Ask HN: Source of extra income, no programming involved? - <AUTHOR> Do you folks have a source of extra income which does not have anything to do with programming? It could be a non-tech job, or a non-tech business. How well does it pay off, and are you happy doing it? I ask because I'm also looking for ideas. I feel like I'll never make enough money just working on my full-time job (in tech), but I'm worried that getting freelance programming work will make me stressed and sick of writing code. <comment><USER3> Years ago, I did bartending for a bit, while I needed to pay off credit card debt.

I wound up making as much at night as I did during my day job, and while you'd think that working two 8-hour jobs back-to-back would be exhausting, it surprisingly wasn't.

The parts of my brain I used during the day, and at night, seemed to be completely different. Working at a bar in the evening was almost relaxing -- many nights, not too different from just _going_ to a bar, except I was getting paid for it!

And the look on a daytime coworker's face was priceless, when she randomly picked that bar to come to after work...

<comment><USER4> Did you have any previous experience or take any bartending classes? I've been thinking of doing this. I've heard good and bad things about the classes, but I've never bartended before, so I don't know how else to go about getting a job.

<comment><USER3> I took a two-week, 40-hour evening bartending course where you practiced with colored water. The course itself was actually a ton of fun.

Obviously, like every first waiting/bartending job, you have to make up fake prior experience. Heck, they even taught us that in the course. I never knew anyone who didn't have to make experience up in order to get their first job. Plus I definitely "dumbed down" my resume a bit -- bar owners have no interest in your coding experience.

And of course, it helps (both financially and in terms of finding a job) to be in a major metro area. For me it was NYC.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I own half of a wine garden in San Antioco and cut the wines every winter. I sewn and sold more then hundred motorbike saddles. Its a nice winter job, that pays good for a craft. I've organized uncountable concerts, produced a few dozen bands, and pushed 3 of them into the charts. I even worked a few times for compagna.de as an escort for woman.

But all this is just a hobby, compared to coding. I'm happy if they break even, of give some small money, but my main income is a semi passive income from maintaining a CPAN module that I've published 15 years ago.

<comment><USER6> > I even worked a few times for compagna.de as an escort for woman.

wait .. what? what exactly does 'escorting' for women in europe mean? because it means something very specific in the US...

<comment><USER7> In Germany 'escorting' is not necessary related to prostitution like in other countries. Prostitution is legal in Germany, so you don't have to obscure it with 'escorting'.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> In addition to being a software engineer, I'm also a consulting hypnotist. (quietstrengthhypnosis.com) I find that the deeply interpersonal work I do with hypnosis makes a nice contrast with the deeply logical work I do in software -- they exercise two different sides of my brain, and when I get tired of one, I get more motivated with the other. I've also found that doing hypnosis has improved my ability to focus and achieve "flow" when programming -- "flow" is itself a trance state.

The work is rewarding, both on a financial basis and on a personal basis (I'm helping to improve peoples' lives). It was surprisingly simple to learn how to do hypnosis, as well -- it's mostly a matter of projecting a relaxing demeanor and being able to read body language. And it's a great conversation-starter!

If you're curious to know more, I'm happy to answer questions: my email is on my website. (Just let me know that you found me through HN!)

</comment><comment><USER9> > Do you folks have a source of extra income which does not have anything to > do with programming?

Why handicap yourself by ignoring one of your most useful and rare skills?

Use your programming skill to build a side business. Build some kind of service or API or something useful to others that they'll pay money for.

> I'm worried that getting freelance programming work will make me stressed > and sick of writing code.

There's nothing wrong with sometimes freelancing - just don't be the idiot that tries to compete by having the lowest price. Double or triple what you think your rates should be. You'll avoid garbage clients and be happy about any work you get no matter how much of a clueless jerk some client is.

<comment><USER10> Sometimes people grow weary of this industry and craft.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I think it's fine to be curious about a non-programming side job. Sometimes we want to be of financial utility without looking at a damn screen.

I don't have much else other than ideas for myself. Closest would be that I'm a songwriter and have released a 7-song cd recently. But even though the songs are good, there's no real reason to expect they will go viral beyond family and friends. I've sold about fifty cds so far. I'll release digital versions soon and will sell some more, but I don't have any expectation of making the money back that I spent on making the cd.

I'm also curious about getting more into electronics - arduino, etc. That's a good stepping stone away from programming, and there's the possibility of inventing something quirky that could make some side income.

I'm also starting to learn about remote control flying. There are ways to make money at hobbies.

I guess the old standby answer is real estate. I know lots of programmers here are into that.

<comment><USER12> Have you thought about teaching private music lessons? I teach guitar to 7-8 students, it's nice to have the extra income and teaching music to kids is a welcome break from coding.

<comment><USER11> You know, in the past, I've always briefly considered it as an option but seen the hourly rate as so much lower that it didn't seem viable. But right now when I'm experiencing coding burnout, the idea strikes me a bit better. I have this awesome 6'4" grand piano in my living room - it'd be nice to let some other people enjoy it. I'll consider it more. Thanks for replanting the seed. ;)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I posted this on a similar thread, I own a cleaning business and although it had some programming involved, its not the main part of it.

The current profit is on target to be around £4.5k a month.

I will at some point write the story up, but the TL:DR is: Spotted vastly under valued cleaning business with complete staff. Turnover of previous owner £190k a year. Profit of previous owner £18k. Yup, £18k.... Bought it for £13.5k.

Still in the early stages and still changing things but the previous owner was/is in massive debt, little free time to put into the business, did EVERYTHING on paper/fax/phone and had enormous monthly costs.

Theres a much longer story to this but i'll write it up in a few months when its a bit more proven. I have a mailing list setup for those interested in hearing about it when i eventually do write the story up, if anyone it interested: [http://eepurl.com/FNvPr](http://eepurl.com/FNvPr)

<comment><USER14> Really cool! Any tips on finding similarly undervalued businesses?

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> SAT tutoring - you can work flexible hours & via Skype. I've been able to make a full-time salary working a few hours a week tutoring while getting startups off the ground.

<comment><USER16> I'd love to hear more about your experience, what is involved and how you got into doing that part time on the side.

<comment><USER15> Sure, sorry for the delay!

I applied to Kaplan straight out of high school and started telling everyone I was going to work there before getting hired [I was not]. Instead of making $16/hour I ended up getting privately hired at $25+/hour by my classmates' siblings. At Brown I applied to Ivy Bound - they work with students across the country, both in person and via Skype. For my first job, at 19, I was paid $40/hour plus $90 just for travel, since I was the only person willing to head over to Newport to tutor at the boarding school there. After that, I began increasing my rate by about 50% each year. I jumped to $100/hour one summer because a family really wanted to hire me, I didn't think I had the time, and I asked for that rate because I figured they'd say no [so I wouldn't have to] - and if they didn't, it would be more than worth my time. They said yes, and it was. I still work for Ivy Bound and take private referrals in NYC through friends. Best side job ever, and I love the students I work with / trying to get them to stop stressing over the college admissions process.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> It's not non-tech, but there are numerous opportunities in the publishing / content sphere which shouldn't result in you getting sick of coding but would still use your skills.

For example, my company gets subject level experts to curate e-mail newsletters that go out to other developers, but more generally you could be (paid) blogging, writing a book (for a publisher or on your own), recording screencasts, doing online training, and any manner of things like that. For some of these you might end up doing "research" type coding but not actual "arggg, I hate this client!" type coding which it sounds like is what you really want to avoid ;-)

</comment><comment><USER10> 'I'll never make enough money just working on my full-time job (in tech)'

As a programmer? If you're not making six figures now, you will in 2-3 years. How much money do you need?

<comment><USER18> Not everyone lives in a major metropolitan area where programmers are thrown money like there's no tomorrow.

<comment><USER19> You don't need to live in a metropolitan area. If you're good, you can make 6 figures freelancing on oDesk (et al), and without working crazy hours.

<comment><USER18> What fantasy world do you live in? You're saying its easy to make six figures on a freelancing site where most everyone is looking for the cheapest developer? Seriously?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I've started a makerspace in my home town and, while it's not profitable at this point, someday I may make a stipend for all the hours I pour into it.

