34 questions to answer before you interview with YC (and/or found a company) - <AUTHOR> We've been preparing for our YC interview pretty solidly for the past couple weeks now. And during our research (talking to alums, digging up old HN posts, reading PGs essays) we found about 34 different questions that you basically need to have the answer to. This list has been a great way for us to prepare, and organize our thoughts, so we figured we'd pass it along to the HN community. For those of you who are also interviewing this weekend, good luck!<p>There may be repeats in here. And maybe a few variations on the same thing.<p>(1) How do you know that people want what you're building? (2) Are you sure people want this? (3) How do they solve the problem now? (4) What are all known existing solutions and what is wrong with them specifically? (5) Why isn't someone doing this already? (6) What's different about what you're doing? (7) What is current IP in your field? (8) How to displace existing competitors? (9) What are some key things that your competitors don't understand? (10) What resistance will you have? How will you overcome that? (11) Six months from now what is your biggest problem? (12) Is what you are doing viable? Why? (13) Is your market large enough? (14) Is your market capable of sustaining a new entrant? (15) Where can you expand into? (16) Why should people give a shit? (17) What are you going to build first? (18) What do you have? How does it work? (19) Have you engaged customers/users? How? (20) How will you get customers/users? (21) What do customers want? (22) Who is your first customer? (23) Why are you the right team? (24) Why do you need all of the people on your team? (25) Why are you doing this? (26) Why will you succeed? (27) How are you going to do this? (28) How will you approach trouble spots? (29) What are your known obstacles? (30) How will you find answers to questions you don't know? (31) What do you not know yet?
(32) What have you learned so far from working on your project? (33) How do you traverse in the idea space? (34) What are your other idea's? <comment><USER2> For my own edification though critique is certainly welcome:

1) Because my sites grew out of interest in what I had to say on certain topics or they wouldn't exist at all. And because every time I say I am shutting them down because I can't afford them, someone gives me money and/or offers me free hosting.

2) Yes, at least some people do.

3) They don't. The current world view is that people like me do not get well, symptom management is the name of the game. That is an exact quote from well- paid, really smart specialist. Current treatment is incredibly expensive and basically leaves people mutilated. There is a reason cystic fibrosis is called a "dread disease": What it does to our body and our life is horrifying.

4) Mostly drugs and surgeries. They are incredibly expensive and, as noted above, have gruesome side effecs. For example, cystic fibrosis accounts for roughly onr third of all adult and one half of all pediatric lung transplants in the U.S. today. You have to e pretty damn sick to make the transplant list. You can die while waiting for transplant. You can die while undergoing transplant. You can die due to "rejection" after getting your new lungs. If all goes well with tranpant, you remain on anti-rejection drugs the rest of your life. In contrast, I regrew my missing lung tissue. I used to have a small hole in my left lung. I do not anymore. Preventing deterioration so people can keep their own lungs is superior in every way to letting them get sick enough to qualify for transplant.

5) There is apparently no money in it. It involves significant lifestyle changes which people are resistant to. People simply do not know how to do it. And preventing a problem is much harder to take credit for or show the accomplishment than heroically saving someone who is sick enough to qualify for the transplant list.

6) It is a wellness model, not a disease model.

7)

</comment><comment><USER3> re: "(31) What do you not know yet?"

That is one hell of a tough question. Anyone care to elaborate as to what the answer might be for selling widgets in a new way online?

<comment><USER4> In short: you should take all of your assumptions. Do you know why you've made this assumption? Otherwise, it's something you don't know.

There's more than that, but it at least gets you questions, which can spawn more questions. You don't always know what you don't know, so something could always blindside you, but thinking about this will help prepare you.

</comment></comment><comment><USER2> Technical difficulties. Please excuse the continuation:

7) I don't think there really is any intellectual property currently since the world says this cannot be done.

8) I haven't seriously thought too much about competition. If people get well and need less medical care, I am potentially displacing doctors, pharmaceutical compnies, etc. But I don't expect it to be a big enough impact for them to care about my activities. Most people are very unlikely to completely walk away from drugs like I have. I would be happy to just see people needing less medication even if they don't get off it completely.

9) We are human beings, not specimens in a petri dish. The cumulative impact of all our daily choices can outweigh the impact of a few bottles of pills. If the battlefield is the human body, nuking it into oblivion is not the way to win this war.

10) Current mental models claim this cannot be done and it flies in the face of everything everyone knows to be true. Finding a means to adequately explain and educate which does not offend is extremely hard. These people want their battles and their knowledge and intelligence respected. They feel I am calling them stupid when I try to suggest there might be a better answer. And they want to feel the torture they have endured or subjected a loved one to was justified. Validating them while simultaneously encouraging them to entertain a new idea is incredibly tough.

11) Heck if I know.

12) Yes. It is far cheaper than conventional treatments and gets people healthier. It is far more viable than current treatment modalities. The big challenge is that people are incredulous and that there is no financial support for eating better and living differently. Few people will willingly follow me into bankruptcy, never mind that the current treatment regimen leads to financial ruin as well plus worse things.

13) The CF community is tiny. But a wellness model can be applied to any person. It is hardly unique to people with CF. For example, my blood sugar is more stable than it has ever been. People with CF are at high risk of developing CF related diabetes. It is very likely that any form of diabetes would benefit from the rubrics which helped my blood sugar issues.

14) Yes.

15) As said above, I see no reason why humans generally cannot benefit. Preventing infection, eating better and so on can benefit anyone. There are as many potential customers as there are human beings, though granted that may be more realistically limited to humans with internet access who speak English.

16) There is a recession on. The 30,000 people with CF in the U.S. today receive roughly $3 billion dollars in medical care annually and are frquently unemployed, retired on disability at a young age, etc. Aside from the horrific suffering they endure, they are a net drain on the economy as their very expensive medical care mostly comes out of insurance, state aid, federal aid and so on -- I.e. other people pay for it. Getting them healthier is not only the right thing to do but the pragmatic thing to do.

Well, I think I am burned out on trying to answer these for now. Maybe later. Or maybe not.

</comment><comment><USER5> this looks fun! Here's our answers for Dropdock ( <http://getdropdock.com> ). Critiques and feedbacks welcomed!

(1) How do you know that people want what you're building?

We did some market research and saw a clear gap in the service for sending files.

Validate our idea by setting up a landing page with our clear Value proposition and capturing user intent

Talk about it to everyone that could be a potential user and get feedback.

2) Are you sure people want this?

Yes, most of people find sending a big file is still a pain in the ass today.

(3) How do they solve the problem now?

They use Website such as You-Send-Mega-Rapid-Crap and try to navigate between the ads and horrible UX or they both persons have to be online at the same time.

(4) What are all known existing solutions and what is wrong with them specifically?

IM: but both of them needs to be online You-send-mega-rapid-crap: Hard to navigate, lots of ads, file size limit. Dropbox & co: Not the most user friendly process to send files. KickSend / Forgetbox: Trying to do lots of different things at the same time. Horrible UI / UX.

(5) Why isn't someone doing this already?

Some people are getting into the space ( Kicksend / Forgetbox ).

(6) What's different about what you're doing?

We offer a simple solution with a great and easy UX.

(7) What is current IP in your field?

??

(8) How to displace existing competitors?

We have strong referal program in place ( Think dropbox ) and we thing the program plus the ease of use will displace our competitors.

(9) What are some key things that your competitors don't understand?

people want a service that just work out of the box and isn't complicated to use / understand.

(10) What resistance will you have? How will you overcome that?

The biggest resistance will be installing a software on your computer to do something that you can currently do online.We will overcame that by offering a Web and Mobile app and allow users at the beginning to share file with non dropdock users through private link ( email / fb msg )

(11) Six months from now what is your biggest problem?

Cost control so we need to focus on optimizing our bandwith usage to reduce cost and increase our Free to Paid conversion rate.

(12) Is what you are doing viable? Why?

We have low user cost ( +- 0.2$ / month ) and we just need to achieve a 3% F2P conv rate to achieve profitability.

(13) Is your market large enough?

Yes. All the internet user are sending files.

(14) Is your market capable of sustaining a new entrant?

Yes. There is a huge opportunity right now since theYou-send-mega-rapid-crap website are shutting down due to legal issues and email service providers are still not looking to raise the 10mo / 25mo file size limit / email.

(15) Where can you expand into?

Share more then files. URL, Texts, etc between devices / users. Files storage, but it's starting to be a crowded space with big players.

(16) Why should people give a shit?

Because its scratch one of their itch.

(17) What are you going to build first?

The x-Platform app.

(18) What do you have? How does it work?

The x-Platform app The Android app The Backend

(19) Have you engaged customers/users? How?

Yes,see question 1.

(20) How will you get customers/users?

Through Word of Mouth and our referral program.

(21) What do customers want?

A simple way to send files.

(22) Who is your first customer?

Freelancers and SME.

(23) Why are you the right team?

We are passionate, ambitious and aren't afraid of taking risks. We have 2 highly competent developers who aren't afraid of learning new stuff 1 marketing / bizguy who has already work in the startup industry and have a strong understanding of the tech stuff.

(24) Why do you need all of the people on your team?

Our product has a strong emphasis on the backend ( Optimization & co ) thus we required 2 strong developers. And you always need someone to do the Customer acquisition.

(25) Why are you doing this?

Because having our own companies is always something we wanted to do and Dropdock was the perfect service to start it.

(26) Why will you succeed?

There's is definitely a need of the market of a service such as dropdock and we thing that our approach of doing One Thing Well and focusing on the simplicity of the UX will make dropdock as success.

(27) How are you going to do this?

By listening to our users and creating a simple and bug free products.

(28) How will you approach trouble spots?

Talking to experienced people in this field and think about it. Not rushing our head down into it.

(29) What are your known obstacles?

Software Installation on Desktop

(30) How will you find answers to questions you don't know?

