Announcing GitHub Desktop Beta - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/blog/2362-announcing-git-integration-for-atom-and-github-desktop-beta <comment><USER2> > We've rebuilt GitHub Desktop from the ground up in Electron to create a > simplified user experience focused squarely on how you use GitHub

Would be really interested to see some benchmarks comparing the performance of the Electron version and the previous version. Start-up time, time to perform common actions etc.

Personally I think it's a bit of a shame, since I seem to remember the previous version making use of the platform's native toolkits and widgets, e.g. WPF on Windows and Cocoa on Mac. I suspect the overall UX will now suffer. I guess it's easier to develop though, and works on Linux now?

Edit: Oh, there's still no build for Linux.

They do detail some of the reasoning ([https://githubengineering.com/how-four- native-developers-wro...](https://githubengineering.com/how-four-native- developers-wrote-an-electron-app/?)) behind this decision in the GitHub engineering blog and it looks like they've put a lot of work into this. But even the menu bar they've come up with ([https://github.com/desktop/desktop/pull/991?](https://github.com/desktop/desktop/pull/991?)) for Windows is _obviously_ not native. The decision seems to boil down to (paraphrasing) "lots of people are doing web stuff" and "now we can reuse our code" ... which is fine, but again seemingly prioritises the development over the user experience.

<comment><USER3> That's the whole point of Electron period. Cut development costs. Meanwhile end-users (including developers) will suffer, because along with their chrome instances using hundreds of MB in ram, they will have electron apps open using similar (and in many cases more) amounts.

<comment><USER4> I don't care too much about RAM, I do care about the carnage it wrecks on my battery life.

<comment><USER5> Maybe few extra battery packs will take care of battery issue too?

<comment><USER6> I like the way you think

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I don't know why these kinds of applications aren't developed in far better performing frameworks and languages. Github desktop has to process a lot of textual information. With the current version, I've frozen it and crashed it many times due to large files. I actually can't use it anymore due to that. Make it in c++ with QT or some other native toolkits, like every other gilded application of old has. It will 'Just work', which is what developers need. Not fancy UI's

<comment><USER8> > It will 'Just work', which is what developers need. Not fancy UI's

The whole existence of the GUI client itself is an argument against that as the Git command line interface already works just fine.

<comment><USER9> I assume that with 'just works' the OP actually meant to say 'just works without too much hassle/overhead'. For example: staging lines/hunks on the commandline does 'just work', no denying that, but in most UI's it's way more efficient and pleasant.

<comment><USER10> Just like how you want a nice UI for staging individual lines, some of us want a nice UI in general, and few of us have low enough standards to consider qt to be "beautiful"

<comment><USER11> Qt can be made beautiful. Just like most other UI toolkit out there that support theming. HTML by default is pretty hideous.

It's mostly a matter of knowing how the theme engine works. As an example, [https://tox.chat/](https://tox.chat/) qTox looks pretty nice in this screenshot :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> >a new release of Atom with Git and GitHub Integration and the new GitHub Desktop Beta, completely redesigned on Electron.

So how many gigabytes of RAM does it take to run both of these at once?

<comment><USER13> I've been having a lot of performance issues with sourcetree so honestly, I don't care how much ram this uses as long as it manages to push a commit to my medium-sized repo in less than 30 seconds...

<comment><USER14> `git commit -am`

Boom. Less than 30 seconds. Even quicker if you have an alias like `gc`...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> 2012: [https://github.com/blog/1151-designing-github-for- windows](https://github.com/blog/1151-designing-github-for-windows)

>We specifically made the decision to write each application in a language native to the platform, and this has turned out to be hugely beneficial to us. Because of this separation we've been free to tackle the problems that are most pressing for each platform and work in the best possible tools instead of being constrained to the lowest common denominator.

2017: GitHub discovers software development is hard, falls back on lowest common denominator.

EDIT:

80MB installer. Automatically unzips into %ROAMING%. 140 MB of RAM used with a single repo loaded. Yep, sounds like Electron.

Oh, also, it doesn't even list any of my repos after logging in.

<comment><USER16> > Automatically unzips into %ROAMING% blame MS for that garbage > 140 MB of > RAM used wow, that would be alot in the 90s

<comment><USER15> > blame MS for that garbage

Uh... As far as I know, installers work well. Sorry for wanting to choose where I install my stuff. Spoiler: It's not on C:\\. Chrome started that trend of install-less installs, and I've hated it ever since.

>wow, that would be alot in the 90s

Indeed, let's see which processes I have running that take up less than 140MB, shall we?

* Battle.net. Full app launcher, with patching capabilities, okay. * OpenHardwareMonitor. Does a shitton more than GitHub. * Mumble. Does a shitton more than GitHub. * Windows Explorer. Does a hell of a shitton more. * Steam. Finding a pattern there? * Origin. Skype. Task Monitor. Intel XTU. The list goes on and on. All doing infinitely more than what amounts to little more than an UI on git.exe

Thing is, sometimes I actually need that RAM. To run games, Photoshop, or Atom, depending on how much I hate myself right now.

But hey, it's okay, as a developer, you can choose to disrespect your users, that's your choice, not mine :>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> So they went from a subpar native application to an even more subpar application on Electron. I think I'll stick with SourceTree. At least that won't take 10 seconds to boot up.

<comment><USER18> I've never used Github Desktop but SourceTree has its own set of glaring problems from interface to functionality. I stick with the command line these days.

<comment><USER19> SourceTree just became worse and worse with every release, to the point of unbearable. I am using an old version of SourceTree (1.5.2) and it works great.

<comment><USER20> I hate to be the bearer of bad news but that version of SourceTree is affected by this security vulnerability:

[https://confluence.atlassian.com/sourcetreekb/sourcetree- sec...](https://confluence.atlassian.com/sourcetreekb/sourcetree-security- advisory-2017-05-10-900820365.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Will this also, without my permission, delete repositories & forks from my laptop that have been DMCA'd on Github?

<comment><USER22> Yikes. They did that?

<comment><USER23> There seem to be a lot of repositories taken down from Github.com [1] -- over 30 in the past week alone. I am not sure if they've removed repositories from local PCs ever, but presumably with control over the client they could, similar to what Amazon can do with the Kindle [2].

[1] [https://github.com/github/dmca/tree/master/2017](https://github.com/github/dmca/tree/master/2017)

[2] [https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2009/07/amazon-sold- pirated-...](https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2009/07/amazon-sold-pirated- books-raided-some-kindles/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Every time I see a native app rewritten as a "cross platform" webapp I get flashback of the tragic story of pgAdmin and die a little inside.

</comment><comment><USER24> Sometimes i think Electron is literally the worst thing that happened to desktop apps. Fuck these bloated, +10 seconds startup on a i7 + SSD , non native looking "desktop applications".

<comment><USER2> Yeah, it's a "fad" that I hope ends reasonably soon. I guess a lot of businesses just care moreso that using Electron reduces costs and the user experience and performance isn't a priority.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Will the native versions also be open sourced when they're retired?

I'd be willing to volunteer some time to bring the Windows one back up to speed. All I wanted in a new version was for it to respect my system accent color and switch to using system webviews internally (neither of which this new version does either).

</comment><comment><USER20> Congratulations Github team!

One thing that worrying to me is that you include an 'undo' button that rewrites history. This is bad, as it could affect everyone downstream of you. That button should be turned into a 'revert' button.

</comment><comment><USER26> I use git and github regularly for my hobby/side projects and even for contributing patches to some open source projects hosted on github. My typically workflow is using git command line for commits and the usual things and then a git push to my remote github repo and use their website to submit PRs, respond to reviews etc...

I am curious, how people use desktop app for github and what value it adds when compared to just using github website.

<comment><USER2> From personal experience, GitHub Desktop is great for teaching people new to Git about how it works /prior/ to them being comfortable with Git on the command line. It's not something I'd use on a daily basis, but it does make it very easy to make your first commits and PRs - and visually see where you are, what changes you have staged etc.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> If my browser had the capability to set watch on multiple different directories for a service worker, you could have an almost desktop like experience without a different software.

With service workers, this would be pretty much do everything that the Dropbox or Github clients can do.

</comment><comment><USER28> I use VSCode now days, as my primary git commit interface. Some improvement are required in diff / merge, but it is very clean interface and never caused any ambiguity.

It is also an Electron application, but taking 1/2 battery then Slack, so reasonably efficient.

</comment><comment><USER29> Between git command line, gitk, and git gui I don't really see the need to try tools like SourceTree or this new GitHub Desktop Beta. Is there a compelling reason I'm missing?

<comment><USER30> This tool is not for me or you. It is to ease the entry friction for those who have never worked within our ecosystem.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> In my opinion, I still think Gitup is much better.

</comment><comment><USER6> In this thread you'll find many native app developers who are dismissing Electron because they feel threatened.

Cross platform apps are the future. Each day I run at least three Electron apps simultaneously and have no problem whatsoever. You have to be paying close attention to notice, and the reality is that most people do not care.

In fact, I was so intrigued by Electron, that I started developing my own app. So far the experience has been pure bliss.

