A Computational View of Market Efficiency - <AUTHOR> http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.4580 <comment><USER2> >In this paper we suggest that a reinterpretation of market efficiency in computational terms might be the key to reconciling this theory with the possibility of making profits based on past prices alone.

Is there some longer research accessible over the internet that describes these computational terms in a way that one can turn them in an application?

(I found the methodology fascinating, worth delving deeper into it!)

</comment><comment><USER3> Is this news? Didn't Ariel Rubinstein work on the nexus between bounded rationality and the complexity of computing Nash equilibria in the 1980s?

<comment><USER4> Sounds like some fascinating stuff that might have provided the inspiration and foundation for this work. Got any links or titles?

<comment><USER3> _Modeling bounded rationality_ (by Ariel Rubinstein) <http://books.google.com/books?id=Za3JLEIHu8YC></comment></comment></comment>


Buying an iPhone in the US? Pay full price - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/i-m-h-o/b8c4a2164434

<comment><USER2> This article says to buy T-Mobile. You don't have to. Just pay retail, use whatever you want.

Walk into a USA Apple store, ask for a "device only" phone. They'll give you one of the AT&T stock, but when you get back to the office or home and connect to iTunes, you'll get the message:

"Congratulations, your iPhone has been unlocked."

Tada, use any plan you like, anywhere you like. This worked on the iPhone 4S before Apple even announced no-contract phones.

<comment><AUTHOR> Seriously? I was in line this morning and was told they were out of unlocked phones. They gave me a card for an AT&T phone, but when I looked up AT&T's unlock policy it said that I needed to be a current or former customer to get a phone unlocked. Damn.

<comment><USER2> Apple's system records the sale with the hardware serial number of the phone and unlocks it when iTunes sees it and checks w/ Apple.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'll give that a shot since the local Apple Store was out of T-Mobile models.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Nice incisive article. You recognize a really good point. While T-Mobile is at the pit of the phone carriers, they seem to listen (and react) to what their costumers want. I just wish that maybe one day one of the hot-shot carriers will come to their senses and follow in T-Mobile's footsteps.

</comment><comment><USER4> If you're on a family plan, the marginal cost could still be cheaper. For my share of it, it's $10/mo plus however much data I choose (I'll stick with the grandfathered unlimited plan for $30).</comment>


Reinvigorate.net Offers Powerful Real-Time Analytics, HeatMaps, Creepiness - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2010/08/30/real-time-analytics-reinvigorate/ <comment><USER2> They have a free, feature-limited account if you want to try it out.

</comment><comment><USER3> That's very pretty and pretty creepy. I like their interface a lot.</comment>


Show HN: Mindwave – A team journal to pursue a calm and clear mind together - <AUTHOR> https://mindwave.app/teams <comment><AUTHOR> I made something that might be helpful in these uncertain times.

Mindwave is a journal for teams who want to learn from the past, be present, and improve the future together. You'll share ideas, feelings, and thoughts with your accountability buddies so you can help and support each other. Mindwave works great for small (remote) teams, co-founders/co-makers, masterminds, and startups.

I've been working on it for months and can't wait to improve together with other journaling enthusiasts. Feedback and ideas are highly appreciated.</comment>


Gotta Catch the Bugs: Crash Reporting in Pokemon Go - <AUTHOR> https://blog.mightysignal.com/what-is-pokemon-go-using-to-track-all-the-app-crashes-23d537ab2636#.mx7u6osz5 <comment><USER2> They shouldn't have distributed compiled python code as part of their app. We all know that pyc is weak against bugs...</comment>


The Magic Email - <AUTHOR> https://www.winwithoutpitching.com/magic-email/ <comment><USER2> This post reminds me of a recent trend on cold-call emails I've been getting, namely them being framed in an overly casual way that implies a personal connection that doesn't exist.

Saying things like "I just wanted to see how you're handling X" and then going into the sales spiel, or "I wanted to circle back around Y" and so on.

I'm assuming this is more effective than the previous methods or they wouldn't be using it, but I find it even more off-putting.

</comment><comment><USER3> This is the way I prefer to communicate sometimes. Hadn't got the exact subject to start with :)

Precise with some potion of rudeness :) "Subject: Closing The Loop"</comment>


Why American Workers Without Much Education Are Being Hammered - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/22/upshot/why-workers-without-much-education-are-being-hammered.html <comment><USER2> The article doesn't mention immigration even in passing. Sure, there's globalization and improvements in technology but there are also millions of people increasing the supply of labour, especially for jobs that don't require much skill or certification.

<comment><USER3> And it doesn't mention that even the most educated workers are not keeping pace with real GDP growth.

The analysis basically books down to "supply exceeds demand, uneducated hardest hit". I would have liked to see more analysis on the ultimate reason for the lack of demand for workers.

Finally, it bugs me when people blame technology for destroying jobs and not society, employees, and employers for thinking simple, repetitive jobs are viable long-term career paths. Distilled to absurdity, we could pay people to dig holes and refill them, but robots will always be orders of magnitude better at that. Why blame the robot and not everyone else for not realizing hole-digger is a job with an expiration date?

<comment><USER4> Few people think a repetitive, unskilled job is a viable career path. People take these jobs because they have no other choice. Not everyone can go to college.

<comment><USER3> You don't have to go to college to think strategically about your next job, not just the current one.

> People take these jobs because they have no other choice.

You take a job because you have no other choice. You stay at a job past the expiration date because:

* nobody told you that jobs have expiration dates

* you know but think you'll deal with that problem later

...I think it's important for us to create a culture that encourages people to think about their jobs and careers strategically. The broader conversation revolves around statements like "people are stuck" or "they need retraining and/or education". I don't think those statements and attitudes are helping people enough, especially when bootstrapping, self-education, and content creation are cheaper and easier than ever.

<comment><USER4> You have to be in a good position just for the option of bootstrapping, and educating yourself. If you're working two jobs just to keep the lights on, you don't have the time or money. And self education doesn't mean much if you can't list a degree on your resume. It's not hopeless, but it's hard!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The trade deal Obama really wants to sign is going to put the final nail in the uneducated worker's coffin. Every remaining low wage job that can be exported, will be exported. The rest will be automated as much as possible.

Then we are going to have this weird culture where the people serving you food have college degrees and are desperately trying to pay off student loans. Meanwhile everyone else will think they can just make a startup or small business to survive but there will be so many copycats the customer base will be too fractured.

We better discover nearly free power soon or things are going to get ugly for the 98% in the next decade.

<comment><USER6> It is worth mentioning that an economy that produces higher added value will have a fallback on the lower classes too. While the delta in wealth between the rich and the poor has been increasing, in relative terms the poor have been getting richer. A poor today is way better than a poor 50 years ago or even 20 years ago. If you are concerned about what poor people can do, then think to all those products that now are too expensive but that a future richer society might want. For instance, in Germany (richer country than mine), is very normal to buy local/bio/laborIntensive goods like traditional food and so on, this is all stuff that non educated people can do and will do in the future.

<comment><USER7> I generally agree with this, but in some locations an exception to this is real estate, in that a growing subset of the market are becoming increasingly priced out of ever buying anything. Interestingly, the US for the most part is not currently suffering from this due to the bursting of the housing bubble.

<comment><USER6> Yeah, but the thing is, we are not really running out of flats/houses, we are running out of space in the cities. That is a way less bleak future than the parent proposed, it just means that poor people will leave far from the city center, but can we really blame that? Is that even a problem? People leave where they can afford, that's just the reality, as long as they can afford a good house with heating and all the other nice stuff, I think location is not that much of an issue.

<comment><USER8> Location is a big issue for people who rely on public transportation to get to their places of employment. It's not always feasible to live far away from where the jobs are and not everyone can simply telecommute or otherwise work from home.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Having worked for a security company; rent a cops; I was surprised by the types of people who took up the job. While there is a good amount of turnover there are many who are there for life. Most had a high school diploma and some had more. We did have college kids working their way from school, sitting at a post and doing periodic walks does lend time to study and it wasn't discouraged.

At first I was concerned because one of my jobs was to insure that payroll checks were printed on time and delivered to sites by payday or when required by law; terminations and those who quit in some states are required to be paid within a set amount of time. Having talked to only a few I found many simply liked the job because a) it was easy, b) schedules were nearly fixed, and c) the uniform imparted a sense of import. I never really ran into anyone I wouldn't want to have watching over a site. Those types tend to self weed themselves out.

Even in a day and age of automation there is still the comfort level many get from having a person about. Not all guards are low paid but many are.

Immigration reform will hit many sectors hard; likely the security sector as well. So the question becomes, how do you lessen the burden of all the fees for government services these people have to pay? We might not be able to legislate their pay to a level everyone is happy about but there are many costs of living imposed by government that could be restructured based on income.

