U.S. Senators Demand the Ban on Huawei Goes Beyond 5G to Include IoT - <AUTHOR> https://www.forbes.com/sites/zakdoffman/2019/02/25/u-s-senators-demand-the-ban-on-huawei-goes-beyond-5g-to-include-iot/ <comment><USER2> Loads of respect for those supporting this initiative. It increasingly seems like American congressmen and women are prone to diverge from American interests to serve those of corporations and party leaders.

<comment><USER3> Qualcomm as a whole literally loads the spyware onto their processors. Banning all Huawei is kind of like mopping up the water in your kitchen while the tap is on full blast and the drain is clogged. Sure, it feels like you're doing something but what you're actually doing is performing a big puppet show (I'm guessing to make people feel good, this is politics after all).

<comment><USER4> Do you have source? I don't doubt you but it's way too easy to simply throw out accusations when it's _blatantly_ known that chinese tech is used to infiltrate other country's communication[0]. It's not an apples to apples comparison.

[0]:[https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/30/africa/china-denies-spying- au...](https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/30/africa/china-denies-spying-au-building- intl/index.html)</comment></comment></comment>


Animals conscious say leading neuroscientists  - <AUTHOR> http://mindhacks.com/2012/08/20/animals-conscious-say-leading-neuroscientists/ <comment><USER2> Granted that this isn't science, it's less controversial than it may appear, because it doesn't identify a border between "conscious" and "unconscious."

Most people will grant consciousness to animals that pass the mirror test:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_test>

But those same people would draw the "conscious" line somewhere above amoebas. That's a lot of territory, and a meaningful border can't be drawn without actually defining "consciousness", which no one seems willing to do.</comment>


Fed raised rates, but my bank interest is practically zero [video] - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XC6LfAZzhz0&feature=youtu.be <comment><USER2> Interesting. Found a review about Beam on youtube. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIvFS2uRwnA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIvFS2uRwnA)

</comment><comment><USER3> Hope they can launch</comment>


Unmasking Startup L. Jackson - <AUTHOR> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-03-17/unmasking-startup-l-jackson-silicon-valley-s-favorite-twitter-persona <comment><USER2> Previous unmasking (without naming him) based on screenshots from his account:

[https://syrah.co/joshdickson40/5604e5e10fc1786b0152a51a](https://syrah.co/joshdickson40/5604e5e10fc1786b0152a51a)

<comment><USER3> So was he right?

<comment><USER4> Yeah, I'm surprised by how many people still ask me this. There's proof in the piece, but I also write long so I don't blame you if you missed it :)

<comment><USER5> Your blog post which I assume is connected to aproduct would have gotten a lot more traction is you had actually outed him.

<comment><USER4> It might have, but I don't think it would have been the right type of attention. I think outing would have been wrong, and even if I didn't feel that way, I think a lot of tech folks would have really come down hard on me in the future. The tech world is amazingly small and insular in my experience, and as someone trying to break into that world, the last thing you want to do is give everyone a reason to never take your call.

I somewhat regret the appearance of a conflict of interest on my part there (that would not have been present if I had put it on Medium, for instance), because it really did look like a growth hack on my part, and I can't stand when people do things like this _for traffic._ It was certainly nice to see the traffic, but that's not why I did it.

Syrah - the site that it's on - was sort of an engineering proof of concept for me. I wanted to design something a little like Medium so I could better understand what was involved, and that's what it is. It was a pretty major effort to do it all on my own and I definitely learned a lot. I wanted to take that experience and use it for another, much larger project, where we built a CMS that could power websites, apps, etc, and let people white label it for their own use (sorta think Wordpress, but for more than just websites). Ultimately YC didn't take us and I ended up falling into another project that I'm working on now. I'd love to revisit someday, but for now, I just use Syrah to write things because I put so much time and love into it. Sometimes they are large (I broke a lot of the Tango issues: [https://syrah.co/joshdickson40/565f62f40eaac8b79f519b17](https://syrah.co/joshdickson40/565f62f40eaac8b79f519b17)), sometimes they are not ([https://syrah.co/joshdickson40/56aead844b23e3498c0392a1](https://syrah.co/joshdickson40/56aead844b23e3498c0392a1)).

<comment><USER5> Nice to see someone with ethics though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Why? I mean why is it important to identify who's behind something that doesn't hurt anybody? Can't we just enjoy the art?

<comment><USER7> A fair question :/

Unfortunately your answer is this thread itself. As I am writing this comment it is Link #1 on HN. That is to say that people love this kind of content and it drives pageviews, so media outlets are incentivized to write about it. We have only ourselves to blame :/

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I've found @DEVOPS_BORAT to be funny too. Kept seeing his tweets for over a year or two; humorous ones about devops, from an imaginary Armenian devops guy with broken English. Seems to have stopped tweeting a while ago.

<comment><USER9> When it comes to devops on twitter I've found @fart's stuff to be pretty great. Particularly this: [https://medium.com/weird/why-i-am-the-most- important-devops-...](https://medium.com/weird/why-i-am-the-most-important- devops-thought-leader-46a191ac0f42) \- a little sample below:

"This data is encapsulated in what are called "Data Beans" which are stored on the hard drive as zeroes (Optimal bean or "prime bean") and ones (Flatbean or "bad bean"). These Data Beans are stored magnetically and retrieved as necessary. If a user requests too much data at one time they can suffer from data poisoning.

The computer's RAM also stores Data Beans in the cloud. No one knows how this is done or why "

<comment><USER10> Also, @fart (aka Jon Hendren) pulled off one of the best examples of trolling the media I've ever seen:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WqCj_3U0Lc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WqCj_3U0Lc)

<comment><USER11> Isn't he the dude that trolled himself with the 'Smashmouth eat the eggs' thing and the consequences thereof.

<comment><USER9> That may have been @arr - David Thorpe (edit: you were right actually)

<comment><USER12> Both of them are/were contributors to Something Awful's frontpage media

David's also really talented at trolling (though in this instance, the show was in on the joke): [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdUHDDj7fhk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdUHDDj7fhk)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> My top five contenders for the author were:

@davemcclure - Dave McClure

@pt - Parker Thompson

@tylerschultz - Tyler Schultz

@supernate - Nate Clark

@dsboulder

I could never narrow it down to one of them. I had a simple theory: in the beginning, Startup L. Jackson's Twitter followers had a higher probability of following the real author's account, and they would have probably followed the author before Startup L. Jackson.

All I had to do was get the list of people following SLJ (which Twitter provides in reverse chronological order), then find who those people followed before SLJ. The people above were followed by at least six of SLJ's first 500 followers, making them prime contenders, but as I said, I never found a smoking gun for any of them.

<comment><USER4> This was one of the weaknesses that was fixed. You might have noticed that at the time of my post, if you had pulled this list again, @pt ceased following @StartupLJackson.

<comment><USER13> That shouldn't have mattered much - I assumed the author's real account wouldn't follow their parody to avoid giving clues.

What I expected to find was that, if I looked at who SLJ's first 100 followers followed, I'd find some accounts they disproportionately followed prior to following SLJ. And I did find that - the people followed by the first 100 (prior to SLJ) pointed to a Pivotal connection. Because many of them were following @pt, it wouldn't have made much difference if @pt didn't follow SLJ.

I'm going to try @devops_borat now...

<comment><USER4> Ah, I misread what you were saying. You're right, that really makes it hard to narrow down. You should have tried cold emailing them all at the same time to see if anyone replied positively!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> @PHP_CEO is one of the funniest Twitter accounts I've seen.. example: "IT HAS COME TO MY ATTENTION THAT SOMEONE CALLED JASON HAS BEEN ENCODING AND DECODING DATA IN OUR APP. PLEASE CHANGE YOUR PASSWORDS"

<comment><USER15> Do parody accounts now form the most diverting Twitter content? It ain't an endorsement of the medium.

 _addendum: fair enough; make that "parody | satire"._

<comment><USER16> While PHP_CEO might be distracting entertainment, some of the best accounts, including the ones mentioned on this thread (@StartupLJackson, @SwiftOnSecurity, @internetofshit, etc.) are not parody but satire, which is definitely a worthy use of the medium.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> [https://twitter.com/startupljackson](https://twitter.com/startupljackson) is the twitter site.

We need a list of sometimes anonymous, poignant and politically incorrect twitter feeds for other industries.

For Finance, check out [https://twitter.com/ReformedBroker](https://twitter.com/ReformedBroker) ("Downtown" Josh Brown) and "gselevator" [https://twitter.com/GSElevator](https://twitter.com/GSElevator)) (author was also eventually unmasked)

"Teach the coal miners and frackers Python and Ruby."

classic.

<comment><USER18> Why do you think SLJ was politically incorrect? He never said anything rude or ignorant.

He often tweeted about diversity and inclusion and coined the term "culture debt" for startups.

update: okay I think the words pc and un un pc have become meaningless because they mean too many different things.

<comment><USER19> I think OP was using "politically incorrect" in its original definition - i.e., speaking in a way counter to what's politically popular/accepted by the elite.

Which in Startup L. Jackson's case was definitely true - he called out a lot of the Valley's cultural myopia, excesses, and failures in a way that he would have been unable to do without the pseudonymity or pretense of satire.

Unfortunately the word has also been co-opted by some to mean "liberal" or "progressive", which is a shame.

