How to get traction/usage for your product - <AUTHOR> http://oguz.me/post/50082969863/how-to-get-massive-traction-usage-to-your-product

<comment><USER2> Lean Startup/MVPs are not about "launch it and people will come", it's not even about launching early. It's about pulling learning forward.

A MVP is a solution validation (which usually suck btw). Not a rollout technique.

[ps: Ah damn. Now I am defend Lean on HN on a friday afternoon]

</comment><comment><USER3> Regarding the Marc Andressen quote on slide 17:

 _"We see Lean Startup methodology being used inappropriately as an excuse to not take sales and marketing seriously," he said. "Founders tell us that all that matters is product, and sales and market will happen automatically. The 'if they build it it will come,'" mantra, which he noted is not always an acceptable approach for those looking to grow._

I can't help but wonder... who are these people and what in the world made them think that being a Lean Startup in any way obviates the need for sales and marketing? If you read one of the seminal books of the Lean Startup world, @sgblank's _The Four Steps To The Epiphany_ you see that he makes it absolutely clear that sales and marketing matter. There's a lot of material in there about demand creation, channels, pricing, and other sales and marketing topics.

IMO, anybody who says "we don't need to worry about sales and marketing because we're a Lean Startup" is clueless and probably hasn't actually done any research on the whole Lean Startup approach, beyond reading headlines on HN and maybe a blog post or two.

<comment><USER4> I would completely agree. At the core of it, customer discovery and learning what product your customers want/will pay for (and thus you should build) is the core of subscribing to being a "lean startup." Product does matter, but what matters more is building something someone would pay for

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Presenter here. This was actually the first presentation I'd ever given in my entire life which happened here at Amsterdam (1) to help our batch-mates who currently do the program. (Disclosure: We're also part of Rockstart Accelerator)

Without the context, some points might look like unclear, but I'll soon write a blog post including all the knowledge & practical links around the topic.

If you're interested more in the topic, please don't hesitate to contact me (2) to discuss, or ask my help for your own cases. These techniques can be adjustable for whatever project you're working on, and it's always good to start early on.

(1) Rockstart Accelerator - <http://rockstart.com/accelerator/> (2) firstname.lastname@example.com / Skype: fcbosa

</comment><comment><USER5> Allow me to add:

Have a landing page that actually says something about the product. The limk landing page is atrocious. How d you expect people to sign up to your service when the entry point to your system is this bad?

<comment><USER6> Worse, what there is was confusing, at least to me. I signed up after reading the article and checking Twitter accounts. I thought I was signing up for a deal finding site from what text I'd seen. It's actually more of an interesting content finding site.

I haven't seen any deals but think it is referring to occasional promos or discounts or something else to incentivize users - doesn't seem to actually be about shopping or getting deals of offers or anything. Example categories were humor, and there were stories about what girls find more attractive, etc..

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for your interest, and sorry for your confusion, but we decided to do this alpha phase only to run our experiments to see by using which ones of them we can fuel our growth with steadily once we release our core features which you probably haven't seen, or used yet.

To get to know better about Limk, please take a look at here: <https://angel.co/limk>, or watch the reveal video: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3lw-H6liLY>

I've already segmented the users we got from Hackernews today to reach them later on, but all these feedbacks were actually quite useful.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Don't blindly follow the MVP gospel, adapt it to your personality and projects. People won't take your half finished app seriously if you are outside of the early adopters market… which happens most of the time.

<comment><USER3> _People won't take your half finished app seriously if you are outside of the early adopters market… which happens most of the time._

A point a lot of people seem to miss about MVPs and the whole Lean Startup approach (specifically the aspects taken from @sgblank's Customer Development Methodology) is that you start out focusing on early adopters. You aren't, with the initial cut, usually trying to sell to the mass market yet. You're trying to find out if there's _any_ market for "the thing you're building".

This, to me, implies that if you're working with an MVP that is "half finished" or less than polished, you don't publicize it to the world and try to drive massive traffic to it right away (this is assuming some kind of webapp, SaaS thing). A closed, invite only, beta or trail program, just to get feedback, find out how customers interact with the thing, etc., should probably come first.

Of course, webapps are a slightly different model than what @sgblank wrote about in TFSTTE, and he revised some of his stuff in The Startup Owner's Manual to address that more specifically.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Yep, agreed on the last slide that lean startup only works 1 out of 10 times - <http://bit.ly/178ZPrb>

<comment><USER9> But since it's lean, presumably the other 9 failures don't cost much and lead to success on the 10th try...

<comment><AUTHOR> Nice argument, arbuge, thanks for pointing out.

It's not that we actually don't like & use lean techniques, but it's just I wanted to address that actually 'fetish of failure' might not be a good thing in the long term.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Great post, would like to hear more about some of the strategies and thoughts behind slide 15, specifically grouping and evaluating users. Also what is the 7-time rule?

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, tyndierock. We've just started the entire process earlier this week, and the early results are already promising.

Speaking of the 7-time rule: (*)

"The Rule of Seven is an old marketing adage. It says that a prospect needs to see or hear your marketing message at least seven times before they take action and buy from you."

We re-imagined it, and changed if we're not getting any activation & usage from a user after 7-times of trying, then we're grouping them as 'lost users' which we might win back them again with some other techniques.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Wow, I like your 15th slide. I have a new website just launched and start from 0 (zero) followers. I don't know the best method to get more followers.

<comment><AUTHOR> Glad that you liked it, daviedR. We've also just started the process earlier in this week, but it's already getting some results. And I'd be more than glad to help you.

Ping me: email@example.com

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Slide 13: "always be link building" -- something you don't see much on HN, but very true.

<comment><USER13> What does that even mean, in a (hopefully) non-spammy context?

<comment><USER5> Its means to create valuable content for your market, and then share the content through links. From tweeting the link, to posting on a social network, to posting to web forums, to posting as a blog comment. But always stay in context. Don't post a link to post a link.

This works very well and has a long term impact. Plus it improves your search rankings.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Slide 14 & 15 were instructive, brilliant way of connecting the dots.

How specifically are you segmenting out new users by Twitter follower / Klout score and then firing actions to those segments?

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks aresant, already replied you privately, but for the public knowledge; you can accomplish this with Intercom but only with emails & in-app notifications.

We're currently studying all these features to build similar ones to accomplish the same from the servers that we own in future. We've already built an app to do exactly the same for Twitter mentions. I'll consider open- sourcing this, once it gets better & more stable.</comment></comment>


Earning Money as an Amazon Affiliate, A Small Experiment - <AUTHOR> http://alexn.org/blog/2011/11/29/earning-money-as-an-amazon-affiliate.html <comment><USER2> I don't quite understand the argument that some people made here.

This person wrote a blog post with a few Amazon links under his affiliate code. Some people read his blog post, click the links, (and probably read the reviews), and decided to buy the book.

The person gets the kickback, the interested readers get the books they want to read, and everybody is happy.

But why am I reading stuff like "getting away with murder", "purity", and etc?

Why such negativity/hate?

<comment><USER3> It's a pretty simple argument: having affiliate links creates incentives that may not align with faithfully serving your readers. It does not automatically bias your writing, but it can certainly create the appearance of bias.

A concrete example would be writing an especially glowing review of the new Kindle because you have a vested stake in people buying them. Or, perhaps, NOT writing a glowing review because you fear it will be perceived as shilling for affiliate cash.

