Former Motionloft CEO Jon Mills Arrested By The FBI - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2014/02/20/jon-mills-arrested/ <comment><USER2> Nobody should feel sorry for him, I was the CTO of Motionloft during the first two years of the company, and before he started stealing from the company (as far as we know). He is/was the most selfish and delusional person I've ever met. I hope he ends up in jail for a really long time.

<comment><USER3> Or perhaps gets the help and guidance and mentors he needs now that he's no longer able to get away with that behaviour?

<comment><USER4> I'm just going to support this opinion as I felt in a fairly similar way to the parent comment and I'm a little disappointed to see you down voted.

I don't see what benefit sending this guy to jail provides other than a simple avenue for enacting vengeance on someone who behaved poorly. Worst case, he should have to repay all of his debts and money he swindled. He'll take whatever lessons from his mistakes that he may.

<comment><USER5> So the worst case penalty for fraud is possibly having to give back what you stole? Given a non zero chance of not getting caught, that makes fraud a positive expected value course of action.

<comment><USER6> This doesn't sound like it's just fraud, but full on mental delusional stuff. In that case throwing him in jail is probably not going to help matters by itself, and he needs doctors. Ideally some mix of the two.

I've known people like this, luckily that didn't get backed, and it can get incredibly messy. Things like maxing credit cards, identity changes, disappearing to foreign countries. It's better for everyone in the long run that this gets sorted properly as he'll just emerge from prison desperate to get back and will do something worse.

<comment><USER7> How does this case sound any different than, say, Bernie Madoff?

On the face of it, it sounds like a much more blatant fraud than Dennis Kozlowski, the former Tyco CEO who served about 8 years in prison, or Bernie Ebbers (what is it with guys named "Bernie"?), who is still serving a 25 year sentence for defrauding WorldCom investors.

People stealing money and behaving erratically when it collapses around them isn't evidence of mental illness. Maybe he's nuttier than a squirrel hole, but right now, I don't see any reason to assume he's not just a criminal.

<comment><USER6> Got to say, your Madoff comparison is annoyingly good.

One main difference is Madoff wasn't alone. He needed the help of a group in on the conspiracy over a long period of time. Combined with the overall magnitude and the regulatory failures I'm much more persuaded Madoff had criminal intent. This case sounds a lot like he was lying to absolutely everyone all the time (and especially to those closest to him), not that he was trying to orchestrate some group conspiracy to fleece outsiders of their cash. The whole story isn't out yet, so maybe there is more, but it sounds to me like he's one of those people that genuinely believes that if you act rich you become it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> From the original TechCrunch report (1):

 _Mills was a first-time entrepreneur, but he had received backing from high- profile investors like Mark Cuban, and according to the Motionloft website, the company had secured clients like CVS, Saks Fifth Avenue, and Cushman & Wakefield.

Several former friends say Mills was also fun to be around and generous about inviting them to party with him at various music festivals and in places like Las Vegas.

All of which is why, when Mills started asking friends if they wanted to invest in his company, a few of them jumped at the opportunity.

They say Mills cashed checks that altogether were worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, promising them a small percentage of the company. Later, when he told them an acquisition was imminent, they felt confident they had made the right decision.

Mills is no longer part of Motionloft (Joyce Rietman is the CEO, effective December 1), and the validity of the investments his friends made while he was there is being called into question by earlier investors. As a result, after months of waiting, those friends now believe that not only was there no acquisition, but that it is possible they won't get any of their money back. ..._

 _... Sources say the private performance by Miguel, which cost $100,000, was never paid for. That was also true of the private jet charters, which included three separate flights into Vegas and four flights out, and cost nearly $100,000 altogether.

Justin Sullivan is the CEO of Private FLITE, the private jet service Mills used to charter the flights in November. He told me that Mills promised several days in a row he would pay for those flights by wire and later told Sullivan he would FedEx a check. Neither came.

After multiple attempts to reach Mills on the phone, Sullivan confronted Mills at his house to demand payment. Mills then wrote two checks for a total of nearly $294,000, but both bounced, Sullivan told me._

1\. [http://techcrunch.com/2013/12/30/motionloft-jon- mills/](http://techcrunch.com/2013/12/30/motionloft-jon-mills/)

<comment><USER9> Interesting about Private FLITE. Why would a company like that extend services without upfront payment? Especially for $100K+...

<comment><USER10> From [http://jonmillsfraud.com/about/](http://jonmillsfraud.com/about/) :

 _tl;dr – Guy gets credit from private aircraft company because of his connection to super rich baller. Aircraft company boss feels stupid and angry so puts up a protest site.

Verdict:

Guy is guilty of fraud if he had zero intention to pay. Which seems a bit of a stupid move. Having said that he seemed in self destruction mode from what I've read.

The Aircraft leasing employee who gave him credit is incompetent for issuing credit to that degree on his say so. His greed overtook his commercial sense.

Opinion only._

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I just hope we don't find out that the only reason the FBI got involved in this case is that Mark Cuban or another rich person called them in. The FBI is in danger of becoming the enforcers of the rich and powerful. They already act as Goldman Sach's volunteer corporate security dept: [http://www.vanityfair.com/business/2013/09/michael-lewis- gol...](http://www.vanityfair.com/business/2013/09/michael-lewis-goldman- sachs-programmer)

<comment><USER12> I just won a bet! Thanks! As predicted, the top post on an HN thread about the FBI arresting the fraudster behind Motionloft found a way to criticize law enforcement; here, because even though Motionloft seems self-evidently to be an enormous fraud, enforcement of the laws against fraud are merely a tool of the rich.

<comment><USER13> Be careful, you just claimed that Motionloft is an enormous fraud. That's not what has been established here.

<comment><USER14> If you mean that he should have said _Mills_ seems to be an enormous fraud, then yes. Which meets his larger point that _of course_ the FBI should have called in, because there was still enormous fraud going on.

<comment><USER11> This fraud is "enormous" only compared with a bartender stealing cash out of a till. It is infinitesimally small in terms of what occurs on a very regular basis.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Sad sad story. Feels very bubblish to me as well. I knew a couple of people who had, what could best be described as a meglomaniac breakdown kind of experience during the dot com explosion. The person I was closest too seemed to be so confused/mystified by what ever it was that got people multi-million dollar IPOs on no revenue or profits that they seem to have decided it was basically all acting, and they embraced full out meglo-mode. Big parties, lying about everything, pulling in as much money as they could as fast as they could and apparently just hoping that "somehow" the magic would happen and no one would care or something.

<comment><USER16> Or it could be outright fraud. I was a victim of a person who made big promises and I finally had to take them to a debt collector. My sympathy level for people who do this sort of thing is at a very low ebb.

<comment><USER14> Some people are taking the extravagant behavior as sign that he's mentally ill.

But, as you are probably aware, the extravagant behavior could be a cold deliberate move, an attempt to get people to give him money. "Look, I'm a rising star, I'm rich, hook yourself up to me." Lots of con artists flash money to get people to trust them.

<comment><USER16> I think the best thing here is to let a court of law determine this. Either way, a lot of people got hurt. There has to be some level of culpability for committing a crime.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> This is an article from a few months ago about the accusations against him: [http://techcrunch.com/2013/12/30/motionloft-jon- mills/](http://techcrunch.com/2013/12/30/motionloft-jon-mills/)

The comments have quite a few of his investors discussing the allegations, which make for interesting reading.

<comment><USER18> Thanks for the link. The evidence on that page paints a pretty grim picture for him.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> For those of you wanting to see this guy go away for a long time, you are most likely going to be disappointed. It sounds like he stole less than $1 million and will be charged with mail or wire fraud. He will be released on bail, will plead this out a year or so from now, and will be sentenced to somewhere between 18 and 36 months in a minimum security federal prison. He may get a little less than that if he can convince the prosecutor that his conduct was the result of a drug or gambling addiction (my guess is gambling was an issue here).

He will have a chance to redeem himself in the not-so-distant future. Hopefully he will capitalize on it.

<comment><USER20> Why should we want to see him go away for a long time? We shouldn't. This idea of "we got to put this person away for decades" is one of the few areas where I find the European belief (in rehabilitation) to be better (I'm American).

18-36 months, in addition to the fact that he will have a felony on his record for probably the rest of his life, in addition to the fact that his public online reputation is destroyed forever, is appropriate.

<comment><USER21> Can con men be rehabilitated? If they are, can you tell the difference?

<comment><USER22> can a drug dealer?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I'm sure I'm suppose to know who the other guy in the picture is (I don't), but when you feature a person in an article and then show two people in the lead photo... you really should give that photo a caption so we know who was arrested and who has nothing to do with the story.

<comment><USER14> I only know because someone linked to a prior techcrunch article in this thread: [http://techcrunch.com/2013/12/30/motionloft-jon- mills/](http://techcrunch.com/2013/12/30/motionloft-jon-mills/)

He's R&B singer Miguel, who I guess you kids are listening to these days.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> This looks to be fraud & lies (not just a business failing amidst unrealistic hope.) And, huge waste (not ramen).

It's good to see justice to help keep the investment environment clean.

</comment><comment><USER25> We had a MotionLoft installed in our store and while it was not tremendous value to us, it struck me as a pretty decent idea. Crazy story, though.

</comment><comment><USER18> Gotta love that 'startup culture'

</comment><comment><USER26> I doubt very much that Cuban was the one reaching out to the FBI. In situations like this, the "rich & powerful" often use their power and influence to sweep things under the rug, avoiding scandal and the shame of being a dupe to a grifter.