<comment><USER10> What fees for government services do you refer to?

<comment><USER11> I believe he's referring to Taxes.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> The point of the article is interesting, _among those who have a job at all_ , managerial workers and independent professionals are making more money while the majority of workers are making less.

However while uneducated "workers" may be suffering, among the educated there are more and more "non-workers":

[https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/LNS11327662](https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/LNS11327662)

</comment><comment><USER13> Are we really this Myopic?

Americans think that they deserve a certain standard of living. Why? Why do you deserve it? I don't see a good answer to this.

For a country emphasizing competition and capitalism so much, I find it hilarious when Americans start complaining about being out-competed (by other countries or by college grads or by smarter people).

The reality is that, in society, not everyone can get everything. The real issue is with glamorizing excessive profits.

Also, we can't expect only the good parts of globalization. If we want $10 t-shirts made by a worker in Bangladesh, we had better be prepared to lose the job to them. They are doing it cheaper and better than entitled us.

There's a solution! Tax the rich (and corporations) more and redistribute wealth in a fair way that creates more local opportunities, but we know where this discussion goes.

<comment><USER14> >Americans think that they deserve a certain standard of living. Why? Why do you deserve it? I don't see a good answer to this.

Because they built a society that can provide it. To everyone.

A good life for people _is the goal_. The _terminal_ goal. You don't have to justify doing good for people; you have to justify making their lives _worse_.

<comment><USER13> >> Because they built a society that can provide it. To everyone.

That society was built on exploiting global resources and issues eg: selling weapons for wars, extracting oil, gold and diamonds from countries with uneducated leaders, manufacturing stuff from countries where living wage is lower aka making lives worse.

Just think about it! When those other countries start becoming more and more educated and start turning things for their own good, this great American society is going to have to suffer.

Let's say there are two people (American and Chinese) in this world and one t-shirt manufactured. The American was always able to afford it. Now the Chinese can afford it and can outbid the American. Doesn't the standard of living of the American drop? Yes.

<comment><USER14> Economics doesn't work that way. The profit margins of the American capitalist may have been higher when the Chinese were poor, but actual total world productivity (the amount of stuff available to share around) has gone _up_ as the Chinese have gotten richer. The development of the Third World is a positive-sum, ahaha, development.

<comment><USER13> Economics does work that. The amount of resources are limited by: a. Quantity of raw materials available for use b. Skill (labor and/or machines) to convert those raw materials into something useful.

So while America had a lot of a and b, the rest of the world is having that now too. So America has lesser of a and b as a proportion of total a an b

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Min wage should be increased by certain significant percentage but definitely not by 100% to $15. That is basically saying "no need to study in high school or go to college because you can still make around 30k based on min wage". 30k is a starting salary for a lot of college fresh graduates. This could in- return can also create economic imbalance among classes (abridging the gap between high school drop out and fresh college graduate)

<comment><USER16> Local minimum wages should be raised in a manner commensurate with local inflation. In places like the Bay Area and NYC, $15/hr isn't much considering the enormous cost of living - hence the term "living wage".

$15/hr is probably too high for a part of the country with a very low cost of living like Mississippi.

The federal minimum wage sets the absolute bare minimum.

The often mentioned radical alternative is Basic Income, which would eliminate all minimum wages and push up wages on the low end by tightening the labor market (because many on the low-income end of the labor spectrum would opt not to work).

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Maybe the correlation isn't education => low paying jobs, but motivation => low paying jobs?

I've seen a lot of people just "settle" with a crappy job which pays poorly just because they aren't motivated to go find something better or more challenging on a day-to-day basis. Some of these people have gone through college, some haven't.

<comment><USER18> The above will be a controversial post because there are plenty of highly motivated people who work hard but never get rich. For example a day laborer construction worker has to get up very early, perform tiring physical labor all day, and then do it again the next day. Many work more than 5 days per week to make ends meet. I bet that not many web developers could make it as a day laborer for long!

That said, the question of "motivation" now has a deeper subtext thanks to recent research on early childhood development and the impact of family and community on each individual's development and achievement.

Rather than an inherent personal quality (which is easily corrupted into a proxy for "worth" or "deserving"), we are learning that motivation is heavily influenced by factors outside a child's control, like how much loving attention they receive, how many words they hear per hour, the level of violence they witness or experience, the number of books in their home, the professional success of their parent or parents, the average socio-economic level of success in their school district, etc.

So, to say that maybe the answer is motivation, is not as much of an answer as it used to be. Now we want to know where motivation comes from, and what we can do to improve that.

<comment><USER17> > So, to say that maybe the answer is motivation, is not as much of an answer > as it used to be.

Definitely. It's sad that these outside factors influence something so important, but that doesn't change the fact that some people are motivated and some are not, does it?

<comment><USER16> I think the point is that there are systemic factors that affect motivation that far swamp out an individual's drive, especially in their formative years.

These can include, but are not limited to: violence and trauma in one's community and family, lack of reliable parents or positive role models in one's community, childhood economic pressure towards physical survival and meeting basic day-to-day needs.

These are all things that individuals born into poverty in the US face at disproportionate levels, and they can have a negative effect on motivation. We generally don't fault people for the very harsh circumstances they are born into.

<comment><USER17> Yes, I understand that the PC thing to do is to not fault people for such things.

But the fact remains, which sucks, but still.

Where do we draw the line? I was attacked by a dog when I was a child which was very violent and traumatic for me. I also grew up "are we going to eat tonight" poor. Do I qualify?

<comment><USER18> This isn't about you. It's about how we use scientific knowledge to make better policy decisions.

We learned that people need vitamin C to prevent scurvy; now we have government policies and cultural norms that make sure that every child gets enough vitamin C.

As our scientific understanding of brain development grows, we'll (hopefully) develop norms and policies to make sure kids get what they need there too. You can see today the early stages of that process with respect to exercise, and more recently, sleep.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Is there causation between no high school diploma and lower wages? They are certainly correlated.

<comment><USER20> I always assumed (and still believe) they are both (lack of eduction, lack of well paying employment) are both results of other root causes. In other words if you couldn't make it through high-school or college (for whatever reason, ability, environment, access, attitude, etc) then whatever those reasons are make you also unable to acquire and keep a decent job.

<comment><USER11> >" _[..]then whatever those reasons are make you also unable to acquire and keep a decent job._ "

And unfortunately for them, it doesn't keep them from inflicting the same life-outlook on their offspring. Greatest tragedy of our society, that we overlook that.

<comment><USER21> We supposed to neuter people?

<comment><USER11> Of course not, that's horrible.

I'll leave it to the smart statists out there to figure out how to remedy this tragedy whilst staying within the "moral framework" they have in-place already. You know, the thing that makes it "illegal" to carry bad-plants in your pocket while simultaneously making it legal to bring innocent life into this world without being able to take care of it, and ultimately making it suffer.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> The article should be named' Why Blue-Collar Workers Are Being Hammered'.

The matter of the fact is that in most blue-collar jobs, salaries stagnate after years of experience.

Having an education only do 2 things:

\- Gives one the ability for a white-collar job

\- With the same stagnation, blue-collar salaries become 'higher' and most workers are complacent about it

<comment><USER23> It's the same for the bulk of white collar workers as well in most industries, they just stagnate later.

<comment><USER22> White collars have always had better salary growth than others.

Generally, blue-collars rely largely on 'manual labor' and, therefore, after its peak productivity, they hit a depreciative tendency(younger employees/outsourcing/...) .

White collars rely largely on networking and influence, hence its 'productivity' continues to grow.

The more 'manual work' one performs, the smaller his salary growth is.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> btw..why on the earth this article is on HN?! Are people comparing tech worker salaries as an ideal model for the entire economic class? I am confused by the upvoters here.

<comment><USER24> There is always infighting on HN of whether a degree is important for being a developer. As such, anything that paints education in a positive, or negative, light will reach the front page.</comment></comment>


Google Spaces - <AUTHOR> https://spaces.google.com/ <comment><USER2> It's... Slow.

The idea is nice: create groups dynamically.

But god it's slow.

It has the same problem that Google Plus had: it's SLOW. Boringly slow.</comment>


Zynga and the End of the Beginning - <AUTHOR> http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/TadhgKelly/20091218/3665/Zynga_and_the_End_of_the_Beginning.php

<comment><USER3> Excellent article. The current Zynga model is certainly unsustainable. They've hired Brian Reynolds, which hints at deeper games to come, but what they're doing right now will be ineffective in 6 months.

One thing I've been coming to terms with- just because something makes no sense long term doesn't mean that it's not a valuable course to pursue short term.

If, and it's a big if, Zynga can reinvent itself in the next 6-9 months, then this initial phase was brilliant in that it gave them the resources they needed to move on to real domination. If they don't reinvent themselves, a few people will have made a lot of money, but nothing permanent will have been built. A real opportunity will have been missed.

