Online dating → when limiting the technology is actually a good thing - <AUTHOR> A dating app that only shows singles currently in bars and cafés around you. And that's all it does. The rest is on you ;-)
The goal is to make dating social and fun again, by removing all virtual interactions and keeping just the right amount of technology.
→ Short intro video: https://youtu.be/rWuDLKnzXYY (it's a fun one!)
→ Website: https://singlespotapp.com/
→ App Store: https://apple.co/2UPXCNq
→ Google Play: https://bit.ly/2uk71kW <comment> some-guy-638451 I do like the idea of making it simpler... but also feel like I'd be really putting myself out there, and have this fear that I'd wake up in a bathtub somewhere missing a kidney.

<comment><USER2> wow... is that really a thing? I used to hear rumours/urban legends like this of certain venues when I was in my early days of nightclubbing... before I went away to college, living at home and the rumours were about venues in nearby $BIG_CITY

That was in the mid 90's...

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Great idea</comment>


Ruby on Rails: the Duplo generation - <AUTHOR> http://railsontherun.com/2008/3/17/rails-the-duplo-generation <comment><USER2> Uh... if we're going to argue that way, we could say that Matz and Guido did the same thing by creating those easy to use languages that don't make real men out of their users like C did. Or that the C language took all the pain out of assembly that made users tough...

<comment><USER3> It's kind of silly to try and lump Python in with Ruby. Ruby's sold itself on how easy it makes web development and how you don't have to learn very much to be productive with the language. To use Python you need to know a fair bit about what's going on with the language. I'm not sure the same thing could be said for Ruby on Rails.

<comment><USER4> The other piece is that it takes a bit less time to learn a fair bit about Python.

Regardless of the merits of each language, Python has a lower barrier to entry. With Python, it only takes a half day to get used to the language. While I picked up enough to be comfortable in a subset of Ruby in a day, reading code isn't always as obvious to a newbie because of the numerous rubyisms that one encounters, especially with metaprogramming.

As such, it is going to take Rails developers longer to be able to meaningfully code plugins. The impedance mismatch leads to the Duplo syndrome here.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I like Rails a lot because it allows me to focus on concept and less on the actual code. If anything does pan out (which might happend 5% of the time if I go through enough concepts), then it's time to revisit whether or not Rails is the appropriate framework -- IF there are issues with it.

I get tons of ideas; Rails _and_ Ruby together (I cannot begin to tell you how valuable Watir is) afford me enough speed so that I can prove if the concept is worthwhile while at the same time have something to build upon towards a production application. I could easily do the same in Java (what I use 40 hours/week), but I'd spend an equal amount of time on coding as I do on concept/design.

The fact that I don't have to worry much about coding components from scratch is useful specifically because I have a day job! Even if I didn't have a day job, I'd be cranking out more concepts using Rails than I would with Java.

So what if Rails lowers the barriers to entry for writing a web application?

<comment><USER3> Lowering barriers is good. However, if you didn't actually understand how Rails was making life easier for you, wouldn't that be a problem?

<comment><USER6> Completely agree. I've been saying to anyone who will listen that Rails is not for people who are new to web development, nor for people who were never willing to learn how certain things in web development work.

However, marketing of Rails was such as to invite the newbies in. These newbies will also complain the loudest when a certain plugin doesn't play well with their code or with other plugins. However, we cannot expect them to contribute, since they are not fully aware how Rails works anyway.

<comment><USER5> perhaps DHH is justified in saying "fuck you" to all those people who don't know better...

But I do agree with you - to a point. There are all sorts who liken Rails to the pixie dust of the year ("BUT IT'S BUILT IN RAILS SO IT MUST BE COOL!!"), but I just ignore them and go back to what I was working on.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> All developers should start from scratch, create their own languages, compilers, operating systems and framework.

If they don't they don't deserve to get their right of passage and will never be mensa, spartan or ninjas

I havent used RoR, but what I always thought, was that even RoR is too hard, you still code from scratch, a better approach for RAD should make you start from a GUI/IDE and let you add code when needed something like VB6 only better!

<comment><USER8> Your first sentence was gold.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> "The problem is that a generation of Rubyists has grown up being used to getting everything pre written for them. "

A _generation_?

Hyperbole much?

</comment><comment><USER10> A plugin by the newbies this author is so down on would probably not be a plugin you'd want to use. It's cool that they're learning rails, why begrudge them the chance to learn on the framework or harangue them for not writing plugins? The natural learning curve of ruby/rails is nice in that mostly people can create plugins when they've climbed mount ruby on rails, but not sooner.

Everyone was a beginner once.

</comment><comment><USER11> I think the ability to put things together from someone else's code is a good thing. Of course, I'm just getting old, lazy and cynical. But there's limited virtue, IMO, in creating something from scratch if Duplo-style development achieves results which are just as good.

Thoroughly take his point about whiny users though. Unfortunately, if you commit to an open source project that's just part of the scenery and you have to live with it.

</comment><comment><USER12> "Regular" size Lego fits onto Duplo -- including Technics.</comment>


Kara Swisher: Tech's Most Powerful Snoop - <AUTHOR> http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/07/kara-swisher-silicon-valleys-most-powerful-snoop.html

<comment><USER2> Swisher may be a powerful snoop. She may even be the "best" tech journalist out there. I still think that tech journalism by and large is either a PR machine or an Entertainment Tonight for Silicon Valley.

Serious tech journalism is lacking - both in the mainstream media and from traditional tech sources.

IMO the topics that are huge issues that have largely gone uncovered (though some have now gained steam):

      - Energy Use/Efficiency of tech
      - Governance of the Internet
      - Privacy (until recently - sort of [and it still gets buried])
      - Software copyright issues
      - Market/monetary prospects for new tech
        (I think the article sort of talks about the fear of
         "crushing innovation")
      - Energy tech itself (new forms of power generation, batteries)
      - Tech in our lives (and I'm not talking about the fear card)
         - autonomous vehicles, medical devices, etc.

Simply put, there are huge policy questions and tech issues that the public needs to be educated about and need to be discussed - and very few journalists are doing it.

<comment><USER3> Part of the issue is people are used to free. Journalism costs money, and if your skilled enough in tech to write the in depth article, your probably going to get a job in the field rather than writing about it.

Some of the problem is its hard to have a business supported by advertising that reviews products from the same companies that are advertising.

My cousin found this out many many years ago when his news station produced a segment "should you buy or lease a car". There was reaction from the car dealers who were advertisers.

Same problem as game reviews have.

I miss AllThingsD which Kara was a writer for.

<comment><USER4> A lot of this is sad and true. There are a lot of problems at play, and one of the biggest is the brutal reality of the economics of journalism. It's a TAM issue, or at least most publications perceive it to be one. There are millions of people who will read free, throw-away posts about gossip, snarky commentary, quick gadget reviews, and rumors. There are maybe tens of thousands of people who will read in-depth, highly detailed, highly technical, highly sophisticated discussions of deeper issues. "Tl;dr" is a reality most outlets have to contend with. So is the general popularity of "snackable" content, as well as the relatively low economic cost of producing it. The ROI is much higher for any advertising-supported business.

Some people are exploring alternatives. Jessica Lessin, Ben Thompson, and others are trying to make a living selling subscriptions to nominally smaller audiences who will pay for more in-depth coverage and analysis. I couldn't tell you how well they are actually doing, however, and I'd be lying if I said I was optimistic about the ability of that model to do much more than break even. Others, especially those who sell ebooks and online courses, tend to do pretty well for themselves -- but they're not really in the journalism business so much as the ebook-selling business. While I support and celebrate their success, their success does not necessarily solve the dilemma of what's to be done about the economics of journalism.

What I like about the tech press is that a lot of the players involved are pretty smart. You generally find intelligent, analytical bloggers and writers covering this industry. What I don't like about the tech press is that so much of it is PR-driven puffery. That's where the money is, and that's how journalists negotiate access to the up-to-the-minute information that every outlet is always fighting to get.

The alternative to PR-driven, late-breaking news sites is in-depth, analytical sites. But again, the TAM there is probably small, and the willingness to pay is uncertain.

 _" if your skilled enough in tech to write the in depth article, your probably going to get a job in the field rather than writing about it."_

Generally true. I can tell you from personal experience that it's _damned_ hard to make a living as a journalist, especially if you have the skill set to make a viable alternative of working on the industry side. Journalism has one of the lowest payoff-to-effort ratios in the professional world. (Unless you're one of the lucky few who can make a killing on bestselling books.) I've spent the last 10 years on the industry side, making a very respectable living doing so. I switched over to journalism early last year. My income dropped by about 75%, and I'm working much harder than I ever have. And I'm one of the lucky few who landed a great agent and great editorial connections right out of the gate. It's a tough racket. Now, I've got two choices in front of me as I look toward 2015: try to become a "rockstar" and sell a book proposal or two; or pack it in and go back to an industry job. For now I'm still foolish enough to be having a go at the journalism route. But industry employment is looking better and better with every passing month.

