Corporations in the Age of Inequality - <AUTHOR> https://hbr.org/cover-story/2017/03/corporations-in-the-age-of-inequality <comment><USER2> I take issue with the "Average Company Salary" graph at the center of the article. The article claims that "This means that the rising gap in pay between firms accounts for the large majority of the increase in income inequality in the United States."

However, when CEOs make on average 300 times more than their workers, it kinda screws up that crucial average, doesn't it. Then there's the other executives messing up the data. For reference, in 1965 the ratio was 20-1.

Between 1978 and 2014, inflation-adjusted CEO pay increased by almost 1,000%, according to a report by the Economic Policy Institute. Meanwhile, typical workers in the U.S. saw a pay raise of just 11% during that same period. Hmm.

It's cute that the article lumps rent-seeking behaviour, political corruption, monopolistic practices, exploitation of the environment by a handful of massive companies, tax dodging and evasion etc. into one small paragraph that acknowledges there are other problems.

And it's hilarious that the article claims that "focus on education" and "focus on anti-trust" are "unique recommendations" born of looking at the issue this way.

But to me, it smells of a deliberate attempt to shift blame. There were only a handful of protesters angry at how much Google employees get paid (Bless their hearts). But this article will reach many people, and under the surface - it's bullshit.

<comment><USER3> How much of CEO pay prior to the Reagan tax reforms were cash, and how much were things like corporate apartments, golf club memberships, company cars, etc.?

Follow up question: When US CEO pay is compared to CEOs of European and Asian companies, how much of those same non-cash benefits are included?

Final question: How much of US CEO pay is cash (I.e. payed by the company) and how much is equities (I.e payed by shareholders)?

<comment><USER2> Yeah I'm sure CEOs had other perks in the past. This refutes precisely none of my criticism of the article.

As to your other two questions, I completely fail to see how they affect my argument, and I don't want to get off track.

To reiterate the criticism I was making - basing your entire article on the claim that the difference between average pay in companies is at fault for "the majority" of inequality, while making no attempt to account for or mention the fact that those firms average wages are likely grossly distorted by executive pay, is at best ignorant and more likely intentional.

We live in a world where the 8 richest people own the wealth of 3.5 billion of the poorest. This is insane, it's dangerous, and it's :not: the fault of Google employees' wage packets; no matter how much CEOs in the 60s or in Asia are paid. For the HBR to suggest this is grossly irresponsible, I find it ghoulish.

<comment><USER4> In a global economy, workers have no leverage. If a group tries to form a union, the work goes elsewhere. Globalism exploits the fact that there are people willing to work for $1/hr, and leads to many of the problems of capitalism predicted by Marx and friends in the early 1900s. As long as globalization is allowed to continue, inequality within the US will just grow worse.

<comment><USER2> Globalization is not the enemy. Centralised globalization with a handful of megacorps dominating the global economy is fucking awful however.

Protectionism is at best a short term solution that comes with a host of other problems.

The major threats to our existence are global problems like climate change and nuclear arsenals. Fighting against all globalization will only divide us.

I believe that the best leverage workers of the world can have is the ability to live a decent life without the threat of starvation or extreme poverty. This dream is attainable, and worth planning for and building towards as a species.

We have near instant communication, the ability to translate between languages is developing rapidly, and automation can potentially, realistically, make it so that work is truly optional. Fighting against all globalization and protecting US interests above all others is, I would think, very much not what 'Marx and friends' would have had in mind.

<comment><USER5> > Globalization is not the enemy.

The problem is there are two kinds. The classic one, and the one you can easily defend, was just eliminating tariffs. Don't discriminate against foreign businesses; treat them the same as local businesses.

But there is another one that generally gets called "harmonization", and that's the one that kills everything. Because what it means in practice is the undemocratic international enforcement of regulations created via regulatory capture. You enforce the same rules everywhere, those rules are created by megacorps to give them an advantage and the predictable result obtains.

<comment><USER6> The classical one does quite a bit harm too.

Western/1st/etc world (used to?) treat workers well. The rest of the world didn't. Once tariffs are eliminated, all countries join the rat race to the bottom. How can western countries with good social safety net, reasonable work hours and good wages compete with cut-throat conditions in Asia? Naturally the conditions equalise. The good ones get worse, while bad ones adopt a thing or two.

<comment><USER5> > How can western countries with good social safety net, reasonable work hours > and good wages compete with cut-throat conditions in Asia?

In theory the idea is that they're not supposed to -- if you have unskilled work with no geographical restrictions, you do it where there is the lowest labor cost, and then everyone benefits by paying lower prices. Meanwhile western countries do the higher paying jobs that require a skilled workforce and the unskilled workers in western countries either do service jobs that do have geographical requirements or go to school and become skilled workers.

One of the things that's been killing us on that front is the broken welfare system that puts high marginal rates on lower income people through benefits phase outs, which makes it so that middle class people can't afford to hire lower income people to do service jobs, because 80% of the money goes to the government in benefits phase outs. Which means those people become unemployed, and the higher unemployment rate pushes down unskilled wages, erodes the tax base and increases the total cost government is paying out in benefits to the unemployed.

<comment><USER6> And it turns out that those cheap countries can produce skilled work too, without becoming expensive and as caring about the workers. Yet bigger than expected portion of western countries' population does not perform well in skilled work market..

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> > In an increasingly winner-take-all or at least winner-take-most economy, the > best-educated and most-skilled employees cluster inside the most successful > companies, their incomes rising dramatically compared with those of > outsiders.

US median income is $52K, software developer is maybe 100K, so around double. But to make that you have to live in an area with a much higher cost of living, and the various governments take more than a quarter of the difference in taxes _and_ more than a quarter of the difference in disqualifications from income-based benefits programs. While you work 80 hours a week.

Someone making $100K in San Francisco is not doing better than someone making $50K in Houston. (You have a serious problem, however, if you make $50K in San Francisco.)

And the people clearing a million aren't typically silicon valley developers, they're Wall St quants and investment bankers. And those same people are generally paying the lower capital gains rate rather than the higher earned income rate, and losing a smaller percentage in benefits phase outs because by then everything is already phased out.

The numbers in the article are also including people who aren't working -- it has the 25th percentile income as zero and the median as something like $25K, which it probably is if you include retirees and homemakers and students, but how is that "income inequality"? For it to mean anything you have to be comparing people who are actually working full time. Anyone working obviously makes infinity times more than anyone with zero income.

As to the central thesis of "winner take most", markets like Facebook with network effects are the exception and have existed before (e.g. AT&T). In most other markets you can really blame regulatory compliance costs and regulatory capture. More paperwork to do and lawyers to hire and fees to pay to do business today than in 1970. The higher the cost of operating a business, the more advantage to consolidation.

