Ask HN: Should I join startup for less-than-expected equity? - <AUTHOR>
 - startup is SF-based company<p>- pre-series-A<p>- significant traction already with customers you'd recognize<p>- likely to raise good series-A round<p>- about 8 engineers, 18 to 20 employees in all<p>- me -- 20+ years significant SW dev experience<p>- me -- would work remotely most of time<p>- offer:  $130K range, 0.2% equity (seems low-ball to me, or inexperience on part of founders ... or lack of respect for the position or me) <comment><USER2> First off, it's probably not lack of respect. If you really think that and you can't get it out of your head, then don't join the company. To me, that seems like a market salary. For better or worse, experience doesn't count for that much in the market for software engineers.

You could probably trade some salary for equity. It's all about your personal situation and how much cash you need. For me, 130k would be a bit overkill and at this point I'd try to trade 30k for an extra half point or so (I'm betting they'd cap the equity at .5% total or something though).

That said, if they're hiring a 20th employee at 130k and you're confident that there's enough money in the bank + revenue that doing so makes sense (that's something to check), then the risk factor is a lot lower than a 4 person startup burning through seed capital who will offer you the 1-2% you're after. There are a lot of those in SF that you can join. You probably won't have a nice office or free meals but you'll make a bigger dent at a smaller scale and therefore get a bigger piece of a smaller pie.

In short, from the info you gave, I don't think they're necessarily low- balling you. But if you do, don't join. If you're good, there are at least 50 other companies in the bay who will give you an offer like that tomorrow.

<comment><USER3> A 30k of 'salary per year' trade for equity should really get the same deal as the investors get. Assume that you _take_ that salary and then invest 30k into the company.

Note, when you are investing money into company you are not getting any ridiculous vesting cliffs, you are getting a multiplier as a valuation cap and usually your invest in convertible debt, not stocks.

(as a side note, if you are a professional who can contribute from the first day at work with virtually zero effort spent on you to get you up to speed, you really should try to negotiate for monthly vesting with no cliff for _all_ your equity.)

<comment><USER2> Sure, in theory I agree with you but I don't think it's possible to calculate like that. We're talking about trading somebody's time and creativity for salary and equity paid out monthly.

As you point out, the deal structure is very different from a deal that would be made with an investor. I'm guessing the company wouldn't take a 30k check from an investor right now or agree to take 5 * 30k from a single investor allocated monthly over the next 5 years. Also, him having more equity will probably make him a more valuable/devoted employee so that needs to be factored in.

<comment><USER3> You are right, and yet, when the salary had been established it should be possible to talk about trading somebody's salary (money) for equity. And compare that deal with the deal that the investors investing money get. As it is possible to _take_ that 30k/year salary and invest is _elsewhere_ , on the terms that investors investing money get (convertible debt, valuation cap, etc).

Thinking about it as money allows one to make a prudent investment decision.

I'm actually surprised that YC people haven't streamlined that process of trading early-employee salaries for convertible debt. Current situation with early-employees equity really screws up a lot of early employees and in my opinion poisons the startup atmosphere in the Bay Area quite a bit.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I've never worked at an early-stage company, so I have more questions than answers. Isn't 0.2% basically nothing? Even if GoogleSoftBook buys the company right now for $100M, you get (at best) $200k. And that's not going to happen. Probably more money will be raised, your 0.2% will be diluted, and a $100M exit is rare. So you'll end up with less than 1yr of salary for all that risk and lost salary/benefits in the meantime.

I know it's not all about the money, but in this conversation we are only talking about money.

<comment><USER5> I was employee #10 at Palantir and received and accepted an offer in this ballpark. I'm pretty happy with it at this point. Frankly it was absolutely life changing, both from a learning perspective and a compensation perspective. Of course that's an outlier — but this is why you should treat what company you join the way investors think about investments. Only they get to diversify and your choice is even more important — you only get one shot at any given point.

rgbrgb's point is also well taken. You should be able to swap equity for salary, since for a pre Series A company that's a chunk of coin.

<comment><USER4> Very true, although Palantir is probably one of the top 10 most valuable and technologically interesting startups of the last 10 years so you made a great choice.

$130k is a lot of money and, like you said, being in the first few employees is a great opportunity for personal development. I just feel like you have to consider the 0.2% to be a lottery ticket because most of the time it will end up being worth nothing or very little.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Also, I'd be leaving a job I really don't like at a Silicon Valley spinoff. $150K salary, 0.75% equity, shiny CEO with regular Fox-Business-News appearances, rising company notoriety, selling into a hot market. The company will never raise more "venture" funding, the parent will structure future injections as debt (at a reasonable interest rate, likely, but probably less onerous than VC).

This current company has a highly dysfunctional development culture, no automated testing, poor choice of deployment vehicle, a VP high on the DK spectrum. I can't bear it.

The place has a very high likelihood of acquisition in the next 2 years. It's a question of how long product dev can go on before the product implodes vs how quickly the shiny CEO can attract a good buyer for the polished turd. I lose a bit of my soul every day.

<comment><USER6> Are you there for the money or for the love? If money, stay and suck it up. If work represents a large portion of your happiness, bail.

2 years is not really a long time to live in suck-it-up mode, although your perspective will depend on which side of 30 you're on.

<comment><AUTHOR> On the way-later side of 30!

The current company is legacy-land as far as development tools goes (though they're reliable and in the right hands do very well). The prospective startup would involve new tools I need to "keep up-to-date".

I did a short (paid) project for them involving some popular scripting significantly-hipper-than-Perl language and delivered it in serviceable, idiomatic form that I know they were very happy with, using all the right libraries. I picked it up the tool/language quickly enough. I feel I need that experience and exposure to maintain my longevity in the SW market. Sticking with the current company is 2 more years I become more of a dinosaur.

<comment><USER7> Honest (but uncomfortable) question. You wrote:

 _I feel I need that experience and exposure to maintain my longevity in the SW market. Sticking with the current company is 2 more years I become more of a dinosaur._

Is the new company aware that you feel like this, both about their tools and about your career?? If so, I wonder if they're compensating you as a more junior developer, simply because it sounds like you think that you need them!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The offer isn't generous but it is reasonable.

Sam Altman estimated that employees 10 through 30 combined should get at least 5% of the equity, That implies an average of 0.25%, which is fairly close to 0.2%.

[http://blog.samaltman.com/employee- equity](http://blog.samaltman.com/employee-equity)

If you want to work for the company, equity is important to you, and you think the offer is below was your contribution to the company will be, then negotiate for the right amount of equity.

</comment><comment><USER9> What do you think you could get in terms of salary at the best-paying company that you could be happy working at?

EDIT: Actually, let me expand.

1\. That does seem like lower-than-expected equity for a senior employee at a small start-up that's pre-series-A.

2\. But on some level, I don't think that should be the controlling factor. I'm assuming here that this is a pretty run-of-the-mill seemingly doing-well pre-series-A startup. That is, it'll be at least five years, and probably more like ten, before it monetizes, and the chance of it monetizing is sub-10%. And your options would vest over the course of 4 years with a 1 year cliff.

3\. So that said, if you're going to be there 4 years, and the company is going to do well enough over those 4 years for us to care what your equity is, then I would assume that 4 years from now, you'll be a critical member of the leadership team. The company will have had to grow a lot, you're senior already, so... right? There's plenty of chance to, in that case, have your equity position "right-size" with the company. To, in other words, re-grant stock based on whatever inflation happens and based on how you work out as a member of the inner team of the company.

4\. And given how far off any equity payout is, and how uncertain it is, I'd think that your decision to go with the company should be based on salary, what you expect the salary to do in the next year or two, and whether you believe that you can become a member of the leadership team of the company and whether you would enjoy all of that.

5\. If, on the other hand, this company has some kind of special sauce that means that equity payout is more likely or more near-term, then, well, maybe that justifies the lower equity award.

</comment><comment><USER10> I've received equity in three companies in my 10 year career thus far and have seen exactly zero dollars from any of it.

Maybe I'm jaded, but I'm not sure I would ever again consider the equity portion of a job offer unless it's a stock option at a publicly traded company.

</comment><comment><USER11> That is low, but that's a big headcount for pre-A-- did they raise a huge seed?

