Facebook.com overtakes Google.com as most visited USA domain. - <AUTHOR> http://markmaunder.com/2010/facebook-com-overtakes-google-com-as-most-visited-usa-domain/

<comment><USER2> I wonder which will grow faster over the next 5 years: Facebook or the rest of the Internet?

If it's the rest of the Internet, then Google is better positioned.

What's striking to me is how much Facebook's approach is not "of" the Internet; Facebook is a site that takes the best of the Internet and places it within the borders of its own site. They've done a great job of that to date: my mum uses it every day and loves it.

Google appears much more inclined to believe it will grow as the Internet grows, and they are investing accordingly. True, they haven't hit many home runs outside of search, but they are willing to contribute to the web, which is the ultimate vendor-agnostic platform.

Google is investing in things it can't control. Facebook is investing only in things it can. I'm overgeneralizing of course, but over time I think Google's open nature wins because consumers eventually reject those companies who gain too much control.

<comment><USER3> > True, they haven't hit many home runs outside of search

Except for youtube which is #4 worldwide and blogger.com #7, not to mention their adsense ads that are all over the web. And don't forget buzz, that is building an open distributed social network over the internet. I think google is doing real fine against facebook.

<comment><USER4> I was with you until you mentioned "buzz". I think the jury's out on that one.

<comment><USER5> I'd even say the jury has returned a verdict of "failed" already.

<comment><USER6> You can never be too sure. After all, chrome floundered in market share for a while before it really developed. Google certainly isn't a company to just let something decent lie around.

<comment><USER7> orkut anyone?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> A slight oversight, technicality or link bait? Here's the real deal:

"But Tatham noted that when he added up traffic on all Google properties like Google Maps and YouTube, the company's sites comprised 11.03% of visits. Yahoo (YHOO, Fortune 500) was second with 10.98%."

Facebook still has some catching up to do.

</comment><comment><USER9> I recently managed a month-long ad-campaign for a client trying to attract Indians wanting to study abroad on both Google and Facebook.

Takeaways:

We spent 1/5th the money on FB to get the same number of people on our landing page.

The % of people filling up the landing page form was approximately the same from FB and Google on weekdays. Google traffic did better on weekends.

FB ads work best when they don't try to do a hard sell. Google ads work better when there is a hard sell.

I think this has to do with user intent. On Goog, people are already looking for something, so directly addressing that is a good idea. On FB, people will look at an ad and get curious only if you get their interest, and it doesn't look like you're saying 'GIVE ME YOUR MONEY' :)

<comment><USER10> That's also aimed really specifically squarely at FB's primary demographic - college students. For the majority of businesses that won't be the case.

<comment><USER9> Interestingly, I think FB's demographics map changes when you move to a country like India or Brazil.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Great job Facebook.

However, I don't see Facebook replacing Google as the primary advertising medium on the Internet--ever. Google's power is that its ads can be placed anywhere with no action on the user's end to be targeted appropriately. Adsense is totally plug-and-play.

To compete with Google, Facebook needs to find a better way to syndicate its ads across the Internet. Unfortunately for them, however, all their advertising power is stuck inside their network. You need to log into Facebook to get targeted ads, which is a huge barrier for Facebook to overcome.

We'll see how it plays out, but IMHO Facebook needs to rethink its advertising strategy to even begin competing with the likes of Google.

<comment><USER12> If I'm looking to buy something and don't know where to get it, I go to Google. So the ads are actually useful to me. I never go to Facebook to search for something I want to buy.

I'm sure many people follow Facebook ads, but I'm not one of them. Especially since they are mostly trying to trick people. Like showing random pictures in the ads that have no meaning to the actual product.

<comment><USER13> Facebook ads are less compelling from the supply side, but in some cases more impressive from the demand side. Companies like Groupon make extensive use of Facebook's demographic targeting, for example, and local advertising is only going to grow over the next five years.

Facebook is also finally moving into virtual currency, with the launch of Facbeook credits. Did you know Zynga is the second largest PayPal merchant after eBay itself?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> It is mentioned in the CNN article and I wonder how relevant it is; Myspace was once the most visited domain. If Facebook can knock Myspace off the list then surely something newer and more exclusive can knock Facebook off.

Personally I switched to Facebook because it was exclusive to universities and I could see who was in my classes. Now that functionality is gone and pages are being filled with garbage apps more and more. I can definitely see another site that starts off exclusive to some demographic and slowly grows and actually stays 'pure' like the original Facebook beating Facebook.

Also am I the only one unsure how these stats are collected? For instance using a built-in search on the iPhone or in Firefox, are those considered visiting a domain because you reach google.com or do you have to explicitly type it and visit it with no referrer (I think the search bars put in some metadata to identify themselves, could be wrong though)?

</comment><comment><USER5> Sit up and take note, kids: this is an early sign of a coming change in the tide of how we use the web. A shift from search to social surfacing for content discovery is under way.

Google will surely fight back, and probably be back on top by next week, but the trend is clear. This is not the beginning of the end for Google, but it is, as they say, the end of the beginning.

Facebook works the way humans work: people hear about stuff from the people around them. Google has to do crazy AI gymnastics to determine intent of keywords, and yet still people often can't find things simply because the keywords they pick aren't the "right" ones, leaving them frustrated. But their friends always know what they mean. (Twitter is also very, very well positioned for this kind of ambient sharing)

<comment><USER15> I remain unconvinced that this shift is taking place on the scale you're referencing. Search is a fundamental web activity that isn't mutually exclusive from "social surfacing" for discovering content. Rather, they are complimentary to each other and the main points of differentiation are with branding and marketing rather than any specific shift toward one or the other.

I also think its a bit simplistic to state 'Facebook works the way humans work' as people hear about stuff through numerous other channels than the people around them (ie: nyt.com dining & wine section for a new restaurant).

The 'crazy AI gymnastics' Google is doing isn't for nothing. I actually think those gymnastics are advancing the web in ways other companies aren't. There will always be some overhead to interacting with your friends on the web and those gymnastics Google is doing make the web a better platform for people to interact with (more like your friend).

<comment><USER5> I don't think the absolute volume of searches will ever decline. However, as a percentage of attention, social surfacing of content will continue to grow.

Take your Dining&Wine section example: that's what they did 3 years ago. But _10_ years ago -- and still today -- they're much more likely to visit somewhere that a friend mentioned they visited. The social discovery mechanism is so natural that you don't even think about it as a discovery mechanism, but it's really the dominant source of information for nearly everybody. Facebook and other social networks are only just learning the right way to use that data (and the ground is littered with companies that have failed, even with the same data).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> "(…) Facebook may be a bigger success than Google long term (…)"

To extend on that: Facebook won't replace Google. Facebook and Google get so many visits because of different things. Demand for search won't falter because social networks increase in popularity. I, at least, cannot see how that would be possible.

