The Hedonic Treadmill - <AUTHOR> http://happierhuman.com/hedonic-treadmill/ <comment><USER2> The author is flat out wrong. The Hedonic Treadmill has been disproven. Moreover, the author seems to be conflating the concept of the treadmill, with adaptation. The former denotes the subject returns to the original state. The latter recognizes that while we become accustomed to new things, we still improve in happiness.

The author is also misquoting, or misunderstanding, Kahneman. Kahneman isn't talking at all about the treadmill. He's talking about what he called the "Focusing Illusion"\-- a fancy way of saying "the grass is always greener on the other side..."

Relevant links:

"Beyond the Hedonic Treadmill: Revising the Adaptation Theory of Well-Being" [http://www.factorhappiness.at/downloads/quellen/S9_Diener.pd...](http://www.factorhappiness.at/downloads/quellen/S9_Diener.pdf)

Kahneman tried to explain the hedonic treadmill via with his own aspiration treadmill. He claims that he not only failed, but the data were opposite to his hypothesis.

[https://www.edge.org/response-detail/10056](https://www.edge.org/response- detail/10056)

Kahneman's paper where that OP misquotes Kahneman from:

[http://psiexp.ss.uci.edu/research/teaching/Schkade_Kahneman_...](http://psiexp.ss.uci.edu/research/teaching/Schkade_Kahneman_1998.pdf)

<comment><USER3> >'Kahneman tried to explain the hedonic treadmill via with his own aspiration treadmill. He claims that he not only failed, but the data were opposite to his hypothesis.'

[https://www.edge.org/response-detail/10056](https://www.edge.org/response- detail/10056)

Uh... what that Edge article you are linking shows is that 'experienced happiness' which he thought would be a better measurement of happiness than life satisfaction is even more immune to your life circumstances:

>"This was the first of many such findings: income, marital status and education all influence experienced happiness less than satisfaction, and we could show that the difference is not a statistical artifact. "

This only strengthens the OP's opinion...

He does tell us at the end of the article that GDP correlates with the happiness levels of countries. But that doesn't really detract from the OP's reasoning. (Who knows if that's even causative, instability & war could cause both GDP & happiness to drop.)

Even the study you are linking suggests revisions, and is far from 'disproving' the hedonic treadmill theory.

<comment><USER2> I'd rather we not get bogged down in downstream minutia. Instead let's focus on the fallacy in the OP's core argument:

The original Treadmill Theory has been discredited--or at least fallen out of favor. Why? Because the original Treadmill theory is about people returning to the same baseline level of happiness. That's why the originators called it a treadmill - you don't go anywhere / change / improve / make progress etc.

That's why the "adaptation" analogy is preferred. After an initial rush of either happiness or sadness, you do return to a baseline...but this baseline is different that what it was before.

The reality, and summary, is this: nice things do make your life better. At first there's a rush of excitement over your upgrade. When that initial rush goes away, you backtrack a little bit, but still realize a life which is better than what it used to be. The inverse is true for tragedy.

For whatever reason, instead of the succinct description I gave, the author chose a long winded piece, added some charts with questional data, and slapped on a link bait title.

<shrug>

<comment><USER4> > _For whatever reason, instead of the succinct description I gave, the author > chose a long winded piece, added some charts with questional data, and > slapped on a link bait title._

That's because their post this way got much more illuminating than the "succinct description" which does not even cover the same ground.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> _The hundreds of hours of dieting, going to the gym, and putting on make-up (or flexing, for men) increase happiness by a colossal 7%._

nope nope nope

exercising does much more than make you look jacked at the club. It makes your brain release endorphins for immediate mood improvement, and also improves thinking, sleep, and overall well being. The happiest I've felt in my life is when exercising regularly. Actually exercising and diet are probably _the most_ influential on our chemistry which in turn influences mood and happiness.

also not sure why all these things were lumped in together and how they could possibly calculate the 7% increase considering there is such a wide range of diets and exercise plans. Seems hyperbolic

<comment> and-can And even then, is 7% supposed to be a little or a lot? They say "hundreds of hours of dieting & exercising" but really that only affects an hour a day, maybe? I'd say that if I could spend 1 hour a day and get a 7% gain in happiness, it probably is worth it.

And perhaps there are other activities that require 1 hour that result in a 7% increase. Say: reading, socializing, writing. Then you've got 4 hours a day and get a 1.07^4 = 1.31 or 31% increase in happiness.

Isn't that GOOD? I'd say that's AWESOME.

<comment><USER5> well the article seems to imply that 7% is low: _" by the colossal 7%"_

and there is this:

 _But that same survey found that those with a low level of education were 47% more likely to be the happiest than those with a high level of education.13_

so low level of education makes almost 7x more impact than diet + exercising combined. something is seriously wrong with this happiness calculus

<comment><USER6> Check out The True Beleiver by Eric Hoffer or Deschooling Society by Ivan Illich for some explanations for this long observed effect.

Schooling trained myself and my best friends to expect to be able to use what we learned, even though there were no roles in society for us. We are national merit finalists, calculus users, programmers, 99th percentile GRE scorers... one friend is nearly homeless. Another bags groceries. The best off has a programming job only because his father was higher up in the company. I spray herbicides and pesticides and feed cattle and do whatever I am asked and more at our family veterinary clinic and on our family farm. I am extremely lucky. But I feel intensely guilty that I am not using anything I learned at university. No one owes me anything. But I sacrificed and suffered so much for academic success, debating championships, math team and programming victories, and it has never paid me back with a livelihood and now I am emotionally and energetically burnt out before ever landing an entry-level programming job. I can do all the Cracking the Coding Interview questions. I've never ran into anything in CS I couldn't understand. I'm just very emotionally fragile when it comes to interviews due to being on the autism spectrum and feeling so abjectified. If I had not been so successful in school I would not feel so terribly guilty about my failure at life. I would like a romantic relationship and a family. But I would feel guilty and to ashamed starting one without a career to provide for at least private schooling or more likely homeschooling for my kids. But I am unable to escape my social bankruptcy or move out of my parent's basement. Life seems to complicated and I feel so far behind in non- school skills I feel trapped. I feel I will never gain the prestige to feel desirable enough to make friends much less a wife. I come up with software ideas but I get so depressed at the likelihood of their failure that I feel guilty working on them (and yet guilty not working on them). Education causes higher expectations. Needing more people at university for social reasons has made them so easy that they no longer discipline people enough for success. More importantly, there simply aren't enough role slots people trained to expect those roles. Please give me counsel if you can. I want a mentor or someone to apprentice with so badly. My parents love me but they are very dysfunctional. They have no friends either. I had a genius uncle who got top marks in school, made all sorts of interesting gadgets, could solve a Rubik's cube in seconds... he ended up a derelict and I am so worried I will end up like him even though it might be a self-fulfilling fear... I think he is too. He wanted to see a game I made but I've never gotten one polished to the point I felt I could share it. My closest friends are all failing to launch, too, so I have no role models. And I am down to three people from undergrad that I can still talk to (through infrequent texting). I want to be able to spend real time with someone who has things figured out about a bit so that my mirror neurons might hurt me rather than harm me.

<comment><USER7> Been there, done that, found a way out of it. PM me.

<comment><USER6> I might if there was a PM option.

<comment><USER8> If you add a publicly viewable email address to your profile, then anyone that might want to help you can contact you privately.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> "The material standard of living of a homeless person in modern-day Manhattan is several dozens of times higher than the wealthiest of kings ten thousand years ago."

Can someone explain to me what their definition of "standard of living" is in this context?

I get that they might have access to cleaner water, but surely easy access to food prepared for you and having a roof over your head in a snowstorm would sound really appealing to someone without a home.

(Maybe I need to know what they use as the definition of "homeless"...)

<comment><USER10> 10,000 years ago, we were living in a pre-agricultural society (or, perhaps, only somewhat agricultural) Lots of wandering tribes, moving around following the food, hunting with sharp rocks. Hunger and starvation would be common, everything would be scarce, even for "kings" (which were really just tribal leaders) Modern construction wasn't a thing, dwellings were constructed out of sod, animal skins -- at the best, stacked rocks or mud bricks. As a king, you'd still have to do back-breaking, dangerous work to maintain your position and value in society.

