Ask HN: Secure Paid Alternatives to Google Mail, Calendar and Drive  - <AUTHOR>

After all the snooping revelations I'm looking to move my company email, calendar and drive (Google Docs) away from Google.<p>I'm happy to pay anything up to $100 a year per user. What is out there? <comment><USER2> Ever since Google, Facebook and likes became main stream (massive centralized service providers) I have never been fully comfortable with using their services. I guess the recent NSA stories have may just tipped me into embracing distributed computing as the answer to these centralized services.

More and more I have been thinking that in the next 10-15 years, just like back when they made computing personalized and in turn distributed, the next wave of the same will be happen with mobile. Think about it as MPC (mobile personal/pocket computer). I also think that most of the time users are better off hosting thier own services. I imagine a 'OS' if you will that has a in built service in a light weight facing, e.g. inbuilt mail server, inbuilt photo sharing service, in built website hosting service. if you are on the grid your services are accessible and function as needed. if you are off the grid some services may not work or may be in standy mode. either ways your data is in your control.

May be this is a separate post....

</comment><comment><USER3> Hosting it yourself at your company is probably the most secure way, depending on the value of your time, possibly also the most expensive. Use a small VPS somewhere to act as a smarthost for email if you are on a 'residential' internet connection that isn't liked by other email servers.

</comment><comment><USER4> I've not tried it, but Aussie startup Zeromail sounds good, if slightly over your budget: [http://zeromail.com/](http://zeromail.com/)

</comment><comment><USER5> Zoho can be a good substitute and might fit your needs.

<comment><USER6> Zoho not an option, needs to be a non USA based Company in order to avoid FISA warrants and gag orders! NSA effektively scoped any EU Company out as a cloud customer.</comment></comment>


How Fast is the National Broadband Network? Broadband in Australia. - <AUTHOR> http://howfastisthenbn.com.au/

<comment><USER2> This is getting quite a lot of media attention in AU today. [http://www.smh.com.au/it-pro/government-it/nbn-speed-test- we...](http://www.smh.com.au/it-pro/government-it/nbn-speed-test-website- draws-quick-fire-20130508-2j7cw.html)

<comment><USER3> Sadly with a predictable line of "All this means is faster pirating of Game of Thrones" in the comments. So shortsighted.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Bravo, seriously. Bravo!</comment>


Most complex ASCII fluid – Honorable mention (2012) - <AUTHOR> http://www.ioccc.org/2012/endoh1/hint.html <comment><USER2> Video here: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMYfkOtYYlg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMYfkOtYYlg)

<comment><USER3> Also in color:

        docker run --rm -it msoap/ascii-art sh -c 'ls /usr/local/share/endoh1/'
        docker run --rm -it msoap/ascii-art sh -c 'endoh1_color < /usr/local/share/endoh1/tanada.txt'
        docker run --rm -it msoap/ascii-art sh -c 'endoh1_color < /usr/local/share/endoh1/column.txt'

<comment><USER4>
      wget http://www.ioccc.org/2012/endoh1/endoh1_color.c
      cc -DG=1 -DP=4 -DV=8 endoh1_color.c -lm # Parameters — factors of gravity, pressure & viscosity
      ./a.out < endoh1_color.c

<comment><USER5> Got it working on Mac with this, thanks!

What's amazing to me is that the source code is actually formatted to say "Fluid color" which is why piping the source into the generated binary (as in the 2nd command above) generates that image. Incredible.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Source code is here: [http://www.ioccc.org/2012/endoh1/](http://www.ioccc.org/2012/endoh1/)

</comment><comment><USER7> Whoah check out quine-relay on his github. 128 language quine including a massive apt-get command to install all the compilers/interpreters first. heh.

</comment><comment><USER8> The YouTube recommendation algorithm strikes again :)

(As of this comment, the video nkoren linked of this project has 650k views vs. ~1k to 4k for the rest of Yusuke Endoh's videos)

</comment><comment><USER9> We can barely take a step in the modern world without something being quantized.

Why do most people not seem to find it interesting unless it's applied to physics or ascii text (or computer graphics to generalize the parlance a bit)?

I admit I love it though, just not sure why.

</comment><comment><USER10> Im fascinated by Yusuke Endohs work. I followed him ever since someone posted a random quine of his on here.

</comment><comment><USER11> Reninds me of the water in one of the early King's Quest[1] games.

</comment><comment><USER12> I wonder if this could be Turing complete?

<comment><USER13> You can build fluid-based logic gates[1], so I think it _should_ be possible to make a Turing machine (with the usual caveat that you'll most likely need such a large grid that actually simulating it is impractical)

[1] [http://www.blikstein.com/paulo/projects/project_water.html](http://www.blikstein.com/paulo/projects/project_water.html)

<comment><USER14> Oh fluidics. Darn. I was hoping for some Boolean logic encoded directly in Navier-Stokes or something, e.g. some bath of water that had Turing complete flow patterns in some way. Though I guess that would actuallly solve the Millennium Prize problem...</comment></comment></comment>


SIP.js v0.8.0 Supports All Major Browsers and Renegotiation - <AUTHOR> https://www.onsip.com/blog/sipjs-v0.8.0-supports-all-major-browsers-and-renegotiation <comment><USER2> > The bulk of SIP.js no longer cares about the media and what it's doing

yes. this is important, even if only for testing.

my [semi]current test setup for jssip resorts to webdriver testing because the WebRTC is not completely decoupled

[https://github.com/ransomw/simp- phone/blob/master/test/clien...](https://github.com/ransomw/simp- phone/blob/master/test/client/plivo/sip_wrap.js#L105) [https://github.com/ransomw/simp- phone/blob/master/test/clien...](https://github.com/ransomw/simp- phone/blob/master/test/client/wd_serve.js)

i guess these updates would allow me to test call functionality completely within the node runtime without scrounging around for WebRTC mocks?

<comment><USER3> Yes! That was part of the goal of these changes. We want SIP.js to be a SIP stack, not a WebRTC wrapper.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> [https://sipjs.com/](https://sipjs.com/) demo does not work. do I have to enable Google Analytics or something?

SIP/2.0 403 Forbidden Via: SIP/2.0/WSS 48cmgevbchtu.invalid;rport=24281;received=46.59. _._ ;branch=z9hG4bK1777859

<comment><USER3> We accidentally terminated our demo account for non-payment (whoops). It should be working now. We have made sure that this will not happen in the future.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Awesome client-side resource! WebRTC is poised to hit the big time now that it is supported by iOS 11.

