Just start an experiment, not a damn startup - <AUTHOR> http://blog.fanchimp.com/just-start-an-experiment-not-a-damn-startup/ <comment><USER2> For what its worth- my first steps when I come up with a 'killer' idea.

1.) Wait a week- if still excited about it go to 2.

2.) Discuss with my other half. As a non-techy she'll often have a very different view on things which is invaluable.

3.) Find and purchase a domain, and put up a sign up page based on a cheap theme.

4.) Buy some impressions from Adwords - this is enough to give me an idea of if anyone is already looking for what I want to build, and if they are get me some email addresses.

5.) Talk to prospects found in 4.)

6.) If still convinced its a good idea, I might start writing some code.

It is so easy to get going with writing code straight away, rather than thinking about whether you have any customers and how you're can reach them. The above approach has saved me many months of wasted effort, and found me a number of lucrative niches!

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm interested in the step 4. I am curious to understand what kind of budget do you put in Advertising to get the first 50 leads to talk to.

Can you give me more details?

<comment><USER2> I don't think there's an exact answer I'm afraid, depends on the product, how much its going to sell for, and how easy it is to find good keywords that match your product (and which people are searching on!). But maybe £200-300.

What I will say- is that if a decent numberpeople are signing up with interest in your product, on the basis of a single page of html, with no release-date, screenshots or demos in sight, then its probably something they REALLY want!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Cached: [http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://blog.fanchimp.com/just- start-an-experiment-not-a-damn-startup/)

</comment><comment><USER4> This is a matter of regional vocabulary, and the local cultural expectations that go with it.

You ask any aspiring developer in Silicon Valley what they're working on and it's always "oh yea, I have a startup I'm trying to get off the ground on weekends."

In Toronto, there's a very vibrant startup community, but back there we call them "side projects". Really same idea but the word "startup" means something rather different than a few kids eating ramen. There are plenty of freelancers who band together into a consultancy and have a couple of startuppy products they're working on together. Effectively a bootstrapped team working towards a unified vision, but they'll still be shy about calling it a startup.

I suspect a lot of this has to do with the investor and acquisition community. As someone who moved down to Silicon Valley from Toronto, I was very uncomfortable calling what I did a "startup" up until I was raising funding or entertaining acquisition opportunities. It just sneaks up on you when it's an option, and these options hardly exist in Toronto.

<comment><USER5> > This is a matter of regional vocabulary, and the local cultural expectations > that go with it.

This slow realization made me give up calling people out on calling themselves hackers. It used to be that a hacker was someone who was particularly adept at finding clever ways to misuse, change or exploit something. <http://hacks.mit.edu/> and <http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/hacker-howto.html> were the canonical references. Hacks were contrasted with engineering -- both constructive creative output, but one involved detailed in-the-field knowledge while the other was a more principled approach. 'Street smarts' vs 'book smarts' if you will. Both were needed for a successful enterprise. Calling oneself a hacker was equivalent to giving yourself a nickname -- socially awkward and decreasing the likelihood the moniker would stick.

Now 'hacking' is synonymous with prototyping, or even more esoteric types of development (what the hell is 'hacking education' supposed to mean?). This isn't entirely untrue as quick prototypes often contain "awful, we shouldn't be doing this" kinds of code. However, they _do_ tend to lack the righteous "awful, we shouldn't be doing this but damn is that awesome" code tradition calls for.

Like you said, definitions change and the only thing that matters is if your idea is communicated; ultimately you have to go with the flow...

<comment><USER4> Very true, that's another example of the same phenomenon. In Toronto, "entrepreneur" is often a dirty word among who actually get stuff done. It usually refers to your typical MBA with no industry experience looking for a code monkey to fulfill his vision.

I don't think "hacker" has yet been tarnished in Toronto the way it has been here, though.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I agree with this for the most part but I don't think incorporating is that much of an issue. I can't speak for the US but in Germany it takes about 5 hours to form a company (UG similar to a LLC or Ltd.) and it costs about 100 or 200 EUR. With a company in place you have peace of mind for all the co- founders and nobody has to worry about getting screwed over if everything is notarized and on paper.

<comment><AUTHOR> Exactly it depends on the country. In Italy it's a nightmare.

<comment><USER7> I agree, in the UK it's £15 and done in a few hours online!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Creating a company forces you to think about who owns what, who is and isn't vesting and how they vest. It raises other conversations like who _does_ what and what value each person contributes.

The post says: "Just if things are going well you'll create the company and build the structure of it."

This is the worst time to start the conversation about all the above.

I've been exposed to bitter disputes between company owners (not my company) about equity ownership and you can't possibly imagine how nasty things can really get.

These problems are not an issue when there is no pie yet, just the pan you plan to bake the pie in. Who cares about dividing that up. But pretend your business starts generating $100,000 per day in cash in the bank. Now ask yourself "who owns what?".

You may think you know your co-founders and co-owners well, but most people are unable to predict how they themselves will react in many situations, so don't assume you can.

My apologies if this post comes off as negative. Creating a company and watching it grow is one of the most exciting and rewarding things you can do, and it's so much more fun when you have co-founders and investors to share your success with. So to keep it fun, have the hard conversations when they're easy to have.

<comment><AUTHOR> I believe that a paper signed by everyone with the share percentage of each one, it's enough to make clarity and then formalize when it's working.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> > Set a deadline of 2-4 weeks to ship the first version of the product.

I blame this kind of mentality for much of the derivative rubbish the startup ecosystem is polluted with. We don't need any more photo/video sharing, link voting, or file sending apps.

I'm all for validating assumptions early, but some ideas (the ones that matter) are much, much bigger than 4 weeks to an MVP.

Incidentally,

<http://paulgraham.com/ambitious.html>

<comment><AUTHOR> I believe that being a first time entrepreneur should not think of creating something that it's too big. Because it makes you miss the warnings that you should get.

I believe that if you want to create an Amazon (6+ years of under break-even) should be done when you have more experience as entrepreneur.

I think that a first time entrepreneur should resolve a real concrete problem, also not that big, but this way he will understand much more and he will have some chance of succeeding.

This is the opinion maturated for my personal experience.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> What do you think about? Am I right?

<comment><USER10> You're very close. I agree with "Skip"[1] the rest.

However, don't bother with a team or co-founders. Just build an experiment yourself. Then use that experiment to find a co-founder if you don't have one.

I think co-founders should be people you've known for a long time, a decade or more (if you're 20 and haven't known anyone that long, then consider working for awhile and building out a network until you have someone you know well and trust and have known for 5 years.)

If you can't build the experiment yourself then you're not ready to lead a company in the space of the experiment (managers should know how to do their subordinats jobs).... so if you're an idea guy, figure out how to program. Do your experiment ins super simple code or easy to use tools, a real engineer can do it right later if the experiment succeeds.

And above all, don't build a company first. There is an unending list of chores that are involved there. All the time you see advice like "get a lawyer" and "get an accountant". You don't need an accountant when you have nothing to account.

[1] You actually say "build a team and skill the rest", but I'm pretty sure you mean "skip".

<comment><USER11> Exactly. My first few projects I bought domains and set up google apps for those domains, paid to have logos done, etc. After 3 or 4 failed experiments on different domains I realized how much time I was wasting setting up all this stuff when I should have just started building first.

Although, a component of why I did that was because I had big dreams. I wanted to "play startup" because I didn't actually have any clue how to build one. The obvious thing that you see about every company is their public website and their logo, so it makes sense to start mimicking that first.

The irony is that once you start to understand how to actually build a company you often end up picking a name and incorporating as the LAST thing. In fact, you try to avoid it for as long as you reasonably can because it makes you lose your focus on just simply building an excellent product.

<comment><USER2> Funnily enough I am completely the opposite way round.

I always wanted to start writing the code first, but then started realising that was a waste of time if there was no-one to sell it to.

So now I always start with trying to find customers, via a simple sign-up page or similar, before I even think about writing code.

Not saying that either approach is right, but interesting that we've come at it from opposite angles, and both ended up changing our opinions completely!

<comment><AUTHOR> I come from this path too. I've usually found that writing code is too easy. Confronting the potential customers is harder to do and I believe the hard part of the business. IMHO

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> What I don't understand from your article is what exactly you're asking one not to do. I like all your recommendations, but I think incorporating and getting some proper legal and financial guidance (i.e. tax implications) is important too. But aren't you technically a "startup" at that point? Does a StartUp need office space etc to be qualified as one?

</comment><comment><USER13> Great post! But actually, there are no ideas that are good enough to pass all the tests. And every ideas need small innovations that we all should come up with. And to come up with small innovations, we have to tacle the idea seriously. So, I think most important thing is just doing it. But we should not start it with others' money, if possible.

</comment><comment><USER14> Gotta love the ycombinator effect.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, the crash the server effect :D

<comment><USER15> Step 42) When you go public with your product, make sure your infrastructure can handle the load so you don't suffer a failed launch. Many users will not give you a second chance.

<comment><USER16> Or maybe host your slashdottable blog on another site/server/service :D

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> How does this have 22 points when the link is down?

<comment><USER6> it is down BECAUSE it has 22 upvotes</comment></comment>


Mozilla's Christopher Blizzard on innovation in browsers - <AUTHOR> http://www.0xdeadbeef.com/weblog/2010/04/innovation-in-browsers/ <comment><USER2> Orientation implemented in Fx 3.6 looks good <http://hacks.mozilla.org/2009/10/orientation-for-firefox/></comment>


The Australian Computer Society should be disbanded - <AUTHOR> http://www.linkedin.com/today/post/article/20130131000939-921366-the-australian-computer-society-should-be-disbanded <comment><USER2> Accreditation is common in many industries in Australia, it's basically a huge racket. To legally do any wiring work at all it must be done by an accredited electrician, not merely inspected by one as in most countries. in fact most home improvements of any kind must be performed by an accredited tradesman. add to this the laws that state any home improvement must bring the entire house up to current building codes, it's a recipe for massive expenses that go straight into the pockets accredited tradesman.

