Novel Optical Trick Creates Ultra-Secure Cash - <AUTHOR> http://www.fastcompany.com/biomimicry/never-before-seen-optical-trick-creates-ultra-secure-cash

<comment><USER3> Its very cool, it looks like it would have tonnes of use's assuming there isn't a lower tech method of emulating a similar effect.

Counterfeit cash only has to be good enough to trick a human. It is for this reason that I don't think it would be too long before counterfeiters found a cheap low tech method of creating a similar looking effect.

<comment><USER4> The polymer notes[1] we use in Australia (and also print for several other countries) have been around for about 18 years now and have very low rates of counterfeiting due to the number of security features built in[2].

The notes do cost more to produce, but the extra durability means that they last about 4 times as long (from memory) in circulation, so overall the cost difference is marginal for the government, but is an additional deterrent for counterfeiters.

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polymer_banknote> [2] <http://www.rba.gov.au/banknotes/counterfeit/index.html>

<comment><USER5> I just read an interesting article about Canada borrowing the polymer from the Australia. I didn't realize that until very recently, Canada had a really serious counterfeiting problem.

[http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on- business/economy/cu...](http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on- business/economy/currencies/funny-money-how-counterfeiting-led-to-a-major- overhaul-of-canadas-money/article2258968/singlepage/#articlecontent)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Who cares about "security"? This is an aesthetic goldmine: the ability to emboss passive no-power fluorescence onto any surface or material permanently is huge.

Tattoos, buildings, glassware, bezels, cars, reflectors, furniture... jeez. This is amazing stuff.

</comment><comment><USER7> It won't be ultra secure if it's cheap to manufacture and used in products ranging from money to even concert tickets.

But very cool none the less. I do hope it gets fitted to the next currencies because an extra obstacle for counterfeiters is always welcome.

<comment><USER8> Cheap to manufacture usually refers to per unit costs. If a machine costs 10 million dollars and has an output of 100 million units per year, your per unit cost is 10 cents (plus materials), or "pretty cheap."

Only state sponsored counterfeiters would be able to replicate this technology in the next 10 years.

<comment><USER9> I believe it's the sate sponsored teams that actually get most of the fake money into circulation (in terms of currency value, not units in circulation):

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

The UK has a large problem with fake Pound coins, which are made at an artisan level, but all the high value note faking, worldwide, of established currencies, is most likely State Sponsored. Which states produce them remains a mystery, though some think it is the USA/CIA: [http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/01/10/24521/us- counterfeitin...](http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/01/10/24521/us- counterfeiting-charges-against.html)

<comment><USER10> That link says absolutely nothing about the US or CIA possibly counterfeiting UK pound coins.

<comment><USER11> But the post you're replying to doesn't claim that UK pound coins are counterfeited by US or CIA, it says that UK coins are counterfeited by "artisans".

(<http://www.coinauthentication.co.uk/poundfiles-types.html>)

Wikipedia says that nearly 3% of pound coins are counterfeit, and that the Swazi lilangeni is minted from the same planchets, which makes vending machine fraud easy.

<comment><USER10> Here is the post I am quoting: _The UK has a large problem with fake Pound coins.... Which states produce them remains a mystery, though some think it is the USA/CIA_

After this quote a link was provided. That link did not mention anything about the USA or CIA producing fake UK pound coins.

Am I missing something? Why are the two topics in the same paragraph if they are not related?

<comment><USER9> Looks like you missed the bit in the middle:

The UK has a large problem with fake Pound coins,--- which are made at an artisan level,--- but all the high value note faking, worldwide, of established currencies, is most likely State Sponsored.

This was to clarify what I had meant above, talking about volume over value. The UK has a large volume of fake coins in circulation, most likely far far more than the number of fake notes we have circulating. BUT the value of the fake notes in circulation far exceeds that of the coins.

I was trying to make it clear that yes there is a lot of mom and pop fakery going on, but the real high value fakery comes from the highly technical and sophisticated teams (most like state sponsored).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Why did they say "thousands of years of evolution" instead of millions?

<comment><USER13> Well, given the earth is only 6,000 years old...

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> "Never before seen optical trick" makes it sound like the company invented plasmonics. This isn't true. Using patterned structures to affect electromagnetic fields via surface plasmons has been around for quite a while in lower frequency ranges. The recent advances in nano-patterning have allowed for access to optical wavelength light. Plasmonics is a very cool field, and is likely to have many more applications.

For further reading: [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=10&q=plasmonics](http://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=10&q=plasmonics)

</comment><comment><USER15> I can imagine advertisers using this to stamp currency with their logo.

(however it's illegal to tamper with money like that)

I highly doubt it will survive the wear and tear of regular use though - <USER2> the microscopic holes become worn and enlarged or filled with dust, the effect will stop working.

<comment><USER11> > _if the microscopic holes become worn and enlarged or filled with dust, the > effect will stop working._

From the article:

> [...] _which are typically 100-200 nanometers in diameter_

200 nanometers is 0.2 microns.

(<http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/particle-sizes-d_934.html>)

Dust is much too big, but there are some particles which may be small enough to clog the holes.

<comment><USER16> Bacteria. Viruses. Fluids. Yuck.

<comment><USER17> How large is cocaine powder?

<comment><USER11> ([http://library- resources.cqu.edu.au/JFS/PDF/vol_41/iss_3/JFS...](http://library- resources.cqu.edu.au/JFS/PDF/vol_41/iss_3/JFS413960371.pdf))

> Previous work by Revenue Canada and the U.S. Customs Service indicated that > heroin particles from seized samples are rarely larger than 20 microns in > diameter, while cocaine particles are often larger than 20 microns, some > times reaching 400 microns

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I never understood how do those anti-counterfeiting defenses work.

How come anybody can't buy the tech and make it at home? Is it because you can't just get the machines, or maybe because they're expensive?

<comment><USER19> It's much cheaper to counterfeit old currency that is still in circulation than to invest a lot of money in trying to replicate the latest security features.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Why all the complex names for it? The iridescent color of a butterfly wing has been known as "structural color" for a very long time.

</comment><comment><USER21> Sounds like they have a better mousetrap. Should be interesting to see whether they build a successful business out of it.

</comment><comment><USER22> Reflective clothing?

<comment><USER23> It will start with currency and such, followed by clothing (hey, look at me!), then nails, then full body "tattoos". Heck, a couple of decades from now we'll put the city of Panem (from the Hunger Games) to shame. We'll all look like a bunch of human butterflies.

<comment><USER24> _hey, look at me!_

For safety, not for fashion. Hopefully.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> How about fingernails?

</comment><comment><USER26> Id rather see a currency that cant be stolen by governments who print the currency like mad causing hyperinflation. A hyperinflation protected currency where it takes millions of computer-years of time to print more cash.

<comment><USER13> At my house, we have a "no computer programmers talking about economics".

One of the biggest problems of the Eurozone is the inability for governments to inflate their money-supply. Also you just described bitcoin.

<comment><USER27> I've seen some reasonable responses over here. Also lots of uninformed or misinformed stuff, sure, but I'd rather not limit discussion of economics, law, etc.. just to the professionals.

Also, the more I learn about economics (I'm halfway through an MBA program), the less I believe economics should be left to the economists - I do understand that I have only a patina of knowledge, and that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing :).

<comment><USER13> I think the key issue is that there's something about computer programmers that makes them think they already understand economics. I'm not sure what. Maybe that it seems like it should be self evident because "it's just numbers" or something.

And yet, some of the facile comments you read and hear and I will cut the fingers off the next person who tells me we should go back to the gold standard, because at least gold has a value...</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Iain Banks audio interview - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02sdftl

<comment><AUTHOR> This BBC radio programme asks people to chose some music tracks and talk about the significance of that music to them. They chose a track they "inherited" from eg parents, and a track they want to "hand down" to eg their children.

This one is author Iain Banks in 2011. There's a large archive and I though HN might be interested.

The BBC website is v. Frustrating to search though. :-/</comment>


I got into YC after applying 6 times. Here's my advice for YC applicants - <AUTHOR> http://iamwil.posterous.com/i-got-into-yc-after-applying-six-times-heres <comment><USER3> As someone who knows a significant number of YC folks, I have to say the most inspiring thing about the entire organization is how normal everyone is.

There's this expectation that there's "something different" that separates successful startup founders from "common folk". And it just doesn't exist. I think the barrier of intimidation is one of the biggest things most people aren't fortunate enough to experience.

Like I said, I know more than a few YC folks, I've interviewed (and was rejected) once from YC, and every person I've met struck me as utterly normal in most ways. They merely possessed a bit more experience and in general know a tad more than the average person.

There's no reason you can't do a startup right this instant. Do not let YC's rejection/acceptance dictate your path.

<comment><USER4> Agree and disagree.

I don't think everyone is Superman but I have the impression that while they all seem normal, the applicants must be very competitive. By that, I mean many must show something impressive that separates them from the others.

This doesn't mean they can shoot lasers from their eyes but they must show some entrepreneurial spirit or have accomplished something great/interesting/cool beforehand.

As someone who didn't get into YC, I do agree with your final statement. No reason you can't do a startup.

And, after reading this, I'm reminded I should re-apply. :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I don't know, for me it is a weird story of someone desperately seeking acceptance of his fetish named Paul Graham (in the text he mentions PG sixteen(!) times by name) and now his suffering is come to an end.