Building the space got me the opportunity recently to be a foreman on a large interactive art sculpture build for an international company where I was able to learn to weld and even hired on some good friends of mine who are artists and fabricators.

Someday I hope I can meld the two worlds - physical fabrication and programming - into a lucrative and enjoyable career. I feel it's a great blend of IRL type work and the addictive satisfaction I get from writing code

<comment><USER20> "physical fabrication and programming" Robots?

<comment><USER18> That's one route, although I think there is a whole world of possibilities available to someone who can code and can work with their hands.

<comment><USER20> Maybe machine sculpture.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I made a bit of money selling old computers on Ebay, not exactly programming but being aware of things. I did it mostly to support my habit of collecting them, letting the extra stuff go. A lot of people make their living providing support for off-warranty gear. By ferreting out sources I was clearing 2 - <USER2> / month for a while during the great Y2K scare.

You could consider writing (fiction or non-fiction). It can be relaxing and fun and if you work at it you may find that selling the occasional ebook on Amazon makes you a buck or two. (Of course you might end up programming a CMS that generates books based on a simplified version of markdown and then start selling that and make a mint, but I digress :-)

Not sure what you're finances are like by if you can buy a rental property you will find tenants provide an endless supply of puzzles to solve (not all fun, ok most not fun) but it can be extra income.

A friend of mine makes funny bumper stickers and t-shirts (more of a design job I guess). The guy two streets over used to have an ice cream truck he drove around on weekends and at events.

Taking pictures of store fronts and selling them to the business owners to attach to their Yelp page? Taking pictures of couples at famous landmarks and selling them a copy of their picture? Juggling at famous landmarks for tips?

Making cold calls for candidates during an election year? Working at Macy's during the holiday rush?

</comment><comment><USER22> Depends on where you live and how much time you have. As a programmer, your main skill will earn you more in an hour than most people earn in a day. That said, don't burn yourself out, mix up your skills.

If you drive a Lyft, you could pull in an extra $20/per hour. Do the math as far as what gas and maintenance will cost you.

Can you do pet sitting or house sitting for people out of town? At least in SFBay, that's about $20/hr on Task Rabbit.

You could also give your time away since it sounds like you have available time after your full time gig. It is a chance to meet new people and out of that, though you shouldn't expect it, you could land some side gigs.

<comment><USER23> Seconded on the taskrabbit.com or mechanical turk on amazon!

<comment><USER24> I would also add sittercity.com if you're good with kids/pets

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Well I am looking for the exact opposite. Focusing my "programming energy" for my own stuff while having a source of income from some other job. I have found nothing yet though.

</comment><comment><USER26> Do something that you are passionate about or find fun to do and that you would probably do even if you don't get paid for. If its not fun, it will feel like work and you will come to resent it.

e.g If you are passionate about motor bikes, create a blog about motor bikes. As you grow your audience you can profit by either ads or affiliate sales.

If you list down your passions here, maybe the community can help you come up with an idea on what to do.

</comment><comment><USER27> As a front-end guy, I would say recording events, video editing, designing, 3d modeling, getting into printed designs, etc.

Writing a successful blog, writing a book.

</comment><comment><USER28> Still related to programming a bit, but I wrote and self-published a book recently. Not enough to make a living in itself, but it helps some.

[http://buildanappbusiness.com/](http://buildanappbusiness.com/)

</comment><comment><USER29> I teach CS at a small undergrad college, and we often need adjuncts to help us teach intro classes when we have more sections that the full-time faculty can cover. You might check with your local colleges and universities.

</comment><comment><USER30> Stock market, knock on wood.

<comment><USER31> I hope that you are either (a) a professional investor or (b) buying passive index funds.

<comment><USER32> I buy individual dividend stocks that I think are undervalued. I've (slightly) beaten the S&P 500 since I started investing.

In other words, I don't think you have to be a professional investor or buy index funds to do well in the stock market.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Well I write guest posts, on Techie blogs! Usually [How-to] posts. Does pay enough for pocket money though.

</comment><comment><USER34> I wrote an ebook that sells fairly well on the ibookstore and Kindle.

</comment><comment><USER35> you could look at becoming a real estate agent, insurance mortgages. or something like that. schooling not too bad and the commission are pretty good.

</comment><comment><USER36> Why not just try to get a higher income earning job?

<comment><USER37> Depending on your career track, unless you're going into an executive job the higher income has a "ratcheting" effect where you have to work increasingly more in order to justify the higher pay. (If you're salaried)

There's more freedom, control, and potentially fewer hours involved in doing something on the side. Not to mention a nice change of pace. Good for one's sanity.

I moonlight on various side projects, day job is software.

<comment><USER36> No ... the question is the OP is a programmer and doesn't think his current job can yield the income he wants ... If all these unskilled things are on the table then surely finding a better paying programming job is an option because we're not talking about C level executive stuff.

<comment><USER37> Probably the case, but I assumed it was because they wanted a change of pace.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> Buy bitcoins on btc-e, sell them on mtgox.

</comment><comment><USER39> If you dont want to do your skilled job (programming) you can probably only do unskilled work and that is low pay

<comment><USER40> One can be skilled (or become skilled) in multiple areas.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> Teach kids.</comment>


The "Why" of Electrolysis - <AUTHOR> https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2016/04/11/the-why-of-electrolysis/ <comment><USER2> Two years ago: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8349973](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8349973)

[not very good] Five years ago: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2780952](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2780952)</comment>


The Top 50 Startup Blogs To Watch in 2010 - <AUTHOR> http://www.evancarmichael.com/Tools/Top-50-Startup-Blogs-To-Watch-In-2010.htm <comment><USER2> Yes, let me just add all 50 of these to my RSS reader. Obviously each and every one is worth it.

</comment><comment><USER3> In 2010?</comment>


Ruby Bitcoin Wallet - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/adrijano/Ruby-bitcoin-wallet/ <comment><AUTHOR> Simple bitcoin wallet

</comment><comment><USER2> But why?</comment>


Vinay Gupta (Ethereum, Hexayurt) is starting a new VC that cares for founders - <AUTHOR> http://hexayurt.com/capital <comment><USER2> Hi, Vinay here. If anybody would like to talk about the proposal, I'll be around to answer questions.

The core of the idea is pretty simple, there's a very brief summary on the home page if you're in a hurry. I know the video is long, it's really designed to lay out the case with all the background analysis and research so that people can make their own assessment of the hypothesis.

What do you think? Do let me know.

</comment><comment><USER3> So there's a lot of very-smart in the video, but it's a bit of a ramble with no actual clear description of the idea. Maybe you could add in a 30 second explainer at the start of the video.

First tell them what you're going to tell them. Next tell them. Then tell them what you just told them.

<comment><USER2> Thanks!

Yeah, I erred on the side of completeness. I'm hoping that through discussion and dialogue we can figure out the essential version of the argument and get it down to ten minutes or even five. Right now it's a bit of an interconnected mass. Clarity will take conversation!

But I'm glad you liked it. This is the first written feedback I have had, and I'm glad it was positive.

<comment><USER3> Yeah. So I watched through until the end. I feel like you should definitely study areas outside the well trodden nerd-bait paths. Then judiciously steal those ideas (works for PG, repackaging an explanation of portfolio investing).

Unfortunately no, the "entrapreneur" often isn't important in an irreplaceable way. The culture and society (group of entrapreneurs) however _are_ important.

So if you shift from "The entrepreneur is the star" to "The culture/bubbling ecosystem is the star, we'll treat entrepreneurs well so we get as many shots as we can." That might work.

<comment><USER2> Scenius, as Brian Eno calls it.

<comment><USER3> Yes! That'd be appropriate.

However, I still think vulture capitalists will somehow find a way to turn it into an old boys club (made from young boys' dreams) again. Human nature being what it is, we love a hero myth.

I do have to ask why do you need to create "startups"? Why can't you (help) create good SME's?

Have you done your historical research? Who has traditionally created the big, world changing inventions? Startups, SME's, large institutions, or governments?

I ask, because you and many others mention older individuals becoming entrepreneurial, but not needing so much help.

