"We assumed every user had an IQ greater than 42" - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/antirez/redis/issues/2253 <comment><USER2> A perfect example of how NOT to write an issue ticket, but also an example of how NOT to respond as well. If it offends you, just close the ticket and if you're feeling generous refer the reporter to a resource on how to write an effective ticket. It would have taken less time than writing 2 angry paragraphs which have the side-effect of discouraging people with genuine questions from even thinking about asking lest they be called "dumb".

</comment><comment><USER3> I don't see a problem here, the issue-reporter was condescending, and they received the same back.

His problem, such as it is, could have been resolved with a quick search, but instead he decided to write a snark-ridden ticket.

Users like this should be encouraged to ask for a refund, then ignored.

<comment><USER4> Thanks for understanding, I'm a bit sorry when I'm not capable of being gentle with other people, however to get the full picture, there is some info missing: he/she posted a few minutes before a much more mean issue, so my reply was addressing the bad behavior of the reporter in both issues, _especially_ in the other one.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Agreed that the issue opener is a bit of a troll (and antirez: don't feed the trolls!), but let's step back a moment and separate the content from the subtext.

Context: Error messages reach users, by their nature, when something has gone wrong. It's likely that, in that moment, the user's amygdala has started sounding an alarm that the brain's prediction about the outcome of an operation did not come true. It is, quite literally, an emotional moment. A feeling of vulnerability, even if only for an instant, is the first and most profound response when a user encounters an error. Humans further tend to anthropomorphize the systems they interact with - a natural shortcut the brain takes to understand a system that seems to have intelligence - and a cold, unforgiving error message lashing out in a moment of vulnerability seems almost malevolent.

Content: If error messages considered the momentary mental state of a user when they're feeling raw from their expectation not being met - the error resulting from their action - they would be more helpful to the user, and allow them to be self-sufficient, which increases their feeling of well-being and satisfaction with a system. As developers, we can "be right" or we can "be happy" \- sure, it's _right_ to say something went wrong. But it's _happy_ when the friendliness of an error message means that a user can resolve an error condition without having to submit an issue to the help desk.

</comment><comment><USER6> Ah this takes me back. Many years ago, contributed to a few Ruby libraries, life was good. Then Rails hit their first RC post 0.13, and a new set of self- important developers rocked up, demanding all of your attention to add their demanded features, to receive their abuse as to why something worked as documented, and not how they thought it should.

There is a cadre of developers, and I use the word lightly, who Willl rock up and suck the fun out of your open source projects. Beware of them!

<comment><USER2> "rock up" \-- had to look that up in the urban dictionary.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Just out of curiosity (after reading antirez's comment here), I took a look at wwat's github contributions:

      https://github.com/wwat?tab=contributions&period=monthly
      https://github.com/wwat?tab=activity

I think the account has been specifically created to troll github projects. The ^contributions^ have been bug reports in various projects with similar trollish language and tone. Do you supposed GH would act if we flag this user ?

</comment><comment><USER8> wwat seems to be a troll, but I have an assistant called Puppet whose IQ is clearly below 42.

Puppet has confusified such things in three entirely different ways that I can recall right now, but I have a feeling that Antirez would direct his snark at me, not at Puppet. (IMO Puppet and the program being configured shared the blame.)

Programs such as redis should not assume that their operators have perfect insight and use only bug-free tools.

</comment><comment><USER9> The reporter seems to be a troll. Quick look at his activity shows that most of his comments are snarky and ill-mannered like the one here

<comment><USER10> I think hes actually trying to use this software and just being a dickhead.

He probably hates life so he's just taking it out on people where he can.

He probably hates to be "bothered" in any aspect, whether looking at log files, or respecting others as it would require too much effort on his part.

I know lots of developers who have this problem.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> The reporter may be a troll, but the response was childish. I haven't used Redis, but this puts me off going near it.

</comment><comment><USER12> Another textbook example of the toxicity of the open source "community".

<comment><USER13> Also another textbook example of the toxicity of humanity. Shall we all just write that bunch off?

Or maybe we can perhaps accept that in any sufficiently large group of people there are bound to be some assholes and not judge a whole "community" by the actions of a (relatively) few individuals.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Shocking news - half the population is __BELOW __average IQ</comment>


Hacker and non-hacker partnership scenario.  Would you? - <AUTHOR>

Hypothetical scenario:
Non-technical working professional has business idea and wants Hacker co-founder to build a prototype.  Non-technical will put up money to develop prototype and compensate Hacker with salary + equity, or any mutually agreeable compensation structure.  Non-technical will provide rough cut of what the vision is and then step back and let Hacker work without interference.  The only product control Non-technical wants would be editorial/final say.  If prototype gets traction and scales, Non-technical would concentrate on business, fundraising and hiring the best people for the business and product ends.
Non-technical's motives: wants to invest in a great idea, company, and team but isn't considered an "accredited" investor, is risk averse to the extent that Non-technical wants to keep their day job in case product doesn't scale (has spouse, kids, etc), and is genuinely fascinated by startups and hackers and using disruptive technologies to punch bloated business models in mouth.  And to prove that passion is willing, initially, to use their own funds to launch a minimum viable product.
Is this a scenario that a hacker would be interested in?  Why or why not?  Are there any holes or issues with the hypothetical?  Looking forward to the commentary.
Update #1: Has anybody actually been a part of such a scenario?  If so, care to comment on the successes, failures, upsides or pitfalls? <comment><USER2> The problem that most people have with this implementation is their salary numbers are quite low, and their equity numbers are quite low or zero.

You have to be very careful to avoid falling in the "build this for me and I'll share it with you" trap, because talented individuals get pitched this way all the time. In fact, you're going to get lost in their mental spam filter if you don't deviate from this stereotype immediately.

Whether you yourself feel this way or not, leading off with admitting you can't do what they can do by yourself, that you're willing to pay handsomely for their help, and that you bring a significant amount of value to the table yourself (not just money, ideas, vision, and a sense of ownership but the ability to raise capital, sell to people, etc.), will be the path to landing the best cofounder.

<comment><AUTHOR> Let's say the product was based around a mobile services app. For discussion let's say Uber for dog walking or Uber for X. What would you consider a reasonable salary and/or equity stake for Hacker to be interested. Assuming solid business model, marketing plan, all else equal.

<comment><USER2> If I was a recruiter in the bay area, I'd guess you could find some B-grade talent who could knock that out for about $80k/yr., and A-grade talent for about $150k/yr. There's a whole litany of variables here, like where the talent can live, exactly what you need and on what platform, how fast you need things done, and how many more people they can bring on and whether they can manage them effectively.

Mobile talent is extremely sought after in this day and age, particularly when you start adding essential skillsets for a successful startup.

If you up things to 50% equity, you might be able to take a small amount of the salary number away to attract the same pool of candidates, but not a lot.

Expect those salary numbers to drop significantly if you set up shop in other parts of the country (and particularly the world).

<comment><AUTHOR> Roger that on the litany of variables. Super insightful response. Thank you.

Thanks to you I think the essence of this thread can be refined to: What financial (and/or other) consideration would a US-based Hacker, with mobile skill sets, require to team up with a CA-based Non-technical with an idea, business and legal chops?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> I've been in a similar scenario. I bootstrapped my first Startup. It failed, and I lost a lot of money. We developed (in Stealth) an amazing product in the "Ambient Discovery" space. We didn't call it that, but that's the buzzword that everyone started using. Anyway, turns out a few other Startups were developing in the same space (in Stealth). They executed faster than we did, and they had better connections. We were too slow, and other Teams launched / secured funding before we could. Ironically, it turns out that the Market never truly embraced the idea, and it kind of flopped. The timing was off. The idea itself was ahead of its time and the Market was not ready for any of these Products. Some Teams got funding, but I never heard about them again. One Startup made an exit (good for them!). Everyone was ahead of the curve. Everyone failed. Doh!

I don't really have any input about the plausibility of your hypothetical scenario (too many variables), but I do have some advice; Do not assume that you know what your customer wants. This is a harsh concept. Everyone loves their own ideas (myself included). But falling in love with your idea can become detrimental to product development. When it comes to the product, the Customer is King, not the Idea. If you can embrace this, you will become more effective at building your product. This lesson could have saved me lots of money on my first Startup. Instead of assuming things, validate with the customers (or potential customers). Do not leave it up to chance. Why am I saying this? You've laid out what seems to be a pretty "hands-off" approach to building the Product. I would recommend defining a relationship with your Developer that allows you to continually integrate customer feedback into the development process. This will likely result in a product that is more aligned with what the customers actually want, which should increase your likelihood for success.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you. 100 pct agree. Hands-off was meant to convey respect for Hacker's process and craft of building out a MVP. As far as customer acquisition, feedback, service -- 100 pct hands-on. For some reason (most likely bad writing) my original post didn't convey that.

The idea would solve a personal pain point. And the MVP would test whether that pain point was felt by others. If not, failing fast is okay.

Relationship with Hacker is key to long term success. If Non-technical isn't plugged into the Hacker community, compensating them is a way to demonstrate seriousness. Skin in the game, so to speak.

Also, I'm speaking in broad terms -- Hacker and Non-technical -- for universal discussion. This scenario could apply to me at some point but I also deal with a lot of clients and associates that actively talk about similar scenarios at barbeques, dinner parties and conference rooms.