<comment><USER15> >Created 18 minutes ago

I didn't know 'open source project shill' was an occupation. I'm feeling audacious, I'll bite.

You run three electron apps simultaneously and don't care, but your users are not running on heptacore 16GB RAM machines. They care, a hell of a lot.

Hell, even I with an heptacore and 16GB RAM care when Electron apps appropriate two full cores to render shit a CPU from 15 years ago could have done with native technologies.

<comment><USER32> I run the following browser-based apps, concurrently, every day:

Atom (electron), Discord (electron), Spotify (electron-like), App Store (webkit), Steam (webkit), Safari, Chrome.

I have all of these running, without a single problem. Performance is great. I don't need a "heptacore 16GB RAM machine" to do it - I run all of this on a 2016 Retina MacBook. The 8GB RAM, 1.2GHz dual core Intel M5, passively cooled ultrabook.

So, what was it you were saying again?

<comment><USER15> >Atom (electron)

50% CPU by staying idle.

>Discord (electron)

Does better, only uses one full core, 25% CPU!

> Spotify (electron-like)

Actually one that doesn't decide my cores belong to it, thankfully.

>webkit derivatives

Steam notwithstanding because only parts of it are webkit and is uses CEF, these are not wrappers around chrome repurposed.

>I run all of this on a 2016 Retina MacBook. The 8GB RAM, 1.2GHz dual core Intel M5, passively cooled ultrabook.

It's almost as if you were running on the same hardware as these people develop it on and care about when they dirnk their lattes in a Starbucks.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Fire at a homeless encampment sparked Bel-Air blaze that destroyed homes - <AUTHOR> http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-skirball-fire-cause-20171212-story.html <comment><USER2> Maybe we could do something crazy, like bring back SROs, instead of de facto as a society acting like we think it is better for people to sleep in a tent than have "sub standard" housing. Because tolerating rampant homelessness while turning our noses up at modest rentals basically amounts to the nation saying that is exactly what it thinks.

 _Miner said she was skeptical of the proposed campaign to educate homeless people about fire risks._

Yeah. A homeless person making a cooking fire is probably hungry and probably has no other viable option. Trying to "educate" the homeless about fire risks sounds like "Honey, we don't care if you starve. Just make sure you don't burn down any mansions. Kaythxbai."

<comment><USER3> I don't disagree, but I will point out that many homeless people want to be homeless, if being housed means submitting to questions and forms. Autonomy is a powerfully strong motivator.

<comment><USER2> The vast majority of homeless do not want to be homeless. If we provide enough affordable housing -- at market conditions, with no more forms and the like than other rentals -- you will be left with a much smaller number of quirky hobo-by-choice types. Shrinking the problem is very worthwhile.

<comment><USER4> Don't rentals require a credit score, a stable source of income, and usually a guarantor?

<comment><USER2> Yes. But I am trying to make the distinction that most poverty relief programs are much more invasive and bureaucratic than most market based solutions.

I am thinking of low cost rentals where they require you to live there and won't rent it to well off people looking for a weekend getaway that is cheaper than a motel. But other than that, I don't want a lot of extra requirements tacked on.

<comment><USER5> I think you're very misguided about "market based solutions". The homeless don't have money, therefore they have limited/no exposure in the "market". I don't know if you've been present before about why companies don't form around low income or homeless segment - there's no market in them. No money = no RoI.

You cater to people who have money. You're describing something that price discriminates and doesnt at the same time.

> I am thinking of low cost rentals where they require you to live there

Forced to be there X amount of time. This is a reduction of freedom, which sounds like reinstating the bureaucratic nightmare you talk of.

> and won't rent it to well off people looking for a weekend getaway that is > cheaper than a motel.

Means-testing. The homeless aren't going to have the paperwork to show lack of means. Remember, these people probably have no ID or anything. The census allows them to highlight landmarks where they "frequent", along with voting homeless allowed similar.

> But other than that, I don't want a lot of extra requirements tacked on.

And what you stated is already too much.

What needs done: if you're homeless, you get a small room. It's yours. It won't be much. We can at least afford that as a population.

<comment><USER2> The homeless are not some other population. They are people who currently lack housing. With enough affordable housing, some people would never land on the street to start with. They would move to an SRO temporarily, get their act together and return eventually to more conventional housing.

I am not talking about a homeless service. I am talking about policies that shrink the problem in part by preventing homelessness to begin with.

I will add not all homeless are completely penniless, and I have formally studied the subject.

<comment><USER5> > The homeless are not some other population. They are people who currently > lack housing.

True, however not having housing then brings on a host of other problems. Basic sanitation and food are just 2 of those big issues - and the food issue is why the fire happened in this place.

> With enough affordable housing, some people would never land on the street > to start with. They would move to an SRO temporarily, get their act together > and return eventually to more conventional housing.

Or, they would do like what we see happen in China and Japan - where the prices keep going up and up and up, and those people never leave the SROs. That's also a market eventuality, and a noted fact in those areas. This idea that SRO's are some "gift" to homeless and that they'll clean right up is a farce.

> I am not talking about a homeless service. I am talking about policies that > shrink the problem in part by preventing homelessness to begin with.

I have a completely curveball outfield suggestion: We the government/people build SROs. If you're homeless, you can have 1. End of discussion. Because shoving this on "The Market" is how in part why they became homeless. So yeah, splatter more "market". It's about as true as trickle-down theory (aka: getting pissed on by above).

> I will add not all homeless are completely penniless, and I have formally > studied the subject.

Yeah, so did I. I _was_ homeless. You researched it for a single sociology class. When I was homeless, we met _lots_ of students from the local university. The homeless epidemic has gotten nowhere but worse. But hey, there's some papers published reaffirming time and again the same things.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> What's not really mentioned here is that these sorts of encampments are usually build along CA freeways because those are policed only by the state (Caltrans / CHiPs) rather than the locality (city/county). Even when there is an obvious hazard (garbage buildup and drift into the road, visible fires burning, throwing objects at cars, walking/crossing the highway or on/off ramp) nothing is done. Typically, it takes a call to your CA state senator to get any action (caltrans doesn't respond to messages within a month).

<comment><USER7> Yes, there is one between my complex and a highway in San Jose. There was a big fire there last week. No news coverage. We were lucky it did not burn our homes down. These people have been offered help in the past and refuse it. The area gets cleared out and they return. They harass women in the neighborhood and steal everything they can get their hands on. They have to go.

<comment><USER8> Go where, though?

<comment><USER7> The arsonists and thieves can go to jail. The rest can take advantage of the existing programs and stop refusing help.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> _When I first got to Baltimore there were a lot of studies on cities, and I became very involved in the problem of housing -- housing finance, housing collapse in the inner city, housing conditions in general. I was fascinated to do a series of reports for the city, and also for other agencies, about how to approach the whole question of urban regeneration, which is very much on the agenda there._

 _It was extraordinary to me that some of the ideas I got for that came out of reading Engels 's famous saying on the condition of the working class in England in 1844; and also the housing question where he says the bourgeoisie had only one way to solve its housing problem: it moved it around. When I started to look at what some of the proposals were, they were about gentrification, which, in effect, would displace people and just simply move the problem around._

 _So I made a big pitch in these reports, saying, "If you're going to address this question, you can't address it in a way that simply moves it around. In order not to move it around, we have to deal with basic questions about income distribution, wealth and the like, and, also, of course, racism, and housing markets and so on." This was a very important principle that came out of reading Engels, and then importing it. I put it into these reports; I didn't cite Engels. I didn't cite Engels, and everybody thought this was a fantastic insight, and somebody said to me, "Where did you get that from?" I said, "From Engels," and they said, "Who is he?"_

 _" Tom Engels, the local congressman"!_

 _" Does he work for the Brookings Institution?" or something like that. It was funny. But this was how I would sometimes find myself using this stuff in factual ways, and it resonated with people. I got a lot of encouragement to stay with this framework, that when you actually laid it out, used it in this way, using these kinds of concepts, people understood what you meant. The only time they turn around and walk the other way is when you tell them where it came from._

[http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/people4/Harvey/harvey- con2....](http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/people4/Harvey/harvey-con2.html)

</comment><comment><USER9> Heard of the quote "You don't hate Mondays - you hate capitalism" ?

I doubt the urge to scapegoat the homeless will become a widespread one, but I'm sure that some (ie land grabbing developers..) need to hear this:

"you don't hate the homeless - you hate how they serve as a reminder that you can _always_ face ruin. The more you make, the harder it gets to empathize with a guy with a sign, or even to look him in the eye for more than a glance...

<comment><USER5> I hate the fact that we have involuntary homeless. We have more than enough in this country to fix that. It's a choice of the voting public and the politicians that scorn and hatred and blame is pushed on them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Seems like we are going to be seeing more of this with drier conditions and ever growing homeless camps across California. There are numerous fire code violations at these camps and these were devised for a reason. Not sure what the best course of action is but clearly something needs to happen.

<comment><USER11> Devil's advocacy: must "something happen?". The point to allowing semi- permanent homeless camps is that people were being forced into hiding, sleeping in ditches and eating garbage. That's a serious social ill (no, I don't have numbers, but would be interested if someone does), and one that was trivially solved by allowing them to pitch tents and cook food. It's still not a great existence, but it's a whole lot better and it's something that lots of people will legitimately choose.

