I Offered To Give People Ideas For Their Businesses - Here's What Happened  - <AUTHOR> http://ypprojects.tumblr.com/post/67751112444/i-offered-to-give-people-ideas-for-their-businesses

<comment><USER2> Thanks Adam for your advices on betainabox.com It's refreshing to have someone take an objective look of your business and provide honest, actionable feedback -- the advises showed that you have given it lots of thought and were invaluable to the growth of my business.

</comment><comment><USER3> Thanks for your suggestions for [https://preddict.com](https://preddict.com) I've already added categories and I'm working on that iphone and android app :)

</comment><comment><USER4> Engodo sounds really annoying - giving people incentive to spam their friends is like those marketing gimmicks where you sell amway or some other crap

</comment><comment><USER5> I got a few great suggestions for [https://codeable.io](https://codeable.io) as well!

</comment><comment><USER6> Thanks Adam for your advices on ConferenceBadge.com, we already implemented one of your suggestions!

</comment><comment><USER7> Thanks again Adam for your suggestions for Cligs.com

I'm going to implement them soon.</comment>


Our Neanderthal Complex - <AUTHOR> http://nautil.us/issue/18/genius/our-neanderthal-complex <comment><USER2> Given that europeans consist of up to 5% or more Neanderthal genetic stock, it's increasingly untenable to look at the Neanderthal as some sort of "other".

They is us.

<comment><USER3> Well then why bother discussing pre-homo sapien speciation at all?

EDIT: To put it another way, you wouldn't compare a modern european to a neanderthal and call them part of the same people. The neanderthals still had large differences with other populations.

<comment><USER2> I'm not saying it isn't worth discussing pre-homo sapien speciation at all, I'm saying that the vague idea that the Neanderthals are some "other thing" from our genetic heritage (as compared with, say, Cro-Magnon) has become less tenable as genetic analysis has advanced.

The story of Neanderthal is, for many of us, partly the story of us. Genetically, some of us have the equivalent of a great-great grandparent that was Neanderthal.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Here's a grauniad article with a few more details of the research that is driving the changing attitudes.

[http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/mar/23/neanderthals-...](http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/mar/23/neanderthals- and-me-go-back-a-long-way-alice-roberts)

<comment><USER5> I'm really confused now. I read the article but don't follow it. I've read that we and chimps share over 90% of our genes. Therefore oughtn't we and Neanderthals share more genes than that? Certainly more than 2.4%.

My guess is maybe it's 2.4% of the genes that human beings have and chimpanzees do not? Can anybody help me out on this?

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I believe in evolution but one question has always bothered me - when a social animal is born with a mutation (even one that is unquestionably superior), wouldn't the other members of e group kill or shun her?

This question may sound far-fetched unless you're non-white or a ginger.

<comment><USER7> No

Most mutations wouldn't be obvious. They might affect metabolism or some enzymatic pathway. (Isn't it curious that Junior likes cow's milk?) These seem unlikely to be discriminated against. Even mutations affecting visible features might be gradual and require the accumulation of many mutations over generations and generations to become pronounced. (Height, skull size, dentition)

Some features might be due to a single mutation and could be pronounced and obvious in new members of a group. Red hair might be one of these mutations, and perhaps some red headed children were spurned or killed or discriminated against by their group. But this wouldn't easily eliminate red hair. It is caused by a recessive gene so carriers of a single gene won't be redheads themselves. If two non-redheaded carriers of the gene have 4 children on average three will carry the red hair gene but only one will have red hair because they carry two of the genes. I find red hair attractive, and apparently so did our ancestors: red hair was not eliminated from the gene pool.

Curiously, humans have evolved to retain juvenile features. This neoteny, as it is called, has resulted in smaller jaws, flatter faces, hairless bodies, larger eyes, and other features. Selection for these traits may be due to our instinctive desire to care for infants.

Likewise mutations in the other direction, smaller head to body ratio, etc., could very well have suffered from negative selection pressures as you have raised in your question.

I think these speculations are interesting and the answers are not obvious. Why, for example, has a trait such as mental illness, clearly having a negative impact on survival, not been eliminated? Is it just so tricky to get a brain assembled into a mind that there are inevitable difficulties? Or is it caused by interactions with viruses during development that are evolving in competition with us? What about nearsightedness? I wouldn't have been a very good hunter of distant game. Why hasn't myopia been eliminated as a trait? Is it because as I age I can still read without reading glasses? Were there elderly nearsighted arrowhead makers, able to do close work despite age related presbyopia, trading their skillfully made arrowheads for food?

One additional observation. Your question mentions non-whiteness, suggesting that more pigmented skin is a mutation. It appears that it is just the reverse. Human evolution started in Africa where pigmentation would have been important because of the more intense sunlight. Lack of pigmentation would be a disadvantageous mutation. So the more accurate question is why would anyone even have light skin? The answer I've heard is that for humans groups that had migrated out of Africa to latitudes that had weaker sunshine, lighter skin allowed for better absorption of the weaker sunlight for the production of vitamin D.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> This is a model of how a Neanderthal man would look today: [http://i.imgur.com/96DCsQt.jpg](http://i.imgur.com/96DCsQt.jpg)

From the German Neanderthal Museum:

[http://www.neanderthal.de/en/](http://www.neanderthal.de/en/)

<comment><USER2> Here's a more realistic version:

[http://www.independent.co.uk/incoming/article8528971.ece/alt...](http://www.independent.co.uk/incoming/article8528971.ece/alternates/w620/Andrea- Pirlo.jpg)

<comment><USER8> _Apparently_ Italians have more Neanderthal DNA than most...

[http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone...](http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0059781)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I came into this with very little background, so forgive an ignorant question about something that must be very complex, but what does "Europeans consist of up to 5% or more Neanderthal genetic stock?" 5% of Europeans are Neanderthals?</comment>


Subprime goes to college - <AUTHOR> http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/subprime_goes_to_college_FeiheNJfGYtoSwmtl5etJP <comment><USER2> I don't see this as that big a deal. It's bad but it's the bad part of a good cycle. Essentially the traditional University system didn't bother to adjust it's curriculum to the real life needs of students. So a bunch of private companies rushed in to fill that void.

These people (ITT Tech, Devry, University of Phoenix) are the startups in many ways. They were willing to take a risk when no one knew if there was any profit in private education and as a reward for that they're making a big return on investment. But now that the doors are open to private endeavors and it's clear you can make money there's going to be competition and that makes everything better. You already see signs of this (Most notably in the incredible achievement that is Western Governors University: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Governors_University>)

Right now there's an artificial stigma that's still keeping a lot of the internet based competition down but as that begins to fade there will be no way for companies like ITT Tech to maintain their huge profit margins.

<comment><USER3> Education quality is a red herring: the real concern is the abnormally large amount of student debt tied to these schools. When the student loan bubble burst (and believe me, it will), these schools are going to suffer as their customers opt for more affordable learning at community colleges and state universities which are increasingly offering distance-learning programs. But that's not even the bad part.

The bad part: like the subprime mortgage crisis, when enough people default on loans, and lending standards tighten, it will send ripples through the credit market impacting the entire economy. And like the subprime crisis you can anticipate a government bailout towards the student loan industry as so few people can afford to out-of-pocket their education in the United States.

It's going to be messy.

<comment><USER4> You can't default on a student loan (unless you die or something).

<comment><USER5> I think you mean: you can't discharge a student loan through bankruptcy. You're in default the moment you miss a payment.

And if the problem comes at the scale this theory is suggesting, then like mortgage defaults, people may just ignore the collection notices until they get special accommodations.

<comment><USER6> They can mess up your credit, sue you, and seize the money from your bank account, or get the money the witheld from your paycheck.

<comment><USER5> Theoretically, yes. But practically, if too many people default, they can't. As with recent home mortgage default levels.

<comment><USER7> If you default on home mortgage they don't get to _sue you, and seize the money from your bank account_. Also if you die, the government does not pay off that debt.

<comment><USER5> A foreclosure is in many jurisdiction an expedited lawsuit.

And some mortgage loans, in some states, are full recourse -- they can go after other assets (including bank balances) and paychecks. That they often don't reinforces my original point: there are plenty of levers creditors theoretically have that can't practically be employed against mass defaults and poor/unemployed people.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> An opinion article in the NY Post? Really HN? This is what we've come to?!

<comment><USER9> Post something better, then.</comment></comment>


Weekend Orionid Meteor Shower - <AUTHOR> http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2011/20oct_orionids/

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi everybody, here is another link with some useful informations for tonight, including a list of locations and the best time for observation:

<http://www.spacedex.com/orionids/>

 _"While the Orionids may be active from October 15th through October 29th, it reaches its peak on the night of October 21st into the morning of October 22nd. The peak of a meteor shower is the moment of the strongest meteor activity, and the number of meteors during this time is expected to range from 10 to 20 meteors per hour under ideal viewing conditions. As with many meteor showers, predicting the peak of the Orionids is difficult..."_

If you want to take pictures, there is also a photography guide for meteor showers:

<http://www.spacedex.com/guides/photograph-meteor-showers.php>

I wish all of you good luck and a clear sky, if you go out tonight or in the morning.

