Why is the quality of life in SF relatively low? - <AUTHOR>

I noticed something in SF which has puzzled me for a while. Although SF is relatively rich and expensive compared to Austin, Denver or Paris the quality of life is in general relatively low. Besides the crime rate, especially number of murders and gang crime is really disturbing. Maybe am subjective, but would be interested to hear your feedback on the topic. <comment><USER2> I've only visited once, but I was impressed enough to throw myself into the ring and decide to move there in July.

My friends were walking me through the Tenderloin at night and warning me what a bad neighborhood it was . . . it made me laugh. I've spent the last several years in Atlanta and I could not believe how nice San Francisco was in comparison. I saw a lot of people acting tough in and around SF but no one had the hard eyes. I'll take it.

<comment><USER3> Same story here. From Atlanta, moved at the end of May.

Tenderloin is a joke compared to bankhead, college park, boulevard, MLK... The list goes on.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Check out the Richmond, Sunset, or Glen Park neighbourhoods. There's more to San Francisco than SOMA. Also see Berkeley, or Temescal District in Oakland.

Likewise, check out Mountain View, Cupertino, or Saratoga: suburban and safe, relatively affordable compared to Pacific Heights in SF or Palo Alto/Menlo/Atherton area, yet relatively free of general suburban cliches.

If you pretend that San Jose (with the exception of few parts) and SOMA don't exist, Bay Area becomes a much nicer place.

<comment><USER5> They can also check out Hayes Valley, Cole Valley, Noe Valley, and even Inner Richmond near Lake. Add to that the Marina district and Pacific Heights and you've got yourself a tour safer than Disneyland.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I lived in SF for nearly 2 years immediately after college graduation and just left a few months ago. I think the OP's question, although pretty vague, is interesting and conforms to my experience- life in SF, although good, is not even _close_ to what you're paying for. (in other words, if SF were a stock, I would sell). 3 quick lines of evidence:

1) Weather is a huge influence on quality of life no matter how you cut it, and SF's weather is surprisingly bad. Not in the Nome Alaska objective sense of it (awful climate), but it in the 'oh its 49 degrees and rainy in July' sense of it. Sure there are some beautiful weeks in september and may but on balance its just gray, rainy, and temperamental. Oh and if you liked seasons, too bad.

2) SF is in the midst of a huge financial and commercial real estate bubble that has turned the city into a generally overrated, overpriced, and ultimately overcrowded bedroom community (you would think higher prices would drive down demand but that's not the case because other folks from around the rest of bay and entire nation are still flooding in).

3) Public transportation is just awful for a city of its size and density. Goes along with point 2) about overcrowding but buses are extremely slow and you hardly have room to breath. Muni and Bart are great but only services 1/5 of city or so. Obviously its not car-ridden like LA but we are talking about entirely different scales here. For a better comparison look to NYC or DC, SF is just leagues behind (I realize there are geological constraints here, but that's a whole other can of worms)

I'm not trying to paint SF as a bad place- yes, it has charming victorians, nice little micro climates/neighborhoods (I lived in Hayes Valley, one of the better ones), a lot of cultural diversity, great food, and I enjoyed my time there. That said, I would absolutely not move back-- SF is unprepared for the growth it will continue to get in the next couple years with a huge startup/employment diaspora. In truth, comparisons between SF and the world's great cosmopolitan metros like NYC, London, Paris, are really silly; due to a variety of financial and geological constraints on building future infrastructure, SF will basically remain the bay area's wealthy bedroom community for years if not decades to come.

</comment><comment><USER7> I moved to SF 4 months ago and absolutely love it. I've lived in major cities in Europe and New York, and SF blows all of these cities out of the water.

SF is a city of micro-cultures, sure there are some areas that are extremely sketchy (e.g. Tenderloin, Western Addition, Hunters Point), but most areas are pretty safe with open green spaces, good restaurants, interesting bars and an incredible tech scene. Whats not to like? How are you defining quality of life?

</comment><comment><USER8> I would be interested in hearing more as to why you think Austin has a better quality of life than San Francisco. Having moved to SF after three years in Austin, I definitely think my quality of life has improved. Reasons:

1\. Austin has one weather throughout most of the year. It is not conducive to urban exploration unless one keeps hydrated often. The great thing about San Francisco is the micro climates and the fog line. It keeps each neighborhood different.

2\. Austin like most Texan towns is spread apart. If you are not in downtown or close to UT, get prepared to drive. Of course the flip side is that Austin has great parking and clean streets. On the other hand, people like me who hate driving have an awesome experience in SF.

3\. Food wise, I would argue that SF beats Austin handily. There are cultures in SF that have lived here for decades bringing with them their ethnic foods and creating specific hot spots of amazing food. I have not had the same experience in Austin but YMMV of course...

4\. Austin is sold as one of the few young, culturally liberal areas in Texas. This is definitely true when you compare it against other places in Texas. However, its liberalism and culture pale when compared to San Francisco.

<comment><USER9> I moved to Austin about a year ago from Atlanta.

1) Yes, one weather is absolutely true. It's apparently fantastic if you own a convertible or motorcycle. Yes, you have to drink water, but I've never found it that big of a deal. It's possible to bike in Austin, but you have to have some serious nerves to get on some of the highways.

2) Depending on where you live, everything is only a 10-15 minute drive. I can go downtown, to the airport, or up to the university in that amount of time. However, if you live up in Round Rock or something you'll be driving a long way. And Austin traffic sucks.

Plus side though, we're getting an 85 mph freeway. When you drive, you drive fast. Speed limits range from 55-75 around Austin on the highways.

3) I don't know, I've found the trailer food to be unique. I didn't get to spend a lot of time SF though; I was only there for a day or two on business.

4) There's not as much art, but there is a lot of history in Texas. Austin probably isn't that great, but it's only about an hour or so to San Antonio. You could also go to Houston or Dallas with only a ~3 hour drive.

For the non-liberal crowd, there's a lot of red blooded Texans.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> You'll really have to qualify "quality of life," besides the crime rate. And as urban crime rate goes.. it's honestly middle of the road as far as major American cities go, comparing favorably to LA, New York, Boston, and Washington in most categories. ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_cities_by_crime_r...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_cities_by_crime_rate))

Anecdotally, I live in Washington but just spent a week out there never leaving SoMa/Market Street/Tenderloin, and felt about as comfortable there as I do in the up-and-coming areas of DC. e.g. just be aware of your general surroundings.

<comment><USER11> I have got to correct you there. It's _way_ worse than NYC as far as cities go in crime-rate. The crime stigma with NYC is still heading back towards pre-2000.

However, San Francisco is comparable to most cities and much safer than West Philadelphia.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> What is it about Denver or Austin that you find so obviously superior to SF? (I don't much like SF, but I'll bet that my reasons have nothing to do with yours.)

As far as Paris goes, it's in France. That has consequences. If you're trying to start a biz, how do Paris' "better than SF" properties help you? Do they make up for SF's "better than Paris" properties?

<comment><USER13> I live in Denver right now, and while I've not lived in San Francisco as an adult, one clear area I'd say Denver wins on is cost of living. Six figures in Denver can go pretty far (owning a nice house or downtown apartment, vacations, private schools if you've got kids), whereas six figures in San Francisco almost certainly won't buy you that. I'm intentionally limiting this to San Francisco because, just as you can get more for your dollar by exploring the Bay Area and commuting, you can also get more for your dollar around Denver by living in some of the less affluent areas (e.g. Aurora, Erie) further out. Denver's got enough of a tech scene to support salaries in that range without fuss or lack of interesting work, so you're not harming your career prospects by moving here.

Denver's also got many other qualities worth mentioning. There's great weather and a laid back culture that is surprising given that many in Denver identify as "Midwesterners" - a term I associate with negative qualities that I've not found here. The populace is very educated, there's plenty of good beer to be had, if you're interested in such activity the mountains are a short drive away, and if you want to travel there's a national hub just east of the city. Boulder's close if a college-town atmosphere is more your scene, but Denver is a large enough area that you're not necessarily tied to what that atmosphere brings in the same way you might be in other towns (e.g. Charlottesville, VA). There's a decent public transportation system, relatively light traffic if you must drive somewhere, good food - it's got quite a lot to offer.

Really, there are only two things I dislike about living in Denver in particular: curiously small yards and the lack of easy access to the ocean. That said, the pros vastly outweigh the cons, and until I leave the country, Denver's where I plan to stay.

<comment><USER14> Quality of life is entirely subjective. My wife's quality of life depends heavily on how close she is to her family. My quality of life depends heavily on how diverse the population is (socioeconomic/racial/cultural).

Cost of buying a house doesn't matter to me because I'm fine renting if we can't afford to buy (we have 2 children and I value other things more than a house). My wife is the opposite.

This is the reason everybody doesn't want to live in the same place...thank goodness.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> > Besides the crime rate, especially number of murders and gang crime is > really disturbing.

Averages are only interesting if you're average, and no one is.

What makes you think that you're at significant murder risk in SF? (There are folks who are likely to be killed - I'm asking why you think that you're one of them.)

</comment><comment><USER15> You need to be more specific about what you mean by "quality of life", or else there's no way to address your question, which is actually rather mystifying.

You should also specify whether you're talking about SF proper, or the bay area more generally.

Incidentally, most gang crime is confined to other gang members, so that's probably not a real concern. Similar for murders.

