PSA: Stripe.js v2 now explicitly requires PCI compliance documentation - <AUTHOR> https://stripe.com/docs/security <comment><AUTHOR> I just noticed this the other day, and was very surprised by the new requirements.

This effectively means that if you're not using Stripe Elements or Stripe Checkout, you want to migrate to those ASAP. Unless you're willing to go through and attest to the requirements of this 56 page form [1]

[1] [https://www.pcisecuritystandards.org/documents/PCI- DSS-v3_2-...](https://www.pcisecuritystandards.org/documents/PCI-DSS-v3_2-SAQ- A_EP-rev1_1.pdf)</comment>


Python timezone handling might be easier than you think - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/myusuf3/delorean

<comment><USER2> It's definitely an improvement over the melange of modules I was using but the lack of delta support is painful.</comment>


The hidden reality of ridiculously complicated algorithms - <AUTHOR> https://www.the-tls.co.uk/articles/public/ridiculously-complicated-algorithms/ <comment><USER3> This is a pretty frustrating read. Interpretability of automatic decision making processes is a genuine, important issue, but I'm not sure this issue is best explained by a writer who, as far as I can tell, has made no effort to understand basic questions like what an algorithm is. The generalized bafflement of the author is just mystification, a vague sense of spooky machines we can't understand, which doesn't help us understand the specific difficulties in understanding the decision making process that depend on processing huge quantities of data.

<comment><USER4> Charitably, I think the writing here underscores how much scarier the spread of automation is for people who have never been involved in writing an algorithm (or better yet a complex system). Even if you're well educated in another field, there's a really giant gap between being told 100 times in popular press how information systems work (or don't), versus being part of trying to make one work.

Personally I don't see much difference between how opaque the world of automation is and how opaque law, or government bureaucracy, or media production, or any other human industry is from the point of view of a non- expert. But perhaps for many people, it is easier to trust long chains of human processing than long chains of machinery.

<comment><USER5> At least with people there is someone you could possibly ask and get an answer. No such luck with a black box algorithm.

<comment><USER4> Strongly disagree with this line of argument. Almost all human systems are intentionally opaque about some choices or have unplanned consequences you can't get a clear answer about. And, algorithms can be studied in the same ways that we use to critically evaluate human systems -- and sometimes better.

Why does your local paper run stories featuring some businesses but not others? Why do college admissions tend to overrepresent some populations and underrepresent others? Why are women paid less on average for the same titles? Why do prosecutors disproportionately bring charges against minority suspects with equivalent weight of evidence?

You can't get answers about those human decision processes just by asking - <USER2> requires research, competing theories, and sometimes legal action forcing people to share info.

Explainability of decisions isn't about how much tech is used... It's about how open a system's operators are to sharing info, and how much effort everyone is willing to put into interpreting it.

<comment><USER6> "Almost all human systems are intentionally opaque"

I question the word "intentionally". I would suggest that human systems evolve to be opaque, because that helps them be resilient and survive. If a human system is truly understandable by anyone, then it can be destroyed by some of its members/adversaries and sooner or later someone will.

<comment><USER4> Fair point about evolution - what I meant about intention is that some people involved in a decision could tell you more than they are willing to. I think it's worth distinguishing that from systems feeling opaque because of consequences nobody operating them was aware of.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> If I was the guy who risked my job (or more) to get this out there, I'd be ticked that this is all the journalist managed to produce with it.

<comment><USER8> Yeah, I'm finding it hard to believe this guy will never work in tech for the rest of his life.

<comment><USER9> But he shared the terrible secrets that there are "functions" and "libraries" and different colored words.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> "And there it was: a white screen with instructions neatly arranged in a series of boxes."

If seeing a Jupyter notebook impresses the writer so much, it might blow their mind if they found out that the screen is made up of millions of dots. And that each dot is actually made up of three different-coloured dots.

<comment><USER11> I too realized the author was looking at Jupyter when I saw In[3] and so on. Absurd. The author is conflating a typewriter with a story. And starting from such ignorance, I wasn't about to find out where it ended up.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> The algorithms are opaque but how's that different from a human's own brain? We don't have a very good view into a judge's own life experiences from which his own decisions are based either. At least with an algorithm we have a chance of seeing how it really works, in principle. All the data is recorded and the code is available.

> The reality is that if the algorithm looks like it's doing the job that it's > supposed to do, and people aren't complaining, then there isn't much > incentive to really comb through all those instructions and those layers of > abstracted code to work out what is happening."

If a judge is performing well are you going to run an expensive background audit on him, or open up his brain to try to see how he "really works"?

The difference is that algorithms today are practically run by centralised organisations that control it plus the data, rather than having lots of humans all slightly different making their own decisions in a semi-centralised[^] distributed fashion. But the opaqueness is nothing new.

[^] because most human organisations today are hierarchical, but at least most people have some sense of self-agency.

<comment><USER13> > _The algorithms are opaque but how 's that different from a human's own > brain?_

Algorithms can blindly follow through into an obviously illogical decision in ways that a human brain doesn't (and when it does, we consider that person unfit for a job as well).

<comment><USER14> Algorithms cannot be illogical. They just can't.

<comment><USER13> Actually they very much can. They just can. Except if you believe in some kind of soul / body duality. Else human-like thinking is something that can be achieved with the right (and properly complex) computing program, including consciousness. And that would include anything logical or illogical that we're capable of.

In other words, if you do believe that humans can be illogical, then who told you the human thinking doesn't come from an algorithm itself (of e.g. NN nature)?

Not that this is not needed, of course, because what I wrote is much easier to achieve. I wrote that "Algorithms can blindly follow through into an obviously illogical decision". That doesn't even need the algorithm to be illogical itself, but just to arrive at an illogical (obviously for us, humans) decision. It can still arrive at that logically. E.g. if I program a simple algorithm that "if the car sees a zebra crossing, go full steam ahead" the algorithm will do just that, whereas most humans would question it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I have to challenge the statements of Jure Leskovik

> They often have no feedback on whether they made the right decision

Of course they do. They will see people stood in front of them that have violated their parole all of the time. They can read their case notes and use the information to adjust future decisions. This of course is after a career of standing the other side of the bar as an advocate/attorney of those people, because that is what you have to do to become a judge in the first place.

> and there is no knowledge-sharing between the judges.

Except the whole legal system in the US is built on common-law. Literally the law being applied in a common way to everyone. Literally by knowledge sharing. If the esteemed academic is suggesting that parole decisions are being shared less well than judgements the fix seems to be rather simpler than ML.

The idea that a ML algorithm is somehow less biased than a judge is of course just as absurd. A ML researcher is just as capable of using race, for instance, as a characteristic. They are just as capable of seeing a correlation without understanding the complex underlying causes.

I choose the human judge.

</comment><comment><USER16> One of the interesting -- or at least, I hope it'll prove to be interesting -- effects of GDPR is that we have the right to an explanation of important automated decisions and also the right to human review.

Before anyone comments that ML models are notoriously difficult to explain, the whole point of the regulation is that opaque models are intolerable. Also, [https://github.com/slundberg/shap](https://github.com/slundberg/shap) looks like it could be very useful.

</comment><comment><USER17> > "We need", Jure said emphatically, "to step up and come up with the means to > evaluate – vet – algorithms in unbiased ways. We need to be able to > interpret and explain their decisions. We don't want an optimal algorithm. > We want one simple enough that an expert can look at it and say nothing > crazy is happening here.

As someone who works with machine learning, I find this statement rather misleading. The researcher quoted here has a very strong bias about what it means for an algorithm to be "optimal". A system cannot both "be optimal" and also "biased" in a way that the designers don't like: such a system is indeed not optimal. The dialog in the machine learning community has increasingly been about how we might structure these systems in a way that they are unbiased; it's a shame the researcher (and the author of this article) seem to think that "simplicity" is the _only_ option.

(In case anyone is interested, I recent wrote a blog post to this effect: [http://www.cachestocaches.com/2018/7/bias-and- ai/](http://www.cachestocaches.com/2018/7/bias-and-ai/) )

<comment><USER18> Every model designer is going to come to the table with his own set of lenses and biases based on this own life experiences. These biases are incorporated into our models based on the metrics that we optimize for and the features that we incorporate into our models.

It may comforting to think that all our biases are "baked out" of the models during the training process but if the researcher had been a black man do you believe that they would have arrived at identical models?

Even if the model designer found ways to compensate for his own bias the world that these models operate in are inherently biased. Training data may be subtly biased in ways that are difficult to detect. A model trained on recidivism is likely to be biased if, for example, a lower class black male or upper class white women have different risks of being arrested for the same crime.

Assuming the models themselves are unbiased as trained they may create bias with subtle errors when pushed into production or due to second order effects, feedback loops or errors or manipulation of data. For example during the credit bubble entire industries found ways to raise borrowes FICO scores.

There is also the inherent corporate bias that the researcher pointed out which the bias of the almighty dollar. Compensating for bias is expensive and may even impact salability if an unbiased model doesn't "gel" with the expectation of customers who are biased. For example a judge may feel pressure of homogenize his decisions or abdicate his responsibility by rubber stamping the models decisions.

Currently we compensate for this in a democratic society with checks and balances. What are the checks and balances for a computer algorithm that is a trade secret for a for-profit corporate entity?

