Why It's Time to Ditch MySQL - <AUTHOR> http://blog.smartbear.com/open-source/5-reasons-its-time-to-ditch-mysql/

<comment><USER2> And yet for most of us mysql is the best solution because it's installed on every linux server on the planet, and it just works very reliably for the majority of things you throw at it. Certainly you might need to rethink if you have a million users logging in, but the vast majority of installations won't have this issue.

<comment><USER3> > And yet for most of us mysql is the best solution because it's installed on > every linux server on the planet

No it isn't. Maybe it's still installed on most shared web hosts (no idea, I haven't used one in years).

<comment><USER2> Typo, I meant virtually every linux server. And mysql still has a larger market share than any other free database. See for example: [http://i0.wp.com/blog.jelastic.com/wp- content/uploads/2013/0...](http://i0.wp.com/blog.jelastic.com/wp- content/uploads/2013/07/Database-market-share-June-2013.jpg)

<comment><USER3> > I meant virtually every linux server.

It isn't installed on virtually every linux server. It remains somewhat common, and if you're using a shared host you may not easily be able to use an alternative. In that situation, which I suspect to have been a minority situation for some years, it still makes sense to use mysql. For most of us, it makes sense to type the single line it takes for our package manager to install our database of choice.

<comment><USER2> Sorry, that's what I meant: available on every server as a package. My brain isn't working today. I've set up a whole bunch of different servers for customers over the years, and as you say it's normally a single line to install mysql from a package manager. Some of the other databases may or may not be so easy to install.

Anyway, the point I was making is that mysql is widely available and highly stable.

<comment><USER3> > Anyway, the point I was making is that mysql is widely available and highly > stable.

So is postgres. In general there's no reason to recommend mysql, although it may be the right choice in some niches.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Uh, MySql was acquired by Oracle, and Oracle has a big money-maker in their DB system. They have no reason to provide anything beyond the absolute minimum support for MySql.</comment>


Mysterious startup Shadow under scrutiny after Iowa caucus meltdown - <AUTHOR> https://venturebeat.com/2020/02/04/mysterious-startup-shadow-under-scrutiny-after-iowa-caucus-meltdown/ <comment><USER2> As an Iowan who has had the dubious pleasure of having used Shadow's software, I would like a lot of scrutiny directed at both Shadow and their software.

I worked as a Precinct Captain for one of the Caucuses in Iowa last night, and I didn't personally have any issues. But I heard from colleagues who definitely did. Also, yesterday we got an email with a 7-page google doc instructing us on how to reset the browser caches on our phones to avoid issues with data carry-over from the Mock Caucuses that we had been holding.

It's entirely possible that my ability to follow directions and my status as Not-an-Octegenarian-Caucus-Volunteer is all that kept me out of trouble.

As a software guy, all I can say for sure is that I'm overwhelmingly grateful that we kept paper backups so we don't have to rely on this software.

<comment> munk-a All software involved in the voting process should (1) not exist except for tallying and communication purposes (no electronic voter records) and (2) be open sourced and verified by known third parties.

Four days ago when the register dug into this they were refused access to test the app[1], they were not given mockups or any information about the UI[1], they weren't told who developed the app[1], they weren't told how the contract was given out to develop the app[1], they weren't told why the app was thought to be necessary[1], and they were told the app was verified by a third party testing firm but that who that was couldn't be disclosed[1].

Iowa moving forward with this app was extremely ill-advised and I'm actually rather sad that the register didn't raise more hell on receiving all these red flags.

1\. A red flag...

<comment><USER3> security by obscurity is not security.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Enough with the conspiracy, mystery, scheming, evil explanations of what's going on. Sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice, and that's all that's going on here.

This is a bunch of amateur app coders, managed by amateur product designers and sales people, who got paid by clueless amateur voting registrars, to make an app that was rushed, not tested at scale, deployed without training, and allowed to get Iowa into this situation by someone not treating it with the seriousness it deserved.

No more, no less. Just normal human incompetence.

<comment><USER5> So the argument is that former members of the Clinton campaign -- highly competent individuals familiar with elections -- put together a company comprised of 'amateur app coders' paid by 'clueless amateur voting registrars'?

The founder, Gerard Niemira and Krista Davis, have a great pedigree. Niemira was formerly at kiva.org. Davis was on the Clinton campaign tech team. These are not incompetent individuals.

Now, you may be right that this is all incompetence. However, your contention that these are 'amateur coders', managed by 'amateur product designers', getting paid by clueless 'amateur voting registrars', is completely ridiculous. The leadership team is clearly professional and tech-savvy..

<comment><USER6> "The leadership team is clearly professional and tech-savvy.."

And yet they failed miserably.

I'm so sick of this attitude. Leadership never takes the fall, it is always the underlings who get the blame.

Their important high visibility project failed. The leadership failed. When you fail, that means you did not perform in a competent way.

<comment><USER5> I think you mistook me. I am clearly blaming the leadership team, but not for incompetence. For actual malice. They clearly knew what they should do, and decided not to. That should be something they are punished for, not their employees.

<comment><USER7> If you're claiming malice, what's the theory of malice? Who benefits from this?

<comment><USER5> I don't have a theory... I'm just noting that professional neglect at this level is malice, whether due to laziness or actual ill intent.

Like, if I sold someone a piece of software that I knew hadn't been tested and told them it worked great, that is malicious behavior, whether my motive was to make a quick and easy buck, to eat ice cream instead of doing actual work, or to ensure that my customer failed. The behavior is malicious independent of motivation.

<comment><USER7> Malice refers to intent, the idea of "malice... without ill intent" doesn't make sense. That's why Hanlon's Razor is worded as it is. By your definition, any shoddy work could be considered malicious.

I get your point though, I think we're just arguing semantics.

<comment><USER3> "negligence" is probably the word that's being sought here.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> They named the company Shadow. I am reminded of the movie quote "They literally call themselves Decepticons. That doesn't set off any red flags?".

I can almost see the name used in countries that have legitimate shadow governments, but in the US this is a really bad name akin to having cavalry in the name when focusing on the reservations (yes, someone did, they though it was cute and they did prove unhelpful). Names are a first impression and this is a really bad one.

<comment><USER9> This and 'Fraud Guarantee' will go down as the stupidest company names of the decade, whether they were involved in malfeasance or not.

