Want to give up development and start a company. - <AUTHOR>

Burned out on coding. Have wanted to start my own business for several years, but am having trouble finding the inspiration for the right product/service to provide. Single income family and bills to pay. Want to ensure work-life balance. Family is on-board. Advice? <comment><USER2> You are burned out and being an entrepreneur is not a solution to being burned out. In fact, entrepreneurship is likely to cause more burn out.

I would focus on fixing the burnout first and then if you're serious about being an entrepreneur, do it later. If you do it now, you'll likely just stall out early on and be even more disillusioned.

Get out of burn-out by taking vacation, spending more and more quality time with your family, etc. Once you take some time away from the keyboard, your passion for coding and inspiration for new ideas will start to surface. Once you HAVE to stay up all night to work on an idea because you're so excited, then you'll know you are back.

Once you are serious about starting your business, read <http://www.startupbook.net/> and [http://www.amazon.com/Four-Steps-Epiphany- Steven-Blank/dp/09...](http://www.amazon.com/Four-Steps-Epiphany-Steven- Blank/dp/0976470705) to help you identify and verify good business ideas and take the first few steps, lean on HN once you have an idea to help you improve it and iterate on it.

Due to your family situation, you'll probably need to keep your job and work on your startup on the side (welcome to the club!). Once your startup is making some money you can consider switching to consulting or a part-time situation. It's crazy hard enough as it is, and basically impossible when you are demotivated and burned out.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks. I already have been doing that. Have taken vacation, and I spend as much time with the family as possible. I have also been trying to exercise more frequently, etc.

In fact, a big part of the reason that I took the job I have now was for work- life balance. But my current job just sucks. The only motivation I have for going into work everyday is to help take care of my family. I love my family, and I want to provide for them the best I can.

I've worked for small, medium, and large businesses/organizations. I know that I'm the opposite of the career large business worker.

I want to be responsible for a business. While I don't believe my business would be perfect, I would like to decide what work I do for others. I want to somehow make this work so that I can achieve a good work-life balance. I know I can do this but I'm having trouble finding inspiration for exactly what I could be doing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> That's a very general question, so here's some very general advice:

Start with something you know. Surely, based on your work and life experiences so far, there are some niches that you know better than most people. Think about those niches, and the kinds of problems they have-- possibly the problems they don't know they have.

Don't be blinded by the idea of mainstream, consumer software. You don't need to create software that your mother will use. Businesses are more inclined to spend money on software, especially if you can demonstrate how the software will make them money, save them money, or solve some other problem.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks! I apologize that it's so general. That's part of the problem. I agree that I need to focus on something else, and focus of solving a niche need. Unfortunately after a long career in development, I really am not enthusiastic about more coding. I've been reading 40 Days to the Work You Love, which is a great book. I have yet to read What Color is Your Parachute and related books on finding the right vocation or calling. Mostly I was hoping that someone else here might have previously given up software development for starting up an unrelated company and could provide info about how they changed direction and _how_ they determined their new path and any advice related to that choice. I know some niche dev work that I could do on my own, but I'm just totally not excited about coding anymore- basically I'm only excited about business. I would go back and do the MBA thing, but I don't want to end up working for someone else, so I think that just starting a business once I find the right idea and have a plan, etc. would be the way to go.

<comment><USER2> Just to be clear, finding a different career and starting a software business are two totally different things. Starting a software business does not get you away from coding, you have to do a great deal of coding, and then learn marketing plus a lot of other things on your own. I would say it's like coding++ so if you're looking to get away from coding, don't start a software business.

<comment><AUTHOR> Totally agree. I want to get away from it, and it would be basically like starting completely from scratch without almost any relevant experience. It's a big step, and without having specific inspiration in what to do next, I continue to burnout with the only relief being that I can at least try to focus on getting out.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> You need to add qualifiers to the discovery process, pick concepts that you can execute quickly and easily. As AmberShah suggests, start with the 'The four steps to Epiphany' this will help you frame the process.

Don't write a single line of code till you have crunched through the viability of the idea for making a return on both financial and personal (happiness) fronts.

Don't get attached to ideas, if you can't execute them with the resources you have move on.

Think lean in everything you do, remember walls are there for smashing through

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm not sure how to "think lean" when I have no inspiration on what to do. I know going back to university wouldn't be lean, so I've crossed that off the list. I know I can't head into something that requires too much initial experience, so I'll cross that out as well. I'll definitely read "The four steps to Epiphany" and see what I can learn about myself. Thanks!</comment></comment>


Build android apps from your Android device - <AUTHOR> https://market.android.com/details?id=com.aide.ui

<comment><USER2> That's really cool. I wonder if those guys read RFS5? <http://ycombinator.com/rfs5.html>

</comment><comment><USER3> Sweet! Definitely installing this on my Transformer tonight, hopefully with the hard keyboard it could actually be pretty productive.

<comment><AUTHOR> I've tried it with the soft keyboard and it worked pretty good, specially because of the auto-completion feature.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3670137>

I'd like to compete with the intent to found a startup. I know how to make this even better, I think.

</comment><comment><USER5> Wow, this looks really neat. I'd be curious to know if this ends up being used as the preferred development environment for some Android developers.

</comment><comment><USER6> Next step: Eclipse/Xcode for Android/iOS

</comment><comment><USER7> I wonder if I could do this on my Galaxy Note.. Currently stuck on gingerbread until Robbers in Canada released an ICS update. Upgrading myself leaves me without the Android market..

Anyone else stuck in my boat? I'd love to try this out

</comment><comment><USER8> There's another project called TerminalIDE here:

[https://market.android.com/details?id=com.spartacusrex.spart...](https://market.android.com/details?id=com.spartacusrex.spartacuside&feature=search_result#?t=W251bGwsMSwyLDEsImNvbS5zcGFydGFjdXNyZXguc3BhcnRhY3VzaWRlIl0)

that also allows you to develop real android apps right on your device. TerminalIDE is primarily cli based and even comes with a version of vim already set up with a custom vimrc and relevant plugins. That said, I'm very excited about this project as Android is capable of being a "real" OS it just needs more real applications.</comment>


PHP still missing bits: generics - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/tech-insights-from-libcast-labs/php-still-missing-bits-generics-f2487cf8ea9e <comment><USER2> I don't know what to say about this, other than yes, generics would be nice, but will probably never happen.

I guess if that's what you need, there's always C# or Hack.

</comment><comment><USER3> Nice post! Thx</comment>


Trello is down - <AUTHOR> https://trello.com/ <comment><USER2> Is it? The page loads for me</comment>


Alzheimer's disease affects 'twice as many people' as experts thought - <AUTHOR> https://nypost.com/2019/04/04/alzheimers-disease-affects-twice-as-many-people-as-experts-thought/ <comment><USER2> I want more information about the application of germ theory to Alzheimer's. Is it a herpes family virus infection? A gingivalis bacterial infection? Some of both? Who is working on this? Are research grants forthcoming, or are they all still earmarked for amyloid genetics? Are papers being approved for publication, or are they being rejected or stalled because the reviewers are not qualified to evaluate infectious-disease papers?

If it is a treatable infection, everyone currently suffering or threatened by Alzheimer's is being irreparably harmed by delays pursuing these treatments.</comment>


SRI's Nimble Micro Robots - <AUTHOR> http://prostheticknowledge.tumblr.com/post/83037951528/micro-robots-sri-international-have-developed

<comment><USER2> A nice combination of lo-tec and hi-tec. I find it is a key element that the "bots" are primitive, and thus cheap to create when needed in masses.

The little "bots" are apparently capable of 3 degrees of freedom movement (move on a surface and rotation). Microstructures that are too complex or otherwise unsuitable for conventional 3D printing could be built economically with a pipelined and parallel bot army.

And going smaller, it is imaginable that this principle can be made to work on nano-scales.</comment>


Life is Short (with data) - <AUTHOR> http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/12/the-tail-end.html <comment><AUTHOR> This is from a few weeks back - an excellent, and rather hard-hitting graphical representation of how short life ACTUALLY is. Goes well with Paul Graham's recent post [http://paulgraham.com/vb.html](http://paulgraham.com/vb.html)</comment>


Why people think C++ is complicated? - <AUTHOR> http://www.easycppcodes.com/article/why-people-think-c-is-complicated/

<comment><USER2> I fully agree with the authors concept that C++ is both a high-level and low- level language, and it is important to choose the right 'sub-language' for a given context.

I'd love to have the ability in C++ (and basically all other languages) to turn on/off language and standard library features right in the source code, it would do wonders for the maintainability of projects with many contributors and large code bases in general.

Instead of writing a style guide in the sense of "don't use new/delete, don't use raw pointers or arrays, don't use exceptions, don't use CRT functions, don't use stl containers, etc...", and hope that everyone follows the guide or catch violations in code reviews, the style guide would be part of the source code, and violating it would result in compilation errors.

<comment><USER3> Honest question: why wouldn't someone want to use STL containers?

