The Toughest Adversity I've Ever Faced - <AUTHOR> http://scottbarbian.com/the-toughest-adversity-ive-ever-faced <comment><USER2> I think it is funny that the YC crowd points to "naughty" when it benefits them and says things like "Am I supposed to feel sorry for someone that got caught exploiting online games?" when it doesn't.

When someone will take apart a game for fun, for better or for worse and often both, it is intrinsic. We praise capncrunch and damn this guy?

I'm sorry you lost your parents Scott. Congratulations on your child and marriage. YC is a mixed bag but I feel home here too.

There are a lot of ways to hack the world. I'm not sure if you've picked inconsistent/risky ones because of personality type/thrill or because it is where you landed. If its where you landed, move toward the center.

Sounds like you've got the basic small business skills to sell many things and you don't require permission or motivation to do so.

Consider hacking on your life instead of the games. What do you know that's inefficient where you are and could be interesting?

I hear heavy equipment auctions are big and profitable in rural areas and I know from experience it is a space software hasn't touched.

Pick a product or set of products (wave energy harvesting equipment?) and niche it via PPC. See what the market is like for them on eBay.

Go with the black hat and get picked up by a security consulting firm. I've rarely seen them be degree choosy with people who have the chops.

Don't make the mistake of thinking the only interesting things are on the fringes.

Lastly, ignore the rest of the noise of this thread. Keep your head up. Stay interested. Stay playful.

<comment><USER3> Thanks for this comment. It's filled with warmth and insight. "We praise capncrunch and damn this guy" is a great point.

I don't think the responses here are a single "YC crowd" being hypocritical. The thread is more interesting than that. It's at least two different groups having polarized responses to the article.

One group is rule-oriented and binary, quickly seizes on any violation of the (personal or social) code they believe in, and extends that into a personal judgment of the violator. Such people often express their judgments harshly. It's worth remembering that the same harshness inevitably applies to themselves; one doesn't get to handle that acid with gloves.

The other group, of course, identifies with the author's pluck and self- motivation and doesn't hold his dodgy beginnings against him. They don't necessarily support the cheating but admire the ingenuity more, and are generally more indulgent. They probably read the story as what PG called being "relentlessly resourceful".

This dichotomy plays out on HN all the time, though rarely so vividly. Both groups are well-represented both on HN and among programmers in general.

<comment><USER4> I think there's a great point inside your comment, but that the way you have expressed it is unkindly biased against those on what I surmise to be the opposite of your side of the debate.

When describing the first group, you use lots of seemingly negative descriptions: "rule-oriented and binary", "quickly seizes on any violation", "extends that into a personal judgment", "express their judgments harshly", and "that acid".

When describing the other group you use lots of positive language: "pluck and self-motivation", "admire the ingenuity", "generally more indulgent", and "relentlessly resourceful". Plus there is an appeal to PG's authority on this site.

There are positive and negative aspects of both sides here, and I think you're being pretty harsh toward one of the factions.

<comment><USER5> I understand his stance, but I don't think the point really stand up.

Articles about SPAM can be engaging. But, that hardly means people support the activity. IMO, duping in online games is the same basic thing as it's a classic free rider problem. People are not going to buy duped items in a single player game it's only the 'non' duping players that make item duping a profitable activity and their game play is harmed by it.

Performance enhancing drugs fall into the same category. The methods/chemistry might be interesting, but clearly 'clean' athletes (and arguably the fans) are harmed by the activity.

PS: Or can you actually see a benefit from doping that I am missing?

<comment><USER3> To my mind the issue isn't whether the game cheating business was good, but whether its badness deserves to overwhelm everything else about the story.

<comment><USER6> I think the problem isn't entirely the badness, but that the author seems so oblivious to it despite its pervasiveness in the piece.

If the guy had said early on, "Ok, now I realize that part of my problem is that my business was essentially parasitical, and I'm trying to learn from that" I would have been able to read the rest of the article with more equanimity.

I really do admire his pluck, and for his age he is learning a lot of hard lessons. But reading this reminded me of watching a horror movie where some goof obliviously walks along with the serial killer right behind them. You just want to shout, "TURN AROUND! LOOK BEHIND YOU!" So I'm not shocked that commenters have to get that off their chests before they can process the rest of it.

It also reminds me of the conversations I had in the mid-1990s with spammers, because back then you could actually track 'em down and get 'em on the phone. They had this same inability to see that they were their own worst enemy. They saw problems on all sides and thought the world was against them. But really, the common factor in the problems was them.

It is for all of us, of course. But it can be hard to watch others struggle with that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> As the father of a three year old and an English BA holder in his second year professionally programming, I can relate.

As someone who inputs on hiring, I would recommend that you become a serial project completer rather than just a starter. I don't get the impression of follow through, which is unfortunately what the unfinished degree also communicates. The only way to combat this is to choose smaller chunks (don't start with solving energy) and see them through to decisive conclusion.

What is something you can build in six months that does not require government funding and also teaches you something for that bigger project?

<comment><USER8> It's very typical for people in demanding positions to learn that even really good ideas are quite common and not even that valuable. Good execution of good ideas is however extremely rare and is also extremely valuable.

The above recommendation is really really good. Anyone can start ambitious projects but only a rare few actually can finish them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Great story. Many parallels to the performance marketing and affiliate worlds, where mostly young people stumble into great opportunities, usually exploiting loopholes or underserved markets such as this, and suddenly start printing a thousand dollars a day in profit. The vast majority of them know, deep down, that it can't last, but somehow still end up getting lulled into a feeling of complacency. That's the feeling I got from your post too. You are definitely not alone in your experience, and you already learned the most important lesson, which is you don't need anyone's permission to start a project and see if it works. If you're ever in a similar situation again, take the money day by day and remind yourself that at some point the ATM machine is going to shut down. Of the dozen or so liquid USD millionaire affiliates I knew in my 20s, I'd say half are bankrupt or close to it today.

</comment><comment><USER10> Thanks for sharing your story Scott; I've lurked on HN far longer and never had the courage to stick my neck out like you have today. I hope this leads to something amazing for you and your family!

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you so much for your kind comment. Like mentioned in another comment, my post was primarily meant to be cathartic. I didn't expect it to get much attention so I've been kind of overwhelmed by the responses.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> It's interesting to read the story of someone else who has profited from the exploitation of video games.

I did so from a more human perspective, I sold gold either bought from other player characters or harvested using automation in popular MMOs.

I would have _never_ thought of it as a business. My income was steady for 5 + years, and not a day went by where I didn't consider the possibility of the game company wiping out all of my 'assets' in entirety, leaving me penniless had I not saved, and worst -- jobless.

Fun times. Thanks for writing this, although I think that "I would've been a great employee at..." is too speculative. It's so hard to say without actually doing it, it's not just your own skills/actions that you have to worry about in business.

</comment><comment><USER12> As a former (in reality, and in some ways still internally) farmboy from Montana, I applaud the resourcefulness that 'scobar is displaying.

Google may be a tough choice, as they do seem to favor PhDs.

But you ('scobar) have a lot of talent and initiative and a very marketable skill set.

</comment><comment><USER13> How does someone get 100k in debt from undergrad? Is that a thing? I know folks with graduate and professional degrees from not-very-cheap institutions who aren't at the 100k mark. That's med school level.

I too haven't graduated from college, and I have had _no_ trouble finding work because of it. AOL wouldn't look at my resumé, and I assume other large companies won't either, but there are a _ton_ of startups and other shops that will beg you to work for them if you demonstrate a clear ability to excel in their environment. This is probably the most non-graduate friendly career industry out there.

Your first step should be to get a job, and QA sounds like a great place for you. You'd be surprised how easy it is to move out of QA and into dev if you can demonstrate aptitude for development tasks. _Many_ people got their foot in the door this way, including myself.

Anyway, I bet this was cathartic to write, but I dunno what I was supposed to take from this. Selling illicit goods is a high-risk endeavor?

<comment><USER14> In-state price at a good state school is about $22k/year with room and board.

Figure you work a minimum wage 40 hours a week for 12 weeks during the summer. There's $3480. Now, figure you average 10 hours a week for the other 40 weeks of the year. There's $2900. Figure you're an outstanding student, so you got a one-time $2000 scholarship payout from winning a bunch of awards in high school.

There's a good chance at many large state schools that, even if you're focused, you'll need an extra semester or two due to limited course availability. Not counting the possibility of recovery from a leave of absence related to (mental) illness or family emergency, etc. Let's say you do one summer semester and it costs exactly half of a traditional year's net price.

So we're looking at:

\+ $99k in bills and spending \- $10k for 3 summers of work \- $13k for 9 semesters of work \- $2k in total merit scholarship payout.

That leaves us with a $74k education. If mom and dad aren't buying, then there's $75k in principal. At 6.8% over 10 years (the federal government's deal, but it's capped; your actual rate from the private sector will be worse) that's $102k in payments.

That's for someone who did the "responsible" thing: went to state school, got scholarships, and worked continuously.

Now imagine that you go to a private school where the price after need-based financial aid is in the $30k-$40k range. Or, worse, that you go to private school and your parents are rich, so you qualify for no need-based financial aid at all, but your parents still don't want to fund your education. Then you're looking at $60k/year.

See where this is going? It's easier than you might think.

<comment><USER13> Heh, the comments are piling up, and I'm willing to admit maybe my experience isn't the norm, but what you're saying does make sense.

Like I said though, I know a bunch of post-grad folks who aren't hitting $100k. It's just a big clash with what I've seen, to hear 100k after just four years.