This essentially prevents any person that owns older property from doing any upgrades, or major repairs at all, because the massive cost of upgrading the entire house at once is completely out of reach for most people. this leads to urban decay and property abandonment on a massive scale.

with the recent push by parties such as Apple, Microsoft, and Google to have registered developer programs complete with code signing, be very wary of industry wide pushes to introduce a similar thing for programmers. The IEEE has attempted to introduce the idea for years. you can be sure that soon after introduction laws forcing accreditation for many types of positions would shortly follow, as would subsequent rises in membership fees and requirements.

Not to mention the threat of only a certified developer being able to legally write code at all. this situation already exists in many engineering disciplines. with things like secure boot and locked bootloaders and signed code, it is almost a technical triviality.

want to know how general purpose computing will be killed? it will be via initiatives such as this.

<comment><USER3> > _laws that state any home improvement must bring the entire house up to > current building codes_

This is patently false

> _this leads to urban decay and property abandonment on a massive scale_

Australia does not have property abandonment nor urban decay on a massive scale. Go to Detroit to witness such things.

<comment><USER4> 10.2% (2011 census data) of Australian properties are sitting there vacant.

[ [http://blog.id.com.au/2012/australian-census-2011/the- where-...](http://blog.id.com.au/2012/australian-census-2011/the-where-and- how-of-vacant-dwellings/) ]

And there is certainly urban decay all over the city I live in (Perth).

Also, building codes are local government, aren't they? So it depends on what council you are in. And I've certainly heard some bad stories.

<comment><USER5> As your link itself explains, the vast majority of those vacant properties are either a) holiday homes that are empty outside vacation season, or b) "areas with declining population where dwellings are simply abandoned by owners who can't sell their property". Vacancy rates in major cities are remarkably low.

<comment><USER2> it may not be a big problem at present, as there is a huge real estate boom in Australia. But when there is an economic downturn these regulations are going to hit older areas extremely hard, just like they have in many other nations.

<comment><USER6> Property values in Australia declined by 4.5% last year. Forecasts are for around 5% growth this year in my city (Brisbane), but continued declining prices in Canberra, Melbourne, Hobart and Adelaide.

Huge real estate boom fizzled at the end of '09 / early 2010.

<comment><USER7> So, what they need is, oh I don't know, maybe lots of immigrants looking for a house?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Here's my experience with the Australian Computer Society.

Having studied abroad (Ireland), I was required to send in all of my exam results for my B.Sc, H.Dip & M.Sc. as well as a reference from each employer that I worked with in my field (Software Engineering).

For the visa I was applying for at the time it required that I was certified by the ACS, have a minimum of 5 years experience.

The process took 6 months for a single sheet of paper saying I was qualified for my profession! Due to this, my visa was submitted quite a while later than I initially planned and that took a further 12 months. 18 months all up waiting for my residency.

They took $600 for what was an open and shut case. They never contacted any of my references or colleges enquiring about my past experience or grades. The whole thing is a complete sham and is just another way of grabbing money off those who need visas.

The entire visa system in Australia is in bad need of restructuring and left a very sour taste in my mouth.

<comment><USER9> Compare that to a Canadian coming into the United States as a "Computer Systems Analyst" - Show up at the airport 20 minutes earlier than you normally would, give them a one-page letter describing your employer, what you'll be doing, where you'll be working. Include a either a 2 year diploma + 2 (3?) years of work experience or a 4 year degree.

10 minutes later you have a Visa good for three years. Normally one expects lots of bureaucracy when dealing with the government, but the US/Canada have really streamlined their NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) down to next-to-no hoops to jump through.

<comment><USER10> Off topic, but 'nafta' means petroleum in a good deal of languages, e.g. <http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9D%D0%B5%D1%84%D1%82%D1%8C>

<comment><USER11> In English, too. Except for the spelling: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naphtha>

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Firstly - come to New Zealand. There is long list of ICT/Electronics and Communications roles, including all professional engineers, on the long Term Skills Shortage list. Additionally ICT and creative indistries are deemed long term growth areas. This means it's much easier to get into NZ - either for working or for immigration through our points system.[1] On the ground the answer is yes, we really need more devs and creatives. Requirements are generally degrees and a little experience.

Secondly, it's telling that we have yet to see a response from ACS on this page. Speaks volumes.

[1] <http://www.immigration.govt.nz/pointsindicator/> follow for Absolute Skills Shortage and Future Growth Areas.

<comment><USER13> as an aussie CS grad looking for work, what is a good NZ job search site to check out? I'd love to work in NZ for a while.

<comment><USER14> <http://www.seek.co.nz> \- All the corporates

<http://jobs.geekzone.co.nz/Jobs> \- You may find some more fun jobs here

Looking at user groups in NZ might yield you something too

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I basically joined the ACS because it's there and I figured I ought to.

They gave me a post-nominal: CT.

If I want the next grade up -- CP -- I will need to take thousands of dollars of synergising-outside-the-box courses.

Basically the ACS isn't really for software engineers. It's for middle management.

I won't be renewing.

(I might renew my ACM/IEEE memberships).

<comment><USER16> Totally. I've only once heard the ACS mentioned outside of the immigration context, and that was a senior manager in a bank asking why we (his best tech staff) weren't members.

I'm not sure if (Insert nationality here) Computer Societies are as irrelevant in other countries, but in Australia I'm pretty sure it serves no useful role other than in immigration.

So, if that's the case, they have no basis for qualification to determine the merit of an IT skills based residency application.

A self-proclaimed peak body.

<comment><USER17> In Britain we have the British Computer Society. When we were at university they turned up and gave us a talk on the benefits of membership and sold a bunch of us "student memberships", to graduate to full membership IIRC you needed to get a degree and then pass a bunch of extra exams.

Out of all the people I know working professionally in dev/IT I don't think any of them are now BCS members.

I haven't heard of employers asking for it either.

<comment><USER18> In 12 years in the UK managing development teams and reviewing hundreds of CV's, I've never once seen the BCS mentioned on CV's or had any candidates mention it.

I did consider membership at one point, and attended a few events, and judging from the people there it seems like they might have a little bit of relevance in pockets of the consultancy industry etc., but otherwise there doesn't seem to be much value in joining. There are some good special interest groups, and affiliated organisations (e.g. ACCU is great if you do much C/C++ stuff), but most of those are open to people who are not BCS members anyway.

I wouldn't ever ask for BCS membership from candidates because I know my own experience, and know the hassle I'd still have to go through to get membership just in order to certify a very basic level of knowledge, so I know I'd exclude a huge proportion of good candidates without getting an assurance that they were fit for the job, and would still have to go through most of the same interview process anyway.

<comment><USER19> I work with one (out of 200 odd) person who has bothered with becoming MBCS, so they do exist!

I (Comp Sci B.Sc.) never bothered for many of the above reasons, and I can find better things to spend £100 a year on, but I have bothered with IMA (ima.org.uk) membership after finishing my Maths B.A. because the IMA's magazine is actually quite interesting (and it's only £48 a year).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I was recently involved in an ACS "Re-accreditation" review for my University which I graduated from in 2011. It was clear from the outset that the whole thing was a farce - to be re-accredited required the ACS to ask past students generic questions (such as "How important is ethics to an IT Professional") and for us to give canned answers. While the university didn't explicitly tell us to give the 'expected' answers to ACS questions, it was strongly implied that we were expected to represent the virtues that the ACS "teaches".

It is in the universities interests to advertise that their IT degrees include ACS accreditation (despite no Australian IT employers I know of giving a damn about it) and it is in the interest of ACS for the university to keep paying the exorbitant fees. If anything, I feel that ACS accrediation is detrimental to the students as it requires the university to include such useful courses as "Ethics for the IT Professional" in their degrees. While being ethical is obviously important to any professional, this is time that could be spent learning real skills instead.

<comment><USER21> I did one of these a few years ago and it seemed like quite a formality, they asked vague questions about topics related to professionalism rather than any technical skill.

While I can understand that a professional body would want to ensure that people acted ethically and in good faith, I would think that it would be wiser to ensure that people graduating from technical, engineering related, and detail oriented degrees were just that. That way having an ACS seal of approval on a degree would carry some sort of weight towards the technical quality of the person, and hence would actually mean something.

Maybe it's the spaces and people I work with, but no one that I have worked with is actually a member of the ACS, despite being in industry for almost a decade.

<comment><USER15> The reason they hammer on the Code of Ethics is because that's what other professions have.

They need to show that there's some Code that could be made enforceable by legislation. It's part of the bigger plan to lever the ACS into the same role that the law societies or the AMA enjoy.

<comment><USER21> As far as software is concerned, until we have proper liability for defective software, ala Civil/Mechanical Engineering (where one signs their name to the design to certify safety and fit-for-purpose), we have little right to call ourselves (Software) Engineers, and hence no real reason for a professional accreditation/certification body.

I also just looked at the website, and all of the membership levels look like rankings in a guild system to me. Spend your time, pay more money, rise in ranks. Protectionism at its finest, and even though I'm heavily a software developer, I'm still against this burden.

<comment><USER15> Liability doesn't make sense for a lot of software. It's not like electricity where it's always potentially dangerous, civil where mistakes can cause death and dismemberment _en masse_ and so on.

Basically software liability is just rolled up into the relevant market. Writing facebook games? It doesn't really _matter_ to society if you get it a bit wrong. Writing pacemaker software? Then you're governed by medical device regulations.