</comment><comment><USER2> Can we get some more precise details on the "when"? I'm on the West Coast, and I have a feeling "morning hours" means something different to me than it does to NASA.

<comment><USER3> Since the earth is rotating as the orbits of the earth and the Orionids are crossing, every place on earth will see them in the same angle relative to the sun, not relative to a point on earth. So as your part of the earth turns into the right place, you will see them.

<comment><USER4> Neat. But will the whole thing last a full 24 hours, or will certain longitudes have a better shot of seeing them than others?</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: How to find real problems - <AUTHOR> How do you go about finding a real problem to solve when your trying to build something? <comment><USER2> Although scratching your own itch is sound advice, it's difficult to assess whether's the market size is just you. I recommend being lazier on the finding the problem part since most problems already exist and the variety of solutions just address them. The real innovation and value proposition when building something is whether your solution has the ability to overcome the friction and displace a meaningful segment of the market. This can be a innovation in distribution, performance, scale, cost, etc.

All problems are real. The question is whether they are real to others and how real you can make the solution for someone other than yourself to use it.

</comment><comment><USER3> Assuming you're trying to build software, then find online forums that deal with the domain of software you want to build and lurk for a few days.

If there's one thing people love to do online, it's complaining. You'll find problems galore.

</comment><comment><USER4> I spent the last 32 years coming up with interesting problems to solve. Even though most of them never went anywhere, it's obvious to me that there is a bigger perspective where everything I've learned fits in. Ironically; my best advice I can give is to follow your passion; solve the problems you care deeply about, the best way you can think of, and don't bother so much with other peoples opinions. Unless you're in it for awesome profits, in which case I'm probably the worst person to answer.

</comment><comment><USER5> Problems aren't always things that don't already exist.

Maybe theres some automated task that just isn't efficient, theres a potentially solvable problem. Also besides efficiency, could also be usability, convenience, interoperability, security, scalability, reliability, etc.

Theres potential all around you just be aware of whats going on talk to people in the fields you are interested in, etc. Even better try stuff out and see for yourself.

</comment><comment><USER6> If you pick a problem that you have faced or are facing, it will be easy to solve and relate to.

Problems are everywhere but jus finding problem is not enough. You need to be able to relate. I am not saying you can't pick a problem that you never seen first hand but that just adds up learning curve and eats away your time to jus learn basics of the domain.

So better focus on what you have seen or are seeing.

</comment><comment><USER7> If you're looking for B2B ideas, one way is to talk to businessmen :) (it helps to know the basics of their business).

Several times, I've tried offering a certain solution, and during the conversation you learn they don't have the problem you think they had, but they have some other problem you might want to solve.

</comment><comment><USER8> This has really put me in real problem: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14711385](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14711385) Am I equal as compared to my friend?

</comment><comment><USER9> Well you don't know it's a real problem umntil you try it.

You may need to try many things to find something that people actually want. There are ways to try and mitigate this risk i.e. perhaps it solves a problem you already have.

</comment><comment><USER10> Do lots of other activities with other people and learn about the world.

</comment><comment><USER11> Listen intently to people.

<comment><AUTHOR> really understanding someone, where they are coming from, how they see something. This is a challenge sometimes. Everyone has a different set of inputs that got them to where they are presently.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> If you're looking for problems, you're doing it wrong.

Problems are abundant. So are opportunities.

Is your life perfect? If not, then you found your problem.

</comment><comment><USER13> You don't. They'll find you.

</comment><comment><USER14> Most of my problems are my own. For example, I wanted a place that I could write notes and even have the freedom to use HTML and CSS on the Internet. BUT.. I wanted to not have to enter in my email address or register for an account, so I came up with a web app called MyPost ( [https://mypost.io](https://mypost.io) ). MyPost helps me keep track of my URLs, projects, ideas, etc., and I can easily share them with anyone, and have those people edit that very same post with just the password.

I've never advertised it, monetized it for a month before I pulled the cord on the ads because they just got annoying, but mostly just talked about it on here or Twitter, and I let everyone else do the work of spreading it. 3,000 posts later and its being used in at least a dozen countries, including U.S., Russia, Brazil, Philippines, Germany, etc. This project was my first project that taught me a lot about user-interface, databases, etc. Interesting enough: I designed it the way I would like to use it and I've never received any complaints.

I think most founders and developers get upset when their startup or idea fails to gain much traction. One of the biggest reasons for this is the fact that they, themselves, created a system to help people with a problem, without ever having that same exact problem themselves. When it comes to an issue: be selfish. Solve it for yourself first, then solve it for others.

Now I could be wrong, but lets say I'm having a problem and I create a web app to help me deal with my issue. I'm using it everyday, modifying it, making changes, expanding upon it to make it do other things. I'm immersed in it and constantly making it better. When I talk about it, I'm passionate about it and I'm happy when others get to use it. I'm currently working on some other web apps that will be subscription-based, but they too are solving problems that I have... and I'm sure I'm not the only one having problems.

I'm currently working on some reminder and communication apps.. my memory is horrible... so I'm creating useful apps that help me, remind me, and push me to get out of my lackadaisical and relaxed state of mind into a sense of urgency.

I have found that I'm far less upset, even if something doesn't gain as much traction as I would have liked, when I do it for myself and use it for myself everyday. If other people want to use it, enjoy it, and even pay for it, than that is great. If not, I'm sure they'll find some other thing that will solve their problems. I do get a daily email from [http://www.oppsdaily.com/](http://www.oppsdaily.com/) and that shows me problems that other people face -- some are not big issues or the solution already exists, while others -- I might brainstorm on how that might be worth working on, though I think I've only ever come across one opportunity where I looked into it further and decided to do something about it.

</comment><comment><USER15> I think instead of looking for problems, you should look for your passion.. And what you could stick with time and time again to perfect.

But as someone said, problems are everywhere. You can take a random software, pick its weakest point and work from there to create a better version.</comment>


Where the f*** can I park? - <AUTHOR> http://blog.manugarri.com/where-the-f-can-i-park/ <comment><USER2> Not as cool as finding a street spot in a neighborhood but I recently visited family in Columbus, OH where they had a parking garage that helped you find a spot. This was a very popular shopping area when the weather is nice and can be a madhouse finding a parking spot.

Prior to entering the garage: XX spots available sign

Upon entering the garage: X spots level 1, Y spots level 2, Z spots level 3, etc

Upon picking the floor of your choice: Signs above each row with # of spots available.

So essentially I drove to a floor with a decent amount of spots available then was guided to a row with 3 spots left and parked easily and efficiently, no more mindlessly driving up and down lanes/floors adding to congestion. I tried to find the company in charge of the tech but the wife had more pressing matters to attend :)

I'm sure its been around a while or in other places, but this was the first I have seen and experienced it

<comment><USER3> This is standard on shopping malls in Brazil. Helps a ton. Another cool thing (and I don't know if this is standard) are these small red/green lights above each spot, allowing you to see from far away if that particular spot is taken or not.

<comment><USER4> The red green spot is really useful until a small car comes or the sensor is broken. But nonetheless it's really cool. I wonder what they use for the sensor. Light sensor? Magnetic?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I'm part of a open data group project over here in Europe, specifically Germany. We use open data (or scrape it and make it open this way) to offer open source apps including real time data and do machine learning for forecasting of public parking spaces: [http://parkendd.de/en/](http://parkendd.de/en/)

<comment><USER6> [https://developer.android.com/images/brand/en_app_rgb_wo_60....](https://developer.android.com/images/brand/en_app_rgb_wo_60.png) on your homepage is 404

<comment><USER5> Yeah, I also noted this when I visited the page after posting the comment ;) Interesting that Google didn't use a 301 redirection to the new button graphics...

<comment><USER6> Probably by design, in the usage terms it probably says (too lazy to look it up...) you shouldn't link directly to that but host a copy yourself :p</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Polynesian people used binary numbers 600 years ago - <AUTHOR> http://www.nature.com/news/polynesian-people-used-binary-numbers-600-years-ago-1.14380

<comment><USER2> Some discussion over here: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6918845](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6918845) (sciencemag.org)

Other submissions of other sources:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6920163](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6920163) (scientificamerican.com)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6919419](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6919419) (livescience.com)

<comment><AUTHOR> Pity that Science article got it wrong. 'Invented'!?</comment></comment>


Ask HN: What are the coolest new web technologies/frameworks to learn right now? - <AUTHOR>

Hi HN,
I'm a relatively inexperienced web developer just getting my feet wet, and was wondering what libraries the fine people of HN would recommend I check out? E.g. something like Angular or Node that would allow me to build more powerful web apps in more intuitive ways than the standard 'barebones' HTML/CSS/JS mix.
Would preferably like to hear about those libraries/frameworks on the 'bleeding' edge / that are 'up and coming'.
Thanks! <comment><USER2> You may be looking for Outlaw Techno Psychobitch: [https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rRbY3TMUcgQ](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rRbY3TMUcgQ)

Edit: this is a constructive parody of Erlang OTP web tech with some NSFW language.

