Ask YC: How will the US economy affect the probability of startup success - <AUTHOR>

In particular how do a recession, rising oil prices, weak dollar, credit crunch affect the probability of startup success. Is this a good time to quit your "safe" day job and  dive in head on into a full time startup attempt. <comment><USER4> Good god, pay attention to the world around you people.

1> different kinds of businesses do well in recessions vs. boom years. adapt your start up plans to be "countercyclical."

If you're not sure what kinds of businesses are countercyclical, are you sure you're old enough to be doing this?

2> prioritize international markets. capital bleeding out of the US because of inflation and currency shrinkage is going somewhere. those people are your customers too.

3> Flint, Michigan. Yes, it can happen here. Entire classes of businesses can just vanish. Programming jobs go abroad _eventually_ (yes, yes they do - <USER2> professors are not the only smart Indians, Chinese, Japanese, Russians, Koreans, Israelis etc. in the world.) Which business are you in? Being smart guys? Or serving a particular customer base better than your immigrant professor's cousin who stayed at home can?

Do a bit of reading about the Great Depression. Now re-run that, maybe 50% as extreme, but this time with the internet. Where would you like to have been positioned in 1927 or 1928 to survive in good shape?

If you want a closer example, examine the Argentine Economic Collapse (1999).

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentine_economic_crisis_>(1999-2002) - <USER3> will have to cut and paste that link, including the bracketed dates.

We don't know that is going to happen but it's a scenario that should be examined in your mind because if a funder asks you "so what's your plan if the dollar drops to be 20% of it's current value against the Euro and the Yen?" the answer should not be "what are you talking about?"

In short: get beyond marketing to the American consumer, because there's a 5%-15% possibility that they're going to be entirely wiped out within the next couple of years. Think Former Soviet Union style conditions (relative to where we are even now.) Now try to imagine keeping your business going. Note the percentages - I don't think this is what _will_ happen, but I'd say it's improbable-but-possible.

As a business person, it's a systemic risk that your business plan should take into account. If it doesn't, you're still in the little leagues, assuming that the relatively stable economic conditions that have prevailed during most of your life time are baseline reality. They aren't - that's summer. Winter may be just around the corner. Say 1 in 6 or less.

By the way, I also do children's parties, weddings and Bar Mitzvahs.

<comment><USER5> If you're going to consider the possibility that the U.S. economy will go into a full-fledged collapse, you should also consider:

1.) The possibility of large tariffs on all international transactions.

2.) The possibility that certain nations will be declared "enemy powers" and all trade with them will be banned.

3.) The possibility that all communications outside the United States (yes, that means the Internet) will be banned for national security reasons.

4.) The possibility that the government will nationalize the Internet, your business, or both.

5.) The possibility of riots in major U.S. cities.

6.) The possibility that a mandatory draft may send you or your workforce to war.

7.) The possibility of mass propaganda campaigns and government nationalization of all media.

8.) The possibility that all computer professionals will be drafted into massive cryptographic projects.

All of these have happened historically after major economic crises. They almost seem to be inevitable after a Depression-level panic.

My point is that some eventualities shouldn't be planned for, not because they won't happen, but because you _can't_ plan for them. Once political unrest starts, all bets are off, because the basic ground rules of society are gone. Some looter could come up to you with a gun and blow your brains out, and that would be the end of your business.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Depends how much cash you have. The defining feature of recessions tends to be that cash is harder to come by - it's harder to find investors, and it's harder to get people to spend money.

The flip side is that anything that cuts cost and saves people money in a recession does well. Also, if unemployment goes up, people tend to have more time on their hands, which benefits attention-based businesses. It's just that converting that to cash becomes more difficult. Advertising spending tends to drop like a rock in recessions.

If you're likely to run out of cash during the recession, don't quit, because it'll be very difficult to find more. If you have enough to make it through to the other end, you can do very well. Business activity doesn't stop in recessions, it just slows down, and you can do all the strategic aspects (building a product, getting market share, building brand recognition) just as well as in boom times. Better, really, since recessions tend to flush out competitors.

</comment><comment><USER6> In the early 2000, we had Asian financial crisis, Y2K, dotcom bomb, telecom burst, stock market crash, 9/11 attack, war in Afghanistan, SARS, launch of the Iraq invasion, outbreak of avian flu, but yet in retrospect, it was the best time to do a startup. So you can't really differentiate with good timing. But you can differentiate from bad timing. When it is difficult for you, it is also difficult for everyone else. But they don't have the same strong will to succeed as you do. By the way, if you have the luxury of pondering where or not this is the right time to leave your day job, my advise is to stay where you are and just wonder out loud what could have been and should have been. It really takes a lot to succeed in a startup. Having any backup plan is the wrong place to start. Good luck.

<comment><USER6> By the way, if you are interested in learning more about the trials and tribulations of a startup, please take a look of my online book, <http://www.StartupForLess.com>.

\--Denny--

<comment><USER7> Ok, we get the message: <http://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=gigamon>

<comment><USER6> I wonder if "puneetht" got the message? I hope so.

\--Denny--

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> It might give some investors cold feet. But I don't think startup founders should let the state of the economy be a deciding factor in what they do. It has much less effect on the outcome than how hard you work, or how carefully you hire, or how much attention you pay to the design of your site.

</comment><comment><USER9> I'm not too worried. Weak dollar, rising oil prices and a credit crunch for mortgages isn't really going to affect the tech industry much. We're not a petroleum, credit or real estate based industry.

Rising oil prices mean that commodities that are distributed via oil based transport will be more expensive. Shipping widgets via plane train or truck just got more expensive. Our products are distributed electronically, so relatively speaking our products are going to be cheaper, and might be considered a better value.

Credit crunch and defaulting mortgages means that the banking and finance industries are going to be taking a bath for a bit. It's going to be harder for you to get a mortgage. I don't see that affecting the software biz much.

A weak dollar means that internationalization efforts will pay off. There are going to be more people in Europe, Canada and Asia that will be interested in buying American goods because American goods will be cheaper. It's time to make friends who know other languages to translate your site, and be sure that your programming language of choice has good Unicode support. Outsourcing just got more expensive, however because of the exchange rate differences.

Finally, that bottle of French champagne that you were going to drink at your liquidity party just got more expensive. That's a bummer. :)

</comment><comment><USER10> Weak dollar is a good thing if you're in the US and making a product or service that people abroad would buy. It's cheaper for them, hence they'll be more likely to buy and will buy more of it. On the other hand if you're in Europe, Australia, or even Canada and you plan to rely a lot on US sales then you may want to pick something different. Other than that I don't see anything significant to worry about.

</comment><comment><USER11> The more people go on and on about how bad the economy is, the more they are self-selecting out of doing a startup. That's good for me.

Startups work or don't work based on how they relate to users. The "economy" is a huge average of all kinds of things. If you're making users happy, just keep your eye on the ball. All things being equal, I would rather run a startup in a hot market where all the other competitors were depressed than the same market swimming in investment cash.

Of course, there are lots of exceptions. This answer was just a generalization. YMMV. I'm sure somebody will reply with something pithy like "but if the town is on fire, should you really be trying to sell charcoal?" to which I reply, "if you have a product people want, it doesn't matter what the heck the rest of the town is doing"

</comment><comment><USER12> heh. I think you're asking the wrong people man. We're a pretty optimistic bunch!

</comment><comment><USER13> The US economy shouldn't effect you if you have something to sell to international consumers. Focus on internationalization and a weak US dollar can be good for your business.</comment>


How Does a Small Company Make a Big Company Successful? - <AUTHOR> http://www.feld.com/archives/2015/01/small-company-make-big-company-successful-2.html

<comment><USER2> I couldn't agree with you more. We landed and kept a large Microsoft deal exercising the principles you described. "How can we help you reach your goal as an individual within your company and as a group within your company"</comment>


Ask HN: What are some ways to support open source projects besides writing code? - <AUTHOR> I wish more open source projects had a way to support them besides for working on the code base. I usually don't know the languages they use or don't want to invest the time to learn their framework. I'll gladly give the project $20, though.<p>What are some ways to support open source projects besides writing code? <comment><USER2> Pretty much always you can "give them a $20", every medium+ sized project has some kind of support program going or accepts donations.

