Show HN: Fanout – Reverse proxy to push real-time data to connected devices - <AUTHOR> https://fanout.io <comment><AUTHOR> Hi folks!

Fanout founder here. Though we've been around for years, we are excited to finally submit our root URL on HN!

If the name seems familiar, it could be because you've seen our blog posts or the Pushpin open source project. Fanout is the company behind Pushpin, and we monetize it as part of a cloud service, effectively a "push CDN". Our goal is to become the Akamai of data push.

For some history, here are the other two Fanout submissions that have been made:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7567417](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7567417) (TechCrunch article when we went public beta, 2014)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3701703](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3701703) (Tell HN, no URL, 2012)

As a Show HN, this post is about everything we've built since that ancient Tell HN. We hope you find Fanout intriguing and we look forward to any and all feedback.

If you want to get right into it, here's the dev guide: [https://fanout.io/docs/devguide.html](https://fanout.io/docs/devguide.html)

<comment><USER2> Hey, how is this diff from a simple WebSockets implementation?

<comment><AUTHOR> A couple of main differences:

1) Fanout can proxy WebSocket client events as as series of HTTP requests to the origin server. This means you can use a normal web backend or FaaS to manage the connections, which is even simpler than having to write a custom stateful server process.

2) Connections are delegated to Fanout, and we handle 1-to-many propagation, for high scalability.

<comment><USER3> Socket.io also proxies websocket events as HTTP if needed.

So is this is basically socket.io as a service?

<comment><AUTHOR> Interesting! Do you have a link to any info about this?

Edit: or, are you talking about HTTP fallback on the client side, when WebSockets aren't available? Fanout can do that too, but what I was talking about earlier was how Fanout can speak WebSockets to the client and HTTP to the server (like an inverted sockjs/engine.io).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I'm a big fan of pushpin.

1.This landing page doesn't make the use cases clear. I think you need to show architecture comparisons that makes it clear.

Ex: [https://heartbeat.appbase.io/index.html](https://heartbeat.appbase.io/index.html)

Btw appbase is a pushpin user right?

2\. The pricing page is confusing. Ex: $4/million minutes along with $25 monthly. So does $25 come with any minutes? Also instead of charging for minutes/received messages/delivered messages, I suggest charging for just one ideally 'delivered messages' and also bundle some with the $25 plan. Charging for all three feels like you are nickel-and-diming the customers

3\. Separate out public cloud hosting & on-premise and make the pricing transparent. i.e offer people an easy to integrate fanout into their cloud infra. See here for an example - [https://mlab.com/plans/pricing/#provider=amazon](https://mlab.com/plans/pricing/#provider=amazon)

4\. On-premise option should have transparent pricing especially at this early stage. You are introducing friction into the process and that's fine for a known product but for a nascent one it's better to have standardised pricing

4\. Fanout cloud (as it stands) seems like a weird product. Since you have only PoP the latency introduced is going to be huge. I think focusing on public cloud offering like mlab is the way to go.

<comment><AUTHOR> > I'm a big fan of pushpin.

Always good to hear. :)

> Btw appbase is a pushpin user right?

Yup.

> The pricing page is confusing.

The paid plan doesn't come with any bundled minutes/messages, however we're considering changing this (e.g. up to 50,000 minutes/messages, then pure-usage cost above that).

It would be nice if we could abstract away the three metrics and only bill for a single metric, but I don't think it's economically workable. In practice, we pay a cost for all three, and they vary wildly by customer. Competitors generally account for all these metrics too (not an excuse, but...).

I do agree the pricing page could be more clear though. Even the current pricing is sometimes misinterpreted.

> On-premise option should have transparent pricing

I rarely see this elsewhere, but I can imagine how it may reduce friction. Worth considering.

> I think focusing on public cloud offering like mlab is the way to go

Thanks for the tip.

<comment><USER4> > I rarely see this elsewhere, but I can imagine how it may reduce friction. > Worth considering.

Nginx Plus - [https://www.nginx.com/products/buy-nginx- plus/](https://www.nginx.com/products/buy-nginx-plus/)

Github - [https://enterprise.github.com/features#pricing](https://enterprise.github.com/features#pricing)

Bitbucket - [https://www.atlassian.com/software/bitbucket/pricing?tab=sel...](https://www.atlassian.com/software/bitbucket/pricing?tab=self- hosted)

Mattermost - [https://about.mattermost.com/pricing/](https://about.mattermost.com/pricing/)

You can have a "Contact sales" for a really big deployment but customers should have some idea about cost and ideally should be able to buy and try at a small scale.

<comment><AUTHOR> Great examples. Thanks!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Awesome landing page, very interesting product. One question, is hosting it yourself free, or are you trying to sell support? I'd rather not contact your sales team to find out, all 'install it on your own servers' links go to a contact us page. Just my opinion, but it is quite off-putting.

I'd rather see some documentation than submit a form, like "look how simple it is to install" or "integrates with enterprise software x, y and z".

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for this feedback! The short answer is that our edge server software is open source and can be found here: [http://pushpin.org](http://pushpin.org)

This information is a little buried though. The main reason is because the rest of Fanout Cloud (clustering, panel UI, aggregated stats, etc) is not open source. So when we say to contact us about self-hosting, we mean about the entire commercial offering, which at this time requires a conversation.

I agree this could be presented better though, and our enterprise page should be a lot more than a bare contact form. Probably what we should do is explain about Pushpin and the rest of the available components above the form.

<comment><USER5> Ahh I see, I would definitely put that on your page, explaining the value add and what is free/not free.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> FYI, if you leave the email and password blank on [https://fanout.io/account/login/](https://fanout.io/account/login/) you get sent to an Apache default Server Error (500) error message page. Should probably validate and make sure fields aren't empty.

<comment><AUTHOR> Nice catch! Thanks

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Nice. Some ideas for the landing page:

\- You don't have any use cases. Good technical explanations for sure, but generally people "get" a product better/faster with some examples of what it can do for them (instead of "hybrid reverse proxy" stuff).

\- On the surface this seems similar to lot of other real time messaging services. Clear "why this over those" or unique selling points is missing.

\- The free cloud plan seems really stingy.. 500 free messages per day is so low that it left negative impression.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the feedback!

We recently introduced the "hybrid reverse proxy" wording in order to hammer home our architectural differentiation. We could do a better job explaining why that's important, though.

The free plan is mainly designed to cover trial usage, as opposed to minimal/personal production workloads. Lots of SaaS/IaaS have time-limited trials so it could be worse. :) But we'll reconsider the current limits.

<comment><USER7> Yep, but I think "architectural differentiation" etc. often doesn't matter to customers directly. More important is what that architecture allows them to do, or how that architecture makes you better/faster/cheaper than your competitors.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> For which use cases would be handy? Online games, real time sportsdata updates? It would be interesting to have an exposition of a project where this is used

<comment><AUTHOR> Sure. Some real world cases:

* Canadian Bitcoin Index (streaming API) - [https://www.cbix.ca/api-streaming](https://www.cbix.ca/api-streaming)

* Appbase (Firebase-like service based on Elasticsearch) - [http://docs.appbase.io/scalr/rest/intro.html#quick-start-to-...](http://docs.appbase.io/scalr/rest/intro.html#quick-start-to-the-rest-api-step-2-geting-err-streaming-data)

We also have some simple examples:

* Chat: [http://chat.fanoutapp.com](http://chat.fanoutapp.com)

* Realtime to-do list: [http://todo.fanoutapp.com](http://todo.fanoutapp.com)

* Audio streaming: [http://audiostream.fanoutapp.com](http://audiostream.fanoutapp.com)

(code for the examples referenced from our open source project page [http://pushpin.org/docs/examples/](http://pushpin.org/docs/examples/))

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Not to be a negative Nancy. But do all things in software these days need to be a public service you use? Maybe I am completely overlooking something here but it seems that most programmers and most people responsible for software requiring such services should have the ability to write and maintain their own reverse proxy for the services they provide.

<comment><AUTHOR> I sympathize with your comment about the excessive level of "as-a-service" products out there.

However, I believe we are in a class of IaaS that is justifiably service- based, because there are performance benefits as we grow to being a worldwide service. So eventually it will be about more than just convenience or business model reasons.

The best analogy is a CDN. Fastly is useful even if you understand how to maintain Varnish. We're Fastly for push.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I signed up, but when logging in I am greeted with a 500 error :/

<comment><AUTHOR> Yikes! Investigating and will contact you directly. Sorry about that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> How does this compare to NginX ? Is this something like reverse proxying Webhooks(for real time push). There is a push stream module for NginX that kind of works the same way.

<comment><AUTHOR> Nginx is a general purpose webserver/proxy.

Fanout is meant for pushing data only. It uses a proxy-based mechanism to interface with the sender, but it's not a general purpose proxy like Nginx. You might even use Fanout and Nginx together, for example if you Nginx as a load balancer in front of our open source version (Pushpin).

Nginx does have a stream module, called Nchan. The main difference is Fanout is fully transparent and can speak any API you define, whereas Nchan somewhat speaks its own protocol and may not be able to power arbitrary predefined APIs. That said, Nchan is far more flexible than most push systems out there, and you can probably get it to do Fanout-like things.

