the crunchpad for less than the price of just the screen when this all began. Perhaps FG didn't want to cash that particular ego cheque.

</comment><comment><USER44> Nice effort - it looked like a cool device. Of course, once Apple hinted at coming out with a tablet, the CrunchPad's chances of success took a hit.

<comment><USER26> When did they hint? All I've seen is unfounded rumors for the last few years.

If Apple _did_ come out with a tablet you can be sure it'd be $1500+. So it'd be a totally different market anyway.

<comment><USER45> _When did they hint? All I've seen is unfounded rumors for the last few years._

Yes.

 _If Apple did come out with a tablet you can be sure it'd be $1500+._

Speaking of unfounded rumours... This may be an educated guess, it may be an excellent hunch, it may be a brilliant prognostication. But unless you're quoting a source or have inside information, it's still an unfounded rumour.

<comment><USER26> Can you cite other examples of Apple competing on price? Or being anything but 'high end' pricing.

Look at the Macbook Air - $1499. A tablet would be pretty much an Air but without the keyboard. I don't think it's likely therefore that the price would be too much different.

<comment><USER45> You're explaining why your opinion or guess or hunch or prediction or whatever you want to call it is likely to be correct. i don't dispute it, nor do I suggest I hold a different opinion.

However, I am suggesting that your opinion/hunch/prediction is unfounded. Meaning, it is speculative and not based on some specific factual evidence in hand.

For example, if you heard about the pricing from a buddy that is working on the apple.com web site you would be passing evidence along.

I'm not suggesting you shouldn't be speculating along these or any other lines. I just found it interesting that you would mention unfounded rumours in the same comment as sharing your own speculations about what Apple might or might not do.

<comment><USER26> The likelihood of Apple releasing a tablet, I'd say is low. But they could. Fair enough. I don't think they will, but that wasn't my point.

However, if they _do_ release a tablet, there is absolutely no way on gods earth, they would ever make a competitively priced one. For a start, it'll cost more than the iPhone, or it simply won't make any sense. So we're up to the $500 mark already.

My point was, that even if Apple come out with a tablet tomorrow, it will definitely, categorically, not be in the same area as the crunchpad was planned to be - cheap.

<comment><USER45> I agree with your point, FWIW, and in fact I'm saving up for one :-)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> "And then the entire project self destructed over nothing more than greed, jealousy and miscommunication."

I stopped there. Why give this man more attention?

<comment><USER47> I don't know about that!

Normally I avoid TechCrunch and their drama. But this one is shaping up to be pretty good. If it happened the way Arrington said it did, then the company he chose to partner with is monumentally out-of-touch. But I've got a feeling that there is going to be more to it than that.

<comment><USER48> It just might be more difficult to design and bring a successful product to market than to write articles about something that sounds like a good product.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> I'm just waiting for that inevitable 3 AM post in which Arrington reveals all.

It's always those very late night posts that are the most interesting.

</comment><comment><USER50> Techchrunch is an excellent bargaining tool.

</comment><comment><USER22> This is why I nearly always have as close to 100% ownership or involvement with my projects as possible, even if it means keeping things small. Other people can be idiots, or they can be great, but it's a helluva risk (to me) to waste my time to only find that out years down the road.

</comment><comment><USER51> Yuck! So bad. Was expecting its launch for a long time. Now that its gone, we might have to wait for apple to come out with its device which apparently nonone knows! as cwan pointed out, this is not something that materializes over a week. Fishy Fishy!

</comment><comment><USER52> This sounds incredibly whiny. Is there peer edit at tech crunch anymore?

I've noticed, and I think other hackers here will agree, that tech crunch is like the spoiled brat of tech blogs these days. Nothing more than tech-pop TMZ. Move on.

<comment><USER53> No, the tech-pop TMZ is valleywag. Techcrunch is actually a good site that, from time to time, does some decent journalism (see: Scamville)

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> so now that the cruchpad is gone, what would you buy instead now?

<comment><USER54> There are tablet PCs, and the kindle.

</comment></comment><comment><USER55> Link to Fusion Garage's blog, although it hasn't been updated in a while:

<http://www.fusiongarage.com/blog/>

<comment><USER56> The blog is completely missing now. Did they delete it perhaps?

</comment></comment><comment><USER57> Arrington was going to have a Brian Kindle as the head of the crunchpad development team. Now that's what i call good PR

</comment><comment><USER58> in ALL the comment, nobody even mentioned ChromeOS. I find it surprising. Am i the only one to think it may be related ? both being on the web os

"Crunchpad was canceled simply because google arrived on his market, and arrington decided to drop the ball". It seems a reasonable possible explaination, at least

<comment><USER59> From the article:

 _We even hoped to have devices hacked together with Google Chrome OS and Windows 7 to show people that you could hack this thing to run just about anything you want._

I don't think Arrington was afraid of ChromeOs.

<comment><USER58> i understand your point. I am just surprised how much credit gives to PR.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER60> Know it won't happen, but would be great if the design could be open sourced.

</comment><comment><USER61> WOW! Been waiting on this for a long time, so sad to see this news today :(

</comment><comment><USER62> I've got a feeling CrunchPad will still be released.

</comment><comment><USER63> So, Nik Cubrilovic fails again?

</comment><comment><USER64> Is it April 1st already?

</comment><comment><USER65> Good Lord. I almost feel sorry for Mike Arrington. But not quite.</comment>


John Carmack on keeping id small - <AUTHOR> http://kotaku.com/5339057/john-carmack-ok-with-id-not-becoming-an-epic-or-valve

<comment><USER2> I recommend watching Carmack's QuakeCon '09 keynote here: <http://www.quakeunity.com/file=2919>

It's 2 hours long, but he has a lot of interesting stuff to say about selling id Software to ZeniMax, Armadillo Aerospace, the Tesla Roadster, the future of games, and even the possibility of a Commander Keen game for iPhone. (The most interesting stuff is in the Q&A section at the end).

