Ask HN: My idea has just been launched...by someone else. Now what? - <AUTHOR>

I know, some of you are sick of too many "Ask HN"-submissions. However, this is something that  bothers me and I'd like to have your opinion on this.
I have an idea for a startup for quite some time now. I'm still convinced that this idea is 1) very good and 2) could be easily monetized. Long story short: I just found that another startup has launched a service similar to my idea. When I discovered that startup I lost all my motivation to keep on working on this idea. I have to admit that it really was just an idea so far, i.e. I was working on the wire framing and trying to get a team together.
Now my question: What would you guys do? Since it is not exactly executed like I would've done it and I could try to launch it first in my country (Germany), I'm not sure whether to give this idea up or just go for it. It would be easy to dismiss, since it is just an idea so far. On the other hand, I'm really convinced that this idea is very good.
On what criteria would you guys base your decision whether to go on or dismiss that idea? <comment><USER3> I always say to continue doing your thing. These guys are just starting out, so even if you are a year late, at most they'll maybe have 1-2% market share.

Go look at their site, see what they did right, see what they did wrong, and modify your product accordingly. If necessary add a few extra features to differentiate yourself

<comment><USER4> By 1990 or so, there was a company in Ohio selling books on the Internet. They had the books.com address - until web browsers came along later, you just logged in through telnet on a 'curses' capable terminal. It worked OK, and they shipped books on time with low fees, internationally. They had good word- of-mouth on Usenet.

A couple of years later, amazon.com came along claiming "a river of a million books". I think the books.com address was sold to Barnes&Noble around 2000.

<comment><USER5> Another case is that of EzGov and govWorks (see the documentary Startup.com) As I understand, govWorks started in 1998 (not sure which month), EzGov started in April, 1999.

EzGov appears to have survived and grew to be acquired by ChoicePoint in 2005. govWorks filed bankruptcy in 2001.

So as others here say, there is a lot more than just the starting date at play.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I say this, find me a business with out competition and I will show you a business without any customers.

Every business is going to have competition. If you didn't then your area of business is likely something no one wants.

</comment><comment><USER7> This is excellent. Let them do the market research for you, examine their user trends to see what works and what does not, and build on their failures. Take all that worked from their site and add some new stuff. Target the same sites they targeted and a few more. They have broken the walls, you now just need to copy them.

</comment><comment><USER8> Consider it validation and figure out the big picture, who will get to market faster, is backed by a more aggressive vision and where are the short to long term wins for the consumer.

</comment><comment><USER9> This is an easy one....

McDonalds

Burger King

Wendy's

In n' Out

Jack in the Box

White Castle

They all sell burgers.

Nuff said...

Keep going...

<comment><USER10> This guy is in trouble and you're advicing him to get high?

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> There are definitely a lot of successful startups that take an idea from one country and do it in another. Sure, they may not be _huge_ , but might make some good money in any case.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, I also thought about XING (<http://www.xing.com>) here in Germany. Many people say it's just a copycat of LinkedIn, but in my opinion they have created a much better business network than LinkedIn. And: they're profitable. Their business model ("Freemium") worked out and they've sucessfully expanded in other European countries and China.

<comment><USER12> I may be working on a similar business network here in the US (as a contract Rails coder), but with features tailored to a specific market. Even though I'm just doing this as a contract gig (no equity), I genuinely think they will succeed. They are tightly focused on a market that is willing to spend money, can get some good initial traction through personal contacts, and the market they are going after needs features not present in 'generic' sites like LinkedIn or Facebook.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Simple analysis shows that any commodity that follows a linear price/sales response has space for two major players.

<http://www.solipsys.co.uk/new/OptimalPricing.html?HN>

Go for it. Learning from their mistakes lets you travel faster initially, and if you're skilled, you can probably catch up.

</comment><comment><USER12> KEEP GOING!

Look at your 'competition'. Do you want your product more than theirs? Can you see areas where your product will be more appealing? If either of those is yes, don't stop.

There will always be competition. I'm working on something (with a partner) that has LOADS of competition, and a lot of that competition is _good_. But we think that we can do better, because even though other people have written similar things, our product solves our particular needs (and desires) much, much better.

Also, keep in mind that somebody in that market segment, who is making money, validates that your idea _can_ make money.

So get to it, and don't worry about the Joneses!

</comment><comment><USER14> Clearly the size of the market is going to be a huge factor (if not the primary). If the market cap is $100mm and you think both you and your competitor can only get 1%, then sayonara; it's probably not big enough to carry both of you. If, however, it is $100mm and you think that, between you, you can both capture 20% of that market, then it might be doable provided that you think you can capture about an equal share.

<comment><USER12> It depends on how much staff you need to get that one percent of the market. One percent of a hundred million dollars is still a million dollars... for a 1-4 person software company with minimal costs, that would be pretty damn reasonable.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> This has been happening to me for a looong while! Its reasonable since I didn't really take initiative(quick enough, atleast) for it to be "my" project.

Technology is a weird thing; inspite of being unpredictable, there are milestones we know that will be reached; how they are reached, how soon they are reached or who does, is a matter of initiative, luck and money.

I would suggest that you look at it as an opportunity; get in touch with the guys who're onto the idea now and express how passionate you are about this; share your ideas, and any work you've done on it yet.

In short, try and jump into it with those guys! You may hit upon more than you were expecting: they're obviously people who got started and who think alike: Match made in heaven?

The rest is upto you, grasshopper!! Good Luck!

</comment><comment><USER16> Take advantage of this situation.

If they fail, why did they fail? What will you do differently to succeed that they did not?

If they are successful and service becomes popular you now know there is a market. Take your idea, take their good ideas, and combine them into your own better than originally planned idea. Take some of their market, make some of your own market.

Think of it as competition. If you know you can do better go forward and nip on their heels. Your product will be better (theirs might too).

However, it almost sounds like you are trying to make an excuse to give up. If it was easy, everyone would be doing it.

</comment><comment><USER17> There are very, very few markets that it is truly winner take all. Ex. even Airbus/Boeing, Microsoft/Linux/Apple, etc

For most part, I find that ideas are essentially worth the paper that they're scribbled on. It almost always comes down to execution. Go for it! You'll never know until you try, otherwise you'll always be saddled with the shoulda, coulda, wouldas(particularly if that startup competitor ends up exiting in a big way down the road). I learned my lesson the hard way.

Remember, sometimes its better to be a fast follower (and faster at reiterations) than a first mover.

</comment><comment><USER18> There is always room in any given space for another company. What if Google took that attitude when looking at Yahoo, AltaVista, or HotBot?

<comment><USER19> But Google had an idea that was different to what Yahoo, et al., were doing that's how they broke in. They were well differentiated and were effectively offering a new product, low spam SERPs drawn from a wider crawl of the 'net.

If Yahoo had already been offering a comparable product to Google then Google wouldn't have done so well at all IMO.

That said, when we started our pottery painting business we were pipped to the post by another very similar business (ie pottery painting) in the same area, we'd already been concerned that the area might not support us alone. We'd started the business, rented a building and refurbed it, quit jobs, bought stock, etc.. Still we're going 5 years later and they lasted 6months before closing (due to family issues).

The point being you can still succeed you're just going to have to try a lot harder. They may fail, even if they're better. You can still win even if they're better (betamax, hddvd, etc.).

<comment><USER20> Actually, the founders of Google initially wanted to sell their product to Yahoo, Alta Vista, Ask.com, et all.

Nobody really believed their algorithm would significantly better. They were convinced state of the art was all there was and could ever be.

So they founded Google, and pretty much owned their stagnant competitors. There's a reason Ask.com spends good money marketing itself among rednecks with a NASCAR and Google doesn't.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> There are very few (if any) industries that only have room for one player. If you love the idea, you owe it to yourself to at least try. If your competitor is just starting, they havent captured all the available audience, there is space for competition. If the idea is that great, your real fear should be who else is going to try and play.

</comment><comment><USER22> Same thing happened to me. Someone beat me to it. But I just kept working on it (still not done actually. hehe). They are making money, so this confirms that my idea will work. It is more of a reassurance than a threat/de- motivation to me.

And the other guy could use a little competition. I jsut have to "up" my product a little bit.

</comment><comment><USER23> Is your concept search? If yes, get back to the drawing board.

Seriously though, if you aren't going against a company that whose name is used as a verb in the common vernacular, I think you should stick with it. As mentioned, the fact that your idea has been implemented is a validation. If you take it as a defeat then you lose.

<comment><USER24> What's the problem with going against major incumbents? Google challenged quite a few players and changed the world. Firefox stood up to a Monopoly and found its niche.

Someone's gotta be the next big guy..

<comment><USER23> Nothing at all, you're totally right.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> What is the idea?

<comment><AUTHOR> I was not sure whether to post it or not. I am still not sure. It's not because I am afraid other people will be interested in this idea (ok, maybe a little bit), but maybe it will bring some bias in the conversation. But I agree that knowing my idea and knowing the competitor would help to assess the situation.

<comment><USER26> If the idea is so exciting that people might jump on it even if there are 1 or 2 competitors ahead of them, then you'd better be confident in your ability to execute. Because as soon as you launch more competitors will come.

On the other hand, I implemented a blindingly obvious idea for photo sharing that is so clearly the right way of doing things, I thought for sure tons of other sites would be doing the same thing in no time. Four and a half years later it's still unique.

