How Skype fixes security vulnerabilities - <AUTHOR> https://hub.zhovner.com/geek/how-skype-fixes-security-vulnerabilities/?1 <comment><USER2> Most interesting to me was the response from the MS Security Response Centre: "[T]his is not a valid vulnerability ... [It] relies entirely on social engineering."

This narrow view of what constitutes the system shows that MS Security is seriously flawed. If you run hosted software you have to consider the security aspects of the total system, including support and other human factors. Seems like MS is stuck in the mindset of shrink-wrapped software.

</comment><comment><USER3> Mods removed "(They don't)" or similar from the title. Before they did this I think it more accurately reflected the intent of the original author as this is the prominent subtitle on the page. Without this it makes the article sounds much less interesting.

<comment><USER4> When I read the title without the They don't in it I thought sarcastically to myself "They don't".

<comment><USER5> I literally did the same when I read the title. I guess Skype has done a lot to earn the snark.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I feel like this could be fixed very quickly if someone wanted to invest the time and was a bit on the chaotic side. 1) find Skype IDs of Microsoft managers, known people, big businesses with ties to MS 2) create 20+ fake accounts 3) start reporting abuse...

It's the same issue as in any big system - people on high enough positions are isolated from all the crap normal users have to deal with. If you can interrupt their business call though... I expect the fix will be coming soon.

<comment><USER7> This is very true. OP can contact me for some MS employee Skype usernames. :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Last week Skype dropped 2/3 of my contacts list.

I contacted their chat support to tell them about it. The person on the other end was insisting that I might be using another Skype account where my other contacts are. Which of course I ain't since I'm not that stupid. He then suggested the stupid bullshit Tier 1 support usually does, like reinstalling Skype. I did as asked.

Then he asked me for remote control of my PC which I refused, because I have sensitive data on my laptop and I'm on a MacOS anyway. I then asked for my issue to be upgraded to a higher-level tier, because losing my contacts is unacceptable. Then he made an accusation that I haven't reinstalled Skype as asked and that I'm probably using two accounts, at which point I gave up.

Anyway, Skype sucks, it's been a week since I've lost most of my contacts which I've been collecting for about 7 years or so and their support is useless.

If you're relying on Skype for your business, stop doing that ;-)

<comment><USER9> I've dumped all of these services due to random crap like this. Phone, SMS, email or go away. They're not perfect but they are significantly better than anything else.

However if you want a real turd: Skype for Business. Everything starts with 20 minutes trying to work out if it's working or not which for a random subset of people the answer is nope.

<comment><USER10> Phone and SMS are fucking useless if you spend any significant period of time using wifi without having signal (my office, the tube, etc.), and you have to pay to send images. SMS can go do one, to be honest.

<comment><USER9> I read books on the tube :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I've been looking for a Skype alternative since the security of Skype was weakened after it was acquired by Microsoft. I've had my account stolen multiple times because their support has changed the primary e-mail address of my account, I had to use the same method the social engineers used to get my account back. Since then I've avoided sharing anything slightly sensitive over Skype, as chat history is synced with anyone who accesses your account.

Finding a replacement isn't easy, but I've used Wire (wire.com) for a year now and find it good enough feature-wise, and excellent security-wise. It has its quirks and can be a resource hog at times (the desktop app uses Electron IIRC), but it's worth switching from the security disaster that is Skype.

<comment><USER12> You should definitely consider the matrix protocol ([https://matrix.org](https://matrix.org)) that is used with riot ([https://riot.im](https://riot.im)). Matrix allows for a complete decentralization and both the the protocol and the client are open source. There are even many other clients as matrix also works with for example weechat.

One of it's biggest strength are the support for bridges to other messengers like slack, irc and gitter. I personally haven't yet tried group calls or video chat, but considering that those also use end to end encryption just as messages and attachement and that this encryption has been fully audited, I could barely be any less hyped about all this. As the author of this article pointed out, all of skype's flaws are more or less inherent of big centralized messengers and this is exactly what we get around with matrix. It's really amazing in what a great state it already is. Sure there is still lots of work left, but to me it appears to be the currently most promising project.

<comment><USER13> Both are too difficult for normal people to grasp and have no central id management so you have to copy it manually

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Skype makes me sad.

I used it 10 years ago, and it was great - or at least pretty good, compared to the other options. Video calls, screen sharing, chat.

But it had a number of problems. Mostly surrounding using it on multiple devices, making it very hard to keep track of what has and has not been read. Log onto Skype on a device I have not used in a couple of days, and "unread" messages show up - messages I have already read.

Over the past 10 years, none of the issues that I care about have been addressed. But we did get some garbage integration with facebook and nice emoticons. They added features nobody wants and have not addressed the problems. It is maddening.

It makes me sad. But it is unfortunately still the standard when you deal with non-technical people, so I keep using it... :(

<comment><USER15> _> making it very hard to keep track of what has and has not been read_

This seems to have finally been addressed, at least on my OSX/iOS combo.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Sadly, Skype is still used a lot. More than half of the emails I receive with a next step of communication proposal come suggesting Skype.

The only way to beat it would be to have another communication solution which can be used as simple as Skype is (for any age, technical literacy, etc.).

<comment><USER17> This. People talk about various alternatives, but I haven't seen one. The requirements are pretty simple

1) Chat and group chat (persistent)

2) Simple file transfer and image posting in chat

3) Good quality voice calls, video calls and group voice calls

4) Apps for android/iOS with shared contact lists

5) Single application for all of the above (to enable a single group set, switching between group chat and group call with one button)

6) No server setup

7) Free or freemium on all platforms (With all features 1-5 in the free tier)

Are there any good alternatives? Is there even _an_ alternative?

<comment><USER18> 3) Is not true for me though, it's awful mostly, but that's my pet peeve (all coders assume everyone else is on a 1000mbit connection as well all the time) and MS is really bad at making anything work on bad connections. Office 365 isn't even getting past the 'wait while loading' while Google drive/docs is completely usable when I have a bad connection (which is often). The software that was written for bad connections, like Whatsapp and Wechat, for me, have much better quality. But no video (which I personally don't need, but it violates your 3rd demand).

<comment><USER19> > 3) Good quality voice calls, video calls and group voice calls

In my experience, voice quality issues is almost always due to the people and not the technology.

<comment><USER18> Well Skype just disconnects _often_ and it takes a while to get back. While the 'others' don't have that as they assume the connection will break / is too slow?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I wonder how many other free services' accounts can be disabled by bombarding an automated abuse-reporting/blocking system with reports of "abuse" from a specified username. A lot more than just Skype, I bet. And many of these services have no method of contacting a human at "customer service" because of the sheer number of free accounts (tens of millions).

<comment><USER21> There have been a lot of instances of this happening to feminist or LGBT groups on Facebook and YouTube. These systems are fantastically abusable.

<comment><USER20> If I were setting up an automated abuse-report-receiving system that could automatically disable accounts, I would run some sort of filter for "is the account reporting the abuse itself a newly created account, and/or one with suspiciously low and non-human looking usage patterns?".

But on the other side, malicious actors can solve that problem by having clickfarm workers in bangladesh create 30 fake facebook accounts, post random drivel on them for a week to make them look like they're in use, and then use those to report abuse.

<comment><USER22> > If I were setting up an automated abuse-report-receiving system that could > automatically disable accounts, I would run some sort of filter for "is the > account reporting the abuse itself a newly created account, and/or one with > suspiciously low and non-human looking usage patterns?".

That does not help against these kiddy vandals mentioned in the article.

<comment><USER20> yes, exactly why it's a hard problem to solve.