But they can't keep on the same path, it just won't work a lot longer.

<comment><USER4> Simplicity is strength, not weakness.

There are already more complex, deeper games on Facebook, but they are orders of magnitude less popular than these simple Zynga games.

If you go deeper, you go niche.

BTW it's similar for game themes (independently of game mechanics) - <USER2> mainstream you go, more potential players you can get.

Just check Facebook games charts. They are dominated by down-to-earth topics - farms, restaurants, aquariums, pets, etc.

<comment><USER5> The whole point of the article is that they can get away with simple games and common themes because of Facebook's insane growth. Facebook games are the first games a lot of people have ever played on the web. Once this first wave of new players is on, they will become more demanding and savvy about what games they play, and these "veteran" game players are more choosy in playing and recommending games.

<comment><USER4> Yeah, but that's wrong assumption. This is no one-way street.

I'm counter-example myself. I actually reverted from being hardcore game player to playing mostly simple web games.

And I sure know others which went this way - from AAA titles to Zynga.

Here I said it. Most "real" gamers would be probably too ashamed to admit it :).

And about growth - I'm not sure what is the cause and what is the effect. In non US regions games themselves could actually be the driving mechanism for Facebook growth:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=989607>

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I had a conversation with my 6-year-old cousin where she talked passionately about how much she loved club-penguin. She spoke in detail about all the fun times she'd had, that bits of the santa-costume she'd been trying to find & how all her friends were in one igloo together at one point. She even told me about how she had to go on regularly to keep her pets alive (a very clever trick built-in by the game-designers no-doubt).

Listening to her rant on about it made me realise just how engaging these social games are for younger players. It made me see Disney's acquisition of Club Penguin ([http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/08/01/disney-acquires-club- pe...](http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/08/01/disney-acquires-club-penguin/)) in an entirely new light.

</comment><comment><USER5> This article is excellent - anyone interested in social gaming should take 20 minutes to read it. It'll get you totally up to speed on where the industry stands on the eve of 2010.

However, anyone who thinks that Zynga doesn't know all of this is kidding themselves. They saw a temporary situation (novelty of gaming on a hugely growing platform) and attacked it with everything they had. The road will be a lot harder for them in the future, but because of what they did in 2009, they go in with hundreds of millions of users, a strong brand, cheap cost of capital (because they're hot), a ton of cash, and they're probably the only Facebook developer with anything close to leverage on Facebook. They're one of the most aggressive companies out there and they have given no reason to underestimate them.

</comment><comment><USER7> Having played a few web based games in the past (although thankfully nothing from Zynga) I can attest that the analysis is spot on; for the first few weeks the novelty keeps you there, but after that it becomes dull and you go back to real games.

Also after you've gone through a few of them you seem to get inoculated to the genre.

</comment><comment><USER8> This article probably takes too many words to make its point, but the analysis is spot-on. Of course that may just be wishful thinking on my part. If Zynga games are anything more than an unsustainable fad then I fear for humanity's future.</comment>


Universe Splitter - <AUTHOR> http://cheapuniverses.com/universesplitter/ <comment><USER2> You'd think he could have split off a universe with an Android version.

</comment><comment><USER3> why would one be interested in sharing doubts with other peoples computers? just deliver random bits and let the user map it to decisions himself.

while this may be innocent, the potential of abuse and manipulation is too big.

I wonder what the statistics for:

uninstall universe splitter vs keep universe splitter

will look like...</comment>


Show HN: Clojure in the Open – simple tasks from open-source projects - <AUTHOR> http://www.longstorm.org/weekly/cito/1/ <comment><USER2> This is a really cool idea, and I like the newsletter layout. My only critique is that it's not immediately clear what the site is for, and the paragraph that spells it out (top-left), is not in a position that I would tend to read first (I went logo then skim "Art of the Propogator" quote). It may be worth considering giving that paragraph a more prominent place, at least for the first few editions (or maybe just the web version, since presumably people know why they gave you their email address).

<comment><USER3> Seconded: I just fell into the same UX faster than I could even think. Much agreed about the masthead space -- I was visually expecting that paragraph to introduce the site.

This really looks like something I'll include in my regular Clojure reading!

<comment><AUTHOR> That's great feedback from both of you, I'm changing that up though it's tricky due to all the media queries and the columns matching up in size, but I'm almost done with this and other improvements. Thanks!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Maybe it's just me, but I find the site difficult to view due to the light contrast.

<comment><USER5> Run this in your console:

      $('.navigation').css('background', '#222');

<comment><USER6> Thanks! If it wasn't for this I would have given up on this site for being unreadable.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This is a fantastic idea, I really like it.

Any chance I could subscribe through RSS instead of e-mail?

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for reminding of RSS, I'll include it soon enough.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Thanks for sharing - I wonder if there are sites like this for other languages?

</comment><comment><USER9> Looks good. I'm a content over style guy so I didn't mind palest of pink on white background.

I signed up. I see you mailchimp, just like def newsletter.

Compare and contrast with Normand's weekly "clojure gazette" or "def newsletter" which have very similar at first glance biz models. I think I know the difference, but you should probably talk about it on your site.

</comment><comment><USER10> Very cool! Now we have a great way of answering that all too common question on the Clojure group, "how do I find a project to contribute to?"

</comment><comment><USER11> This is great. I'd like a lower contrast version though. I have a bit of trouble reading it.</comment>


The $6T Barrier Holding Electric Cars Back - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-11-04/electric-cars-face-a-6-trillion-barrier-to-widespread-adoption <comment><USER2> I look forward to no longer having to deal with the absurd complexity of the internal combustion engine: pistons, cylinders, crankshafts, distributors, oil pumps, water pumps, radiators, valves, belts, mufflers... The fact that this finally works semi-reliably is a testament to the genius of the engineers and managers of the automobile industry.

Remember that wherever there is a gasoline pump, there is electricity, and the possibility of a charging station.

One day the internal combustion vehicle will be seen as quaint as a horse defecating in the street.

<comment><USER3> > I look forward to no longer having to deal with the absurd complexity of the > internal combustion engine: pistons, cylinders, crankshafts, distributors, > oil pumps, water pumps, radiators, valves, belts, mufflers...

I'm looking forward to pervasive electric cars as well, but really how much of this 'absurd complexity' do you need to deal with in a conventional car? And how exactly do you have to 'deal with' it? You get a mechanic to look at for a couple of hours once a year and that's it.

You could dramatically list all the complex components in an electric vehicle - down to the microscopic integrated circuits - as well and say that they all need to be 'dealt with' because it's serviced once a year.

<comment><USER4> The manufacturer recommended maintenance schedule for our EV consists of rotating tires, checking braking fluid and changing salon air filter.

<comment><USER3> Right so that isn't much less than a conventional car? My Land Rover has one three-hour service once a year. Is an EV done in one hour? Doesn't seem like a huge difference.

<comment><USER4> No, this is a lot less work than conventional car would see for the same 7 years. Basically there's no need to get to dealership service.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> It would be nice to have a comparison cost for the cost of gasoline infrastructure globally.

Also, $6Tr seems on the high side to me. That's the same as 150 million $40,000 electric cars. Is the infrastructure really that expensive?

</comment><comment><USER6> I don't really understand why figures like this matter, if people are willing to pay for the electricity at a profitable rate, then the grid infrastructure to meet that demand can be built. There must be very high global costs in maintaining the existing grid, but we don't get breathless articles saying "global grid must find $x trillion or else blackouts will occur within 5 years". If there was a sudden spike in demand there would be a sudden availability of private capital willing to meet that demand, the barrier should that occur would be equipment, materials and skill related, but I doubt it would be held back by access to capital.

Also, it doesn't make sense to talk about "affordable electric cars" as a monolith. Electric cars are already cheaper than the alternatives for some people when you calculate Total Cost of Ownership, it depends on your requirements and use case. That will become mainstream step by step in different sections of the market.

<comment><USER7> The assumption you used helps to answer your question.

"at a profitable rate"

So this assumes that the chicken-and-egg electric car/infrastructure can evolve together profitably while reaching critical mass. (To be sure, I believe they can, but it will take either government or brave investors to get there.) So the question really is "can $6T be divided up into the cost of whoever is paying for it, i.e. electricity users to maintain profitability as it is built?"

If you assume the answer is yes, there is no question!

(As for the "maintaining the grid", yes, obviously we are already maintaining it profitably. No need to build critical mass/adoption or initial infrastructure investment, so no interesting stories to write!)

<comment><USER6> Yes, you're right that is the important assumption which needs to be proven or disproven, all I'm saying is that the $6T is immaterial, if the investment can be done profitably it can happen very quickly, if it can't then it won't.