<comment><USER11> Yep, I thought of the same - WebServer + an abstraction layer containing (NginX+Fanout) would be something I'll be trying. Look pretty cool, will check it out. So theres Fanout Cloud, but do you have an On-Prem version as well ? We have 1000s of customers, accessing millions of data records/sec via the APIs. This will definitely help us.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Site doesn't work from here

<comment><AUTHOR> Hmm. Thanks for letting us know. Do you mind telling us where you are located?</comment></comment>


Why Google Might Be Going to $0 - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2012/03/31/why-google-might-be-going-to-0/

<comment><USER2> So let me get this straight. This guys buys stock in a company that sues Google. And he tells everyone, how certainly they are going to win?

<comment><USER3> :-) someone call the SEC!

<comment><USER4> Well if he buys stock _after_ publishing the article it is not insider trading.

<comment><USER3> I thought was saying he already bought in? I'm not sure what he's doing is illegal, but I don't think it's insider trading that he'd be running afoul of. Rather, I think he needs to worry about the rules about advertising a company using an article to pump up your stock's value.

<comment><USER4> "Because it's Ken, I buy the stock although will buy more after this article is out and readers read this." - Ok, yes he bought already before and said he would buy more after the article. Well, anyways it is amazing how the stock prize changed since January and since the article.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> tl;dr: my friend Ken is a patent troll taking on Google and I think that's just swell.

<comment><USER6> Well, he did patent it first. You could also frame it as the "small inventor who goes against the big coroporation".

That said I had to sigh little bit as I read the author. James Altucher is more a guy who tries to write literature with every article and a common theme in all is his nerdyness (reading books all day, playing Go/Chess all day, never winning the girl, losing the girl) and his failure in the dotcom economy to getting obscenely rich (respectively losing all in the stock crash after.) He sometimes linked on the Freakonomics blog.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> A better title for this article would be "Why Vringo might be going to $0". Seems like a classic stock pumping scheme.

<comment><USER4> Yes and it looks like it worked. You could also see this as an opportunity to get some extra seed funds for your startup.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Like many others said: this looks like a "stock pumping scheme" and "patent troll" story... nevertheless, I watched VRNG after that article and was amazed by its 87.88% rise today. Just take some money into your hands and make more with this opportunity...

... and of course: sell on time</comment>


Data Structure and Algorithms Problems from Interviews - <AUTHOR> http://www.java67.com/2018/06/data-structure-and-algorithm-interview-questions-programmers.html <comment><USER2> Moving ad, moving ad, ad, ad, popup, noped out. There are plenty of resources for this kind of thing.

<comment><USER3> They got credit for your page view anyway.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> The posted solution to fibonacci (in the rss image for this hn article) appears wrong. fib(0) will return 0 instead of 1.</comment>


Week 36: Kafka, KSQL, Azure and Durable Functions, and Other Interesting Topics - <AUTHOR> http://www.nielsberglund.com/2018/09/09/interesting-stuff---week-36/ <comment><AUTHOR> A roundup of things I found interesting the week just gone by.</comment>


July 2013 Mattermark Startup Index – Top 20 Startups by Stage of Investment - <AUTHOR> http://mattermark.com/july-2013-mattermark-startup-index-top-20-startups-by-stage-of-investment/

<comment><USER2> I haven't heard of 3/4 of these (particularly no-known-funding, but even many of the the Series D+). I wonder if that means it's an effective index, surfacing things outside my "bubble", or if there's a problem with the selection process (or a problem with my perception of the industry, which is pretty focused on security and b2b, but I do use b2c stuff and have a pretty good memory for new services.)

</comment><comment><USER3> dmor - nice work. Is it possible to backtest your algorithm? Would it be possible to use wayback or something similar, go back two years and see what the algorithm predicts, and compare to actual? I'm sure this has predictive abilities, but wondering how strong it is.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm actually not sure it is predictive yet, but I am not sure how much that matters. It is more useful for validating reality as it currently is today - startups are anything but reliable when it comes to generating consistent growth. I would imagine the later the stage, the closer to predictive this becomes but I wouldn't make any future claims on outcomes based on this. I think you could probably use it to determine the next round of funding though, so it is useful in the short term.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> The problem with this index is that it ignores B2B companies whose traction is not publicly visible. Companies like Box, Cloudera and others whose services are consumed by other companies under-index. For example, there is no way 23andMe would top Box.</comment>


Buy 2 RIM Playbooks, get 1 free. Yes, it is for real. - <AUTHOR> http://us.blackberry.com/business/playbook/?RMID=B2B_201110_PB_Offer_US_BIF&RRID=

<comment><USER2> HP CEO Leo Apotheker on what he's learned from RIM's PlayBook: "We will not release a product that isn't perfect."

Talk about celebrity endorsement! Now if only there was a quote from Reed Hastings about spinning off the BBM business..</comment>


BeWifi lets you steal your neighbor's bandwidth when they're not using it - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/01/bewifi-lets-you-steal-your-neighbors-bandwidth-when-theyre-not-using-it/ <comment><USER2> > What if, when you were up at a ridiculous hour Skyping your relatives in > Australia, you could borrow unused bandwidth from your sleeping neighbors to > make your own broadband connection faster and stronger?

Maybe this makes sense if you're lucky enough to have FiOS (which gives you a dedicated line). For me (a Time Warner customer), this is already the case. Except, it's not "borrowing" so much as it is "stealing".

Technically, I should have 2.5MB/s down (20Mb/s is what I pay for), but in reality, I'm often lucky to get 1MB/s, because my neighbors are using the Internet and watching Netflix, etc. And I have _never_ observed more than 2.5MB/s, so it doesn't average out.

Theoretically, this should already be illegal, but it's still very common in practice.

For this inconsistent connection (and no other services!), I am forced to pay over $50/month.

 _Edit_ : Updated - I pay for 20Mb/s, not 15Mb/s.

<comment><USER3> FiOS doesn't give you a dedicated line. FiOS uses one wavelength to transmit downstream traffic. All subscribers on a segment (up to 32 or 64) receive all downstream traffic. Your ONU discards the traffic not intended for you. The headend limits the amount of traffic destined for your ONU according to your rate plan. All subscribers on a segment share another wavelength for sending traffic. TDMA is used on the upstream. The number of slots assigned to your ONU varies depending upon your rate plan. Also dynamic bandwidth allocation can be used to adjust the number of slots assigned to an ONU based upon the traffic being sent by the ONU.

FiOS uses dynamic bandwidth allocation to enable oversubscription on a segment; therefore, FiOS spends can be impacted by the usage of your neighbors just as cable can be.

<comment><USER4> Realistically, 2.488 Gbps shared by 32-64 customers is pretty damn good; it's a bare minimum of 38 Mbps/customer. That's like having your own DOCSIS 1.0 channel.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Telefonica is also an isp. Or more exactly it is the isp in Spain: it owns the wires and has overwhelming dominance in the market.

So (@dangrossman) the legal issue is averted: both costumers are in the same isp which, to them, works like a black box. So the article's use of the word "steal" is quite nonsensical.

Also remarkable is the advanced anticipation of demand. For example, Netflix is not even available in Spain and bandwidth demand is currently low compared to say the US. My guess is that it is not to facilitate video over the internet etc. but that it is a cheap way to undercut competition from Vodfone and Orange (other Spanish providers). Bandwidth sharing might mean more consistent high bandwidth for those who need it.

Actually the potential issue is inverted: you may not be able not opt out of the system.

The other potential issue is Telefonica itself. Historically it has been as appalling company to customers. It is possible this is changing but there certainly used to be a long track record of awfulness. Indeed it is my utter shock that Telefonica of all companies on earth would manage to do something of this sort that is compelling me to ramble on like this.

If Telefonica is changing, kudos!

</comment><comment><USER6> My neighbor is already using my WiFi, he was paying $10 to AOL(yes there are still ppl using AOL) for dial-up so i gave him WiFi for free :).

<comment><USER7> That's very kind of you. Our neighbor has an open WiFi that my family uses when our WiFi is misbehaving. I wish I could give something back, but I don't even know which neighbor it is.

<comment><USER6> Well he's a bit older and struggling with money as it is, i actually got him a directional antenna and installed a omnidirectional one in my house for him to get a good reception.. Hes mostly playing on-line games and checking his email and the stock market.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Using the example in the article, how is it technically possible for me to Skype with someone, while dividing the stream between two IP addresses (of the two different routers)?

I mean, Skype's going to be sending my conversational partner's audio to a single IP address that represents me, no? How could that be divided among multiple people's bandwidth, technically speaking?

<comment><USER9> It probably doesn't. It can still take advantage of the pooling by, for example, routing your Skype call through your neighbor's connection because yours is already busy streaming Netflix in another room.

My concern would be my neighbor downloading movie torrents on my connection while I'm asleep. We'd need a _really_ strong legal precedent that the person paying for the connection isn't responsible for what others do on it before this kind of thing could catch on in most countries.

<comment><USER10> Shouldn't this (in a better world), be the opposite however? _We 'd need a_ really _strong legal precedent that the person paying for the connection_ IS _responsible for what others do on it_

<comment><USER9> Should cafes be bankrupted because a customer downloaded some music on the store's wifi hotspot? If you lend someone a hammer and they use it to smash someone else's window, you're not liable for that so long as you didn't know that's what they were borrowing the hammer to do. I think, generally, you should never be in a situation where you're liable for crimes someone else committed without your knowledge and assistance.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Maybe a stupid question but - are there regulations ISPs might use against this? I know it's illegal in most places to resell your bandwidth to neighbors and I wouldn't put it past them to equate giving away with selling.

