Can You Buy a Silicon Valley?  Maybe. - <AUTHOR> http://www.paulgraham.com/maybe.html

<comment><USER5> I think even a million dollars per startup may be necessary but not sufficient. You also need a culture - funding 30 all at once provides some level of a community. That's well and good, but would the accountants and lawyers in that city be as good as the ones in the Valley? No. So that money goes back to the Valley, too. And they have a gravitational pull that would make it more likely that a company would go back. Not for sure, but more likely.

So you'd have to make sure you had a rock-solid, streamlined process to make sure that the legal/accounting talent in the city (hell, white list them) knew the ins and outs of 83B elections, DE incorporation, how LLCs aren't appropriate for funded startups, and all that stuff that small business lawyers/accountants don't need, but are essential to not making it hard to get that 2nd round of VC funding.

And then you'd have to have the press. TC, VB, CNet, and whoever else can actually drive "mainstream" pickup are located pretty much in either the Valley or (to a lesser extent) New York. So your costs of getting press or going to conferences to network/"run into" partners and VCs is higher too.

Oh, and what about when the million dollars runs out? You need to have a local angel investor base that can give another million, or at least another half. People invest in what they know, for better or worse. And two hackers with laptops are going to be a lot more familiar in the Valley than anywhere else then you have to find a replacement for that infrastructure, as well - <USER2> you have to have the local business community have a co-investment fund or something.

The point is, I don't think any amount of money can create a culture conducive to the information-enabled software/internet companies we're talking about that even begins to approximate the Valley. Sure it can be done from elsewhere, but it's twice as hard. First thing JamLegend did when it finished the LaunchBox program was move west - and they had an awesome product with tons of favorable press. (The only counter I can think of is TipJoy, who moved east - but only after they presented to 30 angel groups out west who said no.[1])

As to a specific city I know well, I've been very vocal - there's no better place on earth to bootstrap an internet/software company than Chicago, but you'd be hard-pressed to find a city that's _worse_ to try to raise funds in. (There are many that are as bad, but worse is a small set.) And if there aren't those support structures, then the founders will take their laptops and move west. Money alone can't solve that.

[1] [http://www.masshightech.com/stories/2008/09/08/weekly7-Y-Com...](http://www.masshightech.com/stories/2008/09/08/weekly7-Y-Combinators- firms-mostly-heed-go-West-advice.html)

<comment><USER6> _As to a specific city I know well, I've been very vocal - there's no better place on earth to bootstrap an internet/software company than Chicago, but you'd be hard-pressed to find a city that's worse to try to raise funds in._

I lived in Chicago for 7 years before I moved to the East Coast, and then finally to California. While Chicago does have it's share of great restaurants, a decent music scene and pretty good art scene. It suffers from a chronic second city mentality, which is--It's a pretty good city for being in the Mid-West, but if you're really good at something go to a first rate city liky New York, LA or San Fran. In 7 years, every really talented theater group, actor, artist or musician I knew ended up having to move to either New York or to California. There just wasn't enough going on to sustain those people in Chicago.

Chicago also has a _huge_ meathead/jock culture. Just walk within 3 blocks of the bar district along Rush and Division on a weekend night. I'm 6'7" tall, 300 pounds, and I often worried about some drunk meathead picking a fight with me. All that to say, that it's not a really nerd friendly town.

If you do move there and you walk around at night, get a black leather jacket preferably with Chicago PD patches sown on it. (The Alley on Belmont and Clark sells them). Walk around with your right hand tucked under your left armpit. You'll look like you're packing heat, and the thugs/meatheads will leave you alone. At least that worked for me for several years.

Oh, and the winters really suck.

Say what you will, I can think of a half a dozen other cities I'd rather bootstrap in--Austin, Boston, Providence, New York, Portland, Seattle, Vancouver, Toronto, Boulder, San Diego.

<comment><USER5> The point isn't whether or not $1 billion in $1 million increments would work in Chicago - it's about where it would work _anywhere_ , including the cities that you name. My argument wouldn't be any different if I said Tampa Bay, New Orleans, Atlanta, or some other city.

(New personal rule: stop making throwaway comments, especially w/r/t Chicago. People latch onto them like remoras.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> "Rent Seeking"

Say this works out in a big way & 2-3 cities take up this $30m challenge. The essay suggests $1m to move a startup, which suggests that having a startup in your city is worth (more then) a million. Why not offer them a million to stay (or half a million if they'll take it)?

What if the cities start bidding against each-other for the 'best' startups (assuming they end up with some mechanism for choosing the best ones). What if start-ups form specifically to take advantage of this scheme? What if angels/VCs that happen to rank highly on this list have all their investments get poached & presenting it as a benefit of taking their 1/4 million?

The perverse incentives, gaming & such might make this impossible to implement as a large scale government/municipal scheme.

<comment><USER8> Picking startups based on the investments of eminent angels would protect against most gaming. They're not going to change their investment criteria based on what's happening downstream of them.

<comment><USER9> The ability to get government funding increases the success probability of various startups. What happens downstream will affect success rates.

I.e., if flagsfororphans.com goes well, VC's win. If it gets into trouble, the possibility of future government funding may let the VC's recoup some of their investment.

This makes VC's prefer flagsfororphans.com to satanictitleinsurance.com, which obviously does not have the same possibility of government funding.

<comment><USER8> Probably not that much in practice. Startups that would have succeeded may succeed faster, but startups that would have failed will still fail. More funding never seems to save bad startups. It just makes them die slower.

<comment><USER7> Even if we accept this, to avoid all sorts of distortions you would need all market players to believe this.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Even if it were possible, I still don't think it a good idea. That money has to come from somewhere, and it comes from the bank accounts of people that planned to use it on something other than investing in startups. There's nothing that startups add to a community that I think is _a priori_ better than other things that a community of people would have chosen voluntarily to spend its money on.

Some places fund startups, some don't. That's what comes from having free will and individual liberty. Other people may make different choices than we would, but it doesn't follow that we should force them to be like us. I suggest we should respect other peoples' autonomy.

It has long been the credo of the social planner that the common man is too stupid and too provincial to pursue his own happiness, and that he should be cajoled into doing what is good for him. That credo has been the prelude to a lot of well-intentioned misery. I understand that there are things which are "public goods" which we may wisely choose to produce with public dollars, but investing in private businesses doesn't strike me as one of those public goods.

I don't see the social value in taking a lot of money from private folks to spread a concentration of startups more evenly over the landscape.

I understand that Paul is pondering what can be done and not what ought to be done. I just don't think it is a good idea. If I want to live in an area with lots of startups, I'll move to Silicon Valley where people have voluntarily chosen to fund them.

Finally, Paul states that this is a good idea because municipalities already waste a lot of money on projects of dubious value, such as baseball stadiums. That's true, but it doesn't follow that those municipalities should spend that money on other projects of dubious value. Another response would be that they should leave people and their money alone.

<comment><USER11> Though PG specifically mentioned politics, I took away the message that any person or group with $30 million could do it, if they wanted. Is it likely that someone cares enough about a specific place to to altruistically transform it into Silicon Valley? Probably not (maybe in a seasteading future?), but nor is this politically feasible. So, it's just fun to think about.

<comment><USER8> That is a very interesting idea. I didn't think of that. You could do the 30-startup experiment with private money. And what pressure it would put on the city if it succeeded.

Thanks for this idea. I just added a paragraph to the essay mentioning it.

<comment><USER12> Is this the first time you've edited an already-published essay because of feedback on HN?

<comment><USER8> No, I've done that a couple times before.

<comment><USER12> That's a great use of crowdsourcing for your editing. I wonder how that could work in a more automated and scalable way. I'm thinking something similar to Etherpad, but with feedback rather than actual edits, like if people could leave comments and suggestions inline, with some kind of HN-style upvoting and troll-flagging. Then the originating author could cherrypick the best suggestions into being actual edits. Something like Wikipedia but more reader- friendly, without infinite levels of backwards revisions.

Or that could be stupid in practice, maybe a handful of close associates with honest feedback is way better than taking all comers.

<comment><USER13> I've actually considered this as a startup idea, except they would be actual news articles about local events or occurrences. Instead of interviewing witnesses to a local house fire or bank holdup the witnesses would just log on and add their witness accounts to articles, and people could attach pictures and videos as well (hey, everyone has a camera phone these days). Of course everything (articles, witness accounts, pictures and videos, etc) would all be user moderated and up or down modded, so if someone posts an account that seems less then verifiable then it could get downmodded. The user base would also act as editor, so people can suggest spelling/grammatical changes and other users can up or down mod specific changes. It would require an enormously involved user base but imagine getting news reports directly from the people seeing it happen.

Later Mark

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I think the way to do it is not to compete with silicon valley directly but follow the path of Singapore and they caymans in betting big on a niche. Rather than trying to be the best at everything like SV is, aim to be truly world class in just a few areas.

I think there's probably a dozen cities in the world that could be world leaders in cloud computing simply by offering great deals on data centers as long as research and development work is also being done there.

A city could leap to world class status for mobile/location based services by offering to buy every citizen a smartphone and then inviting startups to come experiment.

Really, cities sho:ld take the exact same advice startups take: find a niche and serve it well rather than trying to crack the mass market with some luke warm offering.

<comment><USER8> The Valley itself started out working on what was initially a fairly small niche. And whatever displaces it will probably do the same. But to do this deliberately, the city would have to pick the niche that's going to explode, and that would be really hard. The Valley didn't pick semiconductors; more like the other way around.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> By all measures, the RTP area of North Carolina should be growing startups and growing massively large companies with the best of them.

