The case for pictures next to usernames on Hacker News - <AUTHOR> I've been using this site for a while now, and though I do recognize some usernames, I only have a vague sense of personalities for very few of them (excluding people I've actually met in person).  I think the problem is that when I'm reading comments I see the username and the comment, but I don't really associate them together in order to form a bond over time between that username and those set of comments.  Instead, I tend to remember a set of comments and a set of usernames, independently.  Am I alone here in this behavior?
In any case, the cities and ambition thread got me thinking about what it would take to make an online community more like an offline one.  I think the bulk of it comes down to conversation, of which there are two parts: content and mechanics.  The content side seems OK here (for what I'm looking for at least).  The mechanics side falls way behind the offline world, however.
Offline we have 3-d conversations using most of our sensory perceptions. Online, a lot of that obviously goes away.  Of course there are benefits of being online too, e.g. asynchronous threads, archiving, etc.  But the lack of the senses drastically takes away the emotional feel of the offline community.
Pictures next to usernames I believe would be at least a start in the other direction.  We would get more of a visual sense for a person.  For me at least, I think I would start associating usernames more with their set of comments.  And I think that would greatly increase the sense of community gained from the site.  I'm sure there are other (low-impact) things one could do as well, but I just haven't thought of them.
I get it pg, you don't want to spend your time working on this site (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=201122), but maybe someone playing around with Arc could make the change and then it could be ported back. <comment><USER2> You asked for it...

               \/\/\/\/
             /         \
            /           \
           /             \
       /\_/     0    0    \_/\
      |                       |
       \/ \      |_|      / \/
           \             /
            \  \-----/  /
             \         /
              \_______/
                |   |

<comment><USER3> I can't believe you still sport a late 1980s-style spiky hair cut.

......

Robert Frost suggested that he could write poem/plays in which all of the characters went unnamed, and that the reader would identify the characters based entirely on tone. This idiosyncratic idea has come true to a degree on the internet: There is an accidental feature in some blogs (I think blogspot [1]) where almost everybody winds up posting as "anonymous". Despite this, you can usually tell in a rough way who is who.

At any rate, I don't think pictures ever add anything.

[1] Because it's a pain, depending on the blogger's settings, to log in.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Personally, the lack of images is a plus for me. It's one of the things I love about HN. That lack of emotional feel towards posters is what keeps postings focused. Take Digg for instance, I think that it's that sense of community that leads to 99% of the comments being of no real benefit at all, because everyone is trying to crack a joke.

<comment><AUTHOR> Digg comments aren't bad because they have pictures. They are bad because they are from that set of commenters.

If you supposed the set of Hacker News commenters didn't change, I think pictures would clearly be a win. What you seem to be suggesting is that by adding pictures, we would attract bad commenters. I just don't think that is true.

<comment><USER5> "Digg comments aren't bad because they have pictures. They are bad because they are from that set of commenters."

I think it's as much the social norms as the user base. For example, we have kind of an unspoken humor armistice here. Normally humor is used to demonstrate intelligence. However, it's mutually understood that everyone here is intelligent enough to make the appropriate joke, but that we should refrain because it doesn't really add anything to the conversation or make anyone else any better off.

<comment><USER6> I agree, I constantly refrain from cracking jokes because I don't want to see this turn into what Reddit has become lately.

I think it should be told somewhere what are the goals of the community and explain that we aim for efficiency, knowledge and insightful conversations more than entertainment. Not because we don't like entertainment but because that's not why we are here.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I think it's better if people make their own portraits with their ideas.

<comment><AUTHOR> That's exactly the problem I am describing. They are making their own portraits, but they aren't _sticking_ to their usernames, at least for me. A visual icon would help. It could be small, 25x25 as someone suggested.

<comment><USER8> 25x25 is pretty big. I think it would be clever to make it 15x15 or 10x10...

<comment><USER9> How about just 1x1? Using the standard RGB color space there are 16,777,216. I doubt HN will have that many users so everyone gets their own color :-)

<comment><USER10> Your design is not future-proof.

<comment><USER11> Sure it is, just add another pixel :)

"Look at that 3 pixel noob..."

You could use the user's top bar preferences!

<comment><USER12> only the elite have the privilege of changing the topbar color.

<comment><USER13> Only the elite deserves their very own pixel.

(I recently joined the elite - that's why I'm smug.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> The current layout of HN doesn't lend itself to avatars at all, IMHO. They would break up the page in awkward ways. If avatars where implemented they should only be 25x25 or something similarly tiny.

<comment><USER15> If we added them, I'd say make them 16x16. People could use favicons for their sites (if they so desired).

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> My suggestion is a little different: I would like to see more history kept than the last 20 or so comments (although search.yc helps a lot here) so that when I come across a new poster I can read their other submissions and comments and get a better feel for how they think based on what else they have written.

</comment><comment><USER17> "On the Internet, nobody know if you're a dog. So we fixed that problem."

Seriously, if I included a pic, it would be of someone else. It's better for everyone like that, trust me.

</comment><comment><USER18> no avatars please. For me, HN works well. We dont need the beginnings of yet another wannabe social network.

I would argue for incremental improvements to the interface: iPhone friendly version no more odd page parameters that timeout without a page refresh

</comment><comment><USER19> Personally, the whole site works better for me without images. I, like most people, make a conscious effort to ignore things like gender and age when I'm reading someone's opinion (here or on any other site). But the fact that I sometimes have to make a CONSCIOUS effort means that there is at least a bit of a pre-existing bias or stereotype based on different demographics. Things like "young people don't have enough experience" or "you can't teach an old dog new tricks" can creep into your interpretation of someone else's opinion without even realizing it. I'd rather know as little as possible about the person behind the comment and just focus on the comment itself.

Think of some of the more memorable opinions from the past. Would your opinion of those comments be different if you knew before reading them that the poster was a 15-year-old girl, a 23-year-old transgender, a 55-year-old male? For a very small few of us, the answer is no. For the large majority of us -- myself included -- the answer is yes. The less information I have about the person, the more I can stick to what is being said.

I can certainly appreciate the arguments for having the image. I just don't think they outweigh the reasons against. I'm not listing all the reasons here, either. I'm just bringing up the main point for me specifically.

</comment><comment><USER20> I agree that as an option, pictures hold more value than is intuitively understood by most people. I view hacker news as a small community that desires the ability to maintain it's tight focus and not expand too much or too fast (all the "Please block this from showing up on hacker news" posts area good example of the sentiment)

On the web, focus is a HUGE commodity and we are right to desire it. I would argue that a sense of community and a sense of focus go hand in hand, and given that I think optional images could help maintain a sense of community even as our numbers grow larger.

<comment><USER21> I'm not certain of that. In every focused forum I've frequented, when a sense of community grows, the focus turns inward instead of staying on the stated subject. I think, for instance, that the chans' insistence on anonymous posting and ephemeral content helps keep most of their boards full of posts focused on the board's topic, rather than the poster's reputation.

<comment><USER20> Good point, however we already have a karma system so we've bought into the reputation argument already.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I prefer text.

</comment><comment><USER23> MetaFilter ( <http://www.metafilter.com/> ) is an amazing demonstration of a cohesive online community that doesn't use images to represent users. MetaFilter users tend to be very familiar with each other (more so than other large online communities I've been in). While I agree images can be good, they certainly don't seem to be essential.

IRC is another example. People build up personalities and tie nicknames to them pretty easily without graphics.. and IRC can get very emotional at times.

<comment><AUTHOR> I can see real time playing a part in IRC. What do you think metafilter does differently (than here) in order to get its cohesiveness?

<comment><USER23> Good point and good question. I'm not entirely sure, but perhaps it's a combination of one feature and one trait.

Single threading (as used by MetaFilter) forces / encourages people to take note of nicknames in order to target specific responses, so nicknames become a lot more relevant.

Secondly, discussions tend to roll on and on on MetaFilter, whereas it's uncommon for two people to respond back and forth more than once on HN stories.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> You are not alone, Gabriel. Visual association beats textual and this makes sense.

One thing though, the images would increase the bandwidth to the site, and maybe even hamper performance.

<comment><AUTHOR> On the user side, you could presumably turn them off. As for server performance, Y Combinator should be able it.

<comment><USER25> I assume you meant "turn them _on_ ".

Adding a visually intrusive feature and enabling it by default is not the best thing to do, especially when the understated appearance is _the_ feature of the website.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Really interesting!! yep images are super important. it's the best way to associate people to comments.

there's this site I just discovered this week: dipity.com it looks like the best way to share lots of information on the web right now. surely, wiht sites like this one, the internet could become a very intense social place, for dating and even work, teaming up with peers. when you see time lines that people made themselves, I think you can see their personnality, interests, but also culture and ideology very fast.

Maybe the web will provide us with even better social interfaces than what nature gave us: talking, body langage, clothes and fashion, and talking about your musical preferences etc. all this and much more could take place on the web I think! let's make it happen :DD well for now dipity.com looks pretty exciting add me there I'm "smoothboom" and I just made a time line about memetics.

