The rise of the internet and a new age of authoritarianism - <AUTHOR> https://harpers.org/archive/2019/01/machine-politics-facebook-political-polarization/ <comment><USER2> _One of the deepest ironies of our current situation is that the modes of communication that enable today's authoritarians were first dreamed up to defeat them_

If you want to find corruption, then "Follow the money." If you want to find authoritarians, you can follow the flow of fundamental things in much the same way:

        - Who is doing the silencing?
        - Who is engaging in coercion?
        - Who wishes for the power to coerce?
        - Who is using violence?
        - Who is distorts the truth to push agendas?
        - Who eschews the universal for the momentarily convenient?

The answer nowadays is the same answer as in other times and places: angry, toxic parties who tend towards the far ends of the political spectrum, both left and right. It's the fringes that want discourse to end and take normal people for an excursion into chaos. It's the fringes that want to roll the dice for their chance at power.

The best thing to do is to let people have their voice. There's no authoritarian nonsense, no matter how virulent, which lasts forever and is immune to general good sense. It might take awhile, but people eventually come around.

A note of caution: there are a lot of villains who thought they were on the side of good, who turned out to be the opposite. When you've given up on convincing, and you're starting to shout, to hate, and to want to coerce people, you're probably on the wrong side of history.

<comment><USER3> Just a friendly reminder: no one on the left (the actual left, not the soft- right mainstream American left) wants authoritarianism.

That's a decidedly right-wing power fantasy.

The people on the left using violence are using it to fight the extreme right directly.

E: for clarity, I am speaking from a modern left-wing position, specifically the libertarian left, which is the strongest left-wing current today. Unfortunately the so-called "left"-wing in many Western countries has drifted to the right, which is absolutely deleterious.

<comment><USER4> Um, I'm pretty sure my coyntry has had it's share of socialists who were also stalinists.

Not sure of the context you meant, but in the general context left can be bullish on authoritarianism.

<comment><USER3> Fair point, stalinists are authoritarian.

They're also a relatively tiny group of ridiculous LARPers that no one takes seriously.

<comment><USER5> Except for that time in Russia when they murdered millions of people because those people were trying to normalize fascist speech.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Unfettered education (non-proscribed and auto-didactic forms in particular) has always been a threat to authorities. And, as always, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

And, as Engelbart predicted, it has created a race. Lets take a look on online content, and we see that - because of vested interests - there's very little in-depth content available (at any price) and plenty of superficial content to foster the dangerous. (What's there has largely _not_ been a concern of SV.)

Television (and FM radio before it, as the creators of both complained) played a similar role (with better control-rods) before the net. Pouring out thoughtless sludge creates the expected result.

<comment><USER7> _Unfettered education (non-proscribed and auto-didactic forms in particular) has always been a threat to authorities._

Yeeeesss but, and it's a huge but, auto-didacticism in particular has huge risks. Misapprehension of core knowledge self acquired is remarkably hard to shift. Hence, huge numbers of ant vaxx, anti agw and like movements with self sustaining belief about science data and it's interpretation.

Monkton is a prime example. Tries to claim authority vested in his own interpretation of the science inputs.

I guess I'm agreeing.

<comment><USER8> What is "anti agw"?

<comment><USER9> Apparently it stands for "anthropogenic global warming."

Never mind the documented cases of data fraud, it's because "auto-didactic."

<comment><USER10> Autodidact contrarians on this subject seem intensely vexed by data fraud.

If this were important, surely some scientist would have found holes in the theories no? This "fraud" of which you speak appears to be a non-issue amongst scientists.

<comment><USER11> >If this were important, surely some scientist would have found holes in the theories no?

That's a dangerous way to think. Isn't data fraud, particularly when in line with an alleged agenda, something that should be vexing? You don't think it's possible that the same shunning that occurs in non academic settings towards deniers might occur in the sciences? In which case perhaps scientists aren't willing to risk careers and funding to go against the grain, if they are even concious of any bias. I imagine most young people are entering into this field now treating agw as confirmed fact.

And if you combine that with the all of the ways in which the scientific institution is currently broken (p value abuse/misuse, publish or perish, reproducibility crisis), it's very possible for an artificial, or massaged, narrative to come to dominate discourse even if it isn't quite true...

<comment><USER10> I was being somewhat facetious. There does not appear to have been data fraud. OP was referring to this: [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy)

The only people I've seen who are worried about it are either propagandists or autodidacts.

Not using the term propagandiat loosely. Referring to people at industry funded think tanks. But others who thrive on being "contrarian" and self educated always seem to reference this "fraud" even though there seems to be nothing to it.

Added some quotes to my original post to clarify.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> The problem with fascism is that its endgame always ends up with its adherents attacking each other. It always fails, it is not sustainable. Too bad its followers never got that memo. I thought the Internet would just make the next attempt that much faster to die out, but apparently I was wrong!

In related news, a relative of mine complained that he was receiving fascist posts on Facebook. Thing is, he didn't follow those groups, but one of his friends _did_ , and Facebook's stupid algorithm thought it would share what his friend liked in his news feed, without asking.

<comment><USER13> Historically, fascism has collapsed because free societies tend to have better economies. Indeed, democracies are very new in the grand scheme of history. The US is going 200 years strong, but slavery was part of that is still younge in the history of civilization.

<comment><USER14> It's also worth noting that all of this is a historical anomaly - it's in no way clear that our present technological civilization requires free society to keep the economy going.

Which is to say we need to be clear about our objectives: if free society and individual liberty is important to us, those need to be the goals potentially at the expense of short-term economic growth.

<comment><USER15> Do you have a source on that? It is easy to underestimate just how _stupidly_ a non-free society can behave. I'm not even talking democracy vs other (there can be non-free democracies, or notionally authoritarian regimes that are quite free in practice), I mean the really basic "if you can work to better yourself, then go for it" style liberty.

The system of corporations we have today is a super-civilised way of wresting power and control from existing structures - if you can do something better and cheaper than the company currently in power, you can displace them quickly and with minimum fuss.

The core of that mechanism in the west is if you think a companies management are just clueless you can start your own company and compete. That is a big component of what freedom is - if you think you can do it better you can try to do it better.

Non-free societies would almost certainly disrupt that mechanism as the first thing they did. Given how complicated a modern economy is, I'm not sure they'd be competitive with a free society. The inefficiencies would build up to spectacular levels.

<comment><USER16> Genuine question - how does China fit into this narrative?

<comment><USER17> Well China is building up its inefficiencies even as it makes other advances. They created quite a few time bombs for themselves.

1\. They have set themselves up massive health time-bombs with their pollution and ineffective regulations. Not to mention prevalence of smoking. 2\. China's Social Credit plan is creating a turn-key rebellion as the newly created lower caste has nothing to lose but their chains and the high social credit scores means they have a purge list for when bloody repression begets bloody revolution. 3\. They have enough people laundering money for 'emergency escape hatches for when they fall out of favor' that they are blowing up real estate prices internationally in major cities. Optimistically it could just be fallacious beliefs that real estate is a foolproof investment but that doesn't make things much better. 4\. The party leadership flat out know that they cannot survive a recession and try to prop things up constantly.

They may be the most viable example but they are still vulnerable to collapses - not a guarantee by any means but there is definite precedent.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Author proposes the solution to authoritarianism is more laws and more government intervention. That's not the solution, that's the definition!

<comment><USER19> > That's not the solution, that's the definition!

A legislature passing laws is not authoritarianism, but is instead the normal functioning of a legislature in a representative democracy, whether or not one agrees with the laws themselves.

From [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism)

"1\. Limited political pluralism, that is such regimes place constraints on political institutions and groups like _legislatures_ , political parties and interest groups"

Authoritarianism is, among other things, about the head of government constraining the legislature from performing oversight of the head of government.

It's about the head of government being effectively above the law, either by the law itself being changed to codify that, or by the non enforcement of laws against the head of government when they break them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> It's almost like a bunch of people in the 60s dropped acid and decided it'd be a great idea to connect every person on the planet to every other person on the plant. Oh wait...

Kidding aside, this brings back memories of Clifford Stoll's book, "Silicon Snake Oil." I'd love to read it again. I know, he's been panned for making really wrong predictions ("no one's gonna use a credit card over the internet"), but I'd love to read it again standing on the other side of the internet experiment. I feel like for all the stuff he got wrong, he got a lot right when it comes to there being more to being human than the internet has ever been able to deliver.

<comment><USER21> Hmm, I read a book a few months ago where the author spent a lot of time discussing the intellectual background for Silicon Valley and why he thought these guys ruined journalism and probably lot of other stuff. It was called "World Without Mind" I believe.

<comment><USER17> Personally I feel "journalism" (read: media companies) ruined itself by going for profit at the expense of fundamentals - a recipe for downfall in any business. Now it is now shooting the messenger. Just like the corrupt blaming destruction of trust on the whistleblowers instead of their misdeeds.

Actual journalism is doing better than ever - just look at the state of the art of fact checking and detailed refutations of the tripe published in comments.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Something's missing here.

Computers have conquered scale. Before cheap computing and networking, large companies had trouble getting out of their own way. There were inefficiencies in companies that got too big. Most of those problems seem to have been solved, and the intrinsic limits to corporate growth have been removed.

So now the US has three big banks. Three big drugstore chains. Three big delivery services. Three big cell phone companies, if Sprint and T-Mobile get to merge.

Big companies don't have to have regional subsidiaries any more. In the Bell System days, AT&T had about ten regional operating companies, each with somewhat independent management. Today, they don't bother. Amazon is run as one big company.