But – just so there are no misunderstandings – Google and Facebook are nevertheless clearly competitors. There is a finite amount of money that will be spent on advertising and Google and Facebook will both be fighting for a large piece that cake. And at some point in the future online advertising will have grown up so that there won't be always more and more money coming into the system.

<comment><USER17> Note that Google is starting to step on Facebook's toes a little with Google Buzz. I don't think it'll put more than the tiniest dent in Facebook, but they aren't entirely mutually exclusive.

<comment><USER16> Google's success constrains Facebook and Facebook's success constrains Google (even more). I guess they aren't completely happy neighbors.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Would be interested to know how they calculate the traffic data because there seels to be a bias. Facebook.com is often used worldwide vs. Google has different domain names by key geographical areas (e.g. google.fr, google.be, etc)

<comment><USER19> The article mentions its only in US domains.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Makes me think of how many times per day I check my facebook page for no reason at all (except that I'm bored or looking for a distraction). I guess facebook really is the new TV. In fact, after seeing the word "facebook" in this thread, I have an urge to check my facebook page once again.

<comment><USER21> This is why I recently deleted my facebook account. I was losing that brain dead, no pressure down time (which I found facebook didn't provide).

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> > They already have a distributed network of sites in the form of Facebook > Connect which has deeper integration than AdSense. That means Facebook gets > more data about visitors to those sites than Google AdSense.

What about all those sites using Google Analytics? even Twitter is among them.

</comment><comment><USER23> I've found that the longer I'm out of college, the less I use facebook.

</comment><comment><USER24> As it is there isn't much overlap between what facebook does and what google does so the comparison seems moot. Sure they both aggregate data about people and things but from the user's perspective the experience of that data are light years apart. You'd be surprised how much information my local grocery store has on me but I don't pit my local grocery store against google and compare monetization strategies.

</comment><comment><USER25> The problem with this is that whereas people go on facebook to network, the go on google to buy things.

The ad money is at the same place where people are spending their money.

Look at facebook ads, a lot of them are for other social networking sites, very few are for actual products or services.

Until facebook becomes a place where people go to shop, their ads will be in a completely different league.

</comment><comment><USER4> Nitpicking, but the title isn't very clear.

"Facebook.com overtakes Google.com as most visited domain by people living in USA." might be better.

Title makes it sound like 'google.com and facebook.com are both USA domains, and facebook has overtaken google as most visited'.

</comment><comment><USER26> Most Facebook users can't even find facebook.com without Google: [http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/facebook_wants_to_be_yo...](http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/facebook_wants_to_be_your_one_true_login.php#comments). Am I missing something?

<comment><USER27> _Some_ Facebook users can't. And a large proportion of those comments are probably just trolls.

<comment><USER26> My apologies if my comment generalizes Facebook users but I have a difficult time entertaining any comparison between Facebook and Google. What about myspace, Yahoo, AOL? Each of these social sites failed since they catered to the LCD. The next wave of net users thought they were lame. The net doesn't work like other entertainment in that if you don't like the content, then you can make your own or go somewhere else. Facebook is doomed the day pics of grandchildren quit getting uploaded or everybody realizes they've friended their employer.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> This is so interesting because Facebook, unlike Google, still has not demonstrated a viable, profitable plan for its operations. They have ads but afaik, like most ad supported sites, they don't make back the money. Maybe Facebook Credits are starting to catch on.

The thing is, unlike Google, which had a good, scalable business plan, and was able to grow to its current size reasonably and organically, Facebook is continually propped up by outside investment and debt.

Facebook also right now has a much, much smaller staff than Google to be handling all of that traffic and attention.

Do we expect Facebook to become a mainstay or will they become too big for their britches and topple? What do you people think?</comment>


Ask HN: Where to learn about the latest news on VR&AR? - <AUTHOR> New to VR (virtual reality) and AR (augmented reality) space. Just want to get caught up with the central sphere of innovation. Where can I learn more about the main companies that are driving these fields? <comment><USER2> I recently asked a similar question of a co-worker who works with our AR/VR initiatives. He recommended

[https://uploadvr.com/](https://uploadvr.com/)

There also appear to be some pretty active subreddits in this area:

[https://www.reddit.com/r/augmentedreality/](https://www.reddit.com/r/augmentedreality/)

[https://www.reddit.com/r/virtualreality/](https://www.reddit.com/r/virtualreality/)

</comment><comment><USER3> [https://www.roadtovr.com/](https://www.roadtovr.com/)</comment>


What Makes a Developer Truly Professional - <AUTHOR> http://www.embeddeduse.com/2015/07/19/what-makes-a-developer-truly-professional/

<comment><USER2> _" Every single line of code that [we] write should be tested. Period."_

But that's not enough either. A single line of code can be executed in many different contexts, depending on what the state of the system is - choice and ordering of user actions, files existing or not, localization differences, etc. A unit test that executes a line of code for only one situation doesn't go very far to ensure that this line of code will be bug-free when run in a realistic setting. And a single line of code can do a lot of work if it's a call to a system service or an external library API.

<comment><USER3> Yup. Every true professional realizes 100% code coverage is a fool's errand for this exact reason. Coverage is a useful metric. It's not the end-all or be-all, and anyone who claims it is doesn't understand the law of diminishing returns.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> >>> If we don't have 100% coverage, we will not know whether our code really works.

Um... your code might not work even with 100% code coverage.