<comment><USER22> The solution is simple: Hire support people - and both train and allow them to deviate from the usual support flowcharts.

Oh, and check if they actually speak English well enough to communicate with customers. As a customer, I instantly notice outsourced callcenters.

<comment><USER20> The solution is _not_ simple, if you're on the business management side and need to concern yourself with the fully loaded yearly office space, overhead, payroll/benefits cost of hiring hundreds of well trained, motivated, educated, english speaking customer support reps to support your 20+ million "free" customers...

<comment><USER22> It all boils down to classic capitalism: privatizing profits (money not spent on support teams) and socializing losses (wasted police funds on SWATting, often needed psychological care for victims, lost productivity due to hacks)...

Once these losses are factored in, the tide swings towards support staff. But unfortunately that won't happen any time soon.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Original in Russian: [https://habrahabr.ru/post/316912/](https://habrahabr.ru/post/316912/)

Original submission by author: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13225939](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13225939)

</comment><comment><USER24> It is obvious for me that Satya Nadella never uses Skype (or Lync, cough cough, Skype for Business). If he were using Skype he would write an e-mail like this Bill Gates rant: [http://blog.seattlepi.com/microsoft/2008/06/24/full-text- an-...](http://blog.seattlepi.com/microsoft/2008/06/24/full-text-an-epic-bill- gates-e-mail-rant/) about Movie Maker.

</comment><comment><USER25> Last year I discovered a bug that allowed you to call someone's phone and remotely activate it's camera and mic by disconnecting the call while it was ringing - the target's device would simply call you back as if it were a dropped call.

They fixed it, but boy that was a doozy.

<comment><USER25> Oh god, haha! Someone picked up my original post about it on reddit and wrote an article including my original drawing.

[http://www.androidpolice.com/2014/12/22/security-hole- skype-...](http://www.androidpolice.com/2014/12/22/security-hole-skype-allows- users-surreptitiously-connect-users/)

Ed: Oh my word, hundreds of phone, tech and malware blogs picked up on it all over the world. I didn't have a clue.

<comment><USER26> Wow! Looks pretty the same to remote mic activation on desktop that i found few years ago [https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ru&tl=en&u=h...](https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ru&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fhabrahabr.ru%2Fpost%2F133555%2F)

Skype for Android can receive a call when skype app in backgroud?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> My account on Skype seems to have gotten some sort of shadowban. I don't show up when people search for me and when I send people a contact request it shows as sent on my side but the other person never receives it. I can communicate fine with my existing contacts.

</comment><comment><USER28> > Skype tech support is vulnerable to social engineering, and Microsoft is > perfectly OK with that.

This is bothers me alot. My mom got a call from this guy pretending to be MS employee couple of weeks ago. He told her that the PC has been infected by virus and MS has been notified and he is helping her to resolve the issue. For a person like my mom who is not much of tech savy person, the chances are really high to fall for this. Fortunately, she told that guy to call her back later, because she didn't know the administrator password.

</comment><comment><USER29> From my sources inside of Skype, everyone is leaving, and Microsoft might be preparing to sell it. No wonder that nothing's changing.

<comment><USER30> This would explain why they don't allow anymore to link your Skype to your Microsoft account: [https://support.skype.com/en/faq/FA12060/can-i-link-or- unlin...](https://support.skype.com/en/faq/FA12060/can-i-link-or-unlink-my- skype-and-microsoft-accounts)

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> My first reaction seeing the title was, "Is this for Real!?".

Then, I saw what I was expecting as the very first line in the article.

</comment><comment><USER32> I use Skype for more than 10 years, and I feel it's abandoned. I also have a Google Voice account, same feeling.

</comment><comment><USER33> I recently had an interview on Skype.

I added the interviewer in my contact list, but we were never able to start a video conference. We did it by phone instead. I did not have the job. Thanks Skype. Not to mention the interviewer had Skype Pro.

Not to mention the intrusive ads.

</comment><comment><USER34> Lync (Skype for business) has been The Worst support that I've ever dealt with.

</comment><comment><USER35> > <Skype> > We think that we gave enough information. You are piece of shit, > live with it.

I've no idea if this is real or not, but if it is, it's pretty damning for Microsoft. I hope the author goes to court and wins!

<comment><USER36> From the article: "Short recap:" As far as I can tell this recap is a summary of the original email exchange which is available from a link in the article.

[http://telegra.ph/SRX1365288845ID---Account-blocked-by- mass-...](http://telegra.ph/SRX1365288845ID---Account-blocked-by-mass-abuse- reporting-12-19)

I haven't read it closely enough to confirm that the gist of each message corresponds, but I don't see any of the explicit, abusive language from Skype in the emails that shows up in the recap.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> I don't think I can fault Skype for this "vulnerability" \- the problem itself isn't really in code, but in people. Yes, within the article there's mention of a past attack which relied on socially engineering a support specialist to send verification codes and guess the result, but that seems to have stopped. I'd actually love to know the key generation algorithm or the probabilities that go into guessing one of four-ish codes sent in a burst in just a few tries.

Still. the other exploit mentioned, the one not "patched" \- This same kind of mass-reporting system exploit is usable in all manner of online forums and services - heck, HN's own flag feature could get pretty close (we just have some very hands-on moderators and an okay community)!

As for not restoring something when contacting support... I can understand why. It's _better_ this way, since then no malicious party who is _actually_ spamming with Skype accounts can retrieve an account using only a bit of social engineering! Instead they need to roll up new emails and new accounts. (And think of it this way: If a malicious party is abusing the system to get your account blocked, how will they know your new account to repeat the procedure? They shouldn't.)

Yes. It's a pity that the abuse reporting system is itself vulnerable to abuse, but... aren't most? Given Skype's massive userbase, putting the user reporting function behind a mechanical turk... the rate at which they'd need to comb through ban requests would seem to make fatigue (and thereby false positives which would result in the same outcome as now) inevitable. The only interesting way I've seen this abuse-system abuse handled in recent years was the League of Legends tribunal system[1], where they effectively handed penalty decisions to the community at large and let them come to a consensus. Though I don't know how well it worked and, honestly, that system seems just as game-able as the automated report button itself. In fact, it feels analogous to a Sybil attack[2] in the crypto world - get enough aligned malicious identities in a decentralized system and they effectively control it. The only "fix" is making identity creation too expensive to make gaining a controlling share of the identity-space prohibitive (which would entail making account creation difficult) - I feel that this is _directly at odds_ with account creation speed and this user acquisition for a service like this, so I can not fault Skype for falling on the middleground that they have.

[1][http://forums.na.leagueoflegends.com/board/showthread.php?t=...](http://forums.na.leagueoflegends.com/board/showthread.php?t=2068259) [2][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sybil_attack](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sybil_attack)

<comment><USER38> If support team is vulnerable to abuse, so deal with it. For example, stop blocking accounts due to abuse reports. Just block account ability to contact with reporter. Make some automatic abuse detection system to deal with most popular cases. Invent some type of carma for users, keep it hidden, but let this carma influence on decision making of support team or abuse detection system.

A little courage to face problem and some creativity to brain storm a solution... But Skype team seems lacking will to solve any problems.</comment></comment>


CoreOS and Redspread Join to Extend Kubernetes - <AUTHOR> https://coreos.com/blog/coreos-welcomes-redspread.html <comment><USER2> Mackenzie and Dan are great. Loved working with them at YC and know they will do awesome work at CoreOS.

</comment><comment><USER3> Congrats to Mackenzie and Dan. (:

</comment><comment><USER4> Congrats Mackenzie and Dan, big fan of your work and approach to the challenges!

</comment><comment><USER5> Acquired, acquihired or hired?