UNC, Duke, NC State + dozens of smaller colleges/universities within a one hour drive provide a very well educated work force.

An existing network of colleges exist within a several hour drive (Wake Forest, etc.)

The financial center (hopefully things will return to at least "functioning") of Charlotte is a day trip in a car. Washington D.C., Atlanta and New York are airplane day trips and Boston, Chicago and Miami are overnight trips away. Attracting constant attention from traditional VC funds is not a problem.

There is a strong base of both Tech and Life Sciences companies in RTP. This base can provide everything from internal skunk works within these companies to employees leaving to create startups.

The weather ain't all that bad - for the East Coast.

So - what is the real problem - it isn't money.

The problem can be found in passivity, complacency and parochialism.

I was once told (by a Silicon Valley born and bred person), "everyone has their prejudices - but these folks (around RTP) actually let that get in the way of making money." The Silicon Valley is not filled with folks singing "Kumbaya" - but it is filled with folks who are more than willing to put aside whatever personal feelings they may have if there is a buck to be made.

One of the most prominent venture capitalists in the RTP region once said (in private) that all the "entrepreneurs" around here are hoping that one day they can afford a nice beach house on the Coast, instead of . . . . being entrepreneurs.

Nope - RTP is an example - it isn't only about the money.

It's really about the people.

BUT - money for seed/startup development is essential.

Funding startups shouldn't come from the government - it should come from a For Profit Seed/Startup fund that works with, supports and Compensates the Seed Infrastructure (incubators, tech transfers, economic development agencies). The Seed Infrastructure should not concentrate on being landlords, academicians or civil servants. The Seed Infrastructure should concentrate on sourcing, screening and providing post Seed investment oversight for companies that will ultimately be worthy of traditional Series A investments.

And remember, this Seed Infrastructure is, for the most part,already funded by local/state governments, academia and corporate sponsorships.

The idea of simply throwing money into a broken system won't work. The idea of expecting the traditional VC stage of the Risk Investing industry to innovate or nurture is fallacious. Regardless of what Alan Patricof said in his NYTimes article - VCs don't nurture. VCs provide growth capital for those Seed/Startup enterprises which have reached a level of traction and validation.

Thomas Friedman was even more delusional with his idea of giving 20 VC firms $1 billion each to generate innovation. All you are going to get by giving VCs $20 billion is somewhere between $2-$2.5 billion in management fees for the VC firms.

I do not know how you can generate an "entrepreneur" mentality in a short time - after all, even the success of Noyce and Friends took a while to take hold after they left Fairchild to start Intel.

But, I do know the way to start - please read (and feel free to comment) - <http://www.slideshare.net/ElliottDahan/start-fund-feb2009>

Elliott Dahan The Growth Group elliott(a)thegrowthgroup.com

<comment><USER16> As a MS grad of the UNC CS department who has spent time working with researchers at both Duke and NC State, it's interesting to me to think about why we don't have a thriving startup culture. I certainly know people who have gone through those programs, stayed in the area, and are interested in startups (as both founders and places to work).

My perspective (which clearly can't cover all the students in those programs or hackers in the area) is that a small number of successful (ie, more profitable for the founders than taking a job with IBM, Fidelity - before the layoffs, NVidia, SRA, SAS, or one of the other, non-tech focused companies in the area that suck up tech grads) would go an extremely long way in jump- starting a startup culture.

Heck, I wonder if semi-decent mentorship for founders from people who actually got something out-the-door would be more helpful than just having some VC opening the checkbook. I always think of SV as kind of nirvana, where joining a startup with some decent chance of being successful is much more a normal story than it would be here in RTP. I think a big part of the lack of a startup culture here is that people create interesting software, but then kind of sputter out on getting it in front of people. Maybe RTP has the tech talent to be a startup hub, but lacks a local and cutting edge,technically-driven customer base? Or the critical mass of like-minded founders is what we desperately need as pg speculates in his essay? Certainly the focus at the big three universities isn't on startups . . .

All that said, in my peer group, several people have gone on to work at small, startup type companies in RTP. But it seems like the common story here for hackers who "make" it are ones that seem to involve consulting for one of the bigger companies in the area or maybe less commonly developing software in 1 or 2 man shops on a custom basis (ie, roll-your-own ERPs and whatnot) for comfortable income.

I think RTP is getting closer to being more startup-oriented, but we (the area and hackers in it) need to be more driven in becoming entrepreneurs. But I don't hear hackers in RTP say anything about being satisfied with a nice beach house . . . I'm not defending the RTP hackers too strongly here because I do think we are missing some critical piece of what a startup culture needs but I'm not sure we can chalk it up to "passivity, complacency, and parochialism."

I would love to hear other thoughts from HN readers in RTP or with connections to it (ie, did you do school here and head to SV?).

<comment><USER15> Tom4370 - you write - "Heck, I wonder if semi-decent mentorship for founders from people who actually got something out-the-door would be more helpful than just having some VC opening the checkbook." . . . .Yes !

The CED should have offered this hands-on mentorship program for entrepreneurs. And I am not talking about another conference or speaker series or fraternity mixer.. . . .very disappointing.

And "yes" - there is a very strong talent pool of techie folks, business folks and support folks (one of the nicest people I know is actually a Lawyer - <USER3> Hutchison).

As for "customer base" - 2 points - RTP, depending on your sector has a strong customer base. But,the necessary proximity of the customer base is more dependent upon what you ar doing, who can introduce you, etc.

And finally, my comments about "passivity, complacency, and parochialism" were not directed at just the entrepreneur base - if anything, it was directed at the VC base, the Incubator base and the Mentorship base you mention in your comment above.

Entrepreneurs will be entrepreneurs and work hard and innovate and . . . . . only if the rest of the Seed Community around them gives them a good reason to be Entrepreneurs.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> _Thank you_ for writing this.

I've been putting some considerable energy lately into trying to grow a startup culture in my area (Grass Valley, Sierra Foothills) out of thin air. To date that has involved launching a co-working space, founding a "solopreneurs" organization, and beginning to pitch the benefits of startup culture to local investors and shakers/movers.

I'm not looking to compete with Silicon Valley -- for reasons that you and others have pointed out, I don't think that's possible -- but I do think that we can create our own unique version of it. We're geographically isolated by two small arterial highways, there is a lot of scenic beauty and outdoor activities, and there is a strong push to localize products and services. There's also a healthy respect for technology here -- Atari was a prominent figure here back in its early days, Grass Valley Group engineers top-of-the- line video equipment, Spectrum Sensors & Controls builds various motors and potentiometers for government and high-tech applications, and the local cities are keen to attract more high-tech companies. For those reasons and others, I think there's a chance of incubating a small but successful startup environment here.

So although on the face of it what you wrote would suggest that it can't be done here, I think it also indirectly provides some support for it.

</comment><comment><USER18> I'm suspicious of the claim that there can be more than one silicon valley. With founders being more mobile and VC in... shrinkage (less willing to take risks setting up in new markets), the likelihood of any such concerted effort being possible is nil. After all, you're not going to get anyone outside the organizers to move from the valley in significant numbers, so I think the prospects for natural growth is limited.

I suppose what you say is true, but I don't see any reason to think such a transplant would ever outstrip the size/clout of the valley. And that's what it comes down to, is that with the big players already entrenched, and the weather so nice, no city will come close, even if the transplants do prove a boon.

<comment><USER8> I agree with you. I just wanted to consider what would be the optimal way to jumpstart a competitor. The chance of any city actually carrying out the plan I suggested is microscopic.

Which is itself an interesting point, because it shows how unlikely the Valley is to face significant competition in the foreseeable future.

<comment><USER19> Great article. But the fallacy in the comments is that most thought about domestic competitors only.

As an example, the French community in Silicon Valley has been wondering for years how to get Paris (or some other city) to start resembling Silicon Valley more. Many French politicians visit for a week and always ask that same question.

There could be a critical mass of French people living in Silicon Valley who would love to spend more time in Paris to advise and help the local startup scene, plus some political will to make something happen. Plus some rich American angels would love some special angel visa that would allow them to skip the lines at le Louvre :-)

But this plan doesn't address the general lack of positive thinking in Paris. As we (the French living here) often conclude, there is a reason we moved out...

<comment><USER20> Sure! Being non-American I read this essay this way too: Can you buy a Silicon Valley if you're not in US? There's little friction in moving to Silicon Valley if you're in the US, but much if you're outside of US.

<comment><USER8> I did actually mean the essay to apply to all cities, not just those in the US.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> The public generally looks askance at public funds being used for private benefits. Publicly funded incentives often are used to lure large corporate manufacturing facilities into town, but these generally are already very large and looking to employ thousands of locals.

It would be a hard sell to convince the voters that you should give $1 million of their money to three guys with some laptops that weren't planning to hire any more people for the next few years.

<comment><USER21> Agreed it would be hard to sell to the public. Perhaps if the following point could be more visceral:

 _"$1B invested in 50,000 startups would conservatively create 250,000 jobs immediately. If just 2% of those startups became wildly successful they would create 3 million to 5 million jobs."_

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=497559>

<comment><USER10> Sure. You could make numbers up and hope they are true. Just be sure the homeless shelters are well-funded for when the money runs out.

<comment><USER21> Wouldn't you say the same thing for _any_ public funding of private ventures, why does the volume matter?

I don't support the government-as-vc idea myself but not because of any job projection numbers (real or made up). I think science and technology funding like NSF is a better way for the government to get involved in long term value/wealth/job creation in this country. The outcomes of the efforts can be more easily shared by the shared public money put in, seems more ethical to me.