And if the cost of that is some non-zero number of burned homes? Dunno, but my gut says that's a worthwhile trade.

Not that I'd argue with running power to those camps and paying for some hot plates either, of course.

<comment><USER10> I agree that a tent does seem to be a step up from a ditch but I'm not sure you can say the issue was trivially solved. At least in the bay area many of the camps are in parks. This seems like a very controversial opinion but I really enjoy walking around parks and this really isn't possible with bustling, trash filled homeless encampments occupying the neighborhood parks. I don't have a solutions but I don't think tent camps are the way to go either.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> That seems a bit ironic.

</comment><comment><USER13> People are either a liability or an asset, and how California responds to their housing crisis will ultimately play out in the consequences.

</comment><comment><USER14> I have a modest proposal.

</comment><comment><USER15> Well if that's not some kind of social commentary, I don't know what is.

</comment><comment><USER16> Can you say, "False economy?". See, I knew you could.

</comment><comment><USER17> Mayor Garcetti has been very soft on the homeless and refused to enforce laws targeted at these encampments:

[http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-garcetti- homeles...](http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-garcetti- homeless-20150630-story.html)

<comment><USER9> Look...maybe you have a low opinion of him.. maybe you see him as slacking off from his Mayorly duties or decrees or whatever he should, in your eyes, be doing, fine... and I'm sorry for this wall of text but I just cannot allow a comment like that to not bear my scrutiny.

But just the !!insane!! rate of growth of the homeless in _the last two years alone_ completely changes the game. It appears that, no matter where you look, all throughout the city of Angels is that housing is fucked expensive and in fucked supply.

> The startling jump in homelessness affected every significant demographic > group, including youth, families, veterans and the chronically homeless, > according to the report. Homeless officials and political leaders pointed to > steadily rising housing costs and stagnant incomes as the underlying cause. > [0]

I beseech you to be receptive to the idea that the problem goes far far far beyond simply flipping an "enforce preexisting laws" switch, or hiring more blue-suited hardasses that'll shine flashlights into the eyes of the homeless as they weather every night's accompanying total lack of guaranteed security...

Your 2015 article is by Gale Holland -- now compare the urgency of her writing, from earlier in 2017. The title alone is enough to alarm the shit out of you...

Headline: L.A. County homelessness jumps a 'staggering' 23% as need far outpaces housing, new count shows [0]

> Even the homeless veteran population jumped in 2017, marking a backsliding > of the gains made last year by city, state and federal programs that slashed > the number of homeless veterans by a third. With the number of veterans > placed into housing slightly down, the count of 4,828 homeless veterans was > up ___ 57%. __ (emphasis mine, but holy shit!)

> "There's no sugarcoating the bad news," Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti said > at a news conference Wednesday where the Los Angeles Homeless Services > Authority released its report. "We can't let rents double every year. I was > particularly disappointed to see veteran numbers go up."

> Garcetti called homelessness a problem that has persisted "through > administrations, through recessions," adding, "Our city is in the midst of > an extraordinary homelessness crisis that needs an extraordinary response. > These men, these women, these children are our neighbors."

> The Homeless Services Authority linked the worsening problem to the economic > stress on renters in the Los Angeles area. More than 2 million households in > L.A. and Orange counties have housing costs that exceed 30% of income, > according to data from Harvard University's Joint Center for Housing Studies > included in the report.

> According to the nonprofit California Housing Partnership Corp., median > rent, adjusted for inflation, increased more than 30% from 2000 to 2015, > while the median income was flat.

\--

Assume a plain-Jane compound interest growth formula (it's just a sketch, right?), use the rule of 72 with that 23% figure, and bam -- if that's how the process plays out, 3 years will be all it takes to double the number of people out on the street. That can't just be a linear issue of the number in bad situations either - it seems like super-linear complexity headache, with respect to the n = the growing number of disenfranchised people..

\- How will you pay for the massive influx of cops necessary to address the doubled homeless population?

\- What about the impact on the small businesses or cafes or corner markets and shit that will have a slowly-but-surely drying up of customers?

\- Add to that, the ensuing evaporation of taxes funding the city..

\- How much you wanna bet we won't have saved up enough to not hurt ourselves in the process of splurging on the whole 2028 Olympics extrava-freakin-ganza. Surely it'll be one of those hyper-spectacular moments in this boring dystopia of ours :)

\--

And, once again, because it damn well bears worth repeating -- _LA 's homeless population jumped by 23%... IN THE LAST YEAR ALONE_. AND _The year prior had a 20% growth rate!!!!!_ And when they go homeless, it's more often the case of a gradual, year-long descent because of inability to pay, rather than a pinpoint-able, spontaneous event that made your home suddenly unlivable or irretrievable.

Look up the ancient Latin concept of the exiled man, _homo saracer_ \- a man whose life is worth so little that he may be murdered, freely and without any and all repercussion. Someone who is totally bereft of even being empathized with...

How can it be that the society can discard people to such _tsunamic_ extent that we barely bat an eye at the fact that these slums share zip codes with the ultra rich and yet live worlds apart. Right at this very moment you are reading this sentence, dozens of wanderers - blacks, whites, latinos, disabled, boys, girls - extremely cautiously stepping along the highway. Petrified by how instantly their bones could be crushed into dust when you share a lane with any of the hundred thousand or so totally fucking insane drivers that live around here. To live like a dog, to be defenselessly curled up to rest their weary souls. To have nowhere to go except for the side of the road where tipsy assholes toss their empty sodas out their passenger side windows...

[0] [http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-homeless- count-2...](http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-homeless- count-20170530-story.html)</comment></comment>


Busby: 400,000 to develop cancer in 200 km radius of Fukushima [video] - <AUTHOR> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0H-mtsdsgg

<comment><USER2> According to 'physics for future presidents', the likelyhood of the average person developing cancer is 20%. He says there are 7.2 million people living within 200km of Fukushima. Using the 20% figure that means 1.56 million of these people will develop cancer. So what is this 400,000 number?? That's 1.56 million people of those 7.2 million would have developed cancer even without the Tsunami destroying the nuclear plant.

I don't deny that there will be people who will get cancer as a result of this tragedy, but I put very little credibility towards this individual report.

</comment><comment><USER3> <http://blog.xkcd.com/2011/03/19/radiation-chart/> For an interesting take on radiation.</comment>


Down your tech tools, go out and mingle - <AUTHOR> http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/52ac353c-e84c-11e0-ab03-00144feab49a.html#axzz1ZHQida2i

<comment><USER2> No registration required link: [http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/52ac353c-e84c-11e0-ab03-00144...](http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/52ac353c-e84c-11e0-ab03-00144feab49a.html?ftcamp=rss#axzz1ZJx4IfdD)

</comment><comment><USER3> Article only available for registered users.

<comment><USER4> Very lame. But do a search for "Down tech tools" and we can all read it.</comment></comment>


Why Mozilla needs to pick a new fight   - <AUTHOR> http://www.pcpro.co.uk/blogs/2010/10/25/why-mozilla-needs-to-pick-a-new-fight/

<comment><USER2> > As it stands, Office 2010 and Office 2007 are brilliant, and all the rest > are rubbish.

Office 2010 and 2007 are rubbish too. Aside from that minor disagreement, I agree wholeheartedly that the office suite market desperately need to be disrupted. However, I totally fail to understand why Mozilla would be qualified, much less positioned, to do the disruption.

</comment><comment><USER3> Not the blog I expected from the title, and as soon as I realised the topic I was disappointed... but it didn't take long to change my opinion.

Interesting suggestion and can't help but agree with him. (Still a loyal FF user, myself.)</comment>


Ask HN: What is a big scale system? - <AUTHOR> 300k orders a month Is in already a big scale system? If we define that large scale system requires many servers is it possible to handle such amount on single server, and all others solutions which require 10-20 servers on AWS are over over engineered. <comment><USER2> 300K orders a month is approximately 10K orders a day, or 400 transactions per hour. Of course, you'd get more at peak times, but that still seems like it could be handled on a single server. You might want to have two servers for increased availability (e.g., servers in different regions, in case there's an outage), but having 10-20 servers means that each of your servers will be idle almost 100% of the time.

If your business has strange order patterns, e.g., 90% of the orders arrive the week before Christmas, then the analysis would be different.</comment>


The US Government has a patent on medical marijuana - <AUTHOR> http://www.google.com/patents/US6630507

<comment><USER2> This is apparently so well known that when I search for "us government holds patent", to see what other patents are held by the government, every single result is for this.

I'm confused by this. Does the government hold lots of other patents?

<comment><USER3> They have a few more...

