Au Revoir, Entrepreneurs - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/23/business/international/some-french-entrepreneurs-say-au-revoir.html?hp <comment><USER2> This is pretty clearly a knee jerk reaction by the New York Times to Hollande's wealth tax:

>He had taken that job after his attempt to start a business in Marseille foundered under a pile of government regulations and a seemingly endless parade of taxes. The episode left him wary of starting any new projects in France. Yet he still hungered to be his own boss. > >"A lot of people are like, 'Why would you ever leave France?' " Mr. Santacruz said. "I'll tell you. France has a lot of problems. There's a feeling of gloom that seems to be growing deeper. The economy is not going well, and if you want to get ahead or run your own business, the environment is not good."

A _feeling_ that something just isn't quite right about the place, and it's better in London? Gee I wonder if they mean this:

[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2161151/With- Holland...](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2161151/With-Hollande-set- tax-spend-Cameron-invites-wealthy-French-settle-London.html)

>Some wealthy businesspeople have also been packing their bags. While entrepreneurs fret about the difficulties of getting a business off the ground, those who have succeeded in doing so say that society stigmatizes financial success.

Yep. This article isn't about poor, plucky upstart rags-to-riches entrepreneurs at all. It's about manufacturing consent for slashing taxes on the ultrawealthy. The rich are pissed about Hollande's 75% tax and they want you to do something about it for them.

<comment><USER3> The 75% wealth tax point was only a minor point in an article that expressed many many other points and anecdotes, and whose greater argument was that the entrepreneurial climate in France was poor. The fact that your argument focuses on this minor point in order to dismiss the whole point is rather telling about what consent is being manufactured here...

<comment><USER4> There is quite some bullshit in this article, because the current government has not changed _any_ law about creating a company (so we are exactly in the same state as before). Moreover it's merrily intermixing entrepreneurs problems with banking problems. And there is a little detail here: banking salaries are higher in London than in Paris and bankers are driven by money, so they emigrate massively in the pursuit of money. This has strictly no link to entrepreneurship, starting companies, or creating value from nothing, but hey, there is a complaint train, let's take it.

And you can see the intermix quite a few times (got his wealth in finance, he worked in finance, the google references), Place de la Madeleine, is exactly who Fleur Pellerin is not trying to help, this are different people doing different things. And if for anything, bankers are part of the problems entrepreneurs have.

So here is a nice little piece of context that was not in the article: here in France it's an election day today, and yesterday and today, political propaganda are forbidden in the country. The journalist is based in Paris, and has been for years, so she probably knew that nobody could answer to the article.

<comment><USER5> _Moreover it 's merrily intermixing entrepreneurs problems with banking problems._

This is a big problem with current envy-driven politics surrounding wealth.

A lot of people don't like seeing bankers with big bonuses after they trashed the economy for everyone else. They're suspicious of old money children who have inherited a fortune but seem to have contributed little of value themselves. They're envious of highly paid sporting or artistic celebrities who get more salary in a week than most of us make in a year.

And so they support punitive rates of tax for those who earn noticeably more than they do, not necessarily based on any rational economic argument, but more because they feel it's "fair" for the "rich to contribute more" or some such argument.

Unfortunately, what that usually does in practice is hit highly qualified professionals or modestly successful entrepreneurs. It hits the doctors who spent years training, then more years working long hours for little money as juniors, and who finally made it to more senior positions where they are literally in a position to save lives with their greater experience but earn a fair bit of money. It hits the top public servants: the veteran judges, the experienced military commanders, the senior civil servants, basically the kind of people who keep government actually working despite the whims of successive political administrations. It hits the lucky entrepreneurs, the ones who made it after maybe putting their lives on hold for years and investing their savings to build a real business that creates value and maybe jobs for other people. All of these people are the kind of people we really need in society to keep everything working, and usually they are people who have reached those positions not through good fortune or family connections but through a lot of hard work over a long period of time.

However, the people these punitive taxes _don 't_ hit are the ones that the popular moneylust craves, because the super-rich are the people who have the flexibility to move their assets and/or themselves around to avoid high-tax environments. Absent serious international co-operation to overcome the naturally competitive tax environment that today's globalised society creates, these people will continue to be super-rich no matter what.

I like to think that if the people supporting these high rates of tax for those with some above average level of wealth realised who they were really targeting, we'd have a different attitude to taxation today. As it is, I fear the politics of envy will continue to trump rational economic policy for the foreseeable future, and unfortunately the people who actually did _earn_ their wealth will be the ones who suffer most for it.

<comment><USER6> > This is a big problem with current envy-driven politics surrounding wealth.

It seems like most of the envy is more perceived by the ultra-rich (or wannabes) than actually exists...

> I like to think that if the people supporting these high rates of tax for > those with some above average level of wealth realised who they were really > targeting, we'd have a different attitude to taxation today.

You realize the 75% tax rate is on year income exceeding one million euro, right? One million euro is 34x the average salary in France, which means that anybody hit by that tax makes more money in less than two years than the majority of their countrymen will earn _in their entire lives_.

I make way more than an average salary where I live and I don't really have any problem paying higher tax rates. Sure, I work harder than lots of people who work 9-5 jobs, but I don't work any harder than friends I have who work two jobs. There is no question, in my mind, that people who work harder and take risks should reap greater potential rewards... the real question we need to answer is how much higher those rewards should be.

It's time to stop pretending that the doctor who spent years training, working as an intern, etc did it in a vacuum. It was tax francs that built the hospitals, that created the institutions that taught them and made them the best of the best. The entrepreneur sells a product shipped on roads built with taxes, over an electric grid built with taxes and might very well bill people using letters sent by mail... well, you get the idea. Not to mention the employees they hire, who were educated with what? Was it taxes? You betcha.

Besides with progressive taxes, that doctor will always make more, because progressive taxes do not penalize you for earning more. If you're making 100,000€, your after-tax income is ~62,500; if you're making 200,000€, it's ~133,000€.

> usually they are people who have reached those positions not through good > fortune or family connections but through a lot of hard work over a long > period of time.

You're a little delusional. France has a pretty high level of social mobility because of it's high taxes, not in spite of them. Having access to free higher education is a massive boon to lifting people out of poverty. France has the second highest birth rate in the EU due do a generous social safety net. These things cost money, but they're excellent long-term investments.

People don't exist in a vacuum, economies are wonderfully interconnected things and acting like the people who take risks and succeed are some kind of superheroes who shouldn't give back because of some deranged notion that they "did it themselves" is myopic, dishonest and, to be frank, total bullshit.

<comment><USER5> _You realize the 75% tax rate is on year income exceeding one million euro, right?_

Yes, though please note that I was commenting on a general trend of confusing going after bankers with actually catching entrepreneurs, not on the French situation specifically.

 _One million euro is 34x the average salary in France, which means that anybody hit by that tax makes more money in less than two years than the majority of their countrymen will earn in their entire lives._

By the time you allow for progressive taxation at lower levels, and for the other taxes in the French system, the multiplier for how much money those people are actually keeping is smaller than that. Of course it's still a wide gap, but let's not pretend these people are rich enough to retire after two years on that salary.

 _People don 't exist in a vacuum, economies are wonderfully interconnected things and acting like the people who take risks and succeed are some kind of superheroes who shouldn't give back because of some deranged notion that they "did it themselves" is myopic, dishonest and, to be frank, total bullshit._

I have little interest in debating in detail with someone whose argument boils down to swearing at me and calling me delusional, but please consider this: taking the argument you seem to be making to its logical conclusion, why shouldn't everyone pay 100% taxes and have the state pay for everything, because we're all part of the same system?