For the best odds might it make sense to get the younger generations on firm ground with solid SME's to gain experience. Then swing for the fences later?</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Bad College to California, Any tips for jobs? - <AUTHOR>

Hello HN! I cross posted this on reddit here:
http://www.reddit.com/r/cscareerquestions/comments/1fjmv2/from_bad_college_to_california_prep_work_needed/
tldr; Moving to California, fresh out of college. Advice on getting a job?
Full text is in the link, text character limit is imposed. Thank you for any comments! <comment><USER2> Looks like you're graduating 2 years from now. That's plenty of time!

I'm in california and have been hiring devs for a long time. The one advice I have for you is this: you said your github is collecting cobwebs - fix that. Writing code and building applications is the one thing that will make you a better developer. Unfortunately this is a skill I find sorely lacking in most fresh grads (not their fault, CS curriculum focuses more on theory than on getting students to build stuff).

What should you build? Anything. Write an app to solve some annoyance you face everyday. Build an app using node because you think it's interesting technology. Create a simple blog engine and host it on AWS or Heroku. Whatever tickles your fancy and motivates you. It doesn't matter what it is, but it is VERY important that you actually finish each project and make sure it works without falling over every 5 minutes.

Language doesn't matter, but you should be good at one or preferably two "popular" languages. C, C++, Python, Ruby, Java, etc all count.

<comment><AUTHOR> Most kids do have this issue, and I only find that they make one or two projects from school and that's about it. I already have a school project made up, but plan to also work on other projects (hopefully with other people). I'm fairly good with Java and Python, but I regularly try challenges on websites to improve my language design, readability, and uses to fix a specific problem.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> No specific software job tips, other than "build your portfolio on GitHub." Two thoughts:

First of all, you're thinking and planning and networking so far ahead that I already know you're going to do just fine. You have a winner's attitude.

Second, read _Ask The Headhunter_. It's not software-specific, but is the best job-hunting approach I've ever seen. Have used it with several tech companies.

No one can say what the job market will be in two years, but you're clearly moving in the right direction.

<comment><AUTHOR> :) Build my portfolio I will try to do!

Thank you for the comment, I will check into "Ask the Headhunter". At the moment I am actually job hunting for the summer, and at the very least the reading may help with this as well.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> First off, what specifically do YOU want to be doing?

Let's say you haven't figured that one out just yet. If this is the case, I would suggest freelancing in the meantime.

You may find this recent thread useful: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5731198>

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm sorry, I didn't mention! I would like to do some application development, ideally I'd like to refactor some large business application, or deal with unix and linux system development. Which is why I don't really do much with the web. (side note: is this a bad path to take?)

Thank you for the thread link. Actually, the most respectable company in my area I met at the local tech meetup, and I managed to get an internship there (I had to leave, and wasn't paid, but that was what taught me about Sans, major networking, and esxi, which I previously never knew even existed).

<comment><USER4> If you present yourself in a way that the business will like, this sounds like an amazing path to take.

For example, instead of applying to different jobs as 'just' a CS graduate (you are WAY more than that), present yourself as someone who can save the business a lot of money by improving their existing software. Even though you are the same person either way, presentation is nearly EVERYTHING.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, I appreciate the comment! I'm usually very good at presentation, and regularly try to practice coding for those dreaded puzzle questions, but is there any more prep work I should do for work in 2015? Should I give calls and look for a job before moving, and is silicon valley really the only place to look to?

<comment><USER4> I would focus on becoming as noticed as possible. You may even want to find a niche for yourself, which is a great way for people to remember you. For example, when I think of an app designer, I immediately think of Nathan Barry (author of the App Design Handbook, among other things). Building that reputation will be worth a lot!

As far as prep work goes, freelancing and building your own apps/projects is a great option. You get to LEARN by taking on interesting projects, NETWORK with professionals that lead to more opportunities, and earn MONEY.

 _Should I give calls and look for a job before moving_

If it's a specific job, then yes! Communicate with the company/team and get to know them. Instead of saying, "I'm aperture and I would like to apply," say, "Hi! Your project is great and I really love what you are doing with it." You are essentially introducing yourself. They will most likely remember that - especially if they are a smaller company.

 _is silicon valley really the only place to look to?_

SV is an amazing place filled with amazing people, but it is not the only place to look into. There are many tech hubs in California. Find out what you can afford, and what amenities you want from your city/town. Do you like being close to the beach (San Diego)? Do you like living in a fast-paced city (Los Angeles)? Would you like a view of the mountains (Mountain View)? If you have some time off, visit each place you're interested in for a week or so to get a feel of what they're like.

<comment><AUTHOR> I see, I'll try to narrow myself down to a niche that I can do rather well, but I'll do so by trying a wide array of projects that I may find interesting. Communication is always key, and I will also go for the smaller companies as well as the tech giants we are all familiar with. I will definitely look into going to California (as well as New York) in order to get a feel for the environment that may best suit me. Thank you for the tips and locations!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Can you send me an email? Can't find your address. Mine is email@example.com.</comment>


Nginx Requests/Second - Raspberry Pi vs. Amazon EC2 - <AUTHOR> http://www.chimerasaurus.com/2013/01/nginx-requestssecond-raspberry-pi-vs-amazon-ec2/

<comment><USER2> The follow-up is much more interesting: [http://www.chimerasaurus.com/2013/02/raspberry-pi-vs- aws-v2-...](http://www.chimerasaurus.com/2013/02/raspberry-pi-vs-aws-v2-0/)

However, the only thing this shows is that AWS micro instances are really slow. In the follow-up the author argues that while a small instance is much faster, its also much more expensive. While thats true i dont get the point, the pi is just not a good choice as a public webserver and if you were to use it that way you would need to co-locate it and costs would probably be comparable.

If on the other hand, you use both enviroments for heavy computing purposes it doesnt make sense to bill the EC2 instance with 24/7 as it probably would not need to be on all the time.

</comment><comment><USER3> Duplicate: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5083172>

</comment><comment><USER4> I'm really not sure why people keep using micro for benchmarks. Its CPU gets throttled to hell if it gets pretty much any load at all.

<comment><USER5> You're right. But... if you've ever used a Raspberry Pi as any kind of modern web server, you'll realize just how slow it is. Compile ruby on a modern PC vs a Raspberry, and it really forces you to remember that this is a tiny litte ARM device for fun projects + experiments, and not mean't for a rails stack (as an example).

My point is not to knock the Raspberry, rather, this demonstrates just how pathetic an Amazon Micro instance is. It's abysmal to the point that you have to ask yourself why they provide them at all. It's like they're teasing us, "Here, a free server! Enjoy it!" but in reality you'd rather drink a shot of drano full of nails because it's so painful to work with. Then again, beggars can't be choosers and free is free.

<comment><USER6> I think you're missing the point of the micro instance. It can give you decent performance in short bursts, which is suitable for many light usage cases e.g. a low traffic blog. If you are going to load it via a benchmark you get very heavily throttled way below the performance you would get with light usage.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> So one EC2 server might be drasticatlly slower than a raspberry pi, but isn't part of the attractiveness of cloud services like EC2 that there's replication and load balancing with no headaches? now if you build a modular, distributed load balancing replicated network of 10~20 raspberry pis, that all outperform the EC2 servers... that might warrant replacing EC2 with raspberry pis.

That actually sounds like a pretty awesome project... I might do that some day.

<comment><USER6> It's only drastically slower because the micro instance gets very heavily throttled when you put it under sustained load. If you use it for what it's designed for the performance is much better as you don't get throttled with light usage. The benchmark is of the slowest ec2 instance type while being heavily throttled due to the benchmark generating too much load.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> If you need any additional proof that EC2 instances are abysmally slow (at all cost tiers) just look at <http://www.techempower.com/benchmarks/#section=data-r4> and compare m1.large versus dedicated hardware.

<comment><USER6> I don't see how that proves anything. They're using an old first generation instance type and benchmarking it alongside a much more powerful i7 processor. If you want a faster instance get a second generation instance or a larger one.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Sadly the link to the followup (<http://www.evilsoapbox.com/wp- admin/post.php?post=1612>) fails with a database authentication error.

<comment><USER10> Here you go:

[http://www.chimerasaurus.com/2013/02/raspberry-pi-vs- aws-v2-...](http://www.chimerasaurus.com/2013/02/raspberry-pi-vs-aws-v2-0/)

The dynamic link, ie. ?p=1234 has to be served dynamically but the static slug can be served by supercache or similar.