Software's application to problems are so varied, so wide, that it's insensible to apply a single liability scheme to it.

<comment><USER21> Exactly my point.

The wide range of software that can be written precludes a standard measure of risk and liability, hence it eliminates the need for an (software) industry wide accreditation body.

Plus I've always found smaller more local meetups to be a better way of interacting with a specific development community.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> For those unaware, this polemic is by Matt Barrie, CEO of Freelancer. He's been very outspoken in the Australian media about over-regulation of industry and outdated think tanks stifling innovation by recommending tactics that reinforce the status quo.

</comment><comment><USER15> I think I can explain the Electrical Engineering thing.

A few years ago the ACS geared up to join some sort of peak body for professions. They took the view that they should represent all software professionals of any kind.

Then Engineers Australia put in a competing claim for jurisdiction over software engineers. The _scoundrels_.

I remember this because I was a student member at the time (hey, free BBQs) and they sent a sob story email to all their members about it.

Basically everybody is pissing on everybody's curtains.

<comment><USER23> Completely irrelevant, but I must say I like the phrase "everybody is pissing on everyone's curtains".

<comment><USER24> Even more irrelevantly, I'm rather impressed at how quickly Google has indexed this. When searching for that, rather splendid, phrase this page ranks top.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I find it completely ridiculous -- how on Earth could a the ACS hope to apply any sort of standard evaluation to a CS / IT degree earned in any of a dozen countries, from any of a thousand universities _(with attendant varying degree requirements and relative differences in course difficulty)_ , not to mention evaluating self-taught skills or industry experience in hundreds of specialties. A programmer is not a tradesman.

No IT employer in Australia that I've communicated with has ever mentioned the ACS in regards to qualifications, not once -- I would be surprised if any even know it exists, unless they have worked with sponsoring skilled worker visas.

<comment><USER26>
        No IT employer in Australia that I've communicated with has ever mentioned the
        ACS in regards to qualifications, not once -- I would be surprised if any even
        know it exists

Same - I've been working as a software engineer in Australia for almost five years now, had never heard of them!

<comment><USER27> We know they exist. They're just irrelevant.

It says a lot if you prefer to tell us you're an ACS member rather than that you write code for fun at home.

<comment><USER28> This is interesting to hear. I'm in the process of applying for an Australian visa (no CS degree). To get an independent visa, I need 2 more years of work experience, before I qualify to _apply_ to have my skills tested by ACS in very specific (and almost esoteric) programming knowledge.

And this is only the first step to apply for an 'invitation to apply' for a visa.

What are my job prospects as a US software developer seeking to emigrate to Australia? How often do Australian companies sponsor visas for overseas workers?

<comment><USER29> > What are my job prospects as a US software developer seeking to emigrate to > Australia?

Frankly, assuming you have the right to live in the US, you are much better off staying in the US if you want to maximize your opportunities as a software developer vs. moving to Australia.

I say this as a Canadian who worked as a software developer in Southern California for 4.5 years but moved to Australia two years ago, largely to escape the restrictions of US work visas and try my hand at doing my own startups.

Sydney and Melbourne are the only two cities in Australia with sizable markets for software developers. Compare that to multiple _regions_ in the US with large software industries (SV, SoCal, Texas, Research Triangle, NYC).

There are very few pure technology companies in Australia so the vast majority of software development is in-house development for banks, insurance companies etc. Australian companies also tend to be relatively conservative in terms of technology platforms so PHP, .NET and Java are the norm vs. Python or Ruby.

Certainly there are very talented and capable software developers in Australia, but the software _industry_ is so small and under-valued (compared to e.g. mining or real-estate development) that there's very little opportunity to advance professionally.

Check out <http://www.seek.com.au/> to get a feel for what jobs are on offer.

<http://www.realestate.com.au/> is also interesting to get a feel for the eye- popping prices that Australians pay for housing. (I rent.)

<comment><USER21> Funnily enough realestate.com.au is one of the places running a Ruby on Rails dev shop, since I've seen them advertising for Ruby on Rails devs on lists that I'm on.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> I'm not particularly fond of the ACS. I was provided with membership by my work and started getting a large volume of email from them. Unsubscribing from their mailing lists was a complete ordeal[1], and it was impossible to completely unsubscribe online - I had to call someone at their office to get taken off a mailing list. In the end I gave up and filtered their emails instead. Despite the fact that my membership has since lapsed, I am still receiving their newsletter and invitations to various events that, as a non- member, I can't attend.

[1] I had to log in to their account management system, which involved finding a randomly generated username and password that had never been sent to me.

<comment><USER31> Exactly the same experience but instead of emails (filtered out) I get a ton of snail mail asking me to re-join / attend events, its probably been 2-3 years since i've been a member and I still get the mail forwarded to me from my old address

<comment><USER32> You can contact the privacy commissioner if the wont remove you from their mailing lists.

What sort of events do they promote? Curious.

Edit: oh, but only if there was a _piracy_ commissioner...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> I'd love to hear Matt's views on TAFE, i think accreditation has a very important place in our society (mainly because i got very sick of uneducated morons charging people for fixing computers, writing bad code...etc)

Anyway, the fact that Matt is complaining about fees and then is happy to be associated with the Singularity University that chargs $25k for a course (<http://apply2013.singularityu.org/res/p/faq/>) makes me wonder if hes just mad that they cant compete with courses provided by organizations such as TAFE.

In general, this all makes me mad. Matt just seems very outspoken and is giving Australia a bad rep in general.

<comment><USER34> I believe Matt is strongly pro accreditation.

[http://www.theage.com.au/it-pro/business-it/fierce-debate- is...](http://www.theage.com.au/it-pro/business-it/fierce-debate-is-uni-an- investment-in-the-future-or-a-waste-of-time-20111114-1neei.html)

<comment><USER22> More so he's pro-theoretical grounding in a subject, because with the right background it's easy to get up to speed in the practicalities.

It's a bit unpleasant reading these articles (Barrie's and the original by Harper) now, as I currently work for Bigcommerce, and turned down an offer from Freelancer. Ironically, Freelancer offerred me about 40% less salary because at the time I had a theoretical background and almost zero practical experience.

<comment><USER34> If you like, turn on 'showdead' in your HN preferences. Matt appears to have responded to your original post directly from a hellbanned account (teflonhook).

<comment><USER35> Reviewing the account's comment history, funny to see "teflonhook" has been chattering away for a year without noticing the hellban.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Having witnessed the hoops that 2 colleagues with significant experience, skills and strong qualifications- both had university degrees, and were white (meaning that they received a high quality education) -had to jump through to migrate from South Africa to Australia, I suspected ACS was more of a protection racket. This seems to validate this opinion.

One gave up, the other went to New Zealand.

<comment><USER37> I'm just staying in South Africa.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> I think the ACS is irrelevant to most developers working in Australia. I've always had the impression its elitist and/or aimed at IT management.

</comment><comment><USER39> Matt here. Turns out I've been talking to myself for the last year with a hellbanned account! lol.

The ACS just issued a media release: [http://www.acs.org.au/news-and- media/news-and-media-releases...](http://www.acs.org.au/news-and-media/news- and-media-releases/2013/acs-media-statement)

Delimiter has posted an article as well: [http://delimiter.com.au/2013/02/01/morons-freelancer-ceo- wan...](http://delimiter.com.au/2013/02/01/morons-freelancer-ceo-wants-acs- disbanded/)

I find it humorous that the ACS's response is "the ACS Foundation has nothing do to with the ACS". It just happens to be an organisation they set up and uses their name that their members promote.

Some interesting emails came in overnight:

"The ACS is run by a whole bunch of accountants and lawyers who can't believe their luck that people associate them with the technology industry"

"You're right that the ACS has to go.

Back in 2001 I contacted the ACS to discuss some policy things and was horrified to discover the "experts" I was talking to were nothing more than accountants. Later they elected a lawyer as president, and then a recruiter, prompting me to publicly condemn the ACS as a fake during the period 2004 – 2006.

The ACS is actually an anti-professional organisation. Their agenda is not to promote computer science or engineering expertise, but rather to allow pretenders to hide in the generic vagueness of "ICT Professional." They actually work to devalue real expertise, since engineers and computer scientists pose a threat to accountants, MBAs and lawyers who want to claim membership of the technology professsions.

I think the solution has to be a formal inquiry into regulation of the IT professions, with a view to government stepping in and, as you put it, disbanding the ACS. At the moment, the ACS has insinuated itself too strongly into formal regulation. Simply starting a rival organisation for software engineers, say, would not work. Government has to dissolve existing ACS influence and leave the way open for new specialist organisations."

</comment><comment><USER27> Former employer bought me an ACS membership one year (mainly so we could get access to their members in the hope of selling our services).

The entire membership seems to be guys who built a homebrew PC in the 70s and haven't showered since, or international students who believe so much in their education they're fooled into believing they need the ACS to rubber stamp their degree.

They're totally irrelevant in today's "but can you write good code?" hiring practice.

The ACS preys on uninformed international students. (Who, in interviews, all seem to want to work for Cisco in five years time! Are they taught this by the ACS?)

</comment><comment><USER25> The general (low) opinion of the ACS on Whirlpool _(AU broadband / IT forums)_ is that they exist solely to make money from rubber-stamping IT accreditations for skilled worker visas.

</comment><comment><USER40> I forgot that the ACS even existed, just let it fade into obscurity on its own terms.

<comment><USER41> teflonhook 2 hours ago | link [dead]

The problem is this is the professional body that determines what we teach in universities, that promotes the technology industry as a whole and who decides who we let into the country on a skilled visa.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> If you don't like the Australian Computer Society accreditation, you could could always become a Microsoft Certified Professional.