(Not a SF resident, formerly lived in Oakland part-time, still visit SF proper frequently, now live in a part of LA which is near the turf of several street gangs.)</comment>


MH370 final report: Missing aircraft behaviour shows it was under manual control - <AUTHOR> https://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/incidents/mh370-final-report-missing-aircraft-behaviour-reveals-it-was-under-manual-control/news-story/ec0ed05e63090ef8fe29e73bb051e383 <comment><AUTHOR> PDF of the report at [1]

[1] [http://mh370.mot.gov.my/MH370SafetyInvestigationReport.pdf](http://mh370.mot.gov.my/MH370SafetyInvestigationReport.pdf)</comment>


Ask HN: Feedback on iPhone app address book cleaner - <AUTHOR>

Have built CleanBook and CleanBook Jr. - a way to automatically and manually (respectively) clean your iPhone Contacts (duplicates, email addresses as contacts, etc.).
We are giving away 20 Ad Hoc apps for testing, feedback and word of mouth.
If interested, please send your iPhone ID to terpua {at} pikitchen.
How to get your iPhone ID: http://usonar.com/static_pages/iphonedeviceid.html
Screenshots: http://www.pikitchen.com/cleanbook.html http://www.pikitchen.com/cleanbook-jr.html
Thanks. <comment><AUTHOR> We are still in the process of getting approved by Apple.

Direct links: <http://www.pikitchen.com/cleanbook.html>

<http://www.pikitchen.com/cleanbook-jr.html></comment>


Is Tether and Bitfinex the New MT Gox? - <AUTHOR> http://www.trustnodes.com/2017/11/17/tether-bitfinex-new-mt-gox <comment><USER2> People have received all the warnings they could possibly receive regarding Tether and Bitfinex, for almost an year. Anybody still using Bitfinex is basically adding a huge extra risk to all his trades knowingly, and I won't feel sorry for them when they lose it all.</comment>


SEC Awards More Than $7M to Whistleblower - <AUTHOR> https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2020-46 <comment><USER2> What a useless PR. What was the "enforcement action" ??

>The whistleblower's information and assistance helped the SEC staff devise an investigative plan, craft document requests, and ultimately bring an important enforcement action focusing on serious financial abuses."

What financial institution?</comment>


Peter Thiel on Progress and Stagnation – a 100-page compilation - <AUTHOR> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zao_AyBhNb8TPWrQqgXn5NzNAgfEqzTIaFYos7wdqGI/preview?pru=AAABc5XYK4M*gE9fGOdygMme0CpQ86t-DQ# <comment><USER2> Recent discussion: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23901448](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23901448)

<comment><AUTHOR> Ah, I missed it and somehow HN didn't catch the same link. Thanks!

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> A 100-page document compiled by @richardmcngo and @jvnixon, sourced from a number of articles and interviews.</comment>


Cardapult: the Business Card Catapult - <AUTHOR> http://www.instructables.com/id/Cardapult-the-Business-Card-Catapult/

<comment><USER2> Cute. Imagine what you can do with 3D printing in plastic (<http://www.shapeways.com>)

Also see Sam Buxton's MIKRO men from chemical milled stainless steel: <http://www.designmuseum.org/design/sam-buxton> <https://www.divire.com/></comment>


Facebook's cryptocurrency has a trust problem - <AUTHOR> https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/18/18683867/facebook-cryptocurrency-libra-calibra-trust-banking <comment><USER2> "Using Libra means trusting Facebook, which is a hard sell in 2019".

I think this is the essence of the problem that Facebook will have to overcome. Unless Facebook can convince its userbase that it can be trusted with PII data, how could they convince the same userbase that they can be trusted with their monetary transactions?</comment>


Ask HN: Is there demand in industry for pdp-11 programmers? - <AUTHOR> In my current job I program extensively on a pdp-11/70 (using Macro-11). I'm curious if these systems have persisted in some areas of industry (e.g. banking) <comment><USER2> I don't think there's much demand. I used to work on them but haven't seen or heard about one in decades, except for emulators. But I miss them, and the DecSystem-20. Craziest assembly language ever.

</comment><comment><USER3> It's many years since I last saw or worked on a PDP-11. The only operational ones I know of are as embedded systems, that includes LSI-11 variants. That is, industrial and niche scientific applications.

I have worked extensively in finance and have never seen nor heard of a PDP-11 being used. A long time ago some DecSystems were in use. But those were all programmed in COBOL.

</comment><comment><USER4> I worked on the for years. The LSI-11 was my favorite machine.</comment>


Ask HN: Applying to Y Combinator if your company is already profitable. - <AUTHOR>

My partner and I started a mobile game company about 4 months ago. At the moment we are generating enough money to be able to pay ourselves a decent salary every month and have a couple grand left over to re-invest in our company. All while working full time at the company.<p>Would it still be worthwhile to apply for Y Combinator Winter 2012? We would love to accelerate our startup up to the point were we have more employees and are able to have more resources in order to develop more games at a faster rate. This is both mine and my partners first startup, we are both in our early 20s (24 and 23). <comment><USER2> I have no specific experience with YC... but something I've observed over the years is:

[length of time to decide to apply/email reporter, incubator or vc etc] is equal or greater than [length of time to actually apply]

... make your decision after you get in. At the very least the YC questions make you formulate better elevator pitch answers.

For gaming people like yourself... why not CrowdStar?

<comment><AUTHOR> Y Combinator is not the only option we are looking into. We have started searching for Angel investors in the area for small amounts of funding ($25k - $75k).Y Combinator is just something else that we are considering. Since lots of successful companies have come out of Y Combinator we find that the network and connections are much more valuable then the initial seed funding.

CrowdStart seems to be geared towards specific projects (or games in our case). We want to fund a company, not a product. I could be totally wrong in this case, since I have not personally used CrowdStart.

Your advice does make perfect sense, apply regardless and then if we get in we can decide if this is the correct choice or not. Another thing that we are considering is that early next year might be too late (we might have already gotten funding or moved passed considering Y Combinator).

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> As YC matures, more and more startups come with a fully built out product, traction, revenue/earnings. It's no mistake that these are the companies do find themselves accelerating their progress.

Feel free to email me if you have additional questions!

</comment><comment><USER4> I spoke with a few YC alumni.In your case I think it would be great to apply. PG and YC partners are looking for companies they can mentor but they don't want to baby-sit you. Since you are already profitable, I suspect you already know what you are doing and you simply need some guidance. Moreover if you have a good product I think your chances to get into YC are quite good. Getting to YC is becoming harder and harder and "just having an idea" is not enough. Since you already have the product AND are profitable your chances are quite good.

<comment><AUTHOR> Guidance and mentorship is definitely something we are looking for.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> From "What Happens at YC": <http://ycombinator.com/atyc.html> \- "If you think you might need YC, you need it. If you think you might not need YC, you need it. If you are ABSOLUTELY SURE you don't need YC, you probably still do, but maybe not."

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> The sentence "All while working full time at the company" seems to be unclear to some. What I meant here is that I'm working full-time at the game company that I started and mentioned in the first sentence. I am not working for another company at the moment, running thestartup is my full-time job.

<comment><AUTHOR> *the startup

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Check this out <http://37signals.com/bootstrapped> . There are people running companies without outside funding and are probably pretty happy doing so. Applying to YC is time consuming: making videos, writing bios etc.

<comment><AUTHOR> My job at the moment is working full time on the startup. I have been working full-time on it for the past month or so, so I wouldn't be "quitting" my job.

Thanks for your different perspective on the question.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I think Alexis said it best: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1938709>

</comment><comment><USER8> Do you think your chance of success / profitability will increase by a percentage greater than YC takes?

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm honestly not sure. I always saw Y Combinator as a startup incubator for founders that have an idea, strong team, and just need some initial funding to get the idea off the ground. This is not the case with us.</comment></comment>


A Primer on Quantitative Easing (QE) and Its Inherent Limits - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@joshuafkon/a-primer-on-quantitative-easing-qe-and-its-inherent-limits-391a0c2a3cbc <comment><USER2> >QE is essentially an asset swap where the amount of money in circulation remains unchanged. It does not increase or decrease the money supply directly.

I've always heard of QE as just "printing money" so this was very enlightening!</comment>


China's wealthy look to raise overseas investments - <AUTHOR> http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/cf5d5458-4fdb-11e5-b029-b9d50a74fd14.html

<comment><USER2> paywalled...

<comment><USER3> Free signup gives you at least a dozen free articles a month.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: How to become a Security Engineer - <AUTHOR> Recently there were some discussions about the Breaker 101 course, as well as OffSec and SANS certifications.
But it looks to me like there is no clear path on how to become a security engineer.
So what is your recommendation ? (from training/formation to actually finding a job in security) <comment><USER2> Certifications are nice, but that does not necessarily make people a good IT security specialist.

There is no clear path, but there are many facets to learn about:

* Web application security and popular attacks (such as [https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Category:OWASP_Top_Ten_Proje...](https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Category:OWASP_Top_Ten_Project)) * System and network security (learn to use BackTrack [http://www.backtrack-linux.org/](http://www.backtrack-linux.org/)) * Understand and learn how to use crypto: e.g. known crypto algorithms and what they are good for, learn how to apply disk crypto, learn how SSL works, know how you should do password hashing. * Learn about phishing and social engineering * Learn about malware, botnets, and zero-day exploits.

Learn about all of them but try to become an expert on just one of these subjects by playing with tools. For example, set up a honey pot system to capture malware. Then try to find the malware on it, and then try to reverse engineer it.

</comment><comment><USER3> [http://www.matasano.com/articles/crypto- challenges/](http://www.matasano.com/articles/crypto-challenges/)

Complete the Matasano crypto challenges and hope they offer to interview you.

</comment><comment><USER4> I got a Masters degree in Computer Science and my research focused on software security. I got a bunch of offers to go into security when I graduated. (I decided I was more interested in building things than breaking them and chose a software development role at a startup instead.)

I would suggest working towards CISSP depending on your formal education. If you're interested in software security learn IDA Pro, start a blog, set up a honeypot, start analyzing malware you collect, and write about it.