It's the reason why most reputable newspapers do not allow their ad sales staff to communicate with the editorial staff about content.

In fact On The Media recently did a story about the Washington Post struggling with whether or not to include Amazon affiliate links in its book reviews. I think it presents both sides of the argument: [http://www.onthemedia.org/2011/nov/11/web-links-money- makers...](http://www.onthemedia.org/2011/nov/11/web-links-money- makers/transcript/)

<comment><USER4> Understandable concerns, but shouldn't the content speak for itself?

If someone writes a meaningful glowing review of the new Kindle, then there should be information and details in the content of the writing that explains why they think it is so great. If there is no such information in the article, then the article probably isn't very helpful, and neither the presence nor absence of affiliate links will change that.

But what if it is an awful fluffy review written for the express purpose of making an affiliate sale? Is this wrong, per se? If something in the article either directly or indirectly prompts a reader to click on the link and they make the purchase, then what harm has been done?

Newspapers likely disallow such practices in order to maintain journalistic integrity, but a blog author who is writing posts on purpose to sell things is probably not interested in maintaining journalistic integrity. The blog author is just interested in selling stuff. Maybe the blog posts are well-written and interesting, or maybe they are not. If they are not, then readers who care principally about content will likely avoid the blog on the lack of merit of the content itself.

<comment><USER3> It's not just about preserving this abstract, ivory tower concept called "journalistic integrity."

A product review is close to useless if you have no trust in its author. The crux of a review is the author's opinion about something. Whatever verifiable facts are contained in the review are still only those facts the author chooses to highlight. Consider: if authorship doesn't matter, why is a review different from a press release? In short, a review cannot speak for itself because context matters.

Let's set aside the ambiguous case of adding affiliate links and talk about out-and-out payola. If a blogger takes a secret cash payment to write a false product review, then I believe that is dishonest and wrong no matter how well written or useful the review may be. (And not to confuse what's legal with what's ethical, but taking cash for reviews on your blog might even be illegal[1].)

[1] [http://www.cjr.org/the_kicker/ftc_votes_to_end_blogger_payol...](http://www.cjr.org/the_kicker/ftc_votes_to_end_blogger_payol.php)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I've always felt that blogs that have Amazon affiliate links should be held to a higher standard.

I've seen way too many poorly thrown together blog posts about the top 10 CS books to read, that I have my finger on the back button when looking at those types of links because past experience has taught me that 90% of them are just put together so they can put Amazon affiliate links on the books.

The rule of thumb I use is that if each blog post I see on the site has an Amazon affiliate link then the blog is probably trying to spam me and they'll have a harder time of keeping me there.

Some blogs do succeed via their tremendous writing.

Is it just me or do others feel this way? Does anyone else care at all if affiliate links are all over a blog page?

<comment><AUTHOR> That's the same as saying that ad-supported products in general should be held to higher standards, which in general is not true - my feeling is that we are spoiled by free stuff, enough to make us get picky about the _purity_ of the content viewed (supply and demand).

Personally, I never install ad-blockers. If a website or a mobile app is too obnoxious, I just close the browser window (or hit back, just as you). Ad- blockers, IMHO, solve the wrong problem. However, in general I tolerate such attempts, as content authoring can take a lot of time and trying to make a buck or two is not a sin.

Disclaimer: I'm the author of this article.

Originally I wanted to write a blog post about my adventures in learning how to draw, however feeling that my experience isn't adequate, I settled for a summary of the books I've been reading, plus I always wanted to experiment with either AdSense or Amazon's Associates, basically to see what happens (what the conversion rate is and so on).

<comment><USER6> Without in any way whatsover implying that you did, in some countries you cannot present an advert as an article or editorial without clearly marking it as such.

That's why on TVs you get the 'infomercial' warning and the 'this is an advert' banner in papers (certainly in my country anyway).

Having an affiliate link makes the article an advert as you are selling the book. An article such as yours can be interpreted as a shop front masquerading as free advice as soon as you put affiliate links in it, regardless of whether it affected your article or not.

Bloggers are getting away with murder right now compared to print advertising.

I realise this is not your intention, but that's why it is not the same as _ad-supported products in general should be held to higher standards_ as their adverts are usually clearly marked where yours was not.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm not disagreeing with what you say, however:

        Bloggers are getting away with murder right
        now compared to print advertising

I think this is a little blown out of proportions. Print advertising may be clearly marked as such for obvious advertising, however articles planted by PR firms are not.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> You can make money with amazon affiliates, but it's such a small percentage of the sale. It's much better to come up with your own product or dropship something.

You take on more responsibility but you can also make more money.

<comment><USER8> not only that, but Amazon is pretty much the only company whose affiliate program cookie lasts a mere 24 hours. All other companies give you at least a month.

<comment><USER9> Wow, I hadn't done the affiliate thing with Amazon for a while and missed that change. That's a big deal and I bet it immediately cut the commissions people were getting by 10-20%.

<comment><USER8> I think the change was more like 50-60%. A lot of people shop on Amazon for other things, if you had a 30 day cookie like it used to be, you were more or less guaranteed a sale in that 30 days.

<comment><USER10> I did some analysis[1] on this for 2 merchants we send traffic to, admittedly it's not in exactly the same space the buying trends would probably be similar. The merchant with a longer history of data has 59% in the first 24 hours meaning you would be missing out on 41% of sales.

This is a trend I have noticed with affiliate programs, the closer a company comes to market saturation in a space the worse the terms get. It makes sense has had the blog post not provided links there is a good chance people will head over to amazon anyway.

[1][https://www.affclicks.com/blog/commission-percentage-and- coo...](https://www.affclicks.com/blog/commission-percentage-and-cookie- length/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> You can make as much as $1 per visitor by targeting specific keywords in your titles. Things such as "Canon T2i Amazon Coupon" or "Canon T2i Amazon Discount Code". Yes, coupon and discount code related keywords are highly competitive, but not when you add "Amazon" to it... that's because no Amazon discount codes really exist, thus not a lot of content for those keywords...

but you still funnel visitors to Amazon and get paid when they buy it... And since they're searching for Amazon stuff, they most likely will buy it from Amazon.

</comment><comment><USER12> Personally, I have a strong preference FOR affiliate links / referrals over other kinds of advertising, simply on the basis that they're more targeted, and more likely to be relevant to me at that point in time. If I click through to a store based on your content, I'm generally pretty happy if my referer gets a little piece of the action.

That said, it's also pretty obvious affiliate links can be done badly, and there's a nice slippery slope in there somewhere. I actually like how Tim Bray does it on his blog - when he posts affiliate links he points it out explicitly (I think they're usually his partner's) and provides non-affiliate links as well so you can opt out if that's how you feel.

In general, more transparency is better, as usual.

</comment><comment><USER10> Sure if you can pull that kind of traffic to your content day in day out you can make a good return from Amazon affiliate links, the reality is though, this is unlikely to happen.

What I look for in products to promote is something more like a $10 average commission per transaction and a conversion of more like 8-10%. Promoting of the kind done in this post only really works as an aside if you were going to mention these products anyway.

While much less invasive than AdSense in general the same amount of traffic would make you more (although probably not in this case given the large proportion of HN/Reddit traffic that are either blocking of ignoring AdSense).

</comment><comment><USER13> A few years ago I ran both Google and Amazon ads, and I made more from Amazon than I did with Google. I dropped Google and kept Amazon. On the right side of my blog (<http://boston.conman.org/>) is an Amazon block. The books that are listed (and they're always books) relates somehow to the top post on the page (I did my own Amazon targeted advertising).