Which one is the bigger joke?

<comment><USER43> You would probably get something out of being a MCP. There just isn't a good reason to be a member of ACS - at all.

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> Just payed the required $450 to have my Australian Master degree accredited by the ACS, that was only after I had spent $60.000+ in tuition fees in two years. only to see that the temporary residency application fee rose from $315 to $1250, (almost 400% increase in only one year)... :( some much money. I truly believe they have gone too far and soon they will start missing all the money from the international student and skilled migrants. (sorry for any grammar mistakes)

</comment><comment><USER45> This reflects pretty poorly on a country and government which supposedly is trying to shift from a "get stuff out the ground and sell it" to a knowledge economy...

<comment><USER46> Moving from commodity based, bricks and mortar investment focus to an abstract, information industry innovating mindset is a huge paradigm shift for most Australians. It has unfortunately been popular mantra that banking, real- estate, commodities or finance-oriented (to fund commodity) business is the bread and butter for a happy, future-proof life and not easy to break. Many people have done well under that mantra, by island standards. To put it another way, as a country of very few people, those with the power to control the narrative can, and do so, in servicing that agenda. It's shameful. John Howard's pontifications of Australia 'punching above its weight' were a painful misrepresentation and yet many continue to buy into such impoverished thinking.

<comment><USER15> Different countries can be good at different things.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> I've been working in Australian IT since the late 1970's and never once did anybody ask whether I had ACS membership.

When I graduated from uni, I looked at the ACS requirements and they were all to support the status quo of the 1960's EDP era. So I wouldn't have been accepted even if I tried. Even though I had the best computer engineering qualifications available at the time.

Over the years the ACS members I have had the misfortune of working with couldn't program their way out of a wet paper bag, not even using COBOL or RPG. Of course, as other comments here indicate, they abided by the Peter Principle and had been promoted to their level of utter dismal incompetence to muddle management.

</comment><comment><USER48> All that about the pamphlet, not a big deal. But the payments at the end for accreditation? That seems to be a worse offense. Of course, if companies are only accepting applicants accredited by the ACS, they must be missing out on SOME people.

<comment><USER49> I think the main problem is you need the accreditation if you want to apply to immigrate. As I understand it even if you are from overseas and study at a Australian university you would still need to get the accreditation to apply for a visa.

<comment><USER50> It seems to me this is one of the key functions of the organisation - to act as a pseudo governmental entity to asses qualification and experience claims relating to IT.

I believe it also exists to provide a framework around CPD (continuing professional development), but I'm not sure how relevant this is to our industry.

<comment><USER5> Paying to vet the qualifications of people who have studied and worked overseas is not unreasonable -- but having to pay them $425 to certify that an accredited Australian university's CS diploma is, in fact, an accredited Australian university's CS diploma is ludicrous.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> My rule of thumb is that anyone who uses the term "ICT" is talking out of their backside.

</comment><comment><USER39> Anyone care to submit an entry? :)

[http://www.freelancer.com/contest/T-shirt-Design-for- Austral...](http://www.freelancer.com/contest/T-shirt-Design-for-Australian- Computer-Society-13298-byentry-1044584.html)

</comment><comment><USER52> In New Zealand just now, there is a national scandal over a system called Novopay. Google this to get the details. It is a payroll system for NZ teachers. It is complex, developed by an Australian firm, and full of errors. The errors in operation are such that teachers get the wrong pay, pay the wrong tax, and even get no pay on occasions. Public servants have been sacked, and government ministers are in trouble.

It is because we need to avoid such problems that we need software developers who can develop systems that actually meet their specifications, tested to provide assurance that they do. This is why we need certification of professionals (of their competency, and with expectation that they will behave ethically when there are problems with systems), and why we need accreditation of qualifications that provides external confidence that educational institutions are producing graduates who are of a standard that they can be expected to grow into competent professionals.

Most "developed" countries have schemes aimed at this - imperfect, and certainly needing improvement - and most are managed by professional societies - the organisations comprised of IT professionals who give voluntarily of their time to serve their colleagues and their profession, to no personal benefit.

In Australia this is the case with the ACS, which sees itself as the guardian of professional standards. Hence ACS provides certification of professionals (the CP scheme), and accredits university courses in IT, according to international standards. In both certification and accreditation, ACS serves as the Australian implementor of international standards that are widely accepted throughout the world, and particularly in our Asia-Pacific region. If you are interested, google "IP3" and "Seoul Accord" to find out more.

ACS may be imperfect in that role (this is inevitable), but seeks to improve, continuously, and always aims to respond to identified genuine problems with the ways it conducts its business. In order that the profession of IT should mature, and deliver outcomes acceptable to society at large, ACS has a goal that increasing numbers of professionals should become certified, and believes that ultimately mandatory certification of at very least senior professionals, charged with managing major projects or leading the design of technical solutions, should be established (paralleling other professions, which, over time, have been recognised as being of such critical importance that competence should be certified).

There will always be those who prefer to avoid any kind of regulation or oversight, any kind of distinction that identifies those in whom greater trust can be placed. But the Novopay system in NZ is just the latest example of medium to large systems worldwide, with critical roles in wider society, whose failure illustrates the need for software systems developers to lift their game, and which begs the introduction of quite stringent requirements on senior developers and managers who claim competence to develop such systems.

As the Vice President of ACS charged with oversight of certification and accreditation, I am always keen to have input from wise professionals who believe they can improve the way we conduct our business. If you have considered input, then please contact me so that we may benefit from your wisdom.

Professor Doug Grant FACS CP ACS Vice President (Membership Boards)

</comment><comment><USER41> I'm sorry Australia, you are not getting me as a skilled worker (I thought you were in need of IT experts with fluent english). No seriously, I stumbled upon this issue some time ago, and that wasn't the first or last paywall. You have to pay for everything, even if you end up being rejected (not that I couldn't afford it, but f*ck that). Kind of offtopic, but I also saw they have some serious discrimination issues (it's not even about skin color, which I don't care since I'm white, they just don't want foreigners). Back to Google Maps to find a different destination.

<comment><USER53> Just out of interest, what are the discrimination issues? (I'm Australian so I don't ever get an outsider's perspective, but it'd be nice to have some understanding of what others think of us.)

<comment><USER41> Well I was watching videos trying to catch the Australian accent, which I found to be very cool... One video led to another, and somehow I ended up watching this: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hp6J6PF47CM>

From another angle, and longer explanation: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BsWhGBgbUsc>

I have never seen something like that in real life, I couldn't believe it.

<comment><USER5> There's 22 million people in Australia, don't assume a few idiots reflect the entire country. Neither my wife nor I were born here, but as parents with a mixed-race kid and experience of living on four continents, we haven't found a better place to bring him up yet.

<comment><USER41> Indeed, but to be fair, 22 million is nothing, especially for a country so big as Australia. Also, it wasn't just one crazy person or crazy group. They were random people in a bus, and they had the same anger and hate. Wtf was that?

I'm curious, where in Australia do you live if I may ask?

<comment><USER5> Melbourne, same city as the bus attack. For what it's worth, that took place in Frankston, one of the city's dodgier suburbs, which has a reputation for crime, drug problems and lots of "bogans".

<comment><USER54> haha, Frankston... explains a lot.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: What forums do you visit? (besides HN) - <AUTHOR> What other forums do you visit often? This doesn't have to be programming related. <comment><USER2> Metafilter. 5 dollar one time fee, actively moderated intelligent conversation about the best stuff on the internet. An ask question section that's quora without people trying to market themselves, and more. The 5 dollar fee (plus occasional donations from users who care) doesn't just pay for the site, it keeps out a ton of BS from spammers.

<comment><USER3> How crazy - I always thought that was a spammy site like Yahoo Answers. I have to take a second look.

Can you show me an interesting conversation?

(Only 369 programming posts?? [http://www.metafilter.com/tags/programming](http://www.metafilter.com/tags/programming))

<comment><USER2> What's interesting to you?

Front Page Post about Article about the Maintainers of old technology, and discussion [https://www.metafilter.com/158685/The-Work-That-Keeps- This-W...](https://www.metafilter.com/158685/The-Work-That-Keeps-This-World)

Ask Post about sites for Downtime that don't deal with current events

[https://ask.metafilter.com/294568/Fun-distracting- websites-f...](https://ask.metafilter.com/294568/Fun-distracting-websites-for- down-time)

Here's an ask I thought was useful, mentions SICP for programming.

[https://ask.metafilter.com/293313/What-is-the-critical- book-...](https://ask.metafilter.com/293313/What-is-the-critical-book-for- your-hobby-passion)

I guess for me it's a passionate engaged community of smart people, including some moderately famous ones.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Hubski. An intelligent community that is designed in a novel way where spam is pretty much impossible. Each user follows other users, tags, and domains that they like, and can block tags, users, and domains that they don't want to see. When you "upvote" a post, you really are sharing it to your followers. Your feed is composed of posts to tags, users, and domains that you have followed. I really like it and want it to grow.

[https://hubski.com](https://hubski.com)

</comment><comment><USER5> I occasionally stop by the Bootstrapped.FM forums, which seems to be the spiritual successor to the old Joel On Software forums. (Excellent podcast as well.)

[http://discuss.bootstrapped.fm](http://discuss.bootstrapped.fm)

</comment><comment><USER6> Lobste.rs

[http://www.theserverside.com/](http://www.theserverside.com/)

[http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/](http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/)

Various sub-reddits... /r/machinelearning, /r/artificial, /r/semanticweb, /r/libertarian, /r/guns, /r/metal, etc.

</comment><comment><USER7> QUORA but is next to impossible to write answers. I write a 500 word post with top grammar and spelling and the bot just deletes it for "spelling".