That aside, you earn equity with risk, so my question to you would be: "What are you risking?" Certainly there's an opportunity cost (you're risking not working somewhere else). If you think your work-remotely-market-rate for a non-startup (i.e. no stock) is X, then you are risking X - 130k per year for 0.2%/4 (vesting over four years). So if X is $150k, you're buying those shares for $80k (4 years of salary difference). Is that a good bet in your eyes? It'd only be a good bet in mine if I had fairly heroic belief in the startups shot at "unicorn" status or if I was really excited about the work/team.

However, if you think $130k is a reasonable salary for remote work and the contribution you'll be making (it could well be), then the stock is a high- risk bonus.

Regardless, you should certainly negotiate for more salary OR equity (whichever you care about more) every time.

</comment><comment><USER12> Equity is worth nothing, especially when it's that low. Don't even consider the equity when you make this decision.

Honestly, a healthy company that really believes in a strong exit in the future should be willing to match your previous salary. You should ask for $150k and skip the equity. If you work there for 5 years, an extra $20k/year is worth more than 0.2% in a $50M exit.

</comment><comment><USER13> Assuming a $100M exit, no dilution, $150k/yr elsewhere, no gains from investing the salary difference, same salary raises per year, no additional equity.

after 5 years, you net even. Anything longer than that you lose out. Anything shorter, you make more (sans taxes.)

Seems like a risky bet to me.

<comment><USER14> And no dilution is not realistic given that they haven't even raised a Series A yet.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Two key considerations:

\- Does the company (and it's investors/accelerators) have some sort of prestige that many people outside of the company would recognize? (i.e. if you put it on your resume will it look good later)

\- Ignore equity at this point (as the chances of it really paying off massive dividends are unrealistically low). Is $130k range in line with what you expect to earn?

(note - $130k is comfortably livable in pretty much anywhere in the SF Bay area)

<comment><USER6> > _(note - $130k is comfortably livable in pretty much anywhere in the SF Bay > area)_

That depends on a ton of things.

<comment><USER15> Care to elaborate?

<comment><USER6> Sure.

People have wildly differing opinions of what "comfortably livable" means.

To me, sharing an apartment without a dishwasher is not comfortably livable. A decent apartment anywhere between SF & SJ will run ~$3k or more, and $130k is ~$6k/mo after tax (this is assuming single, no mortgage, no kids). Minus another probably $1k for student loans, another $1k for retirement or home purchase savings, that leaves $1k/month to live on.

The numbers are rough, but my point is you can either "live comfortably" and spend everything, or live like a spartan and save money.

To someone without attachments (no spouse, no kids, young) this probably is living comfortably and it's a boatload of money. To someone else paying for childcare for a couple kids and trying to get into a good school district, it's not so comfortable.

There are certainly ways to hack the system, most notably to live somewhere outside the RBA (Morgan Hill, Petaluma, Concord/Antioch/etc). The Bay Area can be your oyster at $130k, but only if you have no monthly obligations but your own breath.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> $130k is well above average for a pre-funded startup in SF - Where are they getting the cash to pay you? Are they profitable?

0.2% sounds a bit low.

IMO it's not a bad starting point for a negotiation. If you're expecting something significantly higher, it might makes sense to look at later stage companies (or a company like Google or Facebook if you want to maximize your earning potential)

</comment><comment><USER17> It doesn't sound like it's your dream job. It might or might not be good enough for now.

I wouldn't take the low equity offer personally, at 8 engineers, you're not their first hire, and the position is more or less "need another engineer" at this point. On the other hand, it does mean that hiring you in particular is not the priority.

It's ok to be ok with that and its implications for the way your role will be perceived in the workplace over the short term. It's ok not to be ok with that. Working remotely may or may not be worth it.

In the end, I suspect that top pay and wow! equity aren't going to attach themselves to many _advertised_ remote positions. It's when remote work is how a company gets the specific individual they want that those are more likely.

Good luck.

</comment><comment><USER18> The first thing I'd do is look up their funding on AngelList. This can be an indicator of what the equity is worth -- without knowing the terms it's only an indicator though. These numbers are also useful for determining how stable the company is. If they have 8 engineers and 10-12 other employees but only had a $500k seed round, it's a very risky job -- if its closer to $2m, its a bit safer.

As far as actual numbers go, that's entirely dependent on what you think you're worth, and what you think that equity is worth. You're the 21st employee, and they are raising money, so it isn't exactly a red flag to me. Treat the equity as a bonus that may never come to fruition.

</comment><comment><USER19> Almost twenty employees, working remotely so you're probably not management, significant traction already, likely access to additional capital - okay, the equity seems a little low for 2015 but not _obscenely_ so. There's more equity out there, but for riskier situations - earlier employees at companies with no prospects of further funding at their current level of traction.

Since your equity has a relatively small chance of being worth anything anyway, 'significant traction' or not, I'd focus on the things that'll definitely be a factor in your life - things like the work, the people, your salary, and so on.

</comment><comment><USER20> Talk to them about it.

Are you excited to join the company? Do you believe in their vision? Do you find excitement in the problems that they are helping their customer's solve? Do you feel good cohesion with the founders and the engineering team?

Answering those questions are far more valuable in deciding to join a startup vs compensation. The compensation piece, if you feel is low, research and negotiate for it. If you can't find a common ground on compensation that would make you happy to work there, then don't join them.

<comment><AUTHOR> Their vision is great. They don't do rocket-science and they're not involved in social. Their market is positively boring, and it's something everyone needs, and nobody seems to have updated software addressing this market. Their approach requires a good core and also a lot of reliable peripheral development. I don't think there are any technical misgivings on their part toward me (I've proven my ability, programming-, vision-, and communication- wise), and I like working with them. I'm not sure we can settle on anything after the lowball though ... it betrays their lack of respect for the position or else for engineers.

<comment><USER6> They were right to give you the offer they did looking at your reaction.

$130k is not lowball. 0.2% is not lowball. Both are on the mid-to-low side of appropriate if we take you at your word for skill and fit.

More than that, respect has nothing to do with it. Just rm -rf that whole train of thought from your head. Compensation negotiations are _negotiations_ , which means this is a conversation. Conversations go two ways. If you're not happy with the offer, counter.

<comment><USER21> Lowball is a strong word, but it's below market. If startups can't compete on total comp, they have to pad it with equity. OP is getting worst of both worlds. 0.2% of a pre-VC company is absolutely nothing, and there are several engineers ahead of him for seniority, so he won't even get title inflation in the end.

It's not that it's an insulting offer, it's just that they can't afford you. For a fresh grad, it would be a pretty sweet deal.

<comment><USER6> $130k cash is very strong from a seed-funded startup. I agree completely with your final sentence.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> 0.2% is way too low IMO - it's possible to get that type of equity from a post-series A startup.

That salary is also low for SF based on what I've seen too.

<comment><USER23> What would be a "fair" amount for the first 10-15 engineers of an early-stage startup?

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Ultimately it needs to sit well with YOU, right?

Negotiate for more equity and weigh

\- the final offer vs. what you think you could get in the rest of the market

\- how much happier you'd be at the new gig vs. waiting around for another gig

I know nothing of how much equity is 'fair' for early hires but ultimately it's about where you'll be happiest, money / equity aside. Do what makes you happy and you won't have regrets.

</comment><comment><USER25> It's probably inexperience. I'd try and talk them up a bit.

But other commenters are right: pay attention to the salary, the benefits and the position itself. The equity is a lottery ticket. I do believe they should correct the amount to make you feel valued, but that's the only reason.

</comment><comment><USER26> I'd ask for either more money or more equity. Don't short change yourself. If your overall goals are just looking for more experience then go for it if you think it would be fun.

Corporations assert their power all the time. There is nothing wrong with you asserting your worth. Good luck!

</comment><comment><USER27> The salary is low and the equity is hella low too. You'd do better to negotiate some sort of bonus structure instead of equity.

What do you want outside of financial incentive? Is it something you're excited about?

What's your background? A lot of us are hiring.

<comment><USER5> For a seed funded startup, that's a nontrivially high salary. It's common for Series A companies to pay market, but a little unusual this early in the company's life.

Bonus structures are great for cash generating businesses, but have limited upside for startups that have the potential to grow 100X to 1000X.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> 0.2% equity isn't worth considering. At best it's maybe a years' pay 5 years from now, and the best is not likely to happen. A $20K increase in salary would make you that with much more certainty in 6 years.

I'd look at salaries for your skillset and location on GlassDoor, compare that to the $130K, and make your decision based on that.

In any case, I'd go back to them with a counteroffer. If you want more equity, I'd ask for 2% and hope for something like 1.2%. But unless you're very confident in the direction of the company, I'd choose salary over equity any day.