</comment><comment><USER27> "For me at least, I think I would start associating usernames more with their set of comments. And I think that would greatly increase the sense of community gained from the site. I'm sure there are other (low-impact) things one could do as well, but I just haven't thought of them."

if that si true its obv great but: "Think of some of the more memorable opinions from the past. Would your opinion of those comments be different if you knew before reading them that the poster was a 15-year-old girl, a 23-year-old transgender, a 55-year-old male? For a very small few of us, the answer is no. For the large majority of us -- myself included -- the answer is yes. The less information I have about the person, the more I can stick to what is being said."

is a very good point made by rewind.

i personally dont feel a need for it, i like the simplicity of hacker news.

</comment><comment><USER5> I'm the same way, I'm usually not able to associate a username with a set of posts unless I've either met them in person or seen a picture of them online. That said, I think we'd be losing more than we'd be gaining by adding pictures.

<comment><AUTHOR> What would we be losing?

<comment><USER5> Oxytocin-free judgment.

<comment><AUTHOR> I don't see it. By that token, why display usernames at all?

<comment><USER5> Because they're useful, but without being particularly salient in any given interaction.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> If we start to link personalities to comments then we add bias to this site. If we try to refrain from introducing personalities the users must then focus on ideas, far better for the development of them.

</comment><comment><USER29> There are two extremes, neither one better than the other:

The proposed extreme is to encourage community via personalization. I personally disagree with this: web sites are typically too big to be communities in a natural sense. What you will get is increased visibility for a small elite of spam-heavy commentators.

The other extreme is 2ch-style anonymity. This is open to mob abuse, but it also discourages powergaming.

The core issue is how to continue scaling the system to match interests when they reach hundreds or thousands for every front-page story. news.yc is getting there already....

</comment><comment><USER30> Have you seen some of these guys?

Hey -- count your blessings.

(Just kidding!)

<comment><AUTHOR> Understood. They could be icons. It doesn't really matter if they are actual pictures of faces. It matters that they are unique and visual.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> There is one reason I can think of for adding profile pictures: reducing anonymity.

People say a lot of things online that they wouldn't say face-to-face because of anonymity. I'm not sure if profile pictures would be a step towards anonymity, but I think it would be a good experiment.

For example, comments written on a wall on Facebook are much less hostile than comments at YouTube or MySpace. I don't recall seeing the words gay or faggot used at all on Facebook, ever.

Even adding more text info may be a good idea. Eg: pkaler. Vancouver, BC. Smartful Studios Inc.

</comment><comment><USER32> In my opinion, after the ycombinator rejection letters go out there will be a bunch of people that look very much like goatse commenting on this site.

</comment><comment><USER33> Yup - should use Gravatar

</comment><comment><USER34> yeah no pictures...Im real ugly I have been told

<comment><USER11> By a man named Ash?

"Honey you got reaaaaaal ugly."

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> A big change would even just be to make the username stand out more. I can identify several popular posters on metafilter simply because the name is right there, in a bright colour / bold font directly underneath their posts.

</comment><comment><USER36> No. Please, no.

</comment><comment><USER37> i disagree on a pure simplicity view.

I like the fact i can concentrate on the article than on the author or picture or his/her CV (logical trend when you start adding a lot of info about users)

but frankly its the simplicity equation.

</comment><comment><USER38> Eventually this will just turn back into a message board software.

</comment><comment><USER39> SURELY WE HAVE SOMETHING BETTER TO CHAT ABOUT THX!

</comment><comment><USER40> How about a Twitter group that actually follows back? It would be nice to see what HN readers are up to at a glance, and Twitter has pics.

If nobody else wants to do it, and there is interest, I could set it up. I have no autofollow script yet, but I would ask Twitter support to enable it.

Edit: I already follow @newsycombinator, so if that would add autofollow it would be great ;-)</comment>


Glimpse of A.I. with John McCarthy, Nils Nilsson, Edward Feigenbaum (1984) - <AUTHOR> http://www.archive.org/details/CC1024_artificial_intelligence <comment><USER2> What they demonstrated as AI in 1984 today is considered business rules engine. There are plenty of them and they are not really considered "intelligent" (because they cannot learn by themselves). On the other hand today we have really intelligent tools such as spam filters, spam bots, search engines, fraud detection tools, language translators, rating engines and many other that are important part of our lives.

<comment><USER3> I think it depends on who you ask, since it's somewhat of a subjective, philosophical question. There are definitely sub-areas of AI working on rule- engine type stuff, especially if it gets more complex, e.g. various stuff derived from Datalog or Prolog.

On the contrary side, there are actually people who consider a lot of spam- filtering and other statistical-ML tools to be more applied statistics than AI, though most people probably have more mixed views on it. To some extent they're just straightforwardly applying algorithms to get outputs with known mathematical properties from inputs. Sort of the way a sort algorithm takes in data and always gives you an output with specific properties, statistical algorithms take in data and always give you an output with specific pre- determined properties, which just happen to be more complex ones. But they never modify their own processes, for example, or change goals, or realize that they're making the same mistake over and over, or decide that this algorithm is obsolete and needs to be improved--- that only happens when the intelligence in the loop (the human statistician) updates the algorithm.

On the other hand, both approaches (rules-ish or statistics-ish) often produce results that 50 years ago would definitely have been considered to "require intelligence".

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> perhaps intelligence is just "applied statistics"!

</comment><comment><USER5> Why don't we have programs like this today? This is awesome.

Make sure you keep watching after main show is over.</comment>


Revenue could be fatal: 3 reasons your startup should consider waiting - <AUTHOR> http://www.uservoice.com/blog/founders/revenue-could-be-fatal-3-reasons-your-startup-should-consider-waiting/ <comment><USER2> This is the stupidest drivel I have ever read. If you brought this up outside of the inane SV bubble, you would be laughed out of the room.

They even state "for many apps, like Instagram [...]" as a good example when revenue is not needed. I'm flabbergasted.

<comment><USER3> If Instagram had been charging for their app, it would have been very hard for them to get to the scale where they would be acquired by Facebook, especially for anything near the $1b. I'd say everyone who had a piece in that deal is flabbergasted too, but for different reasons.

Is this a strategy people should always aim for? No. But there are legitimate reasons why revenue should not be the top priority, and this post does a good job at narrowing it down.

<comment><USER2> _[...] it would have been very hard for them to get to the scale [...]_

Without revenue you can say it would have been very hard for them to, you know, exist as a company for some period of time.

<comment><USER3> You can say that, yes. But as a company with almost $8m in funding (prior to the $50m/acquisition thing; <http://www.crunchbase.com/company/instagram>) and low costs, they can defer revenue for a while.

<comment><USER4> So if you can blag 8 million without any promise of revenue, then don't bother with revenue. Sounds fine, but I assume that this doesn't apply to bootstrapped companies in areas without large quantities of gambling billionaires.

<comment><AUTHOR> This post is not at all meant to be about what to do with your bootstrapped business. It's only targeting high-growth, mostly b2c, companies in winner takes all markets with strong network effects (ex: Pinterest, Instagram). That's what I mean when I say "startup" though that term is completely overloaded and adopted by everyone nowadays :)

<comment><USER4> By your definition of the term 'startup', the early Apple wouldn't have qualified.

<comment><USER5> By his definition, Google was never a startup because they're not in an area with strong network effects. Nor is their money-source B2C---they're sell advertising space to businesses.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> The post is solid, but one of the things I like most in here are the signs of looking at _where_ revenue came from (the comment about only 1% of revenue coming from the entry-level plan).

I'd love to hear more from Richard about how they tested the impacts of moving from the $5 to the free plan.

And yes, it's definitely a solid strategy to delay revenue for users. I'm sure someone will argue this is Web 1.0-bubbly thinking. But, provided you're doing it in the way that Richard suggests, it's not totally insane. Twitter might not have found a great business yet, but at least they've gotten past one of the big hurdles -- getting people to come to the party.

<comment><AUTHOR> We tested it using Optimizely, what we use for A/B tests, but rather doing a true A/B test we made into a sequential test (by manually setting all traffic to go to one variation versus another). It took a couple days to test and it's tough because since it's sequential traffic spikes will screw everything up and you'll have to start all over. So basically we compared two weeks with "average" traffic: running $5 plans one week and free plans the next week. Obviously if anyone noticed we allowed them to switch their plan to free.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Pesky revenue, always trying to get in the way of creating a business!

Might as well take it a step further and consider waiting on building a product. Why define your business with a real product when you can, like Zombo.com, do anything?

<comment><AUTHOR> The question, as I wrote in the post, ultimately isn't about whether you need revenue or not. Of course you do eventually. It's about when you go for revenue.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I think the disconnect, and then perhaps vitriol, comes from the fact that these are small, stand alone companies. Large companies take this strategy all the time with a new group or division "Don't worry about revenue yet. Build a great product, get to market, get solid adoption." Nobody argues when MSFT takes that approach with say the Xbox. It's thought of as wise investments. In this scenario the VC's are acting like the wealthy corporate mothership. It just feels counter intuitive though.

If you don't want to take money or you're not in a market that is strongly viral then obviously you have to be concerned about revenue much earlier. If you are though then focusing on revenue in the short run may be detrimental.

</comment><comment><USER8> "A Stable (but perhaps unexciting) Business - This is where most people end up."

Really? "Most people" with a new business end up with stable but unexciting businesses?

I suspect most people end in failure, not Stable Business. In a post full of deeply questionable logic, this little gem takes the cake for me. I suspect some anecdotal evidence from otehr commenters will back this up or that there is a bevy of statistics to prove that this is true, even in the rarefied atmosphere of web companies.