<comment><USER6> I don't know, but it sounds remarkably like the tool is going to be merged into Tectonic (CoreOS's paid service).

<comment><USER7> Of which virtually all of the components are open source, such as the most excellent auth service[1] for tectonic.

[1] [https://github.com/coreos/dex](https://github.com/coreos/dex)

<comment><USER6> Awesome. Very glad to hear that!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Congrats Redspread team!

</comment><comment><USER9> I am not familiar with them, can someone tell me how Redpsread compares to versioning you playbooks/manifests/"infra as code" with git tags and branches?

</comment><comment><USER10> Congrats Mackenzie and Dan. Looking forward to seeing spread evolve at coreos :).

</comment><comment><USER11> Helllll yeah</comment>


53% did not delete FB or tighten their privacy settings post Cambridge Analytica - <AUTHOR> https://www.besttechie.com/report-majority-did-not-delete-facebook-or-tighten-their-privacy-settings/ <comment><USER2> A single poll on a Silicon Valley social bubble chat app is not an appropriate way to draw any conclusions regarding a 2 billion person service.

It's embarrassing the author is even suggesting it's relevant.

</comment><comment><USER3> I didn't change my privacy settings, because I already assume that everything I do on Facebook is essentially public, like any other bulletin board type service.

Also, I only connect to Facebook via Chrome, on my desktop Mac at home, where I use Firefox for all other browsing; on my phone and laptops, I don't use Messenger or connect to Facebook at all. I'm sure they have found sneaky ways of figuring out more about me than I'd prefer, but not so much that additional security precautions seem worthwhile.

</comment><comment><USER4> Alternative headline: 47% of users tightened their privacy settings or deleted Facebook post Cambridge Analytica

<comment><USER5> Yep, though actually 9% had no Facebook (before and after the Cambridge Analytica scandal) so they should be removed form the base altogether, they are part of the survey sample but not of the Facebook userbase i.e.:

100% = 100-9=91

53/91=58% did not change anything

24/91=26% tightened settings

14/91=15% deleted account

+/\- 1% due to rounding

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Not everyone cares about privacy and you can't force them to. It's still a good thing to try to sensitize as much persons as possible but we can't be surprised when some of them don't feel concerned. And there are probably also some people who had already set their privacy settings before.

</comment><comment><USER7> If nearly 14% did, that's amazing and a much larger percentage than I would have ever expected. Of course depending on the methodology, and given the diversity of FB accounts, 5000 in a survey is probably meaningless. Still, let's give it a huge error bar and say it's between 7% and 21%. That's still a ton of people, and you have to wonder if they were people central to the content and networks that keep others around.

The only way to tell will be the trend, not the snapshot.

</comment><comment><USER8> I already had my privacy settings where I wanted them (about 90% of the way to "fully public all the time")

</comment><comment><USER9> As long as I get completely irrelevant ads, I like to think I am fine. :-)</comment>


How to Visualize Your Recurrent Neural Network with Attention in Keras - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/datalogue/attention-in-keras-1892773a4f22 <comment><AUTHOR> I've been in awe of Zaf's ability every day to produce both excellent code and fantastic, intuitive documentation. This is the first in a series of blog posts this summer covering some of our areas of research at Datalogue. Feedback is appreciated! (as are pull requests on the provided code)</comment>


7 Graphs That Debunk Anti-Vaccine Claims - <AUTHOR> http://www.policymic.com/articles/85725/7-images-that-debunk-anti-vaccine-truthers-outrageous-claims?utm_source=policymicTBLR&utm_medium=main&utm_campaign=social

<comment><USER2> I think articles like this are great, but the sad reality is that you'll never be able to convince a vaccine denier to change their mind. They already know their beliefs contradict scientific consensus, so providing them with additional data won't change anything.

People who think this way only react to personal experience and anecdotal evidence. It's going to take someone they know getting sick to get them to reconsider.

</comment><comment><USER3> Some of those graphs and arguments are terrible, and probably would help the antivaxer arguments than hinder them.

<comment><AUTHOR> yeah, I kind of agree. I thought it was an interesting approach though, worthy of some discussion.</comment></comment>


Water is turned into beer in German recycling miracle - <AUTHOR> https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/water-is-turned-into-beer-in-german-recycling-miracle-1.3371532#.Wm8Mhq50Nxg.twitter <comment><USER2> Clickbait title. Basically, just abusing the food stamp service.

The recycling fee/cashback incentive is a great way to ensure people are being responsible with their waste, or paying extra if they are not. Wasting water bought with food stamps to then get a couple of beers is not really worthy of anyone's attention.

<comment><AUTHOR> Clickbait headline is unfortunate - but there is substance to the article. In particular the political backdrop to instituting recycling. Interesting to see that Merkel opposed it ...

<comment><USER3> What she opposed was a change, not the whole thing.

Inaccurate summary: The percentage of <abbreviated> that was being recycled was dropping, and so reform was proposed, which at least some people expected to solve no part of the problem. She was against that reform. In her usual fashion she did not say much about why. I didn't notice any better proposal at the time.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Do governments cut welfare because of abuse like this? The obvious solution is to make people on foodstamps pay for the deposit which hurts those that don't abuse it.

</comment><comment><USER5> I recycle Grolsh bottle for homemade noodle sauce yum.

All I need for lunch is the bottle and dry noodles.</comment>


Aspiring noob hacker mom applying to YC? - <AUTHOR>

Hi guys,
Aspiring hacker mom here. I'm looking for advice on how to get into YC. The problem (other than the obvious) is that I am not a coder. I have always worked in C-suite jobs in software companies. So why YC? Because I have a scaleable biz idea I've been working on that is ready for some real testing.
I've been learning to code (C and Swift) and I can create an OK website. Yah, I can hear you laughing. All good. But I am not attempting to be the coder, just want to create a version of my product that can be proved. I may not worthy to post here, but I think a stint at YC could be a critical breakthrough.
Is it insane to apply with my non-coding sales partner and my limited, lame coding skills - is there any advice you can give us? <comment><USER3> How will you create the prototype during the YC period that proves you are ready for the next step? You don't need to answer here or answer to get in YC -- you need to answer that to actually make progress, though.

Let's say the answer is you get a tech co-founder.

Great -- now, what part do you do that's so important? Again, this isn't for you to answer here -- this is what a good tech co-founder will want to know. The answer is NOT: "I have the ideas". It's more like getting the first 10 customers and knowing how to get the next 100 or 1000 after that.

If it's really true that you can get the first 1000 customers, why are you wasting time learning to code? A little is fine, but if the idea depends on software, you're going to be too slow, and revenue will solve a lot of coding problems.

</comment><comment><USER4> As someone learning to code i can relate. Here's how i look at things - <USER2> you're successful and it takes off, which i hope it does. The challenges you'll face then will be more tougher than learning how to code a initial prototype. Go as much as you can into the prototype without someone else. test it with a small group of people , get some feedback. this way you'll have a fair idea of how things work. Also you will be able to evaluate someone you're going to partner with in the future. Hope this helps. Good luck :)

</comment><comment><USER5> Some quick thoughts:

If you really have a passion for a business that you want to make happen, while the YC association would be nice don't feel that it has to be make or break.

I don't think there is anything laughable about a non-coder doing code: It gives you an edge over C-suite types when it comes to working with coders.

It's also not insane to apply: Even if you fail chances are you'll learn a great deal along the way and make some contacts. Also there's no rule that you can't apply more than once or try another incubator program.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I am so impressed with the support your community is giving us. It's inspiring and valuable advice. I have proved the first 200 customers, am on track to prove 1000 but not before application deadline. What I will focus on is finding a non-founder (or founder if I get lucky) tech guy to take my wireframes, design and get into real testing. Will push ahead. (And I am going to continue to gently push my son into your world.) Very cool.