Also, I think I read somewhere that enforcing 100% code coverage makes developers to write dumb tests that don't do anything just to reach that magical number. Do you really need to test a getter function?</comment>


Tell HN: Things I Learned about Credit Bureaus This Week - <AUTHOR> Last week, 1 or more parties hacked my Equifax account, set up an account at TransUnion, and ran up charges on a cloned credit card in Brazil.  To resolve this, I've interacted with the FTC, police, card issuer, and credit bureaus.  Here's what I learned about the credit bureaus:
1. Equifax has no escalation path for security breaches on weekends. Even if a breach potentially affects millions of accounts, there is no way to report it until Monday.
2. TransUnion has no ability to investigate hacks or security breaches. They can only generate a reference number for the customer to file a police report with. (Note that their top product category is Credit Management & Protection.)
3. TransUnion and Equifax do not cooperate on investigations. Despite evidence that suggests the same hacker was at work, neither credit union indicated any interest in even talking with the other.
4. If your TransUnion account is hacked, you will lose online access for life. You will never be able to download your credit report from TransUnion again, and can only get it via mail.  For life.
5. Experian displays your mother's maiden name on your profile page. There is no way to hide this, obscure your mother's maiden name, or select a different security question.
6. Experian agents cannot view support ticket numbers or track tickets. Only a supervisor can access ticket numbers.  Of course, that means you need to talk to a supervisor…
7. Equifax and Experian are extremely reluctant to generate a ticket or escalate to a supervisor. At Equifax, I requested to speak to a supervisor 7 times.  At Experian, the agent awkwardly tried to resolve a CloudFlare server error by asking if I was using Internet Explorer.  It felt endemic.  I did not sense this at TransUnion.
This experience has eroded my naive confidence in the consumer credit system.  The burden for prevention, monitoring, and remediation is borne almost entirely by the customer.  This doesn't seem right. <comment><USER3> I have no business dealing with "credit bureaus". I did not give them my information or consenting for them to store my information on their system.

So, I have been told constantly to "correct" my information with them - <USER2> THEM! They bought/stole my personal information - I have no business with them.

Call me naive, but I wish more people would not give a damn about them either.

When I needed a loan to buy my house, I spoke directly to the loan officer face to face and told showed them all documents they needed and told them that if they need to consider my approval based on "Credit Score", I did not care.. I showed them the mistakes and mis-information they have in my credit report and -when he asked me to call them to fix it - I told him that I would not do that because I do not consent them holding my information. Two days later, the load officer called me to tell me my application was approved.

People need to do this more often.

<comment><USER4> Thanks for your comment, my sentiment exactly.

Opting out of the entire thing is the best way to eliminate this scam. It is absolutely stupid that in the US your financial life is dictated by an opaque algorithm and an entrenched bureaucracy.

If you live carefully you don't need credit at all, ever, except for possibly buying a house as you said. All other purchases... car, food, etc are easy enough to save up for... and if not, just do without until you can. Such a lifestyle sucks if you are used to instant gratification and living beyond your means (been there) but you can sleep better at night.

If more people followed your advice we would surely be better off... even in the circumstance of buying a house as you said, they will find a way... they are after all paid on commission :)

<comment><USER5> "It is absolutely stupid that in the US your financial life is dictated by an opaque algorithm"

It's not 'an opaque algorithm'. I'm assuming the US is similar to the UK, in that banks/lenders use credit bureaus for access to data. That data is then fed to the lenders' own systems for processing (to create a score, check against certain criteria etc.).

If banks did not have such reliable access to your credit status and history, they'd be less likely to give you a loan, and offer credit on worse (for the borrower) terms.

<comment><USER4> In the US, the main number that everyone is concerned with is the FICO score, and the algorithm is a secret. Most lenders do not generate their own measures of creditworthiness but rather just use FICO

Also even if you don't want to borrow money here is a list of things in the US that are increasingly based off of FICO:

1) car insurance 2) employment 3) wireless phone contracts 4) copper phone lines

I'm sure there are more... but you get the point I hope

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> You're not the customer. You're the product.

<comment><USER7> Bingo.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> The credit bureaus simply don't care.

I had my identity stolen and then bad information was mixed into my account information. It took years to get things straightened out.

Even to this day, years later I can't do any online credit verification because it has data mixed with it from the credit bureaus, and I routinely get answers wrong because of this. But there is no one I can complain to, especially for these online data tests.

The best way to get something done is to do a proposition in states that support it, like California, and get a law voted in that forces better behavior from the credit bureaus. Then, because California requires it, chances are change will occur throughout the country.

<comment><USER9> This is what the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is for. They probably can't do anything to help in the short term, because their powers are circumscribed by Congress, but you could try asking them how best to document your experience in a way that would influence future rulemaking.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> The credit system is one of the most broken things in the US economy IMHO. It's a legal requirement / protected entity. One cannot legally get basic forms of financial instruments without existing in the system -- and if you have these financial instruments, you have no rights to limit your information sharing with these firms. This makes it nearly impossible to opt out of, and certainly impossible to choose which one you want to work with. As you've indicated, all of them are terrible and you have surprisingly little recourse to deal with issues or corrections. Until recent laws were passed, you were not even guaranteed to be able to request what information they kept on you.

This is one of few things that I would love to help correct as a business opportunity and a social good, but at the moment, the way the laws are structured makes an EXTREMELY high bar to get in, and these terribly flawed companies are highly protected.

</comment><comment><USER11> Anybody want to tackle this (seemingly large) problem that we have with credit bureaus? I'd be more than happy to try and dethrone the credit bureau beasts with a new, helpful, transparent service that folks actually enjoy.

<comment><USER12> The best way to do this is to create a more accurate credit prediction system. Underwriters rely on credit scores because they're cheap, quick, and easy way to triage risk. Credit scores are riddled with inaccuracies, but because risk is difficult to model precisely to begin with, these companies are still in business because they work decently well even despite the many errors.

If you could create a system using publicly available data that is a statistically and meaningfully superior way of predicting risk, it would be immensely valuable to the asset owners that are buying mortgages, insurance products etc. that rely on credit scores. You'd have to get them to demand it enough to change their underwriting guidelines (a morass of bureaucracy), but once they do, you'd also gain some steady demand and a moat of competitive advantage.

<comment><USER13> Some payday lenders already have their own prediction systems in place using scraped public data. The problem that arises is that due to regulation, credit decisions cannot be made based on certain information. I'm sure this varies across sectors of finance though.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Request a credit freeze or a security freeze from the credit bureaus. This prevents entities from accessing your credit report without you lifting the freeze.

This stops a lot of the low hanging identity theft cases.

[http://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0497-credit-freeze- faqs](http://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0497-credit-freeze-faqs)

<comment><USER15> In case it matters, a credit freeze will also prevent services like Credit Karma from being able to access your information.

[https://help.creditkarma.com/hc/en- us/articles/202041774-I-h...](https://help.creditkarma.com/hc/en- us/articles/202041774-I-have-a-security-freeze-on-my-credit-report-Can-I- still-use-Credit-Karma-)

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> > 5\. Experian displays your mother's maiden name on your profile page. There > is no way to hide this, obscure your mother's maiden name, or select a > different security question.

Not to detract from their incompetence, but still: never answer a security question with a true answer. That's what password managers are for.