However, if they don't or someone doesn't have a $20 to throw at open source, there are a lot of ways to help. Just to mention a few (assuming you are at least an active user):

\- help less experienced users (answer community questions, reported issues etc.),

\- improve documentation (documentation is never finished),

\- share your knowledge about a tool (write an article, tutorial),

\- take part in tests and report bugs,

\- apply your skills (design, writing, community management etc.) to aid project's needs,

\- create (and maintain) a useful "resource" (e.g. list of example projects, plugin reviews).

There are many ways that often go "unnoticed" or rather... no one may officially pat you on the back for it, but it helps.

</comment><comment><USER3> Documentation! See this recent thread for example:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13437252](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13437252)

Or generally anything that helps user experience: documentation, improving web site/documentation design, testing, finding bugs and making high quality bug reports, evangelizing the project to users who need it but aren't aware, becoming a expert user of the project (which will almost certainly lead to bug reports, suggestions for improvements to features and documentation, etc.) and triaging tickets, answering questions in the support forum, etc.

</comment><comment><USER4> I don't have a lot if time to provide anything to most of the open source tools I use so I've setup monthly donations to them that my company matches. Some of the developers have wish lists as well that you can get them stuff from.

[https://esheavyindustries.com/2016/02/have-some-extra- cash-h...](https://esheavyindustries.com/2016/02/have-some-extra-cash-help- make-your-life-easier/)

</comment><comment><USER5> [http://micheleincalifornia.blogspot.com/p/my- sandbox.html](http://micheleincalifornia.blogspot.com/p/my-sandbox.html)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12880792](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12880792)

</comment><comment><USER6> Totally support www.opencollective.com, those guys are awesome. Documentation always helps There needs to be a piecemeal way of supporting such projects, take a look at hit record.org for creative stuff and also I am part of a team thats building a platform to do exactly what you request. Launching Feb 8th. Check out www.crowdraising.co

</comment><comment><USER7> I have been giving Mozilla foundation $20 each year. I use firefox daily and I am interested to see how Rust develops.

</comment><comment><USER8> Write documentation. Good documentation is hard to find for a lot of open source software.

<comment><USER9> Seconding this, docs are some of the best way to get involved. Alot of open source docs are very bare bones and maintainers are usually more than happy to get a docs PR.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> [https://opencollective.com/](https://opencollective.com/)</comment>


At SoftBank's Jewel in India: 'Toxic' Culture and Troubling Incidents - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/02/technology/oyo-softbank-india.html <comment><USER2> this is an indian problem. not a softbank issue.

having said that, businesses must change. capitalism must change. the future is not business as usual ..global and across shores, but small compact city state economies. the future is sustainable city-states.

the sooner governments and businesses and investors realise this, the less painful the transition will be..because the world is literally burning and climate change is a reality and banning plastic straws wont make life on earth better.</comment>


Herman Miller Embody Review: The Best Chair We've Ever Sat On - <AUTHOR> http://gizmodo.com/5071571/herman-miller-embody-review-the-best-chair-weve-ever-sat-on <comment><USER2> I sit on a ball, which is great for my posture, back and muscles.

Cost: $15

When I'm tired/lazy I sit on a chair from Staples that cost maybe $100 (birthday gift).

8 years in as a pro and with only a little proper training I have almost no problems with my wrist/neck etc.

Now where to spend $1485.

<comment><USER3> I tried sitting on a ball but found my back muscles tire quickly. How do you avoid this?

<comment><USER4> You keep doing it till your muscles are strong enough :)

Anyways you can do it for part of the day to build up strength. You can also do some 'front bridge' exercises. Don't push yourself just sit as long as you can, then go to a chair for an hour then jump back on.

Eventually you will be very comfortable.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Sweet chair. Now, I just need to wait a few years and I'll find some on Craigslist.

(We just got 3 Aerons from some office that shut down for $150 each)

</comment><comment><USER6> Surely there is some chair that is less than $500 that is excellent.

Can anyone make a suggestion? I'd really like to buy my wife and I a decent chair each but I'm not sure we can just drop $3600 on 2 office chairs.

<comment><USER7> I have an Aeron at home and a regular office chair at the office.

I would say the difference between the two isn't huge. The Aeron _is_ more comfortable, but I don't know that it was worth all the added cost.

I'd recommend going to a store that specializes in "back" furniture. In Arizona we have <http://www.relaxtheback.com/> which had some pretty decent options.</comment></comment>


Freelancers - Ask for more - <AUTHOR> http://stevenkovar.com/freelancing/a-novel-concept%E2%80%94ask-for-more/ Lots of freelancers here. This has helped me increase my revenues by doing the same thing I always do: bust it. Hope it helps a few of you. <comment><USER2> About asking for a bonus - it sounds arrogant, and you come across as too focused on the money.

Instead of this, quote a rate you think you're worth. Then do great work. Your bonus will come in the form of increased demand/word of mouth. Adjust your rates accordingly.

<comment><USER3> I'm not sure I know what a "bonus" is in a freelancing context.

I buy graphic design / interaction design work from freelancers. If you quote me N*$1000, I'm not going to pay anything more than that.

I sell application / software / hardware security review work. I've never been paid a "bonus".

So it's not that this sounds arrogant to me, it just sounds weird.

<comment><USER4> Same here. If someone quotes me their hourly rate "plus bonus" my first reaction would be to ask "What bonus?" and silently mark him as fishy.

Most customers are very concerned about getting an exact quote. I can't imagine that throwing around such statements helps with anything.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Also, keep in mind that asking for a high rate can provide credibility in the absence of other data.

Think about the way many people buy wine: the pricier the bottle, the better it must be, right?

</comment><comment><USER6> If you're asking $175 for a landing page, you probably _do_ need to ask for more.

<comment><AUTHOR> The LP's I do take roughly 60-90 minutes. When I'm not focusing on school, I can log on to IRC or AIM and find a day's work within 30 minutes if I don't have any lined up before. $175 in that time frame adds up. I fill my role well.</comment></comment>


Google Nexus One Hands On (with Video) - <AUTHOR> http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/02/exclusive-google-nexus-one-hands-on-video-and-first-impressio/

<comment><USER2> Why in the world do they focus so much on the software? It's android 2.1, yes we know what 95% of it looks like. It is the hardware that is new, give us some impressions of that already.

God I hate the craptastic coverage that passes as reporting on Engadget and Gizmodo.</comment>


SOPA Compromise Proposed by Harvard Law Professor - <AUTHOR> http://futureoftheinternet.org/sopa-compromise

<comment><USER2> I don't think a compromise on "anti-piracy" is a good idea. I'll illustrate with a small story.

Albert and Bertrand, two young boys, run into their mother's kitchen. A single, large cookie lies cooling on the table. Albert says the two boys should split the cookie in half, and each should receive a half.

Bertrand demands the entire cookie.

Albert and Bertrand's mother comes into the kitchen and settles the argument by splitting the difference: Albert gets one-quarter of the cookie, Bertrand gets three quarters.

How fair is that? Relative to Bertrand's demand it's "fair", but it's not fair on any kind of absolute scale. Unless Bertrand makes a case for getting more than his half, it's unfair.

Why should a SOPA compromise happen, just because some group asserts "Piracy is a problem" loudly enough and often enough? That's not at all moral.</comment>


High taxes be damned, the rich keep moving to California - <AUTHOR> https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-sac-skelton-income-tax-california-wealthy-20190311-story.html <comment><USER2> It defines rich as 125k. That definitely isn't rich in california. It also says there's a net migration outwards and that the middle class and poor are fleeing.

<comment><USER3> Might be able to afford an apartment

<comment><USER4> With a 2hr commute.

<comment><USER5> meh, if you don't have kids, $125K is plenty to live in a so so part of sunnyvale or mountain view (which is totally safe, just your apartment will be built in the '60s to working class standards, which isn't as bad as it sounds; the weather here means that having flimsy and poorly-insulated housing isn't as big of a deal as it would be otherwise.)

I mean, you won't be buying right now, but you will be able to save money; if we have another big drop in housing prices, you will be all set: otherwise, you will just have to move when you retire. (which actually is pretty sad, 'cause those social connections are really important. but just saying, if you have $125K/yr, two people can live here comfortably.)

If it's really important that you have a lot of room, you aren't going to like it here. Really, I think that's the big difference.

