"Reasons you shouldn't join us: if you're looking for work-life balance." - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/passy/status/578541484464553984 <comment><USER2> I once had a job, where the CEO, during his monthly all-hands call, banned the phrase 'work-life balance'. He talked about it as an invention of the industrial revolution that applied only to sweatshop work. He was from a farm, see, and on farms, you work until the work is done. The company, he told us, never promised its employees work-life balance, and we should all stop talking about it. We should work until the work is done, like farmers do.

The chatroom I was in at the time exploded with everyone posting the job descriptions we currently had open, all of which boasted about the healthy work-life balance our company offered.

Those job descriptions changed within a week, and I left within 2 months.

<comment><USER3> Is the company successful? Do you see any other positive sides the CEOs working attitude?

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Blockai:

[https://angel.co/blockai/jobs/32805-back-end- engineer](https://angel.co/blockai/jobs/32805-back-end-engineer)

PRODUCT

Blockai is the first universal blockchain browser. A single platform for using the best blockchain apps, with a bitcoin wallet and social identity to make it simple to use.

We're making it fun to explore and publish on the blockchain, visualized as a filterable stream. The same way that Netscape took people into the world of the web, and built open-source technologies to support its growth, we are doing the same for the blockchain. Unlike Netscape, we have a clear path to revenue with a bitcoin wallet built right in.

We anticipate 1,000s of amazing applications will be built on the blockchain that will change the status quo of everything on the web. We want Blockai to become the main way people experience those applications.

<comment><USER5> Wait $100k salary with 6% equity at max sounds not bad at all if you believe in their idea. Although I highly doubt they're a once in a decade opportunity that will be changing the world in a better way.

<comment><USER6> $100k in SF is laughable (for that kind of commitment). If you're not offering $200k minimum, it's not even worth 60 seconds of consideration. Unless you _really_ really believe in that 6%. But man you really shouldn't.

Edit: To back this up a little more:

To buy a median house in SF you need to make ~$142k.

[http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/03/08/m...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/03/08/map- the-salary-you-need-to-buy-a-home-in-27-u-s-cities)

The 95th percentile in income is WAY higher in SF than anywhere else, and so is the cost of living.

[https://twitter.com/conradhackett/status/578004292151341056](https://twitter.com/conradhackett/status/578004292151341056)

My opinion is that if you're not clearly putting me in a comfortable position financially, why would I ever make such a sacrifice?

<comment><USER7> I'm a San Franciscan. $100k is indeed low, but $200k is an exaggeration.

<comment><USER8> If it's an exaggeration then this industry's labor pool is in even worse shape than I suspected.

To put this in context: I'd consider myself average, maybe slightly above in some contexts, below in (many more) others, and my current salary (full-time, all-in) is closer to $200k than $150k. The majority (about 80%) of that is base salary, not "bonus", stocks/options, or benefits. If _I_ can get a ("senior developer" level, not management) job with that compensation, the people in this valley who are much better than me (and that would be most, or at least many, many others) ought to be able to command significantly more.

<comment><USER9> Are you based in the Bay Area? Do you work at a large company (Google, Apple, MS)?

<comment><USER8> Yes to the first, no to the second (I would almost certainly not qualify for the ones you listed--not for lack of talent, as I forgot more math by the time I took my PhD qualifying exams than most CS graduates ever learn, but for other reasons).

It is my second job in this area, and I'm a bit (~15%) better compensated this time than last.

<comment><USER9> Start up then? :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> One reason _for_ working for them sounds less abusive, but more...stupid.

"You're one of the best front-end engineers you've ever known."

No, dickwad, that's a reason _you_ should hire _me_. What it really means, of course, is: "We use the rash pride of inexperienced developers to set expectations sky-high, then justify the low salary when they turn out not to be the lovechild of Brendan Eich and Mike Bostock."

</comment><comment><USER11> Another reason: "You're primarily interested with salary."

Sounds like this company prides itself on overworking their employees and paying them less than what they're worth.

(Which is what a lot of companies _do_ , but they aren't proud of it.)

<comment><USER12> Employers pay their employees exactly what they're worth - by definition.

If an employee is dissatisfied with their pay, they have the option to either negotiate a higher salary or find another job with higher pay.

<comment><USER13> There's a tremendous amount of idealization involved there -- that the cost of renegotiation/finding a new job is zero (it's not), that no systematic effects outside the market exist lowering salaries (they do), etc.

As an _approximation_ , employees are paid what they're worth. It's an approximation, not definitional.

<comment><USER14> Nuff said.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Gotta give them credit for being "honest". Of course it plays off on people wanting to appear as eager and not workshy, but this is pretty sadist and I imagine the company is being a bit masochistic in this job market.

Who in their right minds would work for people who openly espouse overwork and aggressive work environment? I'd like a follow up on their ability to retain workers, provided they don't get "reeducated" in the process.

I can't see how this could appeal to anyone beside new male graduates in a bit of a bind and have some latent sadist tendencies. Or people looking for sponsorship and might put up with this ridiculousness.

<comment><USER16> > Who in their right minds would work for people who openly espouse overwork > and aggressive work environment?

The screencap doesn't have an experience requirement so I am guessing fresh graduates and/or those who never got a BSC and are desperate. We're all laughing at the posting because we probably have had the misfortune to work at a place like that, or know someone who has. There are people who will fall into this type of trap and sadly it's the people who can't afford to.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I'm curious to know what is this company that is a "once in a decade" opportunity "to change the world for the better".

Is there a limit to this ridiculousness? What's next? "Join our company because it is literally the only path to salvation. Seriously, your life is worthless if you pass this up." Boom... now your company is a cult.

<comment><USER17> [https://angel.co/blockai/jobs/32804-front-end- engineer](https://angel.co/blockai/jobs/32804-front-end-engineer)

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Run as fast as you can in the other direction of this job listing.

It's bad enough trying to manage a work-life balance at a company that claims to support it. I can't imagine how hellish it would be to work at a company that consciously scoffs at it.

</comment><comment><USER19> We're all talking about what we would do when seeing this job post, but the issue isn't how many thousands of us wouldn't apply, but how many dozens would. And it's easy enough to test response rates to these things. I.e., as much as it turns off many of us it might turn on a few people, and they may even have some evidence that this approach works. No clue whether they did or didn't, but they can always post it again if they don't get applicants they like.

There's no point in debating what we like when they can get the right answer with confidence via testing.

</comment><comment><USER20> Why would anyone ever take a job like this when there are tons of interesting jobs that actually _do_ have work-life balance and pay a hell of a lot better? Hell, you could still work long 6-day weeks if you wanted to, but at least that way you would have the option of taking a break.

<comment><USER21> Like what?

<comment><USER22> My job. Sitting at home in my pajamas, in a place a hell of lot cheaper than SF, making about the same amount these guys are offering (according to a link someone posted further up). I think I'll go for a walk at lunch, and keep working from the nature preserve down the road because it's a nice day. And when my wife gets home, 90% of the time the laptop closes and I'm off the clock.

If you can't imagine a job paying $100k+ that lets you also have a life, you're not looking hard enough. Or maybe I'm just lucky to not be a programmer.

<comment><USER21> It is tough. What do you do that's so valuable?

<comment><USER23> I'm (obviously) not the person you're replying to, but information security, financial analyst, systems analyst (ok, some basic programming skill required), systems architect, IT audit all come to mind. That's just within the scope of the jobs I've been asked to interview for within the last 3-4 months. I'm a CISSP with a couple years of infosec consulting & audit experience; I can read/write SQL, and that's about it, in terms of programming.

That said, I understand large-scale organizational infrastructure and am current on the organizational concepts associated with building & mainaining a large-scale IT environment, so that's what I bring to the table as an employee. I work 40-45 hours in an average week, and the glassdoor box charts for positions with my skill set are typically between $80k and $130k, depending on experience and the company you choose to work for in my region.

<comment><USER21> Does that kind of auditing job tend to be freelance, or for a consultancy/agency?

<comment><USER22> In my personal experience, you don't tend to be too successful doing freelance security consulting unless you have a lot of certifications and you're aiming at very small companies. Bigger organizations will go with PWC, even if you're half the price.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I had a company effectively tell me the same thing -- that taking their job would be disastrous for my hobbies/family ("We work from 10AM until 11PM most days, and later on Friday and Saturday") and then gave me a salary formula that would bring me down to making less than half of what I was currently making.

I politely declined -- and am still getting emails from them once a week saying that they'd love to have me on their team and if I reconsider, please let them know.

<comment><USER25> Then they will complain about "lack of skilled people to fill jobs"...

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> So don't work for this company? Sometimes people live and breathe the work they do, and are looking for others who will as well. It's up to you to decide whether you want to participate in what they're doing.

<comment><USER8> See, the trouble is there are people in this industry who would work at this place, and that contributes to lower wages and poorer working conditions. Sure, I won't work there but the fact that others will has an impact on me at least indirectly. I think that's sufficient reason to call out this kind of job/company for the bullshit it is.

<comment><USER27> Isn't that kind of like saying that those guys who always stay past 6pm or come in before 8am are assholes?

<comment><USER28> Damn right they are, if they're doing it without pay. Any union would put a stop to that. A shame America's "temporarily embarrassed millionaires" are unwilling to act in their own interest.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Is this like a date who says "You shouldn't be in a relationship with me because I'm a hot mess." ?