FORUM.WATMM.COM which is a forum for ambient electronica.

FORUM.BODYBUILDING.COM for the Misc for the l0lz

</comment><comment><USER8> /r/rational - awesome subreddit about rational fiction. People and discussion are just as interesting and intelligent as on Hacker News.

Also LessWrong, though it's pretty quiet recently.</comment>


Writing a fuzzy receipt parser in Python - <AUTHOR> http://tech.trivago.com/2015/10/06/python_receipt_parser/ <comment><USER2> It's a shame that receipts don't have machine readable output.

QR codes can hold a little over 1,200 characters, which should be more than enough for most receipts.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QR_code#Storage](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QR_code#Storage)

Edit: related link: [https://www.quora.com/Can-and-how-cash-register-receipts- be-...](https://www.quora.com/Can-and-how-cash-register-receipts-be- transformed-to-a-QR-code-and-scanned-with-a-smartphone-app-so-it-can-become- digital?share=1)

<comment><USER3> I'd be happy if they made the store name, date and total more prominent, it's amazing how often that is hard to find despite it being the most important information to the customer.

<comment><USER4> Exactly. Even the term for the total changes with every receipt. I disovered all the possible terms you can imagine, like "sum", "total amount", "overall",... (in German obviously)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Hey, this is pretty cool. I actually tried something similar. (Keeping a list of shop names and matching it with tesseract's results) I was trying hough transform for slight image rotations. I wasn't aware of imagemagick's textcleaner script. That could have save me a lot of trouble :) I got roadblocked by the problem of having various kinds of receipts with absolutely no layout in common. I figured it would need a lot of training for the system to have a decent accuracy and left it for another day.

<comment><USER4> Yeah, relying on the layout never worked for me as well. For instance even the supermarket address is not standardized. Some shops use:

> Market name > Examplestreet 12 > 19393 Examplecity

while others use:

> Market name > 19393 Examplecity > Examplestreet 12

We're not even talking about the invoice/receipt layout. It's different all the time.

<comment><USER6> Cool. We did a similar thing at an hack, integrated with Dropbox and an automatic monthly receipt generation. I think most if not all the code should still be in pieces on our github accounts

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Hey, author here. I am happy for all questions or every kind of feedback.

<comment><USER7> This is really cool, nice work! I tinkered with the same thing a while ago. Sadly, that project has been neglected. One thing I was most proud of was developing a way to automatically rotate the receipt image to the most ideal position to better help the OCR. I would notice decent improvements even with a few degrees difference.

Question: have you thought about any better methods for getting the receipts scanned? A big hurdle for me was the time it took to scan everything. I know there are scanners designed for such a thing, and you seem to have used one, but were you satisfied with it?

And thanks for the get_close_matches() hint! I'll try and remember that if I ever start hacking again on this.

<comment><USER4> Yeah scanning the receipts takes the longest time in the whole process. So you should make sure that you have a fast and simple scanner. I can recommend to buy a simple photo scanner like I did. It's just a couple bucks and it will save you so much time. And the quality was near perfect. Even very old receipts could be parsed after scanning with it.

When it comes to rotation, you can try [http://www.fmwconcepts.com/imagemagick/textcleaner/](http://www.fmwconcepts.com/imagemagick/textcleaner/). It will rotate your scan if it's not perfectly aligned.

<comment><USER7> Ha, cool, didn't know about textcleaner either. Always fun when you write some huge routine to do something that you later find out is a simple command elsewhere. Thanks!

<comment><USER8> Just a quick FYI. I looked at "Fred's Scripts" a while back for a commercial project I was working on. Have a look at the license, if you ever plan on any commercial work using those scripts.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> For the next step, and easier name matching... why not export a CSV of your online banking and use names and totals to match? Or are these cash receipts?

<comment><USER4> Good idea! Most of the time I pay in cash when I'm at a supermarket or at a gas station. So I don't really have the data in online banking. It's kind of common in Germany.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I've considered an app that would do this in the past. It would be like mint.com which automatically tracks your finances via online banking, but instead of showing you spent $100 at the supermarket, it would show that you spent $20 on beer, $50 on cash back, and $30 on food... allowing better insights into your finances & where to cut back to save money.

</comment><comment><USER11> I've been thinking about something vaguely similar for paperwork processing. It'd be nice to pull company name from recognising the layout/logo, and an attempt at reading the date out of the page.

Anyone know any resources or an idea for direction to get started on this?

<comment><USER4> Quite tricky to get right. Parsing text from a logo is usually not so easy. So here's an alternative approach that could work: Use the first 10% of the page as the "header", no matter what it is. Store all those headers as separate image files. When you scan a new invoice/receipt, try to match it with the list of known headers. OpenCV is good for that.

Look here: [http://stackoverflow.com/questions/4196453/simple-and- fast-m...](http://stackoverflow.com/questions/4196453/simple-and-fast-method- to-compare-images-for-similarity) [http://stackoverflow.com/questions/11541154/checking- images-...](http://stackoverflow.com/questions/11541154/checking-images-for- similarity-with-opencv)

<comment><USER11> By the way, thanks for this - this has been a very useful starting point.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> If you are genuinely interested in this sort of thing, I'd like to think we do a pretty good job at receipt parsing.

[http://www.neat.com/](http://www.neat.com/)

Disclaimer: I work for the company.

<comment><USER8> Two questions: Do you do line-item extraction?

Are you perhaps going to offer some insight about the author's attempts, and what alternative experiences you've had implementing your functionality, or what solutions/algorithm's you've used?

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I think I would have more problems saving all the receipts using this workflow. Just logging them into YNAB's mobile app is great for me.

<comment><USER14> Shameless plug: this is exactly why I created [http://family- fortune.ridgebit.com/](http://family-fortune.ridgebit.com/). I log the transaction before the receipt is done printing, then toss the receipt.</comment></comment>


PaidContent's Rafat Ali Speaks - Here's Who's Next… (AOL to buy TechCrunch?) - <AUTHOR> http://kara.allthingsd.com/20080711/paidcontents-rafat-ali-speaks-so-heres-whos-next/

<comment><USER2> Moconews.net is a great source of content for those who are in the Mobile sector. I would assume their audience is made off executives, developers and other key players in that particular industry.

ContentSutra focuses on tech- related news in India where I believe the middle class accounts for 200 million people. ContentSutra could grow into its own network of news channel in India.

Techcrunch could sell itself anywhere around 50M. They could also raise capital to hire more writers and expand their network.</comment>


On Hitting Techmeme - <AUTHOR> http://blog.jonmitchell.me/on-hitting-techmeme

<comment><USER2> Don't forget the leaderboard...

<http://www.crunchbase.com/bloggerboard/tech/authors>

<comment><USER3> thanks for the informative link.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I've written some blogposts before for friends tech blogs among other things and one post was a TechMeme top headline. It eventually lead to thousands of page views, not just from Techmeme clicks but including other sites covering it from reading TechMeme.

It's definitely got some influence and is hugely important for bloggers as it gets your name out there. Especially if you blog on your own and not for a larger entity.

</comment><comment><USER5> Ugh. I didn't even know that leaderboard page existed.

<comment><USER2> Oh yeah. For when you really want to turn "hitting Techmeme" into a game. :)</comment></comment>


Coffee from California - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/26/business/your-coffee-is-from-where-california.html?src=me <comment><USER2> I love this, for a number of reasons.

This is a great example of taking a coasting or downward-trending venture and pivoting into something new, without sacrificing your existing cash flow.

It seems like the proof of concept is going well, confirming that the basic model is sound. What comes next is to scale it up.

The farmers are also researching existing innovations in the field (i.e. harvesters), with the goal of extending those innovations to meet the field's unique challenges.

They are also selling initial product, which although is much more expensive than similar products of this type, is serving to bootstrap continued and expanded production, with the goal of reducing price by increasing supply.

(Huh, I think I went off on a tangent and started taking about Tesla.)

I don't understand why people would throw shade onto this. Not only is this entrepreneurial spirit, it's _successful_ entrepreneurial spirit.

I wish them all the best!

EDIT: Spelling

<comment><USER3> Did I miss the pricing bit? All I saw was a quote saying that specialty coffee that sells for $120/lb exists, not that these places are selling it. (if you're looking for it you can find absurdly expensive anything, the only coffee you'll find at that top price is probably kopi luwak where they harvest the beans from civet poop)

<comment><USER4> ... It's probably not from civets if an animal did even poop it out. Demand has increased so high, even highly abusive farms can't keep up. So they just outright lie about the beans or have some other animal eat the beans and shit them out.

<comment><USER5> "...have some other animal eat the beans and shit them out."

Sounds like something I can do at home myself then.

<comment><USER6> DIY scarification, bring your own cat.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The important question is: is it good? I typically spend around $25 / pound on coffee beans, which is a fairly large amount of money. But: the beans I buy are very freshly roasted right near where I live and make excellent coffee (which I make by the cup, pour-over style), and I only drink a cup or two a day.

I'd see my way to paying more if the beans were somehow qualitatively better - I had some $50 / lb coffee once that was totally worth it (I hate to use the word mouthfeel, but this coffee really legit had a velvety rich mouthfeel that I'd never experienced in a cup of coffee before or since, and a great aroma and flavor to go with it), and I've tried other coffees that were high up on the expense level that were totally _not_ worth it. Most probably aren't worth it.

So: how does it compare? Is the ridiculous price just because you're from california? No thanks, I'll take my ethiopian amaro gayo, tyvm.

<comment><USER8> Alrighty then. You pay $25 for freshly ground coffee roasted right near where you live. And you only drink a cup or two a day. Let's call that 1.5 cups a day. A pound will provide 48 6 oz cups which will last you 48/1.5 = 1 month.

