Ask HN: Leaving as founder, what happens with equity? - <AUTHOR> I'm leaving a startup I founded due to disagreements over team/strategy. I worked on it for about half a year.
When we founded the company, there was prior work done, so we vested some equity up front to acknowledge that. Since that time, we've pivoted and also recently added team members. Now that I am leaving, the other founders are asking me to return some/most/all of the equity that was vested up front.
Is this reasonable? Do I have any obligation to return/surrender the vested equity?
Additionally, when I voiced objections to returning the vested equity, they brought up the fact that they may start a new company on the same idea and reset the entire equity metrics altogether. Is this common? <comment><USER2> So, you own part of a company as an investor now -- think of it in this context to transform your relationship into a positive one. If they can afford to buy your interest out for a reasonable sum, you might agree as a matter of courtesy.

You should carefully engage an attorney to look at the by-laws of the company to verify you are protected as an investor. In some cases, holding onto shares of a company (LLC, for example) could open you up to substantial tax liability without personal disbursements to cover expenses. If these protections are not there (tax distributions, etc), and if you're going to remain an investor, you should ask for reasonable investor protections -- they'll need these anyway.

Most employment agreements have a non-solicitation (for employees and clients), non-disclosure (of trade secrets), and non-compete clauses. These would probably be quite enforceable against business co-founders. If they try to leave you at the side of the road, no need to get worked up about it till they've been successful (get an attorney advice though).

If the existing co-founders are going to invest more of their time in the company, you could, as a part-owner of the company, offer to dilute (on same terms as other owners) as their continued engagement may make your prior labour have value. Ask if you could be on their board to help them see problems in their strategy -- while you probably don't have enough equity to change course, your voice as a technically-minded investor could be positively channelled to help them; they might be lucky to have your kind and productive assistance.

<comment><USER3> Hi, would you please point me to a link that talk to the potential tax liabilities that you mention could happen in the LLC case. I have spent a lot of money because my lawyer and an investor's lawyer were arguing whether such liabilities exist or not. I walked away from the deal by then but I still want to know whether my lawyer was right. I would really appreciate more information.

<comment><USER4> Unlike C Corporations, LLCs are pass-through tax entities. This means profits and losses pass through to the individual members. [0]

[0] [https://www.sba.gov/blogs/6-things-you-need-know-about- your-...](https://www.sba.gov/blogs/6-things-you-need-know-about-your-tax- responsibilities-llc)

<comment><USER3> Thanks a lot! .. and you would think a lawyer who charges $700 per hour should know that. Motherf*$&er!!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The equity is vested, you own it. You have no obligation to return or surrender it or even sell it. This is why companies have vesting schedules. Additionally, starting a new company with the same idea with the same team would most likely open them up to legal liability. The only thing to remember is that the equity is only valuable if the company succeeds, so it may be worth compromising by having them buy you out, or giving the company an option to buy you out at the next funding round.

Do yourself a favor and talk to a startup lawyer (one that's not used by any members of your team). S/he will be able to explore your options with you and help you decide on a good course of action.

<comment><USER6> And get any agreement in writing if you are going to wait till next funding round you should say you want a multiplier ie pay me x now or x +50% in 6 months x +100% in a year.

<comment><USER7> What do you mean by a multiplier? Why not just cash out at the valuation established in the funding round?

<comment><USER6> Payment for the extra risk and to take account of the time value of money e.g. $1000 now is worth more than $1000 in a years time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Keep your equity, you don't give back vested equity for nothing(trade it by all means for something you think worthwhile).

As was already said you could sue if they create another company.

Finally go talk to a good lawyer(pay, lots if you have to). That is probably the most useful advice you'll get on here.

Your co-founders are not your friends now and will screw you over if they think they can get away with it.

Maybe you could get a lawyer to write a scary letter on what would happen if they startup another company to convince them otherwise.

</comment><comment><USER9> I am no expert but I suppose if they start new company (and they are successful) you could sue them. The prior work that was justification for the vesting was market-tested by the startup. The result was negative but I suppose your share was not conditioned like this. Also the pivot happened while you were still part of the company, right? In general I would say the best option for both sides is to reach a consensus somewhere in the middle.

</comment><comment><USER10> IANAL and a lot depends on the type of company, where you incorporated (Delaware C Corp?), and whether you have any type of shareholder agreement. (This scenario is the #1 reason to have a shareholder agreement.)

That said, you presently own vested shares in the company, and that means you [likely] have minority shareholder rights. If the company does not act in your best interests as a shareholder, then you have cause for a lawsuit. So, they can't play games with your shares without opening themselves up to a lawsuit.

However, you're bailing after only six months, which implies that you believe you'll be able to create more value for yourself by doing something else rather than seeing it through with a startup. It also means that the company must create all the value while you sit back and pursue something else; there was prior work done, but how does that compare to the work that needs to be done to make your shares worth something? Your shares are essentially deadweight that disincentives the remaining teams (and investors).

A typical shareholder's agreement will specify that the company and/or other shareholders will buy back your shares for the present valuation. It is also pretty typical for such a shareholder's agreement to specify a "method valuation", like a penny/share, in case you have not yet taken outside investment.

If you do not have a shareholder's agreement that covers this scenario and you have not yet taken VC and the company still has a substantial way to go (all of which seems like your scenario, since you're asking on HN rather than acting in accordance with a contract), then the honorable thing to do is sell your shares back to the company for a token amount. You're getting off the bus; in exchange, you don't have to ride the bus, and that's worth a great deal to you.

<comment><USER11> > you believe you'll be able to create more value for yourself by doing > something else rather than seeing it through with a startup.

Just pointing out that there are other reasons to leave aside from rational economic thought about this individual's expected ability to produce higher output elsewhere. They may dislike the team, pivoted idea, or leadership decisions. But they may also want to keep hold of the equity in case it gets big (or they can sell it or a liquidity event occurs).

<comment><USER10> Indeed, those are all other non-monetary ways to create more value for oneself. :-)

I understand the desire to want to keep hold of the equity in case the startup gets big, but having dead weight shareholders is a really good way of ensuring a company doesn't get big. It is hard to judge—maybe the company is really on its way to growth and success and the OP has earned the equity—but more likely it's the psychology of not wanting to let something get away "just in case", and that's not what startup sweat equity is about. There probably needs to be some consideration, but if one doesn't believe in the future direction of the startup, hey, you are getting a whole lot of time and hassle back in exchange for surrendered shares.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> The vested equity clearly has value to both you and to them. You should not return it without compensation commensurate to that value. If they were serious about starting a new company, they would have done that already. They likely have not and (maybe) will not for several reasons. First, there's a lot of distraction and expense of going through that process (if they flush their idea _again_ , do they start a new company again?). Second, there may be legal reasons they cannot start a new company: if they leave the old company, does that make you, as a shareholder, able to sue them via a non-compete clause or have other actions for remediation available to you?

As others have stated, given that you and they believe there is value in the equity you own and have earned, get an attorney on your side and find out what your options are to preserve that value. At a bare minimum, if the equity you have vested is considered so valuable to them that they are prepared to follow through with their threats of ditching the old company and starting a new one, that course of action has an $X,000 cost to them in legal, accouting, and opportunity costs. Therefore, it's in their best interest to offer you up to $X,000 to part with the equity you own.

</comment><comment><USER13> It will be legally hard for them to "reset the entire equity metrics" if they're using similar ideas and codebase to your company. But if they work on a separate idea not related to the old company, this seems much more possible as then it's the same as them quitting, and then deciding to do another startup.

Another issue you need to think about is how much actual drag you'll cause by holding onto your shares. You should give up half your equity if this doubles their chance of succeeding. This seems more likely if you own a large vested chunk like 30% and less likely if you have just vested 10%.

Morally, you've put in a certain amount of work already, and it's not like everyone forgot about vesting. The vesting schedule is supposed to be designed anticipating that if someone leaves before vesting is over, the vested amount is kept by the leaver. It seems to make vesting pointless if you know for sure beforehand you'll renegotiate a substantially different amount.

</comment><comment><USER14> Depends on how much was vested, and how much prior work was done, and how much of a hardass you want to be. You're under no legal obligation to return it, but you might want to in some scenarios.

Let's say you had 2 co-founders and you all vested 33/33/33\. I would personally feel unethical about keeping the equity if I left after 6 months. At that point, you're now free-riding on the remaining co-founder FUTURE work. Furthermore, you keeping that much equity will screwing the company (and yourself) since it will limit ability to raise money, bring on key executives, open up an option pool. In this case, I'd return a good chunk (but not all) of the equity.

BUT if the equity vested was really for PAST work, as you imply here, then yeah, keep the equity.

<comment><USER15> >BUT if the equity vested was really for PAST work, as you imply here, then yeah, keep the equity.

isn't that the default? That's what a vesting schedule is for.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Don't company Articles of Association (or the local equivalent) usually have clauses that govern these situations - shotgun clauses or similar?

However, my main recommendation - talk to a lawyer, the trick is finding a lawyer who actually knows about this stuff at the right level.

</comment><comment><USER17> If you disagree on strategy... do you think the company has any chance to have a favourable exit in a reasonable time frame? It might be better to keep your equity for now, and let them buy your equity at the next equity round. Cash out and never speak to them again.

</comment><comment><USER18> > Additionally, when I voiced objections to returning the vested equity, they > brought up the fact that they may start a new company on the same idea and > reset the entire equity metrics altogether. Is this common?

Not if you have investors...