More likely, someone with half a brain on the BOD or within the co. realized everyone was going to be super-screwed really soon, and better to be in front of the wave doing the right thing. Sure, Cuban's involvement may have accelerated the process (people are human, fame has an impact) but I suspect something like this would have happened regardless (might not be featured on YC news with a cast of nobodys)

</comment><comment><USER10> I'm reminded of Shirley Hornstein: [http://techcrunch.com/2012/08/28/talented- shirley-hornstein/](http://techcrunch.com/2012/08/28/talented-shirley- hornstein/)

How do these people think they can get away with this sort of thing? Are they just completely delusional, or does this kind of outright fraud sometimes work out for them?

</comment><comment><USER27> Well, with so much focus on news about tech companies worth billions, do people become too optimistic and blind for sheer con artists?

</comment><comment><USER28> Part of me wonders whether [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6967516](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6967516) was related. This is all very sobering.

</comment><comment><USER29> Every industry has it's charlatans. If you invest, do you due diligence even it concerns a friend you're investing in. It's just business, not personal as they say.

</comment><comment><USER30> I remember reading about his apparent escapades a month or so ago. Guess there was some truth to the stories after all.

</comment><comment><USER31> As my dad is fond of saying, "He who takes what isn't hisn must give it back AND go to prison".</comment>


RGB laser projector is a jaw-dropping build - <AUTHOR> http://hackaday.com/2011/11/10/rgb-laser-projector-is-a-jaw-dropping-build/ <comment><USER2> Summarised build: <http://www.edaboard.com/thread230353.html>

Original Polish thread: <http://www.elektroda.pl/rtvforum/topic1676990.html>

</comment><comment><USER3> That looks extremely unsafe.

<comment><USER4> We're on Hacker News - a site focused on startup and entrepreneurship. Risky, dangerous, and unsafe are all buzzwords that we flock to.

<comment><USER3> Yes but you can go from seeing to blind in under a second with these lasers - and anyone else unfortunate enough to be hit with one of these.

It's not only unsafe but possibly criminally negligent to operate this as is shown on that page.

<comment><USER5> _It's not only unsafe but possibly criminally negligent to operate this as is shown on that page._

Casually tossing around phrases like "criminally negligent" spoils all the fun of hacking. Seriously. You are _strongly_ overreacting. Haven't you ever been to a laser show? All that's shown on the linked Hackaday article is a DIY laser projector projecting some cool designs. I don't recall seeing any pictures of people pointing lasers at other peoples' eyes.

Further, it looks like this was all done inside of a research lab by someone who knows what they are doing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> All I can really say about this is that I want one. Now.

<comment><USER7> According to author, it costed him about 1000 zł - it's about 300 USD. Laser diodes are taken from DVD burners and Blu-ray readers, he also used current stabilizers taken from HP printer, but the most expensive parts, being half the cost, were galvos, used for moving the ray.

He said that it's certainly unsafe, and not only because of potential eye damage -- combined static ray is capable of burning through the cardboard and creating skin burns.

<comment><USER6> So if I offer $600 he might make me one? :)

Even given the safety issues, it's still very impressive.

<comment><USER8> Getting it exported from his country and imported to yours might involve some expensive fun-and-games though, and I'd be inclined to offer more for his time then the $300 above the parts cost, and you need to account for the fact that a lot of his parts were scavenged (if he'd had to more of the parts new it could significantly raise the cost).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I prefer this instead. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_CHXwXvWvs>

</comment><comment><USER10> Impressive as a home build.

They banned colour lasers in Austrailia circa 2000.

At the millennium party Mobile Home they used a commercial laser to project whole Tom and Jerry snippets onto the cliff face of North Bondi.

The ban came in shortly after and we were left with monochrome :(

<comment><USER11> Aren't all lasers coloured?

<comment><USER10>
      s/coloured/multi-coloured/g

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> This reminds me of the awesome lasers in the 80s flick, Real Genius. Awesome!

</comment><comment><USER13> I want one. I'll commission it like a piece of art.

</comment><comment><USER14> I can haz?</comment>


Science Denial Won't End Sexism - <AUTHOR> https://quillette.com/2019/03/11/science-denial-wont-end-sexism/ <comment><USER2> >> Last week, Nature, one of the top scientific journals in the world, ran a review written by Lise Eliot of Gina Rippon's new book, The Gendered Brain: The New Neuroscience that Shatters the Myth of the Female Brain

For the record, I posted that article on HN 9 days ago. It was almost immediately flagged (going by the fact it collected 18 points). This one seems to have lasted at least twice as long - and I don't understand why. In terms of a controversy, an article in Nature is the definition of an uncontroversial, respected source, whereas Quillette is rather the exact opposite. If a serious debate can be had, it should be over an article on Nature, not an article on Quillette.

I don't want to put this in words like "why was my article downvoted", which would sound too much as if I'm nursing some kind of petty grudge, but the same thing has happened to other articles I've posted previously on matters of gender equality in the sciences, while, for example, articles about James Damore are left alone. Is James Damore less controversial than Gina Rippon?

I must say that I do get a strong feeling that one side of this issue is treated very differently than the other by a significant proportion of users on HN.

<comment><USER3> A lot of articles on gender get the same flagging treatment. (FWIW Damore is far from uncontroversial here on HN.) I suspect sometimes the flagging treatment is because these articles can attract heated (often emotional) debate, and this might be why some flaggers flag them, to avoid that and just stick to tech stuff.

That said I'm always interested in seeing these articles and debates myself, mostly because it's a pretty important issue in tech and we won't resolve it if we don't talk about it. But it's hard to do.

This post may have survived this long just by luck, I wouldn't read to much into it.

But you can certainly talk about it here now since this article is in response to your article. (One question I might've asked about your original would be, if male and female brains are really the same then how come rates of certain mental illnesses vary so much between the sexes?)

Edit: I realized I originally wrote "far from contoversial" it should be "uncontoversial" but I think that was understandabld from the context.

<comment><USER4> >FWIW Damore is far from controversial here on HN.

Just to be clear, in what way? Anti-Google pro-Damore I presume?

<comment><USER3> From what I've seen (so it's anecdotal) they seemed to attract emotional debate, and lots of downvotes, and flags, and people making throwaways before commenting, etc. In that way controversial. To my mind when you see lots of downvoted comments it's a pretty good sign of a controversial topic because I never usually see that on purely tech topics ok HN. From which I infer on tech topics a bad comment doesn't get upvoted and sinks because good comments rise. On non tech topics like gender comments (bad or good) can quickly be grayed out by downvotes. I suppose it might be an interesting hypothesis to test somehow if historical HN posts could be classified into topic and we had the voting and flagging data.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> To those who are put off by the article, it might help to understand that, while Dr. Soh has a PhD in psychology, she is also a political commentator, writes science articles, and is a podcast host.

Like a lot of Intellectual Dark Web folks, it's best to check out a long-form discussion — like a lecture[0] or a podcast[1] — to get a better sense of the ideas they're trying to communicate.

[0] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BSb92OYA0g](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BSb92OYA0g)

[1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zere8WRepGo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zere8WRepGo)

EDIT: Add a second podcast link

[1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VkhDZMwR9eQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VkhDZMwR9eQ)

</comment><comment><USER6> Statements like "In a world where world-class scientists' merit is now determined by their sex and skin color—with white men's work being dismissed in the name of promoting women and minorities" have a heavy political bias and the article isn't even concerned with supporting that point, it's just dropped in there like it's a fact.

<comment><USER7> I think I can provide evidence of this, but I'd like to use a double-crux and put both of our beliefs on the table.

If I can show you criticism of a scientists' work in a natural / mathematical science field that emphasizes the (white or male) identity of the scientist in question, would you be prepared to concede that there is progressive scientific denialism and progressivism can be at odds with scientific inquiry?

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> "In a world where world-class scientists' merit is now determined by their sex and skin color—with white men's work being dismissed in the name of promoting women and minorities"

A bit off-topic, but talking about 'minorities' when discussing world-wide topics such as science always seemed so bizarre to me. No single race/ethnicity represents over 50% of the world population, so isn't everyone a minority? Or does only the US count?

<comment><USER9> Let's call the country X. _In country X_ , the majority of scientists are of race Y. If scientists are viewed as having more merit because they are not of race Y, that's a problem, _no matter what the values of X and Y are_.

<comment><USER8> But the articles (not just this one, but very nearly all of them) don't talk about X and Y - they talk about "white people" and "minorities", and stubbornly pretend the two groups are distinct.

A quick search (though I couldn't find any particularly authoritative sources) says white people are ~16% of the global population, behind both south and east asians. To keep calling everyone else 'minorities' is more than a little US/Eurocentric. Especially when they put phrases such as "In a _world_ where _world_ -class...", implying they're not limiting themselves to 'country X'

<comment><USER10> Oh stop it. Asian here. Discrimination happens in individual societies. The united states and Asian countries do not share societies. It is clear from the language and website of the article that it is targeted towards the USA

<comment><USER11> > It is clear from the language and website of the article that it is targeted > towards the USA

Maybe, but since the author is Canadian, and the website is Australian, I'm surprised you would be so confident of this.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> The more I read these kind of articles the more I realize that it really has nothing to do with science, or science denial. Nobody in these kinds of discussions really cares about the science. It's all about politics and ideology.

Why aren't these same people who are talking about science denial never speak up and make a fuss about the denial of climate change by a huge swath of the US population including the elected (e.g. POTUS)?

<comment><USER3> > Why aren't these same people who are talking about science denial never > speak up and make a fuss about the denial of climate change by a huge swath > of the US population including the elected (e.g. POTUS)?

1\. Fallacy of relative privation? Nobody can talk about X because Y is worse. Nobody should fix X until everybody has fixed Y first.

2\. Fighting ideologically driven decision should be a good thing if you're concerned about the ideologically driven decision making going on in our government. Don't pick and choose. That's hypocracy. (There's at least one person sometimes unfortunately (mis?)labeled as being in the IDW who is terrible at this, a big gaping load of hypocracy shows up anytime religion or Israel comes into play. His name rhymes with Sen Bhapiro.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> "I don't deny that sexism exists, but sexism today is not so severe that it stands in the way of a woman achieving a career in science—or any field—if she really wants to."

