Ask HN: Suggest an attorney? (Google is after us) - <AUTHOR>

So, I just got a fun letter from Google, saying that my company, Sitezoogle.com, is infringing on their trademark.  Specifically, their complaint is that our name is a combination of "website" and "google".
If that's not bad enough, my lawyer's firm represents Google in Canada and can't help due to conflict of interest.  Ugh.
Does anyone have experience with a great US trademark lawyer and/or experience fighting a trademark dispute?
BTW: We make website building tools for niche markets.  Our main product (which we have a US trademark for) is Bandzoogle.com, a website builder for musicians.  We changed the company name to Sitezoogle, because we added a bunch of new non-band markets.
Help is appreciated! <comment><USER2> IANAL but I think their claim is weak. "Site" + "Google"? OK, where did the "z" come from?

They can't really claim dibs on any name that happens to end in "oogle" and your firm does not seem to have anything to do with web search. Domino Sugar once tried to claim that Dominos Pizza was infringing on their name, a claim which they ultimately lost.

They've surely got the pockets to harass you and sadly you're going to need an attorney to respond to their complaint.

<comment><USER3> Okay, slightly more seriously than my last response:

The "z" is a plural: "Sitez". Surely this meme, while old, can't be so old that only I remember it. Can it?

Meanwhile, let me introduce you to Google's website building business: <http://sites.google.com>

That's arguably in the same field of business -- enough to cause confusion in the marketplace, which is the legal standard -- and their URL is two characters away from the alleged infringing URL.

I guess this company could try to argue that Google is infringing _their_ trademark... provided they launched before Google Sites, which came online under that name in 2008. Except, oops, the opponent is _Google_ , a company whose legal team's _lunch_ budget could probably buy and sell us all.

Run away!

<comment><AUTHOR> Our company was launched in 2003, well before Google Sites. Since we also own the trademark for Bandzoogle, it isn't a stretch to change to Sitezoogle. My lawyer (who can't officially represent me) said that the trademark office looks mainly at the first 4 letters of the name. Google Sites is a trademark, which is very different from Sitezoogle.

The very worst that can happen is that I lose a few thousand dollars defending their contest. It's not like they are going to back down at this point. The next thing they'll send is the domain dispute letter. If I lose, fine, I'll change the name. But just instantly giving in to the big "do no evil" bully seems a little premature.

<comment><USER4> In case they file a UDRP ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Domain_Name_Dispute_Res...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Domain_Name_Dispute_Resolution_Policy)) complaint, make sure that your contact info is correct on your whois (<http://www.whois.net/whois/Sitezoogle.com>). I know somebody who lost a UDRP complaint because their contact info was out of date and the UDRP complaint wasn't sent to them, so they lost by default.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Have you considered contacting the Electronic Frontier Foundation? They might take interest in this case (I know they did some work in these sorts of domain name disputes before), and they are near enough to Google HQ that they might have some contacts there.

</comment><comment><USER6> honestly, there was no thought of google when you decided to suffix your names with "oogle"? The actual spelling of the word is <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Googol> so you just happened to choose the bit of the word the misspelled...

<comment><USER7> I don't think 'sitezoogle' would even try to claim they were also thinking of the numerical 'googol' as a basis. (If so, they're doomed.)

Rather, they made up a fun name with a long-U and ending -gle sound. '-oo-' is fairly common for goofy/froopy/groovy/loony 'U' sounds, and '-gle' is the common playful way to spell its sound, as in giggle/wiggle/finagle/beagle.

Still, I think the little guys have got a tough case. '-oogle' was rare before Google, and 'sitezoogle' for website services sounds like a sites.google.com or some other Google-derivation. And, they probably did have 'Google' in mind when they chose both Bandzoogle and Sitezoogle. (Bandzoogle was probably a little safer as long as it wasn't a search-engine for finding bands.)

So they may not need a lawyer as much as a new name.

<comment><USER6> my point was basically exactly what you've said - except for the second paragraph. I was pointing out that the original word is spelled googol so they copied the bit that is unique to google, I'd say yeah they are done get a new name

<comment><USER8> "Google" is older than "googol", and appears to have been a mixture of "goofy" and "ogle", referring to crazily wandering eyes. It certainly entered popular culture with the Snuffy Smith/Barney Google cartoons, so Google (the company) can't claim coinage.

<comment><USER6> lol I had no idea, nice!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This is almost exactly like Google's trademark claim against Groovle.com a couple months ago, which was unanimously dismissed (read: not even close) in Canada. However, that was only the second time out of 65 that Google has lost a domain name dispute.

[http://www.gawkwire.com/domains/google_loses_domain_name_tra...](http://www.gawkwire.com/domains/google_loses_domain_name_trademark_arbitration.html)

In the end, unless you have a ton of money to throw down on a big-time lawyer and a lot of press coverage, I don't think your choice of attorneys is going to make or break your defense. Might be better to just go ahead and decide if your domain name is worth the money it'll take to defend it.

</comment><comment><USER10> Not sure if you found someone to help you. If not then I will suggest Rodenbaugh Law - <http://www.rodenbaugh.com/> \- Mike Rodenbaugh has extensive transactional and dispute resolution experience with respect to intellectual property, e-commerce and internet marketing. He has specialized in trademark and domain name matters since 1995, including more than 7 years at Yahoo! Inc. email@example.com

</comment><comment><USER11> Is it worth all that trouble just to keep the domain name?

<comment><AUTHOR> Well, it depends on the cost. It is our corporation's name, and we have printed promotional materials. The biggest issue is that we have thousands of members using our DNS servers that are using the domain. Changing it would require them to change their DNS settings, or have their site go offline. A big pain to say the least.

<comment><USER12> Sounds like a major hassle to change names plus it may look shady to your customers.

The lawsuit sounds pretty bogus based on what you've said. Surely Google can't be allowed to have exclusive use of "oogle" just because it sounds like part of their company name. That would be like Microsoft saying no one can have a company ending with "soft".

That said, I'd say this would be expensive and time consuming to fight. May not be worth the effort even though you may be in the right (ethically if not legally).

Is there any chance this could get you into the press? Small company being picked on by enormous corporation. Could be good for you.

<comment><AUTHOR> Good idea, but unfortunately Sitezoogle isn't the product; our members just know our main website brands like Bandzoogle (that are protected by existing trademark).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> If you're in Montreal, I know someone you can talk to. Send me an email.

delano (@solutious.com)

</comment><comment><USER14> Whichever lawyer you will hire, should start the response letter with the following statement:

        "Do Not Do Evil"

What kind of a rubbish is that

</comment><comment><USER15> Just change the name. Not a big deal.

<comment><USER16> ok steve jobs

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for all the responses. The quality of feedback you get from HN is really amazing.

</comment><comment><USER17> <http://www.coastlawgroup.com> \- great team, Seyamack Kouretchian there is the technology guru to speak with.</comment>


Writing web apps with Go, Nginx and FastCGI - <AUTHOR> http://www.geekm.ag/Archive/Writing_web_apps_with_Go,_Nginx_and_FastCGI

<comment><USER2> As I recall, fcgi can call any program that satisfies a minimal protocol, so why do we need a go-specific fcgi lib?</comment>


Blackbird browser - good niche or racist? - <AUTHOR>

http://www.blackbirdhome.com/index.html
As one of the few black hackers I know, I would be the first to applaud anything created that makes me feel included.
That being said, would I use blackbird?  NO.
Not because its separatist. Not because its divisive.  I wouldn't use it because there is nothing I can do with a black browser, that I cant do with a non-genre specific browser.
I consider myself a developer, which has no connotations to race.  But once it does, then the need for a varied opinion or counterpart would need to exist.
That is the issue with BlackBird.  As of now, IE or Firefox, etc doesnt address any particular audience.  Yahoo as a portal may have mainstream content.  So then a niche portal is needed.
I agree that there are area of hard to find content that may need a specific counterpart.  But a browser? Thats like making Black-centric spoons and forks.  pointless.
Thoughts? <comment><USER2> i think its someone trying to make a quick buck and create a small media storm to attract the users.

having said that, i think that if something like this were to become truly successful, it would probably make me a little sad at how society works.

</comment><comment><USER3> Why do you feel disincluded?

</comment><comment><USER4> Or both?</comment>


What Marc Andreessen said to Quartz that made us sit up and listen - <AUTHOR> http://qz.com/36368/eight-things-marc-andreessen-said-to-quartz-that-made-us-sit-up-and-listen/ <comment><USER2> Yay. Another "I got mine" article from an Internet celebrity.

He's got no idea what middle class means.

He's throwing out the usual conservative talking points about deregulation. (How'd that work for the banking system? In, say, 1929, 1989, 2007? Electricity in CA? The environment before 1970?)