I also wonder if HBO and other channels might get overzealous and shut people down for the p2p nature of it.

But all that said, this is the obvious future of the web until we have a true, free, ad hoc/distributed network and on some level I can't believe it took this long to get the ball rolling..

<comment><USER12> Is it actually illegal to resell? I was under the impression that it was just a contractual agreement with the provider not to resell.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Sounds like a slight twist on Fon[0] The problem for things like this is it is only really useful if it is ubiquitous in your area hopefully they have a plan to kickstart adoption otherwise who cares.

[0] [https://corp.fon.com/en](https://corp.fon.com/en)

<comment><USER14> In Spain is customary for ISPs to provide routers to their customers. They'll just have to install their custom firmware (which I think they do already) and get the customer to opt-in (or not opt-out, given recent trends). It's easier to take your customers to opt-in if you're a _huge_ company like Telefónica.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> MPTCP and MPRTP to the rescue... these also have inbuilt algorithms to pick the best interface.

[http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-singh-avtcore- mprtp](http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-singh-avtcore-mprtp) (for skype and multimedia)

[https://tools.ietf.org/wg/mptcp/](https://tools.ietf.org/wg/mptcp/) (for everything else, even Siri)

<comment><USER16> It was interesting to see everyone rage about how amazing Apple was to be leveraging MPTCP in the latest version of iOS. However most don't realize the implications and risks that these types of things bring to generalized use cases and operational models of networking and paid for data buckets.

Regardless it looks like these guys are just taking the Commotion firmware and re-branding it as a service. It also doesn't solve the local node problem. Most people don't understand how cable (HFC), fiber and copper (DSL) are built out to the neighborhood or 'node'. It's all oversubscribed and shared. So this type of solution really does nothing for the local congestion in a node. To me, this is a pure marketing gimmick.

<comment><USER15> At the networking stack level, it depends on how one implements congestion control. AFAIR, in the case of Apple/MPTCP: they were sending the same packet on both the interfaces and hoping for the best delay (a really bad idea) unless you are in a managed network else you are just creating unnecessary congestion.

OTOH, if the last mile is oversubscribed, there is very little one can do.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> BT already do this in the UK with their infinity routers, they run a separate public channel (BTWiFi), I've got one in my flat right now.

Anyone can connect to it for free if you're a BT customer elsewhere or you can pay. It doesn't effect my bandwidth as most plans are unlimited anyway.

</comment><comment><USER18> Now I understand why Telefónica forced me to have WEP 128 that was automatically generated from the SSID. After I asked them to set up my own password (the router was password protected) they suggested I tell them what password I wanted over the phone. I switched ISP two weeks ago.

</comment><comment><USER19> This reminds me of Radiuz, but the problem was that it was a double-ended userbase that needed far more press and capital to survive.

[http://wifinetnews.com/archives/2004/06/radiuz_combines_wpa-...](http://wifinetnews.com/archives/2004/06/radiuz_combines_wpa- enterprise_with_free_access.html)

Perhaps this solves the problem of not having to deliver as much aggregate bandwidth as isolated pipes on a per carrier basis, but cross carriers may or may not go for it, like "roaming."

</comment><comment><USER20> In an ideal world of BeWifi everyone will be a member and the internet will be shared between all the members. Does this mean if we all downgraded our connections to the basic offering of our choice ISP we could still get a decent connection and in return force ISPs to lower their prices for higher connections? Seems like a never ending cycle.

</comment><comment><USER21> Liked it. Very intelligent way to utilize the spare bandwidth. One thing everyone forgets is that we are actually paying for the full-month bandwidth from Cable companies so they shouldn't worry if I use it 24 x 7 x 30 OR my neighbor. As long as there is mechanism to give priority to the owner when he demands the full bandwidth.

</comment><comment><USER22> I thought this was very cool and would be happy to "lend" my neighbor my unused bandwidth but then I thought what if my neighbor is skyping with a cousin in Australia or wherever and this cousin orders his pizza from the same pizzeria where a al-qaeda guys orders his pizza and lo behold I get put on a no-fly list .

<comment><USER23> Well it sounds like "the terrorists" have won the war in your mind. Fearing the state you turn your back on your neighbor.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> ...So my neighbor decides to download a torrent and all of a sudden I am hit with a lawsuit? Unless this issue can be solved, no thanks.

</comment><comment><USER25> So, I could download pedophile pictures with my neighbor's wifi bandwidth?

</comment><comment><USER26> There's no way ISPs in the US will allow this.

<comment><USER27> Well, there is Comcast's program to deploy dual-WiFi APs. One side for the subscriber, one side for Comcast to use as it sees fit (public hotspot being a declared use):

[http://arstechnica.com/information- technology/2013/06/comcas...](http://arstechnica.com/information- technology/2013/06/comcast-turns-your-xfinity-modem-into-public-wi-fi- hotspot/)

<comment><USER28> so Comcast is going to be paying me for the use of my facilities to host its plant cool - just like if i have a telegraph pole on my land I get rent.

<comment><USER27> It doesn't hurt to dream. Normally ;) BTW, this type of thing might be or become more widespread than I initially thought: [http://www.cablewifi.com/](http://www.cablewifi.com/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> This looks awesome</comment>


Site Load Test - <AUTHOR> http://media4x.com/site-optimizer/ A practical tool for speeding up your website, helping you to receive more search engine traffic and making your ads perform better. <comment><USER2> Error loading my site. Seems like a cool idea though. Yahoo.com has 18 pieces of shit, haha.</comment>


Evidence That Robots Are Winning the Race for American Jobs - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/28/upshot/evidence-that-robots-are-winning-the-race-for-american-jobs.html?_r=0 <comment><USER3> People don't need to work at 9-5 jobs to be happy, so I don't worry about automation from an existential point of view. There are numerous retired people who can attest to this. Now, many of them say they value their retirements precisely because they worked for decades in pursuit of retirement, but this idea is contradicted by the Ancient Greeks.

Athens had an extremely high slave to citizen ratio. I've read that the average citizen (a more exclusive category then than now but still) owned 7 slaves. The result of this was that most privileged Athenians didn't really have to work. Their days consisted of haggling and gossiping in the market, working out in the gymnasium, attending lectures and getting drunk with friends at symposiums (house parties). It's what they were used to.

Now, will the average citizen enjoy such a life in a fully automated world or will they just live in perpetual poverty buffered only by barely sufficient handouts of food and other basic goods needed for survival? That's a more pressing question.

<comment><USER4> I work in a digitization departement in a multiplicity, which translates to me doing almost nothing but replacing jobs with software automation.

Things like going through 500.000 cases containing multiple documents and sorting them correctly can be done with Azure services in 5 hours after a 14 month algorithm training period. It takes 5 people working 37 hours a week 3-5 months to achieve the same result and they will have a larger margin of error than the machine. I know this, because we did the same process as a competition between man and machine.

Getting back to the point, however, everyone loves my department. Part of this is because people aren't really fired due to automation, we solve the freed up resources by not hiring people when someone retires, but the main reason is because we automate boring stuff.

Nobody wants to sort through 500.000 cases manually, so you're absolutely correct, automation can free up humanity.

Some people will spend their time being productive, but the truth is you don't have to. That is, if we manage to take back ownership from companies.

Today western society is build around income tax, and as long as that doesn't change, we're not heading for freedom but for oblivion.

<comment><USER5> _> That is, if we manage to take back ownership from companies. Today western society is build around income tax, and as long as that doesn't change, we're not heading for freedom but for oblivion._

I don't understand. Ownership of what do you want us to take back and who is us?

<comment><USER6> Not OP, but I read this as "us", as in, working people in the lower or middle class with no notable investments outside of maybe a mortgage, and ownership being ownership of the world's companies (i.e. currently owned by stock- or shareholders depending on whether the company is public or private). I believe they were referring to the worst case scenario where automation removes most jobs (which are not just replaced with others), but because the automation mainly benefits the owners of the companies that own the robots/AIs, the majority of people would simply lose the ability to earn money (because they can no longer find work, and they don't own anything that can generate income for them in other ways). The fact that goods can be produced cheaper is little help if you cannot earn any money at all. The worst case scenario is a breakdown of consumerism, as most consumers stop being able to earn money, and all wealth accumulates with the owners of companies in a way that would make the current 1%/99% split look like a socialist utopia. Is this likely? No idea, but it is one of the possible futures that the current trends point toward, and it has a lot of people worried, and is one of the reasons why there's renewed interest in concepts like basic income among futurists.

<comment><USER7> That scenario would mean ruin for everyone, the 1% and the 99%.

<comment><USER8> How do you figure? If they can produce anything with automation what do they care if there's no one to purchase it? Value will be expressed in other ways. I could easily imagine the 1% or whoever completely controlling production and allowing everyone else to die.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> One aspect I don't ever see discussed is whether it's moral or abusive for people to perform jobs that don't respect their capacities as a human being.

If your job is to follow a script 60 times an hour without deviation is your job one that humans should be permitted to do? Or is it an abuse?

If your job is to ignore circumstances and human empathy is it a job humans should be permitted to do? Or is it an abuse?

If an abuse is what permits survival should it be embraced or scorned?

I'm not sure what the answer is, but I think at the very least there's a clear way to look on things with human eyes and a human perspective.

<comment><USER10> "Permitted" is a word I find distasteful in such a subject. That implies that there is a third party, beyond employer & employee, imposing himself upon the other two without their consent. If both enter into the contract freely, 'tis nobody else's business but to ensure the contract is, in fact, freely entered into.