Uh, source? Seems like the article just throws this out there without any citation, proof, or even argument. I'm not sure I can agree with such a statement.

<comment><USER5> I took that as her speaking from her own personal experience. She's a doctor of psychology who specialized in sex research — her PhD thesis was titled "Functional and Structural Neuroimaging of Paraphilic Hypersexuality in Men". She worked in academia for about ten years until she became dissatisfied with the influence that political correctness had on her ability to fund her research. So you could say that she achieved a career in science, until she no longer wanted to.

You could argue that she failed to account for the fact that readers of this article don't necessarily know who she is or what her own experience has been.

<comment><USER13> Or the fact that just because she did it doesn't mean that anyone can do it? I guess if you haven't, you just need to "want it more."

<comment><USER5> Sure, that too. Standing on its own, it's purely anecdotal.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I stopped reading at "social justice bandwagon".

Without interacting with the central claims of this article, which seem to hark back to the breathless realm of nineties _Psychology Today_ grade neursci, I believe I can safely ignore any discussion about science that is basically just more culture war conturbations in sci-sauce.

If your concern is that science is being polticized, don't lead with your politics. It's just a food fight at this point.

<comment><USER15> That phrase doesn't appear until nearly the end of the article. It read to me as not particularly political.

<comment><USER14> I don't see how either how (a) where it occurs in the article body or (b) what flavours of politics are vivid to you, and which, in David Foster Wallace's memorable phrase, taste like the inside of your own mouth, would be relevant to whether this aricle constitutes unbiased scientific discourse on the matter at hand. I don't mean to be rude.

<comment><USER15> You said "don't lead with your politics." The author did not lead with their politics. (And IMO didn't include politics at all, other than to say politics don't belong in science.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Nerd - Climbing; what mountains to start with - <AUTHOR>

After watching "Touching the Void", I have been inspired to go mountain climbing myself.
I'm posting on Hacker News as I've been a programmer for the past 10+ years and have no mountain climbing experience (nor the physique).
I'm wondering -- have other programmer types gone mountain climbing? And if so, what was the process? What mountains did you start with / what lessons did you take / etc .... <comment><USER2> Here in Colorado, there are peaks called "fourteeners." These are peaks higher than 14k ft. Some are pretty simple hikes. Some are scary. Some are on public land. Some are on private land (so you'll get in trouble if you don't get permission).

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

<http://www.14ers.com/> (disclaimer: a previous co-worker helped/helps run that site).

One piece of advice is to get a hunting or fishing license (if you're hiking in Colorado). Part of the fee is for "mountain rescue." If you never need it, then that 25 cents of the "habitat stamp" goes to waste. If you decide to be cheap, then you get billed actual costs (think price of a car), if you need to be rescued.

One of the problems that may (or may not) bother you is the altitude. My boss was fine at sea level - able to do decent times in triathlon events. But it took him a year to get accustomed to Denver, and he was huffing and puffing like a life-long cigarette smoker. The first month he was here, he'd get out of breath going up a flight of stairs.

Pick something easy for your first. Don't decide you want a technical climb (where you need gear). You might find that you get altitude sickness and can't go above 9-10,000 feet. Many folks who drive up Pikes Peak find that they need someone to drive their car back down, because they're so incapacitated that _they can't even drive._

<comment><USER3> One of those fourteeners, Uncompahgre Peak, is a gentle "walk up". We did it once by moonlight, which was a real treat. It also gives you plenty of chances to decide that you'd rather quit and walk down, which may be good idea if you're coming from sea level and aren't in shape.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> The Adirondack High Peaks are a nice range for newbies and casual climbers (which probably all I'll ever be). Wright and/or Algonquin Peak via Avalanche Pass is a stunningly beautiful hike. Wright Peak, the easier of the two, is a little tougher than I'd recommend if you've never been up a mountain before, but with a bare minimum of experience (I'm talking a couple weeks at most), most healthy adults ought to be able to manage it as a day hike.

One particularly neat thing about Wright Peak is that in 1962, a B-47 bomber crashed into it near the summit, and you can still find bits of wreckage scattered about.</comment>


Show HN: Bookscast – The best podcasts episodes with authors and about books - <AUTHOR> https://bookscast.substack.com <comment><USER2> Amazon affiliate links (tag kmer0c-20).</comment>


The State of Statistics in Julia - <AUTHOR> http://www.johnmyleswhite.com/notebook/2012/12/02/the-state-of-statistics-in-julia/

<comment><USER2> I tried julia last week looking for an R replacement. I was pretty excited but the web REPL is broken on the current OSX build. Try as I might I could not get the web repl to run when building it myself.

It still seems quite immature, but I'm _very_ excited about it's future.

<comment><USER3> We're phasing out the web repl since it's not actively developed anymore. At some point I'm going to take a crack at providing a Julia backend to iPython Notebook [1].

[1] [http://ipython.org/ipython- doc/dev/interactive/htmlnotebook....](http://ipython.org/ipython- doc/dev/interactive/htmlnotebook.html)

<comment><USER2> That's unfortunate as I was trying to get an r-studio like experience.

<comment><USER3> No reason that can't happen too, but the current web repl is more of a proof- of-concept.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> This might be slightly off-topic, but are DataFrames intended to be similar to R's data.frame, where the contents of the entire table are loaded into memory and operated on all at once, or more like SQL with the possibility of aggregate functions calculated incrementally? Since a lot of statistics can be calculated incrementally (OLS, obviously, but even something like MLE based on nonlinear optimization, if you allow for multiple passes through the dataset) R's approach really bugs me... even though providing the right tools for an aggregate function approach would be (I imagine) quite a bit more difficult.

<comment><USER5> DataFrames are in-memory. It sounds like you're describing what we're calling DataStreams, which are still a work in progress, but do already exist. And we're also building SGD descent for doing things like OLS incrementally.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> It's rather amazing how far this has come in a very short time. Excellent post, John!</comment>


Ask HN: Review my Firefox add-on idea - <AUTHOR>

I often find myself reading long blog posts only to find out that I already knew most of what was discussed. Other times, I find out that the topic wasn't really relevant to my interests (indeed, headlines are often misleading).
That's what lead me to the following idea: a Firefox add-on that overlays short and concise TL;DR (Too Long; Didn't Read) messages over web pages. The system would be community driven and moderated: anyone could add their own summary of the content and the best TL;DR messages would be up voted by the community.
I believe it could be valuable to lots of people for the same reason Twitter's 140 characters limit contributed to its success: reducing information overload.
That being said, I might be wrong and the only way to find out is by asking. Go ahead and tear my idea into pieces or let me know if you like the idea (and why)!
TL;DR: Community-driven Firefox add-on that overlays short summaries next to long texts. <comment><USER2> If I had a nickel for every time someone had an idea for community-edited overlaid content on other web pages, I'd be a very rich man. It has never worked. What will make your idea work? That is your fundamental problem, not whether or not it's a good idea. How you will make it work is the problem.</comment>


Crazies.io – The mental toll of Silicon Valley's quest for glory - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@ashsmash/crazies-io-c18717b29673

<comment><USER2> I feel like this is more of a problem for people in their early 20s, when everything job-related feels like a bigger deal than it really is.</comment>


Ask HN: Freelancers in the US: What do you do for health insurance? - <AUTHOR> Currently getting health insurance for my wife and me through my employer and plan to transition into freelance/consulting. I'll have to start paying for insurance and was curious what other freelancers on HN are using, what monthly costs are like, etc.
I am especially curious what freelancers in the NYC area are doing.
Thanks! <comment><USER3> I just had to purchase health insurance two week ago in the state of MI(Just turned 26).

I had 3 options:

1\. Obama Care - I qualified for a $16 subsidy...

2\. Individual plan from a health care provider in state

3\. Health Share plan (think Credit union for health care)

Obama care cost 2x as much as an individual plan, and almost 3x as much as a health share plan, so even after the subsidy, this was not an option.

Health share plan was very affordable, however it only worked with the health care providers on the east side of the state(I live on the west), it had a low yearly deductible, much lower then the individual High deductible HMO, however it had a 20% copay for all health services, including routine physicals and checkups.

Individual Plan from an instate health care plan costs slightly more each month, but all routine check ups, generic brand pharmaceuticals proscribe from my doctor, and any specialist (Chiropractor, Knee Doctor, etc) visits are 100% covered IF I am referred by my primary care physician.

I went with an individual plan for about $140/m and $28/m for dental coverage.

A political side note: this same exact coverage would have only cost me $84/m before 2014 when Obama care went into play. (edit: Health Care cost, not Heath + Dental)

<comment><USER4> The cost went up because of the pre-existing condition situation. Pre Obama Care, if you had any kind of pre-existing condition, you wouldn't be able to buy the $84 coverage.

(I got stuck having to get a normal job because of a pre-existing condition.)

<comment><USER3> Yes, Since I do not have any pre-existing condition, and have never smoked, that $84 would have been mine. Because no insurer can decline someone, my cost went up to make insurance for people with per-existing conditions more affordable.

<comment><USER5> The fact that you didn't have to buy insurance until 26 is a result of Obamacare too. Think of all the money you saved being on that insurance for several extra years. You're welcome!

And maybe in part because you're spending that $84 now someone else who has a pre-existing condition and no health insurance will be able to not die or go bankrupt if they get something serious.

You have to buy insurance because our system now factors in the strain on the system you would cause if something happened to you and you didn't have insurance. Just think of it like a tax (or the tax penalty like a tax, and the subsidy like a reward for responsible behavior.) That's how the Supreme Court thought of it.