Sincere congratulations, though, Wilhelm, I hope now you can start living the life again.

<comment><AUTHOR> Haha. The love quote at the end is tongue-in-cheek.

Well, it's not so much a fetish for PG as it is a fetish for his writings.

And I'll have you know that it only gets harder from here on out. :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> As a single founder who just submitted their application this article makes me happy. If this kind of attitude and traction is what they're looking for then I think I do have a pretty good shot.

Either way, I'm looking forward to seeing what comes out of it.

<comment><USER7> Just applied as a single founder as well ... good luck!

<comment><USER6> Thanks! Good luck to you too.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Want to add a point. I think the common trait you mentioned in the post that you find in all our current batch mates is passion. I can just sense how everyone is so passionate in their own ways.

People who are passionate are more likely to stick it out to the end. It is something I think that's pretty hard to fake.

</comment><comment><USER9> here's my advice: don't _ever_ accept "no" as an answer.

<comment><USER10> Exactly, just do it again and again, over and over... eventually things will fit together and you will get it right. The spirit of not giving up and to keep learning from mistakes is the only that counts in the end.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I have been rejected twice previously (1st poorly prepared, 2nd late) as a single founder.

Given PG's selection is based on startup founder's likelihood of success. YC's harsh selection process have really shaped my vision of my product to attack the problem domain from a different angle. I think they will train better founders.

Now, I am applying YC this session (S11),

\- Finally i find a cofounder that i have know for 2 years that have perfect match in value and skill sets.

\- I spend much more time preparing the application

\- Also exponential more time working on the real business assets (design, code, project plan)

I should Thank them for the harshness, it makes you becomes a stronger, better fighter !

<comment><USER12> I think my major take home from the process is that I don't need YC to succeed. I still have an application in, and will certainly appreciate the opportunity should we be accepted, but being accepted is far from make or break.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> +1 for finally getting in. From what you write, it seems to me that you got into YC at a point when knew the game quite well. The learning was in getting in.

So what's your take away from all of it? Is it the YC network and the resourcefulness of YC founders, or is there more to it?

PS: I strongly believe in the adage, "if you want to be smart, surround yourself with smart people". From that POV, I understand that being connected to YC founders itself gives you tools that would otherwise be inaccessible to you. Still I wanna hear that from you, since you're in a better position to ascertain that.

</comment><comment><USER14> Wanted to thank you for this post; some of your quotes about co-founders describe the trials and tribulations we've already been through in the 6 months we've been working full time on our startup. Great read!

</comment><comment><USER8> Very much enjoyed reading this. It is certainly one of the best posts in this topic. Good job.

</comment><comment><USER15> If nothing else this was a great tour of interesting pg essays. Thanks for writing.

</comment><comment><USER16> _Founders are more savvy now, and no longer ask questions like, "So when we get money from investors, when do we have to pay them back?"_

So if you do get $$ from investors, when do you have to pay them back?

<comment><USER17> If it is a convertible bond, that isn't really as silly a question as the article makes it out to be, and is very relevant given Yuri Milner's convertible bond offer - in which case I believe the answer is "1 year, unless Yuri decides to exercise the option to convert".

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> One of the better posts on the subject.

So ... wanna review my app? :)

<comment><AUTHOR> Everything I could tell you about your application, I've written in the post. :)

The only other than I'd add is to write less. Get to the point. Clear language is indicative of clear thinking (something I'm still learning myself).

It's easy to slide into formal writing because that's what we're all use to in college, but it'll kill you here. Use short easy words. Use simple sentences. Cut out words that don't get to the point. You don't have to explain everything. Just explain the crux and the core.

I know, easier said than done. I'm a bit sheepish that my post was so long, but I cut as much as I could in the time that I had.

<comment><USER19> "I would have written a shorter letter, but I did not have the time." - <USER2>

Most of the time you spend writing your YC application should be on making it clearer and removing unnecessary words.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Awesome write-up, gonna review our application one more time to make sure we hit all those points. Thanks!

</comment><comment><USER21> Great article! Thanks!

</comment><comment><USER22> Well-written article. Thanks for sharing!

</comment><comment><USER23> Why do everyone thinks that , if you got into YC , your company gonna be a sure bet ?

<comment><USER24> I don't think many people actually think that. We've said publicly many times that we'd be pleasantly surprised if the success rate was as high as 50%.

<comment><USER25> You may be pleased by a 50% success rate, but how many of the 50% who don't succeed will be pleased?

(Not just being facetious -- I've heard stories about YCers whose companies failed being hired by other YC companies or otherwise finding good positions as a result of their YC experience, but a few anecdotes is no substitute for data.)

<comment><USER26> _I've heard stories about YCers whose companies failed being hired by other YC companies_

I've heard successful YC companies referred to as being like piranhas (or something like that). Any time another YC company shows signs of failing, the others tend to wonder about hiring opportunities.

<comment><USER27> Is it a bad thing? In worst case you'll be working with other people with similar mindset to yours which is not bad at all.

<comment><USER26> No, it's not a bad thing at all - I've only heard people say it that way as a joke.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Great post that hopefully makes some people feel less need to get into YC. A great founder can be helped by YC, but would be successful with or without it. If you think you need to get into YC to succeed, you're not who they are looking for.

</comment><comment><USER10> This was extremely useful, thank you. We applied few days ago for this batch and I JUST KNOW that we are IN! :-)

</comment><comment><USER29> What the FUCK is YC?

<comment><USER30> <http://ycombinator.com/>

P.S.: What are you doing on HN, if you don't know this? :-)

<comment><USER31> YC leading to

<http://ycombinator.com/>

is one of the top two Google results, at least as Google customizes its results for me. Any time I see a puzzling abbreviation or acronym or new vocabulary word or foreign word or phrase online, I just Google it.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Would you use login notifications (different IP/location) as a service? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> Would I use it? Possibly.

Would I pay for it? Almost certainly not.

My most important accounts are protected by Two Factor Auth which is enough security for my needs.

</comment><comment><USER3> yea. i think thats an extremely valuable service</comment>


Check out my HN extension (filters on both keywords and karma then aggregates) - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/fractastical/Hacker-News-Filter

<comment><USER2> Ummm... no.

I think there are more than enough ways out there to make sure I only read the news I want to read. Some sites I read to make sure I am seeing other things out there I may not know I should read.

Not saying this is bad so much as that I would hope it doesn't catch on...

<comment><AUTHOR> For me it is more a tool that I would use once a week to make sure I didn't miss anything I wanted to see that week on HN. The alternative is reading every headline multiple times a day and this isn't always feasible.</comment></comment>


Is Blind Hiring the Best Hiring? - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/magazine/is-blind-hiring-the-best-hiring.html <comment><USER2> Blind hiring is a good idea. But definitely cannot explain the bulk of the issue. It is systemic and the article completely writes of the idea that there is a pipeline problem - which ignores a lot of the pre-college factors that go into whether or not a student of a minority demographic can succeed in a top tier engineering program in particular (I mention engineering because the article refers to Silicon Valley jobs a lot).

Below are two pieces on the demographics of engineers at Harvard and Stanford: they show pretty clearly that the percent of Black and Hispanic students in these programs lags significantly to the US population percentage.

[https://medium.com/@jcueto/race-and-gender-among-computer- sc...](https://medium.com/@jcueto/race-and-gender-among-computer-science- majors-at-stanford-3824c4062e3a#.kng7b82dw)

[https://medium.com/@winniewu/race-and-gender-among- computer-...](https://medium.com/@winniewu/race-and-gender-among-computer- science-concentrators-at-harvard-1c1943a20457#.5yszoxbd0)

<comment><USER3> "Stanford Computer Science majors are Asian (46.4%), followed by White (38%), Hispanic (9.5%) and Black (6.1%)."

High school: Nationwide, black students graduated at a rate of 69 percent; Hispanics graduated at 73 percent; whites graduated at a rate of 86 percent.

13.2% of the population is black, 17.1% Latino, 63% white.

If White = (38%) then you would expect black to be: 38% / (.63 * .86) * (13.2 * .69) = 6.39%. So if anything Standford is about right for black people, and massively over represents Asians.

It seems like HS graduation rates are the real issue everything else just flows from that. But, income and graduation rates are linked so it's a self perpetuating cycle.

<comment><USER4>
        > So if anything Standford [sic] is about right for black
        > people, and massively over represents Asians.

That assumes only local applications though. And even then ignores demographic prejudice in where to apply (which is probably more slight).

I would guess Asian students are a majority among international applicants to Stanford. If we then looked at high school 'graduation' worldwide as the baseline, that's probably an underrepresentation.

<comment><USER3> I am ignoring where people apply, just adjusting for % of population and % of high school graduates. There are a lot of ways to play with the numbers but that seemed like a good first approximation.

Also, international students are 8.70% of undergrads at Stanford, so they can't really change the stats that much.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> > A new study from Harvard Business School backs up this line of reasoning. It > found that when service-sector employers used a job test, they hired workers > who tended to stay at the job longer — indicating that they were a better > match. When employers overruled the test results to hire someone for more > subjective reasons, the employees were significantly more likely to quit or > be fired.

That's an interesting finding considering that standardized tests are often criticized for not promoting diversity. Ive read that standardized tests were originally intended to combat bias, and i think they are fairly successful in that regard. It's a shame that they have fallen out of political favor in favor of looking for "the right type" of subjective qualities of candidates.