<comment><USER4> A bit of the no one ever got fired for buying IBM. By using the STL containers you can quickly learn a not great, but not horrible API and have a good chance of it being around down the road, your stuff will still compile, api wont change and it might be available on other platforms.

<comment><USER5> Honestly, the API doesn't seem that bad when you understand what it's trying to achieve. There are some hairy areas though (dealing with std::bind many years ago comes to my mind, but I didn't understand back then that they were basically trying to shoehorn half of Common Lisp into C++).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Google Cache: [http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://www.easycppcodes.com/article/why- people-think-c-is-complicated/)

It was down for me.

<comment><USER7> great

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> wait, it isn't? I mean, I worked on that, carefully avoiding all the shot_me_in_the_foot features, like non pure virtual stuff, dynamic and static casts etc, but every time I engage in anything as simple as reading boost sources with templates and stuff knitting magic I just get a brain freeze and get back to java

<comment><USER9> Any language you choose is as complicated as you make it yourself. Some of the cleanest, simplest and most readable code I've seen in my life was written in C, while the most horribly complex, obtuse and over-engineered projects I've seen were written in Java.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I never found C++ complicated but I suppose it's because this was the first programming language I really learned. When you're learning your first language, you don't have any frame of reference yet to compare it to. You either grok it or don't. And then it becomes your baseline for programming, you compare next things you learn to that first language.

<comment><USER10> C++ is not complicated, it a language that offers a range of features and paradigms, and doesn't make you pay for what you don't use, unlike some languages. However, modern "developers" are often impatient, have a frame of reference that everything is ruby or js, not to worry about any resources (they are infinite, right?) and think all their problems can be solved via gem or npm install. The modern software stack has therefore become a bigger pile of more diseased turtles, all the way down.

<comment><USER11> It sure is complicated, and I say that as a full time c++ dev who sees it in a generally favourable light.

There is a huge amount of knowledge that you need to pick up over the years before you can consider yourself even an advanced c++ programmer let alone an expert.

In my experience it's way more complex than c, JavaScript, Python and any Lisp. However, you can use it in a c-like fashion and avoid some of the complexity but if you want to work with anyone else's code then you have little choice but to learn that complexity.

<comment><USER5> It is complicated compared to many other languages - that's why I wrote that I didn't find it this way - I didn't know any other language then, so C++ level of complication became my baseline (which made me find most other languages seem very simple).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> The most favourable thing I ever heard anyone say about C++ is that it is a decent language if you only use some parts of it.

<comment><USER11> I think it's a true statement though.

Same for JavaScript :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> »General relativity has a reputation for being very difficult. I think the reason is that it is very difficult.«

Leonard Susskind

</comment><comment><USER14> C++ is the perfect example that shows that you can't build a language incrementally, while maintaining backward compatibility. You have to oversee all the issues, and define the language accordingly.

I'm afraid after a while, Rust will see the same problems, unless they let go of backward compatibility.

<comment><USER15> That's the reason Scala doesn't guarantee backwards compatibility for major releases. Of course, there is always someone who complaints about it not being enterprise ready.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> [http://tehsausage.com/ptypes/doc/inet.examples.html](http://tehsausage.com/ptypes/doc/inet.examples.html)

vs

[http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_35_0/doc/html/boost_asio/tut...](http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_35_0/doc/html/boost_asio/tutorial/tutdaytime3/src.html)

I know a lot of people would criticize the practices/styles used in ptypes - but I've yet to see another C++ library that is as easy to use, easy to read, AND most importantly cross platform. Hell even raw sockets in C is easier to use and understand than boost [1].

This is one of my favorite comments on reddit [2].

[1] [http://www.thegeekstuff.com/2011/12/c-socket- programming/](http://www.thegeekstuff.com/2011/12/c-socket-programming/)

[2] [http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/197dn1/introduc...](http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/197dn1/introduction_to_c_a_series_of_46_videos_created/c8lks22)

</comment><comment><USER17> I support the idea of dividing C++ into two. That way people can start by learning top C++, use it for some years and start to use features which are on bottom C++ after gaining some confidence.

<comment><USER18> The 'pro' features are heavily used by library designers. In practice, written C++ is indeed, along the lines you mention.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Because it is?

</comment><comment><USER20> I think having to to divide the language into two semantically exclusive sublanguages answers the question of the author. (Though the title here is not his title...) The other answer (which there was an article about a few months ago which was posted here) is "Because having exceptions is really complicated when certain object actions can't throw exceptions."

</comment><comment><USER21> I am a C艹 beginner from Python and C. I feel that the handling of trade-offs between performance and safety/explicitly is passed to programmers and not the language itself, which made it difficult for beginners to capture what is the best practice. Choices may be good for experienced programmers, but they are not very friendly for beginners.

</comment><comment><USER22> Because it looks like a standardized set of kluges suffering from the kitchen sink sindrome? (compared to well-designed languages)

</comment><comment><USER23> Perhaps a bit off-topic but serious question. I don't understand whenever someone says language A is next to bare metal? What does a language have anything to do with bare metal or performance? Isn't it the compiler/interpreter that performance is about?

<comment><USER24> Languages like C and C++ compile down directly to machine code, and the resulting machine code is run from then on the bare metal without any further translation.

Interpreted languages such as Python or Ruby (or languages that run on a VM, like Java) go through an interpretation step _every time_ they are run that translates them down to machine language.

This gives compiled languages an inherent advantage in terms of runtime performance; programs written in these languages don't have the overhead of translating to machine code at runtime. This is typically why people advocate "next to bare metal" as having better performance.

<comment><USER25> That's technically true, but I think it has more to do with the programming model.

In C and (sort of) C++ you can deal with actual bytes in actual memory locations. You can find the exact memory address of a data structure, and you can read or write directly to that location.

You can even prod the compiler to suggest that it uses real hardware registers for variables.

You can also control how memory is allocated and released.

In most languages an array is just an array. You usually don't care where it is in memory.

In functional languages you concentrate more on designing symbolic operations, and the fact that there's real memory under there somewhere is almost irrelevant.

But C/C++ are bare-metal-ish. In assembler you work directly with memory, but you can control program flow. You can jump/branch to any address in memory. Sometimes you can even overwrite your own code.

C/C++ won't let you do that.

As a former assembler guy, I find that C++ is the worst of both worlds. You get the cognitive overhead of dealing with memory management and pointer arithmetic and iterators, but the options for _not_ working with them when you don't want to are limited - so it's hard to concentrate on the functional level, and you do a lot of the work the compiler/interpreter would usually do, but without the "do whatever you want" freedom of assembler.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Isn't that what happens in the arduino, where users use top-c++ ? and it works pretty well for them, in a very harsh, constrained environment.

</comment><comment><USER27> "Error establishing a database connection"

But I would say it's because others are easy.

Yes others are hell lot easier.

</comment><comment><USER28> Operating low-level resources makes it more complicated and because of that, - big amount of programming mistakes made there are critical.

</comment><comment><USER29> -1 for use of "codes"!

(arguably C# is the "top C++" with its managed/unmanaged distinction)

<comment><USER29> OK, so clearly the idea that "code" is a mass noun rather than a plural is very unpopular. Or I've failed the "don't be negative" rule.</comment></comment>


10 Questions to Ask Before Quitting Your Job to Start a Business - <AUTHOR> http://selfmadesuccess.com/10-questions-ask-quitting-job-start-business/ <comment><USER2> I only see 7 questions...</comment>


The Riemann Hypothesis, explained (2016) - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/cantors-paradise/the-riemann-hypothesis-explained-fa01c1f75d3f <comment><USER2> Prime Obsession, by John Derbyshire, is a very entertaining and well written book about this topic, following a similar path (although much slower) among the conceptual building blocks required to understand the hypothesis.

<comment><USER3> John Derbyshire has become a controversial figure:

[https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2012/...](https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2012/apr/08/john- derbyshire-fired-article-african-americans)

<comment><USER4> Wow, that's _out there_. It's such a shame that so many people whose work would otherwise be a net positive have to stain their reputations by being such outright a-holes in other aspects of life.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> See [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13344071](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13344071) for some interesting past discussion

</comment><comment><USER6> > The fourth and final term is an integral which is zero for x < 2 because > there are no primes smaller than 2.

This does not seem correct. Overall a good article though.

<comment><USER7> A prime number (or a prime) is a natural number greater than 1 that cannot be formed by multiplying two smaller natural numbers.

<comment><USER6> Of course. That was not the error.</comment></comment></comment>


Why most companies don't need Kubernetes - <AUTHOR> https://scalarsoftware.com/blog/why-most-companies-dont-need-kubernetes/ <comment><USER2> Kubernetes is not nearly as complex as people make it out to be. There are fundamental concepts you need to understand... but it's quite reasonable once you grok them.</comment>


PaaS for Java Developers: Coding the Architecture - <AUTHOR> http://www.codingthearchitecture.com/2017/09/27/paas_for_java_developers_part_1.html <comment><USER2> One of those articles that is sliced way too thin.</comment>


Inter-Connect multiple apps on your desktop to increase your productivity - <AUTHOR> Please watch this video for a demo of our product and intro to our product. https://youtu.be/7LrVCEPvG8U<p>Email us at email@example.com <comment><AUTHOR> About Us

We create software bots which increases employee efficiency, reduces errors thereby making them more productive in their job. Our product caters to the needs of people who are: involved in data collection and data entry activities; those who work on multiple applications at the same time to carry out a single task.