<comment><USER3> >The fact that you didn't have to buy insurance until 26 is a result of Obamacare too. Think of all the money you saved being on that insurance for several extra years. You're welcome!

yes i am aware that the 26 rule is an obama care result. However, if I am nice, and I am, I pay my parents the extra cost per month to go from a spousal plan to a family plan, which is $85/m, shocker.... However if my parents had other kids younger then me that required a family plan it would have saved me money, yes. in my response to another post, i noted that this was really the only positive to Obama care that I experienced.

>And maybe in part because you're spending that $84 someone else who has a pre-existing condition and no health insurance will be able to not die or go bankrupt if they get something serious.

I dont think it is fair that I have to pay for someone elses health care expenses. ESPECIALLY since that someone else doesnt take the time of day to shop around for the best coverage for the cost, care to look at success rates to avoid re-works, or heaven for bid, self diagnose themselves and go directly to a specialist that can result in more expensive care. If people actually had to pay for the coverage they used, they would take the time to shop around and make informed decisions, and do things like exercise and eat well, avoid smoking and recreational drugs, then people with pre-existing conditions, and low incomes wouldnt have to pay so much for their care. Its called capitalism, and the health insurance industry would look VERY different. Obama care only gets us farther from where we need to be, and makes the entire situation worse. I know I sound like a jack ass right now because some people would suffer in the short term, but if you eliminated obama care, and the health insurance industry, we would be better off in 10 years. keep medicare for the poor, old, and disabled if you want, keeping it will have very little affect as its an income tax and not a premium subsidy.

>You have to buy insurance because our system now factors in the strain on the system you would cause if something happened to you and you didn't have insurance. Just think of it like a tax (or the tax penalty like a tax, and the subsidy like a reward for responsible behavior.) That's how the Supreme Court thought of it.

If the government allowed care providers to go after uninsured individuals assets and not eat the costs. AND if the government allowed back charging for care given to qualified medicare/medicaid individuals, there would be no need to increase the burden on me to help pay for everyone else who goes in for care un covered. over 75% of the uncovered costs pre-ACA are people treating the ER like their PCP anyways. If we allowed capitalism to work, those individuals who go to the ER for a cold would eventually go to a PCP and only pay $25 for the visit and $15 for the generic meds.

<comment><USER6> I'm sorry dude, but not every pre-codition is because people don't exercise or don't eat well.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I became a freelance 13 years ago. On COBRA for a while. Looked for IEEE group insurance but HI wasn't covered then. The insurance company (HMSA) offered a switch to individual plan. It wasn't too bad initially ($350/mo for me and my wife, HMO, $500/$1000 ded.) But then the premium soared and also we had a kid; at peak it was $1050/mo without drug, vision and dental. I learned antibiotics are pretty expensive.

After ACA, it got a lot better. Currently we have PPO through HMSA in HI. About $650/mo for me, my wife and one kid. Kind of high ded ($1500/$3000), but drugs are covered and also with basic vision and dental.

<comment><USER8> You should visit your local pet store, in the aquarium fish section, and check out the products available for maintaining the health and well-being of your fish.

And you should also learn the generic drug names or IUPAC chemical names for the commonly prescribed antibiotics.

I'm not saying those two suggestions are in any way related, other than the possibility that doing both could save you a great deal of money, in certain situations. Otherwise, grocery stores and big-box stores with embedded pharmacies often sell generic antibiotics at prices below your drug co-pay, but you would still need a prescription, and therefore an office visit co-pay. It pays to shop around.

<comment><USER9> I have an unhealthy fish. What brand would you recommend?

<comment><USER8> I can't recommend anything, as I am not a veterinarian. You need to do your own research. Fortunately, the web makes this rather easy. Try searching for "aquarium antibiotics" and refine your search terms as necessary.

<comment><USER10> Fishflex FTW....for fish of course. It's even better than fishmox :P

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> The Freelancers Union now offers health insurance ([https://www.freelancersunion.org/benefits/](https://www.freelancersunion.org/benefits/)). NY was their pilot state.

<comment><USER12> I don't really understand why Freelancers Union is useful anymore. I thought the point of those "unions" were work-arounds to the old system where group rates were drastically cheaper.

But with the Affordable Care Act, individual plans are no longer medically underwritten, so how are those groups helpful?

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Oscar is great in the NYC / NJ area ([https://www.hioscar.com/](https://www.hioscar.com/)). They do a good job of lveraging technology and are less confusing than other insurance companies. They even have a program with Misfit where you get $1 per day for reaching your steps goal. Lowest premiums I've found. I'm paying less than $1,000 per month total for myself, my wife, and my kid.

<comment><USER12> Second vote for Oscar here. My wife and I pay north of $1,000 but have something of a Platinum plan and it covers _everything_.

The Affordable Care Act has really taken the pain out of insurance when working for yourself. Things like Freelancers Union were almost a necessity before the ACA. Now individuals can buy insurance at competitive rates and without worrying about "pre existing conditions".

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Like others have mentioned...if you're in NY, just go to [https://nystateofhealth.ny.gov/individual](https://nystateofhealth.ny.gov/individual) to research and enroll in an ACA-compliant individual health plan.

Personally, I went with a plan from Oscar ([http://hioscar.com](http://hioscar.com)). Oscar offers reimbursements for gym memberships, free unlimited access to Teladoc ([http://www.teladoc.com/](http://www.teladoc.com/)), and Amazon gift cards if you take enough steps per day (tracked by a free Misfit Flash).

Pre-2015, I had insurance with Freelancers Union ([https://www.freelancersunion.org/](https://www.freelancersunion.org/)). Their plans are not subsidized, but with some of them you get free, unlimited access to doctors at Freelancers Medical ([https://www.freelancersmedical.org/](https://www.freelancersmedical.org/)). They have two offices, one in Downtown Brooklyn, and one in the Financial District.

</comment><comment><USER15> Don't listen to politics in the comment. Here are some real life examples:

I am married and have 2 kids. I got a gold plan through the marketplace for $1250 a month. I got no subsidies since I make more than is required. It's a pretty good plan but expensive.

My last job which was pre-obamacare they were deducting $450 a month every 2 weeks for just my wife and I. So nothing really changed for me.

On a sidenote my cousin is low income and she got a killer plan through obamacare for 75 a month. So now she can afford to go to the doctor and not "walk it off" :-)

<comment><USER16> Can you clarify this:

> deducting $450 a month every 2 weeks

That is confusing/doesn't make sense.

<comment><USER17> $450 a deducted per paycheck. Paycheck every two weeks?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I am male, early thirties, married with children. We have a high-end ACA- compliant plan purchased directly from Florida Blue. At almost $1600/month, it's really freakin' expensive. But we have various health issues between us that make us uninsurable for any reasonable amount via individual plans, and that also mean we use a lot of health care.

Prior to ACA, we had my wife and kids on a COBRA plan out of Maryland from when we lived there (God bless Maryland for making COBRA last as long as you want, and making it last even when you leave the state) and me on a separate individual policy. Together they were about as expensive as our current plan, and they had higher deductibles/OOP max and poorer coverage.

Still grateful for the Maryland coverage, though, as I would have had to have a normal job once we moved to FL otherwise.

<comment><USER12> This is very interesting to me. It was my understanding that the rates were no longer jacked up, even if you had "various health issues". This is called Medical Underwriting and I thought it was forbidden by the ACA. It could be a state-by-state issue. Perhaps Florida is different?

When you applied for insurance, did they acquire your medical history?

1\. [http://kff.org/health-reform/perspective/how-buying- insuranc...](http://kff.org/health-reform/perspective/how-buying-insurance- will-change-under-obamacare/)

2\. [http://blog.rmhp.org/2013/12/sticker-shock-obamacare-and- the...](http://blog.rmhp.org/2013/12/sticker-shock-obamacare-and-the-death-of- medical-underwriting/)

<comment><USER18> I implied a slightly scrambled chronology. To clarify, we kept the expensive COBRA coverage from my wife's old job in MD, because prior to ACA there were no good individual insurance options for her and the kids. Now, with ACA, we have an individual plan purchased from Florida Blue. It is very expensive, but not much more so than the two separate plans we had, and the better coverage, less confusion from the insurance being out of state, and having everyone on the same deductible and OOP max make it worthwhile.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> We've got precious few choices in NC - our county has had only one insurance company providing ACA-compliant insurance for the last few years, and premiums have basically doubled in 3 years ($275/month to $530/month). It'll go up again next year no doubt. This is with the highest deductible available as well.

Some areas of the country seem to have been better served with the passage of ACA, but much of NC seems in the dark ages. I _think_ we've got one other company that's now serving our county this year, and they're ... 20% more expensive, IIRC.

<comment><USER20> That's because the NC state government refused to have anything to do with ACA.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> PPO through HAP in Michigan. $798/mo, $1500/$3000 deductible for my wife and I, no kids. I dug around on the exchange and then ultimately bought directly instead of through the exchange because we're not eligible for subsidies.

ACA has basically made this a non-issue. Figure out how big of a deductible you can absorb, walk through your state's exchange and find something reasonable. Then (this is the most important part), raise your rate to compensate for your newly legitimate business expense.

</comment><comment><USER22> Shopped at the healthcare.gov federal exchange, now paying $223/month for a PPO plan with Aetna. Large network, no PCP election required, no problems with it the past 2 years. Don't forget that you can deduct insurance premiums on your taxes when you're self-employed.

</comment><comment><USER23> I'm in the Boston area, YMMV. I left my job in 2011. I did a few months of COBRA, which I found unreasonably expensive. I'm currently paying about $380/month on a BCBS individual plan with a $6K deductible (costs have risen about $5-$10/mo per year since I joined). I don't think my experience will help you much (single), but I'm putting this out there for others who might be interested. BTW I have never met the deductible and usually spend less than $1K/year on medical expenses. Knock on wood.