A friend of mine, who is a reasonably successful musician, put it to me this way: some lines of work are very rewarding to the average worker. Other lines of work punish all but the top decile, if not the 99th percentile. Journalism, like rock music, is one of those professions. I wouldn't advise anyone go into it unless they truly believe they can be among the best in the world at it. And being the best in the world at it involves a _lot_ more than merely being a good writer.

<comment><USER5> Just a note that we're working on this problem here at Beacon (W14): [http://beaconreader.com](http://beaconreader.com). Would welcome your feedback!

<comment><USER4> I have seen you guys before on here, and I am generally rooting for your model to work. :) Selfishly speaking, but also unselfishly speaking, I really want there to be a model that both incentivizes great content _and_ encourages people to support writers for their work. I'm also very happy to see that you guys allow writers to keep their IP rights. That's a big issue for writers, obviously, and not all platform-publishers understand as much.

I also think there's a vast contingent of people out there who are great writers, but not necessarily great at self-hosting blogs and CMSes. So your solution makes a lot of sense for that segment.

I'll definitely check it out in greater depth.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> "Swisher talked over him and made her way around the table, hugging Rose and insulting blogger turned venture capitalist MG Siegler to his girlfriend..."

Did anybody else actually read stuff like this and get angry? Is this what passes for "journalism"? Being a bully at social occasions you weren't invited to?

I'm reminded of the old saw about why animal rights activists protest old ladies wearing fur and not Hell's Angels wearing leather ...

<comment><USER7> There's no quicker way of making yourself appear high-status than acting like you're better than the other big players at the table. Being a bully is the name of the game.

<comment><USER8> The catch is that there's no better way to appear low-status than pretending to be high status. When someone acts like a bully, it's a key clue that they don't have anything to offer and are using misdirection to try and pretend that they do. Most people who do have something to offer won't fall for it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9>
        "then, for good measure, threw in: "He also dresses like a
        lesbian, but it's okay." (This is a go-to Swisher barb;
        she told Twitter CEO Dick Costolo he dresses "like
        Ellen.")"

I don't know about anyone else, but this strikes me as remarkably unprofessional. Would such comments be acceptable in a workplace if they were about a co-worker? If not, than why is it acceptable to speak similarly about people you cover. How Tony Conrad and Dick Costolo dress is orthogonal to what she focuses on as a journalist.

</comment><comment><USER10> "Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people."

\-- Unknown

<comment><USER11> How do you eat while you're waiting for your ideas to pay off though? I find it helps to keep up with industry trends and trendsetters.

<comment><USER12> What are you implying, that Swisher has ideas that will someday pay off differently than the gig she has going now?

<comment><USER11> I mean that big ideas rarely pay off in the short term. Many of us need to dirty our hands with mundane human concerns in order to survive, even if we are focused on ideas rather than events or people. I'm sure Swisher is not planning on switching to research.

<comment><USER10> Like an article about a reporter? That seems mostly to be about the famous people the reporter knows?

How exactly does that help you survive?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I never actually read anything she wrote, but I can't really stand her after watching her in the Steve Jobs & Bill Gates D5 Conference: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LUGU0xprUo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LUGU0xprUo)

</comment><comment><USER14> When Steve Jobs was at the D8 conference back in 2010, I just felt that Kara was always breaking the flow and that Jobs was almost ignoring her.

</comment><comment><USER15> Kara Swisher is genuinely great, and less of a PR agency / water carrier than Techcrunch. Good on her, and its good to see good journalism flourishing.

</comment><comment><USER16> What's going on with the lead image? It's neat but the lighting is confusing my brain.

<comment><USER3> aggressive shadow lightening. Some sharpening too.

<comment><USER16> Makes sense.

I typically dislike the look of boosting shadows, and wouldn't here if it weren't for the interesting composition/pattern of people.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Fantastic writeup.</comment>


Siri for Continuous Deployment - <AUTHOR> http://eng.wealthfront.com/2011/11/siri-for-continuous-deployment.html

<comment><USER2> cool</comment>


Startups are Financial Suicide - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@mikeknapp/startups-are-financial-suicide-e36143e4c3ca <comment><USER2> The point here (which seemed to be muddled in the post) is that you can't assume that your startup succeeds and not save with that expectation.

Its not that startups are financial suicide - the suicide is not saving and not keeping the personal burn rate low.

A clearer way of saying the same point - keep on saving like a regular employee would - you will protect yourself in case startup fails. Do not assume that the startup succeeds and have no safety net. That sets up for a disaster.

<comment> ramen-san To put a finer point on that, it's important to remember not all startups succeed. We never hear the TechCrunch stories about the startup that quietly shuts down, or was sold to make the investors whole, leaving founders and employees holding the bag.

Reality is starting your own startup is a very risky proposition. Huge upside potential (serious generational wealth), but tons of downside scenarios. If financial security is important to you, then pursuing a more measured approach to reaching some basic level of financial independence is probably a good idea before going that route - I write a lot about this here: [https://ramenretirement.com/](https://ramenretirement.com/)

On the other hand, starting or joining a startup can be a huge accelerator to career and skills growth. You'll get opportunities you'd have to wait years for at a larger company. That's (arguably) the best reason to join someone else's startup.

<comment><USER3> Interestingly the startup I joined had work very similar to the big established company I work for now - cleaning up someone else mess and trying to keep it running.

<comment> ramen-san Ha! No doubt. No shortage of schleps and 'tech debt' at startups too. But if the company is doubling every year it will hard to not be swept up by that rising tide in terms of seniority and responsibility.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> > We raised over $25m and sold millions of dollars of product to real > customers.

I don't fully get this part, even if the startup wasn't financialy viable, why didn't he pay himseslf something around $10-35k per month as CEO? He won't have his savings crushed now, and probably made money for himself. Maybe I am missing something obvious.

<comment><USER5> >Why didn't he pay himseslf something around $10-35k per month as CEO?

I take you've never planned a startup budget before ;). Try running the numbers on how much it costs to run a startup with 5 employees for 3 years given $2m. You can't afford to pay the CEO $35k/month because you will run out of money far to quickly.

<comment><USER6> You are right, but paying a founder $120k/y is totally fine when you raised $25m. It's more than that, money shouldn't be a problem for founders, so that they can focus 100% on their company.

This subject has been discussed over and over again by top tier VCs !

<comment><USER7> Why would a founder of a start-up need 120k$/y though? Are they saving to buy a property? Renting in an extremely expensive place? Perhaps hiring servants?

If none of this happens (and I bet some of this could be set add cost of business) yore just filling your bank account with VC money and reducing the chances of success.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Everyone over-extrapolates based on personal circumstances.

On one end you have guys like Paul Graham and Peter Thiel that truly believe in the startup way of life.

On the other end, you have people that quit their job at Google, posted a "Why I left Google to do a startup" article on medium, and then ended up regretting the decision years later.

Most people that start companies are either people that are unemployable and can't help themselves, or employable people that could do well in more traditional career paths. If you're in the employable group, I think it's important not to start a company for the sake of doing it because it's cool. The type of startup becomes really important. As an old man, would you regret not trying to solve this particular problem that you're passionate about? It's different for serial entrepreneurs / hustlers, who are always scheming for new ways of making money no matter what.

<comment><USER9> Or: at one end you have people who got really lucky and at the other end have people who didn't--and walked away from a fairly sure thing in the process. Grass is greener and all that.

There are definitely people who just wouldn't be happy any other way. And people who are at least seemingly in the right place at the right time to give it a shot.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> For some context, the _" startup"_ in question appears to be an online woman's shoe website.

[https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/shoes-of- prey](https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/shoes-of-prey)

I would hope this Founder has more to share in retrospective explaining the true reasons for suicide, such as:

      * The margins of an online retail shoe business are poor (typically single digit).

      * The costs of carrying unsold inventory will bury a company in debt.

      * Being the first to deliver a product online is not a sustainable competitive advantage.

      * Amazon is crushing everyone in retail.

<comment><USER11> For some context on why it might have seemed like a good idea at the time (April 2009):

* Zappos hadn't been acquired yet by Amazon (July 2009)

* Amazon failed to compete with Endless (launched in 2007)

* Shoes seemed like a great vertical at the time : Zappos did 1B in revenue in 2008 (vs 19B for Amazon) and competitors were popping up all over the world (Zalando launched in 2008)

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> The mistake many founders make is not analyzing the financial impact of doing a startup in the context of their entire life, both before and after a startup. You can mitigate much of the financial risk by choosing the right times in your life/finances to do a startup and having a plan for executing the startup that minimizes the downside if you fail. It is a long-term financial modeling exercise that let's you optimize the risk-reward ratio.