</comment><comment><USER19> I've been in this situation before and I returned the equity because I felt like there was still a lot of work to do. The company ended up selling for $3 million four years later, so I would have make some cash, but I still feel like I did the right thing because I wasn't leaving an angry situation, I felt like they didn't need my expertise after they pivoted.

Ultimately I think reputation matters the most, but if you feel like you are on solid ground here is what I recommend: The company will probably fail, so sell half the shares for a smallish sum and keep the other half in case they really succeed.

<comment><USER20> > _I 've been in this situation before and I returned the equity because I > felt like there was still a lot of work to do_

Generally vested equity represents work done and unvested equity represents work still left to do. Did you guy just not do any vesting and award everyone's equity at the start?

<comment><USER19> We didn't have a cliff so it was only 3 or 4 months of work.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> It sounds like they do not want to have you on as an investor. It also sounds like you no longer want to invest in them. So figure out what your equity is worth and get rid of it.

</comment><comment><USER22> First off, apologies for the non-fun situation.

"the other founders are asking me to return some/most/all of the equity that was vested up front."

Don't do this. Most likely this will be used to redistribute this share to themselves or the option pool. They WANT this potential share for themselves if the company is successful, and it's not in your interest to give it up.

You've started things, most likely, and if things were standard-ish, you might have been vesting your stock at 1/48 (or maybe 1/36 or something?) of the total each month (founder shares may also not sometimes not require a year's service to vest). You legally earned what you got during the 1/48 and have no obligation to return anything. The pre-vested up front stuff might have also been sizeable, and most likely will be a foundation for future work that this business produces.

The downside is your last comment about "may start a new company", which seems like they might not be above board. In this case you may need a lawyer, but it might not hurt to contact the board if you have investors on it. If there's no investment, you might have a harder position and you may (I am not a lawyer) need to watch them to see if any of those entities exit. In other words, you might have to sue to get what you are owed for the stock games. Most likely this is an empty threat, and you should probably indicate you are aware of your legal options and reserve the right to exercise them if this happens.

I don't have a great understanding of what happened there, but think about Facebook and what it has done with screwing initial employees from time to time, and they seem to have won at least in part.

Given, if the startup is already crippled due to not being able to work together, the chance of success at the end is reduced. Don't give up your shares - but don't count on them being a thing either.

They should be happy that you still have your shares because you have an interest in seeing them still be successful and are not _ALSO_ going to form a company in the same space. Perhaps. Depends what your exit agreements were, if any. And you should be careful what you sign there as well.

But yeah, sounds like they are asking for things that are not in your interest.

</comment><comment><USER23> "Now that I am leaving, the other founders are asking me to return some/most/all of the equity that was vested up front."

What are they offering in return? Is what they're offering in return worth more to you then the equity?

</comment><comment><USER24> The rules are written clearly in your shareholders agreement. Don't ask hacker news for the answer, find the answers in the agreement.

</comment><comment><USER25> What stage the company is in? If it's too early stage, I don't think anyone can predict the success and it might end up as just another failed startup. Remember, the startup is more about execution. I would suggest to contact a lawyer to get any credible advise on it.

</comment><comment><USER26> The correct thing to happen in this scenario is for the other founders to buy out your share based on today's valuation (which should be modest but accurate according to what you've been telling investors). Anything else will involve a lot of lawyers and grief.

If they walk away and start their own company, they're handing control of this company to you along with all its investment and property, and that no- poaching clause in your contract says they can't hire away your team. I don't think they want to do that.

</comment><comment><USER27> Sounds like they're planning on screwing you (new company).

So ask yourself this: when you flush a toilet, what happens to the toilet paper?

</comment><comment><USER28> You receive the equity not for being around on the day the decision to found a company was taken, but for being around from day 1 until the company stops being a startup. (Well, some of the equity may also be for other reasons.)

The other founders expect you to be around during that period. One commits in part because the others do.

When you leave earlier, you should estimate how much of the period is left and talk to the others about the portion of equity that corresponds to that period — how big it is and how you can use it for the betterment of the company. Are some new people taking over what you would have done? Perhaps they should get some of the equity, on fair terms?

<comment><USER29> It sounds like this consideration was already made. Only some of his equity was fully vested up front to reflect prior work - presumably the remainder of his equity was vested on a schedule (which at half a year he'd be entitled to none of most likely).

If the above is true, then it would be inappropriate to re-examine what amount of equity is fair.

<comment><USER28> Reexamination is proper because there's disagreement.

IMO, as he lays out the facts, he shouldn't give away more than a token amount. But the other founders see the facts differently. So the right thing to do is to agree on what the equity is for and then discuss what the numbers should be and why.

<comment><USER30> The "right thing" was to agree on that before the work was performed. It's too late to go back on that now. The original vesting agreements are all that should hold. If the other founders want to come to a new agreement with some cash compensation or other special status in exchange for his returning some of the company's equity, that's up for negotiation.

<comment><USER28> I've never been in a vaguely successful startup where people do the right thing. What people do is approximate, do well enough to survive and grow, and defer the Right Thing until later.

Doing the Right Thing takes time.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Google suspends some business with Huawei after Trump blacklist - <AUTHOR> https://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN1SP0NB <comment><USER2> Old business proverb: "Never turn away a paying customer."

Also known in some circles as: "Shooting yourself in the foot."

</comment><comment><USER3> Dupe [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19954673](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19954673)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks. Did not see.</comment></comment>


Flavors: 10 Code-Free Minutes to a Sexier Web Presence - <AUTHOR> http://www.readwriteweb.com/readwritestart/2009/11/flavors-sexier-web-presence.php

<comment><AUTHOR> I've been waiting about a year to actually post here (HN). For access to the beta, please use the invite code: readwriteweb and email me if you have any problems or questions: email@example.com

Thanks!

</comment><comment><USER2> I made <http://flavors.me/zachaysan> in about 5 mins. Looks nice, but the twitter feed is broken for this specific color scheme. And yes, I heavily modeled it off of dustincurtis.com.

Also, "readwriteweb" is an access code if you want to try yourself.

</comment><comment><USER3> The site is nothing but a demo and a "Notify me when you're actually accepting customers." There's links to 5 other sites that do the exact same thing. There's literally hundreds of other sites out there that do similar things.

</comment><comment><USER4> I don't know anything about these guys, but my first thought while reading the post was "He's trying to lump themselves in the same category as successful stores." It's an interesting technique if you don't have name recognition. Say it enough times and eventually people think you are in the same class even if you aren't.</comment>


Visualising per Capita CO2 Emissions – Criticise the US and Canada, Not China - <AUTHOR> https://kyso.io/KyleOS/per-cap-co2 <comment><USER2> I'm really surprised that having below replacement rate fertility for the last ~50 years earns the developed world no good will on this front, and instead statistics are used that completely disregard population size, especially since it's so heavily advocated:

[https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/12/want- to-...](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/12/want-to-fight- climate-change-have-fewer-children)

[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jun/20/give-up- having...](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jun/20/give-up-having- children-couples-save-planet-climate-crisis)

[https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/sep/12/why- we...](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/sep/12/why-we-should- have-fewer-children-save-the-planet-climate-change)

[https://www.theguardian.com/membership/2017/oct/07/should- we...](https://www.theguardian.com/membership/2017/oct/07/should-we-be-having- fewer-children-for-the-sake-of-the-planet)

[https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/05/climate/climate-change- ch...](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/05/climate/climate-change- children.html)

[https://slate.com/technology/2007/09/should-americans- have-f...](https://slate.com/technology/2007/09/should-americans-have-fewer- babies-to-save-the-environment.html)

<comment><USER3> 1) per capita statistics explicitly ignore fertility rate effects

2) even though the US fertility rate has been below replacement rate since the early 1970s ([https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SPDYNTFRTINUSA](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SPDYNTFRTINUSA)), population has continued to grow because of immigration. Per capita effects of immigrants fade as their lifestyles become more like those of the existing population.

<comment><USER4> I've wondered why environmental advocacy groups are not more vocal in support of curtailing immigration into the US. If the American lifestyle is more resource intense, wouldn't that be a natural stance to take?

<comment><USER5> If all humans were killed climate change would also be a solved problem. Cures that are worse than the disease do exist and are unacceptable.

One central tenet also among environmental advocacy groups is in general that climate change advocacy cannot be used as a tool for oppression with a "we got what we want, fuck everyone else" attitude.

<comment><USER2> Is not immigrating to the US really a fate so horrible you'd compare it to all humans being killed?

<comment><USER5> Obviously not. I picked the extreme, absurd and obvious to everyone example to make the principle behind the thinking clear. It's for illustrative purposes only.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Calling countries' total emissions "meaningless" because they're not measured per capita is ignoring the reality of the problem. Qatar—the worst per-capita offender—could go carbon-neutral _tomorrow_ and climate change would march on unaffected, because China is _still_ responsible for the lion's share of the CO₂ emissions.

China's emissions (and India's, for that matter) are only low per capita because of how many people they have living in relative poverty. I wouldn't say this is a statistic to be proud of.

<comment> village-idiot Also, a large amount of china's emissions are caused by the manufacture of goods for western countries.

<comment><USER6> True. This is a problem that needs to be looked at globally. We all live or die together, if we can't solve it. Nature doesn't care about the borders of nation states.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> What I don't fully understand about calculating carbon footprints is if I buy an iPhone made in China, does that add to the carbon footprint per capita of my country or to China's carbon footprint per capita? If the second were to be true, we would be shaming 'developing' countries for fuelling our own consumption levels.