</comment><comment><USER29> Been there done that. The answer is: No! Think of a start-up founder like a con-man trying to sell you snake oil.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thing is, three previous startups turned out not-so-bad (net positive) for me. Not home runs, but they made a material difference. I also like the small- company environment and challenges -- but perhaps that's only because I have worked only in startups. I look at "HN Who's Hiring" posts by outfits like Walmart Labs and wonder what the difference would be.

<comment><USER6> Your grievances about your current company:

> _This current company has a highly dysfunctional development culture, no > automated testing, poor choice of deployment vehicle, a VP high on the DK > spectrum._

That sounds EXACTLY like Silicon Valley Generic BigCo to me.</comment></comment></comment>


Battling the Gods: Atheism in the Ancient World - <AUTHOR> http://newramblerreview.com/book-reviews/classics/imaginings <comment><USER2> Hinduism have a rich tradition of rejecting the personal god [1]. Some schools completely reject the creator god while others take agnostic position.

Four Vedas are considered oldest Hindu scriptures. Among the four, Rig Veda which is considered the highest and oldest casts doubts on god's abilities in its creation hymns.[2]

> The Gods are later than this world's production. Who knows then whence it > first came into being? He, the first origin of this creation, whether he > formed it all or did not form it, Whose eye controls this world in highest > heaven, he verily knows it, or perhaps he knows not

[1] [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism_in_Hinduism](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism_in_Hinduism) [2] [https://en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/Rigveda](https://en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/Rigveda)

<comment><USER3> More than this, there was an era of outright materialism in ancient Indian philosophy; but it was so thoroughly repressed we know little about it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> If you've an issue with the size just hit the 'reader view' on Firefox, or 'Distill View' on Chrome etc..

<comment><USER5>
      or 'Distill View' on Chrome

Is this an extension or a feature I'm unaware of?

<comment><USER6> Yes.

<comment><USER7> Which one is it and link?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Platonism and Christianity both could reasonably be seen as atheistic from the perspective of classical antiquity, in that their view of what god was, was radically different from mainstream religious practice. In Platonism, especially, the One was very abstract and impersonal.

<comment><USER9> Yes. The way I see it, the term "atheism" is too loaded with its own contemporary meanings to allow reasonable discussion of the ancient world. Today, it is assumed that it negates "The" "God" as we understand the current definition of "him", not "the gods" as the ancients understood them at the time. For the current believer, the ancients all haven't believed in _his_ God.

If one was to describe the gods at that time, they were "like humans, often with the superpowers, but primarily different from the humans by being immortal."(1) That's it. You don't have to completely negate the existence of such entities to claim that Zeus doesn't cause the thunder, or that there are natural laws which fully determine some phenomena. So the "natural philosophers" could search for such laws, negating the particular role of "the gods" but still not having to explicitly declare their complete non-existence.

1) And if you read the Old Testament, you'll find that beautiful scene that reflect the understanding of these times, where "the God" (as we understand him today) makes a visit to the guy, enters his house, sits with him, talks with him, eats with him... Fully comparable to what the gods do in the Iliad, for example. Not to mention that in the Old Testament the "sacrifices" were necessary, even "the God" was regularly "hungry" for the meat of the animals used to feed the "mortal" people. Again just like the gods in the Iliad.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> jesus wept ;)

</comment><comment><USER11> I normally really dislike comments that are not about the content, but, god, why is the font so HUGE?

<comment><USER12> When a webpage is an article, I don't understand why the normal behavior is that each website get's to (seemingly randomly) decide how its readers will interact with its text. It would be preferable if each user got to define a standard viewing mode for articles right in their browser. Something similar to the rendering settings for reader mode on iOS or on the Kindle or Readability. And then browsers firmly enforced rendering pages to the readers preference, not to the content creators.

As it stands the publishers hold all the cards and rarely does it end up being something positive.

Often instead it's something negative like the jumbo fonts on this or for a few examples:

* Font some eye straining light greyish color or too tiny

* Margins too narrow, or too wide

* Scroll-jacking.

* Triple click to highlight line turned into other function

* Excessive animated flashy ads

* `You might also like` links embedded throughout

* Register/Pay-wall

* Tracking

... (this lists goes on much longer but you get the point)

So why does the writer decide how the reader gets to read? It's not expected that the reader dictate to the writer what text editor they use and how they write. There should be a more rational demarcation in this relationship. All of us are readers more than we are writers. Yet this situation persists.

(And note I am only talking about articles, not forums, or webapps, etc)

<comment><USER13> I really wish we could differentiate between 'article-like' (where I can strip out everything but one main block of text) and app-like (that requires full javascript and DOM apis).

That alone would "fix" 90% of the problems I see today. I don't need to see your fucking autoplay ad just to read your article. At LEAST let me pay you to get a somewhat sane, non-crippled copy of your article in an RSS feed; a single payment would offset a lifetime of no ad clicks.

<comment><USER12> That's a pretty good idea. I was thinking a reason why this may exist is because there is an organized profit motive on the publisher / advertiser side. They make more money by controlling the user experience, and they make no money by leaving it to the users, because then their ads will be dodged, their in-site links won't be followed and their users will bounce away.

Perhaps, if some sort of fully anonymozied microtip system was integrated into the pages as well then it could work. I am thinking essentially something at the protocol level, where when the HTTP request is made there is a microtip HEADER, the site would collect the tip and respond with simply marked up text. Otherwise the response is the ad riddled tracky garbage we all have to suffer through currently. It would give the publishers some sort of profit incentive to come back over to the users side.

There would be an expectation to provide a second tip automatically managed by the browser after some reasonable amount of time unless the user cancels it, because the article sucked. I think with time (or maybe right off the bat) only the second tip exists as publishers get to trust users more.

I don't think the tips would have to be very large to make it work either. I do think having it integrated right into the browsers ui is pretty important. I also think having a standard protocol and anonymous system (though one which a user could opt out of if they wanted to demonstrate patronage publicly) is also important. And I think that having the tip automatically go through unless the user opts to cancel it either immediately via button in the browser or within a day or a week (in some history blotter, where they could also just send pay it immediately) or whatever is pretty important.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


How I got to #6 on the Google Play Store, and why I haven't bought a yacht yet. - <AUTHOR> http://thomshutt.com/thoughts/ukbirds.html

<comment><USER2> I think its more because you only got 1-5k installs. If you find a country where you can buy a yacht for ~£25k please tell me!</comment>


Ask HN: Would I be crazy to learn Objective C now? - <AUTHOR> Until I heard about Swift, I was planning to learn ObjC in Q3 this year and get involved with a cool iOS project that uses it. Now that Swift has been announced, I'm wondering if this is still a solid career move, or if Objective C is now the latin of programming languages.<p>Will Swift completely supersede Objective C? To someone who knows neither but is interested in iOS and OS X development, would time spent learning ObjC be time wasted? <comment><USER2> As a very long time Obj-C guy, Swift looks great and Swift looks like the future. But if you need to learn Cocoa through existing resources (books, tutorials, forums) or use/read existing code (3rd party libraries, code snippets, header files), you will need to understand Obj-C too until enough time such that everything has switched over.

</comment><comment><USER3> Curious about this myself. I recently begun learning Objective C past 2-3 week and am curious whether to abandon ship and move over to swift.

However I think that most Objective C learning material is still a good precursor for learning iOS in general and learning the structure of iOS apps.

Looking forward to hearing other answers.

<comment><USER4> Swift is built with Objective-C interoperability in mind. All of the Objective-C Foundation classes are available in Swift, and they've done their best to mitigate the differences in software design.

However, learning Swift without first learning how the underlying Objective-C libraries work, the design patterns, the available functions, Swift-Objective- C-Interop is going to be very difficult.

I'd recommend learning Swift and Objective-C at the same time. If you learn how to do something in Swift, learn how to do it in Objective-C. Objective-C isn't going anywhere, any time soon.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Due to the massive amounts of tutorials, Stack Overflow questions, libraries, projects, etc. all written in/about Objective C for iOS and OS X, I personally would not start anywhere else.

</comment><comment><USER6> So here's the deal. Obj C will be around for awhile. I think that's pretty clear, but given that you know nothing, and Swift just came out and will more then likely be the way of the future, why NOT take advantage and start with Swift. That's just how I see it anyways.