</comment><comment><USER3> Go, postcss, microservices</comment>


NYPD 'consistently violated basic rights' during Occupy protests (study) - <AUTHOR> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/25/nypd-occupy-protests-report?newsfeed=true

<comment><USER2> Which was perfectly obvious to anyone watching from the events unfold on the street for more than a couple of hours, or even less than that. But it's good to see this stuff finally documented in a consistent way.</comment>


Tracking Every Release - <AUTHOR> http://codeascraft.etsy.com/2010/12/08/track-every-release/ <comment><USER2> "At Etsy, we are releasing changes to code and application configs over 25 times a day."

Perhaps I'm old fashioned, but 25 times a day? I'm very curious as to the types of changes. UI tweaks? Bug fixes? Do they have to make a config change every time someone creates a new store?

Not judgmental, just curious.

<comment><USER3> When you have a good test suite, and automated deployments, eventually you move into the "deploy on every commit" strategy.

For more on this kind of thing, [http://timothyfitz.wordpress.com/2009/02/10/continuous- deplo...](http://timothyfitz.wordpress.com/2009/02/10/continuous-deployment- at-imvu-doing-the-impossible-fifty-times-a-day/) and [http://www.startuplessonslearned.com/search/label/continuous...](http://www.startuplessonslearned.com/search/label/continuous%20deployment)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Graphite definitely does not get enough love. It's an amazing piece of software, though can be a little rough around the edges sometimes -- I imagine it's improved a lot over the last year.

The idea to add markers for code deploys is great. Totally stealing that one.

<comment> brown9-2 Would you mind elaborating on what types of things you are using Graphite for today?

<comment><USER4> Not using it for anything right now -- haven't had time to integrate the it into the stack at my new company. I miss it. ;-)

However, we used it for all kinds of things at my previous company: everything from incrementing a counter for every web request, database hit, cache miss, slow page (html generation time > a certain threshold), user action, what have you.</comment></comment></comment>


Heroku's Ugly Secret (2014) - <AUTHOR> http://genius.com/James-somers-herokus-ugly-secret-annotated <comment><USER2> I would just like to observe that their team started off saying "we want to build features, we don't want to think about infrastructure", a common (and understandable) sentiment among devs. Then they ended up thinking about their infra, a lot.

<comment><USER3> But according to the articles that's because their infrastructure provider is forcing them to consider infrastructure through poor service

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This is like 2 years old, who the hell cares?</comment>


How to apply in "Who is hiring?" for remote job? - <AUTHOR> Hi all,
I am looking for my first remote job and I am looking at "Who is hiring?" posts.
There are some jobs following this pattern (1) for job applicants:

  -To apply, please submit your resume to: <email>

  -Feel free to contact me directly at <email> with your resume.

  -Get in touch: <company url that can you apply>
 and some other with that pattern (2):

  -we would love to hear from you. Email us

  -if you want to learn more, reach out to us <email>

  -Contact me (founder) directly: <email>

  -Email available in profile

  -Please drop us an e-mail at <email> if you're interested.
 For the (1) approach it is straight forward you either send your resume with email or via company link. For the (2) approach what I supposed to do? What is the best approach? Send directly the resume? send an introductory email? Ask some questions if you are not sure about the job description?
Thank you <comment><USER2> _what I supposed to do?_

Send an email of course. In particular for remote work, it should suggest your ability to communicate remotely. If the process is vague or ambiguous, demonstrate that you're able to come up with something that works for the recipient without a lot of detailed direction.

Show your soft skills. Good luck.</comment>


20 years ago, Steve Jobs built the "coolest computer ever"–and it bombed - <AUTHOR> https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2020/07/20-years-ago-steve-jobs-built-the-coolest-computer-ever-and-it-bombed/ <comment><USER2> 20 years ago, Microsoft's power was at its peak. people usually go with the 'strength'. And that was not counting the disadvantages of extra cost and inconvenience.

Also, The Apple Cube was not as good as the NeXT Cube that Jobs had produced earlier.

Poor little Apple Cube. It faced a huge uphill battle.</comment>


Age limit now 21 across US for cigarettes, tobacco products - <AUTHOR> https://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/age-limit-now-21-us-cigarettes-tobacco-products-67948867 <comment><USER2> It is bizarre we have our vice age at 21 but the age of adulthood is 18. You are responsible enough to vote, serve in the military and be charged as an adult in a court law but not responsible enough to drink or smoke.

<comment><USER3> The age gating is a bit stupid, but in the case of cigarettes, I'd be perfectly happy if no one of any age was able to use them, with exceptions for people who are already addicted.

<comment><USER4> It's very stupid. When you are an adult you deserve to be able to make your own decisions. This is a great example of Congress going against the wishes of a huge portion of the voting population and "telling them what's good for them". It's tacit erosion of freedom under the guise of something helpful and makes me ashamed of our Congress.

<comment><USER5> Nobody is an island, your freedom to make poor life choices is my liability to support as your health deteriorates and my tax dollars have to pay for the externalities of tobacco consumption. It's not being outlawed, it's being delayed until you can make better life choices with the wisdom of age and experience.

<comment><USER6> "_I_ have to pay for _you_" is a particularly empty argument when there are no restrictions on calorie consumption, motorcycle usage, sedentary lifestyle, dangerous hobbies, etc. Also it is a similarly entitled argument to telling police "I pay your salary!"

<comment><USER7> ...yes. We do pay the police and they should be in service of the public.

<comment><USER6> not sure what you're arguing for with respect to yelling "I pay your salary!" at govt employees

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> There's a few comments about the military age being 18 in the USA.

I'm not American, and live in a country where the drinking age is 18 (and believe it should stay that way), but it seems to me like maybe the enlistment age should be raised.

18 isn't old enough to be signing up to fight and die overseas. Do we really want people going straight from the football field to the battlefield?

<comment><USER9> Some countries let people join at 18 but they cannot fight until 20 or older. Essentially the first years are spent in military school and or in a kind of reserve role. It is an interesting compromise that still let's people join up instead of college around 18/19 but with fewer moral hazards.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I have some close friends who started smoking at 18, and by 21 were pretty hooked, would rather not smoke, but found quitting too difficult. I have a feeling this will do a good job of reducing addiction rates.

At the same time I do feel like adults should be adults full-stop and think it's ridiculous you can be drafted, vote and serve in military and not drink or smoke (or rent a car!). Maybe the age of adulthood should be moved to 21 altogether.

<comment><USER11> I wish we'd change what's actually considered an adult. It's pretty arbitrary. Pretty sure I was dumber than a box of rocks when I was 18 (or even 21). At the same time I'm sure many under 18 could be considered adults. Unfortunate that rites of passage aren't a thing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Isn't it true that the prefrontal cortex doesn't fully develop until around age 25?

If so, when will our laws reflect the fact that before that age, a person is not fully capable of considering the consequences of their choices?

Lending institutions, pornographers, and the military are still being allowed to exploit this incapacity of "young adults" in ways that may affect their entire lives.

How many of us are in debt, or injured, or killed because of this predation?

An 18 year old kid can choose to participate in pornography. Should we not consider this child abuse?

</comment><comment><USER13> Hopefully they increase the age you can vote, enlist in the military, consent to sex, and can be tried as an adult.

</comment><comment><USER14> Not from United States. However, wouldn't it increase the sales of the black market?

<comment><USER15> Perhaps, but as long as there is a net drop in usage it's still a win. Who wants to bother buying black market _cigarettes_ in 2020? It's like the worst drug ever - mild-to-no buzz, highly addictive/expensive, gives you cancer

<comment><USER16> Tobacco isn't the drug. Nicotine is. There are other ways to consume the drug, and it has a lot of positive effects.

Regardless - it's a win for you I guess - but does anyone else's opinion matter?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Why stop there? Why not 35, or 50? Or an outright ban?

We say that 18 year olds can die in a war, and be sentenced to death for a crime. But they can't vape or buy a beer? 21 is the new 18, enjoy making more children out of adults.

<comment><USER4> Why stop with cigarettes? They can just tell us how to live in every facet of our daily lives.

<comment><USER18> I bet you have Real Strong Opinions about seatbelts, too.

<comment><USER4> Yeah let's raise the driving age to 21

<comment><USER18> oh christ, can we?

<comment><USER4> No because it's anti-productive and anti-freedom which is exactly my point

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I think this law will have 0 benefits

</comment><comment><USER20> Merry Christmas to Big Tobacco and their shareholders.</comment>


The 11 (inch MacBook Air that is) - <AUTHOR> http://brooksreview.net/2010/10/the-11/ <comment><USER2> I couldn't understand why the iPad would be so popular. It always seemed to be ideal for some use cases but perhaps 70-80% of the way there for the majority.