<comment><AUTHOR> I believe it is indeed the second - it would add to China's carbon footprint - & I completely agree with you. This article addresses the issue nicely: [https://www.carbonbrief.org/how-much-of-chinas-carbon- dioxid...](https://www.carbonbrief.org/how-much-of-chinas-carbon-dioxide- emissions-is-the-rest-of-the-world-responsible-for) countries that import more and manufacture less (the West) experience falling emissions, while that of the developing, manufacturing economies increases

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I'm happy to criticise both. The "developed" world shouldn't be buying goods with >neutral carbon footprint, and China shouldn't be selling them.

<comment><AUTHOR> Well, it's quite hypocritical for us to dictate to China that they shouldn't be selling goods with a >neutral carbon footprint no? A discussion on historical responsibility matters, with rich nations having emitted about 80% of the CO2 from fossil fuel combustion, which means roughly 80% of the gas heating the atmosphere today came from the developed northern countries. Rich nations are developed enough to reduce our reliance at a faster and more efficient rate.

<comment><USER9> Sure, it's incredibly hypocrite. We are hyperhypocrites. The biggest of all.

Can we now move on and do something about climate change? Or are we so gung ho on blameculture that we would rather respectfully stay silent while the newcomers take their sweet time repeating our mistakes, destroying the earth in the process? It would be unfair if they didn't get their turn at destroying our planet from within, after all.

We are far too slowly realising the magnitude of the issue. There is no time to awkwardly "you first no you first" at the door while the damage is compounding.

We made a mistake. Yes. Let's not stick our head in the sand just because that's the polite thing to do, now, please.

(edit: I should have counted to 10 before posting that :) sorry. to clarify: my issue is purely with the focus on hypocrisy. I find it often drives us from a solution rather than towards one. the less we focus on whose goat was originally insulted by whose grandpa, the more readily the village can put aside its strife and work together to stem the rising tide.)

<comment><USER10> Solution is simple. Developed nations should pay more price and do more than other nations. That will take care of "hypocrisy" allegations.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> To reduce per capita CO2 emissions, breed like rabbits and ignore CO2 emissions.

<comment><USER12> Wasn't there a time of massive growth in USA too? Surely USA wouldn't be able to achieve supremacy without relying at some point on tech that emits huge amount of CO2?

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> The per-capita figure indicates the level of industrialization, and the curve shows whether and how much consideration is being given to curbing carbon emissions.

No-one is doing enough, but at least the developed-nation figures are going down, whereas China is going through the roof.

You can't argue with the impact of 1.3B people, the overall emissions figure really is what actually counts.

<comment><USER14> The US and Canada are reducing their emissions from a much higher per-capita level than China's emissions. You want a participation trophy for that "progress"?

<comment><USER13> US/Canada is going DOWN, China is going UP.

As I said, "no-one is doing enough"

But at least the developed nations appear to be trying, mildly, so if we absolutely had to give out awards, that would be the criteria. And let's not forget the overall figures are what actually count.

IMHO having a population of 1.3B behooves you to make an extra effort to keep that per-capita figure from sky-rocketing. And maybe also to use your low per- capita figures to berate the still-excessive (per-capita) developed nations to do better - rather than using that difference as an excuse to go full-throttle yourself.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> How about we blame each, and every other country, based upon all factors, up to and including the end result.

There is no country (as far as I know) in a carbon neutral or negative state.

Degrees of shit doesn't really help anyone, just gives more reason for finger pointing.

<comment><USER16> First, how many trees per capita are there:

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/world/tree- density/?...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/world/tree- density/?noredirect=on)

From this, we determine that Canada has 8953 trees per person.

Next, how much carbon does each tree sink:

[https://projects.ncsu.edu/project/treesofstrength/treefact.h...](https://projects.ncsu.edu/project/treesofstrength/treefact.htm)

48 pounds of carbon per tree, per year.

Which means that, in Canada, 214.8 tons of carbon are sequestered annually per person.

Canada's people generate 15.7 tons of carbon per person (or, as the linked article puts it, about 4 times the global average).

[http://www.changeyourcorner.com/articles/034.php](http://www.changeyourcorner.com/articles/034.php)

So, Canada is STILL "carbon negative" \-- in a major way.

So, there is one example. In North America, even.

FredW

edit: added "per person" to usage, change But to So in conclusion.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Looking at the 10 worst emitters and seeing Curaçao as number 2 highlights some of the difficulty of finger-pointing this way. There's an oil refinery on this tiny island. The oil is not only consumed there but it's shipped elsewhere. So the people who benefit are not the ones that create the emissions.

The world collectively has the materials and technologies and labour potential to get 100% of its electricity from hydro, wind, solar, and nuclear. The barriers to do so are artificial. We are limited by the systemic, not the physical. So what can be done systemically to push us in that direction more quickly?

</comment><comment><USER18> Its interesting this comes up now, I had to write an essay related to this recently [1] (check out the references section I found some really interesting literature on the topic). The Chinese policy discourse on Climate change does not "stop" at articulating Responsibility in terms of per capita emissions, but also historic emissions, here is the relevant extract from it:

"The life spans of different gases in the atmosphere vary, furthermore they contribute differently to Radiative Forcing which causes Global Warming. Since Greenhouse gases (GHG) have long atmospheric lifespans, Chinese GHG emissions are larger than their contribution to Radiative Forcing since it started emitting them later than other countries. The Chinese scientific community supporting the policy thus highlights that since cumulative Chinese CO2 emissions are lower than "developed countries'", the Chinese contribution to Global Warming is also considerably less, 10% of total radiative forcing [2]."

[1] [https://guillaume.desusanne.com/how-does-chinas-policy- disco...](https://guillaume.desusanne.com/how-does-chinas-policy-discourse- articulate-the-relationship-between-great-power-status-and-chinas- responsibility-to-help-address-climate-change/)

[2] [https://www.nature.com/articles/nature17165](https://www.nature.com/articles/nature17165)

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Taking into account the nation's population size gives us a more accurate measure of countries' relative contributions to CO2 emissions. The flip between countries like Ireland and China when we go from total to per capita is really interesting.

<comment><USER19> I doubt the population matters relative to the industries themselves that pollute.

<comment><AUTHOR> Well, it's important when measuring which nations are most responsible for climate change. So we'll see the list topped by smaller countries with energy- intensive industries such as Qatar, as well as some small Western developed countries like Ireland also performing poorly. It helps provide a clearer picture of the climate change initiatives these governments should be pursuing, which I promise you matters to the industries themselves.

<comment> purple-again Your facts don't match your premise. It helps us to understand, at an individual level, which individuals are more responsible than other individuals. Individuals don't rule the Earth; nations do. Looking at the data by nation rather than per capita in fact is the data that tells us which nations are most responsible for climate change. Humanity is destroying earth, not individual nations. If the western world cuts its emissions to 0 and the eastern world laughs and doubles its emissions in response we all still burn. The total emissions of humanity are all that matter in the context of climate change.

<comment><AUTHOR> How do you explain the fact that Western European economies perform so well on a per-capita basis of emissions versus the US and Canada then? I do agree with some of your points on the Western world vs the East & that it will require homogenous action. But we in the West are in a position to lead the way, both in terms of actual implementation and or R&D for more cost-effective use of renewable energy in the future. The rest of the world will follow.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> CO2 isn't the only problem! [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_meat...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_meat_production)

<comment><AUTHOR> Very good point - I actually only posted on this topic the other day: [https://kyso.io/KyleOS/per-cap-meat-consumption](https://kyso.io/KyleOS/per- cap-meat-consumption)

I'm wondering if there is a way to plot the impact this consumption has on the environment - maybe I can apply some form of multiplier to each country's meat consumption. Any suggestions? Would love to update that post with an environmental twist.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Per capital emissions is valuable - and don't we also need to look at emissions per unit of economic output? (Ie carbon per dollar of GDP?)

Emissions means something is being produced, which is why we find them useful despite externalities. There is a balance between human quality of life and preventing climate change.

<comment><AUTHOR> Great suggestion - I just forked the original post and created a new map based on emissions per unit of economic output: [https://kyso.io/KyleOS/co2-per- unit-output](https://kyso.io/KyleOS/co2-per-unit-output) it flips the map for North America and a lot of SE Asian countries

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> It would be nice if you could add the carbon credit of each country vs carbon emissions

<comment><AUTHOR> Good suggestion! Any suggestions for where I can find easily accessible data?

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Very interesting post but it is unreadable on mobile. Text jumps around (no dimensions for images?) and something weird happens with the scroll. Shame.

</comment><comment><USER24> It feels like some tout the "per capita" emissions to encourage their political agenda instead dealing with climate change. Maybe same reason why some dismiss geoengineering outright with no consideration or discussion.

</comment><comment><USER25> Criticize none. Per capita CO2 emissions are low in countries where most people are peasant farmers. The average Bangladeshi has a CO2 footprint of 0.5 tons per year. A homeless person in the US has a footprint of 8 tons per year when you account for her share of public infrastructure: [https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080428120658.h...](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080428120658.htm). Likewise, countries with fertility rates so low they will cease to exist in relatively short order is good for CO2 emissions. But neither state of affairs is a good outcome.

Carbon reduction is not a solution to climate change. (And we will never achieve meaningful reductions in CO2 emissions precisely for that reason.) The only sustainable solution is CO2 recapture. We'll either discover that technology before whatever the tipping point is, or we'll cease to exist as a civilization before we discover the technology.

