Ask HN: Tired founders facing acquihire – please advise - <AUTHOR> After 18 months of 80+ hour weeks, no weekends, and hundreds of thousands of dollars of opportunity cost income, I am tired.
I'm having a really difficult time making a decision and appreciate any advice the HN community can offer.
Here is a quick summary of my situation:
A bit over a year ago, I left a high paying corporate job to start a company. For ~6 months, my co-founder and I did not pay ourselves and ran through a lot of our savings. We soon got accepted into a top tech incubator and were able to use their small investment to keep running. After graduating from the incubator and without even really trying, an investment of more than $1 million fell into our laps. Shortly after, a very successful company contacted us about a potential acquisition and after two months of talking extended a "low-ish ball" acquihire offer to myself and my co-founder.
I wish we had the momentum and growth to comfortably pass on the offer but the reality is that we have not had much confidence in the business for a while. Even before the investment fell into our lap we considered "pivoting" to an entirely new idea because we were so frustrated with the highly competitive market in which we were operating. The acquiring company now also has plans to enter our market and it would be very difficult to compete.
The terms of the deal allow us to mostly pay back our investors in full and would line us up with great jobs. It is not the exit we dreamed of but it gives us a nice story for the future and allows us to "wipe our hands clean".
We have been working 80+ hours weeks without weekends and extremely low pay. My health has been declining (I was recently injured and need surgery but cannot without better insurance) and I had to move away from friends and family. I'm still young but my savings have essentially run out and I have become somewhat disillusioned by startup life.
Is it time to call it quits?
Thoughts? <comment><USER2> You gave no reason at all to reject the offer. And I cannot think of any too.

How an offer for something not even you believe it is worth something can be "low ball"??

Unless you have strong signaling that working at the acquiring company would be a nightmare (more than your current one), sell it now. And consider it fair!

My impression is that your only hesitation is because you are comparing your situation to an hipotetical one where you can cash out a huge payoff of "fuck you money". The situation you dreamed when you founded the startup. Well, forget it and deal with the facts in front of you. To me, the decision seems obvious (and I believe you have a great deal of self-awareness to notice it by yourself once you pass this denial phase of griefing for your business).

Good luck anyway!!

<comment><USER3> Exactly, obvious decision here. You don't have faith in your own business, take the offer.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> You need time off. You need surgery and recovery time, and then you need some more time off post-recovery.

I say this as somebody who has recently returned to work after 2 months away due to surgery and needing rehabilitation post-surgery that was very intensive. I'm still feeling burned out, and I'm hoping to take a couple of weeks out in a month or two to just regroup and gather my energy back.

You need to figure out whether you can take some time out before making a decision, or if you need to make the decision now and then take the time off. If the acquiring company won't let you have enough time off (or more depending on the surgery), well, that's a problem, and you need to talk to your co- founder about whether you can do it whilst in the company.

The absolute top priority in all of this is your health: you can't pivot, sell or work for somebody else if you're not well. Deal with the burn out and surgery as an urgent priority, everything else is secondary.

</comment><comment><USER5> Negotiate a small up front bonus, 2-4 weeks of paid vacation in the immediate future, at a minimum, and then take the deal.

Use the r&r to recharge, and the acquisition to bolster your track record. Start something new once you vest.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the comment. That seems like a good deal to me. Do you have any tips for the negotiation?

<comment><USER6> If there the acquisition price has a scheduled payout, don't put too much weight on any dollar amount that doesn't get paid out immediately as cash. You could get fired, or decide to quit, post-acquisition on day 2. Know what that means to walk away earlier than planned.

Also, having sold a company, I can't stress enough the value of having a good lawyer handle the legal bits. The last thing you wanna be dealing with when tire & grumpy is trying to find the loophole about how you could get screwed in a thick jumble of legalese.

Also, drink an emergency beer. You've earned it.

<comment><USER7> > If there the acquisition price has a scheduled payout, don't put too much > weight on any dollar amount that doesn't get paid out immediately as cash.

You actually cannot take this too serious. Often an earn-out depends on achieving certain revenue/ebitda/milestone targets. However, after the acquisition, you will find that someone else is in control over the resources you get (e.g., employees, budget, etc.). In other words, they control the input that you can use to achieve the agreed-upon output.

Thus the acquirer is frequently in a situation where they can manipulate the outcome by simply decreasing the input and thus driving you out of your earnout.

There's people who say that you should not rely on the earnout at all and make a deal ONLY if you would make it based on the immediate payout.

<comment><USER8> Having been through this personally in the past two years, I cannot amplify this comment enough.

If you have earnout targets based on resources such as headcount, marketing spending, or anything else not under your control, you either have to negotiate that the payout is triggered if resources fall, or accept that you will likely be manipulated out of the money by future resource constraints.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> | I'm still young

This is one of the key phrases. You built something amazing that someone wants to have. If they set you up with a good job, you should take the offer.

As nhangen said, try to get a long vacation and take it. My recharge tip would be: Find a nice place to stay for at least 3 weeks. Maybe something with a beach and all necessary shops in walking distance (if you are in Europe, Paros is amazing). Stay for at least 3 weeks. The first week will be strange, it's really hard to come down from a lot of work. The second week will feel better, you start to relax. The third is bliss - you come down and kind of only wander between different states of relaxation (wake up, nice breakfast, beach, maybe a nap, afternoon tea, dinner, sleep). It really helps to get ready for the next step and gives you enough distance to re-evaluate what you want to do.

</comment><comment><USER10> Graduating the incubator, paying back your investors and being acquired has good 'resume equity' \- don't overlook the value of that. You can tote that out the next time you're looking for financing or shooting for a C-level gig. I'd take some time to recuperate, and figure out how you want to spend that extra 40 hours a week (suggest spending it on your health and with your loved ones).

</comment><comment><USER11> Investors will always tell you that they want big multiples on their investment in order for their fund economics to work. They are right. They will also however concurrently never, ever be mad at someone for returning their money. (And in doing so, you'll be able to raise money again, much easier.)

The harsh criticism against acquihires is mostly reserved for companies who raise too much, too fast and/or lavishly waste money and opportunities available to them. That doesn't sound like you at all.

</comment><comment><USER12> It sounds to me like this is _exactly_ what you wanted! You're tired, frustrated, don't believe in the product anymore, want to stop working on it, and a bigger company offers to acquire you. That's perfect!

Of course, the acquisition price will usually never be what you wanted, but you've made it further than most, and now get to wear the "I started a company and sold it" belt. Congrats :)

I say take the acquisition, use this as a learning experience, take some time to catch your breath, relax, pat yourself on the back, and try again when you're ready.

</comment><comment><USER13> _The terms of the deal allow us to mostly pay back our investors in full and would line us up with great jobs. It is not the exit we dreamed of but it gives us a nice story for the future and allows us to "wipe our hands clean"._

Given the amount of stress you are dealing with, this sounds like a good thing to me. You get to undo the damage this has done to your finances, I assume it also would let you get the surgery you need and you can stop running yourself into the ground.

What are you hoping to get if you don't take this? What makes you hesitate to take it? Are the things that give you pause genuinely realistic scenarios or issues?

<comment><AUTHOR> We have been amazingly blessed to get as far as we have so I think I'm hesitant because there is a chance that we can make this work despite my burn out and personal desire for stability. The reasons for accepting would be personal and although we would be able to return most of our investments, this is not what we set out to do.

My main fear is limping out of this a few years from now. With the money we have raised, we do have runway for a small team for a few years. But given the technical maturity of our product, we should really be in growth mode with the intention to raise a series A in 18 months to 2 years. Our current projections make this story seem a bit far fetched so we have to make a decision of whether to keep fighting along with the same product or to try something entirely different.

You hear the brilliant stories of Instacart and Mattermark and Slack where a later stage pivot turned out to be the greatest decisions of a lifetime but you don't hear about the stories that don't work out. I was 100% willing to spend a year working my ass off while learning a ton and meeting awesome people, but now we are talking about 3-4 years going towards an uncertain future.

<comment><USER13> Let me suggest you sit down with a piece of paper and write up four to six scenarios. Either best and worst for both choices, or best, worst and "most likely" for both scenarios. You may find that one choice has better outcomes in all cases or that the worst case scenario for one is so bad that it makes no sense to hope for the best case scenario, knowing you will live in dread of it possibly going the other way.