[https://www.google.com/?tbm=pts#bav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&fp=4a...](https://www.google.com/?tbm=pts#bav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&fp=4af62370dbb72ff3&q=inassignee:%22The+United+States+Of+America%22&tbm=pts)</comment></comment>


Would you buy a device that keeps you awake while driving? - <AUTHOR>

One of the biggest causes in traffic accidents is sleep deprivation
http://voices.yahoo.com/5-most-common-causes-car-accidents-4947668.html I almost had an accident experiencing this myself. My best friend had an accident this way. We are not the only ones.
The solution consists of an Eye (camera + IR camera) connected to a mini arduino (or similar) that watches the driver by looking at its face and detecting if eyes are opened. (see http://www.visagetechnologies.com/html5/ ) .
When your eyes are closed fox X seconds, a notification sounds loudly. Possible addition: Heart rate sensor in the steering wheel so when the HR drops(you fall asleep) the system notifies you as well.
Technically this seems a pretty simple device to build. If the insurance companies cooperate (cheaper insurance when using this device) This should be a financially viable product.
What do you think of this? <comment><USER2> I've come across such devices several times. Well intended, but I believe that if you're getting so tired that you may fall asleep you really shouldn't be driving and look for a nearby hotel instead. A sudden buzz or loud sound notification may scare me, which could cause accidents too.

<comment><AUTHOR> You are right, I am now much more attentive for this, but much people aren't.

<quote> The need for anti-sleep alarms is no joke. A poll conducted by the National Sleep Foundation showed that 60 percent of Americans have driven while feeling sleepy, and 37 percent admit to falling asleep at the wheel in the past year. In fact, sleepy driving can be deadly: The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) reports that drowsy driving causes more than 100,000 car crashes -- and kills more than 1,500 people -- each year [source: Fenton].</quote>

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I hate this kind of "do gooder" tech.

It's one more thing that will be imposed on us for the greater good making our lives a tiny bit more complicated and a bit more expensive.

This thing will break and will have to be repaired.

It WILL have bugs that warns you for nothing adding a bit more stress to lives that don't need more.

Now if you ask me, it's probably viable commercially and I expect to see this kind of thing in new cars in the next 5 years.

I'm surprised it's not in standard already, but maybe it's a too processor intensive for a cheap controller.

<comment><AUTHOR> Airbags are do-gooder tech too, and they save lives. If implemented well it could be as hidden and unnoticed too. Saab and lexus use the described technique to monitor the driver in expensive models.</comment></comment>


Anti-Gun, Pro-Second Amendment - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@manhattanmetric/anti-gun-pro-second-amendment-e37e427ef7d6 <comment><USER2> The author makes the same mistake many Americans do: that the Bill of Rights was about preserving individual liberty. But the Bill of Rights was principally concerned with explicitly outlining the limits to Federal power, _especially_ as Federal powers potentially conflicted with State powers.

That's why the First Amendment begins with "Congress shall make no law". States were of course free to makes laws respecting the establishment of religion or abridging the freedom of speech. And they did. Massachusetts, for example, made membership in a Christian church _mandatory_. Part of the purpose of the amendment was literally to preserve the ability for states to abridge those freedoms as they saw fit under their own law.

Similarly, this is why the Second Amendment says "being necessary to the security of a free State". "State" isn't referring to the United States or the abstract concept of a state, but literally to the various States of the new federation. The Federal constitution gave the President executive power over state militias, and Congress the power to regulate them. But what if a State wanted to use its militia to put down internal dissent (like a slave rebellion), or repel external invaders (Indians, Spanish settlers, etc) at a time when the President or Congress, for foreign policy or other national concerns, were hesitant to act? The States wanted to make sure that their militia couldn't be disarmed, or be forced to keep their arms in federally controlled depots, leaving the state entirely at the mercy of the Federal government for its self defense. Indeed, the extent to which the Federal government could control state militias was one the _most_ contentious areas of debate surrounding ratification of the Constitution.

To be sure many State constitutions had clauses regarding freedom of speech, the right to guns, etc. But they were worded quite differently, diverse in their text and in their interpretation under State law. Importantly they were typically interpreted much less strictly--largely because it was felt that State governments were far more democratic, legitimizing any restrictions passed by legislatures. The history matters if you're going to draw grand conclusions. In as much as the Federal government today can be considered more democratic (we do elect our Senators by popular vote, now), then 18th century logic suggests we should be more tolerant of Congress directly limiting individual freedoms, at least as an abstract matter--before we get to the question of what precisely the Federal constitution permits.

It's also worth mentioning that the phrase "the people" _usually_ referred to the people of each state as distinct bodies; and very often the people of each state as assembled and represented by their legislature. There was a strong debate about whether the United States had a singular body politic of "the people", from which it derived its legitimacy, or whether it was purely a creation of the States. At the founding the majority opinion was firmly in the latter camp. It wasn't until the Civil War that this conception had clearly shifted. Abraham Lincoln's famous line from the Gettysburg address,

      that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of
      freedom--that government of the people, by the people, for
      the people, shall not perish from the earth

establishes the Federal government as deriving its powers directly from, and directly owing allegiance to "the people" of the nation as a whole, without States as intermediaries. Another way to parse what Lincoln was saying was that the Federal government had a duty to protect those people--e.g. slaves-- who were being oppressed by the State in which they resided. The notion that the Federal government would ever be in a position, let alone have a duty, to protect people from the laws in their own States would be, to say the least, virtually unthinkable to the Founders.</comment>


Ask HN: Lined up clients, gave 2 weeks, offered double salary - <AUTHOR> I got myself into a predicament, I've been with my current employer just shy of 2 years, and have strongly felt undervalued the last ~10 months. I make just over 6-figures at my w2 and lined up 2 clients to effectively bump my take home to $150k.
I gave my employer my two weeks, and their first counter was a supposed title/salary bump I was apparently due for, still less than what I'd lined up. I respectfully declined. Now I'm staring down a counter-offer that's near double my current salary and worth almost $50k more than what my contracts will pay..
I know counters should really never be accepted, but even if only for 3 months, it's a lot of money. I certainly feel I've contributed enough to command the salary, and can always pickup more clients.
Which bridge do I burn?
Doing my own thing is enticing, but cash is cash is cash. <comment><USER2> When evaluating a consulting pipeline, the expected revenue is the ideal revenue discounted for projects that don't happen, for projects that start but are abandoned, for clients that don't pay by design or economic changes, for projects that get delayed, for projects that get stalled, for projects that go to someone else, and so on.

If the target revenue is $100k/year, then the dollar value in the pipeline must be some multiple of that...probably at least three or four and often five or ten or more depending on competition, economics, client business models, client corporate structure and many other factors outside the consultant's control.

A _potential_ client is not a client. A client is an organization with a signed contract and checks that don't bounce. Asking for a retainer to start the work is one way to separate clients from _potential_ clients.

One last thing, a consultant is not their own boss. A consultant has at least as many bosses as they have client's and there's no hierarchy. None of them care what the other said or needs or wants when it comes to bossing you around.

Good luck.

</comment><comment><USER3> Since you have 2 clients lined up, I assume you are working direct and not through an agency. If you are in the US, $150K 1099 will probably end up being less than $100K W2 (working for an employer) situation.

Here's some data points:

1099 status means you pay all of the SS/FICA (~15%) deduction instead of half you pay as an employee.

Health insurance costs are insane and are getting worse. My health insurance is going from $800/mo to $1600/mo next month for 2 people. My bottom of the line health insurance will have ~$10K deductible next year if I keep the same plan. If your wife/husband has health insurance through work, the situation is a lot easier.

You can only charge for work you do for the client. Printer died? You can't charge for the time it takes going to OfficeMax and getting another. I work about 5 billable hours a day. You will get paid for a lot less hours than you spend in the office. Don't make the mistake of thinking you will get paid for 2000 hours a year.

When the contract ends you stop getting paid until you line up another gig. Being a "man of leisure" as I call it, can cut into you income a lot. Contracting involves assuming lots of risk and you need to charge for assuming that risk.

I am absolutely not trying to scare you out of contracting but you do probably need to recalibrate your costs and bill accordingly. You should bill at least $100/hr.

As for the "not having a boss" thing; it depends on your attitude. Like a lawyer, I provide a service to my clients. I dont think a lawyer feels like his clients are his bosses and I don't either. It's an attitude thing. Picking good clients is a good skill to develop. Raise your prices and you'll get better clients.

</comment><comment><USER4> Can you hire someone to handle the client work? If so, use part of or all of the salary increase to cover payroll. Stay in your job, do well in the role to be fair to your existing employer but get 4 more clients. Then when you're at 6 clients, leave. Treat the salary increase as your seed capital to build a business.

</comment><comment><USER5> As a rule of thumb, consulting work needs to pay twice as much as a salaried job. Salaried jobs include benefits and you typically have an hour of unpaid work for every hour of paid work when you go it alone.

So, your clients need to be paying you $400k to be worth as much as a $200k salaried position.

</comment><comment><USER6> If they can double that kind of salary that easily there's something off. Assuming you're not the world's worst negotiator, why couldn't they afford to pay you more before? $100k is a lot of money. Doubling that without so much as a thought seems pretty frivolous to me but it doesn't necessarily mean they suddenly value your work more.

If you take their offer in the best case the deal will amount to golden handcuffs. Worst case, they'll try to extract all the domain-specific knowledge you have and you'll be let go on the next possible occasion.