Too many founders, myself included at one time, start companies because the passion strikes without seriously considering if their finances/life are well- positioned to minimize long-term downside or the constraints on the startup required to ensure that failure doesn't empty your bank account. If you are careful and thoughtful about when and how you do a startup, the downside risk can often be a reduced rate of financial growth (versus a normal job) rather than financial ruin. It is quite possible to build startups without jeopardizing your financial future but it requires some diligence and discipline.

<comment><USER13> could you expand on this - sounds interesting

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> >"Over 90% of startups die"

One of those widely repeated number, but not true: number is below 60%.

[https://www.google.com/amp/amp.timeinc.net/fortune/2017/06/2...](https://www.google.com/amp/amp.timeinc.net/fortune/2017/06/27/startup- advice-data-failure)

<comment><USER15> > Cambridge Associates, a global investment firm based in Boston, tracked the > performance of venture investments in 27,259 startups between 1990 and 2010. > Its research reveals that the real percentage of venture-backed startups > that fail—as defined by companies that provide a 1X return or less to > investors—has not risen above 60% since 2001. Even amid the dotcom bust of > 2000, the failure rate topped out at 79%.

I am wildly skeptical of these numbers, and could not find the actual study after a quick search on Google. It seems to ignore seed investments for starters, and many "exits" (acquihires) aren't public information, so how they quantify this is ambiguous.

If we consider a startup to begin when someone decides to quit their job and work on it full-time and a successful exit as a positive ROI to most investors in less than 10 years, I'd estimate the number as closer to 99% (most people never get any funding for their startups at all). Of course, I have no hard numbers to back that up.

<comment><USER9> It would be hard to really quantify. You have everything from worked nights and weekends for a year and nothing ever came of it to acquihires with a nice but modest payout to breakeven acquisitions to IPOs or other big exits. I'm sure if you include friends & family money (or personal money) and sweat equity the failure rate goes way up.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> For the curious the startup was Shoe of Prey, I think "bespoke, hand-made women's shoes designed by the customer"

The article is a bit light on details.

forbes [https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidhochman/2017/05/31/shoes-o...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidhochman/2017/05/31/shoes- of-prey-delivers-womens-custom-footwear-in-two-weeks-at-retail- prices/#65d420d23971)

crunchbase [https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/shoes-of- prey](https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/shoes-of-prey)

</comment><comment><USER17> Pretty sure all new businesses are startups. Many just don't work, part of entrepreneurship.

</comment><comment><USER18> Sound advice.. a sobering note for anyone looking to get into a startup like myself..

<comment><USER19> Yes! And if you're actually heeding this advice it means you're smarter than most. BUT this should not stop you either - just need to find a way to work around it. :)

Essentially you should calculate your opportunity cost. And then figure out a dollar number you are willing to lose. So lets say you save $10k per year. Also assume that you will reduce your lifestyle so as to spend only 2k/month (including medical insurance) on living expenses to start your company.

So for a year of unpaid work you will be down the hole of 24k + $10k + $6k (it will take 3 months to get a job after 1 year of being an entreprenur) + $10k in incidentals (server hosting costs to seeing the doc a few times). So thats a total of $50k. Now thats in fantasy land or Utah.

In NYC and SF you're looking at probably $120k or more per year if living in decent housing. The more you make the higher this number becomes, becuase of the opportunity costs.

So its should become very apparent to you that you need to raise money if you start a startup in SF or NYC. Else move somewhere else immediately.

It should also make apparent that you should work as much as possible in your free time before quitting.

After this you should put a number in your savings account after which you will quit entrepreneruship. So say on hitting $100k in your bank account (after starting with $200k) you'll quit.

People focus too much on just their monthly bill and I think thats the biggest mistake. The opprotunity cost is very very real. You don't get that time back.

<comment><USER6> What about the learning/experience that goes with a "failed" startup? Can we put a number on it? I think so !

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> > To be clear, my startup is still very much alive and, apparently, well. I > left the company over a year ago. I might get a return in the future...

This kind of takes the bite out of his argument.

<comment><USER9> Well, he's arguing that he spent close to 10 years (in his 20s/30s ?) depleting his savings. But, yeah, "financial suicide" seems a bit strong. Lots of people get grad degrees and take jobs that don't work out (and don't save as much as they probably should) during that period. Of course, there have also been a couple of serious stock market dips during the past 20 years even for people who did save.

As other have said, "don't bank on the home run" is good advice but if the worst you do is to give something you really want to do a try when you're young and it doesn't work out financially, you'll probably still be fine.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> As someone who has spent a significant part of his career (and income) in startups, I strongly agree with this succinct advice. Particularly the bit about the 401K.

</comment><comment><USER22> There are more things to optimize for in life than finances. :-)

</comment><comment><USER23> Ain't all companies used to be startups?

<comment><USER24> Something I learned from reading enough HN, is that "startup" specifically refers to companies that are started for the purpose of ultimately being sold. This is as opposed to a so called "lifestyle business," which you expect to operate and produce an income to support yourself and your family.

Of course these businesses can look similar from a distance, one can turn into the other, and it's possible to bet wrong on which category your business should align itself with.

<comment><USER10> More specifically, the equity in a "startup" is not solely owned by the founder(s). There are liquidity exit expectations within 7 years.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> This is meaningless article.

I think this is common sense that when you are starting business, you have to adjust your life style to that. Suddenly, you won't be getting regular hefty paycheck from Google and have to rely on your business income. If the income is not able to sustain your current life style, you have to adjust otherwise you will burn through your cash. That is reasonable in the short term, but should ring a bell if it takes more than 1 year to be able to live from your startup salary.

On the top of that, you have to adjust the company to the "startup" budget as well. I have seen so many people go nuts with hiring, benefits and useless spending after getting large seed or series A.

<comment><USER19> Thats like saying weight loss is common sense and theres no need to talk about diabetes.

Also building muscle and weightlifting is common sense and thus theres no need to talk about growing old.

And finding the right spouse is common sense and theres no need to talk about divorce.

<comment><USER25> ohh c'mon this is childish argument, we can do better no?

Have you read the article? It does explain why they, after 9 years of hard work, end-up having financial issues. What was the reason for them to not to have financial viable product? Was it cause of over-hiring; over-engineering; wrong market? There are always problems in companies, so what was the unique experience they have that they can confidently put all startups into one bucket and say: "Look this bucket, this is suicide bucket!".</comment></comment></comment>


Ohio State Study: Marijuana may facilitate neurogenesis - <AUTHOR> http://www.osu.edu/news/newsitem2227

<comment><AUTHOR> Now, while I submitted this article because I feel it is important to disseminate this information, I do have a few qualms with it.

For one: "The research suggests that the development of a legal drug that contains certain properties similar to those in marijuana might help prevent or delay the onset of Alzheimer's disease."

There already _is_ a drug that contains properties similar to marijuana -- it's marijuana. While it may not be legal at the present time, I believe that it is important to, instead of attempting to find a synthetic alternative (which would be far easier to mass produce/sell/market/monopolize) attempt to reconcile the discrepancies within the pro/anti-cannabis legislature to better suit the needs of our current condition.

That said, I was even more disappointed with the article's implication that marijuana is "immoral."

I feel as if these students are forced to adjust to the conditions of their academic system, rather than challenge what they might believe to be fallacious. As a scientific objectivist, this struck me at my core.

<comment><USER2> politics can only corrupt science, never help it.

<comment><AUTHOR> Well certainly that's because politicians are not scientists. Assuming we had infinite money and resources, scientists would not need to request grants from institutions.

In a perfect world, we would have no need for politicians because all desires would be maintained and there would be no competition over resources. A politician's job is to serve the greatest vocal majority, or the welfare of the people as a whole (if the majority is not acting in their own best interest).

However, science is squashed by these vocal majorities, as well as by politicians who don't understand the importance of the undergoing scientific research. I believe that it is ignorance which is the greatest enemy of science, not politics.

It's a shame that we have to resort to pandering in order to receive funding.

<comment><USER2> social constructivism is at odds with science. democratic politics is social construcivism by your own admission.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Larry Page: I'd Rather Leave My Billions to Elon Musk Than to Charity - <AUTHOR> http://www.slate.com/blogs/business_insider/2014/03/20/google_ceo_larry_page_elon_musk_would_get_my_inheritance_over_charity.html <comment><USER3> I think this could be rephrased as "Charitable organizations aren't interesting enough to deserve my money."