</comment><comment><USER6> I would figure out what your technology stack will be, and try your best to get familiar with those languages and frameworks.

Then hire someone to build the prototype before YC. You're not going to be able to head the tech side of the company, so it's probably best to find someone to do that as soon as possible as co-founder or a hire. Even if you can't build it yourself, learning a bit about the language and architecture you're using will be valuable.

</comment><comment><USER7> Build a prototype and prove people are going to pay for your product. Having real customers desperate to use your solution is the best way to get into YC.

</comment><comment><USER8> just apply.</comment>


DoorDash's about-face on tipping shows customers have more clout than workers - <AUTHOR> https://www.latimes.com/business/technology/story/2019-07-25/doordash-tipping-amazon-flex-drivers <comment><USER2> Do we really need an article to say that the people who pay a company have more influence than the people the company pays. This is pretty much always going to be true in unspecilized labor.

Also, if their new system still has something like the "call option" to guarantee minimums it still seems like it's in everyone's best interest to not tip and get DoorDash paying as much as possible.

<comment><USER3> > This is pretty much always going to be true in unspecilized labor.

Not when regulation steps in. That is what labor law and regulation is for.

The "gig economy" was a tech industry attempt to sidestep labor law, and the law is finally catching up. And mind you, you don't have to outlaw how gig workers are currently treated as contractors everywhere to break these platforms; just in places large enough that without those markets, the platform is no longer barely sustainable (for example, 25% of Uber's bookings occur in just five cities: New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, London, and São Paulo). It doesn't matter much for platforms if gig workers are still legal in say, Wyoming.

[https://www.wired.com/story/california-lawmakers-move- protec...](https://www.wired.com/story/california-lawmakers-move-protect-gig- economy-workers/) (Wired: California Lawmakers Move to Protect Gig-Economy Workers)

<comment><USER4> What regulation ever caused firms to care more about workers than their customers?

<comment><USER5> I don't think anyone said "care". Regulations are meant to force firms to meet a minimum level of a requirement (eg safety, anti-discrimination, etc).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Seems obvious to me. Most companies will take the most unreasonable customer complaint and ask how they can fix the customer's boo boo, with a smile.

Meanwhile, a reasonable complaint from staff could be seen as an uprising of the working class.

You can also think of it this way: when 15% of your staff leave, you at least don't have to pay them. You get a 100% discount on 15% of your old headcount. Maybe you take some of those savings to bribe other staff to pick up the slack before the replacements come in.

If 15% of your customers leave, that's just money gone and you're stuck holding the bag on everything from inventory to leases, to salaries, and your own idle time.

</comment><comment><USER7> I've become somewhat fascinated by consumer activism and think there's a missing opportunity to build something like change.org specifically to boycott specific companies, products, etc to pressure change.

Edit: should throw in I actually submitted this idea for Startup School and in the early MVP ideation/building phase.

<comment><USER8> One of the projects i've daydreamed about is an app where you sign up for issues that you care about like water privitization or palm oil etc, and then you scan a barcode and get a report of whether the product is connected to any of those problems. You will then (hopefully) not buy the product and maybe hit a button in the app saying that you chose not to buy it.

Every month, the app collects the data from its users and produces a report: "Dear Nestle, this month you lost $X of revenue on account of people boycotting you because of this or that."

I think it's important to send some kind of negative feedback to companies.

<comment><USER3> Similar to [https://www.buycott.com/](https://www.buycott.com/)?

<comment><USER7> Yeah something like this, though looks like a dead project (no activity in a year)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Contrast DoorDash's behavior with Postmates: [https://blog.postmates.com/postmates-pledges-2-per-drinks- or...](https://blog.postmates.com/postmates-pledges-2-per-drinks-order-to-the- aclu-89f889d0dd51) [https://blog.postmates.com/taking-a-stance-to-defend-our- val...](https://blog.postmates.com/taking-a-stance-to-defend-our- values-d319454a639) [https://www.americaninno.com/chicago/postmates-will- deliver-...](https://www.americaninno.com/chicago/postmates-will-deliver-food- to-charities-through-zeropercent/)

It really helps when a company makes a choice between them and their competitors even easier.

</comment><comment><USER10> Media has been rightly under fire these past few years, but stories like this and the recent re-hashing of the Epstein case go to show the power of the fourth estate.

Reading that Door Dash article was like reading The Jungle by Upton Sinclair, which exposed the realities of working in the meat packing plants in Chicago at the turn of the century and led to reforms. Tech only makes it easier to abuse low end labor, its good to see that muckraking is still a viable form of journalism.

</comment><comment><USER11> Does anyone actually know if this benefits workers? Given how little most people seem to tip it seems that doordash delivery drivers were likely making more on average with the model they just moved away from. It is more of a redistribution of tips across workers. I also didn't hear much complaint about this from employees but from customers instead and I regularly visit the gig economy subreddits for workers to see what their complaints are.

<comment><USER12> Have they announced what the new model will be?

IIRC, it's true that when restaurants shift to a tipless system that (a) charges the true price up front and (b) distributes the revenue more evenly to both front of house and back of house, servers end up making less.

It seemed to be the most straightforward thing to do is to charge the customer the "guaranteed minimum" that they're promising to pay the delivery person, then add tip on top. The higher sticker price would probably drop demand, but the people who do deliver would earn more on average. It's also possible, though, that people will simply stop tipping, leading to a small drop in average revenue per delivery.

I wish we got rid of tipping for these situations altogether, but I realize it's useful as a price discrimination mechanism.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> The bad press from NYT kind of forced their hand here: why would anyone keep tipping on DoorDash once word is out that it's not a tip, it's a donation to DoorDash Inc.? And if people stop tipping once they know their tips don't matter, it leaves DoorDash more on the hook for guaranteed delivery fees.

So, glad they are doing the right thing I guess, but I'm not giving them any points for waiting until they had no other option.

<comment><USER14> Yeah the Doordash CEO should be in prison for wage theft. He ripped his employees (yes employees) off for what appears to be _millions_ of dollars.

Meanwhile a guy who stole 23 cellphones in an armed robbery was sentenced to 17 _years_ is prison the other day: [https://chicago.suntimes.com/crime/2019/7/23/20707907/aries-...](https://chicago.suntimes.com/crime/2019/7/23/20707907/aries- rickenbacker-lake-bluff-cellphone-store-robbery)

Now armed robbery is bad, no doubt. If I had heard of this fellow getting 17 months in prison for it I probably wouldn't have thought twice. But 17 years is ridiculous, even if he will be out in 8 with good behavior. Meanwhile examples like Doordash show it's basically legal to steal from poor people, and Bernie Madoff, who stole $20 _billion_ dollars is petitioning for clemency because he's old and what the hell, it was just money.

<comment><USER15> Man, legally doing some scummy things with paperwork is one thing. Maybe they should take the money back.

But violent crime is another thing entirely. The payoff matrix is totally different and hinges on the neutralization effect. And the damage done by the crime can't be reversed, unlike pure monetary losses. You can pay back stolen wages. You can't un-kill a murder victim or un-rape a woman.

Anyone who's ready to point a gun at people and engage a dangerous police chase needs to be of the street for a while. Ideally, until he ages enough for his hormone balance to calm him down a notch.

Also note that this dude likely has a record already. If that's the case, letting him out basically means signing up not innocent citizens to be terrorized and possibly killed in his inevitable future crimes. Perhaps you're okay with that risk of you think you won't be the one getting shot. If you knew you would be his next victim, you'd be asking for more than 17 years.