</comment><comment><USER7> If you have any plans to work on existing projects, especially in a freelance capacity, I would say definitely yes.

In fact the only scenario I'd say no is if your only plan is to build your own new apps from scratch.

</comment><comment><USER8> I think it's still going to be valuable to know C, Objective-C as well as Swift for iOS development work for a good while to come.

</comment><comment><USER9> Objective C is no more the Latin of programming languages than COBOL is. We'll be dealing with ObjC for years to come.

</comment><comment><USER10> Learn c and/or c++ deeply. You can target apple with these yet still have freedom from apple. As well as some tricks that can't be done in the garbage collected world. Cross platform native apps to boot.

<comment><USER11> How can you use C++ to write cocoa apps?</comment></comment>


Energy harvester collects energy from sunlight and raindrops - <AUTHOR> https://phys.org/news/2018-03-energy-harvester-sunlight-raindrops.html <comment><USER2> Upvoted for the idea alone. The force of raindrops hitting roofs is currently wasted. I don't know if it's enough to be useful, but I love the concept of harvesting it.</comment>


Ask HN: Career advice, senior chill job, remote? - <AUTHOR> I'm a programmer in my 40s who is currently stuck at a consulting contract where I seem to be one of few people who actually care. People take sick leave, etc, are unprepaired, and I'm expected to be a senior guy doing architecture decisions for my team and sometimes even help out with requirements as well as do development. I would much prefer to work more focused with programming at a product development company and spend much of the development time from home. It should be a chill atmosphere where people can be relaxed but still productive. I hate open offices and feel my energy is depleted. I spend so much time and energy explaining even basic things to non-technical customers.
I find it really hard to find good opportunities where my requirements of a good atmosphere, good chairs (not IKEA crap!), good boss, good equipment (mac + monitor), etc, can be me met.
Dammit, why is it so hard to find a job that is up to par to what I want to offer. I also don't want to work with insecure nerds in a small startup apartment office either. What have other people in a similar situation done?
My main goal is to get better work-life-balance by working more from home (less brain stress from open offices and annoying meetings) and ability to ship good stuff to satisfied customers and put pride into the product and keeping customers happy.
I find it really hard to be an experienced/senior developer and simply get a programmer role. People want me to take an architecture/scrum-master role too which I just don't want. If I could improve my work-life-balance by working from home, I could get to the gym more frequently and get some of my energy back. Any thoughts or ideas? <comment><USER2> Have you checked out SkipTheDrive.com?</comment>


Will edX Put Harvard and MIT Out of Business? - <AUTHOR> http://www.forbes.com/sites/petercohan/2012/05/06/will-edx-put-harvard-and-mit-out-of-business/ <comment><USER3> The reason to attend MIT or Harvard (as an undergraduate) is not to take MIT or Harvard classes. It is to hang out with MIT or Harvard students, have discussions after class with MIT or Harvard undergraduates, grad students, and professors, be challenged by having those people as peers. It is to have an entire network of well connected people all over the globe in the highest reaches of every organization on Earth for free upon graduation. Lastly, (and perhaps least), it is to have a piece of paper that certifies that you are smart and work hard.

Fundamentally, the elite schools are in no danger from these online education initiatives. It is the state schools, community colleges, and for profit schools that are in danger. If a school can't figure out a value add beyond simple education (which the elite schools have had for centuries), that school is in trouble.

<comment><USER4> $200,000 is an awful lot to pay for this networking possibility. There's no reason why putting high leverage individuals together should cost so much money. What would a competitor with universities on the networking front look like?

Keep in mind that $200,000 will pay for a lot of plane tickets, so the competing service could involve lots of world travel and still be much cheaper than elite schools.

<comment><USER5> This is a little OT, but it hits home so I want to correct this misconception: Harvard (and MIT) are very affordable, and the majority of students attending do not pay full tuition. Indeed, at Harvard families with incomes under $65,000 pay _nothing at all_ , and those with incomes between $65-150k are heavily subsidised and asked to pay between 0-10% of their income for tuition. I wouldn't have been able to attend without such help.

<comment><USER6> These sorts of rebuttals about costs from colleges (not just Harvard) are often rather misleading when they claim costs only include things not covered by a "financial aid package", which is almost entirely comprised of fairly high interest loans (fairly high interest given they are close to zero risk as both there is no way to get out of them and most are federally guaranteed).

Harvard gives these numbers:

Tuition and fees for 2010-2011: $36,142

Room and board for 2010-2011: $12,308

Average financial aid package for 2010-2011: $41,300

This is presented to look like the average student pays $7150 a year to attend Harvard. (Not including incidental expenses, books etc.)

This is misleading because not mentioned is that the financial aid package typically includes a Pell grant of a maximum of $5500 (average $3,593), leaving the remaining $35,800 covered by loans at 8-10% interest. Other than the Pell available to low family total income US citizens, the financial package is not scholarship style grants that come free and clear. The student ends up over $140,000 in debt upon graduation and Harvard gets their entire $48,450 each year.

The term "financial aid" is intentionally misleading and used against naive parents and students in articles and personal exhortations to convince them that college is affordable to them. We don't talk about "financial aid" when discussing loans for houses or cars, that would be considered misleading by nearly everyone. Saying college is affordable because you get "financial aid" consisting mostly of interest loans makes no more sense than saying that mansions and Hummers are affordable because "financial aid" consisting of deferred loans is available so that you won't have to pay hardly anything during the first four years. Actually the mansion/Hummer case makes more sense since their loans are not ones you can not get rid of no matter what (not even bankruptcy) and that if you don't pay will cause serious legal problems like revocation of needed professional licensing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> No [0].

[0] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridges_Law_of_Headlines>

<comment><USER7> Also, from the article:

      As long as students who take edX are blocked from the branding and professional networks
      that their parents pay so dearly to obtain, such top schools have nothing to fear from giving
      away what the teachers are getting paid modestly to deliver.

University teaches a lot more than the course material.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> With online education really gaining traction, the major university brands need to be out in front of this trend. With Harvard and MIT throwing their names and money into the mix they buy themselves a chance to steer the direction of the trend and become major players. Sitting on the sidelines and watching things change around them, completely outside of their control, was not a good strategy. This parallels many other industries in which large established brands face obsolescence or major competition in the face of recent technological advancement. I'm sure someone at Harvard or MIT modeled out quite a few scenarios to justify the cost.

</comment><comment><USER9> edX does more to nudge out no-name schools than prestigious universities - <USER2> if anything will likely be a strong revenue generator for top universities going forward.

A few scenarios:

* Would you pay tuition to be taught by [well-meaning] no-name professor Dave at no-name Community U?

* Would you be willing to pay a nominal fee to receive a certificate for edX achievement?

* Would you be more willing to pay for a certificate from Harvard/MIT, or UVA?

The online education trend will act as a channel for the most prestigious schools to capitalize on their brand without diluting their stature. And we'll see them making hand-over-fist money by outcompeting community colleges and other online programs that don't have the weighty reputations.

</comment><comment><USER10> I love all these free online classes.

But, what's going to happen is that profs like me are going to continue using them in our classes in the same way we have been using textbooks, which will liberate a little time for us to provide more one-on-one help. At least, that is my prediction. But, you know, predictions are hard, especially about the future.

[1] [http://www.jose-vidal.com/2012/05/online-classes-are-just- ne...](http://www.jose-vidal.com/2012/05/online-classes-are-just-new- textbook.html)

</comment><comment><USER11> Most people are not going to be able to follow the classes from MIT and Harvard. (Certainly, there are a lot of people who can't get into the schools who could follow the material just fine.) Remember, this material is already available in books, but that didn't put the universities out of business. But if you look at how many people are struggling with math classes and having to hire tutors, I don't think it is fair to assume that by watching videos from MIT lecturers would suddenly make it all make sense.

</comment><comment><USER11> So much for all the professors on food stamps. Now they have to compete with free classes from Harvard.

<http://chronicle.com/article/From-Graduate-School-to/131795/>

</comment><comment><USER12> the first nobel prize winner graduate of edX will change everything. i sometimes think, should online universities also be strictly selective?

<comment><USER13> Isn't most of the "prestige" of a nobel prize winner normally directed at the university at which they were conducting research (assuming it is an academic heavy field) at the time?

<comment><USER14> In my experience, every institution that has any connection whatsoever to the Nobel Laureate claims him or her. Undergrad, graduate school, research location, even high school (one local high school claims multiple Nobel Laureates -- unusual, but I don't know if it's unique).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> In the worst possible scenario, edX may nibble at the edges of the Harvard Extension school enrollment.