<comment><USER7> > But to make that you have to live in an area with a much higher cost of > living

No, you don't. Many _choose_ to, but there are plenty of $100K developer jobs in cities with reasonable cost of living.

<comment><USER5> There are plenty of $80K developer jobs in cities with a $20K lower cost of living.

If there were actually enough jobs in Texas and Tennessee for everyone in San Francisco to live there with lower expenses but the same salary, explain why most of those people don't do that. Note that things like "cost of finding a new job if you lose yours" are components of cost of living.

<comment><USER7> Don't move the goalposts or shift the burden. You said _have to_. Now you say _most_ and demand that others prove the contrary. Please stick to your original claim and prove it yourself. That's how honest discussion is done.

The real question here is not whether developers can get the exact same salary working somewhere other than SF/SV. For one thing, the story wasn't just about our industry. The original story posited _three_ possible causes for between- firm inequality. Before we obsess over the winner-take-all factor and how it relates to being or not being in the Center Of The Universe (ha), we need to consider how those other two factors play out across the entire economy.

Even among tech companies, subject to the exact same cost-of-living issues, there are significant differences in pay scales. Believe me, I know, because I'm taking advantage of that _right now_ as I transition between jobs. The richer companies are very successfully capturing a disproportionate share of the high-end labor market, either by direct hiring or by acquisition. That enables them to compound their original advantage, in a feedback loop that IMO _must_ be attenuated unless we want to live in a true monoculture. The idea that developers must move to high-cost areas is crap, but the problem of developers going to work (often remotely) for the richest companies is very real.

<comment><USER5> > You said _have to_.

It's a fact that they _do_. If they didn't _have to_ then why would they leave the money on the table?

> Now you say _most_ and demand that others prove the contrary.

It's _most_ because if most of the developers in silicon valley moved to other places then the cost of living there would fall to parity with the other places as a result of decreased scarcity of housing and other resources, before all of them did. And because not everyone has the same utility function -- some people _have to_ live there _more_ than other people, e.g. because their spouse also works there and they can't find two equally-paying jobs in the same other city at the same time.

> Please stick to your original claim and prove it yourself. That's how honest > discussion is done.

"People behave rationally" is a basic assumption. It isn't _always_ true, but if you're going to contend that it isn't in a particular case then you're the one who needs to show that.

> The real question here is not whether developers can get the exact same > salary working somewhere other than SF/SV. For one thing, the story wasn't > just about our industry.

You're changing the subject. The story, and the protests, refer to "highly paid" tech workers at SV companies like Google and Apple. But it remains true that those people are not significantly wealthier on a PPP basis than people making median US wages but living in a city with a lower cost of living.

> Even among tech companies, subject to the exact same cost-of-living issues, > there are significant differences in pay scales.

Better developers obviously get paid more than worse developers. But the same is true in Texas. They both get paid less and pay less for housing but the better developer still makes more than the worse developer. And that isn't new either -- "better talent costs more" is as old as money.

> That enables them to compound their original advantage, in a feedback loop > that IMO _must_ be attenuated unless we want to live in a true monoculture.

There are two kinds of markets. One is natural monopolies, like local roads or last mile telecommunications, where the fixed cost is the essentially whole cost, barriers to entry are high, monopoly is inevitable, and they should be operated by the local government. The other is "real" markets that, left alone, would have competition.

We keep screwing up the second ones and forcing them into monopolies anyway, by making it harder for small entities to compete. The situation with software patents is a prime example.

Having money to pay talent is an advantage, but it isn't an _insurmountable_ advantage. The only way to use it to stay on top is to be efficient. Serve every possible niche so well that nobody else can come in and carve one out for themselves. And if a company is doing that, nobody objects.

The problem isn't that, it's that we've set things up so that little companies have prohibitively high costs, so a startup that should be five people in a garage using money borrowed from parents instead has to take a million dollars in VC funding to hire lawyers and file paperwork. And then, if they succeed, megacorp shows up with a buyout against the threat of a lawsuit if you refuse to take the money to make the competition go away, which is what the VCs wanted all along anyway, so everybody gets paid but nobody competes.

The problem isn't that they have too much money, it's that they have too much leverage. If was only the money and regulatory barriers to entry were lower then there would be too many startups to buy them all and more of them would become independent competitors.

<comment><USER7> > But it remains true that those people are not significantly wealthier on a > PPP basis than people making median US wages but living in a city with a > lower cost of living.

No, it remains your unfounded - and untrue - assertion. A lot of people have salaries very close to those in Silicon Valley, in housing markets significantly cheaper than Silicon Valley. Haven't you heard of remote work? A lot of us at the high end are able to do it, but maybe you haven't reached that point yourself. For people like me and quite a few of my friends/colleagues, we're winning the PPP game by _not_ living in SV.

> Better developers obviously get paid more than worse developers.

Now who's changing the subject? We're not talking about better or worse developers. We're talking about developers at the same level, often the _same people_ as they move from job to job. Rich companies can and do pay higher salaries regardless of the worker's location. That creates a feedback loop, distorting both labor and capital markets, turning temporary advantages into permanent ones and stifling competition.

I've worked at a lot of startups, and learned a lot about their advantages and disadvantages relative to larger competitors. Over-regulation was never one of those problems, and nobody responsible for setting strategy was ever so ideologically blind that they tried to pretend otherwise. I'm guessing that's not a recipe for startup success, in Silicon Valley or anywhere else.

<comment><USER5> > No, it remains your unfounded - and untrue - assertion.

Which part do you assert is untrue, that there are developers actually living in SV, or that making more money there is equivalent to making less money somewhere with a lower cost of living?

> A lot of people have salaries very close to those in Silicon Valley, in > housing markets significantly cheaper than Silicon Valley. Haven't you heard > of remote work?

Everybody _wants_ remote work at SV salaries. That doesn't mean everybody can _get it_.

It's obviously true tautologically that people who don't live in SV don't have to live there, but those are also not the people bidding up area rents or riding a shuttle with people protesting outside it.

You still haven't offered any explanation for why the people living in SV continue to do so if it was actually possible for them to do the same thing you're doing.

> We're not talking about better or worse developers. We're talking about > developers at the same level, often the _same people_ as they move from job > to job.

We are talking about better or worse developers, or what is your argument? When one person goes from making less money to more money, all it shows is that they were previously under-compensated (or are now over-compensated) for their skill level. Or that their skill level has changed. If big companies were paying higher salaries to the _same_ developers then how would that create any advantage for them?

> Rich companies can and do pay higher salaries regardless of the worker's > location. That creates a feedback loop, distorting both labor and capital > markets, turning temporary advantages into permanent ones and stifling > competition.

Rich tech companies don't have a monopoly on capital. If all it took is to pay developers a lot of money then it would be Wall St rather than tech companies doing the paying and collecting the yields.