Assuming your prospective consulting / contracting deals are more or less certain then you have a fairly safe platform to start a consulting business from. You'll have revenue right from the start, distributed among 2 clients, which significantly reduces your risk. Most importantly, with 2 clients lining up you already have the promising foundations for a potentially prosperous network, which arguably is worth a lot more than the money alone.

If you deliver high quality results and continue to expand your network and market your business $150k certainly isn't the ceiling for what you can achieve with a consulting business (while $200k in your current job might be).

Finally, depending on your location and on how close-knit your particular industry is burning bridges with those 2 clients might very well mean you'll have a much harder time starting your own consulting business later on.

Oh, and doing something for the money alone, particularly something shady like accepting and then moving on after 3 months anyway, is never a good idea.

</comment><comment><USER7> If you decide to turn down the new job(s), you could ask them if they will top the counteroffer. If they don't, well, you were going to turn them down anyway.

Then: are you happy where you are? Will you be happy continuing in the same setting and in the same role doing the same tasks? (I would at my current position, as I still have too many ideas left to try.) Or is it a good time for a change in your environment and maybe see and learn something new and fresh? (I was in such a position before, and I didn't realize at the time that this was the case, so my changing jobs was just a lucky choice.)

One more thing. Do you earn enough for you not to care about finances? It won't be long before you forget about how much you bring home, but if you choose the job that's not satisfying, you'll feel it every day.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm content where I am. I earn enough now to generally not have to worry about ordinary day to day expenses. But I've got young kids, college funds to grow, and a future I'm planning for.

I see myself going at it alone eventually, but the safety of a job, even if only short-term, is comforting.

<comment> le-mark Take the counter, keep the contracts, and find a sub contractor. I'm available for some (full stack java) work, email in profile.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Leave. You'll line up lots more clients, and if they want you badly, they can hire you back, as a consultant, at your given rate, on your time schedule.

<comment><AUTHOR> Agreed. But I'm thinking in terms of hours worked. It's easy to find another $100k/yr job or more clients that will do $75/hr.

But does that mean more hours worked in a day? I don't think I can charge significantly more hourly and find clients as easily. I see that as equally challenging if not impossible as finding another $200k/yr job.

<comment><USER9> It's morally good to fulfil promises - why not do contracting for these two clients - see how you like it, after a while figure out if you want to and can find a way expand the business, or find another w2? You could tell your current employer you promised these guys, so you want to do it for a while, and ask if the $200k can be delayed 6 months? You can ask your employer - Surely they aren't wanting to pay you money to break people's trust?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Do both. Hire cheaper devs than yourself from Upwork or the likes to help build out the contract work. Execute and collect!

</comment><comment><USER11> What do you mean by "lined up" the two clients?

I mean, do these people expect you to start working for them (because you made them believe that _somehow_ )?

If this is the case, I don't see how you can tell them "Hmmm, sorry, I changed my mind, I am not going to leave my current employment anymore." and get away with it.

Still supposing that the two clients (wishing to give you combined 150K per year) are in the industry, most probably in an executive role.

On the other hand, putting for a moment aside the actual amount of money your current employer offered you, it is a 50% raise, it may happen that they _somehow_ undervalued by accident your contributions, but 50% seems a bit too much to be an oversight.

Such a huge difference would undermine the (IMHO needed) fiduciary relationship with them.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yep pretty much. I said I was going to burn bridges..

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Taking the counter and leaving in 3 months = burning bridges. They expect you to stay for the long haul. However, as stated, they can also hire you back as a consultant. They are doing all of this so they can cover their a __with replacing you. If you stay, you may end up being let go later on. Ask yourself if you are staying for the long haul or not. If you are, then the offer might be valid. But don 't leave after 3 months.

</comment><comment><USER13> Find a way to do both! It's how companies get started.

For your clients, do ONLY what YOU have to do and outsource the rest. Maybe all YOU really need to do for them is project management, requirements, UX specs etc... Do you really need to write everything yourself? Implement code review to check on your contractors.

Be the face but you don't have to be the muscle.

</comment><comment><USER14> Nice work! (Good problem to have.)

How long are the two clients for? (6 months contract? 12 months?) I am wondering if you couldn't do both if you hired a personal assistant to help with things like laundry, shopping, driving, etc. =) (Too bad they can't sleep for you!)

What do you want to do?

</comment><comment><USER3> If you can, make you current employer your 3rd client. I would not take the counter offer. They didn't value you before...

</comment><comment><USER15> y, take the money and keep your day job.

Make sure you have a new contract (or your old one) that allows you to do your own thing on your own time, that being products, a SaaS or consulting.

Consulting is hard work generating 6 figures on your own, even at $75 to $100/hour. So I think you would bank more with less stress at your $200k/yr day job.

Instead of consulting I would plan to do products (info) or SaaS in the future.

Check out Rob Walling's stair step approach.

StartUpsForTheRestOfUs.com

</comment><comment><USER16> Have you signed anything with the clients? If you have you might want to look into "breach of contract" with a lawyer.

<comment><USER16> a bad independent contracting agreement could have consequences.

[https://www.techrepublic.com/blog/it- consultant/independent-...](https://www.techrepublic.com/blog/it- consultant/independent-contractors-make-sure-your-contract-protects-your- interests/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> OP: What kind of work would you be doing for the new clients?</comment>


Satellite surveillance is being used to gather market-moving information - <AUTHOR> http://www.cnbc.com/id/38722872/ <comment><USER2> I've heard the technology is also in use to monitor corporate offices. They can track how many cars are in the parking lot and even what makes/models are showing up to indicate the rate the company is hiring or laying off workers and whether the employees are trading up to pricier models.

Similarly, infrared cameras are used to constantly monitor power stations (e.g. smoke stacks, cooling towers) to gather data on what level of capacity they are running and if there are any undisclosed shutdowns.

Workers in ports are paid to monitor incoming tankers to record what their draft is to calculate how much oil/whatever they are carrying. If they are resourceful they can even gather intel about what % of different grade materials are on the ships. This is used to track / estimate commodity flows and pricing.

Data == $$$

<comment><USER3> So what happens where stores have underground parking or multi-level parking structures (where people seldom park on the topmost floor)?

This story is a year old and also it's been commented on here: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2124784>

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This has been going on since the time executive window shades would drop and stock prices would (speculatively) rise. It's just the binoculars work at longer ranges now and remote sensing isn't just for the military anymore.

</comment><comment><USER5> Not new - I looked at a company doing this sort of research in the early 2000s.

</comment><comment><USER6> If somebody looking for middleware, which allows you to process large amounts of aerial / satellite imagery in realtime - please contact me.

Example:

[https://www.dropbox.com/gallery/8489156/1/CLASTR_demos?h=046...](https://www.dropbox.com/gallery/8489156/1/CLASTR_demos?h=0460e8#gallery:0)

Email: zvi AT CLASTR DOT com

</comment><comment><USER7> This is somewhat unrelated, but speaking of UBS, this video came to mind: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lx4poQw1mZo> It depicts the Ivy League finance-jobs-at-all-costs mentality very well.</comment>


Charge a smartphone with a pan of boiling water - <AUTHOR> http://tes-ne.com/English/03_product_e.html

<comment><USER2> Thermoelectric devices are news now? You could buy them at all the surplus electronic places for at least 20 years.

<comment><AUTHOR> They have new relevance with the recent proliferation of mobile phones and similar devices in the developing world.

See also: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-p20hxRVj5c> which is a video about kenyans charging their phones with bicycle dynamos.

<comment><USER2> I guess. But they are incredibly inefficient and this way (in the diagram) of using the technology encourages the burning of forests. But maybe the vision (not in the diagram) is that a solar concentrator would be used to get the heat.

Anyway, seems like solar cells are better for charging these devices in places where it is sunny.

<comment><USER3> It's not that inefficient if you consider you can boil the water for drinking or making food and it charges your phone as a "side effect".

The pan also looks a lot sturdier and more robust than a solar cell</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Samsung plans to release smartphones with flexible displays in 2012 - <AUTHOR> http://yourmobilesite.net/samsung-to-release-flexible-display-smartphones-next-year/

<comment><AUTHOR> Also see this Korean article: [http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ko&tl=en&u=...](http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ko&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.etnews.com%2Fnews%2Fdetail.html%3Fid%3D201106080145)</comment>


Is the Tech Sector Blowing Bubbles Again? - <AUTHOR> http://gigaom.com/2010/04/23/is-the-tech-sector-blowing-bubbles-again/

<comment><USER2> Again? Wasn't the last "Here comes another bubble" in late 2007? And it was actually a couple months _after_ the market top?

The S&P 500 is a good 300 points lower than it was then. Either this is ridiculously premature or bubbles are becoming depressingly more feeble.</comment>


Starbucks Pickup store concept unveiled in NYC - <AUTHOR> https://insideretail.asia/2019/11/07/starbucks-pickup-store-concept-unveiled-in-nyc/ <comment><USER2> There are chains that operate exclusively that way in China, where Starbucks is big, and they seem quite popular.</comment>


Ask HN: How do you know if you have something patentable? - <AUTHOR>

Hi,
Just curious but how would you know if you've stumbled upon something that is patentable? Is there a database where you can do a search?
Disclaimer: Been working on technology that looks like a step up on what was patented years before.
Cheers <comment><USER2> You can search the USPTO, [http://www.uspto.gov/](http://www.uspto.gov/) (you'd think there'd be another s in that URL, right?) Note what years may not be there, though and there are submarine patents that are in process but haven't surfaced yet.

