Zynga Insiders Who Cashed Out Before The Stock Crashed - <AUTHOR> http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/zynga-insiders-cashed-just-stock-crashed-144334658.html

<comment><USER2> It's hard for me not to compare the likes of Mark Pincus, who has been 'taking money off the table' from Zynga since before the IPO, to old-fashioned owner- CEOs like Warren Buffett, who has never sold a single share of his company, Berkshire Hathaway.[1]

[1] See <http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/news/dec2799.html> . Buffett is donating almost all his shares in annual chunks to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and the remainder to a few, much smaller charitable foundations, so he will _never_ personally cash out.

<comment><USER3> For most investors, it's recommended that you minimize the amount of stock you own in your own company such that you reduce the risk of having both your job and your stock drop at the same time. When a company or industry gets hit hard, you often hear tales of people who lose their jobs and find their company stock has also tanked, and it's devastating. Whether you work for Zynga or Valve, I'd recommend taking money off the table and diversifying.

Berkshire Hathaway is special in that it's a holding company with extremely diverse holdings. It is, in essence, already internally making the sort of investments that I would recommend others make externally.

Point being, regardless of what you think of Pincus, he's doing what sensible investors should be doing at any company except for a Berkshire-type holding company.

<comment><USER4> minimize? what does that mean, how much? and who recommends? where are these rules written you're talking about?

usually people hold onto things they think are valuable and sell those they don't.

sometimes those that sell that which they don't think is valuable will use weasel words like 'diversification' and 'minimize exposure' to explain their actions so they don't have to admit they don't think what they're selling is very valuable.

<comment><USER3> > _"usually people hold onto things they think are valuable and sell those > they don't."_

Usually, investment strategies are more complex than this, involving risk management of various sorts.

You've no doubt heard the phrase "don't put all your eggs in one basket"; or, as the Bible says, "Divide your merchandise among seven or even eight investments, for you do not know what calamity may happen on earth" (Ecc 11:2, NET). The naive investment strategy of simply buying whatever you think is the "best deal" or "most valuable" carries with it considerable risk -- if your whole net worth is in widgets and the market shifts to sprockets, all of a sudden you're stuck with a bunch of widgets nobody wants. Or if your whole net worth is in crops and then there's a storm that wipes them out, now all you've got is dirt. The naive investor thinks that because they work for a profitable company, they should invest everything in their company -- but if their company suffers (whether due to fraud like Enron or a simple market shift like many real estate companies in 2008) they lose their job and their investments all at the same time.

The idea behind diversification is to target things that are valuable and which are not strongly correlated to each other, such that even if you're wrong or conditions change in some areas, your losses can be offset by gains elsewhere. Diversification is not a "weasel word" (though some may occasionally misuse it); it's a widely understood concept that's described by pretty much every personal finance writer out there.

(Note that I'm not specifically saying Pincus is a good guy. Just that it makes a lot of sense for CEOs and others to swap some of their equity for equity in non-correlated assets.)

<comment><USER5> > You've no doubt heard the phrase "don't put all your eggs in one basket"

Buffett and Munger's response to that is to "put all your eggs in the same basket, and watch that basket".

At various times both men have been very heavily concentrated in their best ideas (Buffett was once about 75% into GEICO many decades ago -- admittedly that's extreme even for him, but many value investors aim for less than 10 investments). They say that diversification is often "diworsification" (I think that's a Peter Lynch phrase... or maybe Phil Fischer) because it's impossible to know that many companies well enough to have high confidence, and because your 20th best idea will never be nearly as good as your best and second best ideas, so it's often better to just add more to your best ideas.

Of course, the caveat of this is that you must know what you are doing. Diversification is insurance against not knowing what you're doing, and index funds are probably the best strategy for someone not putting in the time (which is most people). But if you take investing seriously, high diversification is not always necessary or even desirable.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The missing piece in this story is when the registration for this sale was put out. It isn't like you can just 'decide' to sell this many shares, my guess is that it is mentioned in the original prospectus somewhere that some point after the IPO these additional shares would be sold. That it occurred in the same quarter that the stock melted down means that they better have solid documentation and there are going to be lawyers sniffing around for a potential shareholder suit. If the paper trail is solid though no suit will materialize.

<comment><USER7> I sometimes wish that VCs had some legal responsibility when blogging about their portfolio companies too, specially when discussing valuations. They keep cheerleading on a clear conflict of interest, non-stop. Here is Fred Wilson:

"Pandora is at ~$1.5bn. LinkedIn is at ~$6bn. Groupon is at ~$15bn, Zynga is at ~$7bn, and TripAdvisor is at ~$3.5bn.

We can (and surely will in the comments) argue about these valuations. Some will say they are too high. Some will say they are too low. That's what makes a market. But in the aggregate, these valuations do not seem ridiculous to me. The public market investors are valuing these companies at prices that have some rationality to them." Source: [http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2011/12/some- thoughts-on-the-ipo-mar...](http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2011/12/some-thoughts-on- the-ipo-market-for-web-companies.html)

When he says "...these valuations do not seem ridiculous to me." he is implicitly saying that their is (fundamental value) upside to the stock. Not in a million years could Fred Wilson sustain such argument with numbers. Implied growth rates just to value Zynga at ~$7bn means double digit growth (revenue and cash flow) for years, AND even higher growth rates are required if IPO investors want a return on their investment. Unfortunately his audience buys into the hype, regardless of the real economic value behind the companies, and for him to keep doing this on a clear conflict of interest demonstrates his low moral standards. These actions should not go unpunished, and are no different to any other legal "issues" that lawyers might pick up from the Zynga prospectus.

<comment><USER8> " They keep cheerleading on a clear conflict of interest, non-stop"

That's their business model: they buy and then pump the companies in hopes that someone will buy stake from them at a higher valuation later. The nature of the VC model precludes multi-decade investments and incentivizes quick exits even if they blow up in others' faces

FW replied to a similar remark i made: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4068495>

<comment><USER4> that is exactly correct. VC's are facilitators, middlemen, and wholesalers, they are not equity holders. Their goal is to move equity. If the 'end-user' of the equity ends up owning a great business, great, if not, makes no difference to the VCs. You could argue there's reputation risk at stake but I don't see it: Fred Wilson made his name with geocities, a company that never earned any dividends for its ultimate owners (yahoo) while generating huge returns for its equity resellers. And we celebrate him and that deal as a success. Finding the greatest sucker is not a sustainable strategy, it's simple wealth transfer, no value gets created. it's not a way forward.

<comment><USER9> It's true that VCs have moved a lot of eventually worthless equity but they've also moved a lot of really valuable equity. Google, Amazon, Genentech, Oracle, etc. are companies with real, fundamental long-term value which could not have existed without some kind of investor (whether you call it a "VC" is largely semantic).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Interesting to note that it was pretty well reported[0][1][2] that the bulk of this second Zynga offering would be for management and PE firms to get liquidity. This, though, is the money quote from the Reuters article that could have been a red flag (Though I'm honestly not sure how often it happens):

"Zynga waived a lock-up arrangement to facilitate the offering. Investors are typically expected to wait about six months after an initial public offering to sell their shares."

[0]:[http://www.cnbc.com/id/46833267/Zynga_Shareholders_Selling_4...](http://www.cnbc.com/id/46833267/Zynga_Shareholders_Selling_43_Million_Shares)

[1]:[http://blogs.wsj.com/deals/2012/03/14/zynga-shareholders- to-...](http://blogs.wsj.com/deals/2012/03/14/zynga-shareholders-to-sell-up- to-400m-in-shares/)

[2]:[http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/23/net-us-zynga- idUSB...](http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/23/net-us-zynga- idUSBRE82K1BX20120323)

</comment><comment><USER11> Because I have a friend working at Zynga, I'm sad that their stock is going down - but, given Zynga's business model of wholesale ripping off other people's game concepts, and slapping down their own art and calling it "new" (Dream Height versus Tiny Towers) - I'm actually pleased that their stock is taking a hit.

I've even heard it rumored that Pincus actually _encourages_ his team to take other people's game concepts, and change the trade dress/graphics art and market it under the Zynga name, rather than investing in creating brand new game concepts.

I worked at Netscape at the end when we decided to just wholesale clone Yahoo's portal, and create "Netscape.com" - people worked really hard, wall after wall was covered with mockups of Yahoo, and the equivalent netscape.com version - it was a thoroughly depressing place to work, and any engineer with a sense of self worth quickly departed.

I'm not saying there isn't a business model there - I'm sure there is - it's just not one I would hope the best engineers would aspire to.

</comment><comment><USER12> Pincus brags on camera about how he got started by putting malware on customer's computers. Why is it surprising that he would pull something shady now?

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> "I know many of these folks personally, including at the company's underwriters, and like and respect them. I think the last thing they would intentionally do is unload stock when they thought it was about to crash-- especially when the amount they made in the sale, though huge, is still relative chicken-feed for them.

Also, all of these folks only sold a fraction of their holdings, so they've been hammered along with the rest of Zynga shareholders by the subsequent collapse."

The above is of course what is "below the fold" and the "to be sure" statement that is supposed to inoculate against accusations of being misleading.

But above the fold of course is the link bait title that draws you in and makes you think that something terribly wrong has happened with this cash out.[1] Missing of course is the amount of other stock or what their losses were.

An alternative piece that could have been equally good bait would have been perhaps "Zynga insiders who took a bath when the stock crashed" with the "to be sure" as "they also cashed out a small percentage of their holdings ..."

[1] Edit: I'm not making a judgement on whether what was done was wrong by the way I am only presenting my opinion on how this was written and an alternative version.