People, especially highly successful people, view charity as giving money away. Musk's inspirational projects seems much more appealing by comparison. There is a lot of truth in the idea that doing something like colonizing mars could do more good for humanity than giving people enough money to eat for a day or a week. Even what Bill Gates is doing has little impact on people's daily lives here. Eradicating polio is the most noble of goals, but it takes place far away and the benefits are difficult to see.

I think the best solution is to make charity cool again. FDR turned giving money away into something that was literally awesome, using the Tennessee Valley Authority to reshape the landscape with bridges and dams. 21st century technology allows us to have a much larger impact on the lives of many more people, regardless of where they live. Elon Mush doesn't have a monopoly on big ideas. As a technology community it's up to us to come up with projects that help people in need while still capturing our imaginations.

It doesn't matter if big problems are solved for profit or solved for charity. What matters is that they get solved. The danger is that fiduciary responsibilities will get in the way of doing good, working families will take a backseat to boards of directors and the rich will get richer [1] while everyone else struggles to keep even. This is why it would be better to make charity more interesting as opposed to giving money to dynamic and inspirational profiteers. It's always been difficult to combine making money with being of benefit to the world, but we need to raise the entrepreneurial and creative bar now more than ever. When one of the authors of "Don't Be Evil" decides that his money is better off in the hands of private corporations it should be a warning to all of us.

[1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_effect](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_effect)

<comment><USER4> _I think the best solution is to make charity cool again... It doesn 't matter if big problems are solved for profit or solved for charity. What matters is that they get solved._

I think a lot of problems can be solved using a for profit model. I think, overall, it tends to be for the best if you can find a for profit model that is viable for the problem in question. I think the problem is not that it is for profit, I think the problem is that some for profit models are just not well suited to solving certain problems.

This is an idea I have thought a great deal about. I have a serious medical condition. I have spent the last 13 years getting myself well when doctors claim it cannot be done. I have come to believe that one of the problems is that doctors make their money off of treating illness. They do not actually make their money off of keeping you well. The more your treatment drags out, the more money they make.

I have heard that in China, they put a doctor on retainer and only pay him when they are well. So doctors in China only make money if you are well. I do not know how accurate this is or how effective, but, as someone who is getting well in part by avoiding the medical establishment, I feel very strongly that our current "health care system" is very broken and one of the things wrong with it is not that it is monetized but how it is monetized.

I have thought long and hard about how to try to share information about what worked for me. Given the negative reception my story gets almost everywhere I go, it may not be possible to help anyone else. But one thing I am clear about: I do not want to be "a consultant" and monetize the information much the way doctors get paid. Doctors in the U.S. mostly trade short term gains for long term costs. I got well by trading long term gains for short term costs as much as I could. When doctors put people like me on strong drugs, the drugs have a long handout listing the horrible side effects. But then as people like me get sicker and sicker, it is blamed on our disorder, not on the drug side effects. I have no desire to join doctors in following this model that allows them to charge big bucks and claim credit for the short term improvements while blaming long term deterioration on my condition. I believe that is a failed system and I believe the way it is monetized is part of why it goes down like that.

I think charity also tends to fail. Think of the very negative connotation for the phrase "charity case." I don't think we help people that much when we first have to write them off as losers before we do anything for them. Given that I have been homeless for over two years and left the soup kitchens and most other homeless services as soon as I could, yeah, I think my opinion on that is informed and not merely pontification of an unclued privileged person trying to justify not giving money away.

I don't have an answer. I mostly cannot get people to even engage me in discussion on the topic (of how I got well). But I agree much more with your statement about solving big problems and not caring if it is for profit or for charity than I do with your idea of making charity cool again. I do not really want charity. Charity has helped keep me alive but it is not going to get me off the street or restore me to a middle class lifestyle. I need to be taken seriously as a competent professional to achieve that. Being viewed as "a charity case" is the opposite of the professional respect and business connections I would prefer to achieve.

<comment><USER5> _I have heard that in China, they put a doctor on retainer and only pay him when they are well._

Since you indicated that you weren't sure if that is true, I can assure that it is not. Most doctors in China are paid formally by salary, and under the table by patients who can afford bribes on a fee-for-service basis.

<comment><USER4> Thanks. Let me clarify that my main point (in mentioning what I had heard about China) was that there are potential alternate paradigms for paying doctors which do not directly incentivize dragging out illness. In the U.S., one of the best hospitals we have also has doctors on salary. They make the same amount regardless of how many tests they order. They credit this with helping make sure the focus is on giving the patient the best possible care without any conflict of interest subconsciously influencing the doctor's treatment plan.

Have an upvote.

<comment><USER6> As I see it, there are only two fundamental ways to pay for health care: you can can pay for treatment as and when you need it, or you can pay a flat rate in exchange for treatment at no additional cost. Hopefully we can agree that the former option is barbaric, as you are effectively denying modern medicine to anyone not rich enough to cover it up-front, which is most people. The latter option is essentially health insurance. Paying the doctor a retainer only when you are well is tantamount to making your doctor a de-facto health insurer (and all of the horrible consequences that entails).

Insurance works off averages, so it works more efficiently the more people buy in. Logically then, the most efficient health insurance is where everyone buys in. Hence, the most efficient system is nationalized health insurance, which comes with many other benefits - for example, it lends massive bargaining power to the people for reasonable drug prices.

You state in your original comment "I feel very strongly that our current "health care system" is very broken and one of the things wrong with it is not that it is monetized but how it is monetized." This implies that you don't believe in socialized medicine. What in your opinion is wrong with it?

<comment><USER7> I'm from Germany. Once I was hit by a car on my bicycle. The driver wasn't looking and hit me. My hospitalization was paid for by a nationalized system of public and private insurers. A short trial was held for fault. I was awarded money that would cover replacing my bike and a few hundred more dollars for my troubles.

In the US, I probably would have gotten a large cash settlement out of the deal. But a nationalized system like that in most other first-world countries does not require tort-reform because effectively the commitment to your health, cradle to grave, is a given.

Paying doctors piece-meal, like assembly-line workers or auto mechanics, creates perverse incentives and only tangentially works towards good outcomes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Frankly, I'd rather he leave it to Bill Gates.

Going to Mars may be sexy, but stomping out Polio makes millions of lives better.

Its hard to realize that, I suppose, when your life is in the bubble of a limo. That's honestly what makes Bill Gates second act so amazing.

<comment><USER9> The stated reason for going to Mars is to create a backup population for humanity. If a major asteroid impacts earth (or any other Extinction Level Event) then potentially every human will be as dead as those killed by Polio.

<comment><USER8> I think what rubs me the wrong way about this is giving it to a for-profit enterprise.

If Elon is willing to step down and run a non-profit to get to Mars, I'm all for it. But I suspect he isn't willing to do that. This is about profit - which isn't bad - but its not charity and therefore is very unlikely in the end to help the bottom 10%.

<comment><USER10> No one invests in a non-profit. Investors want ROI and going to mars is pretty capital intensive.

EDIT: correct me if I am wrong, but YC doesn't expect to make a RIO with Watsi. They just want to make the world a better place. It is a donation not an investment. Most VCs are not that nice.

EDIT: EDIT: Found it: "Since some people were confused when we funded Watsi, I'd better clarify that the money we're putting into the nonprofits will be a charitable donation, rather than an investment in the narrow sense. We won't have any financial interest in them." Link here: [http://ycombinator.com/np.html](http://ycombinator.com/np.html)

<comment><USER11> Watsi is the first non-profit Y Combinator is backing.

[http://ycombinator.com/watsi.html](http://ycombinator.com/watsi.html)

Disclaimer: HUGE Watsi fan.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> What's the difference between giving your money to Gates vs Musk?

Here's one way to look at it: When you give your money to Gates you generally know what you're going to get - stamping up diseases, immunisation and lots of other great stuff.

When you give your money to Musk, you don't. It's much less clear. You don't know what problems he's going to tackle. You don't know how he's going to tackle them. And you don't know if he'll succeed.

1\. Giving your money to Bill is like investing in a tried-and-tested branch of science or technology with measurable possible outcomes.

2\. Giving your money to Elon is like investing in an absolutely cutting-edge branch of science. At the absolute bleeding-edge. Maybe even beyond the bleeding-edge.

Both are important. Here's a story to show you why.

One day back in the 1930s, before the war, all the academics in the USA found an unusual survey in their pigeonholes. It asked them to rank all the various academic departments in the USA by importance. Most important at the top. Least important at the bottom. They were asked to use their intuitions - <USER2> did they feel were the most and least relevant to the future of humanity.

After the academics filled in these surveys, their responses were gathered up and collated into a league table with the 'most important' disciplines at the top, and the least at the bottom. What was at the top? All the usual suspects like branches of physics, chemistry and biology.