Reach out to experienced / competent people in the field.

(31) What do you not know yet?

What are the big players ( Dropbox, Gdrive, etc ) on the market are going to do on "file sharing /sending" in 1 year

(32) What have you learned so far from working on your project?

Doing a startup is hard work but fun :)

(33) How do you traverse in the idea space?

??

(34) What are your other idea's?

It will take too much time to enumerate them all ;)</comment>


James Hamilton: The Cost of Bulk Cold Storage: $0.80/GB/year - <AUTHOR> http://perspectives.mvdirona.com/2008/12/22/TheCostOfBulkColdStorage.aspx <comment><USER2> Right now, we've seen pretty constant pricing from "cloud" providers like Amazon and Slicehost. While they probably had razor thin margins a few years ago, they're probably decent now. As technology improves, they'll probably have to reduce pricing to remain competitive. In fact, Linode (who has been around for 5 years, considerably longer than Slicehost) has seen constant upgrades.

Linode has gone from, on their base plan: 64MB 2003 80MB 2005 100MB 2006 128MB Jan 2007 256MB Mar 2007 300MB Sep 2007 360MB Dec 2007

Similar increases in transfer and disk space have been seen over this time period (<http://blog.linode.com/category/upgrades/>).

I expect that Amazon and Slicehost will start offering more as pricing comes down. With virtualization being offered by more and more firms, they'll have to follow market pricing and as disks and RAM get cheaper and cheaper, what is offered will go up. Margins are probably decent now as he notes in his posts. As such, anytime storage or RAM falls by half, we should see a discount in the cost to us.

</comment><comment><USER3> Wow does he need to fix his css. Making hovers shrink is just plain stupid. What's funny is if you hover and then move your cursor just far enough to the right, it flashes on and off in an infinite loop.

<comment><AUTHOR> I think this is a case of WYSIWYG editing gone awry; there's also a mix of serif and sans serif.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Note that storage redundancy is _four_. I wasn't expecting that, damn.

So (without the administration cost guess) you can get four copies at $0.72/GB/year.</comment>


Oregon Explores Novel Way to Fund College - <AUTHOR> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324251504578582101593420808.html

<comment><USER2> This is a terrible idea.

Malinvestment starts the same every, single, time. Over extending credit to unworthy investments. Usually this is done through the government because their primary objective is not to make money, but to appease voters. Sometimes this is done by financial institutions that offload the risk to someone else and make their profit on fees, or commissions (but never negative commissions).

Here is why this is a bad idea: There are no price signals to the potential students to help guide them to the correct career choice. In Ontario the things you can get bank loans for are the following: STEM, Medical fields, Economics, Accounting (both of which are kinda STEM-y).

The government interferes here, by paying the first 75% of the cost and by creating loans for the poor and almost middle class, but at the very least a good number of us have to work some amount to pay for degrees that don't pay for themselves.

Another reason it is a bad idea: It means that universities no longer have to compete on price, they compete on marketing.

As an aside: There is this general trend that I've noticed. The baby boomers load up the country or state with debt or equivalent (like defined benefits, or entitlements) but because the state can no longer handle increased debt loads they do not afford the same ponzi scheme to Gen-[x-z]. They load us up with 3% for 24 years on your income on top of the debt that we're going to have to pay for. Also, how the hell does the majority of the western world go into debt during a period where the largest bubble of the population is at their peak earning potential? This is crazy, we couldn't afford largesses then, and we certainly won't be able to when they retire, and we also have to service the debt, and we also have to deal with longer lifespans, and we also have to deal with 3% on our malinvested education subsidies.

What's going to compel this generation to stay saddled with this debt? If we don't vote it (or spending on seniors) out we'll just move out of the country. Have Macbook, will travel.

<comment><USER3> Bad debt is a good point, and it comes down to the loan provider agreeing on what they will and will not pay for. In below references to the Australian system you'll find that the load provider (the government) will at times stop providing funding for industries, or limit the number of funded positions (you still have the option to go at as a full-fee paying student) when there is less of a need.

A great example of this would be teachers, there are limited positions as there are a lot already and new positions do not open up as rapidly as universities can train teachers. A great way to control this and push people in other directions is to simply not fund that degree to the same extend as say various engineering courses.

Don't be afraid of it just because the government is involved. It can, and has worked. There is a lot to gain from having an educated society.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> They make reference to the Australian scheme in the article. Student loans in Aus are indexed by inflation (consumer price index) so they maintain their real value so as long as wages keep up with inflation it is effectively interest free and a graduate salary really should do better than just keep up. The money is collected via the tax system beyond a typical graduate salary. You hit hard times and drop below the threshold it just accumulates. Just about the next best thing to actual free government education. This is the historical indexation for the Australian scheme [http://www.ato.gov.au/Rates/HELP-indexation- rates/?default=&...](http://www.ato.gov.au/Rates/HELP-indexation- rates/?default=&page=1) and [http://www.ato.gov.au/Rates/HELP-indexation- rates/?default=&...](http://www.ato.gov.au/Rates/HELP-indexation- rates/?default=&page=2#HECS_indexation_rates)

<comment><USER5> > _The money is collected via the tax system beyond a typical graduate > salary._

It's worth noting if you are not earning over a certain threshold (currently $51,309), you don't have to pay anything. If you want to go travelling, you simply don't pay anything. If you never earn that much (because, say, you work for a non-profit or are a struggling artist), you are never required pay it back.

Also, if you leave Australia, you never have to pay it back.

If you do earn over that threshold, you just pay slightly higher income tax in those years [1]

If you make a voluntary payment of $500 or more, they take your payment plus another 5% off. [2]

I personally have found it to be a phenomenal system, and I've never met anyone in Australia that didn't go to University because they couldn't afford it. (We also get paid a "living wage" to go to University, of around $400 every two weeks, depending on circumstances. [3] )

[1] [http://studyassist.gov.au/sites/studyassist/payingbackmyloan...](http://studyassist.gov.au/sites/studyassist/payingbackmyloan/loan- repayment#HowMuchWillMyRepaymentsBe)

[2] [http://studyassist.gov.au/sites/studyassist/payingbackmyloan...](http://studyassist.gov.au/sites/studyassist/payingbackmyloan/loan- repayment#CanIPayOffMyDebtSooner)

[3] [http://www.humanservices.gov.au/customer/services/centrelink...](http://www.humanservices.gov.au/customer/services/centrelink/youth- allowance)

<comment><USER6> Australia's system is amazing. I would be in crippling debt if I had studied in many other countries but instead I am slowly paying back the debt and barely noticing the hit.

<comment><USER3> I'm so glad this is getting some attention. It is an amazing system and while a bunch of issues like people leaving etc are pointed out, for the most part "what goes around comes around" but in a very positive way for the nation.

People feeling free to travel and experiment, while being educated, just means eventually when they return home they bring a lot back with them. You wonder why a nation in the middle of nowhere can thrive? Well yes there is a mining boom, but also the country is well equip enough to make the most of it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This would be a great idea _if_ the schools had some skin in the game too. I would adjust the plan to have schools not get paid right away. The schools income will also depend on future earnings of the student.

As govt makes it easier for students to attend school, though guaranteed loans and plans such as these, schools raise their prices to suck up the benefit instead of allowing the benefit to go to the student. Also, some schools lower their qualifications for attending and graduating. They dont care if you're educated because they have a guarenteed payment from you and the govt, regardless of how well they educated you.

With a fix percentage of salary, the school has an interest in getting you educated so you can pay them back with a good high paying job. They can only earn more money if they make you a better educated student.

</comment><comment><USER8> One of the key parts of this is extending it across 24 years. To simplify the math, let's assume a graduate gets a job paying $30,000/yr, and annual payraises of 3%:

      Year	  Pay		Tuition Payback
      1	 $30,000.00 	 $900.00
      2	 $30,900.00 	 $927.00
      3	 $31,827.00 	 $954.81
      4	 $32,781.81 	 $983.45
      5	 $33,765.26 	 $1,012.96
      6	 $34,778.22 	 $1,043.35
      7	 $35,821.57 	 $1,074.65
      8	 $36,896.22 	 $1,106.89
      9	 $38,003.10 	 $1,140.09
      10	 $39,143.20 	 $1,174.30
      11	 $40,317.49 	 $1,209.52
      12	 $41,527.02 	 $1,245.81
      13	 $42,772.83 	 $1,283.18
      14	 $44,056.01 	 $1,321.68
      15	 $45,377.69 	 $1,361.33
      16	 $46,739.02 	 $1,402.17
      17	 $48,141.19 	 $1,444.24
      18	 $49,585.43 	 $1,487.56
      19	 $51,072.99 	 $1,532.19
      20	 $52,605.18 	 $1,578.16
      21	 $54,183.34 	 $1,625.50
      22	 $55,808.84 	 $1,674.27
      23	 $57,483.10 	 $1,724.49
      24	 $59,207.60 	 $1,776.23
      	Total Payback	 $30,983.82

<comment><USER9> This does not factor in interest on the original loan. $1,776 in year 24 is not worth $1,776 today, it's worth considerably less[1].

Here's a breakdown at a couple of different interest rates of $1,776 in year 24 in today's dollars using annual compounding (it'd be a bit more lopsided using monthly):

        %0  $1,776
        %1  $1,398
        %2  $1,104
        %3  $  873
        %4  $  692
        %5  $  550
        %6  $  438

To do this calculation correctly either the future payments need to be converted into today's dollars or interest on the original loan needs to added to it (i.e. calc in future dollars).

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

<comment><USER8> The embarrassing part about these posts is that my major focused on Business Finance...

(...and Information Systems, which I rolled into System Administration.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> The thing i like about this the most is that worthless degrees are free and usefull are expensive. So it's in the college's best interest to offer quality.