<comment><USER6> Of course it's still a wide gap, but let's not pretend these people are rich enough to retire after two years on that salary.

Of course they're not retiring - someone earning enough to hit that 75% tax rate isn't living like your average mope. Give them five years, though, and they could easily put that money into blue chips, bonds and other low risk investments and support a middle class family with interest.

And while I do see the difference between entrepreneurs and those who live off the margins of financial transactions, I'm not really sure why they should be treated all that differently as far as tax law goes. Kids grow up wanting to be royalty, by college the fantasy is still there, now they're just Business Superheroes, because that's how we treat the rich.

Entrepreneurs aren't magic. We're people who've decided that we either don't like working for a boss or who've looked at the numbers and said, "hey, I think I can make more working on my own than for someone." Should we be in awe of someone who "worked hard" for a few years to get paid a couple million dollars to have a competitor shut their product down? Or amazed by a company who has managed to sell their stockholders on the idea that it doesn't need to be profitable, allowing them to destroy (or disrupt, in SV terms) traditional markets, where others can't compete, because their shareholders actually demand they turn a profit.

Now, are you telling me these Superheroes of Business will look at a progressive tax rate and say, "you know what, if I thought I could make $3 million after 3 years of hard work, I would do it... but since it'll only be $2.7, I guess I'm gonna stick to my day job where I make $150k/year." Because that's the logical conclusion of what you're saying.

why shouldn't everyone pay 100% taxes and have the state pay for everything

Probably because that's not the logical conclusion of the reality I've described, although a lot of American businessmen do think the opposite should be true: all services should be privatized, yada, yada. That's crap, there tons of services that require long term, massive investments that will get shitty ROIs but benefit society and the economy as a whole.

We all know that, we all think people should be rich, I just don't think that income tax has the kind of dampening effect on entrepreneurship people claim it does. I for one would rather pay 50% on my 1.5mil than 25% on 150k, should it come to that.

<comment><USER5> _Now, are you telling me these Superheroes of Business will look at a progressive tax rate and say, "you know what, if I thought I could make $3 million after 3 years of hard work, I would do it... but since it'll only be $2.7, I guess I'm gonna stick to my day job where I make $150k/year." Because that's the logical conclusion of what you're saying._

No, I'm telling you that people who are capable of and considering starting a business, several years earlier in their career than the kind of relatively uncommon success story you're talking about where millions of dollars are flying around, are going to look at a progressive tax rate where a high proportion of their earnings if they are really successful are going to get stolen away by the state in taxes and they're going to think twice. Some of them are then going to decide it's not worth it and just stick with being someone's probably relatively well-compensated employee, which is bad for their national economy because usually small businesses drive a substantial proportion of growth. Others are going to move to a more supportive environment and start their business there instead, which is bad for the original economy, though good for the new one.

You're selling lottery tickets where there is no jackpot, and people who understand maths aren't going to play that game. Most people who are capable of starting a successful business (and anyone who professionally invests in young businesses) understand maths.

 _I for one would rather pay 50% on my 1.5mil than 25% on 150k, should it come to that._

OK, but what about 75% of your 1.5mil? What about 90%, a rate we actually had in the UK for much of the 1950s and 1960s? Or how about 98% on your investment income, again a rate we really had for a while? Still want to invest in a 20% share of a new business that might make a few million in this country, or would you rather invest in a SV start-up, or in energy and natural resource production in a developing economy, or any of the other vastly more profitable opportunities that would then be available to you?

At some point, the numbers become prohibitive. The interesting question is when that happens, not whether it does.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> > Taxes, Frustration, More Taxes

Uh, that's how I could describe my current situation in Germany. We were a little too successful last year and now the tax advance payments are endangering our liquidity.

It feels as if this year I had spent more time reading about taxes and regulations than working on the business.

Something is wrong when taxes become such a prominent part of your daily business life ...

<comment><USER8> In Norway, you have to pay net worth tax of 1% of your assets in excess of ~$200,000. So if you own 2 million of stock in an unlisted company, you are on the hook for $20,000 in additional taxes every year. Most successful entrepeneurs here have to sell stock every year just to pay their tax bill.

Company profits tax of 27%, capital gains tax of 28% and personal income tax of ~35% ensures that you even in the best case get to keep <50% of the profits your company makes, even before the annual net worth tax comes into play. Some successful businessmen in cyclic businesses here have emigrated purely because paying the full tax every year would deplete their companies' rainy day buffers.

(We also have a 25% VAT on all consumer purchases, including "compulsory" products purchased from the state such as the national broadcasting license or local government residential parking permits).

And still you read in the newspaper every other week of someone wanting to create the "new Silicon Valley" in some Norwegian city. It's delusional; the incentives are completely wrong.

</comment></comment><comment> pi-err I just left London for Paris based on:

\- cost/quality of life favorable to Paris by a large margin

\- France is 2nd biggest consumer market in Europe, giant opportunities still open there (like Germany)

\- a gifted talent scene, among which many are short on capital/language to work elsewhere in Europe

\- google campus is 2.5h away door to door

\- buzzing US community here

\- world hub for fashion and 3d

Yes, there are more of this in London: \- capital (London is a fiscal paradise)

\- big startups

\- middlemen (all things admin to outsource)

\- flexible offices (this is changing fast though)

\- English speakers

This article (and main character) feels like a giant whine/rant.

If you want a quick buck, London's great- though expect everyone to be working on a booking.com-like something or "Airbnb for x".

As for the next 2 decades, I bet that Paris and Berlin will take off just as smoothly.

<comment><USER4> Here is my advice: go somewhere else than Paris, one of the 15 biggest cities in France (look at the TGV, and tram, bike life, weather). Your quality of life will just skyrocket.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I don't see any actual evidence cited that entrepreneurs or "creatives" in particular are fleeing France. They might make up a larger percentage of the diaspora, but that's generally true of expatriates from any country.

France has about the same percentage of citizens living abroad as the US, and about a quarter as many as the UK:

France: total population ~63m, living abroad ~2m, about 2.5% US: total population ~317m, living abroad ~6m, about 1.9% UK: total population ~63m, living abroad ~6-12m, about 9.5% or more

</comment><comment><USER10> > "Generally, if you are self-made man and earn money, you are looked at with > suspicion,"

> there's a deep-rooted feeling that you don't show that you make money

> It's more like, if someone has something I can't have, I'd rather deprive > this person from having it than trying to work hard to get it myself

This. A lot of people still don't understand money can me _made_. They see succesfull men and woman and assume the money must have been _stolen_ instead of made.

<comment><USER11> I don't mean to play devils advocate here, but let me apply two other possible interpretations: My statistical prior that someone with money did questionable things to obtain it has only been rising with time as I see increasing evidence of illicit business practices among the highest earners. (everything from insider trading to the more recent wage fixing).

Secondly, is it reasonable to assume that one might find distaste for people with money who flaunt it? And that this might cause one to share that distaste for others with money, even if they don't flaunt to such a degree? I realize the latter half is a generalization that can cause problems, I'm just trying to state a rather "human" response. If it is constantly shoved in your face that certain people drive cars worth enough that it could bring your family out of debt for life, you may grow bitter at this.

I believe money can be made, I just also believe there are a lot of "bad actors" in the system, for whom it is "stolen" to some degree, and it only seems to be becoming more common.

<comment><USER12> _increasing evidence of illicit business practices among the highest earners_

Corruption is the core problem. I think that worry about corrupt businesses is misplaced when a corrupt government is 10x worse.