</comment><comment><USER16> Forbes is just outdoing themselves with the headline bait lately.

<comment><USER11> Agreed. If they thought it would put them out of business, would they do it? It makes more sense to ask if it will put community colleges out of business.

<comment><USER17> Online education has existed for at least 10 years, and in recent years community colleges have been unable to keep up with enrollment. California community colleges are so over enrolled they wanted to start charging more money for popular classes. If college were entirely about static material such as readings and lectures libraries with video tapes and textbooks would have put them out of business decades ago. Most people need help understanding the material and apparently benefit from personal interaction. Finally many physical sciences and engineering labs are impossible to conduct outside of the setting of university of college.

Would you like the next surgeon you visit to have a certificate on his wall from YouTube Medical School.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> possibly, in fact, why do kids need go to college at all in the near future?</comment>


Ask HN:Do you still feel safe while using Internet? - <AUTHOR> Nowadays (after revealation of massive NSA surveillance) I don't feel safe while using internet.I feel like I am being watched every second. While using facebook I think many times before writing some words which may make me seem like a bad guy. Similar is the case when I use Email, Google or other services. Do You feel the way I do? <comment><USER2> I feel more at risk from malware than from surveillance.

</comment><comment><USER3> Safe? I haven't felt safe since [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSAKEY](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSAKEY) ...

<comment><USER4> This is a joke, right?

[http://www.schneier.com/crypto- gram-9909.html#NSAKeyinMicros...](http://www.schneier.com/crypto- gram-9909.html#NSAKeyinMicrosoftCryptoAPI)

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Can anyone upvote this post so that many HNers answer this?</comment>


Ask HN: If Django's admin is so awesome, why hasn't it been ported to Rails? - <AUTHOR>

I'm curious...seems like many arguments I hear for Django end up being the equivalent of "Django is an adequate Rails replacement...PLUS it has the unbelievable admin module".
Ok, great. I've played a bit with Django, and I do admit I like the admin interface. Makes things very nice when you're in the early stages of development. However, I have to wonder...if it's so great, and if folks are choosing Django over Rails simply because of the admin module, then why hasn't someone simply ported the admin module to Rails? Is it really that complex under the hood? Python and Ruby aren't that different...is there something there that makes this sort of undertaking impossible?
Just curious... <comment><USER2> Isn't that what Streamlined was trying to do? It looks like it was EOL'd a few months ago. Their site now mentions looking at ActiveScaffold as an alternative <http://activescaffold.com/>

Not to say they are trying to replicate Django's admin, but rather to present a semi-automated way of surfacing CRUD actions on your Rails models.

To go all the way to a Django-like admin, a Rails plugin might have to do things like tie into authentication, which is not standardized in Rails, and either create some of its own models or require the addition of attributes on existing models (e.g. for things like modification history).

It may be a combination of possibilities:

1\. Rails devs create a bare-bones / scaffolded admin as needed

2\. Rails apps that really need CMS/admin functionality build something highly customized to their app and haven't seen the value in generalizing it for the community (or it isn't easy to do)

3\. Developers that need out-of-the-box admin haven't found a barrier to entry that prevents them from using Django instead of Rails

I don't know the answer, but I think game2studios makes a great argument that the 2 frameworks arose out of different needs.

</comment><comment><USER3> I think that it has a lot to do with what each system was designed for. Both are great and can accomplish nearly the same things, the difference is that django was built for newspaper websites originally, so the focus on a standard admin CMS makes a whole lot of sense, especially when you are going to be using the same codebase on 5,10,20, etc... sites.

Rails was built around making client websites and in house web apps for 37 signals. Thus, perhaps on an app like Basecamp or many client sites, a standard admin panel wouldn't make a lot of sense. Something more custom would need to be built for those.

I find that most devs tend to "scratch their own itch", so that might explain the difference.

</comment><comment><USER4> Also not to say that this is equivalent to the admin panel in Django, but I do enjoy using this cool rails plugin:

<http://github.com/neerajdotname/admin_data>

I am not the developer but I do use it for most of my projects. Basically just presents an easy way to view and modify the data in your tables using a slick web interface and it requires basically no setup beyond the install.

</comment><comment><USER5> Isn't this kind of like asking "If Lisp is so great, why hasn't SLIME been ported to Java?"?

The admin in Django _is_ great, but it's not the only way to do things.</comment>


Ask HN:  Are Google search results now padded? - <AUTHOR> http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=498768

<comment><USER2> This Google search

<http://www.google.com/search?q=padded+search+results>

didn't do much to answer the question, even when I looked at it on my own browser.

Your question comes up as the first result with this search:

<http://www.google.com/search?q=padded+search+results+Google>

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I noticed the breathing space earlier, but was hesitant to ask. . . surely some Googlers read this site and can answer my question. I need to figure out how to get the new padding to translate to search results @spaceminnow.com. Thanks!</comment>


'Linusgate' over 250 Messages Leaked Code of Conduct Linus Torvalds - <AUTHOR> http://techrights.org/2020/09/03/linus-debconf-linusgate/ <comment><USER2> Is there a write-up of this anywhere other than techrights.org? That sites signal-to-noise ratio is abysmal.

<comment><USER3> Linus shat on the FSF and GPLv3 at a 2014 Q&A. The word bigot was thrown around by LT when characterizing the FSF. During the Q&A he also carted out the same tired "you have to earn respect" rag that volatile people use.

He was invited to take part by the Debian folks.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PmHRSeA2c8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PmHRSeA2c8)

After the event, there were complaints about him. What "leaked" is ~250 private messages from the Debian team members deciding if they should tell LT he is no longer welcome at Debian events.

Side A: He was prick, he broke the rules and hoped to skirt responsibility by virtue of his celebrity. We can't give him a pass. Favoritism bad.

Side B: We invited him to an fully open Q&A knowing that he would speak his mind. Are we really going censure him for doing what we asked him to do?</comment></comment>


The Only OS X Shortcut You Need to Remember - <AUTHOR> http://adamwalters.info/post/1692256250/the-only-os-x-shortcut-you-need-to-remember <comment><USER2> Except in Firefox which redirects to the Mozilla website instead.

<comment><USER3> Yes, I detest applications that decide to do their own "cross-platform" thing instead of integrating smoothly with the environment's native behaviour.

<comment><USER4> I have a port of wget for Windows, and typing "wget --help" at the command prompt shows the help _and_ loads a Windows help file in a new window.

I don't want the "environment native behaviour" there, I want text on stdout.

<comment><USER5> The environment native behavior of the command prompt _is_ text on stdout. It's effectively not _Windows_ , it's something like MSDOS 10. Popping up a help window is just nonsensical behavior.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Cmd + tab (cycling b/w open apps) and Cmd + ` (cycling b/w open windows of app with focus) are definitely my 2 most-used shortcuts.

<comment> X-Istence Do note that is actually supposed to be Cmd + ` (the same button as the ~, and not single quotation mark)

<comment><USER6> Thanks X-Istence, was typing on my mobile with swype, got the wrong character. Corrected in the original.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I'm a fan of Cmd + , which opens the Preferences dialog.

</comment><comment><USER8> Shift + CMD + / doesn't work for Textmate, it says "Warning: On Leopard the menu item searching is prone to crashing, so we have disabled the key equivalent. Sorry about the inconvenience."

<comment><USER9> I get the same thing, and I am using Snow Leopard. (Even though the message references Leopard.) 10.6.4, TextMate 1.5.10.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> System Preferences > Keyboard > Keyboard Shortcuts > Application Shortcuts > All Applications > Show Help menu > Command Shift /

?

</comment><comment><USER11> one which i stumbled upon by accident is pressing option when you're in a menu. e.g the apple menu at the top of the screen: If you press option while you're looking at this menu certain menu items change - in this case about this mac becomes system profiler. Also if you press shift in this situation force quite becomes force quit _active application_.

</comment><comment><USER12> Metadata searches are cool though I haven't found a comprehensive description, e.g. type name:foo to find all objects with foo in the name, kind:pdf wil find all PDFs. These may be combined, e.g. name:foo kind:pdf has the expected result.

</comment><comment><USER13> And from there, the right arrow key takes you to all the system menu items.

</comment><comment><USER14> Shift + CMD + /? Three button shortcut for help? What happened to F1 being the universal help key?