</comment><comment><USER17> I'm always sorry to hear these stories. I hope you'll write it up and blog about it, if only to help other victims. Navigating the byzantine world of credit bureau fraud is something many US citizens find bewildering.

</comment><comment><USER18> Was it a CHASE card? I've seen reports of Compromised Chase credit cards on Flyertalk [1] and a couple of them mentioned use of a cloned card in Brazil.

Edit: [1] [http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/chase-ultimate- rewards/168257...](http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/chase-ultimate- rewards/1682573-chase-hacked-again.html)

<comment><USER19> It's a popular bank: [https://www.chase.com/](https://www.chase.com/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Condolences and goodluck, I too would like to see a series of articles on what you've learned, the conciseness of your writing is preferred to what I find in publications.

As an aside: Guess it's time to put a credit freeze / lock on my record so the scammers can't hijack things. Lame that the agencies can charge us for this self - protective measure.

</comment><comment><USER9> I would welcome seeing this extended into a larger and more detailed article, or even a series of articles. Usually I'm a little skeptical of complaint stories because they often strain credulity but you seem to have approached this in a patient and methodical manner.

<comment><USER21> That's part of why the credit bureaus and banks in the US have such incredible power. People tend to believe the calm and faceless large organization over an angry individual ranting on the Internet. Surely, the law wouldn't allow someone to be treated so poorly by corporations? And, yet...abuses are so pervasive that I am gradually beginning to think even the most ridiculous sounding horror stories about credit are believable.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Describe your experience in details and post it in public and visible blog. Also twit about - in other words - let the whole world know about this.

With all the recent privacy buzz - this may attract necessary attention to shake out this swamp.

<comment><USER23> This a great advice but it's a fucking shame that this is the ONLY resource many people have against credit bureaus and large corps in general. The number of times I tried traditional support to no avail and got a response to an angry tweet minutes/hours after posting makes me sick.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Get a lawyer. You can sue them under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). That is the primary recourse you have, not customer service.

</comment><comment><USER25> To Europeans wondering what this is, these are companies that track every financial transaction of Americans in ways that would violate dozens of privacy laws outside the u.s., and have become the de facto source for determining credit risk, rather than a simple search of court records for open or pending debt issues.

<comment><USER26> Err, Europe has credit bureaus too:

[http://aei.pitt.edu/33375/1/ACCIS- Survey_FinalReport_withCov...](http://aei.pitt.edu/33375/1/ACCIS- Survey_FinalReport_withCover.pdf)

Jump to page 31 to see what is stored by the bureaus in each country.

<comment><USER25> I guess we're spoiled in Switzerland.</comment></comment></comment>


Bay Area geek tourist destinations? - <AUTHOR>

I'm going to be visiting the Bay Area for a few days, and I want to get all the geek tourism I can.  I'm planning on visiting the Computer History Museum, The Tech Museum, the Intel Museum, and (with luck) the Google store.  What else would you recommend? <comment><USER2> Hacker Dojo. The Tech Museum in San Jose.

</comment><comment><USER3> biocurious, the bay area biohackerspace</comment>


David Cameron announces resignation - <AUTHOR> http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/24/david-cameron-resigns-after-uk-votes-to-leave-european-union <comment><USER4> He'll go down in history as one of the worst leaders the UK ever had. Which he already was before yesterday. By the way, if he let the people decide on such a super topic as leave/remain in the EU, why does he not let his people vote on whether they want total surveillance or not? If they want a police state? Why can't they decide on stuff that affects their daily lives in a potential negative way? Or will they ignore the voice of the voters, Boaty McBoatface- style?

<comment><USER5> This government is for austerity and cutting public services and expenditure. He is no less a reflection of his party.

Next PM's in line: Theresa May: Pro snoopers (spying) charter. I don't like the term police state but her actions are worryingly in line.

Boris Johnson? A very charismatic idiot. His selling point being the golden coloured hairy creature that has permanently occupied his scalp.

Yes. We have a great line up of next potential PM's for Britain.

<comment><USER6> > Boris Johnson? A very charismatic idiot.

His persona is that of a charismatic bumbling idiot, but idiot he is not. Underneath this persona lies a highly intelligent, disingenuous, manipulative and calculating operator.

I genuinely think that he didn't believe in Brexit; rather he saw a potential route into number 10 and took a gamble on it.

<comment><USER7> "he saw a potential route into number 10 and took a gamble on it."

The funny thing is that basically Cameron used a similar gamble to be elected.

Push Brexit referendum, and hope for a Remain outcome.

I mean, it would be funny if the well-being of millions of people would not be impacted by all this gambling.

<comment><USER8> The main thing is that regardless of who pushed for or against the UK exiting the EU the voters voted to leave.

Neither Boris nor David made a unilateral decision. The people took action and voted against the EU. Lots of people are in shock but should not be.

<comment><USER9> Well, lots of people also voted _for_ the EU – it was far from unanimous after all.

<comment><USER8> So when the votes align with the elites, do you see similar hand wringing? Oh, but so many people voted against our position... Not very likely.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I just watched his talk. He lost. He fought that he can avoid crack in his party and anti-eu members will be pleased if he make this move - referendum. Then he thought he will get what he wants from EU and then all citizens will vote remain. He was wrong on all this points. He is the biggest looser in this situation and he really knows it.

<comment><USER11> > He is the biggest looser in this situation

Except he isn't, really -- he loses his political position, but he and his family won't be existentially affected by what's going to happen, as opposed to probably tens of millions of people all around Europe.

<comment><USER12> The EU's common agricultural policy was actively favoring and subsidizing large EU based multinationals and blocking entry into the market by small scale farmers and producers in developing countries. Seems to me like a huge new market called "the UK" just opened up for genuine and fair trade. So overall, this is probably good for hundreds of millions of people around the world.

<comment><USER13> At last UK farmers can sell their top quality fruit and vegetables to the rest of the world.

<comment><USER14> Not without trade agreements that may take years to negotiate.

Also, UK farmers get over half their income from EU subsidies. So many of them are going to go bankrupt unless they get bailed out/supported by the government.

[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11967049/Brexit...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11967049/Brexit- is-a-life-or-death-matter-for-Britains-farmers.html)

<comment><USER13> Sorry, I thought my sarcasm was evident. To anyone who's tasted UK-grown fruit and veg, it must be.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I find it very amusing that England stopped Scotland from leaving (among other arguments) by saying "You would have to enter EU again", and then left EU the next year :)

<comment><USER16> I can assure you that the Scots don't find that amusing at all P:

<comment><USER17> Well you do get to use all of their own arguments/rationalisations against them next time around.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Its his fault we're here. His policies made inequality in the UK so high that people got angry and started blaming the EU and mainly migrants.