The 11" Macbook Airs initially I thought, "Wait, you want me to pay $1000 for a netbook?" - Then I tried one and found that although it had 2Gb of RAM it didn't _feel_ underpowered. It should've done, but it didn't. I don't normally like netbooks, particularly the keyboard and mouse but found the 11" to be fine, not unlike the wireless mac keyboard I'm typing this on now.

I use a big chunky, awesome powerhorse of a Dell XPSM1530 for my day to day work, so having a separate machine for personal use isn't an option. It is with the new Macbook Air. I guess I'm a fairly fringe use case, but it strikes a chord with me. I'm still sceptical about the 2Gb of RAM, if there was a 4Gb model I'd seriously consider it. I'm also keen to see how Lion performs on it before I consider it, especially when it's due round the corner.

If Lion runs well, there's a 4Gb RAM option later down the line and it stays the same weight and thickness I'd consider it. I never travel with a laptop on personal trips and I miss that (as I used to before I started Mandalorian). The Macbook Air would let me do that again without penalising me for travelling on work trips with it and my work laptop. For me, that's what $1000 is worth - helping me separate my work from personal life, but keep the tech on my terms.

<comment><USER3> You can order it with 4 GB RAM, but it isn't user expandable.

<comment><USER2> Oh boy do I feel daft. Not seeing it for offer I foolishly assumed otherwise. Doh!

I guess it's a case of wait for Lion and see what optimisations there are then.</comment></comment></comment>


Next.js or Gatsby – for the end user and SEO - <AUTHOR> Hey everyone....so on one hand developers love build speed. But once deployed, it's really about the end user right, and how easy it is for them to discover the content. Does Gatsby offer SEO value. I'm trying to research but seem to arrive at the same place each time. We have initially decided to use Next.js for our shift from Wordpress to our own server rendered sites (also moving from Vercel to AWS this week for security reasons). But Gatsby keeps popping up. Sure Next.js is good for routing, and again favours developers. But is the web built for development ease or user happiness / interaction and discoverability. 90% of people (UX / marketers / investors and non developers would say the latter). Therefore are the wins you get with Next.js when setting up routing, which should be a one time only thing anyway, little benefit when compared to Gatsby and the ease of updating content and the part I still don't get enough info on - does the SSR from Next.js overall help with SEO or can the same be obtained from Gatsby? If I've overlooked anything here - shout out and tell me, I'm by no means right or wrong, but very interested to hear all opinions on the matter. <comment><USER2> I recently built a project in both Gatsby and NextJS. Or rather, I built it in Gatsby due to the hype and then threw away everything to do it again in NextJS. I would highly recommend going with NextJS.

Fundamentally, they are both very similar if you use them for static site generation (NextJS also supports SSR, but that's a different story). The main difference is Gatsby's data layer, which allows GraphQL queries to integrate all kinds of sources. Gatsby's data model is quite complex, with all kinds of GraphQL node creation callbacks, schema inference, non-determinism when it comes to ordering, etc. If you do something custom you're going to spend most of your time learning the ins and outs of (ugly) Gatsby internals and debugging edge cases as opposed to working on your application-specific logic. It's like crawling through 4 layers of abstractions to get a simple job done, over and over again. Look at how large the docs are - it's not only because the documentation is good - it's because there are so many complexities to consider. And most of the issues are not even discussed in the docs.

NextJS is on the opposite end. It's incredibly simple and straightforward. Yes, it does less out of the box, and I had to re-implement some of the logic that Gatsby already provides, but that amounted to a few hundred lines of application-specific code, like sourcing files from a local folder. I would rather maintain these few hundred lines than being locked into some overly complex framework that constantly changes.

Any new developer would immediately understand the Next.js code, perhaps after walking through the hour-long NextJS tutorial. A new developer would need days to understand the multiple Gatsby layers and their integrations and idiosyncrasies. I'd pick simplicity.

One use case where Gatsby would shine if there is a plugin or data sources that already does __exactly __what you need. But I found the plugin ecosystem isn 't that great either - it's mostly small stuff from the developers behind gatsby, not contributed by the community.

I really don't understand the hype behind Gatsby. To me NextJS seemed superior in almost every way.

</comment><comment><USER3> I think it really depends on what specifically you're building.

If your app has a lot of user interaction, needs some kind of state and has a lot of bespoke functionality then I'd lean towards Next.js.

I've worked with Gatsby in the past and have great experiences, especially for things like developer documentation, blogs and anything with a lot of static content. If that's what you're optimizing for then Gatsby is your best bet IMO.

Re: security — if your app is stateless, I think the attack surface is reasonably small assuming your production codebase and host is secured. The headless CMS you pick is going to be the most important thing to protect. Data breaches, CSRF and session hijacking are going to be less significant in this case.

I think the most important thing to keep in mind is that the experience your users enjoy and see is almost certainly not going to be _just_ as a result of the framework you pick. No matter which framework you use, the way you craft designs, layouts and experiences is the most important thing.

</comment><comment><USER4> >> also moving from Vercel to AWS this week for security reasons

Could you share the issues with Vercel ?</comment>


POLL system source-code finaly revieled  - <AUTHOR> http://www.codingmix.com/2010/10/how-to-create-poll-system-using-php.html

<comment><USER2> I had to google 'revieled' ;P</comment>


Crash-Only Software - <AUTHOR> http://www.usenix.org/events/hotos03/tech/full_papers/candea/candea.pdf

<comment><USER2> I really enjoyed one of this paper's citations, "Why do computers stop and what can be done about it" written by Jim Gray in 1985. A really nice and early look at how to build reliable systems from unreliable but independent parts. <http://www.hpl.hp.com/techreports/tandem/TR-85.7.html>

</comment><comment><USER3> What would be necessary to adapt a Linux distro to be crash-only? _shutdown now_ really would mean shutdown _now_. Unfortunately, I doubt many Linux services or applications would be happy if there shutdown scripts did not run.

If the distro can't be made crash-only, perhaps just the Linux kernel could. After executing shutdown scripts for userspace services, just crash the kernel. Good tests for filesystems and device drivers! :)

<comment><USER4> The kernel (along with a modern FS) already is crash-only. Journals are designed to recover a FS quickly from any state after a power failure. The remainder of the kernel mostly is a bunch of in-memory structures recreated on every boot.

As for userspace, well, e.g. Firefox is a lot of the way there. SQLite itself is designed to handle failures extremely gracefully, and by virtue of regularly flushing most of its state into SQLite, Firefox itself achieves a great deal of reliability (although this might not be true of its cache storage, etc.).

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is one Damien Katz sites as a big influence on the CouchDB design.

</comment><comment><USER6> Here is a short summary of the paper. [http://muratbuffalo.blogspot.com/2011/01/crash-only- software...](http://muratbuffalo.blogspot.com/2011/01/crash-only-software- hotos03.html)

</comment><comment><USER7> See also Erlang, where one commonly encouraged way of handling errors is to crash a process, and let another process restart it.

<comment><USER8> Erlang is "let it crash", which is not exactly the same thing, but it's quite close, and just as interesting.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Is Firefox crash-only? When I have to restart my system, I just do it without closing the browser. After the system reboots, I launch Firefox and it brings all the windows and tabs back.

(I don't know if there's a cleaner way to do that, without manually saving all the tabs in every window)

<comment><USER10> There is a quit option in the menu, so no. I think it can be configured to restore state on a clean exit. Chrome can.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Very good stuff. I was first exposed to it by the design of Cassandra which works exactly like that. To stop it you just ceash it and it always start with recovery.

</comment><comment><USER12> Should be part of the standard CS curriculum.

</comment><comment><USER8> Definitely interesting for anyone who's into Operating Systems and/or distributed programming.</comment>


Ask HN: How to start an open source project/organization - <AUTHOR>

I'm thinking of starting an open source project. The project would entail creating and maintaing numerical models used in process engineering. Users of this would either be researchers or engineers in industry.
Currently there is a single commercial library of these models (even though the models are written out in research papers). Since I work in this industry, I know that there would be interest among companies to move towards open source. This means that companies maybe willing to sponsor the development in one way or another (engineers contributing during work hours, supply data, potentially funds).
What would be the best way to start this? The obvious way would be to just setup a public repository and go at it, but I think that some sort of (non-profit) organization behind the entire thing may give it more traction.
Does anyone have experience with this and can offer any advice? <comment><USER2> In my experience, the organization (usually a Foundation) comes after the repo. First get something minimal that solves a problem going, then build a community around it.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, yes foundations is probably a better word. Are these usually a legal entity or just informally organized?</comment></comment>


Ask HN: How much do developers make in Toronto? - <AUTHOR> I'm curious about how much developers make in Toronto or Ontario in general.<p>Please describe what you do and how much you make. I'll post mine below. <comment><USER2> Sadly, the compensation for people in technology in Toronto (which includes devs, designers, pms, etc) is less lucrative than most major metropolitan cities in the US. I wish this wasn't the case, but in my experience, I'm making more than double in New York than what I would be making in Toronto as a designer. Would love to come back to Toronto if it made financial sense.