PS I haven't noticed much effect due to ACA, except that some services that used to require a co-pay became free. It will be nice not having to worry about pre-existing conditions, too.

<comment><USER24> $380/month sounds kind of high. I have similar coverage via MassHealth for $225/month (+$25 for dental). YMMV, of course.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Did this 3 years ago when I broke out on my own. I'm in Boston. MA has a decent portal through their MA Health Connector site. For my family (Wife, son and myself) I pay $760 on a high deductible plan for health and $99 for dental for my wife and me. Once my son needs dental it'll most likely go up by about $40 for the dental. My only advice is to really sit down and determine what you're going to need for coverage and depending on that choose a high or low deductible. We started out on a low and realized we really would be better off on a high one so switched at the next enrollment. Good luck.

<comment><USER26> Is that per month?

<comment><USER25> Yes per month.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Expect to pay more (relative to group plans). If you want to see what plans are comparable without entering all your data into healthcare.gov, try [https://www.healthsherpa.com/](https://www.healthsherpa.com/)

</comment><comment><USER28> Yeah thanks to the ACA this is really not a problem any more... shop around and buy a plan...

</comment><comment><USER29> Step 1: know your medical expenses. Your total cost per year is either a) You are healthy are it is the sum of your premiums or b) You (or a family member) is not and it becomes the sum of premium payments + deductible. In ObamaCare plans, this is basically the OutOfPocketMaximum.

I am firmly in the (b) camp, and see yearly medical expenses as the deductible plus premiums. And so, I pay $1500 a month in health insurance premiums, but have a $1500 deductible and $4000 out of pocket max. Yearly cost: $22,000.

So, depending on your health and tolerance for rick, go for a high deductible cheap premium plan OR a high premium low deductible plan.

As a freelancer, premiums CAN be tax deductible (see a CPA to make sure).

</comment><comment><USER30> Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan. When we started out it only cost about $500/month. Jumped to $890 and deductible went to $23K with the affordable healthcare act. Basically, now we pay all of our health care out of pocket.

<comment><USER21> That's atrocious. We're in Michigan and only pay $798/mo for a $1,500 individual /$3,000 family PPO through HAP for my wife and I. Individual deductible for ACA plans is limited to $6,600 individual and $13,200 family, so you may want to shop around for a new plan during open enrollment this year.

<comment><USER3> The deductible cap is only applicable to plans purchased through a health care exchange. He is likely on a family plan and purchased his insurance individually. similar ACA coverage would certainly carry a lower yearly deductible, however would likely double his monthly premiums. This was the case for me on my individual plan.

If he has a healthy family who does not need coverage outside of basic physicals, then its likely he purchased this plan to only cover catastrophic events, I know I would rather purchase the $500/m with 23k deductible rather then the $1000/m 13k deductible if I only planned on using coverage in the event of a horrible catastrophe.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Jesus, I thought we had it bad, but some of these other comments are making me rethink that. We're paying ~$640/mo for a $0 deductible, 0% coinsurance ACA Gold HMO, purchased off CoveredCalifornia. That's without any subsidies - <USER2> most on HN, we're just not eligible. That's covers me, my wife, and my infant daughter, and includes maternity coverage.

It's still about double what we were paying before the ACA, but it's a far cry from the $1500+ premiums some others here are paying.

</comment><comment><USER32> I'm in NYC, recently turned 26 and signed up for the cheapest Oscar plan available. It's only around $180 a month — fairly high deductible (~$6,000) but includes free preventative care and a couple free primary care visits per year. I believe this "catastrophic plan" is only available for people under 30 yrs old, otherwise the cheapest is more like $300. Also doesn't cover prescriptions, but I don't have any so it seemed the best option for me right now.

</comment><comment><USER33> It's been awhile since I've looked into it, but my local tech council ([http://pghtech.org](http://pghtech.org)) offers a coverage group to provide health insurance options to member organizations. I knew a few folks that have leveraged this in the past, but I'm not sure how rates have changed due to the ACA.

It may be worth seeing if such a program exists in NYC, and if it would be worth the membership costs.

</comment><comment><USER34> I did exactly this as a freelancer even though not anymore. It will cost you more out of pocket to buy insurance compared to a "group" plan through an employer.

My first suggestion: Keep the health insurance through your wife if you can and if she is still working. It is hard to beat the plans sponsored by employers as they get subsidized group rates to offer to employees.

But if you absolutely need to buy your own, you have 2 options:

Option 1: Use Obamacare [0] and see your options. You can try healthsherpa.com [1] which is a unofficial wrapper on top of obamacare and you can compare the various plans.

Option 2: You go and buy health insurance directly from an insurance company without the extra layer of obamacare in between. You can use sites like ehealthinsurance [2] to get some quotes.

Option 3: Use an insurance broker. Find someone locally in your area. Sometimes brokers can get you good deals.

All options have benefits and problems. I personally hated obamacare as it was too much bureaucratic crap to deal with and now you have 2 layers to work with. The only advantage of obamacare is that if you are considered poor by obamacare standards, you can get subsidy on your premiums if you enroll through obamacare. But if you don't care about these things or are not applicable to you, then just go buy insurance directly and not even bother about obamacare.

Monthly Costs depend on a few factors:

In-network vs Out-Network: Very important factor. You can only go to certain doctors/hospitals etc that are "in-network". Some plans only allow in-network. Some plans have both but have higher premiums. Also, out of network coverage is very limited usually.

Co-Payment: This is the amount (usually $10-$30) that you will pay for _every_ visit to a doctor. Some plans have no co-payment while most have the range as I mentioned.

Deductible: This is the amount that you will pay _first_ for any medical expenses _before_ your insurance company pays anything. So if you go for a plan with "high deductible", then your premiums may be lower and so on.. I will say that for a family specially with kids, I personally prefer zero deductible as it can save you more over a year since kids visit doctors frequently. But if you think you won't visit the doctors as much in a year, then go for high deductible. Again, just a choice and no right answer here.

Co-Insurance: This is the portion that you will pay _after_ your insurance company has paid the remaining portion. For example, if your co-insurance is 30%, then the insurance company will pay the 70% for the medical expenses and you take care of the rest. Again, to get here, you will have met your deductible first.

Out of Pocket limit: This is the _total_ amount you may pay for an entire year. Anything over this, the insurance company pays regardless. For example, lets say your deductible was $500, co-insurance 30% and out of pocket limit is $5000 for the family and you end up with a bill of 14,000 on your very first visit during a calendar year. In that case, you will pay upto the total of $5000 (including deductible+co-insurance) and insurance company will pay the remaining balance of $9000. After that, you will not pay anything for that whole year (except copays). Plans with higher out of pocket limit may have lower premiums by logic.

PCP (Primary Care Physician) required: THis may not affect cost but important factor to know. Some plans require you to choose a PCP and only use that PCP as your well, PCP. You have to let the comnpany know if you change PCP.

Specialist Referral required: Some plans require you to get referral from your PCP before you can visit a Specialist. This is critical as you cannot go to a specialist on your own in that case.

Hope this helps. Happy to give you more inputs if you need.

[0] [https://www.healthcare.gov](https://www.healthcare.gov)

[1] [http://www.healthsherpa.com](http://www.healthsherpa.com)

[2] [https://www.ehealthinsurance.com](https://www.ehealthinsurance.com)

<comment><USER21> > The only advantage of obamacare is that if you cannot buy insurance yourself > that easily with things like pre-existing conditions etc.

Medical underwriting is no longer a thing industry-wide and hasn't been since the beginning of 2014. No matter where you buy your plan, they will not ask about pre-existing conditions.

It's true that the only reason why you'd actually buy through an exchange is to get the subsidies, even if you don't it's worthwhile to check. They offer a pretty comprehensive survey of the companies that offer insurance in your state and roughly how much you'll pay, and you can go to those companies separately and check into their plans they don't offer on the exchange.

Another idea is to find a local insurance broker in your area. They're free to you (the insurance companies pay them) and they'll find you a good plan that fits your needs.

<comment><USER35> "The only advantage of obamacare is that if you cannot buy insurance yourself that easily with things like pre-existing conditions etc."

It has vastly improved the health care the poor receive.

I'm not a huge fan of Obamacare, but it is all he could get past the Rebublicans at the time. He tried to push for a sensable solution, but Republicans fought it. I am waiting for anyone to propose a better solution to Obamacare, but keep bill's core requirements.

As to what how for-profit insurance companies have explioted us, while blaming Obamacare; I hope there's a special place in hell for these heathens! In the original Obamacare bill there were measures that would limit rate increases, and out of pocket fees--the Republicans got rid of all of them. I recall them saying, 'Get ride of this language/requirement and we might pass it?"

What I am trying to say is get rid of Obamacare, but replace it with something better. I haven't heard any real alternative plans proposed by the Rebublicans? I though the the Rebublican Doctor(Bobby Jindal) would have a thoughtful, pragmatic plan--yea, he has a plan, but it just sounds like basically going back to the free market system we had before? That worked so well?

<comment><USER36> I don't think what we had before could really be described as a "free market system". It was an employer-based healthcare system that shut individual buyers out of the only good deals, enacted by the government via the tax code.

The new system is the same, except now there's no pre-existing conditions and the individual is forced to buy a plan. The plans themselves are the same crappy plans with a few tweaks.

The consumer of healthcare is still completely disconnected from the price of the goods sold, completely screwing up market signals and making sure prices stay astronomically high. This is not a free market by any measure.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I set up a Type C corp for my business. With it, the company can pay for all my employees (just me and my wife) medical expenses. For health insurance, in NC, I pay out the nose: $1,200 a month. It's a good, but not great, Blue Cross plan. In NC, that's really the only company that will look at you.