<comment><USER20> Wikipedia: _In the early-to-mid 20th century, the phrase "politically correct" was associated with the dogmatic application of Stalinist doctrine [...] In the 1970s, the New Left began using the term "politically correct."_

<comment><USER21> _Thereafter, the term was often used as self-critical satire. Debra L. Shultz said that "throughout the 1970s and 1980s, the New Left, feminists, and progressives... used their term 'politically correct' ironically, as a guard against their own orthodoxy in social change efforts."_

Everybody always misses that part.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> What always impressed me was the quality of the humor, like a young Chris Rock unafraid and insightful.

</comment><comment><USER23> You know the startup community has an ego problem when Bloomberg does an entire puff piece about an anonymous twitter satire profile who happened to be ___gasp_ __a VC.

</comment><comment><USER24> Have to be honest, I'm surprised how little effort it took to 'unmask' him. Usually when people try and find out the actual identities of anonymous internet celebrities, it becomes a sort of investigation where they have to put all the pieces together.

But that doesn't seem to be the case here, unless the story is missing a few steps.

<comment><USER4> The story is missing a few steps.

<comment><USER25> We would really love if you published the piece, an extended version with all the gory details perhaps, that you wanted to but did not! Pretty please with 2 cherries on top!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I was always a big fan of [https://twitter.com/hipsterhacker](https://twitter.com/hipsterhacker)

He's for the most part inactive, but occasionally drips out something acerbically relevant.

<comment><USER27> Wow.. this guy with 93 tweets has 53k followers... that feels like its the highest followers/tweet I've ever seen. f/t (gotta trademark this)

<comment><USER28> Highest ratio I've ever seen is from Sean Lock with 2 tweets and almost 95k followers.

[https://twitter.com/theseanlock?lang=en](https://twitter.com/theseanlock?lang=en)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> I miss @devops_borat, I don't recall if that person was ever outed but some of his one liners really nailed it.

</comment><comment><USER30> As far as parody/satire accounts go, I'm a huge fan of @BoredElonMusk. I hadn't even noticed that there haven't been tweets from Startup L. Jackson in months...

</comment><comment><USER31> I quite like @shit_hn_says

<comment><USER32> See also: @Actually_HN

<comment><USER31> This one is still regularly updated, nice.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> His advice became a hit for one reason, his handle. Far too often is the name of something downplayed as not being important, but it is. Its catchy, a gimmick, and people love it.

</comment><comment><USER34> So so many words to say nothing but "someone in the tech industry has a sense of humor, was anonymous for a while"

> "But there just aren't that many people who are in the industry who will > respond to you if you have 500 followers, you know? They're just like, 'Who > the f--- are you? Leave me alone.' "

Ugh, Twitter.

</comment><comment><USER35> _In Silicon Valley, a place he calls "obsessed with status and pedigree," could someone's ideas get traction when it wasn't clear if the speaker was a state-school dropout or someone with a $100 million checkbook?_

That sounds very different than the meritocracy narrative. It would explain why women and most minorities are so excluded.

I know the next sentence says he succeeded, but that's just one Twitter account and doesn't represent a broader trend.

<comment><USER36> Can you expand on what sounds very different? On its face your comment is self-contradictory.

<comment><USER35> A place "obsessed with status and pedigree" is not a meritocracy. Success depends on status and pedigree and not on merit.</comment></comment></comment>


Choose your customers - <AUTHOR> http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2009/11/choose-your-customers-choose-your-future.html

<comment><USER2> Relatedly, the easiest and most effective anti-piracy method: do not write software for people who do not pay money for software.

<comment> daniel-cussen I.e. people under twenty (with notable and profitable exceptions like video games and education software); hackers or crackers who can get around nags and piracy protections, or find a close free substitute; or, God help you, someone who is both.</comment></comment>


What Really Happened When Facebook Bought Instagram - ms-rm http://www.vanityfair.com/business/2013/06/kara-swisher-instagram <comment><AUTHOR> You may as well be reading about a rock band here. This story does not and will not apply to you. This is the one in a thousand/million fairy-tale of the frivolous app dreamed up in coffee shops, fuelled by rapid investment and sold for vast sums to a tech giant without so much as a whiff of a business model.

<comment><USER2> I see.

Let's say I see a big incumbent who's UNIQUE selling point is 'we have everyone's private photos. people have to come to us if they want to see their friend's photos.'

I start threatening them.

They pay and buy us.

I get rich. The incumbent gets to keep everyone's photos.

At what point in the above do we not have a business model?

Oh, you mean it can't possibly WORK! Except that it just did.

Well, I'm sorry, but something that just worked obviously did work.

<comment><USER3> What you've just stated is, essentially, the business equivalent of the lottery. You could almost replace any reference to business terms in your post with "lottery" and have the same amount of truth applied.

The whole point of a "model" is that it's repeatable and definable. "Getting acquired because they fear us" isn't a business model.

<comment><USER4> > "Getting acquired because they fear us" isn't a business model.

No, but it is one of the best reasons to be acquired, far far above 'they acquired the team for the talent, and shut down the project' and 'they acquired us to get our customers (aka buying growth)'.

<comment><USER5> I think there is an elephant in the room here. (Sorry if this stings anyone)

The collective We have been led to believe that we must make something original to be great. Don't make another social network, too tough. Don't do what Instagram did, it's too (pick your reason) risky / saturated / lucky / etc.

The thing is, entrepreneurs have no reason not to shoot for the moon, recreate everything. Why do we resist? The big name funds probably won't invest for fear of cannibalizing their current holdings. Think about that next time you hear a VC or read their commentary (or any commentary for that matter).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> What I really enjoy about Kara Swisher's article is how her writing style and her framing of the story reflects the whirlwind reality that found Systrom and Krieger in an 18 month exit.

There are no superhuman heroics involved here nor supersecret backroom deals. This is really just a simple story of good luck and timing, a spot on pivot and execution, and honestly brokered business relationships.

You can't duplicate the Instagram strategy because there was no strategy. These guys didn't build an app to flip. They built an app that was cool: to them, their friends, their investors, their users, and ultimately their suitors and acquirer.

Kudos to them.

<comment><USER7> > writing style

I beg to differ, I yawned on the first page, on the second page, and got somewhere else. Information density is very low. It looks like this journalist, as many other, is paid by the line, and adds too much water in the soup.

<comment><USER8> Indeed, writing is vapid at best.

<comment><USER9> Vapid is too strong a word, but it nothing but glorifies successful start-ups, and provides no caution for people who'd like to learn something from this. The only conflict described is agonizing over which multi-gazillion offer to take(!).

It's also fairly thin on new insights into the history and acquisition.

<comment><USER10> I think it has to do with the intended audience and the format of the publication, more than anything else.

<comment><USER8> Also, vapid according to dictionary: Offering nothing that is stimulating or challenging. Guess you're right. It was challenging to read the whole thing till the end.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I much preferred Josh Williams' (former Gowalla CEO) recent blog post [1] on the Foursquare vs. Gowalla "Check-in Wars" and how it was Instagram who ironically emerged as the "victor". Much more informative and insightful than this Vanity Fair piece.

[1] <https://medium.com/work-education/6152adc41de9>

</comment><comment><USER12> Well connected individuals flipping over-valued companies to large corporations who have more capital than they know what to do with.

Wake me up when VCs choose to fund companies that seek something other than validation and profit.

<comment><USER4> I'm perfectly ok with VCs choosing to fund companies that seek profits.

<comment><USER13> So when do you think tehy'll start doing that again?

<comment><USER4> There seems to be this terrible misunderstanding that 'VC' is a uniform unit the multiple of which is VCs.

In fact, every VC is different, every VC has their own ideas of what companies are good to fund and which they'd rather pass on.

So, right now there are VCs that will not fund companies that do not have a clear idea of how they're going to become profitable.

<comment><USER2> The only terrible thing about the misunderstanding that VC's are uniform herd animals who all act the same way, have the saem ideas of what's good and what they'd rather pass on, is that it's true!

Terrible but true. You will literally see vc look at the other VC and do exactly what they're doing.

You can literally create your own VC market by making VC A think that VC B is interested, which is true, because VC B is interested in anything that VC A is interested in.

<comment><USER4> Some questions for you:

Do you run your own company?

Do you have employees?

Co-founders?

Have you ever received funding from a VC?

Have you ever solicited funding?

Were you accepted?

Rejected?

<comment><USER2> all of the above (yes to all seven question marks) except for number four receiving funding (from a vc), as in check clears, no that hasn't happened yet.

going through this process now - and I can tell you, if I fucked up with one VC I would fuck up with them all. everyone talks.

On the flip side, when you're hot everyone wants you, you don't have enough equity to sell to everyone!

<comment><USER4> Check out the story behind Cisco before you give up.

And on another note, ask a VC if they reject you _why_ they reject you, there really is a huge difference in the spectrum of available parties to work with, from assholes to fantastic people to work with and everything in between, make sure you partner with a group that feels right rather than just looking at the terms sheet. That's where the action is of course but sometimes it is better not to have a deal than to have a deal with the wrong party.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I think this story also shows how super-important connections can be. This guy was well connected in the valley.

The question is, how can someone who moves there from, say, New York, actually make those connections?

<comment><USER15> My guess would be that it is harder, especially to get connections like Zuckerberg, if nothing else because he, and others like him, are now quite hard to reach.

That said, getting to know the up-and-coming Valley entrepreneurs should be doable. It is not as easy as getting to know them while you are in college but go to conventions, go to coffee shops, bars. If that is not your thing, start conversations on HN, Twitter, professional communities etc. One important thing to remember, people love to talk about themselves and their business. Especially entrepreneurs.