I don't have a confident road map to advise them on such a course and I'm genuinely interested in what this community thinks would be the best may to make this situation work -- for the sole purpose of launching a MVP -> shipping -> testing -> refining -> scaling.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> " _If prototype gets traction and scales... "_

How is that going to happen if the business partner is working a day job and waiting for Godot?.

Products don't sell themselves. Customers don't provide their own customer service, etc. Having final say is just having a non-technical opinion, it's not a real commitment. A founder who puts up cash is nice, but not a substitute for sweat, and is best treated as a loan rather than exchanged for equity.

I am not saying the roses won't grow, but I don't see the scenario as ideal for either partner - the employee/employer relationship is well below ideal.

<comment><AUTHOR> It sounds like you're more of a proponent of Hacker doing a work-for-hire or one off freelance project for a fee -- as a way to avoid the inherent employer/employee antagonism from the get go?

<comment><USER4> It's not so much that as that I don't see the structure of the relationship being entirely consistent with the intended outcome.

There's no expression of trust on the part of the business partner when putting up the money is the sole basis for having final say on technical matters. Don't get me wrong, it might work out fine with the right individual.

But there are two other reasonably likely scenarios:

() A gung-ho technical person who becomes frustrated by having their ideas and opinions overuled by a non-technical person. And in the original scenario, the non-technical person is not working flat out to make the product take off.

() A not so gung-ho technical person who is mainly collecting a paycheck until the money runs out. This may be a later edition of the first or someone who comes onboard with that idea - keeping in mind that the business partner plans on spending their time at another job.

It's not the money, it's the passive model of investment that to me makes success look less likely. Or to put it another way, why wouldn't the sort of technical person who can conjure up a product out of a text file want to team up with a business person who will sell a million of them before a line of code is written?

Or at least a business partner who is trying to sell a million of them before any code is written?

Being in it together really requires being in it at the same time or a track- record of trustworthiness.

Good luck.

<comment><AUTHOR> Awesome points.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The non-technical founder can afford to pay his partner a salary, yet is not an accredited investor[1]? And will also fund the business re server costs, design, marketing, etc.? If I were the developer I'd be very suspicious. If the non-technical person isn't offering time or skills either, I'm not sure what they're bringing.

This also sounds like doublespeak: "work without interference" vs "editorial/final say." Sounds like "final say" is still basically unlimited, and I'd rather get approval _before_ doing the work than after!

[1] $200k annual income or $1m assets (sans house)

<comment><AUTHOR> What could make this scenario less suspicious for you? Strike the phrase "final say." The intent was only editorial: "Hacker, everything looks good overall, but how about dialing it up a notch here or dialing it down a notch there." Non-technical wants to ship, not wrestle back and forth on minutiae. The idea is to collaborate around a common idea and then recruit customers, partners and investors. Collaborative not antagonistic!

Also, to clarify, Non-technical has savings and and investments and is willing to cash out and spend to build a MVP. Non-technical wants to found a business based on their original idea and then recruit talent to build out a company.

Is your take that such a scenario isn't possible? And that Non-technical should wait out and accrue enough wealth to qualify as an accredited investor and then just invest in a team to develop his or a similar idea? Would this make Non-technical less "suspicious"?

<comment><USER5> Hello! By "suspicious" I didn't mean to imply bad intent, just my doubts that you could offer a fair (i.e. competitive) salary (any benefits, or is it BYOHealthInsurance?), and also that you were sufficiently well-capitalized to fund the business. Underestimating the necessary capital is one of the leading causes of startup failure. So if I were approached with an offer like this one, I would not be getting my hopes up until I heard some numbers, and I would be skeptical unless I saw a pretty thorough plan with budget and expected revenue. But that's just me: I am fairly risk-averse.

Re "final say": Ultimately if you're business partners with someone you both need to be happy. And you both have an incentive to balance polish with shipping. Still, if you were a client and not a business partner, and you were paying me on a fixed bid, I'd want a spec up front, not at the end. (If you were paying me hourly you can have all the revisions you want.) If we were potential partners, I'd be asking myself what the risks are if you prove difficult to work with--for instance, what am I giving up to join the venture? And do you have a history of managing software projects that would reassure me you're capable and reasonable? (Any recommendations from developers you've worked with?)

In any case, I wish you good fortune on your venture!

<comment><AUTHOR> Your points are duly noted and your insights are much appreciated.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Yes, this is probably one of the few scenarios I would partner up with a business guy (salary and equity), the others being a proven track record, or equity in a profitable co.

</comment><comment><USER7> It's not a recipe for success. Ditch the uncommitted non-technical guy, find a fully committed partner (technical or not) and build your own thing.

<comment><USER8> Whether the non-technical guy is uncommitted depends on how much money he is sinking in. Ponying up the cash is an important and legitimate contribution.

If someone drops 1 mil to build an app I would say they are committed.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'd offer that $1M would qualify Non-technical as an accredited investor. I'm more interested in the person who can offer up, say $100k, give or take, to support the development and launch of a MVP.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: What are the best tools of 2019 that helped you save time and energy? - <AUTHOR> What are some of the best tools that you have used in 2019 for your startup that helped you save time, energy & resources for your startup? <comment><USER2> 1) Ngrok: I've been using ngrok to give my local backend development server a live a URL that my front end mobile apps can access ([https://my-super-sweet- project.ngrok.io](https://my-super-sweet-project.ngrok.io))

2) React Native: Really love what I've been able to do with React Native since I started using it within the last several months. In the past I've dabbled in native android and ios development, along with hybrid development using Apache Cordova, but React Native really seems to offer the best of both worlds. Maybe isn't a perfect solution, but it's pretty damn good.</comment>


Tasty Seaweed Reduces Cows' Methane Emissions by 99% - <AUTHOR> https://www.goodnewsnetwork.org/gamechanging-pink-seaweed-reduces-cow-emissions/ <comment><USER2> My company is currently working to grow Asparagopsis Taxiformis, here in the US, for this purpose.

I agree with comments that we have big issues to tackle in regards to methane sinks failing, such as permafrost, and there are things to be said about people moving en masse to plant based diets – but, the future will always be a mix of tomorrow and today. Many people will still eat beef, and we need to ensure we reduce the negative effects of raising cattle as much as possible. We need a giant, mixed bag of tricks working in unison to slow the warming we have caused over the last 100 years.

Luckily, current research is showing that – not only does AT nearly eliminate methane from the bovine digestive process entirely when supplementing between half and two percent of daily diet – we are seeing early indications in research of some amazing additional benefits – improved milk production, increased immunity, improved food conversion ratio (meaning you can feed cattle less and have them pack on more protein). Studies are not finalized, but what I have heard of them sounds very, very good.

My background is in tech (founded and exited a TechStars company and have had a career in software and hardware startups) and my colleagues are in marine biology and phycology (algae science). My hope is that by approaching this problem from the perspective of a fast-iterating startup, we can get this product to market faster than the traditional routes of academic timelines and federal funding sources this industry is used to.

If you are an investor, beef serving restaurant owner, or in business related to cattle raising and finishing and would like to find out more, please email us at firstname.lastname@example.com. And follow our newsletter for updates at [https://goodalgae.com](https://goodalgae.com).

Cheers!

<comment><USER3> What is the feasibility of this, deploying it on a large scale?

I did some quick calculations on a napkin.

Apparently there are between 1 billion and 1.5 billion cows [0][1]. Let's just say 1.5 Billion.

In New Zealand the beef (dry cow) vs dairy cow ratio is almost 1:1 [2], but I assume that countries like India have more dairy cows, so I just assumed that 60% percent of cows are dairy cows.

Apparently dry cows consume around 25 lb (11 kilogram) dry matter per day [3], milking cows 25kg dry matter [4].

Let's just assume that 1% of the dry matter needs to be replaced with the algae, which is half of what the article mentions. That would mean, that we need:

(1500 Million * 0.6 * 0.01 * 25kg) + (1500 Million * 0.4 * 0.01 * 11kg) = 291 Million kilogram = 291.000 metric tons of algae per day

Just the logistics alone is major feat to pull off, put on a yearly scale the weight of these algae equals half of the trash produced in the US per year [5].

[0]: [https://beef2live.com/story-world-cattle-inventory- ranking-c...](https://beef2live.com/story-world-cattle-inventory-ranking- countries-0-106905)

[1]: [https://www.drovers.com/article/world-cattle-inventory- ranki...](https://www.drovers.com/article/world-cattle-inventory-ranking- countries-fao)

[2]: [https://teara.govt.nz/files/1_183_Beef_Ratios_0.pdf](https://teara.govt.nz/files/1_183_Beef_Ratios_0.pdf)

[3]: [http://www.thebeefsite.com/articles/3154/how-much-forage- doe...](http://www.thebeefsite.com/articles/3154/how-much-forage-does-a-beef- cow-consume-each-day/)

[4]: [https://albertamilk.com/ask-dairy-farmer/how-much-feed- does-...](https://albertamilk.com/ask-dairy-farmer/how-much-feed-does-a-cow- need-to-produce-1-litre-of-milk/)

[5]: [https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=291*365+million+kilogr...](https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=291*365+million+kilogram)

<comment><USER4> The US produces 912,358 tonnes of corn per day (or 900 million kg). I suspect corn is much easier to grow than seaweed though. Just as a perspective.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corn_production_in_the_United_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corn_production_in_the_United_States#Agriculture)

<comment><USER3> Mhm... Looking at the numbers again:

291,000 metric tons per day => ~ 106 Million metric tons per year.

In 2014 the world wide Aquatic Plants (which include ALL Macro-Algae) production was around 27 Million tons [0].

