America to immigrants: keep your entrepreneurs - <AUTHOR> http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-innovations/americas-to-immigrantsgive-me-your-tired-your-poor-but-not-your-entrepreneurs/2012/10/02/938cb15c-0cb9-11e2-bd1a-b868e65d57eb_story.html <comment><USER2> If America really wants to increase entrepreneurship, make health insurance portable and not tied to corporate America. That would encourage workers to start their own business.

Trying to tweak the immigration process in the name of "increased entrepreneurship" is often just a ruse for "open the borders!!!". Fine in and of itself if that's your beef. Just please file it right folder.

Letting Congress, political donors, H1-B employers and college administrators try and engineer the future by selecting "winners" seems like something they're going to mess up.

Better to have limited, legal only immigration based on a points system rather than turn it into a subsidy for Sand Hill Road.

<comment><USER3> I'd add two other things to fix too. The first is housing. It is not a triumph every time the cost of housing goes up. That just diverts funds that could have been spent on other things into housing, makes it considerably more expensive to move, and reduces the runway given a certain amount of funding. We would all be better off if houses were $1 each not $1m each.

The second is the pitiful broadband available all over the country. With better broadband it is far easier to take advantage of contributors all over the country. Telepresence would allow collaborators to feel as though they are in the same room, and is best served by high bandwidths. Data files keep getting larger so it helps there too. And if you are using a remote computer displaying locally then again it is best served by higher bandwidths (and lower latencies).

<comment><USER4> > _"We would all be better off if houses were $1 each not $1m each."_

We would? Last I checked $1 can't even build some branches and a tarp.

But to address your main point:

> _"It is not a triumph every time the cost of housing goes up."_

Indeed. Neither is it a triumph every time the cost of food goes up. Or the cost of gas. Or the cost of clothing. Or the cost of basic needs like the plumber or the mechanic. We would all (on a micro scale) be much better off if prices simply stayed put.

Except in an economy where all prices are fixed your entrepreneurship wouldn't go anywhere either... What you're proposing is a complete removal of the free market economy and putting _vast_ portions of it under central planning. History has some indications as to how that works (tip: "disaster" doesn't begin to describe it).

<comment><USER5> Not in Detroit. True most of the $1 houses are gone but you'd be surprised by what $100 will purchase.

[http://www.businessinsider.com/detroit-houses- for-1-dollar-2...](http://www.businessinsider.com/detroit-houses- for-1-dollar-2012-2?op=1)

<comment><USER4> And Detroit isn't the aftermath of a gigantic disaster? ;)

Granted, Detroit is a disaster that _didn't_ come from the nationalization of vast portions of private property.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> It was interesting listening to a fairly liberal guest on Bloomberg/Charlie Rose the other day, who claimed the search for "comprehensive" immigration reform was the biggest enemy of high-skill immigration reform right now.

Essentially everyone agrees on easier and longer (to permanent) visas for future or currently-legal but temporary visa entrepreneurs, high skill immigrants (for various definitions), etc. There isn't a clear consensus on how to handle pre-existing other immigrants, or future low-skill immigrants. There are also weird corner cases caused by long-term illegal/undocumented presence by children, which is what the DREAM act is supposed to address -- a child who was brought here shortly after birth, who grew up a US citizen, graduated high school, college, etc., really doesn't seem the same as an adult who recently and of his own free will crossed the border.

Part of it is racial/racism, but a lot of it is economics; trying to paint enemies of mass unskilled immigration or immigration amnesty as just racists is doing everyone a disservice. But it's also undeniable that the high-skill immigrants with problems are generally from India and China (where the H1B system is most broken due to nationwide quotas) and from other parts of Asia, Europe, etc., and the illegal/low skill immigrants are largely from Mexico, Guatemala, and other Latin American countries.

There is also some confusion about credentials vs. actual skills, too -- I'd rather bring Bill Gates in than most people with BA's from diploma mills or even legitimate PhDs.

The problem with comprehensive reform (as championed by the democrats and Obama) is that it's all or nothing, vs. incrementally solving each class. The proponents of comprehensive believe (probably rightly) that solving the most obvious and pressing problem (the 1 million or so skilled immigrants who are all currently legal) will take away the drive to solve the 12 million unskilled/illegal immigrants already here, or the many million who would immigrate without skills if it were easy and open. It would also quite possibly lead to a more restrictive regime for the unskilled vs. skilled.

Ultimately we seem to be solving the immigration problem by destroying the US economy (outside high tech and government, neither of which employs a lot of illegals), thus depressing wages and job opportunities for illegal/unskilled immigrants, while mexico continues to develop its economy -- it makes more sense to work there legally for 10% the cost of living and 30% the wage in many cases.

<comment><USER7> > It would also quite possibly lead to a more restrictive regime for the > unskilled vs. skilled.

What I'm worried is that it'll also lead to more market distortion, as the government tries to micromanage specific industries and quotas, which will inevitably be based on which industries lobby the most. If it were a fairly general skilled/unskilled distinction, like Canada's points system, I'd support that, though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Not fully related to this article but inline with the comments what I am reading.

I am always amazed at the different kinds of programs and rules introduced by USA for giving permanency to illegal immigrants where as people moving/moved legally (H1b/L1b etc) have to wait forever(like 10 years and still waiting) to get that status.People on H1B/L1B can not start a side business and these are the tech people(mostly) who can add lots of value to the existing market.

<comment><USER9> Your statement that "H1B/L1B can not start a side business" is factually incorrect. Any legal non immigrant can start a business, who he/she cannot work for it. That's the problem.

<comment><USER8> Well I know about that.You can open a company but can not work for it.What is the use?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Vivek Wadhwa writes about his pet issue yet again, with this article including the key point about his evidence, "I tell Desai's and others' stories in my book," and at least this time a reference to an study by the Kauffman Foundation

[http://www.kauffman.org//uploadedFiles/Then_and_now_americas...](http://www.kauffman.org//uploadedFiles/Then_and_now_americas_new_immigrant_entrepreneurs.pdf)

of which he was the principal author.

Get ready for the key statistic from the report: "The proportion of immigrant- founded companies nationwide has dropped from 25.3 percent to 24.3 percent since 2005. While the margins of error of these numbers overlap, they nonetheless indicate that immigrant-founded companies' dynamic period of expansion has come to an end." Okay, so the change in percentage is within the standard error of measurement; a percentage change of that kind would be seen even if there were more immigrant-founded companies than ever, as long as more native-born Americans than ever found companies; and there is NO indication that Silicon Valley's flood of innovation has ceased.

What is the problem here? Quantitatively, what is the proof that any policy change is needed?

AFTER EDIT: Responding to the offense taken by the replies kindly posted below, let me explain my position. My PERSONAL position on immigration to the United States as a matter of policy is that I would be happy to see it go back to the way it was in the 1870s, when anyone could immigrate from anywhere with hardly any regulation of immigration at all. All of my ancestors arrived in the United States by those rules--all of my ancestors were in North America well in advance of the building of the immigration processing station at Ellis Island in New York City.