<comment><USER10> "Fraud Guarantee", supposedly, was meant to mitigate the effect of having "fraud" pop up as the first suggestion when you google for Parnas's name. (See [https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/now-we-know-why- indicte...](https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/now-we-know-why-indicted- giuliani-associate-named-his-business-fraud-guarantee/) .)

<comment><USER9> Hah, in that case it's not as stupid of a name. Reminds me a bit of how Blackwater keeps changing names every few years to avoid the PR nightmare associated with... well, being a bunch of mercenaries killing people for money.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Mysterious startup? Seems identical to almost every small dev shop I've ever seen, complete with bizdev people who over-promise and clients who might not know better. My understanding is that they started development just 2 months ago and never bothered to train users. That's all I need to know.

<comment><USER12> MSNBC interviewed a precinct captain who stated she had no problems with the app. Last week they were given test PINs for training purposes so training was provided.

<comment><USER11> Sure, but many did, and many because they were in rooms with large numbers of people and they were depending on wifi and cell service, which often fails in those situations. Then throw in different phones, OSs, versions, etc. Word is that this app was rolled out with no user training.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> munk-a How loud do all the software developers need to yell "use paper ballots" before people figure out that electronic counting (for quicker results) isn't a terrible idea, but electronic records and simply adding more technology to the system makes voting confirmation and integrity weaker.

This app had no reason to exist - there isn't a reason why they couldn't use almost any other approach to collect the results for publishing - there are very few numbers to keep track of and people are only looking for provisional numbers on election night anyways.

<comment><USER13> Paper ballots are already being used. There is an exquisite paper trail, with signed and personally identifiable records being kept until the convention.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Shadow, Inc.? Really? Sounds like a Bond villan's organization, what a strange name, especially with 'mysterious' put before it.

<comment><USER15> It is an odd choice of a name for a company that wants to build public-facing applications for the Government.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I have no idea what all the features of this app are but nothing I've heard makes it sound like this couldn't have been accomplished using a google form and google sheet

</comment><comment><USER17> Considering the "butterfly ballot" and the "hanging chad," what on earth made someone think an app was a good idea where people can't even figure out paper?

The process needs to be dumbed-down--kindergaten style. Give everone a jellybean to put in their candidate's jar, and if some dummy eats his jellybean instead of depositing it...

<comment><USER18> The bigger problem wasn't that the app used by precinct campaigns to report back to the Dem Party, it was the convoluted rounds of voting that didn't add up in some precincts and caused the party to have to review all of the paper backups.

So yeah, getting rid of the caucus (which is undemocratic anyway) and letting people just vote for who they want is the solution. Fixing the app doesn't fix that people were too confused in certain precincts to count it correctly.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Shadow, we move fast and break Iowa.

</comment><comment><USER20> Probably being wildly naive here, but wouldn't it be better if there were an open-source solution for this sort of thing that could be used by both parties?

<comment><USER18> Every state has a very different process. Even within the same state, Iowa Dems and Republicans have a different process. The work this company did in _Nevada_ for their caucus (which now reportedly will not be used, for obvious reasons) had to be a different solution than the one for Iowa. But yeah, somebody could probably build an open source solution that has the calculator and other functions.

I think they'll likely go back to just transmitting via phone, though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> I don't get the mystery angle, it's the usual loyalty over competency game where the insiders reward you from having done work for an previous campaign or being an grassroot college activist by making sure you keep getting work.

It's the good old pork barrel and an proud American tradition that overstayed it's welcome with the general public but remains a big part of America's political economy.

</comment><comment><USER22> Many comments here and in other threads regarding this app seem to put blame on the DNC. Please note, however, the app was commissioned by the Iowa Democratic Party (IDP), not the DNC.

</comment><comment><USER23> Why exactly was this app needed at all? Couldn't a $13 node.js app or telegram bot have done the job of receiving a number from under 2000 people just as well?

<comment><USER21> Apps are cool man!!!

It's kind of part of the general back to the 90ies mentality of the DNC, yes there absolutely no need for an custom app to do this especially given it's a caucus and not a closed box election, and as there is no reason for keeping the raw data secret doing the counting process, an signed message on any platform(it could and should be public) would be sufficient security.

Heck telefaxes with an off the shelf OCR business grade solution at the other end would have been fast effective and likely cheaper but would have meant less opportunity for the Iowa party bosses to mingle with the well connected Washington apparatus.

This just smell of vanity project where a bunch of low power politicians felt their status would increase with an successful app launch only to have the whole thing blow up in their faces.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Wow I disagree with the tone of the article. They're comparing the operations of the Shadow company with the Trump company. That's a false equivalence - Trump as purchasing social media services. Shadow is literally inserting itself into the tally and facilitation of the voting process, and it's got links to Clinton.

That's not social media advertising, that really smacks of straight up voter fraud and abuse to me.

<comment><USER18> Obviously Dem vendors will have worked with Dem candidates.

I'm working with a vendor right now that works with Bloomberg, even though my org hasn't endorsed yet. (We wall that Bloomberg consultant off from our work. If we couldn't work with firms that worked with any of the candidates, then we couldn't hire ANYBODY.)

<comment><USER24> That's not the concern - the concern is that a company which doesn't seem to list it's roster or have any public information about it is now attaching itself directly to the voting systems. The Community has been in an uproar before about how opaque code is in voting machines, why shouldn't we be concerned about not only the code but the employees of a company who are involved in voting?

<comment><USER18> These aren't voting machines. "Involved in voting" is quite misleading. The app doesn't actually help with the voting part. They help in the calculation of delegates and the transmission.

The votes are recorded on paper. This had a calculator tool (that actually functioned correctly) to count the delegates. The part the failed was the transmission of results to the Iowa Dem Party. The back-up (in addition to paper) was the phone hotline they normally use, but that got overloaded. Additionally, the overall caucus process for reporting -- unrelated to the tech -- was more convoluted this time around and the numbers didn't match for the different rounds of voting. This bigger problem caused the party to have to go back to the paper backups in order to verify results. That's what took so long.

I'd be shocked if anybody actually disputed any of the results. Every campaign keeps their own records of as many precincts as possible and they're announced to everybody attending. Plus, there's the paper. And people record video of these events on their phones these days, too.

In short, this wasn't a voting system, as you claim. It was a reporting system. What's the vendor they used for the _phone_ reporting system? Are you upset that you don't know the names of the employees who run that phone hotline system? I'd be fine with a requirement for that for reporting systems, but nobody has ever asked for it previously for past elections so we shouldn't be shocked we don't have it now.