<comment><USER19> Nothing to do with that. He threw out the referendum promise in order to secure power, and then failed to get Europe to agree to the headline changes which would easily have secured the vote in his "renegotiation".

"Austerity" is not to blame for this. You can argue EU recalcitrance played a part, as did labour party weakness, but it's on him. His legacy will be this vote, this loss, and his failure to see through the consequences of his actions.

<comment><USER5> > "Austerity" is not to blame for this.

Austerity would be to blame for this - it contributed to people being more anti-immigrant, though indirectly.

Him calling the referendum, the outcome - are related to his parties policies without isolation.

<comment><USER20> We haven't had austerity in the UK, we have had nothing like what Spain or Greece have had to deal with.

<comment><USER5> Comparing UK with Spain or Greece? The UK was the fifth largest economy in the world. I don't your comparison to Greece is a fair, to say the least.

We've had an onslaught of austerity measures and public cuts too many to list in a sitting.

<comment><USER20> Yet unemployment is only 5.6%.

<comment><USER21> In Netherlands they changed the way unemployment is measured. Was something similar done in UK? The change it Netherlands makes me not trust easy figures anymore.

Further, seems in UK there's quite a big difference between working and actually having enough to live comfortably. A lot rely on support or barely can afford anything.

Anyway, that is my impression and don't mind being proved wrong.

<comment><USER19> "Further, seems in UK there's quite a big difference between working and actually having enough to live comfortably. A lot rely on support or barely can afford anything."

I mean, working is not the same as working full time. I couldn't live on 16 hours a week at minimum wage. I could live on full time minimum wage (though not easily if I were still London based). There _are_ benefits and support available to working people, but not in the sense that it's a bad thing.

Unemployment only counts people actively looking and not employed at all - <USER2> the ONS publishes all those definitions. There hasn't been any new/recent fiddles that I recall.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> In my opinion, the most interesting thing he said in that speech is that he doesn't plan to trigger article 50 immediately.

That will be controversial in both, the EU and Britain I think.

<comment><USER23> If the UK starts muddling through, the EU should firmly act and suspend UK membership: we can not allow uncertainty, and a future ex-member abusing the good will of the rest of the EU.

Cameron promised to trigger article 50 immediately: if he does not, we should force him to.

<comment><USER24> There is no process for the EU to suspend the UK or for the EU to trigger article 50

<comment><USER23> You are not suggesting that the UK leaving the EU will be done on UK terms only, do you? Like "we get that funding chunk and then we leave" or "we attend that EU parliament session and then we leave" or "we don't say how or when, we'll just leave, whenever it suits us, and please don't disturb because I am too busy doing important things which you can not hope to comprehend". How long do you think the EU will wait for the princess to make up her mind?

I do not know the exact mechanisms by which the EU can force the UK out, but one thing I know: we can not allow us the luxury of keeping the enemy inside the gates.

I for one hope this is done with asap. Out is out.

<comment><USER24> The UK gets to decide when they trigger the process but the 'official' process can't start until the UK triggers it.

The referendum isn't actually legally binding so in theory article 50 may never get triggered, though as the vote is a reaction against politicians, that would be political suicide.

The final terms will be the result of negotiation and I don't think the UK actually has a good position.

The referendum was always a trap, if UK votes out we're probably screwed, if we voted in it becomes a signal for the political elites for even more political integration (and there seems limited support for that amongst the actual people of Europe)

Got to remember the politicians of the EU don't work for the people - <USER3> how they shafted the people of Greece to save German and French banks, how TTIP is being negotiated in secret and hands more power to corporations etc.

<comment><USER23> > The UK gets to decide when they trigger the process but the 'official' > process can't start until the UK triggers it.

If the UK spends the next 15 years making trouble in the EU, blocking a Brexit agreement, not taking decisions, and basically torpedoing the functioning of the EU, I hope the EU is going to do something about it.

The UK was bad enough for the EU while it was in, let's not allow it to destroy the rest of the EU while it is leaving.

There are mechanism to force the UK out now. One would be to marginalize them from any decision taking, any negotiation, and meeting that the EU participates in, internally or with partners. I do not know the exact mechanisms that the EU can use for this, but I know how I would deal with this in my partnerships: "sorry, I forgot to call you!" "Oh, I thought you were in holidays!" "Did you really not receive that memo? So sorry!" and the like. If the UK starts playing dirty, we should too.

Out is out: we do not want the UK in the EU anymore. Please pack and leave.

<comment><USER25> > If the UK spends the next 15 years making trouble in the EU, blocking a > Brexit agreement

If they don't trigger Article 50, they have exactly the same role in the EU as if they never chose to leave (except that they lose the special concessions that they _just got approved_ which were contingent on a "Remain" result in the referendum, which, AFAICT, is the only actual _legal_ effect of referendum.)

Once they trigger Article 50, they are out in 2 years (barring an agreement to extend the process.) The only purpose of an exit agreement is to provide an _alternative_ to the default exit terms, which would, e.g., leave trade relations between Britain and the EU reverting to WTO rules.

<comment><USER23> I doubt it. They have legally the same rights and obligations, but in practice I do not see the rest of the EU willing to work with the UK representatives. They will get the minimum legally required, and will have to satisfy the maximum of their legal obligations. British representatives will not be very popular in the european institutions now (not that they were very popular to start with)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Wow. A new Prime Minister and a new President within about a month of each other. At this point though, it doesn't seem like the former will matter much anymore.

I hope this shit hole of a year turns around for the second half.

<comment><USER27> And so it begins...

If a Brexit-fanatic like Boris somehow gets hold of the UK, and Trump does the same in the US, we'll be looking back at "those good old days prior to June 2016" in no time... The world-economy will get more introvert, like the "me first" kids at school who don't care about the rest. And that will be the fuel of the upcoming unrest in the rest of the world...

<comment><USER28> I really don't think Boris cared one way of the other (Remain/Leave), he just saw a way to position himself for PM and took it.

<comment><USER19> Given that he's been writing against the EU for 15 years or more, that's pretty unlikely.

<comment><USER29> [http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/2012/dec/04/boris-j...](http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/2012/dec/04/boris- johnson-europe-speech-live-blog#block-50bdd0ee95cb52bb16ba918b)

> He said that in such a referendum he would campaign for Britain to stay in. > As a journalist in Brussels, he "migrated from being quite enthusiastic > about Europe to being really very sceptical". But whenever he considered the > prospect of Britain leaving, he always came down "narrowly" in favour of > Britain staying in.