> I've worked at a lot of startups, and learned a lot about their advantages > and disadvantages relative to larger competitors. Over-regulation was never > one of those problems, and nobody responsible for setting strategy was ever > so ideologically blind that they tried to pretend otherwise.

Over-regulation isn't a problem for the startups that actually exist -- VCs don't fund the ones the regulations make prohibitive and provide the money to pay the cost for the others. But the result is fewer startups, so rich companies can afford to buy every one of them that poses a threat to them.

Let me give an example of bad regulation. DMCA 1201 (or software patents, or the CFAA, or whatever they use this year), which Apple et al use to lock smaller entities out of their platforms unless they pay 30% and just outright prohibit people from making apps they don't like. Are you taking the position that that sort of a veto doesn't prevent startups that would otherwise compete with Apple's apps from getting off the ground?

<comment><USER7> > Which part do you assert is untrue,

Neither of your strawmen. I am not making my own assertion at all. I am challenging your assertion that maintaining a high standard of living requires moving to the Center Of The Universe for all or nearly all developers. You seem to base this assertion on a premise that the difference in salaries outweighs the difference in cost of living, but have provided no evidence to support that. I know it's not true for me, but at least I don't assume that my experience is universal.

> Everybody wants remote work at SV salaries. That doesn't mean everybody can > get it.

True. You have to be pretty good at what you do.

> We are talking about better or worse developers, or what is your argument?

Again, it's not my argument. It's yours, and it's ridiculous. It's only about good vs. bad developers if one assumes that a good developer lives in Silicon Valley and a bad developer is one who lives anywhere else. If one accepts that there are good and bad developers everywhere, or that some people measure value differently than you do, then it makes absolutely no sense.

> If big companies were paying higher salaries to the same developers then how > would that create any advantage for them?

Have you heard abou this little thing called network effects? The theory is that, by bringing good developers together, synergy creates value that doesn't exist with them separate. It's an idea I could argue from either side, but the important thing is that it doesn't require _physical_ proximity to work. It can be well worth paying a premium to bring good developers into logical or virtual proximity with one another, and the big rich companies are taking advantage of that.

> Rich tech companies don't have a monopoly on capital. If all it took is to > pay developers a lot of money then it would be Wall St rather than tech > companies doing the paying and collecting the yields.

It doesn't require a _monopoly_. All it requires is a significant _asymmetry_. Also, Wall Street very much has been playing this game too, with effects and remedies that would be just as worthy of debate if we could get past the facile attempts to deny the reality of it happening.

<comment><USER5> > Neither of your strawmen. I am not making my own assertion at all. I am > challenging your assertion that maintaining a high standard of living > requires moving to the Center Of The Universe for all or nearly all > developers.

You seem to be challenging your own straw man.

> You seem to base this assertion on a premise that the difference in salaries > outweighs the difference in cost of living, but have provided no evidence to > support that.

The evidence is all of the developers who choose to live and work in SV despite the high cost of living.

> I know it's not true for me, but at least I don't assume that my experience > is universal.

That is the straw man -- I never claimed it was universal. It's true of the people who live there, or why do they?

> True. You have to be pretty good at what you do.

That doesn't seem to have much to do with it. Plenty of call center workers are allowed (or required) to work from home, because it saves the company from having to pay for office space for them, but that doesn't make them particularly highly skilled or highly paid.

> Again, it's not my argument. It's yours, and it's ridiculous.

Here's you from before:

> Rich companies can and do pay higher salaries regardless of the worker's > location. That creates a feedback loop, distorting both labor and capital > markets, turning temporary advantages into permanent ones and stifling > competition.

If the higher salaries aren't paying for better work then how do the companies get any advantage out of it?

> Have you heard abou this little thing called network effects? The theory is > that, by bringing good developers together, synergy creates value that > doesn't exist with them separate.

That isn't what "network effects" means.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect)

"Big" isn't an advantage here. It means bureaucracy and politics and Mythical Man Month problems. These companies succeed despite these things, not because of them.

> It can be well worth paying a premium to bring good developers into logical > or virtual proximity with one another, and the big rich companies are taking > advantage of that.

What do you suppose is stopping the same people from coming together on their own and just keeping the money their work generates?

> It doesn't require a _monopoly_. All it requires is a significant > _asymmetry_.

Asymmetric _capital_? How is Apple's billion dollars better than any random capitalist's billion dollars?

> Also, Wall Street very much has been playing this game too, with effects and > remedies that would be just as worthy of debate if we could get past the > facile attempts to deny the reality of it happening.

What game? "Money makes money" has been the basis of Wall St since day zero. The method by which this doesn't lead to permanent massive consolidation of power is that new entities come into existence and displace old ones, but are owned by new people. The problem is the thwarting of that process by requiring the permission of incumbents to make new things.

<comment><USER7> > The evidence is all of the developers who choose to live and work in SV > despite the high cost of living.

...ignoring all those who do _not_ make that choice. Nice cherry-picking.

> Plenty of call center workers are allowed (or required) to work from home

Changing the subject again. We were talking specifically about people who were _making Silicon Valley salaries_ , not call center workers. You need leverage to do that. The fact that you don't even know anyone with that kind of leverage tells me that you don't even know what you're talking about, and your constant employment of sleazy rhetorical tactics tells me that you're not even trying to learn.

> That isn't what "network effects" means.

OK, so it's not exactly network effects, but it's still synergy. Two good people together can often do things that neither could do alone. You got the point, so stop being obnoxious about terms.

> "Big" isn't an advantage here. It means bureaucracy and politics and > Mythical Man Month problems.

Such a jaundiced view at such a young age. At least I assume you're young, based on not being senior enough to negotiate - or know anyone else who negotiates - better working conditions. Better than assuming you're old but barely competent. In any case yes, bigger companies can have their problems. So can smaller ones. They can each have their advantages. For example, at a startup there will inevitably be some specialized areas of knowledge where coverage is thin. That can be great for creating opportunities to learn, but not for solving an immediate problem in minimal time. At a larger company, especially a larger _rich_ company which is what we're talking about, there might well be a world-class expert on staff for even the most obscure specialty. There might be specialized hardware (or teams to develop it), partner relationships, etc. Big companies can be mismanaged and small companies can be mismanaged. That's why nine out of ten startups fail. Counting only the hits for one side and only the misses for the other is not how rational people approach a problem, or how honest people discuss one.

> What do you suppose is stopping the same people from coming together on > their own and just keeping the money their work generates?

There could be many reasons, from simple risk aversion to lack of skill (or interest) in the non-technical aspects of running a business to the need for leads and contacts. You do realize that most people don't work for startups, right? There's a whole world outside that bubble.

> How is Apple's billion dollars better than any random capitalist's billion > dollars?

