U.S. immigration policy has been a boon for the tech industry in Canada - <AUTHOR> https://www.npr.org/2020/01/27/799402801/canada-wins-u-s-loses-in-global-fight-for-high-tech-workers?sc=18&f=1001 <comment><USER4> Vancouverite here. When major tech companies started setting up satellite offices here, I assumed it'd be a temporary situation, and that we'd be at the mercy of any change in the U.S. immigration process. The longer there's an immigration bottleneck though, the more entrenched these companies become here. There are more senior roles opening up here all the time, and salaries are increasing in this competitive market.

From my experience on the media / marketing side of things, a lot of people moving here that didn't consider the U.S. as an option. For some roles, our entire crop of interviewees have moved to Canada from other countries.

Yes, the U.S. immigration situation is helping the Canadian tech scene, but cities like Vancouver and Toronto are more than a mere crashpad for people waiting to move to SV. There's real momentum here as well.

<comment><USER5> I've also lived in Toronto and Vancouver. Did the obligatory move to work as a software dev in California and now live in Australia. The fact is that tech salaries in Canada are still much lower than the US while the cost of living, especially housing, is still very high, for Vancouver and Toronto in particular. Not to mention the lousy winters.

Spend any time browsing /r/vancouver or /r/toronto and you'll quickly realize that the cost of living is a huge problem. The Vancouver housing market in particular has been absurdly inflated by out of control money laundering. Local salaries and house prices are totally out of whack.

Follow [https://twitter.com/mortimer_1/](https://twitter.com/mortimer_1/) to see what money laundering has done to the Vancouver housing market. [https://twitter.com/mortimer_1/status/1221315000897163264](https://twitter.com/mortimer_1/status/1221315000897163264) is a particularly amusing recent thread showing where a would-be landlord writes: "This home is in rough shape and needs painting, and TLC. Looking for long term tenant willing to put labour in while landlord covers all material costs." All this for only $5650/month!

<comment><USER6> I'm a tech worker in Canada and can agree that the tech salaries are nowhere close to the US. Housing is pretty high as well. The better paying jobs are in government.

<comment><USER7> I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'd like some numbers to back up the government comment. I live in Ottawa, my SO works for government as does many many friends. I make more then all of them. If you speak french, then maybe this is true as you can move up to director etc. but the VAST majority of the people I know in government do not make more than devs I know.

<comment> blaser-waffle I'm a USA-ian in Canada, working remotely. I'm in a big Canadian city, we have a hockey team.

The average IT salaries where I live are in the ballpark of 70-100k Canadian Dollars (CAD) -- at least according to Indeed.ca, LinkedIn, and Glassdoor. Given a 20-30% currency difference that's capping out at around $80K US Dollars (USD). Not terrible by US national standards, but not impressive for tech; i.e EMC offered me $66k USD out of college in 2008.

Meanwhile, on Reddit's r/networking, or r/sysadmin, where they have periodic salary surveys, network engineers in NoVA or Chicago are pulling $105k-115 USD with only 5 years experience and a CCNA -- and that's just an average, you can often do way better.

In Calgary the highest salaries were related to oil companies, and for tech they seemed to cap out at around $150K CAD for SCADA devs, instrumentation specialists, etc. I'm sure there are higher paying gigs available, but you're getting into specialized, only-found-by-word-of-mouth roles.

I've been lucky to be remote for the past 5 years, working for US firms, but if I wasn't it would probably be close to a 50% pay cut, on top of a higher cost of living. The COL wouldn't shock someone from NoVA or Seattle or Chicago but it's higher than you'd think.

Re: Ottawa -- I'd assume that, like Washington DC, the government contracting and federal bureaucracy are effectively their own mini employment universe that plays by their own rules, and doesn't reflect the rest of the country (e.g. security clearances mean your job can't be outsourced to India). Source: am from DC originally.

<comment><USER8> Yeah that doesn't seem great I make 25% more than that with 5 years experience and no degree in the Midwest. Salaries here have risen so a large number of mid level people are making 6 figures. Even at some banks and retail/e-commerce companies that are a lot more corporate and old school.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> The drop from 92% to 75% isn't the complete story, or even the more important story.

The real problem is all the other nonsense people have to deal with.

We have a really great employee who single handedly wrote most of the company's build infrastructure, and was happy in the US on his H1B because while it requires renewal every 3 years, he was well paid and enjoying his life.

Until about a year and a half ago when he went back to renew his visa in India but didn't get an approval for about 6 months. The approval process required the company to submit the salaries of the entire 15000+ global employees from the janitors to the CEO.

Once his visa was approved, he packed his bags and moved to Toronto within a couple of months. And our company has stopped hiring more tech workers in the US because they don't want to have to deal with this anymore.

<comment><USER10> Why your company and employee didn't start H1B to green card conversion process?

<comment><USER11> Green cards are a joke. For some countries they are effectively impossible to get in your lifetime. That's why we have this H1B nonsense in the first place.

<comment><USER12> Depends how you look at it. The countries with the longest waits are the very ones who get the most green cards. Even if everyone from India was allowed to move to the front of the line, we'd simply end up with a very long wait for everyone.

<comment><USER13> It's an employment based GC not diversity based. The primary criteria should be how good the person is as an employee and not where they were born.

<comment><USER12> You mean if the govt could somehow assess quality? That would be nice if you have a good idea how to do that. But companies have two priorities: one is a high skill level and the other is lower pay.

If we simply removed country caps from the current system then it would be dominated by certain countries with the highest pay difference. The smartest scientist in Germany would be waiting in line behind hundreds of thousands of far-less-skilled programmers from developing countries willing to work for at- or-below market rates (in a hot market where salaries would otherwise be rising faster).

<comment><USER13> A lot of countries have moved towards points based system. It deals with your level of education, level of experience, salaries etc. That could be a good start. And docking points based on where they were born should not be part of that.

Also, smartest scientist will still get the priority via EB1 instead of lowly engineers who will get the EB3 category. This is already accounted for in the current system. so we are really talking about two lowly engineers in Germany vs India. Do you agree they should have to wait for same amount of years for employment based GC? How about two scientists from China and tiny country of Monaco?

<comment><USER12> Even the smartest scientist would probably have better odds of getting in via the EB3 category than EB1.

Yes a points system is obviously better but can be manipulated, particularly in developing countries without consistent school quality. As soon as a process to get visas is created it becomes an adversarial game to beat the system. I wouldn't rate their degrees equal. India's "engineering" degrees, for example, in my view are more akin to associate's degrees in engineering technology or such. It's all multiple choice and cramming. Even if we ignore how easy such an approach is to cheat, it doesn't teach them useful skills anyway. So if they were really assessed accurately I wouldn't expect many from India to match graduates from Germany, apart from those who attend school in the west.

China has a lot more solid schools, at least in my area, though a lot of rampant cheating and everything else too.

<comment><USER13> > China has a lot more solid schools, at least in my area, though a lot of > rampant cheating and everything else too.

China also has probably 1000x schools, so even by law of averages, there would more scientists coming out from there compared to Monaco. And I would leave that to companies to figure out whether a candidate is actually good enough to be their employee or if they "cheated".

> Even the smartest scientist would probably have better odds of getting in > via the EB3 category than EB1.

I don't understand the point. I explained that. Anyone in EB1 gets here before anyone on EB3.

About rest of your comment, I never said two bachelors degrees should be counted the same. Having a masters or PhD in a US university or having worked at a US based company should count much higher.

Anyway, it seems pointless saying anything more at this point since you seem to have a lot of issues with the points based system but you fail to see any issues with the current system. Have a nice day.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I'm at somewhat of a cross-roads related to this matter.

Note that this mostly applies to immigrants from India or China. I'm from India. This applies irrespective of education level (I did my Bachelors in the US, just FYI)

Currently I'm in the US on a student visa (currently during a period of that visa that permits me to work) that expires in a couple years. I cannot renew it. If I want to continue working in the US. My only option is an H1-B (work) visa.

There is basically no other option to me.

Okay, so let's say I do get the H1-B visa. Then, I have to work for a few more years on that visa, before I'm eligible to apply for a green card - <USER2> grants permanent resident status. Now, once I file that application, I'll be on a waitlist. Guess how much time it takes to get a greed card? _Atleast_ 100 years. I'm not joking. Unless there's a policy change, there's no possibility.

Even if there's no possibility of me getting a green card, I can still work. I can still buy a house, get married, have kids, etc. A lot of Indians and Chinese in the US currently are in this limbo period, where they don't have a green card. So they still continue to work, start a family. Because no other country will pay as well.

But personally, I hate the uncertainty. While even getting a green card isn't a guarantee to get to stay in the country, _not_ having a green card is much worse. A CBP officer has the authority to deny you entry at their discretion. If do deny entry, you are banned from entry for atleast 5 years.

That's it. You're life in the US has vanished into thin air.

While I love my current job, I trying to immigrate to Canada. You get a PR immediately if you quality based on a points system calculated using specific, meritocratic criteria. If I have a PR I feel I won't worry when I buy a house, plant roots, that my life won't be upended because I failed to follow my visa's restrictions.

<comment><USER15> Now is the time to leave. 18 years in the US with a kid born here. I missed the boat in getting my priority date around the time when my friends were getting theirs (my company was laying off people in other departments and my application got audited). Didn't think it was a big deal at that time. Now, my friends are getting their citizenships and I'm still stuck on a visa. I'm at the whim of the Consul officer and the CBP officer every time I renew my visa or come back into the country. Heavily vested here assuming I'll get a green card but planning to apply for Canadian PR just in case. There's an easy way to game the system if one is in the right situation and is willing to risk it. Leave the country and work for the same company for a year as a manager. Come back on a L1 visa and boom you can apply in the EB-1 category and get your green card in a couple of years. I've quite a few friends who easily got their green cards working for TCS, Infosys, etc. Meanwhile, with a Masters degree and 16 years of experience, I'm at the mercy of immigration officers.