For both of my questions below I will link options from previous discussions[1]; any experience you can share would be appreciated.

1) What is the best option to implement a server that can tie into WebRTC for audio/video/screensharing?

[https://github.com/mappum/electron- webrtc](https://github.com/mappum/electron-webrtc) \- simple but bulky Node.js WebRTC via a hidden Electron process

[https://chromium.googlesource.com/external/webrtc](https://chromium.googlesource.com/external/webrtc) \- C++ Chromium WebRTC

[https://github.com/jitsi/jitsi-videobridge](https://github.com/jitsi/jitsi- videobridge) \- Java video conferencing

[https://github.com/Kurento/kurento-media- server](https://github.com/Kurento/kurento-media-server) | [https://github.com/OpenVidu/openvidu](https://github.com/OpenVidu/openvidu) \- Node.js media server transitioning after Twilio hired key devs

[https://www.wowza.com/products/capabilities/webrtc- streaming...](https://www.wowza.com/products/capabilities/webrtc-streaming- software) \- commercial; in preview

2) What is the best minimal WebRTC server-side option just for UDP?

[https://github.com/js-platform/node-webrtc](https://github.com/js- platform/node-webrtc) \- Node.js native module with mystical pre-built binaries

[https://github.com/HumbleNet/HumbleNet/](https://github.com/HumbleNet/HumbleNet/) \- C++ Mozilla + Humble Bundle code drop that does signalling via WebSockets (instead of STUN/TURN/ICE?)

[https://github.com/rawrtc/rawrtc](https://github.com/rawrtc/rawrtc) \- C with CLI examples; media someday? [https://github.com/rawrtc/rawrtc/issues/4](https://github.com/rawrtc/rawrtc/issues/4)

[https://github.com/seemk/WebUdp](https://github.com/seemk/WebUdp) \- prototype C++ WebRTC datachannel server for Linux looking for help

[https://github.com/brkho/client-server-webrtc- example](https://github.com/brkho/client-server-webrtc-example) \- C++ MVP using Chromium WebRTC [http://blog.brkho.com/2017/03/15/dive-into-client- server-web...](http://blog.brkho.com/2017/03/15/dive-into-client-server-web- games-webrtc/)

\--

[1] A real world guide to WebRTC | [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14787285](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14787285) (Jul 2017, 59 comments)

<comment><USER6> Sadly, while WebRTC is "supported" by iOS 11, it is disabled in web apps added to the home screen, as well as any embedded web views like UIWebView or WKWebView.

Which leads to the wonderful UX that if a user adds your website that uses WebRTC to the homescreen, you need to catch a TypeError from getUserMedia being undefined, and display a modal to them telling them to delete the homescreen shortcut and always type in the URL if they want to use the website.

<comment><USER7> Whoever allowed that decision to be made should be ashamed of themselves and embarrassed. Safari really is the new IE.

<comment><USER6> The cynical part of me thinks it's to keep "alternate" browser apps like Chrome and Firefox on iOS from having the feature, but i'm really hoping that it's something much less nefarious.

But either way it's a really shitty move in my opinion.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


The Impossible Burguer - <AUTHOR> http://www.impossiblefoods.com/ <comment><USER2> tl;dr: plant based burger will be available only in selected restaurants in the US later this year; no plans for directly serving consumers announced yet.</comment>


Fisics and Phynance - <AUTHOR> http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/201303/backpage.cfm <comment><USER2> The general thrust is spot on.

Models are approximations. Don't confuse your models with reality.

Know what your assumptions are, and have a plan for what to do when those assumptions no longer hold.

Know _why_ your models work, so that you know when they are likely to stop working.

Get deep domain knowledge.

Know that the market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent.

Experiment ruthlessly. Apply the scientific method.

Start simple and iterate.

This probably applies to more than just finance.

<comment><USER3> Basic error is that you think you can predict fully random process. You develop a model that seems to work excellent until it doesn't.

It doesn't matter whether it's sophisticated algorithm running on big iron or hunch running on wetware. You will fail because nobody knows the future. Trying to reliably squeeze money out of the market by better predicting its behavior is like trying to build perpetum mobile by trying more and more convoluted designs.

All the smarts of traders ... they do nothing: [http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2013/01/24/buffett-hedge- fund...](http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2013/01/24/buffett-hedge-fund-bet/)

There is money that can be reliably extracted from investing though. If you can trade faster than others, you can drain some money from them. That's why algorithmic trading yields returns. Your strength comes not from predicting future better, but from acting and reacting faster.

<comment><USER2> Certainly you need to protect against over fitting your models, and you need to consider tail events.

But to say that the entire market is fully random is to claim that the efficient market hypothesis holds, which it clearly doesn't - not even in weak form. Anyone who wants to claim that the EMH is true needs to explain the equity premium puzzle, the success of value investing and the persistent outperformance of momentum investing - among many other price anomalies that I could name.

<comment><USER4> > But to say that the entire market is fully random is to claim that the > efficient market hypothesis holds, which it clearly doesn't - not even in > weak form.

Of course it does. All evidence supports the Efficient Market Hypothesis (EMH), and note my use of the word "evidence". A contradiction would have to be a series of funds that applied a given, predefined (internally) strategy and (very important) didn't reveal its picks to the public (to avoid the announcement effect). Such an experiment hasn't been done, and those cases in which a specific strategy was applied have been universal failures.

Let's say for the sake of argument that there is a surefire winning strategy as is so often claimed in worthless investment books. If it were to be recognized and then applied, it would become the new market norm, everyone would apply it, and its differential value would evaporate overnight. That hypothetical experiment merely supports the EMH.

> Anyone who wants to claim that the EMH is true needs to explain the equity > premium puzzle, the success of value investing and the persistent > outperformance of momentum investing - among many other price anomalies that > I could name.

Those result from a combination of the announcement effect and insider trading. Berkshire-Hathaway is successful because people expect it to be successful, and who invest in the same stocks when they're announced. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

The only fair, scientific test would be a strategy that is applied in secret, not in public like Berkshire-Hathaway, and in a way that doesn't tweak the market itself by way of large purchases that create their own following of fanboys. In other words, a pure computer model that is defined in advance, not tweaked enroute, that doesn't actually invest but only models hypothetical investments, and that shows its value over other systems in perpetuity. There is no such thing, and the EMH is true.

Remember the Null Hypothesis, the basis of modern scientific thinking. The Null Hypothesis assumes something without evidence is false. All evidence supports the EMH.