I am intimately familiar with United States immigration law, having formerly worked as an immigration lawyer (as described in my user profile here on Hacker News) and being the husband of a first-generation immigrant to the United States from Taiwan. I have lived abroad for six years of my life (in two separate three-year stays), so I have a pretty good idea of how one country treats foreign residents from America. The clients for my current occupation, teaching mathematics lessons through a local nonprofit organization, included first-generation immigrants from China, India, Russia, Romania, the Philippines, Korea, Ghana, Indonesia, Pakistan, Turkey, and other countries I may be forgetting at the moment. I like immigrants, and I like America to be full of immigrants--that makes life here more interesting.

But to persuade the legislative process in the United States to change the rules requires more convincing evidence than the anecdotes that Vivek Wadhwa repeatedly brings forward. Another comment here astutely pointed out that the recent trend line in immigration from Taiwan is that entrepreneur immigration to the United States is decreasing. That's because Taiwan has democratized, liberalized, and prospered during my lifetime. Now people who were born in Taiwan can pursue their advanced education in many different countries, being well prepared by the generally excellent primary and secondary education there, and then can decide for themselves where to settle to establish a career. They can go back to the country where they grew up and where their relatives and childhood friends live if they like. I think it's great for people to have choice like that. I don't think it is any problem for the United States at all if people from Taiwan develop their entrepreneurial businesses in Taiwan. The same is true of India and China. People from India and China continue to come to the United States in large numbers, as I can personally observe. Some study here and then go back to the countries of their birth. No one has made a case that United States policy has to change much to influence the numbers one way or another.

<comment><USER11> That's a fair criticism of the study, but you're misunderstanding the point Vivek is making. Policy change has ALWAYS been necessary. In fact, it is now a little bit easier than a few years ago to be an immigrant entrepreneur [1]. The point is that soon these entrepreneurs will just stay in their home country or move to a more entrepreneur-friendly country instead of going through all this trouble.

I'm an entrepreneur from Germany and I can't help but feel slightly offended by your comment. You seem to think either a) I should go back to Germany for some reason or b) it's cool for me to stay here, but only if I jump through a series of ridiculous hoops. If you don't feel that way, you should support a change in legislation.

[1] For example, you can get an EB2 NIW visa as an entrepreneur and I've heard of many cases where O3 was granted even though the person wasn't really "notable"

<comment><USER12> I have seen several pieces by Wadhwa in Techcrunch [1]. The point usually seems to be "Microsoft and Google can't hire all the developers they want _at the price they're willing to pay_ ; we should increase H1-B quotas".

This isn't to say that immigration is bad or that MS and Google aren't having trouble hiring, it's to say that MS and Google might very well be able to find more people within the US if they paid more.

Look at it in the context of six top tech companies being caught colluding to keep domestic employee wages down through no-poach agreements [2].

[1] [http://techcrunch.com/2009/08/30/free-the-h-1bs-free-the- eco...](http://techcrunch.com/2009/08/30/free-the-h-1bs-free-the-economy/)

[2] <http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2010/September/10-at-1076.html>

<comment><USER13> Seriously. Microsoft, Google, etc, are in no position to lobby for more H1B until they address the rampant anti-competitive employment practices in the industry.

<comment><USER12> Google in particular is a fun case study:

      $1,167,000 revenue per employee     [1]
        $299,000 net income per employee  [1]
        $106,000 mean salary              [2]

[1] [http://www.advfn.com/p.php?pid=financials&symbol=N%5EGOO...](http://www.advfn.com/p.php?pid=financials&symbol=N%5EGOOG)

[2] <http://www.salarylist.com/company/Google-Salary.htm>

<comment><USER13> I like to point out that Google has higher revenues per employee than Goldman Sachs, but a mid-level banker at GS makes several times as much money as a mid-level engineer at Google.

<comment><USER14> This is an excellent point.

I did some quick Googling (ha!) and found that GS net income per employee for last quarter on an annualized basis was about $119,000, less than half Google's average

[http://money.cnn.com/2012/07/17/investing/goldman-sachs- earn...](http://money.cnn.com/2012/07/17/investing/goldman-sachs- earnings/index.htm)

$962 million * 4 quarters / 32,300 employees = $119,133

<comment><USER13> I think why this happens is this: if you're on a trading desk of 10 people that makes $10m, it's easy to quantify your contribution and use that as leverage to get a big bonus. If you're on one of 10 product teams that each have 10 people and in total generate $100m in revenue, it's hard to quantify your specific contribution and use it to negotiate a large bonus, even though you're bringing in the same revenue on an averaged basis.

I've always wondered why compensation in software engineering is lower compared to revenues than similar professions. A lot of the things that are either facially true or commonly held beliefs: software has low capital costs, good programmers are much more productive than bad ones, a lot of revenue can be brought in with a relatively small team, are the things that make banking, law, consulting, and even accounting more relatively lucrative for workers as opposed to shareholders. But I think there is this holdover perception of treating software engineers like other engineers, even though the dynamics of those fields is very different (massive teams coordinating to build pyramids with huge capital costs).

<comment><USER12> Commodity programmers have externally limited individual leverage (aforementioned 'teams building pyramids' strategy [1]) and systematically limited measurement (because their measurable output is blended with that of the supporting organization). On top of all that, any commoditized worker is going to have extremely limited leverage in salary negotiations due to the ease of replacing them.

pg's "How to Make Wealth" [2] does a great job of explaining the interplay between leverage, measurement, and wealth:

 _To get rich you need to get yourself in a situation with two things, measurement and leverage. You need to be in a position where your performance can be measured, or there is no way to get paid more by doing more. And you have to have leverage, in the sense that the decisions you make have a big effect.

Measurement alone is not enough. An example of a job with measurement but not leverage is doing piecework in a sweatshop. Your performance is measured and you get paid accordingly, but you have no scope for decisions. The only decision you get to make is how fast you work, and that can probably only increase your earnings by a factor of two or three.

An example of a job with both measurement and leverage would be lead actor in a movie. Your performance can be measured in the gross of the movie. And you have leverage in the sense that your performance can make or break it._

[1] <http://mitpress.mit.edu/sicp/front/node1.html>

[2] <http://www.paulgraham.com/wealth.html>

<comment><USER15> But then why isn't, say, academia incredibly lucrative? It's got both measurement and leverage in the form of research grants, and leverage as well in publications.

<comment><USER16> Academia can be _incredibly_ lucrative for rockstar grant writers, leaders in scientific fields, and authors.

These folks typically don't command astronomical salaries (though they do get paid much, much more handsomely than you'd imagine). Rather, some of them publish bestsellers (and demand the university's help in getting access to leading magazines, publishers, press, etc.). Some of them start their own labs, companies, or institutions that are funded by the schools. Some of them clean up on the lecture circuit. Some researchers -- especially in biomedical fields -- make fortunes (for both their universities and themselves) by selling or licensing patents to private enterprise.