 _everything from insider trading_

There's a good example right there. Congress can inside trade. It's absolutely extraordinarily corrupt. They wrote a law a while back to prevent it when there was some press on it, but then quietly scaled back the restriction.

Consider this: Political office holders can lie to us outrageously and never face repercussions besides (perhaps) not being re-elected in a future cycle. You could list case after case of politicians who knowingly made definitive, verifiably false claims that have caused real damages to people. If they were officers of a public company, they would be sued into oblivion. They would be hounded by the Justice Department. But since they're in the political club, they've written the rules so that they can't be held accountable.

<comment><USER13> <quote>I think that worry about corrupt businesses is misplaced when a corrupt government is 10x worse.</quote>

Worrying about private sector corruption misplaced? One shouldn't have to tolerate _any_ kind of corruption.

<comment><USER12> Don't disagree, but in terms of priority on how we're going to fix the world...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> > "Sometimes I do ask myself if I'm making the right choice," he acknowledged. > "But if you don't take risks, there will be no reward."

This is true, but one of the most important things I learned in my 20s was knowing _when_ to take risks. It takes money to make money, and if you're a starving founder waiting for an investor to cut you a check or trying to bootstrap your business with insufficient savings, you increase your risk of failure substantially.

Patience is a virtue, as is focused and consistent saving, but in a lot of professions, like finance and technology, you won't have to work until you're 60 to build up meaningful savings that you can invest in yourself. If you've trapped yourself in the startup bubble, it's easy to convince yourself that your best opportunities are behind you by the time you hit 30, but the reality is that most businesses are not founded by 20-somethings. The Kauffman Foundation did a study called The Anatomy of an Entrepreneur a few years back and found the average entrepreneur was about 40 years old when he started his first company.

Beyond being in a position to capitalize your own venture, one of the great advantages of starting a business in your 30s, 40s or later is that you're far more likely to have the domain expertise so many young founders lack. There are literally countless untapped, unsexy million-dollar opportunities that 20-somethings running around Silicon Valley will never pursue because they don't even know that certain industries and problems exist.

</comment><comment><USER15> I found this article interesting. Being french and living in London, I certainly witnessed the influx of french immigrants.

</comment><comment><USER16> Being from the France tech scene and now living in SF ther are several things we should not forget.

CONS

\- Yes you get big taxes, and setting up a company is a pain (RSI/URSSAF), administration is slow and inefficient.

Finding fundings can be hard and investements are generaly smaller than in the US.

French market is smal unless your target is international from day 1.

But,

PROS

\- You have a pool of not so pricy talented workers (Well supposing you benefit from "Credit impot recherche" otherwise the total cost of an employee is x2 his salary).

\- Fight for some government subsidies (time consuming).

\- Leverage the government to pay your salary while bootstrapping. For startupers with previous work experience, you can quit your company in good terms and receive unemployement paychecks for a year or so.

</comment><comment><USER17> Heh, you know how developing countries "solve" the bureaucracy problem? Through corruption! A few hundred [local_currency] here and there and you've got your business started in no time.

If things don't improve soon, France (and other countries) will have to resort to the same thing - and it's a bad thing since it's hard to come back from that, when everyone gets their share independently and no one follows the rules anymore.

<comment><USER18> > Heh, you know how developing countries "solve" the bureaucracy problem? > Through corruption!

True and this "grease lubricating the economic engine" does "work" on a small scale. Problem in an environment where pervasive corruption trumps over "rule of law" for the small honest budding startup up-start -- there's always be someone bigger with better connections and deeper pockets willing to outbid you when it comes to securing local market dominance which will more than pay off their elbowing-you-out ;)

Still, you have a point. A western-style rule-of-law environment is generally better for business and worth paying some amount of taxes -- within reason. But there comes a point where the tax and regulation codes do overwhelm small agile but resource-limited up-starts. (Of course there's still many success stories, but they have perhaps much to do with pressing forward relentlessly at the slight risk of perhaps missing one minor regulation or other tax facet and simply inadvertently gambling on the very tiny off-chance of doing so actually blowing them up.)

Then if you do decide "taxes and regulations are really kind of too expensive but still just-about worth it for _just and fair_ legal protection", you'll be well advised to keep telling yourself that fairytale where your taxes are directly funding a functioning well-balanced governance system, rather than being simply a metric used _NOT_ even to pay interest on the governments past and present outsized debt excesses --which would be crazy enough, but nowadays your average western "non-corrupt" government will borrow even for interest payments-- _BUT_ simply for said government to reach some kind of good agency rating as a "quality" borrower.

<comment><USER19> Yeah I don't think its taxes that suppress corruption in America. Its the tendency of ordinary people to blow the whistle on bribe-seekers. As such, its cultural, and making laws won't change that quickly.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> > French entrepreneurs have been fleeing to other countries, especially > England, which some 350,000 now call home.

It's been estimated that between 70 000 and 300 000 French live in the U.K so I really doubt that 350 000 entrepreneurs live in England (granted the article also use the more wide "French nationals", but still).

</comment><comment><USER21> Ahh European entrepreneurship.

The US has it's issues, but Europe is simply decades behind.

The irony of all this is that the EU has very successfully created an internal market allowing for easier trade between countries in the EU, but it's ability to foster new comanies is still hindered by it's old industry understanding of a new industry.

 _" Les misérables

Europe not only has a euro crisis, it also has a growth crisis. That is because of its chronic failure to encourage ambitious entrepreneurs..."_

[http://www.economist.com/node/21559618](http://www.economist.com/node/21559618)

</comment><comment><USER22> It would be interesting to know how _personal_ taxes work in European countries. I remember conversing with somebody, maybe from England, who told me that the typical worker doesn't file any paperwork for their annual taxes, unless they're doing something unusual. If that's the case, then filing business taxes for the first time would come as somewhat of a shock. In contrast, my personal tax return here in the US is about 10x more complex than my business tax paperwork (Schedule C plus a state sales tax return).

</comment><comment><USER23> Classic NYT with a stereotypical and ideological article.

Concerning expatriation, I think many people want to live abroad just to experience a different lifestyle. It's not always about taxes.

<comment><USER24> That's it. That is way cooler for a French to go in London than Paris. Especially, if it does not work out for him he will just come back with a solid resume that will get him a comfortable position easily.

Like he decided to live in Kengsinton. Sure he share, like most singles in London, but he tries to live the life and was not too successful (yet, hopefully for him).

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Paywall.

<comment><USER26> Incognito.

<comment><USER25> Thanks :)</comment></comment></comment>


Mutation Testing - <AUTHOR> http://engineering.imvu.com/2015/02/22/mutation-testing

<comment><USER2> When I learned of it, I always thought of mutation testing as a great way to test your test suite. Simply stated, if you introduce a common bug into the code, do the tests find it?

The time to run mutation tests is rather large, though. Almost prohibitively so for many shops, I would think.

I'm interested if anyone has run studies of codebases that employ this technique at large.

</comment><comment><USER3> For Java there is Pitest: [http://pitest.org/](http://pitest.org/)

</comment><comment><USER4> I was first introduced to this idea in around 1977, and it wasn't a new idea even then. It went by the cute name _bebugging_ [1].

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

</comment><comment><USER5> Hi,

Here at IMVU we found some ways of how to improve the Mutation Testing speed, but I agree that you need some degree of parallelization to achieve its purpose. Anyway, I found Mutation Testing very helpful while creating robust code :)

Llorens</comment>


Pipewire – Linux media server that replaces Pulseaudio and Jack - <AUTHOR> http://pipewire.org <comment><USER2> My first concern is whether Pipewire plays nicely with PulseAudio and Jack? If I install Pipewire will it break applications that expect to work with PulseAudio and/or Jack?