<comment><USER14> The people you're thinking of, like most of the people I know, either have

1) Families that have contributed $60k+

2) Families that are poor enough that financial aid has contributed $60k+.

I'm guessing that anyone with $100k in debt has neither of those things.

<comment><USER15> The other thing that matters is when you got your degree. Graduating even 5 years ago means you've likely had to take on less debt than someone who graduated this year.

That's how fast tuition is rising.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Get out of Montana. Seems you already feel you should. Top people in top cities will laugh at the idea of a degree being everything as much as you do, probably more.

I can't believe this has been up for 4 hours and I'm the first person to suggest this.

<comment><USER12> Hey.

Well, I actually did that when I went back east to college.

But in today's world, you don't need to be anywhere. It wasn't that long ago that one of the top .net consultants lived in Billings, Montana. He, like many consultants, would fly out Sunday evening, and back on Thursday. And he also wrote a book or two.

So today it is even easier to be remote and be a major contributor. As in 37 signals.

 _I can 't believe this has been up for 4 hours and I'm the first person to suggest this._ Perhaps as the comment is a little harsh.

<comment><USER17> 37 signals is an example of a remote company. It isn't an example of the abundance of remote jobs. Without the right experience and connections it will be hard to find a remote job.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> > "I know you're full of shit because I have connections in the elite crowd of > the game hacking community. These are the two most popular games right now. > My connections tell me it's impossible to duplicate items in either game, > but you claim to have a dupe method for both. Don't waste my time by > contacting me again."

For some reason reading this quote really bothered me. Probably be it reinforces the theme that hacking is some magical art that can grant nuclear access codes to some random 13 year old slamming away on a keyboard, and this site owner bought into that and praises this "elite hacking community".

<comment><USER19> I strongly doubt that's a direct quote.

Even paraphrased, it doesn't make logical sense: It should be really easy to _prove_ that you have a duping exploit in a game, so why didn't the prospective-buyer at least _ask_ for a demonstration, or why didn't the OP _offer_ such a demonstration? It's just too convenient.

It's far more likely that OP was either unable to prove it or refused to do so, and the potential-buyer said "stop wasting my time then".

<comment><USER11> > Even paraphrased, it doesn't make logical sense: It should be really easy to > prove that you have a duping exploit in a game, so why didn't the > prospective-buyer at least ask for a demonstration, or why didn't the OP > offer such a demonstration? It's just too convenient.

Agreed. Most dupe hacks are not found by report, but by database analytics.

It's an extremely easy phenomena to spot, and in my experience the only games that allow such a problem to exist for any period of time are games that are either operated by a single person and lacking in employee resources to deal with the problem, or games that are so old that they are no longer concerned.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you for explaining how easy it is for a game developer with plenty of resources to identify this type of exploit if used excessively enough to affect the game's economy.

Everyone who's complaining about game exploiters seem to focus on the ones who've caused obvious damage to the game's economy. What about the ones who are subtle enough, and possibly will never be caught?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> > I just wished there were some way (beyond a traditional resume) that I could > express how I truly would've been a great employee at Google[x].

Well, actually, there is -- the only thing that can express that would be making progress on the problem...

If you're ready for a big dose of realism (and at the risk of fueling some dangerous fires), one can dig deeper into the trust disconnect that fuels acqui-hires here:

[https://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2013/12/23/vc- istan-7-s...](https://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2013/12/23/vc- istan-7-solving-the-wrong-problem/)

</comment><comment><USER21> There is no malice in my post but the author really needs to think about the world from other peoples perspectives.

> I'm not a fan of your previous methods of making money. Not because I see > things in binary or I have a strong desire to follow rules, but because I > enjoy the sport of it. When using an exploit, you detract from that sport, > whether doing it from the supplier side or whether you play the role of the > kid walking about kicking over others sand castles, you are talking a stance > that you don't give a toss about the victims and they're pretty well > justified in feeling the same way about you.

> If you want someone to give you money for a research grant or another type > of funding, or even just a job, you're going to have to give them a reason > to believe in you. Your life story may make them feel sad for you but it's > not going to land you a well paying job.

> The fact you've built a 'successful business' on a house of cards and either > forgot to save or never made enough money to justify it in the first place > is not something that reflects amazingly well on you.

> If you want to be employed by someone else, you'll need to build a > reputation. You can do that by taking an entry level job and working your > way up, or by getting a degree and then taking an entry level job and > working your way up. Unless you're doing some pretty prolific and utilised > works, you're not gonna skip those entry level jobs.

> You come across as a bit lazy or too cocky, always looking for the quick fix > or to skip to the end. Fact is, a lot of people know enough to build things, > few know enough to build things well. There's a lot of knowledge that is > supposed to be passed down during those junior roles that you want to > bypass.

Still, like I said there's no malice here. I wish you all the best and I figure if you really have that much drive, you'll land on your feet eventually. But don't get caught in the trap that you're too good for QA work, you'll find most of your peers eat some dirt climbing the ladder, degree or no.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you for your comment. When I wrote the blog post, I had no idea it would be read by so many people. I wrote it thinking some friends, family, and acquaintances would be the majority of the audience. Those people already know who I am, and would understand that it was not written as a plea for more respect or attention, nor to seek employment.

You are right, I'm not too good for QA work (remember I also delivered newspapers to make ends meet), but I couldn't afford to relocate and pay my monthly expenses on a QA job salary at that point in my life.

Having been born in the US, I have it easy (even if I haven't taken full advantage of my privilege) compared with many others in the world. Your suggestion is to get an entry level job, or finish the degree first, then get an entry level job. I'm curious, is that is the same advice you'd offer to a non-US citizen?

We take for granted how easy it is to climb the corporate ladder or get a degree, and our society values those indicators. It seems as if the objectives behind them have been forgotten though. What should be valued is humility, a good work ethic, and a solid education with curiosity to continue learning and improving. If one meets the objectives but hasn't accomplished the accepted indicators, then that person often faces prejudice (at least in the countries I've lived in).

I'm not trying to imply I've met all of the desired objectives. I just strongly disagree with jumping through the necessary hoops to get ahead because everyone has to do it; especially if jumping through the hoops gets someone no closer to meeting the desired objective.

I'm sorry for the rant. I hope you understand my response is not about me, but about how unfair I think it is that most are so fiercely judged by indicators rather than the characteristics they're meant to imply.

<comment><USER22> _I just strongly disagree with jumping through the necessary hoops to get ahead because everyone has to do it_

While I agree with this sentiment in general, I think you have to look at some hoops as just part of hacking life. If you aren't finding the kind of success you seek using alternative strategies, maybe incorporating some conventional approaches could help.

I'm somewhat surprised that you didn't take the QA job. Even if it didn't make immediate economic sense, it was a foot in the door and after a few months you'd likely be doing something more lucrative, especially with tech chops exceeding what I've seen from typical game QA workers in the past. It sounds like this company already has a ladder like this in place. And even if "random employee in a game company" isn't your end goal, it's probably a good step along the way. Think of it as a months-long internship; it can't be worse than delivering newspapers. Speaking of non-US citizens, I can't help but think of the countless immigrants to this country who sailed over alone, working until they could save up enough to send for their families.

My overall feeling from reading both of your (well-written and interesting) blog entries is that you have had the misfortune of hitting upon a startup- type "success" early and that has given you an unrealistic expectation about how easy it is to replicate that kind of success in the future. Also, you're entering a stage in your life at which you need to dial down the amount of risk you can assume. It sounds precarious.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Don't you know how to code?

(I'm not in the video game or affiliate marketing scene, but I'd assume hacking games & building websites requires some technical ability.)

If you can code, it should be trivial to find a job of some sort regardless of your education.

<comment><AUTHOR> I've written programs for myself whenever I needed something that didn't exist (or I needed to improve), but I'm pretty certain I don't know as much as I should to consider myself a decent programmer. So, I'm learning as fast as I can. I didn't mean to imply I was still searching for employment; in fact I'm not. I'm working on a startup to help others who are struggling to get employed, and who (with better guidance) can acquire the skills employers want them to have.

I considered the biggest adversity to be losing my father. He'd always been a pillar of support for me, and really showed me what unconditional love meant. I lost him right when I had to become that pillar for my own son. But the thread kind of blew up about how I'd struggled financially.

<comment><USER23> Ah, thanks for explaining — from the discussion of your job applications for Google and financial situation, I'd thought you were still seeking employment. Glad to hear that you're working on something!

I can't even imagine the pain and adversity of losing your father, especially in such a rough period.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> One of the games in question is without doubt World of Warcraft, correct?

</comment><comment><USER25> I am jealous of your energy.

One tip for quick and one time easy money, in similar vein to exploiting dupe bugs (especially when it comes to people dismissing it as impossible :) - sport betting odds arbitrage. Made ~35% in one month. At the end of it, I was banned almost everywhere, which is why it's an one time affair (unless you start to use fake identities - I didn't).

</comment><comment><USER26> Scott-- Sorry to hear about the bad times. Don't quit, and don't let no discourage you!

</comment><comment><USER27> That whole googlex thing and sending handwritten letters and more directly to Teller is a little creepy and verging on stalkerish.

</comment><comment><USER19> I read the whole post, and it's just left me with a strong sense of unease. A gut-feeling that strongly reminds me of self-stories I've heard from certain people in real life, among them a next-cubicle coworker who was eventually institutionalized.

> When he finally responded, I was so excited that I sent him a long story > (like this one) explaining my life, and gave him a link to a website with > some of my ideas. After receiving no response, I realized how selfish I was > to think he had time to read all of that.