What was at the bottom? Right at the bottom was Medieval History. The very least important academic subject. So far, so unexpected. But second to bottom was Nuclear Physics. Before the war it was considered a useless, hypo- theoretical branch of science only studied by nuts and eccentrics.

Of course, not much longer later the US dropped 2 bombs on Japan ending the nuclear war.

If we'd only funnelled our money in those things with obvious tangible, well- defined outputs, we'd have shut down our nuclear physics departments and the world would have been a very different place.

What I'm saying is that investing in long-sighted, ill-defined, radical, impractical projects is not only valuable but essential.

Dropping money to people like Bill is important. But so is dropping money to Elon.

One of them ensures that we continue to make sustainable progress - that we continue down the road that we're already walking. The other ensures that we have the opportunity to find new roads, new paths and new routes.

<comment><USER13> >2\. Giving your money to Elon is like investing in an absolutely cutting-edge branch of science. At the absolute bleeding-edge. Maybe even beyond the bleeding-edge.

Elon Musk runs engineering companies. They are certainly not at "the absolute bleeding edge" of science though.

If you want to fund science, then fund science. Scientists and their graduate students actually do work at the bleeding edge of science and routinely push beyond it with only a small, small, fraction of what these billionaires make.

<comment><USER14> Precisely this. Elon is a genius, and absolutely one of the greatest men alive. But we must understand that he is an engineer, not a scientist. The fact that he had to put his own money into an ambitious engineering project just goes to show how ridiculously conservative most investors are. Is it any surprise then, that basic science funding from profit driven investors is so abysmal?

We need the NIH, we need the NSF, we need CERN, now more than ever. Basic science is the only way to get significantly more return from a dollar invested, but nobody wants to pay upfront. That is why we need taxpayer funding in basic science. Scientific breakthroughs will yield such massive dividends in the long run, that citizens would literally be spending on their own well being in a way that would otherwise be impossible. Discoveries such as vaccines, antibiotics, surgery, genetics and others have allowed humans to enjoy a standard of living unfathomable even a hundred years ago.

If politicians had any vision whatsoever, they would have instigated a New Deal with massive investment in scientific and engineering research projects. Yet what did they do? Feed banks infinite loans at prime to keep them afloat, so that banks can choose to continue lending on a profit driven schedule.

Guess who gets loans at prime from banks? Not the NIH, that's for sure.

<comment><USER15> >Elon ... is an engineer

Oh really? Where did he study engineering? When did he take the FE exam?

That's not a term that you can throw around all willy-nilly, especially in the context of hardware. Next, are you about to tell me that the CEO of Ford is also an engineer?

<comment><USER16> Musk describes himself as an engineer. I'd say his demonstrated ability to lead major engineering projects qualifies him to use that title.

[http://elonmusk.com/](http://elonmusk.com/)

The term "engineer" does not imply chartered/professional status in current popular usage.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> k-mcgrady Although I get the thinking behind it if all wealthy people did this it would just lead to the privileged having better lives and no progress for the poor. A larger inequality gap.

I think Bill Gates has the best plan for the wealthy. Targeting specific problems (Polio, Malaria etc.), solving them, and vastly (and quickly) improving people's lives with the aim of bringing people out of poverty.

I don't deny Musk could do fantastic things with that money that would benefit some of humanity but it seems more important to me that we get those in poverty out of it. That's more important for humanity than building the hyperloop or going to Mars. For even the middle classes life is pretty good. Get everyone up to that level.

<comment><USER17> Arguably, a world with less poverty would be a world more capable of focusing on space exploration. Poverty drags everyone down in so many ways.

<comment><USER18> Indeed. So many people seem to ignore the fact that the more people have, the more they consume. It's why the eroding of the power of the middle class seems so shortsighted - unless you're already a plutocrat.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> A summary of this thread:

       - Larry Page bad
       - Rich people heartless
       - Capitalism bad
       - Investing in innovation and progress not important
       - Profit bad
       - Charity universally effective and good

<comment><USER20> You forgot:

\- Bill Gates is awesome because he saves lives.

Sure, cause paving the way for an electric future won't be saving millions of lives.

<comment><USER19> I certainly have opinions about Bill Gates. [http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html](http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> As someone who actually lives in Africa, Larry Page is spot on. The only people who think charities are good for anything are the ones that have no contact with them - they are a black hole of good intentions that simply do not accomplish anything on the ground. If charities like the Gates Foundation just gave that money away to the poor they would actually do some good. As it stands, they do more harm in the form of destroying local industry and media blitzes than actual good.

<comment><USER22> Citation needed?

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> I'd take his argument more seriously if he were talking about doing something about climate change. Risk to the species from climate change in the next 100 years dwarfs the risk of an astroid in the next million.

A small colony on Mars won't survive without Earth any more than the Vikings survived in Greenland without trade from Europe. Read Jarad Diamond's COLLAPSE if you want to understand what destroys civilizations.

<comment><USER24> I have seen no reports implying any threat whatsoever to our survival from climate change. The worst case expectations involve what exactly? Water levels rising that flood many of our coastal cities? Large parts of our arable land becoming unfarmable? That's bad, but that's not a risk to our survival. None of the climate change estimates predict earth becoming uninhabitable, they simply warn that we'd need to do things such as migrate millions of people and possibly reduce our population due to reduced food supplies.

Even if the vast majority of us die in the process and we're left with a global population of just 1B or 500M, then that is still enough for a decent civilization capable of supporting space flight; on the other hand, a risk that threatens to _destroy_ us permanently is far more important than a risk that'd simply harm us, and from which we'd be able to recover in time.

The goal is not a small colony of Mars - such a colony is simply an investment & testground to become a multi-planet species, which also is the only way how we can mitigate all risks that may cause Earth to become uninhabitable - including climate change, nuclear/biological/whatever war, asteroid strikes etc.

<comment><USER25> > Even if the vast majority of us die in the process and we're left with a > global population of just 1B or 500M, then that is still enough for a decent > civilization capable of supporting space flight

This is a side note, but I was actually just looking at population growth over time, and it kinda blew my mind that the estimated global population was only 310m 1000 years ago, and 879m 200 years ago. The idea of losing ~93% of the world's population sounds catastrophic, but given our current medical technology (and a post-apocalyptic "mandate" to reproduce and repopulate the earth) I don't think it would take us very long (relatively speaking) to recover. Kinda crazy.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Considering that the technologies Musk's companies are developing may be literally what's needed to save humanity from catastrophic collapse (batteries, solar, electric), it might on the long be the better choice.

<comment><USER27> Yeah. I think his decision is hard to really discuss or weigh out, at this point.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> When Larry Page announced on Google+ that he had donated money for flu shots for children in San Francisco,[1] he was decried by many people who commented below his post, for example,

"The flu shot is bad for you. It is poison. +Larry Page kids don't need that."

"That's right give them a flu shot to get rid of what the government poisons us"

"Awesomely bad. I think I'd research what's in those year old vaccines before injecting them."

"Injecting viruses - to attack the immune system - and hope that it activates antibodies which attack these and (hopefully) future viruses, ... makes no sense to me. Do not harm your kids please."

and so on. (Some really stupid comments that I remember from that time seem to have been deleted later, judging by the gaps in the comment thread.) If Page is getting this kind of grief from donating to charitable causes, maybe he really would rather give money to for-profit businesses.

[1] [https://plus.google.com/+LarryPage/posts/32xY3Z1zckL](https://plus.google.com/+LarryPage/posts/32xY3Z1zckL)

</comment><comment><USER28> I don't have many businessmen I respect because I think most CEO's are sociopaths, but Elon Musk is probably the greatest businessman/engineer of the past 100 years.

I absolutely don't see a problem with Larry Page giving his money to Musk.

Edit: Watch the next thing I read is about how much of an asshole Musk is. And how he stomped on a bunch of good people to get to the top.

</comment><comment><USER29> I guess Larry is like Carlos slim, doesn't think charity works: [http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2010/10/15/worlds-richest-man- ch...](http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2010/10/15/worlds-richest-man-charity- doesnt-solve-anything/)

I don't agree but I wouldn't mind Elon Musk getting money for big projects that the gov't might have done in the past. Like Eisenhower's interstates/highway to something like Elon's electric highways. If there is more industry/market/inroads more people can make money and subsequently give to charity, not a select few. Rising tide lifts all boats, so that answer is both.

</comment><comment><USER30> To me it seems he has basically ranked Larry Page > Elon Musk (or he'd have given the money away already) and Elon Musk > Bill Gates.

I don't agree, but it is his money.

</comment><comment><USER31> Sounds like people are starting to take Carnegie's "Gospel of Wealth" to heart (although I guess Page would only be going half way). It's kind of exciting actually - I think this is the first time in history where enough wealthy people are going that route that we can observe how well things work under that framework.