</comment><comment><USER14> I had quite the opposite experience with the Amazon affiliate program. I ran very targeted ads (think photo equipment ads on a photo enthusiast site). I got around 20K views, 6 clicks, zero buys. Shut it down to not annoy my visitors.</comment>


Reflecting on halfway mark of 2014? Read these 2 links - <AUTHOR> http://kenny.is/halfway

<comment><AUTHOR> No need to link out to personal site (no way to remove link from original topic). I've just copied and pasted the blurb below:

With summer officially here and July around the corner, we're at the half way point of 2014. A great time to reflect and determine if on track. Coincidentally, my friend Max shared a thoughtful and entertaining blog post around reflection.

Link 1 - [http://www.geekwire.com/2012/day-rest- life/](http://www.geekwire.com/2012/day-rest-life/)

Buster explains his process and what he's uncovered over the last 5 years.

Fascinated by the story I stumbled across his personal website. For such a simple 1 page website, it rocked, and continues to rock my foundation.

Link 2 - [http://busterbenson.com/](http://busterbenson.com/)</comment>


Ask HN: real time forum software? - <AUTHOR>

Do any real-time forum platforms exist? Forums where threads and posts appear in real time? If not, would there be an audience for such software? What kind of things would have to be avoided for this type of forum to prosper?<p>What do you think? <comment><USER2> Forums aren't a software problem -they are inherently a sociological issue: community building & forming, spam filtering, navigating the political intentions, etc. If there's a single conclusion of Google Wave, it's that being "realtime" makes no guarantees for quality, and signal/noise; but makes management of such extremely more harder.

</comment><comment><USER3> Right now, if you're responding to something on most forums (Stack Overflow excepted?), you can't see other responses which have come in while you're typing (not on the same page, anyway). I think a few years from now this will seem like the horribly broken behavior that it is. I wish you well.

<comment><USER4> I've used BB/forums which indicated new posts that came in during the time taken to compose a post. 98% of the time, it was just in the way.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> _would there be an audience for such software?_

I believe it will be hard to get audience from most existing forums, as I see most phpbb, invision, etc. aren't rushing to move f.ex. to vanilla. Most of this software is outdated and bloated, yet they have a huge ecosystem (extensions, tutorials) and userbase used to their functionality. Such product should at least provide an easy convertion schema and default themes similar to existing competition's defaults. Still it would take very long until it gained a reasonable market share IMO. If you're looking just for new market, it could succeed.

I'd see sth like that as extensions to existing platforms, yet I believe it wouldn't be fun to code that :)

<comment><AUTHOR> "I'd see sth like that as extensions to existing platforms, yet I believe it wouldn't be fun to code that :)"

Agreed. :P

I don't see why people couldn't theme a forum like this, too. Perhaps also some sort of data migration tool.

Forums just kind of need a revamping!

<comment><USER5> > Forums just kind of need a revamping!

That's absolutely true, I was happy after punbb appeared and later vanilla, but I know how hard it's to make even simple updates when you have a big community. I help run a 7yr old huge automotive forum and even a phpbb2->3 upgrade caused riots, I have no idea what happens when someone would switch a huge community from bb or invision to an exotic platform :)

<comment><AUTHOR> Perhaps we can find out.

<comment><USER5> "Challenge accepted"? :)

If i was to reinvent the forum, besides RT I'd include/change such features by default:

\- simple wysiwyg B, I, U, Quote - stop all this bbcode nonsense

\- js oembed or similar (automatic embedding images, videos, etc. from links)

\- scaling too big images

\- easy partial quoting

\- marking posts/threads as favorite/follow

\- openid/fb

\- mobile version (what currently tapatalk does)

probably some more I can't remember right now.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> There's a guy making a real-time fantasy football forum called SleeperBot: <http://www.sleeperbot.com/>. It's pretty cool. The success of one would probably depend on what it's being used for. The SleeperBot forums are great when football games are running. You would probably need some sort of reason to have a 'live' forum instead of a standard one.

</comment><comment><USER7> I think it's been around for a couple of decades:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRC>

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm aware of IRC. I've hosted my own IRC server since 1999. But, I wasn't asking about IRC. Although, IRC is my inspiration for this question. I'm talking about a forum, accessible from the web obviously.

<comment><USER8> I assume you mean something like the front page of hacker news but where you could watch the positions/scores change and old items fade out as new ones take their place? I think that would be pretty slick. However I can imagine people wanting a "pause" button in case they don't appreciate the idea of things they were planning on clicking on disappearing. Were you planning on implementing this?

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm just brainstorming for something fun to work on, at the moment.

I haven't really thought out all of the different in's and out's of it all, but I think the issue you bring up would be easily overcome. It's more of a presentation issue than something going on in the back end, I think.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Check out <http://www.boonex.com>, they have a pretty much real time forum.

</comment><comment><USER10> Yep: <http://pixplz.com/>

</comment><comment><USER11> Yes, I run one at imeveryone.com. Click on the 'Live' section.

</comment><comment><USER12> Friendfeed.

</comment><comment><USER13> Have you looked at <http://www.ninjapost.com/> ?

<comment><USER14> Thanks, rahulchaudhary!

Skywing, I am the founder of Ninja Post. Ping me with any questions - email@example.com or try the demo forum: <http://forum.ninjapost.com></comment></comment>


Is HTML a Humane Markup Language? - <AUTHOR> http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/001116.html

<comment><USER2> I don't see why you couldn't support many different markup languages in a single site. For example, on a web forum I'd love to be able to write BBcode with an s-expression syntax.

So you'd have 2 <select>s: one for semantics, one for syntax. So you could have BBcode semantics with traditional syntax, BBcode semantics with s-expression syntax, and a lot of other semantics and their corresponding available syntaxes. All those representations would simply be canonicalized into one language on the server.

</comment><comment><USER3> I never really liked those pseudo markups, but some people do so maybe the best is to use Markdown that support pseudo markup and HTML</comment>


Apple takes Chinese food company to task over their logo - <AUTHOR> http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/apple-takes-chinese-food-company-task-over-th

<comment><USER2> For those who choose not to read the article and merely comment that Apple is haphazardly suing another company, the article describes one of the basic principles of trademark law and why Apple must sue:

 _Now here's where things get a little tricky.

Fangguo Foods produces items like snack foods, flour and noodles, which obviously have nothing at all to do with any Apple products. As a result, Apple's trademark assertions seem misplaced and without merit. Recently, though, Fangguo had filed applications to extend its trademark to 16 different product categories, one of which includes "notebook computers" and "electronic-game software."

And therein lies the rub.

Fangguo received the status of "Famous Nanchong City Trademark" in 2007 and "Famous Sichuan Province Trademark" the following year. Zhao explained that he registered Fangguo's logo under so many seemingly unrelated product categories not because he had specific plans to expand to other types of manufacturing, but just in case he did meet somebody who wanted to produce, say, Fangguo computers, he would be able to expand the brand name.

In the world of trademark law, a company that doesn't actively seek to protect its trademarks is more likely to lose the ability to enforce them. Consequently, it makes a whole lot of sense to go after Fangguo for their trademark given that they are looking for trademark protection in an area where Apple already operates._

</comment><comment><USER3> The logo looks more like the LG logo (<http://www.lg.com/us/img/logo-lg.png>) than the Apple logo

<comment><USER4> This is exactly what I thought.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> That logo looks like the love child between Apple and LG. In fact it reminds me more of LG than Apple.