<comment><AUTHOR> I meant that most people end up here rather that in the first scenario of hyper-growth. "Most people (who don't fail) end up here" would have been more clear. Point taken.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Every business and business model is different. This should be considered with a grain of salt. It is not a one size fit all

<comment><AUTHOR> Nothing ever is which is why I wrote the answer to "when revenue" is: it depends. I wrote this post because I talked to enough people who thought companies not charging was _completely_ irrational. I believe most people, including politicians, are rational actors you've just got to understand their motivations and goals.

<comment><USER4> Only economics folk think that people are generally rational actors. Try talking to some neurologists or psychologists and see what they think of that point of view, once they have finally stopped laughing.</comment></comment></comment>


California's AB5 Leaves Women Business Owners Reeling - <AUTHOR> https://www.forbes.com/sites/elainepofeldt/2020/01/19/californias-ab5-leaves-women-business-owners-reeling/ <comment><USER2> "California's AB5 Leaves Business Owners Reeling. Some of These Business Owners are Female."</comment>


All Complex Ecosystems Have Parasites (2005) - <AUTHOR> http://craphound.com/complexecosystems.txt <comment><USER2> This particular misconception has been wandering around for a while:

"Simple ecosystems are the goal of proceedings like CARP, the panel that set out the ruinously high royalties for webcasters. The recording industry set the rates as high as they did so that the teeming millions of webcasters would be rendered economically extinct, leaving behind a tiny handful of giant companies that could be negotiated with around a board room table, rather than dealt with by blanket legislation."

The recording industry specifically backed a percentage-of-revenue legislation, and lawmakers took it upon themselves to enact something much more crippling than even what the RIAA had proposed. Why they did that remains a mystery; but it was the actions of either corrupt or ignorant lawmakers, not the "recording industry" that destroyed internet radio.

</comment><comment><USER3> [http://blog.kaipakartik.com/2012/11/all-complex- ecosystems-h...](http://blog.kaipakartik.com/2012/11/all-complex-ecosystems- have-parasites.html)

Here is a more readable version of the same <http://www.readability.com/articles/6tqfeib9>

</comment><comment><USER4> Complex or decentralized?

</comment><comment><USER5> kaipakartik your account is dead

</comment><comment><USER6> Wow, talk about loaded discourse. I got as far as 'toady' before I figured out it was a rant.

<comment><USER7> I'm going to try to repeat back the argument:

A system which allows for complexity will evolve in unpredictable ways. Some economic and security models don't account for the variety, and have tried to solve the problem by constraining the system using trust & authority tools (like DRM). This (he purports) is often unsuccessful in its intended purpose, and the ecosystem's lack of unintended consequences removes its capacity to change.

I think it's an interesting argument, though he does let his feelings toward media companies color it. What it makes me think about is the negative consequence of over-engineering; maybe sometimes it's better to leave some unanswered questions.</comment></comment>


Launch HN: NextDrop Technologies (YC S17) – Water Marketplace for Urban India - <AUTHOR> Hi HN,
I'm Anu, the Co-Founder and CEO of NextDrop Technologies (https://nextdrop.co). We are a water marketplace for urban India- we connect water buyers with suppliers.
There are 400M people living in Indian cities today, but only 200M of them get reliable access to the public utility water.  The other half have to buy private water, often from water trucks!
Water buyers have a problem because surprisingly, people are paying more for their water than for electricity. My friend who lives on the outskirts of Bangalore, India (a major urban city) paid $50 for water and $40 for electricity last month.  The price of water has tripled in the last decade and is on track to continue. What's worse is that since water is getting so expensive and scarce, water trucks are starting to source water from dodgy sources like highly polluted surface water and really deep wells.
Water suppliers have a problem because they service demand as it comes in.  They lose money due to bad scheduling and inefficient truck utilization.  Many people think that all water suppliers are part of a  "water mafia", but the interesting trend we are noticing is that there are a lot of micro entrepreneurs popping up in the last few years who have their own water source, buy a truck, and start selling water.
Our marketplace fixes the problems for both water buyers and suppliers.  By installing our smart metering devices into consumers water storage tanks and transmitting data to our platform, we can predict when someone is running low on water and schedule a delivery.  We track the the water from the filling source to the delivery using GPS, giving users confidence they received clean water.   Qualified water suppliers make more money and buyers get clean water and transparency into pricing.
We just launched this summer and are piloting with 3 apartment complexes with 11,000 people. We have devices installed and transmitting data to our platform.  By next month, we should have enough water data to start automating water deliveries.
We'll be around to answer questions and discuss water management and are excited to hear your feedback and experience in this area! <comment><USER4> Forgive my ignorance but is there actually enough water in and around India to make up for the shortage, but right now it's just not distributed efficiently? Or after solving for all these inefficiencies, there'd still be a shortage? If so, what are other sources they can leverage down the road?

<comment><AUTHOR> That's a really good question with a not so straightforward answer. I'll start with some stats. Public water utilities lose 50% of it's water due to leakages. During monsoons, India gets enough rain to fulfill it's drinking water needs (but as you can imagine, it's hard to store that water for the year). As energy gets cheaper and cheaper, technologies like desalination will get more affordable, and pumping water will be very cheap. (Just as a reference, California currently spends 3% of it's energy on pumping water!)

Overall, with the confluence of technological interventions, we think that India (and the world for that matter) has enough water- and can harness it. But right now, we see a lack of water data in the ecosystem, and we're using IoT devices to start tracking water in different forms. We believe that humanity can solve it's own problems, but it needs the data to do it. That's what we're starting to do in the private water sector, first by tracking demand, and withdrawals, and next with using data to model aquifer health. That's how we want to contribute to making sure all 9B people on this planet get clean water- make sure humanity the data to make the right decisions.

<comment><USER5> >> Public water loses 50% of its water due to leakages

Can you please quote source for this.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> > We track the the water from the filling source to the delivery using GPS, > giving users confidence they received clean water

I wonder how easy it would be for water suppliers to cheat such a system. Perhaps the supplier will send the GPS device to the clean water source on a motorcycle, and send the water truck to the dirty source. I'd recommend you occasionally sample the consumers water tank and test the quality of the water.

<comment><USER5> >> Qualified water suppliers make more money.

This single line shows what NextDrop's malicious intents are underneath snake- oil salesmanship.

Who decides about a qualified water supplier and how ? Im sorry to say this - how is this not snake oil salesmanship ? Water quality is a gargantuan regulatory challenge that no civil body takes easily. The sheer scale of this even in a small city/country is a lot. And NextDrop lay (fake) claims to solve this for India delivering water trucks! Right ok.

From other comment-threads it can be gathered that commercial water supply is already an illegitimate business. So NextDrop wants to make most of this illegal business by helping clients with more gadgets. And they are doing in grand style of selling vision of "Securing India's Future One Drop At A Time" in their landing page. Wow, unbelievable. That reads like a hollywood line - "Securing earth's future one ______ at a time".

The disappointment gets worse when I learn that OP appears to be a bright kid having studied in an institute of repute. [https://www.linkedin.com/in/anu- sridharan-b24a016/?ppe=1](https://www.linkedin.com/in/anu- sridharan-b24a016/?ppe=1).

Sometimes solution to even pressing needs as this do not solve the problem - instead they further widen the wounds. NextDrop and likes will stand testimony to these facts.

I see somebody pointing out this to be Uber for Water - uber actually stands for fighting regulatory. NextDrop and likes will stand for aggregating-and- being-a-proxy for web of illegitmate business! Huge difference.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Congrats for spotting this massive opportunity! This looks very promising. The sector is extremely disorganized and lack of competition is jacking up prices.

My question is: you're essentially serving a market whose need is not being met by the government.

Slowly but surely, the government will step in and solve the problem.

The problem is compounded by the fact that your target market - <USER2> populations with smartphone access - will likely be served by governments before rural populations.

Happened in Jaipur. All my friends used to routinely get water tankers every week. Now they get municipal water.

Eventually, it will happen everywhere else too.

What then?

<comment><AUTHOR> Hey- that's a great point, and I'm glad you brought it up. Our previous company actually sold water data to governments so we've been working quite closely with city municipal corporations. The problem is that urbanization is happening much faster than cities can keep up. Stats put it at 200M people added to cities in the next 10 years. What city municipalities are doing is actually hiring private companies to service the extra demand. It's still part of "the government" but India is trending towards more public-private partnerships. We actually WANT the government to start to sell water on this marketplace. We would have already laid down the IoT data collection infrastructure to help them keep their loss rates low and ensure the right people get good quality water (which is one of the biggest problems they have today). We see this as the next eventual step for governments not just in India, but in many emerging markets.

<comment><USER8> > We actually WANT the government to start to sell water on this marketplace.

I hope this never happens.

Mafia of water tanker already operator exists, and you want to capitalize on that. Great strategy for biz but bad for end users.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Hi, good work, your solving very critical problem which we face in our Bangalore.

But my doubt, is commercial water supply legal?

[http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/bangalore/where-do- tanke...](http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/bangalore/where-do-tankers- source-water-from/article18311097.ece)

as per this article, an RTI query says, no commercial water supply license issued by BWSSB

</comment><comment><USER10> 1) I remember reading about you some years ago. I think you were working on telling people/govt(dont remember which one it is), when water is being released. SMS based I believe. How did that work go? Was it profitable/scalable? 2) Can you comments on how profitable it is to sell data to Indian government organizations? Is it VC-level business or Lifestyle type of business 3) I believe you have to be in Bay area for 3 months as part of YC. For a business like yours(which requires on the ground presence), how does being in Bay area help? 4) Most important, how do you expect to take on politicians who control water mafia?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes- the original company NextDrop has been around since 2011, but we shut that down about a year ago and started this new version of NextDrop recently.