<comment><USER10> I think inviting 250,000 people to your city with three months of funding is going to have lots of unplanned side effects, many of which will occur three months after the initial funding date.

<comment><USER21> That comment was more about how to point out the "leverage" that was possible, not any actual number.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I think access to capital is the first step, but access to employees is what would present the larger challenge. Sure, you could get a hundred or so new grads from your university every year, but how many hackers migrate to the bay every year? What's the turnover rate?

If you have a million in funding, you're probably going to want to hire some people to help you (you have enough money to shoot for the stars; moreover, ramen profitability seems both a waste and unable to recoup the investor's money). Hiring good people outside of SV, especially if you want to use interesting (read not java / ms) tools, is going to be a bit more of a challenge. Especially if there are 30 other startups in the area trying to do the exact same thing.

<comment><USER19> Good point. One of the things I love in Silicon Valley is that I can hire any profile I want. If my dream candidate must have worked 5 years at Google on search and then two years at Salesforce because that's what I need, I know there is someone out there that fits that criteria.

You can't replicate any of that stuff anywhere else. By definition, if you want to compete with Silicon Valley, you will want to hire _some_ people from your competitors. So you have to be here as well. QED (any way around this dilemma, I'd love to hear).

You can refer to an article I wrote last year called "The limits of the Silicon Valley model". Unfortunately, it was in print only for an Indian magazine, I can't find a link to it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Every time you write an essay on this general topic I sit here wondering: Has he looked at Wellington, New Zealand?

Beautiful city that people want to live in, lots of people living downtown, good university, a community with several very successful technology companies that are a source of angel investors and advisors e.g. Weta Digital (Lord of the Rings etc) and TradeMe (online auction site that beat eBay in NZ and sold for $750m).

<comment><USER24> Moving to new Zealand is a pretty big deal.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> _It would be pretty straightforward to make a list of the most eminent Silicon Valley angels and from that to generate a list of all the startups they'd invested in. If a city offered these companies a million dollars each to move, a lot of the earlier stage ones would probably take it._

This seems like a highly effective way to kill startups. Never mind the whole "moving to a different city where you won't have many contacts" bit -- if a startup is still small enough to be able to move easily, throwing a million dollars at them is likely to give them too much of a runway.

<comment><USER26> The "not many contacts" part is addressed, according to the OP, by moving no less than ~30 startups in one batch.

<comment><USER25> It's useful to have contacts other than people working at other startups.

<comment><USER26> I agree it is useful. But is it indispensable?

(Not a rethorical question, and I have no idea about the answer.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I think you're underestimating the difficulty of creating vibrant neighborhoods that smart young people want to live in. Merely transporting 30 startups worth of people into a new city wouldn't create that kind of environment if it didn't already exist. You need the artists and chefs and shop owners and activists that make up the rest of the community in order to create the right kind of community.

Of the two example cities, Portland could probably very easily become a startup hub without this plan to push it, whereas Detroit would probably fail at it, even with this plan.

<comment><USER21> I thought the second to last paragraph said something much like what you are saying: " _It will be easier in proportion to..._ "

(although I am saddened by the weather part, being in Madison, WI where we have an emphatic yes to the other criteria)

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> There is no way that money alone would be sufficient to recreate a Silicon Valley. Of course, it would help, but some of the other obstacles are daunting.

* Non-competes. Within the U.S., California is by far the state least inclined to enforce non-competes. This happened as a historical accident, well before Silicon Valley arose. Getting another jurisdiction to adopt a similar attitude toward non-competes would involve, not money, but politics, which is far messier and more uncertain. The existing large companies in a given state generally perceive, rightly or wrongly, that it is in their interest to have non-competes enforced as vigorously as possible. This, in turn, has two effects detrimental to competing with Silicon Valley: (1) employees often can't go off and start a competing company in their area of expertise without a two-year waiting period, and (2) the really ambitious among them may get around this by moving to California (often Silicon Valley), where their non-competes are unenforceable, thus furthering the Valley's lead.

* Specialized insfrastructure. Whatever a hardware or software computer startup needs, it has access to in the Bay Area. Legal services, financing, management expertise (useful as a startup gets bigger), and above all the hardware and software engineers skilled in even the most arcane (but sometimes needed) technologies. This sort of infrastructure cannot simply be bought, it must be grown.

* Many of the metro areas that conceivably might be able to make a run at competing with Silicon Valley (i.e. those that are not economic basket cases) already have a different industry that is their specialty, and have no good incentive to try and supplant that industry for a clone of Silicon Valley. And without the other industry being supplanted, it's unlikely that the density of computer/web startups will even approach that of Silicon Valley.

With all this to overcome, one billion dollars doesn't seem anywhere near sufficient.

Silicon Valley will eventually be rivalled by a metro area that specializes in something related but not quite head-on to what Silicon Valley does. For example, it's conceivable that Seattle, with its focus on more consumer- oriented software and web companies (such as Amazon), could gradually ooze its way into having a bigger share of the more purely web-based startups (such as Google). But that's very different than trying to create a Silicon Valley rival from nothing.

</comment><comment><USER29> When PG said the next startup hub should be like San Francisco, I thought of New Orleans. Not for any objective reason but just because when I think of bizarre tolerant cities I think of those two. If you doubt New Orleans' tolerance you've never been to Bourbon Street. And they both have streetcars. Not that the Big Easy would be suited to a Tech Startup, it is the perfect place for musical startups. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musician%27s_village>

I think that certain cities inspire or attract creativity and weirdness. It just doesn't have to be tech-related. Any other examples of weird city + creative pursuit?

</comment><comment><USER30> _Wufoo seem to have rooted themselves in Tampa on $118k, but they're an extreme case._

How would the evolution of Wufoo differ if they had be in the valley instead of Tampa?

<comment><USER8> They may actually have been better off in Tampa. They've ended up slowly and gradually creating something really excellent, and that suits their personalities very well. But they are unusual people (in a good way).

<comment><USER25> Can you elaborate on this? It sounds very similar to something I was saying about tarsnap recently -- that if I had been in San Francisco, I'd have launched tarsnap twice as fast and it would be half as good as a result; and that being in Vancouver gave me enough distance from the startup world that I could avoid getting carried away with hype -- but I might be reading more into your comment than is really there.

<comment><USER31> I think by the time the Wufooers moved back to Tampa they knew more about doing a startup than you do. That's partly due to their YC experience and partly because they really know and obsess about design and user experience. (There's a lot of overlap there.) Spending time around people in Silicon Valley who talk about those two things a lot would help you in that department. And promotion. And marketing.

Maybe you shouldn't listen to me since I've recently failed. But please do change some things you are doing, at least in the design area. I'd like to see you do well.

<comment><USER31> I know I'm judging your private beta product by its public face. But statements like this: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=360561> are also worrisome. UI and promotion aren't easy, nor 'easy'. They are hard and a lot of work.

(Boy, telling a Putnam winner he doesn't know enough about something makes you choose your words carefully. And then it makes you wonder why you don't always do that.)

<comment><USER25> _your private beta product_

Tarsnap is in public beta right now, actually -- you can go to the website, create an account, deposit some money, and start backing up your data within the next five minutes. :-)

 _statements like this:<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=360561> are also worrisome. UI and promotion aren't easy, nor 'easy'. They are hard and a lot of work._

If you read that link carefully, you'll note that I didn't say anything about promotion being easy -- and in any case, the scare quotes in "that's all "easy" stuff" should have been a tip-off that I didn't really mean that everything I mentioned would be easy. I was effecting the mathematician's habit of referring to any solved problem as "trivial" -- for all that there's a lot of work involved in creating a GUI, porting software to Windows, et cetera, those are all things which people have done in the past, whereas the core functionality of tarsnap -- secure snapshotted online backup -- required solving entirely new problems.

<comment><USER31> Oh no, getting a good user interface/experience for tarsnap _is_ a new problem. Only if tarsnap were simply an better implementation of an existing utility would that not be true, and only then if you were happy with that utility's current interface.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Meta: You've written quite a bit about what would it take to replicate a Silicon Valley. Is that merely an exercise to try and better understand startup ecosystems, or have you actually been asked for this kind of advice (by governmental institutions, I presume)?

<comment><USER8> Mostly I think about it as an abstract exercise, but we've had people from two European countries (Switzerland and Sweden) visit YC to learn about what we were doing. I had very interesting conversations with them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> "It depends what your city values. If what you want is football, spend the money on the stadium."

I loved the essay, but this line alone was worth the time it took to read it!

<comment><USER33> I can't think of a single major US city (san francisco bay area included) that, if it came to a popular vote, would likely choose the start-up fund over a stadium.

<comment><USER34> I agree with you. Selling the idea of a billion dollar startup mecca to their constituents would be a though sell for any politician.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> How do you define what is and what is not a 'Silicon Valley'? that is, when would you declare such an experiment as a success? It has to be some measure which is not only scale - for otherwise a small scale (30 start-ups) pilot could never be considered a success. For example, Route 128 in Boston and RTP both have start-ups and other IT companies yet in a smaller number than SV. What is it precisely that they are lacking and would have made them 'smaller SVs'? I recall seeing a statistics saying that Israel has the largest number of start-ups per capita in the world. Yet it is far too small to have a 'critical mass' for being able to compete with SV. In that sense, can the Tel- Aviv - Herzelia area be considered as a successful 'small SV'?

</comment><comment><USER36> Interesting timing for the essay, since starting March 1st New York City seems to be attempting this exact experiment (I know there is already at least one HN thread post about it already).