In the US, government hasn't really gotten into this in a big way. Too many governmental units with their own local authority. China, though, or the UK, where the central government has total authority...

(This is not about Trump. He's an old guy who does things the 20th century way - broadcasting to large numbers of people and hands-on project management. When we get someone who's similarly authoritarian but understands modern scaling technology, we'll have a real problem. Peter Thiel, maybe.)

<comment><USER23> > Big companies don't have to have regional subsidiaries any more. [...] In > the US, government hasn't really gotten into this in a big way.

It is a mistake to assume that the solution which works in industry is equally applicable in government. Businesses and governments are very different institutions. They have different missions, different stakeholders, different legal obligations, and different responsibilities.

Surely, things would be more efficient if we just had one large uniform, monolithic state institution, but a (small R) republican state cannot exist without extensive delegation. It is only though the process of delegating power to states, counties and municipalities, that we can even attempt to execute the will of the people.

This all comes with tons of redundant infrastructure - thousands of city councils, mayors, police departments, courts, and school systems. 50 governors, 50 state cabinets, 50 independent boards of elections, 50 different state legislatures - but each community has its own needs and its own ambitions, and nobody knows those needs better than the community itself.

<comment><USER17> The main issue I have seen with the smaller divisions is that they manage to do thing worse while not providing any true accountability because they are too small to be watched effectively and lack the oversight infrastructure of larger organizations - which is really saying something given how infamously ineffectual the watchers are at watching themselves.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Maybe. What isn't seen isn't taken into account: what would have happened if the internet hadn't been. Maybe things could have happened that didn't. It's hard to tell, but it's quite possible.

</comment><comment><USER25> I wrote a response to this article that ended up being way too long:

[http://txti.es/technorealism](http://txti.es/technorealism)

tl;dr: Like every other long-term and protracted crisis, people predicted it was going to happen, but everyone acts surprised when it actually does.

<comment><USER17> That seems worthy of posting as its own article.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> This article is mostly political, and not very technical. I don't think it is appropriate on HN. But as that is not my call...

The Data & Society report by Rebecca Lewis (quoted in this article as a source) is very poorly done. It brands people who are clearly on the left as "alt-right" because they have either once spoken to an alt-right person, or even (in one case) simply been at the same event (not an alt-right event) with an alt-right person (Tim Pool, evidence in his YouTube videos on the subject).

I'm defending the 4/5 people who have been labelled "alt-right" by groups like Data & Society and by articles like this one, who believe in equal opportunity, legal immigration, individualism, and principles of the enlightenment. Most of them are progressives and several of them are jews. Lumping them in with "fascists," "racists", "nazis", or people who yelled "Jews will not replace us!" is factually wrong, morally wrong, and has done real-world damage to them. This includes people such as Jordan Peterson, Tim Pool, Eric Weinstein, Dave Rubin, James Damore, Ben Shapiro, Joe Rogan, and yes even Carl Benjamin (Sargon of Akkad).

I am NOT defending Richard Spencer, Stephan Molyneux or Milo Yiannopoulos. I've listened to them, I disagree with them, and I think "alt-right" is an appropriate for them.

There seems to be a mass delusion going on here. Folks on the left talk about the boogy-man "alt-right" and label people at whim, and then everyone is scared to actually go and fact-check lest they be discovered watching "alt- right" material. The predictable result? The set of people labelled "alt- right" just gets bigger and bigger.

<comment><USER3> All of the people you mentioned are working to further fascism and inflame hatred and division. Don't just believe what they say, do some actual digging.

Contrary to what you believe, we lefties do actually fact check, and it's not looking good for Jordan P. et al.

<comment><USER27> 'working to further fascism' Examples please!

<comment><USER3> By normalizing alt-right and trad right rhetoric, and by creating distrust of minorities.

<comment><USER28> Please give examples for creating distrust of minorities, specifically for Jordan Peterson.

Also, how does "normalizing trad-right rethoric" equal "working to further fascism and inflame hatred and division"? Where do traditional right values equate fasism, hatred and division?

<comment><USER3> Jordan Peterson repeatedly and strongly denies the existence of any white hetero cis male privilege. He also refuses to acknowledge trans people and gay marriage, he somehow ties feminism to Muslims because "women desire strong men", and he lashes out against any art that challenges traditionalist perceptions of the world and society, tying it all into his "cultural marxism" conspiracy theory.

His list of absolutely nonsense racist, bigoted and misogynistic statements is basically endless, it's in everything he says.

He leans on the MRA/MGTOW side of things, which has a clear and documented link to the alt-right right, a neo-fascist movement.

Regarding trad right, that is simply an ideology of exploiting the working class for the benefit of capitalists, to the overall detriment of society and life in general.

<comment><USER28> > He also refuses to acknowledge trans people

Have you listened to him? He specifically speaks that he's been in good contact with trans people, who often thank him for his actions. As for the rest of the items you listed, they look like your opinions on him, not facts. I was hoping for direct quotations from Peterson. For example, how do you back your claim that he's speaking "absolutely nonsense racist and misogynistic statements"? I've listened to probably about 100 hours of Peterson and I haven't ever heard any. Please give citations.

<comment><USER3> Read these excellent critiques, that'll be easier than just a selection of quotes, or having me rewrite everything in this post.

[https://blog.apaonline.org/2018/02/20/why-are-so-many- young-...](https://blog.apaonline.org/2018/02/20/why-are-so-many-young-men- drawn-to-jordan-petersons-intellectual-misogyny/)

[https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/feb/07/how- dangerou...](https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/feb/07/how-dangerous-is- jordan-b-peterson-the-rightwing-professor-who-hit-a-hornets-nest)

[https://www.thecut.com/2018/09/jordan-peterson-threatened- to...](https://www.thecut.com/2018/09/jordan-peterson-threatened-to-sue- feminist-critic-kate-manne.html)

[https://www.reddit.com/r/ChapoTrapHouse/comments/8kw3ig/jord...](https://www.reddit.com/r/ChapoTrapHouse/comments/8kw3ig/jordan_petersons_misogyny_a_collection_of_tweets/)

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-profound- sadness...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-profound-sadness-in- jordan-petersons-antidote-to- chaos/2018/05/09/8e1be3a4-53bd-11e8-9c91-7dab596e8252_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.f1f11adcdabf)

[https://medium.com/s/story/a-field-guide-to-jordan- petersons...](https://medium.com/s/story/a-field-guide-to-jordan-petersons- political-arguments-312153eac99a)

[https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/2018/05/199599/jordan- peter...](https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/2018/05/199599/jordan-peterson-men- masculinity-quotes)

Jordan Peterson is not a person to admire nor adore.

<comment><USER26> I started reading these, but they are so full of misrepresentations that I couldn't stomach the whole list. You can't judge someone by reading second hand opinions. From the first link: * Accusations of mysogyny and bigotry without quotations as evidence. Immoral. * Claims Peterson thought bill C-16 was a violation of free speech; in fact he was only concerned about "compelled" speech. Immoral misrepresentation. * Author purports to understand what Jung meant better than everyone else who supposedly have all misinterpreted Jung, with no humility or self reflection whatsoever. Immoral. * Suggests indirectly that differences between men and women come from "questionable data". While literally anything could be questioned, misleads. Immoral. I've only gotten through 3 paragraphs, but my instincts tell me to stop reading this trash. It's clearly not honest.

My impression is that Jordan fears dystopia. He has studied the psychology of totalitarianism, both on the right and the left. He has concluded that the atrocities could not have been committed were it not for the failings of individuals, a failure to remain true, to remain moral. As a result, Jordan is very careful to remain as moral and ethical as humanly possible. He very carefully choses his words so as to not accidently say something that isn't quite true. People are drawn to him because his ethics and morality are many levels higher than anything anybody has seen in generations, and it is striking.

<comment><USER3> All of these critiques are full of actual quotes from Peterson. The Reddit thread is even full of _direct_ Twitter links to posts made by him, on his verified account.

The man is a fraud and a charlatan, and you exhibit the clear signs of having been taken in by a convincing speaker, with little regard to what he's _actually_ saying and preaching. A so-called "True Follower", with a complete lack of understanding for criticism against the Adored Idol, in this case Peterson.

I do see the appeal. He's positioned himself as a father figure to disaffected young white men, and he says things they want/need to hear (stand up straight etc.). Unfortunately he also uses that platform to spread old-fashioned misogyny and fear of the Other, and some outrageously wrong-headed nonsense. I suggest you review the Reddit thread I linked.

As per a previous thread, you also thought Gab was entirely above-board, and not an alt-right/white supremacist hideout with the very thinnest veneer of legitimacy haphazardly added on top.

More critical thought about the "hidden" agendas of notorious online presences would be very good practice.

<comment><USER26> I probably should stop replying to you. But you seem to have a few misconceptions. I am not a follower of Jordan Peterson. I've never bought his books or sent him any money or seen him in a speaking engagement. I'm not a young man. I'm not a disaffected young white man, nor do I need guidance from a father figure. I'm a successful, retired, independent libertarian. I disagree with Jordan on a lot of things. I'm an athiest. I don't think symbolism is anywhere near as important as he does. I'm not so keen on boundaries, but I appreciate understanding the right a little bit better through Jordan as he describes how the right care about boundaries.

But your critiques are bad. Really bad.

Gab _IS_ entirely above board. Do you know what that term means? It means not doing anything illegal.