For instance, I'm a writer by hobby. As such, I tend to hang around a lot of other writers (note: I don't recommend this). A common complaint among writers is that writing doesn't pay well. And, on average, that's true. But the world of writing isn't a neat, Gaussian distribution of income. It's a power-law distribution. Most writers are lucky to clear $50k a year in academia, or working for a large and respectable publication. But Malcolm Gladwell earns well north of $10 million a year. Michael Lewis probably makes even more. And don't even get me started on fiction. The woman who wrote "50 Shades of Grey" makes, on average, $3 million _a week_. J.K. Rowling is a billionaire. Stephen King is probably a near-billionaire. That guy who crapped out "The Da Vinci Code" could just about afford to purchase the Mona Lisa from the Louvre, were he so inclined.

Writing, like academia, is an all-or-nothing sport. There tends to be a very small slice of outsized winners, and a very large slice of abject losers. I don't mean "winners" and "losers" in a pejorative sense. I mean it in the sense that the pie is divided very, very, very unevenly. The average is very low, but the high end is quite high.

This is in stark contrast to, say, i-banking -- wherein a small proportion make an outlandish amount of money, but everyone else still makes a really large chunk of money.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> One of my first jobs out of college was with MobileWorks, a YC company founded in part by foreign graduate students at Berkeley. I wouldn't have been employed if the founders hadn't managed to navigate the atrocious laws preventing foreign entrepreneurs from starting companies in the US.

I'm sure that for every American with a story like mine, there are dozens of people who could have been employed at companies started by foreign-born entrepreneurs but never had the chance. The US is doing serious, long-term damage to itself with these wrong-headed policies.

</comment><comment><USER18> I just found that the H1-B visa requires a bachelor's degree. You can't get work in the US if you're a talented designer or programmer and don't have a degree.

<comment><USER19> This is a problem? If you really want to work in the US, getting a bachelor's degree is one of the easiest hurdles to cross!

<comment><USER20> Except that whole "paying for it thing", there are very very few grants/scholarships for international students and they pay out-of-state fees plus a little more for being foreigners. Plus, outside of CPT you're not allowed to work in the US (only 20hrs max, on campus employment is allowed, if you can get it) to make money.

So yeah ... not as easy as it seems.

<comment><USER19> Um... you have to have the degree _before_ you attempt to enter the US.

<comment><USER20> That is factually incorrect. You can come here on an F1 visa, get a degree and then get a H-1b

<comment><USER19> OK. Let's start over.

The original complaint was that someone wanted to come into the US, but the visa he wanted required that he have (at least) a bachelor's degree before he could get the visa.

My response was that this was a fairly straightforward hurdle to cross.

Pointing out that it's possible to do things differently by obtaining another type of visa really doesn't change the original situation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Entrepreneurs are overvalued. Period.

The glorification and, sometimes deification, of various entrepreneurs as almost single handedly bringing the world out of the darkness is complete bullshit and merely an example of the fundamental attribution error writ large (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error>).

People just completely forget that a) the world is an incredibly complex system that rarely has single factor causes to various effects and b) that people just don't matter - the ecosystem that surrounds them matters much more.

For example not worrying about personal security frees up employees to take more risk. A strong rule of law that attempts to equate wrongs allows people to focus on value added services rather than the fear of litigation. Access to cheap raw materials (plentiful mining/food/water) allows one to easily build things that would be quite simply uneconomical anywhere else. A capitalist system allows more niches to be profitably exploited than centrally planned economies. "Special innovative people" are by far the least of your worries.

Systems matter more than any one person and anyone who gives you the "A player" talk is full of crap - "A player" yourself out of Afghanistan as a sick female and we'll see who's talking.

</comment><comment><USER22> When I see a headline like this one I immediately think of this cartoon : [http://young.anabaptistradicals.org/wp- content/uploads/2007/...](http://young.anabaptistradicals.org/wp- content/uploads/2007/04/first_illegal_immigrants.jpg)

I chuckle a bit and then move onto the headline "America to immigrants: 'Give me your tired, your poor' but keep your entrepreneurs" Written by Vivek Wadhwa and chuckle some more.

I then having got past the title got to read a rather insightful article about how it is easy to come and work in America and visa's for that exist. But if you which to start a company and as such have a situation were you have to apply for citizenship, then you could have a top 25 existing company in-play already employing American's and pay lots of TAX then you can still be told sorry no. That said there was mention of a % drop in immigrant started companies and this still points to them happening. I suspect the tighter limits has meant raising the bar beyond what it needs to be for many and with that perhaps a new type of VISA needs to be made. I don't know the whole American VISA system that well, but certainly some middle ground from worker VISA to citizen VISA to cater for those employing American's can be met. Maybe if they employ so many then they qualify. So for example if you can form a company and employ say 5 people full time then you are granted say a 5 year business VISA which is reviewed every 5 years to see that you meet checks and after say 3 period gain a full citizenship. Something like that, though a lot more detailed against loopholes I suspect.

But still, very nice read and very good article, despite the interesting choice of title, albeit once you have read the article you will see why it is just on so many levels sadly.

</comment><comment><USER23> I'm not a political scientist but being an immigrant myself (not to US but Germany), I've never understood why the whole issue can't be as simple as just letting people come in with a visa, applying for jobs (without law enforced disadvantages), and pay taxes, after x amount of years working and paying taxes then applying for citizenship and basta. I don't see what countries have to lose except skilled laborers that are working and paying taxes, boosting the economy and fostering innovation...

<comment><USER13> You're considering one case. But in a modern western country, citizenship comes with many benefits. It obliges the country to educate the immigrant's kids for free for 13 years each. It obliges the country to extend its social welfare programs to the immigrant and his family. It's reasonable for the country to want to control what obligations it incurs. You act like its risk- free for the host country, but it's not. You consider the immigrant who gets a job and pays taxes, but what about the ones that fail to get jobs and need welfare?

<comment><USER24> There are pretty easy ways around this e.g. require new immigrants to put enough money in escrow to cover a trip back to their home country and prevent them from claiming any sort of state benefits for a certain period.

Regardless, I don't really think many immigrants go to another country just to be unemployed and claim benefits, especially for the people we're talking about here (those from developed Western countries who want to come to the US to be entrepreneurs/work in tech), which makes me think people are really concerned about wage deflation rather than anything else.

<comment><USER13> Once someone is here, sending them back is a challenge.

And there aren't a ton of well-established people from western countries clamorimg to come here. There are some, but the majority are less established people--students, etc. It's a higher-risk demographic than you imply. Entrepreneurship is inherently quite risky, and there are plenty of unemployed people in tech.