</comment><comment><USER30> Maybe I'm in the minority with my opinion. This is pretty common in most startups in Silicon Valley (it is true in the one I'm working for currently). You usually have an option of getting a less pay, more equity or higher pay, less equity. It is assumed that you won't have much of a work-life balance, but some would like to spell it out clearly. Nobody forced me into this, I chose it because I wanted to work with brilliant people (I'm not saying there aren't any in established companies) and roll the dice and see where it goes.

I really don't see how this is so controversial when there is a chance, however small, that there could be a big windfall if things fall into place. For someone who values work-life balance, they should look to join an established company.

</comment><comment><USER31> At least they're coming out and saying it.

</comment><comment><USER32> Don't even think they will respect you in any other way other than work-life balance. That's something I learned through hard lessons.

Life is too short to work for crazy bosses. Most of them think they are Steve Jobs, but in reality, they are just another slave driver.</comment>


Microsoft's Surface Duo – Not a product review - <AUTHOR> https://4thquadrant.io/freearticles/business-models/microsofts-surface-duo-not-a-product-review/ <comment><USER2> It's interesting that the predominant "form" for the smart phone has been a single vertical screen. So the fold out phone like Samsung's is still keeping that form, but the Surface Duo actually changes the "form" to two distinct screens.

A habit change that I think will be too hard for consumers to palate right now.

</comment><comment><USER3> TL;DR = A tablet-shaped device without a front facing screen is appealing only to a limited audience with specific use cases in mind, notably not making calls or consuming audio/video content.

<comment><USER4> Think there's more nuance to this. Article actually talks about the concept of form and function as appealing to different subsets of mobile consumers. Motivation for surface duo is productivity - the design revolves around this I.e. form derivative of function

Samsung fold on the other hand revolves around the convenience of streaming and gaming, basically having a larger screen for a better experience. A convenience driven design appeals to a broader more general consumer base</comment></comment>


Credit Karma Launches Free Credit Monitoring, Enrolls 100,000 Users In A Day - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2012/01/04/credit-karma-launches-free-credit-monitoring-enrolls-100000-users-in-a-day/ <comment><USER2> > Within the first day of its existence (the option became available just > yesterday), the company has managed to enroll an impressive 100,000 users > for the opt-in credit monitoring service. The move brings Credit Karma's > total user base to over 4 million.

> Says CEO Kenneth Lin, Credit Karma is now on pace to register over 500,000 > users this month thanks to the launch of the new monitoring service.

huh?

<comment><USER3> \- On pace to register 500,000 new users this month

\- Enrolled 100,000 users in the optional opt-in monitoring service (This is the new option that just became available. You can sign up for the site without enrolling in this feature.)

\- Total user base of +4 million.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Seems that they are only using TransUnion. The one thing I've never been able to find is a place where you can pay for a full credit report from all 3 agencies WITHOUT getting automatically enrolled in some monthly monitoring BS. Credit Karma - I will gladly hand over some money if you guys offer a clean cut transaction on a full report from all 3.

But on another note, this is the first credit site that makes me feel like I don't have to take a shower after visiting.

<comment><USER5> There are many cheap sites that provide credit monitoring and reporting from all three agencies on a monthly basis.

I get mycreditinform.com for free with my CapitalOne MasterCard. They're OK, they provide very detailed raw data and info that you can go through and read.

<comment><USER4> But what I want is not on a monthly basis. It looks like that site is 8.99 per month while what I want is a complete snapshot without getting enrolled in a monthly payment plan for monitoring. Basically just pay once for my current credit report and nothing else.

<comment><USER6> AnnualCreditReport.com will do what you want for free but only once per year.

For $40 you can get a report from all 3 bureaus from Experian at any time. I did this once when I was renting an apartment and didn't come across any issues. <http://www.experian.com/consumer-products/tribureau.html>

<comment><USER4> Thanks - that Experian link seems to be what Ive been looking for

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> so what's their business model?

i ask because it seems like the kind of thing that would be worth knowing before signing up for something free. if i am paying for something then i am the client, but if not, am i - or my data - being used somehow?

<comment><USER8> <http://www.creditkarma.com/about/faq#charge>

<comment><USER7> that's a rather weak answer that suggests that it comes down to altruism. i suspect it is incomplete.

<comment><USER9> The sponsors are credit card companies, who generally give pretty decent sums - $50-$100 - for successful referrals.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Too bad it's US only. I'd love to have something email me about whenever something happens regarding my credit (for free would be best).</comment>


Putin's war is transforming Ukraine - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/putins-war-is-transforming-ukraine/2018/09/23/d56d5a10-bdd7-11e8-8792-78719177250f_story.html <comment><USER2> The article neglects to mention both NATO involvement and fascists militia in the Ukraine. Not worth a read unless you just want to feel good about "us".</comment>


Deliveroo raises $385M in new funding - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2017/09/24/deliveroo-raises-385m/ <comment><USER3> I find it funny they're claiming some sort of AI system will help them make better margins.

In my city, Nottingham. all the deliveroo people gather in Trinity Square waiting for jobs. There's obviously no special AI needed.

I do think though that it raises the issue that they should be paying for their own business premises and stop using our public spaces as their company waiting spots.

<comment><USER4> Their logistics solution is just not as advanced as it can be. That's just common startup logic, the hardest problem will be solved with more money and good people and SV network has good people.

They need combinatorial search and some travel time data, live re-search when new orders come in. For this to work well they need to predict new orders in advance, this means they need data on the spatial distributions of orders through time (which now they certainly have).

They practically need to solve a variant of a problem that Uber has. Their delivery drivers load much more "passengers" but have static pickup points (known restaurants so there's only variance in the delivery point, pickups are pretty much static).

It's an interesting problem to solve, given that this kind of logistics research is practically invisible and I can't name any papers that dealt with this problem in any advanced way.

If done properly, then they've solved the logistics problem for on-demand companies that have enough data.

If solution is some ad-hoc mutated monster then it is just a chance for someone else to get the other pieces of cake.

<comment><USER5> Your dismissal of a non SV company's innovation is embarrassing for you. The tech here is as good or better as anyone in the Valley.

<comment><USER4> Sorry if I was unclear, I had no intention to imply that their innovation is weak, or that SV has anything to do with that. It's pretty clear they have access to SV network, despite being based in London.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Currently there is a £2.50 fee for deliveries in London with Deliveroo. Even with extreme optimization a Deliveroo rider can't possibly make more than 3-4 "proper" deliveries in an hour (food gets cold fast! And when it gets returned deliveroo & the restaurant suffers) so maybe they can generate around £10/hour in revenue for Deliveroo. Then you need to take out costs for the driver, development, marketing, integration withe restaurants, etc.

So where is Deliveroo's margin on that? There isn't one, and there's no way they can pay delivery drivers as actual employees (which the law will eventually catch up with by the way), even at minimum wage you'd need to cover £15+/hour to include holiday pay, sick pay, insurance and other standard benefits.

MAYBE, delivery drones / robots will arrive before the funding runs out, but I doubt it very much.

<comment><USER7> I have no doubt Deliveroo gets a percentage cut on the cost of the food, too. That can really add up all by itself.

<comment><USER8> Deliveroo take 30% (or at least did when a restaurant I ran looked in to it) and you can't charge extra according to their terms

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> All these new delivery startups remind me of Kozmo.com, which raised quite a bit of money from high-profile investors (including Fred Wilson and Amazon[1]) and even filed for an IPO in 2000. Kozmo.com described itself this way in its IPO filing:

 _" We enable consumers to order a variety of entertainment, food and convenience products over the Internet for free delivery in under one hour. Our promise of under one hour delivery is designed to satisfy a consumer's desire for immediate gratification. We focus on selling frequently purchased, high margin items with well-known brand names. Additionally, we recently initiated a business-to-business service to enable select retailers to provide their customers with an expedited delivery option on a fee-for-service basis through our distribution networks."_[2]

If you've never heard of Kozmo.com, it's because the company went bust. The business grew very quickly... but only as long as there was freshly raised capital coming in. When the flow of fresh capital stopped, the company couldn't find a way to become profitable.

Here are some articles chronicling Kozmo.com's swift rise and even swifter fall:

[https://web.archive.org/web/20040821125230/http://www.manufa...](https://web.archive.org/web/20040821125230/http://www.manufacturing.net/scm/index.asp?layout=articleWebzine&articleid=CA184173)

[https://www.forbes.com/2000/06/22/mu3.html](https://www.forbes.com/2000/06/22/mu3.html)

Deliveroo doesn't look _that_ different from Kozmo.com... or does it?

\--

[1] [http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=97664&p=irol- new...](http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=97664&p=irol- newsArticle_Print&ID=81108&highlight=%20press%20release)

[2] [https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1075749/000091205700...](https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1075749/000091205700012562/0000912057-00-012562.txt)

<comment><USER10> I work for a company worth billions. I've talked to entrepreneurs who "already tried the idea" for the sort of business I work at.

I guess how you execute matters, or something.

<comment><USER11> Among other reasons Kozmo failed a) prior to smartphones and b) when there were less people using the internet.

<comment><USER12> Broadband didn't exist in the year 2000. It is fair to call that the pre- internet era.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I had better pay when I was delivering newspapers as a teenager.

This was many decades ago (when people bought their news on dead tree) and a lot of inflation as happened since. I didn't see my paper round as a 'proper job', but I think the inflation adjusted rate comes out to at least double the £8 per hour that Deliveroo riders claim to make on Glassdoor. I didn't have to pay rent since I was living with my parents, my income was purely disposable.