Our product connects different apps together, hence: as you type data in one application, it will be reflected in all other applications in real time when you paste data in one application, it will be pasted in all other applications too when you click a button in one app, actions will be triggered on other apps too

Our bot will work alongside you in the background without impacting your experience. The deployment is easy as the bot gets deployed on your desktop and doesn't need any connection to your backend or database.</comment>


Unit Vector Math for 3D Graphics (2001) - <AUTHOR> http://www.jmargolin.com/uvmath/uvmath.htm

<comment><USER2> Thanks for the excellent explanation!

"Defective matrices are rare. If you pick a random matrix it is highly unlikely (almost impossible) to be defective. Instead, you can think of these are ones where things line up "just right" to eliminate some information."

Is that related to "gimbal lock"? -- where the rotations line up to eliminate a degree of freedom.</comment>


What A Double-Dip Recession Would Mean For Investors & Entrepreneurs - <AUTHOR> http://www.bothsidesofthetable.com/2010/08/30/us-economic-risks-sept-2010-impact-on-investors-entrepreneurs/ <comment><USER2> Wow - thanks for sharing. Interesting:

* ...the capital gains tax increases coming into effect in 2011 are might just lead to a stock market sell-off in Q410 as investors "lock in" gains at a lower tax rate.

Stock market declines equal lowering of wealth effects which in turn equals lower consumer spending and hits on corporate earnings. This affects M&A activities for startups, which with the reduction of the IPO market could spell lower returns in the short-term for technology startup investors. _</comment>


Mobile Computing Devices Today Are Crap. Here's Why - barry-cotter http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2009/09/news_from_the_it_travel_depart.html

<comment><AUTHOR> Grumpy old guys are why mobile computing is crap?</comment>


How A Forum Site Grew Monthly Revenue From $400 to $400,000 - <AUTHOR> http://mixergy.com/warren-jolly-affiliate-media/ <comment><USER2> Nice headline, but not really an accurate portrayal of what really happened. Definitely a "marketing" story more that sounds a lot nicer to tell and hear than the nitty gritty that actually went on. If you look at the stats of the forum they get very little traffic (relatively), and the forum itself is pretty barren.

Therefore, I highly highly doubt that the majority of the revenue is coming from the community itself. Rather, it sounds like the forum is a legitimizing component that is essentially a front for the money making schemes behind the back.

This happens a lot with affiliate and domain sites.

You have some lucrative affiliate relationships that you can hardcore SEM against, however you need a site that looks good if the advertisers ever check you out. So what they do is usually purchase a respectable site, has the air of a community, looks good, etc. And then they have this shadow site that runs off the same domain that they arbitrage against with pages that are super ad/affiliate heavy and make tons of money.

Combining a legit domain/site with an SEM shadow site is also useful for making sure your AdWord rates stay lower. If your domain has more authority and natural SEO traffic/PR then it seems like Google won't charge you as much to get higher SEM listings.

It's actually a "simple" model and can be EXTREMELY lucrative. However, it doesn't really add much value to the world, and they can go out of business in an instant if the CPC rates change in any direction.

<comment><USER3> _However, it doesn't really add much value to the world, and they can go out of business in an instant if the CPC rates change in any direction._

\- It's unfair to mix this guy's business success with your views on online gambling("doesn't really add much value").

\- There are plenty of sites that would go away in a click if google decides to close their adsense account for whatever reason. At least this guy is diversified across the industry--meaning his revenue comes from few hundred different partners.

<comment><USER4> What is unfair about saying that he prefers to look for successful business methods that feel like they contribute value to the world? I'd sure rather make good money contributing than make stratospheric money being a parasite.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Let me summarize this video for you and save you some time:

1) Guy makes some good money in the "sewers" of Internet Marketing during the boom years (using search engine spam tactics to gather traffic, resell it to the .com startups for inflated prices, then moves on to "finance and other" affiliate programs)

2) Guy gets involved in domain name squatting. Runs into some issues, doesn't pan out.

3) Guy gets involved in "gaming marketing" - online casinos. Makes good money as casino are cash-rich businesses. But it turns out that casino marketing is a seedy business!

4) Develops "Casino Affiliate Program" certification program. Make money off the Casinos - the guys with the money - rather than the affiliates - most of who are just trying to follow get rich quick ebooks they bought from an adwords ad.

Only part of his story that is missing is (my guess): \- Selling porn/Acai berries/Loan Consolidation leads \- Spamming email lists/search engines

Good for him for making tons of cash online. Maybe not the most noble of businesses, might not be for me, but alas, each person has their own goals.

My take away: easier to make money off rich firms than poor individuals.

<comment><USER6> _"My take away: easier to make money off rich firms than poor individuals."_

A worthy insight IMO, one of those 'I know it but it helps to be reminded' comments.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I might be too close to this interview because I feel like I'm missing the sketchiness that you guys caught.

My understanding is that Warren's site works because networks like CJ.com, which do things like ensure that affiliates get paid, won't cover the casino industry. So Warren filled in the gap. He helps ensure that affiliates get paid and that affiliate managers find new sites to work with.

Before we did the interview, I pre-interviewed him, checked him out with trusted friends, and confirmed his company's revenue with Inc Magazine.

If I missed something, please email or call me: mail(at)awarner(dot)com or 650-450-4098

<comment><USER5> Basically if you've ever worked in the affiliate business, either as a publisher or an advertiser, you pick up on specific terms which are used when talking about not-so-nice activities in "nice" conversations. There were lots of those terms said in this interview.

It's not a reflection on this guy in particular (although he did openly admit to spamming search engines - "doorway pages" is one of those key terms), its the affiliate business as a whole. As he says in the video - it's about the leads, not the product. I get you customers - it's your problem what to do with them. Your product doesn't work as advertised? Not my problem - I just lead the person to your doorstep - it's your responsibility what you do with them.

Read a few discussions on WickedFire.com (a popular affiliate forum) and you will quickly understand what I mean...

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> 1\. Start a forum.

2\. Invent some certification program that doesn't make a lot of sense for people running sketchy businesses.

3\. ???

4\. $400,000/month!

<comment><USER9> actually step 1 for him wasn't even starting the forum, he bought it from someone else.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> That site (mixergy.com) gives me that oily feeling that only comes from visiting a skeezy site. I don't know what it is about the site or the guy who's in every video, but gah.

<comment><USER11> Andrew's a good guy; I just think he resides at the the opposite end of the spectrum compared to most of the readers of Hacker News. Although some of the tactics expressed in the interviews make me shake my head, many more have been entertaining and informative.

It's always interesting to see people's reactions when they see how the sausage is made in the kitchen (look at this thread). This is especially true when it comes to businesses in highly competitive markets like cars, computers, coupons, software, tickets, finance, marketing and insurance. Many big brands are just as guilty as anything this guy talks about (e.g. AOL's love.com, BMW SEO spamming, the shady stuff that goes on with Google PPC, the amount of paid links almost any consumer-facing Fortune 500 co buys). They're usually just better at PRing a cover up and/or keeping it behind the curtains. It's one of the joys of being a public company: massive consequences for failure to satisfy short-term earnings expectations and a huge incentives to employ shady tactics to ensure that doesn't happen.

Edit: Here's an example more closely related to venture capital. Guess who two of Cash4Gold.com's biggest investors are? General Catalyst and Highland Capital Partners. You won't find Cash4Gold on their portfolio pages.

Or maybe even more telling: look at all the major companies that have affiliate programs. The companies know what they're getting in to; they're just outsourcing the dirty work.

<comment><USER8> Agree 100% about the typical Mixergy interview being terrific. The Reddit and OJByrne interviews were great. This one's just too sketchy for my tastes.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> For all the spamminess of the content, I did see something useful in there. You get the door slammed in your face 50 times, don't give up. Try to learn why it's happening. I've seen a lot of chat here recently about needing more info on why start ups fail. And there has been some good articles put up too. Even though I think his biz model is sleazy, I like the fact he kept going until he got it right. I hope that when my start up launches, and I get rejected over and over again I have the fortitude to learn from my mistakes, adjust and try again. And if needs be, rinse, repeat.

</comment><comment><USER13> executive summary:

build a forum community, talk to the community about what they need, build something around their needs, and sell it to them. they don't want to buy it? ask why not, and fix it.

</comment><comment><USER14> Seems to be a teaser. Feels dirty/sploggy.