<comment><USER11> Most likely the way this will work in practice is that the Oregon government pays colleges up front on a per-student basis, and then calls the program "revenue neutral" based on predictions of what they will later pay.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> This whole thing feels wrong to me. The market for education seems upside down. Education is fastly becoming less about just getting a general education, and more as a step to achieving a career. I think a very solid case can be made that a more educated workforce benefits industry as much if not more than it benefits the employees themselves. I also think we're missing out on the benefits of well placed pricing dynamics.

Today, most of the decisions are made by the students themselves. By definition a student does not know anything about the future of the industry they're entering other than possibly an article they read in a news paper. What you end up getting are disproportionate classes of students in programs. On the surface it sounds great. In America I can go to school for whatever I want. Of course when you graduate there's only demand for 10% of the people in the program, and if you aren't in the top 10% of people in your program IN THE COUNTRY, you're not going to get a job in that industry anyways. Plus you now have a boatload of debt, which you took on for essentially the privilege of knowing how to do work to benefit your future employer.

I think things would be improved with a few small changes. Break up the private and public sectors into specific industry categories. Create non profit organizations to help with predicting future demand, and curriculum, then have colleges bid on fulfilling it. I think it does two things. It allows for consistent standards to evolve (so if for-profit institutions bid, they have to prove they are providing a quality education... today they don't for the most part) second I would assume these organizations would be better at negotiating then individual students would be, which I think would become a big deal as businesses are usually pretty smart at finding ways to pay less taxes... and if they're paying 100% of the bill for education, they're going to look out for bad pricing.

</comment><comment><USER13> If one was to pay 3% of ones salaries annually for 24 years how is "salary" defined in the US?

Wouldn't a lot of people start demanding "perks" like free cars, food and housing in exchange for lover monetary pay? Wouldn't this possibly undermine the fund as the ones with the higher salaries are in a better position of negotiating these deals?

<comment><USER14> The IRS is already thinking about including those perks as part of your taxable salary anyway...

<comment><USER6> Sounds similar to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fringe_benefits_tax_(Australia...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fringe_benefits_tax_\(Australia\))

In Aus (and UK, I believe) you can "salary sacrifice" something like a car, phone, or computer. Essentially the employer buys it for you and just deducts payments from your paycheck towards it. It isn't income to you, but there is a fringe benefits tax. Some items, like computers and phones, are exempt from this tax though.

<comment><USER15> As far as I know the only thing that works this way in the UK - there is as scheme where you can get a bicycle tax free and paid by deductions from your salary:

[http://www.cyclescheme.co.uk/](http://www.cyclescheme.co.uk/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> What happens if the graduate moves out of Oregon? Who enforces collection?

Frankly I think this idea is silly. The primary reason that the cost of education is out of control is that so many people are not using their own money to pay for it. In trying to make education affordable to everyone, we've achieved just the opposite. Universities are bloated, top-heavy with highly paid administrators and staff who actually do very little work, and they can afford it because they can just increase tuition by near double-digit percentages every few years and get no market pushback.

<comment><USER17> I very much agree with you. As much as I appreciate the idea of everyone going to college, I think the idea of making loans easy for anyone to go to college has been a huge disservice to a lot of people. Students don't view the money as "real", they simply view it as a free pass to go to the "best" (i.e. most expensive) college. Universities know that students can get loans to cover their costs, so they raise the costs as fast as they can. Also deserving some blame are parents who don't spend enough time really working with their kids to remind them that a $50k/yr loan, WITH INTEREST, is going to be insanely hard to pay back.

But ultimately universities are going to raise tuition as high as they can because they know that students can get loans very, very easily.

<comment><USER18> So how do you explain wait lists? If your theories about how tuition is set were correct, wouldn't we expect universities to set the price high enough to eliminate wait lists?

<comment><USER19> Wait lists are great for marketing; they increase a school's "prestige" in the eyes of potential students.

A university doesn't want fewer applicants because that would mean a higher acceptance rate, which is bad.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Welcome to Australia for the last 73 years: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tertiary_education_fees_in_Aus...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tertiary_education_fees_in_Australia)

Look at the "Repayment" section. Essentially until you're earning money, you don't need to worry about the loan and it only goes up by the current inflation rate. Good incentive for the government to ensure there are jobs and means people don't just take the first crappy position that is thrown their way when they finish their degree.

<comment><USER20> Hey, we have that in Europe too.

Great step americans. Now join us also on health-care ;-).

<comment><USER3> I honestly dont think the structure at has been generated in the US will work as it stands today. There are a lot of edge cases they're not discussing, i.e. if people move to another state how do they track it? If people leave the country? I know a bunch of issues like these, that took a while to iron out in Australia that will likely take a while in the US too. I hope it doesn't get thrown away before it gets the chance to settle in.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> It's interesting to compare this to the pre-paid fixed-price education plans that several states did ~20 years ago, with mixed results. You buy in when your kids are children, and are guaranteed tuition will be covered when they are college aged. Some programs have had trouble staying balanced though.

[http://www.michigandaily.com/content/michigans-education- tru...](http://www.michigandaily.com/content/michigans-education-trust-doing- ok)

</comment><comment><USER22> At some point the generation that we are currently screwing over for higher education is going to get into power. If they cancel all social security payments and tell old people (e.g. the boomers) to pay their own way or eat dog food, they will be complete justified.

</comment><comment><USER23> I do not think "free" means what you think it means.

<comment><USER13> > I do not think "free" means what you think it means.

Unsure if anyone can define "free" this days. It must be the most misused word in the English language.

<comment><USER8> "Free" as in: Beer? Pizza? Range? For all?

<comment><USER13> "Oregon free". You get four free beers now, but most pay 3% of you salary next mount in return. You need a minimum of 2 000 monthly pay to qualify :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Am I the only one reading most of these comments and thinking that everyone has completely missed the point? That paying back student loans as a percentage of income instantly relieves the crushing burden of paying back a fixed dollar amount per month?

Hasn't anyone else put off starting their own business because even a few hundred dollars a month severely impacted their burn rate? I still owe over $8000 even though I graduated from college in 1999. I could write a check for that today, but there was a period in the early 2000s where I was so destitute that my student loan payment was more than my rent! I would literally be living a different life today if the proposed repayment plan had been mainstream when I graduated. I can't even imagine the ramifications of that, times a million other entrepreneurs. Where has our vision gone?

</comment><comment><USER25> This is how it should have been done all along.

The "higher education" system as it exists now is just pure exploitation, and decimating the middle class.

Allow current student loan holders to enter bankruptcy like normal human beings, and have all future financing be a small set cut of future earnings.

Focus much more energy on apprenticing programs like in Germany, where kids actually get real job experience instead of sitting in a classroom with 150 other kids while some 28 year old associate professor walks through a powerpoint presentation.

I mean, the basic problem is that corporate America doesn't really need as much labor input anymore. But we have an entire generation of young Americans who pay more on the "education" loans than their rents. That's a complete injustice.

<comment><USER26> There's a reason bankruptcy doesn't discharge government student loans: congress amended the bankruptcy laws in 1978. Why? Reports of abuse from doctors, lawyers, and other high earners that racked up massive debts and declared bankruptcy immediately after graduation.

People with $100,000+ in student loans are the 3%.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Overall, as a person who has enjoyed the generational advantages provided by accessible college educations, I think this plan is a Rawlsian good.

Of course, it has its flaws, such as repayment being tied to salary rather than income - and how does this work for a married couple from a tax perspective? Expect the percentages to increase and repayment to become increasingly regressive. I doubt it will curb the administrative bloat and sports subsidies and student amenities which have driven costs upward.

But at least it is a start. Schools are our greatest incubators and replicators of beneficial memes.

</comment><comment><USER28> Oregonians will be pay for college until their late 40s?

What about the next tech billionaire. Will he pay USD 30 million for every billion he makes?

<comment><USER15> I would have thought that something like this would be based on income, not capital gains.

<comment><USER10> In my understanding of the word capital gains are a subset of income.

<comment><USER29> But capital gains aren't taxed as income.

[http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2013/06/05/why- capital...](http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2013/06/05/why-capital- gains-should-be-taxed-as-income/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> If you have the option of paying a percentage or a flat fee, it would seem like those with an expectation of high future earnings would always take the up-front cost, leaving you with a much smaller pool of students. Once you near the end of that 24 year period, I'd also expect to see a lot of deferred compensation schemes amongst high earners.

<comment><USER31> "Adverse selection" was mentioned in the article. Going into a lucrative career? Self-fund. Want to learn something that will never pay you a decent wage? Sign up!

What you end up with is a bankrupt system program in a decade or so.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> This is the kind of idea that sounds great to everyone but the type of student you need in the your system to remain solvent.

</comment><comment><USER30> Or, more or less equivalently, one could tax the population at 3% of income, and fund a free education system. It slightly disadvantages those without degrees, but I'd argue there are enough positive externalities that they still come out ahead.

</comment><comment><USER33> Huh - it looks like Oregon's government has designed a rather nice hedge against inflation.

As long as fixed-rate loans are still available, this smells like a bad deal.

</comment><comment><USER34> 3% is quite low isn't it? In the UK I believe it is 9% of your salary for as many years as it takes to pay off the debt.

<comment><USER35> In the UK you only pay 9% of what is over 21k pa though, so its not that bad (note, this is different than 9% of the total wage).

There are also a few more benefits. Technically if you never find a job you will never have to pay for your tuition.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> It would be pretty ironic if you used funds from this plan to pay for a degree in economics.

</comment><comment><USER37> This is a horrible idea. Removing the financial barriers to college will get kids who shouldn't be going to go anyway without thinking about it.

I don't think education should cost an arm and a leg but you should have to think about it as your money. Which, IME, a lot of kids going to uni don't under a deferred payment system (a similar thing is currently operating in the UK - though there it's based on repayment of the loan against the ... I believe... consumer prices index.)