Some numbers: late 1980's, my Sunday paper round took five hours and earned me £30 not counting tips. All done by bicycle. I also had a morning paper round and an after school round delivering the local paper. On the back of these 'gigs' I also had gardening, baby sitting and other jobs from my clients, making my childhood wages now seem positively 'over-paid' compared to what passes for 'gig economy' nowadays.

I believe my take of the newspaper sale was around 20% with a delivery charge of 5 pence. Bicycles were just for kids back then and working for pocket money (not paying taxes or expecting benefits like holiday pay) was okay given I was at school. Furthermore, all my work was chargeable, I was not waiting around for someone to click on an app.

From this perspective I find it crazy that this Deliveroo phenomenon has happened. I aspired to do more than ride around delivering stuff in all weathers. Fortunately I did move on to 'proper jobs'.

The Deliveroo drivers are kind of with the pigeons in terms of London's pecking order. Although 'gig' economy, they lack the opportunities my humble paper round offered for 'up-sells' plus there are some venture capitalists creaming off what should be their cut. How did it all come to this?

</comment><comment><USER14> Money Quote: "Deliveroo grew a lot in 2016, with revenue up 611 per cent to £129 million. But losses were up too — a 300 per cent increase to £129 million. However, the figure to really watch is the food delivery _company's gross margin percentage, which sat at just 0.7 per cent._ "

How can an investor, justify this as a solid investment when the gross margins are 0.7%?

<comment><USER15> It's been clear to me for a while that valuations lack any rational basis.

I reached this conclusion shortly after Yo was valued at something like $10 million.

<comment><USER16> There still is money to be made in a bubble. Just gotta find some greater fool to sell the shares to and book that capital gain. Which usually (at the end of the road) ends up being a pension fund.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> For those wondering about these numbers, Deliveroo has a great concept, solid execution and huge brand recognition.

Just-eat (worth 4.6B) connects people to shitty takeaways and has a terrible website. Deliveroo connects people to restaurants and provides the delivery service themselves, through bikers (here in London). They have taken this and spread throughout Europe.

They are going to (and are) completely canablising Just-eat who seemed to run out of stream and grind to a halt several years ago.

<comment><USER18> What makes you think Just-Eat ran out of steam "years ago"?

Stock price is higher than ever: [http://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/prices-and- marke...](http://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/prices-and- markets/stocks/summary/company-summary/GB00BKX5CN86GBGBXSTMM.html)

They are reporting good growth: [http://www.cityam.com/256734/just-eat- reported-order-growth-...](http://www.cityam.com/256734/just-eat-reported- order-growth-36-per-cent-2016-but-shares)

I see lots of Deliveroo bikes around where I live in the centre of London, but they are basically non-existant when I go to other towns and cities.

Also, Deliveroo started up-scale -- they can't go down to selling cheap Chinese takeaway food, because it will hurt their image.

Just-Eat started at the low-end and are now moving up-scale without hurting their image. And even then, plenty of people prefer low-end Chinese food (I sure do).

<comment><USER19> Entirely anecdotal, but my perception of Just Eat, Hungry House, etc. is of consistently crap takeaway food. I do not, and will not, order from them. Their reviews are completely untrustworthy - you literally never know what you're going to get. There is no image to hurt - they're the lowest of the low.

In the UK, Deliveroo originally differentiated primarily by only accepting high quality restaurants, rather than takeaways.

Just Eat, etc. may try to improve their image, offer remotely usable interfaces, clean up their offerings in terms of food quality, but I don't think their reputation will ever recover to the point that anyone in London etc. would consider them above Deliveroo/Uber Eats.

Not sure how closely these views tally with others, but they are representative of my friends/peers.

<comment><USER20> Get off your high horse for few minutes.

High quality restaurants? Around Edinburgh the 'highest quality' restaurant offered is Pizza Express.

<comment><USER19> I was living in Edinburgh when Deliveroo launched there. It's a city full of superb restaurants, many of which are on Deliveroo.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Another unicorn that can only exist because it uses fake self-employment to turn their workforce into a cheaper one.

Just like Uber and so many others this only works because for some reason turning paid work into something that is not even self-sustaining suddenly is accepted.

Does nobody have ethical issues with seeing value in devaluing people?

<comment><USER22> While I strongly agree with your overall sentiment it's worth noting that this is not a new startup-developed characteristic. The people driving FedEx delivery trucks to your office are independent contractors too.

<comment><USER23> Fedex settled for hundreds of millions of dollars for misclassifying Ground delivery truck drivers as independent contractors.

[http://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKCN0Z229Q](http://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKCN0Z229Q)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> What have Deliveroo done differently to be more successful than the food delivery startups that came before?

<comment><USER25> They beat everyone else, including UberEats, to the AU market. I think them and Foodora were the first two, but they won and UberEats just relied on their brand to muscle in. Both share the market pretty evenly ehre, from what I can tell.

I wonder if they did this for many 'secondary' markets to try to beat the big players or if AU is just a weird case.

<comment><USER26> In SA, I've really not had any luck with Deliveroo outside of the CBD - <USER2> only seems to work if you're right on top of the restaurants. UberEats seems a little better, but it still really restricts how far away from a restaurant you can be, I moved one suburb over (3km?) and lost access to about 10 restaurants that were in my old suburb.

I tend to prefer apps where the restaurants themselves look after the delivery, EatNow is a good example. They can charge a little more for delivery, and therefore seem to be willing to deliver further away. And presumably, it's probably a little fairer on the delivery guys as they got an actual job rather than just an app.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Was just reading about them only the other day and how they are losing money: [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41347817](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41347817)

So how they derive such a valuation is very much at odds with actualities.

<comment><USER28> Hmm, if that surprises you I have some bad news about the rest of the startup industry...

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Is this last-mile delivery funding thing beginning again or the first one didn't stop ? It hurt everyone except the founders.

</comment><comment><USER30> It sounds like in addition to delivery services where margins seem pretty tight, they offer cloud kitchen services that partnering restaurants can use to expand.

</comment><comment><USER31> why are they valued in billions? how profitable can an app that facilitates food delivery become? restaurant still has to charge for their food, customer still wants to pay minimum and the delivery person still needs to get paid. what innovation is this app bringing that will cut costs by so much that it will make billions in profit?

</comment><comment><USER32> Jesus, ANOTHER one of these? Why does this space get so much attention from startups?

"We are making the world a better place by battling first-world temporary hunger in tandem with the lazy-person mobility crisis."

</comment><comment><USER33> Alternative headline: for $385M, investors buy option for a large stake in Deliveroo if they don't surpass a valuation 'over $2B.'

</comment><comment><USER34> Party like it's 99...

<comment><USER35> You mean, party like it's 1099.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> Not very sustainable unicorn is it ?

</comment><comment><USER37> Like Pets.com never happened

<comment><USER38> Very different. Pets.com in Y1: revenue $600k USD, advertising spend $11.5m.

Deliveroo generates significant revenue and is a business/brand that consumers are passionate about. The bet investors are making is that their gross margin can increase quickly.

Expect they're doing close to £300m of revenue now, so a 6.5x rev>valuation multiple is punchy but fair.

<comment><USER27> £128.56m in sales last year, and a loss of £129m. So very much curious how they managed such a valuation without over-hype.

<comment><USER38> For a crowd who presumably work in startups, folks on here are always weirdly surprised by how this works. Generate vast revenue, reach scale, cut central costs. (To be clear, Deliveroo's challenge seems to be cost of sales.)

<comment><USER39> Well, it's a pretty huge loss (more than revenue!

Also, I think people were surprised or amazed that they had no core profitability. Especially when it's likely COGS will go up with more and more regulation around their gig economy employees

<comment><USER40> Depends what you think the lifetime value of a customer is, plus what the ongoing cost to retain them is.

I ordered off Deliveroo in Sydney Australia, and they advertise on AdWords against individual restaurant names. If the Diliveroo brand is strong, and that AdWords click made me a Deliveroo customer, that is a win. If I always search and they always pay, this may prove problematic long term.

That's the equation - if $X upfront + $y ongoing < lifetime value then you have a chance at profitability, assuming you can get overheads under control / can scale up the offering with minimal growth in overheads (the classic 2X revenue, 1.5X costs model).

<comment><USER39> I mean the core delivery service assuming 0 marketing, tech, customer service costs is not really profitable according to their last accounts.

<comment><USER40> How is that possible? What is the maths there?

<comment><USER39> Delivery costs are very high?</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Capitalism is turning us into addicts - <AUTHOR> https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2019/10/17/18647521/capitalism-age-of-addiction-phone-david-courtwright <comment><USER2> I feel like we could all afford to ascribe "ourselves" a little more agency. There is a dark side to giving the people what they want (ie. make something people want) and that is that people want things that harm them, are shortsighted, are unsustainable, etc. You can either make those things or not but you cannot fight what people want with regulation, you can only make it harder or easier to access. There's a good argument that some bad things are too easy to access, and other good things are too hard to access, but there's no valid argument that people are subjects to issues like these.

</comment><comment><USER3> Vox is obviously new on the block. That's been going on for a century, ever since WW1 when Ed Bernays worked for the Committee on Public Information (CPI) and learned how to get people to line up.