> I still had hope though, so I narrated all of it and sent him .mp3 files so > he could listen to it while he was jogging or something.

Putting your autobiography on tape for a prospective employer after already sending a text version... well, I think it's a sign.

In all seriousness, I believe the author could see big personal benefits from some kind of professional counseling about this stuff, as opposed to throwing it all out on the internet.

<comment><USER28> >I think the author needs some kind of mental help or therapy which I am not qualified to provide.

Maybe, but I doubt it. This just seems like inexperience. It took me a very long time to figure out the transition between worlds that are about you (school) to worlds that are not about you (work). The transition is not one of "selfishness" as much as it's about perspective.

PG describes the dichotomy well in "Two Kinds of Judgment:" [http://paulgraham.com/judgement.html](http://paulgraham.com/judgement.html)

Venkatesh Rao explains similar phenomena in his Gervais series: [http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais- principle-o...](http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-or- the-office-according-to-the-office/)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you for expressing it better than I had. When I tried to see my actions from his perspective, that's when I wanted to apologize.

<comment><USER28> If I were to give you some advice, it would be to:

a)keep working at _any_ job you can find. Wading through sewage for minimum wage? Take it.

b) Spend as little money as possible. Put all your earnings in a big pile on the kitchen table if you have nothing else to do with them. Your wife may be able to help in terms of keeping expenses to a minimum.

c)Since that job will most likely suck, spend off hours looking for a better job. Don't quit the first one until the second one is in the bag. Meanwhile, do good work at the first job. It's not like you're going to stick around for 20 years, so why not do great?

d) Repeat steps a-c until you have enough saved up for EITHER a bachelor's in a technical field + living expenses for the time OR some other boring, predictable, spreadsheet-friendly investment.

e) email me any time at dropit.sphere at google's email service if you need someone to talk to. I earned a perfect SAT score and am working as a valet, so I know how it is.

<comment><USER23> > I earned a perfect SAT score and am working as a valet, so I know how it is.

Whoah—that seems like a fascinating story. Have you shared it?

If you don't want to post a link on HN (this crowd can be pretty aggressive), my email is firstname.lastname@example.com

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Hey get on www.instaedu.com

You can learn 20$ an hour teaching computer science in your part time.

You can easily make more than 60$ a day.

</comment><comment><USER30> I was expecting some kind of payoff at the end, but nope. Just a whole lot of money lost and little to show for it.

Confidence is important but so is doubt. Not all ideas are good, and just believing in an idea isn't enough to make it a success. And the "safe" corporate jobs can be just as fulfilling in their own way.

</comment><comment><USER31> Exploiting games for profit is not something to be proud of. It seems like you have some of the necessary skills to run a business, but you need to find a product that is not based on theft.

<comment><USER32> Who is being robbed?

Throughout my teenage years I taught myself to program by writing bots to play mmorpgs for me then I would sell the gold. I made a fraction of what this guy did, but for a 13-17 year old I was doing quite well.

I have no delusions that what I was doing was "virtuous" or benefiting the world and what have you. But by the same token I don't think what I did was the opposite of that either - I certainly wasn't selling a product based on theft as you put it. And in the end it's the main reason I'm a programmer today, nearly a decade later.

<comment><USER19> The same people being "robbed" when you counterfeit money: It's divided across everybody else whose achievements and items are reduced in value.

<comment><USER32> Except that isn't at all the case.

By botting a video game money isn't being created out of thin air like with counterfeiting. Resources are collected which are sold for gold pieces from other players.

The difference may not feel like much - but it's night and day in terms of the practical economic implications.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> You call it adversity. I call it karma.

Your business was based on ruining games for ordinary players by exploiting bugs (in violation of your contract with the game operator) to duplicate items for sale for real-world currency. This messes up the game economy and it messes up the game balance.

<comment><AUTHOR> Perhaps you are right about the karma, but you should understand that I loved playing those games too. I knew I could have ruined their economies if I were careless or released the hacks publicly. I actually monitored a control group of servers where I did no duplication, and their economies were nearly identical to those where I did. Overall, I used the exploit on only about half the servers. If there had been a glaring difference, the game developer probably wouldn't have thought it impossible to have existed when I asked for a bounty to divulge it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> Hey, it's great that you're trying to find a place for yourself in the world. Unfortunately, you seem to have a malfunctioning moral compass, and you give off a sociopath space-cadet vibe. Making money exploiting in video games and tricking weak-minded people into buying worthless shit is not a path to anything good. Stop trying to bullshit your way through life and if you're lucky you might just be OK.

<comment><USER35> Sociopath may be a bridge too far, but there's definitely something very, very off about the way the author describes his scam as a business, and the apparent lack of emotion with which he describes the events in his life. It's cold and factual, and all "me, me, me".

<comment><USER3> How fascinating that we see such different things in the article. In the one I read, a guy puts his life on hold to take care of his dying father:

 _I spent nearly every day helping him out. I couldn 't bear to see him worry about me_

That's not "me, me, me", nor does it lack emotion, and certainly it refutes the (already self-refutingly silly) diagnosis of sociopathy. I wonder if there may be some crossed cultural signals here. Montana is not a place where people effuse.

<comment><USER19> Totally independently (there were 0 comments when I started reading) I've reached a gut feeling which I think closely mirrors WrathOfJay's.

> > I couldn't bare to see him worry about me

> That's not "me, me, me", nor does it lack emotion

Switch the emphasis around, and he couldn't bear _his future success being doubted_.

The story being told still comes back to the author's same universal preoccupation, which involves his own validation as a famous and successful person, or failing that one who is destined for it.

No, I wouldn't call it sociopathy, but _narcissism_ is definitely in the cards.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Am I supposed to feel sorry for someone that got caught exploiting online games?

<comment><AUTHOR> No, the post was more therapeutic for myself. I'd never found a crowd that could completely understand what happened that caused the night and day difference in my life at that point. To everyone in my social bubble (except my father and wife), I was simply a victim of the recession that began in 2008.

A solid message you should take away from that post is: Life will throw you curve balls, and I'm genuinely grateful to have found a place like HN.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> Its sad, but people are idiots. A degree is only about existing knowledge and keeping the status quo, not about "innovation".

Create a phony degree, someone who doesn't check backgrounds will hire you, and then your life will improve.

<comment><USER38> Seriously?

A degree proves ones ability to learn.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> It does not come off as credible to me without any actual details. The largest online games I can think of do not even have a market for items or do not even have servers/shards. Also why wouldn't you try to sell a dupe exploit to a gold seller like IGE. I know they buy them (and other exploits).

<comment><USER40> The level of ignorance from your comment is so high I don't even.

The biggest online game from 2008 most certainly had both a market for items and a huge number of servers. It's not hard to figure out exactly what game he was referring to by thinking about it for a minute.</comment></comment>


Gemnasium: Keep your Ruby gem dependencies in shape - <AUTHOR> https://gemnasium.com/

<comment><USER2> This is an essential upgrade for modern Ruby development. Everyone knows staying on top of gem versions becomes like herding cats, so any help would be appreciated. The service is a nice combination of technologies into a useful, specialized service with clear value. I actually appreciate how focused it is - it addresses a real issue and I have no problem believing the site can deliver a good solution.

Is this the first commercial service specifically building on the Github platform?

Also, great front page, covering all the basics. This is a great example of a web service front page. It has it all and the design is superb.

Good pricing on the plans, but I think Large is maybe $5-$15 too cheap. Yes, I know it's $25 for a Bronze Github business plan but if they have the cheapest business plan I doubt they'll be customers anyway. It also gives a good bracketing effect, making the next step down seem like a better deal.

Consider taking a page from 37signals here - look at making the top end a gold-plated product with high perceived relative value and price it higher than its "natural" pricing. The company can spend some of the difference in providing personal support which in turn encourages its customers to become endorsers. Customers can still congratulate themselves for saving money in developer time while providing a comfort that their developers will appreciate (it's like Hopt... er, Airbrake: web services as a developer amenity). I would also suggest the top-end plan be the only one available on a yearly basis so that it can be more easily expensed.

<comment><USER3> I don't see what this offers over Bundler. There's even a `bundle outdated` command coming in v1.1 which is at a release candidate already.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This is extremely cute, but a little ridiculous as a pay service :P.

<comment><USER5> You can sign up with a couple clicks and it won't ask for your CC.</comment></comment>


I Win My European Unemployment Bet - <AUTHOR> https://www.econlib.org/i-win-my-european-unemployment-bet/ <comment><USER2> Correct on the numbers, but the conclusions don't necessarily follow

> Most of the harm of unemployment is psychological, not material. Holding > income constant, the employed are much happier than the unemployed. Hence, > no sensible person would want to see U.S. workers' wages rise by 10% if the > unemployment rate rose 3.5 percentage-points as a result. And psychology > aside, remember that the welfare state forces active workers to support the > idle. So when regulation forces wages up, even the lucky workers who keep > their jobs ultimately forfeit much of what they gain.

If the goal is to improve happiness through applied economics then you should measure happiness, not make ad hoc justifications based on some other metric

<comment><USER3> Yeah. It's also somewhat incomplete analysis about happiness because it views it as steady state. I mean, anedcotally, sure, being employed is good and being unemployed (even with a good safety net) is bad. But _being laid off_ is much worse than either because of the disruption it causes.

Consider, would you rather spend a career with a single 1-year blemish where you had to live on the dole because you couldn't find work after changing career paths or whatever, or one where you were laid off four times for three months at a time? Those don't seem as symmetric to me as they do to the author.

That said, I think the points raised are valid. It does seem like in 2009 the market of academic economists was too bearish on the long term US unemployment situation.