There's no possibility of going to a homeless shelter to get out of the cold, or sleeping in a well-constructed subway station to shield yourself from the elements. If you were injured, you couldn't just walk into a nearby emergency room with a team of nurses and doctors required to treat you. No soup kitchens or food pantries or SNAP benefits. Even digging around in a city garbage can or restaurant dumpster would yield an easy and delicious feast compared to spending days tracking prey, killing it with a spear, cleaning and skinning it, and cooking it with primitive tools over a fire. I would _much_ rather be homeless today than in any sort of position 10,000 years ago.

<comment><USER11> I know the work of Jared Diamond has some problems, but as a counterpoint:

 _" While the case for the progressivist view seems overwhelming, it's hard to prove. How do you show that the lives of people 10,000 years ago got better when they abandoned hunting and gathering for farming? Until recently, archaeologists had to resort to indirect tests, whose results (surprisingly) failed to support the progressivist view. Here's one example of an indirect test: Are twentieth century hunter-gatherers really worse off than farmers? Scattered throughout the world, several dozen groups of so-called primitive people, like the Kalahari bushmen, continue to support themselves that way. It turns out that these people have plenty of leisure time, sleep a good deal, and work less hard than their farming neighbors. For instance, the average time devoted each week to obtaining food is only 12 to 19 hours for one group of Bushmen, 14 hours or less for the Hadza nomads of Tanzania...While farmers concentrate on high-carbohydrate crops like rice and potatoes, the mix of wild plants and animals in the diets of surviving hunter-gatherers provides more protein and a bettter balance of other nutrients. In one study, the Bushmen's average daily food intake (during a month when food was plentiful) was 2,140 calories and 93 grams of protein, considerably greater than the recommended daily allowance for people of their size. It's almost inconceivable that Bushmen, who eat 75 or so wild plants, could die of starvation the way hundreds of thousands of Irish farmers and their families did during the potato famine of the 1840s."_[1]

Obviously this isn't representative of all hunter-gatherer societies, but a >20 hour work week, high-protein 2000 calorie diet seems pretty nice. Of course there are some other nice benefits of modernity but saying being homeless in the US have a categorically higher quality of life is a stretch.

[1][http://www.ditext.com/diamond/mistake.html](http://www.ditext.com/diamond/mistake.html)

<comment><USER12> Thanks, I like this point of view. I guess something like ratio of modern day comforts / modern day stress vs that ratio from past could be a useful measure.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> The claim that losing weight won't make someone happier always surprises me. To be sure, there are those who have deep seated issues that won't be solved by losing weight, or for those who lose a little it won't make a big difference, but I can state with confidence the _fact_ that I am happier and my quality of life is better for having lost weight. Just getting better sleep (and not needing a CPAP to do it) has made a world of difference for me. Anecdotal, I know, but still.

<comment><USER14> I think that point needed to be deconstructed (by the author of the article) in a lot more detail. It strikes me as both obviously true in many ways but also obviously false in many other ways.

It is obviously true that losing weight won't make you feel any better about being stuck in a shitty marriage, or a job you hate, or being estranged from your parents, or any number of other things that can cause deep-seated unhappiness.

It is also obviously true that losing weight will make you feel better physically, and probably result in you being treated better by most of the people you interact with face-to-face on a daily basis. Being treated better by people definitely makes me feel happier.

On that note, I should really go to the gym more often.

<comment><USER6> It's common, though, for people to feel guilty about not working out enough even if they do it quite a bit (perhaps even more likely). That can lead to less happiness. The endorphins are great... but I feel there is still a hedonic treadmill effect there with that.

<comment><USER14> > It's common, though, for people to feel guilty about not working out enough > even if they do it quite a bit

ha, I'll bet. almost anything where there's a notion of "leveling up" or some kind of progress over time can lead to this treadmill feeling.

in my case though, I mean, I'm at like once or twice a month at the gym. I'm pretty sure that's just objectively not enough, regardless of whatever treadmill effect is going on there.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Studies have cast doubt on whether Subjective Well-Being (SWB) levels actually return to normal after significant life events. [1] [2]

So a core element of this post may not even be an actual phenomenon.

[1] [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17469954](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17469954) [2] [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3289759/](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3289759/)

<comment><USER16> > Studies have cast doubt on whether Subjective Well-Being (SWB) levels > actually return to normal after significant life events.

I had heard (in a TED talk I think) that humans typically need only three months or so to get back to "feeling normal" after a terrible life event.

Then I had my one terrible life event (widowed two days after marriage). Boy was that TED talk wrong! The next few years were a desolate wasteland.

<comment><USER17> This is the TED talk you were talking about [0]. I'm sorry for your loss.

[0]: [https://www.ted.com/talks/dan_gilbert_asks_why_are_we_happy?...](https://www.ted.com/talks/dan_gilbert_asks_why_are_we_happy?language=en)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> _" The top 1% own 48% of global wealth, but even they aren't happy. A survey by Boston College of people with an average net worth of $78m found that they too were assailed by anxiety, dissatisfaction and loneliness. Many of them reported feeling financially insecure: to reach safe ground, they believed, they would need, on average, about 25% more money. (And if they got it? They'd doubtless need another 25%). One respondent said he wouldn't get there until he had $1bn in the bank."_ [0]

[0] [http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/14/age- of-...](http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/14/age-of- loneliness-killing-us)

</comment><comment><USER19> >>But sunshine after sunshine is correlated with nothing. >> Because if every day was warm and sunny, you would get use to it.

That seems really really wrong. I see they cite studies but it just finally got warm and sunny here after a long cold winter and it feels, well, happy :-) Maybe, just maybe, if it was sunny all the time I'd get used to it. But some days wouldn't be sunny, or I'd travel someplace with no sun, or people would visit and say how awesome the weather is... I dunno, I'd be reminded all the time how awesome it is. Or I'd complain because there's no rain and everything is dry and dead and we're running out of water... damn hedonic treadmill.

<comment><USER20> Moved to the Peninsula from Chicago a couple years ago after becoming increasingly fed up with and depressed by winter (despite trying to "medicate" with a full-spectrum lamp).

Everyone I knew commented on how much happier I seemed. Sure some of that may have been job-related, but it is amazing how much I notice it every day, even a couple years later now.

The most noticeable thing for me in my day-to-day is that I no longer feel guilty during nice days when I just want to chill inside and play a computer game or something. In Chicago, since there were only a handful of truly gorgeous days per year, I'd have immense guilt. The flip side is that I need to motivate myself more to go outdoors, but because I can garden pretty much year round, I have an enjoyable hobby that keeps me outside.

Sure, some days I get a bit tired of the sun (particularly when we have heat waves), but the lack of humidity means I can usually hide in the shade and be fine, which can't be said of Chicago in it's 100% humidity summers.

I'm not sure if I'll ever get to a point where I take it for granted because it energizes me. However I do appreciate and look forward to a good rainy day which we rarely get. I even sat outside on my deck in the rain at one point because it felt so nice.

Honestly--I don't miss winter. If I want snow I'll drive to Tahoe. We get a gorgeous extended fall, and those three are enough seasons for me.

I'm fortunate to commute on 280 (vs. 101) and driving home in the evening I get to watch the hills go from a peaceful lush green in the winter/spring to a glowing gold in the summer and fall as the sunset lights them up. It really is something to watch the landscape change like that, and I certainly don't miss the ugly stage of black slush and dangerous white out conditions I lived through in Chicago.

<comment><USER21> Same, but from Seattle. Maybe it's just those of us who are broken, but I'm immensely happier when it's sunny. I'll grant you, I find reasons to be grumpy sometimes when it's nice out (too damn hot, no AC in the house, whatever), but overall I'm vastly happier. Anyone who knows me would say the same. The thrill of a really nice day is gone, but on balance my situation is improved. Not only that, but after a decade or so, I've come to even appreciate the rare grey or rainy day for what it reminds me of, rather than kicking off a cycle of despair.

<comment><USER20> I think that's what it comes down to. Sure we might get used to the sunshine and not have as great an emotional lift as when you first see it after months of bleak gray, but the constant positive impact in the day-to-day is by far and away the greater benefit.

That stress reduction and mood enhancement cascades into other aspects of your life such as your sleep, relationships, overall stress level, etc.

I'd make the move again any day of the week. If anything I regret not moving here sooner (largely due to housing prices).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I've read the claim over the years that plastic surgery actually defies the usual reasoning of the hedonic treadmill. Those having plastic surgery tend to stay more-happy over an indefinite period of time.

This is the best survey I could google-up;

[https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/hollywood- phd/201403/do...](https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/hollywood- phd/201403/does-plastic-surgery-improve-emotional-well-being)

</comment><comment><USER23> There likely were no kings ten thousands years ago.