<comment><USER15> Agreed. Something about the combination of "Online Casino" + "Affiliate Programs" registers more than a few points on my smarminess meter.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> The forum site does not have that revenue, the product sold to the members of the forum does.

The original title is a lot better.

</comment><comment><USER17> All I get is a box with:

        Type your comment here.

Am I missing something?

<comment><USER18> <http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html>

<comment><USER17> You've confused me. I'm familiar with the guidelines, but I've gone and re- read them to be sure, and I still don't see why you've pointed me at them. Would you be so kind as to be more specific?

More particularly, I was civil, I wasn't disagreeing,, I didn't introduce a classic flamewar, I didn't sign the comment, I didn't use uppercase for emphasis, I didn't complain that the submission was inappropriate, I didn't say HN was turning into Reddit, and I didn't complain about being downmodded.

Finally, it wasn't flame bait.

What do you think I've done wrong?

EDIT: It wasn't me that downmud you.</comment></comment></comment>


US Air Force Gives Blockchain Firm $1.5M to Build Supply Chain Network - <AUTHOR> https://www.coindesk.com/us-air-force-gives-blockchain-firm-1-5m-to-build-supply-chain-network <comment><AUTHOR> > "has entered Phase II of its Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) USAF > project with a renewed mandate to investigate blockchain's military supply > chain value propositions."

I think the title of the article is imprecise because it is suggesting they will build something, but that budget is _just_ for investigating the value proposition.

Working for many years on startups, normally we need to find the value proposition before.</comment>


Return of the Mac (2005) - <AUTHOR> http://www.paulgraham.com/mac.html

<comment><USER2> _[2] Y Combinator is (we hope) visited mostly by hackers. The proportions of OSes are: Windows 66.4%, Macintosh 18.8%, Linux 11.4%, and FreeBSD 1.5%. The Mac number is a big change from what it would have been five years ago._

I'm interested to know what the proportions of OSes are today.

<comment><USER3> Results of a HN poll from a few months ago: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2303726>

Total responses: 1539 Linux: 564 (36.65%) Mac: 557 (36.19%) Windows: 365 (23.72%) Other: 53 (3.44%)

<comment><USER4> Polls can be aspirational. I'd rely more on the server logs say.

<comment><USER5> Well, I would have answered Linux on that poll, because I use it as my primary work environment. But I almost exclusively use Windows for web browsing. Maybe I'm atypical though.

<comment><USER4> Not really. I do most of my HackerNews surfing at home on OS X, but I spend most of my workday on Windows.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> OK, someone convince me to go Mac.

I've had essentially zero issues with Windows. I do 99% of my development in Linux (access my devbox through VNC). For desktop use, I have absolutely no problems. I work very fast zooming around with keyboard shortcuts. I don't get viruses or bloatware. Everything is calm and familiar.

Every time I get my hands on a Mac, even to simply Google something, I immediately hit issues. Paste is crazy squiggly hash v (or maybe apple v?), I can't right click, I can't win+d to the desktop. I'm sure all of these things are possible, but I'm fumbling around like my grandpa when I taught him to email.

At this point, I'm pretty sure it can't all be brand hype (my thoughts a few years ago). I'd really like to know what the incentive is for throwing away years of muscle memory, familiarity, and tweaking ability.

So, go ahead, someone sell me on Macs.

<comment><USER7> > Every time I get my hands on a Mac, even to simply Google something, I > immediately hit issues.

You seem to hit issues because you _want_ to hit them.

> Paste is crazy squiggly hash v (or maybe apple v?)

The key is called "command". Does "Command V" not make more sense than "Control V"? And free up the Control key for more interesting stuff?

> I can't right click

You can, unless it's a 4+ years old machine it's just a preference (if you're using a trackpad). Any 2+ buttons mouse will natively "right click". Even on older machine, Ctrl+click will open a contextual menu.

> I can't win+d to the desktop

"Show Desktop" is natively bound to Command-F3 on modern macs, on older ones it was on F11. It may also be bound to an active corner.

> So, go ahead, someone sell me on Macs.

Don't know if that will sell you. For me it was a combination of several things:

* Unix environment with an actually useable terminal. By default. Even in 10.3/10.4 (and Terminal has come a long way since then). cmd.exe never "felt" right, I never found a windows shell worth using (even Putty is a pain), and if you're going to remote log into a _nix machine anyway why not use one in the first place?

_ Spotlight works much, much better than Windows Search, and dedicated launcher applications (QS, Alfred, QSB, Butler, etc...) take that a step further

* 99% of the time, managing applications is Simply Easier. No fudging around with installer or painfully browsing to your Program Files folder (and wondering if the soft is 32 or 64b and in which program files you should put it and if you should create a shortcut so the bloody windows search can find it and...). Instead, open your archive (zip or dmg), drop the .app bundle in the Applications directory (via the dock or your finder sidebar) and launch it whenever. You can even launch it right there, nothing to do, no time wasted.

* A thriving indie community with loads of good software at fair price. I did buy licenses one Windows, but not many, and I did not find much which made me go "damn I have to give these guys some dough back for their work", even after I stopped being a poor student.

* Package managers. Whichever your pick is between Macports, Fink and Homebrew having one is invaluable.

* The machine is generally useable as is. Even if you don't download anything it can be used, you have a good PDF & image viewer (Preview is fairly amazing), lots of serviceable software, and it does not "feel" as clunky as windows long did.

Only negative I've found is that Finder is not as good as the Windows Explorer. Though with Windows 7, they've become significantly closer in that search has become shit in 7's explorer.

Essentially, OSX is a full unix with a bearable interface, softed by people who care.

Now if you don't do any dev on your box, it might lose some of its appeal.

<comment><USER8> Good points. Though it seems like you and the other repliers are selling him based purely on downsides of Windows. A modern Linux such as Ubuntu has more or less all of the things you've mentioned, and as a biased Gentoo Linux user I'd argue in many cases Linux does it better. ( [http://www.thingsfittogether.com/2011/08/start-developing- fo...](http://www.thingsfittogether.com/2011/08/start-developing-for-os-x-in- just-68.html) ) So it seems like you're arguing "Mac is a better environment to use VNC for your Linux than Windows is." Unless you want to convince him he also should switch to Mac for development? I'm actually curious how much the GP does on his Linux box besides development. Personally I only use Windows for games and the occasional x-to-exe conversion. (Oh and Flex development at work with Adobe's Flash Builder.)

<comment><USER9> Until you want to go mobile. Linux on a laptop is still a hit-or-miss experience w.r.t fully functioning power management, wifi without workarounds, and integrated/discrete graphics cards. I know there are perfectly working laptops available out there, but it's still a hassle to track down, find reviews, verify compatibility as stated, then actually install linux since almost nothing ships preinstalled. Then you might want to run QT/GTK/Wx/Tk stuff all side by side on the same machine and that lacks cohesiveness and makes a linux desktop feel very hacked together.

Also, trackpads.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I switched from a Dell laptop to a PowerBook G4 in 2005 as I was going off to college. I remember very clearly the initial confusion I had dealing with the radically different file setup ("What, you mean I have to distribute my Jar files in 6 different directories? Windows just has the one!") and Unix interface. I laugh now, but the documentation was actually pretty terrible back then, and I couldn't initially figure out where to store files that I was dealing with. (This was back in the day when Apple distributed its own behind- the-times JDK and wouldn't support anything else.)

I was so upset the first week I owned my PowerBook that I actually wrote Steve Jobs saying "Why would you ever separate Java externals into so many different directories? Where's the documentation for this Terminal.app program? You're going to lose my business if I find more shenanigans like this in your OS."

I got an e-mail back that week from Apple saying "You'll learn to love it, we promise." I was skeptical, but I quickly realized that there's a sanity to Apple's FHS (and Unix's moreso). I also grew to love scripting on the G4 far too much to be able to return the computer as I'd threatened to.

Now, I can't imagine ever going back to the "Windows Way", or anything close to it. I still have that G4, and it runs (Arch Linux) like a charm.

The one thing I haven't grown fonder with Apple's popularity is that customer service now feels cold. In 2005, it was a legitimate pleasure to talk with an Apple rep on the phone. Several of them were happy to explain the internals of the OS to me my first time through, as they were thrilled to have any Windows convert they could get.

Now, things are different, and I don't get the warm, fuzzy feeling I did 6 years ago.

</comment><comment><USER11> I'm totally out of phase with other hackers. Apple user: 1985-2003. Windows/Linux user: 2003-2011. I just recently (2011) got a MacBook Pro to work on my first ruby project.

I was one of those hackers that stuck with Apple through the 90s. In 1996 I learned how to install netBSD on my mac and in 1997 I installed MkLinux (an Apple sponsored project). I was incredibly excited when Apple announced that it was going to integrate this new (to me) exciting world into the next generation of their operating system. In 2001 I finally got my first machine that was powerful enough to run OSX. But I was a little disappointed. There was no native software, my OS 9 software barely worked and the thing kept breaking. When two power cords broke, the screen broke and the disk drive crashed, I traded for a ThinkPad.