[http://igpub.com/propaganda/](http://igpub.com/propaganda/)

In 1928 he wrote, "If we understand the mechanism and motives of the group mind, is it not possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without their knowing about it?" ( _Propaganda_ , page 10)

At about the same time he was helping out Lucky Strike by convincing more women to smoke cigarettes.

<comment><USER4> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Engineering_of_Consent](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Engineering_of_Consent)

Gustave Le Bon was a precursor.

Those are generic tool/approaches, used by capitalists (not all of them) and also by non-capitalists (not all of them)</comment></comment>


Reality Distortion Explained - <AUTHOR> http://www.manyniches.com/fun-stuff/reality-distortion-explained/

<comment><USER2> Impossible is such a funny word. It supposedly means "things that cannot ever be done", but almost always actually means "things I don't know how to do".</comment>


Shellcode: A Windows PIC Using RSA-2048 Key Exchange, AES-256, SHA-3 - <AUTHOR> https://modexp.wordpress.com/2016/12/26/windows-pic/ <comment><USER2> Yikes.

The crypto routines are mostly in spp.c (there are hand-written C implementations of AES and SHA3 in aes.c and sha3.c, but RSA is done directly off the top of OpenSSL's BN routines).

There are (I think?) at least 3 really bad crypto bugs here, but I didn't look really hard for them. Since this is shellcode, and not something anyone would ever legitimately rely on, it might be worth treating this like an exercise. Anyone want to spot the bugs?

 _edit_

Here are my three, just so I can't cheat:

e019c30c75f24758a7f0abb26397f289a331c4f26daa6412d8e131924472401c

74971f5e207fdc8db836f959e48a4bb3bfbb8701870bd2d61d6178b0c4cc5109

9a9cb1b33126408bce87021e57d3552f62c8f57200f501909a865b59f64cc995

<comment><USER3> Hello Thomas.

I wrote the PIC with overall intention of minimizing code size and while I was aware of the unauthenticated length, lack of RSA padding and potential for MitM attack, I didn't think anyone would be even remotely interested in the code for its intended purpose. For me, it's just a bit of fun.

I've since added authentication of length but I'm not suggesting it's solved any other problems that might exist. If you spot them, I'd be happy to fix.I'm not aware of anyone that bothered to test it so that tells you how much interest there is in it.

I've looked at some of the AEAD algorithms from CAESAR and will probably choose between OCB and KetJe unless the results indicate something better.

But for now, this code is really just experimental. It's merely a PoC and nothing more.

As for using OpenSSL BN/RSA library, the reasons for this are simply to avoid implementing a PRNG with random tests and the additional math routines to generate the key pair.

I intend to implement those routines later which would also be used for signature verification but for now OpenSSL gets the server component working with client (which was my main focus).

Anyway, thanks for your interest. I appreciate feedback good or bad.

<comment><USER2> Your code isn't any worse than tens of commercial systems I've looked at professionally. The difference is just that yours is shellcode, so there's no- harm-no-foul in poking holes in it publicly.

OCB is a good choice, as would be Chapoly (since the Salsa core and Poly1305 MAC are both extremely simple in code).

Since you're Windows native, you should use the system's secure random number generator rather than OpenSSL's.

I still don't understand the authentication model here, or how RSA is really helping.

<comment><USER3> Another reason for using OpenSSL was to eventually get the server component running on unix-based OS. I should have explained that in post because it does seem odd using OpenSSL on Windows when I could just as easily use Crypto API.

"I still don't understand the authentication model here"

Sorry if I misunderstand but If by that you mean the way in which packets are transported between 2 systems;Length first, then data. I just wanted a really lightweight method of transmitting data so that it would be easier to implement in assembly rather than using TLS, SSH or some other well established protocol that would require lots of code. It's possible to use some really lightweight implementation of TLS but I assume the code would grow significantly.

There is support for SSL + TLS through SChannel and I probably will write something with this in the future just to see how it works out.

If you mean I could simply embed whatever keys are required inside the payload and use those for encryption? I thought with some form of key exchange, it would make the traffic more difficult to analyze.

If session keys were inside payload then it's just a simple matter of extracting keys from this and decrypting traffic.

I looked at poly1305 for authentication briefly but must test it out, it does look more compact than using AES + SHA3.

Until you mentioned here, I wasn't aware truncated SHA2 hashes were immune to length extension attack but even without the HMAC code, SHA2 still generates more code than SHA3.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Is it weird that this article attributes the idea of deriving shellcode by compiling C code to a 2010 article? That's how the shellcode in smashing the stack was generated.</comment>


Alcohol Test: Does Eating Yeast Keep You From Getting Drunk? - <AUTHOR> http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2014/07/10/327854051/alcohol-test-does-eating-yeast-keep-you-from-getting-drunk <comment><USER2> That's a _lot_ of water - 16 ounces before, and after each drink? So they drank 1.8 liters of water during this experiment. I'm honestly really surprised it didn't have a bigger impact on reducing their BAC levels.

The water drink works extremely well for every person I know. If you simply have a large glass of water after every drink, then, in addition to slightly diluting the alcohol you are drinking, it also cuts in half the amount of alcohol you drink that night - presuming you don't speed up your liquid consumption to accommodate.

</comment><comment><USER3> While I doubt Koch's trick really has the effect he reports, there are other more-exotic mechanisms of potential action I've not seen mentioned:

Perhaps Koch's many years of drinking, _and_ repeatedly using this trick, have resulted in a unique personal gastrointestinal flora that _does_ react to that particular mix of inputs with accelerated alcohol metabolism.

Since people can be infected with microorganisms that create alcohol ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto- brewery_syndrome](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto-brewery_syndrome)), it seems the reverse should be possible, too.

Perhaps the pre-drink concoction even serves as a trained signal, like Pavlov's bell, triggering Koch's flora or liver to accelerate alcohol metabolism processes in anticipation.

Inviting Koch in for tests might provide the cheapest initial indicator whether these could be a possibility.

</comment><comment><USER4> Interesting discussion at [http://www.reddit.com/r/Homebrewing/comments/23wbeo/jim_koch...](http://www.reddit.com/r/Homebrewing/comments/23wbeo/jim_kochs_trick_to_not_getting_drunk_xpost_from/)

</comment><comment><USER5> Lots of things effect the "next day."

If you want to drink and not feel bad (in order of efficacy) * exercise * drink water * eat well * vitamin b (this what the yeast provides)

Exercise helps you metabolize everything you throw at your body, water keeps those chemical reactions running smoothly and allows the kidneys to remove everything they want to. Eating well, more of the same. Alcohol strips out vitamin b, which we need to metabolize sugar. That headache you have the next morning is a no-sugar headache. Bingeing on sugar is one way, having an over abundance of vitamin b is another. You piss out vitamin b, can't keep it in your system. So a couple hours before drinking take a tab, with water AND food. And then do the same at the end of the night. Don't take it on an empty stomach, will make you sick.

Run some of your own science on this advice. Be active and drink well!

\----

Most people in the booze business have a BAC over 0.04 all the time. This was science done by non-scientists.

</comment><comment><USER6> I'm not sure I believe the "keep you from getting drunk" part of this, as this experiment bears out. However, yeast is a good source of B vitamins, and alcohol often causes B vitamin deficiency. So taking yeast (or drinking unfiltered beer) is a good way to avoid that. So it might help with the hangover or long-term effects.

<comment><USER7> Alcohol blocks absorption of B1-B6 (due to preferential metabolism) but it doesn't deplete your body of vitamin B (and your body's stores of vitamin B may last months so you're unlikely to run out during your hangover). As long as you're not permanently drunk (i.e. an alcoholic), vitamin deficiency probably won't be an issue.

If you're not deficient in a vitamin, taking additional doses probably won't give any benefit.

Belief in vitamin B helping with hangovers usually leads back to this study:

[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4588294](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4588294)

but I wouldn't personally put much trust in studies from the 1970's about Pyritinol (B6) preventing hangovers. Subsequent studies have failed to reproduce the results. And large unnecessary doses of Pyritinol may lead to cholestatic hepatitis and other issues so exercise caution.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> > While as scientific as we could manage

They couldn't even manage to compare yogurt with yeast vs yogurt without?

<comment><USER9> If the yogurt + yeast mixture had a noticeable effect then it would have been interesting to tease apart which component was responsible, but since it didn't I think it was fine to leave it out.

<comment><USER8> If you're deciding what to test based on your results, you're doing it wrong. Methodology needs to be decided on before the experiment. If you want to change what you're testing, you do it in a separate experiment.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Has anyone tried the yeast suggestion with success?

[http://www.businessinsider.com/yeast-key-to-drinking- without...](http://www.businessinsider.com/yeast-key-to-drinking-without- getting-drunk-2014-4)

<comment><USER11> Last time I looked into this I decided I wouldn't want to try it even if it did work. ADH2 works by converting alcohol into acetaldehyde, which is not something you want absorbed in your bloodstream (instant hangover): [http://health.howstuffworks.com/wellness/drugs- alcohol/hango...](http://health.howstuffworks.com/wellness/drugs- alcohol/hangover4.htm)

<comment><USER12> Concur. With this scheme it seems you're just adding fuel to the fire. If a synthetic acetaldehyde dehydrogenase supplement could be scared-up (converts acetaldehyde into acetic acid) then hangovers could be a thing of the past. FWIW coming from NW Celt stock (Norman French, Dutch, et al) I never suffered from hangovers, given seeming continued expression of the lactase enzyme (can drink milk like water) and high acetaldehyde dehydrogenase output when stupid enough to over-imbibe (like on college and grad-school weekends).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Anyone know why Voltarin (Diclofenac) works for hangovers? It's an anti- inflammatory drug. I have a 25mg tablet before going to bed after a big night, even if I've not had water before bed, I've never have a hangover/bad stomach/queezy/headache after taking one of these the night before.