[0]: [http://www.fao.org/3/a-i5555e.pdf](http://www.fao.org/3/a-i5555e.pdf), page 24, table 7

<comment><USER5> Current production shouldn't matter and the sea is huge - if the algae are uncomplicated to grow I don't see any reason why there should be a limit to future production.

<comment><USER6> You mean other than the fact that techniques for efficiently growing such amounts of seaweed do not exist? Of the amount produced globally today, 90% comes from China, Korea, Japan, and the Philippines and that production is all very labor intensive and done in locations and using methods that are simply not applicable to the United States.

There is a huge about of R&D needed to get any of this to scale. Some of it is already underway.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> There are many planet saving discoveries like these. There's also a catch, which is why the planet hasn't been saved yet.

> "If we're able to work out how to scale up the seaweed to such a level to > that can feed all of the cows and the sheep and the goats around the world, > then it's going to have a huge impact on the climate;

And there you go. That's the hard part that you cannot just hand-wave away.

You also have to wonder what the impact of growing all this seaweed (or harvesting it) to feed the planet's bovine population will be. In the end, the problem is due to the massive scale of human consumption on this planet. The mitigation might be just as bad when you consider the scale at which you have to produce the 'better' solution.

<comment><USER8> From an environmental perspective, it's easier to directly consume fruits, vegetables and nuts yourself, rather than have an animal do the same, then eat the animal. That doesn't address the human appetite for animal proteins, but there is beyond meat.

<comment><USER9> You can not grow enough fruits, vegetables and nuts to feed the human population without severe deforestation. Also, agriculture uses up pretty much most of the obtainable drinkable water.

<comment> semi-extrinsic I'm also sceptical that the recently proposed diets of fruits, vegetables and nuts actually work out. AFAICT it's an outstanding problem in nutrition science concerning how many of the calories in nuts that humans are able to digest. And yet it seems like the proposed diets just assume "all calories are equal". I've seen reports from journalists who have tried following those diets saying they were constantly hungry.

<comment><USER10> > I've seen reports from journalists who have tried following those diets > saying they were constantly hungry.

This is the inherent problem of journalism - they need sensational results, otherwise the majority of folks wouldn't be bothered to read their journalism.

My 2 cents on this topic: I'm 10+ years vegan and everything is good, it's just no clickbait-worthy story...

<comment> semi-extrinsic Oh, I'm not saying you can't live as a vegan. But the criticism of these diets is they prescribe X grams of this, Y grams of that, and use those numbers to compute a global environmental impact. If the X and Y are both underestimates compared to what an adult needs, then so is the impact.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Skeptical science remark:

This whole "if cows eat seaweed that'll vastly reduce their carbon footprint" is based on a single study with 12 cows.

If you take into consideration that especially small, never replicated studies often don't hold up to scrunity the next thing to do is not to ask how to produce the seaweed. The next reasonable step would be to try to replicate this study in a larger sample (and probably also with a larger variety of cow breeds).

<comment><USER12> "is based on a single study with 12 cows."

Its not - most often "skeptical science remarks" although popular, are poorly informed and misleading.

A quick scholar search shows _numerous_ studies broadly agreeing with the one featured here, including the seaweeds effects on sheep digestion and microbial and metabolic details:

[https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=asparagopsis+methane](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=asparagopsis+methane)

<comment><USER13> > most often "skeptical science remarks" although popular, are poorly informed > and misleading.

I thought I was the only one who noticed this! Seems very popular and common in forums like HN and Reddit, but less so elsewhere.

<comment><USER14> I would prefer being skeptical instead of blindly accepting things. This behavior will instigate another to provide evidence or a counter-argument. This makes for great discussion, in most cases I think it is healthy.

<comment><USER13> Aren't you just blindly accepting the skeptical response?

What did you learn from this great conversation:

OP: This study has never been reproduced!!!!

Response: Uh, yes it has.

<comment><USER14> OP's comment casts doubt on the validity of the article's conclusions. Maybe OP didn't look into it as much as others. The response to OP reaffirms the validity and sways my skeptical mind. I enjoyed both comments; indeed good discussion.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> My inner child was disappointed to learn that cow farts are not the major source of bovine methane emissions. But saying cow burps is stilly pretty funny.

[https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/33/which-is-a-bigger-methane- so...](https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/33/which-is-a-bigger-methane-source-cow- belching-or-cow-flatulence/)

<comment><USER16> I'm disappointed too! I was going to ask if this might work for us humans.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Previous posts:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12998395](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12998395)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17036221](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17036221)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18385384](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18385384)

</comment><comment><USER18> I saw some math once... not sure how correct it is, but it was something like given the co2-equivalent emissions of methane, even if all cows simply disappeared tomorrow, it would still only take care of about 5% of our global GHG emissions. So if that's true it wouldn't really be a gamechanger.

Still worth doing though (the seaweed, not the mass slaughtering)! And if everyone plants 350 trees then maybe we'll get somewhere.

<comment><USER19> Some variant of this same comment is on every single thread about this here.

We need to tackle all of the "only 5%" issues.

<comment><USER20> Or transportation + electricity which is nearly 60% in the U.S.

<comment><USER21> It's pretty clear that the HN crowd wants to solve a mute problem with bioengineering and hacking. The ACTUAL problems, you know, the stuff that's so daunting that few startups will ever take on - well, we burry our heads in the sand. Any mention of this fact gets you downvoted.

The same story with energy generation. HN has a big crush on nuclear. Nevermind that nuclear takes decades to approve and to build out - time that we just don't have. But hey, as long as we can feel good about it, right?

<comment><USER22> > Nevermind that nuclear takes decades to approve and to build out - time that > we just don't have. But hey, as long as we can feel good about it, right?

A big part of this is bitterness over the way nuclear energy has been treated. We used to have decades, we spent billions upon billions on renewables while demonizing nuclear energy, and now we don't have decades. Hell, it's very likely that we'd have fusion by now if all that money and effort was redirected to fusion research.

<comment><USER23> Yep. We had decades of time. We put those decades into what amounts to a boondoggle, with wind and solar and vague hopes that efficiency of generation and storage technology would just materialize with no real clear path. So we have basically nothing to show for the last 50 years.

We could have invested in replacing fossil fuels with extant nuclear technologies and put a huge dent in the problem. And put more research into fusion, which is still subjected to a painful lack of funding that is the biggest roadblock to its eventual viability.

<comment><USER24> The problem with renewables is that we are not deploying enough of them. I don't see how you can say that we have nothing to show for the last 50 years.

The EU gets 55% of electricity from nuclear + renewables.

[https://www.dw.com/image/42390018_401.png](https://www.dw.com/image/42390018_401.png)

Germany is playing on hard mode by shutting down it's nuclear power plants and the added renewables far exceed what little capacity they have shutdown so far.

[https://www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/default/files/styles/p...](https://www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/default/files/styles/paragraph_text_image/public/paragraphs/images/fig2-gross- power-production-germany-1990-2018-1.png?itok=glXOK-fm)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I feel like I read this same story once a year or so for the past 5-6 years. Why hasn't this been commercialized yet?

<comment><USER26> No commercial incentive to do so. If we had any effective climate regulation, you'd see these things rapidly put into practice.

<comment><USER27> regulation can't change reality.

It's about as realistic as having congress declare the world flat.

<comment><USER26> We can measure methane emissions per farm from space. If there were fines for emissions, it would get fixed quickly. [https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/meet-the- satellit...](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/meet-the-satellites- that-can-pinpoint-methane-and-carbon-dioxide-leaks/)

<comment><USER28> I'm more of the opinion that rewarding the reduction of emissions would work better than punishing the production of emissions.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> More of a philosophical perspective here: The eco-systems on Earth have evolved over a long time. Without bias against scientific progress, why do we think we can "solve" this without going down a slippery slope of creating another problem? When is comes to complex systems that we don't completely understand, maybe the simplest solution is to just restore the system, that is "give up" on cows as human feed.

<comment><USER30> Restoring what system - nature is not some harmonious place where everything just works and people came and ruined it - there were plenty of extinction events prior to humans, evolution can lead to dead ends and get stuck at local minima. It doesn't optimize for a lot and collects garbage allong the way (eg. eye optic nerve blind spot)

Man made climate change is showing us how vulnerable we are to changes in the Earth ecosystem - instead of putting our heads in the sand and hoping everything goes back to the way it was while we pray to the weather gods we could actually figure out ways to engineer our environment and become more resilient to such changes.

If we are so sensitive to climate change what would happen in another Chicxulub impactor scenario - another global extinction ? Not to mention much more probable global disasters like disease outbreaks.

<comment><USER31> His point still stands. You cannot just hope to disturb a complex system and expect a linear outcome.

<comment><USER32> You also can't choose inaction over at least attempting to get things back to a known stable state by reversing the base factors (greenhouse gas concentrations).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Research takes time. There are researchers trying to grow the stuff on both US coasts. This articled details some of what is being done. They hope to test some of seaweed on cows at UC Davis soon.