</comment><comment><USER6> > Seeing the Fangguo logo in a super market clearly doesn't conjure up images > of Apple products, but imagine an electronics store featuring products > plastered with the Fangguo logo - it stands to reason that consumers might > get confused and mistake one company's product for another.

I suppose that if you had never seen the Apple logo, and merely had it described to you very badly then you might confuse the two. Maybe, if it was a _really_ bad description and you had poor eyesight. I didn't even get that Fangguo's logo was supposed to be a stylized apple until the article said so.

<comment><USER7> How often do you see food company logos in electronics stores? I suppose if there's snacks by the checkout, but people mistaking that logo for Apple's and thinking that Jobs started manufacturing candy bars doesn't really pass the straight-face test.

<comment><USER8> Target and Walmart are among the retailers that sell both groceries and Apple products in the same store.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> So.... everything that has a logo that resembles an apple (the most popular fruit after banana?) violates Apple's rights?

</comment><comment><USER10> I'm all for defending your IP but this is ridiculous. That logo looks nothing like the Apple logo. I mean this is from China where they wouldn't give two squirts of piss when it comes to ripping the rest of the world off, but this is what Apple decides to go after?

<comment><USER11> _Recently, though, Fangguo had filed applications to extend its trademark to 16 different product categories, one of which includes "notebook computers" and "electronic-game software."_

In that light it's a _bit_ more understandable. If they had stayed strictly in the food segment I doubt it would have been an issue. Trademarks have to be defended or they can be voided; companies tend to err on the side of caution.

<comment><USER10> That makes a little more sense, but I still do not think that anyone would ever mistake Apple's "I look like an apple" logo for the Chinese company's "I don't look like anything but I have a leaf" logo. Their logo looks more like an old hand grenade.

<comment><USER12> It's a "where do you draw the line" thing -- Apple has to demonstrate that, in their opinion, things are getting a little too close for comfort. LG should probably do the same. Neither, I don't think, would be launching an action with the expectation of winning (necessarily), but having a filed grievance on record for something at this level would certainly help in a case where the offending logo were a little closer to theirs.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> AAPL is obviously not in the music business, therefore can use the name Apple. And it _doesn't_ sell Beatles anyway ...or isn't that the _case_?

Are these the same people, who deliberately manipulate photographs which they submit as evidence to courts?

hypocrites. and their followers. and their propagandists who pay attention to the hype.

<comment><USER14> If you were paying attention this _was_ an actual case and ended up with Apple, Inc. buying the Apple trademark and then licensing it back to Apple Corp.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer>

<comment><USER13> I was paying attention, and am paying attention.

What you are referring to, in plain terms, is that Apple Inc. had more money than Apple Corp, meaning that it can afford to do whatever it wishes to do. (don't misunderstand: I have no empathy for the record industry either).

<comment><USER14> Are you seriously arguing that _The Beatles_ are the underdog in this scenario? Also, "Apple Inc. had more money than Apple Corp, meaning that it can afford to do whatever it wishes to do" implies there was something improper, which is clearly not the case. It's not like Apple, Inc. bribed the courts to force Apple Corp. to hand over their trademark; Apple, Inc. reportedly paid as much as $500 million to Apple Corp. to control the trademark. Sounds like the real winner was Apple Corp.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> It ticks me off that Apple uses its gadzillions in profits for frivolous lawsuits like this. Dear Apple, the shape of an apple belongs to the fruit, not to you ... if you can use it, so can others.

<comment> T-hawk To be fair, remember how trademark law works. Apple doesn't necessarily actually think Fangguo is infringing on them. The law is such that Apple must defend their trademark against anything that may appear to be an infringement, or else Apple may _lose the right to defend it later against actual infringement._</comment></comment>


23andMe for Free: The Coriell Personalized Medicine Collaborative - <AUTHOR> http://www.thinkgene.com/i-spit-at-coriell/

<comment><USER2> It's important to note that this is limited to 100,000 participants. It's going to take a while to reach that number but it's not the entire population either. On the other hand the whole population isn't going to pay to use 23andMe either.

The author seems to think this initiative is the death of 23andMe et al. To use the Coriell service you have to actually walk in the door. If you're not in the neighbourhood then it may be easier and cheaper to use 23andMe.

</comment><comment><USER3> The author is naive if he thinks that this initiative is going to wipe out all the for-profit ventures in this arena.

I enjoyed counting up the logical fallacies and incidences of circular reasoning throughout the post, though.

</comment><comment><USER4> I signed up. Camden is close enough to my stomping grounds in Boston, and I have wanted to get my genome sequenced ever since it was possible.

Now if only they'd let you patent it, a la Manfred Macx...

</comment><comment><USER5> I think that summarizing the project as limited due to an arbitrary "cap" as defined by the projects initiators is a little short-sighted. Who's to say that Coriell wouldn't continue growing the project as much as demand and funding support such?</comment>


Delete Records With Effect Using jQuery And PHP - <AUTHOR> http://www.jooria.com/Tutorials/Website-Programming-16/Delete-Records-With-Effect-Using-jQuery-And-PHP-152/index.html

<comment><USER2> can i chaange it to function?</comment>


Realtime Linux: academia v. reality - <AUTHOR> http://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/397422/27eef125e03b8a2d/ <comment><USER2> I wonder if things are different on the BSD side versus the Linux side. Just a guess, but Linux kernel development has always had a sort of anti-academic view, perhaps soured by the early Tanenbaum-Torvalds flamewar, whereas much of BSD was actually written by academics (the name comes from UC Berkeley, after all), and collaboration still seems reasonably common. There might be some downside to Linux being so popular, as well: it's now the default option, so people who just need _something, anything_ to test on will pick Linux, whereas my guess is that people modifying, say, the NetBSD kernel for academic work are more interested specifically in NetBSD and contributing back to it. Solaris development also long had a close relationship with academic researchers working on Solaris, for whatever reason (probably Sun actively making efforts, including hiring academics for summer consultancies).

<comment><USER3> > Just a guess, but Linux kernel development has always had a sort of anti- > academic view,

That doesn't prevent almost all realtime-related academic papers and research to be focused around linux. Simply put linux is practical. It has a large mind-share, it has a lot more drivers, and most importantly it is being very actively developed.

Sadly enough a lot of academic-only projects last on average 4 years before they die off -- that is usually the time someone takes to do their PhD.

One can also argue that realtime OS-es are largely driven by a practical need from the industry side of things rather than from an academic perspective.

> the NetBSD kernel for academic work are more interested specifically in > NetBSD and contributing back to it.

That also means one would have to be a NetBSD enthusiast and also a realtime enthusiast. The intersection of those 2 sets is probably fairly small.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Excellent essay (and, I assume, talk). This jumped out at me:

 _So it seems that there is the reverse problem on the real world developer side: we are solving problems, comparing and contrasting approaches and implementations, but we are either too lazy or too busy to sit down and write a proper paper about it_

That would be invaluable, but I understand that they don't do it for the very same reason that OS researchers don't submit patches to the LKML: it's not what they're evaluated on.

If you've ever been frustrated by the disconnect between research and industry in the area of computing, read this essay.