I'm going to assume you are young, and I apologize if I'm wrong. But what you young tikes are getting very wrong is this idea of parallel justice, mob justice, as if you can rewrite everything about justice that we have learned over the centuries and draw up entirely new rules where gab is considered not above board, where saying "women aren't men" is considered hate speech, where people are presumed guilty, innuendo and accusation are taken as conclusive evidence, any offence requires a lifetime permanent ban, and ideas themselves are crime (hate, racism, misogyny... are not crimes for some very good reasons). The idea that racism is infectious is ridiculous -- racism comes from a natural suspicion of outsiders, and is cured by multiculturalism, not deplatforming. Misogyny is mostly rejected men not taking ownership of their own failure, and blaming women instead. You can't cure that by rejecting them yet again. Sometimes I think I must be dreaming; the world can't have gotten this crazy this fast, can it?

Go look into pre-WWII Germany and see how the holocaust came about. It all started with pretty much exactly what social justice warriors are doing today... the willful erosion of human rights. Back in 1933 everyone was cheering Hitler on as the right to free speech was taken away. I'm afraid history is repeating.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> I think this author has a really odd definition of authoritarianism. People who you don't agree with politically being allowed to have a voice isn't authoritarianism, quite the opposite actually.

They spend a lot of time focusing on Richard Spencer which is really strange because there's always been fringe white supremacists out there and I don't see how the internet has made Spencer any more relevant than the Nazis Geraldo used to have on his show in the 80s.

<comment><USER3> The internet has allowed him and his ilk a bigger voice, platforms to more efficiently spread their ideology and organize.

In the past, neonazis and fascists had to lay low and work in the shadows. But the internet has a hell of a lot of shadows, and they're all accessible from everywhere. They are also getting better at hiding their true intent behind "identity" and "heritage" and other "soft" forms of their ideologies.

That is precisely why fascism is now a real actual threat to millions of people, and the reason why we must never let down our guard, we have to root them out and expose them for what they are.

<comment><USER29> > _The internet has allowed him and his ilk a bigger voice, platforms to more > efficiently spread their ideology and organize._

This sounds like speculation and doesn't match what I've seen in real life. Do you have any data to back up that white supremacy is more popular now than it was in the past?

<comment><USER3> This is not something I'm simply making up, this is verified by countless sources, who keep an eye on white nationalists and white supremacists, and related far-right groups.

[https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/02/22/number- white-a...](https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/02/22/number-white-and- black-hate-groups-surge-under-trump-extremist-tracking-organization- says/363978002/)

[https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence- report/...](https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence- report/2018/2017-year-hate-and-extremism)

[https://edition.cnn.com/2017/02/15/politics/hate-groups- spik...](https://edition.cnn.com/2017/02/15/politics/hate-groups-spiked- in-2016/index.html?no-st=1545649684)

[https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/17/lens/documenting-rise- whi...](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/17/lens/documenting-rise-white- nationalism-eugene-smith-grant.html)

It is also _blatantly_ obvious to anyone who spends any time at all on social media or forums. White supremacist and alt-right viewpoints are sneaking in, hiding under banners such as "appreciating heritage" or by trying to co-opt historic traditions and symbols as ethnically exclusionary.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> The overlays totally ruin this site. Help!

</comment><comment><USER31> The solution to this 'authoritarianism' then is banning opinions the author disagrees with (Milo, Trump etc). Bravo</comment>


Hank asks NSA director tough questions about wiretaps, e-mail intercepts - <AUTHOR> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYNXVgYhPOc&feature=youtu.be <comment><USER2> This video is a very good example of parsing. Obviously a court order is not part of a _technical_ system, it is part of a _human_ system.

The UK intercepts US citizens data in N. America as a loophole in our laws, using ECHELON. The the NSA is given access to the data they collect with U.S. equipment on their soil. This has been ongoing since before the World Wide Web existed.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON)</comment>


Ask YC: Scheme on blackberry pearl?   - <AUTHOR>

Hi - I was curious if anybody had scheme on their blackberry pearl.  I have a long plane ride tonight and wanted to play around with scheme.  Thanks!<p>edit: Bonus points for OTA installation. <comment><USER2> Not sure if it works on BlackBerry but I've used these on WiMo:

<http://www.secretgeek.net/pocket_scheme.asp>

[http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.scheme/msg/0cde2c56...](http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.scheme/msg/0cde2c56416b9773)</comment>


Early stage startup, first customer wants equity? - <AUTHOR> We're a team of 2 building a SaaS service for a niche industry. The product/service is subscription-based SaaS -- we have hopes of charging $10k-$20k per year. (We've validated this price-range). We've not taken any funding from anyone, but both have savings to last for a while.
We have been working with company X to develop our beta. So far, it has been very productive, but no money has exchanged hands and only NDA's have been signed. There was a handshake-level agreement that our product would be tailor made to their exact situation, and they'd be our first customer.
Now that we're closing in on an initial beta release, company X suggests out of the blue that, in order for us to keep working together, they'd want a piece of our company. (No specifics yet, but we're expecting the discussion to be 5-10 points). The equity would be vesting over a few years, and would have no 'privileges' like voting/etc (only value will be at exit). In exchange, they'd continue working with us to develop our core product, be our first paying customers, and also work as our sales team. And, in their, words, "align our interests".
The last part, helping us sell, is compelling to us because we don't have many connections in the industry, whereas the company is multifaceted and deals with many of our potential customers.
The crux of the matter is: if we do go through with such an arrangement, how do we structure such a contract? Company X has assured us that if they don't meet certain 'benchmarks', they'd return our shares. What would these benchmarks look like? For example, is it appropriate to ask that they help us sell to, say, X leads per year? agree to commit to purchase Y licenses per year directly? Help us launch ancillary services? Provide us with access to certain sensitive data?
And, in exchange, what do we offer them, besides developing the services to their needs?
Sorry for rambling on, but all of this is new to us and any insight is appreciated. <comment><USER2> My startup was offered this by a very well known large enterprise. We said no because they would have insight on what we do with our other customers (their competitors). We sought the council of several lawyers and law firms in the valley and every single one told us to walk away immediately. An infant startup should do whatever it takes to keep the legalities as clean as possible. If your situation was similar to ours, your customer is bound to try to put IP ownership language in the contract. If you are seeking future investment, this can quickly make potential investors run away.

Take it as a compliment that they want your technology very badly to make such an offer. You should try to talk to their competitors immediately to get some validation and try to sell to them at the same time. Never indicate that they are your only customer. If you're a startup, try to win a market. Do not develop bespoke technology for a handful of major players. You will quickly find out that you are beholden to them.

I'd be happy to tell you more of our experience if you'd like (email me)

<comment><USER3> That's an interesting scenario. Does the well known large enterprise have a venture arm? We see a plethora of corporate venture firms who are intrigued by what we're working on. For us to work with them to get access to a larger customer base seems appealing but I wonder if it would create issues later down the line.

<comment><USER2> A late response. They do not have a corporate venture arm.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> "Thank you for your offer. We are not looking to sell any portion of the company at this time. However, in order to further align our interests, _after your successful onboarding with the beta release_ we are willing to consider offering a commission to your sales team for new customers."

<comment><USER5> This. Interests cannot be aligned if they get equity. That changes the game completely.

I run a SAAS and some of our very early customers have become almost a sales person for our company. They recommend us all the time to people they think could be good fit for us and they also are more than happy to be a reference for new prospects. We are happy to give them additional discounts, free customizations (our saas is customizable) etc and keep them happy.

I would focus on making this early customer very happy and keeping the focus on solving their problem. It seems like they are trying to kill 2 birds with 1 stone and that would mess things up. Never mix customer and equity.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> If they are not paying you they are not a customer.

The equity requirement is a version of "if you do it for free, I will tell all my friends about you."

At best, that is an offer to tell all their friends about how you did it for free.

To put it another way, the _potential_ client ran you around in circles instead of being forthright.

Is that who you want to bring on as a partner?

Good luck

<comment><AUTHOR> I don't know why you are so pessimistic, they are going to pay our standard annual fee once out of beta. It would not benefit them to spent so much time helping us develop things to their spec and not be able to use it.

<comment><USER6> Ordinarily, companies pay for someone to develop software bespoke to their needs. They hire consultants to do it. Hell, ordinarily companies pay consultants just for the process of figuring out what the needs are, never mind the solution.

From the information provided, it does not appear the potential customer has paid for the value already provided. In fact, the potential customer is now requiring you to pay them.

And your company is over a barrel. In much of the world, 10-20k per year is a small fraction of what a business needs to be sustainable. Even a small consultancy needs between 10x and 100x that turnover to be a minimally viable business.

Outsourcing sales doesn't make it any better because the potential client does not have a significant incentive to go out and sell your product because selling your product is not their primary business. Selling your product is your primary business.

The dependency on outside sales means that your business does not control staffing, pricing, and customer relations.

Why am I pessimistic? Red flags in your potential client's behavior. The behavior is win-lose not win-win. Every piece of it is at your loss and the potential client's gain. None of it is to insure the stability of your business.

Assuming the potential client isn't stupid, that means that their strategy does not require your business to stay in business. The simplest explanation for that strategy is that the potential client doesn't actually need your product or that the potential client expects to acquire your product in whole when your non-viable business liquidates.

I could be wrong. I hope I am. And I admit that I am stupid enough to have come to my conclusions by my own hard and sad experience. I paid the dumb tax to learn to recognize bad clients. I learned human behavior unprofitably. Your experience may be different. Again I hope so. Good luck.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I'd stay far away from company X. If they are randomly trying to change the deal out of the blue, would you want to be in a deeper relationship with them?

Like the other commenter said, treat this as an incredible compliment. They see the value of your product and want a slice of the pie. Please approach your other potential customers (ie their competitors), and start removing their leverage on you.

Best of luck! Good problems to have!