<http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/19/nyregion/19bankers.html>

To be fair, convincing laid-off quants to stay in the city and form startups isn't quite the same as trying to get SV #2. The city probably wouldn't mind falling into PG's footnote #1 trap, because in the worst case the program would be an alternative to paying unemployment benefits with a free option should someone hit a jackpot.

</comment><comment><USER37> My guess is that the way to get the rich, angel people somewhere else is to offer a better environment than SV, in the literal sense of the term. It seems, for instance, that Boulder has attracted a fair amount of angels, startups and the like, despite (or maybe because of) being a fairly small town in proportion to the bay area. For instance, if I made a pile of money, I would not live in the bay area (I don't live there anyway, so maybe I won't make a pile of money, either:-). After all, rich or not, stuck in traffic on 101 is stuck in traffic on 101.

</comment><comment><USER38> The idea is certainly worth trying, but I fear where this falls down is the most important kind of funding, which is publicity.

Tech media, bloggers and so on, they're all in the Valley, and they are very narrowly focused on local startups. They will hype the startups next door relentlessly and mostly ignore everyone else. Sometimes they will even ridicule or actively bully outsiders as astute techcrunch readers will have noticed.

Startup culture takes more than startups I'm afraid, but startups are certainly a start, so why not try?

</comment><comment><USER39> Paul, very interesting essay, especially seeing that I (and others) are trying to do something similar in Limerick, Ireland to counter the unemployment due partially to the redundancies announced by Dell and the knock-on effect it has on the local economy. Limerick has a good infra-structure for an effort like this; it has a very good university, an institute of technology, an international airport and is located very centrally. Whats more it has a good innovative and entrepreneurial culture. What's important is not so much the investment by larger funds but rather the very early stage investments. These will enable a good idea to be developed into a product or service tied into a company that has all the right ingredients to grow by raising larger amounts of funding and expanding it's management team. The availability of early stage funding will also create a culture of innovation, creativity and entrepreneurship. Apart from the money there should also be hands-on support and a culture of networking and sharing of experience as well contacts. We're trying to create exatly this through the GreenHouse (www.greenhouselimerick.com) and I am amazed by the support that we have received by individuals and the private sector. Would love to have a chat with you sometime as there are a lot of parrallelels between Ycombinator and our plans here in Limerick.

Evert Bopp.

</comment><comment><USER15> Folks seem to be constantly confusing the Seed stage of the Risk Investng industry with the traditional VC stage. They are differnt.

The point for this conversation is that the VC stage does not create jobs or innovate. The VC stage provides growth money, business development contacts and a network for team building.

Innovation and initial job creation (which is then expanded upon during the VC stage) is created during the Seed stage.

Please review the powerpoint - The START Fund - <http://www.slideshare.net/ElliottDahan/start-fund-feb2009>

Please review interview from VC Experts - <http://vcexperts.com/vce/news/buzz/archive_view.asp?id=642>

And - the last thing anyone should hope for is having the People's money go to VCs. Scary thought.

The People's money is already helping to support a good Seed Infrastructure of Incubators, Academia, Tech Transfers and Economic Development Agencies. The People's money should continue to go to the Seed Infrastructure.

Private money should go to investing in worthy portfolio companies of this existing Seed Infrastruct5ure. And, this private money should be investing on a For Profit basis

</comment><comment><USER40> The question is: is there something in silicon valley that makes startups more successful here? If there is, then the companies you fund will be working against competitors that have a significant advantage over them. I don't think a sample size of 30 is large enough to answer this question one way or the other. Therefore, while the initial prototype requires minimum investment, it likely will not give you the information you need to decide whether to continue with the program or not.

<comment><USER8> There definitely is. The question is whether a free million dollars would be enough to compensate or not.

It's interesting we're even unsure of that. It means we're at least considering the possibility that merely being in the Valley is worth a million dollars to an early stage startup.

<comment><USER25> _It means we're at least considering the possibility that merely being in the Valley is worth a million dollars to an early stage startup._

Close, but not quite -- we're considering whether _staying_ in the Valley is worth a million dollars. It might be that _being_ in the Valley is worth far less than _staying_ in the Valley simply because moving sucks so much... even if you're not "tied down", it's still a couple weeks of packing/travelling/looking for an apartment/unpacking/figuring out your way around a new city/etc which could be spent coding.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> You seem to be considering only cities in the US because it doesn't seem practical to ask startups to move across countries, especially if they are very different. As a corollary, a city might benefit instead by exploiting the local peculiarities to espouse a startup culture.

For example, in the city I live in, it's perfectly acceptable to live with your parents all your life. And that's a perfect fit for lowering living costs. There is also an obsession to live in or close to your hometown, which might force college grads to start up instead of working for a big company in a big city. There is a strong sense in society of admiring entrepreneurship as opposed to employment because of a (convoluted) communistic ideal. There is a lot of investment money readily available from expatriates from the Middle East that they cannot use in their country of residence.

This might mean that there is a different route to becoming Silicon Valley and it is all the more difficult to determine because it is not generic.

</comment><comment><USER42> @detroit HEY!! no you're totally right except detroit is right next to Ann Arbor, which is actually one of the bigger tech startup area's in the nation, or so I've been told... I don't think downtown detroit could be an SV, but I think you could turn part of metro detroit into one. If you could somehow avoid all the morons and corruption...

<comment><USER43> Ann Arbor is actually a great supporting argument to PG's essay. It has the University, walkable neighborhoods, diverse culture, and a complete lack of willing investors. Case in point: Arbor Networks. It moved to Boston at the behest of its investors even though the founders still live in Ann Arbor.

Ever take a Monday morning flight from Detroit to San Francisco? First Class is packed with frequent flyers that have to fly to SV every week. Not only does SV attract startups, it sucks the brain power and experience out of other cities.

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> I love all of pg's essay, but this one is a startlingly superficial, and naive, commentary on a topic that has been thought about for +20 years. Also, I think pg has become too focused on the types of companies he funds ("ramen consumer web 2.0 companies") and he thinks this is applicable to broader issues. it isn't.

</comment><comment><USER45> I think this essay also describes a way to get a good number of intelligent people to move to a new country based on an island or seastead. While starting a good university is hard, the new country, probably small, supports the other suggested criteria for a startup hub.

The feedback of the system would be excellent too, as the companies that move to the new country would hire people that are interested in freedom and startups.

The startups would have a particular advantage after moving, in no regulations or taxes to deal with. They'd only need to pay rent (depending on how property taxes, currency, and private property work on the seastead).

Considering the numbers described here, there must be thousands of people who could bankroll both the infrastructural parts and the social parts like this.

</comment><comment><USER46> I think we can do this in Los Angeles.

With the way the broadcasting of television and the availability of content online is evolving I think there is great opportunity to distribute this information more efficiently.

In LA we have the producers, the actors, the funding, the networks, the nice weather, good schools, mobility, the mindset - there are so many angles to pitch this to start ups. Could the available options in this city lower the costs for start ups.

Theres opportunity in the distribution of music, video...all of entertainment. Theater, fashion, - are reality shows still a big hit? How about a website that consolidates a bunch of reality shows - even home grown.....

Maybe this posting will get deleted because i went on a tangent?! - thank you for the inspiration Mr. Graham.

</comment><comment><USER47> "The organic way to do it is to establish a first-rate university in a place where rich people want to live."

Obviously not the case. We can just go down the list of top universities and look at the ones that are in desirable places that aren't Silicon Valley. We can even have a laugh at all the names people came up with, like Silicon Alley, Silicon Hills, etc.

One very important reason is that the tech talent in the top tech hubs is old- growth, and recycles between all the different tech companies. And it's _huge_. Funding 1,000 startups for just 5 years still seems very, very small compared to the existing ecosystem in Silicon Valley, let alone the logistics of finding enough of them, vetting, competing with other funds, etc.

<comment><USER8> I did go down that list. See the second section of <http://www.paulgraham.com/siliconvalley.html> .

<comment><USER47> Right, that's exactly my point. None of those places can really compare with the size and power of Silicon Valley. The fact that there's only _one_ Silicon Valley is proof enough. The rest are smaller tech hubs. So there must be some other factor working in favor of Silicon Valley.

<comment><USER48> The most likely is also the most obvious - Silicon Valley has had longer to grow.

<comment><USER47> Wrong again. Harvard and MIT were founded in 1636 and 1861. Stanford and UC Berkeley were founded in 1885 and 1868. The Boston area saw much of its population growth occur in the 19th century. The Bay Area saw much of its growth in the 20th.

So, the Boston area has had more time with its universities, rich people, and population base to develop. Yet Silicon Valley developed faster and came to be the bigger innovation center. Again, I suggest there's something else at work besides the presence of top-flight universities, rich people, and time.

What _is_ interesting is that New England was a major force in innovation during the second half of the 19th century, helping to drive the industrialization of the US. So, whatever factor that brought innovation to the Bay Area had to have been strong enough to unseat the existing innovation centers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> Pittsburgh's Alphalab has a stuck in Pennsylvania provision because they are funded by the state of Pennsylvania and ultimately their goal is to create jobs in the state of PA. If you leave, you have to pay back the $25k.

</comment><comment><USER50> Tangent:

"Startup founders are mostly hackers, and hackers are much more constrained by gentlemen's agreements than regulations. If they shake your hand on a promise, they'll keep it. But show them a lock and their first thought is how to pick it."

I love this quote, and agree wholeheartedly. Hackers are typically some of the most honorable people I know, and when they say something, they mean it. Likewise, they're some of the most ingenious people I know. When it comes to taking something apart or putting it together, hackers can usually do it.