<comment><USER6> Standardized tests are rarely job tests. Non-job-specific standardized tests may eliminate bias with regard to what they are designed to measure, but the choice of such a test itself introduces bias to the extent that the test favors one group over another in ways which do not reflect the job for which it is given, _even if_ it is unbiased in what it is intended to measure. (This is the basic reason behind the case that is often mispresented as outlawing standardized IQ tests in hiring, which did not actually do that but instead required that, to the extent that such tests disproportionately disqualified members of a protected class, that there be evidence that the test was a real measure of performance on the job for which it was used as a hiring filter.)

<comment><USER5> Yes, no test is perfect but I think its better than the alternative. The best part is that its fair in the sense that the person knows what to expect. A lot of people feel disillusioned about processes that have a subjective element, so much so that they don't participate. If I were told the precise steps that all but guarantee an outcome, that person would likely find that preferable to the alternative. It would build trust into the system, even though the objective methods may be too rigid at times.

Businesses have all the incentive to create tests that measure real performance. These kinds of problems are best solved in the highly competitive market place for talent. I don't think some politician would do a better job at determining what makes a good employee and how to hire that employee.

I've read somewhere that the push for "well-rounded" candidates in colleges was pushed partly to stop the flow of very strong asian candidates displacing others. That's why schools that rely primarily on tests, like the elite Stuyvesant high school, end up with disproportionately asian students (Stuyvesant is 72% Asian). They get criticized for some reason due to the outcome of their selection method. Perhaps going to a school with predominately Asians has downsides for the student, but that's really a judgement call that should be left up to the parents. And the rationales normally used to prove racial bias for a test doesn't really hold water since the groups doing well are usually first or second generation immigrants. I think rigging the system in favor of one group is pretty bad, but rigging it just so that its harder for another group may be even worse.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I had a customer-facing programming job (something like a technical consultant). I had to speak English understandably -- even over the phone -- and be a polished, likeable, and competent representative for the company.

It's hard to imagine how this could be done without "flawed human judgement".

Some jobs might be form-filling or widget-building in a dark basement, and you might be able to get away with this. But a lot of jobs are not that.

<comment><USER8> The rules for sales are... different, but sales (and to a lesser extent, consulting, at least the "make the customer feel special" part of consulting) exists in what most of us consider to be a kind of ethical gray area. You're trying to tell the customer "I'm one of you"

Most technical jobs are not like that. Most have pretty minimal social requirements. If you can't work with a programmer who doesn't look like you, I'd argue that the problem is with you, not with the person who looks different.

Every time I argue that competency should be more important than 'cultural fit' people bring up the example of the asshole. But the asshole isn't usually the one rejected for 'cultural fit' \- assholes usually do fairly well during the interview.

<comment><USER9> And there are technical ways to find the asshole. Send them some bad code for review and see how they review it; ask them to work with the author to get it merged. (Enough code review happens in open-source projects over email/GitHub, over text, with pseudonyms, that having it be anonymous is entirely realistic.)

Alternatively, keep an eye out for asshole behavior -- to any employee, not just those on the same team -- during the first few weeks, and be willing to fire.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I once had an amazing experience with an organization who explained on its website that you should remove your ''personal information'' from your resume as they do not select based on name, gender, age or race. I did not get hired, but to this day I still recommend that organization to my friends!

<comment><USER11> Would you mind recommending it to us?

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> As the article notes, software engineering is an interesting discipline in that an engineer's main responsibility is to produce a discrete body of work which can be peer reviewed. I don't want to dismiss culture entirely, but it's a very vague idea that gets used to justify a lot of negative hiring practices. I think it's less important to assess "culture fit" than it is to do a very thorough review of a candidate's prior work. The candidate can be included in this review and even asked to explain/defend particular choices they made while creating that work -- since sometimes external constraints force non-ideal technical decisions and if the candidate understands that it's a sign they're a strong engineer.

Why not hire the best engineers you can find and then let them define the culture of the company? People who have a hand in defining the culture of their team/company tend to be more motivated and invested in it.

<comment><USER13> Because culture does matter, even in tech.

Consider a company where social inclusion is important. That'd be a terrible culture fit for me. When debating a technical choice, I'll say "do we all agree to run X experiment, outcome Y => choice A, outcome Z => choice B? Then we can all STFU and stop arguing." In the happy/social/fun environment, this is terrible. The promoters of B might feel unhappy, harming team cohesion, and that could be _more important_ than 10% lower latency.

On the flip side, consider the confrontational "put up or shut up" environment I tend to prefer (and create). In this environment, "you suck at SQL" is just a factual statement that you can choose to remedy or not. Some folks really don't like being told "experiment failed, your idea is wrong, be smarter next time". Even if they are technically competent, they need a form of social interaction at work that they don't get.

There are a variety of cultural dimensions like this that matter. Another is implicit vs explicit - whether you can navigate implicit job responsibilities or they need to be spelled out. Much as we'd like to act like we are just machines taking money as input and code as outputs, this stuff does matter.

<comment><USER14> How about "the experiment failed, your idea was a good hypothesis, better luck next time"? Instead of "you suck at SQL", how about "you should probably read up on the difference between GIN and GIST indexes in Postgres and maybe try out window functions - they make this problem a lot easier to solve". It seems more productive to give people ways they can improve their skills rather than tearing them to shreds just for entertainment.

You can have an environment that is driven by good engineering (testing assumptions, measuring etc.) without people being outright insulting to one another. All it requires is, oh, minimal human empathy and a willingness to spend 10-15 minutes every so often explaining unfamiliar concepts to fellow team members who haven't fully grasped it.

<comment><USER13> _It seems more productive to give people ways they can improve their skills rather than tearing them to shreds just for entertainment._

That's a valid elaboration focused on a _single specific instance_.

It doesn't mean that "you suck at SQL" isn't also a valid critique. For example, while GIN/GIST indexes will help them solve _this problem_ , what that person may need is to actually just learn a lot more about SQL overall (rather than just one specific trick). "You suck at SQL" isn't a thing that's valid (read: _correct_ ) to say to someone just because they don't know about a window function. It's a thing that is valid to say when a person repeatedly demonstrates fundamental misunderstandings of SQL on many occasions.

It's also useful information. I've been told that I suck at UI, repeatedly. I accept and internalize this fact. As a result, while I do sometimes think about customer experience, I very rarely push hard for a specific UI or worry too much about details. I'll suggest that maybe a UI is confusing and they should hallway test it and then afterwards do nothing but insist that we abide by the test results (whatever they were).

Based on the mood affiliation of your comment, it sounds like you dislike this sort of interaction. You prefer something with more "empathy" and less "tearing them to shreds". That's exactly what I'm talking about when I say culture matters. You'd probably hate being on my team and I'd probably hate being on yours, even if we are both highly competent devs.

<comment><USER15> >That's exactly what I'm talking about when I say culture matters. You'd probably hate being on my team and I'd probably hate being on yours, even if we are both highly competent devs.

This shouldn't be a matter of team culture. Socially mature people should be able to adapt their communication to different people's personalities without any difficulty. There's no reason you can't say "Hey Fred, your foo implementation sucks." in one breath, and "Hey Bob, this bar implementation might be a bit better if you looked into baz." in the next. And I'm not sure why you find the latter so unpleasant.

<comment><USER13> There is also no reason why Bob can't adapt his communication to whoever is saying "your foo implementation sucks".

 _Culture_ is a set of prevailing norms about which group of people are the ones who should adapt. In some cultures it's Fred who adapts, in others it's Bob.

Let me emphasize that I'm not advocating that one culture is superior. Bridgewater is a highly successful "you suck here's why" culture, Shutterstock is a highly successful "lets all think about feelings" culture (to name two NY companies known for culture), and I don't think either would be improved by making them more like the other.

I'd just be far more willing to work at Bridgewater (at least if they opened a NYC office - who wants to go to CT) than at Shutterstock.

 _And I 'm not sure why you find the latter so unpleasant._

I find it to be an exercise which saps my mental energy and distracts me from increasing shareholder value. The less I think about feelings, the more I'm thinking about getting more sales for my customers.

I'm not sure why some people find open office plans so unpleasant. But I accept that some people really don't like them and I have no problem if companies choose private offices to appeal to those people.

<comment><USER15> > There is also no reason why Bob can't adapt his communication to whoever is > saying "your foo implementation sucks".

Except that it's a lot easier to not say "your work sucks" than it is to not feel upset when someone does. And most people will indeed adapt over time, so it's a pretty silly reason not to hire someone.

>I find it to be an exercise which saps my mental energy and distracts me from increasing shareholder value.

The thing is, I don't feel like I need to actively think about people's feelings to not say "this sucks". I just do it naturally in response to different social contexts.

<comment><USER13> It's easier for you. For me the reverse is true.

One reason to avoid hiring people who don't fit the culture is to avoid entryism. If a group allows just anyone to enter, the newcomers may gain power and destroy the original culture. This is particularly true if a culture is significantly outside the norm.

For example, witness Github's transformation from flat hierarchy and meritocracy to traditional corporate hierarchical politics: [http://danieltenner.com/2016/02/06/github-the-quiet-death- of...](http://danieltenner.com/2016/02/06/github-the-quiet-death-of-one-mans- dream/)

 _The thing is, I don 't feel like I need to actively think about people's feelings to not say "this sucks". I just do it naturally in response to different social contexts._

I don't need to actively suppress negative feelings when people give me factual feedback. It just happens naturally. People are different.