He's of course in favor of manipulating IPO prices, because that's where he makes money, after all.

He's completely delusional about AirBnB.

And he's just a plain lunatic when he says he'd take eye cancer to have Glass.

It certainly makes you sit up and listen. And then shake your head sadly that you wasted time on the article.

</comment><comment><USER3> Either the author or Andreesen completely misunderstands or misrepresents the concept of network neutrality. Network neutrality doesn't mean users don't pay for the bandwidth they consume. It means they pay the same price for that bandwidth regardless of what it's used for.

<comment><USER4> Exactly. The telcos want to charge Youtube (and others) more money for a faster connection to me, but I already paid for my connection to be fast.

Those aren't Youtube's bits coming to me over the wire though, they are mine. I paid for them, both in money to the telco for my connection through them, and to Youtube with my attention to their ads.

<comment><USER5> Well, but other subscribers paid as much as you but may not be using Youtube as heavily. When they do use Youtube, they want that fast connection, but in aggregate they use less capacity because they are less frequent users. Charging Youtube is one way to account for this difference in usage. Charging consumers based on aggregate usage (like mobile carriers now do) would be another way.

<comment><USER6> so all you are saying is that some people pay for (N gigabytes per month) and actually use N, while others pay for the same plan but only use a fraction of N?

<comment><USER5> I'm referring to typical home/business service where you pay for X downstream/Y downstream, not aggregate usage. Almost everyone will use the full bandwidth at some point (just watch just one video) but some people use it more frequently.

Granted, Andreesen was talking about mobile where pricing is N gigs/month, but even that structure might not capture true cost. It also depends when the user uses that bandwidth. During peak hours, capacity is short and end-user Quality of Service might get degraded to accommodate. Rather than complicating end- user pricing with these issues (like charging $Y for X bits at ZZ:ZZ PM), it might make sense to charge the content providers.

Netflix, for instance, during peak hours, accounts for 32.7% of all internet traffic: [http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/technolog/netflix- uses-32-...](http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/technolog/netflix- uses-32-7-percent-internet-bandwidth-119517).

Who knows what the best solution is. Maybe it's charging content providers, maybe end-users. The point is that it's not a good idea to have the government set a one-size-fits-all solution.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> He's wrong about the middle class and the fact that we should pay cheaper wages. In theory, this sounds like it would be correct, however the middle class is born out of a balance between supply and demand. When Supply is too high or demand is too high, the middle class states to disappear, whether from lack of funds to buy things or from lack of a job. However, in a healthy service based economy, where people are needed to create more supply, then businesses are more likely to hire and train someone with less experience and take the risk because the risk may pay off. When there is a demand problem, companies will not take the risk (thus what we have now, people need experience to start working). Lowering the wage will cause a demand problem, and will simply put us in the same position we are in now because people will not be able to afford goods. It sounds good, businesses creating things cheaper, but that really only helps people who have money already, and they aren't the ones that need the help.

<comment><USER8> The whole list is comprised of the bleatings of privilege. He's got his and now, entirely coincidentally I'm sure, his advice for the future is oriented around things that will keep him at the top of the food chain.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> His comments on the middle class, environmental regulation, and net neutrality paint a picture of an out of touch elitist. His comments on AirBnB "eating [all] real estate" just make him sound delusional.

I'm disappointed, I always liked that guy.

</comment><comment><USER10> Scrolling up and down on that page causes the URL to change to reflect the article you are now viewing. I'm pretty certain this is a bad idea.

<comment><USER11> I have never enjoyed using or understood the concept of their design; someone was trying to be way too clever. The layout is simple and makes sense, but the scrolling experience is absolutely awful. Clicking my back button to get back to this post shouldn't scroll me up through other articles I didn't read and there isn't enough distinction between them if I'm scrolling quickly to skim.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> He was in the right place at the right time and now he's rich. And that's the only reason why anybody is listening to him now, certainly not for anything else he's done.

Cheaper labor? How about a more effective labor force? Ugh.

<comment><USER13> You are so mistaken that I wince for your sake reading this comment.

The reason I listen to Marc is that he's among the smartest people in the startup community.

<comment><USER14> Enron people labeled themselves "the smartest guys in the room"... and they were! But they were wrong on everything else. Very smart people are wrong all the time, because of conflicts of interest, because of ideology, because they don't have all the facts, because they're not trying to think rationally, etc.

(On how "smart" people are often wrong, see for example "The Psychology of Rational Thought" by Keith E. Stanovich.)

Regarding Mr. Andreessen, he's just advocating very conservative policies -- esp. less regulations. Less regulation may be desirable for ventures such as AirBnB, but that doesn't mean it's an absolute good. It at least deserves a public discussion and not just affirmations by one of AirBnB's investors...

(Also, "your mistakes make me wince" is not an argument ;-)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Say what you will about his actual opinions, I think it's refreshing to hear someone who is willing to say what he believes despite popular concurrence with his opinions. Very tired of the echo chamber in the tech community.

As for the article, many of these seem like realistic perspectives, even if they discomfort the typical listener.

<comment><USER16> > it's refreshing to hear someone who is willing to say what he believes

> echo chamber in the tech community

Do you really believe that the "echo chamber" happens because people lie about their beliefs to fit in? I couldn't disagree more. I'm fairly certain the "echo chamber" happens because we share backgrounds, information sources, and inferential technique, leading us to share conclusions as well. It would be fair to call our community "too homogenous/narrow" but it's equally incorrect and insulting to imply that the majority viewpoint persists through popularity alone.

As for the article, you're correct that his perspectives are "realistic" in that I believe they are shared by many people in the investor class. However, they're completely self-serving and unaligned with the common good. In that sense I see his opinions as roughly morally equivalent to the cries of "redistribute all the wealth to eliminate poverty" that occur in different contexts.

For instance, he predicts that we will "run out of capacity" for our data hungry apps. SO BUILD MORE CAPACITY, DAMMIT. If that means redistributing spectrum, so be it. Match supply with demand. That's what markets are supposed to do. I'm sure investors would love to ride the bubble formed by artificially restricted supply but they do so at the cost of everyone else. It's sickening to see him pretend that he's forwarding a common interest by opposing net neutrality.

Ditto for his comments on the workforce.

None of his other opinions (1,5,6,7,8) seem terribly controversial so I've ignored them.

<comment><USER15> >Do you really believe that the "echo chamber" happens because people lie about their beliefs to fit in?

I don't believe most people actively _lie_ about their opinions, though I'm sure it happens and probably more often than one would want to admit. I think it's more just a classic case of groupthink; people just adopt the opinion of the group for the social benefit, more or less subconsciously.

More important than simply _having_ an unpopular opinion is the willingness to express it when asked, even if it's not going to result in praise or accolades from the group's (explicitly _or_ implicity) chosen "thought leaders". Such a thing encourages independent analysis and challenges the authority of said "thought leaders", which is healthy in most contexts.

It's especially important to do this in tech; since many of us seem to lack basic social skills, the cost of expressing a thing at odds with the group's position are disproportionately severe, and combined with the technical perspective of most in the field, groupthink pervades our sector particularly deeply, and the consequences of opposing one's technical religious positions are particularly harsh.

While it's pretty obvious that Andreesen's opinions are informed by his personal perspective as a wealthy dude, I don't think we should allow that to unfairly bias our reception. We're obviously not going to volunteer to have the phone company charge us $500/mo, but it doesn't mean that he's wrong about the basic principle of metered data or the availability of supply.

While you see an "artificially restricted supply", Andreesen sees "artificially curtailed demand" (as far as supply<->demand applies to pricing) by heavy dependence on cheap offshored labor and the political impossibility of bringing that labor front and center (i.e., on-shoring it). I think this is a viewpoint worthy of consideration even if we don't like its implications, which are basically that things should cost much more than they do now.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> AirBnB will eat nothing. AirBnB is thriving because of non-enforcement of existing laws, which were put in place by cities to protect the consumer, and because the IRS is not collecting taxes.

Relevant:

[http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/01/your-money/a-warning- for-a...](http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/01/your-money/a-warning-for-airbnb- hosts-who-may-be-breaking-the-law.html?_r=0)

[http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-09-27/airbnb-to- ta...](http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-09-27/airbnb-to-tax-or-not- tax-a-rented-bed)

As soon as the hotel industry perceives AirBnB as a legitimate threat --we're getting there in NYC-- it will take action/lobbying to the next level, and it won't be pretty. For starters, they could ask the IRS to demand a full DB dump of all hosts to tax their (mostly illegitimate) income, which I suspect is not reported as such. The pool of available inventory will dry up in no time.

That said, I am wondering if he means that they can pivot and buy their own buildings to become full-fledged hoteliers.