[https://phys.org/news/2019-05-cultivate-seaweed-slashes- gree...](https://phys.org/news/2019-05-cultivate-seaweed-slashes-greenhouse- emission.html)

<comment><USER34> _For several months, Smith has been experimenting in her lab with cultivating the seaweed to, among other things, maximize concentrations of bromoform—the compound that blocks the production of methane in cows, sheep, goats and other ruminant animals._

 _" This is the sporophyte," she said at her lab in La Jolla, holding one of a dozen flasks filled with the red algae, dancing in aerated seawater. "In this case, the bubbles are not as vigorous, allowing these puff balls to get bigger._

 _" By just manipulating nitrogen and phosphorous, we have already seen that we can double the concentrations of bromoform in just a week," she added._

As commenters have noted previously, it seems like using synthetic bromoform would be cheaper and more scalable. The rest of the seaweed appears to be incidental to the methane suppression. But maybe there are regulations about introducing new cattle feed additives that you can sidestep by mixing whole algae into the food. Or maybe they're already developing this with consumer branding/marketing in mind; "seaweed" sounds better than "bromoform."

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> But not water usage, land usage, suffering for sentient beings, transport of feed, waste of human food for feeding etc etc

<comment><USER36> I am pretty sure that growing rice requires land, water, and transport. And I do not think cows eat human food nor humans would be very pleased to eat what cows eat.

<comment><USER35> What cows eat? Ah you mean soy. Nah we can't use that. Would be a shame if the cow used 10x the amount of calories to grow before we eat it when we could eat the crops instead and make your comment look uninformed

<comment><USER37> How could I truthfully mean soy by "what cows eat", when around here, soy only makes up 1-2% of cattle feed.

You're cutting all the corners available by adding up the fact that you've heard soy being fed to cattle to them only eating soy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> Question from the peanut gallery:

The gut bacteria in a cow digest components of the animal's food preferentially and excrete methane. If you knock those bacteria out, does the stuff the bacteria would have eaten get excreted by the cow? If so, do the organisms that digest it external to the cow emit greenhouse gases?

<comment><USER39> Actually by knocking out the bacteria, they can see a slight uptake (5%) in feed efficiency of the cows. So part of it is put into fat and muscle.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> Let's not forget:

\- Producing cows is resource-intensive. Water and feed could be used more effectively elsewhere.

\- Consumption of red meat and dairy is generally unhealthy.

\- Runoff from cow "pastures" is effectively pollution.

Encouraging less use of cows because of their impact on climate change was a win on a number of levels. Not any more.

<comment><USER41> > Consumption of red meat and dairy is generally unhealthy.

That could be said about anything. Everything is generally unhealthy if done in excess. Moderate amounts of red meat and dairy is fine (and delicious).

<comment><USER40> Perhaps. The keyword is moderate. However, based on historic levels there are plenty of people well past moderate.

<comment><USER41> I'm just pointing out that your statement, as it stands, is false, and letting you know why that is so.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> While this is pretty cool, I have a couple reservations. How do you scale this up so that it can make a measurable impact?

What incentive is there for ranchers to get the seaweed for their cattle? I imagine that getting the feed or the seaweed itself would result in more overhead costs. Is there a subsidy for lowering emissions that would make getting this worthwhile?

Also I can't help but wonder how the seaweed affects the microbiome of the cows in the long term. It does kill the microbes that make methane. IIRC, microbes are pretty much essential for cow digestion. Are the microbes that this seaweed kills essential for digestion or some other purpose?

</comment><comment><USER39> There is a similar product made from garlic, that is encapsulated so it just doesn't wash out with the cows saliva, that has a similar effect. You need about 50kg of it per cow, and it kills the methane producing bacteria. Yet the issue (which they no not fully communicate publicly, but one of the lead scientists told me in private), I guess is the same as with the seaweed. It is not all about reducing methane. We need to do a CO2eq calculations, which includes nitrous oxide at a much higher factor.

And there is much more of this GHG coming out of the treated cow. Which almost cancel the methan reduction effect.

<comment><USER42> Does the garlic cause methane reduction by the same mechanism as the seaweed?

<comment><USER39> This study [1] does indeed not reference N2O. So this make me suspicious:

The garlic study [2], states: "Garlic contains allicin, diallylsulide, dialyldisulfide and allyl mercaptan, which affect rumen methanogens, decreasing rumen CH4 and acetate production and increasing rumen propionate and butyrate production (Busquet et al., 2005)."

Allicin is not referenced in the sea-weed study. One would have to study the exact mechanism [3], to be conclusive.

[1]: [https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0085289)

[2]: [http://www.thecattlesite.com/articles/2858/effect-of- garlic-...](http://www.thecattlesite.com/articles/2858/effect-of-garlic-oil- on-methane-production-in-lactating-buffalo/)

[3]: [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4714447/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4714447/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> Do grass-fed cows produce less methane than corn-fed cows?

<comment><USER44> how about all that antibiotics they are being fed as well? this could be a man made problem.

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> That's cool, but let's not forget that methane stays in atmosphere only for 12 years. That means that if methane production stays constant, it doesn't actually increase amount of methane in atmosphere. Therefore I think that reducing production of greenhouse gases with longer longevity should be preferred.

<comment><USER46> You don't need to prefer one or the other. We should do both.

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> Disclaimer: I'm plant-based, and of course biased.

What would it take people to realise that eating meat is just not good for the environment and rather than going through all these 'fixes', just stop eating meat?

We're getting to the point where we're going to have to sacrifice some 'comforts' IMO.

<comment><USER48> > We're getting to the point where we're going to have to sacrifice some > 'comforts' IMO.

Why can't those comforts we "sacrifice" be cruises, gasoline/diesel cars and all advertising? My point being that saying "we're going to have to make some sacrifices" and pointing at someone else __never __works unless the person pointing has a lot of power to enforce it.

<comment><USER47> > Why can't those comforts we "sacrifice" be cruises, gasoline/diesel cars and > all advertising?

This is only my opinion, but cutting out meat is incredibly easy. If you're in an area with no public transport then it's hard to stop driving your car especially if your livelihood depends on it.

It's just a lot of time and money trying to fix the meat industry when the solution is 'stop'.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> I always thought that part of problem with huge methane emission from livestock maybe due to what we feed them. Perhaps their stomachs are not meant to eat primarily grass and the types of plants we typically allow them to eat.

Maybe other types of plants and crops should be fed instead.

</comment><comment><USER50> I'm missing an "of something" after the 99%. It might the case that 99% in the title is actually 0.0001% of all cows in the world. It does not make sense to use % without knowing what is the total, the number carries no information whatsoever.

<comment><USER51> From the article:

> _Even a small amount of the seaweed in a cow's diet was shown to reduce the > animal's gases by 99%._

and

> _When added to cow feed at less than 2% of the dry matter, this particular > seaweed completely knocks out methane production. It contains chemicals that > reduce the microbes in the cows' stomachs that cause them to burp when they > eat grass_

The 99% is relating to the gases emitted by a cow eating this seaweed vs not eating the seaweed.

> _if Australia could grow enough of the seaweed for every cow in the nation, > the country could cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 10%._

<comment><USER50> > Even a small amount of the seaweed in a cow's diet was shown to reduce the > animal's gases by 99%.

So if the cow eats seaweed it will also reduce any other gases produced by said cow ? does this apply worldwide or to cows in a specific area ? How about other animals that produce methane, is this applicable to them too ?

> When added to cow feed at less than 2% of the dry matter, this particular > seaweed completely knocks out methane production. It contains chemicals that > educe the microbes in the cows' stomachs that cause them to burp when they > eat grass

Is reducing these microbes healthy for the cow ? Won't it lead to shortening life span of a cow and therefore leading to requiring more cows ?

> if Australia could grow enough of the seaweed for every cow in the nation, > the country could cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 10%.

Does this mean methane gas from cows represent 10.1% of greenhouse gas emissions of the country ? (i.e. reduced by 99% from 10.1% to 0.1% ?) How does the seaweed get to the cows ? Wouldn't this mean more dependency on trucks to bring the seaweed to the cows ?

And the million dollar question - how many % of the world's methane gas production does Australia represent ?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> Could we skip a step and just eat manatee steaks?~

Perhaps we could get the same benefit by feeding the whole herd seaweed for a month, then put everyone but the fistulated cow back on regular feed, and just mix her rumen contents into it?

</comment><comment><USER53> Will this increase digestive efficiency also? Ie will you be able to feed the cattle less, or is this something that cows just wont be able to digest?

</comment><comment><USER54> Ok so strange question, does this have an effect on humans as well? Do regular sushi eaters fart less? (;

<comment><USER55> The seaweed is a specific kind of red seaweed that isn't used in sushi. The seaweed contains compounds which tamp down specific microbe levels. I doubt the exact same effect is occurring in sushi eaters, though a similar one hypothetically could be.

</comment></comment><comment><USER56> I eat chicken mostly. Anyone know if chickend also contribute significant methane?

</comment><comment><USER57> You'd think beefmonger states would be tripping over each other to finance a larger proper larger study if this made any sense. It completely nullifies the environmental need to nerf their business. Something about it is just fishy.

</comment><comment><USER58> Does it work for people burps too? Asking for a friend.

</comment><comment><USER59> "if Australia could grow enough of the seaweed for every cow in the nation, the country could cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 10%"

Still not making a significant dent in how much damage is done by the meat industry

</comment><comment><USER60> Delicious news! Now we can have Wagyu everyday. :D

</comment><comment><USER61> Man - cows eating seaweed is no more natural than cows eating corn. We need to stop bastardizing natural systems for our own comfort and convenience.

<comment><USER62> I mean, you know there are no 'cows' in the wild. We made cows from aurochs.

<comment><USER61> Point taken. "Bastardization" isn't black and white. It's measured in shades of grey.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER63> Pretty sure the microbes will shortly figure out how to survive in the gut together with the red seaweed. This party won't last long

</comment><comment><USER64> Psst... It's the iodine...