<comment><USER19> If the system being modeled is abstract, you might get away with claiming that it is unbiased. If the system being modeled has very much to do with the real world, the modeler is forced to make assumptions about said putative "real" world, because the real world is inconveniently large and complex to fit in memory. However, one of the problems that societies and maintenance programmers encounter is that in the long run these assumptions are invalid.

We've pretty much all read the article "Myths Programmers Believe about Names", and various snowclones. We still write dumb name validation code every day, because there actually isn't a perfect way to do that, and we have to ship _something_. Even when the concepts are perfectly executed, the fundamental assumptions of the model may change. Having separate classes for "tool" and "weapon" may make sense one day, and the next day you need to write the game _Clue_. Even if you're working with such boring concepts as filtration, you may have to adjust your model when you discover that water is compressible.

All models are wrong, in many ways, both subtle and overt, both currently and in the future. Some may be useful. I'm not sure that there's any solution to these problems except more and better models though.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Anyone remember back in the 1980s when a UK medical school tried expert systems to do admissions and built in systematic bias?

Oh wait.. didn't that just happen again in Japan?

And here we have the tls discussing heuristics to sentencing which "out performs" the judge...

<comment><USER21> We have "expert systems" now in medicine. It's called the insurance EHR. Doctors punch in a diagnosis, system spits back what treatment and/or medication the insurance company is willing to pay for. Even if the doctor completely disagrees, that becomes the de facto solution for the patient.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> [https://cs.stanford.edu/people/jure/](https://cs.stanford.edu/people/jure/)

</comment><comment><USER23> The terrifying reality of articles with way too much words 8x</comment>


EPA requiring oil refiners to add hypothetical type of fuel - <AUTHOR> http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/21/regulation-requires-oil-refiners-use-millions-gallons-fuel-that-is-nonexistent/

<comment><USER2> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellulosic_ethanol#Cellulosic_e...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellulosic_ethanol#Cellulosic_ethanol_commercialization)

Fox News rubbish as usual. It appears that the mandate was made with a view to reforming a part of the energy industry and achieving cleaner emissions, as well as more sustainable fuel. It's not odd for a government to declare targets with tax incentives to bring about change.

As the wiki pages states (with citations) there are over a dozen refineries producing this stuff now. Far from none, and far the mandate is from ludicrous. It's progress.</comment>


Show HN: Interactive map of 352 integrations between 85 workspace tech platforms - <AUTHOR> https://hectorkolonas.com/integrations-between-flexible-workspace-software/ <comment><AUTHOR> Hey! After reading HN for many years, I figured I'd share something for a change.

Not sure if there's any other workspace-tech geeks/hackers out here, but I loved putting this together.

It's definitely a WIP, and would love feedback/suggestions for the next build.

Things I have in mind: \- Color-coding based on type. \- Filtering by type, and to show only nodes connected to X \- Full-screen browsing mode.</comment>


Quit Your Job Now, Before It's Too Late - <AUTHOR> http://www.georgesaines.com/?p=785 <comment><USER2> The only caveat I'd add is "don't quit your job if it turns out you enjoy it just fine". The post makes the same assumption that a lot of Hacker News articles do- that a startup is the most preferable option available to anyone, at any time.

It isn't. Depending on your interests you may be fine working in a larger organisation- if you stick at it for a while (the same amount of time it would take to establish a startup) you may be able to call a lot of shots yourself and really start owning your job. Or maybe you'd enjoy the kind of research- like position that only a larger company can provide. Maybe you'd be best suited to a non-profit. It's all down to you.

<comment><USER3> I'm not sure how it is in the US, but in Australia getting a $400K mortgage when you're in your 20s is not uncommon. Real estate doesn't get cheaper, and it's much harder to buy when you're in your 30s with kids and a single income facing a now $500K mortgage. Sacrifycing debt for freedom does make it harder down the road.

I'm 29 now, but when I was in my early-mid 20s I had no problems working a day job and then coding nights and only sleeping a few hours. It's more painful than having no responsibilities, but you have that sort of energy when you're young so make the most of it.

Nowadays I'm actively rejecting promotions, more staff and more responsibilities as I've reached a point in my career where the pay is good and takes only 40 hours on a normal week. That leaves a lot of room for side projects whilst still laying a good financial base for the future.

So I agree with the OP's response except that you should consider waiting until you have implemented your idea and have a proven, consistent revenue stream from it before you up and leave. It may take a year to get to that stage, a bit of pain - but nothing worth doing is easy.

<comment><USER4> > Real estate doesn't get cheaper

Funny. I seem to recall similar words being uttered elsewhere in the not so distant past.

<comment><USER5> Yes, this made me laugh, my first property lost 30% of it's value in 18 months.

<comment><USER6> He obviously lives in an area people care about. Where you can have job options and such.

<comment><USER7> Someplace like Northern California?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> As somebody who quit a job to pursue a startup, I'm going to take the opposite side.

Don't quit your job to pursue a startup unless:

1) You have a customer base lined up and some income is all but assured, or...

2) You have enough savings to get by for at least one year (including insurance) and a skill set or network that would enable you to jump back into a similarly desirable job right away.

Quitting with just an idea and strong cofounders is a recipe for disaster, stress, and misery. Remember, building is fun and easy, making sales isn't.

First whittle down what you really need to start (often times it's a lot less than you originally thought) and examine whether you really have to quit. If you are building something that your employer could lay claim to due to your employment agreement, it's a little more tricky, but if you are careful it is pretty easy to get around that.

<comment><USER9> There is also the option of part-time consulting to pay the bills while building the startup. As a Django consultant, this person could probably make $50k annual income by consulting a few days per week. The rest of his time could be dedicated to the startup business.

Even if you have low living costs, you should still consider opportunity costs of not working. A consultant making $100k per year who takes two years off to do a failed startup has effectively lost $200k in income.

<comment><USER10> One recommendation, stolen from patio11: sell weekly blocks of your time. This is more fair to both those hiring you, and to your startup, because ramp-up and context-switch time are an expensive part of software development.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I'm sick of everyone perpetuating the notion that developers need to either become spectacularly successful through starting companies or die trying. There are many people, perhaps even the preponderance, who are perfectly content with having a $100k mortgage and two kids while working a nine-to-five job for $75,000 per year.

People prefer this because it is safe, and affords a nice lifestyle. Starting a company offers neither, and those who pursue startups incur massive risk. The overwhelming majority fail. Entrepreneurship is incredibly dangerous and trying, and is neither optimal nor tennable for most. Encouraging people to blindly quit their jobs to go take part in what is essentially a lottery in which the odds are stacked tenfold against you is ridiculous.

Don't just up and quit your job right now. Think long and hard about what you in life. You'll probably come to the realization that you don't want to subject yourself to the tribulations of entrepreneurship.

<comment><USER12> First, it's inaccurate to state that "everyone" is "perpetuating the notion that developers need to either become spectacularly successful through starting companies or die trying."

Second, if you're truly "sick" of so many people promoting entrepreneurship, have you considered spending less time at a news website hosted by a startup incubator?

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Another alternative is to save aggressively working at a lucrative job when you're young, then do the startup when you're thirty-five or forty and can live, with discipline, on the gains from your investments. I know at least one very successful person who took this approach (anecdote != data, I know). Not always an option depending on your credentials, but there's something to be said for a hybrid approach of building a personal runway (and gaining skill at the craft) before quitting and throwing the dice.

Obviously you shouldn't do anything to _shorten_ your personal runway if you _plan_ to make a startup. Big houses and mortgages and expensive cars are out, even if you don't plan on quitting immediately.

Some of my bias may be showing here, because I'm fairly satisfied with my life and work at BigCo right now.

<comment><USER14> Or get married to someone who can support you while do something risky. If the Korean immigrant with a wife and kids who starts a dry cleaning business in your neighborhood can do it, then it can't be intractable.

<comment><USER15> Your post is inaccurate on two levels:

1\. You assume because a "korean immigrant" can do something, that it must not be intractable (hard). Immigrant entrepreneurs are usually highly motivated, especially the kind who start small businesses. I would rescind that comment.

2\. You are comparing a dry cleaner to a startup. The failure rate of startups is several order of magnitudes worse than a dry cleaner. Figuring out the potential numbers for a dry cleaner is simple math that you can base on the local population, income/employment stats, and # of dry cleaners. Most startups would kill for that kind of estimate.

<comment><USER16> I read the "Korean immigrant" comment slightly differently. Not as a "if that schlub can do it so can you!", but rather as pointing out that immigrants to most countries generally face all the same business challenges of any citizen plus the burden of being an immigrant in a society that may not always be welcoming. If someone can succeed facing all the same challenges you would face plus a few more it can show you that your challenges aren't insurmountable. Or maybe the person is just so head-and-shoulders above you that you shouldn't even compare, but that is less likely in my experience (i.e. variation amongst people in sub-groups, say entrepreneurs, are generally not as vast as people think, mostly because most people only compare against the outliers).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I've bought a home 5 years ago when I was 24. So, I am stuck with it. I do want to create a startup and have began rolling out code for my website. Its very tough to have to pay a mortgage. Which means to work 8 hours a day on something else, so that you have a place to stay so that you can work X hours a night on what you want to work on.

At the time I bought my home, I'd never thought that I would be in any position to create/run a business. I was a naive kid, and in hindsight I'm on the fence to whether or not that was a good idea or not. So, packing up my things to move over to Cali isn't going to be that easy. But whose to say that creating a startup is easy?