<comment><USER16> >>Come back on a L1 visa and boom you can apply in the EB-1 category and get your green card in a couple of years.

Those days are gone now. You go into EB-1 only if you get into the US on L1-A. They don't give L1-A's easily these days. For starters you need to be in director level positions to even qualify for L1-A's. Even then the waiting period for India EB-1 itself is growing and stands at 5+ years now. And it will only increase.

>>I've quite a few friends who easily got their green cards working for TCS, Infosys, etc.

Put the saddle on the right horse. People who come in from those companies often work for <$70K an year. Most are poor blokes who survive on ramen, and giving haircuts to each other so that they can save $8.

The real deal is Cgnzt which even until recently filed L1-A's and EB-1's for thousands/lacs of people by cooking up documents. Often promoting some one with a BCom degree to a director, granting them a GC and then rolling back the promotion. Thousands to lacs have made it to GC and Passports this way. When I worked for a short time in the US, it was painful to see PhD students in Stanford struggle for little extra stay, while some one with a basic 2 year diploma land GCs in like an year. In fact even until recently the biggest incentive to work at Cgnzt was this.

[https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india- business/...](https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india- business/indians-rush-for-us-citizenship-before-trump-can-shut- doors/articleshow/73461275.cms)

8.4 lac Indians got citizenship only last year. 5.8 lac got green cards. This is basically abuse max.

Add this to manager's pets who routinely get their documents cooked to be Nobel Prize worthy talent and land GC's. Literally the wrongest possible people occupy the numbers these days. Add to this a large number of body shopping firms.

There are several top level doctors, lawyers and scientists who don't even get B1's.

In short we Indians bought this upon ourselves. Like everything else. We abuse things so much, so far and so blatantly it makes things impossible for the real people when they arrive at the scene.

I'm one of those people who got burned badly due to all these politics at every level. I have largely given up, you just need to get very lucky early life to win at these things. Or cheat shamelessly.

<comment><USER17> > In short we Indians bought this upon ourselves.

I was with you till here. No, we did not bring this to ourselves. The answer is that USA has dumb policies.

<comment><USER18> The reason for the backlog is the US is trying to get a diverse set of immigrants to the US. Any one country can't get more than 5% of permanent visas in a given year.

If it wasn't for that, 80% of people getting green cards would be Indian and Chinese.

<comment><USER19> That's a pretty ridiculous policy when China and India are a third of the world's population.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I'm moving from San Francisco to Toronto soon.

Staying at the same job, my salary will go from $180k usd to $128k usd ($170k cad). (Equity comp remains the same)

That's a pretty big cut, though at least for me it's worth it because of non- monetary reasons, like being closer to family, not dealing with immigration anymore, healthcare/education.

The money stuff isn't so bad. A downtown Toronto condo is a lot cheaper than San Francisco. That alone makes the pay cut easy enough to swallow. Either way I can comfortably live on a tech salary.

Starting prices for:

3 Bed SF condo: 1.2M usd

3 Bed TO condo: 0.7M usd (900k cad)

No rigorous comparison, just from me house hunting in both markets.

<comment><USER21> How's the weather there though?

Can we just stop comparing cities? Everyone loves to complain about the cost of living in SF and always brags about how they could buy a mansion in the midwest.

No one cares. It's all about location. There is a reason why California is the most populous state in the union despite it being so expensive (weather and jobs). There is a reason the population in the midwest is so low (lack of jobs and weather mostly).

<comment><USER22> > How's the weather there though?

Right this moment, they are almost the same (46F in SF vs 37F in Toronto). Toronto winter usually goes between 5F and 40F, but summer is way warmer than SF (between 75F to 90F vs 60F to 70F in SF)

<comment><USER18> Are you picking temperatures in the middle of the night? 46F is the nightly low in SF, versus being a record warm day in Toronto during the winter.

<comment><USER22> Yes, that was around 9pm PST. Right now (9am PST) it's 47F in SF vs 38F in TO. Forecast for noon today is 53F in SF vs 38F in Toronto. It is an unusually warm winter in TO this year, though what I said about summers being warmer in TO holds true every year.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Let's not pretend that Canadian cities are a utopia for tech workers. Vancouver and Toronto are insanely expensive and salaries just don't compare to those a hundred kilometres to the south. Hopefully it steadily improves but I'm not hopeful with these tech companies having virtually an unlimited supply and no incentive to boost salaries.

<comment><USER24> Toronto may be expensive but it's not SF-level expensive. Salaries may not compare but you don't have to worry about basic things like healthcare and high-powered weaponry in the streets.

Those are just the top two–there are many other reasons to move to Canada than just money.

<comment><USER25> I understand SF folks are paying $500-1,000/mo for healthcare?

<comment><USER26> Not at high-paying tech companies, those usually cover most or all of insurance.

<comment><USER27> You're still paying for it, but like payroll taxes it comes out of your salary before you even see it which makes people think it's "free".

<comment><USER28> Sure, and if you live in Canada, you're explicitly paying for healthcare in the form of high taxes.

<comment><USER29> > Sure, and if you live in Canada, you're explicitly paying for healthcare in > the form of high taxes.

You mean, "the United States", not Canada, right? The US pays more (not just per capita, but as a share of GDP, and thus would need higher taxes to pay for it) out of public funds for healthcare than Canada does. See, e.g., [https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart- collection/health-...](https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart- collection/health-spending-u-s-compare-countries/#item-u-s-similar-public- spending-private-sector-spending-triple-comparable-countries)

The US, unlike Canada, also pays a bit more in private funds on healthcare than it does in private funds.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> I moved from SF to Canada. Traded a higher salary and basically 0 shot at green card for less money, a PR when I walk in and guaranteed citizenship.

Most importantly, you _cannot_ do anything besides your job on an H1B. No start ups, no side projects. You can't even BE in the US without a job and just bum around for a year. Every interaction with the US border folks makes me feel like a criminal. The visa fundamentally restricts the shape of your life in a way thats hard for residents to really understand.

I already get paid enough to retire comfortably when I'm older and it's no fun retiring young! Retirement costs in Canada are also significantly lower if you can count on free healthcare. Not worth it. I do miss the weather though :)

<comment><USER31> I feel the same way, but from a different perspective since I have DACA. Fortunately I can hop around different jobs or be unemployed, but every couple of years I get to feel like a criminal, and there's the ever-pervasive paradoxical feeling of not being at home but feeling like I'm home in the US. I've been thinking about moving to Guadalajara so I can at least not worry about my immigration status but I'm super scared that I won't feel like I'm home there after being in the US my entire life, and I can't go back on that decision. I've been thinking a lot about Canada as well as Europe, because I think that'll get easier for me to acclimate to.

This whole thing is just super depressing. I feel like I've worked all my life for a great career in the US and it's for nothing if I have to leave everything behind at some point.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> As unfortunate as this is, I think this only applies to Indians and Chinese. I was surprised to see Yoluk did not want to bother applying to jobs in the US.

I am a foreign person from ROW (Rest of the World) in the US studying with F1 visa and trying to immigrate here via employment based options.

I have friends who also immigrated to Germany and Britain. The process is definitely easier and guaranteed there but for us ROW, the process does not look so bad to me right now. Maybe I just don't know how it should be.

After I graduate with F1, I can work up to 3 years with my OPT, companies apply to H1-B in that period. Some start the H1-B process even before you graduate if you have a bachelor's degree already. You have 4 chances in H1-B in the end.

EB-2 green card is also an option for us, as far as I know I can get that in less than 2 years. I've read about people who applied to EB-2 directly without H1-B and got that in their STEM OPT extension duration.

Finally, even though it is a slim chance, there is also diversity visa lottery. I have friends who got picked from DV lottery while studying here with F1. Everything became easier for them.

The US is still attractive to people like me, I don't think how this article portrays the immigration is true.

<comment><USER33> I keep being head hunted to work on SF/SV. And my reply is basically automatic and always the same:

"Due to US external policy and cost of life I can't see it being financially practical to move. Although, I would gladly consider any remote position."

I think the immigration complexity is the lesser problem there. My research based on housing, school, transport and food tells me it looks like absurdly expensive. To be able to even consider to move there I would need a salary bump of 3x-5x. No way this will ever happen.

<comment><USER34> No joke. My team has three branches:

      *  Sunnyvale, CA
      *  Bentonville, AR
      *  Bangalore, India

We regularly will gossip about best/worst aspects of each of them. My mind is blown at how much they have to pay to live in the greater SF area. 3-4k for _rent_ on an apartment for a small family. My mortgage is 800 a month. A mortgage with a yard big enough for gardens, a bee hive, compost, a couple of trees, basketball goal, fenced in yard, etc....

Of course they get to poke fun at how they cross two timezones and go back 3 decades culturally in time when they fly out to visit. ;-)

The Bangalore folk poke fun at the US based ones at how cold/wet/expensive/boring we all are. It's all in good fun but it really does hammer in how home is where you currently are.

Edit - <USER3>

<comment><USER35> Did you "gossip" about pay? Despite my sky-high rent (although 1-bedroom apartments can certainly be had for much less than $3k) I'm financially better off in the bay area than I would be with any outside the bay area job offer I've gotten. My net-after-housing pay is higher here than any offer or salary range I've seen in places I'd want to move to like Oregon or Reno.