On a personal level, I am finishing up my Masters (in Amsterdam - so no where close to 'The Valley') and I really feel that I should have done more networking. It is not that hard to get to know people if you make an effort but I have been way too comfortable with my group(s)of friends.

<comment><USER16> But doesn't a huge part of the problem stem from geography? Like you, i'm finishing up my Masters in Singapore - that is pretty much on the opposite side of the globe as SV. Surely i can't afford to go flying around to SV conferences as a student. I'll be speaking at a few conferences in Europe this summer, but still, i feel that if you are not located at least in the USA, you are missing out on a huge piece of startup action...

<comment><USER17> Stay in Singapore. Build something for an Asian, or African, market.

Am I the only one who cringes when reading stories like this about the Valley? I do not want to be in a bubble. I do not want to take part in gossip or the popularity contest. I would much rather stay under the radar, out of the sights of competition, in an underserved market.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Silicon Valley has come a long way from 1966: from cutting edge material science <http://youtu.be/z47Gv2cdFtA> to applying open source sepia filter...

I am afraid that the logical end of this race to the bottom in terms of technology is the end of the Silicon Valley (perhaps something like Hollywood for "new media" replacing technology)

<comment><USER19> Consumer-facing products are always going to garner the most press, but that doesn't mean more technically interesting things aren't going on as well.

There are tons of core technology startups in Silicon Valley - we just don't talk about them on YCombinator very much. I find the software defined datacenter space really interesting. Check out Nutanix: A startup that aims to redefine enterprise datacenter architecture. Or how about the recent acquisition of Nicira (a software defined networking company) by VMware. Just look at Khosla Ventures product portfolio: <http://www.khoslaventures.com/information-technology.html>. Food science startups, semiconductor, enterprise hardware/software, AND social media. The whole gamut.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Ugh this is linkbait and upvote-bait if I ever saw one. The whole tone of the article is so contrived and fake-mysterious that it's kind of digusting. Basically the whole thing can be tracked down to a rich privileged white kid doing what rich privileged kids do. NOTHING worth reading about here. And the shitty app could maybe start about thinking of getting some cash flow.

<comment><USER15> You appear to be very jealous of their success. This is Hacker News, we should celebrate the entrepreneurial spirit and look at the lessons that can be learned from success stories like this.

If I could build Instagram and sell it for $1b I sure as hell would. Might not be saving the world but people appear enjoy using it so who cares. They did manage to sell a company for $1b, a feat which practically all of us never will achieve.

That said, they probably should try to get some cash flow some time soon.

<comment><USER20> Oh please. Spare us the jealousy insinuations, and stop perpetuating the myth that if entrepreneurs are actually worth anything and work hard, it is guaranteed that they will swiftly become inundated with success.

Sometimes there are no "lessons that can be learned from success stories like this". Believe it or not, for every Instagram, there's a hundred startups with founders that are just as smart and try just as hard, but don't make the cut. Do the founders of Instagram deserve their success? Sure! Should we pat them on the back and "celebrate the entrepreneurial spirit"? Absolutely. But let's not fall over ourselves praying to the success gods while we forget to work on our own products.

> If I could build Instagram and sell it for $1b I sure as hell would

Bullshit. Maybe you could! All you need is hard work, the skills to get there, and yes, a good amount of luck. But let's not pretend you, or the founders of Instagram, are destined for success because you're special or you "knew" your ideas would kick off. Look up hindsight bias in the dictionary.

<comment><USER21> > But let's not pretend you, or the founders of Instagram, are destined for > success

That's not what the other poster said at all. They were making a remark about their potential attitude towards "cashing out", not about their perceived likelihood of being offered $1bn.

<comment><USER15> Yes, that was my intention. Turns out I need to work a bit on my English, I can be a bit unclear at times I fear. English isn't my native tongue so at least I can blame my shortcomings on something :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Sounds great.... The dream we all long for; Silicon Valley dream.

Though does anyone tell the stories where the little guy is invited out there by big influentials only to be baited into giving away their secret algorithm and then being stomped on?

Beware innovators/entrepreneurs sharks abound, especially for the little guy. They'll sell you on your dreams only to get what they want from you then kick you and your dreams to the curb.

Signed a lost and now destitute innovator/entrepreneur

<comment><USER7> > Silicon Valley dream

That's interesting, because most of the technical focus is on scalability, and this "Silicon Valley dream" is so very much not scalable.

The "American dream" had more scalability potential, don't you think so?

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> So Instagram was sold for $750m and not $1bn. Majority of $300m went to investors.

It's a great story to read (and maybe Ashton Kutcher can play Systrom as well, or at least Nicholas Hoult... Hunter Parish to play Krieger and it's time that Michael Cera debuts at Zuckerberg) but I can't help but think it would've been so much better for us, users, that Twitter bought them.

I see it as a perfect social network - Vine for video sharing, Instagram for photo sharing, Twitter as a connecting platform with numerous additions - Radio, ...

I just don't get Facebook anymore. Sure, a few years ago we were mad about it, spending days on it but I sense that hype is gone. Honestly I don't know why I'm still on it - stories from liked pages are the same as on my Twitter feed, I use Instagram to share my photos. Surely if you're serious about keeping in touch with people from the past, you already have their email or phone number.

</comment><comment><USER24> "Rags to riches?" What a bunch of BS. Dude never experienced a moment of poverty in his life, and I doubt he would deny that.

<comment><USER25> Well, the article does mention that he was born in Brazil. Perhaps he was a glue sniffing Sao Paulo street kid who was adopted by a caring American WASP family that got him on the fast track to old/new money success.

Seriously, boarding schools are choc full of uber achievers; the notion that wealthy kids are lazy is a myth (assuming trust-afarians are taken out of the equation).

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> A good read, for sure. As someone _outside_ of the US, it makes me wonder if Instagram's succes would have been possible if it was a non-US company, or even a startup outside of California?

<comment><USER27> Direct answer: no. Indirect answer: no.

The probability is low because guys outside of bay area don't build app to dent anything. They don't aim to build an app that is cool: to them, their friends, their investors, their users, and ultimately their suitors and acquirer.

They build it to mint money, which is why this story inspires them too.

<comment><USER28> Suuure, everyone outside the valley builds apps only for "money minting", not for "cool to everyone". Nice Cali bubble you live in ;D

<comment><USER27> Even if an individual tries to do it for coolness, and is passionate about it, the rest of the guys around him are not. And that can be a significant cultural influence.

You're living in a bubble, if you can't see that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Pivoting is an integral part of the iterations of a lean startup and not "screwing up" as written in the clueless article.

<comment><USER30> I prefer to think that pivoting (as opposed to minor tweaks to business plan) is indeed, "screwing up", but that making mistakes is not a bad thing... as long as you can learn from it and move on to do better. Failing to screw up ever means you're not taking enough risks.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Makes you realize in part, the clever name of Instagram, is just a name that now people associate with filters - though wasn't popular until its advent.

</comment><comment><USER32> They killed it!</comment>


Pegs: jQuery based differential scrolling demo - <AUTHOR> http://massless.org/pegs/

<comment><USER2> You know, I REALLY like this. It flows very nicely and doesn't confuse at all. Great idea

Edit: Ugh it totally breaks on middle-click scrolling (in Firefox)

</comment><comment><USER3> Totally broken in Opera.</comment>


.net stack VS lamp stack VS ROR - <AUTHOR>

I am a small business owner and developing a business plan for financial web application. I am stuck at the software costing piece of it and want to know which resources I should look into for the following: 1) .net stack - cost of production environment 2) lamp stack - cost of production environment 3) ROR- Cost of production environment. i started looking into sql server licensing etc, for figuring out the licenses that i would need if i go the .net and that quickly has become unmanageable. <comment><USER2> Check out EngineYard for a solid RoR production env. You'll probably want to start with 2 slices.

For a lamp env, 1 or 2 slices from slicehost might work to start.</comment>


25 Awesome Tools Every Developer Should Have - <AUTHOR> http://x-team.com/2013/11/25-awesome-tools-every-developer-should-have/

<comment><USER2> There's a lot tools I didn't know to before, but I'm pretty sure it will make me more productive, such as: Zsh!

</comment><comment><USER3> Nice post. Still trying to convince myself to upgrade my Alfred...this may have convinced me.

</comment><comment><USER4> shame on me for using only a few from the list, definitely going to start using the other ones! Thanks

</comment><comment><USER5> awesome!</comment>


How to make your own Assembler simulator in JS - <AUTHOR> https://www.mschweighauser.com/make-your-own-assembler-simulator-in-javascript-part1/

<comment><USER2> Assembler simulator seems wrong. My understanding is that an assembler assembles assembly code.

<comment><AUTHOR> I primarily choose the name because it uses a basic simulation of a computer to run programs written in Assembler. Because everything is quite simple it is very easy to use it for teaching purposes.

<comment><USER2> I know, I call it "assembly language", not "assembler".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> That's very nifty. We built a little assembly language interpreter in F# over here ([https://raw.githubusercontent.com/endjin/Samples/master/Endj...](https://raw.githubusercontent.com/endjin/Samples/master/Endjin.Processor/computer.fs)) for our learning to program series. It doesn't have any IO (yet!), mind you. You just get to inspect the memory.</comment>


The Danger of Crusades - <AUTHOR> http://www.transparencyproject.org.uk/the-danger-of-crusades/ <comment><AUTHOR> This article talks about a UK Newspaper's campaign to get law changed in the UK to protect women and children from abusive men. This is important and they probably have a good point: far too many women are killed by partners and ex partners; far too many children are killed by parents and step parents.