<comment><USER5> yup agreed, and even if developers would like to write up their findings in an academic-style paper, they aren't likely to be accepted at top-ranked conferences, since they're so selective and only publish papers that are presented and polished in a very academic way

fortunately, i think now some good conferences have more 'applied' or 'industrial experience' tracks

<comment><USER2> I think just writing them up _anywhere_ will get at least some attention, because academics often do tend to search for "what is industry doing on this?", and they have less stringent standards for publication venues when they're looking for an industry paper versus an academic paper--- it doesn't have to be in the top conferences, since it's not a scientific result that needs to be peer reviewed so much as a documentation that industry is doing things in a certain way, and why they decided to do so.

Linux is starting to have a few self-run conferences that publish papers, like the annual GCC developers' conference, which might be good places for that sort of thing. Old-school Unix vendors traditionally had their own journals for that purpose, e.g. the DEC Technical Journal, Sun Technical Journal, and a whole host of IBM journals, all of which got cited in academia reasonably often.

<comment><USER4> The thing is, what the author describes _is_ science. They implemented a bunch of different options, evaluated them experimentally, and came to conclusions. But, they just use their conclusions to inform how implementation should proceed, they didn't tell everyone else about their conclusions. Publishing those results would be interesting to academics.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> From the other side:

 _Comparing and contrasting research results is almost impossible. Even if a lot of research happens on Linux there is no way to compare and contrast the results as researchers, most of the time, base their work on completely different base kernel versions. We talked about this last year and I have to admit that neither Peter nor myself found enough spare time to come up with an approach to create a framework on which the various research groups could base their scheduler of the day. We haven't forgotten about this, but while researchers have to write papers, we get our time occupied by other duties._

This is almost entirely the Linux kernel's fault. The development pace on the kernel is quick and very few things are guaranteed to be stable. By the time my group had worked out a patch a release block was finished. I gain almost no benefit from sending this to LKML and I hear it's never worth the flames my colleagues get when you haven't done enough "work" for them. The worst was a colleague having to defend his patch from a paper to the kernel team. Who cares? The devs can take it or leave it, we don't have time for that crap.

</comment><comment><USER7> /Unfortunately almost none of the results ever trickled through to the kernel development community, not to mention actually working code being submitted to the Linux kernel mailing list./

Unfortunately, when an academic submits their working code to the Linux kernel mailing list, they're likely to get flamed to a crisp if they get any response at all. They learn real quick not to waste their time with that hostile crowd.

Not to mention the volume of the Linux kernel mailing list is absurd. Who has the time or inclination to keep up if it's not their main passion?</comment>


The "Tragedy of the Commons" was based on false history - <AUTHOR> https://boingboing.net/2019/03/07/scientific-fraud.html <comment><USER2> I have no intention of defending Hardin as I'm not informed of his personal beliefs, but this article screams of ad hominem. He might have been a terrible person but it conflates his personal failings with the idea of the tragedy of the commons as if to discredit the idea. And while maybe the British commons for land might have had more nuance than his original article let on, it doesn't mean there aren't other key examples showing the idea has validity.

For example, fisheries are a great example. In the absence of well defined property rights to catch limited numbers of fish (and effective enforcement mechanisms), we see rampant overfishing in the world. In places with effective cap and trade schemes for fisheries, we actually see healthy, robust ecosystems. Alaska is the best example but there are many other shining examples compared to the unregulated and unenforced commons of the open ocean where Chinese fishing vessels are systematically destroying the commons.

Let's not conflate the idea with the man, and instead let the idea stand/fall on its own merits.. It's a logical fallacy otherwise.</comment>


Facebook submits 454 pages of written follow-up answers to Congress - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2018/06/11/facebook-congress-answers-senate/ <comment><USER2> > Facebook does not create profiles or track website visits for people without > a Facebook account.

This is pretty unbelievable for a company that makes their money from ads. I would almost say this is commendable if true, but...

> We use the browser and app logs that apps and websites send to us—described > above—in the following ways for non-Facebook users.

This is pretty misleading. It's like when FB basically secretly redefined "third party" to mean what was convenient for them. So we don't have "profiles" of non-FB users, and we would never "track" such users, but in lieu of that we store logs containing identifying information and use that analyze their usage?

I can understand since the profile isn't being used for advertising why this might be an okay simplification in casual conversation, but this is unacceptable in a letter to Congress.

I've only skimmed this but the rest of this isn't much better either. In another question by the same senator about how long they store deleted users' data they don't give a clear answer (at best we know in some cases it can be over a year). It also comes up a few times where they're very protective of ads targeting/excluding protected groups (which makes sense since targeted ads are their bread and butter). I haven't looked at the second scribd, but I doubt it's any more informative.

</comment><comment><USER3> Great job, Techcrunch, on not providing any sort of analysis whatsoever.

</comment><comment><USER4> The scribd links aren't working for me, here are the Senate committee PDFs

[https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Zuckerberg%20...](https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Zuckerberg%20Responses%20to%20Judiciary%20Committee%20QFRs.pdf)

[https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Zuckerberg%20...](https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Zuckerberg%20Responses%20to%20Commerce%20Committee%20QFRs1.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER5> It's intern season. There's plenty of manpower available to parse that.

Judging by their replies they seem to be saying that they walk right up to the letter of the law in many cases. I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out that they're contradicting themselves.

</comment><comment><USER6> It's unfortunate they refused to follow Cruz's onerous directions, it would have really made an excellent package. Is this normal for responses to Senate Committees (for us non-US folks)?

</comment><comment><USER7> Wow. Is this because of the new revelations about their data sharing activities?

It's high time people stop trusting FB altogether.

<comment><USER3> No, during Zuck's testimony he frequently deferred on answering questions, so he could get accurate information to provide later.

It is not unusual to provide written and more detailed answers to questions after testifying. This number of times he deferred was a perhaps a little unusual though.

<comment><USER8> As you understand more of the details of a complex system, it becomes harder for you to, off the cuff, answer seemingly simple questions to the best of your knowledge.</comment></comment></comment>


Unfortunate State of Mobile Web - <AUTHOR> http://serv.github.io/blog/2014/02/20/unfortunate-state-of-mobile-web/

<comment><USER2> "Changes in HTML5 in recent years have been absolutely mind blowing" \- my mind will be blown when I will not need third-party packages to position controls on page in a fluid, reliable and logical way. HTML will always lag behind because of compatibility requirements. I am all for fragmentation. You get better languages because companies compete and you get better compensation because you can specialize.

</comment><comment><USER3> In my opinion, unfortunate at this moment only. Just like as it's been with web on the desktops. Hardware will get better, browsers will get better and engines will be faster which will allow for web apps to be at least as comfortable and usable as native apps.

I don't know how we'll deal with problem of discoverability and payments - after all it's way more easier to do that on iTunes/Play, but eventually there will be solution to most of the problems.

Apple certainly doesn't want to give such freedom to users and developers - they like to have a cut of the sales very much, but they can't just wait it out - Android/FirefoxOS/Any new OS won't be waiting.

</comment><comment><USER4> Agree with the author it's lamentable how mobile dev is almost totally focused on native apps. Solid UX is possible now on the mobile web but unless the user adds the site to their home screen (on iOS) the top and even the bottom of the browser window takes up valuable screen real estate. App stores provide a better monetization and distribution scheme than browsers do on mobile, which makes it hard to justify spending time on a mobile web site.

The big gripe I have with mobile web support today is Safari on IOS 7 where it is now impossible to permanently fix an element at the bottom of the window.</comment>


Africa, ApplePay and the iPhone 6: Resistance is futile - <AUTHOR> http://www.finextra.com/blogs/fullblog.aspx?blogid=9925

<comment><USER2> Ugh, talk about an article needing a SavedYouAClick.