Also, when you said it had "links to Clinton," I took it as you had a concern about that. Glad we're both in agreement that it's actually quite normal for vendors that Dem Party would and should use. It's normal - encouraged, even! - for Democratic vendors to work with Democratic candidates.

<comment><USER24> > Organizers of the local meetings were supposed to use the app created by > startup Shadow to report results from Iowa's unusual voting system. In the > caucuses, people wishing to support a candidate must be physically present > at a meeting, where they stand in groups and wait to be counted.

> To make that process more efficient, the Iowa Democratic Party gave local > managers the Shadow app to input results. But results were delayed and > backup measures — such as calling a hotline — also failed, according to the > New York Times.

From the article, I definitely read that as the app is the way that results were reported. I also read it as the phone and paper ballots were the backup systems.

The app absolutely is involved in voting, even if it's not the most authoritative resource, nor should it be. This was discussed last year (for example) in: [https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/2019/0...](https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/2019/07/08/iowa- caucuses-nevada-voting-phone-2020-presidential-election-democratic-dnc-how-to- caucus-vote/1677812001/)

> What's the vendor they used for the phone reporting system?

Dunno, we should find out, and then find out why that wasn't correctly implemented either. Who's brilliant idea was it to accept election results over the same line which served the helpdesk?

> Are you upset that you don't know the names of the employees who run that > phone hotline system?

Yes, you should be too.

<comment><USER18> > I definitely read that as the app is the way that results were reported

That's my point. It's about how caucus managers tell the Iowa Democratic Party how many votes there were, for who, in each round. It has nothing to do with how people actually vote, which is done by walking into certain corners of the room and filling out pieces of paper.

I want a comprehensive, independent audit of all of the things that went wrong, done by an entity that every single campaign would have veto power over selecting. I don't care to know the names of the people who built the phone system, personally, since it'd be part of my recommended audit, but have no problem with a rule that makes them public moving forward because why not. I don't like the idea of making the lives of developers miserable when this seems like a problem at EVERY LEVEL -- at the Iowa Dem Party, DNC, individual campaigns that didn't object, owners of this company, and sure, the developers, too.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Paint away the carbon dioxide  - <AUTHOR> http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20527424.400-paint-away-the-carbon-dioxide.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news

<comment><USER2> "How much CO2 could be removed from the atmosphere in this way has not yet been tested."

Probably a net of zero, as the energy to make and distribute this would easily exceed its absorption.</comment>


Inside Google Plus - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/09/ff_google_horowitz/all/1 <comment><USER2> His response about the leveling off of Google+ users after the initial hype seems a bit like a dodge. I suspect there has been quite a decline in new users, although I also imagine this doesn't bother the Google+ team as much as you'd think.

20 million users is a large enough test base to start rolling out and field testing new features. Not just new to Google+, but new feature concepts. It gives you an accurate real world response, while remaining small enough that a misstep won't make front page headlines like when Facebook changes their privacy rules. And we know Google doesn't want the FTC in their business again.

They have enough data on you to do social networking better than Facebook, but there's risk in doing it TOO well TOO soon. One day though, you won't add friends or make circles. Google will infer your entire social and activity sphere from who you call and email, what you say, what you search, where you go, and how you shop. The data is getting denser, and Google is tapped into every stream.

</comment><comment><USER3> Has Google released any numbers regarding how many active users they have now that Google+ is open to the public? I now that pretty early in the beta they were saying something like 20 million.

<comment><USER4> Paul Allen has published some of his recent estimates here:

[https://plus.google.com/117388252776312694644/posts/EwpnUpTk...](https://plus.google.com/117388252776312694644/posts/EwpnUpTkJ5W)

I can't comment on his methodology, but at least he clearly explains how he came to his conclusion.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Considering the pseudonym policy they have in place, I like to think of it as Google Minus.

</comment><comment><USER6> The most followed people on Google+ only get 100 or so comments per post... it's clearly not all too popular.

</comment><comment><USER7> google+ is dead. Google doesn't have the talent.

<comment><USER8> _google+ is dead. Google doesn't have the talent._

They have the talent, they just aren't sure what to clone.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I give G+ 10mos before it is discontinued.</comment>


Show HN: Gitsome: A Git/Shell Autocompleter with GitHub Integration - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/donnemartin/gitsome <comment><USER2> I love that you included a gif in the readme and I'm amused at how fast it's running. Your brain was probably going a mile a minute when you decided that was a good speed.

<comment><AUTHOR> My gif app can only handle about 20 seconds before it chokes :)

Perhaps I should have broken it up into two gifs, one for the completer + interactive help features, and the other for the GitHub integration.

<comment><USER3> You should try out LICEcap [1]; It's a great, open source, tool for creating gifs.

From their site:

> LICEcap can capture an area of your desktop and save it directly to .GIF > [...]

> LICEcap is an intuitive but flexible application (for Windows and now OSX), > that is designed to be lightweight and function with high performance.

[1] [http://cockos.com/licecap/](http://cockos.com/licecap/)

<comment><AUTHOR> I'll check it out, thanks!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Regarding the gif being too fast, thanks for the feedback! I've slowed it down 50%, hopefully it's easier to follow.

I'd love to get some more feedback on gitsome, I admit I'm not the best gif- maker :)

A few other updates based on feedback/questions from the community:

* Completions work with zsh, not just bash [1]

* The GitHub-integration commands work regardless of whether you start the gitsome autcompleter shell. Check out the quick reference [2] and full reference [3] of GitHub commands available.

[1] [https://github.com/donnemartin/gitsome/issues/2](https://github.com/donnemartin/gitsome/issues/2)

[2] [https://github.com/donnemartin/gitsome#github-integration- co...](https://github.com/donnemartin/gitsome#github-integration-commands- quick-reference)

[3] [https://github.com/donnemartin/gitsome/blob/master/COMMANDS....](https://github.com/donnemartin/gitsome/blob/master/COMMANDS.md)

</comment><comment><USER4> I installed gitsome on CentOS 7.2.1511 running Python 3.5.1. The auto-complete feature on gitsome will only suggest files, folders, and executables on the path. It will not offer any auto-complete suggestions for git commands, options, branches, etc.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi, please check out the following to see if they help enable completions for your system.