<comment><USER24> Unemployment is not pleasant in the US. I'm inclined to believe that most people from a Western nation would up and leave willingly if they weren't having much success, and that people from less developed nations would too if they weren't able to claim benefits. Being an immigrant isn't easy after all - if you're going to be unemployed it's probably easier to be unemployed in your home nation where you have a support network.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> While I may agree that the US should do more to encourage immigrant entrepreneurs, I do not think that the author chose a good openning example.

The author points to statistics about tech companies started by immigrants and presents Desai as part of the team that developed new technology, but Desai studied MBA and he was only doing an administrative job at IR Diagnostyx[0].

Moreover, the openning example does not seem to be precise; the author claims that Desai was not given an opportunity to start his business, which does not seem to be aligned with Desai being affiliated with IR Diagnostyx from 2009 to Feb 2012[1]. Furthermore, upon graduation in 2009, the US did give Desai 12 months of OPT[2], for which self-employment does qualify. In fact, if Desai had studied Science/Tech/Engineering/Math, he would have been give an an extension of 17 months of OPT[3], for a total of ~2.5 years to work on his business.

[0] [http://it- jobs.fins.com/Articles/SB130652363641519729/Americ...](http://it- jobs.fins.com/Articles/SB130652363641519729/American-Dream-Fades- for-H-1B-Hopefuls)

[1] <http://www.linkedin.com/in/hardikadesai>

[2] Optional Practical Training, assuming he was on F1 visa as a student: [http://icenter.stanford.edu/students/current/employment_faq....](http://icenter.stanford.edu/students/current/employment_faq.html)

[3] [http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f...](http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=ff791c491861a110VgnVCM1000004718190aRCRD&vgnextchannel=68439c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1RCRD)

</comment><comment><USER26> seems like fud to me, how else could you explain this? [http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/29/us-usa-visa- extrao...](http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/29/us-usa-visa- extraordinary-idUSBRE85S09A20120629)

</comment><comment><USER27> Re: "But the U.S. government wouldn't provide Hardik with a visa to start the company. Hardik had no difficulty in getting an H1-B visa that allowed him to work, but immigration rules did not allow him to work for a company that he started. So, he abandoned his entrepreneurial dreams."

Obstacles like this shouldn't stop an entrepreneur. I had to do the whole H1-B thing myself, while bootstrapping another business on the side - and there are no rules against that. I know others who did the same. Have a job, launch a company in your spare time.

<comment><USER28> Was the startup you launched on the side profitable? Were you able to draw any income from it?

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> As an American citizen working in Canada I have the same problem on the other side of the fence. My work permit is tied to my Canadian employer and it is not possible for me to get a work permit as a self employed worker or an entrepreneur.

From what I understand this is a fairly universal problem with immigration policy. Most developed countries are unwilling hand over work permits for hopes and dreams. I wish there was a way around this but as far as I know you cannot start a company without permanent residency.

</comment><comment><USER30> I wonder if there are any stats or correlations between universal healthcare (or something similar) and entrepreneurship. It's supposed to increase job churn, which is awesome for the economy, and you'd think more people would start their own businesses if saving their healthcare wasn't a consideration.

I know personally that I started my own business specifically because I was allowed to stay on my parents healthcare until I'm 25(26? Shit I should figure that out) so even with $5k in savings, I was like why not?

<comment><USER30> That's a massive over-simplification of my insatiable call to be a builder, but without the security of health insurance coverage I might not have done it straight out of college.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> I actually know that it _is_ possible to get an H-1B for a legitimate business that you, as a foreign entrepreneur, founded. I also know that such applications are very rare and very thoroughly scrutinized to make sure it's not an immigration loophole, and there is the restriction that you cannot be a majority shareholder, which kills it unless you have partners.

Less known is that a person can also sponsor you for an H-1B if you are going to be working for them.

</comment><comment><USER32> "H-1B workers may be hired even when a qualified US worker wants the job, and a US worker can be displaced from the job in favor of the foreign worker." US Department of Labor

The US government and corporations have sold you out as a US CITIZEN. See the proof [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCbFEgFajGU&](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCbFEgFajGU&);

</comment><comment><USER33> Is anyone here rejoicing at the fact that due erroneous U.S. immigration policies India and China are suffering less brain drain??

</comment><comment><USER34> Regarding the title, I assure you that the poor and the tired have a harder time immigrating to the U.S. than any entrepreneur.

</comment><comment><USER35> Title is confusing. It should be "would-be immigrants" not "immigrants."

</comment><comment><USER36> It's hard to understand how byzantine and ridiculous the immigration system is unless you've been through it.

I have no idea whose interest it is currently serving - I know for a fact not America's though.

</comment><comment><USER37> oh its a vivek wadhwa piece...if vivek says the sun rises from the east, i'm much more likely to believe it must be the west. vivek periodically writes these half baked partisan anecdote-ridden pieces & calls it "research"....as a former immigrant and a recipient of the so-called "genius visa" (EB1), i'm very sympathetic to the cause. yes, immigration to the USA is very hassly and the laws must be vastly simplified etc... but this won't do. this sort of article is akin to a startup job post on HN. "Immigration. Its broken! We must fix it. We are a group of yc founders who will build immigration from scratch in Ruby on Rails. For the harder parts we will ofcourse use PHP. You must be a rockstar immigrant with 100 years of immigration behind you. For bonus points, show me your immigration in github. Solve this immigration puzzle on our website using only backbone.js and coffeescript, and you can score an exclusive lunch with us, cooked by immigrants, catered by immigrants, exclusively for you, the immigrant. Don't forget to carry your H1B visas on your person, you never know when you might be deported! Apply already, but only after you decode our bcrypt secured ROT13 encrypted immigration email and pay processing fees of 13 dollars 26 cents exclusively in bitcoins".

founding companies is not simply a matter of talent and risk-appetite, which, arguably, the STEM immigrant has more of. its also a matter of feeling secure with your finances, having a house in a good school district, having a CD or two for the rainy day, having some connections to the VC community, having the time & desire to hack up a prototype & blog about it & build a community & attract enough interest...all of which immigrants are less likely to do, given that we are already preoccupied with keeping a job, keeping our immigration papers in order, gradually building up savings, digging ourselves out of the negative equity hole that most of us are in because we borrowed money to get here in the first place...i could go on and on, but i won't. suffice it to say, the sun definitely rises in the west, because vivek has said its the east.

</comment><comment><USER38> Doesn't the O-Visa allow you to create and run a business?

<comment><USER39> O visa is for exceptional ability and they really mean exceptional. So who qualifies for those ? people with scientific researches, publications, inventions etc. Not the average hacker.

<comment><USER26> Shera Bechard got one

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> In perspective, does ANY country do this "right" ?

</comment><comment><USER41> the DREAM Act is not for real dreamers.

</comment><comment><USER42> The US isn't the only place to start something, try Berlin and say goodbye to any visa problems.