Wrong question. What matters is how Apple's budget _for technical hires_ compares to others' budgets for hiring _in those same specialties_. That's where the competition occurs. The VC money, fragmented across many companies pulling in many directions and each having to carry their own business infrastructure, would have to be much more than a single focused company's investment in that area of overlap. One of the big five can spend a million dollars each for a dozen hires in a particular area. A startup would be hard pressed to justify that to their investors, precisely _because_ those investors would rather have that money to make other bets entirely. It's a bit of a collective action problem, which I would have thought anyone spouting so much pseudo-economics would know about.

<comment><USER7> Also, even if VC-funded startups could compete with the Big Five, not every small company is a VC-funded startup. Forcing entrepreneurs to ally with one group of rentiers and arbitrageurs or be crushed by another group of the same is not a good way to build a long-term healthy innovation economy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The faster we can reach a Star Trek like world, where people work because they want to rather than need to, the better.

Lets focus on the rights of the living and let automation eat the jobs that it is able to.

</comment><comment><USER9> I have flirted with GooAma AppMicroFace, and got a few interviews deep once, but after careful thought I stopped the process, and now I ignore the biggest tech companies. I simply don't want to be a cog in a giant machine, and therefore my talents will always go to start ups and small companies. Surely I can't be the only person who refuses to work for the top tech companies out of preference?

</comment><comment><USER10> This was a long article, but I think it boils down to this:

"I believe that much of the rise of between-firm inequality, and therefore inequality in general, can be attributed to three factors: the rise of outsourcing, the adoption of IT, and the cumulative effects of winner-take- most competition."

<comment><USER11> "For example, contract janitors no longer receive the benefits or pay premium tied to a job at a big company. Their wages have been squeezed as their employers routinely bid to retain outsourcing contracts, a process ensuring that labor costs remain low or go ever lower."

I think possibly the most effective change that could be done along these lines is to change the laws to where hiring as few actual employees as possible is the only responsible business decision. One big part of this would be decoupling health care and possibly other benefits from place of employment, if not universal health care then just put everybody into the individual market by law.

Or close the 'contractor' loophole entirely, but that could be messy.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> >> Why are some firms paying better than others? It could be that some are just more generous — paying their workers higher amounts than other firms pay for the same work — although that would surprise economists

I'm not an economist, but as someone who has worked for many different companies in the software industry, I don't find this 'generosity' hypothesis surprising at all. Managers usually don't have a clue who to promote so they just promote their friends or those who are liked by the rest of the team (for reasons unrelated to skill).

</comment><comment><USER13> Maybe it's time to enforce a maximum wage similar to how we enforce a minimum wage? Maybe maximum = 10000 * minimum? This won't stop people from amassing assets and power (i.e. we aren't enforcing a maximum number of expensive art you can own, or senators you can call), but might curb the inequality among wage workers and CEOs.

<comment><USER14> I've thought about this, and very nearly would agree with you, but it would take some things away. The hope of lottery winnings and the escapist dreams that come with it, for example. Would that be excluded?

If some bloke comes up with a cure for 20% of the world's most common cancers, do I care if he's filthy rich? Would Gates be able to do his charity work if he didn't once make a load of money?

Furthermore, do I care if the person at the top is getting rich so long as the folks at the bottom aren't struggling and miserable?

The answer to the last one is: Not really. I do prefer that there be less difference between the CEO and the janitors. I'd prefer to set a standard of living that is higher than the poverty guidelines in the US and encourage companies to pay enough to meet this (at least for a single person to live independently and be a part of society). I just don't see how the maximum would help this more than it'd hurt other things.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Corporate world is just another market for me, driven by supply and demand. You cannot "force" oranges to have the same price in their production land and the same price in their export targets. Don't forget that equality IS NOT about equal number as many think, its about EQUAL chances and fair trade.

</comment><comment><USER16> > News outlets reported that people had thrown rocks and a bus window had been > smashed.

Do poor people really want to settle their resentment issues with violence? Because it seems to me that they will lose, at least if rich people defend themselves.</comment>


Making u-Deals work for everyone - <AUTHOR> http://blog.loopt.com/2011/06/udealsupdate-2/

<comment><USER2> I maybe downvoted to hell for speaking against a yc company. But I am going to say it anyway because it's downright wrong.

Now that their dirty practice is out in the open. What do they do?

Oh, It's actually a bug in our software, and we'll fix it.

This is just way too dishonest.

In 2008, when users signed up for loopt, they sms/spam everyone from the address book of users. When people complained about the spam, what do they do?

Oh, there's a bug in our user interface.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loopt#SMS_invitation_issues>

If companies like Loopt succeed, it might give people the wrong idea that in order to succeed, you need to adopt sketchy practices like what airbnb and loopt have used. It doesn't matter if it's unethical or even illegal as long as you benefit from it and get away with it.

This is just sad.

Now it might give people the wrong signal that in order to be accepted by pg/YC, you need to be as sketchy/evil as Loopt or Airbnb founders

<comment><USER3> Your definition of ethics seems strange. If people don't like what they're doing, they'll stop interacting with them. If they're lying about the bugs, people will stop trusting their explanations (as you have), and evaluate them accordingly.

They may be taking a risk by engaging in behavior like this, but its up to the public to judge them. Within the context of this forum, I think seeing their experiment and seeing how people react to it is tremendously valuable.

<comment><USER4> _They may be taking a risk by engaging in behavior like this, but its up to the public to judge them._

wangwei isn't a member of the public?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> > Every single deal requires an opt-in from the business before it goes live.

So no more reverse groupon? Will you be working with business owners now before offering a deal to users?

If that's the case, that seems like the right thing to do. But now, you would be playing in the same space as groupon. Any differentiators planned or it would be down to plain old competition in the same space?

<comment><USER6> I read "goes live" as "becomes redeemable".

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Captcha is not working on the page's comment engine. So I'll post here:

Have you considered an automated toll free number for businesses to opt in and opt out? You know, to make it easy. Good Luck!

<comment><USER8> How would they verify it really is the business?

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> \- I'm running a deal on loopt technology; save 40 percent if we all buy a piece. Don't worry, they condone this deal implicitly.</comment>


Ops for NoOps: 2001 challenges for serverless apps - <AUTHOR> https://www.iopipe.com/2016/08/ops-noops-2001-challenges-serverless/ <comment><USER2> Very good talk. I learned about practical side of running code in AWS Lambda (black) box with peeking inside to fix problems - I need to try lambda-shell. And I enjoyed the 2001 theme though too bad that animations do not work in SlideShare.</comment>


Travocado – Simplify camping trip planning - <AUTHOR> https://www.travocado.co <comment><AUTHOR> Travocado simplifies planning the logistics of your group camping trip.

\- Send invites and collect rsvps.