Bash: [https://github.com/donnemartin/gitsome#enabling-bash- complet...](https://github.com/donnemartin/gitsome#enabling-bash-completions)

Zsh: [https://github.com/donnemartin/gitsome/issues/2#issuecomment...](https://github.com/donnemartin/gitsome/issues/2#issuecomment-217898742)

<comment><USER4> Ah, thank you for the quick response!

Adding this line to the ~/.xonshrc file fixed the reported behaviour: $BASH_COMPLETIONS.append('/usr/share/doc/git-184.108.40.206/contrib/completion/git- completion.bash')

<comment><AUTHOR> Great! Thanks for confirming the fix.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Does this work with github enterprise?

<comment><AUTHOR> Hmm, I haven't looked at GitHub enterprise specifically. johntdyer on GitHub submitted an issue asking about this also, I'll check and update the following:

[https://github.com/donnemartin/gitsome/issues/3](https://github.com/donnemartin/gitsome/issues/3)</comment></comment>


The iPhone is a nightmare for carriers - <AUTHOR> http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/08/technology/iphone_carrier_subsidy/index.htm

<comment><USER2> Oh, no! People really want an iPhone, and Apple knows it so can make a big profit wringing money from the mobile phone service providers.

The companies want their high "EBITDA service margins", which were 40+% and are now around 10%. Since they can't force Apple down, they are suffering, and planning to make up for it by raising service fees on their users.

The shame! The sorrow! Take pity on poor Verizon (whose "profit [in 2011Q3]" doubled during the last quarter, bolstered by customers attracted by its portfolio of iPhone and Android devices."; they sold 4.2 million iPhones in Q4). Remember sad AT&T ("profit [in Q3] of $3.6 billion", and 7.6 million iPhones). Lend support to Sprint, whose "bid to lure subscribers to its network is its unlimited data plan, which AT&T and Verizon no longer offer." "The iPhone helped AT&T reverse the tide and boosted Verizon's portfolio. It is having a similar net-positive effect on Sprint as well."

If only evil Apple hadn't come onto the scene and ruined the profit margins of the phone companies!

</comment><comment><USER3> With iphone every carrier now claims they gained new customers or kept more of existing, they all suffer in profits and they all hope to gain back in a couple of years. and here comes removal of the unlimited data plans, the increase of price for devices and plans. Apple is happy, carriers think they ll be happy, and iphone buyers are the happiest. Is there something wrong in this picture, or is this a non-zero sum game where mobile growth lures more profits from elsewhere?

</comment><comment><USER4> Oh no. the carriers aren't getting as big of a profit margin as they "deserve". Please. The prices and fees that the carries charge you to do anything are more than enough to get them through this difficult time when their margins are dropping but their subscriber rates are soaring and data profits are through the roof.

</comment><comment><USER5> Good.</comment>


Programming as Craft - <AUTHOR> https://davebucklin.com/play/2019/11/10/programming-as-craft.html <comment><USER2> I get similar satisfaction from a "putting things together from the basics" perspective. And now that I'm no longer in the industry, I put most of my limited "crafting" time into using and exploring old things like awk, make, C and bash, the things I started with decades ago.

I do regret deleting my github account, but I just don't have time to respond to much-appreciated PRs.

I don't regret deleting my LinkedIn account. ;-)</comment>


GitHub: Minor Service Outage - <AUTHOR> Drops error code 500 (Server Error) here and there. Hope it gets resolved soon. <comment><AUTHOR> [https://status.github.com/](https://status.github.com/)

</comment><comment><USER2> """

12:00 PDT: Minor service outage.

12:10 PDT: Major service outage.

"""</comment>


Show HN: A file tree based API Router - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/barelyhuman/routex <comment><USER2> I created something I believe is exactly like this a while ago, one called xrest [0] which resolves the API endpoint routes from the file tree structure at runtime, and another called restree [1] which generates the routes before runtime by generating code.

[0] [https://github.com/rajnathani/xrest](https://github.com/rajnathani/xrest)

[1] [https://github.com/rajnathani/restree](https://github.com/rajnathani/restree)

<comment><AUTHOR> Oh nice, good approach. I went with Native http for performance reasons

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> This is very interesting, similar to serverless functions on Vercel or many other services. Will be interested to give it a try. Can you explain why there needs to be a compilation step?

<comment><AUTHOR> I create a tree similar to the file structure that is used by the actual router when it handles requests to figure out which handler to pass the `req` and `res` objects. This is in the stable(`master`) branch.

The `canary` branch implements the same thing but instead of a object tree , it creates a flat object and uses regex's to find the registered handler which is faster but creates an overlap which I'm trying to fix.

In simple senses, it there's to make sure that the router only passes down the req,res to the valid handler and doesn't do any other processing other than maybe, query parsing and param parsing</comment></comment>


Premium gas in regular-fuel cars not cleaner, expert says - <AUTHOR> http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2012/10/30/marketplace-premium-gas.html?cmp=rss

<comment><USER2> This shouldn't be counter-intuitive. The whole point of octane is to make the fuel less flammable.

<comment><USER3> Yeah, but that's not how oil companies sell their product. The average consumer has no idea that octane is the description of a specific molecule. They're conditioned to believe that more expensive means better, and the oil companies certainly aren't going to cut their bottom line in order to properly educate consumers.

<comment><USER2> Absolutely, and I applaud CBC for running an article on it because it is a common misconception that ends up costing a lot of people a whole lot of money.

I'm just not sure this should be news to hackers.</comment></comment></comment>


It's 2019 and React Native is here to Stay - <AUTHOR> https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/its-2019-react-native-here-tostay-steve-coffey/ <comment><USER2> Good to see some positive news about React Native. 2018 seemed to be mostly negative.</comment>


Solar crisis set to hit in 2010, 50% of solar manufacturers may not survive - <AUTHOR> http://www.digitimes.com/print/a20090903VL200.html

<comment><AUTHOR> I think it buries the lede. They point out that the solar manufacturers who don't survive are the ones who sell at >$2 a watt (ie more or less obsolete as far as tech goes) but then there's this:

"Average selling prices could drop below US$1 per watt in 2010 and US$0.50 in 2011. As many as 50% of the more than 200 solar manufacturers, mired in red ink with current selling prices above US$2.00 per watt, may not survive, The Information Network stated."

That's pretty exciting. $1 is supposed to be the magic number when it becomes more cost effective to build solar than coal at an installation level and there's no cost for the "fuel".