My own impression is that as a sysadmin without a degree, I get like 2x here what i would other places, and yeah, housing is more than 2x, but... housing is a kinda small part of my budget. I save a lot more working here, and have access to a lot more luxuries that don't involve personal space.

Honestly, if you wanted to get me to move? Probably the best thing you could promise me is a job with an office... or even just the sort of large cubicle my job role rated in the mid to late aughts. I mean, my job pays really well, the food is good and people are nice to me, and I really appreciate it, but it seems like every year my desk shrinks. I think the parking spot they reserve for the car I don't use is allocated more space than the desk where I sit all day.

<comment><USER4> >> if you don't have kids

Most adults do have kids, though. It's unreasonable to expect that one will not have kids, seeing how we're all here because our parents were in a position to have kids. So I chose to live elsewhere instead.

<comment><USER6> I support your ability to choose but so much of the commentary here is to the effect of "nobody should live in CA, living in CA is impossible, nobody wants to live in CA in fact everybody is leaving!" I've even seen a post say it's negligent to consider raising kids in CA or the Bay Area. We've lived in the Bay Area 18 years, we have a kid and a house and save money, it took us 15 years to get to this point, if you want to just show up and have it all then maybe choose slewhere but crapping in living in CA or the Bay Area is getting tired

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> You have to be rich to live in California. Either that or willing to sacrifice your retirement, because saving money is nearly impossible for lower and middle class Californians. There are too many costs that come with living and working there.

<comment><USER8> Do you mean the Bay Area only or the whole state?

<comment><USER9> And immigrants have no chance?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> This has been posted a few times today...

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19359510](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19359510)

<comment><USER11> On HN, we don't count submissions as dupes if the story hasn't had significant attention yet. This is in the FAQ: [https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html).

The idea is to give good stories multiple chances at attention, since otherwise the randomness in what makes it off /newest is too great.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> [https://outline.com/sdH9NZ](https://outline.com/sdH9NZ)

</comment><comment><USER13> >In fact, more wealthy people are moving to California than leaving, research indicates. It's the poor and middle class who are departing.

The LA Times must be so proud.

And who will provide all the services that the sophisticated rich demand?

</comment><comment><USER14> Once tax day has come and the full force of the capped SALT deduction is felt, things may change.

A high-earning couple with $500k in combined income (roughly $45k in state taxes) and a $2m home (roughly $20k in local taxes) will go from a $65k deduction to a $10k deduction.

<comment><USER15> Am half of a high earning couple in a bit above this range in California. Surprisingly, my taxes changed very little this year. In years prior, I always had to pay AMT, in which SALT deductions were already disallowed. The new tax law is basically a wash. I don't pay AMT, just pay higher regular. I didn't check exactly but my effective rate this year may even have gone down a little. Many people in this income range will find similar.

<comment><USER14> Interesting to hear this. I used to be a high-earner (was a tax lawyer before a startup founder) in CA and never ran into the AMT. I see several folks mention the AMT below, but if no one was getting a SALT benefit before, how could the cap have been a revenue-raiser (which it was scored as) in the tax bill?

I realize that the lower rates help out high earners and can mitigate the effect of the SALT cap. But all high earners across the country get the benefit of low rates, whereas only the ones in high tax states get hit with the cap. So when weighing the choice between being a relatively high earners in a low tax state or a super high earners in a high tax state, the balance shifts toward the low tax state.

<comment><USER15> It's a revenue raiser because it does raise the taxes of people outside this range. Primarily people in 500k - 1m range were hitting AMT before, especially if married or with children.

Don't misunderstand me: I am responding only to the parent comment that the new tax law will massively change things for a 500k couple due to deductions. For that specific range for a married couple it won't (because they likely already were paying higher taxes due to AMT).

To your second point, that's also highly individual. My household income is ~800k. That makes my California effective tax rate 8.9%. I personally would have a hard time finding jobs for both my husband and myself in a new state taking only an 8.9% pay cut.

The phenomenon discussed in the article of continuing net inflow of high earners to California and out flow of middle and lower earners is not new: [https://www.sacbee.com/news/state/california/article13647809...](https://www.sacbee.com/news/state/california/article136478098.html)

I am not saying this is good! But the simplistic "everyone is fleeing high CA taxes" narrative is not supported by the data. What is happening is not good for California but also more complicated than that.

I would say the burden of high housing costs absolutely dwarfs the effect of taxes for most people.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> It's almost as if one of the benefits of being rich is that you don't have to worry about things like how much taxes cost. Yes, this can be interpreted in more than one way.

<comment><USER17> My take is for truly wealthy people, there is where you live for tax purposes and where you spend your time. Those people usually also have a lot of control how they register their income. And so being wealthy really just means that paying more or less taxes is a discretionary expense. Like a lot of other discretionary life style expenses they pay.

Two examples I know of. One guy who had a $200,000 RV parked in a warehouse in SF. With his office upstairs. But he didn't 'live there'. And another whose llc owns a condo by the Marina. That guy doesn't 'live there' either. Both those guys probably paying $100k/year for 'convenience'

Things change radically when you where you live for tax purposes and where you spend your time are the same place. And you can't decide how you are paid. Some friends of mine, high paid working for a fortune 500 wanted to relocate them to Waco Texas. $200k goes a lot farther in Waco TX. And yeah fuck no.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Why would the rich care about taxes? They have thousands of loopholes at their disposal to avoid them. It's all an "expense" to them...

</comment><comment><USER19> First off, making $110k a year does not make you rich. Secondly, the article does not address the rich that live in California but make their money outside of California. Many truly rich people buy homes in California even though they have a "primary residence" outside of California.

</comment><comment><USER20> If you actually qualify as "rich" that means you have multiple estates and your primary residence is surely not in the pirate tax cove of CA.

</comment><comment><USER21> Yes, they keep having their estates and legal residences in Florida, Texas, etc.

<comment><USER14> Maintaining residency outside of CA/NY/etc. isn't as simple as pretending that a home in Texas is your primary residence. These states go after high earners and audit the number of days in/out of state, as well as drivers license, and even the location of pets. When there's lots of tax revenue on the line, they dig up the details. Source: used to be a tax lawyer.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> People who can hire accountants who can bring down their tax rates to below those of their secretaries are moving to California. News at 11.

</comment><comment><USER22> >highest-in-the-nation 13.3% income tax rate

That sounds very comfortable and affordable

<comment><USER23> That's state tax, which is paid in addition to federal (nationwide) tax. Some states, like Texas, have no state income tax.

<comment><USER24> And the states without income tax usually make it up somewhere. I believe with Texas it means higher property taxes (California's are quite strictly limited thanks to the notorious Prop 13).

<comment><USER25> Texas also gets 36% of its tax revenue from sales tax:

[https://taxfoundation.org/sales-taxes-percent- collections/](https://taxfoundation.org/sales-taxes-percent-collections/)</comment></comment></comment></comment>


IBM pitched Watson as a revolution in cancer care, but it's nowhere close - <AUTHOR> https://www.statnews.com/2017/09/05/watson-ibm-cancer/ <comment><USER2> IBM has some OK offerings but they've really screwed themselves with all this hyped up marketing around Watson. They've become somewhat of a joke within the real data science community and business executives are also increasingly becoming disillusioned when projects based on IBMs mystery black boxes fail to deliver.

The MD Anderson situation was a debacle of monumental proportions. Such claims on cancer care are quite unethical in my view given that it gave a lot of very sick people false hopes and diverted a lot of hospital attention and funding away from stuff that actually works.

<comment><USER3> We have a lot of IBM tools at my company, and they're all terrible. I always heard these great things about Watson. Thank you for setting this straight. My world view is healed.

<comment><USER4> Lots of IBM where I work too, can't say a single good thing either.. honestly Watson being a bust is not very surprising! The people who pay the bills get taken to fancy parties and dinners by IBM, they give us free "trainings"(sales pitches) where they try to convince us to use something that management has already bought into... Honestly it's all very terrible :(

My sentiment of IBM these days is they sell software which is purposely made bad...and people buy it because, well no one ever got fired for going with IBM.