</comment><comment><USER65> eating fewer cows also reduces collective cows' methane emissions

</comment><comment><USER66> Where does the methane go?

</comment><comment><USER67> and no other effects? only lower methane emissions?

</comment><comment><USER68> where does the methane go? what is the tradeoff?

</comment><comment><USER69> but can we address the water consumption?

<comment><USER70> If it can be grown in salt water like the name "seaweed" suggests then there is no issue with water consumption.

<comment><USER69> I was referring to the water consumption needed to grow meat

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> This sounds extremely unhealthy for the cows.

<comment><USER71> where did you get this? i haven't read anything towards this end.

<comment><USER31> He gets this from nowhere and just proceeds to nonchalantly throw in stupid remarks in a debate that he doesn't like. It's an attempt to derail the discussion about proper solutions.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER72> Transportation costs will make this a non-starter. Most of the cattle, in North America at least, are no where near the oceans.

</comment><comment><USER21> Is this even relevant anymore? I mean, with permafrost thawing and triggering sudden soil collapse - forming lakes and bubbling up even more methane... to what degree do cow methane emissions even matter when looking at the big picture? I tried googling for some numbers but didn't find any concrete credible sources other than "most methane comes from permafrost thawing"

<comment><USER71> Seriously? [https://timeforchange.org/are-cows-cause-of-global- warming-m...](https://timeforchange.org/are-cows-cause-of-global-warming-meat- methane-CO2)

It wasn't even that hard to find one article. It might not be perfect, but you can clearly keep going.

And yes, it's one facet. We won't solve our problems just by fixing this, but your attitude definitely won't.

<comment><USER21> You just quoted an article with no credibility and zero comparison to natural methane emissions. Mind reading before plugging links? That was the first thing that came up for me in Google too, and the reason why I said what I did.

Edit: just looked up EPA website and found this: [https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse- gases#m...](https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse- gases#methane)

\- couple things to note: "50-65% of all methane emissions are caused by human activity" \- I wonder how they define that though? Is feedback from human activities that flows into natural-seeming emissions such as permafrost melt considered natural? If it is, that's excluded from the 50-65% figure!

\- Other thing: "Natural gas and petroleum systems are the largest source of CH4 emissions in the United States." \- 31%

\- Landfills - 16%, coal mining - 8%

That right there is 55% of human-caused methane and has nothing to do with cows.

I'm not saying the solution should not include all of the sources, but to what degree should we be worrying about cows vs. all that other crap? Shouldn't the focus be on natural gas and petroleum emissions?

Edit 2: I don't appreciate your personal attack on my attitude. If questioning sources and solutions that make the biggest impact is considered an attitude, then forget all civil discussion. Why bother commenting?

<comment><USER71> Agreed that link was not perfect hence the qualifying statement. You found great links/data that allow you to ask the question of cows vs human methane production. If you came across with that first, I think this would be different.

If my statement came across as dismissive of discussion, it was because I felt you were not willing to provide to the discussion. Your opening statement "Is this event relevant anymore?" is a dismissive one.

My "attitude" reply is a response to that dismissive opening statement. You may disagree with me on my interpretation, but I don't have enough karma to downvote.

I am much more willing to discuss that now. What is the amount of the other 45% is cow methane? Is it a non-trivial amount?

<comment><USER73> According to UN, all live stock together produces about 14.5% of total human- caused GHG emission [http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/197623/icode/](http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/197623/icode/)</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


The Twist to Making a Möbius Strip (2017) - <AUTHOR> https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-hidden-twist-to-making-a-mobius-strip-20170209 <comment><USER2> This is half an article. Stopped when it was getting to the good bit. Without heading off for a whole load of research I would have quite liked to know _why_ splitting the Mobius loop results in two sections with non-overlapping circles.

I get it, pop science, don't overload the reader with details and all, but a bit more would have been nice.

</comment><comment><USER3> I know they aren't THAT unusual but I'm kind of impressed by the quality of illustration in the article.

How does a writer of a Scientific paper get stuff like that? Do they hire an artist to assist them? Or can this type of illustration be generated from the normal programs they use in their field?

<comment><USER4> They most likely hired a graphic designer to make the illustrations.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Prematurely published I'd say. Today is Feb 6th and it's dated Feb 9. Should be an interesting article once completed though!

<comment><USER6> February 9, _2017_.</comment></comment>


Demo your startup to win a $100k convertible note.  Bring It. Kill It. Get Paid. - <AUTHOR> http://fundedbynight.com

<comment><USER2> 'Getting paid' and/or winning a prize is a very different thing from taking an investment. You don't 'win' a convertible note, you agree to give up an as- yet-to-be-determined portion of your company for it.

The participants will almost certainly understand this, but I still find the rhetoric a bit off-putting.

<comment><USER3> Probably phrased that way for "oompf" factor. "Win a favorable term loan" doesn't quite have the same ring to it.

Might I suggest the a new terminology for founder favorable seed-round convertible notes?: "Yuri bucks"

edit: BTW, great to see an innovative startup event taking place in downtown Detroit.

<comment><USER2> Not too hard to fix and retain the oompf:

'Demo your startup to receive a $100K convertible note. Bring it. Kill it. Get funded.'

<comment><USER4> like that too. will talk it over with the team. thanks!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> The event is Sponsored by Rackspace <http://rackspace.com> (Thanks, you rock!)

The VC 'funders' are Ludlow Ventures (<http://ludlowventures.com>) & Detroit Venture Partners (<http://detroitventurepartners.com>)

 __I should also mention this is a non-profit event __

</comment><comment><USER5> <http://www.businessfinance.com/convertible-note.htm>

</comment><comment><USER6> But if it's in Detroit what are your chances of getting out of the city with the money?

<comment><USER7> Because people are stuck up for convertible notes all the time.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> > we're as transparent as a new layer in photoshop...

That has to be one of the most interesting descriptions I have heard for ANY investor.

I have no affiliation with that company or the investors.

That line was pretty clever though.

</comment><comment><USER9> As a developer working w/ a MI based startup this is intriguing. Well see how it plays out but its an encouraging sign for startup's outside of the sv-hub.

</comment><comment><USER10> if travel_cost < win_chance*100000 then go() end

DVP has a mission statement in investing in Detroit companies, does this mean there is a bias towards locals?

EDIT: yes you're all correct - the formula is more complex than that, I should have said that for many people (including myself) the other factors are an order of magnitude less substantial.

<comment><USER4> hey.. jonathon from Ludlow Ventures here. no local bias in the event. we're certainly excited to have the event in detroit, but the best company will win regardless of where they are from/located.

<comment><USER11> Even international companies?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, International companies are welcome to apply and compete.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> So great to see that this is running as a non-profit. I think it's an awesome initiative and looking forward to the event.

<comment><USER4> thanks for the kind words!

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Wow, it's like a battle of the bands for startups.

This would be a great premise for an episode of an as-yet-unproduced TV show about startup founders. However, the people watching would probably think that it was completely contrived.

</comment><comment><USER14> I'm willing to believe this is entirely aboveboard.

But the name rhymes too well with "fly by night".

</comment><comment><USER15> I'm not sure about a site where the word "transparent" is misspelled as "transparant". Good luck any startups that are attending!

<comment><AUTHOR> Good attitude. Clearly, the work of someone volunteering their time for a non- profit is indicative of the event as a whole.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> this looks awesome!

</comment><comment><USER17> "Winning" a chance to give away part of my freedom?

<comment><USER4> we look at it as an opportunity to partner with and help grow an amazing company.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> I feel a bubble coming on.

<comment><USER19> How is this a sign of a bubble? Offering a $100k purse to a startup is not unheard of (see TC Disrupt etc.)

This is actually worse that those prizes since its an _investment_ and not free cash.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> I think this an awesome idea really works well for young startups! <http://stuffbuff.com></comment>


A Microsoft Without Sinofsky? - <AUTHOR> http://minimsft.blogspot.com/2012/11/a-microsoft-without-sinofsky.html

<comment><USER2> Do people within Microsoft really consider Microsoft Research to be a drain on company resources as implied by a couple of those comments?

<comment><USER3> Microsoft research produces some amazing gems. They are a case study for what good things can happen when you let 2 or 3 really smart geeks works on problems which have yet to be solved.

Unfortunately, MS research is pretty disconnected from the product teams and as a result, they tend to innovate in a vacuum. As a result very rarely are their innovations integrated into the products. They therefore come off as a drain on the company.

<comment><USER4> Or some of the products are so advanced that the the product teams won't deal with the fruits of the research for many years.

I remember being excited about Microsoft's SenseCam just a little under 10 years ago. 4-5 years later I thought the product would never be available to consumers, and lo and behold, it's finally become technology that is available to the public... but man did that take a long time.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> > I heard he's leaving due to the health benefits changes!

What happened?

<comment><USER6> non-zero copays and deductibles I believe

<comment><USER7> Pretty sure with Sinofsky's salary that's not a huge deal.

<comment><USER8> So it's a populist note on which to leave. Message to underlings: "prepare to be disappointed with current leadership"

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> If you didn't read the comments, they're kind of the highlight of this submission.

edit: uh, sorry, this isn't meant as any sort of commentary other than "Hey, if you don't normally look at the comments, I think you're meant to on this one." :/

<comment><USER10> You have to read those blog comments with a grain of salt though.