So ApplePay might finally make mobile payments worthwhile, because of Apple's pressure on merchants. Which is nice because credit card fraud in the US accounts for 7-15 billion dollars per year, which is not enough to warrant changing all the POS systems in the US. But maybe not right away.

Also, we will randomly mention sub-sahara Africa because they apparently use a lot of mobile payments already, except not with ApplePay.

</comment><comment><USER3> The Africa tie in here is beyond stupid.

Not to be flippant but Africa is the absolute last place anything "Apple" will take hold.

</comment><comment><USER4> If people could please stop claiming that the <$1/day continent is going to start buying $750 phones AND $350 watch that'd be great, mmmkay ?</comment>


The green programming - <AUTHOR> http://marques.io/#!/post/7/the_green_programming

<comment><AUTHOR> Damn! I thought I would have some up votes with this one! Too bad... next time! But Green Programming is a pretty important topic I think!</comment>


20 Years of KDE - <AUTHOR> https://timeline.kde.org/ <comment><USER2> 20 years, long time. The current children don't know what is DOS or UNIX.</comment>


AI-controlled brain implants for mood disorders tested in people - <AUTHOR> http://www.nature.com/news/ai-controlled-brain-implants-for-mood-disorders-tested-in-people-1.23031 <comment><USER2> > One challenge with stimulating areas of the brain associated with mood, he > says, is the possibility of overcorrecting emotions to create extreme > happiness that overwhelms all other feelings.

Terrifyingly, this risk does not seem far off the wireheading described in gwern's article, Terrorism is not Effective.

> I have just laid out a scheme whereby agents extraordinary only in > dedication have exerted world-shaking power. Similar scenarios are true of > other sectors. (The Secret Service works hard, but can they protect the > President against the 100 fanatics?) Destruction and offense is always > easier than construction and defense, but it's hard to see why the fanatic > advantage would be completely negated in constructive enterprises. (Small > groups of programmers and engineers routinely revolutionize sectors of > technology, without being especially fanatical.) But of course, we see very > few such schemes in either direction. That is the point. There is a very > large gap between what we can do and what we will do. Coordination is > extremely hard (see again the principal-agent problem).

> But the scary thought is - will things remain that way? I have been at pains > to keep the agents ordinary. Is there any way now or in the future to create > such agents? [...]

> In short, is there any reason to believe wireheading will not work in humans > like it works in mice? [...] That is one scenario. Here is another: the > electrode is under the control of a program connected to metrics chosen by > the subject, like going to the gym. (Related topic: nicotine & habit- > formation.) The incentives are much more closely aligned: the subject could > gain control of the stimulation, but that would frustrate another goal of > his (going to the gym). Imagine the program hooked up to a comprehensive > plan for attacking Goldman Sachs; one rather doubts that an agent will break > the plan and not eat bulgur pilaf if that means he is simultaneously > sabotaging the plan and also depriving himself of pleasure.

[http://www.gwern.net/Terrorism-is-not- Effective](http://www.gwern.net/Terrorism-is-not-Effective)

<comment><USER3> Off topic:

> (Small groups of programmers and engineers routinely revolutionize sectors > of technology, without being especially fanatical.)

In my opinion, that's because of the current state of software as a field. In the future, as the field grows and the distance between subfields grows, it's going to be more and more difficult to get stuff done.

You could argue that abstraction will offset this difference, but I doubt that, as you generally need people who are invested in those layers of abstraction to fix bugs. Occasional bugs will be fixable by the small team, but already we're outsourcing Big Bugs to other, more specialized teams, even if we don't realize that it is so (Usage of libraries is just outsourcing work to other 'research teams'). But then I guess the question is that if a bug fix for team X utilizes seven different teams that are unconnected to the project worked on by team X, then does it still count as a 'small group', at what point do you account for the critical-yet-unconnected effort of other teams?

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Reminds me of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Terminal_Man](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Terminal_Man)

<comment><USER5> Also [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Deepness_in_the_Sky](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Deepness_in_the_Sky)

> when a person began failing or slowing at a set task ... they were able to > reverse it

Vernor Vinge anticipated this treatment and called it "focus".

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I've always thought whenever DARPA funded something sounds good, there's a catch, like "yeah, let's publish the good-natured stuff... " and in this case, "make sure the implants can be used in other part of the brain"

Or am I just delusional? Or it's just the nature of tools?

<comment><USER7> Yes, you are delusional. How do you define new technology that is "good natured"?

The reason DARPA is studying this it seems is to reduce its casualty rate to research new ways to treat mental illness. If you can do that you will spend less and also keep people alive. A bunch of medical research has been created for this motivation.

ARPA created the prototype to the internet. (ARPANet). The catch of the internet is that it allowed for people to disseminate information faster than anything before. You get the good (advancement of science) and the bad (misleading people).

DARPA is in the business of moonshots. They are all about high risk / high reward.

Its more likely the stuff you don't hear about didn't work in the first place.

<comment><USER6> I have exactly ARPAnet in mind when I said "Or it's just the nature of tools?" :D

I should've worded it better, good natured here means good-intention, in which there will be bad intention that we will probably NEVER see (C&D, military secret, etc...)

In this case, what's stopping the scientists and/or funder from misusing/weaponizing this implant?

p/s: guess I'm biased when it's DARPA, since it's US military complex... but hey, I'm enjoying the Internet :D

<comment><USER7> For one thing how would you weaponize this? Do you think that scientists are robots and don't have their own morality?

You still haven't told me how to design a technology to be "good intentioned". Technology has no intension it's the people who use it.

It's really disturbing that you automatically assume that technology is evil because who created it and you have a prejudice because it is DARPA.

<comment><USER8> > You still haven't told me how to design a technology to be "good > intentioned".

Design.

Design simply encodes the values of the designer in the physical technology. A virtuous designer will design something which makes good things easy. A nihilistic designer will design something which makes their life easy. It's unavoidable.

That's why so much software these days is harmful, the tech world is largely populated with supremacists and nihilists.

(I don't mean that in any particularly judgemental way. Supremacism is the norm in the wealthier slices of American culture, so it's unremarkable that Silicon Valley would end up reflecting that. And the competitive nature of funding and hiring self selects for supremacists as well. And for those who don't tend towards supremacism, nihilism one of the few ways to stay sane amongst supremacists.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Just imagine a future where this technology is stolen and used to control dissent...

Coming to a future dystopia near you

<comment> amiga-workbench Imagine a future when this technology is proprietary.

<comment><USER10> Imagine a future where the technology triggers good feelings in you when you view certain products or depictions thereof.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The logical endpoint of the "you don't really own your smartphone/notebook/computer/IoT-device/etc" thread running through much of HN discussion:

> One challenge with stimulating areas of the brain associated with mood, he > says, is the possibility of ... extreme happiness

Extreme happiness you'd be able to feel if _you_ were in control of your "own" implants which in turn are in control of your "own" brain.

Needless to say, you wouldn't be.

</comment><comment><USER11> This story is ripe for conspiracy theories

[http://edition.cnn.com/2013/03/16/health/mental-illness- over...](http://edition.cnn.com/2013/03/16/health/mental-illness- overdiagnosis/index.html)

</comment><comment><USER12> Courtesy of Black Mirror: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men_Against_Fire](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men_Against_Fire)

</comment><comment><USER13> This makes sense. The human body consists of many biological control systems, and if few of them are out of order, then the human will become ill. So add an artificial control system and you might have a fix.