The other thing you can try to do is arrange a "third option." Can you get a break, even a short one, so you can get some rest and make this decision under less psychological pressure?

My dad was diagnosed with a clot in his leg when I was 17 and was told they wanted to amputate. He said "Can't we try something else first?" He was told they could, but odds were poor it would work. He wanted to try it anyway. He got to keep his leg.

If there is some way to say "no" to all the worst case scenarios -- to get some breathing room and try to make a saner decision -- that is the way to go.

I hope that makes some sense. It may not be very well explained.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Hi. I'm a 49 year old software engineer who is still at the startup game -- I started in it when I was 19. If you want to talk this thru with someone who does have life experience and has been thru the startup grinder multiple, multiple times, my email is on my profile. I'd be happy to get on the phone or on skype with you and discuss. Just drop me an email. I've been there brother; it will work out.

</comment><comment><USER15> The startup game is all about confidence. If you've lost confidence, it's time to move on. Get a good lawyer, ask for upfront bonus, two or more weeks break before starting (ask for it to be paid or allow you to start with a negative accrual), make sure health benefits are vested immediately so you can start your procedure. The intensive rehabilitation may get your blood flowing and your confidence back. Then you'll be able to make a clearer decision about staying or calling a recruiter.

</comment><comment><USER16> "Is it time to call it quits?" \-- Yes, if you're tired now, it's only going to get worse before it may eventually get better. If you have an opportunity to make some money and move in another direction with your life, TAKE IT!

<comment><USER17> I don't know how this guy is tired after 2 months of being funded, but if he feels that way, i agree. take the deal.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Generally, I would tell you to take the offer. However, in this case, you used a few words that worry me.

Are you suffering from burn out?

If you are, I have some bad news for you. An acquihire likely won't provide a short term fix to your burn out. Instead, going from co-founder to employee will be stressful. You will have a new set of organizational politics to deal with, and you may find yourself plagued with constant "what ifs".

If you do take the acquihire, remember that your start date is an incredibly important part of the negotiation. If you are burned out (and seriously my friend, you sound burned out), take a bit of time off before you start.

</comment><comment><USER19> Hey! First of all, congrats for making it this far!

I had a startup, but we never were able to secure funding before we folded. We got approached by a company that was both interested in our product and also wanted to invest. When this happened, we've already been doing the startup for 2.5 years, and I was already pretty tired, burnt out, often thinking about opportunity costs, esp. when having beer with "normal" friends. I had a pretty bad feeling about going into this negotiation for a number of reasons, mostly because I was already pretty tired, and at this point we learned a lot about the downsides of the business we were in (enterprise software sales).

But despite this feeling, we agreed with my cofounder that we'd go for it, after all, this is what we had worked towards! It wasn't a bad decision---it was a gamble, and we took it. But for me it would have been better if we didn't take it. The negotiations went on for a year, it was very painful, I became pretty depressed, couldn't sleep, one time for a straight week (!). In the end the other party pulled out of the deal for totally unrelated external reasons, outside of our control, and we folded the company. But also my then- wife left me and I got divorced. I payed a big price for the gamble I took in that last year.

I'm still happy that I did that startup (2009-2012), and I plan to do one again, this time much wiser. But today I would not take that last gamble, I'd call it quits there. If it doesn't work, if it doesn't feel right, then stop.

One good thought experiment is this: imagine you continue on. Then you probably have to hire people at some point. Imagine hiring +3 people. Two have families, kids: they will quit their current job to come to work for you, on your project, at your company. Does it feel right? Imagine them showing up on the first day, and you're their leader, you have to motivate them, etc. Does it feel right?

</comment><comment><USER20> As someone who's been on the opposite side of this (having stayed in a zombie startup while recovering from a bad health situation) I say _go for it_. Health - both physical and mental - come before money. If you get to pay investors, get a good gig out of it and a great entry (an exit is an exit!) on your CV, you'll be doing much better than 95% of startups out there.

If you feel like you need someone to do a mental dump on and you are in the Bay Area, please feel free to contact me. My email is on my profile.

</comment><comment><USER21> You had a ride, enjoyed it and grew tired but did not crash, on the contrary, all is ending level for all parties and you have lined up a new good job thanks to this experience. It is much better an outcome than the great majority of startups, so congrats, quit now and good luck with your new endeavours. There may be another shot down the line, who knows?

</comment><comment><USER22> I think you should take their offer based on: 1) You were already prepared to pivot 2) You said this company is going to enter your market and would be hard to compete against 3) They are offering you "great jobs" 4) Your health/finances sound like they could use a chance to recover. Seems like a good outcome for 18 months of hard work.

</comment><comment><USER23> I did this exact scenario.

I'm way better off financially. However, I was _extremely_ depressed for a year. I had my whole identity wrapped up in my business, and all of the sudden I had a day job again. Like everything I was just disappeared overnight.

I'm mostly through the depression, but my motivation and personal life took way more of a hit post-sale than they did during 90 hour work weeks and stressing over payroll and constant marketing of myself.

I did not have investors though, so I did wind up with a nice bank account after paying back some loans we took out. All in all, though, I still kind of regret it.

<comment> Joe-Z Well, considering Alphabet is one of the must successful companies on the planet now I understand that, Larry Page. Don't be too hard on yourself though :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Take the offer. You're one of the 90% of startups that don't make it. There's no shame in that whatsoever. You tried something that 99.99% of us will never attempt and you were good enough to get bought by another company. That is an outstanding achievement. Maybe you can take the resources of the acquiring company and make that company better, all while working 40 hr weeks and health benefits.

Also, you can give it another go in a few years. There's nothing stopping you from doing that.

</comment><comment><USER25> If you raised $1 mil+ why not pay yourself and get a good insurance? It's not like you're bootstrapped, what are you doing with the money?

</comment><comment><USER26> It's pretty clear you want to go through with it, so why the hesitation, what's holding you bqck? And about the offer, unless you've exhausted your negotiaton powers there's probably money on the table.

And I'd agree with others that 18 months isn't very much, 6 months without pay is even less impressive. But that doesn't really matter, in the end it's up to how you feel. Just don't expect too much sympathy. A better way to look at it is this: what are the chances that your startup becomes a 10x:er? Investors donttreally care if you keep it up for another year and increase the calue of the company by 20%. Could it become massively successful or not?

</comment><comment><USER27> Being 25 I am automatically ruled out of giving life advice, but perhaps read something like Shoe Dog and then make a decision. Regardless of what you do, it isn't going to be easy. (team people)

</comment><comment><USER28> Just sell it, recover yourself and get back in the game when you feel it's appropriate. Perhaps call me next time :-)

I've gave up the startup life a few years ago(without really counquering anything beyond experience) meanwhile I've got married, moved to a better country etc.

But I know all those things happened because my first tries with startups and so on gave me the work ethics to conquer the shit I wanted, and this will be kept my whole life, just as it does for you.

You can have your new shot when you are bored off your new job, and perhaps even with more funds as before... to perhaps make something even greater.

Just sell it. Almost none of business people generate today are actually make a profit or grow big, but there are many which makes competitiors or old companies be on "fear state", making they buy the business and you cash out well. That's a pretty good plan!

You don't need to end up with a billion dollar company to be happy. Even making 500k in 2 years is a good amount of money. You can invest this in funds and go salaried mode again.

You are doing well! But please don't neglect your health. It's the only thing that really matters. Make sure now that your health is perfect, you get enough exercise and you are satisfied with your life.

</comment><comment><USER29> Yes!

I was in a similar situation a couple of years ago. We were much more confident about our product and we had investors chasing us but we still took the offer. It's been the best career decision of my life.

In the end it came down to this: the acquirer was going build the thing we were building anyway, and it had a much larger chance of success if we just went and built it for them.

It also gave me two really valuable things for my career:

1) A successful exit to brag about

2) Learning so much more about building startups than I would have in my own company (the acquirer went from 25 to 250 employees while I was there)

Financially, a way to think about it is that a more established startup is more likely to succeed than your startup, so if you guess some likelihoods of each succeeding and multiply it by the value of your stake in each company, you can see what your outcome of each decision might be. For us, this calculation made it obvious we should join.