<comment><USER2> I came here to post this. The solar "gold rush" of 2006-08 was precipitated by companies like HelioVolt claiming they could achieve panel production for under $1/watt.

Cheaper solar panels won't kill the industry, it will make it economically viable on the large scale. If this article's predictions are correct, it's probably time to invest--if you know the right company, that is.

<comment><USER3> Very happy to hear this, as we have a solar startup building a massive production facility in Atlanta - <http://suniva.com/>

<comment><USER4> Could you comment on your cost per watt expectations please?

<comment><USER3> Well, considering that their units are supposed to be something like 20%+ efficient... I think it should be pretty good?

<comment><USER4> The energy conversion efficiency is independent of the cost per watt. 20% is a pretty good figure but not at a cost of $3 per watt for example.

<comment><USER3> Yeah, I don't know what their cost per watt is. Here's to hoping its good.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> How anticlimactic. Based on the title I thought the sun was due to slam into the earth next year.

<comment><USER6> And I was wondering how the other 50% will manage to survive.

<comment><USER7> They'll be protected by solar panels. Duh, what did you think "solar panels" did?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Its interesting to see consumption so low. Its my understanding there is a "last mile" problem with providing solar to homes and small business. There are not enough companies making it easy for the small adopter. Its certainly not at the home depot DIY level yet. Maybe panel costs is still a factor. I know of a company going after this space in EU and U.S. I'm sure they're happy to see price competition on the supply side.

<comment><USER9> disclaimer: I've built a solar & wind powered home.

The 'last mile' is literally the problem if you want to stay grid connected and have solar on the side you have to jump through all kinds of regulatory hoops depending on your local situation.

The biggest critical component of a solar installation that is grid connected is the inverter and the disconnect setup, you will be spending a good bit of money on that.

A typical inverter will set you back about $1/W.

So you have to calculate that in as well, solar panels alone do not make it work, there is a large amount of money in mounting, inverters, cabling and installation involved.

This is one of the factors that slow down adoption.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Here's some more colour on this from a US (investor) perspective:

[http://www.distressed-debt-investing.com/2009/09/possible- eq...](http://www.distressed-debt-investing.com/2009/09/possible-equity-short- opportunity-solar.html)

</comment><comment><USER11> I don't see what's so surprising about this.

"Clean Tech" is one giant taxpayer-funded ponzi scheme.

Madoff would be proud.

<comment><USER12> From your profile: "Twitter account: @oil_and_gas"

Biased much?</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Why don't people write more (from their expertise)? - <AUTHOR> There is just so much expertise in people's heads, and some much value can be added by just transferring that knowledge to a piece of paper/documentation. ego? lack of incentives? job security? fear from being wrong? I don't get it. <comment><USER2> I have started writing blog posts on things I have gained technical expertise in. I have no audience so really I write for the hell of it, but I do announce it on my LinkedIn feed (but I have less than 100 connections).

There's also the fear that putting words in public opens me to criticism, if someone can think of a better way of doing things, if my mental (or worse, technical!) model is wrong. Someone may take it too far and it leaks onto my personal life. In reality I see far worse practices than mine at work every day, so I hope if someone stumbles onto my blog that they get value out of whatever they read. It's also published with hugo on GitHub pages, absolutely no ads, and I'm not selling anything - for me, the blog really is about giving back.

Lastly, time. Today I knocked out a blog post on a light topic in about an hour. No revisions, just finished writing it and hit publish. I thought of the topic over the weekend and today was just put a few short examples and write about them. I'm not positive that I was detailed enough, or my explanations are good enough, etc. So time is another big factor, unless you're willing to risk publishing mistakes due to lack of polish

<comment><USER3> Do you mind sharing your blog?

<comment><USER4> Staz was leading you in the right direction, only in a rather cryptic way. According to the parent's profile, his/her blog is located at:

[https://charmeleon.github.io](https://charmeleon.github.io)

He or she is a good writer. Enjoy!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Main reason people do not write more is that those who spill a lot of ink usually do so in vain -- anything longer than a sound-bite is not going to get read carefully.

I always wrote trying to eliminate extra and meaningless words and phrases, so that my emails and documentation would not contain much hot air. But my work related to technical subjects and the world is complicated, so there is a limit to what terseness can convey. My typical estimate of my accomplishments trying to inform co-workers of my activities would be this:

I write 3 short paragraphs, say 10 sentences and 125 words to explain something that I have done or planned and send it to 10 people who ought to care. Two read only the subject line. Four scan it and three of those do so too quickly and don't get the message. Two read the first paragraph and stop there. Two read it, but only one gives it enough attention to get anything out of it. Why bother?

</comment><comment><USER6> It's fricking hard to write. Writing well takes time, effort and patience. Writing well as well as engagingly takes talent.

<comment><USER3> I feel that in an industry one has expertise on, it doesn't require much to get started. Usually the writing is supposed to be specific and to the point.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I used to blog almost daily. My motives were selfish - writing down things I learned helped solidify and process them in my mind. Over time those things helped other people who came across my posts as well.

Even though I think I've gained some good experience in a few areas, it feels weird for me to write anything and position myself as an expert, even if I feel that my contributions and knowledge are valuable. I second guess myself and wonder all the stuff I might be missing, or things I don't know, all the things people could find wrong in my suggestions. So even when I feel like I know what I'm talking about, if I do write it down in a post it is often from the perspective of a learner sharing an experience about what they're learning, not an expert going "Here's how you should do this." or "Here's how this works."

And with things that I _know_ I know a lot about, they just feel so trivial - "Everyone must know this, it's not interesting at all." So I often don't bother writing it.

</comment><comment><USER8> 2 reasons

\- They don't have time, someone with that expertise is valuable

\- Writing is hard especially when no one is reading it. That was the biggest barrier for me to get started writing. I have a natural tendency to write things mechanically, not fluidly. But on forums I write whatever I feel like

Related video that also explains why engineers dont vlog either, this was insightful to me. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0Jh8fx8LuY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0Jh8fx8LuY)

</comment><comment><USER9> I'm not sure people know what is valuable... and I'm not sure they're very good at communicating it.

I've been working on a career pivot into web development. There are tons of people sharing / talking on the internet. Most of them are pretty bad at it IMO (I admit that would be too if I was doing that).

So much of it is "so we're going to do the thing" _clicking_ "ok I wrote the code and there it is".

I think being a good teacher / sharer is a very specific skill that not a lot of people have.