<comment><USER3> Same story for me in SF. Would love to come back to Toronto if companies start compensating fairly.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I'm a Senior Javascript Developer in downtown Toronto making 75k.

Blatant promotion: My company is hiring more people for the same position. We're a very small company and we build apps for hospitals and healthcare providers around the world. Email us at firstname.lastname@example.com for more info :)

</comment><comment><USER5> Toronto is a fantastic city. I say this having lived in both New York and Chicago. The best part about Toronto is every kind of person can and does live here. It's a little bit different than ethnic diversity as there is also an economic diversity. Nowhere is it more evident than the ridiculous number of community programs available.

The other side of that coin? The pay as a developer is FUCKING SHIT.

Best strategy is to get paid in USD and live in Toronto.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I'm a junior web developer with about 1 year experience writing React & ES6.

I started at $40000. After 1 year, I'm now at $53000.

I both live and work in Toronto.

<comment><USER6> Wow. When I started 20+ years ago in Toronto I made $30k. I can't believe that starting salaries are that low today. Within 3 years I was making > 50k but that's because I didn't know how to negotiate salaries. And a year later, I moved to Silicon Valley and my salary tripled (but my rent quintupled).

Starting salaries today at most silicon valley companies are ~100k or more.

<comment><AUTHOR> Well the Toronto housing market is pretty bad... Too expensive for me right now. Currently living in a decent apartment though and it's not bad.

I'm sure the California market is worse though!

<comment><USER7> Rent is around twice as high, but your salary will also big twice bigger, or more. If all you care about is money, then California is a no brainer.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> For web developers with serious skills in Ruby on Rails and/or Javascript, (either full stack or backend):

These seem to be the typical salaries for what I've noticed from web-based companies in Toronto. And I think it's on the low side. Developers should be paid more.

* Intermediate level (2-4 years): $70-85K

* Senior level (5+ years): $90-120K

A web developer ultimately needs a solid handle on SQL, Javascript (React/Angular/Ember), and a server-side language/framework like Ruby on Rails/Node.JS/etc. And be comfortable with Linux/GNU tools. The better your skills, the higher the salary you can command.

<comment><USER9> these intermediate ruby salaries are 3x the market price for South Africa.

<comment><USER10> And 1/2 to 1/3 the market price for San Francisco or New York (adjusting for CAD vs USD).

<comment><USER8> So does that mean a Toronto Dev is 3x ZA dev

And a SF dev is a 3x Toronto dev

and that's almost a 10x ZA dev

10x devs are real?!

<comment><USER9> fuck, so I'm a 1/10x dev :P

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Burlington - 40 minutes from toronto Jr Web dev - Started at 40k. After 1 year, now I get 43k. I have 1.5 year experience.

<comment><AUTHOR> Are there many jobs in Burlington? It's beautiful there, I drove through last weekend.

<comment><USER12> I haven't been there in just over 10 years but as I recall most professionals work in Hamilton or Toronto.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm also interested in Hamilton, so this is good to know.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Senior backend dev, many years of experience. I made $130k CAD/yr from 2011 to 2013 at three different local companies. I've been working remotely for a US company since 2014 and making $130k USD/yr, which translate to about $170k CAD. Wife also makes a little over $165k CAD/yr. All full-time positions, no contracts.

<comment><USER14> I'm going to be relocating soon and am looking to maintain my current US job. How does the remote situation work from a tax/legal perspective?

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Senior database dev in Toronto, working for a large utility. 112k salary. Contractors here earn between $50 - $90/hr.

I haven't examined alternatives too closely, but I get the sense that I'm approaching the top end of the salaried pay scale around here (GTA).

</comment><comment><USER16> Making just over 50K as a Java Application developer right out of school.

</comment><comment><USER17> Not directly relevant to Toronto, but may help evaluate comparing costs of living &c: I'm making 65k in Montreal in my first software job, working with Django + misc.

</comment><comment><USER18> It was a bad situation when I worked there a few years ago. Looking at the answers, things haven't changed.

I encourage you to take employment in US, if that's a possibility for you.

<comment><USER11> Hmm. I'm currently employed in Canada as a Web Developer. Are there many opportunities for Web developer in US ? I have 1.5 year experience and not so confident I can get a good job in US. I'm thinking about that since my family is moving to the states.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> For what it's worth, I was offered a senior-level engineering position at a fairly small company in Toronto which had recently been purchased by a public one for ~120k (CAD) annually. This translates to roughly 91k USD. Unfortunately due to some past legal issues entering Canada is not in the cards for me, so I had to decline the offer.

The stack would have been a PHP monolith moving towards small/polyglot microservices with an Angular front-end component.

</comment><comment><USER20> It varies a lot. Most people whose salary I know earn between 70k and 120k. Entry-level frontend devs go for around 50k-70k. Tech director level goes for around 120k-140k.

When I worked for a Toronto firm (1.5 yrs ago), I made 96k doing Angular. Now, I do remote consulting and it's very difficult to find anyone in Toronto willing to match what I currently make. Highest I've seen from a recruiter is 150-160k for a CTO role.

<comment><USER21> Any tips on making the transition to remote consulting? I've made some half- hearted attempts to do the same, but quickly gave up and went back to working for local companies.

<comment><USER20> I wouldn't call myself an expert in remote consulting, but being the author of a thousands-of-github-stars open source web application framework helped me a lot.

Be prepared to convince people that you can do everything. The Github portfolio / streed cred thing above helps a lot in giving weight to your words.

Look for companies in tech hub cities that do consulting themselves. Even in Toronto, those types of companies have the best offers salary-wise, in my experience. SF is the stupidly obvious choice for tech hub cities and consequently, it's extremely crowded and harder to get into. There are many other US cities that have lively startup scenes.

Startups == funding == people w/ money looking for someone to build their stuff == profit

<comment><USER21> Thanks, that's actually some very helpful advice.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Early startup employee. Officially a "VP", more of a principal programmer. iOS, Android, web, server, whatever I-solve-problems dev.

$150k base, up to 15% bonus.

</comment><comment><USER23> This is interesting for me because I am moving to Toronto in July, I've done research into how much I should be expecting to earn but some anecdotal evidence is always welcome too.

The numbers compared to my current employment in Cambridge, UK seem fairly similar, I believe living costs are pretty similar too. Not all of us have the ability, or the desire to move to the US!

</comment><comment><USER24> Was at a bank. Got $75k per year plus a $10k bonus at the end of the year after 2 years of experience.

Moved to a company in the US. Now making $170k USD in total compensation. Exactly 2x previous salary discounting exchange rate.

Incredibly sad how low the tech wages are in Canada.

</comment><comment><USER21> $80/hour as a highly experienced web application developer on a medium-term contract.

<comment><USER25> Is that billable hours, or would it be fair to guess at ~2000 hours/year, for ~160k/year?

<comment><USER21> Yes to both. It is billable hours which would total 2000 hours/year, if the project lasts that long. However, the startup might choose to pivot away from this project at any point.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> 105,000k (before taxes) + bonus at a bank.

Works out to taking home 5200 CAD per month.

<comment><USER27> Why is the take home so much less ($3550 less per month)? Are taxes that high in CA?

<comment><USER28> Yes. They're that high in that pay bracket.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> I am a web developer (JS and Python), making 72k

Not too far from downtown Toronto

</comment><comment><USER30> Worth looking into the the cost of living in the Toronto (or any) area. What you make matters much more in context of what you spending power will be.

</comment><comment><USER31> Senior developer in Ottawa, not Toronto. Currently working mainly in Pascal and C++. Salary is $90K - $110K, unionized environment

</comment><comment><USER9> Just under $30,000 PA when converted to USD from local currency - full stack developer.

</comment><comment><USER32> Junior: $25-30/hour

Senior: $40-60/hour

</comment><comment><USER33> [http://www.payscale.com/research/CA/Job=Software_Developer/S...](http://www.payscale.com/research/CA/Job=Software_Developer/Salary/df837bdc/Toronto- ON) may be interest.

</comment><comment><USER34> How much would data engineers make (scala, spark, kafka) ?

</comment><comment><USER35> I'd encourage you to look at glassdoor ([https://www.glassdoor.com](https://www.glassdoor.com)). One of the best sites for finding out what people are getting paid and whether your pay is truly competitive.</comment>


Tête-à-Tête about Death - <AUTHOR> https://www.asianage.com/life/more-features/160819/tte-tte-about-death.html <comment><USER2> Really interesting and powerful initiative.

Death is a huge tabu in most western cultures, this in turn inhibits us from exploring our feelings and thoughts about it, thus creating a lot of unnecessary pain/suffering.

Hopefully more groups like this are formed everywhere in the world.

PS: someone just sent me this related link [https://deathoverdinner.org](https://deathoverdinner.org)

</comment><comment><USER3> > The tone of the poster announcing the event is diametrically opposite to the > topic set to take centre-stage because instead of the Grim Reaper, it > features the colourful characters of the popular animated sitcom, BoJack > Horseman, chatting about what seems to be, well, death.