</comment><comment><USER12> Did this quote make anyone else think of the iPhone a bit?

"In the fall of 1983, the professor in one of my college CS classes got up and announced, like a prophet, that there would soon be a computer with half a MIPS of processing power that would fit under an airline seat and cost so little that we could save enough to buy one from a summer job. The whole room gasped. And when the Mac appeared, it was even better than we'd hoped. It was small and powerful and cheap, as promised. But it was also something we'd never considered a computer could be: fabulously well designed."

</comment><comment><USER13> I have always used Macs and good lord, the days of Mac OS X being out but the processors not being Intel were truly some of the most embarrassing years for Apple computing.

I remember owning (and loving - for some reason) an iBook G3 that was basically unusable for a few months whilst I awaited more RAM for it. I think this was when their laptops had 64Mb RAM but Mac OS X really needed 512Mb. And remember when Mac OS X had OS 9 built into it? Ugh.

It's crazy to think how dominant Apple is now, compared to those days, and the even more pathetic days before that.

I cannot even think of a reason why any consumer wouldn't now go out and purchase a Mac or iPad for their next computer.

<comment><USER14> There are many valid reasons. For one, Apple computers are overpriced. The Air is a good deal and the MacBooks themselves aren't too overpriced, but the actual Mac computers are extraordinarily overpriced. They also offer hardware beyond what most users need. A lesser quality computer can browse the web just as well and can do it for a thousand fewer dollars. Price is just one minor point though.

Windows still has dominant market share and, as such, is still supported far better by developers. More programs come out for windows than for mac by a long shot. The consumers are also familiar with windows which further increases the chance of them not buying a mac.

Anyways, the point of this comment is to refute your last statement. I'll first say that "purchase a .. iPad for their next computer." is completely ridiculous. A tablet cannot fill the needs of a user yet. I'll focus on why many consumers would not want to purchase a Mac. 1\. Software support. A large amount of software is available only for windows. 1b. Video games 2\. .Net developer/other developer. Many software developers will work on windows because that's their target platform due to the market share. 3\. Familiarity. That's a big one. People are familiar with windows and so they stick with it. 4\. Price. Because pcs are sold by various venders there are many pricepoints. Apple doesn't allow that. 5\. Business relying on legacy software for windows.

Do I really need to name more? "I cannot even think of a reason" .. You really couldn't think of any of the above reasons or one of the several more? Macs are great and all, but they aren't the answer to everything. They still have many issues. Apple's tight grip leads to higher quality but higher prices, reduced variety, and reduced content. For now, a windows machine can do _almost_ anything an apple computer can do at less cost. The consumer also has far more choices. A mac can only do a portion of what a pc could do; if the user installs linux than the mac has almost no features left that the pc is incapable of. Perhaps you'll harp on hardware quality, but it's perfectly possible to get machines of similar or better quality to any mac aside from the macbook air.

<comment><USER15> "I'll first say that "purchase a .. iPad for their next computer." is completely ridiculous. A tablet cannot fill the needs of a user yet"

You'd be surprised by how many people just use a computer to check their email and browse the web, all of which can be handled on an iPad simply and beautifully. My Wife and Mother have both stopped using computers altogether, iPad is all they need.

<comment><USER16> This. The percentage of laptop users out there who actually seem to "need" a laptop is a lot smaller than we might think it is. Maybe even a minority of all laptop users.

Pretty much everyone I know who isn't a hacker, gamer, or Excel jock can get by with just an iPad for the sum total of their computing needs (web, Facebook, email, Angry Birds).

<comment><USER17> Also, anyone who writes long documents probably wants a laptop, so everyone who is in college.

<comment><USER18> If you have Pages for iOS, an iPad stand, and an Apple wireless keyboard, you can actually get by pretty well using the iPad for word processing, assuming you sit at a desk to write.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Did he buy like you recommended?

I've made a hobby of embarrassing myself with recommendations to friends not to buy AAPL.

<comment><USER20> Why is that? Just swimming against the current, or do you have particular problems with them? Have you been making other positive recommendations instead?

<comment><USER19> P/E.

<comment><USER21> If you back out the $30/share in cash the P/E looks to be around 12.

<comment><USER19> Uh, look at the AAPL chart since '05. You don't need a carefully constructed argument to refute my investment thesis. :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> One important phrase: _When it comes to computers, what hackers are doing now, everyone will be doing in ten years._

This really often explains upcoming trends in the computer / tech world.

</comment><comment><USER23> Here is the change of Apple stock from 2005 to 2011:

[http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=AAPL&a=08&b=7&c=...](http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=AAPL&a=08&b=7&c=2005&d=07&e=8&f=2011&g=m&z=66&y=0)

</comment><comment><USER24> Why do hackers like Macs that much? Wouldn't it be better to use cross- platform tools?

<comment><USER25> Macs are high-end machines and come with a sane OS on them, with support from the manufacturer.

The last two issues together: sane OS, manufacturer support, basically knock out the rest of the market.

<comment><USER26> A sane OS would let me delete a file with the delete key(!).

<comment><USER27> You use the command key to issue commands and raw keys to type. So: command- delete means it's fast and easy to delete a file without the worry of accidentally losing a file when your cat jumps on the keyboard.

<comment><USER28> > I should have the option though

No. This is what good software design is. The designer chose this path, offering you the option to change this is what makes software bloated and unmaintainable.

<comment><USER26> No options in software, gotcha.

<comment><USER29> Not too many at any rate. If a minor detail like the key to delete files is an option pretty much everything else has to be an option.

Options should only be there as a last resort, not in any other case.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Finding Your Co-founder On...POF.com? - <AUTHOR> http://www.introzmedia.com/finding-your-co-founder-on-pof-com.html

<comment><AUTHOR> I'd be interested in hearing some other unusual ways that people found their co-founders... anyone got something more bizarre than this?

</comment><comment><USER2> This is a great story! I'm in Chicago too. Care to hang out?

<comment><AUTHOR> Sure, we go to a lot of meetup events...built in chicago, lean startup, different coding meetups. Chicago's really coming along as a startup city and the strong meetup culture is just one example.</comment></comment>


FizzBuzz Enterprise Edition - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/EnterpriseQualityCoding/FizzBuzzEnterpriseEdition <comment><USER2> Every couple years when it comes up again, I'm endlessly amused by this project.

I had a lot of fun actually reading through the early commits in the project. You can see how things can go totally crazy really fast.

</comment><comment><USER3> Needs more Hibernate.</comment>


SAT Solvers as Smart Search Engines - <AUTHOR> https://www.msoos.org/2019/02/sat-solvers-as-smart-search-engines/ <comment><USER2> I really like the post, except for the conflation of brute force search and using recomputation as state restoration.

In my opinion, a brute force search algorithm is an algorithm that will explore the whole search space without any intelligent pruning of sub-trees (it will visit every element of the state space). Such an algorithm needs to use a state restoration policy, with three main flavours being saving undo- information (trailing asin SAT-solvers, Knuths dancing links), saving redo- information (in order to do recomputation), and copying (saving whole search states in each node) are all valid and useful. They can also be combined, with adaptive recomputation being quite nice in some cases (leaving copies of the seaerch state every now and then, closer togheter the farther down the tree one is).

<comment><USER3> (author here) Well, those are all valid strategies. In fact, in the original work that introduced CryptoMiniSat, I used state saving (you called this copying) to quickly reset state to an old one. One could also say that polarity caching is in fact saving redo-information (at least to some extent -- to what extent, can debated). The thing is -- I am not a pro at these other strategies and I can't talk about them with the same clarity. At the end of the day, all of these are quite abstract in some way -- there are many design choices to be made and many different designs.

I just tried to highlight brute force vs. partial evaluation&backtrack. But of course there are many other comparisons to be made. I'm just conscious that I have neither the time nor the expertise to do these all unfortunately :( I let Knuth do the heavy lifting, doing all the comparisons in his books.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> The article is spot on. Some finds it counterintuitive that SAT solver often can solve problems with redundant clauses (hence larger problems) faster than minimal ones. But you can find the proof faster if you have appropriate lemmas. Since lemmas can be derived from axioms, strictly speaking, all lemmas are redundant. But they help.

Note: the author maintains a state-of-the-art SAT solver.

</comment><comment><USER5> I am certain not a SAT specialist and it is a very frustrating technology. There is little literature and it is very hard to figure out what it means in concrete cases.

But this article is way above all that I read on this subject. Many thanks!