I'll say that the internet is kinda unwelcoming plays a part. I did share some in my past career. Posted on reddit. I was bombarded by folks who really just don't know arguing with me / talking up a storm one too many times and gave up.

<comment><USER10> > Most of them are pretty bad at it IMO (I admit that would be too if I was > doing that).

The problem is that beginners are often eager to blog about things they've learned and although they haven't fully grasped the concepts it's tempting to show what you are able to do. This leads to a lot of bad examples and incorrect code on such blogs, most often it stays uncorrected.

> I'll say that the internet is kinda unwelcoming plays a part. I did share > some in my past career. Posted on reddit.

Reddit is unwelcoming with childishly stubborn users. I wish it wasn't the case, but I don't have any hopes that it will ever change.

<comment><USER9> I agree about eager beginners, I think blogs and coding examples have become a thing people do to bolster their resume.... and as you say folks are too quick to go at it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Usually I believe it's a combination of facts:

\- People don't think they can actually do it well enough to be significant for someone else (when they want to share knowledge)

\- When they do, depending on how it's done, not getting the traction on something could take a hard toll on one's self esteem.

\- It might have a negative effect on one's life, if you put something out there, it's there for everyone to criticize. You are exposing yourself, what you believe to be right and what you hold dearest to you in your beliefs.

\- Time is always a constrain. We've got a finite amount of time that we can dedicate to something, juggling different priorities and trying to prioritize writing might be something hard when it's not how you make a living. If you do it for fun, you might always put first those things that have a more direct impact on your life.

\- Feedback loops are hard to come by. Unless you have a close group of people that can give you a hand, you will never be done editing your own creations, and will probably have a very narrow view of what to change to make it better.

This is something I wanted to chime in, as I've gone through most of these. I just started writing some silly topics on my field (DevOps) and while doing this, I realized most of this points. In my experience, overall what I wrote was a 10 mins read on medium, however it took me a couple of hours to write it down, got two friends to do a review of it, and previous to that I re read it at least 5 times making modifications. It's time consuming, and I wasn't even doing it for the views, it was something I've wanted to do for a while, however for something that maybe 50 people saw, it was a huge time commitment.

</comment><comment><USER12> In a lot of ways, publishing open source code is writing. I write flushed out README docs all the time, and that's on top of work put into writing readable apps with tests & comments. I don't write super fancy blog posts often at all.

</comment><comment><USER3> Experts should write best practices/hacks/best methods to improve the learning curve and discovery that others have to go through. I understand that doing so sometimes makes one obsolete vs the younger employees but its essential. Even without a massive audience, someone will go through the exact roadblocks and this piece of information becomes priceless.

</comment><comment><USER13> Writing is a lot of work. A lot of tedious work. It isn't enough to have expertise in your area: You also need to know how to write well. How to be concise when needed. How to explain concepts in ways that a learner can understand without forgetting things that would make the concept confusing, even though it is basic stuff to you.

You need to be able to edit or pay someone to do so. Blogs are easier, but most folks run out of steam after a short time unless they are also good at planning and think in the long-term. Novels and full-length books are similar: Most folks overestimate how long it will be and/or plan it out poorly.

And to top it all off, a lot of folks dislike writing, and need (monetary) persuasion to do such work. I'd personally rather make art (my hobby) than to write about it, for example.

</comment><comment><USER14> I'm much better at writing and understanding code than writing a technical blog. I tried once when I open sourced a new tool, but quite honestly it sucked. It sucked hard. I only ever published one post and nothing else because I just can't write as well as I code. [https://samaritan.ai/blog/reversing-docker-images-into- docke...](https://samaritan.ai/blog/reversing-docker-images-into-dockerfiles/)

I think too, you know people from work will see it and you also worry if it may affect the way they view you professionally.

It takes a lot of effort to make it pretty, convey the message and make sure the paragraph flow is there. It's a skill and I think you develop it with time. However, speaking for myself the return on investment just isn't there.

<comment><USER10> > I think too, you know people from work will see it and you also worry if it > may affect the way they view you professionally.

This is sadly the case for many, depending on the company culture writing should and can be encouraged.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Writing is hard, which can make it seem daunting. The problem with this as with many skills is that you can only become a better writer by being a writer first.

It also doesn't help that the kind of writing that's usually taught or otherwise imparted at school or university for many use cases is needlessly complex and wordy but nevertheless often is considered the "only proper way of writing".

In many settings writing also doesn't provide an immediate noticeable benefit. Writing for example can help with:

\- documentation and making decisions comprehensible and reproducible

\- knowledge transfer

\- improving the overall quality of a product

\- marketing

\- getting a better understanding of the problem yourself

With the exception of the last aspect these are all rather long-term benefits, which has to be taken into account when trying to find the motivation for writing.

</comment><comment><USER16> I always really, really want to do it(I'm graphic designer/illustrator and have a lot tips & trick, experience and insight I want to share) but writing things for other people to read and understand is a (tedious) work in itself. In my case it also comprise of a lot of screenshot, references, and since nowadays people are read less and less — video tutorial.

Also, since design & art is a more 'freeform' type of activity. It is really hard to write it as a step by step for people to follow because sometimes the process is really, really messy (happy accident!)

Just thinking about how much I need to pour my power to write, I can't help but to give up haha. Maybe one day I'll find a way to do it...

</comment><comment><USER17> Because I don't want to. Writing is not something I enjoy.

</comment><comment><USER18> I started working straight out of high school. Over the years I got a BE, ME and a PhD and paid my tuition fees from my earnings. For my PhD I published several papers in ACM and IEEE journals, all the programs I had written as open-source and a thesis.

Along the way I accumulated a great deal of expertise and experience. These days I get hired as a consultant and write reports on my findings, recommendations and often specifications for new systems (both hardware and software).

When you have knowledge and experience that people will pay for, then there is no incentive in giving it or my clients' expertise and knowledge for free.

<comment><USER19> It's common for experts to share some of their expertise for free as a marketing tactic.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Top ten reasons why I haven't yet published any blog posts. Number #4 will shock and worry you:

1) It takes time to write and time is hard to manage. I have many priorities in life which I have to juggle and do not know how to manufacture time.

2) When I start writing, multiple competing and mutually exclusive descriptions of reality try to press themselves out of my head at once. My instinct is to try to resolve the confusion of ideas _before_ getting the ideas out on paper, and that doesn't work.