<comment><USER37> 600$/month pretax is not that bad, but I suspect you can do better. [https://www.ehealthinsurance.com/](https://www.ehealthinsurance.com/) has lots of plans starting at $264.45 /month for a 35 year old.

Granted the deductibles look high, but unless you have ongoing heath issues your generally better off using a higher deductible and putting the difference into a savings account.

PS: Don't forget the high ROI part of health insurance is simple negotiating power, the risk mitigation part is less useful.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> I elect to have none, and pay a yearly penalty to the federal government as a result. I earn and save money on my own to cover medical expenses. I view payments to a 3rd party who then bank their business model on my _not_ needing payouts as a form of gambling on human welfare, which I deem immoral.

<comment><USER39> While I agree the whole system is immoral, I have to ask what will you do if you have a critical injury or disease? Lots of things can happen outside of your control and healthcare is an insurance against going bankrupt.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> I haven't used them myself, but I've always been curious about the group plans available to IEEE members:

[http://www.ieeeinsurance.com/us/home.aspx](http://www.ieeeinsurance.com/us/home.aspx)

</comment><comment><USER41> When I was contracting (pre-Obamacare), I joined my local Chamber of Commerce and that made me eligible for their group plan with the local BCBS (family plan). Started with a PPO. Eventually downgraded to an HMO due to costs.

</comment><comment><USER42> When I was in NYC I joined the Freelancer's Union which provided health insurance. That was a few years ago, but it was quite helpful.

</comment><comment><USER43> Obamacare/BCBS is working great for us.

</comment><comment><USER44> Ask HN: What is the best subject to invite trolls rather than subject matter experts into the conversation?

</comment><comment><USER45> I pay $228/month for a personal silver plan down here in NC through the marketplace.

</comment><comment><USER46> I went to a health insurance broker who helped find the best plan for IRS section 105.

</comment><comment><USER47> live in canada.

<comment><USER48> Seriously, as a Dutch/American dual citize I'm debating moving back to the NL simply for this reason. From what I can tell I would pay close to a quarter in NL for better insurance than in the USA. The US is a complete ripoff.

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> Self employed health insurance in New York is ludicrously expensive, or at least it was prior to Obamacare. I've been on my wife's employer's plan but before that, I used Freelancer's Union which is NY only. I'm a big fan of their organization and everything they offer. The health insurance itself is a group plan and more or less provides what an employer's plan would. They also offer other types of benefits you'd expect from an employer.</comment>


Predictive Analytics: NeuralNet, Bayesian, SVM, KNN - <AUTHOR> http://horicky.blogspot.com/2012/06/predictive-analytics-neuralnet-bayesian.html <comment><USER2> I have always enjoyed reading this guy's blog-definitely worth a look. At least from the posts i've looked at, the blog's primary themes are: (i) _Machine Learning_ , with emphasis on concise explanation of the key components, nearly always supported by reference to the key equations and simple clear graphics; and (ii) _Distributed Processing_ in the context of BI Infrastructure. I haven't read any posts in the latter category.

Straightforward explanation of the the key concepts of many of the major ML rubrics by someone who clearly has a strong grasp of those concepts himself, without diluting or "dumbing down" the content, but rather relying on simple clear graphics to illustrate the subject matter--is always worth reading, no matter how many times i have read the same content from other sources. Clear explanations always give me a fresh perspective.</comment>


Pure stupidity: Question paper on Web Administration for Engineering Undergrads - <AUTHOR> https://docs.google.com/file/d/0ByvW1taoXB_pNlBNVE1FZkxON0U/

<comment><AUTHOR> Here's the question paper of subject 'Web Administration' by my university (Punjab Technical University) for Software Engineering Undergrads. I still can't reason out the level of stupidity my eyes see in this, or the logic that how can an 'engineer' come up with such loose end noobish questions. My eyes bleed.</comment>


Good bye, Helium... - <AUTHOR> http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/going_going_gone/

<comment><USER2> Helium is also critical for scuba diving in the 200' to 1,000' depths. Currently, the most affordable, safest, and most common way to conduct these dives is with open-circuit systems, where every breath is taken from the tank and exhausted into the sea where it bubbles away.

A common mix is 21/35 (21% Oxygen, 35% Helium, the remainder almost entirely Nitrogen). Divers often use such mixes for dives in the 165 foot range. At that depth, a fit diver consumes a little over three cubic feet of gas per minute, which means that a little over one cubic foot of Helium is lost forever into the atmosphere each minute per diver.

An alternative is a closed-circuit or rebreather system, where the exhaust gas is scrubbed of carbon dioxide and fresh oxygen added to replace the oxygen metabolized by the diver. Such systems are far more complicated, more expensive, and require much more training to dive safely.

But one of the advantages of closed-circuit diving is that the inert gases (including Helium) are not exhausted with every breath. Therefore, it doesn't matter how many minutes a dive takes, Helium is not being exhausted into the water with every breath. This makes for a substantial savings in cost per dive and saves a non-renewable resource.

As Helium prices rise, I hop there will be an economic incentive for divers to take up closed-circuit diving, which will in turn lead to the development of simpler, cheaper and safer systems.

<comment><USER3> Helium prices are already high outside the US, yet no one has produced a closed-circuit system with acceptable safety. No matter what kind of controls and alarms they build in it's too easy to end up without enough oxygen in the loop. A friend of a friend died here in the northeast Pacific not long ago because he just forgot to turn on the valve, and didn't realize what happened before he passed out.

In the long run I expect we'll end up with more semi-closed systems. They're a little less efficient but inherently safer. Something like this <http://www.halcyon.net/?q=node/44> could probably be mass produced at a reasonable price (expensive now due to custom manufacturing).

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I have been reading about the pending helium shortage for the last 10 years (for example: <http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.08/helium.html>). That WIRED article gave us 10 - 25 years. The Seed article gives us 10 - 15 from today.

I never know what to think of these things, given that we have been "running out of oil" since the late 1970's. I suspect, just as with oil, that there is no economic incentive for anyone to go looking for new supply while the price is so low. Once it gets high enough, someone is going to figure out some crazy way to extract it.

<comment><USER5> FWIW we've been running out of oil for even longer than that: "In 1919 United States Geological Survey (USGS) head George Otis Smith even predicted that the nation would be out of oil in nine years." [http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/05/0520_040520_...](http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/05/0520_040520_oil.html)

<comment><USER6> Wow. I can see the party banners:

"Peak Oil: Celebrating 100 Years!"

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> With regards to cryogenic applications:

Right now a 500 L dewar of liquid He costs about $500 USD. (more for some locations in EU) You can already buy regenerators that capture the boiled off LHe and this can save a good amount of money with some suppliers. If Helium becomes more scarce this type of technology will become much more common.

A larger concern is the scarcity of He3 - This has become very expensive in Europe due to the US's crazy ambition to install thousands of He3 based detectors for people smuggling nuclear bombs into the USA. See [http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/2549/he-3-and-homeland- securi...](http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/2549/he-3-and-homeland-security- part-1) for more info. Like other posters I don't understand why the Russians don't step up!

<comment><USER8> I fail to see the argument here, Neon is readily within peoples price range and is almost exclusively provided by cryogenic fractal distillation. It costs approximately $33/100g and helium presently costs $5.2/100g. Considering the existing neon producers will only have to modify their equipment slightly I doubt the price of helium would ever surpass the price of neon in the foreseeable future.

<comment><USER9> At 1 atmosphere, Neon freezes at 24.5K. This makes it rather ineffective as a coolant.

<comment><USER8> And the relevance of this to using fractal distillation to harvest helium from the atmosphere is?

<comment><USER9> I misunderstood your point -- I thought you were suggesting that Neon could be used as a replacement for Helium.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I found a big tank of helium in the pile of junk at the house I moved into about a year ago and ended up giving it away since I had no use for it (after making a ton of party balloons).

I guess I should have kept the tank and retired after purchasing a private island in the Caribbean...

</comment><comment><USER11> Pay attention to the way they display tags on the left, very clever.

<comment><USER12> The display may be clever, if a bit long, but clicking on a tag just seems to take one to a list of articles for that single tag.

I was half-expecting the turn-filter-on (or off) available in some of the neater e-commerce sites ...

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I for one, am very sad about this :)

</comment><comment><USER14> Uhhh, so how do I invest in Helium?

<comment><USER15> Party supply centers, man. Start hoarding balloons.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> If exponential progress of technology keeps up, 12 years until we are getting helium from the moon?

<comment><USER17> The moon has helium? It sounds like it comes from alpha-decay of radioactive elements and I don't think the moon has much of that given its size, no iron core and all. But I'm not a planetary scientist...

<comment><USER18> I recall that one of the reasons frequently given for returning to the moon is that it is "rich" in Helium-3 (the commonest isotope is Helium-4) and it can be used in nuclear fusion[1].

If wikipedia is to be believed "rich" is relative here and corresponds to 0.01 ppm. He-4 is slightly better at 28 ppm. However as He-4 is 5ppm [2] of the atmosphere here on Earth the Moon seems a long way to go to achieve just a 6-fold enrichment.

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium-3> [2] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth#Composition>

<comment><USER19> Helium-3 is also extremely useful when it comes to cryogenics. Since it is 25% lighter than Helium-4, it is easier to boil it off to reach temperatures below 1 degree K. In the systems that use Helium-3 it's usually a closed circuit system and loss of helium is considered to be a big deal since it's expensive.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Wow, that's one element I didn't consider scarce, but it makes sense.

<comment><USER20> Except it's not, really.

Right now we get helium by distilling it out of natural gas, which means that we only tap a tiny fraction of what's actually present on and in the planet. And although right now we're using helium faster than we can extract it from the dwindling supply of natural gas, that doesn't preclude the development of other methods and sources in the future (and, once the supply is low enough and the demand is high enough, somebody will put up the money to figure it out).