<comment><USER26> Of course, we should criticize both. And most importantly ourselves.

You say the only sustainable solution is CO2 recapture, but that goes absolutely contrary to the meaning of the word... The American way of life, and the recent Chinese way of life are unsustainable and should, and will stop. Either by choice or by force.

<comment><USER25> Would you rather have us live like farmers in Bangladesh?</comment></comment></comment>


Understanding today's market psychology [pdf] - <AUTHOR> https://www.oaktreecapital.com/docs/default-source/memos/on-the-couch.pdf <comment><AUTHOR> Howard Marks is one of the world's leading hedge fund managers and investors. This is one of his monthly letters and was sent out two days ago.</comment>


Why conventional wisdom on health care is wrong - <AUTHOR> https://randomcriticalanalysis.com/why-conventional-wisdom-on-health-care-is-wrong-a-primer/ <comment><AUTHOR> This is my blog. I'll check comments later on and respond if anyone has serious questions or comments.</comment>


Innovators Under 35 - <AUTHOR> https://www.technologyreview.com/lists/innovators-under-35/2019/ <comment><USER2> I have seen many "AI", "Software" and "Program" keywords there.</comment>


Statistical mechanics of money (2000) - <AUTHOR> https://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0001432 <comment><USER2> While interesting, this sort of approach starts with wrong premises, such as the simple existence of a singular quantity of "money" at any given time, or that people spend money sufficiently randomly.

If any of these things - and these things being what distinguishes social interactions and human behavior from particles - were the case, we'd have "solved" our economic modeling issues long ago.

From my perspective (economist with prior math background), what makes the economic interaction of humans interesting and hard, is precisely that these interactions can not be aggregated (in a well-defined manner) to simple statistical or behavioral laws - be it distributions or representations, even if certain outcome distributions are observable.

To my knowledge, econophysics - despite the strong marketing effort - has yet to produce new insights into the actual economy (and it has been going on since the at least twenty years).

I think this is not surprising. The economics research effort does not lack in mathematical sophistication, even if physicists like to believe that. In fact, in terms of strategic interaction, behavioral patterns and epistemology, I think the economic models are well ahead of physics models for describing behavior. But - no one is really all that close if the level of aggregation is high. That means, macroeconomics and matters of money supply.

<comment><USER3> As an economist with a background in mathematics and physics I very much appreciated 'econophysics' and associated efforts, but a short while into my foray I began to realize that economics is afflicted with a dearth of conserved quantities. Physics has plenty of these (sometimes absolute, sometimes approximate) laws of conservation (conservation of energy, conservation of mass-energy, conservation of linear/angular momentum, _et cetera_ ) and these laws of conservation are critically important in constraining the dynamics a system can adhere to and thus constitute a kind of 'shortcut' that allows apparently intractable problems to be deftly solved by putting these constraints to masterful use. Economics has none of this. Even the apparently solid concept of 'wealth' (even in its weaker relative form) upon closer inspection has no fundamental basis: transactions between two parties can affect the market value of an asset and therefore increase or decrease the wealth of all of those who own (or owe) such assets.

The field therefore rapidly decayed into a form of "computational economics". This might appear similar to "computational physics" and its use of finite element models and massively parallel simulations of particle systems to solve fluid dynamics problems. Trouble is, those systems are built up from elements that respond to the net of extant forces acting upon them, whereas in economics agents can and do act on the basis of what they _expect_ those forces might be in the future. Self-fulfilling prophecies are "very much a thing" in economic and financial phenomenology: bubbles, crashes, recessions, booms, the whole business cycle itself...

Add to that that some actors, even very significant ones, in those markets might have really weird utility functions — for example, central banks seek not to maximise their utility — and that some agents are not rational at all (noise-traders, entrepreneurs misreading trends, _& cetera_) and you have another big flaw in the framework.

<comment><USER4> Total number of bitcoins (at t = infinity) is a conserved quantity. Do you think this sort of analysis applies to cryptocurrencies?

<comment><USER5> at t -> infinity, the total amount of bitcoins in circulation tends to 0 because there is always a positive probability to lose any private key.

<comment><USER3> Good point.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> To me reads like the first premise is already wrong: "In a closed economic system, money is conserved."

The opposite is true. Debt and the loan asset (if that's correct English usage) are created from nothing, for the debtor and the creditor respectively; the loan is converted to money intermittently by the central bank. On maturity of the loan contract both liability and asset side disappear when the loan is being repaid.*

The central bank creates the money in the instant it interacts with the creditor, and when the contract ends, the money is erased.

Do I missread this in some way?

* If you disregard the interest, which is extremely simplifying obviously; still taking it into account wouldn't make the first statement more true

<comment><USER7> I would still say money is conserved, in the same sense that charge is conserved in physics. Sure, you can create electrons by pair production, but you always create positrons with them. See also the Dirac Sea.

With money, you always create debt and loan together. And yes, both can "move around" like a currency, just like electrons and holes (missing electrons) can move around in a solid, or electrons and positrons can move around in free space.

"Primary" money - I don't know if there is an economic term - is strictly conserved. It's almost sacrosanct in our society, nobody would ever just create money. Even when they talk about printing money, it's always through loans (ultimately from the central banks), and never by actually throwing on the press. Also, destruction of money is extremely rare - mostly it is devaluation of assets, but rarely somebody burning cash etc..

<comment><USER3> Wealth is most definitely not a conserved quantity.

Think of the equity of a typical household. It includes some equity in their flat, which has a current market value. Down the street a developer buys a whole building block at a slight premium to rid itself of extant tenants and in so doing drives up the estimated value of local real-estate, including our household's equity. They've just gotten richer. They could even remortgage their house and monetise that increase in wealth. They could sell it and buy a bigger flat in another part of town.

So no: wealth is not conserved. Quantified (maybe), but definitely not conserved.

<comment><USER8> Well, the material basis of wealth is part of the physical world so how does this non-conservation work out?

Is wealth coupled with some "valuation potential" that offsets the wealth down to some "inherent" material value, or is value just entirely fictional?

<comment><USER9> Suppose you find an old painting in the basement.

You put it out in your garage sale. A stranger comes along and offers $20 for it. Another person arrives and tells you it's actually a valuable piece and would pay $200 for it.

A third person comes along and explains that it was made by their great grandmother and it was the last piece she made and she will pay $2000 for it. For sentimental reasons.

This third person has made a powerful enemy who then comes along and offers $20000 for the item, just to spite them. They intend to set the painting on fire.

How much "wealth" was stored in the painting?

Art is silly but really all value is subjective and situational. Crayfish can be cheap poor people food or a delicacy of the rich, depending on culture. You could die in a desert, weighed down with "valuable" gold because the traveller you met would not trade it for their last canteen of water.

<comment><USER8> This is a nice example showing how people don't really know what is going on, wealth seems to behave in very mysterious ways.

But, in each step you are clearly adding more and more context along with the physical item itself, context that must itself have some physical encoding.

My point is mainly that I insist that physical reality is _all there is_ , and if some events are hard to assign to any one physical thing that just means we are looking for subtle correlations.

<comment><USER10> I'm pretty sure that in economics, physical reality is _not_ all there is. Economics is about people assigning value to things. The things, by themselves, have no economic value.

<comment><USER11> > I'm pretty sure that in economics, physical reality is not all there is.

Yes, it is.

> Economics is about people assigning value to things.

People are not outside of physical reality, nor is their experience of utility.

<comment><USER10> Well, if you go for the position that people are just machines made of atoms, then, yes, physical reality is all there is, even in economics. But no, I do not want to start with atomic physics, and from there try to derive human utility, and from _that_ try to derive economics. That's... not a feasible research program. It's not going to provide any insight into economics, ever.

So even if you accept the materialist position, for purposes of doing economics, you kind of have to regard humans as something different. (Or so it seems to me, a non-economist.)

<comment><USER11> Economics (like most things that aren't physicsf even lots of subfields of physics) doesn't model everything (or much of anything) it addresses in the physical universe from the base up, but it doesn't require treating anything as special and non-physical either.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> The Black-Scholes equation is literally the basic heat diffusion equation [1].

[1] [https://quant.stackexchange.com/questions/84/transformation-...](https://quant.stackexchange.com/questions/84/transformation- from-the-black-scholes-differential-equation-to-the-diffusion-equ)

</comment><comment><USER13> ELI5?

<comment><USER14> To elaborate on "interesting things", at least as I understood it from a seminar by one of the authors...

\- The distribution of wealth naturally forms an exponential distribution. It takes effort/energy/negentropy to depart from this situation where there will always be many more poor people than rich.

\- Unlike particle energy, wealth can be negative. When this is accounted for (allow for debt), the rich inherently get richer. This is not even accounting for interest being paid by the debtors to the (presumably rich) debtees.

\- At a certain point, money begets more money. This results in a power law tail and identifies the "upper class".