\- Coordinate rides and carpooling.

\- Create lists of supplies and figure out who's bringing what.

\- Plan meals and schedule of activities.

\- Submit expenses and calculate how much each person owes.

\- Chat real-time or offline with other trip members.

\- Receive regular email updates on the progress of planning and your own personal to-do list.

\- Works for camping trips, Coachella, Burning Man, any type of coordinated group trip!

I'm a solo developer/designer/entrepreneur and this started out as a learning project so I could learn node, react, postgres, isomorphic rendering. It turned out to be a solid idea so I quit my job and have been working on this full-time for the last few months.

We just came out of private beta and now looking for a wider audience to give us feedback and help guide us to be the trip planning tool you've always wanted! (I'm not a designer by trade so I'd love feedback if the UI is confusing anywhere.)

<comment><USER2> Interesting problem space, for me it's in most cases a combination of Etherpad or a wiki, google spreadsheets and some file storage and group chat. Up to now, your solution IMHO mostly solves the parts spreadsheets is used for. Sadly no directly upcoming trips for me, or I'd give it a spin. Do you have a blog or twitter account where I could follow updates?

Things I'd be missing for some trips:

\- mapping/planning of multi-place trips, and of places for activities (e.g. for a city trip)

\- a "scratch" space for collecting ideas. I don't entirely see yet how one might get from "We want to go to Scotland" to "this is our itinerary and finished plan" inside the tool.

\- the supplies area needs amounts

ideas:

\- maybe I missed it, but generating a pack list would be great

\- a way to collect files, or to integrate with other solutions for that (maybe allow linking to dropbox or something, if you (understandably) don't want to host tons of files yourself?). For tickets, booking confirmations, ...

\- some way to do trip documentation, or at least to collect that afterwards (logs/"reports", pictures, maybe social media integration, ...)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the feedback! It's definitely early and we definitely plan on expanding to cover more types of trips, like road trips and bachelor parties and vacations, but for beta we wanted to keep it simple and stick to camping. I eventually want to make it like a group tripit, tracking flights, hotels, and rental cars, etc (not to mention make it more user friendly than tripit)

All your bullet points have been added to our backlog. Eventually I'll add a mobile app which will definitely include a packing list.

Integrating with Facebook and Dropbox and other storage providers is also on our list.

I figured the Discussion box was a good enough "scratch space" for trip members to discuss ideas for things to do, then when you decide on an activity, you could formally add it in the Schedule tab.

Thanks again for the feedback!</comment></comment></comment>


Google mail is now GMail - <AUTHOR> https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/googlemail/rebrand

<comment><USER3> So I'm getting this error.

      Forbidden
      Error 403

I Googled this and found a page with steps to fix the error.

      Log into your email account;
      Click - <USER2>
      Click - Accounts and Import
      Under "Send mail as" you will see in white "switch to @gmail.com"

Src: [http://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/gmail/oSGtQL1e...](http://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/gmail/oSGtQL1elAs)

I don't have an @googlemail account so I can't do this, but maybe that will explain the confusion.

</comment><comment><USER4> When was "google mail" anything other than "gmail"? More context would be nice.

<comment><USER3> I believe it was in the UK, something about a trademark conflict.

[http://support.google.com/mail/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answe...](http://support.google.com/mail/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=159001)

<comment><USER4> Thanks for the explanation.</comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Turn markdown into pure HTML/CSS static website - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/alexanderteinum/simple-website/ <comment><USER2> Hi! Sorry to hijack your thread, couldn't find a way to send a DM. But I just wanted to let you know that idnty.me now supports custom domains, we talked about a few weeks ago in another thread. Cheers!

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I didn't build this

I use it and love it, so I want to help the creator get more users, so they are more incentivized to keep it updated!</comment>


Measuring the value-add of hedge funds - <AUTHOR> http://rick.bookstaber.com/2009/04/measuring-value-added-of-hedge-funds.html

<comment><AUTHOR> This is really interesting. Perhaps the success of the hedge funds was precisely _because_ of the new money entering the industry. New money enters, that money pushes up the prices of the assets the hedge fund already owns, making their returns look really good. But when new money stops entering, the asset prices collapses back down.</comment>


Andy Rooney Dead at 92 - <AUTHOR> http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-57319150/andy-rooney-dead-at-92/

<comment><USER2> Andy Rooney led a pretty amazing life and has written a number of books about his experiences. My favorite was his book about his experience in World War II as a correspondent for the Stars and Stripes newspaper[1].

My family used to get together every Sunday and watch 60 Minutes. It was literally the only television show we watched together and Andy's rambling wit and general cynicism was always my favorite part of the show. He certainly was a keen observer of just how ridiculous life can be sometimes.

A couple of years ago, a friend of mine met him at a party in upstate New York. He said he had the same way about there that he does on TV, except a good deal dirtier and he smiled more. I was happy to hear that because that's basically how I pictured him.

The world needs more Andy Rooney's.

[1] [http://www.amazon.com/My-War-Andy- Rooney/dp/1586481592/ref=s...](http://www.amazon.com/My-War-Andy- Rooney/dp/1586481592/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1320498778&sr=1-2)</comment>


People who get goosebumps from music have different brains (2017) - <AUTHOR> https://www.indy100.com/article/music-goosebumps-some-people-science-research-emotions-psychology-study-harvard-7926781 <comment><USER3> This is an interesting topic to me. I for sure get actual goosebumps from moments in my favorite songs.

But come on man... this source is absolute garbage. It's not really a readable article. Just a few sentences thrown together, in a very click-baity looking website.

Here is an article, with a research paper attached. [https://neurosciencenews.com/music-chills- neuroscience-6167/](https://neurosciencenews.com/music-chills- neuroscience-6167/) [https://academic.oup.com/scan/article/11/6/884/2223400](https://academic.oup.com/scan/article/11/6/884/2223400)

And another better article [https://scroll.in/article/808773/why-do-only-some- people-get...](https://scroll.in/article/808773/why-do-only-some-people-get- skin-orgasms-from-listening-to-music)

</comment><comment><USER4> > _Plus these sensations can also be associated with memories linked to a > certain song, which cannot be controlled in a laboratory setting._

First band I thought about after reading this sentence is Boards of Canada. In an article published last year [1] they explain how music by the group is able to inject memories of childhood and foresee the notion of the lost future.

I personally get goosebumps in almost every song by this band.

[1] [https://pitchfork.com/features/article/why-boards-of- canadas...](https://pitchfork.com/features/article/why-boards-of-canadas- music-has-the-right-to-children-is-the-greatest-psychedelic-album-of-the-90s/)

<comment><USER5> Agree. Boards of Canada are easily on my top 10 of best bands ever. Top of the list is Mazzy Star, the absolute best of goose bump dream pop.