What I find far more fascinating:

        EXT3: 329.83 requests/sec
        EXT4: 484.27 requests/sec

ext4 is 30% faster than ext3? Really? What's going on there...

<comment><USER11> Strange indeed. Why is the disk accessed in the first place? For a site like this, I would expect all content to be cached in ram all the time.</comment></comment></comment>


What's your favorite entrepreneurial quote? - <AUTHOR>

<comment><AUTHOR> I have 2

"Whatever you can do, or dream you can, begin it. Boldness has genius, power and magic in it." ~Goethe

"Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in the gray twilight that knows neither victory nor defeat." ~Theodore Roosevelt

<comment><USER5> Love the Roosevelt quote.

<comment><USER6> Agreed.

A quote I found (don't know any off hand):

"If you think you are beaten, you are. If you think you dare not, you don't! If you want to win, but think you can't, It's almost a cinch you won't. If you think you'll lose, you're lost; For out in the world we find Success begins with a fellow's will; It's all in the state of the mind. Life's battles don't always go To the stronger and faster man, But sooner or later the man who wins Is the man who thinks he can." – Walter D. Wintle

Link: <http://www.zeromillion.com/entrepreneurship/quotes.html>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> "If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses" - Henry Ford

</comment><comment><USER8> Here are a few that I like:

Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work. \- Thomas A. Edison

Don't wait. The time will never be just right. \- Napoleon Hill

We act as though comfort and luxury were the chief requirements of life, when all that we need to make us happy is something to be enthusiastic about. \- Albert Einstein

Failure is rarely fatal. -Seth Godin

Eighty percent of success is showing up. \- Woody Allen

My interest in life comes from setting myself huge, apparently unachievable challenges and trying to rise above them. -Richard Branson

I find that the harder I work, the more luck I seem to have. \- Thomas Jefferson

<comment><USER8> Another one: A successful person fails many times, but a failure only fails once. (I don't who said it.)

<comment><USER9> That first person sounds like failure to me. A persistent one, however.

<comment><USER8> I take it to mean that everyone fails and if you let a failure stop you, you'll never succeed. Successful people fail too, but they learn from their failures and move on, until they succeed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm.

\-- Winston Churchill

You can only avoid competition by avoiding good ideas.

\-- Paul Graham

The perfect is the enemy of the good.

\-- Voltaire

</comment><comment><USER11> I keep a file of these. Here are some of my favorites:

"In the long run, we only hit what we aim at." \- Henry David Thorou

"The more you sweat in peace, the less you bleed in war." \- Asian proverb

"No battle plan survives contact with the enemy." \- Helmuth von Moltke

"No wind favors he who has no destined port." \- Montaigne

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed people can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." \- Margaret Mead

"Real artists ship." \- Steve Jobs

</comment><comment><USER12> "Keep away from people who try to belittle your ambitions. Small people always do that, but the really great make you feel that you, too, can become great."

\- Mark Twain

(Good case for moving to a startup hub)

<comment><USER13> All-time favorite quote since about 10 years ago. It really isolates out the defining quality of a "great" person: not only have they achieved greatness; they also inspire others to become great.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> "Pay no attention to what the critics say; there has never been set up a statue in honor of a critic." -J. Sibelius (composer)

</comment><comment><USER15> _"Heights by great men reached and kept were not obtained by sudden flight but, while their companions slept, they were toiling upward in the night."_ -Henry Wadsworth Longfellow

</comment><comment><USER16> "You make what you measure."

(from Hewlett and Packard via Joe Kraus)

</comment><comment><USER17> "I only have one hour of pure brilliance per week. Unfortunately I have to work 80 per week to find the one."

\- Wil Schroter

</comment><comment><USER18> Do it.

Do it right.

Do it right now.

</comment><comment><USER19> (Paraphrasing, possibly not exact quote):

"You only need to be right _once_ "

\-- Mark Cuban

</comment><comment><USER20> "The road to wisdom? Well, it's plain

And simple to express:

Err

and err

and err again

but less

and less

and less."

\-- Piet Hein via Don Knuth and Ryan Brush

<http://toomuchcode.blogspot.com/2007/02/imperfect-approximation-of-perfect- code.html>

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> A few more...

Fortune favors the bold ~Virgil

You have to expect things of yourself before you can do them. ~Michael Jordan

</comment><comment><USER21> The difference between great people and everyone else is that great people create their lives actively, while everyone else is created by their lives, passively waiting to see where life takes them next. The difference between the two is the difference between living fully and just existing. Michael Gerber

</comment><comment><USER12> Theodore Roosevelt:

"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; because there is not effort without error and shortcomings; but who does actually strive to do the deed; who knows the great enthusiasm, the great devotion, who spends himself in a worthy cause, who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement and who at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly. So that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat."

</comment><comment><USER22> "When something is too hard it means that you're not cheating enough." - <USER2> Heinemeier Hansson

</comment><comment><USER21> The purpose of business is to create and keep a customer. Peter Drucker

</comment><comment><USER12> "Make no little plans. They have no magic to stir men's blood and probably themselves will not be realized. Make big plans; aim high in hope and work, remembering that a noble, logical diagram once recorded will never die, but long after we are gone will be a living thing, asserting itself with ever- growing insistency. Remember that our sons and grandsons are going to do things that would stagger us. Let your watchword be order and your beacon beauty. Think big."

-Daniel Burnham, Chicago architect. (1864-1912)

</comment><comment><USER23> "Passion knows no logic."

</comment><comment><USER24> There are many things in life that will catch your eye, but only a few will catch your heart...pursue those. (Anonymous)

(found on the website of Dr. Dan Garcia, UC Berkeley)

</comment><comment><USER12> From the Scottish mountain climber W. H. Murray:

"Concerning all acts of initiative (and creation), there is one elementary truth the ignorance of which kills countless ideas and splendid plans: that the moment one definitely commits oneself, then providence moves too. A whole stream of events issues from the decision, raising in one's favor all manner of unforeseen incidents, meetings and material assistance, which no man could have dreamt would have come his way."

</comment><comment><USER25> "If you're reading this, you're not working hard enough." -Me

</comment><comment><USER26> "I never cared so much for making a fortune...I only wanted to get ahead of the other fellows." - Thomas Edison

</comment><comment><USER27> Whatever the mind of man can conceive and believe, it can acheive. - <USER3> Hill

<comment><USER16> Godel disproved this.

<comment><USER27> He might have disproved it as a complete axiom but I see the value of this quote in that things must be conceived and believed before they can be acheived.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Not exactly an entrepreneurial quote perhaps, but this I have written on my whiteboard:

"Functionality always stays on the edge of what is feasible" - Ray Kurzweil

</comment><comment><USER29> "Success is peace of mind which is a direct result of self-satisfaction in knowing you did your best to become the best you are capable of becoming." -John Wooden

</comment><comment><USER30> "Stop reading quotes and get back to work!" - <USER4>

</comment><comment><USER31> Success is not a place at which one arrives, but rather the spirit with which one undertakes and continues the journey. Alex Noble

</comment><comment><USER32> "If you go to bat enough times you may never hit a home run, but sooner or later you're bound to be hit by the ball and walked."

</comment><comment><USER33> "Ningun hombre fracasa mientras no deja de luchar" Ma. Eugenia Solari

(No man is defeated as long as he is still fighting.)

</comment><comment><USER34> Cheap, fast, or accurate.

Pick two.

</comment><comment><USER35> "Be the change you want to see in the world" --Ghandi

</comment><comment><USER36> Do much. Say little. Write nothing. (Except software)

JP Morgan (I added the bit about software.)