Just an example: " _Modeling has lots of interesting constraints, one of which I often hear and I am confused by: that it should minimize the number of variables. Given the above, that SAT solvers can be seen at as partial evaluation engines that thrive on the fact that they can partially evaluate and partially backtrack_ "

</comment><comment><USER6> It's rare that I feel like I'm exactly the target audience for an article, but this is one of those times. Specifically, the advice on formulation is something I've been wondering about for a while. It's nice to have the author of a SAT solver come out and say that extra variables can be useful to the solver. I'd suspected as much from experience, but I had a nagging doubt that I was wrong.</comment>


Nature Vs. Nurture in Entrepreneurship - Stanford Roundtable - <AUTHOR> http://ecorner.stanford.edu/authorMaterialInfo.html?mid=2434

<comment><USER2> Are there certain intangibles that every entrepreneur simply cannot be successful without? PG has cited determination and toughness as two essential traits that YC looks for in entrepreneurs. Vivek seems to argue that there aren't any traits to you HAVE to have, but that most people, given the right opportunity, can learn and grow into the right person to create a successful company. I don't agree with this, but I do think it has some merit in that you can't really tell how well someone will stand and deliver until you push them into a wall, which you can't really do in any kind of formal interview process or pitch. So how can you tell how determined or tough someone is?

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I love Vivek's analysis of a replicative entrepreneur vs. an innovative entrepreneur. He and mark really go on it in nature vs nuture. I think VC's have really created a matter of selection bias, but Mark makes a convincing point as to why he doesn't go looking for specific demographics, but instead looks at the idea.

In the end it sounds like VCs might want to go looking in new areas for talent.</comment>


Snapchat opts for London over Dublin for international HQ - <AUTHOR> http://www.irishtimes.com/business/technology/snapchat-opts-for-london-over-dublin-for-international-hq-1.2931455 <comment><USER2> This certainly flies in the face of conventional wisdom when it comes to International HQ and shows Snaps decision making process certainly includes a lot more than tax. Perhaps a commitment to the talent they already have in the UK.

Ireland and the Dublin finance and tech scene has been licking its lips at the prospect of increased numbers of office setups by large companies.

Depending on how Snap's setup goes, this good be a watermark moment for post Brexit Britain in terms of attracting inward investment and gives their politicians a large case study to use to attract similar profile companies.</comment>


How to Clock a Glacier - <AUTHOR> http://nautil.us/issue/22/slow/how-to-clock-a-glacier <comment><USER2> Sometimes glaciers can move pretty quickly. You don't want to be in the way when they do... [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolka_Glacier#History_of_surge...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolka_Glacier#History_of_surges)

</comment><comment><USER3> Do glaciers move continuously, such that they can be measured like this?

<comment><USER4> I assume all measurements of movement depend of the granularity of the time- spans, but I am no physicist.</comment></comment>


Introducing MessengerChimp 2.0- the next generation Marketing - <AUTHOR> https://blog.mindiq.in/introducing-messengerchimp-2-0-the-next-generation-marketing-b83cb0a28f54#.kwjtnhsc7 <comment><AUTHOR> Through MessengerChimp, brands can build, maintain subscribers list and send personalised content on-demand and at scale. For the end consumer, it is more a personalised recommendation directly delivered to his Facebook Messenger.</comment>


Dark Patterns - User Interfaces Designed to Trick People - <AUTHOR> http://darkpatterns.org/ <comment><USER2> The worst mainstream example of this I know of is PayPal.

Their entire business is predicated on steering you away from using your credit or debit card (better for you) to a direct bank withdrawal (better for them).

Bank withdrawals carry a risk of overdraft fees, have fewer consumer protections, and lack the rewards programs and other benefits of cards. But they cost less for PayPal. Merchants don't pay any less though -- it's how PayPal makes money.

Each and every time it defaults to bank withdrawals. You have to hit "Change" to select your card, every time. There's no way to change the default to your card. The only reason for this UI is to steer customers away from their best interests.

<comment><USER3> > Their entire business is predicated on steering you away from using your > credit or debit card (better for you) to a direct bank withdrawal (better > for them).

You're being hyperbolic, or don't know what predicated means. This defaulting to bank transfers is a relatively recent thing in their history; they've been profitable for more than 10 years without that. Their fees are also sufficient to make a profit on credit card transactions, so their business would not fail should everyone opt-out of paying by ACH.

There are reasons for PayPal to want you to use ACH over a credit card beyond simply increasing profits, too. They're just as much victims of credit card fraud as their merchants. It's the card networks' fault that almost anyone in the world can pick up a Visa/MasterCard card, use it to buy something on eBay, then charge back the payment after they get the item. PayPal's the one getting the chargeback, and they're not exempt from the card networks' requirements on maximum chargeback rates. It's an existential threat to their business, always has been.

<comment><USER4> _This defaulting to bank transfers is a relatively recent thing in their history;_

I've had a paypal account since before Ebay bought them and they've always used sneaky user interface tricks to push customers into using bank transfers over credit cards. It was the first thing I noticed about them after signing up.

<comment><USER5> That's right, PayPal has _always_ worked this way. In fact, it's only fairly recently that it let me switch to a credit card without putting up a warning page about all the benefits I'd get by using my checking account instead of a credit card.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Hi, I'm the guy who started darkpatterns.org. It's nice to see it popping up on HN every now and then. We're actually looking for contributors to help edit and update the content. If anyone is interested, drop us a line (contact details on the site). It's intended to be a community project and we'd love to see a lot more faces and names on the about page.

<comment><USER7> My comments: I'm _that guy_ who uses NoScript/ScriptSafe to disable JS on most sites. Took me _several minutes_ to figure out what combination of hosts I had to enable to play your slideshow.

My suggestion: find a simpler tool to display your slideshow.

Otherwise: a pretty decent collection of horrors.

I'll also note I'm _that guy_ who generally avoids shopping online if at all possible. I'll do a lot of online research, but prefer patronizing local stores if possible, and paying cash. Why? Because:

\- You know what you're getting when you buy it.

\- When the deal is done the deal is done. No late-hit fees or follow-on solicitations.

\- Generally a much easier returns policy, should that be necessary.

Yes, for some items, there's less choice (though you can special order a great deal of stuff), and there are some things I will purchase online (air travel on the rare occasions I feel it utterly necessary to humiliate myself before airport security).

<comment><USER8> It's completely unreasonable to ask someone to change their website because _you_ disable JavaScript.

<comment><USER9> But it's perfectly reasonable to let someone know that the website might be broken for those to whom it is most likely to appeal. A more precise suggestion about how to fix it would have been nice, however.

<comment><USER8> I disagree with the assertion that this website will most appeal to people who turn off JavaScript on websites intentionally.

And it's not useful to be informed that your website won't work if a critical component is turned off. It just isn't.

I'd even go so far as to say that people who disable JavaScript should be ignored entirely.

<comment><USER9> Those who know/have cause to/have manifestation of paranoia that manifests as turn off javascript completely are certainly more likely to see the appeal for the slide show. I only made it about halfway through. Not that it's not an important topic, but not my top priority right now. A syllabus would have been useful so that I may see if I have missed something without having to spend another 10 minutes.

It can be quite useful for someone to make a suggestion that can make the website have larger appeal. It just can be. I count my suggestion for a syllabus as one.

But as a stronger example, aljazeera.com recently started redirecting ips from the US to the subdomain america.aljazeera.com. I couldn't get around it without a proxy. I wrote them an email suggesting they make the old site ("english") an option from the front page (I pointed to CNN.com as an example). They wrote me back saying they changed it and, when I went there, they even had a pop-up that allowed me to have the english site as my default. They had deliberately put in the functionality but didn't realize that some of us wanted their European coverage, not their America coverage.

In this case maybe the site will offer alternative formats. Maybe they hadn't thought of it.

I also have sites that ignore non-javascript enabled browsers- but they are web-apps and are explicit about the need for js. If I had a normal site with a widget that broke for certain people I very well might take such a comment into serious consideration. It is more helpful, as I said earlier, if such criticism also suggests something that might work well. Otherwise it just sounds like bitching.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> There's a dichotomy here on HN: Best marketing practice generally praises upselling and A/B testing conversions to increase sales and profits.

But, taking these to a natural conclusion typically results in exactly the Dark Patterns we see here: where users are tricked or misled into agreeing to things they might not if they were offered clear, open and full disclosure upfront.

We can identify dark patterns - but in many cases, these are here because they work. At least, large international businesses such as RyanAir believe that they have a positive outcome which overwhelms any damage to the brand.

I would like to know: how can we resolve these two ideas and run ethical but viable/competitive businesses?

<comment><USER11> > I would like to know: how can we resolve these two ideas and run ethical but > viable/competitive businesses?

All other things being equal, you can't. If there are dark patterns that empirically do increase competitiveness in the market of interest at the cost of violating things you hold to be ethical principles, you aren't going to be competitive without employing them unless you have some other non-duplicated market-relevant advantage that compensates for the disadvantage of ethics, unless you can change the market context to eliminate the effectiveness of the dark patterns.

<comment><USER12> I think you're right here, but the qualifier "all things being equal" can't be taken lightly. Rarely if never are "all things equal." I also don't think a shift in the market context is necessary. We already have a market place where people who feel tricked or duped will have a lower opinion of the company doing the duping. dark patterns have a bad edge to them too--very few of them, when noticed by the user, leave the user actually feeling good about how they were duped.