</comment><comment><USER5> I would recommend you course from NYU: [http://pentest.cryptocity.net/](http://pentest.cryptocity.net/)

It covers most modern aspect of software security.

</comment><comment><USER6> The term security engineer is a wide generalisation.

Start participating in CTF (capture-the-flag).

Go to conferences: defcon, blackhat, shmoocon, derbycon. Talk to people.

Read phrak.org.

Learn about the old-school hacker culture.

Hack stuff.

</comment><comment><USER7> I hate to say it, but certifications do play an important role in getting HIRED as a security engineer.

<comment><USER7> My point being that you could start with getting some of the important certifications (CISSP, Cisco, etc.).

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> What have you tried so far? What were the results? Weighing any options currently?

<comment><AUTHOR> so far i've only tried free stuff like OWASP WebGoat, and some online hacking challenges (hackthisite, hellbound hackers, ...)

i also took a couple of CS security classes in school but they were not really "hands-on"

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> security is a state of mind —NSA security manual</comment>


Greenland Is No Longer Larger Than Africa: GoogleMaps Drops Mercator Projections - <AUTHOR> https://swarajyamag.com/insta/greenland-is-no-longer-larger-than-africa-as-google-maps-drops-mercator-projections <comment><USER2> Whoever wrote this article doesn't understand how map projections work, which is ok—can't expect everyone to be a domain expert—but does mean the title is incorrect and very misleading.

Google Maps still uses Mercator (EPSG:3857), that hasn't changed. They've just added a feature whereby when you zoom all the way out, it switches from a flat Mercator to a 3d-rendered globe.</comment>


FuzzCon Europe 2020 – Live Stream - <AUTHOR> https://youtu.be/BftK0NfAhYA <comment><USER2> Cool, I was pissed for this originally you couldn't use gmail to sign up!

What was with that? Now they only seem to have "42 watching".

Maybe there's another stream for people who got the free tickets.

<comment><AUTHOR> This is the backup stream; the main event stream seems to have ~500 viewers and pretty active discussion in the sidebar.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Part two: [https://youtu.be/z85myMjRvrI](https://youtu.be/z85myMjRvrI)</comment>


A Calculator for the Billionaires – Elizabeth Warren - <AUTHOR> https://elizabethwarren.com/calculator/ultra-millionaire-tax <comment><USER2> Here's a scenario of punishing the American dream:

Imagine you're a startup founder who has a high-flying startup. You own 20%. It just got valued at $800,000,000. Now you're worth $160,000,000 ON PAPER. That's awesome. But it's not the same is being rich.

Imagine your salary is $150,000. With the Warren plan you now owe $2,200,000 PER YEAR in taxes from cash you don't actually have. So you now what, sell your company? Try to secondary? Congrats you just got taxed real money on fantasy paper gains that you never realized.

<comment><USER3> At the point where a startup is being valued at 800M (and therefore raising rounds of ~100M?) are the founders still making 150k? At this point, wouldn't your business have hundreds of employees?

Also IIUC startup equity value (for tax purposes) is typically based on the startup's 409(a) price, which I think is pretty different from investor valuations, since investors get preferred stock (among other differences)

<comment><USER4> > At the point where a startup is being valued at 800M (and therefore raising > rounds of ~100M?) are the founders still making 150k?

Yes.

> At this point, wouldn't your business have hundreds of employees?

Also yes. Why does this imply you'd be making more than $150k?

In most places outside of SV, $150k is enough to qualify as "Affluent".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I have great idea. Since poor people can't pay very much in taxes, how about we have required government work programs to make up the difference? IE: you won't get paid, you will work your tax bill off in the form of labor..during your free time and on weekends.

Many countries have tried taxing net worth. The result is always the same: billionaires leave the country and investors think twice about building a business there...which means less jobs and a worse-off economy for the rest of us.

The government just isn't good at innovating and will waste that money on 'administrative costs'.

The funny thing is that the rich already pay the majority of federal taxes in the US. This isn't including all of the people they employ that are also contributing taxes to the government till.

It never seems to be enough because all of that money is pissed away and nobody is ever held accountable.

<comment><USER6> > This isn't including all of the people they employ that are also > contributing taxes to the government till.

>Since poor people can't pay very much in taxes, how about we have required government work programs to make up the difference?

Maybe we should have a living wage. If the threat of wealth taxes is the catalyst that gets us there then good. The extremely wealthy will always hire people to hide their assets and minimize their tax burden regardless of whether the govt implements an appeasement policy. Hoarding capital and removing it from the economy also harms everyone, taxing that effect seems entirely reasonable.

<comment><USER5> "Maybe we should have a living wage"

We already have a living wage. Amazon is paying at least $15/hour in all their warehouses and many other companies pay well over minimum wage for jobs that require little to no education. The amount of truly minimum wage jobs is miniscule.

"If the threat of wealth taxes is the catalyst that gets us there then good"

A wealth tax won't get us there. The wealthy will move to a country that has less-restrictive tax laws (and most of these countries would be happy to have the new income) and the customer and the middle class will end up paying more out of their pockets.

a "living wage" is always a moving goal post and doesn't really mean anything. If I'm single and have 3 kids to support, my 'living wage' will be much higher than a person that is single with no kids.

Why should a company pay for the poor life decisions of all its employees?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I wonder how many people would leave the US and give up citizenship. Alternatively this could spur investment into more risk capital as capital preservation might not be a sufficient strategy.

<comment><USER8> Yes, renounce your citizenship. Don't forget to pay your expatriation tax and get used to the 30% taxation the US applies to many countries that don't have tax agreements with us.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> One of the greatest lies perpetuated in America is that billionaires should pay less taxes than the average person because one day, you too could be a billionaire, and you wouldn't want to become less of a billionaire because of taxes.

<comment><USER10> One of the greatest lies perpetuated in America is that people's objection to things like a wealth tax is based on a belief they could one day be billionaire's. It isn't. See Davidu's comment.

There are better ways to do what the wealth tax candidates want but they aren't imaginative enough for that task.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> This "calculator" is a political stunt. Billionaires have their own financial advisors. They don't care about this calculator, and they're definitely not confused.</comment>


White House aims to slow gains in weather prediction, shocking forecasters - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2017/05/24/white-house-budget-aims-to-slow-gains-in-weather-forecasting-shocking-weather-community/?utm_term=.61260297c5a0 <comment><USER2> Comments from Congressional leaders suggest this budget proposal is going nowhere, but there is simply no valid reason for this attempt to undermine US weather prediction capabilities.</comment>


Facebook may have violated FTC privacy deal, triggering risk of massive fines - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2018/03/18/facebook-may-have-violated-ftc-privacy-deal-say-former-federal-officials-triggering-risk-of-massive-fines/ <comment><USER2> Ongoing discussion: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16626318](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16626318)

</comment><comment><USER3> I for one would not have a problem with Facebook getting fined two trillion dollars.

<comment><USER4> What are your reasons?

<comment><USER5> I think the reason for that is in the first sentence: "[...] it shared information from tens of millions of users with a data analysis firm [...]".</comment></comment></comment>


Save a Battery's Life. Turn Down the Heat. - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/01/technology/personaltech/01basics.html?8dpc=&pagewanted=all <comment> daniel-cussen Or "Save a battery's life and waste a lot of your own."</comment>


How marijuana legalization in Colorado and Washington is making the world better - <AUTHOR> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/10/17/how-marijuana-legalization-in-colorado-and-washington-is-making-the-world-a-better-place/ <comment><USER2> Colorado, probably. Washington, not yet.

The Washington Liquor Control Board, in its infinite wisdom, only authorized about 25% of the total amount of legal pot-growing necessary to satisfy demand in the state, which means that the black market here in Washington is still flourishing: [http://www.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2014/07/08/how- wash...](http://www.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2014/07/08/how-washington- state-screwed-up-its-legal-pot-system)

Thankfully, it sounds like the LCB started changing its tune about pot production on Friday, but given how slow they seem to be in implementation of things like this, who knows how long it'll be before there's enough legal supply for the state's demand. [http://www.komonews.com/news/local/State-may- allow-more-lega...](http://www.komonews.com/news/local/State-may-allow-more- legal-marijuana-growing-279593732.html)

But, this still doesn't address the other fundamental issue here: the number of places where you can legally buy marijuana in Seattle is currently 2 (not a typo).

<comment><USER3> And as a result the price of legal recreational pot in WA is around $35 a gram which is over three times the going rate for medicinal pot and illicit pot.

<comment><USER4> That's interesting. Do people seek out the legal weed and pay the premium? Or is it suffering for lack of demand compared to black market weed. I don't live in WA (or smoke pot), but if I did, I probably would pay the premium just to keep it all above board & guarantee quality.

<comment><USER2> The one pot shop located in a residential neighborhood in Seattle is, apparently, doing about $14,000 of business per day: [http://www.capitolhillseattle.com/2014/10/central- seattles-o...](http://www.capitolhillseattle.com/2014/10/central-seattles- only-pot-store-uncle-ikes-sold-13736-of-marijuana-per-day-in-first-week/)

So, there's definitely demand. I don't buy pot, and only very rarely smoke, but if I did, I'd definitely buy from a licensed shop despite the price increase. Guarantees about quality, funneling tax revenue back to the state, and ensuring that I'm not funding narcoterrorism would totally be worth it to me: [http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest- news/index.ssf/2...](http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest- news/index.ssf/2013/06/drug_cartels_in_oregon_violenc.html)

<comment><USER5> If _you_ smoked weed, you probably wouldn't. If you did before, you would be so used to the black market, you'd stick with it, because. Weed is already expensive, so you are in luck if you could afford the shop prices on a regular basis, which we are talking about at 14k/day. Also, the negative side-effects are ignorance, for lack of a better word, so your reasons likely wouldn't even come up. For (most of) the occasional toker, it's just as much about convenience, while the moral high ground stance is just a pretense, as is much of the stoner's cultural background.