<comment><USER15> ⌘? displays help. That other shortcut only opens the help menu.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Brilliant, with Chrome and Safari you can use it to search and open any bookmarked page.

</comment><comment><USER17> Use ctrl+F2 and then the arrow keys and return to select menu items.

</comment><comment><USER18>
       M-? is undefined

</comment><comment><USER19> Cmd + Space for Spotlight search box is very handy.

<comment><USER20> too slow, quiksilver or alfred ftw

<comment><USER21> It hasnt been slow for several years.

<comment><USER22> I beg to differ. It's sluggish. Depends what you are used to I guess.

I don't find it even a decent calculator, try doing a division!! It launches the calculator and doesn't even both to pre-fill the question.

<comment><USER23> It does division fine. Pre-filling would definitely be handy though.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Breaking Half of the Telegram Contest - <AUTHOR> https://blog.thijsalkema.de/blog/2014/04/02/breaking-half-of-the-telegram-contest/

<comment><USER2> It's _incredibly_ difficult to keep people from using insecure technology.

After the whatsapp facebook aquisition many of my friends looked for something different. So they choose Threema and Telegram. Which are both _horrible_.

Please guys. Use TextSecure [0].

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

<comment><USER3> I'm another enthusiastic vote for TextSecure; those guys work on TextSecure because they love the core problem of doing secure comms right, and it vividly shows in their architecture and the way they write about it.

<comment><USER4> The problem is that TextSecure is not seriously trying to be the next messaging app, and Threema and Telegram are.

It would be nice if there was actually anything better than Telegram I could recommend to my friends, but there just isn't.

<comment><USER5> moxie has openly invited devs to use TextSecure as a backend.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Just FYI. While Bitmessage is not a fast option (anti-spam proof-of-work per message may take a couple of minutes), it is a remarkable example of a very secure messaging tool in every aspect. Its design even gives you better privacy than Tor.

More info: [https://bitmessage.org](https://bitmessage.org)

The idea behind Bitmessage is that messages are fully encrypted (including recipient's address) with per-message random DH key derived from recipient's key. Then message is transmitted to everyone in a p2p network. Every node tries to decrypt the message with its key and if it succeeds - that's the message for them. If not, it passes the message to other nodes. Propagation time is quick, but to prevent DoS, each message goes with an expensive one- time proof-of-work proportional to the message size. Another measure is artificial separation of messages and nodes in "streams" so that message is only propagated within a smaller part of the network. As network grows this will not hurt privacy, but will keep amount of data flowing around in check. Bitmessage in principle is like email (that is checked every few minutes, not seconds) rather than real-time chat. But the idea could be brought to real- time chats too if we solve DoS and bandwidth issues in a different way.

<comment><USER7> How do you initially learn a recipient's key? That seems to often be the problem point.

<comment><USER6> How do you learn someone's username or email? They tell it to you. Actually, in Bitmessage they tell you an "address" which is a compact hash of a pubkey. Then, p2p network uses special kind of message "what's the pubkey for this address?" which allows your client to find out the pubkey.

An address looks like this: BM-orkCbppXWSqPpAxnz6jnfTZ2djb5pJKDb (this one belongs to an echo server). People who got used to Base58-encoded Bitcoin addresses will find this familiar.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Please guys, Use AlternativeChatAppNoneofThePeopleIKnowAreOn.

The real problem with all of these oh-so-secure-much-better-alternative-chat- apps is that nobody uses them. What's a communication network when there are no communicators? Just a network.

Unless X or Y gets better traction than WhatsApp, you will just be "that guy" who refuses to use WhatsApp and is instead on some novelty app nobody else uses. Though tinfoil insults are passé, they will bring them back just for you.

<comment><USER9> Really makes me wonder why some of these existing clients don't just implement the OTR stuff that is already pretty standardized on desktop clients.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Off-the- Record_Messaging](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Off-the-Record_Messaging)

edit: looks like Xabber and ChatSecure both support it on Android.

<comment><USER10> 1\. Because you need to have a session open at every time 2\. Because OTR appends the key for the next message on every single message, so if A is sending several messages after each other while B is offline all of them will be encrypted with the same key.

TextSecure fixed both of these issues but is otherwise based on OTR. You should really look into it.</comment></comment></comment>


What is WebRTC? - <AUTHOR> http://www.pubnub.com/blog/what-is-webrtc/

<comment><USER2> This reads much more like an ad for Pubnub than an explanation of WebRTC. For anyone looking for an introduction to WebRTC, this presentation by Dan Burnett and Alan Johnston showed up in my twitter feed today- [http://adhearsionconf.com/events/tbd-6/](http://adhearsionconf.com/events/tbd-6/)

</comment><comment><USER3> I am writing a real time browser game with synchronized physics and would like to use UDP via the data channels in WebRTC to send position data between the users (and also to the Node server) and to make in game audio chat possible.

1\. I wasn't able to find demos which do only audio 2\. If I don't allow video and only audio in Firefox, none of the demos work at all, I can't hear anything 3\. I wasn't able to find any basic example code on how to use data channels 4\. Is there a Node module so I could talk to my Node server via data channels (and therefor via UDP) ([http://stackoverflow.com/questions/20849039/node-js- module-f...](http://stackoverflow.com/questions/20849039/node-js-module-for- webrtc-data-chanels-usage))?

I'd appreciate hints and links to solve any of this problems :)

<comment><USER4> I wrote this a long time ago when I was beginning to learn webrtc. It's really straightforward and has examples for voice+video chat and voice only. [https://github.com/phowat/simple-webrtc- chat](https://github.com/phowat/simple-webrtc-chat). Feel free to drop me an email if you have any questions (it's in my profile here.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I recently played around with WebRTC to let you upload files to MediaCrush directly from your microphone: [https://mediacru.sh](https://mediacru.sh)

Here's the code, if anyone wants to give it a read: [https://github.com/MediaCrush/MediaCrush/pull/488](https://github.com/MediaCrush/MediaCrush/pull/488)

</comment><comment><USER6> Data channel is going to change everything when it's ubiquitous.

</comment><comment><USER7> WebRTC is a great idea that will remain an esoteric option, because it will never become a universally supported technology, because Microsoft will never add it to the IE, because they bought Skype. The end.

Seriously though, the chances of Microsoft adding real working WebRTC support to the IE are _zero_.

</comment><comment><USER8> Try a WebRTC Video Conference in one click : [http://blog.bistri.com/webrtc- demo](http://blog.bistri.com/webrtc-demo)

You have ideas with WebRTC, try the Bistri APIs : [http://developers.bistri.com](http://developers.bistri.com)

</comment><comment><USER9> Project I worked on that allows users to record music in browser using WebRTC. Because we're using both WebRTC && Web Audio API, it only works in Chrome:

[http://beatcove.herokuapp.com](http://beatcove.herokuapp.com)

<comment><USER10> _Because we 're using both WebRTC && Web Audio API, it only works in Chrome_

Firefox supports both of these things, so you're basically saying your code is broken.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> What if both users are behind a firewall which does not allow them to receive incoming connections?

<comment><USER2> See slides 27 through 36 in the presentation I linked to.

<comment><USER11> Thanks, that was helpful.</comment></comment></comment>


A Very Long, Super-Nerdy NBA Podcast Is Making Money - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-11-10/even-this-very-long-super-nerdy-nba-podcast-is-making-money <comment><USER2> It's difficult to find out how much money podcasts make, so here are some data points about my podcast, which I started in February of this year.

I released 5 episodes of the newly-created Indie Hackers podcast[0] in March and made about $1000 from sponsors. That's one sponsor per episode at ~$200 each.

Today new episodes get over 20k downloads within their first week, but back then each episode got about 2-3k downloads, tops.

One could make the argument that a business/tech podcast like Indie Hackers can land more lucrative advertisers than a basketball-focused podcast. But on the flip side, I was also completely new to selling sponsorships, editing and promoting the show, etc., and the podcast was just one of many things I was doing on my own.

Regardless, if they're doing multiple episodes per week, each receiving 50k downloads at minimum, and each with multiple sponsors, I'd guess they're making a much more comfortable living than their Patreon numbers suggest.

[0] [https://www.indiehackers.com/podcast](https://www.indiehackers.com/podcast)

<comment><USER3> Any chance of this going up on Spotify? Apple doesn't seem to want me to get via iTunes Store, infinite loop of asking for TouchID

<comment><USER4> It happened to me too, restarting the phone helped.