One of the examples they're using is the Victoria Haigh case.

She alleged that her ex-partner was sexually abusing their child. The family courts (who only need to find this proved on the balance of probabilities) couldn't say that he had done so, and found in fact that he hadn't done so and that the allegations were malicious. She didn't stop making the allegations and the father had to go to court, repeatedly, to have the court orders enforced. This ended up with her being jailed for ignoring the court orders and continuing to make contact with the child.

Haigh was using a McKenzie Friend. These people are not qualified nor registered and often don't have any insurance. They're meant to be an actual friend who sits with you in the court room, handing you the papers and just being there. They must not provide legal advice and they usually don't get to address the court. Because of the lack of legal aid in English Family Courts we're seeing more people using McKenzie Friends, and because of a variety of campaigning groups (covering the wide range of MRAs, extremist Christians, etc) we're seeing a lot of McKenzie Friends who are ideologically driven. Haigh's McKenzie friend was also jailed for interfering with the court orders.

The article briefly mentions the Hampstead satanic abuse allegations. This is a conspiracy theory / hoax that says ritual satanic sexual abuse of children is common. It has caused immense harm. [https://hoaxteadresearch.wordpress.com/](https://hoaxteadresearch.wordpress.com/) [http://barristerblogger.com/2015/03/24/the-hampstead-so- call...](http://barristerblogger.com/2015/03/24/the-hampstead-so-called- satanic-cult-should-be-a-warning-to-the-credulous/)

It's really worrying that the newspaper is using this example to support their case, because there are plenty of others that don't involve abusive women.</comment>


"Baby, It's Cold Ou" played a pivotal role in the rise of Islamic fundamentalism - <AUTHOR> https://qz.com/1491525/baby-its-cold-outside-and-the-rise-of-islamic-fundamentalism/ <comment><USER2> Prove your a human please?

</comment><comment><USER3> I suppose by that logic Friedrich Nietzsche had a "pivotal role" in causing the Holocaust.

<comment><USER4> Or that dog that made Berkowitz do it.</comment></comment>


Why we set up Codified Security - <AUTHOR> https://codifiedsecurity.com/2015/09/03/why-we-setup-codified-security/

<comment><USER2> This is really interesting idea, I wonder how many of the apps I use every day have APIs without secure endpoints.</comment>


End of the Blog - <AUTHOR> http://williampatry.blogspot.com/2008/08/end-of-blog.html <comment><USER2> Wow, I thought this was going to be a linkbait-like read, but it was actually really interesting.

Here's to hoping he launches an anonymous blog in the future even if he is troubled by the negativity.

<comment><USER3> I'm glad you wrote this, because I assumed from the title that the post would be a lame argument about how blogs in general were becoming obsolete now that we're in Web 3.2b or whatever. But I clicked on it after reading your comment and - you're right, it's intelligent and wonderfully written, if sad. I'm not surprised Google hired this guy.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> After reading the entire post, one sentence still stuck out for me:

 _My late mother, aleha ha-shalom, told me repeatedly that I had a religious obligation to learn every day, and I have honored her memory by doing exactly that._

What a pleasure for me to read a statement like that on a hn post, for 2 different reasons:

1\. It's nice to see a tidbit of wisdom spawned from a viewpoint rarely discussed or understood here. (I really don't want to start a debate or discussion here, just want to recognize a really cool thought.)

2\. Sometimes I think half the reason anyone attempts anything creative is just to say, "Look Ma at what I did!" Even though my mother doesn't really understand what I do, that's still a big part of it for me.

I'm going to show her some really cool UI stuff I did last week. She'll say, "That's nice honey." That alone will fuel my rockets for another week or so.

<comment><USER5> My mother's favorite phrases directed at me growing up were "Tell me something I don't know" and "If the book is so interesting, why are you talking to me about it as opposed to reading it."

Always annoying, but motivating too.

<comment><USER6> My mom's was "Make something people want"

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> It's always sad when a post like this happens.</comment>


8088 MPH: The final version - <AUTHOR> https://scalibq.wordpress.com/2015/08/02/8088-mph-the-final-version/ <comment><USER2> Having grown up with this whole "step backwards" that we took when the PC hit the scene, the most interesting aspect of this demo has been the understanding that some people just don't get why it is so freakin' AMAZING that they were able to coax such art out of this severely limited hardware. CGA was _never_ supposed to be able to produce such complex and beautiful images - take a look at the screenshots here:

[https://www.google.at/search?q=cga+graphics&tbm=isch](https://www.google.at/search?q=cga+graphics&tbm=isch)

.. and what do you see? Mostly Cyan/Magenta graphics, which was 'the norm' for that era. It took another few years before we got EGA - and then, finally VGA - graphics, which we've all become very accustomed to in this day and age.

But seeing 16 - and then _256_ colors - being produced by a CGA is truly a feat of technical wonder. For anyone who doesn't get why this demo is so important, you have to understand: we never, ever thought such capabilities were possible with CGA hardware.

<comment><USER3> I tried reading the technical expectation, a lot of it was lost on me, but it seems like they just implemented bug fixes and tweaks but added nothing that wasn't impossible in ~1981? Was this possible back then even?

<comment><USER4> Only when using composite output, I think. The 9-pin connectors had TTL-level pins.

<comment><USER5> Actually, IBM did not supply a TTL-monitor for CGA until 1983 (the 5153). So in the early days, using the composite output (which is standard on IBM CGA cards) would be the easiest way to get CGA output to a screen in 1981.

<comment><USER4> I stand corrected. :) Did those cards have an RCA connector? I came across a 64K full-width EGA card that had two of those, but never figured out what sort of output they produced.

<comment><USER6> They did, and it worked! The RCA connectors on the IBM EGA card aren't connected to anything - they only work if an add-on daughterboard is installed (I don't know if that daughterboard was ever actually made).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The music at the end sounds great. No whine from the PC speaker at all!

I remember pulling the 16 color trick in high school on the old original IBM PC's, but our CGA cards displayed a TON of snow whenever I updated the characters. Was never sure how to work around that, but it felt pretty elite to get nice colors out of that cyan-magenta-white CGA s __t show.

Getting 256 colors at no extra cost and 1024 colors with lotsa shepherding is so amazing.

</comment><comment><USER8> Very cool!

For those who don't know the previous version (8088 Domination):

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWdG413nNkI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWdG413nNkI)</comment>


Spotify Is Cancer (2019) - <AUTHOR> https://dudemanguy.github.io/blog/posts/2019-12-11-spotify-is-cancer/spotify-is-cancer.html <comment><AUTHOR> This one is about music, here's recent discussion about podcasting and Spotify [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22285735](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22285735)</comment>


Ask HN: Has anyone been using VR to socialize lately? - <AUTHOR> I've been really interested in VR as a way to socialize with others. I often play games online with friends with voice chat and it's a good way to stay connected and maintain a social outlet but I wonder if VR would be an even better way to experience this and satisfy my social needs.
From what I can tell Oculus products are the most popular and accessible but I refuse to buy into an ecosystem that is owned by Facebook. Valve index also looks very good but the price is very high. I wonder if the new Playstation will continue to push VR as a feature.
Does anyone use VR for socializing? Playing games together in VR sounds fun but even just chatting with avatars seems like a great way to stay connected. <comment><USER2> I have an Oculus Quest but I haven't spent much time in social apps like Rec Room and Bigscreen. I've found these experiences pretty awkward due to the lack of facial expressions and lack of social objective, but maybe that's just me. Also, there's often more kids in these apps than people my age, so it's hard to really relate.

As for my friends who have the Oculus and being social with them, again I find this missing something. It seems like despite Facebook being a social media company who's stated purpose is to connect the world, they've really done a lackluster job in the ability to have decent group experiences in Oculus. For example, I'm often not aware of when my other friends are using the Oculus, they could make it easy for me to see who's online and what they're playing. And when I start a party with friends to play games together, there's no native features to help us join the same game, make sure we're seeing the same thing. It would be cool if I could virtually see what a friend is seeing so I can at least help them get into the same game as me. Coming from Steam, it seems rather basic.

I'm curious how the social experience compares with other VR devices.

<comment><USER3> Try poker vr. Perhaps too many kids at this point, but it'll return to normal soon enough.

<comment><USER2> I have tried that one. Actually I do enjoy Poker VR a lot. It's probably one of the few decent experiences for social.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I did today - I was hanging out with two friends in Australia. We used the free game Rec Room and all had Oculus headsets.

What I find great about VR is the directional source of the voice - you can talk over each other in a group setting and not miss anything, unlike video chat.

It is still uncomfortable for longer periods though. And you still have to find a time when everyone is free

<comment><USER5> Mumble seems to support positional audio in voice chat, maybe that alone is sufficient.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> "Eleven" is a bonkers good table tennis (ping pong) simulator - it's the closest to the real thing of any VR sport I've played so far. It's 1:1, but if you have voice chat on, it enables almost the same social experience as actually playing ping pong with someone. Highly recommended (if you're on Steam, remember to switch to the beta, it's much improved and multiplayer compatible with the Oculus versions!)

</comment><comment><USER7> Bought a Vive and new RTX card the first week of realizing I'd be stuck at home for months. Almost all of the other headsets were (and still are?) sold out.