<comment><USER4> Being laid off is temporary. And it can result in a better outcome, esp. when your previous employer was dysfunctional.

Source: I was just laid off.

<comment><USER5> In early 2001 when I was laid off from a startup for the first time, the CTO told me "Don't worry, it is __always__ for the best," which I took to be an empty platitude at the time.

18 years, 4 layoffs (and 1 walkoff) later, I can reflect back and say that he was only being emphatically honest. Each departure led to generous advancement, the sort that does not seem to come, these days, from loyalty to one's company or present role.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> > Europe has higher unemployment than the U.S. because it has stricter labor > market regulation

French here. I think he is stating the obvious, nobody is denying that. It's also the same reason it's hard to find a house in France: protective laws make both tenants and employers worried, and they filter quite hard the hiring/renting prospects.

On the other hand, once you are hired, being fired is pretty hard. So you don't have to worry about your boss being as abusive as you can find in the US because you can talk back.

Well, that's the theory. In practice I've rarely been talked badly by most people, the one time somebody was abusive, I told them to piss off, and they fired me. And I've never had any trouble finding a gig in my life ever since.

So your milage may vary as usual, but most people around me do report having a hard time with hiring/renting because of high steaks for both parties.

<comment><USER7> > On the other hand, once you are hired, being fired is pretty hard. So you > don't have to worry about your boss being as abusive as you can find in the > US because you can talk back.

If your boss is abusive then the solution is not to talk back but to pack your stuff and move to a better job, and leave your boss with the problem of replacing you.

<comment><USER8> In France you're also obligated to give your employer 1-3 months notice before leaving by law.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> > I'm not afraid to repeat that I have publicly demonstrated that my judgment > is good. And in my demonstrably good judgment, radical deregulation of > Europe's labor markets is long overdue. I'm happy to make the Quiggin bet > all over again with anyone who's interested, but what's the point? My > homeschooled sons understood all of this when they were 12.

Is this satire?

<comment><USER10> Brian Caplan is well known for placing long term bets on such things and having won all of them so far. Though his bet against Brexit happening is in jeopardy.

As for his pride in his home schooled sons, and their agreement with their teacher, I'd call that expected and understandable bias.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I think the meta-point is that betting on intellectual ideas is an underused tool in the toolbox of decision making. Endless academic journal debates don't seem to help much in moving people across ideological divides.

For all of those that disagree with his methodology or conclusions, if you can reach him, I recommend putting your money where your mouth is and proposing a different bet with Dr. Caplan.

I see a lot of people in the comments offended by his tone. I see his tone as analogous to a soccer player celebrating after a goal. We should socially encourage such behavior for those who win fair intellectual bets. (Although there is such a thing as unsportsmanly gloating, although I don't think this is such an example.)

<comment><USER12> everybody read Robin Hanson and google "futarchy"

it won't work because people don't like it, but super interesting ideas that could potentially be applied in narrow domains

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Are prisoners counted as unemployed? Are they employed when assigned to "penal servitude"?

The are at several other reason US unemployment numbers are lower: they have different percentages in prison and, on the opposite side, nonstandard employment like the military. They have more clout to enforce favorable trade agreements. The numbers are calculated differently.

There maybe a difference in real employment numbers but these are not the figures and the conjectural cause for this unknown difference is just a conjecture.

<comment><USER14> Prisoners aren't counted at all---not even as "not in the labor force" [0]. The employment statistics are based on the civilian non-institutional population, and prisoners are institutionalized.

[0] [https://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm#concepts](https://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm#concepts)

<comment><USER13> Is "not in the labor force" the right category? Treating it that way will reduce unemployment numbers by reducing the counted population.

No matter what category you put these groups in, you will have an uncomfortable discrepancy similar, although to a lesser degree, of comparing apples to oranges. This is because prisoners are not identical with non- exsistant people nor are they identical to employed people.

Additionally, since military is considered employment, Europeans could boost employment just by expanding their military: as if unemployment is caused by a small military. I sense this is not the conclusion the authors would like.

So I too will bet that 10 years from now, European unemployment numbers will be higher than the US. My explanation: the counting techniques, prison ratios, relative world influence, military sizes as well as greater employment security will remain about the same.

<comment><USER15> Governments have a vested interest in keeping the numbers low. Right now people who don't want a job (e.g. stay-at-home-parents) aren't in the workforce. Also it's counting jobs vs people in the labor force. Meaning if someone has 2 jobs, there's really also an extra unemployed person. Also 1h/week counts as a job.

Without those modifications US unemployment is over 10%, EU unemployment well in the 20% even in the Netherlands.

An even fairer measure would be "active population" which is number of people working on jobs divided by the full population. Of course at that point babies and comatose patients count as unemployed, but I think it's fair because it correctly points out that the employed have to pay (in work, not money) for the entire population.

At that point US is high 30% unemployed, EU low 40% (about a 5% difference).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> How do either statistic handle people are are slightly employed or have given up working? Barely employed doesn't make ends meet.

[https://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0609/what-the- un...](https://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0609/what-the-unemployment- rate-doesnt-tell-us.aspx)

Does this bet mean anything if the only employment you can get is 10 hours a week at minimum wage?

<comment><USER17> I find it odd that the article references the BLS, defines terms for discouraged worker and underemployment, but doesn't mention that the BLS also tracks that data and more, like labor force participation, omits the terms under which the BLS tracks the data (e.g. U-6 data), as well as omitting links to the data too. The last is maybe understandable, but the article leaves a general impression that the BLS misses that when the opposite is true.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Wow this author sounds smug.

> Most of the harm of unemployment is psychological, not material. Holding > income constant, the employed are much happier than the unemployed.

This doesn't factor in that employed workers might be much happier in countries where they can work without the possibility of being fired at any moment for no reason hanging over their heads.

<comment><USER19> If you can correctly predict economic developments for 10 years on a world scale, I think you'd be entitled to sound a little smug too. I've read a lot of economists much more smug that utterly failed to predict something right under their noses, and still are regarded as respected and asked for more prediction. I'd rather take one that can predict stuff, smug or not.

<comment><USER20> But we exist in the world where he was right - the article doesn't point to any methodology. It was 50/50.

<comment><USER21> Considering that he's won 19 of these bets, he'd have to be a very, very lucky person if it was just a 50-50 bet.

<comment><USER22> They aren't all independent 50/50 bets. There are a few clear trends in the wagers (bullish on the US economy, Eurozone/EU will not completely go to shit), so predicting just a few trends correctly wins most of the bets (though being wrong on those same things would lose most bets) and there are some bets at very long odds (e.g. 200:1 odds on Ron Paul becoming president) so even the person on the other side of the bet doesn't think it's a _likely_ outcome.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> > while the people currently in American prisons might not be model workers, > most of them could easily be gainfully employed on the outside.

A point easily refuted

PDF - [https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/59416/...](https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/59416/410855-Employment- Barriers-Facing-Ex-Offenders.PDF)

[https://money.cnn.com/2015/10/30/news/economy/former- inmates...](https://money.cnn.com/2015/10/30/news/economy/former-inmates- unemployed/index.html)

[https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/01/business/out-of- trouble-b...](https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/01/business/out-of-trouble-but- criminal-records-keep-men-out-of-work.html)

Even if the excons are model, PERFECT employees, the conviction could prevent them from getting a job.

Even if they have the greatest work ethic in the world, they might have gone into prison at 18 due to mandatory minimum sentences, came out at 23 with no skills and no money for education (or housing as a base of operations).

And, often the case, the system has fucked them, and they have no desire to participate in the system that fucked them.

I appreciate the author making such clear and well-stated points, that makes it easy to use to simple facts to refute his/her argument.

<comment><USER23> > Even if the excons are model, PERFECT employees, the conviction could > prevent them from getting a job. I appreciate the author making such clear > and well-stated points, that makes it easy to use to simple facts to refute > his/her argument.

It's pretty clear in context that this isn't actually what they're talking about at all.

Caplan is responding to Quiggin's claim that mass incarceration has a measurable effect of targeting people who would otherwise have been unemployed _if they had never been arrested and incarcerated in the first place_. He's not literally arguing that releasing those people from prison overnight would result in them getting a job.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Subdivide it into economies that are broadly similar and the conclusion does not hold anymore. Germany's unemployment is smaller than the US despite having a much more regulated job market. Problem is, the EU isn't really one homogeneous entity when it comes to job market regulation (Denmark is pretty laissez-faire, France much less so), so it's disingenious to treat them all the same.

On another note, his smug tone doesn't really help.

</comment><comment><USER25> I would very much like to see Quiggin's reply to this, or some kind of independent rebuttal. His arrogance, the pejorative way he refers to those who disagree with him, the blatant one-sidedness and poorly concealed rhetoric of his arguments, all that leads me to not believe a single thing he says without independent commentary.

</comment><comment><USER26> this guy has a very one dimensional view of labour regulation, there's a lot more to it than just how easily you can be fired. Things like minimum paid leave of 20 days or more.

</comment><comment><USER27> I think it is much more interesting to look at the inverse. i.e. employment rate and it is quite a surprise to see this in the last 10 years between a slight growth in the euro area and decline in the US.

Also the difference between unemployment rate over time and labour force participation is interesting. [https://d3fy651gv2fhd3.cloudfront.net/charts/united- states-l...](https://d3fy651gv2fhd3.cloudfront.net/charts/united-states-labor- force-participation- firstname.lastname@example.com?s=unitedstalabforparra&v=201903081350a1&d1=2004&d2=20190308&url2=/united- states/unemployment-rate)

</comment><comment> pickle-wizard Humm. I find his assertion that employed people are happier than unemployed people interesting. I wonder if this is because a lot of people live pay check to pay check and the loss of income puts them in a serious bind.