<comment><USER3> Thanks, no such luck here unfortunately, direct podcast link worked however, for anyone in the same boat: [https://itunes.apple.com/ie/podcast/indie- hackers-podcast-ho...](https://itunes.apple.com/ie/podcast/indie-hackers- podcast-how-developers-are- bootstrapping/id1206165808?mt=2https://itunes.apple.com/ie/podcast/indie- hackers-podcast-how-developers-are-bootstrapping/id1206165808?mt=2)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Never listened to these guys but what's described sounds like your typical NBA podcast nowadays. NBA discussion on message boards and forums has changed a lot in recent years with fans being very knowledgeable about the salary cap, trade provisions, and other general management intricacies. in fact there is a derogatory term for fans who don't know about the nuances of the CBA or how to calculate effective field goal percentage...we call them "casuals". The NBA has done a good job developing an intelligent involved fan base which remains engaged even when games aren't being played

<comment><USER6> That it is MUCH easier to follow NBA than Baseball and Football due to sheer numbers of people is also a big plus. You actually can easily know every regular player (Usually 10 players or less) very quickly. It is also very easy to understand the impact of different players subing in and out.

Basketball is the most played sport in the world for the past 20+ years (Arguably) and I think in 30 years NBA will be the second biggest sport in the US and it already is 2nd in the world.

<comment><USER7> There's simply no way that a sport that requires a court and a hoop is going to beat Soccer as the most played sport in the world.

<comment><USER8> Soccer definitely has the breadth of places played locked down. Nothing is likely to overtake that any time soon.

But basketball has a surprising advantage in potential players in that China is mad about basketball. The last time I was there the enthusiasm I saw for the sport, especially with young players rivaled anything I've seen outside of my own basketball obsessed childhood home of Indiana.

Which leads to another conclusion. If I were betting the most popular sport globally I'd probably bet on Ping Pong, just based on Chinese school children participation.

<comment><USER9> > Soccer definitely has the breadth of places played locked down. Nothing is > likely to overtake that any time soon.

> But basketball has a surprising advantage in potential players in that China > is mad about basketball. The last time I was there the enthusiasm I saw for > the sport, especially with young players rivaled anything I've seen outside > of my own basketball obsessed childhood home of Indiana.

> Which leads to another conclusion. If I were betting the most popular sport > globally I'd probably bet on Ping Pong, just based on Chinese school > children participation.

Basketball flat out isn't. Every single adult male in China could play it and it still wouldn't be the most popular sport in the world.

<comment><USER8> Your suggesting that there is a sport out there right now that more than 10% of the global population plays?

Cause Soccer certainly isn't played at that scale.

<comment><USER10> currently plays obv you're right, but played ever? i bet it's over 10%. youth soccer participation is over 50% in most of europe and north america and while it's hard to find statistics for africa and south america for organized play for casual play i would be shocked if it was lower than the organized play rate for north america

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> As a hoops nerd this is one of my favorite podcasts. I think people underestimate how much demand there is for just good discussion. And since you don't need high production, you can just crack out out near daily.

<comment><USER12> I listen to this podcast almost every day. These guys are great at breaking down why certain trades/contracts are a good value or (most of the time) not. They've also given me a more critical eye when I watch basketball games for what makes certain players good at what they do and why certain players are playing poorly. I'd say Dunc'd On and Lowe Post are my two favorite podcasts for following the NBA these days.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I'll be very disappointed when podcasting becomes fully metricised. The large scale introduction of advertising will be toxic and do to this beautiful indie space what has happened to the web.

<comment><USER14> Would you rather the people who make quality podcasts have to spend the not- inconsiderate amount of time researching, rehearsing, performing, and editing alongside a full-time job? Would you rather they do that instead of _making it a better thing_?

Podcast advertising has been around for a decade and somehow, just _somehow_ , it has not been as "toxic" as you imply.

<comment><USER13> It really depends. The problem is that once advertising become the primary drip of financial resources, the content begins to revolve around the needs, goals, and preferences of advertisers. Content that isn't seen as monetizable gets shown the door. Content that rails against consensus opinion or is anti- corporate gets shut down. Things that earn money get promoted at the expense of all else.

You can see this lucidly in the case of Bill O'Reilly. People had already known his deal for over a decade, but it wasn't until his ad dollars were pulled (after a public pressure campaign) that he was dethroned. That's an example of the kind of media system that is fostered by advertisement.

EDIT: changed 'decades' to 'over a decade'. [https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/a-timeline- of...](https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/a-timeline-of-bill- oreillys-vileness-w477663)

<comment><USER15> Hasn't advertising always been the primary drip of financial resources for podcasts? Aside from a bit more enthusiasm for Casper mattresses than is probably warranted, I don't think your concerns have come to pass.

The great thing that podcasts have going for them as a product is they're super cheap to make (relatively speaking). Podcasters willing to compromise the product by taking on more obtrusive advertising will get outcompeted by those who don't. It's ideally how media sites in general would work, but those are expensive enough to run that most sites resort to intrusive ads.

<comment><USER13> I think the point is that it hasn't happened... yet. In theory, writing for newspapers shouldn't be expensive either, yet somehow it is.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> What's surprising about this is that people find it surprising. I'm surprised that so few podcasts have figured out the formula is: pick a subject and talk about that subject. It's really not hard!

So many people in the media seem to feel that what people want is interviews. Bill Simmons is a great example, he has very good podcasts when he just sits around and talks to his friends/coworkers about sports (or pop culture or whatever). But he seems to want to be a talk show host and do interviews... and _very_ few people can do interviews well. And even fewer people make a good interview.

</comment><comment><USER17> This is a great podcast. There are many people that don't care about all the theatrics in a show. They just tolerate it. Podcasts like dunc'd on just go straight to the point. This started with Bill Simmons' grant land which had very lengthy detailed articles with analysis that never got done before. It was a huge success. Nate Duncan just continues that. I believe a sports fan invariably will gravitate towards a nerdy analysis given time, no mater what the sport is.

</comment><comment><USER18> Is there any way to verify that downloads of any given podcast aren't just bots?

<comment><USER14> Not really. The various podcast hosting services provide analytics that you hope are providing anti-bot measures.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> As an avid podcast listener, and a recent attendee to the podcast festival in LA, I think this article has several flaws.

1\. It never mentions gambling or fantasy sports, which makes me suspect it's a native ad for the NBA. I bet that a good percentage of the 745 Patreons are really into gambling on the NBA, in some form — how could the article not mention that!? [https://www.patreon.com/DuncanLeroux](https://www.patreon.com/DuncanLeroux)

2\. It starts off with some headline listener stats (e.g. "hundreds of thousands of listeners") and later admits the hard truth that listener stats are not reliable. You only know if people have downloaded a podcast — not if they listened.

3\. It perpetuates the myth that Serial is the most successful podcast. I also used to believe that, until I learned otherwise at the LA Podcast Festival.

4\. It mentions, but doesn't properly emphasize, that the $7 Patreons get to download a spreadsheet (which, again, they probably use for gambling). So, really, these guys are both podcasters and _data providers_. The podcast is how they market their data service.

5\. It classifies them as a financial success, without saying how much they make. We know they get about $5,400 per month from Patreon (split 2 ways). I'm not sure how much they earn from Blue Apron, etc. I know $2,700/month doesn't go too far in San Francisco. Also, they don't divide $2,700 by the number of hours they spend watching NBA games, compiling their data spreadsheet, and producing the podcast.

6\. Gives the obligatory main stream media reference to Gimlet Media, calling it "successful." Does Gimlet make money? How much? How much does Gimlet pay its employees?

7\. The headline is unnecessarily snarky, implying that podcast listeners are looking for vanilla, short, mainstream content. In reality, niches are the biggest areas for opportunity in podcasting. The headline should not start with "Even This..."

<comment><USER20> Now I realize that I'm not necessarily the norm, but I'm a long time listener and subscriber to this podcast and a Patreon donor and I don't gamble. I just really like basketball and really like their content.

Also, Danny writes for a few different places pretty regularly and has a book out, so I'm sure he's doing okay from that. He's also the host of a RealGM podcast. Nate is the actual host of the podcast and not every single episode includes Danny (though 95% do) so there's a chance it's not an even split.

<comment><USER21> I can't recall the pod ever talking about gambling lines, or fantasy value.

Not to say listeners don't use the info for those purposes, but it's not a value proposition they even hint at IMO.