<comment><USER13> No matter what anyone says, to me, zynga is silicon valleys groupon. The worst company in the valley.

I like seeing them fail.

<comment><AUTHOR> "I like seeing them fail."

PG was just talking the other day about HN'ers who have feelings like that:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4293786>

I'd be curious if you get a chance of your comments to that thread (particularly what I said I felt was a possible reason and PG's response).

Of course no matter which way you slice it it does make interesting watching. As they say in news "if it bleeds it leads". People love a good train wreck.

<comment><USER14> I'm not sure the comment you're replying to views all startups as a con like PG was talking about. A lot of people just dislike Zynga because of their early shady business practices, and the fact that their games are seen as a dumbing down of the industry.

Zynga is sort of the Nickelback of the startup world.

<comment><USER15> Not to mention their recent move of asking employees to return unvested options.

<comment><USER16> Not to mention the shameless cloning of games from smaller indie companies such as NimbleBit's Tiny Tower <http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2399380,00.asp>

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> From the article: "I think the last thing they would intentionally do is unload stock when they thought it was about to crash"

It looks like at least one law firm disagrees: [http://www.marketwatch.com/story/newman-ferrara-llp- announce...](http://www.marketwatch.com/story/newman-ferrara-llp-announces- investigation-of-zynga-inc-2012-07-26)

</comment><comment><USER18> Flagged as irresponsible linkbait. The article itself acknowledges that these people "only sold a fraction of their holdings, so they've been hammered along with the rest of Zynga shareholders by the subsequent collapse."

</comment><comment><USER19> This is ridiculous! Zynga is an over-inflated bubble stock, simple as that. Every Retail Investor/Stock Broker/Investment Advisor should always be watching what the Insiders do. If a CEO of a company dumps significant amounts of their stock holdings, watch out. It's as simple as that.

If hypothetically, Larry Page & Sergey Brin sold off a large chunk of their stock, I'd be a sign to be careful of Google stock until the market reacts and the reasons are fully known.

</comment><comment><USER20> [http://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse- edgar?action=getcompany...](http://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse- edgar?action=getcompany&CIK=0001439404&owner=include&count=40)

[http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1134069/0001209191120...](http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1134069/000120919112022046/xslF345X03/doc4.xml)

ouch

</comment><comment><USER21> If one sells stock for $200m cash, like Pincus did in this case, arguably one would be immune from being "hammered" later on. Assuming he does reasonably safe/wise things with that cash.

</comment><comment><USER22> the VC insiders were likely going to sell based on the instructions of the LPs (either to distribute cash or stock) and not for any other reason...

</comment><comment><USER23> It is common for 100% of all shares of an IPO to come from insiders and VC firms? Or should at least some of it come from the company itself?

</comment><comment><USER24> Whenever I read about these things, the words "milking machine" come to mind. Get enough cows in the barn and turn 'em on.

</comment><comment><USER25> I'm in the "insider trading should be legal" camp.

</comment><comment><USER26> The investors should demand their money back.

</comment><comment><USER27> I suppose we should all be glad that some VCs were able hit a jackpot so soon, this is just what provides incentives for other VCs to keep investing in tech startups.

<comment><USER28> > _"I suppose we should all be glad that some VCs were able hit a jackpot so > soon, this is just what provides incentives for other VCs to keep investing > in tech startups."_

If I said: _I suppose we should all be glad that some mortgage brokers were able to hit the jackpot so soon, this is just what provides incentives for other mortgage brokers to keep pushing home loans on people._

I'd be lynched.

I agree it's a dog-eat-dog world, and that investors have to know what they are getting into when this stuff goes public. But the fact that VCs are pumping this crap up then dumping it on the public (who end up taking a bath) is not a positive development. It sucks, because for every Zynga (or pets.com, or webvan) there are 5 great companies that these VCs are supporting. But how can the public continue to trust this system? Fool me once...</comment></comment>


Have I got a hearing aid for you - <AUTHOR> http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/backgroundbriefing/2015-04-26/6407390

<comment><AUTHOR> I thought this article was interesting, as it points to a technically based industry that might be a candidate for a shake up. Opportunities here for new players?

<comment><USER2> > Opportunities here for new players?

I imagine there are.

I don't know about kickbacks & whatnot in the U.S., but there is definitely room for undercutting established manufacturers. What I would call a "decent" pair of hearing aids -- the kind of thing that might have been top of the line 3-5 years ago -- will run perhaps $5,000. Top of the line will be perhaps $7,000-10,000 for a pair.

So what do we have to come up with to make a hearing aid?

Materials: we need a custom enclosure (the in-the-ear part of a hearing aid is made from a mold of the user's ear). For an in-the-ear aid, this enclosure contains everything. For a behind-the-ear style, it will contain only a speaker and be connected to the main unit via a wire[1]. For both kinds, the main unit also needs 1 or more microphones, spots for push button(s) and a battery case, and the computer that runs it all. Also a 2-way radio data link for configuration & software update; perhaps for talking to a handheld remote control as well.

Is there an off-the-shelf computer that would fit inside a hearing aid? Something like an Arduino is much too large.

Then the software has to be written.

And, as with anything in the health-care industry, there are liability issues, and the hurdles to jump: regulations, licensing, hiring the necessary expertise, and mountains of paperwork. There is probably a minefield full of patents to dodge, too.

Off the top of my head, I don't see any reason why a resourceful group of people couldn't come up with a top-of-the-line hearing aid that sold for about $1,000 for a pair and still allowed for a profit. Connecting with customers would probably be the really difficult problem.

\----

[1] This seems to be the usual design these days. Older behind-the-ear aids put the speaker in the main unit and had it play sound through a tube connected to the earpiece, which was just a custom-shaped piece of plastic with a hole in it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Yes. Me too, and I've thought that for a while now.

(similar experiences with elderly family)</comment>


The HDFS Juggernaut - <AUTHOR> https://blog.shodan.io/the-hdfs-juggernaut/ <comment><USER2> Hadoop (and hence HDFS) is a stack of services designed to work together to serve a file system and manage jobs. The hadoop stack has a pluggable authentication/authorization by design. And yes, the default is "no security".

Given the distributed nature, HDFS runs on multiple machines. In linux distributed service security fits well with kerberos. Normally if you want a "secure" HDFS you must "kerberize" the services such that any hadoop operation requires a valid/authorized TGT.

To most people kerberizing a hadoop cluster is a major barrier to getting hadoop running. I dont see this changing but certain vendor hadoop distros break down some of the barriers.

Sometimes it is OK if you run a cluster insecure. Please dont do it if youre handling my financial or medical records though. As Mr.T once said 'dont write checks that yo ass cant cash'

<comment><USER3> > Sometimes it is OK if you run a cluster insecure.

Sure, but put it behind a VPN or _something_. This article is literally about clusters accessible via the public Internet. If there's a legitimate, non- trivial use case in which that's ever okay, I'm curious to know them.

<comment><USER2> I dont think this article is about clusters accessible via public internet. I think this article is about clusters accessible after breaking through an easily defeated ssh barrier and gaining full access.

<comment><USER3> Linked from the article:

[https://www.shodan.io/search?query=NODATA4U_SECUREYOURSHIT](https://www.shodan.io/search?query=NODATA4U_SECUREYOURSHIT)

That's a list of hadoop nodes you can access via the public Internet.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Why do all these products have "insecure by default" configurations, anyways?

Didn't we learn anything from register_globals?

<comment><USER5> The alternative is "asks you lots of questions at install, and/or makes you generate keys or something like that", which makes people say it's too complicated to set up.

Most people want the simple insecure one for their lab to see if it will work for them before they deploy the locked down version on the internet. Of course the part where they make sure to secure the production one is where people forget.

This isn't crazy. If someone asks me to do some benchmarks on an app to see if it would fit our problem, the last thing I want is to spend a week working up a federation of keyservers and a fake domain and everything else that the deployed product will require. If the product doesn't fit our need that's just wasted time.

<comment><USER6> Or there is middle ground

"Allow easy access with no password or username, but only from localhost"

Not foolproof, but as far as I know both this and mongo did the "bind to all ports AND allow access with no password". It was the combo that really killed it.

<comment><USER7> It's easier than that - just allow two setup options that generate different config files: "development (insecure)" and "production". First one is quick and easy and relatively more unsafe, second one is fully secured based on whatever best practices. "People will find and set all the configuration options correctly" is what got us into this mess.

<comment><USER8> I believe this is how Hashicorp's Vault does it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> even if node-to-node communication in a cluster (hadoop or otherwise) itself is not secured, is it not reasonable to secure external access to the cluster itself (i.e. with a firewall)?

from an outsider perspective (I've never used/run hadoop) I cannot see much reason for exposing the cluster to the outside world - either a web-app acts as an intermediary or access can be provided via VPN/ssh-tunnel/etc

... just curious why a fully/publically exposed cluster would be a "requirement"? or does it come down to the fact that firewalling an AWS environment is as painful (if not more) than "kerberizing" a [hadoop] cluster? (I kind of assumed AWS has firewalling functionality that is fairly plug'n'play ... a quick search does really back that up though)

<comment><USER10> I used to work at a big data consulting company and dealt with hadoop clusters at a bunch of different companies. What you described was absolutely the norm. The entire cluster closed to the outside world, except for one gateway machine that allows ssh access, and anything within the cluster is totally open. Sometimes some web services were open to the company VPN.

Kerberizing is a pain but not usually needed. You're correct that AWS firewall rules are very easy.