However, as humans evolve, we may become dependent on this type of technology. That's what worries me. On the other hand, patents will expire within one or two generations.

</comment><comment><USER14> How long do they last?

It was my understanding that a big problem with brain implants (both probes and stimulators) was that after some time the body rejects them. Is that true here too and they have limited lifetimes, or have they got around that somehow (or is it otherwise a non-issue for whatever reason)?

</comment><comment><USER15> Reminds me of The Terminal Man by Michael Crichton. Just re read it the other day and although it's fiction and overblown, it is crazy to see the future catch up to what was science fiction 30 years ago.

</comment><comment><USER16> No

</comment><comment><USER17> What could possible go wrong? It's just your brain.

</comment><comment><USER18> Imagine a future in which every North Korean has this tech and is actually truly happier in NK than the west. And NK starts sending these people out to actually "follow the generals start and bring the Juch idea to the world." Now, we bank on NK not wanting their countrymen to discover how much more technologically advanced the west is.

<comment><USER19> I'm not sure happiness is that simple. It's "easy" to fix depression in someone if they're well fed, in good physical health, and aren't overly concerned about their physical safety (I'm not trying to minimize depression here, just pointing out it's relative problems). However DPRK soldiers apparently aren't fed that well, lack access to good healthcare and above all they'd be fighting on a battlefield seeing death around them and in constant fear of their life. It might be possible to amp up the soldiers, but the Germans also drugged their troops and even military leadership during WW II which didn't work out so well for them in the medium term.

<comment><USER18> Why do you say it didn't work out well for the germans?

<comment><USER19> Because they lost WW II and had their country occupied for decades by Americans and Russians, both of whom many Germans resented (at least according to my parents who were part of the occupying force).

<comment><USER18> But did they lose because of the drugs or because they were massively outnumbered and made ridiculously stupid mistakes on the eastern front and ran out of fuel and didn't have nukes in time?</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Internet Business For Sale: Absurd Listings Site (Top-Tier Dating Site: $5,000,000) - <AUTHOR> http://www.imergeadvisors.com/internet-business-for-sale.html <comment><USER2> The "Consumer Subscription Internet Co" is hilariously euphemistic.</comment>


Why Facebook is not worth $ 100 billion (or what is business) - <AUTHOR> http://swturl.com/x575

<comment><USER2> I have no idea what Facebook is actually worth, but the author is completely missing the point, which is that Facebook has the potential to increase the effectiveness of all advertising (except search engine advertising) by an order of magnitude or two.

Advertising is about getting the right message to the right person. Search engine marketing works because the person has already expressed their interests (and therefore segmented themselves very precisely) by typing in a search query. Retargeted ads are also effective because you are targeting the valuable segment of "people who have visiting your site".

Facebook, on the other hand, allows to define a random person really precisely. Not only on their demographics but also which web pages they liked, what their friends like etc etc.

This could extend to any ads. Banners obviously, but also TV ads shown on streaming programs. Imagine the impact if you can avoid paying for the 99% who are fundamentally not interested in your message, and different ads are shown to different, very precisely defined, segments.

<comment><USER3> However, the barrier to entry against what they provide is pretty low. Yes, they have this fantastic database - but many people are wary of FB's data collection activities and are guarded with what information they share. My point being, there is low probability they are the last, final large popular social network. The effort necessary to visit, use and become active at other web destinations is simply too low.

I personally believe we'll see a flowering of special interest social networks - like github & HN is for us, but across the spectrum of human interests. Such targetted-interest destinations provide a social service FB or G+ is not going to provide. And they don't need to. These other social networks are probably already out there, growing their sub-culture communities right now. Look at Pinterest for example; they appeal to a specific subculture and have decent traction at the moment. FB is like pop radio - too generically bland.

Specific purpose social networks will eventually dominate, I believe, because only in such an environment is sophisticated dialogues about the subculture subject matter at hand possible. At the more generic social networks ones' deeper, technical exchanges get interrupted by "friends" interjecting meme humor or other info-noise to such exchanges. Who needs that when trying to be serious?

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> what a poorly written article

<comment><USER5> Needs serious proofreading, yes. But the overall point is valid, though maybe not terribly original.

Facebook's valuation seems to be based on exuberance (rational or otherwise) but also on uncertainty. No one really knows how social networking is going to be used going forward. So if you've got a truckload of money you don't really need and like the idea of having two truckloads of money, it might actually seem risky _not_ to invest in Facebook...

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> They're worth a hundred billion... three or four years post IPO, and if they don't screw it all up.

As an investor, they're not worth buying at a hundred billion. There's little to no value upside over the next five years (value, not price; value being what you get, price being what you pay), short of a stock market bubble spiking everything.

It's not surprising FB would get a $100b valuation though. Investors are desperate for growth.

Compression is a word FB investors should get used to. Facebook will spend years growing into that valuation, much like other tech stocks in a similar outsized valuation situation.

Google for example has returned a weak 6% per year for the last five years. Not much greater than the dividend that Verizon and AT&T pay. eBay has spent a decade growing into their crazy dotcom days valuation, and now sport a very modest 15x pe ratio.

At $8 billion in sales, FB can generate $3 billion in net income. Their model scales extremely well in terms of margins and expenses per extra dollar of sales/profit.

At $3 billion in net income, they'd have a 33 pe ratio. They can absolutely hold a valuation around those levels three years out. This is assuming their sales growth continues to slow. However, point being, there's no value upside left in the stock.</comment>


You think that post is secret? Beware – it can come back and bite you - <AUTHOR> https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2017/06/07/you-think-that-post-is-secret-beware-it-can-come-back-and-bite-you/ <comment><USER2> > The recipient determines how they feel about your posting, not you.

Doesn't mean they're always right.

<comment><USER3> Maybe I'm misunderstanding something but it doesn't seem like someone can be wrong about how they feel about something.

<comment><USER2> If I were somehow offended by your statement that wouldn't automatically put me in the right and you in the wrong. You can't control how I feel about what you say, but I also can't use my feelings to claim an unassailable moral high ground.

<comment><USER3> Thanks, that makes more sense to me</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: How to see downvotes on HN? - <AUTHOR> I see people asking why they got downvoted, but I  can't find how to show downvotes. The FAQ also does not mention this. What am I missing? <comment><USER2> People can see the points go up and down. They are not shown when or by whom.

<comment><AUTHOR> Well I see comments like "Example: Why did this deserve 2 downvotes:". How would they know that then?

<comment><USER2> If they saw they had 4 points, then refreshed and saw they had 2 points, then they are assuming that they received 2 down.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Freelancer Agency Commission - <AUTHOR>

I've recently started part-time work via a freelance developer agency, a relatively popular one but the name is not important for this question.
I live in a somewhat poor country and the rate I agreed to is ok for this location. It is peanuts in comparison to the US, but that's not a problem.
Anyway, one of the mantras of this agency is "don't talk rates with clients", pretty standard I would guess, and it's clear why that would be a rule. Nonetheless I respect that and don't discuss it. I am curious of course and would want to "maximize" my share and rate before taking any longer engagement via them, but I'm in no rush.
So, today I mistakenly received a contract from a client, without requesting it, and it turns out this agency is charging them double what I make for the work, effectively taking an almost 50% cut of the total.
This seems crazy to me, granted I would make none if they had not arranged the contact, but 50% seems excessive. Is this normal? <comment><USER2> 50% sounds pretty normal to me. A firm can charge more because (not an exhaustive list):

\- Freelancers tend to be flaky and just stop answering emails, but a firm is more likely to stick around. Businesses are often more risk-averse than price- averse, so they are happy to pay the firm's higher rates for lower risk. As a freelancer you suffer from a "market for lemons" phenomenon, where your rate suffers because there are lots of bad freelancers out there.