Honestly, I almost think that university is a bad idea altogether for many people these days. If a company wants a trained workforce they should be the ones paying. Seems the wrong way around at the moment. The kids have to take on all the financial risk themselves - but at a significant information and power disadvantage.

<comment><USER38> That's only valid if you see university as purely vocational training.

<comment><USER37> No, I think university fails in numerous areas and business is the strongest remaining one - in effect its ties to certificates that industry might value is what university has _left_. Few would be able to justify to themselves going there otherwise.

If you want a well rounded general education, you're - by and large - best off providing it for yourself if you don't need someone to stick a rubber stamp on it for you.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> Better way to solve this problem: [http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2013/05/07/fixing- employ...](http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2013/05/07/fixing-employment- with-consulting-call-options/)

A state government is actually diverse enough in needs to create a full market for these options; it wouldn't have to sell/transfer them on a secondary market to profit.

</comment><comment><USER40> This is a good idea in general. It is really what the market should be correcting for already.

I don't understand why the _college_ doesn't lend you the money to attend their courses already.</comment>


Bertrand Russell, "On Sales Resistance" - <AUTHOR> http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/Russell/Hearst_Essays/On_Sales_Resistance.html <comment><USER2> Slightly off-topic but I use a couple of things as a consumer to defend myself (or "from myself") from "spur of the moment" purchases.

I never buy anything over $100 the same day I see an item in a store or online; I wait at least one day. (Then I can so some Internet searches etc).

Same thing when some service is offered to me over the phone or at my door. Telemarketers I pretty much hang up on them as soon as I hear the code word "on behalf of". For salespeople I explain that I cannot sign right now, because it's my policy and they don't find arguments against that.

Another rule of thumb is that if I haven't thought or being worried about something before, probably I don't need it.

Also for some services/products I already have an "ideal" on mind that I have already researched, so I don't have to think or make decisions about that any more. For example, for long-distance calling I use the $10/month Skype services which gives me unlimited international time. I don't think this can be beaten, and if so, probably the hassle in changing is worth more than the $10/month.

I also read books like "Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion" by Robert B. Cialdini which I highly recommend, so we are aware of our irrational mind.

<comment><USER3> I think avoiding products that you must buy through salespeople is another good defense... Assuming the same good is sold by two companies, if one requires you to dicker over a price with a professional, it costs them much more to provide you the service than it costs the other company, who just puts a price on the website.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> _...skill is shown in making people buy what they don't want rather than what they do..._

This is where he gets it wrong. There's a big difference between "buying what they don't want" and "buying what they don't need". Of course they don't need it. Hardly anything we buy is actually needed.

But "want" is a different story. Of course we want it. We want all kinds of things we don't need. Any good salesman will tell you that all he has to do if find that emotional want and the rest of the sales cycle becomes natural, like judo or ballet. Driven by the buyer's emotion and justified by the salesman's logic.

Funny a philosopher as brilliant as Bertrand Russell didn't understand something so fundamental. I guess that's why he was a philosopher and not a salesman.

<comment><USER5> Firstly, his first paragraph is an example, whose details don't matter. It's the third paragraph that is most important.

Secondly, if you initially have no need for something and wouldn't have felt any need for it if no one had pestered you about buying it, then 'I did not want it' is an entirely acute way of phrasing the way you felt about it, before you were brainwashed into buying it.

Thirdly, your use of 'want' and his use of 'want' may be different. In 'ye olde English', "having want of something" means: needing it. For Russell, want and need may be more synonymous than for you. You could read "buying what they don't want" as "buying something they don't have want for". I'm not sure this is the case, but having read other writings of Russell, I am sure that his English and our English are different creatures, with some differences that can cause strange misinterpretations.

Fourthly, and perhaps most importantly, there is a world of difference between wanting something because you think you need it and wanting something because you have been assaulted with so much glorious reports on the goodness of 'it', that _not having 'it'_ leaves you with a nagging feeling that you should want it.

As an example of the last bit: I consider a car a utility. I have an ugly and scratched car, but it serves me very well and I like it this way. However, that doesn't mean that I can avoid conversations about shiny Ferrari's or someone's brand new SUV and I can't avoid being given the feeling that I should care about my car. I constantly have to stand up to the cultural indoctrination and reconvince myself that what I'm doing is perfectly fine. I don't need a shiny car, but I often feel like I _want_ one. _That_ is what Russell is talking about and that is still something that is _very_ wrong about our society.

<comment><USER6> "I don't need a shiny car, but I often feel like I want one."

I think you're hitting on something here. Maybe more to the point is that there is something else you want more - either to save your money for things that give you more security or enjoyment, or to follow your principles, etc. In you heart, you feel that NOT buying a shiny car will make you happier than buying it.

Much of our unhappiness comes from sacrificing our higher desires - health, security, accomplishment - for lower ones: junk food, instant gratification, laziness.

The salesman in the article is pushing his customer away from a higher desire to a lower one. And helping to make him less happy.

<comment><USER7> Ah, "higher desires" and "lower desires" is quite a judgment!

It is even more an extreme judgment when you are talking about what you think other people should do.

I am not saying that I disagree with you, necessarily. The problem is that human societies have evolved from smaller scale societies where "higher" and "lower" desires were well-defined by social consensus to the present large scale societies where there is no consensus definition of virtue however much it might be talked about.

I won't say that there's a solution here but we've got to take into account the problem...

<comment><USER6> "It is even more an extreme judgment when you are talking about what you think other people should do."

No. You're missing my point. I don't mean "higher" and "lower" in terms of how other people judge them. I mean in terms of how happy they make you.

If you are overweight AND you wish you weren't, you make yourself unhappy when you choose to eat junk and not exercise. For a moment, the junk food tastes good, but then it makes you unhappy all day. (If you don't mind being overweight, fine.)

On the other hand, if you force yourself to get in shape, going running makes you momentarily unhappy, but overall you feel more satisfied with your life.

It's the same reason you go to work when you're tired, clean your house when it's filthy, etc. The reward is worth the pain.

Everyone is welcome to define their own goals in life. If your goal is to be a Level 5 Million WOW player, and you don't mind losing your health for it, fine. But if you kick yourself every day for your habits (whatever they are) and wish you could change (in any way), you've got a priority problem. You should be sacrificing lower desires for higher ones.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> When I was a teenager, my parents and I were in a piano store, and I remarked that I could tell that the expensive pianos had better sound quality than the cheap ones. This fact seemed to help the salesman close the deal.

Of course, ungrateful wretch that I was, I hardly _played_ the piano after it arrived. Maybe they should have bought a more expensive model. :-)

</comment><comment><USER9> I find that the older I get the more 'sales-resistant' I get. Maybe it's because I'm running out of room to store everything. :D

<comment><USER10> It may be that the older you get the more oblivious you are to sales- marketing; since you can point out several blatant sales-marketing techniques, you fool yourself into believing you are safe from them all. Don't become too overconfident or you'll end up buying something ridiculous and not even know it.

<comment><USER9> _Don't become too overconfident or you'll end up buying something ridiculous and not even know it._

Heh, I try not to make the same mistake twice!

There must be some website where users post pictures and descriptions of ridiculous things they've bought and the money they've spent. How about calling the website: ThinkTwiceAboutThePrice.com or IOughtNotToBought.com or BuyersRemorse.com. Then with enough membership you can turn it into a swap/auction site. :D

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> The 'customer' in the anecdote doesn't really fall for the actual sales pitch, and makes his purchase solely to get rid of the salesman. So.. one is supposed to feel sorry for the guy who prioritises his immediate convenience over any future utility? Cry me a river.

Also, 'sales resistance' is hard to quantify. Does he not want to buy because the widget being sold carries no value to him? Or because he doesn't perceive any such value? Who's to say the 'older daughter' in the story wasn't Constance Keene?

<comment><AUTHOR> _So.. one is supposed to feel sorry for the guy who prioritises his immediate convenience over any future utility?_

No, for the resulting inefficiency of the economy as a whole. How you choose to divide the blame between salesman and customer is your own business, of course.

 _Who's to say the 'older daughter' in the story wasn't Constance Keene?_

Statistics can say that with over 99% confidence.

<comment><USER11> _No, for the resulting inefficiency of the economy as a whole. How you choose to divide the blame between salesman and customer is your own business, of course._

I don't see how this makes the economy inefficient. Could you elaborate? And in this particular analogy, the purchasing decision was clearly the buyer's, so the worst you could say about the seller was that he was pushy and obnoxious. I can't see why one would 'blame' him for the inefficient economy.

 _Statistics can say that with over 99% confidence._

That's disingenuous. What I meant was, based on the story of the pushy piano purveyor alone, without knowing what use was made of the instrument, you can't really say it was a useless purchase. Serendipity happens.

<comment><AUTHOR> _I don't see how this makes the economy inefficient. Could you elaborate?_

Deals are supposed to create value. For example, if a house is worth $2M to the seller and $3M to the buyer, there's $1M potential surplus to be captured. A deal at $2.5M makes that makes that surplus real, in effect giving $500K to each. If a potential deal doesn't create net value - if the buyer doesn't receive enough benefit from the good, or the seller spends too much manufacturing it - the total wealth in the economy goes down as a result, even though the buyer OR the seller might win personally.

 _Serendipity happens._

Yes, and statistics can tell us what credence to assign to the chance of it happening. I certainly see no reason to assign 50% or similar credence to serendipity in the described case, or indeed any credence high enough to dominate the certain loss of value. Do you?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I completely share Russell's distaste for the practices of pushy salesmen, but I absolutely can't side with him in condemning them and blaming the cultural problem that he identifies on them. The salespeople are a wasteful _symptom_ of our (the consumers) weakness for consumer crap and for their antics - they're not the _cause_ of it.