<comment><USER36> are you gonna have kids? if so that equation is going to change a huge amount. Just see what it does to your spreadsheet once you factor in 3k/month child care, and the cost of living in a place big enough for a small family, etc. did you look at the massive difference cost in eating out and groceries? housing and taxes?

<comment><USER35> Yes, I budget down to the penny every month so I am factoring in all of it. I don't have any interest in having kids, so that's an angle I hadn't considered.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Toronto salaries are less than half than in the US for software developer roles. With the high cost of living, I dont know how anyone can live there.

<comment><USER38> > _____ salaries are less than half than in the US for software developer > roles._

You can fill the blank with essentially any non-US location and it would remain correct. Nowhere in the world pays tech workers as much as US does, in absolute or relative terms. Most of the world, Canada included, has priced developer salaries close to engineer salaries. The US is the sole exception where developer salaries are priced close to doctor salaries. Let's not pretend Canada is the outlier—US is.

I am not saying US is wrong and the rest of the world is right or vice versa in figuring out the correct price for tech work. I am just saying that there are two schools of thought, one the US, the other the rest of the world, and I am sure both have good reasons for their approach.

<comment><USER39> >The US is the sole exception where developer salaries are priced close to doctor salaries.

This is incorrect. Good software developers in Poland, and to some extent the Ukraine, are enjoying salaries comparable with doctors there, if not more.

<comment><USER40> Same in Sweden, good developers definitely make more than doctors, especially if we consider total compensation.

<comment><USER41> How much would a good developer make? I'm looking to move to Sweden from Australia, and from what I saw there was a lot of equality in wages/ compression towards a mean for most fields.

Like in Norway, it seemed like SEs made 1.5-2x what a retail worker would make. Makes for a happier society maybe, but I do want to live a fairly lavish life if possible, and Australia definitely allows for that!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> As someone who did his graduate studies in Montreal and moved to NYC to work and then back to Toronto about two years ago I can comment on this. In Toronto I make about 10% less then what I did in NYC if you don't factor in exchange rate. But since I did my entire academic career from undergraduate to phd in Canada, I am able to enjoin a large amount of tuition tax credits which sort of makes up for it. This year I invested in some property downtown Toronto which I plan to hold onto, either living here or leasing it if I leave.

However, I think given the right opportunity I would still head back to the U.S. Things are fucked in the U.S. but the sense of scale, velocity is unmatched. In Toronto you feel that people's attitude is just not the same. There is no hunger or lust to be number #1 and I have always been competitive personality type. In NYC even traditional enterprise corporations (where I worked) there is an intensity and drive that's missing here. Call it the american spirit.

Salary as this stage is relatively unimportant, making 150 or 250k is about the about the same to me. But the scale and types of opportunities is something else. There are roles and jobs that only exist in the U.S.

That being said, for me going back is just a tour of duty, once you are past the journeyman stage of your life and wanting to start a family, then Canada wins unquestioned. The environment, benefits, healthcare, and most importantly education for your children will outweigh just about any salary you can command state-side. Because now you are talking about intangible things that are harder and harder to buy with money.

My opinion is, stay in the U.S. when you are young and/or talented. Then, if you are of Indian or Chinese birth, move elsewhere to start a family and take a senior position in Canada. Typically if you come from reputable shop state- side and demonstrate your worth, you can find a job where people will treat you with respect for that experience. They might not be able to compensate you the same way but you can usually get bumped up a notch.

If you are of white or European heritage and you are in a good place then you can consider staying the U.S. if you can make it work.

</comment><comment><USER43> Raw numbers don't tell the whole story. From personal experience, Canada is great for new immigrants to get educated and started, but US always vacuums up the best talents.

</comment><comment><USER44> Just like me. I did my BSc in Iran and was applying for grad school for cs 3 years ago. I just picked Canada because of easier immigration policy. Thank you Canada.

</comment><comment><USER45> Canada gets immigrants from developing countries; immigrants take advantage of the excellent education and healthcare system, after a few years get a citizenship, a TN visa, then move to US for a better salary and a lower rent. USA gets the cream of the crop from Canada and wins. Canada loses.

<comment><USER46> If they're Canadian citizens, then aren't they still getting taxed? If by "Canada loses", you mean that they lose entrepreneurs, then it seems like (from what the startup scene people were saying in that article) the opposite is actually occurring.

Also, if your hypothesis were true, you probably wouldn't see an influx of big companies (e.g. Google, Microsoft, Intel, Uber, etc.) opening shop in Canada - the companies are obviously moving to the people in this case. Seems fairly obvious to me (as an Australian looking at options for permanent residence in the US) that the US has sabotaged its brain draining ability in the last few years.

<comment><USER45> I'm a Canadian naturalized citizen. I am currently in Japan. In the last few years since obtaining PR became a piece of cake, I have seen Indians and Chinese coming here for a masters in a technical field (which are now a joke to get into and graduate from as long as you can pay tuition), obtain a PR in less than year after graduation, 3 years after that a citizenship, apply for TN visa and get a job in US easily.

Why? Because it's very easy to do so and rent/property prices in Vancouver/Toronto have skyrocketed but tech salaries are nothing compared to what you can make in US in USD. Also taxes, cost of living, etc. in select states in US (texas for example) are much lower. Even in seattle, etc. you pay higher rent, but your salary more than makes up for it.

Canadian policy basically makes sure that we lose the brightest to US .

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> I understand the article is about visa, but the salary discrepancy between the two is very large. I am sure many Canadians are moving to SV to double or triple their salaries.

<comment><USER48> And their expenses!

<comment><USER18> Not even close.

I'd say expenses are 50% higher (Toronto to SF, mostly housing), but income is 100-200% higher.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> blaser-waffle USA-ian in Canada here. Been able to work remotely for US firms consistently for going on ~5 years here.

I hope these changes drive up tech salaries in Canada -- I fear they won't. Currently they're about 20-40% less than the US particularly due to the currency difference. Cost of living is also a bit higher, and absolutely insane in Vancouver (and a lesser degree, Toronto).

I suspect it will continue the H-1B trend, in that it companies won't pay better wages, just outsource to cheaper Canadian labor, who are in turn taxed higher and squeezed harder.

<comment><USER49> An increase in immigration will drive _down_ tech salaries in Canada - that's the entire point.

And along the way they will drive up housing prices, and drive up general revenue and consumer spending since there are simply more bodies in the economy.

The system benefits the owners of capital and the migrants themselves, but not existing ('legacy') Canadians.

Along the way you get all kinds of social problems caused by the excess of males and the preponderance of Asian families to selectively abort female fetuses.

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> The situation is much more complicated. Many go to school in the US, work here to pay off their debts for a decade, then move to Canada for citizenship. Arguably, the US still takes "our cut" of the global workforce.

It also depends on where the immigrants come from. Chinese and Indians have the longest wait list, and therefore its natural for them to look for better options. They are right to do so, imo.

There's also the weather and cost, the large cities in Canada can be insanely expensive, with terrible weather, and salaries aren't anywhere near US levels. If your rent is 2-3k and you're making 100k CAD a year, it doesn't feel like you're living the dream. Want to buy a home in Vancouver or Toronto? No big deal, just fork over 1-2 million CAD for a 1 hour one way commute.

The quality of immigrants is a factor too. The US still sweeps up the best and brightest of academia and business.

I know more than a few Canadians (from immigrant backgrounds) that moved to SV recently purely for the weather and salary reasons. I wonder if when they get their citizenship, many of those in the article will be back in the US or moving there.

</comment><comment><USER51> Just for perspective - green card wait for Indian tech workers in US is 100+ years. In Canada, you can permanent residency even before you land there

<comment><USER52> And after you get a citizenship you get a TN Visa and move South to double your income (if you're a top performer).

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> Anyone else from western Europe had their ESTA cancelled and had to apply for B1/B2 (non-immigrant visa) just to visit the US? It happened to me at the end of 2018, and it took me a year to get a visa. It's apparently going to be issued this week. It was stuck in Administrative Processing the whole time. The situation is eye-opening.

(And no, I don't have a criminal record, or indeed any hint of what I might have "done wrong")

</comment><comment><USER54> In the last decade US stock market went up by 256%. All other countries grew below 100%. The outstanding performance of the US stock market was thanks to tech industry. Without the tech industry we'd all be poorer whether you work in tech or not. Anything that hurts tech hurts all Americans.

See charts here: [https://medium.com/@petilon404/us-prosperity-is-dependent- on...](https://medium.com/@petilon404/us-prosperity-is-dependent-on- tech-b71848b24d84)

</comment><comment><USER55> Taxes in canada are very high. The ontario income tax rate of 53.53% applies at 220K CAD. the equivalent rate for Cali in USD is 34.75%. you then have PST/GST (14%), way fewer deductions and european gas taxes. The one thing that is a good deal in canada is cheap high quality education. The "free" healthcare that you get is not very good and even the for pay services are of surprisingly low quality.

<comment><USER56> The average tax rate for a single person making 250K in Sunnyvale is 32.93% [1]

The average tax rate for a single person making 250K in Ontario is 39.80% [2]

But with the extra taxes you also get some better benefits like healthcare, cheaper education. Of course if your main goal is to save as much money as you can, then it probably better in the US because you earn more salary and USD converts better into other currencies.

[1] [https://smartasset.com/taxes/income- taxes#I4RNWQ9WYm](https://smartasset.com/taxes/income-taxes#I4RNWQ9WYm) [2] [https://simpletax.ca/calculator](https://simpletax.ca/calculator)

<comment><USER57> The parent was discussing max tax rate. As a software dev you would presumably be much close to the max rate than the average (at least in the US)

<comment><USER58> You appear to be misunderstanding the definition of "average" in this context. The first ~50k of your income is taxed at ~20%, the next ~50k is taxed at ~30%, and so on. The average of these percentages gets you to a ~39% average tax rate for 250k income.