I bought in with the expectation that I could have a great social experience in virtual reality, but it really hasn't met up to my expectations. Virtual reality is cool, but the VR social networks are really lackluster.

First of all, the audience is typically very young. There are far more children than I had expected. Don't expect to have a good conversation right off the bat, and it will take a while to find someone of similar age/maturity and interests.

I've hopped around a bit between AltSpace and VrChat, and I think I prefer the AltSpace crowd a bit more.

What I haven't yet done is participated in structured events. Seemingly, you can find every thing from open mic night to meditation and movie night. I got really interested in this aspect by watching a channel on YouTube called Disrupt. (The same guy who spent a week in VR)

I think I'm going to give bigscreen a try tonight with the premiere of Jackass 3 in 3D.

Being generally new to VR, I largely thought the claims of motion sickness were overblown, but quickly realized how fatiguing VR really is.

As far as socializing these days, I've found luck with good old plain video chat. None of my friends have heavily invested in VR yet, but we still manage to hop on multi-hour long video chats and catch up on things or work on projects.

And as far as meeting new people, I've found luck in playing team based mmos in my free time. You'd be surprised how well a common objective can do you in meeting new people. Once you find team members you like, stick with them. Steam and Discord is particularly good at this.

I also think that's the failure of social networks in VR. Without a common objective or expectation, it's really hard to have a good conversation. At least in a game, you can always resort to talking about strategy and the like. Conversation usually comes naturally after.

My take here is that VR is only really a good medium for interacting with people you already know, but this requires buy-in among your existing friends. Meeting people in VR is much less satisfying than traditional routes.

<comment><USER8> How did you like bigscreen?

<comment><USER7> Have to say, it's been my best experience in virtual reality yet. 3D movies feel shockingly similar to the theatre experience, if not better. There's something comforting about partaking with a bunch of other people as well.

Following the movie, I hopped in a room with some people just playing music and chatting.

All in all, I think it does one thing better than the other social networks in VR, and that's provide a common objective, which is as the name would imply, a big screen.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Almost none of my friends have VR. It's still very expensive.

Instead we've turned to zoom/hangouts/discord and steam/gog/dolphin emu, etc.

<comment><USER10> > dolphin emu

Is this because everyone is older millennial and Gen X finding nostalgia in the early 2000s? out of curiosity?

I'm trying to see why thats an option, unless I'm missing something

one of these is not like the other

<comment><USER9> I'm 24, for reference. I grew up playing multiplayer games on the gamecube with my brother and friends from school. super smash bros melee, mario party 4-7, mario baseball/tennis/golf/soccer, wario ware inc, kirby air ride. etc. I actually remember trading my xbox classic for my uncle's gamecube because super smash bros looked so much fun.

Aside from that, there are a few points as to why dolphin is nice:

1\. The roms are "free". I ripped mine a long time ago but there are a lot of rom sites online. Not that I find it unethical since Nintendo would not be making money from used game sales anyway. This is probably the biggest draw because playing a regular indie game means our entire friend group needs to pay $10-$30. I wish all my friends had copies of Gang Beasts or Tabletop Simulator, but they don't.

2\. Honestly, these games are still quite fun in 2020. Nothing really captures the mood of gamecube-era mario party games. The new one for the switch is kinda fun, but remains watered-down compared to the originals. Not that I would play these daily but they're fun as a variety mix. As far as other 4-player couch co-op games go, there aren't that many that are that fun that 3 of my friends own. Gang Beasts would be fun... if anyone actually owned it.

Mario sports games are... something else as well. Aside from baseball, which has hilariously bad controls, soccer/tennis are nice mix of skill and bs. The new mario tennis for the switch is pretty fun, but I think I'm biased for the original (and all the memories I have of competitions with friends at LAN parties). Games like Lethal League are in that vein, though.

There is no other game like wario ware inc, that I've seen.

3\. Computer performance hasn't been a huge issue (thus far). We've played cross-platform with linux, windows, and osx dolphin clients without a hitch. Our weakest link is a macbook pro from ~2015.

4\. Pretty much everyone has a computer, whereas systems are fragmented. I don't own (and don't plan to own) an xbox or ps4, and not everyone has a switch. Or, a switch _and_ the $60 nintendo game everyone wants to play.

I still play modern games like tf2- oh wait, that came out in 2007. Like street fighter III:3s- oh, that released in 1999, three years after I was born. Dwarf fortress? Not released... but it doesn't look like a game from 2020. Chess..? ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯ Jokes aside, there are multiplayer games for the PC like stardew valley (2016), animal crossing: new horizons (2020), terraria (2011), etc, that me and my friends have enjoyed.

For pc games that have co-op, but only locally, I want to try parsecgaming [0] soon.

[0]: [https://parsecgaming.com/game-streaming- technology/](https://parsecgaming.com/game-streaming-technology/)

<comment><USER10> Those are good points about local multiplayer co-op

It seems two things are happening and I'm confused:

You download the roms for the local multiplayer but everyone plays them remotely on different clients, and the dolphin software makes it act like its in person local co-op on the same device???

Or is this just a general point of a free time-tested fun game with good graphics that people can play on multiple platforms

or a little bit of column A and column B

with a third column that sometimes your friends come over and play on the same screen

<comment><USER9> > You download the roms for the local multiplayer but everyone plays them > remotely on different clients, and the dolphin software makes it act like > its in person local co-op on the same device???

Yeah, that's essentially what dolphin does. You need to make sure that the clients are all the same version. And that everyone has the same save file, I believe. Everyone connects via a code given by the traversal server, but I believe it's still peer to peer.

So the players need to be relatively close geographically. For non-serious games I (east coast) can play as far as the midwest or so. But for good connections for competitive games, I have to stick to east coast.

> with a third column that sometimes your friends come over and play on the > same screen

Before covid19 this is primarily how we would play mario party. It's definitely more fun in person, but still fun in zoom.

<comment><USER10> oooh that's really cool!

haha so you have to pretend not to screen watch on a game where everybody is using different screens lmao

yo dawg I heard you like multiplayer, so I put co-op in your co-op so you can screen watch while you ping watch

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I haven't been socializing with friends, but playing poker stars VR has given me back the feeling of "getting out of the house" that I have been sorely missing. There can be good conversation and serendipity that I have been lacking in my life, somehow this game manages to scratch that itch.

</comment><comment><USER12> I thought about it. I have a Quest. I just don't think the tech is there yet

Not enough ppl (if anyone at all) online. The avatars are hilariously bad, but I get why they exist.

Maybe in 5-10 years

</comment><comment><USER13> I played Catan in VR with the Oculus Go and it was amaaaaazing. It was so mind blowing that I wrote about it[1] at the time. It was just the most social interaction I've ever had playing a video game.

I got some friends into VR but unfortunately they have the Go and the battery sucks...

I have the Quest now, and it's an amazing platform that I recommend to all my friends (best buy has some in stock since yesterday) but unfortunately Catan is not available there yet :/

[1]: [https://p1x3l.com/story/239/social-virtual-reality-and- the-o...](https://p1x3l.com/story/239/social-virtual-reality-and-the-oculus- go)

</comment><comment><USER14> Many of my friends have been using VR to socialize since before the pandemic.

But they chose that because they could be their fursona, first and foremost.

<comment><USER15> Everyone likes to make fun of furries, but they have an uncanny ability to maintain a robust, cohesive social network irrespective of venue.

I'm not surprised that a subculture that mostly exists in a stratum of friendship by correspondence or socialization via avatar, as it were, would beat everyone else to making good use of VR to meet and share experiences.

The only thing that the pandemic really changed for them is, well, everyone else being asked to shelter in place has led to some very interesting VR chat worlds to explore and document with friends.

If Twitter is any indication, it all seems like good fun. So, yeah, I think furries got this one right.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I don't think VR is any better than just video chat for socializing, and nobody has it, including you.

I have a VR rig but never use it (because it requires me to reboot into Windows) and the vast majority of my friends don't have one.

Maybe in a decade if most people have something and cross-platform works well I could see it being compelling.

</comment><comment><USER17> Not exactly, but I have been using Tabletop Simulator to socialize with former classmates, and after this experience (which I would recommend, hands down) I'm dying to try their VR mode.

</comment><comment><USER18> Socialising, not really... It's not as good for socialising than webcamming IMO. I tried some apps like VR chat and altspace but they're too clumsy, and the avatars are too disconnected from the chat taking place. The tech isn't there yet. We need eye tracking, full body tracking and facial expression recognition.

It's great for feeling like being outside of the house (we're in full lockdown in Spain) but that's all.

</comment><comment><USER19> I tried VR a few years ago and thought it was interesting, but not compelling enough to buy.

My new year's 2020 prediction for the next decade is related:

 _VIDEO becomes what people thought VR /AR would be. Reality becomes mediated through video, not 3D graphics_

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21942100](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21942100)

Also related:

 _I don 't know what's going on in Second Life now but to me it feels like it's probably not "real life". I guess people want "life" and not "second life", and video is becoming an increasingly large aspect of the former._

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21932707](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21932707)

FWIW I did take some action on this and invest in a company doing video at the beginning of the year... probably could have been more aggressive though.

</comment><comment><USER20> not VR, but plenty of people are socializing and "partying" in 3D worlds: [https://opensimworld.com/](https://opensimworld.com/)

</comment><comment><USER21> I have an Oculus Go but I haven't used it for anything social. Mostly I got it because I was interested in developing for VR and it was the only thing I could afford.