<comment><USER14> No, the externalities of violent crime are just more obvious. You don't see all the lives that are wrecked by financial crime.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Yeees - but whilst this might cause most of the world to "tut-tut", in the US this obfuscation between wage and tipping already exists:

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

I was shocked when I realized why the US comparatively tips so well, is because it's entirely likely you're contributing more to your server's income, than the restaurant you've just bought the meal from.

</comment><comment><USER17> This is only going to grow more extreme in the years to come. We finally have a generation in this country that actually gives a shit. DoorDash didn't invent bad labor practices. They weren't even part of the first thousand companies to bilk workers out of tips. But now we have a critical mass of people who notice and care and are even willing to act (or at least be outspoken). The apathetic and irrational reign of the boomers is finally, finally coming to an end.

<comment><USER18> I hope you are correct, and I hope we are reaching the critical point of old people die and young people coming of voting age that we can elect some politicians that care about the voters and not the donors.

They say politics is like a pendulum and it seems like we are all the way on the right and it should start going back to the left any day now.

<comment><USER19> I'll just say, "I hope you old people die soon, please die faster" (paraphrase) is quite a hateful thing to say. Especially since roughly half those older people you want to die actually agree with your preferred policies.

<comment><USER18> This is what we are up against:

[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science- environment-48964736](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-48964736) The future is bleak and the only alternative is a paradigm shift, I don't think the older generation is coming around soon on this

<comment><USER19> The mistake here is attributing a particular set of policies to a generation whose only common attribute is when they were born.

'Old' people are not the problem and you will be quite surprised at how many 'young' people have problematic policy views as well.

And the lack of shame at wishing for people's death is alarming and repugnant.

<comment><USER18> Old people are the problem:

[https://news.gallup.com/poll/234314/global-warming-age- gap-y...](https://news.gallup.com/poll/234314/global-warming-age-gap-younger- americans-worried.aspx)

Maybe it would have been better to say, the younger generation needs to be better represented by politicians as they are the ones who will be suffering. There is only one way this will happen, I am not asking for anything other then nature taking its course. Maybe I was somewhat crass, but wanting a culture shift in a very natural way is neither alarming nor repugnant. If older generations didn't go away, we would still have slaves and society would be run by kings, and countless other out dated policies. The baby boomer generation is larger then most so they have more votes and there out dated views are keeping us from being the best we could be.

<comment><USER19> Voting-age people 55 and younger (the youngest boomer is 56) have outnumbered people 56 and over for a long time. And in fact, showed up at the polls in greater numbers in 2016 and 2018 as well. [1]

Your disrespect for their humanity is indeed alarming and repugnant, as well as just plain misguided.

If we were to accept your claim that a "generation" can be to blame for something, today's politics and policy fall squarely on the younger ones based on their numbers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Recent discussions:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20516668](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20516668)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20501020](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20501020)

</comment><comment><USER21> > We thought we were doing the right thing by making Dashers whole when a > customer left no tip

I don't understand this sentence (probably for cultural reasons) - what does 'whole' mean? Why do they need to be 'made whole' when they don't earn a tip?

<comment><USER22> You may not understand that sentence for cultural reasons because even for someone familiar with how tipping works in the US they might not understand the sentence either because it is the very definition of "gaslighting"[1].

1\. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting)

<comment><USER21> Ok... but like literally what does it mean even if it's misleading?

<comment><USER23> > make-whole. Verb. To restore (someone) to a sound, healthy, or otherwise > favorable condition.

It's referring to their practice of boosting your per-delivery earnings to $6.85 if the customer does not tip you enough to meet that minimum payout.

A term you'll often hear wrt paying back creditors/investors/options, making them whole.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Would this have been fair if their contract had said. "We pay $1 per delivery plus you get to keep all tips. If the total you get from delivery + tips is less than $10 we'll pay the difference"

</comment><comment><USER25> The thing I don't get: Customer orders a hamburger and DoorDash charges, say $15. The restaurant charges $12. DoorDash guarantees $9.87 or whatever to the driver. Generally a customer is not going to tip more than $4-5 for a $15 order. So how is this sustainable? But DoorDash obviously chose their model to avoid sticker shock of $12 charges on a $12 meal.

</comment><comment><USER26> It's fascinating that Americans find this outrageous, given how the very same Americans consider it to be MY duty to tip 20% (since restaurants, despite being obscenely expensive, don't actually pay waiters unless waiters get less than minimum wage in tips; pretty much what DoorDash is doing)

<comment><USER27> It seems rather logical to me that a person that believes in tipping also cares about the tips going to the right person.

Also, obligatory Reservoir Dogs tipping scene (warning, NSFW language): [https://youtu.be/V4sbYy0WdGQ](https://youtu.be/V4sbYy0WdGQ)

<comment><USER26> You would think so, no? Yet, the entire US population seems to be fine with the notion that tips go to the restaurant, not the waiter.

Even in this Reservoir Dogs scene, the guy who brings forward the logical arguments is presented as a self-serving asshole who doesn't want to pay tips ( sum is ridiculously small - just 1$; and he wants to tip zero, despite ok service; the rule in most of the world is that you tip something - but far less than 20% - unless you had really bad service). So this entire sketch serves as a way to mock even the logical arguments against the tipping culture in US (what about the McDonalds workers? Is their work any easier? And why - WHY IN THE WORLD - are the restaurants allowed to dip into funds that are specifically designated as "tip, for the waiter"? At the very least, pay them minimum wage PLUS all the tips that they get - there shouldn't even exist a legal option to not do that!)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> I wish they would just get rid of tipping all together. Nobody likes tipping. Pay a reasonable wage and ditch the whole system.

</comment><comment><USER29> A company can't reward workers without being punished:

[https://www.vox.com/new-money/2017/4/29/15471634/american- ai...](https://www.vox.com/new-money/2017/4/29/15471634/american-airlines- raise)

>American Airlines agreed this week to do something nice for its employees and arguably foresighted for its business by giving flight attendants and pilots a preemptive raise, in order to close a gap that had opened up between their compensation and the compensation paid by rival airlines Delta and United.

>Wall Street freaked out, sending American shares plummeting. After all, this is capitalism and the capital owners are supposed to reap the rewards of business success.

</comment><comment><USER30> "they should have proactively said he would repay the wages taken from their workers. Instead, DoorDash will have pocketed millions of dollars taken from customer tips."

They didn't really 'take wages' from any of the workers. All of the money coming in is owned by DoorDash. They are now choosing to give a portion of that to the drivers (the tips).

DoorDash doesn't have a monopoly on gig jobs. You can choose to do something else if you don't feel the pay is fair. The reason they didn't really care about the drivers' opinions is because it obviously didn't stop many from driving.

<comment><USER31> They really did. The expectation when tipping is that there is some base pay being paid to the worker and then whatever I tip will be additional pay to the worker on top of that base. DoorDash was taking money out of that tip to pay the base pay so workers would then be getting less money than they should otherwise be getting.</comment></comment>


IT Careers: Quick Survey - <AUTHOR> https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/GHXGNJM <comment><AUTHOR> I'm looking to get some information on IT careers - job positions, skills, and salaries. I would love input from the community. Thank you.</comment>


A New Look at the Little-Known Pyramids of Ancient Nubia - <AUTHOR> http://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/meroe-pyramids-sudan-photography <comment><USER2> It is truly a beautiful place. So vast and empty. Here are the pics I took [https://secure.flickr.com/photos/robk/sets/72157635153819347...](https://secure.flickr.com/photos/robk/sets/72157635153819347/)

<comment><USER3> curious what the surrounds of this look like [https://m.flickr.com/deep/photos/54539963@N00/9557054418](https://m.flickr.com/deep/photos/54539963@N00/9557054418)

or do watermelons grow in a desert?