I believe I have a great idea. I really do, but the risk to just leave it all behind is daunting. For me, I would (and am) doing as much research as I can. That's why yCombinator is such a great program. They will help you out as far as the world of the startup. I missed this round, but am planning on entering the next one. By that time, my work on my site will be that much more polished and "ready".

I would love to leave it all and wish I had, but I was in no way ready for that at 24. Staying allowed me to move up the ladder, and really learn my craft very well. I would've been a terrible developer 5 years ago. I'm a firm believe that its never too late. Yes, I'm spending every waking hours thinking about code (both at work and for my site), but I have a feeling it will pay off.

Here's hoping...

<comment><USER18> The good thing is homes can easily be bought and sold. It may be less of a trap than you think. Children, on the other hand, are more difficult to move on the open market...

<comment><USER19> Chances are if you bought 5 years ago you are underwater and can't sell it.

<comment><USER18> In that case it _could_ be reasonable to let the bank foreclose on it. I know people that have done this to their relief. Obviously a more serious decision than selling a house, but still less serious than selling children.

<comment><USER20> Foreclosing isn't as easy as it sounds. For one, the bank can sue you for the difference between the auction price and the loan. For two, the IRS will expect you to pay taxes on that "forgiven" difference. For three, your credit will be (temporarily) ruined and it will be difficult to get a new apartment/mortgage/loan. So, owning an underwater house can be a big problem. Though, sometimes it is worth it to sell for a loss in exchange for freedom; within reason.

<comment><USER18> Oh, I wasn't really suggesting it's simple. I don't envy anybody in that position, and hope anybody thinking of walking away from such a situation does so on good advice. I know two people who've done this; I don't know the low- level details, so perhaps it was necessary for some definition of "necessary", but the next few years will be interesting to hear of, regardless.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> As someone with a mortgage, wife and three kids... Listen to this person! We're trying to sell our home so we can follow our dreams with less stress and worry. Notice I said less.

I haven't quit my job yet but I get similar responses when people hear we are selling our house. They do not understand and think we are crazy. Thank goodness I married a woman as "crazy" as me.

The only thing you can't get more of is time. Cherish it and use it wisely while you still have it.

<comment><USER22> Why not rent it? When I bought I did so in part because I knew I could rent it. If you live in an area with terrible job prospects or no other draws that may not work.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Great little post. I agree and add:

+save your money, don't buy tv's cars and homes. specially when you are in your 20's (i still am, I threw a minimum 20% of every paycheck into savings).

+Debt, and any such thing that anchors you is a NOGO.

+only debt to take if ever is for a business, and only when cash is the only barrier impeding growth. (and if this is the case most VC's will gladly give you money)

<comment><USER21> Going into debt to consume things (cars, homes, vacations, clothes, etc.) is Bad (capital B).

Going into debt to purchase capital that has the potential to pay for itself and make a profit in the long run is [not as] bad.

Saving to buy things debt free regardless of its purpose is the best way to go. Those that [can] delay instant self gratification tend to be the ones best off. Short term pains for long term gains.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> I would also say that if you think you want to try a startup, do it before you get married or have kids. Spouses will say they will be supportive, but like anything else involving a startup they don't really know what they're in for. Many simply cannot handle it. Divorce and/or child custody issues will not help your startup be successful.

<comment><AUTHOR> Definitely. When I got married I told my wife "I might start another company, be prepared" but there's really no preparation for the amount of time/money/energy/hope that goes into a new venture. If there's any advantage I had it was that I knew what it required to get my first venture off the ground. But like anything else related to building/maintaining relationships, it's all about ongoing communication.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> What about doing both?

Work at a great company _and_ your own projects on the side. Seems like the best of both worlds.

Ever since starting to read HN a few weeks ago, I've become interested in learning Ruby, Rails and general web development. I love where I'm at now (which is not hidden but easily found via my name and profile link) and the fact that I can spend my free time on weekends learning for the sake of learning, without the stress of having to make an income from it.

There is a great quote from _Who's Your City_ that states you need an additional _$133,000_ in annual income to make up for the happiness from seeing your friends and family on a daily or weekly basis. That's a big jump for those quitting to move halfway across the country.

The quit-to-startup culture is certainly enticing but there's really no reason many of us can't have the best of both worlds without quitting a great job at a great company.

<comment><AUTHOR> Agreed. This is definitely one of the hardest decisions I've made in the last 2 years. I did the "work in my free time" thing, albeit on another project, and had difficulty with the work life balance. In the end, the other project successful enough that I'm able to afford to quit (for a short while) and go full time on this idea. I actually finished the second edit of a new blog post earlier today suggesting that folks bootstrap their first startup for some of the same reasons you bring up.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> I was in a similar situation, but with 2k/mo in mortgage, passive income and about 12 month's expenses saved up. His situation is much better! My business turned out ok. I just asked myself, what's the worst that can happen? Get another job in 10 months. Ok, no brainer. go.

</comment><comment><USER27> You should listen to Shane Becker's (@veganstraightedge) talk at LA Ruby Conf 2012, 'Quit You Job, srsly' <http://youtu.be/0CMjiIqhvdQ>

<comment><USER28> This is awesome. Thanks for sharing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> This site sees so many posts saying "I just quit my job, and you should too," and so few that say "I quit my job x years ago, and you should too."

Is their dream losing it's luster when it becomes a reality?

</comment><comment><USER30> Or you can start the company on the side and jump when you are ready (or not start one at all, that's okay, too). I bootstrapped my current company with my friend just working nights and weekends. We are now profitable and growing and the schedule helped us focus on what was important.

In hindsight the risk was actually staying at my job, where I would have stagnated and not had the amazing experiences I've had over the last year and a half.

</comment><comment><USER31> This is one of those decisions that really depends on the individual making them. You really have to go with what you feel makes you the happiest. For me, entrepreneurship is the only option. For the last 10 years since I was 18 I've been a business owner. It has been quite the roller coaster as well. In that time I have experienced living in a fancy loft in Hollywood to being homeless and living in my car for a month. From working 6+ months 12-15 hour days and making no revenue to having 12 employees on pay-roll bringing in $100k monthly gross sales with a nice chunk being profit. Regardless of the ups and downs there was always this consistent happiness which seemed to be backed by hope and passion. Even while living in my car and having to take showers at the gym to then go to Starbucks to access internet in order to work on the business I was building, I was still happy, and seemed happier than most.

Most people, even with an entrepreneurial spirit will choose comfort over risk and reward. That's all fine, it's just for me I find comfort to be the cousin of death. Comfort in the sense of not worrying about how to live is good. I'm talking about comfort in regards to losing purpose in life. Living a lifestyle where you're kind of just "wingin' it". Those are traits I don't foresee myself having regardless of whatever dollar amount I'm worth.

Some don't understand passion and don't know how to put an appraisal value on it. Your previous co-workers might have found you to be wreckless or not taking life seriously, when in fact you're taking life far more serious than they are.

I think you're doing the right thing. Forget the safety net, it's going to slow you down. It's going to keep you from pushing yourself to the limit.

I wish you luck in your endeavors and..."Stay Thirsty My Friend" :)

</comment><comment><USER32> I quit my job just over 1 year ago to work for myself, to do some consulting work and improve on a website that I had knocked up with a mate over 2 weekends and see where it would take us and we are doing OK.

I felt I got the same treatment as the original poster did (quiet pity & the why's) but I didn't care it was/is low risk and if worse come to worse I will get a job again if I feel things really aren't going the way I want. One of my friends even asked, "do you like money and want to get rich so much that you are willing to leave your job that is stable and go out on your own". I think the assumption for everyone who doesn't know about the love of working with tech is that its done just for the money only not because its so fun and challenging to some of us.

I responded by saying that I actually like money less then he did because I was willing to go for 2 years (if needed) without stable income or money to do the things I like (within and outside of tech), the way I figure, this shows less of a desire for money then someone who wakes up everyday hating what they are doing just for the money when they don't have the kids and a wife ?!

One of the advantaged that I didn't realise about quitting was other then being able to do the work that you want to make $$$ (work that replaces your 9-5) you end up with much more time because you are able arrange your time appropriately and the time wasted on ridiculous meetings, coffee breaks, friday drinks the 2hr total train ride everyday and the complete drain at the end of the day that just leaves you wanting to veg-out after work and not do anything was no longer there. At the moment after I get a piece of work done and I am happy with it I move onto the next thing whether it is a "work related" task or "something fun" (like going to the beach for instance).

When I had that additional time the one big issue I had was trying not to feel guilty about not working on the tasks that I was doing to replace my previous day job and force every bit of work in any free time BUT once I was able to get over this I managed to pick up a new sport a new language and learn many things that I feel has enriched my life so much more.

What i kinda learnt is sometimes you quit work because of the usual HN reasons, to do a startup, work for your self but for me specifically because I didn't have to waste so much time I ended up discovering lots of other things that makes life awesome. Unless i really need it and things go south in a big way, living life with much less salary as before but with this additional freedom is so much better. I guess its good to enjoy this whilst you can for those that can because when kids come along being a responsible adult things will obviously have to be different.