\- A firm does more than programming. It does project management, design, communication, etc. Also they are experts on software development (not just implementation, but the whole thing), and their clients usually are not, so clients pay for their assistance and judgment.

\- A firm has a "deep bench" (to use a sports analogy). Again this is a risk thing. Hiring a firm means that (in theory) your project won't fail because someone gets sick.

\- A firm has wider expertise than one programmer. A client can use the iOS expert for their app and the Rails expert for their API.

There are probably more things than that but that's what I can see.

Of course this is just the theory. In reality by hiring a firm you often get one mediocre developer working with 2-3 junior ones, and quality might be passable but best. But at least with firms you are more likely dealing with a normal distribution, whereas freelancers seem to be bimodal: really good or really bad.

Anyway, I don't think 50% is unfair. But if you want to make more, you should partner with a few others and start finding your own clients!

</comment><comment><USER3> 50% is not unheard of. More importantly for you it shows what the market can bear for your skills with a small premium for brand name. Also keep in mind that your agency is doing a number of business related tasks that all cost money including at a minimum marketing/sales, invoicing and recruiting developers with the right skills.

</comment><comment><USER4> > I am curious of course and would want to "maximize" my share and rate before > taking any longer engagement...

What could be more 'fair' than a 50/50 deal? You could of course learn to prospect, pitch, and negotiate directly with clients. But that process requires a great deal time and tremendous soul sucking rejection. Do you really want to do that?

<comment><USER5> There's nothing intrinsically fair about 50/50\. It all depends on the work split. This guy is spending hundreds of hours of professional time with the client. The agency is spending an hour or two. They absolutely do not 'deserve' half the take. Get another job, or negotiate directly with the customer for a contract.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Why do you think they took someone from a poor country? I'm not discussing your skills here, just your cost of living.</comment>


Ask HN: JSON vs. XML? - <AUTHOR> Do you prefer JSON or XML? Why? <comment><USER2> For what purpose? Document specifications, data serialization, schema-ful data?

JSON's data model lines up much better with common data structures in programming languages, while the often-maligned child-element vs. attribute distinction in XML makes a lot of sense to me to distinguish between globally relevant metadata (attributes) vs. data that can stand on its own (elements).

When HTTP APIs started winning out at the expense of SOAP or XML-RPC APIs, JSON became preferred because there was no schema to validate and a client could just parse out the fields they were interested in and ignore the rest.

Nowadays, more and more deployments add a JSON Schema, officially discouraging that practice and negating one unique differentiator it had versus XML. They're both text-based formats you have to parse, and for internal, non- outward-facing purposes I'd rather use a binary serialization format instead for compactness and because I control both endpoints.

My other preferences are, for outward-facing purposes (like a HTTP API return payload), a custom mediatype based on JSON or XML (in that order, because JSON has more community goodwill); for configuration files, neither because the're both awful to type in a line-oriented setting; and for protocol or file-format type things that could conceivably stand on their own and be called a 'document' (like a self-contained file at rest), XML or binary because they allow strongly typed, well-specified formats with less developer effort -- not JSON.

</comment><comment><USER3> Trying to get that Karma up, huh? I'll bite and help you out a bit. I would think the only reason to use XML in a new project would be because it has a schema and you may need your objects "strongly typed." In days past there also wasn't very good support for JSON in C# and other enterprise languages so that extended the XML lifetime.

Most times you're using XML now it's to integrate with a piece of legacy software. Now that most enterprise platforms have good support for JSON, outside of a few special use cases most projects are just going to go with JSON for the convenience of it (no crazy parsers to deal with).

</comment><comment><USER4> Depends on what you need/want to achieve. One nice thing about XML is that you can use XQuery and XSLT for querying/document transformation.

</comment><comment><USER5> Both? They each have different use cases where they can be more efficient/easier to work with.

If you are designing a REST API, pay attention the HTTP Accept header and return whichever the client asks for.

</comment><comment><USER6> TOML #because it allows comments

[https://github.com/toml-lang/toml](https://github.com/toml-lang/toml)

</comment><comment><USER7> For what?</comment>


Show HN: OmniFocus completed tasks report tool - <AUTHOR> https://dribbble.com/shots/2785973-OmniFocus-Tasks-Report <comment><AUTHOR> I love OmniFocus and couldn't imagine life without it anymore, since I started using it, but I've always felt like some kind of report about your completed tasks was missing. So for all stats geeks like me out there, I created this: [https://github.com/tschoffelen/vibe](https://github.com/tschoffelen/vibe)</comment>


Security firm details new Trojan written for Apple's Mac OS X - <AUTHOR> http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/11/02/28/security_firm_details_new_trojan_written_for_apples_mac_os_x.html <comment><USER2> I thought that this is known to _all_ major operating systems. There have been such malware already.

The apparent "lack of walware, trojans and worms" is just a fact that they are less seen. Mac OS X also has bugs and vulnerabilities (even 0day ones) and with those it can't be at all times always saver than Windows just to say.

But of course, it's not like Windows XP where UAC is not even possible, so the amount of damage undertaken by trojans should in theory not as bad (but should be the same if vulnerabilities are being exploited).

</comment><comment><USER3> Uh. And? Really. What's the story here?

</comment><comment><USER4> It's not surprising that we'll see more instances of this. If the mac user base continues to grow they'll make an ever bigger target for malware producers. I'm surprised that we haven't seen a real botnet of Macs yet.

</comment><comment><USER5> The funny part is, none of the news sources are actually reporting on what's the actual vulnerability found, or any technical details. :(:(</comment>


Ask HN: In the Bay Area for two months, need housing feedback - <AUTHOR>

Hey guys!
Me and two others are moving to the Bay Area for two months (1 Oct - 1 Dec). We are currently looking for housing, but haven't found anything within our budget yet (<= $3000/month). The three of us would like to live together (a 2BR apartment would be fine).
We already found accommodation at Silicon House (http://siliconhouse.us/#), but it's over our budget. However, we're still considering. Anyone has got experience with Silicon House? Is it any good? What are the opportunities of meeting other people/mentors? What about the in-house events?
Anyone else that might have some leads to a $2.5k-3k/month apartment in SF/Mountain View/Palo Alto?
Thanks! <comment><USER2> I second airbnb.

Advantages over craigslist and the like for subletting: You can sort by availability dates. A lot of craigslist postings start three months from now, I saw people trying to sublet for next spring already.

The pricing is in the same units. It sucks to read a post and realize the price is for some weird unit of time like 10 days or something.

</comment><comment><USER3> You can try airbnb.com or vrbo.com.

At your price range, it would be hard to find a 2br but, you can find a place with two beds no problem (although, they may be in the same room).

<comment><AUTHOR> We're using airbnb. Didn't know vrbo. Worth to check it out, thanks!

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Happy ending. We got accommodation for free in the Mission in San Francisco for a small percentage of our fledgling startup, minggler.com</comment>