<comment><USER3> And I thought only iCON's keynote are amazing :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Seems like there would be an opportunity to license their game engine, provide a bunch of support staff and programmers, and sub-license it to other companies.

</comment><comment><USER5> I highly recommend the book "Masters of Doom" (Amazon), an in-depth look at id Software from the modest beginnings until Quake III. A must for any geek!

</comment><comment><USER6> Ok, so i genuinely clicked on this expecting his take on <http://www.paulgraham.com/identity.html>. (I guess this supports the premise of the article).

</comment><comment><USER7> You have to respect John for seeing what type of company, within the bounds of feasibility, would make him happiest and pursuing that instead of going for as much money as possible. Very 37 signals ish. Of course, it helped that John had passed a threshold level of wealth where it probably didn't make that much real difference to him. In any case, you see a lot of people -- in particular the delicious guy who has been on here -- who've made choices for financial reasons they've ended up regretting.

<comment><USER8> The comparison to 37 signals is really jarring. Part of what makes Carmack such a classy guy is that he avoids writing self-congratulatory essays or offering seminars about how to be happy, or build amazing software. He just does it.

<comment><USER9> He operates in the industry where he does not brand that much as 37signals.</comment></comment></comment>


Authors at Google: Eric Ries "The Lean Startup" (video) - <AUTHOR> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEvKo90qBns&feature=youtube_gdata_player

<comment><USER2> I'm curious about the Apple remark the end.</comment>


Finding the best ticket price – Simple web scraping with Python - <AUTHOR> http://www.danielforsyth.me/finding-the-best-ticket-price-simple-web-scraping-with-python/ <comment><USER2> A shorter, more comprehensible version:

import requests

from bs4 import BeautifulSoup

from urlparse import urljoin

URL = '[http://philadelphia.craigslist.org/search/sss?sort=date&quer...](http://philadelphia.craigslist.org/search/sss?sort=date&query=firefly%20tickets')

BASE = '[http://philadelphia.craigslist.org/cpg/'](http://philadelphia.craigslist.org/cpg/')

response = requests.get(URL)

soup = BeautifulSoup(response.content)

for listing in soup.find_all('p',{'class':'row'}):

        if listing.find('span',{'class':'price'}):

            price = int(listing.text[2:6])

            if 100 < price <=250:

                print listing.text

                print urljoin(BASE, listing.a['href']) + '\n'

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for posting this, I am still very new to python and your website has taught me a lot. Appreciate the feedback.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Some months ago I found [https://import.io/](https://import.io/) and it just blow my mind.

I remember the pain it was to write custom scrapers every time (I used to do it with Perl, btw).

They have a custom browser with a nice interface, but the biggest thing are the so called "Connectors": you instruct the system into how to query and parse results and Import.IO will give you an API endpoint for this query, now automatized.

One can, say, create a "connector" which can query Airbnb and parse results, then create another "connector" which queries booking.com. Now it is possible to use the API to make a query for Boa Vista, Roraima (my city) and get the dataset.

I am not affiliated with them in any way, just a very happy old-school scrapper.

Nice walkthrough: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_16O10Wx2W4](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_16O10Wx2W4)

UPDATE:

Unsurprisingly, import.io was Hacker News stuff in the past: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7582858](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7582858)

<comment><USER4> Other browser based screen scrapers that are in the space are 80 legs, kiminolabs, Mozenda and OutWit Hub, I'm sure there are more. Last time I checked, import.io was a fairly lightweight browser wrapper.

I also write web scrapers using Perl and Python, recently have been gravitating towards Python as the code looks more readable. I don't use browser based scrapers because the sites I scrape are usually more complex so it is just easier to write my own code, and they lack functionality and control of the data, and there is the overhead of learning the terminology and how it works.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I can recommend scrapy[0] if you work on a bit bigger problem. But even then if you familiar with scrapy it's incredible fast to write a simple scraper with your data neatly exported in .json.

[0]: [http://scrapy.org/](http://scrapy.org/)

<comment><USER6> I don't recommend scrapy. Classic example of a framework that should have been a library. It will work up until a point and then it will railroad your app and you will have a really painful time breaking out of the 'scrapy' way of doing things. Classic 'framework' problem.

I prefer a combination of celery (distributed task management), mechanize (pretend web browser) and pyquery (jquery selectors for python).

<comment><USER7> I'm not sure how would you design a _library_ for event-loop based website navigation when an event loop is explicit. Scrapy (which is a wrapper over Twisted) is already quite close to this IMHO. You can plug anything to the same event loop if needed (think twisted web services, etc).

You can parallelize synchronous mechanize/requests scripts via celery, but it is less efficient in terms of resource usage if the bottleneck is I/O; also, it has larger fixed costs per each task.

N Scrapy processes, each processing 1/N of total urls is an easy enough way to distribute load; if that is not enough then a shared queue like [https://github.com/darkrho/scrapy-redis](https://github.com/darkrho/scrapy- redis) is also an option.

I think it is not "scrapy" way of doing things that causes the problems, it is an inherent complexity of concurrency; you either give up some concurrency or build your solution around it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I had a go "just for fun" using curl, grep, sed, and tr. Probably too much regex?

        #!/bin/sh
        #
        # tickets.sh - A "no BS" ticket price scraper. Output in CSV format.
        #              Uses standard issue Unix utilities only.
        #              No soup for you!