<comment><USER6> That really needs to be qualified.

If a person smokes very regularly, yes. Your argument has merit, particularly among people with modest to low financial means.

However, people with average and above financial means, who also really are recreational users are likely to buy. (weekend, social, specific event users) They know doing so contributes to the acceptance and normalization of the activity, and that's worth a lot to everyone involved, save the black market dealers.

<comment><USER5> >They know doing so contributes to the acceptance and normalization of the activity, and that's worth a lot to everyone involved, save the black market dealers.

That's the hypocracy. It's not their behaviour that leads to acceptance, it's the state deciding what's acceptable or not . That is to incure tax and decrease spending, for all I care, and maybe a twisted social experiment of sorts, but not in first line for the well being of the people. Supporting that with the rhetorical finger pointing at The Terrorist is so utterly hypocritical, I'm at loss of words. Surely, the argument is not immoral, but it's completely missing the point. Us against The Terrorist is too simple a frame of mind, it's agrevating, but not to a calmed down stoner of course.

<comment><USER2> I'm not a stoner. I've smoked pot once this year. In January. The state has accepted the _de facto_ status quo and made it the _de jure_ status quo by way of a popular vote (which won with an 11.4% margin). People are going to smoke pot, or they're not. The legalization of marijuana is unlikely to meaningfully change users' and potential users' relationship to it.

Also, the story I linked to previously was a finalist for a Pulitzer prize. I think that qualifies as being slightly more substantiated than "rhetorical finger pointing".

Finally, I'm disappointed that you felt compelled to resort to an ad hominem attack to try to make your point.

<comment><USER7> It's not ad hominem, it's hyperbolic and a reference to the synergy of _Distraction_ and _FUD_. Of course, legalization makes a difference. Dozens of people will think Weed is not a drug anymore, just like alcohol and tobacco are often not taken serious.

Meanwhile, you use an argument of authority. Keep your disappointment. I could point to a couple sources about the Terrorist strawman, but I'm sure you know the context.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The legal implications of these changes are only one (important) side of what's happening.

I, for one, am looking forward to the renaissance that a more accepting attitude towards marijuana and psychedelics may herald. Both have the potential of transforming society, culture, and politics for the better.

Witness the great ferment of the psychedelic and cultural revolution of the 60's and 70's.

I hope I may live long enough to see the fruit of the next psychedelic revolution.

<comment><USER9> I am absolutely in favor of the legalization of marijuana and psychedelics, though I probably would not use them myself even in they were legal. Also, I do not hold out your hope at all that their increased use would herald a renaissance of any kind. This is based on the number of people I know who are habitual pot users, frequently trip, and accomplish absolutely nothing.

<comment><USER8> You could also say the same thing about writing and the printing press.

Most people who can read don't do much noteworthy with their knowledge, but that doesn't mean the invention of writing and the printing press weren't revolutionary technologies that had the potential to transform the cultures and societies that came in contact with them, and radically increase the potential of those people who best made use of them.

Psychedelics hold this potential.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I agree it should be legal. However it should not be fully commercialised. Colorado has gone too far.

It should be like tobacco in Australia where it cannot be advertised and is sold in plain packaging from behind a counter and cannot be displayed or promoted.

It should not be illegal but it is a health hazard and should be treated in the same terms as tobacco.

It's not a good thing that it is being sold as a "fun" product in cookies and food etc. Children should be discouraged from thinking it is a "fun" thing to do.

<comment><USER11> I agree with you. There's a whole trend of advertising cannabis as something cool (or as a miracle "natural" medication that cures everything, from anxiety to back pain).

Unfortunately, it's not that harmless. I know plenty of people that have been smoking cannabis daily from an early age and they are suffering because of it.

That being said, I'm entirely for its legalisation, but there should be some reasonable middle ground between harassing users and ignoring the risks.

<comment><USER10> The obvious question is, are the tobacco companies allowed to sell marijuana cigarettes mixed with tobacco?

<comment><USER11> Cannabis can be consumed in various forms. For instance in Europe, most people mix cannabis resin ("hashish") with tobacco, whereas in North America people smoke weed pure. Other ways include vaporisation and ingestion. Mixing with tobacco is probably the worse way as nicotine is highly addictive and we all know the health problems associated with tobacco.

So no, I don't think they should be authorised to sell their tobacco cigarettes with cannabis inside! Actually, I hope that legalisation will give the opportunity to inform people about this.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> guard-of-terra I wonder if the names of people who put Marijuana in the strictest schedule of various laws and agreements are known.

I think someone should dig them up, so the world can know its heroes by name.

<comment><USER12> There's a lot of interesting names here [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marihuana_Tax_Act_of_1937](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marihuana_Tax_Act_of_1937)

<comment> guard-of-terra It's interesting that it was introduced by a Dem. I think there should be a move that Dem formally apologise for this law - or all the weed smokers no longer vote for them and they become unelectable.

<comment><USER13> The nature of both parties have changed substantially since the 30s, no current legislators of either party were involved in government when that bill was passed, and both parties have had ample opportunities to correct the mistake. Holding _current_ Democrats _disproportionately_ responsible is myopic. Refusal to vote for politicians of _any_ party who are on the wrong side of this issue is another matter, for anyone who views it as the most important issue ("weed smoker" or not).

<comment><USER2> Representative Doughton, who introduced the bill, was a Southerner and _named after Robert E. Lee_. I'm pretty sure he'd have been a Republican if he'd entered politics 40 years later (i.e. around when he retired).

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

That said, Democrats are absolutely to blame, too, for the current state of our misguided drug war:

[http://books.google.com/books?id=SGUJBAAAQBAJ&lpg=PP1&ots=X6...](http://books.google.com/books?id=SGUJBAAAQBAJ&lpg=PP1&ots=X6Q_6yrSe4&dq=mandatory%20minimums%20democrats%20murakawa&lr&pg=PA25#v=onepage&q&f=false)

n.b. the author of the book linked to above is a close friend of mine.

<comment> guard-of-terra Stalin, who caused death to hundreds of thousands of people, would probably be not be a communist if he entered politics after the fall of communism. Doesn't make communists apologising for him a bad thing; doesn't make communists being stubborn about him a good thing.

<comment><USER2> I'm sorry that the Dixiecrats were a bunch of racist assholes, and I'm glad they switched to the Republican party. Does that help?

<comment> guard-of-terra Yes. That does.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> People cheer for the marijuana-legalization underdogs now, but endgame, if it proceeds to all 50 states, looks like this: Altria and other players in the $112 billion US tobacco market buy up the little cannabis startups and start advertising and promoting marijuana use on large scale. The government steps in to regulate distribution and advertising. Is that what we want? Because that's where we're going.

<comment><USER6> Look at beer. There is a thriving home and micro brew type market out there.

Yes, the vast majority of beer is "big beer" and that's fine. For those actually wanting a great beer experience, they can get it.

IMHO, we will see the same thing with cannabis. There is a lot of variety, and there are also some clear "can't miss" strains that will prove sufficient to the majority of potential users.

For those really interested in that variety, I suspect the micro-brew type model will end up working well.

If medical laws are left alone in enough places, we will see ongoing variety come out of those efforts.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I'm wondering to which extent this is simply a temporary effect because the overall population is pleased with this decision. I don't believe it's only that but I could imagine that it contributes with a low two digit percentage.

</comment><comment><USER16> The U.S. has done the prohibition experiment twice now, and it was an unmitigated disaster both times. The data are unambiguous: prohibition doesn't work, never has, never will. And yet we're still arguing about it.

Funny thing, though, we've done a similar experiment with tax cuts for the wealthy _three_ times now: once in the 1920's, once starting in the 1980s, and most recently in Kansas. The results have been similarly disastrous all three times. And yet we're still arguing about that too.

<comment><USER17> It is not unambiguous that Prohibition didn't work. [http://www.nber.org/papers/w3675.pdf](http://www.nber.org/papers/w3675.pdf)

Whether or not it was worth the cost is a separate issue; I think it's pretty clear that it wasn't. But the argument can be made that it did "work" in reducing alcohol consumption.

<comment><USER16> I didn't say that it didn't _work_ , I said it was an _unmitigated disaster_. A program can achieve its ostensible goals and still be disastrous. Jim Crow "worked" too.

<comment><USER18> Of course alcohol prohibition didn't even achieve its ostensible goal of eliminating alcohol from the American diet. Whether it reduced consumption at all (by volume of alcohol) is in dispute. There's no dispute that it lead to consumption of stronger beverages, in the same way that poppy prohibition has eliminated the use of poppy tea (an utterly benign preparation) in favor of heroin and even stronger drugs.

As for Jim Crow 'working,' it's notable that drug prohibition has 'worked' as a Jim Crow as well.

<comment><USER6> Actually, given all the attention on the well known, controlled substances, making a little Poppy Tea flies well under the radar, and sometimes happens with Grannie's decorative flowers.

That aside, the parallels regarding stronger formulations and compounds is spot on.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Yelp goes public despite losses - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2012/03/01/yelp-ipo-wants-to-raise-107-25m-at-a-898-1-million-valuation/

<comment><AUTHOR> Is it just me (finance background, ent.) or is the IPO scene becoming unfathomable. Groupon went public despite losses looming in the air (they tried to cook the books remember?) and now Yelp going public despite it's history of operating losses. When did it become acceptable by the investors to invest in companies that have not shown a profitable business model?