<comment><USER2> It's tough to know where to begin here. To refute the EMH you don't need a 'surefire winning strategy'. You only need a strategy that is profitable in expectation. And it doesn't need to be laid down in advance - all sources of expected return have a half life, and strategies need to be retired when they stop working. That necessitates continuous research.

Also, you seem to defeat your own argument. The strong form EMH says that excess returns are not possible, even with insider trading - which you admit can lead to outperformance. The weak form EMH would prohibit excess returns from the announcement effect, but you admit that leads to return predictability as well. Which is it - does the EMH hold, or is the announcement effect real?

Your arguments for why momentum, value and equity investing work also don't stand up. There's nothing to be "announced" in those strategies - you could apply them in a vacuum where you didn't know anything except prices and fundamentals. Similarly no insider knowledge is required. So why do you say that they are due to the announcement effect and insider trading?

You also misunderstand the scientific method - the failure of an experiment to refute the null hypothesis does not lend credence to the null hypothesis! At most it tells you that the null is consistent with the observations. Moreover, you talk as if the Null Hypothesis is a particular statement, which it is not. There's a great XKCD comic I'd refer you to if I wasn't on my phone!

If you want such an experiment, I humbly invite you to consider the past and future returns of the fund I work for, which is 100% model-driven. Although obviously we trade based on our predictions - because at the end of the day we're in this to make money, not to write papers or win internet arguments.

<comment><USER4> > To refute the EMH you don't need a 'surefire winning strategy'. You only > need a strategy that is profitable in expectation.

Yes, and, in spite of its tremendous theoretical importance, there is no such thing.

> And it doesn't need to be laid down in advance ...

Is this a scientific conversation? Yes? Then yes, it does. Any number of bogus studies can prove their claims if one can change the study's claims as the evidence comes in.

> The strong form EMH says that excess returns are not possible, even with > insider trading ...

Ah, I see -- redefine the EMH, then prove the falsity of the redefinition. The EMH says no such thing.

> The weak form EMH would prohibit excess returns from the announcement effect > ...

Also false. You aren't discussing the EMH, you're making it up as you go along.

> There's nothing to be "announced" in those strategies - you could apply them > in a vacuum where you didn't know anything except prices and fundamentals. > Similarly no insider knowledge is required. So why do you say that they are > due to the announcement effect and insider trading?

That's easy to answer -- I never said any such thing, anywhere. You're arguing against a position no one has taken.

I did say that an legitimate test needs to be conducted in private, with no actual investments -- a computer model defined in advance, that cannot be changed as the study proceeds, and that by definition cannot influence the real market being studied. There are no such successful models. The EMH appears to be true.

> If you want such an experiment, I humbly invite you to consider the past and > future returns of the fund I work for ...

Ah, so you have a dog in this fight. You're not an impartial participant, striving for objectivity. That means I'm wasting my time talking to you -- you're not a scientist, you're a salesman.

<comment><USER5> Whatever the merits of your arguments, your ad hominem at the end, as well as the general tone of your comment, undermine your position almost completely.

<comment><USER4> > your ad hominem at the end ...

What ad hominem was that? I correctly identified my correspondent as a salesman, not a scientist. It's a simple statement of fact. He thinks one data point counts as evidence, which means he isn't a scientist, and he is objectively in the business of talking people into investing in his fund -- therefore he is a salesman.

Simple straight-up facts. And it really is pointless trying to discuss these issues with someone whose livelihood depends on the myth that the market can be tweaked in any way we please.

<comment><USER5> On the off chance...

Perhaps you're like me a decade ago and you don't even realise when you're insulting someone (I was like that). If so, I urge you to realise that just because you don't mean to be insulting doesn't mean you aren't.

The last line of your comment was obviously insulting and your comment has been downvoted by others as a result. That's an evident observation. Take it on board instead of disputing it, and if you really did not mean any insult, then think about how you could have phrased that line (and perhaps the rest of your comment) in a way that would not come across as insulting.

Learning to not involuntarily insult people is pretty useful.

<comment><USER4> > Perhaps you're like me a decade ago and you don't even realise when you're > insulting someone ...

You have something against salesmen? I described this person as a salesman, after he identified himself as a salesman. Which part of this aren't you getting? He has a vested interest in the position he was putting forth. That fact, the fact that his livelihood depends on the continued belief in the predictability and malleability of equities trading, is germane to the conversation. It prevents objective evaluation of evidence.

> ... in a way that would not come across as insulting.

Not every salesman is Willy Loman, and the insult you saw is solely in your mind.

He said: "I humbly invite you to consider the past and future returns of the fund I work for ..."

By referring to "future returns", he went beyond any rational position, and he directly contradicts the position taken by the SEC on this issue (brokers should never make claims about future performance).

He is a salesman. Talking to him about this issue is a waste of time. Those are the facts.

<comment><USER5> No, those are not the facts. That is your interpretation, and it is worded in your vocabulary. That vocabulary means something to you but may mean something else to someone else.

The wiser way to behave here is to realise that your interpretation may or may not be true, since you are working from a highly incomplete data set and therefore tone down the use of vocabulary that may have multiple meanings and instead focus on vocabulary that is less likely to be interpreted as an insult.

For example, you might have said:

> I notice from one of your statements that you seem to be working for a fund > yourself. Do you think that this impacts your view of this problem?

Instead of:

> Ah, so you have a dog in this fight. _You're not an impartial participant, > striving for objectivity_. That means _I'm wasting my time talking to you_ > \-- _you're not a scientist, you're a salesman_.

All the bits in italics (yes, that's most of your comment) are potentially insulting to the person you're replying to. The first one is a mild character attack, the second one is a direct insult, and the third one is easily perceived as a direct character attack, especially in the context of the other two. Overall, this sentence is the comment equivalent of sneering at someone at a well-to-do party, and loudly dismissing them as a damn fool. If you're the host of the party or someone notable, you may get away with this sort of behaviour, but as a guest, you will be the one led to the door.

The restatement above makes the exact same point, casts the exact same aspersions on the views of the person you're replying to, but does so in a way that is not perceived as an insult.

<comment><USER4> > That is your interpretation, and it is worded in your vocabulary. That > vocabulary means something to you but may mean something else to someone > else.

This is a scientific discussion, not one about vocabulary or a post-modern view of reality.

> All the bits in italics (yes, that's most of your comment) are potentially > insulting to the person you're replying to.

That's the way it is in science. Science is not diplomacy. And the WSJ Dartboard Contest went on insulting the same people in the same way for years, but without lifting the veil of ignorance in which these people live, as the above exchange proves.