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Is it possible that the poorer factions in a society learn skillsets that are keeping them poor? Their skillsets help them through poor life but are prolly useless when getting more money?</comment>


Ask HN: Should I go for senior developer, product manager, or something else? - <AUTHOR> I spent my first four years out of college as a product manager. Then I left that to learn development, working as a full-stack freelancer for four years, where I built many products for startups and eventually built my own product that was acquired by a big company. After that, I spent four years as a developer at the big company but am moving on to the next thing.
The problem is that I don't know what I should do next.
I am a pretty good product manager — I know how to facilitate across an organization, have a good sense for design, and am good with people (but it's been eight years since I've been in that role).
I am a pretty good web developer — I can work with the front-end, back-end and set up infrastructure (but I wouldn't call myself an expert or a computer scientist).
I am an OK but honestly inexperienced entrepreneur — I ran my freelancing business relatively well and went through an acquisition but I wouldn't call myself an experienced business person.
I am now in my 30s, at a point where I want stability (I don't want to start a new business) and to maximize my earning potential. I'm social and drawn to leadership, I like working with people. I'm a solid developer but don't consider myself top-tier, and sometimes feel overwhelmed when it's how I spend all my time. I hate politics and don't have engineering management experience. I don't really have CS skills but I haven't found them necessary for most of my web development, to be honest.
What kind of a role do you think is best for me? Would I make the most as a developer or product manager? How would my choice affect my career trajectory? I realize it's a question only I can answer but I'd appreciate your perspective. <comment><USER2> Just make sure it's really a product manager position and not a project manager position if you decide to go in that direction. A product manager (IMO) "owns" the product, where a project manager tends to wander around trying to facilitate things or implement some kind of agile, scrum, or other methodology...constantly messing around with burn-down charts and such.

I don't have anything against real project manager positions, but most companies I've dealt with just don't properly utilize the role. The companies I've dealt with tend to have project managers embedded in too small of a team or teams to really add any value.

In the long run a product manager is a good career choice if you can get in with the right place, they're going in the right direction, and they're developing the right products.

But I don't see how you escape politics in a real product manager position. If this is "your" product that is being developed (you essentially own it), then you're going to have to sell your vision and to get the resources you need/want. You'll probably also ruffle some feathers in the process.</comment>


At 'Hacker Hostels,' Living on the Cheap and Dreaming of Digital Glory - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/06/technology/at-hacker-hostels-living-on-the-cheap-and-dreaming-of-digital-glory.html?pagewanted=all <comment><USER2> I'd like to set the record straight about the nature of Chez JJ, which I feel, was very strongly misrepresented in the NYT article. What sets Chez JJ (and other community houses) apart from hostels and dorms is our family-like atmosphere. By welcoming guests into our home we are welcoming them into our family. They have become our friends and our co-founders. Startup life is an emotional roller coaster. As a community, we support each other through the trials and tests of life in Silicon Valley.

More than half of Chez JJ residents who have applied to YC have been accepted. Maybe it helps that we grill each other. Or maybe it helps that we help each other relax in order to see the big picture. Or because our residents don't have to waste as much time on the minutiae of living because of what we provide. Maybe it's a form of self selection. It is a relevant point that living in group communities is more cost effective than living alone. When we all pitch in towards basic needs we are able to have a higher standard of living.

We have weekly professional cleaners and subscribe to Farm Fresh, an organic vegetable delivery service. We provide coffee, tea, pancake mix, cereal, soymilk, and all the fresh fruits and vegetables you can find in our garden. We have regular dinner parties, and breakfast brunches. We have movie nights and hackathons and play board games. And we work closely with the owners of each of our houses know exactly what we are doing and are completely supportive.

<http://chezjj.com>

<comment><USER3> I agree that Chez JJ was highly misrepresented. To compare to college dorms is superficial, it completely lacked the real essence of what makes the boarding at Chez JJ really special, the family-like atmosphere that creates emotional support for everyone in the hacking industry, and a great atmosphere to bounce ideas off each other. I felt that the article was written to laugh at people and their sub-par living conditions and start-up failures. It sorely diminishes the hard work and achievements that are continuously produced through the residence and the genuine care that is put in by the captains. It made Sasha sound like a callus bitch and the boarding sound filthy. Makes you feel that journalism cannot be trusted. LL

Keyword: New York Times, Crammed Into Cheap Bunks, Dreaming of Future Digital Glory

<comment><USER4> I think the article was a great introduction. This is coming from someone who knows nothing about it but we run similar programs in Atlanta (tasteless plug - www.juniorengineer.us). These things are not well understood by the mainstream. The culture needed to create stellar developers and awesome startupx and products is a conundrum to some and is only recently being analyzed because of the success of accelerators like Y-combinator and Tech stars. People who are unfamiliar with these concepts need points of reference so don't beat them up too bad

Faruq Hunter

<comment><USER2> The problem with the misrepresentation in the article is that unlike other hacker houses, Chez JJ is pretty damn close to spotlessly clean. It's why we pay professionals to do it. And one of our houses was actually 50% female.

It's hard to make people envision something else, once the words are out there, but we really aim to make life as frictionless as possible for our guests.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I admire these people who are willing to live in a 10-person dorm room while setting up their business, but the fact three "Hacker Hostels" have sprung up feels like a symptom of SF & SV being so over-hyped and incorrectly positioned as the only place innovation will occur with less friction. Am I wrong or just missing something?

What real significant tangible benefit are these people getting that compels them to live like this and pay a relatively high cost for the privilege? $1,200/month or less gets you your own private room in a shared apartment in NYC, Boston, or just about anywhere else.

<comment><USER6> I agree with your larger point 100%.

>> $1,200/month or less gets you your own private room in a shared apartment in NYC, Boston

In much of the US, $1,200/mo will buy you a house (or rent one). $1,200/mo is a fairly high rent for a 1-bedroom in much of the US; a private room in a shared apartment would obviously be correspondingly less.

<comment><USER7> $1,200/month goes a long way in the bay area, too, if you have any idea what you're doing at all.

As a graduate student at Berkeley, I had my own room in an apartment with a roof deck and uninterrupted bay view for $400/mo on a month-to-month lease in a great neighborhood. This was 6 years ago, but the same guy was still subletting the same rooms for the same price, when last I spoke to him.

When I moved to the peninsula to work at Apple, I had a small house with a yard and fruit trees in the nice part of Menlo Park on a month-to-month lease for $1000/mo. This was 4 years ago, but similar deals can definitely still be found (the same house was rented for $1300/mo recently).

Up to a year ago, my wife and I shared a lovely house with 1.5 acres in Palo Alto for $1800/mo, though we did need to sign a lease for that one.

When I travel back to the bay area now, I get an airbnb-type room in Palo Alto, and don't typically pay more than $800/mo short-term. A lot of things are listed at higher rates, but you can often negotiate pretty successfully. It certainly doesn't hurt to ask.

The ridiculous rents that you hear about in the bay area are partially due to a genuine real estate crunch, but they are largely also due to people having too much money and not enough sense. Paying $1200/mo for a dorm is nuts, no matter what city it's in.

<comment><USER8> Absolutely. My friend was living in a studio on Hamilton Street in downtown Palo Alto for $1000/mo earlier this year. Additionally there are places in Sunnyvale that you can rent for a good deal which will let you shell out the $100/mo for access to Hacker Dojo which would only be a 15 minute drive away.

Having lived in SV all my life, these "Hacker Hostels" just seem like a way for the operators to exploit those who flock to their services, who just don't know any better.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> When are people going to learn that PayPal is never, ever, _ever_ to be trusted?

 _> When the site started in May, $12,000 in orders for a car diagnostics device poured in right away. PayPal, which the founders used to process payments, decided their account was "high risk" and suspended it, freezing their money for six months, Mr. Wu said. Mr. Wu and Mr. El-Hage maxed out their credit cards to fulfill the orders. Without investors backing them, they nearly went broke. MassDrop has recovered to "above-ramen status, but not that much higher," Mr. El-Hage said._

<comment><USER10> What are my options if I'm not in US? GoCardless is great but not instantaneous afaik. Paypal is so easy from the user perspective (and has low upfront cost for the developer) that most just accept the risk. But they are evil, very evil.

<comment><USER11> I've found Paypal to be much better if you:

1) Call them and get to know them

2) Let them know what you're selling up front

3) Verify all your info -- connect a bank account to it, connect a credit card to it

4) before a launch, marketing blitz, or push, call and let them know.

Why? They're not a bank, but they're like a bank. They have to manage risk. Keep them in the loop and your account has a much, much better chance of not being locked down.

<comment><USER12> It's possible to call Paypal and talk to them?

<comment><USER11> Yes, it used to be next to impossible but they prominently display their number now, and I have yet to speak to anyone incompetent. It's almost like the missing limb of Paypal all these years. Super knowledgeable people who have been working behind the scenes that I haven't had access to.

I'm not saying Paypal (or any payment service) by any means is perfect or ideal. I just know my interaction with Paypal increased after I could access them by phone.

There is a certain peace in saying "I told you my entire business model before I started and you cleared it as a good fit with Paypal" and documenting it politely.

You'd be shocked how much a heads up of "I'm about to launch or might have a crush of traffic from x" does for their risk management department.

It doesn't mean we should notify them of every business decision through them, but it's kind of like building credit, in the beginning it will take a bit more effort on your part to go out of your way to do the right thing.

Otherwise, we're just a random unverified account with zero history with them. If they get to know you, like anything, things get easier. Scammers wouldn't want Paypal to get to know them, right? :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I like how the term "hacker" is finally starting to be recognized in the mainstream press for a definition other than the criminal one:

"Hackers — the Mark Zuckerberg variety, not the identity thieves — have long crammed into odd or tiny spaces and worked together to solve problems. In the 1960s, researchers at the Stanford Artificial Intelligence Laboratory slept in the attic and, while waiting for their turn on the shared mainframe computer, sweated in the basement sauna."

<comment><USER14> Unfortunately, it's still the wrong definition. Ideally, journalists shouldn't feel obliged to make any distinction.