It seems like the wall-street investors have become the ultimate VC firm (willing to invest in unprofitable businesses) without realizing that actual VC firms invest in unprofitable businesses fairly early in the lifecycle which warrants their hopes for a turnaround and a potential payoff. But to invest in unprofitable company years after its founding seems ... well .... unfathomable, unless investors believe that the company will be able to do something it hasn't been able to do so far: make a decent profit. Would love to hear what you guys think.</comment>


In the beginning was the command line (1999) [pdf] - <AUTHOR> https://faculty.georgetown.edu/irvinem/theory/Stephenson-CommandLine-1999.pdf <comment><USER2> I'm guessing some on the hacker news crowd already know this but the author neal Stephenson also wrote Crytonomicon which was the prerequisite reading book for the PayPal mafia back in the days. I've personally only read his book reamde but the accuracy in detail in the novels really reflect quite deep understanding of the tech world including the shadier parts

<comment><USER3> Cryptonomicon is OK, but far inferior to Snow Crash and The Diamond Age. I think the latter is an incredibly inspiring vision of technology used for good, as opposed to how today's best and brightest are focusing their energy into increasing ad click-through conversion rates by 3%.

<comment><USER4> Diamond Age was amazing when I read it in 2008. I couldn't believe it had been written in '95, given its vision of (what we call) 3d printers, Amazon Turks, software mediated 1:1 relationships, etc. I imagine reading it today, it would read as a likely near-future-history, but in 95 it must have seemed laden with far-fetched original invention, both technological and societal.

<comment><USER5> the most salient insight from the diamond age is in my opinion the isolated and fragmented nature of the internet and the extreme segregation into cultural communities, when at the same time everyone was talking about how the internet is going to connect everyone and erode all borders.

<comment><USER6> Reading some of that in the modern era was... uncomfortable but probably valuable.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I read this when it was current. I am now old.

Stephenson had a great sideline in really deep-dive nonfiction pieces there for a while (around the same time that Wired was experimenting with running them, _in print_ ). It was a pretty great combination.

<comment><USER8> I'm so old I bought this when it was published in paperback.

[https://www.amazon.com/Beginning-was-Command- Line/dp/0380815...](https://www.amazon.com/Beginning-was-Command- Line/dp/0380815931)

Edit: Amazon informs me that I purchased it on 19 June 2000.

<comment> non-entity I always forget Amazon's been around that long.

<comment><USER9> Yeah, IIRC they were still just a book store back then with B&N competing nicely with them. Seems like such a long time ago now!

<comment><USER8> That same order from June 2000 included five other books and one Sega Dreamcast game (Grand Theft Auto 2), so they must have had a few non-book departments back then.

<comment><USER9> I guess getting into other media was probably the logical first step so makes sense.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Hacker with bullhorn: "Save your money! Accept one of our free tanks! It is invulnerable, and can drive across rocks and swamps at ninety miles an hour while getting a hundred miles to the gallon!"

Prospective station wagon buyer: "I know what you say is true...but...er...I don't know how to maintain a tank!"

Bullhorn: "You don't know how to maintain a station wagon either!"

Buyer: "But this dealership has mechanics on staff. If something goes wrong with my station wagon, I can take a day off work, bring it here, and pay them to work on it while I sit in the waiting room for hours, listening to elevator music."

Bullhorn: "But if you accept one of our free tanks we will send volunteers to your house to fix it for free while you sleep!"

Buyer: "Stay away from my house, you freak!"

Speculative economists take note: abundance is hard.

</comment><comment><USER11> Many previous threads: [https://hn.algolia.com/?query=In%20the%20beginning%20was%20t...](https://hn.algolia.com/?query=In%20the%20beginning%20was%20the%20command%20line%20comments>0&sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=story&storyText=false&prefix=false&page=0)

<comment><AUTHOR> I figured a year was a decent interval...

<comment><USER12> I think he linked it so new readers can see the older comments and get clued in to the conversation. (:

I remember reading In the beginning was the command line back in high school. I liked the comparison with cars. I'm a little sad I never got to use the BeOS that the author so much likens to a batmobile (going from memory). This article even has its own Wikipedia article [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_the_Beginning..._Was_the_Co...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_the_Beginning..._Was_the_Command_Line)

For new readers, I'd also strongly recommend "Mother Earth Mother Board" by the same author, Neal Stephenson. In Mother Earth Mother Board, the author writes about the fiber optic cables that connect us across continents.

Original: [https://www.wired.com/1996/12/ffglass/](https://www.wired.com/1996/12/ffglass/)

Previously discussed [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15635028](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15635028)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8242682](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8242682)

<comment><USER13> >I'm a little sad I never got to use the BeOS that the author so much likens to a batmobile (going from memory).

You may be interested in Haiku OS then... [https://www.haiku- os.org/](https://www.haiku-os.org/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I loved this essay, and own a paperback copy. I also loved his novels Zodiac, REAMDE (a fast, fun read), and Anathem, which was a tough read at first, but I ended up loving it. (I started the first novel of his Baroque Cycle but got bogged down and never finished those ones.)

<comment><USER15> If you read Zodiac, Anathem and (part of) the Baroque Cycle I assume you've read his other books (Cryptonomicon, Diamond Age, Snowcrash...). If not, lucky you!

I discovered Stephenson with Anathem and I was hooked. This book doesn't get a lot of love it seems, maybe because it's not Stephenson's usual cyberpunk / near future sci-fi (and maybe because of all the made-up words and history—there's even an xkcd comic about it). But (SPOILERS) you gotta admire a book that starts like _The Name of the Rose_ and finishes in a nuke- propelled starship.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> In the very beginning, there were light bulbs and wiring panels...

<comment><USER17> I guess you could go back a bit earlier? [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Difference_engine#Charles_Babb...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Difference_engine#Charles_Babbage's_difference_engines)

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> splendid reading, an enlightening essay about society and operating systems as a mediated experience methaphore

</comment><comment><USER19> Gates worked as a programmer in high school, so he was aware that the practice of selling software was not new. IBM was a long standing company by that point that made money writing software for businesses. The first example of a person making money from machine instructions was Jaquard (1804) who encoded his instructions on punch cards and fed them into weaving machines to create pretty patterns. So graphics programmers came first.

<comment><USER20> IBM didn't sell software until the consent decree forced them to, and Jacquard cards (or dobby patterns for that matter) are uncompressed graphics files, not programs to generate graphics algorithmically. Many machines in the 1950s used Williams-tube memory and drove additional visible CRTs from the signals, so every program was a graphics program. But that was a century after Lovelace.

Jacquard and dobby patterns were generally created by employees of the loom owner.</comment></comment>


Paperkast – article sharing and discussion - <AUTHOR> https://paperkast.com/about <comment><USER2> Nice to see a place promoting the open exchange of scientific papers!

Built on: [https://github.com/lobsters/lobsters](https://github.com/lobsters/lobsters)</comment>


Gentry Underwood (Mailbox - Dropbox) Speaking with Dorm Room Tycoon - <AUTHOR> http://drt.fm/gentry-underwood/

<comment><AUTHOR> In this interview, Gentry Underwood explains why good design is based upon constant iteration. He sheds light on the importance of having a desire in solving a particular problem. We also talk about getting acquired, working at IDEO, and the role Human Centred Design played within Mailbox.</comment>


Applications Open For Summer 2011 YC Funding Cycle - <AUTHOR> http://ycombinator.com/apply.html

<comment><AUTHOR> We added two new questions this year: Why did you pick this project to work on? and How will you get users? In retrospect it's surprising we didn't already ask these. (When reading applications we found we were trying to reconstruct answers to them from the answers people gave to other questions.)

We also stopped describing the video as optional. In practice it wasn't.

<comment><USER2> "How will you get users?"

Some unsolicited advice for this question:

For startups that rely on 'going viral': The benefit that users get from telling their friends is...

For businesses that need to get 2+ separate-facing user bases: The game theory aligns and makes it rational for both X and Y to participate because...

For startups doing B2B sales: The reason the X will look like a hero to his boss for making this purchase is...

If I were the one reading these I would also add "What's the one thing that needs to happen for this business to become a huge success?" Not only is this (IMHO) necessary to ballpark how likely the business is to succeed, but it's also extremely good at spotlighting both good and sloppy thinking.

<comment><USER3> Unsolicited advice: In our market the user adoption process looks like... We're going to hack it. Here's how: ...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Random question: what would you guys like to hear/know about applying (or YC in general) that's not already out there? I've been considering writing a blog post about GazeHawk's YC experience, but there are so many good ones already, and I don't want to just add redundancy. Anything unanswered from a startup perspective you'd like to know?

<comment><USER5> This is not so much for me, but if you have anything you didn't like about it, I think a lot of people would really like to hear about it. The most negative blog post I've seen on HN was something to the effect of "it wasn't the right fit for me", and it's really hard to judge something critically without getting both positive and negative opinions. From what I've seen of you guys it looks like it was a very positive experience for you though, so I'm not sure this is really applicable.

For myself, I'd say write it if you can think of any related tidbits/stories to tell. Those are always interesting.

<comment><USER6> The fact that negative experiences are hard to find is probably a good sign.

I can't think of much negative that pg didn't cover in his reply, though I think the size of the batches has grown too large, and is a less effective process because of it. I was surprised to find at the last dinner I attended that there were still groups at the very end of the 3 month period that didn't know each other personally. That blew my mind, as I was on a first-name basis with everyone in our batch by the third or fourth dinner, and the interaction with the other founders was the most valuable part of the YC experience for me.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Does YC usually only accept new (i.e. early stage startup) companies? We've been online for almost 8 years now, and we have a new product we're really excited about. We already have demo code for the new product, not to mention an existing product that we've been selling since we started. So for us, the mentoring and feedback from other founders and YC would be invaluable, much more so then any investment (we're already self funded).

Just curious if there is anyone that has gone through YC with an established company, and how that worked out for you.

Thanks!