What you're seeing in this article is the exception, people doing it totally wrong.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I knew it was a bad idea to post 'getting started' tutorials that skipped all the security steps and replace them with a 'probably don't wanna do it this way in production' (and usually no documentation on how one should do it)...

Not levelling this comment at HDFS solely but it's about time people stopped with the 'hello world' style examples.

<comment><USER12> _> it's about time people stopped with the 'hello world' style examples_

Unfortunately not having the initial "this is the core, look how simple it can be" example a lot of people will turn off.

 _> (and usually no documentation on how one should do it)_

That is the issue. Good documentation is often the issue for many other reasons too. For commercial projects time is money and so often not available in sufficient quantity (at least for externally facing documentation that may be held to standards that internal materials are not so needs extra resource for review+rework). For unfunded work (for instance things that start out as personal projects and/or quick proofs of concept, or many community-only driven works) documentation often gets left because it isn't the interesting/sexy part.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> This was back in May, I wonder how it has changed / if anyone parsed some of this data..

<comment><USER14> A blog comment from two months ago said it was up to 6 PB at that time.</comment></comment>


How to Pick Startup Idea - <AUTHOR> http://grigy.com/blog/2012/02/15/how-to-pick-startup-idea/ <comment><USER2> I agree very much with the idea of "improving on something that already exists". I hate it when you tell someone an idea, and they rule it out because "it already exists". There is always a better way to execute on the same idea.

However, I am not a fan of "Has business model other than advertising". Although it is something to have in the back of your mind, it is hard to say what the product/idea will evolve into when it actually becomes something that can be profitable.

<comment><USER3> I think a careful evaluation should be spent in finding the right balance between "General enough, so you can find users" (as advised in the article) and "if you're a solo entrepreneur find a niche so you have less competition, expecially from big names" (paraphrasing Rob Walling, Tim Ferris and others)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Follow this strategy to a spectacular fail. We've all seen the startup kids who invest 2 years+ of their life into a startup they really believe in, THEN they release. and it flops.

Your belief in your startup is useless, other than as a way of keeping you motivated until you ship.

This is why MVP and pivot and "throw-jello-at-the-wall-and-see-which-sticks" exist as better, adaptive, strategies.

<comment><AUTHOR> I agree. But even by following the MVP methodology we still need to pick an idea to start with. Regardless the belief that execution is the key and idea worth nothing, I would still pick the one which satisfies most of the points.</comment></comment>


Show HN: Shape – helps you invest in line with your morals - <AUTHOR> https://itunes.apple.com/gb/app/shape/id1154658685?mt=8 <comment><AUTHOR> Hey, we made this app to try and help people new to investing understand the stock market. This is what we've tried to do: \- explain unfamiliar concepts \- provide risk data \- aggregate price targets \- curate highlights of companies ethical/environmental activities

It'd be great to get your thoughts. Thanks in advance</comment>


Cliché of the Business Guy - <AUTHOR>

I been lurking and reading around hacker news for sometime with and without a ycombinator account. I figure I add to the discussion and see what you all think.
I'm a recent The Pennsylvania State University Marketing / Management graduate and I have start-up ideas, dreams, and aspirations.
I want to talk about the cliché of being the business guy do start-ups need us that much for marketing, paperwork, and sales; as much as they need coders?
One of my goals is to work for a start-up or be a founding member in one.
For the people reading people who have worked in or with a startup, when does the idea or project need the business people?
I been searching  on the jobs thing here, I seen an opportunity with airbnb.com but I was running my small business here in Philadelphia, only to have it die due to The State of Pennsylvania having a budget crisis and me realizing that was the industry for me or my passion.
I was working on a project with a friend who is Majoring in Computer Science @ PSU. He's in his final semester, we were trying to get to alpha by September. Since he is in his final semester and working crazy hours at the PSU IST Help desk, he hasn't been working on it as much as he was before school started back up.
As the business guy I want to get it to alpha so I can get feedback and develop marketing plans, etc. I want to go-go-go; being 200 miles apart doesn't help (Philadelphia-to-State College), I don't want to slave drive him because when he was coding I felt bad I couldn't contribute to what matter most developing the site.
Coders reading what do you think about that?
Fallacy of a good idea: Gotta implement before someone else does or you will be left in the dust. I am trying to teach myself the basics, such as HTML with hopes of going to PHP so I can contribute but that will take time.
For you hackers reading my question is where do I start? I understand it can be a rough and rugged road to learning
This is my first post, I hope it isn't to long and I am looking forward to discussion.
Stan <comment><AUTHOR> I have been marketing the site like crazy, LOL pitching it in my interview helped me get my job with the real estate developer I work for not in Philadelphia (our site is geared toward the real estate industry). Now I am on the inner-circle of the people I want to use our site/service and pick the people I meet brains on a daily basis. (My boss is O.K. with this of course.) But, senior year is kicking my hacker friends behind.

To keep myself busy I'm doing little consulting aside from my day job where I am helping businesses create and mange their online presence. It allows me to network with owners and build connections.

I did learn my way around Photoshop and Illustrator so the UI and interface is all me. Me nothing having formal programming skills I am looking at what service to use to create sites for my clients, Weebley or Squarespace can handle that.

</comment><comment><USER2> You can and should start marketing and selling the product even before you ship an "alpha" version.

[http://www.startuplessonslearned.com/2008/11/what-is- custome...](http://www.startuplessonslearned.com/2008/11/what-is-customer- development.html)

Learning to write code is certainly worthwhile, but it's a lot easier if you're doing it for a particular purpose. Start honing the tools you'll need for sales and marketing: Write a blog, buy and sell Adwords/Adsense ads, create sales presentations, mock up interface designs, and develop product web sites. You (and the hacker you're working with) will quickly find things you do that can and should be automated, and then you can figure out which skills are useful for you to learn or buy.

</comment><comment><USER3> Startups need marketing/business guys as much as they need coders and they need them from day 1. The idea must be pitched, refined and sold BEFORE you get too far in product development, as it is crucial in choosing direction for development.

However, this is somewhat of a blind spot for technical founders, so you first of all have to pitch them :)</comment>


Monitor to become the first national newspaper to ditch daily print edition for website - <AUTHOR> http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/1029/p25s01-usgn.html

<comment><AUTHOR> With the Internet I find I get more instant "this just happened" news (without analysis, with lame analyis or with inaccuracies). I'd be willing to go to a weekly format with more thoughtful analysis. Take The Economist for instance, it's not what I read to find out what's happening now. It's what I read to find out why things are happening.

<comment><USER2> Likewise, I read monthlies like Portfolio for even deeper investigation and higher profile features. And funny enough, this month there was a light interview with Marc Andreessen ([http://www.portfolio.com/executives/features/2008/10/15/Marc...](http://www.portfolio.com/executives/features/2008/10/15/Marc- Andreessen-Q-and-A)):

      If you were running the New York Times, what would you do?

_Shut off the print edition right now. You've got to play offense. You've got to do what Intel did in '85 when it was getting killed by the Japanese in memory chips, which was its dominant business. And it famously killed the business--shut it off and focused on its much smaller business, microprocessors, because that was going to be the market of the future. And the minute Intel got out of playing defense and into playing offense, its future was secure. The newspaper companies have to do exactly the same thing._

 _The financial markets have discounted forward to the terminal conclusion for newspapers, which is basically bankruptcy. So at this point, if you're one of these major newspapers and you shut off the printing press, your stock price would probably go up, despite the fact that you would lose 90 percent of your revenue. Then you play offense. And guess what? You're an internet company._

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I work at a newspaper. It was just announced that our presses are shutting down and our daily print edition will be printed on the presses of our mortal enemy that is no longer our mortal enemy (expect that to be a trend).

Newspapers are feeling inadequate compared to the Internet at large so they're starting to churn out more and more "this just happened" news. Unfortunately, "this just happened" news is an easy-to-find commodity, so the strategy is doomed, IMHO.

I think newspapers should cancel their AP subscriptions and change their print editions almost entirely to what they call 'enterprise journalism' (answering the why's), and their online editions to local in-depth analysis. I'm not sure I would bother with breaking news at all, to be frank. There are too many other channels for that.

In short, I would leave the "this just happened" alone and focus on being the local Economist (which I've been saying before I ever read timtrueman's comment, which I completely agree with).

</comment><comment><USER4> This is really interesting in the context of recent news about the New York Times cashflow issues. Internet killed the print newspaper star?

<comment><USER3> _Internet killed the print newspaper star?_

Not really. It's a little more complex, as I've learned.

* Early 2000's: Newspaper uses soon to be outdated technologies and eyeballs strategy. * Mid 2000's: Housing boom allows newspaper to rake in cash and hire lots of help. * 2007: Housing crash kills your advertising revenue, exposes bloat and deteriorating revenue in classifieds. * 2007-2008: Unless you're the NYTimes, your 10-year-old CMS/publishing platform offers you almost no way to innovate. * 2008: You throw yourself into the online world as much as possible, but you aren't sure if you can afford to invest in your long-term future (MUST. MAKE. MONEY. NOW.). * 2008-2009: Massive uncertainty and an identity crisis of great proportions.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I hope more newspapers follow their lead. Printing paper editions daily sounds inefficient and wasteful. By the time the morning newspaper hits the streets everyone already heard about the news on TV or read about it online. I expect daily print to go away as we get better choices for reading news on the go and more people start using Kindles, netbooks, iPhones, etc.

<comment><USER4> I like the interface of reading certain things in physically better than online. This includes, for example, the New York Times as well as Edge Magazine.

I think it will be a while before non-PC devices are the primary way people get their electronic news (at least five years).