<comment><USER15> Heh ... I had to read the "Hacker" sentence thrice before I got it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> $40/night? I don't personally know anyone in Menlo Park, but know people with places to themselves in/very near SF for $1200/month. Even with rent going up lately, $1200/month for not even a private bedroom?

<comment><USER17> At that rate, you're also paying for the lack of a long-term lease commitment, the location, and the amenities (in this case food, furnishings, and peers). Compared to hotels in these same area -- where you also pay for short-term convenience, furnishings, and immediacy of location/amenities -- it's still fairly cheap.

<comment><USER18> I'm not sure how $1,200 to sleep with 4 other people in a bedroom is considered fairly cheap when you compare the same rate at a hotel.

$100/night, divided by 4, is $25/night per person in a decent hotel with a negotiated long term rate. Of course, you don't get the intangibles of being in a "hacker house" 24/7 and live out the dream.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> $1200/month might be a good price for rent in San Francisco but you can bootstrap your startup at half the cost if you look around on Craigslist. It also helps to live somewhere other than one of the most expensive cities in the United States.

</comment><comment><USER20> You have to love these bootstrap covers where they display $2,499+ MacBooks in the most impoverished settings.

<comment><USER21> The $2,499 MacBooks can potentially earn money, a nice bed does not.

<comment><USER22> I think you're seriously underestimating the productivity impact of rest. I'll take a good night's sleep over a retina display any time.

<comment><USER23> Just one night's sleep?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> "Hackers — the Mark Zuckerberg variety, not the identity thieves " being tongue and cheek are we :)?

<comment><USER5> I think this is a great line actually. The media is largely responsible for corrupting the original meaning of the word. At least they're now showing people it has multiple meanings, and that hacker doesn't always mean "malicious cracker".

<comment><USER24> I just found it ironical given Facebook's privacy record. Identity thieves and Mark Zuckerberg in the same sentence.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> kind of interesting to think about this through the context of all the free online classes being offered. Its seems like what people say is, 'well you miss out on interacting with all the other Harvard students'

not sure how welcoming these houses are to those without the right formal educational credentials

"The captains, all women, screen for personalities and occupations, rejecting applicants who are not techies or simply have a poor attitude. Sasha Willins, a 26-year-old graphic designer who is captain of the San Francisco apartment, has a gentle way of saying no. "It's not so much rejecting as it is asking so many questions until they withdraw their application," she said."

but it seems like being in the right 'hacker house', could replicate the advantages of getting to interact with Harvard students for a modest housing upcharge

seems slightly more cost effective than cutting Harvard a 50K check

</comment><comment><USER26> Pretty much the same concept as what StartupHouse is in SF. (<http://startuphouse.com>)

<comment><USER27> Similar, but much smaller and more familial. And way less under construction.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Isn't this just another name for a college dorm, but without the whole college classes and graduation and degree thing?

<comment><USER29> Not at all. We do get some grad students, but most or school drop-outs starting their own businesses. It is not a dorm, nor is it a hostel. Our guests have become my community; my family. We eat together, discuss politics, challenge each others ideas, and support each others endeavors. All this, with breakfast, fresh produce and California weather. It's personal, not a collegiate scam.

<comment><USER30> My stay there was a wonderful experience and the place was nice. I get energize by having people around working towards the same goal and that is very valuable to me.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> "for aspiring tech entrepreneurs on the bottom rung of the Silicon Valley ladder, those who haven't yet achieved Facebook-level riches"

I know this is written as good spirited humour, or at least I hope so. But measuring success against zuckerberg's assets is an unhealthy preoocupation.

It's very typical of the "Get rich and retire by 30" crowd, for whom running a business is the byproduct of making money

<comment><USER29> Agreed.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> Not bad, but surprised it's not cheaper. Airbnb shows numerous places with bedroom for let in the $40 - $60 / night range.

<comment><USER33> For "hacker short-term bedroom rentals", I wonder how much of a premium the market puts on transit access (or being in downtown PA/MV).

I've been looking in Menlo Park (North Fair Oaks), and assuming buying a 2/1 with 1/1 detached studio could get $50/night or so for the 1/1, if set up properly. But NFO doesn't have great transit.

<comment><USER32> To be clear, I think the price ($40 / night) is a decent. Cheap enough for most, particularly given the flexibility. Enough money for the landlord (my guess is they can easily pull in $5 - $8 k / mo) to provide decent services. I would like to see more competition ... e.g. include use of laundry, breakfast, etc.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> This is a great idea. I think there's a big opportunity for community based housing in general.

I tried living in such a community, but it was in the co-housing tradition and required collective participation in chores. Ummm, no thanks.

But the idea of a bunch of people with shared interests and at similar life stages living in the same place - it's just awesome. So much can get done when people with similar goals and diverse talents just "rub shoulders" on a daily business.

Kismet is the source of much human greatness and a community based on shared interest of passionate, talented people is like a little kismet factory.

I bet some clever people could create a social app that would facilitate the creation and maintenance of such mini-communities.

</comment><comment><USER35> Opening soon ... <http://20Mission.com>

A hacker hostel for Bitcoin startups. 41 rooms. Discount, of course, if paying rent using bitcoins.

"Bitcoin's Hogwart's"

</comment><comment><USER36> Is this not too insular?

I get & agree with some of the arguments in favour of surrounding yourself with other innovators. In the same way that the Pixar building is designed to foster these interactions.

But if you surround yourself with hackers all the time, there is the risk of losing track of the problems outside your circle. You need to talk to your customers. In the same way that people who work at Pixar go home to their kids and discover what their customers want.

<comment><USER27> Each Chez JJ captain screens for the best mix at the house, and none of us are developers by trade. We are designers, scientists, teachers, and entrepreneurs. Each of us has many ties within the tech industry and also without, and we sometimes purposefully accept non-technical residents for balance.

We really do care about creating an atmosphere which facilitates growth and innovation best, and we've put a lot of thought into the community we're helping to build.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> Photo looks like a Foxconn dorm!

<comment><USER29> heh, that is from the first day we started, it actually looks more homey now. The photos in the NYT article are more appropriate.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> @qiqing: Are you willing to tell us a bit about the screening process? I'm curious about what worked, what didn't, what traits you learned to avoid etc..

<comment><USER2> It's mostly about cultural fit, which is more of an intuitive process for me. I wasn't selecting based on how well they pitched their companies but in their messages, if they seem like the kind of people I would prefer to live with. That is, if they're nerdy enough to enjoy watching Star Trek or Firefly with us, and conscientious enough (and enough of a team player) to clean up their own dishes. And weren't too "normal." Extra points for being excited about math and science, especially if it's not related to their current enterprise.

People who try to be pushy via Airbnb messages, or are interested in only price (and not the hacker community) are generally not accepted. (Funny how it's MBAs and nontechnical people who see the least value in being part of a hacker community.) Also, people who aren't conscientious while they're with us have a lower probability of being accepted back, but fortunately, those are few and far between.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> See also "geekhouse" in Japan... A little less tidy though.

</comment><comment><USER40> Does anybody know of a good site to find roommates/room for rent with other tech-minded people?

If there isn't one, somebody should make it! Would be cool to live in a house with 3,4,5 others all working on startups - but how to find them if you don't all work in the same place?

<comment><USER29> You can find us at ChezJJ.com. There are links to our AirBnb profiles there. Also there are community houses throughout the bay area. We have a few current guests who are looking for roommates, so maybe you can send me a private message with your e-mail and I can forward it along?

<comment><USER40> Cool thanks. You guys might consider putting some type of forum or something on your site, people could post looking for people.

Bunk beds sounds like a little much for me personally but it would be cool to rent my own room in a house filled with the kind of people coming through your place.

<comment><USER29> great idea. That just might happen.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


The Defaults Don't Work - <AUTHOR> https://moultano.wordpress.com/2020/06/21/the-defaults-dont-work/ <comment><USER2> > We pretend that children don't need to see their parents working to learn > what the real world looks like. That age-segregated schools full of hyper- > local and transient cultural pathologies are a sufficient role model. Our > children enter the world having barely observed what the work of being an > adult actually is, and then understandably struggle to reproduce it. Their > entire lifetime of exposure to the economy and what it makes consists mainly > of the media they consume, and so their conception of fulfilling careers is > dominated by making video games and being in bands.

Any ideas on how to solve this problem without going back to the world as it used to be (which is probably impossible anyway)?

<comment><USER3> I personally don't quite agree with the thesis of the essay, but it is good, and this point is really insightful.

Children have no idea what 'work' is, or why it's done, or even why they are obtaining and education - in my own experience I feel as though it took 20 years of 'actual work and deprogramming' for me to finally 'get it'.

I think that kids having real jobs from an early age is a really good start - doesn't matter what. Sweeping up, flipping burgers, the 'sandwich cart guy/girl at the golf club'. This is a good start.

There's a young kid at my local Chinese Food shop who's maybe 8 years old, and he works there, it's a 'family business' it seems absolutely and perfectly normal, 'healthy' in fact (without knowing all the details). I'm inclined to think this kid will be a little more mature for his age than otherwise.

U Waterloo has 5 year Eng programs that focus on internships, only in hindsight to I realize how infinitely valuable internships are. I think these could be made much more open.

<comment><USER4> Personally I have been very lucky, my father built architectural models, my mother ran a small (artisan) shirts/nightgowns factory, both my father's workshop and my mother's small factory were situated less than 1 km from home.

As a kid, in the afternoon, after school and homework, I would go to either and learn something and try and help (doing something easy that I could do).