[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000087239639044402420457804...](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444024204578044390473058954.html)

Quote: "The darts [i.e random stock picks] have historically beaten the readers [i.e. stockbrokers], with 28 wins out of 47 contests."

<comment><USER5> I'm sure you're a lot of fun at parties.

 _This is a scientific discussion_

No it's not, it's a fucking web argument between a couple of strangers.

 _not one about vocabulary_

All _thought_ is about vocabulary to a large extent. Certainly all _communication_ is about vocabulary.

Anyway, I'm done wasting my time with this. Someday you'll be ready to get on with the rest of us humans. We'll be glad to have you then.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> A quote: "And at least some physicists have been phenomenally successful as fund managers. Indeed, the fund that is widely viewed as the most successful hedge fund of all time, the Medallion Fund, was run for twenty years by mathematical physicist James Simons–the same James Simons who lent his name to Chern-Simons theory, which has been studied extensively by string theorists."

When are financial sector writers going to stop assuming that a chance success in finance is in any way the result of specific training or background on the part of a fund manager? One of two things is true -- either the Efficient Market Hypothesis (EMH) is true, in which case who you are doesn't matter, or the EMH is false, in which case anyone can make bazillions in the markets by simply applying the kinds of "sure-fire winning strategies" that are touted in any number of worthless investment best-sellers.

All the evidence suggests that the EMH is true, that markets are unpredictable, and all successes are chance successes. The Wall Street Journal "Dartboard Contest" supports this idea, to the chagrin of any number of stockbrokers and analysts, who would prefer it if there were any credible evidence that their services have value.

<http://whyfiles.org/037wall_st/predict.html>

<comment><USER6> One of the arguments which the author makes is that if the EMH is true, and returns follow an essentially random walk, somebody still has to _act_ to make them efficient. A price doesn't reflect all known information about an asset if the people who have that information don't bid.

Companies like Simon's Renaissance Technologies employ modelling techniques first developed by physicists studying chaotic systems. They try to squeeze just enough information about the structure of the market in a given moment to place a winning short term bet.

The fact that Simon's _Medallion Fund_ is the most successful hedge fund in history, only employs physicists and mathematicians, and has been successful over a period of 25 years, suggests rather strongly that it's not just chance and probably is related to training in other fields...

<comment><USER4> > The fact that Simon's Medallion Fund is the most successful hedge fund in > history, only employs physicists and mathematicians, and has been successful > over a period of 25 years, suggests rather strongly that it's not just > chance and probably is related to training in other fields...

The market consists of players that lie on a standard distribution, with the market averages identifying the mean. Now ask yourself -- how many players will be above the average on a given day? And how many of those "winners" will be predisposed to acknowledge the role of chance in that outcome?

Because of chance factors, some investors will become multimillionaires by chance alone. Because of chance factors, some funds will outperform the market averages for decades running. But without a proper scientific analysis, none of this means anything apart from randomness.

I cannot tell you how many times I've heard the same claim -- "(name a fund) consistently outperforms the market norms, therefore ..."

Therefore nothing. Therefore the dice fell in an interesting bur meaningless way.

Also, a point obviously lost on you, if the fund you describe really has a winning strategy, why is it not formalized and published? There are two possible answers: (a) it is not a system, it is a series of lucky guesses, or (b) it is a system, but they won't publish it and lose its advantage. Neither answer raises this above the default assumption suggested by Occam's razor -- it's a chance correlation.

Science requires evidence, not anecdotes, and the plural of anecdote is not evidence.

<comment><USER6> The excuse you gave for Buffet's long term success was that legions of others copy his investments and they become self fulfilling prophecies. But Renaissance Technologies are very secretive - they publish virtually nothing about what they do. What are the odds of them greatly outperforming the market (and always having positive returns) for all those consecutive years? What will you if they do it again this year?

(and I dont think anyone claims they've been playing by a single strategy all this time)

<comment><USER4> > But Renaissance Technologies are very secretive - they publish virtually > nothing about what they do. What are the odds of them greatly outperforming > the market (and always having positive returns) for all those consecutive > years?

It is always possible to pick and choose your data to prove any point you care to make. But the fund you describe is one data point in a large distribution of investors and funds defined by the market averages. Please try to evaluate this scientifically, dispassionately.

> ... What are the odds ...

The odds are excellent that, in a field of tens of thousands of funds, a few of them will do spectacularly well because of chance factors. And this is the explanation favored by Occam's razor -- the idea that the simplest explanation is likely to be the correct one.

In a computer analysis described here --

<http://www.arachnoid.com/randomness/#Investment_Genius>

\-- a model is set up with 100,000 investors, each of whom randomly buys and sells stocks, in a market that creeps up in value over time (like the real market) along with random fluctuations (like the real market). "What are the odds" for success because of chance? Very good -- essentially certain. Of the 100,000 investors with managed portfolios, each with an initial $10,000 stake, 224 became millionaires _by chance alone_. The top-earning portfolio returns $4,638,235.88 _by chance alone_.

But at the same time, the _average_ investor with a managed portfolio (who wasn't a buy & hold investor) came out behind -- more than 2/3 of the managed portfolios come out behind the market average. And this model didn't even assess trading fees -- a more realistic model that charges transaction fees makes active portfolios look much worse.

Imagine you're a stockbroker and you know these facts, facts that put an active portfolio in such a bad light. What do you tell your clients? That having an actively traded portfolio is a losing proposition? Or that a handful of investors came out ahead, some far ahead?

The bottom line is that a successful fund, especially one that won't reveal its methods, is the result of chance -- absent scientific evidence that something other than chance is involved.

Imagine that someone throws a fair coin and eventually produces a series of 16 heads in a row. Doesn't that prove that the thrower has psychokinetic powers? No, it means he threw the coin 2^16 (65,536) times, a sequence during which the described outcome has a 50% chance to arise _by chance alone._

Also read this:

<http://www.arachnoid.com/randomness/#Miracle_Man>

In the above strategy, a con man mails you a series of predictions so remarkable that you're certain he's a genius, but the strategy is so absolutely predictable (and easily explained) that it can be carried out with a computer and as printer with no human intervention.

So in answer to your question "what are the odds?", I have to say that all these outcomes are easily explained as _chance occurrences_ , and that is by far the most likely explanation.