</comment><comment><USER8> I feel for you, that's an unfortunate situation. We are around that price point and selling into a niche industry and also got these types of offers/demands earlier in our journey. I am very thankful we declined them although they were tempting. Part of building a company is building a customer acquisition process that is repeatable and scalable and bribery doesn't qualify. If you build a product without a repeatable and scalable sales system you will fail. If anything the customer acquisition is more important than the product. This is why companies like Dropbox famously faked the product demo video, got a big waitlist of customers and then made the product. You can solve just about any problem a company has so long as it has scalable + repeatable system for profitable customer acquisition.

There are other problems with this...

1\. People who actually have connections and power typically also have money, and understand the rules of investing. Respectfully, I think you're dealing with lower-level people who may not be able to deliver on their promises.

2\. Once you start bribing it's never enough. People who extort bribes from you in any form will always ask for more. In my experience, this is rooted both in their greed and desire to conceal their inability to actually add value. Rather than saying... "sorry I can't actually make valuable connections" they will ask for bigger incentives.

3\. It will hinder your company long term, other investors and/or clients who become aware that someone got equity for free will then be anchored at free. Be confident, you're worth something.

4\. There are rules around this, blame the rules. Laugh it off with them and say unless they are accredited investors individually and/or their company wants to pay $70K for the legal it's a no go. Say this nicely and they may back off. The "shit sandwich" is a great way to deliver bad news like this... say something nice, say no, say something else nice.

5\. I handle most the sales for our company and you can take heart that you are probably onto something valuable, congrats. Most people have a logic flaw I exploit as a salesperson that when they want something they want it completely. Humans are very bad at indexing desire, further if you have something unique they can't get anywhere else then you are in charge. That's great, part of what you're going to have to learn is how to get customers excited enough to try/use/buy your product without being so crazed with it they insist on owning it.

6\. If you can't beat back people's desire to own a piece of your company stall. Tell them you'd love to have them as a partner but all the legal details would cost a fortune. Make it clear to them that you can't "paper" a deal of any kind without money. This might make it their idea to get you some money.

I hope some/all of that is helpful. Sorry I didn't distill it better. Others may disagree with some or all of this and they are entitled to their view. Best of luck!</comment>


How PMs Can Earn the Respect and Trust of Their Team - <AUTHOR> https://hackernoon.com/10-ways-pms-can-earn-the-respect-and-trust-of-their-team-98353b693b4a <comment><USER2> This should be required reading for every PM.

As an engineer the point about "doing the mental gymnastics" is the single biggest difference between a good PM and a bad PM.

Well written/thought out specs guide my development process, shape my tests, and help me focus on the critical components.

Poorly written specs are a just a PM refusing to do his job. I have campaigned to have PM's fired for this reason alone. If you can't take the time to think through the problem on paper, why should I bother trying to implement it.

Also, if you are a PM and you are trying to persuade devs without hard data, you are going to have a bad time.</comment>


Ask HN: Are there any tech companies in the Bay Area that offer private offices? - <AUTHOR> I'm wondering if there are any tech companies in the Bay Area that offer private offices to individual non-executive-level employees. I find that I am extremely unproductive in open office workspaces. I can never concentrate due to all the noise and visual distractions. Putting on headphones isn't an option. Are they <i>any</i> places that offer something like this? Are private offices really such a rarity now? <comment><USER4> This is my office [1]. Pardon the crappy photo quality.

All employees at SmugMug get a space like this with a door. They aren't totally enclosed offices per se...the front wall is a metal mesh covered with giant gorgeous photos on the outside, and they stop about 1' short of the ceiling, so they might not meet your headphone requirement, but in general things are quiet. One of my walls has whiteboard paint covering it.

Throughout the day I switch between my chaise and the double monitors on my desk when I need the screen space. But there's nothing quite like kicking back with my shoes off after lunch with a cappuccino and knocking things off my list. I don't think I could ever work in an open floor plan after this.

I usually don't close my door, but if I did I'd have zero visual distractions. To the contrary, thanks to a helpful decorating budget all new employees receive, you can make your own zen space (textured wood print wallpaper is both inexpensive and amazing). We have several open spaces of varying sizes with couches and such if that is what you'd prefer. Convertible standing desks are also available for anyone that wants one.

This is the first company I've worked at that seems to get that different people have different work environment needs, and that focused, complex work often is best done in a private space you can be comfortable in.

Hope it's alright to plug given the nature of the post but...we're hiring [2].

[1] [https://goo.gl/photos/caP41XiMfUuFNK1o8](https://goo.gl/photos/caP41XiMfUuFNK1o8)

[2] [http://jobs.smugmug.com/](http://jobs.smugmug.com/)

<comment><USER5> Where are you located? I don't see your address anywhere on your site.

<comment><USER4> Yeah, I can see where people might want to know where they'd actually be working. We're in the middle of overhauling our jobs site to share a lot more info and HR confirmed this info is already in the plan :)

Anyway, we're a quick walk from the Mountain View Caltrain stop on Evelyn[1]. We also have a parking lot and bike storage.

[1] [https://goo.gl/maps/VTTWkhRUs3P2](https://goo.gl/maps/VTTWkhRUs3P2)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I cannot believe that still in this day and age, there is still a belief that open offices are better for developers?? Joel Spolsky tried to set the record straight, what, about 15 years ago?

For the record, I don't normally listen to music when programming - I like a quiet environment. Interruptions are a bane. I have a private office, but as soon as anyone enters - even quietly, my flow state is broken.

Plus on the flipside, while waiting for a long compile or download, I will grab one of the guitars sitting in my office and randomly jam away. I am sure in an open office environment, my co-workers would not appreciate that either.

<comment><USER7> I have a private office (I work from home), but there's a difference between open offices where EVERYONE in the company is out in one big area and a separate space for each team.

That's how a team I used to be on was arranged. There was the outside office, then what was termed the "developer cave", which was a large section of the office (closed off, with a door!) that housed 5 developers and 3 QA people all working on the same product.

That's better than private offices (it encourages collaboration), but, doesn't have most of the downsides of a traditional "open office" (having to overhear the sales guy making calls all day, and people don't just pop in to ask a question. A room full of working developers is intimidating. Best to send an email instead.).

On top of that, we had separate booths (with doors) that were kind of like phone booths, just enough space for two people, that developers would snag if they needed to focus.

<comment><USER8> My last job had a similar setup, with a developer cave (complete with dim lighting to disorient visitors) with 5 devs working on the same system. There were long stretches of quiet time to focus, and a little bit of idle bullshitting with the opportunity to shoot questions across the room when it would be faster than looking things up yourself or going through email.

Now I'm sitting in a cube farm, sharing a cube, and listening to administrative assistants chatter about their children and their health issues and what they had for lunch all day long. I started coming in hours late and leaving hours late just so I have a few hours of peace at the end of the day to get some focused work done. And that's on an 'easier to ask forgiveness than permission' basis.

I'd kill for a setup like the top comment by shostack, but just getting back to a cave would be lovely.

<comment><USER9> >>with the opportunity to shoot questions across the room when it would be faster than looking things up yourself or going through email

Faster for you, not for the poor slob who has to answer your questions.

<comment><USER8> True, but I meant that in context with the idling. In other words, when we're in a lull in the BSing, it was a good time to toss around a few questions. A quick "hey, do you happen to know where xyz happens?" can save you ten minutes and cost someone ten seconds. With a small group of just 5 programmers, it was easy enough to know when was an appropriate time for speaking and when it would be best not to disrupt the others.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Private offices are common, but not in the Bay

\- It is a form of compensation. Cash/stock is preferred form here. To get other benefits (private office, remote) look at different place.

\- Office space is at premium, private offices are expensive. Again look somewhere else.

\- Startup culture is associated with open office. Large corporations are better with this :-(

\- 'Extremely unproductive' is not an argument. Managers believe that programmers are equivalent/interchangeable cogs. There is no such thing as 10x ;-)

I would recommend:

\- Block visual distractions as much as possible, 3x30" screen in pivot mode should do.

\- Move into corner.

\- Invest into big closed studio headphones with amplifier. Not active noise cancellation, but passive which covers entire ear. I got DT 770 PRO, best investment I ever did.

\- Get ready for starting your own business and working remotely. I am afraid it is the only way :-(

<comment><USER11> Any reason why you recommend against active noise cancellation? My Bose QC25s are still my favorite purchase, combining both over-ear passive cancellation & active noise cancellation. I even use them when working solo, and was so freaked out when one pair broke that I bought a second backup pair - <USER2> replaced the broken pair free of charge though.

[I realize the OP mentioned that headphones were not an option though.]

<comment><USER10> I personally find active headphones uncomfortable. Large studio headphones are designed for long term use.

<comment><USER12> The reference was not to 'active headphones' (e.g. for running), but to 'active noise cancellation' where an "inverse wave" (inverse to incoming noise) is played to cancel out sounds. These can be in both in-ear or over- the-ear form.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Ah, the ultimate luxury... There is a long discussion on the benefits of private offices in Peopleware, which says that Microsoft has them (although this was 1999): [http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/67825.Peopleware](http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/67825.Peopleware)

Recently, I heard of the "cave and commons" approach, which sounds more like it could be adopted by hip startups: [https://hbr.org/2013/03/give-workers- the-power-to-choose-cav...](https://hbr.org/2013/03/give-workers-the-power-to- choose-cave)

<comment><USER14> i think i've heard of the ideal of commons + private/quiet space too, if i recall that option is mentioned in peopleware too.