<comment><USER8> If you have a company which has been established for eight years, do you really want to give up six percent of it just to get a bit of advice?

<comment><USER9> Eight years seems like a bit much, but if they're shifting focus or going through a new phase, I think they could benefit more than just with "a bit of advice."

<comment><USER7> Yes - we're developing a new product in a related area (that we can target to our existing customers), but it's really an entirely new direction for us, and really could easily be the start of a "new" company.

<comment><USER6> Then start a new company.

Eight years without going anywhere worth speaking of is time to call it quits, if what you want is a startup. Don't let old mistakes hold you back. I shutdown a seven year old business after its most profitable year in existence in order to start Virtualmin, because I made a rational assessment of where things were going and could see very clearly that the previous business would never be the business I wanted it to be, and because it had such a long, slow- climb, history, raising money for it or bringing in new partners would have been a challenge that new startups don't face. Unproven is better than "proven to grow slowly" for investors and entrepreneurs.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> even if you're not interested in YC, i recommend going through the questions yourself.

they are a great way to methodically think about your team and ideas (like "What do you understand about your business that other companies in it just don't get?")

</comment><comment><USER11> My co-founder and I are looking to apply but it looks like I might have a baby due during the 3-months-in-SV stage and hence need to be close to base (Australia). Looks like I'll be hanging out for the following round. Good luck to everyone applying!

<comment><USER12> Congratulations!

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Already? Wow... it feels like just yesterday applications were open for Winter

</comment><comment><USER14> Can international candidates apply? if the answer is yes (and if we are selected) will YCombinator help us with obtaining J1 (or any other applicable)? or at least provide a document as an employer? thanks

<comment><USER15> There's an answer to this question somewhere in YC's FAQ, and the answer is yes and no. They do accept international candidates, but you'll have to figure out all the visa issues by yourself. They are not employers and won't provide any documents. But since what they require is that you stay in SV for the 3 months cycle, this shouldn't be a problem with a regular tourist visa. (Things can get complicated afterwards, though, if you want to stay longer)

<comment><USER16> This page from BackType (YC S08) guys pretty much cover visas: <http://christophergolda.com/immigration-for-startups>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Is it acceptable if a co-founder cannot move to Bay Area for the summer?

EDIT: As someone pointed out on IM, it's acceptable but we're expected to mention it in #9.

<comment><USER18> If you get accepted, do whatever you possibly can to get everyone out there.

<comment><USER17> I totally agree but one of the co-founders is finishing his course & will be busy with finals until July.

<comment><USER18> That's really tricky. I've been in exactly that situation; several years ago we started our first startup whilst cofounder was still doing his finals. So having experienced that plus currently experiencing YC, I think your hesitation is justified, lol. :D

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Is it better to apply early while I look for cofounders or wait till I find them and then apply?

</comment><comment><USER20> Looking forward to applying for the first time. Any advice for a first timer?

<comment><AUTHOR> <http://ycombinator.com/howtoapply.html>

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> This got me all thinking about how far we (the team) have come since we applied in Winter (and got rejected).

Does that count? How far you have progressed in mindset and development of the product? I wish there was a field for that in the application. I'd be interesting to see that progress, IMO.

</comment><comment><USER22> Wondering if we should apply even though we got rejected for the winter cycle ...

<comment><AUTHOR> We often fund people on their second or third try. Dropbox was Drew Houston's second try. I believe PagerDuty holds the record; that company was their fourth.

<comment><USER23> For PagerDuty, what changed between their first and fourth try?

<comment><USER24> I believe the team was the same for every application - a smart group of guys.

<comment><USER25> PagerDuty co-founder here...

The group actually changed a bit from one application to the next. The ideas were completely different for the first and second applications. Applications three and lucky number four were for PagerDuty.

<comment><USER26> Sounds like between the second and third applications you found the right idea. What changed between the third and fourth, both of which had the same idea but one of which worked?

Not that anything necessarily _had_ to change; YC has said before that because of where they have to draw the line, they almost certainly reject some good startups.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> There are 8 RFS's, but the dropdown for choosing which RFS you're responding to only has 7 options.

</comment><comment><USER28> Consider updating the "Do we have to be US citizens?" question in FAQ to include that teams would have to fly up for the interview in addition to the three months (if that is still the decision).

</comment><comment><USER29> I'm going to apply again, no point quitting now!

</comment><comment><USER30> When I fill the 'video' field, then pressing 'update', the page gives an error: 324 (net::ERR_EMPTY_RESPONSE)

Let me know when it's fixed...

<comment><USER30> It goes now, after some changes to the other fields. I don't know where the problem actually was.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Good luck to everyone who's applying!

</comment><comment><USER32> this is just the motivational kick i needed to get back to finishing my prototype, thanks pg!

</comment><comment><USER33> Not ready yet to apply. Looking to apply next year! But, good luck and success for all.

</comment><comment><USER34> Excellent, I can't wait.

</comment><comment><USER35> PG, if we make a product worth more than 1B, we can be included in the current winter session as an exception?

<comment><USER36> If you make a product worth > $1B you'll be an exception for just about everything.

<comment><USER35> Hopefully, PG feels the same way. If I had his email, I could tell him all about and we would decide how best to proceed in this exceptional case.

<comment><USER37> If you were capable of building a $1B product, you'd also be capable of finding (and/or guessing) his email.

<comment><USER35> I do not agree with you. My question is relevant to that topic, here on HN, personally I simply delete letters from strangers would not have to waste time. A PG address is, but I just do not write for people who do not expect a letter from me.

<comment><USER37> A much better policy would be not to write people that don't _want_ the letter from you, and pg would definitely want to hear from any billion dollar company that wants him as an investor

Anyway, I've now ingested my USDA daily recommended amount of trolling, so I won't be responding any deeper in this thread</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Meet the outsider who accidentally solved chronic homelessness - <AUTHOR> http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/inspired-life/wp/2015/05/06/meet-the-outsider-who-accidentally-solved-chronic-homelessness/

<comment><USER2> Housing seems to be a hinge pin for numerous social problems: [https://medium.com/the-ferenstein-wire/a-26-year-old-mit- gra...](https://medium.com/the-ferenstein-wire/a-26-year-old-mit-graduate-is- turning-heads-over-his-theory-that-income-inequality-is-actually-2a3b423e0c)

</comment><comment><USER3> To me the surprise isn't that the program works, but rather that it is politically possible to implement. Social policies are limited by taxpayers not wanting to give help that is undeserved, nevermind whether it is more cost effective than the alternative.</comment>


(nodeJSCloud) - Looking for a few node.js enthusiasts - <AUTHOR>

We are looking for a few motivated people who eat, sleep, and breathe node.js to join us at nodeJSCloud. Simply put, we are a IaaS for the node.js developer community. Our goal is to make it easier for node.js folks to make sweet applications, and deploy them.
At this time, we are only looking for people local in San Diego. Sorry bout that. :(
If your interested in working with a dynamic and agile startup, in an amazing emerging node.js market give us a hollar; beer on us.
firstname.lastname@example.com
http://www.nodejscloud.com <comment><USER2> I think you mean PaaS rather than IaaS.

You do realise there's about 20 other companies doing the same thing at this point, right?

<comment><USER3> "You do realise there's about 20 other companies doing the same thing at this point, right?"

The same thing was true when Google entered the market. ;-)

<comment><USER2> They weren't old crufty competitors, not fresh new ones trying to jump into a hot market...</comment></comment></comment>


We Don't Know a Planet Like This - <AUTHOR> https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/05/13/we-dont-know-planet-co2-levels-hit-415-ppm-first-time-3-million-years <comment><USER2> I find it unrealistic to expect a sudden course correction with such great economic impact. It thus seems inevitable to me that we'll be employing some kind of drastic climate management solution, e.g. filling the atmosphere with sulphate aerosols.</comment>


The Greatness of Ancient India's Developments - <AUTHOR> https://www.stephen-knapp.com/greatness_of_ancient_india%27s_developments.htm <comment><AUTHOR> I was always surprised with what ancient Indian's have developed, which clear states how clear and precise their thoughts were.

They indeed have done given this world, 1\. Medical surgery, 2\. Decimal system. 3\. Algebra 4\. Trigonometry 5\. Yoga 6\. Meditation 7\. Buddhism ...

Present Indian education system is really in bad condition. But ancient Indian education system is one of it's kind.

Where student should stay with his guru(master), and would have a very close relation with the guru. Each student used to meet the teacher separately and learn from him through separate instruction and guidance.

Education is free, and guru used to look after well-being of student's, including shelter and clothing. There would be no discrimination between the king's child and that of a poorest child. All were treated equally and should do as described by master.

Students were supposed to memorize all the scriptures, where they wouldn't understand a thing about it, and once everybody have memorized them, guru's used to explain them.

This is also another good article about ancient Indian education system. [https://ithihas.wordpress.com/2013/08/28/ancient-indian- educ...](https://ithihas.wordpress.com/2013/08/28/ancient-indian-education- system-from-the-beginning-to-10th-c-a-d/)

</comment><comment><USER2> THIS WAS A REALLY GOOD ARTICLE, THANK YOU FOR POSTING IT.</comment>


Restart Fund to acquihire "any" YC, 500S, or TS company - <AUTHOR> http://www.restartfund.com

<comment><USER2> Love the blue screen of death.

This is a fantastic idea, not only for Twice to acquire, but big incubators and vc funds to acquire talent for their portfolio companies.

<comment><AUTHOR> Pretty expensive hiring bonus.</comment></comment>


Why Aren't NYC Startups Building Useful Businesses? - <AUTHOR> http://www.businessinsider.com/generation-y-startups-2011-9

<comment><USER2> DonorsChoose, Skillshare, Tutorspree, General Assembly... are these not useful businesses? This list could go on.