Many jobs "don't respect their capacities" precisely because it needs doing, but nobody wants to do it - the only way to get it done is to pay someone accordingly. Following a script may be boring as he11, but may currently be the only way to build widgets which bring joy and/or give life to others. Of late, when visiting the pharmacist I wonder how much joy they really get out of filling little bottles with precise numbers of little pills, this after many years of studying pharmaceuticals at a intellectually high and stimulating level - and I thank them for doing such a mind-numbing job, precisely because it keeps _me_ alive for decades (vs dead within weeks of a stroke). Scrubbing toilets isn't exactly rewarding either, but keeps our society sanitary & healthy. In neither case is anyone _forced_ to do so, but does need to for there to be food on the table and a roof overhead.

I have been mulling over "bottom line" sustenance vs minimum wage, poverty lines, guaranteed income, etc. Of late I note that one's "fair share" amounts to 8 acres of generally workable land, plenty for sustenance farming and then some. That's the baseline scenario for what work is expected of an individual: elicit your own food, shelter, clothing out of your fair share of land; from there, you can barter your way up to better living. It is fair, in terms of what our species has been given / ended up with, to consider that where to begin such questions (and _not_ to start with a luxurious society where doing nothing can net you $30,000/yr).

<comment><USER11> > _If both enter into the contract freely_

Ah, yes, the "freedom" thing again.

When you're on a salary that barely keeps you afloat, that you cannot really afford to lose, suddenly you start reading different meanings into that word.

<comment><USER10> Hence my argument: what is the barest "barely" that can keep you afloat?

8 acres is your fair share of Earth. Here's a $20 bag of assorted nutritious seeds. (If you're really uptight about this, I'll throw in a $40 sack of rice as enough to get you to first harvest.) There we have the stark reality of "barely keeps you afloat" and "cannot really afford to lose": subsistence farming. Harsh as it sounds, that's the real-world baseline.

Capitalism gives you the option of doing something other than self-sufficient farming. You can put in the same effort, with the equivalent "cannot really afford to lose" work-or-starve option, and leverage the available contract - or not. The notion that you're somehow not "free" to accept or reject the contract (if living at that bare edge of survival) is practically no different than subsistence farming.

I acknowledge that "freedom" seems rather moot at that level, but so long as the effort required is little different from the effort for subsistence farming, that's the hard reality of being a human living on Earth. If you're accepting the contract because of "work or starve" in the context of effort I'm harping on, and you have the liberty to pick between whatever contracts are available ("start digging & planting" always being one) then yes that's "freedom". If you're compelled under threat of abuse/injury/death to work for a disproportionately meager return, and/or literally confined with no options, then that is an immoral denial of the "freedom" I'm referring to.

To wit: the natural law of "produce or starve" is not to be confused with, nor equated to, compulsory hard labor within incarceration sustained with a scant moldy loaf.

(I'm writing this much about the subject because I'm trying to sort thru & refine ideas, bouncing 'em off HN for insight.)

<comment><USER12> Where do I sign up to get my 20 acres? And do I get free agriculture school? Because capitalists took the land from indigenous people who were surviving and then intentionally destroyed the social institutions that would've let them revive their culture on a land grant. Ironically, capitalists eventually did the same thing to the descendants of the settlers, with a little less outright slaughter.

Therefore, I would say society owes all of us at least the land and the education—real hands on education and family-style support—before anyone can start saying wage "slavery" is a choice.

<comment><USER10> For $10,000 (we'll arrange it via a tax refund, turbotax.intuit.com), I'll have you on 20 acres of land next week (zillow.com) with the complete set of Foxfire books documenting Appalachian live-off-the-land survival (amazon.com), plus a set of basic tools needed (amazon.com), plus a camper to get you comfortably started (craigslist.com).

As for "hands on" and "family style support", you're demanding luxuries that many settlers didn't have. I'm reading the Foxfire books, they're all you'll need for a good fair start.

<comment><USER12> We don't have $10,000 each.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> The whole discussion we have is silly. Robots and ai will kill jobs. Sorry but the concept of everyone becoming a programmer or roboticist is a fucking pipe dream. Some people are simply not cut out for it. Even if everyone was perfectly educated, there is no demand for that many people in those kinds of positions and there never will be. Weve already gotton a taste of automation from people doing any work at all for cheaper overseas. The result has been for people to get psychology degrees and other easy degrees and go on to get bullshit jobs in the swelling, fractured and broken systems of beurocracy that are now so common in the west. Why do schools need such huge adminiatrations? They dont. They got huge because people need work and not everyone can be a stem major. So the answer is obvious in my eyes. Sooner or later we will have universal basic income. It depends on how long the overburdened sources of business and psychology degree jobs can hold out before collapsing i suppose.

<comment><USER14> You will not need to become a programmer or roboticist to have a job, anymore than you have to be a mechanic or factory worker to have a job today. Assuming we don't have human-like AI, there will be vast numbers of tasks that only humans will be able to do.

<comment><USER15> Vast numbers? Will? What job category is increasing in demand today, and with no foreseeable threat from robots in the near future?

Tell me about today, and I'll believe your prediction for the future.

<comment><USER16> All kinds of therapist. Society gets older and needs more treatment, especially with the current livestyle. And while some work might be done by robots, it needs at least strong KI to replace a good therapist. Also, teachers, artists, ...

<comment><USER17> Just an example:

There are about 4 million truckers in the US whose jobs will be axed the minute self driving trucks become reality on a mass scale (i.e. in the next +5 years when the tech is ready and the final bill passes).

In the meanwhile, how many teachers and artists and therapists do you think there will be (or are needed for)?

<comment><USER16> Well, needed are probably much more. But paying them at our current society is a different question, and that you dont become a good therapist from beeing a truck driver for 40 years that easy. So what?

I just gave a counterexample to "What job category is increasing in demand today, and with no foreseeable threat from robots in the near future?"

But in general, there are allways so much things needed to be done, but dont because society dont pay for it, and the people cant afford in their free time. So I see zero problems with having too little work in the future. Just with the thing, for what people get money for. Not an easy thing to solve ...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Some jobs are always being automated away (looms taking away weaver's jobs, etc.). This can be very painful for the affected, but often benefits the society in the long term. We could use more teachers instead of conveyor belt workers and janitors (to train for new skills). And more custom builders, physical therapists and nurses (aging population), etc.

IMO instead of lament automation taking jobs (at least those that we would not want our own kids to do) we should improve the learning and training options to make those affected employable elsewhere. Not BS 1-day clinics "how to write your resume", but longer full time technical or human skills classes and workshops to improve on skills in demand _today_.

And maybe beef up the safety net, especially on the medical side. Do not fight progress, leverage it for good causes.

<comment><USER19> Two points:

1) Not everyone has the aptitude, desire, or willingness to get a highly technical job. Those people should not suffer.

2) The pay of all positions are based off of supply and demand. If everyone has a degree in radiology, the pay for being a radiologist would drop a lot. This can be seen in tech. Tech support positions in rural areas require bachelors degrees, yet pay less and less per year($12/hr in my city).

<comment><USER20> Your first point rubs me the wrong way. The implicit assumption is "there exists some _lesser class_ of humans incapable of doing the work we do".

All of my experience, every success of outreach programs bringing new people to tech, everything we know about the distribution of IQ suggests that it's not the case. There is plenty of room in the future economy for more knowledge workers and we shouldn't be making the assumption that people should let their mind rot doing work better suited for machines.

<comment><USER21> To his point, if they don't have the desire or willingness...that's an issue. Just because he called out that some people aren't going to work out in tech doesnt mean he is assigning them to a lesser class. I certainly dont have the aptitude, desire, or willingness to be many things. Doesnt mean I think I'm less of a person for it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Just used a robot to mail a parcel at the post office. Automatically weighs and sizes the item, takes payment, prints a label, and accepts parcel drop off.

A happy employee came to check if I needed any help with the new technology. Knowing the robot I just interacted with was going to replace their employment was sobering. I couldn't figure out what to say.

The robots are coming to services.

<comment><USER23> Prices have little to do with costs. The iphone, for example, costs $800 every year because this is the optimal price to sell a premium phone at. They build the phone to be $800, not the other way around. If costs go down in a way that the competition can't replicate, that becomes more profit for apple, not a lower price. If automation reduces costs industry-wide, companies will often/likely add more features and services (i.e. better chip in the iphone) to compete at that optimal price that they previously discovered.

<comment><USER24> This is because apple have carved a non-market niche out for themselves in phones as status symbols.

They protect this with a big advertising budget more than really necessary for most users spent on development and when all else fails design patent lawsuit.

Most markets are not this dysfunctional, if you have decent competition and new technology reduces the cost to provide the goods / service then either the price goes down or you discover you have a dysfunctional market.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> It's interesting to note that with all this automation the cost of some products hasn't gone down at all. I was recently pricing out a new, mid-size car. Once all the options I wanted were priced in it was in the upper 20s. And this was your standard JA/KOR sedan. Consumer electronics, which has also increasingly automated, has gone down in price in some cases dramatically.

People are losing their jobs in the name of efficiency through automation. But that isn't being passed onto the buyers.

<comment><USER26> The car you are buying for $25k today is a lot nicer than the car you would've bought for $25k ten years ago. It is more fuel efficient, safer, and will last longer not to mention it likely comes with features that were completely unheard of a decade ago.