<comment><USER4> Maybe somewhat counter-intuitively, vegetables & fruits like melons, watermelons, cucumbers, etc. (that contain a lot of water), often grow well in dry- _looking_ sandy soil. I think it may be partly because the soil is loose, so their roots can go deeper more easily, to reach the water below. As a result, I've often seen and heard of these plants growing or being grown near rivers and lakes, even somewhat far away from the water's edge, because there is water below, in the water table.

Source: I did a lot of gardening in my teens and also read a lot about it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> In the article it's noted that the digital camera couldn't handle the fine dust and sand of Sudan, whereas the film camera did. Are there digital cameras can handle such difficult environmental conditions?

<comment><USER6> If you use tropicalized lenses and cameras then yes, you can handle those conditions.

<comment><USER7> Fuji's has one of the best weather-sealing (dust & rain) in the mirrorless segment. No idea about the lens he used, but my X-Pro2 survived (rain & snow) storms, even with a non-tropicalized lens.

I guess sandstorms must be harder for the camera?

<comment><USER6> I guess it too, it would be nice to have more info about what happened.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Would've been nice to see more photos of the non-reconstructed pyramids. Most of the photos were either sand or reconstructed pyramids.

<comment><USER9> They're not so photogenic: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giuseppe_Ferlini#/media/File:S...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giuseppe_Ferlini#/media/File:Sudan_Meroe_Pyramids_30sep2005_3.jpg)

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> hmm...I wonder what kings ruled over these ancient kingdoms?

</comment><comment><USER11> OT - factoid. The photos in this article were taken by my former CEO, Christopher Michel. A serial entrepreneur with two exits (Military.com & Affinity Labs). He then turned into a full time photographer, but still advises companies, invests in a few and sits on a few boards.

<comment><USER12> A friendly titbit for you: factoids are untrue, unlike titbits.

<comment><USER13> That's archaic and not true anymore.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> This photos look heavily photoshopped.

<comment><USER3> no photographer today publishes without "post production".

usually sharpening filters and messing up with saturation are the norm.

source: worked with tons of A list art, fashion, news photographers.

<comment><USER15> There are a couple of moderately well known landscape pros that do. But yes. I'd also note that this is a MF camera, with (what looks like) drum scanned film. This tends to produce images with much better color rendition and improved sharpness and contrast than you'd typically see out of a "normal" camera. The photographer also appears to have used polarizing filters in at least one of the shots. Given all this, none of the images look significantly manipulated to me.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> The Italian grave robber who destroyed more than 40 pyramids finally found his treasure, became rich by selling it in Germany and was buried in Bologna's monumental cemetery, among the city's most important people: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giuseppe_Ferlini](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giuseppe_Ferlini)</comment>


Inside Facebook's Early Days – The Facebook Dilemma: A Two-Night Special Event - <AUTHOR> https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/watch-inside-facebooks-early-days/ <comment><AUTHOR> The link to the first episode is at the bottom but can be accessed directly here:

[https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/facebook- dilemma/](https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/facebook-dilemma/)</comment>


Ask HN: What obscure items have you noticed shortages caused by this pandemic? - <AUTHOR> We all know about the TP and N95 mask shortages, but I have started to notice things like hair dye and dog trimming kits being sold out.
Probably the strangest one I found was "National Geographic Rock Tumbling Kits" which I guess got bought up for home schooling projects?
Anyways just curious what other unexpected items have become diffict to buy? <comment><USER2> Dog trimming kits makes sense. People are using them on both their pets and themselves. Standalone freezers went almost immediately when this began. This also makes sense as people decided to buy freezable foods in bulk and needed increased storage capacity.

Yeast has been almost impossible to find. Lots more people are making their own bread.

<comment><USER3> We bought a deep freezer for ourselves at Christmas. We never had one in our past 20+ years, so for us it feels like quite a prescient purchase. We definitely are not having buyer's remorse.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Lot of car batteries are going to be dead.

</comment><comment><USER5> Free weights and kettle bells. Not even on the used market.

Twill tape and elastic. This is a herringbone weave strip of fabric, you use it to tie pajama pants, cloth bags, things like that. People are using it for ties for homemade face covering.

</comment><comment><USER6> Nitendo Switch is sold out across the world partially thanks to animal crossing.</comment>


Alexis Ohanian on Solving America's Innovation Crisis - <AUTHOR> http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2013/10/alexis_ohanian_reddit_co_founder_on_solving_america_s_innovation_crisis.html

<comment><USER2> The 1st part was ridiculous, having bizarre work hours and overly ambitious work loads that require constant over working doesn't distinguish those who go the extra mile. It distinguishes those who have the extra time in their life.

A single twenty something is going to have far more flexible hours and than a 37 year old man with a wife and two kids one of which has a disability and needs extra care. I would imagine the 37 year old does a lot more in a day than the 20 something although not all of that is at work.

While he has less business value he still has a ton of value as a human being and should be treated as such. If we expect our businesses to treat humans just like machine or office appliance than I guess not making that distinction is ok. But if we want to live in a society were we value people and make room for everyone to be successful than this matters.

The second part of this is spot on. College doesn't give you everything you need and code schools don't teach you everything you need either.

<comment><USER3> I'm tired of the narrative about how everyone over 30 can't work overtime because of their half-dozen special-needs children and their demanding spouse and their massive underwater mortgage and whatever else.

I'm over 30. I have _more_ time to work because I'm not dating and partying and backpacking.

While trying to elicit sympathy, this narrative actually does more harm than good.

Besides, it's just not true, at least with me and my peers. We're more financially stable, harder working, honed, and more focused than we were when we were 20.

<comment><USER4> >I'm tired of the narrative about how everyone over 30 can't work overtime because of their half-dozen special-needs children and their demanding spouse and their massive underwater mortgage and whatever else.

How about those with wives and children would rather spend time with them than at work?

Is a work-life balance to be looked down upon?

Why should the endless march of capital win at all costs vs human labor?

<comment><USER3> That's great! But it's not a function of age.

I had more work/life balance in my 20s than I do now. Some people are the opposite.

But it's an individual's choice to make, not some sort of natural law as it's often presented.

<comment><USER5> I actually think it IS a function of age. For example, while you personally have more time in your 30s, it's not true for the majority. An average person in their 30s will have experienced more "life" than someone in their 20s, so the chances are higher that they will have added obligations and responsibilities.

Whether it's financial responsibilities or familial responsibilities, ignoring how life usually works out for the average person because your situation is different is a bit selfish. As much as kids in their 20s like to think they have their life planned out step by step, life has a way of throwing a wrench into those plans. I don't think its disingenuous at all to assume that people have less responsibilities in their 20s than in their 30s. A personal anecdote to the contrary doesn't really change that.

<comment><USER6> Like material wealth, relationships and commitments generally increase over time.

<comment><USER7> I find I had more social relationships in my early 20s before I had a long term girlfriend and we moved to a new area. It's only through conscious effort that we maintain friendships with a few other couples. It would be easy to be lazy and just spend time with my partner.

As people have kids perhaps they create new relationships with other couples with kids but they often grow apart from those that don't.

Work commitments have varied through the years depending more on the company culture.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> It's a bit confused, so let's unpack the issues. There are really two crises, and they have some overlapping solutions, but are definitely not the same thing.