A tip, which bit me in the ass: try and negotiate getting some real stock as payment. We took stock options to simplify the deal, which if you've read enough of HN, you know why they're a PITA. Give all the cash to the investors (if you're getting a good salary that doesn't matter anyway) then for your payment try and get them to exchange share-for-share stock in your company with stock in their company. In theory this isn't a taxable event (in UK law at least, but i am not an accountant) so you don't have to deal with all of the stock option bullshit. (Well, for some of your shares anyway. You'll probably still get normal employee options too.)

Good luck! Email's in my profile if you want any more advice.

</comment><comment><USER30> Are you building a platform or a feature? If you're building a feature and no vision for a platform, then I would suggest to be acquired - however, you need to compensate yourself for your time at market value, and your job should be secured with them too if they are smart and value the experience you gained developing what you have. If you really do have passion but are just burned out, then perhaps figure out who are you missing on your team? Are you missing a business logic person to help guide you and manage resources? Have you created a pitch deck - not just to get more investment - but to get yourself brainstorming and creating a solid plan for the future that you can get excited about? Part of evolving a pitch deck is talking to people to see what they get excited about with it - clients, potential clients, potential investors, etc. I wish you the best.

</comment><comment><USER31> consider the sunk-cost fallacy... you're focusing a lot on your 80+ hour work weeks which is clouding the judgment in front of you: a successful business exit into a comfortable job.

the alternative is competing against this company where you don't think you can win. take the money.

</comment><comment><USER32> > _...but the reality is that we have not had much confidence in the business > for a while._

It's possible to be a true believer but still have doubts about logistical matters, such as ability to execute or the product's sales potential.

If you and your founder are completely demoralized on all fronts, have been for some time, and there's no way to rectify that (e.g. perhaps fixing your burnout), then by all means throw in the towel.

If there's still a spark somewhere, then do what you think is best.

> _...and hundreds of thousands of dollars of opportunity cost income, I am > tired._

I know the feeling, and it burns. Perhaps you can negotiate the acquisition offer to make up for that?

</comment><comment><USER33> Sounds like a good opportunity has come along at the right time. You didn't really give any reasons not to go for it.

> We have been working 80+ hours weeks without weekends and extremely low pay. > My health has been declining (I was recently injured and need surgery but > cannot without better insurance) and I had to move away from friends and > family. I'm still young but my savings have essentially run out and I have > become somewhat disillusioned by startup life.

This is a big reason to go for it. You have an exit on the table that also provides a well paying job, good insurance, and a break from startup life.

</comment><comment><USER34> If you take the offer, do yourself a favor and bake some extras into your employee contract or add them into the deal. Not sure of the terms, but if you need to stick around, don't underestimate how long a year is when handcuffed. Ask for a delayed start, X% bonus and a hefty salary. Even though you didn't exit at some insane rate, you can't ignore you have a skillet or at the very least, accomplished something most have not; that's worth more than your average salary. Once you're locked in, it's a lot harder to adjust and it can leave you frustrated.

</comment><comment><USER35> Your health is more important than your company. You will have many jobs and opportunities to found companies, but only one body. Do what's right for you, don't look backwards, and do it without any regrets.

</comment><comment><USER36> You reached the point where you hate your project. It happens when you burnout after spending countless hours working on your idea. You already have the money to build a team, investors are backing you up. Take a 2 week vacation Alone (empty your brain, get some fresh air, don't bring the internet with you, go somewhere cheap and isolated up in the mountains).

Then when you come back, spend a week brainstorming with your co-founder on a new idea (pivot). Prepare a few slides, setup a meeting with your investors and ask for their support.

If they don't like it, sell.

</comment><comment><USER37> It's your decision. Personally, think I'd take the offer and live to fight another day with valuable lessons learned. Especially the one regarding a sustainable workweek. Good luck.

</comment><comment><USER38> I have a software business.

On business, if our software cannot provide enough additional value to customers, then the customers should use one of our competitors, and we'll move on to another market. On personal, I've sacrificed all the above as well, but I don't think of them. My customers are much more important to me.

If the 80+ hour weeks and extremely low pay are important decision points for you, then you should choose the high paying job.

I wish you all the best.

</comment><comment><USER39> It's time to call it quits, yes. There will be other chances, and unless you have full confidence in the way forward then consider this a successful exit.

</comment><comment><USER40> An acquihire can be a great way to build marketable skills outside of actually writing the code. I'd try negotiating a mutually agreeable path that allows you to move into management after some period of time.

From what I understand (no disrespect meant, just anecdotal accounts), it's more difficult to remain hired as a coder after 40 (especially with kids). Getting some management experience on your resume will help later in life.

</comment><comment><USER41> Hold out to at least show your investors a bit of growth, even 20% more would be a huge return annualized (if you've only held it a couple of months). I would also want to pay myself my opportunity cost in lost wages.

If they're a big firm and they want into your established and competitive industry, you're the cheapest and safest way in, so remember you have a lot of bargaining power.

</comment><comment><USER42> I was there except the big followup investment and acquihire part. So if you don't see a viable option to turn the company around and make it rock on the short run, take the deal and enjoy the money. And get some rest.

</comment><comment><USER43> hmmm.....frame it. 3 months from now and things are status quo with startup, will you be mildly peeved you didn't accept the acqui-hire offer or maddeningly furious/depressed?

</comment><comment><USER44> Negotiate, get as much cash as possible on signing + a paid vacation of 3-4 weeks + do your operation. After your lockup period simply move on in a civil manner.

</comment><comment><USER45> "the reality is that we have not had much confidence in the business for a while" \-- what more is there to say? Just do it.

</comment><comment><USER46> You're not in it to win it anymore. Get out while the getting is good, relax a bit, prepare for your next shot.

</comment><comment><USER47> Health first. Always.

I screwed up my health fighting to keep my startup alive.

You can always try it again if you are healthy.

</comment><comment><USER48> So is the lesson here to pay yourself? I wonder how other founders have gone about this.

</comment><comment><USER49> You have no faith in your own business. Sell it. Move on. Live is too short.

</comment><comment><USER50> Put health above _everything_ else.

Get that surgery done. Heal.

There is always time to make more money.

</comment><comment><USER51> Get out while you can, your health and time on this planet matters.

</comment><comment><USER52> What is the opinion of your co-founder on this?

</comment><comment><USER52> What do your investors have to say about it?

</comment><comment><USER53> Don't give up. You CAN compete. You can do this, BELIEVE! I would ask them how they determined their offer price though....good information to have.

<comment><USER38> This is too emotional. Emotions are the first to go when you get punched in the face.

<comment><USER53> Too emotional? Emotions are thee only thing humans base decisions on, it's either pain or pleasure, which ever is stronger in the mind. And this guy didn't get punched in the face, I think you want him to fail.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> I worked 80 hours per week for 7 years straight.

At one point I was juggling full time university with a full time job and an open source project on the side. My grades suffered, the startup I worked for failed, my open source project failed. I did manage to graduate though.

Then I started another open source project, worked on it for 2 years, it also failed because of tough competition.

So then I started yet another open source project and finally it did well and people seem to like it (almost 4k stars on Github) - It's been 3 years.

I was working full time the entire time and I was exhausted all the time.

There is no point complaining about your situation because there is always someone who has it worse than you.

You have to learn that nobody cares and nobody will try to help you - I think this is the right way. I personally don't mind the struggle but I hate to see people getting easy exits because someone wants to protect someone else's feelings. Nobody deserves anything.

I wish more people would understand how it really works and you can only get that from continuous failure over many years. It gives you a more accurate feeling for what the odds really are.

<comment><USER55> I admire your working discipline and stuff but in which way do you think does your answer help the thread owner?

<comment><USER54> I just wanted to emphasize to not focus on rewards so much. Failure makes you more resilient. This resilience can be a reward in itself.

<comment><USER53> Just because someone doesn't understand your post and downvotes it is no reason to have to explain. Some people have less than a cup half empty, they have it turned upside down. +1 to you.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


IPv6 Attack Kills Mac OS X and makes Windows Server 2012 restart in Seconds - <AUTHOR> http://samsclass.info/ipv6/proj/RA_flood2.htm#1

<comment><USER2> Disclosure to Apple - Apple notified 12-11-12.

I often wonder why disclosures of these types of exploits is now, "same day" instead of "Let vendor know you will be reporting this to public in a week."

I wonder if it is out of concern they will be pressured to keep quiet?