<comment><USER18> AirBnB will push back and fans of AirBnB will push back too. In addition to that, there is always business outside the US. Half the people I know who have used AirBnB used it to stay outside the continent. They'll hard times, no doubt, but I wouldn't immediately dig their grave and put flowers on it.

<comment><USER17> No doubt they will push back, and their fans too, but... there are existing laws being flaunted. Enforcement is imminent. As the initial link indicated, current hosts already have a legal liability, which is really ignored (hidden) by AirBNB.

Not putting flowers on their grave, but sincerely doubting their prospects in the (US) hospitality-space, especially in metro areas. Like I mentioned above, he may be referring to possible pivots based on fan-base, data collected etc., e.g. actually running their own unique hotels, a matching solution for people who are looking for buyers (stay before you buy), roommate finders (rentals over 30 days, which are mostly legal), lead generation (rentals and sales) etc. etc. etc.

For the record: I think he's a smart guy, and I agree with most of his other points (1,4,5,6,8), question others (2,3 & 7).

Also agree with another poster that he was a lucky guy (I've actually used Spyglass and Netscape 1.0, get off my lawn, haha)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Seems to be suffering from "Success Bias" wherein because he was successful in one thing, he naturally thinks he is right about all things.

<comment><USER20> I would imagine lots of VC's end up feeling this way, because the people they interact with most are amazingly talented and smart startup founders - who are constantly kissing their ass and telling them everything they say is genius.

Don't get me wrong, I do think he is a genius and there is some gold in this article - but also some ridiculous statements.

<comment><USER19> I've seen it in a lot of successful people - it is pretty common. I've actually had a successful person who have no background in my field tell me why I was wrong about something they clearly knew nothing about. It was nothing short of amazing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I'm in full agreement with his comment about timing and many of the ideas of the dotcom bubble. I wouldn't go as far as saying that all of them were good. But, many of them were excellent and were just very poorly timed. Even when you just think about the infrastructure cost of building something during the bubble vs now, it is astounding how much more affordable it is.

</comment><comment><USER22> "...but it is harder to do business in most states in the US than it is to do business in a lot of places around the world."

And yet, according to the conservative Heritage Foundation's ranking on ease of doing business the U.S. as a whole came in a respectable 10th, and I'm going to make a wild guess that the places he is talking about in that quote aren't many if any of the countries ahead of the U.S.

[<http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking?src=home>]

<comment><USER23> Yeah, it's a pretty ludicrous statement. When was the last time Marc Adreessen had to pay a bribe?

<comment><USER24> your intended point is right. but bribes usually make everything easier for startups in over-bureaucratic states, bribes themselves are not making anything hard, but unethical.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Out-of-touch elitist, like most of SV brats. If darpa did not exist, there would be no internet. The middle-class existed because once-upon-a-time people believed a rising tide lifted all boats.

<comment><USER26> i wish i could believe that. in the 1950s, the U.S. produced 60 percent of global output and had no real international competition, thanks to the destruction in europe, russia, asia, etc. today it produces 18 percent and americans compete against chinese for jobs. i guess that seems like a better explanation for the plight of the middle class than saying we no longer believe in that "a rising tide lift[s] all boats."

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> qz.com will not render with Ghostery enabled.

Also, what's with that qz.com headline? Why, exactly, do we care about the gonzo-reaction of a tech blogger (the "sit up and listen" bit.) It's just a fluffy throw-away expression and comes across as the reddit equivalent of "shit just got real." I understand: they're summarizing 8 insights from Andressen, but strictly speaking, the headline is about the reporter instead of Andressen. How about: "Andressen predicts massive changes to housing, mobile, and the middle class." I don't write headlines, but at least this refers to the material in the article.

As for the content: on the one hand, I appreciate a bulleted list for its quick readability, but the headline sounds to me like an excuse to make a list instead of a narrative...

<comment><USER8> Your suggested headline doesn't focus on Quartz.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Reads sort of like one of those intentionally contrarian Slate articles.

</comment><comment><USER29> has anyone else who can never see this site worked what plugin/blocker causes it to spin forever?

<comment><USER30> My temporary solution is to right click and select Inspect Element in Chrome. Then find the "overlay" div and set the z-index to 0. This pushes that to the bottom of the pile and you can browse normally again.

For me personally I think it sits b/c my work proxy has an ad blocker.

<comment><USER31> Thanks! Even simpler fix for lazy: Inspect Element, right click on the element in the developer pane, and choose "delete node".

<comment><USER8> Or left-click select, then hit the delete key. :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> The ideology of the wannabe ruling class in all its terrifying glory.

</comment><comment><USER33> My understanding of the middle class is that they were the mid-small businessmen - merchants - of Europe since the 1600s. Checking wikipedia, it agrees with me.

There's also the idea that the middle class is the high-school degreed people who make "decent" money, perhaps by being in the trades (i.e., plumber) or working in a factory. Edit: this idea is not unique, I've heard it in a variety of places.

These two ideas don't really connect too well (although business-minded tradespeople can grow their business to be fairly lucrative).

I have no particular comment regarding Marc's statements, but I wanted to point out the varying definitions.

</comment><comment><USER34> Andreessen is gone. The transformation is complete. He has lost all legitimacy beyond being a fat cat that manipulates markets by sheer power of money and influence in the inefficient way that monopolists do.

<comment><USER25> His bald head reminds me of Colonel Kurtz in Apocalypse now. He's gone rogue.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> Rich guys says we should destroy the environment, people should be enslaved in sweatshops to make widgets to make him richer and talks some complete idiocy about AirBNB.

News at 11.</comment>


AMD new Linux Driver strategy - <AUTHOR> http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=21006

<comment><AUTHOR> In a nutshell, the kernel part will be mainlined and common between the blob and the open source driver. The blob will be userspace only.

This will only work for the next generation of cards, though.</comment>


Ask HN: Are There Any Startups Trying to Bring Us Cheaper Cell Phone Service? - <AUTHOR>

Many of us pay $100 or more / month for our cell phone bills (or close to it). Your cell phone bill could be just as high as your monthly car payment. Does that make sense? How much value are we really getting for that price? Are there any alternatives to this ridiculous system? Are there any startups trying to take on this oligopoly?
A proposed solution: (1) get a Clear Voyager (comes with unlimited internet access for $50/month) (2) connect to it using a mobile device (3) surf the web and make calls w/ Google Voice
Do you have any other solutions in mind? <comment><USER2> Yeah, too expensive phones are a pet peeve of mine.

See: [http://ars.to/17BuE6s](http://ars.to/17BuE6s)

QUOTE:

But what I've always wanted here in the US is what I had when we were living in Germany from 2010 to 2012: a cheap, prepaid, debit-style mobile offering, where the receiver doesn't pay for incoming texts or calls. In nearly every other country in the world, this seems to be the norm.

For two years, we were happy customers of Blau.de (an E-Plus MVNO). The company offered a prepaid 1GB of data for just €10 ($12.60) and €0.09 ($0.11) per minute to any German phone number and €0.09 per text to any German mobile phone. In Germany, we spent something like €40 ($52) per month on average. That's roughly half of what we currently spend and about one-third of what most similar iPhone users pay stateside.

Last month, I reported from Belgium on what may be my favorite mobile provider anywhere in the world: Mobile Vikings ([http://ars.to/12Bmo1G](http://ars.to/12Bmo1G)). With any luck, they'll launch soon in the United States. I'd take the company's basic offering in a heartbeat: €15 ($20) per month for 2GB of mobile data, $0.32/min for voice, and 1,000 text messages. Another favorite of mine is 3 in the United Kingdom. This company offers a 30-day deal for just 15 British pounds ($23), which includes 300 domestic minutes, 3,000 text messages, and unlimited data. (Remember, incoming is free in Europe.)

More than the Verizons and AT&Ts we're used to, Roam Mobility and Ready SIM are closer relatives to these appealing European offers.

</comment><comment><USER3> In all seriousness, I registered false datum with Assurance Wireless, sponsored by Virgin, and am now using a free cellphone (or "Obama phone" as some voices in the media call it). Per month I receive 250 free minutes and 250 free texts. The only precursor was to "prove" that I am currently enrolled in any of a number of welfare programs (such as the "SNAP" food stamp benefits program). I understand what I am doing is illegal, but earlier this year I realized I did not feel comfortable anymore paying so much for something that seemed to be benefiting others far more than me.

</comment><comment><USER2> For the time being, my wife and I use Straight Talk ($45 mo = unlimited talk/text + around 1-1.5GB of data [it's unclear]) It's an AT&T MVNO, and no 4G, but it works for us, and is the cheapest option I could find. (We both have unlocked iPhones.)</comment>


Ask HN: Any current Thiel Fellows here? - <AUTHOR> I am in the application process this year and just had 2 calls. Would love to hear what was your experience like so far and what advice could you give  to an ambitious applicant.<p>Would love to hear your thoughts or talk. You can also write me at gabriel (at) barbra.io :) <comment><USER2> Wow, I'm jealous. Good luck!