<comment><USER21> "dwindling supply of natural gas"?

I work for a company that makes it more efficient and safer to throw away natural gas. It's nowhere near as rare as you think, in fact, in drilling, it's considered a nuisance more than a product of the well. It's like saying we have a dwindling supply of mud.

At one point, oil companies actually gave it away for free.

<comment><USER15> So why are suckers paying $500 for 500L of it?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I'm relieved that the US will at least have something to trade to China for the rare earth metals which are also running out.

<comment><USER3> The US also has a latent supply of rare earth metals. <http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN28385099>

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Tritium is produced by fission reactors, tritium decays into an isotope of helium.

So i think this is different from oil where oil can't really be produced.

I'm not saying we should crap all of our helium away, but I'm having a hard time being concerned about something that we can at least hypothetically produce.

Also, more on deep earth nuclear reactors: <http://www.pnas.org/content/98/20/11085.full>

<comment><USER24> Who says oil can't be produced? I mean, it doesn't make sense to use it as a fuel source since you'd have to put in at least as much energy as you'd be getting back out, but you can still produce it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Reading about Helium on Wikipedia, I get the impression that it's far from as rare - neither in natural occurance nor in natural or artificial production - as this article would like to suggest.

"In the Earth's heterosphere, a part of the upper atmosphere, helium and other lighter gases are the most abundant elements."

"In this way an estimated 3000 metric tons of helium are generated per year throughout the lithosphere."

And as both Wiki and the article points out, the biggest "reserve" is found in natural gas - which Europe, with Russia in particular, has vast abundances of. Not sure with what concentration our European gas deposits hold Helium, though.

I'm not sure which source to trust here on the topic of Helium being this rare.

<comment><USER26> With regard to atmospheric helium, I don't believe that we know how to harvest that yet. So, it's out of our reach, at least for now.

<comment><USER27> I suppose if we had a space elevator, we could just run a pipeline alongside it. :)

<comment><USER15> Or send up a guy with a bucket.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Habitable exoplanets and the Fermi Paradox - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/04/habitable-exoplanets-are-bad-news-for-humanity/

<comment><USER2> Since this is languishing, I'm going to submit Nick Bostrom's paper cited in the article [1].

[1] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7637667](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7637667)

<comment><AUTHOR> good call.</comment></comment>


How Not to use HTML 5 + CSS 3 (look at the source) - <AUTHOR> http://ultranoir.com/fr/ Alright the website has a great design but take time to look at the source code. There's like thousand of css line with transitions and shiny HTML 5 enabler javascript. Is this how websites are supposed to be built nowadays ? <comment><USER2> Well the site looks good although a little slow and laggy. What exactly is the problem?

</comment><comment><USER3> It doesn't actually start anything in my browser and the links also don't work. Without a deep analysis I don't think the link serves any good. In all HTML generations you can find a lot of crap out there. It is just normal that most people have not a deep idea about what they are doing on the web and "it works (sometimes)" and "something happens" are all the requirements they have.

</comment><comment><USER4> Can anyone explain in details where are the errors?

</comment><comment><USER5> Well my first problem with this would be... replicating what you would do in Flash with HTML5/CSS3 is a fools errand.

</comment><comment><USER6> Interesting, after load I just get a black screen. (FF5 on Win.XP)

<comment><USER7> works fine here (FF5 WinXP)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> this site crashes my chrome tab if I have more than 5 tabs open with it.</comment>


Making it in the Mecca of Tech - <AUTHOR> http://desmondw.com/blog/making-it-in-the-mecca-of-tech/ <comment><USER2> > After vetting your experience by email a company may grant you a 30 minute > screening call, followed by an hour technical interview over the phone, and > possibly even a third hour-long phone call. THEN you may be invited on-site > for a 3+ hour technical interview with 3-6 people. If you've managed to > impress them so far, and the company has a particularly thorough interview > process, they might invite you back for a fifth interview to finally make a > determination. During which you'll spend no less than five hours making an > attempt to solve a practical problem the company has faced recently. If > you're the right man (or woman) for the job, your references check out, and > you can pass a background check, you'll be made an offer and given two days > to make a decision. This is the San Francisco startup interview process.

I think it's batsh!t insane that (apparently) so many people are so willing to go through this type of process, and to go through it _n_ times until they land a job.

In the context of making a hiring decision, I would be skeptical of anybody who would subject himself or herself to this insanity. Then again, I'm not looking to hire people who are willing to chain themselves to a workstation and code 12 hours a day in exchange for access to a foosball table and catered meals.

<comment><USER3> I don't get it. How does this square with the shortage of talent? In my field, there is an objective oversupply of candidates, and the standard interview process is still a 20 minute screener and 3-5!hour callback. You still get 30+ days to decide on an offer.

<comment><USER4> Every tech job I've ever had was pretty much that. 20-30 minute phone screen, 3-5 hour onsite interview.

But then I've never worked in the Bay Area.

<comment><USER5> I've only ever experienced anything like what is described a few times. One was a job I wasn't interested in. Another I wasn't interested in working with the team/environment in question... and another still, was strung out so long, and then dropped so late in such a weird way, it pissed me off.

For the most part it's usually a phone call with a recruiter or HR type.. then a technical screen and/or an informal phone call.. followed by an in-person 1-2 hour interview. Usually half of the face to face interview is just chit- chatting.

At this point, I've been in three jobs since I last updated my resume.. which I should probably do eventually. I'm not sure how much it matters... I'm less concerned about what comes next, than finishing what I am working on now. I'm also up-front about my faults and in what ways I don't fit into a typical corporate culture.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> You're onto something important when you say "companies are looking for _ideal_ candidates – as in they're willing to wait for them". I've been frustrated by interviews where everything is fantastic, from the phone screen to the on-site interview, then at the very last step a Director or VP of Engineering needs to sign off, gets spooked by something really minor, then a previously super-optimistic recruiter sends you the out-of-nowhere "We decided to move forward with a better qualified candidate for this position" email.

They're more worried about hiring a single bad employee than rejecting many well-qualified employees. And I grudgingly understand that and the effect it has on company culture, but it's disappointing how arbitrary some of the "might be a bad employee" signals are, and how inept HR and recruiters are at giving you feedback about what you could have done better.

<comment><USER7> This happened to me recently. After the final round I had a verbal indication from the recruiter that all the feedback was positive and an offer would be forthcoming. I was pretty crushed when a day or two later an emailed arrived saying they'd decided to move forward with other candidates. A friend at the company told me it was because somebody calling the shots was insisting on the CS degree requirement. Such a stupid waste of time.

<comment><USER8> Was the degree listed as a requirement on the job posting?

HN very much likes to poo-poo the value of a CS degree. There is value in it. It proves you can master a variety of topics in 16 weeks, 8 times. (Or part- time while working/spouse/parent/whatever) It proves you can follow through with something over the course of years. It proves you can either work your way through college, are financially mature enough to take out and manage loans, or privileged enough to not need to worry about money.

All these things say a lot about a person.

I worked through college. Took me 7 years. I was a whiz-bang programmer before I started. I did it for the opportunities it would afford me down the road. I did it to prove to myself I could. College isn't always about the piece of paper. I didn't walk for graduation. My diploma is still in the envelope they mailed it in over a decade ago. I'm not proud of graduating, I'm proud I could persevere.

There is value in having a degree. There is a lot of value in having a technical degree. It isn't always about 'having' the degree, its about what it represents.

<comment><USER7> I have a degree in a technical field. And a master's degree, too. Both from good schools. But neither are in CS.

Was it listed as required? I don't know. Lots of jobs put that down, but usually they don't really mean it. It's just another part of the unicorn job description. The same people who want 10 years of experience in a 5 year old technology are the ones who put down CS degree requirements for every software development job.

But, actually, my beef isn't with the requirements. I know there ARE jobs where I'd be out of my depth because I haven't had the formal training and that education has value. I take issue with the fact that they let me get through the whole process before applying the degree filter. If you're going to filter on easily measured boolean signals like the presence or absence of a CS degree, you should do it at the beginning of the process and save everyone a lot of time.

<comment><USER8> That is a very fair point. I did not consider the timing when responding. I agree with you, if they actually cared, they would have said something at the beginning, not the end.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I feel like a lot of interview processes are just hazing - "Hey, we went through it all, right?" "Gotta show commitment!" And if it was that much trouble, it must have been worth it, so why would you leave?

</comment><comment><USER10> The upshot of all this is that now he starts his new job, proves himself, makes friends and contacts, and generally becomes part of the SF Bay Area tech scene. In 18 months (average tenure of software engineer in SF) he'll have a very different experience.

To everybody here who's surprised by the gauntlet he had to run: the old saying hire hard fire easy comes to mind. I grew up in Ohio and started my career there. There are great and awful engineers everywhere, but certainly on average the level of skill and talent is much higher here in the bay area than anywhere else I've worked. Once you're initiated into that, if you do good work, you have a level of mobility here that can only be dreamed of elsewhere. There are just so many startups and tech companies, even compared to other meccas like NYC.

<comment><USER11> > In 18 months (average tenure of software engineer in SF) he'll have a very > different experience.

Exactly. Once you run the gauntlet once you generally don't have to do it again...at least not to the same extent.

And the '2 day' rule won't apply either.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> There's a meme that Bay Area engineers are overpaid, but I'm not so sure. I've worked in a few different cities and can say without reservation, engineering staff here (SF) is quite a lot more productive than in other places.

I don't know why. Probably some combination of education, better management, longer and harder working conditions/hours, more selective interviewing, and more general hustle and motivation being around the best.