If I'm interpreting your posts right, it sounds like you feel your personality profile should be privileged over others and that all organizations should adapt to suit you (leaving me unable to find a place that suits me). Perhaps I'm wildly misreading you and interpreting differences in mood affiliation for differences in beliefs? Could you clarify what you are advocating for?

<comment><USER15> >It's easier for you. For me the reverse is true.

What I mean is it's easier _for you_ not to say "sucks" than it is _for them_ not to feel upset. Speech is active, but emotions are passive.

>I don't need to actively suppress negative feelings when people give me factual feedback.

I have no problem with merely "factual" feedback. What you're talking about goes beyond the facts to put a negative and personal spin on it. Moreover, it suppresses the actual facts ("this SQL is bad because...") in favour of that negativity.

>If I'm interpreting your posts right, it sounds like you feel your personality profile should be privileged over others and that all organizations should adapt to suit you

I think the personality trait of "upset by strongly worded negative language" is incredibly common, so being able to communicate with people who share it is part of basic social literacy. To me, your saying it's too much effort sounds like those people who say using correct spelling and grammar is too much effort. If you can't do it without thinking, you should learn, because it's a widely applicable skill.

<comment><USER13> It's not easy for me to actively model the mental states of others at all times and tailor my words in order to prevent those states from entering negative territory. I can do it, but it's not as simple as you imply.

 _Moreover, it suppresses the actual facts ( "this SQL is bad because...") in favour of that negativity._

Or it suppresses the actual facts because I didn't feel like writing a longwinded example. "Too few examples" and "too little detail" is a critique people rarely make of me.

 _I think the personality trait of "upset by strongly worded negative language" is incredibly common, so being able to communicate with people who share it is part of basic social literacy. To me, your saying it's too much effort sounds like those people who say using correct spelling and grammar is too much effort. If you can't do it without thinking, you should learn, because it's a widely applicable skill._

I have learned - anyone outside the mainstream has to. But I think you underestimate the effort that it takes to adapt to a culture or way of thinking alien to your own.

But that's not the question here. The question is whether it's acceptable for a group of people with non-mainstream tastes to build and protect a culture where their preferred modes of interaction are the default, and to prevent others who might change that culture from entering. I get the impression you are saying it isn't. Is my impression correct?

I believe you are probably right that 80% of people think like you and 5% think like me. I don't believe that this implies that 100% of organizations should cater to you. On the contrary I think if you don't like my organization with a niche culture, it should be very easy to find a more feelings-driven organization and shift to it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Haven't we already decided that the answer is definitively no? That the "rockstar" developer who is also a complete prick is a bad hire?

<comment><USER17> It really, really depends. If you've got a large team and a mature codebase, a rockstar programmer who's a douche is usually worse than useless.

But if you've got a small team and are making major architecting decisions, the competent, meticulous, anal-retentive jerk can be perfect. A good manager knows how to get the best work out of everyone, and managing different/difficult personalities is an important skill.

<comment><USER18> That's fine as long as you're happy having only one person at that level of competence. You're not going to get a second one to stay long.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Relevant paper: Unintended Effects of Anonymous Resumes [http://ftp.iza.org/dp8517.pdf](http://ftp.iza.org/dp8517.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER20> I am pro blind hiring. You should get hired based on your skills and abilities, not your personal background.</comment>


Notepad++  Epic April Fools Hack - <AUTHOR> http://notepad-plus-plus.org/

<comment><USER2> For those who are wondering why: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8876823](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8876823)

</comment><comment><USER3> "I don't give a shit, just let me download Notepad++"

Hehe, that is priceless.

</comment><comment><USER4> This makes me euphoric

</comment><comment><USER5> I feel like emailing this to SUSE Linux.</comment>


Ask HN: Does anyone else have (or had) problems in dating or getting married? - <AUTHOR> I know this is not a dating/pua discussion forum; but I am similar to most people here. I am if anyone else here also suffering from dating dilemma. I am SE asian and live in Seattle. I am 31 and have no friend so far here in Seattle. Weather is so depressing that I have not seen the Sun in last 30 days.
I am not a very good looking guy. I go to the gym at least 3 times a week. I am not overweight as well. Only strike against me is my premature baldness. I personally don't think it is such a big deal now. However, when I was in SF, it was a big deal for most of the women.
Where do you meet women if you don't have social circle? I am on tinder and CMB, very rarely I get matched with someone. Chances of a serious relationship are almost zero with girls on tinder and CMB.
Do you have any suggestions? <comment><USER2> > Where do you meet women if you don't have social circle?

You're looking at this in the wrong order. You need to develop some sort of social circle first. Some friends that you look forward to seeing on a regular basis (weekly or bi-weekly). They can be men or women (not every woman has to be a potential partner). This isn't even necessarily about your future partner coming out of this social circle, but this is about having some balance in your life.

If you have no friends and find a woman who shows the slightest interest in you, you will end up smothering them, because they become your _entire_ social life. When they realize that you don't have any significant friends other than themselves, they will run for the hills (and so they should!). Someone having friends is a way to validate that they are likable and a fun person to be around.

Focus on finding friends, through whatever interests you have. Turn off the "looking for a girlfriend" vibe for a while, because it colours everything you do. I know this is super cliche, but when you've got a life that you are happy with, with social activities and pursuing your career and hobbies, that is when you will be at your most attractive to prospective partners.

I feel you though, online dating _sucks_... until it doesn't. There were times in my 20s when I felt a lot like you describe, but in my late 20s, I met my now wife. We now have 2 kids and I couldn't be happier, but I sure cursed the name of online dating for several years before that happened.

</comment><comment><USER3> Never fall into the mindset that a partner is a requirement for personal fulfilment, that will just make you feel anxious while dating and miserable when it doesn't work out. Rather focus on just enjoying the moment. If you give the impression of being carefree and fun company that will make you more attractive to outsiders. If you are are positive, supporting and upbeat people will subconciously see you as a way to increase their own happiness. If you have the mindset of being unfulfilled and wanting, this will show. It's very difficult to act your way out of that as this requires mental energy that will fatigue you and woman have an inbred sixth sense for these things. I would focus on just forgetting about having to have a partner and think about yourself. That would mean finding and spending time with people who you enjoy. Thing will become much easier when you have friends to meet new people with together.

Talk to women, no matter how they look. Most guys are anxious about this, women find it refreshing to talk to men who don't have an agenda. If you're lucky they might even introduce you to their single friends. Even if none of that happens it's worth it for the friendships alone.

And don't forget to smile to strangers!

<comment><USER4> This is good advice. Combine it with some of the other good suggestions in the comments here, like Improv and taking on some activities and hobbies.

Forget about the "finding a date" aspect of it. If you're having fun in a relaxed setting, like in a class, you'll make friends of both sexes. You'll have more confidence as you're not trying to impress but just have an enjoyable evening wine tasting or learning Salsa. The conversation will be far easier without that agenda too. There's a good chance a dating opportunity or two will just naturally follow.

Ever notice you annoyingly seem to get more opportunity when you're happily dating, especially in the earlier phases? That's the confidence and happiness projecting on how you're perceived by others. So work on the happiness and confidence first...

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Let me recommend you something really fun: Improv classes. I took only a 6 weeks class and it was great.

1) You'll be forced to be out of your comfort zone, which might be one of the reasons you are not meeting people: its comfortable not to (I've been there).

2) You'll be performing truly ridiculous acts, in its hilarity you'll likely form some bonds with the other students. Take the advantage to go for some drinks after.

3) Improv is all about being present, in the moment. Guess what, wooing women is the same.

4) You'll learn a thing or two about interpersonal relations. Which is good.

Now, the best way to meet women that you want to seriously date is through friends, since you claim you don't have a social circle, I would recommend that you focus on building one. So, in your improv classes, invite these new acquaintances for a pint of beer.

Finally, women, in my experience, are not as fixated in physical traits as we men are. Thus, I would not worry about your hair loss that much, and work more on improving social interactions. It is, however, important that you keep yourself presentable: nice clothes, brushed teeth, get some lotion, decent haircut.

<comment><USER6> This is a great suggestion. I will add that there are very groups of people more fun and open than those that are interested in the performing arts. One of the best things that ever happened to me in college was getting a job working backstage at the theater. Suddenly I was surrounded and working long hours with people that very smart, funny, and talented. It is a great way to meet people.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Honestly, if you're not a very good looking guy, you need to make up for that by being a interesting, confident, funny, and positive person. Emphasis on confidence. People seize on insecurity. If you're visibly insecure about your appearance, then yeah, it'll be an issue. The attitude you should have is "I think I'm great, I don't care what you think!" tinder is also the wrong thing for you because it's really for casual physical relationships where who you are as a person doesn't matter.

</comment><comment><USER8> _I am not a very good looking guy. I go to the gym at least 3 times a week. I am not overweight as well. Only strike against me is my premature baldness. I personally don 't think it is such a big deal now. However, when I was in SF, it was a big deal for most of the women._

All you talk about is what you look like and then you claim to be looking for a _serious relationship._ Relationships are not just for good looking people and although women can be just as shallow as men, they generally have a different set of biases about looks than men have.