<comment><USER6> Chance doesn't explain it. Firstly, in the 90s I doubt there were 65,536 hedge funds around, so simple chance would not dictate one to return above average every year. Secondly, we're not talking about just a 50/50 outperform/underperform situation - the Medallion Fund _spectacularly_ outperformed the market in many of those years and never reported losses. In years when the market crashed they were eg. 90% up. So it's not just the unlikelihood of consistently outperforming year after year, it's also the unlikelihood of outperforming at such a magnitude in any given year, that you need to consider.

<comment><USER4> > Chance doesn't explain it.

About a program I wrote, that generates random numbers, and that therefore can only model chance? Yes, chance does explain it -- it is the only possible explanation for a spectacular performance in a program that simply rolls random dice.

> Firstly, in the 90s I doubt there were 65,536 hedge funds around ...

I'm waiting to hear your argument. The number of funds doesn't change the outcome, and the number you chose has no bearing on the problem.

> so simple chance would not dictate one to return above average every year.

Are you aware that we're discussing a computer program that proves that spectacular returns can be gotten using random numbers? Which part of this aren't you understanding?

> the Medallion Fund spectacularly outperformed the market in many of those > years and never reported losses.

False. [http://www.hedgefundletters.com/category/renaissance- technol...](http://www.hedgefundletters.com/category/renaissance- technologies/)

Quote: "Between January 1993 and April 2005, RenTech's flagship Medallion fund had only 17 losses out of 148 months."

Check your facts, Mr. Scientist.

Also irrelevant. If your position had merit, science would be a matter of choosing the most extreme, unrepresentative outlier and calling that the average. But that's not science, that's superstition.

Guess how many funds are above average on a given day? 10%? 20%? Would you believe 50%? The third answer is the right one -- as you would know if you understood statistics.

In science, Occam's razor prefers the simple explanation. The simple explanation is chance. The same chance outcome that means ... wait for it ... fully 50% of funds are above average.

<comment><USER6> Medallion never had a down _year_ , which is what I was referring to, although they have had some _monthly_ losses. The odds on a fund having Medallion's returns in a strong-EMH environment are astronomical - so either it is a cosmic fluke or the EMH is incorrect. Occam's Razor suggests the latter.

(also I was never talking about your computer program)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Blaming people who develop algorithms for purposes of gambling (also called investing) for decade of market crashes is just silly.

All markets have crashes. Faster markets have crashes more often. Markets are getting faster due to computer technology not trading algorithms.

Even if algorithms were really simple it would still lead to more frequent market crashes just because dumbest algorithm can trade faster than humans previously could.

And blaming physicists for 2007-08 worldwide financial collapse is just silly. It's not them that hid the risk in convoluted instruments and then sold them as if they were as solid as cash in the bank.

<comment><USER4> > Blaming people who develop algorithms for purposes of gambling (also called > investing) for decade of market crashes is just silly.

Unfairly blaming analysts isn't the problem. The problem is assuming that anyone can predict the future of equities markets. There's no evidence to support this idea -- all successes are chance successes, and all failures are chance failures. This is why market index funds perform on average better than funds in which a manager tries to choose future winners and charge you for the privilege of being a member, an "insider".

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I think hiring has shifted away from physics to signal processing, and machine learning people. But I am a signal processing guy so that maybe my bias. Also because we've moved away from complex derivatives.

</comment><comment><USER8> Interesting but flawed....Scotty79: to argue that models cannot be blamed for market crashes is the same type of argument that says guns don't kill people. Both statements outside context are correct, yet...btw: another academic created the option formula already: Vincent Brontin who taught in Triest in 1910...and not the physicists who knew howcto treat formulae appropriately survived the crashes but street smart traders like Taleb did...experienced option traders never used Black-Scholes anyway because they knew it was flawed...an accident waiting to happen...

<comment> barry-cotter Taleb's fund failed.

<comment><USER8> actually it didn't ...its successor Spitznagel's Universa made enormous profits in 2008 to the tune that he now manages $6 billion....also: Taleb made his money in the '87 crash...and Empirica made a lot in 2000/2001. Taleb closed it because he suffered from trader fatigue....something quite common btw

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Articles like that frustrate me. So much smartness and explanation, and yet it all is still only devoted to figuring out how to be smarter than the other masses of investors out there, in order to make a buck off of them.

<comment><USER6> On the other hand, the stuff they work on could easily be useful in other fields - modelling, ultra low latency systems, maybe even AI.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> First I've heard anyone referring to James Simons as a physicist.

<comment><USER11> Speaking as a member of APS... what do you expect from an APS magazine :)? What on earth is a "mathematician"? We have to call Edward Thorp an "American" because we don't know about his "theories" (c.f. the article)! (And how are "theories" different from "theorems"?)

EDIT: You beat me to the comment.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Looking to branch out into remote work, how to start - <AUTHOR> As the title suggest, I'm trying to learn more about remote work to find better opportunities than what is available to me locally. Where should I start? Any tips about where to look for work, how to make my resume attractive, what to look out for, etc. I'm not in a hurry to change, I want to learn what I can before and make an informed decision. I'm interested in a full-time job preferably as an employee.
I don't know if it helps, but I'm a full-stack developer with 8 years of experience, located in Canada. Up-to-date with the latest web frameworks (React/Angular/Node.js/TypeScript) and have mostly worked with C# before that on enterprise software, with a bit of React Native on personal projects. Have worked in both back-end and web front-end projects depending on the need of my employer. My GitHub profile is pretty bleak, but I have personal projects that are public.
Also, will I need a work visa if I'm to be employed by a US company, even if I work from Canada? Do US companies typically hire you as a contractor or can you be employed as an employee? I'm asking because contractors usually have no benefits here, including holidays/vacation/sick days, insurance, company-paid parental leave and all other perks so it has a huge impact on effective salary. <comment><USER2> As someone who has spent the last 6 years working remotely, the #1 thing you can do to get started is to build a website that makes it clear to prospective employers not just what your skills are, but what your interests are and what you're like to work with.

Finding remote jobs isn't really the problem. The challenge is landing the job, and often it's less about your programming skills and more about fit. Here are a few examples of websites that I think do a good job of presenting a more complete picture of a developer:

\- [https://ryanhayes.net/](https://ryanhayes.net/)

\- [https://github.com/dkundel/about-me](https://github.com/dkundel/about-me)

\- [https://www.fizbuz.com/u/yechielk](https://www.fizbuz.com/u/yechielk)

</comment><comment><USER3> There are various remote programming job sites such as:

[https://weworkremotely.com/](https://weworkremotely.com/) [http://remotus.com/](http://remotus.com/) [https://www.flexjobs.com/jobs/telecommuting-programmer- jobs](https://www.flexjobs.com/jobs/telecommuting-programmer-jobs) [https://stackoverflow.com/jobs/remote-developer- jobs](https://stackoverflow.com/jobs/remote-developer-jobs) [https://www.10xmanagement.com/](https://www.10xmanagement.com/)

There's also a "Who's hiring" thread here every month that has plenty of remote job posts.