[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris- johnson-...](http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson- accused-of-breathtaking-hypocrisy-over-eu-referendum-flip-flop-a7020396.html)

> Boris has turned his back on his long-held belief in the peace and > prosperity the EU has brought but it's hardly surprising, given that just > months ago he was still telling friends he is not an Outer.

etc.etc.etc. He's a political opportunist who follows whichever wind will get him most power. Much like Cameron except that backfired spectacularly.

<comment><USER19> I think the former is a fairly accurate description of his position. I remember as a teenager reading his articles from Brussels and the slow slide into the ever more ridiculous facets of the political sphere there, and his frustration with a lot of what he saw.

Thinking in 2012 that the EU is marginally better than the alternative is not exactly incongruous with changing your mind - especially given the past 4 years of the Euro project?

Most importantly, prior to Cameron "renegotiating", Boris took a position of not saying out until he saw the final deal. Again, this is not unreasonable. He was not an Outer - just waiting to see whether Cameron would deliver what he promised (and he didn't).

I have seen people try to spin Boris as just an opportunist but I'm not sold. His ~non fiction~ book about Churchill is not something I'm taking as a primary source on his views...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> What has he ever done, other than reletentlessy dividing his country, every way he could, for all of his 6 years ?

<comment><USER31> Equal Marriage was a good move which was broadly supported. Other than that, not much.

<comment><USER32> I think 'religion is the opium of the people' cuts both ways. Politicians will push through popular socio-economic policies (e.g. gay marriage) in order to be able to get enough support to also push through their unpopular economic policies.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Maybe the EU as is should also resign and reappear in a better shape.

Europe will stay Europe and I don't think everything will shatter now.

On the contrary, isn't it a nice demonstration of democracy and treaties can be re-negotiated. I'm quite sure that many people are not happy with the current EU arrangement and would vote to leave (if they could and/or if they weren't so much bound by economic benefits as e.g. Gibraltar). An EU reform is needed and I hope this Brexit serves as another signal that it is really about time to speak honestly about 'some issues' and try to find solutions for them.

<comment><USER34> " _...isn 't it a nice demonstration of democracy and treaties can be re- negotiated..._"

You understand how this works, right? As part of the EU the UK has bartering clout. As an independent little island with a huge trade deficit and a weak £ it has nothing. So a trade deal with China, for instance, would end with China trading in the UK, and the UK waiting 15 years before trading in China.

There is hyperbole in what I'm saying, which is probably a result of the disappointing outcome of the referendum, but... the UK as a trading partner has nothing to offer anyone.

<comment><USER35> The idea of "clout" is an incorrect belief that is not supported by the data:

[http://www.civitas.org.uk/press/no-benefit-for-uk-trade- from...](http://www.civitas.org.uk/press/no-benefit-for-uk-trade-from-eu- collective-clout)

<comment><USER34> Thanks for that, interesting observations. Still sceptical though (not saying you're wrong), given the UK huge trade deficit and now a weak £.

<comment><USER36> A weak pound makes british products more affordable to foreign consumers,which should partially mitigate the trade deficit.

<comment><USER25> > A weak pound makes british products more affordable to foreign consumers

And foreign goods less affordable to British consumers...

> which should partially mitigate the trade deficit.

Indeed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> For those of us who do not live in GB, could somebody ELI5 about how these things work? Does the Prime Minister just hang out until he decides he's had enough?

(Yes, I know I could Wiki it. For others browsing the thread, however, 2-5 sentences on how it all works would be useful.)

<comment><USER38> It's slightly different depending on the party but essentially the Prime Minister can resign at any time.

In terms of the Conservative Party they don't elect a deputy leader who would take over hence the internal party election for a new Prime Minister in October.

The Conservative Party also have processes to sacrifice their party leader (via the 1922 Committee) which allows the parliamentary MPs to call for a vote of no confidence in the leader and decide new candidates. This is how Margaret Thatcher was forced out.

<comment><USER37> This is actually quite interesting. I knew there was a parliamentary system, but I didn't know the intricacies.

So each party, as long as it holds the majority, can do whatever it likes to pick a PM?

<comment><USER39> Yep. The PM is actually appointed by the Queen. But they have to demonstrate that they have enough support in parliament to form a working government. In practice this means that whatever party holds the majority gets to pick the PM. If there is no party with an overall majority (as in 2010) then two or more parties have to reach a coalition agreement.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> Can someone explain what happens next? Will UK really leave the EU? If yes, how long will it take? Will EU ask them to leave or just wait for UK to initiate the process?

<comment><USER25> > Can someone explain what happens next?

People can guess, but there's a lot of uncertainty on some points.

> Will UK really leave the EU?

Most likely, as I understand it, the next British government will formally start the (at least) two year process of exiting the EU. In the short term, they are still in the EU.

> Will EU ask them to leave or just wait for UK to initiate the process?

As I understand, under the applicable treaty, the UK has to formally initiate the withdrawal process. The EU has asked them to do so without delay, which is what Cameron had promised before the vote, but Cameron has since said that he plans to leave that to the next PM.

<comment><USER40> _Cameron has since said that he plans to leave that to the next PM._

So he leaves a big mess to his successor?

<comment><USER25> > So he leaves a big mess to his successor?

I'm not a fan of Cameron (also, not British and don't have a particularly strong investment in this, though I tend to think Brexit was a bad idea for all involved), but I think there is a fair case to be made that leaving it to the next PM to trigger Article 50 is the right thing to do (promising an immediate trigger -- which was a scare tactic for the vote -- was a bad move.) Here's why: Article 50 provides a 2-year timeline for exit, and provides tht an exit agreement which modifies the default terms takes unanimous approval of the EU members. You want, as much as possible, to have continuous government with a clear mandate during that process so that you can effectively negotiate that agreement and not get stuck with the default terms.

<comment><USER41> Also, what if the new PM has to pass through general elections? You might end up having someone which promises to trigger article 50 and someone who does not. A second referendum.

<comment><USER25> > Also, what if the new PM has to pass through general elections?

That _shouldn 't_ be necessary (the Conservatives have an outright majority, so their new leader should be able to form a government), but, yeah, it would significantly complicate things (especially if Cameron had triggered Article 50 before leaving.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> Throughout the campaign he has been claiming the UK are not quitters, first thing he does, is quit!

</comment><comment><USER43> Outsmarted himself and fucked up royally. Time to go.

</comment><comment><USER44> So today Britain cripples it own economy for nothing. But hey, no more Cameron!. I call it evens.