You're in pretty rarefied air. There's only 20-25 a year and they've been doing it for ~10 years. So maybe there are 250 Thiel Fellows total. [1]

There's a list of notables on [1] that you might be able to reach out to, or maybe you could contact someone doing admin at the Fellowship to connect you.

[1]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiel_Fellowship](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiel_Fellowship)</comment>


Google+: Communities and photos - <AUTHOR> http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2012/12/google-communities-and-photos.html

<comment><USER2> Nice to see a groups-like feature make it to Google+ at last.

One of the best features of G+ has always been communicating with people you don't know in person, and I think this will facilitate that more around common interests. I can also see this as being useful for groups of friends or family who always want to post content to each other.

</comment><comment><USER3> I don't know if Google announced this earlier, but this post just released more granular active (I assume monthly) user numbers for G+ than I've seen:

"More than 500 million people have upgraded, 235 million are active across Google (+1'ing apps in Google Play, hanging out in Gmail, connecting with friends in Search...), and 135 million are active in just the stream."

<comment><USER4> I thought it was very odd that Google inserted this paragraph in the beginning of a feature announcement blog post. I think it only reaffirms the inferiority complex of G+ by explicitly explaining that they are indeed a vibrant community.

<comment><USER5> Don't read into it much. Google announces its daily Android activations regularly and it has the largest smartphone share in the world.

Facebook does that too.

[http://techcrunch.com/2012/10/23/facebook-announces- monthly-...](http://techcrunch.com/2012/10/23/facebook-announces-monthly- active-users-were-at-1-01-billion-as-of-september-30th/)

Remember when people knock Google for not announcing Google+ numbers? They are saying Google is announcing numbers because they are bad.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Early warning: I recently learned that some kids under 13 are adopting Google+. They all have gmail accounts, but their parents won't let them go on Facebook.

It's not really any different in terms of legality or functions, but parents understand (and often don't like) Facebook. So, most likely without the parents' knowledge, their kids are meeting up via Google+.

<comment><USER7> The horror!

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I am not sure if I'm following. These Communities appear to be as same as Pages with a +Name in the URL. I thought they released the feature of Pages and the + Name a while ago. So what makes Community different?

<comment><USER9> Communities are more like Facebook groups...they have their own discussion threads, membership/ACLs, etc.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> The problem with this I feel and one of the advantages of Twitter is that if a certain company controls their community page (e.g. Audi USA) and I go to post some sort of customer service complaint, they have the option of removing it. With Twitter, I can just add a hashtag or @message them and it'd be visible globally with search.

<comment><USER11> You can still make a public post not in the group with +Audi or #Audi and it will function the same way Twitter does.

<comment><USER10> Good to know. I'm not a heavy G+ user so thanks for the explanation.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Did I really want this generations monopoly in on my social data as well? If Search== Windows and Apps == Office do I really want Google having access to my social data too? A healthy skeptic, getting more and more paranoid....

<comment><USER13> Don't post private information online and you should be fine.

<comment><USER14> Maybe the fact the Google knows what my friends search for and email each other about means they know more about me than I'm comfortable with them knowing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Anyone know why the photo app (Snapseed) is only Android 4.0+?

<comment><USER16> Checking it out, I don't see anything in the app that seems to be dependent on 4.0+ features, though obviously things are easier if you can use the latest and greatest APIs.

I'm guessing that it was more of a support issue. Switching to 4.0+ drops the number of devices you have to support dramatically, and with that the headache of all of the obscure device users giving you 1 stars and angry emails.

The team I'm on is transitioning from 2.3+ to 4.0+ support for some technical reasons, but easier development and support is a huge bonus.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Still nothing for Google Apps users.

<comment><USER18> I'm okay with that personally. The thing that bugs me is that it doesn't support multi-accounts yet. At work we use Google Apps, which I have signed in simultaneously with my personal Google account. I can pop between my personal and company GMails easily.

Whenever I click on a G+ link it _insists_ on using my company account, telling me I can't get Google+, etc etc. There's no way to switch over to my personal account to actually use it :(

<comment><USER19> One temporary/hacky multiple account solution is to use multiple Chrome profiles (I think Firefox also has something similar). This way I have separate work and personal Gmails working smoothly, and using different themes for the profiles also means that I don't mistake the windows and send out something from the wrong email account.

<comment><USER20> I don't think this is a hacky solution so much as a great solution. Chrome profiles are a very convenient feature because they can add multi-login support to _anything_ , not just Google sites.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Why isn't healthcare.gov open sourced? - <AUTHOR>

Would it be possible to use to FOI Act to get the source code for Healthcare.gov? Source code is technically a document and the code itself doran' involve protected information and it isn't classified.. <comment><USER2> Because it is:

[https://github.com/CMSgov/healthcare.gov](https://github.com/CMSgov/healthcare.gov)

[https://www.healthcare.gov/developers/](https://www.healthcare.gov/developers/)

Now, why they haven't open sourced the marketplace application, that's a valid question.

<comment><USER3> The federal marketplace application runs off of the healthcare.gov domain so I think he meant the marketplace solution as well.

I highly doubt that will happen though. Check out this laundry list of high- priced contractors that have "contributed" to the mess: [http://reporting.sunlightfoundation.com/2013/aca- contractors...](http://reporting.sunlightfoundation.com/2013/aca-contractors/)</comment></comment>


How to Charge for Zoom Meetings? - <AUTHOR> Back to back zoom meetings every day, How can i charge for my next meeting. <comment><USER2> You can use any Learning management System (LMS) that integrates with zoom. It could be as simple as a WordPress site/plugin to something more advanced.

Disclaimer: I am in this business where we provide customized learning platforms. If you want some advice, feel free to reach out.

</comment><comment><USER3> Yeah definitely via Eventbrite is an option.

We run a membership for Freelancers, Founders and Flexible workers and then use Zoom for our events.

WeCoffee.io

Happy to talk through how.

</comment><comment><USER4> I think zmurl.com allows for this. Or you could use Eventbrite. Or Acuity Scheduling, where I think you connect it through Zapier</comment>


Ask HN: A Hacker News site for musicians? - <AUTHOR>

As HN is to hackers, is there a site for musicians? <comment><USER2> Not exactly what you're looking for, but if you're in NYC check this out: <http://monthlymusichackathon.org/>

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, I'm from Toronto. I was curious to see some comments before I constrained my question to the following. The site should, like HN, help you:

      - Keep up to date with industry news
        (e.g. record labels and producers would read it daily)

      - Improve your chops
        (much like the technical coding articles)

      - Provide a community
        (but not in the sense of YouTube or MySpace)
        i.e. more signal, less noise; perhaps deliberately small.

It's something I would like to see someone build. The closest I have right now are trade magazines.</comment></comment>


Show HN: Make it easy for your subscribers to forward to their friends - <AUTHOR> http://sharethisemail.com/ <comment><USER2> The form is broken doesn't work as it is supposed to