Here is a secret that many people seem to fail to grasp: A relationship is based on _relating._ In order for that to happen, you need to be talking to people -- and not on tinder. That's a hookup app. It isn't likely to lead to marriage.

You need to get a social life. You need to learn to talk with women just because they are human beings and not because you met them on tinder. You need to learn to let them decide what they like about you. If they have a problem with your baldness, then the answer is "Shallow bitch. NEXT!" and stop wasting your time. Not every woman will care about that.

A good place to start is to get some hobbies, as other people are suggesting. Or even strike up conversation with people at the gym -- and not in a creepy "You are a girl, and I am only talking to you hoping it will lead to sex" kind of way. Just talk to people. That is the absolute first step in establishing any kind of relationship at all to anyone on the planet.

</comment><comment><USER9> Yes, I'm a black woman in tech (web dev) who has trouble with dating and romance.

I'm pretty sure I would happily date almost any guy who knows Y Combinator exists, but I'm pretty much invisible to men who aren't illiterate, felons, drug addicts, drug dealers, or into hip hop culture.

I've tried dating sites, but every message I get is for sex, not dating. I send out plenty of messages, but few reply. I have almost no physical standards. Tall and handsome? I don't even bother, too much competition.

So I'm single, even though I would really like to share my life with someone.

<comment><USER10> Dating sites and apps like Tinder are designed with hookups and casual sex in mind, not real relationships. As others have said, meeting someone through friends is generally the best way, at least in my experience. Expand your social circle, go to meetups and events that interest you and you'll meet interesting people.

Another thing: Don't limit your options to other techies. While it may seem like a good idea to be with someone who likes everything you like and works in the same field as you, that can actually get boring fast if there's little chemistry beyond a shared interest. My wife is not a techie by any definition and we rarely talk about hardware hacking and futurism (my main interests) because she would be bored to death. Otherwise, we have a lot of shared interests, and our philosophical and political views mesh well.

We "met" via a mutual friend who knew both of us well enough to know we'd make for a great couple, and she encouraged us both to start talking long distance. When we finally met in person, we had already gotten past the awkward "so what do you like to do" phase, and it made dating easier and less stressful.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Tinder isn't going to be what you want.

Consider others that are less focused on hookups.

Also try meeting people naturally. For example, Meetups and the such. Even other guys(they have female friends) and just try and socialize frequently. Also I'd say meeting someone at a cycling/climbing/any activity type clubs are great too. Or even board game or movie type clubs. If you are a se at big tech company. They sometimes have social event groups going on all the time. Just gotta find them.

Also don't wait for people to invite you places. The quickest way to get invited to places with peers and acquaintinces is to invite them to do something. A movie. Board games. Hiking. Potluck. Etc..

</comment><comment><USER12> >> Where do you meet women if you don't have social circle?

I moved 3 times in my life to a different city and once to a different country and in my experience if you don't have a local social circle you high probably won't be able to sustain a healthy long time relationship. If you aren't Tony Stark you have to walk before you can run. Therefore at first you have to work on having a healthy private life with sport, hobbies and friends.

</comment><comment><USER13> Something that may help is to turn what you see as bad physically into something that's good. For example, since you're balding, it may look better to sport a shaved head and see if you can accentuate that with facial hair (if you can grow it) and a hat. If I ever started balding I would probably just shave my head because I feel that it would be a strange look to see part of my head missing hair. I would imagine that balding makes you look older than you do since you're 31 and balding doesn't usually start until mid age, so shaving your head may "reduce" years from your look.

Another important thing is to make sure you have good posture and confidence in your words. Make sure you stand up straight when walking but relax your shoulders lest you look like a police officer. And when talking to people in general (not just women) don't be afraid to show confidence in what you're talking about, be specific and upfront if you don't know something about a topic, and assert yourself in a conversation when appropriate. Also don't be afraid of silence in a conversation, it gives people in the conversation time to reflect on what was just discussed and possibly come up with another topic.

Lastly, the best way to meet other people -- dating and a significant other is important but friends are probably more important in the long run -- is to find activities that you would enjoy and meet them through that. If you like or are interested in tennis, dancing (ballroom, Latin (salsa, bachata, tango), swing), swimming, hiking, etc., start doing them and see if you want to keep with it. Specifically for dancing, there are generally not a lot of good leaders (men) so if you get good you'll get a lot of attention if you progress and Seattle is a good city for specific kinds of dancing like Argentine tango. And don't forget to build friendships on the lookout for a relationship; I do believe that friendships are at least as important in the long run than a relationship so do not forget to build them along your journey.

(Also as another commenter suggested, Tinder is not a good platform to find dates virtually. Okcupid is a better free service. I've heard positive things about Match.com but haven't tried it.)

</comment><comment><USER14> Go find your favorite busy coffee shop ( I know Seattle has good ones). Bring a real book and a magazine you like (not a kindle or an ipad). Sit in an open place or community table, and half read your book, making sure that people can see the cover/title. If you see a young woman who is doing the same thing, strike up a conversation.

Ask her about what she is reading. Talk about the article you are reading. Try to look for a common bond.

That is how my husband met me 17 years ago. Worked for us!

Good Luck. PS bag tinder, go find real people in real places that you like.

</comment><comment><USER15> Luckily these are solvable problems.

You can trim/shave your hair.

With regards to clothing you can use instagram to follow men or pages whose style you like and use that as inspiration.

Finally, I'd recommend getting in above average shape. Make going to the gym a part of your life. An hour everyday before work of straight after.

While you're doing some/all of these, I'd start to just talk to everyone. Men, women, old and young. That way you get into the habit of becoming more sociable and confident.

I know these tips may sound superficial, but they help shifting an external locus of control into an internal one.

<comment><USER16> Some people can't shave their heads for various reasons. People buy into the whole "balding isn't a choice, shaving is", etc, but it only applies until it doesn't.

I agree that going to the gym and getting in shape can really lead you to life improvements, but do so with a qualified trainer. It is easy to hurt yourself and leave things in a worse state.

I agree about socializing. Typically, people want to tell you something so you just open the door for them to do so as long as your approach is free of hidden objectives.

Regarding superficiality, I do find the above to be superficial, but I think things are just more superficial in general. With the rise of social media, people tend to gravitate towards people who meet their physical ideal before looking further. What that means is that there are fewer opportunities to "know" someone. So if you want to participate in the standard dating game, you have to participate in the superficiality of it to the best of your abilities.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Try Tango. I have a couple women friends who are absolutely obsessed with it and there are meetings all over the world. I think they are always looking for new partners and men are probably in short supply.

<comment><USER18> At first I thought Tango was a new JavaScript framework... can't get out of the tech mindset.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Yes, I do have suggestions. A couple of conditions:

\- Not thinking about it as a _thing_ someone does. \- Not limiting oneself to places they judge to be the places to do that non thing (I don't know why people think it has to be in bar, club, gym.)

There's an enormous pressure on people that makes them do sad things. Going to meetups and "trying to make friends" is a bit sad because the premise is depressing.

You can meet people everywhere. Street, café, bus, beach, etc.

Here's a great way: have a standard reaction to someone looking at you. Warm smile (no need to show teeth, even), and a light "hi". Nothing fancy.

With anyone who looks at you long enough (old lady, big dude, police officer).

This prevents you from thinking of coming up with something to say, and trying to come up with something to say is what gets most people in trouble. It is also positive to the other person, simple. It is what you do with people you know.

The important thing here isn't really the reaction of the others. Some will ignore you. Some will think you're strange. Maybe they're having a bad day.

You will get in a lot of conversations with a lot of people in different situations. It takes the pressure out to "find friends" at meetups/bars/gyms at specific times because you can talk with anyone you want.

</comment><comment> J-dawg > I go to the gym at least 3 times a week

What are you doing in the gym? From the point of view of aesthetics, doing cardio etc is basically a waste of time. Focus on lifting weights and building muscle.

I'm reliably informed that being 1. Muscular 2. Not fat and 3. Stylishly dressed will put you ahead of many men physically.

</comment><comment><USER20> I've had good luck meeting nice people with Match. It's not as much of a meat market as Tinder. In my area, at least, it tends to have a lot of professional people that are looking to date more-or-less seriously, but have busy schedules that make meeting people organically difficult.

</comment><comment><USER21> First, you are good looking to someone. Watch that negative inner dialogue, women can sense insecurity a mile away and will move on to the next guy. When you first meet her, she has made up her mind to "maybe", "no", or rarely "yes".

I met my wife on okcupid. I answered like 600 questions over time. If the other person has answered several hundred, it will create a match score that ensures a good conversation with someone who is 75% or better match. And a conversation helps two people get to know each other. I also ground away at the problem. There is a magic number of how many women you must contact before you find your girlfriend or wife. I can't tell you what the number is, but there is only one way to find out. That had me emailing dozens of women every 2-3 days. Don't let the metrics get to you; about 1 in 30 responded (there are old profiles out there), and out of those I went on a date with about 1 in 3 that responded. So over a few months I went on dates with maybe 10-12 different women. Some of them multiple times. All of them were fantastic, and I had a lot of fun doing various activities with them. But I didn't feel the chemistry until I met my wife.

Through this process, I just allowed myself to be myself. No pretense or trying to be who I thought they wanted. I allowed rejection to be a beneficial part of my process. I wanted someone who wanted me for who I am and vice- versa.