</comment><comment><USER22> VR for long periods gives me headaches, so I can only use the headset for about an hour.

</comment><comment><USER23> I don't have any VR tech and I think I know of only one person who does.

</comment><comment><USER24> vrchat on steam seems like the one with most people

</comment><comment><USER25> What constitutes VR? Do Apple Animoji's count? Does teleconferencing software with background removal count?

</comment><comment><USER26> I never kiss and tell.

</comment><comment><USER27> Nope, too nerdy. Not even on my radar.

<comment><USER28> Sad that you use Hacker News, but are insecure enough to avoid a new technology because it's "too nerdy". I don't really understand what's more nerdy about it than socializing over Fortnite or something.

<comment><USER29> No need to gatekeep who can enjoy this forum. I think it's valuable feedback to know how VR technology is viewed by people of all backgrounds, not just hardcore tech enthusiasts.

<comment><USER30> Too nerdy isn't valuable feedback, it's derogatory.

<comment><USER31> Insults are feedback, like it or not

<comment><USER32> You're missing the key word, "valuable"</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


LaunchEarth - The First Online Eco-System for Entrepreneurs - <AUTHOR> http://www.launchearth.com Launch Earth, a new start up focusing on entrepreneurs by creating an online eco-system to help them succeed. <comment><USER2> Reminds me of this a little: [http://techcrunch.com/2013/04/22/what-not-to-do- in-your-star...](http://techcrunch.com/2013/04/22/what-not-to-do-in-your- startup-promo-video/)</comment>


Too many students attend college, said former UCLA prof - <AUTHOR> http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071202/OPINION03/712020312/1031 Wanting to be in college is not the same as wanting an education. Among the other reasons for wanting to be in college is that it is a social scene with large concentrations of people of the same age and the opposite sex. <comment><USER2> I've been getting the same feeling at UT Austin for a long time.

At UT Austin, there is a 10% rule that has crippled the standard to which students are held. The 10% rule states that any student in the top 10% of their graduating high school class is automatically admitted to the university; no questions asked. When you consider the range of quality among high schools in a state as large as Texas, you can imagine the disparity between the valedictorian of the best public school vs. the 9.99%-ranked student of the worst one.

As a result, the intro classes are populated with the type of students mentioned in the article -- those that are there for the wrong reasons, and don't really have any direction. The later classes suffer from this to a lesser extent, but the university's leniency when it comes to failing classes and the length it takes to receive a diploma is still problematic (some students take up to 6, 7 years to graduate).

Thus, the solution is to isolate oneself among the outstanding students, i.e., in honors and graduate classes, in computer science in my case (or any other difficult field that acts as a natural filter), where the top students reside, who are truly excellent and stand among those from any top school.

Case in point: I am often surprised to meet students that were accepted to top-notch schools - -- but couldn't enroll for one reason or another, such as money, that I wouldn't consider outstanding students. I wonder if a more competitive school would be "easier" because I would be pushed to excellence instead of striving for excellence in spite of a standard of mediocrity.

That said, Computer Science at UT is an excellent and competitive program. This is true of most of the hard sciences, math, physics, and a few others, but I truly question the validity of certain degrees...

<comment><USER3> Some of the most successful people people I know graduated in so called 'less valid majors'. The real world requires a different skillset than just memorizing what a euler path is for the exam next week.

<comment><USER2> Please don't misinterpret my post -- it wasn't intended to bash certain majors. I should have pointed out that many fields are a "catch-all," i.e., those which students default to that either lack direction or greater ambition in their studies. Take psychology, for example; while psychology is a VERY difficult science of which little is understood, and much has to be discovered, it does not have a rigorous workload, and doesn't provide the curricular challenges that the majors I mentioned do. I use this as an example because my sister plans to study in psychology, and I have preached this lesson to her repeatedly; that it is most commonly the largest major at universities, and thus the "catch-all"; therefore, the lowest common denominator is reduced to a minimum for the standards of that school. At UT, that is quite low. That is not to say that all psychology majors will be unsuccessful -- of the top of my head, I can think of two brilliant contributors to my field of study, computer science, that were psychologists (Minsky and Licklider) -- but rather, that their journey toward success will be hampered by an expectation of mediocrity.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> He assumes that the main value of a college education should be traditional education. For many students, college offers the first opportunity to live on their own away from home but in a substantially less frightening environment than the "real world", i.e. college allows you to practice swimming in the shallow end before hopping into the deep end.

That, plus the friendships and connections you get from college, may well be worth the price of admission, even if it isn't what you (or your parents) are paying for.

<comment><USER5> I have a friend that works in the registrar's office at my alma mater. He was, just the other day, bitching about some helicopter mom calling up to drop a class for her son. Before you write this off as some random freshman momma's boy, know that the son in question was a junior that was majoring in business. Inspires confidence doesn't it?

I wonder if his mom will manage his employees when he inevitably gets put in charge of someone someday. I think colleges are definitely diluted nowdays, so the degree means little more than "I had the money and time to finish it," but you can still excel in your education there if you choose to do so.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I grew up in the UK and now live in the US. In both countries a college education has gone from being something of value to waste of time due to lowering of standards.

Leaving no child behind will probably destroy what little respect anybody has left for a college degree.

</comment><comment><USER7> I tend to agree. A lot of folks in a lot of colleges are there for the wrong reason. Make highschool education more comprehensive and don't require most of the population to waste another 4 years just so they can get a "decent" job.

</comment><comment><USER8> Related:

"Why I am Not a Professor OR The Decline and Fall of the British University"

<http://www.lambdassociates.org/blog/decline.htm>

</comment><comment><USER9> I feel like more and more this dumbing down of college leads into making undergraduate degrees a second high school diploma.

That begs the suggestion that grad school becomes the "new" college, but that kind of idea isn't too fun in the Startup Crowd.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> First UCLA gets creamed by SC and now this.

<comment><USER10> I voted your comment up because I'm a Trojan, but I have to admit, I somewhat agree with this. I do think its much more applicable to undergraduate students than graduate students though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Oh yes, let's return college to its former status of being only for the elite.

Why do you think so many people go to college? Because it's a practical necessity for most decent-paying jobs. _Not_ to _do_ the job, but to _get hired_ in the _first_ place.

Telling people they shouldn't be in school is akin to telling them they don't deserve a decent standard of living.

As long as having a decent standard of living means having to _make_ a living, and as long as making a living still means _being employed_ for most people, then as long as employers still require degrees, people will go to college to get them.

There's a general solution that solves a lot of problems and is not specific only to this one. Make employment obviated, preferably by technological advance, so humans no longer have to slog away at mind-numbing "jobs" under the threat of homelessness and starvation.

That's the humane approach. It will do away with crimes of poverty, television advertising (people watch TV to escape, which they won't need to do when there's nothing to escape _from_ ), and college over-enrollment, among a zillion other problems.

<comment><USER12> Thing is, I don't think employers ask for a college degree because the job actually _requires_ one. I think they do it to separate the top 25% from the bottom 75%. A degree is the easiest way to look at an applicant and be able to say "That person is not stupid" (whether or not that judgment is true...)

Now, even if everybody got a college degree, there would still be a top 25% and a bottom 75%. And I don't think that employers would suddenly stop discriminating because suddenly everyone was qualified. I think they'd add other qualifications, like "must have a masters degree" or "must have commit privileges on a major open-source project".

Then all the workers are back where they started, except that they're out $150k for their college degree.

I guess the only way to win is to refuse to play the game. Which is why most of us are on this site, I guess...

<comment><USER13> Yes. Once upon a time, businesses took responsibility for training their employees. Now they expect the student to come to them having blown a huge wad of cash on speculative investment in education for a job. One that they aren't sure they really like, that they'll probably abandon in 10 years anyway, and where the employer considers them disposable.

In most cases, the state also subsidizes this huge gamble.

<comment><USER5> I think, for the first time ever, I wish I could click the up arrow on a comment more than once.

Thanks for that.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


A Cheat Sheet on Probability - <AUTHOR> http://www.datasciencecentral.com/profiles/blogs/a-cheat-sheet-on-probability <comment><USER2> Shameless plug of my own attempt to summarize key concepts in probability theory and statistics: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13060021](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13060021)

<comment><USER3> That is precisely the kind of content I expected a cheat sheet on Probability to contain. No offence to OP but if you need a cheat sheet for basic concepts like the ones included in the original post then you'll find it really hard to do grasp any "useful" Probability concepts.

<comment><USER4> >No offence to OP but if you need a cheat sheet for basic concepts like the ones included in the original post then you'll find it really hard to do grasp any "useful" Probability concepts.

FYI, "Basic" varies from person to person

<comment><USER3> True but when compared to Measure Theory (the foundation of Probability Theory) almost everyone can agree that those concept are simpler, i.e. basic.

<comment><USER4> "almost everyone" is not everyone

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> > Disjoint probability (weather and coins)

I think the weather is probably independent from a coin, rather than disjoint.

Disjoint events would be something like "the coin lands heads up" and "the coin lands tails up"

</comment><comment><USER6> Holy shit, that visual display of Bayes Theorem makes so much sense. Writing it as P(A intersect B)/P(B) and having the Venn diagram just made it all click in my head.

</comment><comment><USER7> I follow the arithmetic behind the birthday paradox, but that doesn't help my intuition about similar problems: can someone point me to heuristics for dealing with very large numbers of events in a very, very large universe of possibilities? E.g., sha1 collisions[0] on blobs in Github?