<comment><AUTHOR> I think you're right on with the monetary bit, statistically every startup/consultancy/independently produced product is a money/time pit waiting to happen. The number of successes in either category is tiny and you really have to do it for reasons other than cash. I spent 4.5 years on my first startup. If I wanted to maximize my income, I would have pursued a career in finance, not started my own company.

As you say, I too find the freedom liberating, but more than that, I find it exciting to work on problems that are personally interesting. To have skin in the game is the best way I've found so far to keep my work interesting and engaging. The fact that I can define my own work-life balance helps too. :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> The idea that entrepreneurship is some kind of nirvana that you have to aim for is downright ridiculous. Being an entrepreneur is hard, more so in emerging markets like tech. The world is currently evolving around technology, and it is quick to adopt, but quicker to abandon. Getting customers these days is a lot harder. People expect more, so you have to provide more with less. Five thousand dollars could get you on the way, but now days, you need twenty thousand. But no one ever tells you that. All you hear is _"I'm quitting my job to start some ridiculous business based on an unproven idea."_ Because, some months ago, a guy or some seventeen year old kid sold out their half- finished project for thirty million dollars.

The real truth about being an entrepreneur, and a tech founder is that this shit is really fucking hard. I mean, harder than opening up a pizzeria and simply operating it with a 6% margin on gross (which makes for a good living). Startups are very, very hard due to how you have to invent everything. Even if you are copying some other team, you have to create your own systems. That is the main reason most people don't even manage to launch. They had never realized that sales and marketing need to be systemized before they can work. That you can't simply run ads on adwords and get good traffic. They don't know how creating content marketing is tough, because it takes time, and a good understanding of what the market wants to read about (something even marketers get wrong).

It used to be that some person could simply throw some PHP at it, and get going. Not so much. With money, comes competition. And bubbles create an over- abundance of money, hence an over-abundance of competition. I've learned to think small. Rather than trying to build the next big thing (an attitude I would carry), I now want to build the next small thing. So small, that it goes unnoticed that most people here. Though small != small profits.

And did I mention work? In a regular job you clock in, do your thing, and clock out. If anything comes up, it will have to wait for tomorrow (or Monday). In a business, if you don't act in a timely fashion, you can end up getting DDoS'ed (like it happened during the whole Pycon fiasco), and simply get taken down by a bunch of dumb shits. Being a business owner means that the business is always in your mind, no matter what. If you are vacationing, it means that you log in every couple of hours and see whats going on. Employees? Try getting an employee to answer their phone while on vacation.

So, don't quit your job unless you have a steady stream of clients, and your business is profitable. Don't quit for an idea. Don't quit if you got accepted into some incubator. Because good jobs are a rare thing. If you have one, keep it. Its worth it.

But who am I to even say all of this? To turn you away? I talk and interact with _founder-types_ every week. They are mostly lost, because they don't know what the fuck to do next. No money, and no future prospects. Lost and trying to make sense of things. They ask for help, and I sometimes do give then a push. But I know, deep in my heart, that they will never make it. Not due to their idea, or talents, but due to how unprepared they are for the reality of business. I've done more than a dozen, and I still feel like a noob. I make the same dumb mistakes, and still think a bit too positive. Though experience has taught me to be way more careful, and not trade-in a good, steady paycheck for the chance to become the next big thing.

Life is not about being on top, but about being on top of your game. Your own game.

<comment><AUTHOR> Couldn't agree more. I personally relish the always-on aspect of starting something new and really missed it while working for my employer.

Your comment about good jobs being rare is definitely not lost on me either. It would have been so much easier to quit if I didn't like my coworkers or the company, but they both rocked.

I actually just finished writing another blog post today (hasn't been published yet) about bootstrapping your first startup and shooting for small but profitable.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> I have a house and a mortgage (Europe, Scotland) and I pay at least half of what I would by renting. I can't speak for the US but here once you own 40% of the property outright, mortgages aren't a terrible idea.

Of course this is based on living alone, living with my parents or something like that would likely work out cheaper.

</comment><comment><USER35> Unfortunately, those of us who are on an H1B visa do not have much flexibility when it comes to employment. For example, I can't just quit my job and found a startup. I can't join one either, because most startups do not want to deal with the costs and administrative details of sponsoring foreigners.

<comment><USER36> You would be surprised, especially if you're in-demand talent, i.e. iOS.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> If you buy into life having rules about how it is supposed to look at certain points then this is applicable. If you don't accept it then life simply comes down to knowing what your goals are, working out a way to achieve them and going for it.

</comment><comment> james-skemp "HN seems to have picked this up [...]" because you submitted it :D

Unless you meant that it made it to the home page. ;)

Either way, best of luck. Definitely a good suggestion to try something a little scary while you don't have much in the way of obligations, yet.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah, sorry if that seems like a misdirect, I do self-submit my articles, but most of them don't make it anywhere near the homepage. :)

Thanks for the kind words, I was telling my wife that I'm looking forward to making all new mistakes from my first business!

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> LOL, I would not leave a job to start a code tutor site. There's no $$$ in that space, too much free competition. Make sure you have a job lined up before running out of money!

</comment><comment><USER39> I feel like I'm one of the odd ones out where I enjoy my job at a large company that offers me pretty much everything I could want at the moment

I go home, relax, read, hangout with the family and work on really interesting open source & side projects .. I can't imagine how I could be much happier ..

IMO if your goal is to start a business start planning things out and take the risks you need to only you have to not just when you can .. which is very situational .. i wouldn't just go and quit your job if it's not immediately necessary on a whim due to advice from a random blog.

<comment><AUTHOR> Definitely agree ninetenel. I tried to emphasize in my blog that I have chanced into a really great, low-risk situation to quit, and it's still really hard to drop everything to give it shot. I am envious of your contentment with a job at a larger employer, having experienced both, a startup is definitely not the most fun option. It's hard, likely to fail, demanding, always-on, and otherwise irrational. I think I just caught the startup bug the first time around. :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> Counterpoint: Don't quit your job. Unless you're ok with the prospect of failing, and winding up broke, homeless, and seriously depressed. Oh yes, two weeks in the sky was the limit and I was living the dream! Two years in was a different story. Even if you're single, moving in with your grandfather at age 35 because you have nowhere else to go is not a picnic. I'm beyond grateful to have a 9-6 coding job again, and I'll be here for a while rebuilding my savings all over again.</comment>


Vim 7.4a ready for beta testing  - <AUTHOR> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/vim_use/N8jzif4e9L8 <comment><USER2> And just like that, a new MacVim snapshot:

[https://code.google.com/p/macvim/downloads/detail?name=MacVi...](https://code.google.com/p/macvim/downloads/detail?name=MacVim- snapshot-67.tbz&can=2&q=)

<comment><USER3> Now for homebrew next hopefully :D

<comment><USER4> It should appear here soon: [https://github.com/b4winckler/macvim](https://github.com/b4winckler/macvim)

<comment><USER3> [https://code.google.com/p/macvim/downloads/detail?name=MacVi...](https://code.google.com/p/macvim/downloads/detail?name=MacVim- snapshot-67-Mountain-Lion.tbz&can=2&q=)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Nice! How long does vim usually stay in beta? I'm not familiar with Vim's release cycle

<comment><USER5> I'm not either familiar either, so I looked.

There were 28 days between the announcement of 7.3a and 7.3, 46 between 7.2a and 7.2, and 7 between 7.1a and 7. It took 45 days to go from 7's first beta to stable release.

For many of these, there were several beta releases, so there's a good chance we'll see a 7.4b or 7.4c. I would say that it certainly won't take more than two months before 7.4 is released and probably will take less than a month.

You can sign up for vim-announce here: [http://www.vim.org/maillist.php](http://www.vim.org/maillist.php).

Sources: 7.3a: [https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/vim_dev/lSlC6cUV5TY](https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/vim_dev/lSlC6cUV5TY)

7.3 [https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/vim_announce/ZsAu_RU...](https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/vim_announce/ZsAu_RUjVUs)

7.2a: [https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/vim_multibyte/FVRKk5...](https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/vim_multibyte/FVRKk5N5YcA)

7.2: [https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/vim_announce/LIlnHdk...](https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/vim_announce/LIlnHdkogS8)

7.1a: [http://vim.1045645.n5.nabble.com/Vim-version-7-1a-BETA- has-b...](http://vim.1045645.n5.nabble.com/Vim-version-7-1a-BETA-has-been- released-td1223481.html)

7.1: [http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/vimannounce/message/178](http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/vimannounce/message/178)

7: [http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/vimannounce/message/161](http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/vimannounce/message/161)

7b (there was no 7a, apparently): [http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/vimannounce/message/153](http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/vimannounce/message/153)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Does anyone even use Vim without plugins anymore? I tend to vacillate between vim and nvi. My vim setup is usual vim, with Powerline, NERDTree, CtrlP, TagBar, and omnicomplete, but whenever I use vanilla nvi to edit a config file, it's refreshingly simple and clean ([http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2p1QaS8hzLc](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2p1QaS8hzLc)).

Anyone use vanilla vim? nvi? Some other visual ex editor that I don't know about?

<comment><USER7> I have a very short .vimrc, and beyond that my only "plugin" is tmux. :-) For my Rails work, I run one vim in app/models, one in app/controllers, another in app/views, app/assets/stylesheets, and app/assets/javascripts, each in a separate tmux session. That's the right-hand terminal. In the left-hand terminal I have tmux sessions for git, the server log, a db connection, specs, and another miscellaneous vim session for migrations, config edits, Rake tasks, etc.