<comment><USER27> Maybe true with cars, but what about consumer electronics? HVAC systems? Wireless routers? Furniture even? Even clothes.

It's all cheap garbage, inflated and marked up.

<comment><USER28> I can design a wireless router as a side project. I've built my own furniture for fun. I don't think I have the resources to start a car manufacturing line...

When the barrier to entry is high, there's no reason to lower prices.

<comment><USER29> Actually, the barrier to entry to build a car isn't that high - it only appears that way.

Most of the parts - if not all - are available. All one really needs is the knowledge (internet), the tools ($$$), and the space ($$$$) to build.

I have a friend whose father is in his 70s, who builds custom VW vehicles; one of his last vehicles used a shortened chassis and the cab from an old electric truck (might've been a Cushman). He finished that one, and is moving on to another.

Plenty of people fabricate rally cars and sand rails using tubular steel and fairly simple tools (tube bender, a notcher, mig welder, grinder, plasma cutter or torch, etc). In many cases one can do this all in their garage (but it is better to have a more dedicated space). Engines tend toward the VW end of things, but nothing says you have to use such an engine; there are plenty of new and used engines and sub-frames to work from.

I've considered building something similar to this flatpack truck:

[http://oxgvt.com/the-ox-all-terrain-vehicle/](http://oxgvt.com/the-ox-all- terrain-vehicle/)

I figure that the parts from an old VW Vanagon could provide most of it; that or use some front-wheel drive vehicle, then build the cab-over part.

The only real compromise on all of this would be the safety aspect; pretty much any home-brew vehicle is going to be a likely death trap in a real accident, but that is outside the argument of being able build one. There's also the issue of registration and insurance, but this too can be overcome (at least here in the United States - other countries may be more or less lenient/easy to do this).

The information is out there to build a vehicle, and fairly cheap too. You just have to be willing to get your hands dirty (and suffer some injuries - <USER2> seems any kind of automotive work requires a blood sacrifice, not unlike PC repair).

<comment><USER28> You bring up a good point; I'd still say it's harder but not insurmountably so. Maybe a better way of differentiating would be the regulatory hell you'd have to go through to sell your cars on a mass production scale. For a router, you could actually get away with almost no testing or paperwork whatsoever (not even with the FCC if you use pre-certified RF modules).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> People ask me why are you learning programming when you already have another career, and I feel like I'm Noah building an ark

</comment><comment><USER31> I would think that robots are stealing Mexican/Chinese/Vietnamese jobs provided by American companies or contractors. This is not good: these jobs help raise the standard of living in these countries.

</comment><comment> d--b Ok, so now that it's clear that robots are taking over the low-skill jobs. Can we talk about inequality in the US?

<comment><USER32> Are there jobs at any skill level that are immune to automation?

<comment><USER33> Mathematicians assuming P!=NP.

<comment><USER34> Even in mathematics... a robot could fail to prove thousands of theorems in the time it takes for a mathematician to fail with just one.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> I see lots of posts about running out of jobs because of automation in the future. Dont worry you know whats coming that always gives people something to work on? war.

<comment><USER36> Sorry to tell you that they'll automate that too. Which has some chilling implications when the unemployed riot.

Historically this has led to soldiers shooting down their fellow countrymen.

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

But I guess once it's automated that's going to increase the likelihood.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> Who started this Robots are Stealing our Jobs narrative? I feel like it's not a coincidence that in the past few years everyone has been talking about it, despite automation increasing apace for the past century or so.

Who's behind it, and who benefits? UBI proponents?

<comment><USER38> Because it's while it has been happening and even accelerating for the last century(and longer), it is only now hitting a threshold/momentum in the past few years. We are now standing at a precipice of a substantial amount of people being automated with unlikelihood of them going somewhere else. Although predictions are unreliable, there is strong evidence that there isn't just going to be "more jobs somewhere else", like has happened in the past when things were automated or optimized (e.g. farming)

UBI discussions and increasing proponents are an outcome of this, not the other way around.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> Who'll decide [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work%E2%80%93life_balance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work%E2%80%93life_balance)

</comment><comment><USER40> Steve Mnuchin said that this is not even on the radar for the US govt.

<comment><USER41> That says a lot about Steve Mnuchin. He should know better. He used to be a hedge fund manager. There are now hedge funds run by AI programs. They're doing better than the average hedge fund.[1] By the time his term at Treasury is over, his job may be obsolete.

[1] [http://www.valuewalk.com/2017/01/ai-hedge-fund- returns/](http://www.valuewalk.com/2017/01/ai-hedge-fund-returns/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> The 800 pound gorilla that we never see discussed when talking about AI taking American jobs is how much immigration is exacerbating the problem. Whether we are trying to distribute the jobs available or whether we are distributing govt handouts/ basic income, immigration always and only increases the difficulty of both the jobs and the govt benefits sides of that discussion.</comment>


Fail Well - <AUTHOR> http://money.cnn.com/magazines/business2/business2_archive/2007/03/01/8401031/index.htm <comment><USER2> good article, hard to get yourself into the mindset that failure is a good thing, but its true.</comment>


The Knack for Getting Money - <AUTHOR> http://www.sebastianmarshall.com/the-knack-for-getting-money <comment><USER3> The only problem I have with this... is that I've experienced firsthand the other side of this coin. For a few years I was surrounded by a few people who have a knack for getting money... by any means necessary. These people would lie (not little white lies, big ones with negative impacts), manipulate, and straight-up steal from others just to make a few bucks. They had no remorse for the detrimental outcomes they brought upon those they stole from... no compassion whatsoever.

When looking for those with a knack for getting money, look for those who earn it... those whose ethics are no less than admirable... unless of course you lack compassion and morals yourself. Those who manipulate and steal without any remorse for others' lives need to be weeded out. They drag the rest of us down and hold us back for their own selfish gain.

Some may consider this darwinism - survival of the fittest - but I believe we've made much more progress as a species by working with each other than against.

The last conversation I had with these people I spent years with was to try to explain how their line of thinking quite honestly brings suffering to countless people. Prime example, big banks making deals they know will fall through regardless of the impact it has on the economy... look where we are now. The type of people who made the decisions that led to the recent recession, which caused a massive decrease in my father's hours at work, are the same ones who want to perform a shortsale on his house because he has fallen behind on his mortgage. As for the suffering I mentioned, let's just say my father will give up his house over his dead body.

<comment><USER4> _They had no remorse for the detrimental outcomes they brought upon those they stole from... no compassion whatsoever._

Sounds like they were simply psychopaths, hence lacking most emotion. It seems like that emotion/empathy was selected for in our evolutionary history (or perhaps it's just a side-effect of something else, don't know), so I don't think psychopathic behavior could possibly be characterized as darwinism.

<comment><USER5> Both strategies (empathetic and sociopathic) can be selected for; they're relatively stable when combined. The sociopaths need empathetic people to prey on, the empathetic people can tolerate the cost -- up to a point, at which they cooperate to attack the sociopaths.

You might fairly characterise civilisation as the arms race between sociopaths and everyone else.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Speculation, but I think the tendency toward sociopathic really helps avoid any hang-ups over money. Sure, I'd rather sociopaths get on the Forbes list rather than go out and kill people, but their personality is what I find distasteful, and in any case it's an unnatural brain wiring, that's why I think it's not so easy to just "become a [partial?] sociopath" if you want to rake in money.

I tried the Cutco-selling gig for a couple months, and realized almost immediately that I wasn't cut out for it. Sure I could follow the manual (which was golden as far as things-you-need-to-do-to-convert), smile, talk smoothly, answer questions, etc., but inside I think I just fundamentally couldn't shake the feeling that "If these people wanted what I was selling, they'd have gotten it already." (And I think that came out a bit whether I wanted it to or not.) On a high level I know that can be false, but intuitively, that's how I think; I hate ads and when I buy something non- trivial it's usually after personal research, not because of a salesman. Salesmen even make me less likely to buy something especially because I can see through all their rhetoric. I find something really wrong with exploiting the cognitive biases of people even if it's been done for all time, and even if I do it sometimes subconsciously. We should be trying to eliminate those biases, not feeding them.

All this said though, you don't have to be a sociopath or a real hustler to see the opportunity of printing out new menus for a quick buck. That's more in line with hacking than with money grabbing, I think. More similar to a college student coming up with pizza money for a weekend than with going after money as a goal in itself.

<comment><USER7> That's why it helps to believe in your product. PG once described his approach to selling as "Make your product the best on the market, and then tell the truth."

<comment><USER6> That's just another trick to make you a more convincing salesman, like smiling. Of course they drill that into your head during the unpaid training for Cutco, and hey, those knives are pretty badass, I still have and use my demo set. It doesn't change the fact that I feel like "Well, if my product really is the best on the market, what do you need me to tell you for? The truth is out there, it doesn't have to come from me." I'm perfectly comfortable with giving a list of facts about my theoretical product and why it's awesome, or making people aware of its existence, what I'm not comfortable with is making a story to get you to want it or pressure you into believing everything I say, and I definitely don't like rhetorical devices used for selling.

Yet even PG's advice is product-focused rather than selling-focused; can you distinguish PG's advice from a simple bulleted fact-list? (And how well do you think that alone will sell your product?) If your product _isn't_ the best on the market (or so you think), taking PG's advice would tell you to get back to work while a hustler would go out and sell it anyway. (They don't even necessarily have to lie about anything.) PG's approach echoes the traditional programmer reply of why he doesn't need a marketing team or need to study marketing by saying "My product will speak for itself."