Of course, before I got into this process, I did what work I needed to do so that I was bringing something to the table. This is what "they" mean when they say "you need to get ready". I know, I was ready. Ready to bed the first woman I could. But "ready" really means having something to offer. Emotional availability, kindness, caring, being genuinely interested in someone else's problems. Not to fix them, but to be supportive and ready to help if called upon.

I can't stress this enough, what you have to give in a relationship is so much more important than what you want to get out of it. After all, that is what love is, giving to someone without a care of what you get in return. Second most important is knowing what you want, don't want, and what you can put up with, and knowing how to tell. The 10-12 women I dated before meeting my wife informed a lot of that for me.

I would just stay off of Tinder unless all you're looking for is a hookup. Tinder is superficial by nature; one look and swipe to maybe or no way. Hardly a way to identify a good mate. Actually, hardly a way to even identify a good hook up, because I can tell you from experience, hot meets hard doesn't always add up to great sex.

</comment><comment><USER22> I've never had any problems dating. I've had several girlfriends off and on since I was sixteen, always by choice. I am a decently attractive person so I always found it pretty easy to talk to women as they are usually attracted to me.

I've never tried Tinder or any of those apps. Never really saw the point....

My suggestion would be to work out and improve your confidence. Good luck!

</comment><comment> J-dawg Related question: I've seen several comments on HN and elsewhere about how bad the dating scene is (for guys) in Silicon Valley / "Man Francisco". I'm curious, is it really that bad?

I'm assuming Seattle has similar demographics so that might be part of the problem for the OP.

</comment><comment><USER23> Goto meetup groups and start meeting people with the same interests as you. One of those new friendships might blossum into a relationship, or more likely you'll meet someone through one of those new friends. Otherwise dating sites or apps.

<comment><USER24> And yet I've heard lots of women don't like it when advanced are made on them when they are at Tech meet ups.

<comment><USER23> Oh, you definitely don't want to hit on girls at a tech meetup, they can be uncomfortable enough for females as it is. What I meant is you make friends at meetups and those friends either evolve into a relationship, or introduce you to someone else who you become involved with.

Also, tech meetups are probably different all around the world, but here in NZ they are not the right place to be hitting on people or even making friends really. I was thinking more along the lines of meetups which were non-tech related, like exercise meetups, meetups around films or literature, or around food and socialising.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I would focus on finding friends first. it's a lot easier to find a buddy than a girl. check out meetup.com and find interesting things to go to. once you find someone to hang out with it's easier to meet other people.

</comment><comment><USER26> I have no suggestions on how to find a date, sorry. But if I may add to the discussion more broadly, I think a lot of dating/relationship issues are stemming from changing social norms and technology. I've been following similar issues in Japan assuming we'll see similar results in the US [https://www.google.com/search?q=japan+marriage+problem](https://www.google.com/search?q=japan+marriage+problem)

</comment><comment><USER27> What communities and groups are you a member of?

The only way you get to meet new people as you get older is by making a concerted effort to participate in events and to try and make a wider group of friends in general.

</comment><comment><USER28> As an easterner, let me offer a little bit of a different view. This will likely get down voted to hell but let's see how tolerant HN really is. ;-)

My advice: get married. Find a match maker or a professional match match making service. You're 31. I don't know what point in the West (and now more in the east as well) it became normal to be unmarried in your 30s but it's really unhealthy from a mental health point of view. At this rate you're likely to get married in your late 30s (which isn't bad but it isn't for everyone I think). So my advice is get serious and get married ASAP

</comment><comment><USER29> Volunteer.

</comment><comment> Kepler-131b Aerial acrobatics is your best bet. Always populated by women dying to meet a fit guy (or who will become fit via said hobby).

<comment><USER30> If you're lucky you'll skip to bedroom acrobatics

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Smile and be positive.

</comment><comment><USER32> Dude, email me (check profile). We can chat and talk code. :)

</comment><comment><USER33> you are SE Asian, did you get pressured from your family?

</comment><comment><USER34> SE asia. Seriously. You can probably get a 15/20 there but only a 7/20 here.

<comment><USER35> So you are telling OP that he got no chance 'here' and he should instead move to another area ?

It might be true but that's still not a good advice, you should rather ( if you know how ) advice him how to make it 'here' instead of 'there'.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> You need to go out every Friday night. Never miss a Friday night. Note, this only works if you go out every Friday night for a long time, years if necessary.</comment>


Ask HN: How to approach the problem of general curiosity and attaining mastery? - <AUTHOR>

All my life I have been enamored with the idea of mastering a certain field, but the problem with attaining mastery is that I have too many interests. For example, I am interested in not only mastering subject X but also Y & Z. In this day and age, with rapidly evolving domains it seems too wasteful to sacrifice your brain power to multiple fields. Why waste your time--especially if the subjects of interest do not overlap--to only achieve rudimentary knowledge in X, Y & Z? Anyone who has experienced this type of dilemma willing to share their words of wisdom? <comment><USER2> I could have written that, and I've just succumbed to who I am.

I'm interested in so many things, and I can't really devote myself to one thing at the expense of the others.

I admire those who can, but I just don't think it's me--at least not with any of my "things" currently.

That said, I did happen to temporarily "master" a certain niche (heads-up)_of a difficult & widely varied field (poker), but mostly because it was in its infancy at the time and it was easy to reach the forefront and become an expert. I've since quit playing and I'm certain that my level went from something like top 0.5% to top 5%. The knowledge gap between myself and a current top player would be quite large, as the theory is progressing and I'm not keeping up.

</comment><comment><USER3> I have the same "problem". I am interested in everything ... and I also want to get the bottom of everything.

But there is no speed limit! Don't hold back from doing a deep dive into each thing in turn. Promise yourself to do each subject justice, don't use your broad interests as an excuse to become bored quickly and remain shallow.

I have found that many of my weaknesses (like this one) are also strengths. This one is obvious - it leads toward becoming a generalist. Broad interests are a powerful thing to wield, if you don't let them become an inability to focus. One important thing that comes with generalization is the ability to apply lessons from one domain to another.

</comment><comment><USER4> Perhaps an important question to ask yourself is _why_ you want to master something.</comment>


A Concise Guide to the 8 Best States for Incorporating - <AUTHOR> http://grasshoppergroup.com/a-concise-guide-to-the-7-best-states-for-incorporating/ <comment><USER2> As a Canadian, would I face any challenges incorporating in America?

Great article BTW!</comment>


How a simple comment on Hacker News made me quit my job and launch a startup - <AUTHOR> http://blog.freshdesk.com/the-freshdesk-story-how-a-simple-comment-on-h-0 <comment><USER2> One word of caution--do not, I repeat do NOT, focus on price ("we are cheaper") as the main reason for people to use you. People who are "priced out" of other solutions still need to buy in to whatever you are doing, beyond price, or else you risk losing those customers to your competitors should your competitors offer a cheaper/simple plan.

You're off to a great start (I just signed up for the beta), but make sure you do the hard work of selecting your target customer ("who will we NOT serve?") and don't preach price--preach superior experiences.

<comment><USER3> philosophical aside: a low-cost business model is a legitimate disruptive strategy, which many startups follow with respect to physical businesses: travel agents, newspapers, retail, maybe hotels etc. Lower costs enable unmatchably lower prices. I agree with your practical advice; esp when applied to co-disrupters, who also (should) have low costs.

<comment><USER2> Agreed, but if I were in those industries I would market the superior experiences those low-costs allow us to deliver, with price merely as an enabler (makes product a viable alternative to commodity/free option, or an accessible entry into something previously reserved for kings).

Example #1: Zappos has low costs vs. bricks and mortar so they can afford to do free shipping overnight.

Example #2: Southwest has low costs so they don't have to charge for bags.

Example #3: ING Direct has low costs so they offer a better interest rate.

<comment><USER4> Counter-example:

Ryanair is a hugely successful airline business in Europe.

Its advertising and marketing strategy is about low price above all else, and unashamedly so.

Look at their garish and ugly website: <http://www.ryanair.com/en> Count how many times they use the word 'cheap'.

Read the wikipedia article, which mentions how badly they treat customers, and their rapid growth and financial success: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryanair>

Sometimes low-cost, sold as low-cost, works well.

<comment><USER5> See also WAL-MART. Wal-Mart doesn't purport to do anything better than its competitors really, and I don't know how they could; they all sell the same things, and so price is the only real competition (environment counts too, but it's a tertiary point). Wal-Mart is now one of the biggest companies in the whole wide world.

<comment><USER6> AIUI Walmart is successful because they mastered logistics.

<comment><USER7> Which is a key point, and probably the one wensing was originally trying to make. If you can build a business with the intent of doing something like logistics extremely well (which lowers your costs) then you can pass that on to the consumer of your products. They don't give a rats ass about your logistics, but they do care that whatever the blackbox your warehouse does ends up shaving 20 cents off that bag of chips. WalMart still gets about the same percentage of profit, but the overall cost of the product is less.

Lowering your price just to be cheaper than your competitors only cheapens the market and doesn't add anything of value to the product. You will quickly learn why everyone else keeps their margin up higher than yours when you can't expand due to lack of funds, or you have to cut something else out to keep in business.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Zoho is most probably the best known tech startup from India that isn't in the typical call-center or medical transcription business. As key Zoho employees go on to build in their own companies, this could bring SV/YC culture in India where success does not mean finding a big check-writer from US but rather building products that users from around the world can use and buy. Keep up the good work FreshDesk.