This kinda reminds me of the talk PG gave at 2008 start up school titled "Be Good." ([http://www.paulgraham.com/good.html](http://www.paulgraham.com/good.html) or [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7K0vRUKXKc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7K0vRUKXKc)) He outlines many ways why it's not merely ethically appropriate to be good, but also a strategically superior approach to running a startup. Ease of use, simplicity, trustworthiness--these are important qualities of a biz's reputation, both internally and in public perception. And Dark patterns tend to harm that reputation.

Edit: Addendum--obviously there are monopolies or monopoly-like situations where reputation isn't important.

<comment><USER11> > I also don't think a shift in the market context is necessary.

 _If_ the dark patterns empirically work, _then_ a market context shift is necessary.

> We already have a market place where people who feel tricked or duped will > have a lower opinion of the company doing the duping. dark patterns have a > bad edge to them too--very few of them, when noticed by the user, leave the > user actually feeling good about how they were duped.

If they had enough of a "bad edge" that they didn't actually work to increase the returns realized by a business--then they wouldn't be an issue, as there'd be no incentive to use them.

<comment><USER13> 1) Dark patterns do empirically work, that's the whole point.

2) Market won't magically shift - they work based on homo sapiens basic psychology, and that won't change so soon. However, dark patterns can (and are) reduced by making them illegal - effective consumer protection / truthful advertising laws can mitigate them. For example, if 'I agree' opt-out boxes are legally considered invalid, then it makes sense to use opt-in subscriptions; similarly for other [mis]representations.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Thanks to the author for including RyanAir's awful booking reservation website. This piece of garbage is filled with traps and puzzles in order to sneak additional costs onto you. God I hate this carrier a well as the world's "cheaper is better" attitude.

<comment><USER15> How does it compare to Godaddy checkout?

<comment><USER16> Godaddy is basically scrolldown+click correct button three times.

Ryanair is trap upon trap. Radiobuttons and checkboxes all over the place, and if you forget to confirm not wanting a bag you have to start over on that page and hit all the right settings _again_. Multiply that five-six times...

(And I wouldn't be surprised if Parsons and O'Leary are buddies.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> One of the most Pavlovian I've encountered is in InAppPurchases. A confirm button will be repeated in the same corner of a dialog box 9 out of 10 times, but the 10th time it will be replaced with a single-click purchase.

Basically the UI Is set up to purposefully hotswap to confuse the user into accidental purchases.

I've also seen purchase buttons placed extremely near edges in order to capture edge gestures and convert them into purchases.

Used on several of gamelofts latest free to play games.

<comment><USER18> Yep. Single click purchases shouldn't be utilized as much on mobile devices. The state of mobile apps is such that it's already not intensive to get to a checkout page where you buy something; it's not like Amazon where you might jump through 4-5 pages of confirmations and it's useful to seasoned buyers. Apps are so much smaller (comparatively) than entire websites that really you just need to tap a button from the options/main menu and then get to the selection area before payment. There's no address to put it, or shipping details that a "one-tap" could bypass and expediate.

I think whoever first thought, "Let's port one-click purchases to mobile!" either was being disingenuous or was only successful because it was used in an unintended, quasi-fraudulent way.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Open question: as a startup grows and matures, even if it is originally entirely designed with honest user objectives in mind, where usability and simplicity are paramount, at some point there will be calls to increase revenues - either in response to declining growth, market saturation, or simply to maintain existing growth.

Is there any way to structure the incentives of a business to prevent this from happening as a business grows?

Intuitively there is an argument that maintaining simplicity will improve word-of-mouth and conversion rates, but in reality it (unfortunately, perhaps) absolutely is the case that revenue can be massively increased by introducing all kinds of additional advertising, up/cross-sells, and ultimately, dark patterns.

<comment><USER20> Dark patterns are a short-term tradeoff. Ultimately, though your customers will resent you.

Its easy for stakeholders to say "So what? We loose a few customers!"

However, your company really might be loosing a potential investor, a potential business partner, a potential star hire or a potential product champion.

Ambitious companies don't use dark patterns but dying companies do.

<comment><USER19> I used to believe this - but once you reach a certain scale and number of users, they do not notice small things - especially if they are average everyday people.

We are all hyper-sensitive to design, functionality, behaviour because we build and make decisions about technology, but at the end of the day most people have 5-to-15 minutes to use your product during or between other work and conversations.

Investors will likely not be carefully analyzing your UI, unless they have a lot of time - most of their decision will be based on conversations with your top-level executive team and the information provided therein.

Star hires is a potential one - I can definitely imagine that a lot of very savvy designers and engineers might be put off by manipulative design decisions - but ultimately they may care more about the workplace environment that you claim as a company, the opportunity to be part of a growing business, etc.

I'm a touch on the pessimistic side with this one but these are my perceptions, partly based on experience and partly based on observing startup businesses evolve over time.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I am not sure if it is a dark pattern, but I hate it. Hidden tax/shipping costs. I have to go through the entire check out process, which is usually multiple screens, and requires a credit card to continue to find out how much shipping will be at the final confirmation screen. Is this done on purpose so they think people are already invested in the checkout, so they won't abandon it due to high shipping? Or notice shipping? I don't understand why not just give me an estimate based on fuzzy location before I start the checkout process, so I don't waste my time if the total cost is too high.

</comment><comment><USER22> And yet, AirBnb was tricking people into using their service by proxying machine generated emails through fake female personalities to bootstrap their service.

I think the real trick is to dark pattern in a way that isn't offensive/egregiously negative to the customer.

</comment><comment><USER23> I guess we need to make an distinction between short and long term conversion optimization.

How does a new and unexperienced customer at Ryanair feel when he sees the final amount he has to pay? It's obviously a good first conversion, but does it pay off a the second and third etc conversion for ryanair? Does he recommend the service?

He has other choices and the one that tricked him doesn't feel that good anymore...

Ergo: ryanair is optimizing short term conversion.

<comment><USER20> This is a problem with metrics in general.

Short-term metrics are easy but long-term metrics are hard because of complexity.

Also, quantifying human emotion (UX) is also hard.

It seems like great companies have to rely on ethics, company culture and vision to make due in the absence of long-term metrics.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> There a nice book on "evil design patterns" called Evil by Design [1]. It's interesting knowing how we are manipulated (and how we can manipulate others, not necessarily for bad reasons) through design.

1- [http://www.amazon.com/Evil-Design-Interaction-Lead- Temptatio...](http://www.amazon.com/Evil-Design-Interaction-Lead- Temptation/dp/1118422147)

</comment><comment><USER25> Recently I find it annoying that the button I don't want to click is all bright, blue and defaulted and the button I eventually want to click looks gray as if it is actually disabled.

Even google does this.

<comment><USER26> _Especially_ Google do this (everywhere they try to rope you into Google+)

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Cable providers have been the worst with this in my experience. No matter what you do it takes an ungodly amount of time to cancel service.

There was a great Behavioral Economics course on Coursera taught by Dan Ariely that touched on methods like these, as well as subtler ones. I think the slide on Organ Donation was from him. [https://class.coursera.org/behavioralecon-001/class](https://class.coursera.org/behavioralecon-001/class)

<comment><USER28> Preface: I really like what the site is showing, the below is more food for thought, and perhaps a wee-bit of direction for those looking to persue it deeper. Also forgive me, as it became time to proof read, it became beer time.

</comment></comment><comment>=====

I'm glad someone brought up behavioral economics...

Below I've pasted the abstract for the original paper, organ donor paper [1]:

"The well-documented shortage of donated organs suggests that greater effort should be made to increase the number of individuals who decide to become potential donors. We examine the role of one factor: the no-action default for agreement. We first argue that such decisions are constructed in response to the question, and therefore influenced by the form of the question. We then describe research that shows that presumed consent increases agreement to be a donor, and compare countries with opt-in (explicit consent) and opt-out (presumed consent) defaults. Our analysis shows that opt-in countries have much higher rates of apparent agreement with donation, and a statistically significant higher rate of donations, even with appropriate statistical controls. We close by discussing the costs and benefits associated with both defaults as well as mandated choice"

1.) I think what the website is trying to illustrate, is more specific instances where this is applied for bad (fair critique!). However, I think the abstract above bring up an interesting question:

If the framing of an option(s) is causal [2] to it's propensity to be chosen; can one really be upset that their indifference is manipulated?

I want to talk about the "good" application of this which is (arguably?) donating organs. It saves lives, and as it turns out, is dependent strictly on our indifference [3]. I suppose I'm inviting criticism, but what's wrong with that? The idea of saving a life, by most, is considered noble [4]. Even more so, if it was, indeed, important for us to conciously decide on-- why wouldn't we [5]?

If it said:

"Check the box to not be shot with a shotgun, at a distance of 3 feet, in the face, immediately after you turn this in?"

... after a few incidents, social knowledge would spread of the option to drive awareness. It's cost would be measured, most likely choosing indifference would be greater than. I would like to propose the juxtaposition of awareness, reaction, and marginal cost to us is quite large. The point: one is important for us and one is not, the effort to spread awareness or be aware is greater than the potential(?) gain.