<comment><USER6> With books, yes. With newspapers, no. I know that with some people, it's a ritual, but I can't imagine doing the flip and fold and flip and fold and wrinkle and crumple and cuss and tear routine with a newspaper on the subway or bus; instead, I just hold my phone up and read the news.

The runaway success of the iPhone should open the way for handheld internet readers to become a part of everyday life for more than just gadget geeks.</comment></comment></comment>


Cyber-attack: The big one is coming says US Cyber Command General - <AUTHOR> http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/cyber-attack-big-one-coming-says-us-cyber-com

<comment><USER2> _It's not the first time we've heard this but it's always a little disconcerting especially from some one so closely involved with the security realm_

Yeah. This is just "The Commies are coming!" type scare-mongering that we've heard from the US DoD for decades. Missle gaps, bomber gaps, bears in the woods, it's all just a way to create a fog of panic, demonize some group, almost arbitrarily, and then get funding for more classified boondoggles.</comment>


Gmail is down in US, Europe - <AUTHOR> https://www.cnet.com/news/gmail-is-down-internationally-disrupting-work-flows/ <comment><AUTHOR> Status update from Google: [https://twitter.com/GoogleforWork/status/776079823773044736](https://twitter.com/GoogleforWork/status/776079823773044736)

</comment><comment><USER3> Working fine for me - received an email just a minute ago and fine all morning, across multiple apps for business accounts / different domains - <USER2> NY.

</comment><comment><USER4> It's working fine in India as well.</comment>


Upthere raises $77M to put a new spin on personal cloud storage - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2016/07/27/upthere-puts-a-new-spin-on-personal-cloud-storage/ <comment><USER2> That is a tremendous amount of money relative to the market opportunity. Displacing existing providers is necessarily going to be crazy difficult. I would love to hear the VC insight on this one: why do they think Upthere will actually manage to capture consumer mindshare? Advertising what distinguishes it from related services in a way that consumers will care about is a challenge.

<comment><USER3> The pedigree of the founders probably factors into it. Many VCs take the "we invest in people first" idea very seriously. For them a super-impressive team sells itself, while a less impressive team could only get funded with a ton of traction and proof. It's just reality.

That being said, it's not a terrible idea for a certain customer base. I am disappointed at the apparent lack of first class security features though. That would be a differentiator. But I haven't looked hard... maybe they are below the fold. They talk about securing their platform but not about how I might secure my data.

Edit: why do none of the big cloud drive and sync providers offer basic symmetric local encryption of data? This is easier to implement by far than sync and I for one would pay for this.

<comment><USER4> We're building a secure cloud storage, sync and share Dropbox alternative with local, end-to-end encryption built in:

[https://www.sync.com](https://www.sync.com)

 _> Why do none of the big cloud providers offer local encryption?_

\- They want to police your files

\- Free services typically monetize you through data mining your files (eg. Google Drive)

\- It's difficult (not impossible) to build in usability features that might need to access, scan or manipulate your file data, when you don't have access to the file data server-side in the cloud (everything has to be pulled down locally first which adds overhead).

\- Browser support for local HTML5 saveAs() etc. handling is still all over the map (Safari is almost a showstopper).

\- Easy account recovery options are limited

The tech is getting better though, and there's certainly a number of good options in terms of cloud storage with local encryption built in, including Sync!

<comment><USER5> > Free services typically monetize you through data mining your files (eg. > Google Drive)

Do you have a source that Google drive is mining my files? Free vs paid vs business?

<comment><USER4> Sure, from Google's TOS: [https://www.google.com/policies/terms/](https://www.google.com/policies/terms/)

 _Our automated systems analyze your content (including emails) to provide you personally relevant product features, such as customized search results, tailored advertising, and spam and malware detection. This analysis occurs as the content is sent, received, and when it is stored._

<comment><USER5> [https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/drive/HgAeG7l...](https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/drive/HgAeG7ljlZA;context- place=topicsearchin/drive/advertising)

> As with Google Docs previously, we do not target ads to you based on the > content of your files. Our servers index the files you put into Drive in > order to provide features like fast search, virus detection and optical > character recognition.

<comment><USER4> Easy for a community manager to say, but she didn't agree to the blanket terms of service. You did.

The _binding_ TOS explicitly states they may analyze your content, and the analysis occurs as the content is sent, received, AND when it is stored.

If what the community manager says is true, it would be awesome if Google actually updated the TOS to clarify that _file AND file meta data_ in Google Drive are exempt. I mean I love my Chromebook, and it came with 100 GB of Google Drive free. But I have no idea how much access Google has to the files, so I can only assume the TOS is accurate.

==

There's many choice quotes from Google employees that contradict, skirt around or gloss over these issues:

 _Are files stored on Google Drive Encrypted?_

You'll note the first response doesn't answer the question. Then finally a contradicting response:

 _That 's a valid question. Google Drive does NOT currently encrypt files on the server. Our team and our company take the security and privacy of our users very seriously._

[https://productforums.google.com/d/msg/drive/6AdrOutSoFU/sgi...](https://productforums.google.com/d/msg/drive/6AdrOutSoFU/sgixqxX3yfQJ)

==

Here's a funny conversation regarding web search history being on by default across all your devices:

 _I can 't believe that this option is enabled by default! Clearly it should be DISabled by default if Google cares at all about their users' security and privacy. It's one thing that Google collects anonymous data about what people search for and do online, but to collect a database of detailed personally identifiable information on an opt-out instead of an opt-in basis?_

The product manager isn't quite sure either:

 _I 'm a PM at Google working on Personalized Search / Web History ... We've found that it is difficult to articulate the usefulness of having Web History turned on without trying it out for yourself._

[https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!msg/websearch/12cW5...](https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!msg/websearch/12cW5YPyvzY/McZXqsIzP8oJ;noredirect=true)

==

<comment><USER5> My concern here is that you're making really quite a strong statement about what google do with your files on google drive, and the only information I can find is a very generic TOS and a statement on googles forum that they don't use your files like this.

Have you tried contacting google to get confirmation?

<comment><USER4> I hear you. Perhaps I'm overly paranoid. I don't think so though!

Many people (eg. [http://www.inc.com/larry-kim/5-online-privacy-tips-from- edwa...](http://www.inc.com/larry-kim/5-online-privacy-tips-from-edward- snowden.html)) have asked Google to clarify their policy in this regard, but the "generic" TOS you agreed to is the best they could come up with. The trouble with using soft language is that anything goes.

Data monetization goes way beyond serving relevant ads.

While companies like Sync.com encrypt your data end-to-end (making this a non- issue - shameless plug I know - you should check us out though), if you do continue to use Google Drive you may want to investigate third-party Google Drive encryption software such as [https://www.boxcryptor.com/en](https://www.boxcryptor.com/en) (I hate to recommend a competitor, but it's better than nothing).

I'm making a strong statement, because I value my privacy.

<comment><USER5> > I hear you. Perhaps I'm overly paranoid. I don't think so though!

I think perhaps there's a misunderstanding here. I'm less concerned with your point of "google might be reading my files", that's a perfectly valid concern. That's different to making the statement "google are monetising your files, so pay for my service instead".

> I'm making a strong statement, because I value my privacy.

You are making a strong statement about a competitor that I'm not sure you can back up. That is not the same as valuing your own privacy. Not using google drive because you aren't sure what they're doing is fine.

<comment><USER4> I wasn't trying to imply that paying for Google drive would eliminate the data monetization model. In fact, the terms of service appear to be identical for free or paid if you're using Google Drive for personal use, so perhaps that's where the disconnect is.

However, it's interesting to note that Google mentions that they are willing to negotiate the terms of service for businesses using the paid Apps service: _note that additional terms may apply for negotiated Google Apps agreements_.

[https://support.google.com/drive/answer/2450387?hl=en](https://support.google.com/drive/answer/2450387?hl=en)

In the case of HIPAA compliance for healthcare, or data privacy compliance requirements for industries that store files with personally identifiable information (PII) in the cloud, I wonder if Google would amend the TOS to include server-side encryption, or other safeguards, which would mitigate the issue.

 _This is something I will investigate further, as I 'm not sure what the answer is._

Regardless of what a Google Product Manager states (marketing rhetoric or current policy), Google's legally binding terms of service are the only terms that matter at the end of the day:

 _Our automated systems analyze your content (including emails) to provide you personally relevant product features, such as customized search results, tailored advertising, and spam and malware detection. This analysis occurs as the content is sent, received, and when it is stored._

It would be great if Google updated their terms to be clearer. In the mean time I'll take their word on it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> My Synology NAS has a pretty good take on personal cloud storage, after I put a domain and SSL on it (which they make really easy with Lets Encrypt) it's pretty much interchangeable with a bunch of cloud services for music, files, tv/video etc. Primarily open source too, they've really done a slick web interface for linux.

Given we're on the brink of putting an extra terabyte or two into your phone or tablet etc I think cloud storage is really going to boil down to allowing others' access.

<comment><USER7> I've been looking into doing something similar for an offsite backup for my extensive photo collection- how much storage do you have and how much did it cost you?

<comment><USER6> I opted for a tiny little 2.5" drive version with 4 bays so currently it's limited to 8tb for now, they do 2 - 8 bay units for 3.5" drives which is probably more suitable for massive storage requirements, and with USB3 ports you can attach additional terabytes effortlessly. They also have additional devices to put even more drives in that extend your NAS storage.