</comment><comment><USER37> NIKE " JUST DO IT "

</comment><comment><USER5>

</comment><comment><USER38> Chance favors the prepared mind - Louis Pasteur</comment>


Tell HN: Facebook Secretly Liked a Page for Me - <AUTHOR> My Facebook account has been disabled for a few months because of their name policy, but I finally was able to clear that up a few days ago.  One of the things I did when re-accessing my account was to review what very few pages I "like" and "follow".
Today, I just noticed that one of my "likes" is for CBSN.  I checked the Activity Log and it reads that I "liked" that page last night a minute before I made a comment on a friend's picture.
I was not inebriated from anything at that time.  I don't see how I could have possibly, accidentally clicked on like for that page.
I always view my Timeline in "most recent" mode, and I checked back to see if there were any CBSN posts on my Timeline near that time, there were not.
I've found "likes" in the past on my profile for companies I do not like, but this is the first time I've caught such a discrepancy so quickly.
It shows that I "liked" it, but that I am not "following" it.  When you like something, you automatically follow it.  My guess is it when Facebook set my profile to "like" it, they made sure that I wasn't "following" it so that I would be less likely to notice. <comment><USER2> Do you use the mobile web version? I did exactly that when using the web version on iOS (chrome specifically). Scrolling down the page ended up with me accidentally hitting like on a number of various posts the feed.

<comment><AUTHOR> I was using the desktop version on Opera on an Android tablet at that time. I've never accidentally opened links while scrolling before, so I highly doubt that is what caused it.

Even so, how would that cause me to "like" it, but not "follow" it (which is a default function of "liking" a page)?</comment></comment>


Teenagers React to Windows 95 - <AUTHOR> http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/teens-react-windows-95-dial-up/ <comment><USER2> I was shocked and uncharmed.

Most of their reactions betrayed some really fundamental misconceptions about computing, which I haven't really seen since the nineties (exhibited by grandparents). Would they know the difference between a program and its shortcut? Local vs. remote code execution? How could any system primarily controlled by users like these be secure? (Yes, I know, walled-gardens and sandboxes.)

More importantly, that video makes me feel old and crotchety, and I'm not even thirty yet.

</comment><comment><USER3> That was genuinely charming. I really enjoyed it. It is good to be reminded how good things are now.

</comment><comment><USER4> At least "Ethan" seems to know what's going on.

It's strange how many of these kids seem to think that "Wifi" is the entire answer to how their home is connected to the internet.</comment>


Rust Formal Verification Working Group - <AUTHOR> https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/announcing-the-formal-verification-working-group/7240 <comment><USER2> It's so cool to see an open source project adopt formal methods. I tried to start a working group in Openstack a couple of years ago but the reception was barely lukewarm.

Looking forward to reading more about it!

</comment><comment><USER3> How does this compare to projects like RESOLVE [https://www.cs.clemson.edu/resolve/](https://www.cs.clemson.edu/resolve/)?

<comment><USER4> This is Rust-specific and pragmatic/useful.

RESOLVE is a research project that is effectively a means to generate papers and grant money, not to do anything useful.

<comment><USER5> Insinuating that research is not doing "anything useful", while at the same time calling Rust "pragmatic/useful" is particularly ironic. Rust's design has been heavily influenced by research in programming language theory and adjacent fields: [https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-wiki- backup/blob/master/No...](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-wiki- backup/blob/master/Note-research.md)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Will there ever be a formal semantics for unsafe Rust?

<comment><USER7> Depends on what you mean by "formal", and on what timescale, but this group will be a consumer of the "unsafe guidelines WG", and we would _eventually_ like to formalize such a thing. Some of the participants in this WG would be the ones interested in doing this work.

In open source, some people wear many hats :)

<comment><USER6> With mere "guidelines", there is no practical, unambiguous way to establish without a shadow of doubt that a function implemented using unsafe Rust upholds the safety guarantees of safe Rust.

So I want a proper formal semantics, maybe not for all of Rust, but at least for a fragment interesting enough to express lifetime and mutability concerns. In particular, I want a formal account of interior mutability.

<comment><USER7> I hear you! As I said, these things take time.

The interior mutability primitives in the standard library already have a proof, incidentally. Look at the Rust Belt work.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


CyanogenMod 7 On the HP TouchPad - <AUTHOR> http://rootzwiki.com/content.php?r=234-EXCLUSIVE-CyanogenMod-7-On-the-HP-TouchPad

<comment><USER2> Not to be a downer but they are still running a phone OS (android 2.3.5) on a tablet, which already has an OS built to run on a tablet. Beyond the technical merits of it (getting it to boot something other than webOS) this seems like a step backwards. IMO, webOS is a superior OS to Android. And now that some of the WebOS guys have been picked up by Google android can only get better.

I'd be more impressed if they got Honeycomb running on the thing.

Anyway I have a Nook Color and some of the menus scroll like crap because of the S/W rendering at 1024x600. I can't imagine the situation getting any better with 1024x768 screen.

<comment><USER3> > IMO, webOS is a superior OS to Android.

+1. I really don't understand why there is so much effort to install non- tablet OSs on a tablet with a lauded tablet-optimized OS already installed....

<comment><USER4> Applications!

And also probably the touch handling? From what I heard the Touchpad was terrible at eg straight line scrolling out of the box.

<comment><USER3> There are loads of tablet-optimized applications available for Touchpad. They are differentiated from the non-tablet versions in the app store with the word "Touchpad" displayed clearly beside them. Furthermore, the developers themselves often append "HD" to the end of their existing application names to indicate that the "High Definition" version is designed to make use of the higher resolution on the tablet vs. the phones.

I have my Touchpad just two days, and already have tablet-optimised clients installed for Twitter, Facebook, Box.net, an excellent video 3rd party video player for divx, and a comic book reader for reading my .cbr files. Combined with an excellent e-mail client and a Webkit web browser, I'm covered for my media and web browser needs.

The only thing missing right now is document editing, but that is due in an OTA update from HP which they have promised to deliver shortly (let's hope they stick to these promises in order to try to restore some confidence in this very shaken webOS community).

So frankly as an owner of both a pre3 and a Touchpad, the whole "but webOS does not have enough apps" argument just does not ring true for me. If I want to do real work, I'll fire up my PC. But as a web and media tablet, the Touchpad has me covered and then some.

<comment><USER5> Just because you only use your tablet for media and web browsing doesn't mean that everyone does. I like to play games on mine and the game market is embarrassingly small and will not be growing due to the discontinuation of the Touchpad. The cool thing about Android/iOS is that you can find an app for literally anything. I don't feel that way when browsing the HP market.

<comment><USER3> I love to play games too, but on my PC. I like the accuracy of a mouse and the freedom of a keyboard that I can map actions to. The thoughts of playing games with a touch screen and accelerometer is horrifying for me (at least for the games I'm interested in playing), but as you say some people are interested in this, but some people (like me) are not.

<comment><USER5> Even ignoring the small gaming catageory the market is still incomplete. As I stated before, being unable to find an app doesn't even cross my mind on Android or iOS. One of the first things I searched for was a Spotify client which doesn't exist. What amplifies this is that WebOS is (basically) dead and app devs have moved elsewhere. What happens in 2 years APIS change? How many of the existing WebOs apps will become nonfunctional?

<comment><USER3> > What amplifies this is that WebOS is (basically) dead and app devs have > moved elsewhere. What happens in 2 years APIS change? How many of the > existing WebOs apps will become nonfunctional?

Actually, webOS app devs are reporting increased sales due to the massive increase in webOS devices out there, due to the firesale. With regard to the long-term future and your point about APIs changing that webOS is using, I have thought about this and three things give me hope for the platform:

1\. HP have stated publically that they will continue to develop webOS and the app store.

2\. HP are looking for a hardware partner, and rumours are already emerging that Samsung may be that partner (webOS + Samsung hardare = win for me).

3\. There are now hundreds of thousands of webOS devices out there now since the firesale. The majority of those new users are not going to install a replacement for webOS, lets be honest most people are not that technical. This new market that HP has created with the firesale will be nice to sell into for app devs and hardware makers alike.

When I'm looking for a replacement for my Pre3 and Touchpad in 1-2 years, I'm going to look at webOS devices first because that is where my cloud profile and app purchases live. If I have to jump ship to another platform because webOS really does die in the next 1-2 years, then that is a small risk that I am happy to take, especially if the initial investment for a 10" is only a hundred bucks.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Whoah, that was fast! Of course WebOS uses Linux kernel as well, so no need for driver porting and such. Still, impressive feat.

<comment><USER7> exactly. Getting to a shell on the touchpad was easier than on my nexus one.

...now, ignore android and webos... Just get X running there and you will have the killer tablet system. Period.

no need to reinvent the wheel.