<comment><USER3> It seems that Jack clients will be able to connect to Pipewire: [https://github.com/PipeWire/pipewire/wiki/JACK](https://github.com/PipeWire/pipewire/wiki/JACK)

They don't seem to know yet whether the same should be possible for PulseAudio: [https://github.com/PipeWire/pipewire/wiki/PulseAudio](https://github.com/PipeWire/pipewire/wiki/PulseAudio)</comment></comment>


A program that is able to disable network connections for a designated amount of time - <AUTHOR>

"As I write this article, I'm using a program that disables my network connections for a selected amount of time and does not allow me to switch them back on, thereby forcing me to actually write instead of checking my e-mail or reading blogs."
That's from a pretty interesting article in The Atlantic( http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200811/multiple-personalities ). Anyone know which programs are able to do that, I guess for all three major OS(Mac, Windows, Linux)?
Thanks <comment><USER2> I use a program called "Freedom" for Mac. It is very simplistic and it works exactly as described in the article. It has bugs though, if you type your root password incorrect the first time, it fails, you need to restart your laptop. Anyways, I can't complain it is free.

<comment><AUTHOR> Perfect. Thank you.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> For Linux, and probably a mac you can do such a thing with a small shell script, possibly even running it from cron if you so desire. Just issue an ifconfig down for the appropriate interface, and possibly swap the sudoers file if you're really weak.

<comment><AUTHOR> I suppose the article's author might have done something along those lines, but it's beyond what I know. You don't recognize any finished products that are intended to do just this?</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Great Books/Articles about Leadership - <AUTHOR>

German, 22 years old, ComputerScience Student looking for Advices/Books/Articles about Leadership <comment><USER2> Ayn Rand, in her article "Anatomy of Compromise" in her book "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal", identifies three important principles regarding the operation of principles;

"1\. In any _conflict_ between two men (or two groups) who hold the _same_ basic principles, it is the more consistent one who wins.

"2\. In any _collaboration_ between two men (or two groups) who hold _different_ basic principles, it is the more evil or irrational one who wins.

"3\. When opposite basic principles are clearly and openly defined, it works to the advantage of the rational side, when they are _not_ clearly identified, but are hidden and evaded, it works to the advantage of the irrational side."

She goes on to explain and give examples of these three cases. She did not name these cases but I did. #1 The Leadership Principle, #2 The Sanction Principle and #3 I call The Sunshine Principle. Most people are vague and unclear on what exactly they mean by leadership but this one article is worthy of deep study to get clear in your mind what leadership is and what it means to be a leader.

On a related note, you need to be clear in your mind what do you stand for, what are your goals and values and if are they compatible with the people you work with, etc. This is why thinking for yourself and clearly defining your own values is so important. That task cannot be done with others, it is strictly a selfish task to be done in solitude and failure to define who you are first will lead you to failure and unhappiness. Here is an article on that aspect of leadership.

[https://theamericanscholar.org/solitude-and- leadership/#.VUc...](https://theamericanscholar.org/solitude-and- leadership/#.VUcLKpNfalf)</comment>


Reconciling Faith and Science - <AUTHOR> http://eamann.com/faith/reconciling-faith-science/

<comment><USER2> From the article someone from bible studies said:

 _It's amazing how water works. Ice freezes, then floats on water. It's the only reason life works on earth and it's a miracle! I can't believe how cool it is, and the fact that modern science still can't explain why ice floats is further proof of God and his miracles._

It's quite amazing that someone thinks _modern science_ does not have an answer for this.

I would have thought _basic high school science_ has an answer for this.

From my high school days some 35 years ago, I remember being told this and if I remember correctly those same polar characteristics also help to explain why water has surface tension and why you can bend a stream of water using a charge stick.

I'm glad you put him right on that one.</comment>


Show HN: ZmURL – Eventbrite for Zoom - <AUTHOR> https://zmurl.com <comment><AUTHOR> Hi HN! I started working on ZmURL during quarantine since I was tired of sending around ugly Zoom links that don't provide any context.

Curious to hear what you think :)

\---

Funny story: my co-founder Dan and I actually met on Zoom a year ago and we've only met in person once.

A year ago, I was raising money. I met with an investor who liked me but didn't like my startup... He said I should chat with Dan and work with him.

Dan was living in Beijing so we set up a Zoom call and hung out for an hour. I liked him but we decided not to work together.

We stayed in touch and COVID derailed our other plans. So we started ZmURL.</comment>


Why do web services (e.g., for advertising) exceed your specified budget slightly?  Is that ethical? - <AUTHOR>

Why does this happen?  To encourage you to pay more (by making you feel guilty about having a small unpaid amount)?  And while you are at it, you might as well put in a lot of money rather than only the small unpaid amount! <comment><USER2> It's more technical than unethical. You can't expect thousands of servers to all stop serving your ads the microsecond your balance runs out. Nor is it reasonable to expect the costs of the ad impressions to be an _exact_ multiple of your budget.

You may wish that Google would eat the cost, or average things out, or whatever. They have decided not to, just as your phone company decides to round up your minutes. Nothing to get too irked about.</comment>


Cryptic Ruby Global Variables and Their Meanings - <AUTHOR> http://jimneath.org/2010/01/04/cryptic-ruby-global-variables-and-their-meanings.html

<comment><USER2> For a longer list (though the explanations are briefer), see Zenspider's Ruby QuickRef[1]. It also includes a handy listing of predefined global constants[2] (and a lot more).[3]

[1]: [http://zenspider.com/Languages/Ruby/QuickRef.html#pre- define...](http://zenspider.com/Languages/Ruby/QuickRef.html#pre-defined- variables)

[2]: [http://zenspider.com/Languages/Ruby/QuickRef.html#pre- define...](http://zenspider.com/Languages/Ruby/QuickRef.html#pre-defined- global-constants)

[3]: <http://zenspider.com/Languages/Ruby/QuickRef.html>

<comment><USER3> $YOUR_RUBY_PATH/lib/ruby/1.9.1/English.rb has the full list, with pretty decent explanation.

<comment><USER4> also here [http://stdlib.rubyonrails.org/libdoc/English/rdoc/files/Engl...](http://stdlib.rubyonrails.org/libdoc/English/rdoc/files/English_rb.html)

<comment><USER5> Yep, if you must use the variables, much much better to use "require 'english'" and these more meaningful names than the cryptic originals.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This is one area where Matz kept too much of Perl. Thankfully, it's rare to see Ruby programmers making heavy use of these.

<comment><AUTHOR> True, but I have seen -- $:.unshift File.dirname(__FILE__) -- used quite a bit in the wild, especially in MacRuby projects.

<comment><USER7> $: and $1 .. $9 are relatively frequently used. Most of the other ones are rare - several of them I've never seen used at all.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> When using the debugger you can sometimes end up in an exception handler that doesn't provide a way to get access to said exception. $! can be a life-saver to help figure out what's going on, eg.

      (rdb:1) list
         11    do_something_stupid
         12  rescue
      => 13    log("Something went wrong")
         14  end

      (rdb:2) e $!
      #<Errno::ENOENT: No such file or directory - /tmp/durr>

</comment><comment><USER9> I rarely see those used except when you look at codegolf contests. There you can find all of those variables put to good and creative use :)</comment>


How to make Rest API using Django rest framework - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@ayushgemini/how-to-create-rest-api-using-django-rest-framework-a-blog-app-15a175884979 <comment><AUTHOR> Hey,

I think you should check this out you may be interested in this. if you like this then please like and follow me for further updates.