</comment><comment><USER51> 'Do you have good weather? Do people live downtown, or have they abandoned the center for the suburbs? Would the city be described as "hip" and "tolerant," or as reflecting "traditional values?" Are there good universities nearby? Are there walkable neighborhoods? Would nerds feel at home?'

All the above sounds like Richard Florida and his Creative Class stuff. Not sure I buy into it all, but guess where he lives now... <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Florida>

</comment><comment><USER52> Actually France is almost doing what you describe. They do an almost full tax exemption on startup during 8 years (provided you fill a lenghty and time consuming application).

They also give easily between 50K to 100K 'no string attached' (provided you use them for R&D)

The drawback is you need to fill a lot of paperworks, meaning it's useful for startup with revenues.

These are some of the reasons why my startup decided to stay in France.

As opposed to what you say, they fund the good and the bad and let the market decides.

Nico

</comment><comment><USER53> Typos: Goverment, tradional.

<comment><USER8> Thanks, fixed.

<comment><USER54> Also: "I just wanted to explore what it take if one did." is missing something.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> In India, the city that most qualifies the requirements if Mumbai(Bombay). It has got an IIT, and well rich people love to live here.

Banglore, Hyderabad, even Pune and New Delhi belt are seen as thriving IT cities of India largely because of the government incentives to companies offering to setup shops there. The employees all hated that those places. A lot of batch mates of mine went to Banglore or Delhi and preferred Bombay to live, but big companies are not around.

I guess what is lacking is success stories.

</comment><comment><USER56> Why is more government always the only answer to solving a problem? Looking at all the other attempts to create a Silicon Valley that have pretty much failed and they were all government sponsored. It seems obvious that government can't solve that problem either. With all the social networking capability now it should be easier to find other hackers, founders, and angels in any city of sufficient size. We need a facebook for founders to bring all of this together. Though getting the funders to notice might be an issue.

</comment><comment><USER57> It's not a fixed place that interests me.

In a world where on-line places are still a failure I'd love to see the rise of "online places" full of people who you can have a useful, short conversation with.

Not hordes of people you "meet" once or twice but small and vibrant and you talk fairly often. People you go out of your way to meet physically, even when they are on the other side of the world.

Places like that can be dispersed over the planet and might incubate some interesting business.

</comment><comment><USER58> This is very good. Thank you Paul. There is a city in Ontario called Waterloo. I think it fits the characteristics you've laid out. Unfortunately this is Canada and big money moves slowly here. My university exports the greatest number of graduate hires to Microsoft. I am at a loss what it would take to jump start this place. If you have any ideas I'm all ears!

</comment><comment><USER59> Great insights as usual PG.

We're dealing with an investment group that has this (in a much much smaller scale) in mind. My major concern for them is that I'm not so sure it can be done on a smaller scale.

Do you think cities can do a small version of this and become not the next Silicon Valley but at least startup friendly?

</comment><comment><USER41> When a good startup compares two funding offers, it does not automatically pick the one that gives the highest valuation. It has to consider the other intangibles like VC advice, contacts, good PR etc. Given this, a city offering just money is like a loser VC who's really desperate. Why would a good startup want to take that?

<comment><USER8> Because they need the money. There are plenty of really good startups who struggle to raise money.

It would be better than taking money from a loser VC, because you wouldn't be stuck with the loser VC on your board afterward.

</comment></comment><comment><USER60> Instead of trying to reinvent the Nile, why not focus on the features that make it ripe for farming? Fertile soil and easy transport of goods. Can that be done artificially? If so can it be done virtually? It could take a never ending supply of money to sustain another Silicon Valley. Look at Dubai Internet City.

</comment><comment><USER61> @netcan, well said. Economic incentives that only serve their intended purpose are rare!

</comment><comment><USER62> Quite prolific lately. Clearing out the buffer?

</comment><comment><USER63> Great stuff Paul. Welcome to Silicon Valley.

</comment><comment><USER64> Another typo: "bring in a thousands startups"

</comment><comment><USER65> Give more money to the VC industry in California because they're the only players capable of picking winners? Where is the evidence the VC industry in California is even competent?

From the outside California looks like its waking up from a ten-plus year orgy of mal-investment enabled by a mountain of easy credit driven by irrational international capital flows. I understand that Paul's role is encouraging investment, but this is disastrous advice for cities. Give away a million bucks? Talk about welfare capitalism. A much better approach would be a matching funds program for local ventures.

<comment><USER8> _Where is the evidence the VC industry in California is even competent?_

All around you. The cpu of the computer you used to make this comment, and the routers by which it got here, to start with.

<comment><USER65> Neither the CPU nor the router were invented in the last 10 years Paul, and the retreat to hardware makes for a weak case since new FABs are generally financed by banks and corporate bonds rather than venture capital. Neither my router nor CPU were produced in the United States, although that is beside the point.

My point was that IPO and M&A activity are highly correlated with stock market performance. I can't run a regression analysis linking exit opportunities to international capital flows because there are no statistics on international investment in US stock markets, but it hardly seems radical to point out that the VC boom of recent years has been fueled significantly by the stock market boom. If strategic investment decisions were the primary driving force behind the success of the industry the industry should not be facing such a bad liquidity crisis right now.

And perhaps this is harsh, but I don't see a lot of competence in the investment decisions which have been made in my own industry so I find your argument unconvincing. A lot of startups are competing against other startups and most funded companies in my space are disasters. But they all love AdSense, which means that as these companies flame out my ad-spend is going down and life is getting much nicer. Your suggestion that public policy should involving giving significant sums of money no-strings-attached to groups that seem responsible for major capital misallocation and band-wagon investment behavior seems beyond unjust. It seems crazy.

<comment><USER8> I just started with hardware since I can safely assume you have to use that. But I'm guessing you also use Google, no?

<comment><USER65> I'm not sure what the n = 1 Google argument is supposed to accomplish - <USER4> boo.com relevant too? These are single data points in an argument about aggregate investment quality and the only meaningful statistic is aggregate ROI now. I think it's interesting you're jumping back to the late 90s again, because if you had a stronger argument vis-a-vis the quality of VC investment over the last few years, I really don't think you'd need to go there.

You could be absolutely right. There could be a lot of fantastic companies just sitting in VC portfolios making profits and waiting for the market to turn in order to maximize their exits. That is true. But it's also true that owning profitable companies does not generally incite the sort of liquidity crisis that seems prevalent in the industry right now.

I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just saying there's very little evidence that the people you're proposing get a massive windfall in the form of a $30 million turn at the roulette table know what they're doing. And some of what they're doing hurts people who are competent and profitable. So in my industry, I don't think the word incompetent is really that strong. They could be making money, they're not. YMMV.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER66> Honestly, Silicon Valley has one killer asset that is hard to match.

Hot, smart, friendly Asian women.

<comment><USER67> I did a quick skim, but I didn't see any mention of the laws of the state for things like IP, employee mobility, etc. As I recall, MA is rather restrictive and so things like non-compete clauses have some meaning there. CA, on the other hand, ignores such things. I would think that the "business environment" is critical - too pro-management and the workers won't go and take their risks in that environment.

The comment re: NC/RTP is spot on. The natives are content, slow-going folks. The imports are more active, but the slow-n-easy environment probably slows them down eventually. The triangle's a bubble in the midst of a lot of farmers...

</comment></comment><comment><USER68> Who thinks Paul Graham's essays have jumped the shark? (I'm aware this will not be a popular opinion on this site.) Raise your hand and I will elaborate.

<comment><USER8> Sure, I'd be curious to hear why you think so. I'd be interested to see how it compares to the other explanations I've heard of this perennial phenomenon.</comment></comment>


Atomic Arbitrage Between Decentralized Exchanges - <AUTHOR> https://rados.io/atomic-arbitrage-between-decentralized-exchanges/ <comment><AUTHOR> From the OP:

> The new generation of DEXs, such as 0x, Kyber Network and Saturn Protocol, > enable 1-click wallet to wallet trading and that makes the holy grail of > arbitrage, the atomic arbitrage possible. What does it mean?

> An atomic arbitrage is a strategy that executes both trades (i.e. buy 1 ETH > for 50,000 SATURN and immediately sell back for 55,000 SATURN) in the same > transaction, without any possibility for slippage to occur. The transaction > either completes and you make a guaranteed profit, or fails entirely and you > simply wait for the next arbitrage opportunity.</comment>


PCI-SIG Releases PCIe 4.0 Specs - <AUTHOR> http://www.tomshardware.com/news/pci-sig-releases-pcie-4-specs,35767.html <comment><USER2> _PCI-SIG members may download the PCIe 4.0 specification for free at the Specification Library. Non-members may purchase a hard copy of the specification for $4,500._

Insane. PCIe 4.0 v0.3 and 0.9 have leaked already; I wonder how long until v1.0 is available at the usual sites. Looking at the history of the PC, it's sad that key specifications in its design have become so closed.

</comment><comment><USER3> It's very weird that after waiting 7 years since 4.0, they plan on releasing 5.0 with twice the speed just 2 years later. Is that wild optimism?

</comment><comment><USER4> Now let's see who supports it first. Intel or Amd?

<comment><USER5> The answer is likely going to be IBM. See the end of [https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/10/26/fore_pci_express_40...](https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/10/26/fore_pci_express_40_finally_lands/), as well as [https://www.ibm.com/blogs/systems/power-systems-openpower- en...](https://www.ibm.com/blogs/systems/power-systems-openpower-enable- acceleration/)

<comment><USER6> The Talos II POWER9 workstation has been advertising PCI-E 4.0 support since Raptor announced it: [https://raptorcs.com/TALOSII/](https://raptorcs.com/TALOSII/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> So, at 64-bit bus width, we're looking at 1 and 2 Tbps for PCIe 4 and 5, respectively. Looking forward to THAT!