(anecdote: i am currently sitting in low cubicles in the middle of a huge open plan space, with a couple of neighbouring developers, we're surrounded by about two rings of people whose jobs involve talking all day. this is okay for days that descend into endless meetings / firefighting, but pretty nightmarish for work that involves thinking hard about anything)

<comment><USER15> My company has pretty much everyone in "pods". It's a suite per team with a conference room off the hallway, surrounded by offices with doors around the room. There's a TV in each pod with an HDMI cable in conference table for presentations, meetings, or pair/group hack sessions.

The doors unfortunately aren't the best at blocking loud conversations, but it's still better than trying to concentrate in a loud cubicle farm.

<comment><USER16> I love this idea the most.

I've worked in places where teams have created "war rooms", basically a commandeered conference room where everyone hunkers down around the table and gets the project done (this was when I worked on a mechanical device and we needed to mess with parts and tools).

The benefit of the pod to me is that you can make the closable offices way smaller (desk, small table, couple of chairs) when the doors are open the offices become part of the larger project room. The entire project room can also be closed off for noise, privacy, meetings, stealth, etc.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Mentor Graphics has private offices. When our company was acquired by them, I thought I would really love them. But to my surprise I didn't like how it changed the culture at all.

Private offices really do make developers more insular. It discourages communication to a degree I wouldn't have thought it would.

Another aspect which might not be obvious at first is that offices come in difference sizes, so when somebody comes to your office--or you go to theirs-- you both immediately know your relative positions on the pecking order.

This induces an unwelcome power dynamic. Good ideas come from everywhere, but its human nature to buy into these symbols of status. "You know how I know I'm right and you are wrong? My office (and salary) is bigger than yours." Not necessarily said in as explicit terms as those, but the effect is real and pervasive.

<comment><USER18> Offices-with-doors power dynamics may be unwelcome in some company cultures. But power dynamics are unavoidable. If a company has an open plan work space or bullpen, the dynamic will be expressed in some other way that might be even more unwelcome.

<comment><USER19> In open plan offices, it would be the person with the nicest window, or furthest from the door.

<comment><USER20> This is an interesting statement. At my job over the summer, I noticed management had the window seats. Those are the best seats because you can see the sun and because you can see the city.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Agree with the impossibility of working in an open office. There have been a couple days where I've had to work with everybody else in our conference room because of renovations to the portion of the office where our offices are. It's no good, I gave up and went home and worked from there; just too much distraction and having to be constantly _on_ , since, whether it is rational or not, it feels like somebody is always watching you.

The panopticon was a design developed to ensure constant surveillance of prisoners. It doesn't say good things about the status of employees when you make their workplace functionally equivalent.

</comment><comment><USER22> I also have the same predicament as you, I simply _cannot_ focus in open office environments and I'm not even sure why so I can't curb the problem. I'm not sure if it's a feeling of being watched, or a feeling of uncertainty in my surroundings... or even if it's the possibility of being surprised/interrupted from behind.

Eitherway, I'm trying to push the idea of working from home- people aren't very receptive but after I've shown them I'm a good worker they'll be surprised when I finally get my wish and suddenly become significantly more productive.

the alternative of course is smaller offices for 3-6 people, I've only seen that in one place in my professional life and that was Nokia R&D in Helsinki where isolating teams was necessary for security reasons.

That was actually really nice.

<comment><USER23> > _the alternative of course is smaller offices for 3-6 people (...) That was > actually really nice._

Really? In my experience a small office with more than 1 person is worse than a complete open space (while an office for 1, with a door, is the best).

To be productive I need to not see and not be seen; I feel more anonymous in a big loud crowd than in a small office with 2 other people who can still speak to one another or to me, or on the phone, etc.

<comment><USER24> It can depend on the situation. There have been a few small offices where I've felt moderately productive, but looking back they've tended to be filled with people from across the organisation, working on different things. The "team office" which I know is the ideal for some is a recipe for high visibility and unhelpful pressure.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> IBM still has private offices for many (I hesitate to say most) employees working in the US. San Jose for a fact has private offices. Occasionally you'll see two people sharing an office, but even that is fine for the noise and distraction-free environment you're looking for.

</comment><comment><USER26> I've been working as a web developer for the past 5 or so years and am yet to see one that wasn't taken by senior management and even then it's only 2-4 of them. I don't think real estate companies have many available anymore. I'm sure it's better for them to say "this is a 100 person open-office" than "this fits 50 private offices". This is Australia so YMMV in the states.

<comment><USER27> Surely it's up to the business leasing the premises to do the fit out?

<comment><USER28> Almost always the tenant

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Cost wise, seems feasible on a sqft basis (assuming a small office - <USER3> equivalent). And I don't imagine the fit-out would be significant on a long lease.

Average for bay area is $40/sqft/yr [https://42floors.com/office- space/us/ca/san-francisco-bay-ar...](https://42floors.com/office- space/us/ca/san-francisco-bay-area)

Office size data (small office ~100 sqft) [https://www.quora.com/What-is-the- average-square-footage-of-...](https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-average- square-footage-of-office-space-reserved-per-person-for-a-technology-startup)

CBRE will have more details with registration: [https://researchgateway.cbre.com/PublicationListing.aspx?PUB...](https://researchgateway.cbre.com/PublicationListing.aspx?PUBID=1e65af9a-a5bb-48b7-825d-38795ef2897b)

</comment><comment><USER29> Pretty rare these days I would say. I remember having them early in my career, 2004-2006 or so. Now I guess we're all Agile, or something. It makes the Agileness more better if you can hear your coworkers eating and talking about the game, I guess.

Most places I've worked since, even the CEO didn't have an office so it was more of an egalitarian thing. (By that I mean the false egalitarianism that's prevalent nowadays where your boss is your friend, not just your boss.) When they don't do that, and it's a situation where execs get one and peons don't, that's pretty tacky and indicative of a company that will be shitty in other ways IMO.

</comment><comment><USER30> I haven't sat at my desk in probably three or more weeks. I have great headphones but I prefer to work in silence if I can. Our workplace has plenty of offices and couchspaces and I just move around (sometimes because I get kicked out if rooms). Usually I'm with one or sometimes two or three other engineers. I enjoy that.

I had an office once at a small place but it had no windows. It eventually drove me a bit crazy, as did working from home one summer where I had windows but no AC and I'd stick to my chair half the time.

It's tough to find perfection but a mixture of commons plus private works well for me and may be what you need.

<comment><USER31> I have worked from home for 5 years and now work in an open plan office and enjoy it more honestly. I don't really feel less productive and i certianly feel less alone when i can chat to coworkers from time to time or discuss development question with my coworkers. I have good headphones when i need to focus or can also go to one of the meeting rooms or work from home if i really want to work uninterrupted for a longer stretch. I would definetly consider myself an introvert but i still enjoy being around other people from time to time. I think the long time working from home alone really hurt me in some ways in retrospect.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> i'd be happy with a compromise: an office with just my immediate team members/people I work with regularly. If there are conversations, they will most likely be relevant. It'll also probably help with bonding.

The worst part about open office: meeting rooms next to desks. I used to sit in an area with lots of meeting rooms and people talking on their way in/out of these meetings constantly was killer.

</comment><comment><USER33> I work at a very large company F50 not in the Bay area and the only people with offices are managers of various kinds. Our building has cubes of various quality (mine is closet sized) but our other buildings are mostly open plan with desk height walls. As a programmer the last time I had an office to myself was during the dotcom era. Sadly it's not just in the Bay.

</comment><comment><USER34> Maybe I am just imaging it, but for me, background music interferes with deep sustained thinking. I don't understand how people think playing music in the background at home or at work does anything positive for intellectual activity.

Open offices have a similar effect on me, and not infrequently I've been exposed to both at the same time.

<comment><USER35> A fun fact is that Jon von Neumann felt otherwise. From Wikipedia:

 _Von Neumann did some of his best work in noisy, chaotic environments, and once admonished his wife for preparing a quiet study for him to work in. He never used it, preferring the couple 's living room with its television playing loudly._

<comment><USER34> Yeah, but what did he know about intellectual activity! :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Interesting to see so many different opinions, and experiences. Apparently it is to a large extent a personal matter.

My experience is that I seem to prefer a mix of available options. For example, my current office is about 30 miles away from home, and I sometimes work form home and like it, but then I go to the office and like it too. After several days of working in the same environment I welcome the change of scenery.

Also, for the first time in many years, I got a private office, having moved there from a cubicle. It may be a status symbol more than a convenience, but it is a convenience for sure. No problem mixing private and public space as long as I have a choice of both.

</comment><comment><USER37> At a previous company, we had an office where they built little rooms for phone calls. Some had desks with chairs, and there was one with beanbags. I ended up spending some time in those, unless someone needed to make a call (not too often). I did get tired of the open plan office after a while, but mostly it was just nice to have some variety and move around.

</comment><comment><USER38> I spent most of my career in offices with doors, and was excited about being in an open office. It is definitely more social but it is ridiculously disruptive. When someone is happy or sad (e.g. when someone leaves, even from a different group), there is a pretty big disruption that kills productivity for 30 mins or more. Doors win I think.

</comment><comment><USER39> Try one of the national labs :)

</comment><comment><USER40> Why is wearing headphones not an option? Just curious.

<comment><USER41> I'm not 30 yet and my headphone use in open plan offices has contributed to tinnitus. To be effective, the music has to completely drown out conversations. It's unhealthy.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, this is exactly why headphones are not an option. No headphone I've ever tried is completely able to block outside noise. Some do a decent job but then my tinnitus kicks in and is maddening.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> Yes I think Oracle Labs in the bay area has private offices for all developers. I even had one as an intern - with a view of Mount Diablo.