<comment><USER32> Well, Page is arguing that private companies should be beneficiaries of charity. In the transcript, he says Google employees should donate money to the company.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> There are two issues at hand

1) Value of life vs. value of species/society

2) Leverage

While I think what Bill Gates does is absolutely a noble cause and will improve the lives of millions (if not billions), it is not necessarily the most effective way to fix humanity.

I say this because of #2, leverage. Levers as in force multipliers, as in things that have a meaningful impact on the world. Currently, the largest levers on the planet seem to be corporations and most of the corporations have very selfish, short term goals. This is nothing short of a tragedy and if we can apply a few multi-billion dollar levers appropriately then our world will almost immediately become a much better place.

You can argue that the hyper loop is a first world problem and doesn't help the majority of the impoverished world. Here's a counter point for you: One of the main reasons we don't ship off all the food wasted in the US is because transportation sucks, if we had a hyper efficient means of transportation then all sorts of options open up for moving food and other goods (water?) to areas in need.

The fact is, cheaper and more efficient transportation/communication breaks down barriers and has a stabilizing effect on humanity. Cheaper and more abundant power results in higher quality of life. New medical tools and techniques eliminate suffering. Anything you can do altruistically, you can do far more efficiently (and more sustainably) with a proper technological solution.

Luckily this is not an either/or and approaching the problem from both ends is obviously ideal.

</comment><comment><USER7> This is exactly why the inequality gap will grow, not shrink, and not for any good reason, like "meritocracy" (read: "mirrortocracy")

Remember Peter Norvig's proof that increasing inequality is not the result of virtue or fitness of the winners, but merely a statistical phenomenon:

[http://nbviewer.ipython.org/url/norvig.com/ipython/Economics...](http://nbviewer.ipython.org/url/norvig.com/ipython/Economics.ipynb)

<comment><USER34> While Norvig's argument is interesting and convincing, it has to be pointed out that it is far from a proof.

<comment><USER7> OK, you're right on that. It still reveals a lot about inequality. I meant it not as a mathematical proof, but as evidence.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> If you look into what the actual outcomes of "charity" and development aid are in the third world, this makes perfect sense.

</comment><comment><USER36> Does anyone still wonder why regular people in the bay area hate the idea of Google and hot tech companies in general?

</comment><comment><USER37> The technological advances that would come out of learning how to get to Mars would be incredible for life here on Mars. Imagine if we discover ways to grow healthy food from pure waste? What if we learn to eradicate common diseases? All these aren't out of the range of possibilities for a mission to Mars. The people who say this a waste of money are the same people saying NASA is a waste of money: [http://spinoff.nasa.gov/Spinoff2011/ps_5.html](http://spinoff.nasa.gov/Spinoff2011/ps_5.html)

</comment><comment><USER38> Hmmm, Larry better think twice about updating the firmware in his Tesla now. Suddenly his brakes don't work very well...

:)

<comment><USER39> I think you misread the article.

<comment><USER40> No he didn't, he's joking about how Elon Musk wants to cash in those billions NOW if he can somehow take Larry out of the picture...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> Personally, I would donate it all to Aubrey de Grey.

<comment><USER42> Aging is the leading cause of death.

<comment><USER43> good point. something we ought to focus on.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> vezzy-fnord Elon Musk sure must be flattered, what with being considered a modern day messiah and all.

</comment><comment><USER44> Maybe he is disappointed with charity and non-profit companies… they are supposed to be fill of good feelings but maybe their owners are not. A lot of people think that people who work for charity or non-profit companies work for free, just to feel good or develop as a person but that would not be true. People who set up this kind of companies can get the wage they think they deserve (normally a lot) so a lot of money for "the charity" finish in their pockets after doing nothing very special or smart to help the poors, and when people find out that, they feel really disappointed (as me). I have volunteered several times and I saw things I didn't like.

I think some people may think that if you work 100% for a non-profit company you should get something. Well, I agree on that but not crazy wages of 6 numbers for doing not very much… I think non-profit companies should have transparent money accounts to every member so that every person can see what they do with their money, they are fill of good and nice feelings, aren't they?why don't they show us all the good things they do with the money?

</comment><comment><USER45> And in an alternate reality the one destined to invent the warp drive gets killed by malaria on safari. The impact on human progress due to preventable death is incalculable. I believe we have an obligation to explore space, but there has to be balance, and fortunately there is. Page is welcome to leave his money to Musk if that's what he wants, charity will continue regardless.

<comment><USER46> > _And in an alternate reality the one destined to invent the warp drive gets > killed by malaria on safari._

The thing about scientifc breakthroughs is that they are almost never dependent on a particular "brilliant mind"; they are the product of accumulated knowledge and technology reaching a critical mass. Notice how many things in maths and physics were (and are) co-invented by many people within short timespans. Even if our fictional warp field theorist got shot, someone else somewhere else in the world would build the drive five minutes later.

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> I don't this is so much anti-charity as it is pro-Musk and his incredible knack for changing the World in big ways.

Many charities have a lot of bureaucracy and a lot of money evaporates on it's way down the pipe. But with people like Elon Musk and Bill Gates, you end up getting a lot of bang for your buck because they're so efficient at going straight to the problem and solving it.

</comment><comment><USER48> Isn't this entire discussion a false dichotomy? It seems from this thread the only two options for everyone is to donate to things that Gates does vs. things that Musk does.

The same thing happened when India launched its Mars mission, with people saying they should take care of their poverty first. But, the discussion around that time on HN was in favor of India exploring space.

</comment><comment><USER49> Perhaps I am insufficiently familiar with the ventures of Elon Musk, but doesn't he mostly make advanced technology for rich people?

<comment><USER50> Improved energy and transportation tech will do all of is a service. Right now he's making tech for rich people because the margins can be high enough to fund extensive R&D which will then be used for more universal needs. Tesla is basically a battery tech research company that makes cars to fund itself. This will be clear in the coming years as every other company has to rely on Tesla's batteries because no one spent as much money researching them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> This could be more accurately phrased as "I believe Elon Musk will do more good for mankind with my money than any organization that would qualify as 'charity.'"

NOTE: He may actually not mean that, but that is how I understood what he said, assuming by context that he is speaking about what will do the most good.

</comment><comment><USER52> If you _really_ believe capitalism has the most power to affect positive change for humanity above philanthropic or charitable giving, shouldn't it stand to reason that markets will allocate the necessary capital to people like Musk for a return on investment anyway?

<comment><USER53> Indeed. But that's already happening, see for instance: www.marscoin.org

</comment></comment><comment><USER54> Helping poor people is extremely hard. I am pretty confident that going to Mars is solvable by just throwing enough money at it. Solving poverty for more than a very breve period is much harder. There was an episode about the problems the Millenium Villages project was encountering ([http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2014/01/nina_munk_on_po.htm...](http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2014/01/nina_munk_on_po.html)) and it just made clear how many problems there are to overcome that you just don't consider. I am not saying it's unsolvable, but it's harder than traveling to Mars or making a self driving car. So Elon is the safer bet.

</comment><comment><USER55> I probably would too, or at least a sizable proportion to people like him and targeted, proven philanthropies like Gates.

But a question Ive been pondering is, why didn't he give Elon a few chips while he was _alive_ back in 2008 and both SpaceX and Tesla were only the ropes and almost dustbin material? Why didn't anyone back him then? And Page was/is a personal friend of his. ISV had no problem during the same period throwing 40 million at Color and other shit like it, but were indifferent to Musk's struggles.

Glad to see he prevailed to make people think bigger, in any event.

</comment><comment><USER56> Most of the thread so far.

A bunch of commentary by 1%ers (Which 90% of HN'ers are) commenting on the morals of people a little bit richer than they are.

Except most people in this thread will give nothing on death to charity.

</comment><comment><USER57> Why are there not more Elon Musks? Is someone with engineering skill, motivation, clarity of thinking, and execution ability that rare? Is it that rare in the circles of the very wealthy?

<comment><USER46> Because you missed one thing - caring about something else than your own (and your family's), short-term profit. Musk has all the things you mentioned, but he also has a strong imperative to do something for the betterment of mankind. Not - like 99% of businesses seem to work - how to earn money _pretending to care_ about something valuable. And, sadly, that kind of thinking seems to be rare and discouraged in the society.

</comment></comment><comment><USER58> Gates doesn't do charity in the traditional sense. He focuses on very specific areas and measures the success well. Page was probably talking about traditional charities.

</comment><comment><USER59> Immediately reminded me of an Ayn Rand quote:

"Only the man who does not need it, is fit to inherit wealth, the man who would make his fortune no matter where he started."

<comment><USER60> If her point is that we should clamp down on intergenerational transfers of larges amounts of wealth, I agree! There's a first for everything, I suppose.