I use a separate xfce workspace for each client, arranged horizontally in one row. Sometimes I fill up five at a time. Keeping each project in a separate workspace gives me good isolation between them.

I don't really have anything against adding plugins, but with this setup I'm very fast already. I just glanced at Ctrl-P, and I'm not sure it'd add much. I'm pretty good at saying `:!grep -r foo ..` to search all of `app` whenever necessary.

If there were such a thing as a vim spellchecker that understood LaTeX, now _that 's_ a plugin I'd be interested in. . . .

<comment><USER8> If I understand what you want, I believe Vim-LaTeX does what you want [http://www.vim.org/scripts/script.php?script_id=475](http://www.vim.org/scripts/script.php?script_id=475)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I hope we see a proper event loop for 7.5.

</comment><comment><USER10> I have switch to subl for coding, only sometimes on the ssh client to edit some stuff on server need vim

<comment><USER11> I did this too, but I'm using the Vintageous plugin which has very good vi emulation. Not everything, of course, but it's got some momentum, has a ton of features already(most of the ones I know by muscle memory anyway) and gets frequent updates.

So far it feels awesome, this modal editing with modern features, but I haven't used Sublime Text 3 enough to form a good opinion on why I like it yet. Mostly, I'm like "that minimap is pretty cool!". But I'm also using it like vim, so it's not like it's all sublime anyway.

<comment><USER12> Why does everyone love that minimap? It takes up space and you get the same result by clicking/dragging the scollbar. My co-worker uses it like a big fat scrollbar.

<comment><USER8> I think because it provides a visual reference for not just where in the file you are, but how the whole file looks, and lets you say, "I want to go there."

Actually, I think you could probably make a vim plugin that emulated it's functionality, though probably not with it being readable.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: JS to style Reddit as Hacker News - <AUTHOR> http://pastebin.com/tT6G5qsJ

<comment><AUTHOR> The styling isn't perfect, feel free to modify, but it's good enough to show the two side by side and see how people react. I guess it'd be interesting to do it the other way round too.

</comment><comment><USER2> haha that's awesome, man. I converted it using <http://userjs.up.seesaa.net/js/bookmarklet.html>

The points are missing though.

</comment><comment><USER2> missing semicolon on line 15</comment>


Markovian Death: A Blockchain Once Enough People Die W/o Dead Man's Switch? - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@datarade/markovian-death-what-happens-to-a-blockchain-once-enough-people-die-without-any-dead-mans-switch-8932cfcb5d43 <comment><USER2> Another way of looking at this: " _What will we do if the price of bitcoin hits $1,000,000?_ "

That would be the point at which a satoshi, the smallest possible unit of bitcoin or 0.00000001 bitcoins, would be worth a penny. And so there would be a reasonable argument to increase the maximum subdivision level. And so that could and likely would happen with minimal fanfare - certainly less than the recent split received.

With a theoretically infinitely divisible currency the amount of currency in circulation is not really relevant. And this issue, as small as it is, only becomes one at price points that will not be reached anytime in the foreseeable future, if ever.

</comment><comment><USER3> I could probably be handled though a legal trustee or a safe deposit box in which the contents(hard wallet) is willed to beneficiary.</comment>


Playing it over and over again: how Casablanca was made - <AUTHOR> https://www.newstatesman.com/culture/books/2018/04/playing-it-over-and-over-again-how-casablanca-was-made <comment><USER2> Having mostly seen it on CRT TV screens, with their limited resolution and contrast, I was struck by the amount of detail the film captured, when I first/finally saw a restored print on a high quality, IPS high definition screen.

In the nighttime shots, the delicate and nuanced swirls of cigarette smoke through the air.

If you like "Casablanca" but don't know other films from that era, you really owe it to yourself to check them out.

You can start with Bogart, for example, a couple of other films with him that are personal favorites: "Dark Passage" and "The Big Sleep".

Some things, such a sexuality, were more nuanced (my word for the day, I guess) and implied, in those days; but don't tell me they weren't there. And in some ways things were a little more direct; adults were adults, and some of the humor along with it.

There are also any number of excellent comedies, often as sophisticated as anything we have today.

I've had a few younger friends who tell me, 'I'm not interested in that old stuff.' Until I get them to watch a prime example.

<comment><USER3> Check theaters in your area that run classic films with any frequency.

The Stanford Theater in Palo Alto is a great one. Best of all, almost everyone puts their phones away without prompting. _Almost_ everyone.

The first time I saw "Casablanca" in its entirety was as the weekly film in college, on a classroom projector and screen.

I remember being shocked and dumbfounded at the credits. "1942? This was made during the most hopeless time of the war?!"

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> _When the time came for the scene in which Victor Laszlo defiantly sings "La Marseillaise", one character actor noticed everyone was crying: "I suddenly realised they were all real refugees."_

If I had to pick a single movie scene as my favorite, it would be that one.

[https://youtu.be/HM-E2H1ChJM](https://youtu.be/HM-E2H1ChJM)

</comment><comment><USER5> What I like about Casablanca is nobody knew they were making a classic. It was just another movie they churned out like an episode of _Friends_.

<comment><USER6> That may be an exaggeration but it was certainly a movie that had, to a greater degree than usual, one or a few things had gone a bit differently it would have been totally forgotten.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> You grow up hearing over and over that Casablanca is such a great movie that when you finally see it and find it to be a great movie, it's hard to tell whether that opinion is even your own.

<comment><USER8> Maybe. But I've heard a lot of movies are great (from classics like Citizen Kane to newer movies like Lady Bird), and normally it just makes me disappointed that I don't think they're as great as they've been built up to be. Casablanca really is a great movie, that stands even without context.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Due to another post in HN, I've discovered a fact that really astonished me: the movie was released during the war! And Hitler was winning!!!

Nobody knew what would happen. The characters are fantastic, from the French who must obey to Vichs government, to Rick that perfectly represents America's position.

I've watched it with my 10 and 12 years old sons. Had to pause a lot to explain things, but we all loved it.

</comment><comment><USER10> Step 1 - make sure everyone has a drink in their hands before each scene begins.

Step 2 - if they don't have a drink in their hands when the scene starts make sure the scene involves fixing or pouring a drink.

Casablanca is a great movie.

<comment><USER11> My best guess is that in a very dialog-heavy film, it helps to have the characters holding something.

<comment><USER12> This brings back fond memories.

Around 1985 I was living and working at home in Los Gatos, CA, when I got a call out of the blue:

"Hi, I'm Robert Hetkämper from German TV. We are doing a report on Silicon Valley software companies. Could we stop by tonight and interview you?"

I was nobody you'd have ever heard of, but I had a business phone line listed under my company name, Software Wizards. So I guessed that was how they found me, or that maybe it was just a prank.

I explained that the company was just me working at home, and Robert said, "This is interesting, we are looking for unusual companies like that. Do you have some friends or colleagues you could invite over and we could talk with them too?"

So I called up a few friends and asked them if they wanted to be on German TV, and bless their hearts, they all came over. I still thought it might be a prank, but then the film crew showed up and started putting lights on the street for an exterior shot.

My friends and I sat around the living room table talking, and Robert asked if we could get some glasses of water to drink out of, to get a bit of visual activity in the scene.

That was the day I learned that in a very dialog-heavy film, it helps to have the characters holding something. :-)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> It has more memorable lines that any other movie, save perhaps Princess Bride. People know the lines who have no idea they were in the a movie (and some even weren't).

<comment><USER14> Yes, the first time I watched it (aged about 19) I was amazed to note that of the last 10 lines of the film, something like 9 of them are movie cliches. All those hills of beans and beautiful friendships made an impact - maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but someday and for the rest of its life.</comment></comment>


State of MetaFilter  - <AUTHOR> http://metatalk.metafilter.com/23245/State-of-MetaFilter <comment><USER2> I've gotten far more value out of my Metafilter subscription than the $5 I originally paid for my account. It really is an excellent (and very well- moderated) community.

If you're interested, you can donate to help cover Metafilter's ongoing costs using this link:

[https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s- xclick&hosted_b...](https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s- xclick&hosted_button_id=PPKPHJFYASBTU)

<comment><USER3> Are MetaFilter's traffic stats publicly available? I feel like there might be ways to make more money from it to keep it self-sustaining.

Edit: Matt Haughey just told me on Twitter that the quantcast numbers are accurate enough - [https://www.quantcast.com/metafilter.com](https://www.quantcast.com/metafilter.com)

So that's 6M uniques and 16.5M pageviews per month.

Some napkin math:

Let's say 8 staff + servers cost $100,000/month.

So, they need 10,000 people paying $10/month. That's 0.2% of their monthly uniques.

Assuming 10% of the uniques are registered users and 2% of registered users pay, that seems achievable.

Plus, they can keep the ads for non-paying users and also have higher paid plans for those willing to pay. For example - [https://twitter.com/mathowie/status/468474737790693376](https://twitter.com/mathowie/status/468474737790693376)

<comment><USER4> This is rough back of the envelope calculations, but we only have 62k paid users, only about 12k come back every day, so subscriptions would need something like 25%-50% of the daily userbase paying, not just 2%.

<comment><USER3> Thanks Matt. As someone not very familiar with your site, I have some observations about the user experience of the site:

I just tried signing up for the site. My first hurdle was finding the sign up button. It's nearly impossible.