Just ship it and see what happens.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Great post from a couple weeks ago on Josh Kopelman's blog on stuff like this in the search engine business: [http://redeye.firstround.com/2009/03/pivoting- and-yogi-berra...](http://redeye.firstround.com/2009/03/pivoting-and-yogi- berra.html)

Summary: Don't give up.

</comment><comment><USER28> The best thing a company can have is competition.

Otherwise you're under no pressure to innovate.

Also it validates your market. If no-one else is doing it, it must be a sucky idea.

I should think they will be _thrilled_ to see you starting up something similar. Seriously.

</comment><comment><USER29> Just do it. Being in limbo, going back and forth, is the worst place to be. What's the worst that'll happen? You'll have gone for it. That's more than most people can say.

It's really that simple. Now get off Hacker News and build that damn thing and submit it here for review.

</comment><comment><USER30> keep going, your motivation needs to stem from you having some distinguishable element to your idea that nobody has done yet. The element needs to be important enough to make a difference.

Spend some time finding how you can be distinct from people around you. Good ideas are rewarded by others trying them out, it shows that you're not just on a limb by yourself, but that it's actually something others think would be successful.

There are many companies out there that do almost exactly the same thing as another one, but the subtle differences might be the most important one. Also nobody ever said sharing the market has ever been a drawback.

Instead of being first, why not second? You could be much more successful.

Goodluck, don't lose hope.

</comment><comment><USER31> What problem you are solving? They might have the same idea, but are they solving the same problem? Maybe they are not solving any problem, and just infatuated with the idea. Suppose you have a deeper understanding of the problem and who has that problem, then this is your edge.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for all the great feedback so far. I really appreciate the valuable advice of you guys. I think I'll go for it. However, it showed me one thing: I need to get things done right now. I will keep you up-to-date. Thanks HN!

</comment><comment><USER32> It can be discouraging, but move on or try to out-execute your competitor. Either way, not doing anything about an idea means you should be happy to see someone else do it for you. More ideas will come.

</comment><comment><USER33> Could you possibly improve on the idea, in a way which would give you a significant edge over you competitor?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, I think so. Like I said, it is not exactly executed like I would've done it. However, I am worried about the edge they already have in terms of being in the market already. Since it is a market with strong network effects (like many web apps) it will be hard to convince existing users to change services.

<comment><USER34> There are many ways for a market leader to lose ground to a competitor - I am witnessing one of those at the moment, with one of the services I use. You can compete on features, you can compete on aesthetics, you can compete on _customer service_ , you can carve up the niche... the list goes on.

What you can't do is expect other people not to have the same idea - <USER2> you get first to market or not. If that was your only plan, it wouldn't have worked out anyway.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> If it's a good idea, just go for it. Friendster came out first. Then Myspace, and now Facebook.

</comment><comment><USER36> a) Is it working? If not, why? b) Do you think you know how to do it better?

If yes to both then do it. If no to a) then you'd want to be fairly confident that they got it wrong in some way and didn't just prove it to be a bad idea.

</comment><comment><USER37> How about joining that startup?

<comment><AUTHOR> Not really an option. I am from Germany and this is a US based startup. Furthermore, there are many things I don't like about their execution and how they realized the whole concept. I wouldn't be too happy joining them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> "2) could be easily monetized."

I think that's a problem there. You want to work on something that's _profitable_ , not "monetizable".

</comment><comment><USER39> The day before one of my portfolio companies launched, a stealth competitor launched. And it out-shadowed ours. Two months later we've compiled, (i) more traffic, (ii) more revenue.

Put your shoulder to the wheel and grind it out. If you don't, you'd probably of failed anyways.</comment>


From deep in Peru's rainforests, isolated people emerge - <AUTHOR> http://news.sciencemag.org/latin-america/2015/06/feature-deep-peru-s-rainforests-isolated-people-emerge

<comment><USER2> Great article but this line at the end is a bit weird:

"These villagers themselves have yet to reap many of the benefits of modern civilization, including electricity, clean water, or employment opportunities"

Employment opportunities? Really? Isn't that kind of missing the whole point?

</comment><comment><USER3> There are still many "uncontacted" tribes in the world ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncontacted_peoples](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncontacted_peoples)). I find the Sentinelese people most fascinating of them all. They violently fight anyone getting near their island. They are probably lucky to be on a place where not many resources can be extracted, so no body bothers them.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you for this link. I wasn't aware that there are still several "uncontacted" tribes, especially in South America. Fascinating.</comment></comment>


Running the (half) marathon in North Korea - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@dirkeschenbacher/running-the-half-marathon-in-north-korea-fd720b203716

<comment><USER2> > But as Roeland Loof, a Dutch fellow runner says in this New York Times > article: "In the U.S. and Europe, we're as brainwashed as they are here." Is > there a better or a worse? Hard to say, it always depends on who you are and > where you look from.

I suppose this sort of hogwash is how he justifies to himself handing the North Korean a large wad of money for something as self-indulgent as doing some tourism and running there.</comment>


Ask HN: I'm rubbish at (and hate) OOP – any hope for a career in web dev? - immutable-progr Throwaway account. No matter what, I know I will never be good at OOP - at least not in the classical sense of creating classes and formulating getters and setters etc. I hate it. And I'm crap at it too. I can do procedural (modular and well-organised), but not functional.
I want to do server-side web development where OOP languages dominate. I know I can program in a non-OOP way, but no-one will take me seriously will they? Be totally honest, you wouldn't highly regard someone who only ever programmed Ruby or Python in purely procedural code. Can you even point to a highly-regarded repo on Github in those languages purely in procedural? Yep, didn't think so.  Is there even a popular library or package in those languages that are  written in a non-OOP way? Yep, didn't think so again. Even PHP has long embraced OOP and no-one expects procedural - unless it's bad procedural.
What are your honest opinions? I don't mind if they are blunt.
Edit: thank you everyone for your comments and encouragement :-) One thing I forgot to mention is that for learning popular web development languages, it is difficult to come across non-OOP frameworks or large, popular (but well-written) non-OOP open source projects. It always feels like having to poorly translate from one model (OOP) to another. I realise this may be the wrong approach. But when you're learning, you can't avoid studying other projects (even if you don't fully understand them!) - and they inevitably tend to be OOP. <comment><AUTHOR> I work in machine learning, and on my team we generally avoid OOP in Python, and we take great effort to avoid inheritance and abstract base classes when we do use object-oriented designs.

In general, writing boring modules of functions with slight functional style, occasional metaprogramming, and lightweight classes, has worked extremely well for us. I would probably call our approach "module oriented design" because tend to think of modules as cohesive clusters of functions and topical little data structures (mostly just namedtuples, possibly using new dataclasses when we get around to it).

The main times we invest much effort in custom classes tend to be times we are wrapping or extended third-party tools that themselves chose OOP, and their intended extension mechanisms involve inheritance. Think of writing a custom Filter for logging, or custom Layers in Keras.

We don't like OOP in those cases, but we find it's better to stick with the convention of the library you're using, than to try to force it to fit into a different approach you like.

But overall, I've worked on many multi-thousand line codebases in Python, often with web service wrappers around them, that are just collections of modules with plain functions.

When I see this, I definitely would respect that development choice, and would believe it has a lot of upsides favoring it.

Of course, I would also say that in the hands of skilled OOP developers, OOP solutions are also good and also have upsides. If I found myself on a team where OOP was the established lingua franca and people delivered good projects with it, I would try to adapt to that.

</comment><comment><USER2> I have been using Python since version 1.5, and while not in web dev (I run a data team: ETL, BI, viz), I never went OOP in Python and do just fine. We write code in Go too, which has a growing presence in web dev, and is not OOP at its core, compared to something like Java.

Where I can't speak to the development of code interacts with browsers, procedural code and limited functional paradigms (apply like operations in Pandas, and dplyr in R) are still very useful. IMO it depends largely on the teams you would work with. A shop that has people or code with a strong OO foundation won't be a good fit. Bluntly, I believe OOP is over used in _some_ cases. Like all successful approaches it has good and bad applications, the latter not a barrier to widespread misuse.

Maybe instead of picking a segment of coding (web dev), find one where the tools and techniques fit your preferences. If web dev or front end is dominated by what you dislike, pick one that has opportunities where you fit?

</comment><comment><USER3> I think you're being too harsh. I've never programmed Python in any way other than procedural and it has never been a problem. I do have a thing for a more functional style but abhor OO. It's one of the beauties of Python to me that it works well for so many paradigms.

</comment><comment><USER4> Make a product. Sell it. Customers could care less about which CS fashion statement you subscribe to--as long as it results in a good product.</comment>


Twitter expects $1Billion in revenue on ad growth in 2014 - <AUTHOR> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-01/twitter-said-to-expect-1-billion-in-sales-in-2014-on-ad-growth.html

<comment><USER2> Twitter getting fatter.. though google suffers a bit recently due to spam full of ads they are receiving.</comment>


Is College Worth It? | Byliner Spotlights - <AUTHOR> http://byliner.com/spotlights/is-college-worth-it <comment><USER2> Well despite being a high school drop out, albeit with an associates degree in management, I've done alright for myself. My income is in the low six figures, I enjoy my job at Microsoft and have enjoyed most of my previous positions as well. At the same time I could have been where I am at now a lot sooner if I'd gone the traditional route. I suspect my income would be padded with a few extra 10k, etc.

So, no college isn't necessarily necessary, but I would recommend it. You'll still have time to work on your startup and have the benefit of pulling in others from your classes to help.