<comment><USER5> The pattern I've seen: IBM sells things that underdeliver, the solution is always to _buy more IBM_ to fix the inadequacies of whatever it is you've bought already. The go-to line is "Oh that's a know problem with X 3.4, if you upgrade to X 4.5 with Y 2.7 that will fix that problem". This process never stops.

<comment><USER6> Which is partly due to their actual problem solving strategy. Instead of fix the problem with X 3.4, they bought the company that makes Y so they could use that solution. But Y has it's own problems of course. And even if it didn't X should have just been developed along with something like Y. Though it's unlikely that X was even made by IBM anyways.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> > On a recent morning, the results for a 73-year-old lung cancer patient were > underwhelming: Watson recommended a chemotherapy regimen the oncologists had > already flagged.

> "It's fine," Dr. Sujal Shah, a medical oncologist, said of Watson's > treatment suggestion while discussing the case with colleagues.

> He said later that the background information Watson provided, including > medical journal articles, was helpful, giving him more confidence that using > a specific chemotherapy was a sound idea. But the system did not directly > help him make that decision, nor did it tell him anything he didn't already > know.

I don't know, that doesn't sound bad at all. Perhaps it's just a case of overhyping. But if a computer can do recommend the same treatment as an expensive oncologist with years of training that's actually pretty good!

On the other hand it is quite baffling why doesn't FDA require a clinical trial or any independent review of its capabilities before allowing its use in clinic. It's a bit like Boeing certifying its own planes, I guess.

<comment><USER8> > why doesn't FDA require a clinical trial or any independent review of its > capabilities before allowing its use in clinic.

Because it's a tool for informing doctors, not a medical treatment. We don't have a clinical trial before PubMed rolls out a new search form either.

<comment><USER9> It's definitely part of medical treatment. Laws are changing to include "software medical devices" in health regulation. The FDA recently recognized this as a gap.

BTW I've worked with regulated software and it's not pretty. Just to update the firmware you have to fill out a ton of paperwork (because somebody died once after a firmware update and the firmware update was found to be the root cause). Regulation and review doesn't really make things tremendously safer, it just provides an audit chain so you can point at something when it does go pear-shape

<comment><USER10>
       Laws are changing to include "software medical devices" in health regulation. The FDA recently recognized this as a gap.

This isn't quite correct - FDA has always regulated software medical devices. It is true however that the FDA is looking a lot closer at software than they did in previous decades, and is releasing guidance (e.g. recently on cybersecurity) that signals intentions moving forward. They definitely have signaled that they don't believe they were focused enough on software.

It's important understand that FDA approval to market is always done in terms of indications for use. You don't approve a device full stop, you approve it (and evaluate it) in terms of the indications. Only in this context can you determine if you have a 510k path (i.e. short cut) or need a PMA (i.e. clinical trial). It is also important to realize that different panels in the FDA (i.e. the type of device you are making) have different evaluation criteria.

So "Watson" is unlikely to ever be cleared per se (it is a tech platform) but you are likely to see individual Watson enabled systems file 510ks for particular indications. If I recall correctly this has already happened.

<comment><USER11> Do you remember what it's already happened for? Do you know what devices they're equivalent to?

While I get the impression FDA and industry prefer 510ks as much as possible, personally I don't see how this is close enough to anything out there right now for that to pass the smell test.

My guess would be that some `Watson` equivalent stuff will be 510k'd in as part of an MRI, CT or DBT imaging system or a CAD tool working on these systems. I think it'd take a while though, I don't think the regulatory science is there yet for actually showing value.

<comment><USER10> Off the top of my head, I don't, but I'll have a look if I have a chance later.

There have been approved CAD systems separate from imaging systems since the 90s.

"Value" is a nebulous term. FDA looks specifically for "safety & efficacy", and the criterion for each are rather dependent on the intended use.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> > Hospitals pay a per-patient fee for Watson for Oncology and other products > enabled by the supercomputer. The amount depends on the number of products a > hospital buys, and ranges between $200 and $1,000 per patient.

Sigh. Let's remember that in medicine (a severely resource-constrained system), costs operate in a zero-sum environment. $200-$1,000 spent on Watson is $200-$1,000 not spent on some other treatment or human labor. And, in our current environment, specialist doctors will _always_ have to re-do the diagnosis suggested by Watson, because guess who is held legally responsible, in the case of a malpractice suit? Not IBM, but the doctor co-signing the "recommendation".

</comment><comment><USER13> TLDR: Watson has been trained for 6 years to build a knowledge base about 7 types of cancer; therapy recommendations are entered by experts from one top US hospital.

Looks to me like a giant pattern recognition system. The best assessment I found in the article:

> He said later that the background information Watson provided, including > medical journal articles, was helpful, giving him more confidence that using > a specific chemotherapy was a sound idea. But the system did not directly > help him make that decision, nor did it tell him anything he didn't already > know.

<comment><USER3> >Looks to me like a giant pattern recognition system.

Pretty much all attempts at AI are pattern recognition systems. I think the AI hype will die down a bit, after we see more of the high profile AI programs underdelivering on marketing's promises. But we'll get some gems that do deliver something useful.

I just guess IBM bit off more than they can chew on this one. It's an old, slow, uninnovative company, trying to do what the cool kids are doing by putting all of their money on it.

<comment><USER14> _> Pretty much all attempts at AI are pattern recognition systems._

All attempts in _modern_ AI. Most interesting research from the 60s and 80s wasn't based on pattern recognition.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Cynical take, having worked in organisations that have bought into IBM: IBM is not into curing cancer, it's into selling, and in particular _up-selling_ at enormous scales (government and big business). The primary goal of the Watson project has not been to cure cancer, or do anything in particular, but to get existing customers to buy into extremely expensive contracts that include 'Watson' in some way. All the hype, which it is now becoming apparent was artificially expanded to some extent, is just a means to this end. As with most (all?) of their other products, it'll be oversold, underdeliver, but lock organisations into even heftier contractual chains.

</comment><comment><USER15> Its kind of sad to see what has become of IBM. It is now just another consulting shop that wants to plant a slew of 3-400/hr consultants to run projects. The big consulting companies best trick was to convince those in the enterprise that hiring a boutique consulting shop is "risky" and that a big 4/5 consulting company is a "safe" option even though it is orders of magnitude more expensive and not necessarily better, and in some cases worse when it comes to specialized systems.

Source: years of working in Energy/Commodity trading systems market and seeing several botched big 4 implementations that vendor/boutique shops can do at 1/10th the price.

<comment><USER16> Having done big and small consulting work, I think part of the issue is that waterfall still has quite a large buy-in. Smaller shops tend to go more agile, but when you have a team of analysts chomping at the bit to document your processes and say "yes, we can do this" (regardless of if they actually can) that builds confidence.

And that confidence is what moves the project forward, until the customer sees dates slipping, at which point it's too late.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> I was under the impression "Watson" was just a brand-face for IBM consulting services.

You're not buying thousands consulting hours and some big data services... you're buying Watson

<comment><USER18> I'm on board with that if it means I don't have to pay for additional PVUs [0].

0: [https://www-01.ibm.com/software/passportadvantage/pvu_licens...](https://www-01.ibm.com/software/passportadvantage/pvu_licensing_for_customers.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> As per every thread Watson is brought up in, it's mainly a catch-all term for its consulting division. IBM's consultants aren't very good, and the good ones move on to brighter futures.

This is why Watson is a disappointment and every Watson project ends in cost overruns and failure.

</comment><comment><USER20> It's interesting that Watson appears to rely so much on processing text, which runs into so many difficulties. It would be helpful if (for a given disease) every patient's medical records were tracked as structured data. Machine learning would then be able to find patterns of diagnosis much more easily.

(I guess companies like Flatiron Health are working in that direction.)

<comment><USER3> But then all the NoSQL people working on data have to learn SQL ;).

<comment><USER21> Funny that you mention NoSQL. MUMPS, the original 1960s database system designed for medical data was NoSQL: [https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/3dkmg3/meet- mumps...](https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/3dkmg3/meet-mumps-the- archaic-health-care-programming-language-that-predicted-big-data-2)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> When results from "AI" don't match the hype nor justify the cost and hassle... that's how AI Winters begin.

</comment><comment><USER23> There's a bigger issue at hand here. AI generally has not made huge inroads into disease treatment. I think this is because we haven't figured out a good way to describe the diseases. Where it does work, we have a good way to classify the data (i.e. a set of training images or clear metrics to feed it). As Google/Verily learned the hard way, its not easy to fit digital models to organic beings.