Although, I could extend that argument. If these ubermen are so good so repeatably, they shouldn't worry so much about progressive taxation. After all, they can remake their fortunes even if you whittle them away, right?

</comment></comment><comment><USER61> Question is he really going to give Billions to Elon Musk? or is it just another attempt to grab attention. Reading through the comments, I guess there is nothing wrong in investing projects that are too much futuristics, another point Larry seemed to be making was, there are plenty of people donating already to our current serious problems, while there are a few who actually do for projects that belong to far future.

</comment><comment><USER62> Will you give Billions to Hank Rearden to make "Rearden Steel" or to Center for Iron & Steelmaking Research at Carnegie Mellon University?

</comment><comment><USER63> Depends on the charity. That's why Bill Gates has devoted most of his productivity towards building and running charities that work.

</comment><comment><USER64> I think he is saying "charitable organizations only help poor people and I would rather help build the future seen in elysium"

</comment><comment><USER65> While big projects that change humanity are worth it, it's also sad that things that don't directly make money (humanities) are thus seemingly not worthy of money.

I wish more of these guys were benefactors recognizing that innovation can happen to culture and arts, not just science. That philosophy seems to have been a relic of the steel/railroad era.

</comment><comment><USER53> Page could also invest some of his money in www.marscoin.org and let cryptocurrencies take us to Mars. That seems to be a very efficient way. There might even be a MedicalCoin that does the same thing for Polio. Now that would be a very smart way to leave your money behind - maybe a DAC trust-fund living on the etherum blockchain...

</comment><comment><USER66> Why wait until death? I'm sure Elon could use the money sooner, putting it towards a cause LP would be pleased about.

<comment><USER67> He better hope he doesn't have stock in Musk's companies already. If it turns out he owns a bunch of Tesla stock he could get accused of a pump and dump scheme. ;)

<comment><USER66> He does not have to hope, he can simply sell that stock ahead of time.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER68> I have to say I agree with him.

Charities get billions in donations while revolutionary and ambitious pursuits get none of that encouragement.

Charities are great but how about we focus on helping others do some awesome shit too.

Specially people who have proven to have the determination to stick with it and try everything possible until it works.

</comment><comment><USER69> That's great news. He can start now so that next time Elon needs half a billion the taxpayers won't need to provide a risky low interest loan.

</comment><comment><USER60> I question why any one person should have billions of dollars left to their whims in the first place. It's not simply the "natural way" of things. Our system is built to reward financiers, founders, and executives at vast disproportion to employees. Don't get me wrong, those first three groups are really important. I just think that when we talk about individuals having 11-figure sums of wealth, maybe something is kind of out of whack.

And some of them simply _inherited_ that wealth, which is a whole other level of absurd.

<comment><USER70> To put it simply, the problem is that any possible cure is worse than the disease itself. Stopping people from having that much money creates at least as many problems as it solves.

<comment><USER60> Interesting. How so?

I mean, I suppose you _could_ be right, but my point is that we take it for granted that the way things work in our society is just the natural state. It isn't. There are all sorts of policies in place that lead to compensation for various actors being what it is.

<comment><USER70> Because the devil is in the details. Let's say a guy gets rich. Do you put him in jail? If yes, for what crime? If not, you'll probably want to confiscate his wealth. What if it's not cash, but assets: cars, houses, gold bars. You (or the government) confiscate all of them, now you have to sell them; the simple act of selling them devalues them (depending on how many there are of them). So now the government either owns a bunch of useless (to them) assets, or a pile of cash that will be quickly spent.

Also, a much simpler explanation is: moving wealth from rich people to government just makes government rich. This doesn't change the underlying problem, it just shifts power into different hands.

Then there's the prevention approach. How do you even prevent people from owning stuff/having money? You'd have to completely discourage savings, and force people to spend everything they make.

<comment><USER60> I don't advocate criminalizing wealth. I'm not sure how you got that from my posts.

What I question is whether the method by which our system allocates wealth is optimal in any way. Yes, I think there are things we could do from a taxation standpoint to reallocate or put to public use, but that doesn't address the root issue, and it also gives people the impression that their gross earnings are naturally theirs in the first place.

Imagine for a Fake America with the same number of dollars, each with the same purchasing power as in the real America. Now imagine that the wealthiest American had, say, $250M, due to the norms of compensation in Fake America. What would society look like? Would anyone whose wealth in this Fake America is 1% of their wealth in Real America even know the difference?

Is this scenario possible? Who knows. Perhaps the specific scale of inequality in Real America is exactly optimal. Of course, we don't know whether this flatter distribution would reproduce the same level of enterprise we see in Real America. But I don't see why not. The 0.01% would have less resources to wield, but we'd also have way more people with resources far beyond their needs. If I never thought it would be conceivable to be a billionaire, the allure of the possibility of being a hundred-millionaire would still tempt me.

The tacit counterargument is that the only things that can possibly promote private enterprise on the scale that it exists in Real America are the ability to be at least ten thousand times richer than a person who'd already be considered quite rich, as well as the ability to establish dynasties that privilege your progeny long after your contributions to private enterprise. That could very well be true, but I'm not cynical enough to accept that without very strong argument.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER71> This makes me think of Buffett giving his money the Gates foundation: The 2nd richest guy in the world giving it to the richest.

</comment><comment><USER72> This one is easy. I agree with him.

</comment><comment><USER73> You can so tell who his mentor was :)

Hint: Apple

</comment><comment><USER74> And how many people would choose to give their money to Larry Page?

</comment><comment><USER75> Well then he should do it right now, why wait until he's dead?

<comment><USER76> ... says some random guy posting authoritatively and indignantly to HN.

The level of judgement and arm-chair quarterbacking in this thread is hilarious in a sad, "I can't believe I'm wasting my time reading and responding way".

<comment><USER75> I'm sorry my answer wasn't up to your standards. Please disregards my comments and continue with your surely Nobel-award research, Dr. crusso.

<comment><USER76> Meh, just try harder next time. ;)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER77> good for him. 90% of charities are shams using over half the funds on "administration costs". Elon Musk is actually changing the world

</comment><comment><USER78> i think we have time to address the billion people on earth suffering from extreme poverty and human rights violations before worrying about mars.

</comment><comment><USER79> can all the rich people buy all the telcos and make internet more neutral?

</comment><comment><USER80> Why not both?

</comment><comment><USER81> the heads of google are solipsistic jerks.

</comment><comment><USER82> Ya'll just need to chill. It's just an opinion that the man has...why don't we try to change the world IN THE PRESENT FOR GOOD the way we see it fit? whether it is charity or huge ass project with capitalistic gain...RESPECT.

</comment><comment><USER83> The human race is quite a large and diverse organism. In terms of development, it's parts are stratified. At the extremes are the front, and the rear. The front is fulfilling our current best potential - space travel, computing, great individual wealth, even opulence. The rear is living by default, mainly just because reproduction is a major defining characteristic of life itself, in terrible conditions, because there's no overarching principle to ensure resources are distributed evenly or at all.

It isn't surprising that those representing the front and those pulling up the rear would conflict when they meet.

</comment><comment><USER84> Fuck you Larry Page you evil Bond-villainesque bastard.

<comment><USER67> I think you are confusing him with the other Larry who actually looks like and embodies Bond-villainesque

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Ellison](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Ellison)

[http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/nevius/article/Oracle-s- cheati...](http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/nevius/article/Oracle-s-cheating-won- t-attract-Cup-fans-4733421.php)

[http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142412788732479890...](http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887324798904578529682230185530)

</comment></comment><comment><USER85> I just can't get over feeling conflicted about what Musk is trying to accomplish vs. what a misogynistic creep he seems to be in his personal life. Is this really the person who should be lauded as the savior of humanity?

I always had similar feelings about Lance Armstrong too.

<comment><USER86> Why does Elon Musk strike you as a misogynistic creep? It seems like that kind of claim warrants some justification.

<comment><USER85> misogyny may be a bit speculative, but from reading the following:

[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/29/divorce-wars- justin...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/29/divorce-wars-justine- musk_n_841761.html)

[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lisa-belkin/elon-musk- parentin...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lisa-belkin/elon-musk-parenting- discussion-sxsw-interactive_b_2868831.html)

[http://www.marieclaire.com/sex-love/relationship- issues/mill...](http://www.marieclaire.com/sex-love/relationship- issues/millionaire-starter-wife)

he definitely falls into the creep class in my book. I hope neither of my daughters ever gets into a relationship with someone who shares his worldview and says stuff like "if you were my employee I would fire you" to them. Or asking where he can find a new girlfriend that can fit into a 10 hour per week time budget. What a cad.