At a high level, you're correct. For the past 6 years we were essentially selling water data to consumers, governments, and global brands. It was actually a profitable business but we decided to shut it down, not because we didn't have enough demand for water data, but because we were crowdsourcing water data and that was not very scalable or reliable. Back in 2011 IoT devices were way too expensive. When my co-founder and I noticed that devices were pretty cheap, we decided to start a company around water data again.

YC was great about us spending time in India- we split our time between India and the US because all our users were in India and they knew that. Honestly, to go after a big opportunity, sometimes it helps to be on the ground, and then step away and get advice/feedback from people who will listen to what you're saying and help you see the best way forward. That was how we used the time in the Bay Area, and found it very valuable. It was also useful for us because we were still in the launching stages. Had we been further along in the business, it may have been much harder to do what we did.

The water mafia question is definitely a super important. The only way we can see taking on the mafia is to add more water supply on to the market. The only way we can do that is to enable micro entrepreneurs to sell water. As you probably know, about 50% of urban Indians have their own borewell, but less than 1% sell water. Phase I is to aggregate water demand using our IoT devices, and Phase II is to enable hyperlocal selling of water.

<comment><USER10> Thanks for all the great answers. I wish you the best.

>>The water mafia question is definitely a super important. The only way we can see taking on the mafia is to add more water supply on to the market. The only way we can do that is to enable micro entrepreneurs to sell water. As you probably know, about 50% of urban Indians have their own borewell, but less than 1% sell water. Phase I is to aggregate water demand using our IoT devices, and Phase II is to enable hyperlocal selling of water.

Thats an innovative idea with potentially many social ramifications(positive and negative). I will be watching it closely!

<comment><AUTHOR> Most definitely- we will also be diligent, and we'd love feedback and thoughts as we progress!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> This sounds interesting, because as someone from the West, I have no concept of what it means to "buy" water. We completely take for granted the fact that every single house has access to clean water. One thing, in SF I am also paying more for water than electricity, it comes out to about $60/month for water and $45/month for electricity.

How do you protect customers from sellers who have poor quality or poisonous water who try to game your system? Do you do water testing as well?

<comment><AUTHOR> That's a great question. Right now we manually take water samples and get it tested in a lab. Over time, as IoT devices get cheaper, we believe the water quality testing will be done at the source, online, and in real time. This makes it much harder to game the system.

Additionally, we track the GPS location of the truck with the water to make sure clean water is filled up at the source and the same water is delivered to the consumers.

<comment><USER11> What's to stop another truck with bad and cheaper water from coming and filling up the truck that's being tracked? I imagine if the prices are higher, there's a lot of incentive to commit fraud, especially on something as short- lived as a water supply.

<comment><USER12> Perhaps randomized sampling / testing. You'd want to be a highly rated supplier so as not to compromise future sales.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> It's almost unimaginable to not have access to clean water sources if you're living in Europe, and especially in Germany where tap water has the upmost quality. So I believe that any solution for this is awesome.

One problem however is that big companies like Nestle or Coca Cola are putting a ton of money in marketing bottled (usually plastic) water which is a gigantic, unecological, unnecessary, and expensive money machine. While I have not been to India myself, I have seen documentations on bottled water in countries like yours. Companies advertise it as the "clean" (despite not so great quality) water, the one you buy when you have money.

Do you have any plans, ambitions, or visions to counter this trend - <USER3> particular relying on plastic bottles to ship water? I think you have the opportunity, and maybe soon the market share.

<comment><AUTHOR> That's a really great point, and bottled water is actually the fastest growing segment of private water in India (growing 30% year over year). My co founder and I have been living in India for the past 6 years and we both own personal home water filters and carry around a reusable water bottle. We are fans of companies like Unilever who are trying to produce low cost water filters for emerging markets. We think that if we can get the cleanest, cheapest water to people, and by eventually partnering with water filter companies, we can tackle the bottled water problem.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Interesting. I like the idea of smart metering devices. A lot of people, especially in Mumbai, don't track consumption at all. Do you see changing the mindset of people w.r.t. conservation of water particularly challenging? Some areas in Mumbai receive stable, 24x7 water supply while others barely receive a couple of buckets twice a day.

Quite a few areas and apartment complexes utilize a wide range of hacks to ensure _their_ area receives adequate water supply. Distribution of water from the authorities is anything but uniform because of devices such powerful water pumps and larger than sanctioned storage tanks. Much of this, although illegal, is with the blessings of local political leaders.

Any insights on how these issues could be addressed? Much appreciated.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes- we actually started out going down the road of conservation via smart metering devices. We quickly realized that we would be facing an uphill battle if we kept trying to start there.

Also, as a point of clarification, no city in India receives 24x7 water (except Jamshedpur), although many cities have pilot projects (Nagpur is the closest to Mumbai). The Bombay Municipal Corporation (BMC) is probably the furthest ahead as far as public water utilities go, and many people think they have 24x7 water, but they just have a very reliable, but intermittent, source of water. The BMC has done a very good job of trying to reduce inconvenience to residents.

We actually think that, ironically, as water gets more expensive for the higher income groups, they will then start turning to water conservation mechanisms. That's the pull we are seeing in Bangalore, and what we think will be the pull in the future. Lower income communities already do a pretty good job of conserving water since they tend to pay a higher price. It's amazing what market forces do for water conservation.

We are also encouraging communities to introduce slab billing and try to do individual apartment metering. By raising water prices for the highest users, people are becoming more price sensitive and trying to use less.

<comment><USER14> > many people think they have 24x7 water, but they just have a very reliable, > but intermittent, source of water

This is true. A lot of complexes have larger than reasonable storage tanks. If a new complex pops up next to your apartment building, you immediately see an effect in your water supply levels. It'll be interesting get a heatmap of the disproportionate distribution, but unless some authority gets involved, this may not happen.

> encouraging communities to introduce slab billing and try to do individual > apartment metering

Agreed. Price affects behavior.

Thanks and good luck!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Hey Anu & team, congratulations. You're addressing a definite need-gap.

Query:

How do you ensure safety. Do you make your suppliers follow certain safety protocols designed and tested by NextDrop, if so would you be making that public?

Boiled water - We & travellers to our country are constantly advised by experts to drink only boiled water; even when if it's 'purified' by the supplier to remove contaminatents, sub-par packaging results in dangerous contamination. Assuming you have customised dispenser to record data, how to you plan on addressing this need.

</comment><comment><USER16> Congratulations for the launch, team!

Living in Bangalore, this is one of the biggest challenges I see. We notice the dying lakes and water supply shortages. It would not be wrong to say that a mafia of water tanker operator exists.

A friend from Jaipur mentioned how their city handled this situation better & how Bangalore seems to be struggling despite good rainfall.

The other night we saw a man refilling water cans from an ordinary hose and prayed for the recipients' health.

Are you launching a service or product for domestic users? Shout if you need beta testers.

</comment><comment><USER17> You could create a new system by delivering water to each home in a complex through smart metering .. kind of own the inventory... I live in a complex and have no idea why we pay so much for water..my consumption is quite low.. micro managing with this sort of system will help reduce consumption.. I was told a society spends on 60 trucks of water every day..that's huge for a society..

</comment><comment><USER18> Hello Anu.

Nice to see you here.

My question is - what do companies serving a market far flung from US (as India), get by going to YC. It is indeed a great achievement; but how does it help the company. I can see a direct advantage in being able to hire talent or approach a global pool of investors.

The other I can assume is that it would help going global and aiming to serve other markets. Is that the correct assumption too?

Congrats. Wishing luck.

</comment><comment><USER19> I remember this pain point vividly from 20 years ago, growing up in Delhi. This is a massive long term problem and a great opportunity. Good luck!

</comment><comment><USER20> Great idea, Anu. Congratulations on the launch.

How much does the devices cost? I assume since this is mostly used by apartment complexes, it should not be a problem to convince them to pay one time device cost. But independent house owners would not be willing to pay the device cost, are you also planning for a 'Uber for Water Tankers' style ordering in this scenario?

<comment><AUTHOR> That's a good question. Actually, we've spent time figuring out how to drop the cost of the device to sub $30, at scale.

For frequent users, we would give the device away for free. For people that are on a public water connection and only use tankers once in a while to supplement their water usage, it would probably be like you mentioned- order tankers on demand, when you need it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> We at Square Plums (www.squareplums.com) manage hundreds of co-living homes in Bangalore and we are looking for a reliable solution to this problem. Will be happy to do a trial at one of our properties. Contact us at firstname.lastname@example.com if you wish to discuss.

</comment><comment><USER22> Pleasantly surprised to see this launch. I interned at NextDrop a couple of years ago. Anu and the team are a passionate bunch trying to solve one of the biggest problems in a developing country like India. My best wishes to the team. :)

</comment><comment><USER23> Looks like a really good idea.

How do you plan on scaling without becoming part of the water mafia (or at least enabling them)?

After all, there are only so many independent suppliers with their own water source.