In the area of cancer treatment, my guess is that the reason specialists are highly paid/trained is because the analysis and judgement required is highly manual and varied. Surgical intervention, prescription medications, targeted radiation treatment machines, patient psychology and counseling. Other than maybe guessing the prescription based on symptom list, what could the AI profitably help with?

<comment><USER24> >not made huge inroads into disease treatment. I think this is because we haven't figured out a good way to describe the diseases.

Perhaps more likely, human doctors are actually quite good and AI has yet to out do them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> > On a recent morning, the results for a 73-year-old lung cancer patient were > underwhelming: Watson recommended a chemotherapy regimen the oncologists had > already flagged.

> He said later that the background information Watson provided, including > medical journal articles, was helpful, giving him more confidence that using > a specific chemotherapy was a sound idea. But the system did not directly > help him make that decision, nor did it tell him anything he didn't already > know.

This type of thinking is reason true ML adoption is still sparse. Analytics should be viewed as a supplement to decision making, not a replacement.

Manipulative marketing tactics by IBM and others are largely to blame. I'm confident that over time, as the general population becomes better educated on the topic, the perspective will shift.

</comment><comment><USER26> > _"It's been a struggle to update, I'll be honest," said Dr. Mark Kris, > Memorial Sloan Kettering's lead Watson trainer. He noted that treatment > guidelines for every metastatic lung cancer patient worldwide recently > changed in the course of one week after a research presentation at a cancer > conference. "Changing the system of cognitive computing doesn't turn around > on a dime like that," he said. "You have to put in the literature, you have > to put in cases."_

Wow the way they describe Watson is just like a massive book of documentation, with some NLP functionality layered on top to interface with the doctors. Keeping the database up to date must be a huge undertaking. Also this:

> _" Given the same clinical scenario, doctors can — and often do — disagree > about the best course of action, whether to recommend surgery or > chemotherapy, or another treatment. Those discrepancies are especially wide > for second- and third-line treatments given after an initial therapy fails, > where evidence of benefits is slimmer and consensus more elusive."_

Having an expert doctors opinion hard coded into the machine sounds good, but it won't be as good as a doctor in the room who can pick up on all sorts of other cues that I'm not sure how'd you even type into a computer. Things like breathing patterns, reaction to tactile stimuli, fuzzy logic ('that hurts, that hurts more'), facial expressions and so on.

Seems like this project has a long way to go, to get to the standard the IBM marketing team are pretending it's already at.

<comment><USER27> "He noted that treatment guidelines for every metastatic lung cancer patient worldwide recently changed in the course of one week after a research presentation at a cancer conference."

Isn't this a good thing then that there's a digital assistant to ensure doctors are up-to-date and provide the right treatment plans?

<comment><USER28> A digital assistant that signals guideline changes does not require advanced technology. This reflects failure of the medical system, more than anything else. Plus, the fact that guidelines change suddenly after some conference should tell you that treatment in the case depicted here is defined entirely on expert opinion. AI should seek to do better than just following expert opinion. Conclusion: the Watson system is a failure.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> I guess one day IBM will sue Scott Adams for plagiarism.

</comment><comment><USER30> IBM is nowhere close, but is there anyone closer?

</comment><comment><USER31> Who uses Watson besides IBM?

<comment><USER32> All those poor developers, whose management bought into the standard IBM marketing lies and false promises.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> IBM seems to have painted themselves into a bit of a corner by calling a bunch of largely unrelated research projects by the name Watson.

<comment><USER34> IBM is doing the smoke and mirros and selling bullshit game for a while now.

And it's intentional! They have a strategy of inventing new words that sound all scientific (like 'cognitive computing') but there is absolute no meaningfull research from them. Its like the whole company has become a parody.

Any companies that allows their employees to talk to IBM has the problem that afterwards their employees understand less of actual problem domain -- and the knowledge they think they gained from that interaction .. its all 'IBM and consultancy buzzwords' rather than the industry-standard terminology fueled by actual research and science.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> I don't like the Watson logo. It's too busy. If you shrink it or squint when you look at it you just see a blob.

<comment><USER18> The old one or the new one? I like the subtle "heart" shape in the new one, especially the animation, to implicitly persuade me to love IBM.

[http://www.underconsideration.com/brandnew/archives/new_logo...](http://www.underconsideration.com/brandnew/archives/new_logo_and_identity_for_ibm_watson_done_in- house_with_others.php)</comment></comment>


Ask HN: How to earn karma on HN? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> Judging from my upvotes the best way to go about it is to go to a popular comment in an over-crowded thread and leave your short, witty and unoffending thoughts. This method is probably the most time efficient. Spray and pray.

</comment><comment><USER3> Worry about contributing positively to the site.

Karma will take care of itself.

And really, it's not worth much.

</comment><comment><USER4> All described in the guidelines.

Post useful stuff, make useful comments.

</comment><comment><USER5> Write good comments.

<comment><USER6> Submissions get you an order of magnitude more karma than comments.

It _may_ be different for "famous" people like tptacek and Animats who are instantly recognized in any comment thread, so that lots of highly upvoted comments make up for the comment/submission discrepancy.

<comment><USER5> Odds of getting a good submission upvoted are very, very low relative to the odds of having a good comment upvoted (will almost always be seen). From an EV perspective, it is better.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Thank you.

</comment><comment><USER7> Just post The Right Opinion™ and Independent Thinkers™ from the Silicon Valley® California© will upvote you.

Be careful, sarcasm, facts, or the inconvenient truth can cause downvotes.

It is also very important, to always post in a manner which cannot insult a demographic (eg. Independent Thinkers™), unless the insulted demographic does not represent the The Right Opinion™ (eg. realists, conservatives, anti- globalists, Drumpf voters, law abiding tax paying majorities, especially males can always be insulted).

<comment><USER8> > Be careful, sarcasm, facts, or the inconvenient truth can cause downvotes.

Is there a way to figure out a comment's ratio of upvotes to downvotes? Sometimes I see my comment's score oscillating...

<comment><USER3> No.

This is, frankly, a really annoying aspect of many commenting systems. It's among the reasons I prefer range-based voting (say 1-5 scale) rather than up/down. On the back end it's possible to do some aggregate modeling that works out, for large numbers, somewhat equivalently, but this handles thin data poorly.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Submit content suited to the site, as per Hacker News guidelines. Hopefully if you've been there a while you are aware of this, but here it is again just in case: Hacker News Guidelines. The first two paragraphs in the guidelines sum it all up:!

On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity.

Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off- topic. Timing. I don't live in the US myself, and since roughly half of the site's users are in the US, the time of day makes a big difference in seeing your submission hitting the front page or floating to the bottom.

</comment><comment><USER10> Submit famous person death article, SJW or anti think piece, apple articles or articles that claim the latest FOTM siver bullet is bullshit.</comment>


Musical Geek Friday #3: Code Monkey - good coders code, great reuse - <AUTHOR> http://www.catonmat.net/blog/musical-geek-friday-code-monkey/ <comment><USER2> I think about those kind of things a lot. It's strange how we make ourselves (we the society) do things we hate, for pretty much our whole life. I can't stop thinking about someday, way in the future, someone looks back to the year 2000's history and find a song like that. They might think: "people were so dumb back then, why would someone work with stuff they hate?" Well, hopefully they'll think that. It'll be very sad if years from now people still relate to that song.

I think any person who have been working with IT have seen more than a handful code monkeys. I think that shows that there's a huge amount of unhappy workers in the field. I'm not sure that's exclusive of IT. That's probably has much more to do with the society itself. We are so amused with the new things we're able to do that we forget about having fun. People nowadays have like 15 days, maybe a month off work. That's very little. Life should be more about vacation than about work. I think we don't have our priorities set up straight. What do you guys think?

<comment><USER3> I think life should be more about finding things you want to do and then doing them, and less about getting more time off from what you don't want to do.

<comment><USER2> yes, sure. But the thing is, if you have to do something like work, even if it's the coolest thing, it gets sucky.

For example, I love programming and I love learning math. But working with programming feels really bad sometimes. There are deadlines, there are times you have to work long hours on a row in something you don't like much, or you liked at first but now it doesn't feel good anymore. I'm not sure we can escape that on the system we live in.