$280 with separate drives - [https://www.amazon.com/Synology-DS416slim-NAS- DiskStation/dp...](https://www.amazon.com/Synology-DS416slim-NAS- DiskStation/dp/B00LB0E9B4)

One very cool part is it has sync software that can automatically sync all or some of your stuff - one way or bidirectional - to dropbox, google drive, backblaze, amazon glacier etc for backups and public access.

There's a fork of their software here to install on other devices too - [https://xpenology.me](https://xpenology.me)

<comment><USER8> > There's a fork of their software here to install on other devices too - > [https://xpenology.me](https://xpenology.me)

It's not a fork so much as a custom bootloader for Synology's version of Linux.

Here's the official forum: [http://xpenology.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=2](http://xpenology.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=2)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Time for another rant, sorry. So how is it different from Dropbox, iCloud, OneDrive and countless other offerings? At this point I opted for a physical server at my home, with encrypted cloud backups of important stuff and periodic offsite backups of everything. I have a love-hate relationship with Synology. It is a closed system running some bizarre variant of Linux, but at least they are doing something with a nice interface and nicely pairs with their mobile apps. I wish there was some open-source effort for a home server like this that is equally well-designed, but so far I have not found any, so I am running with this. Hopefully Sandstorm or OwnCloud or someone else will get there at some point!

It is very cheap storage, it is connected to the internet, it has some nice phone applications that I can use to access my content, I can run scripts on it to back up data from other services like Instagram, it is available on all of my computers.

If I am ever to get sucked into another cloud storage, give me encryption, open source client, mobile apps, connection to other services to backup my content, API access to my data, openness to third parties building connections with your platform and I will chase you to give you my money.

<comment><USER10> > So how is it different from Dropbox, iCloud, OneDrive and countless other > offerings?

It takes your files off of your computer except for an intelligent local cache. It doesn't integrate with your file system. The creators clearly think storing everything locally and syncing copies to the cloud is over.

I think a lot of techy people fail to realize exactly how little most people rely on their computers for anything other than web services, and how extensively most people rely on their phones for basically everything. None of the offerings you mentioned are really that great with phones.

Based on your use of your own local physical storage server, it's pretty clear that this isn't for you. It isn't for me either. But try putting yourself in someone else's shoes for a change.

<comment><USER11> I'm actually that "someone else..." so here is my feed back on that.

I do not care about "it takes your files off of your computer except for an intelligent local cache." What does it mean for me and my photos?

Also, all my photos are uploaded into Dropbox via iPhone anyway...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> In my opinion it is a fundamental axiom of computer science that some local storage will always be necessary. We've just seen AMD put SSDs directly onto a video card [1] for precisely the reason that _local bandwidth_ is supremely important, as use cases at the endpoint always swamp remote bandwidth. Just as we get to gigabit to the home, we are on the cusp of needing 100 gigabit to the display as things like VR and 360-degree video catch on (AMD's SSG will give us 50 of those gigabits). The history of computing has always seen this: remote bandwidth grows exponentially, but so does local bandwidth need, from an order of magnitude higher starting point, meaning the former never catches up with the latter. This is why I believe this business strategy to be doomed.

[1] [http://semiaccurate.com/2016/07/25/amd-puts-massive-ssds- gpu...](http://semiaccurate.com/2016/07/25/amd-puts-massive-ssds-gpus-calls- ssg/)

<comment><USER13> It's not so much that local storage will go away, but more that its role will change from a place where you "store" original content to a place where you "cache" content. As people move away from owning a single computer to owning multiple different devices that all produce content, it seems logical that you would move the "truth" of your data to the cloud.

<comment><USER12> but that's Dropbox. So contrary to what the article asserts, this is just another dropbox.

<comment><USER14> Are they trying to claim that it's better than dropbox for viewing your content. Like just a better UI or what?

<comment><USER12> well to raise 77 million something in their pitch is working. I'm guessing it's implicitness, ie, unlike actual local directories, as in dropbox et al, you'll just see the cloud, but there will still be a fat, local, cache. So really it's just a thin layer of abstraction on Dropbox and IMO that's very easily copyable by dropbox which is already moving in that direction. Basically, technically, nothing to see here folks. But someone in this shop must have good stage skills.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I read/skimmed the whole article, and still don't understand why this is better than Dropbox. Also, aside from mentioning Middle Out compression, this was indistinguishable from Pied Piper… :-p

<comment><USER16> It seems they're pushing one of the differences which is that this doesn't sync to a folder on your computer. The files only live in the cloud.

Why this is better than a syncing approach is not clear to me.

I was hoping the "new spin" would be something a little more radical.

<comment><USER17> It's better than a syncing approach because most people can't utilize the full extent of their sync-based storage due to local hard drive limitations.

An example: if I have a 320GB local drive and Dropbox keeps all its files on my local drive, I can't store the full 1TB of files in Dropbox that I'm paying for. However, I probably don't need all of those 1TB of files at the same instant, just various subsets which change over time, meaning that a cloud storage solution which doesn't require constant client-server sync lets me actually utilize the full volume of the service.

<comment><USER18> Dropbox project Infinite should help with this. It should make it possible to replace some contents of the Dropbox folder with place holders that only get downloaded when they are accessed. Personally I'm very much waiting for this. The current selective sync is too cumbersome.

[https://blogs.dropbox.com/business/2016/04/announcing- projec...](https://blogs.dropbox.com/business/2016/04/announcing-project- infinite/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Seen a joke somewhere else- isn't this product pretty much what Pied Piper (prior to the latest season finale) was trying to create? Except without compression.

<comment><USER20> It sure sounds similar.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Local storage is extremely cheap. Except for mobile devices where it's kept artificially expensive as a way to price discriminate.

However, I would not want to build a company around bypassing local storage because when (if?) local storage becomes cheaper on mobile devices, there will be absolutely no benefit of using their product.

Then, as the photos and videos keep getting bigger and bigger due to higher resolution and quality, the bigger problem will be uploading those files to the "cloud" in the first place, not not having enough local storage. Because, compared to local storage, network connectivity for mobile devices will take longer to become mature.

<comment><USER18> Storage is still pretty limited on laptops. For example even on Macbook Pro you are still stuck with max 1TB. If you carry your computer around, external storage is pretty inconvenient.

One issue with cheap local storage is the reliability. It is easy to get an external hard disk or NAS box, but quite difficult to setup appropriate backup procedures and maintain those. For example keeping data and backups in one physical location is not a very good idea.

<comment><USER21> I'd argue that if you're running out of 1TB local storage for data you use frequently, then this completely cloud based service won't work for you anyway. Imagine how much data will go back and forth for that 1+TB. Something like Dropbox/Google Drive with selective sync will be a better option.

And this cloud service doesn't solve the backup problem either. With Upthere, the copy in their cloud is your only copy. If their data gets corrupted, you lose everything. So, you want a proper remote backup solution anyway whether you use Upthere or Dropbox or Syncthing. And if you think Upthere must have good backup setup of their own, then I'd argue that so would Dropbox and Google Drive.

So, I still am not sure if Upthere really provides that much value.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Isn't iCloud Photo Library already better than this for media? It's also just an "intelligent local cache". It downloads device-optimized previews. It has a sharing system (photo streams). It has data centers that handle scale.

Furthermore, it has native device OS integration. That means it can handle syncing that cache with the cloud better. It can do it while the device is otherwise alseep, i.e. overnight. Third party apps need a hack to keep the device awake. Notice Upthere has a setting for this called "prevent auto lock" which it recommends enabling for "large" uploads. That's really suboptimal. iCloud is also native to the Photos app. Upthere has to compete with all the library features in Photos too, like all the machine learning stuff that's coming in iOS 10.

Maybe it's somehow better for other documents / as a straight Dropbox or iCloud Drive competitor. Maybe the core tech and team makes them a good acquisition target. But for the "rich media" that takes up the bulk of local storage, it's going to be hard to move the needle as third party app.

</comment><comment><USER23> There's about a hundred of these services but somehow none of them support linux. Even if they do it's with the most half-assed software. I hope these guys invest in it now that they have capital. They are missing out on some critical early adopters to promote their software.

</comment><comment><USER11> I installed Upthere to my mac.

I have a question: for me, as a consumer, why would I use Upthere? What is added value?

Both Dropbox and Google Drive work well (even OneDrive personal on mac is ok) - buy maybe I'm missing point here.

</comment><comment><USER24> Now if there was an Upthere overlay on my Synology, that could be a very interesting use case. Seamless HSM.

</comment><comment><USER25> I fail to see how this differentiates from what I currently get with iCloud Photo + iTunes Match. iCloud Photo is cheaper ($2,99 vs $4,99) and is officially supported and integrated by Apple on iOS and macOS.

What's the difference? Why would you choose a more expensive third-party solution?

<comment><USER26> If you aren't in the Apple ecosystem that might be one reason.

<comment><USER27> Then you're in the android ecosystem which is heavy Google.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> I've downloaded the app but the only way I can upload photos is to connect it to a Photos library. But my photos are not there. I wonder what's the appeal here is.

</comment><comment><USER29> Seems interesting and reminds me a lot of the Nextbit Robin - a kickstarted android phone that can offload less-used data and apps to the cloud.

</comment><comment><USER30> I'm surprised why would someone give so much money for something that exists and no additional value to it.

Here is upcoming startup and I'm waiting to release its beta to the public: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3aXb5RqS0s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3aXb5RqS0s)

Private, Streams and Just works.

</comment><comment><USER31> So this competes with Dropbox/ownCloud?