Suppose I had N initially non-communicating instances of github. Would a merge of all those repositories be more likely to have a sha1 collision if each used the full 160 bits for their blobs, or if each repository assigned a random log(N)+e bit prefix to itself, using only 160-(log(N)+e) bits for its own blobs, but incurring a possibility of collision within the log(N)+e bit prefixes? And, of course, one wants to know the increased likelihood of internal collisions now that we're only using 160-(log(N)+e) bits for the local identifiers (which of course depends on the number of internal distinct blobs).

[0] A collision is two distinct blobs with the same identifier; two blobs containing the same bits having the same identifier is a feature, not a collision.

</comment><comment><USER8> Off topic but I just read a comment on the link

> These examples remind me of a paper I came across a few years ago using > probability to show why the author would never have a girlfriend. It's a fun > read and can be found at > [https://logological.org/girlfriend](https://logological.org/girlfriend) if > interested.

It actually refers to the article on the FP. Nice co-incidence!

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13490063](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13490063)

</comment><comment><USER9> I like to throw in the first chapter of "Statistical Inference for everyone" for a little bit more explanation for these rules ([https://github.com/bblais/Statistical-Inference-for- Everyone](https://github.com/bblais/Statistical-Inference-for-Everyone)).

It looks to me like an easier approach to the heavy weight "Probability Theory: The Logic of Science" by E.T. Jaynes

</comment><comment><USER10> The cheat sheet has at least one error. Using set notation, A="long hair", and B="woman", then the phrase

"not long hair and not woman"

does not correspond to the expression

P(complement(A intersect B))

shown on the cheat sheet.

It instead corresponds to

P(complement(A) intersect complement(B))

Which is equivalent to

P(complement(A union B))

</comment><comment><USER11> This looks awfully like set theory and SQL. I wonder what the SQL equivalent for each concept would look like. For example (picking the easy one!) marginal probability for long hair would be:

SELECT SUM(CASE WHEN LongHair=1 THEN 1 ELSE 0 END) / SUM(1.0) FROM B

</comment><comment><USER12> Tangential, but could anybody recommend a proof-heavy first-principles book for probability/statistics?

I know stats etc. from an applications perspective (excel/sas/r), but 100% sure of the theoretical underpinnings behind much of it.

<comment><USER13> On the probability front I recommend:

\- Probability and Random Processes by Grimmett

\- Probability with Martingales by David Williams

Grimmett is probably a better bet to start with since it doesn't expect quite as much prior math knowledge and covers a lot more topics. The Williams book is shorter, denser and doesn't cover much in the way of applications, but gives a really good theoretical underpinning of how probability theorists think about probability (ie in terms of Lebesgue measures and Sigma algebras).

edit: There is also a companion book to Probability and Random Processes called One Thousand Exercises in Probability which contains an interesting selections of problems and solutions that will let you apply the theories taught in the main book.

<comment><USER12> Thanks, the first book (along with the exercises) seems like a great approach. Just peeked at the contents online, and it's pretty close to what I'm looking for.

Much appreciated!

<comment><USER13> It's a good book.

Williams is probably better for mathematicians coming at probability with an already solid mathematical understanding rather than practitioners who want to try to understand the underlying theory.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I also liked the article linked in one of the comments: [https://logological.org/girlfriend](https://logological.org/girlfriend)

Edit: Actually, it also popped on the front page.</comment>


EFF Tool Offers New Free Protection Against 'Firesheep' - <AUTHOR> https://www.eff.org/press/archives/2010/11/23

<comment><USER2> I just started using this recently and found it to be a nice little tool, it forces a number of websites to use HTTPS by default, such as Google, Wikipedia etc.

You can also dump your own rules in ~/.mozilla/firefox/*.default/HTTPSEverywhereUserRules</comment>


Machine Learning with F# - <AUTHOR> http://fsharp.org/machine-learning/

<comment><USER2> This blog post linked from the OP is very nice:

[http://clear-lines.com/blog/post/Support-Vector-Machine- in-F...](http://clear-lines.com/blog/post/Support-Vector-Machine-in- FSharp.aspx)

F# looks lovely, but I have yet to find good cross-platform 2D plotting and 3D visualization story.

(ActiViz would give me everything I need, but the current wrappers are several releases out of date - though there is an ongoing Kickstarter to hopefully fix that)

</comment><comment><USER3> _F# has been successfully used by some of the most advanced machine learning teams in the world, including the Microsoft Research Machine Learning and Applied Games groups at Microsoft Research_

These may be some top-notch groups... but, it's a red flag (to me) that they didn't include anyone without a vested interest in the language as part of this list. This just says that the company that developed the language also uses it.

<comment><USER4> Its use is increasing among .NET shops in the financial sector, the same area where Haskell and OCaml get used.

Me, I use it mostly as a better scripting language.

<comment><USER5> outside of Jane Street (<http://www.janestreet.com/technology/ocaml.php>), I've not heard of functional languages being used in the financial sector. Where else is it used?

<comment><USER4> In Skills That Matter presentations they sometimes refer to deployments in the city (London finance sector).

You also have some use cases here,

[http://msdn.microsoft.com/en- us/vstudio/gg634701#Who_Uses_F_...](http://msdn.microsoft.com/en- us/vstudio/gg634701#Who_Uses_F_sharp)

<http://fsharp.org/testimonials/>

<comment><USER6> It's "Skills Matter" -- they're a company that offers training events, and they handle many of the big F# training events in NYC and London:

<http://skillsmatter.com/>

<comment><USER4> Oh right, thanks for the correction.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Nice. <http://fdatamining.blogspot.com> (linked under "Other links") is another good place for F# machine learning.</comment>


What is success? Impact. - <AUTHOR> http://www.stubbleblog.com/index.php/2010/07/what-is-success-impact/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Stubbleblog+%28Stubbleblog%29&utm_content=Bloglines <comment><USER2> _I care about consistency of impact as much as I do about the magnitude of impact._

BINGO.

<comment><USER3> Yeah, we're human, right? I think some people rationalize venture capital around magnitude of impact. But the last venture backed company I worked for just shut down. And the one before didn't go anywhere either. So, even though the investors ended up with some positives, I'm left wondering why I was working so hard. That's how I came to realize that for me, daily meaning needed to be part of it.</comment></comment>


Maybe Greece Should Go Bankrupt - <AUTHOR> http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2010/02/10/maybe-greece-should-go-bankrupt/

<comment><USER2> From [http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f90bca10-1679-11df- bf44-00144feab4...](http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f90bca10-1679-11df- bf44-00144feab49a.html)

 _On reflection, it is appropriate that the fiscal crisis of the west has begun in Greece, the birthplace of western civilization. Soon it will cross the channel to Britain. But the key question is when that crisis will reach the last bastion of western power, on the other side of the Atlantic._

The IMF recently published estimates of the fiscal adjustments developed economies would need to make to restore fiscal stability over the decade ahead. Worst were Japan and the UK (a fiscal tightening of 13 per cent of GDP). Then came Ireland, Spain and Greece (9 per cent). And in sixth place? Step forward America, which would need to tighten fiscal policy by 8.8 per cent of GDP to satisfy the IMF.

</comment><comment><USER3> What exactly does it mean for a country to go bankrupt? Do the creditors get the assets?

If a chinese construction company is owed money for a government project do they get part of the country?

<comment><USER4> It just means they default on the loans. The creditors only get what the country chooses to give them (if anything), which is usually negotiated with some eye towards balancing the country's interests against the harm to their future ability to get loans if they screw the creditors too much. See: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Default_(finance)#Sovereign_def...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Default_\(finance\)#Sovereign_defaults)

<comment><USER3> But bankrupt means you don't run the company/country anymore - they call in the receivers, and KPMG or whoever sell off the assets for scrap.

<comment><USER4> Yeah, from that definition of bankruptcy it's a poor choice of words, because sovereign countries can't go bankrupt in the sense that bankruptcy law means. They're colloquially bankrupt in the sense of "not able to pay their bills", but not legally in the sense of "in court-supervised receivership"--- because there is no world government, and therefore no bankruptcy court with jurisdiction.

<comment><USER3> Interesting idea though for a small country like Tuvavlu - just sell the country to the highest bidder. If say an online gambling company wants to be sure of favorable treatment it could just buy the government wholesale instead of having to buy it one politician at a time.

It's only what say Lichtenstein, the channel islands, Bermuda have de-facto done.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I'm not a libertarian, to say the least, but I think that this writer has a point. I don't know where the saying originates that "a democracy only survives until its citizens realize that they can vote themselves money" -- I believe it was a British historian writing about Athens in the 1750s -- but it's intensely relevant here. Greece, or any country, can only support a large public sector (apparently not overpaid so much as overpopulated) on the back of a large productive sector -- not necessarily a private sector (just ask the People's Liberation Army and its subsidiaries), but something or other that's generating wealth.

I'd also emphasize _delerium's passing comment about a state needing to worry about its future ability to get loans. The combination of the Industrial Revolution and pogrom-proof banking have made this less likely, but as late as the 18th century there was always the possibility of a country running out of money; Philip II's bankruptcy is a particularly famous one. If that (or extreme inflation) starts happening again, it will make everyone's lives harder.

</comment><comment><USER4> The article keeps talking about how civil servants are overpaid, which I don't think is true. There are _too many_ of them, but they aren't particularly well paid; the average is around €20,000.