        URL="http://philadelphia.craigslist.org"
        QUERY="firefly+tickets"

        RESULTS=`curl -s -m 10 "$URL/search/sss?sort=date&query=$QUERY" \
                | grep '
[ \t]*<!><!g; \
                       s![,:]! !g; \
                       s!
$\([0-9]\{1,\}\)[^.]*>\([A-Z]\{1\}[a-z]\{2\} \{1,\}[0-9]\{1,2\}\)[^.]*]*\.html">\([^<]*\)\([^.]*
\)!\1,$\2,\3,\4:!g; \
                       s!   *! !g; \
                       s!,  *!,!g' \
                | tr ':' '\n'`

        echo "$RESULTS"

</comment><comment><USER9> Shameless Plug: I work for an NYC-based startup - SeatGeek.com - that is basically this[1]. We used to do forecasting but found that wasn't really useful[2] or worth the time it took to maintain, so we nixed it.

\- [1]: As an example, here is the Firefly event the OP was scraping. : [https://seatgeek.com/firefly-music-festival- tickets](https://seatgeek.com/firefly-music-festival-tickets)

\- [2]: We haven't included Craigslist because the data is much less structured and inexperienced users may have a Bad Time™. YMMV

\- [3]: It was also a royal pain in the ass to maintain. I know because I had to update the underlying data provided to the model, and also modify it whenever available data changed :( . Here is a blog post on why we removed it from the product in general: [http://chairnerd.seatgeek.com/removing-price- forecasts](http://chairnerd.seatgeek.com/removing-price-forecasts)

</comment><comment><USER10> Combine this with Pushover[0] to get alerted whenever there is a new lowest price. I had to resort to scraping+pushover to snatch a garage parking spot in SF.

[0] [https://pushover.net/](https://pushover.net/)

</comment><comment><USER11> Useful article, I use lxml myself. Find that this is a good resource: [http://jakeaustwick.me/python-web-scraping- resource/](http://jakeaustwick.me/python-web-scraping-resource/)

</comment><comment><USER12> I did this recently when trying to get tickets to a sold out Cloud Nothings show. I'd scrape Craiglist for postings every 10 minutes, and then send myself a text if any of the posts were new. I ended up getting tickets the day before the show.

Since the show was at a very small venue (capacity of maybe 500), I didn't have to worry about a constant stream of false positives. I would have needed to handle these if I were searching for tickets to a sold out <popular band> show, since ticket brokers just spam Craigslist constantly with popular terms.

</comment><comment><USER13> This reminds me of something I knocked up back in 2006. It's not a scraper, it's not Python, but here you are:

[http://giggr.com/?q=klaxons](http://giggr.com/?q=klaxons)

Searches multiple UK ticket sites and returns the artist page matching the query.

Clicking a header label (i.e. Ticketweb) switches to that provider.

Double-clicking the header re-searches based on the value of the search box.

I use it for the 9am scramble for newly released tickets.

Oh, it seems Ticketmaster has broken. Maybe I'll fix that one day... I haven't used it in a while.

<comment><USER14> If you don't mind me asking. Who pays for the bandwidth cost of running "giggr"? It doesn't look like you have any ads running. Or are you monetizing on it in some other way?

<comment><USER13> It's a static web page on a Linode I use for other projects and purposes.

Even _if_ millions of people decided to suddenly use it, the cost would be almost nothing.

I _might_ even consider putting the free CloudFlare in front of it to ensure the cost is nothing (one static HTML file cached forever).

Heh, just looked at the source code again... it's a single request web page, not even an external CSS or JavaScript file.

You can't get cheaper really.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Doesn't work for me. Which Python version is required?

        Traceback (most recent call last):
          File "./tickets.py", line 20, in <module>
            for listing in soup.findall('p', {'class': 'row'}):
        TypeError: 'NoneType' object is not callable

<comment><AUTHOR> I am using 2.7.6

<comment><USER15> Maybe wrong BS version?

        $ sudo pip install BeautifulSoup
        Downloading/unpacking BeautifulSoup
          Downloading BeautifulSoup-3.2.1.tar.gz
          Running setup.py (path:/tmp/pip_build_root/BeautifulSoup/setup.py) egg_info for package BeautifulSoup

        Installing collected packages: BeautifulSoup
          Running setup.py install for BeautifulSoup

        Successfully installed BeautifulSoup
        Cleaning up...

<comment><AUTHOR> Ah yes thats the problem, I am using beautifulsoup4==4.3.2.

Try pip install beautifulsoup4

<comment><USER15> I found the problem. I think your listing ate '_'. It should be 'soup.find_all' instead of 'soup.findall' and 'link_end' instead of 'linkend'

<comment><AUTHOR> Good find! Fixed it, thanks!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> You should integrate this in weboob [0]

[0] [http://weboob.org/](http://weboob.org/)

<comment><USER17> That _really_ isn't a good name.

<comment><USER18> Seems to be their thing

QHandJoob

QFlatBoob

<comment><USER17> Wow. Spurred on by your discoveries, I found this: [http://weboob.org/applications/qhavedate](http://weboob.org/applications/qhavedate)

"QHaveDate is a graphical application able to interact with dating websites, and help you manage your numerous conquests."

I, uh, don't really know where to start with that.

<comment><USER19> Lol, there's some ridiculous stuff on that page: "Management of the meeting places, with for each some stats for the number of contacts met, your success rate, which seduction methods have been used, if they worked or not, if you've slept with the contact, which sexual positions, etc."

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> This is not very good code. Here's a little better refactor - [https://github.com/realpython/interview- questions/blob/maste...](https://github.com/realpython/interview- questions/blob/master/refactor_me/after1.py)

</comment><comment><USER21> There is also iftt.com that can poll a specific CL search and email you when something hits.</comment>


The most expensive lottery ticket in the world - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2014/04/21/the-most-expensive-lottery-ticket-in-the-world/ <comment><USER3> "engineers are invariably happier when they're working for a big company"

I stopped reading right there* . I've worked for a few big companies, a small lifestyle company, and a few startups, and I'm invariably happiest at a small company.