<comment><USER24> Not kings but chieftains.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> I've got impression that the author has somehow conflated adaptation to pleasure and monotonicity. Adaptation doesn't imply that people will always want more stuff, monotonicity [0] does.

What adaptation implies is that all gains in subjective happiness are short- term gains. Hence the "treadmill" image: though striving forward, people go nowhere.

Maybe I've got the wrong impression.

[0][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monotone_preferences](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monotone_preferences)

</comment><comment><USER26> It's not a treadmill, it's a ladder, even if it's a small step at a time. I bet people will be less happy if they follow the advice and stop seeking more happiness.

</comment><comment><USER27> Easier hypothesis: material wealth doesn't cause happiness

</comment><comment><USER28> preaching to the choir. happiness is the derivative of circumstance thus ultimately unachievable. Unless you can sustain exponential growth in your current circumstance. Option two, hop on a sinusoid, and sometimes you will be happy and sometimes you wont.

<comment><USER29> I don't agree. We don't really seem to notice the happiest times until later reflection, and most of my own I find there was stasis and mostly, a certain unconscious contentment. Once it becomes conscious it falls apart.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> In addition to the other criticisms in the comments,

> The material standard of living of a homeless person in modern-day Manhattan > is several dozens of times higher than the wealthiest of kings ten thousand > years ago.

That statement is pretty clearly silly and false.

</comment><comment><USER31> I'd be curious to see how chronic pain fits into the equation.. I developed a fairly severe neuralgia and it dropped my quality of life about 3 or 4 points on a 1-10 scale.

</comment><comment><USER32> What strikes me about the article is that a gratitude journal is recommended because of its effect, with no real discussion of the cause of the increased happiness. What could possibly explain a strong, common desire regardless of life-circumstances to thank an external source for the good things in our lives? If we're merely products of genetic mutation, this seems like a very bizarre psychological phenomenon.

<comment><USER33> Reflecting on things that made you happy in the past increases your current mood. I actually find that pretty intuitive.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> This is why esperiences almost always make us happier than stuff because it usually has us more involved and it lasts longer.

</comment><comment><USER35> The scientific research into happiness is summarised in the book "The How of Happiness."

And the whole book is precised in the following eight-minute rap: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyryRRYty4Y](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyryRRYty4Y)

(I find the visuals distracting and unhelpful.)

</comment><comment><USER36> The Hedonic Treadmill may be a phenomenon but it can be rendered irrelevant to your decision making process with a couple simple guiding principles which many people actually do in practice (some don't but it is an overgeneralization to say everyone does this so don't try to make more money). Principle 1: All Raises Go to Savings (invest those in whatever suits your risk tolerance). Principle 2: Begin With The End In Mind. The end of course is the end of working life (free to do more work of course if you so choose beyond a certain point). If you want to be financially independent at age 50 plus or minus 10 years you need a high net worth, so ensure that these savings habits result in a high net worth (definitions of high net worth of course vary). Kind of tired of hearing about the hedonic treadmill at this point.

</comment><comment><USER37> This is such a terrible argument, even by its own data.

For instance: "The good-looking are on average 7% happier than the bad- looking."

...from which it draws the conclusion that being beautiful doesn't make much of a difference. But 7% doesn't seem like a small difference at all. Spending hundreds of hours for a 7% improvement doesn't seem like such a terrible deal to me. Of course it's a bad deal if that's time you're taking from other things that make you happy. But exercise, for instance, has the benefit of improving your health and creating happiness in its own right.

Likewise the fact that 30% of unemployed feel 10% less happy _years_ after becoming employed again. A 10% reduction in happiness doesn't seem minor at all.

I guess if you have some absurd expectation, like some notion that a simple intervention will make you twice as happy, you'll be disappointed by the effects of all these various things. But a lot of these changes are pretty substantial, and they're not even taking into account things that I would expect to really affect happiness--professional accomplishment, one's love life, etc. People are complicated, happiness is complicated, and of course no single thing is going to instantly grant you contentment. That's no reason not to work for small improvements; the small improvements add up.

And I think this kind of fatalism is really pernicious, akin to writing arguments that suicide is a good idea or that heroin actually isn't very dangerous. Most people are sensible enough to dismiss them, but others develop this feeling of learned helplessness which really harms them. The authors arguing this are always hypocrites; they know that they'd be unhappy living on the street, that's why they keep going to work every day. But they're perfectly happy to confuse and harm others with their disingenuous rhetoric.

<comment><USER38> Aren't you ignoring the alternatives which the author suggests have significantly better ROI?

<comment><USER37> Yes, I consider that section of pop-psychology fluff literally below contempt or discussion. But by all means, if it interests you, try it; on another page, he promises that keeping a gratitude journal will grant you "spiritual transcendence."

<comment><USER39> So, you say:

"That's no reason not to work for small improvements; the small improvements add up."

But dismiss the idea of using some sort of heuristic to prioritize said small improvements? Because that's what I got out of this slightly verbose piece: prioritize what will _actually_ make you happy, not what you _assume_ will make you happy. Though, I agree, it's not particularly profound.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Maybe we could model this into a Machine Learning automation process.

</comment><comment><USER40> twenty kilograms of high-grade worthless, without devoting my life to writing the anti-statement: "even a treadmill can benefit a person, it is the perspective of the person on the treadmill that matters" \- you sweat, you win, no sweat, you lose.

</comment><comment><USER41> >The material standard of living of a homeless person in modern-day Manhattan is several dozens of times higher than the wealthiest of kings ten thousand years ago.

When your analysis leads you to a conclusion that is obviously false, it is time to reconsider some of your steps along the way.

<comment><USER41> update: there seems to be disagreement, but no comments. My assertion is that the manhattanite homeless the author references are in the running against Eqyptian pharaohs, and I dispute the quoted claim as obviously false.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> > how else would we have taken over the whole world?

No other reason than adaptability, eh? Give me a break.

</comment><comment><USER43> "I'm so glad I'm a man. Not only do I not have to give birth, I don't have to have periods , or change any as many diapers."

WTF?? Seriously? I mean, I assume he's trying to be funny, but really?

<comment><USER44> Didn't you know? Women's hands are more capable of changing diapers due to physiologic differences. /s

No but really it'd be foolish for a man to set aside his endeavors and aspirations and engage in childcare duties like changing diapers; women actually have extra hours built into their day to take care of shit work so in the end it's equal. /s

Seriously though, what a repulsive statement (the quote).

</comment></comment><comment> guard-of-terra I doubt their premises.

For example, I've recently moved to another city which made me happier and the effect did not wear off after four months and I don't think it will.

As another example, having a significant other versus being alone makes for such a huge difference that it's not ever up to discussion.

Maybe if we're restricting our talk to meaningless status symbols (like the mentioned Lexus), then it starts to make sense.

<comment><USER45> I've been thinking about this lately. The common meme is that people who say "I'll be happy when I do $thing" should try to be happy in the moment rather than looking towards their next goal(s).

I think we always need micro-goals to strive towards. A new job _can_ improve your life, a new partner _can_ improve your life, and even when you find new $thing, there are still goals to work toward there. Like being a better employee or a better partner.

And as you've said, the effect of some changes is long-term at least until you feel a need for growth/expansion again. Everything else outside of moving forward in life is complacency.</comment></comment>


Total number of Websites - <AUTHOR> http://www.internetlivestats.com/total-number-of-websites/ <comment><USER2> Is this including non-SOA domains? If so there's a huge potential for over counting even if wildcards are ignored. For example, many isps and server hosts will serve systematically generated domain records for individual server instances and even home networks. (often these take the form of ip.ispname.net or similar) even more troubling is that these could potentially resolve correctly even if there is no actual website there. Without a more rigorous method like looking at SOA I don't see this being useful as an absolute metric.

</comment><comment><USER3> Wow, the original youtube homepage(1) is particularly terrible, even in comparison to other websites from that era. Especially the "I'm a male seeking everyone between 18 and 45" fields for the search box. Sounds like a dating website. I suppose the founders were too busy working on the tech. :)

[1] [https://web.archive.org/web/20050428014715/http://www.youtub...](https://web.archive.org/web/20050428014715/http://www.youtube.com/)

<comment><USER4> As bad as this looks, I remember what an improvement it was over google and yahoo video back then.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> It's definitely exponential. Would be great to see a chart for active websites over the years. Knowing that 75% are parked domains shows more how much people are buying domains only as a precaution.

<comment><USER6> Netcraft have been tracking active sites since around 2000.