Anyway, can you link to an essay or post from PG where he said that? A quick Google search didn't turn up a source.

<comment><USER7> It was a comment here, not an essay. I can't find anything with a search, but this is a really hard one to Google for since I'm paraphrasing and don't remember his exact words.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The problem with hiring a hustler with a "knack for getting money" is that you might be the one he ends up hustling.

<comment> hustlebear-judd The problem with the word hustle is that it has a few very different connotations.

Those who go far have moved beyond street hustling.

<comment><USER9> So true. I have this print framed above my desk at work:

<http://joeyroth.com/charlatan-martyr-hustler/>

<comment><AUTHOR> That's absolutely brilliant. Everyone should see this, it explains a tricky concept really fast. Just submitted here:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2185510>

 _(I think most martyr-types won't like it though...)_

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> This sort of begs the question: if your main drive in life is money, what use is it to you really? It just becomes points in a meaningless game.

Someone driven to change the world or build for the sake of building, on the other hand, is going to make something out of their money, even if they aren't as skilled or single-minded in acquiring it. Money means a lot more when it serves a purpose other than piling on top of itself and buying superfluous stuff.

I'm sure there's a role for people with this approach in most companies, but I tend to avoid them--mostly because they bore me to tears. Someone with ideas and goals that supersede wealth accumulation is a lot more interesting to me, and I'd much prefer to spend my time around such people and scrape by than live in a mansion and listen to a bunch of polo shirt clones yammer on about their real estate investments all day.

<comment><USER11> Why play monopoly? Or play Call Of Duty? After you pass a certain income, you realise you don't really _need_ what comes after that. But you're just enjoying the game. You're enjoying the winning.

Games are not meaningless, they are fun. That's why we play them.

<comment><USER10> I get this, and I have nothing against games, but I guess my response is that striving to accumulate more and more money seems like a shallow and tedious form of competition to me in comparison to all the other 'games' out there to choose from. It's similar to how I'd view someone who spends every waking moment trying to optimize their fantasy football team or something. I think people are free to get their kicks however they see fit if they aren't hurting anyone, but I also think that person would get more from life if they tried to expand their horizons.

<comment><USER11> But making money is one of the most fun and meaningful games out there. You can make many people happy with the money you have, you can make your life better, you can travel to new places.

If you win your fantasy football league a million times, nothing changes. If you win at the entrepreneurship game 20 times, your life becomes a whole lot better.

<comment><USER10> "But making money is one of the most fun and meaningful games out there. You can make many people happy with the money you have, you can make your life better, you can travel to new places."

In this case, I'd say that making people happy and travel are the fun and meaningful games. Money helps enable them, sure, but there are plenty of ways to make people happy and travel without much money too, so if these are the things that make you feel good, why not focus on doing them as much as possible instead?

"If you win at the entrepreneurship game 20 times, your life becomes a whole lot better."

Not necessarily. I guess this is the root of the whole discussion. It depends how you measure.

"You find out when you reach the top, you're on the bottom" -Bob Dylan

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Best book on the knack for getting money is "How to Get Rich" by Felix Dennis, founder of Maxim magazine (worth between $400-900M, that's what he says in the book): [http://www.amazon.com/How-Get-Rich-Greatest- Entrepreneurs/dp...](http://www.amazon.com/How-Get-Rich-Greatest- Entrepreneurs/dp/1591842719/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1297010573&sr=8-1)

Here's a good Inc. article on it too: <http://www.inc.com/articles/2008/07/dennis.html>

Utter determination, fearlessness, tunnel vision, and hard work are his answers.

</comment><comment><USER13> _"... became a millionaire by 24 at which point I bought a large modern house in Bel Air; got ranked among the top 10 Commercial Real Estate agents in California and the top 20 Commercial Real Estate agents in the World at Remax Commercial for 2005 and 2006; ..."_

Is selling in the real-estate boom cycle a good indication of how to make money?

<comment><USER14> Selling in the boom and then stopping and doing something else when the boom busts is, to me, evidence of having a knack for getting money.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> This has "survivorship bias" all over it. Why not just write about how lottery winners have a knack for getting money?

</comment><comment><USER16> I'm surprised about the negativity here, one of the most fun parts about being an entrepreneur is exercising this knack for getting money aspect (I'd say start a non-profit if your business has nothing to do with this, but they have to hustle too).

As to it being about money or manipulation, to me it's about seeing or creating opportunities that no one else can then chasing and obtaining them.

</comment><comment><USER17> One thing that jumped out at me here is the 'many irons in the fire' aspect of hustling. This seems to go against the grain of 'focus, focus, focus' to which I think many of us ascribe, or at least aspire.

For example, YC is supposed to be about entrepreneurs not ideas... I wonder what YC would look like if accepted teams were told to start pushing on their three best ideas simultaneously?

</comment><comment><USER18> This seems to be channeling Tim Ferris. Forget the quality of your ideas, just change your mindset, and all will be spectacular.

</comment><comment><USER19> I think the knack for getting money is probably entirely based on drive and conviction. I think it's a personality trait. Despite having several business ideas, I find that I just don't have the drive to get them going. I want to get those business ideas off the ground, but I have a hard time getting past the planning stages or putting in more than some minimum effort.

I usually find myself distracted by ridiculous things like TV or video games. I also tend to talk myself out of things saying I don't have the skills, or the contacts, or don't know how to get started, or don't know enough about the industry.

I admire the real entrepreneurs who have the drive to get their businesses going and I wish I had it. Hopefully it's a skill one can learn.

<comment><AUTHOR> > I admire the real entrepreneurs who have the drive to get their businesses > going and I wish I had it. Hopefully it's a skill one can learn.

Pretty sure it's a skill/skillset and can be learned, yeah. I think the key is incremental progress + celebrating even small victories. I've pissed away tons of time on surfing the internet or video games, but improved by looking to scale it down and then celebrating when getting there even a little bit.

I was just reading this, it's relevant:

<http://sivers.org/book/TalentCode>

Look to do whatever small action gets you a little closer, and then celebrate when you get it done. Then repeat. I find the celebrating to really help, since big changes take a long time and you do suffer a lot of that time - <USER2> it's for a far-distant payoff, it's harder to stick with it. You can bring the payoff closer by celebrating every time you do things even a little more correct. Do whatever little step you can do and complete and then celebrate a little. Feel free to email me if I can help at all, or you've got specific questions, or you want to brainstorm a little on good next steps to take and complete.

<comment><USER20> I think it's both something you practice and also something you motivate yourself for. I had some entrepreneurial episodes as a kid, which I enjoyed and found some success in once or twice, but somehow forgot about in the teenage years. I started exploring the possibilities again, but I would say that I only got properly shocked into the mindset again after(surprise) getting hustled myself, in a bad way, and wanting to make up for it.

Knowing and relearning the "child's reality" is important to success, I think. It gets you past all the blind spots that derail businesses.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> It's too bad we can't bury this obnoxious and poorly written article. Don't bother with it.

</comment><comment><USER22> "ill make a grand moving snow today"

Did 50 Cent really go shovel snow? I thought that was a double entendre (and a joke), "moving snow" being a euphemism for selling cocaine.

</comment><comment><USER23> While I agree that getting an idea off the ground takes a lot of what's in this blog post - it's important to draw lines...and I think you develop those lines only with experience. A lot of times the quick buck (even if substantial) hurts you later. Sometimes the quickest way to start building skyscrapers is to learn to weld.

<comment><USER23> Incidentally, another HackerNews link is exactly what I'm referring to.... [http://andrewchenblog.com/2011/02/05/stanford-cs-major- seeks...](http://andrewchenblog.com/2011/02/05/stanford-cs-major-seeks- salesmarketing-monkey/)</comment></comment>


Ask HN: How to challenge a patent? - <AUTHOR> We have developed a 3d try room [1]. It is one of its kind. Today, I came across this patent [2] which seems to be very generic. It is like patenting a laptop with a keyboard and a charger. I would like to protect our startup.
Applicant's site is not working as per their patent. Seems like they just wanted to patent their dream functionality.
Please let us know what are our options.
[1] - www.SenseStyles.com [2] - https://www.google.com/patents/WO2012110828A1?cl=en&dq=metail&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjsu7XFloHQAhUQT48KHd6RCtkQ6AEIIjAB
Update 1 - Added more detail <comment><USER2> IANAL, but you should contact one. That's the simple answer.

The problem with asking this question here is two-fold. First, you are potentially admitting that you think you may be violating that patent. Just because a site is not working, does not mean they are not a patent troll.

More importantly, you will get a mix of answers, if any. Patent law is complicated and, in most cases, not a simple yes you are violating or no you are not violating answer. The responses you get by asking that question in a public forum will fall along that line. Some people may think you are and others will not. In the end, you still don't have the answer to your question and are most likely more confused than when you started :)

Finally, just looking at your site, not sure if you are aware but I know of several patents that are being utilized for similar technology. Check out a site: [http://zugara.com/virtual-dressing-room- technology](http://zugara.com/virtual-dressing-room-technology) and on their site they list the patents they are using.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for your detailed response. Appreciate it.

I visited at least 10 online try room sites before starting work on my site. None of them were using the techniques that we have implemented. We wanted to address their shortcomings.

Lot of my friends told me recently to get my idea patented and I started exploring any similar patents. This is how I came across above patent.