Top 5 reasons why you should move to Berlin, now:

1\. Lowest livings costs with highest quality of living. Stay in gorgeous, perfectly renovated apartments in pre-WWII residential buildings with high ceilings, right in the middle of the center and pay a fraction of costs of any other capital (even cheaper than any Eastern European capital). No need for a car—Berlin has one of the densest subway nets and wide streets make biking fun.

2\. A vibrant and fast growing ecosystem of smart people. A vast number of new software talents, founders, software companies and VCs are moving to Berlin, every day (Twitter, Google, Soundcloud, Early Bird and many more).

3\. People here are open-minded, outgoing, mix well and international—no need to learn German, everyone speaks English! Making new friends is a matter of days. Visit tons of networking and startup events, every week.

4\. Easy work permissions—Europeans do not need any and can work from day one and the rest applies for the hassle-free Blue Card.

5\. Berlin's night life is unmatched, huge and changing every day (plus ridiculously cheap). Berlin has got some of the most dazzling, naughty, and original clubs on the face of the Earth.

Berlin is calling and getting the new tech hub of Europe. If you are passionate about building great software, we'd love to talk with you. If you don't live in Berlin yet, we could help to fix that.

=> <http://urge.io/jobs> (shameless plug)

<comment><USER43> I wouldn't want to start a company in Germany, but I wouldn't mind working there. I like Berlin though I would hate to help pay the bailout money for Greece.

<comment><USER44> What's your attitude to starting a company in the USA? The Greek bailout is puny next to the projected Medicare deficit. Then add Social Security, state and local pensions...

<comment><USER43> I would love to. Can't really get a visa though.

I don't mind bailing out medicare or SS. I just don't want to transfer my work to somebody who will shit on me for doing it and then use the funds to pay people who call me evil.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Audio Rally Game (so also for visually impaired) on IndieGoGo - <AUTHOR> https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/audio-rally-racing/x/4573176#home

<comment><USER2> As someone who is totally blind I would just like to say thanks for posting this. I probably would not ahve found out about it otherwise.</comment>


Tech bosses are globalists, not libertarians - <AUTHOR> https://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2017/09/daily-chart-7 <comment><USER2> Author of the study they wrote about here. I think the NYT write up is better: [https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/06/technology/silicon- valley...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/06/technology/silicon-valley- politics.html). Study here: [https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/faculty- research/working-papers...](https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/faculty- research/working-papers/wealthy-elites-policy-preferences-economic-inequality- case).

<comment><USER3> the nyt open with: "Silicon Valley has long preferred to remain aloof from national politics, but the Trump era has altered that stance."

which is kinda of hard to defend since Obama constantly blocked the bay area on reelection campaigns and most of his advisors came from/went to silicon Valley companies.

<comment><USER4> I'm kind of wondering what happened between c. 1999 and now. The WTO meetings in Seattle were protested vigorously by "anarchist anti-globalists" who sought to protect American workers from the competition of outsourcing and cheap goods from overseas (China was going to enter WTO) So much so the next meetings were in Doha.

But now, these same class of people are quite a bit more pro globalization and might be considered globalists. They somewhat ironically seem to embrace some big aspects of neoliberal economics which is something they were quite antithetical to back in the early 2000's --so what gives?

<comment><USER5> Because "globalism" is a misnomer, it's shorthand for "economic globalism". Economic globalism is the exploitation of the masses by opening the borders for trade and desirable workers, whilst keeping them closed for the 99% of this planets population.

That's the kind of "globalism" the tech elite supports. They love to hide behind closed borders when it protects their wealth and power.

Those "same class of people" have always supported true globalism for the people in terms of a complete removal of borders. Don't blame them because greedy neoliberals have hijacked the term globalism.

<comment><USER6> During the TPP debate I thought there was a discussion about this type of "free trade" I think this article from C4SS sums up the position of this new globalism

[https://c4ss.org/content/41012](https://c4ss.org/content/41012):

\----

"In the early 20th century, when most industrial capital was national, Western countries' main imports were raw materials from the colonial world and their main exports were finished industrial goods. So it was in the interest of American manufacturers to restrict competition in the domestic market from imported goods manufactured in other industrialized countries. Fast forward 100 years though, and most American imports are by the Western-owned global corporations themselves, importing goods produced under contract for them so they can sell them in the domestic market at an enormous "intellectual property" markup over the cost of production.

Since the movement of goods across borders is now mostly an internal affair of global corporations themselves, outmoded tariffs that impede the movement of goods have become an inconvenience. What they need, instead, is a form of protectionism that still gives them a monopoly over selling a particular product in a particular market — but operates at corporate boundaries rather than national ones. That's what "intellectual property" does.

Aside from the manufacturing corporations we just discussed, most of the other profitable industries in the global economy have business models centered on IP: Entertainment, software, electronics, biotech, etc.

So what's falsely called "free trade" today isn't a decrease in protectionism. It's a shift from one kind of protectionism that no longer serves corporate interests, to a new kind of protectionism that better serves them."

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I think more simplistically: when you take this group of people and average them out what you get are beliefs that benefit the large companies they represent. That's the signal that is correlated with running a big tech company, and the rest is probably mostly noise. That's all really, they aren't for or against free trade in aggregate, they are for their company trading profitably, on average.

<comment><USER8> Bullshit. You're committing the fallacy that comes from Marxist thought--- that one's position/class/socio-economic-factors are the determining factors in their values and beliefs. People are not so simple, their thoughts can come from elsewhere. You're wildly underestimating the sentience of these people.

I think a better model is that: People who understand economics tend to both be entrepreneurs (they understand the rules of the game they're playing) and they are in favor of free trade and less regulation.

Free trade _does not_ benefit large companies. Large companies want, and generally get, favorable regulations and tariffs that make it hard for outsiders or for small guys.

<comment><USER9> I strongly agree with your argument regarding economic-class determinism or whatever it's called. After all, some of the most progressive policies for the poor in this country were passed by the wealthiest presidents (FDR, Kennedy, Johnson).

However, if you're suggesting that Silicon Valley CEOs are in favor of libertarian free trade, I think I agree more with the article and disagree with you. Silicon Valley CEOs loyalty is not to free trade, it's to their globalist lifestyle and outlook on life. Indeed, most of these people seem to be hardcore monopolists, and with no shame for it either.

<comment><USER10> >>After all, some of the most progressive policies for the poor in this country were passed by the wealthiest presidents (FDR, Kennedy, Johnson).

You mean regressive policies that hurt the poor, right?

The War on Poverty marked the end of the decline in the American poverty rate. The social welfare state gradually sapped American industrial vitality and the labour productivity growth that had been fueling wage gains across all income classes for decades.

<comment><USER11> But labor productivity growth doesn't cause any wage gains anymore, hasn't for decades upon decades.

Probably worth asking if you assert that American corporate taxes are the highest in the world: sometimes there are just major, major reality-based differences in the discourse and it's useless talking any further. I know I can't believe some of your axioms here, unfortunately.