Being forced to sit through those classes forces you to cover some things you may not seek out on your own and these skills in language, mathematics and technology can help you out quite a bit during your early career before you're forced to hunker down and pick them up on your own.</comment>


Men In Tech - <AUTHOR> http://wekeroad.com/2012/05/11/men-in-tech

<comment><USER2> Reading this is really awkward. And it's not awkward because it reveals some hidden truth, or because it's a good piece of writing that reflects on the issue it's tackling.

No, instead it's awkward because the gender dynamics are not reversible. At least, not in the manner that's intended here. You can't just take the circumstances that women face in tech fields, and switch around the pronouns and have the circumstances make sense, because doing so does not swap out the cultural contexts which reside _in the reader's head_ (which is one of the critical points in the veil of ignorance thought experiment: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil_of_ignorance> ).

There are female dominated fields in which men are rare (nursing and dietetics to name two) and encounter all sort of social awkwardness due to being the minority. But the sorts of circumstances that guys face, while there are some correlations, are not analogous problems to the problems that women face in fields in which they are the minority. The oft cited thing keeping men out of nursing and dietetics are cultural things like the work not being "manly" enough, as opposed to facing sexual harassment and pejorative or demeaning behavior.

<comment><USER3> You're being a tad too literal with your critique (if I may). The whole point is to take you into a realm that's utterly absurd from the male perspective -- _which is entirely my point in writing this_.

Yes, male nurses face weird moments in life - but as you say it's mostly from other men. That has nothing to do with being a woman in the tech industry who get to listen to cracks about "being on the rag" or PMSing when they're aggressive.

Next time you're with a female coworker, notice how often you and the other men in the group look at her chest. Notice how often she ignores this and how completely oblivious the other men are that she's overlooking their behavior. If you don't believe me - and if you know this woman well enough - ask her.

You'd be surprised the shit women deal with.

<comment><USER4> > You'd be surprised the shit women deal with.

I'm not sure, but I think you're being too general. I'd rather state this:

      You'd be surprised by the shit *attractive* women have to deal with.

And I 'm pretty sure that attractive men have to deal with the same kind of "shit". They just react to it differently.

Edit: I expected the downvotes, but please reply, do you disagree with the stated facts (i.e. does you experience differ from mine), or with the manner they were stated in?

<comment><USER5> Attractive men DON'T have to deal with the same kind of shit, in general, because they are not a minority. They are not in a minority with social precedents to keep them down, which is what this article is all about. Institutionalized sexualization of women through teasing and joking is pretty common. This piece is trying to get you to where you try to understand what it's like.

Most of us have wondered if our bulge was big enough - imagine if it was judged daily, by every oncoming woman, in every meeting. Imagine if you were constantly teased about getting a boner, and people acted as if it were normal.

I imagine some people around here aren't very good at imagining, are too literal, and hence react badly to this sort of thing.

<comment><USER6> You are obviously not an attractive male.

I've had to put up with quite a lot from women of all kinds and I'm not even that attractive.

I'm not going to say more, since I will get called a pussy and a bitch.

But lets please stop pretending that only men are perverts and that all sexual discrimination and indecent behavior towards other people comes from men.

<comment><USER5> You obviously are a jerk. But sadly that's also normal amongst our CS population.

<comment><USER7> >You obviously are a jerk.

And you are obviously a "nice guy."

<comment><USER5> Yeah, thanks - I do try to do the right thing. But that doesn't mean I'm a pushover. You can be alpha and still be a nice guy, it's just how you deal with those who -aren't- nice that matters.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Wtf, sure we need to be cognizant of discrimination against men in our society, and I think there are great arguments to be made that men are generally portrayed as dumb in TV shows, for example.

However we cannot equate men's and women's experiences of the world we live in. I want to, and have the mistake of doing so many times, but I've since seen how wrong I've been.

 _My female friend told me the following which radically transformed my perspective_ Ask any group of women "What do you do to protect yourself in your daily life?" Dome typical answers \- never walk alone at night \- hold car keys out while walking to car so you can open car door quickly \- do not make eye contact or smile to strangers at night \- do not go to bars or clubs alone \- carry money in bra in case bag is taken \- never put down your drink \- _the list goes on and on_

Women's life experiences are thus characterized by a _constant_ and _unending_ fear of sexual assault.

When you ask men the same question---to list what they do to protect themselves in their daily life... \--> the answer is just about nothing.

We men walk around like we own urban environments. We have very little to lose and we have a lot of fun with it all. However we have a major bias that we need to be aware of: women are raised to be in constant fear, a fear they don't share with us. This has tremendous implications throughout life. Also this is only one example of a difference in life experience between men and women. There are of course many more.

<comment><USER9> >Women's life experiences are thus characterized by a constant and unending fear of sexual assault. >When you ask men the same question---to list what they do to protect themselves in their daily life... --> the answer is just about nothing.

Why is this fear a bad thing for women? Interesting fact: men are more likely to be victims of violent crime[1] and this has been pretty much true throughout history[2] though it is getting better. That fear is probably quite useful in keeping them alive since women are only half as likely to be victims of assaults by strangers[3]

[1] [http://web.archive.org/web/20060926004448/http://www.ojp.usd...](http://web.archive.org/web/20060926004448/http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/vsx2.htm)

[2] [http://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_on_the_myth_of_violen...](http://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_on_the_myth_of_violence.html)

[3] [http://web.archive.org/web/20060927115258/http://www.ojp.usd...](http://web.archive.org/web/20060927115258/http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/sdvv.txt)

<comment><USER10> This is excellent advice -- for women roaming free on our ancestral savanna.

For those of us, though, who are collaborating on this whole civilization thing, high levels of fear are bad. Especially well-justified fears that keep people from participating fully in society.

<comment><USER11> Doesn't the satistics prove the fear is not well-justified? Unfortunately, women should fear men they know more than strangers.

<comment><USER10> Who said that the fear isn't justified?

The problem being pointed out is exactly that the fear _is_ justified. It is fucked up beyond belief that half of our population has, as the parent post puts it, "a constant and unending fear of sexual assault."

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> This is a pretty artificial and transparent effort, but it's well intentioned.

It's often interesting to see commentary from fields where the gender divide skews heavily toward women. Libraries are one good example - I know several people of both genders who work in them. To make some broad generalization, sexual harassment tends to be a more minor issue, but "drama" and territorialism tends to be much worse.

One example of this - a male I know enjoyed working with some of his female coworkers better than others. As a result, there were complaints and grumbling from other staff members. It's almost as if he was a pawn on the chessboard of social status.

I'd love to hear similar stories - I know they're out there...

<comment><USER3> Does your local library push videos of Hot Library Chicks dancing around poles while male library guys rap in their face? (referring to the Nokia Vimeo video).

This isn't about gender divide, it's about a complete lack of understanding.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I've been appreciating all the articles on HN calling out sexism in the [tech] workplace. It's actually made me change my own behavior at work, though I've been told I never offended anyone, I've started doing things like never saying "that's what she said" as well as chastising co-workers when they say it.

It would be nice if there were something to say instead, that could still add a lightness and moment of comedy to a conversation, but without being offensive. Haven't found a phrase yet that fits that mold though.

<comment><USER2> I've been trying to figure out whether turnaround is fair play:

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxvujEmyiPQ>

<comment><USER14> I'm confused - is the video mocking women who whine about "that's what she said" jokes?

<comment><USER15> I hope so. They are annoying.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I like this as an exercise in empathy.

It's important to consider how we treat the "odd ones out" in any group. Maybe we're on snowboarding holiday with friends who are all mad keen boarders, except for one who's never seen snow before, we'd probably adjust our behaviour and hang out on the baby slopes a bit and help out our friend. Or maybe we're organising a work party, and it would normally be a slightly boozy affair in a bar, but we know someone doesn't drink because they're pregnant/alcoholic/religious/don't like it/training for a marathon, so we might do something a bit different, like take everyone for a bbq on the beach. Maybe we own a cafe, and there's a step out the front, we might get a ramp ready, so that if someone in a wheelchair wants to visit they can get in okay.

For whatever reason, at the moment, being a female in tech means you're an "odd one out". The lack of women in tech is not the men in tech's fault, (the men in tech are mostly pretty lovely, certainly I like working with them). The lack of women is no-one's fault, the reasons run deep and are complicated. It's also not a terrible experience being a women in tech, it's a good job. I guess the worse you can say is that it's hard to be different to everyone around you. And let's face it women haven't got the monopoly on that, we all know what that feels like. It's not really about gender, I'm sure there's many men who feel excluded by the whole "brogrammer" thing too.

Sometimes the discourse around the whole "women in tech" thing makes me scared, I feel like it's stirring people to feel accused or hurt or angry or confused, and causing them to divide. It shouldn't really be about women, it doesn't even make sense, we're half of humanity for goodness sake, 3.4 x 10^9 very separate people, why consider us to be such a coherent group? It should be about trying to understand those around us as individuals, who are not necessarilly the same as us, and seeing if there's any small adjustments or accommodations we could make so that they can be themselves, and also a part of our group. And we should be doing this, just because it's right, and that's the sort of world we want to live in.

<comment><USER17> The problem though, is empathy is going to be really hard for men -> women or women -> men; both sexes are remarkably different culturally.

What you see is a large number of socially awkward and inept people flocking to industries where being socially tact is less valued over intellectual prowess. Women have always been more socially tactful than men - it's how our society is set up, women are treated as a valued commodity.