Also worth saying that how many years in the history of the electricity grid has demand not been growing? That may not be the normal state recently, but it has been for the majority of the history of the industry.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Flagged comment is correct. Gas cars are still superior for actual normal use. The issue is, as long as electric are priced above or similar to conventional cars, is and will continue to be, superior demand. Electrics are for the well to do only still in most areas. I say that as someone who would love an ecar, but find them both unaffordable, and mildly unsuitable for the driving I do regularly. But this is not a shiny metro-dwelling sentiment, so I suspect this comment, dispite being useful and relevant, will end up the same.

A plea: There are people outside cities. Lots of them. Stop pretending we don't exist, and calling us rednecks/flyover/etc. Its become a staple of HN and getting worse. It makes me sick to read the comments sometimes. We grow your food, build your infrastructure, but get no empathy when we have no internet access. Its bigotry plain and simple, and rampant here. Usually stated in cowardly downvotes rather than reasoned debate to perserve image. I fully think you should be required to respond, or upvote a response, before downvoting. It would surface the real bias entrenched here.

<comment><USER9> >The issue is, as long as electric are priced above or similar to conventional cars, is and will continue to be, superior demand.

Tesla's sales prove you wrong: people are already replacing their current ICEs with higher-priced EV, although on a /km basis, the Model 3 is already cheaper than an equivalent ICE (e.g the BMW Series 3). We just need Tesla to ramp up its production and introduce economy models, and the other manufacturers to try to compete.

I am _not_ saying that you can buy a low-cost EV for your needs/budget, but that your first 3 assertions are plainly false.

<comment><USER10> What about comparing to something that isn't a status symbol? Personally, I paid 6k for my car and according to my bank statements seem to be spending 1.7k yearly on fuel and maintenance. I would love to drive an EV, as the distances I drive are small, but Nissan Leaf is way too small for my family and a Tesla 3 would mean I'm paying a bit too much for that warm fuzzy feeling. Is there another choice?

<comment><USER6> > I would love to drive an EV, as the distances I drive are small, but Nissan > Leaf is way too small for my family and a Tesla 3 would mean I'm paying a > bit too much for that warm fuzzy feeling. Is there another choice?

Something like a Mitsubishi Outlander? You'd need to run the calculations, but $17k over the course of a decade in fuel and maintenance costs leaves a lost of leeway.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> It's always going to take a few years.

The global fleet is about 2 billion passenger and commercial vehicles, and the global yearly production is about 100 million. So even if all new cars sold from now are electric, it will take 20 years.

But who knows what kind of autonomous vehicles and other innovations we'll have in 20 years. Buckle up :)

<comment><USER9> A change like the transition to EV won't be linear. As more ICEs get replaced by EVs, people and businesses will realize that it doesn't make sens to sustain an aging ICE infrastructure for a shrinking fleet of old, toxic cars. Dense cities will gradually ban them, gas stations and car dealerships will close, banks will stop financing ICE leases (and more important, they will stop financing the entire fossil fuel industry), etc.

As the resale value of ICEs will plummet and their cost of ownership/operation will increase, a vicious circle will accelerate to quickly make them a liability.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> There is no $6T barrier, the infrastructure already exists. TLDR: This article focuses more on the cost of electric cars (which is valid but not really relevant) with a passing mention on infrastructure.

Bloomberg provides no clear backup on the math ("according to Goldman") but I'm guessing they are pricing a scenario where all electric cars are completely drained and charging to full all at once. Practical usage is more like a trickle charge every night. A step further, electric utilities are thrilled to get to supply this energy to you, and there will be a cat and mouse game as car charging software works to avoid peak electric surge pricing. Electric utility remains the winner, since they can heavily incentivize time-shifted charging (i.e. dont start charging until 1 am, get half price kws!), and they can run their traditional plants more efficiently or even issue firesale pricing notices for sudden oversupply from renewables.

There is no barrier, there is modest opportunity, and the implication of the barrier is "i'm not buying a car because the national grad can't support me!" In the same breath, the article discusses how electric autos are selling like hot cakes.

<comment><USER7> I have no comment on whether the _grid_ can support the electricity demand. The _charging network_ is the bigger picture item. Basically, locations where you can charge your car have to become as ubiquitous as gas stations, or, more likely, more ubiquitous because you want to rely on dormant vehicle periods to charge to avoid humans standing around waiting.

It's very easy to picture this in a modern metro area which probably already has a well-planned (and mostly Tesla) charger network. But just the U.S. alone has 2.3 billion acres of land to cover with chargers at homes, businesses, parking garages, apartments and dedicated charging points. It's not trivial, and it absolutely does not yet exist.

(But I believe it's a surmountable business/engineering challenge, if not an expensive one.)

<comment><USER12> Charging endpoints just seems like a very simple solution. Charges don't need to be ubiquitous for Tesla to sell another 10,000 electric cars this month. Tesla is clearly supply constrained. That's my beef with the article or really the headline, sales are off the charts.There are certainly complicated scenarios, like the urban apartment dwellers out there, and they may have to be among the last to adopt, and that's a 'barrier' several orders of magnitude smaller than $6T. the 100+ million housing units in the US alone can rapidly adopt electric cars in a distributed manner. A surge in gas pricing could flip that switch too. I've argued elsewhere on HN that gas stations, commercial garages, and retailers, and employers are in position add some circuits. It MAY be a $6B problem sprinkling 1,000,000 connections across the country at a generous $6,000ea, but it isn't a $6T problem.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> "Wouldn't it be great if we could all drive without dirtying the air we breathe? Alas, not everyone can afford an electric car."

These claims always bother me. Besides the obvious pollution from the generation of electricity required to run the car (in places where clean energy isn't available), there are also the issues of energy required to manufacture the car, energy required to replace battery packs after several years, energy required to recycle the car at end of life, etc. Driving without dirtying the air is really hard to achieve if you think about the whole chain of events that goes into that. Far better to live and work within easy travelling distance if you want to have less of a negative impact on the environment.

<comment><USER14> This issue is very complicated.

Your average make-tiny-explosions-in-a-chamber based vehicle can give you about 250,000 to 1 million km (150k-625k miles). Then it's just done. The parts are worn down. It's given its all.

Your average move-power-from-batteries-to-engines based vehcile can EASILY keep on going for 10 million km or more. Yes, even the battery pack can get there, though it would indeed be by far the first thing that will fail. It is far cheaper to replace that, than to replace an entire combustion engine.

Given that, you could draw the conclusion that the energy required to make the chair, the radio, the dashboard, etc – can be divided by at least 10, probably more.

But your average person does not ride more than ~250000 KM in a decade, and for sheer matters of safety engineering, style, conveniences like supporting modern electronics – most people consider a 10 year old car pretty old, and a 20 year old one ancient, and want to replace it simply because it is old. Which, for combustion cars, is not a big deal: It's pretty worn down by then.

But for EVs? That's a real problem. A 20 year old EV with 250k on the odometer is a damn shame. Nobody wants it anymore but all the parts still work.

Solve this problem and EVs are _INCREDIBLY_ better for the environment.

I guess self-driving cars helps; you can share a car and just order it to drive to your front door. But to make that a success, you need to do something about the 9-to-5 culture; people need to go to work, say, anywhere between 7am to 1pm, work 6 to 8 hours, and return home, and any job that needs full staffing the entire time people are at the office needs 2 shifts. That's a huge social upheaval (but it also gets rid of traffic jams, creates jobs, and probably boosts the economy because it is easier to do stuff because things are still open).

At which point we're in 'change the world, man!' hippie territory.

But one can dream, I guess.

<comment><USER15> If they become like taxis, and a taxi company owns a fleet of cars, then we could see similarities to how trains are engineered: an expected life of several decades, with refurbishment of the interior if it starts to look worn and dated. Replacement will only be when key parts like the chassis are worn, or no longer meets modern requirements (step-free access for a train, perhaps crash-worthiness for a car).

In some countries, buses probably already follow this pattern, but in richer countries improving emissions standards obsolete the old ones.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Is it worth taking a 25% paycut to join a startup? - <AUTHOR> I am working in a pretty comfortable job working on a COBOL based software. The one thing that bothered me all these years is my lack of exposure to all the newer technologies.
I started interviewing and I have got an offer from a startup. But the offer is almost 25% less. They say they will add 20% of the salary in stock vesting over some time.
The advantage is that I will be get exposure to all the new technologies.
Is it worth it? Thanks! <comment><USER4> Do you have a family to support? Can you handle a cut in pay like this for a long time? What happens if the startup misses a paycheck or two?

Do you need solid healthcare and/or other benefits? Because you're probably not going to get that.

Do you enjoy wearing multiple hats - simultaneously?

 _The advantage is that I will be get exposure to all the new technologies._

That's the one plus. And that's about it. Unless it's something you can learn at home in your free time.