As an example at my mother's there were some kind of dressing gowns that used buttons covered with the same fabric that were to be assembled with a small press. (think today of allowing a 10 year old kid to operate a small manual press) or at my father's there was sometimes the need to make trees (in scale) with some wire, glue and cotton or to sand down a piece of plyboard before painting it.

I learned that work was something needed and that if you love your work (as my parents did) it is rarely heavy or tiring, that if there is a deadline, it must be met, that you need to talk to both customers and suppliers, that there are rules and bureaucarcy and you have to deal with them.

I can see the difference in mentality against that of some of my cousins whose parents had (possibly "better") office jobs, their parents basically left in the morning and were not seen again till almost dinner time.

They had no idea what their parents did, which kind of problems they had to deal with every day, they knew vaguely that they worked in a bank or in an office, that was all.

<comment><USER3> So this is a great example - I'm not sure if what you witnesses was so much 'work' in the 'the assuming responsibility for society' kind of thing, however the 'artisinal craft' aspect is just as priceless: the breadth and depth of knowledge, skills, planning, problem solving, the diligence. And yes, you're right, I think kids could be naturally more involved in something that 'doesn't feel like work'.

But 'office jobs' are important too!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I like this essay but I'm going to disagree hard on one point:

> To accommodate our education and to achieve financial security we delay > commitment and childbirth to the edge of biological feasibility. Even when > finally successful, after miscarriages and struggles to conceive (and > increasingly, after IVF) we find that the exhaustions of raising young > children hit us in middle age instead of in our prime. When I was a > teenager, I would stay up all night for the hell of it. As a 35 year old, a > few hours of missing sleep set me back for the next few days. When the time > finally comes to raise children, we deal with the 1AM nursing and night > terrors with the body we have left. In two generations of delayed > childbearing the toll of time compounds, and leaves us as grandparents > physically unable to provide the depth of support that a young family needs.

Most 20-year-olds are still finding out who they are and don't really know what they want--in a partner, in a child, in life in general. There are real, if unfortunate, biological issues with waiting too long, but also healthy societal advantages.

(Me saying this as a 26-year-old doesn't quite feel right, but I still think I'm correct. _I_ certainly don't feel ready for a child yet, and not merely because of economics.)

<comment><USER6> > Me saying this as a 26-year-old doesn't quite feel right, but I still think > I'm correct. I certainly don't feel ready for a child yet

Our first kid was born a week after I turned 27. We got married at 23. If you had asked me at 25 whether I was ready for a kid I would have said no.

That summer my dad was diagnosed with terminal cancer. That put things into much sharper focus, and it turned into a question of "if not now, when?". So then we decided to go for it.

My dad got to meet his first grandchild. Three weeks later his cancer started growing again. Three months later he was dead.

In my opinion, the greatest disservice we do to the young is shielding them from the reality that life comes to an end and it's going to pass by whether you are ready for it or not.

Adulthood is basically accepting that there are things you want / need to do, even though you are afraid or uncertain how they will turn out.

<comment><USER7> >Adulthood is basically accepting that there are things you want / need to do, even though you are afraid or uncertain how they will turn out.

This seems to imply people should have kids before they are ready or know its what they want. Consider the fact that for you it might have worked out but for many they are left with children they are unable to support or do not have any feelings for. Having children is not an essential end goal for life and not having them is just as valid of a choice.

<comment><USER6> I can see how you would read it that way, but when I wrote it, I meant it more as a tie-in to the sentence before it:

> In my opinion, the greatest disservice we do to the young is shielding them > from the reality that life comes to an end and it's going to pass by whether > you are ready for it or not.

> Adulthood is basically accepting that there are things you want / need to > do, even though you are afraid or uncertain how they will turn out.

I think no matter what your goals in life, there is a need to actually get around to them rather than waiting for "someday." For me, it was having children. For others, maybe it's something else.

> Having children is not an essential end goal for life

Having children _is_ actually an essential end goal of life. Without children there is no life. That doesn't mean _everyone_ needs to make that choice though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This is a great essay, and worth the read. The first part is _descriptive_ in nature, and I highly recommend reading that at least through the "Parenthood" section.

The article is short on _prescriptive_ advice, however, and it really loses some of its steam because of it. This is partly due to the authors frank, humble admission of ignorance about how to build a culture that honestly evaluates itself, an admission which is admirable.

But the prescriptive section also seems weakened because it is devoid of any consideration of religion and spirituality on culture. Both in history as well as the present, one of the "experiments" the author could refer to is the removal of religion from all aspects of public life.

Still, this essay does much to point out the impropriety of our Current Culture emperor running around in the nude, and for that, it's worth the read.

</comment><comment><USER9> Towards the end there's this:

> So I'm going to be more experimental, and more generous towards other > people's experiments. I'm going to pay more attention. And I'm going to look > with the clearest eyes I can at the world as it is, instead of the world as > it was or as I wish it to be.

That is my takeaway from the article, but reading the whole thing to see how the author arrives there was also very interesting.

</comment><comment><USER10> "Christmas is a celebration of the triumph of humanity over winter"

For half of the world, Christmas is in the middle of the summer

<comment><USER11> Go ahead and read the rest of the article, please.</comment></comment>


Free software advocate Richard Stallman spoke at Microsoft Research this week - <AUTHOR> https://www.zdnet.com/article/free-software-advocate-richard-stallman-spoke-at-microsoft-research-this-week/ <comment><USER2> The picture alone is worth the click!</comment>


Adobe Flash Vulnerabilities Make Up 8 of the Top Security Exploits - <AUTHOR> http://arc.applause.com/2015/11/10/popular-flash-vulnerabilities-in-exploit-kits/ <comment><AUTHOR> We all know Flash is insecure. But the breadth is a bit surprising.</comment>


Job trends: Erlang, Lisp and Haskell - <AUTHOR> http://www.wagerlabs.com/blog/2008/08/job-trends-erlang-lisp-and-haskell.html <comment><USER2> This is a great statistics lesson. All that's happening here is that the Erlang number is more volatile than the other numbers because the absolute number of samples is so low for Erlang. See the following, much better graph:

<http://www.indeed.com/jobtrends?q=lisp%2C+haskell%2C+erlang>

As you can see, there are literally three times more job ads that mention Lisp than Erlang, and 1.5 times more _Haskell_ job ads, little did I know. And Erlang went from 0.0005% to 0.002%, which is indeed a very high growth _rate_ \-- but what happened here is that we went from 10 or 20 or Erlang ads to 80 or 100. [1] With numbers that small, no wonder the fluctuations are so large.

Of course, given that I wouldn't dream of hiring an Erlang programmer by posting an online job ad, I doubt these numbers are worth much anyway. But, to the extent that they are worth something, they're not _bad_ news for Erlang fans.

[1] Indeed.com claims to index "millions of jobs". 0.0005% of two million is 10.

<comment><USER3> _...and 1.5 times more Haskell job ads, little did I know._

From the submission comments: [http://mult.ifario.us/p/there-are-apparently- lots-of-haskell...](http://mult.ifario.us/p/there-are-apparently-lots-of- haskell-jobs)

<comment><USER2> Nice catch. Allow me to double down on the "numbers not worth much" observation.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Obscurity --> Hype explosion (omg how to take advantage of all those cores in CPUs and in the cloud?!) --> Attenuation --> Stabilisation.

Seems typical.

<comment><USER3> Especially when you realize that the graph is for growth in postings and not number of postings.

In other words, if there was 1 Erlang posting one month and 15 the next, that would be a 1400% growth. At the same time, there could be 400 Lisp postings and then 500 the next month (100 new postings as compared to 14), and that would only be a 25% growth

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Some of that is just going to be people who read the Python Paradox.</comment>


Why Are There So Many C++ Testing Frameworks?  - <AUTHOR> http://googletesting.blogspot.com/2012/10/why-are-there-so-many-c-testing.html <comment><USER2> Well, <http://xkcd.com/927/> holds true again. I think these things are awesome -- though, I wish they weren't presented as something that is supposed to /reduce/ fragmentation. Perhaps it will at some point, but it probably won't -- just like the others.

</comment><comment><USER3> I think the "C++ is different in different environments, making it hard to write portable C++ code" argument is pretty weak. Is C++ annoying across different environments? Hell yeah, but I fail to see how is this any different/worse than production code.

<comment><USER4> Test frameworks use some pretty crazy tricks to produce a pleasant syntax with good error debugging messages. For an example, see CATCH: <https://github.com/philsquared/Catch/wiki>

I'd imagine this sort of stuff is much harder to port across systems than regular production code.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Go doesn't have this problem because the Go Team doesn't believe that testing frameworks are a valid concept. For and If and Errorf are good enough for anyone.</comment>


Method_missing considered harmful. - <AUTHOR> http://www.thingsfittogether.com/2011/08/methodmissing-considered-harmful.html? <comment><USER2> _It's better to explicitly create the methods you want using metaprogramming._

Almost.

If you know in advance what methods are going to be called then there's little need to use _method_missing_

Anecdotally, the most common use-case is that you don't know exactly what methods need to be handled at run time, but you have a good idea of the boundaries. I.e. you're not planning on handling _every_ message sent to an object, just those that meet some relatively narrow criteria.

Most likely these messages will be sent repeatedly, so rather than carry the overhead of _method_missing_ each time, you can use metaprogramming to add methods as encountered.

Depending on when in the object life-cycle these methods are added may or may not address the concerns raised in the article.