If you want a "close" approximation of figuring out what it's like to be the other gender in a "x dominated field", you should go the route of the author of this book: [http://www.amazon.com/Self-Made-Man-Womans-Journey- Manhood/d...](http://www.amazon.com/Self-Made-Man-Womans-Journey- Manhood/dp/0670034665)

She did a remarkable job of actually _experiencing_ what being a man in our society is like. I would be very interested if someone of the male sex were to do something similar and write a book about it, this article doesn't cut it IMHO.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Wow. What a killer article. I think it went pretty far in depth, and I let myself take the time to imagine everything the author was describing, and I fuckin felt it man.

If this was written by a man, I applaud the effort you put into empathizing with women. If it was written by a woman, Thank you for thinking up so many creative and kick ass examples.

Our society has a long way to go before we reach equality. And I fucking PRAY it happens with greater reverence for sex in general, instead of applying to crude commercialized form of sexuality to both genders.

I've been noticing people using sexuality in a manipulative and threatening way at work a bunch lately, and it fucking sucks. If anyone out there has trouble socializing, and wants to know a good way to do it: Share your feelings with a girl in private, and start off small. Yeah it makes you vulnerable but that is an essential part of real love. DO NOT make sexual comments in front of other people.

<comment><USER4> > Our society has a long way to go before we reach equality.

Why is there such a strong emphasis on equality?

In Slovenian, we have two similar words, of which one means "equality", and the other means roughly "equal rights". I'm always annoyed when the former is stated as a goal, instead of the latter.

We're not equal, and never will be. For example, men don't have to bear children, they don't need a "paternal leave" (where it's available, it's a nice bonus, but it shouldn't be introduced/mandatory at the expense of the maternal leave).

Another apparent difference between the sexes is the different priorities in the choice of mate. I'm sure that the bigger emphasis assigned by man to the visual appearance of women is partially based in our culture, but also partially based in our biology. Sure, sexual comments at the workplace are inappropriate, but I'm never going to seek excuses for my preference for seeing sexy women in ads (btw, another gender bias used in ads, but rarely mentioned, even by the most fierce proponents of "equality": if a person is implied to be socially awkward/stupid/taken advantage of, it's almost always a man).

There is, however, one area where men and women are mostly equal: the advantages in life that the _alpha_ members of each sex are awarded with (the meaning of alpha differ between the genders: in women, it's mostly looks, in men, it's fame, power, money, fitness/lookss (not necessarily in this order)).

<comment><USER19> > We're not equal, and never will be.

There are many people who believe, or effectively believe even if they acknowledge some innate differences, that people are essentially the same, and all differences between them can be explained by cultural, social and personal experiences. A paradigm which is sometimes, mostly by critics, called "standard social science model" (basically a polar opposite of believing that we are all born stratified into casts, classes, races, sexes... and that this stratification determines each person's fate).

If you adopt this paradigm, all inequalities must be a result of sexism, racism, or some other discrimination or failure on the part of society. It's seen as unfair and unjustified and in turn results in actions against that perceived injustice (legislation, shaming, protests, demonstrations, blog posts...).

And it goes deeper than that. Some people will say that beauty is a cultural/social construct, that obesity is a result of unhealthy food being priced lower than healthy choices and affects poorer people more (it doesn't btw[1]). This pattern of conflict between being affected by circumstances vs having some innate qualities is very pervasive.

[1] [http://www.overcomingbias.com/2011/08/the-poor-are-not- fat.h...](http://www.overcomingbias.com/2011/08/the-poor-are-not-fat.html)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Hmm, not completely sure what this article is getting at but it seems to be implying that men and women are the same and would feel the same way when reacting to such things as sexual harassment and whether or not you're desirable to the opposite sex.

That's basically a completely false premise.

Because of biological facts and the resultant social history, men and women have completely different values and attitudes to sex. As such this story seems pretty unrealistic to me.

That's not to say that patriarchy doesn't suck and that women doesn't face a lot of adversity in tech and so on.

<comment><USER21> I'm kinda hoping this is a joke, but I'm also guessing not.

The point is you would feel as helpless and frustrated as women do now if the tables were turned and the entire social structure was set up so as to belittle you and give you little recourse to respond.

Also men and women are very similar in terms of values and attitudes towards sex regardless of the prevailing popular myths.

<comment><USER7> >Also men and women are very similar in terms of values and attitudes towards sex regardless of the prevailing popular myths.

In the sense they both expect different values and attitudes towards sex from men and women.

Keep your religion-derived asexual "men and women are the same" nonsense to your church or feminist club.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> OP could make his statement much stronger if he wrote the whole piece from perspective of bit asexual straight man working in environment dominated by gay men who would introduce in daily worklife all kinds of innuendos often forgetting that protagonist is not interested in them and also not very interested in sexual layer of human interaction.

I think the innate homophoby of the readers could help them to better understand.

<comment><USER3> The trick in pulling this article off is you can go too far with your stereotypes and "artistic license" - actually offending the people you're trying to defend.

And I've worked there - in a place where gay men outnumbered the men. I've been cornered - shoved in between two refrigerators while a guy who outweighed me by 50 pounds leaned against me and went for my bits - all the while telling me "it's time to come out".

I put my fist into his sternum as hard as I could. He laughed - "feisty! I like it..." and he backed off.

This happened. But what's the point of this story? That gay men can be aggressive? That I was "wronged"? That I can somehow identify with women because I was, literally, assaulted at work?

<comment><USER22> :-(

I think you can relate better to victims of similar assaults. Most of them are women.

Point of the story would be to help reader to understand how unsafe can someone feel at work when people pass sexual remarks like it's nothing. OP's post doesn't really achieve that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> The comments here so far are mind bogglingly stupid. It's intended as a satire, simple as that. Try not to over think it guys.

<comment><USER24> Satire, huh? So by telling a story of sexism with the genders reversed, the author is slyly poking fun at all the fuss about sexism in tech that we've been hearing lately, and showing us how ridiculous it all is. That's an interesting take, 'cause I sure didn't read it that way. To me it seems more like a straight put-yourself-in-her-shoes appeal to empathy for women who brave the tech industry.

<comment><USER25> Isn't this more a story of sexualization and objectification than sexism? It was an interesting read to empathize with the uncomfortableness of the situation, but the sexualization stood out to me far more sexism.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> _I'll take my time explaining what professionalism is, and what it means in the workplace. I'll take care not to offend you as I explain the roles of men and women in any industry._

Some place I can find this?

</comment><comment><USER27> Wait... Rob can afford a car? I thought he had to ride to work on a paddle board? And I'm also going to call BS on his bulging pecs and biceps. I bet he couldn't even bench the bar for 10 reps.

</comment><comment> sasha-dv Just what women need!

Another middle-aged white man fighting for the women's rights. It's condescending. It's just a step away from "A Gay Girl in Damascus".

<comment><USER28> Hi,

I have no idea if you are a woman or a man, but as a woman in tech, I feel compelled to reply.

I appreciated this story. Not so much the comments attached to it on HN, but the story itself. If it got some guys thinking about how they would feel if this happened:

"You don't look like a programmer! When did you get into computers? That's kinda hot..."

 _Which has happened to me so many times I've lost count...usually followed closely by "Are you single?"_

If it gets guys to stop saying THAT...then it was well worth the whole thing.

<comment><USER29> _If it got some guys thinking about how they would feel if this happened:

"You don't look like a programmer! When did you get into computers? That's kinda hot..."_

I'd have no problem with that at all, especially I found the woman attractive. As others have said, just flipping the genders in scenarios like that doesn't often work.

And is that really an awful way for guys to hit on you? They're going to do that anyway, and at least this way they're expressing interest in your interests, rather than just staring at your chest.

<comment><USER7> >And is that really an awful way for guys to hit on you? They're going to do that anyway, and at least this way they're expressing interest in your interests, rather than just staring at your chest.

If the man is attractive, women will generally welcome the flirtation. If he is unattractive, the woman will generally perceive it as an insult to her attractiveness, since the man should know better, that she is "out of his league."

Also, can anyone explain _why_ it is considered a "good thing" to have a gender balance in tech, or any industry? Who decided that every industry must have an equal number of men and women?

<comment><USER30> > _Also, can anyone explain why it is considered a "good thing" to have a > gender balance in tech, or any industry?_

We strive for a balance because that's a good way to avoid excluding people. Excluding groups of people is bad because they may have different ways to attack problems or different insights to bring to development etc.

Mono-cultures are generally weak and vulnerable. Diversity is generally robust.

<comment><USER7> >We strive for a balance because that's a good way to avoid excluding people. Excluding groups of people is bad because they may have different ways to attack problems or different insights to bring to development etc.

We exclude all sorts of groups, including the incompetent, all the time. There are cases when the benefits of including some group may cause a net detriment due to other factors.

>Mono-cultures are generally weak and vulnerable. Diversity is generally robust.

These glittering generalities are not backed up by any facts. "Diversity" often causes more problems than it purportedly solves, and generalizing "mono- cultures" as "weak and vulnerable" is not something that you can base on facts.

<comment><USER31> A lot of shops I have worked in the last 15 years had no such exclusion on incompetence....

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> I don't really like my neighbours, so I get changed with the blinds open. It's different when you're a man.

</comment><comment><USER33> wtf did I just read??

<comment><USER34> My sentiment exactly.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> Try reading this with a sense of wonder, rather than as a heavy piece of social commentary.

</comment><comment><USER11> It doesn't work for me; I can't imagine an entire field of women acting like that.

</comment><comment><USER36> Is this a rant? I'm confused.

</comment><comment><USER37> I see what you did there.

</comment><comment><USER38> Would someone be kind enough to get us the TLDR version?