 _They say they will add 20% of the salary in stock vesting over some time._

Take some of the cash salary and buy lottery tickets. It's worth about the same "over time".

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the msg. Yes, I do have a family, home loan etc to pay for every month. So, it will be tough if they miss a salary. I will have to dig into my savings. They don't have any bonus or other benefits. And i need to travel more for this.

I think I can wear multiple hats. That should not be an issue.

hmm... i will have to think more on this.

The fact is I am not happy with my current job.

<comment><USER5> So, stay in your current job, set aside the 25% of your income you'd be losing by going to this startup, build up your savings, and find a company willing to hire you at or above your current salary.

Don't subsidize a startup by taking a pay cut, and especially don't do it by digging into your savings, unless you're going to be one of the founders and get a larger equity grant to begin with.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> No. Startups aren't worth it if you're not running it.

As far as newer techs go, well, how many have COBOL already outlived? It'll outlive a lot of them yet.

HN is a great place for FOMO, but reality is often different. In my country 90% of everything is run on JAVA, C# or PHP. Front ends are typically something a little more modern like angular or react, but you won't get a front end job if you can't also do C#, JAVA or PHP.

If all these new techs really mattered, you wouldn't still be working on COBOL after all. And you can always play around with them on your free time.

I mean WASM is a fun example, if it picks up, then everyone who's spent the past decade ignoring JS won't have missed out of anything, because they can just build their web app with WASM.

If you want to try something different, that's another story, but don't take a pay cut that you don't have to because if FOMO.

</comment><comment><USER7> I'd need the startup to pay me 25% MORE than the comfortable job to even consider it. Startups can be pretty demanding and stressful.

</comment><comment><USER8> I'm 18 yrs experienced, tech role (C++, semi-conductors).

I landed a job in a reputed tier1 semi-vendor out of college. I worked there for about 8 years. Work was (technically) fantastic, pay was very good. But I had scratch the itch..

Left the company to join a startup (at that time, 2 yrs in operation). Took 50% paycut, but my wife stopped working at the same time, so effectively 75% paycut. My plan was to work for approx 3 yrs and see what I'd like to do next. Nearly 10 yrs down, I'm still here. My pay is still about 60% of what I'll get if I quit today and join elsewhere (I'm reasonably confident of that statement). My cumulative loss in monies over 10 years, taking into account growth due to investment as well, comes to nearly 7 times my annual salary.

So yes - not a financially wise decision. In retrospect (even though I didn't think of it that way earlier), it is a very selfish decision - missed family vacations, higher financial stress, budget stays, ... all to scratch the itch.

I have mentally written off the amount. I'll never get it back.

I'm still here due to few reasons: a. My salary even though much lower than what I can get, is still "sufficient" for most purposes b. I get to jump into very interesting problems - work on topics I wouldn't have been able to, had I been in a regular corporate environment. c. I have stocks - which potentially can give me back a good return if and when we exit. d. I still believe in the story we are selling. e. I add significant value to the company. My leaving the company will effectively devalue my own stocks. f. I have lots of work- life flexibility.

I'm not going to advice you - it is your decision. But, a. It is very likely that you will never recover that 25% of salary loss b. Your stocks may make it harder to jump ship later. And it is no better than monopoly currency - <USER2> the startup exits. Which may take forever - and may never happen (don't listen to what they say). c. You will likely face a much more challenging work environment - including activities that are not core development. Your time with Excel spreadsheets and Powerpoint may increase. I don't mean that as a bad thing!

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you very much for the detailed advice and sharing your personal experience. Really appreciate it.

I am in my late 30s. So, I think it is probably not worth it considering all the uncertainties.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> A recruiter friend who normally works with startups have always advised me to treat stock options as a bonus and never a true consideration.

As an entrepreneur who's looking to build a team, I completely understand that they will try to sell you on their vision and all the benefits and wonderful things you get for being part of a startup. But you'll have to ask yourself if you feel that the vision is something you believe in as well? What stage is the startup at the moment? What's the founders' exit strategy? What is their philosophy on engineering/corporate culture?

<comment><AUTHOR> The startup is around for more than 7 years. Less than 15 people in the team. They got some funding recently and another partnership. Hence they are trying to grow their team.

The domain has some overlap with what I do. So, they will definitely gain from that from me. I think the Founders' exit strategy is to get acquired by some other big player.

They have been growing their product slowly as and when they get feature requests from their clients.

<comment><USER9> I would be slightly wary about the leadership if they have been around for 7 years with less than 15 people and thinking of being acquired.

Acquisitions usually happen because of tech, customers, or talent. Are there any assets within the company that you feel would be worth acquiring? If this event doesn't happen, your stock options are virtually worthless. Equally important is checking the price they are offering to you for the options - <USER3> strike price was set so high at a previous company that the options were just worthless because we were never going to sell for that high.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Sounds like more established tech companies might be a better fit for you at this time.

\- They can afford the time while you ramp up on new technologies, frameworks etc. A typical startup would expect you to be productive in month 1 (if not Day/Week 1)

\- Their interview process would look for fundamental data structures, algorithms, problem solving etc. Very little emphasis on specific programming languages and such. This would play to your advantage.

\- Better pay (in terms of cash) & more job stability. I read somewhere that you have family, home loan etc so this could be important.

After a few years at a established tech company setup, you might be in a better position to 1) negotiate a better salary at a startup of your choice and 2) be able to contribute to the startup more quickly.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you very much for the solid advice.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> A big issue with startups today is that it takes longer and longer to get any kind of liquidity (5 years is very quick these days).

So, in the small chance your startup works out, you only get that equity pay day after half a decade at best.

Is the experience worth the risk and opportunity cost? Depends on your situation

</comment><comment><USER12> If your goal is to use new technologies, sure. Personally, I would probably never take a new job with a paycut. Also, are you aware that the COBOL market is so hot right now that companies are paying alot of money to bring devs out of retirement? Perhaps you should be looking at those opportunities. Save enough money and you can work on whatever technology you like at your leisure.

[https://thenextweb.com/finance/2017/04/10/ancient- programmin...](https://thenextweb.com/finance/2017/04/10/ancient-programming- language-cobol-can-make-you-bank-literally/)

</comment><comment><USER13> Take that 25% invest it in the market, you will probably get a better return.

</comment><comment><USER14> If you can handle the cut, then yes. It's awesome to work in a startup. You can learn so many things, more than just your work area. The colleagues are more like a family and you will do more things together. You have also times where you need to work more but you can be more creative and you are able to offer more ideas which can help the startup flourish.

</comment><comment><USER15> A few years ago I made a similar choice to work for a startup. It didn't work out; I learned that it's probably not worth it unless for me unless I know and am comfortable with the founders, as well as believe in the mission. Less than that brings a lot of uncertainty, compared to a stable high salary I might otherwise earn.

</comment><comment> a-saleh Well, I would compare the market-rate first. I.e. if you are one of those legendary cobol-cowboys, used to several thousands dollars a man-day, it is likely that the market-rate for i.e. backend dev in most other technology stacks will be lower. At least look at glassdoor?

If the pay seems under the market-rate, negotiate or let it be.

</comment><comment><USER16> No. There is a 99.999% chance the startup will fail => your stock will be worth nothing. And they probably expect you to work 80+ hours => your actual hour rate will be even less than what you are making now (assuming you are currently working standard 40 hours).

</comment><comment><USER17> I think you are taking a big risk with little chance for reward.

That being said, you could use the startup to really learn some new skills then transfer back to a comfortable job where those skills are needed.

</comment><comment><USER18> Only if you want to gain experience wearing many hats. (source: I took 40% paycut to work at startup for a year)

</comment><comment><USER19> Is it 25% less because they are a startup, or 25% less because you're no longer using your expertise in COBOL?

<comment><AUTHOR> It is 25% less because i will no longer use my COBOL experience but will start working on node js, python etc. I will contribute with my domain knowledge. so it is a win-win.

May be they have a budget!

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> No.

<comment><USER5> Let's say you make 100000 today. They're offering you 75000 plus 15000 (20% of 75000) in equity which is likely vested over four years with a one year cliff.

So, you stay four years. You've earned 300000 and now have 15000 in equity. Yes, they may well offer you more equity over time, but you don't know that today. You've foregone 100000 in income (or more), and the 15000 in equity is, in the best case scenario, worth much more on secondary markets, but only if there is a buyer. In the worst case scenario, the company shuts down some time over the next four years and you are now unemployed, out the equity they granted, and the income you've lost.

There are better ways to learn new technologies than subsidizing a company with your talents.

<comment><USER4> I'm kind of puzzled by this offer. Are they offering him $15,000 in shares based on the valuation that day? That year? When?

And wouldn't it all just get diluted to hell in the years after that?

The whole thing reeks of bullshit.