<comment><USER43> Oracle Santa Clara and HQ all have private offices. It was really hard to leave my office. :(

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> Why is wearing headphones not an option?

<comment><USER44> One possible reason: long-term exposure, even at low volumes, damages hearing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> >"... headphones isn't an option."

Based on my experience in a very similar situation I'd recommend finding a way to overcome any barriers to using headphones, then using a pair w/ good noise- cancelling, and listening to brain.fm. It's remarkably effective.</comment>


Social Networks Implode Quickly  - <AUTHOR> http://diegobasch.com/social-networks-implode-quickly <comment><USER2> Network effects are not indefensible. I don't understand why so many people in the bay area think that network effects are impossible to break in. Here is an example. Orkut. All my friends including myself were on Orkut in 2004/2005. By 2008 everyone moved to FB. Why? Orkut had horrible UX and buggy system. FB was breath of fresh air compared to that. Even though Orkut has superior privacy features (I still say they had best privacy features for any social app). FB is moving in that direction. It's quite buggy system and if FB must address the overall quality of application. It looks like Orkut in 2007.

</comment><comment><USER3> I think MS will acquire FB.

The FB social network will die, in time, but it's still the world's largest email address list, plus all sorts of personal information that can be used to insidiously coax consumers.

Every FB user should gather up all the email addys of their friends and keep them in a safe place offline. This way you never lose contact.

FB allowed people to submit their email addresses to a central website and thereby connect/reconnect with friends, colleagues and so forth. This sharing of email addresses is not a new thing, but with FB it occurred on an unprecendented scale. Billions of email addresses (that work!). That is FB's contribution. Gather those email addresses and keep them offline. Soon you may be able to form your own social networks that are private, secure and more functional than FB. But you will need the email addresses of your friends to get it started. Don't believe that FB should be the safe keeper of your email address book. They will do what they have to in order to survive as their business winds down. Those email addresses are its most valuable asset.

<comment><USER4> I'm not making the MS connection - are you saying that Facebook will be eventually required solely for its email addresses?

<comment><USER4> While it's too late to edit, the typo is driving me insane:

required => acquired.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> One lesson from reading this text is: if your site has googleable content, it will not decay as fast as if you rely on (semi-)active following. Seems quite obvious when stated this way.

<comment><USER6> yes, although I'd include an AND condition, like "If your site has googleable content AND you engage your users in a meaningful way..."

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I don't think Facebook will die, for two good reasons:

1) there are many more people on facebook than networks like myspace ever had. This makes a transition much, much harder.

2) facebook is not only used for facebook, but for many third-party apps as well. People will keep their facebook accounts so that they can log in to external services.

<comment><USER8> Facebook is similar to people who still use hotmail. There are much better ones now, but they still keep the old hotmail account.

<comment><USER9> Only that Hotmail has been much improved recently and even got a completely new design with Outlook.com. Also, care to elaborate on what "much better ones" there are? I barely use Facebook while Twitter is essential for me, but I don't see a better social network for most people than Facebook.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> "TL;DR: Big social networks need to take advantage of the spotlight, and solidify their position to rely less on network effects. Otherwise, they are extremely risky investments."

Very good point.

<comment><USER6> "Social networks are extremely risky investments, no matter what." ?

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Interesting. I can see Quora having that long tail of useful traffic, even if the community collapses.

<comment><USER12> In fact Quora ranks pretty high in Alexa for what I believe is a relatively small user base. They must have a significant number of lurkers and decent SEO.

<http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/quora.com>

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Growing a company is one aspect while sustaining a company is another. Social Networks naturally take advantage of network effect while growing. It is not easy to sustain the company if perceived value provided by the company erodes quickly from its core customers' point of view. Whenever a company collapses usually it is because customers do not want its products for whatever reason.

</comment><comment><USER14> There are various historical examples of various online networks. The one I began with in 1992 was the Prodigy commercial online network (which I had actually tried out as early as 1989). My paradigmatic example of an online network that faded away is AOL, which is still in business. My prediction about Facebook, posted previously here on HN, is "Facebook will go the way of AOL, still being a factor in the industry years from now, but also serving as an example of a company that could never monetize up to the level of the hype surrounding it." I could be wrong, but that's my sense of where Facebook is in the market.</comment>


H. G. Wells and the Uncertainties of Progress - <AUTHOR> https://publicdomainreview.org/2019/06/27/h-g-wells-and-the-uncertainties-of-progress/ <comment><USER2> > The history of mankind for the last four centuries is rather like that of an > imprisoned sleeper, stirring clumsily and uneasily while the prison that > restrains and shelters him catches fire, not waking but incorporating the > crackling and warmth of the fire with ancient and incongruous dreams, than > like that of a man consciously awake to danger and opportunity.

~H. P. Wells, "A Short History of the World"

<comment><USER3> I believe you mean "H. G. Wells" ? (typo)

<comment><USER2> ...d'oh! You're right, and it's past the edit window... _c 'est la vie_

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> This past week I read a critical essay penned by George Orwell on Wells, Wells, Hitler and the World State ([http://orwell.ru/library/reviews/wells/english/e_whws](http://orwell.ru/library/reviews/wells/english/e_whws)). It serves as a great supplementary read to this article.

<comment><USER5> Thanks. It's Orwell writing in 1941 (1) during the WW II about Wells not understanding what the "irrational" leaders like Hitler were able to archive (and more, not everything is about just H. G. Wells there):

... "he could not grasp the tremendous strength of the old world which was symbolised in his mind by fox-hunting Tories. He was, and still is, quite incapable of understanding that _nationalism, religious bigotry and feudal loyalty_ are far more powerful forces than what he himself would describe as sanity."

And:

"The people who say that Hitler is Antichrist, or alternatively, the Holy Ghost, are nearer an understanding of the truth than the intellectuals who _for ten dreadful years have kept it up that he is merely a figure out of comic opera, not worth taking seriously. All that this idea really reflects is the sheltered conditions of English life._ "

(Emphasis mine).

There are enough those who could be associated with these sentences even today. More decades later the world has changed less than I have believed as I was younger.

1) For the context: H. G. Wells published The Time Machine in 1895, died in 1946. Orwel published 1984 in 1948, and was 38 years old in 1941.

<comment><USER4> Thank you for the providing the backdrop to that essay. Puts it in perspective.

And truly, the more the world changes, the more it is the same.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I am surprised this essay does not touch on Wells' last and most pessimistic book, _Mind at the End of its Tether_ , where he prophecies that _" The end of everything we call life is close at hand and cannot be evaded."_[1]

[1] - [http://freeread.com.au/@RGLibrary/HGWells/NonFiction/MindAtT...](http://freeread.com.au/@RGLibrary/HGWells/NonFiction/MindAtTheEndOfItsTether.html)

<comment><USER7> Note to the reader:

big-lies.org is a website dedicated to the idea that Jews control the world, the Holocaust never happened, the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were hoaxes, and various other "interesting" theories.

I assume the text of Wells' work has not been altered, but the website author's notes at the bottom include such gems as:

> Poor Wells must have been caught between his universalist beliefs (based on > the kinship between human races—even if this was very attenuated) and the > overpowering ubiquity of war lies and the support for mass murder by Jews > fronted by Stalin.

and

> Wells had disappointingly little feeling for finance, which disqualified him > from taking account of Jewish control of wars behind the scenes.

<comment><USER6> I've changed the link to the book from big-lies.org to freeread.com.au.

I haven't investigated either of these websites and don't approve of or even know of any of the views that may be posted on them. I'm just posting a link to the book alone.

However, if you don't like the website for whatever reason and know of any better sources feel free to post another link.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> "So woefully unorganized is sociological knowledge that the meaning of progress, the meaning of swift and slow in human doing, and the limits of human perfectibility, are veiled, unanswered sphinxes on the shores of science." -W. E. Du Bois</comment>


Gun violence and terrorism in the US: Barack Obama wants you to see this chart - <AUTHOR> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-02/gun-laws-chart-barack-obama/6822342 <comment><USER2> That's a terrible chart.

Show for the same time period for each group.

US terrorism deaths, 2015: 0 (? have there been any in 2015?)

better chart [http://www.vox.com/2015/10/1/9437187/obama-guns-terrorism- de...](http://www.vox.com/2015/10/1/9437187/obama-guns-terrorism-deaths)</comment>


A beginner's reference guide to TypeScript Language - <AUTHOR> http://tech.jjude.com/ts/ <comment><USER2> Very good just forwarded it to my team!</comment>


Ask HN: Have you used Flutter for web dev and how did it go? - <AUTHOR> <comment><AUTHOR> I ask because they have a warning on their doc site saying that the web version is experimental and can crash. I'm mainly wondering how much that happens in practice.</comment>


Ask HN: Why doesn't HN support post or account deletion? - <AUTHOR> In addition to the fact views can change, or someone might have other concerns. (Ex: maybe they didn't plan for being forced to disclose their social media at the border when making legal political speech), doesn't GDPR require it (at least for EU citizens)?<p>(It's my understanding that HN comments are permanent, absent a short edit/delete period and accounts aren't deletable, if either is incorrect please feel free to let me know in the comments :) ) <comment><USER2> The question came up a couple of days ago [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20052076](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20052076) and of course last year. Moderators have never commented afaik, they rarely do on feature requests.

<comment><USER3> But this is not a feature request, it's a legal question.

Which will keep coming up, and hopefully does not create a situation that becomes unpleasant news before somebody from HN addresses it.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, if someone from the EU decided to press the issue it could cost a lot of $ - probably more than it would cost to come into compliance.