Not sure the point, the writer is trying to make.

<comment><USER39> Essentially the author is trying to put the male readers in a women's shoes. In other words, take every sexist tech story that's popped up in tech news in the last few months and reverse the pronouns.

It's certainly an interesting read, but not particularly well executed. There is a book called _Egalia's Daughters_ [1] that does a similar thing in a much more powerful, primal way. Seriously worth a read.

1\. [http://www.amazon.com/Egalias-Daughters-A-Satire- Sexes/dp/18...](http://www.amazon.com/Egalias-Daughters-A-Satire- Sexes/dp/1878067583)

<comment><USER38> Ok but why should we care? I mean it's not like men are raging about the lack of male orientated pregnancy articles.

I don't get it.

Tech is male orientated because there are much more males in it. It make sense to then align the reporting towards the base.

<comment><USER40> Think "you'd feel bad if this happened to you. By empathy, you should figure out that women feel bad if this happens to them."

<comment><USER6> I've had most of the events mentioned in the article happen to me, by women.

I was also labeled as gay in milieu for turning down a woman.

I was hit on by gay men in an extremely uncomfortable fashion more than once.

I was also assaulted by complete strangers for no reason at all.

I was also isolated and bullied by my schoolmates in kindergarten and primary school (boys and girls).

And if I go and complain about it I will be labeled as less than a man. So why should I care?

p.s.: Disclaimer. Since I grew big and strong enough to do it I also disallow any kind of improper behavior in my presence.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> _My boss (the senior dev) is a Dragon Girl_

Targaryens everywhere!

<comment><USER3> LOL the image I was going to use in the header was Daenaerys - but thought it went a bit too far. PJ Harvey is a hero, so I decided she should sit atop the post.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> I think this is largely the expression of terrible, terrible social skills. I've seen appalling things toward women and men alike from young, socially inept Bay Area tech males.

Also, for what it's worth, I've received a lot of crap from women over the course of my working life. In college, I worked in a deli where I was the only male. There was outright sexual harassment, and regular dismissal of me solely because I'm a man. Even in tech roles, I've had problems with female bosses who were horrible, socially incompetent worker bees who got promoted out of what they should have been doing (implementation instead of management).

<comment><USER10> I'm not persuaded.

I know a number of socially inept people. Some of them are perfectly pleasant, just hopelessly awkward. Others are jerks to everyone. But some are sexist jerks. And there are some people who are perfectly well socialized who are _also_ sexist jerks.

Women were oppressed for millennia. Women in the US haven't had the vote for even 100 years. Men and women didn't have equal college enrollment rates until circa 1990. I just don't buy the thesis that sexism is now suddenly extinct, especially in a male-dominated field.

I'm sorry you've received crap. Due to your gender or anything else. But understand that jumping into a discussion of sexism with "but that happens to me too!" is such a common problem that it's listed in the "Derailing for Dummies" guide: <http://www.derailingfordummies.com/menu.html>

<comment><USER43> >I'm sorry you've received crap. Due to your gender or anything else. But understand that jumping into a discussion of sexism with "but that happens to me too!" is such a common problem that it's listed in the "Derailing for Dummies" guide: <http://www.derailingfordummies.com/menu.html>

This guide makes zero rational arguments for why those examples are derailment... It's completely rhetorical.

Intellectually, it's appropriate to discuss female/male oppression in the context of one another since the idea of patriarchy has been replaced with the idea of kyriarchy; A system where everyone oppresses/stratifies everyone else. It's a matrix of relationships that cannot be examined in isolation. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyriarchy>

>Women in the US haven't had the vote for even 100 years. Men and women didn't have equal college enrollment rates until circa 1990. I just don't buy the thesis that sexism is now suddenly extinct, especially in a male-dominated field.

Only ~10% of early Americans were eligible to vote. All white men weren't given the right to vote until the mid 19th century. A generation before women were granted the right.

Very few men benefited from a "patriarchal" social configuration. The fact that a small minority of white men had privilege doesn't negate the social costs externalized on the average man. The only realistic opportunities available to these men were war, working on a farm, working in a coal mine, or working in an industrial era factory. Having the "freedom" to be part of the workforce did not offer you the opportunities it does today...

<comment><USER10> Derailment is a purely rhetorical technique, so I'm not seeing the problem.

I agree that patriarchy is bad for pretty much everybody. But the rhetorical effect of "but what about the time a woman was mean to meeeee" isn't to raise awareness of power dynamics so that people see the real issue as patriarchy or kyriarchy and find action even more urgent. It's to devalue the given examples of sexist behavior so that the privileged person can avoid confronting their privilege.

<comment><USER43> >Derailment is a purely rhetorical technique, so I'm not seeing the problem.

The problem is you made an appeal to authority to "derailing for dummies"...

>It's to devalue the given examples of sexist behavior so that the privileged person can avoid confronting their privilege.

Half of those points could be made by someone who has no intention of derailing. They can be legitimate observations.

<comment><USER10> No. I personally am calling that a common derailing tactic; I just linked to that as evidence that other people also see it as a problem. If you have some counter-evidence, feel free to present it.

As I explained elsewhere in this thread, most people don't intend to derail. What matters isn't the conscious intent of the speaker; it's the effect on the conversation.

That X is a legitimate observation doesn't mean that X is also a valid contribution at any point in any discussion. Watch politicians spin something on a TV show. They can make valid observations all day long that avoid, obfuscate, dodge, color, distract, mislead, and misinform.

If a privileged person jumps into a discussion about injustice in a way that changes the topic from the injustice under discussion to something more comfortable for them, that's derailing. They can do that using a valid observation, an invalid observation, a rhetorical device, or a jack-in-the- box.

Also, Mr. Brand New Anonymous Account: if you aren't going to own your words, expect me to stop responding shortly.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Have to admit I don't really care if there are fewer women in tech, or if they feel uncomfortable in a boy's club, and don't see any reason why we should have to change to make them feel better.

Just because "sexism" is against _your_ moral code doesn't mean it's against mine.

The old joke is true - to avoid sexual harassment accusations: 1) be attractive, 2) don't be unattractive. I've dated plenty of women at work, flirt all the time, and no one has ever accused me of "harassment" or "sexism."

My boss lady caught me checking out her ass once, the next few weeks she wore short skirts and made sure to walk by my desk. It was great.

<comment><USER27> Are you hiring?</comment></comment>


Entrepreneurs, does it help to be desperate? - <AUTHOR> http://sivers.org/desperate

<comment><USER2> Yes, it matters.

An entrepreneur friend of mine sold his first company during the dot com years and made a mountain of cash in the deal. He then went on a spending spree (trying to build new, ultimately unsuccessful companies) that very nearly bankrupted him.

With his savings dwindling and the looming prospect of having to go back to work for someone else, he locked himself in the basement (so to speak) and, in a last-ditch effort, built a profitable company in a few months time. AND, here's the part that gets me, he made this product successful, nearly single- handedly in a market that was already crowded with competitors.

He tells me now that its harder for him to have success in business (5 failed in the last 2 years), primarily because there is no real sense of urgency to drive him to succeed anymore, what with the checks still rolling in. This is despite the fact that he is amazingly talented, both in software development and in business development.

Since meeting him and learning his story, I have been looking for ways to make myself as determined/desperate as he was when he built his company.

<comment><USER3> What was the product?

<comment><USER2> I would LOVE to tell that, but unfortunately, I don't have the leave to do so.

Edit: "Pics, or it didn't happen" eh? I see how you are.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> This is the kind of faulty reasoning that might be caused by looking at anecdotes (e.g. the exceptional story of Richard Branson) and assuming that a single anecdote tells you something about the world, when actually you are ignoring the other 1,000,000 over-extended, Richard Branson-wannabees who went broke and never had books written about them.

<comment><USER5> But I think he's asking, not telling.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> If you read his autobiography, you'll see how much encouragement his parents gave Branson. Infact they even mortgaged their house a second time to pay for his first publication "Student".

This is a guy who has been told all his life that he can do whatever he puts his mind to.

So when he's backed up against a wall, he doesnt see the wall. He just keeps trying till he succeeds.

If you dont have this kind of mindset then I think desperation will kill you.

Essentially (IMHO) you have to put yourself in a position where you have the time and emotional strength to devote to a startup.

For me, this is to have a day job and work during the weekends and during the nighttime.

I used play a lot of sports and go out a lot. I just stopped doing that and put more time into my startup when I realised

A - "If I dont do this I'll ALWAYS be working for someone else". (That really really really scares me.)

B- Worse "I never put in a SERIOUS EFFORT to start my own company".

Just imagining myself thinking these thoughts when I'm 40 is a HUGE motivating factor.

Its the equivalent of the Samurai contemplating their death. "Your going to be 40 in 10 years. Now what are you going to do tonite?"

<comment><USER7> I am 40 (well 39). It's pretty disheartening; I have a bunch of things-I'd-like-to-do but no money, and have never been good at talking up money or even asking for it. Indeed, part of the problem is an excess of belief in the 'do what you love and the money will come' ethic. It might, but you've got to be good at marketing, plus there are times when you will simply get ripped off.

Not blaming the system or anything like that, but if you start out from the wrong place or make a few bad decisions at non-obvious but critical turning points, burning desire isn't always enough. EDIT: I don't mean in the sense of I'm going to lie down and die now, but that effort + ambition doesn't always translate to a successful payoff.

<comment><USER6> Thank you for sharing that.