Financially, the book may be right: I'm not going to get rich as a startup employee, and I'll probably fail if I start my own. However, the thing I do for more than half my waking hours for the duration of my working life is something I enjoy. I get up reasonably interested in going to work, and go home feeling like I'm building something.

You can phrase it cynically if you want. You can say I'm deluded; that I'm building someone else's dream; that I could be making more money doing something else.

But I enjoy what I do, and I make enough money to support myself, so don't tell me I'd invariably be happier at a big company. I've been down that road, and it's the only time since middle school I ever considered not being a programmer.

* Ok, so I actually continued reading, but you get the point.

<comment><USER4> The whole article was filled with absurd assumptions and claims:

"...engineers tend to do quite well in structured environments, where there are clear problems to solve, and relatively badly in the chaos of a startup, where the most important skills are non-engineering ones, like being able to attract talent and investors."

What does that have to do with engineers? _People_ tend to do well in structured environments with clear problems to solve, regardless of their background or profession. It's a small subset of people who can survive in unstructured envs, and an even smaller one that is willing to submit themselves to that masochism. If anything I would surmise that engineers have a higher percentage of that subset, but I don't have any more data than the article's writer to prove that.

"A few big-name angels and VCs can do OK for themselves, but in aggregate the industry of investing in startups does not make money."

No data presented to back that up, either.

I know it's an editorial, but if the writer wants to make such broad sweeping generalizations, he should have at least a little evidence or data to back those claims up or it's just wasted text.

<comment><USER5> > No data presented to back that up, either.

It's a book review, not wikipedia. If you want to see the argument made in full, buy the book.

<comment><USER6> I mean, yes and no. A book review might better state "Lewis-Kraus argues that 'Silicon Valley trade is also pretty close to being zero-sum'," instead of saying:

> The Silicon Valley trade is also pretty close to being zero-sum.

On it's face, that statement is inaccurate. The rest of the paragraph looks to argue that returns are estimated value zero, not that the system itself is "zero-sum." So now I don't know if it's the review that's bad or the book.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> What the author does not seem to understand is that some people actually enjoy doing hard things. 35,755 people signed up for the Boston Marathon yesterday, and paid for it. Why pay to run 26 miles when you could be having a lazy Sunday breakfast instead?

I practice a form of rock climbing called bouldering. It's about walking up to a big boulder and climbing it along the hardest possible line you can. Hikers sometimes point out that "you could have just walked up on the other side."

Yes, doing a startup is hard. It can also be fun (probably type II or type III fun if you ask me). A climber named Kevin Jorgeson explained it quite well during a talk he gave at Google:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vsl4evw0a7Q](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vsl4evw0a7Q)

<comment><USER8> Why pay to run 26 miles when you can run 26 miles for free? I think it's generally for the prestige of being able to say, "I ran the Boston Marathon."

<comment><USER9> I would guess that's it's not primarily about prestige, except perhaps for the top level competitors. A well-known marathon gives a concrete deadline for people to train toward. The fact that thousands of people are running at the same time gives a feeling of solidarity.

<comment><USER10> Those other runners also show most of the competitors that there are others who aren't (much) faster or (much) more athletic that can complete a marathon, and the spectators may also provide inspiration, if only because one may feel a loser when giving up in front of a crowd, if not entirely exhausted.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I wish some of these articles would acknowledge that you have to be a top 10-20% engineer to work for Google. A lot of us are doing ok, but don't have the talent or work-ethic or what have you to do quite that well. Regardless, great article. I personally wouldn't consider starting a company until after I was financially independent and could bootstrap it with extra money that I wouldn't care to lose. And I'd never spend more than a normal workweek at it.

For those who say that doesn't work, my Grandad started his first company at age 58 with an excess million dollars out of 5 million he had saved from working a normal job until that point. He's never worked more than 40 hours per week in his life, and 25 years later, his company is a great success, turning 1 million into 60MM and having a lot of fun doing it.

<comment><USER12> Note that for $5 million, at 58, assuming he started working at 18, is an average of $125,000 in savings per year between 1949 and 1989. I'm not sure I would call that a normal job. It's far above the median even now, much less back in the 50's, 60's, 70's and 80's.

<comment><USER13> While you are correct that it would require pretty above median savings, it wouldn't require anywhere near $125,000 back then. Interest is a very powerful force over 40 years.

From 1949 to 1989, the stock market averaged 7.2% annually. Saving and investing only $20,000 per year for those years would net you about $5m at the end.

<comment><USER14> $20k was very good money from 1949 into the 1970s.

The BLS CPI calculator puts $20k in 1949 at $198,565.55 today.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> As a startup-founder (Thalmic, YC w13), I wholeheartedly disagree with the viewpoint of the author here.

Is the pressure high, and the chance of success low? Certainly.

Was the expected value of taking a Google salary rather than the risk-weighted value of starting a company higher? Again, yes.

But the missing piece here is that sometimes it's not about the money, the perks, the hours. I love doing what I'm doing today, regardless of all of the above. My two co-founders here would say the same. We get to choose exactly who we want to work with, what we want to work on, and get a real shot at having an impact on people's lives all over the world, through the products we create.

If we didn't have entrepreneurs taking this irrational leap, we wouldn't have the Google's of the world to employ those who choose the other path.

</comment><comment><USER16> I'd recommend that anyone interested in startups download a capitalization table (Google "cap table download" without the quotes for a variety of choices), and just play with different scenarios. Plug in rounds from companies on Crunchbase (not just super-successful ones) and see what kind of money the founders are slated to get. See what happens if you don't meet expectations and go through a down round. It's better to see these possibilities before you're financially and emotionally invested in a company going through one of them.

If you still believe your startup idea is a slam-dunk after seeing how horrible things can get if there's any hiccup in the process, then you're ready to take an investor's time to give a proposal.