After finding the "New user" link and clicking on it, I'm presented with your community guidelines, which I understand make MeFi what it is. But, that page could still do with a sign up button, instead of the link buried at the bottom.

Anyway, I clicked on the "Go ahead and sign up for an account here" link, filled in my details and _then_ I was presented with the "pay $5 to complete your signup" message. I didn't know it was going to cost me $5! I went back to the guidelines page, and I noticed you did mention the $5 there, but I didn't read it.

I expect this is the most common user experience of new visitors to your site interested in joining.

I don't know if improving these things will move the needle at all for you, but there seem to be a few simple things you could try to increase signups.

<comment><USER5> This is a feature.

Lurking on Metafilter doesn't require an account; you need one only if you want to post or comment. The $5 threshold (and the wall of text "guidelines" page where it's mentioned a couple of times) serves as an incredible gatekeeper. That is probably the single most effective thing that is responsible for the high quality of Metafilter's posts and comments. The exceptionally well-done moderation is a very close second.

Most mefites actually did read the guidelines page, because by the time they've decided to become a member, they know that text on that page is probably important, and (much like the rest of Metafilter) is probably worth reading in full.

Because what usually happens is a user will read Metafilter for days or weeks, slowly realizing how special it is, and then finally hit a topic that they're passionate about -- the kind of thing where they just have to post, because they know they can contribute to the community... so they spend the $5 and sign up.

The catch is, they've been a member of the community for a bit already, albeit a mute one, and they've probably picked up on some of those guidelines already. That's the point. Optimizing the site so a first-time-visitor is more likely to become a (paid) user would inherently be deprioritizing community quality.

It's that community that makes MetaFilter what it is.

<comment><USER6> I agree with "Most mefites actually did read the guidelines page, because by the time they've decided to become a member, they know that text on that page is probably important".

But just wanted to say that I love MeFi but the interface leaves a lot to be desired. Really :(

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> It's not my section of the Internet most of the time, but I'm professionally obligated to know a little about it, so in case anyone here runs a massive consumer Internet property and can't make the bills with AdSense: you should strongly consider having a direct ads sales force. AdSense is very effective at fulfilling the role it was designed for, which is algorithmically filling your least valuable advertising slots. It is not good at getting top dollar for brand advertising, in fact, it is optimized in entirely the other direction. Brand advertisers _sneeze_ out numbers which pay for the entire salary bill in a month.

This is _particularly_ true if you have an anomalously strong community or an audience which is more valuable than "a generic Internet user in your company."

Even if you're not a massive B2C company, there are plenty of niche publishers who quietly receive $500 to $X,000 a month for each of ~6 ad placements rather than taking $125 in "webmaster welfare" from Google. At that level you don't even need a sales force -- just "your ad could be here" leading to a contact page works.

<comment><USER8> Coming from the B2B media world, I couldn't agree more. Google Ads are a commodity. They work by making all web sites appear more or less than same to the advertiser. Direct sales is the opposite: it's about explaining why your audience is special. The difference really is orders of magnitude.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> > Jessamyn, who has worked in some capacity on the site for almost 10 years > and was instrumental in shaping the voice of Ask MetaFilter, is taking a > voluntary layoff.

Holy crap. I think this is a giant mistake; IMO she's the heart and soul behind that site.

<comment><USER10> Thanks, that's really sweet, but it's been almost a decade and it's definitely time. I've got some stuff coming up (will post more about it later on so as not to take any of the attention away from mathowie's post) which is all good news. It was really time for me to get a little more librarianing in.

<comment><USER11> Thanks for all your work Jessamyn. I've lurked since 1999 and found a lot of useful information over the years (has it been 15 years already? it seems like it just was yesterday!). Made a small donation just now.

Too many valuable things die or are simply discarded these days, whilst utter nonsense by 17yo's that have no purpose get funding in the millions, which are rapidly squandered.

I respect your decision. I also suspect that Matt _seriously_ underestimates the amount of goodwill the site has generated over the years... There's no shame in collecting on this.

PS Get off my lawn young'uns.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I can't think highly enough of Matt and the staff / family at MetaFilter.

This is why:

[http://ask.metafilter.com/125445/How-do-you-deal-with-the- un...](http://ask.metafilter.com/125445/How-do-you-deal-with-the-unexpected- death-of-a-spouse)

[http://metatalk.metafilter.com/18056/Update-on-my-wifes- pass...](http://metatalk.metafilter.com/18056/Update-on-my-wifes-passing-away)

and finally

[http://www.mrbill.net/mefi/](http://www.mrbill.net/mefi/)

I've made lifelong friends and had many enjoyable meetups with local folks. It's going to be hard to think of Jessamyn as a not-moderator.

<comment><USER13> I was just reading SUN related stuff, reminiscing about mid-late-90's SUN, wondering how you were. Sorry for your loss.

<comment><USER12> I'm still here. :) Still run SunHELP although it doesn't get many updates nowdays; the geeks and rescue mailing lists are still pretty decent traffic though.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I just commented on HN yesterday on the success of Metafilter's model of charging a gatekeeper fee for posting. Maybe a one time fee is enough to keep spam at bay but not enough to pay moderators.

The bigger issue seems to be Google's algorithm changes. I don't think anyone would argue that Metafilter is a low quality site or that they should appear below some of the spammy and generally worthless sites that continue to stay near the top. Relying on ad revenue is difficult, especially when your core audience is the crowd that is typically running ad blockers and search traffic changes at the whim of a search engine.

<comment><USER15> I can't help but wonder if reddit's still growing popularity is a contributing factor. reddit found a slightly better way for the community to moderate itself so they've been able to have a higher programmer to moderator ratio.

<comment><USER16> What way is that? Reddit's staff are intentionally hands-off and it really shows. In fact, the only successfully moderated subreddit of any significant size I can think of is r/askhistorians.

<comment><USER17> There are several well-moderated subreddits. AskHistorians, AskScience, and Science all come to mind. Even some of the very highly trafficked subs do amazingly well (yes, with some bumps).

And there are exceptions as well, as there is abuse. The ability for fringe interests to effectively hijack subreddits is a particularly troubling dynamic. See the case involving, of all things, xkcd discussion on reddit:

[http://www.dailydot.com/news/xkcd-reddit-moderator- drama/](http://www.dailydot.com/news/xkcd-reddit-moderator-drama/)

[http://wizzley.com/reddit-holocaust/](http://wizzley.com/reddit-holocaust/)

There are some interesting reddit rules which play into this:

• subreddits are considered community, not personal, resources. If a subreddit's moderator goes AWOL (fails to log in to reddit for 2 months), the sub may be assumed by another moderator. Note that merely failing to moderate a sub _isn 't_ considered AWOL.

• Once installed, moderators are not (or are only very, very rarely) removed by reddit admins.

• To clarify, moderators are ordinary reddit users who moderate subs. Admins are actual paid reddit staff who run the site.

• Senior moderators can remove more junior mods. There's no provision for voting among subscribers or moderators in the event of perceived abuse.

• The generally recognized remedy is to create an alternate subreddit with different mods. This happens with some regularity. You'll now find /r/xkcdcomic as an alternate to the original sub, and with a subscriber count approaching that of the original.

These rules are generally laid out in the reddit FAQ: [http://www.reddit.com/wiki/faq#wiki_moderators](http://www.reddit.com/wiki/faq#wiki_moderators)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> There is supposed to be a softer Panda algorithm coming soon (Matt Cutts announced it in March 2014 - [http://searchengineland.com/google-working- softer-gentler-pa...](http://searchengineland.com/google-working-softer- gentler-panda-algorithm-help-small-businesses-186619)). Maybe that will help?

Google definitely caused a lot of collateral damage with Panda, especially to large sites with user generated content. And unlike algorithms that target aggressive use of links or ads, it's still very unclear how to fix a site that's been hit by Panda (I should know, my car review site was hit by Panda, and never really recovered, despite 2 years of improvement work).

Now that content farms are not such a pressing problem, Google should be able to dial things back a bit, so that good sites like Metafilter aren't ranked lower than they otherwise would be.

</comment><comment><USER19> I was actually surprised to hear that they are employing multiple full-time moderators for a site like this. Is there any word on how much they were spending per moderator?

When I read things like "current response times to contact form emails of less than a few minutes will increase" I am tempted to say they might have actually had too many until now, but I don't participate enough on that site to judge this.

Maybe it would pay off to invest some money in the development of better "crowdsourced moderation" features (like rating/flagging of posts) to save on staff in the long run?

<comment><USER20> Metafilter has absurdly good moderation. It sounds like they're going to do the best they can with more automation and fewer staff, but this is a huge loss.

What they're doing is just really hard. It's not a paradise, but they have reasonably civil, well-thought-out conversations with people of vastly different viewpoints on everything from transgender issues to Israel-Palestine to which rock band is the best to weird art to police brutality to which dogs are the cutest dogs to anything else you can think of. Imagine scaling up Hacker News so that every member is allowed to post to the top of the front page, and posts are allowed to be on any topic imaginable, and the average comment is going to be at least as knowledgeable and thoughtful as it is here -- in fact, the comments are expected to be good enough that they won't be sorted or threaded, and it will be more or less a faux pas to comment without reading all the comments that came before yours. It'll also be a faux pas to drive away people with contradicting ideas.