<comment><USER5> I'm guessing 100% here that it's the number of options or RSUs roughly equal to 15% of the salary. Even if it was 20% of the current salary it isn't a good deal.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Apple's new $99 iPhone battery case doesn't measure up - <AUTHOR> http://www.theverge.com/2015/12/8/9867996/apple-smart-battery-case-iphone-6-6s-hands-on <comment><USER2> > The goal is to give iPhone 6 and 6S owners an Apple-branded battery life > experience comparable to the one you'd get with the "Plus" phone models. > That's a nice proposition. On the other hand, it's an admission on Apple's > part that the battery performance on iPhone 6 or 6S is a pain point for > power users.

Limit the battery size so people have to buy an external battery pack, reduce the connectors so people have to buy adaptors; so apple can make more money, and the cost of ownership goes up for "optional" add ons.

That they would create a separate device, instead of reverse course on battery sizes in the devices themselves, is a brazen admission that their design is flawed. And it doesn't even get the device to 100%!! So even their solution to the original design flaw is flawed. amazing.

Design is all about tradeoffs, and if apple never made any tradeoffs on their laptops they would still be an inch thick and weigh 10 pounds. But on the other side, there is profit driven design where additional revenue generators are invented surrounding a device, either through new technology (good) or the removal or hinderance of existing functionality (bad). I think apple started off with the former, but has transitioned to the latter, and it's by and large whats turned me from lifelong apple fanboy into a jaded user.

</comment><comment><USER3> It however does meet the requirement I have which is a lightning port which means I'll probably buy it bump and all. Being able to see the juice left from IOS is also an excellent feature.</comment>


Artists install massive poster of child's face to shame drone operators - <AUTHOR> http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/04/06/artists-install-massive-poster-of-childs-face-in-pakistan-field-to-shame-drone-operators/ <comment><USER2> While the idea of the poster is great for drawing attention to an issue that still needs to be debated within the US, at the same time saying they are trying to 'shame drone operators' points this story in the wrong direction. Operators are just doing a job and at a terrible cost ([http://www.gq.com/news-politics/big-issues/201311/drone- uav-...](http://www.gq.com/news-politics/big-issues/201311/drone-uav-pilot- assassination?currentPage=4))

This should be aimed at politicians and talking heads. As long as the US leaders want to (or are allowed to) continue with drone strikes, they will find operators. Target the person who wrote the message, not the messenger.</comment>


Ask HN: Help Me Identify the Name of This Stock Betting Platform Startup - dolev--yao Could anyone help me find the name for this startup? I bumped into them online and now cannot find them to save my life. I seemed to remember they were part of one of the recent 500 startup batches, but upon checking their portfolio I did not find them.
They offer a platform on which two users are matched to bet on the price direction of any given stock.
For example, two users with opposite views of Tesla are matched. User A bets 10$ Tesla stock will go up within a week's time, user B bets 10$ the stock will go down by then. After a week, user B wins the bet and collects the 10$ from user A (minus a fee for the platform).
Any help would be greatly appreciated! <comment><AUTHOR> Is this it? Saw them on BetaList a couple weeks ago:

[https://www.stocklist.co/](https://www.stocklist.co/)

<comment> dolev--yao That's it, thank you!</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Do you let your politics guide your business decisions? - <AUTHOR> Right now I have a rather lucrative opportunity with a start-up that is associated with Peter Thiel.  As a man of good conscience, I cannot do business with  him, because of his support of Donald Trump, his bullying of Valleywag, and for Palantir technologies. I've just decided to send them a rejection letter, with a reason why. I feel the same way about Ycombinator now, and would not do business with any YC start-ups (and I have worked for 3 so far), if avoidable, because of his association.<p>I'm curious, how many of you would do the same, whatever your political opinions? I'm turning down a salary that is 50% more than I have ever made, with no regrets, but a curiosity how many people would put personal convictions ahead of personal gain? <comment><USER2> IMHO you are being _too_ idealistic. To illustrate, I would definitely not allow any malpractice/bigotry/corruption to directly benefit me. But if I _need_ to do business with guys who have done malpractice/bigotry/corruption in some other context. I will try that it doesn't bother me. Also because decisions taken very idealistically come to haunt us later in life.

I believe Peter Thiel or his associates have given you this opportunity for your skills, which you worked at for years. Why should you waste it, if that opprtunity is good? Of course you may not participate in other aspects of their life and quit later on if needed.

Similarly the opinion on YC, because Thiel is associated, is even more far fetched. This is border line extreme idealism. Not healthy & not sustainable, and may leave us with regrets later on.

</comment><comment><USER3> How _privileged_ are you to be able to turn down a job? Oh, it's just a different job for more money. I guess you're not that privileged.</comment>


Ask HN: Overwhelmed between day job and side projects; what would you do? - <AUTHOR>

I'm reaching a point where I am feeling pretty overwhelmed out between my day job, and a few side projects I've got going. I founded Forrst last January, and it's now me plus two full time guys, with a third on the way. We're raising some money and doing pretty well in terms of growth. Starting to look at the business side a bit, but only casually; the community is still pretty new and wouldn't benefit from us trying to turn the revenue knob up to 11 quite yet. I also built Streak.ly and Facto.me as experiments, in September 2010 and January 2011 respectively. The former has something like 4k users, with about 500 using it regularly, and the latter somehow managed to grow to 5,600 users, 30k facts, and 500k pageviews in 19 days. Both were intended to be fun distractions from Forrst, and both ended up getting a tiny bit of traction (Facto even ended up in some CNN article). Finally, I have youshouldworkwith.me going on the side, which has been pretty fun thus far, and a nice bit of extra income; it's pretty low impact (I'll do a few hours a week). Anyhow, fundraising is intense, and I'm generally feeling pretty overwhelmed with the side projects, specifically support and wasted potential. I didn't really plan for either Streak.ly or Facto to actually go anywhere, but now I'm sitting on a ton of support requests and feel guilty as hell for not putting any time into either, as I think both could be successful in one way or another. I thought about trying to sell both side projects, and would be open to offers there, but moreover am just looking for some insight (or a good kick in the ass) about what could be done about it all, aside from the perhaps obvious "don't start any more side projects" bit. I figured this situation is likely nothing new to the HN community, and would be glad to hear anything you've got. <comment><USER2> Offering a well intentioned "good kick in the ass" on HN is fraught with quite a few risks but I believe it is the most helpful thing I can give to you.

Try to take a step back and look at your situation differently -- If you boil it down, you are essentially complaining about gaining traction.

Countless entrepreneurs would _love_ to have your problem. Even in your 'fun' projects you have shown a real knack for delivering something desirable and useful enough to gain traction.

The traction _results_ in an increased support workload. On the technical side, the traction _results_ in an increased server workload. Since you are not profiting from the traction, you are unable to scale.

You get the same amount of time in each day as everyone else, so if you don't plan to scale, the time you have will become impacted with things you would rather avoid.

Selling off your side projects is an answer but it is not the optimal answer. A better answer is two fold; (1) find a way to profit from the traction, and (2) use those funds to hire someone to take care of some of the added workload.

Every successful entrepreneur learns to manage the constant cycle of acquiring new responsibilities and then delegating those new responsibilities to others. Since you can only fit so much food on your plate, the answer is to keep adding people holding empty plates.

</comment><comment><USER3> It sounds like all your side projects have the potential to grow into full- fledged startups. Maybe you should try to get some of your friends (who are as passionate about the projects as you) interested in joining as co-founders. Share the load.

Also, if the side-projects are generating profit, then use that to hire people (for support, etc.)

And lastly and perhaps most importantly, send me an invite to Forrst!

</comment><comment><USER4> What's the old quote? _"No one can serve two masters?"_ I think you need to find a way to divest yourself of some of your "stuff." If Forrst is your main business, I'd suggest finding a way to get out of working on the others and focus on Forrst. Selling is an option, or maybe take on some new partners and just step back to a low-demand advisory role, but it really seems like you need to lighten your load. Not only is it probably better from a business perspective, but you also don't want to burn yourself out or lose your sanity.

But the first, absolutely first, "action item" is "Send mindcrime an invite to Forrst." Do this and all else shall become clear. ;-)

</comment><comment><USER5> Gotta know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em.

Its nice that you have side projects that are growing and doing well, but realistically, you have to look at the hard reality that they'll probably fade in time. You gotta stick with your main bread winner, and that looks like Forrst.

</comment><comment><USER6> If someone was holding a gun to your head and asked you what you want to do before he kills you, what project would you choose?</comment>


$15 Pine A64 is trying to be a faster, 64-bit Raspberry Pi - <AUTHOR> http://www.geek.com/chips/15-pine-a64-is-trying-to-be-a-faster-64-bit-raspberry-pi-1641789/ <comment><USER2> The problem, as always, lies in the fact this is powered by an AllWinner SoC. They are not famous for respecting the licenses of the software they use, namely the Linux kernel, and things like graphic acceleration are usually hard to get working (and I'm not talking about working without blobs, I mean they are hard to get to work at all).