Improvements to another's invention can be patented.

Must be "non-obvious"; but what that means is always disputed. If a great many of people have seen the problem, but not had your idea, that's good evidence it's not obvious. Must not have been published more than two years ago by you, or anywhere by someone else (unless you can show that's your work they just published.) Can't be prior art (already being used), anywhere.

Meet the above conditions, and the first to the patent office with the invention, a roll of cash, and someone - anyone - willing to say that, yup, um, yeah they totally thought that up, wins! Didn't used to be that way but it is now.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the link. How can anyone prove that it's not prior art? I guess another challenge would be to prove that it is non-obvious. It seems like it's fairly obvious to me.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I don't know if what you're talking about is software, or a physical invention. Based on the word 'technology' though, I'll assume it's software for a moment. I think the attitude of much of the tech community is that patents shouldn't generally be applied to software in general. Many established companies have agreed to only use patents defensively, and most of the traffic that patents get these days are rebukes against 'patent trolls' who spend time acquiring patents rather than actually delivering value to anyone.

I would encourage you to think about starting a business around your tech, rather than worrying too much about legally defending it. Starting a successful company requires so many good decisions that it's much more defensible than most people think. If you were the first one to think of this idea, you'll also be the first to think of many of the ways it can be used to deliver value.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the response. Your assumption is correct in that I'm talking about software.

I agree with your comments and it definitely makes sense. My only worry is that investors will want to see that the technology is protectable before investing with their main fear being that the technology can be duplicated once people get insight into the methodology. It seems like we have a slightly more conservative investor environment here in Canada.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Google has a not-well-known patent search [https://www.google.com/?tbm=pts](https://www.google.com/?tbm=pts)

As soon as you file for a patent you can put a "patent pending" note in your documentation, page footer etc. If it's declined then of course take it out again. Until then you might have had enough "patent pending" press coverage though.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the link. I will check it out!</comment></comment>


Bitcoin Cash Soaring to Record High as It's More Profitable to Mine Than Bitcoin - <AUTHOR> https://www.fxempire.com/news/article/bitcoin-cash-soaring-to-record-high-above-900-as-its-more-profitable-to-mine-than-bitcoin-430909 <comment><USER2> Inevitable. Mining profit reaches equilibrium across all coins mining hardware works for. :) It should land at parity at some point. As miners join up for the increased reward, the reward gets divided across more parties, and thus reduced per individual.

Thus regardless of the price of the coin, the profit in mining it will be equalized across coins, because of the fixed reward divided by total mining power.

#Bitcoin has wider infrastructure to turn your coins into cash, and other network effects which are strong, which will help it overcome the difficulty adjustment downward retargeting advantage Bitcoincash has.

</comment><comment><USER3> More profitable to mine should mean more supply of Bitcoin Cash, lowering the price. What am I missing?

<comment><USER4> If you set your miners to Bitcoin Cash instead of Bitcoin, the current US- equivalent amount of concurrency you will get will be higher.

But, that does not take into account a lot of other variables:

One is that as more miners switch to Bitcoin Cash, the difficulty will increase, making it less profitable.

Two, although minor, is that some minors may politically disagree with Bitcoin Cash due to its radically large block size, and be dis-incentivized to mine it for that reason.

Third, most importantly, is that you cannot sell Bitcoins right after you mine them. You have to wait for a very large amount of confirmations[1]. So if you start mining Bitcoin Cash with all of your resources, then the price crashes, you may end up with large losses, compared to if you had stuck with Bitcoin.

To add information about your question, the amount of bitcoins produced in blocks is very low: 12.5, currently. With a supply over 16.5 million, it barely makes a dent in it unless you give it years.

[1]: [https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/1991/what-is- the...](https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/1991/what-is-the-block- maturation-time) [2]: [https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/bitcoin- cash/](https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/bitcoin-cash/)

<comment><USER5> _Two, although minor, is that some minors (sic) may politically disagree with Bitcoin Cash due to its radically large block size, and be dis-incentivized to mine it for that reason._

That's backwards. Bitcoin Cash has the old, smaller block size.

 _Third, most importantly, is that you cannot sell Bitcoins right after you mine them. You have to wait for a very large amount of confirmations._

100 blocks is about 18 hours right now. Then you can sell.

<comment><USER6> Bitcoin Cash is the new fork, and that fork has 2MB block size. Bitcoin (Original) still has the 1MB block size. The reason it is called "Bitcoin Cash" is because it can be used more like cash, because the transaction fees aren't assumed to be as high because more transactions can fit into a 2MB block, which means you and I don't have to put big fees onto each transaction to get into that 1MB block.

The reason they did the fork was so that the fees that were making small (cash like, e.g. buy a coffee, $10 Steam gift card, etc...) transactions impossible, are now cost efficient because there's less bidding wars from people on the network rushing into get their transaction confirmed ASAP.

Super interesting to see how it unfolds, but it appears that there's no network congestion and that the network was getting spammed prior to this fork in a means of "See. See! We need bigger blocks. That's it, we're forking. I'm sick of this."

It can get a little "tin-foil-y" but there's theories all over the place, and a lot of them have sound reasoning, but the tl;dr is /The network forked /Bitcoin = 1MB blocks /Bitcoin Cash = 2MB blocks /Where things go from here is a roll of the dice ;)

Thanks!

<comment><USER7> Bitcoin cash has an adjustable block size up to 8MB. Segwit2X is the upcoming fork with 2MB blocks on legacy bitcoin.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I read this because the headline _implies_ that mining is driving the price (untrue) but at least the article doesn't make that claim.</comment>


Ask HN: Is there a need for a bug tracker for freelancers? - <AUTHOR>

There are PLENTY of bug trackers out there, but I haven't come across one that caters to an individual freelancer. Github has a simple issue tracker but it's more for those who want to share their code. I'm thinking of creating something that a one-person (or one w/ a designer+developer) could use to interact with their clients (non software developers).
I understand a project management software might be better suited for those that juggle a handful of clients, but many of these software also contain a bunch of features that just get in your way.
I threw some HTML together just to see what it would look like. It's the only page I've made thus far.
www.echoio.com/issuebox.png <comment><USER2> I love the simple UI.

I don't know where you plan on heading with this, but there are a couple things you could probably do with this, as well. As a part of your standard "adding their project to the tracker" process, you could also register their e-mail address(es).

You could then have your app listen for incoming e-mail messages in order to auto create tickets, etc. I have always had a hard time getting clients (back when I freelanced) to actually visit a bug tracking tool and input information. It usually involved them e-mailing me and me manually adding the bug.

Github integration (at the project level) would allow you to target your bugs with commit messages and then see which code was committed to resolve each bug (much like it works with github issues at the moment, but with your private solution.)

Sorry for rambling. Caffeine.

</comment><comment><USER3> +1 for the simple design.

I'd say: You know very well what you need, so go ahead and create something that fits your needs. You'll end up with a solution for yourself, and I'm pretty sure there are people out there for whom this solution fits too. (Unless, of course, this is primarily about creating and selling a product.)

By the way, despite there being PLENTY of bug trackers out there, most of the people I talk to are not satisfied with the bug tracker they use.

<comment><USER4> _By the way, despite there being PLENTY of bug trackers out there, most of the people I talk to are not satisfied with the bug tracker they use._

I've noticed this as well. In general, there seem to be some kinds of tools which are very personal. Issue trackers, TODO-lists, notebooks. I'm pretty sure it is impossible to satisfy everyone with a single tool. Everyone wants to optimize it for themselves.

In these cases I think a decent solution would be to make a general backend service and well-defined data format (for interchangeability) but make it easy to add customized (their own or third party) frontends/skins by individual users.

<comment><USER3> It _is_ impossible to satisfy everyone with a single tool. But still, I'd expect some of them to satisfy some people.

Next time I meet somebody who's unhappy with their bug tracker, I'll ask if customizing it would be an option for them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Don't know if you have seen this or not: <http://bugherd.com> \-- I've been using them to work with our developers. Really simple, just click anywhere on the page where the bug is and input the problem.

<comment><AUTHOR> I have, hwo does it work? Do you need to install something on the client's website?

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I built <http://trackjumper.com> with freelancers in mind. The "features" that make it work are unlimited projects for a freelancer-friendly price and a "simple enough for clients" UI.

</comment><comment><USER7> When I freelance, it's usually at places that already have their own bug tracking, and I use theirs. Would this be for people working for clients who aren't software developers?

EDIT: I like the simple design.

<comment><AUTHOR> Correct, this wouldnt be for anyone who works in a large team or corporation. I have a couple of friends who work exclusively with ordinary folks and small businesses. Everything is communicated via email when it comes to feature requests and bug tracking.

EDIT: Keeping it simple is the key. A ticket to me is either "urgent" or "normal." Why should there be 4 priority levels, it never made sense to me.

<comment><USER7> I think it's a good idea.