[https://medium.com/@ayushgemini/how-to-create-rest-api- using...](https://medium.com/@ayushgemini/how-to-create-rest-api-using-django- rest-framework-a-blog-app-15a175884979)</comment>


Solving the IT Turnover Crisis: Employment 2.0 - <AUTHOR> http://thedailywtf.com/Articles/Up-or-Out-Solving-the-IT-Turnover-Crisis.aspx

<comment><USER2> he failed to mention, that unfortunately, in our profession you have to quit and get another job in order to get a good pay raise.

A lot of employers, once they hire somobedy, raise the salaries just enough, and a bit, but they fail to recognize that the employee is much better developer and valuable than he was a couple of years ago. This is especially true to people in their 20s.

One way to retain employees: Give them really good raises and money to stay. Let them switch projects, or groups, when they are bored with what they are doing.

<comment><USER3> I'd interpret this differently: The fact that the industry has converged on the "don't give significant raises unless you change jobs or job titles" model is a subtle attempt -- perhaps even an unconscious attempt -- to implement the "up-or-out" model that the original submission recommends.

By not giving substantial raises, you're encouraging the best people to work at your company for a while and then quit. You're even giving them a good face-saving excuse to quit. It's far more amicable for an employee to say "I'm leaving because I can get another $25 an hour across the street" than "I'm leaving because I've been here for three years, I've done all I can for you, and now our relationship has become dysfunctional, and you never listen to me, and I'm bored to death". Similarly, it's easier to tell an employee "I'm afraid we have no budget for a big raise this year -- curse our penny-pinching accountants!" than "You've been around for four years, your value to the company is static or declining, and we all just kind of wish you would leave".

Which of these scenarios is more likely to produce happy "alumni" -- former employees who might be willing to network with you, refer other talented people to you, or even come back and work for your company again (presumably at a somewhat higher rate)?

If you _expect_ your best employees to either move up or move out, pay raises are irrational. If you offer large raises to everyone that stays in the same position for five years, you're basically pouring more money into the metaphorical "dead sea". (This assumes, of course, that the "dead sea" model actually applies to your company and your industry. The model should be taken with a grain of salt...)

<comment><USER4> This is a really interesting take on the article, but not one that I can agree with.

It could just be the culture at the company that I work for, but when my manager tells me that I'm doing great work, I'm a top contributer, etc. but that the penny-pinching accountants won't let me have a raise then I do take that personally. I'm trying to move up but the company doesn't seem to want to let me. This isn't the way to turn me into an "alumni". Instead I'm going to be bitter at the company that gives lip service to career growth but isn't willing to put its money where its mouth is.

If a company wants employees to say for ten or more years, like they claim, then they need to be willing to pay up. Otherwise I would prefer the "you will be here for three years, then move on" talk on my starting day.

<comment><USER3> Mind you, I'm not saying that this half-assed, semi-conscious method of "up- or-out" is actually any good. At least half of the advantage of such a policy comes from _admitting it up front_ , so that your employees can adjust their working styles, their culture, and their attitude. When a company's _words_ are all about retention but its _actions_ are all about up-or-out, it's more than a little insane. But that's corporate culture for you.

 _I'm trying to move up but the company doesn't seem to want to let me._

Well, here we have a situation that doesn't fit the up-or-out model perfectly: Companies where, for a certain class of top performers, there is no "up", only "out". These companies are not interested in grooming their IT staff for management, or bigger roles, or anything else. Their behavior suggests that they're really just hiring a stream of IT consultants on two-to-three-year terms... but they use full-time employees instead, possibly because they're cheaper, possibly because of employment law, and possibly because there are limits to how much power you can exert over a consultant.

It sounds like you might need to listen to your company's actions, rather than just their words. Words are _very_ inexpensive. :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> My understanding is that McKinsey & Co. operate on this model and Google (among others) hire like mad from among the ranks of McKinsey almuni. Interestingly Google seems to be leaning towards the "up or out" model, as well, among their business folks (but are the opposite with their engineers, and do everything they can to retain people).

I'd be curious to know about any development shops that go this route. It makes sense to me, but I'm an outlier (I've never held a full-time job--I worked part-time while I was in college, then started my own business, and did some long-term contract work, now I'm on to another business). I don't see much sense in working on the same project for life. Then again, I've been involved in Webmin for 8 years, and there are plenty of areas I still find interesting...so maybe it's just the ability to flit around between various areas of the project that matters to staying "self actuating" as the article puts it.

<comment><USER6> what does google hire McKinsey consultants to do? I only know two people who worked at McKinsey, and they were kind of like Ivy-League advanced versions of the "two Bobs" from Office Space. I.e. their jobs were mainly to help justify corporate restructuring (firing vast swaths of people.)

<comment><USER5> "what does google hire McKinsey consultants to do?"

I meant they hire them as they're on their way "out" of McKinsey. And they hire them as managers.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> > most talented software developers tend to not stick around at one place for > too long

If this is true then it's a recent development caused by changes in companies behaviour rather than anything intrinsic to engineers.

If you look at Bell Labs, HP, even Microsoft back in the day, engineers stayed there forever. The perennial example would be Steve Wozniak not wanting to leave HP.

What has changed since then is perhaps that companies now only do one thing and then specialize their people even beyond that. You need to allow some variation in work or anyone would get tired of it and leave. Even Google falls foul of this, you can change and work on any project as long as it uses the same infrastructure and is a web application, this doesn't compare well to Bell labs.

Most programmers are not ambitious by normal standards and tend to be risk adverse. As long as you don't make their job deeply boring or annoying they will literally never leave.

<comment><USER8> What has changed? In Woz's day, there were very few great programming jobs. HP & Bell Labs were two well known companies that had them. Giving one up was a big risk, if you loved programming. Today there are thousands of companies to chose from or you can easily roll your own.

Most programmers who are not ambitious tend to become dead wood soon enough. I've known lots of them. Top programmers, who still enjoy programming have a tendency to move on. At least that has been my personal observation.

There are always exceptions to the rule, we are talking in huge sweeping generalities here. YMMV.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I disagree with his graphs. His premise seems to be that experience is the most valuable contribution you can make to a team. I don't see that as sustainable, though... I think the most valuable contribution is intuition. If you want to be a programmer, you need to know more than "given problem a, here's how i've solved it in the past". You need to come up with new and better ways of doing things. You need to do research and learn by thinking (mixed in with a bit of learning by doing, of course).

JMHO. But I mostly see work as a way to get money for ideas, not experience.

</comment><comment><USER10> Excellent article! I worked in a large consulting company for some time, and the up-or-out model was the norm there. And, you know what, the consulting arm definitely had a very good percentage of very good people!

Daniel

<comment><USER2> I have heard the opposite. In large companies, the chaff is sent to do "consulting". Better breaking somebody's else systems than yours. So I guess the top of the chaff was staying, and the really bottom was eventually let go.

<comment><USER11> I think the difference is, in a company where 'consulting' is the only source of income, you need to be good at whatever it is that you do, or your clients will go elsewhere. For large companies where consulting is a side business, than what you describe is probably the case.

<comment><USER10> Yes, this was a pure consulting company. The chaff actually stayed in-house and built the crappy time-keeping systems we all had to use to report our hours :-)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Very good article. It very clearly put into words (and graphs) the frustrations I've had at previous jobs. I can mentally map that graph to each job I've had with surprising accuracy.