There is a good practical reason for not providing advance disclosure at major conference, particularly if you're subject to some kind of NDA, because, more often then not, the security researcher faces the risk of legal action and being shut down.

That pattern, though, "We are going to announce a security hole in major vendor product" followed by, "Shut down by legal action" - happens so frequently that I often wonder whether that's actually part of some larger pattern of entrepreneurial behavior that's opaque to me, it happens so frequently. Maybe it enhances your reputation? Gets you in the news?

I'm all for full disclosure, but, it might be nice to give the vendor a week to have a patch that can roll out at the same time as you let the world know what you found.

<comment><USER3> When I discovered a vulnerability in Mac OS X that would allow a unprivileged user to keylog every user on the system (CVE-2007-0724), I let Apple know, then kept quiet until they fixed the issue. It took them 11 and a half months to fix. They thanked me in the security update note, and I now how a CVE on my resume. Was silence the most morally correct action? To this day, I am still unsure.

<comment><USER4> I've never thought to put CVE-IDs I'm credited for reporting on my resume. Is that...a thing? Do tech employers (outside of security consultancies) even know what a CVE-ID is?

<comment><USER2> What else should a person put on their resume (beyond job experience) when applying for security roles? Patents? Education? Open Source Projects? I would think that CVE-IDs would certainly lend color, and probably credibility to the resume of someone applying for a security position, particularly if the CVE-ID (which has some amount of peer review) was associated with something interesting or relevant to the position being applied for.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> In case someone is curious about the code, visit [http://opensource.apple.com/source/xnu/xnu-2050.18.24/bsd/ne...](http://opensource.apple.com/source/xnu/xnu-2050.18.24/bsd/netinet6/nd6_rtr.c) and look for nd6_ra_input()

<comment> X-Istence Reading that code I finally realise why Mac OS X doesn't correctly handle option 24 (alternate routes).

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Reminds me of the '90s when WinNuke and Smurf attacks ran wild. Remember one attack that caused our Linux boxes to panic, but I can't remember what it was called. It's not surprising that we're seeing stuff like this in v6. IPv4 has had the bugs hammered out from years of attacks, v6 not so much.

<comment><USER7> Land? A single spoofed TCP SYN packet with identical src/dst addresses was enough to crash or at least impact many OSs.

[http://www.physnet.uni- hamburg.de/physnet/security/vulnerabi...](http://www.physnet.uni- hamburg.de/physnet/security/vulnerability/land.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Since this attack is based on Router Advertisements, you need to be on the same LAN to exploit it. It also does not apply if the LAN implements RA Guard (RFC6105).

<comment><USER9> [http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-gont-v6ops-ra-guard- evasion-0...](http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-gont-v6ops-ra-guard- evasion-00.txt) , but maybe you're right about the LAN part.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> In the video, he tested OS X, Windows XP, and Server 2012. OS X beachballed, XP went to 100% CPU, and Server 2012 panicked and rebooted. All three failed; this isn't just an Apple issue. Was Microsoft notified as well?

<comment><USER11> In my experience (and as this article suggests), Microsoft operating systems have always been really vulnerable to flooding, even over IPv4. Malformed UDP packets to port 53 (DNS) at about 20-30k packets/sec instantly would lock up a windows box and prevent it from successfully rebooting. This was one of the preferred methods for the wargames that were played for bandwidth over the shared housing network for Microsoft Research interns in China a few years back.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I don't really understand this stuff, but I think this is an already-known vulnerability. It was discovered at least as early as May 2011: <http://samsclass.info/ipv6/proj/flood-router6a.htm>

</comment><comment><USER13> The title is incorrect.

"... this one crashes the Mac, and it makes [Windows] Server 2012 restart."

<comment><AUTHOR> Fixed.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I cannot help but think: ping6 of death!

<comment><USER15> New technology, same style.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Ha ha! v6 of the teardrop attack (not really).

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial-of- service_attack#Teardr...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial-of- service_attack#Teardrop_attacks)

</comment><comment><USER5> It would be interesting to know if iOS is affected as well.

<comment><USER17> According to the page it works on iPads:

<http://samsclass.info/ipv6/proj/RA_flood2.htm#10></comment></comment>


PHP-Snow - A concise, dry and beautiful language that compiles to PHP - <AUTHOR> http://code.google.com/p/php-snow/

<comment><USER2> I have seen many PHP improvement proposals over the years. I am really glad people are doing such things. But I would like to address something that seems a bit wrong-headed to me, that is common to many of these proposals.

PHP is a verbose language, it is known. It is not a bug, it is a feature. Yes, some languages like to make their source code look like it was gzip- compressed, and have one or two-character symbols for everything. PHP is not among those, and I don't see how writing "fn" instead of "function" really helps. Are you so lazy as to type "function"? Get a decent completing editor, it'll do it for you. But code saying "protected function sayHello()" is much better for everybody that one saying "pr fn sH()". Same goes for syntax like "!_->" - it looks like cartoon "expletive deleted" sequence, not like a readable code. PHP is not APL, it should be obvious to a reasonably knowledgeable person what goes on there.

The idea of space-as-syntax, the most known implementation of which is of course Python, has its advantages and disadvantages. I admire the cleanness of good python code, and and the same time I am greatly annoyed when I have my code break because there's some space instead of tab or tab instead of space or extra space somewhere where it is not obvious. But I'd be interested to see people try out "PHP with Python indentation syntax" and see how it works for them. I don't see it a big difference but would be an interesting idea to play with.

<comment><USER3> WOW, I'm on hackernews, wow! I completely agree on not shortening array, object, private, public, etc. I reached a similar decision a while ago, but didn't get around to fixing the docs.

I like shortening fn though, as it often makes the difference if an expression containing an anonymous function can fit on one 80 character line or not.

About the "!_->" syntax in the validation part of the function definition. Recently I've decided to remove the entire validation part, because the syntax is too specific and weird. I still like the defining of arguments on top of the function because it removes duplicate argument names between docblocks and code. The idea of validation together with the argument defintion is still sound i think though.

<comment><USER4> Perhaps function should be allowed in both long and short form. I might be willing to use fn for an anonymous function but much less likely in regular situations.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I don't know if I'm the only one, but I hate with passion this trend to remove syntax from a language and call it an improvement. It may be easier to code, but the code you produce is often more cryptic and harder to maintain. The aspect of the maintainability of a language is often disregarded even tough it's a very important aspect. That project is a very good example of this. Sacrificing readability for a few keystroke is never a good trade-off.

<comment><USER6> Isn't the aim here to improve readability?

<comment><USER7> By which measure is

        <- 2

easier to read than

        return 2

There are many more examples in the code, but I generally found the PHP code MUCH easier to read, and I don't know PHP very well. It could be that I'm biased towards C-like languages, but I doubt it; words are a lot easier to read than arbitrary symbols.

<comment><USER8> I wouldn't have blinked if it was:

      ^ 2

since that is what is used in Smalltalk, but the left arrow makes me think I am missing what it should point to.

<comment><USER9> In ruby you could just write

      2

assuming you're at the end of a function. Coffeescript is the same iirc.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I think the reason this is getting negative/poor feedback is because the SAT analogy does not hold - Snow:PHP::CoffeeScript:JavaScript

JavaScript is a great language with debatable syntax. CoffeeScript works because it clarifies the beauty in the language. Snow doesn't do this for PHP because there isn't much beauty underlying the syntax to begin with.

<comment><USER11> That could be true.

But the real reasons I use Coffee script are the features it adds to the language: list comprehensions, splats, existential operator, severely concise class syntax.

And I don't see this offering any features that are as useful as those. The Snow code looks uglier, I think, than the PHP code. But if it looked uglier and gave me extra features (like, for instance, splats, comprihensions, improved slicing and range syntax, etc), I'd still probably use it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> While I don't rail against this kind of thing instinctively, I really do have to ask, is:

      pri fn render_row(row)

_really_ that much better than

      private function render_row($row) {

    ?

<comment><USER13> Speaking of readability: Just `pri` as the constructor? When having just a quick glance at code I want to know which part does what. Function names help, even if it is ___construct_.

And the _@str title=null_ line above the class seems very odd.

<comment><USER12> I'm not sure I understand your comment - the function name in this case is "render_row()", and "pri" refers to the visibility of the function.