`bundle.js`

``` /* REACT HOT LOADER */ if (false) { (function () { var ReactHotAPI = require("/Users/Swizec/Documents/random- coding/sharethisemail/node_modules/react-hot-loader/node_modules/react-hot- api/modules/index.js"), RootInstanceProvider = require("/Users/Swizec/Documents/random- coding/sharethisemail/node_modules/react-hot-loader/RootInstanceProvider.js"), ReactMount = require("react/lib/ReactMount"), React = require("react"); module.makeHot = module.hot.data ? module.hot.data.makeHot : ReactHotAPI(function () { return RootInstanceProvider.getRootInstances(ReactMount); }, React); ```

<comment><AUTHOR> I just tried it and it worked as intended. Which means there's either a UX issue (very likely), or a bug specific to your browser (a bit less likely).

What did you try to do and what happened?</comment></comment>


State-Driven Routing with React, Redux, Selectors - <AUTHOR> http://www.thinkloop.com/article/state-driven-routing-react-redux-selectors/ <comment><USER2> _Routing is complex. There are a lot of disparate pieces that come together to give users the ability to navigate a site. There is the address bar ui element which displays a url string on screen. There is back /forward functionality accessible through buttons, keyboard shortcuts or other input methods. There are <a> links which navigate to new content in various ways. There is url input through the address bar._

I appreciate a look into this world, but routing on the web isn't supposed to be very complex. One of the big simplicity wins of the web network architecture was that it was stateless almost everywhere, with hypertext as the engine of application state[1].

Anybody can write some HTML with some anchor tags and tie it to some routes declared in a server-side routing file. The back button will work. History will work. Refresh will work. Copy-and-pasting the URL into an email will work. It's so easy that even I can do it.

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

<comment><USER3> > Anybody can write some HTML with some anchor tags and tie it to some routes > declared in a server-side routing file. The back button will work. History > will work. Refresh will work. Copy-and-pasting the URL into an email will > work. It's so easy that even I can do it.

The solution I use[1], and disclaimer also wrote, was targeted directly at server rendered SPA's to follow closely with these ideals. Layers over native anchor tags, just barebones handles the link clicking and uses Express routing which is obviously back end compatible.

[1] [https://github.com/wesleytodd/nighthawk](https://github.com/wesleytodd/nighthawk)

<comment><USER3> Also, forgot to mention, nighthawk also solves the edge cases mentioned toward the end:

* ctrl-clicking to open a new tab

* shift-clicking to open a new window

* alt-clicking

* non-left-clicking

* target attribute in <a>

* mailto: in href

<comment><USER4> This is awesome. 8kb is still pretty ridiculous for a routing library.

I do like that there is no special integration. A href links just work.

<comment><USER3> Agreed, but it is still smaller than the competitors. I would love to reduce it even more, but there is very little concern for file size in express' router since it is server side.

Also, I believe it can be made smaller with one of the other bundlers. Browserify is not the most size conscious choice, it just happens to be the one I have the most experience with.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> If I copy and re-enter a URL generated by pressing buttons in the demo app, I get a page that just says "BAZ".

E.g., the URL to the demo's about page: [http://www.thinkloop.com/article/state-driven-routing- react-...](http://www.thinkloop.com/article/state-driven-routing-react-redux- selectors/demo/about)

</comment><comment><USER6> I'm doing something similar to this with MobX. React Router was too large for my simple routing need.</comment>


Science, Superstition, and Open Plan Offices - <AUTHOR> http://dandreamsofcoding.com/2014/06/17/science-superstition-and-open-plan-offices/ <comment><USER2> I interviewed with a company and during the "cultural fit" interview with the VP of Engineering, I asked why they used an open-plan office. I mentioned that there seemed to be a lot of concern in the literature and online about developer productivity in such offices. He said he "wasn't familiar" with the discussion, but he didn't think it was a problem.

I was offered a contract-to-hire situation, instead of the employment I was seeking, and was explicitly told that the reason was because I seemed to be concerned about the open office. So be careful about bringing up "science" with people who aren't interested in it.

<comment><USER3> I often wonder why companies offer contract-to-hire positions when so many regular employees are at-will anyway. I am especially puzzled as to why a company would offer it as an alternative to both full-time regular employment and a fixed-term contract.

It seems that mixing the two removes all benefit to the worker while reserving all benefits to the company. So why would anyone do it if they had a choice?

<comment><USER4> I could also see this as the company giving the worker an easy out based on the concerns they expressed about the open office - there is no worry about waiting for the "right time" to quit if you're not happy with the new position when the "right time" comes in the form of the end of a contract period before full employment.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> On the other hand, studies also show that "radical collocation" can increase software development productivity. This study from the University of Michigan claims that productivity was doubled when developers worked together in specially designed "war rooms" that allowed for both spontaneous meetings and moments of solitude: [http://www.researchgate.net/publication/220879336_How_does_r...](http://www.researchgate.net/publication/220879336_How_does_radical_collocation_help_a_team_succeed/file/72e7e5242450ed5e28.pdf)

This quote summarizes the results well:

"Although the teammates were not looking forward to working in close quarters, over time they realized the benefits of having people at hand, both for coordination, problem solving and learning. They adapted to the distractions of radical collocation, both by removing themselves to nearby hotelling areas when they needed privacy, and by zoning out, made possible because of the distance between people in the larger rooms."

It feels productive to enter a flow-like state for several hours debugging a problem, but it's probably more productive if a teammate notices and provides the solution in minutes. Nevertheless, stretches of uninterrupted focus are often essential.

<comment><USER6> I think that's one thing that gets missed in these discussions: software development is different from, say, accounting or administration or whatever.

I get _huge_ value out of being right beside the people that can answer the questions I have, and I know that they get value being near me. Putting walls between people and enforcing no-interruption work inhibits communication and makes it much easier to get blocked.

At our office, I actively encourage every new hire to _interrupt me_ and ask a question when they get stuck. (I actually get kind of annoyed when they don't). Lots of people, especially more junior devs, will sit down at a problem and really get lost for a day trying to figure it all out themselves. I'd way rather be interrupted for a 15 minute explanation of some bit of code than have them lose a day.

<comment><USER7> > I get huge value out of being right beside the people that can answer the > questions I have

As someone who -- in my workplace -- is more often than not on the receiving end of questions or calls for help, I find it extremely distracting. There have been entire days where I wasn't able to focus on my own work because everyone else had questions to answer, or bugs that they needed help working through. I can't fault them for asking for help, but I definitely get frustrated at the situation, because sometimes at the end of the day I end up feeling like I haven't accomplished anything.

<comment><USER6> Oh, so do I (and I'm more often on the receiving end, too). No question, there's a cost to being interrupted. Personally, I have to actively push back against my own displeasure at being interrupted.

At the end of the day, though, the value those interruptions bring to the project make them worthwhile. Problems are avoided before they become problems. Knowledge is transferred without forcing someone to learn it from the ground up themselves. Time is saved (maybe not my time, but project-time).

(Obviously, if you're consistently being interrupted with low-value, easy-to- answer questions, that's a bit different... there comes a point where you say "ok, spend a bit more time, and if you can't get it then I'll work more with you")

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I was really sympathetic to the distractions caused by an open plan office. I saw the statistics that people get sick more often. I knew it would be annoying to have it potentially be really loud (or have everyone need to be quiet to keep it not loud). My company's new office is going to be open plan, though. Why? Because an office costs about $15k to build. We're already spending six figures on construction (ha ha biotech) and there was just no economically reasonable way around an open plan office.

I think the real reason many offices are open plan now is simply that it's much, much cheaper. The rest are kind of just-so stories, for or against. Interior designers will come up with these justifications when prompted but really I think it's that the people who actually get to make the decisions look at the general contractor estimates and say, "okay open plan it is."

<comment><USER9> Let's assume my office employs 100 people, at around $100,000 per year each. If a $15k office would make us 10% more efficient, then it would pay for itself in 18 months.

Open plan offices are penny-wise and pound-foolish.

<comment><USER8> That's a $1.5M investment up front. Maybe it will make you 10% more efficient, but I have to look at all of the different things I could spend $1.5M on. Hopefully there's something in there for a growing company with an expected IRR of more than 10% over 18 months.

In parallel, how many months of runway do you have? I'm guessing it's not 18, much less the 36+ you'd want to really see those benefits pay off even if it were the most efficient use of the capital.

<comment><USER10> Yet iF you want to save time then the only critical resource is your employees. 10% is an extremely low estimate of the disruption open-plan offices engender. In some cases they can completely disrupt some employees, resulting in 0 or negative return.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Maybe we need to re-brand the "open plan" to something else. "Open" is something many tech businesses want to be, especially _internally_. So an "open" layout helps people be "open" in other desirable ways, right?

Well, not really. It's an unfortunate decision-scrambling word-collision.

It deserve a name that's still descriptive, but of a loud, crowded place where it's hard to get work done. "Stadium plan"? "Nursery plan"? "Transit hall plan"?

<comment><USER12> Exposed office plan. Cheap office plan.

I really like Cheap Office plan actually. For all the ra-ra Kumbayah BS around open office plans, the fact that they are cheaper in the short run is why Cheap Office PLans (tm) are popular with management.

<comment><USER11> Hmm. Unfortunately 'cheap' also has some positive connotations in business – and it doesn't _necessarily_ imply productivity-damaging. "It's both 'cheap' and 'open'? Sign us up!"