It also occurs to me that beginning to see this pattern in my career, and despairing at being stuck in this cycle forever, was a major factor in deciding to start a start-up. What better way to "stretch the value apex" for myself?</comment>


How are you submitting 1099s to the IRS this year? (Balanced, YC W11) - <AUTHOR> http://blog.balancedpayments.com/1099s/

<comment><USER2> If you make your large payments with a credit card you can both rack up awards and avoid the need to file a 1099-misc.

<comment><USER3> Some vendors only accept check or paypal since they don't have a merchant account to accept credit cards, so this isn't a complete workaround.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Is the marketplace required to issue the 1099-MISC if the threshold for the 1099-K is not met if all payments are done via credit card? I'm guessing the answer is "no" but the blog post isn't quite clear on that.

<comment><AUTHOR> No. Using Balanced, the marketplace isn't responsible for submitting any 1099 forms; Balanced is. So if the merchant hasn't hit the $20K/200 trnxs threshold they simply won't receive a 1099 from either the marketplace or Balanced.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Specifically, I'm curious how online marketplaces like Etsy, Taskrabbit, and Airbnb handle this problem.</comment>


Ask HN: Web API for Payroll Withholdings - <AUTHOR>

I'm working improving the payroll package in my company's not-for-profit accounting software, and I thought it might be nice to add automatic calculation for federal and state withholdings. I figured that someone might have an API available which would return the appropriate tax tables in some sort of generalized fashion, but I've been unable to find the only such service, whether freemium or commercial has been the one at http://www.suburbancomputer.com/tips_state_tax.php which does not appear to offer any sort of API, but simply consolidated and compressed tax tables.<p>Does HN know of any such service? <comment><AUTHOR> Some further searching led to at least one additional result. In addition to Suburban Computer Services (<http://www.suburbancomputer.com/tips_state_tax.php>), there is the Symmetry Tax Engine (<https://www.symmetry.com/pages/ste.php>). It's not a web service, but rather a library that you can integrate into your application. Pricing starts at $17,500 for up to 50,000 W-2s.

<comment><AUTHOR> Caliber Technology (<http://www.taxupdate.com/overview.php>) also appears to offer a similar product for Java/C# platforms.

</comment></comment><comment><USER2> Sounds like a good Gov2.0 open data project.

This may be a good start for someone who finds time to build one =) <http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/n1036.pdf></comment>


Microsoft's Cortana Headed to iPhone and Android Phones - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.wsj.com/personal-technology/2015/05/26/microsofts-cortana-headed-to-iphone-and-android-phones/?mod=WSJ_TechWSJD_NeedToKnow <comment><USER2> One of the biggest advantages of Cortana was its ability to interface with third party application pretty much at launch (something Siri and Google Now still don't do much of). Going cross platform is awesome though I'm not sure if it'll be quite as useful. Realistically Microsoft could strike a deal and make an Android phone use Cortana by default (which might be really good) which would be quite interesting (especially if it could integrate with third party apps on Android, too).

One thing that makes me hesitant when choosing a new app is what platform(s) it's available or will be available on. I bounce between Android and iOS almost once a year; this type of ubiquity Microsoft is pushing makes me use their products more and more because I know they'll be available everywhere I go.

<comment><USER3> >Realistically Microsoft could strike a deal and make an Android phone use Cortana by default

Zero chance for Google doing it but maybe one of manufacturers or Cyanogen?

<comment><USER4> They may convince manifacturers (like Samsung) rather than Google and ship Cortana as part of OEM software.

<comment><USER5> Zero chance for Samsung, the have their own personal assistant since Galaxy S2. (both Apple's Siri and Samsung one are now based on Nuance technology)

<comment><USER6> Zero chance? Yeah... no. Many people would be very surprised how quickly manufacturers start to ditch google once windows10 gets out.

<comment><USER7> The issue in tech has never been who has the best tech wins. Over and over it isn't about technology or better this or that. It is based on mindshare of developers, the market position of the product and public demand for the item.

Window Phones are good tech. The phones are designed very well. The OS is fluid and it does things well. I just can't ever see it breaking into double digits of market share in the next 5 years due to public demand for Windows items and the lack of mind share. Maybe in 5+ years. I think MS has a better chance of just doing a Amazon and fork Android.

<comment><USER6> >It is based on mindshare of developers, the market position of the product and public demand for the item.

No, no, no. This war is won by distribution. Your mom doesn't go to the store to buy an android phone. She goes to buy a phone. Which phone? The one that the friendly employee at the store proposes. Which one is that? The one that the store manager tells the employee to push. Which phone is that? The one that corporate headquarters tells stores to push. Which phone is that? The ones with lucrative kickback schemes. Which phones are that? The ones that manufacturers decide.

Which phones will they decide on? The phones in partnerships with the company that changes their agreements and APIs every quarter? Maybe they will chose the company that they have a very profitable partnership going on for 3 decades. The company that has the power to waive a magic stick and turn them from unprofitable/breakeven to well into the green. Comapnies pay a lot of money to MSFT every year on patents. Samsung paid $1bn last year alone. Every manufacturer is losing money on smart phones because of that. Guess what? If you push our phone, we can share those patents with you. Oh, btw, we can subsidize those windows phones, give you some cash advance on the OS you sell for us just to stitch things up for the next few quarters.

Microsoft is all about business. Big business. Big partnerships. They suffocate competition in a very deliberate manner. Google hasn't competed ever with anyone. Moreover, Erick Smidt tanked Novel back in the day because of poor relationships with their partners.

On top of that, the OS will be good. Nobody will complain. Lots of phones will be sold in the lower end market. Some corporate deals will be done for the mid and high end markets and the ball will get rolling. Developers will be happy too. MSFT is making big progress in that lately. You also get the added bonus of developing for the windows PC and tablet platforms, in addition to the phone platform. Everyone will make lots of money. Except google.

<comment><USER7> I think your argument falls on one Company's name HTC. They went BIG on Windows Phones. They made a good phone. They failed. There was a big push at Sprint for Windows Phones a few times and I still see very few in the wild.

People don't go to buy a "phone" in 2015. They go to buy an iPhone, a Samsung or Note4, than the other 1/3 of the market are people who buy the "free phone" which is a thing of the past. Now it is cheapest phone which people have already got burned on. People talk about what phone all the time. Not I got what the store sold me. If they sell you anything it will be an expensive iPhone or Note.

My friend's teenage kids both hated their Windows Phones because they weren't iOS and thought it was uncool. "It wasn't even a Samsung." They both broke the phones so that they wouldn't have to be seen with them.

I see Windows Phones at every store I go to.

<comment><USER6> I guess we'll see :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> There's a subtle irony in that while Cortana can probably be more deeply integrated with Android than iOS, the same can't be said for Google Now on Windows Phone...

<comment><USER9> Yup. Android is still far more open than Windows Phone/mobile from that point of view, which is why it's possible for Microsoft to do many of these things with Android. Last I checked you couldn't even have another browser other than IE on Windows Phone, and I assume that won't change with Windows 10 mobile.

Also you can make Android apps work on Windows or another OS relatively easy but the reverse isn't true (not counting the very hacky WINE on Linux).

All of that still shows that at least for now Google is still much more "open" than Microsoft is.

The unfortunate thing is that these moves where Microsofts gets to integrate with "open" stuff from Google, and then gets all credit for doing that, is only going to force Google to become _more closed_ to stop Microsoft from doing that. It's kind of a nash equilibrium.

When you open up a lot of stuff and your competitor uses it freely and gets credit for doing that, but you can't do the same with your competitors' products - what's the outcome?