I was laid off last year, and I've been fortunate that I had a good salary and have been able to save a lot. Those few months I was unemployed were the happiest I've been in a decade. I did some traveling and projects around the house I've been wanting to do. In fact I quit claiming unemployment because the required job searches were killing my buzz.

<comment><USER28> Same here. When I was unemployed for a while the only thing that made me unhappy was the fear of running out of money. If I had a guaranteed income of some level that allows me to survive I would not need a job to be happy.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> I would just like to point out that many people who have been incarcerated have little chance to build a career outside of starting their own businesses. Once they get out of jail they would actually be unemployed most likely for some time if it wasn't for sheer necessity of some paycheck. Often people would rather stay incarcerated for 3 meals, a bed, a roof, and basic medical care.

</comment><comment><USER28> People like this author are the people who give economists a bad name. What arrogant writing and totally one dimensional thinking.

<comment><USER11> Dr. Caplan is a big proponent of betting. Disputes in academic journals are endless and inconclusive. Betting gets people to put their money where their mouth is. I think this is the best part of the economics profession and needs to be applied to more parts of society.

<comment><USER28> I am ok with betting. But the writing is horrible and the thinking is one dimensional.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> No mention here of the fact that European governments went much harder on austerity policies than the US after the financial crisis? I seem to recall reading for years that European countries were lagging in recovery rate due to policies of austerity while the US largely resisted calls from erstwhile deficit hawks to do the same.

</comment><comment><USER31> That's an interesting bet. It would also be interesting to see how UK fares compared to Euro zone in the next 10 years after the breakaway with Bexit. Some economists should do a bet on it. Nothing invigorating academic debates more than when money is on the line.

<comment><USER32> I'd like to see some politicians on both sides of the Brexit argument lay down some bets.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> I like Quiggin. He's an almost lone voice of reason about privatization and the shocking effects on public utility functions like electricity supply. I wish him well even if he is down $1k on the bet.

</comment><comment><USER34> > What does this all mean? To me, this bet is just a small extra piece of > evidence in favor of the orthodox and blindingly obvious theory that Europe > has higher unemployment than the U.S. because it has stricter labor market > regulation.

Insofar as I'm aware it mostly means that US unemployment is under-reported.

The labor force participation rate has yet to fully recover from its pre-2008 levels, and you're not counted as unemployed if you worked an hour the previous week.

European countries, by contrast, have mostly not changed their definitions of unemployment since, and have a relatively sane definition of what it means to be employed. This is not to say it's perfect -- far from it. But at least they're not counting 1h/week Uber drivers as employed.

See e.g.:

[https://qz.com/877432/the-us-unemployment-rate-measure-is- de...](https://qz.com/877432/the-us-unemployment-rate-measure-is-deceptive- and-doesnt-need-to-be/)

<comment><USER35> > European countries, by contrast, have mostly not changed their definitions > of unemployment since, and have a relatively sane definition of what it > means to be employed. This is not to say it's perfect -- far from it. But at > least they're not counting 1h/week Uber drivers as employed.

To quote directly from an official EU website [0] (which I presume is how employment statistics is defined within the EU):

> Employment (persons in employment):

> Employed persons comprise persons aged 15 years and more who were in one of > the following categories:

> (a) persons who during the reference week worked for at least one hour for > pay or profit or family gain.

> (b) persons who were not at work during the reference week but had a job or > business from which they were temporarily absent.

\---

From reading how the US government defines employment/unemployment/labor force participation [1], the definitions appear to be materially the same (employed means working for at least one hour in the EU and for at least 1 second in the US or being temporarily absent, unemployed means not being considered employed and having actively looked for work in the last 4 weeks, and not being in the labor force means not being employed and not being unemployed).

[0]: [https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics- explained/index.php...](https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics- explained/index.php/EU_labour_force_survey_-_methodology#EU- LFS_concept_of_labour_force_status)

[1]: [https://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm](https://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm)

<comment><USER23> > From reading how the US government defines employment/unemployment/labor > force participation [1], the definitions appear to be materially the same

They are the same. There are six different levels of unemployment which are measured and published regularly. One of them, U3, corresponds to what the UN uses and is the _de facto_ international standard. Back in the 1990s, the BLS decided to start referring to this as the "official" unemployment rate instead of one of the other five, in order to adhere to a common standard.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> > That said, I heartily commend Quiggin for actually making our bet. He towers > above all of the apologists for European labor market regulation who refuse > to put their money where their mouths are.

I know nothing of the people or personalities involved...but this does not give me a good impression of the author. First, he never refers to anyone with a contrary opinion in any way other than "apologist". Second, he never addresses any other value than the unemployment rate as a number (for example, I can easily imagine an "apologist" being uninterested in his bet if they think he might be right about the numbers, but they value the regulation for other reasons). In never addressing their views, he dismisses them as unworthy.

I'm poorly versed in economics so I don't really have an opinion on the actual matter under debate...but I can easily see him writing a smug and self- congratulatory article on this topic that nonetheless gave me a better opinion of him.

<comment><USER37> > First, he never refers to anyone with a contrary opinion in any way other > than "apologist".

What's wrong with the term "apologist"? It simply means one who defends a particular viewpoint or belief. (It comes from the Greek ἀπολογία, which means a "formal oratory defense" of a position.)

<comment><USER38> That's just being deliberately obtuse. I don't believe I've ever in my life heard "apologist" used in a non-pejorative sense. Etymology is irrelevant here.

<comment><USER39> Maybe the term "apologist" is uncollegial out of context, but apologia without stake is worthy of a ribbing when the apology matures into a confirmed failure.

Also why can't people have fun battling with words and bets? It seems better than revolution or fistfights to me.

<comment><USER36> > Also why can't people have fun battling with words and bets?

They can, and it is definitely better than violence, but I don't conflate "fun" with "belittling and demeaning" . (not to imply that you do, just showing the distinction I am making). I can think of a few other "I won a bet" posts I've seen over the years and they didn't have this negativity associated with it, despite their authors clearly feeling proven justified.

<comment><USER39> > _They can, and it is definitely better than violence, but I don 't conflate > "fun" with "belittling and demeaning"._

I'll let the targets... no... the _victims_ of the world's gentlest ribbing speak for themselves.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> In theory people incarcerated might be gainfully employed once released, in practise they're not

<comment><USER41> Why?

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> "Let's all join hands, admit that labor market regulation is a scourge, and tear down these paper walls."

This thinking is as cropped at it can be. The US is also the country with the highest consumption of anti-depressants. And what not other social problems.

Besides the whole article being a bunch of patting one self's back.

</comment><comment><USER43> Maybe it's a sign of the times, productivity is so high that there doesn't exist work for everybody. Either you create bullshit jobs, or you have unemployment.

This psychology thing is forgetting that being forced in a job that doesn't pay enough to survive is a huge drain on the worker and their family.

</comment><comment><USER44> I sort of see Quiggins' point about incarceration and employment.

</comment><comment><USER45> I'm sorry in advance to those economists who try hard to actually try to be rigorous and scientific about their subject.*

Rant follows:

> Forget ideology. Let's all join hands, admit that labor market regulation is > a scourge [..]

But let's not forget who the real scourge here are. Wanna-be rulers of the planet who dress themselves up as economists (though they come in many forms and degrees) making up just-so stories about why their next excuse to circumvene (or prevent) standards for upholding apparently not so common decency or (down to) basic human rights in the work place is justified. Or "economists", and the politician who lay in bed with them (sorry to those truly led astray though!), who enable business practices that profit just their interests. Or those that think it's okay to bleed the planet dry and destroy our biosphere for a quick buck. The list goes on...

Not saying the author is one of such, but they sure as hell must be out there (I'm sure their decisions are all nicely dressed in numbers and growing curves and big words!).

As a particularly egregious example what sufficiently unregulated labor markets can do, slave labor conditions in low-cost countries are unfortunately _really_ "efficient", the higher the wealth gap the better. Or even outright slavery: Esp. uneducated people in poverty have a lot of kids to support themselves, creating an endless fountain of cheap (unqualified) laborers (don't let them get too rich or educated though!). Got a prison population sitting idly? Well, they seem like an easy target to be extorted for un(der)paid labor.

Obviously there's a need for regulation here. I don't think however the author would condone any of the above, yet historically and contemporarily there have been several instances of stuff like this.

Of course there's a lot of nuance involved, modern discussion in developed countries revolves more about the /amount/ of social safety the state guarantees to the citizens plus the implementation of which, not about the /whether/ it should at all. Violations of human safety and dignity at the work place esp. in developing countries are kept behind a comforting veil of cheap prices in the rich nations. Luckily things often improve when total wealth in a country rises, mostly because you need an at least somewhat educated and satisfied population at some point to keep growing which precludes subjecting them to the direst of existences. People's desires to not be screwed with too much play a big role as well (it's not all bad, after all).

Nonetheless social systems are lacking in many countries worldwide in aspects like education, healthcare, sanitation, housing, public services or (somewhat tangentially) good ol' infrastructure. "But who will pay for all this fancy social security?". Well, who has all the money? It's basically the top 1% who possesses half the net wealth globally, which is a lot even should the number be off by a fair amount ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_wealth#Inequal...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_wealth#Inequality)). They don't seem to have been paying all that much then it seems.