<comment><USER3> Talk to a patent attorney or patent strategist and ask about "freedom top operate" (FTO). Talk to a parent strategist for guidance on the best path forward. Talk to a patent attorney if you want to spend lots of money on patents (that's what they do) Talk to your lawyer only to get referrals to people who know this space. Meanwhile make sure everything you do/have done is well documented.

(I'm a director of Everedgeip, but not an advisor)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for your response. Yes, we have design docs, code repositories and lot of other docs.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Hi there,

This is the exact reason why we built Unpatent ([https://unpatent.co](https://unpatent.co)) so feel free to reach me at luis@(our domain name) and we'll help you out!

</comment><comment><USER5> If your idea is substantially different from theirs (yours being specific and theirs being vague), applying for your own patent, expressly including theirs as a reference and distinguishing what's novel about your technology and how it differs from theirs, is probably the best way forward.

Can't get much cheaper or more effective than having the USPTO rule your patent as valid and distinct; even a lengthy DIY patent process will run you less than a couple hours of a middling patent attorney's time.

Odds are your business will fail or be acquired by the time the patent issues or even gets looked at (I'm still litigating a patent application I initially filed in 2010). Your goal is to succeed or fail based on the quality of your business model and only use the patent process as needed to entice investors and scare away trolls.

Patent pending is not as good as issued, but darn close for a number of investors.

<comment><AUTHOR> Great response. Much thanks

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> You might find some help at patents.stackexchange.com</comment>


LinkedIn To Acquire Bright.com - <AUTHOR> http://press.linkedin.com/News-Releases/326/LinkedIn-To-Acquire-Bright

<comment><USER2> I've been debating about whether to close my LinkedIn account.

In the nearly seven years I've had an account I've had two interesting contacts, both within the last year. Maybe this acquisition is part of a notion to change that?

Aside from a personal blog / GitHub are there any respectable places to maintain a simple, professional-focused presence online?

<comment><USER3> Well, LinkedIn is not just targeting the techies. Recruiters use it for hunting talents in other areas too where they obviously cannot publish much on Github . And making a professional web site to market themselves is probably a little too much for their already busy life.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Licensed in for viability, good value to last round ($100M pre),majority stock deal, good execution before inflection point on this one for LinkedIn.</comment>


GPU LSM: A Dynamic Dictionary Data Structure for the GPU [pdf] - <AUTHOR> https://arxiv.org/abs/1707.05354 <comment><USER2> I was about to share this with the team at OmniSci (GPU analytics platform) and realized the authors included our very own Saman Ashkiani and adviser John Owens.

Having fast dynamic data structures on the GPU is of huge utility. People think that you can't make these sorts of things efficient due to thread divergence, but if you do it right, the massive flops and memory bandwidth of a GPU can really work in your favor.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi Todd - Has your team looked at GraphBLAS [1] yet for MapD [2] now that Tim Davis has released a 2.0 reference C implementation (included in SuiteSparse 5.3) [3]? There is a GraphBLAS 2.0 CPU implementation in RedisGraph now [4] and official GraphBLAS 2.x GPU implementations are in the works.

[1] GraphBLAS [http://graphblas.org](http://graphblas.org)

[2] OmniSci MapD DB [https://github.com/omnisci/mapd- core](https://github.com/omnisci/mapd-core)

[3] SuiteSparse::GraphBLAS [http://faculty.cse.tamu.edu/davis/suitesparse.html](http://faculty.cse.tamu.edu/davis/suitesparse.html)

[4] Previous Discussion [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18099520](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18099520)

<comment><USER2> I've definitely been hearing about the project but didn't know it was being ported to GPU, that's great news. How does this compare to things like Gunrock?

<comment><USER3> Hi Todd!

Our recent work implements a subset of GraphBLAS operations for GPU and compares them to Gunrock in breadth-first-search [1]. Our implementation of a subset of GraphBLAS is comparable to Gunrock performance for power law graphs, but are worse for mesh graphs. Gunrock uses a different load-balancer in Advance for those graphs and the load-balancer we use in the analogous operation (matrix-vector multiplication) isn't as optimized for mesh graphs. We definitely want to collect data in more applications than just BFS, so we're working on that now.

The code is open-source, so feel free to check it out! [2]

[1] [https://arxiv.org/pdf/1804.03327.pdf](https://arxiv.org/pdf/1804.03327.pdf)

[2] [https://github.com/owensgroup/push- pull](https://github.com/owensgroup/push-pull)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> > _We believe that our GPU LSM is the first dynamic general-purpose dictionary > data structure for the GPU._

And now we wait and see if this is true, or if we'll see Cunningham's Law in action[0]. Either way we'll learn something.

Anyway, a general-purpose dictionary data structure for the GPU sounds like it should unlock a whole lot of new possible use-cases, no? Are there any scenarios where this would be immediately beneficial?

[0] [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cunningham's_Law](https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cunningham's_Law)

<comment><USER5> I may actually use it for my natural language logic checker.

(This experimental program analyse human text and detect if there is a reasoning error, if so, which one). It already has 100% of success for syllogisms. But I will in the future be hit by combinatorial explosion and gpu acceleration will help me, even if dictionnaries are not my main data structure.

<comment><USER6> That sounds incredible. Is it publicly available somewhere?

<comment><USER5> Thank you :) No, it's still too much in alpha stage.

I will not describe my algorithms, but still, I don't use overhyped neural networks (which are not well designed for true NLU) instead I use a normal program like opencog which allow top-down inferences.

<comment><USER4> Speaking of which, have you seen this? Maybe this alternative strategy fits your problem better than the standard _" overhyped neural networks"_ ;)

Good luck with your research!

[https://www.quantamagazine.org/new-ai-strategy-mimics-how- br...](https://www.quantamagazine.org/new-ai-strategy-mimics-how-brains-learn- to-smell-20180918/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I was under the impression that GPUs were mainly optimized for data-locality, while other access patterns are better left to the CPU with its sophisticated (in comparison) cache hierarchy. It seems this data structure is operating against this principle.

<comment><USER5> As a side note I believe the whole purpose of HSA is to diminish gpu data access latency by being more synchronised with the cpu.

[http://www.hsafoundation.com/](http://www.hsafoundation.com/)

<comment><USER8> No, it's to decrease manual translations between the CPU and the GPU by having the virtual memory maps match between them. Then you can just share pointers back and forth between the CPU and GPU.</comment></comment></comment>


How to get every game on STEAM for free - <AUTHOR> http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/LeszekLisowski/20141001/226840/How_to_get_every_game_on_STEAM_for_free.php

<comment><USER2> Highly sensational. What this amounts to is just some unethical "social hacking." While I admire the author for bringing this into light for indie developers who might otherwise be scammed, it should be up to the devs to do their due diligence or simply write it off as a cost of doing business if he doesn't bother to check their credentials.

Lastly, I think we all know how much these "$30 MSRP" games cost. Just because the retail value totals to $150 doesn't mean you'll be making anything comparable to that if you try and peddle these keys online.

<comment><USER3> Yeah, the headline is absurd and irresponsible.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Well, if it is any consolation, it is unlikely that the developer lost any real sales. The scammers themselves, and anyone who'd buy a Steam key under sketchy circumstances would not likely have bought a legitimate copy.

<comment><USER5> It's worse than that, though. They're selling the game for half price which can harm in a couple ways. It takes away a potential sale and it also sets the market expectation that the game is only worth $15.</comment></comment>


UBlock extension taken down from Chrome store - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/issues/50 <comment><USER2> He's using a very similar name and icon to the other uBlock. I don't think Google likes that in its store.

At least change the icon. And I would just name it uBlock Zero or something else entirely.

As a side note: gorhill, you were specifically criticized by others before for using the symbol μ in your extension's name, because that symbol doesn't exist on the keyboard. And now what do you do? You adopted "u" instead in the beginning, but started using _subscript 0_ in the new extension. Come on, man! Just use a name that's easy to write and tell others about!

<comment><USER3> Thanks for the feedback. I changed the logo and will use the more explicit name "uBlock Origin", though I will keep the short version uBlock0 for conciseness throughout the text.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Sorry to hear about this, I had an extension taken down by the Chrome Webstore for a name violation. I did get a "Removal Notification" e-mail for it, maybe yours got lost in the mail. I hope someone from Google gets back to you soon!</comment>


How should I split equity? - <AUTHOR> I was approached by a friend to who had an idea for an app. I told him I would build the app.
The App is almost done and we plan to go to market on mid May.
He claims he already spent 20k on the following: - Wireframe Designs - Branding and Logo creation - Customer Research study (user testing) - Blog and content creation - Landing page creation - Marketing Campaigns (google ads, facebook, instagram, etc) - Hosting - Legal costs (trademark patent, incorporation, minute book, etc
And now is offering me 30% equity in a vesting schedule of 3 years with a 6 months cliff.
I believe a fair split is where I have at least 50% of the company.
Is he offer fair since I'm the one actually building the whole app? What is your opinion on this situation?
Other notes: - He has incorporated already and would be issuing new shares to me - He doesn't have access to the source code <comment><USER2> Technical people tend to overvalue their own contributions. User research, hiring, and leadership is a very real thing and has real value. Your friend recruited you, not the other way around... a very big value he provided is that he convinced you to join, and will presumably convince others to join in the future.

When you say _I believe a fair split is where I have at least 50% of the company._ , you're saying that a split of 51%, 75%, or even 90% to you feels equitable. To state the obvious, if you have more than 50% it is no longer your friend's company, it is your company. That's not going to happen.