It reminds me of when Gtalk was open right until Microsoft wanted to integrate it with Skype. Then Google shut down that API because it couldn't have done the same with Skype, and Microsoft would've been the one with the app that has "both Skype and Gtalk", and not Google.

<comment><USER10> Android is open, Google is not at all. Google is actually pulling source code off AOSP (the actual open-source Android) to put more of it into their custom, closed-source applications. As a result, a base install of Android without all Google's services is very poor and pretty outdated. [0]

Most of the work Microsoft does on Android (and iOS) would easily be replicable by Google on Windows Phone: Office, Skype, OneDrive... are all apps that Google has competitors for on Android and iOS. Instead of playing the same game, Google chooses to be the evil one. [1]

0: [http://www.infoworld.com/article/2610371/android/meet- aosp--...](http://www.infoworld.com/article/2610371/android/meet-aosp--the- other-android--while-you-still-can.html)

1: [https://blogs.microsoft.com/on-the-issues/2013/08/15/the- lim...](https://blogs.microsoft.com/on-the-issues/2013/08/15/the-limits-of- googles-openness/)

<comment><USER11> > _As a result, a base install of Android without all Google 's services is > very poor and pretty outdated._

You can install AOSP or custom ROMs such as CyanogenMod and have a perfectly free, modern smartphone OS. You won't have access to all the Android apps in the Google Play Store, but that's self-evident. The F-Droid repo provides verified FOSS apps, or if non-Google proprietary sources are permitted there's the Amazon Appstore.

> _Most of the work Microsoft does on Android (and iOS) would easily be > replicable by Google on Windows Phone: Office, Skype, OneDrive... are all > apps that Google has competitors for on Android and iOS._

The app in question, Cortana, will be able to integrate into Android at least as deeply as the Bing app does now, which means it can replace Google search in most ways. If Microsoft had an Android launcher, they could ensure Google is completely replaced (by supplanting Google Now). Combined with Microsoft's existing Android lock screen and other apps, all that's needed to complete the Microsoft Android experience is Windows Store for Android.

On the other hand, the closest you can get to replacing Cortana on Windows Phone is to disable Cortana completely, which means queries will be handled by the search engine in your default browser instead. IE is the only browser option, but you can choose either Google or Bing (except on phones that disable the Google option).

Google does achieve remarkable results on iOS despite its restrictions. But that simply demonstrates the monumental effort it would take to bring a sub- par version of the Google experience to a locked-down platform, whereas Microsoft can take over Android with relative ease. iOS has marketshare and legacy ties to justify the expense, but WP has neither.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> How about they actually get around to releasing it on Windows Phone? I bought a Lumia 735 three weeks ago partly based on advertising on the MS NZ site that said Cortana was available. It's not, and now they've removed that page.

The most annoying thing about that is the "quiet hours" feature is somehow dependent on Cortana, so the phone doesn't do that either.

(Other than that, very nice phone and OS, just hobbled)

<comment><USER13> You can just set your location as US. That would make it work. (Not ideal)

<comment><USER12> Thanks - I did try that but I haven't been able to come up with any combination of location and regional settings that works on this phone. Even setting it to US everything doesn't work.

<comment><USER14> Did you check for updates in store and settings after changing region and language to UK? I made it work once and I'm not even in an English speaking country.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I dont know how many of you are windows phone users but I think Microsoft missed a few very important features with Cortana. Most notably the qr scanner and Bing backgrounds that they had with the previous search feature. It diminished my experience soo much that I disabled Cortana entirely from my phone only to go back to the default search, which is just as good if not better than Cortana. I wasn't a power user with Cortana by any means, but they sure didn't bring the features up to Cortana that they already had with default search. I still love my phone, but the default search is much nicer feel than clunky Cortana.

<comment><USER16> Really, you used QR codes? Those two things I never thought about. I don't remember much about the previous experience, but I use Cortana quite a bit. Just having it be smart about suggesting directions, flight tracking, reminders, text messages, all from one point where I can either speak or type, makes it a thing I go to without thought. Voice recognition -> helpful answer is the best overall intelligent assistant I've used.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> It's interesting that Microsoft seems to be using the same playbook they used with Windows -- make the software run everywhere and sell the software that goes with it. While Apple keeps using their playbook -- make software that goes with their hardware so that people buy the hardware.

It will be interesting to see which one wins out this time. So far it's clearly Apple, but time will tell.

<comment><USER18> >It will be interesting to see which one wins out this time. So far it's clearly Apple, but time will tell.

If you want to compare apples to apples (no pun intended) you should take a look at software sales. So far, neither seems to be doing that well on mobile platforms. I have never bought a Microsoft nor an Apple app on my mobile devices.

<comment><USER19> Not sure that's really a relevant comparison given that Microsoft is (effectively) a software company and Apple (effectively) a hardware company. Apple's relative lack of software sales on mobile does not prevent their software and ecosystem from driving literally hundreds of billions of dollars of high-margin hardware sales.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> "But the release of Cortana and the companion app—as well as other fully featured Microsoft apps like OneDrive, Office and Outlook.com—on iOS and Android is an acknowledgment that Windows phones will likely never be chosen by a significant chunk of even the most diehard Windows users"

Microsoft Excel 1.0 was first on Mac, there was never a 1.0 for DOS or Windows. Windows is still the monopoly on PC with 90+% share due OEM and EFI. For the mobile devices both iOS and Android are big, then comes the smaller rest of Win, Blackberry, Bada, Jelly, Ubuntu, FirefoxOS, etc. WinCE had a head start 20 years ago, but especially the die hard Windows users turned away from WinMobile 6.5 (CE based) as it was dumped with all its app eco system in favor of WinPhone 7 (still CE but with only Silverlight/XAML apps) that was as useful as Android 1 or iOS 1.

</comment><comment><USER20> Earlier discussion of the actual source here [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9606188](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9606188)

Looks like it was quickly knocked off the front page by the flamebait detector thanks to the offtopic toxic comments accusing MS employees of voting up the the post.

[http://hnrankings.info/9606188/](http://hnrankings.info/9606188/)

<comment><USER21> During the Microsoft Build event a lot of Microsoft employees registered new HN account (shown as green) and up-voted MS related headlines in the following days. Not that I'm complaining but it looked more like a coordinated effort. HN certainly relies on some automatic voting ring detection.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Go Microsoft. This is the right move. Embrace. They had forgotten how, they're learning it again.

(and yes, extend, and possibly extinguish may still be next).

As a part-time Windows 10 and MS Band and Android/iOS user, I for one will happily use this.

And if I can integrate it for my own voice recognition needs in third party apps, all the better.

</comment><comment><USER23> Well, I'm still waiting for Cortana to be available on the Surface Pro tablets.</comment>


Mister Rogers awarded $20M after defending PBS to US Senate in 1969. [video] - <AUTHOR> http://www.wimp.com/rogerssenate/ <comment><USER2> I wish there were more people like Mister Rogers.

You can't help but feel better about the world after listening to this video.</comment>


Millennials kill industries because they're poor: Fed report - <AUTHOR> https://www.businessinsider.com/millennials-kill-industries-because-poor-fed-report-2018-11 <comment><USER2> Maybe millennials are just more efficient at spending the little money they have and don't want to spend more than they need to, which coupled with the new business models the Internet & recent technologies allow makes some legacy business models (cable TV, etc) unsustainable?

<comment><USER3> Most of millenial trouble can be attributed to baby boomers.

<comment><USER4> I hear this incredibly often. Can you explain why this is, or do you have a link or two that's convinced you on this point?

I understand NIMBY-ism which, to some extent, is responsible for impractical zoning laws and, in turn, higher rents and home prices.