Here's a detailed example (grep for "Average tax rate"): [https://www.canada.ca/en/financial-consumer- agency/services/...](https://www.canada.ca/en/financial-consumer- agency/services/financial-toolkit/taxes/taxes-2/5.html)

<comment><USER57> Ah you're right, reading comprehension was not high there on my part

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER59> It stands to be seen how many of them will go back to US when the immigration policy becomes favorable. Canada is still plan B for high skilled immigrants. If H4 work authorization is removed, there will be a surge to Canada. Many US skilled workers do a soft landing to get their PR cards as a plan B. Canada should stop issuing PR cards for soft landers who are playing Canada's immigration system.

</comment><comment><USER60> People who can be paid less due to being tied to visas/desperation may be a boon to shareholders but not to the job market for locals.

<comment><USER61> Who are willing to work more unpaid overtime, as well. No matter how much you pay American citizens, they obnoxiously demand work-life balance that foreign visa holders in fear of losing their work status don't.

</comment></comment><comment><USER62> Companies that are nowhere near as successful as those in the US, developer salaries that are nowhere near those in the US.

I don't think I get it.

<comment><USER63> Those wildly successful US companies have Canadian offices too, usually ;)

<comment><USER64> For some reason, they generally seem to have a policy of paying significantly less for the same role in their Canadian office.

<comment><USER65> Once Canada starts developing those trillion dollar home brew companies that deliver a product most of the world uses at a high margin, I'm sure Canadian salaries will go up to match.

<comment><USER64> Was this comment intended as sarcasm? I'm finding it hard to read the intention.

Anyway, I'm not so sure that's relevant. If Amazon or Microsoft pay less for the same role and skill level in their Vancouver office than their Seattle office, why wouldn't a Canadian company do the same? I don't think the pay differential is due to patriotism by upper management, so I'm not sure it has to do with where the company was founded.

In some cases proximity to the head office may be seen as worth extra pay, but that isn't always the case either.

The reasoning seems to be "we pay less in Canada because we can", and Canadian companies like Shopify or (in the past) RIM play the same way.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Might just as well say the same about every developed country's immigration policy. Last I heard, all accepted fewer than wanted in. If you perceive you can't get in one place you emigrate to another. Or stay home of course, making it also a boon for developing countries' tech industry (a very good thing, in my opinion).

</comment><comment><USER66> The Bay Area is full. Voters certainly don't want any growth here. It's time for companies to move out of the bay area

<comment><USER67> I'm a voter in the Bay Area and I disagree. So do many others.

The Bay Area isn't even close to full, it's just NIMBYs who hate any change blocking things.

<comment><USER66> Sure there's land everywhere especially in the east bay I can see miles and miles of empty space even from 580

I meant politically, the Bimbys don't want more people in the bay area that's why so many anti growth politicians get elected

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER68> This is really a terrible thing that's happening. We need the brains that are immigrating to Canada!

<comment><USER59> Don't worry, they will come to US once they become Canadian citizens on a TN visa.

<comment><USER69> But what about the tax revenue, consumption and investment lost during that period?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER70> This was the case for me.

I was looking to move from the UK.

US salaries were the highest, but it was too difficult to get in.

So I started looking in Canada and found a job in New Brunswick.

I like it here, but part of me still wishes I could have gotten into Texas instead.

</comment><comment><USER71> It's remarkable that the United States can have the highest number of immigrants for any country by a wide margin and still be in this position.

[https://www.pewresearch.org/global/interactives/internationa...](https://www.pewresearch.org/global/interactives/international- migrants-by-country/)

Over 44 million residents of the US were not born in the US, as opposed to 8 million in Canada. As a percentage of the population, that's lower than Canada, but by weight of sheer numbers, the US shouldn't have any problem with this.

The US takes over 1.2 million immigrants into the country every year, we just don't have much of a skilled immigration system - ours is largely based on family reunification. Canada and Australia, on the other hand, have a points based system that favors immigrants with education and skills.

I actually do blame the high tech industry for some of this. I just don't think it's a "bug" that the US system was largely based on a very indentured approach, where high tech companies got to decide who is allowed into the US and the circumstances under which they are allowed to remain, with long, grueling waits for a green card, where a would-be immigrant was beholden to an employer (called a "sponsor") and could be fired and deported at the employer's pleasure.

Facebook, Google, Apple, all the big companies - you see, what they _wanted_ was a freer, more open system where skilled immigrants got to choose what they'd study, where they'd work, what companies they'd work for, and even whether they'd work in tech in the first place, in accordance with their own personal values and interests and market signals such as salary, cost of living, and work conditions.

That's what google and Facebook _wanted_. Unfortunately, all they could get was an visa that they bestow and control, putting them in a position to determine micro aspects of a would-be immigrants life.

Right. This utterly corporate self serving H1B guest worker visa system that undermines markets and is an affront to freedom did terrible damage to the public perception of skilled immigration.

Want to be clear, I don't blame anyone for working on an H1B, this wasn't your choice, and it was your only option. Don't blame you for going to Canada, either. But I just don't buy it from the corporate lobbyists. This was hardly a bug, to the companies that make heavy use of the H1B, the control over the worker's right to live int the US is a feature, and they lobbied hard for it.

</comment><comment><USER72> What boom? I see no boom

<comment><USER73> Same. I see more job listings, yet salary are not moving up. Hardly any boom.

</comment></comment><comment><USER74> They will all eventually will migrate to US once the policies are relaxed. This is a typical path for immigrants who can't get into US directly: Rest of the world -> Canada -> acquire TN Visa -> migrate to US

<comment><USER46> Except that if it goes on for too long, a bunch of people end up building a life/business/network/etc there. Someone up-thread mentioned that this is how Hollywood ended up on the other side of the country to New York.

It seems pretty hard to argue that the US's current immigration policies aren't helping out Canada right now.

<comment><USER75> It's only hard to argue they aren't helping out Canadian companies' shareholders. Other Canadians' lives don't get better in obvious ways when yuppies move into the neighborhood.

<comment><USER46> I think, in the long term, their lives would get better. Their country would end up with more resources at their disposal, which (if we look at the countries around the world) seems fairly well correlated with quality of life of the inhabitants.

<comment><USER75> Given Canada's immigration system, it's plausible (I'd guess likely, on a national scale), but it still depends on parameters like the country's current population, or the current availability of desirous places to live. For example, it's pretty clear that without immigrants bidding up property values, British Columbia would have had much higher net interprovincial migration. We see the same thing in California, with people moving out because land is too expensive.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER76> Many of these jobs can be performed anywhere--even on the go.

Whatever the ultimate corporate goals may be, this topic is clearly a control issue, not a talent one.

In software, talent can do what it wants wherever it feels like doing it-- businesses will yield to it.

</comment><comment><USER77> US was playing the last few decades with an easy cheat code of sucking in smart immigrants while the rest of the developed world was twiddling thumbs.

Now that the US has shot itself on its foot and others are waking up, the playing field appears to be getting more balanced once again.

<comment><USER78> The US is still the most prefered destination country: [https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/11/these-are-the- countri...](https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/11/these-are-the-countries- migrants-want-to-move-to/). It overshadows the next four popular destinations combined.

<comment><USER77> That is 2017. What happened in the last 4 years has a lagging and lasting impact

<comment><USER57> In the last 4 years the stock markets is up over 50% and unemployment has plummeted. This has resulted in salaries and total comp going even higher for everyone, and insanely higher for engineers. Living in the US likely became more desirable in the last 4 years

<comment><USER79> Do you have a source for salary and total comp spiking over the past four years?

Because as a software engineer with a lot of software engineer friends, none of us have seen that.

<comment><USER57> [https://money.usnews.com/careers/best-jobs/software- develope...](https://money.usnews.com/careers/best-jobs/software- developer/salary)

If you are not seeing growth you may need to gain more marketable skills. Whenever hiring people, more in demand skill sets definitely command a higher salary

<comment><USER79> You specifically said in the past four years salary and comp has spiked as a result of the stock market and unemployment.

But what you linked does not clearly indicate that at all considering growth has been consistent over the past 8 years. In fact it seems that salary outlook has even slowed slightly over the past four years.

This does not match your claim at all.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER80> I think it's hilarious that the tech companies in the States say that they "can't find talent", and yet there are reasons for that.

One: These companies want to pay less for more. Smart developers are not going to go for that, so they'll look elsewhere. Then the companies can say "Oh, we can't find anyone, boo-hoo, let's hire someone cheaper now. From overseas."

Two: See one.

IF you don't believe me, just do a job search and see all the shit software jobs out there. 12 bucks an hour for a full stack? 75k a year for 5 years experience in five languages? Oh, and you gotta be DevOps too.

These companies are just trying to take advantage of a system.</comment>


BBC article about over 50's startups. Who here is older than 30? - <AUTHOR> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7138964.stm Just curious. After reading this article, and being 38 myself, I thought it would be interesting to ask the Hacker News community who here is older than 30, but creating a startup? <comment><USER2> I'm 53, almost 54. Not everyone over 30 is a technophobe or afraid of change.

Access to computers was _very_ hard to come by when I was in my teens, but a lot of folks were interested nonetheless. By my early 20s the first PCs were hitting the market. A 48K basic Apple II cost about $2000, equivalent to perhaps $6000-$8000 today. As poor as I was then, I bought an Apple II system in 1979 and have maintained a strong interest in computers and technology ever since. People in my generation (and slightly older) _started_ the personal computer revolution, and much of the earlier work on the internet.