<comment><USER14> I'd be careful with NSAIDs such as Diclofenac after drinking alcohol. It may cause stomach bleeding.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Take a [http://www.lunatus-me.com/about-us/our- brands/pharmaceutical...](http://www.lunatus-me.com/about-us/our- brands/pharmaceutical-products/hepamerz/) pill before consuming alcohol

</comment><comment><USER16> The best "trick" I know for processing alcohol fast and avoiding a hangover is plenty of sugar. Drink rum & coke and such like in preference to straight spirits or wine/beer.

Your liver rapidly uses up glycogen reserves while detoxifying alcohol, easily leaving you a bit hypoglycemic. The fructose in sucrose powerfully replenishes glycogen.

The sugar advantage really is very noticeable if you experiment. You'll sober up quicker from a screwdriver than from a glass of wine.

<comment><USER17> Sugar is a also a vasodilator. It's well known in the cigar industry that if you get nicotine sickness, eat some sugar to relieve the symptoms. One of the WWE wrestlers visiting a cigar shop before a big event in New Orleans learned this lesson from me the hard way. He had half of a medium strength cigar and told me he was feeling REALLY good. I warned him to put it down before he hurt himself. Didn't listen, and I got them to give him some Sprite.

</comment></comment><comment> fake-name [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_law_of_headlines](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_law_of_headlines)

E.g. No.

<comment><USER18> It doesn't work here. If the yeast had really helped, the headline would have been the same.

<comment><USER19> If it were true, the headline wouldn't be phrased as a question.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Supposedly Milk thistle works the best against hangover [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/3568094/The-best- hangover-...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/3568094/The-best-hangover- remedies-tested.html)

<comment><USER21> Considering that the second highest rating on this report is homeopathic pills - I would take this article with a pinch of salt and an ocean of water.

<comment><USER22> > I would take this article with a pinch of salt and an ocean of water.

Is that supposed to make the homeopathy more effective? :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Once I didn't get any sign of being drunk regardless of the drinks being >50% and 70% vol. and higher, even though we danced, made push-up and have had fun on a trampoline. To this day I still don't understand how not only I, but also the friends who drank the same didn't get drunk. There must have been a secret ingredient in that moonshine, because I didn't eat anything before that.</comment>


Direct Advertising startup features - <AUTHOR>

I and my team are building a direct advertising tool for bloggers to sell ad spaces directly to advertisers. The project is about 80% complete. It is going to be a no-commission network. The goal of using our tool is that it puts more money into bloggers pockets. About 80% more money per month than using conventional ad networks. We would love to know what features you guys would love to see in a direct network? Thanks for your contributions HN members. <comment><AUTHOR> We hope to make money using a credit impression system where you buy the amount of impressions you need. e.g you buy 5 millions worth of impressions and if its not finished in a month can be carried over to the next month but expires after 2 months.

<comment><USER2> So I buy the impressions from you, or the blogger directly? AdTaily lets the blogger keep 100% when the ad is purchased from the website directly. They hope to then get people who have advertised in the past to advertise on other sites through their marketplace, where they take a percentage, similar to BuySellAds.com, who takes 20%. There is another company, iSocket.com that is taking a similar approach (e.g. <https://www.isocket.com/group/techcrunch>), except instead of a commission, they do a flat fee per month.

<comment><USER3> friendly correction: at BSA our commission is 25% :)

<comment><USER2> Hey, maybe I was trying to give myself a discount! ;-)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER2> Sounds like www.adtaily.com. With no commission, how do you make money? A monthly fee? Or with backfill?</comment>


C/C++ REST API frameworks benchmark - <AUTHOR> https://blog.binaryspaceship.com/2017/cpp-rest-api-frameworks-benchmark/ <comment><USER2> Might be better to call it C++, I'd usually expect "C/C++" to refer to a mix of C & C++, or to C with (probably trivial) C++ wrappers.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for comment! :) Yep, I agree with your point. Why I named it C/C++ is though all these 3 frameworks are implemented mostly in C++, they handle requests in procedural manner (you always specify handler function, but not class or object). Also restbed is 20% implemented in C, but sure, it is C++ framework in the end (: .

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Hi HackerNews,

Here is a benchmark that I have done to compare C/C++ REST API frameworks. I hope this will be interesting and helpful for you (-:</comment>


Bay Area housing prices drop in tech-heavy counties - <AUTHOR> https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/03/28/bay-area-home-sales-dip-as-prices-continue-to-rise/ <comment><USER3> From the article -- _Alan Barbic, president of the Silicon Valley Association of Realtors, said agents on the Peninsula are working harder to sell high-end properties. "Without a doubt," he said, some professionals have been priced out of the market._

This is why I always cringe at articles that say "Nobody can afford to live there." The reality is that lots of people can "afford" to pay these prices, more than there are homes, hence the high prices. When people stop being able to afford the houses, or willing to pay high prices, guess what, the prices go down. When I bought my current home it was during one of the "downturns" when everyone said "Silicon Valley is dead, look at all the chip companies laying off people and going out of business!" And then the Internet became the new thing and the market rebounded. And then it crashed again and house prices went down, and then it rebounded again.

Houses cost what people are willing to pay for them. And when people stop paying what is being asked, the price goes down. Speculation can hide some of that dynamic during periods of rapid price increases but a lot of speculators go broke and give up. We saw a lot of that during the mortgage meltdown.

I think it is great that the prices have moderated. And I think the number of new housing units coming on line has helped that as well.

<comment><USER4> > This is why I always cringe at articles that say "Nobody can afford to live > there." The reality is that lots of people can "afford" to pay these prices, > more than there are homes, hence the high prices.

A classic example of engaging with semantics over sentiment. "Nobody" is clearly just a hyperbolic proxy for "only a relatively small number of people".

<comment><USER3> I think more accurately "Nobody" is a hyperbolic proxy for "me". Given the housing supply _m_ the number of people who can afford to live here is demonstrably _n_ which is >> _m_.

<comment><USER5> If most people in an area have owned their homes since back when they were cheap, and say only 1 house out of 1,000 comes up for sale per year with a high asking price, it's possible for "nobody" (99% of people) to be unable to afford to buy a home at current asking prices and yet for prices to sell high and for lots of people to be living in an area.

This is why comparing home prices to average income of the entire population is a fallacy. Not every home comes up for sale at any given time.

What matters is the sale price of recently sold houses to the incomes of _those actively searching to purchase a new home_ as well as how many such people there are in the market.

Older established residents in an area can be earning $80k/yr and be fine since they purchased the house cheaply and have paid it off. That doesn't mean you can afford to buy their house on an $80k income.

<comment><USER6> Using data from here: [https://www.bayareamarketreports.com/trend/bay-area- market-s...](https://www.bayareamarketreports.com/trend/bay-area-market- survey)

It looks like ~3% of the housing units in the greater Bay Area sell on an annual basis so if the top 3% of income earners can afford today's prices the liquidity cliff can hide.

<comment><USER7> That's actually a really good way to look at it. If turnover is really small, you only need a very small number of wealthy buyers to keep driving the price higher. Everyone else kind of doesn't matter.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Article says sale prices dipped in San Mateo and Santa Clara counties, stayed flat in San Francisco, and rose in the East Bay and Marin county. We are likely just seeing the effects of the center of gravity for the tech industry shifting out of Silicon Valley towards SF.

<comment><USER9> Doesn't explain why san mateo dipped. It's pretty chill commute from here to the city. That maybe just increased supply...

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> If most 2019 Bay Area IPOs succeed, some say this will introduce over 10,000 new millionaires to Bay Area [0]. And most of them are unlikely to leave and quite a few will likely want to have a house. I can only guess how this will impact house prices.

[0] [https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl...](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6790069/amp/Experts- predict-10-000-new-millionaires-San-Francisco-Uber-Lyft-public.html)

<comment><USER11> So that's 10,000 people and the city SF Bay Area has 7.15 million, and 880k live in SF proper. It doesn't sound like it'd make a very big dent in prices.

<comment><USER12> What's the float though, the number of homes for sale?

<comment><USER13> [https://sf.curbed.com/2019/1/2/18165468/san-francisco- home-s...](https://sf.curbed.com/2019/1/2/18165468/san-francisco-home-sales- drop-numbers-2018-figures)

About 2 years worth of new millionaires.

<comment><USER12> I think of the housing market here largely as "the latest crop of FAANG/unicorn millionaires duking it out to get the best schools for their kids"

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Maybe the new Federal tax S.A.L.T. deduction limit?

<comment><USER15> Indeed. The prices rise and fall based on the buyer's monthly budget. Taxes go up, prices go down. Mortgage rates fall, prices rise.

<comment><USER16> You'd think so, although doesn't this usually take a couple of years to happen?

<comment><USER15> It might take people a while to realize their taxes changed but mortgage rates are instant. The loan you can afford on a given payment goes up and down with the rate without delay. Since most people go house shopping with a preapproved mortgage this has an immediate effect on the market price of houses.