<comment><USER12> I'm curious what you mean by that, because I've never heard anyone seriously argue against that assertion. Our top marginal corporate tax rate is one of the highest, according to Wikipedia [1], though companies are generally pretty good at not being too profitable and therefore not paying a very high tax rate, if that's what you mean.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_tax_in_the_United_St...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_tax_in_the_United_States)

Excerpt: In 2014 the United States had the third highest general top marginal corporate income tax rate in the world at 39.1 percent (consisting of the 35% federal rate plus a combined state rate), exceeded only by Chad and the United Arab Emirates However, the average corporate tax rate in 2011 dipped to 12.1%, its lowest level since before World War I, largely due to the great recession and a bonus depreciation tax break.

<comment><USER11> You do understand the difference between marginal and baseline tax rates? That word 'marginal' did not slip by me, I'm afraid.

<comment><USER12> Yes, I do, and no, it wasn't meant to "slip by you", which is why I asked if you meant that companies were good at not being profitable, and thus never made it to the top rate.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Gloablist vs Libertarian is a strange dichotomy to me. As a Libertarian this study would mark me as a 'globalist.' I believe free trade and immigration are good, and that foreign policy is important.

They go on to ask SV if 'they are libertarians' by asking if they believe in Minarchism--that the State should only provide police and military, which most libertarians themselves don't even agree is an ideal interpretation.

What a silly piece of work.

There's a whole lot of corporate and political pushback against libertarians, which is getting to be crazy. Google defunded Ron Paul's Youtube channel, which is ridiculous.

Libertarianism is not the opposite of globalism or socialism. In fact, there exist prominent libertarian socialists, Noam Chomsky for example. The reality is libertarianism is the opposite of authoritarianism.

<comment><USER14> Thank you, I came here to say something about this, the whole article seems to misunderstand libertarianism.

The extreme fringe of libertarianism is anarchism and I think that is really what they were getting at. But most Libertarians as with any political affiliation are not at the fringe (though they may be the loudest).

This would be like judging all Republicans based on the Tea Party or all Democrats based on Socialism.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> There was a comment about the political influence and aspirations of certain big names in tech, but it has suddenly disappeared. It contained some criticism of Paul Graham and Sam Altman, but seemed totally reasonable to me -- can anyone say why it was deleted?

<comment> aaron-lebo I wrote it, I don't feel like being an ass and I'm feeling overly aggressive today, not to mention I am a guest in someone else's house.

...but my overall point is that the tech elite is composed of a lot of rich white guys with connections, who naturally help each other out. Sam Altman runs YC now and as of last year was apparently seriously considering running for governor of California. That strikes me as grandiose and not good for society. Sam is 33 and because he's a tech billionaire thinks that he should run the most developed economy in the world? He genuinely believes that people outside of tech and business know who he is? He's qualified, because he's shook hands with the best off of society for the past decade?

Why does he deserve that power? Why does Zuckerberg deserve to be president? What makes him qualified? He made a PHP app that got big. Come on. That's what all this boils down to: money and power and a lot of people value that more than anything else in life.

How about we be honest with ourselves as individuals and societies and stop enabling that?

<comment><USER16> Trump lowered the bar so much that most people think they can do a better job than the current president, and are probably right.

What they miss is that running as a republican is very different than running as a democrat (as I guess most tech people would want to). Zuckberg would beat Trump in the democratic primaries, no question about that. But he won't be in front of Trump, he would be in front of many experiences politicians who actually have a clue about how one manages a country.

<comment><USER17> > Zuckberg would beat Trump in the democratic primaries, no question about > that.

So, where is this all coming from -- that Zuckerberg wants to run for president? I'll bet my house and every last penny I own, he does _not_ want to be president, he will _never_ run for president.

Oh, and he would never win. He's an insanely smart dude, but he hasn't got the charisma to win presidency.

(I do think that a lot of people on HN should run for some higher office in gov't, particularly tptacek and rayiner).

<comment> aaron-lebo It's very possible that a lot of his current rhetoric and actions are part of PR and image control for Facebook as a brand and even a genuine desire to extend his horizons.

However, some of his actions are distinctly political.

[http://people.com/politics/facebook-mark-zuckerberg- team-202...](http://people.com/politics/facebook-mark-zuckerberg- team-2020-presidential-campaign/)

He hired "Joel Benenson, a former top adviser and longtime pollster to President Barack Obama and the chief strategist of Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign", and prior to that he hired "David Plouffe, campaign manager for Obama's 2008 presidential run".

Your statement is exactly what I'm talking about. I'm not sure Zuckerberg is actually "insanely smart". He's similar intelligence to a lot of people on HN, but people conflate power and success with visionary ability. Maybe he is that, or maybe he's just a relatively smart guy with lots of connections, a very favorable background, and the same hangups, limitations, biases, and delusions as everyone else.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> This isn't news, is it? Google hates decentralization. Visa and money transfer restrictions force them to improve the areas they're based out of. Open communication makes it harder for them to control public opinion. Eric Schmidt, the CEO of Google, coauthored a book, The New Digital Age, about how in the future there won't be any border restrictions and 'fake news' will be censored away. Here, I have quotes!

 _More effective communication across borders and languages will build trust and create opportunities for hardworking and talented individuals around the world. Bureaucratic obstacles that prevent this level of decentralized operation today, like visa restrictions and regulations around money transfers, will become either irrelevant or be circumvented as digital solutions are discovered._

 _Imagine all of your accounts -- Facebook, Twitter, Skype, Google+, Netflix, New York Times subscription -- linked to an "official profile." Within search results, information tied to verified online profiles will be ranked higher than content without such verification, which will result in most users naturally clicking on the top (verified) results._

 _People who try to perpetuate myths about religion, culture, ethnicity or anything else will struggle to keep their narratives afloat amid a sea of newly informed listeners._

Oh, and if any of you disagree with them, don't worry. They made a point of saying they can't be held responsible, and that boycotting their products or refusing to work for them will hurt you more than them.

 _It is, after all, much easier to blame a single product or company for a particularly evil application of technology than to acknowledge the limitations of personal responsibility._

 _Certain subsections of the technology industry that receive particularly negative attention will have trouble recruiting engineers or attracting users to and monetizing their products, despite the fact that such atrophying will not solve the problem (and will only hurt the community of users in the end, by denying them the full benefits of innovation.)_

Don't be evil. Don't be Google.

<comment><USER19> > People who try to perpetuate myths about religion, culture, ethnicity or > anything else will struggle to keep their narratives afloat amid a sea of > newly informed listeners.

This is pretty damn terrifying.

Who is the authority on what qualifies as a "myth" or a "lie"?