However, like above, I don't want to make this seem about /whether/ we should have unequal wealth or not but about /how much/. Instead of trying to minimize welfare, let's ask the other way round: How much welfare could the economy sustain (without choking itself off!)? How much economic inequality is actually sustainable without tearing society apart and making it blow up like has happened in mankind's history many times?

There's an intricate balance here and many structures and parameters to tune... At the both extreme ends of wealth distribution lies dystopia and history has not been nice to countries who have left the safe zone for one reason or another.

The world is complicated, many economic statements are purely statistical. But arguing in a world with lots of known unknowns and even unknown unknowns is complicated. Abductive reasoning, which is what he attempted to do, tries to find an explanation for an observed phenomen given some background knowledge. It is an inherently unsafe type of inference in the real world. And in this instance it's non-rigorously done by a human, meaning it likely suffers from one of the many kinds of glitch in naive probabilistic/statistical reasoning (long list at [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases)) our species has. If you add your ability change the world as an agent yourself, things get even more complicated (self-fulfilling prophecies anyone?).

Good job on his bet though. Let's make a new bet: We have people "work or die": I bet unemployment would rapidly approach 0% (dead people can't be unemployed!). Man I should get into economics with this idea.

An important reason why we can't have nice things to a degree that should be possible today is ourselves, and to fix the woes of the modern world requires an extensive look at how we organize our societies and how we cause them to be or become dysfunctional. Statements like "hurr durr I win 19 bets" in a field that is riddled with conflicts of interests and that seems just as much to be about ideology and opinion (how come there exist so many "schools of economy"? I thought we all observe the same world) as about actual evidence and rigorous reasoning seem not very impressive.

* see [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demarcation_problem](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demarcation_problem)

</comment><comment><USER46> _" And psychology aside, remember that the welfare state forces active workers to support the idle. So when regulation forces wages up, even the lucky workers who keep their jobs ultimately forfeit much of what they gain."_

Even a doubling in unemployment claims would be drop in the bucket compared to pension liabilities.</comment>


Evented Programming With jQuery - <AUTHOR> http://yehudakatz.com/2009/04/20/evented-programming-with-jquery/ <comment><USER2> Did the Ruby community just invent the term "evented"? I've never seen it used elsewhere until recently.

</comment><comment><USER3> While there is some good stuff here, my first reaction to the idea of "evented programming" as described here is that Katz has simply replaced a perfectly good language-level mechanism for OO-inheritance (the prototype chain) with a library-level mechanism - using jQuery event triggers to implement a kind of AOP-style "before advice" - that makes the code both harder to read and to debug.

Can you imagine using Firebug to step through the chain from the first click event to the "base" implementation of "activate" in this example, through all of the jQuery event triggering going on? Nasty.

Am I missing something here?

<comment><USER4> It seems to me (an avid jQuery user, no less) that people are stretching the paradigm too far. There are places where traditional, class-like abstractions are perfectly legitimate, and indeed more natural. Some of the more elaborate applications of jQuery, such as jQuery UI, come across as smelly to me -- sometimes plain old classes and objects are nice.

<comment><USER5> Traditional object oriented programming is certainly easily at first, especially to those with a strong background in it. Unfortunately, in every app I've ever worked on, there's a dissonance between OOP and the browser environment that causes things to break down, at which point it becomes incredibly difficult to salvage without a re-write.

After working on some really complex JavaScript applications, my opinion is that the approach Yehuda's advocating in this post is enormously helpful when applications start getting complex, both in terms of the DOM as well as the behaviors that apply to them.

<comment><USER3> It seems to be the fashion to bash OOP these days, but I wonder in this case whether by "OOP" you are really talking about attempts to emulate classic GUI programming in the browser. In which case, I completely agree - and one of the things I love about jQuery is that it lets you work with the browser like it's a browser.

In this case I think Katz is replacing one kind of abstraction off of the browser with another one, actually an abstraction away from the natural call mechanisms of the javascript language. This is basically Aspect Oriented Programming by another name, and I've not actually come across a project where AOP made life less complicated.

<comment><USER5> The way I look at it is actually less AOP than it is event-driven SOA. All of your domain-specific event handlers are sort of like services.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This is what happens when Microsoft picks you up and says here this is how we do it.</comment>


Exceptions or return codes? - <AUTHOR> http://blog.tetrack.com/2009/01/exceptions-or-return-codes/

<comment><USER2> The blog references Spolsky who has marked it expired. Perhaps he has changed his mind.

Problems with error codes:

Too easy to ignore.

Errors and normal return codes get mixed.

Often difficult to pick a distinguished error value, 0, -1?

Problems with exceptions:

Too easy to ignore. How often do you find empty exceptions?

Too many types of exceptions, The Java libraries are particularly guilty of this.

Adding a checked exception can break code all over the universe.

</comment><comment><USER3> This blog post fails the "well-reasoned argument" test:

Pros of Return Codes:

1) Return codes are typed

2) Return codes are cleaner than exceptions and can have additional associated data

3) Exceptions are easy to ignore

4) Return codes integrate well with third-party code (how would you use Exceptions and not blow your client's call stack?)

Error handling is hard, let's go shopping.</comment>


Is your business mobile ready? - <AUTHOR> http://n00b.pub/blog/make-sure-your-business-is-mobile-ready <comment> amar-singh Now a days everyone using mobile more than desktop or laptop..If any entrepreneur wants to grow his business then he/she should make his website mobile freindly so that everyone can have access to it easily...also mobile apps can increase sals...</comment>


Google has canceled Google I/O 2020 due to Covid-19 - <AUTHOR> https://www.theverge.com/2020/3/20/21188669/google-i-o-canceled-2020-coronavirus-pandemic <comment><USER2> I'm surprised they had to cancel, given that they had already announced the move to an online-only conference. Perhaps they didn't have enough time to get the remote sessions prepared in time.

That said, I'm looking forward to Apple's online WWDC, and hope that it doesn't meet a similar fate!

[https://developer.apple.com/wwdc20/](https://developer.apple.com/wwdc20/)

</comment><comment><USER3> At this point I'd consider it major news if an in person conference is _not_ canceled.

<comment><USER4> Google announced earlier this month that they would cancel the physical event and make it an online-only experience. Now they've decided to scrap that also.

<comment><USER5> That's exactly what Google does best.

<comment><USER6> Care for the health of their speakers?

<comment><USER7> Canceling things

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Makes sense. Their employees are also working from home. If they do the conference online then it will require the employees to coordinate and meet, which is not desired. Cancelling is the right thing to do.

</comment><comment><USER9> the entire year 2020 is cancelled in general

</comment><comment><USER10> It's a giant commercial, who cares if it's cancelled?

</comment><comment><USER11> Not surprised. Google I/O keynotes for the last 10 years have been showcases of half-baked hacks that won't launch until a year later if at all. With everyone working from home, they can't even get convincing hacks ready.

<comment><USER12> Hey man don't forget about Google Stadia! It was a fully featured and complete product when it released last year!</comment></comment>


Safety Lessons from the Morgue (2012) - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/28/magazine/safety-lessons-from-the-morgue.html?_r=0&pagewanted=all <comment><USER2> Fascinating read, this one individual blazed a trail from "independent research project" all the way to "National Center for Injury Prevention and Control", a US Government Agency.

Also amazing was with how much lackadaisical disdain everyone treated personal safety...</comment>


Neural Prosthetics for Speech Restoration - <AUTHOR> http://www.boston.com/news/health/articles/2008/07/27/out_of_silence_the_sounds_of_hope/?page=full <comment><AUTHOR> See also: <http://speechlab.bu.edu/prosthetics.php></comment>


Would you benefit from monetizing your Web and Desktop Apps with premium ads? - <AUTHOR>

Anibal, Founder and CEO of InfluAds here.
InfluAds is launching a new offer aiming at providing startups and entrepreneurs the opportunity to monetize their apps better, through a small but highly premium and relevant ad.
We believe that this is relevant for: - Freemium models, where free is ad-supported - Free apps, fully ad-supported - Startups wanting to monetize their quality apps sooner, while maturing their thoughts on their revenue models
You can learn more about it: http://influads.com/in-app-advertising http://thenextweb.com/dd/2011/11/15/influads-lets-developers-place-premium-ads-in-their-web-and-desktop-apps/
We believe that in-App advertising can be more powerful on Desktop and Web apps due to the share of mind that these kinds of apps have. Guys like evernote have been doing it for a while now.
Would this be a valuable offer to you? Why, why not?
/Anibal <comment><USER2> Hi Anibal. I haven't opened the links; I'm on my mobile browser. Can you please explain what makes your ads 'premium'? Thanks.

</comment><comment><USER3> I couldn't find the payout for publishers. What can we earn? Thanks.

<comment><AUTHOR> That depends on which networks and current dynamics.

As a rule of thumb you can assume the rates on our ad store (<http://influads.com/adstore>) - 22%.</comment></comment>


Fasp versus FTP - <AUTHOR> http://www.asperasoft.com/en/technology/fasp_versus_FTP_4/fasp_versus_FTP_4

<comment><USER2> Why on earth would anyone _buy_ a data transfer protocol, especially one where the developers feel they need to put "TM" on every instance of its name?

Anyone remember the history of Zmodem? The wikipedia article doesn't mention it, but there were fewer implementations for fewer OSes than could have been, due to weird-beard legalistic threats. How would "faspTM" be any different?