<comment><USER6> it took me a long time to get into BoC but the strange thing is that I never get sick of them. there are very few bands that do that. (Mogwai does that too or within the hibhop genre that would be The Roots, or Mos Def).

It seems that the quicker I like a band/song the quicker I also get sick of it. And music that I have to get used to with passive listening - e.g. have them playing in the background but not when running or driving then the longer I like them. Some artists and albums have literally stayed with me for decades. (e.g. The Roots _Illadelphia Halflife_ or _Things Fall Apart_ acompanied me when my kids were born, when I got my dog, when my dog died, when I got married, when my kids left for university, ...). Not every band is around that long or is able to adapt its music style to remain relevant (for my taste) ...

I remember the times when I went to buy music at record stores and there was no way of just purchasing the top 3 tracks from an album and skip the rest. You either bought the whole album or you got a single but there was nothing in between. Having shelled out the money I then wanted to make an effort to also give those songs "a chance" that didn't immediately stick. And it was always those more complex tunes that I ended up liking the most ...

<comment><USER7> Radiohead's discography has been this for me with almost every album. The most jarring changes were between The Bends, OK Computer, and Kid A: each time I hated their 'new sound' at first and then eventually they became one of _those_ albums that I just default to when I can't decide what else I might want to listen to.

The closest analogue in movies, I suppose, are the Coen Brothers. I wish there was a word for the feeling of listening to/watching/reading something, disliking it, but knowing that you'll probably end up loving it.

<comment><USER6> huge radiohead fan here. I also think they have undergone a massive transformation in style. as a fan it's challenging, but rewarding to follow them. As you described your struggle with their constant changing I'm currently struggling with their latest album. I'll probably end up listening to it every day in a year or 2. It kind of "grows on you", doesn't it? Like a pair of shoes that don't fit yet and after a time they are your favorite pair.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I think this kind of article appeals to egos, not science.

<comment><USER9> But we're all OK with that.

There's nothing wrong with upvoting a fun little article that gives you goosebumps every now and again.

<comment><USER10> If this article gives you goosebumps see our next article about how that makes you special.

<comment><USER11> This comment gave me goosebumps.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Doesn't everyone get this sensation?

<comment><USER13> I think many people understand this is as a figure of speech, not as literal goosebumps.

edit: Yes, some people get literal goosebumps! Just highlighting there are two groups here.

<comment><USER14> I was already coming here to comment (even before you said this) on how this seems to rhyme with _picturing something in your mind 's eye_, which I always grokked as being figurative speech.

I realized through my relationship with my partner and later a coworker that some people picture things with extraordinary acuity (so much so that I can trigger revolt or disgust by just describing something), but I thought they were the special ones. It wasn't until I read about Derek Parfit having aphantasia ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aphantasia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aphantasia)) that I realized I was sitting somewhere out in the long tail of human experience.

<comment><USER15> There are two axes here! Phantasia does not imply involuntary imagining! I don't imagine/picture involuntarily, and for many many years I didn't understand that most people _do_ involuntarily imagine what they hear. Forbidden-while-eating topics are no longer a mystery to me.

<comment><USER14> Interesting.

My own mental model (sigh...) is that these are all roughly related to (if not literal types of) the crossover/cross-polination (sigh...) that manifests in synesthesia.

I think synesthesia is definitionally involuntary, but your statement did make me go search "voluntary synesthesia", though I'm not done reading results yet.

I would guess it's a lot harder to identify people who can electively conjure anything akin to what synesthetes experience. It probably feels less distressing or noteworthy, happens less often, and would be a lot harder to study...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Some IDM tunes gave me shivers in the past, like Bola or Squarepusher. And most noticably certain letter styles. Berlin graffiti from the late 90s, early 00s. DRM/BAD crews.

<comment><USER17> Same here, it's definitely not just music.

Edit: Thanks for giving me something new to listen to today :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Musical goosebumps are also called frisson: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frisson](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frisson)

<comment><USER17> I hate to link a sub, but there's a lot of material shared for invoking frisson:

[https://www.reddit.com/r/frisson/](https://www.reddit.com/r/frisson/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> I may be even more "special" (in the article's own words) since I can give myself goosebumps at will. It's kinda like flexing a muscle, just on the back of my head.

Funnily, I searched for "I can give myself goosebumps" for the first time just a few days ago, and this[0] article popped out. Same website, identical title. (Then I also searched for "music gives me goosebumps" and got the one posted here.)

[0]: [https://www.indy100.com/article/if-you-can-give-yourself- goo...](https://www.indy100.com/article/if-you-can-give-yourself-goosebumps- brain-special-personality-openness-music-study-science-8245426)

<comment><USER20> Interesting, I've always taken being able to do it for granted.

Usually do it without thinking when I'm very engaged in something and have an intense thought.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan's live recordings can have that affect on me. I wonder if it's similar for non-Urdu/Punjabi speakers:

[https://youtu.be/xxjKw7HZQEI](https://youtu.be/xxjKw7HZQEI)

<comment><USER22> I don't understand most of the words in his qawwalis but yes. His singing was out of this world. Like at the WOMAD festival in 1988: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEIKmwVpOhQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEIKmwVpOhQ)

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> I was wondering if this wasn't the same effect that ASMR exploits, but:

> ASMR aficionados make a distinction between ASMR and frisson, the goosebumps > and tingles that can be produced by an amazing piece of music.

TIL! (I've never really tried ASMR, but I have a few songs that semi-reliably trigger this "frisson".)

<comment><USER17> I listen to music all day while working that frequently triggers frisson. However, I cannot stand ASMR, especially bodily noises including mouth stuff like talking and lip smacking. That might just be Misophonia (TIL) though.

<comment><USER24> I am the same. I have an irrational hatred of those wet-mouth whisper videos, it makes my skin crawl but not in the same way as this article describes.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> It doesn't have to do with being special it's just that music is touching something very deep inside you. It depends both on the intensity of the music and receptivity of the listener and can be developed.

</comment><comment><USER26> Strangely enough, music can do this. But I can also do it just with a thought as well. It takes about 30 seconds for the goosebumps to be visible

Not sure why. I just can.

</comment><comment><USER27> The Rite of Spring.

Try not to riot.

[https://youtu.be/rP42C-4zL3w](https://youtu.be/rP42C-4zL3w)

Music can do funny things to people.

</comment><comment><USER28> I get goosebumps by ideas. Reading this thread gave me goosebumps - <USER2> I'll admit I consciously focused on helping it along.

</comment><comment><USER29> I don't get frisson from music, but I do when I learn a new topic. Do others not get that?

</comment><comment><USER30> I sometimes get goosebumps _before the song even starts in anticipation of the song_ , just thinking of how it sounds.

I love music very much.

<comment><USER31> Haha.