I don't feel that it's more readable, or even easier to write, as "pri", though.

<comment><USER13> _pri_ is used first for the constructor (right after _class SumTable_ ) but not followed by any name. I find it quite hard to read this way.

<comment><USER12> Ah - I missed that entirely, thanks for pointing it out again. That line may just win the prize for least-clear line in the Snow example.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> @arr pri fn [!_->empty:

uhm, beautiful

<comment><USER15> Depends on the languages you're familiar with... fn is common in some areas, _ is a popular "default variable", -> I see as an interesting addition although it would be equivalent to empty(_).

What I'm not sure about is @arr (why not @array?) and [] instead of {} for a map...

I'm not sure if it's beautiful, but it's definitely an interesting shortcut for common operations and I could immediately see why it's useful and already remember the syntax for it. I like it and the author seems to like it too, not everyone has to agree of course ;)

<comment><USER16>
      [] instead of {} for a map

PHP uses [] for both list and map types.

I don't think there's any difference between the two types in PHP. All lists are maps.

<comment><USER17> But we're talking syntax, not behavior. There's no reason they couldn't use {} to indicate maps and [] to indicate lists, even if they're the same data type. The point of this language is to be a cleaner syntax on top of PHP, so syntactical sugar like that is a Good Thing (TM).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> As something of a glorified preprocessor, there is a limit to how much it can "make the language better". However, they will probably be able to get a bit of hacker mileage out of code generation, and I can see how you could add features which would be handy (such as first-class anonymous functions; though good luck making that look like "idiomatic PHP code"). It is too bad, however, that they didn't decide to make HTML tags first-class entities in the language; although, of course, this is all vaporware at this point.

Anyone who is interested in new languages specifically designed for web programming should also check out: <http://www.impredicative.com/ur/>

<comment><USER19> >I can see how you could add features which would be handy (such as first- class anonymous functions; though good luck making that look like "idiomatic PHP code")

PHP added anonymous functions in 5.3.

<http://php.net/manual/en/functions.anonymous.php>

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Strip the comments from the PHP code and there isn't a drastic difference in size (as the snow example lacks comments), other than that, the PHP example is more readable. /shrugs

<comment><USER21> Snow: 33 Lines

PHP: 66 Lines

\- w/o PHPDoc: 45 Lines

\-- w/ Single-line foreaches, exceptions, and ternary operators: 34 Lines

So if we use the same formatting, the PHP is only one line longer, and 5 of the lines are just end-braces.

Now, taking my condensed PHP, and the Snow code, and converting 4 spaces to a tab, the filesizes are:

Snow: 746b

PHP: 847b

Using a lazy comparison: 12% less code, roughly the same number of lines.

I'm with you - I don't see how using a completely different syntax & complicating your toolchain is worth it to save a handful of characters when typing. Maybe more example code (2k-3k lines) would help.

<comment><USER22> Here's a side by side comparison without comments:

<http://cl.ly/3Z3l1w0v2I2n2y231Y09/o>

That's 10 lines more. 100 times more readable.

<comment><USER3> Well actually 15, as it seems fair to remove the comments in Snow too. About it being readable, I think that has a lot to do with experience. For me the Snow version is clear as day ;)

<comment><USER22> Well the comments in Snow are kinda necessary, since it's all abbreviated and hard to read. The PHP class in the other hand is a lot clearer, with informative class and function names.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Can we start talking about this trend of people referring to their own work as beautiful? It seems kindof tasteless to me, am I alone here?

<comment><USER24> But if you don't call your work Beautiful how will people know you have Taste? When you're Intelligent and Creative you just have to show it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> I personally don't like the shortening of words. Having a long word doesn't really hurt readability.

</comment><comment><USER26> I think Php is concise enough. Sory for being harsh but this looks like evil twin of Perl.

</comment><comment><USER27> IMHO, you're trying too hard to fix the things which aren't broken in the first place. Covering the main flaws in PHP would be sufficient, e.g.

        str = 'foo'.replace('#', '').substr(1).as_array();
        int = 5.something();

would translate to

        $str = 'foo';
        $str = str_replace('#', '', $str);
        $str = substr($str, 1);
        $str = (array) $str;

        $int = 5;
        $int = something($int);

This would allow us to do things that aren't native to PHP but still have something much easier. Having strings, integers and other types used as objects (with a solid proxy syntax to the native functions) would be the first (and best) step forward.

Class definitions as well:

        Foo {
            // constants
            BAR = 'fubar',
            BAR2 = 'foo';

            // properties
            protected _bar, _fubar;

            // public properties / methods
            public
            bar() {
                return ._bar;
            },
            fubar() {
                return ._bar + ._fubar;
            }
        }

</comment><comment><USER28> I've said it once and I'll say it again: if you're going to compile down to a language, support macros. CoffeeScript tries to make Javascript better, but I personally prefer Javascript's syntax. That's not to say CS doesn't have its benefits for many people, but one of the only things _missing_ from Javascript is macros, so CS is pretty much worthless to me.

After spending countless hours in lisp and javascript, php leaves a _lot_ to be desired. One of the things I do not desire is a language of equal power with a completely different syntax. Syntax is meaningless if it doesn't allow greater power.

Honestly, it's bad enough that CoffeeScript is so prevalent. I understand why it's around and why people like it, but I don't prefer it to pure JS...and I'd rather the trend not spread to other languages.

One possible candidate would be Pharen, though: <http://scriptor.github.com/pharen/>.

</comment><comment><USER29> How long before people start writing compilers that pre-compile the pre- compiliers?

<comment><USER30> That would be pointless in most cases, whereas the history of computing has pretty well established that preprocessors are useful.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> What would be cooler is to use something like this as a basis to generate idiomatic php, python, perl or ruby. Let people sketch out their initial ideas in a common language, then compile in to a starter php project, or python project, etc.

</comment><comment><USER32> Nice idea. Still a bit rough around the edges maybe? This certainly doesn't look as pure as snow:

        [!_->empty: "$row cannot be empty."]

Good luck anyway!

<comment><USER3> Nope that is way too magic. It will go away. :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> Honestly I fail to see a more readable thing, having experience with PHP it is really hard to me to read the snow code. A lot of the syntax just doesnt make sense to me.

There is also another thing that annoys me, the significant whitespaces, that is something I do not like in python (while I like the rest of it, the indentation instead of brackets is annoying), yes I agree that indented code is more readable, and I like to read indented but I like to write my code without caring for indentation and fix it after it is doing what I want (read: tell my IDE to indent it, brackets help on that). The replacement of .= for %= is just added confusion there is really no gain, and the return for <\- seems just wrong looks like just a way to avoid using characters. Dropping the semicolons doesnt make much difference to me, but being used to them it could be a problem, when writing in languages that dont require them I write them on habit leading to a long list of syntax errors.

Warning personal rant: Why do people hate java like syntax and brackets WHYYYYYYYYYY? Whats wrong with brackets honestly???

Sorry just had to say that.

</comment><comment><USER34> PHP as assembly language?

PHP does have a big advantage, it's unbiquity on low-cost web hosts that no other language can match. The downside is having to deal with PHP itself.

I'd like a platform of PHP-done-right but compiles to a set of .php files I can deploy to any webhost. I don't think this new language is it, but I'm happy to see developments.

<comment><USER35> This is outdated, I can find you a handful of hosts that offer Perl, Python and Ruby for under five bucks a month.

<comment><USER34> Sure, they exist, but these other languages have nowhere near the ubiquity of PHP in the economy webhosting world. PHP devs have plenty of choices.

Is your webhost's DNS/email/DB service just not quite what you need? PHP devs can take their pick of a very wide selection of competing services.

<comment><USER35> Please back up what you're saying with some proof. As I said, PHP is no longer the most ubiquitous economy hosting language.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> This is syntactic sugar at best; other languages such as Python are cleaner _and_ are more performant. Facebook's efforts to compile PHP to C++, HipHop, demonstrate this need, and in my opinion, this project is a step in the wrong direction.

PHP was great for its time, but sometimes you have to let grandpa go.

<comment><USER19> Sometimes you're stuck with large PHP codebases.

<comment><USER36> very true, though how would this project help? A major rewrite would have to be done with PHP-Snow just as much as another language.

<comment><USER19> If you were adding to the codebase, you could write the code using Snow. You could also rewrite select portions that you regularly need to work on, as opposed to having to port the entire codebase to another language.