If anything this article should be more of a critique of the list Business Insider put together than the NYC startup scene. Just because Business Insider isn't writing about "useful" businesses doesn't mean they don't exist.

</comment><comment><USER3> Another issue is that many New York startups focus on supporting advertising, finance or other businesses. Most internet users don't notice these products in their daily lives, and BI is doing New York a dis-service by ignoring some very useful and successful companies in the B2B space.</comment>


Founder Arrogance - <AUTHOR> http://ezliu.com/founderarrogance/

<comment><USER2> This kind of made me laugh. I've used RentShare before - and I'm pretty sure Chris Toppino isn't a made up name. Nicely done.

It's a waste of emotion to get angry over misplaced advice. I would say advice is a waste more often than not. Yet, people are compelled to hand it out. The advice that you're talking about is a selfish act. "I haven't spent any time thinking about this...and I probably won't think about it much again...but I really want to help in this moment, and I want you to appreciate me." The advice is not based on "arrogance and presumption of idiocy". They haven't thought about your perspective on the matter at all. It's too big of a problem, and would take too much time to give it that much thought.

They don't give a shit if you follow the advice - rather, they prefer you thank them for their "interesting" perspective and say you'll give it some more thought. Why not allow that to be your reaction, rather than fury???

</comment><comment><USER3> In some ways arrogance in a founder is necessary though. While confidence and arrogance are different - if you really think that you are going to be the one that gets it right and creates a successful high growth tech company... that is a little arrogant in and of it's self... or insane. Either way - it's necessary.</comment>


The Calm Company (our next book) - <AUTHOR> https://m.signalvnoise.com/the-calm-company-our-next-book-d0ed917cc457#.7swew0hly <comment><USER2> Someone needs to give a copy of this book to all the Architects in the world.</comment>


Linux developer Seth Vidal killed in Hit and Run accident on his bike. - <AUTHOR> http://www.wral.com/bicyclist-killed-in-durham-hit-and-run/12639104/ <comment><USER2> Oh man. I was hit by a car from behind while cycling like Seth 2 months ago. The car was travelling at 50mph and if I had been hit straight on (I was hit by the sideview mirror) I could have easily, _easily_ been in Seth's shoes. (I was in the hills and had to be helicoptered to the hospital)

I'm not sure how to describe it but I'm sitting here in front of my Linux desktop feeling really really uneasy. I tend to laugh off the accident these days but it's really hitting me that I could have been dead and not be able to write this post.

<comment><USER3> i'm glad you're ok, haj!

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Riding a bike is dangerous. Take special precautions. Be aware of your surroundings. Wear bright colors. Wear extra lights if possible.

I am too scared to ride a bike in Boston, but I always make sure to check twice before opening my car door after parallel parking.

Be safe, bikers of HN.

<comment><USER5> _Riding a bike is dangerous._

This really makes me feel sorry for people who live in countries that do not encourage cycling.

I was born and raised in The Netherlands. _Every_ Dutch friend and family member of mine learnt cycling as a small child. Many of them still cycle daily without a helmet, special clothing, or whatever. I cannot remember anyone having a serious accident. Two persons I know broke their arms, but in both cases there was no car involved (icy roads).

The difference? We have bicycle lanes. _Many_ of them. They are often separated from the main roads. When there are lights, there are often separate bicycle lights. Besides that, laws are highly in favor of pedestrians and cyclers. For instance, a car driver is always responsible for paying 100% of damages of children under 14 and 50% of damages of those over 14. So, if a 40 year old cyclist is hit by a car, and 75% responsible for the accident and the car driver 25% responsible, the car driver still pays 50% of the damages of the cyclist. One of the results is that drivers of motorized vehicles tend to be more careful.

tl;dr: ask your government to make more cycling lanes and pass laws that favor pedestrians and cyclists.

<comment><USER6> What are the traffic rules like in the Netherlands?

Every time there's a bike story on HN, there's always a long side thread about bicycles not stopping at lights, going the wrong way down one way streets, etc etc, so I'm curious what happens in a place with mature infrastructure.

<comment><USER5> _Every time there 's a bike story on HN, there's always a long side thread about bicycles not stopping at lights, going the wrong way down one way streets, etc etc, so I'm curious what happens in a place with mature infrastructure._

Pretty much the same things. Even as a cyclist I am amazed what other cyclists pull off wrt. to violating traffic rules.

But I think the difference is that most car drivers are or were also cyclists and the law favors cyclists, so car drivers tend to pay attention at intersections.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Just to add more fuel to the bike vs car fire: Did anyone else catch that the driver was driving with a _revoked_ license? [1] Clearly he shouldn't have been operating a vehicle and probably had a history of dangerous driving. But hey, this is America, we gotta drive.

[1] [http://www.wral.com/man-charged-in-durham-hit-and-run- that-k...](http://www.wral.com/man-charged-in-durham-hit-and-run-that-killed- bicyclist/12644209/)

<comment><USER8> Good to know the guy turned himself in (apparently). This should be the link of note now.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Personally, I find it odd that traffic laws in US actually mandate (!) that bicyclists are to use the roadway and not the sidewalk.

Growing up in former USSR, I, along with other kids, used a bike to get around and for pleasure and have always stayed on the sidewalk (I don't think there were any laws about bikes).

From experience, I feel there's very little chance of injuring anyone, and even if it does happen - it is likely to be much less frequent and much less serious than what we observe with the bikes sharing the road with the cars. On rare occasions (rural locations) where there was no sidewalk - you'd ride towards oncoming traffic, same as what common sense recommends for pedestrians - so that you can see the cars and can avoid them if situation calls for it. That's probably illegal in US, since it appears that bikes here are somehow deemed more like motor vehicles and not pedestrians.

To conclude - I think the status quo is misguided (originally wrote stupid) and dangerous and traffic laws oughtta be changed to put soft squishy humans on two wheels on the sidewalks.

<comment><USER10> I used to think as you do concerning the pavement. However, experience cycling[1] has taught me that the pavement is _not_ a safer place to cycle. Cars expect slow-moving pedestrians on the pavement, not fast-moving bicycles. Consequently, cycling on the pavement leads to a lot of collisions with cars as they pull in/out of driveways.

[1] In Oxfordshire, UK -- this may be inapplicable to the US.

<comment><USER9> You go as far as to say that riding a bike on a sidewalk is not a safer place for the bicyclist as compared to riding it on a roadway along with cars? I'd expect you to be in a minority in this, your experience must be very different from mine.

The way I see it - if my 13 y/o daughter takes a bike to go to convenience store a couple of blocks down the street to get some ice cream with friends - I sure hope she breaks the traffic laws and stays on the sidewalk.

<comment><USER11> I don't know if it's safer but it is still really stupid to use the sidewalk. Not for a kid, your 13-year-old would not be told to use the street.

But I live in Chicago and, like you, used to think that it would be safer to be on the sidewalk because of the really stupid drivers that we tend to have here. A few days after making that decision, I nearly hit a person coming out of their house. There was no way for me to see them and not way for them to see me. As a pedestrian, I've been nearly hit coming around corners and I also barely managed to avoid getting hit from the front by a jackass who wasn't paying attention.

It's just not very safe for the pedestrians. There are so many circumstances where it's impossible to avoid a collision.

Although I will say that I am shitting bricks every time I ride on the street, even if I am on a bike lane. Most drivers are really good and they pay attention, but there are some that are just fucking stupid. They have no idea what the laws are and they think a bike should be on the sidewalk so they drive erratically to get me off the road or they honk and yell at me even though I'm doing everything right.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Yesterday's submission: [http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6013989](http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6013989).

<comment><AUTHOR> thanks, I hit Ctrl+F Seth but did not find anything in the top or recent submissions

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> The inevitable biking debate continues.

If the US had bike lanes, and bikes didn't choke traffic back to 8 mph as I see them doing every day on major streets, causing a half-mile backup[1], I think the US would be more friendly to bikes.

The problem is a sub-set of bike riders who generally are weekenders and seem to take pleasure in holding up traffic because it makes them feel important. Then in retaliation, there's a sub-set of car drivers who become enraged by this and act out typical road rage, except here it's a 2,000 lb vehicle versus a 48-lb vehicle with no external frame.

I don't think the solution is any of the following:

1\. Car drivers suck 2\. Bike riders suck 3\. We need bike lanes!

I think it's going to require behavioral changes from both car drivers and bike riders, and probably a redesign of cities to be bike-accessible.

Back to the topic at hand: Seth's death is tragic and he will be missed. I think a lot of our rage comes from the frustration at losing someone who was such a talented contributor and also a person many of us admired for his personal traits as well.

___

[1] Montrose, Shephard, Memorial, Elgin and Richmond.

</comment><comment><USER14> Hurtling multiton hunks of steel are incompatible with humans and other living things. We shouldn't mix them, but we do.

<comment><USER13> Even bike lanes may not be enough. I'd prefer separate roads. That's sort of the approach taken by the green belts in my city, which allow you to bike alternate routes to some major destinations. Unfortunately, it's mixed pedestrian/bike traffic.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> This is why we need bike lanes.

Also, make sure you wear lights at night guys/gals. You can buy cheap red flashers from the dollar store.

<comment><USER16> Sad news.

I don't ride my bike out on the roads because of the danger of being hit. I often marvel at the courage, audacity, and sometimes foolishness of those who are brave enough to ride their bikes on our roads. There needs to be a stronger push to makes this safer.

Bike lanes should be in every city in the country. Everyone would be better off if there were bike lanes and bike use was encouraged. I realize that this probably isn't OP's intended point, but it's worth mentioning.

<comment><USER15> I ride in the street every day, and violate our "no bikes on the sidewalks" rule constantly for my own safety.