IMO this is the major downside to Raspberry Pi alternatives like the Orange Pi and this. The Raspberry Pi is more expensive, but at least there's more documentation available, an effort to merge kernel stuff upstream, and there are even people working in getting proper, blob-free Mesa drivers working: [https://wiki.freedesktop.org/dri/VC4/](https://wiki.freedesktop.org/dri/VC4/)

With that said, it's nice to see cheap ARM64 development platforms becoming available, even if they aren't as open/supported as they should be.

<comment><USER3> I agree. These companies keep trying to compete on price, but thats not the #1 differentiator. Rapsberry Pi is so successful because of the community support and therefore ease of use. I would be more convinced by a new board if they supplied extensive documentation and had a bunch of project guides ready to go.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This is allwinner, notorious GPL offender. NO drivers for GPU, NO drivers for hardware video acceleration.

In case you are wondering how serious are they(pine) about software support here is a hint:

[https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/linux- sunxi/Ze_UhiO0...](https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/linux- sunxi/Ze_UhiO00t8)

[http://forum.armbian.com/index.php/topic/491-need-help-on- pi...](http://forum.armbian.com/index.php/topic/491-need-help-on- pine-a64-15-64bit-quad-core-12ghz-single-board-computer/)

TLDR: they plan to maybe send TWO boards to developers...

<comment><USER5> Argh. Thanks for that - you've saved me quite a bit of cash. If only I'd read a post like that before backing the Almond and the UDOO.

A reasonable amount of my network at home is run by an aging and ailing Dreamplug - ARMv5 and remarkably sturdy. I'm still looking for a viable replacement. I was hoping to jump to a Pogoplug (same SoC, but USB3) but I (soft-)bricked it upgrading uBoot.

The now-worthless Australian dollar makes most of these things much more expensive, but it really looks like my choices are expensive industrial boards with nebulous support arrangements or giving up on ARM entirely.

<comment><USER6> What's wrong with the Almond? Mine works fine.

<comment><USER5> Works fine, company doesn't care about FOSS, relationship with the ODM, Cortina Systems is unknown. It was running kernel 2.6 when I got rid of it last year.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> > 512MB of RAM

Well, ok, but unless I'm going to do some ridiculous amount of paging, I can't really take advantage of the 64-bit much. And in the meantime my 64-bit executables will suffer from larger pointers.

The stuff that arm does well (IMO) is stuff that uses Python and other high- level languages. Those tend to port with little to no effort. Yet they use a ton of indirection so the size of those pointers really matters for memory consumption.

$15 for an ARM board still seems like decent value, though.

<comment><USER8> Does ARM Linux offer a 64 bit mode with 32 bit pointers?

On x86-64, Linux supports a 'x32' mode which gives all of the advantages of the 64 bit ISA, but with a 32 bit memory model, meaning that programs using lots of pointers will take up far less memory (but still get to use the extra registers & instructions), leading to faster code. You can run x32 binaries inside a 64 bit kernel (ubuntu offers several packages, for example)

OTOH I don't know if the ARM64 ISA offers many other improvements to make a similar 32-in-64 kind of mode worthwhile.

<comment><USER9> These 64 bit Allwinner SOCs only have a 32 bit* memory bus anyway (presumably to reduce board cost), so an x32 mode could double performance for pointer- heavy code.

* Anyone remember the 8088?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> While I like affordable things and development boards in particular, hardware price isn't that much of an issue anymore. Most people, especially programmers, are going to spend more in terms of labour cost even just getting this up and running. Actually doing something exciting takes from a fair to a huge amount of time, which you most likely won't be able to recuperate. At least not directly. Until someone has a next level value proposition that enables more things, I would suggest sticking to the boards you're already not using.

</comment><comment><USER3> Yet another product I would buy from a store in a heartbeat, but instantly dismiss because of kickstarter. Granted, this one looks professional and it appears they've already set up manufacturing, but that really doesn't sway my opinion.

</comment><comment><USER11> It's still vaporware now, unlike alternatives. What's the fascination about 64-bit architecture anyway, apart from it being a bigger (=> better) number?

<comment><USER12> AArch64 is a dramatically nicer instruction set than AArch32.

<comment><USER13> Is it actually? You loose almost all the conditional execution, lots of the interesting shifted addressing (I think Aarch64 allows shifts up to 3 only). You get more registers. Oh and no 16-bit instruction mode anymore.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Another cheap rPi alternative that doesn't solve any new problems. What I'd like to see is one of these with a few SATA ports and ECC memory. Then you'd have a viable low-cost, low-power server, in a market that is sorely lacking those things considering the closest alternative is one of the newer Intel Atom boards that costs upwards of $250.

</comment><comment><USER15> You don't select a Raspberry Pi for it's speed. This is like advertising a bigger Mini.

<comment><USER16> Mini did that, they called it a Countryman [1][2], to massive success [3]

[1] [http://www.miniusa.com/content/miniusa/en/model/countryman.h...](http://www.miniusa.com/content/miniusa/en/model/countryman.html) [2] [http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014240527487046155045761728...](http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704615504576172832123217962) [3] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mini_Countryman#Reception](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mini_Countryman#Reception)

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> 2G of RAM and 1Gbit ethernet, decent display, reasonable CPU's. The missing piece is the lack of SATA.

I get it that most of these boards are just phone processors, but having wired ethernet and a decent storage mechanism allow them to be used as speedy little NAS's, video servers, desktop machines, whatever.

USB2 storage is pretty much stuck at ~30MB/sec, around the same max that is possible with SD. Its probably faster to run the storage over the gbit ethernet port.</comment>


Finally  Instant Boot-Up on Windows Machines - <AUTHOR> http://www.technologyreview.com/Infotech/20072/?a=f

<comment><USER2> Anyone got a mirror for this? Seems to be down, probably due to slashdot etc.

However I guess this is not booting to windows, but to something else? Is that really a new thing?

</comment><comment><USER3> This sounds like a nice feature for tvio-like systems but I wonder if a move towards flash drives will undermine the opportunity for this sort of software more generally.</comment>


A List Apart: Zebra Striping: Does it Really Help? - <AUTHOR> http://www.alistapart.com/articles/zebrastripingdoesithelp

<comment><USER2> This is a real time waster. In my opinion, if it helps people organize their thinking and read the data faster while at the same time makes my page look nicer, then it's a done deal. I always appreciate a good ALA article though.</comment>


Dear Apple: Give Us Control Over Stalkerware - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@otterley/dear-apple-give-us-control-over-stalkerware-95c625f585fb <comment><USER2> > giving their location to Uber all the time

I thought I read in a previous discussion that it was in the 5 minutes after being dropped off, not "all the time." which is incorrect?

<comment><USER3> The "5 minutes" is by Uber's choice -- not enforced by the OS. Uber could change it anytime.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: I died 2 times, coma, learned how to walk again, code, now I need advice - <AUTHOR>

I went through 2 aneurysms (I know unlucky), went through 2 brain surgeries, then got hit with mitral valve regurgitation which steamed from having endocarditis (rare virus that sits on the heart). Then was in a coma because of the aneurysm, when I woke up I needed to learn how to walk again. Before that I went through physical abuse, poverty, lived on my own (boarding schools, houses I rented etc) since I am 13, hustled, did drugs, and all kinds of other stupid things. Why am I telling you this on HN? Because this is part of the journey of an entrepreneur, I've been starting businesses since I am 16 as an escape to a poor reality and a bad environment, I am not from the US (from Israel) but came here (live in Palo Alto because of the amazing freedoms and opportunity that this country provides and of course to leave my junk behind. After failing many times and teaching my self how to code/design software, I am finally on a path to something that works.
I have a product with traction, revenue (I had to find a business model early on since I know no one I can raise money from). Now I am at a point where my startup is growing but I need to scale it way faster before someone comes in, its a wide open market for something that has huge revenue potential (we are making already 15K a month without trying because of our limited team of 2).
I came here because I wanted to ask for your help, how does one raise money when he knows no one, I realized that the tech industry raises money purely or mostly based on connections/introductions, I don't have that at all what should I do to get in that door?
Thank you in advance and sorry if the spelling is not perfect :)
<p>btw I am 25 yo if you are curious because usually the above sicknesses come to older people. <comment><USER2> Dude: you died twice, were in a coma, learned to walk and code again-- you should be giving _us_ advice.

My question: do you have a scalable customer acquisition model? Put another way-- if someone dropped a chunk of money in your lap, do you already know (in detail) how you would spend it to increase traction and revenue?