<comment><USER9> Slideshare also started its development office in India first. Its as product-y as it gets.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Beautiful story. The way you listed to the market, built the right product in the right moment - just perfect.

One think caught my eye: $160 for your office space?? From what I've seen on <http://blog.freshdesk.com/freshdesk-gets-a-fresh-office> it looks very decent. Your burn rate is also quite good.

How easy is it for a non indian to start a company in India?

<comment><USER11> How about BC Canada? It's west coast, and tech companies get a lot of corporate tax breaks, and canadian immigration isn't as horrible as US.

<comment><USER12> What tax breaks do we get in BC? I didn't know of any except for things like biotech, greentech, etc.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> That is one awesome story, congrats! I was especially struck by some of the stuff you said about product/market fit. To me, this bit is pure gold:

 _We started engaging with our prospects on what they were currently using and what problems they were facing. In many cases people were telling us clearly what they really wanted to see in their customer support software._

Yeah, that's the key, right? Actually engaging with the customers and finding out what problem they're really trying to solve. This cuts to the core of sgblank's Customer Development stuff and the whole Lean Startup movement.

 _We were surprised to see that a lot of what customers wanted were their core problems solved and not some fancy features of supporting customers from their Facebook wall or converting tweets into customer support tickets. While we understand that these are definitely the way of the future, many many customers do not need this today._

Heh, perfect example of how us techies can get caught upin the fancy, glitzy, "cool" stuff and maybe not realize that customers are not so concerned about that, as they are getting work done. Really, really good reminder to focus on the customer's needs!

 _Another important learning for us was that customers did not want to be dealing with separate invoices for their helpdesk, their contact management software, for their customer feedback forums and customer satisfaction surveys. The SMB customer wants one invoice and as much functionality as possible in the customer relationship management solution._

That's gold too... It reminds me that sometimes the "problem" isn't so much a technical problem, as a structural problem with the existing business arrangements. Wanting one invoice instead of 3 or 4 is a wonderful example of a problem an entrepreneur can solve, and it doesn't have anything to do with product features or technology. Reading this is like having a glass of cold water thrown in your face (well, for _some_ of us!)

 _We also identified underserved market segments (companies with multi-brand support requirements) and segments which were getting priced out because the current solutions were expensive. So we reprioritized our feature set to what we thought is the ideal product/market fit for us. This means that things like Twitter and Facebook integration can wait. But things like multiple support emails or support for SLAs and Business hours are in._

Very inspiring. Thanks for sharing such details about your experience. I think a lot of people can learn something useful from your experience. You've certainly given me some thoughts to chew on.

</comment><comment><USER14>
      Now we have a team of six people - (3 developers, 1 UI/UX designer,
      1 QA / Customer support engineer and me as - the Product Manager / CEO)

It would be great if you could throw some light on how you went about building this team and your hiring process. In my experience, it ain't easy here in India to find quality talent willing to work in an early stage startup whose product is still not out in the market.

Did they come through the connections made during your Zoho stint?

All the best for this venture!

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes. That is one advantage that I had working at Zoho for nine years. Everyone in the team has worked with me at zoho. 3 of the 6 people had worked with me at Zoho and had moved on to other companies. They came back to work for Freshdesk as they believed in the ability of the team to ship products.

<comment><USER14> Great. I think it also helps that you were at a senior position in Zoho. Apart from the visibility and a large network, it probably makes it a little more convincing for people who are on the fence when it comes to joining such a venture.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Congratulations on the launch (and welcome to HN, since I see that your account is just 3 hours old :)

That said, your post suggests that you acquired domain knowledge at Zendesk, then decided to use that knowledge to immediately and directly compete with Zendesk with _price_ as your only differentiatior.

I suspect that the folks at Zendesk aren't going to sue you on any non-compete or trade-secret agreements, but I'm curious to know if you think that your competition raises any ethical concerns or not.

 _[edit] Thanks for the correction, Aditya and apologies Girish for reading the post too fast and confusing Zoho with Zendesk_

<comment><USER16> I also wonder about using the word "desk" in the name of a competing product.

<comment><USER17> Given that the category is called "help desk software", ZenDesk has a lock on "desk" like I have a lock on "bingo"

<comment><USER16> Good point.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> It's a great post. But I'm posting here to gripe: why oh why do so many blogs never have a direct link to their business front page? It's always to the blog front page. You see a blog article posted, interesting read, the next thing you want to do is visit the front page. grrrr.

<comment><USER19> Interesting you say that as that is one of my gripes about blogs on company websites.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Great focus on MVP and a lean team. Designing a _usable_ service for outsourced "enterprisey" software is challenging because your _customers_ (a company's HR dept, in this case?) are not your _users_ (support desk employees and the company's own customers). These three sets of people will all have different feature requirements.

</comment><comment><USER21> I have to say that your post on how to get a corporation in the US is fantastic. I'm sure there's a lot of information out there, and it's something many people have done before, but the fact that you laid it out extremely clearly and gave very relevant contact information is amazing. Really great stuff.

<comment><USER22> Definitely good information to have. Lots of services and startups, especially those for payments, phones or other geographically constrained industries (which really need a good startup to disrupt them), never make it outside the US. However, from the comments I gather you need some sort of US SSN to be able to get the Braintree account? Any other "hickups" to non-US citizens? I ask because one day that might be the best solution for what I work on and expanding to the US.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> The name is a little too close to ZenDesk, isn't it? Especially since the two companies are in the same market.

<comment><USER23> Why downvote? I feel the comparison is inevitable.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Awesome story Girish, very inspiring and down to earth!Loved the simplicity and the way you approached product market fit! We as tecchies more often than not, deprioritize the part of finding out what the customer really wants. Thanks for sharing and Good Luck!

</comment><comment><USER25> Your design looks great. You mentioned that getmefast did it and I had a look at their portfolio which isn't as strong in my opinion as your design and UI. Did you UI designer have to change what they came up with?

</comment><comment><USER26> Frankly, this isn't very interesting. Some guy gets inspired to launch a startup, grows a company beyond the bare minimum, and we are supposed to swoon?

Come back when you have 150 employees and the competition is begging for mercy. Then sing to us about the blood sweat and tears.

People get inspired to launch startups all the time, and some of them become great businesses. Some of them fail miserably. Lets all do ourselves a favor and not praise effort before it bears fruit.

</comment><comment><USER27> Pretty inspiring, though I hope you add a live demo to your main site (maybe to handle support? :). I know as a potential customer, I'm hesitant to pay for anything I haven't seen and interacted with.

<comment><AUTHOR> We have a live version in private beta. I plan to post it to HN for feedback as soon as we are ready for the public launch.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Congratulations and nice write-up!

Can I ask how the startup is doing financially?

<comment><AUTHOR> We are in private beta so the money is yet to flow in:)

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Doing this right now, have just submitted for YCS2011 :-)

</comment><comment><USER30> Congrats Girish.

Unrelated question: as of now your post is number one on hacker news, would you like to share what does it mean in term of traffic on your blog?

</comment><comment><USER31> I've found it very inspirational and informative...

</comment><comment><USER32> Some UI issue while mouse over SSL on Firefox 4 <http://imgur.com/yktw8>

<comment><USER33> Same in chrome 10 windows 7

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for letting us know. Will fix it soon.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Good Luck..... I guess this sort of explains what's up with AdventNet and it's quirks too... all the good people left?

<comment><AUTHOR> Definitely no. Zoho(AdventNet) was the best thing that happened to me in my (work) life. It's an amazing company with over 1200 employees with very smart engineers and a kick-ass product culture. I owe everything that I learned in Product Management to AdventNet. It's a huge playground for people who are not afraid to try new things. I used to tell my team members that working in Zoho is like getting an MBA on how to build a Product Business.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> Glad to hear it. A great example of how sharing information, once again, helps people to take bold action.

</comment><comment><USER36> Great post. Reading HN is better motivation than any cheesy book on the market. I love HN. :)

</comment><comment><USER37> great story. FYI - the mouse-overs for the 'Premium' price plan are broken in both Chrome and Firefox for me (Win7). they get cut off at the edge of the white-border.

</comment><comment><USER38> thanks for putting a inspirational example for Indian startups

</comment><comment><USER39> Saw the word "cloud", scrolled down, yep-- business guy.

</comment><comment><USER40> Congratulations! Makes me want to do the same thing.

</comment><comment><USER41> Very inspiring...Goodluck Girish!

</comment><comment><USER42> awesome story! Very inspiring

</comment><comment><USER43> is it worth it?

</comment><comment><USER44> You lost me when you said you liked the idea of 99designs.

</comment><comment><USER45> The word STARTUP is starting to SUCK the life out of me. It is now as bad as "epic" and "fail" with the word being used in 1/8th of every headline on HN. THANKS!!!!!!

<comment><USER39> You are on a forum about startups.</comment></comment>


Npm Layoffs - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/neverett/status/1110626264841359360 <comment><USER2> Do these employees have a right to apologies from NPM and help finding a new job? No.

Should these employees expect to be treated better by a company that claims that "Compassion is our strategy"? Yes, absolutely.

Focusing on specifics of what they are asking for is the wrong approach here, it's a simple question: was this handled with "compassion"? I think between lack of acknowledgement from management, lack of understanding that vesting options can be an important part of compensation now being denied to employees, lack of help finding a job in the extensive social networks of the founding team, and laying off so soon after hiring some, all contributes to this.