One advantage of age is a perspective at how far we've come. In the early 80s I was a systems programmer for a large IBM/370 shop, running IBM's VM Operating System... the original "Virtual Machine" environment. We supported 500-1000 active/logged-in users on mainframes that had 16MB of RAM and perhaps 8GB of total disk storage. It was pretty cool in its day. Today, a $400 laptop could whup that system (in most respects). Amazing really.

My colleagues and I have gone from programming in PL/I and Assembler to Basic => Modula2 => C +. C++ => Java => Python/Ruby => and lately, a growing interest in that old warhorse, Lisp.

I can't sprint as fast as I once did, and it's harder to engage in marathon all-nighters than it was in my 20s, but in most ways I'm smarter and more capable now than I was back then. So please excuse me (and others like me) if we continue to stay engaged...

</comment><comment><USER3> 56 - It has been and continues to be fun. I started in College in 1969 in a physics class. "There's a computer down the hall (IBM 1130, cards, FORTRAN). Go figure it out and analyze your experiments." Since then I have been learning non-stop. I got my degrees in Math, but have had to learn about programming developments for decades. The other fun thing is that I have had to learn about what my users are doing: pharmaceuticals, banking, electric power, genomics, among others. I'm so rich. Enough money, great family, ever stretching horizons.

</comment><comment><USER4> My brother and I are both hacking code for software based start-ups and enjoying every minute of it. We are both over 50. Why would you want to stop doing new and exacting stuff at a particular age?

<comment><USER5> Because when you become a certain age, you're supposed to stop having fun, learning new things, socializing and generally having an interesting life. Then you become senile and die. Oh, and you're supposed to alienate any improvements in the human condition as well, such as cars, rap music, the waltz or computers.

I see this all the time, it's a real disgrace for the human race. I have a hard time believing that it really has to be like this..but everyone I know over 50 assures me it is true.

There are obviously 'some' happy, older people out there, so I do feel that I have a little bit of evidence supporting my belief that old age doesn't necessarily mean a depressing life. Perhaps being a wage slave their entire life and then suddenly having all the free time they want does something to people. It is definitely worth researching, this entire debacle has an aura of bold statements about life without grounding in fact.

<comment><USER6> Actually, I once heard a great Stanford podcast in which a gerontologist talked about how the mind changes as you age, and one of her points is that the elderly tend to be fairly happy with their lives.

It's worth remembering that, while you may look at a 70-year-old and think "I could never live like that", that's largely because _your mind is not seventy years old yet_. The good -- and scarcely surprising -- news is that old people seem to be fairly happy doing the things old people do.

I wish I could provide you with a link to that lecture. Heck, I wish I could find it again myself -- maybe this summary would be less vague, then. But Stanford's "iTunes U" has got to be one of the worst-designed pieces of information technology I've ever seen: you can't Google the damned thing, and once you do find something I have no idea how to link to it. You can Google up plenty of flames: see here: <http://weblogs.elearning.ubc.ca/brian/archives/022052.php>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> 40, and I hope I never stop enjoying new music, learning new concepts, and expanding who I am.

<comment><USER8> "Only those who continue to change remain my kin" - Nietzsche.

<comment><USER9> Nice quote. According to Google it's on the net in only one other place: <http://theaegispress.com/Philosophy%20of%20Goethe.pdf>

Which turns out to be a pretty good article. The phrase after this quote is pretty interesting too as a summary of what is desirable:

"Always striving and always working toward a new synthesis.."

Read the whole thing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> 33 now, 34 next month.

The right age to start a business is somewhere between the age you are excited about the possibilities and think you can do something to make even the smallest ones become reality and the age at which you feel defeated by the world at large.

So long as you're in that range I see no problem with you succeeding, be you 18 or 58.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I'm 38 myself and have been into this for 15 years now in various businesses and into computers since I was about 12 years old. The media often talk about 'young' startups more and also I remember reading a couple of articles that Paul Graham wrote about doing things whilst young. I must admit I find it harder to do all-nighters and now I have children there is less focus on business, but I'm still as passionate and I was curious as to what the audience was on this particular site.

</comment><comment><USER11> 34\. I'm a career changer. I'm getting bored of being a ER/Critical care nurse. :)

So, I'm finishing a CS degree this summer, and I'll be working on startups full-time while working as an ER nurse part time. It's not a bad way to boot strap, really.

</comment><comment><USER12> 47, co-founder, digg.com.

<comment><USER13> " 20 years or so screwing around with technology and business, in complete obscurity until fall 2004, when I became the "I built digg.com for $10/hour" guy."

Awesome. :) cheers!

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I'm still in my 20s: 0x28 this year.

<comment><USER15> I just turned 0x20 good one in hacker years.

<comment><USER16> Yeah same here, 0x28 isn't a bad age to be so far. ;)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> 52

Let's not forget one very important fact that I never see mentioned here...

When I was in college, and then in my 20's, there was NOTHING available like there is today. No microcomputers, no internet, no start-up mentality. (When I say "no", I mean for 99% of us.) When I graduated college, most people had nothing ($48 in the bank and a 6 year old car) and EVERYONE wanted a good job with benefits and a chance for a better life.

I did that and was fortunate to get into IT at the right time in my life.

Fast forward 30 years...

Imagine having written 30,000 programs, implemented 100 major apps, worked with hundreds of great people, and made tons of mistakes and STILL have the same chance at start-up success that everyone else here has. As long as you have an open mind, play nice with others, and take care of yourself, this is a great time for ALL hackers, regardless of age.

I may not run the 100 yard dash as fast as I did in 1978, but my code sure does. I'm having more fun than ever. Can't wait til I make my own, "What do you think of my app?" post.

<comment><USER9> :) My goal is to make a post like that every month.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> 34, soon to be 35. I've been a Software Engineer for over 13 years and have to say that while it has always been very enjoyable, it was only over the past 4 or so years when I went independent, and focused on startups and what not, that I really found my true happiness. I work from home now and have found that not only am I producing my best work, faster than ever, but I'm happier than ever. This is work? ;)

Eric <http://www.codedevl.com>

</comment><comment><USER19> I just turned 40 as well. Over the hill? I don't think so...I'm learning as much now as I was at 25. I've never been involved in a startup. I spent a few years as a sysadmin, then got out of the business to become a cartographer. I'm interested in technologies surrounding GPS and GIS.

I learned about computing on a TRS-80 and the Commodore 64; when I got to college it was VAX and Digital UNIX. I started with BASIC and C and I'm learning Python and Ruby.

</comment><comment><USER20> I'm 39, and have been developing my site for about 4 years:

<http://ourdoings.com/>

</comment><comment><USER21> 40 and I still feel like a programming noob, but I've only been at it for about 12 years. One advantage I think those of us who work for big corp may have is that we can see inefficiencies all around us and inefficiency = opportunity. May not be as sexy as the latest Ning, reddit, Facebook, twitter thing though.

</comment><comment><USER22> I'm 38. I started my company last week on Jan 2.

Age is a state of mind. I see 20 somethings thinking like 50 somethings, and 30+ somethings thinking like 20 somethings. What you do with that state of mind is what counts.

</comment><comment><USER13> I'm 85 years old. Rocking out. Starting new companies. Life is good.

</comment><comment><USER23> It's great to recommend youngsters in their twenties to start something and not wait, but obviously there's no reason to discourage people over 40 to be entrepreneurs. BTW I'm 40.

</comment><comment><USER24> I'm over 30. I don't have plans for a startup anytime soon... but I love the comments in this thread. They let me know it's still possible!

And I haven't ruled it out...

</comment><comment><USER25> 43 and on my sixth or seventh startup, depending on what counts. It is getting better/easier/more fun now when I have some grey hair... ;)

</comment><comment><USER26> 37\. More into business ideas than coding now. Back running the internet co I helped start 10 years ago after years of coding in between.

</comment><comment><USER27> I am 33 and love my career choice. How many other careers can be your passion...

<comment><USER28> Architecture (the building kind) definitely can be, but the pay can be very disapointing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> 00100000 myself. pg is over 30, and still seems "somewhat relevant".

<comment><USER30> Not sure if I would hire him as a Java Developer, though. How familiar is he with the latest Java Frameworks?

<comment><USER31> Shorter is better (- or should I say cynical?): "Not sure if I would hire him as a Java Developer, though."

<comment><USER30> Point taken, thanks. Hopefully it was still obvious as a joke - I think I would hire pg even as a Java developer with 0 years of experience ;-)

<comment><USER31> Oh, I thought you wanted to play on the fact that pg may be a fine programmer - but that he would be a lousy Java developer for lack of motivation.

<comment><USER30> Well, perhaps he would be persuasive enough to convince management to switch over to LISP ;-)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> I'm 39 (for two more weeks anyway)

</comment><comment><USER33> 32, and loving the startup life.

</comment><comment><USER34> I'm 42 and a half.

Or in hex, 0x2A

You can do some really cool things when you're in your 20s. I know I did. Why stop? Look at the cost of market entry. Kicking off a new web app startup is equivalent to what? Taking a year off and buying a boat?

The trick is: can you be as hungry when you're 35 as when you're 25? I think you can -- but my opinion is biased.

</comment><comment><USER35> 34 for a few months, yet.

</comment><comment><USER28> 42, and it feels good :)

</comment><comment><USER36> I'm in my late 40s.

</comment><comment><USER6> Approaching 37.

<comment><USER37> Same here. Got into computers with an IBM PCjr (ha they sucked) and wrote my first programs in BASIC and Pascal. Took a sabbatical from computers that took a little longer than expected and got back into them around 1998.

Since then, I went back to school and eventually got an MSCS. Still working on picking up new skills in parallel with my current job (which is all Java/J2EE).