First, there are innovation issues. As Tyler Cowen goes over in his books, we've already picked much or all of the low-hanging innovation fruit, and will have to work much harder (collectively and individually) to innovate. Ohanian's statements and implications about education (which I would argue is more about knowledge, practice, and spending time actually thinking about problems and solutions, rather than formal credentials) are correct. Autodidacts are likely to be at the forefront of innovation for the foreseeable future. Those willing to focus on learning and building things for themselves will reap the gains compared to those who want to just live their lives (spend time with others for fun, party, have hobbies, and all those other things people in earlier generations were promised once they "put in their dues") will struggle. While this was probably always true, we're entering a new era of hypercompetition where (in the US at least) it'll be what divides those in poverty from those with plenty (see Autor's work for more on this.) Which brings us to the second crisis:

Jobs. In the coming decades, as we continue to automate people out of jobs permanently (turning them into Zero Marginal Product workers) those left /solidly in/ the job market will be eventually able to command much higher salaries and benefits, while the ZMPs scrape by with either a) welfare if we leave things as they are, b) live a decent life off a guaranteed basic income if we're wise enough to do that, or c) starve, if we continue to do what we've been doing for 30 years. Those on the margins will be the ones dealing with the hypercompetition and will have to work harder and harder to stay above the line. So he's right again about "they instantly show who is resourceful and who isn't—who will go the extra mile and who will coast to the finish", but not for the reasons he thinks. The way we got here wasn't some grand choice by the people, it's the result of political choices: radical deregulation (mostly a bad story), the destruction of labor unions (had to happen), automation (technological unemployment as the result, unstoppable), and as a result, a changed culture of doing more with less. He uses the term "welcomes", but aside from those who enjoy meritocracy and all its upsides _AND_ downsides, I would say most do NOT welcome it. If given the choice, most would choose to bring back some semblance the Golden Age (which I believe is impossible and should not even be considered, as the landscape has changed far too much to make that a possibility.)

So there is overlap in the two stories: hypercompetition leading to people having to work harder and harder to stay alive at the margins, and low-hanging fruit being picked requiring us to work harder to innovate. The unspoken idea that if _everyone_ works harder we will all be able to succeed and innovate is naive; working harder to _innovate_ will be necessary but not sufficient. Working harder to _succeed financially_ will only work for /some/, and as time goes by, a smaller and smaller slice of the population.

Mr. Ohanian has romanticized a (for most) tough new reality. I believe this is unwise. We should look at it clearly and with eyes wide open so we can improve the future by putting in policies that support the innovators while keeping all the jobless and medium-term future jobless people from starving; telling people that they can succeed if they only work harder and obtain more education should be considered dangerously misguided.

<comment><USER9> Kudos. I've thought some of these ideas, but I've never strung them together in my mind such a complete manner.

Now to nit-pick:

-Is talking about "marginal" innovators as the only people with safe work really accurate? I think many jobs which rely on people interaction and soft skills will not be killed off by technological advancement.

-I think telling people to get education is absolutely a fine thing.... if we replace the word "education" with "value adding skills". There are still going to be plethora of non-innovating positions that require skills. The problem is that the majority of students go to college to learn stuff that is mentally comfortable and are sustained on student debt that might well never be paid back. Yes, historically an education has always paid back over one's lifetime earnings, but I'm not sure that will continue in the future described.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> "Companies[...]no longer look for someone to come in from 9 to 5 and uphold the status quo.[...]To baby boomers, these trends are scary, eating away at the foundation of a steady job and life that they helped instill. But we millennials welcome these new paradigms"

Woah, woah, woah! Speak for yourself man, I like steady jobs.

<comment><USER11> I'm all for steady jobs, it's just the goal is less about '9-5 work for one company.' Especially in tech, the idea of a 'workday' is so rightfully questioned or outright abolished at most workplaces. Getting things done matters more than being in a chair. And I don't think many of us expect to work for only one or two companies our entire lives.

<comment><USER10> The risk of shifting from the 9-to-5 mindset to "getting things done" is that people will end up (and some already are) working 70/80 hours a week and die young of heart attack.

The best thing about a steady job is that it takes worries out of your mind, you're not always stressing about losing your job and making ends meet. That's the most important thing that many tend to underplay.

<comment><USER12> >The risk of shifting from the 9-to-5 mindset to "getting things done" is that people will end up (and some already are) working 70/80 hours a week and die young of heart attack.

This is the scenario that worries me- a massive race to the bottom in order to get "ahead". Most jobs aren't that important, and don't merit that much of the employee's time. At an e-commerce place I used to work, I overheard a c-level exec tell a guy who was putting in lots of overtime, "Remember, we're not curing cancer here." I think it's great that the exec was encouraging the guy to not place too much importance on his job, but it's too bad that it was necessary in the first place.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> This is absurd naivety. I know so many people who were the uber-hacker robots that looked down with contempt on older guys with kids. When the robots got married and had kids, everything changed to "work-life balance" and afternoon soccer practice three times a week. I'm old enough that my kids are almost grown and gone, yet young enough to still code a lot. It's all so ironic now.

</comment><comment><USER14> The summary is that Alex has invested in two companies that he'd like people to consider are the solution to a crisis he describes.

He also pooh-poohs a scheme by Peter Thiel which is a privately financed personal pilot project for 20 talented young adults a year by investing in their work without requiring ownership of whatever they come up with. He criticizes this plan for only applying to 20 people even though it was never meant to scale to the populace, it has always been about giving very talented young adults who are already working on something interesting an alternative to college debt. He then as a counter example points to a system with literally millions of students as input which has produced a student in Mongolia who was accepted to MIT, the same student who is mentioned in numerous articles as the great success of this system.

And we have his credentials as having cashed in with Reddit. Reddit it cool and valuable, but it's also not profitable after all these years, which should be considered when talking about things that are expected to yield some sort of economic value and not just a cash out for a property that never manages to create positive cash flow.

<comment><USER15> Thanks for the summary. Reading articles is so 5 years ago.

From what I've read it seems that Reddit is unprofitable more by choice than by anything else though. They refuse any serious attempt to monetize with ads, thinking (foolishly, I would say) that it would scare their audience away. The types of ads they do run are silly and light-hearted. An Amazon affiliate ad for the book "Crafting With Cat Hair" was a personal favorite. So while you do have a valid point -- they're not (or barely) profitable, I think it should be framed in this context for understanding: they're not profitable _by choice_. I personally don't think making a switch and putting "real" ads up on their site would make a damn bit of difference. Why should anyone care? They're a business, they _should_ make money. People are used to ads. They're No Big Deal at all. Besides, where else would be people go? It's not like there's a better alternative.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Interesting read, I do not partake in Reddit very often (the comments are mostly more than meaningless, harsh like a school yard bully). Although I have found a couple subreddits that do not fit my preconceived view of redditors.

Alexis' article has a lot of truths in it, supplemental education is a necessity in the IT field, tech changes sooo fast. Most people wont attend a college that is a front runner in its respective fields. Often times the professors are teaching slightly outdated technologies or versions of technologies. MOOC (massive open online courses) and learn to code sites help fill this gap. Perhaps they may become more common as people take a look back on how much they invested in school and how they could make it more cost effective while still becoming knowledgable in their interests/professions.