<comment><USER3> What do you mean by "64-bit bus width"? The most lanes you can get in PCIe is 16.

<comment><USER8> Maybe a traditional "PCI-E card" formfactor, but I don't think there's anything in the specification preventing you from building a 32 or 64-lane device.

<comment><USER9> PCIe 3.x supports a power-of-two number of lanes up to 16; it handles all the gory stuff needed to aggregate those lanes. Going to more than 16 lanes means having multiple channels, and you'll have to worry about clock skew, delayed (retried) and failed transactions and other wonderful things you get with multiple independent pipes.

I've never done it, but I'm interested in how hard it is. I know a guy who's done detailed design of PCIe hardware; I'll have to ask him.

<comment><USER10> I've done a lot of PCIe hardware development. I think there was some notion of a 32x connection early on, spec wise, but x16 is as wide as it's ever gone in practice. All high performance PCIe traffic is controlled by DMA hardware on the endpoint, so having an endpoint with multiple logical x16 connections back to the host cpu would be quite straightforward to implement, and you wouldn't need to worry about any of the gory details you listed. Some FPGAs are available with multiple endpoints embedded in them, for instance.

<comment><USER11> Could you explain it like I'm five (or really like I'm a software geek and don't know this stuff) how the signals in the multiple lanes are synchronized? Is there some centralized clock that everyone is using?

<comment><USER12> From what I understand, at the physical level PCI-E uses an 8b10b encoding, which allows the clock to be recovered from the data. Each lane's clock might still be skewed with respect to other lanes, but there's some deskew logic that detects and corrects for this skew. I'm not 100% sure when the skew detection happens. It might be negotiated as part of link negotiation, or possibly it gets detected at the start of a packet, which has a special 8b10b symbol that's not used for data so it's easy to spot.

<comment><USER9> PCIe 3.0 actually uses a 128b to 130b encoding (I guess clock recovery got a lot better, but they also use different whitening patterns). Data is distributed across the lanes, bit by bit, and reassembled by the receiver. There's a _bunch_ of training and link configuration stuff going on.

Once you have multiple channels of these (because 16 lanes wasn't enough bandwidth) you have the possibility that one channel gets transaction errors while the other doesn't, resulting in skewed arrival or even just missing data. So you need a software layer to deal with this, it's no longer "plug something in and you get bus level reliability," instead it's more like networking, where you have to do some reassembly as data arrives, and probably embed sequence number or other information in the data so you can identify bad and missing transfers. (Or you could say, "screw it, it's reliable _enough_ " and wait for customers to complain; if they never do, you either made the right engineering decision or your business isn't big enough yet :-) ).</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Hulu To Actually Add Premium Pay Content While Keeping Current Content Free - <AUTHOR> http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/20091023/how-much-will-you-have-to-pay-for-hulu-nothing-how-much-will-you-pay-for-hulu-plus-good-question/

<comment><USER2> The "premium" content is really the content they had at the beginning, but lost over time as the rights holders cracked down; e.g. movies you'd actually want to watch, and more than 5 back episodes of currently-running shows.

What we have here really is a failure of the advertising model Hulu uses. They just can't make enough money per viewer to displace traditional broadcasting or DVD sales. IMHO either Hulu or the advertisers are doing something stupid, because there really should be a gold mine there. The targeting and scheduling flexibility that's possible on a site like Hulu should make it more valuable per viewer than TV.

<comment><USER3> Online advertising doesn't compete against traditional broadcast advertising on a level playing field. You can directly measure a lot of the effectiveness of an online ad. That's much harder to do with traditional ads, so everyone uses statistical models for pricing. Except those models are probably mostly garbage.

Likely online advertising meets or exceeds the actual performance of traditional ads, but people have yet to admit out loud that the emperor has no clothes. That's only a matter of time though, and the result won't be any different than the current reality: to maintain the production levels people are used to, business models are going to have to change, whether it's subscriptions like Hulu is going for, or something else entirely.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This is great news.

It's pretty impressive that Hulu was put together not just through a big company, but through a collaboration of four giant media conglomerates. Not the outcome that we might have expected. Kudos to the team that navigated that deal . . .

Here's hoping that the book publishers take the lessons to heart for their transition and record labels realize what they've missed and get back on track.

</comment><comment><USER5> Now that makes more sense then the nonsensical plan everybody was assuming they would go with.

<comment><USER6> The sad part is, they've been saying that since the beginning. Just, no one's bothering to read and instead they go straight to 'Hulu's dead' and all that hyperbole.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> this is textbook "freemium" model.

</comment><comment><USER8> Doesn't matter - I can't see their content anyways, I'm Canadian...

<comment><USER9> Hulu blocks geographic regions _and_ nationality, too!

 _pokesfun_ :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Adding premium content means more ads for it and upselling which will make visiting the site less and less pleasant for "free" content.

But they will never have competitors as they are the only one that owns the rights to display virtually all of their content online, so they pretty much can do whatever they want, it's a monopoly.</comment>


Sherpas, Death, and Anger on Everest  - <AUTHOR> http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2014/04/everest-sherpas-death-and-anger.html?mobify=0 <comment><USER2> For those wondering, this is the picture by Ralf Dujmovits from May, 2012 mentioned in the article. [http://static.guim.co.uk/sys- images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/20...](http://static.guim.co.uk/sys- images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2012/5/30/1338397845911/Everest-climbers-form- a-l-001.jpg)

<comment><USER3> Reminds me of Half Dome in Yosemite. [https://ef4d62261c-custmedia.vresp.com/7f1b0b7af3/Half%20Dom...](https://ef4d62261c-custmedia.vresp.com/7f1b0b7af3/Half%20Dome%20Cable%20Photo.jpg)

<comment><USER4> I haven't been to Half Dome in 25 years, and feel fortunate to have only seen a dozen other people on the trail when I went. Wow. Time to do what they do at Mt Whitney and have a lottery system for hiking permits.

<comment><USER5> there is a limited number of permits ([http://www.nps.gov/yose/planyourvisit/hdpermits.htm](http://www.nps.gov/yose/planyourvisit/hdpermits.htm)) - a few friends and myself hiked whitney (got lucky, middle of the week, few applications) then drove to check out half dome but was not as lucky

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Himalayan Experience, the company mentioned in the article, publishes a nice newsletter during summit seasons, and delivered to your inbox if you subscribe, spam free. I find it very interesting to follow their weekly-ish reports on all the preparation, acclimatization and summit for Everest and other mountains during the season. This is the newsletter page where you can read and subscribe:

[http://himalayanexperience.com/newsletters](http://himalayanexperience.com/newsletters)

This is what Russ published regarding the event in the article:

 _" Sorry for the late news, I have been a bit busy these last few days.

On the day of the avalanche we had 19 Sherpas carrying loads to C2. On their descent they established our rescue tent at C1 with oxygen, sleeping bags and other rescue equipment. The fact that they were busy doing this meant that none of our staff were actually in the ice fall at the time of the accident, so all are safe. As each Sherpa has a radio we were very quickly able to ascertain where everyone was. Our Sherpas also all have avalanche transceivers so they were able to do a transceiver search as they descended back to BC, but as very few people actually use transceivers on Everest they never found any signals.

At that time all our members were at Lobuche BC or acclimatising on the slopes of Lobuche, and only now are they returning to Everest BC.

At this stage we do not know if we will be continuing with our expedition or not.

Russ"_

</comment><comment><USER7> First of all, what's the point of climbing Everest when you're basically being carried to the top?

As someone who is into more 'extreme' endeavours, it's more about the experience than the result. Where's the fun in having someone else do the heavy lifting?

Second, why not climb new mountains? There's plenty of interesting places in the world to explore, climb, and have an adventure. Plenty of peaks to ascend (and descend on skis!), plenty of remote locations to reach, and many peaks where you can bag a first ascent, rather than be the X climber to have been carried up by a Sherpa...

Want to be extreme, and enrich your life experience? Learn how to actually be a mountaineer, learn the ropes (figuratively and literally), and do something on your own. But I guess that's too hard.

About the Sherpas on Everest - they need to decide as a society whether depending on tourist dollars is what they want, or whether they want to actually create something...

<comment><USER8> Personally I can't imagine any good reason to climb everest anymore, if hundreds do it every year. I'd rather do something original.

<comment><USER9> There are 7 billion people on earth, and a few hundred do this thing per year, so now it's so mainstream it's not worth doing? Is the point to experience something or to tell people about how you experienced something they haven't? Odds are still that they didn't climb Everest.

<comment><USER10> +1

"Things aren't fun/good/interesting if hundreds do it."

Pardon me if that doesn't sound a bit like the stereotypical hipster excuse not to do something - a fetish for being original. To each their own, but my goodness does that make my jaw drop.

<comment><USER11> Yes, but what was the original point of climbing Everest?

<comment><USER10> Climbing the tallest mountain in the world?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> > For the foreign climbers, to go home now will mean forfeiting most or all of > the fifty to ninety thousand dollars they have spent to be guided up > Everest.

> Among the Sherpas' demands are that the government […] require the guiding > companies to pay Sherpas their salaries, even if they call off the remainder > of the 2014 Everest climbing season;

So basically if a guiding company calls an expedition off they don't even have to give a raincheck, but they withhold the Sherpas pay? That seems predatory even if you workers are not dying like flies!