<comment><USER8> X already runs on the TouchPad

Google Xecutah or see <http://twitpic.com/5rg5rr> for a sample

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> really impressive and fast work! for me, however, I would like to see an implementation of Dalvik VM as a "card" similar to how they've managed to boot Ubuntu/LXDE as a "card". That way, we could retain the best of both worlds - webOS + android apps. This would be akin to the Alien Dalvik project on the Nokia stuff. Does anyone know what it would take to port Dalvik over? It must be possible, but this is outside of my area of knowledge.

</comment><comment><USER10> Does CM7 make for a good tablet OS? Like half of the internet, I have a TP order in limbo, but this gives some promise in case support is lost for webOS.

<comment><USER3> I have a Touchpad and a Pre3, and I have to say I love them both. When you get your Touchpad, please give webOS a go as it is a fanastic platform, you may find yourself wanted to keep it and hoping that HP keep it alive (like the rest of us long-suffering webOS fans). It also has lots of tablet-optimised applications, all you could need really.

<comment><USER11> I have to say I'm really digging the Touchpad for web browsing, which is primarily would I would want a tablet for. I can see some people needing more applications, but this is fine for me.

That said, is there a way to get Gmail working through the web browser? Because I'll be sharing the Touchpad with someone else I don't want my credentials in the email app.</comment></comment></comment>


Kodak files for bankruptcy - <AUTHOR> http://www.marketwatch.com/story/kodak-files-for-bankruptcy-2012-01-19?link=MW_pulse

<comment><USER2> It is ironic that Citibank now ultimately will be calling the shots at Kodak because of the $950M "Debtor in Possession" line of credit: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debtor-in-possession_financing>

When Citibank was bankrupt the Secretary of the US Treasury gave Citibank $45B for preferred stock - basically no strings attached. Shareholders of Citibank kept their equity. The Citibank management that had run it into the ground and stayed in place will now be the ultimate decision makers at Kodak.

Why isn't anyone talking about breaking up these "too big to fail" banks? When they get in trouble again now they will be able to point to saving Kodak as another reason they should be bailed out. If you saw this situation in a third world country: National government loans to bank, bank loans to industry; you would see this a croneyism and not be likely to invest or build a business in that country.

<comment><USER3> You should also note that the US Treasury ended up making $12B on that deal after repayments.

[http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2010/12/07/treasury- near-10-b...](http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2010/12/07/treasury- near-10-billion-citi-windfall/)

<comment><USER2> So you have no problem with the Secretary of the Treasury being the VC in chief for the US, deciding what companies are worthy of investment?

<comment><USER3> I think in hindsight it was a good move. Probably not the best move possible, but certainly better than letting a total collapse happen.

Regardless of what I think, my point was that your phrasing made it sound like it was a gift when in reality it was a very profitable transaction for the treasury.

<comment><USER4> Sure, but nowhere near as profitable as for the bank, which was saved from near-certain collapse. If you are in a negotiating position like that, you work it for a lot more than the USG did.

Specifically, you have the moral obligation to negotiate that position for the benefit of citizens at large. The government did not do even really attempt to do that, which is a political crime for which there has not yet been a reckoning.

<comment><USER3> The objective was to prevent collapse. The return was just a bonus. It would have been the height of irresponsibility to lose time while negotiating a bigger vig for the tax payers as the financial system burns to the ground. A 25% return in two years is nothing to complain about and if the return had been say 50% it would still be almost completely unnoticeable to the tax payers.

That doesn't mean it was right to not change the source of the problem after the crisis, but that's a whole other debate.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Great article from The Economist on what mistakes Kodak made and what led them to bankruptcy compared to Fujifilm: <http://www.economist.com/node/21542796>

<comment><USER6> There's been a lot of wink-wink nudge-nudge over the years to the effect that Fujifilm was subsidized by the Japanese government; to what extent this was the favorable tax deals Kodak also got and to what extent it was real was and is hard to assess, but it is certainly the case that Fuji was not burdened by the antitrust pressure that led Kodak to divest itself of its camera-making arm in the middle of the 20th century. There's a lot of claims to the effect that Fuji piggybacked on the pioneering Kodak research work, and this is very difficult to refute, but if they did they at least equaled Kodak in quality. When people talk about "cheaper film" it was, but not that much cheaper and at least the equal in quality, sometimes better; I found Fuji's consumer films to be far preferable to that turd Kodak called Gold 400.

No one in the industry was really prepared for the nose dive film sales took; essentially only die-hards like me still buy it. Film was and is to some degree still capable of more resolution, more dynamic range, better color fidelity and less prone to weird errors in the way that a Bayer sensor does (almost every Bayer ever sold to consumers had a detail destroying filter attached to it because the alternative is horrific Moire effects), but the speed of editing digital caused it to take off like a rocket. I suppose the lesson to be learned there is that Kodak spent a century making the very best film it possibly could (for the professional lines, anyway) when it turns out the market is perfectly happy with a 4 MP digital with a mediocre lens and chromatic abberation out the arse if it cuts the feedback loop down from days to seconds.

I have mixed feelings about Kodak in general--they had a tendency to make bizarre decisions that led the few film enthusiasts remaining to believe that it was simply a matter of time before everything got the shaft and they would have to switch to something else anyway. They also made a lot of really bad digital cameras, which was strange considering the superb reputation their press lenses and the Retina had back in the day. Fujifilm never divested itself of its cameramaking arm and continues to make some of the best lenses in the business to this day, and I think that has been a very important strength for them.

<comment><USER7> "Kodak spent a century making the very best film it possibly could (for the professional lines, anyway) when it turns out the market is perfectly happy with a 4 MP digital with a mediocre lens and chromatic abberation out the arse if it cuts the feedback loop down from days to seconds."

Which is exactly the same phenomenon that occurred with music. The industry kept moving to better and better formats, only to be confounded that people didn't mind lower quality lossy compressed mp3s with swishy sounding hi-hats.

<comment><USER8> > The industry kept moving to better and better formats

These formats were never made available outside "the industry". I've seen almost no artist (outside of Bandcamp which does it by default/for free) providing lossless downloads, let alone HQ tracks or 3+ channel tracks on normal albums. Reznor is the only one who comes to mind (he released multitracks and 24b/96KHz of Ghosts I-IV in the Deluxe editions)

<comment><USER9> Super Audio CD and DVD Audio were both introduced around the turn of the century.

<comment><USER7> Exactly what I was thinking of, and they've been DOA. Before that DAC was fairly widely available, but there wasn't much content available on them and were usually used as a studio medium.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> A lot of companies even larger than Kodak have emerged from bankruptcy though.

It's just a sign that old management methods have failed and time to change.

The problem is once something becomes a commodity, it's hard to make profit from there. I am going to be very curious to see what happens to the iphone brand in a decade. Once it would have been impossible to imagine the "walkman" brand to fade away.

<comment><USER11> yes but 'Walkman' or 'iPhone' aren't the only products made by their respective companies, and they keep trying new stuff.

Kodak is dead because they rode the analog film horse into the ground and never realized they needed to diversify and leverage their brand into something new and better for the next 50 years.

<comment><USER12> But they did, they just did it all wrong.

Kodak hasn't been a film-company for years, and in fact they _still_ lead the industry in many ways. For example, look at the market for high-end medium format digital sensors, Kodak is still at the top of that heap. Of course, the market for $20K digital backs is... pretty small.

Kodak's strategy in the digital age was try to become a technology broker, and let others tackle transforming this tech into actual end product - but it doesn't take a genius to figure out that your licensees and customers will eventually vertically integrate and push you out entirely. Canon built their own sensors, Sony got into the sensors game and pushed Kodak completely out of the consumer sensor realm, and between those two Kodak's doom was all but sealed.

Instead, their consumer-level efforts focused on stupid, low-margin, technologically simple wares like inkjet printers and digital photo frames, all lowest-common-denominator product categories where Kodak didn't have a significant technological edge against its competitors.

Kodak _invented_ the digital camera, but they completely dropped the ball. They _needed_ to ship their own cameras.

<comment><USER13> Kodak sold their sensor division a few months back.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> For all of you speculating about what business decisions took Kodak to the current situation let me give you my perspective as someone who still buys their film products. I'm also sort of experienced in shooting digital.

I personally believe Kodak _screwed_ film.