The way I look at it is that its a long journey where the biggest problem is basically the beliefs that you have. I think you have to really grow out of the beliefs that are holding you back. (By "you" I mean everyone ... not specifically you :) ...

Ie you have to have the mental courage to call yourself out and change to have success. For eg: I've always said that I can never play politics but I realise that when I start my own firm, I will probably have to at some point. So I study how the guys at work do that.

I've abhorred schmoozing to get anything but at some point I might have to do that to land a big client.

If you realise this is the kind of commitment its going to take, I think you'll have better success.

Essentially some particular thing is stopping you from making money. This could range from: 1\. Your product is not useful 2\. Your bliefs arent congruent to what is real in the world 3\. Your relationship with your business partner isnt helping. 4\. etc.

IF you think about it, it really could be anything. And running a business is a process of finding whats wrong and fixing it.

So you basically have to keep realising whats working and whats not. This becomes really hard when it comes down to your beliefs. And I think thats what holds back a fair number of entrepreneurs. They are unwilling to change their beliefs.

Eg: They see no one is using their product but they still believe it will work out. They see no revenue from their keywords and still they use the same ones.

Anyway I hope this process is what will make me sucessful. But even this could be wrong :) ...

<comment><USER7> Bookmarked. Thank you very much!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Like Joel said, this is largely a product of variance.

Imagine a million monkeys in a coin flipping tournament where only the monkeys that flip heads move forward. Eventually there will be a handfull of uber- successful coin flipping monkeys. You could say, "Wow, look how talented they are" but you'd be overlooking the fact that their success a product of chance.

Luck, I'm sure, was not the only thing--he's no doubt talented. But even if you're flipping a coin that falls 4:1 on heads, you still need to be incredibly lucky never to hit tails in the long run.

The poker players among you know this all too well ;)

Also, the greater the chances you take the greater the payoff. He's taken a lot of huge chances and has been lucky enough to come out ahead... way ahead. I've read that VCs like to choose riskier companies for this very reason--I think Matt Maroon, PG, and others have written about this. Good if you're a VC, maybe not as much if you're the one they're gambling on.

</comment><comment><USER9> As someone who wasn't especially successful at business in an eight-year run, I'd say that desperation mostly hurt me. Worry destroys my ability to work, so unless I can convince myself that my life isn't tanking, it's really hard to actually get anything done. Having a stable job has done wonders for my productivity. :)

</comment><comment><USER10> It may help gamblers like Richard Branson, but I think few technology startup founders are that type of person. Most technology startup founders would find this kind of pressure a distraction.

Maybe desperation inspires dealmakers, but distracts makers.

</comment><comment><USER11> One of the things to keep in mind is the kind of leverage Branson employs and how he uses it to reduce his own capital investments in the businesses. If the businesses go belly up, the damage to Brason's wealth for his Virgin start ups are actually quite minimal.

Virgin Atlantic was started with virtually no capital up front, the outlay was small -- something like $500K with a low-cost lease on one airplane.

There are a few other businessmen who take a similar approach. Sam Zell is probably one of the most famous, his Tribune buyout was largely regarded as a failure but even so, the actual impact to his own personal wealth was minimal.

Deal structure is really key in these situations.

</comment><comment><USER12> I think the source of the author's confusion is the mixed bag that comes along with desperation. On one hand desperation can incentivise you to act and spur you to try things you probably wouldn't have, but which may turn out brilliantly. On the other hand I think it can pressure you to the point of making unwise decisions or possibly folding altogether. I don't think it's desperation which helps as much as it is taking risks or doing _something_ to change your situation, but one doesn't need to be desperate for that. As far as the success of Richard Branson's ventures it reminds me of Donald Trump saying he always found it easier to raise money for larger more ambitious projects than smaller ones, so there may again be some correlation favoring higher risk taking - at least if you have nothing really to lose. I would never advise over extending or self-inflicted monetary desperation.

</comment><comment><USER13> Desperation makes you paint awesome paintings. And desperation makes you cut your own ear.

Really desperation is like cocaine. Will give you a short term boost to get things done. But is dangerous.

There are other better and safer tools of motivation out there.

<comment><USER14> Yes thats true, but if (through no fault of your own) circumstance puts in you desperate situations you have to do what you must. And if it means making bold steps then as an entrepreneur you have to do what you have to do.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Determination matters.

If desperation is how you get it, fine. PG will tell you that you need to be hungry, but it's just one of the ways to get determination (also one such way that makes you more likely to be seek YC funding).

</comment><comment><USER16> Here is my take on it (from personal experience with a couple of failed products):

Desperation forces you to concentrate on short-term goals rather than long- term growth. When you are always worried about where you are going to get your next paycheck, you have a different mindset.

In the end, I want a company that will allow me to never have to work for another company again (which I am working on now..at the same time as my FT job).

I suppose, if you are just looking to pump something out in a few months to get purchased by a larger company, it may work.

</comment><comment><USER17> I've worked as an ER/Trauma/Critical Care nurse for 15 years, and, the first thing I teach young ER nurses is this: The first pulse that you check when you walk into a Code Blue is your own pulse.

Translation: You can't do shit for a patient when you're panic stricken. Panic is normal in life/death situations, but when you need to routinely function in those situations, you have to learn to deal with the stress and adrenalin.

So, with some experience, training, and conscious effort to push back the panic, an ER nurse can channel the rush of adrenalin into a zen/flow experience. Time slows to a crawl, you notice anything and everything, and you move like the wind.

But, you can't exist in those panic/flow states all the time. You have to learn how to come down and burn up the extra adrenalin. When people don't learn how to deal with those situations they end up with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.

The stress of building startups feels very similar. As PG says, the default for a startup is to die. As a founder, I fight for the life of my startup each day. And, I'm still learning how to channel all that adrenalin effectively.

</comment><comment><USER18> Two words: survivorship bias.

</comment><comment><USER19> I doubt the world even knows enough about Richard Branson's personal subjective world and internal wiring to know if "desperation" is even the right descriptor. (I certainly don't.) Whether that kind of pressure motivates or demoralizes a particular person depends in part on the person. In my own case, I am very risk averse and only take risks when that is the conservative answer. My oldest son loves it when we have some crisis because he knows I will rise to the occasion and find some creative solution I would never try if a more conservative option were viable. I hate, hate, hate it and feel tortured by such situations. But I am trying to make my peace with it because it is obvious that some of my best ideas come out of gambles made when there was no sure thing available. Other people seem to perceive me as combative, risk-taking, and so on. I don't. I see myself as forced into such choices at gun-point and someone who would far prefer to NOT have to make such choices.

Another thought: If you are dramatically more competent than almost everyone you meet at some things, no one can realistically tell you what you can or cannot do. You have probably been told a jillion times "you can't do that!" when you already had done it. I know I tend to find my limits by falling on my face because failure is the only sure measure of what I genuinely cannot do. I have been told so many times that I could not do something when, in fact, I absolutely could do it that I just can't take the word of other people concerning what is a reasonable goal. I also loathe this aspect of my life. This is not how I want it to be. But it would be insane to behave more "conservatively" when there is a mountain of evidence showing that what other people believe is "impossible" is often just difficult for me but not impossible. This gives other people a certain perception about me reminiscent of what I am hearing about Richard Branson but the public feedback I get about how people see me is very different from my own view of myself. So just because outsiders look at Branson and view his life as lived in a "desperate" state does not mean that is how he experienced it.

PS -- My computer is back from the shop. Woot! :)</comment>


The Echo Chamber of Silicon Valley - <AUTHOR> http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/02/disruptions-the-echo-chamber-of-silicon-valley/ <comment><USER2> How do we know which problems are fake problems and which ones are real problems, though? Sometimes it's obvious, sometimes it might not be as clear.

Twitter probably seemed like a fake problem at its inception (post 140 characters to a personal blog from your phone), and yet it's been adopted and used daily by many, many people outside the Valley. Google's founders weren't thinking about ads when they first built their search engine, but apparently the ads they serve are considered lucrative enough by their customers to turn the company huge. (Of course there are the data privacy issues, but on a more cynical note _someone's_ needs are being served.)

On the other hand, Better Place seemed like a useful idea. EVs presumably aren't more widely adopted because of range anxiety and charge times, so why not create a business model and technology to swap out batteries and make recharging as painless as filling up at a gas station? But Better Place is dead now and Tesla is building out its fast charger network and selling more and more cars.

<comment><USER3> Does the problem directly cause death, injury, or disability? If so, real problem. Everything else is just a matter of optimizing your level of comfort in the absence of real problems.

We can then talk about grading problem importance by its distance from death, injury, or disability (e.g. it's a problem in the solution to a problem in the solution to a real problem), and the probabilities and amounts of death, injury, or disability it does, can, or might in the future cause.

<comment><USER4> Under that definition ... there's hardly anyone working on "real" problems. Even Nasa.

<comment><USER5> Space travel can be viewed as a very abstract indirect approach to "real" problems, for a variety of reasons, depending on your views of NASA's role in technological advance and the future of our planet.

<comment><USER6> Just to be a devils advocate, perhaps it is important to let NASA know that you will be 5 minutes late for a meeting. No, the single instance may not present a life or death situation, but maybe at some point the cumulative effect of solving these first world type problems can have a trickle down effect on making the world a better place for everyone.

I saw this as someone that doesn't use uber, twitter, twist or any of the other referenced products.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> One data point: my mom (in Minnesota) has repeatedly tried to get me to use Twist when I head home to visit her and my dad. I had never heard of the app, and I live in San Francisco.

</comment><comment><USER8> Hmmm. Where else can we find an echo chamber ...