Um, Bojack Horseman is _dark_. We moved on from "animation is funny happy shows for kids" a long time ago.</comment>


Make you a good designer by simple drag and drop - <AUTHOR> https://collage-best.webflow.io/ <comment><USER2> There's no description on that landing page. Could you describe it a bit please?</comment>


Portsmouth regulators vote to eliminate taxi regulations in response to Uber - <AUTHOR> http://m.seacoastonline.com/article/20150121/NEWS/150129793

<comment><USER3> A few key things: It seems like the cab companies are not happy about this move by the commission.

Second, this portion of the proposal:

> Replace the current taxi medallion system with a registration process that > would require all drivers to register with the city clerk's office and > provide proof of commercial insurance.

This article does not make it clear if the insurance Uber provides by default for UberX drivers would count here, or if drivers would need their own commercial insurance policy.

If UberX's insurance does not count, then this move would not introduce significant ridesharing, and the only benefit to the policy change would be the elimination of the medallion system.

Do not read me wrong, that is a wonderfully good thing, as regulated limits to supply legally enforce monopoly pricing. I read the primary benefit of UberX and similar services in the massive increase in marginal transactions facilitated, rather than the relatively simple task of acting as a modern taxi dispatcher.

Again, this is all conditional on the proposal passing, and the commercial insurance requirement excluding UberX insurance for casual ride-sharers.

</comment><comment><USER4> > Cataldo said if drivers are smoking, or offering rides in unkempt vehicles, > consumers will decide if they want to hire them.

Remember this only works if there's an "arbitrarily large" number of other drivers competing for the same fare. As always, deregulation only works if the markets being deregulated can become healthy and stay that way long term.

<comment><USER3> Uber has a pretty good track record of bringing in more and new drivers.

Given that personal automobiles are a large sunk cost that many people have incurred, being able to generate marginal income through ride-sharing seems like it needs a lot of active barriers to entry (like restrictive regulations favoring incumbent taxi services) to really limit the supply of drivers.

<comment><USER4> Personal automobiles are NOT a sunk cost. You can sell your car, the portion of the cost that is "sunk" is small.

It's really expensive to drive for a living, especially in a nice car. Obviously you can make a ton of money if your parents bought your car and pay for your repairs, if you're not paying for commercial insurance, and if your main competition faces strict regulations that you've cleverly sidestepped.

To this day Uber releases numbers that don't account for wear and tear on your car, anybody who's ever delivered pizzas will tell you that changes the economics of it drastically.[2]

There are also reasons not leave a public good like transportation in the hands of people looking to "generate marginal income".

But the real joke is Uber's brought in about $5 billion in funding in the past five years, their recent valuation came in at over $41 billion[0] and there's still this narrative of Uber being the little guy out there fighting big government. It's a real underdog story!

They're simultaneously taking on _" 6,300 companies operating 171,000 taxicabs. More than 80% of these companies operate less than 50 vehicles"_[1] in America alone. Think about that, they're poised to put about 3,000 small business under in the coming years, but they're out there for the little guy. They're taking the market over and if they have their way it'll go from regulated oligopoly to unregulated oligopoly with them at the top. It's an absolutely huge power play, and like every rational business they're fighting for whatever monopoly power they can get:

> There's not a lot of earth-shattering IP in the ride-sharing space, but Uber > seems to be making a play to own it, having submitted 11 patents that cover > every major aspect of its business model. If granted, it could find itself > with a technical monopoly not only in ride-sharing but other businesses > based on its processes, like general delivery (again, more reason for those > rich investors to be excited, right?)[0]

Forgive my rant, Uber's marketing pisses me off. They're not some benign force trying to help people get luxury rides to the airport, they're a rational business making rational business decisions.

[0] - [http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonathansalembaskin/2014/12/05/t...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonathansalembaskin/2014/12/05/the-5-keys- to-ubers-valuation/) [1] - [http://www.tlpa.org/about/taxicab.cfm](http://www.tlpa.org/about/taxicab.cfm) [2] - [http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the- switch/wp/2015/01/22...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the- switch/wp/2015/01/22/the-missing-data-point-from-ubers-driver-analysis-how- far-they-drive/) bonus link: [http://www.quora.com/How-much-does-an-Uber- driver-make-1](http://www.quora.com/How-much-does-an-Uber-driver-make-1)

<comment><USER3> Regarding sunk costs: in a strictly technical sense, you are correct, but in a practical evaluation a personal vehicle represents a large sunk cost for an individual. How do I justify this? People only sell their car to finance buying a new one. Individual car owners always have a large amount of their capital tied up in _a_ vehicle, even though the specific vehicle will change over the course of years. For those (vast majority) of car owners who do not choose to eschew personal vehicle ownership, it is entirely accurate to consider a vehicle a sunk cost.

That being said, I don't really disagree with most of what you have to say, though I do disagree with your negativity.

It is expensive to drive for a living - so expensive, in fact, that it was not a living until monopoly pricing was forced by government regulation.

The excess capacity of vehicles owned for personal transportation is huge. I don't want to repeat myself, so I'll link to another thread discussing Uber (and friends) where I participated that makes my position very clear[0].

I do not view Uber as an underdog. I agree with you that they are a rational business pursuing their profit. I also believe that in pursuit of their profit they will provide a great amount of value to consumers, and to ride-sharers who can defray some portion of their cost of ownership of a personal vehicle. The point is not to make a living, but to defray costs. The historic trend of jitney services (a combination of ride-sharing and public transit in widespread practice before regulation - history in linked thread) was of a high turnover driver base, with many performing relatively few trips, and some few working "full time" for a short time frame. This is the model that Uber (along with its friends) improves upon.

While I do not debate the narrative you have presented as common about Uber (and friends), I have not made arguments that follow it. It is a valid point that does not apply to the discussion I have engaged in. I view as a net positive the dissolution of all 3000 firms you have referenced if Uber (and friends) can provide an analogous service more desirable to consumers and at a lower cost (I do not deny the transitional pain - note I said net positive, not absolute). We can certainly disagree on this point and have a discussion about the merits of industries being displaced and altered with technological and regulatory change, if that is what you'd like.

Even if Uber manages to acquire patent protection over every aspect of its business model and on the terms they have applied for those patents, this is still a superior situation to the stagnant monopoly pricing that has been enforced by medallion systems for nigh on a century. Patents will expire before another century has passed.

That being said, the fact that there are already multiple players in the market for ride-sharing apps indicates that the ideas are, while novel also rather obvious. I would be surprised if they managed to acquire patents that remove their competitors from the market completely.

I agree that Uber is not a benign force trying to help people get luxury rides to the airport. I also agree that they are a rational business making rational business decisions. The way I read the situation, though, is that they are eliminating significant deadweight loss that is a direct result of the status quo they are challenging. They are providing significant competition in an industry which has seen consumer-harming regulation for a century. Forgive me for not being upset that a company pursuing its own self interest is also doing good as a side-effect.

[0][https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8874249](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8874249)

<comment><USER4> > It is expensive to drive for a living - so expensive, in fact, that it was > not a living until monopoly pricing was forced by government regulation.

This was done in exchange for stability in price, stability of service and other benefits i.e. we're getting something for our money.

> The excess capacity of vehicles owned for personal transportation is huge. I > don't want to repeat myself, so I'll link to another thread discussing Uber > (and friends) where I participated that makes my position very clear[0].

I glanced through it, I don't find the argument convincing.

> They are providing significant competition in an industry which has seen > consumer-harming regulation for a century.

#1 Is it consumer-harming? #2 if it is, does it harm consumers more than it benefits society at large?

The medallion system has limited the number of cabs on the road which minimizes the pollution and congestion they cause, it also makes sure they pay their fair share for things like road repairs since they're using a public good for commercial use. Because the cars are generally awful shades of yellow or orange pedestrians, cyclists and other cars are safer as well. These are things that benefit society as a whole.

Believe it or not, many people like to know ahead of time how much a cab ride is going to cost so they can plan accordingly.

At the end of the day Uber is going to regulate the market using their market power to whatever extent they can. They simply aren't going to bring an efficient, competitive market place where everybody wins. You don't get valued at $40 billion when all you have are easily substituted assets (it's an app, a brand, and some logistic management software) unless you have a long term angle of somehow making massive profits which according to basic economics _are assumed to be impossible in healthy markets._

<comment><USER3> >> It is expensive to drive for a living - so expensive, in fact, that it was not a living until monopoly pricing was forced by government regulation.

> This was done in exchange for stability in price, stability of service and > other benefits i.e. we're getting something for our money.

If you'd read the history in my linked post, it is clear that these were not salient issues and the regulation was pushed through by municipal carriers and private trolley operators who could not effectively compete in the market. The regulation was not desired by taxi/jitney operators nor requested/supported by the public.

While it is true that regulation _can_ be a general benefit, it is often the case that it is supported, at least in part if not in full, by firms/industries desirous of legal protection and elimination of competition where they cannot effectively compete.