Would love to hear you thoughts on this.

<comment><AUTHOR> That's a really good point. We've had to think long and hard about this one too. There's one interesting stat that is less known. Aboout 80% of India runs on groundwater, and in cities, we have estimated that about 50% of the people have their own private water source. BUT- less than 1% sell that water. Now imagine we've used devices to aggregate all demand (phase I). Phase II would be to introduce new supply into the market. Enabling anyone with a borewell to sell water to anyone else. The biggest cost of private water right now is diesel transportation costs. When we implement Phase II, we want to enable more micro entrepreneurs to sell water hyper locally, driving down water costs. We'll have to do this carefully, but that's the only way we see not becoming the mafia and doing our part to make clean water more and more accessible to people.

<comment><USER24> > Enabling anyone with a borewell to sell water to anyone else.

What happens when the neighborhood loses its water sources due to overuse?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yup, that's something we have to monitor carefully. That's why the backbone to our business is actually IoT devices that transmit data to monitor different aspects of water. We're starting with data around water withdrawals, and moving to using devices to monitor groundwater levels. We think we can collect enough data from our devices to model groundwater aquifer health, something that very few people are doing due to lack of data and overall costs. Once we can monitor aquifer health, we can make sure that we are not overdrawing, and recharging effectively.

<comment><USER23> Monitoring aquifer health seems like a good approach to start with. Great to see you have thought about the issues.

Water is an ethically challenging area to start a business in, but the status quo in India is pretty bad, so I hope you do well!

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you so much- we really appreciate it!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Congratulations on the launch! A lot of households also use water cans, and very often you cannot control the quality, are you planning to address this as well ?

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you! And yes, we've definitely thought about this market segment as well. We are actually of the opinion that water can delivery will eventually die out. If you do the math, it's actually more cost effective to buy a water filter for drinking water. Water filtration technology is getting cheaper, more people are buying in home filters, and we're trying to get them the cleanest water possible to their homes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Great stuff. Just curious do you have any background in environmental science?

<comment><AUTHOR> I have a background in environmental engineering actually- I did my bachelors and masters in Civil Engineering from UC Berkeley. In undergrad I focused on environmental engineering, and for my masters I focused on sensor technology and how it's changing our built world. It's been a wild ride.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Looks interesting.. When will you guys come to Chennai?

<comment><AUTHOR> Oh man, we're hoping to get there as soon as possible!

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Superb idea. India needs this!

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you! My co-founder and I quit our jobs and moved to India 6 years ago, and we've been working in the urban Indian water space since then. We really felt that something needed to be done and we've been on a journey to figure out exactly how we can change the status quo. We appreciate all your support- it means so much!

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Congrats Anu and team!

</comment><comment><USER30> Uber for Water!

<comment><AUTHOR> haha kind of, with a slight automation twist. We use IoT devices so we automatically detect when your water is low and order it for you :) We've realized that for people who have to order water often, it's kind of a pain to do it manually every time. That's the IoT version of it.</comment></comment>


HarmonyOS - <AUTHOR> https://www.harmonyos.com/en/home/ <comment><USER2> This is really burying the lede. The news here is that Huawei will be building phones with Harmony OS, the first of which will come next year: [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-huawei-tech-harmony- idUSK...](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-huawei-tech-harmony- idUSKBN261143)</comment>


Anti-Tech Protesters Are Telling Kevin Rose's Neighbors That He's A "Parasite" - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2014/04/06/kevin-rose-protesters-parasite/ <comment><USER2> _We are the ones who serve them coffee, deliver them food, suck their cocks, watch their kids, and mop their floors_

...

 _To this end, we now make our first clear demand of Google. We demand that Google give three billion dollars to an anarchist organization of our choosing._

On the one hand I feel sorry for Kevin having to deal with these crackpots, on the other hand these crackpots are so bad at PR it's hilarious.

<comment><USER3> Of course, why would they, 'ordinary' (bear with me) people not caught up in the world of PR and media and product promotion, have any talent at PR?

I think they're allowed to be mad regardless of their media savvy.

<comment><USER4> That last line is quite curious, though. As far as I know, only a very small fraction of modern day anarchists is self-describing as anarchists. Most of the others consider the term unfashionable and derogatory.

Here in Europe the self-describing Anarchists are the Punks and the Black Block and they tend to drive people away from a cause by co-opting it.

<comment><USER5> Black Bloc is a tactic, not a group. The anarchists here have all turned into Maoists who venerate the Naxalite rebellion in India. Chairman Mao figures prominently in the old anarchist space I used to go to back when it was also a hacker space. Peasant armed revolt is ridiculous in a first world country, I stopped going also it's full of state spies to watch for anti pipeline protest planning another good reason to avoid the space.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I'd love to know who's actually putting the effort into this nonsense. While gentrification causes obvious problems, particularly around housing, the rampant doublethinky ignorance of literally pointing out that tech money is providing jobs and investment in the area is a bit hard to swallow… feels like there's something else going on here.

<comment><USER7> Unfortunately, San Francisco has more than its share of untreated mentally ill, and this note reads like that to me.

<comment><USER6> I think that's a bit of a trivialisation of the issue. There's clearly a literate, intelligent, and reasonably well-organised group that's been pushing this stuff recently, and I struggle to picture who they are, and why they're wasting their time like this.

<comment><USER8> Resentment, plain and simple. The tech industry represents a missed chance for those who did not hop on board. And compounded by SV's tendency to produce lots of self-serving products (and not to mention the implicit elitism), this sentiment was bound to emerge.

<comment><USER9> To be fair, I don't think anarchists in SF envision silicon valley as a "missed chance". Silicon Valley has been there for 50 years. Silicon Valley came to them.

Whether or not anyone agrees, that's how they see it. Genrtification isn't about winning--or losing--for them its about killing a place/era they used to calll home.

Think woodstock or other "lost eras". Those times only last a short while and are fleeting. Because they are a function of the fact that they were new and unknown (at the time). Once everyone tramples into the place, whatever place it was before is gone.

Even if you still are theree: it sucks having "new neighbors" thay you just don't like. Even if you're a landowner or an established person.

See, eg [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7540842](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7540842)

(Similar story in NY)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Originally, I was optimistic about the movement. The rent in SF is indeed too damn high.

Sadly it's completely radicalized into an organization which harasses individuals for the crime of spreading capital and demands that Google fund anarchist communes.

So much for anything positive (ex. better zoning) coming of it.

<comment><USER11> More or less, the same thing happened with Occupy. Its more that SF is a major hub of rebellious anarchists who are utterly inept at running political campaigns or creating anything useful.

Occupy kind-of sorta had meaning, until those west-coast anarchists started storming banks, breaking windows, and turned the whole event into a "F __* the Police " festival.

That sort of behavior scares away the Teachers Unions, the Police Unions... and the many others (who are part of the 99%), and greatly hampers the movement. Nevertheless, you can be sure that the non-assholes are hoping for a solution.

<comment><USER10> Agreed, Sadly I think this movement is doomed to go the same way as Occupy.

Sometimes I wonder if these kooks are hired by the real plutocrats and parasites (ex. real estate developers) to undermine the movement. Or if it's not just one giant surrealist joke.

<comment><USER12> Never underestimate the left's propensity to defeat themselves from the inside out, to choose a personal sense of moral and/or ideological superiority over coalition building and meaningful progress. Especially in the SF Bay area.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> What these people really want is for all of the "other people" to go away. That's the only way you could ever see housing prices in SF go down given the current market circumstances. You have a city that's surrounded by water, a convoluted regulatory environment that actively depresses development activity, and a total unwillingness to build vertically.

In the long-term, either the people leave, the water somehow disappears, or you rewrite city codes and start building vertically. Of the three, only the lattermost is even feasible.

<comment><USER7> There was a plan to disappear the water, but don't worry, "we stopped them".

[http://blog.savesfbay.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Bart- Ad...](http://blog.savesfbay.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Bart- Ad-1_FINAL.jpg)

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> These sentiments aren't new and aren't unique to SF (unfortunately). I haven't seen such blatant assaults on people in LA, but Santa Monica went through a similar transformation where it became super desirable relatively quickly, driving up rents.

There is a law here called TORCA (Tenant Ownership Rights Charter Amendment). When I first heard the name, it took me a bit to comprehend it, as in my book "Tenant" and "Ownership" are mutually exclusive and make the term an oxymoron.

But when you learn about how powerful the renter's rights lobby is in SM city council, you realize that the joke is on the landlords, at least for the life of the TORCA tenant.

</comment><comment><USER15> Isn't this basically harassment?

</comment><comment><USER16> I'm not from SF (or even the US) so I'm not sure I understand this situation.

Usually people welcome new business opening in their area so long as it's not something that is polluting, because these businesses can do things like provide lots of jobs to people across the income/skills spectrum and also drive investment in local infrastructure and support local organisations and charities.

In these cases the rising house prices can be a good thing because those who get positions at the new companies can buy these houses and price increases protect their investments.

Is the difference that tech companies are only providing small numbers of jobs to people with specific skills who are brought in from other areas of the country/the world?

Perhaps also tech companies are only interested in doing good on a global scale and not starting in their own back yard?

<comment><USER17> SF is now the most expensive city to live in, in the US base on a few sources. While it's true normally growth and new jobs is seen as a good thing, here, it's specifically the tech sector that is growing with the majority of hires and wage increase focused entirely on developers mostly.