But breaking down 'cheap' into more-explicit descriptions of missing-amenities could work. The "infantry barracks plan". The "shantytown plan". The "disaster shelter plan". The "resettlement camp plan". The "soup kitchen plan".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I work in an open office environment and I spend a lot of my day positioning myself so that I'm not in direct line of sight with anyone else's eyes. I hate that I can't ponder to myself without risk of accidentally making eye contact with someone.

What makes it worse is that if I sit in an upright (comfortable and ergonomic) position I am staring directly at someone. I hate it.

As a result my posture and productivity noticeably decline as the day goes on.

<comment><USER14> Yeah, if the cube walls are low enough that you can see over them -- or if there are no cube walls -- it's just a disaster. I was in a place like that once and hated it. Eventually I found a spot where I was facing a wall; that wasn't so bad.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Here's another quote: "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."

My experience, anecdotal as it is, is that an open space per team is the most effective. This being science, when has the truth ever been precisely one end of the spectrum or the other? I'm naturally skeptical of pundits, advocating science, who point out that developers with their own office perform better than developer who share an open space with the call center and then claim that this demonstrates that private offices are the best solution.

The key quote from the article is "quieter and more private".

Maybe in the days when The Architect wrote a design doc and The Engineers went into their offices for six months, then a private office was a great way to get to the "Oh fuck this thing will never work" moment faster.

In contrast most teams I work with collaborate at the feature level: engineers work on the same feature, implementing different pieces together, before moving on to the next feature. We have other teams where individual developers take a feature and go off and work on it for a few days. The "individuals" are "faster" claiming work is complete, but the "teams" are faster at producing work that is accepted.

I should also add that while the team environment works for most engineers, we have some that absolutely require a private space, and we try to accommodate them. Individuals work differently and when we find someone good we try to make the environment work for them.

YMMV.

<comment><USER12> The simple answer is that these office plans are cheaper. It's a common business pitfall. The cheaper short term solution wins in spite of long term health productivity and culture advantages.

<comment><USER16> That might be true in some cases but there's an entire industry built around renting open-plan workspaces to solo founders and freelancers who freely choose to spend an extra $5000 per year and an hour's commute time each day because they feel an "office environment" surrounded by other busy professionals focuses their mind better than the serene quiet of their bedside desk. Many of them are developers.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I suppose open plan has some advantages, like it is more hip (makes for great "we are a family" pictures), and the "team building" might make people less likely to leave their jobs. Just guessing - in any case there might be effects that offset the lower productivity.

Otoh I was floored to read today that Amazon apparently has lots of dogs in their offices because it is supposedly good for the atmosphere, lower stress levels and whatnot. I heard Google has lots of office dogs, too. I hope this is not a case of pseudoscientific superstition, because for me office dogs would be an absolute deal breaker. If most offices start adding dogs because of some shaky research results I'll be in trouble :-(

<comment><USER18> My company is co-located with another company and they encourage dogs in the office.

My question has always been: what if you want to hire someone with a dog allergy?

Worse: what if the person isn't currently local and there aren't any dogs in the office the day they happen to come in but relocate only to find they can't possibly work in that office?

<comment><USER19> While I was at google, I had (and have) a minor pet dander allergy. There were _many_ dogs regularly in the office, and perhaps I'm being overly paranoid/judgemental of the culture, but mentioning your own discomfort would have been read very negatively against you by not only the dog owners but by all the people who do buy in to that it is some part of the culture.

Whether you read that as a feature or a frustration, it comes down to that it simply becomes another line item that potential candidates may be judging you on, and you may never know about it. (it's certainly something I keep an eye out for nowadays.)

<comment><USER18> Personally, I think it's wholly inappropriate to put an employee in that situation, especially since new employees _can 't_ speak up as freely as those with a longer tenure at the organization. You can't just show up and start rocking the boat.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> My litmus test for an open office fanboy manager is whether he too works in the open office. Usually not in my experience.

Funny that...

</comment><comment><USER21> I prefer open spaces.

I like to talk to my team about all things tech and all things not (we have the World Cup on all day on one of our large HDTVs while we work). I also like to know who around me is available to help if I have any issues with "Blame" code. I love paired programming and reflecting my ideas off others to get a good sense of what the correct course of action should be.

When I feel like I know what to do and just need time and focus to complete something important without interruptions, I telecommute.

In other words, the best way to work is to have the ability to have it both ways.

</comment><comment><USER22> > _" Of course, scientists once thought that humans had 48 chromosomes. That > partially hydrogenated vegetable oil was healthy. That egg yolks were bad > for you."_

Scientists still do think egg yolks are bad for you.

[http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0021915012...](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0021915012005047)

[http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=egg+yolk+consumpti...](http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=egg+yolk+consumption)

</comment><comment><USER23> Recently i've been interested in buying a noise cancelling headphones. There's the new bose quietcomfort 20i, which are claimed at least by some reviewers to almost cancel talking sound.

Assuming they work well, since they are controlled using software, it might open the way to a more "programmable" noise environment. For example you could set them to hear only the team members you want at any given time, thus giving you the best of both worlds.

<comment><USER14> I haven't tried that model, but in my experience and from what I've heard, noise cancelling headphones don't work that well on voices. They mostly cancel low frequencies, below the vocal range.

In-ear monitors, that seal the ear canal like earplugs, work much better.

<comment><USER23> I know. They are supposed to be unique in that regard according to pcmag.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> You get used to it - plus unavoidable in some cases (travelling staff plus office with "hotchair" open office seating for those not travelling at the moment). I find that as long as I'm allowed to use earphones I can block things out sufficiently.

</comment><comment><USER25> I prefer little superstition with more science

</comment><comment><USER26> OP is a generally good post. Two minor comments.

 _Open plan has the advantages of being familiar, allowing more people to fit into the same space, and being more egalitarian. I.e., since offices are viewed as status symbols, providing them to developers and not to other groups could have a significant negative impact on morale among non-developers._

Open-plan _seems_ egalitarian, but it's not. It's the opposite. If you're a manager and your boss is on another floor, you don't have to worry about what's on your screen, how often you go to the bathroom, and people coming up behind you (only interns will do that) when you're obviously not receptive. It's subordinates who end up feeling like caged animals.

When you work in an open-plan office, power relationships are shoved in your face 8 hours per day. If you're the rare sadistic middle manager who enjoys watching people squirm, you can do "the Boss Walk" all day and enjoy it. Everyone else (even decent managers) is miserable. If I were a manager, I wouldn't want this: I _don 't want_ people to feel threatened and anxious (or a need to change what's on their screen) every time I walk by their desk on the way to take a piss.

 _That the engineers at your company are more productive, or more in tune with the needs of the business because of the constant natural interaction with their coworkers._

I worked for an R&D think-tank during a summer internship. Everyone had an office, but at 3:00 there was "tea" and people got together for snacks and board games for an hour. They naturally ended up having this kind of conversation.

There are better ways to achieve this. Open-plan offices may populate the social graph, but they flood it with antagonistic edges. What the fuck good is that? None.

<comment><USER27> _" I worked for an R&D think-tank during a summer internship. Everyone had an office, but at 3:00 there was "tea" and people got together for snacks..."_

That's also the custom in many academic departments.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> 2014 is the year of the war on open plan offices.

Some people enjoy working in them, you know. Not everyone is interested in saying "how high" every time some grad student's study says "jump".

<comment><USER27> _Peopleware_ was published in 1987. This body of research is not something that suddenly sprang up in 2014.

<comment><USER28> So are people not allowed to prefer open office layouts? They're not allowed to discern what works for them, because there couldn't possibly be any variables that make the results of some study irrelevant to their unique situation?

Edit: It would appear the answer is "no", no one is to be allowed make that decision. HN hates open plans more than they hate sexism.

<comment><USER29> So meet us "private office folks" half way and have enough private offices and open space for everyone. That way if you want to work in the open office section you can but the rest of us aren't forced into low productivity and constant low level anxiety simply because you enjoy it.

<comment><USER28> That sounds like a reasonable compromise, but I'll need to see some studies before trying it.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Rich Hickey: "Simple Made Easy" from Strange Loop 2011 [video] - <AUTHOR> http://www.infoq.com/presentations/Simple-Made-Easy <comment><USER2> For me this was the best talk I've seen in a long while. It reminded me of how I felt when I first read PG's essays, someone articulating your own suspicions whilst going further and deeper and bringing you to a place of enlightenment and clarity.

BTW for those of you who haven't watched it, this talk is not Clojure specific.

<comment><USER3> However it's a great advertisement for Clojure, since the set of things he highlights as _enabling_ simplicity is pretty much a subset of Clojure (or included libraries, like core.logic).