Beyond that, however, why is this the case? Wasn't America just more prosperous in previous decades, due to the political/military victories we enjoyed, and the lack of international competition we faced?

<comment><USER5> I'm not sure it holds more true now than in times past, but I believe the argument generally goes that the older, richer generation has exploited the land and taken on huge amounts of debt, all while jacking up the prices of the things that gave them their advantages (education and housing brings the initial arguments in this vein). And, further, that the older generation will die before needing to address all of these various natural and societal debts, leaving the younger, poorer generation on the hook for their excesses.

Edit: just want to clarify that I'm only vaguely familiar with the arguments that I am parroting here

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Just look at the difference between [https://www.populationpyramid.net/united- states-of-america/1...](https://www.populationpyramid.net/united-states-of- america/1978/) and [https://www.populationpyramid.net/united-states-of- america/2...](https://www.populationpyramid.net/united-states-of- america/2018/) . Also look at world population change in the same period. I don't see that discussed much but when the shape of populations change (which causes how things are funded to change as well and where resources are used) society has to change too but that is a lot harder and takes a lot longer.

</comment><comment><USER7> "Average real labor earnings for male household heads working full time were 18% and 27% higher for Gen Xers and baby boomers when they were young compared with millennials, the study found. For young women, the difference was smaller — 12% for Gen Xers and 24% for boomers"

12-27% seems like a huge number and I wish the article went into detail about it. Are they simply in school instead of working? Are salaries lower? Are they simply not getting jobs?

</comment><comment><USER8> Never ending austerity keeps people poor and shrinks markets.

<comment><USER9> Austerity? America? Ha the US hasn't even TRIED to balance a budget since Clinton. No every politician has to promise deep tax cuts if he wants to get elected. Ostensibly the US economy is booming yet the deficit is at $800 million.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> The millenials I have known (USA) are exceptionally bad at managing their finances. Anyone poor who thinks it makes sense to pay $20+ to have a Five Guys lunch delivered often enough to be on a first-name basis with the delivery guy needs their head examined.

<comment><USER11> Software engineer here. I don't know ANYONE who would do that! I do know some people who spend $20 on lunch frighteningly often, though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Wealth inequality between young and old has reached record high levels: [https://www.forbes.com/sites/evapereira/2011/11/08/wealth- in...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/evapereira/2011/11/08/wealth-inequality- between-young-and-old-generations-reaches-record-high/)

Some possible causes: zoning laws, which benefit existing homeowners at the expense of future first time home buyers, have been piled on over the last 40 years.

The economy in general has become much more regulated. In the financial services industry, regulations around existing laws, like the Bank Secrecy Act, have steadily increased over the last 40 years, and several major new laws, like the Community Reinvestment Act and Dodd-Frank, have been passed.

The result is regulatory compliance costs making up 10% of expenses for banks with less than $100 million in assets, versus 5% for banks with between $5 billion and $10 billion in assets:

[https://www.communitybanking.org/~/media/files/compliance%20...](https://www.communitybanking.org/~/media/files/compliance%20costs%20economies%20of%20scale%20and%20compliance%20performance.pdf)

Similar trends are seen in other major industries, like healthcare.

Greater burdens on small businesses means less new business creation, which we've seen:

[https://money.cnn.com/2016/09/08/news/economy/us-startups- ne...](https://money.cnn.com/2016/09/08/news/economy/us-startups-near-40-year- low/index.html)

And more benefits being accrued to incumbents.

The public relations efforts of entrenched parties is totally overwhelming Millenials' efforts to cope too. Millenials are supporting many of the same political trends that are locking them out of industries.

For example, the recent astroturfing campaign by the hotel lobby to turn the public against Airbnb and create public support for more regulatory barriers to renting one's place on Airbnb was very successful:

[https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/16/technology/inside-the- hot...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/16/technology/inside-the-hotel- industrys-plan-to-combat-airbnb.html)

And Millenials make up a significant percentage of the dupes.

<comment><USER13> Dodd-Frank is a very good thing. It's not that regulation is intrinsically bad, it's regulation that entrenches existing wealth.

<comment><USER12> I can't imagine something that destroys small business as much as Dodd-Frank being a good thing on the balance:

[https://www.mercatus.org/publication/how-are-small-banks- far...](https://www.mercatus.org/publication/how-are-small-banks-faring-under- dodd-frank)

Some relevant statistics:

[https://www.americanbanker.com/opinion/no-there-arent-too- ma...](https://www.americanbanker.com/opinion/no-there-arent-too-many-banks- in-the-us)

>>Community banks have been instrumental in helping the nation recover from the financial crisis and economic downturn, yet their numbers continue to dwindle, declining by roughly 1,500 since 2009.

..

>>A new survey from the Federal Reserve and Conference of State Bank Supervisors found that community bank compliance costs have increased by nearly $1 billion in the past two years to roughly $5.4 billion, or 24% of community bank net income.

<comment><USER14> It is when banks handing out shady mortgages crippled the entire economy and resulted in taxpayers having to shore things up to the tune of trillions of dollars. Some people are either too young to remember or too willful to remember, but 2008 was a dark place, and if it means a marginal impact on whatever destined-to-be-doomed small business is not getting off the ground due to increased scrutiny, I say good deal.

Also Mercatus is a part of the Koch-aligned segment of GMU, to save any other onlookers some time understanding why the specific set of survey questions was posed the way they were.

EDIT: also a lot of this information is dated because regulations were already weakened for small banks specifically: [https://www.reuters.com/article/us- usa-house-banks-lobbying/...](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-house- banks-lobbying/small-banks-trump-wall-street-on-dodd-frank-rewrite- idUSKCN1IN328)

<comment><USER12> >>if it means a marginal impact on whatever destined-to-be-doomed small business is not getting off the ground due to increased scrutiny, I say good deal.

It's not a "marginal impact". Regulations like Dodd-Frank impose a massive structural impediment to smaller business competitiveness that contribute to growing income inequality, and growing consolidation/centralization of industries. The Mercatus study shows just how much it increases costs for smaller banks.

And it's not just "destined-to-be-doomed small business" that's eliminated:

[https://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2016/09/community- bank...](https://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2016/09/community-banks-dodd- frank-000197)

>>"Unfortunately, we became a victim of Dodd-Frank," a northeastern community bank CEO recently wrote me. "In a few short years, an otherwise healthy community bank with strong capital and satisfactory earnings could no longer meet a number of financial benchmarks set by the regulators. These conclusions forced the bank to sell now when our shareholders and some of our employees would be less adversely affected." The result: the bank merged with a larger bank and half of the employees lost their jobs.

There are government programs like the GSEs and the FDIC that promote irresponsible mortgage lending. Those should be targeted for reform/elimination before centralizing and regimenting the industry with labyrinth laws like Dodd-Frank is considered.

<comment><USER14> What part of FDIC do you find to promote irresponsible mortgage lending? And that's another story from before the regulation was re-targeted to lessen the burden on small banks

<comment><USER12> The FDIC protects depositors whose banks engage in irresponsible mortgage lending. It erodes the micro-economic incentives for creditor discipline that derive from 'skin in the game'.

As for the partial roll-back, it's better than nothing, but we'll see in five years if it will have much of an impact:

[https://bankdirector.com/issues/regulation/crapo-bill- only-d...](https://bankdirector.com/issues/regulation/crapo-bill-only-drop- bucket-deregulation/)

<comment><USER14> And you know the history of what happens when FDIC doesn't exist I assume, which was that banks acted the same way and regular people got washed out.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>