<comment><USER36> Again, what is the advantage to be gained by simply reducing syntax? Programming efficiency? Saving a few key strokes?

Your suggested approach would certainly add more drag for little gain for programming teams.

Developers would be better served optimizing performance, not messing around with simplifying syntax. For that reason, HipHop a worthwhile addition to the PHP canon; this not at all.

<comment><USER19> Reducing syntax noise can theoretically make code easier to read and write. I personally don't go for that approach, but others swear by it and if it increases their productivity and makes them happier then that's a good thing.

Optimizing performance and making writing/managing code easier are two different problems and not mutually exclusive. Code written in Snow can then be optimized with HipHop.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Yay, another language!

<comment><USER38> indeed :) Competition breeds innovation, competition breeds excellence!

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> php as a target platform huhu, btw there was already php-reboot.

php reason to be is hosting + ecosystem, not linguistic qualities, too late for that.

</comment><comment><USER40> I guess beauty lies in the eye of the beholder.

</comment><comment><USER41> i value conciseness, but clarity matters more. i guess that's why the longer i code, the longer my variable names become.

</comment><comment><USER42> Here's something constructive for all the haters. Snow is open source, seems with such a consensus it should be easy to get some people together and hack on a fork of snow that is more appealing to the masses. Or does the current PHP syntax leave nothing to be desired?

</comment><comment><USER43> not as pretty as ruby or coffee-script :P

</comment><comment><USER44> yay let's copy ruby and python!

</comment><comment><USER45> How can anyone call this beautiful? o.O

</comment><comment><USER46> why? do php to native c do very simple language to native c

</comment><comment><USER47> As I said on twitter, someone finally managed to write a more pointless and retarded abstraction than HAML.

Bravo, for all the _wrong_ reasons.

</comment><comment><USER48> This might be a nice replacement for PHP spaghetti code you might see everywhere - see the recent HN thread where PHP is voted the most-hated language - it's because even solid coders produce spaghetti code with it. You need to be really disciplined to create something that's easily maintainable.

I would not touch PHP codebase without a framework. Some nice PHP frameworks have emerged in past few years ranging from simplest CodeIgniter to pretty complete Yii I use for most projects now. I would never choose to use PHP for a project without Yii or a similar framework, so until we see a quality framework written in PHPSnow, I don't see any reason to use it.

<comment><USER49> Why couldn't you use an existing PHP framework from PHPSnow?

<comment><USER48> Take Yii for example. Beside framework functionality, the power of rapid development comes from Gii code-generation tool and it generates PHP code (complete MVC for CRUD + admin. interface based on database tables or PHP class). You get skeleton structure that you need to fill in with your business logic (and put some design into views, but that's not really a problem here).

Everything that Gii does, you would have to write manually using PHPSnow. Doing that manually is slow and error prone.

Besides, using MVC framework makes the PHP code clean and maintainable, which are two real problems with PHP. Writing $this-> is a minor nuisance, but I hardly believe it warrants inventing a new language. If PHP is just ugly to you, why use it at all? There's Python, Ruby, whatever...

<comment><USER50> then again PHP is arguably a framework itself and when dealing with something either very simple or very complex Yii feels to verbose.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> So much criticism... As usual the php community is resisting any change. I think what you are doing has a lot of merit. Your DSL just needs some polish.

What I like:

\- The new return "<-"

What I think should change:

\- The concatenating assignment operator "%=" shouldn't change. It should stay the same ".="

\- Accessing instance variables/methods should be by using '@' rather than '.' as that is becoming an implied standard and php folk are already used to using '.' for string concatenation.

\- The setting of parameter types and defaults on methods is too heavy and not what people expect. I would put them back into method declaration.

      eg.
      @str title=null
      class

      # To become
      class
      fn constructor(str @title = null)

      As @ would be the way to access instance variables what this means is the instance variable of title would be assigned the value that gets passed through the constructor.

      # This is too much magic imo
      @arr row
        # List of integers.
        [!_->empty: "$row cannot be empty."]
      fn add_row(row)

      # it should be something like this:
      fn add_row(arr row)
        !"$row cannot be empty." if row->empty

\- This doesn't make a lot of sense:

      for row in .rows
        html %= "<table>" | .render_row(row) | "</table>"

      # I would prefer something like:
      html .= @render_row(row) for row in @rows
      html = "<table>{html}</table>"

Good work on what you have already achieved, with a bit of extra polish I think Snow can become very desirable.

<comment><USER12> > So much criticism... As usual the php community is resisting any change.

This grinds my gears on a few levels - I really don't feel as though the reaction here is a resistance to change, as much as it is a resistance to completely redefining pretty much all of the core language constructs.

The Snow code is, in my eyes, almost completely unreadable, due to a seemingly random collection of characters.

I'm a PHP developer, and while I appreciate that (at times) PHP can be quite verbose, introducing such sweeping changes really doesn't make any sense to me. The add_row() function in particular is mind-bending for me. Auto- declaration (and initialisation, within a loop, no less) can only hurt in larger systems - which is why developing with notices enabled is such a plus.

<comment><USER51> I didn't say Snow was perfect. Far from it. Didn't you see my long list of feedback?

I get annoyed with the php community because this thread embodies what a typical response from them is like. Criticize anyone trying to do something new by saying the old ways are best without giving any constructive feedback.

Also note. No one has to use Snow if they don't want to. These are not changes to the core of php, so it confuses me why people get so militant over the suggestion of a DSL for php.

<comment><USER12> I did indeed see your feedback, but it was the opening comment that framed the feedback, that bothered me most.

As for your feedback itself - your own suggestions don't appear to improve readability in any meaningful way, mainly because the underlying example is simply _so_ unreadable already.

I'm perfectly happy to debate potential layers above PHP to help with speedy development, but I'm also perfectly happy to argue against those that I don't believe have any promise.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


I Criticized My University's Ties to the Chinese Gov, Now I Face Expulsion - <AUTHOR> https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/05/14/i-criticized-my-universitys-ties-to-the-chinese-government-now-i-face-expulsion/ <comment><USER2> It's time to expel the Confucius Institute.

</comment><comment><USER3> University education is becoming irrelevant anyways, when they expel critical thinkers they will only become less relevant.</comment>


Hot products make succesful startups - <AUTHOR> http://www.scripting.com/stories/2008/03/09/hotProductsMakeSuccessfulS.html

<comment><USER2> They're both right. You need a hot product. But you need to watch expenses carefully so that you have time for your ideas to evolve and for the market to realize what you have.</comment>


200-Year-Old Alcohol Found in Shipwreck Is Still Drinkable - <AUTHOR> http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/200-year-old-alcohol-found-shipwreck-still-drinkable-180952373/

<comment><USER2> Alcohol is used as a preservative, this being a distillate it should not be surprising that it is still 'fit for consumption'. Given that people will drink window cleaner and glycol it should be even less of a surprise but I figure the article meant that his was originally intended for consumption rather than as a cleaning product.

Poland has a fairly active bootlegging industry, and a typical reward for some favour or other is a small bottle of the local poison. Those bottles can be quite old as well and I've yet to hear of someone complaining their vodka had gone bad.

<comment><USER3> The risk is in distillation process. Even small amounts[1] methanol can be devastating. Other than that unopened high spirits don't change much at all.

[1]:[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methanol#Toxicity](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methanol#Toxicity)

<comment><USER4> Even so, the risk of deadly or injurious methanol levels in typical distilling is low.

It's only when people are using improvisational pieces in the process (like the radiator/moonshine legacy) that things get dangerous.

In other words, making liquor (or even lower-ABV alcohol like beer and wine) is pretty safe across the board assuming you aren't just using old car pieces or old wood in the process.

I'd think that in most cases there'd be some degradation of the ABV over a long period of time that might make it susceptible to human pathogens, but that level is pretty low, something like .8% ABV.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Bah. Lots of things that contain alcohol are "drinkable". My fellow Russians were known to drink aftershave, to extract and drink alcohol from industrial glue and do an equally impressive voodoo with a recoil buffer grease.

I mean it's more remarkable that the bottle didn't leak than the fact that its contents were drinkable :)

<comment><USER6> I remember hearing somewhere that Russian jets and tanks and such used alcohol for hydraulic fluid, and soldiers would sometimes drink it all, leaving their military hardware unusable.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I once met a guy who swore blind that he and some friends had found a sunken greek galley while scuba-diving, and swagged an amphora or two of drinkable 2000-year-old wine before reporting the find.