</comment><comment><USER32> Yay, finally blockchain storage! Oh, wait, just another "me too" advert.</comment>


Six Ways to Overcome the Urge to Procrastinate  - <AUTHOR> http://www.caycon.com/blog/2011/11/six-ways-to-overcome-the-urge-to-procrastinate/ <comment><USER2> They forgot #7: Do not read articles of the form "n ways to do X".

Also enable noprocrast on Hacker News, and use a time-tracking tool like RescueTime.

<comment> X-Istence noprocast doesn't work for me. I have Hacker News added to my "Top Sites" and Safari likes to refresh those every so often.

When I did have it enabled I was locked out more often than not making it particularly useless for me. What I have found is that I have started finding a lot of the articles that make the frontpage are boring and I have naturally started visiting less and less.

<comment><USER3> That's funny, I've had the opposite experience with the lockout. I figure that if I set the refresh to be reasonably low, it turns into more of an odds thing whether or not I can read HN. And, after a while, I've stopped needing discipline to come looking here.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I like Marc Andreessen's post on productivity, especially "structured procrastination" where procrastination is actually encouraged (there's a good chance that the things you procrastinate on aren't all that important).

[http://pmarca-archive.posterous.com/the-pmarca-guide-to- pers...](http://pmarca-archive.posterous.com/the-pmarca-guide-to-personal- productivity)

</comment><comment><USER5> I still believe in Merlin Mann's "First, care."

<http://www.43folders.com/2010/02/05/first-care>

All these little tips and tricks are fine. But they're usually treating the symptoms rather than examining the cause.

<comment><USER6> _For as long as you know in your heart that what you're making or doing matters, and, consequently, for as long as you accept and embrace the immutable laws of scarcity, your options for maintaining focus will, like Frank's perfect answer, remain stunningly obvious._

Those are very true observations, but the problem is, how do you care? We're told things like, "do what you love," and " follow your passions," but that's just not realistic in an adult, professional world. Writing code is awesome for the first 10% of a project. After that, it usually becomes a grind to complete all the uninteresting things.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I am working on a new way to fight procrastination: <http://asaclock.com>

It is an elite anti-procrastination community for startup single founders and people working on side projects.

</comment><comment><USER8> I absolutely love the first point that they make to not start out with a regular routine of reading news or checking your email because I think many people (including myself) do it as a habit and then get completely sidetracked from it (especially email) leaving everything else on a side-burner until later. I didn't even think about this point until reading this. If you do something you dont want to do first you will have more motivation to get it done so that you can get back to your regular routine. Since people are creatures of habit its quite a big motivator.

</comment><comment><USER9> #7 Don't write a blog post about ways to not procrastinate

<comment><USER10> <http://xkcd.com/874/>

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> My favorite way to procrastinate is to read online article about procrastination. I also bought a book about it, one of the few I never finished. If you procrastinate too much there is usually a reason for it, try to find out why, and what you can do about it. For me it is ambitious project that are ill defined. Breaking them in smaller task that can become daily achievements helps a lot.

</comment><comment><USER12> One Noble prize given for the research that said best way to achieve your goals is by working on a goal to procrastinate even higher goal.

Secondly, I remember reading a research paper that said, whenever you have a task at hand which you want to procrastinate at least give it a start. Urge for postponing the task goes seriously down once you at least start doing it.

</comment><comment><USER13> 7\. Effective stress management.

Stress causes procrastination. Reduce stress to procrastinate less!

It seems like this is what the author was trying to get at. My favorite stress management methods: exercise, meditate, socialize.

Also, the first thing you do each day should be something low stress, achievable and important. ...gets you off on the right foot.

</comment><comment><USER14> One of the best ways I've found is to just start it! Tell yourself to just force out 10 minutes of whatever it is you're putting off. Once you've started, you'll want to see it through as much as you can.

There's proven theory behind why that method works... something about unfinished jobs fatiguing the mind.

</comment><comment><USER15> The "startup kind of person" is ambitious so I'm not sure how many people that applies to.

An ambitious procrastinator...is that an oxymoron?

<comment><USER16> No...many ambitious people are also perfectionists, and perfectionists are often horrible procrastinators as they wait for things to line up perfectly or wait to refine it one more time before releasing, putting off the next phase over and over.

Also, one very dangerous form of procrastination is doing real work...just work that is less important than what you should be doing. Paul Graham touches on this at <http://www.paulgraham.com/procrastination.html>

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> The irony of seeing this link on HN nearly killed me.

</comment><comment><USER18> Article added to instapaper...

</comment><comment><USER19> Looks like an insightful article. I'll read it later.

</comment><comment><USER20> I'll read this later.

<comment><USER21> Beat me to it!

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> 7\. Always have something worse to do. It's amazing how much you'll get done trying to avoid that one thing you're really, really dreading.

<comment><USER22> Sometimes I will actually clean stuff just to avoid working on something I hate more, and it's actually almost fun. So this is definitely true from my experience.

It's also amazing what you'll get done when the power is out or you don't have internet, but that's almost impossible for me nowadays thanks to my smartphone.</comment></comment>


Inject the .Net framework into the browser - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@mikeptweet/inject-the-net-framework-into-the-browser-84803a223b1#.sv0oi3b10 <comment><USER2> While definitely cool.. for the love of all that is good, please don't do this on anything in production that isn't leveraging a huge existing codebase.

Hybrid projects to JS and the browser are just plain a nightmare to work with. They're never as light as they should be and almost always impossible to debug/diagnose issues.</comment>


Will Social Media Produce More Entrepreneurs?  - <AUTHOR> http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/007582.html

<comment><USER2> Isn't it a few years late to ask this?</comment>


London's first pay-per-minute cafe - <AUTHOR> http://www.theguardian.com/travel/2014/jan/08/pay-per-minute-cafe-ziferblat-london-russia <comment><USER2> According to this: [http://calvertjournal.com/articles/show/1845/ziferblat- russi...](http://calvertjournal.com/articles/show/1845/ziferblat-russian-anti- cafe-opens-in-london) it's £1.80 an hour, or £9 to stay as long as you want. A nearby coworking space, Google Campus, is £90 for 30 hours a month with coffee and tea paid for separately.

Of course, it would be easy to create an environment that deterred laptop users if that's not compatible with what they're hoping to achieve.

<comment><USER3> Wouldn't this cafe eventually be filled with freeloaders who pay 9 pounds per day in order to get gourmet coffee and food all day long? That's a pretty good deal if you're a cheapskate living in london. Sandwhiches can be 9 pounds by themselves.

<comment><USER2> The impression I get from [1] is when a reporter visited the food was biscuits, peanut butter, toast and an onion (Apparently customers are invited to bring and cook their own food)

£9 would get you four loaves of bread[2] and three jars of peanut butter[3]. You'd have to be pretty hungry to eat enough of that for them to make a loss.

I assume the concept is fairly experimental at the moment, presumably they won't want people sprinting in, making an espresso for 3p and running out. Or I might have misunderstood what I read in [1]. In any case, it'll be interesting to see how it shakes out.

[1] [http://now-here-this.timeout.com/2014/01/08/pay-per- minute-c...](http://now-here-this.timeout.com/2014/01/08/pay-per-minute-cafe/) [2] [https://www.ocado.com/webshop/product/Wholemeal-Bread- Medium...](https://www.ocado.com/webshop/product/Wholemeal-Bread-Medium- Sliced-essential-Waitrose/15887011) [3] [https://www.ocado.com/webshop/product/Crunchy-Peanut- Butter-...](https://www.ocado.com/webshop/product/Crunchy-Peanut-Butter- essential-Waitrose/10637011)

<comment><USER3> I used freeloader as a nicer word for "vagrant". You can't buy four loaves of bread if you don't own a fridge to store it in.

<comment><USER2> No, but if you have £9 a day you can buy a single loaf of bread and still have £8 left over.

I guess if you were homeless it might be worth £9 a day to have somewhere warm and indoors to stay, but the free entry museums, art galleries and libraries don't seem to get full of homeless people.

I have heard reports of 'pay what you like' restaurants getting filled up with homeless people, so I can see where you're coming from.

<comment><USER4> I think the fact that you can buy 4 liters of White Lightning for that money instead negates the necessity to find somewhere warm and indoors.

<comment><USER5> Whilst this is probably a joke, it's still a sweeping generalisation of the homeless that paints those in an incredibly unfortunate position as nothing more than cider swigging alcoholics. There are few things that irk me more than vilification of the homeless

<comment><USER6> I don't want to vilify my fellow Londoners, but to me, that's more a sweeping generalization of London. Getting wasted seems to be the #1 hobby of most the people I know here, no reason the homeless cannot have their share of fun.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I really think all coffee shops should start charging people for loitering long after they have finish their coffee.

I live in Toronto and I can't remember when was the last time my wife and I were able to enjoy a latte while sitting at a Starbucks or Timothys. Nowadays, it seems all coffee shops are overrun with kids doing their homework or whatever. The worst part is that the laptop/tablet people barely make eye contact with others; they are so engrossed in their screen !

Thankfully,we found a smaller coffee shop which does not offer Wifi and where the owners discourage loitering / homeworks.

<comment><USER8> When I was at U of T, I used to blame all the coffee shops being filled with students on the university not providing adequate work/study space for its 44,000 students (a few of my friends got banned from a nearby Second Cup after using a booth at the back to solder circuit boards for a design project).

After graduating I moved to the suburbs, where Starbucks is rammed with high school students doing homework but the public library across the street is empty despite having more comfortable seating, faster Wi-Fi and you know, actually being intended as an open public space for quiet reading and study.

<comment><USER9> Does the library sell good coffee and tea which you're allowed to take to the workspaces, and have pleasant lighting?