<comment><USER16> This does not mean that RE prices react suddenly; it takes years, usually, and you see markets not clearing and inventory sitting around rather than price corrections. Otherwise there would have been plenty of RE steals to snatch up in 2008; yet, outside of one or two ridiculous areas, there weren't.

Funny to be downvoted for noting sticky prices. I don't make the rules!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> > The record streak of rising Bay Area home prices started in April 2012, when > the median sale price in the nine county region was $425,000, according to > CoreLogic. Over the next seven years, median sale prices have more than > doubled, hitting a peak of $935,000 last May.

Wild housing inflation is similar all along the west coast, with many areas doubling, tripling, or more in price over the past 6-7 years.

All the more reason for tech companies and startups to look at other parts of the country. The midwest, south, northeast, are all so much more affordable.

<comment><USER18> When tech companies have work that does not need to be done in the SF/NYC/SEA, they go straight to India, Eastern Europe, and (increasingly) Latin America. There is no role for mid-priced US cities.

Which makes sense. They are trying to maximize human capital : cost ratio. Ordinary American cities are good at neither. You go for the highest human capital or the lowest cost. And in some dirt cheap places you can still find a bunch of underemployed people with STEM education.

<comment><USER19> Somebody needs to tell that to Austin, Texas, they don't seem to have gotten the message. Denver/Boulder too, though housing there is getting pretty high as well.

<comment><USER20> Even if it seems high, you get a lot more for the money.

$1700 will get you a luxury 1bd (600+sqft), new/recent construction, a pool, bbqs, "sky lounge", 5-20 minute walk to work, and so on.

From what I can tell, it takes more than that just to get into a shitty box in SF.

<comment><USER21> True but you're going to take a 30-40% paycut all to reduce your rent by $1000-$1500/mo. Rent goes down but a car and an xBox cost the same everywhere.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I don't understand why anyone would buy a house here, even if they have the money. There are so many problems with the Bay Area that won't be fixed for another generation—-open crime, quality of life, wanton theft and vandalism, open meth and heroin use, property crime worse than anywhere else in the country—-and the quality of housing is crap! Traffic, poor public transportation (still better than other cities, but not amazing), and an incompetent government that seems to thumb its nose at the working class here.

Why not just buy five houses in the south of France or somewhere actually nice and liveable? I'm here for work and as soon as my nest egg is big enough, I'm getting out. Why buy a $2.5m condo and have to watch a homeless camp out your window? I just don't really get it.

<comment><USER23> I think you are equating the entire Bay Area to the Tenderloin.

I'm in the mid-peninsula. I've never lived somewhere safer and feel markedly safer after having lived in Chicago most of my life in nice neighborhoods.

<comment><USER22> I don't live in the Tenderloin and have these issues. But you're right, it is a mostly San Francisco issue. It's also bad in San Jose, Oakland, and Berkeley. Not as bad on the peninsula or in east bay suburbs like Walnut Creek.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> similar trend in new york, I think housing prices reached their peak in 2018 and so far they are either flat or slightly falling. in some parts of the country they are not even back at pre 2008 levels, in other parts they have passed pre 2008 levels just recently. sounds about right. now lets wait for that market correction that 75% analysts predict will happen in next 2 years to happen

<comment><USER25> > similar trend in new york

Similar trend all over the english-speaking world.

UK: [https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/inflationandpriceindices/bull...](https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/inflationandpriceindices/bulletins/housepriceindex/january2019)

Ireland: [https://www.daft.ie/report/2018-Q4-houseprice-daft- report.pd...](https://www.daft.ie/report/2018-Q4-houseprice-daft-report.pdf)

Canada: [https://housepriceindex.ca/#maps=c11](https://housepriceindex.ca/#maps=c11)

Australia: [https://tradingeconomics.com/australia/housing- index](https://tradingeconomics.com/australia/housing-index)

My best guess is it's a rising interest rates thing. My second-best guess is that something has kicked off in China and it's slowly rippling through the world.

<comment><USER24> didnt Australia have soft crash this year?

<comment><USER25> I think they're down about 5% year on year, but after routine gains of 5% - 10% a year, I wouldn't really call that a soft crash. We'll see what happens in the coming months.

<comment><USER26> It's not the percentage amount that matters, it's the rate of change -- which is enormous.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Looks like the price of starter homes. The high end is still holding up well, and will likely get juiced by the spate of IPOs this summer.

<comment><USER28> No they aren't. Just look at affluent areas like Palo Alto which have fallen year-over-year: [https://www.zillow.com/palo-alto-ca/home- values/](https://www.zillow.com/palo-alto-ca/home-values/) (or Atherton for that matter: [https://www.zillow.com/atherton-ca/home- values/](https://www.zillow.com/atherton-ca/home-values/))

I'm skeptical IPOs will affect the market outside SF or Northern San Mateo county, given almost all are SF-based companies [with your windfall, you are going to buy yourself a crap commute in a more boring area?]. Note that SF rents and pruchase prices have gone up a bit YTD, but other areas are flat to falling.

(Finally, people/the media are way over-speculating how many people are going to start buying homes after an IPO. From my experience, going funemployed for a year or so was a more common thing to do with the windfall)

<comment><USER29> > with your windfall, you are going to buy yourself a crap commute in a more > boring area?

Exactly, I'm so glad Silicon Valley made it up to San Francisco for real this decade. This was always long overdue.

<comment><USER30> The one thing that bothered me most about the bay area was all the people who were more willing to live in cold, foggy, crowded, expensive SF AND deal with a commute to the area with nicer weather (south). Maybe they had family issues back home and have a need to live somewhere that is more "open minded" than anywhere else.

<comment><USER29> SF weather is neighborhood by neighborhood, with cold and foggy being ubiquitous only in the summer time, which is counterintuitive for tourists. It's anywhere from 58 to 72 degrees almost all times in parts of the city. Nice weather if you know where to look or have a particular preference.

So maybe thats just a secret for you?

But I do like areas that are warm at night time too, which SF is not.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Alameda County increasing while SF and the peninsula are flat to down should be ringing very loud alarm bells in people's heads. Alameda County is not a sophisticated buyers market. This same county was hit hardest and had the most foreclosures in 2008. Peak prices for this cycle folks. This is your loud and clear indicator.

<comment><USER32> The folks paying these peak prices do not seem to match the historic demographics of their new neighborhoods. While I agree we're near the peak, I'm not sure that Alameda is the proverbial canary in the coal mine here.

<comment><USER31> Gold Coast homes selling at 20% off list (if they sell). Socketsite has a great example. Alameda has peaked and you're screwed if you bought there in the last 5 years.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Macro note: the US still has arguably artificially depressed interest rates as a hangover from the last crash. Even though the economy has picked up, the Fed won't lift to normalized rates. Part of the idea was to re-inflate the value of people's homes after the 2008 crises to get everyone out from underwater but it will have bubbly effects elsewhere.

We forget that these exceedingly low interest rates are a crazy thing, not usually considered consistent with any kind of regular economy.

With the US at historically low unemployment rates, and the Fed still not willing to raise ...

It's like eating sugar and Red Bull at every meal; you'll get ulcers in your California.

</comment><comment><USER12> I'd like to see a regressive analysis of how many Bay Area instant millionaires have already been created, over the last 15 years or so. Wouldn't these folks help support the floor of home prices?

</comment><comment><USER34> So this isn't the same as SV, but I grew up in Waterloo, Ontario. Which is kind of like Canada's SV. The prices have gone just mental over the past few years.

We're looking at buying a house, and thanks to working remotely, I can live anywhere. The result is that by buying a house just 45 minutes down the highway from Waterloo, I get literally 50% more house for the same price.

Location location location is just _mental_.

<comment><USER35> "just" 45 minutes? God forbid you need to find another job in the city - <USER2> a 1.5 hour a day commute.

There is a reason why location location location has been a truism in real estate since forever.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> I wonder if the trade tensions with China affected foreign sales?

I think most professionals in the valley are smart enough not to buy at the peak of the market. They don't want to pay top dollar for a 60 year old pile of crap.

Personally, I think of my time in the valley as limited. I can't retire here, so why would I want to buy? Also, I'm here to work, not care for a house.

<comment><USER37> Yea pile of crap, and the knowledge that all that money isn't really going towards infrastructure, government, or local economy, but to the lucky schmuck that was simply here before you.

I would actually _prefer_ high taxes in lieu of high real estate costs, since at least the money goes back to the public.

<comment><USER38> High taxes are the way rents are high. Because the landlords arent paying them: workers and consumers are. Thats why coffee is 5 dollars, a beer is 8, you have to lyft to work because the 2billion dollar transit station is closed, etc.

Its not about high taxes vs low taxes, its about the right tax structure. SF collects 2800U$S per month per household in taxes!

<comment><USER39> Do you have a source for your "SF collects $2800 per month per household in taxes" number?

This Quora answer[1] suggests it's more like $3300/person/yr. The 2010 Census says SF has 345,811 households, or about 2.35 people per household. So $3300 * 2.35 / 12 =~ $650/mo/household in SF.

[1] [https://www.quora.com/How-much-does-San-Francisco-make-in- ta...](https://www.quora.com/How-much-does-San-Francisco-make-in-tax-revenue- compared-to-Oakland)

<comment><USER38> SF budget is 11 bill. That quora answer is from 2011.

[https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/SF-s-budget- soar...](https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/SF-s-budget-soars- by-937-million-and-will-top-12955416.php).