It seems like you would be competing with things like Google Docs.

Even in my scenario I often have higher-level "stakeholders" reporting bugs to me via email, skipping over their own bug tracking systems.

One challenge would be making it more appealing to those bug reporters than using email. Maybe you can have it receive email and parse it into a bug? For people who won't sign into a separate web app.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yup! That was the first thing I thought of, how to make the process easy for the clients.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Screenshot: <http://www.echoio.com/issuebox.png></comment>


Google Tablets seen overtaking iPad in 5 years - <AUTHOR> http://www.bnn.ca/News/2011/7/27/Google-tablets-seen-overtaking-iPad-in-5-years.aspx

<comment><AUTHOR> How do they even come up with a prediction like this? Is it any different from Astrology?

</comment><comment><USER2> Completely absurd.</comment>


Comic Book writer does it right: No DRM, multiple formats - <AUTHOR> http://lunduke.com/?p=2068

<comment><USER2> This comic seemed super low-budget and cheesy from the website, but after reading the preview and laughing out loud I am forced to part with ~$1 to continue reading. Touche comic book writer genius, touche.

<comment><AUTHOR> In case anyone else is curious: I have decided that I am ok with being called "comic book writer genius". This does not bother me.

I have also decided that ecaroth is probably a super smart person that deserves at least two fancy trophies. With either bowling guys or tennis guys on top. We're talking FANCY here.</comment></comment>


Git vs. Mercurial analysis - <AUTHOR> https://www.robertnitsch.de/notes/git_vs_mercurial_analysis

<comment><USER2> I'm only a couple paragraphs in, but there's already some pretty heavy bias here that's turning me off from continuing.

First off, the recommendation right off the bat is (paraphrased) "Companies should use Mercurial because it's easier to learn, which translates to saving time and money". Even if I accept that it's easier to learn, this completely ignores any consideration about interoperability with existing open source projects that you may or may not need, or the existence of any tools built around git or mercurial that you may want to use. The learning curve is but one factor that should be taken into consideration; it is not the _only_ factor.

Secondly, the very first actual comparison between the two is highly disingenuous. It makes a claim about the documentation for `git commit` vs `hg commit` using what it _says_ the summary of each command is. But that's not the summary. That's just the first line of the in-depth documentation. The actual summary of both commands, which is the very first real line of text you see in the help on both, is as follows:

        git-commit - Record changes to the repository

pretty straightforward. And for `hg commit`:

        commit the specified files or all outstanding changes

Also pretty straightforward. But these lines have been completely bypassed in order to provide a comparison that uses more technical language on the part of git and therefore is perhaps less understandable for a nontechnical user.

\---

If we continue onwards, we find more absurd comparisons. There's a nice little ding against git here for actually listing its options in the synopsis, which is standard behavior for unix utilities, unlike hg which just says `[OPTION]...`. Sorry Robert, but git definitely wins that one.

And then he goes on to complain about terminology used in the description of `git checkout`, such as "working tree", even though these terms are well defined for git and are used consistently in all documentation (definitely a plus). But he doesn't mind terminology used in `hg update`, such as "working directory" or "changeset". You can't do an objective comparison between two VCS's learning curve unless you're willing to actually assume the user has no prior knowledge of the VCS. Big fail on Robert's part. And it's enough to make me stop reading here.

<comment><AUTHOR> I understand why you see it that way. +1 to the "learning curve is not the only factor". But a few remarks:

> There's a nice little ding against git here for actually listing its options > in the synopsis, which is standard behavior for unix utilities, unlike hg > which just says `[OPTION]...`. Sorry Robert, but git definitely wins that > one.

I'm not so sure about that. I think i have seen both pretty often. Example: man sed. I understood his point there: The git-way of the presentation makes it harder to understand the basic structure of the command, which is an issue given the multiple forms they can have.

> The actual summary of both commands, which is the very first real line of > text you see in the help on both, is as follows: ...

True with the first line, not necessarily true with what is the real description/summary here. Gits placement is ambiguous (that line is called name).

> But he doesn't mind terminology used in `hg update`, such as "working > directory" or "changeset

Well, both words are used in other places than mercurial, they are the basic words for what they are...

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> This isn't an analysis of Git vs. Mercurial, this is an analysis of Git's documentation vs Mercurial's documentation. Disappointing.

</comment><comment><USER4> Just a quick note -- if you don't want to make an exception for the certificate, you can go to the page over http.

<comment><USER5> Another quick note: The certificate is signed by CACert.org, a community- driven Certificate Authority (<http://www.cacert.org>).</comment></comment>


Virginia orders Uber, Lyft to stop operating in state - <AUTHOR> http://wtop.com/120/3636415/Va-orders-Uber-Lyft-to-stop-operating <comment><USER2> >> the DMV urged riders to make informed choices about which transportation services they use. The DMV says riders should check that cars have seatbelts, current license plate and inspection stickers.

Amazed at the reasons they point to in an attempt to justify their actions. In all my encounters with Lyft and Uber the cars conditions are well above a taxi. A typical taxi ride includes squealing brakes and bottoming out due to suspension falling apart.

<comment><USER3> Not that I disagree, but it's not like you'd notice if a car hadn't been inspected for years and had a non-functioning airbag. At least not until you needed it.

<comment><USER4> You would in Virginia, since yearly inspections are required and the sticker is displayed prominently in the windshield.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> > _" "I urge the citizens of Virginia to protect their families by using only > companies that appear on DMV's website as licensed transportation services. > If it's not on the list, it's not recommended," says DMV Commissioner > Richard Holcomb."_

"Save the children!" plus an appeal to authority. If your argument has no substance, you might as well go full fallacy.

<comment><USER6> Appeal to authority is only a fallacy when misused.

<comment><USER7> Very nearly all of modern science is based on appeals to authority. I don't have the training or time to validate even 1/10'000th of the things that a modern 'scientific' person is supposed to believe.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Won't somebody please think of the children and the broken taxi industry! Before Uber and Lyft hit the scene, you only had a small pool to pick your taxi from only to discover all major taxi companies are in cahoots together anyway.

Uber to me is reliable, it's cheaper and it's safer. I couldn't count the number of times I've ordered a taxi that just didn't show up (presumably they took a more profitable fare elsewhere), rude drivers, drivers that speed without any kind of accountability. You complain to the taxi company and they couldn't really care less.

Instead of embracing change, taxi companies are clinging to their lobbyist and broken ways. Look how well that turned out for the music industry when they tried to fight digital music and streaming... It's the same situation happening all over again. Uber and Lyft will eventually win, it's only a matter of time.

<comment><USER9> There are many different municipalities with many different qualities of taxi service.

And there are many different laws affecting who can operate taxi services in those areas.

I don't know how things were in Virginia, but in Chicago regular taxis are vastly better than uberx/lyft in every way except price. Also, taxi drivers are required to have a chauffeur's license that tests them for TB along with city knowledge.

Uber works well for you and many of us. But don't portray this as a hero's fight against a broken industry when in reality it's a nuanced decision and there are valid points of view on both sides of the argument.

<comment><USER10> I've used both Uber and the local taxi service in San Francisco, Los Angeles and Columbus, OH. I can tell you that Uber is vastly superior in every way. The cars are cleaner and newer, the drivers are friendlier, the service is cheaper, getting a ride is easier, and with Uber I don't need to deal with the inevitable argument about why I'm trying to pay with a credit card instead of cash.

<comment><USER11> > I don't need to deal with the inevitable argument about why I'm trying to > pay with a credit card instead of cash.

This.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I'm sorry, I know there's a religion of disruption going on around these parts, and I know that there's disdain for established business, and regulations that seem to keep new players out of the market, and unnecessary bureaucracy and all of these things...

But sometimes, just sometimes some of the regulations and restrictions are legitimate consumer protection mechanisms that benefit all of us, and we should think before we throw them out in the name of progress.

<comment><USER13> Agreed. There is a nuance to this that is frequently forgotten in tech circles, where the government is pure evil and unrestricted free enterprise is the definition of what is right and good.

That said, it's too bad that the two sides represent the extremes and there is no entity representing the sane middle ground. On the one hand you have an entrenched industry resistant to any form of change (and not willing to abuse politics to do this), on the other hand you have companies that laugh in the face of decades of learned consumer experience and have a history of abusing the market to push out competitors (see: Uber and the call-and-cancel-against- competitors debacle).

I'm for more taxis on roads. I'm for more technology in taxis. I'm for transparent payments and real enforcement against bad drivers (and bad passengers!). I'm also for proper licensing, proper insurance, consumer protections (e.g., being kicked out of a cab for a surge pricing fare), and trustworthy metering.

I suspect most people are in this middle ground, but no one represents us. I don't want Uber to the arbiter what goes forward, and I don't want the taxi lobby either. Both scenarios are distinctly dystopian.

<comment><USER14> The issue most cities and states are running into is that the laws that protect the current cab industry are making it near impossible for more cabs to be added. There are years long waiting lines for new licenses because they give out so few. And in those cities there are long waits to get a cab.

Uber and Lyft are able to get traction because the government is being too slow to meet the demands people have within their cities/states. Regulation is good for consumer protection, but when it's preventing services to reach consumers, there is a problem. These companies are willing to go around the laws cause the government is not doing their job.