</comment><comment><USER3> It always sucks to get laid off, not disregarding it. I empathize with the employees who weren't expecting it.

I can only speak for myself but the minute I get a job, I know that I can be terminated at any moment for whatever reason. There should never be any shock. Even if you move across the world for a position, it could happen on your first day. You have to always be prepared if you're gonna be working under someone else's roof.

<comment><USER4> > I know that I can be terminated at any moment for whatever reason.

This is true for the US, but it's not necessarily true for the EU, or some other countries. As a result, expectations can be mismatched - even though reasonable research should turn up this possibility.

My experience suggests that a lot of folks in their early career are overly optimistic, or just don't want to believe the possible downsides, especially if it involves cool work. I also see different decisions taken by folks I know in other industry who are not under the spell of tech.

With remote working, especially with smaller companies that have limited admin/HR support, I wonder will the number of these incidents increase? This is possibly another way to look at this situation beyond the "startups and stock a minefield" issue which results in lots of tears.

<comment><USER5> In the EU there's a trial period as well and during that period you can be fired for any reason without compensation.

<comment><USER6> Yes, but this differs per country.

In the Netherlands this can be one or two months depending on the employment [1]. It is meant so either party can back out. After this regular rules apply. Which are _not_ as forgiving.

[1]: [https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/arbeidsovereenkomst...](https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/arbeidsovereenkomst- en-cao/vraag-en-antwoord/hoelang-duurt-een-proeftijd)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Layoffs happen; these kind of whiny twitter rants aren't really helpful for anyone.

<comment><USER8> Exactly. If you're recently laid off and looking for work, why jump on Twitter and be as obnoxious as possible? I know I wouldn't hire this person and can't help but think if they do this regularly that it makes sense that they were let go.

<comment><USER9> The person in the linked tweet isn't one of the people affected.

I'm drawing some inferences here, but she's contrasting the perceived lack of support from the company for those affected by the npm layoffs with npm's public brand on the Internet. If layoffs happened and npm did the minimum legally required, that's a fair criticism to make, IMO. npm's hiring page says:

> We are responsible adults with diverse backgrounds and interests, who take > our careers and our lives seriously. We believe that the best way to iterate > towards success is by taking care of ourselves, our families, our users, and > one another.

> We aim for a sustainable approach to work and life, because that is the best > way to maximize long-term speed, while retaining clarity of vision. > Compassion is our strategy.

@seldo (npm co-founder) frequently tweets about people in the community who he perceives are not performing to his moral standard.

I don't have any details, so I'm taking all of this with a grain of salt, but if it's true, it's something of a betrayal of their brand.

<comment><USER8> _> We are responsible adults_

There's nothing responsible or adult about that tweet. If she wasn't affected by the lay offs, then she's doing a huge disservice to the people who were laid off by associating them with a Twitter train wreck.

The adult thing to do would be to realize that "compassion is our strategy" is an empty platitude and that all companies exist to make money.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Does anyone have more info? It looks like this person doesn't work for NPM.

EDIT: see this tweet 9h ago [https://twitter.com/maybekatz/status/1110766133660041216?s=2...](https://twitter.com/maybekatz/status/1110766133660041216?s=21)

And here's the story as told by another employee [https://twitter.com/neverett/status/1110626264841359360?s=21](https://twitter.com/neverett/status/1110626264841359360?s=21)

</comment><comment><USER11> It is mentioned that employees have not been helped to find new jobs. But there may be reason for that.

It is sometimes the case that for a particularly high-performing, excellent employee, a manager or senior exec might call around to a few friends and see if they have openings. And of course, provide a reference for others. But that is not true of laying off a whole division. No team is comprised of 100%, or even 25%, top performers (usually). A manager shouldn't be expected to put his professional reputation on the line for every person in his division, even if they aren't the best (but good enough to keep on), just because of a lay-off.

<comment><USER12> It is very common for a company of any reasonable size to provide third-party outplacement services to laid-off employees. Companies like RiseSmart (no association) exist for this. I don't know what the cost is, but it seems like the least a company should do if they want to be considered humane.

<comment><USER11> RiseSmart costs $1,900 for three months for a single employee (their most popular "Ignite" plan). [https://www.risesmart.com/talent-mobility- solutions/smb](https://www.risesmart.com/talent-mobility-solutions/smb)

The question may become whether how the company is seen behaving toward its workers vs. how it actually behaves is more important. If layoffs are occurring due to financial struggles, it is very possible that purchasing such a service could force them to lay off more employees due to the unforeseen cost. $1,900 x 50 employees = $95,000, which is the salary of between one and three employees, depending on the industry and level. Should they lose their jobs to fund such a program?

If they're __actually __just doing it for restructuring (not just as a euphemism for financial struggles), you 're right that it could be worth doing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Is it normal for an ex-employer to help laid-off employees find new jobs? I would never expect that.

<comment><USER14> At least in Europe it is not uncommon. For example when the small animation studio I used to work for many years ago had to lay off 80% of its employees due to lack of work, the managers there called around to friends they had in the industry and helped set up at least informal meetings.

<comment><USER15> One has to wonder if in this case, there was something else than a layoff...

/edit: more info here: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19501227](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19501227)

/edit-2-since-i-already-got-downvoted: Facebook used to have a 1 year cliff before the first vest, they removed it about 1 year before I left.

<comment><USER16> In Belgium, the 2008 crisis struck 3d animators and cgi artists really hard. Most people I knew in the field could never get back into it.

<comment><USER15> My bad, I was not clear enough, I'm talking about the npm layoffs.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Why would someone who wants you out help you find another job?

What kind of mess is in the head of a person that thinks everyone owes them a helping hand?

<comment><USER18> Because you will be talking to other people, including the ones you have worked with and built a relationship with inside of the company. And the company has an interest in being seen as a viable place to work for others. So making sure that ex-employees are being taken care of (to a certain degree) is in the company's best interest.

<comment><USER19> This is a ridiculously backwards and privileged / entitled position... Your employment / what you need money for is your problem, not your superior's...

<comment><USER20> To a degree sure. But at some point, if NPM continues to do this, they will get known as a less than great place to work. And if you get that type of name, it will be harder and harder to get quality talent to work there.

If NPM/managers can help out, it gives them some goodwill.

<comment><USER19> I sympathize with your point, however, in any case complaining about your manager / prior employer not doing this will label you as a whiner. Nobody likes whiners / being one is without a doubt a compromising position for future employment (i.e. knowing it's likely that if they hire you, you'll just complain about anything you don't like abt the company on twitter etc)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Anyone have details on this? Didn't see headcount & rationale in a quick scan of the twitter thread.

</comment><comment><USER22> Archived Tweet: [https://web.archive.org/web/20190327150503/https:/twitter.co...](https://web.archive.org/web/20190327150503/https:/twitter.com/kf/status/1110703814909165568)

</comment><comment><USER23> We changed the URL from [https://twitter.com/kf/status/1110703814909165568](https://twitter.com/kf/status/1110703814909165568), which is now deleted, to [https://twitter.com/neverett/status/1110626264841359360](https://twitter.com/neverett/status/1110626264841359360), a contemporaneous thread on the same topic, which I believe was linked to from the original one.

</comment><comment><USER24> > It's not your employers job to find you a position

I find myself agreeing with this more than the initial tweets even as I sit here having recently quit my last job without something lined up quite yet.

</comment><comment><USER25> This HN thread appears to have been buried/removed from the main page

<comment><USER26> Enough flags will do that while not affecting the upvote count.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> I need a lot more context here.

What's Npm? All that means to me is "NodeJS Package Manager", but surely there isn't an entire company associated with that, right?

Secondly, what did the severance package look like? Re-employment assistance is just one component to a severance package; if it includes several months' pay then it's still a comparatively good one even lacking this assistance.

EDIT: So apparently NodeJS Package Manager is a company?! News to me.

<comment><USER28> Someone has to host the 1000000+ packages for nodejs and maintain npm. I always wondered why npmjs, nexus, artifactory etc. don't consider a model where they act as middlemen for licensing F/OSS or post-AWS open source- licensed packages, taking their cut and give the rest to the developers, because I think something like that is seriously needed.

<comment><USER29> I wonder how they make any profits. Consulting to corporations since this is open source?

<comment><USER25> Private package hosting

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Honestly until today I didn't even realize NPM was a company. I thought it was managed in the same vein as PyPI or rubygems.org

... why isn't it?

<comment><USER14> Cynically, because npm came about during an era where you could easily raise millions of dollars for a simple web service, while pypi didn't.</comment></comment>


The open source alternative to all your business apps - <AUTHOR> https://www.odoo.com/page/open-source-alternative <comment><USER2> It is not really fully Open Source. Since they changed the license [1], they adopted a open core model and so most of the new features (UI, reports, etc) are only available as private software. Also they have a quite strange interpretation of the xGPL license mixed with proprietary license. Users of their SAAS service should be careful to not install those private software otherwise they will not be able to change of hosting service.

[1] [https://www.odoo.com/blog/odoo-news-5/post/adapting-our- open...](https://www.odoo.com/blog/odoo-news-5/post/adapting-our-open-source- license-245#blog_content)

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> This a page showing the new features of Odoo 9 that has been released today.</comment>