Also, doing math on school (high school and university) a lot of times feel really bad. Sometimes you have to take a test on stuff you don't really feel like studying at that time, or maybe you won't feel like studying ever. And you end up not having time to study what you want, or you end up studying less of it.

I don't know, maybe it's the morning coffee talking, but I just don't see the society making progress towards making life of the individual better. Or rather, it seems to associate production with happiness, while I'm not sure that's the case.

<comment><USER3> i think that's because everything that people aren't working on improving is being actively destroyed by everyone else.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Harvard professor says we all ignore easy way to be happier – because of money - <AUTHOR> https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/harvard-professor-says-ignore-easy-21162455 <comment><USER2> This article probably applies to a group of people. It certainly does not apply to me. For me to be happy, I need to eventually detach from society as people in the tech industry know it, start my own greenhouse (thinking of toying with geothermal), raise my own chickens, produce my own electricity. I am tired of working for others. I am tired of the big burn rate and dependency on others. I have no misconception about money, I will always have to spend some, but happiness for me is just getting away from all the BS that society has created. Don't confuse this with becoming a recluse. I will have like minded friends and socialize with people like me. I've already met a few that share my preferences to detach from the rut.

</comment><comment><USER3> This seems semi out-of-touch for your average person. The reason money is the issue here is: how many people can actually afford the $100-$200 a month to have a maid come and clean their home? Or the $50 a week for blue-apron or whatever grocery-delivery startup is running these days? Dog walkers are expensive too (upward of $20 per _walk_ where I live). Just those three services I listed could run upwards of a few hundred dollars a month, most people might not have that kind of spending money in their budget.</comment>


Show HN: Torch – AI to Help Run Your Business - <AUTHOR> http://www.torchsuite.com <comment><AUTHOR> Really need feedback on the site, the software and just about anything. Appreciate the help.</comment>


Rat Park experiment upturns conventional wisdom about addiction - <AUTHOR> http://sub.garrytan.com/its-not-the-morphine-its-the-size-of-the-cage-rat-park-experiment-upturns-conventional-wisdom-about-addiction <comment><USER2> Not only is this not new, but this approach has already been incorporated into many of the more progressive (and, incidentally, more successful) drug treatment programs.

It turns out that, when you treat substance abuse as a symptom of an underlying problem and not a symptom of the substance itself (the same way we do for alcohol), you end up with a much more effective treatment strategy.

It's funny that it's taking us this long to come to that realization, when even the DSM IV outlines specific criteria for substance abuse and substance dependence, and most habitual users of drugs fit neither of these.

Funny anecdote: Szasz's "Rat Park" study originally appeared in a relatively unknown journal because it was rejected from all the mainstream ones for being "too much of a deviation" from the mainstream schools of thought.

<comment><USER3> In a pithy sentence: People are self-medicating _for a reason_.

I love how so many "well-meaning" people continue to often, apparently quite wilfully and in correspondence with their own perceived self-interest, turn a blind eye to those reasons.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Link to the original paper: [http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00426903](http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00426903)

"New" apparently now means "35 years old" ;)

<comment><USER5> Yeah, I was hoping this was a recent validation of that study. If anything ever needed a mod re-titling...

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Earlier discussion: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6391701](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6391701)

</comment><comment><USER7> It is no news that substance abuse has environmental and social factors much more powerful that physiological.

Not just rats will avoid poison when there is an alternative and will consume it if nothing else to do.)

</comment><comment><USER8> a thank you to paddy and Garry for something that may not be new to the world but is new to me - a nice experiment with a counter-prevailing-wisdom result.

My intellectual curiosity is satisfied thanks</comment>


Spotify Hit with Two Lawsuits Claiming "Staggering" Copyright Infringement - <AUTHOR> http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/spotify-hit-two-lawsuits-claiming-staggering-copyright-infringement-1021771 <comment><USER2> $150,000 Statutory Damages Per Instance = Going for the jugular in my opinion. If they can prove it, there might be some real, genuine settlement money to be offered. However, if one of these fights comes down to principles first, payout second, we might get some interesting court interpretations. Not necessarily good ones, or helpful ones, but interesting ones.</comment>


Hate Parking Tickets? Fixed Fights Them In Court For You - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2014/01/15/fight-parking-ticket-fixed/?utm_campaign=fb&ncid=fb <comment><USER2> > There's an argument to be made that fighting parking tickets just takes > money from the community.

There's no _good_ argument along these lines. The social good of tickets is as a punitive measure to keep order. Tickets as a revenue mechanism is a social ill, full stop: it promotes the creation of bad law and corruption specifically designed to raise revenue. It's the same awfulness which results in speed traps, permanent toll roads, and red light or speeding cameras.

<comment><USER3> >Tickets as a revenue mechanism is a social ill, full stop

I never buy an argument that is so simple. Tickets are a revenue source and that keeps taxes lower on the backs of people who flaunt the law. If the alternative is New York where parking is such a cluster it's an impediment to business, I think I might take the corruption. It's a far more nuanced problem than you're making it.

Political oversight of revenue sources is necessary, yes, but to say they are an unmitigated bad is to be ignorant of most local budget processes.

<comment><USER4> Political oversight is the issue: to supply revenue, a politician is given a choice, between raising taxes and issuing more fines. Raising taxes is always a difficult battle, while jaywalkers or people who speed on the highway make a convenient target. So the latter happens more than it should.

These tickets disproportionately target the poor, who have the hardest time paying them on short notice, leading to additional fines that accumulate and build on each other. So officials are incentivized to either game the system by doling out tickets more than is socially productive or by targeting people who are most likely to pay back the most in fines.

The revenue has to go somewhere, but it absolutely should not go into the pockets of the agency issuing the fines. Where should it go? Best case would be to reimburse the people harmed by the social ill that's being fined: that level of targeting is hard, leaning toward impossible. Next best is to give everyone an equal share of the fines: this is also difficult, and overly costly for what would amount to a couple bucks. Third best would be to have it go into the government's general fund, _to the exclusion of the agency issuing the fines_. Fourth best would be going straight to the general fund.

Second worst is giving it to the agency issuing the tickets, which is where we're at now. Worst of all would be allowing the officers issuing the fine to pocket it themselves, which leads to the lowest levels of ability to audit and the most perverse and misaligned incentives.

<comment><USER3> People keep saying this, but I really have nothing more than anecdotal evidence to believe that it is true. But seriously, if you are concerned, that is why we have a democratic process. Deal with it in the election.

>Fourth best would be going straight to the general fund.

I'm curious where you think it goes? I have worked at a number of municipalities and _all_ revenue goes to the general fund. During the budget process departments predict expected revenue. This is taken into account when setting the city budget overall (which also takes into account tax revenue and reserves). No money "goes into the department's pockets". They account for it and turn it over to the city's auditor. Those fees go into providing city services, it's not like they are lining someone's pocket.

My issue is the term "full stop". That is not a good way to deal with problem solving in the real world. I have been to municipalities where there is little to no parking enforcement or that have very lax parking laws (ahem, New York) and I don't personally find it pleasant. No system is perfect, they all require political oversight and constant vigilance, but most states have open records laws that allow you (or local press) the audit these processes and the revenue raised. All systems should have recourse in case of design flaw or human flaw. All systems should have the final say rest with citizens through their elected officials.

<comment><USER4> Couple points:

1) I said nothing about whether parking enforcement should be lax or not: that's an entirely separate question from how it's funded.

2) Municipalities do differ, but the fee associated with a ticket either often ends up divvied up to agencies related to the ticket-issuing. See [1], for instance. (I couldn't find one where that wasn't the case, but I suspect that's probably because of people complaining loudly about this issue, resulting in Google giving a bad sample)

3) The meta-political discussion seems odd to me: no one (here, at least) is saying we should move to an authoritarian regime that institutes all these regulations by fiat. Speaking for myself, I want the public to build democratic governance structures that give officials the correct incentives to maximize social good.