Latest chart is on [https://news.netcraft.com/archives/2018/09/24/september-2018...](https://news.netcraft.com/archives/2018/09/24/september-2018-web- server-survey.html) (note log scale). They reckon ~180M active sites.

<comment><USER7> Also worth noting: By their measure, the number of active sites has been pretty much stagnant since early 2012.

I suspect that we're actually going to see that number start to _drop_ over the next ten years, as old servers cease to be maintained and fall off the Web.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> 69% increase in 2017? ... What would not make this change dubious?

> It must be noted that around 75% of websites today are not active, but > parked domains or similar

Ok, so who's buying domains hand over fist?

<comment><USER7> If you look at the number of hostnames as measured by [https://news.netcraft.com/archives/2018/09/24/september-2018...](https://news.netcraft.com/archives/2018/09/24/september-2018-web- server-survey.html) (switch to linear scale) it shows basically similar trends. The 75% boost in websites is entirely due to parked domains.

As for why, I suspect it's caused by the flood of new TLDs.</comment></comment>


Coinbase Custody Could Be a Game Changer - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@VidrihMarko/coinbase-custody-could-be-a-game-changer-cc2bf6fdb086 <comment><USER2> So, something built on the back of the mantra - "centralised services are bad", now needs a centralised custody and holding services because of security? I don't even.

Then you realise that this same community talk about how stuff like identity, real estate etc can be changed via blockchain. But oh wait, we need a centralised custody service to hold the keys to ensure no one hacks your identity or real estate provenance keys. It seems the whole point of blockchain is to ensure things are so complicated that no one understands it and it is so insencure that you need holding services.

I can't understand why will the "bitcoin as money for the whole world " actually happen?

<comment><USER3> Precisely because no one owns or controls Bitcoin, the true believers can't prevent the street from finding its own uses for it.

<comment><USER4> ... nor would we want to.

Bitcoin will succeed or fail on its own merits. The idea that we ("true believers") would even _want_ to "prevent" uses with which we don't agree is actually pretty foreign.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Original non-blogspam link: [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-06-18/regulated...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-06-18/regulated- crypto-custody-is-almost-here-it-s-a-game-changer)

And Matt Levine's take: [https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-06-18/bitcoin-c...](https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-06-18/bitcoin- custodianship-opens-new-doors-for-investors)

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> If you are not member on Medium you can always read full article here: [https://steemit.com/coinbase/@cryptomarks/coinbase- custody-c...](https://steemit.com/coinbase/@cryptomarks/coinbase-custody- could-be-a-game-changer)</comment>


Turn TensorFlow functions into mathematical notations and diagrams - <AUTHOR> http://blog.varunajayasiri.com/ml/tf_for_beginners.html <comment><USER2> Very cool. A question and a comment:

\- What about higher(>3)-rank tensors?

\- It's not clear to me what distinguishes your picture for a convolution layer from any other tensor of the same shape. Would be nice to visualize the filters/kernels somehow.

</comment><comment><USER3> Wow this is super helpful. Especially for people who approach ML from a coding perspective and don't have as much math background.</comment>


Porting the iOS kernel to BeagleBoard: Part 2 - <AUTHOR> http://crna.cc/b/7

<comment><USER2> For those who are interested, the specific BeagleBoard that christina_b is using is the xM:

[http://beagleboard.org/Products/BeagleBoard- xM](http://beagleboard.org/Products/BeagleBoard-xM)

It's not the cheapest in the family but it does have a bit more in umph.</comment>


Why Most Unit Testing Is Waste (2014) [pdf] - <AUTHOR> https://wikileaks.org/ciav7p1/cms/files/Why-Most-Unit-Testing-is-Waste.pdf <comment><USER2> This paper has been public for years at [http://rbcs-us.com/documents/Why- Most-Unit-Testing-is-Waste....](http://rbcs-us.com/documents/Why-Most-Unit- Testing-is-Waste.pdf)

<comment><USER3> Previous discussion 6mos ago: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12666454](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12666454)

<comment><USER4> There have been a ton. For more, click the "past" link.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> > If you want to reduce your test mass, the number one thing you should do is > look at the tests that have never failed in a year and consider throwing > them away

And that's how you get regressions. I get the rationale that these tests cover code which probably never changes, and tests are most useful for code that changes a lot. But if the guy who wrote the code left the company a year ago and then you have to change this code... it's going to be a lot easier if there are good tests.

<comment><USER6> He did cover that. He said specifically that regressions tests are a good thing, but that they are typically not done at the unit level.

<comment><USER7> He means that's how you get regressions of the same bugs popping up in the future, not regression tests.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I'm a bit skeptical of a paper written by a consulting company that specializes in QA services and training. Understanding a codebase well enough to write useful unit tests is very time consuming and difficult. Teaching devs the same requires domain, development and process skills. Other forms of testing (e.g. end-to-end, browser based, and manual) are much easier for an outside organization to apply based on rules in a BRD or user manual. It stands to reason that a company would write a white paper that nudges customers to a methodology that favors them.

<comment><USER6> He has some points though. Unit testing has become a bit of a religion, where people almost write tests for the hell of it regardless of their value. Now I do usually test e.g. algorithms, but I find it rather wasteful to test dumb classes at the unit level as well as UI stuff.

I've certainly felt what he pointed out about tests becoming a real hassle to maintain while not necessarily being very valuable to keep.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> the programming people i admire most just randomly seem to be the same people who never write angry rants about programming topics.

took me 20 years to notice this.

</comment><comment><USER10> _When I was programming on a daily basis, I did make code for testability purposes but I hardly wrote any unit tests. However I was renowned for my code quality and my nearly bug free software. I like to investigate WHY did this work for me?_

This made me giggle. It's like magic. don't write tests, don't find bugs....

<comment><USER11> Actually he provides much better alternatives. Design by Contract combined with system level tests will catch more bugs than you can shake an editor at.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Link is down for me. Can someone give a tl;dr?

<comment><USER13> The TL;DR: I did a quick read, no evaluation here, just what's in the paper.

1\. Unit tests only work in "functional" code composed of easy-to-reason-about components that support other similar components. The OO storm introduced a style of code which is impossible to inspect unless it is running.

2\. Because Turing machines you need as many bits of test code as bits of real code.

3\. Code coverage requirements can only lead to tests for their own sake, i.e. wasted lines of code.

4\. If there are many more lines of tests than production code, your developers are quite possibly paranoid about what they're writing, and that's bad.

5\. Tests that have not failed in a long time don't convey information, they only provide noise. Optimize your test suite to provide information.

6\. The reward of seeing a green bar in an IDE encourages appeasing the test gods instead of designing a good system.

7\. Assertions are better than tests.

8\. The Agile culture has turned unit tests into something worse than what they could be without it.

<comment><USER14> This is such an awesome summary, I'm just going to start here without actually reading the paper :-). I'll say up front that I'm a TDD/Unit test kind of guy. I'm also not generally a fan of London School/Outside-In style (but will obviously use it when circumstances demand it). So I'm probably exactly the kind of person that should disagree with the above. But I don't really disagree that much.

One thing I've noticed is that there really is more than one way to skin a cat. Some people like to have a more linear style in their code. I've found that such people tend to have good memories and considerable ability at reasoning. They can see a fairly large piece of code and see quickly where the errors are. They can remember that one piece of code on the other side of the project did something one way and code on this side of the project does it another way.

These people will often look at my code and it looks disjointed to them. They can't read the code and get a sense of what it is doing. They find themselves jumping around through hundreds of files just to figure out what's going on. If I have any ability at all it's really much more in the spatial relations side. I can visualise networks easily and reason about them.

I can never remember the details about how things are implemented and I'm a very slow reader (I'm dyslexic). I depend on trust. I want to be able to see a function and tell in 5 seconds whether or not it is correct. I then rely on tests to tell me when I have violated some assumptions somewhere -- because I don't bother to learn and have no capacity for remembering all the assumptions in the system.

Unit tests and the intense factoring that occurs when doing TDD (at least in a non-mocking style) favours a style where you admit imperfect knowledge about the system. It then gives you a framework for reasoning about the system. People (even on my team) are often surprised that I haven't used a debugger for at least 10-15 years. Tests are really a misnomer -- they don't verify the correct execution of the code. What they do is probe the execution of the code. It tells me what the code is actually doing and documents my assumptions about what it should be doing. If there is an error, there will be a mismatch in the two. I may or may not have an explicit test that fails during that mismatch, but I should be able to reason about it effectively.