3) When I start writing something and questions pop up as I am writing, I still hear an internal self-narrative "bullshit! just write the damned essay." This makes it hard for me to actually get those questions explicitly stated, determine which ones are important, and find the answers to them. It turns out that getting answers to questions like "Why should this be written?", "Whom are we writing this for?", or "How do I know I'm not making an error of judgement here?" are pretty important.

4) When I look at a blank text document or piece of paper, I sometimes feel a feeling of dread which makes me want to take a roofing nail and scrape it across my forearm until I draw blood. I've never done this, and I've been getting a lot better at managing the feeling.

5) When I try to get around the challenge of drafting by dictating my ideas into my phone, all of the dictation software I try ends up stopping after 2 minutes. This makes it really hard for me to just free-ramble 3 pages which I then edit later. If you know of an app which will let you ramble for 20 minutes into your phone and will poorly transcribe it into a text file, for you to edit please let me know. [EDIT: I just checked a thread where I had asked about this and someone recommended Otter. Will report back]

6) Because I'm not very experienced at successfully drafting things except when I used to write college papers up against the deadline, I am really not practised at editing my work to be more coherent. Therefore, it takes longer.

7) I am not very practiced at writing for an audience, actually taking into account how they would interpret what I'm saying, and then getting feedback as to how well I've done. Therefore this takes longer.

8) I would like to express concepts and relationships with diagrams, but I'm shite at drawing.

9) I don't knot that I have a group of people with whom I can check my drafts and who will spend the time/effort to give me feedback and help me organize my ideas better.

10) I can, in general, find it difficult to organise my thoughts. Beyond a certain length of ramble, writing requires structure so that you can look back on what you wrote and think of what needs to be said next. Coming up with that structure is hard and I have very little practice in it. That is why I wrote this response in BuzzFeed listicle style: to give myself a structure.

So yea, despite "publish three blog posts" being on my new years resolutions and me having done reasonably well at sticking to the others, I still haven't.

<comment><USER21> > 4) When I look at a blank text document or piece of paper, I sometimes feel > a feeling of dread which makes me want to take a roofing nail and scrape it > across my forearm until I draw blood. I've never done this, and I've been > getting a lot better at managing the feeling.

I have this problem a lot. Brand new thing, whatever it is, pristine state. You don't want to fuck it up. So you just, don't. Of course the paper is meant to be written on, and the file is meant to be written in. Write a single sentence. Just one. Your thesis. Your question. Anything. Now it's just on the page my itself, and possibly in the wrong spot. Crap, you've ruined the pristine blank space. Time to fill it up. Once I start writing though, I pretty much don't stop.

> 10) I can, in general, find it difficult to organise my thoughts. Beyond a > certain length of ramble, writing requires structure so that you can look > back on what you wrote and think of what needs to be said next. Coming up > with that structure is hard and I have very little practice in it. That is > why I wrote this response in BuzzFeed listicle style: to give myself a > structure.

Then this is your structure. Maybe not the final one, but it's the initial one. Use it. I do this in a number of my posts here. Not the top-ten-list format but as a numbered list. And if this helps you to get started, make that first draft or maybe even the final draft, run with it.

> 7) I am not very practiced at writing for an audience, actually taking into > account how they would interpret what I'm saying, and then getting feedback > as to how well I've done. Therefore this takes longer.

> 9) I don't knot that I have a group of people with whom I can check my > drafts and who will spend the time/effort to give me feedback and help me > organize my ideas better.

You've got this community. Yes, they can sometimes be harsh, but it's here. And harsh can be good sometimes. A big lesson for me early in my career was to receive criticism while letting go of my ego. Whatever is said (even if what they say is a personal attack and not a proper critique) is about the thing, and not me. Take what they say and use it (or not, if you deem it to be wrong or inapplicable).

> 2) When I start writing, multiple competing and mutually exclusive > descriptions of reality try to press themselves out of my head at once. My > instinct is to try to resolve the confusion of ideas before getting the > ideas out on paper, and that doesn't work.

Man, my notes are all over the place. I have 100 ideas in my head at once. But writing them down clears a lot of things up, especially after a few iterations of editing. I can start by talking about how to use git, and somehow end up talking about the theory of constraints. By writing it down I end up with content that can be reshaped into several (more coherent) discussions. A brain dump is actually a massively useful starting point. A nice freeform stream of consciousness style writing exercise. Go back once you're done and read it, highlight (or write onto other pages or documents) your theses and begin moving content around to properly express your ideas and the connections between them.

Like my mention above, there actually is a connection between theory of constraints and git in what I wrote. Specifically about reducing a constraint, that was adding time to the development process, by changing the way we coordinated code development activities and code integration (between branches) versus the old way (TFS or SVN with strict controls on branching, no local version control). I work in an office where they _think_ they're doing ToC but really the management doesn't know shit and is checking boxes. I hate non-value added activities and sought to address my concerns with what we were doing to check those boxes by finding a value added change we could actually implement that would address a real constraint in how a number of our projects work. But the connection was non-obvious in the initial discussion and my initial writings because it was too rambling. By recreating my stream of consciousness spoken words on paper (or an org-file in that case) I was able to address the problem. (Ultimately I convinced one guy on one project, and he ran with it, his project is now one of the most productive in the office.)

<comment><USER10> This is some great encouraging ideas, thank you!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Personally it comes down to the fact that it takes a long time to write technical articles in a way that it's useful to anyone (with or without the exact background that you have). There's figuring out the topic, iterating on the structure/goal of the article, laying out of an outline, generating figures/examples, writing, editing, and posting it. I try to throw some content up on my website from time to time, though it is a very sporadic affair.

</comment><comment><USER20> For folks who want to blog, but who are struggling with how to get their thoughts onto paper for a first draft, take a look at [https://otter.ai/](https://otter.ai/) \-- their iOS and Android apps let you just dictate for however long you want and then copy-paste the transcription to whatever drafting program you have in order to start organising your thoughts.

</comment><comment><USER23> Experience is one thing, writing another. Things that are perfectly clear in a person's head can be hard to communicate to someone who lacks the same set of references and assumptions, and a good writer has to account for that.

Being a good writer takes practice and good communication skills.

Personally, I love to write a bit of documentation, especially around tasks I had to figure out because they are done rarely.

</comment><comment><USER24> I think it's mainly time and sometimes you don't realize how much knowledge/expertise you have because it becomes second nature so you don't realize how valuable sharing it would be.