<comment><USER11> It's all about the subreddits, wil421. Just like twitter is only as interesting as we choose to make it (to whom we subscribe) so is reddit. What's your passion? There are amazing comments in massive communities like [http://askscience.reddit.com](http://askscience.reddit.com)

<comment><USER16> I guess I havent got past the general audience subreddits. Thanks for responding, I am going to find a couple this week to start reading. You've inspired me.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I agree that multiple approaches towards learning will facilitate entrepreneurship and innovation, but I think this article missed something important; the Self-Learner. College Education and Supplemental Education have something very basic in common; the information is provided to you. Conceptually speaking, this implies that there is a limitation to the amount that you learn. Because the person learning is reliant on being provided with information to learn, they will only learn what is provided. Conceptually speaking, this seems like a somewhat controlled (in-the-box) approach towards learning, and does not really remind me of entrepreneurship and innovation. In real world practice, this does not hold true because people are always looking for more to learn. People are not limited, especially in today's Information Age. Being able to find new information to learn with no limitations is an extremely powerful concept. And I think this is what was missing from the article. I call it the Self-Learner, but I'm sure there are many different names for it; The Tinkerer, the Enthusiast, the Hacker, etc. This is someone that finds so much enjoyment in learning about a specific topic or craft that they pursue it as their Passion. Depending on their level of enjoyment and/or drive to learn, I believe that the Self-Learner approach provides an unlimited potential with regards to learning. So where College Education and Supplemental Education might eventually run out of material to provide to you, the Self-Learner never runs out of material because they are always driven to learn more. And the longer they pursue their Passion, the more they learn, and the better they become at their craft. I think this is an extremely important aspect of entrepreneurship and innovation. I think you'll find that most successful innovators practice self-learning in one form or another throughout their life. They may have been participating in College Education and Supplemental Education, but it was the stuff they learned on their own that really gave them the skills to do something amazing.

</comment><comment><USER18> What innovation crisis?

<comment><USER19> My thought exactly. If there is a crisis of innovation I think it hardly stems from a lack of skills or desire. I am constantly amazed by the level of technical expertise on display in every even remotely technical community I am part of. If a crisis exists I think it stems primarily from the current economic climate and risks associated to that as well as how hard it is to rebound after failure.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> What exactly is an innovation crisis? And how is that the country containing silicon valley has one?

</comment><comment><USER21> alexis gets far too much attention for coming up with a clever name for a link sharing website. i don't care if his nosql install has two tables.

<comment><USER11> Totally agree. I read that even was going to call it "reditt" and then his friend Melissa said "reddit" made more sense. Lucky chump.

<comment><USER21> hey bro, cool story.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I saw him give a talk at Google yesterday (my short take on it [http://markwatson.com/blog/2013-10/google-author-talk- alexis...](http://markwatson.com/blog/2013-10/google-author-talk-alexis- ohanian.html). He had a lot of good ideas, some reflected in this article. He didn't make any age related comments yesterday, perhaps because he had someone with grey hair and beard sitting in front of him (that would be me :-)

He seems like a great guy who cares about people and the future.

</comment><comment><USER23> Alexis is more concerned with crafting and selling his own brand than anything else. Its become really obvious lately.

<comment><USER11> Couldn't agree more. That dude hadn't done anything in 8 years since he and Steve started reddit.

<comment><USER23> Hows the book sale going, Alexis?

<comment><USER11> Pretty well, #4 national bestseller, but more exciting is all the people tweeting at me that they've started programming, or just doing the stuff they've always just been thinking about doing online. Even a few people motivated to get engaged politically.

What are you working on these days?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I haven't even read the article but the title alone is pure hyperbole. The US has no innovation crisis. To borrow a phrase: If Europe would have built Facebook, Europe would have built Facebook.

</comment><comment><USER25> I think some people are missing the point of the article. Alexis is talking about how there is a growing paradigm of doing things differently, educating oneself differently, and making a living differently. There still is the received view that you are supposed to educate yourself going through 4 year university program and you make a living working 9-5 at some Megacorp. Inc. This paradigm still works well for a vast majority of people, but at the same time, a considerable portion of population is starting to find it hopeless. There is a serious anomaly in the received view for millions of young people. I know several friends who are recent grads (Non-CS/engineering) and they are finding it extremely difficult to find an entry job in their field. Alexis is saying that there is another way of doing things.

I wrote about my experience meeting Alexis just this morning ([http://dmtri.com/posts/28/alexis_ohanian_-_%22i_don%27t_regr...](http://dmtri.com/posts/28/alexis_ohanian_-_%22i_don%27t_regret_selling_reddit)).</comment>


The iPhone Nano Rumor Reborn: 1/3rd Smaller, Older Components, $200 No Contract - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2011/02/10/iphone-nano/

<comment><USER2> There are several problems with this hypothesis. Apple has said it before that they're getting more iPhone orders than they can manage to build in many cases. At $625 per iPhone and they're selling like hotcakes on top of their recent Verizon expansion, even if they could produce a lower cost iPhone, why would they? The profit margin doesn't make sense and isn't typical of Apple.

Of course I could be wrong and Apple may do an iPhone nano but this would also greatly diminish the user experience on the phone and apps experience by minimizing the screen. If you've ever played on an iPad, you'll know many apps work a lot better on the iPad. The screen size do make a difference. Shrinking the iPhone doesn't seem to be helpful in this area.

Lastly, Apple is not known for making half assed products with cheap components. Using older components doesn't equate to cutting costs low enough for profit margins on a retail $200 phone to make sense when they're raping $625 per phone as it is now. Would you do it? The economics just doesn't seem to make sense here.

<comment><USER3> Firstly, strategy. Apple launched the iPod shuffle, to help cover the market, top to bottom. It's not just about increasing sales, it's also owning the market, which denies oxygen to other entrants. It's strategic. However, to me, this wouldn't seem to especially target android devices, as they tend to mostly be at the high end (it seems to me).

Secondly, supply. The iPod is dying, so they'll have capacity coming online there. Anyway, it's worth increasing capacity if it'll give you a strategic advantage.

Thirdly, user experience. _The screens on the first three generations have a resolution of 320 x 480 at 163 ppi, while that of iPhone 4 has a resolution of 640 x 960 at 326 ppi._ Therefore, they could make a physically smaller screen, using the old resolution, which could run three generations of apps (plus special-purpose ones).

You're right that making half-assed products is not the Apple way. The Apple way is to take a weakness and turn it into a strength. The shuffle example again: the lack of a display enabled it to be _tiny_ , and that's a plus. In general, the iPod had _fewer_ features than its competitors. An "iPhone nano" will do something similar, both in its technical capabilities and how it is marketed. BTW, I think a tinier iPhone would be pretty cool in itself, provided it still feels snappy to use.

Lastly, cost. I agree it might not be possible yet. Perhaps they could go two generations back, or cut costs in a creative way. For example, a smaller screen costs less, and also uses less power, so therefore needs a smaller battery, which again costs less. Perhaps there'll be some cheaper way to do things that is actually a benefit to the targeted customers? Another option is for Apple to wear some loss, for a while, for the strategic advantage. It's also plausible that they'll just wait a bit until it is affordable. It could also be something really wild, like a voice-controlled phone, with no display/controls at all! That would be parallel to the shuffle. It would also be amazingly cool, but I'm not sure whether it would take off...

But one thing I'm sure of: trying to cover the market is on Apple's mind. Whether they can do it yet is the question.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> When I read this kind of article I can't think that the current cost of an iPhone is less that $180[1] and it's sold at around $600-$700 without contract around the world...

So how much has to cost a smaller iPhone to Apple to sell it at this price?

[1] [http://www.isuppli.com/Teardowns/News/Pages/New-iPhone- Carri...](http://www.isuppli.com/Teardowns/News/Pages/New-iPhone- Carries-171-85-Bill-of-Materials-IHS-iSuppli-Teardown-Reveals.aspx)

<comment><AUTHOR> While I'm not saying 600-700 is fair price, I'm sure a lot of money went into R&D. I wouldn't doubt that R&D accounts for a significant portion of the difference in price. It would be interesting to know how much profit they are making on each device.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Which, if true, will bring even deeper market penetration. Never thought iPhone discussions could sound so sleazy.</comment>