Imagine if rent goes up 300% or more in the past few years and you work as a waiter or any other number of non-tech jobs. Increase salaries and demands for hires in the tech sector would have nothing to do with you nor would you probably qualify for a job yet you suffer from all the consequences of the growth and demand happening around you aka your wage is the same but trying to rent a place now costs several thousands of dollars more than it did 5 years ago. That's essentially the problem locals who aren't in the tech field are facing.

<comment><USER18> >yet you suffer from all the consequences of the growth and demand happening around you aka your wage is the same

What would a $15-$17 minimum wage SF look like?

<comment><USER17> SF already have the highest minimum wage in the united states. It has it's own minimum wage as a city compare to the state. That said, even if you increase to say $20/he, that roughly translate to about $40k/year. Compare that to where 6-figure salaries are the norm for entry developers (where is was maybe just $60k for fresh grads a few years back) and you can see the growing discrepancy. I understand that developers are viewed as providing greater value this they should be paid more than minimum wage laborers but that doesn't change the situation with housing costs for both buying and selling. In some cases a two bedroom place these days can go average around 3-4k for a decent place in a decent neighborhood.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Here's the source post from the protest organizers [http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2014/04/06/18753651.php](http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2014/04/06/18753651.php)

</comment><comment><USER20> Vis-à-vis Wall Street's dalliance with the left coast: this is what you get for dating crazy.

</comment><comment><USER21> Are they aware that if the techies leave, the demand for their jobs like making coffee and mopping floors will drastically decrease?

These are not very forward thinking people.

</comment><comment><USER22> Not that intimidation or vilification of gentrifiers is acceptable (it's not), but I'm a bit surprised how just how simply that most people here brush off the problems that the so-called 'anti-tech' crowd are complaining about. We consider ourselves such great problem solvers, but I don't see anyone in software solving the housing problem in our major cities. Admittedly, it's a hard fucking problem and some of the people who would dare suggest that it's easily solvable aren't taking any of this seriously. Building codes, while imperfect and prone to abuse by corrupt politicians and business people, do exist for reason (especially in earthquake-prone SF and LA). If it were such a easily problem as some people suggest, it would have been solved and monetized by now.

Everybody loves when their community gets all the amenities that pop up when people with more money move in, but then what's the point when you're being forced out a year later when your rent or property taxes explode? That shit sucks.

My intention isn't to attack and start a conflict here. I would hope that maybe we could start taking the problem more seriously and maybe start thinking harder about how to actually solve the housing problem. It's a little more complex than just sitting around wishing that our current pay-to-play political system will all of the sudden magically grow a absolutist moral center and fix zoning laws and building codes.

</comment><comment><USER23> A little bit off topic, but related to the rents in SF: I've been to San Francisco and the first impression to me is that as a city with large population, why there's so little high-rise buildings? Is there any law which limits the buildings' height?

</comment><comment><USER24> Fluctuations in property values, and thus rents, are driven by Federal Reserve policy. These problems are created in Washington and real estate lobbying is more to blame.

That lobby has promoted, and our leaders have accepted, the notion that recoveries are led by the housing market. They believe consumption, not production, is the source of prosperity.

Its all designed, they say, to help the little people. But its the little people that are abused the most by these policies.

Yes, asset prices and thus rents ought to be stable and increase in a predictable way. These rapid rent increases compel people to buy (assuming they can), only to set them up for the next crash in real estate prices.

Overall, we don't benefit from these bubbles. Some get lucky for owning when they start and others get unlucky for owning when they collapse.

But those charging 6% on every transaction profit more when people buy and sell more. And bubbles are great for causing lots of transactions.

<comment><USER11> What the hell does Washington have to do with local zoning laws?

San Francisco is a densely populated city with very little land. However, buildings taller than 4-stories are outlawed. If a couple of 20+ floor apartment complexes are built, you can be rest assured that the more typical / mundane housing will become available for the rest of the citizens.

SF needs more housing, period. _Local_ laws are what is screwing the pooch on this one.

<comment><USER24> Its things like QE2 that are creating demand for real estate. The tech boom is driven by venture capital, which is driven by cheap money. And real estate is financed by it as well.

Making it easier to build would help too, of course. But building HAS been going on. Isn't Rincon Hill 50 stories tall? Did zoning prevent it?

<comment><USER25> The techboom was happening long before QE2, QE1, or the 2008 crisis. In case you haven't noticed, Google's been around since 1998, founded near the tail end of the previous tech boom. They didn't suddenly hire all of these Googlers in 2008, Twitter, Apple, Facebook, Amazon, etc have been hiring like crazy for a long time.

I dunno, call me crazy, but maybe this time, it's time to let go of the libertarian 'gubmint did it' angle and admit that natural booms exist.

<comment><USER24> Natural booms do exist. Technology booms do occur. I'm not arguing that they don't. What I argue is that expansion of the money supply exaggerates unnecessarily and causes other damaging distortions.

Government is the use of force. It makes sense that it is sometimes damaging to distort economic choices. Moreover, there is little proof that all the interference has any benefit. Usually, they benefit a tiny group of well- connected individuals, with the rest of us paying the costs.

<comment><USER25> Well, another way of looking at the excesses of the market is that the rest of the world had a glut of savings, while America had a huge trade deficit and a lack of saving, so this naturally dictates a capital account surplus/net capital inflow.

People in Europe and Asia have to put their money somewhere, and if the US is generating higher returns for less risk, they're going to go there, for either safety or opportunity. So if you have a huge influx of funds hungry for American assets, it is no surprise you see asset price inflation, as well as cheap, easy money.

You could argue that perhaps, if it weren't for the fact that the US dollar is the world's reserve currency, we wouldn't be able to print dollars and run a trade deficit, and foreigners would never be storing up huge amounts of dollars to reinvest or loan to the US, but you could just as easily argue that raising taxes would increase national savings and reduce the trade deficit.

<comment><USER24> Yes, there is a net capital inflow. If you're building a lot of oversized houses and financing a trillion dollar annual budget, you need to import everybody else's savings. I don't think financing these unsustainable things will be a good investment in the long run.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> It's interesting that this got flagged off the front page. At least I assume it was flagged off, as there are several stories on the front page right now that older and with less votes.

</comment><comment><USER26> I wonder about these folks. Are they the gays, hippies, yuppies, and beatniks or the children thereof that changed San Francisco to the chagrin of the previous generation?

</comment><comment><USER27> [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7542197](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7542197)

<comment><USER28> Lets see, it's an article about how tech workers are being targeted because of high earning potential by anarchist service workers, who in the past have harassed other employees of Google and anyone else who is part of the SF tech/startup scene.

Which in turn, becomes a place to discuss whether their complaints are valid, and either way, what courses of action might be taken.

<comment><USER27> Yes, it's clearly of great interest to people here on HN, and people who are part of the SF tech/startup scene.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Guess the nerds aren't allowed to get a break from the bullying as adults either huh.

</comment><comment><USER30> Do they honestly think idle threats will lead to anything apropos of anything the opposite of nothing?

</comment><comment><USER5> This is what scientologists do, harass your neighbours with flyers carefully worded as to avoid libel and post them all over the neighborhood. Pretty weak resorting to Scilon tactics

<comment><USER31> Such methods are despicable in and of themselves, not for being associated with a particular faction. If that was how it worked, Germany would have outlawed vegetarian diets, art school, mustaches, and pants.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Nice to see that crazy hasn't disappeared.

</comment><comment><USER32> So making jobs makes you a parasite?

<comment><USER33> The movement seems to have been appropriated or at inspired by people claiming to be anti-capitalism anarchists. In that idealogy, the very existence of jobs is considered parasitic. Wage labor, which they call "wage slavery," is seen as inherently exploitative. They aren't just against high paid jobs in the technology sector, they're against the very idea of division of labor and capitalism.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> And yet, it is the "Rich who wage war on the poor".

Granted, this is San Francisco. They've always been a roudy bunch over there. But this kind of behavior negatively looks upon the "99%". (or more specifically, the activists who claim to be the 99%).

Gendrification happens all across the country, and the renting-class poor are forced to move out of neighborhoods as they get more expensive. But only in San Francisco does gendrification seem to be so painful...

</comment><comment><USER34> Well, is he?

</comment><comment><USER35> He is alone in his battle with their neighborhood raccoon problem.

</comment><comment><USER36> Inspired enough to protest individuals, but not enough to learn the skills needed to be paid the 4x wages they cite the parasites move to SF for.

Imagine if all that rage time was spent learning rails and mobile development.

<comment><USER3> This pains me to read. Are you really so convinced that the techie crowd got ahead from its own savvy and motivation and everyone else is too lazy to do so?

There's nothing like writing off huge swathes of people based on an utterly distorted view of reality.

<comment><USER37> >...convinced that the techie crowd got ahead from its own savvy and motivation..

As opposed to what?

<comment><USER38> Lucky timing?

<comment><USER37> Seems like saavy and motivation are both key ingredients for 'lucky timing'.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> Isn't Kevin Rose that guy who killed Digg?

<comment><USER40> He's probably most well known as one of the founders of Digg.</comment></comment>


Low Code Tool Opinions - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/PhilipSkinner/elemental-lowcode <comment><AUTHOR> Hello,

I'm looking for opinions on low code tools that people may have used, such as Appian, Mendix, Pega etc.