Besides that, "fasping" sounds like some bad Sci-Fi euphemism for "shining the shaft".</comment>


Animated icons in email subject lines - <AUTHOR> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/28095387/animated-icon-in-email-subject <comment><USER2> Nothing says 'spam' like...</comment>


Earnings Release FY15 Q4 - <AUTHOR> http://www.microsoft.com/investor/EarningsAndFinancials/Earnings/PressReleaseAndWebcast/FY15/Q4/default.aspx <comment><USER2> "Commercial cloud revenue grew 88% (up 96% in constant currency) driven by Office 365, Azure and Dynamics CRM Online and is now on an annualized revenue run rate of over $8 billion"

This is really interesting. This recurring revenue should be growing every month. It's still only > 10% of total revenue, but I think MSFT SaaS business will be really big within a year or two.

I'm considering buying some stock.

<comment><USER3> And Windows 10 + Surface Pro 4 won't hurt either.

(I've never been so excited for a product that doesn't publicly exist yet.)

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Revenues for the quarter ended June 30, 2015 were $22.2 billion. Gross margin, operating loss, and loss per share for the quarter were $14.7 billion, $(2.1) billion, and $(0.40) per share. Surface and commercial Cloud Revenues up, $7.5 billion non-cash impairment charge related to assets associated with the acquisition of the Nokia Devices and Services (NDS) business, in addition to a restructuring charge of $780 million.

<comment><USER4> Interesting (to me) was that revenues for the same quarter in 2014 were $23.4 billion, or 5% higher. I don't follow MSFT that closely - read: almost not at all - but isn't it unusual for their revenues to fall?

<comment><USER5> At least to date, OS and Office revenue is somewhat dependent on those products' ship cycles. A recently released new version (or the end of support for an old version) generally drives upgrades which mean revenue fluctuates up and down not just on a seasonal basis but over a longer timeframe.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Lowlight: Windows OEM rev down 22% year over year

Highlight: cloud rev (Office 365 + Azure) up 88% year over year

<comment><USER7> Highlight that jumped out at me? One million consumers (!) a month signing up for Office 365.

<comment><USER3> Honestly, Office 365 is fantastic. I have nothing but absolutely good things to say about it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> It's interesting that Lumia sales are up by more than 10%, but revenue through phone sales decreased by 38%. That was primarily caused by Microsoft's refusal to sell any flagship Windows Phones after they purchased Nokia. I was personally affected by that decision — after my Lumia 1520 broke, I had to reluctantly upgrade to an LG G4 because there are no flagship Windows Phones for sale anymore.

<comment><USER9> I believe they covered this - and is somewhat related to your flagship comment. They sold more of the cheaper Lumia variants (targeted at other markets than the US/your part of the world)

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Beat bottom, missed top line...

        *MICROSOFT 4Q ADJ. EPS 62C, EST. 58C
        *MICROSOFT 4Q UNEARNED REV. $25.32B, EST. $25.96B

</comment><comment><USER11> Interesting that MSFT is down ~4% after hours. The Nokia write-off had already been announced...</comment>


Only in Silicon Valley - <AUTHOR> http://katsuyan.me/essays/only-in-silicon-valley

<comment><USER2> I am not sure how this made it to the front page...

<comment><USER3> Amen.</comment></comment>


India bans TikTok and dozens of other Chinese apps over security concerns - <AUTHOR> https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/29/india-bans-tiktok-and-dozens-of-other-chinese-apps-over-security-concerns.html <comment><USER2> I think this sort of response was inevitable and will be seen in more and more nations. China bans most of the popular websites and apps (including Wikipedia). The most recent trigger was the border standoff between India and China where Indian citizens could see and read both governments' responses, but Chinese citizens were only told Chinese govt's talking points.

This seems like yet another instance of the paradox of tolerance (reciprocity is a must have for a tolerant/liberal/globalized society): [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance)

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Indian Government Bans 59 mobile apps claiming that these apps are prejudicial to sovereignty and integrity of India, defence of India, security of state and public order.

Link of 59 apps banned: [https://pib.gov.in/PressReleseDetailm.aspx?PRID=1635206](https://pib.gov.in/PressReleseDetailm.aspx?PRID=1635206)

It includes TikTok, Shareit, WeChat, Clash of Kings, Cam Scanner among others.

</comment><comment><USER3> TikTok for sure is in the eye of the storm. US army has forbidden personnel from using it. Apple has caught the app using clipboard capture mechanisms to spy users.

To get more details, around 2 months ago, Reddit user 'Bangorlol' commented on a discussion about TikTok claiming to have successfully reverse-engineered it. He advised users against using the app and telling their friends and family to stop using it as well due to its intrusive user tracking among other serious problems.

Here is the link [https://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/fxgi06/not_new_news...](https://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/fxgi06/not_new_news_but_tbh_if_you_have_tiktiok_just_get/fmuko1m/)</comment>


Making $60k a month from a podcast on software engineering - <AUTHOR> https://www.indiehackers.com/interview/making-60-000-mo-from-a-podcast-on-software-engineering-0fa342480f <comment><USER2> Slightly off topic, but he mentioned that he got his start from the software engineering radio podcast that's been around since 2006. I've been binge listening to that podcast for about two months and it re-enforced two things that I always suspected.

1\. I made the biggest career mistake of my life by staying at one company from 1999-2008. I missed out on so much of state of the art technology that I spent the next 8 years trying to get caught up.

A lot of the things I was just learning in 2009 were already common place for years before then.

2\. As much as people say "technologies change fast", a lot of the higher level fundamental concepts they discussed 10 years ago are still relevant today.

Now back on topic...

A daily podcast that lasts an hour? It's remarkable that he can keep up that pace. Could he make just as much money from having fewer podcasts? would the scarcity make the podcast more valuable to advertisers?

I think John Grubers talk show podcast charges about $7500 per spot with 3 spots during an average 2 hour show per week. There have to be more software developers who would want a high quality podcast than people willing to hear Gruber's ramblings (no offense - I listen to his podcast every week).

<comment><USER3> There are two different podcast listening strategies (which informally seem about equally utilized).

1\. Download and listen to every episode of a podcast. For many this would be something like Grubers. Listeners typically keep a much smaller number of podcast subscriptions.

2\. Read the title and possibly the show notes for each episode and if it sounds interesting download that specific episode.

My listening habits are very much in mode one here, but for something like software engineering I think it's likely to be much more the second. By producing so much content and on so many topics they optimize their chance of getting at least a download a week.

<comment><USER4> Most podcasts I listen too (Linux Unplugged, Linux Action News, No Agenda) are no longer relevant after a week to a couple of weeks. The value is very much in the now. That would be a third mode then.

<comment><USER5> Same with many news/political podcasts. Hearing speculation about things that now have actually happened are 90% pretty boring a few weeks later.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Well they're not 'making' 60k a month - they have _revenue_ of 60k. A small bakery with a few locations has that sort of revenue. They have payment processing fees, accounting and other admin costs, housing, hosting, yadda yadda yadda - not to mention three people on payroll (and not on minimum wage, I'd imagine).

It would be much more interesting if they would show a balance sheet and profit and loss statement for the last few years. I've seen companies flaunting much better looking numbers than this and still go bankrupt. The real question is: how much is he pocketing, and how does that compare to say a consulting job?

(another way to put my point is 'it's easy to have revenue of 1mm a month - start a luxury car dealership, buy 5 250k Lamborghini's each month and sell them for 200k').

<comment><USER7> But the inputs to his podcast are merely time (and one-time equipment costs). As you point out, a car dealership needs to spend a ton of money on the inputs, but that doesn't translate to a podcast business.

<comment><USER8> You're forgetting salary, admin costs, and office/recording space (if they have one). They have three podcasters on staff.

<comment><USER7> A fair point. However, those are all relatively fixed. A car dealer needs to buy a new car to sell one. They don't necessarily have to invest more in the items you mentioned to grow their revenues.

TLDR: businesses that scale vs those that dont : )

<comment><USER9> Well, the flip side of your argument is that since "his inputs are only time," then he only has a fixed amount of time to make money from. Whereas, as long as the car dealer can sell every car he buys, he just has to keep buying cars in order to increase his revenues. Clearly there's more to both of these statements than that, but that's the point!

In any case, roel_v is pointing out that revenue isn't a very good metric without more data to evaluate it.

I'd like you to provide an example of a business that doesn't scale :-)

<comment><USER7> I hear you. I don't find the argument that robust given that everyone is limited by their time - car salesman included - but I hear you.

Agree that more data helps. For a headline I'd rather see revenue than margin or profit, as those are more subjective (or net revenue, if you're selling goods).

Unscalable business? Obviously a subjective take but, to me, that means anything where you're charging by the hour (e.g. consulting).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I wish that hour-long podcasts weren't an hour long. They are often too unstructured and slow paced. I think with some editing for pace they could be winnowed down to say, 20 minutes. I don't have time to sit around listening to an hour long podcast, especially not every day and multiple different podcasts!

I remember the old giants robots ruby podcast was about 20 minutes and covered 3 topics (not sure if I'm remembering correctly though, it's around 40 minutes these days). [http://giantrobots.fm/](http://giantrobots.fm/)

<comment><USER11> Structure is an editing problem, but there are lots of people who listen to podcasts sped up, or with silences removed. Apps like Overcast will do this for you.

Some podcasts, like Hardcore History, are worth the 5 hour runtime and they're so rarely published it doesn't really matter.

<comment><USER12> Any recommendations for podcast apps on Android?

I'm carrying around my a junked iPhone 5C and using it just for Overcast. I haven't been able to find any podcast players on Android that work as well for me. If I could find one, I could stop carrying two phones.

<comment><USER13> I've been a fan of PocketCasts. Lots of people recommend podcastaddict because it's free and has a million knobs, but I enjoy the comparatively slick interface of PocketCasts.