Also, while (again) I completely agree that because they are driving over- consumption that this is a problem, it's very difficult to tell _how much_ of problem it is. Maybe some people really enjoy owning useless shit and are taking advantage of an opportunity while it's made convenient by the sales person. Has anyone attempted to do some science to understand this? What proportion of purchases "induced" by pushy salespeople are customers unhappy with X weeks later, as compared with "other" purchases - ones made with previous intent?

</comment><comment><USER13> Try the BBC documentary 'The Century Of the Self' by Adam Curtis. You'll have to torrent it because no US TV station has dared show it.

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

It documents (with gripping style) the activities of Edward Bernays and others in their efforts to manipulate people's subconscious - to make them buy stuff.

</comment><comment><USER14> What do you know, this whole holier-than-thou anti-sales/advertising trend is that old?

The essense is of this entire, and apparently 80+ years old, movement is that "the little man" spends his money and otherwise prioritises in ways that we, the holders of truth, find odd, even repulsive. We therefore conclude that the error must clearly lie with salesmen and advertisers pushing unvirtuous products and service.

That said, there's a line being crossed when apt salesmanship and glossy advertising becomes threatening, harassing or are downright scams.

<comment><USER15> I don't mean to be impolite, but your response to the article seems a little defensive to me. The illustrative story he uses is contrived, but if you read his other writings at that URL, it seems to be that his general style leans towards hyperbole. That doesn't mean the point is invalid.

I think it is certainly valid to question the merit of using known techniques of influence to convince others to buy things that may not be of value to them. Where is the line between this and the promotion of things of value that people might not think they want currently?

We have seen a decade or more of intense innovation in which many new things were created that people had to be convinced to buy, but that did ultimately provide them with great value. At the same time, we still have MacDonalds marketing junk-food to kids. Was it "Supersize Me" that showed an interview with a fast food sales/advertising type brazenly describing how they can convince kids/parents to buy just about anything, whether they need it or not, whether they previously wanted it or not? [1]

I have an experiment to suggest to you and anyone else on HN who might be interested: sell your TV, cancel your cable, and don't watch anything that you didn't specifically choose, for one year. (i.e., DVD's, etc. that you make a conscious choice to buy/rent are ok). When the year is up, start watching TV ads again. My guess is that a lot of the advertisements will look ridiculous and cynically manipulative [2], and you'll wonder how they could convince anyone to buy the product they promote. But you know they work, because people pay for them.

[1] If you recall the scene I'm referring to please feel free to correct me if I got the details wrong.

[2] If they don't already seem that way to you.

<comment><USER14> It is defensive. I'm sick and tired of this movement. As I replied to gjm11, I believe that this story is a hyperbole because the real world don't lend it self well to the point he wants to make.

> I think it is certainly valid to question the merit of using known > techniques of influence to convince others to buy things that may not be of > value to them. Where is the line between this and the promotion of things of > value that people might not think they want currently?

There are two parties to this, the sender and the receiver. The receiver needs to process and act on this information for the sale to take place. I see this movement as extremely condescending because it all too readily assumes that because consumers make "wrong" choices, they don't have free will. The line goes where people chooses to make a purchase. McDonalds: it's not healthy, and _everyone_ , including kids, know this, still consumers want the product, because they like it. I like it, and no-one else provides the convenient package of fat, protein and sugar I need at 3 am returning from a night on the town, and no-one else can give me that small energy kick as fast as a cheeseburger can to get me through the last hour of a long drive. (I haven't seen Supersize Me, but I'm familiar with it's conclusions)

Regarding your experiment, I've all but stopped watching programmed TV, but yeah, I find ads obnoxious. Manipulative? It's not like they lie about their purpose.

<comment><USER16> I'm the consumer in question. Example: I went to the gas station - they had a promotional discount carwash. The windows on my car were filthy, so I went.

I got upsold to an inside cleaning as well. It certainly needed the cleaning, but if I didn't have to tell someone, "No thanks" (implying that I'm OK with the very dirty carpets in the car), I wouldn't have paid for the more expensive wash. If I _really_ didn't want the inside cleaning, it wouldn't have affected me, but I was just conflicted enough to be vulnerable to the sale. Did the sales guy do me any favors?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Silly Russell: didn't anyone tell him about credit cards?

 _Edit:_ sarcasm fail?</comment>


AR Startup Meta  Company (YC S13) Shuts Down - <AUTHOR> https://next.reality.news/news/ar-startup-meta-company-shuts-down-amid-asset-foreclosure-sale-patent-fight-executive-departures-0192384/ <comment><USER2> Really sad for the AR world, these guys actually had a product on the market.</comment>


First Blog Post, "Getting Started with a VPS" - <AUTHOR> https://kertof.com/posts/getting-started-vps <comment><USER2> [deleted comment blog posts can't be Show HN]

<comment><AUTHOR> I fixed the title.</comment></comment>


Google Apps Status Dashboard - <AUTHOR> http://www.google.com/appsstatus

<comment><USER2> I love the transparency! As far as I am concerned, the more of this, the better.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah I think the transparency is a big step for Google and they are countering a lot of criticism with it. The other question is if it will help to get people confident in the stability or if the currently three incidents displayed for the GMail Service are more of a turn off.</comment></comment>


Ethereum Market Cap Reaches Record as New Features Are Released - <AUTHOR> http://www.financemagnates.com/cryptocurrency/innovation/ethereum-market-cap-reaches-record-as-new-features-are-released/ <comment><USER2> ... and more exciting projects started ... [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11067751](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11067751)</comment>


Our GitHub CLI team changed also the default branch name from master to trunk - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/fatih/status/1270030428619993094 <comment><USER2> What are the words used as a replacement?

Although I don't know the origin of whitelist and blacklist (i.e. why the good one is white and the bad one is black), I don't care if someone asks for me to stop using those terms because they feel offended. Sounds like a small compromise on my side.

However, I disagree on the master vs slave understanding. Slavery is a concept that exists without our sociological legacy. We cannot understand our history without acknowledging slavery. And it's a useful concept to describe the relationship between systems that behave like a master and a slave.

My 2 cents :)</comment>


This MIT Website Tracks Your Digital Footprint Through Gmail - <AUTHOR> http://newsfeed.time.com/2013/07/05/this-mit-website-tracks-your-digital-footprint-through-gmail/ <comment><USER2> If you want to go straight to the tool: [https://immersion.media.mit.edu](https://immersion.media.mit.edu)

</comment><comment><USER3> Hi, one of the team members of Immersion here. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. Thanks for your feedback and comments!

</comment><comment><USER4> Works great, perfectly determined which people in my workplace are programmers and which are biologists (by giving them a different color).

Could one subvert the graph building with the following? Construct an email address A1 that will forward emails to you from person B. Likewise, you communicate with B through their B1. After a period of time (or n messages), switch the pass through entity to a different email address A2 and make a rule on the mail server to bounce the emails from B if they try to reach you at A1. Keep using A1 with someone else.

</comment><comment><USER5> It's odd that I have yet to see a single website that handles oauth failures gracefully. (e.g. hitting the cancel button).

<comment><USER3> Good point. We'll take care of this during our next server update. Thanks!

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Wow, this is pretty awesome. If I look at mine, you can clearly see links between certain groups of friends / family.

</comment><comment><USER7> Interesting, but not very useful to somebody who's an avid deleter of old e-mails. Kind of paints an odd picture.

Also, anyone else get a stuck logout&delete button after getting the data? Ended up having to revoke access via Gmail Accounts.

<comment><USER3> That's the first we've heard of that error. When the user logs out, they are also presented with the link to revoke access via Gmail. Sorry you weren't able to get to that page. If you want to make sure that your data is deleted, we can do a manual delete of your metadata (if it exists on our server) for you. Just write to us at the address on the website.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> very interesting, analyzed 40k+ emails and I didn't find that much I didn't already know. More surprised about what can be seen with just an oauth token.

<comment><USER9> It's not just any OAuth token it's a token that asks for permissions to "view all your mail" among other things.

Most Oauth tokens won't ask for this highly elevated permission.

OAuth is not designed around Authentication, the Auth in OAuth is actually about Authorisation. It was designed for this purpose, to authorise others to have access to your mail, or contacts, etc. That it has been co-opted for Authentication purposes (particularly in Oauth2) has just been a side effect.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> What the ...?

Never ever share your login credentials with a third-party.

This could have been done as local open-source tool. Why is this a web app?

You can do this yourself with tools like Gephi.

<comment><USER9> It's not asking for your login credentials, it uses an oauth system and asks for permissions.

<comment><USER11> And plus, you know the NSA is looking at your mail anyway, so what further harm could a bunch of MIT grad students do?

<comment><USER12> I have more trust in the grad students.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Well, when you use Gmail, you must pretty much be ok with the idea of being tracked...</comment>


Tell HN: Today is the launch date for Tony Hsieh's "Delivering Happiness" - <AUTHOR> http://www.deliveringhappinessbook.com/launch-day-is-here/

<comment><USER2> I ordered this. Plan to skim it then hand to my fiance to improve the customer service in our salon. Will report here if it's any good.</comment>


Supervisors Driven by Bottom Line Fail to Get Top Performance from Employees - <AUTHOR> https://www.baylor.edu/mediacommunications/news.php?action=story&story=211538 <comment><USER2> Title Has Too Many Uselessly Capitalized Words.</comment>


Square talking to banks about possible 2014 IPO - <AUTHOR> http://www.sfgate.com/technology/article/Square-talking-to-banks-about-possible-2014-IPO-4962089.php <comment><USER2> They need to do it now because the % that companies are able to charge is going to collapse very soon. This is a money grab for founders and investors - that's all. Square will have money to try to compete but they'll have a hard time.

<comment><USER3> As a person who isn't in this space, why do you say that? Is it because of increasing competition or something to do with Braintree/Paypal?