I have a project I've been working in my evenings on since lock down started (see link) and I'm after opinions on where existing tools fall down when it comes to supporting developers who work with them - or developers who have to integrate with solutions built using these tools.

I've made quite a few assumptions in my project so I'd like to make sure that these align with other developers opinions.

Personally, I've been working with Appian for a year or so on a client project and these are my major misgivings:

1\. They rolled their own programming language, and its not nice

2\. Their integrations to things like databases are very poor, and the integrations don't give you much in terms of automatic code provisioning

3\. APIs defined within Appian cannot be made to follow any existing API design patterns

4\. The interfaces are not accessible and are very heavy in terms of JS

5\. Automated testing is nearly impossible due to the DOM generated by their UI rendering engine

Many thanks to anybody who takes the time to reply!</comment>


Seriously, stop with the booth babes - <AUTHOR> http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:rt452e6onIcJ:www.standalone-sysadmin.com/blog/2011/09/seriously-stop-with-the-booth-babes/+http://www.standalone-sysadmin.com/blog/2011/09/seriously-stop-with-the-booth-babes/&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us <comment><USER2> I'm getting the impression from reading the other comments that most of the commenters just skimmed the article (or perhaps didn't read it at all, and drew assumptions from the title). If you need a tl;dr, or if you read it quickly, this is the most important line in the post:

> _What you end up with is the situation where you, as a conference goer, walk > up to a booth and, because you're no stranger to how this works, ignore any > attractive woman and talk directly to a male at the booth. You assume > immediately that any attractive female is there simply for their physical > appearance, not for the value that their knowledge brings._

This is not an abstract PC idea of feeling bad about objectifying the booth babe, or wishing to avoid temptation, or whatever. This is a very specific problem that is harmful to the industry and to all the _non-_ booth babes out there. The OP goes on to make some suggestions on how to work towards fixing the problem, but please, if you're going to comment on this, make sure you understand the actual main point first.

<comment><USER3> Thanks for making the main point clear, I want to chime in here as a woman and someone who has represented my company from very early on at trade shows (and does to this day). In the telecom industry in particular these booth babes run rampant, they literally provide you with a form when you register to exhibit asking if you want to hire models.

At one event a couple years ago, a guy came over to talk with our CTO (a guy) and I and said point blank to me, "do you have an ownership stake in the company? if not, at least you've got one foot in the door to marry this guy?" Nevermind that I'm wearing my wedding ring! All I could do was paint a "go F&%$ yourself" smile on my face and wait for him to leave. The things I would have liked to say, but it just wasn't worth it in that context.

The problem is, most people don't walk up to me expecting me to know about APIs, building applications, solving problems specific to their industry or use case, how supply chain works, or anything else important to their business. This is perpetuated by booth babes. How do I know? If I dress in a frumpy or slightly less feminine style, instead of my normal stylish heels and a skirt suit, I get a different reaction. If I wear skinny jeans and flats and a tshirt or hoodie, look my age (early 20s) and have a self-effacing air, they think "oh she's a nerdy girl" and then they ask the real questions. PUH-LEASE.

</rant>

Oh - I should also mention that I DO think being a female works from the standpoint of getting booth traffic (can't fight it - sex sells, and you don't even need to be dressed in risque clothes to observe the difference). When I'm at the booth versus a guy, I think we get more traffic. The problem is, its less qualified and their intentions aren't easily converted to caring about our product, they're distracted by some other impulse.

<comment><USER4> Apart from the brain-dead flirting efforts, that heels-and-skirt-suit effect doesn't sound any different than my reaction to men in suits. If I want to find a clue, I look past the guy whose job involves showing up in a costume chosen in hopes I'm easily manipulated. But then I don't frequent trade shows, so I don't know how many nerds have enough clout to show up dressed normally but not enough to just stay home.

<comment><USER3> I wear a suit because it shows I give a damn, and occasionally to look a little older.

Many people in startups wear costumes too, just a different sort for a different purpose.

I realize that people in tech generally avoid "suits", but there is a time and place for dressing up and there are certain industries where you need to wear the uniform to play the game. Maybe it works to show up in flip flops as the founder of Facebook, but if you're trying to sell someone a mission critical product and they're going to spend tens of thousands of dollars...

...oh man, I digress, this thinking deserves a blog post of its own.

<comment><USER5> I like wearing suits. I even like wearing ties.

I don't mean anything by it, I just like tailored stuff. It looks good! It's highly evolved to maximise what men have got. But: if I wore one to most of my meetings, or to work, people'd ask questions or make a bunch of unfounded assumptions, so I don't.

It's a myth that technical communities don't care about clothes. They do - it's just they send a very particular set of signals and, what's more, they're the signals common to countercultures. That's fine: it's just another code, no more or less than any other. It'd be discourteous to go against it. I'm still going to be thinking wistfully of the ties in my wardrobe, though!

<comment><USER6> A tailored well fitting suit is also extremely comfortable.

I bought a suit when I was in Syria two years ago and its probably the most comfortable piece of clothing I own.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Learned this the hard way. Back when LinuxCon was still called LinuxCon, I made the mistake of making a beeline to the first "booth" I saw that was manned by a fellow female. I studied the setup, ascertained what kind of hardware being shown off by this particular vendor, and proceeded to inquire along the line of shop talk.

Although I don't remember exactly what I asked her, this was the gist of our exchange.

BB: "It's 2X faster!" (Vanna White, preening the chipset)

Me: "Faster than what?"

She appears panicked and quickly reads over the spec sheet behind her booth. Finally, after a minute, she looks up and says "It's just . . . faster."

Dear companies, giving the BBs a script isn't enough if they don't understand what the metrics on the script actually mean.

<comment><USER8> I also recall BSD staffing their booths (and the floor) with numerous women in red devil outfits, most of whom were quite technical.

There's Linux Journal's Carlie Fairchild, who's intelligent, informed, and beautiful, and has left a slew of broken hearts in her wake through no fault of her own.

There are a handful of other women in the Linux / Free Software community (it's overwhelmingly male), of whom Val Aurora and Erinn Clark come to mind (both have been involved in women/tech movements and between LinuxChix and Debian-Women there are numerous others).

But yeah, at trade shows, particularly those geared at suits and sales, the ornamental variety tends to be more common.

That said: I've found plenty of booths staffed by men who had little to no technical depth as well. To say nothing of, say, tech support lines.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> What was once risque is now corporate and stale, such is the way of things.

Meanwhile innovators are shaking it up, take the Good Old Games parody on booth babes at PAX - grandmas handing out cookies:

[http://geekfeminism.org/2011/08/28/booth-grandmas-at-pax- pri...](http://geekfeminism.org/2011/08/28/booth-grandmas-at-pax-prime-2011/)

Good opportunity for startups to get attention - do something interesting and different. That's probably where the "booth babes" concept started to begin with.

</comment><comment><USER10> As the only representative of my company in the region I hired "booth babes" to assist me at PyCon. It was a logistical necessity as we used several thousand dollars of computer equipment at the display. I requested they wear suits.

While I wouldn't characterize myself as shy, they were an order of magnitude better at engaging the attendees.

They combed the floors to make introductions. They brought me lunch so I could spend more time speaking with developers. They helped me identify potential candidates and kept the people who were apparently bored at bay.

 _> Ask questions regarding the technology. Ask about planned life cycles of the software, on use counts, and other things. Treat them exactly as you would an equal._

Not bad advice.

</comment><comment><USER11> I sort of accept booth babes as a given (I'd prefer to get rid of them, too, but once one company uses them, everyone has to; at the very least companies should commit to "no first use").

The thing that surprises me is when "booth babe" type people turn out to be actually intelligent, informed, competent people who are knowledgeable about the product. Sometimes they're full time staff, and sometimes they're professional conference booth presenters, but there have been times when they actually knew more about the overall market and sometimes about the specific product than the company employees, mainly because they'd worked the same conferences over and over for different firms.

<comment><USER2> This is exactly the OP's point---the existence of booth babes has conditioned us to be surprised when an attractive woman, or possibly any woman at all, is "intelligent, informed, competent". This follow-on effect is even worse than the already-bad first-order effect (namely objectifying the booth babe herself).

<comment><USER12> Take gender out of it, I'm surprised when anyone who is related to a 'sales' dept at a conference booth is "intelligent, informed, competent". It's better at tech conferences, but still not a 100% given.

<comment><USER3> That's really quite sad when you think of it. Maybe my experience is some crazy outlier, but the sales people I've worked with both in shipping and in tech have been some of the smartest people I've known. Maybe these companies are sending the bottom of the barrel to conferences... I'm taking a note not to do that with my company.

<comment><USER11> I've found sales engineers to be among the smartest people in most (enterprise) companies -- definitely smarter than the dedicated salespeople and absolutely smarter than the product engineers. They're basically the equivalent of the "rainmakers" in professional services; i.e. the people you bring in to convince the client that you're brilliant, but who don't actually work on your account once you're signed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Down for me, here is the google cache link: [http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:rt452e6...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:rt452e6onIcJ:www.standalone- sysadmin.com/blog/2011/09/seriously-stop-with-the-booth- babes/+http://www.standalone-sysadmin.com/blog/2011/09/seriously-stop-with- the-booth-babes/&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us)

</comment><comment><USER14>
      > Ask why their company wastes everyone's time and their investors' money using
      > people who provide no value.