So it doesn't matter that your coffee was roasted very near where you live since on average it's two weeks old.

Me, I live in Oakland and I like a local roaster McLaughlin in Emeryville. I can get beans or ground from Farmer Joes, also local. But I don't overvalue locality to the extreme. I buy McLaughlin because I like the taste and for what it's worth, I buy ground not bean.

<comment><USER9> > So it doesn't matter that your coffee was roasted very near where you live > since on average it's two weeks old.

"Time since roast" is hardly the only reason to prefer locally roasted beans. Actually, it's not a good reason at all, since you can ship roasted beans across the country a few times before they're ready to be ground and brewed.

Some folks just like to support their neighbors, and buying from local roasters could also mean fewer shipping miles (and less carbon emissions) attached to that that bag of beans.

<comment><USER10> As far as this 'support your neighbors' culture goes: it's an interesting thing to me because at a national level the politically correct response becomes the opposite (support free trade), and it also turns into a very inflammatory and controversial issue--likely because of nationalism. Even more interesting, it appears liberals and conservatives switch sides when going from local to national framework, i.e. liberals tend to support local, but not support protectionism, while conservatives appear the opposite.

<comment><USER11> I buy shirts that are made in San Francisco, but the fabric is almost certainly not made in the U.S. The global supply chain enables products that are in some sense "made locally". Same goes for coffee. So it's totally reasonable to be against protectionism and for buying "locally".

<comment><USER12> It can be something as simple as being able to talk to the roaster. I have a few good sources of coffee I use, but I prefer the local roaster. I do so because we can engage and he'll recommend a new coffee because he knows it's a match to my preferences. He is a former WBC contenter and have roaster for other WBC contenters, which is a testament to his skills. But I do it because I like to talk to the roaster behind the coffee.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> _> And they see more and more American consumers willing to spend $8 or $12 for a cup of joe, which would offset their high costs of production._

A single pound of coffee makes about 50 cups. Who seriously pays this much?

<comment><USER14> > A single pound of coffee makes about 50 cups of coffee.

What method are you using to make 50 cups from a pound?!

I get 20-25 from pourover; slightly less from aeropress.

<comment><USER13> A standard cup of coffee is six ounces.

Most people use too high a coffee-to-water ratio when making coffee.

<comment><USER6> How can it be called wrong if they like it? I like my espresso as thick as I can get it out the machine. Tamp the hell out of it, over pressure the boiler (12 bar) and go for it. I'm sure I'll damage the machine doing this but after 10 years it still seems ok. The Rancillio Silvia is well suited to this brewing method.

<comment><USER13> Espresso, sure. Good drip or pourover coffee is generally brewed by weight with approximately 16 units of water to 1 unit of coffee.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Side note: coffee is also produced in Puerto Rico. Whether or not that should be counted as part of the US is debatable but it's interesting that there was no mention.

Edit: NPR article from 2015[1] discussing coffee production in Puerto Rico.

[1] [http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2015/05/13/404228117/pue...](http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2015/05/13/404228117/puerto- rico-wants-to-grow-your-next-cup-of-specialty-coffee)

<comment><USER16> Since when is Puerto Rico not part of the US?

<comment><USER15> Obviously it is legally a territory of the US and Puerto Ricans are American citizens but it's not one of the 50 states.

<comment><USER16> It contributes to GDP, so why shouldn't it contribute to coffee production stats?

<comment><USER15> Because it's distinct culturally and politically from the 50 states and (along with the US's other territories) therefore not always necessarily included when one is discussing the United States. Nor do its inhabitants necessarily identify as Americans.

I'm not sure why you're being so pedantic, anyways. I was just hinting at a reason for why the author of this article didn't mention Puerto Rico when they said that Hawaii was the only place in the US where serious coffee cultivation occurs.

<comment><USER17> So just like Washington DC?

<comment><USER15> No, obviously not just like Washington DC. I'm not even expressing my opinion in the matter I'm just explaining why Puerto Rico isn't always included when people say "the US"! Why did I get downvoted?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> As with the wine industry, University of California at Davis has established a coffee research program, in part funded by Peet's Coffee. I did a double take the first time I heard of this, but it make sense and now I wonder why it didn't happen sooner, given UC Davis' focus on specialty agriculture:

[https://coffeecenter.ucdavis.edu/](https://coffeecenter.ucdavis.edu/)

[http://www.sacbee.com/news/business/article100401787.html](http://www.sacbee.com/news/business/article100401787.html)

<comment><USER19> It'd be a plus if they sell specialty beans. The similar UCD Meat Lab has excellent meat (in my opinion).

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Even top notch beans from CounterCulture are $18 for 12 oz. This would pretty much br a gimmick status symbol for the wealthy

<comment><USER21> So what? There are lots of status symbol/gimmick products that are successful. Also, I would expect the price to go down over time as production and use of automated machinery increased.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> I hope the prices for these coffees come down, though I get why business-wise it makes sense for them to target the ultra-high-end market at their stage. The idea of good coffee from somewhere as close as California is a bit exciting to me.

\---

Sorry if the rest is slightly off-topic. After reading all the comments here about the coffee prices mentioned in the article, and seeing what every considers "normal" prices, I feel compelled to make the following PSA:

Save your money and roast your own coffee at home, if you are able to (* more on that below).

I've been doing this for about 3 years now. There's a small learning curve, but as Kenneth Davids puts it in his book [1] (paraphrasing): "The difficulty of roasting coffee is somewhere between frying an egg and making a good hollandaise".

I buy my favorite coffees from around the world as dried green beans for around $5-7 per pound. Furthermore, coffee greens can last quite a while in your pantry if kept in well ventilated burlap sacks (a couple years, or more). This allows me to stockpile like 50 pounds of coffee to roast throughout the year. Also, there's really nothing that quite compares to coffee a day or two after it's been roasted. I can easily brew way better coffee than most coffee shops here in Austin, TX (though there's a couple exceptional ones here with more time/skill/resources than I).

To roast coffee, my low-budget setup is:

      - A heavy pan / popcorn popper (mine: https://www.amazon.com/Zippy-Pop-Stovetop-Capacity-Stainless/dp/B00PFRRA0Q)
      - A portable heat source (I use an induction range)
      - Colander / wooden spoon / shop fan
      - A well-ventilated outdoor space (a balcony does just fine), there's smoke / messy chaff

(* if you don't have access to outdoor space, it can be a deal breaker)

Every week, I spend about 20 minutes total roasting a new batch of coffee (end up with ~12oz roasted). Total equipment investment for me was like $150. I can also enjoy some really great espresso with my budget setup (manual lever machine + Pharos hand grinder), but doing that well is a steeper learning curve.

[1] Kenneth Davids. Home Coffee Roasting. [https://www.amazon.com/Home-Coffee- Roasting-Revised-Updated/...](https://www.amazon.com/Home-Coffee-Roasting- Revised-Updated/dp/0312312199)

[http://www.home-barista.com/home-roasting/](http://www.home-barista.com/home- roasting/) is also a great resource.

<comment><USER7> I've tried (I use the coffee popper), and it's _very satisfying_ , but also I'm pretty bad at it. I'm pretty sure I can't get the heat to evenly distribute right - I ended up with some beans way scorched. Still, fun.

<comment><USER22> These were my early experiences as well using a butane stove. The induction range I use gives me fine control over the heat level. That, plus proper preheating and technique at the beginning of roasting ensures you don't scorch the beans, but roast them uniformly.

There's lots of videos on Youtube, and you get the hang of it after a little practice.

<comment><USER6> That must make one hell of a mess in the kitchen. I got an outdoor power point put in pretty much for this reason - then my mess with the heat gun and colander can be blown all over the porch and though our shoes and bike helmets instead.

<comment><USER22> Hehe my wife would disown me if I ever tried to do this in the kitchen :) I stick to the back porch.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Is there a word for "I was researching an obscure topic and then a couple hours later a major publication writes about it?"

I was just researching boutique coffee growing farms in tropical Australia and wondering if in the future people would pay double what they pay now for coffee. And then this shows up on hn.

<comment><USER24> It's called the Baader-Meinhof phenomenon or frequency illusion.

<comment><USER25> That's funny... I accidentally stumbled upon the Baader-Meinhof phenomenon last week (reading the article at [https://www.damninteresting.com/the-baader- meinhof-phenomeno...](https://www.damninteresting.com/the-baader-meinhof- phenomenon/)) and now I notice it again! It's Baader-Meinhof applied to itself :-)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Read through the whole thing looking to explain how this is even possible. Is the "coffee belt" not as absolute as I thought? Can you just grow arabica anywhere?

<comment><USER6> There's a small one growing in my dining room. Auckland, New Zealand.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> _" And they see more and more American consumers willing to spend $8 or $12 for a cup of joe, which would offset their high costs of production."_

Good luck!

<comment><USER28> I spend only slightly more than that for 3 pounds of Kirkland Signature grounds...

<comment><USER29> I'd like to say I spend around that for 8 O'Clock 100% Colombian whole beans in 3 pound bags; which is incidentally the cheapest drinkable coffee on the market (Maxwell House and Folgers, imnsho are nigh undrinkable; for those that grind yourselves, you can get both as whole bean, you just sometimes have to hit up a restaurant supply store to find it).

The only way I'd pay more than, say, $5 a pound (nice round figure, both of us are paying slightly less) is if it was _really fucking good_. I mean, really good. The kind of good that when other people told me how good it is, I'd tell them that I buy the damned coffee, I know how good it is, you don't have to tell me how good it is.

California has dominated the olive oil and wine lists, but it doesn't mean I'm going out and buying $50-100 bottles of wine and $10-20 tiny ass bottles of olive oil. I buy what is good, not what is perfect.