<comment><USER4> Obviously I can't speak for the OP, but here are three things I can think of:

[1] Current Bull Market. (S&P500 is up 22.5% YTD)

[2] Tech IPOs are hot atm. (see TWTR)

[3] Lots of liquidity in the market courtesy of the Federal Reserve (Quantitative Easing)

The general premise is that all bull markets must end at some point. Also the Federal Reserve will start tapering (the liquidity that it is providing to the market via quantitative easing) at some point in the near future. This might mean that the company has a short window to time its IPO to "grab money" at the high end of its valuation (given the current favorable market conditions).

[1] [http://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/bullmarket.asp](http://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/bullmarket.asp)

[1] [http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-11-04/best-stock- market-s...](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-11-04/best-stock-market- since-1997-seen-with-s-p-500-year-end-momentum.html)

[2] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6690043](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6690043)

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

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Finally, an IPO for something that's actually useful.

<comment><USER6> I'm a fan, but it's ironic to hear about this on the day that I discovered that Boomtown, one of my favorite Houston coffee shops, has switched away from Square to Revel.

<comment><USER5> Black Hole is still rocking it, though. :)

We should grab a coffee!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I know there is short-form literature, but this "article" may have taken that form too far.

</comment><comment><USER8> Stripe should do it too.

<comment><USER9> I would like to see Stripe and Square join forces

<comment><USER10> Squipe!

<comment><USER11> Stare?

<comment><USER8> strip-square

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Where is the article? I clicked this and saw headline + picture.

<comment><USER13> Non-paywalled version via sfgate: [http://www.sfgate.com/technology/article/Square-talking- to-b...](http://www.sfgate.com/technology/article/Square-talking-to-banks- about-possible-2014-IPO-4962089.php)

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Does Square usage have any network effects?</comment>


Microsoft's developer crusade - <AUTHOR> http://www.zdnet.com/microsofts-developer-crusade-7000017636/ <comment><USER2> > A shift from Windows applications to the web has, contrary to popular > belief, not hurt Microsoft's developer story.

What the?

In the 90's, if you wanted to "program", and if you wanted to show other people your skill, you made a windows executable and distributed it through one of the myriad of windows shareware/freeware websites. "I want to learn to program" meant firing up Visual Basic and having a go. And Microsoft was king, because they had the best tools, and they had the platform everyone was using and targeting.

Now, almost noone makes windows executables anymore, if they want to show off their skill. People wanting to learn to program would never use Visual Basic today, it's completely off the radar. They are much more likely to learn some web framework and put up a web app to show the world, or make a phone app and put on an app store. Windows executable? That doesn't run on your iPhone or MacBook or Android.

And Microsoft has no idea on how to get the new learners back. They have nothing to offer them.

<comment><USER3> There is a huge cultural divide between what you seem to think and the .Net world.

(I agree with you, but know plenty in the other camp and it took me a while to understand them).

Someonebody should document that gap, if it hasn't been done, in the same vein as The Cathedral and the Bazaar.

<comment><USER2> I know there are a lot of developers doing a lot of work for a lot of companies on the MS stack.

My point is that there's no influx of young aspiring programmers entering that world anymore. The ones that are there now got there by picking up VB or VC++ as kids, but noone is picking those up today, and MS has absolutely no idea on how to attract new developers, none of their offerings are interesting to someone new to the field.

<comment><USER4> So you are claiming that the average age of a Microsoft developer (one relying on the Microsoft ecosystem) is edging up rapidly? I would love to see some hard evidence about that, though its definitely plausible.

At least on hackernews, the number of Microsoft developers seems to be quite small (a poll would be interesting though).

Disclaimer: working for Microsoft, speaking for self.

<comment><USER2> I'm saying that their mindshare has been shrinking constantly since the 90's. They really didn't have any serious competition back then, but they have so much competition now, and they don't stand out anymore.

Yes, their stuff is good and competent, and they're serving the needs of their existing customers and developers, but they don't make kids _excited_ to fire up Visual Studio and crank out a Windows Phone app, the same way they made kids _excited_ to fire up Visual Basic and crank out a windows exe back in the day.

There aren't any success stories around the Microsoft ecosystem anymore. Who makes the quick bucks today? Phone game developers. Facebook game developers. That's what people are chasing, so that's what people are wanting to learn how to do on their own time.

Who wants to learn how to make Windows Phone apps? Or Silverlight apps? Or Windows app store apps RT or whatever the hell they called that mess. Noone, except those already being paid to do it. There are lots of steady jobs there, but exciting ones? No.

<comment><USER4> Well, kids were excited to fire up Visual Studio and write XNA code for their XBox. They might be excited now to use DirectX in the same way, though the barrier there is much higher. Then what about F#, TypeScript...Kodu and Project Spark?

All of this discussion is anecdotal, we have no hard evidence really what developers under 30 think about Microsoft. And kids are extremely dynamic and fickle anyways, they will quickly adopt any technology that helps them achieve their goals as things fall in and out of favor. So its not like there are hard external barriers to Microsoft winning back young dev mindshare, only internal cultural ones.

We also seem to do much better in Asia (China, where I'm more familiar) in outreach than the west. Perhaps that is temporary and a result of startup/hacker culture not really taking hold here, but for the present we seem to be doing very well.

> There aren't any success stories around the Microsoft ecosystem anymore.

This is quite a weird statement. In the enterprise, there are plenty of success stories that even I can't understand, like Sharepoint. Perhaps you mean the lack of "sexy success stories"? I could agree with that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I have been making native Windows applications for years and I am still making them. Around year 2000, Microsoft was a reliable partner. They made the OS, provided the tools and others were free to make any applications they liked. There was little to complain about.

These days, being a Windows desktop software developer is pretty bad. Leaving out all the .net framework craze, Microsoft has made things much worse for many old software developers with their attempts to control everything. I am not OK with Microsoft being the one, who decides, whether users may run my software or not. I simply cannot develop for WinRT no matter how nice the native+HTML5 API may be. Even on desktop, Internet Explorer checks every download and hides the install button if the installer is "untrusted".

In short, Microsoft is not a reliable and respectful partner for independent software developers anymore.

</comment><comment><USER6> > But the company has adapted to the new developer world, embracing the cloud > and open source and contributing important new technologies to the developer > community.

Ok, don't make me laugh.

I wonder how much they pay him for writing this stuff.

<comment><USER7> Which part did you disagree with and what evidence do you have that it's not true?

Have ya not heard of any of the hundreds of open source projects that Microsoft has released? Typescript? ASP.NET MVC? Entity Framework? Reactive Extensions for .NET and Javascript?

Oh, did you expect them to just open source every single one of their products or something? Apple and Google don't even do that and I bet you love them, don't you?

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Any developer with a memory would be quite mistrustful of this "crusade", if any. Microsoft's pump and dump of technology stacks just plain hurts; the way they just made COM/DCOM nearly invisible by deleting the MSDN support pages and replacing them with .NET to force developers onto .NET was not pleasant. Granted, .NET was / is awesome (and if you were serious, your firm would have the relevant version of MSDN installed locally). (I recently heard about something similar happening with Silverlight, but I am not sure. It was genuinely exciting when Silverlight was launched and it's features in comparison to Flash were trumpeted quite a bit at that time. Now : it's just silently gone). You never know when the rug gets pulled from underneath your feet with any Microsoft technology.

Let's say they get convinced that the next big thing is some form of Intentional Programming. They are not going to do a graceful transition from .NET to IP. They'll suddenly remove all references to the Old Thing on site:microsoft.com and all you'll see is the New Thing, trumpets blaring. This is psychologically difficult for a developer who has invested years, not just months, learning the Old Thing.

The same attitude is visible with how the Metro UI is being shoved down my visual pathways with Win 8.

A related but often tacit issue is that the pace of change in technology is actually a vehicle for age discrimination. All of us do it at some level ("Good God, COBOL on the resume?! What is this, 1979?"), but I think that the lack of graceful transition from older technologies to newer ones by large firms makes it institutionalized. You have to choose your skillset carefully; the human mind cannot simply absorb ALL of COBOL, C++, Java, Ruby, SQL and NoSQL! Or it can, but you're sacrificing something, maybe even personal memories, in order to hold technical knowledge.

<comment><USER9> I guess this particular problem might get better in the future.

Microsoft had a monopolist strategy, so it was in their interest to e.g. make those monopolist products hard to interface with other companies' alternative software.

This means the APIs had to be complex with subtle bugs, so e.g. something that could run Windows applications couldn't easily be cloned -- and, as you note, periodic replacements are also needed.

Since the monopolist strategy isn't that productive anymore for MS, the pump- and-dump phenomenon _ought_ to get better...

Edit: Also note that over complex functionality that is regularly thrown away, so developers' investments are lost, is lowering our collective life quality. I don't use MS products anymore. Maybe when/if they need to compete without monopolist strategies...

<comment><USER8> "complex with subtle bugs" describes the experience so well!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Microdoft lost developpers when they traded bill gates for steve ballmer. Putting a salesman on top instead of someone who knows the art is the surest way a company can completely loose itself. We've seen that over and over again. There's a reason why in the old family business boss' s sons had to start from the bottom, doing grunt work first for some years, then climb the ladder little by little, until they could pretend to replace their fathers as the boss.

<comment><USER11> Do you really think things would be any different under Bill? I am not sure what you think would change.

<comment><USER10> I'm sure it would. Salesmen always see money first, art seconds, and they can't have intuition or give general direction regarding technical aspects. An example of that is windows 8 fiasco with its mix of tablet and desktop UI and surface fiasco. It is clear that they are following trends, but don't know where they're going. I can easily imagine ballmer looking at market shares and numbers to make choices issues by issues. That kind of thinking leads to products that are in the middle of nowhere.

<comment><USER12> I don't think billg sees art first and money/power second, but, at least, he can see art. It sure seems Ballmer doesn't get programming in any meaningful way.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I've been a Microsoft developer since QuickBasic. I program mostly in C# now. I love ASP.NET MVC. I love the new features in Visual Studio 2012. I love the extensions to C#. I work full time at an investment bank and do side consulting for creating highly functional websites. I see pros and cons of every framework and language but .NET and C# are the best for me right now.