We're coming closer to a Ministry of Truth every single day. And people who I would otherwise call 'smart' are actively cheering for it if it protects their own sacred belifs

</comment></comment><comment> Chiba-City Mathematicians are globalists. Software is like High Latin or sheet music. CPU's are its translators or maybe pipe organs. What could anyone miss here? This was, is and shall remain the very overt and enduring goal of cultured people. I did get to study nuclear strategy relevant game theory with Thomas Schelling decades back. But I should not be newly informing software guru CPU composers that "good jobs for good wages to impress ladies" or "sky bomber tools" are not goals. Those are minimal essential system basslines or nothing. Math applies everywhere we listen. There is no politics or wishing to it whatsoever. Just more math and music.

</comment><comment><USER20> Please excuse my ignorance with modern political parlance, but I always got the feeling that "globalists" was actually dogwhistle codeword for Jew. Is that the case?

<comment><USER21> Interesting, that's never been my understanding. More refers to anyone who desires world government (or the diminishing of local governments) and who finds the desire to preserve one's culture, community, and national identity as backwards and unenlightened.

I suppose it could be used by some as a dogwhistle, but it seems there's also a meaningful set of ideas that can be represented by that term.

<comment><USER22> _Refers to anyone who desires world government (or the diminishing of local governments) and who finds the desire to preserve one 's culture, community, and national identity as backwards and unenlightened._

That's not what 'globalist' means outside of the fringes. It's certainly not the way the linked article uses it.

<comment><USER21> Well, I'll have to re-read the linked article. In any case, while I probably did not phrase it in the language that globalists themselves would use, but would they flat out refute my definition? Or would they merely nuance it?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I don't like these categories but while we are playing this game:

Aren't libertarians also globalists?

<comment><USER24> The current global trade (non-software) relies on security provided by US Navy. Global Trade is not Free Trade! You need a security under-writer for it. I think Libertarians have a "blind-spot" there.

<comment><USER25> I'm not sure about that, unless you're conflating libertarians with anarcho- capitalists. Minarchist libertarians would actually consider that making free trade possible through military might is in the purview of the state.

<comment><USER24> You may be right, but what is libertarian idea of maritime trade in hostile world and how would a free market established in such circumstances.

(I am not asking for full answer.. you can point me books or links)

<comment><USER26> You might want to check out what the US Navy did to the pirates.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_pirates#18th.E2.80.931...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_pirates#18th.E2.80.9319th_centuries)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> If they favor free trade and redistribution of wealth, then they're still able to be libertarians.

Libertarianism and globalism are not mutually exclusive. There's a whole spectrum of libertarians from anarcho-capitalists to libertarian socialists (I'm somewhere in the middle-left, I'd reckon). The unifying trait is the belief that individual freedom is paramount.

</comment><comment><USER28> The stereotypical right-wing position is, "This government program is poorly- run; let's get rid of it"

The stereotypical left-wing position is, "This government program should be left alone, even if it's poorly-run"

The stereotypical Gray Tribe position is, "This government program is poorly- run; let's debug it"

<comment><USER29> Why would the left-wing not want to improve a poorly run program?

<comment><USER28> Because of donations and assurances of bloc voting from the entities profiting from the inefficiencies and corruption, just like the other side.

<comment><USER30> That's a bit reductive. There's another thought - the government program might feel poorly run, but there are in fact a million contingencies that they have to pay attention to, that a startup doesn't; or the government program is poorly run, but it's better than the alternative (a profit seeking corporation driving down costs, but, ultimately, providing worse service at the expense of returns - see prisons).

I guess it all comes down to your definition of "poorly run".

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Classical liberalism does not oppose universal healthcare. When you had prohibition, in Denmark we had classical liberalism, universal healthcare and a marginal taxrate of <15% (1/4 of yours). This is the society that I prefer and hopefully Denmark can get back on the right track :)

</comment><comment><USER32> Anyone else here familiar with "liberaltarianism"? I think that might be what the data is showing: the desire for a robust and efficient free market tethered to a redistributive social safety net.

I think it's a pretty good idea.

<comment><USER33> Good idea but an awful name.

"Liberal" has an existing meaning which has been warped by American politics. Both the American parties have a liberal heritage. Republicans are conservative liberals, and Democrats are largely progressive liberals. Libertarianism is a reactionary liberal ideology that seeks to return to a freer, less-regulated market.

The confusion happened due to FDR. He ran on a progressive platform but the term "progressive" was poisoned in American politics at the time, so he called himself "liberal".

There is already a term for what you're describing, simply "left- libertarianism" [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left- libertarianism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-libertarianism)

<comment> jim-jim-jim I agree with what you said about liberalism, but I think you're off the mark with regards to left-libertarianism. It's a disparate label, but I can't imagine any of these schools of thought showcasing "the desire for a robust and efficient free market" the parent comment calls for.

Liberal markets + social safety net sounds like garden variety Nordic model democracy to me. The term "left-libertarian" is usually ascribed to groups like Catalonian anarchists or Zapatistas.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> their categories are broad enough to arrive at any result they wanted. still I never ever considered any of the SV bosses to anything close to libertarians.

<comment><USER35> I think that SV founders fall into a pretty solid category of people who were raised by educated, successful people.

My main concern with this is that people raised by successful, hard-working people don't understand poverty and the culture around it.

Zuckerberg is a perfect example. He's a guy who preaches about tolerance, diversity, and inclusion, but he grew up in an upper middle class suburb that was lily white and had no diversity itself.

As a guy who grew up in a working class family with major cultural dysfunction that was mirrored by people all around me, I recognize that the typical "solutions" tossed out by these people are useless.

I WISH that the only reason minorities were underrepresented in tech was racism. The real reason is the culture of poverty. This spans race. How many white people from trailer parks in West Virginia or Kentucky do you encounter in the tech scene? Probably a similar number to black people from poor inner- city neighborhoods. Almost none.

In fact, when you encounter minorities in SV, they are typically from middle class families with college-educated parents. It's a perfect example of why the "surface" aspects of diversity are not only a bad metric, but one that contributes to the problem by acting as a red herring from true root causes.

Yet the SV CEOs think they know everything because they built a web app that streams music.

<comment> aaron-lebo Exactly. It drives me crazy to hear people who never moved 20 minutes outside of downtown Manhattan and went to a 30k a year high school act like they possibly understand what it's like to be working class or that they can begin to diagnose major issues in society. They've never seen anything but the upper crust of it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> first generation rich people tend to be different than later ones. SV bosses who are owners of successful startups would fall in the former category imho.

that explains most traits attributed by OP to the SV people.

<comment><USER37> Do you have numbers to back this up? The first generation of tech darlings almost exclusively come from upper middle and above backgrounds. I'm genuinely interested if that has changed.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> "would like to live in a society where government does nothing except provide national defence and police protection, so that people could be left alone to earn whatever they could," \-- obviously encapsulates the libertarian philosophy.

<comment><USER39> It's one of those things that sounds so simple and great on paper but has a huge impedance mismatch with reality.

<comment><USER40> How do we know? It's never existed in reality.