<comment><USER30> Experiment and try a variety of beans. You can do this by going to a good coffee shop that has multiple beans and try a different one each day. Once you build your palate you may find you never want to go back.

Worst case you decide it's not worth the extra money and can feel smug in your decision to stick with the cheap stuff.

<comment><USER29> I did try quite a few over the years. They all tasted different, they all had their own particular personality... but sometimes I just want consistent caffeine that tastes like coffee, and not burnt ass.

Not tasting like burnt ass is, thankfully, a low bar to clear; it's less the quality of the beans and whatnot, and more your brew method when it's that bad.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> would this meet Rainforest Alliance standards? With coffee being the worlds second largest commodity, I am particularly bothered by both my addiction and the difficultly in finding Rainforest Alliance certified options. It seems like fair trade is easy to find in Trader Joes for instance, but after 20 minutes of looking/reading, I simply couldn't find beans that weren't possibly deforesting rainforests are that had their CO2 footprints examined/offset. Hoping this could be a great win for labor, rain forests (reusing existing agricultural land), etc.

One other point - their trees have been getting older and there is more forign competition is growing BUT, demand has outpaced supply with prices being high, more mainstream consumption in North America and now increasingly in Asia Pacific. I read a lot about the Avacado industry (not really sure why) but from what I have seen from the Avacado's growers groups, their profits have been skyrocketing with demand changes over the last 20 years.

<comment><USER32> Fair Trade standards are stricter than Rainforest Alliance. You can read the guidelines here, which includes protections against deforestation:

[https://fairtradeusa.org/sites/default/files/wysiwyg/fileman...](https://fairtradeusa.org/sites/default/files/wysiwyg/filemanager/APS_Updates_Feb_2017/FTUSA_STD_APS_EN_1.0.0.pdf)

Fair trade certified shade grown coffee is probably your best bet for farmer and earth friendly coffee.

<comment><USER33> Fair Trade standards are actually considered to be equal to Rainforest Alliance standards in terms of environmental and social sustainability. Rainforest Alliance farms prohibit deforestation, have specific guidelines for protecting wildlife and water quality, and demand that workers are paid minimum wage/have the right to organize + more. Read the standard here:

[http://sanstandard2017.ag/](http://sanstandard2017.ag/)

And if you need to find Rainforest Alliance certified coffee, you can find it for sure at all Whole Foods, some of their Allegro brands are certified. Or you can use this tool:

[http://www.rainforest-alliance.org/find-certified](http://www.rainforest- alliance.org/find-certified)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> You can buy coffee from one of the farms here for $96 a pound (~$86/lb if you buy 12 oz).

[https://goodlandorganics.com/store/roasted- coffee](https://goodlandorganics.com/store/roasted-coffee)

Not sure if I could stomach paying $6.50/cup for my daily pourover that I make at home, but hey, this is out there.

</comment><comment><USER19> "There are roughly 800 coffee farms in the Hawaiian Islands producing as much as nine million pounds of unroasted beans a year; California produces only hundreds of pounds."

California coffee production would have to increase by _five_ orders of magnitude to compare with Hawaii.

<comment><USER35> Sounds like a great opportunity for startup capital. Is 10x growth every year for 4 years that unreasonable to you?

<comment><USER19> For one coffee plants take half a decade to produce.

<comment><USER36> > which takes half a decade to produce.

So what you are saying is that in about 10 years California could match Hawaii output?

That doesn't seem very long to me, not for this business.

<comment><USER37> And then 10 years after that, California coffee would be overplanted and the price would crash. :-)

The current almond glut is a cautionary tale.

Lead times measured in years (sometimes decades) is one of the many problems inherent in being a farmer.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> I don't suppose California's farmers are stupid, so I presume it's someone else's stupidity that has made it attractive to grow coffee, the latest in a long line of water-intensive crops, in dry southern California.

When are Californians going to realize that it's this sort of thing, not a decent shower, that is the cause of the ill effects of a decade of drought? And why do Californians keep subsidizing farmers' water-usage when that is plainly the root of the problem?

<comment><USER39> [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/13/food-water- footprin...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/13/food-water- footprint_n_5952862.html)

> Coffee requires almost 10 times as much water [than tea], using 1,056 > gallons of water per gallon of brewed coffee.

That's a lot.

<comment><USER40> There's a good deal of variation. Without digging into how that figure was produced, it could be worthwhile to mention that the production process Jay Ruskey says he's interested in cuts a lot of water out of the process. Once coffee cherries are picked, getting down to the seed inside (aka "coffee bean") can happen one of roughly three ways: "natural process", letting the coffee fruit dry out like a raisin on the seed; soaking/fermentation, letting the coffee soak in water for 24-48 hours once (or often twice in Kenya); mechanical demucilagation, separating the seeds from the rest with a machine. The demucilager is common in Costa Rica. I can dig up some more material later, but the government in Costa Rica is strict about water waste, essentially requiring farmers use demucilagers to process their coffee. I don't know how much this would affect the water involved in coffee production, but I would guess it would drop the amount necessary for production in cases like Ruskey's.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> Get drip coffee and add milk. There's your coffee

Some people don't know what they're doing

<comment><USER42> The baristas at work tell me off for adding milk to their batch brew. Mind, they have extremely good quantity control & carefully select their beans, so it tastes pretty good just by itself.

<comment><USER41> Then I agree with them, but we were talking about a Starbucks latte with 11 shots

<comment><USER42> Oh, I missed the context. I agree 100%

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> Coffee, strawberries, and chocolate are the foods of the gods.

<comment><USER44> You're thinking of ambrosia.

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> This is relevant, why? "There are roughly 800 coffee farms in the Hawaiian Islands producing as much as nine million pounds of unroasted beans a year; California produces only hundreds of pounds. Globally, 12 billion pounds of coffee are consumed each year

<comment><USER46> The idea is that we catch trends while they are still nascent, before every random person in the mainstream does.

<comment><USER45> Pretty nascent. .00000035 of the market. I could write a blog post and capture more market share than that.</comment></comment></comment>


NSA spying scandal fallout: Expect big impact in Europe and elsewhere - <AUTHOR> http://gigaom.com/2013/06/07/nsa-spying-scandal-fallout-expect-big-impact-in-europe-and-elsewhere/

<comment><USER2> I hope it has a severe effect on American businesses in Europe and elsewhere.

 _At the very least_ this is what I'm expecting from this scandal, if Americans aren't going to push their government enough to change.

Hopefully this will increase and accelerate Europe's adoption of open source, and getting them to prefer local companies over American ones for cloud services. Who knows, this may actually be good for Americans, too, because if nothing changes in US, at least they'd probably have more secure and private alternative services to choose from, in Europe. Although that part about NSA collecting data at the ISP level doesn't seem very encouraging.</comment>


Where the IRS most likely audits - <AUTHOR> https://flowingdata.com/2019/04/03/where-the-irs-most-likely-audits/ <comment><AUTHOR> Link to Pro Publica article.

[https://projects.propublica.org/graphics/eitc- audit](https://projects.propublica.org/graphics/eitc-audit)

</comment><comment><USER2> Wow not only do we have have barely any taxes in northern Nevada, apparently the taxes we do pay are rarely audited. Which makes sense in a way from a financial perspective.

But this doesn't seem to be the case in southern Texas right along the border.. odd.</comment>


Waterfall Process - <AUTHOR> https://martinfowler.com/bliki/WaterfallProcess.html <comment><USER2> The author correctly sites construction as an example of how waterfall may have originated. But it was all of engineering that worked that way. It's called project management. I was an automotive engineer when I graduated in '82\. Then a plan was built working backwards from when the first car was due to roll off the line, usually about five years in the future. That would set milestones that would be pushed to all the teams and suppliers. We used critical path analysis to determine what activities had to be completed on time or the project would be delayed. Extra resources would be dedicated to tasks on the critical path. Maybe overtime or more people. So it is not surprising that in the early days software projects were treated the same way.

Whenever I took over a project I would tear up my predecessor's plan and immediately start to build a prototype of the component. The plans would have no wiggle room for discovering a big oops years later. Did we choose the right materials? Will that mechanism work in the cold? I would do the first iteration myself, building the product our of wood or cardboard or plastic. Then I would move to a prototype hand crafted out of steel. Then I would order stamping tools made from Kirksite (zink) and test those versions before finalizing the design and committing to the final tooling. So, yes, iterative design/build works for physical systems too.

</comment><comment><USER3> Agile is about trusting people, not process. There is no agile process that scales, because agile is all about trust and Dunbar's number puts a cap on how far trust can scale. Let's face it, every medium to large company process is predicated on distrust. The implicit message is: we don't trust you to do good (or any) work, so we're going to make you waste 5 or more hours a week wrestling with our infuriatingly slow Jira installation so our PMs can complain about "velocity." And so on.

In a high trust environment scrum or xp or any other agile process is great. Of course in a high trust environment any process that isn't actively perverse is great. In a low trust environment no process is great, or even good. The best option is less bad.

<comment><USER4> If scrum is about trusting people, why is the process essentially ritualized micromanagement?

<comment><USER5> Scrum isn't ritualized micromanagement. Some places call their ritualized micromanagement Scrum. Those same places will have micromanagement no matter what process they use. Micromanagement is a people problem. Scrum is a tool that can be used well or poorly by the people that use it, just like any tool.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I've found that when the term "agile" is tossed around to people who aren't familiar with software development, the expectation is usually that more work can be done in less time. Design and requirements gathering is scrapped, and working software is expected after the first sprint.

> It is possible for a mix of waterfall and iterative where early phases > (requirements analysis, high level design) are done in a waterfall style > while later phases (detailed design, code, test) are done in an iterative > manner.