<comment><USER8> I can't tell if this is a methanol joke or not...

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I'll try it.

</comment><comment><USER10> Not any more.

Sorry. _hic_</comment>


We're heading into a jobless future, no matter what the government does - <AUTHOR> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/innovations/wp/2014/07/21/were-heading-into-a-jobless-future-no-matter-what-the-government-does/ <comment><USER2> I think this notion of a jobless future is extreme. Hear me out.

What we're witnessing is the dawning of a new era in which _relying upon a job_ to earn a livelihood becomes extinct.

That's very different.

Instead of submitting to an employer to be _productive_ members of society, we'll need to actually _produce_.

We'll all need to be entrepreneurs: creative problem-solvers who go out and get our own. Not necessarily venture-backed billionaire-destined heroes, but tradesmen solving small to midsize problems in our communities. Remember human life before the 401(k)? Enterprising souls who earned livings without mega- corporations?

All this technology we're developing now will be instrumental for that era. With Meteor, a tattoo-artist can (and has) create an enterprise-ready app. That's the epitome of productivity in a technology-driven society, and I think we'll see more of that as we move into this 'jobless' environment. AKA 'innovate or die'.

Problems to solve aren't going anywhere (technology always causes people to think there's "nothing left to do." there always is). The need to earn our keep isn't either (we'll always need food, shelter, and love).

This jobless future is exaggerated...but the effects aren't. We'll just need to be more enterprising and more creative in how we handle those effects.

<comment><USER3> A problem with your vision of the future is that finding (and keeping) a profitable niche is _hard_.

Historically, you could always own the corner store, and always get business from at least your block. However the trends driving the "jobless future" will see local businesses absorbed into larger entities. The corner store will be replaced with instant delivery.

So you have to find a niche that is global, and when you find it, you'll instantly be bombarded by global competitors, and you'll have to grow or die.

In the "jobless future," individualism looks like etsy--super-niche artisan work for the status of owning something unique. Handmade luxury items can't replace an entire economy.

<comment><USER2> I agree that artisan work can't replace an entire economy. But I also don't think that artisan work will be the only viable means of earning a living in that world.

Notably, I don't think the corner store (in terms of local services) is going very far. Sure, retail has an enormous battle to fight. But that's just one front.

People will always depend on each another for one thing or another. Beyond retail, whether it's local products like food or local services like domestic contracting or professional services, I think the community will play an even more significant role than it does now in spite of a burgeoning global scene.

I've been deeply influenced by Charles Hugh Smith's writings on community. It's a term we tend to devalue, but it's one Smith thinks is a fundamental building block for the future. He's a bit extreme, as he tends to expect a large macro-disturbance, but his ideas are sound. Here's one piece:

[http://www.oftwominds.com/blogsept13/community- economy9-13.h...](http://www.oftwominds.com/blogsept13/community- economy9-13.html)

<comment><USER4> > Notably, I don't think the corner store (in terms of local services) is > going very far.

A lot of services can be automated, and actual retail -- well, once you have sufficiently economical self-driving vehicles and product picking robots, local _automated delivery hubs_ from which products are dispersed to purchasers are a lot more likely than local retail shops -- they'll be "stores" in the sense of places that store things, but customers won't ever have to set foot in one; potentially, no one will go there except to service the robots.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Keynes put forward a similar thesis decades ago and we were supposed to be there by now. Check this out:

[http://mitpress.mit.edu/books/revisiting- keynes](http://mitpress.mit.edu/books/revisiting-keynes)

Perhaps there is something more basic in our natural dispositions than either of these great economic thinkers is appreciating. We don't really want an excess of leisure to the extent that mass boredom results.

I'm reminded of two quotes by Pascal:

"The source of all man's unhappiness is his inability to sit alone in a room with his own thoughts."

"If a soldier or labourer complains of the hardship of his lot, set him to do nothing."

</comment><comment><USER6> Meanwhile, in "first-world" places like Spain we're on the verge of starvation due to global unemployment and poverty.

<comment><USER7> i think saying that spain is on the verge of starvation kind of does a disservice to people who actually are.

there's no shortage of food in europe.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> "robots will drive our cars, manufacture our goods, and do our chores."

"Drones will take the jobs of postmen and delivery people."

I can't take seriously an article that makes absolute statements like this.

Not only are drones not able to operate during certain inclement weather (and in certain geographic environments) but you can't deliver a refrigerator (as only 1 example) with a drone.

There was a time when people thought that everyone would be flying around in their own personal airplane so the devil is in the details of course being able to predict human behavior as well as technology is very important as well.

</comment><comment><USER9> Somehow he misses few crucial points : 1\. Medicine is not getting better. We are losing the war with bacteria. Rate at which antibiotics are rendered useless because of resistance is greater than the rate at which they are being discovered. 2\. Energy cost of Food production has been increasing since industrial times. (combine this with energy scarcity) 3\. Energy cost of producing energy has been increasing. Once taken into account, all is not rosy in the future. We have lots of work to do to make future better.

</comment><comment><USER10> More people not doing menial tasks means more people able to apply their brains. The society that can best capitalize on that resource will win.

</comment><comment><USER11> I don't disagree with the article, but I hope this isn't taken as an excuse to do nothing about current high unemployment due to low aggregate demand, which the government can certainly do something about.

</comment><comment><USER12> Seeing all the debate whenever this topic comes up, it reminds me of the argument that Star Trek was actually a dystopia. Surprisingly, a jobless future with basic income really scares people.

<comment><USER13> Some people just feel the need to be told what to do. They lack the desire or insight to choose their own path.

Also, some people just simply don't understand how a 'jobless'/basic-income future would look...and what they don't understand scares them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> This is a peculiar viewpoint. Kurzweil is a utopian. This accepts Kurzweil's premise that technology is accelerating, so it's not quite dystopian. Anti- utopian, maybe?

</comment><comment><USER15> > unlimited energy

Doesn't that violate the laws of thermodynamics?

<comment><USER16> It's clearly supposed to mean "more than we could conceivably need." It's not a scientific paper.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Is this were we start talking about "basic income" again? Where the few that work are taxed almost all of their income to pay for the rest that isn't?

<comment><USER18> What are the alternatives? I still believe at a point we won't need very much human labor. So what do we do with all of those people that don't/can't work?

Others have mentioned that the economy will just create new, even more mindless, tasks for us to be paid for. I don't believe that because there is no incentive for companies to employ people for jobs machines can do cheaper.

<comment><USER19> We won't need human labor because labor will be abundant. Anyone can have access to production technology. You don't need to steal to make that happen.

<comment><USER20> How can 'anyone have access to production technology' (which incidentally includes the education necessary to utilize it), if they have no income?

<comment><USER19> Some charitable rich guy will give away a cheap nano-factory, and then that guy uses the nano-factory to make more nano-factories, gives those away, etc.

Education is basically already free, and free education is on the way to being as good as paid education. Information reproduction costs are near zero.

You are stuck in the pre-free-labor mindset.

<comment><USER20> When does this magical tipping point arrive?</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Payyr app – Direct Debit for friends - <AUTHOR> https://gocardless.com/blog/introducing-payyr/ <comment><USER2> My first thought was "That's a brilliant reworking of the idea of a Direct Debit"

Then the programmer in me started thinking - this is an O(n2) solution surely? In order to collect from friend A he has to setup and approve a DD to _me_ and then to bob, dick and Jane.

I guess they are just having someone join once with a direct debit to GoCardless, then they debit and reroute as needed. The problem with that is they are on the hook for refunds - and it's impossible to prove me and my mate have not colluded.

Which I guess is why there will be a transfer limit around 10-50 quid? But the higher you make it the more useful it is but the more risky it becomes.

I hope you guys make it work - do let us know more details / paste the link I am too lazy to find

</comment><comment><USER3> Congrats on the new product. Looks great!

Will it continue to be free beyond the experimental phase?

<comment><USER4> And will it support Bitcoin ?

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> What's the difference between this and Barclay's PingIt?