My old college's library would allow you to bring in beverages in containers that have tight-fitting lids, and was well-lit and comfortable. It was also jammed with students in there studying at all hours. The university I live near now allows zero food or beverages and has cheap, eye strain inducing fluorescent lighting, and it's a ghost town. The only reason I spend any time studying there is that as a non-student I'm not allowed to check out books.

<comment><USER10> _Does the library sell good coffee and tea..._

Starbucks doesn't sell good coffee and tea and yet they are packed. It must be something else.

<comment><USER11> Subjective, and goodness of coffee is not binary. Starbucks coffee is, IMO, better than what you find at most "affordable" restaurants, sandwich shops, diners, etc.

If you a coffee connoisseur, it may not be good. But most people aren't, they just want something better than Folgers.

There's also the McDonald's effect: it may not be great, but it's pretty much the same everywhere. You know what you are going to get before you go in.

<comment><USER10> I think you missed the joke. Here in Seattle, it is trendy to look down on Starbucks, that is all.

Totally agree about the McDonald's effect. When traveling I am often happy to enter the Mermaid's consistent embrace.

<comment><USER12> I don't look down on Starbucks because it's trendy, but because the coffee is poorer than even average cafés in my city...

You can see just from looking in the grinders that their beans are over- roasted (which I guess improves consistency but destroys flavour) and they make up for that with syrups huge amounts of milk.

<comment><USER13> Mass market coffee.

I have huge respect for what Starbucks does. For decades, most roasters got their start at Starbucks or Tullys.

In the 10 million pounds of beans Starbucks buys every year, there's some percentage that must be awesome. Buying for myself, I'll get seasonals, varietals, vs the blends. Panama, harar, sumatra. Starbucks also sells whole bean light roast for tastes like my gf's, like the blond, which is sometimes available as drip over the counter.

But mostly I buy either Herkimer or Lighthouse. They're indies, who obsess over the product, from purchasing thru roasting thru pulling the shots.

herkimercoffe.com

lighthouseroasters.com

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> So for 15p I can go in, make my own four-or-five shot latte, spill the milk everywhere because I'm hurrying, stuff my mouth full of biscuits, and walk out again?

Do they expect profit..? Or is the rest of the service industry just gouging us silly?

[edit: typo]

<comment><USER15> Yeah, and you can go to all-you-can-eat meals and skip eating a day before and after to get the most out of it.

I agree that the business might seem risky in quite some ways, but .. exploits like yours are probably possible in a lot of places. I'm reasonably sure that I could go to a good number of hotels, check in for a number of days, have my breakfast/empty the minibar and leave. Going to a cafe and leaving without paying is usually trivial, only social norms stop you from doing that (or .. don't).

<comment><USER16> where in the world can you find a hotel where you are not charged for what you take from the minibar?

<comment><USER15> Uhm..

\- all hotels that I know of (and I traveled quite a lot. In fact I write this from a hotel in Bern, CH) charge you at the end of your stay. A good number of hotels don't check your ID/your personal information. My point above was to just leave early, with or without clearing the minibar. It's possible and not hard.

\- I know more than a handful of people that just go to the reception, pay for the room. 'Sir, did you take anything from the minibar?' \- 'No'. Of course they did. Now the hotel certainly can (after the guest departed) find out that it was cheated. And now .. what? The guest was probably from another country. Are you going to send a bill and hope for them to pay after lying to you previously? For a beer or three? Turns out .. a lot of hotels don't do that and never reach out to you.

(Disclaimer: I haven't done that myself, I'm too cheap to buy the minibar items. My minimbar, at right this moment, is filled with beer I bought at a supermarket and brought to my room. But I _have_ been part of these exploits over and over again, even standing next to people that declined the question of whether they used the minibar and I was in their room! There are usually no consequences. If there are, you can ignore it - or say 'Oh, yeah. My fault' and pay up without repercussions)

<comment><USER17> It may be a regional thing. Many (I'd say most, but I don't know the actual percentage) hotels in North America require a credit card, even if you're paying by cash. They will just charge the card after you leave.

<comment><USER15> That doesn't apply over here (see the less carefully crafted version of your statement/the sibling comment).

That said: What happens if you _have_ a credit card that backs the room, but not the rest of the expenses? I usually travel with a CC (from my employer) backing the room. I never pay my room myself. That said, the hotel isn't allowed to charge minibar/massage/champagne at 3am by room service on the company card - and has no reliable information about me [1].

1: Yes, obviously it's rather dumb to run off with a TV if my company reserved the room or something. But again, as stated elsewhere in this thread: I've seen a number of people getting away with minibar-theft, very easily.

<comment><USER15> Replying here, since HN likes me to calm down or something and hides the direct reply link.

First of all: Thanks a lot for taking me somewhat serious. :)

This is enforced by the letter of my company that states "Our Employee is staying in your hotel. We will cover his room, breakfast, wifi, parking. Please charge the following CC". Everything else is my business. If I eat at the hotel's restaurant I can charge that to my room. When I check out, I have to pay up for the things that aren't cleared for the CC - i.e. still open.

Even if I steal from the hotel and run off with the couch in this room: The company specifically offered their CC for a number of services, paying for me stealing furniture isn't part of that agreement. If I break something they cannot charge the company CC (but at a certain amount will certainly ask my company, which is on file and well-known, to relay a bill to me).

Just having a CC number is not enough to charge it with random things.

<comment><USER15> Replying again as a sibling, because it's 1:30 am and .. I don't care about waiting 10-15min for the reply button. ;-)

Thanks a lot for the clarification. As I said: I didn't have a CC for most of my life and had to trouble to check into a hotel. Sometimes a cash deposit was indeed required, but that was unusual (and mostly in seedy/grimey/ugly kind of places).

I think a big misunderstanding is the 'company CC' here. There's just one. For the company. Not one for me, for the company. My company has a _single_ CC covering travel expenses (and god knows what). So someone (travel agency, customer, me, who ever) is booking a hotel. My company sends a polite letter to the hotel, stating that it would cover my stay (see above, limitations etc) and offers the CC details or - still quite often the case - asks even to receive the bill by mail.

The hotel has no CC that I gave it, ever. Not mine, not a CC that the company gave me (I .. don't have something like that, doubt that it exists in this company outside of maybe some people in the higher sales ranks and .. well .. maybe the US? No clue). The name on the CC used for these things is actually my CEO, last time I checked.

Hackable: Well, the whole thread is about abuse, but I think you're caught up in that misunderstanding: I'm not providing a CC and forge a letter that says 'Yeah, but please just charge the room'. I'd have to forge a letter that says 'Please charge the room to the following CC'..

That said.. Again: Often enough we ask for a bill. In that case we tell the hotel: "Please send the bill for the stay (room/breakfast...) to company name, street, city". Is that hackable? Probably. It's a protocol that wasn't designed to protect against abuse. Just as I am able to send you emails from email@example.com as long as I'm able to find an open smtp relay. That doesn't mean that everyone or even a significant number of people does it..

<comment><USER18> Tip: you can reply immediately (without waiting for the reply link), by clicking on the "link" of the post you want to reply to.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I'm surprised to find out that it's first of it's kind in London. In Moscow these place became quite common in the recent years; it's a great place to chat with friends, or gather big companies. They usually have a selection of available board games and other company-oriented entertainment.

</comment><comment><USER20> sounds brilliant. I always feel guilty/uncomfortable sitting too long, but with this kind of place you never feel guilty.

1.80 per hour and includes everything (coffee?) sounds like a bargain in London standards. That won't buy you a cup of coffee in most other places as far as I remember, let alone fruit, vegetables, biscuits etc... Even cheaper than co-working spaces(?), especially for casual use.

</comment><comment><USER21> Clearly the idea has worked in Russia, but I find it hard to see how charging a flat rate can be financially viable. The pricing seems like such a fine line to make it cheap enough for its intended usage (people hanging around and such) but expensive enough to cover the food. As other commenters pointed out already, you could walk in, take a bunch of food and expensive coffee and leave.

I think one way of attacking this problem would be similar to taxi-cab pricing (X for the first mile and Y (where Y<<X) for every subseqeunt one. Essentially adding a flat fee of a few bucks just for walking in, then charging a small amount per minute to hang around.

<comment> guard-of-terra They don't offer food (bring your own) just cookies, and you won't realistically chew too many cookies. They also have coffee from coffee machine. The whole idea is to make it feel like home (that many people in the city lack while renting something ugly) - assorted old furniture and a good company.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Workshop Cafe in SF does it by the hour, seems to work pretty well. You get 10 hours free to start, it's worth your time to stop by for those hours at least.

<comment><USER23> Workshop Cafe is one of my favorite places to work in SF. You don't feel like a cafe squatter since you pay for your seat, and its always nice working around like-minded individuals. Plus there are so many outlets... [http://workshopcafe.com/](http://workshopcafe.com/)

<comment><USER24> I just spent a few hours there. It was pretty much at capacity the whole time. Cool to see it succeeding such a short time after opening. Though for me personally I can't say the environment there's ever been particularly conducive to meeting any of the supposedly like-minded individuals staring at their screens next to you.

<comment><USER25> They've actually just started adding social features to the app. It's all opt- in, but if you want you can share who you are, what you're working on, and where you're sitting when you check in. You can tell it is really just their first step in encouraging that kind of thing. Such a great place to work.

<comment><USER26> Developer for Workshop Café here. The recently-released social features (Community Page) are definitely just the MVP. Would love to know what you think. We're going to see how people use it and add stuff we think is helpful. We've already noticed people putting their contact info and links to their personal pages, projects, etc. Hope it catches on!