There's a lot of negativity here and frankly I was a little afraid to post anything positive.

<comment><USER14> I'm still a student. I started with Java, but found out about C# after programming Java for 2 years. I'm so glad I did. C# is (in my opinion) much better than Java, it has loads of very useful features (LINQ, very easy async/parallellization, delegates, lambdas, a good UI framework) and Visual Studio is a much better IDE than Eclipse and NetBeans will ever be.

I mainly used C# for some client-side stuff, but then I found out about ASP.NET MVC, which is extremely easy to use and offers a lot of flexibility. It's also nice that they made it open source (just like Entity Framework, which is brilliant too).

Later on I came into contact with Azure. I didn't even know about Azure untill I saw Scott Guthrie's presentation about it on TechDays. I have to say I'm absolutely in love with Azure. Azure has seen phenomenal improvements over the last few years. In my opinion Azure has surpassed Amazon's cloud offering by far. They offer more features (imho especially the PaaS is awesome, their services make sure you don't have to deal with sharing stuff between multiple servers), offer both Windows and Linux servers (for very good prices), it's really fast and it's also cheap (prices are the same as Amazon's, plus they offer huge free trials). Oh, and their libraries for Azure are open source too.

There is no denying that Microsoft created a LOT of awesome stuff the last few years... They really changed into an open company.

<comment><USER13> >They really changed into an open company.

They were forced to change into an open company in regard to development tools because of competition. And that's a great thing!

I think the programming world would be worse off without the spectrum of options available to programmers today. As it stands now, no development company can rest on its laurels and is forced to innovate and adapt.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> If Microsoft wants to succeed at this angle, they are going to have to make a decision. Full, first party support for .net and other products on Linux, OSX and Android. Complete app portability between all platforms, with all features. (This means OpenGL, not DirectX, etc.)

If they do that, developers will love them, but their Windows division will kill them. If they don't do that, only developers who don't know any better will use them.

Good luck, Microsoft, you're going to need it.

</comment><comment><USER16> Call me when they stop threatening Android makers, and after the next standardization effort that affects them but they don't sabotage, and I might consider them again.

</comment><comment><USER17> I'm a big fan of Microsoft's dev tooling and platforms, but this article is so full of nonsense that I don't know where to begin.

</comment><comment><USER18> The last great IDE Microsoft put out was Visual Studio 6: the C++ compiler optimizations were amazing, the UI was zenful (you had to know your hotkeys for things, gasp!) The darn thing just did everything, and I enjoyed working with it.

Versions after 6 had more and more panels and property sheets started cluttering up the works and crowding out my editor, and there were lots more things begging for the mouse rather than the keyboard.

Seems like their tools philosophy changed after Y2K. It was writing on the wall for me to move on when Ctrl+Tab/Ctrl+Shift+Tab in VS stopped working like a stack of MRU editors because they started adding visual/clickable tabs at the top for all the open editors. "It would be confusing", said the marketdroid, "to have Ctrl+Tab jump all over the place between these tabs here - better to just cycle left and right through the editor tabs in the order they are displayed." Sigh.

<comment><USER17> Ctrl+tab is MRU in VS2012. Or at least it is on all my machines and I never had to configure anything there.

Also, you're complaining about very superficial stuff. My VS layout has a file explorer on the left, big code view on the right, current errors and warnings / console output on the bottom, and that's it. How is that bloated? It's basically what sublime text looks like, but then whiter.

It literally takes 2 minutes to hide all toolbars and install the 'Hide main menu' extension, what's the problem?

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Oh, and Microsoft, if I have a process that opens a file, could you PLEASE stop locking the file in your weird and arbitrary ways?

How many times have I had to kludge my code for running on Windows because of file locking policies that were in place for, what, DOS 3 compatibility?

It's no wonder to me why deploying to Linux is so popular. Draconian file locking policies in Windows, huge PITA right out the chute.

<comment><USER19> Usually this is the application's fault. When you open a file with the Windows API there is a bit mask of what another handle can do (read, write, and delete/rename). The problem occurs when you specify 0 for this parameter because you're looking at MSDN and you don't know what any of this means. That locks out concurrent access to the file.

There are some other weird behaviors that probably shouldn't be there (such as renaming the parent of an open file or the behavior when an open file is deleted) but an application misusing the sharing flags is probably what you're thinking of.

<comment><USER18> So you're saying, for example, that you can delete files that are currently open in another process in Windows? So not hypothetically: you've personally succeeded at deleting a file on Windows that is currently open in another process?

Also, is it the other process'es responsibility to open those file handles with the confusing, poorly documented, non-zero flags so that I can read/write/delete from my process? What if I don't own or control the other process? Am I just screwed in the majority of real-world cases?

I suspect the problem here is a lot more complicated than me not setting open flags and getting all cross-eyed when visiting the CreateFile page at MSDN. The real problem is Microsoft's insane default file open semantics that do exclusive locks purely for the sake of compatibility with 30+ year old legacy. I've lost face on jobs because of file locking going on that was out of my control and creating havoc in my app. If we were targeting Linux, there wouldn't have been a problem, so the status quo is not okay.

In my opinion, Win16/32/64 code should be sandboxed and only run in VM's in future OS'es; shed the legacy design decisions like pessimistic file locking completely. Trash the standard Windows API (not just hide it) and give me a next-generation Posix or CLR as a sane platform for new development.

<comment><USER19> > that you can delete files that are currently open in another process in > Windows?

You can. However, there is an unfortunate behavior here that is different from Unix. When you delete an open file you cannot re-create one with the same name until the handle is dropped. (Once that gets to the NT APIs it will fail with STATUS_DELETE_PENDING until the last handle is dropped).

You could work around this by doing rename + delete instead of just delete.

I thought this behavior was dumb until I looked at the on-disk structure of FAT. No inodes. The filename is your inode. It makes it easier to implement a FAT driver if the semantics are such that the name entry sticks around until the file closes. That is a weak excuse, and sadly the people in the Windows division with the power to change this don't really care about it. (FYI, I worked in the Windows division from 2008-2011, not that I defend everything they do.)

> poorly documented, non-zero flags so that I can read/write/delete from my > process?

Yeah, I agree this was kind of stupid. There are internal folks at MS, some of them quite influential, who think it's stupid too. But it's already been done.

> The real problem is Microsoft's insane default file open semantics

It's only "default" in that if you pass 0 it's what you get. If you think of "default" as FILE_SHARE_READ | FILE_SHARE_WRITE | FILE_SHARE_DELETE (and if everyone writing Windows software had that in their head) things would be a lot better. Granted that's a big if.

> Trash the standard Windows API (not just hide it)

This is the same fallacy a bunch of internal people came up with in Windows 8, however the truth is large chunks of the Windows API have nothing wrong with it. For example with what I'm sure are very simple changes in ntfs.sys, the corner cases around files being open [the ones I mentioned in my earlier post, not the ones around sharing flags if we consider them "by design"] go away, without invalidating every API in existence.

<comment><USER18> > You could work around this by doing rename + delete instead of just delete.

That's um, inconvenient. I've heard similar tales, but I'd wager there are many more corner cases that could bedevil us. For example, what about .dll's and .exe's that are currently open in other processes? My experience has been that you simply cannot do anything with those files once they have been opened.

The whole Windows file system just seems like a rat's nest of bad and worse design decisions.

> Granted that's a big if.

Stop. This is a bad design decision that has surely cost industry billions to reckon with and maybe cost a few lives along the way too. This is not the developer's fault.

> Yeah, I agree this was kind of stupid. There are internal folks at MS, some > of them quite influential, who think it's stupid too. But it's already been > done.

Hm, sounds like you're an insider! Right, well, I'm not satisfied with that blasé attitude. I think you ought to take more pride: Windows is kindof important, like, to humankind. It is really unethical to leave such bad designs in place, festering and impeding our progress and wasting our time. Your internal folks at MS who are clueful need to be heard.

> > Trash the standard Windows API (not just hide it) > > This is the same > fallacy a bunch of internal people came up with in Windows 8, however the > truth is large chunks of the Windows API have nothing wrong with it.

Seems to me that Windows RT could run on any kernel or VM. If that's the direction all development is going to take at MSFT, then do everyone a favor and chuck that boat anchor Win32 and plop the legacy apps into a VM ghetto running in seamless mode.

Don't be afraid, just do the needful.

<comment><USER19> > Hm, sounds like you're an insider!

Was. As the comment you're replying to mentions in parenthesis, I wasn't there for all that long and I left a few years ago. Not that I in my lowly position would have been able to convince people to change some of this stuff...

> Seems to me that Windows RT could run on any kernel or VM

It's pretty heavily tied to Win32 and COM.

I think the way you're talking about it is a little weird though. Would you criticize Android, for example, for having a Unix-like system underneath? I mean, 'cause Unix is like.. old, and stuff. </snark> Stuff simply being old isn't really a compelling reason to discard it. I'd say NT especially is mostly on the right track in terms of being a modern kernel. Not without its warts but it doesn't deserve comparison with DOS or 9x. COM has some good ideas at its core too.

<comment><USER18> > It's pretty heavily tied to Win32 and COM.

Ah, I did not know that. So, is WinRT a peer to Win32/Win64, or is it built atop Win32/Win64? I have heard that COM is bread and butter to the way Microsoft teams compose their systems, I should have known they would have based it on that. Maintaining the legacy through COM seems to encourage coupling in the design that would make it impossible to change out the OS underpinnings.

> I'd say NT especially is mostly on the right track in terms of being a > modern kernel.

In the abstract, yes, NT is a vision of pure loveliness. NT 3.5 was super exciting when it came out, such a rock solid business OS (at the time)! Not sure what we got now in the concrete sense though - it's a real hodgepodge, new and old. I sense all the wise greybeards who could provide the vision have long since moved on.