Even if you cut it inhalf for the general funds, it gives out 1400U$S per month.

<comment><USER39> OK, I finally did what I think is the real, updated math:

According to [1] from 2018, "Roughly half of the budget consists of self- supporting activities at the City's Enterprise departments"

So that leaves $5.5B in General Fund taxes.

According to [2], in 2017 SF had 884,363 residents with 13.4% under 18, so 765,858 adult residents.

$5.5B divided over 765,858 taxpaying adults is $7,181/adult/yr, or just under $600/mo.

You can roll that up into households if you want, but it feels more illustrative to have the number be per taxpaying adult IMO. Having said that, I'll buy your $1,400/household/month number as being basically about right.

I don't disagree with your point about high taxes, but I did want to actually see what the accurate numbers were. Thanks for the interesting discussion.

I'm in LA so I ran the numbers down here for comparison... We turn out to tax at $262/adult/mo, so SF's effective city tax rate is about 2.3x vs Los Angeles.

[1] [https://sfmayor.org/sites/default/files/CSF_Budget_Book_June...](https://sfmayor.org/sites/default/files/CSF_Budget_Book_June_2018_1_Final_REV1_LR.pdf)

[2] [https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/sanfranciscocountycaliforn...](https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/sanfranciscocountycalifornia)

<comment><USER38> > You can roll that up into households if you want, but it feels more > illustrative to have the number be per taxpaying adult IMO. Having said > that, I'll buy your $1,400/household/month number as being basically about > right.

My initial comparison was about rent, so household is what I wanted to compare to. When you get a studio apartment for 2000U$S, the state gets 1400U$S. And because they do not raise 1400U$S through property taxes, they are skimming you somewhere else, by taxes that affect your income in unclear ways (business taxes, sales taxes, etc).

A landlord outside of san francisco, renting out that studio aprt, pays a fraction of the taxes that household consumes.

Its a major distortion.

<comment><USER39> I'm not sure I know too many 2.3 person households that are in a studio apartment, though. Also above we counted adults vs everyone so the numbers are a bit high for the full household - SF turns out to be more like $1200/household/mo.

Looking again at averages [1], we have average SF rent in 2018 at $3787, so taxes account for roughly 1/3 (32%) of the rent cost.

And let's also compare LA at 2.83 persons/household [2] and $2371 in avg rent [3], so tax per household is $583, or about 25% of rent.

I was just curious to compare that - although you are right that property tax is only $1.7B of SF's $5.5B General Fund revenue [4]. It turns out that most of the rest are Business Taxes and "Other Local Taxes", which look like maybe Transfer Tax is a big piece?

...but if your argument is that SF taxes things _other_ than property tax to raise most of their tax revenue, you are correct, but total business taxes are only $880M, or averaging about $26K/yr.

If you look at an average Starbucks, they're pulling in $880K/yr gross or $200K net [5], so business taxes end up at ~3% of gross, plus SF sales tax of 8.5% means you're paying 11.5% or $0.69 on your $6 cuppa joe.

Expensive, yes - but probably not the major reason rents are high. The rent costs on a 1500sf Starbucks might be as high as $80/sqft/yr = $120,000 - 4.6x the impact that SF business taxes have.

So as far as the numbers go, it looks like supply and demand pushing rental prices up are the primary cost drivers in SF, not any sort of "hidden" SF taxes.

[1] [https://www.rentjungle.com/average-rent-in-san-francisco- ren...](https://www.rentjungle.com/average-rent-in-san-francisco-rent-trends/)

[2] [https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/losangelescitycalifornia](https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/losangelescitycalifornia)

[3] [https://www.rentcafe.com/average-rent-market- trends/us/ca/lo...](https://www.rentcafe.com/average-rent-market- trends/us/ca/los-angeles/)

[4] [https://sfmayor.org/sites/default/files/CSF_Budget_Book_June...](https://sfmayor.org/sites/default/files/CSF_Budget_Book_June_2018_1_Final_REV1_LR.pdf)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> The factor they kind of glossed over is the bumpy stock market last year. People who are looking to buy something in the bay area are going to sell all that company stock they've gained over the years to buy a place. So if the tech sector drops for a year then people are less likely to sell their stock to buy a home.

</comment><comment><USER41> No one mentioned the magnitude?

"Resale home prices dropped year-over-year in February in Santa Clara County by 16 percent"

"Santa Clara home prices fell from $1.29 million last February to $1.09 million this year,"

Doesn't -16% y/y qualify as "crashing" in the real estate?

</comment><comment><USER42> On an average tech salary, it's relatively easy to save enough to buy a 1 bedroom condo after a few years. The homes that are the highest in demand, at least in SF, are single family homes, which average at least $2m.

</comment><comment><USER43> Buying a house and settling in the Silicon Valley/SF/etc... does not make any financial sense whatsoever. They are all pretty much overpriced, crappy and old. Even the quality of the new "luxury condos" is crap. Seriously, take a closer look at the quality of the windows, walls, doors, floor, everything...it is all paper thin cheap stuff way overpriced. Not to consider taxes, earthquake and fire insurance.

Cost of life, school, pre-school, daycare etc, they are all crazy expensive. Public transportation is nearly non-existent. Traffic is insane. People who live in SF wake up at 5.30am/6.00am to catch the bus and commute to the Valley oO. They spend at least 2hours if not more a day in traffic.

The only thing that imo makes sense is to move there, save as much money as possible. Maximize your 401k and pension plan contributions. Don't work in scrappy startups for a low paycheck and stock options (most startups are doomed to fail or will never go IPO) but prefer instead bigger companies or close to IPO ones that have a good 401k matching plan, bonuses, incentives, and higher base salary.

Get a new job every 2/3 years, so that you can increase your salary quickly + signing bonuses.

Do this for ~10years and then move to a normal place where you could buy a super nice house in cash and then work remotely.

<comment><USER44> >> move to a normal place where you could buy a super nice house in cash and then work remotely.

Can't you do that without doing time in Silicon Valley?

<comment><USER45> It's almost impossible to start a _new_ job remotely.

<comment><USER46> I've started a new job twice in the last 6 years working remotely from North Carolina (after already having been established here in NC), and not in one of the tech-heavy areas (RTP / Charlotte).

In the first remote job I worked nearly 3 years at a Santa Clara, CA startup. I've been almost 3 years at a large 10K-plus employee Mountain View, CA company now ... first non-startup in 20+ years. It helped that both jobs came through my network.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> Funny. That's not what the link says: "/bay-area-home-sales-dip-as-prices- continue-to-rise"

<comment><USER48> Headlines change for various reasons, but slugs are forever.

<comment><USER49> Slugs should be GUIDs! :D

<comment><USER48> Slugs are one component of SEO.

<comment><USER49> Lots of unfortunate realities in life.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> We all know Supply is severely constrained. So, ultimately, it's all about demand which determined by how many employers are hiring.

Have google and facebook cooled off their highering now that they may be facing potential regulations/being broken apart? Have other companies reduced their highering in the area?

<comment><USER7> It's not just supply of new homes, but also existing homes. Inventory for sale at any given time in the bay area is really low. Things like Prop 13 give people a LOT of incentive to stay put and not leave (until they are ready to never come back).

Combine that with a small group with extremely high incomes and you've got a recipe for outrageous home prices.

<comment><USER51> Or pass it on to their estate and never pay taxes on it.</comment></comment></comment>


Chrome Disables Array.prototype.values() Due to Bug in Microsoft Dynamics CRM - <AUTHOR> https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=615873 <comment><USER2> :/ That's really sloppy JavaScript in my opinion. `hasOwnProperty` exists for this reason.</comment>


Meet the 14-year-old who discovered Apple's shocking FaceTime bug - <AUTHOR> https://www.marketwatch.com/story/meet-the-14-year-old-who-discovered-apples-shocking-facetime-bug-2019-02-01 <comment><USER2> I know companies wouldn't be able to put 14 year olds on their payroll. However, given the proliferation of devices and apps, what are the legal and ethical ways of getting your pre-production app or device into the hands of users who otherwise cannot give consent or be hired?

<comment><USER3> Do it with parental consent and supervision? Think child actors.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> The elephant in the room is lack of consideration for how CS surprisingly may impact society negatively through its disruptive nature.

Recognize that your QA Organization is a force for social good.</comment>


Firefox Profilemaker - <AUTHOR> https://ffprofile.com/ <comment><USER2> I feel the strong need to point out some of these settings will break Firefox in subtle and hard to understand ways. There's a reason you "void the warranty" when tweaking the about:config preferences. No rule against it, but just watch out. (Mozilla employee)

<comment><USER3> As a FF user (and a browser's user in general) I found actual browsers absurd monsters that service like ffprofile only try to mitigate. Few example: any complex enough software offer config files/dir. normally human readable and manageable. I can easily install plugins in Emacs via a simple config edit, same for (n)vim, same for zsh or fish, I can change my OS (NixOS) with a simple human-readable config file. Same for GuixSD, same for services etc in nearly all unices.

On FF however I found no damn simple way to do basic things like:

\- install extensions via CLI/wrappers (for instance homeManager), there are some hack but they are not reliable and Mozilla seems to try _avoiding_ supporting such a thing;

\- configure preferences, like about:config, outside firefox;

\- customize ff themes in a simple manner.

Modern browsers seems to mimic the most closed commercial OSes I know of instead of mimic classic FOSS model and that's a big problem.