<comment><USER13> The way the article was written made it sound like Sherpas are paid for their time. So if the climb is called off and they are used for the rest of the season, then they don't earn pay for the weeks they are no longer employed. If a beach is closed you don't keep paying your lifeguards the rest of the season for work they aren't doing.

Seems fine to me. It's actually worse for them if they were paid the entire season even when a cancelation happens since then there's less reason to call it off.

<comment><USER14> But the expedition companies don't refund any of the money they collected from the climbers that would have gone to the Sherpas, instead pocketing it for themselves. They should either refund the money to the climbers, or pay the Sherpas what they were planning on paying them. Not just go "oh well, it's our money now!"

<comment><USER15> Are you sure that money goes to the Sherpas? I think most of it actually goes to the government (hence the anger) and to supplies.

<comment><USER16> I think the $50,000-$90,000 is the 'all inclusive' cost covering a $10,000 Nepali government fee, sherpas, western guides, accommodation at base camps, food, drugs, bottled oxygen, trash removal, travel company profit margin and so on.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> "Into Thin Air" (1996) from the author of this article is one of the greatest books I've ever read; I highly recommend it for its great storytelling and its description of the Everest microsociety.

<comment><USER18> I much prefer "Abstieg zum Erfolg", "Bergsüchtig" (Hans Kammerlander) and "Der nackte Berg: Nanga Parbat" (Reinhold Messner). They explain very well what you have to go through and what they did to climb in alpine style. Though, they're in German and I don't think there is an English translation form them. (Looks like Messner has some in English like "All Fourteen 8,000ers")

Best of them was probably "Abstieg zum Erfolg".

<comment><USER19> Many of Messner's books are in English. [http://www.amazon.com/Reinhold- Messner/e/B000APEVL4/](http://www.amazon.com/Reinhold-Messner/e/B000APEVL4/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Why does the author repeatedly refer to the clients climbing Everest as "Westerners?" There are a lot from Japan, China, South Korea, and India. Is the implication that the Westerners are somehow responsible while the Easterners are not? Are Sherpas more likely to recede from danger when their climbing party is from Japan than when it is from Germany?

<comment><USER21> I think the intention is to deliniate between 'western' and 'eastern' standards of living - in that context, Japan, South Korea and to an extent China are quite 'western'. This is as opposed to the Nepalese, who as the article says live on an annual income of ~USD$600.

This opens up another can of worms in implying that 'eastern' civilisations are poorer than western ones. I agree it is not a good use of the term but it's arguably better than 'first world' and 'third world' and I cannot think of a better equivalent.

<comment><USER22> This is exactly right. "Westerners" has less to do with the exact geography and more with economic indicators including standards living/income. I was traveling with Singaporeans who kept being referred to as "westerners"; it was odd initially, but to the locals it was about the group's purchasing power, expectations of luxury/comfort, and nothing else. It was their way of identifying big spenders from the rest.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Before making any conclusions about the role of Everest in this tradgedy, its worth looking at the very similar event on k2 in 2008.

> > [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_K2_disaster](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_K2_disaster)

This event had a similar death toll (11x), a similar pysical situation (ice sercac avalanche accross main summit route), and overall was in a place made people similarly nervous for many years.

<comment> T-zex I don't think these two events are similar. Most of the fatalities on K2 in 2008 where due to poor planning or preparation of the climbers themselves. While recent tragedy on Everest was simply an ice-fall and avalanche.

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zkC9IMQmYA](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zkC9IMQmYA) is a very good video of Chris Warner talking to Google employees about leadership. He has climbed K2 in 2007 and gives his opinion on the events in 2008.

Also The Summit [0] is a nice film about this tragedy.

[0][http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2363471/](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2363471/)

<comment><USER24> I hate to speak ill of those that lost their lives, but they made very poor choices that directly resulted in their deaths.

Poor coordination with other teams, leaving 3 hours later than intended, missing or forgetting gear, and dangerous decisions in very dangerous situations.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> This has brewing for so long. One example is the incident with Ueli Steck last year [0]. Regardless of what you think of what happened, it really highlights how much tension there is between the Sherpas and the 'western' guides.

[0] [http://www.climbing.com/news/ugly-incident-on- everest/](http://www.climbing.com/news/ugly-incident-on-everest/)

</comment><comment><USER26> Unionised labour and a $500 refundable deposit on those oxygen cylinders would solve a lot of problems on Everest.

<comment><USER27> Certainly sound and act like a union:

> Nevertheless, on April 20th, after holding several emotional, contentious > meetings at Everest base camp, the climbing Sherpas announced that they > would go on strike unless the Nepali government agreed to meet thirteen > demands within a week.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> In last 10 years the business have changed a lot. Nowadays even pop-starts were "carried to the top" by Sherpas, for whom it is just a job.

I meet one of such Sherpa guides, who already had 5 ascendings, in Periche village on 31 March. He told me that the number of tourists is increasing each year, that supply chain is robust enough so that tourists could have ordered a spaghetti or noodles or even pizza at the Camp2, etc. (30kg. gas cylinders and food supplies were carried to the Camp2 by Nepalese potters).

Actually it is ugly, greedy, very arrogant and selfish world of those rich "tourists" who brought their "safe" trip to the top. One just have see them for a few minutes or how potters are carrying innumerable boxes and bags with tourist's stuff. Just business.

</comment><comment><USER29> Everest is kinda getting ridiculous. If you do any reading or watching on treks up the mountain you know the only way 90+% of these "mountaineers" get up to the summit is because of the hard work and ascents of sherpas. I'm happy to hear about the strike and hope it turns away the popularization of something I think isn't as novel as we make it out to be. Why not explore space instead? My $0.02...

</comment><comment><USER30> Is it possible to go to Everest and climb the mountain without the use of Sherpas? How often are expeditions mounted where the members rely only on themselves to accomplish all the required tasks: gear ferrying, rope and ladder fixing, acclimatization etc? Do such expeditions ever encounter resistance from the companies or Sherpa collective?

<comment><USER31> > Is it possible to go to Everest and climb the mountain without the use of > Sherpas?

Perhaps, but in modern times it's more complicated than that. People who arrange their own expeditions often come into conflict with established tours and organizations. You often hear stories of someone who doesn't belong on the mountain for one reason or another, who can't keep up with the traffic flow -- in certain places on the route a weak or unprepared climber can produce a bottleneck that prevents people from completing their summit, on one of the few days of the year when that's even possible.

It's not as though Everest is a big cone with dozens of available routes where people can choose to walk up to the summit any way they want. There are serious traffic and coordination problems, and the more independent agents, the more ways things can go wrong.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> The Discovery Channel series "Everest: Beyond The Limit" covers a few of Himalayan Experience's seasons, including the infamous incident with David Sharp. It's on Netflix, and I would definitely recommend it if you're interested in the politics and logistics of modern day Everest expeditions.

</comment><comment><USER33> Why don't the sherpas form a union?

<comment><USER34> Its funny, in these countries communist parties are strong, the Maoists in Nepal have been staging armed uprisings for many years and there is still such strong labor exploitation.

</comment></comment><comment> king-coconut If interested in the topic I can recommend Alan Arnette's blog [http://www.alanarnette.com/](http://www.alanarnette.com/) I've found it one of the best sources of what's happening on Everest.

</comment><comment><USER35> They probably got what they deserved.

[http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/apr/30/everest- climber...](http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/apr/30/everest-climbers- sherpa-mob-attack)</comment>


WWDC 2015 - <AUTHOR> https://developer.apple.com/wwdc/ <comment><USER2> Is it normal for them to be randomly allocating tickets?

It seems that people need to pre-register, but when it comes to the sale itself, it's a lottery who gets one.

See : [https://developer.apple.com/wwdc/tickets/](https://developer.apple.com/wwdc/tickets/)

<comment><USER3> Yes. This procedure was used last year.

[http://www.wired.com/2014/04/apple-wwdc-lottery- system/](http://www.wired.com/2014/04/apple-wwdc-lottery-system/)</comment></comment>


The audacious rescue plan that might have saved space shuttle Columbia - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/02/the-audacious-rescue-plan-that-might-have-saved-space-shuttle-columbia/1/ <comment><USER2> On a lighter note, a 1983 TV movie [1] follows events on an high-speed passenger airplane accidentally launching into LEO and being rescued by two space shuttle missions.

Concepts shown included transfering passengers and crew through space by improvised means [2] and using a shuttle as sort of heat shield in front of the plane; one character realizes _a shuttle could drop into the atmosphere ahead of Starflight, with Starflight riding the plough-wave; the wingtips would burn a little_.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starflight:_The_Plane_That_Cou...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starflight:_The_Plane_That_Couldn't_Land)

[2] among them, a coffin.

</comment><comment><USER3> > Contrary to popular belief, the heat a spacecraft faces on reentry isn't > generated by simple friction but rather by ram pressure—the fast-moving > shuttle compresses the air in front of it, forming a massive shock zone in > which air molecules ionize and break apart.

Finally! It always annoys me when people, even those who should know better, call it friction.

<comment><USER4> It is almost perfect adiabatic process. Or the ionization helps to heat even further?

<comment><USER3> When gas is compressed, it heats up. Moving rapidly through the air compresses the air in front, so it heats up.

It's as simple as that.

The ionization has nothing to do with it, though that probably reduces the heat slightly as it takes energy to ionize a gas.