Most of the commenters appear to be very unhappy employees. And some of them are obvious trolls who have never worked at MS but pretend to.

<comment><USER11> " Why do we need to pay $1M+ (with benefits) to a VP in Finance, Purchasing, Customer Service and IT? These services are available for 1/100th of the cost."

A comment from that article that proves your points.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: where to share hacks? - <AUTHOR>

for the past half year i keep submitting small code projects, aka hacks, only to get zero points or comments. sometimes they are solve a niche problem, sometimes they seem at least topical to interests here. i'm passionate, at least temporarily, about all of them and i'd love to get more feedback.
my favorite part of hn are seeing and discussing other peoples small hacks, too (almost more so than actual startups).
one of my housemates also creates small python hacks every now and then to help with his mechanical engineering robot work. i love the idea of non, or rather still-learning, developers sharing and encouraging software hackery sideprojects.
maybe this community exists in larger parts elsewhere. any recommendations?
thanks hn!! i still love the spirit of this place!! i fully expect someone here to have already created this site ;-) <comment><USER2> Create a site called hackoverflow.com base it on stackoverflow.com. Im sure you don't need more prompting.

It shouldn't take more than a long weekend... _ducks_ :)

</comment><comment><USER3> Get a blog? It would take some time to get an audience but if you persevere you will get lots of comments from likely minded individuals.

<comment><AUTHOR> blogs seem a little one-sided to me. i guess this is the old-skool method: everyone creates their own blogs and gets feeds from everyone else.

the main problem, as you mention, is finding the people to connect with. i'm not really into blogs or community creation. i really love coding and laughing at the hacks of my housemates. a slightly wider community would be sweeeeet. (i've tried to create cambridge meetups--social underground programming!!!!!-- but other than a few miters folks it didn't really take off)

<comment><USER4> A blog would offer a few other advantages:

1\. If anyone is ever looking for something similar to your side projects / hacks, it would likely turn up on a Google search and direct it to your blog. I don't think search engines give as much priority to social news sites.

2\. If you do end up meeting people who are into what you're doing, they can subscribe to your blog via RSS. It's much easier to follow someone that way than to wait for a posting of theirs to pop up on a site like HN.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> right now i'm trying <http://github.com> as a source of finding new projects and interacting with the community.

<comment><AUTHOR> hmm... it's easy to view the huge popular projects and the created 2 hours ago projects.

i'm looking for the goofy, short but completed projects in between. plus, it would help if the search results showed more of a description and possibly even some ratings or comments.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> ps - i'm not sure why there are
 in my post. i put two line breaks between paragraphs.</comment>


AI's Role in Our Urban Future - <AUTHOR> https://adversarial.ai/blog/pentagon <comment><USER2> _Although the problems discussed are politically and socially complex, some of the issues highlighted may be avoidable through the use of AI._

This is the issue with the tech world right now, the major corporations developing AI have so much of everyone's money they should be giving back enough to house and educate and feed all the starving children in the world, TODAY. There is little complexity to any of it, except greed. No one single person got rich on their own, no one got to where they are except for off the backs of others.

The current narrative is that AI will _help people_. It will potentially cure diseases and all the rest of it of the non-sense. The truth is, what little AI we have have is going to be another tool used to corporations to raise more money, automate people out of a job, control and snoop on people and continue to serve a tiny percentage of mankind.

The betterment narrative is how smart good people get sucked working on this stuff or how they use it justify their positions, this is why people fear the idea of a singularity, it's a projection of our own crazy and selfish ideals.

I trust there are good intentions behind the original post, but we need to stop relying on technology as our savior and putting our faith in the (non- existent) AI God and take care of each other right now with all the capability we already have.

Some people think technology is where the brave new world begins, regrettably, it seems truly sharing wealth and giving back is an even more radical and impossible goal. I'm not talking about ride sharing either.

Also, that's a Pentagon video, take it with a grain of salt

<comment><USER3> Why should the tech companies give away their hard earned money? We don't live in a communist dystopia.

<comment><USER2> Because when Google first launched it used free and open software, because they got plenty of free stuff. They bootstrapped from others hard earned work and they don't pay a cent of tax for operating in my country.

Don't bring communism into it, no one said they're not allowed to make some profit, but they must give back.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I remember as a teenager hearing in the 80's about "The Population Bomb", and idea popularized by the book of the same name [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Population_Bomb](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Population_Bomb). It didn't happen. In fact, we are facing a crisis in the world where many countries are not seeing their populations replacing themselves because families are not having enough babies [http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2011/11/03/141943008/when-...](http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2011/11/03/141943008/when- governments-pay-people-to-have-babies)

Societies and cities are complex entities, as are economies. Perhaps "premature optimization" is a problem in civics just as it is in software development. Better to solve real problems rather than those that might or might not happen.

<comment><USER5> There's no population bomb? [http://blog.dssresearch.com/?p=229](http://blog.dssresearch.com/?p=229)

<comment><USER6> The population growth will continue to decline as more people are lifted out of poverty. It might take a while and a large part of the world might not notice it right now, but it's happening. It's (relatively) not long now before we will see a shrinking world population.

<comment><USER7> Yes you're right, but also the richer a country is the more resources it needs. So I think there should be some limits in population growth for certain countries and areas. Also, we have to note that it's not that we're overpopulated but we're living in just a few places of our planet, that's why we have issues I believe

<comment><USER6> There's also an enormous waste of resources. In my small delta country (the Netherlands) an acre of soil could yield in some cases 5000 times the amount of crops when compared to barren regions like Afghanistan, with (due to automation) very little effort. There's plenty of water, perfect temperatures and very vertile soil. It's not a coincidence that the Netherlands is the worlds #2 agricultural exporter. But there's an enormous lobby to convert more and more acres back to unmanaged nature.

In the grand scheme of things this is beyond stupid, but when you're living here you might enjoy a walk through a nature reserve better than a walk through fields full of corn.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> HN thread covering the Pentagon video:

"Pentagon Video Warns of Unavoidable Dystopian Future for World's Biggest Cities"

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12721423](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12721423)

<comment><USER9> Can't vote on those, and it's five hysterical pacifist comments who conveniently forget that the DoD also owns the "homeless missions" by default, and complained when Obama didn't send more troops to Allepo.

Look, this video is aimed at mid-level to senior officers: leaders tasked to keep their people alive and executing the mission (humanitarian aid, asset extraction, etc.). This is a think piece for people who will go into harm's way.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Even though the article is not that well structured and if you exchange machine learning with data analysis it would read same less the 'fanciness' of the term, Expert systems will have a significant impact on urban life.

If we look into street light patterns or parking control systems it is obvious. For the underdeveloped places like Jakarta, Delhi, or the places mentioned in the article data-driven urban planning and to some extent urban- planning-as-a-service systems will surely help the decision makers where to build which part of infrastructure.</comment>


Get anonymous feedback about your startup idea - <AUTHOR> http://wouldyouusethis.brandonhilkert.com/

<comment><USER2> most recent idea is 9 months old, interesting service if people would use it, looks like abandoned</comment>


Amazon is issued a warrant for Alexa data in murder investigation - <AUTHOR> http://hackaday.com/2016/12/28/police-want-alexa-data-people-begin-to-realize-its-listening/ <comment><USER2> This is a dupe. This story was posted like 20 times in the last few days. Here are the most popular discussions...

* Police seek Amazon Echo data in murder case | Hacker News || [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13263894](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13263894)

* Amazon refuses to let police access US murder suspect's Echo recordings | Hacker News || [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13269930](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13269930)</comment>


Ask HN: What was your relocation package like? - <AUTHOR> I was recently offered a relocation package to move my family (myself, wife, and daughter) from Canada to California. I have nothing to compare my package to so I don't know if what I'm being offered is good or not. I tried to find information around the web but I couldn't find much.
The package that I'm being offered is $30,000. My position will be as a Software Dev Manager. We've been told we can use that money towards anything with a few exclusions. Oddly enough, legal fees for immigration are not covered by their package. Some quick math we did for moving costs, air fare, temporary rent while we buy a place, various furnishings, etc. still came in above $30,000.
What have your experiences been like with relocation packages? How good is $30,000 for moving a family of three? <comment><USER2> A couple of tips (these only apply to the SF Bay Area):

1) Unless you can afford a $1.5M US house, don't bother thinking you can just sweep in and buy a home within a month. The competition is way too fierce these days. It will probably take you about 1 year unless you're very rich already. Since you have a daughter, you need to figure out if you want to live in a cheaper area, far away from your work with a long commute, and send her to private school, or live closer to work, and pay an exorbitant amount, and probably still pay for private school.

I suggest paying the exorbitant rent for 6 months or a year, in a place close to work so that you familiarize yourself with the area, and then start the search to buy a place.

2) $30k sounds like a very generous relocation package. I think your expectations as to what it will cover are way too much. Things like multiple airfares and real estate broker fees sound like you have a sense of entitlement. Those shouldn't be covered in my opinion, those are the cost of leaving your home.

<comment><USER3> > Since you have a daughter, you need to figure out if you want to live in a > cheaper area, far away from your work with a long commute, and send her to > private school, or live closer to work, and pay an exorbitant amount, and > probably still pay for private school.

In SF itself most public schools are lowly rated. But many areas, especially MOST of the East Bay, public schools are very highly rated. Unless the OP moves into SF I don't think private school is necessary at all. Just make sure to check the ratings before moving into an area.

> I suggest paying the exorbitant rent for 6 months or a year, in a place > close to work so that you familiarize yourself with the area, and then start > the search to buy a place.