I'd be interested in seeing someone present a different and convincing set of concepts. At this point, I think Rich has put together a very good toolset.

<comment><USER4> Well, yes, IIRC he described one of his major goals with Clojure as enabling simplicity, or something like that. That Clojure's design follows his views on simplicity seems natural.

Non-Clojure examples would help make the point. He does bring up examples from Haskell (such as type classes) in the talk in places, but doesn't dive deeply into them.

<comment><USER5> SQL and Prolog were also cited, but yes, nothing very deep (which I think is fine for this talk)

I would love to see the programs that are generated from this philosophy.

<comment><USER6> Your comment made me take heart if I understand it correctly. Sometimes I feel I'm the only person out there who thinks SQL has a certain beauty and elegance.

I find it a little funny sometimes to hear all these "web scale" folks put down SQL, and then praise something like MongoDB because you can do map/reduce.

I saw a presentation by the author of the Lift framework in Scala and he made a bit of a joke saying "gosh...all this FP stuff...the folks who created SQL heard about that a long time ago".

<comment><USER7>
        the only person out there who thinks
        SQL has a certain beauty and elegance

You're not alone. :-)

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1730320>

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Great presentation, but it got me thinking. Am I wasting my time trying to get software just right? Is it worth my time to learn Clojure or Haskell, when I don't even know what I'll use it for?

How many programmers do you know that are learning all kinds of languages and technologies and methodologies and other things to improve the quality of the software they write and yet will probably sit at a desk writing code for the next 30 years? As opposed to starting a business, getting financial free, etc.

Take the guy from Duck Duck Go. He wrote all of that in Perl; talk about easy, but not always so simple (to maintain). What if he spent his time learning Lisp and Monads instead of writing an app that lots of people use?

<comment><USER3> To me, Clojure is about as productive as banging out a script in Ruby. It's _way_ more productive than writing the same thing in any language where I can't (easily, or at all) just fire up a REPL and start hacking.

I can actually just crank out code that I use. It can be quick and messy. Clojure is not concerned with type theory and provable correctness.

But the end result of a quick hack, in Clojure, is often something (or is made of of parts) that can be applied to other problems by pulling it out into a library, or by abstracting one more argument to a function, etc..

I think someone like Gabriel Weinberg could get along just fine in Clojure, with much the same spirit as hacking Perl, but maybe with better results.

<comment><USER9> I kinda regret having chosen Clojure for my project. Its not that I can't express ideas in very little code, its just that my workflow is different from languages like Python.

In Clojure, it seems that I can't apply the method of spike solution (<http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?SpikeSolution>) and then refactor it into working code like I do with languages like Python or C.

<comment><USER10> I'm curious why you feel you can't create spike solutions in Clojure?

<comment><USER9> Probably because pseudocode in my head is imperative.

<comment><USER11> I think that's normal. Part of learning Clojure is learning to think in another kind of pseudocode.

What does this imply about the languages you already know?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> A good talk. Leave it to a lisper though to call testing and type-checking "guardrail programming". Hickey says instead you should reason about your programming without acknowledging that testing and type-checking are ways to have executable documentation of your reasoning about your program. Testing does in fact feedback into complexity - if something is hard to test it may be due to complexity that you realize you should get rid of.

<comment><USER13> Difficulty of writing a test can certainly be a complexity indicator, but in my experience the evidence is against testing having served this purpose very well to date, at least for the kinds of complexity addressed in this talk.

If you look at around 31:27 in the talk, you will see ten complex things, with proposed simple alternatives. If testing helped people feel the pain of complexity and discover simple things, we would see projects where people had problems writing tests, and switched strategies as a result.

Do you see people moving from the complexity column to the simplicity column in any of these ten areas as a result of writing good tests? I don't. What I see is people cheerfully enhancing testing tools to wrestle with the complexity. Consider the cottage industry around testing tools: fixtures, factories, testing lifecycle methods, mocks, stubs, matchers, code generators, monkey patching, special test environments, natural language DSLs, etc. These testing tools are valuable, but they would be a lot more valuable if they were being applied against the essential complexity of problems, rather than the incidental complexity of familiar tools.

<comment><USER14> Why do you consider code generators, monkey patching & DSLs to be "testing tools"?

<comment><USER13> I don't. I refer here only to their use in that context.

<comment><USER14> I'm sorry; I think I'm being dense - what is their use in that context?

(I don't disagree with your main point, but I don't quite see where those techniques fit in).

<comment><USER7> Some examples off the top of my head that use these techniques:

* code generators: Visual Studio, Eclipse

* monkey patching: RSpec

* natural language DSL: Cucumber

<comment><USER14> Thanks! Very good examples.

I can see how monkey patching could be useful in mocking or something similar. I've never really used a language that supports it though.

I'm not entirely sure what Eclipse's code generation has to do with testing, but given the other examples I'll assume I'm being stupid again ;) I'm actually working with a lot of EMF generation stuff at the minute which can be quite painful.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> You may also want to look at this other great video:

Stuart Halloway: "Simplicity Ain't Easy"

[http://blip.tv/clojure/stuart-halloway-simplicity-ain-t- easy...](http://blip.tv/clojure/stuart-halloway-simplicity-ain-t-easy-4842694)

<comment><USER16> This kind of arrogance has no future.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> I can't add anything more to what @jsmcgd said but Rich's strange loop talk really brightened my day and more importantly gave me the tools to express what I sometimes try to share with other developers in the clearest way possible. Thanks man, really awesome talk. Invaluable if more people could start thinking this way. (which it sounds like oracle/java 7,8,.. will also help to do whether they like it or not and that's also awesome for that general clump of dev brethren)

</comment><comment><USER18> I feel smarter having watched this talk: it gives you tools to think about thinking as you come up with new designs. Also love how Rich manages to find the right metaphors to illustrate abstractions, he's a great communicator.

</comment><comment><USER19> The interesting thing about this talk is how Hickey's (very valid) distinction between "easy/familiar" and "simple/unentangled" can be applied to argue _for_ powerful type systems like Haskell's or OCaml's. Likewise with the "benefits vs tradeoffs" argument.

<comment><USER20> Likewise, some points in the talk brought to mind the OO SOLID principles. It's unfortunate that much of the discussion I saw on HN and twitter after this talk was argument about the value and purpose of testing. More useful would be examining the point of the talk and considering any common ground between Rich's "Simplicity Toolkit" and where things stand now with languages that aren't Clojure.

Take your language of choice. If you're not in a Lisp already, you can't do much about syntax vs. data, but what about the rest? Is it easy to work generically with data and values instead of making custom classes and mutable objects for every piece of data? Is it possible? Can we make it better? Are there persistent collections or managed refs available? Can we write them as libraries? Within the language's polymorphism construct, can we extend a type we don't control to our abstractions without creating adapters and more complexity around value and identity? What about transactions?

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Ugh. Why don't they release the presos as opposed to having to deal with synchronous video?

<comment><USER22> If you mean just the slides, most of them are in this github repo: <https://github.com/strangeloop/2011-slides>

<comment><USER23> For some reason, these slides are only available in a flash widget that's synchronized with the video. Here's a little script to grab the flash and build a PDF for yourself.

ImageMagick and swftools required.

      #!/bin/bash
      for s in {1..39}; do wget http://www.infoq.com/resource/presentations/Simple-Made-Easy/en/slides/$s.swf; done
      for swf in *.swf; do swfrender $swf -o $swf.png && rm $swf; done
      convert `ls *.png -x1 | sort -n | xargs echo` slides.pdf
      rm -f *.swf.png

[Edit: required packages]

<comment><USER24> I agree with "teach a man to fish ...", but you know, some people are far away from the sea (linux) so just providing them with the fish (pdf) is also a good option.

<comment><USER25> This is in no way Linux specific - most likely OSX can do it, and with enough time cygwin too. Probably BSD's and others...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Great talk.

Simplicity is, of course, key; but a few of his applications of these principles are misguided IMO.

Ex: The "Parens are hard!!" slide. He suggests that parens are "overloaded" in CL/Scheme because they are used to wrap functions, data, and structures all the same. However he completely misses the fact that by representing everything with parens, CL/Scheme remove a lot of complexity in software written in those languages.

AFAIK, the only languages that do macros right are homoiconic. Anything else is too complicated. Just look at Perl 6 and Haskell macros. They require learning special syntax and really crazy semantics. Using them will probably just make your program more difficult to understand.

He also "rails" against testing. He misses the virtues of a proper testing infrastructure in producing reliable software: if you don't test it, how do you know if it works? Because you reasoned about it? How do you know you're reasoning is correct?

True, "guard rail" testing isn't a crutch that will automatically produce reliable software. But I think Rich relies too much on this narrow view of testing to make his point. Testing is good and necessary.

And the jab to the Unix philosophy? ( _"Let's write parsers!"_ ). Isn't that what we do on the web anyway? AFAIK, HTTP is still a text-based protocol. Any server that speaks the protocol has to parse a string at some point. So what was he getting at there? The Unix philosophy is about simplicity and has a lot to offer in terms of how one can design software to be simple.

Overall though, it's a great talk. I just think that if he wants to get pedantic then he could be a little more thorough and less opinionated. Everything he said about designing simple systems I pretty much agree with, but I think he glosses over some finer points with his own bias of what simplicity means.