<comment><USER6> In America many civil servants are overpaid when you look at total compensation. The amount of retirement that needs to be paid is ridiculous and most govs didn't actually set aside money to pay it.

<comment><USER4> That I agree with, but it's a more general issue about the temptation to make future promises you can't pay for, and is also true in the private sector. Employers in general, public and private, make promises of future payments they can't pay for, don't set aside the money, and just kick the can down the road to the next generation of management. It's one reason so many American companies go bankrupt about 30-40 years after their peak, which coincidentally is when their pension obligations start coming due.

<comment><USER7> > That I agree with, but it's a more general issue about the temptation to > make future promises you can't pay for, and is also true in the private > sector.

There's an important difference. If IBM can't pay the pensions that it promised, IBM pensioners take the hit. If San Jose can't pay the pensions that it promised, I take the hit via taxes.

<comment><USER4> Isn't that actually worse? Not only can IBM screw its pensioners, but the pensioners have no recourse: IBM's shareholders get to keep decades of profits gotten on the basis of promises that were later breached, and limited liability means those dividends can't be clawed back to pay the company's obligations.

<comment><USER7> > Isn't that actually worse?

For whom? Not for me.

> Not only can IBM screw its pensioners, but the pensioners have no recourse

They made a bet. Since they were willing to take the winnings, they should take the loss.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This is fun, maybe I can get my points into negative territory!

</comment><comment><USER8> Cato will never go bankrupt 'cos the wingnut welfare don't stop.

<comment><USER9> Flagged. This is not Reddit.

<comment><USER8> I'm sorry, people are free to post right-wing propaganda, but not free to comment on it?

<comment><USER4> I suppose the ideal would be not to have such articles posted at all, since this isn't really the place for this sort of hyper-partisan stuff, whether from Cato or the _Socialist Worker_.

<comment><USER10> The content of the article should be evaluated on its own merits, whatever your opinion of the source. Even the most partisan individual can make a good argument.

<comment><USER11> It simply is not hacker news, though, unless people want to turn this into some sort of political debate site, which would be very, very easy. It's way easier to find articles about politics and economics than it is to find good articles about hacking and startups, and they're far 'stickier' in terms of drawing people into lengthly, pointless discussions that end up in flame wars. As this thread demonstrates quite well.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ford Motor Is Replacing Mark Fields as C.E.O - <AUTHOR> https://nytimes.com/2017/05/21/business/ford-motor-chief-executive.html <comment><USER2> >Mr. Hackett, 62, a longtime chief of the office furniture giant Steelcase and a former Ford director, joined the company's operational ranks last year as head of its "smart mobility" operation, which includes driverless technology.

The self driving car aspect of his responsibilities seem pretty tangential to his professional skillset, and not a reason for his ascension to CEO.

NYT probably has some data saying that any headline including "self dirivng car" gets more eyeballs.

<comment><USER3> How about: "Ford hopes to push self-driving cars by replacing 56 year old CEO with 62 year old CEO with a background in office furniture" ?

<comment><USER4> Why is age even relevant? Ageism isn't a fun thing to look forward to. If I make it to 56 I hope it doesn't get branded onto my professional accomplishments.

<comment><USER3> Oh I hear you - I'm closer to 56 than I'd like to be (mid forties). The point is Ford apparently tries to send a signal to shareholders that they have a clue about being a real player in self driving cars and this message is odd - seems more about slowing the decline in _existing_ revenue than generating new.

While there are 62 year olds who are quite comfortable with new technology and new ways of working, required to transform and innovate, you and I both know that _on average_ the older people get, the more they struggle with change and learning new things.

<comment><USER4> On average, it may be true to say that certain minority groups may be more violent or less intelligent. That doesn't mean it's ok to treat them as such.

It may seem like a glib comparison, and I hope it's substantive enough that it doesn't start a flamewar. But if one person can come to see ageism as equally valid as racism, then they can teach others, who will teach others, and eventually it will no longer be a problem.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> To some extent, the outgoing CEO is taking the fall for a nationwide slump in auto sales, which affects all auto companies.

I think this change is mainly window dressing: the outgoing CEO was committed to self-driving car research, as is the new guy. The fundamentals of the company are unlikely to change.

I suspect that the stock would go up in the short term if Ford started putting more money into SUVs and crossovers, at the expense of the company's long-term success. If Ford's investors believe that self-driving cars (or at least, semi-autonomous cars) are the future, they should be willing to put up with a low stock price over the next few years.

<comment><USER6> GM's sales have gone up over the past few years, their share price has been pretty steady, and they're long term strategy for electric, shared, and autonomous is looking gangbusters. Ford not so much.

<comment><USER5> GM's sales are down this year, as are Ford's.

The GM share price is not steady either -- it has dropped nearly 15% from its value in March, and about 6% from it's value on January 1st.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I have been a Ford investor for several years. This is a big surprise for me.

Ford has said they expect to have a fully autonomous vehicles by 2021 (link: [https://corporate.ford.com/innovation/autonomous-2021.html](https://corporate.ford.com/innovation/autonomous-2021.html)). That always seemed too ambitious to me, but I welcome being proved wrong.

I invested in Ford partly because I think, unlike GM, they recognize an existential threat to their business and are trying to take steps to avoid it. It has been a horrible investment for me this far.

<comment><USER8> > I invested in Ford partly because I think, unlike GM, they recognize an > existential threat to their business and are trying to take steps to avoid > it.

Why do you think GM is unaware of the changing tides? They are currently selling the all-electric Bolt which is meant to compete directly with the upcoming Tesla Model 3. And they are investing however many billions of dollars into self-driving technology with their acquisition and support of Cruise Automation.

<comment><USER7> I have much disdain for GM's corporate culture. It is a company culture that knowingly allowed dangerous vehicles be sold for a decade until a Georgia litigator connected the dots (source: [http://jalopnik.com/your-guide-to-the- problem-gm-didnt-fix-u...](http://jalopnik.com/your-guide-to-the-problem-gm- didnt-fix-until-13-people-1532115319) )

As for Cruise Automation, I am not convinced they have accomplished anything groundbreaking relative to their competitors.

I can't speak much about the Bolt. A quick Google search shows a Bloomberg story stating they will lose 8-9k per car sold. GM better hope it doesn't sell well, if that is the case! (link: [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-30/gm-s- read...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-30/gm-s-ready-to- lose-9-000-a-pop-and-chase-the-electric-car-boom))

<comment><USER9> I'm sorry for the cheap shot but the Ford pinto is a much bigger (if unfair to Ford - "A subsequent study concluded that the fire risks of the Ford Pinto were no greater than its contemporaries." [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Pinto](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Pinto) ) black mark.

I didn't even recall the GM incident without clicking the link even though it was so recent.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> As a long time Ford shareholder, this article seems to be applying a cause and effect that is at best speculative. It's important not to confuse share price with company performance, because in the short term the two can have zero correlation.

This move has to do with one thing and one thing only- share price. The Ford family isn't satisfied with the image Fields was giving the company to investors and wants to shake things up in the hopes of jump starting the demand for its stock.

Despite the doom and gloom image portrayed in the article, Ford has actually been wildly profitable for years and is far from struggling. In fact they are coming off a series of the most profitable quarters in company history. This move has little to nothing to do with autonomous car development or electric for that matter, both of which Ford is already investing in heavily.

</comment><comment><USER11> Wait, is it self-driving car or self-driving executive?

<comment> m-j-fox I hope I'm not the only one who thought this was an Onion headline. Like if AI can run a Ford then AI can run Ford.

<comment><USER12> Executive function will be the last to be automated, when the machines see no need to take any more orders from us.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Anyone knows much about the new CEO, Jim Hackett? It seems like window dressing to me as I don't see Ford suddenly becoming like Tesla anytime soon, or ever.

Also looks like the outgoing CEO was the fall guy for the company's mediocre sales. Replacing him with a guy who oversees self-driving cars is not going to magically change the trend.

<comment><USER10> Window dressing is exactly what they want. We live in a climate where share price is based purely on branding and not on fundamentals. Elon Musk has convinced the market that he's the second coming of Steve Jobs and the market is buying into it hook line and sinker.

As a shareholder I think the Ford family wants to create an image that will signal to the market Ford is very serious about autonomous and electric. I'd be very surprised not to see some very publicized development of a new line of cars in the next year or two.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Apparently self driving cars are real.

</comment><comment><USER15> how's that gonna work, a larger desk with a reclining hydraulic car lift?

</comment><comment><USER16> First I read the title as "Ford is replacing CEO with self-driving car"

Too bad this isn't true ;)

<comment><USER17> I read it as "self-driving executive," which should be most car company CEOs.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Warning: paywall

<comment><USER19> nyt gives you get 10 articles for free per month, although I decided to pay $10 per month. Their quality of journalism is pretty good for what they charge.

<comment><USER18> I typically use those up on clickbait articles that I don't decide to read after all, and then by the time one comes along that I would read I get the paywall.

I'm disinclined to pay for the NYT because of its role in getting Trump elected. By refusing to subject HRC to appropriate scrutiny and by amplifying all of Trump's stunts and gaffes, the paper was useless as an authoritative voice during a very important time in history.

If the quality were more consistent I'd happily use the google trick to get the articles for free, but much of the content is seemingly meant to generate clicks from issues that have already been covered extensively elsewhere.

<comment><USER20> I am sorry, what google trick?

<comment><USER18> You can google the headline of a NYT article in an incognito window and when the article comes up in the search results you can read it without a paywall getting in the way.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>