</comment><comment><USER17> It seems quite obvious that if you're aiming to optimize your happiness, putting yourself into a stressful situation is never a good idea, even when you disregard the financial aspect.

As one of those young kids who've seen a lot of articles (and even HN's comments) in similar vein of this one, I'd love to see a rebuttal for those types of articles.

I know that everyone is supposed to have their own reasons, but not all of us is eloquent enough to put it into words. And some great writing to set our mind straight (in one way or another) would be great :-)

<comment><USER18> I don't know any great writing on this topic, but:

> It seems quite obvious that if you're aiming to optimize your happiness, > putting yourself into a stressful situation is never a good idea, even when > you disregard the financial aspect.

I disagree. For many people, to find your global optimum you have to first traverse several local minima.

In this thread there are going to be stories about people who worked a Normal Job (TM) for years and started a successful business with the savings, stories about people who bootstrapped a startup before puberty and kept it small, stories about people countering the other people with _their_ amazing story, and stories following all kinds of patterns. And unless you're extremely fortunate, all of these stories have one thing in common: they are most likely nothing like your life and ultimately you won't be able to completely integrate them into _your_ life story. Otherwise you'd be the one writing the story and not asking the questions ;)

While you can, and should, learn from others, at the end of the day you really do have to find your own reason to do the more difficult thing each day. If you're waiting for some magic words that are going to unlock your full potential and turn you into Time's next Person of the Year, you'll wait forever. I find it better, as I plan my day, to just think of laying on my deathbed someday, and asking myself if I'll respect the decisions I make today. (And no, the answer is not always "yes". That's life.)

<comment><USER17> Just to clarify my stance first: I don't think of "optimizing happiness" should be a life goal. I think happiness should be a byproduct that you got when achieving your life goal.

And I agree with everything you said. For the sentence that you quote, my point was, for certain people who try to always feel content (in other words, aiming for local maxima) in their life, without explicitly having any other life goal of unlocking their potential or making X million dollars or starting a big company, putting themselves through a local minima for a long stretch of time would be hard to pay off. That was just meant to be an observation of an extreme case (optimizing happiness/your feeling of happiness at expense of everything else, as opposed to striving for a goal at expense of your own feeling). Since most of us would be somewhere in between rather than either extremes, we would have to go through local minima at varying degrees.

I'm not waiting for some magic words to start my marathon - but I just thought that there would be some magic words that will help me justify the run to others, and to myself (also serve as enhancement to make you run faster!).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I still think a lottery ticket is still has far worse ROI, than the YCombinator application and startup process.

Let's say you pony up rent for your YCombinator startup and are paying about $2400 / month + utilities for 3 months. Let's say you get your food & other necessities costs to $80 / week.

That's an $8160 investment.

What you get back are the weekly dinners with great speakers. The connections you make should be worth at least $150k if your startup fails and you have to use that connection to get a job. I'm assuming a markup in your value as an employee for just getting into YCombinator.

$8160 and you can make 20% - 35% more than your peers if it fails.

$8160 in lottery tickets will pretty much get you zero if you fail.

<comment><USER20> You're forgetting the opportunity cost of forgoing the salary of working for an existing company. Call that 10k/month for three months, and now your costs are closer to 40k.

<comment><USER19> You still end up ahead since you can day trade yourself into a higher income bracket.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> "No Exit makes it very clear that the life of a startup founder is a miserable one, and that engineers are invariably happier when they're working for a big company."

Any book that tries to tell me how I'm supposed to be happy is automatically placed in the same category as religious texts.

<comment><USER22> Really? Do you think people are good at selecting a path that makes them happy? I don't. Related: [https://twitter.com/webwright/status/451934942357098496](https://twitter.com/webwright/status/451934942357098496)

I'm not supporting this particular book, but there is plenty of great research about what correlates to happiness. Here's a great post to read that links to tons of research on the topic: [http://lesswrong.com/lw/4su/how_to_be_happy/](http://lesswrong.com/lw/4su/how_to_be_happy/)

<comment><USER21> That depends how you define happiness. For some people, simply pursuing their dream makes them the happiest. It may be painful, miserable, and ultimately end in failure, but for a certain set of people that's the only way they can live.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> That argument is a step away from arguing that incubator companies are taking advantage of the younger tech generation. Along the lines of... by selling the illusion of likely startup success, and offering support in startups and entrepreneurship, incubators basically decrease their own investment variance and increase their own odds of successful investment performance, while the younger founders will usually (outside of the rare big winners) lose out on a few years of earning potential in a temporarily hot economy.

</comment><comment><USER24> Is this true?

 _The Silicon Valley trade is also pretty close to being zero-sum. Even on a purely financial basis, if you add up all the profits from successful investments, they barely cover the losses on all the unsuccessful ones. A few big-name angels and VCs can do OK for themselves, but in aggregate the industry of investing in startups does not make money._

If it's true, that will strongly influence my opinion of the startup scene.

<comment><USER25> According to Fred Wilson of Union Square Ventures, ten-year venture capital returns lag major stock indices:

[http://avc.com/2013/02/venture-capital- returns/](http://avc.com/2013/02/venture-capital-returns/)

That's pretty bad, and it's even worse when you consider that VC is a lot riskier than buying an index fund.

<comment><USER24> That's very informative, thanks!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I'm always deeply suspicious of "statistics" that claim startups only have a 1 in 10 chance of success. From the article: _" if 90% of startups fail, it simply can't be the case that all of the startups they know are succeeding."_

But it looks like that may not be so far from the truth: _" About three- quarters of venture-backed firms in the U.S. don't return investors' capital, according to recent research by Shikhar Ghosh, a senior lecturer at Harvard Business School._"[1]

1: [http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2014/04/21/the-most- ex...](http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2014/04/21/the-most-expensive- lottery-ticket-in-the-world/)

<comment><USER27> The thing these aggregate statistic ignore are the quality of the founders.