<comment><USER27> Clojure is homoiconic just as much as CL and Scheme are. It just happens to use more than one datastructure to represent code.

The "oneness" in other lisps does not make things simpler, nor, in my opinion, easier. The reason why parens (lists) in traditional lisps are not simple is that they _complect_ several different purposes. In contrast Clojure uses list forms (almost) exclusively for "active" expressions such as function and macro calls. For grouping and binding, vectors (and sometimes maps) are used instead.

In this manner Clojure manages to keep the roles of different data structures in code mostly simple.

<comment><USER28> _The reason why parens (lists) in traditional lisps are not simple is that they complect several different purposes._

You've repeated what Hickey says in the talk, but I'm not sure I buy it. [Deleted boring stuff about boring parens here.]

The trouble with the general argument is that you can add constructs that are individually simpler but nevertheless make a system more complex. It's overall complexity that we should seek to minimize.

<comment><USER27> How does adding several independent simple things make systems more complex in a way that is unavoidable (ie. incidental complexity, not problem complexity)? The interaction between simple elements will be explicit, whereas complex elements by definition interact in ways that you can't control.

Of course, sometimes the complex tool might be exactly what you need to solve your problem, making things easier. But in cases where you need only a part of the functionality of this tool, the complexity bites you as all the unneeded functionality (along its cost) is forced on you.

What sort of "overall complexity" does having several data structures in code introduce? As Rich Hickey says in his talk, complexity is not about cardinality.

In Clojure's model, the elements are distinct, and as such there is more simplicity in the system than in lisps where you have to understand the difference ("untangle" the complexity) between several different uses of lists to get anywhere.

I also think having several datastructures makes code easier to read due to the visual differences, but that's a separate discussion. :)

<comment><USER28> Adding things means more things, which means more complexity. Doing so is a net win only if the new things subtract more complexity than they add. To figure out whether they do, you have to consider the system as a whole. That much is clear. Do we know how to do that? Not really. Empirical studies favor the simplest measurement of program complexity: code size. So that part is roughly taken care of. But I don't know of a good definition of "system". What counts as a single system and what counts as separate interacting systems, or subsystems? It's in the eye of the beholder. If I take 90% of a program and call it a library, has my program become 1/10 as complex?

Rich says his definition of simplicity is objective, but it's not. What determines whether a construct has a single purpose? It's whether or not, on inspection, you think it does. S-expressions seem to me to have a single purpose: to group things. How those groups of things are treated by the evaluator is a separate concern. You, following Rich, say no, they have 3 purposes. Ok. Why not 4? A function call and a macro call have different purposes; why conflate those? (I have no trouble reading function calls in s-expressions, but sometimes run into trouble not knowing that they are really macro calls, so this is not a made-up point.)

We have no objective basis for this type of discussion, only emotions and beliefs. Concepts like "readability" are hopelessly relative, but appeals to "ease of future change" are no better; to put it politely, they depend on individual perspective and experience; to put it bluntly, we imagine them.

<comment><USER27> I don't agree with your assessment that adding things necessarily increases complexity. Assuming these things are simple (in the objective sense as defined by Rich), actually suitable for the problem, and used correctly, then any complexity arising from their use is _necessary_ to solve the problem, and can't be avoided.

The definition of a system in this case is anything with one or more components that accomplishes a particular purpose.

It still seems you're using a different definition of complexity than I am. To me, complexity implies unnecessarily intertwined elements.

In your hypothetical library situation, the answer is likely no. Your program still depends on the "library" code in ways that make the two not treatable as standalone entities, so no complexity has been removed.

An inherently complex tool may solve the specific problem it's built for, but it does not combine well with other tools. A simple tool tries to keep itself standalone so that can be freely combined with other simple tools to provide functionality that the original authors of either tool might not have envisioned. Clojure has many examples of this idea in action, but it's not the only language to exhibit simplicity.

I think Rich's definition of simple is straightforward and objective. For example, Clojure protocols fit the definition. They give you freely extensible polymorphism based on object types. Protocols don't even provide a direct way to do inheritance. That can be done by using a map of functions that you modify as needed, but requires no explicit support.

Your defense of s-expressions is rather puzzling. The evaluator defines what s-expressions (lists) mean in CL, and depending on context, there are multiple meanings that are completely separate. Certainly you can argue that Clojure conflates macro and function calls too (it is justified to me though, since they're all operators), but it has at least reduced complexity by not conflating binding and grouping with those elements.

As an added benefit, with few exceptions, whenever you see a list form in Clojure you can assume it's either a function call or a macro of some sort.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Rich is a good philosopher. Although it's often hard to strictly follow your own principles in your real-life work - and Clojure shows that often ;)

</comment><comment><USER30> Slightly OT: What's the name of the template used in his presentation? It's beautiful and has a nice contrast of colours.

<comment><AUTHOR> That's a stock Keynote theme called Industrial.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> At 55:20 he says, if you have A calling B all the time, you should "Stick a queue in there."

What is an example of this?

<comment><USER27> I suppose he means that instead of A calling B directly, A should put work in a queue and B should consume from it, thus decoupling the two entities.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> Can anyone explain how pattern matching causes complexity?

<comment><USER33> see [http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/lirke/simple_ma...](http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/lirke/simple_made_easy_by_rich_hickey_video/c2t7a9f)

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> Good talk - reminds me of Yegge's recent rant about the Service Oriented Architecture, but coming from another angle (internal use vs. external).

</comment><comment><USER25> I wonder what would Rich think of automake, autoconf and cousins? is it simple, is it easy, or simply esoteric?

It confuses the hell out of me :)</comment>


Amazon unveils Fire TV to compete with Apple, Roku, Ouya, and Google - <AUTHOR> http://news.msn.com/science-technology/amazon-unveils-fire-tv-to-rival-apple-roku?ocid=ansnews11&stay=1

<comment><AUTHOR> I put Ouya in the title, because this pertains to gaming as well. For a while, we've been hearing about Amazon's new game dev teams...seems like the Fire Tv is the target platform, since it plays .99 cent games.

The gaming feature is a game changer for the price point $99. Although I know ouya, was around this price, Amazon has the prime market to compete with the likes of Google Play, and Apple iTunes.</comment>


Introducing Payment Pages with Nas, Marc Andreessen, and Code.org - <AUTHOR> http://blog.coinbase.com/post/87117758747/introducing-payment-pages-with-nas-marc-andreessen <comment><USER2> Well you can set up coinbase.com/yourname if you want, I just tried, it's fine.

Perhaps they should reserve whatever URL they're going to use as an example and in their marketing material and redirect that to the settings (or a sales) page.

Perhaps too, they shouldn't write an <a> tag where the text is a URL and the href is a different URL.

I should add, I really like the look of this as a product. I love the idea that I can simply send someone to a web address and they can pay me. The above is merely a comment on the marketing and a small detail, not a criticism of what looks like a great addition.

</comment><comment><USER3> If you login and create a username, you can go to your own payment page and there's a nice little "ProTip" for you.

</comment><comment><USER4> looks like [https://ribbon.co/hany](https://ribbon.co/hany) but for bitcoin.

<comment><USER5> Also coinbase URLs are open to the public whereas ribbon.co is in private beta.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Yeah, make news out of no news... If I was them, I'd rather ask people to link Twitter and use the Twitter ID, and not reinvent yet another ID system! I'm tired of companies using cheap tricks like this to attract some temporary attention.

<comment><USER6> Yeah, gang up, Bitcoin maniacs, and downvote everything that's not affecting the price positively... I thought this was a place for hackers, who want to improve the world with code, and not for the scum of earth - the speculators, but, I guess, some would rather sell their soul for cheap than be honest and act like the real deal.

<comment><USER7>
        > Resist complaining about being downmodded. It never does any good, and it
        > makes boring reading.

[http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

<comment><USER6> My comment was more than just a complaint about the cowardly downvotes. It's pretty much a post on its own, but I know what you mean. I just am getting tired of the overactive Bitcoin propaganda guys, that's all.

<comment><USER8> You wont stop the bitcoin mafia. Not worth trying.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: What does point 1 in redis manifesto mean? - <AUTHOR> I was reading Redis Menifesto(http://oldblog.antirez.com/post/redis-manifesto.html). couldn't understand what does point 1 mean. can you give me simple example explaining it?<p>Redis Manifesto: 1 - A DSL for Abstract Data Types. Redis is a DSL (Domain Specific Language) that manipulates abstract data types and implemented as a TCP daemon. Commands manipulate a key space where keys are binary-safe strings and values are different kinds of abstract data types. Every data type represents an abstract version of a fundamental data structure. For instance Redis Lists are an abstract representation of linked lists. In Redis, the essence of a data type isn't just the kind of operations that the data types support, but also the space and time complexity of the data type and the operations performed upon it. <comment><USER2> What part of it do you not understand?</comment>


Study Links Fluoridated Water During Pregnancy to Lower IQs - <AUTHOR> https://www.thedailybeast.com/fluoridated-water-during-pregnancy-linked-to-lower-iqs-study-published-by-jama-pediatrics-says <comment><USER2> Topically on teeth, flouride might have benefits. Great, use flouride toothpaste.

Internally ingested, zero benefits and possible risks, why take the chance.

/Debate</comment>