What "we" the consumers got was less regular service, areas that are typically avoided by cab drivers and thus underserved, legally enforced monopoly pricing, "and other benefits."

>> The excess capacity of vehicles owned for personal transportation is huge. I don't want to repeat myself, so I'll link to another thread discussing Uber (and friends) where I participated that makes my position very clear[0].

> I glanced through it, I don't find the argument convincing.

Let's be clear here, the point you are explicitly disagreeing with is that there is a large amount of excess capacity in the vehicles which are currently owned and operated for personal use. To disagree you must claim that there is not much excess capacity in these vehicles. To weakly support this position you would need to argue one of two things:

1) That vehicles owned and operated for personal use are in use for the vast majority of the day (i.e. they don't sit parked for more hours than they spend driving).

OR

2) That vehicles owned and operated for personal use are filled to seating capacity in the vast majority of the trips that they make (i.e. every time someone drives, they have more seats filled than empty).

To strongly support your position you'd have to argue both of the above. I am not trying to artificially box you into a corner, but I can truly think of no other arguments to support the premise that there is _not_ a large amount of excess capacity in vehicles owned and operated for personal use.

>> They are providing significant competition in an industry which has seen consumer-harming regulation for a century.

> #1 Is it consumer-harming?

I argue yes for the simple fact that the supply is artificially constricted. Fares are higher than they would otherwise be and there are fewer suppliers of rides-for-hire, thus underserving geographic areas or limiting capacity at peak hours.

> The medallion system has limited the number of cabs on the road which > minimizes the pollution and congestion they cause, it also makes sure they > pay their fair share for things like road repairs since they're using a > public good for commercial use.

I will not divert this into an argument as to the size or costs of these effects. If pollution, congestion, or fair-share-of-costs are concerns, then the appropriate way to address this is to address the actual concerns - <USER2> costs, congestion fees, gas taxes, or any other similar policies address these concerns while also providing revenue that could (in an ideal world) be used to pay directly back into road maintenance.

That being said, medallions are privately owned, and the rents accrue to the holders of the medallions. Thus one of your benefits, namely "makes sure that they pay their fair share for things...." is not even true. The medallion system does literally nothing but reduce the number of cabs and increases the fare.

> Because the cars are generally awful shades of yellow or orange pedestrians, > cyclists and other cars are safer as well. These are things that benefit > society as a whole.

Citation needed. Seriously. You are claiming that the color of a car impacts the rate of accidents they are involved in. Besides this being fairly absurd, you are conflating cab coloring with regulation of taxi services. If the color of cars providing a taxi service is of such public concern, then it would be much easier (and less costly) to require enhanced visibility modifications to such cars, for example reflective sections or only allowing yellow cabs (which are not even the norm in many areas - not everywhere with cabs is NYC). Why should we resort to a consumer harming medallion system to make sure cabs are garish? What should we do about the widespread black car industry of other cars for hire that have been around since long before Uber and compatriots?

> #2 if it is, does it harm consumers more than it benefits society at large?

> Believe it or not, many people like to know ahead of time how much a cab > ride is going to cost so they can plan accordingly.

You can easily check the fare before the ride with the Uber app, so I'm not entirely sure about the argument here.

> At the end of the day Uber is going to regulate the market using their > market power to whatever extent they can. They simply aren't going to bring > an efficient, competitive market place where everybody wins.

They are not going to devote their efforts to doing so, this is correct. But the actions they are taking are moving the market in that direction anyway - for example in the parent article, it is leading to moves which will allow enhanced competition in the Portsmouth market. Even where taxi regulation change not a whit, UberX and similar (ride-sharing version, not taxi-dispatch version) will allow price competition against incumbent taxi services, and excess capacity at peak times and in underserved areas. Even if the price they can charge is restricted, the latter two benefits remain.

> You don't get valued at $40 billion when all you have are easily substituted > assets (it's an app, a brand, and some logistic management software) unless > you have a long term angle of somehow making massive profits which according > to basic economics are assumed to be impossible in healthy markets.

Well, as covered extensively above, the market for taxi services is far from healthy, so there's a large immediate opportunity for Uber in soaking up the excess demand that current taxi services simply do not fill.

That being said, even if Uber and similar move the taxi service and ride sharing industries toward more health, there is a huge difference between economic profit (revenue > opportunity cost) and accounting profit (revenue > outlays). Consumer electronics are a good example - there are commodity parts and labor easily available, but there are many firms in this market with healthy profit margins and prices have been tumbling for consumers for decades.

I am not saying that Uber and similar are identical to consumer electronics, but there is obviously a significant network effect and first mover effect which contribute to the valuations we see.

I read your posts as seeming to assume that I am naively painting some panglossian image of Uber as the champion of the everyman, providing cheap and wonderful transport for all. This is not the view that I hold. If my understanding of your tone is incorrect, I apologize. I would like to engage only on the salient points of the issue. I have identified several I find important and supported them above. I will summarize below.

1) The current regulatory regime was implemented primarily for the benefit of incumbent and municipal public transit providers.

2) There is excess capacity and some level of sunk cost in vehicles owned and operated for personal transportation (they are not constantly utilized or filled to capacity, but a single owner bears significant fixed costs that are not adjusted for this fact).

3) Medallions artificially restrict the supply and raise the price of cab services, without significant benefit to consumers.

4) Uber and its competitors (whom you repeatedly do not acknowledge) are providing a service that is of objective value to consumers.

5) Uber and its competitors are, in so doing, providing competition at a level unseen for nigh on a century to the incumbent taxi service industry.

<comment><USER4> Fine.

> 1) The current regulatory regime was implemented primarily for the benefit > of incumbent and municipal public transit providers.

Without buying into free-market libertarianism I don't see how to convince myself of this. Do companies try to purchase favorable regulation? Of course, it's exactly what Uber is doing right now. But I don't believe people go to engineering school for 4+ years, then work 5+ years for their PE licenses just so they can take kickbacks. Traffic systems and roads must be engineered, it's why they work, and at the end of the day limiting the number of cabs on the road seems like a pretty obvious thing to do.

> 2) There is excess capacity and some level of sunk cost in vehicles owned > and operated for personal transportation (they are not constantly utilized > or filled to capacity, but a single owner bears significant fixed costs that > are not adjusted for this fact).

Sunk costs? No. You're making up a new definition of a well defined term. Excess capacity? 95% No. Lyft Line is the only place I've seen where that argument makes sense. Maybe Uber has a similar set-up, but when people are driving 20-80 hours a week that's just another 3,500 lbs of metal on the road. Cars don't depreciate _that much_ while sitting in garages.

> 3) Medallions artificially restrict the supply and raise the price of cab > services, without significant benefit to consumers.

Medallions are just part of a comprehensive regulatory system designed over many decades. They do decrease the number of cabs on the road. Every cab increases congestion, increases everybody's insurance rates, increases pollution, increases the risks faced by pedestrians, etc.

> 4) Uber and its competitors (whom you repeatedly do not acknowledge) are > providing a service that is of objective value to consumers.

I never said they weren't. What, am I the Grinch trying to deprive people of value because I don't buy into Uber's PR?

> 5) Uber and its competitors are, in so doing, providing competition at a > level unseen for nigh on a century to the incumbent taxi service industry.

I never said they weren't. It's useless to compare the long-term steady-state of the regulated cab industry to the brief period of competition that will occur if barriers to entry are removed. Of course that increases competition. In the short term. Then new barriers to entry are erected and the market concentrates again. The long term picture of "deregulation" is a probable Uber/Lyft duopoly that thanks to their size will likely have as much or more regulatory power than the current cab companies.

Investors don't believe this will be a long term competitive market, that's why Uber's valued at $40 billion. I don't believe it's going to be a long term competitive market, I think it has oligopoly written all over it. Uber certainly doesn't think it's going to be a long term competitive market, in fact it's probably one of their greatest fears. The only people who actually believe that Uber marks a return to free-market economics are the libertarians, and this I attribute to the genius of Uber.

edit: > Let's be clear here, the point you are explicitly disagreeing with is that there is a large amount of excess capacity in the vehicles which are currently owned and operated for personal use. To disagree you must claim that there is not much excess capacity in these vehicles. To weakly support this position you would need to argue one of two things:

> 1) That vehicles owned and operated for personal use are in use for the vast > majority of the day (i.e. they don't sit parked for more hours than they > spend driving).

> OR

> 2) That vehicles owned and operated for personal use are filled to seating > capacity in the vast majority of the trips that they make (i.e. every time > someone drives, they have more seats filled than empty).

> To strongly support your position you'd have to argue both of the above. I > am not trying to artificially box you into a corner, but I can truly think > of no other arguments to support the premise that there is not a large > amount of excess capacity in vehicles owned and operated for personal use.*

I really have no idea why you're going on about this. Uber isn't a car-pooling service, it isn't car-sharing. It doesn't even solve this supposed problem of "excess capacity" because what's the average number of occupants in an Uber car on the road? I suspect it's less than 2. I'm not disagreeing with the argument so much as saying it's just too bizarre to disagree with.