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> 32 here</comment>


Statistics: See distribution of Android-OS Platform Versions - <AUTHOR> http://d.android.com/resources/dashboard/platform-versions.html

<comment><AUTHOR> As of 04-January-2011: Android 1.6 has 7.9% of the market. Android 2.2 has 51.8% of the market.</comment>


The unheralded success of flyover states - <AUTHOR> https://www.curbed.com/2018/10/18/17995272/jobs-heartland-midwest-economy-brookings-institution <comment><USER2> I really wish people would stop calling them flyover states. Hiring from the middle of the country is part of my silicon valley startups secret weapons</comment>


If You Focus on Products You'll Miss the Cloud - <AUTHOR> http://devcentral.f5.com/weblogs/macvittie/archive/2009/08/25/if-you-focus-on-products-yoursquoll-miss-the-cloud.aspx

<comment><USER2> I see the purpose of the cloud being easy scalability, but from a cost perspective I'm not quite sure it's inexpensive enough yet for most startup's. A one off use for a calculation makes sense for a quick answer to a calculation but for an extended connection it seems like it's cheaper to use dedicated hosting.</comment>


The 2011 TechCrunch Disrupt SF Hackathon Winners Are  - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2011/09/11/and-the-2011-techcrunch-disrupt-sf-hackathon-winners-are/

<comment><USER2> I built FlickMunk. The TechCrunch description is pretty off: the goal is to show a different visualization of movie theater schedules using your current location.

To be honest, I am very surprised (and glad) of that result. In fact when it was my turn they couldn't project my laptop so they skipped me. I was pissed but they ended up giving me and a couple of others a chance at the end. I was very very close to give up and go home… and was just happy to have been able to present and left before the awards :)

Anyway, cool surprise! Now if people knew how much of a kludge it is code- wise…

Edit: and hat tip to Hipmunk for the inspiration!

<comment><USER3> Is it currently down or not working? When I go to <http://disrupt.flickmunk.com/> all I see is a white screen with some times listed across the screen.

<http://i.imgur.com/hqWmq.png> \- Using chrome13

Edit: maybe I need to be in SF for any theatres to show up?

<comment><USER2> I'm not surprised at all. It's (or was) running on a small VPS with prgmr.com and was supposed to work for the demo and that's it. And it was pretty slow for just me already.

As I said, the code is very inefficient, so small server+code slapped together+TechCrunch is not good.

And you wouldn't need to be in SF to see something. It's supposed to work anywhere.

<comment><USER4> Yeah. It seems to give me a white screen too. Could this have anything to do with it? var serverRoot = "<http://localhost/~Tim/disrupt11/>;

<comment><USER2> :) No, because it's followed by 'var serverRoot = "<http://disrupt.flickmunk.com;>.

It's nothing personal though because it's giving me a blank screen as well. For some reasons the movie list returns empty. Anyway, it wasn't meant for public use at this point…</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Wisconsin lost 10% of dairy farmers, in biggest decline ever as trade wars raged - <AUTHOR> https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/trump-trade-war-impact-farmers-wisconsin-biggest-decline-on-record-2020-1-1028815780 <comment><USER2> It's sad to see family farms keep getting ground down into the dust like this. It was already happening of course, but it's only accelerated based on the trade war. There is too much milk production for our domestic market, prices aren't high enough to support the number of farmers we have, and apparently lots of the profit or price differential between what farmers are paid and what we pay in the store is captured by middle men.

We need a better social safety network to help people when this happens to them. I'm sure there are no words to describe how devastating it is to lose your life's work to bankruptcy. It happened to my great grandfather in the depression, I think he never recovered.</comment>


Why I hate the phrase "You must have a lot of free time on your hands" - <AUTHOR> http://www.alexandershen.com/blog/2014/1/28/make365-a-short-essay-about-why-i-hate-the-phrase-you-must-h.html#.UuhJtWQo5NS

<comment><USER2> People say that to me so often, just because I have many small projects that I am using to teach myself things.

It feels like the other is saying that I don't have much weighing me down and I am of paradoxically of less quality even though they see great quality in my projects.</comment>


The Irreplaceable Carl Sagan (2014) - <AUTHOR> http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/why-carl-sagan-truly-irreplaceable-180949818/?all <comment><USER2> The article is a nice tribute to Sagan, certainly one of the more interesting characters in 20th century science. Of course I remember "Cosmos", Sagan being as much poet as astronomer in that series the show was truly powerful and influential.

In the mid-80's I heard Sagan give a talk. He spoke about his usual themes, of future possibilities, the man was remarkably optimistic regarding human potential despite the evidence of missed opportunity all around. I think that contributed greatly to his popularity, he understood the difficulties of human frailty but refused to be overwhelmed by it.

I imagine Sagan would be disappointed that we still have no evidence for intelligent life anywhere in the universe other than our own "pale blue dot". It seems odd that Earth would be the only location life evolved to a human- equivalent stage, if not beyond. Maybe it's simply technological limitation, or attributable to distance that we have not detected signs of life out there. I have to agree with Sagan, it sure would be thrilling if it were so.

<comment><USER3> It's a problem of scale, not a problem of technology per-se. Life could be abundant on an absolute scale but tiny on a relative one. We could easily miss it for centuries before accidentally running into some evidence. Imagine the opposite, the aliens looking for us. They'd have to be within ~100 lightyears to be able to detect our radio transmissions. Otherwise they'd have to have a biochemistry enough like ours (or a very vivid imagination) to be able to even recognize that earth can support life.

Just like we are always looking for 'earth-like' planets.

<comment><USER4> That. Plus our discernible high power radio emissions can be a short lived phenomenon: we may end up switching to very directional emissions for long- distance communication and to low-power for local communication. The spectrum allocated to radio and TV already seems a waste. While it will be somewhat evident something strange is happening in terms of energy being radiated to space, any civilization will have to work very hard to separate the multitude of signals they get. The combined murmur of billions of radio voices will be indistinguishable from white noise.

<comment><USER5> "A candle against the sun" or something like that.

I wonder if the gamma bursts from nuclear testing are discernible from the solar noise? It would reduce the distance to about about 60 light years.

If some ET were looking in our direction, I imagine the radiation signature would look like camera flashes on the far side of a dark stadium where a pyrotechnic performance was occurring on stage.

So long as your eyes are not blinded by the main event, a burst of sparks off to one side might catch your attention - if you are watching during those precious few years when such events happen, and the orientation of all relevant celestial bodies are favorably aligned.

Now, having put it to words, it becomes a hopelessly unlikely signal.

<comment><USER4> > I wonder if the gamma bursts from nuclear testing are discernible from the > solar noise? It would reduce the distance to about about 60 light years.

Maybe. It's a given a civilization more advanced than ours would be able to observe the Solar System with better resolution than we currently can observe our neighbors, but that's a very narrow time window to watch. We no longer do test blasts. Any alien species would have to be incredibly lucky to be watching us at the precise decades we would be visible. While any seriously alien-life seeking advanced civilization would have tons of telescopes all over the spectrum looking at everything interesting they have the resources watch, as well as a couple probes on their way to promising targets, there are literally billions of places to examine.

<comment><USER3> It would also serve as a warning that we're only 'mostly harmless' so if a house-call is in order (or a preventive visit) then better come packing heat.

Of course that assumes a whole raft of things such as the ability of ET to show up in person but since we don't know anything about the technological state of the rest of the universe mostly because we don't know anything about them at all that's not too far out.

<comment><USER4> To any civilization capable of showing up face to face, we are completely harmless. They don't even need to bring the guns: just pointing the engine our way while braking would do the trick.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


The Future of Silverlight - <AUTHOR> http://team.silverlight.net/announcement/the-future-of-silverlight/

<comment><USER2> I've dove deep into Silverlight as the company I work for has me writing an extensive Silverlight app. I do question the choice of Silverlight and Silverlight's future on the web everyday because I have yet to come across something we are doing in SL that couldn't be done in HTML and Javascript.

I have changed my tune a bit though as I've come to appreciate Silverlight is extremely well designed and extremely powerful. Does Silverlight really have a compelling, deep future on websites? Eh, I don't know. _Should_ Silverlight have some kind of compelling worthwhile future, be it on phones, tablets, media centers and desktop apps? IMO, absolutely, it's a superb platform. For example, if Windows Phone 7 can gain some marketshare, I'll be tickled. As I'd take Silverlight over CocoaTouch any day.

<comment><USER3> YMMV

For a pet project I wrote exactly the same component in Silverlight and Flex - I much preferred Flex even though I rather like C# as a language. Now that the fortunes of SVG seem to be reviving I see that as a better long term bet for what I want to do.

Personally, I think Silverlight is an irrelevance: hardly anyone uses it on the public Web and on internal applications there isn't quite the need to make things quite as pretty as Silverlight allows.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> _In contrast, since we develop all implementations of Silverlight, we can ensure that it renders the same everywhere._

Poor little Moonlight.

<comment><USER2> and I can attest moonlight doesn't render the same as silverlight. All it takes is one ChildWindow in your app to show that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> TL;DR

Microsoft needs to stop assuming that people care enough to read paragraphs of marketing-speak. It's ludicrous that it took them 1500 words to say that they're a faster version of Flash and that they're not stepping on HTML5's toes.

</comment><comment><USER6> _Broadly-implemented standards are like paved roads. They help the industry move forward together. But before you can pave a road, someone needs to blaze a trail._</comment>


Ask HN: How do you create pockets of focus time? - <AUTHOR> Being able to focus for extended periods is critical to doing great work. Are there any practical tips / habits that work for you to create pockets of focus time?<p>Cal Newport's book "Deep work" dives into the importance of blocks of focus time: http://calnewport.com/books/deep-work/ <comment><USER3> I've tried a lot of different time slots and so far only two have worked for me:

1\. Wake up 1.5hr earlier than my family. This gives me around 1.15hrs of solid focused time.