 _Don't use method_missing to do metaprogramming. It's like writing an entire website in the 404-handler of a web framework._

That would only be true if you used _method_missing_ to handle _every_ message sent to all objects. In real life having smarter, dynamic 404 handling makes sense.

In fact, most dynamic Web sites are based on the idea of run-time generation of HTML where none previously existed. Add in caching and you have pretty much what I just described for _method_missing_.</comment>


Ping: It's even worse than it appeared - <AUTHOR> http://scripting.com/stories/2010/09/02/pingItsEvenWorseThanItAppe.html <comment><USER2> I can't access the article right now, but my site: Like.fm basically is the same thing as Ping except it actually reports and keeps track of songs as you play them. It's also a web app and doesn't base itself around driving iTunes sales.

I was a little unnerved to see apple do practically my exact idea after 3 months of hardcore dedication to Like.fm, but it's ultimately validated my idea and glad to see Pings initial response isn't so good.

<comment><USER3> and you're not worried by CBS-owned last.fm or spotify? they seem very similar. what's the difference? i couldn't find anything on the page that convinced me to switch or use in addition to these.

p.s., those side-sticking things are really annoying.

<comment><USER2> Well I'm adding Last.fm support to my clients very soon. And my API (not yet released) is based on Last.fm's API. So soon you won't have to switch. You can use both!

I can't say about Spotify since I've never used it, but how strong is their social component? Can you use the service, share links, and browse profiles via a browser for Spotify? It seems Spotify is for listening to music like an iTunes replacement, where Like.fm is for analyzing and sharing what you listened to (the info). So we have different focuses.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Ping feels like an exploratory project for Apple. Given the current status of Ping and it's design this looks more like an add-on to designed to work with Facebook and less of a standalone social network.

Apple doesn't seem comfortable letting iTunes users speak directly to each other. I get the idea that they are uncomfortable allowing anything that would require moderation happen in their walled garden. And the anarchic and freewheeling nature of a vibrant social network seems somewhat counter to Apple's culture.

The part that got my attention during the keynote was that it's supposed to cover concerts as well as recorded music and media; that's a very interesting model to build a social networking application around. It's early days yet, and if Apple can recruit enough artists that can use the channel to engage their audience, and loosens up and lets people talk to each other without requiring that every single gesture they make on Ping be tied to their actions in iTunes (i.e. let regular people post comments unadorned, or even their own music and videos) it may yet become a game changer.

<comment><USER5> It's interesting in that it's not so much a social network as "your order history online, for everyone in the world to see."

It's off-putting that bands can create content but regular users? Not so much.

It's odd that I can tell people I'm going to a Cold Play concert (somehow) but I can't post pictures from that event afterwards.

But then .. I don't expect Ping to remain in this same place for very long.

Apple has a habit of releasing simple, feature complete products at 1.0 and then only adding additional stuff later when they can guarantee a first-rate user experience (eg, the App Store, cut and paste on the iPhone, printing on the iPad, etc).

So their one-point-ohs have the pundits and tech journalists writing big "Huh? But it doesn't have ____!" articles, but then in six months or a year later ... it's a wholly different kind of experience.

One prediction nobody is talking about much: Since this is based, presumably, on Lala, I expect it to have some kind of streaming service soon.

<comment><USER6> _Apple has a habit of releasing simple, feature complete products at 1.0 and then only adding additional stuff later when they can guarantee a first-rate user experience (eg, the App Store, cut and paste on the iPhone, printing on the iPad, etc)._

This also has the side benefit of introducing _users_ to these things in gradual baby steps.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Site seems to be down; here's a google cache for now

[http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://scripting.com/stories/2010/09/02/pingItsEvenWorseThanItAppe.html)

</comment><comment><USER8> Scripting.com: It's even worse than it appeared

(running on windows, one might add)

<comment><USER9> Running a site on Windows is embarrassing enough, worse when your pants fall down like this.

<comment><USER10> Right. Who on earth would seriously consider using an OS on which errors can occur? That's just ridiculous now that errors are a thing of the past on Unix!

<comment><USER5> Fair point -- but you'd think Winer would have enough experience to allow his apps to fail gracefully.

Printing out ugly error messages complete with file system paths in html is definitely a pants-dropping kind of move.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I'm getting the following error:

        Sorry! There was an error: There is no folder or object database named "stories.root" in the folder "C:\Program Files\OPML\Guest Databases\www\".

        The error was detected by OPML Editor v0.73 in mainResponder.respond. Webmaster: . Time: Thu, 02 Sep 2010 14:14:45 GMT.

<comment><AUTHOR> Sorry for the outage. The site is back up now. Fingers crossed, praise Murphy. :-)

<comment><USER11> Thanks for the update. I'd be curious to learn more about your setup. I guess OPML Editor is the framework generating your pages; but what's your web server, and how does OPML Editor tie into it?

<comment><AUTHOR> I use Apache to serve the static content.

The reason you got the error message from the OPML Editor is that it was running on port 80 while Apache was offline. As soon as Apache was running, it reverted to its normal non-80 port.

<comment><USER11> Thanks for clarifying. So OPML Editor generates the static content beforehand and then Apache serves it?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> One awesome feature of Ping is that if you set your profile activity to be visible only to approved followers, you can't see your own activity yourself since you can't follow yourself.

"The activity in this profile is private. If you would like to see more, request to follow"

Nice.

Oh and another one, if you go to "People", you get "You are not following anyone. Connect with Facebook, search for people..." Yet there is no visible way to actually connect with Facebook. There was a button last night, it's gone today.

Also, if you want to add artists to your Ping profile, they better sell their stuff on the iTunes store, otherwise they don't show up in search results.

So far every comment I've seen on the stuff artists are posting is spam--"Get a free iPhone from..." over and over.

I understand that this is newly released software, but seriously.

</comment><comment><USER13> This article is essentially complaining that Ping is one sided in that Bands can post pretty much whatever and all users can do is buy music.

I don't see what's wrong with that, it's the defacto way Twitter works. Fact is that beyond a small group of influencers nobody gives a crap what anyone is saying on Twitter. On Ping those people that are the influencers are going to be the bands. There was an article on here a few days ago where a guy came to the conclusion that no one was paying attention to his Twittering and it was a waste of his efforts.

<comment><USER14> _Fact is that beyond a small group of influencers nobody gives a crap what anyone is saying on Twitter._

If, by "small group of influencers," you mean "my friends," then sure, I agree.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Great post-- Ping really is a waste of a great idea. This should have been the death knell for last.fm by letting you connect with friends through the application you use to listen, but they didn't put in the most important feature! The entire 'like' feature lives in the store, not in the part of iTunes where you actually listen to music, which is where I would want to be able to communicate that I like something. Maybe olefoo is right, Apple just can't find any room in their 'walled garden' for user-generated content...

</comment><comment><USER16> _It's a ghost town. Obviously they're recommending all the musicians they have, because they have nothing to do with my musical interests. Same with users._

I believe there were at least thousands of users that had already enabled Ping last night. It's true that there aren't a lot of artists yet, but users are joining Ping pretty quickly. More artists will come in time, but they probably couldn't allow a ton of artists to join a secret social network that hadn't been announced yet without it leaking out.

</comment><comment><USER17> I'm sure it'll fill out with time and probably be on par with things like last.fm but maybe in a more mainstream way.

What I'm trying to figure out is how to sign up as an artist... A 4+ week wait time registering for iTunes Connect as an independent artist seems to be the only thing I can find, which is really bad if that's the case.

</comment><comment><USER18> Apple can't do social, nor any kind of web service? This is a blind spot for them, sure iTunes vod/commerce is a web service but as far an API or integration outside of their ownership must be impossible like a nerd attempting to dance ...

</comment><comment><USER19> It's pretty early in the game to be declaring it "empty". Of course there's no one there yet, it was announced yesterday. The interesting thing about tying it into likes (stars) and reviews is that these are actions a lot of people make already on iTunes store products. It seems to me that people will be able to review and rate downloaded music too. I think that very soon there will be a lot of information added to ping from normal everyday actions that itunes users make. I tried it out this morning, and the only disappointment was finding out facebook/gmail integration was not up yet.

</comment><comment><USER20> Most interesting aspect of that article is the second update at the bottom linking to a post that so perfectly sumnmarizes Steve Jobs... written in 1997. [http://www.scripting.com/davenet/stories/DocSearlsonSteveJob...](http://www.scripting.com/davenet/stories/DocSearlsonSteveJobs.html)

</comment><comment><USER21> The internet really does seem to thrive on kneejerk hyperbole.

On another forum I frequent there are some fanatics calling iTunes 10 an "abomination" because of the new logo and slightly different colours.

It sorta reminds me of that episode of the Simpson where Homer covers for Patti and Selma with the cigarettes where they work (a government building). P&S's supervisor points an accusatory finger at Homer and says "You, sir, are worse than Hitler (for smoking in a government building)."

I guess it's a lesson in keeping perspective.

But back to Ping: it's early days. That doesn't seem to stop people from calling it both a success and a dismal failure. Geez people, it's been 24 hours. Give it time. It's going to take time for people to discover it and how they want to use it as well as if and how artists want to use this new medium.

I saw a tweet (sorry, NY Times, that's what it's called--in spite of your ornithological sensibilities) of something like "@myspace wins". Bit premature don't you think? Besides, the concept of Myspace winning at, well, anything these days is quite laughable.

Even the Kin got six weeks. Let's not rush to judgment.</comment>