If so, sink as much of the 15K/month you are making into that.

Oh, and apply for YC.

<comment><USER3> _Dude: you died twice, were in a coma, learned to walk and code again-- you should be giving us advice._

I'm not the OP but my experience with trying to give advice after having spent a year at death's door and recovered has not been at all positive. I really wouldn't recommend the experience.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> You could always apply to YC. I mean, isn't that the entire point of it?

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2312566> & <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2310110>

</comment><comment><USER5> YC is great for the startups that are able to get in.

Otherwise, if you have a technical product, traction, revenue, and a technical founder you're probably ready simply to submit your startup to Angel List. It really helps if you have a couple of angels that are active on angel list to vouch for you, however.

Also, read Pitching Hacks. It's $9 for the PDF. It's an easy read, but it's the friggin Bible when it comes to pitching in Silicon Valley[1].

I'd also suggest getting active in the startup community/scene. Go to meetups like 106 Miles[2] and Hackers & Founders[3]. Get a stack of business cards and start handing them out. Start going out to coffee with people. Get to know a new person every day, be genuine and try to help them out. Hang out at Coupa Cafe, or University Cafe to code.

It shouldn't take too long, doing that in Palo Alto before you can get some introductions to Angels.

Heck, Naval is speaking the next Hackers & Founders on March 17. His presentation is titled, "Hacking your funding process". We still have 60 (free) tickets available[4].

Aside from that, the next open H&F is in Berkeley at the end of March. Stop by and chat. I'd love to hear what you're up to.

ref:

[1] <http://venturehacks.com/pitching>

[2] <http://www.meetup.com/106miles/>

[3] <http://www.hackersandfounders.com>

[4] <http://hackfunding.mogotix.com>

</comment><comment><USER6> If you're already making 15k a month, I would say just bootstrap. How much faster do you need to scale? All the YC startups this round got 150k, but you're looking at 15k*12=180k a year, that's already more than YC can offer you.

If you really need next level funding, then I would think just emailing/tweeting around would easily get you some good responses esp with your story and already proven market for your product.

<comment><USER7> YC is about get a rapid introduction to the network, which is what he needs. Also, demo-day could net $1m+ based on previous years.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> While the long-term value and the use/abuse of AngelList is highly debated (see <http://techcrunch.com/2011/02/26/angelist/> among others), one purpose of the site is to provide exposure to people with great ideas who don't necessarily have the connections to get them intros. It's at <http://angel.co>, probably worth checking out. Good luck to you!

</comment><comment><USER9> Curious: How did you get here? Do you have some relatives that sponsored you? Make sure that you CAN legally stay and work in the US before asking for money and starting business in here. If you don't have regulated status, you can always try to find company that will be willing to sponsor you through their H1B work permit program.

</comment><comment><USER10> Eventually, if not now, you should write a more detailed autobiographical book or piece. Your story is miraculous and would inspire many people.

</comment><comment><USER11> Let me start by asking $15k/month in revenue or profit? Do you have capacity to hire?

Courting investors is a full time job, but so is hiring if done right. You probably can't do both with just two of you. If the goal of raising money is to hire more people, and you've already got enough cash to hire even one, do that first.

Just make sure you hire into a position you believe can increase your profit. Spend time thinking about it.

Companies your size grind to a halt while raising capital and it can take months. Once you've expanded a little, multitasking becomes easier. If you're lucky (and this is what you're trying for), you may find that your new hire increases your profit enough while you were looking for investors that you can afford to hire again.

If the new hire doesn't increase profit, you can still take investment (especially if you've been doing the leg work after maxing out your headcount), but you're going to have to figure out how to hire effectively eventually, you'll just have more money in the bank.

</comment><comment><USER12> You won't get much advice in this thread and you are probably smart enough to figure out the advice yourself. Open Google and browse the HN archive. If you want to raise money, then you should learn the Ins and Outs of it before that. Don't look for an investor; and how are you sure that's the best solution in your case?

There are many good articles here and there. There is also Ycombinator, or other programs; as some guys mentioned here. Don't forget also that you have a working product that _made_ money. If you prove that there is more expansion in your market, investors will come to you.

1\. Read more about the subject (books, articles, issues, discussions...)

2\. You may want to hire a lawyer to ask him few questions; or someone expert about fund raising.

3\. Consider YC and other programs.

4\. Keep some of your time for networking and making friends in that field.

Good luck. And remember, even if you fail, that won't kill you ;)

[Un/Related] So you are not a USA citizen. May I know how did you get your Visa and how did you make your company in the US?

<comment><AUTHOR> I am a US citizen, my father is from the US, atleast that was on my side :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> You need to be out there networking! Being in Palo Alto gives you access to a lot of tech people and events, so theres no excuse. The people you meet will end up future employees, VCs, angels or people that can make introductions. You should being following investors on twitter and reading their blogs. Watch for events they speak at or attend. Go to those events and try and meet them.

</comment><comment><USER14> Fellow Israeli immigrant here. Feel free to ping me. email in profile.

You should seriously consider applying to YC.

Be'hatzlacha

</comment><comment><USER15> Hello, first let me tell you; Your perseverance will definitely help you in business. You're a strong person, I hope you can leave all bad experiences behind you and can take all experience from them that you can.

Second, it's all about networking, online, offline, doesn't matter, tools like LinkedIn, Twitter, Facebook exist for just this, networking. Start by creating a LinkedIn profile, or update your existing one and start connecting, write people. Also look for "networking events", I don't know if they exist in your neighborhood but here you can find them, these are events organized especially to get to know other people in the business (any business) you exchange cards and start conversations, these are excellent opportunities. I can go on about this but you get the idea I guess... Make yourself known, connect, socialize, in the end you will find the people you need, or they find you.

</comment><comment><USER16> Drop me a line vladik dot rikhter at gmail. Happy to chat and put you in touch with a few VCs and angels that I know.

</comment><comment><USER17> Not to be pedantic, but endocarditis is _not_ a rare virus that sits on your heart, it's an inflammation of the endocardium - which can be caused by several things, including bacteria.

I've had one aneurysm and endocarditis, among other things (strokes, coma, paralysis, etc.), so I can sympathize with how difficult it is to move forward when you are ill. I wish you the best of luck in your endeavors. I don't know if it is actually true, but people keep telling me that old cliche about "what doesn't kill you (and keep you dead, in your case), just makes you stronger." Please feel free to shoot me an email if you want to talk...

<comment><AUTHOR> I didnt want to go into all these little details and pull my medical file for it, just wanted to give the general idea of it is.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> so, whats your startup then? :)

<comment><AUTHOR> for anyone who wants to know my startup or other things email me at firstname.lastname@example.com, thank you.

<comment><USER19> You had my sympathy till this post. Why on earth not to just drop a link to your website, or, if the company doesn't use one, give name, location and such?

I can only hope it's business is not something too questionable to state it openly...

<comment><USER20> It's possible that he just has that founder mentality that he doesn't want the secret sauce to be out so early and wants to remain stealth. Perhaps misguided, but truth be told, a lot of folks start out with that mentality.

Dude, if that's the case, there are a number of reasons why that doesn't make sense. There are probably hundreds of other people working on the exact same thing as you around the world. Secrecy will not help you compete with those people. What you need is exposure, not secrecy, to really get moving in most cases. Only in very rare cases do you want to keep secrecy. Based on statistics alone, you probably want exposure, not secrecy.

<comment><AUTHOR> I am not like that at all, I gave my email below to show the product. I wanted secrecy because if I showed the product publicly people will know who I am because my name is all over the product and I just didnt want people to know certain things about my life (like physical abuse) so I prefer staying anonymous. I push my product all the time I dont believe in secrecy, stealth, etc for your startup.

<comment><USER3> In that case, it might have been better to ask for advice without including the personal info you aren't really comfortable with. (I am pretty open about the crap I have been through. I'm not successful, financially/business-wise, so perhaps it is wiser to keep the two separate, I really don't know. I just think you have created an awkward situation for yourself that could make it difficult to keep the two things separate in the future.)

Said with the absolute best of intentions and in no way intended to be snarky. I realize "good intentions" are well known to pave the way to hell. I apologize in advance if that is the case here.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I just read an article (I believe here on HN) about letslunch.com. Try that out for meeting people of interest and influence.

</comment><comment><USER22> Dude...</comment>


Bitcoin Network Capacity Analysis – Part 6: Data Propagation - <AUTHOR> https://tradeblock.com/blog/bitcoin-network-capacity-analysis-part-6-data-propagation

<comment><USER2> finally some data... the chinese firewall does not appear to be a big issue</comment>


Convert Wikipedia tables to JSON - <AUTHOR> https://www.wikitable2json.com/ <comment><USER2> Funny, I just found the same site yesterday, and found this post when I considered posting it myself just now.</comment>