Also, I don't remember if this is against HN protocol, but almost every comment of yours is marked dead for the past 3 months except for like 4.</comment></comment>


Was There a Connection Between a Russian Bank and the Trump Campaign? - <AUTHOR> https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/10/15/was-there-a-connection-between-a-russian-bank-and-the-trump-campaign <comment><AUTHOR> I know the title sounds like a political piece, but it's not. The subheading is "A team of computer scientists sifted through records of unusual Web traffic in search of answers. A set of cryptic data has inspired a years-long argument over its meaning."

</comment><comment><USER2> This article is fascinating, specifically for the assertion that a group of computer scientists including "Max" have a global view of all DNS queries. How does that work?</comment>


How To Attract 57,000 Likes And Become Famous On Facebook - <AUTHOR> http://www.allfacebook.com/become-famous-facebook-2010-10

<comment><USER2> This is very black-hat. Kind of disgusting really...

<comment><USER3> I think "very black hat" is pushing it a bit. That would be something like the worms and trojans people have used to take over accounts and spam everyone.

But paying people to push your page is definitely sketchy, especially since I'm sure there was no disclosure on the part of the pushers.

I'd call that mesh hat.</comment></comment>


The propeller is giving way to the pump-jet propulsor on larger submarines - <AUTHOR> https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/31708/veteran-sonarman-explains-why-pump-jets-are-superior-to-props-on-modern-submarines <comment><USER2> My immediate reaction was "was the caterpillar drive in The Hunt for the Red October a pumpjet?"

Answer, no, that was a Magnetohydrodynamic drive. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetohydrodynamic_drive](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetohydrodynamic_drive)

Pretty cool though

<comment><USER3> There's a great video from one of my favorite YouTube channels about Magnetohydrodynamic drives. Really fascinating drive design and channel for anyone interested in engineering.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LS3GQk9ETRU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LS3GQk9ETRU)

<comment><USER4> That was a great video! I watched the entire thing. It was like applied theoretical physics in 30 minutes.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> _Comrades, this is your captain. It is an honor to speak to you today, and I am honored to be sailing with you on the maiden voyage of our motherland 's most recent achievement. Once more, we play our dangerous game, a game of chess against our old adversary — The American Navy. For forty years, your fathers before you and your older brothers played this game and played it well. But today the game is different. We have the advantage. It reminds me of the heady days of Sputnik and Yuri Gagarin when the world trembled at the sound of our rockets. Well, they will tremble again - at the sound of our silence. The order is: engage the silent drive._

</comment><comment><USER6> My mind went to a jet-ski, which I don't associate with stealth :) I suppose that's what drives the pump though, not the pump itself.

<comment><USER7> That's where my mind went as well. Interestingly, the Independence Class littoral combat ships of the U.S. Navy are, essentially, "Giant Jet-Skis", powered by 2 water jets. They're super fast, super maneuverable, and super light-weight. Their design allows them to operate in as little as 15 feet of water, despite being over 400 ft long.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independence- class_littoral_co...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independence- class_littoral_combat_ship)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Watch that movie until my family objected - not that again.

</comment><comment><USER9> Singing, sir. I thought I heard singing.</comment>


InfoWars is two strikes away from being banned from YouTube - <AUTHOR> https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/23/us/infowars-youtube-videos-trnd/index.html <comment><USER2> > _The Alex Jones Channel, Infowar 's biggest YouTube account, received one > strike for that video, a source with knowledge of the account told CNN. > YouTube's community guidelines say if an account receives three strikes in > three months, the account is terminated._

The title is misleading, as is they have to receive a lot of strikes, like 10 or 100, and they only have to receive 2 more.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I wonder how much infowars is worth to google.</comment>


Zoom To Launch Streaming Service - <AUTHOR> https://unicorn.computer/zoom-to-launch-streaming-service <comment><AUTHOR> disclaimer: I love zoom and use it all the time for work and personal matters; this a joke, satire, meant to make someone somewhere laugh etc.</comment>


Sl: linux command to help you remember to type 'ls' - <AUTHOR> http://debaday.livejournal.com/22802.html <comment><USER2> I am no more likely to type "sl" instead of "ls" than I am to say "mu" instead of "um." Getting the current directory listing is often the first thing I do when I switch back to a command prompt, even if I don't need it. It's an involuntary reflex.

<comment><USER3> I am used to typing "ll", so I get very frustrated when ll isn't aliased. Also, this means that I have probably never typed sl since I rarely type ls.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Hehe, I've had great fun with this before: <http://www.netsoc.tcd.ie/~br0kend/sl.mp4>

</comment><comment><USER5> A shameless plug: Once I patched sl to have a sports car to make my s/car/cat/ typo bearable :)

[http://www.yalazi.org/index.php/archives/2008/11/08/slssl- ve...](http://www.yalazi.org/index.php/archives/2008/11/08/slssl-ve-scatcar- yamasi/)

</comment><comment><USER6> I don't think I've ever misspelled ls as sl (though I've done ls- alf and derivations plenty of times). Now that I've installed this, though, I intend to do it often.

</comment><comment><USER7> The man page has a much better description:

      sl is a highly developed animation program, which corrects your miss typing.

</comment><comment><USER8> I am more likely to type ;l or la by accident but la is an alias for ls -a so that sort of works :)</comment>


Learning Enough Python to Land a Job - <AUTHOR> http://insights.dice.com/2015/06/11/learning-enough-python-to-land-a-job/

<comment><USER2> I suppose this might work to land an internship, but I don't think I would hire a developer with this little experience, even for an entry-level developer job.

Software development takes practice, patience, and discipline, not a quick look over the python help pages.</comment>


Global Rich List - <AUTHOR> http://globalrichlist.com/ <comment><USER2> This is a great site, I like the idea and how it's implemented! Definitely makes you think.

<comment><USER2> One disadvantage though - it stops working after 107,565 position. You could've included some wealthy guys stats as well. Not that I earn that much, but it would be interesting to see the perspective :)</comment></comment>


Paul Graham on Startups, Innovation, and Creativity (2009) [audio] - <AUTHOR> http://www.econtalk.org/graham-on-start-ups-innovation-and-creativity/ <comment><AUTHOR> 10 years later the observations from 2009 still hold up or even snowballed:

* starting a startup got even cheaper

* there are even more lego bricks

* more & better angels & super angels

* more & better founder-led vcs

* still (even more?) difficult to tell which (stupid) ideas will work

* good strategy: iterate & adapt (ooda, explore & exploit, …)

* early stage investment works on reputation (founders do due diligence & due diligence got easier)

* immigration of talent/founders helps the US, visas are challenging

<comment><USER2> * starting a startup got even cheaper

Is that true in general, when you factor in the cost of a developer's time, now they can get paid a few mill instead from FAANG over those years each.