Let me put it concretely.

When Sebastian Thrun decided to launch Udacity I suspect the chance of failure was less then 90%. OTOH, I have 2 non-technical friends who managed to raise money to develop 2 more social networking app. I think the chance of failure there is easily 90%.

So maybe another way to put it is 'don't fool yourself'.

If you have Thrun-esque talent, start a company. If you don't, think twice, then think a third time for good measure before starting a company.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> There is a massive gulf between "winning the lottery ticket" and failing.

There are many many many startups (or whatever term you want to give them) that create a good living for the founder, and perhaps a few employees as well. Not all startups have to (read: the vat majority don't) get VP funding et-al in order to be enjoyable and provide an viable level of income.

</comment><comment><USER29> Start a business, not a startup. You will have much more control and independence if you aren't desperate for funding and growth, not to mention you are much more likely to succeed. Startups(defined as extremely risky, high reward, growth oriented businesses) are not a very rational option for most people unless you have circumstances that mitigate the risk/stress. Also don't start _yet another social /cloud/education/trendy thing here_ business, start something allows you to leverage your unique set of skills/knowledge/interests and experience.

Also, give up early! When you don't think something isn't worth pursuing anymore, figure out why, and don't be afraid to give up and try something else. Not every project is going to be successful and there is no shame in failing unless you have badly/unrealistically set expectations to the people you work with, in which case they are going to be rightly pissed.

</comment><comment><USER30> Good thing people don't take the advice in the last sentence, otherwise there would be no Google for said well-paid engineers.

</comment><comment><USER31> One problem with the article is that is blurs the line between "founder" and "startup employee". The majority of startup employees are getting a paycheck on top of options - paycheck at lower rates than mainstream corporate work, but with a potential payoff if it succeeds. And if it fails, it's not hard for an experienced programmer to find another job.

Founders are a breed apart from programmers. If someone has that drive to create their own business from scratch, telling them that it's economically foolish to do so is like telling Van Gogh that he'd be better off painting houses - technically true, but irrelevant to the motives of the artist.

<comment><USER32> Very true. Most of the people I know working at startups, myself included, had no delusions of becoming Mark Zuckerberg or winning it big. Startups can provide a great quality of life with good benefits for employees and the big pay off can be a very small motivation for some.

<comment><USER31> Given the Kafkaesque horror that is most mainstream big-business programming/ops work, startups represent a significant quality-of-life improvement for programmers - an improvement worth trading some salary for. Maximizing salary while minimizing risk isn't and shouldn't be the only motivation for us. I could go on about how stupid mainstream economics and journalism are about this, but why bother?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> > The Silicon Valley trade is also pretty close to being zero-sum... if you > add up all the profits from successful investments, they barely cover the > losses on all the unsuccessful ones

That's a very strange definition of "zero sum". The fact that VC investment is barely profitable does not mean the industry is zero-sum. There is the potential for huge value creation - the very opposite of zero-sum

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

</comment><comment><USER34> Well, I'm an engineer who quit my cushy job at Google to go it alone. So, I suppose this makes me an idiot.

I think the big question the author fails to address is: Do these deluded engineers end up regretting their decisions in the long-term?

I think most people in the startup community understand that failure-- and the misery that comes with it-- comes with the territory, and the key is whether you can learn with each failure. And I would argue that there's no better to place to learn than an environment where your income depends directly on whether you're genuinely solving a problem for people (the people who "run the lottery" are your target customers, not the VCs, by the way). In my case, I've failed at over a dozen projects (some prior to my time at Google) while finding a few moderately successful ones along the way, and I'm continuing to fail, learn, and grow.

And I like to think that this better understanding of harsh realities of how the world actually works gained from doing a startup-- whether you succeed or fail, whether you end up at a small company or a large company-- is a return on your investment that continues to serve you for the rest of your career.

<comment><USER35> I work at Google now. What made you decide to leave?

<comment><USER34> It's been my plan since high school to figure out a way to work for myself eventually, though I was very grateful for my job at Google. After the initial 2 years, my work at Google began feeling more routine (I chose to stay in the same team, and I was getting better at my job at the cost of learning fewer new things). I left after 4 years after deciding that I had learned enough and saved enough to move on to what I've viewed as the next stage.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> As someone who started a company articles like this make no sense to me.

There's money-driven people everywhere, but if you want to get rich, your best bet isn't to start a company. Work at a hedge fund and work your way up. People makes millions a year. Way easier than starting something. That being said it's also soul sucking and absolutely mindless. Provides little value.

Perhaps there's more to starting company than ecosystem?

Starting company allows you to address a problem directly. Whether that addresses a real problem, or is a cash grab, depends on founders.

Most "good founders" do it because they want to make it real. That articles propagates some kind of wannabe culture as being the real value of starting a company. Which is so lame.

Life is short and starting your own company is way better than being an employee at a big company in my opinion. If you are young you are undervalued.

Obviously it's more nuanced then this comment and not everyone is in a position to start a company or work at a small company, and hell no is it a meritocracy, lots of problems, but damn, do your own thing.

</comment><comment><USER37> I'll tell you from experience there is a fate _worse_ than your startup failing. That is that your startup bumps along neither making it big nor having the good grace to go out of business. You just have the monthly stress of making payroll with no end in sight. (Thankfully I'm out of that and working for The Man, and never happier)

</comment><comment><USER38> Some people prefer to aim at the moon rather than look at the ground. The issue with this article is that even if 5% startups will succeed - thats OK. Lets create 20 startups over next 20-30 years then. Because once you succeed - you are way ahead of anything that could happen in your life when just simply working for big company. Yeah, its hard work. Yeah, you will fail few times. So what? At least you learn invaluable things. Author seems to be missing the point... Not everyone is afraid of failure and not everyone wants good pay every month. Some people wants to fulfill their ego, needs, dreams and the price tag over this is well above living on the edge of poverty. If author is happy to live in safety of his job and security - great. But dont judge, or try to teach people that dont want to. Its very close minded by him to do so.