<comment><USER3> I'm going to stop repeating myself. You have not materially engaged with any of the arguments I have made in support of my positions nor coherently addressed my position, rather have taken the positions I have provided and engaged in no dialog beyond repeating your own claims that I have tried to address reasonably. At this rate we will continue in circles.

<comment><USER4> Just a note: if you're going to bow out of a conversation you don't feel is productive there's no shame in that, we all do it from time to time for a variety of reasons. You don't have to save face by suggesting that you're reasonable and I'm not, you're coherent and I'm not, you dealt with all my arguments and I dealt with none of yours, etc.

I don't find your arguments compelling, you don't like mine. Whatever, it happens.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Good for them! I'm glad at least one city is living in the future with the rest of us

</comment><comment><USER6> New Hampshire. Live free or die!

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> The title is very misleading, as the taxi commission voted to eliminate itself. It isn't on the chopping block for any other factor than by its own volition; an incredibly rare example of public watchdogs intentionally giving way as the best way to pursue the public interest they were made to help.</comment>


Ember Query - a querystring library for Ember.js - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/alexspeller/ember-query

<comment><USER2> Important to note that this only works for pushState/history API-based routing, not Ember's default hashchange-based routing. Still, it'd be cool to see this merged back into Ember JS as at least the starting point for querystring support in 1.1!

<comment><AUTHOR> I do mean to work on hash routing support, I just haven't had the time yet. I don't actually think it will be too much work to get it working, but that might be slightly optimistic.

There is an open issue for querystring support where you can see how this developed over time, but I haven't had any feedback on it yet. It might be worth watching that issue for updates: <https://github.com/emberjs/ember.js/issues/1773></comment></comment>


Stunning long-exposure 'star trail' photo taken from the ISS - <AUTHOR> http://www.engadget.com/2012/06/08/visualized-stunning-long-exposure-star-trail-photo/

<comment><USER2> Source, with a lot more content: [http://retina.smithsonianmag.com/post/24629746846/smithsonia...](http://retina.smithsonianmag.com/post/24629746846/smithsonian- magazine-star-trails)</comment>


A blueprint for performance management - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/resources-for-humans/a-blueprint-for-performance-management-f1d449fac57d <comment><USER2> Aka a blueprint to turn your efficient company into a bloated office politics obsessed enterprise.

I have never seen a company with such a structured review process not have the review process gamed by political players. Especially peer review, that is just asking for gaming.

Annual or semiannual reviews are way way too infrequent. Just pull up with the employee when any problems occur. Or have weekly one on ones (props to the article for mentioning this). Just don't what 5 months to ding an employee for an event they no longer remember.

<comment><USER3> Seen this as well. Does somebody in management really expect leadership roles to sit down every 6 to 12 months, discuss everything their employees have done, and do it objectively? That's a fast track to giving everybody but the absolute worst a 5 out of 5 every time.

I'm a big proponent of the one-on-one approach, and giving feedback as needed. I am curious, however, typically the review cycle is correlated with the raise and bonus cycle. How would you go about handling that process with the data points that the review cycle provides, however artificial they may be.

<comment><USER2> I would ask why is there a set cycle for raises? If an employee is valuable enough for a raise why wait and risk a competitor poaching them before the cycle comes around?

That may sound far fetched but my current company has a very rigid and well known cycle and I swear that recruiters know about it. I get way more recruiter calls leading up to raises than afterwards.

Good on you for noticing that the annual review data is artificial. I suspect that is why these processes exist. Companies want to base there decisions on data and don't care if that data is meaningless.

<comment><USER4> Some companies are so top heavy and tenured they simply don't care. Executives run the show and they could care less who comes and goes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> One item the author should add is "Ask employees and managers one question: Does our performance management process provide value to you? What could be done better?".

It seems this stuff always gets cooked up by somebody who never has to go through the process themselves.

</comment><comment><USER6> One part that seems missing: Why are you trying to start a performance management system?

Do you suddenly have too many people and are looking to promote the good ones and get rid of the bad ones? Are people not communicating effectively? Are you trying to figure out what people are actually doing with their time? Trying to figure out who needs to get raises?

Different orgs at different stages have different problems. Seems like implementing a solution without understanding the problem, and that never goes well.

</comment><comment><USER7> I do prefer to have formal performance reviews tied to anniversary dates instead of a company wide performance/merit increase cycle. It's almost impossible to give thoughtful reviews to 10-20 people at one time.

<comment><USER8> Having been a part of large organizations that do it both ways, it is very hard to give objective feedback to large group of staff if it isn't done at the same time. Eventually everyone that isn't a total screw-up earns the "top box" and the performance review becomes meaningless. If everyone is done at the same time and you want to reward your top 10%, the managers are forced to identify who the 10% really are.

<comment><USER9> Is your intention to churn the bottom 90% of your organization through inflation and greener pastures elsewhere?

It does seem generally the case that if you're not a total screw-up, you expect and can get periodic increases in compensation and responsibility. To deny this to someone _is_ to declare them a total screw-up, because you're signaling to them that they ought to leave for another company or field where they won't have already peaked.

Staying in the same role and salary you had when you first entered the workforce doesn't seem like something we can realistically expect from 90% of software engineers.

So I'm not sure it's terribly broken just because most people are getting promote-able ratings.

<comment><USER10> You can want to reward your top 10% _while_ giving at least a market-rate adjustment to the next 80% (or whatever).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> (Employee performance, not software performance.)

</comment><comment><USER12> Ratings are discussed in this article. But not specifically pro/con are rankings, sometimes controversial. What's HN's take on rankings?

To clarify: I mean ranking employees within or among certain teams. In companies that produce rankings, I think the rankings often supersede the ratings when used as input to raises/bonuses/etc.

<comment><USER13> My opinion is that they are the worst idea ever created. They incentivize infighting and undercutting each other. They lead to situations where everyone on your team is a top-notch performer but you have to cut someone, so you fire someone who's doing a great job. Or the reverse, everyone on your team is a complete fuck-up, but you have to give bonuses to the top 10% or whatever, so you reward people who are doing a terrible job. Nobody I know who has been involved with them (including the managers who have to do cutting and bonus- giving) thinks they're a good idea.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Missing from this article: Any hint as to wtf "performance management" is.</comment>


Mozilla launches massive campaign on digital surveillance - <AUTHOR> https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2013/06/11/stopwatching-us-mozilla-launches-massive-campaign-on-digital-surveillance/ <comment><USER2> So, will Mozilla be making ABP, Tor, GPG (for web forms), etc. standard features? Mozilla is actually in a position to help protect people from these sorts of intrusions. Are they willing to actually do something that might hurt their advertising industry friends in the name of protecting civil rights?

<comment><USER3> At least they show ABP as the "most popular" add-on, and promote "Do Not Track Me" as a featured extension at [https://addons.mozilla.org/](https://addons.mozilla.org/)

Making Tor standard is never going to happen. It requires a lot of modifications to the browser [https://www.torproject.org/projects/torbrowser/design/#Imple...](https://www.torproject.org/projects/torbrowser/design/#Implementation) and it's awkward to use [https://www.torproject.org/download/download- easy.html.en#wa...](https://www.torproject.org/download/download- easy.html.en#warning)

<comment><USER4>
        Making Tor standard is never going to happen. It requires
        a lot of modifications to the browser

That may be true for Gecko, but I don't see it as unreasonable to start baking security into Servo, since it is a few years from being production ready and is being built from scratch.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is great. But what would be more impressive is if Mozilla would drop Google as Firefox's primary search engine - and instead use a non-PRISM provider such as DuckDuckGo.

<comment><USER6> Google integration, by definition, defies Mozilla's mission. I'm okay with the integration knowing that I can fix it, though I wish there were a start-up option for novices or to have it outright removed, though.

<comment><USER7> Would many novices actually care. The commentary floating around the web by people without any background in data analysis or technology seems to be that the indignity of TSA searches matters more than the actual danger of enabling future people to appoint themselves power brokers in the model of J Edgar Hoover.

If novices don't care, wouldn't it just be an additional hassle?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Mozilla just gave me a reason to consider buying their phone.

</comment><comment><USER9> > This dragnet surveillance violates the First and Fourth Amendments of the > U.S. Constitution, which protect citizens' right to speak and associate > anonymously and guard against unreasonable searches and seizures that > protect their right to privacy.

The use of "protect" near the end of this sentence confuses me. Do they mean "violate"? Am I wrong to parse the final "that" as referring to the unreasonable searches? Is there any chance of clarifying this language given that this has already been made public?

<comment><USER3> I think "that" is supposed to refer all the way back to "right" but it's very awkward.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Mozilla need to take responsibility for their part in the construction of a world that allows such easy mass surveillance. The 'Open Web' puts a heavy emphasis on centralisation of user information.

<comment><USER3> The open web is supposed to prevent user lock-in and make it easy to choose where you put your data.

<comment><USER2> In practice, it fails miserably at that.</comment></comment></comment>