> _"As George Packer wrote in The New Yorker last week"_

Maybe enclosing the New York media?

Seriously, though, we are all products of our environments, and we leverage the opportunities we have on hand. I don't see this as a problem for SV. If the ideas get tired and the solutions are too myopic to generate revenue, then the next wave of entrepreneurs will realize that they need to reach beyond the Bay Area to find problems that software can help solve. Ideas feed other ideas, and solving trivial problems can sometimes lead to solving bigger ones.

</comment><comment><USER9> Twist seems to have a nice, if somewhat infrequent usecase. But this seems like a function that could very easily become part of an iOS update...is it being too cynical to say that whatever the merits of the Twist app, that the $6M funding is fueled by the expectation of an Apple buyout?

Not a bad use of $6M...it's a useful feature, and how much time/money would it otherwise have taken to light the spark in Apple to have it become a built-in function to iOS?

<comment><USER10> You mean like something besides Find Friends or Google Latitude?

<comment><USER11> Find Friends is probably one of the least usable location services out there -- it is so slow to find a location so as to be unusable. Latitude is so complicated to get set up that I find that unusable as well.

Twist, on the other hand, is fast to use and reduces number of taps to do things using a number of smart tricks, and was clearly crafted with a lot of thought to making it so.

<comment><USER10> My comment was in direct response to this:

> But this seems like a function that could very easily become part of an iOS > update.

Regardless, Twist is essentially banking on both Google and Apple _not_ improving the quality of their products that do the same thing.

I agree that the investment into Twist is probably banking on an 'acquihire.'

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> So Twist is an app that says "i'm an asshole who can not plan my time and do not value your time" in an intelligent way?

<comment><USER13> Yes. Those are the only reasons someone might be running late.

<comment><USER14> If one is late enough that one uses an app to tell others that one is late, then yes.

If one needs to be somewhere half an hour away, one does not leave 30 minutes beforehand; one leaves 35-45 minutes beforehand, or even more, depending on importance (e.g. one probably leaves for one's wedding very early indeed, just in case a bridge drops and one's engine drops on the same trip).

Arriving late says, 'I either did not care enough about you to leave early enough, or I did not care enough about you to accurately model the journey duration to anticipate delays.'

</comment></comment></comment><comment> mc-lovin I'm biased because I thought of about making an app similar to twist, but I think this is a great app, and not just something that appeals to "techies" or whatever we are calling nerds now. In fact, I think it has the potential to reduce road accidents by reducing unnecessary phone calls while driving.

</comment><comment><USER15> The quote at the end, explains a little on how SV nurtures the entrepreneurial spirit: "One of perhaps the most compelling things about Silicon Valley is that it is a place where you can fail, and if you do, you can raise money and try again," said Mark Leslie, a retired entrepreneur and lecturer at the Stanford Graduate School of Business. "It's a miraculous place; the streets are lined with gold here."

<comment><USER16> Yeah, that says it all. Rich people can blow millions down the toilet, and still be ok. Then do it again and again forever! Real people are lucky to try even once. If they fail, they're homeless.

If you've already got millions to burn, you've already succeeded. Surely you must have something better to spend it on than building silly apps.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> The only thing that jumped out at me is why Twist needed 6 million dollars worth of funding and why they have 10 employees.

Really?

<comment><USER18> Because funding is not always about the idea, sometimes it's about the people. VCs make bets hoping that some of them will pay off. A good bet is to bet one a guy (2 in this case) who have succeeded before.

So Twist sounds ridiculous, sure. But so did twitter.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Twist isn't solving a fake problem anymore the many services trying to solve the problem of hailing a cab.

That said, sometimes I think it would be nice if a lot of these micro solutions could be aggregated into macro solutions ;)

</comment><comment><USER20> New York journalists sure are interested in software developers on the other side of the continent. They can't write anything serious about the tech industry because they don't understand it. But they've perfected the art of link-bait titles. How many so-called 'real problems' has this writer solved? Zero.

<comment><USER21> Not only is this a troll comment, but it's based on false assumptions. Nick Bilton lives in San Francisco. Also, he knows how to code and used to work in the NYT tech development arm.</comment></comment>


It's 2016 already, how are websites still screwing up these user experiences? - <AUTHOR> http://www.troyhunt.com/2016/01/its-2016-already-how-are-websites-still.html <comment><USER2> Forms using company email address for validation are really frustrating.

I assume Marketing or Sales teams are behind the additional requirement with the aim of better scoring and prioritizing 'leads' for an internal Sales team. In theory, company email address would allow for quicker/better estimation of potential deal size based on company revenue, # of employees, title of employee, etc.

As a user, however, requiring a company email address signals to me that in submitting the form I'm likely to receive either a call from a salesperson or a lot of unwanted email. So, I either abandon the form entirely or use a bogus alias at a recognized company's domain. In a way, it does my email/voicemail inbox a favor.

I wonder what percentage of users exhibit similar behavior. It brought to mind the Hawthorne effect, except participant behavior diminishes instead of improves, when I know the observer (Sales/Marketing team) is watching.

There is also the common problem of false positives, as Troy mentioned.

Has anyone out there evaluated the effects of company email validation?

</comment><comment><USER3> Everything on this list is very annoying and I couldn't agree with this more.

It is however a result of the general mindset (shared by Troy) that all content should just be available for free, which clearly isn't working out for a lot of companies, thus they implement "annoying" things such as described in this list.

</comment><comment><USER4> The adblocker blocker has been fixed by an anti-adblocker blocker (e.g. anti- adblock killer), I'm sure they'll figure out an anti-anti-adblocker blocker soon enough.

(Try saying that out loud quickly.)

</comment><comment><USER5> Simple answer: Because almost everyone still screws up UX.

Probably because most companies spent money on devs and designers, but not on UX.

</comment><comment><USER6> I love this list. All of these are so annoying as a user.

</comment><comment><USER7> Just FYI guys, there's a revealing picture of a lady down the page, might be NSFW.</comment>


A 16-Year-Old Girl Is Facing Child Porn Charges for Making Sex Video of Herself - <AUTHOR> https://reason.com/2019/05/29/16-year-old-girl-sex-porn-child-court-case/ <comment> nathan-io > At her initial hearing, the prosecutor said the state was not "trying to > prove a point in going forward with this case," but that "the state believes > that the respondent is in need of some guidance, rehabilitation for > something deeper" and "is just trying to help her."

What mental health issue is at play here? Is the problem that the girl exhibits natural sexual curiosity and behavior? As to her desire to record and share her experience, I wonder where that mentality came from? Could it have something to do with the toxic, social media obsessed culture in which she has grown up?

And it is now the job of the state to provide mental health "guidance" under threat of imprisonment?

It was foolish for her to share the video with her "close friends," but there is nothing criminal or aberrant here. It was not her intent to distribute the video to adults (who I totally agree shouldn't be watching it due to her age).

This prosecution is beyond outrageous, and will leave lifelong scars. She is without a doubt the only true victim here, and the state is the worse for having stooped to this. Hopefully the case is thrown out, and the prosecutors who brought it face severe backlash.

<comment><USER2> In the US, there is a sentiment that sex which occurs outside of marriage should be punished. Under the magical age of 18? Go to jail. Get pregnant? Spend the next 18+ years caring for a child. Get someone else pregnant? Spend the next 18+ years having your wages garnished.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> The cruelty, stupidity, and absurdity of US prosecutors is simply astonishing. And these are the people our society enlists with providing justice. The only thing they're providing is another notch in their belt of absurd prosecutions. It's hard to believe they are even human at all. They are self obsessed monsters and parasites on society.

</comment><comment><USER4> Some of these laws are absurd. How would prosecuting this girl would benefit anyone?

<comment><USER5> So I think you're asking, "why prosecute a victimless crime?"

There's a couple reasons. Some people want the law to uphold societal moral standards. Some say that victimless crimes aren't actually victimless.

\- In this case, it's not clear that the male in the video consented to the distribution of the video.

\- The video shows a girl who may not legally able to consent to the sex act (The male is presumed to be an adult, but an age was not given in the case).

\- She enabled the further distribution of the video by giving it to a friend who passed it on to other students.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> It's very strange to me how the US justice system is so bent on enforcing rules that everyone knows are just weird.

<comment><USER7> They need to get enforced to get challenged and changed.

This is almost certainly why this isn't getting dropped.</comment></comment>


How a Controversial Study About Kids and Cookies Turned Out to Be Wrong, Again - <AUTHOR> https://www.buzzfeed.com/stephaniemlee/who-really-ate-the-apples-though <comment><AUTHOR> Previous discussion: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15351006](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15351006)

Cornell professor Brian Wansink professor has been under fire the past year for publishing studies with egregious statistical errors. So far he and Cornell have weathered the storm by saying that the errors were a result of human error and differences of opinion in statistical judgment.

But the revelation here -- that Wansink knowingly promoted a study as involving elementary school children, when it involved preschoolers -- seems to indicate that Wansink and his colleagues conspired to publish an outright lie. Wansink isn't admitting to such malice, but he has agreed that the study should be retracted, not just updated with a "corrected" analysis.

The age group difference is enough to completely invalidate the study, which purports to show how grade school children would be more likely to chose healthy food if the healthy food "had a sticker of Elmo", a tactic that seems would have different effect on an 8-year-old versus a 3-year-old.

But there's an additional element of nefariousness in that this study became the evidence for a $22 million federal program about school evidence. It would not be federally-funded evidence if it had been known that the study did not involve K-6 schools.