<comment><USER4> Also check out [https://remoteok.io/](https://remoteok.io/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> > I'm asking because contractors usually have no benefits here, including > holidays/vacation/sick days, insurance, company-paid parental leave and all > other perks so it has a huge impact on effective salary.

I'm Canadian and have worked as a contractor. The absolute best advice I can give you is that, if this statement is true, it is because you severely fucked up.

When you're a contractor, those benefits come from you. It means extra administrative work on your end and, depending on your income levels, it might make sense to incorporate, which means significantly more administrative work. But, that's why contractors generally charge at least 2-3x the normal salary a company would pay them.

<comment><USER6> 2-3x?

I've been having this conversation with coworkers a lot lately. In San Diego, a senior sw guy can expect to pull $120-160k(there are outliers... I have a friend making $240k, but it's unsustainable) as an employee with benefits. As an independent contractor, you can make around $75-120 / hour. As a SW consulting company you can get $120-180 / hour. These are all rough numbers based on talking with people.

I don't know why there is a disparity between what ICs and consulting companies make but it seems to exist.

The amount you charge also depends on many factors (difficulty, on-site vs remote, total hours per week, ability of company to pay, etc).

<comment><USER5> Just when things start to look up, you're reminded what a colossal pile of shit you live in...

Where I'm from, a senior sw person is lucky to crack six figures in Canadian dollars. The thought of getting paid $160k a year is akin to dreaming I'll get signed to a major league contract. Typically, developers either become something else where code is their secret weapon, or they top out at below six figures.

There are benefits, working conditions are amazing and so I'm confident that for these people, the total package is worth into the six figure range.

However, the same people who will top out at around $95k a year here (that's roughly $45 an hour) can bill (as you said) in the $75 - $120 an hour. Add in a favourable US - Canadian exchange rate and yeah, you're looking at 2-3 times...

That's not profit and particularly if you have a family, it's expensive to get the same kinds of benefits. But the raw figures speak for themselves.

I hate reminding myself what a stark difference a border makes. And, don't even tell me the average daytime temperature in San Diego in January...

<comment><USER7> Though fwiw I left the US. Terrible work culture and san diego, or my apt in south park at least, was boiling hot 8 months of the year.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> As someone who has run a company that did remote work: Make sure you have a good story for how you are going to excel in a remote work environment. We all have stories of employees who faced constant interruptions from their spouse or kiddos. One thing I've told my kiddos when working from home is "Unless you're bleeding, I'm not here."

Make sure that you have the ability and drive to complete it. One person I know just really isn't compatible with remote work, they keep getting and losing remote work jobs because they just don't take it seriously. Near as I can tell, they will just blow off work, dick around on their phone and social media, etc.

On the other hand, I have a co-worker who seems to spend all day at work reading reddit and watching youtube, in the office, so working on-site isn't a solution here.

But, in short, have a compelling story you can tell prospective employers about how you work, how you have an office set up at home, and how you actually treat it like work. If they don't ask outright, they will probably be looking for signs anyway.

<comment><USER9> I live alone, so I don't have family/roommate distractions when working remotely. But how would I indicate this to potential employers or clients without it seeming weird? Put it in social media profiles or something, or wait to bring it up at an interview?

<comment><USER8> Could just be "I have a distraction-free remote work environment". Probably don't need to say "I live alone. So, so alone." :-)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> > Any tips about where to look for work

\- [http://weworkremotely.com/](http://weworkremotely.com/)

\- [https://remotive.io/](https://remotive.io/)

\- [https://remoteok.io/](https://remoteok.io/)

Also post on your social media accounts that you're looking for remote work and make sure you have as attractive as an online presence as possible to show off your past work and skills.

> Also, will I need a work visa if I'm to be employed by a US company, even if > I work from Canada?

No.

> Do US companies typically hire you as a contractor or can you be employed as > an employee? I'm asking because contractors usually have no benefits here, > including holidays/vacation/sick days, insurance, company-paid parental > leave and all other perks so it has a huge impact on effective salary.

Most US-based remote tech companies work this way:

For people working outside of the US, they will be technically employed as contractors, but often treated like full-time team members in other ways, including vacation/PTO/sick days/parental leave. (This is how we do it at Close.io: [http://jobs.close.io/](http://jobs.close.io/)). Medical benefits/insurance and retirement plans (401k) are very country-specific so that is far less commonly offered for non-US team members.

<comment><USER11> > For people working outside of the US, they will be technically employed as > contractors, but often treated like full-time team members in other ways, > including vacation/PTO/sick days/parental leave.

Is this legal?

<comment><USER9> There's a list of signs that someone hired as a contractor is being treated too much like an employee (i.e. the business thinks of them as an employee but pays them like a contractor to avoid taxes etc.), but any one of those signs isn't necessarily proof.

<comment><USER12> Does the IRS care about the employee/contractor determination if the worker is outside of the country?

<comment><USER13> Yes because it affects what taxes the employer pays.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> #rant

The problem I find with remote work usually is that people pay you less than if you work onsite. when it's an on-site position you compete with local people in the market rates. when it's remote you compete with people in India, China etc that can get paid much less. Another problem I find is that it's harder/impossible for senior level engineers find projects, especially if you need to manage people. companies want their managers to be on-site.

<comment><USER15> > The problem I find with remote work usually is that people pay you less than > if you work onsite.

Is this actually a problem, or even particularly surprising? Remote positions provide massive non-monetary benefits to employees (flexibility in general, but particularly: you can live wherever you want, including on the road, with no commute, in low cost-of-living areas, closer to other things you value, etc). These benefits attract more applicants, which alters the supply/demand balance, with predictable effect on market salary. Remote work should be understood as a win-win, where the employee gets significant quality-of-life and maybe reduced cost of living in exchange for somewhat reduced salary, and the employer gets significantly reduced costs (directly in terms of salary and office space, indirectly in terms of easier recruitment) in exchange for (maybe) somewhat harder management. If you don't like the employee-side trade- off, tough to be you, because you're competing against a lot of people who do.