This is good advice and what we ultimately ended up doing. It's crazy expensive but now we know where we want to live, how much to expect things, etc. Our weekend trip out here to pick out a house was just no where near enough time to buy or figure out the area for renting.

> Things like multiple airfares and real estate broker fees sound like you > have a sense of entitlement. Those shouldn't be covered in my opinion, those > are the cost of leaving your home.

Relocation is meant to cover the cost of leaving your home. Many friends I've talked to had company cover air fair and sometimes real estate broker fees. I know a company I went with did.

I think it's a bit much saying OP has a sense of entitlement; OP seems to not know what to expect and simply asked a question and discussed the real logistics behind the move. When you search online many places offer to cover that and many do not.

<comment><USER2> There are pockets of good school districts in the Peninsula, but any one of them have prices of > $1.5M for 3br2ba and ~1500 sqft. I can't speak for the East Bay, though, but that increases the commute tremendously. Much like the CAP theorem, you can only optimize for two of: good schools, good commute, good house prices.

I said it sounded like he had a sense of entitlement, I actually meant from the point of view of the company. I mean it sounds like he also wants free meals included, and Wifi on the plane as well. $30k I think is pretty generous, all things considered, and at some point, it won't make sense to move to the Bay Area. Does he really expect a $100k relocation package? I hate to say it but he's only a dev manager. Personally I don't think unless his wife is an engineer or another high-wage career, that they shouldn't move. Their quality of life will suffer. Anything less than $300k combined salary is tough with kids, rent, commute, etc.

<comment><USER3> > I can't speak for the East Bay, though, but that increases the commute > tremendously. Much like the CAP theorem, you can only optimize for two of: > good schools, good commute, good house prices

Tremendously seems overstating it. Many in California are used to driving very long distances to work but you can get from even beyond where the BART line ends in Easy Bay to SF in an hour even with bad traffic. The trains in the bay area are a great way to minimize commuting to and from the city.

Good house prices is too subjective. In some general sense sure but I don't think CAP is a good analogy here.

> I said it sounded like he had a sense of entitlement, I actually meant from > the point of view of the company. I mean it sounds like he also wants free > meals included, and Wifi on the plane as well.

I didn't get anything like that AT ALL from the OP's post. This sounds more like a strawman than anything else.

> I hate to say it but he's only a dev manager. Personally I don't think > unless his wife is an engineer or another high-wage career, that they > shouldn't move. Their quality of life will suffer. Anything less than $300k > combined salary is tough with kids, rent, commute, etc.

This...is wildly off topic and pretty terrible advice. You don't really know anything about OP other than they wanted to know what other people's relocation packages were so they can compare and get an idea as to how generous, or not, this company's offering is.

Yes the bay area is expensive but less than $300k a year isn't "tough" unless you're trying to live in a million dollar home and you're burning through money. You seem to have very unrealistic expectations.

Personally, I make considerably less than $300k a year with two kids. We rent a large house and my kids go to highly rated public schools. It's expensive, yes, but I don't think I would call it "tough". In fact I see my family far, far more than I did when I worked on the east coast.

My point being: everyone's situation is different and I think your perspective is a bit too narrow to be giving general, unsolicited advice.

<comment><USER2> I guess we will agree to disagree. I stand 100% by my opinion/advice. I have many current and ex-coworkers and friends who suffer through a long commute, a shitty neighborhood, etc, even though they have great jobs. They are critically unhappy because they should be able to afford a home and live in a good neighborhood but they can't.

If you want a reasonable commute (less than 1hr) (ie. South Bay, Peninsula, SF, etc) close to great companies, live in a safe area, with good schools, then earning anything less than $300k combined makes it tough. You can't even afford the mortgage payment on an average house in those areas at $150k/yr, unless you have a massive down payment, and God help you if one of you or your spouse loses their job.

<comment><USER3> > If you want a reasonable commute (less than 1hr) (ie. South Bay, Peninsula, > SF, etc) close to great companies, live in a safe area, with good schools, > then earning anything less than $300k combined makes it tough. You can't > even afford the mortgage payment on an average house in those areas at > $150k/yr, unless you have a massive down payment, and God help you if one of > you or your spouse loses their job.

Reasonable commute is relative. For example if you live as far east as the end of Pleasanton / Dublin in East Bay you can have a roughly 45 minute commute to the financial and nearby districts in SF.

Point being you can hit your most or all of your marks and not need $300k a year. In fact that's a difficult amount for the average or even above average person to make and it's not always possible to have spouses working.

Let people judge what they can and cannot afford to do. General statements like saying making under $300k is going to be tough isn't constructive and while it may be true in some instances it's certainly not true for all.

<comment><USER2> Of course it's constructive. People making $75k/yr with a family and a home in North Carolina and then getting an offer for $150k/yr in the Bay Area might think "I'm going to be rich!" when in fact they're probably going to be worse off. People need to understand this, it's a very, very expensive area to live in. I ask EVERYONE and they agree that $300k/yr is about the threshold where life stops getting "tough". You may disagree, but as I said, we will agree to disagree.

<comment><USER3> > People making $75k/yr with a family and a home in North Carolina and then > getting an offer for $150k/yr in the Bay Area might think "I'm going to be > rich!" when in fact they're probably going to be worse off. People need to > understand this, it's a very, very expensive area to live in.

Before people pick up and move their entire lives they typically research the area. Suggesting otherwise is just a way of calling them stupid. If someone tells me they're doing X and want feedback on Y, I'm not going to automatically assume they're being stupid about X.

Sounds rude to me.

> I ask EVERYONE and they agree that $300k/yr is about the threshold where > life stops getting "tough".

Sounds like you're in your own bubble. Its always good to seek out alternative views on something instead of just doubling down in your narrow set of anecdotes. If you're only asking your rich friends you're not going to have a good idea on the reality.

<comment><USER2> Nah, it's fine.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> $30k is very solid.[0] The majority of relo packages are in the $10k range for non-exec employees. Relocation packages, in general, have been on the decline since 2008.

I would suggest doing a little more research on the tax implications of moving. The only major expense you can write off is what you pay the moving company. Everything else is counted as regular income and taxed. This can especially bite you with the USA's confusing AMT tax system.

Also, try and get the move done prior to May. Prices will go up 20-30% and availability will be a lot tighter for moving companies

[0] co-founder of [https://www.movebuddha.com/](https://www.movebuddha.com/)

</comment><comment><USER5> Three years ago my company paid me US$28,000 to move my family (me, wife, three young kids) from New Zealand to New York City. This covered a moving company (approx US$10,000), flights, and one month's rent while we found a place to live. So it was basically enough, but there were a few costs we just covered ourselves (always the way). So from my perspective what you're being offered sounds reasonable, especially seeing you have fewer kids and it's "only" from Canada.

</comment><comment><USER6> I've gotten 2 relocation packages in the last 5 years that were very different. Both were for senior developer positions, neither in any of the tech hubs.

The first time I was given $2,500 to move from FL to AK to work for a small consulting firm. Really just a token gesture, but it paid for the ferry and hotels for the drive up. I had to arrange everything myself, pay out of pocket, and submit receipts for reimbursement.

Second time I moved from AK to TX to work for a large financial institution and the total was $22,000 and some change all together. They flew me down to house hunt for a week all expenses paid, then flew me down again when I actually moved. They had my car shipped, I had to drop it off at the port in AK but it was delivered to my house in TX. They had movers come to my place and pack everything, then deliver and unpack everything on the other end. All I had to do was pick the dates for everything to happen. It was like a military move but better, because I wasn't in the military anymore.

</comment><comment><USER7> Congrats, relocation packages are rare these days. The last time I needed to move for a job (from VA to FL) I had to foot the bill myself (of course, this was the company that at one point stopped buying office supplies and made us bring in our own _pens_ ).

That said, $30,000 is pretty decent, though I've only moved within the US, so I'm not sure of the costs associated with moving from Canada.

The one relo package I've received during the course of my career reimbursed the cost of moving my household goods (we rented a 'POD' and a couple of helpers at either end of the move), gas/mileage for the long drive, per diem for meals, and up to X nights in a Hotel. It didn't cover things like rental deposits, costs associated with setting up utilties/services, DMV fees in the new state, etc. All in all, it probably covered about $15-$20k worth of moving expenses for a coast-to-coast move.

</comment><comment><USER8> About 10 years ago my wife and I relocated from Minnesota to California moving a very full 3BR house. We did not need temporary rent but we did have ~3 months of storage and paid for the movers to pack our stuff. I believe it cost my company ~50k USD, including travel and other misc expenses. That number doesn't include assistance the company provided for expenses selling my old house which would be another 20k or so.

Also, be sure to check whether the money you receive is taxable income because that potentially will take another large bite.

</comment><comment><USER9> Adding this to my "remember when we had it so good" scrapbook.

</comment><comment><USER10> So, there's multiple traps here.

1 - I _think_ that you want to be reimbursed, not given a bonus. The difference is you'll pay tax on the bonus, but if you're just reimbursed, no tax. If you must get it as a bonus, take your estimated expenses and divide by .6 to get the required bonus. Also don't forget that the US has two tax systems and this could bump you up close to AMT.

2 - make sure that, in case the job blows up, at _bare minimum_ your required repayment falls by 1/12 each month. Better yet, no required repayment. You don't want to be in a situation that just happened to a friend of mine where 6 months in he and his manager mutually agreed it wasn't working and they want $25k back.

edit: I'd suggest 6 months with it falling 1/6 each month. If your new employer pushes back, I'd point out you're taking the far bigger risk here by moving countries.