<comment><USER24> Oh tight. I hadn't even noticed the feature, because I just use the app to check in and out. Would love to have more first-class 'desktop' web support, since once I'm sitting there already using my laptop I don't want to have to keep whipping out my phone to do things.

But it's totally awesome to have the capability to check out who's there. I hope it goes a long way toward fostering a community there and helping people make useful contacts.

<comment><USER26> Glad you're also excited!

You can currently use the app on your desktop browser using the same url ([https://app.workshopcafe.com](https://app.workshopcafe.com)) and get the same feature set as you get on your phone (Except for things that require a phone like calling or texting in orders). No need to switch from your laptop!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> There are probably more than 10 "anticafes" in Saint-Petersburg(as "Ziferblat" had great success after opening in early 2012). Some of them are profitable, AIK. Ziferblat is the good place for hanging out, but too noisy to work(many students playing table games around). If you want to work, better choices are "3rd place"("tretje mesto"), me4ta.tv(far away from center, but best choice probably if you're staying in northern districts of the city) or even IMarussia.

P.S. In Saint-Petersburg's Ziferblat, you can take coffee-to-go for free but donations are highly welcomed.

</comment><comment><USER28> So, I run some numbers.

First, all back in Euro, the a 20%VAT gives us:

1.73 per hour

Considering this place is a cafe and runs only during day starting very early, it can run at 12 hrs day. Let's also take the normal accounting standard of 30days per month.

This gives us:

Monthly income: 1.73 x 12 x 30 x X

Where X is the avg hourly nr of people in the cafe'.

Say X is 15 --> Monthly revenue: Eur 9400

Considering 1 waiter at a cost of 4000, rent at a cost of 2000, utilities at a cost of 500, food/coffee at 1000, we have about EUR 2000 of profits for 1 cafe'. Excluding amortizations and other overhead I probably forgot to consider.

But I think 15 hourly is a bit optimistic, how big is this place?

<comment><USER29> from the article, the image used has more than 15 seats. I counted around 25. Their website has more images: [http://london.ziferblat.net/](http://london.ziferblat.net/)

</comment></comment><comment> guard-of-terra I'm very fond of anticafes as an idea. We usually gather there to play board games or for birthday parties. AMA :)

You can drink tea and coffee with cookies or you can bring your own cake or you can order pizza/sushi delivery.

We've visited a Ziferblat/Ziferburg in SpB and it's amazing, they're sitting on the top floor of a historic building just opposite Gostinyy Dvor (and near the jealousy-inspiring VK office btw), they even have a piano there.

</comment><comment><USER30> Coffee in other places is expensive precisely because the price is a stand-in for table-space and queuing rent. The cafe charges for the opportunity cost of someone peeking in seeing the line too long or the tables too full and running out. Same thing with corkage charges—wine-drinkers longer longer.

The person who runs into a place like this, grabs food and a latte, and runs out is not doin them economic harm.

</comment><comment><USER31> The opposite concept can also work: free work space but no outside food or drink.

Next Door in Chicago offers a good work environment (tables, some cubicles and private rooms with excellent internet), and is completely free. Using it for work is encouraged. A cafe inside does very good business from the people who are otherwise there to work (no outside food or drink is allowed) . It's sponsored (by State Farm), so it's possible the cafe might not be able to support the space on it's own, but the fact that an environment where work is explicitly free brings substantial revenue for the cafe suggests that model might be viable.

<comment><USER32> CapitalOne does a 360 Café idea in many places that's quite similar.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> In Japan, see also [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manga_cafe](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manga_cafe)

Paying per minute reminds me of paying per minute for virtual servers.

<comment><USER34> The manga cafe is one of my favorite Japanese institutions, though the utility is lower now that I'm married. It's a no-notice dirt-cheap hotel (if you're amenable to sleeping in a recliner), a mid-day nap, an instant office-with-a- door, an instant wifi connection and (typically) open outlet, serviceable liquid refreshments, climate controlled like a business rather than Japanese houses (i.e. always tolerable, which is not a hard-and-fast requirement for Japanese apartments/houses), and virtually guaranteed to be tolerant of people at the margins of society [+].

[+] This can be useful if it is 2 AM and you're in a city you don't live in with a face that says "I am at the margins of Japanese society; nobody will fault your hotel if you refuse my business on the excuse that you are fully booked... on a Thursday... but could be unbooked if I were willing to have someone from my office call to vouch for me."

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> I live in Mykolayiv, small city in Ukraine and we have similar venue here called "Moloko" (milk in ukrainian). It's not snacks or tea/coffee that matters, it's community and events that happen there.

Owners actively encourage socialising, there are events almost every day and it hosts several clubs. In fact I just returned a few hours from Mafia club meeting there.

Also, they encourage to host your own events there, for free. I. e. they get paid from visitors and you get venue. You can also take higher price for your event if needed.

</comment><comment><USER36> There is the pretty much the same concept in Paris, except that you pay per hour. [http://anticafe.fr/en](http://anticafe.fr/en)

They have plugs all over the place and the wifi is much better than in any other cafe, which makes it a really nice place for working.

</comment><comment><USER37> 3p/minute = 5 cents US per minute, or $3 per hour?

Seems incredible!

<comment><USER38> What is p? certainly not pounds, right?

<comment><USER39> Pence.

<comment><USER40> And maybe include "how many pence to a pound"? My assumption is this is like pennies and the US dollar - 100 pennies to a dollar; therefore 100 pence to a pound?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> It sounds a lot like an airline club lounge - free food, drink, wifi, printing, etc.

<comment><USER42> Or a new car dealership service waiting area ... at least one I've been to had all this.

<comment><USER43> If all you're looking for in the comparison is "somewhere to sit, a coffee machine, etc." then it matches many things. GP's point with the airport lounge comparison is that it matches not just in objects but in purpose / business model.

<comment><USER41> Well, yeah.

The interesting thing is the pricing model - at the airline club, you prepay for it by either paying per session (very expensive), having a club membership through some means, or else it's baked into the price of a first-class ticket.

In the per-minute case, I'm trying to think of how usage patterns would vary from those of an airline club. It would be interesting to compare to other models as well, such as a co-working space that offers free coffee and treats.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> While there are comments that mention getting drinks to go, I think 1.80 pounds are extremely cheap for spending time at a place, drinks and snacks included. I'd go.

</comment><comment><USER45> I like this idea. Would love to see more things like this.

<comment><USER46> Then become a customer or donate money.

<comment><USER45> Too far away to become a customer. Will look into donating money.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> They seem to use analog clocks that are given to each customer to record time. What's to prevent someone from (literally) turning the clock back?

<comment> guard-of-terra In Ziferburg SpB, every clock is different and have a name written on it, they look up that name in their log and charge you the difference.

So the clock is purely flavour. Other anticafes may just ask for your name and use it as index.

These places usually attract people who are cool. So I won't expect much cheating anyway.

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> If it's 3 pounds per minute, it's a bit too expensive. If it's 3 pence per minute, it's probably too cheap.

</comment><comment><USER49> > It's funny to see people queueing here to wash their dishes. It's not > obligatory, but it's appreciated. They even wash each other's dishes. It's > very social.

I don't understand why pay-per-minute would lead to this. Doesn't that mean people are paying to wash other peoples' dishes?

<comment><USER40> You forget the English stereotype where everyone is always so nice! More seriously, if they're making the place "feel like home" (limited snack options, coffee-machine dreg rather than barista-prepared fluff, etc), then I suspect it's a feeling of community: let's keep the place nice and clean not just for the owners of the building, but also for us, the ones who 'live' here.

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> Kiev's Ziferblat is a really amazing place: it became a real centre for the city's creative youth with a good selection of free international press (doesn't happen much in Ukraine), nice workshops, movie nights and other stuff. Let's see if Londoners can be as open as Ukrainians.

</comment><comment><USER51> Interesting. Moscow has had these for quite a while.

From the owner side, it seems like the way to keep people from buying the cheapest thing and occupying a table.

From the consumption side, is seems like another way to squeeze more money out of people and give another reason to exclude people on basis of economics.

</comment><comment><USER52> Genius idea! Long thought that about a space you could turn up, surf the web, chill out. If they have set this up as they describe could feel move like your home away from home. Surf the web, grab a drink, make some new friends etc. Going to check it out soon!

</comment><comment><USER53> 1 Coffee to go please.

</comment><comment><USER54> Do the waitstaff dress up like characters from popular manga/anime series? If so, this is nothing new.

<comment><USER29> "nothing new"

For London?

</comment></comment><comment><USER55> Is this financially viable?

</comment><comment><USER56> see also [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jjimjilbang](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jjimjilbang)</comment>


Xiaomi Mi3 launched - 13Mp, 3050Mah, NFC  325$ - <AUTHOR> http://www.techinasia.com/new-xiaomi-mi3-miui-android-smartphone/

<comment><AUTHOR> Xiaomi Mi2 outsold Samsung Galaxy S4 in China. Sold 10Million handsets. Anyone knows where to buy in US?

<comment><USER2> You can pick the Mi2 up on eBay. The phone is geared for the China market, so you're on your own for support and warranty.

I've used a Xiaomi in China. It was a decent phone, but the build quality felt a little cheap compared to LG and Apple. I'll stick with the Nexus 4 for now. It's cheaper and makes better engineering tradeoffs. Without a larger CCD surface area, the 13Mp camera means worse low light photos. Likewise the 1080p screen is indistinguishable from a 720, but gets worse FPS in games and drains the battery faster.</comment></comment>