Then there are the kids. The kids he admits he doesn't spend enough time with (and even then says he can be a great dad spending time with them while simultaneously working. Multitasking for the win!) and who have been through the divorce. Again, just my own biases and take on the world that I am sure aren't shared by all, but I can categorically say that every single person I know whose parents divorced when they were young has resulting damage they carry to this day, into their own marriages and parenting.

<comment> jack-r-abbit To be fair, two of those links are told from the point of view of his ex-wife. The world is full of people that have rather harsh things to say about their exes. Some of it is true.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


A Codebase is an Organism - never-the-bride http://www.meltingasphalt.com/a-codebase-is-an-organism/ <comment><AUTHOR> This article resonated with me. Note that currently I don't work in a team development environment. There are 3 of us and we each have our own respective technologies we develop for or with. One of my responsibilities is some Java backend code. I'm 80% of the way done developing a complex routing system that runs under apache camel. I'm maybe 150 hours into the development.

As it relates to this article, even when developing a new system I find I have to keep challenging my original assumptions and refactor out the complexity where I can as I go. Its like razing a child and impacting new life rules each few months.

Yesterday I realized the customer had provided some requirements that we wrong and now I have to go factor that into the code in the next couple of days. I am so glad that I have unit tests. I will be rewriting several unit tests today and adding more and then write the new requirements into the code base. It feels like when you have a child and wake up in the morning ready to go to work and your child says, Dad take me to the doctor I don't feel so good. All of a sudden your day or next several days are not what you had planned for but still you have to proceed with the new path.

<comment><USER2> >Its like razing a child

Spelling may be unintentional, but it's still accurate: sometimes you gotta tear down your code to build it up again stronger and more elegantly.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I'm surprised this isn't getting more attention. I have used this metaphor of code as a living entity before and it resonates with those that have lived through such growth. The article beautifully articulates this idea. I think this idea extends to ideas or memes in the [https://edge.org/conversation/richard_dawkins-this-is-my- vis...](https://edge.org/conversation/richard_dawkins-this-is-my-vision-of- life) dawkins view of battling evolving concepts. The code swarm is a visualization of a one such concept. I think in the enterprise world I see this lots with business process but there is no concept of even writing the business process down let alone visualizing the process over time and the idea of culturing a business process is not even on the radar.

Crazy thoughts for today.

</comment><comment><USER4> Some contradiction here:

 _Code doesn 't decay on its own, of course. Left completely untouched, it will survive as long as you care to archive it. Decay — often called code rot or software rot — only sets in when changes are made, either to the code itself or to any of its dependencies. So as a rule of thumb, we can say that most code is decaying during most of its existence. It's like entropy. You never 'win' against entropy; you just try to last as long as you can._

 _In a healthy piece of code, entropic decay is typically staved off by dozens of tiny interventions — bug fixes, test fixes, small refactors, migrating off a deprecated API, that sort of thing. These are the standard maintenance operations that all developers undertake on behalf of code that they care about. It 's when the interventions stop happening, or don't happen often enough, that code rot sets in._

In the first paragraph, the author says that code doesn't decay if it's left alone but does decay when it is changed. In the second paragraph, the author says the exact opposite.

A warning about the hazards of reasoning-by-analogy: you've got to be really clear in your head about how the analogy maps to the subject.

<comment><USER5> I think you misunderstood what he is saying (or maybe he wasn't clear enough): in the first paragraph he says that code decays when it is "changed", meaning when the codebase is enlarged, grown, more functionality added. On the second, when he talks about interventions, he's not refering to the same kind of changes, but to "code maintainence", which is a distinct and different kind of effort, the one that prevents the decay. For instance, from his point of view, a unit test is not a change to the codebase, but an intervention. Therefore, the codebase organism enlarges and rots with more code added, and bug fixing, test, refactors, etc, are the efforts needed not to rot. (Conclusion: the analogy is not the culprit :)

<comment><USER6> "Changes" are like simple heat. "Interventions" are changes calculated to reduce entropy.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I found it dismaying to know programmers who believed in creationism because they work with stuff that is so evolutionary.

Now I kind of get that you have to come to something with the right perspective to see 'properly', but... so dismaying initially. I felt a desire/need to be among some people who were similar to me -- had a lifetime worth of being different already -- and it wasn't happening.

</comment><comment><USER8> This really encapsulates a lot of lessons learned over the years. Great read!

</comment><comment><USER9> > code rot or software rot — only sets in when changes are made, either to the > code itself or to any of its dependencies.

"dependencies" is so vast here, that this definition (and following discussion) is completely useless.

A web browser "depends" on web standards - Netscape 3 rotted not because of changes, but because it didn't even support HTML4 and the web moved on.

Older games "depended" on hardware CGA/EGA/VGA quirks, or CPU timings, that were not replicated in later models.

Year2K bug is "rotten" because 30 years have passed. The dependency is on the calendar year needed to operate in.

And while we're talking about software as an organism, I believe Martin Sústrik's "Software Component's Reproductive System" essay[0] deserves more attention.

[0] [http://250bpm.com/blog:51](http://250bpm.com/blog:51)</comment>


The Most Mysterious Star in the Galaxy - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/the-most-mysterious-star-in-the-galaxy/ <comment><USER2> Short summary: Tabbys Star is the one that has the mysterious dips in brightness that some have suggested might be because of a Dyson Sphere, but according to the article, that proposal is just as unlikely as anything else that has been suggested (due to the lack of IR-emissions).

To solve the mystery, they need to get observations during a dip which costs them money for the telescope time. Tabby has a Kickstarter campaign to do this, and she's asking for 100k USD. With 4 days left, they still need some more money.

I think I'll donate to this one.

[https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/608159144/the-most- myst...](https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/608159144/the-most-mysterious- star-in-the-galaxy)

<comment><USER3> Shame they didn't go with Indiegogo, so they'd be able to keep whatever was pledged and try to work out a way to meet the gap.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> If whatever is stopping the light from reaching us is reflecting the light rather than absorbing it, could that explain the lack of IR?</comment>


100 Uber for X ideas - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/lists-of-100/4144c2406474

<comment><USER2> Uber (the company) isn't spelled with an umlaut.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks! I always thought it was Über :)</comment></comment>


Contributor by Google - <AUTHOR> https://www.google.com/contributor/welcome/#/intro

<comment><USER2> This page has been online for a while, and it still appears to be limited to a very small, select number of publishers. Did anyone request an invitation and actually receive an invite during the last 5 months?

I'm assuming this is another Google service that'll die before I'm able to try it.

<comment><USER3> We're enabled as a publisher, though I can't try it without a US bank card.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> My biggest concern with this is that it is still so integrated into the ads system. I don't use AdBlock and its kin solely because I don't want to _see_ the ads, but also so that I am not tracked everywhere I go on the internet. This does not seem to address that.

<comment><USER5> Do you have an alternative way to determine whether you are a contributor to avoid displaying ads to you?

<comment><USER4> If the service were launched as a wholly separate entity, with clearly stated legal terms for data privacy and retention, I would be able to accept that as a necessity.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> > "When you visit a participating website, part of your contribution goes to > the creators of that site."

Umm, why does Google have to control this sort of ad-prevention mechanic? Obviously because it lets them profit from potential lost ad revenue, but what about the publishers? What sort of "cut" are they getting? And why are they only getting a cut of contributions that are essentially for their content?

The advertising business is getting really messy...

</comment><comment><USER7> [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9154960](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9154960), [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8637365](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8637365)

</comment><comment><USER8> So what if I disapprove of one of the participating sites?

<comment><USER2> I just stumbled on this link, and apparently you can stop contributing to specific sites, and also select whether to contributor to all participating sites, or ones you specifically select.

[http://www.droid-life.com/2015/04/21/this-is-google- contribu...](http://www.droid-life.com/2015/04/21/this-is-google-contributor/)

It looks overpriced. I need to be signed into my Google account at all times when browsing the internet, pay $10-15/mo, and even then, it's only removing something like 50-75% of advertisements. It's more expensive than ad block, it removes less ads than ad block, and it leaves a big empty space that ad block can typically remove.

This sounds like a poor experience for the end user, and I can't see it catching on.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> So it's patreon?

<comment><USER10> It's Patreon for _the entire web_ \- so that $10 donation becomes diluted over all the (participating) websites that you visit.</comment></comment>


Singular Value Decomposition - <AUTHOR> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_value_decomposition <comment><AUTHOR> Tutorial, with applications to data science: [https://towardsdatascience.com/understanding-singular- value-...](https://towardsdatascience.com/understanding-singular-value- decomposition-and-its-application-in-data-science-388a54be95d)

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Has anyone encountered any interesting applications of SVD? Preferably, something not on the Wikipedia page.</comment>