<comment><USER13> Agreed. The success of Uber and Lyft is a testament to broken regulations. The natural response in tech circles is to suggest that we hand the keys to Uber and let them drive regulation.

But Uber isn't exactly a beacon of fair business practices, and in all appearances seem anti-regulation overall, even the ones that are pro-consumer.

This is a bad position with no easy way out. Clearly the current regulations aren't working, but the only two players in the game support either near-total deregulation, or complete stagnancy. There is no actively engaged party that represents the "we should probably regulate less but not throw out the baby with the bathwater" side.

The government will respond to whoever exerts the most pressure (whether that's a vindication of democracy or an example of its failure is another discussion) - but the only two parties exerting pressure are both fairly evil in my books.

<comment><USER11> The problem of course is that everyone in the chain benefits, except the customer.

1) Government gets free (non-taxing) income from the cab drivers.

2) Government officials have to deal with a voting bloc (and potential strikes) if they don't comply.

3) Cab drivers get to limit supply, and all the advantages that brings, like for example not paying 2%-5% of the fare to the card companies, plus paying $1000 a month to the banks for having a payment terminal at all (not, of course, including the separate cell subscription the payment terminal needs) (yes I know the situation in America is slightly better, but ...)

4) Let's face facts here, regular people don't, or very rarely, use cabs because of the price of that service. So they don't have an incentive to go against this.

5) There is some limited value to the regulations : they are probably overkill, but they do keep out bad drivers. Bad as in criminals, and bad as in drunk and so on.

Bottom line : this is a problem with the democratic system itself, and specifically a point where it doesn't agree with what the tech scene wants. Tesla has effectively the same problem.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Let me give all the non Virginians a quick glimpse into how unfair this is. DC has a thing called slug lines. Traffic is so bad here that drivers will offer _strangers a ride_ so they can get on the HOV lanes. Lots of people do this. There are lines all over DC _and Virginia_ of people doing this.

Does the Virginia DMV say anything about slug lines and how unsafe they may be? Or how the drivers may or may not have training? Or how the cars may not have been properly inspected?

NO, in fact they encourage it (see below)

Why? cause it doesn't disrupt the powers that be

They actually link to slug lines - again a popular practice of allowing strangers into the car of another stranger - on this page:

[http://www.virginiadot.org/travel/hov- rulesfaq.asp](http://www.virginiadot.org/travel/hov-rulesfaq.asp)

<comment><USER16> See my comment in this thread about me Ubering to DCA on Friday, and now when I get back in tomorrow I won't have it.

But just want to point out: Because nobody is being paid in slug lines, they couldn't tell people not to do it even if they wanted to.

You make an excellent point about how they claim to care about safety and then tell people to go use slug lines.

For a good laugh, go look at the slug line horror stories. My favorite is a guy who got in a car with a woman who was pulled over minutes later with a suspended license and warrants. She was carted off to jail, and the police officers gave him a ride to a strip mall where he had to call a taxi.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion- When you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing- when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors- when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don't protect you against them, but protect them against you- when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice- you may know that your society is doomed.

-Francisco D'Anconia

</comment><comment><USER18> Can't compete? Lobby.

</comment><comment><USER19> I don't get people's sentiment. We should either follow laws or change them. Simply deciding we don't enforce certain laws or reinterpreting according to various interests leads to worse situations. If Uber and Lyft want to break the law, ok, but how can you blame the DMV for enforcing it?

</comment><comment><USER20> >"As many of the current regulations surrounding taxis and limos were created before anything like Lyft's peer-to-peer model was ever imagined

it wasn't that the peer-to-peer model wasn't imagined, it just that the "peer- to-peer" transportation services have been illegal pretty much everywhere. What was changed by Lyft and the likes is the number of "law-breakers", i.e. it seems it reached critical threshold for [considering] regulations change. Laws/regulations is just a written record of the power balance, and as the balance has just somewhat shifted it thus prompted the changes in the written record of it.

</comment><comment><USER21> It's pretty ridiculous that car-pooling (aka ride-sharing) is fully legal and unrestricted.

However, the second you charge money for the same service, the regulators want to get involved to check for safety, inspections, and licensing.

<comment><USER22> Yes, a commercial relationship changes the nature of that transaction since commercial transactions are regulated/taxed in many states.

<comment><USER21> You're missing the point. If the grounds are that ethically paying customers should have taxis licensed, why do those ethics not apply also to donated services, like car-pooling?

<comment><USER23> Because if there is money involved there is incentive to do it for a living, which leads to incentive to cut costs and that might not always be done in a consumer-friendly way; therefore regulation is needed. If there is no money involved, the people who would cut costs and make it unsafe for the consumer are rarer -- since they can't do it for a living, and the relationship is harder to regulate since the only thing involved is communication between two parties, so it's probably not worth it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> The biggest startup challenge seems to be to deal with existing laws (and people, and relationships) that never imagined your brand new idea. The technological challenge seems secondary.

</comment><comment><USER25> Rent seeking, baby! Gotta protect the entrenched interests.

</comment><comment><USER26> These "licensed" services get out of hand where allowed number of licenses are far lower than demand. This turns into a huge mess as a recent but less publicized account shows: [http://www.fbi.gov/washingtondc/press- releases/2013/former-g...](http://www.fbi.gov/washingtondc/press- releases/2013/former-general-manager-sentenced-in-taxi-bribery-scheme)

</comment><comment><USER15> Folks at Uber, how best should I protest this?

</comment><comment><USER27> Should we shave off a Billion now?</comment>


DMT trip without DMT – modified candy flip - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@ptsdengineer/dmt-breakthrough-without-dmt-the-black-spider-protocol-5a5dd9e553bb <comment><USER2> The way we manage engineers makes conditions like PTSD and depression far worse than they need to be. In general in the US we have a pretty ruthless system for managing workers in general. Now with this pause it could be the time to rethink how we manage projects and employees and rethink our assumptions about "getting shit done."

<comment><USER3> I am the author of the article and I agree 100%. Big startups are ruthless, my manager pulled me once to talk about giving emoji response on slack because he thought I have too much time. I felt really bad for entire day, glad to not work there anymore. No money is worth this kind of stress.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> oh boy, that sounds horrible. no psychedelic or ssri will cure severe mental illnesses, without putting in a lot of work. I suggest to try an ACT (acceptance and commitment therapy) intervention. Maybe later on pair it with MDMA.

<comment><USER3> need help with sharing message, just got banned on Reddit</comment></comment>


UseTheSource - <AUTHOR> http://jobs.usethesource.com/jobs

<comment><AUTHOR> UseTheSource is my Hacker News-inspired job board that uses your Hacker News karma (or begging) to determine who gets to post jobs: <http://jobs.usethesource.com/hrdoc>

<comment><USER2> Keep up the good work with this John. I link to it in almost every issue of my weekly Hacker Newsletter and I've had several people comment on how useful your site is.

Hopefully it will get some more eyes and thus postings today. Maybe you could do a reminder each month in the Who's Hiring threads.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you for that. That's very helpful. I don't like to impose on the "Who's Hiring" threads because they are a HN tradition and I don't feel that trumpeting this site is a good idea there. Of course, it would bring me traffic but might be breaking social taboos here.

Of course, the day PG wants to link from HN to UTS I won't complain :-)

<comment><USER3> Raphael is a little butt-hurt that you haven't taken on his proposal (<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2669100>) to collaborate on Job4dev. I bet that the HN community would benefit much more from a joint effort than all of the occasional job sites we see here.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm sorry to hear that. I certainly don't want to go around hurting people, but I don't see how to work with him on this. I don't know him, UseTheSource is a sideline and not my main focus.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Ase useful as it is, couldn't this submission have used a slightly more descriptive title? "Use the source" sounds like the name of someone's programming blog, not a job board.

<comment><USER5> I agree. "Use the source" sounds like a clever joke about reading source code to solve problems.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Nice to see more company friendly/recruiter unfriendly job boards out there. My own effort <http://jobstractor.com> scrapes jobs from twitter, removing the jobs boards and recruiters is getting some traction.

Have you plans to improve the search on the site? I think that would be the biggest benefit to me. And are all the jobs on there still active? Ie some are quite old but do employers remove them once they're filled?

All the best with UseTheSource, Robin

<comment><USER7> This is my big question too: as an employer, what should I be doing with job listings that are always open (specifically, we are looking for as many good SW Devs as we can find). Should I post the position once and wait forever? Post every few weeks? Every few months? Something else?

<comment><USER8> From the perspective of a software developer - I'd say once a month, and make it very clear that you're looking for multiple developers, not a replacement for someone who got hired&fired since the last posting.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I remember when you first launched news.usethesource.com as a HN for programmers, and then closed it due to inactivity. I hope it has more success as a job board.

</comment><comment><USER10> job openings voted similar to HN seems to be a good experiment by linking to company web site. in the reverse case, for job seekers initiating an application to startups, without a current opening, there is an interesting web site experiment here: (jobrupt.com): <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3217225>

</comment><comment><USER11> Slick- I like it.</comment>