It's a different way to think and a different way to work. IMHO, I think it requires considerably less mental capacity to work in a TDD way. However, on the other side of the coin it requires considerably more training/experience to do well. You definitely want to decide upfront which way your team wants to operate, but I'm not about to say that you're "wrong" if you pick a different approach than I would.

Anyway, thanks for doing the summary! It was very evocative for me :-)

<comment><USER15> > These people will often look at my code and it looks disjointed to them. > They can't read the code and get a sense of what it is doing. They find > themselves jumping around through hundreds of files just to figure out > what's going on.

I'd add that unit tests (above the method level) help to "tell the story" of the code. Coming into a large code base with well-factored code can be daunting, it's a boon to be able to step through unit tests that exercise even just typical scenarios.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> There's a lot of out-dated junk in this latest dump, so do take all of this with a gigantic grain of salt.

<comment><USER17> > out-dated junk

You just accurately described half of the Intelligence world accurately</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Is a mid-college gap year worth it? - <AUTHOR> I was thinking about whether or not to take a gap year between my junior and senior year of college. I would hopefully find a job with some startup for a couple months and travel as well. Is it worth my time? If yes, what other things do you all think would be worth doing? If no, why? <comment><USER2> Your life will become what it was meant to be no matter which path you choose. Feel it in your heart as to what you really want to do.

So now for my two answers:

Yes: Get out there and experience the world and take advantage of it, especially if you can. Warning: You must be disciplined enough to know this is a gap year and go back.

No: Finish up college and get it done and after college, take a gap year from working and join a volunteer program and live in another country.

Why? Aside from financial aid, I know that if I took off, I probably would not have gone back. Already 7 years out of college and I have yet to go back for my Masters Degree because I'm focusing on starting up a few businesses right now and my job. I would love to go study what I love and want to know more about, but I'm just too busy, and not in the right mindset, or have the money (I refuse to take on more student debt), to go back to school.

I also "took off" a year after college, taking advantage of that student loan repayment grace period of 6 months. I was actually able to defer all but one student loan for another 6 months after I contacted the student loan companies. I lived in Israel for a year, taught English, traveled around there, immersed myself in the culture, learned a lot, and eventually, discovered my passion. Before this, I was unsure about what I wanted to do. I was teaching English to Ethiopian children and while I didn't mind doing it, it wasn't something I enjoyed or wanted to keep doing.

Eventually, I was introduced to this organization that helped Israeli- Ethiopian youth and they needed a website. Whatever they had.. if you could call it a website, was nothing to write home about. So I learned how to build websites, redesigned it, and they loved it.

Imagine if I had to go home and return back to college? It wouldn't have been too bad, but after my year was up, I came home, looked for a job, and to make a long story short -- just a few jobs later, I am now working as a web developer full-time for the media.

What if I had never gone to Israel to learn about what I liked and what I was interested in? While in college, I was planning to be a career counselor or a consultant for the workplace, helping people to become better leaders, helping college students discover their passions, or helping people who had a change of heart to rediscover new careers. After college, I designed a popular website, which helps me keep in touch with that passion: [http://www.confessionsoftheprofessions.com](http://www.confessionsoftheprofessions.com) \- a website dedicated to understanding jobs, careers, and the workplace.

What if I had to return back to college afterwards? I would've delayed starting my career path. Who knows? I just wanted to graduate college and get it all done in one shot. I have no regrets. I would love to go back to school, but at the same time, this is the time for me to be focusing on the things I want to be doing. Maybe in the future, school will be there and I can go for my original dream, but for now, I do love what I do, and I get paid to do it.

Like I said, only you can decide what you really want to do. But life will work out for you, either way, or you will find a way to make it work for you.</comment>


Scala IDE for Eclipse - <AUTHOR> http://www.scala-lang.org/node/94

<comment><USER2> last I tried it wasn't really usable. I moved to intelliJ (or just emacs) for the most part. IntelliJ support is quite good (although it does tend to freeze up for a few seconds everynow and then, getting better).

Regardless of what people think about eclipse, it is kind of a default choice for a lot of the mainstream, so I am guessing a lot of people would be interested in quality scala support.

Would love to know what state this is in, but I just don't have time to check myself.</comment>


Ask HN: Server-side rendering/proxy for website compatibility in IE5/6? - <AUTHOR>

It looks like something useful for banks etc... and feasible even though that would probably feel "slow".
One could send transcoded versions of a website with a renderer running on a server and gathering inputs from the client and applying it to the server-side rendered version?
Anyone heard of something similar to that? <comment><USER2> WRP [1] implements exactly that and it works with browsers that are much older than IE 5. The author has a write-up about how it got made with some curious screenshots of ancient browsers at [2], [3] (parts one and two). One downside to WRP is that because it uses images with an image map for the rendered pages the content are not searchable.

There's also Opera Mini for Java ME. It reflows the websites for what screen resolution it's running at, usually quite well, and gives you searchable text. It's intended for featurephones but I once got a legacy version of it to run on an old laptop with Linux for fun with Microemulator [4].

Of course, an administratively simpler option would be to have the old machines access a server running the users' an entire desktop with a modern browser, PDF viewer and the like using remote desktop software. I arranged this kind of setup with a Linux server and a Windows client for a legacy workstation at work and it proved quite usable. Out of all the major remote desktop software that would run on old Windows (VNC clients, Remote Desktop, NX) the RealVNC client proved the easiest on the client machine's CPU in our setup.

If you had to absolutely make it happen from within the browser you could employ a VNC Java applet but that would be to the detriment of user experience. For security and privacy you can tunnel VNC over SSH.

[1] [http://www.tenox.net/out/#wrp](http://www.tenox.net/out/#wrp)

[2] [http://virtuallyfun.superglobalmegacorp.com/?p=3866](http://virtuallyfun.superglobalmegacorp.com/?p=3866)

[3] [http://virtuallyfun.superglobalmegacorp.com/?p=3910](http://virtuallyfun.superglobalmegacorp.com/?p=3910)

[4] [https://code.google.com/p/microemu/downloads/list](https://code.google.com/p/microemu/downloads/list)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks that's awesome.

<comment><USER2> You're welcome. In case you want to try the Opera Mini trick: I've just looked and found that the latest version I got to run was opera- mini-4.4.31891-advanced-en.jar. Google the version number for downloads. To run it get Microemulator and execute

      java -jar microemulator.jar opera-mini-4.4.31891-advanced-en.jad

Sorry for the mixed up sentences in my previous comment. I posted and then edited it in-between things and didn't notice the mistakes until too late.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> [http://www.browserstack.com/](http://www.browserstack.com/)

Allows for the testing of internal and external URLs with a number of systems including IE 6 on XP (but I don't see IE5 in the list)</comment>


The Cohort Analysis - <AUTHOR> http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2009/10/the-cohort-analysis.html

<comment><USER2> I've been interested in cohort analyses for a while, but it's always felt like the "meta" coding that I don't have time for. I know, I know.

For those of you who run a cohort analysis on your startup, do you generate your cohorts dynamically every time you run the analysis (using created_at dates to group them into months or biweekly segments)? Or do you use some sort of data warehousing to create static data sets at the end of every day / week / month?

<comment><USER3> Mixpanel can do cohort analysis for you.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Looks like an excuse to add more colors to a chart, to make it look more impressive.</comment>


This guy surgically implanted earbuds under his skin - <AUTHOR> https://omnireboot.com/2014/i-surgically-implanted-my-earbuds-under-my-skin/ <comment><USER2> Gotta wonder how long the circuitry in those earbuds will hold out. One of the biggest concerns I see with implanting technology under your skin... is the fact that you're going to have to endure such a procedure repetitively, more than likely.

<comment><USER3> I agree with your sentiment, but in this case, there's no implanted circuitry. It's just a magnet driven by an external coil.

There are already medical implants that do what he wants, but no doctor is willing to install them electively.</comment></comment>


Mandelbrot fractals in 3D - <AUTHOR> http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18171-the-mandelbulb-first-true-3d-image-of-famous-fractal.html A few nice rendition of the Mandelbrot fractals <comment><AUTHOR> The later slide show pictures get very interesting.