Just last week I was almost hit while hogging the lane to make a left into my apartment complex by a car that thought it would be more fun to pass on the left (over the double yellow)... while I was making said left turn.

This was in broad daylight; I can only image what would have been the case had it been at night.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> ... :-( Condolences to my fellow Fedora community members and those who have worked with him at Red Hat. He will be missed.

Thanks Jono Bacon for his message: [http://www.jonobacon.org/2013/07/09/remembering-seth- vidal/](http://www.jonobacon.org/2013/07/09/remembering-seth-vidal/)

</comment><comment><USER18> Very sad. A close friend of mine was an acquaintance of Seth's. He pointed out this video of Seth talking about biking around Durham:

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=wE3gi...](http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=wE3giRsLKso)

</comment><comment><USER19> Seth, you'll be missed.

</comment><comment><USER20> Kind of silly he was a programmer and should be logical, but then he rode a bike. It would be great if it was safe to ride around on our roads without a crash cage around you, but it isn't. Cycling is 1% of all trips and 2% of all deaths. If you can afford a car/taxi/shuttle/bus/etc. and value your life, you should not be getting on one.

<comment><USER21> The crime rate in San Francisco is well higher than the national average [1]. If you value your life, you should not live in San Francisco. It's the only logical choice.

Heart disease is the leading cause of death in the US [2], and is empirically linked with dietary and lifestyle choices. If you value your life, you should not live in the US.

The leading cause of HIV infection in the US (by a large margin) is male-to- male sexual contact [3]. If you are gay and value your life, you should remain celibate.

Logical programmers will avoid all of these things.

HN, take note.

[1] [http://www.city-data.com/crime/crime-San-Francisco- Californi...](http://www.city-data.com/crime/crime-San-Francisco- California.html)

[2] [http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm](http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm)

[3] [http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/statistics/basics/](http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/statistics/basics/)

<comment><USER22> There's not much "logical" about your arguments. Maybe you meant "rational", but then you failed to do any actual risk analysis.

<comment><USER21> Yes, you are correct. Allow me to introduce you to the concept of satire.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


U.S. military revising its rules after fitness trackers exposed sensitive data - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the-us-military-reviews-its-rules-as-new-details-of-us-soldiers-and-bases-emerge/2018/01/29/6310d518-050f-11e8-aa61-f3391373867e_story.html <comment><USER2> _One popular route on a base in Iraq has been nicknamed "Base Perimeter" by the U.S. runners who regularly use it._

I'm truly gobsmacked that it never occurred to anyone that this might pose a problem. Maybe not the 19 year old grunt who signed up because getting a master's in CS wasn't in his future, but c'mon, there isn't _someone_ responsible for preventing data leakage? This is not some corner case, or some side-channel attack; Strava's _whole business model_ rotates around "track where you've been with extreme accuracy, and let the world know about it". Otherwise I'd just keep the data locally, like I did in the old days.

But even if kept locally, what happened to the worry of radio leakage? Ten years ago I worked on some stuff that might end up being used by the military, and I distinctly remember a co-worker who used to be pretty high up in the army (colonel, maybe?) pointing out that in the field things like Bluetooth, et. al., were generally frowned upon for what I _thought_ would be obvious reasons. Perhaps with the subsequent advent of more and more devices emitting radio signals, what used to be obvious isn't so obvious anymore, so now we let military personnel run around with devices on their wrist that signal to anyone within 30m that they're there.

<comment><USER3> > Maybe not the 19 year old grunt who signed up because getting a master's in > CS wasn't in his future

Can we please drop the elitist attitude and explicit assertion that enlisted military personnel are stupid and that CS students are intelligent.

<comment><USER2> I never brought up intelligence, I brought up the fact that I don't expect a Marine boot camp graduate with no specialized education to be the one thinking about these hard questions. Just like you don't want me, someone who has only fired an AR15 a few times, covering your ass on patrol. But despite your protestations to the contrary, the underlying assumption in my statement was that the military has _someone_ on board, intelligent or not, who has been trained specifically to think around these very topics. That someone should not be a 19 year old kid who's only training consists of handling a rifle and whatever else combat troops are trained to do. There should be someone else who tells that kid, "hey, take off that FitBit before you head out."

<comment><USER3> > who signed up because getting a master's in CS wasn't in his future

Why did you make this statement? How did that help reinforce your point?

I don't disagree with your broader point at all, but I am annoyed by the fact that you made a causal connection between enlisting in the military because "because getting a master's in CS wasn't in his future"

<comment><USER2> _casual connection between enlisting in the military because "because getting a master's in CS wasn't in his future"_

"Casual connection"? There was a direct connection with quite a few folks I grew up with. Because college costs _money_ , which they didn't have. Argue all you want, I've seen it with my own eyes. You're the only one implying anything about intelligence.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> What an interesting time to be in intelligence gathering.

Why even bother breaking into an air gapped DoD network to get classified data when you can target all these third party cloud companies that have secondary data that isn't air gapped in classified networks, and most won't have the security resources to really lock things down.

This is somewhere in the awkward middle between what's called "open source intelligence" and traditional intelligence.

I don't envy defensive cybersecurity staff and their jobs/responsibilities.

<comment><USER5> One of the jokes going around Twitter last night was whether or not Strava would be able to handle the server load from all the intelligence agencies breaking in and dumping their data.

This isn't just heat maps they have, they have the movement and timestamped location of millions of people around the world. Undoubtedly some of those people are "interesting" to someone, especially since Strava just revealed that a lot of them hang out in unique places.

edit: For example: [https://twitter.com/thegrugq/status/957851350099832834](https://twitter.com/thegrugq/status/957851350099832834)

<comment><USER4> Geez yeah no kidding. And they'll have other account data like first and last names. But then again, it's likely they've already been hacked (same with FitBit) and don't even know it.

The data these companies have is too valuable, cleanly IoT collected, and keyed by email, for nation states to not try to get.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I think that the idea of privacy is wishful thinking if the people in these locations are allowed to have their own unvetted electronics. It would not take more than one trojan smartphone application with a social media login until you are able to identify the person (and maybe graph more out of that, no GPS needed!).

And as an anecdote, back during my conscription, we were told to disable location services altogether and not take photos during training sessions, but I honestly think it had more to do with keeping in mind the best practices rather than avoiding anything to get "leaked". The officers were sometimes seen with phones of their own, meaning the government issued tinfoil ones.

</comment><comment><USER7> What activity would generate the tracks in the middle of the ocean? As I understand Strava whenever I switch it on it tracks my activity at that moment until I switch it off. Looking at the heat maps I get the impression that there is always on data being tracked in addition to those that are intending to track a specific activity. Do fitbit worn 24/7 submit data constantly to strava?

<comment><USER8> Running on cruise ships, maybe?

<comment><USER7> there's tracks from what looks like the Bermuda-Newport yacht race.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I saw this unfolding bit by bit and thought: Wow, these people have not been paying attention during the AOL 'anonymized' research database fiasco.

Let's wait to see how long it will take before someone figures out how to ID the security detail jogging with a president somewhere.

<comment><USER7> look at the whitehouse lawn in the heat map, there's what looks like data from someone walking the yard.

<comment><USER10> Obama wears/wore a Fitbit. But the tracks on top of the WH look like intermediate paths, e.g. someone jogs past the SE corner at e.g. 9:20, and the GPS signal is lost, and then they are spotted again at 9:40 at the NW corner, then the line would be drawn across the WH.

Like any other data breach, it speaks for the customers who want offline, non- cloud solutions...

<comment><USER7> that makes sense.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Bill to End Daylight Saving Time in California Fails in Senate - <AUTHOR> http://www.mercurynews.com/california/ci_30282581/bill-end-daylight-savings-time-california-fails-senate <comment><USER2> "Sen. Jim Nielsen, R-Gerber, said farmers still need the extra hour of daylight during fall and summer harvests and that the state shouldn't "fix something that's not broken."

This is one of the dumbest things I've read this week. I hate to break it to Sen. Jim Nielsen, but farmers don't rely on daylight saving adjustments, to know when to get up to tend the fields. They don't magically get an hour extra time because of an arbitrary time shift.</comment>


Meteor.com free hosting ends March 25, 2016 - <AUTHOR> https://forums.meteor.com/t/meteor-com-free-hosting-ends-march-25-2016/19308/6 <comment><USER2> I am a big fan of Meteor, evangelize it for free and this makes me angry.

1\. Many of free sites are demo sites of their packages and tutorials. This would hurt the ecosystem.

2\. Two week notice before shutting down is way too short. Should I trust Galaxy given this reputation?

3\. Well I see a lot of AdSense ads about Meteor. That's probably terrible way of burning VC money and I don't think devs pick frameworks based on ads. Running tiny utility likely is way more important.

<comment><USER3> the biggest thing for me is those demo sites for packages. I can do without free meteor deployment, although it was awesome, but all the package.meteor.com sites are incredible when browsing atmosphere

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I am a bit disappointed. I understand that this was coming our way, but two weeks notice is very short.

<comment><USER5> Agreed. Mostly switched useful deployments to Galaxy a few weeks ago. Much more reliable, and not that expensive. I think the difference between $0 and $5/month is fairly small for developer, but big for Meteor. I think you should be able to deploy multiple microsites to one container, instead.

<comment><USER6> Hi. Do you know if it is possible to predict how much an app will cost per month before putting it online?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> You're giving us 14 days? No one, anywhere, gives 14 days to shutdown a service.

No one.

</comment><comment><USER8> Just shutting the thing seems a bit inconvenient. They could instead have announced they were charging something modest - say first month free then $5 and made some money while allowing the old stuff to work.

</comment><comment><USER9> Sad to see this go. `meteor deploy' and having your project online was a part of the bewilderment that Meteor gave me when I was first introduced to it.</comment>