I'm not suggesting Unix-like is a panacea, but it's on a better path than Windows as far as file systems go. There are surely optimizations and streamlining that a new design could showcase to blow away Unix/Linux/BSD. A new design from Microsoft would be refreshing, mainly because they have the cash and power to do it right and still offer their all-important backwards compatibility.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> He might be a little biased "CEO of Blue Badge Insights, an analysis, strategy and advisory firm serving Microsoft customers and partners"

</comment><comment><USER21> As Steve Ballmer says "developers, developers, developers, developers!"

But are independent developers allowed to develop for Xbox One?

No - developers not welcome.

<comment><USER22> They are welcome in the same way console market has worked since the early 80's.

<comment><USER21> Yes but they are missing a huge opportunity by not opening the Xbox platform up to all developers equally.

That's an opportunity that Sony and Apple won't miss.

<comment><USER23> Consoles have been shrinking in unit volume in the current generation, and it is an open question if the next generation can reverse that trend, or if it's game-over. Nobody has ever succeeded at mixing the AAA-game model with open access to indy game developers. It's an attractive idea in isolation, but it doesn't work for the AAA publishers and console-makers. And it is unclear if anything really works in that business anymore.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Financial Times Hacked - Again - <AUTHOR> http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/17/britain-ft-hacked-idUSL6N0DY24R20130517

<comment><USER2> Oh well, I do recall about 13 years ago you could see the Apache /server- status page and who was accessing what and there IP. Guess they are still learning.

That said in these days reuters could of got hacked and this is a spoof release, the mind boggles thesedays.</comment>


The Bug in Apple's Latest Marketing Campaign - <AUTHOR> https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2019/04/15/the-bug-in-apples-latest-marketing-campaign/ <comment><USER2> The IDFA should be turned off by default, not just reset every month.

But I do tend to trust Apple more than Google on privacy since Apple's business model isn't based on tracking you.

On the other hand, it seems to be impossible to prevent the Apple watch from connecting to any Wi-Fi network you've ever connected to on the iPhone whenever it can. ;-(</comment>


Show HN: Snake meets Zelda in a challenging mobile adventure - <AUTHOR> http://buttonbrigade.com

<comment><USER2> I've played this game-- truly unique experience! Great work.</comment>


How to murder a business - <AUTHOR> http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/590c8b0c-d3c7-11de-8caf-00144feabdc0.html

<comment><USER2> They're all good, and maybe it's simply because of where I'm at right now, but particularly poignant is: 5. Make a mess of a major IT project. I have seen companies hit the rocks because they spent fortunes on computer systems that did not function properly. I'm not suggesting you never invest in technology, but make sure you take expert advice, and embark on such a move only when the time is right.

</comment><comment><USER3> #9 is _so_ true. I wish I could stab whoever came up with the expression "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".

<comment><USER4> my other 'favorite' expression "don't re-invent the wheel". Some times you just have to, to make it better. People ignore the fact that the wheel has been 're-invented' many times throughout the ages, otherwise our cars will still be running on stone wheels like the Flintstones.

<comment><USER5> Surely wooden wheels came first - fell a tree, voila, wide wooden wheel (aka "log" or "roller"). Also bending a whip (thin flexible stick) into a circle and rolling it ...</comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: An interactive comparison of 100 laptops with matte screens - <AUTHOR> http://www.productchart.com/laptops/sets/1 <comment><USER2> Some people seem to be indifferent about it, but I just cannot work with glossy screens. Not even with those called "anti-glare". So I decided it is important enough to make an extra section for matte displays on Product Chart.

How do other developers think about this?

<comment><USER3> Matte all the way. I can't understand why anybody would choose a glossy screen for any purpose.

<comment><USER4> Glossy screens are used to get good color representation in a dynamic lighting environment - although often hidden behind the reflections. If vibrancy and color are important to you (designers) a glossy screen might be the right coating. If you are just trying to see your monitor and don't care if colors change depending on external light source then matte.

<comment><USER5> And yet the Dreamcolor on which I'm reading this is matte.

The worst part visually is the bounce from the white wall behind me, which would be much worse if it were glossy.

Colors are always going to be dependent on ambient light, since your perception of the white point changes. And if color is important to you then vibrancy probably isn't, since calibrating a monitor can only ever shrink its gamut.

IMHO, glossy screens came from the same place as shortscreens and white backgrounds (for emissive displays) - Hell.

As far as laptops, just get a used Thinkpad (real one - X, T, or W). I hear HP has a good business line too, if they're your kink.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I have one of these[1] on my rMBP and I love it. Great solution and you can't even tell it's there.

[1] [http://www.apple.com/shop/product/H8055ZM/A/moshi-15-ivisor-...](http://www.apple.com/shop/product/H8055ZM/A/moshi-15-ivisor- pro-matte-screen-protector-for-macbook-pro)

</comment><comment><USER7> In case the author is watching - would it be possible for you to add information about thermal temperatures at idle and at load? Notebookcheck is the only website I know of that includes this information regularly in their reviews. Unfortunately they dont expose this in their searchable fields. I have written to them asking for this feature, but for now there is no good resource to find a laptop that wont burn my lap.

<comment><USER8> How would you imagine anybody would get that data?

<comment><USER7> The old fashioned way - do benchmarks and collect data.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Lovely website. Laptops weren't so interesting to me but playing with the phone section I found a Blu Studio Energy phone I hadn't heard of before, 5000 mAh battery, that's hilarious. iPhone 5 by comparison has 1500 and the iPhone 6 has an 1800 mAh battery. And it's just $150, pretty cool, definitely an interesting 'utility-first' phone with days of battery life (it's pretty subpar in most other areas, performance, internet speeds, storage etc, camera was actually pretty decent). Fun find.

</comment><comment><USER10> This is great. I've seen this tool before, but now that I'm considering a new laptop I find it really helpful. I found a couple laptops I hadn't been aware of, which will make me much more confident that I've made a good decision with whatever I do end up buying.

That said, all of the _> >>check details and availability_ links I've clicked (~5 so far) have 404ed. Is something broken, or are these just expired links?

<comment><USER2> Ups, you found a bug! Thanks! I fixed it now. It happened because those were relative links and this page is one level deeper in the url hierarchy then the other charts.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I wonder if this preference for matte screens coincides with preferring a "dark" color scheme? I would think running your primary code editor as dark text on light background would mean you can't see reflections as easily, whereas light-on-dark would show reflections much more readily...

</comment><comment><USER12> Here's a list of 1289 laptops with matte screens and a lot more filters, but less fancy presentation: [http://skinflint.co.uk/?cat=nb&xf=83_LCD+matt+(non- glare)#xf...](http://skinflint.co.uk/?cat=nb&xf=83_LCD+matt+\(non- glare\)#xf_top)

<comment><USER13> The list behind that link says "LCD non-glare" but are those really matte? I see a lot of touchscreens in that list. And I have yet to see a matte touchscreen laptop.

<comment> ryan-c I saw a few that were definitely not matte in there.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Nice job. I love the simple interface.

Just a quick bug: the 'reset settings' feature 404's. I think you're missing a `/1` at the end of the url.

<comment><USER2> Thanks, fixed it!

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Nice! The only thing I'm kinda missing is the type of the pointing device. But, since it looks like Lenovo is currently the only one with the trackpoint and there is nothing else out there (is that right?), it's not too hard to just filter by brand and then look at pictures.

Perhaps, separate "Lenovo" and "Lenovo/Thinkpad" because they are really quite different machines?

<comment><USER16> 14" and larger Dell Latitudes are available with a pointing stick. Most 12" and larger HP elitebooks are too, but they only have two buttons. Some Toshiba Tecra R and Z series have two-button pointing sticks. A very few ASUSPRO machines have three-button sticks, but none are available in America.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> FYI, the display size filter is wonky. Filtering up to 13" ignores 13.3" when it should probably include it.

<comment><USER18> > Filtering up to 13" ignores 13.3" when it should probably include it

Your definition of "up to 13", includes the higher number 13.3? I hope you aren't a programmer.

<comment><USER19> You think that users always want clear, mathematically valid filtering criteria on searches? I hope you aren't a programmer.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> There is no reason to consider a laptop without an SSD in 2015. That should be checked by default.

</comment><comment><USER21> Nice tool. I haven't shopped for a laptop in a few years and I find it surprising to now see so many nice laptops with 1920x1080 screens. Just a few years ago it was difficult to find anything non-Apple that had more than 1366x768.

</comment><comment><USER22> So sad to see there are no 15inch or lower laptops with 16gb of RAM. :(

<comment><USER16> The Thinkpad X250, T450, and T450s are all available with 16GB of RAM. The T450s maxes out at 20GB, and the T450 can theoretically support up to 32GB. The Dell Latitude E7450 is available in a 16GB configuration as well, but you must call and custom-order it. It's got a glossy screen, but the Chromebook Pixel LS has 16BG of RAM as well.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Author appears to have omitted the MacBook Air, which seems a serious omission. He does allow you to narrow the search to Apple models, but then no Apple models are actually listed.

</comment><comment><USER24> This is amazing! Is there a site like this for desktop monitors?

</comment><comment><USER25> Yes, I prefer matte. However, I mostly use a desktop monitor that is matte so I don't feel the pain of what laptop users face.

</comment><comment><USER26> The lenovo y50 comes in glossy or matte. Be careful!

</comment><comment><USER27> No Thinkpad X250?</comment>


Pie chart: Apple's outrageous share of mobile profits  - <AUTHOR> http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2010/09/21/pie-chart-apples-outrageous-share-of-the-mobile-industrys-profits/ <comment><USER2> The only other company I can think of with margin's like that is Porsche automobiles.

It's no coincidence that both companies pay extreme attention to design. Both innovators. Both premium products. Both create an emotional connection with the end user.</comment>