</comment><comment><USER2> recent thread about this:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=935241></comment>


Ask HN: Code tests from potential employers - <AUTHOR>

After applying for a position, it is not uncommon for a potential employer to sent some kind of assignment or code test they want completed before moving forward in the hiring process. I usually don't mind this sort of thing, so long as the assignment is reasonable.
My question for the community is, "What do you consider reasonable?"
How many hours are you willing to put into one of these projects?
I am asking because earlier this week I received a code test from a company I had applied for and was kind of intimidated by the amount of work involved. I'm guessing that it would take me around 10 hours of work to complete, and am not sure how to feel about this... Either I am unqualified for the position, or they are asking too much of their applicants. <comment><USER2> I disagree with anyone who says that code tests are scam. I work at Thoughtworks and we follow extreme programming practices. The most basic of which includes pairing. Pairing is a super strenuous activity which brings in productivity as well. However it is not everyone. Doing a code pairing round validates a lot of softer aspects.

I personally believe in show and don't tell. So if I am interviewing with someone or vice versa I would rather appreciate that I get to see some code that an individual has written or have someone assess me on that rather than how I well I can articulate myself or conjure up jargons and buzz words.

I am comfortable taking on large problems as long as there is flexibility in time. I spend about 15 hours over three days solving a problem that intrigued me when I interviewed 5 years back. I learned a lot about company, programming and myself int those three days.

Years later as I am trying to make that experience smoother for others, I have done a 5 series blog on what we look into coding solutions. Hopefully, that solidified them a little bit and doesn't make them look like "vague" and "just a whim and fancy" coding round.

Find my detailed take on coding problems given out by Thoughtworks recruiting here.

[http://priyaaank.tumblr.com/post/95095165285/decoding- though...](http://priyaaank.tumblr.com/post/95095165285/decoding-thoughtworks- coding-problems)

</comment><comment><USER3> Most of those code tests are scam. It's a psychological tool used by companies to improve their bargaining position vis a vis employees. It's called the IKEA-effect -- people like IKEA furniture more because they had to assemble it themselves. Programmers become more attracted to job opportunities if they have to work for it.

I've been asked to write constraint solvers for hexagonal Graeco-Latin squares which I did complete. It took me days, I got an optimal solution and was the only candidate able to do so. Still didn't get the job.

My current strategy is to only agree to solve puzzles if the recruiter can tell me how many of my potential coworkers solved what puzzles when they were hired. If it turns out most of them solved very challenging ai or dynamic programming problems, then I could jump through almost any hoops to get the job. Because working with people smarter then you is just invaluable.

If they aren't able to divulge such information, or most of the employees didn't solve any puzzles at all, I would be weary.

</comment><comment><USER4> That strikes me as absolutely insane, to be frank. I work in a different segment of the industry now (SET) but to my knowledge I've never been at a reputable company that gave a coding assignment that extensive, especially if they haven't talked to you yet.

So here's the question: is the code being asked to be production-ready, or otherwise real-world useful?

Because one possible thing that's happening is that they're mechanical-turking their codebase by doling out assignments to hopeful applicants.

</comment><comment><USER5> I think 10 hours is a lot, but I would consider it if the position was really intriguing.

Calibrating tests like this is pretty difficult though, anecdotally. We give out a work sample test that we think should take 2-3 hours maximum and try to frame it that way in the problem description. Nonetheless, we have gotten a few in the past where it was clear that way more time was spent, and I feel bad when they don't make the cut.

Tip - if you are giving out tests like this, ask for feedback from hires on how long they spent and then adjust accordingly. Anything you give out is probably way easier for you than the candidate.

</comment><comment><USER6> I think <30min is reasonable. I send candidates a test that should take about 5-10min. My primary goal is to filter out candidates that can't complete tasks on the level of fizzbuzz.

</comment><comment><USER7> You've stated it perfectly. Either you're totally misjudging the amount of work involved (in which case, you're probably not what they're looking for), or they are asking far too much for a coding interview.

The longest off-site coding test I've ever been involved with took 1.5 hours, split into two parts of 45 minutes. If they can't gauge your chops in an hour and a half of technical questions and real-time problem solving, they're not doing it right.

</comment><comment><USER8> like every other developer ever, i have often been asked to do coding tests for a job interview. personally, i think ten to twenty hours of work is reasonable, if it's a place i really want to work.

what i have a problem with is companies that want you to do the coding test before they've even talked to you. i may rule them out as a potential employer as part of that process, in which case it would be a waste of time.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for your input. I am new to the field and I guess in some ways I'm still trying to figure out what it means to be an employable developer. In this case I did receive the code test before the initial phone interview, but do have an interview lined up this afternoon. I've held off on putting in the time to complete the code test, because I wanted to see how the interview goes first.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> If you're really new to the field, there are _a lot_ of really horrible developers, a bunch of developers interview well but are horrible on teams, and a whole bunch that are just not people persons at all. 10 hours of work really isn't a lot to ask, IMHO. The best tests though are like short contractual work to test a dev out, because then everything is tested (culture, intelligence, people skills).

</comment><comment><USER10> 2 hours is maybe on the far end of what I would consider reasonable. I might complete a slightly larger project for a more appetizing position.

10 hours is outright. That company is unlikely to value your time when you work for them.</comment>


MSSQL on Linux – the details - <AUTHOR> https://www.adfinis-sygroup.ch/blog/en/mssql-on-linux-the-details/ <comment><USER3> This article feels like a long paraphrasing a Microsoft blog post [1] that was already discussed on HN[2]. I'm not seeing any new insights or analysis-- just restating of the points already made on the Microsoft blog.

[1] [https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com/dataplatforminsider/2016...](https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com/dataplatforminsider/2016/12/16/sql- server-on-linux-how-introduction/)

[2] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13206438](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13206438)

</comment><comment><USER4> Article implies only clients for managing SQL Server are SSMS or VS Code - <USER2> most of what you'd need to do, tools like DataGrip, Navicat, or any other solution that supports JDBC works well on most platforms.

<comment><USER5> IntelliJ db browser is nice as well. You can connect to all mainstream DBs including MS SQL.

<comment><USER4> Yes, DataGrip is the full blown standalone version of the database tool in their various IDEs.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> _user space version of the NT kernel (known as NTUM - "user mode NT")_

This is pretty neat. Wonder if people could use it to run other Windows stuff on Linux

Edit: formatting

<comment><USER7> That's like an official implementation of WINE from Microsoft.

<comment><USER8> It's much more complete than Wine, it actually has the whole Windows graphics stack running, outputting over RDP ;)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> To me its quite amazing that in 2016 we have a fully approved & supported Windows kernel running in linux and a linux kernel running in Windows. Makes me rethink the definition of what an OS really is.

<comment><USER10> unless it's the good ol` Embrace & Extend & Extinguish. it's here now, but i'd wait and see where this goes. we're lucky we still have linus.

<comment><USER11> It's possible to come up with FUD regarding anything.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Exchange and AD would be huge. Unfortunatly Exchange needs IIS and probably an AD server.

<comment><USER13> We replaced all our AD servers with SAMBA4, so much more reliable and while AD/LDAP is still a nightmare of an architecture having it running on standard Linux servers means it's much easier to monitor, backup, snapshot, introspect and it far out performs windows based DCs.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Are there links to licensing costs? Are there regular client access license costs as well? So... if there are costs for licensing, then converting from postgresql to mssql is a little harder to swallow.

<comment><USER15> AFAIK, the costs and editions will be the same as in SQL 2016 (i.e. Express, Web, Standard, Enterprise).

<comment><USER16> This is correct. SQL Server licensing is not changed. The major benefit is being able to share a single infrastructural OS for application and DB - it is not uncommon to see Linux app environment and Windows DB environment in a lot of large organizations.

The secondary benefit is removing the Windows OS licensing cost.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> How's performance?

<comment><USER8> Performance is fine.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Can you configure MSSQL just editing files without a GUI, Unix-style?

<comment><USER19> You've always been able to do that. Almost all configuration of MSSQL can be done via a script. I can't think of anything that you need to do on a day to day basis that can't be scripted.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Do people actually run this ?

<comment><USER21> It just barely became available as a public preview. It's not recommended for protection yet.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Any valid use cases?

No offence, was just wondering why would anybody use it...

<comment><USER16> Forewarning: This likely sounds like a shill post. I'm okay with that. I work for a Microsoft partner and we're tightly integrated with the MS sellers for a number of products. I am trying to provide an answer to the use cases.

A fully integrated data platform suite with several tools that are best in class. SQL Server is not just a relational database engine, though that is at the core of most tools and services.