Running a site like that is so hard that I don't know of anyone else doing it. Not at this scale, not with so many members, not with so much freedom remaining to members.

The key is that Metafilter functions like a community. The members have reputations they care about (partly because of the $5 entrance fee, and partly because they value the respect of other members), and the mods pay attention to the mood of the site and the relationships between people, spending more time nudging people than actively deleting things. They also spend a ton of time (at metatalk.metafilter.com) getting feedback from the community about how the site should be moderated.

Spend a few weeks reading Metatalk and you realize that, whatever they're being paid, _it isn 't enough._

<comment><USER21> It's pretty difficult to have a conversation of any kind, let alone a productive one, without threaded comments. I feel like the site is stuck in the 90s along with Fark.

<comment><USER22> I disagree completely. When you have threaded comments, what happens is that people post their (often reactionary) opinions in response to OP, and then other people respond in kind to those opinions. On occasion you get a witty quip or a good story, but there's just no meaningful flow of conversation. It's soapbox vs. soapbox. On the other hand, non-threaded discussions, while more difficult to follow, read like actual, real-life conversations. You have a chance of having a pleasant discussion (or even changing someone's mind!) on those sites.

I post on HN or Reddit when I feel like adding a point of data to a debate. I post on MeFi when I want to talk to my peers.

(Admittedly, even sites like MeFi can't compare to talking with people in real life. There's something to be said for taking control of someone's locus of attention while you're talking, which you simply can't do when you have to talk in discrete, comment-sized chunks.)

<comment><USER23> With Mefi, one could always quote someone in reply to make things clear. Some of the best discussions online happen over at Metafilter. (I find HN interesting due to it's SV audience, but it functionally feels like an old version of reddit.)

<comment><USER17> What hurts both G+ (and HN) is the absence of a specific blockquote markdown.

None of _italicize everything quoted_ , "put quotes in quotes (especially for long passages)", nor > prefix quotes with a greater-than sign work particularly well IMO. Though I suppose they generally suffice.

<comment><USER21> Blockquotes have been supported in markdown as the ">" prefix since the very beginning. It's a mystery that HN doesn't support it when even reddit does.

<comment><USER17> Precisely my point. I've raised the issue specifically with Yonatan Zunger, and got a very typical Google NIH response.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> MetaFilter is a site which I always value, when I read it, but am rarely directed to: I don't remember _ever_ noticing it in a search engine result.

I'm sorry to hear this and I will endeavour to more actively support MetaFilter and other uniquely valuable sites in the future.

<comment><USER25> Ask Metafilter used to come up often in my google searches for esoteric questions. Not as much lately.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> I used to love ask.metafilter.com!

I went there almost every day, up until a couple of years ago. Around then, I sort of lost interest, as most of the popular questions became 1) Can you recommend me a recipe X for Y?, 2) I hate my life, now what?, 3) Can I ask this question so that we can all bash men?

That's just my opinion. I'm sure it's not the reason for their downfall. It does make me sad, and I hope the data doesn't disappear.

(Losing karma is worth it sometimes, to state an opinion against the masses. Political correctness be damned.)

<comment><USER27> I've been a long time reader and I am saddened at the prospect of MetaFilter's decline, but yes, the man-bashing is certainly one thing that's driven me away from the site lately.

I consider myself egalitarian; injustices against women and men alike are infuriating to me. So several months ago I posted a powerful article about a woman's struggles growing up in Hezbollah culture. This was very well received, but one of the first commentators felt the need to add, "I say [this religion] was dreamed up in the first place by men, for men, and it seems continually to be defended and further embellished for the benefit of men." This became one of the most-favorited comments on the article, and I felt put on the defensive there simply for being a man.

In contrast, I had also posted Susan Sons's Linux Journal article "Girls and Software" (very well-received here on HN), as I thought it was an interesting counter-point to numerous recent MetaFilter articles adhering to the popular view that the lack of women in computer science is due to some systemic bias against women in higher education and industry (as opposed to preferences formed in early childhood). It was quickly removed, with the moderator calling it a "fight-starter opinion piece".

But every community has its faults I guess, and I certainly hope MetaFilter survives this.

<comment><USER28> It's a shame that "Girls and Software" was removed. That article was really fantastic (to the extent that I made a point of saving it). I suppose this sort of thing is the reason why we tend to engage in multiple online communities. The discussion around that article on HN was worth reading!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Two problems with the site that I can think of:

(1) It's somehow 14 years old and this article is #1 on HN, but somehow I've never heard of it.

(2) I haven't been able to figure out what the site actually is, or what it does. I looked at the FAQ and the orientation page on the wiki, but I still have no idea what I want to accomplish by going to the site.

<comment><USER30> Think: NPR-loving, female-friendly left-leaning cozy-fest discussing this that and the other.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Sad to hear this.

I got into some ugly argument right on the very first try at participating in a discussion on the site, wasn't really impressed by how the mods handled it (although the one I PM'd was actually quite okay), and never really gave it another try.

I always felt like I'm really missing out and this was probably all just bad luck and a bad combination of personalities in this specific comment thread, but whenever I went back to the site those memories kind of killed the fun for me and I never commented again.

 _sigh_

<comment><USER32> Totally agree with you.

I used to read Metafilter for many years, and even paid the $5 to start commenting. I stopped though since unlike many members of that site, I tend to be pretty conservative in my views, and it always seemed as if the mods had a vendetta against beliefs too different from their own. Turned me off completely.

<comment><USER33> What do you mean by "vendetta"?

I'm not particularly conservative, but I am relative to Metafilter and I've argued center-to-right positions there (for example, pro-life).

I think it's true to say that it can be very challenging to engage the membership in a way that goes against the lefty gestalt, and if/when you do, there are certainly members who will be less than kind or thoughtful about responding to that kind of participation. But I've rarely had any problem with negative attention from the mods, certainly nothing that I'd describe as a vendetta.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Why doesn't MetaFilter update their layout / aesthetic? If google is hammering them, I'm sure a large part of it is the insta-bounces a site this old looking has.

<comment><USER35> Metafilter has a lot going for it (personally I think it's probably the best non-private community online, particularly in the sense that once you're an active participant it truly is a "community"), but willingness to change anything about Metafilter is not among its virtues: [http://metatalk.metafilter.com/13786/The-Green-Should-Be- Whi...](http://metatalk.metafilter.com/13786/The-Green-Should-Be-White)

Perhaps this event will provide the catalyst necessary for the Mefi community to accept some modernization.

<comment><USER36> The answer is probably completely different designs for members vs random visitors.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> [https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aask.metafilter.com%2F...](https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aask.metafilter.com%2Ftags%2Fears+inurl%3Atinnitus&pws=0&hl=en&filter=0)

internal duplicate content, might not hurt (might hurt), definitely does not help.

force lowercase, always. 1 page == 1 URL, 1 URL == 1 page

always set a canonical, the canonical is content dependent, not URL dependent.

also, your tag pages are wasted, as you do not target a sensemaking phrase i.e.: "Posts tagged with lawschool" nobody searches for that.

also there is no sitemap.xml reference in the robots.txt, which is at least a warning signal.

also i got a very concerning result while doing a webpagespeed test [http://www.webpagetest.org/result/140519_H1_10TE/1/screen_sh...](http://www.webpagetest.org/result/140519_H1_10TE/1/screen_shot/) i only got the first result of a tag page

i could see this with a first request no cookie (on firefox), too, this is very strange, and if this is communicated to google this will definitely lead to traffic loss. have you done an extensiv "fetch with googlebot" using webmaster tools?

my name is franz enzenhofer, i'm the most successful SEO in europe, write me a twitter message, so like now. hope you read this.

in just 5 minutes i have seen 3 warning signs, if this is all new to you, please just fire your SEO instead of your moderator staff!

<comment><USER38> When I'm on metafilter and I click on the 'lawschool' tag, it absolutely makes sense that the header says "Posts tagged with lawschool"

Their goal is not to optimize for Google, it's to optimize for users on the site. (This is one of the reasons that makes metafilter such a special community)

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> This is a major bummer, but never having delved too deeply into metafilter, it seems like it's been basically unchanged for sometime, no?

I don't believe in change for change's sake (and this juncture somewhat reminds me of where Digg was a few years back), but the whole thing seems like it could use some modernization.

Maybe it has iterated a lot and I've just missed it or not noticed through the years of my casual encounters.

<comment><USER40> The biggest changes have been new sub-sites. The most recent of these is FanFare, for discussing TV and movies (and possibly expanding to other media in the future): [http://fanfare.metafilter.com/](http://fanfare.metafilter.com/)

There have also been subtle changes, like removing the ability to post images in comment threads, or adding a five-minute window where you can edit comments for typos. I appreciate the amount of thought that goes into both implementation and policy changes and how they are likely to affect discourse on the site. It's the people and the conversation that make MetaFilter, not any flashy technical features.

<comment><USER22> Whoa! I totally didn't know about this subsite. This is great.

<comment><USER41> Launched in response to TWOP's shuttering.

It's brand new, and they're still working the kinks out. But Matt has said he wants to expand it to include discussions about movies, and possibly books as well.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> Would hate to lose the Big Blue :(.

A site I've visited at least once a day every day for over a decade.

</comment><comment><USER43> Old HN discussion of mefi moderation: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1711995](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1711995) I had not seen it before. I thought it might be of interest.