<comment><USER20> And covering games after they happen really doesn't help at all for fantasy. I just think the top comment is making assumptions without understanding the landscape.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: How much interest needed before idea is valid? - <AUTHOR>

Hello friends,
Curious to know how much interest or evidence of customer interest is needed before an idea is valid. Kind of a silly question I know, but here's the situation.
I'm researching a product that already exists and serves a market. It is software thats given away free by big companies as a complimentary service to help their customers. Now here's the opportunity: I've found people interested in using the same software, but do not want to pay the fees associated with using the big companies main services. I could develop the software and charge for it, helping people save money by avoiding the big company's costs and getting what they want.
In my research, I've found at least 14 forum posts (however, some of which are a year old) from different forums, looking for the same kind of software solution. Nobody has produced a solution to handle this exact problem aside from the big companies. But here's the tricky part: the technology already  exists in other 3rd party products, just simply not directed as this particular market. It is simply a matter of adapting existing products to fit the market.
There are a couple other factors that limit immediate growth; for example, the software fits extremely well into complimenting the big companies' main offering. Since I'm not interested in competing with their main product, I cannot offer the convenience or security that their integrated systems do. That means there are switching costs. But for now, I probably shouldn't be concerned about this.
So anyway, I've got 14 forum posts and I assume there are more out there that I've yet to find. Is the idea validated yet, or do I need to find more people asking for the same thing? I am currently trying to get into IM / skype contact with some of these customers to gather more information. Would it be a bad idea to dry test this as well? My concern is that it is fairly low barrier, and any hope of success requires a first mover with fast execution. A dry test may only alert others. I'm usually not paranoid about keeping ideas secret; but this software has been around for at least 4 years, its just that nobody has created a 3rd party offering for it (and maybe for good reason).
Appreciate your help and comments. Thanks <comment><USER2> Here's my advice but you won't like it: At this very early stage nobody can give you much advice, you should go buy your gut. Nobody can tell you if 14 as opposed to 20 or 50 forum posts is the threshold. As in art, if you're always asking if your creations are "art", then you are not ready.

Apart from that, I would say that if your idea is so reliant to the first mover advantage, it may not be worth pursuing, there will always be copycats, you should be ready to fend them off. I say, go with the dry run and don't worry too much about it.

<comment><AUTHOR> You're right about the copycats, I tend to sway back and forth between objectivity and fearfulness, but your mentioning of copycats was right. I don't really know if theres a such thing as a first mover in this space, after all, I'm just taking existing software and offering it cheaper.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Buy a domain ($8), create a new website at weebly.com (free), and build a few pages describing your product, benefits and add an order page for however much you want to sell it for. Don't capture any billing details and say that you're in Beta and anticipate to launch later.

Buy $500 worth of adwords to drive traffic to your site for a week. See how many conversions you'd make theoretically based on the users who pass the order page.

From there you'll know if it's a profitable idea or not.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm familiar with the model, I'll probably do it. Except for the $500 part. EEK, thats a lot of money for an experiment.

<comment><USER4> Think about that again: if you're a software developer $500 is like what, 5 hours worth of work? You only get one chance to validate this, so you'd better do it right. After you've spent $10000 or more in development time is _not_ a good time to find out your product idea is fundamentally flawed.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Ask yourself what's the Minimum Viable Product? How long would it take you to produce it? Would you learn anything by producing it or would it enhance your CV/portfolio? Would you enjoy producing it? If it doesn't sell could you open source it and either gain some reputation for yourself or help some people out?

Maybe it's worth just doing it regardless of market size/opportunity?

<comment><USER6> I agree with these questions. How much would it take to build the MVP? If it's not much, I say go for it.

However, if the MVP will take a long time/money to build, I suggest testing the market before you even build it.

Is there a way for you to contact potential buyers? Can you talk directly to them? Can you set up a landing page that explains this product and drive traffic to it?

If you can contact 20 potential customers and pitch your product, that would be great. You'd get an idea of whether they'd buy it or not. Maybe they wouldn't due to a problem you aren't seeing.

If 1/20 want to buy it, maybe it's not such a good idea.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> The first thought that popped into my mind after reading your question is about protecting your market. If you expect this product to be highly profitable and these other companies already distribute the software with other services, they might wise up and sell it as a separate service. If they were to unleash a feature-rich product on you with their brand image, you may find it difficult to handle. That being said, the fact that they have not done this already might imply that it's not highly profitable. That might be ok for you if you just want to have a smaller-scale profit with a niche audience.

My second suggestion is simply to talk to people, find anyone and everyone who might be slightly interested and see if you can shoot them a personal email, tweet, etc. Most people who would get value out of what you offer would be happy to hear from you at least once. I've been doing the same with my side- project, Sparkmuse, and the responses have been both extremely helpful and surprisingly interested.

</comment><comment><USER8> Take a day and make a video pitch. Nothing terribly complicated, just sketch out some things on a whiteboard and provide some narration (even stick figures if you must). Communicate clearly about what the product is, what problem it solves.

Take that video pitch and e-mail it to the 14 forum posters along with a very personalized cover msg. Use that as an intro to start talking one-on-one with them about developing the features.

The "idea" isn't "validated" until you've made a successful exit (or whatever your ultimate goal is). Until then, you need to be talking to customers every day, most of the day, continually validating everything from the featureset to the tagline to the placement of each button.

<comment><AUTHOR> Interesting concept, I like the idea of using video, it gives it a human touch.

What I might do in addition is record the video/pitch, embed it onto the homepage of my dry test, and underneath it include a textform to let them immediately let me know what they think and how to contact them. What do you think about that?

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> You say it's a low barrier, build something and try and promote it. The worst that can happen is it fails and you 'nuke the site from orbit'.

You already have a bunch of forums on which you can promote it. You also have a list of companies that might be persuaded to pay you, or buy you out.

If they can easily write this software themselves, and bypass you, then maybe you're right to be scared, and you really don't have much.

It's hard to be any more specific with this vague a question. Good luck though!

</comment><comment><USER10> Don't forget that people who are looking don't necessarily mean they will commit. Steve Blank liked asking people if they'd use it right away if it was free. It can save you a lot of heartache later.

<comment><AUTHOR> But won't everyone say yes to something free?

<comment><USER11> Do you have an account on every free website you've come across?

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm a bit confused about what Steve Blank was asking. Was he asking potential users if they'd use the service right away if it was free? What does this question prove exactly? I'm thinking, if they were targeted in the dry test, they'll probably say yes. So I'm not sure if there's more to this question than was posted, if anyone knows please reply.

<comment><USER11> I took your comment a little bit out of context to make a point - that just because something is free, doesn't mean everyone will use it.

To expand a little bit further, sometimes people see value in expensive stuff just because it has a high price tag.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN:Is this really the way 3/4 of the HN community feel? - <AUTHOR>

I just read this story today and was surprised by this comment. If its true that is very sad, especially considering the average age of the HN community. """Well, that sucks for the 3/4 of HN commenters on the Kixeye thread who came to the conclusion that the contractor's writing style was damning to the story's veracity.""" http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4603611 <comment><USER2> Do not confuse those who comment on any particular article with the HN community as a whole.

Say what you will about the quality of any individual comment made, but you'd be making an ironic mistake to judge anyone who is part of HN based on the comments of a few ;).</comment>


SF air quality is currently 3 times worse than Beijing - <AUTHOR> https://www.sfgate.com/weather/article/air-quality-wildfire-smoke-fog-gray-breathe-health-13178427.php#photo-15808316 <comment><USER2> This is temporary, due to the wildfires. The Seattle area is in the same situation, although it cleared this afternoon.

</comment><comment><USER3> Damn, that's crazy. That is seriously thick smoke. Hopefully people wear some respirator masks.</comment>


Managing Yourself: Stop Holding Yourself Back - <AUTHOR> http://hbr.org/2011/01/managing-yourself-stop-holding-yourself-back/ar/pr

<comment><USER2> Nice find Jason!</comment>


Show HN: Fullscreen Maps – Google and Bing Maps Without the UI Clutter - <AUTHOR> https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/addon/fullscreen-maps/

<comment><AUTHOR> Simple browser extension that allows you to toggle the visibility of user interface elements on Google Maps and Bing Maps.

Also available for Chrome: [https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/fullscreen- maps/cn...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/fullscreen- maps/cnliochjjnimhedpfeoeifbleldgdofe)

Looking for feedback and feature requests.</comment>