SQL Server is a SKU that includes many things:

        * Relational engine
            * In-memory OLTP (SQL compiles to native code)
            * Columnstore indices for OLAP workloads
            * The two above can be combined for real time analytics
        * Embedded R engine in DB
        * SSIS - data processing orchestration tool AND ETL tool
        * SSRS - traditional reporting platform (with native mobile reports)
        * SSAS - best in class OLAP engine/semantic layer
        * MDS - Master Data Services (basically a rules engine)
        * DQS - Data Quality Services (pluggable back end for data quality needs - batch or real time)

I do think SSAS is truly best in class. The others are all solid products, some better than most competitors, some middle of the road. You can certainly find equivalent open source products or vendor products and roll your own. But SQL Server as a SKU is not competing with your Postgres server. It's competing with damn near everything that touches data at your company.

<comment><USER23> > It's competing with damn near everything that touches data at your company. > MSSQL for data processing? Really? I think only huge legacy projects still > using it. We're using Hadoop with some C++/Hardware acceleration.

<comment><USER16> Really? Because I see Microsoft revenue continuing to increase and the partner ecosystem continuing to thrive. I also get to see licensing agreements and I get to see what sales quotas are in the MS data platform.

None of the numbers indicate a shrinking market to me. SQL Server does compete for analytics workloads. Is it a direct competitor to Hadoop? No.

I have clearly stated my bubble up front and I'm trying to keep my claims within that bubble. The question was "what are the use cases?" I answered that. I am now saying that I see a thriving SQL Server business. I'm not saying no one uses Hadoop because more of my projects leverage SQL Server components than Hadoop. You are claiming that SQL Server is only for legacy projects because you are not using it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Microsoft is misfiring on another major computing trend. If you can't fork the code, you are missing an important feature.

</comment><comment><USER25> "It's astonishing but true - Microsoft really has figured out how to package software for Linux. \o/"

It is not very difficult to create linux packages, writing microsoft has figured it out makes it sound as if its rocket science. It also sounds as if these packages are for 'linux' but the ones mentioned in the article are specifically for CentOS linux.

And as far as i understand they only released packages for CentOS/REHL and Ubuntu. Not all linux distributions.

<comment><USER26> I notice the installation-example is broken:

       sudo curl ... > /path/to/local/file

That'll run the `curl` command with privileges, but the existing shell will handle the redirection, so writing beneath /etc, as in the example, will fail.

The simpler approach is:

       curl https://horrid.site.sh/ | sudo tee /etc/blah/path

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks a lot! Just fixed that line.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> MS SQL Server database is a very old codebase. It dates back to Sybase SQL Server database (1980). Microsoft licensed and forked Sybase SQL in late 1980s and early 1990s and branded t as MS SQL Server. The strategic manoeuvre to get this database and basically got rid of a major vendor is not uncommon for MSFT: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Microsoft_SQL_Serve...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Microsoft_SQL_Server) and additional background info: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashton- Tate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashton-Tate) . Little has changed in the comming years, MS SQL kept the old SQL syntax for decades. Some interesting improvements came from the WinFS and XML teams (like full text search and refactoring to allow leaner editions - at one point it was planned to ship SQL Server (desktop ed) with Vista as part of WinFS update). Only recently with SQL Server 2014/2016 the very old and crufty syntax got some improvements. Or things like international date formats - remember it's a codebase from he 1980s, be happy with four non-standard non-ISO formats - things are getting better, but parts of the codebase slept for like 20 years with little love.

On Linux there are Oracle, DB2, Postgres, MySQL, ... and in near future MSSQL too. Depending on the use case, choose wisely. There are many nice features in all of these databases, and several little documented dark edges that you better know about.

<comment><USER28> You're misinformed about the nature of the SQL Server codebase. While it was originally licensed from Sybase, all parts of it have been completely re- worked. I read somewhere that they celebrated "zero Sybase day" or something to that effect in the early 2000s to mark the retirement of the last of the original Sybase code. Some more info here: [https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/euanga/2006/01/19/sql- mythb...](https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/euanga/2006/01/19/sql-mythbusters- sql-server-is-really-a-sybase-product-not-a-microsoft-one/)

As for its performance and features, I have run PostgreSQL, MySQL, and SQL Server in production on large workloads and am a big fan of PostgreSQL. That said, I've encountered the fewest sharp edges and disappointments with SQL Server. It is a very respectable RDBMS and it's great that it's now available on Linux.

<comment><USER29> The main issue I have seen with SQL Server was a constant deadlock (every two weeks or so) over a table with high writes (peak at 800k per sec), which was annoying because the fail-back to the replica affected the DNS entries and meant 5-15min of outage.

But to be fair it was an example of the wrong tool used badly in the wrong situation deployed in a poor environment.</comment></comment></comment>


MBRequest — A simple networking library for iOS and OS X - <AUTHOR> http://www.mobiata.com/blog/2012/03/21/mbrequest-simple-networking-library-ios-os-x

<comment><USER2> awesome stuff</comment>


Growing One's Consulting Business (2012) - <AUTHOR> https://training.kalzumeus.com/newsletters/archive/consulting_1?HN_repost <comment><USER2> One should remark that the price of your services does not depend solely on how much value you're providing. That value is just the upper bound of what you can charge. The other factor is what somebody else would charge to do the same service (it doesn't even to be a service of the same value, just a service _perceived_ to have the same value --and people are notoriously bad at estimating that value in software). That's why in practice consultants find it impossible to increase their rates above market average unless they have a very strong brand.

I would certainly be curious to know how much patio11 is really making from his consulting business. It sounds like he would be making at least $300,000 (a lowball estimate of $x0,000 would be $15,000, and a lowball estimate of how many weeks he works in a year would be 20). And possible up to $1.2M (40 weeks at $30k).

<comment><USER3> You are right, assuming the market is liquid. The market in these types of consultants isn't liquid, it is very possible that, if they don't hire patio11, they will have to search extensively for somebody else, whom _they perceive as qualified to do the job_. Given that they still make a lot of money of of the deal, that isn't going to be too smart.

Note that if I am right, this suggest an arbitrage opportunity, uber for small business consultants. It's most important issue is vetting the people who are doing the job and making sure clients know that they can count on them.

<comment><USER4> Your uber idea is exactly how the decades -old traditional consulting shop works (Accenture/Anderson, McKinsey, etc).

The "partners" are well-reputed deal-makig salespeople, and they farm out work to associates .

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> So how do you start a consulting business, if you're technically a programmer with a degree n' all but not much experience spread over 7-8 years. All I do is fix bugs; that's all _they_ trust me with.

For example, I didn't know that Design Patterns were a thing. I'm learning about it now. I don't know what I don't know, yada yada.

Not sure what to do. I really do aspire to make new code, but it seems like if I never give up and I never win, then I'm wasting my precious remaining years.

Recently I've been writing a ruby grape-based api server and I thought I had a handle on it. Then I had the privilege of seeing a similar project for real and I wasn't even close. Theirs was so much better. Maybe I can get to that level but these guys are young, half my age, and they know 4x what I do.

I don't want to get negative but it feels like my career has just stalled and is at risk of never starting up again. I'm at a loss as to what to do exactly.

What would you do?

<comment><USER6> I'm not a super expert on consulting, and my advice is going to be specifically about doing things other than "bug fixing":

I would recommend contributing to open source projects, find some that may interest you and are at an early stage.

If none exist, you can also just use a couple hours every day, and some at the weekends, to create something from scratch on your own. You will run into problems and you will have questions, use the internet (e.g. stackoverflow)! Also - it will help me too - could someone recommend some books please?

<comment><USER7> This may sound too simple, but if you wanna make the big bucks as a well paid consultant, learn how to be a consultant. The simplest option might be joining a successful consulting company, and learn to play the game they play. You can also get your own clients and work your way up.

Just push yourself to figure out what you don't know, and then go after it. Finding one or more mentors can be pretty strong, too.

Source: I taught myself to be a recruiting consultant, and then taught myself to be a software developer. Neither was easy. Now I'm growing as a software developer, and that's going pretty well.

<comment><USER6> You may need to reply to the above message and not this one so that it can reach the intended recipient easier :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> There's another type of hybridized consultancy/product business to consider: have a product and provide value-added consulting around the product. This tends to work best with B2B products that require implementation legwork, customization, or just general thought on the customer side to get maximum value.

For example, at Guidearama.com, our platform lets businesses turn marketing assets (videos, white papers, case studies, etc.) into a resource center on their website with lead generating landing pages. We've often ended up managing the entire program our clients are implementing around our platform. This can be packaged at a fixed cost and is much easier to price based on value than normal time & materials work. To our clients, we look like heroes because we can produce results very quickly using guidearama.com that in their minds should take 10x longer to complete.

There are a few benefits to this hybrid approach:

* The consulting work becomes decommoditized. You gain an unfair advantage because you developed the product the client is interfacing with.