[1] [https://exploreb2b.com/articles/where-does-your-traffic- tick...](https://exploreb2b.com/articles/where-does-your-traffic-ticket-money- go)

<comment><USER3> The meta political discussion is more to address the point that the OP made that parking tickets as a revenue source are a "social ill, full stop". It is hard for me to believe that parking revenue should not be allowed to be used to offer services to the citizens of a municipality if there is adequate political oversight. If you feel the parking money is misappropriated or downright being fraudulently collected to raise revenue, this is an issue that local elected officials are designated to deal with. If you feel that is not being done, that is what the political process is for. I am not saying that this does not occur, I am saying that there is recourse and that its occurrence does not rule out the use of parking fines as a revenue source everywhere without exception.

As to point 2, I am sure there are municipalities that work like that, just that I know of none and that the article is a bit flimsy. I don't disbelieve that what you say occurs does, but I do believe that if there's an issue, it should be uncovered by a careful audit.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I've seen this idea before, and it is common in the trucking/delivery business. Cops/meter maids/etc take advantage over delivery trucks who park in front of businesses to quickly load and unload merchandise, especially in large cities.

I know a few people who work at such companies, and they all have some sort of subscription service with a third party that handles all these parking tickets for them. If they lose, they pay the ticket, nothing else. If the company wins, they pay a percentage of what the ticket was.

To give you an idea of what type of advantage cops take over these drivers.. There are a few streets in NYC that a friend's company makes deliveries to. The cops _know_ the delivery schedules, are make sure to be there on time, dropping off the ticket pretty much as the vehicle parks. One of the drivers confronted the ticketing cop once, only to be shrugged off with: "What do you care? You're not the one paying for it."

I'm glad to see this come as a service to the general public. There's some hope that with enough people fighting bogus tickets, someone will eventually get the message and stop handing them out so casually.

<comment><USER6> In fairness, are you sure they should be parking there if it's not a loading zone? I once was stuck behind a truck that refused to move on a one-lane street for 20 minutes while he insisted on unloading, backing up traffic 3 blocks down the street.

<comment><USER7> In midtown NYC, there are lots of narrow streets that have small businesses lining both sides of the street and cars parked on both sides of the street. The only way to deliver anything to these businesses would be to double park the truck. Making double parking illegal there is essentially outlawing commerce on these streets.

<comment><USER8> That sounds like something that the businesses of that street should be addressing with the local government to get that obvious problem resolved. Such as a loading zone that doesn't allow general parking during certain hours. Yes, it's not optimal but it's better than the ticket and causing traffic problems.

<comment><USER9> In Tokyo, trucks are only allowed to unload during the nighttime. The Japanese attitude toward government regulation (and staying up late for social obligations, etc) is quite different, for better or for worse.

<comment><USER10> I observed the same thing in Beijing. Daytime deliveries are handled by motor- trikes with a small flatbed on the back. Delivery trucks do not block streets in the daytime and appear to be largely, maybe completely banned during daytime.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> In arlington VA, I once got a parking ticket issued outside of the 9-5 parking restriction hours; in the same place i got a ticket with an address that was nowhere near where i was parking; and another that had a totally fictional address altogether.

In retrospect, I should have contested these tickets by going to court, grilling the parking attendant (under oath) on the details, getting them very specifically, and then catching them in an act of perjury with evidence. Would Fixed go the extra step to do this? Someone needs to hold these attendants accountable.

<comment><USER12> Arlington,Bethesda, and DC are some of the worst violators of this. Don't even get me started on those machines they use to "enforce" the speeding law.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I hate parking tickets so much that I follow posted signs and obey traffic laws.

<comment><USER14> That's a little naive.

Local jurisdictions are heavily incentivized to hand out infractions of any kind -- deserved or not. Why? Because they keep the money.

What do they spend the money on? Things like public employees and their benefits, including pensions. It's clearly a perverse incentive.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive)

I've always thought that government shouldn't benefit from fines or seized property. I'm not sure what a good solution is. Perhaps they should take the money from fines and just light it on fire.

There shouldn't be a financial incentive for governments to hand out tickets and fines and seize property - the democratic incentive should be enough.

<comment><USER15> > That's a little naive.

Are you saying it is impossible to escape their devious plans, because I have managed to avoid a parking or speeding fine for the last 20 years, simply by following the rules.

<comment><USER16> It's easy to avoid being ticketed by an incompetent/corrupt parking authority by simply not living in the city they're employed in. You can even keep that up for _millennia_! That doesn't mean they never give out unjust tickets to the people that do live there.

<comment><USER3> It's also easy to chalk up thousands of perfectly legitimate parking tickets to a few incompetent/corrupt parking authorities that you have no evidence exist except anecdotal experiences.

I've now read a half a dozen comments in this thread that I can sum up as "I once got a parking ticket that I shouldn't have, all parking authorities are incompetent and corrupt." No one's telling you that you shouldn't be allowed to challenge a ticket or to address the issue with your locally elected official.

<comment><USER16> > No one's telling you that you shouldn't be allowed to challenge a ticket

I think that's exactly what the person I responded to was saying. If obeying the law never results in being issued a ticket, there's no reason they should allow tickets to be challenged.

<comment><USER3> I'm not sure where you get that at all. I really see no one anywhere saying anything like that.

The starter of this thread is clearly being tongue in cheek.

The next person was addressing that by arguing that corruption causes people to get unnecessary parking tickets.

The next one was saying that he was overstating that because he himself had managed to avoid that (side note: so have I).

I don't think: "you should not be allowed any redress on parking tickets" was ever broached.

What I take out of this is that there are bad parking tickets and there is a system for dealing with bad parking tickets. No system is perfect, all systems have compromises, design flaws and humans who make real mistakes implementing them.

Accepting this I _personally_ feel revenue from parking tickets is an excellent way to keep taxes lower. I happen to see this process in action as part of my employment, so perhaps I am biased. I have also seen places who basically feel the way you do about parking enforcement and I do not like it (I'm looking at New York here). I will take the tradeoffs and if I choose not to, I will address the problems with my elected officials whose job it is to oversee the budget process to avoid exactly the kinds of corruption we're speculating exists.

<comment><USER16> > corruption we're speculating exists

We're not speculating. I live in a suburb of Philadelphia. Last summer our traffic courts were permanently closed, their cases turned over to the municipal court system. 9 of the traffic court judges, and 3 other city officials, were indicted on criminal charges related to fraud and corruption.

<comment><USER3> Good, I'm sure they should be indicted.

But that does not indict all parking tickets everywhere or the system of issuing parking tickets. It indicts a suburb of Philadelphia.

It's like saying that when a sports official gets a call wrong (or even worse, is corrupt), it indicts every team that's ever played that sport and the very act of playing that sport.

<comment><USER16> If that's what I had tried to imply, you'd have a point. Instead, I'm arguing with someone who says there's no evidence of corruption but a few anecdotes, by providing an example proving otherwise. That was the city of Philadelphia for the record, not just the suburb I live in. Big court, millions of citizens, state legislature had to step in to stop the corruption. And it's not the only ticketing authority in the nation with bonafide, verifiable corruption. You're spreading misinformation by repeatedly making that assertion that it's all speculation.

> It's not like they are walking into your driveway and giving you a ticket.

Yeah, they actually do that too [Google: 19,600 results for ticket "parked in my own driveway", and personal experience]. You're either overtly biased by your employment where you're taking part in this revenue, or you're wholly ignorant of what it's like to park regularly in some of the largest cities in this nation. Either way, your commentary is uninformed.

<comment><USER3> I believe there's corruption. I believe there's corruption surrounding parking tickets. I would also point out that you are the first person I've read to produce an example of actual corruption surrounding parking tickets that wasn't the equivalent of 19,600 Google results of people complaining about parking enforcement. I don't doubt for a second that all this occurs.

I do however, question this statement, which you seem to be tacitly supporting, though perhaps I'm wrong and we're pursuing semantics down a gopher hole:

"I've always thought that government shouldn't benefit from fines or seized property. I'm not sure what a good solution is. Perhaps they should take the money from fines and just light it on fire.

There shouldn't be a financial incentive for governments to hand out tickets and fines and seize property - the democratic incentive should be enough."

To me that seems flat out ridiculous. Corruption does not make a form of revenue invalid, it means the people who benefited from it should go to jail. With political oversight and transparency, there's no reason that the revenue from fines shouldn't go back into the community in the form of improved services and lower taxes. Government should be transparent and responsive to the political direction of the community, but it shouldn't throw money away.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Pretty cool idea. I think it could really take off and go nationwide.