<comment><USER3> Payyr uses direct debit. However I'm not aware of any advantages of direct debit over bank transfers when paying friends & family

I guess Pingit has an advantage in that transfers take place within the same day. Direct debit takes about a week

<comment><USER5> PingIt it uses Direct Debit if you don't use a Barclay's account.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> No contract, really?</comment>


Learning how to stick with it. - <AUTHOR>

I've heard it said time and time again that one key factor between those who succeed as entrepreneurs and those who fail is that those who fail give up too soon, but I've not seen very many suggestions given on how people can develop the "stick with it" trait - it just seems to be taken for granted that you either have it or you don't. Fortunately current reseach in psychology seems to suggest that this can actually be learned. Here are a couple guides for anyone interested:

 Learned Optimism by Martin Seligman

 The Resilience Factor by Karen Revich and Andrew Shatte

 Mindset by Carolyn Dweck
 I would even go so far as to suggest that this kind of material, and perhaps even some training, be incorporated into the Y-combinator program. Perhaps even a study could be conducted?
<comment><USER2> It can be learned, but I don't think books are the way to learn it. From what I've seen, what makes people tougher is facing challenges.

<comment><USER3> I'd agree with that, and add that a crucial part of it is being part of a community and unwilling to let your friends down. It's really easy to flake when success just means that you make somebody else rich. It's much harder when you bought into the values of the community at the outset and everyone else is counting on you to pull through.

For college students, that probably means joining an open-source project. And get to the point where you have people-yell-at-you responsibility; there's a big difference between contributing patches as you feel like it and being responsible when some user's stuff breaks.

For people just entering the job market, spend the time to find a job you really believe in and want to make happen. This is something I would've done differently if I had to do it all over again. I chose my job knowing that I was there for learning: there were some areas where I knew I didn't really agree with my boss, but I felt that the best way to learn is to have one's preconceptions challenged. It worked for about a year, but then I _still_ disagreed with my boss, and each point of disagreement became an excuse to quit instead of a potential learning experience. In retrospect, I think I would've learned _more_ had I bought into the company's mission from the start and every stumbling block been an inherent difficulty of the problem rather than an artifact of how we were solving it.

For startup founders, get yourself a cofounder. I ain't quitting as long as my cofounder is still game, and maybe not even then...

<comment><USER4> I think what you're really talking about is commitment. Personally, I find I can "stick with it" and persevere much more easily if I'm committed to something. Maybe those startups in Ycombinator that give up are not totally committed. When things start to get tough, maybe they begin looking for other options. If there were no other options, their commitment would be stronger. The so-called "burning the boats" strategy.

I think that's why it's so hard to do a startup in your spare time, while holding down a full-time job. It's not really a commitment and that makes it so much easier to give up.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I think its dangerous to try and trick your mind into thinking something isn't as hard as it is. When you get depressed or exhausted - take a break. Just don't quit.

Also - another reason have a co-founder is a must - someone to make it fun, someone to show your latest coding exploit until the millions of users figure out how cool it is. Having someone else around makes it alot easier to keep going.

Also - I've found taking an investment from friends and family, even if its a small one, makes it much harder to quit. You don't want to let them down/embarrass yourself/pay them back :)

</comment><comment><USER6> I thought this week's advice was "know when to throw in the towel", or was it "fail fast" ?

Kidding aside, if you felt those books have a few points worth sharing, I would love it if you took a moment to write a brief summary for squeezedbooks.com .

</comment><comment><USER7> Carol Dweck discusses her mindset research in this podcast. Well worth a listen. <http://itc.conversationsnetwork.org/shows/detail1011.html>

</comment><comment><USER8> Just watch a Nike commercial.

</comment><comment><USER9> _"... one key factor between those who succeed as entrepreneurs and those who fail is that those who fail give up too soon, but I've not seen very many suggestions given on how people can develop the "stick with it" trait ..."_

You can learn resilience - you have to know and explore your limitations, physically & psychologically. Then push hard!

For me there are a number of things to learn though. A combination of both psychological and physical skills. For the psychology I use techniques that can be summarised in 1 line:

       SDNT CVS2OBVS QRH PRR

They are really just a series of techniques to get you pointing in the right direction. It is probably one of the most underused skill-set I picked up in some training [0] in the first startup I worked for.

\- SDNT: Start, Do, Notice, Think

\- CVS2BVS: Current view of Situation 2 Best View of Situation

\- QRH: Quality, Recognition. Humour

\- PRR: Practice Repetition Rehearsal

A simple toolbox to overcome obstacles. Most revolve around questioning assumptions, finding out what is going on by observation then executing on what is important. [1] The key insight I gain usually is perspective. Change perspective and you can see things in a different more positive light. Then work out where you need to go and execute.

The physical side should not be forgotten.

You live in a physical world. Ignore it and it will impact you just as much as the psychological world. For this I keep reasonable fitness and undertake physical challenges like climbing that hill over there ~ <http://flickr.com/photos/bootload/tags/mtdandenong> or see how far you can walk before you succumb to hunger or fatigue. Half your battle is going to be the physical world you work in. You may as well know how resilient you are by pushing yourself physically and see how you cope [2]

For me, resilience a combination of both physical stamina and the skills and confidence you develop, used in conjunction with simple psychology techniques. Combining them allows you to guide your mind, keep it questioning, on track and doing what needs to be done.

[0] [http://www.schoolofthinking.org/who/who-dr-michael-hewitt- gl...](http://www.schoolofthinking.org/who/who-dr-michael-hewitt-gleeson/)

[1] Download the book for more details ~ <http://www.schoolofthinking.org/software.pdf>

[2] <http://www.flickr.com/photos/bootload/252138977>

</comment><comment><USER10> I've heard about the Resilience Factor recommended somewhere else as well. I'm on my way to Amazon as soon as I get paid!

</comment><comment><USER11> gcheong... Thank you for the book list. The Resilience Factor looks especially interesting. Just ordered it from my local library.

Nice to know that it can be learned. Was getting a little frustrated with my (moonlighting) start-up effort.

</comment><comment><USER12> Remeber the 'Crazy Uncle Charlie' factor. There are folks that chase after one hairbrained scheme after another, never quite hitting the big time. Resilience is vital, yet not sufficient.

</comment><comment><USER13> Is there anything in this material that would be interesting to someone who already has the "stick with it" trait?</comment>


Music Modernization Act about to become U.S. Law? - <AUTHOR> Traditionally, the music industry (i.e. the RIAA and similar entities) has faced opposition from the internet crowd (EFF et al) on questions of copyright. This time around there didn't seem to be much of a fuss. How big a deal is the MMA?<p>https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2018/09/mma-passes-house.html <comment><USER2> This is huge for session musicians; all the people who lead normal lives but play guitar or drums for Florida Georgia Line, Bon Jovi, Alice Cooper, keyboards for Eminem and pretty much any pop or country-pop recording today that contains real instruments.

Even the normal people behind the studio console recording desk (Think Alan Parson producing Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon, before he got "big" on his own).

I'd bet members of The Wrecking Crew[1], though modest, would have really benefited from a system like this. Though they were so busy recording all the hits from the 60's and 70's the rates they made may have seemed fair at the time.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wrecking_Crew_(music)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wrecking_Crew_\(music\))

<comment><USER3> I am a little unclear what it means for various digital music services though. There is going to be a single authority they all deal with... does that affect who gets streaming rights or what the rates are?

<comment><USER2> I like GRAMMY's overview of it a lot.

[https://www.grammy.com/advocacy/learn/music-modernization- ac...](https://www.grammy.com/advocacy/learn/music-modernization-act)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> The article itself links to a description of the proposed changes: [https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2018/09/music- moderni...](https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2018/09/music- modernization-act-passes-the-senate.html)

It sounds like SiriusXM is a big loser here; I had no idea that pre-1975 music could be played royalty-free. Guess that helps explain all the oldies stations.

<comment><USER2> *1972

<comment><USER3> My mistake.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Does SoundExchange have competitors? Seems to be a U.S. commercial entity that will administer international music rights, rather than a government or non- profit org.

Ideally, the industry-standard database and accounting systems would be based on auditable open-source software, where the playback data used to calculate payments is tamper-resistant and replicated.

<comment><USER5> bgm, emi, rca...

most of my musicians and producers acquaintances have never mentioned soundexchange involved in a music royalties transaction. Ever. I guess it only matters to music distribution inside the usa, while the others cover usa and international.</comment></comment>