<comment><USER36> Great response. Unfortunately as I get older, I see more and more people falling into the way of thinking he's outlined which is brutal.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> The book and article might be 100% right, but it still doesn't always matter. There are other reasons people start their own companies:

1) If you're after personal autonomy, no amount of working at a great company can give you that.

2) Not everyone has the skills to work at the Googles of the world. A mediocre engineer can still make a great business owner, though.

3) Not everyone has the right demeanor to work for other people.

4) Some people have worked for other companies, and decided it simply wasn't for them. Maybe they realized they were not paid anywhere close to enough for the value they created, or they simply couldn't take the politics.

5) The chance to make your bones (largely) on your own is a powerful thing.

It is often irrational from a short-to-medium-term financial perspective, and the Lottery Effect is sometimes at play, no question. The reasons above won't just go away, though.

</comment><comment><USER40> Having only read the article and not the entire book, I am curious to see if the author explores the motivations behind starting a company. The article makes it sound like money and fame are assumed to be the only motivations.

I feel that entrepreneurship is fundamentally about controlling one's own future.

<comment><USER41> I'd sympathize with this point more for startups that aren't on the "take money from VCs, sell company to BigCo" model, which puts your future pretty squarely in the hands of the VCs and BigCo execs.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> To be fair, the article is _not wrong_ in a lot of what it says. In actual fact, a close reading of VC/Angel writing including Paul Graham pretty much correlate exactly with the author has posited especially regarding VC investment.

In the UK, angels can claim 50% tax relief on any investment followed by claiming back up to 100% of any losses (minus the tax relief). Investing is almost risk free.

Just find yourself some entrepreneurs, sell them the dream, supply ramen noodles and repeat x 10 until one of them hits.

</comment><comment><USER43> Let me see, going to college and coming out with an insane amount of debt - <USER2> work as a writer. That sounds like pretty big gamble. Very, very few writers "make it big".

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Felix conveniently assumes a startup has a binary outcome: Immense riches or ignominious failure. In reality, there's a spectrum. I know a lot of people who sold their company for $1 million to $10 million. Depending on how the cap tables work, this is usually not life-changing money but enough to average out to a really decent salary for 1-5 years of work, plus a job at a good company at the end of the ride.

</comment><comment><USER44> Startups are a double-or-nothing game with 2-3 months between wins and 0 months between losses. Everybody either just won or just restarted.

</comment><comment><USER45> I think one factor at play is that even if your startup fails, you can almost always fall back on a developer job, which usually pays very well. So yeah it's like playing a lottery, but not spending your last dollar on the ticket.

Even more, having startup experience on your resume is usually a good thing, even if the startup failed.

<comment><USER42> Is it? Possibly for a small sub-set of developers or those in SV/SF but for the majority of people having a startup on their CV is suspicious at worst and _meh_ at best.

I would much rather have McKinsey or Deloitte on my CV.

<comment> UK-AL The vast vast majority of developers work in small businesses or start ups.

Hiring managers who do that pretty much exclude the majority of developers.

<comment><USER42> No one else works in startups obviously. Just devs.

By small business I assume you mean _self employed within Ltd Companies (LLC)_ which are small businesses in name only for tax efficiency. So much so the Government is trying to ban the practice with the use of disguised employee declarations.

<comment> UK-AL No I mean digital/marketing agencies. Web Development agencies, Mobile App Agencies, etc.

In my area, these are the biggest employers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> The most important thing in life is for life to have meaning. Trying to change the world -- even if you don't succeed -- does that. Trying to make adsense profits go up by 0.1% -- perhaps a bit less so.

</comment><comment><USER47> A 10% chance of succeeding at a startup is far better than that of the average Journalism school graduate's chance of making a career writing Opinion columns for a major press outlet like Reuters.

</comment><comment><USER48> The article exaggerates slightly, but based on my experience it's basically right. Alas.

</comment><comment><USER49> Punch line: "In the world of startups, the only winning move is not to play."

The reviewer says the book gives the required substance behind the punch line, of that I have no doubt, but this reminds me of the "War Games" (1983) punch line, almost word for word.

<comment><USER50> Perhaps because it's intended to reference War Games?

<comment><USER49> Yes, possibly, but (a) most young readers won't remember the original, and (2) no obvious thematic connection. But possibly -- besides, it's a great punch line. I regard this as a good example of recycling (if that's what it is). :)

<comment><USER51> Get your head out of your ass. Kids know what wargames is as it has runs on amc/fx/tv all the time. It's a common phrase now.

<comment><USER52> _Get your head out of your ass._

Wow. That language is a bit uncalled for.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> The interesting part of the analysis is the way this is mitigated; social status displays are often re-source irrational. The issue is whether or not the latter can be capitalized upon. All evidence points to "yes".

</comment><comment><USER53> Not everyone is cut out for high risk R&D. News at 11:00.

...

Ok, sorry if that was subtle. If only a minority of the population values risky behavior such as software/hardware R&D highly, and someone in the vast majority who cannot understand how anyone with the requisite skill-set wouldn't be happier earning a high, stable salary at Google writes an article implying that the group in question must be delusional or maybe insane, don't you think a bit of sarcasm is in order?

\-- someone who turned down a Google offer to do R&D</comment>


Job Ads You Can't See on Facebook If You're Older (2017) - <AUTHOR> https://projects.propublica.org/graphics/facebook-job-ads <comment><USER2> This had a huge discussion within the window of dupeage: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15974603](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15974603)

<comment><AUTHOR> Oh, sorry, I hadn't seen that story before.