Helping people to deal with government labyrinths is always a good angle, especially when money is on the line. Here in Chicagoland there are dozens or hundreds of law firms that only exist to help residents appeal their property taxes. They do the research to find arguments for lower taxes, and do the legwork of appealing.

I would imagine that local government may have a hissy fit if this started to happen in other arenas, like for parking tickets, but there is clearly already an appeal process for tickets, and so they are really just using the existing system.

</comment><comment><USER18> Snow emergency tickets are perhaps an order of magnitude worse that your standard parking ticket because not only do you have to pay a hefty fine (AFAIK, not possible to contest), but also have to deal with the fact that you have no car until you pay through the nose to the mobster tow yard as well.

True story: it was the first night of the so called snow emergency (that never came). I was awoken to the sound of a tow truck at 3AM. Running outside (in my underwear) I yelled at the driver, WTF are you doing? There's no snow! He laughed and drove off with my car.

Went to the tow yard the next day and paid the ridiculous fine to get my car back. Pissed off, but whatever, move on.

The next night, same deal, no snow, but the car is towed again! This time, enraged, I walked down to the tow yard (30 minutes away); waited for the right moment (when one of the tow trucks was pulling out to go tow another car), jumped in my car, gunned the engine, and hauled ass out of the yard...and back to my place in the same dry parking spot -- total coup d'etat.

Nothing happened, tow yard probably didn't even know they had my car in the first place.

Moral of the story: ignore reality (i.e. the weather), if the state declares a snow emergency, find off street parking.

</comment><comment><USER19> Nice, I wonder if the second order effect of having a lot of tickets contested will feedback into the people writing them. Since it costs the system more to process a contested ticket, it is a loss for them to write them if they know they won't hold up.

<comment><USER20> This is why I challenge every ticket.

They're often time just more taxes for things like parking 19 vs 18 inches from the curb, even in cases where no traffic (including cyclists) are impeded or endangered.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> There needs to be a service just like this to fight towing companies.

At least where I live they tow people by the truckload from lots that aren't even marked as required by law, and then hold the vehicles hostage for ransom, though so far as I'm aware no law authorizes the theft.

<comment><USER22> I was once in an accident, and my car needed to be towed. The tow guy was supposed to take my car to where I specified; I gave him the address of a mechanic, and watched him write it down. Instead, he takes it to his company's lot, and doesn't tell anyone (including the police, who thought my car was delivered to the mechanic). Fought it, and didn't have to pay their ransom, but it was troubling having no idea where my car was for a few days until we figured it out.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Now if only there was a service that would auomatically ticket all the police, fire, government, etc. officials that park illegally.

</comment><comment><USER24> The first question that came to mind upon reading this was: "are lawyers involved in the contest letter filing process? If not, I wonder if they may have a problem re: unauthorized practice of law in CA.

<comment><USER25> Do lawyers need to be involved? The rules are here: [http://www.sfmta.com/services/permits-citations/contest- cita...](http://www.sfmta.com/services/permits-citations/contest-citation)

All it takes is to submit a letter. Doesn't say _who_ has to submit the letter.

<comment><USER26> Have you done that successfully?

My fiance got a ticket on Muni that was clearly in error (her Clipper Card record showed her tagging 9 minutes prior to the ticket being issued). We followed the instructions for submitting a protest, and never heard back. After some back and forth, it seemed like the protest process was just /dev/null-ed, so we paid up just to make the problem go away.

My take-away was that if you wanted to actually fight a citation you'd have to take them to court. As I understand it, fare evasion was a criminal offense until a few years ago, when they decriminalized it in favor of the new citation system, in order to save money on court costs.

<comment><USER27> > As I understand it, fare evasion was a criminal offense until a few years > ago, when they decriminalized it in favor of the new citation system, in > order to save money on court costs.

It also changes the requirement from "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" to "the preponderance of the evidence", a much lower standard.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> But what are future YC applicants going to use as examples of non-computer systems they've hacked?

</comment><comment><USER29> This piece is somewhat of a lazy PR-scripted journalism from TC (no surprise). Especially since the wording implies that Fixed will pay your ticket if they lose, which they won't: they'll just not charge you. You still have to pay the ticket. Which if it's erroneously issued you can fight yourself quite easily. Will Fixed go to second round arbitration, or challenege later in court if necessary? Because then it might be worth it for your time. Else, you're paying money (25%) for nothing.

<comment><USER30> It sounds like they go to court on your behalf.. If that's the case, then it makes financial sense for _most_ to stay at work for the 1-2 hours and have someone else fight it. I'm not sure this would ever make sense if you're in a less populated jurisdiction where the courthouse is 5 minutes away and never has more than a few people inside, but for cities this seems like a legitimate convenience.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> I'd be excited about this if instead of just sticking you with a reduced fine, they actually went after the city for the costs of defending against the errant ticket.

</comment><comment><USER32> I wish this app had existed 3 years ago, when my sushi lunch in Arlington, Mass., cost me an extra $50 because my car was parked "in excess of 6 inches from the curb". My wife has gotten several citations in that town, as well, for slightly exceeding the 2 hour (non-metered) limit on free parallel parking in the commercial district. You'd almost think they're trying to drive away business.

<comment><USER33> My favorite is when they do this next to high curbs (often in historic districts) - "if I parked closer to the curb it'd be impossible to get out because the bottom of my door would hit the curb".

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Regarding the argument over whether parking ticket revenues are fairly obtained, stinkytaco and others claiming they are fair and legitimate should address the fact that everyone reading this understands what it means to get a ticket "fixed."

There would not be a word for it if that form of corruption wasn't endemic.

</comment><comment><USER34> This isn't the same thing it seems but I recall a documentary/movie about the dotcom craze in the late 90s called startup.com. My recollection is that the company portrayed in that documentary (GovWorks?) got the lucrative contract of handling NYC parking ticket payments online. Ah ... memories.

<comment><USER11> startup dot com

[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0256408/](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0256408/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> If cities complain about Uber and AirBnB, I can't imagine them not raising hell about this. Even if it's perfectly legal, cities will fight like rabid wolverines to protect their revenue sources, especially ones that they don't have to refer to as a dreaded "tax".

</comment><comment><USER36> On a completely unrelated note - did anyone else notice this:

> Here's some more startups that can make your life easier: Wash.io – On- > Demand, Door-To-Door Laundry And Dry Cleaning | Homejoy – On-Demand House > Cleaning

Two plugs for startups that have nothing to do with parking?

</comment><comment><USER37> A cool idea, but cash-strapped local governments will find ways to get around this if it ever becomes popular. There are already jurisdictions where you have to pay your ticket before you can appeal it, and others where appeals cost money.

</comment><comment><USER38> I don't drive so I am totally clueless. But how much are parking tickets? Aren't they about 20 bucks? I don't think I would bother fighting over that.

And I didn't read the article because I don't click on links to techcrunch.

<comment><USER39> In SF, the city this launched in, the parking ticket itself is typically $60-80 for something like running out of time on the meter. If you get towed because the time expired right before rush hour or someone thinks you're blocking their driveway, there's an additional towing fee of ~$500 on top of the ticket.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> Do they do the administrative hearing as well, or just submit your protest? Cause if they think they are going to have non-lawyers attend hearings on behalf of others, I think the CA Bar might have something to say about it.

</comment><comment><USER41> Don't you usually end up paying more in court costs + penalties if you fight a ticket in court and lose?

<comment><USER17> I don't know about California, but here parking tickets (as opposed to speeding tickets) are civil matters. They don't go to court, they're handled at City Hall like any other type of fee or fine.

There is an existing appeal process, and it's likely that they either say, "Okay, ticket dismissed" or "Sorry, ticket stands, send payment in."

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> Great service to the public . Kudos to the designer

</comment><comment><USER43> Beautiful.

This is probably one of the better legal start ups.

<comment><USER40> Nah, nothing is better than the lawdingo.com.</comment></comment>


JSON Analytics with MemSQL - <AUTHOR> http://www.memsql.com/json-analytics

<comment><USER2> Interesting. How would this play with Mongo?

<comment><USER3> ETL from mongo to MemSQL to analyze? SQL wipes the flow compared to Mongo's aggregation framework.</comment></comment>