I mean, their new emulsions are superb, and they can run around Ilford and Fuji in circles in everything except maybe slides, where Kodak is still better but ridiculously expensive. They screwed film because they where the only ones in a position to take film into the next technological level, but kept managing that division as if it was 1980 and everybody was still printing at the lab or at their own darkroom. They should have focused more on people who still develop at the lab but scan film themselves.

The only feature they introduced that helped self-scanning was stronger carriers. They also claim dyes that ease color management in some of their color negative films but I call that bullshit. Color management in color negative film is a PITA unless you own a Kodak minilab. They had the opportunity to give everyone better color management technology by making targets that are affordable, making easy to use software or even making their own film scanner. They didn't, even thou there were strong rumors about it happening, and even while they still sell their stupid 4x6 print scanners.

Basically now scanning color negative films for most photographers is sort of a painfully inaccurate manual process. Slides are easier but also cost more and have less dynamic range than digital and similar color rendition and accuracy. Black and white can be managed by even amateur photographers but Kodak could still make it a whole lot easier.

I really would like for at least their film division to manage to go out of bankruptcy, since I have only recently began shooting Ektar and love Portra... But if they really go out of business I think I'll sell my MF film gear and start saving for a full frame 35mm DSLR or maybe a Pentax 645d.

<comment><USER6> Kodak emulsions are fantastic, I will agree with you there. I happen to actually quite like NPH and NPS (or whatever the hell they're called now) and can put in a solid recommendation for Reala, which is available in 120. I'm much more familiar with the Ilford side of the stable, where I generally prefer to go with FP4+ (still IMHO the best all-round B&W and runs rings around Plus-X) and Delta 400. I find I disagree with the TMax emulsions too much to be happy using them, but I'm assuming here that you do, because almost nobody really loves Plus-X... in that case I might recommend Fuji's ACROS as a near TMax 100 substitute. I don't get along with it for the same reasons I don't get along with TMX but it is very good at what it does.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Sad thing is that Kodak invented the digital camera. At the time the sales of the film for their Kodak camera's were doing so well they decided to shelve the project instead of jeopardize those sales. (That is how I understand it anyway)

20 years or so later everyone has a digital camera and all Kodak has are some patents.

<comment><USER16> I live in Rochester, and have had the chance to speak with several people who worked for Kodak (and some still do) about this issue. The company has obscene profit margins from film, I've heard quotes of around 20% and higher, and there was a belief that film would always be around. However, many people within the company knew film had a limited lifespan and that with the advent of personal computers, it was only a matter of time before digital took over. They also knew there was no way Kodak was going to be able to make the same profit margins on digital as it did on film. With that in mind, it made it a hard sell to get leadership to really focus on the long term..

<comment><USER2> "The company has obscene profit margins from film, I've heard quotes of around 20%"

If you are talking gross margin that sounds closer to a marginally profitable product than "obscene."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Kodak joins a lot of older companies that just cant keep up with the changing world. Take RIM for example who said to the original iPhone "There is no way that phone can do what they showed off on stage." It is sad but bound to become more commonplace. Blockbuster and Circuit City also come to mind as companies that used to dominate, but are now long gone.

</comment><comment><USER18> I know of a high level marketing consultant who, in the mid-late 90's was presenting to Kodak management. The presenter before him gave a 'rah rah' speech listing all of Kodak's core competencies. Prior to starting his presentation, the consultant offered some frank words for his audience. He said that all of those core competencies were fine, but that if Kodak wasn't fully focused on digital within the next few years, they would be in deep trouble. Management didn't like hearing that and invited him to leave the conference despite it being a multi-day engagement. That's the nature of large organizations - they tend to insulate themselves from painful truths and challenges by discounting or ignoring them.

</comment><comment><USER19> This is not unexpected, but a very sad "Kodak moment." I can't help but think about Innovator's Dilemma when I think about Kodak. Didn't they decide not to pursue digital camera so that they don't cannibalize their film business?

</comment><comment><USER20> Kodak must be remembered for being one of the first popularizers of technology. Kodak did not invent photography, but it made it _accessible_ to the public, putting it in the hands of the middle class and amateurs instead of just professionals. They were the Apple of the 1890s. If you want to look for a photograph of their legacy, don't look for any famous photos, but for the snapshots members of your family were taking of you while you were growing up.

</comment><comment><USER21> This is a very sad, but also dignified way for a company to face the fact that their business model is based on technology that has passed. Now, the recording industry...

</comment><comment><USER22> Technological change made Kodak obsolete - there's not much management could do about that. But what really annoys me is how badly Kodak management handled it.

Rather than simply winding down the business and paying cash to shareholders, they ploughed money into developing digital printers and digital cameras; a market with thin margins and where they had very little competitive advantage. It's almost like management couldn't bear the thought of going out of business so they ended up doing something worse - losing more money and THEN going out of business.

I think Microsoft has made a similar mistake. Rather than sitting on it's little nest-egg of Windows and Office and miking the cash until it runs dry, it feels compelled to waste money in areas with no competitive advantage. Bing, Windows Mobile and XBox have all provided a worse return on investment than US treasury bills.

<comment><USER23> I'll agree with Bing and WinMo, but Xbox? Are you serious? There's one in every teenager's household. It might have cost them a loss to get there, but, if anything, it's an investment for the future—people need to buy games (and accessories, hello Kinect) for their Xboxen.

<comment><USER24> Perhaps because the product is primarily used by teenagers, brand recognition and long-term loyalty historically hasn't mattered much in the video console industry. For example, the several billion dollars MS sunk into XBox 1 means nothing to the next crop of 14 year olds, who weren't even alive at the time.

Plus, MS has been unable to leverage XBox users into buying Zunes or Windows Phones. I suspect MS's XBox investment will ultimately amount to very little in the long term.

<comment><USER25> Really? Really? Are you _really_ that shortsighted?

XBox is huge. It's becoming the media center for an American Consumer household. That means paying $60/year just for the "privilege" of watching Netflix in HD through your 360.

Wait 2-3 (or 4 or 5) years where a Windows Phone can play an XBOX 1 game or an XBOX 360 game in your hand. Wait until Microsoft comes up with something like Apple's AirPlay where Windows Phone apps can utilize a full 1080p screen.

Wait until they integrate more cloud services with the 360. And unveil their own Siri. Or make it so your XBOX 360 can message your phone every time a certain trend on Twitter is mentioned (agent based voice search).

Wait until an entire household of teenagers gets used to talking to their 360 to control it, having it integrate with their phones, and having it manage their social networks and cloud services, AND play some amazing games....

I have a feeling the 360 and the whole Xbox line is going to a very valuable investment and one of MS's cash cows. All of the "convergence" waves Apple is currently riding are also there for Microsoft to ride...

<comment><USER24> Shortsighted? They've been selling Xboxes for 10 years with almost no upside to date, so I'm certainly not looking at the short term picture. But I'll take your advice to wait for (something), because I'm certainly not buying MSFT in their current state.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Isn't a Chapter 11 technically _protection from_ bankruptcy?

<comment><USER27> The loser in bankruptcy is the bank. The etymology of the term comes from "banca rotta" (Italian), meaning to literally break the bench (table) from which an early bank operated.

Technically, bankruptcy is a discharge of debts and financial obligations. If there are funds available, there may be a fractional payment of the nominal value of a debt (what you hear as "pennies on the dollar" in the financial press).

What's also literally happening is that money wealth is being destroyed, insofar as the debts of of debtor are considered assets to the creditor, and that the creditor can make loans on the strength of those assets.

The bank (or other creditor) has to wipe out the loan or lien. Literally, the value of these is reduced or zeroed out.

Debt forgiveness has an ancient tradition. It's part of some of the earliest legal codes (debt sabbaticals would occur every seventh year), and is included in the Catholic version of the Lord's Prayer, though protestants generally exchange "trespasses" for "debts".

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Amazing it took this long. I can't remember the last time I used regular film or a modal camera. I suspect when Grandma and Grandpa got digital and started sharing on Facebook, they were done.

It's a shame because like their neighbor Xerox they were technologically advanced. They were big in digital pre-2000 and slammed on the brakes when they hit short term losses.

Chalk it up as another case of large firms struggling to innovate. Makes Apple seem all the more impressive.