</comment><comment><USER44> This is a failure of Google's algorithm to recognize and rank appropriately quality web content. Shame.

</comment><comment><USER45> For those who are wondering what MetaFilter is, it's a meta-filtered internet space, a well-moderated community where people can talk about things on the internet, without making it all about themselves.

The About page is a good place to learn more about the site: [http://www.metafilter.com/about.mefi](http://www.metafilter.com/about.mefi)

<comment><USER45> Or really, the Popular Tags page should speak for itself: [http://www.metafilter.com/tags/](http://www.metafilter.com/tags/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> Ravelry, the social network for knitters, in its early days had several fundraisers that keep it going for a while. The amazing thing is these fundraisers (called "For the love of Ravelry") were actually organised by the community.

I think if Metafilter gave its community a chance to keep the site afloat they'd step up.

</comment><comment><USER47> The only advertising I see on there is The Deck which is divided up over so many sites I can't imagine any of them make much money from it. If I log out, I see Adsense too, which as far as I can tell isn't a good source of returns nowadays either, it's more in the last-ditch "I can't sell advertising myself, give me anything!" school of advertising.

I think they should take the Reddit approach: gold + directly sold ads. Directly sold ads would surely make a better CPM than Adsense and it could go on all pageviews rather than just non logged in ones..

</comment><comment><USER48> What would you guys say is metafilter's core objective now? I used to read it a lot between 2004-2007, then got bored. So if you could describe metafilter & its community, how would you?

</comment><comment><USER49> If a site like MetaFilter is barely surviving, how is that Stack Exchange, Reddit, et al can just keep going? Is it because those sites have VC backing or roots in YC?

<comment><USER21> I'm pretty sure those sites are much more popular, and have better categorization for advertising targeting. You can charge a lot more for ads in /r/Television, /r/movies, and /r/trucks than you can on the generic MeFi homepage.

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> Well, damn. :/

That sucks but at least MetaFilter will live on.

</comment><comment><USER51> Sorry for the silly question, but what is metafilter?! Like HN for general content with a price tag?!

<comment><USER52> old and well established user-generated blog with an extremely well moderated (best on the net, imo) discussion forum in the form of comment threads, with a medium-sized user base. the pice tag is only to comment, and as you might imagine it tends to make people value their ability to participate more than on other, free forums. it's the only place on the internet where i genuinely enjoy reading comments.

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> I wonder where they would be today if they took a monthly or yearly as opposed to a one-time fee. It seems to me like recurring revenue would turn the main problem into keeping users, rather than recruiting them.

<comment><USER43> From what I gather, their main revenue is ad money. The fee to join is mostly a gatekeeping thing. It is not a big part of the revenue model. Matt managed growth really well (from what I gather) by limiting new memberships and what not. It is a community and limiting new memberships and putting in a gatekeeper fee seems to have done a lot to avoid eternal September and what not. That's the main thing you need to do to make money from a community: Keep your eye on the prize of making it a good community. I have seen that failed elsewhere.

I don't know much about google algorithms but if you don't have the good community piece of it, you have no business model for this. It is not HN, HN is the funnel for applicants for Y Combinator, so it is part of the business model here but it is a very, very different model. Mefi exists solely (as I understand) to be a community and not to serve some other business need the way HN does.

I think they should make the donate button much, much more visible but I am not a fan of recurring membership fees. But I don't have time to write more at the moment.

</comment></comment><comment><USER54> Interesting that the only thing I know about MetaFilter is that I heard they are a well behaved community. That is it. Know nothing else about the site. What it does, why I would visit etc.

</comment><comment><USER55> Really sad to see that even if you 'make it' and make a lot of money, you can (and probably will) lose it all given enough time. Never put all of your eggs in one basket. :/

<comment><USER56> Who said the founders/managers were going to lose in aggregate? They may have set aside a nest egg in peak years and not want to dip into that.

<comment><USER55> I never said that - I said they were going to lose their month-by-month income, not their total savings.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER57> Damn, basically fired by a computer algorithm. We are living in the future. But is Google too powerful?

<comment><USER58> Ah, but they were essentially hired by the same algorithm. Had the algorithm not existed, they would have had to find another job.

<comment><USER59> To be fair, the algorithm changed.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER60> So Google killed Metafilter?

</comment><comment><USER61> Why dont they try Adsense?

<comment><USER40> Most of MetaFilter's revenue comes from the Adsense ads on Ask MetaFilter pages.

</comment></comment><comment><USER62> _A year and a half ago, we woke up one day to see a 40% decrease in revenue and traffic to Ask MetaFilter, likely the result of ongoing Google index updates. We scoured the web and took advice of reducing ads in the hopes traffic would improve but it never really did, staying steady for several months and then periodically decreasing by smaller amounts over time._

Amazing power Google has. We desperately need this power distributed to 4-5 search engines, not one. I have been thinking about the changes, and I suspect that a lot of the "lost" traffic went to ads (Adwords) and YouTube. In other words it shifted from sites like MetaFilter to Google. Great ain't it? Google decides that it's own properties (where it keeps 100% of revenue) are more relevant than sites where it keep just about 30% of it. Proof for the shift are Google's own numbers: in house ad clicks have been grown by double-digits, quarter after quarter.

Oh, I have heard the "Chinese Wall," "Church and State" but frankly I no longer buy it. Something stinks , as we hear of a lot of losers and one winner, the one that also ranks.

Too many coincidences, too many punishing updates for non Google sites, and a very suspicious increase of Google's own ad clicks.

</comment><comment><USER63> I didn't realize this was a legitimate site with real users. I always thought it was just a spam site scraping from somewhere based on the horrible design and excessive ads...

</comment><comment><USER64> After a heartfelt letter to the public, and layoff decisions final, you are willing to pitch in some donation? How nice.

But would have even clicked the donation link prior, even if it were a _prominent_ "Please donate. We need it!" button?

That's the real question folks.

</comment><comment><USER65> I'm stunned there was staff to lay off.

I've seen such disappointing vitriol in the comments of the main MetaFilter that I stopped reading it long ago. I do continue to drop by Ask, though. I'm surprised there was anything on MetaFilter that required so many full-time staff and looking back on years of reading MetaFilter still doesn't give me any appreciation for what they must have been doing. In particular, the quality of comment moderation on the main MetaFilter did not, to me, reflect the level of quality one would expect from several full-time staff.

<comment><USER53> I think you severely underestimate the effort it takes to run and maintain a successful community site.</comment></comment>


The Media Map: Who's Reading What And Where - <AUTHOR> http://www.forbes.com/special-report/2012/media-map.html

<comment><USER2> "We worked with Bitly and its data on millions of Web clicks to find the most influential media outlets in the country."

This is the real "value" of link shorteners.

Link shortening needs to be an RFC, implemented within the browser and any other http tool.</comment>


CHTeMeLe is a board game about HTML - <AUTHOR> http://www.geek.com/articles/games/chtemele-is-a-board-game-about-html-2012106/ <comment><USER2> Submitted by an undisclosed Ziff Davis (owner of Geek, ExtremeTech and PCMag) employee/spammer.

</comment><comment><USER3> hmm....</comment>


An Early Computer Was Based on a Urinal Flush Mechanism - <AUTHOR> http://nautil.us/blog/this-early-computer-was-based-on-a-urinal-flush-mechanism

<comment><USER2> Notably this wasn't the first water computer. Compare

1) Water Integrator, Vladimir Lukyanov, Soviet Union 1936

2) The MONIAC (Monetary National Income Analogue Computer) or Phillips Hydraulic Computer (also known as the Phillips Machine), William Phillips, GB 1949

[1] [http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ru&tl=en&js=n&prev=...](http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ru&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=es&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nkj.ru%2Farchive%2Farticles%2F7033%2F)

[2] [http://www.theguardian.com/business/2008/may/08/bankofenglan...](http://www.theguardian.com/business/2008/may/08/bankofenglandgovernor.economics)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_- uGHWz_k0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_-uGHWz_k0) (Video, 2009)

<comment><USER3> MONIAC, according to Wikipedia, comes from Money and ENIAC. But I can't stop smiling seeing Urine and *moniac in the same thread.

Destiny.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Is this where the notion of "overflow" comes from?

<comment><USER3> Only if it's a full bladder.</comment></comment>


You've all read BOFH, Now read the BMFH Chronicles. - <AUTHOR> http://www.reddit.com/user/jon6/submitted/

<comment><USER2> I lasted until part 4, when the bit about "three-desk distance" and "three- piece rule" set off my BS detector.

If that actually did happen, for real, in a real company, the rest of the story is going to be too awful to bear thinking about.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I don't really believe the story but its an entertaining read.</comment>


Worst subscription cancellation option (ever?) - <AUTHOR>

Just tried to cancel my 12society box after getting a bunch of lame stuff from them for the second time in a row. Here was my option for fully cancelling http://postimage.org/image/5r6y730p9/ <comment><USER2> They want to interview you on exit. It's not exactly startling stuff here---in fact it used to (and probably still is) a selling point on many products that you have a no-questions asked guarantee because so many stores wanted to badger you as to "why" you were returning an item.

</comment><comment><USER3> I've had several services that forced me to make a phone call to cancel. World of Warcraft and Audible specifically (they don't always make you call, but after you've cancelled/re-subscribed several times you seem to get flagged).</comment>