If this is in an office setting, sometimes co-workers won't document/share knowledge so it makes them feel like they can't be let go/replaced.

</comment><comment><USER25> I wonder what would be reasons of these who already decided not to write an answer here.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participation_bias](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participation_bias)

</comment><comment><USER26> I try to write helpful topics on my blog, but it really comes down to having the time. When you have a family and a busy job, your time is stretched thin.

</comment><comment><USER27> In this thread: people writing a blog post's worth of text on why they don't have enough time to write blog post's worth of text.

<comment><USER28> My take:

In this thread: people writing a blog post's worth of text on why they don't have enough time to write blog post's worth of text _THAT_ comes up to their standard for publishing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Have you ever been to a library?</comment>


Is your website hosted in a dodgy neighborhood? - <AUTHOR> http://viewdns.info/reverseip

<comment><USER2> My two cents:

-Trash out www. from urls

-Does not follow redirects

So it can not reach my app engine application on custom godaddy domain

-For big registers (as godaddy redirect server) top 1000 list is not so informative, as there are many trash hosts. It all starts from digits (and consist of digits). Showing hosts starts from letters, may help

</comment><comment><USER3> Oops <http://viewdns.info/reverseip/?host=127.0.0.1>

<comment><USER4> Guess some people preferred something other than 'localhost'!

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I put in the hostname of my virtual server, but it did not tell me about any of the sites I host there.

</comment><comment><USER6> How it works?</comment>


Don't write a business plan - <AUTHOR> http://blog.asmartbear.com/business-plan.html

<comment><USER2> If you read enough articles like this, you'll find the following to be the rule of thumb: Do and avoid doing everything possible.

</comment><comment><USER3> Most start-ups can get away without a written business plan because the founders have everything that would be in a plan in their head. In larger organizations you absolutely need to use them as the people deciding what businesses to be in aren't the people executing the ideas. So "Don't write a business plan [if you're a start-up]" is what the title really should be.

One thing to consider, write big goals / milestones down and ask yourself each day, "Is this activity getting me towards our next goal?" -- if not stop doing it. Without planning you can quickly get distracted by shiny objects and short term revenue.

If you're going to spend significant time on something that isn't a current goal have a quick chat with your team and get agreement to change the goals -- this isn't "writing a business plan" but this is "business planning" -- just because you don't do the former isn't an excuse to not do the latter.

<comment><USER4> I agree with your point that some amount of planning is always useful in the face of uncertainty. It's only when things are certain or utterly routine that no plan is required.

 _"Most start-ups can get away without a written business plan because the founders have everything that would be in a plan in their head."_

Even when the founders have it in their heads, writing up a one to two page set of key assumptions and objectives can uncover disconnects, and writing them down allows you to solicit input more widely from friends, employees, and advisors. No successful startup is ever just the founders: you are always asking prospects, customers, partners, friends, advisors, employees, and anyone else with relevant knowledge for advice and feedback.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> These articles always make me think of this Eisenhower quote: "In preparing for battle, I have always found that plans are useless but planning is indispensable."

<comment><USER6> This. The real value in creating a "business plan" is in the focusing of your business.

It isn't necessarily a good idea to go into business completely blind with no knowledge of who your potential customers and competitors are and what your revenue model is. Writing a business plan forces you to think through these key components.

The definition of a "business plan" should be flexible. I prefer to use three pages or less, single spaced. That's enough room to cover all the topics while keeping it brief.

There will be time to make revenue models and projections once you actually have some sales on which to base your calculations.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Good luck finding investors without a business plan...

At some point in time you need to formalize your business and why you expect profit. It's inaccurate, everybody knows it, but the exercise is healthy.

<comment><USER8> He cites multiple investors that say not to do a business plan; that's an explicit part of his argument.

<comment><USER9> He's arguing against this argument.

There are a number of VC types who say you don't need a business plan, but if you're getting funding from business associates, family, friends, or friend of friends, they will say "can I read your business plan".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> The mistake with business plans is the tendency to focus on the wrong objective.

I think creating a written plan for any goal of a startup is a must. It allows everyone involved to review the plan and point out any holes in your thinking. It also presents a complete communication of your ideas. Just winging it, for example, using a conscious stream of thought to explain all the details of a proposed plan is difficult for both the speaker and the listener.

The problem with business plans is they tend to focus on demonstrating how the startup intends to make money. Revenue should never be the goal of a startup. Revenue is a by-product. It's a measuring stick which co-founders can use an indicator of whether or not they are succeeding in solving the end-user's problem. The overall goal of a startup should always be to solve a specific end-user problem.

<http://www.igeejo.com>

</comment><comment><USER11> _Let's do some quotes:..._ (then)

 _Surely those Harvard MBA grads are correct. After all they don't give out those MBAs for nothing — you have to at least start a business yourself! Oh wait, you don't have to do that? Oh._

None of those blog posts were by Harvard MBA's and nearly all links were to random pages hyping the Business Plan Pro product. Referencing a bunch of unknown posts at unknown blogs by mostly unknown authors to criticize Harvard's MBA program for not being entrepreneurial enough is ridiculous.

Later paragraphs were great though, and I appreciated seeing links to interesting entrepreneurial web sites that aren't usually referenced on Hacker News. Thanks!

</comment><comment><USER12> How's this: if you're starting a traditional business like house-painting or power generation then write a brief plan. Otherwise don't.

</comment><comment><USER13> found this article to be very informative and makes me feel better about having never made a business plan

</comment><comment><USER14> The very act of running a business implies some sort of prediction that it will work. By his logic you should never run a business.</comment>


Amelia Earhart might have died as a castaway - <AUTHOR> http://phys.org/news/2016-11-amelia-earhart-died-castaway.html <comment><USER2> Just a comparison on bones photos and pictures of Amelia. No wreckages or any other solid evidence.</comment>


Mac OS X Leopard:  200+ Productivity Booster Keyboard Shortcuts  - <AUTHOR> http://www.usingmac.com/2007/11/21/mac-os-x-leopard-200-productivity-booster-hotkeys <comment><USER2> > Shift-F11 Hide all windows in slow motion

Productivity Booster, right.

</comment><comment><USER3> It is missing a bunch of ones I use all the time, like ctrl+a in the terminal

<comment><USER4> You mean bash shortcuts?

<http://hajek.stat.ubc.ca/~harry/local/bash.html></comment></comment>