Today I can easily automate my entire desktop, but browsers and they demand more and more settings and third parties tools/extensions to be "at least less unsafe" for us users (from firejail/capsicum to cookies deleters, adblockers etc.

That's a horrific mess.

<comment><USER4> This seems to be by design: when these things are available, spyware -- especially on Windows -- will be quick to make malicious changes in all these if they can.

It's a pain, but I can see the compromise. If it makes the average Firefox user more vulnerable, there's definitely a case to protect them, even at the expense of its more capable users.

<comment><USER5> if spyware has permissions to change ".firefox-prefs" doesn't it have permission to change about:config items, too?

<comment><USER4> Yes, this leads Firefox to be fairly conservative with its permissions.

In general, blocking userspace from installing extensions and otherwise running malicious code stops FF from being exploited. Blocking all of these options blocks the OS from bad behaviour, especially where the user may expect a new computer/phone to have the default behaviour.

The vendors of phones and personal computers seem to have an interest in interfering with users' internet access; perhaps it is a good decision that Firefox does not let them.

<comment><USER3> Actually homeManager can manage Firefox, installing extensions etc... Only it's a hack-ish and not much reliable way.

So no, actual Mozilla strategy does NOT work to stop malware's on Windows nor commercial OEMs customization, as a matter of fact made only life of pro users and admin harder and open the door for less safe setup (for instance extensions added via homeManager may not get updated by FF).

<comment><USER4> We would and should expect that it is be possible: unless Firefox signs configuration changes per-user, server-side (violating their privacy intentions), the whole configuration code is open source, and can easily be easily used or reverse engineered to make an external editor.

This doesn't change that a sanctioned API invites abuse far more readily than reverse-engineering, especially when spyware is less frequently updated than Firefox itself. That there isn't a sanctioned API, and that the de facto API can and does change every version, is an advantage for Firefox against potential attackers.

If this is something you are sorely lacking, Firefox has also been straightforward to modify and compile, in my experience. You can always share a patch and enjoy these features as part of a smaller community, without compromising the userbase as a whole.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> >Disable malware scan

>The malware scan sends an unique identifier for each downloaded file to Google.

AFAIK that's not how safebrowsing works. it checks the hash against a local database, and it only sends the hash to google if there's a match.

<comment><USER7> You're correct. Firefox compares a hash of the URL in question to a local database of hashes of unsafe URLs. If a an unsafe hash match is found, Firefox will then double check by contacting Google's Safe Browsing server to request the current status for a truncated part of the suspect URL plus some random "chaff" hashes. So Google never receives the suspect URL or even the URL's full hash.

[https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/how-does-phishing- and-m...](https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/how-does-phishing-and-malware- protection-work)

<comment><USER8> More technical article: [https://feeding.cloud.geek.nz/posts/how-safe- browsing-works-...](https://feeding.cloud.geek.nz/posts/how-safe-browsing- works-in-firefox/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I wish Firefox exposed a better UI for it's profiles. It seems like a really powerful feature that is much less useful than it might be due to poor ergonomics...

<comment><USER10> That's something that I like about experiments in "Container Tabs", where you get the power of separate profiles, but the ability to mix-and-match them in the same browser window and opening a profile can be as simple as opening a new tab.

I understand though why Mozilla seems to be having such a hard time converging on a UX for Container Tabs that makes everyone happy and it may be impossible to ever surface 100% of the power of profiles to the average user. But -ProfileManager is so long in the tooth and so clearly predates modern niceties that it would be great for better UI/UX out of the box today.

<comment><USER11> « Container Tabs » doesn't build trust in user's mind. You're always one click away from sending data with the wrong profile. With Chrome, you get a separate window, and different skins, and a different data folder on the hard drive, you can at least comfort yourself with the idea that you've somewhat isolated your lives.

Besides the classic work/home/sysadmin profiles, I also have a profile for browsing websites like /r/MensRights or christian websites: People have been fired for way less, so with such an incentive, Firefox tabs are way below expectations in terms of design.

<comment><USER12> You can configure container tabs to always open desired URLs in specified containers. You just click the containers button and check "Always open in <container>".

After that when you click a link to that site from a different container, it will prompt you and ask if you want to use the other container or continue with the one you were just using. It will remember your choice.

<comment><USER13> But it will not leave the container when clicking a link to "outside".

One moment of inattention, and you're surfing the whole web for hours in your Facebook container.

<comment><USER14> I think the Facebook Container add-on does support this, though just for Facebook. There's an issue to add something similar to Multi-Account Containers, not sure what the status is on that:

[https://github.com/mozilla/multi-account- containers/issues/8...](https://github.com/mozilla/multi-account- containers/issues/847)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I'm not after a whole profile-builder but the Google Redirects Fixer & Tracking Remover add-on ([https://addons.mozilla.org/en- GB/firefox/addon/google-no-tra...](https://addons.mozilla.org/en- GB/firefox/addon/google-no-tracking-url/reviews/)) caught my eye.

Unfortunately look's like it's defunct, a bunch of 1-star reviews being left recently. Perhaps worth removing it from the tool if the author is here?

<comment><USER16> An alternative that works would be "Google search link fix" [1], which is written/maintained by the current developer of Adblock Plus. (There's probably no reason that the core script [2] couldn't be adapted into a userscript for Tampermonkey/Greasemonkey/etc. if he isn't considered trusted.) It does currently have a problem on Firefox for Android where a long-press on a link doesn't trigger the tracking removal. [3]

[1]: [https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/google- search...](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/google-search-link- fix/)

[2]: [https://github.com/palant/searchlinkfix/blob/master/data/con...](https://github.com/palant/searchlinkfix/blob/master/data/content.js)

[3]: [https://github.com/palant/searchlinkfix/issues/71](https://github.com/palant/searchlinkfix/issues/71)

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Mozilla Hello ? This is a very very old website if it still mentions that product. I think it was shutdown years ago.

</comment><comment><USER18> I used to work in IT and had built this exact thing via Python for large scale, role-based, preference management on our workstations (particularly in lab situation at Universities). I wish chrome had something similar!

</comment><comment><USER19> Found that when was trying to make Firefox browser safer.

I'd recommend to read these notes of Firefox config: [https://www.privacytools.io/#about_config](https://www.privacytools.io/#about_config)

It might be difficult to read, but there a little bit more information and links which aim to protect privacy.

</comment><comment><USER20> Something like this should be made for all Microsoft products.

Really love how transparent this is + description of each field.

<comment><USER21> Every single MS product is configurable by registry. You just have to know the right keys. Fire up that powershell

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> If I opt for multiple "hidden" settings that make my browser more private, am I not giving away my privacy? I mean, finger-printers will notice my unique fingerprint consisting of tailor made privacy choices.

</comment><comment><USER23> I've seen expensive training seminars for less options than that!

It's sad that someone would ever need to know half of these to browse the Internet safely.

</comment><comment><USER24> I wonder if this is portable to Thunderbird. Would be nice to be able to provision profiles.

</comment><comment><USER21> How do I get the two row address bar back?

I don't know who decided it was a good idea to have it single row without doing basic UX research.</comment>


Sensitive Information Exposed via Images Shared on Docker Hub - <AUTHOR> https://blog.redlock.io/docker-repo-public-access <comment><AUTHOR> We found several public repositories which shouldn't have been public at all. If you use Docker hub, please make sure only repos which are supposed to be public are public.</comment>


In Russia, Nancy Pelosi would own Google (But there would be no Google) - <AUTHOR> http://whatpaulgregoryisthinkingabout.blogspot.com/2011/06/if-this-were-russia-nancy-pelosi-would.html

<comment><USER2> I know some partisans here in the US hate Nancy Pelosi, and it's an easy piece of red meat to attach her to the Big Government boogeymen, but in reality, don't you think someone a bit higher up on the totem poll would be owning Google if the US was as corrupt as Russia?

Because, honestly she's basically a nobody now. Minority leader. She's out of power. Who cares?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yup, good point. Who was head of the SEC back when they went public?

<comment><USER2> Annette Nazareth. Google's IPO was in 2004. Looks like she got out while the getting was good. Her successor, Cox didn't get portrayed in a good light in Too Big to Fail on HBO. Pretty much fell on his sword for the greater good.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> However true the rest of the article might be, there nevertheless is a Google of Russia, Yandex, which recently IPO'd on Nasdaq (YNDX).

<comment><AUTHOR> True, true, and Medvedev and others are actively working to create a "Silicon Valley of Moscow." But I wonder how long it is going to be before self-made wealth in Russia isn't intimately tied to relations with the state.</comment></comment>


What a game dev learnt after he tried blogging for two months straight - <AUTHOR> https://www.staticcatgames.com/2020/08/blogging-for-two-months.html <comment><USER2> would have liked to hear about how the blog worked out. what was your traffic like. How did you best blog article perform.</comment>


From Geek to Pro: A continuing blog about a web dev training for the NFL - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/sports-page/71e7e9d1fc6f

<comment><USER2> You bought yourself an RSS follower here. Good luck. :-)

<comment><AUTHOR> You're support is appreciated.</comment></comment>


McKinsey: One-third of US workers could be jobless by 2030 due to automation - <AUTHOR> https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/29/one-third-of-us-workers-could-be-jobless-by-2030-due-to-automation.html?share=true <comment><AUTHOR> Submitted this because I feel like the prediction is at least directionally accurate, and it's worth keeping in mind.</comment>