<comment><USER14> Another happy customer of PocketCasts. When I moved from Android to iOS, I still find PocketCasts to be superior to alternatives.

<comment><USER12> I'm going to give PocketCasts a try. Overcast was pretty much a perfect app for me. If I can't find something I like as much on Android, Overcast might be the killer app that makes my next phone an iPhone.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> As both a listener and once guest of SE Daily (and now contributor to the open source project), I really appreciate both the content and the community around it. Jeff is fantastic at conducting the interviews, even with people who arent very experienced with being interviewed (e.g me). Glad that it's doing so well. Would be curious to know how many people on HN listen to it as well.

</comment><comment><USER16> Damn, that is a lot of revenue! Congrats!

Can you share some stats about your advertisers? Like, how many advertisers do you have per month? How many per show? What is their average spend? How many months do they usually stay on as an advertiser? Do they normally re-sub automatically or do you have to get them to commit to another month, every month? How do you usually find new advertisers, cold calling them or ?

And a personal question, I only listen to US Political podcasts, but I _always_ press the "skip 30 seconds" button on ads. Why do you think there is a button that makes it super easy to skip ads built into the Podcasts app? How do people creating the podcasts feel about that? Do you have any stats on how many people skip the ads vs listen to the whole thing?

</comment><comment><USER17> Great quote:

"If I had to start over I would prioritize health — exercise, diet, sleep, socialization, getting outside for fresh air. I would be nicer to those who love me, and try to opt for kindness over cleverness."

</comment><comment><USER18> The title is misleading, considering what the article says: "Our monthly ad sales have variance, usually falling between $30-60k." If the average revenues are $45K, that number, not the peak number, should appear in the title.

</comment><comment><USER19> >(Work from 9am to 9pm, six days a week.)

Jesus. I'm sure this is small business owner hours but still, this person musn't have a family or any other commitments.

<comment><USER20> This is a typical work commitment in China. [http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/opinion/2016-09/13/content_2677...](http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/opinion/2016-09/13/content_26779220.htm)

It's not luxuriously easy, but it's not ridiculous, and is microscopically different from _average_ working hours 150 years ago.

<comment><USER19> Sure, but I'm not sure it's something we should be looking to as a healthy model.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I don't think there are many insights about operating a business you can get from this article but the business owner does have some interesting views on how to handle your personal and professional life. Also its very interesting that so many web entrepreneurs played poker so much in their early adulthood.

<comment><USER22> My theory is that entrepeneurship in general, and lean startups especially, relies a lot on "fake it till you make" and sales that rely on heavy bluffing, and poker players are the sort of people that can do that. In web tech, it's especially true, because "lean startup" theory means that you can sell your product before you build it, but you have to bluff to your customers that you have already built it and investors (if any) that you know how to build it... and free-market competition means that since bluffing provides an edge, you _must_ bluff to keep up with your competitors.

<comment><USER23> At high level, maybe. But poker is really about process and discipline. Playing poker to create income is a grind.

You sit there for up to 5 hours and do math on odds and make decisions, hand after hand. Every now and then you utilize bluffing or other techniques to bully to win a pot. Then you keep stacking to get a bank roll going so you can get to the next table, the next tier.

The college aged poker kids optimize for it like any engineer. They have spreadsheets tracking EV on time, earnings per hour.

But if you have the discipline and dedication to go through that for a year or so, then yeah, you can sit there and code to problem solve or sit there and go through the hundreds of decisions needed to operate a business.

<comment><USER5> Absolutely right. I was terrible at online poker since I wanted to have fun playing it. You can't bluff someone who knows the math in the long run. You'll lose all your money.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Thank you so much, Jeff. I've listened to over 100 episodes. Your podcast is an incredible way to learn about a technology before deciding if it is worth a deep dive. For anyone who likes to maintain a wide general knowledge base to help them navigate the rapid advance of trends and truly transformative technologies, I would highly recommend SE Daily.

And once you're hooked on the tech pieces, check out the rare philosophical episodes, like [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12584991](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12584991)

</comment><comment><USER25> I don't _think_ podcasts are for me, but maybe I'm missing out on something. I don't even really know how to play them. Do you stream them or pre-download? People listen to them on their commute do they, or while driving? So requires a cellphone contract with no download limit? I guess you don't just sit in your living room listening? And you wouldn't be able to pay attention while cooking right? I don't think I can take in information in real time, and I hate meetings, so I've always assumed I should stick to reading and writing for studying.

<comment><USER26> I use an app[0] that pre-downloads them, and I listen to them on the treadmill at the gym; while cooking or doing household chores; as background when I'm coding at night; and, sometimes, to help me get to sleep. For every one of those uses except the treadmill I sometimes listen to music instead.

Oh yeah, and I sometimes listen to current-affairs stuff in the morning, but owing to time zone differences that can be tricky.

I'm sure a lot of people listen to them while driving or otherwise commuting, but my commute is by tram and by foot, and it doesn't fit that well.

I don't find it distracts me from cooking, though from coding sometimes yes (then I switch to music). I don't just sit in my living room listening without anything else going on, but I don't think that would be weird. I'd listen to podcasts in the bath if I had a bathtub.

It took me a while to find a set of podcasts I really like. This is different for everyone, but I think it's worth spending some time on. I'm still looking for good ones on a few topics that seem under... undercasted? I think there's still room for a lot more good podcasts, and some of them will even make a good living for the host.

You can download everything on WiFi if you like, but they're just audio files so it doesn't eat that much out of a normal-ish mobile data plan.

Give them a chance, and try a bunch of different ones before making up your mind. I ended up liking podcasts _way_ more than I expected I would.

[0]: [https://overcast.fm](https://overcast.fm)

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Just came to say so excited to read this and on the top of HN! Jeff is a hero of mine.

Jeff, I once responded to your survey. I lost a ton of weight abroad with nothing going for me bc your podcast and the Changelog podcast gave me the weird fuel I needed to just run but also learn and be engaged mentally. I find your career choice from Amazon inspiring as a transition (not to mention poker) and you always ask insightful questions. I am trying to get into security with dev work on top bc you make me want to be in that culture, after a decade of avoiding it as a jaded IT guy.

I have sent every group of developers and tech enthusiasts links to one or more episodes. I need to make time to contribute to the open source SE Daily apps. Just because.

Thanks for building me an ethos so I don't have to for myself. ;-)

</comment><comment><USER28> How to make $60k/mo from a podcast:

 _When I was 19 there was a month when I played poorly and lost ~$250k. I quit shortly after that. It took me awhile to recover my psychological bearings._

Step 1: Be super rich.

<comment><USER28> I do feel a little bad about this comment--it's probably overly snarky. Maybe he won that 250 grand playing poker from a small nest egg that he earned at a minimum wage job. And he isn't claiming to be sharing the secret of success-- he's just sharing his experience, which is valuable regardless of his beginnings.

I don't know. Something about this rubbed me the wrong way, but it probably says something more about me than about him or life in general.

<comment><USER29> I started with $100 and built it up, then lost most of it

But also started with a roof over my head, great parents, an internet connection, etc. I would consider myself a trust fund baby in that sense.

<comment><USER28> See, I knew this was going to happen and then I was going to feel real bad.

One question I do have for you: How did you get Stephen Wolfram, Seth Godin, etc. to come on your early pods?

<comment><USER29> Emails!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Hmm, so you make money from ad revenue. Do you sell ad time (and make advert announcements) during the podcast?

<comment><USER29> Yes :)

<comment><USER31> Should be titled "Wasting >>$60,000/mo of people's time, but getting paid $60,000/mo for it".

<comment><USER32> This is one part of the truth, but not all of it. The remaining minutes of the the hour long podcast evidently provide enough value to the listeners for them to keep tuning in, despite the annoyance of ads. As long as his output has value and he charges what the market will bear (in terms of ad time), he should do well.

The point is, it's not a net "waste" of people's time, it enriches their lives in some way.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> SE daily is a great podcast with quality content on new topics in Computer Science. Jeff asks great questions and really tries to understand the mechanics of how things work. With an episode every day it's hard to keep up.

</comment><comment><USER34> _SE Daily gets ~140,000 downloads per week_

I don't understand how can apps then have 1000-5000 downloads total?

<comment><USER35> By using other podcast players :-) Not everyone uses the SE Daily app, they'll be using RSS/iTunes/etc.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> This part is really critical, and this interview on indiehackers made it easy to find (unlike some of the other interviews): I like how they show how they acquired all their users: Word of mouth!

i do feel like we're in some kind of golden age for podcasts, there's so much great content out there. maybe i should dump my netflix subscription and just listen to podcasts?

</comment><comment><USER17> @crablar

What are your favorite episodes?

</comment><comment><USER37> The site feels so buggy to me, that weird css load and the logo carousel behaves so odd (not to mention the wrong hover on the left/right arrows), i just can't stand it.

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

<comment><USER38> It appears the old site is [https://softwareengineeringdaily.com/](https://softwareengineeringdaily.com/), and the new site ("in early beta") is [https://softwaredaily.com/](https://softwaredaily.com/). The two sites appear to contain the same set of podcasts.

You can find an RSS feed at:

[https://softwareengineeringdaily.com/feed/podcast](https://softwareengineeringdaily.com/feed/podcast)

Somewhat confusingly, the new site has a navigation link, labeled "Feed", at the top of the page. But it's not an RSS feed. Rather, it leads to a compendium of links to interesting articles on software engineering from around the web. It looks like the plan is to implement voting for the articles (there is a vote count, but it's empty).</comment></comment>