<comment><USER45> There has been so much scaremongering in the UK press that the markets are now reacting accordingly.

Ultimately trade deals are important not just to the UK but to the countries it trades with. People in power will make deals happen because they have to.

There's going to be some short term pain - but ultimately everything will balance out.

<comment><USER46> > Ultimately trade deals are important not just to the UK but to the countries > it trades with. People in power will make deals happen because they have to.

It's wishful thinking that the deals will be as favourable to the UK, with its now much smaller leverage.

<comment><USER45> I never said anything about the deals with the EU being as favourable.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Every cloud has a silver lining.

<comment><USER47> That silver lining is the sun waiting to come back to give you skin-cancer.

<comment><USER13> Classy.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> This thread is political. Unlike the other thread about the referendum , it has derailed to name-calling.

<comment><USER49> The level of discourse is poor.

That said, what happens in a global financial center almost certainly _will_ have impacts on Silicon Valley and the startup environment.

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> As if the pound needed more beating today. Oh well he was not at the level of Disraeli, Churchill or Thatcher. He made that mess and didn't even had the balls to pull the trigger of brexit himself.

All hail Boris Johnson. Crazy hairdos on top of influential Anglo Saxon countries is bull market it seems.

We will live in interesting times.

<comment><USER51> > Crazy hairdos on top of influential Anglo Saxon countries is bull market it > seems.

Let's hope NL will manage to avoid that.

In a way the 'brexit' may be the strongest shot in the arm for the rest of European unity if the consequences are quick and harsh enough. That would be a real pity for the people in the UK, but it may still have some positive effect.

And there is always a way back.

For now, this is a pretty black day in history.

<comment><USER50> I am optimistic ... The EU has leverage. And the revanche towards UK may unite the continent.

Also the Anglo-Saxon worldview ... and their laizes faire approach is incompatible with the continental worldview. I honestly believe that UK impeded European unity with their "special" status inside.

If the EU plays its cards correctly we may remove the U from UK, take in the parts, and then include England and Whales ... on our terms. Realpolitik is fun thing to play.

<comment><USER51> > Realpolitik is fun thing to play.

I don't agree with that. You're assuming we know the outcome and with shifts like these the real results won't be in for generations to come.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Don't like Brexit? We have a plan - <AUTHOR> http://www.transylvaniabeyond.com/ <comment><USER2> This is really cool and well done. I'm unhappy with the stats they chose though.

I thought that 20x less robberies seemed unlikely so I clicked their source. They were using the absolute number of robberies not per capita. The way they used it is sneakiness bordering on outright lies. This kind of bad-faith abuse of stats always irritates me.

<comment><USER3> And not all robberies and thefts are reported to /recorded by the police. There are vast differences between countries in those numbers. On the other hand, the car theft numbers is probably accurate, because people need to report to get insurance.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Let's break down the modern, flashy PR move and check some reality:

LGBT rights in Romania (from [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Romania](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Romania)) \- Decriminalized in 1996 \- Gender identity: change of legal sex allowed since 1996 \- Discrimination protections: protections since 2000 (still don't national ones in the U.S.) \- No marriage \- No civil unions \- Adoption HAAAHAHAAH cmon be serious

LGBT rights in the UK (from [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_the_United_King...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_the_United_Kingdom)) \- Decriminalized in the 60s - 80s, way before 1996 \- Gender identity: change of legal sex allowed since 2005, way after Romania \- Discrimination protections: protections since 2010, way after Romania \- Civil unions in 2005 \- Marriage in 2014 \- Adoption since 2005 / 2013

<comment><USER5> It's very easy for an outsider to judge it like that. You can't compare the UK with an ex-communist, very religious country. These things can't really change overnight, it takes a few generations. So yeah, I wouldn't advise any gay people to go to Romania.

<comment><USER6> I echo that. Also, I'm pretty sure that even in such an "ex-communist, very religious country" there are LGBTs and areas (probably Bucharest) where LGBTs are rather accepted. If de-jure-acceptance instead of just de-facto is a dealbreaker for you I suggest come back in a couple of years/decades :-(

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> In Romania, companies which have under 100.000 euro / year income are called microenterprises. Microenterprises have an income tax of 3% which should be paied quarterly. If they have at least one employee, the tax is 2%. If they have at least 2 empoyees, the tax is 1%. The tax on dividends is 5% and IT specialists are free from salary taxes. We moved our headquarters to Bucharest in Q1/2014, but this autumn the team is moving to Sibiu, Transylvania! Glad to be here :-)

<comment><USER6> This is actually the information I missed on their website. Could you elaborate on...

... did you move there from outside of Romania? ... if so, how did you incorporate there? Did you gave your BV/GmbH/Ltd/SA just another address or created a new company there, that then bought 100% of your old shop?

<comment><USER7> We're from the US and were looking for promising European land. No, we incorporated a brand new company(WELOVEHN SRL) not to hassle with bureaucracy. Which is cool from an administrative point of view. Romanian lawyers seem to be fluent in English and we still maintain a productive collaboration.

<comment><USER6> Thanks for your reply! Do you manage from abroad or did you personally relocate as well?

Hope your move proves to be a success!

<comment><USER7> A quarter of our team was working remotely from Romania, so we decided to relocate. I had plans to go back to CA as soon as everything was in place, but for a while I wanted a vacation... Then it felt wrong to leave and I remained in charge. I'll be back, maybe to get more of my friends in Transylvania with me :-)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I just find this initiative mind-blowing. In Western Europe, Eastern part has quite of a bad reputation, especially on subjects like safety or development. I've recently heard about several good opportunities there and this makes me even more curious about Romania.

<comment><USER9> I Grew up in Transylvania and just took one of my friends with me when I was going back for a short vacation he loved it.

We actually took the budget flight from London to Cluj and the bus to my home- town it was a but dangerous at the bus terminal since that's where gipsies hang out to rob you but if you are careful you should be ok plus there's a lot of people around so they can't afford you making a scene or the security will kick them out.

All the other places we went to were quite safe an entertaining.

Mind you I'm a local so I know what places to avoid to not get into trouble so there's that too however most places are quite safe anyway.

If you avoid bad neighbourhoods and some transport hubs with bad security you shouldn't have any problems.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> "Surprisingly high quality of life"

Nope (i'm from Romania). I like the "presentation" overall but some things are stretched to the limit there :)

<comment><USER11> Care to elaborate on where this website is inaccurate?