(Compliance with laws is not a "feature request")</comment></comment></comment>


Pittsburgh Parking Enforcement's license plate database open to public - <AUTHOR> http://newsinteractive.post-gazette.com/tracking/

<comment><USER2> How is this not going to turn in to a stalking tool and an effective give-away of citizen privacy to companies looking to profile the members of the public?

Edit: For that matter, does the state have the ability to give away the commercial value of my travel information without compensating me for it?</comment>


Don't Abandon a Marketing Channel Too Soon–Refine Your Message First - <AUTHOR> http://femgineer.com/2014/12/dont-abandon-a-marketing-channel-too-soon-refine-your-message-first/

<comment><USER2> Should be tagged "Show HN" just like all of the rest of the posts by this user

(For the poster: There's a reason you've only earned 24 karma since your first post 550 days ago, it looks like you're advertising. Try maintaining a real account that really comments and votes on other people's articles and maybe people will vote you up. HN is a community, not a billboard.)</comment>


Show HN: Free do what you want highres images 4 book covers, new uploads weekly - <AUTHOR> http://facesofbooks.tumblr.com/

<comment><AUTHOR> Can obviously use these not just for book covers - illustrations, blogs, web pages - whatever you like. We give you the option of downloading the originals or the files already optimised for all the main ebook formats. We'll be adding all kinds of images, not just photography. New batch every week.</comment>


Solar FREAKIN' Roadways! - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlTA3rnpgzU

<comment><USER2> Link to their Indiegogo campaign: [https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/solar- roadways](https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/solar-roadways)

Really interested to see if this is possible.

<comment><AUTHOR> Me too. I've been speaking to a lot of nay-sayers recently but nothing they said was truly a deal-breaker. I hope they can overcome the difficulties.

And it seems that the public generally believes in this project too, which is a good sign.</comment></comment>


Robots at Work and Play - <AUTHOR> http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/2011/04/robots-at-work-and-play/100052/

<comment><USER2> Nerd porn is the appropriate label here.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> It's only a matter of time before one of these kills a person.

<comment><USER3> One of these has already saved a person. Shall we keep score?

<comment><USER4> I'd say a greater number of robots on these pictures were made to kill or to prepare or facilitate killing people.</comment></comment></comment>


Holiday gift guide: Linux and open source tech gadgets - <AUTHOR> https://opensource.com/article/19/12/gadgets-holiday-wishlist <comment><USER2> No makerphone or makerbuino?</comment>


NASA: "We're close to finding alien life on Mars but is the world ready?" - <AUTHOR> https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2019/09/28/nasa-chief-scientist-close-finding-alien-life-making-announcementsbut/ <comment><USER2> Yes.

It will be a big story, sure, but not really going to change the world. An alien _intelligence_ discovery would be far more world altering, but even that would blow over unless the aliens are all up in our face somehow.

Life just goes on, the new becomes the new normal.

</comment><comment><USER3> I didn't read the article but how could NASA know they are close to finding something, unless they already found it? Weird!

<comment><USER4> My sentiments exactly.

If life was so common that it's spread over several planets in one star system, it would be evident in lots of star systems.

NASA's statement is akin to a statement from me that I'm close to reaching billionaire status. To be believable, I have to demonstrate lots and lots of evidence.

NASA does not demonstrate any credible evidence of life on Mars and has not done so in the past.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: How does Common Lisp implement hot-reloading? - <AUTHOR> I have always wondered how Common Lisp implements hot-reloading on live functions in multithreaded contexts.
A typical approach used in other languages or debuggers is either to use a dispatch table or to have some NOP bytes at the beginning of every function that could be rewritten into a jmp to the new function definition. In the first case the code incurs a performance penalty for every invocation. In the latter there is no performance hit however the call stack must be kept completely unchanged. This doesn't seem to match the experience one achieves with SBCL on Linux where calls don't seem to be slowed down and one can recompile just some forms in the middle of the stack. It seems that in some way the CL compiler could update also the call stack. The only other language that reaches the same level of interactivity is Smalltalk for which however I know only about of single-threaded implementations. How is CL different from other languages with respect to this? Where can I find more technical details about how hot-reloading is implemented in CL?
Cheers <comment><USER2> A function is an object. When we redefine a global function, we're simply replacing the symbol's function binding to point to a new function object. That can be an atomic operation: a word-sized cell is overwritten.

If one or more threads are executing the old function, then they continue to do that. That object is referenced by those threads and so doesn't become garbage until the last thread stops executing it. Newly issued calls to that function go to the new one through the newly established binding.

ANSI CL allows functions that are in the source file (actually compilation unit) to use more efficient calling; they don't have to go through the global symbol function binding. The idea is that compilation units are replaced at once, rather than individual functions. Call optimizing behavior can be overridden for individual functions by _declaim_ -ing them _notinline_.

<comment><AUTHOR> Ok so this means that calls accross compilation units always incur an indirection, right? Also I don't get how swapping the whole compilation unit can be achieved atomically. A compilation unit might be composed by several functions. Where can I find more? I have tried to look in the literature but haven't found anything that reaches this level of detail.

<comment><USER3> do you understand lisp symbols? read up on it and try to understand how they are represented internally, that's the key.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> A very similar question was asked a few weeks ago in another Ask HN. See my answer there [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18111600](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18111600)</comment>


Facebook Just Blindfolded War Crimes Investigators - <AUTHOR> https://www.newsweek.com/facebook-graph-search-war-crimes-investigators-1444311 <comment><USER2> These sorts of articles always act as if removing some feature is a direct attack on their organization when it's very clearly not. What exactly are companies supposedly to do? It seems pretty obvious that these features could have been abused on other ways, the article even points out the privacy concerns. If they want to call for a project or a nonprofit to create a software platform to help them, or if they are appealing to these companies to leverage their platforms more directly to help their causes, that's great. But this sort of whining and victim complex-ing is tiring and unproductive.

<comment><USER3> I wonder when people will see this as a serious threat to democracy & journalism due to the size and amount of content posted on Facebook.

These companies need to be classified differently with how much of the world's free information processes through them. Competitors stand no chance in the social media monopoly.

We're going to lose everything.

<comment><USER4> If you think the regulation is going to give you a freer access philosophy you're in for a rude shock.</comment></comment></comment>


Show & Thank HN: my friday night project turns into a venture - <AUTHOR> https://postcongress.io <comment><AUTHOR> Last friday night I hacked together FJunkMail.com and the following day posted it up on Hacker News - <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4402220>.

The response from the Hacker News community was really encouraging. I want to thank you all for that. I especially want to thank ChuckMcM for his idea to turn it into a way to send a postcard to your congressperson (and his helpful feedback over an email thread), and prasincs for his additional re-enforcement of that idea.

From all that I built <https://postcongress.io> over the course of this past week. And already it is turning into a venture. A colleague of mine recommended I contact advocacy groups. I've started doing so and have some strong leads and a meeting on Monday.

So, thank you HN.

And there is still tweaks to be done so I'd appreciate any feedback.

<comment><USER2> I would think a letter is a more effective form of mailing congress. Postcards don't convey the same weight as a full letter.

<comment><AUTHOR> I am actually already working on this possibility with a printer.

<comment><USER3> Quick question. Lets assume the best and this idea takes off. How do you plan to scale?

Seems like you have to put a lot of effort into printing and mailing the postcards for $1.99.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Your business model may eventually morph into an advocacy site. Have a bunch of campaigns running with postcard size messages and a pay to send mode. Let users sign-up with data to verify their riding and send to appropriate representatives. Lower cost as much as you can by being able to bulk send. Try and figure out what your best services and business model will be. Building a user-based site with social network plug-ins to drive viral growth will probably be key. Enable posting about sending the post-card and an in-site functionality to track campaigns and whether you inspire others is probably a promising way to go after end users.

</comment><comment><USER5> Some comments:

Good turn around time.

Try putting black edges around your title text. Right now, they are just blending in with the background. The political background is a neat idea. Designing for it dynamically will be hard though. Set up A/B testing and test the various backgrounds you have, as well as backgrounds from subtlepatterns.com (just in case).

Rotate the bottom info bar so that it is horizontal instead of vertical. Nobody cares about the IO name I don't think. At this point the total message should be simple: "Send a postcard to your congressperson, PERIOD".

Use javascript to encode the message and congressperson into the url. Backbone has a way to do this. That way people can tweet out "Send THIS GUY a piece of your mind. I did! Here's my message! postcongress.com?senator='Dick Durbin'&message='Bro, come on. Taxes?'"

Not enough social buttons. Seriously, you need more buttons. Tweets and likes from political active people will garner attention from like minds.

Why don't I see any adwords from you here yet? <http://lmgtfy.com/?q=mail+your+congressman> (no sacarsm intended, mostly this link was shorter).

Change the font that the message naturally displays with. Times New Roman doesn't look right to me. Also, include a picture of a real, finished card on the site.

Good luck!

<comment><USER6> Yeah i really concur with the idea that the website needs more social buttons. I want to tweet about this website!

<comment><AUTHOR> You can definitely do it of your own accord for now. :) There is a tweet button after purchase.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I created a very similar app a year and a half ago: mailcongress.org

<https://github.com/dockyard/mail_congress>

It's since come down. Here are some things you need to consider

1.) Progressives won't respond well to this. I have some experience here, I spent a year working at the Democratic National Committee in DC on their Labs team. My observation is that unless you're "a name" in the progressive tech sector or have a name attached to the product it is going to be difficult getting notice. I actually respect the Republicans on how they adopt technology: throw everything against the wall and see what sticks. I can cite examples of this if people are interested.