<comment><USER3> This is an excellent point. Since 90+% of those startup people will end up with peanuts or debt, nearly any other job would have put them way ahead... not just FAANG jobs.

Startups are a rich person's game....either from the VC perspective or the Zuckerbergs or Gates, etc etc who already have the nest egg and time to tough it out.

I've seen a lot of harm come to young people who feel like they should risk it all to fit into a VC's portfolio and driven like a slave while bearing the lion's share of the risk.

<comment><USER4> Just from own experience, startups these days pay quite well.

At my own startup, I just tell engineers I'll pay as much as their current company (excludes some of the salaries at the FAANG companies though) just that they will get much more equity that could become large.

Strictly better expected value.

Even so, very hard to recruit folks to early stage startups. I feel like there's much less appetite for risk these days. (Or perceived risk since we pay just as much so there's really not much on the line)

I had one former colleague turn down my request because his current company gives great health insurance and 401k contributions. I was like "you are 22 years old! Take a tiny risk!"

<comment><USER5> _Or perceived risk since we pay just as much so there 's really not much on the line_

 _I had one former colleague turn down my request because his current company gives great health insurance and 401k contributions. I was like "you are 22 years old! Take a tiny risk!"_

Don't you realize you've contradicted yourself here? Perhaps you've failed to consider that great health insurance and 401k plans are part of the total compensation package. If you're matching base salary but ignoring other benefits, you're not matching anything.

<comment><USER4> > Don't you realize you've contradicted yourself here?

I think "there's really not much on the line" and "take a tiny risk" are consistent.

We have solid health insurance (not like the top plan), but no 401k contributions and therein lies the "risk" I refer to.

This tweet comes to mind: [https://twitter.com/downloadcue/status/1160254519592144896](https://twitter.com/downloadcue/status/1160254519592144896)

<comment><USER6> Personally, I would much prefer a company that offered a match that allowed me to get the full 401k amount pretax ($56k) over one that offered the equivalent in salary. Might want to look into it. If you don't have a 401k at all, you should really look into it. Time in the market, and all.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I'm so tired of audio files on websites and HTML players with no reasonable controls... If playback dies 30 min in, am I supposed to reload the page, press the 2x button and wait for 15 min to get back where I were...? What if I want to switch to listening through my chromecast when I get home? Impossible?

How do I listen to stuff like this without losing my sanity? :P I've tried downloading podcast apps on my iPhone, but I can never find the episode through them... :/

<comment><USER8> [http://files.libertyfund.org/econtalk/y2009/Grahaminnovation...](http://files.libertyfund.org/econtalk/y2009/Grahaminnovation.mp3?_=1)

<comment><USER7> Well, that gives me random access to the audio, but I still can't chromecast it to my TV... Is this 2019? :/

Thanks though.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I was struck by his comments on the un-wisdom of many cities' efforts to create their own local silicon valley, that they don't seem to take a critical look at what would make such projects succeed or not.

This essay on his website was interesting - saying maybe you could do it, if you funded a critical mass of startups, "for the cost of a stadium". [http://www.paulgraham.com/maybe.html](http://www.paulgraham.com/maybe.html)

And I know he wrote later about being impressed by Detroit. (I thought there was a whole essay, but all I'm coming up with is this: [https://twitter.com/paulg/status/595736193297457152](https://twitter.com/paulg/status/595736193297457152) )

<comment><USER9> It was Pittsburgh, not Detroit. [http://www.paulgraham.com/pgh.html](http://www.paulgraham.com/pgh.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Talking about facebook creating the "social media" genre and taking over (at 18:58):

> It makes you wonder what else is coming [...] The impulse is "there won't be > something like that ever again". But of course there will be in about 3 > years probably. Whatever it is, it's probably being built now. You just > can't tell what it is. And you know what I can't tell either.

This has been recorded in 2009, the year bitcoin has been released as open source software. So PG was pretty spot on that great stuff was being built as they speak.

</comment><comment><USER11> Very interesting talk indeed. [https://analyseskolen.dk](https://analyseskolen.dk)

</comment><comment><USER12> [audio], no transcript available?

<comment><USER13> [http://www.econtalk.org/graham-on-start-ups-innovation- and-c...](http://www.econtalk.org/graham-on-start-ups-innovation-and- creativity/#audio-highlights)</comment></comment>


In the Future, the Cost of Education will be Zero - <AUTHOR> http://mashable.com/2009/07/24/education-social-media/ <comment><USER2> The cost of education TODAY is essentially zero. There's a huge amount of knowledge in the public domain, and libraries aren't expensive, and neither are computers, and then there's also the internet.

But you don't go to college for the education. Well it's definitely part of it, but a small mart. The big parts in no particular order are:

1\. Social signaling that are you at least resemble a functioning adult. A college degree is a kind of societal hazing showing you're kind of OK.

2\. Making connections with other people, other people who are very likely to be successful because of their education or their family's money or what ever, it's nice to have them in your social circle.

3\. 3-5 or how ever many years of a fun and/or somewhat challenging experience that's shared with many other young single people all living and partying in close proximity. It's almost like a cruise with homework. Oh guess what they have those, you can actually take that as real college class.

How much would a 4 year vacation like that cost you? What if a large section of society had taken that vacation and not shared the experience made you somewhat of an outsider. How much would the travel agency be able to charge you then?

Tuition costs make more sense now?

</comment><comment><USER3> This reminds me of Good Will Hunting: "You dropped a hundred and fifty grand for an education you coulda got for a buck fifty in late charges at the public library"

A professor of mine is very interested in solving the cost problem of education, but internet-based learning is weak in a number of areas. He is well known for having an extremely painful automated grading system for Comp Sci homework, but that does not work nearly so well for other course (e.g. higher math or essays). The article claims they have solved this by peer review, but I would be interested to hear how they are making that work.

One of the other problems is the questionable value of degrees and grades in the first place: we as a society need to start evaluating people/employees based on prior results, like internships.

So yeah, more online learning is a good thing, but I doubt we will have online universities truly overtaking four year brick and mortar universities any time soon.

</comment><comment><USER4> I am a serious autodidact and have spent some time thinking about how the web can be useful. Unfortunately, it isn't yet. I wrote two blog posts about my thoughts.

[http://williambswift.blogspot.com/2009/04/web-is-still- not-a...](http://williambswift.blogspot.com/2009/04/web-is-still-not-adequate- for-serious.html) \- The Web Is Still Not Adequate for Serious Study

[http://williambswift.blogspot.com/2009/04/overcoming-bias- an...](http://williambswift.blogspot.com/2009/04/overcoming-bias-and-learning- from-www.html) \- Overcoming Bias and Learning from the WWW

</comment><comment><USER5> It's paying people to feed the information to you that's expensive.</comment>