</comment><comment><USER29> Kodak has starting to function more like a patent troll in recent years, as it seemed to lose its ability to create profits the old-fashioned way. It's gone from a truly all-around amazing company, to an increasingly parasitic force in the world.

Very sad to watch.

</comment><comment><USER30> Point of order, Kodak didn't exactly file for what people traditionally associate with 'bankruptcy'. Chapter 11 is an entirely different beast. In the future, it's best to mention that.

</comment><comment><USER31> RIMM to follow.

</comment><comment><USER32> This is kinda sad, I sorta hope they pull through. Companies like Kodak have really struggled to remain relevant, and it's not _really_ their fault.. yeah, they made a decision 20 years ago, but for it to bite them on the arse 20 years later is just not nice. It's like fooling around with someone on a Saturday night, forgetting about it and then finding out you've got a kid 20 years later.</comment>


Help me pick the right web stack - <AUTHOR> I am writing a new web application from scratch. It is not trivial - there will be a requirement to provide streaming video and also facilitate live video streams between users. Front end will be written in Angular.js (because I know it). I need to find the right back end stack. I like .NET but feel limited but am not that familiar with ASP.NET 5. I am considering Node.js with a Postgres back end but the lack of static typing turns me off. Java/Kotlin seems ok but tooling less elegant (+ I am not a fan of big IDEs). Go is nice but its simplicity also makes it very verbose (eg lack of templates). Ruby is dog slow so out of question. Python suffers from the big lock. Any suggestions on a solid web framework with the speed and simplicity of Node.js and the static typing of .NET? <comment><USER3> The biggest thing is that you're going to need help on the application at some point.

If you know you can hire remote, then you have more options.

If you likely can only hire locally, then choose a stack that won't alarm local, good candidates. In my area, for example, Python nearly does not exist. Ruby,.NET, and PHP have the overwhelming majority. I can find .NET and PHP programmers tomorrow, but locally I can't find any Julia or Clojure devs.

In general static typing helps me on bigger projects with team members be responsible, but slows me down on weekend projects for funzies. I'd go with static if I were you.

</comment><comment><USER4> I'd say go with the Play Framework with either Java or Scala.

The views are type checked as well, like in asp.net mvc. In fact, it's inspired by the razor template engine, you won't miss the magical @.

There are a ton of templates available[0], auth, websockets, upload etc..

Over the last few years, the Play framework improved a lot, Java is not a second class citizen anymore, like many people think.

> I am writing a new web application from scratch. It is not trivial - <USER2> > will be a requirement to provide streaming video and also facilitate live > video streams between users.

This is from the official docs:

Because of the way Play works, action code must be as fast as possible, i.e., non-blocking. So what should we return as result if we are not yet able to generate it? The response is a future result!

A Future[Result] will eventually be redeemed with a value of type Result. By giving a Future[Result] instead of a normal Result, we are able to quickly generate the result without blocking. Play will then serve the result as soon as the promise is redeemed.

The web client will be blocked while waiting for the response, but nothing will be blocked on the server, and server resources can be used to serve other clients.

Also make sure to checkout the streaming section of the docs[1].

If you are looking for a robust framework which embraces performance and developer productivity, Play is the way to go. I've never found a framework that could satisfy all my needs, like Play.

I didn't even mention all the awesome features but if you are interested check out the Play Philosophy[2].

Why am I so convinced about Play ? I have more than 5 apps in production, I couldn't be more happy about my decision to use Play. I wrote applications in asp.net mvc, Spring MVC/Boot, Rails for many years, they all failed me.

[0] [http://www.lightbend.com/activator/templates](http://www.lightbend.com/activator/templates)

[1] [https://www.playframework.com/documentation/2.5.x/ScalaStrea...](https://www.playframework.com/documentation/2.5.x/ScalaStream)

[2] [https://www.playframework.com/documentation/2.5.x/Philosophy](https://www.playframework.com/documentation/2.5.x/Philosophy)

<comment><USER5> > I wrote applications in asp.net mvc, Spring MVC/Boot, Rails for many years, > they all failed me.

Could you elaborate more on how these alternatives failed you?

I've been considering jumping into the Java/Play ecosystem for awhile but have been hesitant so far. Analysis paralysis at its worst!

<comment><USER4> Well first of all, all the mentioned frameworks are great frameworks, I do like all of time, it always depends what I'm trying to achieve, I decide the framework based on the project/customer and MONEY.

What asp.net MVC and Rails got in common, is that they are heavily opinionated how things should work, this can create many problems if you need a solution to a specific problem which is outside of the typical CRUD scope, it's very hard to break conventions and do things differently. This lead my many times to just start over the whole project.

Let's start with asp.net MVC, they open sourced it, that's good news, but the deployment options are still bad, as far as I know, there are a few community driven web servers, which aren't production ready in my opinion.

ASP.NET MVC:

works great, if you use the other MS tools like MSSQL, ISS etc, but if you are trying to replace one of those components, you are in a world of pain. So basically asp.net mvc, is on hold for a while.

Spring:

I'd love to sum up why I prefer Play over Spring but Yevgeniy Brikman did a great job doing that.

[https://www.quora.com/Which-is-better-Play-Framework-or- Spri...](https://www.quora.com/Which-is-better-Play-Framework-or-Spring-MVC- How-should-I-decide-what-to-use)

Rails:

is ... the perfect framework for smaller CRUD applications, that's all I can say.

> I've been considering jumping into the Java/Play ecosystem for awhile but > have been hesitant so far. Analysis paralysis at its worst!

What's your background ?

<comment><USER5> Thanks for the detailed reply!

> What's your background ?

I went something like game dev (C++) -> enterprise client/server apps (C++/Qt) -> web dev (Python/Django)

Django, like Rails is fantastic for hashing out small-med sized apps, but I've been looking to add another tool to the box. Something statically typed, more performant relative to Python, and with a large ecosystem to draw from to get stuff done quick.

I've been using Java on and off since the late 90s... it's overly verbose but it seems like it's gotten a bit better w/ Java 8 and the code gen features available in IntelliJ. I've also avoided J2EE/JEE like the plague. Coming from Django, and not wanting anything to do with JEE makes Play a rather appealing choice on the surface.

Go seems like the only viable alternative as I do not want to switch to a MS hosting stack to host .NET.

Of course there are all of those other JVM languages to poke at!

<comment><USER4> > Django, like Rails is fantastic for hashing out small-med sized apps, but > I've been looking to add another tool to the box. Something statically > typed, more performant relative to Python, and with a large ecosystem to > draw from to get stuff done quick.

I guess the JVM is your best bet at this point, there is a huge eco system out there, the best thing about it, is that it's very mature.

Well if you got any questions about Play, just drop me a line.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I can recommend Scala.

The libraries are top-notch and unlikely to be found in other languages due to the superior typesystem.

It has broad tooling support, and Scala's JavaScript backend is stable, mature and actually works (unlike some other JVM languages' JS backends which currently exist mostly in marketing speeches).

</comment><comment><USER7> Go with Clojure.(Most Productive Language on JVM)

It is designed for concurrency that you will need when designing live streaming web app.

<comment><USER4> I'll quote the OP for you:

> and the static typing of .NET

The last time I checked on Clojure everything was quite dynamic, did they change that ?

<comment><USER8> Anytime you're looking at a wish-list of requirements one or some of them might give way for the sake of advances in the other. The OP wants: static typing, concurrency, good tooling, speed/simplicity in a web framework, non- reliance on big IDEs.

If OP were to look at using Clojure/Luminus they might find that the combination of everything except the static typing was sufficient to overcome the lack of static typing (also something like Prismatic Schema to mitigate types might help). I haven't messed around with it enough to say, but there is also JVM interop with clojure so one could write the most type-concerned components in Java (or even in Scala).

tldr: failing one requirement of many isn't necessarily a reason to not offer an option if it succeeds on many others.

<comment><USER4> If I suggest Ruby even OP explicitly said he doesn't want Ruby, how is that different from your answer?

> tldr: failing one requirement of many isn't necessarily a reason to not > offer an option if it succeeds on many others.

Yes I agree, if the question allows that approach but in this case, it doesn't.</comment></comment></comment></comment>