* Your product builds your pipeline for you so you spend less time on sales and marketing.

* Your consulting work becomes more efficient because you can automate many tasks in your product that would otherwise take time if you were doing straight consulting work

In patio11's case, I don't think there wasn't an opportunity to do this because his consulting work and Bingo Card Creator didn't overlap - the case might be different with Appointment Reminder.

</comment><comment><USER9> When I read this I don't know whether to be inspired or to put a bullet through my head. I've been freelancing/running a micro-PHP/WordPress consultancy for a few years now and the experience has been very, very different. (We have a fair splash of node and javascript competency on the team too, but haven't turned it into projects yet.)

Our margins are thin. Billing on a weekly or monthly basis is a fantasy for us. Clients are never interested in this arrangement, they want to do hourly only because they think it'll save them money. When I try to pitch things as a business solution instead of just renting a coder, they invariably push back and say it's only fair to tell them what it'll cost to build, and they'll pay that.

I don't have a huge personal network so we've relied on platforms like Elance to make many of our contacts. The nickel-and-diming, even outright scamming on these platforms defies the imagination. We had a client last year who was very lucrative in the beginning, but he ran out of cash. After a lot of sob stories and assurances that it was a temporary situation, we ultimately did five figures worth of work for him on credit. Of course now it's been six months, we haven't seen a dime of what he owes us, and he continues to demand more work. If I say no he attacks me with some of the most vile personal abuse and insults I've ever seen. I want to get rid of this guy so badly, and I finally drew the line with him and said no more work yesterday after he insulted me and called me names in front of other people in my industry. But the reality is he owes us tons of money (well, by the standards of what I make) so I'm very afraid to burn that bridge for the same reason I took him on in the first place: I need the cash.

Recently we did a small job for a payday loans affiliate website. (I know, I know, I know, but again, we needed the cash.) The guy who owned the website congratulated us on a job well done, and then of course proceeded to "not notice" that there was $200 still owed and not reply to my messages. After a week I reverted the changes we made to his site and he was super responsive after that. He chewed me out for how unprofessional it was, of course, but he paid up.

Look it's not all bad. We've had some good clients and we're very proud of the work we do -- I'm in love with the craft of software development, not in the "chase the latest framework like a puppy on adderall" sort of way, but in the "this is an amazing and never ending intellectual challenge" sort of way. My employees are like this too. We work in an EXTREMELY difficult environment and if we weren't very good at what we do, we would have been replaced by $8/hr programmers in India a long time ago. We get some good business from referrals because we do (IMHO) great work, but when half of your clients are broke and/or scammers, how good are their referrals really going to be?

I started my career at one of the tech giants where the compensation was good, the coworkers were amazing, and I learned a ton. But not about running a business, where I clearly have a lot more to learn. Sometimes I look at where I am now, squabbling with a freakin' loan shark over 200 bucks, and ask, "Holy crap, how could I have screwed up this badly?"

Building a product with the proceeds of our consulting business? What proceeds? I can only dream.

<comment><USER10> Two suggestions I would have:

1) Expand your services offerings beyond "Wordpress consulting", even if it means putting your company on the back-burner for a bit to acquire more lucrative skill sets. "Wordpress consultants" are a dime-a-dozen and there's simply too much noise in this arena for it to be sustainable.

2) I'm not sure what city you are located in, but try to tap into the local market first before aiming for national or international clients. Small/medium sized businesses generally like to have people that they can interact with face to face. Also, participate in and join your local chamber of commerce. From my past experiences, they love to do business with other members.

<comment><USER9> Do you think that node consulting would be a better play, in terms of having fewer nickel-and-dime clients? We already have a bit of node experience on the team.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> This was posted almost three years ago at [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4805091](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4805091).

I see you appended "HN_repost" to make it unique.

<comment><USER12> As is the idiom on HN. You're explicitly allowed to repost older things, but doing it for recent stories in order to get them multiple cracks at the front page is an abuse.

The title could use a _(date)_ on it, though. I no longer work at Matasano; instead, me, Patrick, and Erin now run a company together.

<comment><USER13> An interesting discussion could revolve around what happens if you (Patrick) give up your lucrative consulting practice to start a company? If the company doesn't work out for some reason and if that process takes many years then how easy is it to get back into consulting and to build a book of business and referrals again?

<comment><USER14> Going off Patrick's blog, I'm guessing it'd be pretty straightforward for him to resume very successful consulting work.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Reading this post inspired me to give consulting a shot.

<comment><USER16> Awesome! Drop me a line in a year if you want to share how it goes.

<comment><USER17> This general attitude of being friendly and encouraging people is probably a large contributor to your success. :P

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> It sounds like Patrick is doing what most developer/business owners do (me included), which is consult until your product or service based business succeeds.

I tried it twice and twice I nearly burnt out. Luckily, after the second time, my business was making me a good living already, so I never looked back.

The problem is that consulting will take a lot more time out of your life than even a regular job. His clients sound professional and fairly large, but the majority of your clients will be small and mid-sized companies. They will try to nickle-and-dime you for everything because they want to save money.

You only have so much mental energy and I found that I didn't have much left over to work on the business. On top of this, you then needed to worry about chasing down customers for payment, which adds to the stress.

I also worked for a consulting company (they grew like what is described here). It was very difficult for them to find reliable consultants. We went through so many different people, I was the only one that was still there after a year, when I finally left.

It's a brutally difficult business and will sidetrack you to the point where your other business may not ever succeed.

<comment><USER19> > ...but the majority of your clients will be small and mid-sized companies. > They will try to nickle-and-dime you for everything because they want to > save money.

In case anyone reading this is considering going into consulting: There _are_ good clients out there. You don't hear about them because people don't complain about good clients, they only complain about the bad ones.

I've been consulting for two years and never had these problems. It helps to be on a monthly rate (vs hourly) and choose your clients wisely.

<comment><USER20> I agree with this. If you set expectations and make sure you work with decent people (and that last part is just a function of life experience, unfortunately), you will have a much smoother ride. I've had both, learning the hard way. Also agree with monthly rate.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> >but after you've figured out scaling for a product business (highly non- trivial), they often scale so well that continuing with the consulting would be economically irrational.

I have this hybrid model going on. I do consulting, I do products and I do training too. Products make 2-3x Consulting revenue. If I pushed it, it would go much higher than that.

However, I just like my job. I like consulting. I like solving problems for businesses. I like it much more than building a full scale business for myself, actually.

What I want to say is this: If you're a consultant and want to scale, you won't be doing what you're doing now. You will be running a business. If you do software deelopment, you won't be doing any of that any more. You will be figuring how to hire people, how to train them, how to retain them, how to get them work, deal with accounting and a million other things.

Another thing to think about is competition. When you're a solo operation, competition is not a problem. When you grow a company, however, it becomes a big problem. Not only direct competition. Indirect one too. Take for example PPC (pay-per-click) agencies. Firms offering search engine optimization started offering PPC, so the ones specializing in PPC had to start offering SEO too. Then SEO became all about web development and now those firms had to compete with web dev shops. Hire, train, retain people for that? Then traditional ad agencies started getting into digital too and they have a lot of other expertise to offer.

Growing a business is like taking a life-long trip without knowing the destination and you might be very unpleasantly surprised at the end.

<comment><USER22> I am not so sure. I was CIO for a small/mid company and ran it well, but slowly got fed up with the politics. So I went back to contracting, and loved it for a while, just me and the keyboard.

But I still have to do the same "CIO" stuff - negotiating the trade off between "right" and "right now", project and risk management etc etc. but this time it's for me alone, with far less positional authority, far less face time with decision makers and generally less support.

It's called being a professional I suppose. But I simply do not trust that contracting or consulting without working on a client funnel and focusing on a niche and so on is going to provide the richness of work I want.

So despite having thought I was going to be happy, it turns out I need to work on the business in some fashion so I can later on work in the business - without worrying so much about the future.

Tl;Dr - if you are a consultant and want to keep on being one without constant fear of empty schedules or just being a cog in a giant machine you have no control over, you need to work on your business. Automate as much as you can, but if you are not marketing yourself and building some funnel then you are accepting whatever comes along - if anything.

Edit: Oh, and when you are just a solo operation, competition is definitely something to worry about - you are almost a commodity, pitched about by shiny suited agents or vaguely remembered contacts in past contracts.

Edit2: hmmm, and this is me after two weeks holiday. Might need a long look at things Monday Morning.</comment></comment>