(Of course, I'll admit, neither has "true" Communism ... or so its supporters claim.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> What are these strict categories good for? The real image is much more complex.

</comment><comment><USER42> There is a category called left libertarian that describes them pretty close. Basically american libertarian + UBI (or other types of wealth redistribution).

</comment><comment><USER43> the survey seems not to be anonymous and people lie if they know that their position as a ceo would be associated with their political views.

</comment><comment><USER44> I think some sarcastic slow clapping is appropriate here.</comment>


Can Zapping Your Brain Make You Smarter? - <AUTHOR> https://daily.jstor.org/can-zapping-your-brain-really-make-you-smarter/ <comment><USER2>
      "Anyone with basic electronics training can build the device at home for little cost"

Depends on how much you value the cost of losing your memories, emotions and possibly sex drive.

This is such a bad idea, please think about what your attempting to do and the huge risks involved before trying or buying this modern snake oil.</comment>


Show HN: Interactive implementation of the NIST Blockchain use case flow chart - <AUTHOR> https://brucemacd.github.io/You-Dont-Need-A-Blockchain/ <comment><USER2> I think there's a bug in this. If I answer "Will data records ever need to be updated or deleted once they are written?" with "No" it says "You Don't Need a Blockchain Blockchains do not allow for modification of historical data. Consider a database." It seems like blockchains actually meet that requirement per my entry?

<comment><AUTHOR> Just fixed the wording to match the actual NIST flowchart. Thanks.

<comment><USER3> I realize this isn't a life's work, but can you support the back button? Some of the questions are double-negative-ish, or maybe I'm just not a morning person, either way the back button to revise answers without having to go through the whole thing again would be useful.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Brilliant. I have found a use case for blockchain thanks to this tool. Who wants to go co-founder on my YC application for...

"Blockchain for nuclear weapons"

Any fan of Dr Strangelove should know that there is a problem with the system, it is not just the president's nuclear football that can bring on the omnicide that the people in CND are so scared of.

Blockchain for nuclear weapons - where could it go wrong?

It is an obvious use case, not a solution in search of a problem. I stand corrected with all my scepticism regarding blockchain. We don't need pesky INF treaties, we can just go with smart contracts and have only the president able to launch that decapitation strike rather than some rogue general.

</comment><comment><USER5> although sensitive data should never be written to a public ledger, that does not automatically disregard the need for a blockchain technology. Take a supply chain scenario where multiple control points would input data, however, none of the contributors trust any single touchpoint to maintain the datastore.

The senstivity issue can be overcome by submitting a cryptographic hash of the information (say sha256) and storing the encrypted data on ipfs. In future audits, one can reveal the unencrypted data and ensure the hashes match.

<comment><USER6> Not quite as simple as a cryptographic hash alone - remember that if the set of possible inputs can be easily enumerated, then it's trivial to find the input data by brute force.

There are ways to work around this, for example objecthash[0] describes a small modification that prepends the input data with 32 bytes of random data before hashing in order to prevent this.

[0] [https://github.com/benlaurie/objecthash#redactability](https://github.com/benlaurie/objecthash#redactability)

<comment><USER5> yes precisely, you must include a random value that remains secret until the appropriate reveal time.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> is this NISTIR 8202 -- Blockchain Technology Overview ?

[https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8202](https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8202)

<comment><USER8> That's what I found, too. It looks like the flowchart in question is on p. 42.

This is really helpful by the way. My sister is completing her MBA and I think IBM is a program sponsor or something and has really been pushing their blockchain product. Whatever the case, she's drank the Blockchain Kool-Aid. I'm going to point her to this (this site and the NIST doc) the next time she brings it up.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> >Data records, once written, are never updated or deleted?

>Blockchains do not allow for modification of historical data. Consider a database.

If that was true it wouldn't even be possible to send any tokens. _Log_ of all past actions can't be deleted or updated, which is a quite different thing.

<comment> village-idiot The log entries in a blockchain are supposed to be immutable. You can add new entries, but not change old ones.

<comment><USER10> so what's wrong with Datomic? why do people insist on using blockchain?

<comment> village-idiot To be fair, you _can_ modify datomic, there's a mutable delete operation so that you can comply with legal requirements to delete data.

<comment><USER11> can't you technically modify block chain in the same way, rollback and fork or something? i feel like this was done for bitcoin at one point

<comment><USER10> yes. but obviously common sense goes out the window as soon as blockchain and crypto comes into play.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Rosetta mission: ESA attempts to land spacecraft on comet – live coverage - <AUTHOR> http://www.theguardian.com/science/across-the-universe/live/2014/nov/12/rosetta-comet-landing-live-blog

<comment><USER2> The other video feeds seem to lock up for me and endlessly buffer until reloaded. This one seems to be working fine.

<comment><AUTHOR> Likely that will be true until it gets too popular but I didn't want to hoard it.</comment></comment>


The Jobs Most Likely to Be Taken Over by Robots in the Near Future - <AUTHOR> http://lifehacker.com/the-jobs-most-likely-to-be-taken-over-by-robots-in-the-1755312803 <comment><USER2> Cool. The embedded interactive chart didn't load for me -- I had to follow the link out to the Tableau dashboard: [https://public.tableau.com/profile/mckinsey.analytics#!/vizh...](https://public.tableau.com/profile/mckinsey.analytics#!/vizhome/AutomationandUSjobs/Technicalpotentialforautomation)</comment>


Zoobotics - <AUTHOR> http://www.economist.com/node/18925855?story_id=18925855&fsrc=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+economist/full_print_edition+(The+Economist:+Full+print+edition)&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher <comment><USER2> "A tiny flying robot of this sort, equipped with a camera, could get into places that are too small or dangerous for people—enemy bunkers, for example—and report what was going on."

Yeah, cameras - I am sure the military will equip them with lethal poison stings. I just cannot imagine how this will change military conflicts.

</comment><comment><USER3> Here is a link to another specimen that I didn't see in the Zoobotics artice : [http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/03/20/us-robotfish- idUST...](http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/03/20/us-robotfish- idUSTRE52J1RY20090320)

<comment><USER4> Festo has made a number of these over the years, some more lifelike than others. Under "Projects 2006" to "Projects 2010", and "SmartBird", in the left column of this page: <http://www.festo.com/cms/en_corp/9933.htm>

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Adaptive Behavior (<http://www.isab.org.uk/ISAB/>) finally hits the mainstream; representing!

every-other-year conference proceedings: [http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search- alias%3Dap...](http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search- alias%3Daps&field-keywords=from+animals+to+animats&x=0&y=0)</comment>


How  Hackers Could Kill You Right Now - <AUTHOR> http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2013-04/ways-hackers-could-kill-you-right-now <comment><USER2> Well that's dumb, the header says "Australian Popular Science" then below it says "Content Not Available in Australia".

Screenshot: <http://t.co/AHVdlaBmtj></comment>