<comment><USER2> No worries!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> This is because it's much cheaper to get completed applications (conversions) in a younger demo.

Young people are more likely to be looking for jobs than older people, and thus click job ads more. [1] Higher click through rate means much lower cost per click. Based on the numbers in my stat link, you could likely net the same amount of new job applications spending $3000 on millennials as spending $9000 on other demos.

This is a user friendly feature - younger people want to see these type of ads more by far. By the data, older people do not want to see these type of ads.

Nothing to do with worker effectiveness or how HR treats older applicants.

[1] " About 60% of Millennials are currently open to a new job opportunity and are by far the most likely generation to switch jobs. To support that, 21% of Millennials in 2016 reported switching jobs within the past year, compared to roughly 7% of gen Xers and other non-Millennials. " [https://www.forbes.com/sites/larryalton/2018/01/22/millennia...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/larryalton/2018/01/22/millennia..).

<comment><USER4> I was thinking much the same there, that it might simply be cheaper or be shown to be more effective to advertise to these groups, and perhaps there's no issue if they're not discriminating at the point of interview?

That said, that may make sense but still be illegal.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I recently got a Facebook ad for a UC Berkeley coding boot camp that was explicitly targeting males 22-34. Fortunately Facebook gives you details on why you're targeted for an ad.

Screenshot: [https://www.dropbox.com/s/hpbeves1kf7bvkt/fb_ad.JPG?raw=1](https://www.dropbox.com/s/hpbeves1kf7bvkt/fb_ad.JPG?raw=1)

<comment><USER6> In that case, this isn't a job offer, nothing illegal.

<comment><USER7> It would be illegal if it were UC Berkeley doing it for marketing their regular degree program, however:

[https://www2.ed.gov/policy/rights/guid/ocr/ageoverview.html?...](https://www2.ed.gov/policy/rights/guid/ocr/ageoverview.html?exp=1)

But, I believe this is a UC extension thing, which I don't think is eligible for federal financial aid, so this rule does not apply.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> So who has standing to sue? How can I prove I /didn't/ see a job posting because I'm too old, and what damages could I claim as a result of it?

<comment><USER9> There are no grounds to sue.

In the US, companies cannot discriminate against 40+ ages for hiring. But that in no way applies to advertisement.

If Facebook puts a job ad billboard in Seattle (mostly white), but not in Atlanta (mostly black), there's no illegal discrimination.

And for good reason: Marketing is _always_ about reaching the most likely targets.

<comment><USER10> This is not the case in USA, under the legal theory of "disparate impact".

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

<comment><USER9> That does not apply to advertising.

It could apply to say, requiring candidates to provide credit scores which disadvantages a protected class.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> It's an open secret in Silicon Valley that most tech companies prefer younger workers. Recruiters do what hiring managers ask for. Most hiring managers won't say it explicitly- they'll say things like 2-5 years experience from top schools or from the FANG companies with experience in modern technologies.

<comment><USER10> It's not age discrimination to ask for relevant job skills and education.

<comment><USER12> How does putting a 2-5 year experience range filter for job skills or education better than saying 2 or more years? Someone with 6 years of experience doesn't have fewer job skills than someone in the 2-5 year range.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> FB has publicly defended this in the past. See [https://newsroom.fb.com/news/h/addressing-targeting-in- recru...](https://newsroom.fb.com/news/h/addressing-targeting-in-recruitment- ads/)

<comment><USER10> Note: That post is a response to the OP, and a rather weak response saying it "may not in itself be discriminatory — just as it can be OK to run employment ads in magazines and on TV shows targeted at younger or older people"

But propublica's article is also weak. Its Facebook examples are stuff like "ad targeted to ages 21-60"

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> So that could be damning, but without seeing the whole ad campaign it's hard to tell. If they have nearly identical ads with different age brackets running the gamut, I dunno if that's a problem. But boy does it look like a problem.

<comment><USER15> What would be a legitimate use case to segment your ad targeting for recruiting purposes? Perhaps highlighting certain perks like paid maternity/paternity leave, but even that isn't usually highlighted in job ads (at least the ones I see.)

Even if there are legitimate and pragmatic use cases for this, the likelihood of abuse seems high.

<comment><USER16> Just spitballing, I'd tailor my messaging to women aged 30-45 to address our position on helping people return to the workforce, while for over-45s I'd talk about our open policy towards hiring older workers. For each, I'd probably choose photography that featured a representative individual. Yeah, I'm totally stereotyping the audience, but I'm also addressing common issues for jobseekers in those age groups.

To be clear, I _don 't_ think that's what these companies are doing or they would have spoken up in their defence. And you also have to be careful that you express openness to, rather than preference for, a certain type of worker.

<comment><USER10> That's pretty much what Facebook said in it's rebuttal, linked in another comment.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> instead of (perhaps illegally) recruiting for people of a certain age group, why not just search for people who liked (for example) Fortnite or Harry Potter or similar categories?

Sure, you might get a few false positives (showing your ad to a few older people) or false negatives (missing some of the target group), but it probably works just fine and isn't technically age-oriented. The company could just say that it likes people who are into hobbies (eg - reading fantasy novels or mobile games).

</comment><comment><USER18> If they don't want me because of my age, I certainly don't want to work for them and provide my skills to them.

Also, it's a bit sad that Verizon can't afford an editor or reviewer to tell them to use "you're" correctly...

"Here, your more than just a number. Practice data story-telling, analytics, and more."

<comment><USER19> Maybe it's a similar concept to the Nigerian prince scam emails purposefully containing misspellings.

If you catch it and raise an eyebrow you aren't the mentality they are looking for.

<comment><USER18> Didn't know this was a thing, but it makes sense. Clever... evil, but clever.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> "18-35"

I just realized how soon I'm going to be "older" for demographic purposes.</comment>