<comment><USER10> Sure, here's my own personal opinion about some of them :

-Probably the most spectacular nature in Europe

Romania IS a beautiful country (in a old fashion kind of way) but i really double it that anyone who traveled around Europe a bit would say it has "most spectacular nature". Dunno, go to Faroe Island (as a example) and tell me afterwards how "most spectacular" is Transylvania.

-The largest number of tech specialists in the EU

That is actually the most misleading part though. Not sure if RO has the largest number or not but a potential investor should be aware that most tech specialist are actually located in Bucharest not Transylvania. And the gap in salary requirements/ skills between the 2 is actually pretty big (Bucharest >>> Transylvania). Heck until a few years ago Bucharest was the only IT "hub" in RO.

-Excellent private healthcare system

Yes and no. If you have a serious health problem , you'll get "shipped" to a state hospital and those are bad.

-Some of the greatest festivals in Europe

Guess it also depends on music genres. I'm into metal , for instance, and the metal festivals in RO are definitely not "greatest". It's not like we have Wacken here.

<comment><USER7> I fell in love with Romania mainly because of the people. You won't find other people being so grateful just because you say hi. Next, the nature: sure, Ko Samui is heavenly, but I'm more into `vampiric` landscapes. We opted for private healthcare(look into "Queen Mary" \- this is what you'd choose). I don't know about public healthcare and I don't really care :-) There are two big festivals somewhere near us: Untold and Electric Castle. I'm a metalhead too, but Armin van Buuren, Tiesto or Faithless really sound good! Regarding the number of IT specialists, just read the reports. It's a fact that they have lower salary expectations, but they're hard workers who eventually end up in the US. This is why the author of the website is calling for entrepreneurs. Have a read: [http://teamfound.com/blog/romania-it-industry- report/](http://teamfound.com/blog/romania-it-industry-report/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> This site is pretty broken on latest stable Chrome on Android. As soon as I start scrolling I see solid white or grey blocks. Sometimes, at certain scroll heights, I see some text. But mostly I can't actually read the content.

<comment><USER13> It's worse with Firefox. Scrolling is much less smooth but at least I can read a little more text (instead of Chrome I used Opera.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Yeah, let's move to a corrupt homophobic country.

[http://www.transparency.org/cpi2015](http://www.transparency.org/cpi2015) rank 58 on the corruption index (behind greece and ghana),

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Romania](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Romania) 54% of Romanian interviewed stated they would never have a meal with a homosexual. 53% preferred that homosexuality be outlawed. 79.7% of those questioned would not want a homosexual neighbor

</comment><comment><USER15> UK is the second largest economy in Europe. That fact is not going to change just because they no longer count themselves in Europe. If transylvania is a good place to open an office, it is as good as it has already been. Brexit shouldn't influence anyone based in London to move to transylvania.

<comment><USER16> Did the UK fall below France? So third largest?

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> That's odd. First they try to close borders to migrants, and now they welcome migrants?

How is that supposed to work?

<comment><USER18> They closed borders to migrants who were not likely to set up tech startups. They try to lure migrants who are likely to set up tech startups.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Transylvania just earned my respect

</comment><comment><USER20> Haha this is amazing! We were already considering moving into a cheaper part of Europe when we got focused on coding rather than BD, this just makes our decision a bit easier

</comment><comment><USER6> I like the advertising. I like the timing. But what I like most is that they have the urge to tackle their future. Without any restraints to make jokes about themselves to tackle something else: The backwater stereotypes.

This far, I've heard only good things from that area. From people who worked or studied there.

What I'd expect but didn't see: Is the tax-system competitive? How about the other performance indicators regarding incorporation, labor costs and legal certainty?

<comment><USER7> To answer you tax question, check my previous comment. As for performance indicators, I quote: "Romania will be an economic growth outperformer in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) in 2016, and the second fastest growing EU economy (behind Ireland)."([http://www.bmiresearch.com/romania](http://www.bmiresearch.com/romania)). Also low labor costs, ferm legislation.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Why are they advertising it as Transylvania, rather than Romania?

> Romania is 1st in Europe in terms of number of certified IT specialists. The > number of engineers per capita in Romania is greater than in the US, India, > China, or Russia

I've heard anecdotally that tech industry pay is awful in Romania compared to the rest of Europe. Perhaps the high number of tech workers is the reason?

</comment><comment><USER22> I'd totally move to Transylvania. Wonder if I can still work remotely from there... I mean they're only 11 hours ahead of PST.

<comment><USER7> We're a cyber security company and moved to Romania because around 1/4 of our employees were Romanians working remotely with us. Sure, if you are willing to work from home you can find a job anywhere it's available.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Ha! That was brilliant. I'm glad the mentioned vampires, because sadly that is about the only thing I know about Transylvania.

</comment><comment><USER24> The nature is really nice and food is great. But I've been robbed there... And the way how they achieve the fastest internet connection is really ugly -- cables are hanging from everywhere, historical building or not, it's really touch to take a photo without cables.

Just google for Cluj cables

</comment><comment><USER25> This is pretty and all, but it just seems like an opportunistic ad by the tourist board of Transylvania.

If freedom of movement between the UK and the rest of Europe is lost by Brexiting, and they're still willing to accept Brits then I'll be impressed.

</comment><comment><USER26> this is silly. its a good place to move because its start up friendly? thats nice and all but its hardly relevant to the vast majority of the population. i will admit though that most of the people who are so worried about brexit that they would move to another country are in the age range and socioeconomic bracket from which most start up people emerge. by the way can anyone list some of the reasons why leaving the eu will be a disaster? i dont know anything about the eu.

</comment><comment><USER27> As a Brit I'd just like to say that _that_ is how a country should grasp an opportunity. Rather than the bitchy whining I've seen from many of my compatriots so far!

</comment><comment><USER28> Now that's a way to learn about a country I did not know much about. Great impression in my mind! Sounds too good to be true though. Any true experiences here in HN?

</comment><comment><USER29> Haha.. Funny, I just moved out of there .

<comment><USER30> How come? Anything we should know?

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> I think it's a great idea

</comment><comment><USER32> Author: "R. M. Renfield." Very curious!

</comment><comment><USER33> Nice job, Adrian Docea!

</comment><comment><USER34> Best nature in Europe, sure</comment>


We Ignore 'The Economist'  - <AUTHOR> http://www.insidehighered.com/advice/2011/01/24/ennis

<comment><USER2> > Meanwhile, the person with a doctorate need not build such psychological > campfires against the cold darkness of the universe — we are self-warming, > self-justifying creatures. Nondocs see burning in us what they will forever > struggle and fail to purchase — the blaze of smugness.</comment>