In the case of these businesses framing options for increasing profits, not that I think it's right [6], but is it really that dark? Aren't we essentially indifferent to the costs? Is that reason enough to be upset? Have any of these examples shown a cost which exceeds the cost of cognitively reasoning about it? If they have, and you do not opt-out, is there reason to be upset since the marginal utility of not-opting out is, matter of fact, greater to you, than opting out.

2.) If the examples shown on "Dark Patterns" are evil to you:

learn about behavior economics and to spread the knowledge you gain.

Learn about the roots, not symptoms, because the amount of change/awareness you'll be able to make is greater. Yes, it can be applied poorly, to decieve, but it's also can be applied for good. Being aware will make you less susceptible (not always, that's the gambler's fallacy) to mallace and probably make you insist on it for good (e.g. organ donating).

A great Behavioral Economics paper, that also cites the original organ donor work[1] is "Maps of Bounded Rationality: Psychology for Behavioral Economics" by Daniel Kahneman [7].

I think the exploration, and awareness, of the application of framing (menu) options is great. I just hope it doesn't stop there :)

[1] "Defaults and Donation Decisions" Author(s): Eric J. Johnson and Daniel G. Goldstein Source: [http://www8.gsb.columbia.edu/sites/decisionsciences/files/fi...](http://www8.gsb.columbia.edu/sites/decisionsciences/files/files/Defaults_and_Donation_Decisions_- _Transplantation.pdf)

[2] Yeah I said it, causal. I ain't talkin' no correlations 'ere. It's like a hypothesis but less complete ...it's actually for emphasis not a to say I believe it's a physical law (ex. the speed of light).

[3] Using marginal utility is a way to remove indifference (I think it [indifference] is too hard to meaningfully measure) while maintaining the same conclusion. The marginal utility of filling out a form quickly, is greater than spending time deeply analyzing the cost and benefits of such a choice...

[4] Noble: having or showing fine personal qualities or high moral principles and ideals. Source: Mac OS X Dictionary; definition. 2

[5] I find refuting this, in any sense, to be concerning and disheartening-- that is to suggest that a majority of people are inherently incapable. Should that be the case then I propose we as a species are incapable and prone to deciptive tactics. That would mean you too; you're no snowflake.

[6] I believe it's a symptom.

[7] "Maps of Bounded Rationality: Psychology for Behavioral Economics" Author(s): Daniel Kahneman Source: The American Economic Review, Vol. 93, No. 5 (Dec., 2003), pp. 1449-1475

</comment><comment><USER29> Many of these could just as easily be the result of really bad UI design, especially when there are "technical constraints"—the RyanAir example in particular reeks of an opt-out being jammed haphazardly into an existing form to avoid adding another control.

Hanlon's Razor, yadda yadda. These patterns aren't any better if they're accidents, of course, but there'd at least be a chance that the offending company would fix them.

<comment><USER20> I used to work for a magazine who had specialists come in who recommended this kind of crap.

This is not simply bad design.. these things are very deliberate and usually controversial within these companies that implement these tactics.

Its a pretty standard story where Marketing is pushing for short term gains while IT/Web is thinking about the big picture.

<comment><USER29> Oh, I don't doubt that it's sometimes—or even often—deliberate. But if a UI is implemented badly, no one complains (because no one ever does), and the number of purchases/signups/whatever goes up, why would anyone bother trying to "fix" it?

<comment><USER20> Customer research brings it up.. if anyone is listening.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> A possible example of this is how the 'Clear Browsing Data' button in chrome for android has been moved to an inconspicious location away from the other settings, if you have an android device i invite you to see how easily you can find it without looking it up.

<comment><USER31> I fail to see what would be 'dark' in the first place about making it hard to clear local browsing data on a single-user device.

<comment><USER32> Chrome is a web browser created (largely) by Google. Google makes their money (largely) from web advertising. Web advertising is far more effective if you can use things like cookies to decide what ads to show to people.

So the claim is that Google has an incentive to make it harder to clear local browsing data than if they just considered it from the perspective of what users would want.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I love the redesign of darkpatterns.org.

I am looking forward to the form to submit a dark pattern. Keep up the great work!

</comment><comment><USER33> GoDaddy is the grandpa of auto-optins and upsells, should of been mentioned there.</comment>


Take interest in the things you find interesting - <AUTHOR> http://blog.pieratt.com/post/65443068575/take-interest-in-the-things-you-find

<comment><USER2> It does sounds rather obvious. But, I can see myself thinking about this more consciously in the coming days because of this post.

<comment><AUTHOR> That's what originally struck me as well.

It's easy to get carried away with falsely believing we're interested in something from a macro perspective when in reality the only thing(s) we really care about are micro or otherwise specific.

<comment><USER2> There's also often a difference between what we think we're interested in and what we're actually interested in.

I once read a quote that said something along the lines of "the movies at the bottom of your Netflix queue are who you want to be (Documentaries), but the ones at the top are who you really are (Action Films)".</comment></comment></comment>


IBM Offers To Move Laid Off Workers To India, China, and Brazil - <AUTHOR> http://www.informationweek.com/news/management/outsourcing/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=213000389 <comment><USER2> Ofshoring not just work, but workers. I can see why a lot of people would be sensitive about the idea, particularly given the current economic problems.

But I think if I were in that situation (financial freefall), a complete reboot of my life could be appealing. Each country / city / company is reacting to the upheaval differently, and IBM is offering a way to get in on that.

Here in Australia for example, the vibe I get is that everyone needs to tighten their belts a bit (or a lot) for a few years, but that's no reason we can't still enjoy life. A big contrast with how those people are feeling now.

<comment><USER3> But once you're there, how do you get back? Sure you might be well paid in that market but if you're not earning Western money then you're starting again from scratch when you return. And if you've been doing legacy work, with an obsolete skillset too.

I can see how this would be good for IBM, I can't see how it would be good for an individual worker.

<comment><USER4> Depends. How many of the workers in question may have originally come from (or have family/friends) in India/China..

Still - you'd obviously be taking a substantial pay cut.

<comment><USER5> If your taking more than a 30% pay cut your probably better off in the US. Housing is cheaper but buying a new car, computer, etc is about the same price. And you need to massively increase your retirement savings rate. You also miss out on SS, Medicare etc.

Retiring to India can be a great Idea and doing so in your late 40's is vary possible, but working there seems like a bad idea.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Intel made a similar offer to a group of engineers it laid off when I was working there, around 2003. So many people took them up on it they blew their budget and had to rescind the offer.

</comment><comment><USER7> Brazil (Brasil) is an amazing country. The people of Brazil are, from my experience, the best people in the world to live with. I spent 22 months in Brazil during 1995 and 1996.

If you can't find a job where you are, sometimes you just have to move. Even if moving is hard, you have to work. Move to another state or if you are lucky Brazil! Portuguese is a beautiful language and not that hard to learn.

</comment><comment><USER8> I'd like to work in Brazil, it's fun there!</comment>


Humpback whales are organizing in huge numbers, and we have no idea why - <AUTHOR> http://www.popsci.com/humpback-whales-are-organizing <comment><USER2> The hell we don't, they made a documentary about it years and years ago.

[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0092007/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0092007/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1)

</comment><comment><USER3> Was this a serious article? Its pop-culture references and opinionated run-on sentences made me sicker than a whale watching boat on rough seas.</comment>


Tesla confirms Model S Plaid ~7:20 time at Nürburgring - <AUTHOR> https://electrek.co/2019/09/19/tesla-model-s-plaid-time-nurburgring-coming-back/ <comment><USER2> Impressive given the fact the Porsche costs a lot more too.

<comment><USER3> Not impressive given the fact that you can't actually buy one.</comment></comment>


Ward Cunningham's DSL for teensy microcontrollers - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/WardCunningham/Txtzyme/blob/master/README.markdown

<comment><USER2> It reminds me of the False programming language (<http://strlen.com/false- language>), versions of which I've implemented on small micros I've worked on for similar purposes. False is a tiny but fairly powerful stack-based language the author originally implemented a _compiler_ for in 1024 bytes of 68k machine code. False pulls some great ideas from Forth and (anachronistically) Factor.

Perhaps it's because of the AT90USB162's RAM restrictions (512 bytes), but it seems having a "stack" of just one item and non-nestable loops is pretty restrictive. Oh, and no + - * / operators.

I don't think adding nestable loops and a stack of say 5 items (10 bytes of RAM) and math operators would hurt much, and it'd certainly add to the power of a language like this -- perhaps changing it from a tiny debugging tool to a useful "scripting" language.

</comment><comment><USER3> This looks like the start of a journey that ends with something like:

<http://amforth.sourceforge.net/>

or:

<http://krue.net/avrforth/>

</comment><comment><USER4> > _WardCunningham is using GitHub to share code with you!_

The times they are a-changing.</comment>