2.) Since 911 Snail mail can take weeks to arrive. Everything that is sent to the Hill in DC is sent out for anthrax screening. It is very difficult to send reactionary issue snail mail unless it is hand delivered.

3.) The best way to get your rep's attention is to send mail, email, or call about a very specific issue. If you say "Support gay rights!" you'll most likely get a very well printed form response letter a few weeks later. If you say "I am one of your constituents and I want you to support SR 1992 up for vote in two weeks" this goes much further. Reps want to know that you are a vote and how you want them to vote on specific bills.

4.) Most hill staffers will actually ignore snail mail that doesn't have a postage stamp (the ones that the post office will put on the letter to mark its origin) from their district or state (for senators). Again, they really only care about votes. If you can't vote for him/her then you don't matter nearly as much as someone that can.

5.) I originally designed MailCongress because I saw a Communicating With Congress report when I was at the DNC. I cannot find the link now but this report comes out every 4 years (right after each mid-term). It represents the previous 4 years after publication of data on how congress responds to different forms of communication. The report I saw came out in 2006 which means it covered 2002 - 2006. At the time Email was way down around 30% efficacy and snail mail was up to 85% effective. I released MailCongress right before the 111th Congress left at the end of 2010. The next report came out that represented 2006 - 2010 and things changed a lot. Email went up to mid-70s efficacy and snail mail dropped to mid-70s. For the 4 years prior to 2010 email was just as effective at communicating with congress as snail mail. The report said the reasons for the swing was most likely because of the major turn over on the hill in 2006. When many new congress people come in they bring a new generation of hill staffers, younger, and more tech-savy. We had another major turn over in 2010. Which means more shift. I wouldn't be able to tell you what the numbers are but my guess is that email exceeds snail mail by now. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the next report's number were very skewed once you take Twitter and Facebook into consideration.

I applaud the effort, I really hope it works. Unfortunately you're fighting a lot of factors here. Your pricing is much better than mine (I was charging $1 per-piece and also would notify the senders when their letters should have arrived so they could follow up with phone calls). You should consider how the printing is going to scale if you get serious about this. I actually built out of mail queue backed by Redis. Scalability testing showed I could print 1000 letters per hour. Which is really not that many if it were to take off, any crazy issue that comes up (and they always do) can be an opportunity to get people to use this. The usage patterns in politics are _very_ spiky so you need to be ready for immediate scale.

TL:DR; I once built something similar, best of luck! :)

<comment><USER7> BTW, I took down MailCongress.org because I was getting attention only from right-wing advocacy groups. As a blue-blooded Democrat I couldn't bring myself to do that even if they were willing to pay. It came down over a year ago.

<comment><USER8> It never ceases to amaze me how often people are against free speech when they don't agree with the speaker.

In political debate, all sides are sometimes guilty of various kinds of bad behavior, but it's usually lefties who have this particular problem. For example:

Think homosexuality is wrong? You're guilty of Hate Speech!

Think affirmative action isn't a good thing? You're guilty of Racism!

Approve of your town's Christmas celebration? You're Intolerant of Other Religions!

Regardless of your politics, name calling and _ad hominem_ attacks like these do not inspire confidence in the strength of their originators' positions.

I'm not saying you're not within your rights to close down your service if you disagree with how it's being used, but it's interesting that your instinctive reaction to a message you don't agree with is to suppress it.

<comment><USER7> This isn't a free speech issue. By taking down MailCongress I was in no way preventing people from sending mail to their congress person. This is matter of choosing who I was doing business with.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> +1, BUT here is what I want to see:

I want an App that lets me join a "ring of awared" and execute an action, leveraging the power of Web 2.0/Social.

Very simple example: recently you had something called SOPA being pushed through. You would go to the App and create a thread "call representative X and tell him you are against SOPA". You put Rep name, phone number, and click "submit the project". Then everyone that feels compelled to participate, joins the "ring". Then simple algorithm puts everyone that joined into a chain: now A is calling rep. Once A finished his call, A press the button "done" and focus is switched to B that is notified via email/inapp notification/ etc that it is his time to call. If he wont do it in 10 minute timeframe, system moves forward to C, D, E ... n.

Sorry, but nowadays I think its the only way to get some traction. If rep staff memorize those $1.99 postcards, they will be simply throwing them without even reading, which is the same as clicking "trash" in your gmail judging just by subject/sender.

If you wont get the ICE/DHS ceasing your domain and servers due to "domestic terrorism", this could go viral and grow big. Perhaps then, overloaded with phonecalls from people that care about their future and future of their children, those in charge would start to care.

</comment><comment><USER10> Please write more about how you actually fulfill orders. How do you print, send to printer, is part of the process manual, break down cost etc.

Great idea, love it. :)

</comment><comment><USER11> This is cool, but others with more experience in the field have already figured out how to best deliver messages to congress.

See the "How it works" section: <http://heritageaction.com/grow/using-popvox- email-congress/>

> Unlike electronic mail, which is both free to send and easy to ignore, > receiving a postcard sends its own message. It says to the congressperson, > "I feel strongly enough about this to go to the expense of sending an actual > card."

No. A postcard will never make it to the congressperson. It will be read by a staffer and most likely tossed unless it expresses support or opposition for a current issue or bill, in which case it will be tallied and _then_ tossed in the garbage.

<comment><USER12> Plus, it will take a very long time to get to that staffer. Ever since Congress went through the anthrax scares a decade ago, their snail-mail is highly scrutinized, which slows down delivery.

<comment><USER13> Maybe postcards get through the process faster than letters? They should be easier to check.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Slightly OT but I just wanted to point out that this stands in strong contrast to the "Why I now, unfortunately, hate Hacker News.." post and that's great. Other than that: congrats OP!

</comment><comment><USER15> This is fantastic. I can imagine small advocacy organizations wanting to use this for their members with a custom issue graphic. For instance, if Amnesty International wanted its members to write on behalf of a prisoner of conscience they could use a photo of that individual on the back of the card.

Otherwise, are you willing to share some of the details about the fulfillment side of things? How did you find a printer? How are they receiving the orders?

</comment><comment><USER16> Reminds me of something I did back in jan this year. I made a twitter account called SopaSoap and had a huge following.

We were going to allow people to send "SOPA" soap for $8 to their congressman with the tag line "Vote no on SOPA and help keep congress clean".

Then SOPA got tabled. Luckily it was right before I setup the website and place the order with a soap manufacturer I was working with.

</comment><comment><USER17> Clearly I think this is an _excellent_ idea. Very nicely done Scott! I expect this will have a long an prosperous life.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks Chuck, and thanks against for all your excellent help, ideas, and feedback!!

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> May I suggest merging the postcard display with the input interface? It was the first thing that drew my intention, and I actually tried to click on it to start typing a message.

Other than that, looks like a pretty neat concept. I like the emerging trend of producing physical output from digital actions.

<comment><USER19> Great suggestion

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> This is a great idea!

One thing I'd suggest is to send a random assortment of postcards and don't includ your logo or company info anywhere on it. Ie make it look like it actually came from a citizen.

Otherwise congress people will just think they're form letters and throw them out.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yea, I need to make that clear because definitely my logo will not be on it. And the postcard frontside is randomly chosen as well - to one of the random background images you see when visiting the site.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Cool project!

Are you printing/writing out the postcards yourself? Or are you automating/outsourcing it?

</comment><comment><USER22> Yet again: <http://CallRep.org>

</comment><comment><USER23> Looks nice! Congratulations on moving forward with your project rather than letting it languish.

Quick feedback: there's a typo in "sign, sealed, delivered"; should be "signed" rather than "sign".

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks. Fixed.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Great idea. Can you make it possible to put carriage returns in the message?

I guess the idea with advocacy groups is that they can subsidize the cost of postcards and get a bulk rate?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yea, I think I should bring back carriage returns.

And yes, that is part of it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> just a comment about the background, though others have been made.

In chrome, at least, the background starts loading in, then goes white, then loads in again. It's a bit odd.

Have you thought of saving the image progressive or interlaced? Don't know what the common knowledge is on this at the moment, but watching an image that big and busy load in slowly from top to bottom takes time away from getting to the actual point of the site.

</comment><comment><USER26> What's the front of the postcard like? It'd be awesome if I could choose from a few different designs... or even upload my own image!

Great idea!

<comment><AUTHOR> It will be the same photo as one of the randomized background images. That's something I need to clarify with an adjustment to the design.

<comment><USER26> Ah, cool! Awesome picks. It still seems silly to need to reload the page a bunch of times to see all the choices. Little thumbnails underneath the blank postcard back would work perfectly, I think. And you could clearly show which one is currently selected (and that it's the same as the background).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> i would like to know if this is handwritten or printed? handwritten would be a lot more effective, print looks like spam mail.</comment>


Totem : PHP Library to calculate a changeset between two states of a data - <AUTHOR> http://github.com/Taluu/Totem

<comment><USER2> Awesome ! very usefull !</comment>


Show HN: A Slack bot that matches people based on interests - <AUTHOR> https://sparklybot.com <comment><USER2> I like how easy and simple this biz model is. I hope it succeeds. I wish you had a freelancer mode, for those of us not apart of an existing company. I'd pay a $12/yr to be a part of your fake company and be matched. Also, might be nice to match people based on complimentary interests rather than same-same interests. Who really wants to talk to themselvea after all?

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Hello HN!

I made Sparkly, a Slack bot that matches people based on interests that they submit. The goal is to create and facilitate friendships amongst coworkers or members of a community.

I've recently decided to bootstrap products, and Sparkly is the first one to reach the big stage. I'm slightly nervous but mostly excited to show HN ! I would love to hear what you think, let me know!</comment>