Certainly, prestigious studies have been published with egregious accidental errors. And some studies have been published using fake/copied data, or dishonest analysis, with the blame being assigned to rogue researchers. But this kind of "mistake" would seemingly have to involve not just its TED-famous leader, but his students and his collaborators.</comment>


Short men and fat women 'get fewer chances in life', research says - <AUTHOR> http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/650785/Short-men-fat-women-less-chances-life <comment><USER3> Being a short man is particularly frustrating, because unlike being fat, there is absolutely nothing you can do about it.

Call a man short, or say you only date tall men, nobody bats an eye. Call a woman fat, or say you'll never date a fat woman, everyone goes nuts.

<comment><USER4> On the one hand, I agree with you. On the other hand, women get to look forward to being kicked to the curb for being too old. Past a certain age, even men your age will act like "You are too old to be fuckable" and no one bats an eyelash at that either. Even otherwise "enlightened" men routinely say they will happily date a woman who is 10 years younger, but have zero interest in a woman more than a year or two older.

<comment><USER3> That's not an apples to apples comparison. Old age happens to ALL women - <USER2> ALL women are young at some point, thus it doesn't affect any one individual adversely. Short stature only affects SOME men, and is a huge disadvantage throughout life to the individual.

<comment><USER4> There are no apples to apples comparisons here. But, I use female age as a comparison to male height -- instead of female weight -- because they are both things beyond our control. If a woman really, really wants to lose the weight, she potentially can. But you can't make yourself younger or taller.

<comment><USER3> No, you didn't understand. It doesn't matter if a woman can't control her age, this is not the same comparison. Old age is not controllable, BUT it affects EVERY SINGLE WOMAN, it is a fair plane when it comes to their peers. Short stature is not controllable, BUT it ONLY affects certain men. Those men are treated unfairly compared to their peers.

The only true comparison would be something like "women who are disfigured", or "women who are super-hairy". It has to affect only a portion of the set.

<comment><USER5> _> Old age is not controllable, BUT it affects EVERY SINGLE WOMAN, it is a fair plane when it comes to their peers. _

People age differently.

I've met a 73 year old woman who, I swore, did not look a day over 40. I only found out her age because I used to work at a theme park where one of the games I had to run was a weight/age guessing game. I guessed 38 and her entire family was ecstatic and bursting out in laughter.

Meanwhile I nearly got hit by a woman's boyfriend for guessing she was 35. She was 24. Keep in mind my job was obviously to have fun and try to avoid insulting the customer. I guessed 35 because _she looked over 40_.

It will, eventually, affect every single woman. But some have a bit more time than others.

<comment><USER6> Just out of curiosity, are you male or female?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I'm a short guy (5'8") and don't doubt this is true. However, I also strongly believe that it can be completely overcome and then some. It would be a little immodest for me to explain why I believe that, but suffice it to say that my height has not held me back in any appreciable way in any area of life. I suppose it might matter more if I were to seek the Presidency, but the present evidence is that it would still be possible for me to at least be a temporary front-runner for a nomination (see Rubio, Cruz, Paul, etc.). Not bad.

In fact, there are a lot of elements of my height that I've always enjoyed. It's made me naturally athletic, in the sense that I've always been very agile. I've never not been able to trivially do pull-ups. I can do things in gymnastics without training that some much taller people with twice my strength cannot do with training. I also think that while taller people can be viewed as more dominating or powerful, at the same time shorter people can be viewed as more endearing, relatable, and morally innocent. I honestly believe that on more than one occasion I've been given the benefit of the doubt in some situation because my physical stature caused me to be viewed with more empathy and with less of a competitive spirit.

<comment><USER8> You're not short, at least not in the US. You're not tall, either. Current average is 5'10", with a standard deviation of 4". You're very nearly average.

<comment><USER7> I don't doubt that statistic is true for the US in general, but it's definitely possible to end up in some small micro-segment of the population where the average male height is much closer to 6' than 5'10" and where heights of 6'2"\+ or even 6'4"\+ are somewhat common. I believe that through some sequence of events I've found myself mostly existing in such a segment of the population. For instance, I'm the shortest male in my family (both sides), including at least one cousin who isn't even done growing yet.

<comment><USER9> I recall my college years where I felt like I was around giants, both genders.

(also 5"8')

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> You could also add shy people, nonathletic people, ugly people, disabled people and other groups to that list.

</comment><comment><USER11> I'm not saying there isn't hard evidence for this but The Express is a not a reputable newspaper and it's articles should always be looked at with a very skeptical eye. In case that wasn't obvious from clicking around their site for 20-30 seconds.

</comment><comment><USER4> Yeah, this is incredibly old news. We already know this. When are they going to investigate why or come up with a new hypothesis?

My hypothesis: Most women reject short men as mates and most men reject fat women as mates. A successful marriage tends to strongly correlate to socioeconomic success, longevity, etc.

<comment> guard-of-terra "Most women reject short men as mates"

Are you sure? Because this, why being `obvious' after 15 seconds of thinking, may be or not be true.

My anecdotal observations reveal an unusual number of pairs where a tall woman happily dates below average height man. It works the other way too, short women often date tall men.

Anyway, no person really need _most_ people of opposite genre accepting them as a mate. A few is usually enough.

If you'll prove that tall men have more successful marriages, it would be a huge deal, so I assume that no such correlation exist.

Successful marriage is a complicated thing and I assume that its relation to ease of dating and partner selectivity is _very_ non-linear.

<comment><USER12> Online dating stats, at least from OKTrends, show tall men have more sexual partners than men below the average height. I also wouldn't be surprised if that also holds true for receiving more responses compared to short men.

Furthermore, my recorded stats of women's profiles in the online dating site Match.com show a significantly higher number of women prefer to date men of their own height or taller than women who are willing to date men shorter than them. Plus, it's also not uncommon for short women to exclusively date tall men, whereas it's very rare for even tall women to date guys who are significantly shorter than them.

<comment> guard-of-terra "it's very rare for even tall women to date guys who are significantly shorter than them"

It's not very relevant who people _date_ , much more relevant who they end up with. Might be counter-intuitive.

<comment><USER13> Come on, you normally end up with someone that you date... don't see many people ending up with someone they never dated.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> What kind of "chances" did they take into account as far as professions go? One of the joys of working with software and servers, for example, and being able to make a living online in general, is code doesn't care if you are a mutated, half-bird, half-walrus, half-human living in a cave in some mountainous region in the wild. As long as you have wifi access, can write efficient and readable code, and communicate over text, you can use almost any picture you want for your avatar on github and contribute to open source projects and get your work noticed, and likely get hired for it at some point assuming you can communicate clearly with your voice as well.

</comment><comment><USER15> So this is basically a study on success as related to self confidence? Why is this news?

Also one of these conditions is basically curable. Two once men become more fashion accepting.

</comment><comment><USER16> Fewer.

<comment><USER17> [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7E-aoXLZGY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7E-aoXLZGY) (Stephen Fry explaining his position on this particular form of pedantry, amongst other things).

It rubs me the wrong way as well, since my parents (well, my mother; my father grew up bilingual, so precision in english was certainly not as strong a part of his upbringing) were quite insistent that I used the correct adjectives and conjugations in english as I was growing up.

However, the less vs. fewer debate is over, common usage replacing 'fewer' with 'less' vastly outnumbers proper usage of fewer v. less; time to drop the pedantry as it is of nebulous benefit to begin with (in this particular case).

"You can't pour a glass of <some obviously enumerable item>" really doesn't matter anymore, and I feel the difference in the adjective never really conferred any meaning at all (unless, perhaps, the item you were speaking of was not obviously enumerable, but I can't think of any reasonable examples of that).

<comment><USER16> If X has a plural Xs, say "fewer Xs", else "less X". That simple rule will get you the right usage most of the time.

<comment><USER17> Yes, that's what I meant by "you can't pour a glass of <some obviously enumerable item>" \- same principle, pithier expression of it, said in response to an incorrect usage of "less", e.g.:

"He has less dogs than I do", "you mean 'fewer' since you can't pour a glass of dogs"

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> What's up with depressing topics on HN?

<comment><USER4> I sometimes post positive stuff, both here and elsewhere. It tends to get little to no attention.

This is possibly in part because good news tends to not be a danger to your welfare, whereas bad news is something we need to pay attention to for purposes of self preservation. Similarly, you see endless arguing online in part because there is more to say if you disagree with someone then if you agree.

I largely stopped following mainstream news years ago because news = bad news.

<comment><USER18> I disagree that we need to pay attention to negative news. In fact I think this is a misinterpretation of people who use too much of their 'left' brain. I think there are much more important factors for who gets successful in relationships.

\- Confidence and good self presentation \- Caring about and listening to others \- Not living an immature life limited to travelling and partying but being reliable and solid and 'future proof'

I disagree with the downvotes my comments received. I think depressing news are a threat to people's psychological well-being and should therefore not be encouraged.

It's like trying to get good at a musical instrument or sport via focusing all your energy on your what you're not good at. Not a good way to spend your energy. Try passion, hope, love and daring to make a leap...

<comment><USER4> My comment was about positive or negative stuff generally, not about relationships per se. I do focus on the positive. So far, my experience has been that gets less attention when I share it than something people can have a good fit or fight over.

Maybe I still have things to learn. Maybe I will eventually figure out how to share positives in a way that garners substantial attention. But, so far, my observations suggest that, even on HN, there is more attention given to "bad news" than to good.</comment></comment></comment></comment>