</comment><comment><USER11> A little on the low side given all you have to do with it. Made a 'similar' move about 2 years ago from Canada, in the end, with about the same amount spent, we found that it ended up being a loss of about $10k. Can provide more details if you like, send me an email.

One key recommendation that no one seems to have noted here, don't sell your house or belongings yet or buy new stuff. The comment about the role not working out and then having to figure out what's next from x0x0 is coming from someone who knows what they are talking about. Give yourself at least 6 months to understand if the job will work out before buying at your new location. This is especially true given that you will be on a visa. With the job gone, you will have 3 months max to unwind and leave the US.

<comment><USER12> I'm not an accountant, but since the OP is moving at the beginning of this year then they'd have at least 9 more months before having to sever their residential ties to Canada (i.e. selling their house). If the CRA believes that they're still a resident for tax purposes (even after having moved to the US), they may be on the hook for both Canadian and US taxes for the 2017 tax year. The tax treaty between Canada and the US for tax offsets may not apply because both countries may claim that the OP is resident in their respective jurisdictions.

Of course, I'm sure they're already consulting an accountant, but at least they have a window of opportunity to see how the new job works out before pulling the trigger on selling Canadian assets.

<comment><USER13> When I did it many years ago, I was resident until my move out date and then I was a resident in the USA. You basically file 2 'partial' tax returns. I was a student with no assets although, so you will need to look into how Canada's departure tax effects you: [http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/nnrsdnts/ndvdls/lvng- eng.html](http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/nnrsdnts/ndvdls/lvng-eng.html)

Definitely talk to an accountant.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I got about 4K + VISA fees to move from Brazil to the US. It seemed fair and enough. We sold everything back there and started fresh here with way less things and a lower lifestyle, but it was still worth it.

Everytime I hear about similar subjects and people talking about business expenses I'm always spooked by how much business money people spend. When it comes to other people's money (company in this case) it seems that one doesn't care like it was theirs.

<comment><USER15> In a case like this I'll certainly optimize for reimbursable expenses. It doesn't really make sense for me to replace stuff on my own dime if I can move it on someone else's.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> So I've been offered two different relocation packages over the past few years. I eventually took one of them up and moved to the Bay Area (you'll be able to guess which package I picked).

\- Company A: $10k for relocation _or_ cover the cost of a moving company to pack and move all of our stuff including our vehicles.

\- Company B: $22k relocation "lump sum" (this varied depending on your circumstances; I was a home owner in another state so I got the max), company paid moving company to pack everything up and move it across the country including two vehicles, reimbursed airfare for flying out to house hunt and again for the final relocation airfare, paid for closing costs to sell our existing home, paid for company to help us buy or rent a home in the bay area. I also got a starting bonus but that wasn't technically part of relocation.

I know a lot of people who have relocated in the past. Everyone seemed to agree Company B offered probably one of the best and most thought the average for the area was a range with Company A at the low end and somewhere in the middle between Company A and Company B being at the high range.

Hope that's helpful!

</comment><comment><USER16> Mine was a little less than that (I stayed within the US but moved several states away). However my "relocation package" ended up as a signing bonus so it was fully distributed to me and taxed but the upside is that I could use the money however I saw fit. I see pro's and con's to either approach.

Send me a message if you have any questions about my experience or any advice/follow up.

</comment><comment><USER17> It costs more than $30,000 to move? Sell everything, buy new, and I still fail to see how a move could cost over $30,000. Why would rent be included, by the way? That's cost of living, not relocation.

<comment><AUTHOR> It's not that simple. Rent is included because we would be looking to buy a home in the US. We currently own a home here. Rent is so we have time to find the right place. We could also use that money to do house hunting visits but those are a lot more expensive.

Here's a few other costs we've found and we find more every day:

\- Legal and processing fees for filing immigration paper work, doctor's visits, travel to interviews

\- One way airfare or multiple airfares if I move first and family comes later so I can see them

\- Getting all our belongings packed up and moved by a reputable mover

\- Assistance with job placement for my wife since she also works

\- Realtor fees for buying/selling ourt homes

\- Some assistance with furnishing the new home

It can go on and on.

<comment><USER18> Some of the things you mention seem somewhat exaggerated. Your expectations and apparent level of entitlement are a bit surprising.

I wouldn't have said this if the offer level was, say $10k or $20k. But $30k seems pretty good even if you have decided that you require the ability to buy a house (not everybody has that privilege; you should feel lucky, and not take it for granted).

It is an offer. It gives you and your family certain benefits. You may also have certain costs. Those are your business. Just deal with them, or not.

You can take it or leave it. If coming to California is worth it for you and your family, take the offer. If not, don't. Not every opportunity in life is cost-free for you. For some of them, you have to step up and pay some of your own contribution.

That being said, your concerns are all valid. These are all things you need to consider, and it's good you're thinking it through. Maybe you can present them to your prospective employer as inputs to your decision. Just don't give them the feeling that you have a very entitled attitude, although you seem to, because that could backfire either with a withdrawn offer, or feelings of rancor later.

<comment><USER19> > Your expectations and apparent level of entitlement are a bit surprising.

Why do you say that?

It sounds like he doesn't want to be out of pocket for a relocation.

He has an upper middle class job and lifestyle and is moving for an upper middle class role. So he wants an upper middle class relocation package.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Sounds pretty fair. Maybe your estimates are based on taking the deluxe option on everything? Personally if I was being moved to California I would consider putting up with a lower priced but still decent hotel room for a few weeks, cheap coach air travel (you may have already priced it as coach, not saying you chose first class, but I'm saying you can shop around within coach with different dates and times and get cheap coach prices which are way less than the highest price coach prices), dorm-style cheap furniture to start out with, and maybe sell a car or two instead of moving them. My relo package was only $10k but that was many years ago when rent was cheaper.

</comment><comment><USER20> I was offered a package that basically just said we'll cover your expenses to move. There were some exclusions, I think mostly based on tax rules, but it wasn't a lot. I could imagine if I had submitted a $30K bill it would've been an issue though. The difference is that it's not like I could economize to pocket extra cash.

$30K seems reasonable, if not even generous. I guess it's all relative to your base comp and if you're getting any other bonus. For instance, I also received a sign on bonus that was divorced from anything about the moving costs.

To move from Portland to Seattle (I know, not THAT crazy of a move) it cost us about $10k including having the moving company pack up the entire house, storage fees, etc.

If the wife hadn't have been pregnant and I would've taken more time off (I literally ended one job on Friday and started the other on Monday) we could've probably halved that cost, if not more.

If it was me and I had a $30K lump sum I'd do what I could to minimize the charges the moving company was hitting me with by packing up myself (I hated how they packed us up and I had more things broken in that move than I have ever had in any move and I've moved across the Atlantic and back).

You also will want to look at selling anything that's kind of big or heavy that isn't sentimental and worth less than a few hundred dollars.

For example, get rid of any IKEA furniture you have and buy it again when you get to where you're going. It will literally cost you more to move than it is worth.

On that note, especially if you have lots of stuff and/or are in a fairly big house now- try to sell or give away as much as you can. Use this as an opportunity to clean out the accumulated life cruft and start fresh. If it was up to me when we moved we would've been able to fit it in the back of my pickup.

Save money by driving instead of having your cars shipped and flying- and take a vacation while you're at it. Shipping your cars costs a lot, it's a hassle, and they'll probably get banged up. Plan a road trip and have fun with it.

<comment><USER21> One thing to keep in mind is that relocation expenses trend to be tax deductible. What's not used will be taxed as a bonus

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> I got offered $3000 in reimbursable expenses, plus a free rent for a month, a couple of years ago.

The free rent allowed me to provide my future landlord with a previous address and a landlord reference.

When I was looking for a place, many places asked me to provide 1 to 3 months of rent as a deposit, because of a lack of a credit score. However I found a nice location that didn't have that requirement.

Taxes and rent are high in California. In that sense, working in another state... in a city like Seattle, allows you to keep much more of your money.

Then, I would interpret it as "up to $30,000". So keep the receipts/invoices.

</comment><comment><USER23> How do people who own houses for less than 5-10 years relocate? If I sold my house right now, the real estate agents would eat most of the 30k up (and certainly would after taxes).

</comment><comment><USER24> Very good. Mine was $5,000 back in 2012 to move from Florida to California.

</comment><comment><USER25> What type of visa are you getting? I thought visa applications were not opening until April.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm a US citizen. We would be applying for green cards for my wife and daughter.

<comment><USER26> uuh... how is your daughter not a US citizen?

<comment><USER27> I don't know about their situation, but US Citizenship doesn't pass down from parent to child in an unlimited way (though it is often thought to).

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_nationality_law#...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_nationality_law#Birth_abroad_to_one_United_States_citizen)

If you're born abroad to a single citizen parent, that citizen parent must have lived in the US for at least 5 years total and at least 2 years after the citizen parent's 14th birthday. If the citizen parent doesn't satisfy that when you're born, you don't qualify for birthright citizenship.

So, the US requires a substantial period of residence prior to the child's birth in order to pass down citizenship to the child.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> $5000 cash, taxable as income. NYC to DFW

</comment><comment><USER29> It's low.

<comment><USER29> To add detail I've had 3 different relo offers. Not to California but to NYC. The only one that was less than this included 3 months of paid corporate housing.</comment></comment>