The downside is, of course, I have to sleep around 10 so the family time takes a hit. I have to leave early from office to compensate and if there's something that holds me back in office then there's a high chance this plan derails. I try my best to juggle work, self-time and family time and while it's not impossible, it sometimes becomes difficult. Last one week, for example, was such where I had a lot of issues at work, and fixing them and reaching home would mean I'll be back around 9.30PM and I had absolutely no interest in rising early.

2\. Reach office an hour or so early and _try_ to focus. I say try because there are things which are out of my control, especially the traffic. If there's bad traffic then reaching office and getting into a focused mode takes a lot of time.

Evenings I've tried working but this isn't consistent. Sometimes when the office is empty and most of my office work is done, I might get some time for focused work but this is pretty impossible to get. By the time I reach home, I have to swim through a lot of traffic so there's hardly any mental cycles left that I can spend on focused work.

Additionally, I would say that it works best when your focused time is same everyday. For me, that has been waking up early.

<comment><AUTHOR> The two highlights of your comment for me:

1\. Morning time is easier to focus as one has more will power earlier in the day and reduced distraction from family/work.

2\. Routine / consistency is key.

Thanks for an elaborate description of your experiments Tushar.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Try this: [https://deepwork.me/](https://deepwork.me/)

<comment><USER3> This is really impressive. Thanks for posting it.

This website tells the truth when it says that following the deep work ritual is a pain. I've read the book and wholeheartedly agree with whatever Cal Newport says, but so far planning my day has been the most difficult thing to do, especially when I have to update it after the planning derails. I keep jumping between planning my on my computer using org-mode or planning it on paper. So far, nothing has stuck.

I'll give this website shot for some time.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> This was a problem I had with the book. Newport is a tenured professor - <USER2> can do what he wants when he wants. I can sort of get deep work time done but it's not always at the same time or as long as I plan it to be.

</comment><comment><USER6> This is iOS specific but putting my phone in airplane mode + do not disturb (to block pop ups from Signal) then putting on some instrumental music works wonders. I'm a fan of Tycho and Emancipator.

</comment><comment><USER7> Starting early, I used to start the day around 10. For two months now I get up around 6am and have focus time between 7-10am. Works great

</comment><comment><USER8> Noise-canceling headphones + focus at will (www.focusatwill.com) to get into a productive zone and stay in it.</comment>


Privacy groups ask FTC to block Facebook-WhatsApp deal - <AUTHOR> http://www.thegeekyglobe.com/privacy-groups-ask-ftc-to-block-facebook-whatsapp-deal.html <comment><USER2> The important part from the article is : _" until there is a clearer understanding of how the company intends to use the personal data of WhatsApp's 450 million users"_

FB would be drooling over all the messages, pics & videos on Whatsapp. For person-to-person communication, I prefer a paid app over an ad-supported free one. If I wanted the latter, there are no shortage of options. I wonder how Whatsapp spells out the usage of personal data in their ToS.

<comment><USER3> Why not read the ToS? It's pretty clear and very user friendly. The short version - they don't store your data, and there is no right for Facebook to get that data historically.

That's not to say they can't change it in future, but I'm sure if they do there will be a massive exodus from the network.

And to further clarify on your comment - whatsapp is a paid for app, not advert supported. They only charge the iPhone users, however. Cost of the app is $1 for iPhone. Suspect android users would never touch it, as they don't have payment details set up on Google Play's store.

<comment><USER4> "In the event that WhatsApp is acquired by or merged with a third party entity, we reserve the right to transfer or assign the information we have collected from our users as part of such merger, acquisition, sale, or other change of control." [http://www.whatsapp.com/legal/](http://www.whatsapp.com/legal/)

<comment><USER3> "The contents of messages that have been delivered by the WhatsApp Service are not copied, kept or archived by WhatsApp in the normal course of business."

followed by

"If the recipient is not online, the undelivered message is held in WhatsApp's server until it can be delivered. If the message is undelivered for thirty (30) days, the undelivered message is deleted from our servers. Once a message has been delivered, it no longer resides on our servers. The contents of any delivered messages are not kept or retained by WhatsApp — the only records of the content of any delivered messages reside directly on the sender's and recipient's mobile devices (and which may be deleted at the user's option)."

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Is there a legal way to stop Whatsapp from sharing my address book with Facebook?

<comment><USER6> Why do you think Facebook just paid $19b for them?

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Immediately after striking Facebook-WattsApp deal, Koum had mentioned in one of his tweets that users' privacy and security is their top concern and I hope he sticks to his guns.

<comment><USER8> He wouldn't exactly go out and tell people he just sold all their messages and address books, though, would he?

The message he wrote, was a message he had to write to keep customers using WhatsApp

<comment><USER9> Indeed. They may negotiate some privacy agreement in the sale (that is, fb and the feds), but that agreement will likely expire in due course, as it becomes a 'burden' to the business.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Why would any privacy advocate want to block this deal? I can only see this deal being beneficial for privacy in the long run.

Facebook are unable to collect data from the service without changing the ToS, which will likely cause a user exodus.

It's going to put such a huge unrecoverable dent in Facebook's finances that it will be a significant long term disadvantage to them.

If you are a privacy advocate, wait until the deal completes and then jump ship and bring your friends with you.

<comment><USER10> > _"... without changing the ToS, which will likely cause a user exodus."_

How many people are even aware of what the ToS says? I don't recall a mass exodus from Google when they merged their privacy policies so I don't expect to see it here (for similar reasons - where would they go?).

Edit: > _"... then jump ship and bring your friends with you."_

You make it sound like this is easy. It isn't. That's why networks have value and are hard to build.

<comment><USER11> > You make it sound like this is easy. It isn't. That's why networks have > value and are hard to build.

Exactly. Facebook sure isn't paying $19 billion for the ability to shuffle words around from phone to phone.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> This is why I asked about what happened to Mark Zuckerberg since the early days of Facebook regarding privacy in a Reddit AMA.

<comment><USER13> $200 billion happened to him, that's what...

<comment><USER12> What do you mean?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I just hope WhatsApp doesn't hand over deleted accounts' data to Facebook!</comment>


Ending support for Android Market on Android 2.1 and lower - <AUTHOR> https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2017/06/ending-support-for-android-market-on.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+blogspot/hsDu+(Android+Developers+Blog)&m=1 <comment><USER2> Semi-related, I've got an iPad 1st gen, and wanted to gift it to my nieces in El Salvador for school work.

So, I wiped it, hoping to give them a blank slate to install whatever they need.

I wish I hadn't - I could find absolutely nothing to install on the device from the Apple Store. Everything requires new iOS version (which is fine, of course), but I also can't install old versions of software on the iPad.

Basically, I screwed myself by wiping the device because now the default, pre- installed apps are the only apps that will ever run on this thing again.

<comment><USER3> Are you sure? IIRC when I played with my old iPhone 3Gs (older than iPad) earlier this year, I could still install the old versions of apps, even if the new ones required higher iOS versions.

I kinda have to question the value of giving someone a 7 year old device with a $50 market value that can't run any modern apps. Why not just send her $50 to buy a new Android tablet that probably runs whatever she needs?

<comment><USER2> I tried most of Google's offerings, iPad refused to install them.

> I kinda have to question the value of giving someone a 7 year old device

The device is perfectly usable. The battery life is still great on it, the screen is unscratched, it runs school-related apps just fine (or, did). What am I supposed to do with the thing now? Just junk it?

edit: I ended up giving them an Android tablet. I still have this iPad, and would love to at least give it to an organization that can hand it off to someone in need. Something inside me absolutely balks at the idea of throwing away a perfectly usable, modern device just because the parent company turns a blind eye to it.

<comment><USER4> It's 5 years old which is when a lot of corporate computers end up in the junk heap even if they are still running.

<comment><USER5> Why are you comparing a personal tablet to a corporate computer? Consumer needs and expectations are vastly different from those of businesses.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> To be clear - this doesn't mean that you can no longer install apps on Android 2.1 and lower, just that you can't use Android Market/Google Play. It's pretty easy to sideload APKs, and the development tools still provide for Android 2.1 and lower. Of course, you lose the convenience and relative malware protection that Google Play offers, but if ease-of-use and/or security are primary concerns you shouldn't be using a 7.5 year-old operating system anyway.

Also, they don't show versions lower than 2.3 on this graph, but I think it's fair to assume that the user share for 2.1 is far lower than 2.3's 0.8% [https://developer.android.com/about/dashboards/index.html](https://developer.android.com/about/dashboards/index.html).

In short, this isn't a big problem at all.

<comment><USER7> > Also, they don't show versions lower than 2.3 on this graph, but I think > it's fair to assume that the user share for 2.1 is far lower than 2.3's 0.8% > [https://developer.android.com/about/dashboards/index.html](https://developer.android.com/about/dashboards/index.html).

The graph legend says they don't show versions with user share lower than 0.1%, so one could infer that the user share for 2.1 is <0.1%, _but_ they also say that this graph only shows "devices that visited the Google Play Store in the prior 7 days". Devices which haven't connected to Google's servers recently (for instance, because they don't have an Internet connection) aren't counted.

And while the development tools still allow developers to target older releases, there were large API changes in Android 3 and 4 (these were the versions which added tablet support), so developers often will target only API level 14 (Android 4) and above.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> For context, Android Eclair 2.1 was released 7.5 years ago. Android Froyo 2.2, which succeeded it, was released 7 years ago and is still supported by the Google Play Store.