<comment><USER5> Ionization actually reduces the effective temperature massively - from O(v^2) to O(v) at high (read: re-entry-like) velocities.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> > Further, even if successful reentry were possible, the shuttle could not be > landed entirely from the ground—there was no way for Mission Control to have > extended the shuttle's landing gear or the air probes necessary to judge > velocity once in the atmosphere. Those functions (as well as starting the > shuttle's auxiliary power unit) could only be invoked by physically throwing > switches in the cockpit during approach and landing.

It is a mystery to me why it was designed this way. I'd design it so that if the crew were disabled, it could be brought back by mission control.

<comment><USER6> The reasoned assumption is that if a space crew is disabled, it's because they are dead. The article is interesting because it treats the possibility that a rescue was feasible as if it were viable. It wasn't.

The addition of the cable is more a reflection of the Shuttle Program's changing mission profiles. Remote control makes sense when docking and undocking from the ISS. It makes sense as a way to test unmanned flight operations to service it. But it was still a cable, not an iPhone app.

Once _Columbia_ was far enough from the launch pad that the crew survival systems added in the wake of _Challenger_ could be used, they were "dead men walking". Though we might want to point to _Apollo 13_ as a reason for hope, it's not a good analogy. It's run what ya' brung: There are no tow trucks in space. Remote control would not have changed that.

The design paradigm that led to the space shuttle is probably an evolutionary dead end. Space craft design looks more like 'nix or biological viruses than Windows or walruses. The fact that the engineering solution that allowed remote control was boosting additional grams in the form of a 28 foot cable rather than upgrades to modular avionics points to the inflexibility of the shuttle design -- _Columbia_ in particular was the oldest in a line of one-off handbuilt airframes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Previous discussion in feb. 2014: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7305224](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7305224)

</comment><comment><USER8> On a completely philosophical note - assuming it was actually fully finished, do you think the Buran Space Shuttle, which could fly fully autonomously, could be sent to rescue the astronauts without endangering more human lives? From what I understand it was ready to fly(it did complete a successful orbit launch and landing, fully automatically) but the whole project was mothballed because the Soviet Union collapsed. What if it wasn't? Would it be a viable alternative? And on a similar note - was there never any interest in automating the US Space Shuttles?

<comment><USER9> "do you think the Buran Space Shuttle, which could fly fully autonomously, could be sent to rescue the astronauts"

No, not enough fuel. Unless you ship that dude out of the USSR it doesn't have enough fuel, when launched from the USSR, to get to orbit with an inclination below maybe 45 or so degrees (nobody is absolutely sure and you can play a lot of geography games etc). It would have been super borderline at absolute best. Also "orbit" is fuzzy, so "could launch as low as 45 degrees" is technically true if you're cool with only achieving a temporary very low orbit, maybe 40-50 miles lower than columbia was. Of course you could try an insane rescue attempt like re-entering columbia while buran is re-entering and then you got 5 minutes to transfer... Umm this is sounding too hollywood movie to be considered.

Given an infinite tank of fuel or an infinitely low payload you can launch from any latitude into any inclination, but you always get best payload for least fuel if your orbit is over your latitude aka your inclination equals your latitude. This is why the ISS is in such a weird super-high inclination orbit, to make the Russians happy during the cold war.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> "Foam strikes during launch were not uncommon events, and shuttle program managers elected not to take on-orbit images of Columbia to visually assess any potential damage."

The foam strikes were not uncommon but they were not _designed_ events. Rather, the organization went the slippery slope of considering unplanned debris "normal" since they had not caused any disasters before.

This leads me to think that the communications and security culture had not improved that much from the Challenger days then...

<comment><USER4> Worth the read

[http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/missions/51-l/docs/roger...](http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/missions/51-l/docs/rogers- commission/Appendix-F.txt)

It was that way in the 80s. If it does not work as planned, but it has not broke yet - it is safe.

<comment><USER11> That's a very Kerbal way of dealing with things _shudders_

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Why will launching a space vehicle never be as routine as commercial air travel?

I think it should be one of the goals of mankind. There is no fundamental law of physics that says we can't make it routine. The author states that they don't think it will be feasible in our lifetime. However the amount of technological advancement that has been made over the past century is astounding. There is no reason to think this would be unfeasible.

<comment><USER6> No, it will never be as routine as commercial air travel.

Yes, there are fundamental laws of physics that say we cannot make it routine. [1]

[1]: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsiolkovsky_rocket_equation](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsiolkovsky_rocket_equation)

<comment><USER13> _Rocket launches_ will never be as routine. Other launch methods will eventually become routine.

[http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non- rocket_spacelaunch](http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-rocket_spacelaunch)

<comment><USER6> According to the link and reasonably assuming that the reference to commercial air travel implied human payloads, none of the technologies above readiness level 2 are suitable due to either lack of payload capacity or gee forces induced or both.

What the table shows is that it _might_ be theoretically possible to develop some other technology, not that such a technology actually will come into existence.

<comment><USER13> Neither the short time horizon nor the human space travel restriction were in the original question. Nonhuman space delivery will become routine relatively quickly, and human space travel will become routine after. It's inevitable.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> That seems like an absolute crazy mission, the kind you'd see in a hollywood movie.

As long as we're imagining, was there maybe an option C, an EVA from the Columbia crew to just replace some of those tiles? Was that even possible?

<comment><USER15> I assume they didn't have replacement tiles on board, but assuming they did, I wonder if that would have been possible.

It also occurs to me they could have sent an unmanned cargo carrier to dock with them with the required tiles and tools - maybe a Soyuz... but then, they could have all just gotten into the Soyuz.

There is no mention of the Soyuz in the article. I wonder if they considered that option.

<comment><USER16> They are not, and as I recall it was one of the criticisms a friend of mine levelled at the report as well. That by sending up a Soyuz, and using both that module and the backup, they could return 6 people to earth. Then a second and Soyuz mission and the Atlantis mission to replace the backup and return excess crew. Leaving Columbia on orbit awaiting some form of repair or scuttling.

Mostly though it re-emphasized how "not routine" going up into space is. Orbital windows not withstanding, you cannot just "decide" to catch the next one and bring up hardware to fly. Something I hope we can get to with Falcon 9 re-use.

<comment><USER17> Soyuz is mentioned in the CAIB report.

+++++++++++

5.2 Other Vehicles (Soyuz, Ariane 4) There has been some discussion regarding the possibility of sending supplies to Columbia using an expendable launch vehicle – to lengthen the amount of time available to execute a rescue mission. Because of Columbia's 39-degree orbital inclination, an expendable launch from a launch site with a latitude greater than 39 degrees would not be able to reach Columbia. This rules out a Soyuz/Progress launch. There was an Ariane 4 in French Guiana that successfully launched an Intelsat satellite on February 15. The challenge with developing a supply kit, building an appropriate housing and separation system, and reprogramming the Ariane seems very difficult in three weeks, although this option is still in work.

—Columbia Accident Investigation Board Report, Appendix D.13

++++++++++

(Yanked from the Ars comment section)

<comment><USER15> Thanks.

That makes me wonder why Columbia was at 39-degree orbital inclination - making it unable to get to the ISS, and unable to be rescued by a Soyuz.

Reading the purpose of the mission [1], I don't see any reason it needed to be were it was.

[1][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STS-107](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STS-107)

<comment><USER9> Crew and ground comfort (combined with the specific altitude) and it was yet another microgravity mission.

I can only get hand wavy about the field is not uniform mass concentration blah blah. Presumably deep in the decimal points, a 40 degree orbit or a 38 degree orbit has higher (although still very small) gravitational anomalies.

It was a fairly common "track" for shuttle missions. Perhaps 5 or 6 missions were in the same orbit.

(edited to point out this was not cut and paste from the 107 marketing materials, its from an older launch, although the orbit is identical for identical reasons. Basically they reflew a 90s era mission, STS sixty- something)

"Columbia will climb to a 173-statute-mile (278-kilometer)-high orbit with a 39-degree inclination to the Earth's equator to allow the seven-member flight crew to maintain the same sleep/wake rhythms they are accustomed to on Earth and to reduce vibrational and directional forces that could affect on-board microgravity experiments."

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> This was the most depressing quote for me:

>It is unlikely that launching a space vehicle will ever be as routine an undertaking as commercial air travel—certainly not in the lifetime of anybody who reads this.

<comment><USER19> Of course, that could certainly be completely incorrect. It seems to me, from casual observation, that the rate of rocket launches is increasing very quickly. We seem to be getting better at it.

<comment><USER20> > It seems to me, from casual observation, that the rate of rocket launches is > increasing very quickly. We seem to be getting better at it.

The numbers say otherwise:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_spaceflight](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_spaceflight)

[http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/logyear.html](http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/logyear.html)

<comment><USER21> > > [http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/logyear.html](http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/logyear.html)

There's no legend on that table; it took me a while to figure out that it's _L_ aunches and _F_ ailures.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> This seems like a pretty good look into what the race on Earth in "A Walk in the Sun" would have looked like.</comment>


Twitter disputes State Dept claims China coordinated Covid-19 disinfo accts - <AUTHOR> https://edition.cnn.com/2020/05/08/politics/china-twitter-disinformation-bots-state-department/ <comment><USER2> "According to Twitter, they have instead found that numerous accounts belong to government entities, nongovernmental organizations, and journalists. The review was ongoing, the company said, noting that it planned to follow up with the GEC on its findings."

How do they know who actually posts to these Twitter accounts? If I was trying to create a disinformation campaign, it wouldn't be difficult to use IP addresses scattered across different countries and IP banks.

The Chinese government has almost unlimited resources. It wouldn't take much to buy IP banks, phones for verification, and pay people to post.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Original title was too long. It was:

Twitter disputes State Department claims China coordinated coronavirus disinformation accounts</comment>