</comment><comment><USER13> Why would you post that you got rejected from 150+ other companies publicly before starting a new job? I might be a little apprehensive about my hiring decision at HelloSign after reading that... I was in a similar position to you (coming from a smaller city with a less than stellar tech background) and I received several offers within 2-3 weeks of job hunting.

<comment><USER14> Respectfully, I think this attitude only contributes to the problem. It needs to be not shameful to try and fail, not shameful to have periods of unemployment, not shameful to bark up the wrong tree.

The more successful people who admit their past weaknesses, the less shameful it becomes. Having 150+ rejections shouldn't be a problem. The problem is the person (who? me) too scared to do those 15 or 150 applications in the first place.

<comment><USER15> I was going to post a direct response myself, but I think yours captures the essence of my issues with that post. As someone with well over 100 rejections by that standard[1] over the past five years, attitudes like that really rub me the wrong way. I have a hard time even getting companies to talk to me, though I am working with someone to do something about that.

[1] Application but no offer

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> "California, by the way, is everything it's made out to be. "

This is all too true. I am grappling with the possibility that I could never return to the East Coast near the rest of my family or my wife's family.

<comment><USER17> Could you elaborate in what way? I've heard both sides. Sure there are more tech jobs and unparalleled startup scene. But housing situation is extremely shitty. You are forced to live in shoebox for a LOT of money. People waste enormous hours in traffic every day. State is in huge debt and public school system is one of the worse. Govt is not able to develop infrastructure with growth. And you still pay everything through nose added with state and city taxes. The place is enormously overcrowded to be pleasant. Significant portion of population is possibly undocumented exploited immigrants who don't even speak english. People who often feel its nice out there are usually coming from mid west small town with nothing to do or super-crawded places like NJ/NY. People from places like Seattle, Florida, Portland or New England might not feel they have ended up at better place.

But really, I do want to know in exactly what way California is everything it's made out to be?

PS: Above are not my personal opinions, it's just second hand information that has often came up in conversations.

<comment><USER16> "But housing situation is extremely shitty. You are forced to live in shoebox for a LOT of money." Depends, I am in Noe Valley and its pricey but nice. It really comes down to values/lifestyle preferences. Do I really want to live in a giant place where I can accumulate lots of stuff or do I want to live a bit lighter and be able to do world class hiking every weekend year round.

"People waste enormous hours in traffic every day." Not unique to here. Experienced the same in South Florida growing up and Chicago for the brief period where I didn't work close to where I lived.

"State is in huge debt and public school system is one of the worse." Not really on my radar as I am in my mid twenties. Also, plenty of places where this is the norm anyhow.

"Govt is not able to develop infrastructure with growth. And you still pay everything through nose added with state and city taxes." Infrastructure hasn't really been an issue. Taxes are high no doubt. So is tech income.

"The place is enormously overcrowded to be pleasant." Not sure how you define this, SF proper is full but would prefer that to Detroit without a second thought.

"Significant portion of population is possibly undocumented exploited immigrants who don't even speak english." I hate the idea of exploiting people regardless of well, anything. I love the idea of immigrants and I am not worried about the population not speaking English. Any urban area is going to have multiple languages and immigrants. It means interesting culture and experiences. Most places I have been where its ~100% English speaking have been rather depressing.

"People who often feel its nice out there are usually coming from mid west small town with nothing to do or super-crowded places like NJ/NY. People from places like Seattle, Florida, Portland or New England might not feel they have ended up at better place." I grew up in a beautiful area of South Florida, went to school in Chicago and lived in the hippest of hip areas in Chicago. It simply depends on what you are into. I wanted to go outside and recreate all 12 months of the year the midwest is rather lame. Too cold and not much of interest ecologically/geographically. There are many great places to live, but not that many at the epicenter of the tech universe.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> No mention of brain teaser questions, which is A Good Thing IMHO. The collaborate-on-a-recent-problem one is also a strong idea. It would reveal things about the candidate that practicing brain teasers would not.

<comment><USER19> "brain teaser"s are very background and culture dependent (and even age dependent), IMHO. I'd prefer to "spend time" with candidates, solve a problem I have solved already with them together to see how they deal with it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> This story made me think of something. Are there any HR firms out there that professionally evaluate hiring practices?</comment>


The Modular Body - <AUTHOR> http://www.themodularbody.com/ <comment><AUTHOR> Fascinating stuff, I wonder how far is bio hacking progressing these days?</comment>


Ask HN: Which entrepreneur(s) do you admire the most? - <AUTHOR>

Here's my take: Mark Cuban, Bill Gates, Larry Ellison <comment><USER2> Jeff Bezos. Not only did he build something people wanted (a better bookstore), but he leveraged that to push forward with other ideas -- computing as a utility (Amazon Web Services), electronic books (kindle), commercial manned space flight (Blue Origin) -- which people have dreamed about for decades.

<comment><USER3> And he did it to prove his point when D.E.Shaw & Co refused to fund the bookstore idea.

<comment><USER2> Nothing wrong with wanting to prove a point. If pg hadn't said that single- founder companies rarely work, I probably wouldn't have decided to work on tarsnap.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Peter Thiel. Able to found two companies meant to change the world, both of which have turned out well; able to fund lots of Big Ideas, some of which have been similarly lucrative. I don't think there's anyone else who spends so much time thinking about big ideas (his investment strategy is partly based on odds of a Singularity versus Armageddon) and is still able to make something of value.

</comment><comment><USER5> Both Brits: Felix Dennis and Richard Branson. Felix Dennis because of his no bullshit attitude (his book is great) and Richard Branson for being a serial entrepreneur with a sense of humour. Both are probably very ruthless in business also, but thats one reason they are where they are

</comment><comment><USER6> Anyone who's failed multiple times.

<comment><USER7> So you admire me? Really?

:-)

<comment><USER6> Do you keep trying? I fully respect it and admire it because deep down I hope someone feels the same way about me.

<comment><USER7> _I'm tryin', Ringo. I'm tryin' real hard to be a shepherd._

Pulp Fiction

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> James Dyson. Count his setbacks, then count his sucesses - the guy doesn't quit.

</comment><comment><USER9> Muhammad Yunus, Nikola Tesla, Akio Morita, Kiichiro Toyoda, Jeff Bezos.

</comment><comment><USER10> Cuban? Really?</comment>


Ask HN: Is it better to have leaders who are too old or too young? - happy-go-lucky <comment><AUTHOR> This question should be rephrased to whether one would to to ere on the younger or older side. The current phrasing will prompt a lot of middle of the road answers.

</comment><comment><USER2> I started working in tech at 16 and I am 36 now. I've had bosses who were older than me (in their 70s), and younger than me (now). Age has never been a factor in what makes them good or bad at what they do.

<comment><USER3> _" Age has never been a factor in what makes them good or bad at what they do."_

That may be true, but there are certain factors that are somewhat correlated with age, like experience, maturity and empathy. I also started working in tech in my teens (and am pushing middle age now), and I wouldn't want to have my teenage self (or even my 25 year old self) as a manager or leader. A lot of the things I know today were learned through years of making painful and expensive mistakes.

If your 16 year old self had been the CEO of a company, how would they have handled having to lay off half their staff or dealing with a sexual harassment complaint? Would they have had the experience to know that their favorite architecture would never scale, or that their code was unmaintainable and didn't have enough tests, or that they would run out of funding at their current burn rate? Would they have listened to an older person who told them that?

<comment><USER2> I don't consider myself as a good example.

I've had a 24 year old boss when I was 34 and they were (is) one of the best leaders I've worked for. They've made hard decisions and been a voice of reason when tackling complex issues. I can't say I would have been as good at 24. I've had a boss with a masters degree that was in their 40s who was an absolute nightmare. People run the gamut. Maturity is important but not strictly dependent on age for all people. Yes there are some bounds, I'm not sure what they are or if they are consistent for everyone.

To flip your example: would an older person listen to a younger person who gave them advice?

If the answer is yes to yours and my inquiries we should think of a better heuristic for good leader that isn't strictly age dependent :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> What makes someone too old or too young?</comment>


Report: artificial intelligence and "structural collapse" of law firms by 2030 - <AUTHOR> http://www.legalfutures.co.uk/latest-news/report-ai-will-transform-legal-world

<comment><USER2> From the sound of it, this report was generated under the careful methodology of getting some guys together in a room and saying "Gosh, computers sure are clever, aren't they?" "Think it'll all be computers soon?" "Yep, probably. I mean, cor blimey, _computers_."

<comment><USER2> If you want some _actual_ evidence toward a pending collapse of law firms, take a look at [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8690984](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8690984) \- it's based on trends of reduced enrollment, not hypothetical computerised robo-barristers.</comment></comment>


Bitsquatting: DNS Hijacking without exploitation (2011) - <AUTHOR> http://dinaburg.org/bitsquatting.html?ref=goog

<comment><USER2> This was in my opinion one of the best talks at defcon a few years back. I replicated this with some CDN domains, and was amazed at the number of bits that were being flipped out there that drove traffic to my test systems. It would have been very easy to serve up content that could have caused a lot of problems.

<comment><USER3> It would be really interesting to see what mitigation would be possible if this became a serious problem. I suppose the simplest solution is for the responsible cdns to just buy up all of their bitneighbors.

<comment><USER4> Or shifting most devices to using some form of ECC memory

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I wonder how many "single bit errors" are due to hardware faults vs. how many are due to software accidentally setting/unsetting a single bit binary flag through a wild pointer. It would also be interesting to know what percentage of the errors were a zero-to-one flip vs. a one-to-zero, and how well this matches with the expectation of the direction of actual single-bit hardware errors (which I also don't know). Actually, it's also interesting to know which bits were more likely to change; presumably hardware errors are distributed evenly over the eight different bits of a byte, while one might guess that flag bits erroneously (re)set by software might be more likely to be in the low end of a byte.</comment>