<comment><USER9> Not necessarily a good thing, encouraging people to use software that's been unpatched and out of date for at least 5 years.

<comment><USER10> The problem is that support for hardware ends far too soon. We're about to hit a transistor size wall; it doesn't make sense to spend $500 on a phone that is functionally equivalent to your old one just to get a software update.

Why can you run a cutting edge commercial OS on a 12 year old PC but not a 2 year old phone?

You wouldn't buy a $500 washing machine, microwave, or oven that only lasted 2 years, but you're expected to do so for a phone?

<comment><USER11> > Why can you run a cutting edge commercial OS on a 12 year old PC but not a 2 > year old phone?

Because Windows isn't open source.

That is absolutely the answer. Because hardware manufacturers couldn't just take Windows and recompile the kernel for their own custom hardware they _had_ to support the IBMPC standard bios interfaces and ACPI.

With Android, when hardware manufacturers can _get away with_ not standardizing the hardware platform to be OS generic, they make custom shit blobs they stick in a Linux kernel and leave for dead after 2 years.

Because it sells new devices. If you could keep an old S3 updated to the latest Android effortlessly there would be no artificial software based pressure to buy a new phone as long as you still liked the old one.

I actually find it really fascinating that it seems that hardware vendors are aggressively trying to create new modes of planned obsolescence as Google ramps up efforts to reduce their ability to abandon updates. User irreplaceable batteries are the biggest one to me, where vendors take the extra step to be truly devious and make hard-to-access batteries in sealed phones actually impossible to replace because they either solder the battery in or make it break the connectors when you try to remove it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Everyone keeps saying "7.5 years old" as though that is the only fact that matters.

I happen to like my Nook Glowlight. I have a newer Kobo also, but, like all the new ereaders, it lacks hardware page-turn buttons, and microsd slot.

In the case of that Nook, I did in fact root it and already had to side-load apps anyway, since it only runs android 1.6. So, don't bother telling me how to make my Nook work. It's not about me or my Nook. It's about this idiotic response that no one could possibly have any legitimate reason to run 7 year old software.

You know what? I'd LOVE to run new software on my 7 year old DEVICE. But they don't bother to make current software compatible with old devices.

It would be incredibly inconsiderate to demand it, but I'd even _almost_ swallow "just get a new device", except they don't make new devices that have the same features as the old device. For instance that Nook. New nooks and all other ereaders lack the features I specifically valued about that one.

There are countless examples of features that you want, that devices have only one time or for a short while, and then not again. Hardware buttons, sdcard slot, removable battery, headphone jack, (conversely, headphones with a cord that plugs into anything, how do you use airbuds with your roku remote? ), size that actually fits in your hand even if you're a small woman, special museum glass anti-reflective screen (vaio tz laptop), or literally countless other features that someone else decides you no longer need.

Meaning there are countless examples of why someone might actually want to run " _gasp_ 7 year old software omg I think I just threw up in my mouth..."

</comment><comment><USER13> I understand the OS is seven years old but only 10 days notice still seems kind of short.

</comment><comment><USER14> Yet another reason to be thrilled, as an Android user, that my ability to upgrade is held hostage to my phone vendor's willingness to package it. Google has so much weight to throw around, and seems to recognise the _problem_ with fragmentation; why do they only ever take such half-hearted steps to combat it?

<comment><USER15> Choose a phone that can be unlocked/rooted and a custom/pure Android that can be installed. At least you have that option for Android; unlike iOS.

<comment><USER16> Won't help if the hardware manufacture does not support the newer hardware even google itself has had to stop updating a few devices because of no hardware support by qualcomm or Nvidia. Though google is trying to change with it latest version of Android.

<comment><USER14> > Won't help if the hardware manufacture does not support the newer hardware > even google itself has had to stop updating a few devices because of no > hardware support by qualcomm or Nvidia.

To be fair, at that point my complaint about Google and phone manufacturers is kind of irrelevant ….

> Though google is trying to change with it latest version of Android.

How can software change hardware support? (That sounds snarky, but I'm serious.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Android 2.1 is probably not usable at this point anyway.

</comment><comment><USER18> Please include Ice Cream Sandwich and Jelly Bean.

</comment><comment><USER19> [https://xkcd.com/743/](https://xkcd.com/743/)

This (planned obsolescence) is what you get when you buy closed hardware running proprietary software.</comment>


Another Linux file notification subsystem - <AUTHOR> http://lwn.net/Articles/339253/ From the article: a new notification system, sorta like inotify, only instead of an arbitrary 'watch descriptor' which userspace has to know how to map back to an object on the filesystem, fanotify provides an open read-only fd back to the original object. <comment><USER3> While it's not designed to _be_ post game-over security software itself - <USER2> the author states - it's primarily designed to _support_ post game-over security scanning software, which seems like a poor motivator to include it in the Linux kernel.

A better solution to this problem would be:

* user education about why these solutions don't work

* ensure binaries and scripts are either signed or created locally

* ensure analysis is done from trusted environments (eg, another OS connected to the same SAN you're booting the suspect machine from).

</comment><comment><USER4> What's wrong with ionotify?</comment>


Game about Squares – [Official Version] on Google Play - <AUTHOR> https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.gameaboutsquares

<comment><AUTHOR> Looks like Andrey Shevchuk has now posted an official version of gameaboutsquares.com on Google Play.

Also see, [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8107359](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8107359)

p.s. Just bought it despite already completing the online version. Just £1, thanks Andrey!</comment>


Ask HN: Name that website - <AUTHOR>

I seem to remember a story on HN a while back about a website that I really wish I book marked. Can you help me find it again?
The site allowed you to send random gifts to a friend of yours for as little as a dollar per day. You would sign up and say where you wanted the items shipped, then, with however much money you chose to spend per day, the site would choose a gift in that price range and send it. Does that sound familiar to anyone?
I've been trying to track it down because I know a few people who would get a kick out of a gift like that, but my googling skills aren't what they used to be, or so it seems.
Thank you so much! <comment><USER2> <http://www.eachdayisagift.com/> looks like the one, but if it's not I also found these:

<https://www.mysterygiftmachine.com/> <http://www.ifting.com/> <http://www.GiftLizard.com>

btw: the search box at the bottom of the page works pretty well :)

<comment><AUTHOR> the first one is it! Thank you so so much! I tried hnsearch, but I guess I didn't have the right terms. Thank you!</comment></comment>


New California - <AUTHOR> https://www.cbsnews.com/news/new-california-declares-independence-from-rest-of-state/ <comment><USER2> Dupe of [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16159671](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16159671)

As I stated over in the other thread, the news articles claim that this is about separating the rural and/or inland counties from the urban and/or coastal ones is unsupported by the groups website, which does not specify that goal (or any specific geographic or county-type criteria) and explicitly targets getting committees going in as many of California's counties as possible.

</comment><comment><USER3> Selfish people who think their taxes will go down if they don't have to, in their minds, subsidize rural counties. What happened to "United we stand?"

<comment><USER4> I was under the impression from the article that it was people from rural counties that wanted to split. Because they've got Orange County on this map, and they're most unhappy with existing state politics.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> A good idea. I'd do anything to get free of the state constitution (besides move).

A more fitting name would be "Old California."</comment>


Show HN: An app for urbanite parents with small children - <AUTHOR> http://www.helloaviva.com <comment><AUTHOR> This is a side project the GF and I have been working on the last few months. We started testing an early web-only prototype this summer and have since put an app in the app store.

If this app is relevant to you we would love your feedback. It is a very niche product and probably won't pickup much interest here on HN. I have other projects for that :-)</comment>


Singular: Reimagining AngularJS in Java - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdPP3ldo1ww

<comment><AUTHOR> Daniel Kurka's talk from GWT.create 2015 on Singular, an Angular-like framework for Java.

Singular leverages GWT to generate Web applications, but it can also generate native Android applications (that do not use Web Views or Javascript), as well as iOS applications via j2objc.

It's a Java annotation processor based system that provides platform neutral and template-syntax neutral two-way data-binding.

</comment><comment><USER2> Presentation video from GWT.create where Daniel announced Singular: [http://gwtcreate.com/videos/index.html#singular](http://gwtcreate.com/videos/index.html#singular)

</comment><comment><USER2> Slides from Daniels presentation: [http://www.daniel- kurka.de/talks/gwtcreate15/singular.pdf](http://www.daniel- kurka.de/talks/gwtcreate15/singular.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER3> I take it there is no official project page yet?

<comment><USER4> We're working on it. Should come up soon.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Did Inbox use this framework or JsInterop?

<comment><AUTHOR> No, this was created by Daniel after Inbox already existed.</comment></comment>


Make your own OS - <AUTHOR> http://www.googlersays.com/how-to-make-operating-system-by-yourself/

<comment><USER2> A more accurate title would be:

An Introduction to SuseStudio.com

But, SuseStudio already has a getting started guide[1].

[1] [http://susestudio.com/help/quickstart/getting- started.html](http://susestudio.com/help/quickstart/getting-started.html)</comment>


San Francisco Ordinance Would Allow Rolling Bicycle Stops - <AUTHOR> http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2015/09/22/san-francisco-ordinance-would-allow-rolling-bicycle-stops/ <comment><USER2> "The so-called "bike yield law" would make enforcement the law requiring bicyclist to fully stop at stop signs the lowest priority."

I'm not a fan of selective enforcement. If you don't like the law, sit down and change it. There are too many laws on the books already that are never enforced, except when some officer feels the urge. Perhaps a special mark on stop signs to indicate to bikes which stops are optional and which ones aren't? If you don't like how cops are deployed, or how they are acting, then the correct redress is to elect a different commissioner/chief or whatever the title is in the jurisdiction.</comment>