Let's turn this around for a moment: What if your friend got some VC money. Let's say he got a tiny seed round: $200k for 20% pre-money ($1M valuation). Now let's assume that you've invested 3 solid months building this app at $100/hr as a contractor (so, $50k -$60k dev work all-in). This implies that you've earned 5%-6% equity in the company for work already done. Your friend wants you to stay, to he offers an extra 5% for a round 10% equity. But wait you're a founder! you need more than that! You argue and thumb-wrestle or whatever and he agrees to 20% on a 4-year vest. This is probably fair.

By that analysis, 30% over 3 years is _incredibly_ generous. But only you know your own situation.

</comment><comment><USER3> > The App is almost done

I assume you've learned the importance of discussing these things up front. :) At this point, you should do your best to drive for clarity and written contracts before you continue your efforts. Your cofounder doesn't sound necessarily unreasonable, but just in case: Make sure you get everything in writing. Don't allow for infinite delays or vague future promises.

Most important question right now: What, if any, agreements do you two have in place? Did you make any agreements, written or otherwise, before you started building the app? I assume you used some of the assets he provided (wireframe designs, branding, logo) in the process, so it's too late to completely separate your app from his reach. Unless you're geared up for potentially years of legal challenges, ignore any advice to cut and run with the source code.

Second: What are your expected roles in the company going forward? Will he be running the company by himself and acting as President/CEO? I know you put a lot of work into the app, but an app alone is usually not sufficient to be a functioning business. If most of your work is done and his is just ramping up, then a 70%/30% split doesn't seem unreasonable.

I suggest you clearly define roles and expectations for both of you going forward. This will clear up a lot of the split.

> I believe a fair split is where I have at least 50% of the company

Greater than 50% means you're in charge of the company, effectively. Are you interested in running the company yourself? If not, pursuing greater than 50% ownership is not for you. Even in situations where cofounders agree to be equals, it's still often recommended to have one founder at 51% and the other at 49% to make it clear who gets the final vote. Do you want that to be you? Would he still be onboard if that was you?

</comment><comment><USER4> Split the shares 50/50\. Convert the 20k into senior debt that will be repaid on a schedule. If he believes in the vision then he will have his investment back and will have the benefit of your unpaid work.

</comment><comment><USER5> How much time did you use to write the app? Is it possible to just burn the code and forget about the project?

As other comment said, get everything in written. Get a layer to read the agreement before signing.

</comment><comment><USER6> Without the app, he has no business. I'd say you're in a strong position to ask for at _least_ half the shares (not options). If you don't get them, take your app and sell it elsewhere.

<comment><AUTHOR> I did sign an NDA, so not sure about selling somewhere else. but thanks</comment></comment>


The Problem with Music (1993) - <AUTHOR> http://www.thebaffler.com/salvos/the-problem-with-music <comment><USER3> _> FROM The Baffler No. 5 1993_

[http://qz.com/202194/steve-albini-the-problem-with-music- has...](http://qz.com/202194/steve-albini-the-problem-with-music-has-been- solved-by-the-internet/)

 _> 'The Problem With Music' has been solved by the internet (2014)_

<comment><USER4> Albini was in a really good position to see the problems of the pre-digital industry, and he wrote about them well. And he's right that the problem of _distribution_ and crappy old gatekeepers has been solved.

He's absolutely wrong to the extent that he thinks all the problems of music have been solved (or that he holds the opinion that "bands will make it up in t-shirt sales and mumblehandwave business models!").

And I doubt he's in a great position to see the current problems:

* He probably has a circle/network of people who solved the problems of attention and gaining patronizing fans earlier (sure, he probably does production for and has _some_ acquaintances from now, but the primary circle that mediates his experience is probably older).

* I'm not sure the collusion between high profile services and labels is as easy to see (because it's partly an adversarial/opportunistic relationship to begin with). And streaming services tend to be better for older acts with a catalogue and established audiences (who benefited from recording revenue back when that could be a thing and aren't producing new recordings now).

<comment><USER5> He is wrong about jazz, too. It doesn't suck (same with Zappa, post-Mothers).

I try not to judge him too much on this, but it colors my opinion of his opinions a bit - what musician hates jazz? Then again, I am not a fan of Shellac or his other music, so I am probably missing something. In 10 years I might be telling people how wonderful Shellac is, and it might just click for me - that is the wonderful thing about art.

I wish that there was a world where musicians could make great music without having to tour and make money. Some music doesn't need to be structured to be played live.

Edited for clarity and I was too harsh.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I respect the hell out of some of Steve Albini's work, but to avoid ending up a bitter old industry fuck like the guy who wrote this article is the reason I quit the music business.

Also, FYI, there's a whole other music industry out there built around playing live shows, and almost none of these tired cliches and horror stories apply. There are different cliches and horror stories, but the bands are much more in control of their destinies and the career is (in a sense) more sustainable.

<comment><USER7> Jaron Lanier has a great contrarian view of this where he points out that he went on a research project to find musicians that became independently wealthy in the 'internet age' and that he basically couldn't find any. The most he could find were a handful of people that made enough to buy a house - and that was the top of the pyramid. All the stories he found turned out to be fabricated by trust fund kids or claims by musicians that had had their initial career boost in the 'old' system. There's a clip on Youtube of him talking about it but I can't remember which one it is. Anyway the jist of his view is that in the long term much of it actually isn't sustainable.

<comment><USER8> So.... why is it necessary to become "independently wealthy" for music as a career to be "sustainable"?

There seems to be a disconnect there. Also, maybe his work is out of date, because there are a lot of independent musicians who have achieved massive success outside of the traditional recording studio model in the internet age, largely through selling their own work and through touring.

<comment><USER9> It means you're a full-time professional musician. Not a part-time semi- professional musician with a day job to pay the bills, who is permanently distracted by Not Music.

>a lot of independent musicians who have achieved massive success outside of the traditional recording studio model in the internet age, largely through selling their own work and through touring.

No there aren't. There are very, very few professional musicians working that route, and hardly any of them have achieved 'massive success.' Most of the ones who did already had an old-style label-based career, or at least label+management backing.

Most of the really successful ones don't sell their own work and perform. They write and arrange songs for top performers, or they work as producers - <USER2> is what Albini does now, mostly - or they do work-for-hire movie and game soundtracks, or they write commercial music for ads, or they work as sound designers.

Being a famous name performer is a career that works for a tiny handful of (mostly) singers, who are primarily picked for sexiness and (sometimes) charisma, not for musical creativity.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> (Nearly) full text of what Steve said here: [http://www.theguardian.com/music/2014/nov/17/steve- albinis-k...](http://www.theguardian.com/music/2014/nov/17/steve-albinis- keynote-address-at-face-the-music-in-full)

<comment><AUTHOR> The Guardian article is a worthy read because it expands on what actually happened. I went straight to the '93 source.

What is interesting is the text isn't tainted by references to future technology. It's sort of an anthropological view of the state of music around the time of 'Nevermind' (DGC/Geffin Sep, '91).

The record company, DGC Records (Geffin) wielded enormous power. Read through the artists on these labels: <[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DGC_Records>](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DGC_Records>) and <[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DGC_Records>](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DGC_Records>). [0]

Contrast the state of affairs of the early 90's Steve describes to now.

[0] Power enough to sue Neil Young in '85 for not producing albums were "unrepresentative" ~ [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Young#Experimental_years_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Young#Experimental_years_.281980.E2.80.931988.29)

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> His latest speech was a couple of weeks ago in Melbourne, Australia, and follows through on what he has seen since then as the internet has changed music: [http://genius.com/Steve-albini-keynote-address-at- melbourne-...](http://genius.com/Steve-albini-keynote-address-at-melbourne- australias-face-the-music-conference-2014-annotated)

</comment><comment><USER12> > Producers and engineers who use meaningless words to make their clients > think they know what's going on. Words like "Punchy," "Warm," "Groove," > "Vibe," "Feel." Especially "Punchy" and "Warm." Every time I hear those > words, I want to throttle somebody.

Sounds like every single person on any online forum or community related to music, audio production, or audio hardware.

<comment><USER13> I imagine punchy is the opposite of muddled?

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Back in 2000, Courtney Love did the math too... ([https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2742303](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2742303)) I'd like to hear what she thinks now.

</comment><comment><USER15> Hollywood accounting -> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting) . I also would like to note it happens not only in the music/movie industry.

</comment><comment><USER13> Bandcamp digital pay-what-you-what, live shows/festivals/events, and artwork bundles with album sales seem to be the model of most of my favorite dedicated musicians.

If you like an artist, support their work.

</comment><comment><USER16> I got to DAT and realized we were talking pre-Internet.

<comment><AUTHOR> sorry, I changed the title to reflect this.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> May be 'The Problem with Music Industry' is more reflective of the article.

<comment><USER18> Yes, the problem with _music_ is that log_2(3) is irrational...</comment></comment>


Instagram clone - <AUTHOR> What is the average market price to hire an iOS developer for an Instagram-like prototype? <comment><USER2> It vastly depends on how much you're trying to accomplish.

How many fully fleshed out features do you expect to walk away with in the prototype?

</comment><comment><USER3> we built our prototypes with these guys. cost us $6k for native app. it was more than just a prototype; fully functional and with awesome ui/ux effects. [https://vortex.solutions](https://vortex.solutions)</comment>