> when it's remote you compete with people in India, China

It's not clear that this is really true. It's relatively easy to run a distributed organization that has a common native language, legal system, and continent. Language barriers, massive timezone discrepancies, and ..challenging international legal systems make successful management much harder. In practice, it seems that many companies are unwilling to take on those costs and risks.

<comment><USER16> Except that someone working remotely will usually have to absorb additiona costs of:

\- Internet \- Electricity, water and other utilities \- Office maintenance (i.e., how much of his home space is being used by the company? including surface, desks, equipment, etc) \- Sometimes food

In Mexico all this toghether can get to up to $500 USD a month per person. Can't imagine how much that would be in the USA.

<comment><USER17> If you are working from home in Canada (as a self-employed individual), you can claim some of those expenses on your taxes entirely, and a portion of some others.

I can write off my entire phone and internet bills and all office supplies. I can also include a portion of my rent (or mortgage) and utilities proportional to the size of my office and the total square footage of the dwelling. The actual list of claim-able expenses does not end there.

I also burn a hell of a lot less fuel since I have no commute.

<comment><USER18> The reason I am reluctant to go self-employed in Canada is the idea of covering all of my dental fees and pharmacare.

I wouldn't have a second thought of doing this in the UK because that is subsidised/covered.

<comment><USER17> Yeah, that definitely has to be factored into the salary. I choose to pay for an individual insurance plan for these things, including disability insurance which should be accounted for as well.

I don't have any dependents, but that would certainly change things as well.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Sample point of 1 here, but I just got "hired" by a US company with no point of presence in my country. They use a firm called CXC Global. Basically, I'm an employee of CXC offering consulting services to their client company.

It's not like a typical staffing agency arrangement in that I interviewed with the US company, negotiated with the US company, got an offer letter (of "engagement", not "employment") with the US company, etc - CXC only came in at the final stage.

So, that may help with the visa options.

Also, check out [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16768024](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16768024) for more recent discussion.

</comment><comment><USER19> Someone else asked this recently so I actually _just_ put together a massive list of remote job sites (50+), could be useful to you:

[https://userinterfacing.com/here-is-the-full-list-of- my-50-r...](https://userinterfacing.com/here-is-the-full-list-of-my-50-remote- job-sites/)

I also provide some helpful getting started work as well, stuff like about polishing your resume and getting your online presence in good shape.

</comment><comment><USER20> I started with searching for startups and joined one as remote developer.

Their VC forced everyone to work on-site later, so I left.

Switched to freelancing later, because I didn't want to meddle with all this company politics anymore and live by my own rules.

Working for remote 4 years now, 2 years as an employee and 2 years as consultant. Wouldn't go back anymore.

<comment><USER21> If you don't mind sharing a little bit, how did you make the switch to freelancing?

<comment><USER20> I looked online for companies that needed a freelancer, wrote a few of them emails and started working for them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> _" Do US companies typically hire you as a contractor or can you be employed as an employee? I'm asking because contractors usually have no benefits here, including holidays/vacation/sick days, insurance, company-paid parental leave and all other perks so it has a huge impact on effective salary."_

In the US, if you're a contractor, they _can 't_ treat you as an employee. A few years back, Microsoft contractors complained that they did everything an employee did but didn't receive the same benefits. As a result, law(s) were put in place forbidding employers to treat contractors as employees in everything but name. [1]

 _Independent_ contractors are responsible for all their own benefits. If you work for someplace as an employee that in turn hires you out, you can sometimes get benefits through them but you also share a portion of what the client pays them.

If you want vacation and benefits, you might want to consider a remote employee position for a US company.

[1] [https://www.reuters.com/article/businesspropicks-us- findlaw-...](https://www.reuters.com/article/businesspropicks-us-findlaw-dont- treat-c/dont-treat-contractors-like-employees-idUSTRE53063S20090401)

<comment><USER10> It sounds like the OP is not in the US.

<comment><USER13> No, but they are specifically asking about the US.

<comment><USER10> They specifically asked about working in Canada:

> Also, will I need a work visa if I'm to be employed by a US company, even if > I work from Canada?

<comment><USER13> An employer in the US is bound by US laws on whether the OP is an employee or contractor, no matter where the OP is. (If the OP was defined as an employee then many laws like the ADA would _not_ apply to them, assuming they never travelled to the US office, but Canadian employment laws would, like required notice periods - it's a very complex setup and many employers just won't do it, some smaller companies do it without actually understanding what they're doing.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> We're a remote first company, FWIW we post positions here in the Who is Hiring posts, and on Angel List.

The very first thing we look for in new employees is indicators that they will be able to perform in a remote environment. This is by far our most important flag.

Good indicators for remote performance could obviously be previous remote experience, but also experience as a freelancer or founder of a startup. We do hire people without these if they are great communicators and obvious self- starters during a take-home task that we give everyone.

</comment><comment><USER24> As noted by someone else, you should be charging enough per hour to take vacation, sick days, and so on, when you work as a contractor. It's all about trade-offs. I almost feel like an employer would see such concerns as a contraindication for doing remote work.

Remote work is a mindset, and in my opinion, a skill. You have to be ultra independent. You have to deal with little to no communication, which means you aren't going to be tapping someone on the shouler for help. You have to set your own hours, and you have to deliver, no excuses.

I think that it's highly unlikely that you'll find work as a generalist. Most contracts that are general are going to seed from the local area. When the search gets more specific, companies start being more open to dealing with remote work.

Also, learn Linux or Unix if you aren't using already. As a contractor, you have to supply your own equipment, get set up, and get things working (in the US), and by golly, things better load up and run when you submit code. An employer is supposed to supply your computer, but I'm not sure how often that really works out.

There are many ways to get work. I know this thread is getting flooded with various remote position sites, but I personally never got work from them. Be open to working on tech you aren't familiar with, and be open to doing small jobs for companies that aren't really well-known. Some of my best and most consistent clients were non-tech companies that needed small jobs done now and then.

<comment><USER25> _Be open to working on tech you aren 't familiar with_

I would think it was just the opposite. As a contractor, I wouldn't even try to get a gig unless I knew at least 90% of the technology. I would think a company wouldn't be too happy about paying someone to learn a certain tech stack.

As a full time employee, I usually go for jobs where I don't have but at most 70% of the required skills (and I'm honest about it), companies are willing to give FTEs some amount of ramp up time and they could care less if you work extra hours to come up to speed to learn - they don't have to pay more.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> In a related note- has anyone kept a full time job and worked on small remote projects at home at the same time? eg an occasional 20 hours on a weekend. or a few hours per week.