I prefer this approach where time is explicitly dedicated to planning out the solution, which all stakeholders agree to. It also respects that as you begin implementing the solution you'll learn more about the problem domain and adjust accordingly.

<comment><USER7> If I remember correctly, the agile manifesto was written, in large part, as a reaction to RUP, Spiral and other heavy weight iterative and incremental processes (not waterfall, btw). Its point was to redirect teams back to the prize. In the 90s, teams were becoming too focused on the process instead of the software and customer / user.

I don't believe I've met anyone who ever said, "Hey, let's do Waterfall!" More often, processes became waterfall-like when feedback loops would become too long. Sometimes, teams wouldn't get feedback for months. Interestingly, some of the scrum teams I've worked with recently have succumbed to the same thing because product owners aren't active in the process.

But, you're right - "agile" is often followed as a way to get more done with fewer people. But, unless you're starting with a heavy weight process to begin with, you're not going to see much productivity gain. A process isn't going to miraculously make your developers write code faster. But, used properly, it can lessen the risk of rework.

<comment><USER8> I can't imagine why anybody would see RUP as a bad process to follow. Things I like about it are:

1\. It's focus on the User and the business case. In the RUP documents you have to describe what business problem you're trying to solve and make a complete list of stakeholders (this can be a wide variety of people, not just the main app user).

2\. During the elaboration phase you have to describe the list of requirements and tie them to a business case - so you're forced to think about the problem you're solving.

3\. During design phase you have to tie each class/module back to a specific requirement (this forces developers to focus on the real problem as stated)

4\. Use cases are a fantastic tools for describing system interactions with the user, and force designers & developers to think about and provide solutions to the not-happy path in a very quick iterative way. In your use cases you should address the main requirements of your stakeholders and tie them back to the requirements doc.

5\. RUP has a specific phase for transition to live, and so forces you to think about deployment, architecture, config and maintenance even before code has been written. Yes, your IT dept is a stakeholder.

6\. RUP doesn't care what you use during the construction phase - following an agile methodology would be ideal in fact.

7\. RUP doesn't care what you use as a project management process - it will have documents that clearly show the scope of your work and the list of prioritized requirements you have to fill before you're done, which is great for tracking progress.

8\. RUP is iterative, so if you discovered something important missing during construction - go back to elaboration and work the new requirements through your design.

9\. Creating and keeping up to date a fairly small set of well designed documents will lift the quality of your product.

This is just my personal experience, but I found I learned a lot following the methodology and Rational's standard documents. Not only did I produce better solutions, I also found that the documentation could be shared and collaborated on with other people within the organisation, and so Business Analysts, testers and the system managers were all stakeholders and contributors throughout the whole lifetime of the project. They loved that.

<comment><USER5> > can't imagine why anybody would see RUP as a bad process to follow.

Are you kidding, the 90s were filled with same for and against arguments of RUP as we have about Agile and Scrum now. No process is right for everything so you will have people misuse a tool and blame the tool. The same orgs that micromanage Agile teams would micromanage RUP teams and people will be just as angry about it. RUP is a tool and is as good or bad as the people using the tool.

That said, I agree with you that RUP has some benefits.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> There is no reason to avoid iterations. And it is quite obvious that in a highly specialized field you want quick iterations to keep all the expensive specialists occupied (in the OPs example, what do the developers do while the analysts analyse?).

_BUT_ you _cannot_ develop software without following the steps of the waterfall model. You _need_ analysis. You _need_ testing. And development _has to happen_ in between.

And here comes the problem: When you have a very fast iterative process, you have everyone working at high pace. But your quality will invariably suffer. If your analyst needs to come up with a decent distributed numerical solver for differential algebraic equations, they won't be done after two weeks. So their 'increment' is going to be incomplete. And no, Pareto _does not_ apply to software specifications. The same holds for any other complex domain. And if your testers only have time to test for two weeks, they _cannot_ cover as much as in half a year.

So yes, iteration is a necessity and quick iteration has its merits. But it also comes with a cost and choosing the right pace is as difficult as it is important.

<comment><USER10> We have the same challenge, except that in our case the issue is hardware.

Hardware comes at a very fixed iteration speed, usually around 3 months for something of moderate complexity. That's how long it's going to take to do schematic capture, layout, pcb manufacture, board population and bringup. Even if you can speed up this iteration process, there is still a sizeable financial cost of going around the loop.

This means that at a project level you _need_ to do a certain amount of requirements capture before you start work on electronics. You can then run your software in a fairly agile manner 'inside' the project, hoping that the inevitable changes in requirements can be dealt with in software. Obviously you design your system in such a way as to increase that likelihood.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I'd distrust any software development methodology which does not allocate time for research and prototyping, unless you're doing cookie cutter work that has been done 10000 times before. I have yet to see a complex software project succeed without those two things.

</comment><comment><USER12> I think the most difficult question to answer in software development is: what is the most valuable work we should do first.

Developers, the customer, management, they all might give different answers.

And as far as I can tell the only true answer is: good communication.

Agile does this with short waterfalls and stand-ups, but other methods also work well as long as there is communication.

And I believe for most part this is where you can distinguish a good managers.

Good managers feel when the developers need someting and feel when the customer want's to go in another direction.

A good manager is a medium, not someone who dictates what the developers should do.

</comment><comment><USER13> At the software company where I work, I have seen the defects and half-baked implementations go by for years. Meanwhile, it's new features that development talks about the most. Recently it dawned on me that they profess to use the "agile" methodology. So now I wonder... Where does maintenance fall in the agile methodology? Am I mistaken that the balance of it's focus is squarely on development rather than sound design / correct implementation?

<comment><USER14> i'll quote the last three sentences of the article:

"In the agile world, success is all about business value - regardless of what was written in a plan months ago. Plans are made, but updated regularly. They guide decisions on what to do next, but are not used as a success measure."

so, answering your question with that in mind, the focus should be on business value. does maintenance provide business value? do new features?

<comment><USER15> _does maintenance provide business value? do new features?_

Yes, and yes. In a mature company, maintenance provides more business value than new features. To list some of the maintenance activities:

\- incident response. It is not uncommon for a company to have losses in the tons/hour or millions/hour if the primary process has a malfunction.

\- organizational changes. No software exists in isolation; changing requirements in a connected component may require changes in your software component too. Developers may think this kind of work is feature development, but from a business point of view, it's simply maintenance. Because of the dependency by other parts of the company, this kind of work usually has stricter deadlines than "new features".

\- Predictive maintenance. Identify weak points in the current setup, and isolate of strengthen them before they cause an incident. This includes evaluating technical debt. The value to the business is in risk minimization, and the rationale for this kind of work is predicated on proper risk accounting.

These requirements and processes are part of any proper engineering discipline; these are not marginal issues.

<comment><USER16> The trick is tempering those values of continuing to make money vs chasing down growth and new sales. With agile you're always focused on short term. The next few sprints.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I still find that these are not easy concepts to explain to people outside of software development. Yes, they start to get it after 1 or 2 projects, but I can't help but wonder that there is something more fundamental here.

Something along the lines of, "I know what the finished product is supposed to be, why does it have to be broken down into incremental deliveries?" I think that non-tech people often see it as a kind of watering down of their vision.

</comment><comment><USER18> My experience with waterfall vs agile discipline is all about planning and budgeting. Companies that rely on formal project estimations tend to be extremely rigid thinkers while companies that have learned to "trust" their people (and agile) tend to understand the fluid nature of iterative software development.

Getting the budgeting into the hands of the fluid planners (product owners) is critical to successful iterative outcomes.

</comment><comment><USER19> When I was in college in the 90s, they actually taught waterfall as a baseline to compare other methodologies. Agile hadn't appeared yet, but it was obvious then that waterfall's main issue was the inability to change and adapt to a changing business climate. In other words, once you worked out a 3 year dev plan, it was set in stone, even if the business or industry had changed (and needed the software to change).

The alternative was to make shorter iterations. Our professor called this "Cinnamon Bun". Instead of one big waterfall, covering the entire project, you'd break the project up into chunks, but apply the waterfall steps to each chunk. Planning, Analysis, Design, Implementation, Maintenance were the steps. Each chunk would vary, but we typically broke it up into month or two chunks. Of course you'd need planning and analysis up front to figure out the best way to divide the chunks.

When Agile/Scrum came out, its proponents compared it to the shortcomings of Waterfall, which was disingenuous because pure waterfall had been largely abandoned by at least the mid 90s, and probably sooner.

As an aside, One important step in waterfall was Maintenance. This seems missing in current methodologies as a formal step. If you write successful software, the maintenance phase is 80-90% of the softwares lifecycle. Understanding this equates to the understanding that writing maintainable code is one of the most important things a development team can do.

<comment><USER20> When I hear an agile practitioner banging on about waterfall, it's a big fat red flag to me.

I believe Conway had it right, back in about oh, '67?

"organizations which design systems ... are constrained to produce designs which are copies of the communication structures of these organizations."

— M. Conway

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_law)

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> It's a constant pain of mine to chat with friends that work in Enterprise that deny the possibility that ci/cd & agile mindset could work for them. Usually this is justified by the idea that their org is immutable and therefore everything has to be planned way in advance and in every possible detail. With that mindset Agile can't actually work, as it requires reflection in the org structure and decision making process.

</comment><comment><USER22> I like how the original paper discusses iterating steps as loops between preceding and succeeding steps.

</comment><comment><USER23> The problem of this model arises already in the first step. "System requirements" cannot be measured exactly at the beginning of a project.

</comment><comment><USER24> I first read the title as Waterfail Process. I need new glasses and less confirmation bias.

<comment><USER14> i'm stealing that</comment></comment>