There's a few statements there which aren't backed up by references. Which is cheaper: hiring extra people to staff a conference or flying out a bunch of $100/hr engineers, putting them up in hotels, and so on? I would think it's a waste of money to bring out the engineers. Not only in terms of expenses but also the opportunity cost of them not working for an entire week.

Of course, this depends on the audience. For something like CES, the average conference-goer will maybe pick up pamphlets and enter a draw. For that, hiring models who are experienced in trade shows and are comfortable interacting with people all day long are the better choice. For a conference which is far more technical and the audience will be interested in the nitty- gritty details of a technology, then only hiring models is likely a poorer choice. A hybrid approach might be worthwhile.

<comment><USER15> Also note that there are intermediate levels: we used to send tech support & systems engineers out rather than the core developers. They were used to talking to customers, knew enough to answer most questions and when they didn't could generate ensure that the question going back was well formed and went to the right person.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> When I walk by a booth and some stunning girl - who in real life would never even look at me - comes out and says "hiiii!" in the most fake display of flirtyness imaginable, I instantly get the feeling that I'm being conned and I'll do my best to stay away from that place.

But there is a distinct difference in having BBs do actual presentations and having them answer real customer questions. I see nothing wrong with that as long as it doesn't get tacky. As a rule of thumb, I would advise tech companies that target nerdy types like me to get rid of generic BBs but to continue using good-looking but knowledgeable women to present stuff.

</comment><comment><USER17> I've had similar experiences with booth babes not knowing what the company products are, specs or anything remotely useful to me. One of the points which jumped out at me in the article was this:

"You assume immediately that any attractive female is there simply for their physical appearance, not for the value that their knowledge brings."

This only due to my experience in expecting the eye candy to be something beyond just eye candy. Once you've conditioned me to only expect them to be that - then I'm going to skip them and seek out someone who knows something beyond the glossy pictures and swag their handing out.

</comment><comment><USER18> Please get rid of the recruiter "babes" too!

I'd rather hold a conversation with a knowledgeable technical person than yet another clueless plastic barbie doll!

<comment><USER19> But she knows all about the C Sharps!

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> My experience lies in consumer events, and there are two simple reasons why booth babes are used.

1.) Visitors like them. 2.) Exhibitors themselves like them.

And reason 2 is the biggest. While number 1 would be enough to justify it in either case, most people base it purely on "hey, I love seeing booth babes, clearly they're a good idea". And it's hard to argue with the success they have.

<comment><USER21> You're forgetting 3.)

Both these groups of people are happy to be, and be perceived as, creepy.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> I'm not sure why there is such a push against this in the states. Its very simplistic marketing, yes, and it does shift behavior (ignoring the women or overbearing attention to them) but them it seems all sectors use sex and sexuality to build attention.

I don't think the authors attempt to embarrass companies will work. Because it worked. You showed up at the booth. And any marketer will tell you that even a bad interaction is worthwhile. Attention is at the heart of this strategy.

If you want to reduce booth babes, avoid the booths completely. Treat them like kids with ADHD. Berating them wont work. Ignore them and they fall in line. (of course, that is a simplification)

<comment><USER23> Because it's crass. Because of that asshole at the Skyrim demo who screamed out "rape her" as soon as a female character appeared on the screen, and that this kind of advertising, if you can call it that, appeals to exactly that demographic.

Other cultures can handle sexuality better. Americans, male and female, toggle between acting like a a pack of feral dogs and a congregation of calvinists whenever the subject comes up.

<comment><USER24> _Other cultures can handle sexuality better._

Which ones? And how do they do that?

<comment><USER25> In my personal experience, the Scandinavian cultures do it better by simply not making a big deal out of it.

When you teach all your children from a young age that nudity is naughty and sexuality doesn't exist, you shouldn't be surprised when they grow up ill equipped to handle such things maturely.

<comment><USER26> I am from Scandinavia and that's not really true. We like naked females as much as everybody else and will do as many stupid things to get them. What we don't have is a bunch of extremely religious people with power so the contrast makes it seem more easy going.

<comment><USER25> Fair enough. Still a huge improvement though if you ask me ;)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> It's a nice idea, but I don't think I could muster up all the self- righteousness necessary to go through with it.

</comment><comment><USER4> I want coworkers who were irresistibly drawn to making software as soon as they saw a computer. I don't much care who we could lure in adulthood by merely making the incidentals look more pleasant. If anything, I'd like to find a way to deflect the horde of male dilettantes we're saddled with, because they're showing up just shockingly unqualified and I'm past tired of interviewing them.

Besides, how many developers even get sent to trade shows other than staffing their employers' booths? Isn't that more a PM and marketing thing?

</comment><comment><USER28> From my experience, "booth babes" are often just the girls from the marketing department. They're usually not clueless, but you do get handed off quickly to sales or tech.

<comment><USER29> The correct term is "women," not "girls." Unless, of course, your company is regularly in the habit of hiring children for marketing position...

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> The author only reinforces the fact that booth babes work. His argument that he hates them because he falls for them would probably only get me to consider using booth babes in the future. Sure, the approach is kind of 'Don Draper' but considering the audience... it's probably a viable marketing approach.

There's probably an argument there about looking for original marketing approaches, as booth babes are an old and one "might" say overdone idea.

but meh, bring on the booth babes.

<comment><USER31> Yes. I will remember your product. I will remember that you had a pair of very polite models wearing baby-doll tees with your logos on them, and that they were completely clueless about your product. I will never buy your product and actively recommend against it. I remember all the booth babes I saw at OSCON and LinuxCon this year, and I will not forget.

<comment><USER30> Did you all shun Apple when Foxconn employees started jumping to their deaths? I'm guessing not.

Is it possible that you'd be letting your bias get in the way of your business sense? What if those products could have significantly helped your business?

<comment><USER32> Yes. Because it's not called bias, it's called ethics and they help me sleep at night. And while the Apple issue was not applicable to me (I can't remember the last dollar I spent on an Apple product), I do, for instance, make a conscious effort to try and buy electronics that are made with conflict-free coltan (which is difficult due to the paucity of information on the subject).

I find your nonchalant suggestion sell out morally on this topic appalling, particularly as a woman myself.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> I think the author is doing a little bit of disservice to "marketing folk" (women AND men), who I think he is really referring to here as "booth babes".

"Booth Babes" tend to refer to models who dress provocatively purely to entice people into the booth - seen more at b2c conferences and lower-order, less sales-driven b2b conferences like game conferences and CES.

Engineers > Sales people > PR/Marketing people > Booth babes

</comment><comment><USER29> As a (female) software engineer at Google, I once staffed a booth at CES. CES doesn't, to my knowledge, have many booth babes, and there certainly weren't any at the Google booth. Despite this, I had a number of people DIRECTLY ask if I was a booth babe. And who knows how many more people just assumed I was and avoided talking to me entirely...

It wasn't a big deal. I mean, I'd seen this my whole life. And that's just the thing. It's every job, every conference, every meetup, every event, and every single conversation. It's constantly having to prove that you're technical.

And even once you've offered up a bunch of credentials, you still aren't perceived as being as technical as a man with the same credentials.

It's exhausting. And I'm so, so tired of it.

Changing how people think is hard; changing company policy is much easier. Ending "booth babes" is one of many steps to ending sexism, but every step counts.

</comment><comment><USER34> Sounds like a good prank to send female representatives and booth dudes just to confuse people's preconceived notions. Pretty useful if the company wants to come across as non-hetero-male.

I think that's better than just male/female representatives behind a desk trying to make a passive statement.

</comment><comment><USER35> 'Our systems have detected unusual traffic from your computer network. Please try your request again later. Why did this happen?'

I got this earlier when I tried to open several cached links at once. An hour or two later and I'm still getting it for no reason. Wireshark confirms and I have a public IP address.

</comment><comment><USER36> Let's speculate.

Let us say that we were to end all booth babe jobs tomorrow.

Result: 1000s of women lose a job that brings them some extra (and perhaps needed) cash. But we all get to feel better about ourselves. Except for the women, because they have one less source of income.

Alternative: we embrace the fact that we are sexual beings. Maybe sex appeal does not work on everyone, but it is a tried and true form of advertising. I do not think it is demeaning to women - I think it is empowering. What is demeaning is treating women like they should not have the choice to take these jobs.

<comment><USER37> The main problem is using them at a trade conference. They are basically dead weight if they don't know anything about the products. This article isn't about being demeaning, but about encouraging anti-women bias in tech circles. BBs are hurting our society.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> Website Offline, No Cached Version Available

The website you are trying to access is currently offline. The most likely causes are the server is down for maintenance, there may be a network problem, or the site may be experiencing excessive load.

The site uses CloudFlare in order to help keep it online when the server is down by serving cached copies of pages where they are available. Unfortunately, a cached copy of the page you requested is not available, but you may be able to reach other cached pages on the site.

If you continue to receive this error after you believe the site is back online, you can retry a live version of the site.

© 2011 CloudFlare, Inc.</comment>


The 'it can't happen here' syndrome - <AUTHOR> http://www.wnd.com/2013/04/the-it-cant-happen-here-syndrome/

<comment><USER2> Couldn't read the content of the post because I found the site to be too obnoxious to tolerate. Isn't there a better source for whatever information it was you were trying to share?</comment>