<comment><USER27> I am doing this now. I work full time and spend another 10 - 20 hours per week doing work for a startup as a contractor. The other contractors I work with are all on opposite side of the world time zones so it's a bit difficult to communicate. I end up working really random hours, 6 - 9PM, 10PM - 1AM. I'm not sure how common this kind of work is but it has been going well so far. I think the key to my situation is that the company is local to me (I live 2 blocks from their office). I only go to the office once or twice a week for a couple hours and I am the only contractor that is local.

<comment><USER28> I would like to try this. How did you 'land' this gig? How would you suggest finding something similar?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> My personal experience is that you can often find work with companies that are headquartered in rural towns. They know they cannot easily get skilled workers to move to them.

The downside to this is these type of companies still put out ads in the local paper, and local craigslist, or the job board associated with the language they standardized on, so it takes more digging to find them.

Because of your visa requirement you most likely won't be able to find work with smaller US companies. In my experience the smaller ones are less likely to have a full HR department and less likely to want to deal with that extra hurdle. On the flip side smaller Canadian companies are still an option.

</comment><comment><USER30> I have worked remote for a company that's primarily in the UK and South Africa for almost 2 years now (I've been with the company for longer than that and am located on the US west coast.) My advice would be to try to convince your current company to let you go remote or at least partially remote. It's important to get some remote experience, because it shows you can be trusted to get work done away from the office to other future remote employers.

</comment><comment> barry-cotter Relevant recent post

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17047736](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17047736)

</comment><comment><USER31> An evergreen as a topic and specific question (couple of threads about it in the last 2 months or so). Sorted for recency:

[https://hn.algolia.com/?query=remote%20work&sort=byDate&pref...](https://hn.algolia.com/?query=remote%20work&sort=byDate&prefix&page=2&dateRange=all&type=story)

</comment><comment><USER32> [https://github.com/lukasz-madon/awesome-remote- job](https://github.com/lukasz-madon/awesome-remote-job)

</comment><comment><USER33> I've worked remotely for Parse.ly ([https://www.parse.ly/](https://www.parse.ly/)) for the last 6 years and am also a Canadian, living in Toronto.

To answer some of your questions:

Q: Where should I start?

Job boards like [https://remoteok.io/](https://remoteok.io/) and [https://weworkremotely.com/](https://weworkremotely.com/) are great places to look for remote work (Parse.ly has posted jobs and hired candidates from We Work Remotely before).

For companies that you see on those boards, follow their social accounts and maybe the accounts of their founders/leadership. They'll often tweet about postings prior to them even going up on a job board.

Q: How do I make my resume attractive?

One of the most critical parts of remote cultures is being an effective communicator. Since you won't be in an office to bounce ideas around, you need to show that you can express your thoughts. Your resume itself will convey some of this, but if you have links to blog posts/essays that's great to see as well.

Aside from that, always good to see examples of work that you're proud of.

Q: Will I need a Visa if employed by a US company?

Not necessarily. If the company has a Canadian office, they'll likely take you on as a full time employee and pay all the regular benefits and payroll taxes for you. If they don't, you'll likely work as a contractor and will have to decide if you want to incorporate or be a sole proprietor. You do not require a Visa to be a Canadian working for a US company as a contractor.

You are correct that contractors have no insurance/benefits, but that's usually OK because you can negotiate higher wages as a contractor and pay for benefits yourself via something like Blue Cross ([https://on.bluecross.ca/health-insurance/health-insurance- so...](https://on.bluecross.ca/health-insurance/health-insurance- solutions/self-employed)).

If you have a spouse, it's also possible you're covered under their plan so that's a good thing to check.

Regarding holidays/vacation, it's just something to negotiate as part of your arrangement. If you're "consulting" for one company, you're effectively a full-time employee and will likely have some level of vacation time built in to your contract.

Parse.ly has amazing holiday and parental leave policies and we're hiring [https://www.parse.ly/jobs/#frontend- engineer](https://www.parse.ly/jobs/#frontend-engineer) :).

You can also learn more about the how and why of our distributed team here [https://blog.parse.ly/post/3203/the-how-and-why-of-parse- lys...](https://blog.parse.ly/post/3203/the-how-and-why-of-parse-lys-fully- distributed-team/).

<comment><USER34> Quick question do a have a degree, I.e did they require a degree from you.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> consulting companies are mostly remote. companies like accenture, razorfishsapient, deloitte, etc

<comment><USER36> As someone who has worked for a company in that list, that's not strictly true, although I've gotten a chance to work remote when I was just an established code monkey on some project. If you're doing higher level work, you're going to be meeting with the client, and even if that's not done in person, having as many relevant people in the same room is encouraged.</comment></comment>


61 Interviews with Founders of Web 2.0 Websites - <AUTHOR> http://dfinitive.com/blog/web-20/61-interviews-with-founders-of-web-20-websites/ <comment><USER2> Man Daniel. I'm going to be up all night.

</comment><comment><USER3> Thank you danielha! keep up the great posts

<comment><AUTHOR> I thought using my full name as my user name would make it easier to meet the new community. I wonder if anyone actually reads it as Daniel_Ha. :)

(you're welcome, Jawad)

<comment><USER3> Actually, Daniel, I thought about it but then I wasn't sure if your name is Daniel or Daniela (male vs. female). Sorry :p

<comment><AUTHOR> All man, man.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> This is a great list. Thank you.

</comment><comment><USER5> excellent site, this will save me loads of time.</comment>


Skynet Has Gone Live: Everything is Fine - <AUTHOR> http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/skynet_has_gone_live_everything_is_fine.php?sms_ss=hackernews&at_xt=4daf2e1364236363%2C0 <comment><USER2> As with Jehovah's Witnesses and the end of the world, this will no doubt be rescheduled due to the rain.

Yes, somewhere in the world it is raining. Once it stops, global cataclysms will be free to proceed. Its a union thing.</comment>


Fast and Light to Pluto - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/video/science/100000003783764/fast-and-light-to-pluto.html

<comment><USER2> I am so curius to see some pictures!</comment>


Show HN: Traversing Wikipedia articles with a simple Python script - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/calebwin/wikipedia-traversal <comment><USER2> Easy and to the point, I like it.

I sent a quick PR for some input validation around replacing if a full URL is pasted.</comment>


Microsoft Fires Back After Box Steps On Its Turf - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2013/08/27/microsoft-fires-back-after-box-steps-on-its-turf-boosts-skydrive-pro-storage-to-25-gb/

<comment><USER2> This article reads like AOL finally figured out how to automate their writing.</comment>